Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 345–377

E-type anaphora and three types of kes-construction in Korean



The overarching goal of this article is to account for why the Internally-Headed Relative Clause, the direct perception, and the factive constructions in Korean have an identical form involving the pronominal kes and the relativizer -un, despite the fact that one construction instantiates relativization and the other two instantiate complementation. I solve this puzzle by recasting Kim’s (2007) analysis of Internally-Headed relatives in a Kratzerian situation semantic framework (e.g., Kratzer 1989, 1998, 2002). The central claim is that the three kes-constructions have an identical form because they all instantiate situation subordination that is facilitated by an E-type pronoun and a relativization strategy. The proposed analysis shows that E-type pronouns and relativizers can have more flexible semantics than widely assumed. It also sheds new light on the connection between modification and complementation across languages. Furthermore, it provides an argument for Kratzerian situation semantic theory in dealing with the interpretations of complex clauses.


E-type anaphora Internally-Headed Relative Clause construction Direct perception construction Factive construction Kratzerian situation semantics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barwise, Jon. 1981. Scenes and other situations. Journal of Philosophy 78: 369–397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise, Jon, and John Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  3. Basilico, David. 2003. The topic of small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 1–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, Jonathan. 1988. The pragmatics of substitutivity. Linguistics and Philosophy 11(3): 355–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, Gregory, H. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Google Scholar
  6. Chae, Hyon Sook. 2007. On the categorial ambiguity of the morpheme kes in Korean. Language Research 43(2): 229–264. Google Scholar
  7. Chung, Chan, and Jong-Bok Kim. 2003. Differences between externally and internally headed relative clause constructions. In On-line proceedings of HPSG 2002, ed. Jong-Bok Kim, 3–25. Google Scholar
  8. Chung, Dae-ho. 1999. A complement analysis of the head internal relative clauses. Language and Information 3: 1–12. Google Scholar
  9. Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1993. Predicates across categories. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Google Scholar
  10. Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and montague grammar. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas. Google Scholar
  11. Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  12. Felser, Claudia. 1999. Verbal complement clauses: a minimalist study of direct perception constructions. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
  13. Fuji, Masaaki. 1998. Temporal interpretation of internally headed relative clauses in Japanese. Working Papers from Rutgers University 1: 75–91. Google Scholar
  14. Fukui, Naoki, and Margaret Speas. 1986. Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 128–172. Google Scholar
  15. Guasti, Maria-Teresa. 1993. Causative and perception verbs: a comparative study. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier. Google Scholar
  16. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  17. Higginbotham, James. 1983. The logic of perceptual reports: an extensional alternative to situation semantics. The Journal of Philosophy 80: 100–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horie, Kaoru. 1993. A cross-linguistic study of perception and cognition verb complements: a cognitive perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California. Google Scholar
  19. Hoshi, Koji. 1995. Structural and interpretive aspects of head-internal and head-external relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester. Google Scholar
  20. Jhang, Sea-eun. 1991. Internally headed relative clauses in Korean. In Harvard studies in Korean linguistics, eds. Susumu Kuno , 269–280. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing. Google Scholar
  21. Jhang, Sea-eun. 1994. Headed nominalizations in Korean: relative clauses, clefts, and comparatives. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University. Google Scholar
  22. Jo, Mi-Jeung. 2003. The correlation between syntactic nominalization and the internally headed relative constructions in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 13: 535–564. Google Scholar
  23. Jung, Yunsun. 1995. Internally headed relative clauses in Korean. In Harvard studies in Korean linguistics, eds. Susumu Kuno , 235–248. Seoul: Hanshin. Google Scholar
  24. Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 169–193. Google Scholar
  25. Kim, Min-Joo. 2004. Event structure and the internally-headed relative clause construction in Korean and Japanese. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Google Scholar
  26. Kim, Min-Joo. 2007. Formal linking in internally headed relatives. Natural Language Semantics 15: 279–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim, Nam-Kil. 1984. The grammar of Korean complementation. Center for Korean Studies, Manoa: University of Hawaii at Manoa. Google Scholar
  28. Kim, Yong-Beom. 2002. Relevancy in internally headed relative clauses in Korean. Lingua 112: 541–559. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kiparsky, Paul, and Carol Kiparsky. 1970. Fact. In Progress in linguistics, eds. Manfred Bierwisch and Karl Erich Heidolph, 143–173. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar
  30. Klein, Ewan, and Ivan Sag. 1985. Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 163–201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in languageLondon: Routledge. Google Scholar
  32. Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Scope or pseudoscope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 163–196. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  35. Kratzer, Angelika. 2002. Facts: particulars or information units? Linguistics and Philosophy 25(2): 655–670. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kratzer, Angelika. 2008. Situations in natural language semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  37. Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google Scholar
  38. Kuroda, Shige-yuki. 1992. Japanese syntax and semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  39. Landman, Fred. 1992. The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1: 1–32. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: the jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  41. Lee, Jeong-Rae. 2006. The Korean internally headed relative clause construction: its morphological, syntactic and semantic aspects. Dissertation, University of Arizona Google Scholar
  42. Lee, Miae. 2004. Focus-induced constraints in head-internal relatives. In Harvard studies in Korean linguistics, eds. Susumu Kuno , 568–581. Seoul: Hanshiu Publishing. Google Scholar
  43. Lefebvre, Claire, and Pieter Muysken. 1988. Mixed categories, nominalizations in Quechua. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  44. Link, Godard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, eds. R. Bauerle, , 302–323. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  45. Matsuda, Yuki. 2002. Event sensitivity of head-internal relatives in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 629–643. Google Scholar
  46. Ohara, H.K. 1993. On Japanese internally headed relative clauses. In Vol. 18 of Proceedings of BLS, eds. Buszard-Wechsler et al., 100–109. Google Scholar
  47. Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: a study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  48. Partee, Barbara H., and Mats Rooth. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. In Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, eds. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, Arnim, and von Stechow, 361–383. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  49. Portner, Paul. 1992. Situation theory and the semantics of propositional expressions. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Google Scholar
  50. Sells, Peter. 1986. Coreference and bound anaphora: a restatement of the facts. In Vol. 16 of Proceedings of NELS, eds. Jae-Woong Choe, Stephen Berman, and Joyce McDonough. Cambridge: University of Massachusetts-Amherst: GLSA publications. Google Scholar
  51. Shimoyama, Junko. 1999. Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 147–182. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations