Eunil Kim. 2000. A Grammar of Animacy. Studies in Modern Grammar 20, 71-96. This study discusses how the semantic domain of animacy is coded in syntax. This argues for the systematic coding of animacy in two different ways. First, the analysis of English and Korean grammars shows the systematic differences between them in animacy coding in all the linguistic levels of the grammars: Two different coding devices are used according to animacy in Korean while the same coding device is used regardless of animacy in English. Second, the typological study of 40 languages from all the language families also shows that grammars code aniamcy in a systematic way. Our study reveals that the typological differences in the case markings of associative and intstrumental, and the relationships between the types of case markings and inanimate subject constructions can nicely be accounted for in terms of animcay.

eo, Kyunghee. 1997. Effective Methods of Grammar Instruction. Studies in Modern Grammatical Theories 10: 139-156. The purpose of this paper is to suggest effective methods of grammar instruction which has been undervalued by some researchers. First, this paper discusses consciousness raising which can be defined as the deliberate attempt to draw the learner`s attention to the formal properties of the target language. Next, input processing instruction, the transition from input to intake, is found to be a better method than traditional grammar instruction which stresses the manipulation of output. Finally, a task-based approach -- integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use -- is recommended for effective grammar teaching.

Chung, Yung-sik. 1997. Polysemous Meaning of English Verbs. Studies in Modern Grammatical Theories 10: 115-147. To explain the systematic relationships among the interrelated meanings, this study adopts the lexical network approach proposed by Langacker(1991). The relationships among a large number of related senses of a polysemous lexical item can be characterized in terms of relationships between a schema and its instances on the other, and all these relationships cannot be explained without taking human cognitive abilities into account. With reference to the cognitive processing, the following processes, among others, are found to be at work: First, the systematic relationships among the various meanings of a lexical item are obtained by applying the profile shift to the same conceptual base. The relationships between transitive verbs and corresponding intransitive verbs are remarkable examples of the profile shift. Second, semantic extension from the concrete meaning to the abstract meaning results from the domain shift. Therefore, a word can refer to many objects or events, and the semantic category of a word consists of entities referred to by the word. The purpose of this study is to show that these cognitive principles operate on language by investigating the process of semantic extension of verbs, and to show the systematic relationships among the interrelated meanings of a lexical item based on the semantic analysis of affect verbs such as the English `break` etc.

Park Sung-Hyuk. 1996. On the Meaning of "minimization" in the Minimalist Program. Studies in Modern Grammatical Theories 9: 57-76. In the minimalist program (MP) of Chomsky (1993; 1995a; 1995b; 1996), it is assumed that a particularly simple design for language would take the two interface levels, PF and LF, to be the only levels, since only these two interface levels seem to be conceptually necessary. Under minimalist assumptions, the linguistic expressions are the optimal realizations of the interface conditions, where "optimality" is determined by the economy conditions of UG. Then, the minimalist program can be defined as a programmatic approach to language study that takes a linguistic expression to be nothing other than a formal object that satisfies the interface conditions in the optimal way. The most remarkable property of the MP is its explicit commitment to explanation through the distinctive method of minimization. Its ultimate goal, which is to reduce grammatical constructs to bare essentials, is claimed to be reached through the following minimizations, among others: (a) minimization of representations and levels of representations and (b) minimization of computational operations and procedure, which further leads to the minimization of computational complexity. Therefore, minimization means economization and optimization. However, minimization may not be interpreted as minimizing to zero (or null) but as minimizing to bare essentials, whose justification is based on conceptual necessity.