INTENSIFIERS - UCL Discovery

235 Pages·2014·1.88 MB·English

by  Harris Constantinou

I
NTENSIFIERS
M D
EANING AND ISTRIBUTION

Harris Constantinou

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics

UCL

2014
Declaration

I, Harris Constantinou, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where
information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated
in the thesis.

2
Στην οικογένειά µου

3
Abstract

This monograph explores the meaning and distribution of intensifiers (otherwise
referred to as emphatic reflexives). Intensifiers are invariably stressed and anaphorically
dependent on a nominal antecedent. Their use induces alternatives, an indication that
their prosodic prominence results from some sort of information-structural marking. An
intensifier can adjoin directly to its antecedent or to some clausal projection.
The first part of the monograph is concerned with the meaning of intensifiers.
Depending on its distribution, an intensifier may take up to three radically different
readings; adnominal, inclusive or exclusive. I first suggest that the common
characteristic of the three readings is that they require the antecedent to be central
against the induced alternative referents. Their interpretive differences lie in that the
antecedent must be central in a different way. The rest of the meaning characteristics of
each reading fall out from this basic variation. I discuss how syntax, semantics,
information structure, general principles of the grammar (e.g. the Elsewhere condition)
and extra-linguistic factors conspire to deliver these effects.
The second part of this monograph focuses on the distribution of the intensifier. I
establish that the intensifier forms a syntactic dependency with its antecedent and
propose a particular characterization of the relevant dependency that renders it quite
similar to a binding relation. The final contribution of the thesis is concerned with the
largely novel observation that the information-structural marking of the intensifier
restricts its positioning with respect to other quantificational and information-
structurally marked categories. I provide an account for the observed interactions in
terms of an independently motivated condition of scope shift.
The thesis is mainly based on data from English and Dutch.

4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 8

1.
  Introduction 11

PART I: INTERPRETATION 18

2.
  Previous analyses on the interpretation of intensifiers 19

2.1.
  Introduction 19

2.2.
  Multiple lexical entries 20

2.2.1.
  Scalar analyses 20

2.2.2.
  Centralizing focus particles 24

2.2.3.
  Denoting the identity function or the ASSIST adverb 29

2.3.
  One lexical entry (denoting the identity function) 34

2.4.
  Conclusion 46

3.
  The interpretation of the adnominal intensifier 47

3.1.
  Introduction 47

3.2.
  Information Structure 50

3.3.
  The interpretation of the adnominal intensifier 54

3.3.1.
  On the nature of centrality imposed by the adnominal intensifier 54

3.3.2.
  Semantics and Information Structure of the adnominal intensifier 62

3.3.2.1.
  Semantics 62

3.3.2.2.
  Information Structure 66

3.4.
  Summary 84

4.
  The interpretation of the exclusive and inclusive intensifiers 86

4.1.
  Introduction 86

4.2.
  Exclusive intensifier 87

4.2.1.
  Basic characteristics 87

4.2.2.
  On the nature of centrality imposed by the exclusive intensifier 89

4.2.2.1.
  General discussion 89

4.2.2.2.
  Conclusion 109

4.3.
  Inclusive intensifier 109

4.3.1.
  Basic characteristics 109

5
4.3.2.
  On the nature of centrality imposed by the inclusive intensifier 118

4.4.
  Different event-related centralities 127

4.5.
  Interim summary 130

4.6.
  The semantics of adverbial intensifiers; preliminaries 131

4.7.
  Semantics and Information Structure of the exclusive intensifier 135

4.7.1.
  Semantics 136

4.7.2.
  Information Structure 141

4.8.
  A note on the distribution of adverbial intensifiers in English 147

4.9.
  Semantics and Information Structure of the inclusive intensifier 151

4.9.1.
  Semantics 151

4.9.2.
  Information Structure 156

4.10.
 The Elsewhere Condition and some cross-linguistic predictions 158

4.11.
 Summary 161

PART II: DISTRIBUTION 162

5.
  The Syntax of intensifiers 163

5.1.
  Introduction 163

5.2.
  Gast (2006) on the syntax of intensifiers: a movement approach 165

5.3.
  Basic syntax 168

5.4.
  A syntactic dependency 169

5.5.
  Deriving the dependency between intensifiers and their antecedent 172

5.5.1.
  Encoding syntactic dependencies; Neeleman & van de Koot (2002) 172

5.5.2.
  Zelf as a syntactically dependent element 174

5.6.
  Against linking intensifiers and their antecedent in semantics 183

5.7.
  Summary 186

6.
  Information Structure and the distribution of intensifiers 187

6.1.
  Introduction 187

6.2.
  Neeleman & van de Koot (2012a); a theory of contrastive scope 189

6.3.
  Reflecting on the scope marking of intensifiers 197

6.4.
  Information Structure restrictions on the distribution intensifiers 209

6.5.
  Scope interactions between intensifiers and quantificational arguments 219

6.6.
  Summary 225

6
7.
  Conclusion 226

References 229

7
Acknowledgements

Looking back, I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the following
people. This thesis could not have come into existence without their contribution.
First and foremost, I wish to express my deepest thanks to my primary supervisor,
Hans van de Koot. I consider myself privileged to have had the opportunity to
collaborate with him. Hans has been a unique and constant source of inspiration,
support and knowledge. He has always patiently discussed, challenged and developed
ideas during our lively meetings. Though they lasted longer and longer in the course of
the years, they never became any less lively. My work, including this thesis, has
immensely benefited from Hans’s detailed and challenging feedback. He has not only
taught me how to do research in Linguistics, but also how to teach Linguistics. His
advice and guidance on linguistic and non-linguistic issues has been invaluable.
I would also like to thank my secondary supervisor, Ad Neeleman, for contributing
to the improvement of my ideas in various ways. Ad, together with Kriszta Szendroi,
formed the committee for my upgrade from an MPhil to a PhD candidate. I appreciate
their willingness to read my upgrade paper and extensively discuss it with me. I am also
grateful to Nathan Klinedinst and Klaus Abels for discussions and advice related to the
interpretation of intensifiers. I am further particularly indebted to Diana Mazzarella for
spending hours and hours discussing with me issues related to the interpretation of
intensifiers.
My special thanks to the following people for the grammaticality judgments in this
thesis: Hans van de Koot (Dutch), Ad Neeleman (Dutch), Diana Mazzarella (Italian),
Matthew Gotham (English), Patrick Elliott (English), Ana Gomes Ferreira (English),
Elizabeth Eden (English), Sam Green (English), Nick Neasom (English), Matthew
Reeve (English), Felicity Deamer (English), Alison Hall (English), Jonny McIntosh
(English), Isabelle Needham-Didsbury (English), Irini Symeonidou (English) and
Ezekiel Panitz (English).
I have been fortunate to spend the past few years in the UCL department of
Linguistics, which has not only been an endless source of intellectual and personal
development, but also a friendly environment. I would like to thank the following
people for contributing in their own way to such a setting: Klaus Abels, Robyn Carston,
Nathan Klinedinst, Ad Neeleman, Matthew Reeve, Kriszta Szendroi, Hans van de Koot,
Nino Grillo, Alison Hall, Zoë Belk, Filippo Domaneschi, Natalia Cichosz, Akis
8
Kechagias, Thiago Galery, Giulio Dulcinati, Elizabeth Eden, Elena Titov, Patrick
Elliott, Matthew Gotham, Sam Green, Jiri Kaspar, Ya-Fang Lu, Diana Mazzarella, Nick
Neasom, Isabelle Needham-Didsbury, Ezekiel Panitz, Thanasis Soultatis, Irini
Symeonidou, Kevin Tang, Ye Tian and Maria Varkanitsa.
I also gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Leventis foundation
and the Arts and Humanities Research Council that has enabled me to carry out the
research recorded in this thesis.
My life in London wouldn’t have been fun and fulfilling without the presence of
Diana, Nikolas, Akis, Maria, Andreas, Irini, George, Ana, Zenonas and Filippo.
Through their love, support and company they have managed to make London feel like
home.
Finally, I wish to thank my parents, Dinos and Anthi, my brother, Chrysanthos, and
my sister, Stephanie, for their love and constant encouragement. This thesis is dedicated
to them.

9
List of textual conventions and abbreviations

SMALL CAPS Focus
double underlining Topic
ITALICIZED SMALL CAPS Contrastive Focus (CF)
italicized double underlining Contrastive Topic (CT)
R Relation
ID Identity function
PER Peripherality function
CCF Crucial Contributory Factor
CSS Condition on Scope Shift

10