User:Jdukic/sandbox

Reciprocal Pronouns are a type of Anaphor which can be used to refer to a plural noun phrase mentioned earlier in discourse. Plural noun phrases provide a particularly rich territory because they have an anaphoric element all to themselves unlike singular noun phrases, which is why we use reciprocals to refer to them. The reciprocal pronouns known in English are one another and each other, and they belong to the category of anaphors along with Reflexive Pronouns (myself, yourself, herself, himself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves). Reciprocal Pronouns are used to refer back to plural noun phrase antecedents (such as we, you, they, the dogs, the team, etc.), and when used, they indicate a reciprocal relationship between the individuals who are being referred to. This means the action being completed by those individual nouns is being completed towards another one of those individual nouns in that same plural noun phrase. For Example: The boys slapped each other. The reciprocal scenario for this sentence would be that each boy (an individual noun, boy, in the plural noun phrase, boys) performed the action of the verb "slap" toward some other boy (in that same plural noun phrase boys). For example, if the group of boys consisted of a boy named Dave, a boy named Tom and a boy named Bill, we could say that when they slapped each other, Dave slapped Tom, Tom slapped Bill and Bill slapped Dave.

Although both reciprocal and reflexive pronouns are both classified as anaphors, there are some distributional differences between them. For example, reciprocal pronouns can appear in the subject position of noun phrases, whereas reflexives cannot.[2] Although in many cases, either a reflexive or a reciprocal pronoun could appear in the same structural position, in some cases, the asymmetry occurs when a reciprocal may be bound to its antecedent, but a reflexive may not. The following examples (Lebeaux, 1983) show that in some sentences, either type of anaphor could be used: “John and Mary like themselves/each other”. Either pronoun used would be locally bound (it's antecedent is in the same clause, and the clause is the Binding domain), which would follow Binding Theory's Binding Principle A: that an anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. A case in which we can see the differences in distribution with these “each other” reciprocal constructions is in tensed sentences (in this case, with the future tense). eg. 1) John and Mary think that "each other" will win. 2) John thinks that "himself" will win. In this case, the reciprocal is not quite the ideal construction, but the reflexive is not a possible grammatical sentence. This suggests that while reflexives require a proper binder, reciprocals may appear in positions that aren't governed this way, and can even be in a different clause. Another difference to notice is that reciprocal pronouns can appear in the subject position of noun phrases, whereas reflexives cannot. eg. 1) John and Mary like "each other's" parents 2) John likes "himself's" parents. The differences can be summarized as follows: Reciprocals are subject to binding theory, Reflexives are subject to binding theory, and must be properly governed.

Examining the semantic relations of reciprocity, we see further differences within reciprocal relationships, such as those between each-the-other and each other relations. In general, if it is possible to divide a set into subsets such that within each subset an each-the-other relationship holds, then the whole set of events can be described by an each other sentence. “Each other” constructions characterize an entire set of individuals (as outlined by their antecedents), but allow for some vagueness in their interpretation. In contrast, each-the-other constructions appear to characterize each member of a set. 1. The men are hugging each other. 2. Each of the men is hugging the others. In the first example, it is evident that every member of the set "the men" must be in some reciprocal relationship of hugging at some unspecified point during the time frame of the hugging event, while the second example allows us to infer that each of the men hugged every other man in the group of men who participated in the hugging event

Fiengo, Robert & Lasnik, Howard. 1973. The Logical Structure of Reciprocal Sentences in English. Foundations of Language, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 447-468

In English, the reciprocal "each other" is a noun phrase that takes an argument position of a syntactic predicate, whereas in Chichewa, the reciprocal is an intransitive verbal affix "-an-" However, the meaning of the reciprocal correspond in both languages. These reciprocals of "each other" and "-an-" both require a group antecedent. (1) is interpreted relative to members of the group denoted by the reciprocal antecedent "the boys." 1)The boys are hitting each other.

This sentence can be represented in the form of a tree structure, using X-bar theory, as follows:

The same holds true in Chichewa. The Chichewa reciprocal also requires a group antecedent, and the example is interpreted with respect to members of the group:' 2) Mbidzi zi-ku-meny-an-a. “The zebras are hitting each other”

Dalrymple, M., McHombo, S.A., & Peters, S. (1994). Semantic similarities and syntactic contrasts between Chichewa and English Reciprocals. Linguistic Inquiry, 25(1), 145-163.

In Croatian, the reciprocal pronoun “each other” can be translated to some variation of “jedan drugoga,” depending on the gender of the subject. In English we see the structure: (1) “The boys are hitting each other.” In Croatian, this sentence translates to: (3) “Dečki udaraju jedan drugoga.”

In Croatian, similar to English, the reciprocal pronoun require an antecedent in the same clause.

The reciprocal pronouns in Dutch are elkaar and mekaar. Elkaar is a single morpheme and is equivalent to the reciprocal pronoun each other in English while mekaar is equivalent to the reciprocal pronoun one another in English. The difference between these two reciprocal pronouns in Dutch is in terms of their use and frequency of use. Mekaar is used less often, in colloquial speech and in children’s speech. Similar to English, Elkaar requires the antecedent in same clause: Jan en Marijke slaan elkaar. ‘Jan and Marijke hit each other.’ ^^ all of these languages require the antecedent in the same clause as the reciprocal pronoun Koster, J., & Reuland, E.J. 1991). Long Distance Anaphora. Cambridge University Press: UK. Philip, W. (2000). Adult and Child Understanding of Simple Reciprocal Sentences. Language 76(1). 1-27.