Copied Plural Marker Tul Behaves like English Anaphors

Abstract

I critically review Moons (1995) claim that the copied plural marker (CPM) -tul behaves like Korean anaphors and is subject to Principle A in the sense that as the binding domain for Korean anaphors is extended when logophoricity is involved, so is the licensing domain for the CPM in the same context. The CPM shares some anaphoric properties with the English anaphor with respect to the strict locality condition, also showing that both are locally licensed by the empty categories such as PRO or pro in the same way. The anaphor in the Korean bi-clausal structure can be locally or long-distance bound to the antecedent, depending on the types and morphological properties of the predicates. On the other hand, the CPM must be locally bound, irrespective of the types and morphological properties of the predicates. The analysis of the CPM licensing structure in terms of English anaphoric relation is appealing since it explains why a c-commanding distributive argument is only responsible for the local occurrence of the CPM, as if the English anaphor obeyed Principle A.