The So-called SELF Anaphor

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper is devoted to characterizing the so-called Korean SELF anaphor. For this, I have delved into semantic differences between caki and coki-casin, using the notions of a reflexivizer and the domain of reflexivity. More simply put, I have argued that caki-casin is interpreted as anaphoric reference. In contrast, when local caki occurs in the domain of reflexivity for a predicate, it induces coreference. On the other hand, when caki occurs outside the domain of reflexivity of a predicate, however, it is interpreted as anaphoric reference. Consequently, caki-casin is a true SELF anaphor and it bears the ability to reflexivize a predicate.
When an NP occurs as the antecedent of local caki, the linguistic antecedent is presumably favored over the hearer as the referent of caki. Nonetheless, a replacement of antecedents by a QP or a conjunct NP produces a reversed result. On the other hand, the hearer cannot be the referent of caki-casin: This is predicted, given the hypothesis that caki-casin is a SELF anaphor.
Korean caki reveals a preference interpretation when there is more than one potential binder. I have accounted for such a fact by assuming a distinction between anaphoric reference and coreference.
Finally, SELF anaphors, besides being used as a reflexivizer, can also be used as a logophor. More specifically, argument SELFs function as a reflexivizer, whereas non-argument SELFs function as logophor. Korean caki-casin and caki like English SELF anaphor himself can be used as a logophor. Yet, caki-casin cannot take a discourse participant as its referent. I have attributed this phenomenon to the lack of phi-features and U-features in caki-casin. To simply put it, it is likely that the lack of phi-features and U-features in caki-casin doesn't make the hearer accessible to it.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. Introduction
• Ⅱ. Three Diagnoses
• Ⅲ. On the Reference of Anaphors
• Ⅳ. A Semantic Difference: A Logophor
• Ⅴ. Conclusion
• Works Cited
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 Hoji, H, "Sloppy Identity and Formal Dependency" 15 : 209-223, 1997
• 2 "Reflexivity in Japanese and LF Analysis of zibun Binding" State University. 1993
• 3 Annali di Ca’ Foscari 27, "On the varieties of Cross-Reference T In GLOW X Proceedings" 123-142, 1987
• 4 Kang, Nam-Kil, "On the Referential Distinction of Anaphors" 47 : 1-14, 2005
• 5 After Binding, "On the Interpretation of Pronoun" 1984
• 6 Chomsky,N, "Lectures on Government and Binding" Foris 1981
• 7 "Demonstratives, Bound Variables, and Reconstruction Effects" 1999
• 8 Richards, N, "Competition and Disjoint Reference" 28 : 178-187, 1997
• 9 Koster, J, "Anaphora and the Uniformity of Grammar" 235-254, 1997
• 10 Reinhart,T, "Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation" Croom Helm 1983
• 11 Heim, "A Reinterpretation of Reinhart’s Approach" 1992