View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Stellenbosch University SUNScholar Repository LEXICAL SEMANTICS AND DEVERBAL NOMINALISATIONS IN SESOTHO by PULE ALEXIS PHINDANE Dissertation presented for the Degree of Doctor of Literature at the Universitry of Stellenbosch Promoter: Prof. M.W. Visser MARCH 2008 i DECLARATION I, the undersigned, hereby declare that the work contained in this dissertation is my own original work and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it at any university for a degree. _____________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date Copyright @ 2008 Stellenbosch University ii ABSTRACT In this dissertation, the semantic and syntactic properties of deverbatives are analyzed in the context of Generative Lexicon theory, which is a model of lexical semantics. The aim of the analysis relates to the existence of the relationship between nominals derived directly from an event description and their inheritance of the properties of that event. The deverbal nouns in Sesotho are analyzed semantically within specific parameters taking into account the deverbal noun as a whole. This is done by viewing how word meaning interact with a set of generative mechanisms to account for the creative use of language. These mechanisms involve the levels of representations (i.e. argument, event and qualia structures) which provides information about the number and type of arguments; the event type of a lexical item and how these events are tied together within different relations. There are correlations between lexically encoded base forms and morphological derived forms. These correlations provide a need for a representational structure to distinguish between stage-level and individual-level nominals. Focusing on the role of events in the semantics of nouns, it is shown that stage-level and individual-level nouns differ in the type and the quantification of their defining event. This led to the adoption of the view that that nominals in general should be named after the events they each fulfil. iii OPSOMMING In hierdie proefskrif word die semantiese en sintaktiese eienskappe van deverbatiewe in Sesotho ontleed binne die raamwerk van Generatiewe Leksikonteorie, ‘n model van leksikale semantiek. Die doel van die analise hou verband met die verhouding tussen nominale direk afgelei vanaf ‘n gebeurtenis (‘event’) beskrywing en die oorerwing van die eienskappe van daardie gebeurtenis (‘event’). Die Sesotho deverbatiewe word semanties ontleed binne spesifieke parameters met inagneming van die semantiese eienskappe van die deverbatief as geheel. Dit word gedoen deur ‘n ondersoek te doen na hoe woordbetekenis in interaksie is met ‘n stel generatiewe meganismes om ‘n verklaring te bied vir die kreatiewe gebruik van taal. Hierdie meganismes betrek die vlakke van representasie (nl. argumentstruktuur, gebeurtenis (‘event’) struktuur en qualia-struktuur) wat inligting voorsien omtrent die getal en tipes argumente (dit is, uitdrukkings wat tematiese rolle het), die gebeurtenis (‘event’) tipe van ‘n leksikale item, en hoe hierdie gebeurtenisse (‘events’) saamhang binne verskillende verbande. Daar is korrelasies tussen leksikaal ge-enkodeerde basisvorme en morfologies- afgeleide vorms. Hierdie ko-relasies bied ‘n behoefte vir ‘n verteenwoordigende struktuur om te onderskei tussen fase-vlak (‘stage-level’) en individuele-vlak nominale. Daar word aangetoon, met fokus op die gebeurtenisse (‘events’) in die semantiek van naamwoorde, dat fase-vlak en individuele-vlak verskil in die tipe en die kwantifisering van hulle definieerbare gebeurtenis. Dit lei tot die aanvaarding van die siening dat nominale in die algemeen benoem moet word na die gebeurtenisse waaraan elk voldoen. iv DEDICATION To the memory of my mother. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, my cordial thanks go straight to my supervisor, Prof MW Visser, without whose excellent guidance and supervision this study would be a dream. To her I say: “Mmangwana o tshwara thipa ka bohaleng”. In the second place, I would also like to extend my greatest gratitude and respect to Prof JA du Plessis who worked entirely to ensure that this study is a reality. To him I say: “Tshwara jwalo, ntate”. Thirdly, my heartful thanks go to Prof TB Khoali and Dr EJ Mohatlane for all they taught me. The basis of linguistics, especially in African linguistics, and the critical approach thereof. It helped a lot. I would be indebted to those who assisted me with the collection of Sesotho data. In particular, I wish to thank Mr ML Lekatsa for his constructive input, Mr ORL Mokoena for being critical in a very helpful way and Mr SA Mohatle for being bold and creative with his ideas. To them I say: “Pharela banneng ha e hlole”. Access to the library facilities of the University of Free State and National University of Lesotho is thereof acknowledged. Fourthly, my thanks go to Mrs NA Phindane who so ably typed the entire thesis (even from the initial stage of collecting data). I must nog forget Mr K Senzile for facilitating his electronic mail for the work to reach its destination in times of despair. Word of appreciation and expression of thanks are limited when it comes to Mrs SJ du Plessis who kept the Department up and running. To her I say: “Ke a leboha, Mme”. To my friends, colleagues and my entire family, especially my wife, Nomziwakhe. To her I would like to say: “Re kgonne, Nnake”. Finally, my glorified thanks to the Lord, the Almighty God for His mercy and kindness. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 RATIONALE OF STUDY.............................................................................1 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND FOCUS......................................................3 1.3 GOALS........................................................................................................5 1.4 METHOD .....................................................................................................7 1.5 ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY..............................................................7 CHAPTER 2: LEXICAL SEMANTICS 2.1 AIM..............................................................................................................9 2.2 THE GENERATIVE LEXICON ....................................................................9 2.2.1 Pustejovsky (1996) ....................................................................................9 2.2.2 Pustejovsky, Boguraev (1996)................................................................32 2.2.3 Bouillon, Busa (2001) ..............................................................................35 2.2.4 Pustejovsky (2001a) ................................................................................38 2.2.5 Pustejovsky (2001b) ................................................................................43 2.3 ASPECTUAL VERB CLASSES................................................................49 2.3.1 Four aspectual verb classes...................................................................49 2.3.2 Activities...................................................................................................55 2.3.3 States........................................................................................................61 2.3.4 Accomplishments....................................................................................67 2.3.5 Achievements ..........................................................................................73 2.3.6 Coercion ...................................................................................................79 CHAPTER 3: MORPHOLOGY AND DERIVATION 3.1 AIM............................................................................................................87 3.2 OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON MORPHOLOGY AND DERIVATION ............................................................................................87 3.2.1 Lebeaux (1986).........................................................................................87 3.2.2 Binnick (1978) ..........................................................................................91 3.2.3 Comrie, Thompson (1985).......................................................................93 3.2.4 Beard (1998) ...........................................................................................102 vii 3.2.5 Hazout (1994) .........................................................................................112 3.2.6 Hazout (1995) .........................................................................................119 3.2.7 Beard (1995) ...........................................................................................130 3.2.8 Siloni (1997) ...........................................................................................139 3.2.9 Aranoff, Anshen (1998) .........................................................................144 3.2.10 Ryder (1999) ...........................................................................................148 3.2.11 Bauer, Huddleston (2002) .....................................................................155 3.2.12 Plag (2003)..............................................................................................170 3.3 THE NOUN IN THE AFRICAN LANGUAGES ........................................180 3.3.1 Burton and Kirk (1976) ..........................................................................180 3.3.2 Herbert (1985) ........................................................................................182