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.
1977Alternatives to the tensed S and specified subject conditions. Linguistics and Philosophy 11. 381–411.
2003Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell.
1975Syntax of Modern Arabic prose, vol. 31. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
1981Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa lectures. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.
2006Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dalrymple, Mary, Makoto Kanazawa, Yookyung Kim, Sam Mchombo & Stanley Peter
1998Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 211. 159–220.
Dougherty, Ray C
1974The syntax and semantics of each other constructions. Foundations of Language 121. 1–47.
2008Reciprocal 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.
Evans, Nicholas, Alice Gaby, Stephen C. Levinson & Asifa Majid
1990-1Nominative 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.
1991Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 221. 63–101.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2002World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heine, Bernd & Hiroyuki Miyashita
2008The 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.
Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle
1993From discourse to logic: Introduction to model theoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
1993The middle voice: A typological and diachronic study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1999A grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden: Brill.
2001Compendious Syriac grammar. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
2008Thoughts 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.
2020. Reciprocal constructions in Homeric Greek: A typological and corpus-based approach. Folia Linguistica 54:s41-s1 ► pp. 117 ff.
Rubin, Aaron D.
2017. The Semitic Language Family. In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology, ► pp. 854 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 may 2023. 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.