Semantic and Pragmatic Context-Dependence: The Case of Reciprocals (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.
Reciprocal Constructions in English: each other and beyond
2007
In this paper we investigate the constructions that are used to encode reciprocal situations in English, based on responses to the 64 reciprocals videoclips developed for the Reciprocals Across Languages project (Evans, Levinson, Enfield, Gaby and Majid 2004). This work complements the extensive body of previous research on English reciprocals by focusing on spoken data. While our data supports the traditional view of each other as the primary and most common reciprocal construction in English, we find a greater degree of variation in construction types than this traditional view might suggest. Furthermore, we show that each other does not have the same degree of acceptability with all reciprocal situation types.
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.
Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 2015
Research on reciprocals has uncovered a variety of semantic contributions that the reciprocal can make, creating problems for proposals that the reciprocal unambiguously means something weak (e.g., Langendoen 1978). However, there is no real evidence that reciprocals are ambiguous, despite previous claims to the contrary (e.g., Fiengo and Lasnik 1973). First, we classify the apparently heterogeneous list of meanings proposed in previous research into a natural taxonomy, showing how they arise from a small stock of logical operations and predicates. Second, we exhibit a partial ordering of the various reciprocal meanings according to logical strength, which we make crucial use of in determining what reciprocals mean in each specific context where they appear. Third, we hypothesize that a reciprocal statement expresses the strongest candidate meaning that is consistent with known properties of the relation expressed by the scope of the reciprocal. This hypothesis is supported by analy...
The semantics of reciprocal constructions across languages: An extensional approach
Journal of Phonetics, 2011
H ow sim ilar are reciprocal co n struction s in the sem antic param eters they encode? We investigate this question by using an extensional approach, w hich exam ines sim ilarity of m eaning by exam ining how constructions are applied over a set o f 64 videoclips depicting reciprocal events (Evans et al. 2004). We apply statistical m odelling to descriptions from speakers o f 20 languages elicited using th e videoclips. We show th a t th ere are substantial differences in m ean in g betw een constructions o f different languages. i .
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.