Scholarlink

<p>In many languages, reciprocal meanings are expressed either by grammatical means or by using lexical predicates. The grammatical strategy is productive and may involve derivational affixes (Swahili <i>-an</i>) or pronouns (English <i>each other</i>) with transitive forms, whereas lexical reciprocity is expressed by a restricted class of intransitive predicates like English <i>kiss</i> or <i>meet</i>. The situation is more complex in Romance languages, where reciprocal verbal constructions often require a <i>se</i> clitic without a clear separation between transitive and intransitive forms. Addressing this puzzle, we propose that Romance languages involve a grammatical/lexical distinction as in other languages. We show that numerous Romance constructions systematically allow <i>se</i> omission with certain reciprocals, exhibiting parallel properties to those of lexical intransitives in other languages. A similar observation is made in relation to the distinction between grammatical reflexivity (e.g., English <i>oneself</i>) and lexical reflexives (<i>wash, shave</i>). Furthermore, we show that the <i>se</i> requirement may also be relaxed with transitive verbs, when reciprocity or reflexivity is conveyed by an overt reciprocal/reflexive item (e.g., Spanish <i>mutuamente</i> ‘mutually’). The emerging theoretical picture supports an analysis of <i>se</i> as a head projection that licenses arity-reduction, though language-specific conditions allow <i>se</i> omission when arity reduction is achieved by a lexical reciprocal item or by another overt reciprocal element.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Lexical and grammatical arity-reduction: The case of reciprocity in Romance languages

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月4日

查看全文
  • Giada Palmieri,
  • Renato Basso,
  • Júlia Nieto i Bou,
  • Yoad Winter,
  • Joost Zwarts

摘要

In many languages, reciprocal meanings are expressed either by grammatical means or by using lexical predicates. The grammatical strategy is productive and may involve derivational affixes (Swahili -an) or pronouns (English each other) with transitive forms, whereas lexical reciprocity is expressed by a restricted class of intransitive predicates like English kiss or meet. The situation is more complex in Romance languages, where reciprocal verbal constructions often require a se clitic without a clear separation between transitive and intransitive forms. Addressing this puzzle, we propose that Romance languages involve a grammatical/lexical distinction as in other languages. We show that numerous Romance constructions systematically allow se omission with certain reciprocals, exhibiting parallel properties to those of lexical intransitives in other languages. A similar observation is made in relation to the distinction between grammatical reflexivity (e.g., English oneself) and lexical reflexives (wash, shave). Furthermore, we show that the se requirement may also be relaxed with transitive verbs, when reciprocity or reflexivity is conveyed by an overt reciprocal/reflexive item (e.g., Spanish mutuamente ‘mutually’). The emerging theoretical picture supports an analysis of se as a head projection that licenses arity-reduction, though language-specific conditions allow se omission when arity reduction is achieved by a lexical reciprocal item or by another overt reciprocal element.