The purpose of this study is to analyze two greek prepositions (‘apo’ and ‘se’) and learners’ errors to suggest comprehensible instruction in general. To express spatial meaning, the Greek language uses almost exclusively combinations of local adverbs with prepositions, especially ‘apo’ and ‘se’, with certain case while the Korean language uses ‘adverbial particles’. The first investigation is to look into the meanings of greek prepositions, especially ‘apo’ and ‘se’ which are ‘primary’ prepositions in the Greek language. It is necessary to analyze how they are expressed in the Korean language due to set instructional direction to Korean learners. There are many adverbial particles which correspond with each meaning of two greek prepositions so that it is not that clear for Korean learners to understand scattered semantic category of each preposition. Subsequently we will analyze learners’ errors of their use of prepositions. The result shows that the learners are problematic to use ‘apo’ and ‘se’ properly. In some cases their use of the prepositions seems mixed up. It is important to know problematic points of greek prepositions ‘apo’ and ‘se’ to Korean learners to set some efficient instruction. At the conclusion, there are some suggestions on the effective teaching of greek prepositions ‘apo’ and ‘se’ especially in ‘complex prepositions’ using images and example sentences.

This study aims to investigate the errors of prepositional verbs in Korean university students' essays and alert teachers to the necessity of a more systematic instruction of prepositional verbs. Prepositional-verb errors found in the learner corpus of essays written by 416 Korean university students were classified into five categories: (a) preposition omission, (b) wrong prepositions, (c) preposition addition, (d) misordering, and (e) others. Of the 1317 tokens of prepositional verbs retrieved from the corpus, 448 were found to be used erroneously, over half of which were instances of preposition omission. No tokens of misordering errors were found (e.g., *to go school / *go school to). A careful analysis of these errors also revealed the following. First, students were not able to discern the difference between a verb used transitively and the same verb used as a prepositional verb (e.g., believe and believe in). Second, the inability to distinguish transitive verbs from intransitive ones also resulted in a considerable number of errors in preposition omission (e.g., *listen music) and preposition addition (e.g., *enter in university). Third, using wrong prepositions (e.g., *worried at me) was also a rather common occurrence, accounting for 18% of the all the errors related to prepositional verbs.

In this paper, we will consider the status of two types of PP subjects in [Spec, TP]: inverted PP in locative inversion and non-inverted PP in PP subject constructions. On the basis of the assumption that the syntactic expression can be determinable under the meaning of the verb (Levin & Rappaport 1995), we will propose Unaccusativity Condition in order to explain the status of PP subjects. This condition claims that PPs in [Spec, TP] that denote a time, place, or manner are restricted to unaccusativity status of the verb. This functional approach provides us with a unified analysis of two kinds of PP subjects in [Spec, TP].

Na, Ik-Joo. 2000. A Study on the Polysemy of the Preposition to. Studies in Modern Grammar 19, 191-218. This paper aims to show that the various meanings are closely interwoven based on human cognitive mechanisms such as image schemata, metaphors and focal adjustments. Traditionally, the word `to` has been treated as a case of homonymy, and `to` as a preposition is regarded as having nothing to do with `to` as an infinitival marker. In this paper, however, it is argued that the meanings of the infinitival `to` are intimately linked to the meanings of the prepositional `to.` The two types of meanings are commonly founded on an image-schematic pattern, called a `PATH` schema. This means that `to` belongs to a case of polysemy, not homonymy. The PATH schema is composed of three parts, a starting point, an end point or destination, and a continuous series of points an entity moves or traces along. The protoypical (or central) senses of `to` are elaborated on a physical space. The other senses do not contain a physical movement on a spatial domain, but they are felt to any relation with the PATH schema. The schema underlies all the senses of `to,` whether it is used as a preposition or as a grammatical marker. The schema is elaborated on various domains like time, visual perception or cognition, communication, state, through a cognitive mechanism named subjectification and various metaphors such as STATES ARE LOCATIONS, TIME IS SPACE, CHANGE IS MOVEMENT, and VISION IS A MOVABLE THING.