본 연구에서는 중국어권 학습자들이 한국어의 주격 관계절과 목적격 관계절 중에서 어떤 유형의 관계절을 좀 더 잘 습득하는지 알아보기 위해 학습자의 관계절에 대한 이해 능력과 산출 능력을 분석하였다. 이를 통해 두 관계절 유형의 습득 위계를 세우고, 나아가 두 관계절의 하위 유형의 습득 위계 또한 알아보았다. 그 결과 중국인 학습자의 관계절 습득 위계는 ‘주격 관계절 > 목적격 관계절’로 나타났다. 즉, 주격 관계절을 목적격 관계절보다 더욱 잘 이해하고 사용하는 것으로 나타났다. 하지만 두 관계절의 세부 유형 간에는 통계적으로 유의미한 습득 차이가 나타나지 않아 세부유형간의 습득 위계를 세울 수 없었다.

The present study examines the interpretation of Korean relative clauses (RC) by English speakers of L2 Korean. The purpose of the study is to see if these learners employ the same parsing strategy as native Korean speakers in the processing of a complex NP followed by a RC. Processing strategies were investigated with two different conditions, which were distinguished from each other by animacy presence in the second NP of a complex NP (e.g., chayk-ul ilk-nun apeci-uy atul ‘the son of the father who is reading a book’: [+ani, +ani] condition vs. kyosil-ey iss-nun haksayng-uy chayk ‘the book of the student who is in the classroom’: [+ani, -ani] condition). Korean speakers showed equal preference in the [+ani, +ani] condition, while they showed low attachment (LA) preference in the [+ani, -ani] condition. On the other hand, English speakers showed LA preference in both conditions. We assume that this LA preference by the English speakers might have been due to either the universal processing principle (recency) or influence from their L1, both of which make the same attachment site. The source of the Korean speakers diverging behavior is discussed on the basis of difference in verb meaning used in each condition. The discrepancy between the two language groups leads us to propose that English speakers do not rely on the same processing strategies as Korean speakers.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the syntactic structure of the so-called transparent relative clause. What in the standard free relative clause has been treated as a unit including a head NP and a relative pronoun together. In the case of transparent free relatives, however, a what-clause reveals some peculiar characteristics different from standard relative clauses. To explain those characteristics, many linguists have suggested several different analyses. The analyses can be categorized into three groups: Backward Deletion, Shared Structure analysis, (Rightward) Movement and Deletion analysis. Because of their drawbacks, I have suggested Leftward Movement and Deletion analysis, and adopted Winkler's(2005) D(rivational)-Model of Grammar to explain the interactions between the PF deletion and LF interpretation.

This study investigates whether L2 learners employ similar processing strategies as native speakers when disambiguating attachment of a relative clause (RC) in Korean as a second language (KSL). Different processing strategies were tested with temporarily ambiguous sentences containing RCs when the head NP is a complex NP (NP1 of NP2), in which either NP1 (low attachment, LA) or NP2 (high attachment, HA) can be an antecedent. The RCs were controlled for length (short vs. long) and position-sentence initial (scrambled word order) vs. sentence medial (canonical word order). Native speakers consistently showed a clear HA preference regardless of the length or the position of the RCs, whereas KSL learners showed a clear LA preference. The attachment differences between L1 and L2 are discussed in terms of transfer and prosodic sensitivity.

This study aims to investigate the relative clause attachment resolution process of second language learners of English from various aspects. Three experiments were conducted: off-line test(Expt. 1), on-line test(Expt. 2), and a quasi-interview survey of their strategy(Expt. 3). As a result, second language learners of English showed different RC attachment preferences from native speakers of English in the off-line test; however they showed similar preferences of NP2 following the recency effects. Also, the different RC attachment preferences were observed between the off-line test and on-line test among the participants, second language learners of English. The results from reading time and responding time measurement in the experiment 2 and the strategy survey in experiment 3 supported these asymmetric results between the two tests. The findings may have implications that second language learners of English do not follow the consistent and complete cognitive process for the RC attachment resolution process.

In this paper I argue that the so-called gapless relative clause (GRC) in Korean actually has a syntactic gap, and thus, it is a variant of the externally headed regular gappy RC. I also argue that the surface structure of GRC is derived from the underlying structure where the cause-effect relation required in GRC constructions is fully realized via pragmatically conditioned ellipsis. Thus I suggest that the verbal effect part can be ellipted to the extent that this part is pragmatically recoverable in the presence of the head noun that denotes the same effect. The categorial status of the GRC is further claimed to be CP, which then hosts operator movement in its Spec in a usual way. So there is little anomaly in the RCs known as gapless RCs.