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 (51)
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 (4)

Cited by four other publications

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
Inglese, Guglielmo
2017. A synchronic and diachronic typology of Hittite reciprocal constructions. Studies in Language 41:4 ► pp. 956 ff. DOI logo
Rubin, Aaron D.
2017. The Semitic Language Family. In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology, ► pp. 854 ff. DOI logo
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 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.