Cover not available
Article published In:
Diachronica
Vol. 31:3 (2014) ► pp.337–378

Notes on the history of reciprocal NP-strategies in Semitic languages in a typological perspective

| The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Among Semitic reciprocal constructions, a division is seen between two types: 1) two-unit constructions, with two components, each filling a different argument position of the verb, and 2) one-unit constructions, with an anaphora that co-refers with the subject (that must be plural) and occupies only the non-subject position required by the verb. The goal of this paper is to explain how these constructions developed, specifically: 1) how did the various types of two-unit constructions evolve? and 2) could diachronic chains be identified in order to explain the development of the one-unit constructions from the two-unit constructions? Previous work on question (1) focuses on the range of phrases that tend to develop into reciprocal markers. Such accounts, however, do not explain how these constructions developed the specific meanings they have. I argue that consideration of the semantics of these constructions is crucial for understanding their evolution. Instead of ‘reciprocal constructions’ it is better to see them as denoting ‘unspecified relations’. As for (2), various attempts have been made to explain such processes focusing on Indo-European languages, which do not capture the Semitic developments; therefore I propose an alternative hypothesis, according to which the one-unit constructions result from a reanalysis of the two-unit constructions.

Keywords: reciprocal constructions, unspecified pronouns, typology, grammaticalization, Semitic languages, reanalysis, agreement
Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.3.02bar
References
Andersen, Henning
1987 From auxiliary to desinence. In Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat (eds.), Historical development of auxiliaries, 21–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bar-Asher, Elitzur
2009 A theory of argument realization and its applications to features of the Semitic languages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A
2011 Notes on reciprocal constructions in Akkadian in light of typological and historical considerations. Semitica et Classica 41. 23–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Diachronic syntactic studies in the Hebrew pronominal reciprocal constructions. In Cynthia Miller & Ziony Zevit (eds.), Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, 209–242. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid
2001 Reciprocals are definites. Natural Language Semantics 91. 69–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Pluractional adverbials. Journal of Semantics 241. 215–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Foris A
1982 On the anaphoric status of the reciprocal constructions in Italian. The Linguistic Review 21. 101–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhat, Shankara D.N
1978 Pronominalization. Pune, India: Deccan College.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael K
1977 Alternatives to the tensed S and specified subject conditions. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 381–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003 Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cantarino, Vicente
1975 Syntax of Modern Arabic prose, vol. 31. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville
2006 Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Makoto Kanazawa, Yookyung Kim, Sam Mchombo & Stanley Peter
1998 Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 211. 159–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, Ray C
1974 The syntax and semantics of each other constructions. Foundations of Language 121. 1–47.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2008 Reciprocal constructions: Towards a structural typology. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 33–103. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Alice Gaby, Stephen C. Levinson & Asifa Majid
2011 Introduction: Reciprocals and semantic typology. In Nicolas Evans, Alice Gaby, Stephen C. Levinson & Asifa Majid (eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology (Typological Studies in Language 98), 1–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everaert, Martin
1990-1 Nominative anaphors in Icelandic: Morphology or syntax? In Werner Abraham, Wim Kosmeijer & Eric Reuland (eds.), Issues in Germanic syntax (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 44), 277–305. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999 Types of anaphoric expressions: Reflexives and reciprocals. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions, 63–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fassberg, Steven E
2010 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Challa. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & Howard Lasnik
1973 The logical structure of reciprocal sentences in English. Foundations of Language 91. 447–468.Google Scholar
Glinert, Lewis
1989 The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Florian
2010 Reciprocity in English: Historical development and synchronic structure. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halevy, Rivka
2011 Reciprocal constructions between syntax and lexicon. L’shonénu 731. 401–422.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1997 Indefinite pronouns (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007 Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Reciprocal constructions, 2087–2115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene, Howard Lasnik & Robert May
1991 Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 221. 63–101.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Hiroyuki Miyashita
2008 The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: A grammaticalization perspective. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 169–223. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle
1993 From discourse to logic: Introduction to model theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne
1993 The middle voice: A typological and diachronic study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey
1999 A grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knjazev, Jurij P
2007 Lexical reciprocals as a means of expressing reciprocal relations. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Reciprocal constructions, vol. 1-51, 115–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Shigehiro Kokutani
2006 Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: Focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 441. 271–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan
1987 Domains and dynasties: The radical autonomy of syntax. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kremers, Joost
1997 How Arabs speak to each other about themselves: A study of nafs and baʿḍ in Modern Standard Arabic. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen MA thesis.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek
1985 Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions. Australian Journal of Linguistics 51. 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leslau, Wolf
2000 Introductory grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P
2007a Overview of the research: Definitions of terms, framework, and related issues. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Reciprocal constructions, vol. 11, 3–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b Encoding of the reciprocal meaning. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Reciprocal constructions, vol. 1-51, 147–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Emma Geniušienė
2007 Questionnaire on reciprocals. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Reciprocal constructions, vol. 1-51, 379–434. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nöldeke, Thodore
2001 Compendious Syriac grammar. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
2008 Thoughts on the origin, progress, and pronominal status of reciprocal forms in Germanic, occasioned by those of Bavarian. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 347–373. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rubin, Aaron D
2010 The Mehri language of Oman. Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siloni, Tal
2002 Active lexicon. Theoretical Linguistics 281. 383–400.Google Scholar
2012 Reciprocal verbs and symmetry. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 301. 261–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
1979 On complementation in Icelandic. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Vezzosi, Letizia
2010 Micro-processes of grammaticalization: The case of Italian l’un l’altro . In Stathi Katerina, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (Studies in Language Companion Series 119), 343–372. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Th
1963 An historical syntax of the English language, Part 1: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Von Soden, Wolfram
1931 Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 401. 163–227.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1991 Reciprocal scope. Linguistic Inquiry 221. 159–173.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A.
2015. What Is New in the np-Strategy for Expressing Reciprocity in Modern Hebrew and What Are Its Origins?. Journal of Jewish Languages 3:1-2 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Inglese, Guglielmo
2017. A synchronic and diachronic typology of Hittite reciprocal constructions. Studies in Language 41:4 ► pp. 956 ff. DOI logo
Inglese, Guglielmo & Chiara Zanchi
2020. Reciprocal constructions in Homeric Greek: A typological and corpus-based approach. Folia Linguistica 54:s41-s1 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Rubin, Aaron D.
2017. The Semitic Language Family. In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology, ► pp. 854 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.