High and Low Applicatives of
Unaccusatives: Dependent Case
and the Phase

Marcel den Dikken

The principal objective of this article is to establish a direct relationship
between the structural height of the base position of the applied argu-
ment and the case and promotion-to-subject patterns observed in appli-
cative constructions, with particular reference to applicatives of un-
accusatives. The article achieves this through an approach exploiting
dependent case, with the domains relevant for dependent case assign-
ment being identified as phases, defined as (a) complete predicate-
argument structures and (b) propositions. By making argument struc-
ture a defining ingredient of the delineation of phases, the article distills
precise and accurate predictions about the interaction between the
base-generation site of the applied object and the case patterns of un-
accusative constructions featuring such an object, improving on the
efficacy of previous accounts. In the process, the article reexamines
the syntactic status of constituents located on the edge of a phase.

Keywords: applicative, unaccusative, dependent case, phase, edge

1 Introduction

1.1 Applicatives and Transitivity

The applicative construction has a wide range of applications, both with regard to the kinds
of arguments that can be applied objects (bene/malefactive, locative, instrumental, comitative,
associative) and in terms of the transitivity of the verb. Applicativization can take a transitive
verb as its input and deliver a ditransitive output, but in many languages it can also be based on
intransitive verbs.

While transitive and unergative verbs participate readily in the syntax of applicatives, applica-
tives based on unaccusative verbs are more sparsely represented. Indeed, Baker (1988), who treats
applicative formation in terms of preposition incorporation, postulates his Case Frame Preservation
Principle (1) in part to expressly rule out the formation of applicatives based on unaccusative
verbs: P-incorporation cannot provide the base verb with the capacity to assign case to the applied
object if the verb’s case frame is such that it cannot assign case on its own (as is true of an un-
accusative verb).

I would like to thank my colleagues at the Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics (especially Irina Burukina),
the audience at the 3rd International Workshop on Syntactic Cartography at Beijing Language & Culture University, and
the reviewers for Linguistic Inquiry for their copious constructive comments.

Linguistic Inquiry, Volume 54, Number 3, Summer 2023
479–503
(cid:2) 2021 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
https:/ /doi.org/10.1162/ling_a_00450

479

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

480

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

(1) Case Frame Preservation Principle

A complex X0 of category A in a given language can have at most the maximal Case-
assigning properties allowed to a morphologically simple item of category A in that
language. (Baker 1988:122)

However, applicatives of unaccusatives do exist. Baker (2012, 2014) presents relevant facts
from Amharic (a Semitic language with nominative-accusative alignment) and Shipibo (a Panoan
canonical ergative language), and Deal (2019) the ones for Nez Perce (a Sahaptian tripartite
system with ergative, nominative, and accusative case and nominative-accusative agreement).
Other languages reported to allow applicatives of unaccusatives include Haka Lai (Tibeto-Burman;
Peterson 1999), Halkomelem (Salish; Gerdts 1988), Niuean (Austronesian; Massam 2006) (though
its use of causative morphology in applicatives of unaccusatives makes Niuean a controversial
case; see Deal 2019:410), and Sesotho (Bantu; Machobane 1989, see footnote 6 below).

The principal objective of this article is to show that it is advantageous to streamline and
simplify the extant approaches to applicatives of unaccusatives (in particular, those presented by
Baker (2014) and Deal (2019)) by establishing a direct relation between the structural height of
the base position of the applied object and the morphosyntax of case and promotion to subject.

1.2 High and Low Applicatives

In influential work on the syntax of applicatives, Pylkka¨nen (2008) proposes that when the applied
object and the original theme are understood to be in a semantic (typically possessive) relationship
(as in John gave Mary a book, where Mary comes to have a book), the two objects are directly
related by the functional head Appl, which in this case is merged low, inside the VP (see (2a)).
By contrast, applicatives involving unergative verbs (which have no original theme to which the
applied object can be linked by a low Appl head), as well as transitive-based applicatives in which
there is no semantic relation between the two objects, have a syntax in which the Appl head is
merged high, outside VP (2b), and relates the applied object to a projection of the verb (in the
applicative equivalent of English sentences of the type John sang (a song)/ran (a marathon)/
cried (a river) for Mary).

(2) a. Low applicative: [VP V [ApplP APPLIED OBJECT [Appl′ Appl [THEME]]]]
b. High applicative: [ApplP APPLIED OBJECT [Appl′ Appl [VP V (THEME)]]]

Pylkka¨nen’s (2008) distinction between low and high ApplP has met with criticism in the
literature, especially in Georgala, Paul, and Whitman 2008 and Georgala 2012:chap. 2, where it
is argued that the projection involved in the licensing of an applied argument is uniformly above
VP. Whereas in high applicatives the applied object originates in the specifier of this ApplP
directly, Georgala, Paul, and Whitman (2008) and Georgala (2012) postulate a syntactic derivation
for low applicatives wherein the applied object starts out within the VP and raises to the athematic
specifier position of the VP-external ApplP for licensing purposes. For the discussion in this
article, it will turn out not to matter whether the applied object, in low applicatives, is base-
generated in the specifier of an ApplP inside VP (as in Pylkka¨nen 2008) or is raised from a VP-

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

481

internal position into the specifier of an ApplP located outside VP (as in Georgala 2012); what
matters for present purposes is that only in high applicative constructions is the applied object
externally merged in a position external to the VP. It is in this sense that the high vs. low applicative
distinction should be understood in the context of this article. In the trees presented later on, I
will adopt Pylkka¨nen’s analysis for presentational simplicity; but the analysis can readily be recast
in “raising Appl” terms.

While unergatives (lacking a theme argument) are only able to partake in high applicative
constructions, unaccusative verbs should in principle be amenable to high as well as low applica-
tives. This is indeed the case. But the syntactic derivations and case patterns of applicatives of
unaccusatives are not uniform. The literature to date has not related these syntactic/case differ-
ences directly to the height of the base position of the applied object. I argue here that doing so
opens up an explanatory window on the syntax and case patterns observed in applicatives of
unaccusatives.

1.3 The Structure of the Article

Section 2 reviews two prominent previous analyses of applicatives of unaccusatives (Baker 2014,
Deal 2019) and arrives at the novel generalization that the structural height of the base position
of the applied object directly influences the availability and syntactic behavior of applicativization
based on unaccusative verbs. Section 3 develops the definition of the phase and the perspective
on phasal Spell-Out and case that section 4 subsequently applies to the facts of applicatives of
unaccusatives documented earlier in the article. In closing, section 5 places the article’s main
findings in the wider context of language variation under applicativization.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

2 Two Previous Analyses of Applicatives of Unaccusatives

2.1 Baker (2014) on Shipibo

The central focus of Baker’s (2014) analysis of applicatives of unaccusatives is on the facts of
Shipibo (also called Shipibo-Konibo), a Panoan ergative-absolutive language spoken in Peru.
Shipibo has morphologically explicit applicative constructions, marked by -xon (affective—usu-
ally benefactive but sometimes malefactive), -(V)naan/-(V)n (malefactive), and -kin(i)n (associa-
tive). With the exception of the dedicated malefactive marker -(V)naan/-(V)n, these applicative
morphemes are not picky with respect to the transitivity of their host. Applicatives of both unerga-
tives and unaccusatives are possible. The latter come in two different types.

The examples in (3) illustrate one type of applicative of unaccusatives in Shipibo, featuring

the applicative marker -xon.1

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

1 Regarding examples with -kin and -(V)naan/-(V)n, Valenzuela (2010:sec. 3.1) notes that the latter (i.e., the dedicated
malefactive applicative marker) is unable to combine with intransitive verbs of any kind (unergative and unaccusative
alike). Since I focus here on applicatives of unaccusatives, I will not take up the malefactive applicative marker -(V)naan/
-(V)n. Like Baker (2014), I will confine my exemplification to -xon.

482

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

(3) a. Bimi-n-ra

Rosa

joshin-xon-ke.
fruit-ERG-PRT Rosa(ABS) ripen-APPL-PRF
‘The fruit ripened for Rosa.’

b. Nato yapa-n-ra Maria

payo-xon-ke.
fish-ERG-PRT Maria(ABS) spoil-APPL-PRF

this
‘This fish spoiled on Maria.’
(Baker 2014:346, (9b); 366, (45b))

Shipibo also has a class of verbs (including keen ‘want’ and shinan ‘forget’ in (4)2), which are
intrinsically “dyadic unaccusatives” of Belletti and Rizzi’s (1988) type: verbs that have two (cid:2)-
roles, neither of which is an external one (agent/cause). These inherently unaccusative applicatives
do not feature applicative morphology: Baker assumes that they host a silent applicative mor-
pheme.

(4) a. Jose-ra

yapa
Jose´-PRT(ABS) fish(ABS) want-IMPF
‘Jose´ wants some fish.’

keen-ai.

b. Jose-ra

nokon bake

shinan-beno-ke.
Jose´-PRT(ABS) my.GEN child(ABS) think-forget-PRF
‘Jose´ forgot my child.’
(Baker 2014:347, (11); 361, (34b))

The applicatives of the unaccusatives in (3) are different from the ones in (4) when it comes
to (a) the question of which argument is picked to become the subject of the clause and (b) the
assignment of case. While (3) involves promotion of the internal argument (the theme) to subject
and an ergative-absolutive case pattern, (4) evinces promotion of the applied argument (the recipi-
ent or experiencer) to subject and a double absolutive case pattern.3

Baker (2014) presents an analysis of the Shipibo facts in (3)–(4) couched in a phase-based
dependent case approach. At the heart of it is the hypothesis (originally due to Marantz 1991)
that case is not assigned by designated heads in the syntactic structure but distributed dependent
on the number of case-needy noun phrases in a particular local domain, on the basis of their
hierarchical relations. For nominative-accusative languages, Baker posits (5a) (cf. Baker and
Vinokurova 2010); for ergative-absolutive systems, he proposes (5b).

2 In connection with (4b), note Dutch (i), a periphrastic perfect of vergeten ‘forget’ featuring selection of the auxiliary

zijn ‘be’, typical of unaccusative constructions, rather than the auxiliary hebben ‘have’ of transitives.

(i) Jan is mijn naam vergeten.
Jan is my name forgotten
‘Jan has forgotten my name.’

3 Baker (2014:347) notes that “Shipibo also has a desiderative construction in which the verb bears the suffix -kas
‘want’, and the subject of a transitive verb is described as being optionally absolutive or ergative”; see (i). Baker plausibly
analyzes this mix of (3) and (4) with an appeal to “restructuring.” (i) will not be relevant in this article.

(i) E-a-ra/E-n-ra

yapa
I-ABS-PRT/I-ERG-PRT fish(ABS) eat-want-IMPF
‘I want to eat fish.’

pi-kas-ai.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

483

(5) a. If there are two distinct argumental NPs in the same phase such that NP1 c-commands
NP2, then value the case feature of NP2 as accusative unless NP1 has already been
marked for case.
(Baker and Vinokurova 2010:595, via Baker 2014:343, (4))

b. If there are two distinct argumental NPs in the same phase such that NP1 c-commands
NP2, then value the case feature of NP1 as ergative unless NP2 has already been
marked for case.
(Baker 2014:343, (5))

The dependent case rules in (5) operate at Spell-Out, and Spell-Out is cyclic, phase by phase. So
at each phase level, (5) is consulted to see if it is operative. Baker (2014:356–357) assumes that
“ergative and accusative are keyed to the Spell-Out of TP only.” This is tantamount to saying
that dependent case is not assigned in the lower phase of the clause, which means that (5) kicks
in only in the TP/CP portion of the clause (the higher phase). For Shipibo, an ergative language,
we need (5b).

In (4), the applied object is promoted to subject. This does not establish a new c-command
relation between the applied object and the theme: in the higher phase of the clause, the applied
object still asymmetrically c-commands the theme, just as it did in the lower phase. Baker (2014:
355) assumes that for the purposes of the dependent case rules in (5) “only new c-command
relations are considered at later Spell-Outs”: whenever the c-command relation between the ap-
plied object and the theme remains unaltered, no dependent case is assigned in the higher phase.
Both NPs in the structure then get the unmarked case (ABS in ergative systems), which is indeed
what we find in (4).4

In (3), it is the theme that is promoted to subject, not the applied object. In the lower phase,
the theme is c-commanded by the applied object. But after it has raised into the higher phase, a
new c-command relation is created between the applied object and the theme. Even though the
lower phase (the one in which the applied object c-commands the theme in its base position) has
already been spelled out, Baker assumes that the contents of the lower phase (including the applied
object) remain visible to material in the higher phase in Shipibo: the lower phase of the Shipibo
clause is what Baker (2014:355) calls a “soft” phase. In the higher phase, the new c-command
relation established between the raised theme and the applied object is taken into consideration
by the dependent case rule in (5b), which concludes that the theme (the c-commander in the
higher phase) is to be assigned the dependent case (ergative) (with the applied object getting
unmarked absolutive case).5

4 When experiencer verb constructions of the type in (4) are applicativized (so that there are now three arguments:
a high applied object, an experiencer, and a theme), the experiencer is assigned dependent ergative case (Baker 2014:
368).

5 Baker (2014:367n22) is cognizant of the fact that movement of the theme out of the lower phase (vP for him)
should obey the Phase Impenetrability Condition and should hence proceed via the edge of the lower phase. With the
theme adjoined to vP, the theme comes to c-command the applied object within the lower phase. This does not, however,
lead to activation of (5) at the point where the lower phase is spelled out: the vP-adjoined theme is not spelled out with
the rest of the phase. It is only in the higher phase that (5) kicks into action.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

484

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

Why is it the theme that is promoted to subject in (3) whereas in (4) the higher of the two
NPs in the lower phase (the applied argument) gets this treatment? According to Baker, this is
because the applied object in (3) is contained in a PP, whereas in (4) it is an NP. By hypothesis,
PPs cannot satisfy the EPP (see Landau 2007); and as Shipibo is not a P-stranding language,
extraction of the applied object from the PP in Spec,ApplP is impossible as well. The theme is
eligible for promotion to subject: moving the theme past the applied object in Spec,ApplP is
possible given the hypothesis that the two are categorially distinct (NP vs. PP) and do not interfere
with one another.

Baker (2014) borrows the PP hypothesis from his own (2012) analysis of Amharic, a Semitic
nominative-accusative language that has applicatives of unaccusatives with promotion of the
theme, as shown in (6) (Amharic features no explicit applicative morphology).

(6) a. Aster-én

zUmUd

mot-at.

Aster-ACC relative(NOM) die.3MS-3FO
‘Aster’s relative died on her.’

b. LUmma-n

gUnzUb

t’Uff-a-w.

Lemma-ACC money(NOM) lose-3MS-3MO
‘Lemma lost money.’
(Baker 2012:266, (25); 269, (31))

But for the idea that the applied object is contained in a PP, no clear independent support is
forthcoming in Amharic: the applied object in (6) is assigned structural accusative case and
controls object agreement with the verb, thus behaving in all respects like a regular object NP.
In Shipibo, for which Baker also has to make the P-head supposedly introducing the applied
object inert to the case system, there is likewise “a curious shortage of independent evidence for
the proposed PP structure” (as Deal (2019:401) puts it). And for Nez Perce, which has applicatives
of unaccusatives with theme promotion as well, Deal (2019:405–407) argues that her analysis of
the facts of possessor raising militates on syntactic grounds against postulating a PP enveloping
the applied object.6

6 Sesotho, a Bantu language spoken in southern Africa (not featured in Baker 2014 or Deal 2019), partially comes
to Baker’s (2012, 2014) rescue in providing morphological support for the PP status of the applied object. For Sesotho
locative applicatives of unaccusatives, illustrated in (i), Machobane (1989:50n1) argues explicitly, on the basis of their
formal properties, that their locative-marked applied arguments are PPs. As expected, it is the theme, not the applied
object, that undergoes promotion to subject in these sentences. But Sesotho benefactive applicatives of unaccusatives are
usually ungrammatical unless rescued by passivization, with promotion of the beneficiary to subject and demotion of the
theme, or by object cliticization of the beneficiary, with the theme as the subject (see Machobane 1989:65, 81). So in
benefactive applicatives, the applied object, exhibiting explicitly NP-like behavior, is clearly not PP-contained.

(i) a. Baeti

ba-fihl-ets-e

moreneng.

visitors AGR-arrive-APPL chief.LOC
‘The visitors have arrived at the chief ’s place.’

b. Lintja li-hol-el-a

serobeng.
dogs AGR-grow-APPL barn.LOC
‘The dogs are growing up in the barn.’
(Machobane 1989:60, 77)

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

485

2.2 Deal (2019) on Nez Perce

Like Shipibo, Nez Perce (a Sahaptian language with a tripartite case system and a nominative-
accusative agreement pattern) has applicatives of unaccusatives in which the theme is promoted
to subject, across the applied object. As in the Shipibo examples in (3), the theme of Nez Perce
applicatives of unaccusatives gets ergative case. The fact that in (7a–b) the pronominal applied
object can be coreferential with the possessor of the ergative theme is proof that the latter, even
when it occurs in clause-final position (as in (7a)), raises to an A-position that asymmetrically
c-commands the applied object. In an interesting twist not seen in Shipibo, the Nez Perce example
in (7c) shows that the possessor of the applied object can be raised to accusative object status,
with the possessum (the applied object whose possessor was advanced to object) then taking
(unmarked) nominative case.7

(7)

a.

’ip-ne
pa-pay-noo-ya
3SG-ACC 3/3-come-APPL-REM.PST
‘Angel’s horse came to her.’

[Angel-nim sik’em-nim].
Angel-GEN horse-ERG

b. [Harold-nim k’olalk’olal-nim] pee-’leese-nuu-ye

bell-ERG
Harold-GEN
‘Harold’s bell made noise at him.’
[TP Spec [T(cid:2) T [vP Spec [ApplP APPLIED OBJECT [Appl(cid:2) Appl [VP V THEME]]]]]]

pro.
3/3-make.noise-APPL-REM.PAST 3SG

✗

c. Ko-nim ha-’ayato-na

hi-nees-’ileese-nuu-ey’-se
DEM-ERG PL-woman-ACC 3SUBJ-O.PL-make.noise-APPL-(cid:3)-IMPF meeting.NOM
‘That person is making noise at the ladies’ meeting.’
[TP Spec [T(cid:2) T [vP Spec [(cid:3)P POSS [(cid:3)(cid:2) (cid:3) [ApplP APPLIED OBJECT [Appl(cid:2) Appl [VP V THEME]]]]]]]]

pi’amkin.

✗

✗

(Deal 2019:401, 406)

Examples of the type in (7c) show not only that possessor raising is possible from the applied
object but also that promotion of the theme (ko-nim) to ergative subject can cross two noun
phrases, the applied object and the raised possessor. The former is problematic for Baker’s (2014)
PP hypothesis, in view of the fact that Nez Perce allows no subextraction from PPs; the latter
indicates that an analysis of the theme promotion facts in “interventionist” terms (with an appeal
to some form of Relativized Minimality) is unlikely to pay off.

Deal’s (2019) analysis eschews both the postulation of a silent P and (defective) intervention
(on this, see p. 409), and instead capitalizes on the idea that links of a movement chain must not

7 Two small notes on the Nez Perce examples: (a) the verb glossed as ‘make.noise’ is demonstrably unaccusative
in the language (see Deal 2019 and references cited there); (b) the morpheme -ey’ in (7c) is the spell-out of the functional
head (labeled (cid:3)by Deal) whose specifier position is occupied by the raised possessor. Deal explicitly analyzes Nez Perce
possessor raising as a case of movement. This will be important in her discussion of (7c), summarized below.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

486

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

be too short (“antilocality”; e.g., Abels 2003, Bo’kovic´ 2015, 2016, Erlewine 2016)—in particular,
the hypothesis that movement of a phrase from the specifier position of XP must cross a maximal
projection other than XP. This idea is put to work in a syntax of verbal constructs in which v is
always present and always defines a phase (see Legate 2003), which requires that movement to
the structural subject position (Spec,TP) always proceed via an intermediate stopover on the edge
of vP, even in unaccusatives. For applicatives of unaccusatives, this entails that promotion of the
theme is grammatical because one or more maximal projections are crossed by the theme on its
way to the edge of vP: ApplP in the structures for (7a–b), and in the derivation of (7c) both
ApplP and (cid:3)P, whose specifier is taken to host the raised possessor. Moving the raised possessor
from Spec,(cid:3)P to Spec,vP in (7c) would only cross (cid:3)P, making it illicit. And moving the applied
object to the edge of vP is always illegal as well: in the absence of possessor raising, such
movement would only cross ApplP (assuming that v immediately embeds ApplP, as in the structure
below (7b)); and when the possessor of the applied object is raised and becomes the accusative
object (located in Spec,(cid:3)P), so that there are now two maximal projections (ApplP and (cid:3)P)
between the applied possessum and the vP edge, promotion of the applied possessum (the remnant
of possessor raising) remains ungrammatical due to a constraint on remnant movement that Deal
(2019:408) adopts from Mu¨ller 1996. So in all of (7a–c), the only grammatical derivation is one
in which the theme is promoted to subject.

Its apparent success at narrowing down the derivational options to theme promotion dampens
the prospects of Deal’s analysis of applicatives of unaccusatives beyond the facts of Nez Perce.
Because it does not leave a window for the formation of applicatives of unaccusatives featuring
promotion of the applied object, it does not cover examples of the type in (4), which answer
precisely to this description. Deal (2019:409n28) floats two ideas toward accommodating these
kinds of examples: postulating an inner-aspect projection between ApplP and vP (in the spirit of
Travis 2010), or assuming that experiencer applied objects originate in Spec,vP (Kratzer 1996).
Of these possibilities, an appeal to AspP is not in any obvious sense justified, considering that
inner aspect is about telicity and the experiencer constructions in (4) are atelic; and base-generating
experiencers in Spec,vP certainly cannot generally be correct, in light of constructions in which
the experiencer is introduced in a VP-internal PP (This appeals to me; cf. also the alternation
between This appears to me false and This strikes me as false: see Den Dikken 1995 for several
arguments supporting the conclusion that “dative alternation” constructions involve low base-
generation of the indirect object).

2.3 Taking Stock

Apart from not carrying over straightforwardly to applicatives of unaccusatives in which the
applied object is promoted to subject (not found in Nez Perce but attested in Shipibo), Deal’s
(2019) analysis has several theoretical ingredients that can each be questioned individually:

• “[A]ll verbal projections contain a phasal vP layer.” (Deal 2019:400)
• Generalized Spec-to-Spec Antilocality: “Movement of a phrase from the Spec,XP must

cross a maximal projection other than XP.” (Deal 2019:408)

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

487

• A constraint on remnant movement, called Unambiguous Domination (Mu¨ller 1996:
376): “In a structure . . . [A . . . [B . . . ] . . . ] . . . , A and B may not undergo the same
kind of movement.”

• Possessor raising as movement to the specifier of a (cid:3)P serving as v’s complement (Deal

2013).

Arguments given in the literature for the phasehood of unaccusative vP (see especially Legate
2003) are weak (as Deal (2019:400n20) acknowledges). Some sort of antilocality constraint is
certainly a part of the Minimalist toolkit and arguably plays a key role in explaining promotion
to subject in applicatives of unaccusatives (see the end of section 3.4, below). But singling out
Spec-to-Spec movements that cross just one maximal projection is not only arbitrary (especially
if movements crossing no maximal projection at all are legitimate; see Kayne 1994 on deriving
complementizer-final word order by moving TP into the local Spec,CP) but also not obviously
correct (e.g., I wonder who the hell did this is standardly taken to involve movement of who the
hell, which cannot be in situ, from Spec,TP to Spec,CP, crossing only TP). Deal (2019:408n27)
recognizes the inherent “fragility” of Spec-to-Spec antilocality (one might, after all, discover
additional functional projections between the two specifier positions), but embraces this as a
virtue. However, as a general rule, a Minimalist theory of syntactic derivations should impose
no conditions on movement other than the need for convergence: if a local application of movement
serves a grammatical purpose, it can only be excluded by brute force. Finally, Deal’s (2019)
analysis of the ban on promotion of both the applied object and the external possessor in the
possessor-raising case in (7c) relies on three specific assumptions: (a) movement of the possessor
(rather than external base-generation, as in Gue´ron 1985, Authier 1991, Vergnaud and Zubizarreta
1992); (b) postulation of (cid:3)P, whose custom-made nature makes it difficult to verify on independent
grounds that it is, as assumed, the immediate complement of v; and (c) a constraint on remnant
movement that, as stated, both over- and undergenerates (wrongly ruling out ?Who do you wonder
how many pictures of John bought? (cf. Lasnik and Saito 1992) but failing to block *How likely
to be a riot is there?, involving two different kinds of movement).

Baker’s (2014) analysis of the Shipibo facts, for its part, relies on a cluster of less-than-

innocuous assumptions about the distribution of dependent case:

• “[E]rgative and accusative are keyed to the Spell-Out of TP only.” (Baker 2014:356–357)
• “[O]nly new c-command relations are considered at later Spell-Outs” (Baker 2014:355)

for the purposes of the dependent case rules.

• The lower phase of the Shipibo clause is a “soft” phase (Baker 2014:355): after Spell-
Out, all of its contents (including the applied object) remain visible to the higher phase.

• The applied object in Shipibo (3) and Amharic (6) is invisibly contained in a PP.

The idea that the dependent cases are tied to particular ph(r)ases is tantamount to saying that
dependent case is not assigned in the lower phase of the clause: (5) kicks in only in the higher
phase (CP/TP). This raises the specter of the alternative theory of case, linking assignment of
accusative and ergative case to designated functional heads. The hypothesis that only new c-

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

488

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

command relations count complicates the c-command-based theory of dependent case in (5). The
(possibly language-specific) appeal to “soft” vP phases further burdens Minimalism’s attributions
of incapacity to (certain incarnations of ) vP and TP. And in lieu of the claim that some applied
objects are PPs and others are NPs (which, as we have seen, is morphosyntactically elusive),
what determines the selection of the theme or the applied argument for promotion to subject in
an applicative of an unaccusative should ideally be some property that is independently supported.

2.4 The Height of the Applied Argument

The property that comes naturally to mind is the height of the applied argument in the structure.
Deal (2019:396) makes it explicit that Nez Perce applicatives with -uu are HIGH applicatives in
the sense of Pylkka¨nen’s (2008) work. A sure sign of this is the fact that -uu can applicativize
unergative verbs.

The Shipibo examples in (3) likewise involve high applicatives: there is no possessive rela-
tionship between the theme and the applied object; rather, the applied object is affected by the
event expressed by the VP. But the experiencer verbs in (4) build LOW applicative constructions
just like ditransitive verbs. It emerges that in high applicatives of unaccusatives the theme is
promoted, while in low applicatives of unaccusatives it is the applied argument that becomes the
subject of the clause.

I show in section 4 that the case and subjecthood dichotomy between (3) and (7), on the one
hand, and (4), on the other, can be connected to the dichotomy between high and low applicatives
in an explanatory way, and that making this connection allows us to simplify and enhance the
dependent case approach to applicatives of unaccusatives. The central active ingredient in the
analysis is a hypothesis regarding the demarcation of the lower phase of applicative construc-
tions. This hypothesis is spelled out in section 3.

3 The Phase and Case

3.1 The Definition of a Phase

Following the proposal in Den Dikken 2006, 2007, phases are defined here as in (8).

(8) A phase is either

a. a complete predicate-argument structure (PAS)

the lower phase

or

b. a complete proposition.

the higher phase

This definition follows closely in the footsteps of Chomsky’s (2001) original, but unlike Chom-
sky’s proposal and work in its wake, it does not put specific labels (like vP or CP) on the
phasal categories. Whichever category (regardless of its label) represents the complete PAS of a
proposition is declared the lower phase of this proposition; and whichever category (regardless
of its label) represents the complete proposition is singled out as the higher phase. The definition

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

489

of the phase in (8) has beneficial consequences for the analysis of low and high applicative
constructions regarding the demarcation of the lower phase, as we will see.8 But first, let me
apply (8) to simple transitives and intransitives.

3.2 The Lower Phase of Unaccusative, Unergative, and Transitive Constructions

For a transitive or unergative clause, the lower phase, representing the complete PAS, is the
familiar vP (Chomsky 1995:chap. 4) or VoiceP (Kratzer 1996), with v/Voice introducing the
external argument and capping off the verb’s PAS. For clauses not featuring a verb that takes an
external argument (an ergative or unaccusative verb), the node dominating the complete PAS is
just the VP (except in high applicatives; see section 3.3.1). Even if v is present in the syntax of
unaccusative constructions (as in Distributed Morphology–based approaches on which v combines
with every verb, regardless of its adicity, in order to categorize it), its vP will not constitute the
lower phase (contra Legate 2003 but in tune with McGinnis 2001): v (if present) does not add
anything to the PAS of the unaccusative clause; the verb’s full PAS is dominated by VP. The
representations in (9) (for unaccusatives) and (10) (for transitives and unergatives) summarize
this picture. (Here and in what follows, (cid:4)represents a phase, and EXT.ARG and INT.ARG stand for
external argument and internal argument, respectively.)

(9)

Unaccusatives

(vP/VoiceVP)

(v/Voice)

VP ⇐ (cid:2)

V

INT.ARG

(10)

Transitives/Unergatives

vP/VoiceP ⇐ (cid:2)

EXT.ARG

v(cid:2)/Voice(cid:2)

v/Voice

VP

V

INT.ARG

8 Though I will not consider the delineation of the higher phase here, note that (8b) gives us the freedom to have
higher phases that are smaller than CP, which is a welcome result. A clause no larger than TP will do perfectly well as
the higher phase, containing tense and (for lack of a marked illocutionary force, such as interrogativity) getting default
declarative illocutionary force.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

490

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

3.3 The Lower Phase of Applicative Constructions

3.3.1 High Applicatives When an unaccusative verb undergoes high applicativization, Appl
merges with VP. The applied argument is part of the complete PAS of the clause. This entails that
in the presence of a high applied object, the lower phase in a high applicative of an unaccusative is
not the “bare” VP but ApplP (see also McGinnis 2001), as shown in (11). But in transitive- or
unergative-based high applicatives, the high ApplP, merged above VP but below v/Voice, does
not serve as the lower phase of the clause: v/Voice adds the external argument and completes
the lower phase in (12), just as in (10).

(11)

High applicative of unaccusative

ApplP ⇐ (cid:2)

APPL.OBJ

Appl(cid:2)

Appl

VP

V

INT.ARG

(12)

High applicative of transitive/unergative
vP/VoiceP ⇐ (cid:2)

EXT.ARG

v(cid:2)/Voice(cid:2)

v/Voice

ApplP

APPL.OBJ

Appl(cid:2)

Appl

VP

V

(INT.ARG)

3.3.2 Low Applicatives Whereas adding a high applied object has consequences for the demarca-
tion of the lower phase in the syntax of unaccusative constructions, as we saw in (11), adding a
low applied object never affects the locus of the lower phase boundary, for any lexical verb. This
is true regardless of which of the two prevalent approaches to the syntax of low applicativization
we take: the one in Pylkka¨nen 2008 or the alternative in Georgala, Paul, and Whitman 2008 and
Georgala 2012.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

491

If we follow Pylkka¨nen (2008), low applicatives are characterized by the merger of the
ApplP within VP, in the complement of the verb. On this approach to low applicatives, it is
immediately apparent that the presence of a low applied object does nothing to the demarcation
of the lower phase in the structure of the clause: VP will continue to represent the complete PAS
of an unaccusative construction (13), and vP/VoiceP will remain the locus of the lower phase
for transitives, as in (14).

(13)

Low applicative of unaccusative à la Pylkkänen

VP ⇐ (cid:2)

V

ApplP

APPL.OBJ

Appl(cid:2)

Appl

INT.ARG

(14)

Low applicative of transitive à la Pylkkänen

vP/ VoiceP ⇐ (cid:2)

EXT.ARG

v(cid:2)/ Voice(cid:2)

v/ Voice

VP

V

ApplP

APPL.OBJ

Appl(cid:2)

Appl

INT.ARG

On Georgala’s (2012) (and Georgala, Paul, and Whitman’s (2008)) approach to applicatives,
ApplP is systematically located outside VP, and low applicatives differ from their high counter-
parts in being raised out of VP into Spec,ApplP rather than being base-generated in this position.
The outcome as regards the locus of the lower phase boundary is the same on this approach as
on that of the one pursued by Pylkka¨nen (2008), under the definition of the phase in (2a)/(8). A
high ApplP into whose specifier position a low applied object is raised is present to license the
applied object, not to introduce it into the PAS of the clause. Being thematically inert, a “raising
ApplP” plays no role in the demarcation of the lower phase.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

492

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

Regardless, therefore, of whether we adopt Pylkka¨nen’s approach to low applicatives or the
“raising applicative” analysis advocated by Georgala, the complete PAS of low applicatives will
be the VP in the case of low applicatives of unaccusatives, and vP/VoiceP in low applicatives
of transitives. Since it is the complete PAS that determines the locus of the lower phase, and
since a Georgala-style high ApplP that attracts a low applied object into its specifier is not involved
in the projection of PAS, it follows that, on both approaches to low applicatives, the PAS-based
lower phase of these constructions will never be situated at ApplP. In what follows, I will be
couching the analysis in terms of Pylkka¨nen’s (2008) analysis of high and low applicatives, which
is easier to represent and talk about than Georgala’s. Transposing the analysis to the “raising
applicative” approach to low applicatives is straightforward and will not affect any of the conclu-
sions drawn.

3.4 Phasal Spell-Out and the Phase Edge

The analysis proposed in this article for applicatives of unaccusatives brings the definition of the
phase and the syntactic status of constituents located on the edge of a phase more sharply into
focus. Phases are the points in the derivation at which Spell-Out is triggered. Assumptions vary
in the Minimalist literature regarding the portion of the phase that is sent off to the interpretive
components at Spell-Out. Apart from his “soft” phase innovation, Baker (2014) generally follows
Chomsky’s (2001) approach, reserving the complement domain of the phase head for transfer to
PF but leaving material on the edge of the phase unaffected by Spell-Out. But Fox and Pesetsky
(2005) take the contents of the entire constituent identified as a phase to be subjected to Spell-
Out (for linearization purposes), including everything on the phase edge.

My proposal, spelled out in (15a–c), takes a middle ground between these positions. With
Fox and Pesetsky (2005), I assume that at Spell-Out, all (chains of ) constituents contained in a
phase are sent to PF for linearization, case assignment, and so on. But although constituents on
the edge of a phase are always spelled out with the phase, there is a difference between material
born on the phase edge and material moved there with respect to how Spell-Out affects the phase
edge.

(15) a. At Spell-Out, all (chains of ) material contained in a phase must be sent to PF.

b. Chains of constituents moved to the edge of a phase are spelled out at the lower copy
of the moved constituent by silencing, due to being phase-internally c-commanded
by the higher copy; the higher copy is affected by Spell-Out only if it is in a “criterial
position” (Rizzi 1997, 2004), where Spell-Out is always triggered.

c. The first spelled-out element of a phase is visible at PF to material outside its phase.

For constituents that occur just once in a given phase (i.e., single copies), Spell-Out targets
the unique copy. It does so regardless of whether the constituent in question is in the complement
domain of the phase head or on the phase edge. Constituents born on the edge of a phase and
spelled out with it are ineligible for movement out of the phase. Direct movement is impossible.
Moreover, “escape-hatching” movement via an adjunction position to the phase is not allowed

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

493

for material born on the edge of the phase because it is too local: the general logic of Minimalism’s
derivational economy bars a constituent from being on the edge of the same ph(r)ase twice.9

For constituents that occur twice in a given phase, one copy finds itself in the complement
domain of the phase head and the other is on the edge of the phase. Spell-Out must target this
pair of copies because all phase-internal constituents and their chains are subject to Spell-Out.
Spell-Out assigns a PF matrix to the higher copy, on the phase edge, only if this copy is in a criterial
position in Rizzi’s (1997, 2004) sense: such positions carry with them spell-out instructions of
their own, both on the PF side (vocabulary insertion) and on the LF side (e.g., scope). Terminal
movement to a criterial position aside, however, Spell-Out leaves the copy on the edge of the
phase untouched. Instead, it is the lower copy of the moved constituent that is spelled out—by
being silenced (or denied vocabulary insertion). Silencing does not result in a linearization instruc-
tion that would potentially conflict with one emerging from spell-out of a higher phase, and it
also does not run the risk of accidentally activating the dependent case rules in (5) at too early
a point in the derivation, as we will see in section 3.5.

3.5 Phase-Based Case

Spell-Out proceeds phase by phase (Chomsky 2001) and targets the entire phase (15a), linearizing
its contents (Fox and Pesetsky 2005) and examining whether the case rules in (5) are applicable
to it. Material on the edge of the phase is spelled out with the rest of the phase unless it arrived
there via nonterminal movement (15b).

9 This “antilocality” constraint is more naturally at home in the Minimalist toolkit than the one adopted by Deal
(2019), mentioned in section 2.2 above. How does it fare with regard to the standard assumption that the external argument
of transitive and unergative verbs originates in Spec,vP and raises to Spec,TP? There is arguably no local movement
from Spec,vP to Spec,TP. (Deal’s (2019) antilocality hypothesis would lead to the same conclusion if/when there are no
functional projections between vP and T.) The subject of transitive and unergative clauses is base-generated in Spec,TP,
related to the verbal predicate by T (a RELATOR; Den Dikken 2006). In situations in which the subject of transitive and
unergative clauses does originate within the complement of T, it is necessarily spelled out there, and Spec,TP is either
not projected or filled by an expletive. In unaccusative constructions, the verb’s PAS is saturated in VP, so the theme
cannot be directly projected onto Spec,TP; whenever it is the structural subject, the theme must be promoted to subject
via movement. Applied objects cannot be directly projected onto Spec,TP either: T (cid:2) Appl; only Appl can serve as the
RELATOR of applied objects to their mates. Hence, whenever an applied object serves as the structural subject, it must
also be promoted to subject via movement. The external argument of transitive and unergative clauses is the one argument
that can be base-generated directly in Spec,TP, with T as the RELATOR.

The hypothesis that the subject of transitive and unergative clauses is base-generated in Spec,TP does not entail that
v is absent from these clauses: if v has a role to play independently of introducing the subject (e.g., categorization of the
root), it will be present in all verbal constructs; the requisite theory of predication will then identify vP (the projection
representing the categorized predicate), rather than VP, as the predicate for the external argument, base-generated in
Spec,TP. (It is not impossible for VP to serve as a predicate, but it may be that VP can only be predicated of a theme,
not of the external argument—for reasons that remain to be made more precise.) Thus, morphological arguments for the
presence of v in transitive and unergative constructions are in principle left untouched by this proposal. But syntactic
arguments for base-generation of the external argument of the verb in Spec,vP do need to be reconsidered—including
the arguments based on coordination of transitive and unaccusative/passive VPs (Burton and Grimshaw 1992, McNally
1992), floating quantifiers (Koopman and Sportiche 1991), and binding (Huang 1993). Of these three arguments, the first
is intrinsically weak since too little is understood about extraction from coordinate structures. The second is strong only
if floating quantifiers are taken to be stranded by movement (Sportiche 1988), which is problematic (see Bobaljik 2003).
And the third argument has no merit (see Heycock 1995, Den Dikken 2006:19). I do not have the space here to engage
in a more detailed discussion of the syntactic arguments for and against local movement of the external argument from
Spec,vP to Spec,TP.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

494

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

In the case of movement of a constituent to the edge of a phase, crossing over a nonmoved
constituent in the same phase, a structural configuration is created in which the higher copy of
the moved constituent c-commands the nonmoved phasemate. If this c-command relation
“counted” for the case rules in (5), we would expect early assignment of dependent case, at the
completion of the smallest phase containing two or more case-needy NPs. But except in cases
of terminal movement, the c-command relation between the higher copy of a moved constituent
and a phasemate does not count for (5). The higher copy is spelled out only if it is in a criterial
position;10 in derivations involving successive-cyclic movement via the phase edge, the lower
copy of the chain of a moved constituent is targeted by phasal Spell-Out (and silenced), with the
copy on the edge being left unaffected by Spell-Out at the phase and therefore not competing for
case with an NP that it c-commands.

Not only is the intermediate phase-edge copy of a moved NP not a player in the dependent
case game, the phase-internal copy of the NP is not a case competitor either. Although it undergoes
Spell-Out at the completion of the phase, PF silences the lower copy. Silent copies are not visible
to the dependent case rules in (5): these rules decide on the distribution of cases to two or more
phonologically overt NPs within a phase.11 So in cases of NP-movement out of a phase via the
edge of a phase, crossing one other NP, the dependent case rules in (5) are not activated at the
lower phase. And even though it is spelled out with the rest of the phase, the first element of a
phase continues to be visible outside the phase at PF, for the purpose of linearization relative to
material in the next-higher phase (15c).

4 Applying the Proposal to Applicatives of Unaccusatives

4.1 Low Applicatives of Unaccusatives

Consider again the structure of low applicatives of unaccusative verbs, repeated in (16) (the
bracketed version of (13)).

(16) [VP(cid:3)(cid:4) V [ApplP APPL.OBJ [Appl′ Appl INT.ARG]]]

Here, ApplP is merged within VP, so VP represents the complete PAS and hence constitutes the
lower phase. Since neither is born on the edge of the phase, both the applied object and the theme
are eligible in principle for movement within the phase onto its edge. But since the applied object
is the higher of the two objects, it gets first dibs on moving, so the theme stays put.

10 Because criterial positions have LF properties, these properties can in principle play a role in deciding whether
the dependent case rules in (5) should count a constituent in a criterial position as a case competitor. In English-type
languages, an NP occupying an A¯ -position does not compete for case with another NP in the same phase. So in Which
city did he die in?, we do not get dependent accusative case assigned to the subject even in the higher phase (CP): at
the level of the higher phase, the A¯ -status of the wh-NP causes it not to compete for case with the subject; in the higher
phase there is only one NP (the subject) that is case-needy, so dependent case is never activated and the subject gets
nominative case.

11 Variables left behind by A¯ -movement of a nominal category do count for the dependent case rules in (5). Though
not pronounced, variables are visible to PF (cf. wanna-contraction). Exactly how this comes to pass is something I cannot
address here. This is a general problem, not one that is specific to anything I am proposing in this article.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

495

When the applied object has moved to the edge of the lower phase and Spell-Out applies
to VP, the lower copy of the applied object is silenced. A silent copy is not a case competitor,
so it plays no role in connection with the dependent case rules in (5). Spell-Out of the silenced
copy of the applied object also does not give rise to a linearization statement involving this object,
precisely because the lower copy is silent. The higher copy of the applied object on the edge of
the lower phase is not in a criterial position, hence remains unaffected when the lower phase is
spelled out. The fact that the applied object c-commands the theme is registered at the level of
the lower phase but does not have any consequences there.

Once the applied object has moved to Spec,TP, it is targeted by Spell-Out in the higher
phase, CP: (17). It is at this point that inspection of the dependent case rules in (5) becomes
relevant.

(17) [CP(cid:3)(cid:4) C [TP APPL.OBJ [T′ T ( . . . ) [VP(cid:3)(cid:4) APPL.OBJ [VP V [ApplP APPL.OBJ [Appl′ Appl

INT.ARG]]]]]]]

In languages with the dependent case rule in (5a), the theme, although c-commanded by the
spelled-out applied object, is not assigned dependent accusative case because there is no phase-
internal competition between the applied object in Spec,TP and the theme in VP, the latter invisible
after the lower phase is spelled out. Similarly, in languages abiding by (5b), the applied object
in Spec,TP does not get assigned dependent ergative case. Neither NP competes with any active
phasemate, so dependent case is never accessed in low applicatives with an unaccusative or
detransitivized verb. We thus expect never to find an ergative or accusative NP in low applicatives
of unaccusatives.12

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

12 Constructions with (equivalents of ) the verb get are sometimes analyzed as low applicatives of an unaccusative
verb (cf. Haegeman 1985, Pesetsky 1995:124, SigurLsson and Wood 2012). Similarly, possessive have sentences have
been analyzed as raising constructions featuring promotion of a low applied object and assignment of accusative case to
the possessum (see Myler 2016 for a critical survey of the various approaches to possessive have taken in the literature).
These analyses are either untenable or in need of major modification if the text approach to low applicatives of unaccusa-
tives is correct. Let me mention the case of German (i) as an example.

(i) Er hat einen Brief bekommen.
he has a.ACC letter BE.come
‘He got/received a letter.’

This get construction features a complex verb consisting of the motion verb kommen ‘come’ and the prefix be- (a cognate
of the English preposition by; on the relation between be- and applicative morphology, see Den Dikken 1995:chap. 5),
an apparent case of a low applicative of a lexical unaccusative verb. Hoekstra and Mulder (1990) argue in detail that
positional verbs as well as the dynamic counterparts thereof (i.e., verbs of motion) can be used as copular verbs. (Indeed,
English be-come is indisputably a copula, though not usable in the way be-kommen is in (i).) This provides an immediate
way out for (i): with kommen used as a copula, we are dealing in (i) not with a structure based on (13) but with one in
which the copula (kommen) mediates a direct predication relation between the possessor and the theme. (Interestingly,
German bekommen can also be used in an experiential high applicative construction, as illustrated in (ii). In (ii), kommen
is used noncopularly, as a garden-variety unaccusative motion verb (cf. English go down), and takes the theme das Essen
‘the food’ inside its VP. This VP is subsequently related to an experiencer (dative ihm ‘him’) by a high Appl head merging
with the VP.)

(ii) Das Essen ist ihm

nicht gut bekommen.

the food is him.DAT not well BE.come
‘The food did not go down well with him.’

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

496

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

In languages in which the capacity to license NPs with unmarked case (nominative or absolu-
tive) is not tied to tense or finiteness, low applicatives of unaccusatives will be grammatical with
unmarked case for both NPs: the applied object in Spec,TP gets the unmarked case in the higher
phase, and the theme gets it in the lower one. From the literature on ergative-absolutive systems
(see Aldridge 2004, Legate 2008), we are familiar with a split between languages that do and
languages that do not link absolutive case to T[(cid:4)FIN]. The double absolutive case pattern in the
low applicatives of unaccusatives in (4) reveals that Shipibo belongs to the latter group.13

4.2 High Applicatives of Unaccusatives

In high applicatives of unaccusative verbs, ApplP is merged outside VP and we are dealing with
the structure in (11), repeated in bracketed form as (18).

(18) [ApplP(cid:3)(cid:4) APPL.OBJ [Appl′ Appl [VP V INT.ARG]]]

Here, ApplP represents the complete PAS and therefore constitutes the lower phase. The applied
object, born on the edge of the phase, is spelled out with the phase and is not allowed to move
onto the edge of the phase; recall from section 3.4 that constituents born on the edge of a phase
cannot move to the edge of the same phase (a general antilocality constraint that is an inherent
part of the Minimalist toolkit). Hence, the applied object must be spelled out with the lower
phase, ineligible for promotion to subject.

The theme, on the other hand, can be maneuvered onto the edge of the phase and be eligible
for promotion. The copy of the theme on the edge of the lower phase is not spelled out. The copy
in the theme’s base position is, but it is silenced and hence not a competitor for case. So the case
rules in (5) are not activated in the lower phase. The only NP that is up for case licensing in the
lower phase is the applied object, and it can be licensed only by getting the unmarked case—which
is possible only in languages that do not tie unmarked case strictly to finite T.

Shipibo is such a language. In its high applicatives of unaccusatives, illustrated in (3) (re-
peated here), the derivation is allowed to continue beyond the ApplP phase because the applied
object can be case-licensed by unmarked ABS within that phase.

(3) a. Bimi-n-ra

Rosa

joshin-xon-ke.
fruit-ERG-PRT Rosa(ABS) ripen-APPL-PRF
‘The fruit ripened for Rosa.’

b. Nato yapa-n-ra Maria

payo-xon-ke.
fish-ERG-PRT Maria(ABS) spoil-APPL-PRF

this
‘This fish spoiled on Maria.’
(Baker 2014:346, (9b); 366, (45b))

13 In cases in which the availability of unmarked case is tied strictly to finite T, we expect to find unaccusative low
applicatives only if one of the objects has access to inherent or P-assigned case. This is accurate for some psych-verb
constructions (in particular, those featuring the experiencer in an oblique PP), and also for the Sesotho locative applicative
construction mentioned in footnote 6.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

497

The theme, raising out of the lower phase via its edge, eventually becomes the subject of the
clause and establishes an asymmetric c-command relation with the applied object at that point.
Importantly, though the applied object has already been spelled out with the lower phase, the fact
that it is the first element of the lower phase makes it visible to the higher phase at PF: the
material in the higher phase must be linearized to the left of the lower phase, which means that
the first element of the lower phase must be visible to the linearization rules applicable in the
higher phase, as schematized in (19).

(19) [CP(cid:3)(cid:4) C [TP INT.ARG [T′ T ( . . . ) [ApplP(cid:3)(cid:4) INT.ARG [ApplP APPL.OBJ [Appl′ Appl [VP V

INT.ARG]]]]]]]

Since the first spelled-out element of the lower phase must be visible in the higher phase, and
since this first element, in high applicatives of unaccusatives, is the applied object, the case rules
in (5), when applied in the higher phase, have access to the applied object.

There are therefore two NPs within the purview of the case rules in (5) when these are
consulted in the higher phase of high applicatives of unaccusatives. The next question to address
for such applicatives is whether or not the applied object is a competitor to the raised theme for
case in the higher phase.

In the lower phase of a high applicative of an unaccusative, the applied object is not the
recipient of dependent case (a marked case): if it gets licensed, it does so by unmarked case. Here
“unmarked” should be understood in the sense of the Elsewhere Principle—it is the “elsewhere
case.” The unmarked NP is not the beneficiary of a morphosyntactic case-marking/assignment
process: the unmarked NP is case-licensed (for LF purposes, by the elsewhere rule) but not case-
marked.

For the particular case of high applicatives of unaccusatives, this makes the applied object
a competitor for the raised theme: the applied object is visible (by virtue of being the first spelled-
out element of the lower phase) for the PF rules applying in the higher phase; and the applied
object does not yet have a marked case, so it is active for the rules in (5). Thus, in (3) the applied
object and the raised theme are the two players when case rule (5b) is applied at the level of the
higher phase, as in (19). This rule picks NP1 (the theme) as the beneficiary of dependent case,
once again leaving unmarked absolutive case for NP2 (the applied object). Thanks to the fact that
the dependent case rule in (5b), applied in the higher phase, sees both the raised theme (in Spec,TP)
and the high applied object (in Spec,ApplP), it assigns ERG to the theme. Shipibo (3) has exactly
this case array.

In Amharic, a nominative-accusative language beholden to (5a), high applicatives of unaccu-
satives come out as in (6), with accusative case on the applied object and unmarked nominative
for the theme. At the point at which the higher phase is spelled out, the applied object (visible
at PF because it is the first element of the lower phase) becomes NP2 in the case competition
with NP1 (the raised internal argument). This causes the dependent case rule in (5a) to identify
NP2 (the applied object) as the assignee of dependent accusative case at the level of the higher
phase.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

498

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

In Nez Perce (7) (of which (7a) and (7c) are repeated here as (20a–b), with new structures
reflecting the present article’s hypotheses), we find a mix of (3) and (6). The raised theme is the
beneficiary of dependent ergative case in the higher phase, as in both Amharic and Shipibo. But
the applied object gets unmarked (nominative) case only if possessor raising takes place from it,
with the raised possessor taking accusative case, as in (20b), for whose analysis I make the
minimal assumption that the applied object and its external possessor are specifiers of the same
ApplP.14 In the absence of possessor raising, the applied object of applicatives of unaccusatives
is realized with accusative case (20a).

(20) a. ’ip-ne

pa-pay-noo-ya

[Angel-nim sik’em-nim].

3SG-ACC 3/3-come-APPL-REM.PST Angel-GEN horse-ERG
‘Angel’s horse came to her.’
[CP(cid:3)(cid:4) C [TP INT.ARG [T′ T ( . . . ) [ApplP(cid:3)(cid:4) INT.ARG [ApplP APPL.OBJ [Appl′ Appl [VP V
INT.ARG]]]]]]]

b. Ko-nim ha-’ayato-na

hi-nees-’ileese-nuu-ey’-se
DEM-ERG PL-woman-ACC 3SUBJ-O.PL-make.noise-APPL-(cid:3)-IMPF meeting.NOM
‘That person is making noise at the ladies’ meeting.’
[CP(cid:3)(cid:4) C [TP INT.ARG [T′ T ( . . . ) [Appl(cid:3)(cid:4) INT.ARG [ApplP POSSi [ApplP [eci APPL.OBJ]
[Appl′ Appl [VP V INT.ARG]]]]]]]]

pi’amkin.

In both (20a) and (20b), the theme moves to the edge of the lower phase as an intermediate
step in its escape from this phase. The copy of the theme on the edge of the lower phase is not
spelled out and does not activate the dependent case rule in (5b); its lower copy is silenced.
Assuming that the unmarked case of Nez Perce, as in Shipibo, is unconnected to T[FIN], we get
the applied object licensed with unmarked (nominative) case at the level of the lower phase. For
(20b), this is entirely as it should be. But for the accusative case of the applied object in (20a),
and of the raised possessor in (20b), something more needs to be said.

The tripartite case system of Nez Perce can be understood if ergative and unmarked (nomina-
tive) case are assigned on the basis of the dependent case rule in (5b), whereas accusative case
is a morphological reflex of object agreement (Woolford (1997) calls this “objective case”), which
in Nez Perce works along the lines of nominative-accusative agreement systems. Agreement-
based accusative assignment targets the highest nominal constituent spelled out with the lower
phase. In (20a), the verb agrees with the applied object ’ip; hence, this NP hosts the accusative
case marker -ne (now properly understood as a marker of object agreement), and the unmarked

14 External possession constructions in the world’s languages typically have the syntax of applicatives; therefore,
Spec,ApplP is a natural home for the external possessor. The external possessor is the higher of the two specifiers of
ApplP, binding the object-internal empty category ec (which on a movement analysis of possessor raising is a silent copy
of the possessor and on base-generation approaches a silent proform; Deal’s (2013) locality-based argument for a move-
ment analysis of Nez Perce possessor raising is not unassailable, but I leave the matter open because for my purposes,
unlike for Deal’s (2019), it probably does not matter which analysis is chosen). In the presence of a raised possessor in
its outer specifier, Appl in (20b) is realized as -nuu(cid:4)-ey’ (the latter morpheme treated by Deal as the spell-out of her (cid:3);
see (7c)).

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

499

case does not surface. In (20b), the highest noun phrase spelled out with the lower phase is the
raised possessor, which accordingly is the target of object agreement (the agreement prefix nees-
reflects the fact that there is a plural object) and the bearer of the accusative suffix, leaving
unmarked case for the applied object. Neither the applied object nor its external possessor is
eligible for promotion to subject in (20b) because both are born on the edge of the lower phase.
So the theme becomes the subject of the clause, and in that capacity, when the dependent case
rule in (5b) is consulted at the level of the higher phase, the recipient of ergative case.

Dependent case and agreement-based case may thus coexist in a single language. But without
a phase-based dependent case system of the type put forward here, the complete picture of case
in high and low applicatives of unaccusatives would not be captured.

5 Concluding Remarks

Baker’s (1988) analysis of applicativization as complex predicate formation (via P-incorporation)
relies on his Case Frame Preservation Principle (1), which rules out applicatives of unaccusatives.
But applicatives of unaccusatives exist, and even come in two types: those in which the theme
is promoted to subject (as in Shipibo (3), Amharic (6), and Nez Perce (7)) and those in which it
is the applied object that becomes the subject (as in Shipibo (4)).

In this article, I have reduced the variation in the realm of applicatives of unaccusatives to

three factors:

1. the structural height of the applied object (low vs. high applicatives);
2. the locus of the lower phase in the structure of the clause—a function of the previous

factor;

3. the (un)availability of unmarked case in nonfinite structural domains—a case of paramet-

ric variation regarding the application of the “elsewhere rule.”

These three independently necessary points of language variation interact with the theory of phases
and their edges and the phase-based theory of dependent case advanced in section 3.

A salient ingredient of the theory of phases expounded here is that no blanket exemption is
made for the phase edge at the point where the phase is spelled out. At Spell-Out, the entire phase
is targeted. A constituent born on the edge of a phase is spelled out with the phase and is ineligible
for extraction from it—though thanks to being the first spelled-out element of the phase, it is
still visible to the next-higher phase for linearization and case assignment purposes. Chains of
constituents moved to the edge of a phase are spelled out with the phase in either of two ways:
in the case of terminal movement to a criterial position, the copy on the phase edge is targeted
by Spell-Out; in cases of intermediate movement, the lower copy of the moved constituent is
spelled out, by silencing, and the copy on the edge remains unaffected by Spell-Out at the level
of the phase at hand.

The proposal advanced in this article correctly derives that, with the exception of languages
allowing multiple unmarked NPs (such as Shipibo), low applicatives of unaccusatives are impossi-
ble, and that high applicatives of unaccusatives are grammatical but give rise to variation in the
case of the applied object. It derives this without the need for appeals to “soft” phases, invisibly

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

500

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

PP-contained applied objects, TP-tied dependent cases,15 a difference in the dependent case rules’
sensitivity to old and new c-command relations, or any particular constraints on remnant movement
or antilocality other than general (“Minimalist”) derivational economy (“You cannot be on the
edge of the same ph(r)ase twice”).

The syntax of applicative constructions presents puzzles beyond the ones addressed here
(and in Baker 2014, Deal 2019). A well-known but still less than fully understood quandary is
the variation within Bantu (and beyond) with respect to passivization of ditransitive applicative
constructions (Holmberg, Sheehan, and Van der Wal 2019). This variation does not seem to align
itself with the high vs. low applicative dichotomy of Pylkka¨nen (2008). Nakamura (1997) notes
that while benefactive applicatives in Kinyarwanda and Kichaga alike allow promotion of the
theme, locative applicatives allow theme promotion in Kichaga but not in Kinyarwanda, even
though Kichaga and Kinyarwanda locative applicatives presumably do not differ with respect to
the height of ApplP.16

The proposal for applicativization of unaccusatives advanced in this article, while sharing
with McGinnis’s (2001) proposal its exploitation of the high/low applicative distinction and the
role played by the location of phase boundaries, does not predict that passives of ditransitive
applicatives should track applicatives of unaccusatives. Although as far as I am aware the conclu-
sion that high applicatives of unaccusatives ban raising of the high applied object to Spec,TP is
unassailable, high applied objects can be promoted to subject in the passive (e.g., in Kinyarwanda:
Kimenyi 1980; also see footnote 6 above on passive “rescuing” benefactive applicatives of un-
accusatives in Sesotho).

That promotion to subject of the applied object of passive applicatives is grammatical does
not pose a problem for the analysis of high applicatives of unaccusatives presented here. There
are important analytical differences between applicatives of unaccusatives and passives of applica-
tives. The PAS of a passive sentence contains more than the theme and the applied object: it also
includes an agent. The agent is introduced outside the high ApplP, so the locus of the lower phase
of passives of high applicatives is not the high ApplP (as it would be in a high applicative of an
unaccusative) but a larger structural unit (call it VoiceP). Since the high applied object is not
born on the edge of this lower phase, it is able to escape from it and be promoted into the structural
subject position.

15 The present proposal does tie the availability of unmarked case to T—more specifically, to T[FIN] —on a language-
particular basis. But this is clearly necessary entirely independently of the syntax of applicatives of unaccusatives, for
both nominative-accusative and ergative-absolutive case systems. By contrast, Baker’s (2014) connecting dependent case
marking to T does not have a precedent or a source of independent support.

16 Nakamura’s (1997) Bantu-comparative investigation leads to the conclusion that promotion of the theme in an
applicative is prohibited only if the applicative is derived by P-incorporation (along the lines of Baker 1988) and there
is an analytic equivalent of the applicative containing an independent preposition. Kichaga lacks prepositions altogether
(Bresnan and Moshi 1990), so none of its applicative constructions has an analytic counterpart with a PP; in Kinyarwanda,
locative applicatives alternate with an analytic construction involving a PP, and locative applicatives involve P-incorpora-
tion, whereas benefactive applicatives do not. Judging from Machobane 1989, all Sesotho ditransitive applicatives passivize
symmetrically, with either object being a candidate for promotion to subject. I have not investigated how Sesotho fits
into Nakamura’s typology with regard to P-incorporation and availability of an analytic PP equivalent. Amharic is notewor-
thy for the fact that its passives of low applicatives behave just like high applicatives of unaccusatives (Baker 2012).

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

501

Thus, my proposal does not predict the same pattern of (a)symmetry in applicatives of
unaccusatives and passives of applicatives. It is likely that the high/low applicative distinction
plays a role in both; but for each case we need to investigate separately what the facts and
analytical expectations are. For applicatives of unaccusatives, I have advanced a precise proposal
that makes the right predictions. For passives of applicatives, there are several proposals already
available that invoke the services of the phase (e.g., McGinnis 2001, Jeong 2007, Georgala 2012:
sec. 2.4). The syntax of ditransitive constructions is a topic with a venerable history of debate in
the generative literature. The complexity of this topic is such that I cannot do it justice in this
short article.

References

Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Doctoral dissertation, Uni-

versity of Connecticut.

Aldridge, Edith. 2004. Ergativity and word order in Austronesian languages. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell

University.

Authier, J.-Marc. 1991. Null subjects in the DP and inalienable construal in French. In The proceedings of
the Ninth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Aaron Halpern, 15–28. Stanford,
CA: CSLI Publications.

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, Mark. 2012. On the relationship of object agreement and accusative case: Evidence from Amharic.

Linguistic Inquiry 43:255–274.

Baker, Mark. 2014. On dependent ergative case (in Shipibo) and its derivation by phase. Linguistic Inquiry

45:341–379.

Baker, Mark, and Nadezhda Vinokurova. 2010. Two modalities of case assignment in Sakha. Natural Lan-

guage and Linguistic Theory 28:593–642.

Belletti, Adriana, and Luigi Rizzi. 1988. Psych-verbs and (cid:2)-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

6:291–352.

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2003. Floating quantifiers: Handle with care. In The second Glot International
state-of-the-article book, ed. by Lisa Cheng and Rynt Sybesma, 107–148. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110890952.107.

Bo’kovic´, äeljko. 2015. From the Complex NP Constraint to everything: On deep extractions across categor-

ies. The Linguistic Review 32:603–669.

Bo’kovic´, äeljko. 2016. On the timing of labeling: Deducing Comp-trace effects, the Subject Condition,

the Adjunct Condition and tucking in from labeling. The Linguistic Review 33:17–66.

Bresnan, Joan, and Lioba Moshi. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry

21:147–186.

Burton, Strang, and Jane Grimshaw. 1992. Coordination and VP-internal subjects. Linguistic Inquiry 23:

305–312.

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz,

1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Deal, Amy Rose. 2013. Possessor raising. Linguistic Inquiry 44:391–432.
Deal, Amy Rose. 2019. Raising to ergative: Remarks on applicatives of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry

50:388–415.

Dikken, Marcel den. 1995. Particles: On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

502

M A R C E L D E N D I K K E N

Dikken, Marcel den. 2006. Relators and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dikken, Marcel den. 2007. Phase extension: Contours of a theory of the role of head movement in phrasal

extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33:1–41.

Erlewine, Michael Yoshitaka. 2016. Anti-locality and optimality in Kaqchikel agent focus. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 34:429–479.

Fox, Danny, and David Pesetsky. 2005. Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics

31:1–45.

Georgala, Efthymia. 2012. Applicatives in their structural and thematic function: A Minimalist account of

multitransitivity. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

Georgala, Efthymia, Waltraud Paul, and John Whitman. 2008. Expletive and thematic applicatives. In
WCCFL 26, ed. by Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie, 181–189. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
Press.

Gerdts, Donna. 1988. Object and absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York: Garland.
Gue´ron, Jacqueline. 1985. Inalienable possession, PRO-inclusion and lexical chains. In Grammatical repre-
sentation, ed. by Jacqueline Gue´ron, Hans-Georg Obenauer, and Jean-Yves Pollock, 43–86. Dor-
drecht: Foris.

Haegeman, Liliane. 1985. The get-passive and Burzio’s Generalization. Lingua 66:53–77.
Heycock, Caroline. 1995. Asymmetries in reconstruction. Linguistic Inquiry 26:547–570.
Hoekstra, Teun, and Rene´ Mulder. 1990. Unergatives as copular verbs: Locational and existential predication.

The Linguistic Review 7:1–79.

Holmberg, Anders, Michelle Sheehan, and Jenneke van der Wal. 2019. Movement from the double object

construction is not fully symmetrical. Linguistic Inquiry 50:677–722.

Huang, C.-T. James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical consequences. Linguistic

Inquiry 24:103–138.

Jeong, Youngmi. 2007. Applicatives: Structure and interpretation from a Minimalist perspective. Amster-

dam: John Benjamins.

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1980. A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85:211–258.
Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon,

ed. by Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Landau, Idan. 2007. EPP extensions. Linguistic Inquiry 38:485–524.
Lasnik, Howard, and Mamoru Saito. 1992. Move (cid:5): Conditions on its application and output. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Legate, Julie Anne. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34:506–516.
Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Morphological and abstract case. Linguistic Inquiry 39:55–101.
Machobane, Malilo. 1989. Some restrictions on Sesotho transitivizing morphemes. Doctoral dissertation,

McGill University.

Marantz, Alec. 1991. Case and licensing. In Proceedings of the 8th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics
(ESCOL8), ed. by Germa´n Westphal, Benjamin Ao, and Hee-Rahk Chae, 234–253. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University, CLC Publications.

Massam, Diane. 2006. Neither absolutive nor ergative is nominative or accusative. In Ergativity: Emerging
issues, ed. by Alana Johns, Diane Massam, and Juve´nal Ndayiragije, 27–46. Dordrecht: Springer.
McGinnis, Martha. 2001. Phases and the syntax of applicatives. In NELS 31, ed. by Min-Joo Kim and Uri
Strauss, 333–349. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistics Students Association.
McNally, Louise. 1992. VP coordination and the VP-internal subject hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry 23:

336–341.

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

H I G H A N D L O W A P P L I C A T I V E S O F U N A C C U S A T I V E S

503

Mu¨ller, Gereon. 1996. A constraint on remnant movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14:

355–407.

Myler, Neil. 2016. Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nakamura, Masanori. 1997. Object extraction in Bantu applicatives: Some implications for Minimalism.

Linguistic Inquiry 28:252–280.

Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Peterson, David. 1999. Discourse-functional, historical, and typological aspects of applicative constructions.

Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Pylkka¨nen, Liina. 2008. Introducing arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of grammar, ed. by Liliane Haegeman,

281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. Ms., University of Siena.
SigurLsson, Einar Freyr, and Jim Wood. 2012. Case alternations in Icelandic get-passives. Nordic Journal

of Linguistics 35:269–312.

Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure.

Linguistic Inquiry 19:425–449.

Travis, Lisa deMena. 2010. Inner aspect. Dordrecht: Springer.
Valenzuela, Pilar. 2010. Applicative constructions in Shipibo-Konibo (Panoan). International Journal of

American Linguistics 76:101–144.

Vergnaud, Jean-Roger, and Maria Luisa Zubizarreta. 1992. The definite determiner and the inalienable

constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry 23:595–652.

Woolford, Ellen. 1997. Four-way case systems: Ergative, nominative, objective and accusative. Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory 15:181–227.

Department of English Linguistics
Eo¨tvo¨s Lora´nd University
and
Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics

marcel.den.dikken@nytud.hu

l

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

p

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

m

i
t
.

e
d
u

/
l
i

/

n
g
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

l

f
/

/

/

/

5
4
3
4
7
9
2
1
3
6
0
6
0

/
l
i

n
g
_
a
_
0
0
4
5
0
p
d

.

f

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Download pdf