Article In:
Diachronica: Online-First Articles

The cycle of applicative in Tibetic

Lexicalization, grammaticalization and pragmaticization

ORCID logo | Humboldt Universität zu Berlin
ORCID logo | Université de Picardie Jules Verne | CNRS-LACITO
This paper investigates the grammaticalization and subsequent pragmaticization of an applicative construction in Tibetic. Based on linguistic data ranging from the 8th century to modern times, we show how successive linguistic changes link a verb phrase originally meaning ‘to act as a companion (of sb.)’ to an imperative marker, through an applicative construction. Despite the scarcity of data, we document the different stages of evolution of this particular construction: the lexicalization of a verb phrase; its grammaticalization into a sociative-benefactive applicative marker; the pragmaticization of particular use patterns of this applicative construction into markers of complaints, wishes and commands; and eventually a secondary grammaticalization into an imperative marker. As they developed, most of these stages have been retained in the modern Tibetic languages and co-exist with lexicalized units based on the same morphological material. Our analysis adds to the recently discussed cross-linguistic data by demonstrating that applicative markers can directly grammaticalize from nouns without an intermediate stage of noun incorporation or adposition. We also show that the range of functions taken over by this construction in synchrony can only be understood by referring to its diachronic evolution.
Keywords: Tibetic languages, noun incorporation, applicative voice, sociative, benefactive, “attitude holder”, imperative marker, lexicalization, diachronic syntax, grammaticalization, pragmaticization, secondary grammaticalization
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Tibetic languages
    • 1.2Corpora
    • 1.3Relevant syntactic features of the Tibetic languages
    • 1.4Applicative: A definition
  • 2.Rise of a new applicative in Old and Middle Tibetan
    • 2.1Verb byed ‘to act’ in Literary Tibetan
    • 2.2 Grogs byed as a verb phrase
      • 2.2.1 Grogs byed ‘to act as a companion’
      • 2.2.2NP+gen grogs byed
      • 2.2.3RC+gen grogs byed
    • 2.3Grammaticalization of grogs byed as a new applicative construction
  • 3.Further development: Pragmaticization of the construction
    • 3.1Polite commands
    • 3.2Wishes or hopes
    • 3.3Complaints
  • 4.Passive
  • 5.Lexicalized constructions
    • 5.1Noun incorporation
    • 5.2Light verb construction
    • 5.3Nominal compound
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Statement of authors’ contributions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • Author queries
  • References and sigla
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (65)
References and sigla
BDRC = The Buddhist Digital Resource Center; [URL]
BDSN = Brda gsar rñiṅ gi rnam par dbye ba of Dbus-pa Blo-gsal ( apud Mimaki 1992)Google Scholar
Betholia, Chandam. 2005. Politeness and power: An analysis of Meiteilon suffixes. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 28(1). 71–87.Google Scholar
Bialek, Joanna. 2020a. Old Tibetan verb morphology and semantics: An attempt at a reconstruction. Himalayan Linguistics 19(1). 263–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. Towards a standardisation of Tibetan transliteration for textual studies. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 561. 28–46.Google Scholar
. 2021. Naming the empire: From Bod to Tibet. A philologico-historical study on the origin of the polity. Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines 611. 339–402.Google Scholar
. 2022. A Textbook in Classical Tibetan. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2023. Emergence of the honorific register in Tibetic languages. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 46(2). 294–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bielmeier, Roland, Katrin Häsler, Chungda Haller, Felix Haller, Veronika Hein, Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart, inter alia and Marius Zemp. 2018. Comparative dictionary of Tibetan dialects (CDTD), vol. 21: Verbs. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bodt, Timotheus Adrianus. 2023. East Bodish revisited. Bulletin of Tibetology 54(1). 49–212.Google Scholar
Bosse, Solveig, Benjamin Bruening and Masahiro Yamada. 2012. Affected experiencers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30(4). 1185–1230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bugaeva, Anna. 2010. Ainu applicatives in typological perspective. Studies in Language 34(4). 749–801. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique, vol. 21. Paris: Lavoisier.Google Scholar
Jong, Jan Willem de. 1959. Mi la ras paʼi rnam thar: Texte tibétain de la vie de Milarépa. The Hague: Mouton & Co. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. The story of Rāma in Tibet: Text and translation of the Tun-huang manuscripts. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2008. Kurtoep and Tibetan. In Brigitte Huber, Marianne Volkart and Paul Widmar (eds.), Chomolangma, Demawend und Kasbek: Festschrift für Roland Bielmeier zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 29–38. Halle: International Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies.Google Scholar
Dotson, Brandon. 2017. On “personal protective deities” (’go ba’i lha) and the Old Tibetan verb ’go . Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 80(3). 525–545. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Driem, George van. 2012. The Trans-Himalayan phylum and its implications for population prehistory. Communication on Centemporary Anthropology 51. 135–142.Google Scholar
DSM = Bcan-lha Ṅag-dbaṅ Chul-khrims. 1997. Brda dkrol gser gyi me loṅ [The golden mirror ellucidating signs]. Beijing: Mi-rigs Dpe-skrun-khaṅ.Google Scholar
Gallica =BnF Gallica [Digital portal of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and its partners] [URL] (accessed 03/08/2024)
Gerdts, Donna B., and Mercedes Q. Hinkson. 2004. The grammaticalization of Halkomelem ‘face’ into a dative applicative suffix. International Journal of American Linguistics 70(3). 227–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
GLR = Bsod-nams Rgyal-mchan. 1750–60 [1368]. Rgyal rabs gsal baɣi me loṅ [The Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies]. edited by Bla-ma čhen-po Kun-dgaɣ Ɣphrin-las Rgya-mcho. Sde-dge.Google Scholar
Gong, Xun. 2020. How many vowels are there in Lhasa Tibetan? Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 43(2). 225–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2003. Grammaticalization. In Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 575–601. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Hill, Nathan W. 2019. The historical phonology of Tibetan, Burmese, and Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hugjiltu, W. 2003. Bonan. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 325–345. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
IDP = International Dunhuang Project; [URL] (accessed 03/08/2024).
Jacques, Guillaume. 2013. Applicative and tropative derivations in Japhug Rgyalrong. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 36(2). 1–13.Google Scholar
. 2021. A grammar of Japhug. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog, and Seongha Rhee (eds.). 2019. World lexicon of grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 1994. L’actance. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Michailovsky, Boyd and Martine Mazaudon. 1994. Preliminary notes on the languages of the Bumthang group. In Per Kværne (ed.), Tibetan Studies, Proceedings of the 6th seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Fagernes 1992, 545–557. Oslo: The Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture.Google Scholar
Mimaki, Katsumi. 1992. Index to two brDa gsar rñiṅ treatises. The works of dBus pa blo gsal and lCaṅ skya Rol pa’i rdo rje. 成田山仏教研究所紀要 (Bulletin of the Naritasan Institute for Buddhist studies) 15(2). 479–503.Google Scholar
ML = Mi-la Ras-pa’s Rnam thar, apud de Jong 1959.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 2019. From body part to applicative: Encoding ‘source’ in Murrinhpatha. Linguistic Typology 23(3). 401–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nugteren, Hans. 2003. Shira Yughur. In Juha Janhunen (ed.), The Mongolic languages, 265–285. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oisel, Guillaume. 2017. Re-evaluation of the of the evidential system of Lhasa Tibetan and its atypical functions. Himalayan Linguistics 16(2). 90–128.Google Scholar
OTDO = Old Tibetan Documents Online; [URL]
Pacchiarotti, Sara and Fernando Zúñiga (eds.). 2022. Applicative morphology: Neglected syntactic and non-syntactic functions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padma Rdorje et al. (eds.). 2005 [1979]. དག་ཡིག་གསར་བསྒྲིགས། Dag yig gsar bsgrigs [New compilation of orthography]. Xining: མཚོ་ན་མི་རིགས་དཔེ་སྐྲུན་ཁན། Mtsho sngon mi rigs dpe skrun khang.Google Scholar
Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2013. Applicative constructions. In Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Róna-Tas, András. 1966. Tibeto-Mongolica: The Tibetan loanwords of Monguor and the development of the archaic Tibetan dialects. London: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
. 1985. Wiener Vorlesungen zur Sprach — und Kulturgeschichte Tibets. Vienna: Arbeitskreis für tibetische und buddhistische Studien Universität Wien.Google Scholar
Rose, Françoise. 2019. From classifiers to applicatives in Mojeño Trinitario: A new source for applicative markers. Linguistic Typology 23(3). 435–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Camille. 2011. Dérivation causative en tibétain (Lhasa). Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence MA thesis.
. 2014. ལྷ་སའི་ཁ་སྐད་ནང་སྐུལ་འདེབས་ཀྱི་ངག་སྟོན་པའི་རྗོད་སྟངས་ཀྱི་ཁྱད་ཆོས་འགའ་ཤས་ངོ་སྤྲོད། [Some semantic properties of causative expressions in Tibetan]. Kobe City University of Foreign Studies Journal of Research Institute 511. 489–503.Google Scholar
. 2016. Morphosyntaxe et sémantique grammaticale du salar et du tibétain de l’Amdo. Analyse d’un contact de langues. Paris: Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle dissertation. Online: [URL]
. 2022. The sociative/benefactive applicative construction and the introduction of attitude holders in Tibetan. In Sara Pacchiarotti and Fernando Zuñiga (eds.), Applicative morphology: Neglected syntactic and non-syntactic functions, 373–404. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slater, Keith. 2003. A grammar of Mangghuer: A Mongolic language of China’s Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sun, Jackson T.-S. 2003. Phonological profile of Zhongu: A new Tibetan dialect of Northern Sichuan. Language and Linguistics 4(4). 769–836.Google Scholar
Thomas, Frederick William. 1957. Ancient folk-literature from North-Eastern Tibet. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas. 1996. L’ergativité en tibétain, approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 2009. Core grammatical roles in Tibetan, with special reference to their syntactic behaviour in subordinate clauses. Paper given at Tübingen Universität, January 2009, unpublished.
. 2014. The Tibetic languages and their classification. In Thomas Owen-Smith and Nathan W. Hill (eds.), Trans-Himalayan linguistics: Historical and descriptive linguistics of the Himalayan area, 105–129. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tournadre, Nicolas and Hiroyuki Suzuki. 2023. The Tibetic languages: An introduction to the family of languages derived from Old Tibetan. Villejuif, France: Lacito Publications.Google Scholar
Uray, Géza. 1954. Comptes-Rendus: Mathias HERMANNS. (1952). Tibetische Dialekte von A mdo. Anthropos, 47(1–2). 193–202. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 41. 308–14.Google Scholar
Zeisler, Bettina. 2007. Case patterns and pattern variation in Ladakhi. In Roland Bielmeyer and Felix Haller (eds.), Linguistics of the Himalayas and beyond, 399–426. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Ambiguous verb sequences in Ladakhi (a Tibetic language spoken in Ladakh, India, formerly part of the state Jammu and Kashmir). In Éva Á. Csató, Lars Johanson and Birsel Karakoç (eds.), Ambiguous verb sequences in Transeurasian languages and beyond, 313–340. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2021. Semantically related verb verb combinations in Tibetan and Ladakhi : 1300 years of stable transition. In Taro Kageyama, Peter E. Hook and Prashant Pardeshi (eds.), Verb-Verb Complexes in Asian Languages, 354–394. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zemp, Marius. 2018. A grammar of Purik Tibetan. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Shuya. 2020. Le dialecte de Brag-bar du rgyalrong situ et sa contribution à la typologie de l’expression des relations spatiales : Le mouvement associé et l’orientation. Paris: Institut national des languaes et civilisations oritentales (INALCO) dissertation.
Zhuang, Lingzi. 2022. GL-impsing Bodish: Agentive transitivization prefix g- in Tamangic and Tibetan. Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 51(2). 139–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar