Consequences of Using One Form and Not the Other: Interpreting Finnish Reciprocals

This paper investigates the division of labor between two reciprocal forms in Finnish, namely the one-word form and the doubled form (ex.1). The research presented here builds on the analysis I presented in Kaiser (to appear) hypothesizing that the doubled form increases the salience of certain interpretational possibilities, resulting in the doubled form having less tolerance for exceptions than the one-word form. This paper tackles issues not addressed in the earlier paper, namely the question of whether the interpretational differences between the two reciprocal forms can potentially be reduced to general reasoning regarding prolixity vs. brevity of expression and what the interpretational consequences are of using the doubled form in a context where an exceptionless reading is already favored by other factors. This paper aims to take steps towards improving our understanding of the semantics and pragmatics of reciprocity in a non-Indo-European language with multiple reciprocal forms. The Finnish reciprocal stem is toinen ‘other,’ which has a one-word form and a doubled form: