The So-called SELF Anaphor

Abstract

The So-called SELF AnaphorKang, Nam-KilThis paper is devoted to characterizing the so-called Korean SELF anaphor. For this, I have delved into semantic differences between caki and caki-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.