3 Responses to “Reciprocal Constructions”

1. Thomas Hart Chappell Says:
   December 13th, 2009 at 10:04 pm

   This is about reciprocation (Feature 106?) and reflexivization (Feature 47?) applied to a ditransitive (Feature 105?) base-verb (such as “show” or “send” or “bring”).

   For instance, take the clause “Agnes shows Golda Thelma”. Here, “Agnes” is the Agent, “Golda” is the Goal (Recipient), and “Thelma” is the Theme; and the clause appears to be a “Double-Object Construction”.

   There are three conceivable reflexivizations, and three conceivable reciprocalizations, of such a verb.

   I’m interested in valency-reducing inflection of the verb that would show such reflexivization and/or reciprocation.

   Agent-Goal Reflexivization would give us:
   “Agnes show.REFL1 Thelma”, meaning
   “Agnes shows herself Thelma”, meaning
   “Agnes shows Agnes Thelma”.

   Agent-Theme Reflexivization would give us:
   “Agnes show.REFL2 Golda”, meaning
   “Agnes shows herself to Golda”, meaning
   “Agnes shows Golda Agnes”.

   I understand (or, at least, it is my impression that linguists understand) that in most languages, a reflexive pronoun usually refers to its clause’s Subject. However, in some languages, including some dialects of English, it can stand also or instead for the most-recently-uttered previously-uttered full-noun-phrase that’s higher in Keenan&Comrie’s Noun-Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy than the pronoun itself is.

   But in any case I’m wondering about languages’ use of valency-reducing reflexivizing morphology on the verb, rather than reflexive pronouns.

   So Goal-Theme Reflexivization could give us:
   “Agnes show.REFL3 Golda”, meaning
   “Agnes shows Golda herself”, meaning
   “Agnes shows Golda Golda”.

   _____________________________________________________________________________________________

   Does anyone know which and/or how many languages inflect ditransitive verbs with valency-reducing morphology to show two or all three of the above meanings? And, which or how many have two or three morphologically distinct reflexive inflections that distinguish two or three of those meanings from each other?

   _____________________________________________________________________________________________

   It is also possible to conceive of three different reciprocalized meanings. And I’m also interested in whether any languages can show two or three such meanings, by means of two or three distinct valency-reducing, reciprocating inflections.

   Agent-Goal Reciprocalization would give us:
   “Agnes and Golda show.RECIP1 Thelma”, meaning
   “Agnes and Golda show each other Thelma”, meaning
   “Agnes shows Golda Thelma, and Golda shows Agnes Thelma”.

   Agent-Theme Reciprocalization would give us:
   “Agnes and Thelma show.RECIP2 Golda”, meaning
   “Agnes and Thelma show Golda each other”, meaning
   “Agnes shows Golda Thelma, and Thelma shows Golda Agnes”.

   Goal-Theme Reciprocalization could give us:
   “Agnes show.RECIP3 Golda and Thelma”, meaning
   “Agnes shows Golda and Thelma each other”, meaning
   “Agnes shows Golda Thelma, and Agnes shows Thelma Golda”.

   _____________________________________________________________________________________________

   Again:
   Does anyone know which and/or how many languages inflect ditransitive verbs with valency-reducing morphology to show two or all three of the above meanings? And, which or how many have two or three morphologically distinct reciprocal inflections that distinguish two or three of those meanings from each other?

   _____________________________________________________________________________________________

   Finally:

   Once one of the above valency-reducing operations (reflexivization or reciprocalization) has been performed on a ditransitive, trivalent base-verb, the result is a monotransitive, bivalent clause. On this resulting clause, another valency-reducing operation, in particular either reflexivizaton or reciprocalization, can again be performed, resulting in an intransitive, monovalent clause.

   Applying reflexivization on top of reflexivization is boring and I won’t ask about it here.
   Applying either reciprocalization or reflexivization on top of reciprocalization is confusing and I’m not ready to ask about it yet.

   But I want to ask about applying reciprocalization to the result of one of the three reflexivizations.

   Agent-Goal Reflexivization, followed by Reciprocalization:
   “Agnes and Thelma show.REFL1.RECIP”, meaning
   “Agnes show.REFL1 Thelma, and Thelma show.REFL1 Agnes”, meaning
   “Agnes shows Agnes Thelma, and Thelma shows Thelma Agnes”.

   Agent-Theme Reflexivization, followed by Reciprocalization:
   “Agnes and Golda show.REFL2.RECIP”, meaning
   “Agnes show.REFL2 Golda, and Golda show.REFL2 Agnes”, meaning
   “Agnes shows Golda Agnes, and Golda shows Agnes Golda”.

   Goal-Theme Reflexivization, followed by Reciprocalization:
   “Agnes and Golda show.REFL3.RECIP”, meaning
   “Agnes show.REFL3 Golda, and Golda show.REFL3 Agnes”, meaning
   “Agnes shows Golda Golda, and Golda shows Agnes Agnes”.

   _____________________________________________________________________________________________

   So, finally:
   Does anyone know which and/or how many languages can inflect ditransitive verbs with valency-reducing, reflexivizing morphology, and can then inflect the resulting verb with valency-reducing, reciprocalizing morphology, to show two or all three of the above meanings? And, which or how many can do so starting with any of two or three morphologically distinct reflexive inflections, thus distinguishing two or three of those meanings from each other?

   _____________________________________________________________________________________________

   Thank you!

2. Thomas Hart Chappell Says:
   December 21st, 2009 at 11:01 pm

   ,
   a preprint of “Reciprocals in Yukaghir” by Elena Maslova (Institute for Linguistic Research, St. Petersburg, University of Bielefeld), which appeared in 2007 Vladmir P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), “Typology of reciprocal constructions”, seems to suggest in “1.1.3 Reciprocal constructions with underlying bitransitive verbs”, “1.2 ‘Dative’ reciprocal constructions”, and “6.2 Reciprocal constructions with underlying bitransitive causatives”, that Yukaghir, or at least Kolyma Yukaghir, does allow at least two different meanings of reciprocalizing, valency-reducing morphologies on ditransitive verbs. But it appears to be the same morphology for both meanings.

   I still have no word on whether any language allows a ditransitive verb’s reflexivization to be reciprocalized. And, of course, if a ditransitive verb’s reciprocalization is then reflexivized, there’s still some confusion as to what that would mean.

3. Thomas Hart Chappell Says:
   December 21st, 2009 at 11:02 pm

   Dr. Maslova’s preprint was at
   http : // anothersumma . net / Publications / Reciprocal . pdf

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website