Scholarlink

<p>This paper argues that the class of predicates that participate in reciprocal alternations, like the seemingly 1-place predicate <i>hug</i> in <i>Jane and Mary hugged</i>, should in fact be analyzed as 2-place predicates with a covert reciprocal in object position. The main challenge for this analysis is that there are truth-conditional differences between covert reciprocals and their overt counterparts. Focusing on a few case studies, this paper will argue that these seemingly lexical differences can be reanalyzed in terms of scope, allowing the differences to be systematically predicted once appropriate scope restrictions on covert reciprocals are established. More specifically, I propose that covert reciprocals are simply reciprocals that have to be bound at the lowest possible scope position. I show that these seemingly 1-place predicates behave just like overt reciprocals, modulo the low-scope requirement, for example giving rise to homogeneity and non-maximality. I therefore conclude that in order to account systematically for these inferences, covert reciprocals (at least the case studies that the paper considers) must be treated as having the same LFs as low-scope overt reciprocals.</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

Covert reciprocals: a scope-based analysis of reciprocal alternations

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月30日

查看全文
  • Jad Wehbe

摘要

This paper argues that the class of predicates that participate in reciprocal alternations, like the seemingly 1-place predicate hug in Jane and Mary hugged, should in fact be analyzed as 2-place predicates with a covert reciprocal in object position. The main challenge for this analysis is that there are truth-conditional differences between covert reciprocals and their overt counterparts. Focusing on a few case studies, this paper will argue that these seemingly lexical differences can be reanalyzed in terms of scope, allowing the differences to be systematically predicted once appropriate scope restrictions on covert reciprocals are established. More specifically, I propose that covert reciprocals are simply reciprocals that have to be bound at the lowest possible scope position. I show that these seemingly 1-place predicates behave just like overt reciprocals, modulo the low-scope requirement, for example giving rise to homogeneity and non-maximality. I therefore conclude that in order to account systematically for these inferences, covert reciprocals (at least the case studies that the paper considers) must be treated as having the same LFs as low-scope overt reciprocals.