Part of
Advances in Research on Semantic RolesEdited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Benjamins Current Topics 88] 2016
► pp. 109–131
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Benjamins Current Topics 88] 2016
► pp. 109–131
Benefaction proper and surrogation
The semantic role of beneficiary is usually conceptualized in very general terms, typically without an intensional definition of what can constitute a benefit in the particular construction under study. Among those accounts that have proposed to discuss benefaction as related to the notion(s) of surrogation, substituting, and/or deputing, Kittilä (2005) proposes a distinction between recipients, beneficiaries, and recipient-beneficiaries based on the binary features [reception] and [substitutive benefaction]; the recipient includes only reception (and the beneficiary only substitutive benefaction), whereas both features are relevant with recipient-beneficiaries.
This chapter proposes an alternative account (i) by defining benefaction proper in terms of a prototype related to possession (and thereby to reception) and a periphery, and (ii) by defining surrogation as a separate notion that can, but need not, coalesce with benefaction proper. Thus, the beneficiaries’ condition improves because they are relieved from having to carry out a given action themselves.
References
Blake, Barry
1994 Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Nicholas Enfield, James Essegbey, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Sotaro Kita, Friederike Lüpke & Felix Ameka
2007 Principles of event segmentation in language: The case of motion events. Language 83(3). 495–532. 
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen & Eric Pederson
(eds.) 2011 Event representation in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Censabella, Marisa
2010 Beneficiaries and recipients in Toba (Guaycurú). In Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 185–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fillmore, Charles
2004 Circumstance concepts. In G. Booij, et al. (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, Vol. 2, 1117–1130. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Frawley, William
1992 Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hole, Daniel
2008 Dativ, Bindung und Diathese. Berlin: Humboldt University Habilitation thesis.
Kittilä, Seppo
2005 Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9(2). 269–297.
2010 Beneficiary coding in Finnish. In Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 245–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marten, Lutz & Nancy Kula
2011 Benefactive and substitutive applicatives in Bemba. Ms., SOAS and University of Essex.
Palmer, Frank R
1994 Grammatical roles and relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Penny, Ralph
2002 A history of the Spanish language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peterson, David
2007 Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Platt, J
1971 Grammatical form and grammatical meaning: A tagmemic view of Fillmore’s deep structure case concepts. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Rapold, Christian
2010 Beneficiary and other roles of the dative in Tashelhiyt. In Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 351–376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata
2007 Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11(3). 451–514.
Sadler, Wesley
1964 Untangled Bemba: A language of Northern Rhodesia, Central Africa. Kitwe: The United Church of Central Africa in Rhodesia.
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten
2010 The roles of benefactives and related notions in the typology of purpose clauses. In Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 121–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shibatani, Masayoshi
1996 Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning, 157–194. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Smith, Tomoko
2005 Affectedness constructions: How languages indicate positive and negative events. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley dissertation.
Somers, Harold
1987 Valency and case in computational linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Song, Jae Jung
2010 Korean benefactive particles and their meanings. In Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 393–418. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Teng, S.-H
1975 A semantic study of transitivity in Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla
1997 Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Völlmin, Sascha
2010 Benefactives and malefactives in Gumer (Gurage). In Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 317–330. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zúñiga, Fernando
2011a The grammar of benefaction: A crosslinguistic study. Zurich: University of Zurich Habilitation thesis.
2011b Why should beneficiaries be subjects (or objects)? In S. Kittilä, K. Västi, and J. Ylikoski (eds.), Case, Animacy and Semantic Roles, 329–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.