Pacchiarotti, S. & F. Zúñiga: Applicative Morphology. Neglected Syntactic and Non-syntactic Functions

This review concerns a challenging book for the typology of applicatives, since the book is focused on recurrent functions of applicative morphology not usually included in typologically-oriented definitions. The book thus proposes a form-based approach to applicative constructions, which raises not only the question of how to define applicatives but also, more generally, how to categorize morphosyntactic phenomena. Consisting of 15 papers, this book offers a sample of geographically distant and genetically unrelated languages, which provides important and substantial cross-linguistic evidence on non-prototypical functions of applicative morphology.

In the first paper on Amerindian languages, Lilián Guerrero presents ‘Typical and atypical applicative constructions in Yaqui’, a Uto-Aztecan language spoken in northwestern Mexico. The next paper, written by Martin Kohlberger, is focused on ‘The functions of applicative morphology in Shiwiar’, a Chicham language from eastern Ecuador and northern Peru. In ‘Applicatives and beyond: Barbareño Chumash’, Marianne Mithun explores the polyfunctionality of applicative morphemes in a Chumashan language spoken along the south-central coast of California. Sergio Ibáñez Cerda, Alejandra Itzel Ortiz Villegas and Armando Mora-Bustos study the ‘Applicative periphrastic constructions in the Colombian Spanish from the Andes’, and An Van linden describes the uses of ‘Spatial prefixes as applicatives in Harakmbut’, a language spoken in the south-east Peruvian Amazon.

African languages are represented by members of the Bantu and Nilotic families. The diachrony of applicative morphemes in Bantu languages is studied by Hannah Gibson, Lutz Marten, Maarten Mous and Kristina Riedel in the paper ‘Valency and saliency in Bantu applicatives: A diachronic reanalysis’, while Hilde Gunnink and Sara Pacchiarotti focus on ‘Neglected functions of the Bantu applicative in relation to Locations: New insights from Fwe’, a Bantu language spoken in Zambia and Namibia. Finally, Doris Payne analyzes the uses of directionals as applicative markers in ‘The applicative(-like) function of Nilotic directionals: Introducing themes’.

The first paper on Asian languages is ‘An applicative analysis of Soranî “absolute prepositions”’ by Shuan Osman Karim and Ali Salehi, which focuses on a Central Kurdish variety spoken in Iraq and Iran. In ‘Applicatives in Macro-Tani languages: Forms, functions and historical origins’, Yankee Modi and Mark W. Post discuss applicative constructions in a small group of Trans-Himalayan languages spoken in northeastern India and Tibet. Several Tibetic languages are also considered by Camille Simon in her study on ‘The sociative/benefactive applicative construction and the introduction of attitude holders in Tibetan’. Austronesian languages are studied in three papers. Thomas E. Payne and Voltaire Q. Oyzon describe ‘Canonical and non-canonical applicatives in Waray’, an Austronesian language spoken in the Philippines. The paper ‘Neglected functions of western Indonesian applicatives’ by Christina L. Truong and Bradley McDonnell includes the study of nine Austronesian languages spoken in western Indonesia and eastern Malaysia, and finally, Jozina Vander Klok and Bethwyn Evans explore ‘The evolution of non-syntactic functions of applicatives: -i suffixation in Javanese and neighboring languages’, which also belong to the Austronesian family.

The prototypical function of applicative constructions is usually located within the domain of voice alternation and as such, applicatives are defined both formally and functionally, combining verbal morphology and valency alternation. A valency alternation usually implies the presence of two constructions having the same verb (the base construction, and the valency-derived construction) and showing variations in the verb valency, that is in the correspondence between the number and type of essential participants expressed in both constructions and the encoding of the corresponding arguments. Verb valency thus corresponds to the ability of verbs to require the presence of a certain number and type of semantically essential participants associated with a particular morphosyntactic encoding. Interestingly, a distinction can be made between semantic valency indicating the number and type of participants required by the situation denoted by the verb, and syntactic valency indicating the number and type of arguments overtly expressed in the construction in which the predication is headed by this same verb (Payne 1997).

In applicativization strategies, the verb valency change is morphologically oriented, since it is marked by the use of an applicative morpheme attached to the base verb. This morphological process is thus associated with the manipulation of the base verb valency. This combination of morphology and syntax is acknowledged by Sara Pacchiarotti and Fernando Zúñiga in the excellent introduction to this volume (p. 1), when they mention that the first fundamental attribute of applicativization is to be “a productive verbal derivational process with syntactic consequences”, meaning that the use of verbal affixation for indicating a syntactic function is thus definitory of applicatives. But what kind of syntactic functions are then associated with applicative morphemes?

The traditional definition commonly accepted for the applicative notion includes syntactic valency increasing and promotion to object as two definitional properties. An applicative construction is then a syntactic derivation in which the verb of the base construction receives an affix (the applicative morpheme) in order to indicate that an oblique/peripheral participant of the base construction is promoted to be a new object (the applied phrase) in the applicative-derived construction. As demonstrated by this volume, this traditional definition of applicatives can be viewed now as the narrow conception, usually referred to as prototypical applicatives or canonical applicatives (for instance, Dixon 2012; Peterson 2007).

This volume allows us to depart from this narrow conception in several aspects. The first departure comes from considering cases in which the applied object cannot be expressed at all in the base construction. The syntactic valency increase is still present, but in this case, there is no object promotion, but rather an object creation. This type is named “quasi-applicatives” by Dixon (2012: 299), or “obligatory” applicatives (Creissels 2024; Peterson 2007; Zúñiga and Creissels 2024), prototypical/canonical applicatives being then “optional” applicatives.

Different papers in this volume corroborate the fact that obligatory applicatives are not uncommon, being found in Shiwiar (Kohlberger), Barbareño Chumash (Mithun), Harakmbut (Van linden), Fwe (Gunnink and Pacchiarotti), Nilotic languages (D. Payne), Macro-Tani languages (Modi and Post), Waray (T. Payne and Oyzon), Tibetic languages (Simon), and Javanese (Vander Klok and Evans). This indicates that object promotion is not a necessary condition for applicativization, and that the applicative function has to do first with the introduction of a new object, not with its promotion. In this conception, the syntactic function of applicatives is thus to introduce a new P argument (the applied phrase) to the argument structure of the underived verb root/stem, independently of its possible presence in the base construction. This conception raises an interesting question not really attended to in this volume about the distinction between transitivization and obligatory P-applicativization.

The second departure from the traditional conception corresponds to the semantic type of the applied participant. As assumed in the prototypical applicative, the P argument added to the situation denoted by the base verb is usually a peripheral participant, i.e., a non-agentive and non-patientive participant such as a beneficiary, an instrument, a location, etc. As shown in Table 1, these semantic roles most commonly associated with applicative morphology are well represented in this volume: Benefactive applicatives are found in ten papers, locative/spatial applicatives in eight, and instrumental applicatives in six.

However, this volume also shows the great diversity of possible semantic roles involved in applicativization processes. In the spatial domain, applied participants such as directions (Mithun), destinations (T. Payne and Oyzon), goals (Van linden; D. Payne, Truong and McDonnell; Vander Klok and Evans) and sources (D. Payne; Karim and Salehi; T. Payne and Oyzon; Van linden) are illustrated, including a syncretism between goal and recipient (Vander Klok and Evans) and different types of sources (elative and ablative applicatives in Karim and Salehi). Other types of syncretism are possible. The common syncretism between benefactive and malefactive is illustrated in Yaqui (also involving the substitutive, Guerrero), Nilotic (D. Payne), and Macro-Tani languages (Modi and Post), while Karim and Salehi identify in Soranî the less common syncretism between malefactive and ablative. Malefactive can also be marked by dedicated applicative morphology as shown in T. Payne and Oyzon. The same can happen for recipients (Karim and Salehi; T. Payne and Oyzon). Other more infrequent peripheral roles are also exemplified, such as comitative (Karim and Salehi; D. Payne; Modi and Post), substitutive (on behalf of, Guerrero; Gunnink and Pacchiarotti), associative (help someone to, Simon; T. Payne and Oyzon), superlative/comparative/evaluative (Karim and Salehi; Modi and Post; T. Payne and Oyzon), and prioritive (before someone, Modi and Post). Applicative morphemes can also introduce reasons and purposes as shown in Truong and McDonnell, experiencers as shown in Kohlberger and in Modi and Post with the rare territive introducing a terrified participant, as well as manners in D. Payne, and in Modi and Post with very rare cases of imitative (imitating someone) and eruditive (teaching someone).

Besides these peripheral participants, applicative morphology can also involve central/core participants, as shown in D. Payne and in Truong and McDonnell. Both papers use the notion of theme for these central/core participants, which usually refer to a location/source/goal/theme in caused-motion events, to the content of an act of speech or cognition, or to the stimulus of a perception or emotion verb. Some authors (for example, Lehmann and Verhoeven 2006) do not consider these cases as applicatives, since in their definition of applicativization, the referent of the applied P cannot be an essential participant in the event/situation described by the base verb. The notion of peripherality associated with the applied phrase is obviously challenged by these cases, and following the form-based approach of this volume a distinction can thus be made between two types of applicatives: peripheral applicatives introducing peripheral participants and core applicatives introducing central participants.

Another challenge posed by this volume to the traditional definition of applicatives has to do with the encoding of the applied participant, since this volume also shows that applicative morphology can introduce applied participants as non-core arguments. This is illustrated in Ibáñez et al., Modi and Post, and Simon, with applied phrases marked as dative, and in Modi and Post, with applied phrases marked as oblique. Additionally, the marking of the applied phrase can remain as an adjunct, but since its presence has become obligatory via the applicativization, this applied phrase now functions as a non-core argument. It is thus possible to expand the syntactic functions associated with the applied phrase, adding to the P argument function other non-subject syntactic functions, such as the indirect object or dative, and the oblique functions. Although these possibilities have been previously mentioned in the literature (Margetts and Austin 2007 refer to ‘oblique applicatives’, and Beck 2009 to ‘nondirect applicatives’), these constructions are usually not integrated in the applicative definition. If they are included, the syntactic function of applicatives thus becomes the addition of a non-subject participant in the situation denoted by the base verb, and new distinctions can then be established between P-applicatives (adding a direct object), D-applicatives (adding a dative or indirect object), and X-applicatives (adding an oblique, Creissels 2024; Zúñiga and Creissels 2024). In this conception, the syntactic function associated with the applicative morphology has been extended to all non-subject functions (the narrow traditional conception thus refers to an optional P-applicative), and applicativization does not always increase the syntactic valency; only P-applicatives do.

This volume also illustrates other cases of the syntactic valency-neutral use of applicative morphology. Truong and McDonnell, and T. Payne and Oyzon show the absence of syntactic valency increase in what have been named “redirective applicatives” (Kiyosawa 2006), and “registration applicatives” (Hernández-Green 2016). The first case has to do with languages that do not accept constructions with two Ps. The introduction of an applied P in a transitive base construction is then incompatible with the maintenance of the original P in P role, which is thus either expressed as an oblique or deleted. In such situations, P-applicativization of transitive verbs thus involves an antipassivization with the demotion or deletion of the original P, which neutralizes the syntactic valency increase corresponding to applicativization. The second case is represented by the use of the applicative marker to indicate the pragmatic prominence of an oblique (most commonly a locative or instrumental adjunct) without any change in the base construction structure. In addition to Truong and McDonnell, and T. Payne and Oyzon, Gunnink and Pacchiarotti also show that the use of an applicative marker to express focalization of a locative phrase, without any change in the semantic roles or the coding of the base construction participants, is common in Bantu languages.

This volume also discusses another case in which applicative morphology is syntactically valency-neutral. In this construction type, the applicative morpheme appears attached to the base verb but the applied participant is not overtly marked, although it is semantically present. Two chapters (Kohlberger; Van linden) illustrate such cases, in which the presence of a notional but not overtly expressed applied participant is highlighted by the applicative morphology without a syntactic valency increase. In these cases, applicativization is just a matter of semantic valency and discourse topicality, with the applicative morpheme indicating the presence of an implicit non-agent and non-patient participant in the situation denoted by the base construction. D. Payne’s paper suggests an interesting cognitive/constructional approach to such cases. A distinction is made between the argument structure of a verb and the profiling of this structure, that is between what is lexically subcategorized as part of the core argument frame of the underived verb root and what participant types are scene-evoked in the applicative situation. The applicative morpheme would be used in these cases to profile (cognitively activate) a participant that is latent or implicit in the event scenario, without the necessity to overtly encode this participant.

Cases in which the applicative morphology does not involve a syntactic valency increase are problematic for the definition of applicatives. A solution would be to propose a definition of applicativization including cases of semantic valency increase, without increasing syntactic valency. In such cases, the semantic valency increases, since an applied participant is introduced/evoked/profiled in the situation denoted by the base construction, but the syntactic valency is not increased, since this applied participant is identically marked or is not marked, but just inferred in the applicative-derived construction. Two types of applicatives could thus be distinguishable according to the type of valency change associated with the applicative morpheme: syntactic and semantic applicatives, which introduce an applied participant via its encoding as a non-subject argument (syntactically-increasing applicatives, +1-applicatives), and semantic applicatives, which introduce an applied participant without encoding it as a non-subject argument (not-syntactically-increasing applicatives, 0-applicatives).

In sum, this volume demonstrates that applicative morphology is not always associated with the two features (promotion to object of a peripheral participant, syntactic valency increasing) used to define prototypical applicatives, which emphasizes the necessity to assume a broad conception characterized by the existence of different types of applicatives:

1. Applicativization can lead to the promotion to object of the applied participant (optional applicatives), but in some languages there is no promotion but rather creation of an applied participant as an object (obligatory applicatives)

2. Applicativization usually involves the peripherality of the applied participant (peripheral applicatives), but in some languages core applied participants are also possible (core applicatives)

3. Applicativization usually entails the object status of the applied participant (P- applicatives), but in some languages non-core applied participants are also possible (D- and X-applicatives)

4. Applicativization usually increases syntactic valency (+1-applicatives), but in some languages only semantic valency is increased (0-applicatives).

The existence of different types of applicatives thus makes it necessary to redefine applicatives, adopting a broad vision that encompasses these different types. The encompassing function of applicatives would thus be to introduce a non-subject applied participant – which can be encoded or just implied (unmarked) in the applicative construction – in the situation denoted by the base construction. Therefore, applicativization does not always involve an increase in syntactic valency, although it always involves an increase in semantic valency. As for the prototypical applicative, it is in fact an optional, peripheral, P-applicative, with syntactic and semantic valency increasing (+1-applicatives). This volume thus not only expands our knowledge of applicatives but also questions the prototypicality of this optional P-applicative, suggesting that the still widespread view, according to which optional P-applicatives are the canonical variety of applicatives, has in fact to be abandoned.

This new broad conception of applicative constructions has been achieved through an approach that seeks to define morphosyntactic constructions based on form. It starts from individual forms in languages (often grammatical markers, like an applicative morpheme) to describe their functions, semantics, and the morphosyntax of the constructions in which they are used, and later contrasts them with other forms in the same language, or with functionally similar forms in other languages. As this volume shows, the benefits of this approach include shedding light on patterns of multifunctionality, and functional expansion and grammaticalization processes involving applicative morphology. By assuming a form-based approach to applicatives, this volume also argues for the widening of the notion of applicatives based on the different functions cross-linguistically encoded by applicative morphemes. The inclusion of non-prototypical functions of applicative morphology in the definition of applicatives is, however, problematic.

Applicative morphology is morphology used for an applicative function, but in this form-based approach, the problem is whether to consider any function marked by the applicative morphology as part of the applicative function. Ideally, in this formal approach non-prototypical functions of applicative morphology have to be considered in the definition of applicatives. For instance, the functional expansion to D- and X-applicatives seems to be justified since the syntactic functions of applicatives are extended to include other non-subject functions that are marked in some languages by the same morphological strategy as the one used for P-applicativization. However, if the definition of applicatives is based on the syntactic functions encoded by applicative morphology, how should one deal with the common applicative/causative syncretism or with the less common applicative/antipassive syncretism (Creissels 2024; Malchukov 2017)? It is usually assumed in these cases that the morphology used is not definitory, and that if the verbal morpheme triggers the introduction of a subject, it is a causative marker, but if it triggers the elimination or demotion of an object, it is an antipassive marker. An extreme application of the form-based approach in these cases would challenge us to find a way to include in one all-encompassing function applicatives and causatives, on the one hand, and applicatives and antipassives in the other hand. Such a definition would be clearly difficult to operationalize, although it could illuminate the connections between these valency alternations.

This problem of form-based definitions is even more obvious in the use of applicative morphology for indicating not a syntactic function but instead the semantic and pragmatic manipulation of the entity referred to as the applied phrase. Indeed, this volume shows that applicatives can be used to express topic continuity or focalization. The discourse use of applicative morphology for topic continuity is illustrated in Guerrero. Several chapters show that applicative morphology is used for different types of narrow focus on the applied participant (see the chapters of Gibson et al.; Modi and Post; Gunnink and Pacchiarotti), but also to shift the attention of the hearer to a notional location, usually not overtly expressed (Kohlberger), or to mitigate the effect of a command, a request or a complaint (Ibáñez et al.). In these cases, if these discourse functions do not imply a valency increase in comparison with the base construction, these constructions should not be considered as applicatives, since applicative is defined as a valency increasing mechanism. These discourse functions are motivations for applicativization, but they are not definitory of applicatives.

The extension of the term ‘applicative’ to constructions in which semantic valency is increased without a corresponding syntactic valency increase, also does not allow us to include applicative-like constructions used for conveying aspectual nuances to the predicate (intensity, repetition, habituality) or its arguments (partitive P, highly individuated P). For instance, in Bantu languages (Gunnink and Pacchiarotti), applicative morphology can convey aspectual/semantic functions on the predicate (completion, intensity, persistence, repetition). Similarly in Austronesian languages (Truong and McDonnell; Vander Klok and Evans; T. Payne and Oyzon), applicative morphology can affect the semantics of the applied participant, usually implying the applied participant’s greater affectedness or definiteness/specificity. Although these functions are mainly associated with an increase of the semantic transitivity of the base construction, an opposite semantic change is observed in Waray (T. Payne and Oyzon), where applicative morphology is used for conveying meanings of mitigation or attenuation, involving an applied participant marked as a partitive absolutive and referring to a less than completely affected participant. Again, if there is no increase in the syntactic or semantic valency of the base verb, these applicative-marked constructions should not be considered as applicative constructions, even though they involve applicative morphology.

Other uses of applicative morphology are also challenging to categorize as representing the applicative function, since they do not satisfy the conception of applicativization as a valency increasing alternation. In these uses, the applicative morpheme does not conform to the expected applicative use since the semantic relationship with the base verb is idiosyncratic or because of the absence of a base verb. The first case of these pseudo-applicatives is represented by lexicalized applicatives – that is, verbs having the form commonly found in applicative constructions but not clearly analyzable in a strictly synchronic perspective as applicative derivatives, since the meaning of the base verb has changed in such a way that the derived construction cannot be interpreted as the same situation denoted by the base verb but with the addition of a new applied participant. The second case corresponds to applicative deponent verbs or applicativa tantum (Zúñiga and Creissels 2024), that is, verbs occurring with the marker that distinguishes base and applicativized forms of other verbs but for which the expected base verb does not exist in the language. Both cases are illustrated in Mithun, Van linden, Gunnink and Pacchiarotti, and Truong and McDonnell, confirming that lexicalization of applicatives is a cross-linguistically common phenomenon. The lexicalization of applicatives is also observable in the lexico-genetic function of applicative morphology as part of verbal derivation. Indeed, applicative morphology is often used for word-formation, especially as a denominal/deadjectival verbalizer, as exemplified in several chapters in this volume (Kohlberger; T. Payne and Oyzon; Truong and McDonnell; Vander Klok and Evans). In all these lexical cases, the presence of applicative morphology is clearly not sufficient to consider these lexical derivations as part of the valency increasing functions defining applicative constructions. The study of how lexico-genesis (word-formation, lexical derivation) and valency (syntactic derivation) are related in applicatives needs, however, to be further developed, a topic beyond the scope of the papers of this volume.

As expected in a form-based approach, several contributions of this volume also discuss the diachrony of applicative constructions and their (non-syntactic) functions. Applicative periphrases as a possible source of applicative markers are, for instance, proposed for Macro-Tani languages (Modi and Post) via the morphologization of an earlier serial verb construction, and in Colombian Andean Spanish (Ibáñez et al.), in which the grammaticalization of a ‘give’ verb in benefactive applicative periphrases is on its way to becoming an applicative marker. In addition to preverbs, Karim and Salehi present adposition incorporation as a source of applicative markers in Soranî, in this particular case from “absolute” prepositions, with an applicative marker resulting from the phonological reduction and fusion of a preposition followed by a third person singular pronoun in the oblique case. Simon proposes that in several Tibetic languages the applicative construction come from the re-verbalization (via a light verb) of a nominal compound featuring a lexical verb followed by a bound root with meanings of association or help. Cross-referencing verbal clitics as a possible source of applicative markers are discussed in Kohlberger, who argues that Shiwiar applicative markers originated from first person object indexes through the reanalysis of a construction in which an adpositional phrase was cross-referenced by a verbal enclitic. Along with these familiar origins, this volume also reveals a source in spatial-verb morphology that has not yet been attested for applicative morphology. In unrelated languages and phyla (Nilotic languages for D. Payne, an isolate language from Peru for Van linden), T. Payne and Van linden each show that this newly identified source for applicative markers involves spatial affixes that acquire the possibility to introduce first spatial arguments and then non-spatial arguments (theme arguments in D. Payne, human non-agent arguments in Van linden). In Nilotic languages, the directional prefixes that have developed an applicative function come from the associated motion morphology, and probably these itive and venitive morphemes derive from verb serialization. As for the diachronic relationships between syntactic and non-syntactic functions of applicative morphology, this volume shows that applicative markers can be grammaticalized as aspectual markers (Vander Klok and Evans; T. Payne and Oyzon), and pragmaticalized as markers of saliency (Gibson et al.) or attitude holder (Simon).

As the subtitle of the book indicates, the deviation from the prototypical applicative definition is functional in all papers, and only one paper involves a formal deviation in which the applicative marking is not an affix, but the verb dar ‘give’ in Spanish from Andean Colombia (Ibáñez et al.). The presence of this periphrastic applicative looks out of place in this volume, since no applicative morphology is involved. Instead of an applicative affix, it is a verb that allows for the introduction of the applied participant. Its inclusion seems justified as a case of applicatives-in-the-making. However, the denomination “periphrastic” for the notion of applicative opens the possibility of adopting another approach to the problem of how to define applicative constructions.

Indeed, the form-based approach used in this volume contrasts with a function-based approach, which represents the other common approach for the definition of morphosyntactic constructions. Both approaches are applicable for language comparison and language description (Lehmann 1989). However, in contrast to the form-based approach, in a function-based approach constructions are defined functionally and the goal is to identify the formal ways in which individual languages encode particular functions, and then compare the results. Language-internally, this approach serves to capture the diversity of morphosyntactic resources used to encode a single function, and from a cross-linguistic perspective, it serves to identify patterns of the distribution of particular encoding mechanisms. In this case, as is usually done for causatives, it would be possible to identify lexical applicatives, morphological applicatives, periphrastic applicatives, and bi-clausal applicatives, according to the formal device used for the introduction of the applied participant. Although this function-based approach has been easily assumed for causative constructions (see for instance Dixon 2012), applicative constructions have not received a similar treatment and their study is thus commonly restricted to morphological applicatives, since they are considered as part of a voice system; that is, a mechanism of valency alternation marked by verbal affixes.

In conclusion, this book challenges current typologically-oriented definitions of applicative morphology since it allows us to question the adequacy of the applicative prototype, showing the existence of different types of applicatives. It argues for a broader characterization of applicative constructions based on a form-based approach, but at the same time it raises a certain number of questions about the limitations of this approach for defining and categorizing morphosyntactic constructions such as applicatives. This book also reminds us that a comprehensive typology of any linguistic construction should address the boundaries of the posited construction from both a formal and a functional perspective. Even though cases of non-prototypical syntactic behavior are attested in the literature on applicative morphemes, these atypical behaviors have not been really studied or described in depth. This book therefore makes an important contribution to broadening our understanding of what applicative morphology can do in addition to the syntactic function usually associated with applicative constructions, showing that applicative morphology can be involved in considerably heterogeneous phenomena, not only syntactically but also semantically, pragmatically, discursively, and lexico-genetically. This multifunctionality opens up a number of unexplored research questions about the diachronic and synchronic relations between the syntactic and non-syntactic functions of applicative morphology. This invitation to further explore these relations undoubtedly represents another major achievement of this very stimulating book.