The role of benefactives and related notions in the typology of purpose clauses

Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten

doi:10.1075/tsl.92.05sch

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This formulation owes much to ideas expounded in a programmatic article by Shibatani (1996) and a case study by Song (2010) as to the exact role played by possession in some East Asian 'give'-benefactives. See Subsection 3.1 (towards the end) for more details on Shibatani's view, and Zúñiga (2011a) for a detailed discussion of the analytical issues involved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…A well-known alternative to the view proposed here is Shibatani's (1996) influential "cognitive account" of such parametrizations as evidenced by the crosslinguistic variation of whether benefactive constructions are applicable to particular beneficial states of affairs or not. (It is important to note that Shibatani restricts the use of benefactive to those constructions where the beneficiary is an argument rather than an adjunct.)…”

Section: Benefaction Proper As Prototypementioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Benefaction proper and surrogation

Zúñiga¹

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Benefaction Proper As Prototypementioning

confidence: 96%