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.
References (27)
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.
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.
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.
Kittilä, Seppo. 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, F.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.
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.
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.
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. 

Zúñiga, Fernando. 2011a. The grammar of benefaction: A crosslinguistic study. Zurich: University of Zurich Habilitation thesis.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Creissels, Denis
2024.
Transitivity, Valency, and Voice,

Brosig, Benjamin
2021.
Expressing intent, imminence and ire by attributing speech/thought in Mongolian.
Folia Linguistica 0:0

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 november 2024. 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.