Chapter 82Applicative Stacking, Ordering, and the Feeding of Relativization

82.1 Overview

Two feeding relations connect the applicative prefixes to other grammatical operations of the verb word. Oblique nominals — instrumentals, locatives, goals, purpose arguments — cannot incorporate directly into the verb; an applicative prefix must first promote the oblique to core-object status, after which incorporation can proceed Shibatani (1990: 62, 66); Nakagawa (2024: 484); Satō (2022: §1). Bare obliques are equally inaccessible to the prenominal gap strategy that Hokkaido Ainu uses in relative clauses; applicative promotion again opens the relativization path by moving the nominal to the direct-object tier of the accessibility hierarchy Kaiser (1998); Dal Corso (2020); (Keenan & Comrie 1977). Both relations turn on the same structural shift: from a postposition-marked peripheral role to an unmarked core object whose position is targetable by later grammatical operations ‹speculative›. This synthesis — grounded in the convergent evidence of Shibatani (1990), Nakagawa (2024), Kaiser (1998), and Dal Corso (2020) on the promotion logic — is a proposal original to this grammar.

The chapter also treats applicative stacking — the co-occurrence of two applicative prefixes on one verb — together with the two feeding relations, since stacking creates the complex valency frames in which both paths may apply simultaneously. The individual prefixes e- ‘about / by means of / at’, ko- ‘toward / together with’, and o- ‘into / toward a place’ are treated in Chapter 79 (The e- Applicative), Chapter 80 (The ko- Applicative), and the system as a whole in Chapter 78 (The Applicative System: Overview and the Preverb-vs-Applicative Debate).

82.2 Applicative stacking

Up to two applicative prefixes appear on one verb simultaneously, each raising arity by one Bugaeva (2014); Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.1.1). The most productive double-applicative patterns pair e- (Content, Instrument, Location, Purpose) with ko- (Addressee, Goal, Comitative), in either order — e-ko- or ko-e-. Bugaeva and Kobayashi report no visible semantic difference between the two orders; in both, e- contributes a Content or Instrument object and ko- an Addressee or Goal Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.1.1) ‹contested›. Nakagawa places applicative prefixes in the single slot immediately inside the person index and before the root, so whether order encodes any semantic scope remains open Nakagawa (2024: 211) ‹speculative›.

With isoytak ‘speak, tell’, the double applicative yields a three-place frame — an Addressee (ko-) and a Content argument (e-) alongside the base Agent:

The example documented by Shibatani — attributed to Chiri (1936: 169) — combines two applicatives with one reflexive proper, one reflexive-possessive prefix, an adverbial element, and an incorporated object on a single root:

Bugaeva and Kobayashi's second example demonstrates re-intransitivization through stacking: a frame extended by two applicatives is collapsed back to bivalent by incorporating one applied object and reflexivizing the other Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.1.1):

A text-attested case of comitative incorporation via ko- is visible in the following Chitose passage, where the comitative objects are incorporated in sequence with their respective verbs:

82.3 The feeding of oblique incorporation

The wordhood diagnostic in Chapter 88 (Object (Patient) Noun Incorporation) establishes that only core objects — nominals that stand in the argument position targeted by the outermost person index — can incorporate into the verb word. A nominal held in a postpositional phrase (ani ‘with (instrumental)’, ta ‘at, in (locative)’, kusu ‘for, in order to (purpose)’) has no such position and cannot incorporate. The applicative removes the postposition and assigns the nominal core-object status; incorporation then proceeds. Nakagawa gives three parallel derivations Nakagawa (2024: 484):

The same three-step derivation is spelled out in Shibatani's analysis of a comitative-instrument example Shibatani (1990: 67):

The affix order in Stage 3 instantiates Baker's Mirror Principle (Baker 1988): the morphological order mirrors the syntactic derivation because applicative formation precedes incorporation. Shibatani extends this logic to a wordhood diagnostic: the presence of an applicative prefix on a noun-verb sequence that is otherwise ambiguous between NI and a phrasal reading resolves it unambiguously as incorporation Shibatani (1990: 63). The form tumi osma 'war began' is ambiguous, but o-tumi-osma with the locative applicative o- is unambiguously an incorporated word.

Several forms in Chiri (1936: 93) place the incorporated noun before rather than after the applicative — o-ni-pici alternating with ni o-pici 'fall from a tree' — in apparent violation of mirror ordering. Shibatani calls this a "minor irregularity" without resolving it Shibatani (1990: 71) ‹corpus-suggested›.

Baker's Case-theoretic prediction that applicative formation (P-incorporation) should be impossible on unaccusative bases is falsified by Ainu (Baker 1988); Shibatani (1988: 210–211); Shibatani (1990: 65–66). Verbs such as mokor 'sleep' freely combine with e- (mokor a=e-wen 'I missed sleeping'; sake a=e-niste 'I am strong at wine'), contrary to Case-theory's expectation ‹contested›. The implication for the feeding chain is that an oblique associated with an intransitive base can be promoted and subsequently incorporated or relativized by the same mechanism as one associated with a transitive base.

82.4 The feeding of relativization

Hokkaido Ainu relative clauses are prenominal and gap-based: the modifying clause precedes the head noun and leaves a null gap in the position the head noun would otherwise occupy within the clause. Subject and direct-object gaps are both accessible to this strategy ‹corpus-confirmed›; see Chapter 103 (Relative Clauses: The Gap Strategy and the Accessibility Hierarchy) for the full construction. A nominal in an oblique role — held by a postposition — lies outside the reach of gap-formation: Ainu has no mechanism for stranding a postposition in situ while extracting its complement as a relative-clause head (Keenan & Comrie 1977); Dal Corso (2020).

Applicative promotion removes the postposition and places the nominal at the direct-object tier, where gap-formation is licensed. The applied object then stands in a relativization-accessible position, and a prenominal relative clause can be formed with that applied object as its head Kaiser (1998); Dal Corso (2020). The following constructed example illustrates the pattern, based on the instrument applicative e-tuye attested in Nakagawa 2024: 194 (ex. 173):

The same promotion operates with ko-. A Goal or Addressee that would appear with un 'to' or tura 'with' can head a relative clause built on a ko--derived predicate. Dal Corso documents the construction for Southern Hokkaido texts and finds that applied objects — regardless of which prefix produced them — pattern identically to base transitive objects in gap-formation Dal Corso (2020) ‹corpus-confirmed›.

The Keenan–Comrie hierarchy frames the typological significance: Subject > Direct Object > Indirect Object > Oblique > Genitive > Comparee (Keenan & Comrie 1977). Hokkaido Ainu relativization is robustly accessible at Subject and Direct Object; bare Oblique is inaccessible; the applicative closes the gap by importing the oblique into the Direct Object tier. Kaiser (1998) demonstrates that the resulting applied object is treated as a morphosyntactic direct object in the relative clause — there is no distinct 'applied-object relativization' mechanism separate from ordinary object relativization Kaiser (1998). The synthesis that a single structural promotion underlies both the NI-feeding and the relativization-feeding paths is a proposal original to this grammar ‹speculative›.

82.5 Competing analyses of the applied-object position

What grammatical relation the promoted nominal bears — and therefore where it sits on the accessibility hierarchy — is contested between two broad analytical traditions (Keenan & Comrie 1977).

A relational account assigns the promoted nominal the relation of direct object from the moment of applicative formation. The applied object inherits full direct-object properties, including gap-licensability and incorporability, and stands at the Object tier of the hierarchy. The primary supporting evidence is morphosyntactic: Ainu marks no case distinction between the base Patient-object and the applied object of a ditransitive — both appear as bare NPs, both are cross-referenced by the single O-index on the verb Nakagawa (2024: 192); Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.1.1). Without a formal difference between the two objects, assigning them to distinct tiers of the hierarchy lacks morphosyntactic grounding.

Baker's (1988) head-movement account treats the applicative as P-incorporation: the postposition moves into the verb, leaving its complement in a derived specifier position. The applied object's accessibility to gap-formation and incorporation would then be a secondary consequence of that specifier position — not a primitive direct-object property (Baker 1988). Shibatani identifies the applicativization of intransitive bases in Ainu as a direct refutation: Baker's Case-theory predicts this should be impossible, yet it is productive in Hokkaido Ainu Shibatani (1988: 210–211); Shibatani (1990: 65–66) ‹contested›.

A community observation reported in the aynu-corpora Discord is consistent with the relational account. The verb sir-ko-peker 'spend the night' — where ko- interrupts the derivationally closed stem sir-peker — has been analysed (attributed to Satō, reported by nukopoli, 2024-12-05 aynu-corpora Discord (2023–2026)) as a construction in which the ko--object is promoted to the grammatical subject of the whole predicate: ku=sir-ko-peker 'I spend the night' has the experiencer — originally the applied object — in the subject index position. Parallel forms maw-ko-wen and kur-ko-tunas are noted in the same discussion. If the ko--object can reach the subject position in closed-stem environments, promotion to direct object in open-stem environments is the weaker operation — collateral support for the relational account ‹contested›.

For double-applicative verbs, both applied objects are morphosyntactically equivalent (bare NPs, single O-index), and both are in principle accessible to gap-formation or incorporation individually. Whether both can independently head distinct relative clauses within a complex sentence has not been investigated in the sources consulted ‹speculative›.

82.6 The two-slot ceiling, re-applicativization, and chained feeding

The verb word accommodates at most two person indexes — one A-type and one O-type — so the ceiling on simultaneously indexed participants is two, regardless of how many applicatives stack Satō (2023: 39); Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §2); Nakagawa (2024: 210–212). Extra applied objects must be reabsorbed by reflexivization (yay- ‘self (direct)’ / si- ‘self (indirect)’), incorporation, or antipassivization before the verb is finalized. The yay-ipe-e-ko-sunke example above instantiates two reabsorption strategies on one verb. Bugaeva's (2014 abstract) characterization of Ainu as polysynthetic in Baker's sense — with the caveat that it departs from the Mohawk prototype in word order, in-situ wh, and unrestricted morphological causatives — places this stacking capacity in typological perspective Bugaeva (2014).

The feeding chain can extend across multiple derivational steps. Antipassive i- reduces a transitive to intransitive by absorbing the object slot with a generic argument; re-adding an applicative restores transitive valency with a new object, which is then accessible to further incorporation or relativization by the same logic as any other applied object Bugaeva (2021); Bugaeva & Kobayashi (2022: §4.2.3):

The chained sequence — applicative, then antipassive, then re-applicativization, then relativization or incorporation — is bounded only by the template order (person index | nominal/applicative | root | forming suffix | causative | person index; Nakagawa (2024: 211)) and the two-slot ceiling. Each step in the chain either adds a slot (applicative, causative) or removes one (antipassive, reflexive, incorporation), and the feeding paths are open whenever the net result is a nominal standing at the direct-object tier ‹contested›.

Ijäs's Basic Lessons 3 and 9 do not cover applicative stacking or the feeding relations; the lessons treat i- and -re as independent operations without addressing their combination with applicatives or with relativization Ijäs (2023). The learner grammar's entry point — applicatives as independent valency-raisers — is the correct starting place, with the stacking behavior and its downstream interactions belonging to advanced grammar.