<b>Reciprocals:</b> Forms and functions. Ed. by Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci S. Curl (Typological studies in language 41.) Amsterdam &amp; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999. Pp. xii, 201.

Reviewed by: Reciprocals: Forms and functions ed. by Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Traci S. Curl Edward J. Vajda Reciprocals: Forms and functions. Ed. by Zygmunt Frajzyngier and Traci S. Curl. (Typological studies in language 41.) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999. Pp. xii, 201. Appearing almost simultaneously with another collection on the same topic (Typology of reciprocal constructions, ed. by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov and Z. Guentcheva, Munich: Lincom, 2000), this is the first monograph devoted entirely to reciprocals. Published in a series designed to promote genetically [End Page 627] rich investigations of typology and universals, the volume’s eight contributed articles examine languages from every continent except South America. Because reciprocal function is often expressed lexically and tends, where grammaticalized, to derive transparently from other forms, reciprocals have been correctly labeled a ‘minor category’ (Suzanne Kemmer, The middle voice, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993). However, the editors are equally correct in arguing that reciprocals afford special insights into processes of grammaticalization precisely because they develop late and often share their form with semantically related categories like reflexives and collective plurals. Each article assumes a different theoretical stance, but all examine the origins of reciprocal function as a grammatical category from a cross-linguistic perspective. In ‘Polysemy involving reflexive and reciprocal markers in African languages’ (1–29), Bernd Heine examines 62 languages representing all of the continent’s major genetic groupings. Based on the empirical evidence collected, H proposes the following generalized grammaticalization chain: nominal > emphatic > reflexive > reciprocal > middle > passive. Reflexive and reciprocal markers tend to merge increasingly with the verbal morphology after each successive stage, and languages differ synchronically chiefly in terms of the position their forms occupy in this diachronic hierarchy. In ‘Reciprocals without reflexives’ (30–62), Frantisek Lichtenberk discusses Oceanic languages such as Fijian and Futunan, where identical morphological forms convey collective or distributive plural as well as reciprocal function but not reflexive meaning. Martin Everaert’s ‘Types of anaphoric expressions’ (63–83) explores different syntactic constraints affecting various types of reflexive vs. reciprocal nominal forms. Data from English, Greek, Basque, and several other European languages support Everaert’s conclusion that standard generative binding theory must be amended to account for the different syntactic readings of anaphors like English each other and -self. In ‘Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Nyulnyulan languages’ (85–122), William McGregor examines a wealth of new data from a group of seriously endangered languages of northwestern Australia. Based on a comprehensive descriptive analysis, McGregor argues that Nyulnyulan reflexive/reciprocal constructions are prototypically intransitive and sometimes involve an increase in transitivity (rather than a decrease, which is by far the more common scenario cross-linguistically). Meichun Liu’s ‘Reciprocal marking with deictic verbs come and go in Mandarin’ (123–32) discusses the semantic and pragmatic origins of the reduplicative construction x lái x qù (where x is a lexical verb), whose reciprocal interpretation has never before been recognized. In ‘Combinatory restrictions on Halkomelem reflexives and reciprocals’ (133–60), Donna Gerdts provides a morphosemantic account of constraints affecting three types of transitivity-reducing suffixes in a polysynthetic Salishan language (British Columbia, Canada). Elena Maslova’s ‘Reciprocals and set construal’ (161–78) compares Tundra Yukagir (northeastern Siberia) and Bantu, both of which formally combine reciprocal with sociative (multiple subjects acting in unison) and comitative meaning. Zygmunt Frajzyngier’s ‘Coding of the reciprocal function: Two solutions’ (179–94) rounds out the collection by surveying a variety of possible motivations for the grammaticalization of reciprocal markers in individual languages. This book offers useful analyses of new data, including previously unpublished field notes, while illuminating related descriptive and theoretical problems that await future study. Highly recommended for anyone interested in typology and universals, particularly issues of grammatical polysemy and grammaticalization. Edward J. Vajda Western Washington University Copyright © 2001 Linguistic Society of America

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.