The NP-strategy for Expressing Reciprocity

Typology, history, syntax and semantics

| The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
ISBN 9789027204783 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
ISBN 9789027261687 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
This book provides a comprehensive treatment of the syntax and semantics of a single linguistic phenomenon – the NP-strategy for expressing reciprocity – in synchronic, diachronic, and typological perspectives. It challenges the assumption common in the typological, syntactic, and semantic literature, namely that so-called reciprocal constructions encode symmetric relations. Instead, they are analyzed as constructions encoding unspecified relations. In effect, it provides a new proposal for the truth-conditional semantics of these constructions. More broadly, this book introduces new ways of bringing together historical linguistics and formal semantics, demonstrating how, on the one hand, the inclusion of historical data concerning the sources of reciprocal constructions enriches their synchronic analysis; and how, on the other hand, an analysis of the syntax and the semantics of these constructions serves as a key for understanding their historical origins.
[Typological Studies in Language, 127]  2020.  xv, 291 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Symbols and abbreviations
Part 1
Chapter 1. The types of constructions and their origin
Chapter 2. The diachronic development from a two-unit to a one-unit construction
Part 2
Chapter 3. Relics as a syntactic category: Modern Hebrew and Italian constructions as frozen formulae
Chapter 4. Heterogeneity: Languages with more than one NP-Strategy construction
Chapter 5. Changing meaning of the NP-strategy constructions
Chapter 6. A comparative linguistics study of NP-strategy constructions
Part 3
Chapter 7. The basic meaning of the NP-strategy for expressing reciprocity
Chapter 8. Specifying the meaning of the NP-strategy through context
Language index
Subject index


Aissen, Judith
1982Valence and coreference. In Studies in Transitivity [Syntax and Semantics 15], Hopper Paul & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 7–33. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, Philip S.
1999The Society of Biblibal Literature Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.Google Scholar
Alexopoulou, Theodora, Doron, Edit & Heycock, Caroline
2004Broad subjects and clitic left dislocation. In Peripheries: Syntactic Edges and Their Effects [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 59], David Adger, Cécile De Cat & George Tsoulas (eds), 329–358. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Amsterdamska, Olga
1987Schools of Thought: The Development of Linguistics from Bopp to Saussure. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning
1987From auxiliary to desinence. In Historical Development of Auxiliaries, Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat (eds), 21–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, Elabbas, Benmamoun & Sportiche, Dominique
1999Further remarks on first conjunct agreement. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 669–681. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira
1990Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Asr, Fatemeh Torabi & Demberg, Vera
2012Implicitness of discourse relations. In Proceedings of COLING 2012, Martin Kay & Christian Boitet (eds), 2669–2684. Mumbai: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay D.
1996‘Only’ noun phrases, pseudo-negative generalized quantifiers, negative polarity items and monotonicity. Journal of Semantics 13: 265–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Avanzi, Mathieu, Gendrot, Cédric & Lacheret, Anne
2010Is there a prosodic difference between left-dislocated and heavy subjects? Evidence from spontaneous speech. In Every Language, Every Style, Speech Prosody, 5th International Conference, Chicago IL, 10–14 May, 20–30. http://​www​.isca​-speech​.org​/sp2010​/ITRW
Avinery, Isaac
1964Yad ha-lashon: otsar leshoni be-seder alef-bet shel ha-nośʾim (Yad ha-lashon: Language Treasures Arranged in Alphabetical Order). Tel Aviv: Yizreʻel.Google Scholar
Bahat, Yaʻacov & Ron, Mordekhai
1980Ṿe-dayeḳ: tiḳune lashon ve-shipur ha-signon (Be Precise: Language Amendments and Style Improvement). Mahad. 2, meḥuseshet. 2th ed.Google Scholar
Baldi, Philip
1975Reciprocal verbs and symmetric predicates. Linguistische Berichte 36: 13–20.Google Scholar
Baraḳ, Semadar & Gadish, Ronit
2008Safah ḳamah: leḳeṭ mi-tokh ha-mador Leshonenu la-ʻam ʻiton ha-Arets 1932–1944 (A Rising Language: Safa qama: selections from the Leshonenu La-am column Haretz, 1932–1944) [Asupot u-mevo’ot ba-lashon Vol. 7]. Jerusalem: ha-Aḳademyah la-lashon ha-ʻIvrit.Google Scholar
Bar-Asher, Elitzur
2008The origin and the typology of the pattern qtil li in Syriac and Babylonian Aramaic. In Sha’arey Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish Languages in Honor of Moshe Bar-Asher, Vol. II, Aharon Mamman, Steven Fassberg & Yochanan Breuer (eds), 360–392. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.Google Scholar
2009A Theory of Argument Realization and its Applications to Features of the Semitic Languages. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
2009bThe imperative forms of Proto Semitic and a new perspective on Barth’s Law. Journal of American Oriental Society 128: 233–255.Google Scholar
Bar-Asher, Moshe
2004The language of Qumran: Between biblical and mishnaic Hebrew (a study in morphology). Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls 2: 137–149Google Scholar
2006Mishnaic Hebrew: An introductory survey. In The Literature of the Sages, Second Part, Michael Edward Stone & Shmuel Safrai (eds), 567–595. Amsterdam: Royal Van Gorcum & Philadelphia PA: Fortress Pres Fefrerg.Google Scholar
2012Studies in Modern Hebrew. Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language.Google Scholar
2014Studies in Classical Hebrew. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur
2011aNotes on reciprocal constructions in Akkadian in light of typological and historical considerations. Semitica et Classica 4: 23–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011bFrom typology to diachrony: Synchronic and diachronic aspects of predicative possessive constructions in Akkadian. Folia Linguistica Historica 32: 43–88Google Scholar
2012Diachronic syntactic studies in Hebrew pronominal reciprocal constructions. In Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, Cynthia Miller & Ziony Zevit (eds), 209–244. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
2014aFrom a non-argument-dative to an argument-dative: The character and origin of the qṭīl lī construction in Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Folia Orientalia 51: 59–111.Google Scholar
2014bReciprocal NP-strategies in Jewish dialects of Near Eastern Neo-Aramaic in light of parallel Semitic constructions. Journal of Jewish languages 2: 49–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Hebrew language. Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, Vol. 11, 637–639; 646–665. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2015aArguments in favor of an ambiguist approach. Paper presented at the Göttingen Workshop on Negation and Polarity, September.Google Scholar
2015bThe case for external sentential negation: Evidence from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Linguistics 53: 1031–1078. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016aIntroduction to the Grammar of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, 2nd, revised and extended edn. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.Google Scholar
2016bThe Semitic templates from the perspective of reciprocal predicates. In Proceedings of the 10th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting 2010, 16–30, 7–10 September, Haifa. http://​mmm​.lis​.upatras​.gr​/index​.php​/mmm​/article​/view​/2721​/2984
2017The pursuit of science: A study in Saussure’s philosophy of science through the lens of a historical discussion. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 27: 253–290.Google Scholar
2019Formal characterizations of bridging contexts". Ms. a paer presented at the conference Formal Diachronic Semantics 4, The Ohio State University, November 2019.Google Scholar
Bar-Lev, Moshe Elyashiv
2018Free Choice, Homogeneity, and Innocent Inclusion. PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Bar-Lev, Moshe E. & Margulis, Daniel
2014Hebrew kol: A universal quantifier as an undercover existential. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăus, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman (eds), 60–76. https://​semanticsarchive​.net​/sub2013​/ProceedingsSuB18​.pdf
Bary, Corien L.
2009Aspect in Ancient Greek a Semantic Analysis of the Aorist and Imperfective. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar
Bassi, Itai & Bar-Lev, Moshe Elyashiv
2016A unified existential semantics for bare conditionals. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21, Robert Truswell, Chris Cummins, Caroline Heycock, Brian Rabern & Hannah Rohde (eds), 22–25. https://​semanticsarchive​.net​/Archive​/DRjNjViN​/index​.html
Beck, Sigrid
2001Reciprocals are definites. Natural Language Semantics 9: 69–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Sigrid & von Stechow, Arnim
2006Dog after dog revisited. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10, Christian Ebert & Cornelia Endriss (eds), 43–54. http://​www​.sfs​.uni​-tuebingen​.de​/~cebert​/papers​/SuB10Proceedings​.pdf
Beck, Sigrid & Gergel, Remus
2015The diachronic semantics of English AGAIN. Natural Language Semantics 23: 157–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana
1982On the anaphoric status of the reciprocal constructions in Italian. The Linguistic Review 2: 101–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benmamoun, Elabbas, Archna, Bhatia & Polinsky, Maria
2010Closest conjunct agreement in head-final languages. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2009: 67–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhat, Shankara D. N.
1978Pronominalization. Pune: Deccan College.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh
2005Long distance agreement in Hindi-Urdu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 757–807. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh & Walkow, Martin
2013Locating agreement in grammar: An argument from agreement in conjunctions. Natural language and Linguistic Theory 31: 951–1013. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
2008Where’s phi? Agreement as a post-syntactic operation. In Phi-theory: Phi Features Across Interfaces and Modules, Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 295–328. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn, Butterfield, Sally, Cutler, Anne, Cutting, J. Cooper, Eberhard, Kathleen M. & Humphreys, Karin R.
2006Number agreement in British and American English: Disagreeing to agree collectively. Language 82: 64–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L.
1987‘Each other’ and its friends. Another Indiana University Linguistics Club Twentieth Anniversary Volume, 1–36. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics club.Google Scholar
Bosch, Peter, Katz, Graham & Umbach, Carla
2007The non-subject bias of German. Anaphors. In Text: Cognitive, formal and Applied Approaches to Anaphoric Reference [Studies in Language Companion Series 86], Monika Schwarz-Friesel, Manfred Consten & Mareile Knees (eds), 145–165. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bošković, Željko
2009Unifying first- and last-conjunct agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 455–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyarin, Daniel
1981An inquiry into the formation of the Middle Aramaic dialects. In Bono Homini Donum: Essays in Historical Linguistics in Memory of J. Alexander Kerns [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 16], Yoël L. Arbeitman (ed.), 613–650. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brame, Michael K.
1977Alternatives to the tensed and specified subject conditions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 381–411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brisson, Christine
1998Distributivity, Maximality, and Floating Quantifiers. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Buccellati, Giorgio
1996A Structural Grammar of Babylonian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2003Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (ed.), 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William
1994The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cable, Seth
2014Reflexives, reciprocals and contrast. Journal of Semantics 31: 1–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
2001What’s wrong with grammaticalization? Language Sciences 23: 113–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cantarino, Vicente
1975Syntax of Modern Arabic Prose, Vol. III. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Caramazza, Alfonso, Grober, Ellen H., Garvey, Caterine F. & Yates, Jack
1977Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 16: 601–609. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caudal, Parick
2015The passé composé in Old French and Modern French: Evolution or revolution? In Sentence and Discourse, Jacqueline Guéron (ed.), 178–204. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1976Givenness, contastiveness, definitness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 25–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Choi, Jongtae
1994The Aramaic of Daniel: Its Date, Place of Composition and Linguistic Comparison with Extra-Biblical Texts. PhD dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield IL.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1965Aspects of The Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1973Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 232–286. New York NY: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
1981Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1986Knowledge of Language. Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Coghill, Eleanor
2016Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of Alignment Change. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Condoravdi, Cleo & Deo, Ashwini
2014Aspect shifts in Indo-Aryan and trajectories of semantic change. In Language Change at the Syntax-Semantics Interface, Chiara Gianollo, Agnes Jäger & Doris Penka (eds), 261–292. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cook, Edward M.
1994A new perspective on the language of Onkelos and Jonathan. In The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context, Derek R. G. Beattie & Martin J. McNamara (eds), 142–156. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville
2006Agreement [Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dalman, Gustaf
1905Grammatik des Jüdisch-Palästinischen Aramäisch: Nach Den Idiomen des Palästinischen Talmud, des Onkelostargum und Prophetentargum und der Jerusalemischen Targume. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, McHombo, Sam A. & Peters, Stanley
1994Semantic similarities and syntactic contrasts between Chicheŵa and English reciprocals. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 145–163.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Kanazawa, Makoto, Kim, Yookyung, Mchombo, Sam & Peters, Stanley
1998Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald
1967aThe Logical form of action sentences. In The Logic of Decision and Action, Nicholas Rescher (ed.), 81–95. Pittsburgh PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
1967b, Causal relations. Journal of Philosophy 64: 691–703. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1970Mental events. In Experience and Theory, Lawrence Foster & Joe W. Swanson (eds), 79–102. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Delitzsch Friedrich
1889Assyrian Grammar with Paradigms, Exercises, Glossary and Bibliography. Berlin: H. Reuther.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini
2009Unifying the imperfective and the progressive: Partitions as quantificational domains. Linguistics & Philosophy 32: 475–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Formal semantics/pragmatics and language change. In The Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Claire Bowern & Bethwyn Evans (eds), 393–409. Routledge: Oxford.Google Scholar
2015Diachronic semantics. Annual Review of Linguistics 1: 179–197. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrick
2009Analysing reanalysis. Lingua 119: 1728–1755. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Smet
2014Does innovation need reanalysis? In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Change [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 69], Evie Coussé & Ferdinand von Mengden (eds), 23–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2001Pluringulars, pronouns and quirky agreement. The Linguistic Review 18: 19–41.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
2012Basic Linguistic Theory, Vol. 3: ??, ?? Further Grammatical Topics . Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit
2016Introduction. In Language Contact and the Development of Modern Hebrew, 1–22. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit & Heycock, Caroline
1999Filling and licensing multiple specifiers. In Specifiers: Minimalist Approaches, David Adger, Susan Pintzuk, Bernadette Plunkett & George Tsoulas (eds), 69–89. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2010In support of broad subjects in Hebrew. Lingua 120: 1764–1776. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit & Rappaport Hovav, Malka
2009A unified approach to reflexivization in Semitic and Romance. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1: 75–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, Ray C.
1970A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures, Part I. Language 46: 850–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, Ray C.
1974The syntax and semantics of each other constructions. Foundations of Language 12: 1–47.Google Scholar
Driver, Godfrey R.
1925Grammar of the Colloquial Arabic of Syria and Palestine. London: Probsthain & Co.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine
2006Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Grammaticalization and semantic reanalysis. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3, Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds), 2675–2702. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011Grammaticalization and Semantic Change. In Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Handbook of Grammaticalization, pp. 389–400. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckhoff, Hanne Martine & Haug, Dag Trygve Truslew
2015Aspect and prefixation in Old Church Slavonic. Diachronica 32: 186- 230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, Paul
1999Some correlations between semantic plurality and quantifier scope. In The North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 29, Nancy Hall, Masako Hirotani & Pius Tamanji (eds), 81–92. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J.
2011Descriptions of reciprocal situation in Lao. In Evans et al. (eds), 129–147.Google Scholar
Erades, Peter A.
1950Points of modern English Syntax XII. English Studies 31: 153–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2008Reciprocal constructions: Towards a structural typology. In König & Gast (eds), 33–103.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Gaby, Alice & Nordlinger, Rachel
2007Valency mismatches and the coding of reciprocity in Australian languages. Linguistic Typology 11: 541–597. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Gaby, Alice, Levinson, Stephen C. & Majid, Asifa
(eds) 2011aReciprocals and Semantic Typology [Typological Studies in Languages 98]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2011bIntroduction: Reciprocals and semantic typology. In Evans et al. (eds), 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, Martin
1990–1Nominative anaphors in Icelandic: Morphology or syntax? In Issues in Germanic Syntax, Werner Abraham, Wim Kosmeijer & Eric Reuland (eds), 277–305. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Types of anaphoric expressions: Reflexives and reciprocals. In Frajzyngier & Walker (eds), Vol.2, 63–83.Google Scholar
2008Domain restrictions on reciprocal interpretation. In König & Volker (eds), 557–576.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine
2001“Wi(e)der” and “Again(st)”, In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, Caroline Féry & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 101–130. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fassberg, Steven
1990Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah. Atlanta GA: Scholars Press.Google Scholar
2010The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Challa. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fiengo, Robert & Lasnik, Howard
1973The logical structure of reciprocal sentences in English. Foundations of Language 9: 447–468.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana & Carlson, Gregory N.
2001Distributivity strengthens reciprocity, collectivity weakens it. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 417–466. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Fintel, Kai
1995The formal semantics of grammaticalization. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 2, Jill N. Beckman (ed.), 175–198. Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
2000Whatever. Semantics and Linguistics Theory 10: 27–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives 22: 137–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
1979The phases of the Aramaic language. In A Wandering Aramean, 57–84. Chico CA: Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Danny
2007Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics, Penka Stateva & Uli Sauerland (eds), 71–120. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt
1999Coding of the reciprocal function: Two solutions. In Frajzyngier & Walker (eds), 179–194.Google Scholar
Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Walker, Traci
(eds) 1999Reciprocals: Form and Function, 2 Vols [Typological Studies in Language 40–41]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Walker, Traci originally published as Curl, Traci)Google Scholar
Frazer, Mary
2017Commentary on therapeutic (Qutāru). Cuneiform Commentaries Project, Eckhart Frahm, Enrique Jiménez, Mary Frazer & Klaus Wagensonner, 2013–2018. https://​ccp​.yale​.edu​/P296515. DOI: 10079/v41nsdr> (7 march 2018).
Gaby, Alice
2008Distinguishing reciprocals from reflexives in Kuuk Thaayorre. In König & Gast (eds), 259–288.Google Scholar
Gelb, Ignace J.
1957Notes on Von Soden’s grammar of Akkadian. Bibliotheca Orientalis 12: 93–111.Google Scholar
Gelb, Ignace J., Benno. Landsberger
, et al. 1956The Assyrian Dictionary. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2011The linguistic Cycle. Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geller, Markham J.
2010Ancient Babylonian Medicine: Theory and Practice. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gendler Szabó, Zoltán
2000Problems of Compositionality [PhD Dissertations]. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
2001Adjectives in context. In Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 90], István Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds), 119 -146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gillon, Brendan S.
1987The readings of plural noun phrases in English. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 199–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
2015The Diachrony of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, Lila R.
1965Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41: 260–293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glinert, Lewis
1983The reciprocal structure in Modern Hebrew. In David Gross Anniversary Volume, Kodesh Shlomo (ed.), 196–213. Jerusalem: Hamatmind. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
1989The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon
1991‘Onself’, ‘one’s own’ and ‘one another’ in Amharic. In Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau, Alan S. Kaye. (ed.), 531–549. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Jared R.
2011The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Amadya. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul
1975Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds). New York NY: Academic Press. (Reprinted in Grice, Paul 1989 Studies in the Way of Words, 22–40. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.)Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen & Stokhof, Martin
1984Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Haas, Florian
2010Reciprocity in English: Historical Development and Synchronic Structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Häberl, Charles G.
2009Neo-Mandaic dialect of Khorramshahr. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Haberlandt, Karl & Bingham, Geoffrey
1978Verbs contribute to the coherence of brief narratives: Reading related and unrelated sentence triples. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17: 419–425. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hacquard, Valentine
2010On the event relativity of modal auxiliaries. Natural Language Semantics 18: 79–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halevy, Rivka
2010Reciprocal constructions in Hebrew. In Judaic Studies in Memory of Moriah Liebson, Maman Ahron & Rivka Bliboim (eds), 265–286. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
2011aThe grammaticalization of bipartite reciprocal markers in Hebrew. Hebrew Studies 52: 7–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011bReciprocal constructions between syntax and lexicon. Leshonenu 73: 401–422. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle
1995Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1997Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1999Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37: 1043–1068. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59], Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds), 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In Nedjalkov (ed.), 2087–2115.Google Scholar
Hasselbach, Rebecca
2007External plural markers in Semitic: A new assessment. In Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg [SAOC 60], Cynthia L. Miller (ed.), 123–138. Chicago IL: The Oriental Institute.Google Scholar
Hecker, Karl
1968Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte [Analecta Orientalia 44]. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, Lasnik, Howard & May, Robert
1991Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 63–101.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1994Grammaticalization as an explanatory parameter. In Perspectives on Grammaticalization [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 109], William Pagliuca (ed.), 235–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1999, Polysemy involving reflexive and reciprocal markers in African languages. In Frajzyngier & Walker (eds), Vol.2, 1–30.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania
2002World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike & Hünnemeyer, Friederike
1991Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Miyashita, Hiroyuki
2008The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: A grammaticalization perspective. In König & Gast (eds), 169–2232.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert
1972Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in Classification. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
1974La division des langues sémitiques. Actes du premier congrès international de linguistique sémitique et chamito-sémitque, Paris 16–19 juillet, 1969, André Caquot & David Cohen (eds), 181–194. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1975Genetic classification and Ethiopian Semitic. In Hamito-Semitica, James Bynon & Theodora Bynon (eds), 103–27. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1976Two principles of genetic reconstruction. Lingua 38: 89–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline
1993Syntactic predication in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2: 167–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline & Doron, Edit
2003Categorical subjects. Gengo Kenkyu 123: 95–135.Google Scholar
Hicks, Glyn
2009The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 139]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, James
1981Reciprocal interpretation. Journal of Linguistic Research 1: 97–117.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus
2004Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In What Makes Grammaticalization?: A Look from its Fringes and its Components, Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds), 21–42. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hinterwimmer, Stefan
2015A unified account of the properties of German demonstrative pronouns. In The Proceedings of the Workshop on Pronominal Semantics at NELS 40, Patrick Grosz, Pritty Patel-Grosz & Igor Yanovich (eds), 61–107. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Hans
1963Die Inschriften der Könige von Agade. Archiv für Orientforschung 20: 1–82.Google Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R.
1979Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 3: 67–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2003Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Lawrence
1984Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Meaning, Form and Use in Context [GURT 1984], Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), 11–42. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
1989A natural history of negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996Exclusive company: ‘Only’ and the dynamics of vertical inference. Journal of Semantics 13: 1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huehnergard, John & Rubin, Aaron
2011Phyla and waves: Models of classification. Semitic languages. In Semitic Lanuages: An International Handbook, Stefan Weninger, Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck & Janet Watson (eds), 259‐278. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, Peter & Nordlinger, Rachel
2011Reciprocal constructions in English: Each other and beyond. In Evans et al. (eds), 75–89.Google Scholar
Inglese, Guglielmo
2017A synchronic and diachronic typology of Hittite reciprocal constructions. Studies in Language 41: 956–1006. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D.
2001Beyond ‘pathways’ and ‘unidirectionality’: On the discontinuity of language transmission and the counterability of grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23: 265–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jankowsky, Kurt R.
1972The Neogrammarians: a re-evaluation of their place in the development of linguistic science. (Janua Linguarum, series minor, 116.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jastrow, Otto
1988Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Hertevin (Provinz Siirt). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Jay, Jonathan
2009Reciprocal constructions in Biblical Hebrew. GIALens: Electronic Notes Series 3(1). https://​www​.diu​.edu​/documents​/gialens​/Vol3​-1​/Jay​-HebrewReciprocals​.pdf
Jespersen, Otto
1949[1913]A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part II, Vol. 1. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D.
2001Is there such a thing as “grammaticalization?” Language Sciences 23: 163–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005How accommodating of change is grammaticalization? The case of ‘lateral shifts’. Logos and Language 6: 1–7.Google Scholar
Joüon, Paul & Muraoka, Takamitsu
1991A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Reyle, Uwe
1993From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kański, Zbigniew
1987Logical symmetry and natural language reciprocals. In Proceedings of the 1987 Debrecen Symposium on Logic and Language, 49–68. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
1974Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics 1: 181–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, Stephen A.
2013Targum pseudo-Jonathan and late Jewish literary Aramaic. Aramaic Studies 11: 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Janice M., Baillet, Susan D. & Brown, Polly
1984The effects of causal cohesion on comprehension and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 232: 115–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kehler, Andrew, Kertz, Laura, Rohde, Hannah & Elman, Jeffrey L.
2008Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 25: 1–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne
1993The Middle Voice: A Typological and Diachronic Study [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey
1999A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Sialect of the Jews of Arbel. Boston MA: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and Ḥalabja. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008aThe expression of definiteness in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. In Aramaic in its Historical Setting, Holger Gzella & Margaretha L. Folmer (eds), 209–226. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2008bThe Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Left dislocation in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus 50: 91–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Yooking & Peters, Stanley
1998Semantic and pragmatic context-dependence: The case ofreciprocals. In Barbosa, is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax, Danny Fox Pilar, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis & David Pesetsky (eds), 221–248. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul & Condoravdi, Cleo
2006Tracking Jespersen’s cycle. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, Mark Janse, Brian D. Joseph & Angela Ralli (eds), 172–197. Mytilene: Doukas.Google Scholar
Kjellmer, Goran
1982Each other and one another: On the use of the English reciprocal pronouns. English Studies 63: 231–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knjazev, Jurij P.
1998Towards a typology of grammatical polysemy: Reflexive markers as markers of reciprocity. In Typology of Verbal Categories, Leonid Kulikov & Heinz Vater (eds), 185–93. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Reciprocal constructions in Russian. In Nedjalkov (ed.), 673–708. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard
2011Reciprocals and semantic typology: Some concluding remarks. In Evans et al. (eds), 327–339.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Shigehiro Kokutani
2006Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: Focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 44: 271–302. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker
(eds) 2008Reciprocals and Reflexives – Theoretical and Cross-linguistic Explorations [Trends in Linguistics 192]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008aReciprocity and reflexivity – description, typology and theory. In König & Gast (eds), 1–31.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan
1987Domains and Dynasties: The Radical Autonomy of Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kouwenberg, Norbertus J. C.
1997Gemination in the Akkadian Verb [Studia Semitica Neerlandica 32]. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1981The notional category of modality. In Words, Worlds and Contexts, Hans-Jürgen Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds), 38–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1991Modality. In Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 639–650. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kremers, Joost
1997How Arabs Speak to Each Other about Themselves: A Study of nafs and baʿḍ in Modern Standard Arabic. MA thesis, University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1996Pragmatic strengthening in plural predications and donkey sentences. Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 6: 136–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Križ, Manuel
2015Aspects of Homogeneity in the Semantics of Natural Language. PhD dissertation, University of Vienna.Google Scholar
2016Homogeneity, non-maximality, and all. Journal of Semantics 33: 1–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kropotkin, Pëtr
1902Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. London: HeinemannGoogle Scholar
Kruspe, Nicole
2011Reciprocal constructions in Mah Meri. In Evans et al. (eds), 149–162.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid
2007Reciprocal constructions in Vedic. In Nedjalkov (ed.), 709–738.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu
1973The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, Gina R., Paczynski, Martin & Ditman, Tali
2011Establishing causal coherence across sentences: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23: 1230–1246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki
1986Movement of noun phrases in Japanese. In Issues in Japanese Linguistics, Takashi Imai & Mamoru Saito (eds), 229–272. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1975[1965]The evolution of grammatical categories. In Esquisses linguistiques II, Jerzy Kuryłowicz (ed.), 38–54. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Kutscher, Edward Yechezkel
1971Aramaic. In Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 3, 259–287. New York NY: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
1977Aramaic, Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa ]Current Trends in Linguistics 6[, 347–412. The Hague: Mouton. (=Kutscher E.Y. Hebrew and Aramaic Studies, Jerusalem 1977, 90–155.)Google Scholar
Kuular, Klara B.
2007Reciprocals, sociatives, comitatives, and assistives in Tuvan. In Nedjalkov (ed.), 1163–1229.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1972Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Peter, Stanley
1966Phrasal conjunction and symmetric predicates. In Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation Report [NSF-27], VI/1–49. Cambridge MA: Harvard Computation Laboratory (reprinted in Modern Studies in English, David Reibel & Sanford A. Schane (eds), 113–142. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall 1969.)Google Scholar
Landau, Idan
2006Chain resolution in Hebrew V(P)‐fronting. Syntax 9: 32–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1977Syntactic reanalysis. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, Charles N. Li (ed), 57–139. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence
1978The logic of reciprocity. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 177–197.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter Nathan
2012Contextualism and compositionality. Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 171–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lebeaux, David
1983A distributional difference between reciprocals and reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 1: 723–728.Google Scholar
Lee, Yo-Seob
2016Description of the BH lexeme el: A Cognitive Approach. MA thesis, Stellenbosch University.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1995Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Leslau, Wolf
2000Introductory Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.Google Scholar
Levin, Magnus
2001Agreement with collective nouns in English [Lund Studies in English 103]. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
2006Collective nouns and language change. English Language and Linguistics 10: 321–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David
1973Causation. Journal of Philosophy 70: 556–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1977A Mechanism of the development of copula morphemes. In Mechanism of Syntactic Change, Charles N. Li (ed.), 419–444. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, Frantisek
1985Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5: 19–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994Reflexives and reciprocals. In The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 7, edited by R. E. Asher (editor-in-chief), 3504–3509. Oxford: PergamGoogle Scholar
1999Reciprocals without reflexive. In Frajzyngier & Walker (eds), 31–62.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David
1999The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006How New Languages Emerge. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macdonell, Arthur. A.
1927A Sanskrit Grammar for Students. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Maclean, Arthur John
1895Grammar of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac as Spoken by the Eastern Syrians of Kurdistan, North-West Persia, and the Plain of Mosul with Notices of the Vernacular of the Jews of Azerbaijan and of Zakhu Near Mosul. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Macuch, Rudolf
1965Handbook of Classical and Modern Mandaic. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Magri, Giorgio
2014An account for the homogeneity effects triggered by plural definites and conjunction based on double strengthening. In Pragmatics, Semantics and the Case of Scalar Implicatures, Salvatore Pistoia Reda (ed.), 99–145. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa, Evans, Nicholas & Gaby, Alice
2011The semantics of reciprocal constructions across languages: A extensional approach. In Evans et al. (eds), 29–59.Google Scholar
Malamud, Sophia A.
2012The meaning of plural definites: A decision-theoretic approach. Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 1–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Willianm C. & Thompson, Sandra A.
1986Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes 9: 57–90. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marušič, Franc, Nevins, Andrew & Badecker, Bill
2015The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18: 39–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maslova, Elena
1999Reciprocals and set construal. In Frajzyngier & Walker (eds), 161–178.Google Scholar
2007Reciprocal and polyadic (remarkable reciprocals in Bantu). In Nedjalkov (ed.), 335–352.Google Scholar
2008Reflexive encoding of reciprocity: Cross-linguistic and language-internal variation. In König & Gast (eds), 225–257.Google Scholar
Mari, Alda
2014Each other, asymmetry and reasonable futures. Journal of Semantics 31: 209–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém
1928On linguistic characterology with illustrations from Modern English. In Acted du Premier Congrès International de Linguistes à La Haye, 56–63. Leiden: W.A. Sijthoff.Google Scholar
Maul, Stefan M.
2009Die Lesung der Rubra dù.dù.bi und kìd.kì Orientalia NS 78: 69–80.Google Scholar
McDaniels, Todd
2003What’s wrong with reanalysis? Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 81–88.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B.
1999Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Nyulnyulan languages. In Frajzyngier & Walker (eds), 85–122.Google Scholar
Méndez Dosuna, Julián
1997Fusion, fission and relevance in language change: De-univerbation in Greek morphology. Studies in Language 21: 577–612. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merin, Artur
2003Formal Semantic Theory and Diachronic Data: A Case Study in Grammaticalization [Arbeitsbericht des Sonderforschungsbereich 340. No. 75). Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. http://​www​.semanticsarchive​.net​/Archive​/jhjZDgzY​/fstadd​.pdf
de Meyer, Leon
1962L’accadien des Contrats de Suse. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Montague, Richard
1970Universal grammar. Theoria 36: 373–398. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mor, Uri
2015Judean Hebrew: the language of the Hebrew documents from Judea between the first and the second revolts. Jerusalem: The Academy of The Hebrew Language.Google Scholar
Morag, Shelomo
1988Vocalised Talmudic Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, Vol. I. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Moshkovitz, Yechiel T.
1985Sēfer Yəḥezkēl: Daʽat Mikrâ. Jerusalem: The Rabbi Kook Institution Publishers.Google Scholar
Munn, Alan
1999First-conjunct agreement: Against a clausal analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 643–668. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muraoka, Takamitsu
2011A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic [Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series 38]. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Murray, John D.
1997Logical connectives and local coherence. In Sources of Coherence in Reading, Robert F. Lorch & Edward J. O’Brien (eds), 107–125. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Murray, Sarah
2008Reflexivity and reciprocity with(out) underspecification. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, Alte Grøn (ed.), 455–469. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Mutzafi, Hezy
2004The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi Kurdistan). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2008The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Betanure (province of Dihok). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Heine, Bernd
2011Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
(ed.) 2007Reciprocal Constructions, 5 Vols [Typological Studies in Language 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007aOverview of the research: Definitions of terms, framework, and related issues. In Nedjalkov (ed.) 3–114.Google Scholar
2007bEncoding of the reciprocal meaning. In Nedjalkov (ed.), 147–208.Google Scholar
2007cPolysemy of reciprocal markers. In Nedjalkov (ed.), 251–333.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Geniušienė, Emma Š.
2007Questionnaire on reciprocals. In Nedjalkov (ed.), 379–434.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor & Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
2007aReciprocal, sociative and competitive constructions in Karachay-Balkar. In Nedjalkov (ed.), 969–1019. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Igor & Nedjalkov, Vladimir
2007b Reciprocals, sociatives, comitatives, and assistives in Yakut". In Nedjalkov (ed.), 1095–1161.Google Scholar
Neishtadt, Mila
2015The lexical component in the Aramaic substrate of Palestinian Arabic. In Semitic Languages in Contact, Aaron Michael Butts (ed.), 280–310. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick
2001Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences 23: 187–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nöldeke, Thodore
1875Mandäische Grammatik. Halle: Waisenhaus.Google Scholar
2001Compendious Syriac Grammar, transl. by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel
2009Degrammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, Eric
1957Usage and Abusage, 5th edn. London: Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M.
1972A note on syntactic and semantic number in English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 243–246.Google Scholar
Philip, Willian
2000Adult and child understanding of simple reciprocal sentences. Language 76: 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, Paul M.
2015Framing events variables. Erkenntnis 80: 31–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans
2008Thoughts on the origin, progress, and pronominal status of reciprocal forms in Germanic, occasioned by those of Bavarian. In König & Gast (eds), 347–373.Google Scholar
Poesio, Massimo
1994Ambiguity, underspecification, and discourse interpretation. In International Workshop on Computational Semantics, Harry Bunt, Reinhard Muskens & Gerrit Rentier (eds), 151–160. Tilburg: University of Tilburg.Google Scholar
Poortman, Eva B., Struiksma, Martin E., Kerem, Nir, Friedmann, Naama & Winter, Yoad
2018Reciprocal expressions and the maximal typicality hypothesis. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3: 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Potter, Simon
1953The expression of reciprocity. English Studies 34: 252–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan
1985Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rabin, Chaim
1958The historical background of Qumran Hebrew. Scripta Hierosolymitana 4: 144–161.Google Scholar
2000Rabin, The Development of the Syntax of Post-Biblical Hebrew (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 29), Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Rapold, Christian J.
2011Semantics of Khoekhoe reciprocal constructions. In Evans et al. (eds), 61–74.Google Scholar
Rawlins, Kyle
2015Indifference and scalar inferences in free relatives. In Epistemic Indefinites: Exploring Modality Beyond the Verbal Domain, Luis Alonso-Ovalle & Paula Menéndez-Benito (eds), 267–288. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya
1995Interface Strategies. Utrecht: OTS Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Siloni, Tal
2005The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 389–436. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rendsburg, Gary A.
1990Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew. New Haven CT: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
del Río Sánchez, Francisco
2013Influences of Aramaic on Dialectal Arabic. In Archaism and Innovation in the Semitic Languages, Juan Pedro Monferrer-Sala & Wilfred G. E. Watson (eds), 129–136. Córdoba: Oriens Academic.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige
1987Modal Subordination, Anaphora, and Distributivity. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
2012Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics 5: 1–69. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
2007Diachronic Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna
2003Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, Robert & Schulz, Robert Katrin
2007Only: Meaning and implicatures. In Questions in Dynamic Semantics, Aloni Maria, Alastair Butler & Paul Dekker (eds), 193–223. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1973On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, Timothy E. Moore (ed.), 111–144. New York NY: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor & Mervis, Carolyn B.
1975Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7: 573–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Aaron D.
2005Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization [Harvard Semitic Series 57]. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
2008The subgrouping of the Semitic languages. Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 79–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010The Mehri Language of Oman. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, Udo & Friedrich Försterling
1997The psychological causality implicit in verbs: A review. Psychological Bulletin 121: 192–218Google Scholar
Sabar, Yona
2002A Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dictionary: Dialects of Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa and Zakho, northwestern Iraq; Based on Old and New Manuscripts, Oral and Written Bible Translations, Folkloric Texts, and Diverse Spoken Registers, with an Introduction to Grammar and Semantics, and an Index of Talmudic Words which have Reflexes in Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Sabato, Sivan & Winter, Yoad
2012Relational domains and the interpretation of reciprocals. Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 191–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salonen, Erkki
1962Untersuchungen zur Schrift und Sprache des Altbabylonischen von Susa, mit Berücksichtigung der Mâlamir-Texte. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted
2005Coherence, causality and cognitive complexity in discourse. In Proceedings/Actes SEM-05, First International Symposium on the Exploration and Modelling of Meaning, 105–114. Biarritz.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted. J. & Noordman, Leo G.
2000The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes 29: 37–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1931Southern Paiute, a Shoshonean language. Texts of the Kaibab Paiutes and Uintah Utes. Southern Paiute Dictionary [Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 65]. Boston MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli
1998Plurals, derived, and reciprocals. The Interpretive Tract: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25: 177–204.Google Scholar
2004a“A team,” definitely. Snippets 9: 11–12.Google Scholar
2004bA Comprehensive Semantics for Agreement. Montreal: McGill.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger
1996Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Erwin M., Duchan, Judith F. & Scott, Paula J.
1991The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adults’ interpretations of simple stories. Discourse Processes 14: 27–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Segal, Moses H.
1908Mišnaic Hebrew and its relation to Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Jewish Quarterly review 20: 647–737. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1927Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
1936 Diqduq lešon ha-mišna. Tel-Aviv: Devir.Google Scholar
Sharvit, Shimon
2006Language and Style of Avoth through the Ages. Beer-Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press.Google Scholar
Sichel, Ivy
2001Studies in the Syntax of Features and Pronouns. Phd dissertation, CUNY.Google Scholar
2008Demonstrative pronouns and anaphora. In Hebrew Theoretical Linguistics, Galia Hatav (ed.), 279–307. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.Google Scholar
2009New evidence for the structural realization of the implicit external argument in nominalizations. Linguistic Inquiry 40: 712–723. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sichel, Ivy & Wiltschko, Martina
2018Demonstrative pronouns and the linguistic encoding of appraisal. In WCCFL 36: Proceedings of the 36th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, William G. Bennett, Lindsay Hracs & Dennis Ryan (eds), 365–373. Sommerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Siloni, Tal
2001Reciprocal verbs. In Proceedings of the Israeli Association of Theoretical Linguistics 17, Yehuda N. Falk (ed.). Jerusalem: IATL.Google Scholar
2002Active lexicon. Theoretical Linguistics 28: 383–400.Google Scholar
2008On the Hitpa’el template. In Theoretical Hebrew Linguistics, Galia Hatav (ed.), 111–138. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.Google Scholar
2012Reciprocal verbs and symmetry. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30: 261–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, Jasmin
2000Der neuostaramäische Dialekt von Bēṣpän (Provinz Mardin, Südosttürkei): Eine grammatische Darstellung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Sitaridou, Ioanna
2014Modality, antiveridicality and complementation: The Romeyka infinitive as a negative polarity item. Lingua 148: 118–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sivan, Reuven
1979Leḳsiḳon le-shipur ha-lashon, 3rd edn. Jerusalem: Devir.Google Scholar
Smith, Edward E., Shoben, Edward J. & Rips, Lance J.
1974Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review 81: 214–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith. Peter, W.
2017The syntax of semantic agreement in English. Journal of Linguistics 53: 823–863. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas
1997Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 318–43.Google Scholar
Sokoloff, Michael
2002A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press; Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Solstad, Torgrim & Bott, Oliver
2017Causality and causal reasoning in natural language. In The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning, Michael R. Waldmann (ed.), 619–644. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Spector, Benjamin
2013Homogeneity and plurals: From the strongest meaning hypothesis to supervaluations. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, Urtzi Etxeberria, Anamaria Fălăus, Aritz Irurtzun & Bryan Leferman (eds). https://​semanticsarchive​.net​/sub2013​/ProceedingsSuB18​.pdf
Spector Shirtz, Ilona
2014The Syntax of Non-verbal Predication in Modern Hebrew: Predicate Nominals, Pseudoclefts and Clefts. PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Stadel, Christian
2013Morphosyntax of Samaritan Aramaic. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert
1973Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2: 447–457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1978Assertion. In Pragmatics [Syntax and Semantics ], Peter Cole (ed.), 315–332. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1998On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7: 3–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stein, David E. S.
2008The noun אִישׁ (’îš) in Biblical Hebrew: A term of affiliation. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8: 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stuurman, Frits
1987Each other – one another: ‘There will always prove to be a difference’. English Studies 68: 353–360. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sulkala, Helena & Karjalainen, Merja
1992Finnish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tadmor, Hayim
1958Historical implications of the correct rendering of Akkadian dâku . Journal of Near Eastern Studies 17: 129–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talay, Shabo
2008Die neuaramäischen Dialekte der Khabur-Assyrer in Nordostsyrien: Einführung, Phonologie und Morphologie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Testen, David
1998The derivational role of the Semitic N-Stem. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 88: 127–145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thackston, Wheeler M.
2006Kurmanji Kurdish: A Reference Grammar with Selected Readings. Diyarbakir: Renas Media.Google Scholar
Thomason, Richmond H.
1990Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In Intentions in Communication, Philip Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha Pollack (eds), 325–363. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur
1979On Complementation in Icelandic. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Trabasso, Tom & van den Broek, Paul
1985Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language 24: 612–630. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Heine, Bernd
1991Introduction. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol I [Typologial Studies in Language 19], Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds), 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard
2002Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Trivers, Robert L.
1971The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vachek, Josef
1966The Linguistic School of Prague: An Introduction to its Theory and Practice. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Vezzosi, Letizia
2010Micro-process of grammaticalization: The case of Italian l’un l’altro . In Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues [Studies in Language Companion Series 119], Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds), 343–372. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus
1963An Historical Syntax of the English Language, Part 1: Syntactical Units with One Verb. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Voigt, Rainer
2001Semitische Verwandtschaftstermini. In New Data and New Methods in Afroasiatic Linguistics: Robert Hetzron in Memoriam, Andrzej Zaborski (ed.), 205–218. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Von Soden, Wolfram
1931Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Aarchäologie 40: 163–227.Google Scholar
1933Der hymnisch-epische Dialekt des Akkadischen. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 41: 90–183.Google Scholar
1952Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik [GAG]. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.Google Scholar
de Waal, Frans
2005How animals do business. Scientific American 292: 72–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William & Herzog, Marvin I.
1968Directions for historical linguistics. In Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change, Winfred P. Lehmann & Yakov Malkiel (eds), 95–188. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Werner, Arnold
1991Das Neuwestaramäische IV. Orale Literatur aus Maʿlūla [Semitica Viva; Bd. 4/IV]. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
2009Reciprocity: An NSM approach to linguistic typology and social universals. Studies in Language 33: 103–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willer-Gold, Jana, Arsenijević, Boban, Batinić, Mia, Čordalija Nermina, Kresić, Marijana, Leko, Nedžad, Marušič, Franc Lanko, Milićev, Tanja, Milićević, Nataša, Mitić, Ivana, Nevins, Andrew, Peti-Stantić, Anita, Stanković, Branimir, Šuligoj, Tina& Tušek, Jelena
2016Conjunct agreement and gender in South Slavic: From theory to experiments to theory. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 24: 187–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1991Reciprocal scope. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 159–173.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad
2018Symmetric predicates and the semantics of reciprocal alternations. Semantic and Pragmatics 11: 1–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zaliznjak, Anna A. & Shmelev, Aleksej D.
2007Sociativity, conjoining, reciprocity and the Latin Prefix com- . In Nedjalkov (ed.), 209–229.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedzer Hugo
2004Sentential Negation and Negative Concord, PhD Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Horn, Laurence R.
2021.  In Inquiries in Philosophical Pragmatics [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 28],  pp. 7 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 2021. 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.

Subjects & Metadata
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2019049894 | Marc record