Reciprocal constructions: morphosyntactic typology

Cross-linguistic vocabulary for reciprocal constructions: the marking strategy (Nordlinger 2023's synthesis of König & Kokutani 2006, Nedjalkov 2007a, and Evans 2008), the site it codes and the valency it derives, the formation locus of reciprocal verbs (Siloni 2008, Siloni 2012), and the reciprocal markers, from which a language's inventory is built.

Main definitions

• Strategy, CodingSite, Strategy.codingSite, Strategy.IsNominal — the strategy and the site it marks.
• Strategy.voice, Strategy.defaultValency — the voice a predicate-marking strategy realizes (Voice.reciprocal) and the valency it therefore derives.
• Indicator, Construction — the morphosyntactic indicators of valency, and a construction as its exponent together with what each indicator reports; Construction.Mixed is Evans et al. 2007's mixed transitivity effect.
• Formation — lexical vs syntactic formation of reciprocal verbs.
• Marker — a reciprocal exponent with its strategy.

Implementation notes

The strategy fixes the coding site, and the default valency follows from the site: argument strategies leave the base verb's frame intact, while predicate and multipredicate strategies realize the denucleativizing reciprocal voice alternation, whose derived construction is intransitive. The valency a construction actually shows is read off its indicators one at a time, since they can disagree: a Kuuk Thaayorre reciprocal can keep ergative on its subject with no object slot, a Dalabon one takes intransitive agreement yet incorporates the patient (Evans et al. 2007). A construction records only the indicators a source reports, and a language may override the default: a Tonga verb-marked reciprocal keeps both reciprocants as arguments, a construction Maslova calls very rare and of somewhat controversial status (Maslova 2008 (9), p. 230). Hurst's Malagasy case, bivalent at f-structure and monovalent at c-structure (Hurst 2012), splits levels rather than indicators and is not representable here. A bound reciprocal pronoun (Warlpiri -nyanu) fills an argument slot and is an argument strategy. The clitic of a syntactically formed reciprocal verb (French se) is not an object (Siloni 2012) and marks the predicate, as do German clitic sich, the only sich with a reciprocal reading (Gast & Haas 2008), and Wambaya -ngg-, which sits in the object position of the auxiliary but reduces valency (Evans et al. 2007).

TODO

Strategy omits the conjunct and modifier strategies of Evans 2008 (§3.3, §3.4). A reciprocal adverb shows no link to the predicate and does not distribute like an argument, so it has no CodingSite; in European languages it mostly disambiguates a polysemous clitic, as Spanish se … mutuamente and German sich gegenseitig do.

References

• Nordlinger 2023, The Typology of Reciprocal Constructions formalized
• König & Kokutani 2006, Towards a Typology of Reciprocal Constructions: Focus on German and Japanese
• Nedjalkov 2007a, Overview of the Research: Definitions of Terms, Framework, and Related Issues
• Nedjalkov 2007b, Polysemy of Reciprocal Markers
• Evans 2008, Reciprocal Constructions: Towards a Structural Typology
• Siloni 2008, The Syntax of Reciprocal Verbs: An Overview
• Siloni 2012, Reciprocal Verbs and Symmetry formalized
• Gast & Haas 2008, On Reciprocal and Reflexive Uses of Anaphors in German and Other European Languages
• Reinhart & Siloni 2005, The Lexicon-Syntax Parameter: Reflexivization and Other Arity Operations
• Creissels 2024, Transitivity, Valency, and Voice formalized
• Evans et al. 2007, Valency Mismatches and the Coding of Reciprocity in Australian Languages
• Maslova 2008, Reflexive Encoding of Reciprocity: Cross-Linguistic and Language-Internal Variation
• Hurst 2012, Reciprocation Strategies and the Syntax of Reciprocal Constructions