In this paper, a persistent L1 influence on L2 argument structure acquisition is observed in terms of complement and adjunct PPs. Since the distinction between these two PPs in L1 seems not as sharp as in L2, overgeneralization is anticipated in the L2 acquisition due to L1 transfer. Result of an experimental study shows that Korean learners of English do not successfully acquire L2 verb meanings as to which locative PP is obligatory and which is not. Generally, learners transfer the L1 properties when asked to judge grammaticality. Some possible source of constraints in L2 acquisition, such as input frequency and noticing ability is proposed as possible explanations of data. Finally, pedagogical implications in language classroom for vocabulary acquisition are discussed.

Phonologically, the difference between the English stops /b, d, g/ and /p, t, k/ is carried by the presence or the absence of the vocal fold vibration throughout their oral closure phase. If phonology has its foundation in phonetics, there must be phonetic evidence for the voiced-voiceless distinction. This study is aimed to determine whether or not the voiced-voiceless distinction is acceptable or proper in English. The determination was based mainly on findings in the existing literature and in informal experiments. In conclusion, there is no phonetic evidence for the voiced-voiceless distinction both in production and perception. The [voice] appears to be one of potential phonetic correlates of the phonologically voiced stop. It is improper to use the [voice] as independent phonological marker, regardless of position (word-initial, intervocalic, word-final). A feature other than the voiced-voiceless feature must distinguish /b, d, g/ from /p, t, k/.

This paper discusses the nature of the associate NP of English there constructions and attempts to capture the underlying similarity between the associate NP in English and the nominative object in Korean. Specifically, this paper is centered on the Case property of the associate NP. As the first step, previous proposals on the case of the associate NP are critically reviewed. Through the criticism, this paper opposes to Chomsky's (1995, 2000, 2001) analysis and to Lasnik's (1999) partitive Case analysis. In particular, convincing reason for the partitive Case assignment to the associate NP, other than other cases, cannot be found. This paper, therefore, adopts a recent claim of Boeckx (2000) that the Case under consideration is nominative by Agree. His idea is extended to the analysis of the presentational expletive construction. This paper draws a conclusion that the associate NP of the presentational expletive construction has accusative by Agree. This dichotomy (or split) is also observed in the nominative object construction in Korean. In the nominative object construction, the nominative object has nominative Case by Agree, whereas the regular object has accusative by Agree.

This paper aims to review Hammond's (1999) analysis of English word stress and propose an alternative by exploring two questions: Why English words display flexible stress patterns and what are the conditions all English words have to obey. As answers to the questions I propose an invisible suffix after words with final stress, foot structures with two levels, and four constraints, two of them are attained by revision of Hammond's. As long as words satisfy the constraints, more than one foot structures are allowed. That is why the English lexicon displays flexibility.

This paper claims Hale and Keyser's (1992, 1993a, 2001) Lexical Relational Structure (LRS) theory should be slightly extended by allowing the syntactic principles for the “referential” component to apply to the “manner” component. Then, it shows this extension allows us to deal with most of Clark and Clark's (1979) denominal verbs, except that cases like butcher may further demand Hale and Keyser's (2001) p-signature copying treatment. It also argues that this extension is further supported by a more satisfactory treatment of the distribution of non-bridge verbs, and of an asymmetry in ditransitive passives.

Aoun and Li (1989) and Hornstein (1995) suggest that the cross-linguistic contrast in quantifier scope between English and East Asian languages is attributed to the parametric difference in the base subject position, viz. VP-internal position in English and Spec IP in East Asian languages. This paper argues that their suggestion is untenable, and that the cross linguistic contrast in question is due to the parametric difference that English permits and East Asian languages do not permit (overt) object shift.

As far as the recent ELT research concerned, it seems to have been no hot ‘theoretical’ issues, but ‘practical’ ones in general: e.g., learners and learning, components of proficiency, correlates of L2 learning, etc. This paper focuses on the theme given above, with a special reference to the sub-title: specifically, 1) World English, world Englishes and world's lingua franca; 2) ENL, ESL and EFL; 3) Grammars, style manuals, dictionaries and media; 4) Pronunciation models: RP, BBC model and General American, Network Standard; 5) Lexical, grammatical variations and discourse grammars; 6) Beliefs and subjective theories in foreign language research; 7) Dilemma among radical, canonical and eclectic views. In conclusion, the author offers a modest proposal: we need to appeal to our own experience, intention, feeling and purpose, that is, our identity to express “our own selves” in our contexts toward the world anywhere, if not sounding authentic enough, but producing it plausibly well. It is time for us (with our ethno-cultural autonomy) to need to be complementary to and parallel with its native speakers' linguistic-cultural authenticity in terms of the broadest mutual understanding.