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 (27)
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 (2)

Cited by two 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 19 july 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.