Chinese often use some pronouns as Exclamatives tone markers, such as "zhe" "Na" "zheme" "name" "Shenme", and they can be noun phrases, adjective and verb phrases constitute a minority of some commonly used exclamation structure, these exclamation structure have different features. The author intends to syntactic structure, semantic features and pragmatic aspects of a preliminary study on them. The adverb marked exclamatory sentence features: first, if the adverb in the exclamatory sentences, then the sentence is generally exclamation exclamatory center adjectives, state adjectives cannot be used in exclamatory sentence; second, adverb as a marker of exclamatory sentence semantics is expressed according to the speaker's subjective standard, objectivity weak. This kind of Exclamatives objective level is relatively low, the subjective color is very obvious, this type of exclamatory sentence is judged from the speaker's subjective standard, objective understanding and others are not consistent. The characteristics of exclamatory sentences marked by pronouns are as follows: first, when the "Ni" "zhe" and the noun predicate constitute an exclamatory sentence, the way of expressing feelings is negative. General ellipsis. "Ni" "zhe" after the addition of nominal predicate exclamatory sentences can only use the second person pronouns. But behind the plus noun predicate, second person or third person can use; second, "Shenme" "hedeng" "zenme" "Zenyang" "duoshao" interrogative pronouns in exclamatory sentences are used to represent the exclamatory mood, then you no longer have the pronoun itself with the interrogative mood.

This paper examines the putative universality of the Overt Pronoun Constraint (OPC) (Montalbetti, 1984) postulated for pro-drop languages by observing the interpretational status of overt and null pronouns in the context of quantified antecedents that contrasts between Korean (pro-drop language) and English (non pro-drop language). In pro-drop languages, an overt pronoun cannot have a bound variable interpretation when the antecedent is a quantified NP (e.g., everyone, someone). Twenty three Korean learners of English took a forced-choice picture task, in which they had to select one of the two pictures that best depicted a sentence they heard that carried ambiguous meanings. Results showed that Korean speakers accepted a quantified antecedent with Korean overt pronoun ku, violating the OPC. The imperfect knowledge of the OPC by Korean speakers was attributed to the influence of the English overt pronoun he on the Korean overt pronoun ku. Pedagogical implications are discussed on the explicit instructions on the meanings of lexicon used in the OPC construction.

Lee Jee-won. 2015. “The interactional function of the first-person plural pronouns women and zanmen in naturally occurring conversation”. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 23(3). 239~266. This study examines the use of first-person plural pronouns in spoken Chinese from a conversational-analytic perspective. Focusing on the pronouns, women and zanmen, this study shows that the use of first person plural pronouns systematically functions to create a membership category between participants. In particular, we investigate the exact categories that are enacted and how the participants in a conversation recognize and use them in the course of an interaction. We argue that participants produce and recognize categories in their talk and that these categories index aspects of a speaker's relationship with the other participants, such as social difference or intimacy. This study offers a new understanding of what motivates speakers' choice of discourse forms and patterns in the evolving sequence of talk.(123 words)

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。

The purpose of this experimental study is threefold. First is to investigate how significantly EFL learner’s competence in the English pronoun as cohesive tie correlates with their reading proficiency. Second is to search for pedagogical implications for acquisition of the pronouns with reference to awareness-raising instruction. Third is to examine how narration variation affects EFL learners’ co-interpretative competence in the pronouns created in descriptive or direct speech narration. The subjects were grouped into two by pedagogical variable, i.e. awareness- raising instruction. Both control and experimental groups were given three tests: 1) house-made Toefl as pretest or norm test, and two post-tests: 2) Pronoun Test in which every pronoun was asked to be co-interpreted with its referents in the reading text; 3) Reading Proficiency Test constructed by a close technique. All the test scores were statistically processed in terms of t-test and the Pearson correlation. The statistics revealed a positively significant correlation (0.743 or 0.629) between EFL learners’ co-interpretive competence in the English pronoun and their reading proficiency. Furthermore, the impact of awareness- raising instruction turned out to be significant for co-interpretive competence and thus for reading proficiency. This experimental study concludes that higher competence in the pronoun corresponds to higher proficiency in reading. Thus acquisition of English pronouns must be facilitated at the discourse level by means of intra, inter, and intra-intersentential co-interpretation with their referents.

본 논문의 목적은 제1차 세계대전 이후 비슷한 시기에 쓰여진 T. S. 엘리엇의 『황무지와 스티븐 스펜더의 『비엔나가 각각 어떻게 1인칭 대명사를 사용했는지를 탐구함으로써, 유럽의 분열과 정치사회적 탄압 이라는 주제가 각 시에서 어떻게 표현되었는지를 조명하는 것이다. 1인 칭 대명사 사용에 대한 연구는 시인이 “얼마나”, 또 “어떻게” 자신의 시 에 직접 개입하여 (정치적) 메시지를 전달하려 했는지를 알기 위한 중 요한 작업이다. 이 논문에서는 먼저 『황무지속의 1인칭 대명사 “I”의 정체를 찾기 위한 과정이 유럽의 분열이라는 시적 주제를 어떤 방식으 로 표현하고 있는지를 탐구할 것이다. 그 다음, 『비엔나에서의 “we”와 “they”의 병치가 어떻게 사회주의자들을 향한 정치적 탄압 뿐 아니라 동성애자들을 향한 사회적 탄압을 반영하고 있는지에 대하여 논할 것이 다.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the distributional and functional differences among ‘caki, casin, and caki casin’ in the Korean sentences. In general, Korean reflexive ‘caki’ is known to be capable of both short-distance and long-distance binding, while ‘casin and caki casin’ seem to have a higher tendency to short-distance binding (Yang 1986, Hong 1986, Kim 2003 and others). On the other hand, it has been researched that ‘caki’ can be used to represent an antecedent such as a ‘statue’ depicting someone, but it can not be replaced by ‘casin, and caki casin’ (Lim 1987, Jackendoff 1992, Lidz 2001) In this paper, I discuss these issues in comparison with the characteristics of se-anaphor and self-anaphor in European languages. After these discussions, I will try to directly examine the examples cited in the research. Experiments were conducted with about 12 students who major in Korean language and 8 students do not, to examine whether the interpretations of the sentences in this study are correct.

Present study investigates whether the syntactic constraints of English reflexives and pronouns originally proposed in Standard Binding Theory (SBT; Chomsky 1980, 1981, 1986) are well-reflected in written corpus data in British English by using the ICE-GB corpus. Four linguistic factors including structural relations between the reflexives/pronouns and their antecedents were used to analyze 1,000 sentences (400 reflexives and 600 pronouns) extracted from the ICE-GB corpus. The results demonstrated the following: i) The linguistic factors related to binding conditions showed structural differences between reflexives and pronouns in English; ii) English reflexives showed more cases of discourse binding (i.e., binding outside the sentential boundary) than the original expectation of SBT; iii) With the domain of sentential binding, structural constraints such as c-commanding and binding domain (Governing Category: SSC and TSC) were nearly violated with reflexives.

Resumptive pronouns in English are found in relative constructions where gaps are supposed to take the place. If a construction has two or more forms in free variation from the point of view of truth-conditional semantics, it is worthwhile investigating whether there are pragmatic differences. Based on Prince (1990, 1995)’s observations, we will show the pragmatic meaning difference between the gap-containing structure and the pronoun-containing structure. We will also show that the reconstruction based on movement theory does not suffice to explain the distribution. Then we will suggest that resumption is the last resort strategy at PF which needs reference-set computation against the suggestion of Aoun, Choueiri & Hornstein (2001) which is based on Binding. In the following chapter, many instances of resumptive pronouns will be presented, showing that there is not insignificant meaning difference between the gap-containing structure and the pronoun-containing structure. In chapter 2, the proposals of reconstruction will be critically surveyed. In chapter 3, the resumption as the last resort strategy will be suggested. Chapter 4 concludes the paper.