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.

I claim that the untensed clause with ko is not an instance of coordination, but an adjunct CP headed by ko, which is a complementizer. I show that coordination approach of any kind, either VP as in Yoon (1993, 1994, 1997) or TP as in Chung (2001) cannot give an adequate account for the data as presented in the paper. It is also shown that from the present proposal the (a)symmetry of tense and mood interpretation involving the untensed clause headed by ko naturally follows. If the present proposal is on the right track, it has a nontrivial theoretical implication of suggesting that symmetry in morphology is not a factor in syntactic coordination quite unlike syntactic categories.

Kim Dae-Ik. 1999. The Clause Structure in Old English on Ontological Minimalism. Studies in Modern Grammar 18, 1-20. I will argue that based on ontological minimalism the clause structure of OE is the same as that of modern English except the position of modal verbs and auxiliary verbs and show that the V2 constraint of OE is motivated by T feature of C suggested by Pesetsky & Torrengo (1999) and topicalization to CP Spec. In subordinate clause of OE there is no T-to-C by the presence of a lexical element in C. So it is argued that inflectional verbal morphology shows the combination of an either operation V-to-T or T-to-V in the subordinate clause of OE where the word order seems not to be definable by just observing the position of verbs.