Covert reciprocals: a scope-based analysis of reciprocal alternations

Abstract 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Natural Language Semantics
Published
2025-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-025-09240-z
Primary Topic
Authorship Attribution and Profiling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Covert reciprocals: a scope-based analysis of reciprocal alternations

Jad Wehbe
Natural Language Semantics
Authorship Attribution and Profiling
article

Covert reciprocals: a scope-based analysis of reciprocal alternations

Jad Wehbe
article en

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Natural Language SemanticsVol. 33(4)
IIT@MIT (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
Authorship Attribution and Profiling
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.