Formal/Syntax

Since the important work of Pollard Sag (1992), we know that even languages that lack genuine long-distance anaphors (LDAs) still allow local anaphors to be bound long-distance (LD) as exempt anaphors. For example, an English anaphor lacking a locally accessible antecedent – either because there is none (cf.1a) or because the local antecedent cannot be the actual antecedent (cf. 1b) – behaves as an exempt anaphor in English. (1) a. Bill remembered that the Times had printed [a picture of himself] in its Sunday edition b. Bill was worried about [the administration’s opinion of himself] Since unlike English, Korean possesses both local (caki-casin, pronoun-casin) and LD anaphors (caki, casin), the possibility arises that speakers of Korean would simply reject a local anaphor bound outside its GC, resorting to LDAs instead. This possibility is especially likely since some hold that all LDAs are logophors (Y. Huang 1994). The present study investigated whether and how Korean monolingual speakers accept long-distance binding of Korean local anaphor caki-casin. Monolingual speakers of Korean were tested on different types of sentences where caki-casin was forced to bypass the local antecedent in favor of a LD-antecedent – in violation of both the Tensed-S Condition (TSC) and the Specified Subject Condition (SSC)—a