Reciprocal pronoun

Last updated

A reciprocal pronoun is a pronoun that indicates a reciprocal relationship. A reciprocal pronoun can be used for one of the participants of a reciprocal construction, i.e. a clause in which two participants are in a mutual relationship. The reciprocal pronouns of English are one another and each other, and they form the category of anaphors along with reflexive pronouns (myself, yourselves, themselves, etc.).

Contents

Defining properties

Semantics of reciprocal relation

Reflexive pronouns are used similarly to reciprocal pronouns in the sense that they typically refer back to the subject of the sentence.

(1) John and Mary like themselves. (2) John and Mary like each other.

The main difference between reflexives, as in example (1), and reciprocal pronouns, as in example (2), is that reflexives are used when the subject acts upon itself, while reciprocals are used when members of a group perform the same action relative to one another. Reciprocal pronouns exist in many languages. They are associated with plural noun phrases and indicate a reciprocal relationship between the members of the plural noun phrase. This means that some member (x) of the plural subject is acting on another member (y) of the subject, and that member (y) is also acting on (x), and that both x and y are members of the group denoted by the antecedent subject.

Below are examples of reciprocal pronouns and how their relationship to their antecedents contrasts to cases of reflexive pronoun relationships, and regular transitive relationships, and how they behave in relation to direct object pronouns in the same situation. Let R denote a Relation, and let the variables (for example, (x, y) ) stand for the arguments introduced by R.

Logical formExamplePronominal formReferential dependencyScenario (set of girls, Anne and Betty)
R(x, y)The girls saw her.(regular) pronounx≠y (x and y are distinct)A saw someone female,

B saw someone female.

R(x, x)The girls saw themselves (in the mirror).reflexive pronounx=y (x and y are not distinct)A saw A in the mirror,

B saw B in the mirror.

R(x, y) AND (y, x)The girls saw each other in the mirror.reciprocal pronounR(x,y) AND R(y,x)A saw B in the mirror,

B saw A in the mirror.

Therefore, we can look at a reciprocal relationship using this notation, using the verb see as the relation: see(Anne, Betty) and see(Betty, Anne).

Syntax of reciprocals as anaphors

Within the theory of generative grammar, and within phrase-structure grammar, binding theory explains how anaphors share a relationship with their referents.

Binding Principle A of this theory states:

  1. X binds Y if and only if X c-commands Y, and X and Y are coindexed,
  2. Anaphors must be locally bound within the binding domain of the clause containing the DP determiner phrase.

In the traditional binding theory, the category of anaphor includes both reflexive and reciprocal pronouns of English, which is a problem, since they are distributed differently.

The differences in the distribution of reflexives and reciprocals are illustrated below using X-bar theory tree diagrams.

Distribution of reciprocals: Lebeaux (1983)

Although both reciprocal and reflexive pronouns are classified as anaphors, they differ in distribution. For example, reciprocal pronouns can appear in the subject position of noun phrases, whereas reflexives cannot.

(3) a.  John and Mary like each other's parents.      b. *John and Mary like themselves' parents.
(4) a.  All of the students would know if each other had the answers.     b. *All of the students would know if themselves had the answers.

In example (4b) with the reflexive anaphor, the embedded clause's complementizer phrase (CP) beginning with the word "if", cannot introduce a subject noun phrase.

Although in many cases, either a reflexive or a reciprocal pronoun could appear in the same structural position, in some cases, the asymmetry occurs when a reciprocal may be bound to its antecedent, but a reflexive may not.

The following examples from Lebeaux (1983) show that in some sentences, either type of anaphor could be used:

(5) a. John and Mary like themselves.     b. John and Mary like each other.

Both the reflexive pronoun in (5a) and the reciprocal pronoun in (5b) can be locally bound (its antecedent is in the same clause, the clause is the binding domain), which would follow binding theory's binding principle A: that an anaphor must be bound in its binding domain). A case in which we can see the differences in the distribution of reflexive and reciprocal pronouns is in the subject position of embedded clauses: reflexives cannot occur in this position (6a), but reciprocals can (6b).

(6) a. *John and Mary think that themselves will win.     b.  John and Mary think that each other will win.
(6b) Syntax tree with reciprocal pronoun Syntax tree with reciprocal pronoun.png
(6b) Syntax tree with reciprocal pronoun

As we can see in the X-bar theory tree diagram of (6b), the reciprocal pronoun is in the subject position of the embedded clause, which is introduced by complementizer "that". It is not possible for a reflexive pronoun to occur in this position as shown by the ungrammaticality of (6a).

In this case, the reciprocal pronoun is not necessarily the ideal construction, but the reflexive is not a possible grammatical sentence. This suggests that while reflexives require a proper binder, reciprocals may appear in positions that are not governed this way, and can even be in a different clause than the antecedent.

The differences can be summarized as follows:

Variation in the realization of reciprocals

Syntactically, reciprocals can be realized as free or bound pronouns, as NP arguments or as verbal affixes.

Free pronoun

Person-marked free pronoun

These have a similar pattern to personal pronouns, as they are morphemes independent from the verb (and not clitics, or inflection markers). They possess person features  : the reciprocal pronoun surfaces differently when its antecedent is first-, second- or third-person. These are common in the Chadic language Hausa:

(7)

mun

1PL.AUX

tsallàkē

jumped

jūnan-mù

RECIP-1PL

mun tsallàkē jūnan-mù

1PL.AUX jumped RECIP-1PL

'We jumped over one another.' (Evans 2008: 58 (26)

Person-unmarked free pronoun

Person-unmarked free pronouns occur in languages that do not have distinct forms for all persons. This is commonly found in German. Unlike person-marked pronouns, person-unmarked free pronouns cannot occur in contexts where the pronoun is modifying the noun (i.e. each other's parents), and in contexts where there is a non-subject antecedent (i.e. introduced them to one another).

(8)

Die

the

beiden

both

Angeklagten

defendants

beschuldigten

accused

sich

RECIP

gegenseitig

mutually

(einander)

 

und

and

ihre

their

Nachbarn.

neighbours

Die beiden Angeklagten beschuldigten sich gegenseitig (einander) und ihre Nachbarn.

the both defendants accused RECIP mutually {} and their neighbours

'The two defendants accused each other as well as their neighbours.' (Evans 2008: 59 (28))

Bound pronoun

Pronominal affix

Reciprocal pronouns can be affixed to either the verb, or to the auxiliary base, as in Warlpiri:

(9)

Ngarrka-jarra-rlu

man-DU-ERG

ka-pala-nyanu

IPFV-3DU.SBJ-RECIP

paka-rni.

strike-NPST

Ngarrka-jarra-rlu ka-pala-nyanu paka-rni.

man-DU-ERG IPFV-3DU.SBJ-RECIP strike-NPST

'The (two) men are striking each other.' (Evans 2008: 60 (30))

Pronominal clitic

Reciprocal pronominal clitics are commonly found in the Romance languages. These are seen in French and Spanish as se and Italian si. In finite clauses, they are preverbal in French, Italian, and Spanish. In nonfinite clauses and infinitive constructions, the clitic follows the verb in Spanish and Italian, but not in French.

In the Australian language Wanyi, reciprocal pronominal clitics differentiate between person and number, and can attach to other elements, not restricted to attaching to just the verb.

(15)

Daba=bulangka

hit=3DU.REF

kirriya-wiya-a

woman-pair-ERG/LOC

muwa.ji-ni.

jealous-ERG/LOC

Daba=bulangka kirriya-wiya-a muwa.ji-ni.

hit=3DU.REF woman-pair-ERG/LOC jealous-ERG/LOC

'Two women are hitting each other (i.e. fighting) being jealous.' (Evans 2008: 63 (34b)) [2]

NP argument

English each other versus each…the other

Examining the semantic relations of reciprocity, we see further differences within reciprocal relationships, such as those between each other and each...the other relations. In general, if it is possible to divide a set (a sentence) into subsets where each subset is an each…the other relationship, then the whole set of events can be described by an each other sentence. Each other constructions characterize an entire set of individuals (as indicated by the plural antecedent), but allow for some vagueness in their interpretation. In contrast, each...the other constructions characterize each member of a set. Therefore, we can see that each other does not force a strict distributional interpretation. If we separate each and other, we can get different interpretations.

(7) a. The men are hugging each other.     b. Each of the men is hugging  the others.

In (7a) every member of the set the men must be in some reciprocal relationship of hugging at some unspecified point during the time frame of the hugging event. In (7b), we infer that each of the men hugged every other man in the group of men who participated in the hugging event. [3]

In examining the scope of reciprocal pronouns, we can see that in English, the antecedent must be plural and must receive at least a (weakly) distributed interpretation. [4] In viewing each other as one pronoun, each is not assigned scope as a quantifier, thus allowing for a weaker distribution. The distributivity of the above example (7b) is not enforced down to the level of all individuals, as opposed to (7a), in which each as a separate entity and a quantifier enforces strict distributivity.

English each other versus one another

The other reciprocal pronoun in English is one another. It can be treated exactly the same way as each other. The only difference between the two is the number of antecedent nouns it can encompass. Each other can be used to demonstrate a relationship or action between two subjects, whereas one another can be used to demonstrate a relationship or action between two or more subjects. [5]

(8) a.  There are two men, they hugged each other.     b. *There are three men, they hugged each other.     c.  There are three men, they hugged one another.
(9) a. *John, Mary, and Paul see each other.     b.  John, Mary and Paul see one another.

Dutch elkaar versus mekaar

The reciprocal pronouns in Dutch are elkaar and mekaar. While elkaar is a single morpheme that is equivalent to the English reciprocal pronoun each other, mekaar is equivalent to the English reciprocal pronoun one another. The difference between the two Dutch reciprocal pronouns is in terms of their use and frequency of use. Mekaar is used less often, mainly in colloquial speech and in children's speech. Similar to English, Dutch elkaar requires the antecedent to be in the same clause:

(10)

Jan

Jan

en

and

Marijke

Marijke

slaan

hit

elkaar.

RECIP

Jan en Marijke slaan elkaar.

Jan and Marijke hit RECIP

'Jan and Marijke hit each other.' [6] [7]

Verbal affix: Chichewa

In English, the reciprocal each other is a noun phrase that takes an argument position of a syntactic predicate, whereas in Chichewa, the reciprocal is an intransitive verbal affix -an. However, the meaning of the reciprocal is the same in both languages. The reciprocals each other and -an both require a group antecedent. The English example in (11a) is interpreted relative to members of the group denoted by the reciprocal antecedent the boys. The same holds of the Chichewa example in (11b): the Chichewa reciprocal likewise requires a group antecedent.


(11) a. The boys are hitting each other.

b.

Mbidzi

zebras

zi-ku-meny-an-a.

SM-TAM-hit-RECP-FV

Mbidzi zi-ku-meny-an-a.

zebras SM-TAM-hit-RECP-FV

'The zebras are hitting each other.' [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

In linguistics and grammar, a pronoun is a word or a group of words that one may substitute for a noun or noun phrase.

In grammar, an intransitive verb is a verb whose context does not entail a direct object. That lack of transitivity distinguishes intransitive verbs from transitive verbs, which entail one or more objects. Additionally, intransitive verbs are typically considered within a class apart from modal verbs and defective verbs.

In grammar, a reflexive verb is, loosely, a verb whose direct object is the same as its subject, for example, "I wash myself". More generally, a reflexive verb has the same semantic agent and patient. For example, the English verb to perjure is reflexive, since one can only perjure oneself. In a wider sense, the term refers to any verb form whose grammatical object is a reflexive pronoun, regardless of semantics; such verbs are also more broadly referred to as pronominal verbs, especially in the grammar of the Romance languages. Other kinds of pronominal verbs are reciprocal, passive, subjective, and idiomatic. The presence of the reflexive pronoun changes the meaning of a verb, e.g., Spanish abonar to pay, abonarse to subscribe.

A reflexive pronoun is a pronoun that refers to another noun or pronoun within the same sentence.

In linguistics, anaphora is the use of an expression whose interpretation depends upon another expression in context. In a narrower sense, anaphora is the use of an expression that depends specifically upon an antecedent expression and thus is contrasted with cataphora, which is the use of an expression that depends upon a postcedent expression. The anaphoric (referring) term is called an anaphor. For example, in the sentence Sally arrived, but nobody saw her, the pronoun her is an anaphor, referring back to the antecedent Sally. In the sentence Before her arrival, nobody saw Sally, the pronoun her refers forward to the postcedent Sally, so her is now a cataphor. Usually, an anaphoric expression is a pro-form or some other kind of deictic expression. Both anaphora and cataphora are species of endophora, referring to something mentioned elsewhere in a dialog or text.

French personal pronouns reflect the person and number of their referent, and in the case of the third person, its gender as well. They also reflect the role they play in their clause: subject, direct object, indirect object, or other.

In linguistics, binding is the phenomenon in which anaphoric elements such as pronouns are grammatically associated with their antecedents. For instance in the English sentence "Mary saw herself", the anaphor "herself" is bound by its antecedent "Mary". Binding can be licensed or blocked in certain contexts or syntactic configurations, e.g. the pronoun "her" cannot be bound by "Mary" in the English sentence "Mary saw her". While all languages have binding, restrictions on it vary even among closely related languages. Binding has been a major area of research in syntax and semantics since the 1970s and, as the name implies, is a core component of government and binding theory.

Nyangumarta, also written Njaŋumada, Njangamada, Njanjamarta and other variants, is a language spoken by the Nyangumarta people and other Aboriginal Australians in the region of Western Australia to the south and east of Lake Waukarlykarly, including Eighty Mile Beach, and part of the Great Sandy Desert inland to near Telfer. As of 2021 there were an estimated 240 speakers of Nyangumarta, down from a 1975 estimate of 1000.

Personal pronouns are pronouns that are associated primarily with a particular grammatical person – first person, second person, or third person. Personal pronouns may also take different forms depending on number, grammatical or natural gender, case, and formality. The term "personal" is used here purely to signify the grammatical sense; personal pronouns are not limited to people and can also refer to animals and objects.

Tsez, also known as Dido, is a Northeast Caucasian language with about 15,000 speakers spoken by the Tsez, a Muslim people in the mountainous Tsunta District of southwestern Dagestan in Russia. The name is said to derive from the Tsez word for "eagle", but this is most likely a folk etymology. The name Dido is derived from the Georgian word დიდი, meaning "big".

Ughele is an Oceanic language spoken by about 1200 people on Rendova Island, located in the Western Province of the Solomon Islands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English pronouns</span> Category of words in English that prototypically "stand in" for other noun phrases

The English pronouns form a relatively small category of words in Modern English whose primary semantic function is that of a pro-form for a noun phrase. Traditional grammars consider them to be a distinct part of speech, while most modern grammars see them as a subcategory of noun, contrasting with common and proper nouns. Still others see them as a subcategory of determiner. In this article, they are treated as a subtype of the noun category.

In generative linguistics, PRO is a pronominal determiner phrase (DP) without phonological content. As such, it is part of the set of empty categories. The null pronoun PRO is postulated in the subject position of non-finite clauses. One property of PRO is that, when it occurs in a non-finite complement clause, it can be bound by the main clause subject or the main clause object. The presence of PRO in non-finite clauses lacking overt subjects allows a principled solution for problems relating to binding theory.

The Specified Subject Condition (SSC) is a condition proposed in Chomsky (1973) which restricts the application of certain syntactic transformational grammar rules. In many ways it is a counterpart to the Tensed-S Condition (TSC), applying to non-finite clauses and complex determiner phrases (DPs) which are not covered by the TSC. The rule was formalized as follows, where a "specified subject" is a lexical subject i.e. a subject with semantic content, like a proper noun, a complex DP, or a pronominal:

In linguistics, locality refers to the proximity of elements in a linguistic structure. Constraints on locality limit the span over which rules can apply to a particular structure. Theories of transformational grammar use syntactic locality constraints to explain restrictions on argument selection, syntactic binding, and syntactic movement.

A bound variable pronoun is a pronoun that has a quantified determiner phrase (DP) – such as every, some, or who – as its antecedent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sloppy identity</span> Concept in linguistics

In linguistics, sloppy identity is an interpretive property that is found with verb phrase ellipsis where the identity of the pronoun in an elided VP is not identical to the antecedent VP.

Logophoricity is a phenomenon of binding relation that may employ a morphologically different set of anaphoric forms, in the context where the referent is an entity whose speech, thoughts, or feelings are being reported. This entity may or may not be distant from the discourse, but the referent must reside in a clause external to the one in which the logophor resides. The specially-formed anaphors that are morphologically distinct from the typical pronouns of a language are known as logophoric pronouns, originally coined by the linguist Claude Hagège. The linguistic importance of logophoricity is its capability to do away with ambiguity as to who is being referred to. A crucial element of logophoricity is the logophoric context, defined as the environment where use of logophoric pronouns is possible. Several syntactic and semantic accounts have been suggested. While some languages may not be purely logophoric, logophoric context may still be found in those languages; in those cases, it is common to find that in the place where logophoric pronouns would typically occur, non-clause-bounded reflexive pronouns appear instead.

Buli, or Kanjaga, is a Gur language of Ghana primarily spoken in the Builsa District, located in the Upper East Region of the country. It is an SVO language and has 200 000 speakers.

References

  1. Lebeaux, D (1983). "A Distributional Difference between Reciprocals and Reflexives". Linguistic Inquiry. 14 (4): 723–730. JSTOR   4178359.
  2. Evans, N. (2008). E. Konig; V. Gast (eds.). Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp.  33–104. ISBN   9783110195941.
  3. Fiengo & Lasnik (1973). "The Logical Structure of Reciprocal Sentences in English". Foundations of Language.
  4. Williams (1991). "Reciprocal Scope". Linguistic Inquiry. 22 (1): 159–173.
  5. Epoge, Napoleon (April 2015). "Reciprocal Pronouns Binding within Psych-verb Constructions". Advances in Language and Literary Studies. 6: 163–173.
  6. Philip, W (2000). "Adult and Child Understanding of Simple Reciprocal Sentences". Language. 76 (1): 1–27. doi:10.2307/417391. JSTOR   417391.
  7. Koster&Reuland, J&J (1991). Long Distance Anaphora. Cambridge University Press.
  8. Dalrymple, McHombo, Peters, M., S.A., S. (1994). "Semantic similarities and syntactic contrasts between Chichewa and English reciprocals". Linguistic Inquiry. 25 (1): 145–163.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)