Self Intensification and Focus Interpretation

Kjell Johan Sæbø

doi:10.5617/osla.8

Abstract

Standardly (Safir, 2004), the “complex reflexive'' SIG+SELF in Dutch or Scandinavian is treated as a special species of anaphora, stronger than SIG alone. This approach has a number of disadvantages, descriptive and theoretical. Theoretically, it is desirable to treat SELF the same as when it modifies another element. Bergeton (2004) argues that a uniform analysis of SELF as an intensifier is feasible and that the descriptive shortcomings of standard treatments can be overcome if intensification is severed from binding (SIG). However, his account is incomplete in a few regards. Building on a formal theory of focus (Rooth, 1992), I show that the distribution of simple and complex reflexives -- almost complementary in Dutch and Scandinavian, freer in German -- can be more fully explained on the basis of a theory of intensification (Eckardt, 2001) supplemented by Bidirectional OT (Blutner, 1998-06).

Highlights

[1] A number of languages have both “true” and “false” reflexives (Bouchard 1984), or both and anaphors (Reinhart and Reuland 1993), serving different functions; there are predicates where only the former can occur
Bergeton can answer why sig is preferred over sig selv in cases like (2) and (3) but sig selv is good in cases like (1), but not really why sig selv is preferred over sig – that is, why the intensifier is necessary – in cases like (1)
[2.1] Three Theories According to Hellan, the near complementary distribution of seg and seg selv, as witnessed by (1)–(4), results from a division of labour between seg and selv: The former indicates binding, while the latter encodes

Summary

Introduction

[1] A number of languages have both “true” and “false” reflexives (Bouchard 1984), or both and anaphors (Reinhart and Reuland 1993), serving different functions; there are predicates where only the former can occur. The theory predicts that + forms can be ‘long-distance’ bindees; Bergeton contests the traditional notion that when a language has both simplex and complex reflexives and both local and non-local binding, it is the former that are non-locally bound –“Pica’s generalization” (Pica 1985), cf (13), maintaining that intensification is independent of binding and that the distribution of follows basically the same semantic-pragmatic pattern in non-local as in local environments: when the context offers alternatives with which the bindee is explicitly contrasted, as in (14) or (15), sig selv is possible: (13) Sjeherasadi ba Dunjasad hjelpe [seg (# selv)]i.

Results

Conclusion