There has been considerable research which investigates whether the underlying linguistic competence of L2 learners is constrained by principles and parameters of UG, parallel to the situation in L1 acquisition. In terms of the Scope Principle (henceforth SP), a principle of UG, which is associated with the scope interaction between a quantified expression and a wh-phrase, some experimental studies in EFL settings were conducted to investigate whether or not interlanguage grammars can be characterized by the principle. These experiments were carried out through the Truth Value Judgment Task (henceforth TVJT) alone, showing contrasting and confusing results, especially between Japanese learners and Korean learners. That is, while Japanese EFL learners observed the SP, Korean EFL learners did not despite the fact that both Japanese L1 grammar and Korean L1 grammar disallow the distributive interpretation, especially in the ambiguous sentence like what does everyone have? Therefore, the present study aims to confirm whether the same results are obtained provided that the identical experiment using the TVJT is repeated in other EFL learners. Noticeably, this study employed an additional, complementary task (Question and Answer Task, QAT) in addition to the TVJT as an attempt to increase the accuracy of the task and reflect learners’ actual knowledge of the target features. In QAT, the subjects were asked to write the answers to the target questions involving quantifiers and wh-questions in English. Results from the TVJT appeared, on the face of it, to provide support for the claim that the Korean EFL learners are under control of the Scope Principle. However, findings from QAT revealed that they are not constrained by the principle. Thus, it would be reasonable to conclude that the results of the present experiment do not fully support the claim that the Korean EFL learners’ interlanguage grammar has access to the UG-driven Scope Principle. Instead, it can be argued that Korean learners' interlanguage grammar may be affected by their L1 grammar, which gives rise to the claim that the explicit instruction on the interpretation of those sentences is required as part of overcoming this problem.

The purpose of this paper is to show that if ‘-ise’, ‘-se’ and ‘-i’ are treated as allomorphs. Since ‘-i’ attached to numerals and classifiers in the numeral quantifier constructions can be supposed to have adverbiality, the numerals and classifiers associated with such an element can be introduced in vP. Furthermore, we attempt to prove that nominative case marking can be deleted in the constructions. For the purpose of this paper, we investigate the analyses by several scholars on the allomorphy, finding out that ‘-i’ can be an abbreviation of ‘-ise’, a nominative case marker and affix. Within the vP, as ‘honca(se)’ functions as an adverbial phrase, if ‘seys-i(se)’ and ‘seymyeng-i(se)’ also do so, we can explain why phrases like ‘seymyeng-i’ can be in the vP. In addition, we examine nominative case ellipsis phenomenon in the light of Hong's generalization that case markers are optional to arguments in the complement position but obligatory to arguments in the spec positions, rethinking the possibility of the ellipsis of nominative case makers.

This paper shows that the property of ‘quantization’ motivates object movement to the projection of Aspect, giving rise to telic interpretation. It will be shown that the telic aspect, once coupled with the structural architecture developed by Borer (2006) and Miyagawa (2013), effectively captures mitigation effects that arise in sentences containing temporal or goal PPs/adverbs. This approach, if retained, will provide substantial support for Bošković’s (2004) observation that quantifiers cannot be floated in θ-positions, in full accord with the minimalist assumptions.

Based on the well-known but less studied patterns of quantifier structures in Korean, this article claims that floating quantifier constructions and their non-floating counterparts are underlyingly distinct and that the bifurcation follows from Chomsky’s (1995) economy principle of derivations. This analysis of quantifiers has important consequences for several issues and phenomena, including scope facts, presence or absence of floating numeral quantifiers across languages, and pronominal alternations in English. It also has theoretical implications of eliminating the concept of pied-piping from grammar, a desirable result under the minimalist tenet of economy.

Bošković (2004) argued that a quantifier cannot float in θ-positions in English, German and other several languages. In this paper, I strengthen this generalization by offering an independent set of arguments from Korean and Japanese. It will be shown that floating numeral quantifiers in these languages pattern precisely like the quantifiers in other languages, so that they only occur in non-θ-positions. Notwithstanding these gratifying results, several gaps in the generalization remain to be explained. In this paper, I argue that these and other related questions are adequately resolvable under the DP Split Hypothesis, proposed by Takahashi and Hulsey 2008 (see Sportiche 2005 for a similar argument), the essence of which is that A-moved subjects need not have a full set of DP in θ-positions. More specifically, an FQ cannot occur in θ-positions because there is no complete DP to which it can be merged in θ-positions. It can only occur in non-θ-positions when a full-fledged DP is available.

Quantifier floating (Q-floating) displays interesting asymmetries in English. First of all, there is a subject/object asymmetry. The subject permits Q-floating, whereas the object does not. However, if the object is followed by a predicative constituent, Q-floating can be permitted. In this case, there is another subject/object asymmetry. If the object is followed by a constituent that bears a predication relation with it, Q-floating is permitted, If, on the other hand, the object is accompanied by a constituent that bears a predication relation with the subject, Q-floating is not permitted. This paper shows that the various types of asymmetries follow if (i) Q-floating is licensed when A-movement takes place (Sportiche 1988), (ii) object can move to SPEC-V (Chomsky (2008, 2013, 2015), but in simple transitive constructions raising of the object to SPEC-V is prohibited by an anti-locality condition, and (iii) the movement theory of control is correct (Hornstein 1999, 2001).

Contrastively marked topic expressions are peculiar in that they are normally interpreted in a higher position in structure, while they have to be able to take lower scope than other quantifiers in a sentence. Extensive linguistic research into this puzzling paradox over the past decades has unearthed a wealth of empirical findings; nonetheless, the key question of what contributes to the CT paradox is still left unanswered. This paper, based on the observation that a CT-marked universal quantifier is an NPI in Korean, provides a reason why CT-phrases have to be interpreted in a lower position in structure; the lower-copyinterpretation is required by the NPI-licensing.