Abstract
This paper deals with the syntactic and semantic properties of a specific kind of anaphoric device (AD) in English, instantiated by Prn+SELF lexical items (himself/herself/itself…; ‘SELF’ henceforth), which do not behave like anaphors in the sense of Binding Theory either syntactically or semantically. These devices have received the name of intensives in the grammatical literature (Leskosky 1972; Siemund 2000, among many others). We will look at the syntactic behaviour of so-called intensives in different syntactic contexts, and refine the classification of these ADs taking into consideration (a) how each type of intensive is derived, (b) the kinds of syntactic rules that can affect them, and (c) their meaning.
References
Bach, Emmon. 1970. Problominalization. Linguistic Inquiry 1(1). 121–122.
Baker, Carl Lee. 1995. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71(1). 63–101. DOI: 10.2307/415963
Bickerton, Derek. 1987. He himself: Anaphor, pronoun, or...? Linguistic Inquiry 18(2). 345–348.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. Conditions on transformations. In Noam Chomsky, Essays on form and interpretation. New York, NY: North Holland. 81–160.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, Foris.
Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1994. The theory of principles and parameters. In Noam
Chomsky, The Minimalist Program. 13–127. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262527347.001.0001
Cohen, Ariel. 2001. On the generic use of indefinite singulars. Journal of Semantics 18(3). 183–209. DOI: 10.1093/jos/18.3.183
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22(1). 1–25.
Gast, Volker & Peter Siemund. 2006. Rethinking the relationship between SELF-intensifiers and reflexives. Linguistics 44(2). 343–381. DOI: 10.1515/LING.2006.013
Goodall, Grant. 1984. Parallel structures in syntax. Ph.D. thesis, University of California San Diego.
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Grimshaw, Jane. 2006. Last resorts and grammaticality. In Hans Broekhuis & Ralph Vogel (eds.), Optimality Theory and Minimalism: A possible convergence?, 33–41. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.
Hale, Austin. 1970. Conditions on English comparative clause pairings. In Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar, 30–55. Waltham: Ginn & Co.
Hankamer, Jorge. 1971 Constraints on deletion in syntax. Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University.
Hornstein, Norbert & William Idsardi. 2014. A program for the Minimalist Program. In Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork & Lilia Schürcks (eds.), Minimalism and beyond: Radicalizing the interfaces, 9–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ioup, Georgette. 1977. Specificity and the interpretation of quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(2). 233–245.
König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast. 2002. Reflexive pronouns and other uses of ‘self’-forms in English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 50(3). 225–238.
König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2000. Locally free self-forms, logophoricity, and intensification in English. English Language and Linguistics 4(2). 183–204. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674300000228
Krifka, Manfred, Francis J. Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen, Godehard Link & Gennaro Chierchia. 1995. Genericity: An introduction. In Gregory Carlson & Francis Pelletier (eds.), The generic book, 1–124. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Krivochen, Diego Gabriel. 2015. On Phrase Structure building and labelling algorithms: Towards a non-uniform theory of syntactic structures. The Linguistic Review 32(3). 515–572. DOI: 10.1515/tlr-2014-0030
Krivochen, Diego Gabriel. 2017. Syntax as graph theory. https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003842
Kroch, Anthony S. & Aravind K. Joshi. 1987. Analyzing extraposition in tree adjoining grammar. In Geoffrey J. Huck & Almerindo E. Ojeda (eds.), Syntax and semantics 20: Discontinuous constituency, 107–151. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Ladusaw, William A. 1980. Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Bloomington, IN: University of Iowa, Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Lakoff, George. 1965. On the nature of syntactic iIrregularity. Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University.
Lasnik, Howard. 2011. What kind of computing device is the human language faculty? In Anna Maria Di Sciullo & Cedric Boeckx (eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty, 354-365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lees, Robert B. & Edward S. Klima. 1963. Rules for English pronominalization. Language 39(1). 17–28. DOI: 10.2307/410759
Leskosky, Richard J. 1972. Intensive reflexives. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 2(1). 42–65.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27(1). 107–161.
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McCawley, James D. 1998, The syntactic phenomena of English. (2nd edn) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Postal, Paul M. 1969. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In David Reibel & Sanford Schane (eds.), Modern studies in English: Readings in transformational grammar, 201–224. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
Reuland, Eric & Tanya Reinhart. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 23(4). 657–720.
Roberts, Craige. 2003. Uniqueness in definite noun phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 26(3). 287–350.
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. Thesis, MIT.
Ross, John Robert. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. In William Todd, (ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics, 77–102. Evanstown, IL: Great Expectations.
Ross, John Robert. 1970. Gapping and the order of constituents. In Actes du Xe Congrès international des linguistes, 841–853. Bucharest.
Ross, John Robert. 1991. Verbiness and the size of niches in the English auxiliary. In Carol Georgopolous & Roberta Ishihara (eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S-Y. Kuroda, 459–466. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Ross, John Robert. 2012. A preliminary, but fattened, list of transformations. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/haj/Preliminarybufattenedlistoftransformations.pdf
Safir, Ken. 2004. The syntax of anaphora. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195166132.001.0001
Schmerling, Susan F.. 1976. Aspects of English sentence stress. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Schmerling, Susan F. 1983. A new theory of English auxiliaries. In Frank Heny & Barry Richards (eds.), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles (vol. 2), 1–53. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Schmerling, Susan F. 2018. Rhetorical meaning. Linguistic Frontiers 1(1). 55–64. DOI: 10.2478/lf-2018-0001
Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers: A comparison of English and German. London: Routledge.