오대산국립공원의 고등균류 다양성 및 분포 특성을 시기별, 고도별, 임상별로 조사하여 비교하였다. 오대산국립공원 내 계방산, 소금강, 월정사지 구 일대에 임상별 6개씩 총 18개의 고정조사구에서 고등균류를 채집한 결과, 542점의 표본을 채집하였으며, 동정한 결과 81속, 256종으로 확인되었 고 최신분류체계로 분류한 결과 2문, 6강, 19목, 56과로 확인되었다. 부생성 균류가 62.9 %로 가장 높은 비율을 보였으며, 다음으로는 공생성 균류 36.2 % 기생성 균류 0.9 % 순으로 조사되었고, 우점종은 맑은애주름버섯(Mycena pura)과 굽은꽃애기버섯(Gymnopus dryophilus)으로 확인되었다. 해발고도에 따른 고등균류의 분포는 200∼677 m 조사구에서 109종, 700∼999 m에서 109종, 1000∼1400 m에서 118종이 조사되었 으며, 채집 시기별 고등균류의 분포는 9월에 132종으로 가장 많이 조사되었고, 6월 33종, 7월 75종, 8월 99종으로 조사되었다. 임상별로는 혼효림에서 124종, 활엽수림 121종, 침엽수림에서 가장 낮은 105종이 조사되었다. 고도별, 시기별, 임상별 모두 부생성 균류가 가장 높은 비율로 분포하였다. 종다양도는 9월에 2.00, 혼효림에서 2.04로 가장 높았고, 고도별로는 유사한 종다양도를 나타냈다(1.93∼1.99). 종 균등도는 고도별, 시기별, 임상별로 비슷한 수준을 나타냈다(0.94∼0.97). 공통 발생 종은 모든 시기에 2종, 전체 고도에서 7종, 침엽수, 활엽수, 혼효림에서 14종이 확인되었다.

Ahn and Cho (2011) suggest that Caseless fragments are just CPs directly dominating nonsentential NPs. The analysis of Caseless fragments in Korean raises non-trivial problems in three phenomena: P-stranding, quantifier scope, and anaphoric binding. Merchant (2004) argues that fragments and their sentential correlates show parallelism with respect to P-stranding. Interestingly, in Korean, P-stranding is allowed in fragments unlike their sentential correlates. We suggest that the apparent P-stranding is a consequence of the existence of Caseless fragments. Regard- ing scope interaction, Caseless fragments yield only wide scope reading with respect to another scope bearing element. We suggest that it is related to the complex structure of quantifiers put forward in Ahn and Cho (2012b). Following this analysis, quantifier fragments are all analyzed in some sense as Case-marked fragments. Hence, argument quantifier and adjunct quanti- fier can display the same scope patterns. With respect to anaphoric binding, we note that Caseless fragments of anaphors show distribution different from their full sentential correlates in both subject and object positions, which may further support our analysis of Caseless fragments in Korean; namely, Caseless fragments are directly generated as XPs without full sentential structures.

This paper explores a governing condition on the extraction from the NPs. According to Fiengo & Higginbotham (1981), "specificity condition" blocks the extraction from the NPs having `some definite reference.` However, the extraction out of the NPs does not seem to be governed only by the specificity condition. As indicated by Erteschik-Shir (1973) and Horn (1974), the presence of an indefinite determiner in and of itself does not suffice to rule in extraction and the acceptability of extraction also appears to depend to some extent on the choice of verb. The extraction from the NPs seems to depend on the actual interpretation of the NPs rather than on the choice of determiner. In this paper, we present an account of the extractability from the NPs based on the focus property of the NPs. Following Lee (2004), we assume that the focus-marked object remains in situ within VP, whereas the given or presuppositonal material moves out of VP to receive an appropriate interpretation (i.e., specificity, topic, etc.). The NP which has a non-presuppositional or existential reading can be focus- marked. Hence, it remains inside the VP without movement. The extraction from the NP is allowed. By contrast, the non-focus-marked NP raises to the Spec of v to satisfy the EPP of v. The extraction from the moved NPs is blocked.

This paper examines non-default/default case environments in English and explores the nature of default case and its realization mechanism in this language. We advance four claims about the default case licensing mechanism: (ⅰ) The default case mechanism is capitalized on to spell out nominal expressions whose Case feature fails to be valued because of the deficiency of the Case value-licensing head, (ⅱ) Nominal expressions without Case valuation have case form through default case licensing at the morphological/phonological component, (ⅲ) Both Nominative and Accusative case can be default case in English, (ⅳ) The selection of the particular Case value through the default case mechanism depends on several factors such as relative positions of nominal expressions and the invariant strong form constraint (Quinn 2002).