I don't think it's been specified, but I don't think that the use of explicit pronouns is emphatic from a grammatical standpoint. However, using explicit pronouns may convey a sense of importance to listener/reader when they don't add any information to the sentence, as in «vIta' jIH.»; after all, the word doesn't serve any clarifying function, so that really only leaves being in there either for emphasis or for purely aesthetic reasons.

You can make this emphasis more explicit by using -'e', or stressing the word «jIH».

On the other hand, in «vIghro'mey legh chaH.», the word «chaH» helps to disambiguate the sentence, so you'd need something else (-'e', tone of voice, form of speech, etc.) to make it emphatic.

This is my take as well. TKD uses the terms emphasis, focus, and clarity vaguely, without grammatical precision. It calls -'e' topic, but then uses it as focus. I think when TKD says "Pronouns may be used as nouns, but only for emphasis or added clarity," it is exactly what Felix says: clarity when needed, usable to provide emphasis by stressing it vocally. It does not mean focus like -'e' does.

Notice also that the explanation of -'e' as focus shows the difference. Ignoring for a moment the missing verb prefix and the weird spacing, it says that lujpu' jIH'e' means I, and only I, have failed, while lujpu' jIH means I have failed with no emphasis of any kind. This is pretty clear and explicit. The emphasis of not dropping a pronoun is in its ability to clarify or spell out in careful detail what you mean, and does not provide the sort of emphasis that is focus.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name