What Do Reciprocals Mean? (original) (raw)

Introduction: Reciprocals and semantic typology

Reciprocity lies at the heart of social cognition, and with it so does the encoding of reciprocity in language via reciprocal constructions. Despite the prominence of strong universal claims about the semantics of reciprocal constructions, there is considerable descriptive literature on the semantics of reciprocals that seems to indicate variable coding and subtle cross-linguistic differences in meaning of reciprocals, both of which would make it impossible to formulate a single, essentialising definition of reciprocal semantics. These problems make it vital for studies in the semantic typology of reciprocals to employ methodologies that allow the relevant categories to emerge objectively from cross-linguistic comparison of standardised stimulus materials. We situate the rationale for the 20-language study that forms the basis for this book within this empirical approach to semantic typology, and summarise some of the findings.

From Semantic Restrictions to Reciprocal Meanings

2005

This paper proposes a new approach to the interpretation of reciprocal expressions using the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis of Dalrymple et al. (1998). We propose a sys- tem in which reciprocal meanings are derived directly from semantic restrictions using the SMH, and characterize this derivation process. We present methods to construct a linguistic test for the availability of a reciprocal meaning,

Thematic Roles and the Interpretation of one -‐ another Reciprocals

2011

This paper proposes a novel neo-Davidsonian semantics of one another-reciprocals that appear in several Indo-European languages. Arguments are presented that suggest that such expressions be treated as compositionally complex, in contrast to standard approaches that treat them as primitive polyadic quantifiers. A theory of logical form for one anotherreciprocals is developed that can account for a non-trivial range of their syntactic distribution as well as a wide range of the attested readings of reciprocal sentences.

Semantic and Pragmatic Context-Dependence: The Case of Reciprocals

Is the best good enough?: optimality and …, 1998

Semantic and Pragmatic Context-Dependence: The Case of Reciprocals' Yookyung Kim & Stanley Peters, Stanford University I. Introduction This paper is about the meaning of reciprocal expressions in English. Each other and one another vary in meaning according to the meaning of their ...

Reciprocal predicates: a prototype model

Experiments in Linguistic Meaning

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...

Compromising transitivity: the problem of reciprocals

Reciprocals are characterized by a crossover of thematic roles within a single clause. Their peculiar semantics often creates special argument configurations not found in other clause types. While some languages either encode reciprocals by clearly divalent, transitive clauses, or clearly monovalent, intransitive clauses, others adopt a more ambivalent solution. We develop a typology of valency/transitivity mismatches in reciprocal constructions, based on a sample of Australian languages. These include: (i) monovalent clauses with a single ergative NP, (ii) mismatches between case marking and the apparent number of arguments, (iii) ergative marking on secondary predicates and instrumentals with an intransitive subject, and (iv) complex clause constructions sensitive to valency. Such mismatches, we argue, result from an "overlay problem": both divalent and monovalent predicates in the semantic representation of prototypical reciprocal scenes have had a hand in shaping the morphosyntax of reciprocal constructions.

Evidence Based on a dynamic source: Database support for a theory of transitive reciprocals

The novelty of this document is that the empirical support for the predictions it examines, predictions about the distribution and interpretation of transitive reciprocal constructions, will be different each time it is read. The evidence will change because this paper will only provide parameters for a search of the Afranaph Database (ongoing) and two other databases, and as these databases grow and change over time, the search results returned today will be different from the results returned by the same search executed months or years from now. Reversing the normal priorities of linguistic research, the proposal we present about the nature of reciprocal constructions in natural language, which contends that direct object full DPs anaphors do not directly contribute reciprocal meaning (a proposal more broadly and specifically defended by Safir and Selvanathan (in preparation) is secondary (a) to our demonstration of the methodology we employ to support our claims and (b) to the lessons we draw from it about the evaluation of evidence for research in linguistics in the digital age.