The interpretations of null subjects in Korean and Chinese are considered distinct, with Korean allowing both strict and sloppy interpretations, while Chinese only allows strict readings. This study investigated whether such an interpretational difference between Korean and Chinese appeared in Chinese learners’ instantaneous processing of null subjects in Korean and among native speakers of both languages with unlimited time and full cognition. An online experiment and offline surveys were conducted using a priming paradigm with a semantic categorization task, acceptability ratings, and multiple-choice surveys. The results of the online experiment provided partial support for distinct interpretations in Korean and Chinese. Meanwhile, offline acceptability ratings and surveys revealed that Chinese native speakers chose the strict reading in most cases, while Koreans also showed a higher acceptance of the strict reading of non-negated sentences. These findings suggest that the interpretation of null subjects can be influenced by experimental methods, grammatical constraints, and/or influences from discourse, underscoring the need for a more nuanced approach to investigating subject ellipsis in Korean and Chinese.

본고에서는 한국어와 중국어 이중주어문에서 문장의 어순, 의미, 통사 그리고 서술 어의 ‘거리도상성(距離象似性)’ 등 몇 가지 방면을 모두 고려해야 주어와 화제를 잘 파악할 수 있다고 보았다. 주어와 화제에 관한 논쟁이 많이 일어나는 문장 유형 중, 성상형용사 구문, 소유-소재형용사 구문, 심리형용사 구문을 중심으로 검토하였는데, 화제는 독립된 통사 성분이 아니지만 통사 층위에서 실제적인 문법 특징을 가지고 있으며 어떤 성분이 화제 특징 [+TOP]을 가지게 하는 기능 용법인 것이다. 소위 한 국어의 이중주어문이라 하는 구문을 복문이 아니라 단문으로 분석해 내었다.

The Korean double nominative construction shows many characteristics distinguished not only from subjectobject clauses but also from nominative complement constructions. Specifically, the initial NP of the construction exhibits properties that are attributed to a subject in terms of object to subject raising and caki binding. Embracing the traditional ideas such as Major Subject and the sentential predicate (Park 1981, Yoon 2004), the initial NP of the construction is suggested to be predicated by a sentential predicate. Therefore, in this approach, the NP is considered a grammatical relation that exists in addition to the subject, i.e., sentential specifier. This paper also shows how the proposal is neatly dealt with by Sign-Based Construction Grammar (Boas and Sag 2012).

Mijin Kang and Jungok Bae. 2017. Errors in Subject-Verb Agreement: The Case of Immersion-Based EFL Elementary School Students. Studies in Modern Grammar 95, 81-101. The present study investigates several syntactic structures in which subject-verb agreement errors occur. The study analyzed free writing samples written by 104 elementary school students enrolled in a partial English immersion school. In the writing samples, errors in the subject-verb agreement were found in the following categories: (a) subject + verb; (b) coordinated subjects + verb; (c) subject + coordinated verbs; and (d) expletive ‘there’ + ‘be’ verb. Errors in the ‘subject + verb’ structure with no modifying phrases in-between were the most prominent. The second most frequent errors were found in the ‘subject + coordinated verbs’ structure. The results provide useful implications for English teachers dealing with the persistent errors in the subject-verb agreement.

According to the Simple Descriptive Rule of subject- verb agreement, the process of that in English can be described as singular subjects take singular verbs and plural subjects take plural verbs. Although this descriptive rule for subject-verb agreement looks simple, there are several prescriptive rules for the agreement such as form-based traditional rules, meaning-based principle of notional concord, principle of proximity, attraction, and other mechanical rules. Among them, the phenomenon of attraction denotes that when subject has the complex noun phrases, the verb tends to agree with another noun in its vicinity. The current study aims to examine the tendency of attraction with Korean learners of English; to investigate how this mechanism facilitates speakers' resolution of number mismatches and their number agreement processing during sentence production.

Even though it has long been stipulated that Korean has subject as a grammatical category and i(/ga) is the subject marker in Korean sentences, there has been difficulties in identifying the subject in several types of sentences. Some of the types have eun(/neun) or the like instead of i, others doesn't have any NPs which can be evaluated as subject at any rate in their surface, and the others have more than one i-attached NPs. Hence, these have brought an argument that Korean doesn't have subject as a grammatical category. In this paper, I reconsider the notion of subject and those arguments that Korean doesn't have subject, and argue that there does exist subject as a grammatical category in Korean. In any language, the notion of subject is applied to the basic sentences of it according to Keenan(1976) and I regard that 'flow dimension'(Kibrik 2001) should be skimmed off from the discussion of the existence of subject as a grammatical category, because understanding the meaning of sentences including flow characteristics requires understanding the meaning of sentences not including them. Furthermore, in my opinion, the existence of non-lexically-selected i as in multiplenominative constructions is the proof that i as a nominative case marker is developed to subject marker when the condition of referentiality is met. In addition, I show some heuristics of identifying the subjects in Korean.

In this paper, we will consider the status of two types of PP subjects in [Spec, TP]: inverted PP in locative inversion and non-inverted PP in PP subject constructions. On the basis of the assumption that the syntactic expression can be determinable under the meaning of the verb (Levin & Rappaport 1995), we will propose Unaccusativity Condition in order to explain the status of PP subjects. This condition claims that PPs in [Spec, TP] that denote a time, place, or manner are restricted to unaccusativity status of the verb. This functional approach provides us with a unified analysis of two kinds of PP subjects in [Spec, TP].

Arguing for the Extended Projection Principle (EPP)--the subject position must be filled in overt syntax, Lasnik and Park (L&P, 2003) claim that the Subject Condition effect in sluices is derived from a PF chain processing mechanism on the first chain first processing basis. This paper, however, argues that this should be achieved through the opposite ordering of chain processing to avoid problems arising from L&P. Pointing out that the Subject Condition conceived as a condition on derivation is needed, this paper proposes alternative derivation of the sluices involving PP extraction out of subject that can avoid a violation of the Subject Condition. The representation resulting from this alternative derivation is then subject to a condition similar to the Proper Binding Condition, and the redemption effect in sluices is thus naturally obtained by Sluicing. This paper also offers a possibility of deriving the EPP effect from the Case Filter differently from L&P.

Lim, Sang-bong. 1998. Acquisition of Subject-auxiliary Inversion in Child English and Optimality Theory. Studies in Modern Grammar 14, 349-364. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the patterns of subject-auxiliary inversion in child English questions can be explained by the constraints in Grimshaw`s(1992) Optimality Theory account of inversion patterns in adult English questions. I briefly review the treatment of subject-auxiliary inversion within the Minimalist Theory. The theory claims that subject-auxiliary inversion is a subcase of head movement that moves an auxiliary across the sentence to the head of the presentential complementizer(CP) position in nonselected CPs. In this paper I try to show that the stages of acquisition in subject-auxiliary inversion and the patterns of inversion in child English. And I also show that an Optimality-Theoretic approach can explain several facts regarding the pattern of auxiliary inversion in child English. In addition, this paper argues that the constraints ranking of child English must be different from those of adult English to capture the characteristics of subject-auxiliary inversion in child English.