Imke Kruitwagen - Profile on Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Imke Kruitwagen

Research paper thumbnail of Reciprocal Verbs as Collective Predicate Concepts

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 contradicts (3), which requires B collides with/hugs A to be inferred from any situation where A&B collide/hug is inferred. According to (3), when a speaker is given a depicted situation and a sentence like A&B collide/hug, she is expected to check whether the two sub-situations in the picture support the corresponding transitive sentences. If she sees that one of the sub-situations does not support the corresponding binary statement, her judgement is expected to be that the collective sentence is false. Additional y, we also found that collective sentences as in (1a-b) are less commonly judged as true in situations as in Fig.2a-b, where the “passive agent” doesn’t look emotionally involved. We conjec ure that this preference for “involvement” and patterns like (4) are commonly attested with speakers, falsifying rules like (3). Instead, we hypothesize that intransitive verbs like collide and hug denote primitive concepts of collective predicates in a speaker’s lexicon. When a group argument is categorized as an agent of such a verb, there are only typical “sub-entailments’* regarding what the

Research paper thumbnail of Does it take two to tango? On Reciprocal Verbs as Collective Predicate Concepts

Does it take two to tango? On Reciprocal Verbs as Collective Predicate Concepts

Research paper thumbnail of Reciprocal predicates: a conceptual prototype model

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)

Fig. 1. Acceptance rates

Research paper thumbnail of Reflexivity and reciprocity in Italian: an ambiguous matter

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...

Research paper thumbnail of Reciprocal predicates: a prototype model

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...

With respect to the CI videos, there is a substantial difference between acceptance rates on the unary and binary forms. For unary forms with a CI video the acceptance rates varied from 40% for fight to 90% for whisper, while the acceptance rates for binary forms on CI videos varied from 4% for collide to 39% for hug. Furthermore, there is also a substantial difference between acceptance rates on unary forms in CI videos and unary forms in no-CI videos. Acceptance rates for unary sentences in no-CI videos varied from 18% for fight to 69% for collide. However, for collide there was no difference between the acceptance rates on the unary sentence with a CI video and the unary sentence with a no-Cl video.

Research paper thumbnail of Reciprocal Verbs as Collective Predicate Concepts

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 contradicts (3), which requires B collides with/hugs A to be inferred from any situation where A&B collide/hug is inferred. According to (3), when a speaker is given a depicted situation and a sentence like A&B collide/hug, she is expected to check whether the two sub-situations in the picture support the corresponding transitive sentences. If she sees that one of the sub-situations does not support the corresponding binary statement, her judgement is expected to be that the collective sentence is false. Additional y, we also found that collective sentences as in (1a-b) are less commonly judged as true in situations as in Fig.2a-b, where the “passive agent” doesn’t look emotionally involved. We conjec ure that this preference for “involvement” and patterns like (4) are commonly attested with speakers, falsifying rules like (3). Instead, we hypothesize that intransitive verbs like collide and hug denote primitive concepts of collective predicates in a speaker’s lexicon. When a group argument is categorized as an agent of such a verb, there are only typical “sub-entailments’* regarding what the

Research paper thumbnail of Does it take two to tango? On Reciprocal Verbs as Collective Predicate Concepts

Does it take two to tango? On Reciprocal Verbs as Collective Predicate Concepts

Research paper thumbnail of Reciprocal predicates: a conceptual prototype model

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)

Fig. 1. Acceptance rates

Research paper thumbnail of Reflexivity and reciprocity in Italian: an ambiguous matter

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...

Research paper thumbnail of Reciprocal predicates: a prototype model

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...

With respect to the CI videos, there is a substantial difference between acceptance rates on the unary and binary forms. For unary forms with a CI video the acceptance rates varied from 40% for fight to 90% for whisper, while the acceptance rates for binary forms on CI videos varied from 4% for collide to 39% for hug. Furthermore, there is also a substantial difference between acceptance rates on unary forms in CI videos and unary forms in no-CI videos. Acceptance rates for unary sentences in no-CI videos varied from 18% for fight to 69% for collide. However, for collide there was no difference between the acceptance rates on the unary sentence with a CI video and the unary sentence with a no-Cl video.