Cover not available
Article published In:
Advances in research on semantic roles
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Studies in Language 38:3] 2014
► pp. 543–565

Benefaction proper and surrogation

The semantic role of beneficiary is usually conceptualized in very general terms, typically without an intensive 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 paper 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.

Keywords: benefactives, beneficiary, substitutive beneficiary, deputative beneficiary, surrogation
Published online: 30 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.3.05zun
References
Blake, Barry
1994 Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen & Eric Pederson
(eds.) 2011 Event representation in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
2004 Circumstance concepts. In G. Booij, et al. (eds.), Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, Vol. 21, 1117–1130. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Frawley, William
1992 Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel
2008 Dativ, Bindung und Diathese. Berlin: Humboldt University Habilitation thesis.Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo
2005 Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9(2). 269–297.Google Scholar
2010 Beneficiary coding in Finnish. In Fernando Zúñiga & Seppo Kittilä (eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies, 245–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marten, Lutz & Nancy Kula
2011 Benefactive and substitutive applicatives in Bemba. Ms., SOAS and University of Essex.
Palmer, F.R
1994 Grammatical roles and relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penny, Ralph
2002 A history of the Spanish language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, David
2007 Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Platt, J
1971 Grammatical form and grammatical meaning: A tagmemic view of Fillmore’s deep structure case concepts. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata
2007 Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11(3). 451–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadler, Wesley
1964 Untangled Bemba: A language of Northern Rhodesia, Central Africa. Kitwe: The United Church of Central Africa in Rhodesia.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Smith, Tomoko
2005 Affectedness constructions: How languages indicate positive and negative events. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Somers, Harold
1987 Valency and case in computational linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teng, S.-H
1975 A semantic study of transitivity in Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla
1997 Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando
2011a The grammar of benefaction: A crosslinguistic study. Zurich: University of Zurich Habilitation thesis.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Brosig, Benjamin
2021. Expressing intent, imminence and ire by attributing speech/thought in Mongolian. Folia Linguistica 0:0 DOI logo
Brosig, Benjamin
2021. Expressing intent, imminence and ire by attributing speech/thought in Mongolian. Folia Linguistica 55:2 ► pp. 433 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 september 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.