Thus we have the following correspondence between the two hierarchies: We can identify their close correspondence from Table-1, so we get the following typological implications: (35) (i) If Goal locatives can be expressed as a PP in L, then Source/Stative locatives can, too.
<Goal, PP>  <Source, PP> and <Stative-L, PP> (ii) <Goal, Locative V>  <Source, Locative V> and <Sym-Path, Locative V> (iii) <Stative-L, Applicative>  <Source, Applicative>  <Goal, pplicative> The correspondence of (iii), for instance, states that the goal argument is easier to take an applicative structure than the stative or source argument, and further implies that the applicative affixes are more closely united to the head verb than a locative verb or a PP.