In this paper, I discuss a semantic aspect of the null degree word/operator in Korean clausal and phrasal comparatives to suggest the following: First, the null degree word in Korean comparatives can be replaced with overt deictic degree words (cf. Choe (2012)). Second, -pota may license a generic or a specific phrase, but not a non-specific phrase. Third, while deictic degree words in Korean are ambiguous between specific and non-specific, the null (deictic) degree word in Korean comparatives is non-specific so that -pota may not come directly after the "stripped" compared constituent containing the (non-specific) degree word. During the discussion, to explain a certain cross-linguistic difference between Korean and English, I also suggest that the null degree word in English can be ambiguous between specific and non-specific, unlike the one in Korean, and that the null degree word of the "stripped" compared constituent should be specific in English, because than also cannot license a non-specific phrase.

In this paper, mainly based on the data with the constituent XP-man-i ('XP-only-F'), I discuss some distributional and functional properties of the markers -ka in Korean to suggest that the marker -ka that is stacked on the dative marker -eykey ('to') or on particles like -man ('only') (which is generally called stacked -ka) is not a case marker, but a focus marker with a special function, and that unstacked -ka may also function as a focus marker in certain contexts. I also discuss further data with the marker -lul to suggest the following: First, stacked -lul is a focus marker and unstacked -lul may function as a focus marker in certain contexts, like unstacked -ka. Second, there are two types of focus markers, which differ in their morphological realization patterns. Based on the discussions, I conclude that case duplication or case stacking is not allowed in Korean.

Hyon Sook Choe. 2001. Focus-sensitivity of Sentence Negation and a Movement Approach. Studies In Modern Grammar 23, 33-74. In this paper, I discuss the nature of the focus-sensitivity of sentence negation under a movement approach In Choe (2000), which adopts the following two assumptions: (1) negation is adverbial, negatively modifying either a focus or a quantifier phrase; (2) it moves for checking reasons. While a examining the counter-evidence against a movement approach discussed in the literature, which has been discussed in relation to two problems (the "constituency" problem and the "subjacency" problem), I show that the counter-evidence is apparent and that it in fact constitutes evidence in favor of the movement approach adopted here. During the discussion, I suggest that the notion of negating be understood in terms of the notions of feature negating and syntactic negating; and I show that the present suggestion makes it possible to understand both the nature of the focus-sensitivity of negation and he syntax and the semantics of negation in relation to various kinds of foci and in relation to a quantifier phrase.

Choe, Hyon Sook. 2000. Focus-sensitive Question and Copy Theory. Studies in Modern Grammar 19, 27-48. In this paper, adopting a version of Chomsky`s (1971) conception of focus/presupposition (cf. also Dryer 1996), I suggest that yes-no question and wh-question refer to the information of focus and that the extraction of yes-no and wh-question operators (that are lexically inserted on a focus) is involved in yes-no and wh-questions. I also suggest that the concept of focus is both LF- and PF-related and that extraction in yes-no question and wh-question refers to PF-related focus information while yes-no and wh-question operators are lexically inserted on an LF-related focus (a focus category, here) so that only focus categories (which are not presupposed) can be questioned. Based on the above suggestion, I reinterpret the copy theory introduced in Chomsky (1993) by suggesting a notion of selective deletion under an hypothesis that the information on LF- and PF-related focus is syntactically available in terms of formal feature. The hypothesis makes it possible to suggest a copy theory that employs selective deletion but not QR, which is conceptually and theoretically better than a copy theory discussed in Chomsky (1993) and assumed in Chomsky (1995, 1998, 1999).