Toward a diachronic typology of applicative constructions

This study, in order to be a contribution to the diachronic typology of applicative constructions, aimed to find possible correlations between diachronic sources of applicatives and synchronic statuses of the applicatives as described in the modern time, and how different patterns of diachronic processes are theoretically possible or are attested to form various aspects of the applicatives, with 50 sample languages which have applicative constructions. First, applicative systems in particular languages in a diachronic perspective, in which diachronic models were presented and discussed of how the number of applicative markers in a language and the number of meanings of each applicative marker can develop. It was also suggested that, if a language has only one applicative marker, it is not likely to have an adpositional origin. Second, focusing on the aspect of applicative markers related to word order patterns, it was observed how many applicative prefixes develop from postpositions, and how many applicative suffixes develop from prepositions or verbs, even leading to the correlation between applicative marker types and word order patterns whereby languages with applicative prefixes harmonize with VO order and languages with applicative suffixes are equally attested with both VO order and OV order. Then, it was attempted to capture historical backgrounds of optional applicative constructions and obligatory applicative constructions in a consistent way. First of all, for optional applicatives, how differences in diachronic sources of applicative markers could result in different pathways to reach the optionality of the applicative markers, in interaction with the diachrony of semantically compatible non-applicative strategies. Also, optional applicatives were divided according to the ways in which promotions of applied arguments occur: obligatory, optional, or impossible, and historical relatedness between an applicative marker and its semantically compatible non-applicative strategy were discussed as a possible diachronic factor determining obligatoriness, optionality, and impossibility of promotion in applicativization. For obligatory applicative constructions, after discussing the distinction of obligatory applicative constructions according to in what way the applicativization is obligatory: fully-obligatory or conditionally-obligatory, how differences in diachronic sources of applicative markers could result in different pathways to reach the obligatoriness of the applicative markers, in interaction with the diachrony of semantically compatible non-applicative strategies, in a similar way done for optional applicative constructions. It was suggested that applicative markers of non-adpositional origins could be more likely to be obligatory than those of adpositional origins. After that, based on the fact that optionality and obligatoriness of applicative markers are historically in a cyclic relationship, the possible diachronic scenarios reaching the status of optionality and obligatoriness of applicative markers presented in the preceding chapters were brought together, and more scenarios theoretically possible were added, so that a whole picture capturing the rise and fall of optional and obligatory applicative markers was gained. Finally, what historical conditions allow multiple applicativization were discussed, in which a few tentative proposals were presented.