(1) 분할마를 심은지 30일 후에 3, 5, 7, 9, 12g씩 분할한 절편의 발아율은 60.3, 80.5, 85.3, 98.6 및 99.3%를 나타냈다. (2) 하우스재배에서 분할 절편에 따른 괴경 비대는 3, 5, 7, 9, 12g에서 66, 87, 98, 120, 140g을 나타냈다. (3) 노지재배에서 분할 절편에 따른 괴경 비대는 3, 7, 12, 18, 23g에서 35.2, 124.7, 142.7, 174.8, 200,7g을 나타냈다.

Park Boon-Joo. 1999. The Syntactic Category of Small Clause. Studies in Modern Grammar 16, 181-198. This paper shows briefly some kinds of small clause syntactic categories that is, S category in Chomsky (1981) and Rothestein (1983), S` category in Kitagawa (1985), INFL` category in Homtstein & Lightfoot (1987), IP category and PrP category in Bowerss (1993). Among these I take the PrP category of Bowers (1993) and show the advantages and evidences of this category. The advantages of this category are i) it gives the uniform structural definition to the definition of external argument and predication relation for the SC and main clause. ii) it solves the problem of finding an appropriate dominating node for SC constructions within the framework of X-bar theory. iii) it can make keep the uniform in X` theory. iv) it solves the `as` in SC. And this category has evidences in coordination structure and the positions of adverbs. Finally I try to find Korean small clauses and analyse according to the types of predicates to clarify the syntactic and semantic properties different from English SC. I include these properties and applied PrP category to Korean SC.

Im Che-Gong. 1996. The Sbructure of Small Clause and Control. Studies in Modern Grammatical Theories 8: 153-180. There are various proposals regarding the proper analysis of the structure of small clauses(SCs): Chomsky(1981)`s dichotomy depends on his θ-Theory, Stowell(1983)`s analysis rests on X`-scheme and Government Principle and Rothstein(1983)`s proposal is based on Predication Theory. But none of them are without problems. I shall try to show in this article that SCs have the same structure with Double Object Constructions and some Control Structures. I assume Binary Branching suggested in Kayne(1984), VP Internal Subject Hypothesis suggested by many linguists, Larson(1988)`s VP-Shell Structure and his version of Minimal Distance Principle originally suggested in Rosenbaum(1970). I also adopt the structure for SCs suggested in Bowers(1993) and modify it to develop a general theory of Transitive Verb Structure. My suggestions are the following: 1) SCs are contained in the VP-Shell Structure like [vp NP [v` V(e) [vp NP(e) [v` V (NP)]]]] at D-level 2) TV(transitive verb) + C(complement) is compositionally predicated of an SS (secondary subject(object)) and TVC + SS is predicated of a PS(primary subject) 3) An SS (object/theme) can be passivized, but a complement(goal, source/dative) can`t unless it is raised to SS position by Dative Shift 4) There is no structural difference between Complement SCs and Adjunct SCs except the position of the maximal projection of secondary predicate, which depends on the position of its subject 5) Secondary predicate has PRO as its subject, which is controlled by revised version of MDP 6) The structure suggested here observes the Thematic Hierarchy (Agent > Theme > Goal(Source)) and Binding Principle.