Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Syntax/Semantics
  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barwise, Jon. 1981. Scenes and other situations. Journal of Philosophy 78: 369–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, Jon, and John Perry. 1983. Situations and attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basilico, David. 2003. The topic of small clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, Jonathan. 1988. The pragmatics of substitutivity. Linguistics and Philosophy 11(3): 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, Gregory, H. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

  • Chae, Hyon Sook. 2007. On the categorial ambiguity of the morpheme kes in Korean. Language Research 43(2): 229–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Chung, Dae-ho. 1999. A complement analysis of the head internal relative clauses. Language and Information 3: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Déchaine, Rose-Marie. 1993. Predicates across categories. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

  • Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and montague grammar. PhD Dissertation, University of Texas.

  • Elbourne, Paul. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felser, Claudia. 1999. Verbal complement clauses: a minimalist study of direct perception constructions. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuji, Masaaki. 1998. Temporal interpretation of internally headed relative clauses in Japanese. Working Papers from Rutgers University 1: 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukui, Naoki, and Margaret Speas. 1986. Specifiers and projection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 128–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guasti, Maria-Teresa. 1993. Causative and perception verbs: a comparative study. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, James. 1983. The logic of perceptual reports: an extensional alternative to situation semantics. The Journal of Philosophy 80: 100–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horie, Kaoru. 1993. A cross-linguistic study of perception and cognition verb complements: a cognitive perspective. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.

  • Hoshi, Koji. 1995. Structural and interpretive aspects of head-internal and head-external relative Clauses. PhD dissertation, University of Rochester.

  • 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 

  • Jhang, Sea-eun. 1994. Headed nominalizations in Korean: relative clauses, clefts, and comparatives. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University.

  • 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 

  • Jung, Yunsun. 1995. Internally headed relative clauses in Korean. In Harvard studies in Korean linguistics, eds. Susumu Kuno , 235–248. Seoul: Hanshin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 169–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Min-Joo. 2004. Event structure and the internally-headed relative clause construction in Korean and Japanese. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

  • Kim, Min-Joo. 2007. Formal linking in internally headed relatives. Natural Language Semantics 15: 279–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Nam-Kil. 1984. The grammar of Korean complementation. Center for Korean Studies, Manoa: University of Hawaii at Manoa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Yong-Beom. 2002. Relevancy in internally headed relative clauses in Korean. Lingua 112: 541–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Klein, Ewan, and Ivan Sag. 1985. Type-driven translation. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 163–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in languageLondon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85: 211–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 1989. An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2002. Facts: particulars or information units? Linguistics and Philosophy 25(2): 655–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, Angelika. 2008. Situations in natural language semantics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/situations-smantics/#SitSemDavEveSem.

  • Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuroda, Shige-yuki. 1992. Japanese syntax and semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman, Fred. 1992. The progressive. Natural Language Semantics 1: 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: the jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Jeong-Rae. 2006. The Korean internally headed relative clause construction: its morphological, syntactic and semantic aspects. Dissertation, University of Arizona

  • 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 

  • Lefebvre, Claire, and Pieter Muysken. 1988. Mixed categories, nominalizations in Quechua. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Matsuda, Yuki. 2002. Event sensitivity of head-internal relatives in Japanese. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 10: 629–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohara, H.K. 1993. On Japanese internally headed relative clauses. In Vol. 18 of Proceedings of BLS, eds. Buszard-Wechsler et al., 100–109.

  • Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: a study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Portner, Paul. 1992. Situation theory and the semantics of propositional expressions. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

  • 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.

  • Shimoyama, Junko. 1999. Internally headed relative clauses in Japanese and E-type anaphora. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8: 147–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, Texas Tech University, MS 3091, Lubbock, TX, 79409-3091, USA

    Min-Joo Kim

Authors
  1. Min-Joo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Min-Joo Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, MJ. E-type anaphora and three types of kes-construction in Korean. Nat Lang Linguist Theory 27, 345–377 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9065-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-009-9065-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation