Intensive Reflexives as Signals of Information Structure (original) (raw)

Abstract

An analysis of English intensive reflexives from an informational perspective. The various types of intensive reflexives identified in the literature are shown to have a common function: the activation of a set of alternatives for the referent. The set has two functions: to form a link between the utterance and the context of discourse, and to signal subtle changes in information status.

Figures (1)

Table I. The Combinations of Implicatures of the IR

Table I. The Combinations of Implicatures of the IR

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (26)

  1. Baker, C. Lee. 1995. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English. Language 71.1: 63-101.
  2. Cantrall, William. 1974. Viewpoint, Reflexives, and the Nature of Noun Phrases. The Hague: Mouton.
  3. Cohen, Dana. 1999. Towards a unified account of intensive reflexives. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1041-1052.
  4. Cohen, Dana. 2004. Intensive Reflexives -from Sentence to Discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
  5. Cohen, Dana. ms. Self-Focusing: The English Intensive Reflexive. Monograph.
  6. Creswell, Cassandre. 2002. The Use of Emphatic Reflexives with NPs in English. In Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation. Kees van Deemter & Roger Kibble (eds.), pp. 137-166. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  7. de Hoop, Helen & Peter de Swart. 2004. Contrast in Discourse. Journal of Semantics 21: 87-93.
  8. Eckardt, Regine. 2002. Reanalyzing selbst. Natural Language Semantics 9: 371-412.
  9. Edmondson Jerry. & Plank Frans. 1978. "Great expectations. An intensive self analysis". Linguistics & Philosophy 2: 373-413.
  10. Gast, Volker. 2006. The Grammar of Identity: Intensifiers and Reflexives in Germanic Languages. London: Routledge.
  11. Golde, Karin. 1999. Evidence for two types of English intensive NPs. Chicago Linguistic Society 35: 99-108.
  12. Hedberg, Nancy. 2006. Topic-Focus Controversies. In Valéria Molnár and Susanne Winkler (eds.), The Architecture of Focus. Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 373-397.
  13. Keenan, Edward. 2002. Explaining the creation of reflexive pronouns in English. In Studies in the History of English: A millennial Perspective. Minkova D. & R. Stockwell (eds.), pp. 325-355. Berlin: Mouton.
  14. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1995. Emphatic and reflexive -self: expectations, viewpoint, and subjectivity. In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Dieter Stein, Susan Wright & Edward Finegan (eds.), pp. 55- 82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles -A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.
  16. König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast. 2006. Focused assertion of identity: a typology of intensifiers. Linguistic Typology 10.2: 223-276.
  17. König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund. 2000a. Intensifiers as targets and sources of semantic change. In Meaning Change Meaning Variation. Eckardt Regine & Klaus von Heusinger (eds.), Workshop held at Konstanz, Feb. 1999, Vol. I: 97-109.
  18. Leskosky, Richard. 1972. Intensive reflexives. In Studies in the Linguistic Science. Georgia Green (ed.), Vol. 2.1: 42-65. Urbana: University of Illinois.
  19. Molnár, Valéria. 2002. Contrast -from a contrastive perspective. In Information Structure in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective; H. Hallelgard, Stig Johansson, Bergljot Behrens, and Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen. (eds.), 147- 161. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
  20. Moravcsik, Edith. 1972. Some crosslinguistic generalizations about intensifier constructions. Chicago Linguistic Society 8: 271-277.
  21. Moyne, John. 1971. Reflexive and emphatic. Language 47.1: 141-163.
  22. Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers in English and German: a Comparison. London: Routledge.
  23. Umbach, Carla. 2004. "On the notion of contrast in information structure and discourse structure". Journal of Semantics 21: 155-175.
  24. Vallduví, Enric & Maria Vilkuna. 1998. On rheme and kontrast. In The Limits of Syntax; Peter Culicover and Louise McNally (eds.), 79-108. San Diego/New York: Academic Press.
  25. Vallduví, Enric and Ron Zacharski. 1994. Accenting phenomena, association with focus, and the recursiveness of focus-ground. Paper presented at the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium. In P. Dekker an dM. Stokhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Amsterdam Colloquium, 638-702. ILLC, Amsterdam.
  26. Wedgwood, Daniel. 2003. Predication and Information Structure. A Dynamic Account of Hungarian Pre-Verbal Syntax. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.