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.

[1]  M. Guasti.  Causative and Perception Verbs. A Comparative Study , 1993 .

[2]  Dominique Sportiche,et al.  The position of subjects , 1991 .

[3]  Yong-Beom Kim∗.  Relevancy in Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Korean , 2002 .

[4]  Min-Joo Kim.  Event-Structure and the Internally-Headed Relative Clause Construction in Korean and Japanese , 2005 .

[5]  Nam-Kil Kim.  The grammar of Korean complementation , 1984 .

[6]  Wolfgang Klein,et al.  Time in language , 1994 .

[7]  Irene Heim,et al.  Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs , 1992, J. Semant..

[8]  Koji Hoshi.  Structural and Interpretive Aspects of Head-Internal and Head-External Relative Clauses , 1998 .

[9]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[10]  P. Muysken,et al.  Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua , 1988 .

[11]  Jong-Bok Kim,et al.  Differences between externally and internally headed relative clause constructions , 2003, Proceedings of the International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar.

[12]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  Facts: Particulars or Information Units? , 2002 .

[13]  S. Kuroda,et al.  Japanese Syntax and Semantics , 1992 .

[14]  K. Sakuma.  The structure of the Japanese language , 1951 .

[15]  Robert Stalnaker,et al.  Presuppositions of Compound Sentences , 2008 .

[16]  J. Shimoyama.  Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Japanese and E-Type Anaphora , 1999 .

[17]  Se-Eun Jhang,et al.  HEADED NOMINALIZATIONS IN KOREAN: RELATIVE CLAUSES, CLEFTS, AND COMPARATIVES , 1994 .

[18]  Hyon Sook Choe.  On the Categorial Ambiguity of the Morpheme kes in Korean , 2007 .

[19]  Claudia Felser,et al.  Verbal Complement Clauses: A minimalist study of direct perception constructions , 1999 .

[20]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Word Meaning and Montague Grammar , 1979 .

[21]  Angelika Kratzer,et al.  Situations in Natural Language Semantics , 2007 .

[22]  Christoph Schwarze,et al.  Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language , 1983 .

[23]  Kaoru Hone.  A Cross-linguistic Study of Perception and Cognition Verb Complements: A Cognitive Perspective , 1993 .

[24]  Jeongrae Lee,et al.  The Korean Internally-headed Relative Clause Construction: Its Morphological, Syntactic and Semantic Aspects , 2008 .

[25]  David Basilico,et al.  The Topic of Small Clauses , 2003, Linguistic Inquiry.

[26]  C. Allen,et al.  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2011 .

[27]  J. Berg.  The pragmatics of substitutivity , 1988 .

[28]  Susan Rothstein.  Events and Grammar , 2001 .

[29]  N. Cocchiarella,et al.  Situations and Attitudes. , 1986 .

[30]  Min-Joo Kim,et al.  Formal linking in Internally Headed Relatives , 2007 .

[31]  Gregory Norman Carlson,et al.  Reference to kinds in English , 1977 .

[32]  N. A. Mccawley,et al.  The structure of the Japanese language , 1973 .

[33]  J. Barwise,et al.  Scenes and other Situations , 1981 .

[34]  F. Landman.  The progressive , 1992 .

[35]  Paul D. Elbourne.  Situations and individuals , 2005 .

[36]  A. Kratzer.  Scope or Pseudoscope? Are there Wide-Scope Indefinites? , 1998 .

[37]  Fred Landman,et al.  Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures , 2001 .

[38]  A. Kratzer.  An investigation of the lumps of thought , 1989 .

[39]  J. Higginbotham.  The Logic of Perceptual Reports: An Extensional Alternative to Situation Semantics , 1983 .

[40]  Kyoko Hirose Ohara.  On Japanese Internally Headed Relative Clauses , 1992 .

[41]  Noam Chomsky.  Essays on Form and Interpretation , 1977 .

[42]  Terence Parsons,et al.  Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics , 1990 .

[43]  Godehard Link.  The Logical Analysis of Plurals and Mass Terms: A Lattice‐theoretical Approach , 2008 .

[44]  J. Higginbotham.  The Logic of Perceptual Reports: An Extensional Alternative to Situation Semantics , 1983 .

[45]  Masaaki Fuji.  Temporal Interpretation of Internally Headed Relative Clauses in Japanese * , 1998 .

[46]  Ewan Klein,et al.  Type-driven translation , 1985 .

[47]  P. Portner.  Situation theory and the semantics of propositional expressions , 1992 .

[48]  Mats Rooth,et al.  Generalized Conjunction and Type Ambiguity , 2008 .