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.