Imke Kruitwagen | University of Utrecht (original) (raw)

Papers by Imke Kruitwagen

We present a new analysis of reciprocal verbs, supported by experimental evidence challenging pre... more We present a new analysis of reciprocal verbs, supported by experimental evidence challenging previous proposals. In a relatively simple example of lexical reciprocity, A&B dated means the same as A dated B and B dated A. A long-standing puzzle concerns the relation between reciprocity of intransitive verbs like date and symmetry of the transitive entry: A dated B = B dated A. Some authors have conjectured that all reciprocal verbs are symmetric in this way. However, verbs like collide and hug are an outstanding challenge for this conjecture: sentences like A&B hug invite a reciprocal interpretation, but transitive hug is clearly not symmetric, as seen in “the drunkard hugged the lampost” 3 . Here we show that non-symmetric verbs like hug are only “pseudo-reciprocal”. Following a recent proposal by Winter, we argue that there is no logical rule connecting sentences like A&B hug to “symmetric situations” where A hugs B and B hugs A. Instead, we propose that verbs like hug and collide...

This inference pattern requires symmetric participation: it predicts that the use of unary recipr... more This inference pattern requires symmetric participation: it predicts that the use of unary reciprocal verbs is restricted to situations where participants engage in the activity in roughly the same manner. This paper intends to demonstrate that it is not the logical rule in (1) that determines whether speakers accept or reject a reciprocal sentence, but conceptual preferences. The inference pattern in (1) does not easily generalize to the verb collide as in (2)

Several unrelated languages show a parallel pattern [1], raising questions about the relation bet... more Several unrelated languages show a parallel pattern [1], raising questions about the relation between REFL and REC. On the one hand, various proposals [2,3,4] suggested that constructions expressing both REFL and REC must be ambiguous between these two meanings, thus implying a lexical distinction between the two. On the other hand, recent proposals [5,6,7] claim that forms leading to both REFL and REC are vague between these two interpretations, presumably in all languages where REFL and REC are designated by the same item. These works rely on the idea that REFL and REC are only two extremes in a larger palette of situations supporting one and the same meaning. In favor of this proposal, [5] claims that the Cheyenne REFL/REC affix -athe in (2) allows a so-called ‘mixed’ interpretation: partially REFL and partially REC, as illustrated by the situations described in (2I-III). Although [5] (as well as [6],[7]]) suggests that this pattern must hold for all other languages expressing RE...

Experiments in Linguistic Meaning

Many languages have verbal stems like hug and marry whose intransitive realization is interpreted... more Many languages have verbal stems like hug and marry whose intransitive realization is interpreted as reciprocal. Previous semantic analyses of such reciprocal intransitives rely on the assumption of symmetric participation. Thus, 'Sam and Julia hugged' is assumed to entail both 'Sam hugged Julia' and 'Julia hugged Sam'. In this paper we report experimental results that go against this assumption. It is shown that although symmetric participation is likely to be preferred by speakers, it is not a necessary condition for accepting sentences with reciprocal verbs. To analyze the reciprocal alternation, we propose that symmetric participation is a typical feature connecting the meanings of reciprocal and binary forms. This accounts for the optionality as well as to the preference of this feature. Further, our results show that agent intentionality often boosts the acceptability of sentences with reciprocal verbs. Accordingly, we propose that intentionality is ano...

We present a new analysis of reciprocal verbs, supported by experimental evidence challenging pre... more We present a new analysis of reciprocal verbs, supported by experimental evidence challenging previous proposals. In a relatively simple example of lexical reciprocity, A&B dated means the same as A dated B and B dated A. A long-standing puzzle concerns the relation between reciprocity of intransitive verbs like date and symmetry of the transitive entry: A dated B = B dated A. Some authors have conjectured that all reciprocal verbs are symmetric in this way. However, verbs like collide and hug are an outstanding challenge for this conjecture: sentences like A&B hug invite a reciprocal interpretation, but transitive hug is clearly not symmetric, as seen in “the drunkard hugged the lampost” 3 . Here we show that non-symmetric verbs like hug are only “pseudo-reciprocal”. Following a recent proposal by Winter, we argue that there is no logical rule connecting sentences like A&B hug to “symmetric situations” where A hugs B and B hugs A. Instead, we propose that verbs like hug and collide...

This inference pattern requires symmetric participation: it predicts that the use of unary recipr... more This inference pattern requires symmetric participation: it predicts that the use of unary reciprocal verbs is restricted to situations where participants engage in the activity in roughly the same manner. This paper intends to demonstrate that it is not the logical rule in (1) that determines whether speakers accept or reject a reciprocal sentence, but conceptual preferences. The inference pattern in (1) does not easily generalize to the verb collide as in (2)

Several unrelated languages show a parallel pattern [1], raising questions about the relation bet... more Several unrelated languages show a parallel pattern [1], raising questions about the relation between REFL and REC. On the one hand, various proposals [2,3,4] suggested that constructions expressing both REFL and REC must be ambiguous between these two meanings, thus implying a lexical distinction between the two. On the other hand, recent proposals [5,6,7] claim that forms leading to both REFL and REC are vague between these two interpretations, presumably in all languages where REFL and REC are designated by the same item. These works rely on the idea that REFL and REC are only two extremes in a larger palette of situations supporting one and the same meaning. In favor of this proposal, [5] claims that the Cheyenne REFL/REC affix -athe in (2) allows a so-called ‘mixed’ interpretation: partially REFL and partially REC, as illustrated by the situations described in (2I-III). Although [5] (as well as [6],[7]]) suggests that this pattern must hold for all other languages expressing RE...

Experiments in Linguistic Meaning

Many languages have verbal stems like hug and marry whose intransitive realization is interpreted... more Many languages have verbal stems like hug and marry whose intransitive realization is interpreted as reciprocal. Previous semantic analyses of such reciprocal intransitives rely on the assumption of symmetric participation. Thus, 'Sam and Julia hugged' is assumed to entail both 'Sam hugged Julia' and 'Julia hugged Sam'. In this paper we report experimental results that go against this assumption. It is shown that although symmetric participation is likely to be preferred by speakers, it is not a necessary condition for accepting sentences with reciprocal verbs. To analyze the reciprocal alternation, we propose that symmetric participation is a typical feature connecting the meanings of reciprocal and binary forms. This accounts for the optionality as well as to the preference of this feature. Further, our results show that agent intentionality often boosts the acceptability of sentences with reciprocal verbs. Accordingly, we propose that intentionality is ano...