Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2022 / Reflexivity, reciprocality and collectivity in Jordanian Arabic

Reflexivity, reciprocality and collectivity in Jordanian Arabic

Paper · 2022 · Basem Ibrahim Malawi Al-Raba'a and Yoshihisa Kitagawa

Summary

The paper asks why verbs carrying the t- prefix in Jordanian Arabic (JA) look alike on the surface but behave differently when they express reflexive versus reciprocal meaning. It is a theoretical syntax and semantics study. The data are native-speaker judgments of Rural JA, given by the first author and confirmed by at least four other speakers. The authors find that t-marked reflexives project a single syntactic argument. t-marked reciprocals keep two arguments: the second one surfaces either as a prepositional phrase or as a silent reciprocal element. This finding argues against the valency-reducing "bundling" analysis proposed for Hebrew. The authors then claim that t- does not really mark reciprocity. Instead, it demands collectivity: two sub-events that substantially coincide in time and place, with reciprocal readings arising as a by-product. Finally, they show how t- combines with base verb forms to yield Forms 5, 6 and 8, and why reflexive and collective readings never co-occur. The work matters for modelling Semitic verb templates and argument structure.

Key points

  • The diagnostic test is co-occurrence with an overt anaphor:
    • t-ʕaawanu "helped (each other)" accepts maʕ baʕð̣-hum l-baʕð̣ ("with each other").
    • t-ʔaddab "behaved (oneself)" rejects maʕ nafs-uh ("with himself").
  • Reciprocal t-verbs have two possible analyses:
    • an overt PP complement introduced by a nearly meaningless preposition (maʕ "with"), or
    • an empty internal argument, written [e]RECIP.
  • The function of t- is redefined as obligatory collectivity. Reciprocity follows from the plural eventuality that t- requires.
  • Different base forms activate t- differently:
    • F2 (causative) gives the reflexive Form 5.
    • F3 (unergative/transitive with two animate participants) gives the collective Form 6.
    • F1 transitive or symmetric transitive gives Form 8, which can be either reflexive or collective.
  • Reflexivity needs the two participants to share reference, while collectivity needs them to be distinct. The two readings are therefore mutually exclusive. Appendices A–E add cross-dialect and English comparisons.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. An argument's syntactic status can be tested by checking whether an overt filler (such as an anaphor PP) is allowed, which separates truly absent arguments from merely silent ones.
  • I2. Reciprocal meaning is treated as a consequence of two overlapping sub-events with distinct participants, rather than as a primitive.
  • I3. The same morpheme yields different readings depending on what the base verb supplies (a self-related relation versus a plural event).
  • I4. Some prepositions are close to semantically empty and serve only to license an argument, much like "on" in "rely on".
  • I5. Two readings are ruled out jointly by one constraint on reference: united versus disjoint participants.

For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

  • I1 (frames): When filling VerbNet roles, Mova could flag a role as "implicit but present" if the construction licenses an overt filler, and as "absorbed" otherwise, before resolving who acted on whom.
  • I2 (world): Events such as "met" or "hugged" could be stored as two parallel sub-events sharing a time and place, so that later questions about either participant's action can be answered explicitly.
  • I3 (tokens): English morphology (e.g., the alternation in "they kissed" vs. "she kissed him") could be tagged with a conditional reading rule tied to the lemma's verb class, rather than a fixed feature.
  • I4 (frames): Such prepositions could be marked as role-transparent so the PP object maps directly to the verb's internal role instead of producing a separate location or instrument frame.
  • I5 (answer): A reader could use this kind of exclusion to reject candidate interpretations, for example not answering "each other" when coreference already shows a single participant.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

 Institutions

🎓Indiana University BloomingtonBloomington · United States18 works · 2,320 citations

Also on the byline: KIMEP University.

📚 Shelves 4 Arts and Humanities · 9,296 works Language and Linguistics · 9,206 works Psychology · 798 works Developmental and Educational Psychology · 260 works

🧭 Topics 1 Semitic languages · 1,484 works

Cite

Cite as Basem Ibrahim Malawi Al-Raba'a and Yoshihisa Kitagawa. 2022. Reflexivity, reciprocality and collectivity in Jordanian Arabic. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.16995/glossa.5799

@article{alrabaa2022reflexivity,
  title = {{Reflexivity, reciprocality and collectivity in Jordanian Arabic}},
  author = {Basem Ibrahim Malawi Al-Raba'a and Yoshihisa Kitagawa},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2022},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.5799},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.5799}
}

References

39 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. 2016. The Semitic templates from the perspective of reciprocal predicates. Proceedings of the 10th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, 16–30. ↗
  2. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. 2020. The NP-strategy for Expressing Reciprocity: Typology, History, Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.127 ↗
  3. Benmamoun, Elabbas. 2003. Reciprocals as plurals in Arabic. In Lecarme, Jacqueline (ed.), Research in Afroasiatic grammar II: Selected Papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, 53–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.241.05ben ↗
  4. Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802669 ↗
  5. Carlson, Greg. 1998. Thematic roles and the individuation of events. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and grammar (studies in linguistics and philosophy 70), 35–51. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_3 ↗
  6. Dalrymple, Mary & Kanazawa, Makoto & Kim, Yookyung & McHombo, Sam & Peters, Stanley. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and philosophy 21(2). 159–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005330227480 ↗
  7. Dimitriadis, Alexis. 2008a. The event structure of irreducibly symmetric reciprocals. In Dölling, Johannes & Heyde-Zybatow, Tatjana & Schäfer, Martin (eds.), Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation, 328–354. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110925449.327 ↗
  8. Dimitriadis, Alexis. 2008b. Irreducible symmetry in reciprocal constructions. In König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations, 375–409. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ↗
  9. Doron, Edit. 2003. Agency and voice: The semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11. 1–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023021423453 ↗
  10. Essien, Hannah. 2014. Structural study of Arabic morphology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Bloomington dissertation. find
  11. Fassi Fehri, Abdelkader. 2012. Key features and parameters in Arabic grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/la.182 ↗
  12. Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 2002. A grammar of Classical Arabic (third revised edition). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. find
  13. Grodzinsky, Yosef & Reinhart, Tanya. 1993. The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 69–102. find
  14. Heim, Irene. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. In Sauerland, Uli & Percus, Orin (eds.), The interpretive tract: Working Papers in Syntax and Semantics, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 25, 205–246. Cambridge, MA, Department of Linguistics, MIT. find
  15. Heim, Irene & Lasnik, Howard & May, Robert. 1991. Reciprocality and plurality. Linguistic Theory 22(1). 63–101. find
  16. Higginbotham, James. 1985. On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry 16. 547–593. find
  17. Holes, Clive. 2004. Modern Arabic structures, functions, and varieties. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. find
  18. Laks, Lior. 2007. Morphology and thematic arity operations: Evidence from Standard Arabic. In Mughazy, Mustafa A. (ed.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XX: Papers from the twentieth annual symposium on Arabic linguistics, 51–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.290.06lak Landman, Fred. 1989. Groups, I. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5). 559–605. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00627774 ↗
  19. Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures (studies in linguistics and philosophy). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4359-2 ↗
  20. Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, conjunction, and events (studies in linguistics and philosophy 55). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8581-1_5 ↗
  21. Lasersohn, Peter. 1998. Events in the semantics of collectivizing adverbials. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and grammar (studies in linguistics and philosophy 70), 273–292. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_11 ↗
  22. LeTourneau, Mark S. 1998. Implicit reciprocals in Standard Arabic. In Benmamoun, Elabbas & Eid, Mushira & Haeri, Niloofar (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XI: Papers from the eleventh annual symposium on Arabic linguistics, 91–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.167.07let Link, Godehard. 1998. Algebraic semantics in language and philosophy (CSLI Lecture Notes No. 74). Stanford, California: CSLI Publications. ↗
  23. Lønning, Jan Tore. 2011. Plurals and collectives. In van Benthem, Johan & ter Meulen, Alice (eds.), Handbook of logic and language, Second Edition, 989–1033. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53726-3.00023-2 ↗
  24. Mari, Alda. 2014. Each other, asymmetry and reasonable futures. Journal of Semantics 31. 209– 261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft003 ↗
  25. McCarthy, John Joseph. 1981. A prosodic theory of nonconcatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12(3). 373–418. find
  26. McCarthy, John Joseph. 1982. Formal problems in Semitic phonology and morphology. Texas: University of Texas, Austin. find
  27. Peres, Joao Andrade. 1998. Issues on Distributive and Collective Readings. In Hamm, Fritz & Hinrichs, Erhard (eds.), Plurality and Quantification (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 69), 339–365. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2706-8_9 ↗
  28. Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm. find
  29. Reinhart, Tanya & Siloni, Tal. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter: Reflexivization and other arity operations. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3). 389–436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396881 ↗
  30. Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A reference grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486975 ↗
  31. Ryding, Karin C. 2014. Arabic: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139151016 ↗
  32. Sabato, Sivan & Winter, Yoad. 2012. Relational domains and the interpretation of reciprocals. Linguistics and Philosophy 35(3). 191–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-012-9117-x ↗
  33. Siloni, Tal. 2001. Reciprocal verbs. In Falk, Yehuda N. (ed.), Proceedings of the Israel association of theoretical linguistics 17. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. http://linguistics.huji.ac.il/ IATL/17/TOC.html. ↗
  34. Siloni, Tal. 2002. Active lexicon. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 383–400. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1515/thli.28.3.383 ↗
  35. Siloni, Tal. 2008. The syntax of reciprocal verbs: An overview. In König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and typological explorations, 451–498. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ↗
  36. Siloni, Tal. 2012. Reciprocal verbs and symmetry. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(1). 261–320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9144-2 ↗
  37. Thackston, Wheeler M. 2000. An introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic: An elementary grammar of the Language. Bethesda, Maryland: IBEX Publishers. find
  38. Watson, Janet C. E. 2002. The phonology and morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↗
  39. Wright, William. 1896. A grammar of the Arabic language, Vol.1. Originally written in German by Carl Caspari and Translated by William Wright, Smith, William Robertson & de Goeje, Michael Jan (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1874.) find

Updated

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/a-2022-reflexivity-reciprocality-collectivity-jordanian-arabic/