This article investigates the binding properties of the Korean reflexive caki. Korean caki allows a local antecedent, a long-distance sentence-internal antecedent, and (unusually) an extrasentential antecedent. Two experiments were conducted with Korean-speaking child participants (mean age = 5;8; age range = 5;1–6;4) and adult controls. The first tested local binding versus long-distance intrasentential binding, and the second tested extrasentential binding. The results show, first, that the children allowed both a local and a long-distance antecedent for caki, with a preference for the long-distance reading (counter to many claims that children show a robust preference for local antecedents crosslinguistically). Second, the children allowed caki to refer to an antecedent in a preceding sentence. These results indicate that, at an early stage, Korean children have acquired adult-like knowledge of the complex properties of caki, including what might be considered the computationally taxing option of extrasentential binding.
BerwickR. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
BickertonD. (1987). He himself: Anaphor, pronoun. . .or? Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 345–348.
3.
ChienY.-C.WexlerK. (1991). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225–295.
4.
ChienY.-C.WexlerK.ChangH. W. (1993). Children’s development of long-distance binding in Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2, 229–259.
5.
ChoS. W. (1996, January4–7). Caki ‘self’ as a nominal anaphor and locally free pronoun in Korean. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Convention of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, CA.
6.
ChoiK.-I.KimY.-J. (2007). Caykwitaymyengsa-uy tauyseng hayso-kwaceng: ankwuwuntong pwunsek [Ambiguity resolution processes of reflexives: Eye-tracking data]. The Korean Journal of Experimental Psychology, 19, 263–277.
7.
ChomskyN. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
ClacksonK.FelserC.ClahsenH. (2011). Children’s processing of reflexives and pronouns in English: Evidence from eye-movements during listening. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 128–144.
9.
ConroyA.TakahashiE.LidzJ.PhillipsC. (2009). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 446–486.
10.
CrainS.ThorntonR. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to experiments in the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
GillK.-H. (1999). The long-distance anaphora conspiracy: The case of Korean. University of PennsylvaniaWorking Papers in Linguistics, 6(1), 171–183.
12.
GoodluckH. (1987). Children’s interpretation of pronouns and null NPs: An alternative view. In LustB. (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora, Vol. 2: Applying the constraints (pp. 247–269). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
13.
GoodluckH. (1990). Knowledge integration in processing and acquisition: Comments on Grimshaw and Rosen. In FrazierL.de VilliersJ. G. (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 369–382). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
14.
GriceH. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In ColeP.MorganJ. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
15.
HanC.-H.StoroshenkoD. R. (2012). Semantic binding of long-distance anaphor caki in Korean. Language, 88, 764–790.
16.
HuangC.-T. J. (1984). On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Theory, 15, 531–573.
17.
HyamsN.SigurjónsdóttirS. (1990). The development of long-distance anaphora. Language Acquisition, 1, 57–93.
18.
JakubowiczC. (1984). On markedness and binding principles. In KadowakiM.KawaharaS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society (Vol. 14, pp. 154–182). Amherst, MA: GLSA (Graduate Linguistic Student Association).
19.
JakubowiczC.OlsenL. (1988, October21–23). Reflexive anaphors and pronouns in Danish: Syntax and acquisition.Paper presented at the 13th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
20.
KangB.-M. (1988). Unbounded reflexives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 415–456.
21.
KangB.-M. (1998). Mwunpep-kwa ene sayong: Khophes-ey kipanhan caykwisa ‘caki’, ‘casin’, ‘caki-casin’-uy kinung pwunsek-ul cwungsim-ulo [Grammar and the use of language: Korean reflexives ‘caki’, ‘casin’, and ‘caki-casin’]. Journal of Korean Linguistics, 31, 165–204.
22.
KimS.O’GradyW.ChoS. (1995). The acquisition of case and word order in Korean: A note on the role of context. Language Research, 31, 687–695.
23.
KwonN.SturtP. (2013). Null pronominal (pro) resolution in Korean, a discourse-oriented language. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 377–387.
24.
LeeE. (2017). Long distance anaphora caki in Korean. Linguistic Analysis, 41, 99–126.
25.
LeeH. (1990). Logical relations in the child’s grammar: Relative scope, bound variables, and long distance binding in Korean (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Irvine.
26.
LeeH.WexlerK. (1987). The acquisition of reflexives and pronouns in Korean: From a cross-linguistic perspective. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
27.
LeeH. S. (1987). Pronominal anaphors and binding domain: With reference to a quasi-reflexive caki in Korean. Ms., University of California at Los Angeles.
28.
MacWhinneyB. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
OkabeR. (2008). Child causatives: Acquisition of bi-clausal structures in Japanese (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Los Angeles.
30.
OtsuY. (1981). Universal Grammar and syntactic development in children: Toward a theory of syntactic development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
31.
OtsuY. (1994). Early acquisition of scrambling in Japanese. In HoekstraT.SchwartzB. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 253–264). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
32.
PicaP. (1987). On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. In McDonoughJ.PlunketB. (Eds.). Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society (Vol. 17, pp. 483–499). Amherst, MA: GLSA (Graduate Linguistic Student Association).
33.
ReinhartT. (2006). Interface strategies: Reference-set computation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
ReulandE. (2011). Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
RyuJ.HorieK.ShiraiY. (2015). Acquisition of the Korean imperfective aspect markers -ko iss- and -a iss- by Japanese learners: A multiple factor account. Language Learning, 65, 791–823.
36.
SekerinaI.StromswoldK.HestvikA. (2004). How do adults and children process referentially ambiguous pronouns?Journal of Child Language, 31, 123–152.
37.
SellsP. (1987). Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 445–479.
38.
SigurjónsdóttirS. (1992). Binding in Icelandic: Evidence from language acquisition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Los Angeles.
39.
SongH.FisherC. (2005). Who’s “she”? Discourse structure influences preschoolers’ pronoun interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 29–57.
40.
TrueswellJ.SekerinaI.HillN.LogripM. (1999). The kindergarten path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89–134.
41.
WexlerK.ManziniR. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In RoeperT.WilliamsE. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41–76). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
