Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 191–241 | Cite as

Relational domains and the interpretation of reciprocals

Open Access
Research Article

Abstract

We argue that a comprehensive theory of reciprocals must rely on a general taxonomy of restrictions on the interpretation of relational expressions. Developing such a taxonomy, we propose a new principle for interpreting reciprocals that relies on the interpretation of the relation in their scope. This principle, the Maximal Interpretation Hypothesis (MIH), analyzes reciprocals as partial polyadic quantifiers. According to the MIH, the partial quantifier denoted by a reciprocal requires the relational expression REL in its scope to denote a maximal relation in REL’s interpretation domain. In this way the MIH avoids a priori assumptions on the available readings of reciprocal expressions, which are necessary in previous accounts. Relying extensively on the work of Dalrymple et al. (Ling Philos 21:159–210, 1998), we show that the MIH also exhibits some observational improvements over Dalrymple et al.’s Strongest Meaning Hypothesis (SMH). In addition to deriving some attested reciprocal interpretations that are not expected by the SMH, the MIH offers a more restrictive account of the way context affects the interpretation of reciprocals through its influence on relational domains. Further, the MIH generates a reciprocal interpretation at the predicate level, which is argued to be advantageous to Dalrymple et al.’s propositional selection of reciprocal meanings. More generally, we argue that by focusing on restrictions on relational domains, the MIH opens the way for a more systematic study of the ways in which lexical meaning, world knowledge and contextual information interact with the interpretation of quantificational expressions.

Keywords

Reciprocals Relational domains Quantifiers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper develops and extends some of the main ideas in Sabato and Winter (2005). The work of the authors was partially supported by an Israeli Science Foundation grant “Formal Semantics of the SMH” (2005/2006) to the second author. In addition, the work of the first author was partially supported by the Adams Fellowship Program of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. The work of the second author was partially supported by two grants of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO): “Reciprocal Expressions and Relational Processes in Language” (2007/2008) and a VICI grant number 277-80-002, “Between Logic and Common Sense: the formal semantics of words” (2010–2015). The first author is also grateful for financial help of Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, while working on her MSc thesis (Sabato 2006). For remarks and discussions, we are grateful to Lev Beklemishev, Arik Cohen, Mary Dalrymple, Nissim Francez, Alon Itai, Sophia Katrenko, Ed Keenan, Beth Levin, Alda Mari, Sam Mchombo, Stanley Peters, Galit Sassoon, Maria Spychalska, Assaf Toledo and Hanna de Vries, as well as to audiences at Amsterdam Colloquium (2005), Mathematics of Language (2005) and Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation (2011), at the workshops on reciprocals (Utrecht and Berlin 2007), as well as at talks at Tel-Aviv University, Technion, Radboud University Nijmegen, New York University and UCLA. Special thanks to Martin Everaert, Na’ama Friedmann, Nir Kerem, Ya’acov Peterzil, Eva Poortman, Eric Reuland, Remko Scha, Marijn Struiksma and Joost Zwarts for extensive discussions in various stages of this work. We thank two anonymous L&P reviewers for their useful comments on a previous version. The illustrations in Fig. 5 were made by Ruth Noy Shapira.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

References

  1. Beck S (2001) Reciprocals are definites. Natural Language Semantics 9: 69–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck S., Sauerland U. (2001) Cumulation is needed: A reply to Winter (2000). Natural Language Semantics 8: 349–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, S., & von Stechow, A. (2007). Pluractional adverbials. Journal of Semantics, 24(3), 215–254. http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/3/215.abstract
  4. Ben-Avi G., Winter Y. (2003) Monotonicity and collective quantification. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12: 127–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blutner, R. (2009). Lexical pragmatics. In L. Cummings (Ed.), The pragmatics encyclopedia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, G. N. (1977). Reference to kinds in English. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  7. Dalrymple, M., Kanazawa, M., Mchombo, S., & Peters, S. (1994). What do reciprocals mean? In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, SALT4, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  8. Dalrymple M., Kanazawa M., Kim Y., Mchombo S., Peters S. (1998) Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dotlačil, J., & Nilsen, Ø. (2008). ‘The others’ compared to ‘each other’—consequences for the theory of reciprocity. In T. Friedman & S. Ito (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th semantics and linguistic theory conference, held march 21–23, 2008 at The University of Massachusetts, Amherst (pp. 248–265).Google Scholar
  10. Dougherty R. C. (1974) The syntax and semantics of each other constructions. Foundations of Language 12: 1–47Google Scholar
  11. Fiengo R., Lasnik H. (1973) The logical structure of reciprocal sentences in English. Foundations of Language 9: 447–468Google Scholar
  12. Filip H., Carlson G. N. (2001) Distributivity strengthens reciprocity, collectivity weakens it. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 417–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardent, C., & Konrad, K. (2000). Understanding each other. In Proceedings of the first annual meeting of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics, Seattle.Google Scholar
  14. Gillon B. (1987) The readings of plural noun phrases in English. Linguistics and Philosophy 10: 199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heim I., Lasnik H., May R. (1991) Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 63–101Google Scholar
  16. Higginbotham J. (1980) Reciprocal interpretation. Journal of Linguistic Research 1: 97–117Google Scholar
  17. Kamp H., Partee B. (1995) Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57: 129–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kański, Z. (1987). Logical symmetry and natural language reciprocals. In Proceedings of the 1987 Debrecen symposium on language and logic (pp. 49–69). Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.Google Scholar
  19. Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland Press. (A published version of a 1997 UCSC Ph.D. thesis.)Google Scholar
  20. Kerem, N., Friedmann, N., & Winter, Y. (2009). Typicality effects and the logic of reciprocity. In E. Cormany, S. Ito, & D. Lutz (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, SALT19 (pp. 257–274). eLanguage.Google Scholar
  21. Klein E. (1980) A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Langendoen D. T. (1978) The logic of reciprocity. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 177–197Google Scholar
  23. Levin B. (1993) English verb classes and alternations. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  24. Mari, A. (2006). Linearizing sets: each other. In O. Bonami & P. C. Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 6. Only available electronically from http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6.
  25. Peters S., Westerståhl D. (2006) Quantifiers in language and logic. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Pustejovsky J. (1995) The generative lexicon. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  27. Pylkkänen L. (2008) Mismatching meanings in brain and behavior. Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 712–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rett, J. (2011). The semantics of equatives. Unpublished Ms., UCLA Linguistics.Google Scholar
  29. Roberts, C. (1987). Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  30. Rubinstein A. (1996) Why are certain properties of binary relations relatively more common in natural language?. Econometrica 64: 343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sabato, S. (2006). The semantics of reciprocal expressions in natural language. Unpublished MSc thesis, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  32. Sabato, S., & Winter, Y. (2005). From semantic restrictions to reciprocal meanings. In Proceedings of FG-MOL.Google Scholar
  33. Sabato, S., & Winter, Y. (2010). Against partitioned readings of reciprocals. In M. Everaert, T. Lentz, H. de Mulder, Ø. Nilsen, & A. Zondervan (Eds.), The linguistics enterprize: From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics. Linguistik Aktuell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. Scha, R. (1981). Distributive, collective and cumulative quantification. In J. Groenendijk, M. Stokhof, & T. M. V. Janssen (Eds.), Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum.Google Scholar
  35. Schwarzschild R. (1996) Pluralities. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, E. E. (1988). Concepts and thought. In R. J. Sternberg & E. E. Smith (Eds.) The psychology of human thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Smith E. E., Osherson D. N., Rips L. J., Keane M. (1988) Combining prototypes: A selective modification model. Cognitive Science 12: 485–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sternefeld, W. (1997). Reciprocity and cumulative predication. In F. Hamm & E. Hinrichs (Eds.), Plurality and quantification. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  39. Struiksma, M., Kerem, N., Poortman, E., Friedmann, N., & Winter, Y. (2012). Typicality, binary concepts and the interpretation of reciprocity. Unpublished ms., Utrecht University, in preparation.Google Scholar
  40. Szymanik J. (2010) Computational complexity of polyadic lifts of generalized quantifiers in natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 33: 215–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tabossi P., Johnson-Laird P.N. (1980) Linguistic context and the priming of semantic information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32: 595–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tutte W. T. (2001) Graph theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. van den Berg, M. (1996). Some aspects of the internal structure of discourse. The dynamics of nominal anaphora. PhD thesis, Institute for Logic Language and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  44. van der Does, J. (1992). Applied quantifier logics: Collectives, naked infinitives, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  45. van der Does J. (1993) Sums and quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 509–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Rooij, R. (2010). Measurement and interadjective comparisons. Journal of Semantics. http://jos.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/11/21/jos.ffq018.abstract.
  47. Winter, Y. (1996). What does the strongest meaning hypothesis mean? In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory, SALT6.Google Scholar
  48. Winter Y. (2000) Distributivity and dependency. Natural Language Semantics 8: 27–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Winter Y. (2001a) Flexibility principles in Boolean semantics: Coordination, plurality and scope in natural language. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Winter Y. (2001b) Plural predication and the strongest meaning hypothesis. Journal of Semantics 18: 333–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Winter Y. (2002) Atoms and sets: A characterization of semantic number. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 493– 505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zwarts J., Winter Y. (2000) Vector space semantics: A model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9: 169–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zweig E. (2009) Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy 32: 353–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Benin School of Computer Science and EngineeringThe Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Modern Languages and Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTSUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations