Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 279–315 | Cite as

Formal linking in Internally Headed Relatives

  • Min-Joo Kim


This paper aims to clarify and resolve issues surrounding the so-called formal linking problem in interpreting the Internally Headed Relative Clause construction in Korean and Japanese, a problem that has been identified in recent E-type pronominal treatments of the construction (e.g., Hoshi, K. (1995). Structural and interpretive aspects of head-internal and head-external relative clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester; Shimoyama, J. (2001). Wh-constructions in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst). In the literature, this problem refers to the difficulty of capturing the delimited semantic variability of the E-type pronoun present in the embedding clause of the construction. I show that the E-type pronoun at issue is subject to a different licensing condition from a typical E-type pronoun and therefore presents a different linking problem. More specifically, it requires that the embedded clause describe a state of its antecedent and its descriptive content be supplied by a salient property represented in the logical form of the embedded clause. I propose an event-based semantic analysis that derives the effects of this novel generalization by establishing a binding relation between the event structure of the embedded clause and the denotation of the E-type pronoun.


Internally Headed Relatives E-type pronoun Formal linking problem 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chierchia G. (1995). Dynamics of meaning. Chicago, The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Chung C., Kim J.-B. (2003). Differences between Externally and Internally Headed Relative Clause Constructions. In: Kim J.-B. (eds). On-line proceedings of HPSG 2002. Stanford, CSLI Publications, pp. 3–25Google Scholar
  3. Chung D.-H. (1999). A complement analysis of the Head Internal Relative Clauses. Language and Information, 3, 1–12Google Scholar
  4. Cooper R. (1979). Interpretation of pronouns. In: Henry F., Schnelle H. (eds). Syntax and semantics 10. New York, Academic Press, pp. 61-92Google Scholar
  5. Dowty D., Wall R., Peters S. (1981). Introduction to Montague Grammar. Dordrecht, ReidelGoogle Scholar
  6. Elbourne P. (2001). E-type anaphora as NP-deletion. Natural Language Semantics, 9, 241–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elbourne P. (2005). Situations and individuals. Cambridge, Mass, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans G. (1977). Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 7, 467–536Google Scholar
  9. Evans G. (1980). Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 337–362Google Scholar
  10. Fuji, M. (1998). Temporal interpretation of Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Japanese. Working Papers from Rutgers University 1 (pp. 75–91). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  11. Fukui, N., & Speas, M. (1986). Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8 (pp. 128–172). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
  12. Hale K.L. (1976). The adjoined relative clause in Australia. In: Dixon R.M.W. (eds). Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra, AIAS, pp. 78–105Google Scholar
  13. Hastings R. (2002). The interpretation of Cuzco Quechua relative clauses. In: Kim J., Werle A. (eds). University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 25: Proceedings from SULA 1. Amherst, Mass., GLSA Publications, pp. 53–62Google Scholar
  14. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  15. Heim I. (1990). E-type pronouns and donkey-anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy, 13, 137–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, Mass., BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoshi, K. (1995). Structural and interpretive aspects of Head-Internal and Head-External Relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.Google Scholar
  18. Jacobson P. (1995). On the quantificational force of English free relatives. In: Bach E., Jelinek E., Kratzer A., Partee B. (eds). Quantification in natural languages. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 451–486Google Scholar
  19. Jhang, S.-E. (1994). Headed nominalizations in Korean: Relative clauses, clefts, and comparatives. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  20. Jo M.-J. (2003). The correlation between syntactic nominalization and the Internally Headed Relative Constructions in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar, 13, 535–564Google Scholar
  21. Kadmon, N. (1987). On unique and non-unique reference and asymmetric quantification. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  22. Kim M.-J. (2004). Three types of kes-nominalization in Korean. In: Lee I.-H. et al. (eds). Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 10. Seoul, Hanshin, pp. 479–492Google Scholar
  23. Kim N.-K. (1984). The grammar of Korean complementation. Center for Korean Studies, University of Hawaii at ManoaGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim Y.-B. (2002). Relevancy in Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Korean. Lingua, 112, 541–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kitagawa C. (2005). Typological variation of Head-Internal Relatives in Japanese. Lingua, 115, 1243–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klein W. (1994). Time in language. London, UK, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein E., Sag I. (1985). Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8, 163–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kratzer A. (1998). More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In: Strolovitch D. et al. (eds). Semantics and linguistic theory 8. Ithaca, NY, CLC Publications, pp. 92–110Google Scholar
  29. Kubota, Y., & Allyn Smith, E. (to appear). The Japanese Internally Headed Relative Clause is not an E-type pronoun. In Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Japanese Linguistics 4, MITWPL. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
  30. Kuroda S.-Y. (1975–1976). Pivot-independent relativization in Japanese II: Types of Japanese relatives. Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 4, 157–179Google Scholar
  31. Kuroda S.-Y. (1976–1977). Pivot-independent relativization in Japanese III: Types of Japanese relatives. Papers in Japanese Linguistics, 5, 157–179Google Scholar
  32. Kuroda S.-Y. (1992). Japanese syntax and semantics. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  33. Landman F. (2000). Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee, J.-R. (2006). The Korean Internally Headed Relative Clause construction: Its morphological, syntactic and semantic aspects. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  35. Link G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In: Bauerle R. et al. (eds). Meaning, use and interpretation of language. Berlin, de Gruyter, pp. 302–323Google Scholar
  36. Matsuda, Y. (2002). Event sensitivity of Head-Internal Relatives in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10 (pp. 629–643). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Murasugi K. (1994). Head-Internal Relative Clauses as adjunct pure complex NPs. In: Chiba S. et al. (eds). Synchronic and diachronic approaches to language: a festschrift for Toshio Nakao. Tokyo, Liber Press, pp. 425–437Google Scholar
  38. Parsons T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, Mass., MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Shimoyama J. (1999). Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8, 147–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shimoyama, J. (2001). Wh-constructions in Japanese. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  41. Suh J.-S. (1996). Kuke Mwumpep [The Korean grammar]. Seoul, Hanyang University PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Sohn S.-O. (1995). Tense and aspect in Korean. Center for Korean Studies, University of Hawaii at HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  43. Takubo, Y. (2005). Overt marker for individual sublimination. Ms., Kyoto University.Google Scholar
  44. Tsubomoto, A. (1991). Syuyoobu-naizaigata-kankeisetu. Gendai Eigogaku no Ayumi (pp. 253–262). Tokyo: Kaitakusya.Google Scholar
  45. Yang B.-S. (1993). Clause and information structure of Korean relative clauses in Role and Reference Grammar. In: Bernstein M. (eds). Proceedings of the 1992 Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, pp. 282–293Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations