Jieun Lee

This study examines whether embedding predicates’ semantic type affects the acceptability of internally headed relative clauses (IHRCs) in Korean. Existing studies on Korean IHRCs have primarily focused on their highly limited distribution, employing three research approaches to understand their restricted use: (i) explaining their formal restrictions using a set of rules; (ii) describing how they are used with naturally occurring data; (iii) refuting their existence as an independent construction in Korean by providing alternative explanations for how the interpretation of IHRCs is construed. Although these approaches have significantly enhanced the understanding of the use of IHRCs in Korean, whether a specific semantic type of embedding predicates renders an IHRC construal in a more acceptable manner has not been explored. To address this research gap, we conducted an acceptability judgment task. The results showed significantly higher acceptability, compared to the control condition, for predicates implying physical contact between entities but not for those that do not. This finding may indicate that Korean IHRCs serve as an example of a partially productive or verb-class-specific construction. This study contributes to the understanding of partial productivity or local generalization in language use and the interaction between a human and an object.

Through the analysis of the discourse of an interpreter-mediated expert witness examination in a Korean criminal courtroom, this paper examines challenges in obtaining evidence from an expert witness through unskilled interpreters and the related complexity of participation status during the multiparty interactions, namely the courtroom examination. This paper, drawing on the participation framework theories, demonstrates how all participants are engaged in negotiation and interpretation of the meaning of the expert testimony. The two unskilled interpreters, who are primarily responsible for interpreting, collaborate with each other in order to achieve communication when they face problems or difficulties in the other’s interpreted rendition. However, despite the collective efforts to accurately obtain and understand the expert evidence accurately, such efforts are not always successful in the absence of skilled interpreters. Based on these findings, this paper argues that a team of unskilled interpreters is not sufficient to accomplish the demanding task of interpreting expert evidence, and further, the court needs to be meticulous about the quality of courtroom interpreting which have potential implications for achieving just legal outcomes