Cross-Linguistic Typology of Valence and Voice (WALS Chapters 105--111) #
@cite{maslova-nedjalkov-2013} @cite{polinsky-2013} @cite{siewierska-2013} @cite{song-2013} @cite{haspelmath-2013} @cite{nordlinger-2023} @cite{dalrymple-et-al-1998} @cite{siloni-2008} @cite{siloni-2012} @cite{konig-kokutani-2006} @cite{dixon-1972} @cite{ryding-2005} @cite{kimenyi-1980} @cite{galloway-1993}
Typological data on valence-changing and voice constructions, drawn from WALS (World Atlas of Language Structures) chapters 105--111:
- Ch 105 (@cite{haspelmath-2013}): Ditransitive constructions ('give') -- how R (recipient) and T (theme) align with monotransitive P (patient). 378 languages.
- Ch 106 (@cite{maslova-nedjalkov-2013}): Reciprocal constructions and their relationship to reflexives. 175 languages.
- Ch 107 (@cite{siewierska-2013}): Passive constructions -- presence/absence across 373 languages. Passives occur in 44% of sampled languages, concentrated in Eurasia and Africa.
- Ch 108 (@cite{polinsky-2013}): Antipassive constructions -- detransitivizing operations that demote the patient. 194 languages.
- Ch 109 (@cite{polinsky-2013}): Applicative constructions -- valence-increasing operations adding an applied object. 183 languages.
- Ch 110 (@cite{song-2013}): Periphrastic causative constructions -- sequential vs purposive types. 118 languages.
- Ch 111 (@cite{song-2013}): Nonperiphrastic causative constructions -- morphological vs compound types. 310 languages.
This module focuses on Ch 105--109 (ditransitives, reciprocals, passives,
antipassives, applicatives). Causative typology (Ch 110--111) is covered in
Phenomena.Causation.Typology; only aggregate WALS counts are recorded
here for cross-reference.
WALS Ch 106: How reciprocal situations are encoded relative to reflexives.
The four values follow @cite{maslova-nedjalkov-2013}'s classification:
noDedicated: "There are no non-iconic reciprocal constructions" — the language lacks a dedicated grammatical reciprocal marker.distinctFromReflexive: "All reciprocal constructions are formally distinct from reflexive constructions" (e.g. English "each other" vs "themselves").mixed: "There are both reflexive and non-reflexive reciprocal constructions" — the language has both a reflexive-identical strategy and a formally distinct one (e.g. German "sich" + "einander"). Common in Europe.identicalToReflexive: "The reciprocal and reflexive constructions are formally identical" (e.g. Imbabura Quechua "-ri", West Greenlandic "-ssin-").
- noDedicated : ReciprocalType
- distinctFromReflexive : ReciprocalType
- mixed : ReciprocalType
- identicalToReflexive : ReciprocalType
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Morphosyntactic strategy for encoding reciprocity.
@cite{nordlinger-2023} summarizes the structural typologies of König & Kokutani (2006), Nedjalkov (2007a), and Evans (2008), which classify reciprocal constructions by the morphosyntactic locus of the reciprocal marking:
bipartiteNP: Bipartite quantifier NP — English "each other", Icelandic "hvor...annad" (two independently inflected parts).recipPronoun: Reciprocal pronoun — Russian "drug druga", Hausa "jùnan-mù". Free-standing pronominal form in object position.recipClitic: Reciprocal clitic — French/Czech "se", Wambaya "-ngg-" (RR morpheme in auxiliary). Intermediate between pronoun and affix; functionally verbal (valence-reducing in most cases, though Wambaya retains bivalent syntax via ergative case).verbalAffix: Morphological marking on the verb — Swahili "-ana", Hungarian "-oz-", Chicheŵa "-an-". Derives an intransitive (monovalent) verb from a transitive base.verbalAuxiliary: Reciprocal auxiliary — Warrwa "wanji-" replaces the regular transitive auxiliary.lexical: Inherently reciprocal predicate — English "quarrel", "meet". The symmetric meaning is part of the verb's lexical semantics.compoundVerb: Compound verb — Mandarin "dǎ-lái-dǎ-qù" (beat-come-beat-go = 'beat each other').
- bipartiteNP : RecipStrategy
- recipPronoun : RecipStrategy
- recipClitic : RecipStrategy
- verbalAffix : RecipStrategy
- verbalAuxiliary : RecipStrategy
- lexical : RecipStrategy
- compoundVerb : RecipStrategy
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Whether the strategy marks the NP/argument position (nominal strategy) or the verb/predicate (verbal strategy). König & Kokutani (2006)'s primary typological distinction.
Clitics are classified as non-nominal: Evans (2008) treats them as intermediate, but their valence behavior is typically verbal — French/Czech "se" reduces valence (monovalent), and even Wambaya "-ngg-" is morphologically bound to the auxiliary.
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.RecipStrategy.bipartiteNP.isNominal = true
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.RecipStrategy.recipPronoun.isNominal = true
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.RecipStrategy.recipClitic.isNominal = false
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.RecipStrategy.verbalAffix.isNominal = false
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.RecipStrategy.verbalAuxiliary.isNominal = false
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.RecipStrategy.lexical.isNominal = false
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.RecipStrategy.compoundVerb.isNominal = false
Instances For
Valency effect of reciprocal construction on the base predicate.
Maslova (2008) distinguishes "unary" and "binary" reciprocals; @cite{nordlinger-2023} (§3.2) discusses how NP/argument strategies tend to preserve valency while verb-marked strategies tend to reduce it. The correlation is a tendency, not absolute — Malagasy verb-marked reciprocals retain full valency at f-structure (Hurst 2006, 2012).
- bivalent : RecipValency
- monovalent : RecipValency
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Where reciprocal verbs are formed, per Siloni (2008, 2012).
@cite{nordlinger-2023} (§3.3) discusses Siloni's distinction:
lexical: formed in the lexicon through "bundling" — two thematic roles (agent, patient) merge into a single complex role. Produces verbs with inherently symmetric semantics. Can license discontinuous reciprocal constructions (subject + comitative argument).syntactic: formed in the syntax via an operation that creates the symmetric reading. Cannot license discontinuous reciprocals.
Key empirical prediction: discontinuous reciprocals ("John kissed with Mary") are possible only with lexically-formed reciprocal verbs.
- lexical : RecipFormation
- syntactic : RecipFormation
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Can the reciprocal construction appear in discontinuous form (reciprocants split across subject and comitative argument)? @cite{nordlinger-2023} §3.3.
Equations
Instances For
WALS Ch 107: Whether a language has passive constructions.
Siewierska defines a passive as having five properties: (i) contrasts
with active, (ii) active subject demoted or suppressed, (iii) active
object promoted to subject (if personal passive), (iv) pragmatically
restricted, (v) special verbal morphology. Includes both personal and
impersonal passives, both synthetic (Swahili -w-) and periphrastic
(English "be + past participle", Polish zostac + participle).
present: The language has at least one passive construction.absent: No passive construction (agent demotion achieved by other means: subject omission, impersonal pronoun, 3pl verb form, etc.).
- present : PassivePresence
- absent : PassivePresence
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
WALS Ch 108: Antipassive construction type.
An antipassive is a derived detransitivized construction: the patient-like argument is either suppressed or demoted to an oblique. The term indicates the mirror image of the passive: in the passive the agent is demoted, in the antipassive the patient.
implicitPatient: Patient-like argument left implicit (unexpressed).obliquePatient: Patient-like argument expressed as oblique complement (e.g. Chukchi instrumentalkimitw-ein antipassive vs absolutivekimitw-xnin transitive).noAntipassive: No antipassive construction.
- implicitPatient : AntipassiveType
- obliquePatient : AntipassiveType
- noAntipassive : AntipassiveType
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Does this value represent the presence of an antipassive?
Equations
Instances For
WALS Ch 108 inset map: Productivity of the antipassive.
productive: Antipassive applies to a wide range of transitive verbs.partiallyProductive: Restricted to certain subsets of transitives.notProductive: Very limited (lexically specified).
- productive : AntipassiveProductivity
- partiallyProductive : AntipassiveProductivity
- notProductive : AntipassiveProductivity
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Morphological alignment system (simplified for antipassive correlation).
- accusative : AlignmentType
- ergative : AlignmentType
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
WALS Ch 105: How ditransitive verbs (prototypically 'give') encode the recipient (R) and theme (T) arguments relative to the monotransitive patient (P).
indirectObject: R is treated differently from P (R gets a preposition or dative case: "give the book TO Mary").doubleObject: R is treated the same as P (both bare NPs: "give Mary the book").secondaryObject: T is treated differently from P (T gets special marking: Ainu, Lakhota).mixed: More than one construction type is available.
- indirectObject : DitransitiveType
- doubleObject : DitransitiveType
- secondaryObject : DitransitiveType
- mixed : DitransitiveType
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
WALS Ch 109: Transitivity of the base verb for applicative formation.
bothBases: Applicatives formed from both transitive and intransitive bases (most common pattern when applicatives exist).transitiveOnly: Only from transitive bases.intransitiveOnly: Only from intransitive bases (rare: Fijian, Wambaya).
- bothBases : ApplicativeBase
- transitiveOnly : ApplicativeBase
- intransitiveOnly : ApplicativeBase
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
WALS Ch 109: Semantic role of the applied object.
benefactiveOnly: Applied object restricted to benefactive role.benefactiveAndOther: Benefactive plus instrument, locative, etc.nonbenefactiveOnly: No benefactive; only instrument, locative, etc.
- benefactiveOnly : AppliedObjectRole
- benefactiveAndOther : AppliedObjectRole
- nonbenefactiveOnly : AppliedObjectRole
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
WALS Ch 109: Full applicative type combining base and role.
none for languages without applicative constructions.
- applicative (base : ApplicativeBase) (role : AppliedObjectRole) : ApplicativeType
- noApplicative : ApplicativeType
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.instBEqApplicativeType.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Does this value represent the presence of an applicative?
Equations
Instances For
WALS Ch 110: Periphrastic causative type.
- sequentialOnly : PeriphrasticCausativeType
- purposiveOnly : PeriphrasticCausativeType
- both : PeriphrasticCausativeType
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
WALS Ch 111: Nonperiphrastic (morphological/compound) causative type.
- neither : NonperiphrCausativeType
- morphologicalOnly : NonperiphrCausativeType
- compoundOnly : NonperiphrCausativeType
- both : NonperiphrCausativeType
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Does this value represent a morphological causative?
Equations
Instances For
A cross-linguistic valence/voice profile for a single language.
Covers WALS Ch 106--109 directly, plus Ch 111 causative morphology for the applicative-causative correlation. Ch 110 (periphrastic causatives) is omitted from profiles since most WALS sources do not report it.
- language : String
- iso : String
ISO 639-3 code
- reciprocal : ReciprocalType
Ch 106: Reciprocal construction type
- passive : PassivePresence
Ch 107: Passive presence
- antipassive : AntipassiveType
Ch 108: Antipassive type
- alignment : AlignmentType
Ch 108: Morphological alignment (relevant for antipassive correlation)
- applicative : ApplicativeType
Ch 109: Applicative type
- causative : NonperiphrCausativeType
Ch 111: Nonperiphrastic causative type
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.instBEqValenceProfile.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
English: reciprocal distinct from reflexive ("each other" vs "themselves"), periphrastic passive ("was kicked"), no antipassive (accusative alignment), no applicative, no productive morphological causative (lexical causatives like "kill" only).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Japanese: reciprocal distinct from reflexive ("otagai" vs "jibun"), passive ("-(r)are-"), no antipassive, no applicative, morphological causative suffix "-(s)ase".
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Turkish: reciprocal distinct from reflexive — "birbirine" (reciprocal) is formally distinct from "kendi" (reflexive). WALS Ch 106 codes Turkish as Value 2 (distinct from reflexive). Passive ("-Il"), no antipassive (accusative), no applicative, morphological causative "-dUr".
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Swahili: reciprocal distinct ("-ana"), passive ("-w-"), no antipassive, applicative ("-i-" / "-e-" benefactive + locative from both bases), morphological causative ("-ish-" / "-esh-").
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Dyirbal (Pama-Nyungan, Australia): reciprocal distinct from reflexive. Reflexive: stem + -riy (@cite{dixon-1972} §4.8.1). Reciprocal: reduplicated stem + -(n)bariy (@cite{dixon-1972} §4.8.2). The reciprocal "functions like an intransitive stem" (monovalent). No passive, dedicated antipassive with oblique patient, ergative alignment, no applicative, morphological causative. NOTE: Dyirbal is NOT in WALS Ch 106 sample (175 languages).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Chukchi (Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Russia): reciprocal distinct, no passive (inverse system instead), dedicated antipassive "ine-" with oblique patient (instrumental), ergative alignment, no applicative, morphological causative.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Indonesian: reciprocal distinct from reflexive — "saling" (reciprocal) is formally different from "diri sendiri" (reflexive). WALS Ch 106 codes Indonesian as Value 2 (distinct from reflexive). Passive ("di-"), no antipassive, no applicative, morphological causative.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
French: mixed reciprocal type — both reflexive-identical "se" and distinct "l'un l'autre" ('each other'). WALS Ch 106 codes French as Value 3 (mixed). Periphrastic passive ("être + past participle"), no antipassive, no applicative, compound causative ("faire + INF").
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Russian: mixed reciprocal type — both reflexive-identical "-sja"/"-s'" and distinct "drug druga" ('each other'). WALS Ch 106 codes Russian as Value 3 (mixed), parallel to German ("sich" + "einander"). Passive (synthetic "-sja" + periphrastic), no antipassive, no applicative, morphological causative (zero-derivation, e.g. "lomat'-sja" anticausative).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Arabic (Modern Standard): reciprocal via Form VI (tafaaʿal-a), formally distinct from Form V reflexive (tafaʿʿal-a): Form VI inserts long -aa- after the first root consonant, Form V doubles the medial consonant (@cite{ryding-2005} Ch 27 §1). Example: taʿaanaq-a 'to embrace one another' (Form VI, reciprocal) vs. takallam-a 'to speak' (Form V, reflexive/mediopassive). Passive via internal vowel change (kutiba), no antipassive, no applicative, morphological causative (Form IV ʾafʿala). NOTE: MSA is NOT in WALS Ch 106 sample; Arabic (Egyptian) is listed as Value 2 (distinct from reflexive).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Hindi: reciprocal distinct ("ek duusre"), passive ("-aa" / "jaanaa" periphrastic), no antipassive, no applicative, morphological causative ("-aa" / "-vaa").
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
West Greenlandic (Eskimo-Aleut): reciprocal-reflexive polysemy ("immi-" for both), passive, antipassive with oblique patient, ergative alignment, no applicative, morphological causative.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Kinyarwanda (Bantu, Rwanda): reciprocal suffix -an- (e.g., -saban- 'ask each other'), formally distinct from reflexive prefix -ii-/-iiy- (e.g., á-r-íi-reeb-a 'she watches herself') (@cite{kimenyi-1980} §4.2.1, p. 5). Passive -w-, no antipassive, applicative -ir-/-er- (benefactive + other from both bases), morphological causative. NOTE: Kinyarwanda is NOT in WALS Ch 106 sample.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Lango (Nilotic, Uganda): reciprocal identical to reflexive. WALS Ch 106 codes Lango as Value 4 (identical to reflexive). Passive absent, antipassive with oblique patient (accusative alignment — one of the accusative-language antipassives), no applicative, morphological causative.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Chamorro (Austronesian, Guam): reciprocal distinct, passive present, antipassive with oblique patient (accusative alignment), applicative (benefactive + other, both bases), morphological causative.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Halkomelem (Salishan, Canada): reciprocal suffix -təl (e.g., ʔiyá·təl 'fight', yéyətəl 'make friends'), formally distinct from reflexive suffixes -lá·mət 'oneself' and -(ə)θət 'oneself, itself' (@cite{galloway-1993} §6.1.3, §11.2.1.14–15). Passive present, antipassive with oblique patient, ergative alignment, applicative (benefactive + other, both bases), morphological causative. NOTE: Halkomelem is NOT in WALS Ch 106 sample.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Modern Greek: mixed reciprocal type — both nonactive voice morphology (identical to reflexive) and distinct reciprocal constructions. WALS Ch 106 codes Modern Greek as Value 3 (mixed). Passive present ("periphrastic with nonactive morphology"), no antipassive, no applicative, NEITHER morphological nor compound causative (relies on periphrastic causative).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
German: mixed reciprocal type ("sich" reflexive/reciprocal + "einander" distinct reciprocal), passive (werden + participle), no antipassive, no applicative, morphological causative (zero-derivation).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Finnish: reciprocal distinct from reflexive ("toisiaan" ≠ "itsensä"),
impersonal "passive" (present — the Fragment's finnishPassive has
semantic content but does not project a syntactic agent), no antipassive,
accusative alignment, no applicative, morphological causative
-tta- / -ttä-.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
For each profile whose language IS in WALS Ch 106, prove its reciprocal type matches the WALS data. This eliminates transcription errors by construction: if the profile disagrees with WALS, the theorem fails.
Per-language grounding: WALS 105A ditransitive type for profile languages. Every profile language appears in the 378-language F105A dataset.
Per-language grounding: profile applicative types that match WALS 109A. Languages whose profiles disagree with WALS (Dyirbal, Indonesian, West Greenlandic, Lango, Chamorro) are omitted -- their profile values are based on other sources or use a different classification.
Per-language grounding: WALS 109B applied-object roles for profile
languages without applicatives. For these languages, F109B records
.noApplicative, and our converter returns none.
Finnish impersonal "passive" has semantic content (existential closure over agent) — derived from the Fragment's voice head.
Finnish impersonal "passive" does NOT project a syntactic agent — derived from the Fragment's voice head.
WALS Ch 107: 162 out of 373 languages have passives (43.4%). Although a minority, passives are widespread enough that most language families include at least some passive-bearing members.
In our sample, most languages have a passive.
Instances For
In the WALS Ch 108 data, antipassives occur in both accusative and ergative languages, but the correlation with ergativity is strong. @cite{polinsky-2013}: more languages have oblique-patient antipassives than implicit-patient antipassives, and the majority have no antipassive.
In our sample: every ergative language has an antipassive, but not all accusative languages do.
In our sample: most accusative languages lack an antipassive.
WALS Ch 111: The morphological causative type is found in 278 out of 310 languages (254 morphological-only + 24 both), i.e. ~90%. Only 23 languages use neither morphological nor compound causatives. This dwarfs periphrastic causatives in frequency.
In our sample, all but two languages have a morphological or compound causative (Modern Greek has neither; French has compound only).
WALS Ch 109 observes that "The main generalization seems to be that applicatives are commonly found in those languages that have little or no case marking of noun phrases and that have sufficiently rich verbal morphology." Since morphological causatives also require rich verbal morphology, we expect a correlation.
In our sample: every language with an applicative also has a morphological causative.
WALS Ch 111: Among languages with morphological causatives, suffixation is by far the most common pattern. @cite{song-2013} lists examples: Japanese "-(s)ase", Turkish "-dUr", Swahili "-ish-" / "-esh-". Prefixes (Abkhaz "r-"), infixes (Lepcha "-y-"), and circumfixes (Georgian "a-...-ineb") exist but are rare. This parallels Greenberg's Universal 27: suffixing is generally preferred over prefixing.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.instBEqCausativeMorphologyExample.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Suffixing dominates: most morphological causative examples are suffixes.
WALS Ch 106 notes a clear areal pattern: Value 1 (no non-iconic reciprocal constructions) is concentrated in Oceania, Southeast Asia, and parts of Africa. Every Eurasian language in the sample has at least one productive grammatical reciprocal construction (Value 2, 3, or 4).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Every Eurasian language in our sample has a productive grammatical reciprocal construction (i.e., none are Value 1).
Languages without passives tend to have other detransitivizing strategies. In our sample, both passive-absent languages with ergative alignment have antipassives.
Applicatives and antipassives are dual voice operations: applicatives increase valence (adding an applied object), antipassives decrease it (demoting the patient). Some languages have both -- in our sample, Chamorro and Halkomelem combine applicatives with antipassives, demonstrating that a single language can productively use both valence-increasing and valence-decreasing operations.
Languages with antipassives classified by alignment, from WALS Ch 108 Table 1. This is the key empirical evidence for the antipassive-ergativity debate (@cite{silverstein-1976}).
- language : String
- alignment : AlignmentType
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Accusative languages with antipassives (17 in WALS Table 1). These are the key counterexamples to the strong claim that antipassives are limited to ergative languages.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Ergative languages with antipassives (30 in WALS Table 1).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
All accusative-alignment entries actually have accusative alignment.
All ergative-alignment entries actually have ergative alignment.
Counts match WALS Table 1.
Ergative languages with antipassives outnumber accusative ones.
WALS Ch 109 notes applicatives cluster in three areas: Bantu Africa, Western Pacific (Austronesian), and North/Meso-America (Salish, Mayan, Uto-Aztecan). The dearth in Eurasia correlates with rich case marking: languages with case can use oblique cases instead of applicatives.
In our sample, only Bantu and Austronesian languages have applicatives.
Count of languages with each passive value.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Count of languages with each antipassive value.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Count of languages with applicatives in sample.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
@cite{nordlinger-2023} reports that of the 175 languages in @cite{maslova-nedjalkov-2013}'s sample, polysemous reflexive/reciprocal constructions are present in 60 (34%). In WALS terms, polysemy corresponds to Values 3 (mixed) and 4 (identical to reflexive).
60 out of 175 = 34.3%.
Extended reciprocal profile for a single language.
Captures the morphosyntactic strategy, valency effect, and discontinuity licensing from @cite{nordlinger-2023}'s review, going beyond the WALS 4-way reflexive-reciprocal classification.
- language : String
- iso : String
- primaryStrategy : RecipStrategy
Primary reciprocal strategy (Evans 2008 typology)
- secondaryStrategy : Option RecipStrategy
Secondary strategy, if the language uses more than one
- valency : RecipValency
Valency effect of the primary strategy
- formation : Option RecipFormation
Formation locus of verb-marked reciprocals (Siloni 2012)
- reflexiveRelation : ReciprocalType
Reciprocal-reflexive relationship (WALS Ch 106)
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.instBEqRecipProfile.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
English: bipartite NP "each other" (bivalent, distinct from reflexive). Also has lexical reciprocals ("quarrel", "meet") as secondary strategy. @cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 1b, 7, 24; ex. 44 (all 6 reciprocity types).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Russian: reciprocal pronoun "drug druga" (bivalent, distinct) plus
reflexive-identical verbal postfix "-sja"/"-s'" (monovalent, identical).
Unlike French "se" (a separable clitic), Russian "-sja" is a bound
suffix — classified as .verbalAffix per Evans (2008).
@cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 9, 31.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Swahili: verbal affix "-ana" (monovalent, distinct from reflexive "-ji-"). Can form discontinuous reciprocals with comitative "na" (Hurst 2012; @cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 12, 37, 40). Lexically formed per Siloni's analysis.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Hungarian: verbal affix "-oz-" (monovalent, distinct). Can form discontinuous reciprocals with comitative "-val"/"-vel" (Dimitriadis 2008; @cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 19, 30, 38). Lexically formed per Siloni's analysis.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
French: reflexive clitic "se" (monovalent, identical to reflexive) plus distinct "l'un l'autre" (bivalent, bipartite NP). "se" reciprocals are syntactically formed per Siloni (2008) and CANNOT form discontinuous reciprocals (@cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 39). @cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 28, 35, 39, 47. "se" is a clitic, not an affix — @cite{nordlinger-2023} p. 83: "the clitics se in French and Czech."
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Greek (Modern): nonactive voice morphology (monovalent, identical to reflexive in form) plus distinct constructions. CAN form discontinuous reciprocals with "me" (= 'with'): "O Giannis filithike me ti Maria" (@cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 27b, 36). Lexically formed per Siloni's analysis.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
German: reflexive pronoun "sich" (bivalent — fills object position, identical to reflexive) plus distinct reciprocal pronoun "einander" (bivalent, single-word pronoun). Both strategies preserve transitivity because the reciprocal form occupies the object slot. @cite{nordlinger-2023} via WALS Ch 106.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Mandarin: compound verb strategy "dǎ-lái-dǎ-qù" (beat-come-beat-go = 'beat each other'). Distinct from reflexive. @cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 13 (citing König & Kokutani 2006).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Wambaya: reciprocal clitic "-ngg-" (RR morpheme in auxiliary). Identical to reflexive. @cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 11 (citing Nordlinger 1998, p. 142).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Icelandic: bipartite NP "hvor...annad" with independent case inflection on each part. Bivalent — retains full transitivity. @cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 17 (citing Hurst & Nordlinger 2021).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Chicheŵa: verbal affix "-an-" (monovalent). @cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 20 (citing Dalrymple et al. 1994).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Czech: reflexive clitic "se" (monovalent, identical to reflexive). Syntactically formed per Siloni — cannot form discontinuous reciprocals. @cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 29; Siloni (2008). "se" is a clitic — @cite{nordlinger-2023} p. 83.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
@cite{nordlinger-2023} (§3.2): NP/argument strategies tend to preserve valency (bivalent), while verb-marking strategies tend to reduce valency (monovalent). Nedjalkov (2007a) links this to the morphosyntactic type: morphological markers "reduce the valency of the underlying verb by deleting the direct or indirect object."
In our sample: all nominal-strategy profiles are bivalent.
Verbal affixes (Swahili "-ana", Hungarian "-oz-", Greek nonactive, Chicheŵa "-an-") are uniformly monovalent in our sample.
Converse of nominal_strategy_bivalent: monovalent reciprocal
strategies are never nominal (NP/argument). This captures Nedjalkov
(2007a, p. 21): morphological reciprocal markers "reduce the valency
of the underlying verb." @cite{nordlinger-2023} §3.2.
Clitics (French/Czech "se") are also monovalent — the clitic absorbs the object argument. Wambaya "-ngg-" is the exception: bivalent despite being a clitic (ergative case preserves transitivity). @cite{nordlinger-2023} §3.2; Evans et al. (2007).
Siloni (2008, 2012) predicts: discontinuous reciprocals (subject + comitative "with"-phrase) are possible only when the reciprocal verb is lexically formed, not syntactically formed.
Lexically formed: Greek, Swahili, Hungarian — CAN be discontinuous. Syntactically formed: French, Czech — CANNOT be discontinuous.
This is verified in our sample: every profile with a formation locus matches Siloni's prediction.
Profile count verification.
Reciprocal profiles agree with WALS Ch 106 data where available.
For languages with both a ValenceProfile and a RecipProfile, the reflexive-reciprocal classification must agree.
Semantic type of reciprocal relation.
@cite{nordlinger-2023} (§4) summarizes the semantic typology from Dalrymple et al. (1998) and Evans et al. (2011), distinguishing six types of mutual relation that reciprocal constructions can encode:
strong: every participant reciprocates with every other ("The members of this family love one another.")pairwise: participants are paired off ("The people at the dinner party were married to one another.")chain: sequential, each with the next ("The graduating students followed one another up onto the stage.")radial: one central participant reciprocates with all others ("The teacher and her pupils intimidated one another.")melee: widespread but not exhaustive reciprocation ("The drunks in the pub were punching one another.")ring: circular chain, last links back to first ("The children chased each other round in a ring.")
- strong : ReciprocityType
- pairwise : ReciprocityType
- chain : ReciprocityType
- radial : ReciprocityType
- melee : ReciprocityType
- ring : ReciprocityType
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Whether a reciprocity type requires every participant to be involved in at least one reciprocal pair. Radial IS participant-exhaustive — the center reciprocates with each peripheral — but is not pair-exhaustive (peripherals do not reciprocate with each other). Melee is the only type where some participants may be uninvolved.
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.strong.exhaustive = true
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.pairwise.exhaustive = true
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.chain.exhaustive = true
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.radial.exhaustive = true
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.melee.exhaustive = false
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.ring.exhaustive = true
Instances For
Whether a reciprocity type is symmetric: within each active pair, if A acts on B then B acts on A. Chain and ring are directional (A follows B does not entail B follows A). Radial IS symmetric — the teacher intimidates each pupil AND each pupil intimidates the teacher — it just doesn't cover all pairs.
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.strong.symmetric = true
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.pairwise.symmetric = true
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.chain.symmetric = false
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.radial.symmetric = true
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.melee.symmetric = true
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.ReciprocityType.ring.symmetric = false
Instances For
Strong, pairwise, and radial are the three symmetric AND participant-exhaustive reciprocity types. Among these, only strong is also pair-exhaustive (every possible pair reciprocates).
Chain and ring are non-symmetric (directional) — they model sequential actions where A acts on B but B does not act on A. The difference: ring links the last element back to the first, chain does not.
Melee is the only non-exhaustive type — some group members may not participate at all.
English "each other" can express all six reciprocity types (Evans et al. 2011b, p. 8; @cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 44). This is an empirical observation about English, not a structural property — some languages restrict which types their reciprocal construction can express.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Swahili reciprocal suffix "-an-" as a MorphRule.
Realizes valence reduction: transitive → intransitive. The reciprocal suffix removes the object argument, making the verb monovalent (the participants are encoded in a plural subject).
Example: "pend-" (love) → "pend-an-" (love each other) @cite{nordlinger-2023} ex. 40 (citing Dimitriadis 2004).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The Swahili reciprocal suffix is a valence-changing operation.
The Swahili reciprocal suffix reduces transitivity.
Extended readings of reciprocal markers beyond core reciprocal meaning.
@cite{nordlinger-2023} (§4.2) notes that reciprocal markers are often polysemous, expressing related but non-reciprocal meanings. These extended uses include collective, sociative, and iterative readings, in addition to the reflexive overlap captured by WALS Ch 106.
- reciprocal : RecipMarkerPolysemy
- reflexive : RecipMarkerPolysemy
- collective : RecipMarkerPolysemy
- sociative : RecipMarkerPolysemy
- iterative : RecipMarkerPolysemy
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Polysemy pattern: which extended readings a language's reciprocal marker(s) can express.
- language : String
- readings : List RecipMarkerPolysemy
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Russian "drug druga": reciprocal only (no collective/sociative).
Equations
- Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.polysemy_russian = { language := "Russian", readings := [Phenomena.ArgumentStructure.Typology.RecipMarkerPolysemy.reciprocal] }
Instances For
French "se": reciprocal + reflexive + collective. "Les enfants se sont rassemblés" (collective, no mutual action).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Wambaya "-ngg-" (RR): reciprocal + reflexive (identical forms).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Languages with reciprocal-reflexive identity show reflexive polysemy.
English reciprocal forms ("each other", "one another") are formally distinct from reflexive forms ("themselves", etc.) — derived from the Fragment's pronoun entries rather than stipulated in the profile.
The English profiles (both ValenceProfile and RecipProfile) are grounded in the Fragment: English has reciprocal pronouns that are categorically different from reflexive pronouns, and the profile records "each other" as a bipartite NP strategy.