Hubbry Logo
Applicative voiceApplicative voiceMain
Open search
Applicative voice
Community hub
Applicative voice
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Applicative voice
Applicative voice
Applicative voice
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The applicative voice (/əˈplɪkətɪv/; abbreviated APL or APPL) is a grammatical voice that promotes an oblique argument of a verb to the core object argument. It is generally considered a valency-increasing morpheme. The applicative is often found in agglutinative languages, such as the Bantu languages[1] and Austronesian languages.[2] Other examples include Nuxalk, Ubykh, and Ainu.

Behavior

[edit]

Prototypically, applicatives apply to intransitive verbs.[3]: xxvii  They can also be called "advancements" or "object promotion" because they bring a peripheral object to the centre as a direct object. This object is sometimes called the applied object. For transitive verbs, the resulting verb can be ditransitive, or the original object is no longer expressed. If the original object is no longer expressed, it is not a valency-increasing operation[4]: 186–7 

Multiple applicatives

[edit]

A language may have multiple applicatives, each corresponding to different roles. These roles include instrumental, comitative, benefactive, locative, and (although rarely) genitive. Sometimes various applicatives will be expressed by the same morphological exponence, such as in the Bantu language Chewa, where the suffix -ir- forms both instrumental and locative applicatives. Some languages, such as Luganda, permit a 'second applicative' (known in Luganda as the "augmentative applied"), formed by a double application of the suffix. In this case, the second applicative is used to give an alternative meaning.

Applicatives may also be the only way of expressing such roles, as in the Bantu Chaga languages, where instrumental, benefactive, malefactive, and locative are formed solely by applicatives. In other languages, applicatives coexist with other methods of expressing said roles. They are often used to bring a normally oblique argument into special focus, or as in Nez Percé, to keep humans as core arguments.

Similar processes

[edit]

Applicatives have a degree of overlap with causatives, and in some languages, the two are realized identically.[5] A similar construction known as dative shift, though different from true applicatives, occurs in other languages. Also, the benefactive case is commonly expressed by means of an applicative.

Examples

[edit]

Ainu

[edit]

In the Ainu language, valency of verbs can be modulated through multiple mechanisms. The language employs three applicative prefixes: DATTooltip Dative case ko-, INSTooltip Instrumental case e-, and LOCTooltip Locative case o-, each of which serves to increase the valency of a verb. For instance, an intransitive verb with only one argument slot can be modified by an applicative prefix to become a transitive verb, thus requiring two argument slots to be syntactically well-formed.[6]

Consider the following example, where the intransitive verb itak (“to speak”) initially has one argument slot that is fulfilled by the subject pronoun prefix ku= (“I”).

ku=ytak.

ku=itak.

1SG.NOM=speak.VI

ku=itak.

1SG.NOM=speak.VI

I am speaking.

By applying the dative applicative prefix ko- (“to”), the verb transforms into koytak (“to speak with”), a transitive verb. Now, it requires both a subject, indicated by the prefix ku=, and an object, which takes a zero morpheme to denote the third person, referring to the noun hekaci:

hekaci ku=koytak.

hekaci

boy

ku=∅=ko-itak.

1SG.NOM=3SG.ACC=APL.DAT-speak.VI

hekaci ku=∅=ko-itak.

boy 1SG.NOM=3SG.ACC=APL.DAT-speak.VI

I am speaking with a boy.

English

[edit]

English does not have a dedicated applicative prefix or suffix. However, prepositions can be compounded with verbs for an applicative effect. For example, from

  • Jack ran faster than the giant,

the intransitive verb ran can be made transitive, and the oblique noun giant the object:

  • Jack outran the giant.

The applicative verb can be made passive, something which is not possible with ran:

  • The giant was outrun by Jack.

German

[edit]

The German prefix be- is considered an applicative by some,[citation needed] but other analyses reject this view.[7]

Swahili

[edit]

Swahili has an applicative suffix -i or -e which appears before the last vowel of the verb. From andika 'to write', we get transitive

Aliandika barua

a-li-andik-a

he-PST-write-IND

barua

letter

a-li-andik-a barua

he-PST-write-IND letter

'he wrote a letter'

and ditransitive

Aliniandikia barua

a-li-ni-andik-i-a

he-PST-me-write-APL-IND

barua

letter

a-li-ni-andik-i-a barua

he-PST-me-write-APL-IND letter

'he wrote me a letter', or 'he wrote a letter for me'

Similarly, from soma 'to read',

  • Alinisomea barua 'he read me a letter', 'he read a letter to me'.

These are sometimes called 'prepositional' forms of the verb because they are translated into English using prepositions: cry for, pray for, eat with, enjoy (be happy about), arrive at, sing to, sell to, send to, open (the door) for, reckon with, see for (himself), die at. However, this name is inaccurate for Swahili, which doesn't use prepositions for such purposes.

Swedish

[edit]

The Swedish prefix be- has been analyzed as an applicative by Claire Gronemeyer.[8]

Yagua

[edit]

Yagua is one language that has dedicated morphology for applicative uses. Here, the applicative suffix -ta shows that the locative or instrumental oblique is now a direct object:[4]: 187 

(a.)

sa-duu

3SG-blow

rá-viimú

INAN-into

sa-duu rá-viimú

3SG-blow INAN-into

"He blows into it." (valence = 1)

(b.)

sa-duu-tá-ra

3SG-blow-APPL-INAN:OBJ

sa-duu-tá-ra

3SG-blow-APPL-INAN:OBJ

"He blows it." (valence = 2)

This same -ta suffix can be used with transitive verbs to create ditransitives:

(c.)

sį-įchití-rya

3SG-poke-INAN:OBJ

javanu

meat

quiichi-tya

knife-INSTR

sį-įchití-rya javanu quiichi-tya

3SG-poke-INAN:OBJ meat knife-INSTR

"He poked the meat with the knife." (valence = 2)

(d.)

sį-įchití-tya-ra

3SG-poke-APPL-INAN:OBJ

quiichiy

knife

sį-įchití-tya-ra quiichiy

3SG-poke-APPL-INAN:OBJ knife

"He poked something with the knife." (valence = 3)

These behave identically as other lexical ditransitives, such as give and send in this language.

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Applicative voice

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In , the applicative voice is a valency-increasing grammatical that promotes an oblique argument—such as a , instrument, locative, or recipient—from a peripheral to a core syntactic position, typically as the direct object (P) of a , while preserving the original agent (A) and often adjusting the status of the initial . This morphological mechanism, marked by affixes or other derivations on the , enhances the verb's transitivity by integrating non-core participants into the argument structure, distinguishing it from valency-decreasing voices like the passive (which demotes the A) or antipassive (which demotes the P), and from valency-increasing causatives (which add a causer as a new A). Applicative constructions are widespread in agglutinative and polysynthetic languages, including those of the Bantu, Austronesian, Mayan, and Algonquian families, where they enable nuanced encoding of semantic roles without altering the basic event type. Theoretically, applicative voice is analyzed through the distinction between low applicatives and high applicatives, reflecting their syntactic attachment relative to the (VP) and voice head. Low applicatives merge within the VP and encode a or transfer relation between the applied and the direct object, typically requiring a transitive base verb; for example, in English double-object constructions like "John baked Mary a cake," the "Mary" is introduced as a core via a low applicative relating her to the patient "cake." In contrast, high applicatives attach above the VP (often external to the voice domain), introducing arguments related to the entire event, such as benefactives or malefactives, and can apply to unergative or intransitive verbs; a classic case appears in (Bantu), where the benefactive suffix -ir promotes a to direct object in sentences like "Abaganda ba-soma-ir-a ensi" ("The read the world for [someone]"), allowing the applied to participate in passivization or other core syntactic operations. These distinctions highlight how applicatives modify argument introduction without introducing agentive external arguments, a role reserved for the voice head in generative frameworks. Applicative voice exhibits variation across languages in terms of optionality, semantic specialization, and interaction with other derivations. In some systems, like Tswana (Bantu), applicatives are obligatory for encoding certain obliques, such as recipients in ditransitive-like structures (e.g., "Lorato will write a letter to Kitso," where "to Kitso" becomes the P), resulting in double-transitive verbs where both the original patient and applied argument retain core status. Optional applicatives, as in K’ichee’ (Mayan), may specialize in roles like instrumentals, promoting phrases such as "with a knife" to direct object while demoting the original patient to an oblique. Furthermore, applicatives can combine with passives or causatives, but restrictions apply; for instance, in , the applied argument often becomes the subject in passivized applicatives, underscoring its core status. This flexibility makes applicative voice a crucial lens for studying argument structure, cross-linguistic typology, and the syntax-semantics interface.

Introduction

Definition

The applicative voice is a grammatical voice construction in which an oblique —such as a , instrument, or location—of a is promoted to a core object position, either direct or indirect, and this promotion is typically signaled by morphological marking on the itself. This voice allows the to directly govern the promoted as if it were an inherent core participant, distinguishing it from other voices like the passive or that alter subjecthood or add causers. A primary functional role of the applicative voice is to enable the expression of additional semantic participants that would otherwise require periphrastic constructions involving adpositions or adjunct phrases, thereby integrating these elements more tightly into the clause structure. In many languages, this results in an increase in the verb's valence, permitting the encoding of more arguments without resorting to external modification. Syntactically, the applicative voice often transforms an intransitive verb into a transitive one or a transitive verb into a ditransitive one, with the promoted oblique argument exhibiting core object properties such as triggering verb agreement, receiving default case marking, and being eligible for passivization or other object operations. This promotion does not typically affect the original subject but reconfigures the argument hierarchy to accommodate the new core status. The term "applicative" originates from the Latin applicare, meaning "to apply" or "to attach," reflecting the notion of attaching an additional argument to the verb. It was initially employed in the 16th and 17th centuries by Spanish missionary grammarians to describe similar constructions in like , and later adopted in mid-20th-century studies of , where it gained prominence in typological through systematic analyses of verbal derivations.

Distribution and Typology

Applicative voice constructions are distributed globally but show a strong concentration in certain language types and families. They are particularly prevalent in agglutinative and polysynthetic languages, where verbal morphology allows for the integration of additional arguments through affixation or other means. Prominent examples include the within the Niger-Congo family, where applicatives are a core feature of verbal derivation; Austronesian languages, such as those in and the Pacific; of ; and of the , which exhibit complex polysynthetic structures. In contrast, applicatives are rarer in isolating languages, such as Chinese, which lack dedicated morphological mechanisms for argument promotion and instead rely on lexical or periphrastic strategies. Typologically, applicative constructions are classified based on their structural attachment and semantic scope, following the influential framework proposed by Pylkkänen in 2002. High applicatives attach above the (vP), introducing arguments that relate to the event as a whole, such as beneficiaries or goals, and often affect prominence. Low applicatives, by contrast, merge lower in the , typically within the , and apply to specific thematic roles like themes, instruments, or locations, establishing a closer relation between the applied argument and the verb's internal . This distinction has been refined in subsequent research, including Zúñiga and Creissels's 2023 analysis, which incorporates cross-linguistic variations in morphological realization and interaction with other valency operations. Cross-linguistic frequency data indicate that applicative constructions occur in a substantial minority of languages. The World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS), based on a sample of languages, reports that approximately 45% (83 languages) feature applicative constructions, with 11% (20 languages) limited to benefactive/dative roles and 34% (63 languages) extending to locative, source, goal, or other non-benefactive functions. Recent typological surveys, such as the 2023 edited volume on applicative constructions, document an expanding body of cases from previously understudied regions, including Amazonian languages like Shipibo-Konibo and , contributing to a more nuanced understanding of applicative diversity. The presence of applicatives correlates strongly with head-marking languages, where verbs agree with multiple , and those exhibiting rich verbal morphology, facilitating the encoding of complex argument structures. Emerging from understudied families, such as Japhug Rgyalrong in the Sino-Tibetan phylum, underscores this pattern and reveals applicative derivations that interact with tropative markers for locative or directional roles.

Grammatical Properties

Argument Promotion and Behavior

In applicative voice constructions, oblique arguments—typically marked by case markers or adpositions—are syntactically promoted to core object status, thereby inheriting key grammatical properties of canonical objects, such as assignment, the ability to trigger verb agreement, and adherence to extraction restrictions in syntactic operations. This promotion mechanism effectively elevates peripheral participants, like benefactives or instruments, into the verb's core argument structure without altering the verb root itself, allowing them to participate fully in the clause's syntax. Behavioral tests confirm the core status of these promoted arguments: they can undergo passivization, becoming in passive derivations; serve as heads in relativization; and trigger object agreement on the , distinguishing them from non-promoted obliques. In contrast, the original core object, if present, may be demoted to oblique status or omitted, reflecting a for core positions within the . These tests highlight how promotion integrates the applied argument into the language's primary objecthood diagnostics, such as adjacency to the or pronominal indexing. Applicative voice can apply to intransitive verbs, converting them into transitives by promoting an oblique to object role. It also operates on transitive verbs, in which case the original object may be retained, demoted to oblique status, or omitted, depending on the . The valence increase is optional in such cases, depending on whether the original object is suppressed, which allows for flexible argument configurations without mandatory expansion of the argument frame. Cross-cutting behaviors include the potential for reciprocal interpretations when promoting certain obliques and influences on , where promoted arguments may require specific linear positions relative to the . Recent research underscores variations in behaviors of promoted arguments, with some systems permitting extraction of applied objects while others impose restrictions based on the applicative's structural height. Such patterns are particularly prevalent in Bantu and Austronesian language families, contributing to typological diversity in voice systems.

Valency Changes

Applicative constructions typically function as valency-increasing operations, promoting an oblique argument to core status and thereby raising the verb's valence by one: intransitive verbs become transitive, and transitive verbs become ditransitive. This pattern can be represented formulaically as a shift from base valence nn to n+1n+1, where the added argument assumes a core syntactic role such as direct object. However, in certain typological contexts, this increase may result in no net change if the original direct object is suppressed or demoted, allowing the applied argument to occupy the core object position without expanding the total number of core arguments. The role of suppressed arguments in applicative constructions involves the original direct object being realized as an oblique or omitted altogether, while preserving its underlying semantic role. This demotion is often optional in languages like those in the Bantu family, where both the applied argument and the original object can co-occur with the latter functioning as a secondary object. but it becomes fixed in other systems, such as some Austronesian languages, where the original object is obligatorily suppressed to avoid structural conflict. Typologically, this variation highlights how applicatives balance semantic transparency with syntactic constraints, ensuring the promoted argument integrates into the core structure without fully displacing the base arguments' thematic contributions. Applicative constructions interact differently with transitivity types, particularly distinguishing unaccusatives from unergatives. In unaccusative bases, which lack an external argument and feature an internal theme, applicatives often promote the theme to a higher structural position, resulting in "high" applicative structures that trigger dependent case effects, such as ergative marking on the sole in languages like . Conversely, unergative applicatives, involving an external agent and no internal argument, typically promote locative or other obliques without such case alternations, maintaining a more straightforward transitive outcome. These effects underscore the sensitivity of applicatives to the base verb's configuration, as noted in recent analyses of low-applicative constructions post-2020. Theoretically, applicative voice challenges traditional theta-role hierarchies by permitting flexible mappings between semantic roles and syntactic positions, where applied arguments like beneficiaries can outrank original objects in prominence without adhering to rigid agent-patient scales. This flexibility is particularly evident in low-applicative constructions, where post-2020 studies demonstrate how valence adjustments in unaccusative contexts allow for non-canonical alignments that prioritize relational semantics over fixed hierarchies, enriching cross-linguistic models of realization.

Variations in Applicative Constructions

Multiple Applicative Types

Applicative constructions exhibit a range of semantic types based on the roles promoted by applicative markers, with common categories including benefactive, which introduces a beneficiary or recipient (e.g., "do for X"); instrumental, which adds a tool or means (e.g., "do with X"); locative, which specifies a location (e.g., "do at X"); comitative, which indicates a companion or co-participant (e.g., "do with X"); and malefactive, which denotes an entity adversely affected by the action. These types reflect the promotion of oblique arguments to core status, allowing the verb to encode additional semantic relations without altering the core event structure. Semantic specificity varies across languages: some employ dedicated markers for each type, such as distinct forms for benefactive versus instrumental roles, while polysemous markers are prevalent, relying on contextual disambiguation to convey the intended role. Typological studies identify several core types, including the aforementioned categories plus extensions like portative (for carried objects) and (for reasons or purposes) in some languages, highlighting the diversity in how applicatives encode abstract or concrete relations. Typologically, applicatives divide into high and low subtypes, where high applicatives favor abstract roles like benefactive or , relating the applied argument to the entire event, while low applicatives promote concrete roles such as or , linking the applied argument directly to the theme or object. Recent extensions recognize additional abstract applicatives, including those for purpose or reason, which were previously underrepresented in typological surveys but align with high applicative patterns. These distinctions influence syntactic behavior, with high types often yielding symmetrical object treatment and low types asymmetrical hierarchies. Selection restrictions further differentiate applicative types, as certain markers are incompatible with specific verb classes; for instance, applicatives often do not occur on stative verbs, which lack the dynamic action required for tool usage, limiting their application to eventive or transitive bases. Such constraints ensure semantic coherence, preventing mismatches between the promoted and the verb's inherent properties, and vary by language according to valency patterns.

Stacking and Interactions

In many languages, particularly within the Bantu family, multiple applicative markers can stack on a single , allowing for the promotion of two or more oblique arguments to core status and resulting in tritransitive or higher-valency constructions. For instance, in , a high applicative (e.g., ) can combine with a low applicative (e.g., or recipient), as in structures where a like 'read' takes both a and an instrument as direct objects. Linear ordering of these markers is typically fixed, with low applicatives appearing closer to the root (inner position) and high applicatives farther out (outer position), reflecting their structural height in the . Interactions among stacked applicatives often involve scope effects, where the outer applicative takes scope over the inner one, promoting its argument higher in the argument hierarchy and potentially resolving ambiguities through morphological templatic constraints. In recursive languages like , this can license multiple object clitics or agreement markers, one for each applied , whereas blocking occurs in cases like repeated benefactives, which many languages prohibit to avoid . For example, in Bemba, stacking a benefactive with an is permitted, but double benefactives are disallowed, ensuring distinct thematic roles. Valency outcomes from stacking yield a net increase of two or more arguments, transforming intransitives into ditransitives or transitives into tetratransitives, with applied arguments behaving as core objects subject to the language's symmetry parameters. Recent analyses highlight interactions with causatives, where applicatives often embed under causative heads; in isiXhosa, low applicatives (e.g., directional) must precede the causative , while high applicatives (e.g., benefactive) allow flexible ordering without semantic shift, sometimes violating linearization principles like the Mirror Principle due to licensing requirements. Variation exists, with some languages prohibiting stacking altogether owing to morphological complexity or licensing restrictions—Zulu, for instance, permits only one applicative per clause to limit nominal licensing domains. In Amazonian languages, stacking is attested up to three levels in polysynthetic systems; Nomatsiguenga (Arawakan) allows combinations like -ako (benefactive) and -imo (comitative) on one verb, yielding multi-object clauses such as "give something to someone in someone's presence," while Shiwilu (Kawapanan) features obligatory double applicatives, stacking a locative -tu with affixes like -wa (approximative) to increase valency stepwise.

Cross-Linguistic Examples

Ainu

In Ainu, a spoken in , , applicative constructions are formed using valency-increasing prefixes, with the prefix ko- specifically deriving dative and benefactive applicatives that promote oblique arguments such as goals, recipients, or comitatives to core object status. This prefix attaches to the stem, increasing the 's valency by one, typically shifting intransitive s to transitive ones, and allows the promoted argument to function syntactically as a direct object, often triggering person agreement on the . Unlike some applicatives, the original subject remains obligatory, with no option for its omission. A representative example involves the itak 'speak' or 'say', which becomes transitive with ko- to express speaking to or with someone: akor yupo a-ko-itak glosses as 'I said [so] to my older brother' (1SG-have.older.brother 1SG-APPL-speak), where the dative-like argument 'older brother' is promoted to core object and the verb agrees with both subject and object via prefixes. For comitative promotion, consider akor ekasi ikoonne, translating to 'My grandfather lived with me for a long time', where ko- (in a derived form) elevates the comitative oblique to a core role, conveying association. The promoted argument exhibits accusative-like properties in that it participates in the verb's agreement system as an unmarked core object, aligning with Ainu's head-marking typology. Ainu ko- applicatives frequently encode possession or spatial/temporal association, extending beyond pure benefaction to include roles like addressee (43% of uses) or goal (28%), as analyzed in typological surveys of the construction. Recent analyses highlight their integration with focus marking, where the applicative enhances the salience of peripheral elements, such as in narratives emphasizing relational dynamics. This polyfunctionality underscores ko-'s in Ainu's polysynthetic complex, primarily as a benefactive-type applicative that structures arguments around social or ties.

Swahili

In , a Bantu language spoken primarily in , the applicative voice is realized through a suffixal construction that promotes oblique arguments—such as benefactives, locatives, or goals—to core argument status, often yielding ditransitive verbs from transitive or intransitive bases. This morphological strategy aligns with broader Bantu patterns, where verbal extensions modify valency and argument structure via agglutinative affixes. The applicative is marked by the suffix -i- or -e-, which exhibits conditioned by the final vowel of the stem: -i- follows stems ending in high vowels (/i/ or /u/), while -e- appears after mid or low vowels (/e/, /o/, or /a/). This harmony ensures phonological assimilation within the derived form, a characteristic Bantu trait that maintains euphonic stems. The promotes diverse obliques to indirect object role, enabling the to license an additional core argument that can trigger object agreement on the . A representative example illustrates the valency shift and promotion: the transitive verb andika 'write' in a-li-andik-a barua ('he-PST-write-IND letter'; 'he wrote a letter') becomes ditransitive with the applicative as a-li-ni-andik-i-a barua ('he-PST-1SG.write-APPL-IND letter'; 'he wrote me a letter'), where the beneficiary 'me' (promoted via the agreement prefix -ni-) functions as the indirect object, and the original theme 'letter' remains the direct object. Here, object agreement preferentially targets the applied argument, reflecting Swahili's asymmetrical object behavior in applicative constructions. The construction typically increases valency by one, transforming transitives into ditransitives while preserving the original subject's agency. Stacking with other extensions, such as the causative -ish-, is permitted and follows templatic ordering (e.g., causative before applicative in andik-ish-i-a 'cause to write for'), allowing complex derivations like causative-applicative combinations without exceeding two objects. As a Bantu-specific feature, the applicative suffix participates in vowel harmony, enhancing morphological cohesion.

Yagua

In the Yagua language, a member of the Peba-Yaguan family spoken in northeastern , the applicative voice is realized through the verbal -ta (or its allomorph -tya following certain consonants), which primarily promotes locative or oblique arguments to core object status. This is characteristic of the family's valence-increasing morphology and incorporates tonal distinctions, with the typically bearing high tone (e.g., -tá) to align with Yagua's two-tone system on and affixes. The applicative thereby enhances the verb's argument structure by integrating peripheral roles into the core, distinguishing it from analytic strategies in neighboring language families.[](Payne, Doris L., and Thomas E. Payne. 1990. Yagua. In Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 2, edited by Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 249–474. : Mouton .) A representative example of locative promotion involves the verb root duu 'blow', as in with a blowpipe: the base intransitive form sa-duu rá-viimú glosses as '3SG-blow INAN-into' ('He blows into it'), where the location (e.g., the blowpipe) is oblique. With the applicative, it becomes sa-duu-tá-ra, glossing as '3SG-blow-APPL INAN:OBJ' ('He blows it'), promoting the spatial argument—such as the mouth as the point of blowing—to direct object, while the original theme (e.g., the dart) may be incorporated or contextual. This shift underscores the applicative's in spatial relations to cultural practices like dart propulsion.[](Wise, Mary Ruth. 2002. Applicative affixes in Peruvian Amazonian languages. LiNGUA Amerindia 21: 171–192. http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/illa:vol3n21/illa_vol3n21_wise.pdf) Instrumental promotion follows a parallel pattern, increasing valency from transitive to ditransitive and allowing the tool to function as the primary object, often demoting the original . For instance, the transitive sa-jichitiy-ra jumuru ('3SG-poke-INAN:OBJ '; 'He pokes the ') transforms via the applicative to sa-jichitiy-tya-ra quiichiy ('3SG-poke-APPL-INAN:OBJ '; 'He pokes [it] with the '), where the knife assumes object status and the meat becomes implicit or oblique. Such promotions are lexically conditioned but broadly applicable, reflecting the applicative's flexibility in encoding instrumentals central to Yagua subsistence activities.[](Payne, Doris L., and Thomas E. Payne. 1990. Yagua. In Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 2, edited by Desmond C. Derbyshire and Geoffrey K. Pullum, 249–474. Berlin: Mouton .) Yagua applicatives interact with the language's robust nominal system, which features over 40 classifiers that categorize nouns by shape, function, or and appear in agreement on , numerals, and relativizers. Promoted applicative objects, whether locative or , may trigger classifier selection to maintain anaphora and referential clarity, as classifiers derive from or echo the promoted noun's semantic properties (e.g., a tool classifier for an like quiichiy ''). This integration highlights how applicatives embed within Yagua's typological profile as a classifier-heavy, .[](Payne, Doris L. 1985. Aspects of the Grammar of Yagua: A Typological Perspective. PhD diss., .)

Indo-European Languages

In , applicative constructions are predominantly analytic and periphrastic, relying on alternations and case marking rather than dedicated morphological affixes to promote oblique arguments, such as recipients or beneficiaries, to core object status. This contrasts with more explicit morphological applicatives in non-Indo-European languages and allows for valency increases through syntactic reconfiguration, often termed "dative alternation" or "dative shift." These patterns are evident in Germanic branches, where verbs like those denoting transfer promote datives without altering verbal morphology. In English, the dative shift exemplifies a periphrastic applicative, where a prepositional phrase introduced by "to" (e.g., "give the to John") alternates with a double object construction (e.g., "give John the "), promoting the recipient to indirect object position via syntactic reordering. This alternation applies to verbs of caused possession, such as "give" or "sell," but is verb-sensitive, with some verbs (e.g., "throw") permitting broader semantic interpretations including caused motion. No morphological changes occur, but the shift encodes or recipient promotion, increasing perceived valency through argument structure adjustment. Beneficiaries can also appear via "for" phrases (e.g., "bake a cake for Mary"), functioning similarly without true alternation. German exhibits a comparable dative alternation, particularly with transfer verbs like "geben" (give), where the indirect object uses a dative-marked recipient (e.g., "Ich gebe dem Kind das Buch" – "I give the the ") and alternates with a prepositional object construction using "an" + accusative (e.g., "Ich gebe das Buch an das Kind"). This promotes the recipient without additional marking, forming a double object-like structure in the dative variant, though German lacks a full English-style double accusative. The alternation is constrained by verb semantics, with "geben" favoring the dative for direct transfer, and corpus show balanced usage between the two forms in present-day German. Swedish mirrors these patterns in its double object construction, where prepositional phrases with "till" (to) drop to yield direct promotion (e.g., "ge boken till barnet" – "give the book to the child" → "ge barnet boken" – "give the child the book"). This analytic shift increases valency via , applying to verbs like "ge" (give), and reflects historical evolution from Old Swedish dative uses. Recent analyses highlight pragmatic constraints, including a decline in double object frequency, reduced lexical richness, and semantic narrowing since the , influenced by information structure preferences favoring prepositional clarity in complex contexts. Across these languages, the constructions share analytic traits: no morphological applicative markers, reliance on case or prepositions for oblique encoding, and word order-driven promotion that enhances recipient salience. These periphrastic strategies parallel morphological applicatives in function but adapt to fusional case systems, with semantic and pragmatic factors limiting alternation scope.

Similar Processes

The dative shift represents a syntactic alternation in which an indirect object, typically marked by a preposition like "to" or "for," is promoted to a direct object position without altering the verb's valency, thereby resembling the object promotion in applicative constructions but lacking morphological marking on the verb. For instance, in English, the construction "give a to her" alternates with "give her a ," where the recipient shifts to a double object structure, a process analyzed as involving a low applicative head in some frameworks but distinct from true applicatives due to its non-valence-increasing nature. This alternation occurs in many and highlights a shared feature of argument promotion with applicatives, though it relies on phrasal reconfiguration rather than affixation. Light verb constructions provide another parallel, functioning as periphrastic mechanisms to promote or integrate oblique arguments into core roles through semantically bleached verbs such as "give," "make," or "do," often yielding effects akin to benefactive or applicative promotion without direct valence increase. An example is the English "do her a favor," where the "do" facilitates integration, similar to how applicatives license additional objects; however, these constructions are analytic and cross-linguistically variable, contrasting with the synthetic morphology of applicatives. In languages like Basque and Romance varieties, light verbs such as "hacer" (make) combine with nominal hosts to form complex predicates that promote datives or benefactives, underscoring their applicative-like role in argument structure but through lexical rather than inflectional means. Adpositional incorporation involves the morphological fusion of prepositional or postpositional elements with verbs, creating pseudo-applicative effects where oblique arguments appear more tightly bound to the predicate, though without genuine valence expansion. Recent typological research classifies these as "applicative-like" structures, as seen in languages where adpositions incorporate to denote locative or roles, promoting to object status syntactically but preserving their semantic obliqueness. For example, in certain , adposition-based incorporation innovatively binds spatial obliques to verbs, mimicking applicative promotion yet differing in its derivational source from free adpositions. Benefactive datives exhibit significant semantic overlap with applicatives, as both constructions often promote beneficiaries to core argument status, encoding affectedness or possession without always requiring morphological valence change. This resemblance is evident in languages with dative-marked beneficiaries that have been analyzed as high applicatives, licensing indirect objects that convey benefit, though datives may rely on case marking alone rather than verbal affixation. Such overlaps highlight a continuum in argument promotion strategies, where benefactive semantics bridge dative and applicative functions across typological profiles.

Distinctions from Other Voices

The applicative voice differs from the voice primarily in its effect on argument structure: applicatives promote an existing oblique argument (such as a or instrument) to core object status without introducing a new causer, thereby increasing valency while preserving the original event participants, whereas causatives introduce an external causer as a new agent and typically demote the original agent to a causee role. In languages permitting stacking of these operations, such as many , the applicative is generally ordered closer to the verbal root (inner) than the , reflecting their distinct attachment sites in the . In contrast to passive and antipassive voices, which decrease valency, applicatives increase it by elevating obliques to core arguments; passives demote the agent to an oblique or omit it while promoting the patient to subject, and antipassives demote or absorb the patient (object) into an oblique while focusing on the agent. This valency-increasing property aligns applicatives more closely with causatives than with these detransitivizing voices, though applicatives do not add new semantic roles like causers. The middle voice, by comparison, typically maintains or reduces valency without promoting additional arguments, instead emphasizing the subject's involvement in , often with reflexive or medial interpretations that do not introduce new core participants. Theoretical analyses highlight structural distinctions, such as applicatives merging as to vP or as dedicated applicative heads that allow flexible movement across phases, in contrast to passives, which involve a dedicated Voice head that restricts agent realization. From a theoretical perspective, applicatives preserve the theta-grid of the base verb—its core semantic roles and their associations—while remapping the syntactic positions of arguments to accommodate the promoted oblique, unlike voices such as passives or middles that fix or alter valence more rigidly.

References

  1. http://www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-ESSLT.pdf
  2. http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/dm/theses/pylkkanen02.pdf
  3. https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9781780523774/B9781780523774-s007.pdf
  4. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/applicative-constructions-9780199270927
  5. https://wals.info/chapter/109
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377449417_30_Applicatives_cross-linguistically_Features_and_distribution
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248985414_David_A_Peterson_Applicative_constructions_Oxford_Studies_in_Typology_and_Linguistic_Theory
  8. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/148812/24-953-spring-2003/contents/lecture-notes/applpylkkanenspring03.pdf
  9. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110730951/html
  10. https://dr.ntu.edu.sg/bitstream/10356/177619/2/2_Jacques_Applicative_tropative_FINAL1.pdf
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372951563_Understanding_applicatives
  12. https://lingconf.com/parameters/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/03/paper_12_nie.pdf
  13. https://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~dlpayne/Nilotic/LamoureauxMaasaiApplicatives.pdf
  14. https://direct.mit.edu/ling/article/54/3/479/107700/High-and-Low-Applicatives-of-Unaccusatives
  15. https://academic.oup.com/book/58614/chapter/485040240
  16. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/grammatical-voice/changing-semantic-valency-causatives-applicatives-and-related-constructions/053B58BCEF8A25E0A08EE35A3456ADF6
  17. https://www.academia.edu/17570277/Objects_in_Bantu_Ditransitive_Applicative_Constructions
  18. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00513
  19. https://hdl.handle.net/2144/50528
  20. http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/illa:vol3n21/illa_vol3n21_wise.pdf
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/34068006_The_morphosyntax_of_applicatives
  22. https://www2.hawaii.edu/~kamil/Chapter%202.pdf
  23. https://cla-acl.ca/pdfs/actes-2014/Liu-2014.pdf
  24. https://www.academia.edu/27743534/Swahili_vowel_harmony
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47563794_Properties_of_applied_objects_in_Kiswahili_and_Kindendeule
  26. http://home.uchicago.edu/merchant/classes/syntax1.2005/applicatives.handout.pdf
  27. https://www.njas.fi/njas/article/download/117/110/223
  28. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/258
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232005294_The_English_dative_alternation_The_case_for_verb_sensitivity
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324819142_Alternating_constructions_with_ditransitive_%27geben%27_in_present-day_German
  31. https://benjamins.com/catalog/sigl.7.04val
  32. https://brill.com/display/title/69340
  33. https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/kantarovich.3/JLC_areality_incorporation_preproof.pdf
  34. https://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/BosseBruening-Benefactives.pdf
  35. https://brucehayes.org/205/Readings/Hyman_SuffixOrderingInBantu_2002.pdf
  36. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/bitstreams/88f750fe-d915-4a43-8f89-64aac7e7d6a6/download
  37. http://web.mit.edu/norvin/www/24.956/Pylkkanen.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.