This paper provides a corpus study on subjunctives in Korean in a way of comparative semantics. The whole arguments of this paper are bolstered by distributional evidence taken from naturally occurring bitexts (i.e. a bilingual corpus), in which one sentence in a language is aligned with one translation in the other language. Since previous studies regard past tense morphology as the main component to express irrealis and uncertainty, this paper accordingly checks out whether the past tense morpheme (e/a)ss in Korean is also responsible for conveying the meaning of subjunctives. My finding is that the past tense morpheme (e/a)ss is a sufficient condition for forming subjunctives in Korean. The current corpus study verifies that the past tense morpheme is not obligatorily used in present conditional counterfactuals in Korean, unlike English. Yet, if (e/a)ss is used and the antecedent denotes a present situation, the conditional sentence can only be interpreted as conveying counterfactuality. On the other hand, wish constructions in Korean, irrespective of the semantic tense, often contain the past tense morpheme. Hence, this work substantiates Iatridou (2000)'s theory of 'fake past tense' is applicable to Korean subjunctives. The present corpus study, additionally, reveals that a conditional marker telamyen is a component of expressing past counterfactuals in Korean.

This paper proposes a unified structural account of some instances of the English Modals and Semi-auxiliaries. The classification and the syntactic/structural description of the English Modal auxiliary verbs and verb-related elements have long been the center for many proposals in the history of generative syntax. According to van Gelderen (1993) and Lightfoot (2002), it was sometime around 1380 that the Tense-node (T) appeared in the phrasal structures of the English language, and the T-node is under which the English Modal auxiliaries occupy. Closely related is the existing evidence that English Modals were used as main verbs up to the early sixteenth century (Lightfoot 1991, Han 2000). This paper argues for a bi-clausal approach to English Modal auxiliaries with the infinitival particle 'to' such as 'ought to' 'used to' and 'dare (to)' 'need (to)', etc. and Semi-auxiliaries including 'be to' and 'have to'. More specifically, 'ought' in 'ought to' constructions, for instance, undergoes V-to-T movement within the matrix clause, just like 'HAVEAux' and all instances of 'BE', whereas 'to' occupies the T position of the embedded complement clause. By proposing the bi-clausal account, Radford's (2004, 2009) problems can be solved. Further, the historical motivation for the account takes a stance along with Norde (2009) and Brinton & Traugott (2005) in that Radford's (2004, 2009) syncretization of the two positions of the infinitival particle 'to' is no different from the 'boundary loss' in the process of Grammariticalization. This line of argument supports Krug's (2011), and in turn Bolinger's(1980) generalization on Auxiliaryhood, while providing a novel insight into Head movement of V-to-T in Present Day English.

This study discovers the dynamic nature of an interactional hierarchy as well as an institutional hierarchy in the use of Korean honorifics. Data was collected from the conversations of two Korean female interlocutors. The interlocutors met for the first time in the U.S. and often changed their use of honorifics. The paper examines the method in which the two interlocutors negotiate hierarchies during interaction and how the negotiation is reflected in their use of honorific shifts. The paper also investigates honorific shifts in terms of self-representation to suggest that there is another hierarchy at work other than the institutional hierarchy. An examination of the data shows that the shifts occurred not randomly but strategically. The findings suggest that 1) interlocutors may negotiate interactional hierarchy during their conversation, often in the same sentence, 2) interactional hierarchy often cross the boundary of the institutional hierarchy to obtain interactional goals, in this case, intimacy, and 3) the utterance contents may play a significant role in the interlocutors' honorific shifts.

Multilingual machine translation means the machine translation that is for more than two languages. Common transfer means the transfer in which we can reuse the transfer rules among similar languages according to linguistic typology. Therefore, the multilingual machine translation based on common transfer is the multilingual machine translation that can share the transfer rules among languages with similar linguistic typology. This paper describes the linguistic modeling for multilingual machine translation based on common transfer under development. This linguistic modeling consists of the linguistic devices such as 1) multilingual common Part-of-Speech set, 2) multilingual common transfer format, 3) multilingual common transfer chunking, and 4) multilingual common transfer rules based on linguistic typology. Validity of this linguistic modeling for multilingual machine translation is shown in the simulation. The multilingual machine translation system based on common transfer including Korean, English, Chinese, Spanish, and French will be developed till 2018.