Summary

The present study has aimed at dealing with a number of issues pertaining to the analysis of intensifiers. The major results can be summarised thus:

It is necessary to distinguish three uses of intensifiers: adnominal intensifiers, adverbal inclusive intensifiers and adverbal exclusive intensifiers. Each type of usage possesses particular syntactic and semantic properties. The most persuasive argument for this differentiation comes from the fact that all three types can occur in one and the same sentence while being in association with the same NP, cf. Bill himself has himself not found the answer himself. Although being a laboratory sentence, such examples indicate that the three uses of intensifiers make different contributions to the meaning of an utterance and represent a clear case of polysemy and not of vagueness.

It is reasonable to regard intensifiers as expressions interacting with the focus structure of a sentence. Intensifiers structure a sentence into a focused or highlighted part and a backgrounded part. The major point in favour of such a view is that they are prosodically prominent and always evoke alternatives to the NP they are in association with. Moreover, intensifiers show a high degree of positional variability. Nevertheless, this view is not entirely uncontroversial. Intensifiers differ from established members of the group of focus particles in that they are restricted to nominal foci. Also, that English intensifiers show agreement with their focus in person, number and gender deviates from standard assumptions.

Adnominal intensifiers are adjuncts and can be analysed as endocentric expansions of the NP they interact with. They are adjoined to maximal projections and always occur at the right periphery of a phrase. Adverbal intensifiers, by contrast, are adjuncts of the VP, which they expand endocentrically. In spite of being part of the VP, adverbal intensifiers interact with an NP. The clear difference in meaning between the two major types makes it impossible to analyse adverbal intensifiers as occurrences of adnominal intensifiers which have been moved into the VP.

The syntactic distribution of intensifiers is regulated by well-defined constraints. Adnominal intensifiers modifying subjects can be dislocated to a position before the NP they interact with as well as behind the finite verb. A necessary prerequisite is a double focus on the sentences concerned. In English, dislocation behind the finite verb is only possible if the intensifier cannot be mistaken for the reflexive anaphor, with which it is formally alike. Adnominal intensifiers cannot be dislocated from within object positions or adverbials.

There is an asymmetry observable between English and German concerning the intensification of pronouns. Whereas there are no restrictions in German, English imposes a constraint to the effect that only pronouns in subject position can be intensified. This constraint can be motivated on grounds of language economy. Sequences like himself himself and him himself are reduced to himself due to over-specification.

As for adverbal intensifiers, these can be topicalised in German, but not in English. Moreover, topicalisation is restricted to adverbal exclusive intensifiers and it is necessary that the relevant sentences possess a double focus. Passivisation of adverbal intensifiers is only possible in German. The reason appears to be the more relaxed word order in German in comparison with English. Adnominal intensifiers, by contrast, pose no problems.

Adverbal intensifiers show interesting properties in the presence of additional scope bearing elements. As it turns out, inclusive intensifiers always have scope over such elements (they take wide scope) whereas exclusive intensifiers are always within their scope (they have narrow scope). This distribution is clearly connected to the semantics of the two adverbal intensifiers. In German, these scope relations are reflected in the relative order of the relevant expressions. In English, by contrast, semantic scope is not discernible on the surface which, again, is due to its relatively fixed word order. We are here confronted with the effects of a fairly general phenomenon.

English and German adverbal inclusive intensifiers differ with regard to the range of possible foci. Whereas English inclusive intensifiers are confined to interacting with subjects, German also allows direct and indirect objects. Nevertheless, there appears to be a constraint which requires the argument ranking highest in terms of case hierarchy and thematic hierarchy to be selected.

The differentiation between inclusive and exclusive adverbal intensifiers goes hand in hand with a number of more subtle phenomena. Inclusive intensifiers show a preference for indefinite object NPs, exclusive intensifiers for definite object NPs. Moreover, verb alternations can influence the interpretation of adverbal intensifiers. Finally, tense and aspect appear to have a certain bearing.

Although the final word on the distribution of reflexive anaphors in English has yet to be spoken, it could be shown that the analysis of intensifiers can provide valuable insights for our understanding of the underlying processes. Locally free or untriggered reflexives have a lot in common with adnominal intensifiers in terms of their semantic contribution as well as their prosodic features. They are always stressed and make the referent of the NP they interact with (their antecedent) central. The conclusion arrived at in this study is that it is reasonable to analyse the majority of occurrences of x-self violating the Binding Conditions as adnominal intensifiers, however, as those lacking an overt head NP. Sequences like [him himself] and [her herself] are reduced to [e himself] and [e herself] respectively for reasons of language economy.

It could be shown that it is not necessary to assume a separate use type of intensifiers for role reversal structures. Intensifiers in sentences like Lucrezia poisoned Lorenzo, and was herself poisoned by Cesare can be subsumed under the adnominal variety because these coordinations can be split up into two separate sentences which are equivalent in meaning to the original formulation, cf. Lucrezia poisoned Lorenzo. She herself was poisoned by Cesare. The role reversal observed has a cause outside the semantic contribution that the intensifier makes.