[Mova](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2024-siegal-verbal-strategies-expressing-reciprocity-case/)

[home](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [docs](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/) / [papers](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/) / [Modern Hebrew](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/he/) / Verbal strategies for expressing reciprocity – the case of Hebrew

# Verbal strategies for expressing reciprocity – the case of Hebrew

**Authors:** Elitzur A. Bar-Asher Siegal · **Year:** 2024 · **Venue:** Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9(1), pp. 1–45 **Link:** [glossa-journal.org/article/id/10274](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/10274/) · library `lingbulk-2024-siegal-verbal-strategies-expressing-reciprocity-case` · **Licence:** [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

[**2** citations](https://openalex.org/works?filter=cites:W4393272076) openalex · 2026-10-18[Glossa: a journal of general linguistics](https://openalex.org/S4210226983)[licence](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

- [Publisher's page](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10274)
- [PDF](https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/10274/galley/33519/download)
- [DOI 10.16995/glossa.10274](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10274)
- [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W4393272076)

**Authors (1)**

1. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur

Citations and author metrics from openalex (2026-10-18); authors with the same name are not always told apart.

## What it is about

The paper asks why Hebrew *hitnašek* 'kiss' gives a reciprocal reading with a plural subject, while *xavruti* 'friendly' gives only a distributive one. The usual account says that "verbal" reciprocals encode symmetry in the verb. Bar-Asher Siegal separates two classes: rec-predicates (*hitnašek*), which are dyadic relations with an underspecified meaning, and sym-predicates (*zehe* 'be identical'), which are monadic set predicates that encode symmetry themselves (following Winter's 2002 typology). The paper surveys the syntactic frames and interpretations of these predicates for Hebrew, and criticises derivational analyses (deponent reciprocals, adjuncts that become arguments, unmarked verbal reciprocals). The conclusion is that rec-predicates do not derive symmetry grammatically; symmetry comes from the event (one event with all participants, or a series of events in communication) and from context. The paper has no numbers or computational test; its evidence is a hand-built set of examples.

## Ideas

- I1. A lexical feature on predicates, `rec` or `sym`: *hitnašek*-type verbs get a dyadic frame over two atom arguments, *zehe*-type verbs a monadic frame over a set. The world reader can then take the symmetric reading from the event and its context, not from the verb alone.
- I2. An event rule: a plural conjoined subject with a `rec` predicate yields a symmetric event only when all participants are arguments of one event, or when the event is a communication series; otherwise the reading is distributive. The three sentences of the paper's example (1) form a minimal test: (1a) and (1b) symmetric, (1c) not necessarily.
- I3. A test set of Hebrew reciprocal sentences from the paper, with its adjunct and argument contrasts as negative cases, so that any change to the event rule is checked against the same examples.

## For Mova

I1 goes into [05. The verb: system, binyanim, tense and use](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/he/05-verbs/) (verb lexicon features). I2 goes into the event-building rules of `world` and into [7. Syntax](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/he/07-syntax/). I3 is a test set for `prag` on Modern Hebrew. Whether Biblical Hebrew reciprocal verbs ([The verb](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/languages/hbo/06-verb/)) behave the same way is an open question to check, not a claim.

## Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. [DOI 10.16995/glossa.10274](https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10274)

```
@article{elitzur2024verbal,
  title = {{Verbal strategies for expressing reciprocity – the case of Hebrew}},
  author = {Elitzur, Bar-Asher Siegal,},
  journal = {Glossa: a journal of general linguistics},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.16995/glossa.10274},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.10274}
}
```

- [← previous HeSum: a Novel Dataset for Abstractive Text Summarization in Hebrew](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2024-mondshine-hesum-novel-dataset-abstractive-text/)
- [next → Decomposability and the syntactic flexibility of Hebrew idioms](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/lingbulk-2025-dolev-decomposability-syntactic-flexibility-hebrew-idioms/)
- [↑ back to Modern Hebrew](https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/he/)

## References

56 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and patterns: Hebrew morpho-syntax. Dordrecht: Springer. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Arad%2C+Maya%2E+2005%2E+Roots+and+patterns%3A+Hebrew+morpho%2Dsyntax%2E+Dordrecht%3A+Springer%2E)
2. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word-formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: The MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Aronoff%2C+Mark%2E+1976%2E+Word%2Dformation+in+generative+grammar%2E+Cambridge%3A+The+MIT+Press%2E)
3. Atlas, Jay D. 1996. ‘Only’ noun phrases, pseudo-negative generalized quantifiers, negative polarity items and monotonicity. Journal of Semantics 13. 265–328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ jos/13.4.265 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/)
4. Bar-Asher, Elitzur. 2009. A theory of argument realization and its application to features of the Semitic languages. Cambridge MA: Harvard University dissertation. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bar%2DAsher%2C+Elitzur%2E+2009%2E+A+theory+of+argument+realization+and+its+application+to+features+of+the+Semitic+languages%2E+Cambridge+MA%3A+Harvard+University+dissertation%2E)
5. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. 2016. The Semitic templates from the perspective of reciprocal predicates. Proceedings of the 10th Mediterranean morphology meeting, 16–30. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Bar%2DAsher+Siegal%2C+Elitzur+A%2E+2016%2E+The+Semitic+templates+from+the+perspective+of+reciprocal+predicates%2E+Proceedings+of+the+10th+Mediterranean+morphology+meeting%2C+16%E2%80%9330%2E)
6. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. 2020. The NP-strategy for expressing reciprocity: typology, history, syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing House. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ tsl.127 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/)
7. Behrens, Leila. 2007. Backgrounding and suppression of reciprocal participants: a cross-linguistic study. Studies in Language 31. 327–408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.2.04beh [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.2.04beh)
8. Carlson, Greg. 1998. Thematic roles and the individuation of events. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and grammar, 35–51. Dordrecht: Kluwer academic publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_3 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_3)
9. Champollion, Lucas. 2016. Covert distributivity in algebraic event semantics. Semantics and Pragmatics 9. 1–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.15 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.9.15)
10. Champollion, Lucas. 2021. Distributivity, collectivity, and cumulativity. Wiley’s Companion to Semantics, 653–690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem021 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem021)
11. Charnavel, Isabelle. 2015. Same, different and other as comparative adjectives – A uniform analysis based on French. Lingua 156. 129–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.005 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12.005)
12. Condoravdi, Cleo & Gawron, Jean Mark. 1996. The context‐dependency of implicit arguments. In Kanazawa, Makoto & Piñon, Christopher & de Swart, Henriëtte (eds.), Quantifiers, deduction, and context, 1–32. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Condoravdi%2C+Cleo+%26+Gawron%2C+Jean+Mark%2E+1996%2E+The+context%E2%80%90dependency+of+implicit+arguments%2E+In+Kanazawa%2C+Makoto+%26+Pi%C3%B1on%2C+Christopher+%26+de+Swart%2C+Henri%C3%ABtte+%28eds%2E%29%2C+Quantifiers%2C+deduction%2C+and+context%2C+1%E2%80%93)
13. Dalrymple, Mary & Kanazawa, Makoto & Kim, Yookyung & Mchombo, Sam & Peter, Stanley. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and philosophy 21. 159– 220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005330227480 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005330227480)
14. Dimitriadis, Alexis. 2008a. Irreducible symmetry in reciprocal constructions. In König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker (eds.), Reciprocals and Reflexives — Theoretical and Cross-linguistic Explorations, 375–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9783110199147.375 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/)
15. Dimitriadis, Alexis. 2008b. The event structure of irreducibly symmetric reciprocals. In Dolling, Johannes & Heyde-Zybatow, Tatjana (eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110925449.327 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110925449.327)
16. Dong, Quang Phuc. 1971. A note on conjoined noun phrases. In Zwicky, Arnold M. & Salus, Peter H. & Binnick, Robert I. & Vanek, Anthony L. (eds.), Studies out in left field: Studies presented to James D. McCawley on the occasion of his 33rd or 34th birthday, 11–18. Edmonton: Linguistics Research, Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.63.07don [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/z.63.07don)
17. Doron, Edit. 2003. Agency and voice: the semantics of the Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 11. 1–67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023021423453 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023021423453)
18. Doron, Edit. 2008. The contribution of the template to verb meaning. In Hatav, Galia (ed.), Modern linguistics of Hebrew, 57–88. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Doron%2C+Edit%2E+2008%2E+The+contribution+of+the+template+to+verb+meaning%2E+In+Hatav%2C+Galia+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Modern+linguistics+of+Hebrew%2C+57%E2%80%9388%2E+Jerusalem%3A+Magnes+Press%2E)
19. Doron, Edit & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2009. A unified approach to reflexivization in Semitic and Romance. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1. 75–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/187666309X12491131130503 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/187666309x12491131130503)
20. Dougherty, Ray C. 1974. The syntax and semantics of each other constructions. Foundations of Language 12. 1–47. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dougherty%2C+Ray+C%2E+1974%2E+The+syntax+and+semantics+of+each+other+constructions%2E+Foundations+of+Language+12%2E+1%E2%80%9347%2E)
21. Dowty, David. 1986. Thematic roles and semantics. Berkley linguistics society, proceeding of the annual meeting 12. 340–354. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v12i0.1878 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v12i0.1878)
22. Evans, Nicholas & Gaby, Alice & Levinson, Stephem C. & Majid, Asifa. 2011. Reciprocals and Semantic Typology (Typological studies in languages 98). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.98 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.98)
23. Fiengo, Robert & Howard Lasnik. 1973. The logical structure of reciprocal sentences in English, Foundations of Language 9. 447–468. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fiengo%2C+Robert+%26+Howard+Lasnik%2E+1973%2E+The+logical+structure+of+reciprocal+sentences+in+English%2C+Foundations+of+Language+9%2E+447%E2%80%93468%2E)
24. Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceedings of the 4th annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v12i0.1866 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v12i0.1866)
25. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Curl, Tracy S. (eds). 1999. Reciprocals: Form and Function. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Frajzyngier%2C+Zygmunt+%26+Curl%2C+Tracy+S%2E+%28eds%29%2E+1999%2E+Reciprocals%3A+Form+and+Function%2E+Amsterdam%3A+Benjamins%2E)
26. Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1990. On the non-unity of symmetric predicates: Monadic comitatives and dyadic equivalence relations. North East Linguistics Society 20. 135–149. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ginzburg%2C+Jonathan%2E+1990%2E+On+the+non%2Dunity+of+symmetric+predicates%3A+Monadic+comitatives+and+dyadic+equivalence+relations%2E+North+East+Linguistics+Society+20%2E+135%E2%80%93149%2E)
27. Gleitman, Lila R. 1965. Coordinating conjunctions in English. Language 41. 260–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/411878 [↗](https://doi.org/10.2307/411878)
28. Gleitman, Lila & Gleitman, Henry & Miller, Carol & Ostrin, Ruth 1996. Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition 58. 321–376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00686-9 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00686-9)
29. Haas, Florian. 2010. Reciprocity in English: Historical Development and Synchronic Structure. New York–London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Haas%2C+Florian%2E+2010%2E+Reciprocity+in+English%3A+Historical+Development+and+Synchronic+Structure%2E+New+York%E2%80%93London%3A+Routledge+Taylor+%26+Francis+Group%2E)
30. Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.), Reciprocal constructions, 5 vols, 2087–2115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Haspelmath%2C+Martin%2E+2007%2E+Further+remarks+on+reciprocal+constructions%2E+In+Nedjalkov%2C+Vladimir+P%2E+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Reciprocal+constructions%2C+5+vols%2C+2087%E2%80%932115%2E+Amsterdam%3A+John+Benjamins%2E)
31. Heim, Irene. 1994. Plurals. Ms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~astechow/Lehre/SS08/Heim_Plurals%20’94.pdf](http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~astechow/Lehre/SS08/Heim_Plurals%20’94.pdf). [↗](http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~astechow/Lehre/SS08/Heim_Plurals%20’94.pdf)
32. Horn, Lawrence. 1996. Exclusive company: ‘Only’ and the dynamics of vertical inference. Journal of Semantics 13. 1–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/13.1.1 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/13.1.1)
33. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The middle voice: a typological and diachronic study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.23 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.23)
34. Knjazev, Jurij P. 2007. Lexical reciprocals as a means of expressing reciprocal relations. In Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.), Reciprocal constructions, 5 vols, 115–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.07knj [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.07knj)
35. König, Ekkehard & Gast, Volker (eds.) 2008. Reciprocals and Reflexives — Theoretical and Cross-linguistic Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199147 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199147)
36. König, Ekkehard & Kokutani, Shigehiro. 2006. Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: focus on German and Japanese. Linguistics 44. 271–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ LING.2006.010 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/)
37. Kratzer, Angelika. 2007. On the plurality of verbs. In Dölling, Johannes & Heyde-Zybatow, Tatjana & Schäfer, Martin (eds.), Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, 269–300. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110925449.269 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110925449.269)
38. Kruitwagen, Imke & Poortman, Eva B. & Winter, Yoad. 2017. Reciprocal verbs as collective predicate concepts. North East Linguistic Society 47. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Kruitwagen%2C+Imke+%26+Poortman%2C+Eva+B%2E+%26+Winter%2C+Yoad%2E+2017%2E+Reciprocal+verbs+as+collective+predicate+concepts%2E+North+East+Linguistic+Society+47%2E)
39. Lakoff, George & Peters, Stanley. 1966. Phrasal conjunction and symmetric predicates. Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation Report NSF–27, Harvard Computation Laboratory. VI/1–49. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lakoff%2C+George+%26+Peters%2C+Stanley%2E+1966%2E+Phrasal+conjunction+and+symmetric+predicates%2E+Mathematical+Linguistics+and+Automatic+Translation+Report+NSF%E2%80%9327%2C+Harvard+Computation+Laboratory%2E+VI%2F1%E2%80%9349%2E)
40. Landman, Fred. 2000. Events and plurality: The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4359-2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4359-2)
41. Lasersohn, Peter. 1995. Plurality, Conjunction and Events. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8581-1 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8581-1)
42. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1985. Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5. 19–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608508599334 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1080/07268608508599334)
43. Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Bäuerle, Reiner & Schwarze, Christoph & von Stechow, Arnim (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 303–323. Berlin: De gryter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.302 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852820.302)
44. Majid, Asifa & Evans, Nicholas & Gaby, Alice & Levinson, Stephen C. 2011. The Semantics of reciprocal constructions across languages: and extensional approach. In Evans, Nicholas & Gaby, Alice & Levinson, Stephem C. & Majid, Asifa (eds.), Reciprocals and Semantic Typology (Typological studies in languages 98), 29–59. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.98.02maj [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.98.02maj)
45. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. ed. 2007. Reciprocal constructions, 5 vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71)
46. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 2007a. Overview of the research: definitions of terms, framework, and related issues. In Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.), Reciprocal constructions, 5 vols, 3–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.06ned [↗](https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.71.06ned)
47. Rákosi, György. 2003. Comitative Arguments in Hungarian. UiL-OTS yearbook 2003, 47–57. Utrecht: Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=R%C3%A1kosi%2C+Gy%C3%B6rgy%2E+2003%2E+Comitative+Arguments+in+Hungarian%2E+UiL%2DOTS+yearbook+2003%2C+47%E2%80%9357%2E+Utrecht%3A+Utrecht+institute+of+Linguistics+OTS%2E)
48. Schein, Barry. 1993. Plurals and Events. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schein%2C+Barry%2E+1993%2E+Plurals+and+Events%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%3A+MIT+Press%2E)
49. Schwarzschild, Roger. 1993. Plurals, presuppositions and the sources of distributivity. Natural Language Semantics 2. 201–248. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01256743 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01256743)
50. Shopen, Timothy. 1973. Ellipsis as grammatical indeterminacy. Foundations of Language 10. 65–77. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Shopen%2C+Timothy%2E+1973%2E+Ellipsis+as+grammatical+indeterminacy%2E+Foundations+of+Language+10%2E+65%E2%80%9377%2E)
51. Siloni, Tal. 2001. Reciprocal verbs. Proceedings of the Israeli Association of Theoretical Linguistics 17. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Siloni%2C+Tal%2E+2001%2E+Reciprocal+verbs%2E+Proceedings+of+the+Israeli+Association+of+Theoretical+Linguistics+17%2E)
52. Siloni, Tal. 2008. On the Hitpa’el template. In Hatav, Galia (ed.), Theoretical Hebrew Linguistics, 111–138. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Siloni%2C+Tal%2E+2008%2E+On+the+Hitpa%E2%80%99el+template%2E+In+Hatav%2C+Galia+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Theoretical+Hebrew+Linguistics%2C+111%E2%80%93138%2E+Jerusalem%3A+The+Hebrew+University+Magnes+Press%2E)
53. Siloni, Tal. 2012. Reciprocal verbs and symmetry. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30. 261– 320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9144-2 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-011-9144-2)
54. van Rooij, Robert & Schulz, Robert Katrin. 2007. Only: Meaning and implicatures. In Aloni Maria & Butler, Alastair & Dekker, Paul (eds), Questions in Dynamic Semantics, 193–223. London: Elsevier. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080470993_010 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080470993_010)
55. Winter, Yoad. 2002. Atoms and sets: a characterization of Semantic number. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 493–505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168581 [↗](https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168581)
56. Winter, Yoad. 2018. Symmetric predicates and the semantics of reciprocal alternations. Semantic and Pragmatics 11. 1–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.11.1 [↗](https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.11.1)