In:New Insights into Theoretical Syntax from Asian Languages: Studies in honor of C.-T. James Huang
Edited by Andrew Simpson
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 290] 2026
► pp. 303–320
On a reason Wh-adjunct in Korean
Published online: 15 January 2026
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.290.12an
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.290.12an
Abstract
All languages have a reason wh-adverb corresponding to why. But, some languages
also allow other categories, such as wh-DPs, to be used as reason wh-adjuncts. In this paper, I discuss the properties
of a reason wh-adjunct mwehale in Korean, which has received little attention in the literature.
Mwehale is originally a phonologically reduced form of the purposive wh-phrase mwues-ul
ha-le meaning ‘to do what’. I argue that mwehale has a dual status: on the one hand, it
is simply a phonologically reduced version of the purposive wh-phrase; on the other hand, it is a separate reason
wh-adjunct involving a wh-adverb. I show that when mwehale is used as a reason wh-adjunct, its
behavior is rather different from when it is used as a purposive phrase. Based on this, I propose that
mwehale has an independent status as a reason wh-adjunct, which is argued to be the result of
grammaticalization.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Other reason wh-adjuncts in Chinese and Japanese
- 3.Syntactic properties of nande, weishenme, and mwehale
- 4.The status of mwehale as an independent item
- 5.The structure of the -le purposive phrase
- 6.The dual status of mwehale
- 7.A note on the grammaticalization of mwehale and mwel
- 8.Concluding remarks
Acknowledgements Notes Abbreviations References
References (24)
Beck, Sigrid, and Shin-Sook Kim. 1997. On wh- and operator scope in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6: 339–384.
Fujii, Tomohiro, Kensuke Takita, Barry Yang, and Dylan Tsai. 2014. Comparative remarks on wh-adverbials in situ in Japanese and Chinese. In Japanese syntax in comparative perspective, ed. by Mamoru Saito, 181–205. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Huddlestone, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, Okgi. 2021. On the syntactic position of ‘why’-like ‘what’ in Korean. In Proceedings of ConSOLE
XXIX
: 66–78.
. 2022. The syntax and semantics of non-standard wh-constructions in Korean. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Ko, Heejeong. 2005. Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [Spec,CP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 867–916.
Kurafuji, Takeo. 1997. Case checking of accusative wh-adjuncts. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 31: Papers from the Eighth Student Conference in Linguistics, 253–271. MITWPL.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1984. On the nature of proper government. Linguistic Inquiry 15: 235–289.
Ochi, Masao. 1999. Constraints on feature checking. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
. 2004. How come and other adjunct wh-phrases: A cross-linguistic
perspective. Language and Linguistics 5: 29–57.
. 2015. Wh-adjuncts, left periphery, and wh-in-situ. In Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective, ed. by Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson, and Wei-Tien Dylan Tsai, 401–428. New York: Oxford University Press.
Park, Myung-Kwan, and Arum Kang. 2020. The rhetorical adjunct wh mwue(-l) ‘what’ in Korean. The Journal of Linguistic Science 95: 111–135.
Roberts, Ian, and Anna Roussou. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stepanov, Arthur, and Dylan Tsai. 2008. Cartography and licensing of wh-adjuncts: a cross-linguistic perspective. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26: 589–638.
Tsai, Wei-Tien Dylan. 1994a. On economizing the theory of A-bar dependencies. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.