Abstract
Reciprocal alternations appear with binary predicates that also have a collective unary form. Many of these binary predicates are symmetric : if A dated B then B dated A. Most symmetric predicates in English show a simple kind of reciprocity: A and B dated means “A dated B”, or equivalently “B dated A”. Similar observations hold for nouns and adjectives like cousin and identical . Non-symmetric predicates like hug , fight and kiss also show reciprocity, but of a more complex kind. For instance, the meaning of A and B hugged differs substantially from “A hugged B and/or B hugged A”. Addressing a wide range of reciprocal predicates, we observe that “plain” reciprocity only appears with symmetric predicates, while other types of reciprocity only appear with non-symmetric predicates. This Reciprocity-Symmetry Generalization motivates a lexical operator that derives symmetric predicates from collective meanings. By contrast, reciprocity with non-symmetric predicates is analyzed using “soft” preferences of predicate concepts. Developing work by Dowty and Rappaport-Hovav & Levin, we introduce a formal semantic notion of protopredicates , which mediates between lexical meanings and concepts. This mechanism explains symmetry and reciprocity as two semantic aspects of one type system at the lexical-conceptual interface. EARLY ACCESS
Highlights
A binary predicate R is standardly called symmetric if for every x and y, the statement R(x,y) is logically equivalent to R(y,x)
The challenge of this section is to develop a formal account that explicitly describes the semantic relations between unary predicates and binary predicates in reciprocal alternations according to the Reciprocity-Symmetry Generalization (RSG)
In a new analysis of lexical reciprocity and its relations with symmetry, this paper elucidated the notion of truth-conditionally symmetric predicates
Summary
A binary predicate R is standardly called symmetric if for every x and y, the statement R(x,y) is logically equivalent to R(y,x). It is remarkable that the great majority of symmetric predicates in English take part in reciprocal alternations.1 This fact calls for an explanation: why should logical symmetry of binary predicates be such a good predictor of their morphosyntactic relations with collective predicates? The contrast in reciprocity between date and hug in (4)-(5) illustrates a general phenomenon, which we call the Reciprocity-Symmetry Generalization: symmetric predicates exhibit plain reciprocity, whereas non-symmetric predicates do not This generalization supports a distinction between two different principles about reciprocal alternations: P1. Meanings of non-symmetric binary predicates and their collective alternates are not mutually definable, but are connected to each other by a lexical strategy of reciprocal polysemy.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
