本論文明確tik kā kám ê句法位置做分析。事實上，kám除了出現tī leh主語hām述語中間，mā ē-tàng用tiàm主詞ê頭前iah動詞複合詞內底，總－是伊bē用得出現tī非限定分句－níh。爲著beh解說kám是按怎ē-tàng tī句中相對khah kuân ê位置出現，suah無法度kap屈折短語倒爿墘ê副詞tàu陣使用ê問題（參考Cinque 1999），本論文參考Jackendoff(1972)，指出tsit个不相容有伊語義頂kuân ê起致，bē-sái用tse來做kám句法位置ê參考，tse liáh外，tsit篇論文就利用kám kap焦點標誌sī之間ê固定順序，sī代替kám來做句法位置ê檢定，證明kám ê句法位置tik實是比以早ê文獻所分析－ê koh ke真kuân，我主張kám是tī leh標句語短語內底ê疑問詞短語ē-kha(Rizzi 1997, 2001)。若關係kám thang插入去動詞複合詞ê部份，本論文參考王乾安(2010) kap Koopman (2010)等學者ê主張，採用雙標句語短語結構ê分析，結果thang知tsit个現象並m是例外；另外kám無法度用tī非限定分句ê部份，本論文以非限定句ê投射無齊全來提出說明，tsit个現象koh仝時進一步證明kám ê句法位置是tī標句語短語ê主張。Tsit篇論文ê分析，對主題顯著ê語言利用主題化來助贊焦點ê句法運作thang取得範域ê運作模式，有提供一个實例。

In this paper I explicitly identify the highest and lowest possible positions of kám in a sentence. Apart from its occurrence between the subject and the predicate, kám can also appear before the subject, or be inserted into a verb compound. However, it is not acceptable to have kám in a non-finite clause. In order to explain how kám can occur in a relatively high position but it is incompatible with some high adverbs in the left periphery (Cinque 1999), I suggest that this incompatibility is due to independent semantic reasons (à la Jackendoff 1972). Moreover, with the observation that kám always precedes sī, I inspect the relative positions of sī and speaker-oriented adverbs to circumvent the said semantic incompatibility. Consequently, I point out indirectly that kám is under the interrogative phrase in the CP domain (Rizzi 1997, 2001). On the lower side, it is suggested that kám's insertion into a verb compound is not problematic under the bi-clausal structure following Wang (2010) and Koopman (2010), among others. Its non-occurrence in a non-finite clause is then explained away with the imperfect projection of subordinate clauses in the control construction and constitutes another piece of evidence that kám is at a relatively high syntactic position. In general, this study demonstrates the role of topicalization in focus operation in topic-prominent languages.