Ling 127
Handout
Valency Increasing Processes
Applicatives
Applicative constructions: (1) typically add an applicative affix to a verb (the affix may
sometimes be null), AND (2) increase the valency of the construction by adding an object.
Canonical example:
(1) Tukang Besi (Donohue 1999a: 256) (WALS Chapter by Polinsky; Tukang
Besi (Austronesian; Sulawesi, Indonesia)
a. Basic construction, two-place predicate
no-ala
te kau
3.REALIS-fetch
the wood
‘She fetched the wood.’
b. Applicative construction, three-place predicate
no-ala-ako
te ina-su
te kau
3.REALIS-fetch-APPL the mother-my the Wood
Lit.’ She fetched my mother the wood.’
Terminology: (i) -ako above is the applicative affix; (ii) te ina-su “my mother” is the
applicative object.
In the example above, the input is a transitive sentence with valency 2 (2 arguments). The output
once the applicative suffix is added to the verb is ditransitive with valency 3 (3 arguments).
These constructions are different from our previously studied causative constructions in that (i)
there is no causation involved, and (ii) the additional argument in causatives the causer subject,
while in the applicatives, the additional argument is an object.
Crucial: Applicative can potentially be formed from an intransitive as well as a transitive base.
FROM WALS, Polinsky chapter. (Maria Polinsky. 2013. Applicative Constructions.
In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures
Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
(Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/109)
(The WALS information is edited for our current purposes.)
Two main parameters in which applicatives vary cross-linguistically include the transitivity of
the base and the semantic role of the applied object. …
1
TWO typological distinctions:
(1) “With respect to the transitivity of the base, the main distinctions are between applicatives
formed (i) from a transitive base only, (ii) from an intransitive base only, and (iii)
from both bases.
(2)
With respect to the semantic roles of the applied object, the most common role of the
applied object is that of benefactive. Accordingly, the values differentiates applicatives whose
applied object (i) is limited to benefactive; (ii) corresponds to the benefactive and some other
roles; (iii) corresponds to other roles to the exclusion of the benefactive.
Of nine logically possible values…, seven are actually attested. In addition, there are of course
many languages are without applicatives.
VALUES:
Value
Representation
Benefactive object only; both bases
16
Benefactive object only; transitive base only
4
Benefactive and other; both bases
49
Benefactive and other; transitive base only
2
Non-benefactive object only; both bases
9
Non-benefactive object only; transitive base
only
1
Non-benefactive object only; intransitive
base only
2
No applicative construction
100
Total:
183
So, of the 83 languages that have applicatives in the data, 49 allow (i) both applicatives of
transitives and intransitives. Other possible types are less common.
(WALS) Other semantic roles
The distribution of applicatives with respect to the semantic role benefactive is clearly the most
common semantic role of the applied object. Other common semantic roles
include location and instrument. The geographical distribution of these roles is shown below:
2
Values: Other Roles of Applied Objects
Value
Representation
Instrument
17
Locative
18
Instrument and locative
12
No other roles (= Only benefactive)
36
No applicative construction
100
Total:
183
Additional semantic functions that may be associated with the applied object include
possessor, circumstance/event (time), comitative, and substitute (a participant on
whose behalf the action is performed). (also location/goal as below)
• In some languages, the applied suffix varies according to the semantic role of the
argument introduced:
Kinyarwanda (Bantu; Rwanda)
Goal:
(1) a. umugore y-ooher-eje
umubooyi
ku-isoko
woman 3SG-send -ASP cook
LOC-market
“The woman sent the cook to the market.”
b. umugore y- ooher-eke -ho isoko
woman 3SG-send -ASP-APPL market
umubooyi
cook
“The woman sent to the market the cook”
Instrument:
(2) a. umugabo ya- tem-eje igiti n-umupaanga
man
3SG-cut -ASP tree INSTR-saw
“The man cut the tree with a saw.”
b. umugabo ya- tem-ej -eesha umupaanga igiti
man
3SG-cut -ASP-APPL
saw
tree
“The man cut the tree with a saw.”
3
WALS “Comitative applicatives formed from intransitives seem to be particularly common in
the languages of Australia. Comitatives and substitutives are quite common in applicatives of
intransitives, e.g. in Lai (2) and in Kinyarwanda (3):
(2) Lai (Peterson 1999: 58)
ʔa-ka-Than-pii
3SG.SUBJ-1SG.OBJ-grow_up-APPL.COM
‘He grew up with me.’ [comitative]
(3) Kinyarwanda (Polinsky)
umugabo
a-ra-geend-er-a
umugóre
man
3SG-PRES-travel-APPL-ASP
woman
‘The man is travelling instead/on behalf of the woman.’ [substitute]
It is somewhat puzzling that some languages of Australia show a comitative applicative formed
from an intransitive without a parallel benefactive applicative formed from a transitive. Such
comitative applicatives may be marked by the same morphology as instrumental applicatives
formed from transitives. It is possible that these Australian-type applicatives and applicatives
elsewhere represent different phenomena.
WALS: Transitivity of the base
The intransitive base of applicatives is less common than the transitive base. This is quite
clear from the distribution shown above, and there are only two languages in the sample that
form applicatives from the intransitive base exclusively (Fijian, Wambaya).
Implicational Universal: If a language has applicatives formed from the intransitive base, it
generally also has applicatives formed from the transitive base.
Although the constraint on applicative formation from intransitives seems not to be absolute, a
particular subset of intransitives, namely unaccusative predicates (those whose subject
originates as an object in the underlying structure), resist applicativization (see Baker
1998). However, even this generalization does not hold in some languages, for instance,
in Halkomelem (Gerdts 1988a), Lai (Peterson 1999), and Sesotho (Machobane 1989), which
suggests that it is just a strong tendency.
WALS: Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Applicatives:
“In some languages both objects, basic and applied, are accessible for passivization and
relativization, can bind a reflexive, can trigger agreement on the verb, or can license coreferential
deletion across clauses. Such languages are called “symmetrical”. In other languages, only one
object, either applied or basic, can show the relevant grammatical behaviors, while the other
object is syntactically quite inert. Such languages are called “asymmetrical” (Woolford
1993; Alsina and Mchombo 1993). The asymmetrical type seems to be more common.”
4