In their recent article titled Pluralism or Cosmopolitanism? Reflections on Petersmann’s International Economic Law Constitutionalism in the Context of China, Tao Li and Zuoli Jiang have criticized the alleged ‘paradox’ that my publications “stress ‘legal pluralism’ on the one hand, while calling for a cosmopolitan conception of IEL on the other hand.” This short comment aims not only at clarifying conceptual misunderstandings due to our different “constitutional law perspectives,” but also explaining why China should embrace a ‘dialogical’ rather than “exclusive legal perspectivism” by continuing to implement its international legal obligations (e.g., under the UN/WTO law) in good faith and assuming more leadership for the global public good of the rules-based world trading system, with due respect for its underlying ‘legal pluralism’ and often indeterminate ‘basic principles.’ My Chinese critics’ emphasis on the reality of authoritarian Chinese “top-down conceptions” of law and governance neglects China’s obligations under international law and China’s compliance with the WTO, investment and commercial adjudication.

이 글은 인터넷 게시판의 댓글관계를 분석하여 그 공론장적 성격을 밝히는 논문이다. 하버마스의 공론장의 공공성, 개방성, 숙의성 등 주요성격을 살펴보고, 5개의 게시판의 댓글관계와 그 상호성을 네트워크분석하여 특히 개방적이고 공정한 참여의 특징을 살펴본다. 분석결과, 인터넷 게시판이 수많은 일회적 참여자들을 주변화하고 중심적 참여자들이 댓글 토론을 주도하고 있는 한계를 지니지만 중심적 참여자들이 다시 논의주도형뿐만 아니라 카리스마형, 하이에나형으로 나뉘어 논의를 활성화시키고 또한 논의그룹이 분화되는 등 공론장으로의 성격을 지닌다.

In this paper, we try to show that Miyagawa’s (2017) analysis is only partially on the right track. We believe that Miyagawa’s (2017) observation that WHY can be externally merged under TP is not completely wrong. The difference of our position from Miyagawa’s lies in our proposal that WHY be externally merged as a CP-modifier (Ko 2005) or as a VP-modifier (Tsai 2008). We will see that there are two types of WHY in Korean, and we will also encounter novel data concerning wh-less whquestions. Defending Ko’s (2005) CP-modifier hypothesis, we make a criticism of Miyagawa’s (2017) approach, and then try to come up with a (very tentative) alternative account which can explain the counterexamples to Ko’s CMH.

Yong-Ha Kim. 2017. On the Problem of the Timing of Labeling: A Reply to Bošković (2016). Studies in Modern Grammar 96, 51-66. In this study, we critically discuss Bošković’s (2016) recent proposal about the labeling algorithm as proposed by Chomsky (2013, 2015). Bošković’s (2016) main claim is that the timing of labelling should be considered a crucial issue in Chomsky’s labeling algorithm. According to him, whatever its formulation, the labeling algorithm is taken to apply when the derivation reaches the interface. This means that there can, and should, be phrases without labels until the derivation enters the interface. Bošković (2016) further assumes that the label-less phrases trigger antilocality effects though the relevant movement would be sufficiently long if they had their own labels. With this assumption about the timing of labeling, Bošković is apparently successful in accounting for many interesting grammatical phenomena in a unique fashion.

Y.-H. Kim (2007) has presented an analysis of the alternation among Korean dative/locative case particles within the framework of the minimalist program. The gist of his analysis lies in his claim that the alternation among the case particles is influenced by their associated nouns’ animacy, a kind of gender according to his claim, and that their alternation is determined by agreement in the sense of the minimalist program. Recently, Kim and Chung (2015) have come up with an analysis of the honorific system of Korean from a totally different point of view. They treat kkey ‘to(honorific)’ as a realization of the honorific feature [+hon] whether the associated noun is assigned nominative or dative. They also make criticism of Y.-H. Kim’s (2007) analysis while claiming that agreement is not an operation in narrow syntax but one caused by feature sharing at the PF component as discussed by Bobaljik (2008). In this paper, we will take a critical look at Kim and Chung’s (2015) analysis and make a point of its flaws, and then try to present some solutions to Y.-H. Kim’s (2007) real problems.

This paper explores the absence or presence of CP ellipsis in Japanese and Korean. Saito (2007) argues that in Japanese and Korean, arguments such as DPs and CPs can undergo ellipsis unlike in English since agreement is optional in these languages. He further puts forward an LF copying analysis of argument ellipsis. A couple of puzzles, however, need to be resolved. First, no extraction out of CP ellipsis should be explained. Second, the fact that CP ellipsis is sensitive to selection of matrix verb should be explained. We suggest that apparent DP and CP ellipsis in Korean are all instances of a null pronoun, the so-called pro. We reanalyze the apparent instances of DP and CP ellipsis discussed in Saito (2007), and propose that they indeed involve deep anaphora pro but not surface anaphora ellipsis.