Speaker: Jad Wehbe (MIT)
Title: Covert Reciprocals
Time: Wednesday, November 8th, 1pm – 2pm
Location: 32-D461
Abstract: Predicates like “date” and “hug” participate in alternations between seemingly 1-place variants in (1a) and (2a) and 2-place variants in (1b) and (2b). Analyses of these alternations can be grouped into syntactic analyses (e.g. Hackl, 2002) and lexical analyses (e.g. Winter, 2019). On the syntactic analysis, these predicates are always 2-place predicates, and the LF for (1a) and (2a) involves a covert reciprocal in object position. On the other hand, the lexical analysis assumes that the predicates date and hug in (1a) and (2a) are collective 1-place predicates, and that the 2-place versions are derived from the 1-place variants in the lexicon. A major challenge for the syntactic account comes from cases when the covert and overt reciprocal are not truth-conditionally equivalent, as in (3) (Winter, 2019). In this talk, I propose a version of the
syntactic account that addresses this challenge. I argue that the truth-conditional differences are due to distributivity (“each”) having to take lowest possible scope when “each other” is ellided. I provide evidence for this account and against a lexical one from the behavior of these predicates in downward-entailing environments and in the Lebanese Arabic double subject construction.
(1) a. Jane and Mary dated.
b. Jane dated Mary.
(2) a. Jane and Mary hugged.
b. Jane hugged Mary.
(3) Context: Jane hugged Mary while she was sleeping, and then Mary hugged Jane later while Jane
was sleeping.
a. # Jane and Mary hugged.
b. Jane and Mary hugged each other.