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 non-juxtaposed use (e.g. John [came HIMSELF]). This differentiation allows us to reconsider a number of issues relating to the synchronic and diachronic relationship between SELFintensifiers 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 non-juxtaposed 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 non-juxtaposed 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 non-juxtaposed, rather than adnominal, intensifiers. Moreover, reflexive markers often form part of a strategy of SELFintensification, which entails that the reflexives are older than the resulting intensifiers.

The French reflexive and reciprocal se

“…However, lui-même may also be an actor-oriented adjunct of the type illustrated earlier in (35). Agent-oriented adjunct reflexives like lui-même overtly oppose the actor with other potential actors (Gast and Siemund, 2006). This is not the natural interpretation of (74a), but, sentences similar to it allow the agent-oriented interpretation.…”

“…Lui-même in the above sentences is not to be confused with the use exemplified in (35) where the pronoun 1) occupies a non-argumental position; 2) is an 'actor-oriented intensifier' that explicitly emphasises the subject and contrasts it with possible alternative actors (Rooryck and Vanden Wyngaerd, 1999a;Gast and Siemund, 2006 By contrast, in (33a)-(34a,b), lui-même 1) occupies an argumental position and 2) introduces object contrast. Semantically, the reflexive pronoun lui-même in these examples, is not actor-oriented, but it serves to contrast the object with possible alternatives.…”

Evoluția descendenților lui ipse în limba română

“…Din punct de vedere tipologic, limbile diferă în funcție de modul în care exprimă semnificația reflexivă și pe cea de intensificare (Gast & Siemund, 2006): tipul sincretic, în care reflexivul și intensificatorul au aceeași formă (engleza, de pildă) și tipul nonsincretic, în care reflexivul și intensificatorul au forme diferite (limbile romanice, germana, limbile slave, de exemplu). Latina aparținea tipului nonsincretic, deși în latina tîrzie ipse era uneori folosit și ca reflexiv.…”

The descendants of Lat. ipse in Romanian

“…From a typological perspective, languages display differences in expressing the reflexive and the intensification meanings (Gast & Siemund, 2006): in what might be called the "syncretic language type", the reflexive and the intensifier have the same form (in English, for example); in what might be called "the non-syncretic language type", the reflexive and the intensifier have different forms (in German, the Romance languages, the Slavic languages, among others). Latin pertained to the non-syncretic type, although in late Latin ipse was sometimes used instead of a reflexive pronoun.…”