Rethinking the relationship between Self-intensifiers and reflexives

Datos Bibliográficos

ID3987487
AutoresVolker Gast (0000-0002-3034-0052), Peter Siemund (0000-0002-8995-5182)
Año2006
Volumen44
Número2
Fecha de publicación2006-01-20
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaLinguistics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0024-3949 • E-ISSN: 1613-396X
EditorialWalter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1515/ling.2006.013
OpenAlexW1964225596
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas8
Referencias citadas24

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 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 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

Grammaticalization · Linguistics · Reflexive pronoun · Reflexivity · Sociology · Syntax · History · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Linguistics and Discourse Analysis · Philosophy · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation