Abstract
It transpires that Southern Sotho relative clauses can, on structural as well as functional grounds, be categorised as being either direct or indirect. The differences between the two categories pertain to the following: (a) differences in concordial agreement between the antecedent and the relative clause; and (b) differences in discourse-pragmatic function in as much as the direct relative predicates a characteristic feature or trait of the antecedent, while the indirect relative contextualises its antecedent by associating it with another referent. This article proposes that the direct relative should be regarded as a non-typical grammatical category, viz. a qualificative word with a clausal function.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
