There have been two opposing views on the structure of the so-called head internal relative construction(HIRC) in Korean/Japanese, i.e., a view that analyzes the HIRC categorially as a nominal projection and functionally as an argument(Kuroda 1992, Watanabe 1992, Hoshi 1996, Jhang 1991/1994, among others) vs. a view that analyzes the HIRC categorially as an adjunct clause and functionally as a non-argument(Murasugi 1994). This paper on the one hand points out several phenomena indicating that Murasugi's analysis is more viable, while on the other hand proposing a more complex structure than Murasugi's to account for other facts as well. The no/kes clause in the HIRC will be analyzed as the complement of a null perception verb whose projection constitutes part of an adjunct clause.

There have been two opposing views on the structure of the so-called head internal relative construction(HIRC) in Korean/Japanese, i.e., a view that analyzes the HIRC categorially as a nominal projection and functionally as an argument(Kuroda 1992, Watanabe 1992, Hoshi 1996, Jhang 1991/1994, among others) vs. a view that analyzes the HIRC categorially as an adjunct clause and functionally as a non-argument(Murasugi 1994). This paper on the one hand points out several phenomena indicating that Murasugi's analysis is more viable, while on the other hand proposing a more complex structure than Murasugi's to account for other facts as well. The no/kes clause in the HIRC will be analyzed as the complement of a null perception verb whose projection constitutes part of an adjunct clause.

This paper deals with temporal markers -ess and -(nu)n in Korean, and provides formal interpretations of these markers within the framework of interval semantics. I propose that the truth-conditional interpretation of -ess and -(nu)n sentences is obtained by locating the involved eventuality within a 'completive interval' and 'imcompletive interval', respectively. Since characterization of these two invervals makes reference to the evaluation time, the basic distinction between the two lies on tense. Furthermore, I will argue that perfective/imperfective aspect meaning that usually arises in -ess/-nun sentences should be explained in terms of a conversational implicature.

This paper argues that the de se reading is a composite of the corresponding de re one plus the presupposition that there exists a strong epistemic relation between the object of attitude, linguistically realized as an anaphor, and the attitude-bearer, the referent of the anaphor's antecedent. Close examination of the relation between the attitudes de se and anaphora reveals that the notion de se, as currently understood, should be generalized to explain the choice of anaphors. A taxonomy of anaphors in terms of a general notion like presupposition provides further empirical support for the approach taken here.

This paper attempts to provide an account for the problems of intensional opacity of referring expressions and the presupposition inheritance in the belief contexts from the discourse perspective. I discuss Jaszczolt's discourse model based on DRT to account for the belief reports. Jaszczolt analyzes referring expressions in terms of the three readings(de re, de $dicto_1$ and de $dicto_2$) and attempts to represent the differences between them in the DRS's via different anchoring modes; external anchoring, formal anchoring and nonanchoring. I propose an extended model to account for the presupposition inheritance in the belief contexts and attempt to analyze the data in Korean based on this model. The differences in the PI and in the representations of DRS's which are induced by the different complement types, ${\ldots}ko(mitta)\;and\;{\ldots}kesul(mitta)$, are discussed.

This paper deals with questions involving the polysemous meanings of Korean delimiter to, which include existence of a sister item, polar values, emphasis, reciprocality, and concession among others. In this paper it is argued that the basic meaning of to is the implication of a sister proposition and that various other meanings can be pragmatically derived from the basic meaning. The pragmatic notion of emphasis is defined formally and it is shown that various meanings of to can be accounted for by investigating how the speaker exploits the background knowledge which the speaker and the listener share in a speech context. According to what type of the context is made use of by the speaker, the various polysemous meanings are analyzed as involving either a simple implicature or a series of implicatures, i.e., scalar implicatures, so the various meanings of the delimiter can be attributable to the different attunement of the speaker to different kinds of context.