중국어에서 “你什么时候来了?”와 같은 ‘의문사+VP+了’ 형식의 표현은 ‘是……的’ 구문의 오류 유형 가운데 하나로 다루어지는데, 사용 맥락과 화자의 의도에 따라서 자연스러운 표현이 되기도 한다. 의문사와 ‘了’의 결합으로 이루어진 문장은 ‘是…… 的’ 구문과 비교해 볼 때, 초점 범위와 담화 전제에 차이를 보이며 본질적으로 상이 한 화용적 기능을 가지고 있음을 확인하였다. ‘了’는 의문사 구문의 초점 구조를 재 편성하며, 주로 ‘의외성’과 ‘반문’의 의미를 함축한 간접화행으로 실현된다. 화용적 측 면의 역할에 맞춰 ‘是……的’ 구문과 ‘의문사+VP+了’ 구문을 이해하자면, 전자는 정 보의 전달에 초점이 있고, 후자는 감정과 태도의 전달에 초점이 있는 것으로 볼 수 있다. 각각 담화적 필요에 의한 사용이라는 점을 강조한 이러한 분석은 학습자에게 서 자주 보이는 ‘了’의 대치로 인한 오류를 줄이고 차별적 활용 원리를 제시할 수 있 으며, 문법 현상을 파악하는 데에 화용적 맥락의 인식에 대한 교육의 중요성을 시사 한다.

This study examined subject-auxiliary inversion errors in wh-questions produced by 88 Korean EFL elementary learners, focusing on whether types of wh-words and auxiliaries could affect inversion acquisition and whether explicit instruction on movement rules could facilitate this process. Guided writing tasks were used as a pretest and a posttest to analyze influence of wh-words and auxiliaries on learners’ inversion in the pretest and effects of instruction on movement rules in the posttest. Results showed that both whwords and auxiliaries significantly influenced learners’ inversion acquisition. Learners struggled more with why-questions than with what-questions, which were selected as representatives of adjunct and argument wh-questions, respectively. More inversion errors occurred in wh-questions requiring do-support than in those involving auxiliary be or modal will, although no significant difference was found between be and will. Experimental lessons with brief explicit instruction on auxiliary movement during regular classes significantly improved learners’ inversion accuracy, particularly in dosupport questions, which posed the greatest challenge in the pretest.

This study aims to investigate how L1 Chinese speakers of Korean acquire Korean embedded clauses with wh-expressions. Korean embedding verbs tutta ‘listen’ (Propositional-selecting predicate class) and kwungkumhata ‘wonder’ (Question-selecting predicate class) subcategorize for different types of complements which are defined by declarative complementizer ta or interrogative complementizer nunci. Tutta takes declarative or interrogative clauses and kwungkumhata can take only interrogatives. Experimental stimuli consisted of 12 embedding clauses by tutta (6 ta complementizer items and nunci complementizer items) and 12 embedding clauses by kwungkumhata(6 ta complementizer items and nunci complementizer items). Sixty three intermediate and advanced Chinese speakers of Korean(CK) participated in the study and 40 Korean native speakers(NK) participated as a control group. CK subjects were divided into 31 CK high group and 32 CK low group according to the participants’ Korean proficiency. The acceptability judgment among 3 groups were significantly different in the tutta-nunci condition and kwungkumhata-ta condition. The result showed that different learning principles were applied depending on the proficiency of learners. CK high group accepted the wh-embedding sentences in accordance with the semantic meaning of matrix verbs and type of wh-embedding clauses. However CK low group were not sensitive enough to discern the different linguistic context of wh-embedding sentences and rather accepted most of the given sentences.

现代汉语疑问代词除了表示疑问外还具有几种表示非疑问的功能，在现实语言活动中，其使用频率也十分高。汉语语法学界对疑问词的非疑问用法一直关注，而迄今为止在非疑问用法的名称和再次划分的划分标准上存在分歧。因此本文以 ‘哪’，‘哪儿’，‘哪里’ 为主要分析对象，从认知量的角度对疑问词的非疑问用法，尤其是一般所说的任指用法和虚指用法进行描写和划分，也介绍表示遍指用法的一种句法形式。 本文研究的结果如下： 第一，邵敬敏（1996）对疑问代词“什么”的非疑问用法进行细致分析而得出八种引申用法。文章中明确表明以语法意义为划分标准，而研究结果却表示用了语法意义和句子结构两种划分标准。石毓智（2001）以句法结构为划分标准对疑问词的两种引申用法——遍指和虚指进行了分析。他的说法相当一部分跟汉语的实际使用情况一致，但表虚指的疑问代词只能出现于动词之后的观点只限于受事用法，因此在解释汉语语言现象上仍然具有限制性，缺少说服力。 第二，任指用法也称为‘全指’、‘遍指’、‘周遍性’，从认知量的角度看这种引申用法具有两种不同的量——全量和单一量（或部分量）。因此，本文认为表示不同认知量的这种用法应该划分开来，表全量的就是说所指的范围内无一例外的应该称为‘遍指’用法，表单一量（或部分量）的就是说指示范围内的任何一个成员或者部分成员的应该称为‘任指’用法。 第三，特指反问句中的疑问代词—— ‘哪’，‘哪儿’，‘哪里’，无论其指示功能强还是弱都表示范围内的所有成员。因此可以说反问句是疑问代词非疑问用法表示遍指意义的句法形式之一。

This study tries to provide an experimental explanation of a type of wh-question in North Gyeongsang Korean in which the so-called weak wh-island condition is violated. More specifically, this study concerns itself with the scope and prosody of wh-phrases in constructions with weak wh-island condition violation. The experiment carried out in this study is about the interaction between wh-scope and prosody at the syntax-phonology interface. It is shown in the paper that for wh-questions with weak wh-island violation to be produced and perceived grammatically, three conditions should be met: which include interpretation- matched prosody, D-linking, and forms of functional categories.

Korean has so-called after-thought or right dislocation constructions. But wh-words can not be the target of the construction. This paper proposes that the ban on wh-after-thought arises from PF side, especially sentence final intonation. If wh-words are after-thoughted, the sentence final ending C require y/n-question sentence final intonation but the Ω head which is onto C projection and hosts after-thoughted wh-words requires wh-question sentence final intonation. So, the sentence final intonation (= C intonation + Ω intonation) has paradoxical information and the expression crashes at PF. This proposal naturally can be extended to describe the grammatical variation which says that some speakers accept wh-after-thought as grammatical when some, but not all, wh-words are after-thoughted in multiple wh-constructions. The main point is that there is some variation on whether all wh-words must match with sentence final intonation or not.

This paper explores a governing condition on the extraction from the NPs. According to Fiengo & Higginbotham (1981), "specificity condition" blocks the extraction from the NPs having `some definite reference.` However, the extraction out of the NPs does not seem to be governed only by the specificity condition. As indicated by Erteschik-Shir (1973) and Horn (1974), the presence of an indefinite determiner in and of itself does not suffice to rule in extraction and the acceptability of extraction also appears to depend to some extent on the choice of verb. The extraction from the NPs seems to depend on the actual interpretation of the NPs rather than on the choice of determiner. In this paper, we present an account of the extractability from the NPs based on the focus property of the NPs. Following Lee (2004), we assume that the focus-marked object remains in situ within VP, whereas the given or presuppositonal material moves out of VP to receive an appropriate interpretation (i.e., specificity, topic, etc.). The NP which has a non-presuppositional or existential reading can be focus- marked. Hence, it remains inside the VP without movement. The extraction from the NP is allowed. By contrast, the non-focus-marked NP raises to the Spec of v to satisfy the EPP of v. The extraction from the moved NPs is blocked.

Youngjun Jang. 2001. Complementizers and Complementation in English and Korean: Successive Cyclic WH-Movement. Studies in Modern Grammar 25, 1-28. This paper investigates complementizers and complementation in English and Korean. I argue that a sentence is ultimately a projection of C because the clausal types must be present for interpretation and that the clausal typing feature in C must be checked off. It is shown that the superficial difference between English-type languages and Korean-type languages with regard to wh-movement is due to different modes of checking off the clausal typing feature in C. Some theoretical consequences of this proposal are that successive cyclic wh-movement can be naturally accounted for in a derivational approach to syntax and that the strength of C is always strong both in English and Korean-type languages.