{"title":"词汇和语法的减少:罗曼语中互惠的情况。","authors":"Giada Palmieri, Renato Basso, Júlia Nieto I Bou, Yoad Winter, Joost Zwarts","doi":"10.1007/s11049-025-09681-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In many languages, reciprocal meanings are expressed either by grammatical means or by using lexical predicates. The grammatical strategy is productive and may involve derivational affixes (Swahili <i>-an</i>) or pronouns (English <i>each other</i>) with transitive forms, whereas lexical reciprocity is expressed by a restricted class of intransitive predicates like English <i>kiss</i> or <i>meet</i>. The situation is more complex in Romance languages, where reciprocal verbal constructions often require a <i>se</i> clitic without a clear separation between transitive and intransitive forms. Addressing this puzzle, we propose that Romance languages involve a grammatical/lexical distinction as in other languages. We show that numerous Romance constructions systematically allow <i>se</i> omission with certain reciprocals, exhibiting parallel properties to those of lexical intransitives in other languages. A similar observation is made in relation to the distinction between grammatical reflexivity (e.g., English <i>oneself</i>) and lexical reflexives (<i>wash, shave</i>). Furthermore, we show that the <i>se</i> requirement may also be relaxed with transitive verbs, when reciprocity or reflexivity is conveyed by an overt reciprocal/reflexive item (e.g., Spanish <i>mutuamente</i> 'mutually'). The emerging theoretical picture supports an analysis of <i>se</i> as a head projection that licenses arity-reduction, though language-specific conditions allow <i>se</i> omission when arity reduction is achieved by a lexical reciprocal item or by another overt reciprocal element.</p>","PeriodicalId":18975,"journal":{"name":"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory","volume":"43 4","pages":"2821-2870"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12460508/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lexical and grammatical arity-reduction: The case of reciprocity in Romance languages.\",\"authors\":\"Giada Palmieri, Renato Basso, Júlia Nieto I Bou, Yoad Winter, Joost Zwarts\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11049-025-09681-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In many languages, reciprocal meanings are expressed either by grammatical means or by using lexical predicates. The grammatical strategy is productive and may involve derivational affixes (Swahili <i>-an</i>) or pronouns (English <i>each other</i>) with transitive forms, whereas lexical reciprocity is expressed by a restricted class of intransitive predicates like English <i>kiss</i> or <i>meet</i>. The situation is more complex in Romance languages, where reciprocal verbal constructions often require a <i>se</i> clitic without a clear separation between transitive and intransitive forms. Addressing this puzzle, we propose that Romance languages involve a grammatical/lexical distinction as in other languages. We show that numerous Romance constructions systematically allow <i>se</i> omission with certain reciprocals, exhibiting parallel properties to those of lexical intransitives in other languages. A similar observation is made in relation to the distinction between grammatical reflexivity (e.g., English <i>oneself</i>) and lexical reflexives (<i>wash, shave</i>). Furthermore, we show that the <i>se</i> requirement may also be relaxed with transitive verbs, when reciprocity or reflexivity is conveyed by an overt reciprocal/reflexive item (e.g., Spanish <i>mutuamente</i> 'mutually'). The emerging theoretical picture supports an analysis of <i>se</i> as a head projection that licenses arity-reduction, though language-specific conditions allow <i>se</i> omission when arity reduction is achieved by a lexical reciprocal item or by another overt reciprocal element.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory\",\"volume\":\"43 4\",\"pages\":\"2821-2870\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12460508/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-025-09681-5\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Language & Linguistic Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-025-09681-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Lexical and grammatical arity-reduction: The case of reciprocity in Romance languages.
In many languages, reciprocal meanings are expressed either by grammatical means or by using lexical predicates. The grammatical strategy is productive and may involve derivational affixes (Swahili -an) or pronouns (English each other) with transitive forms, whereas lexical reciprocity is expressed by a restricted class of intransitive predicates like English kiss or meet. The situation is more complex in Romance languages, where reciprocal verbal constructions often require a se clitic without a clear separation between transitive and intransitive forms. Addressing this puzzle, we propose that Romance languages involve a grammatical/lexical distinction as in other languages. We show that numerous Romance constructions systematically allow se omission with certain reciprocals, exhibiting parallel properties to those of lexical intransitives in other languages. A similar observation is made in relation to the distinction between grammatical reflexivity (e.g., English oneself) and lexical reflexives (wash, shave). Furthermore, we show that the se requirement may also be relaxed with transitive verbs, when reciprocity or reflexivity is conveyed by an overt reciprocal/reflexive item (e.g., Spanish mutuamente 'mutually'). The emerging theoretical picture supports an analysis of se as a head projection that licenses arity-reduction, though language-specific conditions allow se omission when arity reduction is achieved by a lexical reciprocal item or by another overt reciprocal element.
期刊介绍:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory provides a forum for the discussion of theoretical research that pays close attention to natural language data, offering a channel of communication between researchers of a variety of points of view. The journal actively seeks to bridge the gap between descriptive work and work of a highly theoretical, less empirically oriented nature. In attempting to strike this balance, the journal presents work that makes complex language data accessible to those unfamiliar with the language area being studied and work that makes complex theoretical positions more accessible to those working outside the theoretical framework under review. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory features: generative studies on the syntax, semantics, phonology, morphology, and other aspects of natural language; surveys of recent theoretical developments that facilitate accessibility for a graduate student readership; reactions/replies to recent papers book reviews of important linguistics titles; special topic issues. Springer fully understands that access to your work is important to you and to the sponsors of your research. We are listed as a green publisher in the SHERPA/RoMEO database, as we allow self-archiving, but most importantly we are fully transparent about your rights. Read more about author''s rights on: http://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/authors-rights