Natural language string sets are known to require a grammar with a generative capacity slightly beyond that of Context Free Grammars. Proofs regarding complexity of natural language have involved particular properties of languages like English, Swiss German and Bambara. While it is not very difficult to prove that Korean is more complex than the simplest of the many infinite sets, no proof has been given of this in the literature. I identify two types of center embedding in Korean and use them in proving that Korean is not a regular set, i.e. that no FSA's can recognize its string set. The regular language i salam i (i salam ul$)^j$ michi (key ha)^k$ essta is intersected with Korean, to give {i salam i (i salam ul$)^j$ michi (key ha$)^k$ essta i $$\mid$$ j, k $\geq$ 0 and j $\leq$ k}. This latter language is proved to be nonregular. As the class of regular sets is closed under intersection, Korean cannot be regular.

Barker (1997) has argued that all the three approaches to anaphora, namely, E-type theories, Discourse Representation Theory, and Dynamic Semantics, are faced with the so-called 'double-bind' problem in the quantifier/variable-binding model of anaphora. Recently, in the same journal, Slater (2000) has claimed that the so-called epsilon account (Slater 1991, 1993, 1994, 1997) handles the problem without any difficulty. However, it will be proposed in this paper that the epsilon account has its own problems in handling the quantifier/variable-binding, and that as argued in Yoon (1998), the so-called‘conjunctive paraphrase’account is the correct solution to the problem, which is intuitively supported as well.

Pustejovsky (1995) rekindled debate on the dual problems of how to represent lexical meaning and on the information that is to be encoded in a lexicon. For natural language processing such as machine translation, these are important issues. When a lexical-conceptual mismatch occurs in translation of corresponding words from two different languages, the appropriate representation of their meanings is very important. This paper proposes a new formalism for representing lexical entries by first analysing observable mismatches in comparable pairs of nouns, verbs, and adjectives in English and Korean. Inherent mis-interpretations and mis-readings in each pair are identified. Then, concept theories such as those presented by Ganter and Wille (1996) and Priss (1998) are extended in order to reflect the cognitivist view that meaning resides in concept, and also to incorporate the propositions of the so-called ‘multiple inheritance’system. An alternative to the formalism of Pustejovsky (1995) and Pollard & Sag (1994) is then proposed. Finally, representative examples of lexical mismatches are analysed using the new model.

This paper investigates the idiosyncratic understanding of universal quantifiers such as every, each or all by young children at the ages of 4 to 7, and argues that the phenomenon is explicable in terms of the maturation of both the cognitive system and the linguistic system. Evidence for this dual explanation comes from the fact that the visual input, a picture, plays a key role in determining the children's conceptual representation, suggesting the need for the central integration of visual and linguistic elements; and from the fact that a quantifier in the linguistic input has an intrinsic property, i.e. a <+focus> feature. I have tried to explain the nature of the cognitive factors in terms of the function of the central system, suggesting a modified form of Smith & Tsimpli's (1995) yersion of Fodor's (1983) modularity hypothesis. The categorial status of the quantifier in the children's interpretation is considered, focusing on the movement of that quantifier out of its own extended projection to FP. It is claimed that children initially treat quantifiers as modifiers, rather than functional heads, and that the phenomenon of quantifier spreading by children can be attributed to delay in the development of the relevant functional category, i.e., DP (or QP), in language acquisition.

In this paper, I propose syntactic, semantic and pragmatic restrictions on the distribution of the contrastive topic marker‘-(n)un’in Korean. A contrastive topic is associated with another focus. The association with focus is subject to syntactic islands. On the other hand, there is no syntactic restriction between a phrase attached with‘-(n)un’and a focused expression within the ‘-(n)un’phrase itself. In this area there is a semantic requirement that the alternatives generated by a focused expression be maintained up to the phrase attached with‘-(n)un’. Finally, when‘-(n)un’is used in an embedded clause, the whole sentence becomes natural when the contrastive topic introduced by‘-(n)un’and its alternative contrastive topic, which is presupposed by the contrastive topic marker, jointly constitute a more complex topic which is related to the whole context. And exclusiveness facilitates the formation of the whole complex context.

Generic sentences assert generic properties of single individuals or those of plural individuals. It means the generic quantifier Gen can quantify over single and plural entities. Among the generic meaning information represented in terms of the tripartite structure, the information not in the nuclear scope part, but rather in the restrictor part is related to which individuals generic sentences assert of. The plurality in the nuclear scope part cannot be described by making the generic operator Gen quantify over plural entities: Generic sentences with collective predicates like gather, and those with dependent plurals predicate of generic properties of single individuals. On the contrary, the plural information in restrictor part leads Gen to quantify eve. plural entities.

This paper deals with interpretation of pronouns in terms of Information Packaging Theory, proposed in Vallduvi(1994) and Engdahl and Vallduvi (1996), which depicts how discourse participants update new information, using three informational components: link, tail and focus. Based on empirical evidence, this paper argues that the information structure of an utterance is not enough for the hearer to process its information in accordance with the speaker's intention. It suggests that the hearer should be able to activate lexical file cards and frame file cards when necessary to designate the proper file card in which the information of the utterance should be recorded. It also proposes that, contrary to Vallduvi's claim, pronouns may create a new file card.