Abstract
In the following investigation we will consider the syntactic behavior and semantic interpretation of reciprocal sentences. We will demonstrate that if the semantic interpretation of reciprocal sentences is effected by means of a cyclic interpretive rule, apparent irregularities can be explained. We will also provide both semantic and syntactic arguments that the analysis of reciprocals proposed by Dougherty (1970) is incorrect.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Paul Postal, MIT lectures (1971).
Bresnan(1972).
Bresnan (1972).
For a detailed discussion of the Tensed-S constraint, see Chomsky (1973). An alternative to the Tensed-S constraint, in the case of the application of RR, would be to order RR after for-deletion but before that-deletion.
The only argument that Wh-Movement is cyclic that we know of is given in Bresnan (1971, Appendix 2).
Dougherty (1970, 870).
Dougherty (1970, 893).
Dougherty (1970).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fiengo, R., Lasnik, H. (1989). The Logical Structure of Reciprocal Sentences in English 1973. In: Essays on Anaphora. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, vol 16. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2542-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2542-7_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-55608-091-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2542-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive