Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Australian Journal of
Linguistics
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cajl20
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make
any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate
or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug
doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The
publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused
arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the
use of this material.
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 08:48 21 January 2013
MULTIPLE USES OF RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTIONS
Frantisek Lichtenberk
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 08:48 21 January 2013
1 . INTRODUCTION
This paper will be concerned with the construction that is usually called
'reciprocal' or 'reflexive', although occasionally one finds other terms,
such as 'the reflexive-reciprocal construction' (Heath 1980 for Ritharngu),
'middle voice' (Tsunoda 1981 for Djaru), 'the collective/reciprocal con-
struction' (Wordick 1982 for Yindjibarndi), 'co-operative verbs' (Lewis
1967 for Turkish), and 'social verbs' (Schachter & Otanes 1972 for
Tagalog) —for convenience I adopt the term 'reciprocal'.*
It is well known that in many languages the reciprocal construction
may encode more than one type of real-world situation—not only recipro-
cal but also reflexive and what I will call 'chaining' situations. An example
of a chaining situation is that encoded in (1):
(1) The soldiers followed one another
It is perhaps less well known that in a number of languages the reciprocal
construction may also be used to encode what I will call 'collective'
situations. An example of a collective situation is that encoded in (2):
(2) The children left together
I will elaborate on the four types of situation in subsequent sections.
Reciprocal constructions have some other uses, some of which will also be
considered here.
Throughout the paper I make a distinction between reciprocal
CONSTRUCTIONS on the one hand and reciprocal, chaining, reflexive
and collective SITUATIONS on the other. The former is a formal con-
cept: it refers to language-specific means used to encode reciprocal and,
perhaps, other situations. The latter are semantic, real-world concepts
defined by particular types of relations of the participants to each other
[*] A version of this paper was read at the 5th Conference of the Linguistic
Society of New Zealand, Auckland, May 1983. I am grateful to Ross Clark,
Yoko Sugioka and two anonymous referees for their valuable comments on
various versions of the paper. My thanks also go.to Atsuko Kikuchr for the
Japanese data. The Manam data come from my field notes. The Czech data
are my own. The sources of the other data are given in the References.
© Australian Journal of Linguistics AJL 5 (1985) 19-41 19
20 FRANTISEK LICHTENBERK
2. RECIPROCAL SITUATIONS
The prototypical reciprocal situation can be characterised by means of
the diagram in Figure 1: Here and in subsequent diagrams, 'R' stands for
the relation that holds between certain participants in a situation, and the
other letters stand for the participants. For the sake of simplicity, I will
taneous: 2
DYIRBAL
(6) halagara c)aymbal-ç|aymbal-bari-nu bur_b¡oga
two-people-NOM find find X PAST half-way
'The two people met each other half-way.'
M AN AM (Papua New Guinea)
(7) ?a¡ di -e-maranatoi
wood they-REAL X stick
'The pieces of wood stick to each other.'
(6) and (7) also demonstrate the advantage of viewing situations as
made up of relations rather than events or states. The situations encoded
in (6) and (7) consist of a single event and a single state respectively
(meeting, sticking), but they are nevertheless made up of two relations.
In (3) above, the interpretation may be sequential, but a simultan-
eous interpretation is available as well: John and Bill may have punched
each other at the same instant.
In fact, one may argue that reciprocal constructions avoid the
specification of sequentiality of the relations in a reciprocal situation.
This point is also made by Haiman (1980) in his discussion of the recip-
rocal construction in Hua (a highland language of New Guinea). In Hua,
verbs in the reciprocal construction appear in a special form which avoids
specifying the temporal order of the relations, even though elsewhere the
order of the relations is specified.
With respect to sequentiality, (3) contrasts with (8) and (9):
[ 2 ] I use 'X' in the glosses to identify the element used to form the reciprocal
constructions. The other abbreviations used are as follows: ACC—accusative;
ASSR-assertive; CAUS-causative; COLL—collective; DISTR—distributive;
DO-direct object; DU-dual; ERG —ergative; GER—gerund; INCL —
inclusive; INDEF —indefinite; INTERJ—interjection; IRREAL—irrealis;
LOC—locative; NOM—nominative; PART—particle; PARTIC—participle;
PERF-perfect; PL-plural; PRES—present; PROF—professive; REAL —
rcalis; REFL-reflexive; SU—subject; TOP-topic;TRANS—transitive.
RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTIONS 23
same holds in reverse of Mafia. I will return to the duality of roles played
by participants in reciprocal situations in section 6.
We may conclude then that the contrast between sequentiality and
simultaneity of the relations in reciprocal situations is of no consequence
to reciprocal constructions. Even those situations where the relations are
sequential are encoded in reciprocal constructions in a non-sequential
manner. Let us now consider situations other than reciprocal which may
nevertheless share the mode of expression with reciprocal situations.
3. CHAINING SITUATIONS
In a chaining situation, the relations by which the participants are related
can be compared to the links in a chain: see Figure 2. With the exception
of the end participants (A, F), all the others are involved in two identical
relations, albeit in two different roles. Trie end participants are each
involved in only one relation.
•B 5; *C ^ -B £ -E -
B
Figure 4. A closed-chain situation consisting of two relations
4. REFLEXIVE SITUATIONS
In a reflexive situation, a participant stands in some relation to himself/
herself/itself rather than to any other—see (23) and Figure 5:
(23) / hit myself with a hammer
RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTIONS 27
TZOTZIL (Mexico)3
(30) ?av -ak' a -ba-ik ta k'exlal
you-ERG give you-ERG X PL to shame
'You exposed yourselves/each other to shame.'
DJARU (Australia)
(31) rjali oa -li -punu mart-an
we-DU-INCL PART DU-INCL-NOM X talk PRES
'We talk to each other/ourselves.'
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 08:48 21 January 2013
5. COLLECTIVE SITUATIONS
In a collective situation, two or more participants are jointly involved in a
situation in identical roles—see (32) and Figure 6:
(32) The children left together
r
Figure 6. The collective situation
[3] The example is from Haviland MS, cited from Aissen 1982; Aissen's gloss is
'They exposed themselves/each other to shame', but this must be an error.
[4] The variations in the forms of the affixes in some of the languages exempli-
fied below are due to phonological and/or morphological conditioning.
RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTIONS 29
PALAUAN (Micronesia)
(33) a. a rengalek a kai-dgrurt
PART children PART X run
'The children are running together.'
b. a rengalek a ka-chelebgd
PART children PART X hit
'The children are hitting each other.'
AINU
(34) a. tun newa u-respa wa okai ruwe ne
two people LOC Xlive PROF dwell PART PART
'They were living there together.'
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 08:48 21 January 2013
6. DISCUSSION
We have seen that in many languages one and the same construction is
used to encode more than one type of real-world situation. The construc-
tion then clearly has two (or more) distinct meanings or functions rather
than just one vague, general meaning or function.
That that is so is also evident from sentences which have more than
one interpretation. (25) above, for example, is truly ambiguous; it has two
distinct meanings, not just one vague meaning. If a speaker utters it with
the intention of conveying the meaning 'They hit themselves', and then
discovers that the hearer interpreted it as meaning 'They hit each other',
30 FRANTISEK LICHTENBERK
just as well argue that reflexives are a special case of reciprocals, the case
where the performer and the undergoer happen to be one and the same
participant. To demonstrate similarity, it is not necessary to argue that
one situation type is a special case of the other. Situation types may
exhibit significant similarities without one of them being a general cate-
gory of which the other is a special case.
Aissen (1982), working within Relational Grammar, also suggests
that the explanation for multiple uses of what is here called the 'reciprocal
construction' is to be sought in similarities among its reciprocal, reflexive,
passive (see 7.3 below) and other uses. Aissen argues that the similarities
lie in the fact that in all those uses the predicates have in their logical
representations n - 1 distinct variables in argument positions compared to
n distinct variables of the same predicates when used in canonical transi-
tive constructions. This, according to Aissen, also explains the intransi-
tivity of these constructions in many languages: their syntactic valence
matches the number of distinct variables. Aissen's notion of reduction in
the number of distinct variables is close to the notion of low degree of
individuation of participants to be discussed in 6.4. For some examples of
intransitivity of reciprocal constructions also see 6.4.
What then are the similarities between the four situation types?
There are four factors that are of relevance: non-sequentiality of the
relations that make up the situations; multiplicity of the roles performed
by the participants; identity of the roles performed by the participants;
and low degree of individuation of the participants. Not all of the factors
are relevant to all four situation types, although they do all apply to
reciprocal and collective situations. We can now consider the factors in
detail.
individuated, less distinct from each other than they would be if their
roles were different.
In chaining situations also there is a multiplicity of participants.
Furthermore, those involved in the relations inside the chain perform
identical pairs of roles.
In reflexive situations, the crucial fact is that {he participants per-
forming two different roles are non-distinct. This means that each partici-
pant is less individuated than he would be if he were distinct from the
other, and vice versa.
In many languages, sentences encoding reciprocal, reflexive or
chaining situation exhibit reduced transitivity in the sense of Hopper &
Thompson 1980, even though they contain otherwise transitive verbs.
That is, they exhibit one or more features characteristic of intransitive
sentences. (I have no examples of reduced transitivity in sentences en-
coding collective situations. This is not surprising though, because in
reduced transitivity it is the low degree of individuation of the partici-
pant that would otherwise be realised as direct object that is relevant.
In collective situations, it is the subject participants that have a low degree
of individuation.)
For example, in French the reciprocal construction may encode
reciprocal, reflexive and chaining situations. When used in the reciprocal
construction, otherwise transitive verbs take the auxiliary être, character-
istic of intransitive verbs, instead of avoir, required elsewhere. Secondly,
when embedded under the causative verb faire, reciprocal constructions
behave like intransitives: the performer of the event is realised as a direct,
not an indirect, object of faire (Kayne 1975).
In a number of Australian languages, normally transitive verbs behave
like intransitives when they encode a reflexive or a reciprocal situation.
For example, in Guugu Yimidhirr, an ergative language, nominal subjects
of transitive verbs are in the ergative case, and nominal objects of trans-
itive verbs and nominal subjects of intransitive verbs are in the absolutive.
(Pronominal subjects and objects operate on a nominative-accusative
basis.) However, when an otherwise transitive verb appears in the recip-
rocal construction, its nominal subject is in the absolutive, not the ergative
34 FRANTISEK LICHTENBERK
relevant factors are summarised in Table 1, where '+' indicates that the
factor is relevant to the given situation type, ' - ' indicates lack of relevance,
and '±' indicates partial relevance. In the 16 cells in the table, there are
other kinds of multiple use and will show how the explanations for those
multiple uses put forward by other scholars can be incorporated into the
explanation developed here. I will consider the following topics: the
middle voice, patient-subject sentences, passives, unspecified arguments,
and collective plural.
7.1. The middle voice. Following Lyons (1968:373), the meaning of the
middle voice can be broadly defined as expressing that 'the "action" or
"state" affects [the referent of] the subject of the verb or his interests'.
The middle voice is found in a number of Indo-European languages. It
encodes reflexive and reciprocal situations, and also situations where the
performer of the event is somehow affected by his own action directed at
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 08:48 21 January 2013
7.3 Passives. The close connection between passives and reflexives (or
the middle voice) has been pointed out by a number of scholars; see,
for example, Lehmann 1974 for Indo-European, and Langacker & Munro
1975 for Uto-Aztecan. The discussion that follows is based on Langacker
& Munro's analysis.
Langacker & Munro's analysis rests on the notion of non-distinct
arguments. In a reflexive situation, the two participants —the performer
and the undergoer—are non-distinct because they are identical. As far as
passives are concerned, Langacker & Munro argue that they are to be
derived from underlying transitive structures with unspecified subjects/
performers. Since the referent of the subject is unspecified, the performer
is, in a sense, not distinct from the undergoer. Example (43) from
Northern Paiute demonstrates the use of the reflexive marker in a passive
function:
(43) nopi na -a'taa- (k+ - 'ti -ya?a
house REFL sit-PL CAUS PRES here
'Houses are put up here.'
One need not subscribe to Langacker & Munro's formal analysis of
passives to adopt their insight concerning the non-distinctness of argu-
ments. First of all, as pointed out in 7.2, patient-subject sentences are
typically agentless; that is, in Langacker & Munro's terminology, the
undergoer and the performer are non-distinct. This suggests that passives,
more specifically agentless passives, are even more closely related to
subject-patient sentences than they are to canonical reflexives. As
Langacker & Munro say, in the Uto-Aztecan languages passives are typical-
38 FRANTISEK LICHTENBERK
degree of individuation because they are plural and because they play
identical pairs of roles. The referents of unspecified arguments also have
a low degree of individuation by virtue of being unspecified. Furthermore,
in Delaware the unspecified objects must be plural.
7.5 Collective plural. A further kind of multiple use of the reciprocal
construction is found in Fijian. The reciprocal construction is marked by
the prefix vei-, as in (47) and (48), encoding the familiar reciprocal and
collective situations:
(47) erau s5 vei-loma-ni
they-DU PERF X love TRANS
'They two love each other.'
(48) vei-caqe
X kick
'play football' (lit. 'kick together')
In addition, however, vei- can be used with some nouns to form a collec-
tive plural:
(49) a. vei-kau b. vei-vale
X tree X house
'forest' 'group of houses'
Churchward (1941) suggests that the original, fundamental meaning of
the prefix is that of plurality, collectivity and that its reciprocal use is a
later development. However, comparative evidence makes it clear that the
collective-plural marking function is not historically primary but a later
innovation. The semantic connection between the reciprocal and the
collective uses on the one hand and the collective plural on the other is
not difficult to see. Both in reciprocal and in collective situations there
must be at least two participants performing the event. Moreover, in both
types of situation, those participants can be viewed as forming a unified
group by virtue of their being involved in the event in identical roles.
8. CONCLUSION
The main thesis of this paper is that the multiple uses of the reciprocal
40 FRANTISEK LICHTENBERK
there constraints on the kinds of multiple use that languages may develop?
Questions of this kind go far beyond the confines of linguistics. The
answers will have to come from a much more general study of human
behaviour, from a study of human psychology.
REFERENCES
Aissen, J. 1982. Valence and coreference. SynS 15. 7-35
Alderson, A.D. & íz, F. 1959. The concise Oxford Turkish dictionary. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Baldi, P. 1974. Reciprocal verbs and symmetric predicates. PCLS 10. 17-26.
Bloomfield, L. 1962. The Menomini language. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Capell, A. 1973. A new Fijian dictionary. (4th edn.) Suva, Fiji: Government Press.
Churchward, CM. 1941. A new Fijian grammar. Sydney: Australasian Medical
Publishing Company.
Cole, P. 1982. Imbabura Quechua. (Lingua Descriptive Series, 5.) Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Derbyshire, D.C. 1979. Hixkaryana. (Lingua Descriptive Series, 1.) Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Dixon, R.M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. (Cambridge
Studies in Linguistics, 9.) Cambridge: University Press.
Doke, CM. & Vilakazi, B.W. 1972. Zulu-English dictionary. (2nd edn.) Johannes-
burg: Witwatersrand University Press.
Dougherty, R.C. 1974. The syntax and semantics of each other constructions. FL
12. 1-47.
Fiengo, R.W. & Lasnik, H. 1973. The logical structure of reciprocal sentences in
English. FL 9. 447-68.
Fortune, G. 1955. An analytical grammar of Shona. London: Longmans, Green &
Co.
García, E. 1975. The role of theory in linguistic analysis: the Spanish pronoun
system. (Linguistic Series, 19.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Goddard, I. 1979. Delaware verbal morphology: a descriptive and comparative
study. New York: Garland Publishing.
Grimes, J.E. 1964. Huichol syntax. The Hague: Mouton.
Haiman, J. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation. Lg 56.
515-40.
___. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Lg 59. 781-819.
RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTIONS 41
Haviland, J. 1979. Guugu Yimidhirr. In Dixon, R.M.W. & Blake, BJ. (eds), Hand-
book of Australian languages, Vol. 1. Canberra: ANU Press, 27-180.
Haviland, J.B. MS. Sk'op sotz'leb: El Tzotzil de San Lorenzo ZinacantAn. [To be
published by Centro de Estudios Mayas, Mexico City.]
Heath, J. 1980. Basic materials in Ritharngu: grammar, texts and dictionary.
Canberra: PL. (Series B, 62.)
Hopper, P.J. & Thompson, S.A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse.
Lg 56.251-99.
Josephs, L.S. 1975. Palauan reference grammar. (PALI Language Texts:
Micronesia.) Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Kayne, R.S. 1975. French syntax: the transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Lakoff, G. 1977. Linguistic gestalts. PCLS 13. 236-87.
Langacker, R.W. & Munro, P. 1975. Passives and their meaning. Lg 51. 789-830.
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 08:48 21 January 2013