Korean HOW, i.e. ettehkey, unlike its English counterpart, i.e. how, does not show island effects. There have been several approaches entertained in the literature to account for the island insensitivity:T. Chung`s (1991) VP adjunct analysis and an ECP account; D. Chung`s (1996) nominal analysis and a binding account; Yang`s (1997) d-linking analysis and an ECP account; and D. Chung`s (2000a) predicate analysis and an ECP account. As reviewed in Chung (2000a), the first two analyses bear some critical empirical and/or theoretical problems. Pointing out that the third and fourth approaches also face some empirical and/or theoretical problems, this paper proposes an alternative analysis, a revised nominal analysis, in which ettehkey is decomposed into four sub-parts: e-tte-ha-key,`Det-N-do-adverbializer`. The second element, i.e. -tte, is diagnosed as a nominal element because the first element, i.e. e-, as a determiner, requires a nominal complement and the third element, i.e. -ha, as a transitive verb, requires a nominal complement. The proposed analysis gains support from the morphological paradigms that Korean WH-elements display. Given this revised nominal analysis, the scope of HOW in Korean can be licensed via binding, accounting for the lack of island effects.

• 정대호 | Dae Ho Chung