Mova0.5 pre-release⌕
☰
home / docs / papers / Modern Hebrew / Reciprocal expressions and the Maximal Typicality Hypothesis

Reciprocal expressions and the Maximal Typicality Hypothesis

What it is about

For a reciprocal such as 'each other' with three agents, the Strongest Meaning Hypothesis (SMH) predicts that listeners always take the strongest reading, where every agent acts on every other one. The authors test this in Hebrew (Experiment 1, 50 speakers, forced choice between a full situation S6 and a one-patient situation S3) with 13 verbs such as 'pinch'. For 8 of the 13 sentences more than a third of the participants chose S3, and for the verb 'pinch' 26.5% did. A control trial (S3 against S2) was chosen for S3 by almost all participants, so the forced choice itself works. They propose the Maximal Typicality Hypothesis (MTH): the core situation of a reciprocal is the maximal situation among those most typical for the verb, so 'bite' or 'pinch' select S3, while 'know' selects S6. Experiment 2 (Dutch) measures verb typicality and truth-value judgements and tests the correlation between them. I read the design and the Experiment 1 results; I did not read the Experiment 2 numbers.

Ideas

For Mova

I1 and I3 go into prag for English reciprocals and into the reciprocal section of 7. Syntax for the Hebrew 'ze et ze' construction. I2 is a test set for the same rule. The verb table needs its own data source; it is not taken from this paper.

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.5334/gjgl.180

@article{poortman2018reciprocal,
  title = {{Reciprocal expressions and the Maximal Typicality Hypothesis}},
  author = {Poortman, Eva B. and Struiksma, Marijn E. and Kerem, Nir and Friedmann, Naama and Winter, Yoad},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2018},
  doi = {10.5334/gjgl.180},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.180}
}

References

23 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Beck, Sigrid. 2001. Reciprocals are definites. Natural Language Semantics 9. 69–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012203407127 ↗
  2. Dalrymple, Mary, Makoto Kanazawa, Yookyung Kim, Sam Mchombo & Stanley Peters. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21. 159–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005330227480 ↗
  3. Dotlačil, Jakub. 2013. Reciprocals distribute over information states. Journal of Semantics 30(4). 423–477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffs016 ↗
  4. Heim, Irene, Howard Lasnik & Robert May. 1991. Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 63–101. find
  5. Kerem, Nir, Naama Friedmann & Yoad Winter. 2009. Typicality effects and the logic of reciprocity. In Ed Cormany, Satoshi Ito & David Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 19. 257–274. eLanguage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/ salt.v19i0.2537 Langendoen, D. Terence. 1978. The logic of reciprocity. Linguistic Inquiry 9(2). 177–197. ↗
  6. Lee, Choonkyu. 2017. Typicality knowledge and the interpretation of adjectives. In James A. Hampton & Yoad Winter (eds.), Compositionality and Concepts in Linguistics and Psychology (Language, Cognition, and Mind) 3. 123–138. Springer, Cham. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45977-6_5 Margolis, Eric & Stephen Laurence. 1999. Concepts and cognitive science. In Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (eds.), Concepts: Core readings, 3–82. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ↗
  7. Mari, Alda. 2013. Each Other, asymmetry and reasonable futures. Journal of Semantics 31(2). 209–261. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/fft003 ↗
  8. Murray, Sarah E. 2007. Dynamics of reflexivity and reciprocity. In Maria Aloni, Paul Dekker & Floris Roelofsen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Amsterdam Colloquium, 157–162. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation. find
  9. Murray, Sarah E. 2008. Reflexivity and reciprocity with(out) underspecification. In Atle Grønn (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12. 455–469. Oslo: ILOS. find
  10. Poortman, Eva B. 2014. Between intersective and ‘split’ interpretations of predicate conjunction: The role of typicality. In Judith Degen, Michael Franke & Noah Goodman (eds.), Proceedings of the formal & experimental pragmatics workshop, 36–42. Tübingen. find
  11. Poortman, Eva B. 2017a. Concepts and plural predication: The effects of conceptual knowledge on the interpretation of reciprocal and conjunctive plural constructions. Utrecht: Utrecht University dissertation. find
  12. Poortman, Eva B. 2017b. Concept typicality and the interpretation of plural predicate conjunction. In James A. Hampton & Yoad Winter (eds.), Compositionality and Concepts in Linguistics and Psychology (Language, Cognition, and Mind) 3. 139–162. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45977-6_6 ↗
  13. Poortman, Eva B. & Liina Pylkkänen. 2016. Adjective conjunction as a window into the LATL’s contribution to conceptual combination. Brain and Language 160. 50–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2016.07.006 ↗
  14. Quené, Hugo & Huub van den Bergh. 2008. Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 413–425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.002 ↗
  15. Roberts, Craige. 1987. Modal subordination, anaphora, and distributivity. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation. find
  16. Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Timothy E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, 111–144. New York: Academic Press. find
  17. Rosch, Eleanor & Carolyn B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7. 573–605. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9 Sabato, Sivan & Yoad Winter. 2012. Relational domains and the interpretation of reciprocals. Linguistics and Philosophy 25(3). 191–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10988-012-9117-x Scontras, Gregory & Noah D. Goodman. 2017. Resolving uncertainty in plural predication. Cognition 168. 294–311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.07.002 ↗
  18. Smith, Edward E., Edward J. Shoben & Lance J. Rips. 1974. Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review 81(3). 214–241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036351 ↗
  19. Winter, Yoad. 2017. Critical typicality: truth judgements and compositionality with plurals and other gradable concepts. In James A. Hampton & Yoad Winter (eds.), Compositionality and Concepts in Linguistics and Psychology (Language, Cognition, and Mind) 3. 163–190. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45977-6_7 ↗
  20. How to cite this article: Poortman, Eva B, Marijn E. Struiksma, Nir Kerem, Naama Friedmann and Yoad Winter. 2018. Reciprocal expressions and the Maximal Typicality Hypothesis. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1): 18. 1–30, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.180 ↗ our card
  21. Accepted: 19 September 2017 find
  22. Published: 02 February 2018 find
  23. Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press. OPEN ACCESS ↗

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2018-poortman-reciprocal-expressions-maximal-typicality-hypothesis/