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.
How similar are reciprocal constructions in the semantic parameters they encode? We investigate this question by using an extensional approach, which examines similarity of meaning by examining how constructions are applied over a set of 64 videoclips depicting reciprocal events (Evans et al. 2004). We apply statistical modelling to descriptions from speakers of 20 languages elicited using the videoclips. We show that there are substantial differences in meaning between constructions of different languages.
This paper identifies four reciprocal construction types in Khoekhoe (Central Khoisan). After a brief description of the morphosyntax of each construction, semantic factors governing their choice are explored. Besides lexical semantics, the number of participants, timing of symmetric subevents, and symmetric conceptualisation are shown to account for the distribution of the four partially competing reciprocal constructions.
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 et al. 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.
Indo-Pakistani Sign Language (IPSL) is the sign language used by deaf communities in a large region across India and Pakistan. This visual-gestural language has a dedicated construction for specifically expressing reciprocal relationships, which can be applied to agreement verbs and to auxiliaries. The reciprocal construction relies on a change in the movement pattern of the signs it applies to. In addition, IPSL has a number of other strategies which can have a reciprocal interpretation, and the IPSL lexicon includes a good number of inherently reciprocal signs. All reciprocal expressions can be modified in complex ways that rely on the grammatical use of the sign space. Considering grammaticalisation and lexicalisation processes linking some of these constructions is also important for a better understanding of reciprocity in IPSL.
This paper investigates the semantics of reciprocal constructions in Mundari, an Austro-Asiatic language of northern India. Two grammatical constructions express reciprocity: a basic construction, which infixes <pV> to verb roots, and a serialised construction adding -idi ‘take’ to the basic reciprocal. The reciprocal construction is limited to subject-object coreference and cannot be fed by affixal derivational processes like applicatives or causatives, though it can be fed by zero conversion from other word classes; it may itself feed the causative. From a semantic perspective, the most unusual feature of Mundari reciprocals is the existence of a specialised construction for expressing sequential chaining situations, namely the serialised construction with -idi ‘take’; the basic reciprocal construction is not acceptable for sequential chaining situations.
This article describes the grammatical resources available to speakers of Lao for describing situations that can be described broadly as ‘reciprocal’. The analysis is based on complementary methods: elicitation by means of non-linguistic stimuli, exploratory consultation with native speakers, and investigation of corpora of spontaneous language use. Typically, reciprocal situations are described using a semantically general ‘collaborative’ marker on an action verb. The resultant meaning is that some set of people participate in a situation ‘together’, broadly construed. The collaborative marker is found in two distinct syntactic constructions, which differ in terms of their information structural contexts of use. The paper first explores in detail the semantic range of the collaborative marker as it occurs in the more common ‘Type 1’ construction, and then discusses a special pragmatic context for the ‘Type 2’ construction. There is some methodological discussion concerning the results of elicitation via video stimuli. The chapter also discusses two specialised constructions dedicated to the expression of strict reciprocity.
This paper provides an account of reciprocal constructions in Mah Meri, an Aslian (Austroasiatic) language spoken in peninsular Malaysia. A brief outline of the relevant grammatical points is provided before turning to examine the two constructions identified. The ‘bare conjunct’ construction centres on a small class of ‘naturally reciprocal’ verbs where the participants are encoded as a single NP. The typologically unique ‘double distributive’ construction is used with all other semantically appropriate verbs and encodes the two participants separately, but with the same form. It emerges that in Mah Meri reciprocal constructions are only used for situations of strict reciprocity where the event is symmetrical, constant, and saturated
This work explores the linguistic encoding of reciprocal events in Jahai (Aslian, Mon-Khmer, Malay Peninsula) on the basis of linguistic descriptions of the video stimuli of the ‘Reciprocal constructions and situation type’ task (Evans et al. 2004). Reciprocal situation types find expression in three different constructions: distributive verb forms, reciprocal verb forms, and adjunct phrases containing a body part noun. Distributives represent the dominant strategy, reciprocal forms and body part adjuncts being highly restricted across event types and consultants. The distributive and reciprocal morphemes manifest intricate morphological processes typical of Aslian languages. The paper also addresses some analytical problems raised by the data, such as structural ambiguity and restrictions on derivation, as well as individual variation.
Yélî Dnye has two discernable dedicated constructions for reciprocal marking. The first and main construction uses a dedicated reciprocal pronoun numo, somewhat like English each other. We can recognise two subconstructions. First, the ‘numo-construction’, where the reciprocal pronoun is a patient of the verb, and where the invariant pronoun numo is obligatorily incorporated, triggering intransitivisation (e.g. A-NPs become absolutive). This subconstruction has complexities, for example in the punctual aspect only, the verb is inflected like a transitive, but with enclitics mismatching actual person/number. In the second variant or subconstruction, the ‘noko-construction’, the same reciprocal pronoun (sometimes case-marked as noko) occurs but now in oblique positions with either transitive or intransitive verbs. The reciprocal element here has some peculiar binding properties. Finally, the second independent construction is a dedicated periphrastic (or woni…woni) construction, glossing ‘the one did X to the other, and the other did X to the one’. It is one of the rare cross-serial dependencies that show that natural languages cannot be modelled by context-free phrase-structure grammars. Finally, the usage of these two distinct constructions is discussed.
This paper describes the syntax and semantics of reciprocity in the Central dialect of Rotokas, a non-Austronesian (Papuan) language spoken in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. In Central Rotokas, there are three main reciprocal construction types, which differ formally according to where the reflexive/reciprocal marker (ora-) occurs in the clause: on the verb, on a pronominal argument or adjunct, or on a body part noun. The choice of construction type is determined by two considerations: the valency of the verb (i.e., whether it has one or two core arguments) and whether the reciprocal action is performed on a body part. The construction types are compatible with a wide range of the logical subtypes of reciprocity (strong, melee, chaining, etc.).
This paper describes how reciprocity is expressed in the Papuan (i.e. non-Austronesian) language Savosavo, spoken in the Solomon Islands. The main strategy is to use the reciprocal nominal mapamapa, which can occur in different NP positions and always triggers default third person singular masculine agreement, regardless of the number and gender of the referents. After a description of this as well as another strategy that is occasionally used (the ‘joint activity construction’), the paper will provide a detailed analysis of data elicited with set of video stimuli and show that the main strategy is used to describe even clearly asymmetric situations, as long as more than one person acts on more than one person in a joint activity.
Kilivila is one of the languages of the world that lacks dedicated reciprocal forms. After a short introduction the paper briefly shows how reciprocity is either not expressed at all, is only implicated in an utterance, or expressed periphrastically.
This chapter provides the first detailed description of the form and use of the three strategies for expressing reciprocity in Mawng, a non-Pama Nyungan language of the Iwaidjan language family (Australia). The only productive strategy is the reciprocal complex construction which has transparently developed from a biclausal reciprocal construction. Other strategies for encoding reciprocity include the use of a highly restricted verbal suffix ‑njili and the use of naturally reciprocal predicates in the unmarked “bare reciprocal construction”. Since there is only one productive way to form reciprocals in Mawng, choice of strategy is not determined by the semantics of an event but is structurally constrained by the constructional combinatorics of the predicate most appropriate to the event.
Kuuk Thaayorre has a single dedicated reciprocal marker, the verbal suffix -rr. There are, however, a number of alternative strategies for encoding semantically reciprocal events. This chapter outlines the five constructions that may overtly signal reciprocity in an event and explores which features of reciprocal events motivate the choice between these alternative encoding strategies. It also emphasises the role of non-reciprocal clauses as a valid means of encoding reciprocal event types. I propose that event typicality is a critical factor in determining whether speakers employ a reciprocal or non-reciprocal construction in describing these events. Where the event described approaches the prototype for the verb in question, overt reciprocal coding is usually omitted. Where the event described is atypical of the events usually described by that verb, overt reciprocal coding is strongly preferred.
Olutec exhibits three reciprocal strategies each of which convey different levels of prominence of the second reciprocant. In the conjoined subject strategy/, both reciprocants share the same topical status. In the /subject cum adjunct strategy/ the second reciprocant is treated as background information; while in the /subject and object strategy/, the second reciprocant shares the same degree of prominence with the regular primary object. The existence of these three strategies within a language indicates that the pragmatic status of the reciprocants is a key factor to be considered in the cross-linguistic study of reciprocal constructions.
Tsafiki reciprocal constructions have fairly unique characteristics due to the nature of the constructions from which they arise and the overall grammatical structure of Tsafiki. Reciprocals are coded by elements that are already grammaticalised for other functions. Symmetrical positional reciprocal constructions consist of a subset of positionals that inherently code reciprocity. There are two basic types of active reciprocal constructions. The semantic distinction between the two concerns mirative notions such as the degree to which the event concurs with the speaker’s expectations and general knowledge. The function of each reciprocal element is explored by examining its role in other constructions.
This paper provides a comprehensive description of the encoding of reciprocal relations in Hup, a language of the Nadahup or ‘Makú’ family of northwest Amazonia. Hup has three morphological strategies for expressing reciprocal relations, but only one of these – the verbal preform ũh – is fully productive. The semantic range of this primary strategy extends well beyond canonical reciprocal interaction to include chains, melêes, and even ‘converse’ events, in which one participant acts non-reciprocally on another; the ‘interactional’ gram ũh is accordingly argued to have a unitary, underspecified semantics relating to interaction between two or more mutually involved co-participants. Hup’s secondary strategies include a marginal reciprocal extension of the reflexive preform hup, and the non-productive use of the preform bab’, restricted to a few lexical items. Typologically intriguing aspects of Hup’s strategies for marking reciprocal relations include the variable use of ũh and hup as prefixes or preverbal particles, the wide semantic range of ũh, and the apparent historical source of both ũh and bab’ in kin terms meaning ‘sibling’.
In the concluding remarks that follow the results of the preceding articles are examined and discussed in the light of concepts of reciprocity distinguished in linguistics and other disciplines. It is shown that these contributions enlarge the empirical basis for the study of reciprocity and contribute to strengthening earlier cross-linguistic generalizations. They also call some of these generalisations into question, however, thus raising interesting new questions and problems for any attempt to map out the space of variation in the relevant domain.
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.
How similar are reciprocal constructions in the semantic parameters they encode? We investigate this question by using an extensional approach, which examines similarity of meaning by examining how constructions are applied over a set of 64 videoclips depicting reciprocal events (Evans et al. 2004). We apply statistical modelling to descriptions from speakers of 20 languages elicited using the videoclips. We show that there are substantial differences in meaning between constructions of different languages.
This paper identifies four reciprocal construction types in Khoekhoe (Central Khoisan). After a brief description of the morphosyntax of each construction, semantic factors governing their choice are explored. Besides lexical semantics, the number of participants, timing of symmetric subevents, and symmetric conceptualisation are shown to account for the distribution of the four partially competing reciprocal constructions.
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 et al. 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.
Indo-Pakistani Sign Language (IPSL) is the sign language used by deaf communities in a large region across India and Pakistan. This visual-gestural language has a dedicated construction for specifically expressing reciprocal relationships, which can be applied to agreement verbs and to auxiliaries. The reciprocal construction relies on a change in the movement pattern of the signs it applies to. In addition, IPSL has a number of other strategies which can have a reciprocal interpretation, and the IPSL lexicon includes a good number of inherently reciprocal signs. All reciprocal expressions can be modified in complex ways that rely on the grammatical use of the sign space. Considering grammaticalisation and lexicalisation processes linking some of these constructions is also important for a better understanding of reciprocity in IPSL.
This paper investigates the semantics of reciprocal constructions in Mundari, an Austro-Asiatic language of northern India. Two grammatical constructions express reciprocity: a basic construction, which infixes <pV> to verb roots, and a serialised construction adding -idi ‘take’ to the basic reciprocal. The reciprocal construction is limited to subject-object coreference and cannot be fed by affixal derivational processes like applicatives or causatives, though it can be fed by zero conversion from other word classes; it may itself feed the causative. From a semantic perspective, the most unusual feature of Mundari reciprocals is the existence of a specialised construction for expressing sequential chaining situations, namely the serialised construction with -idi ‘take’; the basic reciprocal construction is not acceptable for sequential chaining situations.
This article describes the grammatical resources available to speakers of Lao for describing situations that can be described broadly as ‘reciprocal’. The analysis is based on complementary methods: elicitation by means of non-linguistic stimuli, exploratory consultation with native speakers, and investigation of corpora of spontaneous language use. Typically, reciprocal situations are described using a semantically general ‘collaborative’ marker on an action verb. The resultant meaning is that some set of people participate in a situation ‘together’, broadly construed. The collaborative marker is found in two distinct syntactic constructions, which differ in terms of their information structural contexts of use. The paper first explores in detail the semantic range of the collaborative marker as it occurs in the more common ‘Type 1’ construction, and then discusses a special pragmatic context for the ‘Type 2’ construction. There is some methodological discussion concerning the results of elicitation via video stimuli. The chapter also discusses two specialised constructions dedicated to the expression of strict reciprocity.
This paper provides an account of reciprocal constructions in Mah Meri, an Aslian (Austroasiatic) language spoken in peninsular Malaysia. A brief outline of the relevant grammatical points is provided before turning to examine the two constructions identified. The ‘bare conjunct’ construction centres on a small class of ‘naturally reciprocal’ verbs where the participants are encoded as a single NP. The typologically unique ‘double distributive’ construction is used with all other semantically appropriate verbs and encodes the two participants separately, but with the same form. It emerges that in Mah Meri reciprocal constructions are only used for situations of strict reciprocity where the event is symmetrical, constant, and saturated
This work explores the linguistic encoding of reciprocal events in Jahai (Aslian, Mon-Khmer, Malay Peninsula) on the basis of linguistic descriptions of the video stimuli of the ‘Reciprocal constructions and situation type’ task (Evans et al. 2004). Reciprocal situation types find expression in three different constructions: distributive verb forms, reciprocal verb forms, and adjunct phrases containing a body part noun. Distributives represent the dominant strategy, reciprocal forms and body part adjuncts being highly restricted across event types and consultants. The distributive and reciprocal morphemes manifest intricate morphological processes typical of Aslian languages. The paper also addresses some analytical problems raised by the data, such as structural ambiguity and restrictions on derivation, as well as individual variation.
Yélî Dnye has two discernable dedicated constructions for reciprocal marking. The first and main construction uses a dedicated reciprocal pronoun numo, somewhat like English each other. We can recognise two subconstructions. First, the ‘numo-construction’, where the reciprocal pronoun is a patient of the verb, and where the invariant pronoun numo is obligatorily incorporated, triggering intransitivisation (e.g. A-NPs become absolutive). This subconstruction has complexities, for example in the punctual aspect only, the verb is inflected like a transitive, but with enclitics mismatching actual person/number. In the second variant or subconstruction, the ‘noko-construction’, the same reciprocal pronoun (sometimes case-marked as noko) occurs but now in oblique positions with either transitive or intransitive verbs. The reciprocal element here has some peculiar binding properties. Finally, the second independent construction is a dedicated periphrastic (or woni…woni) construction, glossing ‘the one did X to the other, and the other did X to the one’. It is one of the rare cross-serial dependencies that show that natural languages cannot be modelled by context-free phrase-structure grammars. Finally, the usage of these two distinct constructions is discussed.
This paper describes the syntax and semantics of reciprocity in the Central dialect of Rotokas, a non-Austronesian (Papuan) language spoken in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. In Central Rotokas, there are three main reciprocal construction types, which differ formally according to where the reflexive/reciprocal marker (ora-) occurs in the clause: on the verb, on a pronominal argument or adjunct, or on a body part noun. The choice of construction type is determined by two considerations: the valency of the verb (i.e., whether it has one or two core arguments) and whether the reciprocal action is performed on a body part. The construction types are compatible with a wide range of the logical subtypes of reciprocity (strong, melee, chaining, etc.).
This paper describes how reciprocity is expressed in the Papuan (i.e. non-Austronesian) language Savosavo, spoken in the Solomon Islands. The main strategy is to use the reciprocal nominal mapamapa, which can occur in different NP positions and always triggers default third person singular masculine agreement, regardless of the number and gender of the referents. After a description of this as well as another strategy that is occasionally used (the ‘joint activity construction’), the paper will provide a detailed analysis of data elicited with set of video stimuli and show that the main strategy is used to describe even clearly asymmetric situations, as long as more than one person acts on more than one person in a joint activity.
Kilivila is one of the languages of the world that lacks dedicated reciprocal forms. After a short introduction the paper briefly shows how reciprocity is either not expressed at all, is only implicated in an utterance, or expressed periphrastically.
This chapter provides the first detailed description of the form and use of the three strategies for expressing reciprocity in Mawng, a non-Pama Nyungan language of the Iwaidjan language family (Australia). The only productive strategy is the reciprocal complex construction which has transparently developed from a biclausal reciprocal construction. Other strategies for encoding reciprocity include the use of a highly restricted verbal suffix ‑njili and the use of naturally reciprocal predicates in the unmarked “bare reciprocal construction”. Since there is only one productive way to form reciprocals in Mawng, choice of strategy is not determined by the semantics of an event but is structurally constrained by the constructional combinatorics of the predicate most appropriate to the event.
Kuuk Thaayorre has a single dedicated reciprocal marker, the verbal suffix -rr. There are, however, a number of alternative strategies for encoding semantically reciprocal events. This chapter outlines the five constructions that may overtly signal reciprocity in an event and explores which features of reciprocal events motivate the choice between these alternative encoding strategies. It also emphasises the role of non-reciprocal clauses as a valid means of encoding reciprocal event types. I propose that event typicality is a critical factor in determining whether speakers employ a reciprocal or non-reciprocal construction in describing these events. Where the event described approaches the prototype for the verb in question, overt reciprocal coding is usually omitted. Where the event described is atypical of the events usually described by that verb, overt reciprocal coding is strongly preferred.
Olutec exhibits three reciprocal strategies each of which convey different levels of prominence of the second reciprocant. In the conjoined subject strategy/, both reciprocants share the same topical status. In the /subject cum adjunct strategy/ the second reciprocant is treated as background information; while in the /subject and object strategy/, the second reciprocant shares the same degree of prominence with the regular primary object. The existence of these three strategies within a language indicates that the pragmatic status of the reciprocants is a key factor to be considered in the cross-linguistic study of reciprocal constructions.
Tsafiki reciprocal constructions have fairly unique characteristics due to the nature of the constructions from which they arise and the overall grammatical structure of Tsafiki. Reciprocals are coded by elements that are already grammaticalised for other functions. Symmetrical positional reciprocal constructions consist of a subset of positionals that inherently code reciprocity. There are two basic types of active reciprocal constructions. The semantic distinction between the two concerns mirative notions such as the degree to which the event concurs with the speaker’s expectations and general knowledge. The function of each reciprocal element is explored by examining its role in other constructions.
This paper provides a comprehensive description of the encoding of reciprocal relations in Hup, a language of the Nadahup or ‘Makú’ family of northwest Amazonia. Hup has three morphological strategies for expressing reciprocal relations, but only one of these – the verbal preform ũh – is fully productive. The semantic range of this primary strategy extends well beyond canonical reciprocal interaction to include chains, melêes, and even ‘converse’ events, in which one participant acts non-reciprocally on another; the ‘interactional’ gram ũh is accordingly argued to have a unitary, underspecified semantics relating to interaction between two or more mutually involved co-participants. Hup’s secondary strategies include a marginal reciprocal extension of the reflexive preform hup, and the non-productive use of the preform bab’, restricted to a few lexical items. Typologically intriguing aspects of Hup’s strategies for marking reciprocal relations include the variable use of ũh and hup as prefixes or preverbal particles, the wide semantic range of ũh, and the apparent historical source of both ũh and bab’ in kin terms meaning ‘sibling’.
In the concluding remarks that follow the results of the preceding articles are examined and discussed in the light of concepts of reciprocity distinguished in linguistics and other disciplines. It is shown that these contributions enlarge the empirical basis for the study of reciprocity and contribute to strengthening earlier cross-linguistic generalizations. They also call some of these generalisations into question, however, thus raising interesting new questions and problems for any attempt to map out the space of variation in the relevant domain.