Cover not available

In:Boundaries, Phases and Interfaces: Case studies in honor of Violeta Demonte
Edited by Olga Fernández-Soriano, Elena Castroviejo Miró and Isabel Pérez-Jiménez
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 239] 2017
► pp. 255–276

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

On the de se reading in the de se center shift in Korean

An account based on logophoric binding

 | Seoul National University
 | Hongik University
Published online: 14 June 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.239.12hoe
Korean long-distance anaphor (LDA) caki is obligatorily interpreted as de se: the attitude holder should know that the reference of caki is himself/herself. However, this restriction can be obviated when the Korean direct perceptive evidential marker –te is used. In this case, caki can be used as far as the evidence holder indicated by –te knows that the reference of caki is the attitude holder himself/herself, even when the attitude holder does not know that (Lim 2012, 2014; Lim & Lee 2012; Lim & Hoe to appear, among others). In this paper we call this puzzle de se center shift, and argue that the de se center shift in Korean should be analyzed in terms of the binding relation between an operator and caki. We also present some evidence that this puzzle should not be analyzed in terms of a pragmatically motivated binding relation, such as empathic binding and/or indirect de se (such as what is argued for Chinese ziji in Wang & Pan 2014, 2015, among others). Finally, we discuss some theoretical implications of our proposal, especially regarding the interaction between –te and different types of attitude predicates.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Puzzle
  • 3.LDA caki is a logophor
  • 4.Analysis: The structure of logophors and and the OP binding of them
    • 4.1The nature of the obligatory de se in a logophoric binding
    • 4.2Proposal
  • 5.Comparison with other accounts
    • 5.1Empathic binding and de re reading
    • 5.2Indirect de se
    • 5.3 De se center shift is not an instance of indirect de se
  • 6.Theoretical implementations
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (37)
References
Anand, Pranav. 2006. De De Se. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. The cross-linguistic manifestations of de se expressions. Handout in Arche/CSMN Mini-course & Workshop: De Se Attitudes CSMN , University of Oslo, Oslo: Jun 9, 2010.
Anand, Pranav & Hacquard, Valentine. 2013. Epistemics and attitudes. Semantics and Pragmatics 6: 1–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1989. Anaphora and attitudes de se . In Language in context, Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem & Peter van Emde Boas (eds), 1–32. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chung, Kyung-Sook. 2007. Spatial deictic tense and evidentials in Korean. Natural Language Semantics 15: 187–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crnič, Luka. 2014. Pragmatics of epistemics in attitudes: A reply to Anand & Hacquard (2013). Ms, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai & Gillies, Anthony S. 2011. Might made right. In Epistemic modality, Andy Egan & Brian Weatherson (eds), 108–130. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine. 2006. Aspects of modality. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Hoe, Semoon. 2013. On the 1st/2nd person restriction of Korean anaphor caki and its implications. To appear at Proceedings of the 49th Chicago Linguistic Society . Chicago IL: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.
Huang, C.-T. James & Liu, C.-S. Luther. 2001. Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. In Long Distance Reflexives [Syntax and Semantics 33], Peter Cole, C.-T. James Huang & Gabrielle Hermon (eds), 141–195. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1969. Quantifying in. Synthese 19: 178–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu & Kaburaki, Etsuko. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4): 625–672.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2015. A Two-Tired Theory of Control. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Jungmee. 2013. Temporal constraints on the meaning of evidentiality. Natural Language Semantics 21: 1–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. Attitudes de dicto and de se . The Philosophical Review 88(4): 513–543. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lim, Dongsik. 2010. Evidentials and Interrogatives: A Case Study from Korean. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Korean evidential -te-: Inference from direct evidence. In Coyote Papers 20: Working Papers in Linguistics, Jaehoon Choi, E. Alan Hogue, Jeffrey Punske, Deniz Ta, Jessamyn Schertz & Alex Trueman (eds), 64–72. Tucson AZ: University of Arizona.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Temporal and inferential interpretation of Korean direct evidential -te-. In Proceedings of the 47th Chicago Linguistic Society, 183–197. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lim, Dongsik & Hoe, Semoon. To appear. The complement types of attitudes and de se: Focusing on de se center Shift in Korean. In Proceedings of Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics 10 [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics]. Cambridge MA: Department of Linguistics, MIT.
Lim, Dongsik & Lee, Chungmin. 2012. Perspective shifts of Korean evidentials and the effect of contexts. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 22, Anca Chereches (ed.), 26–42. Ithaca NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maier, Emar. 2009. Proper names and indexicals trigger rigid presuppositions. Journal of Semantics 26: 253–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nishigauchi, Taisuke. 2013. Reflexive binding: Awareness and empathy from a syntactic point of view. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 23: 157–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oshima, David Y. 2006. Perspectives in Reported Discourse. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pearson, Hazel. 2015. The interpretation of the logophoric pronoun in Ewe. Natural Language and Semantics 23: 77–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Percus, Orin & Sauerland, Uli. 2003. On the LFs of attitude reports. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 7, Matthias Weisgerber (ed.), 228–242. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Xue, Ping. 2001. Syntactic and non-syntactic constraints on long-distance binding. In Long-Distance Reflexives [Syntax and Semantics 33], Peter Cole, C.-T. James Huang & Gabrielle Hermon (eds), 317–342. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schlenker, Philippe. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 29–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 445–479.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharvit, Yael. 2011. Covaluation and Unexpected BT Effect. Journal of Semantics 28: 55–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. Towards a subjective theory of meaning. PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Tenny, L. Carol. 2006. Evidentiality, experiencers, and the syntax of sentience in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 245–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Yingying & Pan, Haihua. 2014. A note on the non-de se interpretation of attitude reports. Language 90-3: 746–754. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Yingying & Haihua Pan. 2015. Empathy and Chinese long-distance reflexive ziji—Remarks on Giorgi (2006, 2007). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 33(1): 307–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yalcin, Seth. 2008. Modality and Inquiry. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yanovich, Igor. 2013. Standard contextualism strikes back. Journal of Semantics 31: 67–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoon, Jeong-Me. 1989. Long-distance anaphors in Korean and their crosslinguistic implications. In Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Society 25: General Session. 479–495. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue