Covert reciprocals

A Scope-Based Analysis of Reciprocal Alternations

Bibliographic Data

ID7931376
AuthorsJad Wehbe (0000-0002-3628-8910, IIT@MIT, corresponding author)
Year2025
Volume33
Issue4
Pages577-618
Publication date2025-09-30
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueNatural Language Semantics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0925-854X • E-ISSN: 1572-865X
PublisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1007/s11050-025-09240-z
OpenAlexW4414642408
LanguageEN
References cited15

This paper argues that the class of predicates that participate in reciprocal alternations, like the seemingly 1-place predicate hug in Jane and Mary hugged , should in fact be analyzed as 2-place predicates with a covert reciprocal in object position. The main challenge for this analysis is that there are truth-conditional differences between covert reciprocals and their overt counterparts. Focusing on a few case studies, this paper will argue that these seemingly lexical differences can be reanalyzed in terms of scope, allowing the differences to be systematically predicted once appropriate scope restrictions on covert reciprocals are established. More specifically, I propose that covert reciprocals are simply reciprocals that have to be bound at the lowest possible scope position. I show that these seemingly 1-place predicates behave just like overt reciprocals, modulo the low-scope requirement, for example giving rise to homogeneity and non-maximality. I therefore conclude that in order to account systematically for these inferences, covert reciprocals (at least the case studies that the paper considers) must be treated as having the same LFs as low-scope overt reciprocals

Covert · Modulo · Philosophy of language · Reciprocal · Underspecification · Unobservable · Authorship Attribution and Profiling · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access