Stockholm Contrast
October 28–29, 2005
Intensifying self in Germanic: A Reanalysis
Kjell Johan Sæbø
University of Oslo
ABSTRACT. Regine Eckardt (2001) has proposed an analysis of “intensifying” selbst
which can account for many of the relevant facts. As it stands, however, it cannot quite
cope with adverbal cases where the “associate” is apparently itself in focus, and it does
not answer the question what makes intensifying selbst necessary in many cases. In this
paper, I elaborate on that analysis to say that the associate can be a type e variable and
that the selbst focus presupposition can be interpreted at the level of the VP. I show that
in this way, intensifying selbst enables one and the same argument to be both a continuing theme and a contrastive theme or both a theme focus and a rheme focus, and that it
allows for focus presuppositions involving alternatives to alternatives.
Introduction
Regine Eckardt (2001) has devised an ingenious theory about the German “intensifier” selbst
(≈ English “intensifying” –self, –selves) as it appears in (1)–(3):1
(1) As Elizabeth Brinker cares for her mother, she knows she herself is at risk
of inheriting Alzheimer’s disease.
(2) Agnes Kant heeft bevordering en ondersteuning van borstvoeding in haar portefeuille.
Agnes doet dit graag en met volle overtuiging,
zelf heeft ze haar beide dochters bijna een jaar lang borstvoeding gegeven.
self has she her two daughters almost one year long breastfeeding given
(3) Ihr Kind spürt, dass Sie mit ihm nicht zufrieden sind – und es ist selbst nicht zufrieden.
your child senses that you with it not content are and it is itself not content
First, some terminology: In cases like (1)–(3), it is evident that selbst has an associate (a DP
with which it associates). In (1), it is she, in (2), it is ze, in (3), it is es – a personal pronoun.
According to Eckardt, the associated element generally has the logical type e and no accent.
(1)–(3) illustrate the three main sites for selbst: 2 Forefield, 1 adnominal, 3 adverbal position.2
On Eckardt’s analysis, selbst denotes a function and the associate its argument. This function
is the identity function on type e entities. This is all she has to assume. The following follows:
•
The associate has the logical type e
•
The intensifier is (locally) in focus (or else it would be totally redundant!)
(That the associate is out of focus does not strictly follow, but if it were itself in focus already,
as it were, it would not make much sense to add focus:)
1
2
The scalar particle selbst, in prenominal position, is a different story.
Eckardt does not consider the 2nd position. It is more common in Dutch and Scandinavian than in German.
Kjell Johan Sæbø
Intensifying self
The net effect of selbst is to add focus, giving rise to focus presuppositions in
Alternative Semantics, the focus theory of Rooth (1992).
Let us work our way through (1a) .
(1) a. She hersélf F is [at risk of inhériting] F Alzheimer’s disease.
We have the adnominal case: “She” and “herself” form a constituent, “she herself”. Let us say
that the ordinary semantic value of “she” is x (bound in a presupposition).
Then the ordinary semantic value of “she herself” is the same, x.
The focus semantic value of “she” is also the same, x.
But the focus semantic value of “she herself” is the set of values of alternatives to the identity
function at x – the focus semantic value of “herself” is the set of alternatives to that function –
{ z | there is an alternative ƒ to ID<e,e> such that z = ƒ(x) }
And alternatives to the identity function on individuals are operations on individuals that do
not map them onto themselves but onto others.
When we reach sentence level, the two foci are interpreted in terms of a focus presupposition
there is a proposition φ | there is a function ƒ ≈ ID<e,e> and
there is a relation R ≈ at risk of inheriting |
φ = R(alzheimer’s)(ƒ(x))
This presupposition is verified in the context: ƒ = one’s mother, R = actually afflicted with.
To account for adverbal cases, as in (3) (or, more clearly, (4a–b)3), Eckardt assumes typelifted versions of the identity functor over entity terms, one mapping a predicate onto another:
selbst 2* = λ Q λ x Q (ID (x))
After applying to a predicate, this can apply to the associate entity term.
(4) a. She had watched the local, State, and Federal funding dry up over time, and as she
had not had an easy youth herself, she wanted to help.
b. She built the boat herself, and this is not her first.
built the boat herself * = λ x built_the_boat (ID (x))
Hopefully,4 the focus semantic value of this is
{ P | there is an alternative ƒ to ID<e,e> such that P = λ x built_the_boat (ƒ(x)) }
so that the focus presupposition of (4b) can be (and because if she built the boat, nobody else
did, this presupposition, accommodated or verified, gets a contrastive (exclusive) reading):
there is a proposition φ | there is a function ƒ ≈ ID<e,e> | φ = built_the_boat (ƒ(she))
3
In German, it seems, it is always possible to reconstruct “adverbal” cases as adnominal cases.
Actually, as far as the computation of the focus semantic value is concerned, it may well be more appropriate to
appeal to general function composition than to assume type lifting.
4
2
Kjell Johan Sæbø
Intensifying self
Raison d’être 1
– What is the use of self (in the cases considered so far)?
– The associate is a continuing topic (cf. de Hoop 2003).
It is strongly dispreferred to accentuate it. At the same time, the contexts give ample reason to
do just so – accentuate the associate, because it should be a contrastive topic5 or a contrastive
focus6 – in my terminology henceforth (based on Steedman and Kruijff-Korbayová 2003):
a theme or rheme focus.
The solution is to bring in selbst. This motivates it, resolving an otherwise locked conflict: the
associate should not be stressed (de Hoop 2003, Beaver 2004) but must be (Sæbø 2005); let it
remain unstressed but bring in stressed selbst to “take on the role” of theme or rheme focus.
(5) Ich möchte spätestens mit 17 ein Kind haben, weil ich es einfach am besten finde, früh
I wantto
latest at 17 a child have because I it simply at best find early
Kinder zu bekommen, um
mein Kind, wenn es selbst Teenager ist, zu verstehen.
children to get
inorder my child when it self teenager is to understand
In this case (as in (3)), it is impossible to stress the associate (there is no stressed form of es).
In addition, we see from this case that it is not always possible to substitute the particle auch
(≈ also, too): At the time when my child becomes a teenager, I am not a teenager anymore.
The focus presupposition is laxer: It suffices that a proposition such and such is in the context.
(6) Lies … is een bekende didgeridoo lerares in en rond Nederland geworden.
Lies … is a renowned didgeridoo teacher in and around Netherland become
a. ZELF heeft zij zeven jaar harp en vijf jaar celloles gevolgd …
self has she seven years harp and five years cello studied
b. ? ZIJ heeft zeven jaar harp en vijf jaar celloles gevolgd …
It seems that we need both the deaccented zij and the accented zelf, because two information
structural claims cross: Continuity and Contrast. Jointly, [zij] + [ZELF] signal both continuity
and contrast, and they are thus preferred over [zij] alone and over [ZIJ] alone, as indicated in
the below BOT tableau:
conditional
informativity
continuity,
not contrast
contrast, not
continuity
contrast and
continuity
zij
⇒1
∞
1
ZIJ
∞
⇒1
1
ZELF … zij
∞
∞
⇒0
However, this is only half the story: it is consistently valid for forefield and adnominal cases,
but not for adverbal cases, where what may seem the associate may well be in focus itself.
5
6
as in (1) and (2)
as in (3) and (4)
3
Kjell Johan Sæbø
Intensifying self
Association with Variables
According to Eckardt (2001: 380), the associate of self consistently has type e7 and no accent
(p. 403); but because adverbal self combines with a predicate before its argument is saturated,
adverbal selbst does not impose any sortal restrictions on “the NP that it is linked to” (p. 381).
This NP can therefore be a genuine quantifier, and it can be accented.
In a sense, then, there is no associate; the argument is never saturated –
in the following tree, there is no constituent providing it:
Q<<e,t>,t>(λ x P (ID (x)))
Q<<e,t>,t>
λ x P (ID (x))
P
selbst 2* = λ Q λ x Q (ID (x))8
Eckardt does not consider such cases. But in fact, many motivate an adjustment of the theory
to the effect that a type e, not accented argument is consistently provided by some constituent.
The constituent will often be a (trace) variable.
The arguments concern the focus presuppositions and the levels at which they are computed.
Often, there is a need to interpret self focus not at sentence level but at the level of a VP.
As it stands and on straightforward assumptions about focus interpretation, Eckardt’s theory
predicts that when the “linked NP” is in focus, there is one focus presupposition – involving
alternatives to alternatives. Let us first consider a case where this is apparently adequate:
(7) Du går en tur i skoven under 2. Verdenskrig og ser en tysk soldat som er hårdt såret. Din
mand eller bror er selv død i krigen, – kæmpende mod tyskerne. Ville du hjælpe soldaten
eller lade ham ligge og dø?
‘On a walk in the forest during WW II you find a German soldier seriously wounded.
Your húsband or bróther has died in the war himsélf, fighting the Germans. … ’
The focus semantic value of the relevant sentence is
{ φ | ∃ a ≈ husband or brother ∃ ƒ ≈ ID<e,e> | φ = dead_in_war (ƒ(a)) }
{ a | a ≈ husband or brother }
{ P | ∃ ƒ ≈ ID<e,e> | P = λ x dead_in_war (ƒ(x)) }
The focus presupposition based on this value is satisfied through the following instantiations:
a = you, ƒ = the one one finds (walking the woods during the war).
Note the absence of a “centrality effect” here – central is the alternative to the linked NP.
7
8
or, to be exact, it is a principal ultrafilter quantifier
or – appealing to function composition – simply selbst* = ID
4
Kjell Johan Sæbø
Intensifying self
A “no-delegate/assist” case like (8) might be treated by interpreting both foci at top level too:
(8) Kim Philby F fetched his meal himself F .
The focus semantic value of the relevant sentence is
{ φ | ∃ a ≈ Kim Philby ∃ ƒ ≈ ID<e,e> | φ = fetched_a’s_meal (ƒ(a)) }
{ a | a ≈ Kim Philby }
{ P | ∃ ƒ ≈ ID<e,e> | P = λ x fetched_x’s_meal (ƒ(x)) }
The focus presupposition based on this value is satisfied through the following instantiations:
a ∈ Kim’s fellow students at Cambridge, ƒ ∈ the functions mapping students onto servants.
However, most cases call for 2 focus presuppositions, one stemming from a focus interpreted
at subsentential level.
The clearest cases calling for 2 focus presuppositions involve intrasentential presupposition
verification, such as (9):
(9) Many who abuse others have been abused themselves.
This sentence presupposes nothing stemming from the intensifier. The case can be treated by
interpreting one focus at predicate level (notation: assertion + <presupposition>):
many(abuse)(abused) < φ | ∃ a ≈ many φ = a (abuse)(abused) >
many(abuse) < >
λ x abused (ID (x)) < P | ∃ ƒ ≈ ID P = λ x abused (ƒ(x)) >
One can argue that the presupposition that there be a P the set of x such that ƒ(x) for some ƒ ≈
ID (has been or) is abused is resolved in the restrictor predicate abuse – ƒ(x) is x’s victim, say.
Another case which might be treated by interpreting self focus at predicate level is (10):
(10)
Some of them are addicted themselves, but the higher-ups in the chain are not.
Here, self focus presupposition justification is intersentential – it follows from the context that
they are drug dealers, so choosing ƒ(x) from among x’s customers, the set P of x such that ƒ(x)
is addicted can be argued to be present in the context.
However, many cases can arguably only be treated by interpreting self focus at a type t level
below the outermost type <e,t> constituent, associating self with a variable.
5
Kjell Johan Sæbø
Intensifying self
(11)
I have not decided on a career yet, but this is one of my options, especially as I like it
and my aunt is a teacher herself.
(12)
– Would your parents mind if you started smoking?
– No. My fáther smokes himsélf.
The below tree for (12) results from overt or (QR, theme raising) covert subject movement.
Focus is interpreted in the middle of the tree and the presupposition is projected to the top:
smokes (my_father) < φ | ∃ a ≈ my_father φ = smokes (a) >
< φ | ∃ ƒ ≈ ID φ = smokes (ƒ(my_father)) >
my father
λ xi smokes (ID (xi)) < φ | ∃ ƒ ≈ ID φ = smokes (ƒ(xi)) >
λ xi
smokes (ID (xi)) < φ | ∃ ƒ ≈ ID φ = smokes (ƒ(xi)) >
xi
λ x smokes (ID (x))
smokes
himself
This yields the intuitively correct result: Beside the contrast implicature that my mother does
not smoke, stemming from the focus on “my father”, the sentence presupposes that there is a
proposition that the value of an alternative to the identity function at my father smokes – me,
on an instantiation of ƒ as one’s daughter. Similarly for (11), and for cases with quantifiers:
(13)
Most people are parents themselves and are sympathetic to your difficulties.
most (people)(parents) < φ | ∃ a ≈ most φ = a (people)(parents) >
most(people)(λ xi < φ | ∃ ƒ ≈ ID φ = parents (ƒ(xi)) >)
most people
λ xi parents (ID (xi)) < φ | ∃ ƒ ≈ ID φ = parents (ƒ(xi)) >
λ xi
parents (ID (xi)) < φ | ∃ ƒ ≈ ID φ = parents (ƒ(xi)) >
xi
λ x parents (ID (x))
parents
themselves
6
Kjell Johan Sæbø
Intensifying self
Raison d’être 2
– What is the use of self when – effectively – all it does is add focus to something already in
focus?
– The secret is that the two foci serve different purposes, one a theme and the other a rheme,
usually accompanied by different alternative sets.
Consider the alternatives:
1)
2)
Delete self
Substitute too
1) can be an option (cf. (11) and (12)).
But you will often encounter the same dilemma as when you try to delete too (cf. Sæbø 2004):
either you feel forced to accentuate something you should not accentuate (second mention), or
you create the false contrast implicature that the associate is the only thing fitting the frame.
(14)
(On women boxers in India) • Kirti – … . She comes from a family of sports people.
Her father has been a wrestler, and her younger brother is a boxer ??(himself).
Substituting too here is problematic for the simple reason that it seems to imply that her father
is a boxer. (In other cases, like (11) or (12), too is out because focus presuppositions are laxer
(or “promiscuous”, cf. Schwarzschild 2004).)
But as illustrated by (15), there is more to it than that:
(15)
– Who should we select for the role of Ray Charles?
– Well, Jamie Fóxx plays the piano himsélf.
Note that the theme focus contrasts with other candidates (such as Sean Connery), while the
rheme focus contrasts with Ray Charles. Substituting too only preserves the second contrast
(and so is not appropriate in this discourse function – as an argument for selecting Foxx).
In addition, in the “no-delegate/assist” cases like (8), substituting too is not an option at all; if
you analyse them in terms of two focus presuppositions, the theme presupposition concerns a
sloppy reading while the rheme presupposition concerns a strict one (if you analyse them, as
above, in terms of just one focus presupposition, self introduces alternatives to alternatives) –
with too, you must choose; and you lose the exclusive interpretation of the rheme focus.
Conclusions
I have shown that with modest adjustments, exploiting the options in Alternative Semantics,
Eckardt’s theory can account for a wider range of phenomena than considered by her herself.
I have also answered the question what motivates such a word as selbst and its cognates, the
common denominator being that these words serve to focus elements that cannot on their own
be focused; this can be very useful if you need both continuity and contrast, or contrast in two
different dimensions. These words are thus genuinely information structural expressions.
7
Kjell Johan Sæbø
Intensifying self
References
Beaver, David (2004) “The Optimization of Discourse Anaphora”, in Linguistics and
Philosophy 27, 3–56.
Eckardt, Regine (2001) “Reanalysing Selbst”, in Natural Language Semantics 9, 371–412.
Edmondson, Jerold and Frans Plank (1978) “Great Expectations: An Intensive Self Analysis”,
in Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 373–413.
de Hoop, Helen (2003) “On the Interpretation of Stressed Pronouns”, in Reinhard Blutner and
Henk Zeevat (eds.), Optimality Theory and Pragmatics, London, 25–41.
König, Ekkehard (1992) The Meaning of Focus Particles, London.
Rooth, Mats (1992) “A Theory of Focus Interpretation”, in Natural Language Semantics 1,
75–116.
Schwarzschild, Roger (2004) “Focus Interpretations: Comments on Geurts and van der Sandt
(2004)”, in Theoretical Linguistics 30, 137–147.
Siemund, Peter (2000) Intensifiers in English and German – A Comparison, London.
Sæbø, Kjell Johan (2005) “Accentuate the Positive: The Semantics and Pragmatics of
Theticity”, submitted to Journal of Logic, Language and Information.
8