Self Intensification and Focus Interpretation

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kjell Johan Sæbø
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Oslo 2009-01-01
Series:Oslo Studies in Language
Online Access:https://journals.uio.no/osla/article/view/8
id doaj-bf412f92ce1f40bba4637da4fbab319f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-bf412f92ce1f40bba4637da4fbab319f2020-11-25T03:42:57ZengUniversity of OsloOslo Studies in Language1890-96392009-01-011110.5617/osla.8Self Intensification and Focus InterpretationKjell Johan Sæbø0University of OsloStandardly (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).https://journals.uio.no/osla/article/view/8
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kjell Johan Sæbø
spellingShingle Kjell Johan Sæbø
Self Intensification and Focus Interpretation
Oslo Studies in Language
author_facet Kjell Johan Sæbø
author_sort Kjell Johan Sæbø
title Self Intensification and Focus Interpretation
title_short Self Intensification and Focus Interpretation
title_full Self Intensification and Focus Interpretation
title_fullStr Self Intensification and Focus Interpretation
title_full_unstemmed Self Intensification and Focus Interpretation
title_sort self intensification and focus interpretation
publisher University of Oslo
series Oslo Studies in Language
issn 1890-9639
publishDate 2009-01-01
description 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).
url https://journals.uio.no/osla/article/view/8
work_keys_str_mv AT kjelljohansæbø selfintensificationandfocusinterpretation
_version_ 1724522405903204352