1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 41, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 41, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper discusses reciprocal constructions in Hittite, framed within the typology of reciprocals laid out by Nedjalkov (2007), König & Gast (2008) , and Evans et al. (2011) . Hittite attests to at least three reciprocal markers, that is, the middle voice, the particle =, and three different polyptotic constructions, based on the iteration of the numeral - ‘one’, the demonstrative - ‘this’, and the noun - ‘fellow, comrade’ respectively. Synchronically, these three strategies cover different sub-domains of reciprocity, as they encode different kinds of reciprocal situations and display different syntactic properties. These differences can be accounted for by taking into account the processes out of which these constructions developed, which can be described in terms of grammaticalization (Heine & Miyashita 2008). In this respect, beside enriching our knowledge of reciprocals in Indo-European languages, this paper also contributes to our general understanding of the diachronic typology of reciprocal constructions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17019.ing
2018-03-30
2024-12-01

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.17019.ing
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Archi, Alfonso
    1977 I poteri della dea Ištar hurrito-ittita. Oriens Antiquus16. 297–311.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ariel, Mira
    2008 Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A.
    2011 Notes on reciprocal constructions in Akkadian in light of typological and historical considerations. Semitica et Classica4. 23–42. doi: 10.1484/J.SEC.1.102502
     https://doi.org/10.1484/J.SEC.1.102502 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur. A.
    2014 NP-strategies in Semitic languages in a typological perspective. Diachronica31(3). 337–378. doi: 10.1075/dia.31.3.02bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.31.3.02bar [Google Scholar]
  5. Beekes, Robert
    2010 Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Boley, Jacqueline
    1989 The sentence particles and the place words in Old and Middle Hittite [Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 60]. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 1993 The Hittite particle -z/-za [Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft]. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    2005 Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615962
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615962 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brosch, Cyril
    2014 Untersuchungen zur hethitischen Raumgrammatik [TOPOI: Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 20]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cambi, Valentina
    2007 Tempo e Aspetto in ittito. Con particolare riferimento al suffisso -ske/a. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. CHD  =  Güterbock, Hans Gustav , Harry A. Jr. Hoffner & Theo P. J. van den Hout 1989- The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Corbett, Greville
    2006 Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cotticelli-Kurras, Paola & Alfredo Rizza
    2011 Die hethitische Partikel -z(a) im Licht neuer theoretischer Ansätze. In Thomas Krisch & Thomas Lindner (eds.), Indogermanistik und Linguistik im Dialog: Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 120–130. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Creissels, Denis
    2006 Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique. Paris: Hermès.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Cuzzolin, Perluigi , Ignazio Putzu & Paolo Ramat
    2006 The Indo-European adverb in diachronic and typological perspective. Indogermanische Forschungen111. 1–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Darlymple, Mary , Makoto Kanazawa , Yookyung Kim , Sam Mchombo & Stanley Peters
    1998 Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy21. 159–210. doi: 10.1023/A:1005330227480
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005330227480 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dimitriadis, Alexis
    2008 Irreducible symmetry in reciprocal constructions. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 375–410. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dressler, Wolfgang
    1968 Studien zur verbalen Pluralität. Iterativum, Distributivum, Durativum, Intensivum in der allgemeinen Grammatik, im Lateinischen und Hethitischen. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse: Sitzungsberichte, 259/1. Vienna: Böhlau.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dunkel, George E.
    2014 Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominal-stämme. Band 2: Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Eichner, Heiner
    1992 Anatolian. In Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Indo-European Numerals, 29–96. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110858464.29
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110858464.29 [Google Scholar]
  21. Evans, Nicholas
    2008 Reciprocal constructions: Towards a structural typology. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 33–103. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Evans, Nicholas , Stephen C. Levinson , Alice Gaby & Asifa Majid
    2011 Introduction: Reciprocals and semantic typology. In Nicholas Evans , Stephen C. Levinson , Alice Gaby & Asifa Majid (eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology [Typological Studies in Language 98], 1–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.98.01intro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.98.01intro [Google Scholar]
  23. Fanelli, Valentina
    2009 Le costruzioni reciproche nella lingua latina. Roma: Universitaria editrice.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fortson, Benjamin W.
    2004 Indo-European language and culture: An introduction. Chichester: Blackwell Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Traci S. Curl
    (eds.) 2000 Reciprocals: Forms and functions [Typological Studies in Language 41]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.41
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.41 [Google Scholar]
  26. Francia, Rita
    1995 Costruzione e valore del pronome possessivo enclitico di prima plurale in Hittito. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici35. 93–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 2002  Le funzioni sintattiche degli elementi avverbiali di luogo ittiti: anda(n), āppa(n), katta(n), katti-, peran, šer, šar, šarā [Studia Asiana 1]. Roma: Herder.
  28. Friedrich, Johannes
    1950 Churritische Märchen und Sagen in hethitischer Sprache. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie49. 213–255. doi: 10.1515/zava.1950.49.1.213
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zava.1950.49.1.213 [Google Scholar]
  29. 1960 Hethitisches Elementarbuch, 1. Teil: Kurzgefaßte Grammatik (2nd ed.) [Indogermanische Bibliothek, 1. Reihe: Lehr- und Handbücher]. Heidelberg: Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Garrett, Andrew J.
    1996 Wackernagel’s Law and Unaccusativity in Hittite. In A. L. Halpern & A. M. Zwicky (eds.), Approaching second: Second position clitics and related phenomena, 83–133. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gast, Volver & Florian Haas
    2008 Anaphors in German and other European languages. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 307–346. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Goedegebuure, Petra
    2003 The Hittite distal demonstrative ASI (UNI, ENI, etc.). Die Sprache43. 1–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2006 A new proposal for the reading of the Hittite numeral ‘1’: šia- . In Theo P. J. van den Hout & C. H. van Zoest (eds.), The life and times of Ḫattušili III and Tutḫaliya IV: Proceedings of a symposium held in honour of J. de Roos, 12–13 December 2003, Leiden, 65–88. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Instanbul.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 2014 The Hittite demonstratives. Studies in deixis, topics, and focus [Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 55]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Goetze, Albrecht
    1933 Über die Partikeln -za, -kan und -šan der hethitischen Satzverbindung. Archiv Orientální5. 1–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Grestenberger, Laura
    2016 Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European deponents. Journal of Indo-European Linguistics4. 98–149.10.1163/22125892‑00401001
     https://doi.org/10.1163/22125892-00401001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Güterbock, Hans G.
    1983 A Hurro-Hittite hymn to Ishtar. Journal of the American Oriental Society103. 155–164. doi: 10.2307/601869
     https://doi.org/10.2307/601869 [Google Scholar]
  38. Haas, Florian
    2007 The development of English each other: grammaticalization, lexicalization, or both?. English Language and Linguistics11(1). 31–50. doi: 10.1017/S1360674306002103
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674306002103 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2010 Reciprocity in English: Historical development and synchronic structure. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Haspelmath, Martin & Susanne Maria Michaelis
    2017 Analytic and synthetic: typological change in varieties of European languages. In Isabelle Buchstaller & Beat Siebenhaar (eds.), Language variation – European perspectives VI: Selected papers from the 8th International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 8), Leipzig 2015: 3–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/silv.19.01has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.19.01has [Google Scholar]
  41. Haspelmath, Martin
    1987 Transitivity alternations of the anticausative type [Arbeitspapiere, N. F. 5]. Cologne: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 1993 More on the typology of the inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Bernard Comrie & Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.23.05has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.23.05has [Google Scholar]
  43. 2008 A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery6(1). 40–63. doi: 10.1349/PS1.1537‑0852.A.331
     https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.331 [Google Scholar]
  44. HED  =  Puhvel, Jaan 1984 – Hittite Etymological Dictionary. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. HEG  =  Tischler, Johann 1983–2010 Hethitisches Etymologisches Glossar. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Heim, Irene
    1982 The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts PhD Dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  48. Heine, Bernd & Hiroyuki Miyashita
    2008 The intersection between reflexives and reciprocals: A grammaticalization perspective. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 169–224. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Heine, Bernd
    2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], 83–101. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  50. Hoffner, Harry A. Jr. & Craig H. Melchert
    2008 A grammar of the Hittite language. Part I: reference grammar. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Hoffner, Harry A. Jr.
    1969 On the use of Hittite -za in nominal sentences. Journal of Near Eastern Studies28. 225–230. doi: 10.1086/372024
     https://doi.org/10.1086/372024 [Google Scholar]
  52. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott
    1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. HW2  =  Friedrich, Johannes , Annelies Kammenhuber & Inge Hoffmann 1975- Hethitisches Worterbuch [Indogermanische Bibliothek. 2. Reihe: Wörterbücher]. Heidelberg: Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Inglese, Guglielmo
    2015 Towards a Hittite treebank. Basic challenges and methodological remarks. In Marco Passarotti , Francesco Mambrini & Caroline Sporleder , (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Corpus-Based Research in the Humanities (CRH), 10December 2015, Warsaw, Poland, 59–68. crh4.ipipan.waw.pl/proceedings/.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. . In preparation. The Hittite middle voice. Pavia: University of Pavia PhD Dissertation.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Josephson, Folke
    2003 The Hittite reflexive construction in a typological perspective. In Brigitte L. M. Bauer & Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Language in time and space: A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the occasion of his 80th birthday, 211–232. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110897722.211
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110897722.211 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2008 Actionality and aspect in Hittite. In Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Interdependence of diachronic and synchronic analyses, 131–147. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.103.08jos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.103.08jos [Google Scholar]
  58. Kemmer, Suzanne
    1993 The middle voice [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.23 [Google Scholar]
  59. Kloekhorst, Alwin
    2008 Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Knjazev, Jurij P.
    2007 Lexical reciprocals as a means of expressing reciprocal situations. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov , Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 115–146. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.71.07knj
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.07knj [Google Scholar]
  61. König, Ekkehard & Volker Gast
    2008 Reciprocity and reflexivity – description, typology and theory. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 1–32. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. König, Ekkehard & Shigehiro Kokutani
    2006 Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics44(2). 271–302. doi: 10.1515/LING.2006.010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2006.010 [Google Scholar]
  63. König, Ekkehard & Peter Siemund
    2000 Intensifiers and reflexives: a typological perspective. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reflexives: Forms and functions [Typological Studies in Language 41], 41–74. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.40.03kon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.40.03kon [Google Scholar]
  64. König, Ekkehard & Letizia Vezzosi
    2004 The role of predicate meaning in the development of reflexivity. In Walter Bisang , Nikolaus Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization: A look from its fringes and its components, 213–244. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Krisch, Thomas
    1999 Zur Reziprozität in altindogermanischen Sprachen. In Heiner Eichner & Hans-Christian Luschützky (eds.), Compositiones Indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler Gedenkschrift für Jochern Schindler, 275–297. Praha: enigma corporation.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Kulikov, Leonid
    2007 Reciprocal constructions in Vedic. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov , Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 709–738. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.71.23kul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.23kul [Google Scholar]
  67. 2013 Middle and reflexive. In Silvia Luraghi & Claudia Parodi (eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Syntax, 261–280. London/New Delhi/New York/Sydney: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 2014 Grammaticalization of reciprocal pronouns in Indo-Arian: Evidence from Sanskrit and Indo-European for a diachronic typology of reciprocal constructions. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics1(2). 117–156 doi: 10.1515/jsall‑2014‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jsall-2014-0008 [Google Scholar]
  69. Letuchiy, Alexander
    2009 Towards a typology of labile verbs: lability vs. derivation. In Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds.), New challenges in typology: Transcending the borders and refining the distinctions, 223–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Lichtenberk, Frantisek
    1985 Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions. Australian Journal of Linguistics5. 19–41. doi: 10.1080/07268608508599334
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608508599334 [Google Scholar]
  71. 2000 Reciprocals without reflexives. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and functions [Typological Studies in Language 41], 32–62. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.41.03lic
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.41.03lic [Google Scholar]
  72. Luraghi, Silvia
    1990 Old Hittite sentence structure. London/New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. 2010 The rise (and possible fall) of configurationality. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, 212–229. London/New York: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 2012 Basic valency orientation and the middle voice in Hittite. Studies in Language36(1). 1–32. doi: 10.1075/sl.36.1.01lur
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.1.01lur [Google Scholar]
  75. 2016 Basic valency orientation in PIE. Paper presented at the 15th Fachtagung of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft “Back to the Root – The Structure, Function, and Semantics of the PIE Root” , Wien12–16/09/2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Majid, Asifa , Nicholas Evans , Alice Gaby & Stephen C. Levinson
    2011 The semantics of reciprocal constructions across languages: an extensional approach. In Nicholas Evans , Stephen C. Levinson , Alice Gaby & Asifa Majid (eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology [Typological Studies in Language 98], 29–60. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.98.02maj
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.98.02maj [Google Scholar]
  77. Malchukov, Andrej
    2015 Valency classes and alternation: parameters of variation. In Andrej Malchukov & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Valency classes in the world’s languages, vol. 1, 73–130. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Maslova, Elena & Vladimir P. Nedjalkov
    2005 Reciprocal constructions. In Mattew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Accessed at wals.info/chapter/106.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Maslova, Elena
    2008 Reflexive encoding of reciprocity: Cross-linguistic and language-internal variation. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 225–258. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Mattiola, Simone
    2017 The conceptual space of pluractional constructions. Lingue e Linguaggio16(1). 119–146.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Mauri, Caterina
    2008 Coordination relations in the languages of Europe and beyond. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110211498
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211498 [Google Scholar]
  82. McGregor, William
    2000 Reflexive and reciprocal constructions in Nyulnyulan languages. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Traci S. Curl (eds.), Reciprocals: Forms and functions [Typological Studies in Language 41], 85–122. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.41.05mcg
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.41.05mcg [Google Scholar]
  83. Melchert, Craig H.
    2005 Latin insolēscō, Hittite šulle(šš)- and PIE Statives in -ē- . In Nikolak N. Kazansky (ed.), Hṛdā́ mánasā. Studies presented to Professor Leonard G. Herzenberg on his 70th birthday, 90–98. St. Petersburg: Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 2009 Local adverbs in Hittite: Synchrony and diachrony. Language and Linguistics Compass3(2). 607–602. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00132.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00132.x [Google Scholar]
  85. Forthcoming. Semantics and etymology of Hittite takš- . To appear in Indo-Iranian and Its Indo-European Origin. Studies in honor of Alexander Lubotsky.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Miller, Jared L.
    2013 Royal Hittite instructions and related administrative texts [Writings from the Ancient World 31]. Society of Biblical Literature: Atlanta.10.2307/j.ctt5hjgsb
     https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5hjgsb [Google Scholar]
  87. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Emma Genušiene
    2007 Questionnaire on reciprocals. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov , Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 379–434. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.71.13ned
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.13ned [Google Scholar]
  88. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
    2007a Overview of the research. Definitions of terms, framework, and related issues. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov , Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 3–114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.71.06ned
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.06ned [Google Scholar]
  89. 2007b Encoding of the reciprocal meaning. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov , Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 147–208. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.71.08ned
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.08ned [Google Scholar]
  90. 2007c Polysemy of reciprocal markers. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov , Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 231–334. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.71.10ned
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.10ned [Google Scholar]
  91. Newmann, Paul
    1990 Nominal and verbal plurality in Chadic. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Neu, Erich
    1968a Interpretationen der hethitischen mediopassiven Verbalformen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. 1968b Das hethitische Mediopassiv und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Nikolaev, Alexander
    2010 Hittite menaḫḫanda . Journal of the American Oriental Society130(1). 36–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Nowicki, Helmut
    2000 Zum Einleitungsparagraphen des Anitta-Textes (CTH 1, 1–4). In Christian Zinko & Michaela Ofitsch (eds.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz, 411–419. Graz: Leykam.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Plank, Frans
    2008 Thoughts on the origin, progress, and pronominal status of reciprocal forms in Germanic, occasioned by those of Bavarian. In Ekkehard König & Volker Gast (eds.), Reciprocals and reflexives: Theoretical and cross-linguistic explorations, 347–374. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Sankho, Sergueï & Nicole Tersis
    2008 Is a “friend” an “enemy”? Between “proximity” and “opposition”. In Martine Vanhove (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change [Studies in Language Companion 106], 314–340. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Sansò, Andrea
    2017 Where do antipassives constructions come from? A study in diachronic typology. Diachronica34(2). 175–218. doi: 10.1075/dia.34.2.02san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.34.2.02san [Google Scholar]
  99. Starke, Frank
    1977 Die Funktionen der dimensionalen Kasus und Ortsadverbien im Hethitischen [Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 22]. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Graeme Trousdale
    2014 Constructionalization and constructional changes [Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 6]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Vezzosi, Letizia
    2010 Micro-processes of grammaticalization. The case of Italian l’un l’altro . In Katerina Stathi , Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds.), Grammaticalization. Current views and issues, 343–372. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.119.18vez
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.119.18vez [Google Scholar]
  102. Wali, Kashi
    2000 Lexical anaphors and pronouns in Marathi. In Barbara C. Lust , Kashi Wali , James W. Gair & K. V. Subbarao (eds.), Lexical anaphors and pronouns in selected South Asian languages: A principled typology [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 22], 513–574. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Yakubovich, Ilya & Elisabeth Rieken
    2016 The derivational history of the PIE root *al- ‘other’. Paper presented at the 15th Fachtagung of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft “Back to the Root – The Structure, Function, and Semantics of the PIE Root” , Wien12–16/09/2016.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Yakubovich, Ilya
    2006 Prehistoric contacts between Hittite and Luwian: The case of reflexive pronouns. In Karlene Jones-Bley , Martin E. Huld , Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Dexter Robbins (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference [Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series 52], 77–106. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Yoshida, Kazuhiko
    1990 The Hittite mediopassive endings in-ri. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Zaliznjak, Anna A. & Aleksej D. Shmelev
    2007 Sociativity, conjoining, reciprocity, and the Latin prefix com- . In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov , Emma Š. Geniušene & Zlatka Guentchéva (eds.), Reciprocal constructions [Typological Studies in Language 71], 209–230. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.71.09zal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.09zal [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17019.ing
Loading
A synchronic and diachronic typology of Hittite reciprocal constructions
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 41, 956 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17019.ing
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17019.ing
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.17019.ing
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): bipartite reciprocal markers; diachronic typology; Hittite; Indo-European; middle voice; reciprocal constructions; reflexivity and reciprocity

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error