The purpose of this paper is to establish right directions for future researches in Korean morphology and syntax, through a critical examination and appraisal of past and current researches in these areas. Chapter 2 deals with Korean morphology while chapter 3 concentrated on problems in Korean syntax. The main points can be summed up as follows. (1) Researches on Korean morphology With regard to areas of investigation, it was pointed out that a balanced research of both morphology and syntax is necessary. The tendency for the research concentrated in one area to neglect the research of another area was pointed out. In particular, the predominance of syntactic research over morphological research needs to be remedied. Within morphology, the need for a balanced perspective also exists. Current research is concentrated on word-formation to the exclusion of detailed studies on inflection. The imbalance needs to be remedied as well. The following points were made with regard to research methodology in Korean morphological studies. First, it goes without saying the current research builds on and improves the results of past research. Therefore, just as it is important for current research to be creative and innovative, it needs to be founded solidly on past achievements. Secondly, modem linguistics is based on rationalism to the almost total exclusion of empiricism. However, the time has come for a research methodology that synthesizes these two trends. Detailed and logical descriptions of the linguistic phenomena of Korean based on careful empirical observations are called for. Thirdly, current research emphasizes the autonomy of sub-disciplines of linguistics, with the result that each sub-discipline has pursued research according to its own methods and philosophies. It is time for an integrated approach to language to take the place of such fragmented methodology. Fourthly, the undue emphasis on synchronic studies must be altered. Proper attention needs to be paid to the diachronic aspects of language. (2) Researches on Korean syntax As is well known, it is not surprising that syntactic studies in Korea during last fifty years or so have followed the guidelines of structural and/or generative linguistics. Sometimes we have seen great achievements attaind by applying the related methodology to the raw materials in the language. However, it may well be pointed out that they have been misguided by some wrong assumptions about the real nature of language and the task of syntactic theory. Regretfully, the theory-oriented approaches to syntax often have shown the tendency to overlook the importance of the description of grammatical relations. Here we focused our attention on two insufficiencies which are explicitly or implicitly involved in syntactic theories and practices. One is related to the destruction of the lexical item which may well be called "Lexical Destruction," the other is related to the wrong categorization of syntactic constituents. One example of Lexical Destruction (=LD) is found in Chomsky (1994). In that work, English demonstrative pronoun this and that is decomposed into th- and -is or -at, which is nothing but a wild LD. This move has the purpose to satisfy the Kayne`s (1993) hypothesis of Linear Correspondance Axiom which relates linear ordering of syntactic constituents to c-command configuration. However, this kind of destruction cannot be justified, simply because it is not the syntactic analysis. The generative semantic attempt to decompose a set of causative verbs into their semantic primitives would be a classical example of LD. LD could also be found in the attitude of treating causative or passive suffixes in Korean as an independent syntactic units. Presumably, LI) might be seen to have the motive to handle the linguistic data as one pleases. It is clear that in the course of LD, the lexical items are apt to lose their inherent lexical properties and idiosyncrasies. In this connection, it is noted that in Korean syntax the lexical-formative ani- and -hata involved in the negative predicate anilvta should not be treated separately. It is because that the -ci ending which appears with the preceding verbal stem in the long form negative constructions in Korean can be explained to be needed by only the existence of the whole lexical item anihata. On the other hand, wrong categorizations of syntactic constituents are another source of deficiencies in current syntactic theories and in practical analyses. One example is the DP (=Determiner Phrase) category as is set up in Abney (1987) or Chomsky (1995), which replaces the old NP category. DP category cannot be borne out in the light of Case facts. Consider the case of possessive DP which receives nominative case from somewhere. Since the head of possessive DP has already genitive case, there can never be added another case to the existing genitive head. Number facts show similar difficulties. Case fact is more crucial than this. The category of "AGR(Agreement)" as is not rarely postulated in GB (or Principles and Parameters) approaches to Korean syntax is another example of wrong categorization. The honorific suffix -si- in Korean is claimed to fall under that category. However, the suffix -si- cannot be identified as the element to be used to honor the person(s) who appear(s) in the subject position. The function of the suffix -si- is roughly identified as the element to be used to honor the major Experiencer. Another example of wrong categorization is the so-called "predicate clause" as is often set up in the Korean syntax, which indicates the construction "second subject plus predicate" in the so-called double subject constructions. Since the term "predicate" is familar to us, it is easy to believe that category real or at least not implausible. But there can never be such a category. The structure of