본고는 우선 의미적 범주에서의 상의 개념을 정리하고 문법상을 정의하였다. 유형론적 시각에서 상은 크게 ‘완전상-비완전상’의 대립을 가진 공간적 경계상과 ‘완료상 -비완료상’의 대립을 가진 시간적 단계상으로 나뉘는데 한국어와 중국어는 ‘상황을 바라보는 시선의 위치’에 초첨을 두는 시간적 단계상에 속한다. 그리고 범언어적인 문법상의 하위 범주들을 검토하고 한국어와 중국어의 대응되는 상 표지를 살펴보고 문법상 체계를 구축하였으며 기존의 상 체계와의 공통점과 상이점을 제시하였다. 또 한 전형적인 몇 가지 한중 문법상 표지의 구체적인 분포와 의미를 고찰하고 상응한 상 범주 유형과 의미영역을 탐구하였다. 마지막으로 한중 상 체계에서 한 형태표지가 여러 상 범주에 걸쳐 나타나는 현상에 관하여 상 표지의 문법화 과정을 제시함으로써 그 이유와 관련성을 설명하였다.

‘hǎohāor+de’ is composed of the syntactic superimposed form ‘hǎohāor’ and the structural auxiliary word ‘de.’ It is a structure that occurs very frequently in modern spoken Chinese. ‘hǎohāor’ can only act as an adverbial (have a good time) or an attribute (a quite good book in a sentence). ‘hǎohāor’ cannot be used alone, or act as a subject, an object or a predicate. Nor can it modify a noun or a noun phrase directly. However, ‘hǎohāor+de’ can be used alone, and can be used as a predicate, a complement, an attribute and an adverbial. Different syntactic functions of ‘hǎohāor+de’ have different semantic features. This is a difficult point for the students who are non-native speakers of Chinese. This paper discusses in detail the syntactic functions and the related semantic features of ‘hǎohāor+de,’ and also tries to probe into the source of it, hoping to provide some help for Chinese language teaching.

본 연구는 2007개정에 따른 고등학교 ｢한문Ⅰ｣ 교과서를 대상으로 ‘介詞’에 대 한 서술상의 문제점을 살펴보고, 이에 대한 여러 학자들의 견해를 고찰하여 학교 문법에서의 개사에 대한 정의와 문법의미범주를 다음과 같이 설정하였다. 介詞는 단독으로 문장성분을 이룰 수 없고 명사나 명사에 상당하는 단어나 구, 절의 앞이나 뒤에 놓여 介詞句(介詞構造)를 구성하여 중심서술어의 앞 또는 뒤에 서 수식하거나 보충해주는 부사어나 보어의 기능을 하며, 서술어와의 관계에 따라 時間, 場所, 原因, 方式(道具방식, 身分방식, 手段방식), 對象(處置대상, 人物대 상, 比較대상), 行爲者(共同행위자, 被動文행위자) 등을 나타내는 동사 혹은 접속 사와는 구별되는 虛詞 중 독립된 品詞라 할 수 있다. 개사의 정의와 문법의미 분류는 한문독해의 교수․학습과정에서 문장 구조 관 계를 통한 의미파악의 편의성을 위하여 제시하는 것이다. 문법용어에 치중하거나 자세히 분류하는 것은 지양해야 하며, 예시문은 명시적이고 규범적인 것을 제시하 여 해석을 위한 방편으로 삼아야지 문법학습을 위한 문법교수가 되어서는 안 될 것이다.

This study is aimed at applying conjunctive adverbs of type of "그러-‘ for education site of Korean language by clearing up syntactical condition and contextual meaning and mutual replacement relation of conjunctive adverbs having similar meaning to be able to use opposition conjunctive adverb of type of "그러-’. According to inclination of foreign learner who want to learn Korean by rule and formula instead of meaning explanation. So this study was represented table and chart as suggesting way of each items, and it could be called as new tryout that we could not find in existing studies. This discussion might be little different with meaning of conjunctive adverbs explained in the study of Korean language. In the selection of example, used example of Korean language text book for foreigners by considering level of learners. Therefore, this study was inconvenienced by impractical sentence and non-suggestion of concrete plan to be able to be used in practice lesson. But if teachers fully understood schematic pictures and used them in class, it could become a little help to reduce learner"s confusion occurred by using opposition conjunctive adverbs of type of "그러-."

The purpose of this paper is to examine what grammatical functions and meanings the for-to-Ⅴ construction possessed in the early Middle English religious prose Holy Maidenhood (original title: Hali Meidhad). It has been claimed that the for-to-Ⅴ construction arose in the early Middle English period. From the 19 examples containing for-to-Ⅴ sequences in Holy Maidenhood, it is found that they could have diverse grammatical functions such as subject, complement, and adjunct, and various meanings other than `purpose.` These findings are against Jespersen`s (1909-49, Ⅴ) and Mustanoja`s (1960) arguments that the for-to-Ⅴ construction originally expressed `purpose.`

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.