Applicative and Reciprocal (A+R)

The co-occurrence of applicative and reciprocal (A+R) leads to the meaning ‘doing something for each other or on behalf of each other’ (benefactive and substitutive applicative as discussed by Marten and Kula [2014]). Another meaning is locative, i.e. ‘doing something for each other or on

110 behalf of each other at a certain place’. Examine the examples below based on the verbs hoocha

‘bring back’, kebha ‘cut/slice’ and ha ‘give’ without and with extensions:

43. Mwita a-ra-hooch-a a-bha-ana Mwita 3SG- PRES-bring back- FV AUG-CL2-child Mwita brings back the children.

44. Mwita a-ra- hooch-er-a Chacha a-bha-ana Mwita 3SG- PRES-bring back-APPL-FV Chacha AUG-CL2-child Mwita brings back the children on behalf of Chacha.

45. Mwita na Chacha bha-ra-hooch-er-an-a a-bha-ana Mwita and Chacha 3PL-PRES- bring back-APPL-REC-FV AUG-CL2-child Mwita and Chacha bring back the children on behalf of each other.

The order of applicative and reciprocal in Kuria reveals that the reciprocal has scope over applicative because the applicative is attached to the verb root before the reciprocal. The verb hoocha ‘bring back’ (from a journey or on the way to a place) is a transitive verb that requires two arguments syntactically (subject and object) and semantically (agent and theme), respectively. The addition of applicative as a valency increaser in (44) has added one argument (Chacha) which is beneficiary. When the reciprocal extension is added as in (45) the beneficiary Chacha which was introduced by applicative is suppressed. Examine examples (46) to (48) below for the verb kebha

‘cut/slice’ without and with extension(s):

46. O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-a i-nyama AUG-CL1-child 3SG-PRES-cut-FV AUG-CL9-meat A child is slicing meat.

47. O-mo-ona a-ra-kɛbh-er-a o-mo-ona i-nyama AUG-CL1-child 3SG-PRES-cut-APPL-FV AUG-CL1- child AUG-CL9-meat A child is slicing the meat for another child.

48. A-bha-ana bha-ra-kɛbh-er-an-a i-nyama AUG-CL2- child 3PL-PRES-cut-APPL-REC-FV AUG-CL9-meat Children are slicing the meat for each other.

111 The applicative as a valency increaser introduces one argument omoona ‘a child’ which is beneficiary in (47); and the reciprocal suppressed the new argument omoona in (48) by upgrading it to subject, to join the agent (make co-agent) (which is also omoona ‘a child’), and this makes it a plural argument abhaana ‘children’. This is because, in this case, the reciprocal acts on the meaning of the verb root and the argument introduced by applicative extension. As can be seen above, what has been introduced by the applicative is affected by the reciprocal. This reciprocity usually demands a plural subject or co-joint NP for reciprocity action. This indicates that there should be two or more arguments acting upon each other in the position of the subject. In this case, the subjects in (48) are both agents and beneficiaries, semantically speaking.

The results of the two examples in (45) and (48) show that the total number of arguments has remained the same as the basic sentence in examples (43) and (46) respectively. This is because, although the applicative is a valency increaser, it co-occurs with the valency decreaser extension, hence what has been introduced by applicative Chacha (the processed argument) in example (44) has been suppressed by reciprocal and upgraded to the subject position in example (45) and (48).

Although a number of scholars have referred to the reciprocal as a valency decreaser, my view is that the reciprocal seems to have two functions; firstly, as valency decreaser (syntactically) and secondly, as valency changer of an extension’s position (semantically). This is because what is suppressed in the internal argument is taken (upgraded) to subject position (see more discussion on this issue in Chapter Six). Before demonstrating the other order of the applicative and reciprocal extensions, let us examine another example ‘ditransitive verb’ with the same order (A+R) using the verb ha ‘give’.

The verb ha is a ditransitive verb that requires three arguments semantically known as the agent, the recipient/goal and the theme. When we attach the applicative to a verb, the verb needs one extra argument due to the applicative functions. Consider the example below with the verb ha

‘give’:

49. Mwita a-ra-h-a Chacha i-bhi-tabho Mwita 3SG-PRES-give-FV Chacha AUG-CL8-book Mwita gives books to Chacha.

112 50. Mwita a-ra-h-e-er-a Chacha i-bhi-tabho ghwi-tirisa Mwita 3SG- PRES-give-(add.v)-APPL-FV Chacha AUG-CL8-book CL17-window Mwita gives Chacha books at the window.

51. Mwita na Chacha bha-ra-h-e-er-an-a i-bhi-tabho Mwita and Chacha 3PL-PRES-give-(add.v)-APPL-REC-FV AUG-CL8-book ghwi-tirisa

CL17-window

Mwita and Chacha give books to each other at the window.

In example (49) the arguments Mwita, Chacha and ibhitabho ‘books’ are the core arguments of the verb ha ‘give’, but the presence of the applicative -er- in (50) leads to an extra argument ghwitirisa ‘at the window’ which is locative. At the same time, in example (51) the reciprocal extension suppresses one argument which is Chacha and takes it to the subject position to create the coordinated subject NP of the sentence.

It should however be noted that the applicative extension can introduce other semantic roles like beneficiary, goal, locative, manner, means, and reason depending on the verb meaning. Since the applicative is polysemous, it brings scope ambiguity in the sentences in example (50) and (51).

For instance, in example (50) the new argument ghwitirisa ‘at the window’ can have/entails a number of roles, i.e. as means ‘through the window’, as locative ‘to the window’ (where the action takes place), as the goal ‘where the theme (books) should be put by Mwita on behalf of Chacha’.