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