5.1 Deponent reciprocal verbs

Cross-linguistically, numerous rec-predicates lack a transitive counterpart yet convey a symmetric sense (Kemmer 1993: 30–31; Nedjalkov 2007a: 14; Knjazev 2007: 118–119). Hebrew presents denominative reciprocal verbs, such as hitˈales ‘make love,’ existing in the T-template without a seemingly more basic transitive counterpart. Notably, among the 57 Hebrew rec-predicates in our dataset, 18 fall into this category.¹³ Additionally, four predicates have a distinct verb in the same root in a transitive template with a completely different meaning—e.g., hitˈagref ‘box’ and igref ‘clench the fist.’

Such deponent verbs clearly pose a problem for a theory that considers the rec-predicate to derive from the basic (transitive) predicate. Admittedly, this is not an insurmountable problem for a derivational approach. Siloni (2001; 2012) considers these verbs as instances of derivation from “frozen verbs”—entries in the mental lexicon that cannot undergo syntactic derivation and, consequently, are not part of the language’s active vocabulary. Such explanations, however, are not ideal from a theoretical standpoint.

5.2 Adjuncts become arguments

Viewing reciprocalization as a function operating on transitive verbs to generate rec-predicates, one would expect this function to exclusively manipulate the arguments of the transitive predicate, aligning with arity-operations. However, this expectation is not consistently met with rec-predicates. In certain cases, participants in the symmetric relation function as adjuncts in the transitive counterpart, rather than as arguments.

For example, in the case of the root √ktv, in the basic predicate katav ‘write’ (13a), the recipient of the written item (e.g. a letter), is not considered an argument. This assessment stems from the fact that writing does not necessarily involve a recipient, making its presence non-obligatory.¹⁴ In contrast, the rec-predicate (13b) in the T-template (hitkatev ‘correspond’) involves both the writer and the recipient:

This observation challenges derivational accounts of verbal reciprocals, suggesting that even if symmetry is inherent to the verb’s meaning, it may not necessarily arise from derivation from a transitive predicate in the lexicon. In other words, hitkatev is not the reciprocal version of katav but rather a predicate denoting events of ‘correspondence’. Such events often (but not always) involve a symmetric relation. In Modern Hebrew, there are 5 verbs with this relationship between the arguments of the basic predicate and of the rec-predicate, all of them expressing some sort of communication between agents.

Hebrew, overall, encompasses 14 verbs expressing various forms of communication. This category of verbs possesses another unique aspect. As noted in Section 3, according to the literature (Carlson 1998; Dimitriadis 2008a; b; Siloni 2012), rec-predicates are considered irreducibly symmetric. This implies that these verbs express a binary relationship where both arguments equally participate in any event described by the predicate, precluding the possibility of uni-directional sub-events with asymmetric relations. However, this stronger entailment is not applicable to verbs of communication, such as hitkatev ‘correspond.’ The denotation of these verbs can be decomposed into sub-events, each involving the delivery of a message (e.g., sending a letter) from one person to another.

5.3 Reciprocity of the transitive verb

Derivational approaches to rec-predicates often hinge on the observation that, in numerous languages, they appear to be morphologically derived from more basic transitive verbs (Siloni 2008). Modern Hebrew, akin to other Semitic languages, constructs verbs by incorporating phonological roots into diverse morphological templates. Verbs originating from the same root in various templates exhibit distinct yet often interconnected meanings, as discussed by scholars such as Aronoff (1976), Doron (2003), and Arad (2005), among others. The forms presented in Table 3 illustrate this phenomenon using the root √gdl across seven different templates (where C represents the consonants of the root).

In Hebrew, 48 out of the 57 rec-predicate verbs are found in the T-template (see Section 5.4). Proponents of the derivational approach assert that rec-verbs in the T-template (as in (6)) are derived from verbs in the basic- or intensive-template (as in (9)), and that this derivation involves a process that is semantically or syntactically linked to reciprocalization (see Section 2). However, the data presents a more nuanced picture, as only 17.5% (10 out of the 57) of Hebrew rec-predicates are part of the trio constructions illustrated in examples (6)–(9) (8 with the transitive counterpart in the intensive-template, and 2 in the basic-template.)

The rest fall into two categories: those discussed in previous sections (5.1–2), and cases where the counterpart verb also denotes symmetry. In fact, in 35% of the verbs (20 verbs, including 15 in the intensive-template, 4 in the causative-template, and 1 in the basic-template), symmetry is inherent to the meaning of the transitive verb as well,¹⁶ evident when the verb expresses a symmetric relation between its internal arguments, as exemplified in (14):

The verb in (14a) is in the intensive-template, similar to the verb in (9). However, unlike (9), it also incorporates a symmetric meaning, akin to its T-template counterpart in (14b). (14a) adds the cause to the symmetric relation. It is noteworthy that the proposition in (14a), with the intensive verb, entails the one in (14b), with the T-template verb, whereas (9) does not entail (6). These distinctions likely stem from the fact that the verb in (14) depicts inherently symmetric relations, as confrontation is by definition symmetric. In contrast, the verb in (9) does not inherently describe symmetric relations. If a kissed b, it does not necessarily entail that b kissed a. Only the corresponding rec-predicate describes an engagement characterized by a symmetric relation.

While a detailed morphological exploration of this dataset extends beyond this paper’s scope, it is still possible to consider a few theoretical options. The first one, is to consider the possibility of a bi-directional derivation:

Intensive template => T-template

OR

T-template => intensive template

In (6), the rec-predicate may derive from (9), but in (14), transitive predicates appear to originate from rec-predicates. In the latter, the functional head introducing the thematic role of agent/cause takes the rec-predicate (and not just the root) as input. This challenges theories positing that this function exclusively takes the basic-lexical-entry/root as input, necessitating an additional operation for symmetry. The essence of the matter lies in inherently symmetric verbs, such as those in (14), raising the question of whether verbs in the T-template are truly ‘derived’ from the root or potentially ‘originated’ within the T-template due to their intrinsic meaning. In simpler terms, this implies there may be no derivation from another basic predicate, and instead, symmetric predicates are coined directly within the T-template.¹⁷

Given these considerations, maintaining an approach asserting that rec-predicates necessarily derives from a semantic operation, forming symmetric verbs from non-reciprocal predicates, appears challenging. Instead, one may find it necessary to adopt one of the following perspectives:

Non-Derivational Approach for rec-predicates: In this perspective, rec-predicates are viewed as commonly manifesting in the T-template, and this occurrence is posited as not originating from a derivational process. This holds true whether symmetry is inherent to the predicate’s meaning or if the rec-verb is associated with another asymmetric predicate in the lexicon, or when it is an independent predicate in the lexicon. (The subsequent sub-section delves into supporting evidence for this alternative viewpoint.) Notably, there is no derivational relation, and symmetry should not be assumed as part of the meaning.

Non-Semantic Analysis: Alternatively, a non-semantic analysis of the derivation can be considered. When examining verb derivations, particularly in instances like (14a–b) and (6–9), one may propose that the derivation consistently proceeds from the intensive-template to the T-template. In the intensive-template, verbs inherently carry the external argument. The operation leading to the T-template, regardless of context, involves eliminating this external argument. Functioning solely as a diathetic operation, it signifies valency reduction. Within this framework, a clear distinction is made between the meaning of rec-predicates and the lexical/syntactic derivation process. The latter is not categorized as semantic one.

In our context, neither option posits that rec-predicates emerge from a semantic operation involving a reciprocalization of a basic transitive predicate. Therefore, one should avoid assuming that these predicates inherently denote symmetry based on the relationship between certain predicates that may seem to represent such a relation between them.

5.4 Morphologically unmarked verbal reciprocals

Hebrew verbs can describe symmetric events even in the absence of T-template morphology, which is traditionally associated with marking symmetry. Rec-predicates, such as nicmad ‘stuck’ (N-template), rav ‘to quarrel’ (basic-template), and soxeax ‘to converse’ (intensive-template), demonstrate the versatility of expressions in different templates. Within the realm of Hebrew verbs, 9 out of 57 fall into this category.¹⁸ This poses a challenge for derivational approaches that assume a direct one-to-one correlation between structure/meaning and form, as advocated by Doron (2003). The existence of these verbs suggests that reciprocal expressions form a semantic class, irrespective of their formal representation. Even when considering the possibility of semantic derivation for specific verbs from others, this derivation may not directly manifest in the morphological structure.

Notably, these verbs demonstrate all the features delineated in (6)–(9) and share the syntactic characteristic of being unable to co-occur with a direct object, despite lacking a middle morphology (T-template in Hebrew):

Thus, irrespective of their form, these verbs not only belong to the same semantic class but also consistently exhibit similar syntactic behaviour.

5.5 Preliminary conclusions

While Hebrew rec-predicates are often portrayed through a trio of constructions (the singular-subject construction (7), the plural-subject construction (6), and the corresponding transitive (non-reciprocal (9)), our lexicon examination challenges this view. Only 17.5% of Hebrew rec-predicates fit this model, primarily those involving physical contact that often involve emotions like ‘kiss’ and ‘hug.’ The majority follow different patterns, either being deponent or falling into specific types.

The notion that rec-predicates derive from a more basic transitive root/verb, involving a semantic transformation into a symmetric predicate, originated from verbs conforming to this pattern. However, the realization that this holds true only for a minority of verbs prompts a reconsideration of this view. Moreover, compelling reasons against assuming such derivation emerge throughout this section. Explanations for the facts in sections 5.1 and 5.3 become more straightforward without assuming such derivation. The data in section 5.2 contradicts a derivational approach, and section 5.4 challenges derivational approaches assuming a direct one-to-one correlation between structure/meaning and form. Even if reciprocalization is a semantic process, it may not necessarily be reflected in the morphology.

The derivational approaches proposed by Siloni (2012) and Dimitriadis (2008a, b) was primarily motivated by semantic considerations, positing rec-predicates as symmetric versions of basic predicates. However, as demonstrated in Section 4, rec-predicates do not consistently convey a symmetric meaning, casting doubt on the semantic foundation of the derivational approach. Given these observations, it is imperative to propose an alternative lexical and semantic analysis for rec-predicates.

The data in Section 5.4 holds significant implications for understanding the “verbal strategy for expressing reciprocity” (Stage Two in the methodology outlined in Section 2). These predicates, linked with verbs, exhibit specific semantic and syntactic features, revealing a correlation between syntax and semantic interpretation. Essentially, these predicates consistently represent symmetric events in certain contexts. However, it is evident, at least in Hebrew, that this predicate type is not necessarily tied to a specific morphology. The open question pertains to whether a plural subject is integral to defining this construction, a query connected to the argument structure of these predicates and their syntactic realization. The forthcoming section will center on this vital inquiry, paving the way for a semantic explanation of the multifunctionality of these predicates and the systematic interpretations they evoke in specific contexts (Stage Four in the methodology outlined in Section 2).

It’s important to highlight that the semantic analysis presented in the subsequent sections is self-contained and does not depend on the acceptance of the viewpoint regarding the derivational relationship between the basic and the reciprocal predicates outlined in this section.

6.1 The source of the collective readings

As noted in Table 1, rec-predicates with plural subjects have two readings:

The terms “distributive” and “collective” are employed here following the conventions in rec-predicates literature (e.g., Winter 2018). Distributivity implies that the predicate applies to all members or subsets of a particular set, as seen in the distributive reading of (6): both Yael and Miriam participate in an act of reciprocal kissing. Contrary to the opposition often found in literature, the collective reading of (6) also involves Yael and Miriam engaging in reciprocal kissing. Positively defined here, collectivity adds an entailment about the plural entity, signifying that an irreducibly symmetric event of reciprocal kissing occurred between Yael and Miriam (see section 2). (See Champollion (2021) for the various uses of the notion of collectivity. See also Dowty 1986; Ginzburg 1990; Schein 1993; Lasersohn 1995; Landman 2000; Winter 2002 and Champollion 2016).

In previous literature, collective readings have been accounted for in various ways, among them the following:

1. Collections/sets have an ontological status of their own (e.g., Winter 2002).¹⁹

2. There are only individuals (atoms) – everything else can be reduced to quantification over eventualities (e.g., Schein 1993).

Considering the diverse semantic relations that the term “collective” can encompass—some entailing non-distributivity and others not—it becomes crucial to precisely determine the nature used in the current discussion. This paper adopts the first approach, positing an ontological status of collection. However, it contends that what was labelled as the collective reading of (6) demands a distinct account, emphasizing the following distinction:

1. Lexical collectivity: Involves predicates that take sets as their arguments.

2. Syntactic collectivity: Encompasses plural subjects with atom predicates, where all participants denoted by the plurality engage in the same event.

This differentiation between atom- and set-predicates follows Winter’s (2002) typology of predicates, based on a general principle proposed for the lexical semantics of predicates:

The argument posits that rec-predicates function as dyadic predicates, taking atoms as their arguments. Considering that sentences with rec-predicates involve at least two participants, if these participants are not encoded as a single set-argument, an alternative argument structure must be proposed to account for the various interpretations. The analysis unfolds in three stages:

1. An analysis is proposed for rec-predicates with singular subjects (Section 6.2).

2. Building on this, the distributive reading of plural-subject rec-predicates is accounted for (Sections 6.2).

3. It is then argued that this analysis also accommodates the collective reading of plural-subject rec-predicates (Section 6.3).

This approach eliminates the need to assume more than one lexical entry for each of these predicates.

6.2 The argument structure of rec-predicates

In addressing the argument structure of rec-predicates, a key question revolves around the oblique expression in the discontinuous construction (7). It is proposed that this oblique expression is an argument of the rec-predicate, and (16) represents the basic argument structure (AS) of such predicates:²⁰

This AS representation offers minimal information about the predicate, presenting the rec-predicate itself, the presence of only two arguments, and their lexical roles: X-er signifies a lexical role equivalent to an active participle, while X-ed represents a role equivalent to a passive participle. Despite its simplicity, this information suffices for the current discussion’s needs, determining the presence of two (atom) arguments or just one (set) argument and whether they share the same lexical/semantic role. (16) indicates the presence of two arguments with distinct lexical/semantic roles.

This analysis begins with (16), providing a reasonable criterion for being an argument of a predicate and realizing one of its lexical roles (for justification, see Bar-Asher (2009: chapters 1–2)):

Applying the definition to rec-predicates involves assessing the lexical functions entailed by every instantiation of the predicates to establish whether the participants in question function as arguments. Considering the entailments of rec-predicates with singular subjects and their consistent ability to convey asymmetric readings, as illustrated in (8):

It becomes evident that symmetry is not necessarily implied. The entailment derived from all instances of this predicate (as represented in (17)) suggests that there must always be at least one hugger (acting in accordance with the denotation of the rec-predicate) and one being hugged (equivalent to the patient in the non-reciprocal predicate), but not necessarily two huggers and two being hugged.

Thus, (18) can be proposed as the AS for this predicate:

In languages without reciprocal morphology, like English, it is hard to express this formula verbally in an intuitive way, because distinguishing between the transitive predicate (9) and the reciprocal predicate (6–7) is difficult. Utilizing Hebrew terminology, one can convey that hitxabqut (‘rec-hugging’) involves a mitxabek (the active participle of the rec-verb) and a mexubak (the passive participle of the non-reciprocal-verb). Building on this, (16) is proposed as the AS for rec-predicates:

Note that (16) is not posited as the function of the morphology linked to rec-predicates. Instead, it defines the argument structure (AS) common to all predicates exhibiting the pattern in (6–8). This serves as a shared foundation for verbs demonstrating collective and distributive symmetric readings with plural subjects, and appearing in the discontinuous-construction, where a symmetric reading is not obligatory. As observed in Section 5.4, such verbs may take on various Hebrew templates.

The underlying concept of this proposal is that, while rec-predicates often denote irreducibly symmetric events, this does not mandate labeling them as irreducibly symmetric predicates. In other words, symmetry is a feature of the relations among participants in an event, but it is not intrinsic to the content of rec-predicates. Except when discussing the verbs covered in Section 5.3, symmetry is not inherent to the meaning of these verbs, leading to their treatment merely as a strategy for expressing reciprocity.

Moreover, if (16) accurately represents the AS of these predicates, the discontinuous-construction—where the rec-er is portrayed as the subject and the rec-ed as an oblique expression—constitutes their fundamental realization. Revisiting Stage Two of the methodology for identifying strategies for expressing reciprocity (outlined in section 2), which involves pinpointing the grammatical components uniquely marking the specific construction, it is possible now to ascertain that it is solely the verb characterizing this construction, and the way the rec-ed is represented with the associative preposition. Contrary to common assertions in the literature (Doron 2003; Siloni 2012) the plural form of the verb or the absence of another argument are not distinctive features.

In light of this, the distributive reading of the plural-subject construction like (6) is a natural interpretation, as the default reading of atom predicates is the distributive one (in our case, indicating that both Yael and Miriam are rec-kissers).

Hence, sentences with plural subjects imply implicit rec-kissed arguments. Indeed, as illustrated in (20), even with a singular subject, leaving the rec-ed argument implicit is possible:²²

Regarding the collective readings of rec-predicate sentences (6i), it was previously mentioned that, according to Siloni (2012), they entail a different predicate. In her analysis, rec-predicates have two entries in the mental lexicon: a monadic entry, generating the collective reading (6i) (also Winter 2018), and a dyadic one, generating the distributive reading (6ii). As outlined earlier, (12) provides the two entries associated with a rec-predicate in this approach:

Systematically associating predicates with two lexical entries is an undesirable outcome from a theoretical perspective. Instead, it is proposed that that the collective reading is a specific interpretation of an atom predicate, one of two interpretations consistently available with such predicates. The underlying idea is that, in each of the two sets of sentences below (21–22), the (c) sentence, featuring a plural subject, depicts the same event as, and shares identical semantic composition with, sentences (a+b). The symmetric reading of (22c) is therefore pragmatically derived, inferred in contexts where (a) and (b) are understood to describe the same event:

To clarify, in cases where the subject is plural, implicit arguments are consistently inferred. These may manifest as an anaphoric expression, like a covert reciprocal pronoun (23a),²⁴ or as an existential expression, like a covert indefinite pronoun (23b).²⁵

The utilization of a covert reciprocal pronoun (23a) results in a collective reading of the sentence, while (23b) brings about a distributive reading through the use of a covert indefinite pronoun. These distinct interpretations can be accounted for by positing different implicit arguments, without necessitating different predicates.²⁶ Alternatively, it could be posited that the structure in (23b)–with an underspecified meaning–is the default, and the more specific collective reading is pragmatically inferred in specific contexts. The ensuing sections contend that (23b), with a covert indefinite pronoun, serves as the default implicit argument, but the reciprocal anaphora (23a) as the implicit argument becomes necessary in particular contexts. The subsequent section delves deeper into the possibility of an underspecified meaning.

6.3 The source for the collective reading: A single event

The proposal is that the ambiguity in the plural-subject construction, fluctuating between collective and distributive readings, characterizes all atom-predicates. The formula in (24) represents the truth conditions of rec-predicates with plural subjects:

This formula is underspecified regarding whether all members of set A participate in relation R_rec in the same event or in different events. It also remains underspecified regarding whether the other participant (y) is part of the set A denoted by the subject. In the distributive reading, each member of this set serves as the rec-er of a distinct event, and their respective rec-ed is not part of set A. The collective reading is a specific interpretation of the underspecified meaning, where all members of the set participate in the same event, and all participants in the rec-ed position are members of that set. Particularly in cases where the cardinality of set A is 2,²⁷ the outcome is an irreducibly symmetric event, as depicted in (25) (the existential quantifier binding the event variable has wide scope).

Since (25) entails (24), (25) is a specific reading of (24).

The ambiguity between a single-event reading and a plural-event reading is inherent in all atom predicates with a plural subject (cf. Lakoff & Peters 1966), as exemplified by (26):

Any predicate with a plural subject permits either a distributive or a collective reading, unless the specific meaning of the predicate or the context precludes this possibility. Therefore, the collective and distributive readings of (6) do not require different syntactic or lexical structures. According to this analysis, the meaning remains underspecified regarding the number of events and whether the rec-ed is part of the set denoted by the subject. Thus, rec-predicates are dyadic atom predicates rather than monadic set-predicates. Thus, what was previously considered the most basic use of these predicates, involving a plural subject with a collective reading, is actually a specific reading. This reading, generally available in sentences with plural subjects, indicates that all relations hold within the same event.

As per the methodology outlined in Section 2, a particular group of verbs forms these constructions. To account for the multifunctionality of these predicates (Stage Three), instances with plural subjects, interpreted as signifying symmetric events, represent a specific interpretation where symmetry applies (Stage Four). Thus, systematic conditions exist that lead to a symmetric interpretation (3), justifying the classification of these constructions as a strategy for expressing reciprocity.

7.1 Non-reciprocal verbs with a symmetric reading

The assertion that the collective reading emerges when all members of the subject-set participate in the same event, and all the rec-ers are members of that set as well, can also be illustrated with other groups of verbs.²⁸ While verbs like hitnašek ‘kiss.rec’ and hitxabek ‘hug.rec’ strongly favor the symmetric reading, irrespective of the subject being singular or plural, this inclination is less pronounced in other verbs. This supports the claim that the reciprocal reading is context-dependent.

In certain Modern Hebrew verbs, symmetry is implied with a plural subject but not with a singular one:

This observation holds paramount importance for the approach advocated in this context, asserting that the basic predicate does not inherently imply symmetry. Symmetry, according to this perspective, arises when assuming a plural subject’s participation in the same eventuality.

The preceding group of verbs might suggest that plurality alone implies symmetry. However, verbs like hit'ahev ‘fall in love with’ behave differently. They can be non-reciprocal with both singular (28a) and plural subjects (28b), although a symmetric reading is possible (28c). This contrast with verbs like hitnašek ‘kiss’, which imply symmetry even when plural and distributive.

The last group includes verbs like hitro'ea ‘hang out with, socialize’ and hityaded ‘befriend,’ which typically exhibit a symmetric reading with plural subjects.

Symmetric readings can also occur with a singular subject:

However, with a singular subject, the meaning is often asymmetric or that the level of the participation in the relation may not be equal, even when the verb describes a relation between two humans.

The relationship depicted in (31) is asymmetric; the extremists are considered dominant, and the subject is influenced by them, seeking their company. Contrastingly, in (32), with the positions of the arguments reversed, the meaning differs, requiring the “extremists” to be the ones interested in the social relation, while the person indicated by the comitative expression is more independent, attracting the attention of others for interaction.

In all these instances (27-32), while symmetry, as defined in (3), is maintained, it may not be balanced equally in both directions. Only with a plural subject is there an implication that symmetry exists at the level of engagement to the same degree.

This evidence substantiates the claim that the symmetric reading in sentences with plural subjects is not intrinsic to the fundamental meaning of the predicate; instead, it arises from a combination of lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic factors, leading to an interpretation that all relations are established within the set denoted by the subject of the sentences.

The existing literature on rec-predicates concentrates on verbs like hitnašek ‘kiss’, commonly perceived as symmetric with both singular and plural subjects. However, as demonstrated earlier, this symmetry isn’t universal, even for verbs like ‘kiss’ and ‘hug.’²⁹ The data in this section reveals that the tendency for a symmetric reading, and whether it occurs consistently or only with plural subjects, varies across different verbs. A notable distinction emerges between verbs that often entail symmetric events (with no sub-events) regardless of the subject’s number and those where symmetry is more prevalent with plural subjects. Physical contact verbs fall into the former category, while social interaction verbs fall into the latter. This discrepancy is expected, given that physical contact inherently involves symmetry, whereas social interactions may be unidirectional. Further elaboration on this topic will be provided in Section 8.

Despite these differences, this paper proposes a unified analysis for all these verbs. It suggests that the collective reading in sentences with plural subjects is a specific case resulting from various factors. Exploring why each verb prompts a distinct salient interpretation will be addressed in the paper’s final section.

7.2 Rec-predicates with focus-sensitive particles

The data presented thus far are consistent with three possible explanations for the availability of both distributive and collective readings:

1. A syntactic distinction between the two readings involving distinct implicit arguments (23a–b).

2. One syntactic structure with an underspecified meaning (23b), influenced by pragmatic factors that lead to two possible interpretations.

3. Two distinct predicates: one for plural subjects, yielding the collective reading, and another for singular or plural subjects responsible for nonsymmetric readings and the distributive reading, respectively (Siloni 2012).

The preference for the first two options has been mainly aesthetic, assuming a theory with a single lexical entry is preferable. This subsection counters the option of two lexical entries and clarifies the identity of implicit arguments. To accomplish this, Bar-Asher Siegal’s test (2020: 254–255) will be applied in a new context to demonstrate a case of underspecified meaning.

According to (ii), outlined in Section 6.3, rec-predicates with plural subjects are underspecified regarding the number of events and whether the rec-ed participant is part of the subject’s set.³⁰ A collective reading represents a distinct scenario where all subject members participate exclusively in the same event with each other, making it a stronger interpretation which also entails the distributive reading. Consequently, in downward-entailing environments, the entailment should occur in the opposite direction. This prediction is indeed borne out:

When interpreted distributively, implying distinct events, the sentence suggests that the kids never kissed at any time. However, it also implies a collective reading, that the kids did not engage in a group kiss during a single event. In the positive sentence, only when interpreted as a collective reading involving reciprocal kissing within the group does it imply the distributive reading, signifying that everyone engaged in some reciprocal kissing. This inference does not hold in the opposite direction.

This assertion is substantiated by examining focus-sensitive particles. Such sentences, in fact, counter the idea of positing two distinct predicates for collective and distributive readings (option iii), as the semantics of sentences with focus-sensitive particles encompass both interpretations simultaneously. This duality is only plausible when assuming a single underspecified interpretation for these sentences (option ii). To grasp this claim, it is crucial to revisit the semantics of focus-sensitive particles, which broadly entails asserting a prejacent and negating its alternatives. Consider a sentence with only:

In broad terms, this sentence conveys two propositions: the prejacent (35a) and the exclusion (35b):³¹

Consider an only-sentence featuring a rec-predicate and a plural subject with a collective reading:

Notably, in this context, the sentence in (36) conveys two propositions:

Even when the prejacent (37a) is linked to the strong interpretation, namely the collective reading, the proposition of exclusion in (37b) can only arise by negating the weak interpretation of (36), that is, the distributive reading.

While it may be perplexing that two different interpretations of a single sentence can coexist, the analysis of the semantics of rec-predicates, with the underspecified meaning (24), suggests that this is expected. The reinforcement of the positive sentence (the prejacent) takes place contextually by assuming that the sentence describes a singular event, and all rec-er participants are also rec-eds in this event (37a). However, when negated, the basic underspecified interpretation is negated (assuming the weakest interpretation) resulting in (37b).

This observation also elucidates the nature of the implicit argument in rec-sentences. As outlined in Section 6.2 and repeated here, with plural subjects, two distinct implicit arguments are theoretically possible: a reciprocal anaphoric expression (23a) or an indefinite pronoun (23b):

The collective reading can be derived in two ways:

1. From the underlying structure in (23a), where symmetry is produced in a compositional manner.

2. From the underlying structure in (23b), where the semantics of the sentence remains underspecified, but pragmatic factors can motivate an interpretation involving a single event with only two participants – i.e., the symmetry reading.

The data in (36–37) supports the second option, as the positive prejacent sentence is interpreted collectively, and the negative sentence, negating all contextual alternatives, is interpreted distributively. This is only possible if both sentences share the same prejacent, achievable by assuming the implicit argument in (23b). The semantics of the exclusion proposition (23b) arises by assuming that the negation of (36) interacts with the weaker interpretation involving the underspecified implicit argument in (23b). The stronger interpretation of the proposition (37a), that they kissed each other, is achieved through pragmatic strengthening.

There is, however, reason to consider that (23a) is also occasionally available as the underlying structure in certain contexts. Consider (38):

This sentence can convey that Yoram and Rina haven’t kissed anyone for a long time or, alternatively, that they did rec-kiss other people, but not each other. Winter (2018 n. 7) considers this as evidence for the ambiguity of all rec-predicates between two senses. However, a simpler explanation posits that, similar to other cases with implicit arguments, both the anaphoric expression (as in 23a) and the existentially-quantified pronoun (as in 23b) are available, with the context determining the choice between them (see Condoravdi & Gawron 1996). According to this analysis, the ambiguity is not linked to two lexical entries but to two underlying structures involving two different types of implicit arguments.³²

7.3 The distinction between atom- and set-predicates

Dimitriadis (2008a,b), Siloni (2012), and to some extent, Winter (2018) posit that rec-predicates belong to the broader class of symmetric predicates, which also encompasses inherently symmetric expressions like ‘be similar,’ ‘be identical,’ ‘be next to.’ These studies assume that all these predicates, including rec-predicates, take sets as their arguments. However, Section 3 proposed that rec-predicates differ from sym-predicates in that they take atoms, rather than sets, as their arguments. This section aims to further substantiate this claim by delving into Winter’s (2002) typology of predicates.

Based on observations in Dowty (1986), Winter draws a sharp distinction between atom- and set-predicates, proposing the general principle in (39):

The following terminology defines these two kinds of predicates:

For example, consider the following pairs:

According to this classification, sleep and numerous are atom predicates, since (41a) and (41b) are both acceptable and are semantically equivalent, while (42a) and (42b) are equally unacceptable. Meet, on the other hand, is a set-predicate, since (43a) is acceptable but (43b) is not. This test can be adopted to Hebrew, by replacing “All the NP_pl” with “kol DEF-NP_pl”, and “Every NP_sg” with “kol NP_sg”. Thus, application of this test to the sym-predicate zehe ‘be identical’ indicates that it is indeed a set-predicate:

In this example, only the a-sentence is acceptable, suggesting that this predicate ranges over sets. However, when applied to the rec-predicates (45–46), this test indicates that, contrary to the assumptions of Dimitriadis (2008a,b), Siloni (2012), and Winter (2018), they are actually atom-predicates:

Having established in the previous section that rec-predicates are not systematically associated with two lexical entries, it is possible now to state categorically that rec-predicates do not range over sets but over atoms. This implies that, unlike the assumption in Dimitriadis (2008a,b) and Siloni (2012), rec-predicates are not basic non-symmetric predicates that underwent a semantic/syntactic/lexical operation transforming them into sym-predicates. Instead, they belong to a distinct class of predicates, differing from sym-predicates in several ways:

1. With a plural subject, rec-predicates allow a distributive reading (6ii), whereas sym-predicates do not. This difference arises from the fact that sym-predicates are set predicates, inherently taking a collective reading.

2. With a singular subject, rec-predicates permit a non-symmetric reading, unlike sym-predicates. This distinction is attributed to the fact that the latter denote inherently symmetric relations, one of the possible semantic features of predicates taking sets as their arguments. (According to Lakoff & Peters 1966, all such predicates involve an aspect of symmetry, but determining the validity of this claim is beyond the scope of this article).

In conclusion, rec-predicates, even in Hebrew, are not necessarily tied to specific morphology. Their argument structure in (16) and basic realization involve the rec-ed argument with an associative preposition, as seen in (7)–(8). This participant, as mentioned earlier, can remain implicit (20). Therefore, the defining factor for this construction is not the morphology but its appearance in such a syntactic structure (15) (Stage Two in the methodology detailed in Section 2).

In many instances, sentences like (7) are interpreted as symmetric, but this interpretation is not obligatory (8). In the plural (6), if the relation is contextually understood as holding between members of the set denoted by the subject, either in one event or subsequent events (e.g., delivering messages (Section 5.2)), symmetry also holds (6i). Thus, Section 7 introduced the fourth stage in the methodology for analyzing types of reciprocal constructions, explaining how constructions of this type function as a strategy for expressing reciprocity in specific contexts.

8.1 Types of rec-predicates

In the discussions throughout the article, it has become apparent that rec-predicates vary significantly in expressing symmetric relations. Some inherently denote such relations, often with transitive counterparts introducing causative elements (Section 5.3). Others convey different degrees of the symmetric engagements, categorized into two types: those with symmetric sub-events and those without (Section 5.2). Additionally, certain verbs emphasize symmetric readings more with plural subjects, while others do so with both singular and plural subjects (Section 7.1). Thus, the inquiry into the factors behind these differences arises.

The subsequent discussion aims to highlight correlations between the mentioned semantic characteristics and other features of the same verbs. It provides preliminary explanations based on data collected in Agranovsky’s (forthcoming) work on the morphology and meaning of verbs in Hebrew, revealing that Hebrew has 57 verbs falling under the category of rec-predicates, which can be classified into four groups based on their semantics (see appendix for the list of verbs and their characterizations).

Type I: This group encompasses telic verbs indicating a transition into an inherently symmetric relation (ISR), and the meaning can be schematized as follows:

These verbs involve either a social aspect (e.g., hitxaten ‘marry’) or a physical aspect (e.g., hitxaber ‘unite’), with many having both social and physical meanings (e.g., hištadex ‘match/staple’). Among the 21 verbs in this group, 19 also have a transitive verb counterpart introducing an additional participant denoting the cause of the R_isr (e.g., xiten ‘marry someone(s)’, xiber ‘unite something’, and šidex ‘match/staple something’,) as discussed in Section 5.3.

The other three groups involve different type of activities:

Type II: This group of verbs comprises activities that involve physical contact between two objects. The meaning of these verbs can be schematized as follows:

These verbs describe continuous physical activities entailing contact between two bodies, conveying either positive emotions (e.g., hitxabek ‘hug.REC’) or negative ones (e.g., hitkotet ‘quarrel’). Some verbs specifically denote the physical contact itself (e.g., hitxakex ‘rub against each other’). They characterize an activity involving a specific manner of physical contact, often with some duration, where Y is also involved in the event by reciprocating or accepting it willingly (see Kruitwagen et al. 2017 for experimental data).

As designated by Dimitriadis (2008a,b), these verbs are irreducibly symmetric predicates, not representing a set of uni-directional sub-events (i.e., symmetry across events). Both arguments must participate in any event described by the predicate. The physical contact implied by these verbs entails the involvement of both parties in the same activity. Consequently, it is not feasible to assert that only X is part of the event, leaving Y out, since the physical contact necessitates the participation of both parties and precludes the division into sub-events.

Type III: This category comprises activities involving social interactions between two agents. The meaning of these verbs can be outlined as follows:

The seven verbs in this group describe various social interactions, including hityaded ‘make friends’. Some of these verbs have both physical and social meanings, such as hitkotet ‘quarrel’, which can depict both a physical fight and an interaction where two people insult each other. Notably, as discussed in Section 7.1, verbs in this group exhibit a correlation where the symmetric interpretation is more prominent with plural subjects, while the uni-directional interpretation is more salient with singular subjects.

The prominence of uni-directionality in events with singular subjects seems correlated with the fact that these verbs denote social relations. In social interactions, one side may perceive the interaction while the other remains oblivious, allowing for uni-directionality. This differs from physical interactions, where the occurrence is objective and not dependent on individual perception. In fact, determining how to break down the denotations of verbs into sub-events when a symmetric relation is present is not straightforward. It’s unclear to what extent both arguments must participate in any event described by the predicate, a requirement that appears relevant primarily when physical contact is involved.

Type IV: This category encompasses activities involving the delivery of messages, which can be executed in various manners and involve different types of communication. The meaning of the verbs used for such activities can be schematized as follows:

Verbs falling into this category share the common feature of indicating the delivery of a message. In their collective interpretations, these verbs describe bi-directional communication between two agents. Moreover, these verbs can specify the medium, as seen in the case of the verb čotet ‘chat’, or the manner of communication, as observed with the verb hitlaxšeš ‘whisper.REC’. Some verbs provide details about the type of content being communicated, such as hitpalmes ‘polemicize’.

Even with collective interpretations, these verbs’ event denotations can still be broken down into unidirectional sub-events, as discussed in Section 5.2. Each agent delivers their message separately to the other, challenging the literature’s claim that both arguments in rec-predicates must participate in every sub-event. Our data suggest this claim applies only to specific verbs involving physical contact, not universally to all rec-predicates. Thus, the restriction to symmetric irreducibility in certain verbs stems from the type of events they describe, particularly those involving physical interaction.

Type IV comprises 14 verbs, exhibiting peculiar characteristics: Notably, 7 of these verbs have only one occurrence of their roots (cf. Section 5.1), while 4 are not associated with stems typically used in the middle voice (Section 5.4.). Additionally, 2 verbs derived from the same root as the communication verb carry different meanings (e.g., hitnaceax ‘argue’ vs. niceax ‘win’. Lastly, for the 5 verbs sharing the same root with other transitive verbs, the correspondent is not an argument of the predicate (as defined in (16)). Examples include dan ‘judge’ vs. hitdayen ‘discuss’ and katav ‘write’ vs. hitkatev ‘correspond’ (as discussed in Section 5.2.).

A connection seems to exist between these observations: the absence of a clear unidirectional transitive counterpart for these verbs appears linked to their denotation of a specific type of communication, where each sub-event is inherently unidirectional. Consequently, having another verb derived from the same root that describes the same unidirectional action is unexpected.

In summary, four types of rec-predicates have been identified, with observed correlations between these semantic characteristics and the manner in which they articulate symmetric relations, as outlined in Table 4:

8.2 rec-predicates vs. transitive predicates

It was observed that verbs describing continuous physical contact between two objects, almost exclusively, are associated with another transitive verb expressing a similar action, sharing the same root. Despite being central to discussions in the literature on rec-predicates (6–9), our analysis challenges the perception of presenting them as a typical trio of constructions. This perspective applies only to 10 out of the 57 rec-predicates in Hebrew. Our analysis indicates that rec-predicates are not reciprocalized transitive predicates but rather independent (non-derived) predicates. They are bivalent, akin to other transitive verbs, and their argument structure aligns with the one proposed in (16).

Therefore, a specific question arises for this group of verbs: “What distinguishes rec-predicates from transitive predicates?” While sentences (6–9) highlight an apparent difference, with (9) being non-reciprocal and (6–7) being reciprocal, nuanced distinctions emerge when considering sentences such as (47) and (48):

This pertains more to a lexical discussion than a grammatical one, suggesting that a theory of rec-predicates need not necessarily address this issue. While Hebrew speakers may share intuitions about the distinctions between (47) and (48), these intuitions resemble other lexical observations where speakers discern nuanced semantic differences between verbs with similar meanings, such as histakel and hibit, both meaning ‘to look’/’to watch’ in Hebrew.

The analysis suggested in this paper does not negate the assertion that xibek (transitive) and hitxabek (rec) denote different types of hugging events. Rec-hugging, understood as such in certain contexts, is exclusively denoted by rec-predicates, but this does not result from a syntactic/semantic/lexical operation. The shared root between them does not necessitate a grammatical relation between the verbs. As noted by Arad (2005), 15% of Hebrew verbs fall into the category of Multiple Contextualized Meaning. In her analysis, these roots are ascribed multiple interpretations in the environment of different stems, and identifying grammatical relations between the verbs is challenging, except for recognizing some similarity in the core meaning.³³

8.3 Inherently Symmetric Predicates

Sections 3 and 6–7 argues for the existence of two predicate types: sym-predicates and rec-predicates. These types differ in two ways. Firstly, at the AS level, sym-predicates take sets as their arguments, while rec-predicates take atoms as their arguments. Secondly, at the semantic level, symmetry is inherent in the meaning of sym-predicates but not entailed by the meaning of rec-predicates.

However, this distinction requires nuance, as Type I of rec-predicates incorporates ISR as part of its meaning. Despite this, it still falls under rec-predicates because it allows for a distributive reading with a plural subject. Moreover, they take atoms as their arguments as they pass the demarcation test to belong to this predicate type (Section 7.3). Thus, the distinction between sym-predicates and rec-predicates does not solely rely on semantic characterization. Accordingly, the definitions for these predicates need to be updated as follows:

8.4 Concluding remarks

In revisiting Stage Four of the reciprocity typology, outlined in Section 2, the examination focuses on the relationship between the components of the verbal construction and the occasionally denoted symmetric relation. The analysis indicates that rec-predicates do not express symmetry through grammatical derivation, whether lexical or morphological. Instead, they convey a broader, underspecified meaning, interpreted as symmetric in specific contexts.

Symmetry in this analysis is tied to the events described by the predicates and can be derived in two ways: by signifying events portraying an entrance to an ISR or by portraying a situation where symmetry is maintained, within a single event or across multiple events, contingent on the context. In the latter case, all verbal arguments denote participants in the same event, and symmetry is not implied by the verbs’ meanings but by the context in which they are used (the specification to a single event, or to a series of events when communication is involved).

While the discussions have primarily drawn on Hebrew data in this paper, prior studies have demonstrated that Hebrew shares many similarities with other languages. This suggests that the conclusions can be applied to other languages as well.

Finally, this paper contends that the verbal strategy for expressing reciprocity in Hebrew does not denote symmetry. Instead, rec-predicates are argued to possess a distributive reading that remains underspecified regarding the number of events. It is posited that when contextual cues specify singularity of events, a symmetric meaning is conveyed. Bar-Asher Siegal (2020: chapters 7–8) introduces the NP-strategy for expressing reciprocity (see example (2), in the introduction) and proposed that it denotes unspecified relations among members of a set. These constructions are underspecified regarding the number of members in the set participating in each argument position with the other members of the set. In certain contexts, the meaning is semantically strengthened to convey symmetry. While there exists some conceptual similarity between the two analyses, they differ in terms of what is underspecified and the factors and the mechanism leading to strengthening.

Furthermore, the two analyses do not argue for the absence of other constructions denoting symmetry. Bar-Asher Siegal (2020) contends that the adverbial construction (introduced in Chapter 5 of this book) entails symmetry in all contexts. Both studies are essential components of a larger project that seeks to explore the degree to which natural languages employ structures to express symmetry and how symmetry is conveyed in constructions that do not inherently denote symmetry.