Reciprocal and Reflexive Constructions (Feature 89)
From Apics
Navigation: ← prev | next → | Overview | Feature Areas | Socioling. Features
Feature Annotation
This feature compares reciprocal constructions (constructions translated with ‘each other’) to reflexive constructions. Reciprocals may be coded just like reflexives (identity, value 4), they may be coded in a special construction (differentiation, value 2), or there may be both reflexive-like and special reciprocal constructions (overlap, value 3). Finally, some languages have no special reciprocal construction and have to use two clauses (“iconic coding”, value 1).
Additional remarks
....
Values
| Value | Value Annotation | |
| 1 | The reciprocal and reflexive constructions are formally identical | French: Ils s’ aiment. (’They love themselves; They love each other.’); Sango ala pika tere. [they hit body] ‘They hit themselves/They hit each other’. |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | All reciprocal constructions are formally distinct from reflexive constructions | English They love each other. (≠ They love themselves.); Cape Verdeankunpanheru‘each other’ (≠ kabésa 'self') |
| 3 | There are both reflexive-like and non-reflexive-like reciprocal constructions. | German ‘They love each other’: Sie lieben sich.(= reflexive-like)/Sie lieben einander.(= special reciprocal pronoun) |
| 4 | No special reciprocal construction exists | Some languages only allow “iconic” reciprocals, in which the two sub-events are expressed by two clauses (something like “She loves him and he loves her”). |
| 5 | Other | (Please give details in the “General comments” field.) |
WALS No.
106 (Total)
