Cover not available

In:Advances in Research on Semantic Roles
Edited by Seppo Kittilä and Fernando Zúñiga
[Benjamins Current Topics 88] 2016
► pp. 109–131

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Benefaction proper and surrogation

Published online: 29 June 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.88.05zun
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 (27)
References
Blake, Barry. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen & Eric Pederson (eds.). 2011. Event representation in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hole, Daniel. 2008. Dativ, Bindung und Diathese. Berlin: Humboldt University Habilitation thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9(2). 269–297.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Penny, Ralph. 2002. A history of the Spanish language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peterson, David. 2007. Applicative constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rice, Sally & Kaori Kabata. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11(3). 451–514. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadler, Wesley. 1964. Untangled Bemba: A language of Northern Rhodesia, Central Africa. Kitwe: The United Church of Central Africa in Rhodesia.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Tomoko. 2005. Affectedness constructions: How languages indicate positive and negative events. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Somers, Harold. 1987. Valency and case in computational linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teng, S.-H. 1975. A semantic study of transitivity in Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2011a. The grammar of benefaction: A crosslinguistic study. Zurich: University of Zurich Habilitation thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue