Modals and Anaphors in Korean
In this paper, we investigate Korean modals such as su isse, keta and ci. We assume that suisse is an epistemic possibility operator and keta is an epistemic necessity operator and ci and keyssci are both evidentials. Asher and McCready (2005)  offered an account of the discourse behavior of Japanese epistemic modal/evidential, focusing on the phenomenon of modal subordination (Roberts 1989) . In this paper, too, focus on modal subordination to help analyze the Korean modal system. This article is concerned with the theory of anaphoric relations involving pronouns. Our main interest is to show that this theory amounts solely to a theory of the conditions under which pronouns and their antecedents can, must, or cannot be identified.
KeywordsRelative Clause Discourse Structure Embed Clause Tense Operator Discourse Marker
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
- 2.Asher, N., McCready, E.: Modals, emotives, and modal subordination. In: The proceedings of Chronos, vol. 7 (to appear, 2005)Google Scholar
- 3.Faller, M.: Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in cuzco quechua. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University (2002)Google Scholar
- 4.Kratzer, A.: More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses. In: SALT (1998)Google Scholar
- 5.Lee, S.H., Byron, D.: Semantic resolution of zero and pronoun anaphors in korean. In: The 5th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphora Resolution Colloquium (2004)Google Scholar
- 6.Lee, H.w.: Towards an optimal theory of referential dependency. ms (1999)Google Scholar
- 7.Lyons, J.: Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1977)Google Scholar
- 8.Nam, K., Ko, Y.G.: Standard Korean Grammar. Top Press (1985)Google Scholar
- 9.Palmer, F.R.: Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
- 10.Li Papafragou, A.P.: Evidential morphology and theory of mind. In: Proceedings from the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (2002)Google Scholar