Rethinking the relationship between SELF-intensifiers and reflexives

Abstract

Recent studies into the syntax and semantics of intensifying self-forms (e.g. [John himself ] came) have shown that a distinction needs to be drawn between two uses of such expressions: a juxtaposed or adnominal use (cf. above), and a nonjuxtaposed use (e.g. John [came himself ]). This differentiation allows us to reconsider a number of issues relating to the synchronic and diachronic relationship between SELF-intensifiers and reflexive anaphors. Assessing relevant cross linguistic data against the background of the aforementioned distinction reveals a surprising fact: patterns of “formal relatedness” suggest a particularly strong empirical as well as conceptual tie-up between reflexives and SELF-intensifiers in their nonjuxtaposed rather than adnominal use. This is remarkable because it has generally been assumed that it is always the adnominal SELF-intensifier which gives rise to the development of reflexive markers. In the light of our cross linguistic findings, we explore the synchronic and diachronic relationship between reflexives and SELF-intensifiers in their nonjuxtaposed use. We argue that the picture of a (unidirectional) development from adnominal SELF-intensifiers to reflexives needs to be modified insofar as reflexive markers often develop from nonjuxtaposed, rather than adnominal, intensi.ers. Moreover, reflexive markers often form part of a strategy of SELF-intensification, which entails that the reflexives are older than the resulting intensifiers.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 45 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.