Benefactives and Malefactives
Typological Studies in Language (TSL) A companion series to the journal Studies in Language. Volumes in this series are functionally and typologically oriented, covering specific topics in language by collecting together data from a wide variety of languages and language typologies.
Editor Spike Gildea
University of Oregon
Editorial Board Balthasar Bickel
John Haiman
Marianne Mithun
Bernard Comrie
Martin Haspelmath
Doris L. Payne
Denis Creissels
Bernd Heine
Franz Plank
William Croft
Paul J. Hopper
Anna Siewierska
Nicholas Evans
Andrej A. Kibrik
Dan I. Slobin
Carol Genetti
František Lichtenberk
Sandra A. Thompson
Leipzig
Leipzig / Santa Barbara Lyon
Albuquerque Canberra
Santa Barbara
St Paul
Leipzig Köln
Pittsburgh Moscow
Auckland
Santa Barbara Eugene, OR Konstanz
Lancaster Berkeley
Santa Barbara
Volume 92 Benefactives and Malefactives. Typological perspectives and case studies Edited by Fernando Zúñiga and Seppo Kittilä
Benefactives and Malefactives Typological perspectives and case studies Edited by
Fernando Zúñiga University of Zurich
Seppo Kittilä University of Helsinki
John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdamâ•›/â•›Philadelphia
8
TM
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Benefactives and malefactives : typological perspectives and case studies / edited by Fernando Zúñiga, Seppo Kittilä. p. cm. (Typological Studies in Language, issn 0167-7373 ; v. 92) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Grammar, Comparative and general--Benefactive constructions. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general--Case. 3. Case grammar. I. Zúñiga, Fernando. II. Kittilä, Seppo. P291.27.B46â•… 2010 415--dc22 2010000735 isbn 978 90 272 0673 2 (Hb ; alk. paper) isbn 978 90 272 8831 8 (Eb)
© 2010 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
Table of contents Preface List of contributors Introduction. Benefaction and malefaction from a cross-linguistic perspective Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga Benefactive applicative periphrases: A typological approach Denis Creissels Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactives by event structure: A preliminary framework for benefactive typology Tomoko Yamashita Smith
vii ix 1 29
71
An areal and cross-linguistic study of benefactive and malefactive constructions Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
97
The role of benefactives and related notions in the typology of purpose clauses Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
121
Benefactive and malefactive uses of Salish applicatives Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
147
Beneficiaries and recipients in Toba (Guaycurú) Marisa Censabella
185
Benefactive and malefactive applicativization in Mapudungun Fernando Zúñiga
203
The benefactive semantic potential of ‘caused reception’ constructions: A case study of English, German, French, and Dutch Timothy Colleman
219
Beneficiary coding in Finnish Seppo Kittilä
245
Benefactives in Laz René Lacroix
271
Benefactive and malefactive verb extensions in the Koalib verb system Nicolas Quint
295
 Benefactives and Malefactives
Benefactives and malefactives in Gumer (Gurage) Sascha Völlmin A “reflexive benefactive” in Chamba-Daka (Adamawa branch, Niger-Congo family) Raymond Boyd
317
331
Beneficiary and other roles of the dative in Tashelhiyt Christian J. Rapold
351
Benefactive strategies in Thai Mathias Jenny
377
Korean benefactive particles and their meanings Jae Jung Song
393
Malefactivity in Japanese Eijiro Tsuboi
419
Index
437
Preface This article collection originated in the Workshop on the Typology of Benefactives and Malefactives we organized and held October 25–26, 2007 in Zurich. We would like to thank the Hochschulstiftung of the University of Zurich for providing financial support to the workshop. After learning from the late Mickey Noonan that he was interested in such an article collection for the Benjamins series Typological Studies in Language, we received the papers from the contributors and embarked on the editorial process, which is invariably time-consuming but sometimes—as in this case—very rewarding. We were fortunate enough to be able to interest Masayoshi Shibatani in this project, and he assisted us as guest editor despite his many commitments and extensive traveling during the period. Not only did we benefit from his experience and knowledge, but his expertise in benefactives also made him an invaluable collaborator. We are greatly indebted to Matt for his help, particularly considering the fact that some of the articles even take issue with him on specific analytical decisions. Matt’s assistance notwithstanding, it is we who are responsible for any remaining shortcomings of the present volume, of course.
Fernando Zúñiga Seppo Kittilä Eugene and Helsinki, 2009
List of contributors Raymond Boyd Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique UMR 8135 : Langage, Langues et Cultures d’Afrique Noire 7, rue Guy Môquet 94801 VILLEJUIF Cedex France
[email protected] Marisa Censabella Universidad Nacional del Nordeste, Argentina Instituto de Investigaciones Geohistóricas — CONICET López y Planes 636 (3500) Resistencia Provincia del Chaco Argentina
[email protected] [email protected] Timothy Colleman Ghent University Dutch Linguistics Department Blandijnberg 2 B-9000 Gent Belgium
[email protected] Denis Creissels DDL-ISH 14 avenue Berthelot 69363 Lyon cedex O7 France
[email protected] Donna Gerdts 2563 W. 7th Ave. Vancouver, BC V6K 1Y8 Canada
[email protected]
Mathias Jenny Seminar für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Plattenstrasse 54 8032 Zürich Switzerland
[email protected] Seppo Kittilä General Linguistics P.O.Box 24 00014 University of Helsinki Finland
[email protected] Kaoru Kiyosawa 7-2-5 Toshima, Kita-ku Tokyo 114-0003 Japan
[email protected] René Lacroix 328, rue de Belleville 75020 Paris France
[email protected] Nicolas Quint LLACAN-CNRS 7 rue Guy Môquet 94-801 Villejuif-Cédex France
[email protected] Paula Radetzky National Tsing Hua University Department of Linguistics 101, Section 2 Kuang-Fu Road, Hsinchu, 30013 Taiwan
[email protected]

Benefactives and Malefactives Christian Rapold Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics PO Box 310 6500 AH Nijmegen The Netherlands
[email protected] Karsten Schmidtke-Bode Friedrich Schiller University Jena Department of English and American Studies English Linguistics: Language and Cognition (Chair: Prof. Dr. Holger Diessel) Ernst-Abbe-Platz 8 07743 Jena Germany
[email protected] Tomoko Yamashita Smith Advisement Office for International Students Graduate School of Engineering Osaka University 2-1 Yamada-oka, Suita Osaka 565-0871 Japan
[email protected] Jae Jung Song Linguistics Programme University of Otago, P.O. Box 56 Dunedin 9054 New Zealand
[email protected]
Eijiro Tsuboi Department of Language and Information Sciences Graduate School of Arts and Sciences University of Tokyo, Komaba 3-8-1 Meguro, Tokyo 153-8902 Japan
[email protected] Sascha Völlmin Universität Zürich Seminar für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Plattenstrasse 54 CH-8032 Zürich Switzerland
[email protected] Fernando Zúñiga Seminar für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Plattenstrasse 54 8032 Zürich Switzerland
[email protected]
Introduction Benefaction and malefaction from a cross-linguistic perspective* Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
University of Helsinki/University of Zurich The present volume consists of articles on the expression of benefaction and malefaction, including both a number of detailed studies across a selection of languages from Eurasia, Africa and the Americas, and some cross-linguistic/typological studies dealing with comparative issues. In this introduction we summarize the relevant theoretical presuppositions and suggest generalizations that can be made on the basis of comparison of the individual studies. Section 1 deals with the linguistic notion of benefaction and malefaction, and Section€ 2 describes several formal mechanisms used for the coding of beneficiaries and maleficiaries. Then Section 3 addresses the semantically determined variation in the coding of benefaction and malefaction. Section 4 gives an overview of polysemous/ multifunctional marking strategies for the notions under investigation. Section€5 gives a short preview of each of the following chapters. Finally, in Section 6 we suggest a number of fruitful lines for further research.
1.â•… Defining benefaction and malefaction Due to the considerable attention that the notion of benefaction has received in the linguistic literature, it is not surprising that there are a number of different definitions of beneficiary, either as a purportedly pre-theoretic notion or as a Case/thematic/ semantic role. Both the literature on case and studies of ditransitive clauses have usually used a broad and basically circular definition; the one found in Lehmann et al. *We are indebted to Matt Shibatani for his valuable comments on an earlier version of this introduction. He does not necessarily agree with each and every one of our terminological and/or analytical choices, however, and any remaining errors and misconceptions are our own responsibility. Seppo Kittilä would also like to thank Academy of Finland (grant number 1127724) for providing funding for this study.
Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
(2000: 68; our translation) is a case in point: “[a] benefactive situation is one that occurs to the benefit of a participant”. The goal of this introduction is neither to provide a comprehensive survey of earlier studies of benefaction nor to propose a definition that would make all earlier accounts of the beneficiary role unnecessary. Rather, our objective is to discuss the notion of benefaction from a perspective that makes fruitful comparison of different instances of benefaction possible, both in individual languages and cross-linguistically. Instead of claiming that defining the beneficiary in the terms proposed below is the most appropriate way to conceptualize it, we simply observe that such a framework makes meaningful cross-linguistic analysis possible and advance the following, admittedly simplified, working definition of this role here:1 The beneficiary is a participant that is advantageously affected by an event without being its obligatory participant (either agent or primary target, i.e. patient). Since normally only animate participants are capable of making use of the benefit bestowed upon them, beneficiaries are typically animate.2
English examples include cases as heterogeneous as the dentist painted the house for/ instead of me, the dentist baked me a cake and the children ate olives for their father. In the first case, the beneficiary benefits from the denoted event in not having to carry out the denoted action him/herself. In the second case, the beneficiary is also a recipient, and reception is usually (albeit not necessarily) deemed beneficial. In the third case, benefaction is more indirect in nature, and may mean, for example, that the father receives a promotion resulting from his children’s action (e.g. because the father’s boss
1.â•… The two single most important cross-linguistic studies of benefaction for the present article collection are an article by Matt Shibatani (1996) and a monograph by Carmen Conti (2008). The former proposes a cognitive account of some interesting properties of constructions that treat beneficiaries as core syntactic arguments in a dozen languages, while the latter uses an RRG framework to explore in great detail the morphosyntactic expression of beneficiaries and recipients in a 100-language sample controlled for genetic and areal bias. See Zúñiga (i.p.) for a detailed discussion of some issues related to the definition barely mentioned here. 2.â•… The adverbs normally and typically in this definition naturally raise two related but different issues. First, they imply a judgment on frequency values that reflects our impression after browsing through grammars and specialized studies. It goes without saying that it is data to be analyzed by quantitative-typological studies still to be conducted that can either substantiate or contradict such an impression. Second, they make the wording sound as if the definition were formulated in terms of Prototype Theory, which is not far from the truth: we do not want to exclude “peripheral” beneficiaries from the definition altogether—but see further down in the main body of text concerning the notion of prototype.
Introduction
had brought the olives as a gift and was expecting a positive reaction on the part of her hosts—an arguably rather marked context that is nonetheless possible). The above definition raises a number of important questions that we have deliberately decided not to address in formal terms here. For instance, the beneficiary has been thought of by some scholars as a role with both prototypical and peripheral instantiations, e.g.: “[t]he situation is prototypically controlled, i.e. includes an Actor— the benefactor. A prototypically benefactive situation also includes an Undergoer, which is created (i.e. effected) or affected as benefactum for the benefit of the beneficiary” (Lehmann et al. 2000: 68, our translation).3 In such a view, examples like he bought her flowers are prototypical while those like a puff of wind opened the door for me and the patient coughed for the physician are not. This in turn leads to several related questions we merely limit ourselves to mentioning here. How shall one best treat unspecified/implicit undergoers (sing [a song], eat [something], etc.), which are often not overtly realized in a clause but are arguably included in the semantic representation of the predicate and its arguments? Do canonical benefactive constructions give rise to non-prototypical readings in addition to the default (i.e. prototypical) but unavailable reading when applied to non-canonical predicate-argument scenarios? In other words, what is the status of the non-prototypical meanings: can they be conventionally or conversationally triggered “nuances” in some contexts but meanings firmly associated with particular constructions in others? Are these non-prototypical meanings best thought of as different roles from the beneficiary sensu stricto? In he bought her flowers, under which conditions is the fact that she was relieved from buying flowers herself conveyed by the construction in addition to the fact that he bought the items in order to give them to her? In order to make cross-linguistic comparison as easy as possible, however, but without claiming that such a choice is necessarily the best one, we have decided (a)€not to provide too strict a definition of the beneficiary, and (b) not to articulate the definition in terms of a prototype that includes an agent and a theme. As a consequence, different beneficial effects are granted equal status for descriptive purposes, and instead of postulating additional semantic roles we have preferred to treat different participants covered by our definition as somewhat loose subtypes of the beneficiary role that can, but need not, have specialized morphosyntactic strategies associated to them. This is part of a working definition, of course, whose adequacy remains to be further investigated.
3.â•… Shibatani’s (1996) account centering on the semantics of transfer constructions is also a case in point.
Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
We elaborate in what follows on the central explicit aspects of the working definition given above, viz. the non-obligatoriness of the participant, the fact that beneficiaries are neither agents nor patients, the beneficial quality of the effect, and the beneficiary’s animacy.
1.1â•… Beneficiaries are typically optional Beneficiaries have features in common with recipients, and the two semantic roles are coded alike or at least similarly in a number of languages (e.g. Finnish, German, Lokono Dian, Warlpiri, etc., see also 4.1 below). However, recipients are often obligatory arguments of verbs, most notably with verbs of giving (see Kittilä 2006: 585f), while the non-obligatory nature of beneficiaries is manifested in the fact that they can often be omitted. In other words, recipients can be semantic arguments of non-derived verbs while beneficiaries are peripheral. The more obligatory nature of recipients is also reflected in their more core-like morphosyntactic coding; recipients bear core-like case marking in many languages, while beneficiaries are more often coded by non-core cases or adpositions with non-applicativized verbs, like for in some of the English examples given above. Nevertheless, beneficiaries may be obligatory and marked as core syntactic arguments with applicativized verbs. By the same token, in some languages, such as Kham, beneficiaries are obligatory participants with some verbs (Watters 2002: 250).
1.2â•… Beneficiaries are neither agents nor primary targets of events Events are often intended to benefit, damage, or simply to affect a particular participant in a neutral way. In many cases the agent him/herself is a beneficiary as well (e.g. I brushed my teeth, I baked a cake (for me to eat it)), but in the case of typical beneficiaries—i.e. where the arguments are coded as such: I baked a cake for my daughter—, the agent and the beneficiary are not coreferential. While some languages simply ban agents from being beneficiaries in the same clause, others feature a specialized construction used in these cases, viz. a self-benefactive or autobenefactive construction (see Smith, this volume). Similarly, beneficiaries are not primary targets of the events they benefit from. Consequently, they are usually coded differently from patients and often take oblique marking, e.g. she opened the door for me. Beneficiaries are often affected by the result of an event (this is particularly evident in the case of beneficiaries that are also recipients), while patients are integral parts of the event that results in the affectedness of the beneficiary. For example, in the event ‘he painted the house for me’, the agent targets his/her action primarily at the house, while the beneficiary may be affected by the result of the event in question, e.g. in having a painted house after the event has occurred. Moreover, the effect on the patient appears to be more relevant to the lexical semantics of the denoted event; different lexemes are used for coding events with
Introduction
different kinds of patients, while neither the kind of beneficiary nor the nature of the benefaction usually yield lexical differences in the predicates involved.
1.3â•… The effect is beneficial This feature distinguishes the beneficiary from two related but different roles: the maleficiary and the “affectee” (which can be conceived of as a kind of macro-role comprising both beneficiaries and maleficiaries). The maleficiary constitutes the opposite of the beneficiary in that malefactive events affect the relevant participant adversely. Interestingly enough, malefaction has received considerably less attention than benefaction in the linguistic literature, with the notable exception of detailed studies of the so-called adversative passive constructions in Japanese and Korean (see Tsuboi and also Smith, this volume). However, the feature [beneficial effect] seems to be rather insignificant crosslinguistically: many languages do not make a formal distinction between beneficiaries and maleficiaries but simply mark affectees, or at least the coding of the latter via case or adpositions is somehow less grammaticalized, systematic and/or elaborated (see Section 4.3 for the polysemy of these roles). Examples below illustrate an explicit formal opposition between two different constructions, viz. a benefactive (a) and a malefactive one (b):
(1) Amharic (Amberber 2002: 58)
a.
Aster-in fәrrәd-ә-ll-at. A.-acc judge.perf-3m.sbj-appl.ben-3f.obj ‘He judged in Aster’s favor.’
b. Aster-in fәrrәd-ә-bb-at. A.-acc judge.perf-3m.sbj-appl.mal-3f.obj ‘He judged to the disadvantage of Aster.’
(2) Finnish (personal knowledge)
a.
Vanhempi piir-si lapse-lle hevose-n. parent.nom draw-3sg.pst child-all horse-acc ‘A parent drew a horse for the child.’
b. Minu-lta hajo-si pyörä. 1sg-abl break-3sg.pst bicycle.nom ‘My bicycle broke down on me.’
Amharic has two distinct applicative(-like) affixes depending on whether the effect is beneficial or adverse, viz. -bb with beneficiaries and -ll with maleficiaries; in contrast, both arguments bear accusative case marking. In Finnish, a similar difference is expressed by case marking; beneficiary bears allative coding, while maleficiary occurs in the ablative case.
Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
The (inherently) beneficial nature of the affectedness can also be claimed to contribute to the formal differences of recipient and beneficiary found, e.g. in Mupun and Finnish:
(3) Mupun (Frajzyngier 1993: 227)
a.
N-sin siwol n-wur (mbә laa fin). 1sg-give money to-3m for school 3m) ‘I gave him money (for the school).’
b. *N-sin brәŋ-nә mbә Audu. 1sg-give horse-def for A. Intended: ‘I gave the horse to Audu.’
(4) Finnish (personal knowledge)
a.
Nainen anto-i poja-lle kirja-n. woman.nom give-3sg.pst boy-all book-acc ‘The woman gave the boy a/the book.’
b. *Nainen anto-i kirja-n poja-n vuoksi. woman.nom give-3sg.pst book-acc boy-gen for Intended: ‘The woman gave the boy a/the book.’
In Mupun and Finnish, recipients cannot be formally treated as beneficiaries, as shown by the ungrammaticality of (3b) and (4b). As noted above (and as will be discussed in more detail below), recipients can often be seen as beneficiaries. However, this is not entailed, and reception may also be highly detrimental, as in a lunatic sent me a package with anthrax. Recipients are therefore only optionally beneficiaries, while beneficiaries are only optionally recipients (in the case of recipient-beneficiaries), which is manifested in their coding.
1.4â•… Beneficiaries are usually animate Beneficiaries usually have an animate referent (see e.g. Blake 1994: 70 and Lehmann€et€al. 2000: 68). This is not surprising, since benefaction usually implies that the beneficiary is capable of using the result of the denoted event for his/her purposes in some way (similarly, recipients are usually animate, while goals are inanimate). Animacy also distinguishes beneficiaries from many other peripheral participants such as instruments and some instances of locatives. Moreover, benefaction is intimately associated with reasons or (indirect) causes, which explains the polysemy of benefaction/reason markers attested in many languages (see below for more discussion). For instance, the Finnish adposition vuoksi ‘for’ encodes benefaction with animate referents and reason with inanimate referents:
(5) Finnish (personal knowledge)
a.
Hän tek-i se-n minu-n vuokse-ni. s/he.nom do-3sg.pst it-acc 1sg-gen for-1sg.psr ‘S/he did it for me.’
Introduction
b. Jäätelö sul-i sähkökatko-n vuoksi. ice.cream melt-3sg.pst power.failure-gen for/because.of ‘The ice cream melted because of the power failure.’
Example (5a) can also be seen as involving reason, which is almost always present with beneficiaries (the denoted event would probably not have occurred without the beneficiary being present), but it also includes benefaction. On the other hand, in (5b) benefaction is absent altogether, and the postposition vuoksi expresses reason only. The relevant difference here is represented by animacy; both animate and inanimate participants are potential causers of events, but only animate participants are capable of genuinely undergoing benefaction.
2.â•… Formal mechanisms of beneficiary/maleficiary coding In this section, we will illustrate the central mechanisms languages employ for the linguistic coding of benefaction and malefaction. The ones illustrated and discussed here include cases, adpositions, serial verb constructions, and applicativization, and any given language may employ more than one of these mechanisms. Since some languages formally distinguish between different instances of beneficiaries and maleficiaries (specific beneficiaries) while others do not (general beneficiaries), we will also briefly discuss this issue below.
2.1â•… Major mechanisms 2.1.1â•… Case Examples of languages that use case morphology for expressing benefaction and/or malefaction are easy to find and include Lokono Dian, German, Finnish, Mordvinian, and Basque. The dative is probably the case most frequently used cross-linguistically to encode beneficiaries (6). Languages employ allative (7), ablative (8) and specific benefactive cases (9–10) for coding benefaction. Typically, these cases are polysemous; the expression of benefaction is only one of its functions (see Section 4 for the polysemy of these markers in general and Rice & Kabata 2007 for the polysemy of the allative in particular).
(6) Czech (Janda 1993: 57)
Ludmila mu uvařila kaši. L.nom him.dat cooked kasha.acc ‘Ludmila cooked kasha for him.’
(7) Finnish (personal knowledge)
Henkilö ava-si ove-n yksilö-lle. person.nom open-3sg.pst door-acc individual-all ‘A person opened the door for an individual.’
Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
(8) Kuuk Thayorre (Alice Gaby, p.c.)
Nhangun may yump ngathanma (ngathun). 3sg.dat food make.imper 1sg.abl (1sg.dat) ‘Make him some food for me (on my behalf).’
(9) Iranian Azari (Denghani 2000: 146ff, 158f)
Män kitab-i ušag-ičin al-di-m. 1sg book-acc child-ben buy-pst-1sg ‘I bought the book for the child.’ (10) Basque (Laka 1996) Amaia-rentzat erosi dut opari-a. A.-sg.ben bought aux.1sg.erg.3sg.abs present-det ‘I have bought the present for Amaia.’
2.1.2â•… Adpositions Adpositional coding of benefaction and malefaction is also frequently attested across languages. Both prepositions and postpositions can be used, as the examples in (11)–(13) show (see also the English translations): (11) Icelandic (example courtesy of Jóhanna Barðdal) Hann lagði bílnum fyrir mig. he.nom park.pst car.acc for 1sg.acc ‘He parked the car for me.’ (12) Sulka (Tharp 1996: 141) Ko-kol a-hor ngang e-pruo. 1sg.pst-get sg-leaf for pn-P. ‘I got a leaf for Pruo.’ (13) Finnish (personal knowledge) Men-i-n kaupunki-in häne-n harmikse-en. go-pst-1sg town-ill 3sg-gen to.the.detriment-3.psr ‘I went to town to his/her detriment.’
In Icelandic and Sulka, prepositions are used for coding benefaction, while in Finnish some postpositions (in addition to cases) express malefaction (and also benefaction).
2.1.3â•… Serial verb constructions In many languages that largely lack case morphology (and in some cases also adpositions), serial verb constructions are a productive way of expressing benefaction and malefaction. Some examples are found in (14)–(16)
Introduction
(14) Thai (a–b Bisang 1992: 366f; c–f Jenny, this volume) a.
Deeŋ jiŋ nóg hâj Sùdaa. D. shoot bird give S. ‘Deng shoots a bird for Sudaa.’
b. Deeŋ paj talàad hâj Sùdaa. D. go market give S. ‘Deng is going to the market for Sudaa.’ c.
Khaˇw pay tәlàat thεεn phш ˆ әn. 3hum go market replace friend ‘He goes to the market in his friend’s stead.’
´ ш khәnoˇm líәŋ luˆuk. d. Mεˆε sш mother buy sweets feed child ‘The mother buys sweets for her children (to eat).’ e.
´ ш naˇŋsш ˇ ш fàak Phfˆf sш luˆuk. father buy book entrust child ‘The father bought a book for his son (as a present).’
f.
´ ш kεεŋ phш ` ә 1εεŋ sш 1am. Daeng buy curry set.aside Dam ‘Daeng bought some curry for Dam (besides buying some for herself).’
(15) Vietnamese (Bisang 1992: 315) Bá đua hính tôi cho ban giùm tôi. you.hon bring photo I give friend help I ‘Would you (honorific) please give this photo to my friend for me.’ (16) Khmer (Bisang 1992: 425–426) a.
Kh\om nшŋ b>t tvì:әr ôaoy. I fut close door give ‘I close the door for him.’
b. Kfәt baәk tvì:әr sfmrap kh\om. 3sg open door use 1sg ‘He opened the door for me (in order for it to remain open and I can make a use of this favor).’
The most typical verb used for coding benefaction seems to be ‘give’ (in addition to the languages above, examples include Mandarin Chinese, Hokkien Chinese and Berbice Dutch Creole, among many others). In many cases, ‘give’ has largely lost its original semantics and is best considered a semantically vacuous verb, which is used for adding a beneficiary/recipient-like participant into the denoted event (the verb may further even develop into an adposition). In addition, less grammaticalized verbs
 Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
like ‘replace’, ‘help’ and ‘use’ occur in serial verb constructions coding benefaction, as shown above.
2.1.4â•… Applicativization The last major mechanism of benefaction/malefaction expression is applicativization, which is also common across languages. Some examples are given in (17)–(20): (17) Southeastern Tepehuan (Willett 1991: 76f, 182f) Ma’n-ap jiñ-som-dya-’ gu cutun. one-2sg 1sg-sew-appl-fut art shirt ‘Please sew a shirt for me.’ (18) Kinyarwanda (Kimenyi 1980: 32) Umugóre a-rá-kor-er-a umugabo. woman she.sbj-pres-work-ben-asp man ‘The woman is working for the man.’ (19) Kunuz Nubian (Abdel-Hafiz 1988: 114) a.
E:n kade:-g sukki-de:s-s-u. woman dress-acc wash-ben-pst-3sg ‘The woman washed the dresses for me.’
b. Ay-gi ir:-g noddi-de:s-s-a. 1sg-acc rope-acc cut-ben-pst-3pl ‘They cut the rope (to my detriment).’ (20) Ika (Frank 1990: 69) Kafé Pablo-se% k-ngei%-na-rua ni. coffee P.-loc peri-sell-distpst-1sg cert ‘I sold coffee to Pablo’
The examples in (17)–(19) illustrate rather typical instances of applicatives employed for expressing benefaction. The verb takes an applicative affix, and the beneficiary or maleficiary introduced to the clause takes direct object morphology and occupies its slot. In the construction found in Ika (20), by contrast, the beneficiary appears as a non-core argument, and the construction does not constitute a case of applicativization proper but of something similar that Thomas Payne has called “nucleative” (Payne 2000). Observe that in Kunuz Nubian, the same applicative morpheme can introduce both beneficiaries (19a) and maleficiaries (19b).
2.2â•… Specific vs. general beneficiary markers In addition to the formal variation in their coding, beneficiary markers differ with respect to their semantic specificity. Benefaction can either be quite specific (and
Introduction
therefore express only one subtype of benefaction) or not distinguish between subtypes (or even between beneficiaries and maleficiaries). These cases are examined below.
2.2.1â•… Specific beneficiary markers Specific beneficiary markers are those that mark a specific type of benefaction only (such as plain benefaction, see below), and whose semantics is constant across different predicate classes. Examples are found in (21)–(23): (21) Finnish (personal knowledge) Henkilö men-i kaupunki-in puolesta-ni. person.nom go-3sg.pst town-ill instead.of-1sg.psr ‘A person went to town instead of me.’ (22) Khmer (Bisang 1992: 426) Kfәt baәk tvì:әr sfmrap kh\om. 3sg open door use 1sg ‘He opened the door for me (in order for it to remain open and for me to make use of this favor).’ (23) Korean (Song, this volume) a.
Kiho-ka Yenghi-eykey mwun-ul yel-e-cwu-ess-ta K.-nom Y.-dat door-acc open-pf-give-pst-ind ‘Keeho opened the door for Yonghee.’
b. *Kiho-ka Yenghi-eykey mwun-ul tat-a-cwu-ess-ta K.-nom Y.-dat door-acc close-pf-give-pst-ind ‘Keeho closed the door for Yonghee.’
All the examples above illustrate specific beneficiary markers, but there are some differences between the individual cases. The Finnish postposition puolesta ‘instead of ’ expresses only deputative benefaction and is semantically constant, i.e. its reading does not vary according to the semantics of the construction it appears in. The Khmer example also illustrates a beneficiary marker with a very specific semantics. The verb sfmrap ‘use’ contrasts with the general verb ôaoy ‘give’ in the expression of benefaction; ôaoy can code a range of beneficiaries, while sfmrap can only express true “engager-beneficiaries” (see Song, this volume, and Example 28 below). The examples from Korean illustrate a different type of specific marker. Similarly to Finnish and Khmer, the beneficiary construction of Korean exemplified in (23) is semantically specific, and it can only encode engager-beneficiaries. In contrast to Finnish, however, the distribution of the construction is rather limited, and it can only appear in cases in which the beneficiary can somehow engage with the theme. This is possible in (23a), in which the beneficiary can use the opened door, for example, for entering a room. On the other hand, a closed door cannot be engaged with in any customarily/culturally

 Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
relevant fashion, which yields (23b) unacceptable not on strictly grammatical or semantic grounds but due to a stringent pragmatic restriction.
2.2.2â•… General beneficiary markers General markers also express benefaction, but their exact meaning varies according to the semantics of the construction they appear in. A very typical example of this is provided by the dative of Germanic and Slavic languages, exemplified for Czech in (24). Other examples are found in (25) and (26): (24) Czech (Janda 1993: 57, 87) a.
Ludmila mu uvařila kaši. L.nom him.dat cooked kasha.acc ‘Ludmila cooked kasha for him.’
b. Zlomil jí ruku. broke her.dat arm.acc ‘He broke her arm.’ (25) Finnish (personal knowledge) a.
Isä raken-si lapse-lle legotalo-n. father.nom build-3sg.pst child-all Lego.house-acc ‘The father built the child a Lego-house.’
b. Henkilö ava-si yksilö-lle ikkuna-n. person.nom open-3sg.pst individual-all window-acc ‘A person opened a window for the individual.’ c.
Vanhempi laula-a lapse-lle. parent.nom sing-3sg.pres child-all ‘The parent is singing to the child.’
d. Ystävä-ni tek-i tämä-n minu-lle. friend-1sg.psr do-3sg.pst this-acc 1sg-all ‘My friend did this to me.’ (Maleficiary) (26) Kham (Watters 2002: 249) a.
No-e ŋa-lai ŋa-ka:h sәih-d-y-ã:-ke-o. 3sg.m-erg 1sg-dat 1sg-dog kill-nfut-ben-1sg-perf-3sg ‘He killed my dog (to my detriment).’
b. ža: no-lai gohr jәi-dә ŋa-e-ke. 1sg 3sg.m-dat plow make-nfut 1sg-ben-perf ‘I made a plow for him.’
The dative in Germanic and Slavic languages can express different subtypes of benefaction (see below for discussion of these) and is therefore semantically rather general, especially bearing in mind that under appropriate conditions it can also code maleficiaries. In other words, the readings of the dative vary according to the semantics of
Introduction 
the construction it occurs in. The Finnish allative is also rather general in nature, and it can express all the three major types of benefaction proposed by Van Valin and LaPolla (see Section 3). In addition, the allative can also express malefaction, but its use in this function is very limited and highly context-dependent. The limited nature of the allative is manifest e.g. in (25d): if tämän ‘this.acc’ refers to something concrete that is created by the denoted process, it codes a recipient-beneficiary, in which case the reading would be something like ‘he made the house for me’. A malefaction reading, in turn, is the only possible one if tämän refers to something that the agent has done to the detriment of the maleficiary, i.e. it cannot refer to anything concrete (in which case the reading would be, for example, ‘he killed my dog to my detriment’). In Kham, the same applicative marker can introduce both beneficiaries and maleficiaries, as shown in (26) above. A somewhat different case is attested in Shipibo-Konibo. In this language, the applicative suffix -xon can introduce both beneficiaries and maleficiaries to the clause: (27) Shipibo-Konibo (Valenzuela 1997: 117, 127) a.
Pexe Piko-n-ra ea-ø ka-xon-ke. P. P.-erg-ass 1-abs go-ben-compl ‘Pexe Piko left (and this affects me either positively or negatively).’
b. Ea-ø bimi-ø pota-xon-we. I-abs fruit-abs throw-ben-inc ‘Throw me some fruits.’ (Beneficiary only) c.
Ja-n-ra ea-ø ochíti-ø bo-on(aan)-ke. 3-erg-ass 1-abs dog-abs carry-mal-compl ‘He took the dog from me (to my detriment).’ (Maleficiary only)
However, the kind of variation illustrated in (27a) only occurs in intransitive clauses. In transitive clauses, as in (27b), the introduced argument can only bear the role of beneficiary. Shipibo-Konibo also has a specific maleficiary marker, illustrated in (27c). It is interesting to note here that the maleficiary applicative marker can appear only in transitive clauses, in very much the same way the marker -xon can only have a beneficiary reading in transitive clauses. Transitivity is therefore the conditioning factor of (non-)specificity here.
3.â•…Semantically determined variation in the coding of beneficiaries and maleficiaries The cross-linguistic variation in the coding of beneficiaries examined in the preceding section is attested for all functional domains, and benefaction is no exception. In this section, we will proceed to discussing features that affect the coding of beneficiaries
 Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
within languages. It is not the goal of this section to illustrate semantically determined variation in beneficiary coding exhaustively, but rather to give a short introduction to the relevant features. Detailed studies of this variation in individual languages are found in other chapters of this volume.
3.1â•… Nature of benefaction The linguistic literature has acknowledged that there may be different subtypes of benefaction that need to be distinguished in a given language. In other words, beneficiaries benefit from events in different ways, which has consequences for their linguistic coding. For example, Van Valin and LaPolla (1997: 383f) mention three subtypes of what we have called beneficiary here, which they label “plain benefactive”, “deputative-benefactive” and “benefactive-recipient” (but note that Van Valin and LaPolla use the label beneficiary only for the first two subtypes). In the first case, benefaction consists in amusing/entertaining the beneficiary, as in the mother is singing for the children. In the second case, someone is substituting the beneficiary as the agent of the denoted event, e.g. in John painted the house instead of me. In the third case, the beneficiary is also a recipient, as in the father baked his daughter a cake. Along similar lines, Kittilä (2005) makes a distinction between (pure) beneficiaries and recipient-beneficiaries. The former notion more or less includes Van Valin and LaPolla’s plain and deputative-benefactives, while the latter notion is very similar to their benefactive-recipient. Song (this volume) makes a similar distinction between different subtypes of benefaction, but he speaks of “engager-beneficiaries” instead of recipient-beneficiaries. The reason for this is that a participant does not need to be a genuine recipient for being coded as a recipient-benefactive, but it suffices that s/he somehow engages with the theme. Consider (28): (28) Korean (Song, this volume) a.
Kiho-ka Yenghi-eykey ipwul-ul kkal-a-cwu-ess-ta. K.-nom Y.-dat futon-acc lay.out-pf-give-pst-ind ‘Keeho laid out the futon for Yonghee.’
b. *Kiho-ka Yenghi-eykey ipwul-ul kay-e-cwu-ess-ta. K.-nom Y.-dat futon-acc fold.up.put.away-pf-give-pst-ind (‘Keeho folded up the futon and put it away for Yonghee.’)
Example (28a) does not necessarily mean that the futon that has been laid out enters the beneficiary’s domain of possession in the strict sense of the term, and therefore Song does not regard Yonghee as a genuine recipient in (28a). The reason for the difference in acceptability between (28a) and (28b) lies in the nature of the denoted event: the beneficiary can engage with a laid out futon, for example by lying on it. On the other hand, a futon that is folded up cannot be engaged with in a similar fashion,
Introduction 
which yields (28b) ungrammatical. The label Song uses for the type of beneficiary in (28a) is, then, arguably more accurate than the label recipient-beneficiary—not only for Korean but also for Finnish—, because the difference in acceptability between (28a) and (28b) is not determined by the presence or lack of reception but by whether the beneficiary can engage with the theme in some plausible way.4 Since engagement is possible only if there is a theme to engage with, constructions with an engagerbeneficiary are usually possible only with transitive clauses.
3.2â•… Other features relevant to beneficiary coding In addition to the nature of benefaction itself, other features also contribute to the linguistic coding of benefaction. Relevant in this regard are at least the following features. The list is not exhaustive, and future studies of benefaction may show that some revisions are necessary: (i) animacy of agent and beneficiary, (ii) volitionality/willingness of agent and beneficiary, (iii) consciousness of the participants of the beneficial affectedness, and (iv) capacity on the part of the beneficiary to perform the action him/herself. First, as noted above, the beneficiary is usually an animate participant. Remember that in the case of engager-benefaction it is essential that the beneficiary is capable of (actively) engaging with the theme, which is possible only if the beneficiary is animate. For example, constructions with an inanimate beneficiary are often deemed ungrammatical in Finnish, or at least less felicitous than constructions with an animate beneficiary: (29) Finnish (personal knowledge) a.
Vanhempi leipo-i kaku-n lapse-lle. parent.nom bake-3sg.pst cake-acc child-all ‘The parent baked a cake for the child.’
b. */??Vanhempi leipo-i kaku-n talo-lle. parent.nom bake-3sg.pst cake-acc house-all Intended: ‘The parent baked a cake for the house.’
4.â•… Spike Gildea (p.c.) rightly points out that Song’s approach raises a number of significant questions. The most relevant here bears relation to the fact that there is no recipient in the strict sense of the term in an English sentence like I handed him my glasses to hold for me while I adjusted my seat either—if a recipient sensu stricto means a permanent, rather than a temporary, intended possessor (some languages of the Caucasus, e.g. code these two differently; we are indebted to Michael Daniel, p.c., for this observation). In our opinion, Song’s proposal is analytically interesting and worth taking into consideration in a detailed discussion of how to best account for the variation found in the linguistic expression of benefaction.
 Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
The only difference between (29a) and (29b) resides in the animacy of the beneficiary. (29a) illustrates the paradigmatic case of benefaction, and the construction is thus naturally grammatical, while inanimate participants cannot bear the role of recipientbeneficiary, which renders (29b) ungrammatical (for more examples and discussion see Kittilä, this volume). The animacy of the agent may also be relevant to the linguistic coding of benefaction (see also Lehmann et al. 2000: 68): (30) Finnish (personal knowledge) a.
Tuuli tuho-si vaja-n puolesta-ni. wind.nom destroy-3sg.pst shed-acc instead.of-1sg.psr ‘the wind destroyed the shed instead of me’
b. Tuuli tuhosi vajan *takia-ni/*vuokse-ni/*minu-a varten/*minu-lle. ╛↜for-1sg.psr/for-1sg.psr/1sg-part for/1sg-all Intended: ‘The wind destroyed the shed for me.’
Example (30a) is perhaps somewhat marginal, but it is possible in case I have intended to destroy a shed, but instead a strong wind does this instead of me. The animacy of the agent is thus not relevant with the postposition puolesta: inanimate agents are also allowed. On the other hand, all the mechanisms exemplified in (30b) are ungrammatical: their semantics implies consciousness from the agent, which is lacking in the case of inanimates (see Kittilä, this volume for more details). The (in)animacy of agent and beneficiary is closely related to their willingness and volitionality. Finnish is a language in which the coding of beneficiary is, among other things, influenced by these features. Consider the following examples: (31) Finnish (personal knowledge) a.
Minä pesi-n auto-n puolesta-si. 1sg.nom wash.pst-1sg car-acc instead-2sg.psr ‘I washed the car instead of you.’
b. Minä pesi-n auto-n takia-si. 1sg.nom wash.pst-1sg car-acc because-2sg.psr ‘I washed the car because of you.’
Both (31a) and (31b) can be regarded as instances of deputative benefaction, even though (31b) is also intimately related to reason or (indirect) cause (see Kittilä, this volume for more details). The difference is that in (31a) the agent washes the car willingly instead of the beneficiary, while in (31b) s/he is more reluctant to do so. Consciousness on the part of the beneficiary of his/her beneficial affectedness has consequences for the linguistic coding of the relevant participant, for example, in Thai, as shown in (32):
Introduction 
(32) Thai (Jenny, this volume) a.
Mεˆε rfˆfŋ phleeŋ hây lûuk. mother sing song give child ‘The mother is singing a song to her child.’
b. Mεˆε rfˆfŋ phleeŋ phш ˆ ә lûuk. mother sing song for child ‘The mother is singing a song for her child.’
The child needs to be aware of the beneficial act done for him/her in (32a), while this is not necessary in (32b). As Jenny puts it: “While it sounds odd to add ‘… but the child doesn’t know it’ to (32a), it is perfectly natural to do so in (32b)”. Beneficiaries differ according to how probable or expected their participation is in the event performed for them. There are cases in which the beneficiary could have been the agent in the denoted event him/herself, and cases in which the beneficiary was not an expected agent. Finnish is a language in which this difference has consequences for beneficiary coding: (33) Finnish (personal knowledge) a.
isä ava-si ikkuna-n lapse-n puolesta father.nom open-3sg.pst window-acc child-gen instead.of ‘The father opened the window instead of the child.’
b. lapsi ava-si ikkuna-n koira-lle-en child.nom open-3sg.pst window-acc dog-all-3.psr ‘The child opened the window for his/her dog.’ c.
isä vaihto-i vauva-lle vaipa-n father.nom change.pst-3sg baby-all diaper-acc ‘The father changed the baby’s diaper.’
d. ??lapsi ava-si ikkuna-n koira-n-sa puolesta child.nom open-3sg.pst window-acc dog-gen-3.psr instead.of Intended: ‘The child opened the window instead of his/her dog.’ e. ??/*isä vaihto-i vaipa-n vauva-n puolesta father.nom change.pst-3sg diaper-acc baby-gen instead.of Intended: ‘The father changed the diaper instead of the baby.’
In Finnish, the postposition puolesta ‘instead of ’ and the allative case can both be used to denote deputative-benefaction (for more details, see Kittilä, this volume). The two mechanisms are, however, not in free variation, but the formal variation has a semantic basis. The postposition puolesta is used whenever the beneficiary him/herself would have been a possible agent in the given event. The allative, in turn, is more felicitous if the beneficiary is not an expected agent in the event done in his/her stead. This difference yields (33d) and (33e) marginal at best; the use of puolesta implies that the beneficiary could have performed the action him/her/itself, which is a relatively unlikely reading in these cases.
 Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
4.â•… On the polysemy of benefactive markers Across languages, beneficiaries share common formal features with other arguments, such as recipients, (external) possessors, maleficiaries, experiencers, reasons/(indirect) causes, goals and causees. In this section, we will discuss the semantics of the beneficiary from the viewpoint of these attested instances of polysemy.5 All the cases discussed below (perhaps with the exception of causees) also have a semantic basis. For example, recipients are often beneficiaries, which makes the polysemy of recipient and beneficiary not only natural, but also expected.
4.1â•… Recipient and beneficiary The polysemy of recipient and beneficiary is rather common across languages; consider: (34) Warlpiri (Simpson 1991: 206, 380f) a.
Karnta-ngku ka-rla kurdu-ku miyi yi-nyi… woman-erg pres-3.dat baby-dat food give-npst ‘The woman is giving food to the baby…’
b. Nyampu ka-rna-la kurlada wurduju-ma-ni. this pres-1sg-3.dat spear good-caus-npst ‘I am making this spear for him.’ c.
Karnta ka-rla kurdu-ku parnka-mi. woman pres-3.dat child-dat run-npst ‘The woman is running for the sake of the child.’
(35) Lolovoli Ambae (Hyslop 2001: 147f) a.
Mo bete lawe na tangaloi haro. real give dat acc people random ‘S/he gives to just anybody.’
b. Na=ni solo na gawu-mu lawe=go. 1sg.sbj=irr wash acc clothes-2sg.psr dat/ben=2sg.obj ‘I’ll wash your clothes for you.’ c.
Go=ni mas uli na leta lawe=eu. 2sg.sbj=irr must write acc letter dat/ben=1sg.obj ‘You must write a letter to/for me.’
In Warlpiri, the dative case can encode recipient (34a), recipient-benefaction (34b) and also deputative-kind of benefaction, as in (34c). In the Lolovoli dialect of Ambae, 5.â•… There are also interesting cases of polysemy of, e.g. locative/ablative markers used in order to encode malefaction, but we have not addressed this issue here.
Introduction 
some sentences are even ambiguous between a reception and a deputative benefaction reading, as in (35c). As noted above, the frequently attested polysemy of recipient and beneficiary is rather unsurprising. Recipients can be seen as beneficiaries as well, since reception in general is usually understood as beneficial. For example, the recipient in an event such as ‘s/he gave me a present’ is usually seen as a beneficiary, since the transfer is deemed beneficial, or at least it is meant to be beneficial. It should be stressed, however, that this “dual nature” of recipients is not entailed in the constructions and that reception can also be highly detrimental, as in the maniac sent me a letter bomb. Nevertheless, the relation between reception and benefaction is intimate enough to give rise to the polysemy illustrated in (34) and (35) and attested in numerous other languages as well.
4.2â•… Beneficiary and (external) possessor The polysemy of beneficiaries and possessors is also common. Examples (36) and (37) are taken from Oceanic languages (see also Lichtenberk 2002 for a more detailed discussion) and illustrate cases in which canonical possession and benefaction are coded formally alike. The polysemy of the marker is especially evident in Saliba, since (37) can have two readings. (36) Paamese (Crowley 1982: 212f, as cited in Lichtenberk 2002: 444) a.
oai ma-k water poss.cnt-1sg.psr ‘my water’
b. Kaik ki-muni ma-k. 2sg 2sg.dis-drink.3.obj poss.cnt-1sg.psr ‘Drink it for me.’ (37) Saliba (Margetts 1999: 324) Yo-gu puwaka ku-unui-Ø. cl1-1sg.psr pig 2sg-kill/catch-3sg.obj ‘Catch my pig/catch a pig for me.’
In addition to this kind of polysemy, there are many languages in which beneficiaries and external possessors receive the same formal treatment. Consider: (38) Finnish (personal knowledge) a.
Vanhempi kampa-si lapse-lta tuka-n. parent.nom comb-3sg.pst child-abl hair-acc ‘A parent combed the child’s hair.’
b. Sairaanhoitaja vaihto-i potilaa-lta lakana-t. nurse.nom change-3sg.pst patient-abl sheet-pl(acc) ‘A nurse changed the patient’s sheets.’
Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
(39) German (personal knowledge) a.
Er wusch dem Kind die Hände. he washed art.sg.dat child art.pl.acc hand.pl ‘He washed the child’s hands.’
b. Er baute seinem Kind ein Haus. he built his.dat child art.sg.acc house ‘He built his child a house.’
In Finnish, the ablative case can code both external possession (38a) and benefaction (38b). (The use of the ablative for benefaction coding is limited, however; see Kittilä, this volume.) In German (as in many other languages, especially in Europe), the dative is used to encode both external possession and benefaction. Note that in Finnish and German, the polysemy of benefaction and possession is restricted to external possession (unlike in Oceanic languages). The formal identity of (external) possession and benefaction can be accounted for as follows. Actions targeted at entities in my possession affect me in a more direct fashion, and usually in more ways, than actions that are only carried out instead of me. This is especially evident in the case of external possession, where the effect is often beneficial, which in turn explains the occurrence of cases like Finnish, German and Oceanic languages, in which the coding of possession and benefaction (partially) overlaps.
4.3â•… Beneficiary and maleficiary Even though beneficiaries and maleficiaries are distinguished from each other based on the nature of affectedness, there are numerous languages in which these roles receive identical coding (examples repeated and re-numbered here), cf. (40) Kunuz Nubian (Abdel-Hafiz 1988: 114) a.
E:n kade:-g sukki-de:s-s-u. woman dress-acc wash-appl-pst-3sg ‘The woman washed the dressed for me.’
b. Ay-gi ir:-g noddi-de:s-s-a. 1sg-acc rope-acc cut-appl-pst-3sg ‘They cut the rope (to my detriment).’ (41) Kham (Watters 2002: 249) a.
No-e ŋa-lai ŋa-ka:h sәih-d-y-ã:-ke-o. 3sg.m-erg 1sg-dat 1sg-dog kill-nfut-ben-1sg-perf-3sg ‘He killed my dog (to my detriment).’
b. ža: no-lai gohr jәi-dә ŋa-e-ke. 1sg 3sg.m-dat plow make-nfut 1sg-ben-perf ‘I made a plow for him.’
Introduction 
Such a polysemy (cf. also the Indo-European “dative of interest” in this context) may appear somewhat odd at first, but it is possibly due to the fact that benefaction and malefaction are subjective notions: a given event can be seen as either beneficial or detrimental for an indirectly affected participant depending on the context and the speaker’s judgment. It is usually not necessary to distinguish between these notions explicitly, since contextual information (or, in many cases, verbal semantics) frequently suffices for disambiguation. Beneficiaries and maleficiaries are both participants affected by events in an indirect fashion, which also makes them semantically similar enough to receive identical formal treatment as the underspecified “affectee” mentioned in 1.3 above. This underspecified category is the notion of ‘participant with respect to which the action holds’ or ‘participant for which the action is valid’ known from traditional Indo-European studies.
4.4â•… Beneficiary and experiencer The same device may mark both experiencers and beneficiaries, as in German mir ist kalt ‘I am cold’ and er hat mir ein Haus gebaut ‘he built a house for me’ (in this case, the device is the dative pronoun mir ‘me’), but also in Yurakaré and Dolakha Newar. Consider (42) Yurakaré (Van Gijn 2006: 155, 163) a.
Ti-n-ewe-ø. 1sg-io-sweep-3 ‘He swept my house for me.’
b. Ti-n-kukku. 1sg-io-nice ‘I like it.’ (43) Dolakha Newar (Genetti 2007: 335, 318) a.
Janta lukhā khoŋ-an bi-sin. 1sg.dat door open-partic give-imp ‘Open the door for me.’
b. Janta pyātāwāt-a. 1sg.dat hungry-3sg.pst ‘I am hungry.’
In Yurakaré, the same applicative affix may introduce both beneficiaries, as in (42a), and experiencers (42b) into clauses. In Dolakha Newar, both participant roles may be coded by the dative (which is a rather frequently attested instance of polysemy across languages). The connection between beneficiary and experiencer is perhaps best explained based on the rather low degree of affectedness displayed by both participants. The
Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
overall affectedness of beneficiaries is arguably rather low. A typical experience event, in turn, involves an experiencer and a stimulus. As has been noted, for example, by Næss (2007: 103), stimuli of experience are relatively unaffected by the event they partake in. These events do, however, have some effect on the experiencer, but the effect is less drastic than in the case of canonical patients. Moreover, the effect does not result from an act directly targeted at the beneficiary or at the experiencer. Experiencers are, unlike beneficiaries and maleficiaries, integral parts of events, and thus necessarily affected by them, but all these participants share the feature of lower, and also non-salient, affectedness. This distinguishes them from patients, and explains their identical coding (distinct from the marking of patients) attested in many languages.
4.5â•… Beneficiary and reason/(indirect) cause Another rather frequently attested instance of polysemy is illustrated by the polysemy of benefaction and reason or (indirect) cause.6 In Finnish, the postposition vuoksi and also the postposition takia (both meaning ‘for’ and ‘because of ’) can express both notions: (44) Finnish a.
Henkilö opettel-i suome-a yksilö-n vuoksi. person.nom learn-3sg.pst Finnish-part individual-gen for ‘A person learnt Finnish for an individual.’
b. Jäätelö sul-i sähkökatko-n vuoksi. ice.cream.nom melt-3sg.pst power.failure-gen because.of ‘The ice cream melted because of the power failure.’
In Tashelhiyt, the dative can mark beneficiaries, as in (45a) and also unintentional causers (“involuntary agents”, see Kittilä, to appear), as in (45b): (45) Tashelhiyt (Rapold, this volume) a.
Arki> a-sn t-ssnu-t mad ššta-n; … until dat-3pers 2-cook-2sg who/what eat.ipv-3pers ‘Until you cook something to eat for them; …’
6.â•… The term indirect causation is used in the literature as a cover label for at least two subtypes of causative meanings: there is an intermediary (Hindi, Jinghpaw) or speech (Yimas, Hungarian) involved between causer and causee. By contrast, with direct causation no intermediary is implied and/or there is some sort of physical manipulation of the causee on the part of the causer. In Mary made me laugh, thus, Mary can be either an indirect causer (e.g. she told a joke to me) or a direct causer (e.g. she tickled me). We use the somewhat cumbersome label reason/(indirect) cause here for participants that instigate states of affairs even less directly than via indirect causation (which in turn correlates with other values concerning some properties of the causer and/or the causee), e.g. in I laughed because of Mary (e.g. I remember something funny she did).
Introduction
b. T-dr a-s tngult ti>wr.din. ˙ 3sg.f-fall dat-3sg f.sg.nom.loaf.of.bread behind ‘The load of bread fell down behind to his detriment.’
In Kuku Yalanji (46), the dative-marked argument is animate in both cases, but the notion of benefaction is lacking in (46b), since the participant in question cannot benefit from the crying in any way: (46) Kuku Yalanji (Patz 2002: 132f) a.
Nyulu Cooktown dunga-y yaba-nka. 3sg.nom C. go-npst elder.brother-dat ‘He goes to Cooktown for his elder brother.’
b. Nyulu dingkar ngamu-nku badi-ny. 3sg.nom man.abs mother-dat cry-pst ‘The man cried because of his mother (she had died).’
This kind of polysemy makes sense to the extent that beneficiaries can be seen as (indirect) causes of the events they are involved in. Causation is usually less direct in such cases, since the agent often willingly participates in the denoted event for the beneficiary, but the event may not have occurred without the beneficiary being somehow involved in it. The beneficiary may even be fully unaware of causing an event to occur. In the case of indirect cause, in turn, the participation of the causing entity is usually less volitional, as seen in (44) and (45). In Finnish, the notion of indirect cause is strong both in (44a) and (44b), but it is clearly more prominent in (44b), since, due to the inanimacy of the causing entity, there cannot be benefaction. Since the difference is inferable from animacy of the argument followed by vuoksi/takia, the language does not need to have formally distinct mechanisms for expressing this difference. The polysemy of the dative is explainable largely on the same basis in Kuku Yalanji, since a deceased person is arguably a poor choice for the role of beneficiary, and the sense of causation is strong in (46b). In Tashelhiyt, the causer is not acting volitionally in (45b).
4.6â•… Beneficiary and goal Some languages code some instances of beneficiary identically to goals. Consider (47) Tashelhiyt Berber (Rapold, this volume) a.
Arki> a-sn t-ssnu-t mad ššta-n; … until dat-3pers 2-cook-2sg who/what eat.ipv-3pers ‘until you cook something to eat for them; …’
b. I-huwd ufrux lli i yan lxla… 3sg-go.down sg.m.nom.boy res.ref dat m.one desert ‘The boy went down to a desert…’
Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
(48) Japanese (Sachiko Sosa, personal communication) a.
Okaasan ga kodomo ni keeki o yakimasita. mother nom child dat cake acc bake.pst ‘The mother baked the child a cake.’
b. Kodomo ga gakkou ni hasitte ikimasita. child nom school dat run.inf go.pst ‘The child ran to the school.’ (49) Finnish (personal knowledge) a.
Vanhempi leipo-i kaku-n lapse-lle. parent.nom bake-3sg.pst cake-acc child-all ‘The parent baked the child a cake.’
b. Foneetikko juok-si koulu-lle. phonetician.nom run-3sg.pst school-all ‘The phonetician ran to the school.’
In Tashelhiyt and Japanese, dative case can code both beneficiaries (a-examples) and goals (b-examples). In Finnish, the allative case may code both of these roles. It is in order to note, however, that in Tashelhiyt the dative can code goals only with a very limited set of verbs, and it is usually the allative that codes goals. The semantic motivation of the polysemy illustrated in (47)–(49) is perhaps not as evident as in the case of beneficiaries and recipients. This polysemy can, however, also be explained semantically if we consider the different types of benefaction discussed in Section 3.1. In Japanese, only recipient-beneficiaries and plain beneficiaries may receive dative coding. The same applies largely to the Finnish allative, even though the allative can also code deputative benefaction in some cases (for more details see Kittilä, this volume). This means that beneficiaries may be coded as goals only when they share common features with recipients, or when the action is directly targeted at them, as in the mother is singing for her child. If the feature of direct targeting is lacking, the use of the dative or the allative is not possible. In Tasheyhlit, the situation is somewhat different, but the dative is nonetheless a polysemous case (see Rapold, this volume), which probably contributes to the identical coding of goal and beneficiary as well.
4.7â•… Beneficiary and causee The last instance of polysemy of beneficiary markers discussed here is the polysemy of beneficiary and causee found, for example, in Japanese and Turkish: (50) Japanese (Sachiko Sosa, Nobufumi Inaba, personal communication) a.
Okaasan ga kodomo ni keeki o yakimasita. mother nom child dat cake acc bake.pst ‘The mother baked the child a cake.’
Introduction
b. Pia ga Anssi ni baa e ik-ase-ta. P. nom A. dat bar to go-caus-pst ‘Pia let Anssi go to a bar.’ c.
Pia ga Anssi o baa e ik-ase-ta. P. nom A. acc bar to go-caus-pst ‘Pia made Anssi go to a bar.’
(51) Turkish (Jaklin Kornfilt, personal communication; Comrie 1975: 6) a.
Anne-m ban-a bir pasta pişir-di. mother-1sg I-dat a cake bake-pst ‘My mother baked a cake for me.’
b. Dişçi mektub-u müdür-e imzala-t-tı. dentist letter-acc director-dat sign-caus-pst ‘The dentist made the director sign the letter.’ c.
Ali Hasan-ı öl-dür-dü. A. H.-acc die-caus-past ‘Ali killed Hasan.’
In Japanese, both beneficiaries and causees may be followed by the dative particle ni, and both participants typically appear in the dative case in Turkish. These languages differ from each other, however, with respect to how the dative coding of the causee is motivated. In Japanese, in clauses with transitive predicates like yaku ‘bake’ it is not possible for both the causee and the patient to take accusative case; the causee has to appear in the dative (50a). With intransitive verbs like iku ‘go’ in baa e iku ‘go to a bar’, on the other hand, the assignment of dative case has a semantic basis: the causee occurs in the dative in the case of permissive causation, as also shown by the free translation of (50b); in the case of coercive causation, the causee bears accusative coding (50c). By contrast, the marking of the causee is solely determined by transitivity in Turkish: the causee occurs in the dative if the causativized clause is originally transitive, as in (51b); in the case of ditransitive and intransitive clauses (51c), dative coding of the causee is not possible. Observe that the two languages also differ as to the motivation of the polysemy. In Japanese, the identical coding of (some instances of) causees and beneficiaries can be given a semantic explanation based on the lower degree of affectedness of the datively coded participants. Highly affected participants, i.e. patients and causees of more direct causation, in turn, appear in the accusative. On the other hand, a semantic explanation is not valid for Turkish, since the identical coding of causees and beneficiaries is formally determined in that language, viz. by the transitivity of the original clause. The causee appears in the dative only in case the original clause is transitive, and thus the first free slot in the hierarchy [subject > direct object > indirect object > oblique] is that of the indirect object, which puts the causee in the dative (see Comrie 1975 for a more detailed discussion of this).
Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga
5.â•… Contents of this volume The present volume includes four cross-linguistic/typological studies and thirteen articles that deal with individual languages. Creissels’ paper is a comprehensive study of benefactive applicative periphrases, i.e. biverbal constructions that introduce beneficiaries and related participants to a clause. Two of its main findings are the significant role played by ‘give’-verbs both in serialization and complex predicates worldwide and the comparatively limited role played by ‘take’-verbs in autobenefactive constructions in Eurasia. Smith’s study of the semantics of benefactives proposes two parameters along which benefactives are classified: (i) whether there is an agentive participant or not, and (ii) restrictions placed on the beneficiary’s reference. In addition, Smith proposes to include the English get-to-construction when discussing the notion of benefaction cross-linguistically. Radetzky and Smith propose a classification of languages according to whether benefactives and malefactives are subsumed under one unspecified expression (a pattern found in Europe, Africa, and the Americas) or the two notions correspond to separate morphosyntactic strategies (a pattern found mainly in India, Southeast Asia, and East Asia). Schmitdke-Bode’s paper is based on the author’s comprehensive typological study of purposive constructions and explores the connections between purposives and benefactives. Three articles deal with languages of the Americas. Kiyosawa and Gerdts provide a survey of the benefactive and malefactive uses of the applicative suffixes found in the Salish languages (Canada and USA). Censabella systematizes the specialized applicatives of Toba (Guaicuruan; Argentina), some of which encode benefaction and malefaction. Ziga presents an analysis of two applicatives found in Mapudungun (isolate; Chile and Argentina) according to which the “malefactive” was an originally neutral transitivizer that became semantically marked in some environments as a true “benefactive” entered the picture. Three articles deal with languages of Europe. Colleman’s is a cross-linguistic study of the English and the Dutch benefactive double-object construction on the one hand and the French and the German benefactive dative construction on the other. Kittil’s is an in-depth study of seven benefactive strategies found in Finnish (Uralic; Finland). Lacroix deals with an applicative derivation and an adpositional strategy used to express bene-/malefaction in Laz (Kartvelian; Turkey). Four papers deal with African languages. Quint describes and discusses the specialized benefactive and malefactive verb derivations in Koalib (Niger-Congo; Sudan). Vllmin’s article addresses the specialized benefactive and malefactive object agreement sets found in Gumer (Semitic; Ethiopia), as well as a biclausal benefactive strategy featuring a ‘say’-verb in the same language. Boyd describes the syntax and the semantics
Introduction
of “reflexive benefactives” in Chamba-Daka (Niger-Congo; Nigeria). Rapold explores the semantic roles covered by the dative in Tashelhiyt (Berber; Morocco). Finally, three papers deal with Asian languages. Jenny’s study of Thai (Tai-Kadai; Thailand) benefactive serial verb constructions suggests that an additional parameter to take into account is the consciousness/awareness on the part of the beneficiary. Song examines the semantics and pragmatics of benefactive complex predicates and the corresponding case markers found in Korean (isolate; Korea), and tsuboi addresses the role played by grammaticalization and pragmatics in the acceptability and the interpretation of the malefactive construction in Japanese (isolate; Japan).
6.â•… Topics for further investigation Much could be said about fruitful lines for further research; we will limit ourselves to mentioning four topics that are especially salient here. First, more detailed studies of benefactive constructions in a substantial number of languages are likely to refine and deepen our understanding of benefaction in ways that are not easy to predict— particularly with respect to specialized strategies that encode “less frequent” nuances of benefaction. Second, much more work needs to be done on malefaction, both for individual languages and cross-linguistically. Third, potentially very illuminating studies will address the division of labor between the different mechanisms in languages with multiple ways of coding benefaction. Finally, the formal/semantic/pragmatic similarities and differences between constructional benefactives and adpositional benefactives is an interesting topic worth pursuing.
References Abdel-Hafiz, Ahmed Sokarno. 1988. A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian. Ph.D. dissertation, SUNY, Buffalo. Amberber, Mengistu. 2002. Verb Classes and Transitivity in Amharic. Munich: Lincom Europa. Bisang, Walter. 1992. Das Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Blake, Barry. 1994. Case. Cambridge: CUP. Comrie, Bernard. 1975. Causatives and universal grammar. Transactions of the Philological Society 1974: 1–32. Conti, Carmen. 2008. Receptores y beneficiarios. Estudio tipológico de la ditransitividad. Munich: Lincom Europa. Crowley, Terry. 1982. The Paamese Language of Vanuatu. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Denghani, Yavar. 2000. A Grammar of Iranian Azari. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Seppo Kittilä & Fernando Zúñiga Frajzyngier, Zygmunt. 1993. A Grammar of Mupun. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Frank, Paul. 1990. Ika Syntax. Dallas & Arlington TX: SIL & University of Texas. Genetti, Carol. 2007. A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hyslop, Catriona. 2001. The Lolovoli Dialect of the North-East Ambae Language, Vanuatu [Pacific Linguistics 515]. Canberra: Australian National University. Janda, Laura. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics. The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Recipient prominence vs. beneficiary prominence. Linguistic Typology 9: 269–297. Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. Anomaly of the verb ‘give’ explained by its high (formal and semantic) transitivity. Linguistics 44(3): 569–612. Kimenyi, Alexander. 1980. A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Laka, Itziar. 1996. Euskera, the Basque language.
, 18 September, 2008. Lehmann, Christian, Shin, Yong-Min & Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2000. Direkte und indirekte partizipation. Zur Typologie der sprachlichen Repräsentation konzeptueller Relationen. Munich: Lincom Europa. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 2002. The possessive-benefactive connection. Oceanic Linguistics 41(2): 439–474. Margetts, Anna. 1999. Valence and Transitivity in Saliba, an Oceanic Language of Papua New Guinea. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Naess, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Patz, Elisabeth. 2002. A Grammar of the Kuku Yalanji Language of North Queensland. Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University. Payne, Thomas. 2000. Towards a substantive typology of applicative constructions. Ms, University of Oregon and SIL International. Rice, Sally & Kabata, Kaori. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11(3): 451–514. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In Grammatical Constructions. Their Form and Meaning, Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra Thompson (eds.), 157–194. Oxford: OUP. Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax: A Lexicalist Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Tharp, Doug. 1996. Sulka grammar essentials. In Two Non-Austronesian Grammars from the Islands, John M. Clifton (ed.), 77–161. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: SIL. Valenzuela, Pilar. 1997. Basic Verb Types and Argument Structures in Shipibo-Conibo. MA thesis, University of Oregon. Van Gijn, Rik. 2006. A Grammar of Yurakaré. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nijmegen. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & LaPolla, Randy. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. Watters, David. 2002. A Grammar of Kham. Cambridge: CUP. Willett, Thomas. 1991. A Reference Grammar of Southeastern Tepehuan. Dallas & Arlington TX: SIL & University of Texas. Zúñiga, Fernando. In preparation. The Grammar of Benefaction.
Benefactive applicative periphrases A typological approach Denis Creissels
University of Lyon After defining applicative periphrases as constructions in which a verb (the verb-operator) acts as a valency operator licensing the expression of an additional participant fulfilling a given semantic role in the event encoded by another verb (the lexical verb), this paper analyses applicative periphrases licensing beneficiaries. I recognize three formal types with respect to the grammatical nature of the two verb forms involved in the periphrasis and examine their distribution in the languages of the world. I then discuss grammaticalization paths leading to benefactive applicative periphrases, as well as further evolutions of benefactive applicative periphrases. The last two€sections are devoted to autobenefactive applicative periphrases and to the use of verbs other than ‘give’ as verb-operator in benefactive applicative periphrases.
1.â•… Introduction The recognition and analysis of periphrastic constructions functionally equivalent to morphological derivations encoding operations on verbal valency has been a recurrent topic in the study of passive and causative constructions. By contrast, applicative periphrases are largely neglected in the general literature on valency changes, although such constructions have been described in many languages. This paper examines applicative periphrases licensing benefactives in a typological perspective. This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, after defining the notion of Â�applicative periphrasis, I define benefactive applicative periphrases as a semantic subtype of applicative periphrases, and I examine their general properties. In Section 3, I propose to distinguish three formal types of benefactive applicative periphrases according to the grammatical nature of the verb forms involved, and in Section 4, I examine their geographical distribution. In Section 5, I examine the grammaticalization paths in which benefactive applicative periphrases are involved. Section 6 is devoted to the use of ‘take’ and ‘eat’ in complex predicates expressing
Denis Creissels
autobenefaction. Section 7 examines the use of verbs other than ‘give’ in benefactive applicative periphrases.1
2.â•…Benefactive applicative periphrases: Definition and introductory remarks 2.1â•… Applicative periphrases In applicative constructions, a participant that cannot be treated as a core term of the corresponding non-applicative construction shows morphosyntactic properties identical or similar to those of the patient in the prototypical transitive construction. Applicative constructions may thus promote participants otherwise encoded as adjuncts to the status of core syntactic terms, but there are also obligatory applicatives (particularly common among Bantu languages), i.e. applicative constructions that constitute the only possible way to encode some semantic roles.2 Applicative periphrases are biverbal constructions functionally comparable to monoverbal constructions headed by applicative verb forms. The two verbs they involve can be designated as lexical verb (abbreviated as Vlex) and verb-operator (abbreviated as Vop). The lexical verb determines the type of event encoded by the applicative periphrasis, and the argument structure of the applicative periphrasis is the argument structure of the lexical verb augmented by an additional participant. Vop acts as a valency operator whose contribution to the construction is limited to licensing the expression of an additional participant fulfilling a given semantic role in the event encoded by the lexical verb, without modifying the morphosyntactic treatment of the other participants. The type of semantic role assigned by the verb acting as a valency operator in an applicative periphrasis has a historical connection with one of the roles assigned by the same verb when independently used in predicate function, but semantic evolutions may result in that, synchronically, verbs in valency operator function in applicative periphrases assign roles that sometimes have no direct connection with their argument structure as independent verbs.
1.â•… I am grateful to the following colleagues for their comments on earlier versions of this paper and/or their help in collecting data: Azeb Amha, Isabelle Bril, Injoo Choi-Jonin, Antoine Guillaume, Miyuki Ishibashi, Guillaume Jacques, Mathias Jenny, Renée Lambert-Brétière, Annie Montaut, Christiane Pilot-Raichoor, and Masayoshi Shibatani. I am particularly grateful to Karen Ebert for her help with Asian data. 2.â•… For a more detailed presentation of my own views on applicatives, see Creissels (2006:73–84).
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
2.2â•… Benefactive applicative periphrases A benefactive applicative periphrasis (henceforth abbreviated as BAP) is an applicative periphrasis licensing beneficiaries. BAPs constitute a particularly common type of applicative periphrases. Ex. (1) to (3) illustrate BAPs licensing the three sub-types of beneficiaries (recipient-beneficiaries, deputative beneficiaries, and plain beneficiaries) recognized by Van Valin & LaPolla (1997:383–4) (1)
Yoruba – Rowlands (1969:83) Rà á fún mi. buy 3sg give 1sg ‘Buy it for me.’ (recipient beneficiary)
(2)
Yoruba – Abraham (1962:348) Ó jís» é» fún mi. 3sg go_on_an_errand give 1sg ‘He went on an errand for me.’ (deputative beneficiary)
(3)
Twi – Christaller (1933:566) Owu kyεε me. 3sg.die share 1sg ‘He died for me, for my benefit.’ (plain beneficiary)
2.3â•…Benefactive applicative periphrases and other types of benefactive periphrases The definition formulated in Section 2.2 does not apply to all periphrastic constructions expressing benefactive/malefactive meanings, but only to those in which the verb-operator can be described as adding a beneficiary to the argument structure of the lexical verb in a way comparable to what can be observed with morphological applicatives. For example, the periphrastic passive of Vietnamese, illustrated by Ex. (4), is outside the scope of this study, since it cannot be described as involving a valency change of the applicative type. Rather, a specification is added to the semantic role of the P argument of the lexical verb by means of a control construction in€which the subject of được ‘get’ or bị ‘undergo’ controls the missing object of the lexical verb. (4) Vietnamese – Dauphin (1977:46) a. Học sinh được thầy giáo khen. pupil get teacher praise ‘The pupil was [positively affected by being] praised by the teacher.’ b. Học sinh bị thầy giáo đánh. pupil undergo teacher beat ‘The pupil was [negatively affected by being] beaten by the teacher.’
Similarly, Santali (Munda) has a periphrasis in which jfm- ‘eat’ expresses a malefactive€ meaning, illustrated by Ex. (5). However, this construction does not license a
 Denis Creissels
valency-external participant affected to his/her detriment, and consequently does not fall under the definition formulated above. It is rather a passive construction implying that the patient of a transitive verb (promoted to subject role) is negatively affected by the action of the agent (represented by a dative-marked NP). (5)
Santali – Neukom (2001:17) Uni-t» hεn 6d ˛ i ruhεt’-i\ jfm-akat’a. that(an)-dat much scold-a1sg eat-pfv.act-ind ‘I got scolded badly by him.’ (lit. ‘I ate much scolding from him’)
A similar phenomenon is found in Hindi, which has pairs of light verb constructions such as dhokhā denā ‘give cheating’ > ‘deceive’/dhokhā khānā ‘eat cheating’ > ‘get deceived’, in which the light verb ‘eat’ expresses passive diathesis. Further illustrations of this use of ‘give’ in Hindi are for example mār khānā ‘eat blow’ > ‘be beaten’, gālī khānā ‘eat insult’ > ‘be insulted’, etc. – Montaut (2004:91 & p.c).
2.4â•… Benefactive and malefactive Rather than a specifically benefactive meaning, BAPs may express a more general meaning of affectedness lending itself to malefactive interpretations, depending on the context. Ex. (6) illustrates the malefactive reading of the Yoruba ‘give’ periphrasis, other possible readings of which have been illustrated by Ex. (1) & (2) above. (6)
Yoruba – Abraham (1962:316) Ó purọʹ fún mi. 3sg lie give 1sg ‘He lied to me.’
However, the malefactive use of BAPs seems to be less common than the malefactive use of benefactive constructions involving applicative derivation or adpositions, which suggests that the extension of the use of BAPs to the expression of malefaction tends to occur at a relatively advanced stage of the grammaticalization process. An important observation concerning malefactives is that I have found no mention of applicative periphrases involving verb-operators expressing malefactive meanings only, either in descriptive grammars or in the literature on benefactives and malefactives. The grammaticalized malefactive serial verb constructions illustrated by Ex. (4) & (5) above and analyzed among others by Radetzky & Yamashita Smith (this volume) are not applicative constructions, and consequently fall beyond the scope of this paper. Similarly, a superficial look at the Baule construction illustrated by Ex. (7) could suggest analyzing it as an applicative periphrasis specifically expressing malefaction. However, the use of this construction is limited to expressing the exclusion of a participant, which is not the same thing as malefaction: the excluded participant is negatively affected by the fact of being excluded, not by the event from which (s)he is excluded.
(7)
Benefactive applicative periphrases
Baule (pers. doc.) Bè-dí bè-kpὲ mín. a3pl-eat a3pl-cut 1sg ‘They eat without giving anything to me.’
The absence of dedicated applicative-malefactive periphrases is consistent with the fact that, more generally, dedicated malefactive markers are much less common in the languages of the world than dedicated benefactive markers, and at least some of the cases of benefactive vs. malefactive marking that have been reported seem to boil down to a contextual interpretation of a basically centripetal vs. centrifugal contrast, based on a tendency to associate centripetal with benefactive, and centrifugal with malefactive – see e.g. Salas (2006:121–4) and Zúñiga (this volume) on Mapudungun.
2.5â•… Benefactive and autobenefactive In principle, any type of construction licensing a beneficiary NP can express autobenefaction via reflexivization. However, some of the languages that have a BAP also have a distinct periphrasis expressing autobenefaction. This question is developed in Section 7.
2.6â•… General characteristics of benefactive applicative periphrases BAPs tend to share the following two characteristics: a. The verb in valency operator function, when used independently, almost always expresses the general meaning ‘give’, or denotes a particular type of giving, e.g. ‘share’, as in Ex. (3) above (the use of verbs other than ‘give’ as valency operators in BAPs is examined in Section 8). b. Irrespective of the status of the language in question with respect to constituent order typology, ‘give’ almost always occupies the second position in BAPs.3 Mandarin Chinese constitutes the best-known exception to the generalization according to which ‘give’ occurs in second position in BAPs – Ex. (8).4 (8)
Mandarin Chinese – Li & Thompson (1981:388) Woˇ gěi tā jì le yi fēng xìn. 1sg give 3sg mail pfv one clf letter ‘I mailed a letter for him/her.’
3.â•… Note that this is not a general property of applicative periphrases. For example, ‘take’ acting as a valency operator in instrumental periphrases normally occurs in V1 position. There is an obvious connection between the linear ordering of applicative periphrases and the chronological succession of the phases of complex events. 4.â•… Many speakers of Mandarin, especially towards the south, allow however BAPs with ‘give’ in second position (Masayoshi Shibatani, p.c.).
 Denis Creissels
The other cases of BAPs with ‘give’ in first position I am aware of are Yongning Na (Tibeto-Burman) – Lidz (2006), Abui (Papuan) – Kratochvíl (2007:394–6), and Ecuadorian Highland Spanish – Haboud (1994 & 1998:215–223). We will return to the case of Mandarin, Yongning Na and Abui in Sections 6.3.2–3, since the exceptional order of the BAP in those languages can be viewed as a piece of evidence that the construction is only superficially identifiable as a BAP, and that ‘give’ has been reanalyzed as an adposition. But this analysis is not possible in the case of Ecuadorian Highland Â�Spanish, which will be discussed in Section 4.3.3.
2.7â•… Identifying benefactive applicative periphrases 2.7.1â•… Distinguishing benefactive applicative periphrases from biclausal constructions BAPs may be similar or even identical to biclausal constructions expressing that a giving event encoded by the second clause follows the event encoded by the first clause. Intonational contours can be expected to provide a clue to the distinction between monoclausal and biclausal expressions, but unfortunately, the documentation available on most languages does not allow using intonation as a criterion in a typological study relying mainly on second-hand data. However, in addition to the language-specific formal manifestations of a distinction between a biclausal construction and a complex predicate, the distinction is generally made obvious by the contrast between the role assigning properties of ‘give’ as a monoverbal predicate and its function in BAPs. From this point of view, the only ambiguous case is constituted by sentences describing situations involving recipient-like beneficiaries (such as I cooked a cake for the children/I cooked a cake and gave it to the children), which precisely can be viewed as providing the crucial context for the development of the reanalysis of ‘give’ as an applicative operator with a benefactive function. Deputative beneficiaries or plain beneficiaries cannot be analyzed as receiving their semantic role from ‘give’ in a biclausal construction, and role assignment in such cases results from the interaction of the meaning of the lexical verb and a general benefactive meaning (or an even more abstract meaning) contributed by ‘give’ in valency operator function. Most sources do not comment the radical change in the role assigning properties of ‘give’ involved in a BAP, but some authors insist on the specificity of ‘give’ verbs used as valency operators. For example, in Kokota (Papuan), Palmer (1999:176) describes benefactive/malefactive constructions involving what he calls “the affective verb tufa”, and uses for this verb the special gloss affect, in spite of the fact that tufa “is normally interpreted in isolation with a meaning similar to ‘give’â•›”. 2.7.2â•…Distinguishing benefactive applicative periphrases from adpositional constructions Applicative periphrases are easy to distinguish from adpositional constructions insofar as the verb in valency operator function shows verbal inflection. But if it occurs in
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
an invariable form, an alternative analysis is that, synchronically, the word licensing the expression of a beneficiary is not a verb form, but rather an adposition homonymous with a verb. Unfortunately, it is very difficult if not impossible to consistently solve this question on the basis of universally valid criteria, and no consistency must be expected in the way different descriptive traditions deal with it. Some linguists tend to consider that invariability in a given construction excludes analyzing a word as a verb in the construction in question, even if the same form is found in contexts in which it shows the inflectional variations that characterize verbs. Others tend to consider that, insofar as a word occurring in a construction in which it could be analyzed as an adposition coincides with a semantically related form encountered in other contexts with a clearly verbal status, this word must be uniformly analyzed as a verb, and the construction in which it could be analyzed as a preposition is rather a complex predicate. Others try to find syntactic evidence supporting one of the two competing analyses. On the initial stage of a typological study of BAPs, the only way to ensure the homogeneity of the data examined is to operate with a broad definition, and to leave for further discussion the question of the possible decategorialization of verb forms in valency operator function. Consequently, the notion of BAP must be taken here in a broad sense including any applicative construction in which a benefactive NP is licensed by a word that also occurs with a related meaning in constructions in which it clearly has the status of verb. Some possible criteria for analyzing the categorial status of uninflected verb forms in valency operator function are presented in Section 6.3.
2.8â•…Benefactive applicative periphrases and other grammaticalized uses of ‘give’ verbs ‘Give’ verbs are among the verbs most commonly involved in grammaticalization processes. Their possible functions in applicative periphrases are not limited to licensing beneficiaries. For example, according to Hagemeijer (2000), in SãoTomense (Creole; São Tomé), da ‘give’ in applicative operator function can assign the following semantic roles: benefactive (9a), goal (9b), experiencer (9c),5 recipient (9d), and even source (9e). (9) São-Tomense – Hagemeijer (2000:32/105/106) a. Sela pa n toma zawa pa n ba pya da bo. must for 1sg take urine for 1sg go see give 2sg ‘I must take your urine in order to check it for you.’
5.â•… The categorization of the semantic role exemplified in this sentence as experiencer is somewhat questionable, but Hagemeier (2000) provides no clearer example of ‘give’ licensing an Â�experiencer. I also have maintained the characterization of Ex. (9e) given by Â�Hagemeier, although it might be argued that (9e) rather instantiates cause.
 Denis Creissels
b.
Ola hour so then
ku-e ka bili zanela, that-2sg ipfv open window n ga zuga vunvu se da glentu ke. 1sg ipfv throw bee dem give inside house
‘When he opens the window, I will throw the bees inside the house.’
c.
Fogon ka sa kentchi da non. kitchen ipfv be hot give 1pl ‘The kitchen is getting hot for us.’
d. Fatu se ku men bo mole fika da bo. costume dem that mother 2sg die stay give 2sg ‘that costume that remained for you when your mother died.’ e.
Inen mina se tava ka kole da koblo. 3pl child dem pst ipfv run give snake ‘Those children were running away from the snake.’
In Yoruba, the possible semantic roles licensed by fún ‘give’ in applicative operator function include not only beneficiary, recipient, experiencer, and purpose, but also reason – Ex. (10a); fún can even be used to introduce temporal adjuncts – Ex. (10b). (10) Yoruba – Abraham (1962:226) a. Ó n´ kú lọ fún ebi. 3sg prog die go6 give hunger ‘He is dying of hunger.’ b. Mo sinmi fún wákàtíī kọn. 3sg rest give hour one ‘I rested for an hour.’
Grammaticalized uses of ‘give’ verbs as role assigners in the construction of other verbs are not always limited to licensing more or less peripheral participants, and may extend to argument marking: in Hakka (Sinitic), the use of ‘give’ to introduce recipient NPs has extended to ‘give’ itself, giving rise to the construction illustrated by Ex. (11), currently analyzed as involving a first occurrence of ‘give’ in verbal predicate function and a second occurrence of ‘give’ in dative preposition function. (11)
Hakka – Lai H.-L. (2001:141) Gia ba bun yi kiu tien bun gi. 3sg.gen father give one clf field give 3sg ‘His father gave a piece of field to him.’
Moreover, ‘give’ verbs quite commonly grammaticalize as valency operators, not only in applicative periphrases, but also in passive periphrases, and in causative or permissive 6.â•… In this construction, lọ ‘go away’ expresses continuative aspect.
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
periphrases. As discussed among others by Heine & Kuteva (2002:149–155; 321), they may also grammaticalize as complementizers or TAM markers, and they are often involved in polygrammaticalization processes. For example, in Phnong (Bahnaric, Mon-Khmer), ôan ‘give’ occurs in V2 position in dative/benefactive constructions, but also in V1 position in causative/permissive constructions, and in medial position in triverbal constructions expressing purpose – Ex. (12).7 (12) Phnong – Vogel (2006:108/133/166) a. Gº fp ntum ŋ8j dº ro˜n ôan paŋ. 1sg teach speak Khmer give 3sg ‘I teach him Khmer.’ b. Gº fp ôan paŋ kh8t. 1sg give 3sg die ‘I let him die.’ c.
Cho˜ŋ piaŋ ôaŋ lεô do˜. eat rice give finish imp ‘Eat the rice so that none of it is left.’
This aspect of the question will not be addressed further in this paper, since the main focus is on BAPs.
3.â•… Formal types of benefactive applicative periphrases Three formal types of BAPs can be recognized with respect to the grammatical nature of the two verb forms involved in the periphrasis. Note that, in the definition of formal types of BAPs, marked applied to a verb form must be understood as an abbreviation for ‘showing morphological evidence of a dependent status’.
3.1╅ The serializing type I adopt the definition according to which a serial verb construction (henceforth abbreviated as SVC) is a complex predicate (i.e. a monoclausal construction involving two or more verbs) showing the following two characteristics: a. no linking element is present between the verbs involved in the construction; b. none of the verbs involved in the construction is in a form implying a �nonautonomous status.
7.â•… Mon k# ‘give’, Thai hâj ‘give’ and Burmese pèi ‘give’ show a similar range of grammaticalized functions – see Jenny (2005:214–5). On the relationship between benefactive and causative constructions involving the same ‘give’ verb, see in particular Iwasaki & Yap (2000).
 Denis Creissels
This definition basically coincides with that formulated by Aikhenvald (2003:1). It crucially differs from earlier definitions in that it explicitly excludes covert clause or VP coordination from SVCs. Covert coordination may be the historical source of SVCs, and in some languages the limit between covert coordination and SVCs may be fuzzy, but a notion of SVC that did not include this restriction would be too vague to be useful in the analysis of syntactic structures. For recent discussions of the relationship between SVCs and covert coordination, see among others Ameka (2003), Newmeyer (2004), Paul (2004). Although there is now a relative consensus on this definition, it must be mentioned at this point that the current conception of SVCs has been vigorously criticized by Shibatani (2006). He argues that this conception relies on a confusion between verb forms as pure forms and verb forms as members of a paradigm occupying a given slot in a given construction, and that SVCs as currently identified share so many properties with other formal types of complex predicates that it is not justified to view them as a cross-linguistically valid type of construction. Concerning the distinction between complex predicates of the serial type and the combination of a monoverbal predicate with an adposition, the uncontroversial cases of SVCs are those in which each of the verbs involved in the construction shows at least some of the inflectional variations characteristic of verb forms heading independent clauses. In such cases, it may happen that the verbs involved in a SVC show parallel inflection (if V1 and V2 show identical inflectional marks) or distributed inflection (if some of the inflectional marks characteristic of verbs heading independent clauses attach to V1, and some others, to V2). Ex. (13) from Baule (Kwa) and (14) from Dagaare (Gur) illustrate benefactive SVCs with parallel inflection of the lexical verb and of ‘give’ in valency operator function. (13)
Baule (pers. doc.) Ákísí à-t`fn duô à-màn Kòfí. Akissi prf-cook yam prf-give Kofi ‘Akissi has cooked yam for Kofi.’
(14)
Dagaare – Bodomo & van Oostendorp (1994:23–4) Bayff zo-ro gε-rε wuo-ro la haani Bayor run-ipfv go-ipfv collect-ipfv decl blackberry waa-na k~- rf ma. come-ipfv give-ipfv 1sg
‘Bayor is presently going and collecting some blackberries for me.’
As already commented in Section 2.3.2, the analysis of SVCs involving a fully inflected lexical verb and a verb-operator invariably occurring in bare stem form is much less obvious. Ex. (10) from Yoruba, reproduced here as (15), and Ex. (16) from Kana (Cross-River), illustrate this type of benefactive SVC.
Benefactive applicative periphrases
(15)
Yoruba – Abraham (1962:226) Ó ń kú lọ fún ebi. 3sg prog die go give hunger ‘He is dying of hunger.’
(16)
Kana – Ikoro (1996:254) žwíìkā wēè fʹ b túú nὲ Nūtὲ. Nwiika pst roast three-leave_yam give Nute ‘Nwiika roasted a three-leave yam for Nute.’
3.2â•… The marked-Vop type Ex. (17) from Mankon (Grassfields Bantu) illustrates a type of BAP in which Vlex is inflected like verbs heading monoverbal independent clauses, whereas ‘give’ in valency operator function is in a non-autonomous “sequential” form typically used for verbs heading non-initial clauses in clause chains encoding sequences of events. (17)
Mankon – Leroy (2003:459) Mà m≠і‒ʹ fàôá γ≠á mbó zш´ә´ 1sg fut work seq.give to 3sg.enunc ‘I will work for him.’ (lit. something like ‘I will work and-give him’)
Welmers (1973:366–72) describes benefactive ‘give’ periphrases and other complex predicates found in some Benue-Congo languages of South East Nigeria (e.g. Efik, Igbo), in which the first verb is fully inflected as an independent verb form, and the TAM value it expresses determines the form of the second verb. In some tenses, the verb in V2 position is in the dependent form otherwise used in clause chains encoding sequences of events, whereas in other tenses, the construction looks like a SVC. (18) Efik – Welmers (1973:369–70) a. Nám útóm έmì n`f mî! do work dem give 1sg ‘Do this work for me!’ b. Ánàm útóm fʹ n`f mî. 3sg.prs.do work 3sg.seq.give 1sg ‘He is working for me.’
3.3â•… The marked-Vlex type Beria (Saharan) – Ex. (19) – illustrates the type of BAP in which ‘give’ in valency operator function is inflected like verbs heading monoverbal independent clauses, whereas the lexical verb is in a non-autonomous form typically used, in the languages that have this type of BAP, for verbs heading non-final clauses in clause chains encoding sequences of events. A variety of terms are used to label such forms in descriptive
 Denis Creissels
grammars; in this paper they are uniformly designated as converbs, and their characteristic affixes are uniformly glossed cvb, whatever the terms used in the sources I have consulted. (19)
Beria – Jakobi & Crass (2004:171) A´ská gí-n-έ é-géí! door open-a2sg-cvb p1sg-give.imp ‘Open the door for me!’ (lit. ‘Opening the door give me!’)
In this type of BAP, ‘give’ can be characterized as auxiliary in the sense of function word inflected like a independent verb and combined with a dependent form of the verbal lexeme with which it constitutes a complex predicate. Vector verb is another term found in the literature (in particular on Indo-Aryan languages) to characterize verbs fulfilling a grammaticalized function in this type of compound predicate.
4.â•… The geographical distribution of benefactive applicative periphrases 4.1â•… The distribution of the serializing type 4.1.1â•…Benefactive applicative periphrases in language families or areas in which serialization has been recognized as a common phenomenon BAPs of the serial type are common among the serializing languages of West Africa – Ex. (1), (2), (3), (6), (10), (13), (14), & (16) above, South Eastern Asia – Ex. (20) to (22), and New Guinea – Ex. (23) & (24). (20)
Thai – Lord (2002:220) Kháw thamŋaan hây phîichaay. 3sg work give older_brother ‘He works for his brother.’
(21)
Vietnamese – Dauphin (1977:39) Đê tôi làm cho anh! let 1sg do give older brother ‘Let me do it for you!’
(22)
Yao Samsao (Tibeto-Burman) – Matisoff (1991:428) Yi6 tsiáô nfm daan pun nîn. 1sg weave clf basket give 3sg ‘I wove a basket for him.’
(23)
Kokota (Papuan) – Palmer (1999:176) Fa doli tufa-nau zuta-na! caus be alive give-p1sg lamp-dem ‘Light that lamp for me!’
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
Ð
(24) Dom (Papuan) – Tida (2006:169) ^Flawa nu na ^to-gwe. flour knead8 1exc give-a3sg.ind ‘She kneaded flour for me.’ ^
BAPs of the serial type are also found in those of the pidgin and creole languages that are known for making extensive use of SVCs – Ex. (9) above. Among the language families in which serialization is a widespread phenomenon, Oceanic is the only one in which applicative, and in particular benefactive SVCs are not common: One widely attested development in the world’s languages regarding the grammaticalization of serial verbs is the co-opting of verbs meaning ‘take’ and ‘give’ to function as prepositions expressing instrumental and benefactive meanings respectively. It is worth pointing out at the outset that in Oceanic languages, these verbs are rarely encountered in serial constructions, so prepositions with these particular verbal origins are seldom convincingly attested. Crowley (2002:173)
4.1.2â•… Others In addition to language families or areas in which they are particularly common, BAPs of the serial type are sporadically attested in language families or areas in which serialization does not constitute a widespread phenomenon. Keo (Western Austronesian; Flores, Indonesia) illustrates the case of a BAP of the serial type in a language belonging to a family within which serialization is not widespread, but located not very far from an area in which such constructions are common – Ex. (25). (25)
Keo – Louise Baird, quoted by Margetts & Austin (2007) Ja’o tendo jawa ti’i ’ine. 1sg plant corn give mum ‘I’m planting corn for mum.’
In Africa, BAPs of the serial type are sporadically found outside the area of West Africa characterized by a particular concentration of languages having very productive SVCs, for example in Ngbandi (Ubangian) – Toronzoni (1989), and in the Sara (Central Sudanic) languages Kabba – Moser (2005) – and Sar – Palayer (1989).
8.â•… Note that Tida misleadingly glosses bare verbal stems occurring in V1 position in the SVCs of Dom as ‘INF(initive)’.
 Denis Creissels
BAPs of the serial type with parallel inflection (i.e. with the same inflectional mark on the two verbs) are attested in Old Turkic sources – Anderson (2001). BAPs are very common among Turkic languages, but in modern Turkic languages, they uniformly belong to the marked-Vlex type – Section 4.3. Contrary to most Indo-Aryan languages, Hindi has a BAP in which, in the same way as in other auxiliary (or “vector verb”) constructions, the lexical verb occurs in a form consisting of the bare stem. This form is currently analyzed as a zero-marked converb (or “conjunctive participle” – Montaut (2004:93)), but whatever the justification for such an analysis, the external appearance of the Hindi ‘give’ periphrasis is that of a SVC with verbal inflection concentrated on the verb in V2 position. Among Amerindian languages, benefactive SVCs with parallel inflection are found in the Siouan languages Hidatsa and Mandan – Ex. (26). (26)
Mandan – Mixco (1997:50) Wą´wąrąhku-rą té wa-hræ-ak rútrá-sit deer-top die 1sg-cause-ds rib by heat-roast wa-hræ wa-rį-kųô-rįt-oôš. 1sg-cause 1sg-2-give-2pl-indma
‘I’ve killed a deer and roasted the ribs for you.’
4.2â•… The distribution of the marked-Vop type This type has been illustrated above by Mankon, an atypical (and geographically peripheral) Bantu language that has lost the morphological applicative attested in most Bantu languages and reconstructible at least at Proto-Bantu level, and has compensated this loss by the creation of an applicative periphrasis formally identical to a clause chain encoding the successive phases of a complex event. The only attestations of this type I am aware of come from Benue-Congo languages (Bantu and non-Bantu) spoken in West Cameroon and South-East Nigeria and sharing with Mankon both the loss of the morphological applicative and the retention of overtly inflected sequential verb forms. As already mentioned in Section 3.1 above, many of the languages spoken in this area have complex predicates (including BAPs) with morphological characteristics that make them look like SVCs in some tenses, and constructions of the marked-Vop type in some others.
4.3â•… The distribution of the marked-Vlex type This type is extremely common among the verb-final languages of Asia, from Ainu and Japanese to the East to Turkish to the West and Tamil to the South. Not surprisingly, benefactive ‘give’ compounds and derived benefactive verb forms including an applicative marker originating from a ‘give’ verb, which clearly result from the evolution of BAPs, are also very common among the languages spoken in this area. Outside this area, BAPs of the marked-Vlex type are only sporadic.
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
4.3.1â•… Asian attestations LaPolla (2003:33) observes that, among Tibeto-Burman languages, a commonly found development is the grammaticalization of a benefactive construction. This most commonly takes the form of an auxiliary verb derived from a verb meaning ‘to give’, as in Jinghpaw (-t∫a33), Tamang (pín), Tsangla (bi), Camling (bi), Belhare (-per), and Lahu (pî …). As can be seen from these examples, the verb used in this construction is often the P[roto]-S[ino]-T[ibetan] verb *biy, but the constructions themselves were independently innovated.9
As illustrated by Ex. (27) to (34), BAPs of the marked-Vlex type occur not only among Tibeto-Burman languages (illustrated below by Dolakha Newar), but also in Ainu, Japanese, Korean, and in languages belonging to the Mongolic, Turkic (illustrated below by Ojrot), Indo-Aryan, and Dravidian families. (27)
Dolakha Newar – Genetti (2007:334) Janta lukhā khoŋ-an bi-sin! 1sg.dat door open-cvb give-imp ‘Open the door for me!’
(28)
Ainu – Tamura (2000:181) Néno iki wa en-kore hani? similar do cvb 1sg-give enunc ‘Would you do that for me?’
(29)
Japanese (Miyuki Ishibashi, p.c.) Kodomo-ni kutsu-o kat-te yat-ta. child-dat shoe-acc buy-cvb give-pst ‘I have bought shoes for the child.’
(30)
Korean (Injoo Choi, p.c.) Yumi-ka Sumi-eykey mwun-ul yel-e cwu-ess-ta. Yumi-sbj Sumi-dat door-acc open-cvb give-pst-decl ‘Yumi opened the door for Sumi.’
(31)
Mongolian – Gaunt & Bayarmandakh (2004:29) Ter bidend xool xijž ögnö. 3sg 1pl.dat food make.cvb give.ipfv ‘He will make food for us.’
(32)
Ojrot – Dyrenkova (1940:191) Uulčak bis-ke d’ol ayd-i‒p ber-di. boy 1pl-dat road tell-cvb give-pfv.a3sg ‘The boy showed us the road.’
9.╅ Note that some Tibeto-Burman languages have BAPs of the serial type. This is consistent with the fact that the territory occupied by Tibeto-Burman languages overlaps with the South East Asian linguistic area, characterized by extensive use of SVCs in general, and of �benefactive SVCs in particular.
 Denis Creissels
(33) Pāli – Hendriksen (1944:134), quoted by Butt & Tantos (2004) … assamapadam» ānetvā aggim» katvā adāsi. hermitage.acc lead.cvbfire.acc make.cvb give.iprf.3sg ‘… brought her to his hermitage and made a fire for her.’ (34)
Tamil – Krishnamurti (2003:376) Rājā kumār-ukkuk katav-ai tir ‒. ‒ant-u kozutt-ān Raajaa Kumaar-dat door-acc open-cvb give.pst-3sgm ‘Raajaa opened the door for Kumaar.’
Mamatov & al. (2005) mention a ‘give’ periphrasis of this type in Tajik (Iranian), but it probably constitutes an instance of contact-induced development, since extensive Â�Turkic-Iranian bilingualism is characteristic of the area where Tajik is spoken, and I have been able to find no other attestation of this construction among Iranian languages.
4.3.2â•… African attestations Converbal constructions similar to those of the Asian languages mentioned in the preceding section are common among North East African verb-final languages – Azeb & Dimmendaal (2006), but apart from the Saharan language Beria, already mentioned in Section 3.3, Old Nubian is the only African language in which the descriptions I have been able to consult mention ‘give’ periphrases of the marked-Vlex type, and my only source for this language characterizes the construction as “dative” without mentioning the possibility of a benefactive function: den- ‘to give’ (to me/us) and tr‒- ‘to give’ (to you/him/them) are the so-called ‘dative verbs’, used to specify an indirect object: e.g. St. 3.10-11 ouka pl»¿lïgra- denjisna- ‘he revealed to us’ (lit., ‘revealing, he gave to us’) and M. 7.5-6 tan` eila` outra trsna ‘she placed it in his hand’. Browne (2002:65)
Ijo languages, which constitute an exceptional case of consistently OV languages in West Africa,10 should perhaps be considered as having a BAP of this type. According to Williamson (1965), in the BAP of Ịzọn, as in other semantic types of complex predicates, the verb in V2 position is fully inflected, whereas V1, exactly like non-final verbs in the sequential construction, alternates between the bare stem form if the following word begins with a consonant, and a form characterized by an ending -n(i․`) if the following word begins with a vowel – Ex. (35). (35)
Ịzọn – Williamson & Timitimi (1983:160) Okokodía sọk(ị)-n(ị) ị-pịrí! ˙ ˙ coconut pick out-nỊ 1sg-give.imp ‘Pick the coconut out (of its shell) for me!’
10.â•… Apart from the Ijo languages spoken in the delta of Niger, the Dogon languages spoken in the eastern part of Mali are the only group of West African languages consistently showing OV typology.
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
Consequently, the construction has the appearance of a SVC if the word following Vlex begins with a vowel and of a marked-Vlex construction if the word following Vlex begins with a consonant. Two alternative interpretations can be considered, but the available data do not make it possible to decide which one should be selected: a. -n(ị) is a converbal ending with a phonologically conditioned zero allomorph, and consequently the construction belongs to the marked-Vlex type; b. -n(ị) has the purely morphophonological function of preventing the deletion of the final vowel of the first verb (which in Ịzọn would automatically be deleted in contact with another vowel), and consequently the construction belongs to the serial type.
4.3.3â•… American attestations Haboud (1994, 1998:215–223) describes a BAP in which ‘give’ in Vop function fully inflected like a verb heading a monoverbal independent clause combines with a dependent form of the lexical verb in Ecuadorian Highland Spanish. An exceptional feature of this “dar + gerund” BAP of Ecuadorian Highland Spanish is that, in conformity with Spanish word order, dar ‘give’ in auxiliary function precedes the gerund with which it forms a BAP. Although particularly usual in the imperative, this construction is also used in other TAMs, as illustrated by Ex. (36). Note in particular the possibility to combine dar acting as a benefactive auxiliary with dar in the gerund form expressing its basic meaning ‘give’. (36) Ecuadorian Highland Spanish – Haboud (1994) a. Me dio cocinando. d1sg give.pfv.a3sg cook.ger ‘(S)he cooked for/instead of me.’ b. Él me da haciendo el pan 3sgm d1sg give.prs.a3sg make.ger def.sgm bread
mientras yo lavo. while 1sg wash.prs.a1sg
‘He bakes the bread for/instead of me while I wash.’
c.
Él me dio dando el cuchillo 3sgm d1sg give.pfv.a3sg give.ger def.sgm knife
a la to def.sgf
‘He gave the knife to María instead of me.’
María. María
The first explanation that comes to mind is that this construction might be the result of a transfer from Ecuadorian Quechua, since Quechua has clause chains of the same type as the Asian languages that have BAPs of the marked-Vlex type. However, this construction does not seem to be attested in other varieties of Quechua, and Haboud observes that, in Ecuadorian Quechua, it occurs in direct elicitation with bilingual
 Denis Creissels
Quechua-Spanish speakers, but not in spontaneous productions of speakers having a lower command of Spanish. She tries to explain it as resulting from the transfer of an imperative honorific suffix found in the local variety of Quechua and traceable back to the Quechua applicative suffix -pu-, but this explanation is not very convincing, since€the transfer of syntactic structures typically involves a word-to-word rather than affix-to-word relation. Although the emergence of this construction must certainly be viewed as an instance of contact-induced language change, it is reasonable to assume that it involves a historical scenario more complex than the mere transfer of a Quechua construction. The point is that Ecuadorian Quechua is the result of a relatively recent expansion, since the Inca had conquered the region just one century before the arrival of the Spaniards. At the time of the Spanish conquest, many Indian groups in the Ecuadorian Highlands were still speaking their own languages. Linguistically, the Spanish conquest was followed by an extensive process of Quechuanization, which means that the Ecuadorian varieties of both Quechua and Spanish have evolved in a context favoring the development of complex pidginization/creolization processes. The explanation of the particularities of Ecuadorian Highland Spanish may therefore lie in a complex contact situation involving not only Spanish and Quechua, but also languages that are now extinct, so that the explanation of linguistic particularities of Ecuadorian Highland Spanish that cannot be the result of a straightforward transfer from Quechua is condemned to remain purely speculative.
4.4â•… Correlations When I began this investigation, my idea was that there should be a correlation between the type of BAP that can be found in a language and the type of clause chain used in the same language to encode complex events conceived as a sequence of elementary events, since diachronically, BAPs probably result from the reanalysis of constructions that, originally, express the meaning ‘create/manipulate something and give it to someone’. However, the data just presented suggest a weaker claim. They confirm that, in general, marked-Vlex BAPs are found in languages or language families having sequential constructions in which non-final verbs are in a form overtly marked as non-autonomous, and marked-Vop BAPs are found in languages or language families having sequential constructions in which non-initial verbs are in a form overtly marked as non-autonomous. By contrast, BAPs of the serial type are not limited to languages using covert coordination in clause chains. In particular, Papuan languages typically use clause chains in which the final verb is the only one occurring in an independent form, but many of them also make extensive use of SVCs, including benefactive ones.
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
A possible explanation of this imperfect correlation is that the grammaticalization process converting biclausal constructions into complex predicates may involve �reduction of morphological marking. Another possibility is that multiverbal constructions grammaticalized as complex predicates do not necessarily follow changes occurring in the make-up of multiclausal constructions.11
5.â•… Grammaticalization Similarly to other applicative periphrases, BAPs constitute an intermediary stage in grammaticalization chains, either from verb to adposition-like or case-marker-like items, or from verbs to applicative verb affixes. The initial impetus for the development of applicative periphrases in general, and BAPs in particular, is probably a tendency to limit monoverbal constructions to the expression of arguments, and to make the role of more or less peripheral or optional participants more explicit by using multiverbal constructions. For example, SãoÂ�Tomense uses a double object construction in order to mention the source/maleficiary argument of futa ‘steal’, whereas an SVC is required to express a beneficiary with the same verb – Ex. (37).12 (37) São-Tomense – Hagemeijer (2000:106) a. Ladlon futa mu djelu. thief steal 1sg money ‘The thief stole money from me.’ b. Ladlon futa djelu da mu. thief steal money give 1sg ‘The thief stole money for me.’
5.1â•… From sequential construction to benefactive applicative periphrasis 5.1.1â•… The reanalysis of ‘give’ as a benefactive operator It seems reasonable to assume that the starting point of the grammaticalization chains involving applicative periphrases expressing benefaction is typically a sequential construction in which the second clause describes a giving event constituting the second phase of a complex event whose first phase is described by the first clause, as in English She sewed a dress and gave it to her daughter. 11.â•… On this and next section, see Shibatani & Chung (2007). 12.â•… In some languages, the tendency to avoid sentences with more than two NPs in the construction of each verb affects the expression of arguments too, as observed by Censabella (this volume) for Toba (Guaycuruan).
 Denis Creissels
In such a construction, the recipient of give can also be viewed as the beneficiary of the first event: →
She sewed a dress and gave (it) to her daughter She sewed a dress for the benefit of her daughter
An applicative periphrasis in which ‘give’ acts as a modifying element of the first verb can therefore emerge as the result of the conventionalization of this implicature. Once the reanalysis has been completed, ‘give’ is no longer interpreted as encoding a giving event involving a giver and a gift already involved in an event preceding the giving event, and the NP that originally represented the recipient in a subsequent giving event is interpreted as representing the beneficiary of the first event, without any hint at the precise reason why this participant can be regarded as a beneficiary. It is reasonable to assume that the reanalysis of sequential constructions involving a ‘give’ verb as BAPs develops first with recipient-like beneficiaries (e.g. ‘buy something for someone’) before being extended to the expression of other subtypes of beneficiaries.
5.1.2â•… Evidence of the reanalysis of ‘give’ as a valency operator The possibility to have constructions that are lit. X opened the door gave Y or X having opened the door gave Y, in which it is excluded to interpret Y as being assigned the role of recipient in the same way as in X gave the door to Y, can be used as a diagnostic of the reanalysis of the sequential construction as an applicative periphrasis expressing benefactive. Additional evidence may be provided by the malefactive interpretation of ‘give’ in constructions that are lit. X ate Y gave Z or X having eaten Y gave Z interpreted as ‘X ate Y to the detriment of Z’: here again, the interpretation of Z as a recipient is excluded. Constituent order may also provide evidence of the reanalysis of a sequential construction involving two clauses as a monoclausal construction. For example, in Japanese, when the converb formed with -te occurs in a clause chain, noun phrases belonging to the clause headed by the final verb are inserted between the converb and the final verb, as in Ex. (38a), whereas in a complex predicate in which the final verb is ‘give’ in valency operator function, such phrases cannot be inserted between the converb and the final verb – Ex. (38b). (38) Japanese (Miyuki Ishibashi, p.c.) a. Machi-e it-te, eiga-o mi-ta. town-all go-cvb movie-acc see-pst ‘I went to town and saw a movie.’ b. Yamada-san-wa Tanaka-san-ni tegami-o kai-te yat-ta. Yamada-Mr.-top Tanaka-Mr.-dat letter-acc write-cvb give-pst ‘Mr. Yamada wrote a letter to/for Mr. Tanaka.’
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
In Igbo, the fact that nyé ‘give’ in Vlex role can combine with nyé ‘give’ in Vop role, as in Ex. (39b), provides evidence of the grammaticalization of ‘give’ as a valency operator. (39) Igbo – Onumajuru (1985:173) a. ọʹ-zù.â•›-rù.â•› ánù.â•› nyé Áányí․. a3sg-buy-pfv meat give 1pl ‘S/he bought meat for us.’ b. ó-nyè-rè-m¡ jí Ányé Áù.â•›bá. a3sg-give-pfv-p1sg yam give Uba ‘S/he gave me yams for Uba.’
As in other cases of grammaticalization, ambiguities may however subsist (at least if intonation is not taken into consideration) between BAPs and superficially identical constructions still interpretable as sequential constructions – Ex. (40). (40)
Dolakha Newar – Genetti (2007:336) Lũ=e bo thi-pta hā-en bi-u! gold=gen plate one-clf bring-cvb give-imp a. ‘Bring a plate of gold and give it (to him)!’ b. ‘Bring a plate of gold for him!’
Conversely, BAPs may be bound by semantic restrictions due to the retention of elements of their original signification. For example, as discussed by Shibatani (2003:282–3), in spite of being clearly distinct from a sequential construction, the BAP of Japanese is restricted to situations involving “the transfer of possessive control of a certain entity, whether concrete or abstract”. In Japanese, intransitive verbs, or transitive verbs whose object NP denotes an object that is not normally transferred to a beneficiary cannot occur in a BAP including an overtly expressed beneficiary – Ex. (41a–b); note however that the same verbs can occur in the BAP provided the Â�beneficiary is not overtly expressed – Ex. (41c–d). (41) Japanese – Shibatani (2003:283) a. *Ken-wa hahaoya-ni itiba-e it-te yat-ta. Ken-top mother-dat market-all go-cvb give-pst Intended: ‘Ken went to the market for mother.’ b. *Ken-wa watashi-ni gomi-o sute-te kure-ta. Ken-top 1sg-dat garbage-acc throw away-cvb give-pst Intended: ‘Ken threw away the garbage for me.’ c.
Ken-wa itiba-e it-te yat-ta. Ken-top market-all go-cvb give-pst ‘Ken did (someone) the favor of going to the market.’
 Denis Creissels
d. Ken-wa gomi-o sute-te kure-ta. Ken-top garbage-acc throw away-cvb give-pst ‘Ken threw away the garbage (for me).’13
5.2â•… The grammaticalization of ‘give’ as a benefactive auxiliary In BAPs of the marked-Vlex type, and in some of the BAPs of the serial type, ‘give’ in benefactive operator function bears full verbal inflection. A ‘give’ verb occurring in such constructions may lose the ability to be used in monoverbal constructions with the meaning ‘give’, or take in this construction a form different from the form it has when expressing the meaning ‘give’, giving thus raise to a benefactive auxiliary whose relation to a ‘give’ verb can be recognized in a diachronic perspective only. This evolution seems to be common among Tibeto-Burman languages.
5.3â•… The grammaticalization of ‘give’ as a benefactive adposition/case marker ‘Give’ verbs are widely recognized as a possible source of benefactive adpositions – see among others Heine & Kuteva (2002:149–151). According to Carlson (1991:214), in Tagbana and Jimini (Senufo, Gur), a benefactive marker is developing from the verb kan or kã ‘give’ in constructions in which “it is unclear from the sources whether kã is a serial verb or a postposition”, whereas Karaboro (another Senufo language) has the cognate benefactive postposition k6~ but has lost the corresponding form for ‘give’, replaced by another verb wãr. In the same geographic area, Dzùùngoo (Mande) has a benefactive postposition k`f whose probable origin is a SVC with the verb k`f´ ‘give’ in V2 position. However, in the SVCs of Dzùùngoo, verbal inflection is borne by the verb in V2 position, whereas benefactive k`f is invariable, which shows that it must not be analyzed as the second term of as SVC, but rather as a postposition etymologically related to the verb k`f´ – Solomiac (2007). Like other function words, ‘give’ verbs reanalyzed as benefactive adpositions may become bound forms, and consequently evolve towards the status of benefactive case markers. For example, according to Remijsen (to appear), in Magey Matbat (Austronesian), “In propositions involving a verb of transfer, the recipient semantic role can be expressed by a prepositional phrase … The preposition in question, be, is segmentally
13.â•… Japanese has several ‘give’ verbs, depending on honorificity level and orientation – Kuno (1973). Yaru and kureru are both used in neutral speech register but differ in that kureru implies orientation towards the speaker’s deictic center – Shibatani (2003:279–81); consequently, the beneficiary in this sentence is most likely to be the speaker. Cross-linguistically, ‘give’ verbs including a deictic component in their lexical meaning (either 1 vs. 2/3 or 1/2 vs. 3) are not uncommon – see among others Browne (2002) on Nubian, Asher & Kumari (1997) on Malayalam, Emeneau (1984) on Toda.
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
identical to the verb be21 ‘give’. Unlike the verb, though, prepositional be is prosodically weak, cliticising to its argument.” The problem is to determine at which stage of its evolution a ‘give’ verb engaged in such a grammaticalization path can be recognized as having been converted into an adposition. The analysis of verb forms devoid of overt inflection marks acting as valency operators is particularly problematic in languages in which regular verb inflection includes forms coinciding with the bare verb stem.
5.3.1â•… Evidence from extraction Evidence of an ongoing process of grammaticalization from verb to preposition in a BAP has been discussed by Voorhoeve (1975) for Sranan (Creole). He argues that the existence of two alternative cleft constructions shows that for the Sranan speakers who front the phrase gi NP, as in (42c), gi ‘give’ in the benefactive construction is a preposition, whereas for those who front only the NP following gi, as in (42b), it is a verb. (42) Sranan – Vorhoeve (1975), quoted by Lord (1993:42–3) a. Mi wroko gi en. 1sg work give 3sg ‘I worked for him.’ b. Na [en] mi wroko gi. foc 3sg 1sg work give ‘It’s him I worked for.’ c.
Na [gi en] mi wroko. foc give 3sg 1sg work. ‘It’s for him I worked’
In São-Tomense, the extraction of the complement of a preposition triggers the use of a resumptive pronoun, as in (43a), whereas resumptive pronouns do not occur when the complement of a verb is extracted. According to Hagemeier (2000), the fact that ‘give’ in the BAP behaves like a verb from this point of view, as shown by Ex. (43), provides evidence that it has not fully grammaticalized as an adposition yet. (43) São-Tomense – Hagemeijer (2000:108) a. Ke kwa ku piskado bili vwado ku-e? / which thing comp fisherman open flying fish with-3sg ‘With what did the fisherman open the flying fish?’
*… ku?
b. Ke nge ku Zon tlaba da? / *… d’e? which person comp Zon work give ‘For whom did Zon work?’
5.3.2â•… Evidence from constituent order: The case of Mandarin Chinese Mandarin Chinese has been mentioned as having a BAP in which ‘give’ precedes the lexical verb – Ex. (8), repeated here as (44a). (44b) shows that with some lexical verbs
 Denis Creissels
at least, ‘give’ in valency operator function can occur in second position, but with a different meaning. (44) Mandarin Chinese – Li & Thompson (1981:388) a. Woˇ geˇi tā jì le yi fēng xìn. 1sg give 3sg mail pfv one clf letter ‘I mailed a letter for him/her.’ b. Woˇ jì le yi fēng xìn geˇi tā. 1sg mail pfv one clf letter give 3sg ‘I mailed a letter to him/her.’
It is interesting to observe that ‘give’ in second position assigns the recipient role to the NP that follows it, whereas ‘give’ in first position assigns the beneficiary role. Gei belongs to a class of items commonly termed “coverbs”, which according to Mandarin Chinese grammars function as prepositions but show more or less evidence of a verbal origin. Since phrases headed by coverbs most often precede the verb,14 the position of benefactive gei can be viewed as resulting from alignment with a class of prepositionlike items, contrasting with the retention of the order of the original sequential construction in the case of dative gei.
5.3.3â•… Evidence from constituent order: The case of Abui and Yongning Na Abui (Papuan) is another case in point. Kratochvíl (2007:394–96) states that SVCs with l ‘give’ in first position have the expression of a benefactive or malefactive participant as one of their two possible functions (their other function being the expression of a topical undergoer participant). However, none of the examples provided straightforwardly involves a benefactive meaning, and this construction seems to be best described as having the more abstract meaning of expression of a participant towards whom the action is directed (‘bite someone’, ‘hit someone’ ‘look for someone’, etc.). It seems therefore that, synchronically, this Abui construction is not a BAP properly speaking, in spite of the fact that it includes a role assigner etymologically related to a ‘give’ verb. Whatever the exact function of this construction, since Abui is a verb-final language, the a priori exceptional position of l in valency operator function can be viewed as alignment with the position normally occupied by postpositions, providing thus evidence of reanalysis. The same analysis applies to Yongning Na (Tibeto-Burman), in which ki33 ‘give’ has grammaticalized as a dative-benefactive-allative postposition: Yongnin Na is a verb-final language, and postposition phrases headed by ki33 used as a postposition precede the verb in the same way as other postposition phrases – Lidz (2006). 14.â•… According to Dryer (2003:48–9), this is highly unusual for preposition phrases in a language having SVO order as dominant order at the clause level.
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
5.4â•…From benefactive applicative periphrases to benefactive verbal compounds, and from benefactive verbal compounds to derived benefactive verb forms In BAPs, ‘give’ in valency operator function may be obligatorily contiguous to the lexical verb. This is particularly common in BAPs of the marked-Vlex type. When the two verbs constituting a BAP are obligatorily contiguous, there may be morphological and/or phonological evidence that ‘give’ in valency operator function nevertheless constitutes a separate word. For example, in Japanese, the fact that Vlex shows the same suffix as forms productively used to mark non-final verbs in clause chains (Ex. (37) above) provides evidence against analyzing the BAP as involving compounding, in spite of the impossibility to insert NPs between Vlex and Vop. However, words obligatorily contiguous to each other tend to coalesce into a single word, which may result in constructions in which the relation between the two verbs is best treated in terms of compounding. Subsequent evolutions (in particular, phonological modifications of ‘give’ in second position in a benefactive compound, or the loss of the possibility to use a former ‘give’ verb in constructions other than benefactive compounds) may result in the reanalysis of ‘give’ as an applicative affix.
5.4.1â•…Benefactive ‘give’ compounds and applicative affixes cognate with ‘give’ verbs in Asian languages Korean has BAPs in which a fully inflected form of cwuta ‘give (plain)’ or tulita ‘give (humble)’ is immediately preceded by a converbal form characterized by the suffix -a/e. However, in most sources, no separation is marked in writing between the converb and cwuta, which suggests that this sequence tends to be reinterpreted as a compound. Note however that particles can be inserted, which shows that the construction cannot be straightforwardly described in terms of compounding (Masayoshi Shibatani, p.c.). (45) Korean (Injoo Choi, p.c.) a. Yumi-ka Sumi-eykey chayk-ul cwu-ess-ta. Yumi-sbj Sumi-dat book-acc give-pst-decl ‘Yumi gave Sumi a book.’ b. Yumi-ka Sumi-eykey mwun-ul yel-e Yumi-sbj Sumi-dat door-acc open-cvb
cwu-ess-ta. ~… yel-e-cwu-ess-ta. give-pst-decl
‘Yumi opened the door for Sumi.’
The hypothesis that the Korean BAP is engaged in a process of further grammaticalization is consistent with the fact that the Korean converb formed with -a/e does not seem to be used productively in clause chaining, and seems to be used mainly, if not exclusively, within complex predicates. It is however interesting to observe that, in
 Denis Creissels
spite of being perhaps formally more grammaticalized than its Japanese equivalent, the Korean BAP shows similar restrictions due to the retention of its original meaning, as illustrated by Ex. (46). (46) Korean (Song, this volume) a. *Kiho-ka yenghi-eykey sicang-ey ka-cwu-ess-ta. Keeho-sbj Yonghee-dat market-all go-give-pst-decl Intended: ‘Keeho went to the market for Yonghee.’ b. *Kiho-ka yenghi-eykey mwun-ul tat-a-cwu-ess-ta. Keeho-sbj Yonghee-dat door-acc close-cvb-give-pst-decl Intended: ‘Keeho closed the door for Yonghee.’
According to Tsumagari (2003), Dagur (Mongolic) has a “benefactive mood” imperfective converb + ukw- ‘give’, and this construction also has the synthetic (suffixalized) variant -j-ukw-. In Xakas (Turkic), Anderson (2001) describes a phonologically conditioned zero realization of the converbal suffix in the BAP and other “auxiliary verb constructions”, which can be viewed as evidence of evolution towards compounding. According to Peterson (2007), in Hakha Lai (Tibeto-Burman), the benefactive/ malefactive applicative suffix -piak, seen in (47a), closely resembles the ‘give’ verb seen in (47b), “reflecting a grammaticalization path already well established for this verb”. (47) Hakha Lai – Peterson (2007:131–2) a. Tsewmaŋ=niô door-ôaô ôa-ka-kal-piak. Tsewmang=erg market-all/loc a3sg-p1sg-go-ben ‘Tsewmang went to the market for me.’ b. Tsewmaŋ=niô ôaar-saa ôa-ka-peek. Tsewmang=erg chicken-meat a3sg-p1sg-give ‘Tsewmang gave me chicken meat.’
5.4.2â•…Benefactive ‘give’ compounds and applicative affixes cognate with ‘give’ verbs in the languages of the Pacific Alamblak (Papuan) has benefactive ‘give’ constructions identified by Bruce (1988) as verbal compounds – Ex. (48). (48)
Alamblak – Bruce (1988:39) Na yawyt yimam wikna-ha-më-an-m. 1sg dog people buy-give-r.pst-a1sg-p3pl ‘I bought the dog for the people.’
Quigley (2002:58–62) describes benefactive ‘give’ compounds in Awara (Papuan) and discusses morphological evidence of the distinction between such compounds and biverbal constructions. However, the affix indexing the beneficiary occurs between the two verb roots, which is unusual for compounds.
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
Other descriptions of Papuan languages do not analyze apparently similar constructions in terms of compounding, but rather as involving benefactive applicative affixes cognate with the homonymous ‘give’ verb – see Foley (1991:308–9) on Yimas, Anderson (1995) on Usan, Feldman (1986:48–9) on Awtuw. Unfortunately, it is difficult to see to what extent this choice really reflects differences in the nature of the constructions.
5.4.3â•…Benefactive ‘give’ compounds and applicative affixes cognate with ‘give’ verbs in African languages Benefactive constructions in which ‘give’ is contiguous to the other verb involved in the construction have been described in the Khoisan languages Ju|’hoan and Hoan – see Dickens (2005) on Ju|’hoan, Collins (2003) on Hoan. These constructions, illustrated by Ex. (49) & (50), are currently treated as SVCs, but they could equally be analyzed in terms of compounding, since nothing can be inserted between the two verbs, and this is the analysis reflected by the orthography used by Collins. (49)
Ju|’hoan – Dickens (2005:41) Dshàú n|óá |´àn ha dà´ámá kò ´msì. woman cook give 3sg child prep food ‘The woman cooked food for her child.’
(50)
Hoan – Collins (2003:2)
Gya”m-|a’a ’a-tsaxo-cu ‘am gye ki ||a”e. child-dim.pl prog-cook-give poss1sg mother prep meat ‘The children are cooking meat for my mother.’
In Section 6.1.2, Igbo has been mentioned as having complex predicates with nyé ‘give’ in benefactive operator function, but nyé also occurs as the second formant of compound verbs in which -nyé acts as a valency operator licensing not only benefactive complements, as in Ex. (51), but also dative or allative complements.15
15.╅ According to Lord (1977), a change from SOV to SVO constituent order would have been responsible for the emergence of Igbo compound verbs assuming functions that, in other Benue-Congo languages spoken in the same region, are more commonly assumed by SVCs, but the evidence in favor of this hypothesis is not very convincing. The point is that, when Carol Lord wrote this article, the hypothesis of a shift from proto-Niger-Congo SOV order to the SVO order attested in most Niger-Congo languages was advocated by several specialists. However, subsequent studies have cast serious doubts on the possibility to reconstruct �proto-Niger-Congo constituent order (see in particular Creissels (2005) for a discussion of evidence from West African languages). Moreover, the data I have collected includes ample evidence of compound verbs originating from BAPs in language families in which there is no evidence pointing to a possible relation between the emergence of such compounds and a change in constituent order.
 Denis Creissels
(51)
Igbo – Uchechukwu (2008) Dè-nyé nwókē à ákwù.â•›kwó. íkíké. write-give man dem paper permit ‘Write a permit for this man.’
Moreover, some Igbo dialects show evidence that nyé in such compounds tends to be reanalyzed as an applicative suffix. According to Uchechukwu (2008), the Ìgbúzò. Â�dialect shows a -nyé ~ -nyá alternation governed by the vowel harmony rule characteristic of Igbo affixes. For example, this dialect has gbá-nyá ‘pour in’, zù.â•›-nyá ‘buy for’ vs. bè-nyè ‘cut out for’, kú-nyé ‘scoop out for’ corresponding to Standard Igbo gbá-nyé, zù.â•›-nyé, bè-nyè, and kú-nyé respectively. Old Nubian has been mentioned in Section 4.3.2 as having “dative” periphrases involving the verbs den- ‘give (to me/us)’ and tr‒‒ ‘give (to you/him/them)’. Not surprisingly, modern Nubian languages have benefactive applicative markers resulting from the grammaticalization of these verbs, for example -dèen- and -tir- in Kunuz Nubian – Ex. (52). (52)
Kunuz Nubian – Abdel-Hafiz (1988:231) Id ay-gi baab-ki alle-deen-s-u. man 1sg-acc door-acc repair-ben-pst-a3sg ‘The man repaired the door for me.’
5.4.4â•…Benefactive ‘give’ compounds and applicative affixes cognate with ‘give’ verbs in Amerindian languages Among Amerindian languages, benefactive compounds occur in Kwaza (Amazonian isolate) – Ex. (53). In (53b), the possibility to express ‘give for’ by means of a compound formally constituted by two occurrences of wady ‘give’ can be viewed as evidence that ‘give’ in second position in benefactive compounds should rather be analyzed as having grammaticalized as an applicative suffix. (53) Kwaza – van der Voort (2004:373) a. Kudεrε-’wã mãmãñẽ=wa’dy-da-ki. Canderé-ao sing=give-1sg-decl ‘I sang for Canderé.’ b. Wεra-’wã haru’rai wady=wa’dy-taôy˜-ra. Vera-ao armadillo give=give-p1sg-imp ‘Bring the armadillo (meat) to Vera for me.’
Salas (2006:177–8) describes a productive mechanism of creation of verbal compounds by mere juxtaposition of two verb roots in Mapudungun, which suggests that the derived verbs formed by means of the applicative suffix -(l)el might originate from compound verbs whose second formant was elu- ‘give’. Benefactive applicative affixes cognate with a ‘give’ verb have also been signaled in€Sahaptian-Klamath by Rude (1991), in Iroquian by Mithun (2001), in Slave
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
� (Athabaskan) by Rice (1989), and in Tonkawa (an extinct language of Texas) by Hoijer€(1933).
6.â•… Autobenefactive applicative periphrases In principle, any type of construction licensing a benefactive NP can express autobenefactive via reflexivization. However, some languages have developed an expression of autobenefactive that formally cannot be analyzed as a combination of benefactive marking and reflexive marking. Kartvelian “version” (see among others Lacroix (this volume) on Laz) illustrates the possibility of a morphological distinction between nonreflexive benefactive (“objective version”) and self-benefactive (“subjective version”). In this section, we examine languages having an autobenefactive applicative periphrasis distinct from the periphrasis licensing a beneficiary other than the subject.
6.1â•… Autobenefactive ‘take’ periphrases In almost all cases I am aware of, the autobenefactive periphrasis differs from the periphrasis licensing a beneficiary other than the subject by involving a verb ‘take’ instead of ‘give’, as illustrated in Ex. (54) from Ojrot (Turkic, also known as Altai-kiži), and in Ex. (55) from Hindi. (54) Ojrot – Dyrenkova (1940:191) a. Uulčak bis-ke d’ol ayd-i‒p ber-di. boy 1pl-dat road tell-cvb give-pfv.a3sg ‘The boy showed us the road.’ b. Men bali‒k tud-up al-di‒-m. 1sg fish catch-cvb take-pfv-a1sg ‘I caught (for myself) a fish.’ (55) Hindi – Montaut (2004:125) a. Tum apnā kām jaldī kar lo! 2 refl work quickly do take-imp ‘Do your work quickly!’ ~ b. Maĩ tumhārā kām jaldī kar du‒gā.
1sg your work quickly do give.fut ‘I will do your work quickly.’
Not all languages that have BAPs have developed this expression of autobenefaction: most attestations of autobenefactive ‘take’ periphrases I have been able to find come from an area including the following language families: Mongolic, Turkic, IndoAryan, Dravidian, Tibeto-Burman, and Austroasiatic languages. It has already been established that benefactive ‘give’ periphrases, either of the marked-Vlex type or of the serial type, are particularly widespread among the languages spoken in this area.
 Denis Creissels
Autobenefactive periphrases seem particularly common among Mongolic and Turkic languages, as already noted by Krueger (1964). References on autobenefactive ‘take’ periphrases in Mongolic languages include among others Skribnik (2003:117) on Buryat,16 Nugteren (2003:281) on Shira Yughur,17 Hugjiltu (2003:342) on Bonan,18 and Kim (2003:360) on Santa.19 References on autobenefactive ‘take’ periphrases in Turkic languages include among others Bodrogligeti (2001:287) on Chagatay,20 and Grunina (2005:287) on Turkmen.21 As signaled in Section 4.3.1, Tajik (Iranian) has a ‘give’ periphrases expressing benefaction that probably developed under the influence of Turkic languages; not surprisingly, Tajik also has a ‘take’ periphrasis expressing autobenefaction, as in navišta giriftan ‘write down for oneself ’, lit. ‘take writing’ vs. navišta dodan ‘write down for someone’, lit. ‘give writing’ – Mamatov & al. (2005). Anderson (2001, 2002) analyzes the ‘give’ vs. ‘take’ contrast in Turkic BAPs. Starting from the description of ‘take’ and ‘give’ periphrases in Altai-Sayan Turkic languages (Tofa, Tuvan, Xakas, Ojrot) he observes that similar periphrases are attested in “languages from the farthest reaches of the Turkic-speaking world, both temporally and geographically, with data from such languages as modern Yakut (Saxa), Turkmen, Uyγur, Tatar, XalaJˇ and Čuvaš, and Old Turkic”. He concludes that this feature dates back to Proto-Turkic times.
16.â•… “Other common auxiliaries include … üge- ‘to give’ vs. aba- ‘to take’ [benefactive].” 17.â•… “The combination -j’ ab- (imperfective converb + ‘to take’) indicates that the action is performed for the subject’s benefit … Similarly -j’ ög- (imperfective converb + ‘to give’) indicates that the action is performed for someone else’s benefit, e.g. … ci nanda misgi xala-j’ ög ‘sew a garment for me!’ (ci=2sg, nanda=1sg.dat).” 18.â•… “The Bonan auxiliaries may be divided into three main groups: … (3) those indicating the beneficiary of the action: aw- ‘to take; to do for oneself ’ (<*ab-), oke- ‘to give; to do for somebody else’.” 19.â•… “The two auxiliaries agi- ‘to take’ (irregularly from *ab-) vs. ogi- ‘to give’ (<*ög-) indicate that the action has a beneficiary (‘for’).” 20.â•… “[used as ‘descriptive verbs’ with gerunds in -p] al- ‘to take, to receive’ indicates that the action takes place in the interest of the subject … ber- ‘to give’ signals that the action is carried out in the interest of someone else.” 21.â•… “The verbs al- ‘give’ and ber- ‘take’ can occur as auxiliary verbs with the main verb in the form of the gerund in -Ip. In this case, almak indicates that the action is performed for the subject, in his interest, or is directed towards him, cf. adresini y´azyp aldym ‘I wrote his address (for myself)’. The verb bermek in this function points to an action directed from the subject to someone else or performed in the interest of someone else.”
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
References on autobenefactive ‘take’ periphrases in Indo-Aryan languages include among others Bhatia (1993:326–7) on Punjabi,22 Paul (2003:3) on Bengali,23 and Pradeshi (2001) on Marathi. Among Dravidian languages, an autobenefactive ‘take’ periphrases is signaled by Krishnamurti (2003:381) in Telugu.24 Among Tibeto-Burman languages, Ebert (1994:61) briefly mentions the autobenefactive use of ‘take’ in verb combinations of the serial type in the Kiranti languages Bantawa and Thulung, and Okell & Allott (2001:176) mention the use of the Burmese verb yu ‘take’ as a postverbal marker expressing ‘V and take’, ‘V for oneself ’. Among Austroasiatic languages, an autobenefactive ‘take’ periphrasis is signaled by Jenny (2005:204) in Mon.25
6.2â•… Autobenefactive ‘eat’ periphrases ‘Eat’ verbs semantically depart from the most typical action verbs in that the manipulation exerted by the agent of ‘eat’ on the patient is not the real aim of an eating event: by manipulating the patient, the agent of ‘eat’ aims at satisfying his/her hunger, i.e. at producing an effect on him/herself. Consequently, it is not surprising that ‘eat’ verbs can grammaticalize as operators in autobenefactive periphrases. Mundari and Ho (Munda) attest the grammaticalization of jom- ‘eat’ as an autobenefactive operator – Hook (1991). Munda languages attest other grammaticalized uses of the same root: –â•fi –â•fi
as already mentioned in Section 2.3, Santali uses jfm- ‘eat’ as an operator in passive periphrases; in Kharia, jom- is not used as a full verb anymore, but subsists as an “autoÂ�poesis” marker whose meaning has a clear connection with autobenefaction, since it denotes “that something happened on its own, i.e. there was no outside force
22.â•… “laiNaa ‘to take’ indicates self-benefactive meaning; co-occurring with main verbs such as ‘to cry’, ‘to laugh’, it exhibits an introvert action; deuNaa ‘to give’ expresses benefactive meaning, and the beneficiary is other than the subject of the sentence. With verbs such as ‘to cry’, ‘to laugh’, it denotes an overt action.” 23.â•… “Consider a verbal root Sajano ‘decorate’. It participates in following compound verb constructions: Sajiye deoya ‘decorate for other’s benefit’ … Sajiye neoya ‘decorate and the result is directed towards the actor’.” 24.â•… “In Modern Telugu, the valency changing auxiliaries … are: … (A2.4) Reflexive: Vppl + kon- ‘take’, e.g. cēs- ‘to do’: //cēs-i-kon-// → /cēs-u-kon-/ ‘to do something for oneself ’, wiragagozz-u-kon- ‘to break (a body part) by oneself ’.” 25.â•… “At least since M(iddle) M(on), the use of
‘take’ as postverbal operator implying action for one’s benefit or purpose is attested.”
 Denis Creissels
which caused it to happen. With potentially volitional predicates on the other hand, it denotes that the agent simply performed the action because s/he wanted to and was under no obligation to do so.” – Peterson (2006:233). Among Tibeto-Burman languages, the autobenefactive use of ‘eat’ verbs is attested in South East Kiranti language – see Ebert (1997) on Athpare, Rai (1985) on Bantawa.
7.â•…Benefactive applicative periphrases with verbs other than ‘give’ in valency operator function When discussing the existence of BAPs with verbs other than ‘give’ in valency operator function, true periphrases involving a verb grammaticalized as a valency operator must be distinguished from biverbal constructions in which a benefactive meaning is implied by the inherent semantics of the verb in second position, but in which this verb retains its specific semantics, as discussed for Thai by Jenny (this volume). The Tibeto-Burman language Lahu uses pî ‘give’ for third person beneficiaries only, and uses a particle cognate with là ‘come’ to express that an action is performed for the benefit of a speech act participant: “Lahu is careful to specify for whose benefit the verbal action is performed. This is done by two morphemes, the Vv pî ‘give’ and the Pv lâ (< là ‘come’). The outer-directed pî is used to indicate that the action affects a third person, while the inner-directed lâ shows that the action affects a non-third person, e.g. chf lâ (Vh + Pv) ‘chop for me/us/you’; chf pî (Vh + Vv) ‘chop for him/her/them’.”26
Matisoff (2003:21) BAPs with a verb glossed ‘help’, ‘put’, ‘do/act for’ in valency operator function are Â�sporadically attested. In Cantonese, béi ‘give’ occurs in V2 position in SVCs with a dative rather than benefactive function – Ex. (56a), and typical beneficiaries are introduced by bōng ‘help’ in the construction illustrated by Ex. (56b). (56) Cantonese – Matthews & Yip (1994:201/143) a. Kéuih kàhmmáahn dá-dihnwá béi ngóh. 3sg last night call-phone give 1sg ‘S/he gave me a call last night.’ b. Ngóh bōng léih dá-dihnwá. 1sg help 2sg call-phone ‘I’ll phone for you.’27 26.â•… Vh = ‘main verb’ in a verb concatenation, Vv = post-head ‘versatile’ verb, Pv = verb particle. 27.â•… Note that, as explicitly stated by Matthews & Yip, “although bōng in isolation means ‘help’, the addressee here is not expected to participate actively; rather, the speaker is offering to
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
LaPolla (2003b) mentions a BAP involving a verb glossed ‘help’ in Dulong (Â�Nungish, Tibeto-Burman). In contrast to Cantonese, ‘help’ occurs in second position. As illustrated by Ex. (57), Dulong also has a benefactive construction involving a “benefactive auxiliary” č taking verb inflection and occupying a position that could be identified as the V2 position in a SVC, but apparently devoid of independent verbal uses. The etymology of this “benefactive auxiliary” is not discussed by LaPolla (2003b). (57) Dulong – LaPolla (2003b:678) a. àŋ . –-ŋ 6ˇgf` tεˇ rī s6ˇn6¿ŋ. 3sg wood 1sg erg carry help.1sg ‘I carry wood for him’ (lit. ‘I help carry his wood’) b. 6ˇgf` tεˇ a`ŋ . –-ŋ rī čŋ.
m
m
1sg erg 3sg wood carry ben.1sg ‘I carry wood for him.’
The use of a verb glossed ‘put’ as a valency operator in a BAP has been signaled in Hua (Papuan) – Ex. (58), and in Telugu (Dravidian) – Ex. (59).28 (58)
Hua – Haiman (1980), quoted by Foley (1986:98) Zu ki-na d-te. house build-a3sg p1sg-put.a3sg.decl ‘He built me a house.’
(59)
Telugu – Krishnamurti (2003:381) Mā āwi2a rōjū padimandiki annam wa^2-i pe2utundi. poss1sg wife daily for_ten_persons food cook-cvb put ‘My wife daily cooks food for ten persons.’
The use of a verb glossed ‘do for’ as a benefactive operator is found in Tukang Besi (Austronesian) – Ex. (60). (60)
Tukang Besi – Donohue (1999:187) No-wila kua daoa ako te ina-no. a3pl-go all market do for core mother-3pl ‘They went to the market for their mother.’
The use of verbs glossed ‘say’ licensing the expression of a beneficiary is less easy to analyze. In Amharic, Gumer and other Ethiosemitic languages, the mention of a perform the action single-handedly”. In other words, a possible English equivalent would be I’ll help you by phoning, but NOT I’ll help you to phone. 28.â•… In Telugu, according to Masayoshi Shibatani (p.c.), this meaning can be expressed without the use of ‘put’. Many native speakers find it difficult to distinguish the meaning of this expression with or without ‘put’. Some detect the ‘in preparation for the future action’ meaning when ‘put’ is used.
 Denis Creissels
beneficiary may require the use of a periphrasis involving a converbal form of a verb glossed as ‘say’, as illustrated by Ex. (61) from Amharic. (61)
Amharic – Azeb Amha (p.c.) Arägga lä-Abbäbä bïlo Käbbädä-n gäddälä. Aregga dat-Abbebe say.3sgm.cvb Kebbede-acc kill.3sgm.pst ‘Aregga killed Kebbede for (the sake/benefit of) Abbebe.’ (lit. ‘Aregga killed Kebbede saying “for Abbebe”.’)
In this construction, the converbal form of ‘say’ clearly has an applicative function. However, the role of beneficiary is not encoded by the applicative operator itself (the converbal form of ‘say’), but by the dative case. In other words, this construction is not inherently a BAP, since it dissociates the applicative function proper from the role assignment function.29 In Gumer, according to Völlmin (this volume), beneficiaries occur in the dative case, and applicative ‘say’ is required when another dative-marked NP is present in the construction of the lexical verb – in particular, in the presence of a patient NP requiring dative marking, as in Ex. (62). (62) Gumer (Völlmin, this volume) Ar6gga y6-K6bb6d6 y-Abb6β6 Aregga dat-Kebbede dat-Abbebe t-i-βi‒r k’w6t’t’6r-6-n-i‒m. when-a3sgm-say.ipfv kill.pfv-a3sgm-p3sgm-??? ‘Aregga killed Kebbede for Abbebe.’
In other words, the use of ‘say’ in applicative operator function in Gumer can be viewed as a disambiguating strategy aiming to avoid the presence of two NPs with identical case marking in the construction of the same verb. Here again, in spite of the fact that this construction may be obligatory in order to express benefaction, it would not be correct to identify it as a BAP. BAPs involving verbs glossed ‘show’ are sometimes mentioned, in particular in Akan (Kwa). However, ‘show’ periphrases seem to license recipients or goals rather
29.â•… The applicative use of ‘say’ verbs must be explained in the light of their well-known tendency to develop polysemous meanings including in particular volition. Note also that the use of ‘say’ verbs in light verb constructions in which most languages use ‘do’ verbs is particularly widespread in Ethiosemitic and neighboring languages. A converbal form of a ‘say’ verb may thus grammaticalize as an applicative operator whose presence is required in order to expand the construction of an action verb.
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
than beneficiaries proper, and I have come across no unquestionable case of benefactive ‘show’ periphrasis. Aikhenvald (2003:437) argues that Tariana (Maipurean, Amazonia) has benefactive SVCs formed with -uma ‘seek’, ‘find’ and -ni ‘do’ as their first components. However, judging from the two examples she provides, the analysis of these verbs as possible benefactive operators in Tariana SVCs seems highly dubious: –â•fi
–â•fi
In the example with -uma ‘seek’ (whose relevant part is translated as ‘I look for food for women’), it seems obvious that -uma contributes to the meaning of the serial construction seek eat → look for food with its basic meaning ‘seek’, and there is no evidence that it is involved in the assignment of the beneficiary role to ‘women’. No word glossed as ‘prepare’ figures in the gloss of the example with -ni ‘do’, translated as ‘Prepare manioc for them to eat’, and the gloss suggests that it should better be analyzed as involving a causative SVC with the meaning ‘Make them eat manioc’.
8.â•… Conclusion In this paper, I have surveyed BAPs of different types. The main conclusions can be summarized as follows: a. BAPs using verbs other than ‘give’ in valency operator function, or in which ‘give’ occurs in first position, are exceptional. b. Two of the three formal types of BAPs (the serial type and the marked-Vlex type) are widely attested in the languages of the world. They are particularly common on the Asian continent, where they occupy two distinct but contiÂ� guous areas. Outside Asia, attestations of BAPs of the marked-Vlex type are sporadic, whereas the serial type of BAP is common in all language families or areas known for their overall tendency towards serialization, with the exception of Oceanic. c. In benefactive ‘give’ periphrases, ‘give’ may grammaticalize as a benefactive adposition or an applicative marker. Benefactive verbal compounds constitute an intermediate stage in the conversion of ‘give’ into an applicative marker. d. Autobenefactive ‘take’ periphrases are particularly common among Mongolic and Turkic languages, and are also attested in Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, TibetoBurman, and Austroasiatic languages, but do not seem to be attested outside this area.
 Denis Creissels
Abbreviations 1/2/3 a
1rst/2nd/3rd person person mark referring to the agent of prototypical action verbs acc accusative act active all allative an animate ao animate object ben benefactive caus causative clf classifier comp complementizer core core argument cvb converb d person mark referring to a participant represented by a dative NP dat dative decl declarative def definite dem demonstrative ds different subject enunc enunciative particle erg ergative exc exclusive foc focalization fut future gen genitive
ger imp ind indma inf ipfv iprf loc p
pfv pl poss prep prf prog prs pst refl rel r.pst sbj seq sg sgf sgm top
gerund imperative indicative indicative, male addressee infinitive imperfective imperfect locative person mark referring to the patient of prototypical action verbs perfective plural possessive preposition perfect progressive present past reflexive relativizer recent past subject sequential singular singular feminine singular masculine topic
References Abdel-Hafiz, Ahmed S. 1988. A Reference Grammar of Kunuz Nubian. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo. Abraham, Roy C. 1962. Dictionary of Modern Yoruba, 2nd edn. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006a. Serial verb constructions in typological perspective. In Serial Verb Constructions, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds.), 1–68. Oxford: OUP. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006b. A Grammar of Tariana, from Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: CUP.
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
Ameka, Felix K. 2003. Multiverb constructions in a West African areal typological perspective. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Serial Verb Constructions, La Trobe. Anderson, Gregory D.S. 1995. Ditransitives, possessor raising, copying-to-OBJ: Animacy in morphosyntax. Chicago Linguistic Society 31. 1–17. Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2001. Subject version and object version in Tofa auxiliary verb constructions. Turkic Languages 5(1): 240–269. Anderson, Gregory D.S. 2002. Auxiliary verb constructions in Old Turkic and Altai-Sayan Â�Turkic. Paper presented at the Old Turkic Symposium, Frankfurt. Asher, Ronald E. & Kumari, T.C. 1997. Malayalam. London: Routledge. Azeb, Amha & Dimmendaal, Gerrit 2006. Converbs from an African perspective. In Catching Language: Issues in Grammar Writing, Felix Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), 393–440. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bhatia, Tej. 1993. Punjabi. A Cognitive-descriptive Grammar. London: Routledge. Bodomo, Adams & van Oostendorp, Marc. 1993. Serial verb nominalization in Dagaare. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Conference on African Linguistics. Colombus OH. Bodrogligeti, András J.E. 2001. A Grammar of Chagatay. Munich: Lincom Europa. Browne, Gerald M. 2002. Old Nubian Grammar. Munich: Lincom Europa. Bruce, Leslie P. 1984. The Alamblak Language of Papua New Guinea East Sepik. Canberra: Â�Australian National University. Butt, Miriam & Tantos, Alexandros. 2004. Verbal semantics via Petri nets. Paper presented at the LFG04 Conference, University of Canterbury. Carlson, Robert J. 1991. From verb to preposition in Senufo. In Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 19:2], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), 201–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Christaller, Johann G. 1933. Dictionary of the Asante and Fante Language Called Tshi (Twi), 2nd edn, revised and enlarged. Basel: The Basel Evangelical Missionary Society. Collins, Chris. 2003. The internal structure of vP in Ju|’hoansi and Hoan. Studia Linguistica 57: 1–25. Creissels, Denis. 2005. S-O-V-X constituent order and constituent order alternations in West African languages. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of West Africa, Rebecca T. Cover & Yuni Kim (eds.), 37–52. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. Creissels, Denis. 2006. Syntaxe générale, une introduction typologique, Vol. 2: la phrase. Paris: Hermès. Crowley, Terry. 2002. Serial Verbs in Oceanic, a Descriptive Typology. Oxford: OUP. Dauphin, Antoine. 1977. Cours de Vietnamien. Paris: L’Asiathèque. Dickens, Patrick J. 2005. A Concise Grammar of Ju|’hoan. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe. Donohue, Mark. 1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dryer, Matthew S. 2003. Word order in Sino-Tibetan languages from a typological and geographical perspective. In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), 43–55. London: Routledge. Dyrenkova, Nadežda P. 1940. Grammatika ojrotskogo jazyka. Leningrad: Akademia Nauk SSSR. Ebert, Karen. 1994. The Structure of Kiranti Languages. Zurich: Universität Zürich, Seminär für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Ebert, Karen. 1997. A Grammar of Athpare. Munich: Lincom Europa. Emeneau, Murray B. 1984. Toda Grammar and Texts. Philadelphia PA: American Philosophical Society.
 Denis Creissels Feldman, Harry. 1986. A Grammar of Awtuw. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: CUP. Foley, William A. 1991. The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Gaunt, John & Bayarmandakh, L. 2004. Modern Mongolian: A Course-Book. London: Routledge. Genetti, Carol. 2007. A Grammar of Dolakha Newar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Grunina, El’vira A. 2005. Turkmenskij jazyk. Moscow: ‘Vostočnaja literatura’ RAN. Haboud, Marleen. 1994. On language contact and grammaticalization in Ecuadorian Highland Spanish. Ms, University of Oregon. Haboud, Marleen. 1998. Quichua y castellano en los Andes Ecuatorianos, los efectos de un contacto prolongado. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala. Hagemeijer, Tjerk. 2000. Serial Verb Constructions in São-Tomense. MA thesis, University of Lisbon. Haiman, John. 1980. Hua, a Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea [Studies in Language Companion Series 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Hendriksen, Hans. 1944. Syntax of the Infinite Verb Forms of Pāli. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard. Hoijer, Harry. 1933. Tonkawa: An Indian Language of Texas. New York NY: Columbia University. (Extract from Handbook of American Indian languages, Vol. 3). Hook, Peter E. 1991. The compound verb in Munda: An areal and typological overview. Language Sciences 13/2. 181–195. Hugjiltu, Wu. 2003. Bonan. In The Mongolic Languages, Juha Janhunen (ed.), 325–45. London: Routledge. Ikoro, Suanu M. 1996. The Kana Language. Leiden: Research School CNWS. Iwasaki, Shoichi & Yap, Foong-Ha. 2000. Give constructions in Thai and beyond: A cognitive and grammaticalization perspective. Proceedings of the International Conference on Tai Studies, July 29–31, 1998. 371–382. Bangkok: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University. Jakobi, Angelika & Crass, Joachim. 2004. Grammaire du beria (langue saharienne). Köln:Â� Rüdiger Köppe. Jenny, Mathias. 2005. The Verb System of Mon. Zurich: Universität Zürich, Seminär für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Kim, Stephen S. 2003. Santa. In The Mongolic Languages, Juha Janhunen (ed.), 346–63. London: Routledge. Kratochvíl, František. 2007. A Grammar of Abui. A Papuan Language of Alor. Utrecht: LOT. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: CUP. Krueger, John R. 1964. The Turco-Mongolian benefactive. Journal of the American Oriental Society 84/4. 410–1. Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Lai, Huei-Ling. 2001. On Hakka BUN: A case of polygrammaticalization. Language and Linguistics 2(2): 137–153. LaPolla, Randy J. 2003a. Overview of Sino-Tibetan morphosyntax. In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), 22–42. London: Routledge. LaPolla, Randy J. 2003b. Dulong. In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), 674–82. London: Routledge.
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
Leroy, Jacqueline. 2003. Grammaire du mankon. Thèse de doctorat d’état, University of Paris 3. Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese. A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Lidz, Liberty A. 2006. A synopsis of Yongnin Na (Mosuo). Paper presented at the 39th International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics. Seattle WA: University of Washington. Lord, Carol. 1977. How Igbo got from SOV serializing to SVO compounding. Studies in African Linguistics Supplement 7: 145–155. Lord, Carol. 1993. Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 26]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lord, Carol, Yap, Foong-Ha & Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2002. Grammaticalization of ‘give’: African and€ Asian perspectives. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49] Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), 217–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mamatov, Jahangir, Harrell, S.J., Kehoe, Kathy & Khodjibaev, Karim. 2005. Tajik-English Dictionary. Springfield VA: Dunwoody Press. Margetts, Anna & Peter K. Austin. 2007. Three-participant events in the languages of the world: Towards a crosslinguistic typology. Linguistics 45/3. 393–450. Matisoff, James A. 1991. Areal and universal dimensions of grammaticalization in Lahu. In Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 19:2], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), 383–453. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matisoff, James A. 2003. Lahu. In The Sino-Tibetan Languages, Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.),208–21. London: Routledge. Matthews, Stephen & Yip, Virginia. 1994. Cantonese. A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge. Mithun, Marianne. 2001. Understanding and explaining applicatives. Chicago Linguistic Society 37(2): 73–97. Mixco, Mauricio. 1997. Mandan. Munich: Lincom Europa. Montaut, Annie. 2004. A Grammar of Hindi. Munich: Lincom Europa. Moser, Rosmarie. 2005. Grammaticalization chains of the verb kàre ‘to give’ in Kabba. In Studies in African Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 64], Erhard F.K. Voeltz (ed.), 277–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Neukom, Lukas. 2001. Santali. Munich: Lincom Europa. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2004. Some thoughts on the serial verb construction. Workshop ‘La notion de “construction verbale en série” est-elle opératoire?’ Paris: EHESS. Nugteren, Hans. 2003. Shira Yughur. In The Mongolic Languages, Jahu Janhunen (ed.), 265–85. London: Routledge. Okell, John & Allot, Anna J. 2001. Burmese/Myanmar Dictionary of Grammatical Forms.Â� London: Curzon. Onumajuru, Emeka M. 1985. Système verbal de la langue igbo (parler d’Orlu). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Grenoble. Palayer, Pierre. 1989. La langue sar (sud du Tchad). Thèse de doctorat d’état, University of Tours. Palmer, Bill. 1999. A Grammar of the Kokota Language, Santa Isabel, Solomon Islands. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sidney. Pardeshi, Prashant. 2001. The explicator compound verb in Marathi: Definitional issues and criteria for identification. Kobe Papers in Linguistics 3: 94–111.
 Denis Creissels Paul, Soma. 2003. Composition of compound verbs in Bangla. In Proceedings of the workshop on Multi-Verb Constructions, Dorothee Beermann & Lars Hellan (eds.), Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Paul, Waltraud. 2004. The ‘Serial Verb Construction’ in Chinese: A Gordian knot. Workshop ‘La notion de ‘construction verbale en série’ est-elle opératoire?’ Paris: EHESS. Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peterson, John. 2006. Kharia, a South Munda language, Vol. 1: Grammatical analysis. Ms, University of Osnabrück. Quigley, Suzan R. 2002. The Awara Verbal System. MA thesis, University of North Dakota. Rai, Novel K. 1985. A Descriptive Study of Bantawa. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Poona. Remijsen, Bert. To appear. Nouns and verbs in Magey Matbat. In Typological and Areal Analyses: Contributions from East Nusantara, Marian Klamer & Michael Ewing (eds.). Leiden: KITLV Press. Rice, Keren. 1989. A Grammar of Slave. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rowlands, Evan C. 1969. Teach Yourself Yoruba. Lincolnwood IL: Teach Yourself Books. Rude, Noel. 1991. Verbs to promotional suffixes in Sahaptian and Klamath. In Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 19:2], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), 183–99. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Salas, Adalberto. 2006. El mapuche o araucano. Santiago de Chile: Centro de Estudios Públicos. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2003. Directional verbs in Japanese. In Motion, Direction and Location in Languages [Typological Studies in Language 56], Erin Shay & Uwe Seibert (eds.), 259–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2006. On the form of complex predicates. Demystifying/demythologizing serial verbs. Seminario de complejidad sintáctica. Hermosillo, Sonora. Shibatani, Masayoshi & Sung-Yeo Chung. 2007. On the grammaticalization of motion verbs: A€Japanese-Korean perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 15. Skribnik, Elena. 2003. Buryat. In The Mongolic Languages, Juha Janhunen (ed.), 102–28. London: Routledge. Solomiac, Paul. 2007. Phonologie et morphosyntaxe du dzùùngoo de Samogohiri. Ph.D. Â�dissertation, University of Lyon. Tamura, Suzuko. 2000. The Ainu Language. Tokyo: Sanseido. Tida, Syuntarô. 2006. A Grammar of the Dom Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kyoto. Toronzoni, Ngama-Nzombio T.N. 1989. Description du ngbandi. Ph.D. dissertation, Université libre de Bruxelles. Tsumagari, Toshiro. 2003. Dagur. In The Mongolic Languages, Juha Janhunen (ed.), 129–53. London: Routledge. Uchechukwu, Chinedu. 2008. The grammaticalization of prepositional markers in Igbo: The example of the verb root -nyé ‘give’. In Syntax and Semantics of Spatial P [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 120], Anna Asbury, Jakub Dotlacil & Berit Gehrke (eds.), 398–407. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. van der Voort, Hein. 2004. A Grammar of Kwaza. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Van Valin, Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function. Â�Cambridge: CUP. Vogel, Sylvain. 2006. Introduction à la langue et aux dits traditionnels des Phnong de Mondulkiri. Phnom Penh: Editions Funan.
Benefactive applicative periphrases 
Voorhoeve, Jan. 1975. Serial verbs in Creole. Paper presented at the International Conference on Pidgins and Creoles, University of Hawai’i. Welmers, William E. 1973. African Language Structures. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Werner, Roland. 1987. Grammatik des Nobiin (Nilnubisch). Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Williamson, Kay. 1965. A Grammar of the Kolokuma Dialect of Ịjọ. Cambridge: CUP. Williamson, Kay & Timitimi, A.O. 1983. Short Ịzọn-English Dictionary. Port Harcourt: University of Port Harcourt Press. Zúñiga, Fernando. 2010. ‘Benefactive and malefactive applicativization in Mapudungun’. This volume: 203–218.
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactives by event structure A preliminary framework for benefactive typology* Tomoko Yamashita Smith Osaka University
The first of its kind, this study classifies the semantics of benefactive constructions from over sixty languages according to event structure types, identifying two basic types. The “agentive benefactive” construction, always includes an agent and expresses that the agent intentionally carries out the act for the sake of the affectee. The “event benefactive” construction, on the other hand, expresses that the affecting event may or may not have an agent, and includes windfall situations. The subtypes of the agentive benefactive are: “unrestricted agentive benefactive” (agent can be anybody), “non-self-benefactive” (agent is not an affectee), “selfbenefactive” (agent and affectee are identical), and “shared-benefit construction” (which expresses that ‘X does something for the benefit of X himself and Y’).
1.â•… Introduction This paper is a cross-linguistic study of constructions that express the notion of benefit, namely benefactive constructions. Prototypically, benefactive constructions
*I would like to express my appreciation to the following people: Mathias Jenny, Seppo Kittilä, Prashant Pardeshi, Paula Radetzky, Masayoshi Shibatani, Tony Smith, Ken VanBik, Naoko Yamashita, Su Yutang, Fernando Zúñiga, and the anonymous reviewers. The abbreviations used in this paper are as follows: 1 2 3 acc ben cp cv dat des
first person second person third person accusative benefactive conjunctive participle converb dative desiderative
f erg fut gen loc m n nsben nrpst
feminine ergative future genitive locative masculine neuter non-self-benefactive near past
p pst.i prs ptcpl pst quo s sben top
plural unmarked past present participle past quotation singular self-benefactive topic
Tomoko Yamashita Smith
express that someone does an action for the sake of another, as in the English sentences Linda made Hana pancakes and Leo played the piano for Mark.1 Comparable benefactive constructions are widely attested in the world’s languages, and it may well be the case that all languages have special constructions to describe this common sort of “benefactive” event. However, this sort of benefactive event is not the only one that we experience in our lives. For example, one regularly does actions just for oneself, or one may encounter a windfall, in which one benefits from an action without an agent2 intentionally performing an action or from some kind of agentless event. These semantically different benefactive events can correspond to different benefactive constructions. For example, Vietnamese has a verbal morpheme to express that the subject referent undergoes a pleasant experience. In Finnish, there are many benefactive postpositions that code beneficiary and their semantics are much more specific (e.g.€‘instead of ’, ‘to the joy of ’) (Kittilä 2006, 2009 this volume). Therefore, it is important to investigate what sort of benefactive constructions exist in the world’s languages and categorize their semantic types. In contrast to earlier typologies of benefaction (such as Van Valin & LaPolla 1997 and Kittilä 2005), the focus in this paper lies not on the nature of benefaction, but on features of beneficiary (Section 2.2) and the nature of the causer/agent (Section 2.3). There are some cross-linguistic/typological studies on benefactive constructions. For instance, Shibatani (1996) provides a cognitive account of cross-linguistic variation between benefactive constructions with an agent. In order to discuss some syntactic and semantic restrictions, he limits true benefactive constructions to those in which the beneficiaries are coded as an argument. Yamada (1996, 2001, 2004) finds that regular give verbs are more likely to be grammaticalized into benefactive markers than receive verbs in languages. As for the semantic types of benefactive constructions, Van Valin & LaPolla (1997: 383–384) discuss three types of benefactives: (1) Recipient benefactive, in which the beneficiary is also the recipient, as in John baked Mary a pie, (2) plain benefactive, in which the act is done for some kind of benefit for the beneficiary, such as amusement and enjoyment, as in Leo played the piano for Linda, and (3) deputative benefactives, in which the agent performs some action in place of the beneficiary, as in Pat stood in line for Kim (384). Moreover, Kittilä (2005) contrasts two types of benefactive roles, (pure) beneficiary and recipient-beneficiary and argues that the two roles are encoded differently in some languages and the traditional term “benefactive” is not always sufficient. In most of the cases, the previous studies have focused on benefactives that always include an agent, such as ditransitive constructions and benefactive uses of the dative
1.â•… Fillmore (1968) points out that the beneficiary requires an agent elsewhere in the sentence. 2.â•… I use the term agent to refer to the doer who performs, initiates, or controls the event.
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions
case (e.g. dativus commodi in Latin);3 however, in order to fully understand how we encode the notion of benefit in languages, we must answer questions such as, “Who is the beneficiary: the agent himself or someone else?” and “What kind of benefactive events do human languages really encode?” “Are there only the three semantic types that are discussed in Van Valin & LaPolla (1997)?” Smith (2005) is one of the first studies to tackle such questions, and to introduce and discuss different semantic types of benefactive constructions using cross-linguistic data. Since then, I have examined more data, and new analysis and discussion are included in this study. I take the functionalist approach and examine semantic as well as pragmatic functions of benefactive constructions, and compare equivalent phenomena in different languages. The semantic types of benefactive constructions I discuss in this study are the result of looking at reference grammars of individual languages, past studies on benefactives and eliciting data from native-speaker informants. Unfortunately, the grammar reference books lack full descriptions of benefactive constructions, so I was not able to complete a true typological study. However, working with the means at hand I was nevertheless able to find clear patterns of the event structures of benefactives cross-linguistically.
1.1â•… Definition of benefactive constructions In this study, benefactive constructions explicitly indicate an event as good4 for a participant using some kind of morphosyntactic means. Thus, sentences such as he admires me and we luckily arrived in time, which express benefactive scenes strictly via lexical meaning, are not instances of benefactive constructions. For example, English has at least three types of benefactive constructions.
English
(1) Mark bought Linda a book. (2) Mark bought a book for Linda. (3) I got to visit my grandmother last week.
3.â•… The dative case is also often used to indicate the notion of adversity, and neither the benefactive nor malefactive function can be considered primary; therefore, this kind of construction is called affectedness construction (Smith 2005; Radetzky & Smith, this volume), rather than simply benefactive. I will include some benefactive uses of the affectedness construction in the following discussions, whenever necessary, because the benefactive uses of the affectedness construction are essentially the same as explicit benefactives. For more discussion of affectedness constructions, see Smith (2005) and Radetzky & Smith (this volume). 4.â•… This notion of ‘good’ is essentially the same as the semantic primitive discussed by Wierzbicka (1988: 210–223). I use the term ‘good’ in my definition in order to bring together the different semantic types of benefactives. This study is different from Wierzbicka in that her analysis is limited to benefactives with some type of agent, whereas my analysis includes benefactive constructions without an agent.
 Tomoko Yamashita Smith
Sentence (1) is an example of the ditransitive construction, where the beneficiary is also the recipient of the book. Sentence (2) makes use of the preposition for, and the beneficiary is not necessarily the recipient of the book. There are many constructions in other languages that are similar to these two English constructions, and the notion of benefit can be expressed with some kind of special morphemes (e.g. adpositions, cases, and auxiliary verbs) or with special word orders, which contrast with basic transitive constructions. The third example should also be regarded as a benefactive construction, which I call the get to-construction (Smith 2005).5 This sentence expresses that the subject feels fortunate that s/he has visited the grandmother. All the native speakers of American English whom I have consulted agree that the construction indicates that the event described by the sentence is good for the subject. The full lexical verb get has multiple meanings with the central meaning ‘to obtain or receive’ (Gronemeyer 1999), and it has been extended to express the notion of obligation (have got to) and is used in the get passive construction. Likewise, it has been extended to express the notion of benefit. It should be noted here that although sentences with manage to and succeed in also similarly often indicate the notion of benefit, I consider these uses lexical because the original meanings of the verbs seem to be largely maintained. Japanese, on the other hand, has a variety of benefactive constructions. It uses three types of auxiliary verbs to describe benefactive scenes, as in (4) through (6). These auxiliary verbs are grammaticalized from lexical verbs of giving and receiving, and this kind of grammaticalization is also found in other languages (e.g. Matisoff 1991; Newman 1996; Yamada 1996, 2001, 2004; and Smith 1998b, 2005).
Japanese
(4)
maaku wa rinda ni hon o katte-age-ta Mark top Linda dat book acc buy-give-pst ‘Mark did Linda the favor of buying a book.’ ‘Mark bought Linda a book’
(5) naoko wa kei ni susi o tukutte-morat-ta Naoko top Kei dat sushi acc make-receive-pst ‘Naoko received the benefit of Kei making sushi for her.’ (6) ame ga hutte-kure-ta rain nom fall-give-pst ‘It rained (and I am thankful for that).’
5.â•… I thank Eve Sweetser for first drawing my attention to this construction.
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions 
Sentence (4) is equivalent to the English ditransitive sentence (1), where the beneficiary, the dative argument, Linda, is also the recipient of the book. In Sentence (5), the beneficiary is the subject, who typically instigates the event, thus can be considered a kind of causative (Kuno 1987). Yet, its main function is to indicate that the subject benefits from the event. Sentence (6) has no agent, but the sentence describes that the speaker felt fortunate that it rained. The above examples demonstrate that the Japanese benefactive constructions are semantically less restricted than the English benefactives. It is important to note here that because the kureru benefactive construction expresses both agentive and agentless events, we need to include agentless benefactives in the discussion of benefactive constructions. Moreover, what may be unusual is that with all types of auxiliary verbs in Japanese, the beneficiary may also be the patient or the primary target of the event, as in the following examples.
Japanese
(7) kei wa naoko o homete-age-ta Kei top Naoko acc praise-give-pst ‘Kei did Naoko the favor of praising her (Naoko).’ (8) naoko wa kei ni homete-morat-ta Naoko top Kei acc praise-receive-pst ‘Naoko received the benefit of Kei praising her.’
As we can see in the above English and Japanese examples, the semantics of benefactive constructions are quite diverse, and I will classify these semantics based on their event types in the following section. Some of the benefactive constructions I discuss are not typical ones with an agent (e.g. passive sentences in Vietnamese); however, as their function is to denote the notion of benefit, I treat them as kinds of benefactive construction. I think that it is important to include such constructions in the discussion in order to fully understand the semantics/pragmatics of benefactive constructions per se.
2.â•… Different types of benefactive constructions 2.1â•… Two basic types I have found two basic types of benefactive construction in my data. One type always includes an agent, and always expresses that the agent intentionally carries out the act for the beneficiary; that is, the act is always presented as good for the beneficiary. I refer to this type as the “agentive benefactive” construction. The other covers more general benefactive events, and I call this type the “event benefactive” construction.
Tomoko Yamashita Smith
In my data, event benefactives are those that are used to express that the affecting event sometimes include the agent of the affecting event and sometimes does not. Note that I have not identified any single type of benefactive construction that is always agentless, i.e. it is more typical of benefactive events to include an agent.6 The most common semantic type of benefactive construction seems to be the agentive benefactive construction. I further divide this construction type into subtypes, which are different from Van Valin & LaPolla’s (1997) or Kittilä’s (2005). These subtypes also seem to be important with respect to the semantics of benefaction in general, because they represent the basic event types of benefactive situations, and they need to be clearly distinguished and discussed. In the following two sections, 2.2 will discuss the agentive benefactive construction and its subtypes, and 2.3 will present the event benefactive construction.
2.2â•… Agentive benefactive constructions Among the agentive benefactive constructions, there are various configurations in which the agent can be the same as or different from the beneficiary. In some languages, a benefactive construction allows the beneficiary to be anybody, including the agent him/herself, while in other languages the beneficiary must not be co-referential with the agent. Moreover, there are some languages that have a self-benefactive construction, where the agent carries out the action for his/her own benefit. (Note that cases in which the benefit is only pragmatic in nature, such as ‘I bought a car (for myself)’ are not included in the discussion.) Finally, I have found another type of construction that expresses a special kind of benefaction, ‘in addition to performing an action for his/her own benefit, one also performs it for the benefit of someone else’. The following sections illustrate and expound on these four types of constructions.
2.2.1â•… Unrestricted agentive benefactives: ‘X does something for someone (X/Y)’ It appears that the most common agentive benefactive construction type expresses a benefit to the agent him/herself or to another. There is no restriction on the beneÂ� ficiary, i.e. the beneficiary can be any animate entity (inanimate entities are usually dispreferred beneficiaries, see Kittilä & Zúñiga, this volume). I call this construction type unrestricted agentive benefactive. The distinction between self-benefactives and non-self-benefactives (see Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3) is not relevant here, and unrestricted benefactive constructions do not distinguish between them formally.
6.â•… I chose term event benefactive to include constructions that indicate either agentive or agentless benefaction. In this construction, there may be an agent who intentionally performs an action for the beneficiary, or there may be only an event somehow positively affects the beneficiary.
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions
English has an unrestricted agentive benefactive construction with the preposition for, and many other languages such as French, Polish, Arabic, Thai, and Japanese have equivalent constructions, as shown in the following examples. French uses the preposition pour, and a Thai benefactive construction employs the give verb hây, which has been grammaticalized to introduce the beneficiary.7
English and French
(9) Do it for your family. Fais-le pour ta famille.
(Niedzielski 1981: 44)
(10) He works for himself. Il travaille pour lui-même.
(Niedzielski 1981: 44)
Thai (11) chán b`ffk thāaŋ hây kháo I tell way give he ‘I showed him the way.’ (12) chán rffŋ phleŋ hây tuuaeŋ I sing song give myself ‘I sang a song for myself.’
(Goda 1983)
(Bandhumedha Navavan, p.c.)
Japanese uses a periphrastic construction with a complex postposition to express unrestricted agentive benefactives:8 Japanese (13) kazoku no tame ni hatarai-ta family gen sake dat work-pst ‘(I) worked for my family.’ (14) zibun no tame ni hatarai-ta self gen sake dat work-pst ‘(I) worked for myself.’
7.â•… For more detailed discussions on the syntax and semantics of beneficiaries in some languages, see Niedzielski (1979: Polish and English), Niedzielski (1981: French and English), Jenny (2008, this volume: Thai). 8.â•… Notice the sentences do not have the benefactive auxiliary verbs, as in (13) and (14), and this periphrastic postposition can alone indicate the notion of benefit. In general, the beneficiary is not marked only with the dative, but with different postpositions, depending on the semantics of the verb. See Ôso (1983) for the acceptability of the dative marking in the benefactive constructions in Japanese.
 Tomoko Yamashita Smith
(15) tomodati no tame ni susi o tukutte-age-ta friend gen sake dat sushi acc make-give-pst ‘(I) made sushi for my friend.’
In addition to marking the beneficiary with for, English has another benefactive construction, which is ditransitive, as follows. (16) Mark wrote Linda a letter. (17) Mark wrote himself a letter.
This construction has more restrictions than the for-construction above in that it takes a limited number of verbs (see Goldberg 1995 for the discussion on partial productivity of the ditransitive construction). Compare the following sentences:
(18) (19) (20) (21)
Mark baked Linda a pie. Mark baked a pie for Linda. ??Mark sliced Linda a pie. Mark sliced a pie for Linda.
When both constructions are acceptable, the for-construction seems to be preferred for emphatic or stylistically marked statements (Niedzielski 1981). It should also be mentioned that the above benefactive constructions are often syntactically reflexive when the agent and the beneficiary are identical. In English, taking regular pronouns after for is marginally acceptable as in ?I work for me, and normally reflexive pronouns are used. On the other hand, in Mandarin both regular and reflexive pronouns are grammatical, and self-benefactive sentences with regular pronouns are more emphatic than ones with reflexive pronouns. Mandarin (22) woˇ gěi nıˇ zuò chaˇo fàn I for you make fried rice ‘I’ll make fried rice for you.’
(Li & Thompson 1974: 271)
(23) woˇ gěi zìjıˇ zuò chaˇo fàn I for self make fried rice ‘I’ll make fried rice for myself.’
(Su Yutang, p.c.)
(24) wŏ gĕi wŏ zuò chăo fàn I for I make fried rice ‘I’ll make fried rice for me.’
(Su Yutang, p.c.)
As expected and as the above examples indicate, there are some language-specific restrictions and variations on unrestricted agentive benefactive constructions.
2.2.2â•… Non-self-benefactives: ‘X does something for the benefit of Y’ In addition to the unrestricted benefactives discussed above, some languages have benefactive constructions whose semantics are more restricted and the beneficiary
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions
cannot be the agent him/herself; that is the beneficiary needs to be someone other than the agent. I will call this construction type non-self-benefactive as opposed to the self-benefactive discussed in Section 2.2.3.9 For example, Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages make a formal distinction between self-benefactives and nonself-benefactives (see Masica 1976 and Pardeshi 2001): the former does not include an extra participant as the beneficiary, while the latter includes an additional participant who benefits from the event described by the predicate. This section introduces some examples of the non-self-benefactive constructions in Marathi; the self-benefactive construction found in this language will be discussed in the following section. In Marathi both the give and show verbs have been grammaticalized into the non-self-benefactive auxiliary verbs (Pardeshi 1998). The show verb is used for situations involving audio-visual performance, such as singing a song or performing something for someone, as in (25) and (26); otherwise the give verb is used, as in (27) and€(28): Marathi (25) mī tyā-lā gāηe mhaη-un dākhaw-l-e 1s 3s-dat song.n sing-cp show-pst-n ‘I sang a song for him.’
(Pardeshi 1998: 148)
(26) mī tyā-lā nnakkal kar-un dākhaw-l-ī 1s 3s-dat mimicry.f do-cp show-pst-f ‘I performed mimicry for him.’
(Pardeshi 1998: 149)
(27) rām-ne sitā-lā pustak ghe-un di-l-e Ram-erg Sita-dat book.n take-cp give-pst-n ‘Ram bought Sita a book.’
(Pardeshi 1998: 146)
(28) rām-ne sitā-lā kholī zā2-un di-l-ī Ram-erg Sita-dat room.f sweep-cp give-pst-f ‘Ram swept/cleaned the room for Sita.’
(Pardeshi 1998: 146)
Indonesian employs the suffix -kan in its benefactive construction, where the beneficiary cannot be the agent him/herself and is coded as the primary object as in (29) and€(30).10
9.â•… The terms “self ” and “non-self ” are equivalent to egocentric and allocentric benefactives in Smith (2005). I have changed terms here, because the term egocentric may be misleading for some readers when referring only to the first person. Moreover, egocentric and allocentric are used to mean ‘human oriented’ and ‘non-human oriented’ to discuss special perspective in cognitive psychology (Li & Gleitman 2002). 10.â•… It is interesting that -kan is also used as a marker in causative constructions (Purwo 1997).
 Tomoko Yamashita Smith
Indonesian (29) dia membuat-kan saya kursi itu he make-ben I chair this ‘He made me this chair.’
(Shibatani 1996: 160)
(30) saya membunuh-kan ana lipas I kill-ben Ana centipede ‘I killed the centipede for Ana.’
(Shibatani 1996: 171)
Finally, there are two types of benefactive constructions in Japanese that are used to describe non-self-benefaction.11 The first type makes use of the auxiliary verbs of give, and the agent is coded as the subject, as in (31), while the second type makes use of the auxiliary verbs of receive, and the beneficiary is coded as the subject, as in (32).12 Japanese (31) watasi wa taroo ni hon o yonde-age-ta I top Taro dat book acc read-give-pst ‘I did Taro the favor of reading a book.’ (32) watasi wa taroo ni hon o yonde-morat-ta I top Taro dat book acc read-receive-pst ‘I received the favor of Taro reading a book for me.’
In order to describe self-benefaction, the more complex periphrastic postposition, no tame ni ‘for the sake of ’ is used alone, as in (33) (also in (14) in Section 2.2.1), and the auxiliary verbs cannot be used, with very few exceptions. Compare the following examples. Japanese (33) watasi wa zibun no tame ni hon o yon-da I top self gen sake dat book acc read-pst ‘I read a book for myself.’ (34) ???watasi wa zibun ni hon o yonde-age-ta I top self dat book acc read-give-pst ‘I did myself the favor of reading a book.’ (35) *watasi wa zibun ni hon o yonde-morat-ta I top self dat book acc read-receive-pst ‘I received (appreciated) the favor of me reading a book for myself.’
11.â•… Although there are three types of benefactive constructions in Japanese altogether, one of them belongs to another type, not the non-self-benefactive construction, and it will be discussed in Section 2.3.2. 12.â•… All three types of the benefactive construction have more than one auxiliary verb to serve various sociolinguistic factors, such as honorification and speech levels. See Kuno (1973) for a detailed description of Japanese benefactives.
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions 
(36) ?watasi wa zibun o homete-age-tai I top self acc praise-give-des ‘I want to praise myself.’ (37) zibun ni yokuyatta to itte-yari-tai self dat did.a.great.job quo say-give-des ‘I want to say to myself that I did a great job.’ (38) ?watasizisin ni yurusite-morai-tai myself dat forgive-receive-des ‘I want myself to forgive me.’
As in (34) and (35), in general, neither kind of construction is used to express selfbenefaction. However, highly marked statements like (36), (37), and (38) may be possible. For example, (36) and (37) may be uttered when the speaker has a special achievement to praise him/herself for, and these sentences are acceptable to me, a native speaker of Japanese. Sentence (37) has another give verb, yaru, which means to give something to someone inferior, and (37) is more acceptable than (36). Notice that in (36) and (37) the verb takes the desiderative auxiliary tai. If the verb takes the simple past tense instead, then the sentences are less acceptable than (36) and (37). With receive verbs, exceptions such as (38) are harder to find than with the give verbs. This is perhaps because the receive constructions are often used to express “gratitude” to the agent, not just to describe a benefactive event. It seems unnecessary to express gratitude to oneself and perhaps inappropriate to do so in Japanese society.
2.2.3â•… Self-benefactive constructions This section deals with self-benefactive constructions, where the agent carries out an action for the benefit of him/herself. It is the co-reference of agent and beneficiary that distinguishes between self-benefactives and non-self-benefactives. As with nonself-benefactives, self-benefactives seem to be less common than unrestricted agentive benefactives. However, as mentioned earlier, they are quite prevalent among languages in India, such as Hindi, Marathi, and Tamil (Masica 1976; Pardeshi 2001), and also among Mongolic and Turkic languages (Anderson 1998, 2001, 2002, Creissels, this volume). The following are examples of the construction in Hindi and Marathi:13 Hindi (39) us-ne khat likh liyā he-erg letter.m write take.pst.m ‘He wrote the letter (for his own benefit).’
(Pardeshi 2001: 92)
13.â•… These constructions are also used to express the notion of adversity (Pardeshi 2001, Radetzky & Smith, this volume).
 Tomoko Yamashita Smith
Marathi (40) tyaa-na daa dhi kar-un ghet-l-i he-erg beard.f do-cp take-pst-f ‘He shaved his beard/He got his beard shaved.’
(Pardeshi 2001: 92)
It should be noted here that both Hindi and Marathi have non-self-benefactive constructions as well, and recall the Marathi examples given in the previous section. Analogies to these self-benefactive constructions in Indic languages are the uses of Indo-European middle voice expressing self-benefaction (see Kemmer 1993; Smith 2005). However, since middle voice covers a wider range of semantics, it should not be treated just as a benefactive. Similarly, Xakas, a Turkic language of Siberia also uses the verb stem al to indicate self-benefaction (Anderson 1998, 2002). The lexical source of the stem is a verb meaning ‘take’ or ‘get’. Xakas (41) min tayγada ččörčedıp, köp čistek teerıp al-γam I taiga.loc walk.prs.cv a.lot berry gather.cv sben-pst.i.1 While walking in the taiga, I gathered up a lot of berries (for myself)’ (Anderson 1998: 54)
The last examples are from Kewapi, the eastern dialect of the Kewa language in Papua New Guinea. Yarapea (1993) claims that Kewapi has person-number-tense suffixes that are also used to mark benefaction: self- and non-self-benefaction (see also Franklin 1971 for the Kewa language in general). Sentences (42), (44) and (46) are marked as self-benefactive, while (43), (45) and (47) are marked as non-self-benefactive:14 Kawapi (42) ne-me pea-lo 1s-erg do-1s.prs.sben ‘I am doing (something) for myself.’
(Yarapea 1993: 96)
(43) ne-me pea-ato 1s-erg do-1s.prs.nsben ‘I am doing (something) for someone.’
(Yarapea 1993: 96)
(44) naa enda na-ma 1p food eat-1p.nrpst.sben ‘We ate food.’
(Yarapea 1993: 99)
14.â•… Yarapea (1993) uses the terms egocentric and altrocentric benefaction instead of self- and non-self-benefaction.
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions 
(45) naa-me enda na-arima 1p-erg food eat-1p.nrpst. nsben ‘We ate food on someone’s behalf.’
(Yarapea 1993: 99)
(46) ni enda abi ne-lua 1s food today eat-1s.fut.sben ‘I will eat food today for myself.’
(Yarapea 1993: 102)
(47) ni-me enda abi na-alua 1s-erg food today eat-1s.fut.nsben ‘I will eat food today on someone’s behalf.’
(Yarapea 1993: 102)
As the above examples show, the person-number-tense suffixes in Kewapi agree in person and number with the subject referent, indicate the tense of the verb, and mark benefaction. Although Yarapea suggests that it is economical to treat these suffixes as portmanteau morphemes, they can be separated into individual categories (Franklin 1971). There are many unclear cases; however, it appears that the self-benefaction is zero-marked and non-self-benefaction is marked with a (e.g. ma vs. a-rima for the near past-1st plural and lua and a-lua for the 1st singular future). If this is the case, then the self-benefactive should be considered as more basic. Interestingly, there is another contrast in the two types of benefaction, namely the subject of the non-self-benefactive is marked as ergative, while the subject of the self-benefactive is unmarked.
2.2.4â•… Shared-benefit construction: tseôm in Lai A further type of agentive benefactive construction is found in Lai, a Tibeto-Burman language, spoken in Western Burma15 (see Section 2.3.1 for a discussion of regular benefactive constructions often used to express non-self-benefaction in Lai; Smith 2005; Peterson 1998, 2007). First, self-benefaction is expressed with the middle marking, as in (46) (Smith 1998a). (45) vanhree niô vok ôa-ka-tsok-piak Vanhree erg pig 3sg-1s-buy-ben ‘Vanhree bought a pig for me.’ (46) vanhree niô vok ôaa-tsok Vanhree erg pig 3sg.middle-buy ‘Vanhree bought a pig for himself.’
15.â•… All of the Lai examples are elicited from Ken VanBik, unless its reference is specified in the example. I truly benefited from Ken’s help.
 Tomoko Yamashita Smith
In addition, Lai has another benefactive construction, and I call it the shared-benefit construction. It expresses ‘X does something for the benefit of X himself and Y’, as in the following examples: (47) tsewmaŋ niô they ôa-ka-loô-tsemô Tsewmang erg fruit 3s-1s-pick-ben ‘Tsewmang picked fruits for me (in addition to picking them for himself).’ (48) tsewmaŋ niô thil ôa-ka-tsook-tsemô Tsewmang erg thing 3s-1s-buy-ben ‘Tsewmang bought things for me (in addition to buying things for himself).’
In this construction, the subject referent is already performing the action denoted by the predicate. In addition to performing that action for his own benefit, he also performs it for the benefit of someone else. Though I have found only one other language that has a grammatical construction of this sort with phY ` ә in Thai (Jenny, this volume), the semantics of this construction seem to be quite clear and practical. This type of benefactive situation occurs frequently in daily life: doing laundry for oneself and for other members of family, fixing breakfast for oneself and for a guest, or making photocopies for oneself and for a classmate.
2.2.5â•… Discussion of agentive benefactive constructions As the data and the discussion above suggest, agentive benefactive constructions are quite common. Many languages possess unrestricted agentive benefactives in which the beneficiary can be either the agent him/herself or another person. There are also non-self- and self-benefactives, as shown in 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. In the former, the beneficiary cannot be the agent him/herself, while in the latter it must be the agent him/herself. Lastly, there are two languages that have a unique benefactive construction, where the agent performs an action not only for him/herself but also for someone else. As expected, languages vary according to the benefactive constructions they have. For example, Japanese has both unrestricted agentive benefactives and non-selfbenefactives, but no self-benefactive constructions, and English has only unrestricted benefactives. I have not found a single language with only self-benefactive constructions, which is not surprising, since we often do things to benefit others. Considering the data, I propose the following hierarchy to rank the likelihood of agentive benefactive construction types appearing in a given language. (49) unrestricted agentive benefactive and/or > self-benefactive > (other types) non-self-benefactive
The hierarchy indicates that if a language has an agentive benefactive construction, then it is most likely to be an unrestricted agentive or non-self-benefactive construction.
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions 
Languages with an unrestricted agentive or non-self-benefactive construction may also have an additional one, namely a self-benefactive construction. This means that in order for a language to have a self-benefactive construction, it should also have another benefactive construction that indicates non-self-benefaction. More data is required to draw a firm conclusion concerning the other types. As discussed in the previous section, in addition to the shared benefit construction, Lai has a general benefactive construction that is often used to express non-self-benefaction, and its middle voice expresseses self-benefaction. Therefore, at present, I suggest that if a language has both self- and non-self-benefactive constructions (or some kind of benefactive construction that express both notions), then that language may also have another type of benefactive construction. In many unrestricted benefactive constructions, self-benefaction sentences are reflexive, and they can be regarded as more marked than non-self-benefaction sentences, as in I baked him a cake and I baked myself a cake. Thus, the real contrast here is between self- and non-self-benefaction. I suggest that the reason why nonself-benefactive constructions are more common in languages than self-benefactives is because, with non-self-benefaction, we have to state clearly ‘who does what for whom’. By contrast, with self-benefaction, such a statement is not necessarily required, perhaps because our actions are often done for our own benefit, such as eating and going to school. In many languages, such activities are often expressed without any benefactive marking. Consider English sentences, such as Mark ate dinner and Linda went to school in Mexico. Both sentences describe events that the subject referent benefits from. Moreover, in English, there are some verbs for which the beneficiary is unspecified with self- benefaction, whereas it is specified with non-self-benefaction, as in I bathed vs. I bathed Fluffy.
2.3â•… Event benefactive construction In Section 2.2., I discussed cases in which benefaction follows from an action by the agent. Event benefactive constructions, in turn, express the meaning ‘X benefits from Event Z’, where a certain event is good for the beneficiary. In contract to the agentive benefactives, the event does not have to include an agent.16 The semantics of the construction type thus differs from the constructions discussed in 2.2., where features of the beneficiary were more important. There are two types of event benefactives in my data. One type I refer to collectively as the give construction, in which the beneficiary
16.â•… Kittilä (this volume) discusses animacy of the agent in benefactive constructions in Finnish. Inanimate subjects or events (such as rain, fire and a car’s breaking down) are permitted in some (limited) contexts, and he treats these as inanimate agents (causes of the event). I, on the other hand, would treat such instances as event benefactives.
 Tomoko Yamashita Smith
is coded as direct object. It is used to express non-self-benefaction, but also agentless benefaction, and Lai and Japanese have such a construction. The other type is the get/receive construction, such as that of Vietnamese and English, and it expresses that the subject referent undergoes a pleasant experience.17
2.3.1â•… The Lai piak-construction Lai has a piak-construction that expresses not only non-self-benefaction, as in (50) and (51), but also agentless benefaction, as in (52), (53), and (54). For the latter, I have opted for considering this construction an event benefactive construction. (50) tsewmaŋ tsa-ôuk ka-tsook-piak Tsewmang letter-cover 1s-buy2-ben ‘I bought Tsewmang a book.’ (51) tsewmaŋ door ka-kal-piak Tsewmang market 1s-go-ben ‘I went to market for Tsewmang.’ (52) paŋpaar niô ôan-kan-paar-piak flowers erg 3p-1p-bloom-ben ‘The flowers bloomed for us.’ (53) ti niô ôa-kan-kiô-piak water erg 3s-1p-be cold-ben ‘The water is cold for us.’ (54) ka-leeŋ niô ôa-ka-roô-piak 1s-cart erg 3s-1s-break2-ben18 ‘My cart broke down for me (so that I can buy a new one).’
The lexical give verb in Lai is peek, and it is highly likely that piak has grammaticalized from peek. I suggest that the piak-construction originated as an agentive benefactive
17.â•… Some uses of the dative constructions (“dative of good fortune”, Wierzbicka1988) may convey that the dative referent is positively affected by an event; yet the event is understood as at least partly due to the beneficiary of the event. For example, a Polish sentence Ciasto ładnie mi się upeikło ‘The cake baked itself nicely to me.’ needs to be uttered by the person who baked the cake (212). Interestingly, the malefactive uses of the dative are quite common. See Wierzbicka (1988) for more discussion on the different semantics of the two types of constructions. 18.â•… Numerals in interlinear glosses indicate the transitive-intransitive alternations of the verb stems. The intransitive clause takes verb form1, while the transitive clause takes verb form 2.
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions 
construction and later extended to express more general benefaction, namely agentless benefaction.
2.3.2â•… Japanese kureru-construction The Japanese kureru-construction is different from the other two types discussed earlier in that it also expresses agentless benefaction. Recall that the other two express only non-self-benefaction, as in (55)–(56). Sentence (55) is an example with a give verb, ageru, and sentence (56) is an example with a receive verb, morau: (55) watasi wa ken ni hon o yonde-age-ta I top Ken dat book acc read-give-pst ‘I did Ken the favor of reading a book.’ (56) watasi wa ken ni hon o yonde-morat-ta I top Ken dat book acc read-receive-pst ‘I received the favor of Ken reading a book for me.’
Kureru is also a give verb, but it is a counterpart of ageru, since the Japanese give verbs have a deictic opposition: incoming give (toward the speaker and/or his/her in-group) and non-incoming give (either giving that is away from the speaker and/or his/her in-group or giving between people who are neither the speaker nor among those in the speaker’s in-group).19 Thus, kureru expresses incoming give while ageru expresses non-incoming give. With non-incoming give verbs, the speaker (and/or his/her in-group) must be the agent as in (55) above and (57) below, while with the incoming give verbs, the speaker (and/or his/her in-group) must be the beneficiary as in (58). Compare the following examples: (57) watasi wa taroo ni susi o tukutte-age-ta I top Taro dat sushi acc make-give-pst ‘I did Taro the favor of making sushi.’ (58) taroo wa watasi ni susi o tukutte-kure-ta Taro top I dat sushi acc make-give-pst ‘Taro did the favor of making sushi for me.’ (59) *taroo wa watasi ni susi o tukutte-age-ta Taro top I dat sushi acc make-give-pst ‘Taro did the favor of making sushi for me.’
19.â•… There are many studies on the Japanese benefactive constructions (e.g. Kuno 1973; Masuoka 1981; Goda 1983; Shibatani 1996, 2000; Hidaka 2007). See also Kuno (1976) for the discussion of the giving and receiving verbs in terms of empathy perspective, and Shibatani (2003) for general discussion of the directional verbs, including giving and receiving verbs in Japanese.
 Tomoko Yamashita Smith
(60) *watasi wa taroo ni susi o tukutte-kure-ta I top Taro dat sushi acc make-give-pst ‘I did Taro the favor of making sushi.’
In present-day Japanese, there are two in-coming give verbs; kudasaru and kureru. Generally, the former is used when the agent is socially higher than the beneficiary; otherwise, the latter is used. The kudasaru benefactive expresses only non-selfbenefaction. The kureru benefactive, however, can be used to express not only nonself-benefaction, as in (58), but also benefactive events that do not include an agent, as the following examples indicate. These sentences express the gratitude of the speaker. In other words, the speaker is thankful for a certain event, such as ‘the stopping of rain’ in (61) and ‘children going to sleep’ in (61). It should be noted here that the auxiliary kureru may be omitted from these two sentences, and then the sentences are simply statements of the facts, as in (62) and (64). (61) ame ga yande-kure-ta rain nom stop-give-pst ‘It stopped raining (and I am thankful for that).’ (62) ame ga yan-da rain nom stop-pst ‘It stopped raining.’ (63) kodomo ga nete-kure-ta child nom sleep-give-pst ‘The kids fell asleep (finally and I am thankful for that).’ (64) kodomo ga ne-ta child nom sleep-pst ‘The kids fell asleep.’
The kureru agentless benefactive sentences are more restricted than the kureru agentive benefactive sentences in that the beneficiary is always the speaker,20 and the beneficiary cannot be overtly stated in a sentence, as in the following example. (65) *ame ga watasi ni/ no tame ni yande-kure-ta rain nom 1s dat/ gen sake dat stop-give-pst ‘It stopped raining (and I am thankful for that).’
The sentence expresses that the speaker is thankful that an event occurred.21 As in the case of Lai’s piak-construction, it seems that kureru was first grammaticalized to 20.â•… In some limited contexts, the hearer can be the beneficiary, as in a confirmation or question. 21.â•… There seems to be another explanation as to why the affectee must be the speaker. CharacÂ� teristically, the Japanese language does not allow the speaker to report the psychological
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions 
express non-self-benefaction and later extended to express agentless benefaction.22 The fact that the lexical meaning of kureru is ‘give’ and its agentless benefactive uses are more restricted than the agentive benefactive uses supports this claim.
2.3.3â•… Vietnamese đu’o’c-construction ˙ Vietnamese has a benefactive construction that expresses that the subject referent undergoes a pleasant experience, using the benefactive verb đuoc (Clark 1974), as in the following examples. (68) ông đó đu’o’c mua sách ˙ gentleman that get buy book ‘He has the good fortune to be able to buy the books.’
(Clark 1974: 81)
(69) ông đó đu’o’c mát ˙ gentleman that get cold ‘That man has the good fortune of being cool.’
(Clark 1974: 82)
(70) Kim đu’o’c John khen ˙ Kim get John compliment ‘Kim was complimented by John’
(Siewierska 1984: 151)
(71) John đu’o’c Kim đánh ˙ John get Kim hit ‘John was hit by Kim (he liked it, it was good for him)’
(Siewierska 1984: 151)
Although the benefactive verb đuoc has maintained the grammatical status of a full lexical verb (Liêm 1969; Clark 1974) with the most basic meanings ‘receive, get, obtain’ (Thompson 1965), its uses have been extended to take verbal complements as in the above examples. Since the sentences (70) and (71) can be analyzed as kinds of passive
state of others in a direct form (e.g. Shibatani 1990; Hasegawa 1998). Compare the following examples. (66)
watasi wa uresii/samui (67) *tanaka-san wa uresii/samui I top glad/cold Tanaka-Mr. top glad/cold ‘I am glad/cold.’ ‘Mr. Tanaka is glad/cold.’
I suggest that the most important function of the kureru agentless benefactive is to express the beneficiary’s gratitude. Since gratitude should be considered as one’s psychological state, the beneficiary is limited to the speaker. Only the speaker can directly state his/her own feeling of gratitude. 22.â•… I am not including kudasaru in this account in order to make the point clear. More strictly speaking, both kureru and kudasaru may have acquired the non-self-benefactive use (distinguishing them on the grounds of social-relations), and further only kureru has acquired the agentless benefactive use.
 Tomoko Yamashita Smith
clauses, the đuoc construction has sometimes been treated as a real passive (Truitner 1972; Le 1976). Clark (1974), on the other hand, rejects such an analysis and suggests that the construction has a verb that requires a sentential complement as the underlying structure, and it undergoes equi-NP deletion. My analysis of the construction is that all four sentences above can simply be regarded as instances of benefactive constructions with the verb đuoc, since it would be difficult to treat sentences like (68) and (69) as passives.23 Moreover, this construction expresses both agentive and agentless benefaction. There is an agent in (70) and (71), who directly performs an action on the beneficiary, which is seen as good for the subject referent, and in (68) there is an agent who performs an action, which affects him/her positively. These are all instances of agentive benefaction. On the other hand, in Sentence (69), the verb is stative, and the subject is a mere experiencer, not an agent. In conclusion, the construction is best treated as an event benefactive construction.
2.3.4â•… English get-to-construction As noted earlier, I suggest that English uses the get-to-construction to express the notion of benefit.24 Kimball (1973) and Gronemeyer (1999) both use the term ‘permission’ for this use. Gronemeyer notes that “I use permission in the standard sense of deontic modality, meaning that the subject is permitted by an external circumstance or force the possibility or opportunity of doing something. Closely related are the senses ‘manage to’ and ‘secure opportunity’ which I take to be contextually determined variants” (p. 7). Her claim seems to be an accurate observation; however, the notion of benefit needs to be included in the semantics of get to. An important part of the semantics of this construction is that the subject is fortunate to experience the event described by the predicate. The events described by this construction sometime indicate that an agent has an opportunity to something s/he wanted/appreciated, as in (72) through (74), while the subject should not be considered as an agent, as in (75) through (78).
(72) (73) (74) (75) (76)
I got to drink anything I wanted at the party. I get to talk with my friends at lunch. We didn’t get to do anything fun lately. She gets to be her own boss. I got to be on TV, by chance.
23.â•… Vietnamese has another construction that has been treated as an adversative passive and denotes the notion of a negative affect on the subject referent (see Radetzky & Smith, this volume). 24.â•… See Smith (2005) for more discussion of this construction using corpus data.
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions 
(77) He got to be popular in high school. (78) You get to feel cool, when you drive that car.
Notice that this construction also expresses adversity as sarcasm, as in (79) and (80); however, its primary use is as a benefactive. (79) I got to wash dished last three days. (80) Why do you get to have all the fun while I get to do all the worrying? (Gronemeyer 1999: 31)
Both Vietnamese and English make use of get/receive verbs in the above benefactive constructions. Since this type of grammaticalization has arisen from the lexical uses of get/receive verbs, the beneficiary is always coded as the subject, and the syntactic realization is different from give benefactive constructions. The get/ receive constructions expressing positive experience (‘have/had the opportunity to’) are also found in other Southeast Asian languages, such as Thai, Lahu, Yao (Mien) Samsao, and Khmer (Matisoff 1991), and it is highly likely that these constructions are also used to indicate agentless benefactive events. This linguistic area needs to be Â�further investigated.
3.â•… Discussion Previous sections have shown that there are two basic types of benefactives: the agentive benefactive, where the agent carries out an action for the benefit of the beneficiary, and the event benefactive where an agent may or may not be involved. The agentive benefactive has three basic subtypes: the unrestricted agentive benefactive, non-selfbenefactive, and self-benefactive. In addition, a few languages have shared-benefit constructions that express ‘X does something for the benefit of X and Y’. I summarize the restrictions on the agent and beneficiary in Table 1. As discussed earlier, each construction type expresses different event/situation types, and languages often possess more than one construction type. Table 1.╇ Restrictions on the agent and beneficiary in benefactives25 Type of construction
Is there an agent?
Who is the beneficiary?
Unrestricted agentive benefactive Non-self-benefactive Self-benefactive Shared-benefit construction Event benefactive
yes yes yes yes agentless is also OK
anyone not the agent agent agent and other(s) anyone25
.╅ In the case of the Japanese kureru-construction, it is the speaker only.
Tomoko Yamashita Smith
As has been pointed out, the most common benefactive type is the agentive benefactive, and this reflects the common assumption that good events usually result from intention, planning and the acts of people (Wierzbicka 1988). In addition, some languages have event benefactive constructions, where the agent may not necessarily be involved. Occasionally, one can experience good events without the intentional acts of people. We may recognize this kind of good event as an instance of rare luck. The English word windfall and the Japanese expression, tana kara botamoti (lit. ‘a rice cake falls from a shelf ’, with the meaning windfall), express this idea. Therefore, it might be expected that some languages have grammatical constructions that express good fortune, including agentless benefaction. Note that I have not found a single benefactive construction that is dedicated to expressing only agentless benefaction, and this supports my claim that agentless benefaction is uncommon. In my data, all the languages that have event benefactive constructions also possess one or more agentive benefactive constructions. I propose the following hierarchy to show the likelihood that benefactive construction types appear in a given language. (81) Agentive benefactives > Event benefactives
This hierarchy predicts that if a language has the Event benefactive construction, then it should also possess at least one agentive benefactive construction. For example, English has the get to-construction for the ‘X benefits from Event Z’ construction, so one or more agentive benefactive constructions should also exist, and they do: the for construction and the benefactive ditransitive construction. Japanese has the kureru benefactive, whose semantics include agentless benefaction, in addition to other agentive benefactive constructions. Note that there may be other types of agentless benefactive constructions to be found. Further study should shed light on our understanding of benefactive constructions in general. In addition, I would like to point out two phenomena which should be further investigated in the context of benefactive constructions. First, indicating deictic distinctions is an essential factor of benefactive constructions in some languages, as is the case in Japanese. Roughly speaking, Japanese makes a distinction between first person and non-first person (2nd and 3rd). Abelam, a Ndu language spoken in the Sepik district of New Guinea, has two benefactive markers that clearly contrast first person beneficiary, ty%, and non-first person beneficiary, kway, (Laycock 1965: 54). Lahu has the third person benefactive particle, pî (< ‘give’) and non-third person benefactive particle, lâ (< ‘come’) (Matisoff 1991). These phenomena need to be further studied together with other deictic distinctions of directional verbs in general (Tokunaga 1986; Shibatani 2003). The second phenomenon is that benefactives sometimes indicate the speaker’s attitude towards the event or one of its participants. For example, the Japanese kureru construction is used to indicate the speaker’s gratitude (i.e. the speaker is grateful that
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions
someone did a favor for his/her in-group) (Tokunaga 1986; Smith 2005). The uses of the ethical dative are usually limited to the first and second person, and it expresses the speaker’s feeling toward the event, such as ‘surprise’, ‘joy’, and ‘displeasure’ (Janda 1993; Draye 1996; Van Hoecke 1996; Dąbrowska 1997). Moreover, utterances such as he gets to eat all the food on the table convey that the speaker is envious. There is still much to do in finding what sorts of attitudes are indicated in benefactive constructions in languages. Finally, a great deal of work remains to be done before a typological study of benefactives can be completed, yet I believe the system of classification I present in this study can facilitate future empirical work on benefactives and help to bring about a full typological study.
References Anderson, Gregory. 1998. Xakas [Languages of the World/Materials 251]. Munich: Lincom Europa. Anderson, Gregory. 2001. Subject version and object version in Tofa auxiliary verb constructions. Turkic Languages 5(1): 240–269. Anderson, Gregory. 2002. Auxiliary verb constructions in Old Turkic and Altai-Sayan Turkic. Paper presented at the Old Turkic Symposium. Frankfurt. Clark, Marybeth. 1974. Submissive verbs as adversatives in some Asian languages. In South-East Asian Linguistic Studies, Nguyên Đăng Liêm (ed.), 89–110. Canberra: The Australian National University. Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Draye, Luk. 1996. The German dative. In The Dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive Studies [Case and Grammatical Relation across Language 1], William Van Belle & Willy Van Langendonck (eds.), 155–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistics theory, Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), 1–88. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Franklin, Karl. 1971. A Grammar of Kewa, New Guinea [Pacific linguistics C, 16]. Canberra: Australian National University. Goda, Sumire. 1983. Te-yaru, te-kureru, te-morau to taigo no hyôgen: Hâi no yôhô ni chûmoku shite. Nihongo kyôiku 49: 119–132. Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Gronemeyer, Claire. 1999. On deriving complex polysemy: The grammaticalization of get. English Language and Linguistics 3(1): 1–39. Hasegawa, Yoko. 1998. Linguistic systems and social models: A case study of Japanese. BLS 24:€117–128. Hidaka, Mizuho. 2007. Juyo dôshi no taishô hôgengaku teki kenkyû. Tokyô: Hitsuji Shôbo. Janda, Laura. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice [Typological Studies in Language 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Tomoko Yamashita Smith Kimball, John P. 1973. Get. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 2: John Kimball (ed.), 205–215. New York NY: Seminar Press. Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence Linguistic Typology 9(2):€269–297. Kittilä, Seppo. 2006. On distinguishing between recipient and beneficiary in Finnish. In Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish [Current Issues in Lingusitic Theory 277], Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell, 129–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Laycock. 1965. The Ndu Language Family (Sepik District, New Guinea). Canberra: Australian National University. Le, Tam Duy. 1976. Vietnamese passives. CLS 12: 438–449. Li, Charles & Thompson, Sandra A. 1974. Co-verb in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or prepositions? Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2: 257–278. Li, Peggy & Gleitman, Lila. 2002. Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning. Cognition 83: 265–294. Liêm, Nguyên Đăng. 1969. Vietnamese Grammar: A Combined Tagmemic and Transformational Approach [Pacific linguistics, Series C, 4]. Canberra: The Australian National University. Masica, Colin. 1976. Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Masuoka, Takashi. 1981. Semantics of the benefactive constructions in Japanese. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 14: 67–78. Matisoff, James. 1991. Areal and universal dimensions of grammatization in Lahu. In Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 19: 2], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), 383–453. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Newman, John. 1996. Give. A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Niedzielski, Henry. 1979. Lexical realization of benefactive and beneficiary in Polish and English. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 9: 165–180. Niedzielski, Henry. 1981. Lexical realizations of benefactive and beneficiary in English and French. Review of Applied Linguistics 53: 37–52. Ôso, Mieko. 1983. Judôbun to ni meishiku. Nihongokenkyû 50: 118–124. Pardeshi, Prashant. 1998. A contrastive study of benefactive constructions in Japanese and Marathi. Sekai no nihongo kyôiku 8: 141–165. Pardeshi, Prashant. 2001. Taking of the veil of the janus-faced ‘take’: The story of ‘take’ as a vector in Indic languages. Proceeding of the 123rd meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan held at Kyûshû University. 92–97. Peterson, David. 1998. The morphosyntax of transitivization in Lai (Haka Chin). Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 21(1): 87–153. Peterson, David. 2007. Applicative Constructions. Oxford: OUP. Purwo, Bambang Kaswanti. 1997. The direct object in bi-transitive clauses in Indonesian. In Grammatical Relations: A Functionalist Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 35], T. Givón (ed.), 233–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The Passive: A comparative Linguistic Analysis. London: Croom Helm. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: CUP.
Cross-linguistic categorization of benefactive constructions 
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson, 157–194. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2000. Japanese benefactive constructions: Their cognitive bases and autonomy. In Syntax and Functional Explorations: In Honor of Susumu Kuno. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 2003. Directional verbs in Japanese. In Motion, Direction and Location in Languages: In Honor of Zygmunt Frajzyngier [Typological Studies in Language 56], Erin Shay & Uwe Seibert (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Smith, Tomoko Yamashita. 1998a. The middle voice in Lai. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 21(1): 1–52. Smith, Tomoko Yamashita. 1998b. How ‘give’ and ‘receive’ provide structure for more abstract notions: The case of benefactives, adversatives, causatives, and passives. BLS 24: 219–231. Smith, Tomoko Yamashita. 2005. Affectedness Constructions: How Languages Indicate Positive and Negative Events. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. Tokunaga, Misato. 1986. Affective Deixis in Japanese: A Case Study of Directional Verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. Truitner, Nga. 1972. Passive sentences in Vietnamese. CLS 8: 368–378. Van Hoecke, Willy. 1996. The Latin dative. In The Dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive Studies [Case and Grammatical Relation across Languages 1], William Van Belle & Willy Van Langendonck, 155–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: CUP. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Yamada, Toshihiro. 1996. Some universal features of benefactive constructions. Nihongakuhô 15: 27–45. Yamada, Toshihiro. 2001. Nihongo ni okeru benefactive no kijutsuteki kenkyû. Nihongogaku 20.1: 84–93. Yamada, Toshihiro. 2004. Nihongo no benefactive: Teyaru, tekureru, temorau no bunpo. Tokyo: Meiji shoin. Yarapea, Apoi. 1993. Kewapi verbal morphology and semantics. Language and Linguistics in Melanesia 24: 95–110.
An areal and cross-linguistic study of benefactive and malefactive constructions* Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
National Tsing Hua University/Osaka University In this study, we compare languages of Europe with those in Asia, establishing a two-part typology of strategies that these languages use to express notions of benefactivity and malefactivity. Languages in Europe have a generalized and semantically underspecified affectedness construction as the most unmarked construction in their repertoire; this can be used in both benefactive and malefactive situations. On the other hand, in the vast majority of the languages of South Asia, mainland Southeast Asia, and East Asia, benefactive constructions are separate from malefactive constructions, and each one is semantically robust and restricted in its applicability to either fortunate or unfortunate situations. An important question to raise is the interrelatedness between this areal distribution and each area’s societal values and cultural practice.
*We would like to express our appreciation to the following people: Alexander Adelaar, Willem Adelaar, Alexandra Aikhenvald, E. Annamalai, Mathias Jenny, Terrence Kaufman, Andrew Keller, Ngoc Kim, Alan King, Seppo Kittilä, Kyung-Hwan Mo, Johanna Nichols, Weera Ostapirat, Prashant Pardeshi, Bijeta Singh, Udaya Narayana Singh, Iru Su, Karumuri Subbarao, Soteria Svorou, Eve Sweetser, Cheng-Yu Tsai, Wei-Tien Tsai, Ken Vanbik, Bertlinde Voegel, William F. Weigel, Fernando Zúñiga, and the anonymous reviewers. The abbreviations used in this paper are as follows 1 2 3 abl acc agt all aor ben caus compl cp dat decl
first person second person third person ablative accusative agent allative aorist benefactive causative completed action conjunctive dative declarative
erg f fut gen inf irr loc m mal n neg nom nonpst obl
ergative feminine future genitive infinitive irrealis locative masculine malefactive neuter negative nominative non-past oblique
pass pft pfv pl poss pres pst ptl pv s sd sub top
passive perfect perfective plural possessive present past particle verb particle singular sandhi subject topic
Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
1.â•… Introduction As human beings, we can construe a particular event as being fortunate or unfortunate, and we have the option of overtly including this interpretation in an utterance. In this study, we compare languages of Europe with those in Asia, establishing a two-part typology of strategies that languages can use to express these notions of benefactivity and malefactivity. Our examples come from languages belonging to, among others, the Indo-European, Uralic, Nakh-Daghestanian, Dravidian, Austroasiatic, and SinoTibetan families.1 From a semantic perspective, languages can roughly speaking encode benefactives and malefactives in two different ways. In Option 1, benefactive and malefactive meanings are collapsed into one single superconstruction, the affectedness construction, which can include dative constructions and applicative constructions as subtypes;2 This distinction is formally motivated, the former includes a new argument in the dative (or similar) case, while in the latter, verb morphology is modified for making the introduction of a new argument possible. In the affectedness construction, the entity that is affected (the affectee) is underspecified as to whether it has been affected beneficially or maleficially, and it is the discourse context which must provide the information favoring one interpretation over the other.3
1.â•… Benefactive constructions are well-attested in the world’s languages, and there have been studies of them in individual languages as well as from a cross-linguistic perspective (e.g., Niedzielski 1979; Masuoka 1981; Shibatani 1994; Goldberg 1995; Miyake 1996; Newman 1996; Yamada 1996; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997; Pardeshi 1998; Yamada 2001; and Kittilä 2005). Malefactive constructions have not been studied as much, and it is unusual to find them discussed in the literature; exceptions are Menn (1972), Clark (1974), Chappell (1986), Davies (1993), Malchukov (1993), and Davies (1995). 2.â•… “Dative” here is in the sense of the Latin ‘dative of advantage and disadvantage’ (dativus commodi et incommodi). See also Dąbrowska’s “beneficiary dative” (1997: 35) and Janda’s “dative of beneficiary” (1993: 90). 3.â•… The term affectedness has been used not just in discussions of benefactivity and malefactivity but also in discussions of patients and undergoers (e.g., Foley & Van Valin 1984; Klaiman 1988). Likewise, the term affectee has been used by linguists to refer to undergoertype arguments, including non-agentive arguments (e.g., the ‘I’ in I broke my leg; Washio 1993; Takehisa 1999; Takehisa 2000), and patients in causative sentences (e.g., ‘vase’ in The blast caused the vase to break; Wolff, Song & Driscoll 2002). In this paper, however, we consider only the cases where the notions of benefactivity or malefactivity are explicit and encoded grammatically. The term affectedness construction was coined by Smith (2005), while Chung (1993) used the term affected construction. Most linguistic studies have treated this kind of generalized construction as a type of dative construction or applicative construction,
Areal and cross-linguistic study
In Option 2, one construction (of perhaps several in a language) inherently encodes a particular kind of affectedness, be it benefactive or malefactive. In other words, a discourse context is not needed to determine whether the event is benefactive or malefactive. We shall use the term benefactive construction to refer to constructions used in encoding situations as being fortunate (and call their affected arguments the benefactees); and we shall use the term malefactive construction to refer to the constructions used in encoding situations as being unfortunate (and call their affected arguments the malefactees).4 In this option, the benefactive and malefactive constructions differ from each other morphologically and/or syntactically. The benefactive constructions usually employ verbs meaning ‘give’, ‘receive’, or ‘take’, and malefactive constructions often use verbs such as ‘undergo’ or ‘do bad things’. If we look at the world’s languages, some tend toward using Option 1 strategies, and others tend toward using Option 2 strategies. Although languages which use the first option also use the second, in these languages, the Option 1 strategies are much more grammaticalized, while their Option 2 strategies are usually periphrastic and used in more marked situations of information packaging (such as focusing) and pragmatics (such as politeness). For example, Spanish, like other Romance languages, uses Option 1 as its favored strategy. In addition, it has complex prepositions which encode benefactees or malefactees, such as en beneficio de ‘for the benefit of ’ and en perjuicio de ‘to the detriment of ’, used in formal contexts. Many, however, would argue that these expressions are lexical rather than grammatical. Interestingly, among languages which favor Option 2, it is exceedingly unusual to find completely or genuinely underspecified affectee constructions. In other words, while languages which use Option 1 have periphrastic or ungrammaticalized ways of distinguishing between benefactives and malefactives, languages which favor Option 2 rarely have semantically underspecified affectedness constructions. Occasionally, single morphemes in these languages can be used to mark both benefactivity and malefactivity; however, in these instances, the benefactive meaning is primary and the malefactive meaning is only an extension. This is unlike Option 1, where the general affectedness construction is semantically so underspecified as to make neither meaning basic.5
depending on the grammatical characteristics of the language. For a detailed semantic analysis of these constructions, see Wierzbicka (1988: 210–23). 4.â•… The terms malefactive and adversative, as well as some others (including antibenefactive, detrimental, and pejorative) have been used in the literature. We have chosen the term malefactive and use it to include unfortunate (i.e., adversative) consequences generally, not merely those resulting from malice. However, if a particular term is widely established (e.g., the Japanese adversative passive), we will keep that term. 5.â•… English and Finnish are exceptions: they have extremely abstract but separate morphemes for benefactive and malefactive meanings. We discuss this below.
 Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
Looking at the languages in Europe and Asia, those which primarily employ Option 1 are in Europe, while those which primarily employ Option 2 are found in Asia. In our consideration of affectedness, benefactive, and malefactive constructions, we include constructions which can be analyzed as non-argument-adding, i.e., where the affected participant is realized as an agent or a patient. For example, in the Korean malefactive passive construction with tangha ‘be subject to’, the malefactee, who is the patient, is encoded as a subject: (1) pholo-ka henpieng-eykey kwutha-tangha-ess-ta P.O.W.-sub M.P.-agt beat-pass-pst-decl ‘The prisoner of war was beaten (was subject to a beating) by an M.P.’ (Lee 1974: 151)
There are several reasons why it is advantageous to regard non-argument-adding constructions as affectedness, benefactive, and malefactive constructions. First of all, these constructions are semantically benefactive and malefactive, and we see no reason to exclude these constructions based solely on the fact that they are not argument-adding. In a second, related vein, in some languages, including Japanese and Mandarin, verb valency is not as grammaticalized as in other languages (e.g., Ono€& Thompson 1997/2000), so it is more difficult to determine whether a clause has an added argument or not. It seems disadvantageous to exclude these cases, which are semantically benefactive or malefactive but ambiguous as to argument structure. A third important reason for including these cases is related to their historical evolution. It should be pointed out that the Option 2 constructions overwhelmingly come from clause-chaining or verb-chaining constructions (cf. Foley & Olsen 1985; DeLancey 1991; Hopper & Traugott 1993; Lord 1993; among many others). For example, in (2), we see a bi-clausal sentence which contains two events, a ‘make’ event and a ‘give’ event. There is no argument added to either of these verbs, and it is not an instantiation of a benefactive construction. In (3), however, age- is no longer a lexical verb but an auxiliary. (These differences are marked via the distinct glosses of age-ta in each of the sentences.) (2) susi-o tukutte Taroo-ni age-ta sushi-acc make Taroo-dat give-pst ‘I made sushi and gave it to Taroo.’ (2-clause, non-argument-adding) (3) Taroo-ni susi-o tukutte age-ta Taroo-dat sushi-acc make give-pst ‘I made sushi for Taroo.’ (1-clause, argument-adding)
At the earlier stage in (2), there are two verbs, each with its own argument(s). However, as the morpheme meaning ‘give’ becomes grammaticalized—more auxiliary-like and bound to the main verb—the construction becomes argument-adding. In order to
Areal and cross-linguistic study 
capture this insight into the history of these constructions, it is important to include in our consideration the original semantically benefactive and malefactive constructions which are not strictly argument-adding. We have just discussed the case in which a non-argument-adding construction becomes an argument-adding one over time. There is also a reverse path of development – from an affectedness construction that is syntactically argument-adding to a semantically affectedness construction which is not argument-adding. In this scenario, after the benefactive or malefactive argument-adding morpheme develops (such as age- ‘give’ in (3)), its semantics (benefactivity or malefactivity) gain primacy, such that it obscures the original argument-adding requirement of the construction, which is then lost. This is the historical trajectory from sentence (3) to (4), which has no added argument. (4) iti-zikan mo Taroo-o matte age-ta one-hour even Taroo-acc wait give-pst ‘I waited an entire hour for Taroo (for his benefit).’ (1-clause, non-argument-adding)
Again, because of this historical continuum, it is important to include semantically (but not necessarily syntactically) affective constructions in our consideration. Finally, there is a more language-specific reason to include the non-argumentadding constructions under the rubric of affectedness, benefactive, and malefactive constructions. This evidence comes from Japanese, where there is a passive morpheme -(r)are, which can be used in both pure (i.e., non-argument-adding) passives and in adversative (i.e., argument-adding) passives.6 Given that these are homophonous, and given that the pure Japanese passive is used overwhelmingly in malefactive situations (Yoshida 1996), it is artificial to include the adversative passive -(r)are and exclude the pure (but usually semantically adversative) -(r)are. We also cannot ignore the fact that these two morphemes are historically related and that there are most certainly other languages in the world where this same grammaticalization has occurred. The structure of our paper is as follows. In Section 2 below, we examine in detail data from languages which primarily follow the Option 1 pattern, where the benefactive and malefactive meanings are expressed by one semantically underspecified affectedness construction. Our examples here are from Europe. In Section 3, we will do the same for languages which primarily use the Option 2 strategy, taking examples from the languages of India, Sino-Tibetan languages, other languages of Southeast Asia, and languages in East Asia. Section 4 will be our conclusion.
6.â•… There has been a large amount of literature on this. See, among others, Kuroda (1965), Shibatani (1972), Kuno (1973), Howard & Niyekawa-Howard (1976), Shibatani (1978), Teramura (1982), Klaiman (1987), Radetzky & Smith (1997/2000), and Tsuboi (this volume).
 Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
2.â•… Option 1 2.1â•… Indo-European languages Let us first examine two Germanic languages which use a generalized, semantically underspecified affectee construction. In (5) below (‘Heinz repairs the car for me’), the dative encodes a benefactee. In (6), the dative encodes malefactees. German benefactive (5) Heinz repariert mir das Auto Heinz repairs I.dat the car ‘Heinz repairs the car for me.’
(Ogawa 1997: 2)
German malefactive (6) a.
man hat ihm das Haus angezündet they have he.dat the house set.fire.to ‘They set fire to the house on him.’
(Ogawa 1997: 2)
b. das Haus ist ihm abgebrannt the house is he.dat burned.down ‘The house burned down on him.’
(Ogawa 1997: 3)
This is the same case in Icelandic: in (7) and (8), the affectees (benefactees and malefactees) are encoded as datives. Icelandic benefactive (7) a.
þetta tæki auðveldar okkur störfin this.nom tool.nom facilitates us.dat the.jobs.acc ‘This tool makes the jobs easier for us.’
b. þetta sparar fólkinu mikla vinnu this.nom saves the.people.dat much work.acc ‘This saves the people a lot of work.’
(Jónsson 2000: 79)
(Jónsson 2000: 79)
Icelandic malefactive (8) myrkrið torveldaði þeim leitina the.dark.nom made.difficult them.dat the.search.acc ‘The dark made the search difficult for them.’
(Jónsson 2000: 79)
Next, we see that Latin also uses Option 1. For example, the first Latin sentence below (‘he praised my brother’) is neutral, in that there is no benefactee or malefactee that is overtly expressed. In the near-minimal pair in (10), however, an affectee is included in the shape of a first person dative singular pronoun, the resultant sense being ‘out of regard for me’. Latin neutral (9) laudāvit frātrem meum praise.pft.3s brother.s.acc 1s.poss.m.acc ‘He praised my brother.’
(Greenough et al. 1903: 235)
Areal and cross-linguistic study 
Latin benefactive (10) laudāvit mihi frātrem praise.pft.3s 1s.dat brother.s.acc ‘He praised my brother (out of regard for me).’
(Greenough et al. 1903: 234)
As can be surmised, Latin encodes malefactees as datives as well. In (11), the sense is that progress is hindered to the Carthaginians’ disadvantage (‘Carthaginian.pl.dat’): Latin malefactive (11) iter Poenīs vel corporibus suīs obstruere march Carthaginian.pl.dat even body.pl.abl 3pl.abl block.inf ‘to block the march of the Carthaginians even with their own bodies (to [the Carthaginians’] disadvantage)’ (Catullus M. 75, in Greenough et al. 1903: 235)
The same situation as in Latin holds for French. For example, in (12) below, the benefactee appears as the dative pronoun lui. In (13), however, lui encodes a malefactee. French benefactive (12) elle lui tricote un pull she.nom he.dat knits a sweater ‘She is knitting a sweater for him.’
(Melis 1996: 46)
French malefactive (13) il lui a fermé la porte he.nom he.dat pft shut the door ‘He shut the door on him.’
(Melis 1996: 46)
The Slavic languages Polish and Czech primarily employ Option 1 as well: Polish benefactive (14)
bielizna juz mi wyschła washing already to.me dried ‘Washing already to-me got dry.’ (Wierzbicka 1988: 212) ‘The washing has already dried (fortunately, to my benefit).’
Polish malefactive (15) a.
bielizna mi zmokła washing to.me got.wet ‘Washing to-me got wet.’ ‘The washing got wet (unfortunately for me).’
b. matka mi umarła mother to.me died ‘Mother to-me died.’ ‘My mother died on me.’
(Wierzbicka 1988: 211)
(Wierzbicka 1988: 212)
 Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
Czech benefactive (16) Ludmila mu uvařila kaši Ludmila.nom he.dat cooked kasha.acc ‘Ludmila cooked kasha for him.’
(Janda 1993: 57)
Czech malefactive (17) a.
zemřela mu matka died he.dat mother.nom ‘His mother died.’
(Janda 1993: 85)
b. dítě nám v noci pláče child.nom we.dat in night.loc cries ‘The child cries at night (and we are affected by this).’ (Soteria Svorou, p.c.)
In Modern Greek, nouns and pronouns are in the genitive case whether they are benefactees or malefactees: Modern Greek benefactive (18) mi mou ti stenoxorite tin klia (mou) not me.gen her.acc upset.2pl the.acc Clea.acc me.gen ‘For my sake [please], do not upset (my) Clea.’ (Holton et al. 1997: 194) Modern Greek malefactive (19) yati mas xalases tin parea why us.gen spoil the party ‘Why did you spoil the party for us?’
(Holton et al. 1997: 194)
2.2â•… Non-Indo-European languages of Europe The examples we have seen above are all taken from Indo-European languages. However, there are non-Indo-European languages in Europe which also exhibit this type of system. Let us examine a few such examples from Lezgian (Nakh-Daghestanian; Russia), Hungarian, and Basque. In the two examples below, Haspelmath shows us that Lezgian uses the dative case to mark benefactees as well as malefactees. Lezgian benefactive (20) za wa-z ada-n wiri simfoni-jar ja-da I.erg you-dat he-gen all symphony-pl play-fut ‘I will play all his symphonies for you.’ (Haspelmath 1993: 88) Lezgian malefactive (21) čna a q˜eq˜werag suna-di-z wuč-na q’wan? we.erg that poor Suna-obl-dat do.what-aor ptl ‘What did we do to that poor Suna?’ (Haspelmath 1993: 88)
Areal and cross-linguistic study 
Hungarian, too, has a single construction encompassing both benefactive and malefactive semantics. In their grammar of Hungarian, Benkő and Imre state, “… the use of the dative (like the Latin dativus commodi et incommodi) is widespread…” (1972: 105). Hungarian benefactive (22) a.
nek-i hasznos valami dat-3s useful something ‘Something is useful to him.’
b. kellemes valami valaki-nek pleasant something someone-dat ‘Something is pleasant to someone.’
(Benkő & Imre 1972: 105)
(Benkő & Imre 1972: 105)
Hungarian malefactive (23) a.
nek-i rossz valami dat-3s bad something ‘Something is bad to him.’
b. kellemetlen valami valaki-nek unpleasant something someone-dat ‘Something is unpleasant to someone.’
(Benkő & Imre 1972: 105)
(Benkő & Imre 1972: 105)
Basque is an important case among European languages: although, as a language isolate, it is unrelated to its neighbors, it too employs an affectedness construction as its preferred strategy for encoding benefactives and malefactives. Basque neutral (24) a.
ama hil da mother die(d) is ‘The mother has died.’
b. pastela jan du cake eat(en) has ‘S/he has eaten the cake.’
(Alan King, p.c.)
(Alan King, p.c.)
Basque malefactive (25) ama hil zai-o gizonari mother die(d) is.dat-3s man.dat ‘The man’s mother has died on him.’
(Alan King, p.c.)
Basque benefactive or malefactive (26) pastela jan di-t cake eat(en) has.dat-1s ‘S/he has eaten the cake for me.’/‘S/he has eaten the cake on me.’ (Alan King, p.c.)
 Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
The use of the underspecified affectedness construction appears to be an areal phenomenon: we have found that the vast majority of European languages (in addition to those examined here) evince the Option 1 pattern, whatever their genetic affiliation.
3.â•… Option 2 In contrast to the languages seen above, which readily make use of an underspecified affectedness construction, languages of South Asia, mainland Southeast Asia, and East Asia overwhelmingly use separate benefactive and malefactive constructions. One of the probable reasons for this is that they need separate constructions for each meaning is that every construction is semantically much more concrete than those in the languages of Europe. For example, benefactive constructions often take a verb meaning ‘give’ or ‘receive’, while malefactives take verbs meaning ‘pity’, ‘hit’, ‘undergo’, or the like; in other words, there is a substantial difference between the semantics of these two groups of verbs.7 And, although some benefactive constructions can occasionally be used in malefactive situations, there are many restrictions on this kind of usage; that is to say, the benefactive meaning is the primary one, and any malefactive uses the construction has are by extension. This is unlike the European languages we saw above, where the affectedness constructions are devoid of particular benefactive or malefactive semantics and where these kinds of meanings need to be intuited from the discourse context. Below, we examine some specific examples, moving roughly in a west-to-east direction within the part of the world where they predominate: the non-Sino-Tibetan languages of South and then Southeast Asia, then Sino-Tibetan languages, and finally Korean and Japanese.
3.1â•… Languages of India In Hindi, a Central-Zone Indic language, denā ‘give’ is used for benefactive constructions. The verb ‘take’ is used for both self-benefactives and self-malefactives, but its primary use is as a self-benefactive (Prashant Pardeshi, p.c.). Hindi benefactive (27) ashok-ne sarita se [apne liye cāy banā dene ko] kahā Ashok-erg Sarita with for self tea make give to asked ‘Ashok asked Sarita to make tea for him.’ (Subbarao 2004: 8)
7.â•… For a discussion of serial verb constructions in the South Asian linguistic area, see Masica (1976).
Areal and cross-linguistic study 
Hindi neutral (28) us-ne khat likha ˙˙ he-erg letter(m) wrote ‘He wrote the letter.’
(Bijeta Singh, p.c.)
Hindi self-benefactive (29) us-ne khat likh liyā ˙˙ he-erg letter(m) write take.pst.m ‘He wrote the letter (for his own benefit).’
(Pardeshi 2001a: 92)
Hindi self-malefactive (30) us-ne padhpadhkar ānkhe kharāb kar lī ˙ ˙ he-erg excessive.reading eyes(f) bad do take.pst.f ‘He damaged his eyesight by excessive reading.’ (Pardeshi 2001a: 92)
The same situation as Hindi holds for Marathi, a Southern-Zone Indic language: ‘give’ is used for benefactives (Ex. 32, see also Pardeshi 1998) and ‘take’ is used for selfbenefactives (Ex. 33, see also Pardeshi 2001a: 92). (Note that the self-benefactive in (33) is a minimal pair with the neutral in (31).) ‘Take’ can also be used for self-malefactives, as seen in (34), but the benefactive meaning is the primary one (Prashant Pardeshi, p.c.). Marathi neutral (31) tyā-na donhi hātā-ni tond dzhāk-l-a ˙ he-erg both hands(m)-with face(n) cover-pft-n.sg ‘He covered his face with both hands.’
(Pardeshi 2001b: 102)
Marathi benefactive (32) rām-ne shām-lā kholī dzhād-un di-l-i ˙ Ram(m)-erg Sham(m)-dat room(f) sweep-cp give-pft-f.sg ‘Ram cleaned the room for Sham.’ (Prashant Pardeshi, p.c.) Marathi self-benefactive (33) tyā-na donhi hātā-ni tond dzhāk-un ghet-l-a ˙ he-erg both hands(m)-with face(n) cover-cp take-pft-n.sg ‘He covered his face with both hands.’ (Gokhle 1979: 297) Marathi self-malefactive (34) tyā-na abartsabar khā-un pōta bighad-av-un ghet-l-a ˙ ˙ he-erg this.and.that eat-cp stomach(n) upset-caus-cp take-pft-n.sg ‘He upset his stomach by eating this and that.’ (Pardeshi 2001a: 92)
Finally, in Maithili, an Eastern-Zone Indic language, lelak ‘take’ is used for selfbenefactives and self-malefactives; however, the latter is infrequent. ‘Give’, as expected, is used for non-self-benefactives (Prashant Pardeshi, p.c.).
 Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
Maithili self-benefactive (35) rām apan kesh katabā lelak ˙ Ram self ’s hair cut take ‘Ram cut his hair.’
(Pardeshi 2001a: 92)
Maithili self-malefactive (36) rām galatīsã apan aũri kāti lelak ˙ Ram by.mistake self ’s finger cut take ‘Ram cut his finger by mistake.’
(Pardeshi 2001a: 93)
Now that we have seen that languages from three different branches of Indic all use semantically comparable verbs in benefactive, self-benefactive, and self-malefactive constructions, let us look at the Dravidian languages of India. In the Dravidian languages that we have investigated, the situation is the same as in the Indic languages. Below, we provide some examples from Telugu and Tamil. In Telugu and Tamil, ‘give’ is used for benefactives, while ‘buy’ and ‘take’ are used as self-benefactives and occasionally self-malefactives. As expected, however, their primary meanings are self-benefactive (Pardeshi 2001a: 93). Telugu self-benefactive (37) atanu (tana-kōsam) wanta cēsu-kon-tā-du ˙˙ ˙˙ ˙ he (self-for) cooking do-buy-pres-3s.m ‘He will cook food (for his own benefit).’
(Karumuri Subbarao, p.c.)
Telugu self-malefactive (38) pillawādu (porapātu-na) wēlu koruk-konn-ā-du ˙ ˙ ˙ child (mistake-by) finger bite-buy-pst-3s.m ‘The child bit his finger (by mistake).’ (Karumuri Subbarao, p.c.) Tamil benefactive _ (39) rājā kumār-ukku-k katav-ai-t tir_a-ntu kotu-tt-aan ˙ Raja Kumar-dat-sd door-acc-sd open-cp give-pst-3s.m ‘Raja opened the door for Kumar.’ (Heine & Kuteva 2002: 151) Tamil self-benefactive (40) rām (avan) kaikalai-k kazuvi-kontaan ˙˙ Ram self ’s hands-sd wash-take.pst ‘Ram washed his hands.’
(Pardeshi 2001a: 93)
Tamil self-malefactive (41) avan (marattil-iruntu kiizee vizuntu) kālai utaittu-kontaan ˙ ˙˙ he (tree-from down fall) leg break-take.pst ‘He broke his leg (by falling from a tree).’ (Pardeshi 2001a: 93)
Areal and cross-linguistic study 
3.2â•… Languages of Southeast Asia Next, we will discuss the situation in two non-Sino-Tibetan languages of Southeast Asia, namely Thai (Tai-Kadai) and Vietnamese (Austroasiatic). Thai has serial verb constructions in which the verbs hây ‘give’ and dâaj-ráb ‘receive’ are used for benefactives and thùuk (< ‘touch, hit on the point’) is used for malefactives.8 Thai benefactive (42) a.
chaˇn 'f¢fk thaaŋ hây khaˇw I tell way give he ‘I showed him the way.’
b. phoˇm 1ây-ráp chƒƒn I get-receive invite ‘I was invited.’ c.
phoˇm 1ây-ráp t7 ¡ ŋtâŋ pen pr6thaan I get-receive appoint be chairperson ‘I was appointed to be the chairperson.’
(Goda 1983)
(Noss 1964: 124)
(Weera Ostapirat, p.c.)
Thai malefactive (43) a.
sùk thùuk rót chon Suk hit car collide ‘Suk was hit by the car.’
b. sùô1aa thùuk kh6mooy khY ¥ n 'âan Sudaa hit thief enter house ‘Sudaa had her house entered into by a thief.’
(Siewierska 1984: 149)
(Siewierska 1984: 156)
In Vietnamese, benefactive constructions and malefactive constructions also employ serial verbs. Again, ‘receive, get’ (đu’o’c) is the verb used in the benefactive construc˙ tion, and bi ‘undergo’ is the verb used in the malefactive construction. For example: ˙ Vietnamese benefactive (44) a.
Kim đu’o’c John khen ˙ Kim receive John compliment ‘Kim was complimented by John.’
(Siewierska 1984: 151)
b. John đu’o’c moi ngu´o`’i chú ý ˙ ˙ John receive every person look at ‘John was looked at by everyone, it’s a good thing.’ (Wierzbicka 1988: 210)
8.â•… The malefactive use of thùuk is of a formal register (M. Jenny, p.c.). See also Jenny (this volume) for a discussion of Thai benefactives.
 Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
Vietnamese malefactive (45) a.
Nam bi Nga đánh ˙ Nam undergo Nga beat ‘Nam was beaten by Nga.’
b. John bi moi ngu´o`’i chú ý ˙ ˙ John undergo every person look at ‘John was looked at by everyone, it’s a bad thing.’
(Siewierska 1984: 149)
(Wierzbicka 1988: 210)
3.3â•… Sino-Tibetan languages All of the Sino-Tibetan languages that we have examined in various areas (Nepal, Burma, Thailand, and China) have separate benefactive and malefactive constructions. Interestingly, some of these are by serial verb and some of them are by applicative, but they are nonetheless two separate constructions. In what follows below, we examine Lai (Tibeto-Burman; Burma), Lahu (Tibeto-Burman; northern Thailand and adjacent areas), Hakka (Sinitic; China), and Mandarin in turn. In Lai, the morpheme -piak (< peek ‘give’) is mainly used for benefactives, as can be seen in (46) below. The same morpheme can occasionally be used for malefactives, as in (47); however, this is a rare occurrence (K. Vanbik, p.c.). The main malefactive constructions of Lai are formed with -sual (< ‘do bad things’, ‘be bad’) (Smith 2005: 110) and -hnoô, as in (48) and (49). Lai benefactive (46) a.
tsewmaŋ-niô law ôa-ka-thloô-piak Tsewmang-erg field 3s-1s-weed-ben ‘Tsewmang weeded the field for me.’
b. tsewmaŋ door ka-kal-piak Tsewmang market 1s-go-ben ‘I went to the market for Tsewmang.’ c.
paŋpaar-niô ôan-kan-paar-piak flower-erg 3pl-1pl-bloom-ben ‘The flowers bloomed for us.’
(Smith 2005: 77)
(Smith 2005: 59)
(Smith 2005: 59)
Lai malefactive with -piak (47) tsewmaŋ ôa-vok ôan-thaô-piak Tsewmang 3s-pig 1pl-kill-mal ‘They killed Tsewmang’s pig on him.’
(Smith 2005: 77)
Lai malefactive with -sual (48) tsewmaŋ-niô ka-ke ôa-ka-lamô-sual Tsewmang-erg 1s-leg 3s-step.on-mal ‘Tsewmang stepped on my foot (and it is too bad).’
(Smith 2005: 111)
Areal and cross-linguistic study 
Lai malefactive with -hnoô (49) rul-niô ka-ôin-ôaô ôa-ka-luô-hnoô snake-erg 1s.poss-house-loc 3s-1s-enter-mal ‘A snake came into my house on me.’
(Smith 2005: 104)
In Lahu, a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in northern Thailand and adjacent areas, pî ‘give’ is used with third-person benefactees, while lâ ‘come’ is used with non-third-person benefactees. A separate construction with šē is used for malefactives. Lahu benefactive (third person) (50) a.
chf pî
b. phεˆ pî c.
‘chop for him/her/them’ ‘release him/her/them’
ph+¡ô-mā pî ‘confess to him/her/them’
(Matisoff 1991: 396)
Lahu benefactive (non-third person) (51) a.
chf lâ
b. phεˆ lâ c.
‘chop for me/us/you’ ‘release me/us/you’
ph+¡ô-mā lâ ‘confess to me/us/you’
(Matisoff 1991: 396)
Lahu malefactive (Matisoff 1973: 331) (52) a.
chu šē e l7 fat mal pv ptl ‘continuing, alas, to get fat’
b. qhε ` ô šē la tù ve yō be.chipped mal pv irr ptl ptl ‘It’s about to chip off (which is regrettable).’ c.
tê to ve jèô-nεˆô tí phε ` ô šē ò whole body gen earth-wet only become mal compl ‘Her whole body got covered with mud (and isn’t that too bad).’
Sinitic languages also primarily use Option 2: benefactives and malefactives have their separate constructions. For example, Mandarin has a construction with gěi ‘give’ which is almost always benefactive, and it has several other morphemes, such as bèi ‘put on, throw on’, which are used in malefactive contexts. Aside from bèi, malefactives in Mandarin can also be formed with ràng and jiào. Mandarin benefactive woˇ gěi nHˇ zuò chaˇo fàn I for you make fried rice ‘I’ll make fried rice for you.’
(Li & Thompson 1974: 271)
b. woˇ gěi zìjHˇ zuò chaˇo fàn I for self make fried rice ‘I’ll make fried rice for myself.’
(Iru Su, p.c.)
(53) a.
 Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
Mandarin malefactive with gěi (highly restricted) (54) tā jūrán gěi woˇ paˇo-le he unexpectedly gei I run-pfv ‘He ran away on me unexpectedly.’
(Wei-Tien Tsai, p.c.)
Mandarin malefactive with bèi (55) wáng xiaˇo’er bèi guHˇzi daˇ-sHˇ-le Wang Xiao’er bei devil strike-die-pfv ‘Wang Xiao’er was killed by the Japanese.’
(Chappell 1986: 1040)
Hakka, also a Sinitic language, has a morpheme lau, which is generally used as a benefactive. However, Lai (2003) states, “[s]ometimes the benefactive scenario can be extended to … a context where the action performed by the subject can in fact bring some negative effect to the lau phrase” (365). Hakka benefactive (56) ngai qinlian lau ng zodo I try.best lau you do.finish ‘I’ll do my best (for you).’
(Lai 2003: 365)
Hakka malefactive (57) ng mo qincai lau ngai longongfa you neg reckless lau me talk.nonsense ‘Don’t say any nonsense to embarrass me.’
(Lai 2003: 365)
3.4â•… Korean and Japanese Finally, let us look at Korean and Japanese, both non-Sinitic languages of East Asia. They, too, use the Option 2 pattern: benefactives and malefactives are separate constructions. For example, in (58) and (59), we see that Korean cwu ‘give’ and pat ‘receive’ are used in benefactive and benefactive passive constructions, respectively. Korean benefactive with cwu ‘give’ (58) na-nun Hanako-eykey mun-ul yele-cwu-ess-ta I-top Hanako-dat door-acc open-give-pst-decl ‘I opened the door for Hanako.’
(Shibatani 1994: 44)
Korean benefactive passive with pat ‘receive’ (59) ku sensayng-un haksayng-tul-eykey conkyeng-pat-nun-ta the teacher-top student-pl-agt respect-pass-pres-decl ‘The teacher is respected by students.’ (Lee 1974: 151)
Areal and cross-linguistic study 
In the malefactive passive sentences in (60) and (61), we find constructions with the verbs tangha ‘to face, be subject to’ and mac ‘encounter’. Korean malefactive passive with tangha ‘be subject to’ (60) pholo-ka henpieng-eykey kwutha-tangha-ess-ta P.O.W.-sub M.P.-agt beat-pass-pst-decl ‘The prisoner of war was beaten (was subject to a beating) by an M.P.’ (Lee 1974: 151) Korean malefactive passive with mac ‘encounter’ (61) ce yeca-ka namphyen-eykey sopak-mac-ess-ta that woman-sub husband-agt abandon-pass-pst-decl ‘That woman was abandoned by her husband.’
(Lee 1974: 151)
Japanese, like Korean, has different strategies for encoding benefactive and malefactive semantics. Japanese has several verbs meaning ‘give’. Kure- is used for things or events that are given to the first person or his/her perceived in-group (i.e., incoming ‘give’); yar- is for things or events that are given to entities that are of lower status than the speaker (i.e., outgoing-downwards ‘give’, such as when feeding a pet); age- is for things or events that are given to another entity of equal or higher status (i.e., outgoing-level and outgoing-upwards ‘give’). Moraw- ‘ask for and receive’ is often used as a causative-benefactive, with the person doing the asking being the instigator (or causer) (Teramura 1982; Kuno 1987; Ishihara 1991).9
9.â•… Although kure-, yar-, and moraw- can occasionally be used in malefactive situations, they are highly constrained and marked (e.g., indicating sarcasm or, as a derived function of that, when challenging someone; see Yamamoto 2002 and references therein). (Japanese adversatives are standardly expressed with the adversative passive, -(r)are.) For example, moraw- can apparently only be used in sarcasm or in subordinate clauses with one particular main verb meaning ‘[I/We] would be in trouble if…’ (-te ha komaru). In other words, the negative meaning must be expressed explicitly (and is limited to basically one collocation); aside from sarcasm, morawalone cannot be used alone as a main verb with malefactive situations. Yar- is used more frequently than the other two verbs in malefactive situations, but this is because, as mentioned above, the lexical verb is used only for recipients who are of lower status (i.e., more contemptible) than oneself. Its usage in malefactive situations is still highly constrained and marked. The use of Korean cwuta ‘give’ for malefactive situations is even more highly marked than the Japanese use of ‘give’ and ‘receive’ verbs in such contexts. This is perhaps because Korean lacks a grammaticalized or lexical in-group/out-group distinction, and correlatively cwuta is the only verb meaning ‘give’. In other words, there is no separate verb for ‘give down to a person who is not in the speaker’s in-group and, moreover, who is more contemptible than him/her’, which more easily lends itself to malefactive meanings. Native speakers of Korean have an extremely difficult time interpreting sentences with cwuta as anything but benefactive (K.-H. Mo, p.c.).
 Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
Japanese benefactive (62) a.
Taroo-wa watasi-ni susi-o tukutte-kure-ta Taroo-top I-dat sushi-acc make-give-pst ‘Taroo made me sushi.’
b. watasi-wa Taroo-ni hon-o yonde-age-ta I-top Taroo-dat book-acc read-give-pst ‘I read a book to Taroo.’ c.
watasi-wa Taroo-ni hana-o katte-moraw-ta I-top Taroo-dat flowers-acc buy-receive-pst ‘I (asked for and) received the favor of Taroo buying me flowers.’
Japanese adversative with ‘give’ (rarely found) (63) a.
Taroo-o izimete-yar-ta Taroo-acc pick.on-give-pst ‘I picked on Taroo (he was asking for it, he deserved it [in the nasty sense]).’
b. wasurute moraw-tewa komar-u forget receive-if have.difficulty-nonpst ‘It’ll be bad (for me) if you forget.’ Japanese adversative with passive -(r)are (64) a.
kinoo ame-ni hur-are-ta yesterday rain-dat fall-pass-pst ‘[We] got rained on yesterday.’
b. kodomo-ni hitobanzyuu nak-are-ta child-dat all.night cry-pass-pst ‘My child cried on me all night long.’
In this section, we have examined languages belonging to various language families of Asia. We can observe that using specific benefactive and malefactive constructions is a phenomenon that covers a geographically contiguous area from India to Korea and Japan. It is especially striking that the Indo-European languages of the Indian subcontinent also exhibit this pattern and not the pattern found among their European cousins.
4.â•… Conclusion The preceding pages have shown that there are two strategies a language can take to express the notions of benefactivity and malefactivity. Those languages in Europe have a generalized and semantically underspecified affectedness construction as the most unmarked construction in their repertoire; this can be used in both benefactive and malefactive situations. On the other hand, in the vast majority of the languages of South Asia, mainland Southeast Asia, and East Asia, any benefactive constructions are
Areal and cross-linguistic study 
separate from any malefactive constructions, and however many of these constructions a language may have, each one is semantically robust and to a great extent restricted in its applicability to either fortunate or unfortunate situations. These are significant findings which have not been described in the previous literature.10 We mentioned above that English and Finnish are exceptions within the European area, in that they have at least one abstract construction for encoding benefactive situations and a separate abstract construction for encoding malefactive situations. English uses a construction with for to encode benefactees (I sing for her) and a construction with on to encode malefactees (my bicycle broke down on me). Finnish makes the distinction with the allative case versus the ablative case (both of which can also code the opposite role, but the constructions below illustrate unmarked cases): Finnish benefactive (65) minä laula-n häne-lle 1s.nom sing.pres-1s 3s-all ‘I sing for (lit. to) him/her.’
(Seppo Kittilä, this volume)
Finnish malefactive (66) minu-lta hajo-si pyörä 1s-abl break-3s.pst bicycle.nom ‘My bicycle broke down on me.’
(Seppo Kittilä, p.c.)
Are English and Finnish more similar to other languages in the European area, or are they more similar to languages of Asia? In one sense, they are more like the Asian languages we have seen, since they have separate constructions for each of these notions. However, in a more important sense, they are akin to European languages. In Asian languages, as we have seen throughout, benefactive and malefactive constructions come from clause- or verb-chaining constructions. In other words, a main verb meaning ‘give’, ‘buy’, ‘hit’, or the like becomes an auxiliary verb (cf. (2)~(3)). These verbs are contentful and include benefactive or malefactive notions in their semantics. On the other hand, European languages use more abstract morphemes in their affectedness constructions. For example, all the way down from Proto-Indo-European, the dative simply marks a recipient or goal (and, by extension, an affectee), and the clause can be interpreted as being either benefactive or malefactive outside of its discourse context. In this sense, English and Finnish are more European-like: for, on, allative, and ablative are very abstract. These prepositions or cases did not grammaticalize from verbs with concrete semantics (or at least this development is not visible anymore);
10.â•… Indeed, Creissels goes so far as to say, “I have found no mention of languages having malefactive periphrases in which the verb acting as a valency operator would be different from the one found in the benefactive periphrasis” (this volume).
 Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith
instead, they already existed in their own right as spatial markers11 and later on became imbued with their benefactive and/or malefactive semantics, for example by metaphorical extension (e.g., something going away from you—ablative—is usually bad). Of course, many issues remain for further research. The first would be to build a more complete areal picture of these phenomena. In this article, we focused on the distribution of Option 1 and Option 2 strategies between Europe versus South Asia, mainland Southeast Asia, and East Asia. What is the situation in Africa, the Americas, Australia, and Oceania? Our preliminary research has revealed that in the last three areas, the great majority of the languages use Option 1. In the Americas, this most likely has to do with the fact there is almost no verb serialization (W. Adelaar, A. Aikhenvald, T. Kaufman, and J. Nichols, p.c.). In Oceania, although there is a great deal of serialization, curiously almost none of the languages use constructions with ‘give’ to express benefactive notions (Crowley 2002: 173). In the first region (i.e., Africa), Bantu languages use the applicative—an Option 1 strategy—to encode beneficiaries and maleficiaries, while non-Bantu languages present a mixed picture, with the co-existence of languages using serial verb constructions (especially in West Africa) and those having more applicative-type constructions. Unfortunately, however, given the paucity of grammatical descriptions, we may never be able to characterize as many of these languages as we would like to. There is often no reference to benefactives or malefactives even in existing grammatical works, and when mention is made, it is usually about the benefactive only; no information is given as to (a) whether the benefactive can also be used malefactively, or (b) whether there does or does not exist a separate malefactive construction in the language. We have seen that benefactive and malefactive constructions can encode finegrained (and overlapping) semantics, specifying to a greater or lesser degree what kind of speaker attitude is being encoded: gratitude, sympathy, regret, blame, disapproval, et cetera. Constructions can also encode whether the event occurs due to someone’s purposeful action (volitionally) or accidentally. A second area of research, then, would be a more detailed investigation of the precise meanings, grammaticalization paths, and semantic extensions behind each construction. A final and important question we would like to pose is about the reasons behind the areal distribution we have found. As mentioned, languages which use Option 2 are in large part restricted to a swath of Asia stretching from the Indian subcontinent to Korea and Japan. Why do we find this particular distribution? We believe that established historical linguistic approaches—grammaticalization theory, comparative linguistics, and language contact studies—may not alone be able to answer this question.
11.â•… The English for is etymologically from a spatio-temporal morpheme meaning ‘before’ (and is related to that word).
Areal and cross-linguistic study 
In addition to these traditional approaches, it is imperative that we examine the data from an ethnosyntactic angle: as N.J. Enfield put it in Ethnosyntax, “Grammar is thick with cultural meaning” (2002: 3). We suggest that a fruitful area for further inquiry would be the relationship between this linguistic typology on the one hand and societal values and cultural practice on the other.
References Benkő, Loránd & Imre, Samu (eds.) 1972. The Hungarian Language. The Hague: Mouton. Chappell, Hilary. 1986. Formal and colloquial adversative passives in Standard Chinese. Linguistics 24: 1025–1052. Chung, Taegoo. 1993. The Affected Construction in Korean and Japanese. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 3: 154–170. Clark, Marybeth. 1974. Submissive verbs as adversatives in some Asian languages. In Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies, Đăng Liêm Nguyê˜n (ed.), 89–110. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Crowley, Terry. 2002. Serial Verbs in Oceanic: A Descriptive Typology. Oxford: OUP. Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton. Davies, William D. 1993. Javanese adversatives, the 1-advancement exclusiveness law and mapping theory. BLS 19: 101–111. Davies, William D. 1995. Javanese adversatives, passives and mapping theory. Journal of Linguistics 31: 15–51. DeLancey, Scott. 1991. The origins of verb serialization in Modern Tibetan. Studies in Language 15: 1–23. Enfield, Nick. 2002. Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture. Oxford: OUP. Foley, William A. & Olsen, M. 1985. Clausehood and verb serialization. In Grammar inside and outside the Clause, Johanna Nichols & Anthony C. Woodbury (eds.), 17–60. Cambridge: CUP. Foley, William A. & Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. Goda, Sumire. 1983. Te-yaru, te-kureru, te-morau to tai-go no hyôgen: Hâi no yôhô ni chûmoku shite (Te-yaru, te-kureru, te-morau in Japanese and their corresponding expressions in the Thai language: Focusing on the usage of hâi). Nihongo Kyôiku (Journal of Japanese Language Teaching) 49: 119–132. Gokhle, Arwind. 1979. Arvinda gokhle yanci kathā: nivdak kathāntsā prātinidhik sangraha ˙ (Stories by Arvind Gokhle: A collection of representative stories), 2nd edn. Pune: Continental Prakashan. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Greenough, James Bradstreet, Kittredge, G.L., Howard, A.A. & D’Ooge, Benjamin L. (eds.). 1903. Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges. Boston MA: The Athenaeum Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. A Grammar of Lezgian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.
 Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith Holton, David, Mackridge, Peter & Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1997. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge. Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Howard, Irwin & Niyekawa-Howard, Agnes M. 1976. Passivization. In Syntax and Semantics 5: Japanese Generative Grammar, Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 201–37. New York NY: Academic Press. Ishihara, Yoshito. 1991. Hyôgen naiyô o jûshishita bunkei no teishutsu junjo: Te morau hyôgen o megutte (Constructions according to the semantic aspects—Some remarks on the use of te-morau). Nihongo Kyôiku (Journal of Japanese Language Teaching) 74: 86–97. Janda, Laura. 1993. A Geography of Case Semantics: The Czech Dative and the Russian Instrumental. Berlin: Mouton. Jónsson, Jóhannes. 2000. Case and double objects in Icelandic. Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 71–94. Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology 9: 269–297. Klaiman, Miriam H. 1987. Aktionsart, semantics, and function in the Japanese ‘passive’. Studies in Language 11: 401–34. Klaiman, Miriam H. 1988. Affectedness and control: A typology of voice systems. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 25–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The Structure of the Japanese Language. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Kuroda, Shige-Yuki. 1965. Generative Grammatical Studies in the Japanese Language. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Lai, Huei-Ling. 2003. Hakka lau constructions: A constructional approach. Language and Linguistics 4: 353–78. Lee, Chung-Min. 1974. Abstract Syntax and Korean with Reference to English. Seoul: Pan Korea Book Corp. Li, Charles & Thompson, Sandra A. 1974. Co-verbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or prepositions? Journal of Chinese Linguistics 2: 257–78. Lord, Carol. 1993. Historical Change in Serial Verb Constructions [Typological Studies in Language 26]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Malchukov, Andrej. 1993. The syntax and semantics of adversative constructions in Even. Gengo Kenkyû 135: 1–36. Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Masuoka, Takashi. 1981. Semantics of the benefactive constructions in Japanese. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 14: 67–78. Matisoff, James. 1973. The Grammar of Lahu. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Matisoff, James. 1991. Areal and universal dimensions of grammatization in Lahu. In Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 19:2], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), 383–453. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Melis, Ludo. 1996. The dative in Modern French. In The Dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive Studies [Case and Grammatical Relations across Languages 1], William van Belle & Willy van Langendonck (eds.), 39–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Areal and cross-linguistic study 
Menn, Lise. 1972. On me. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 228–33. Miyake, Tomohiro. 1996. On benefactive constructions in Japanese. Kokugogaku (Studies in the Japanese Language) 186: 104–91. Niedzielski, Henry. 1979. Lexical realization of benefactive and beneficiary in Polish and English. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 9: 165–80. Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Noss, Richard B. 1964. Thai Reference Grammar. Washington DC: US Foreign Service Institute. Ogawa, Akio. 1997. On the syntax and semantics of the German dative. In The Dative and Related Phenomena, Kazuto Matsumura & Hayasi Tooru (eds.), 1–30. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobô. Ono, Tsuyoshi & Thompson, Sandra A. 1997/2000. Deconstructing ‘zero anaphora’. BLS 23: 481–491. Pardeshi, Prashant. 1998. A contrastive study of benefactive constructions in Japanese and Marathi. Sekai no Nihongo Kyôiku (Japanese-Language Education Around the Globe) 8: 141–65. Pardeshi, Prashant. 2001a. Taking off the veil of the Janus-faced ‘take’: The story of ‘take’ as a vector in Indic languages. Proceedings of the 123rd meeting of the Linguistic Society of Japan, 92–7. Pardeshi, Prashant. 2001b. The compound verb in Marathi: Definitial issues and criteria for identification. Kobe Gengogaku Ronsô (Kobe Papers in Linguistics) 3: 94–111. Radetzky, Paula & Smith, Tomoko. 1997/2000. A unified account of the Japanese causative, moraw- benefactive, and passive constructions. BLS 23: 290–302. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1972. Remarks on the controversy over the Japanese passive. Papers in Japanese Linguistics 1: 145–66. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1978. Nihongo no bunseki (The analysis of Japanese). Tokyo: Taishukan Publishing Co. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1994. Benefactive constructions: A Japanese-Korean comparative perspective. Japanese/Korean Linguistics 4: 39–74. Siewierska, Anna. 1984. The Passive: A Comparative Linguistic Analysis. London: Croom Helm. Smith, Tomoko Y. 2005. Affectedness Constructions: How Languages Indicate Positive and Negative Events. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley. Subbarao, Karumuri. 2004. The role of particles and clitics in disambiguation. Paper presented at the Syntax of the World’s Languages (SWL1) Conference, Leipzig, Germany. Takehisa, Tomokazu. 1999. A preliminary note on the causer/affectee ambiguity. Linguistic Research 16: 85–102. Takehisa, Tomokazu. 2000. On the verb condition for affectee. Linguistic Research 17: 31–45. Teramura, Hideo. 1982. Nihongo no shintakusu to imi I (Japanese syntax and meaning I). Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function. Cambridge: CUP. Washio, Ryuichi. 1993. When causatives mean passive: A cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 2: 45–90. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wolff, Phillip, Song, Grace & Driscoll, David. 2002. Models of causation and causal verbs. CLS 37-1: 607–22. Yamada, Toshihiro. 1996. Some universal features of benefactive constructions. Nihongakuhô (Journal of Japanese Studies) 15: 27–45.
 Paula Radetzky & Tomoko Smith Yamada, Toshihiro. 2001. Nihongo ni okeru benefakutibu no kijutsuteki kenkyû. Nihongogaku 20: 84–93. Yamamoto, Hiroko. 2002. -Te morau no kinô ni tsuite: -tekureru to taihi shite (A study of -te morau: Comparing with -te kureru). Journal of Nagoya Women’s University (Humanities & Social Science) 48: 263–276. Yoshida, Eri. 1996. A Discourse Study of Passives in Japanese Conversation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.
The role of benefactives and related notions in the typology of purpose clauses Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
Friedrich Schiller University Jena Across the world’s languages, adverbial clauses of purpose provide an important constructional environment for the occurrence of benefactive and semantically related markers. Based on a recent cross-linguistic study of purpose clauses (Schmidtke-Bode 2009), the present paper provides a systematic survey of the variegated functions of benefactives in the encoding of purposive relations. It will be argued that the particular distribution of benefactive markers across different types of purpose clauses is well-motivated from an ‘integrative functional’ point of view, which combines cognitive, functional and diachronic explanations for linguistic structure.
1.â•… Introduction It has long been noted in the typological literature that adverbial clauses of purpose provide a common constructional environment for the occurrence of benefactive markers. Thompson and Longacre (1985: 186), for example, observe that dative case marking may occur in various slots of a purpose clause, notably as the very marker that lends the clause its purposive interpretation in the first place. However, the first comprehensive study devoted solely to the typology of purpose clauses (Schmidtke-Bode 2009) reveals that benefactive morphemes have a yet more interesting role to play in the expression of purposive relations across the world’s languages. In fact, they form part of a cluster of closely related semantic functions that turns out to show particular distributions over various structural types of purpose clauses. Benefactives surface as either primary or secondary gestalt features of purposive constructions; they share their territory with allative, recipient and more general dative markers and are historically related to these other functions in intricate ways; benefactive NP-arguments can substitute for entire purpose clauses and thus provide a compact, economical way of coding purposive situations in language; and while benefactives are very common in certain types of purpose clauses, they tend to be entirely
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
absent from others. The aim of the present paper is to provide a systematic overview of these phenomena, thereby contributing to our understanding of the diversified roles that benefactives play in grammar or, more precisely, in the typology of specific grammatical constructions. Before we proceed to the actual analysis, a few methodological and theoretical considerations need to be clarified. The paper builds directly on my study on purpose clause constructions in the world’s languages (Schmidtke-Bode 2009). Purpose clauses were defined there as complex sentence constructions which encode that one verbal situation, that of the matrix clause, is performed with the intention of bringing about another situation, that of the purpose clause. A complex sentence, in turn, was identified as a construction that expresses a specific (contingent) relationship between at least two situations in at least two clauses, with clauses being agreed upon as a universally applicable level of linguistic organisation (cf. Thompson & Couper-Kuhlen 2005; Van Valin & LaPolla 1997: 25–27). This functional definition ensured that different structural types of purpose clauses would enter into the sample and thus provide a sufficiently representative picture of the variation space that purpose clauses unfold across languages. With regard to the data presented here, I also draw on the original database, a controlled variety sample of 80 languages.1 Since most of the languages considered exhibit more than one syntactic means to express purposive relations, I extracted all distinct purpose clause constructions found across the sample. In keeping with typologically-informed versions of Construction Grammar (e.g. Croft 2001; Goldberg 2006), individual constructions were taken to be characterised by a specific constellation
1.â•… The original sample was established by the criteria of genealogical independence and areal dispersion of languages, trying to represent the number of languages chosen from each of the well-known macro-areas in proportion to the number of stocks in that area (cf. Nichols 2004). Of utmost importance in the sampling process were the quality of available material and the structural diversity of purpose clauses in the respective language family, resulting in a genuine variety (rather than a strict probability) sample. For a brief overview, I will list the languages of the original sample alphabetically: Abkhaz, Abun, Acehnese, Amele, Babungo, Barasano, Basque, Duuŋidjawu, Epena Pedee, Evenki, (Boumaa) Fijian, Georgian, (Modern) Greek, Hausa, Hdi, Hixkaryana, Hmong Njua, Hungarian, Imonda, Jamul Tiipay, Kana, Kannada, Kayardild, Kewa, Kiowa, Kobon, Kolyma Yukaghir, Korean, Koyra Chiini, Krongo, Lakhota, Lango, Lavukaleve, Lealao Chinantec, Lezgian, Ma’di, Mandarin Chinese, Maori, Mapudungun, Martuthunira, Meithei, (Chalcatongo) Mixtec, Nama (Khoekhoe), Ndyuka, Ngiyambaa, Nishnaabemwin, Nkore-Kiga, Noon, Nunggubuyu, Paumarí, Persian, Pirahã, Punjabi, Qiang, (Huallaga) Quechua, Sanumá, Semelai, Slave, Somali, Supyire, Tetun, Tibetan, Tiwi, Trumai, Tukang Besi, Tümpisa Shoshone, Turkish, Tzutujil, Ungarinjin, Ute, Wambaya, Wardaman, Warao, Wari’, West ↜ Greenlandic, Wolaytta, Yagua, Yaqui, Yidi\, Yimas.
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
of so-called ‘gestalt features’ that ensures the unique categorisation of the construction in the flow of speech. The resulting more specific corpus comprised a total of 218 purposive constructions, which will form the baseline for all quantitative statements made in this paper. In addition, however, the present study will also discuss material from languages and language families that were not included in the original sample. With regard to theoretical commitments, finally, the explanations to be offered for the specifics of benefactive marking in purpose clauses are couched in Croft’s (1995) framework of ‘integrative functionalism’. A basic assumption of this approach is that language structure emerges from the way linguistic symbols are used in discursive interaction (cf. also Hopper 1987), and that various external factors exert selection pressures, as it were, on the shape and combinatorial possibilities of these symbols. Such pressures arise, for example, from the need of mutual intelligibility in discourse (often resulting in a trade-off between economical and iconic motivations), from the human processing system (e.g. the influence of processing on the linear order of elements in constructions, e.g. Diessel 2001, or on the differential ease of relativization and extraction, e.g. Hawkins 2004), or from rhetorical considerations of informationpackaging in discourse. Furthermore, cognitively-oriented typologists emphasise that grammatical structure reflects the conceptualization of the experiences we wish to convey (e.g. Croft & Cruse 2004; Langacker 1999). On this view, fundamental cognitivepsychological processes such as categorisation, selection and adjustment of attention, schematization, and association are operative in the acquisition, mental representation and actual use of linguistic knowledge. Perhaps the most prominent example of these cognitive processes is the ability to conceptualise an abstract domain of experience in terms of a more concrete, well-developed knowledge structure. Such cross-domain mappings, known as conceptual metaphors in cognitive linguistics (e.g. Lakoff & Johnson 1980), typically arise when two domains of experience regularly co-occur, such that a “permanent neural connection” (Lakoff & Johnson 1999: 46) is established between them. This is reflected in the way we import the language associated with the source domain in order to apply it systematically to the target domain. As a result, principled patterns of lexical and grammatical polysemy emerge in language use and—through social and linguistic diffusion processes—become consolidated as conventional structures in the language. We will see in due course that benefaction and related notions form precisely such domains of experience that regularly correlate with the experience of purposeful activity and hence show up in the encoding of purpose across languages. In sum, the explanatory constructs applied in this paper do justice to the recognition by many typologists that there are “close correlations between universal preferences in structure with universal preferences in cognition and communication” (Bickel 2007:€240). Although such motivated structural patterns
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
are grounded in language use, it is crucially the mechanisms of diachronic change that lead incrementally to their conventionalised synchronic status. A truly ‘integrative functionalism’ thus requires us to pay due attention to the historical dimension inherent in current typological distributions. After all, “even though language function is often cited as an explanation for language structure, this must be interpreted as a shorthand for language function explaining diachrony which in turn explains structure” (Moravcsik 2007: 37–38). With these theoretical assumptions in mind, we are now in a position to begin to describe and motivate the role of benefactives in the typology of purpose clauses.
2.â•… Benefactives as gestalt features of purpose clauses The starting point for a construction-based typology of purpose clauses is to record the morphosyntactic properties that make up the unique ‘gestalt’ of each construction. In order for a clause to be interpreted purposively, it is usually (though by no means always) necessary that some symbolic unit in the clause is associated with the semantics of intentional action. Not surprisingly, most constructions in the sample exhibit a morpheme specifically dedicated to the expression of purpose, which we may thus call a purpose marker or ‘primary gestalt feature’. There is a fascinating diversity in the formal shape of such markers, ranging from well-known conjunctions and verbal affixes over purposive auxiliaries to participles and suprasegmental marking. In addition to such a primary purpose marker, however, many constructions come with another gestalt feature. If we classify these ‘secondary’ elements into recurrent semantico-syntactic categories, the following picture emerges (cf. Table 1). Most of these elements fall out fairly straightforwardly from the conceptual and syntactic peculiarities of purpose clauses. Nominalised and infinitival verb forms, for example, are indicative of a high degree of syntactic integration of the purpose clause into its associated matrix, which is well-motivated in functional terms (cf. Cristofaro 2003). Temporal and modal markers are perfectly compatible with the semantics of purpose: an intended (= desiderative, optative) outcome is necessarily posterior to the action that is meant to bring it about. At the same time, purposes are hypothetical in nature and there is no implication that the intention will actually be realised. This leaves us with a class of allative and dative markers. Admittedly, this class is comparatively small, but we should not dismiss its members as entirely arbitrary properties in a minority of purpose clauses. For one thing, allative and dative case markers do not show up in their canonical function of marking arguments in the clause; instead, they appear on the purposive verb itself, as in example (1) from Kannada (Dravidian: India).
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
Table 1.╇ Additional gestalt features in purpose clauses Semantico-syntactic type of feature
absolute frequency
relative frequency (in %)
nominalised verb form or masdar infinitive verb form future or sequential tense-aspect markers irrealis, hypothetical or potential mood (irr/hyp/pot) desiderative or optative mood (des/pot) intentional mood (int) subjunctive mood (subj) allative marker dative marker subordinator other no additional element
22 15 12 9 6 2 12 2 8 9 19 102
10.1 6.9 5.5 4.1 2.8 0.9 5.5 0.9 3.7 4.1 8.7 46.8
total
218
100.0
(1) Praka:∫ jarmanige [enjiniyaring o:duvudakka:gi] ho:gidda:ne. Prakash Germany.dat engineering study.msd.dat.for go.n:pst.prf.3sg.m ‘Prakash has gone to Germany to study engineering.’ (Sridhar 1990: 73)
As can be seen, the dative case is suffixed to a nominalised verb which in turn is headed by a postposition. An analogous example showing allative case marking on the predicate is found in Basque (isolate: Spain): (2) Zer ez dute egiten Espainiako euskualdunek╇ […] eskuara beren what not aux do.impf Spain.rel Basques.erg Basque their sor-mintzaia galtzerat ez uzteagatik? birth-language lose.noml.all not let.noml.det.purp ‘What will the Basques from Spain not do not to let the Basque language, their native tongue, die?’ (Hualde & Ortiz de Urbina 2003: 742)
It appears that whenever a (nominalised) predicate is case-marked in a purpose clause, it strongly tends to be the allative or dative case that is employed. As is well-known, nominalisations generally serve to construe a verbal action as a nominal entity, and we shall return below to the question of what motivates this particular construal in purpose clauses. For now, we can strengthen our argument against the arbitrariness of allative and dative marking in purpose constructions by recognising that purpose markers themselves are often identical or historically derived from allatives and/or
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
datives. A quantitative approach to this question reveals the following patterns of polysemy that purpose markers establish with the domains we are interested in (cf.€Table€2): Table 2.╇ Polysemy of purpose markers Purpose marker identical to…
absolute frequency
relative frequency (in %)
locative marker locative and allative marker allative marker allative and benefactive marker dative/benefactive marker dative/goal marker n.i. no marker of this domain
1 4 7 4 41 6 6 149
0.5 1.8 3.2 1.8 18.8 2.8 2.8 68.3
total
218
100.0
n.i. = no information on multifunctionality available.
In the following, I will exemplify and discuss some of the recurrent coding patterns from Table 2 (§2.1), before they will receive an explanation in terms of the integrativefunctional framework outlined above (§2.2).
2.1â•… Principled polysemy patterns One of the most well-known polysemies exists between allative and purpose. An illustrative example from our sample is found in Maori (Austronesian: New Zealand):
(3) E /
mai hither
haere move i
ana /
ahau 1 teetahi a.
ki to
te the
taaone town
[ki to/
te the
hoko barter
koha]. gift
‘I am going to town to buy a present.’
(Bauer 1993: 66)
The connecting line indicates the polysemy of the allative morpheme ki: whereas in the main clause it appears in its basic directional function (‘to town’), it also introduces the subordinate purpose clause. In this latter function, it usually occurs with the definite article, with which it might be said to have formed a complex purposive conjunction. English to in its most basic function is an allative preposition, but has also become a very frequent purpose marker. In a most recent publication, Rice & Kabata (2007) argue that the metaphorical extension to purpose is, in fact, the most widespread pattern of polysemy that allative markers develop: “The single most prevalent cohort
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
sense of an allative is to mark purpose” (Rice & Kabata 2007: 472). Although I fully agree with the authors’ conclusion, I would like to point out that their study is based on a rather idiosyncratic sample of 44 languages, which are not particularly well-balanced in terms of genealogical and geographical independence.2 In this sample, they found a striking overlap between purpose and allative in 25 out of 54 allative markers (46.3%). Not surprisingly, a more tightly controlled sample like the present one yields a still notable, yet more moderate relationship: recall from Table 1 that a direct association between allative and purpose is attested for only 15 out of 80 languages (18.8%). In my sample, therefore the association is even less likely to be due to sampling error. A closely related pattern is the conflation of locative, allative and purposive meanings into one formative. Tzutujil, a Mayan language of Guatemala, has two prepositions, pa(n) and ch(i), both of which govern infinitival purpose clauses. Example (4) shows pa in this function: (4) Ja nata7 b’enaq [pa tikoj chiij]. the my.father B3.has.gone purp plant cotton ‘My father has gone to plant cotton.’
(Dayley 1985: 380)
The more basic uses of pa include the spatial and directional prepositional meanings ‘in’, ‘on’ and ‘to’. Similarly, ch(i) has the locative meaning ‘at’ and the directional meaning ‘to’, along with the purposive ‘(in order) to’. An interesting pattern is found in the Chadic language Mina, where locative and allative parcel out the work to mark purpose clauses. While the locative preposition n is used as the primary purpose marker (i.e. like a conjunction), a so-called ‘goal extension’ suffix with chiefly allative meaning attaches to the verb as a secondary purpose marker: (5) Kwáykwáy à ndә` dáp nә` gr-á nook. hyena 3sg go only loc find-gl 1pl ‘Let the hyena go to find it for us.’ (Frajzyngier & Johnston 2005: 420)
Benefactive purpose markers, finally, form the quantitatively largest ‘cohort sense’ of purpose markers (cf. Table 2). At this point, we can see how the present investigation is truly complementary to Rice & Kabata’s study: while they found that purpose is the most important extension of allatives, in fact the “↜‘seed’ sense” or “tipping point […] licensing abstract usages in other domains” (Rice & Kabata 2007: 490), the opposite perspective reveals that purpose markers do not primarily overlap with allatives, but with benefactives. However, a closer look at the distribution also shows that some markers conflate all three senses. Therefore, it seems that benefactive purpose markers
2.â•… One may criticize, for instance, that their sample contains nine Indo-European languages, many of which are closely related, as well as three relatively similar Oceanic languages, and only very few languages from South America.
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
can cluster together with allatives or be independent of directed motion. In Abun (West Papuan: Indonesia), a benefactive preposition (6a) is used as a purposive conjunction (6b), but not for directed motion (6c): (6) a.
An fro nu yo wa men. 3sg prepare house det.indf for 1pl ‘She prepared a house for us.’
(Berry & Berry 1999: 205)
b. Marta tot su-gato gum do brer gwat ma Marta cut thing-rel name comp brer bring dir
[wa men git sugit mo]. for 1pl eat food on
‘Marta cut some brer (leaves) and brought them back for us to eat our food on.’ (Berry & Berry 1999: 205) c.
Án yo ma mo nu nde. 3pl neg come loc house neg ‘They did not come to the house.’
(Berry & Berry 1999: 66)
The Italian preposition per, similarly, covers benefactive and purposive, but not allative contexts. In (7), per introduces a purpose clause that is related to its matrix at the speech-act or interpersonal level (Hengeveld 1989): (7) Per dire la verità, non sono d’accordo. for say the truth not be.1sg agreeable ‘To be honest, I don’t agree.’
(Schwarze 1995: 300)
A more intricate example comes from Qiang (Tibeto-Burman: China). The formative -χua, commonly in combination with the adverbial suffix -Ži, represents one way of marking benefaction in Qiang (8a); at the same time, this complex marker has come to be used as an adverbial conjunction3 of both cause and purpose (8b): (8) a.
The: qa-χua-Ži sә gue-k. 3sg 1sg-ben-adv firewood chop-go ‘He went to chop wood for me.’
(LaPolla 2003: 240)
b. [The: stuaha t.hә-(s ŋuә)-χua-Ži, ] (qupu) 3sg food/rice eat-noml cop-for/because-adv 3sg
dzigu mep ˚ ˚˙ money look.for(earn)
‘In order to live, s/he seeks to earn more money.’
(LaPolla 2003: 240)
3.â•… Note that LaPolla (2003: 240) labels -χua-Ži a ‘postposition’ even though it appears to be a bound morpheme. He further argues that in order “to mark the purpose of an action, the postposition […] can be used […] after a clause, or a nominalised clause”, which effectively turns it into a conjunction. For this reason, I call it a conjunction here.
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
While thus in Abun, Italian and Qiang, allative marking is distinct from purpose and benefaction, speakers of other languages have conflated the three notions into one morpheme. Purpose clauses in Yagua (Peba-Yaguan: Peru) provide a case in point:
(9) a.
allative -jų = benefactive ray-jų 1sg-all ‘for me’
(Payne & Payne 1990: 379)
b. allative -ju = purposive
Jáásiy-janu-jų núúdya-jito˛˛o-jásiy. cut.grass-inf-all 1ex-arrive-pst.prox1 ‘We arrived there to cut grass.’
(Payne & Payne 1990: 274)
In sum, these recurrent systematic overlaps suggest that benefactives form part of a cluster of semantic distinctions which are related to one another in terms of a ‘family resemblance’ (Wittgenstein 1958: 66), a chain of similarity that forms a contiguous region in conceptual space (cf. Croft 2001: 92–94). This finding ties in with Blansitt’s (1988), who investigated locative, allative, dative and more general object case markers and proposed the following logical connections (cf. Fig. 1): Object—Dative—Allative—Locative Figure 1.╇ The conceptual space of goal-encoding devices (Blansitt 1988: 174)
Based on substantial cross-linguistic data, Blansitt argues that case markers can only cover a contiguous region in this space, i.e. disallowing, for example, a marker that covers dative and locative, but not allative functions. In view of the present sample, we are now justified to add purpose to this conceptual space. Haspelmath (2003:€213) has sketched out a possible configuration to draw a semantic map for English to (Fig. 2): predicative possessor
external possessor
direction
recipient
beneficiary
purpose
experiencer
to judicantis
Figure 2.╇ Conceptual space for typical dative functions, with a semantic map of English to
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
Although there are differences in the subtleties between individual proposals for the conceptual space of allatives, recipient-benefactives and purposives (cf. e.g. Heine 1991 and Rice & Kabata 2007 for yet more fine-grained maps), there appears to be a general consensus that the three functions are closely related. It should be noted again that the empirical evidence for this position is almost entirely based on data from historically unrelated languages, so genealogy can be excluded as a confounding factor. Likewise, the frequent morphosyntactic clustering of allative, dative and purposive functions is not a (macro-) areal effect. The following map (cf. Fig. 3) shows all languages from my database for which the available material provides clear evidence that at least one purpose clause construction shows traces of allative-dative marking (N = 39). As can be seen, languages of this kind are found in all macro-areas of the world. The absence of genetic and areal effects suggests that allative-dative marking in purpose clauses is a ‘convergent feature’ (Deacon 1997: 116) that has arisen independently in unrelated languages, precisely as an adaptation to functional pressures. We will now turn to the question of what these pressures may be and how various patterns of polysemy emerge and become consolidated over time.
Figure 3.╇ Languages with traces of allative and/or dative marking in at least one purpose clause construction4
4.â•… The more specific distributions in the map should be taken with great caution. It is the availability of information on patterns of polysemy and historical relationships that heavily biases the distribution to well-documented languages. For many Northern American languages, for example, such information cannot be reliably obtained. Their absence in the map cannot, therefore, be taken to exclude the possibility that allatives and datives are (or have been historically) involved in the construction of purpose clauses. All that the map is supposed to illustrate is the geographically widespread attestation of the pattern in question.
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
2.2â•… Motivating forces As was mentioned earlier, a prime candidate for external pressures in our ‘integrativefunctional’ framework is the interplay of language and cognition. Indeed, cognitive linguists have anchored recurrent coding patterns in language to the conceptualization of “prelinguistic and extralinguistic experiences” (Sweetser 1990: 7) that are shared across cultures and speech communities. For example, it has been argued that human beings share the ability for metaphorical conceptualization (cf. §1 above), and this, in turn, has been used to motivate polysemous extensions of lexical and grammatical morphemes. Most famous, perhaps, is the recruitment of spatial expressions for verbalising more abstract temporal concepts: although time constitutes as basic and as real an experience as (motion in) space, it is extremely difficult to construct mental models of time in its own terms (cf. Evans 2004). Instead, location and movement in space provide the necessary conceptual structure to reason and talk about time. Along the same lines, Lakoff and Johnson (1999: 190–91) propose that purposes are also conceptualised metaphorically. Specifically, they hypothesise that purposes are destinations. On this view, acting purposefully is understood as physical motion towards a destination; the desired result is achieved by metaphorically arriving at the destination. This metaphor, they go on to argue, is ultimately grounded in basic patterns of human experience. From our earliest childhood days onwards, we experience that desires and intentions can be fulfilled by a directed change of location: we need to reach out to grasp a bottle, go to the bathroom (or to a river) to wash our hands etc. In other words, the realisation of purposes is often tied to specific locations, and this experiential correlation leads to the emergence of a ‘primary metaphor’, a (near-) universal mapping having “minimal structure and aris[ing] naturally, automatically, and unconsciously through everyday experience” (Lakoff & Johnson 1999: 46). An immediate linguistic reflex of this salient conceptualization is the frequent occurrence of matrix verbs of motion governing purpose clauses (cf. Schmidtke-Bode 2009: 94); many languages do, in fact, have a distinct ‘motion-cum-purpose’ construction alongside a more generally applicable purpose clause. Apart from motion verbs, however, the choice of allative markers to encode purposes can also be argued to reflect the metaphorical construal of intentions. More specifically, the intended result state is construed as a goal, and hence an already existing allative marker of the language can be pressed into service for the expression of that goal, resulting in allative adpositions or case affixes flagging a purposive VP (more on this process below). This direct extension arguably applies to Maori ki and English to.5
5.â•… Notice that there is an alternative explanation that draws, not on metaphorical, but on metonymic reasoning. On this account, destination and purpose are not seen as two different experiential domains, but part of one and the same domain. In terms of Frame Semantics
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
With dative-benefactive markers, the story is slightly more complicated because different historical scenarios are logically conceivable. The conceptual motivation for extending allatives to recipient-benefactive contexts is easily framed in metaphorical terms: recipients are “human endpoints of a physical transaction” (Rice & Kabata 2007: 479–480), and beneficiaries can also be conceived of as goals towards which the action is directed. In other words, recipients and beneficiaries are human goals. It is this inherent goal-orientation that is also shared between recipient-beneficiaries and purposes. Therefore, it may well be that allative markers first encroach onto the domain of recipient-benefactive participant marking, before they become analogically extended to verbal purposive contexts. An alternative to this linear extension model is what Rice & Kabata (2007: 497) call ‘unilateral’ development. This scenario underlies the intricate semantic map proposed by the authors (Fig. 4): ALLATIVE
PURPOSE
REASON
INFIN
SUBORD MAN
CONCEPTUAL RECIPIENT
PERC POSS
EXP
LOCATIVE
ADR
BOUND BEN
TIME ABL DUR
Figure 4.╇ Polysemous extensions of allatives in 44 languages (Rice & Kabata 2007: 490)
On this view, allatives may give rise to purposive and recipient-benefactive extensions independently since each pathway is equally well-motivated. The synchronic outcome of both linear and unilateral developments can be a conflation of allative,
(cf. Fillmore 1982), the location in sentences like I’m going to the river constitutes a conceptual frame including the (desired) action typically associated with that location, e.g. bathe, fish, wash etc. This contiguity, in turn, can give rise to inference processes by which directed motion becomes associated directly with the accomplishment of the respective action itself. Put differently, the action comes to stand for the location, and as a result, the grammatical marker previously flagging the location comes to flag the purposive action, thereby being paradigmatically extended from nominal to verbal environments (to NP > to VP). In effect, however, both accounts boil down to a close experiential correlation of a location (as the endpoint of directed motion) and a specific goal tied to that location, so it is difficult to decide whether a metaphorical or a metonymic explanation should be preferred (cf. Schmidtke-Bode 2009 for a more detailed discussion).
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
benefactive and purposive meaning in one morpheme, as we have seen for Yagua, and it can be quite difficult to prioritise one of the two scenarios based on synchronic evidence only (cf. the case of Amele nu ‘go, all, ben, purp’ discussed in Schmidtke-Bode 2009: 188). In any case, however, it seems justified to state that these three semantic domains are unified by the more general notion of goal, and it is hence possible to find languages which have grammaticalized an all-embracing goal marker covering these functions simultaneously. Imonda (Border: Papua New Guinea) can serve as an illustration: (10) Tëla-l-na falgõ i-õb-n [iam maga-na uõl-m ]. husband-noml-poss bow clf-pl-pst later what-instr shoot-gl ‘She got her husband’s bow in order to shoot with it later.’ (Seiler 1985: 162)
It should also be acknowledged, however, that a three-way exponence of allative, benefactive and purposive in a single marker is not that common after all. We have rather seen that recipient-benefactive morphemes develop purposive senses independently from allative marking. (Notice that Haspelmath’s semantic map of dative functions does not take this option into account.) Empirical evidence for this tendency was amply provided by Genetti (1991) and in the literature on grammaticalization more generally (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2002: 55–57 for an overview). In order to motivate this historical pathway satisfactorily, it can be instructive to distinguish the hitherto conflated notions of reception and benefaction6 because, crucially, they may cluster with purposive morphemes in different ways. On the one hand, when recipient, benefactive and purposive marking overlap synchronically, the received view in the literature seems to be that the purposive sense draws directly on the recipient one (e.g. Shibatani 1996), motivated by the underlying goal orientation we encountered above. The benefactive sense, in this scenario, is basically a secondary extension of the recipient meaning, but not directly related to the purposive sense in diachrony (thus, another ‘unilateral development’). On the other hand, however, there are quite a few languages in which a purposive marker is identical with the benefactive morpheme, but completely distinct from the recipient marker typically used in ditransitive constructions (‘give’): Turkish için (ben-purp) is different from the dative marker -a (Kornfilt 1997: 220, 226), in the same way that Lango mε (‘for’) is different from bòt (‘to’) used in ditransitive clauses (Noonan 1992: 149). Similarly, the Ndyuka preposition fu (ben-purp) is not employed for indirect objects of transfer (Huttar & Huttar 1994: 115, 158), and Yaqui, too, separates a directional preposition for give-contexts from a benefactive-purposive one (Valenzuela 2004: 17). There is thus a more profound relationship between
6.â•… I would like to thank Masayoshi Shibatani for drawing my attention to this important point.
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
benefaction and purpose which does not primarily hinge on the notion of transfer. Rather, it seems that benefaction always implies the notion of purpose, as argued by Rice & Kabata (2007: 481): “when one acts for the benefit of another (or out of malevolence), he or she is usually acting purposefully”. Therefore, it seems that ‘dative’-like purposive markers arise either due to the goal-orientation of reception, or by virtue of the inherent purposive element of benefaction. These conceptual forces pave the way for ‘paradigmatic intraference’ (Croft 2006) in diachronic change. In this process, the recipient/benefactive adposition or case affix is functionally extended from participant to event marking, which entails a formal shift from nominal to verbal environments (just as with allative > purpose marking). In many cases, this extension also draws the former adposition into a different partof-speech paradigm, such that a benefactive preposition, for instance, joins the set of clause-initial conjunctions in the language. Perhaps the most conducive setting for paradigmatic intraference is that of nominalised verb forms denoting purposeful action, precisely because they are easily construed as paradigmatic alternatives to recipient or benefactive NPs. But the process is, of course, not restricted to nominalisations. In Lavukaleve (Solomons East Papuan), purpose clauses exhibit a bare verb stem (neither overtly non-finite nor nominalised) to which the benefactive postposition ham is suffixed. Thus we have minimal pairs such as the following: (11) a.
a-ham b. a-vala-ham 3sg.m.o-ben 3sg.m.o-pull-ben ‘for him’ (Terrill 2003: 161) ‘for pulling it/to pull it’(Terrill 2003: 439)
In English, benefactive for enters a more complex infinitival construction. It has its origins in Early Modern English, specifically in contexts where the preposition for is used in combination with a purposive infinitive: (12) A tent of purple velvet for the counsailers to mete in. (1548 HALL Chron., Hen. V, (an. 7) 65b; OED)
In this form, the construction may be analysed as consisting of a main clause including a benefactive NP and an associated purpose clause. The authors of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) note, however, that the construction was reinterpreted and “early extended to include cases to which this analysis is inapplicable”, such as a nonbenefactive NP in a generally non-purposive environment (cf. also Cuyckens 1999; De Smet 2007): (13) It is high time for the Satyrist to pen something […] (1621 R. BRATHWAIT Nat. Embass. Ded., OED)
In even more modern cases, the for-NP cannot be analysed as belonging to the main clause; instead, for is usually treated as “a subordinator marking the start of the non-finite
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
clause” (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 1203) and the former benefactive NP becomes the subject of the infinitival construction as a whole, with the semantics of benefaction typically being lost: (14) He called [for Ed to be sacked].
(Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 1203)
The progression from an infinitival benefactive-purposive construction to a more widely applicable complement clause represents a special case of the more general constructional intraference ‘from purposive to infinitive’ (Haspelmath 1989). Interestingly, the current verb-specific distribution of ‘for…to’-complements in English is to a large extent semantically constrained (albeit not entirely predictable) by the goalorientation inherent in the elements of the source construction (De Smet 2007: 73ff.). It should have become clear so far that the family of allatives, recipient-benefactivesdatives and purposives forms a network of conceptual and morphosyntactic interdependencies, the latter of which may arise in a variety of different ways. What all of them illustrate, though, is a tendency for economical coding in language. After all, the choice to recruit the same marker for the coding of conceptually related participants and events reduces the overall amount of distinct form-meaning pairings in the language (one of the ‘Minimize Form’ effects in Hawkins’ (2004)). In the following section, we will see that economical coding can go much further, with benefactive arguments occasionally replacing a full-fledged purpose clause altogether.
3.â•… Benefactives as metonymic devices in the expression of purpose A remarkable phenomenon at the interface of benefaction and purpose is the potential of benefactive/recipient/dative NPs to act as an economical shortcut for the expression of purposive relations. The two constructions to be discussed here have been mentioned—often merely in passing—at various points in the literature, yet neither have they been dealt with systematically in the context of purpose clauses, nor has any attempt been made to account for them in a unified way. As we will see shortly, our present framework provides a tool for doing so. In the first construction, a goal-directed activity is expressed by simply mentioning the goal participant, i.e. without spelling out the verbal part of the ‘underlying’ purpose clause. Thus in Imonda, the purpose of a motion event can be expressed by attaching the suffix -m, used for allative, benefactive and purposive marking, to the goal NP of the intended situation: (15) Tëh-ia-m uagl-fan. firewood-loc-gl go-prf ‘He has gone to collect firewood.’
(Seiler 1985: 161)
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
A similar example is provided by purposive NPs in Yidi\ (Pama-Nyungan: Queensland/ Australia): (16) Gawu: guga daŋgan buda:gu. tree.abs skin.abs take:off.imp blanket.purp ‘Take the Gawu: bark off [the Gawu: tree] for a blanket (i.e. to use it as a blanket).’ (Dixon 1977: 342)7
Such constructions are reminiscent of, and in fact analogous to, purposive for in English. Thus, (17) is the reduced form of (18): (17) He has gone for lunch. (18) He has gone in order to have/for having lunch.
As can be seen in the three cases, the goal NPs tëhiam, buda:gu and for lunch, respectively, come to stand for the whole verbal situation in which each is a participant, namely ‘collecting firewood’, ‘using something as a blanket’ and ‘having/eating lunch’. Given that an argument thus represents the whole semantic structure of which it is part, one may best characterise this morphosyntactic construction in terms of a metonymy. Similar to conceptual metaphors, metonymies have long been recognised by cognitive linguists as an important tool by which we organise our conceptual knowledge: just like metaphors, creating metonymies is an imaginative process that allows us to construe one conceptual entity in terms of another (cf. Lakoff/Johnson 1980). With metaphors, the two entities are from different domains (such as time and space), while with metonymies, both entities are from the same domain (cf. Leite 1994 for ample illustration). In language use, metonymic mappings are economical to the extent that the entity or category which is explicitly mentioned in discourse can activate another category in the same overall cognitive domain or model (an important corollary of the theory of Frame Semantics, cf. Fillmore 1982). Thus by simply adding a goal NP to a verb denoting directed action, a whole purposive situation—or more precisely, the cognitive model or frame of that situation— can be evoked. In (8) above, we already saw the complex postposition χua-Ži at work in both benefactive NPs and purpose clauses in Qiang. In precisely the way outlined here, this marker can also be attached to nouns that do not themselves denote beneficiaries but the (inanimate) goal or benefit of an action: (19) The: dzigu -χua-Ži ha-qә-Ži koŋtsuo-pә-k. ˚ 3sg money-ben(because-adv) dir-go-adv work-do-go ‘For the sake of money, s/he goes to work.’ (LaPolla 2003: 240)
7.â•… A strikingly similar phenomenon also occurs in Nunggubuyu (Gunwinyguan: Northern Territory, Australia), cf. Heath (1984: 208). Heath uses the term ‘case-spreading’ for such instances.
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
In fact, it is conceivable that such NPs, combining ‘indirect’ benefaction with purpose, provide the crucial link—i.e. the formal and semantic environment needed—for the development from a benefactive PP to a purposive conjunction.8 Of course, the absence of systematic diachronic evidence for this hypothesis across languages makes it impossible to go well beyond speculation. Nevertheless, this line of argumentation accords well with the emphasis laid on metonymic inferencing in the recent literature on grammaticalization (e.g. Brinton 1988; Traugott & König 1991; De Mulder 2002). Conceptual metonymies have come to be seen as ways of “indexing or pointing to meanings that may otherwise be only covert, but are a natural part of conversational practice” (Hopper & Traugott 2003: 92). As I have tried to show, purpose is an implied ‘natural part’ of benefaction, and hence the purposive component of meaning may well become salient over time and thenceforth emancipate, being analogically extended to the coding of purpose clauses.9 In the second construction to be discussed, a benefactive NP encroaches onto the temporal domain, and the conceptual link between them is again an implicit purposive situation. Haspelmath (1997) observed that a number of languages can express atelic temporal extension by a benefactive construction. More technically, an NP denoting duration in time is flagged by a benefactive adposition or case affix. English for provides a good starting point again (cf. also Fuhs submitted): (20) When fermentation has finished, the ‘green beer’ is run into conditioning tanks for a few days. (BNC A0A 31)
The OED labels such constructions ‘intended duration’ uses of for, and they contrast with ‘actual duration’ as in (21) The two great parties … had for a moment concurred. (1849 MACAULAY Hist. Eng. I. 166; OED)
It is challenging to trace the directionality in the historical emergence of this two-way polysemy. An account that derives intended from actual duration would be broadly compatible with Traugott’s concepts of increasing subjectification and internalisation
8.â•… Note, however, that if the benefactive-purposive marker is also used in causal contexts, as in the Qiang data, the diachronic pathways might be significantly different and, importantly, not unidirectional across languages, i.e. there are multiple chains of semantic extension that can bring about a syncretism of cause, benefaction and purpose (cf. Luraghi 2005). 9.â•… Whether or not the grammaticalization path from benefactive adposition or case marker to purposive conjunction is actually instantiated also depends on the available alternatives for marking purpose. English for, for instance, was not fully reanalysed as a purposive conjunction, arguably because the to-infinitive had been well-established in this function before (cf. Los 2005).
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
in semantic change (Traugott 1989: 34ff.). It is not straightforward, however, what may have motivated the use of benefactive for in contexts of actual temporal duration in the first place. What is more reasonable, I believe, is that benefactive for came to be used in contexts that implied a purposive situation. On this view, the temporal adverbial in a sentence like (22) I’m […] going back to Denmark for two weeks. (ICE-GB: S1A-089 #093:1:B)
would actually refer to the duration of the state resulting from deliberately going to Denmark (cf. also Haspelmath 1997: 128; Berthonneau 1991). The underlying situation, therefore, is that the person went back to Denmark for (the purpose of) staying/ vacating there over a period of three weeks. This scenario is analogous to the goal-NPs we saw above: here, too, a benefactive-marked argument is capable of evoking an entire purposive situation, the verbal part of which can easily be inferred from the context (i.e. from the mental model of the situation being spoken about) and is hence left implicit for economical reasons. Once established in this function of intended duration, the for+NP construction could be further broadened to actual duration. This process, in which the notion of purpose is lost, i.e. in which “a speaker analyzes out a semantic component from a syntactic element”, has been called ‘hyperanalysis’ by Croft (2006: 81). Although purposive temporal extent tends not to be systematically covered by reference grammars, there are quite a few instances of this construction both within and beyond my sample. In Turkish, the dative case suffix -(y)A basically expresses the typical locative, allative, recipient and benefactive meanings (cf. (23)), but also attaches to arguments expressing temporal extension (cf. (24)): (23) Bu kitab-ı Hasan-a al-dı-m. this book-acc Hasan-dat buy-pst-1sg ‘I bought this book for Hasan.’
(Kornfilt 1997: 226)
(24) Bir hafta-lığ-ın-a gel-dı-m. one week-abstr.n-cmpm-dat come-pst-1sg ‘I have come for one week.’
(Kornfilt 1997: 263)
Importantly, such constructions are morphologically different from other arguments expressing temporal extension. In (25), for instance, the NP iki yıl ‘(for) two years’ remains completely unmarked, i.e. in its bare form: (25) Londra-da iki yıl yaşa-dı-m. London-loc two year live-pst-1sg ‘I lived in London for two years.’
(Kornfilt 1997: 262)
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
The crucial semantic difference between the two constructions is that (24) implies the notion of purpose or intention. Unlike English for, then, Turkish has retained separate markers for intended and actual duration. Completely parallel examples can be found in Malayalam (Dravidian: India) and Italian: (26) żaan ivize oru massatteekkә vannirikkayaa^ә. 1sg here one month.dat/all come.perf1.impf2.prs ‘I have come here for one month.’ (Asher & Kumari 1997: 244) (27) Posso restare qui solo per un’ ora. can.1sg stay here only for one hour ‘I can only stay here for one hour.’
Admittedly, however, we also occasionally find constructions in which benefactives have developed various temporal uses, but without a purposive extension being attested for them. Thus the temporal uses of the dative case in Kolyma Yukaghir (cf. Maslova 2003: 99) and Gulf Arabic (cf. Holes 1990: 146) do not have any implications of purpose. In Wardaman, the dative case is recruited for repetitive temporal extension (‘number of times > 1’) only (cf. Merlan 1994: 75). At present, it seems to me that these patterns have a somewhat exceptional status and are, therefore, fairly hard to motivate from a purely functional view. In conclusion, the bulk of the data presented in this section suggests that Givón’s statement that purpose clauses “can disguise themselves in the syntactic form of benefactive objects in English” (Givón 1984: 132) is applicable to other languages as well. Moreover, I have tried to exploit the importance of conceptual metonymies in language use and grammaticalization in order to account for the relevant constructions.
4.â•… Negative purpose and the absence of benefactive marking Interestingly, there is a class of purpose clauses which is exempt from the previously mentioned tendencies. More precisely, we can observe the systematic absence of goal-encoding devices such as allatives and benefactives in negative purpose clauses (or ‘lest’-constructions). Of course, many languages express negative purpose by simply inserting a negative marker into an ‘ordinary’ purpose clause, so that the goal-marking inherent in the purposive morpheme or elsewhere in the clause remains untouched. However, when languages grammaticalize a construction specifically dedicated to the expression of negative purpose, it seems that neither allatives nor dative-benefactives have a chance to appear in such constructions. We will briefly survey this phenomenon and take first steps towards explaining it in our present theoretical framework.
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
Negative-purpose clauses are also called ‘avertive’ constructions since their matrix clause typically encodes that precautions are taken so as to avoid an ‘apprehensioncausing’ situation in the subordinate clause (Lichtenberk 1995: 298). The English construction with lest, shown in (28)–(29), is not only a typical representative of this clause type, but has also led to the widely-used Anglocentric name of the construction (‘lest’-clause): (28) He cut the remark out of the final programme [lest it should offend the listeners]. (BNC BLY 1232) (29) Take hede lest eny man deceave you. (1526 TINDALE Mark xiii, OED)
Our overall sample of 218 purposive constructions contains 20 negative-purpose clauses, distributed over 19 different languages. (30)–(32) give an impression of the morphosyntactic make-up of different ‘lest’-clauses: (30) negative auxiliary verb y + main verb in Yagua (Peba-Yaguan: Peru): … naada-y-numaa dáátya jiy-daasaada. â•… 3du-aux.neg-now know 2sg-mother.in.law ‘… so that your mother-in-law won’t know.’
(Payne & Payne 1990: 416)
(31) preposed ‘lest’-clause with double negative marking in Slave (Athapaskan: Canada) [Daniel yegúh ôále ch’á ] goghádehk’a. Daniel 3opt.find 4.neg lest 1sg.threw ‘I threw it so Daniel wouldn’t find it.’
(Rice 1989: 1262)
(32) avertive suffix in Martuthunira (Pama-Nyungan: Western Australia) Ngayu puni-layi-rru nyina-wirri manhamanha-ma-l.yarra nhuwala-a. 1sg.nom go-fut-now be-lest awkward-caus-sim 2du-acc ‘I’ll go now lest I’ll be making it awkward for you.’ (Dench 1995: 249)
These examples are indicative of the interesting fact that avertive clauses exhibit an entirely different grammatical shape and behaviour when compared to their positive counterparts. In brief, they show a slight preference for finite (rather than non-finite) verbs, often involve different and overtly coded (rather than implicit co-referential) subjects, and do not preferably select motion verbs in the corresponding matrix clauses. In the present context, it is most remarkable that allative and dative-related morphemes are also absent from avertive clauses. Neither do they surface as additional gestalt features in the clause, nor do they provide the historical source for the development of ‘lest’-markers. For positive purpose clauses, I argue in Schmidtke-Bode (2009) that their prototypical morphosyntactic characteristics have arisen as Â�functional
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
Â� adaptations to the conceptual properties of purposive relations and our experience with intentional actions. This approach can only be justified if it also accounts for avertive constructions. Therefore, it may be helpful to consider the scenarios typically expressed by such constructions. In the original study (Schmidtke-Bode 2009), this was achieved by compiling converging evidence from two data sources, i.e. translations of representative ‘lest’clauses from the typological sample, and a corpus-based query into English ‘lest’clauses in the British National Corpus (BNC). Both sources revealed unambiguously that the conceptual situation associated with negative purposes is prototypically such that an agent is acting (on some entity) in order to prevent some undesired situation from happening to her or to this entity. Crucially, this is not usually contingent on directed motion. Consequently, motion verbs are rather infrequent in main clauses of avertive constructions. In the corpus-based study, verbs of motion constitute a mere 4% of all matrix verbs in ‘lest’-constructions. And while it is not a typological rarity for languages to develop distinct ‘motion-cum-purpose’ constructions in positive contexts (e.g. Aissen 1984 on Tzotzil), none of the avertive constructions in my sample specifically attracts motion verbs. In terms of Stefanowitsch and Gries (2003), they rather seem to be ‘repelled’ by avertive clauses (indeed, a collostructional analysis on the corpus data from English yields significant degrees of repellence). Importantly, if avertive situations do not experientially correlate with directed motion, there is no basis for cross-domain mappings (or place-event metonymies, for that matter), and no motivation for allative (or goal-) marking arises in the first place. Avertive situations, on this account, are comparatively harder to construe as spatial goals. Benefactives, too, do not surface in distinctly grammaticalized avertive contexts, even though such situations typically contain a participant that directly benefits from the precautions expressed in the matrix clause. From the viewpoint of grammaticalization mentioned in §3, it is almost precluded that a benefactive adposition or case marker develops into an avertive morpheme, since this would require this morpheme to fuse with a negative marker (semantically or structurally) during the grammaticalization process (for [not-X] > for-not ‘lest’ [X]). I am not aware of any such development.10 Instead, there is some convincing evidence that ‘lest’-markers typically evolve from lexical or grammatical items that are associated with negative semantics right
10.â•… In Hungarian, the negative marker ne can indeed fuse with the purposive conjunction hogy ‘that’ to form what might be called a complex avertive conjunction ne-hogy ‘lest’. Crucially, however, hogy is a complementizer, not a benefactive morpheme (Kenesei et€al. 1998: 51).
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode
from the start. Thus English lest is the modern form of OE lǽs þe ‘less-rel’, with less in its basic form typically being associated with an ‘undesirable’ NP (e.g. less trouble). This would provide an ideal environment for clausal extensions. Somewhat differently, the Tukang Besi (Austronesian: Sulawesi) conjunction bara ‘lest’ functions as a verb meaning ‘don’t’ in main clauses (Donohue 1999: 399) and may thus ultimately have a verbal source. For To’aba’ita, an Austronesian language spoken on the Solomon Islands, Lichtenberk (1995: 304, 320) reports that ada ‘lest’ is historically derived from a lexical verb meaning ‘see, look out, watch out’, i.e. a perception verbs that has a connotation of warning. The point is that the sources of ‘lest’-markers are inherently negative in one way or the other, and hence benefactives do not lend themselves well to being source constructions for their grammaticalization (interestingly, neither do malefactives). In sum, allative-based benefactives do not occur in grammaticalized ‘lest’-clauses because directed motion is not involved in the conceptualization of avertive situations. Benefactives proper do not overlap significantly with negative purpose from a conceptual point of view, and, moreover, they do not usually occur in structural environments that favour a reanalysis to avertive markers. For these reasons, the historical sources of ‘lest’-markers are fundamentally different from the goal-encoding devices that often give rise to positive purpose markers. In both conceptual and historical terms, then, the absence of allatives and dative-benefactives in ‘lest’-clauses is well-motivated.
5.â•… Conclusion This paper has shifted the attention from benefactives as a semantic participant role of NPs to the distribution and functions of benefactive morphemes in the context of larger grammatical constructions. More specifically, I have surveyed the rich functional potential of the family of ‘goal-encoding devices’, including allatives, datives, recipients and benefactives, in the typology of purpose clauses. Building on previous literature and a database of 80 languages, I outlined the roles of benefactives as both primary and secondary gestalt features in purpose clauses, their metonymic potential for the economical expression of purposive relations, and their systematic absence from avertive constructions. The cognitive-functional framework provided us with useful tools to develop a principled and coherent account for these phenomena, and for their diachronic evolution. With regard to the latter, it would now be most desirable to obtain more explicit data on patterns of polysemy and their historical connections in order to corroborate the hypotheses put forward in this and previous papers on the topic.
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
Abbreviations 1, 2, 3 abs abstr.n acc adv all b3 ben caus clf cmpm comp cop dat def dir du erg ex fut gl impf incl ind indf inf instr lest
1st, 2nd, 3rd person absolutive abstract noun accusative adverbial (case) allative (‘to’) person agreement marker benefactive causative classifier compound-marker complementizer copula dative definite directional, directive dual ergative exclusive future goal imperfective inclusive indicative indefinite infinitive instrumental avertive marker
loc locative m masculine msd masdar (verbal noun) n: n- non- (e.g. n:sg non-singular, n:pst nonpast) negative, negation neg nom nominative noml nominaliser obj object p/o transitive patient (patient-like argument of canonical transitive verb) perf perfect pl plural poss possessive prf perfect prfv perfective prox proximal, proximate pst past tense pst past purp purpose, purposive rel relative clause marker rem remote (past, future) sg singular sim simultaneous spec specific, specifier t/a tense-aspect marker
References Aissen, Judith L. 1984. Control and command in Tzotzil purpose clauses. BLS 10: 559–571. Asher, Ronald E. & Kumari, T.C. 1997. Malayalam. London: Routledge. Bauer, Winifred. 1993. Maori. London: Routledge. Berry, Keith & Berry, Christine 1999. A Description of Abun: A West Papuan Language of Irian Jaya. Canberra: Australian National University.
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode Berthonneau, Anne-Marie. 1991. Pendant et pour, variations sur la durée et donation de la référence. Langue Française 91: 102–124. Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11: 239–251. Blansitt, Edward L. 1988. Datives and allatives. In Studies in Syntactic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 17], Michael Hammond, Edith Moravcsik & Jessica Wirth (eds.), 173–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Brinton, Laurel. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Postverbal Particles. Cambridge: CUP. Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: OUP. Croft, William. 1995. Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71(3): 490–532. Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Croft, William. 2006. Evolutionary models and functional-typological theories of language change. In The Handbook of the History of English, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (eds.), 68–91. Oxford: Blackwell. Croft, William & Cruse, D. Allan 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Cuyckens, Hubert. 1999. Grammaticalization in the English prepositions to and for. In Cognitive Perspectives on Language, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (ed.), 151–161. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Dayley, Jon P. 1985. Tzutujil Grammar. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. De Mulder, Walter. 2002. Grammaticalisation, métaphore et métonymie: Le cas d’aller. Special issue of Verbum 24(3): 229–246. De Smet, Hendrik. 2007. For…to-infinitives as verbal complements in Late Modern and Present-day English: Between motivation and change. English Studies 88(1): 67–94. Deacon, Terrence. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Human Brain. London: Penguin. Dench, Alan Charles. 1995. Martuthunira: A Language of the Pilbara Region of Western Australia. Canberra: Dept. of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University. Diessel, Holger. 2001. The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: A typological study. Language 77(2): 433–455. Dixon, Robert M.W. 1977. A Grammar of Yidi\. Cambridge: CUP. Donohue, Mark. 1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Evans, Vyvyan. 2004. The Structure of Time [Human Cognitive Processing 12]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, The Linguistic Society of Korea (eds.), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin. Frajzyngier, Zygmunt & Johnston, Eric. 2005. A Grammar of Mina. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fuhs, Stephan. Submitted. A corpus-based investigation of the aspectual character of the English durative adverbial construction. To appear in a volume on Quantitative Methods for Cognitive Semantics, Dylan Glynn & Kerstin Fischer (eds.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Genetti, Carol. 1991. From postposition to subordinator in Newari. In Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. II: Types of Grammatical Markers [Typological Studies in Language€19:2], Elisabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), 227–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Benefactives in purpose clauses 
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP. Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. “From purposive to infinitive – a universal path of grammaticization.” Folia Linguistica Historica X/1–2: 287–310. Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. From Space to Time. Temporal Adverbials in the World’s Languages. Munich: Lincom Europa. Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and crosslinguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language, Vol. II, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 211–242. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: OUP. Heath, Jeffrey. 1984. Functional Grammar of Nunggubuyu. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. Heine, Bernd. 1991. The dative in Ik and Kanuri. In Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th Birthday [Typological Studies in Language€20], William Croft, Susanne Kemmer & Keith Denning (eds.), 129–149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25: 127–157. Holes, Clive 1990. Gulf Arabic. London: Routledge. Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent Grammar. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds.), 139–157. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elisabeth Closs. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Hualde, José Ignacio & Ortiz de Urbina, Jon. (eds.). 2003. A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. Huttar, George L. & Huttar, Mary L. 1994. Ndyuka. London: Routledge. Kenesei, István, Vago, Robert Michael & Fenyvesi, Anna. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge. Kornfilt, Jacklin. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge. Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York NY: Basic Books. Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. LaPolla, Randy J. 2003. A Grammar of Qiang. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Leite, N. 1994. Master metonymy list. Ms, University of California at Berkeley. Lichtenberk, František. 1995. Apprehensional epistemics. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 32], Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), 293–327. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Los, Bettelou. 2005. The Rise of the to-Infinitive. Oxford: OUP. Luraghi, Silvia. 2005. Paths of semantic extension – From cause to beneficiary and purpose. In Historical Linguistics 2003 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 257], Michael Fortescue, Eva Skafte Jensen, Jens Eric Mogensen & Lene Schøsler (eds.), 141–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Karsten Schmidtke-Bode Maslova, Elena. 2003. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Merlan, Francesca C. 1994. A Grammar of Wardaman. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Moravcsik, Edith A. 2007. What is universal about typology? Linguistic Typology 11(1): 27–41. Nichols, Johanna. 2004. Samples for comparative grammar: A practical guide. Ms, University of California at Berkeley. Noonan, Michael. 1992. A Grammar of Lango. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Payne, Doris L. & Payne, Thomas E. 1990. Yagua. In Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Vol. 2, Desond C. Derbyshire & Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.), 249–474. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rice, Keren. 1989. A Grammar of Slave. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rice, Sally & Kabata, Kaori. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the allative. Linguistic Typology 11: 451–514. Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A Typology of Purpose Clauses [Typological Studies in Language 88]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schwarze, Christoph. 1995. Grammatik der italienischen Sprache, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Seiler, Walter. 1985. Imonda. Canberra: Australian National University. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. Benefactive constructions: A schema-based approach. Chicago Linguistic Society 32: 319–334. Sridhar, S.N. 1990. Kannada. London: Routledge. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243. Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: CUP. Terrill, A. 2003. A Grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Thompson, Sandra A. & Longacre, Robert E. 1985. Adverbial clauses. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. II: Complex Constructions, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 171–218. Cambridge: CUP. Thompson, Sandra A. & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4/5): 481–505. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31–55. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & König, Ekkehard. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Approaches to Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 19:1], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), 189–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Valenzuela, Lilian Graciela. 2004. The Syntax-Semantics Interface in Yaqui Complex Sentences: A Role and Reference Grammar Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, The State University of New€York at Buffalo. Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: CUP. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations, 2nd edn. Translated by Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.
Benefactive and malefactive uses of Salish applicatives Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
University of Victoria/Simon Fraser University We survey benefactives and malefactives in Salish, a family of twenty-three languages in northwestern North America. For the most part, benefactives and malefactives are expressed via applicative constructions, which are classified into two types: redirective and relational. Redirective applicatives are formed on transitive bases, and their precise interpretation—as benefactive, delegative, or malefactive—depends upon the context of the situation and the semantics of the verb. Most transitive verbs form redirectives with benefactive meanings, but redirectives formed on transfer verbs often express malefactive meanings, especially when a source or possessor is the applied object. Relational applicatives are formed on intransitive bases. They frequently have malefactive or adversative meanings, especially with natural or psychological events, and only rarely express benefactive meanings.
1.â•… Introduction1 There are twenty-three Salish languages currently or historically spoken in British Columbia, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon. This paper surveys benefactives and malefactives based on primary data from the Central Salish language Halkomelem, as well as from secondary source data from nineteen other Salish languages.2 Much of
.â•… We would like to thank the speakers of the Island dialect of Halkomelem who shared data with us, especially Arnold Guerin, Ruby Peter, and Theresa Thorne. Funding was provided by Jacobs Fund, Phillips fund, SFU, and SSHRC. Thanks also to the Salishanists who shared data and knowledge with us: Dawn Bates, David Beck, Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins, Ivy Doak, Brent Galloway, Dwight Gardiner, Mercedes Hinkson, Tom Hukari, Paul Kroeber, Anthony Mattina, Nancy Mattina, Timothy Montler, Nile Thompson, Jan van Eijk, Honoré Watanabe, and especially the late Dale Kinkade. Thanks to Charles Ulrich for his comments and corrections. .â•… In making use of data from secondary sources, we updated transriptions to current standards and modified some morphological boundaries according to our own analysis of applicatives, and also we have added morphological boundaries when they are not provided in the original data. When the original data do not have morpheme glosses, we have provided them
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
what we have to say about benefactives and malefactives in Salish languages is tied to the topic of applicatives. Applicative constructions are the main way to express these meanings, but they also express many other meanings as well. Salish applicatives are divided into two types, which we refer to as redirectives, following Kinkade (1980: 33) and relationals, following (Thompson & Thompson 1992: 73). In a typical redirective applicative, a suffix is added to a transitive base to produce a semantically ditransitive form, as in (1), while in a relational applicative, a suffix is added to an intransitive base to produce a semantically transitive form, as in (2):3
(1) Halkomelem (Gerdts 1988: 90) , ni‘ qw´әl-әłc-t-әs łә słéni‘ ‘ә kwθә sәplíl. aux bake-rdr-tr-3erg det woman obl det bread ‘He baked the bread for the woman.’
(2) Halkomelem (Gerdts 1988: 144)
ni‘ kwukw-me‘-θám‘š-әs. aux cook-rel-tr:1sg.obj-3erg ‘He cooked for me.’
The morphosyntax of applicative constructions is straightforward, and both types of applicatives result in the same surface syntax: the semantically oblique NP, in this case the benefactive, is the syntactic object, and thus is licensed as a direct argument in
by using dictionaries and grammars, and by referring to other data. We have also changed some of the glosses from the original sources in order to standardize them to the abbreviations used here. .â•… The following abbreviations and symbols are used in this paper. 1 2 3 art asp aux clt cs dem det emph erg fut imp impf intr
first person second person third person article aspect auxiliary clitic causative demonstrative determiner emphatic ergative future imperative imperfect intransitive
irr lnk loc lv mdl nm obj obl pass past perf pl poss prfx ptc pstn
irrealis linker locative linking vowel middle nominalizer object oblique passive past perfect plural possessive (unglossed) prefix particle positional
punct q rdr red rel refl rslt sg st sub tr vbl //…// =…
punctual question particle redirective reduplication relational reflexive resultative singular stative subject general transitive verbalizer morphophonemic form lexical suffix
Salish applicatives 
the clause or object agreement on the verb.4 The comparative/historical picture of the morphology is much more complicated because of the variety of forms and the various meanings they express in the different Salish languages. Kiyosawa (2006) gives a detailed discussion of this topic. We know a great deal about redirectives and their use to express benefactives, as detailed in Section 2. A complication, however, is that most Salish languages do not have a redirective morpheme that is dedicated to a benefactive meaning per se; redirective applicatives also expresses dative,5 source, and possessive applied objects. The interpretation of an applicative construction is often ambiguous, though the class of the base verb and the semantic context help to pinpoint the meaning. We know less about malefactives, and again no morpheme is specifically dedicated to expressing malefactive meanings. The pragmatics of the situation are crucial for distinguishing benefactive versus malefactive interpretations. Relational applicatives and their use to express benefactive and malefactive meanings are detailed in Section 3. The main use of relationals is to express psych and directional applicatives; their use to express benefactives and malefactives is much less common. One documented use of relationals is to express adversatives, which usually appear as passives. In Salish languages, applicatives are the major means of expressing benefactives and malefactives. As discussed in Section 4, other constructions, such as prepositional phrases or serial verbs are regarded as circumlocutions and would not normally be used. The one exception is that causatives are also used to express benefactives in a very limited set of cases. We conclude with a summary of our findings in Section 5. Salish languages, like many languages of the world, have no morphological forms dedicated solely to the
.â•… As discussed in in Kiyosawa (2006) and Gerdts and Kiyosawa (2007), applied objects in Salish applicative constructions have all the hallmarks of direct objects: they undergo passive, reflexive, reciprocal, and extraction. Although theme nominals in applicatives vary with respect to nominal marking, they lack all object properties: they never appear as object pronouns, passivize, etc. .â•… Throughout this paper, we are using “dative” as a semantic notion, not as a case term. In fact, there is little or no case marking in Salish languages. We use dative as a convenient cover term for recipient, goal of a speech act, and goal or purpose of an action, but not goal or endpoint of a motion. Such usage follows in the tradition of Fillmore (1968), Givón (1984) inter alia. We refer to applicatives with dative applied objects as dative applicatives, which invokes a parallelism to the Transformational Grammar term “dative movement”. Using dative in this way is not without controversy; as our editors pointed out to us, dative is more properly limited to the discussion of case marking.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
expression of benefactives or malefactives, and therefore the speech act context must supply much of the meaning.
2.â•… Redirective applicatives In the redirective applicative construction, the base is transitive, and the role of direct object is “redirected” from the theme to the applied object, which is a semantically oblique NP. Compare the following Shuswap examples:
(3) Shuswap (Dwight Gardiner p.c.) , , m-kúl-n-s > mimx. perf-make-tr-3sub det basket ‘She made the basket.’
(4) Shuswap (Gardiner 1993: 31) , , m-kúl-x-t-s > núxˇwәnxˇâ•›w tә mimx. perf-make-rdr-tr-3sub det woman obl basket ‘She made a basket for the woman.’
(3) is a simple transitive construction, and the agent is the subject and the theme is the object. (4) is a redirective applicative construction, and a semantically oblique NP, the benefactive, is the direct object while the theme is an oblique-marked NP.6 The verb in (3) is transitive and is suffixed with the general transitive suffix -n(t), the third-person transitive subject determines ergative agreement, and the theme ‘basket’ is a direct object. As discussed below, the redirective construction typically involves dative, benefactive, malefactive, or possessive applied objects. Example (4) is a benefactive applicative: the verb is suffixed with the redirective suffix -x(i), the benefactive ‘woman’ is the direct object, and the theme ‘basket’ appears with an oblique marker. (3) is syntactically transitive with two arguments: a subject and a (theme) direct object. And it is also semantically transitive with two participants. (4) is syntactically transitive as well, having two direct arguments: a subject and an applied object (the benefactive). However, (4) is semantically ditransitive, with three participants: a subject, a (benefactive) applied object, and a (theme) oblique. In this case, the redirective applicative suffix has allowed an increase in the semantic valence over the sentence with only a general transitive suffix in (3).
.â•… See Gerdts (to appear) for a detailed discuss of the syntax of ditransitive constructions in one Salish language, Halkomelem.
Salish applicatives 
Each Salish language has from one to three redirective suffixes. Table 1 shows data for the twenty Salish languages in our study organized by the five branches; the Interior Salish branch is further divided into two sub-branches—Northern and Southern:7 Table 1.╇ Salish redirective suffixes Branch
Sub-Branch
Bella Coola Central Salish
Tsamosan Tillamook Interior Salish
Northern Interior
Southern Interior
Language
Redirective
Bella Coola Comox Sechelt Squamish Halkomelem Nooksack Northern Straits Klallam Lushootseed Twana Upper Chehalis Cowlitz Tillamook Lillooet Thompson Shuswap Okanagan Kalispel Coeur d’Alene Columbian
-amk -‘әm -em -ši -as, -łc -ši -si -si -yi -ši -ši, -tuxâ•›wt, -tmi -ši, -tuxâ•›wt, -s -ši -xit -xi -xi -xi, -ł, -tuł -ši, -ł -ši, -ł, -tuł -xit, -ł, -tuł
The concept of redirective applicative—adding a third participant as a core argument—is a very old concept in Salish. The most common redirective suffix is reconstructed for Proto-Salish as *-xi by Kinkade (1998). It is found in all three branches, and, in fact, is the only redirective suffix in Northern Interior Salish and most of the Central Salish languages. Reflexes of this form (-si, -ši, -xi, -xit, -yi) appear in all but four of the languages (Bella Coola, Comox, Sechelt, and Halkomelem).8 Other suffixes
.â•… The following references were consulted for the information in the Tables 1 and 4 in this paper: Bates et al. (1994); Beaumont (1985); Carlson (1972, 1980); Carlson and Flett (1989); Davis and Saunders (1997); Doak (1997); Egesdal and Thompson (1998); Galloway (1997); Gerdts (1988); Hess (1967); Kinkade (1980, 1991, 2004); Kuipers (1967, 1974, 1992); A. Mattina (1994); N. Mattina (1993); Montler (1986); Thompson and Thompson (1992); Van Eijk (1997); Watanabe (2003). .â•… The suffix in the outlier language Bella Coola is very different in form and function from redirectives in other languages, as discussed in Kiyosawa (2006).
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
have been added to the redirective system in some branches or individual languages and have usurped the functions of *-xi or added additional functions to the redirective applicative system. The following sections explore the semantics of the redirective construction and, in particular, their use to express benefactive and malefactive meaning.
2.1â•… Semantic roles of applied objects in redirective applicatives The semantic role of the applied object in the redirective applicative construction is usually dative, benefactive, source, or possessor, as elaborated in the following sections.
2.1.1â•… Dative Salish languages express recipients as direct objects:
(5) Sechelt (Beaumont 1985: 138)
, , yát-cí-čen-skâ•›wa ‘e še s‘íłten, we téqíš-axâ•›w. give-tr:2sg.obj-1sg.sub-fut obl det food if sit.down-2sg.sub ‘I’ll give you some food if you sit down.’
This is true whether the verb appears in a simple form, as in the above examples, or if it takes a redirective suffix, as in the following examples:
(6) Kalispel (Carlson 1980: 25) , xâ•›wíc-š-t-әn łu‘ Agnes łu‘ t yámxˇâ•›we‘. give-rdr-tr-1sg.sub art Agnes art obl basket ‘I gave a basket to Agnes.’
A typical dative applied object is a recipient of a transfer verb, such as ‘give’ (6). We use “dative” loosely, and include goals of speech acts (7) as well as goals or targets of actions in general (8)–(9):
(7) Halkomelem (Gerdts 1988: 92)
(8) Cowlitz (Kinkade 2004: 240)
, ni yә´θ-әs-t-әs łә Mary ‘ә kâ•›wθәn syays. aux tell-rdr-tr-3sub det Mary obl det:2sg.poss work ‘He told Mary about your job.’ ‘it cíxˇ-tuxâ•›w-c. perf show-rdr-1sg.obj ‘He showed it to me.’
(9) Thompson (L. Thompson & M. Thompson 1980: 28) , qâ•›w‘xítne. , , //qâ•›wәw-xi-t-â•›ø-enè// trap-rdr-tr-3sg.obj-1sg.sub ‘I set a trap for it [a particular animal].’
Salish applicatives 
2.1.2â•… Benefactive Redirective suffixes are used to form constructions expressing a classic benefactive meaning of doing something for someone’s benefit: (10) Cowlitz (Kinkade 2004: 234)
, ‘it sá‘-š-n ł tit †íqsn. perf make-rdr-tr obl det box ‘He made the box for him.’ (11) Comox (Watanabe 2003: 249)
, †әs-‘әm-θi tθәm ‘ә tә čuy. punch-rdr-tr:2sg.obj 1sg.sub:fut obl det child ‘I’ll punch the kid for you.’ (12) Halkomelem (Gerdts 1988: 95) , ni‘ θә´y-әłc-θámš-әs ‘ә kâ•›wθә nә-snә´xâ•›wәł. aux fix-rdr-tr:1sg.obj-3sg.sub obl det 1sg.poss-canoe ‘He fixed my canoe for me.’ (13) Upper Chehalis (Kinkade 1991: 10) ‘it ‘ә´xˇ-xˇ-tuxâ•›wt čn. ptc see/look.at-red-rdr 1sg.sub ‘I examined it for him.’ (14) Cowlitz (Kinkade 2004: 235) ,â•› ‘it q wałé‘-s-c. perf mark/write-rdr-1sg.obj ‘He signed [it] for me.’ (15) Kalispel (Carlson 1972: 89)
‘ul-ł-cí-n. //wil-ł-t-si-en// burn-rdr-tr-2sg.obj-1sg.sub ‘I burned it for you.’
(16) Okanagan (A. Mattina 1994: 208) , , kâ•›wu sәq-túł-t-s i‘ slíp. 1sg.obj split-rdr-tr-3sub art wood ‘He split wood for me.’ (17) Lillooet (Van Eijk 1997: 115) , , txâ•›wus-min-xí-c-kaxâ•›w ni n-cqáxˇ‘ a! look-rel-rdr-1sg.obj-2sg.sub det 1sg.poss-horse ptc ‘Look out for my horse for me!’
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
(18) Columbian (Willett 2003: 139) , , xәkxíc st,ámka‘s t syáya‘. , //xәk-xit-s stamka‘-s// pick-rdr-3sub daughter-3sg.poss obl serviceberry ‘S/he picked some serviceberries for her/his daughter.’
All of the suffixes in Table 1 can be used to express benefactive meanings, except for -as in Halkomelem and -tmi in Upper Chehalis, which are used only for dative applicatives. As discussed further in Section 4 below, redirective suffixes are the main means for expressing benefactives in Salish languages.
2.1.2.1â•… Delegative.â•… Besides the classic benefactive meaning of doing something for someone’s benefit, Salish redirective suffixes can also be used to express delegative meanings. Thus, the Coeur d’↜Alene example in (19) is glossed with two interpretations— delegative or benefactive. (19) Coeur d’↜Alene (Doak 1997: 157) , níčšices xâ•›we pilí. , //níč-ši-t-s-es xâ•›we pili// cut-rdr-tr-1sg.obj-3sub det Felix ‘Felix cut (wood) instead of me/in my place.’/‘Felix cut (wood) for me.’
An overlap in these two meanings is understandable, since one is often doing a favor for someone when one does a task instead of them. Languages frequently conflate these two meanings, for example, as seen by the use of for for both in English. Also, our Halkomelem consultant has verified that multiple readings are available for all benefactive applicatives. Take the following, for example: (20) Halkomelem (Gerdts, f.n.) , , qâ•›wәl-әłc-θamә cәn ce‘ ‘ә kâ•›w sce:łtәn. bake-rdr-tr:2obj 1sub fut obl det salmon ‘I will bake some salmon for you.’
She says: “you can use this for your benefit in whatever way: for you to eat, because you are unable to do it for whatever reason, because you are too busy to do it and it needs to be done, because I am being substituted to do your job, and so on.” The precise meaning is determined by the context. However, the most normal or neutral reading in the absence of a context would be that the salmon is being cooked for the referent of the object to eat themselves rather than for the salmon to be cooked to give it to someone else to eat.
Salish applicatives 
The use of redirectives on intransitive—rather than transitive—bases is rare in Salish, as discussed in Kiyosawa (2006: Chapter 5). We have found a handful of examples of benefactive applicatives formed on intransitive activity predicates:9 (21) Comox (Watanabe 2003: 252) , , paya‘ štәm t ča-čah-am-‘әm-t-anapi. always 1pl.sub clt red(impf)-pray-mdl-rdr-tr-2pl.obj ‘We will always be praying for you (pl.).’
Two of these examples are translated with delegative meanings: (22) Okanagan (N. Mattina 1993: 272) kâ•›wu qâ•›wәlqâ•›wíl-x-t-s. 1sg.obj talk-rdr-tr-3sub ‘He talked for me (in my stead).’ (23) Okanagan (N. Mattina 1993: 272) , , kâ•›wu qәy=sqáxˇa‘-x-t-s. 1sg.obj burn=dosmestic.animal-rdr-tr-3sub ‘He branded for me (in my stead).’
The distinction between a classic benefactive and a delegative meaning is apparently derived from the meaning of the predicate and the context of the situation.
2.1.2.2â•… Malefactive.â•… Salish redirectives can also be used to expressive malefactive meanings. (24) Comox (Watanabe 2003: 251)
, †әpxâ•›w-a‘am-θ-as ‘ә tә tθ xˇapay. break-rdr-tr:1sg.obj-3sub obl det 1sg.poss stick ‘He broke my stick on me.’
(25) Thompson (L. Thompson & M. Thompson 1980: 28)
má‛xtimes tә s-zélt-ep. //má‛-xi-t-uym-es// break-rdr-tr-2pl.obj-3sub obl nm-dish-2pl.poss ‘He broke you people’s dish.’
(26) Shuswap (Kuipers 1992: 49) , x-lm[t]=ci-x-t-s prfx-close=mouth-rdr-tr-3sub ‘close door on somebody’
.â•… See also Example (2) above.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
While some examples are translated with only a benefactive reading or only a malefactive one, many examples are given more than one interpretation. Thus, whether the applied object bears the role of benefactive or malefactive often depends on the situation. Watanabe (2003: 251) states, ‘the choice [between benefactive and malefactive] seems to depend on the context’, and cites examples like the following: (27) Comox (Watanabe 2003: 251) , , , čәpxˇ-a‘am-θ-as ‘ә tә tθ qәsnay. dirty-rdr-tr:1sg.obj-3sub obl det 1sg.poss dress ‘She dirtied my dress [on me]./She dirtied my dress for me.’ (28) Comox (Watanabe 2003: 252) qâ•›wuqâ•›wu-‘әm-θ-as ‘ә tә tθ tiy. drink-rdr-tr:1sg.obj-3sub obl det 1sg.poss tea ‘He drank my tea for me [when I could not finish it].’/‘He drank up my tea [on me].’
The following Shuswap example also allows two interpretations: (29) Shuswap (Gardiner 1993: 21) m-sté(t)‘ә-x-t-sm-s tә xˇâ•›wәxˇâ•›w‘ú‘s. perf-drink-rdr-tr-1sg.obj-3sub obl beer ‘She drank the beer for/on me.’
In sum, the choice between benefactive and malefactive readings is contextual based on the pragmatics of the situation. The same event may have different readings depending on the opinion of the speaker regarding the situation.
2.1.3â•… Source Another use of redirective applicatives is to express source applied objects of transfer verbs such as ‘buy’ (30), ‘steal’ (31), and ‘take away’ (32): (30) Columbian (Kinkade 1980: 33.1) táw-ł-n. buy-rdr(-tr)-1sg.sub ‘I bought it from him.’ (31) Columbian (Kinkade 1982: 57) c-l әm-ł-cí-nn. ˙˙ impf-steal-rdr-tr:2sg.obj-1sg.sub ‘I am stealing it from you.’ (32) Squamish (Kuipers 1967: 253) , pí‘-ši-t-ka ta xˇәl‘tn-s! grab-rdr-tr-imp det pencil-3sg.poss ‘Take that (lit. his) pencil from him!’
Salish applicatives 
Many cases involving source applied objects carry the implication of malefaction, more specifically deprivation, since the event involves physically separating a theme from the source. Applicatives based on action verbs, such as ‘hide’ (33), ‘pull’ (34), and ‘keep’ (35), are especially prone to this interpretation: (33) Nooksack (Galloway 1997: 222) kâ•›wo-wát-as ‘íł kâ•›wa[l]-xyí-θ-as. someone aux hide-rdr-tr:1sg.obj-3sub ‘Someone hid something from me.’ (34) Columbian (Willett 2003: 256)
ncәkâ•›wakstúłn wa hacmíntn. ˙ w //n-cәkâ•› =akst-túł-t-n// pstn-pull=hand-rdr-tr-1sg.sub ptc rope ‘I pulled the rope out of his hand.’
(35) Shuswap (Kuipers 1974: 154; Kuipers 1992: 49) tәknem-x-t-s keep-rdr-tr-3sub ‘withhold from object/refuse to give something to somebody (object)’
The applied object in (36) can be dative or source:10 (36) Lushootseed (Hess & Bates 2004: 176) ‘u-kâ•›wәd-yí-t-әb čәd ti‘ił qâ•›włay‘. punct-take-rdr-tr-pass 1sg.sub det stick ‘She took that stick to me (i.e. whipped me).’/‘She took that stick from me.’
Both translations have malefactive connotations.
2.1.4â•… Possessive Many, but not all, Salish languages use redirective suffixes to form possessive applicative constructions (a.k.a. “possessor ascension” or “external possession” constructions). The applied object is interpreted as the possessor of the theme NP: (37) Comox (Watanabe 2003: 252) łәw-‘әm-θ-as ‘ә šә tθ aplәs-uł take.out-rdr-tr:1sg.obj-3sub obl det 1sg.poss apple-past , ‘ә tә kâ•›waxâ•›wa. obl det box ‘He took my apples from the box.’
.╅ The passive in Salish is often not reflected in the English translation.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
(38) Twana (Kinkade n.d.)
, kâ•›wәd-ší-d-čәd ә tә wәq´әb. get-rdr-tr-1sg.sub obl art box ‘I took his box.’
Possessors cannot be objects in Salish languages unless the verb takes applicative morphology.11 In Examples (37) and (38), the translation indicates that the theme NP is possessed by the applied object even though no possessive marking appears on that NP. In other examples of possessive applicatives, possessive marking appears on the theme NP: (39) Shuswap (Kuipers 1992: 49) mlmalqâ•›w-x-t-s tә citxâ•›w-s. paint-rdr-tr-3sub obl house-3poss ‘Hei paints the/hisj house for himj.’/‘Hei paints hisj house.’
Note that, since the same redirective suffixes are used to mark both benefactive applicatives and possessive applicatives, the applied object in examples like (39) can be interpreted as either the benefactive or the possessor. As discussed below, the redirective suffix -ł in Southern Interior Salish languages is best analyzed as primarily a possessive suffix. In fact, it is generally the case that possessive applicative constructions do not have simple possessor semantics, but rather have an additional semantic “kick” indicating that the possessor is affected by the action (cf. Fried 1999). So the applied object bears an additional role: dative (40), benefactive (41), malefactive (42), or source (43). (40) Okanagan (N. Mattina 1993: 277) , kâ•›wu c-xâ•›wic-ł-t i-kł-lkalát. 1sg.obj asp-give-rdr-tr 1sg.poss-irr-bread ‘Give me what will be my bread.’ (41) Kalispel (Vogt 1940: 34) yes-u:l-ł-t-ém. asp-burn-rdr-tr-intr ‘I am burning it for him.’/‘I am burning his…’ (42) Columbian (Kinkade 1980: 34) , wәlq wátkâ•›w-ł-c wa ‘in-lәtí. drink-rdr-tr:1sg.obj ptc 1sg.poss-tea ‘She drank my tea (after taking it away from me).’
.â•… An exception to this generalization is a construction with a lexical suffix construction—the Salish equivalent to noun incorporation—in which the semantic possessor of the lexical suffix is the object. See Gerdts and Hinkson (2004) for a discussion of the relation of lexical suffixes, applicatives, and external possession.
Salish applicatives 
(43) Okanagan (A. Mattina 1994: 212) , lut kâ•›wu a-ks-naqâ•›w-m-ł-t-әm in-kәwáp. not 1sg.obj 2sg.poss-fut-steal-rel-rdr-tr-intr 1sg.poss-horse ‘Don’t steal my horse from me.’
This double layer of semantics, together with the added complication that the possessive marking often appears on the theme in possessive applicatives, leads to a confusing range of translations for many examples, as discussed in more detail in Kiyosawa (2004).
2.2â•… The mapping of form and function It is not unusual for languages to have a single multi-purpose applicative morpheme that is used in a variety of applicative constructions such as dative, benefactive, and possessive. Languages with a single applicative include Swahili (Driever 1976), Mayan languages (Aissen 1987), and Mixean languages (Zavala 1999). However, it is also fairly common for a language to have two or more applicative morphemes, each specialized for use with applied objects in a limited range of the semantic roles. Languages that have several applicatives include Chickasaw (Munro 2000), Hakha Lai (Peterson 2007), Ilokano (Gerdts & Whaley 1993), Kinyarwanda (Kimenyi 1980), Nez Perce (Rude 1985), Tukang Besi (Donohue 1999), Upper Necaxa Totonac (Beck 2006), and Yimas (Foley 1991). In Salish, we can see both types of mappings: there are some general purpose applicative morphemes and some suffixes that tend to map to specific semantic roles. First we will discuss languages that have a single multi-purpose redirective suffix and then we will turn to languages that have more than one redirective suffix.
2.2.1╅ Languages with one redirective suffix Many Salish languages have only a single redirective suffix and the applied object takes on a variety of semantic roles. For example, in Squamish, applied objects in redirective applicatives have three semantic roles: dative (a), benefactive (b), and possessor/source€(c). (44) Squamish a.
, sát-ši-t-m čáxâ•›w ‘it. give-rdr-tr-pass 2sg.sub fut ‘He’ll give it to you.’
b. číł-ši-t-úmuł-ka! put.up.high-rdr-tr-1pl.obj-imp ‘Put it up high for us!’ , c. pí‘-ši-t-ka ta xˇ´әl‘tn-s! grab-rdr-tr-imp det pencil-3sg.poss ‘Take that (lit. his) pencil from him!’
(Kuipers 1967: 303)
(Kuipers 1967: 318)
(Kuipers 1967: 253)
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
In some languages, applied objects can have four semantic roles. For example, Shuswap has only one redirective suffix, -xi, and the semantic role of the applied object can be dative (a), benefactive (b), malefactive (c), or possessor (d): (45) Shuswap , a. tw kә-mí-x-t-s. sell-rel-rdr-tr-3sub ‘He sells it to somebody.’ (Gardiner 1993: 23) , , ,w ,w b. c-kâ•› i-kâ•› ł-x-cm-e †k-ci‘! prfx-red-leave.food-rdr-tr:1sg.obj-imp irr-meat ‘Leave some meat for me!’ (Kuipers 1974: 222) , c. x-lm[t]=ci-x-t-s prfx-close=mouth-rdr-tr-3sub ‘close door on somebody’ (Kuipers 1992: 49) d. > Mary wik-x-t-sm-s tә n-qé‘čә. det Mary see-rdr-tr-1sg.obj-3sub obl 1sg.poss-father ‘Mary saw my father.’ (Gardiner 1993: 22)
In sum, Salish languages that have only a single redirective suffix use it to form applicatives in which the applied object has a variety of semantic roles.
2.2.2â•… Languages with more than one redirective suffix In contrast, when a language has more than one redirective suffix, the semantic roles associated with a certain suffix are more limited. Halkomelem illustrates this point. There are two redirective suffixes in Halkomelem, -as and -łc, and the applied object is always dative with -as, as in (46), and always benefactive with -łc, as in (47):12 (46) Halkomelem
, ni‘ ‘ám-әs-t-әs kâ•›wθә swíwlәs ‘ә kâ•›wθә púkâ•›w. aux give-rdr-tr-3sub det boy obl det book ‘He gave the boy the book.’ (Gerdts 1988: 115) , , w b. ni‘ ‘iw -әs-θamš-әs ‘ә kâ•› θә qeq-s. aux show-rdr-tr:1sg.obj-3sub obl det baby-3poss ‘She showed me her baby.’ (Gerdts & Hinkson 2004: 228) a.
(47) Halkomelem a.
ni‘ lә´xˇâ•›w-әłc-әt-әs. aux blanket-rdr-tr-3sub ‘He covered it with a blanket for him.’
(Gerdts 1988: 101)
.â•… Although the benefactive redirective suffix -łc partially resembles -ł, the possessive redirective applicative in Southern Interior languages, Halkomelem does not use -łc for possessive applied objects.
Salish applicatives 
, b. ni‘ qâ•›w´әl-әłc-t-әs łә słéni‘ ‘ә kâ•›wθә sәplíl. aux bake-rdr-tr-3sub det woman obl det bread ‘He baked the bread for the woman.’ (Gerdts 1988: 90)
While all of the Northern Interior languages have a single multi-purpose redirective suffix, Southern Interior languages have two or three different suffixes, each of which is used for a variety of redirective meanings. Nevertheless, as we discuss below, the redirective suffixes tend to align with applied objects bearing particular semantic roles. At first glance, it seems that the situation in Southern Interior Salish parallels the Northern Interior one: note that reflexes of all three redirective suffixes *-xi, -ł, and -tuł can appear in dative (48), benefactive (49), and possessive (50) applicatives:13 (48) a.
Kalispel (Carlson 1980: 25) , xâ•›wíc-š-t-әn łu‘ Agnes łu‘ t yámxˇâ•›we‘. give-rdr-tr-1sg.sub art Agnes art obl basket ‘I gave a basket to Agnes.’
b. Okanagan (N. Mattina 1993: 277) , kâ•›wu c-xâ•›wic-ł-t i-kł-lkalát. 1sg.obj asp-give-rdr-tr 1sg.poss-irr-bread ‘Give me what will be my bread.’ c.
Columbian (Willett 2003: 137)
yәrmәntúłn. //yәr-mi-tuł-t-n// push-rel-rdr-tr-1sg.sub ‘I pushed it to her/him.’
(49) a.
Okanagan (A. Mattina 1994: 211)
, ka‘kíc-x-t-m-әn t a-kł-qa‘xán. find-rdr-tr-2sg.obj-1sg.sub obl 2sg.poss-fut-shoes ‘I found you some shoes.’
b. Kalispel (Carlson 1972: 89)
‘ul-ł-cí-n. //wil-ł-t-si-en// burn-rdr-tr-2sg.obj-1sg.sub ‘I burned it for you.’
c.
Okanagan (A. Mattina 1994: 208) , , kâ•›wu sәq-túł-t-s i‘ slíp. 1sg.obj split-rdr-tr-3sub art wood ‘He split wood for me.’
.╅ We omit source applicatives from the discussion but include them in the summary below.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
(50) a.
Coeur d’Alene (Doak 1997: 167)
mé’â•›wšic. //me’â•›w-ši-t-Ø-s// break-rdr-tr-3obj-3sub ‘He broke something that belongs to another.’
b. Columbian (Kinkade 1980: 34)
má’â•›w-ł-c-xâ•›w ‘in-łkáp. break-rdr(-tr)-1sg.obj-2sg.sub 1sg.poss-pot ‘You broke my pot.’
c.
Okanagan (A. Mattina 1994: 211) , ti‘ c-әn-‘úłxâ•›w pit, uł uk-túł-t-s i‘ as.soon.as asp-loc-come.in Pete and see-rdr-tr-3sub art , ,, , tәtwít i‘ stәtqána‘k-s. boy art pistol-3sg.poss
‘As soon as Pete came in, he saw the gun that the boy had (not necessarily the boy’s gun).’
However, there are two types of evidence that suggest that the suffixes are in fact specialized semantically. First, when we look more closely at a sample of data, we find that the suffixes distribute according to function. As discussed in detail in Kiyosawa (2006), collecting examples of redirective applicatives from grammars and dictionaries of Southern Interior languages yields 210 tokens.14 The number of applied objects bearing each semantic role is given in Table 2: Table 2.╇ Applied Objects with Southern Interior Redirectives Redirective
Dative
Benefactive
Possessor
Source
Total
*-xi ╛↜-ł ╛↜-tuł
19 13 10
47 35 5
6 63 2
0 6 4
72 117 21
total
42
87
71
10
210
We can ascertain from these data which type of applied object tends to occur in applicative constructions with each redirective suffix. Reflexes of *-xi correlate with benefactives; the suffix -ł with possessors; and the suffix -tuł with datives. A ranked hierarchy of use can be given for each suffix:
.╅ All examples of the same verb root and suffix with the same translation in a language are counted as one token in this sample.
Salish applicatives 
(51) Hierarchies of applied object occurrence a.
Benefactive-oriented suffix: *-xi, Benefactive > Dative > Possessor
b. Possessive-oriented suffix: -ł Possessor > Benefactive > Dative > Source c.
Dative-oriented suffix: -tuł Dative > Benefactive > Source > Possessor
Benefactive meanings are the most common overall; they are the first or second most popular meaning for each suffix. Second, if we take examples of the redirective suffixes used with the same verb root in the same language, we find semantic contrasts. For example, in Okanagan, the verb root for ‘tie’ yields a benefactive applicative when suffixed with *-xi and a possessor applicative when suffixed with -ł. (52) Okanagan (N. Mattina 1993: 280)
, , Mary ’ac-xí-t-s i‘ t snkłca‘sqáxˇa‘ i‘ ttwit. Mary tie-rdr-tr-3sub art obl horse art boy ‘Mary tied the horse for the boy.’ , b. Mary ’ác-ł-t-s i‘ ttwit i‘ kәwáp-s. Mary tie-rdr-tr-3sub art boy art horse-3sg.poss ‘Mary tied the boy his horse.’15 a.
Also, we find that in Columbian the applied object is benefactive in the redirective constructions with reflexes of *-xi in (a), while it is dative in the -tuł redirective constructions in (b). (53) Columbian (Willett 2003: 136, 137) a.
kâ•›włnwílxtn. //kâ•›wułn=wil-xit-n// borrow=vehicle-rdr-1sg.sub ‘I borrowed a vehicle for her/him.’
b.
kâ•›włntúłn. //kâ•›wułn-tuł-t-n// lend-rdr-tr-1sg.sub ‘I loaned it to her/him.’
Similarly, in the following Okanagan examples, we see possessive applicatives with -ł in (a) contrasting with benefactive applicatives with -tuł in (b).
.╅ This translation from N. Mattina (1993) is intended to convey a possessor applicative meaning.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
(54) Okanagan (A. Mattina 1994: 208) , a. kâ•›wu síq-әł-t-s 1sg.obj split-rdr-tr-3sub ‘He split my wood.’ , b. kâ•›wu sәq-túł-t-s 1sg.obj split-rdr-tr-3sub ‘He split wood for me.’
, i-slíp. 1sg.poss-wood , i‘ slíp. art wood
In sum, although each redirective suffix in Southern Interior Salish languages can be used for a variety of meanings, there is nonetheless evidence that each tends to be associated with a particular semantics, and that there tends to be a single interpretation for any given combination of a verb root and a suffix. Thus the situation in languages with multiple redirective suffixes contrasts with that in languages with a single redirective suffix.
2.2.3╅ Summary: Benefactive as the core redirective concept There are ten different redirective suffixes in total in the Salish languages. Only *-xi can be reconstructed for Proto-Salish. Kiyosawa (2006) determines the core function of each applicative suffix by how frequently it appears in that function in the modern languages. She collected 447 tokens of verb plus suffix pairings from grammars and dictionaries and found the following distribution: Table 3.╇ Applied Objects with Redirectives Redirective
Benefactive
Dative
Possessor
Source
Total
*-xi 8 others
134 83
58 49
35 70
6 12
233 214
total
217
107
105
18
447
Notice that, overall, benefactive (or, more precisely, benefactive, delegative, and malefactive) is the most common meaning for redirectives, constituting half of the sample (217 of 447 tokens). Benefactive is also the most common meaning in the data with *-xi (134 out of 233 tokens or 58%). In sum, judging from the usage of its reflexes in the modern languages, ProtoSalish *-xi was probably associated with the semantic role of benefactive. But in many languages, its function has been extended to mark several kinds of applied objects, including datives, possessors, and sources. Thus, in these languages, its function is parallel to a general di-transitivizer, perhaps equivalent in semantic function to dative case in dependent-marking languages. Over time, other suffixes have been added to the redirective system in some branches or individual languages and these have usurped some of the functions of *-xi. The situation in Halkomelem is particularly interesting because it has no reflex of *-xi. The suffixes -as and -łc are most certainly
Salish applicatives 
innovative.16 The suffix -as expresses dative and -łc expresses benefactive applied objects, and the function and form and the suffixes have a one-to-one correspondence. Though the situation is not as clear-cut in Southern Interior as it is in Halkomelem, the redirective suffixes also tend to align with applied objects bearing particular semantic roles. The core function of the suffix -ł is to express a possessor as the applied object and that of the suffix -tuł is to express a dative applied object, though both suffixes are also used to express benefactives.
3.â•… Relational applicatives A second type of applicative construction, the relational applicative, is relevant to our discussion of benefactives and malefactives in Salish languages. A relational applicative construction adds a second argument to a clause whose non-applicative counterpart is intransitive. The resulting clause is a syntactically transitive construction in which a non-theme nominal is the direct object. Compare the intransitive construction in (55) with the applicative construction in (56): (55) Halkomelem (Gerdts 2004: 330) , , ni‘ nem kâ•›wθә swiw lәs. aux go det boy ‘The boy went.’ (56) Halkomelem (Gerdts 2004: 330) , ni‘ nәm-nәs-әs kâ•›wθә swiw lәs kâ•›wθә John. aux go-rel-3sub det boy det John ‘The boy went up to John.’
The clause in (55) is intransitive, while (56) is syntactically transitive, as evidenced by the third person ergative marker, and ‘John’, the goal of the motion, is the applied object. The semantic role of the applied object, goal in this case, is signaled by the relational suffix -nәs. Applied objects in relational applicatives are generally not semantic arguments of the predicate but rather have an indirect (or oblique) relationship to the event. For example, contrast the intransitive clause in (57) with the relational applicative in (58): (57) Halkomelem (Gerdts & Kiyosawa 2005b: 339) ni‘ cәn si‘si‘ ‘ә kâ•›wθә snәxâ•›wәł. aux 1sg.sub frighten obl det canoe ‘I was frightened at the car.’
.â•… The dative suffix â•‚as is grammaticalized from the lexical suffix ‘face’ (Gerdts & Hinkson 2004).
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
(58) Halkomelem (Gerdts & Kiyosawa 2005b: 339)
, ni‘ cәn si‘si‘-me‘-t kâ•›wθә sqâ•›wәmey. aux 1sg.sub frighten-rel-tr det dog ‘I was frightened at the dog.’
In both sentences, the first-person subject is the experiencer of the psychological event. In (57), the stimulus of the event is expressed as an oblique, marked with the general oblique preposition ‘ә, but in (58) the stimulus is the applied object in a relational applicative construction, marked by the verbal suffix -me‘. The example in (58) is transitive, as seen by the presence of the transitive suffix on the verb. As discussed in Gerdts and Kiyosawa (2005a), the choice between expressing the NP as the object of a preposition or as an applied object depends on its discourse prominence and its animacy. Each Salish language has from one to three relational suffixes, and there are a total of seven different suffixes, as given in Table 4. Table 4.╇ Salish Relational Suffixes Branch
Sub-Branch
Bella Coola Central Salish
Tsamosan Tillamook Interior Salish
Northern Interior Salish
Southern Interior Salish
Language
Relational
Bella Coola Comox Sechelt Squamish Halkomelem Nooksack Northern Straits Klallam Lushootseed Twana Upper Chehalis Cowlitz Tillamook Lillooet Thompson Shuswap Okanagan Kalispel Coeur d’Alene Columbian
-m -mi, -ni -mí, -ni , -min, -ni -me‘/-mi‘, -nәs -ni -ŋiy, -nәs -ŋә, -nәs -bi, -di, -c/-s -ac -mis/-mn, -ni, -tas/-ts -mi(s), -ni, -t(a)s -әwi, -әs , -min/-min -mi -m(í) -min -mi -mi -mi
The most common relational suffix is reconstructed for Proto-Salish as *-mi by , Kinkade (1998) and reflexes of this form (-bi, -me‘, -mi, -mi‘, -min, -min, -mn, -mis, -ŋiy, -ŋә, -әwi) appear in all but three of the languages (Bella Coola, Nooksack, and
Salish applicatives 
Twana). Reflexes of the suffix *-mi are the only relational suffixes in Interior Salish languages, while most Central Salish languages and Tillamook have two relational suffixes, and Lushootseed and Tsamosan languages have three. The second most widespread relational suffix *-ni ( > -di, -ni) is attested in five of the Central Salish languages and in Tsamosan languages. The following sections briefly explore the semantics of the relational construction, especially their use to express benefactives and malefactives.
3.1â•… The semantics roles of relational applicatives In relational applicative constructions, the verb stem is usually intransitive, and the semantic role of the applied object is usually goal or direction of motion as in (59)–(60) or stimulus of a psychological or perceptual event as in (61)–(62).17 (59) Lillooet (Van Eijk 1987: 140) , , ka-łәxˇâ•›w-min-c-as a †ú‘ a. rslt-come.up-rel-1sg.obj-3sub rslt clt(well/so) rslt ‘He came right up to me.’ (60) Comox (Watanabe 1996: 335) , łukâ•›w-mi-θ-as. fly-rel-tr:1sg.obj-3sub ‘It’s flying towards me.’ (61) Okanagan (A. Mattina 1994: 221) ixí‘ ‘áyxˇâ•›w-t-mә-nt-s-әn. there tired-st-rel-tr-2sg.obj-1sg.sub ‘I am tired of you.’ (62) Halkomelem (Gerdts & Kiyosawa 2005b: 334) , , , cәq-me‘-t č ce‘ kâ•›wθә nәcәwmәxâ•›w ‘i ce‘ tecәl. surprise-rel-tr 2sg.sub fut det visitor aux fut arrive ‘You will be surprised at the visitors when they arrive.’
While there is a tendency for a suffix to be associated to a particular meaning within a language, across languages the same suffix is used to express various meanings.
.╅ See Gerdts (2004) for a discussion of Halkomelem directional applicatives. Gerdts and Kiyosawa (2005b) treat psych applicatives in Halkomelem, and Gerdts and Kiyosawa (2004) treat psych applicatives in Salish languages in general.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
The result is that the same meaning may be expressed by different relational suffixes in different languages, for example -mi in (63), -ni in (64), and -ac in (65): (63) Sechelt (Beaumont 1985: 104) , čásxˇém-mí-t-á-čexâ•›w te ‘úłqay? afraid-rel-tr-q-2sg.sub det snake ‘Are you afraid of the snake?’ (64) Nooksack (Galloway 1997: 222) ‘ił ‘a(s)-sí(y)‘say‘-ni-θ-as. aux st-afraid-rel-tr:1sg.obj-3sub ‘He’s afraid of me.’/‘He doesn’t trust me.’ (65) Twana (Kinkade n.d.) , , as-cípal-ac-bәš. st-fear-rel-1sg.obj ‘He’s afraid of me.’
In sum, the match of form to function in relational applicatives is complicated both within and across languages, like the situation found with the redirective applicatives.
3.1.1â•… Benefactive Motion verbs and psychological predicates account for the majority of examples of relational applicatives. However, relational suffixes also attach to a few activity verbs to form applicatives in which the applied object is the benefactive: (66) Halkomelem (Gerdts 1988: 144) ni‘ kâ•›wukâ•›w-me‘-θám‘š-әs. aux cook-rel-tr:1sg.obj-3erg ‘He cooked for me.’ (67) Tillamook (Egesdal & M. Thompson 1998: 253) , dә s-‘isleš-әw í-t-әw. art nm-sing-rel-tr-pass ‘Someone is singing for him.’ (68) Lillooet (Van Eijk 1997: 125) , , kâ•›wzús-min work-rel ‘to work for, to look after’ (69) Thomspon (L. Thompson & M. Thompson 1992: 75) , kâ•›wz=ús-m-me-ne. rough=face-mdl-rel(-tr)-1sg.sub ‘I work hard for him.’
Salish applicatives 
(70) Halkomelem (Gerdts, f.n.) ya:ys-me‘-t work-rel-tr ‘work for him/her’/‘work on him/her’ [e.g. a spiritualist working a cure]
Note that the preceding Halkomelem data can also have the meaning ‘work on’. The same use of ‘work’ with a relational suffix in found in Nooksack: (71) Nooksack (Adams et al. 2005: 9) ‘әháy-ni-t-әs tә i-ł xˇ´әł work-rel-tr-3sub art in-past sick ‘he will do work on the sick’
In sum, the benefactive use of the relational suffix is limited to at most a few verbs per language. For example, we have found only two in Halkomelem. Thus, these forms are best analyzed as lexicalized. Some Salish languages make use of a second strategy to express benefactives based on intransitive verbs; they attach a redirective suffix, which by definition should attach only to a transitive base, to activity predicates to form relational applicatives in which the applied object is a benefactive: (72) Lillooet (Van Eijk 1987: 312) , ‘í†-әm-xit sing-mdl-rdr ‘to sing for someone’ (73) Upper Chehalis (Kinkade 1991: 372) ‘it yús-š-c. perf work-rdr-tr:1sg.obj ‘He/she worked for me.’ (74) Comox (Watanabe 1996: 331) čił-im-‘әm-t-umuł-as Mary. dance-mdl-rdr-tr-1pl.obj-3sub Mary ‘Mary danced for us.’ (75) Comox (Watanabe 2003: 252) , , paya‘ štәm t ča-čah-am-‘әm-t-anapi. always 1pl.sub clt red(impf)-pray-mdl-rdr-tr-2pl.obj ‘We will always be praying for you (pl.).’
Again, this function is highly lexicalized, appearing on at most a couple of verbs per language.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
The inability of most intransitive verbs to form benefactive applicatives in Salish languages is not surprising given the cross-linguistic propensity noted by Shibatani (1996) for benefactive constructions to favor transitive bases.
3.1.2â•… Malefactive While relational applicatives are used in a limited way to express benefactives, their use for malefactive meanings is much more robust. Actually, many of the psychological events expressed as relational applicatives are negative ones. Take, for example, the list of psychological predicates occurring with the suffix -me‘ in the Island dialect of Halkomelem. Some are positive or neutral in meaning, depending on the context: , , , c әqme‘t ‘astonished, surprised at’, hilәkâ•›wme‘t ‘happy for’, ‘iyәsme‘t ‘happy for’, si‘әm me‘t ,w ‘respect’, hek â•› me‘t ‘remember’, siwәlme‘t ‘sense’, xâ•›wθtiwәnme‘t ‘think, decide about’, , štә‘e:wәnme‘t ‘think that way about’, xâ•›wqâ•›wәlәwәnme‘t ‘think about’. However, more , denote negative experiences: si‘si‘me‘t ‘afraid, frightened of ’, q,elme‘t ‘believe (lies)’, w xˇi‘xˇe‘me‘t ‘embarrassed, shy of , , ’,, kâ•› iłәme‘t ‘fed up with’,, ,mel,qme‘t ‘forget about’ , , , w wәwistәnәqme‘t ‘jealous of ’, sәl sәl qâ•› me‘t ‘lonely, sad for’, tetiyәqmәt ‘mad at’, qәl me‘t , ,, , , , , ‘miss’, qilәsme‘t ‘sad for’, sәwsәwme‘t ‘sad for’, t θәyk â•›wme‘t ‘startled at’, k â•›welәk â•›wme‘t , ‘suspicious of ’, qsәme‘t ‘tired of waiting for’, łciwsme‘t ‘tired of ’. The positive or negative effect of the event is determined by the denotation of the predicate; it is the subject and not the applied object that is affected. However, in other cases, the malefactive meaning is not supplied by the verb, which does not carry a negative connotation on its own, and thus the negative effect clearly arises as a result of the relational suffix. (76) Comox (Watanabe 1996: 337) qâ•›way-mi-θi tθәm. talk-rel-tr:2sg.obj 1sg.sub:fut ‘I’ll scold you.’ (77) Lushootseed (Hess & Bates 2004: 183) , , yәc-bí-d ti čáčas. tell-rel-tr det child ‘She told on the boy (and made a good story of it).’ (78) Klallam (Montler 1996: 262) , ‘әná-nәs-әŋ cn ‘a‘ cә sqáxˇә‘. come-rel-pass 1sg.sub obl det dog ‘The dog came at me.’ (79) Comox (Watanabe 1996: 335) łag-a-θut-mi-θ-as. leave-lv-tr:refl-rel-tr:1sg.obj-3sub ‘He walked/ran out on me.’/‘He ran away from me.’
Salish applicatives 
(80) Lushootseed (Hess & Bates 2004: 181) ‘úkâ•›wukâ•›w-bi-t-s. play-rel-tr-1sg.obj ‘They made fun of me.’ (81) Squamish (Kuipers 1967: 351) , na qxâ•›w=ús-mi-nt-as-wit. aux gathered=face-rel-tr-3sub-pl ‘They ganged up on him.’
The malefactive use of relational sufixes has been previously noted by only two researchers. Beaumont (1985: 105) says the Sechelt suffix -ni is used when the action performed by the subject “works to the disadvantage of someone else”, and Kuipers (1974: 46) notes that the Shuswap suffix -m(í) refers to an object that is affected indirectly, superficially, or malefactively by the action. However, it becomes obvious when data are assembled from across languages.
3.1.2.1â•… Source and malefaction.â•… Another class of verbs that form relational applicatives is the transfer predicates. In many Salish languages, transfer predicates are intransitive (often in middle or autonomous voice) rather than transitive, and thus form relational rather than redirective applicatives: (82) Sechelt (Beaumont 1985: 104) , qâ•›wímels-ni-t-št-kâ•›wa čems syíyaya ‘e če ‘úpan=ús. borrow-rel-1pl.sub-fut det:1pl.poss friend obl det ten=round.object ‘We’re going to borrow ten dollars from our friends.’ (83) Squamish (Kuipers 1967: 343) na kâ•›wúł(n)-ni-t-c-as. aux borrow-rel-tr-1sg.obj-3sub ‘He borrowed it from me.’ (84) Lushootseed (Bates et al. 1994: 172) qáda-di-d steal-rel-tr ‘steal from someone’ (85) Comox (Watanabe 2003: 256) , čәw u-ni-θ-as ‘ә tә tθ tala. steal-rel-tr:1sg.obj-3sub obl det 1sg.poss money ‘He stole money from me.’
As was pointed out in Section 2.1.2.2 above, redirectives with source applied objects often carry a malefactive meaning. This is because the applied object is being deprived of the theme.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
3.1.2.2â•… Adversative with natural phenomena.â•… Relational applicatives can be formed on predicates (nouns or verbs) denoting natural phenomena to express an adverse effect, such as discomfort from inclement weather, on the applied object: (86) Thompson (L. Thompson & M. Thompson 1992: 74) , c‘oz-mí-nt-i-s. dark-rel-tr-1pl.obj-3sub ‘It gets dark on us.’ (87) Comox (Watanabe 2003: 257) , čәł-ni-θay-әm. rain-rel-tr:1sg.obj-pass ‘I got rained on.’ (88) Halkomelem (Gerdts & Kiyosawa 2005b: 331) sqâ•›wәlqâ•›walxˇâ•›w-me‘-t-әm hail-rel-tr-pass ‘(he/she/it) get hailed on’ (89) Halkomelem (Gerdts & Kiyosawa 2005b: 331) , yәq-me‘-t-әm snow-rel-tr-pass ‘(he/she/it) get snowed on’
One example from Lillooet shows that the relational suffix can be suffixed to a noun to convey an attack by an animal: (90) Lillooet (Van Eijk 1997: 122) mixˇał-mín-әm bear-rel-pass ‘it was eaten by a bear, he was met by a bear, ran into a bear’
Relational applicatives of nature verbs tend to be used in the passive, rather than the active. Whatever the voice, the passive is agentless: the agent (or force) is part of the meaning expressed by the predicate. There is a small set of adversative constructions in some Salish languages that have similar properties: they always appear in an agentless passive, never as an active. For example, the Halkomelem roots for ‘get drowsy’ or ‘have a nightmare’ never appear as , active transitive forms (*cәtxˇâ•›wt, *xˇәyxˇayәk â•›wәst) but only in the passive: (91) Halkomelem (Gerdts, f.n.)
, , cәtxˇâ•›w-θa:m ce‘ ‘әw ni:xâ•›w mәq ‘ә θә xˇixâ•›wә. drowsy-tr:2pass fut lnk aux.2sub full obl det sea.urchin ‘You’re going to get drowsy when you get full of the sea urchin.’
Salish applicatives 
(92) Halkomelem (Gerdts, f.n.) , xˇәyxˇayәkâ•›wәs-θelәm. nightmare-tr:1pass ‘I had a nightmare.’ (93) Halkomelem (Gerdts, f.n.) , , , q, әlq,әlpnәctәm ‘get a cramp’ kâ•›wәlәtәm ‘get diarrhea’ cxâ•›watәm ‘be swollen, bloated’ (94) Squamish (Kuipers 1967: 83–84) , , tut,łmántm ‘be flea-ridden’ , c´әkâ•›wntm ‘be worm-infested’ , w ántm ‘ix ‘be infested with maggots’ , ˇ,â•› ic , čәčičántm ‘have convulsions’ xˇišačí‘ntm ‘have cramp in the arm’ ,, xˇәpk, â•›wántm ‘be in pain’ , xˇәpkâ•›wíwsntm ‘be rheumatic’
This is a special use of the passive. Normally, Salish passives carry no implication of adversative; that is, they are not ‘suffer’ passive constructions like those found in some Asian languages.18
3.2â•… The mapping of form and function Even though the distribution and usage of the suffixes paints a complex picture, several generalizations emerge from the above discussion. The concept of relational applicative, i.e. adding a non-theme participant as a core argument, thereby changing an intransitive verb into a transitive verb, must be very old in Salish, probably going back to Proto-Salish. Given the robustness of the suffix *-mi, in terms of the number of different branches that have reflexes of this suffix, the wide range of verb classes that they attach to, and the different semantic roles of the applied objects associated with them, it is likely that this morphology was associated with the relational applicative construction in Proto-Salish. The exact nature of the semantics of Proto-Salish *-mi can be debated. Was it a general transitivizer devoid of semantics functioning simply to license an object? Or was it associated with a particular verb class or verb classes, as reflected in the modern languages? The former would parallel its current use in the Northern Interior Salish languages. The latter would parallel its use in Central Salish languages like Halkomelem. In Halkomelem, *-mi is more productive on psych predicates and
.╅ See the papers by Radetzky and Smith and by Smith in this volume.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
other verbs of internal experience, and it is most commonly associated with applied objects with the semantic role of stimulus.19 In either case, the function of *-mi has changed over time, expanding and/or contracting in its range of meaning in the various languages. Other suffixes that have been added to the relational system in some languages have usurped some of the functions of *-mi or added other functions to the relational applicative system. The suffix *-ni may originally have been associated with transfer verbs, perhaps indicating a concept like source or malefactive. Other relational suffixes have minor usage within the family, usually localized to one sub-branch. In languages with multiple relational suffixes, there is often considerable overlap in the functions of the different relationals; there is not a one-to-one relationship between form and function. The layering of the relational applicative suffixes over time has created a complex system of relational applicatives in the modern Salish languages. The use of relational applicatives to express benefactive meanings is limited to only a few activity verbs. Several languages use redirective suffixes instead to express such meanings. In contrast, malefactive readings of relational applicatives are widely attested. As with redirective applicatives, the malefactive meaning may be tied in with the notion of deprivation of source applied objects of transfer verbs. Negative psychological events and adverse natural phenomena are also expressed with relational applicatives. The latter often appear as agentless passives, which are used in some Salish languages to express adverse events.
4.╅ Non-applicative expressions of benefactives In Salish languages, applicative constructions are the usual means of expressing benefactives, though it is also possible to use periphrastic constructions (Section€4.1). The only other morphological means used for expressing benefactives is the causative (Section 4.2).
. Gerdts and Hinkson (1996), approaching the problem from a Halkomelem internal viewpoint, posit the relational applicative to be ╂min, and speculate that it grammaticalized from the instrumental suffix ╂min, which was probably a lexical suffix historically. Gerdts and Kiyosawa (2005b) argue that instruments of activity verbs are semantically parallel to indirect causes or stimuli of psychological and perception predicates. Therefore, instrumental morphology came to be used for applicatives. This is also attested in Chickasaw (Munro 2000:€292).
Salish applicatives 
4.1â•… Periphrastic expressions of benefactive Dative and benefactive redirective constructions are obligatory in the sense that there is no non-applicative equivalent in which the theme occurs as an object and the applied object occurs as an oblique NP. So, for example, the benefactive in (95) cannot be expressed as a prepositional phrase, as in (96): (95) Halkomelem (Gerdts, f.n.) , , qâ•›wәl-әłc-θamә cәn ce‘ ‘ә kâ•›w sce:łtәn. bake-rdr-tr:2obj 1sub fut obl det salmon ‘I will bake some salmon for you.’ (96) Halkomelem (Gerdts, f.n.) , , , *qâ•›wәl-әt cәn ce‘ kâ•›w sce:łtәn ‘ә † nәwә. bake-tr 1sub fut det salmon obl det 2emph ‘I will bake some salmon for you.’
Nevertheless, it is possible to break down the two components of the event—the effect on the theme and the transfer of possession or benefit—and express each as a separate predicate. This can be accomplished by means of a serial verb construction as in (97) or conjoined clauses as in (98).20 (97) Halkomelem (Gerdts, f.n.) , , , qâ•›wәl-әt cәn ce‘ kâ•›w sce:łtәn xˇâ•›wte‘ ‘ә † nәwә. bake-tr 1sub fut det salmon go.toward obl det 2emph ‘I will bake some salmon for you.’ (98) Halkomelem (Gerdts, f.n.) , , qâ•›wәl-әt cәn ce‘ kâ•›w sce:łtәn ‘i‘ nił s-we‘-stamә (ce‘). bake-tr 1sub fut det salmon and 3emph nm-own-cs:2obj fut ‘I will bake some salmon and it will be for you.’
Circumlocutions can also be used to accommodate a dative and a benefactive in the same clause; Halkomelem does not allow more than one applicative suffix per verb. (99) Halkomelem (Gerdts, f.n.)
, ni‘ cәn ‘am-әs-t łәn ten ‘ә kâ•›wθә pukâ•›w aux 1sub give-rdr-tr det:2poss mother obl det book nił s-we‘-stamәt 3emph nm-own-cs:2obj ‘I gave your mother the book that is for you.’
.â•… Periphrastic constructions are also available for delegative and malefactive meanings.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
In the above example, information about the benefactive is given as a relative clause modifying the theme.
4.2â•… Causatives used as benefactives The causative suffix is used in a very limited set of cases to express benefactive meanings in at least two Salish languages—Bella Coola and Halkomelem. For example, the causative suffix in Bella Coola functions like a relational applicative, attaching to intransitive stems:21 (100) Bella Coola (Davis & Saunders 1997: 28) nuyamł-tu-s ti ‘imlk tx ti ‘immllki: tx. sing-cs-3sub art man dem art boy dem ‘The man made/let the boy sing.’/‘The man sang for the boy.’ (101) Bella Coola (Davis & Saunders 1997: 75) , tx-a-tu-s mat ‘aleks ti qlsxâ•›w tx. cut-intr-cs-3sub Matt Alex art rope dem ‘Matt made Alex cut the rope.’/‘Matt let Alex cut the rope.’/‘Matt cut the rope for Alex.’
In the above examples, both benefactive and causative meanings are possible. The benefactive reading of the object with the causative suffix is not always available. According to Davis and Saunders (1997: 28), it is only available for verbs that “impute the greater motility” to their objects. If the verb involves “any spontaneous, self-initiated performance”, the clause has a causative meaning only, not a benefactive (or delegative) one: (102) Bella Coola (Davis & Saunders 1997: 75) , qs-tu-s ti nus‘u:lxˇ tx ti ‘imlk tx. ill-cs-3sub art thief dem art man dem ‘The thief made the man ill.’ (*‘The thief was ill in the man’s place.’)
Gerdts and Hukari (2006) have also noted that the causative suffix in Halkomelem can be attached to a small class of transitive verbs to express a benefactive meaning. Compare the transitive (a) examples, in which the object is a source (103) or a goal (104), with the causative (b) examples, in which the object is a benefactive: (103) Halkomelem (Gerdts & Hukari 2006: 142–3) , , , a. nił łwet kâ•›wә ni‘ qe‘әn-t tθәn silә 3emph who det aux steal-tr det:2poss grandparent , ‘ә kâ•›wθә sew әn-s? obl det lunch-3poss
‘Who stole your grandfather’s lunch from him?’
.â•… Zúñiga (in prep.) also mentions the benefactive use of Bella Coola causatives, citing (100).
Salish applicatives 
, , , , , b. nem č ce‘ qәn-stәxâ•›w tθәn sәlsilә go 2sg.sub fut steal-cs det:2poss grandparent(pl) , ‘ә kâ•›wθә sciyә. obl det strawberry
‘You’re going to steal some strawberries for your grandparents.’
(104) Halkomelem (Gerdts & Hukari 2006: 143) , , a. cala‘ł-t č tθәn men ‘ә θәn snәxâ•›wәł. borrow/lend-tr 2sg.sub det:2poss father obl det:2poss canoe/car ‘Lend your father your car.’ , b. ni‘ ‘ә č cala‘ł-stәxâ•›w kâ•›wθә John ‘ә kâ•›w telә? aux q 2sg.sub borrow/lend-cs det John obl det money ‘Did you borrow some money for John?’
The causative suffix thus functions like a redirective applicative in these examples. A second class of examples with this use of causative involves denominal verb constructions. Halkomelem denominal verbs (Gerdts & Hukari 2004, 2008), formed by prefixing a verbalizer such as c- ‘make, have, get’ or txâ•›w- ‘buy’ to a noun, can take the causative suffix, yielding a benefactive, not a causative, meaning: (105) Halkomelem (Gerdts & Hukari 2004: 206) , ni‘ c-tθele‘-stәxâ•›w-әs tθә šәšiyәł-s. aux vbl-heart-cs-3sub det elder.sibling(pl)-3sg.poss ‘He made hearts for his older brothers.’ (106) Halkomelem (Gerdts & Hukari 2004: 206) , , , nem c-xˇәltәn-stamš! go vbl-pencil-cs:1obj ‘Go get me a pencil!’ (107) Halkomelem (Gerdts & Hukari 2004: 206)
, , ni‘ txâ•›w-sәplil-stәxâ•›w-әs łә słeni‘ kâ•›wθә memәnә-s. aux vbl-bread-cs-3sub det woman det children-3sg.poss ‘The woman bought bread for her children.’
Bella Coola denominal verbs formed by prefixing a verbalizer such as tam- ‘make, construct’ (Nater 1984: 93) also form benefactives by means of the causative suffix: (108) Bella Coola (Nater 1984: 40) , tam-cla-tu-m-xˇ! vbl-basket-cs-1sg.obj-imp ‘Make me a basket!’ (109) Bella Coola (Nater 1984: 40) , tam-‘akâ•›wna-tu-ti-m. vbl-sea.canoe-cs-3pl.obj-pass ‘Somebody made them a sea canoe.’
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts
Salish denominal verb constructions are syntactically intransitive, and thus the causative suffix functions like a relational applicative in these examples. In sum, we see that the causative suffix functions, at least in a limited way, as a benefactive suffix in Bella Coola and Halkomelem. For causative and applicative constructions to share morphology is not unexpected because both involve valenceincreasing operations (from intransitive to transitive, or from transitive to ditransitive). Further, both take non-theme objects: the causee and the benefactive respectively. Causees in many languages, like most applied objects in Salish languages, tend to be higher animates. In fact, in some languages, e.g. Hualapai (Ichihashi-Nakayama 1996), Mapudungun (Zúñiga this volume) Orizaba Nahuatl (Tuggy 1996), and Olutec (Zavala 2000), the same suffix can be used for both causative and applicative constructions.
5.â•… Conclusion Evaluating events as benefactive or malefactive is a central part of the human experience, and thus languages have a way of encoding this information. The usual means for expressing them in Salish languages is with applicative constructions, in which the affected person is cast as a clausal argument. Periphrastic expressions of benefaction and malefaction are rare and considered circumlocutions (cf. Section 4.1). Kiyosawa (2006) gives a thorough treatment of the form and function of the applicative suffixes found in twenty Salish languages. Applicative constructions can be grouped into two types. Redirective applicatives are formed on transitive bases and have dative, benefactive, source, and possessive applied objects (Section 2.1). Relational applicatives are formed on intransitive bases and have stimulus, goal, benefactive, and malefactive applied objects (Section 3.1). Each Salish language has at least one redirective suffix and one relational suffix. Only two applicative suffixes can be reconstructed for Proto-Salish: the redirective *-xi and the relational *-mi. The other suffixes have been innovated in sub-branches or individual languages. The innovated applicatives usurp or augment the functions of the two Proto-Salish applicatives, yielding a complex picture in the modern languages. Most redirective suffixes allow the addition of a benefactive applied object to a transitive event. In fact, as discussed in Section 2.2.3, benefactive was probably the central meaning of the Proto-Salish redirective suffix *-xi. Its use then spread to other types of applied objects. Only half of the Salish languages use applicatives for possessive applied objects (Section 2.1.4). Some branches have added new redirective suffixes for this purpose. Possessive applicatives in Salish usually carry an extra semantic “kick”: the possession (or deprivation of possession) of an object connotes a positive or negative effect on the possessor. This leads to a confusing range of translations for each example.
Salish applicatives 
Adding benefactive applied objects to transitive verbs is robustly attested in all Salish languages and seems to be generalized across all verb classes. The situation with intransitive verbs is more limited (see Section 3.1.1). Only a handful of activity verbs, with meanings like “sing for”, “pray for”, and “work for”, are used in this way. Some languages use relational suffixes, some use redirective suffixes, and at least one, Bella Coola, uses a causative suffix (see Section 4.2) for these meanings. Moreover, a single language may use different suffixes on different verbs. Therefore, the benefactive forms of intransitive verbs seem to be lexicalized. The precise interpretation of a redirective applicative—benefactive, delegative, or malefactive—is supplied by the context (see Section 2.1.2). Verb class semantics also contributes to the meaning. For example, transfer verbs with source applied objects (appearing with translations like “steal”, “take from”, etc.) often carry the connotation of deprivation and hence malefaction (see Section 2.1.3). The situation with transfer verbs is complicated by the fact that many Salish languages cast transfer verbs as formally intransitive constructions, for example, in middle or autonomous voice. In this case, they tend to use a relational rather than a redirective applicative to express the source (see Section 3.1.2.1). The relational suffix *-ni, which appears in two branches, seems in particular to be linked to source and malefactive applied objects. While benefactive meanings with relational applicatives are quite rare, malefactive meanings are more widely attested. Judging from its behaviour in Central Salish, the Proto-Salish relational suffix *-mi was probably most closely tied with the notion of the stimulus in a psychological predicate, often with a negative meaning. Especially in the case of speech act verbs, we see that the relational suffix adds a malefactive meaning (see Section 3.1.2). Also observed is the wide-spread use of relational suffixes to express the adverse effect of natural phenomena (see Section 3.1.2.2). These constructions are frequently cast in the passive voice and thus tie in with a small set of agentless passives with negative effect found in some Salish languages. In conclusion, expressing benefactive and malefactive meanings in Salish languages is a complex topic because no single morphological form is used to indicate them, and furthermore they are not morphologically differentiated from each other. However, compiling and examining benefactive and malefactive examples has proven to be an insightful exercise in understanding the use, history, development, and limits of the Salish applicative system.
References Adams, George, Galloway, Brent & Renteria, Catalina. 2005. A Nooksack story from 1956, how to become an Indian doctor. Papers for the 40th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 16:€1–31. Aissen, Judith L. 1987. Tzotzil Clause Structure. Dordrecht: Reidel.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts Bates, Dawn, Hess, Thom & Hilbert, Vi. 1994. Lushootseed Dictionary. Seattle WA: University of Washington Press. Beaumont, Ronald C. 1985. She Shashishalhem, the Sechelt Language: Language, Stories and Sayings of the Sechelt Indian People of British Columbia. Penticton BC: Theytus Books. Beck, David. 2006. Control of agreement in multi-object constructions in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas, Atsushi Fujimori & Maria Amelia Reis Silva (eds). Vancouver BC: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics. Carlson, Barry F. 1972. A Grammar of Spokane: A Salish Language of Eastern Washington. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii. Carlson, Barry F. 1980. Two-goal transitive stems in Spokane Salish. International Journal of American Linguistics 46: 21–26. Carlson, Barry F. & Flett, Pauline. 1989. Spokane Dictionary [Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6]. Missoula MA: University of Montana Press. Davis, Philip W. & Saunders, Ross. 1997. A Grammar of Bella Coola. [Occasional Papers in Linguistics 13]. Missoula MT: University of Montana Press. Doak, Ivy Grace. 1997. Coeur d’Alene Grammatical Relations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Donohue, Mark. 1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Driever, Dorothea. 1976. Aspects of a Case Grammar of Mombasa Swahili [Hamburger Philologische Studien 43]. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Egesdal, Steven M. & Thompson, M. Terry. 1998. A fresh look at Tillamook (Hutéyu) inflectional morphology. In Salish Languages and Linguistics: Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives, Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins & M. Dale Kinkade (eds.), 235–273. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. Lexical entries for verbs. Foundations of Language 4: 373–393. Foley, William. 1991. The Yimas Language of New Guinea. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Fried, Mirjam. 1999. From interest to ownership: A constructional view of external possessors. In External Possession and Related Noun Incorporation Phenomena, Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds.), 137–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Galloway, Brent D. 1997. Nooksack pronouns, transitivity, and control. Papers for the 32nd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 197–243. Port Angeles WA. Gardiner, Dwight. 1993. Structural Asymmetries and Pre-verbal Positions in Shuswap. Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University. Gerdts, Donna B. 1988. Object and Absolutive in Halkomelem Salish. New York NY: Garland. Gerdts, Donna B. 2004. Halkomelem directional applicatives. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 189–199. Gerdts, Donna B. To appear. Ditransitive constructions in Halkomelem Salish: A direct object/ oblique object language. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions, Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath, & Bernard Comrie (eds.). Berlin: Mouton. Gerdts, Donna B. & Hinkson, Mercedes Q. 1996. Salish lexical suffixes: A case of decategorialization. In Proceedings of the Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, Adele Goldberg (ed.), 163–176. Stanford CA: CSLI. Gerdts, Donna B. & Hinkson, Mercedes Q. 2004. The grammaticalization of Halkomelem ‘face’ into a dative applicative suffix. International Journal of American Linguistics 70: 227–250.
Salish applicatives 
Gerdts, Donna B. & Hukari, Thomas E. 2004. Halkomelem denominal verbs. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 201–214. Gerdts, Donna B. & Hukari, Thomas E. 2006. Classifying Halkomelem causatives. Papers for the 41st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 18: 129–145. Gerdts, Donna B. & Hukari, Thomas E. 2008. Halkomelem denominal verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 74: 489–510. Gerdts, Donna B. & Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2004. Salish psych applicatives. In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on American Indigenous Languages, Jeanie Castillo (ed.), 28–42. Santa Barbara CA: Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics. Gerdts, Donna B. & Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2005a. Discourse functions of Salish applicatives. Papers for the 40th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 98–124. Gerdts, Donna B. & Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2005b. Halkomelem psych applicatives. Studies in Language 29(2): 329–362. Gerdts, Donna B. & Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2007. Combinatorial properties of Salish applicatives. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 20: 176–219. Gerdts, Donna B. & Whaley, Lindsay. 1993. Kinyarwanda Multiple Applicatives and the 2-AEX. In Papers from the Twenty-Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Costas P. Canakis, Grace P. Chan & Jeanette Marshall Denton (eds.), 186–205. Chicago IL: University of Chicago. Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hess, Thomas M. 1967. Snohomish Grammatical Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington. Hess, Thom & Bates, Dawn. 2004. Lushootseed applicatives and their ilk. In Studies in Salish Linguistics in Honor of M. Dale Kinkade [Occasional Papers in Linguistics 17], Donna B. Gerdts & Lisa Matthewson (eds.), 172–196. Missoula MT: University of Montana Press. Ichihashi-Nakayama, Kumiko. 1996. The ‘applicative’ in Hualapai: Its functions and meanings. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2): 227–239. Kimenyi, Alexandre. 1980. A Relational Grammar of Kinyarwanda. Berkeley CA: University of California Press. Kinkade, M. Dale. 1980. Columbian Salish -xí, -ł, -túł. International Journal of American Linguistics 46: 33–36. Kinkade, M. Dale. 1982. Transitive inflection in Moses-Columbian Salish. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 49–62. Kinkade, M. Dale. 1991. Upper Chehalis Dictionary [Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7]. Missoula MT: University of Montana Press. Kinkade, M. Dale. 1998. Comparative Salish seminar. Course notes, University of British Columbia. Kinkade, M. Dale. 2004. Cowlitz Dictionary and Grammatical Sketch [Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18]. Missoula MT: University of Montana Press. Kinkade, M. Dale. No date. Twana field notes, June 1972. Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2004. The distribution of possessive applicatives in Interior Salish Languages. Papers for the 39th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 241–252.
 Kaoru Kiyosawa & Donna B. Gerdts Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2006. Applicatives in Salish Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University. Kuipers, Aert H. 1967. The Squamish Language: Grammar, Texts, Dictionary. The Hague: Mouton. Kuipers, Aert H. 1974. The Shuswap Language: Grammar, Texts, Dictionary. The Hague: Mouton. Kuipers, Aert H. 1992. The Shuswap complex transitivizers. Papers for the 27th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 49–53, Kamloops BC. Mattina, Anthony. 1994. -tułt, and more on Okanagan transitive forms: A working paper. Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 204–231, Pablo MT. Mattina, Nancy. 1993. Some lexical properties of Colville-Okanagan ditransitives. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 265–284. Seattle WA. Montler, Timothy R. 1986. An Outline of the Morphology and Phonology of Saanich, North Straits Salish [Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4]. Missoula MT: University of Montana Press. Montler, Timothy R. 1996. Some Klallam paradigms. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 257–263. Vancouver BC. Munro, Pamela. 2000. The leaky grammar of the Chickasaw applicatives. Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistic Society 36: 285–310. Nater, Hank F. 1984. The Bella Coola Language [Mercury Series Paper 92]. Ottawa: National Museum of Man, Canadian Ethnology Service. Peterson, David A. 2007. Applicative Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rude, Noel. 1985. Studies in Nez Perce Grammar and Discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), 157–194. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Thompson, Laurence C. & Thompson, M. Terry. 1980. Thompson Salish //â•‚xi//. International Journal of American Linguistics 46: 27–32. Thompson, Laurence C. & Thompson, M. Terry. 1992. The Thompson Language [Occasional Papers in Linguistics 8]. Missoula MT: University of Montana Press. Tuggy, David. 1996. Dative-like constructions in Orizaba Nahuatl. In The Dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive Studies, William van Belle & Willy van Langendonck (eds.), 407–452. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Van Eijk, Jan P. 1987. Dictionary of the Lillooet language. Victoria BC: University of Victoria. Van Eijk, Jan P. 1997. The Lillooet Language: Phonology, Morphology, Syntax. Vancouver BC: UBC Press. Vogt, Hans. 1940. The Kalispel Language: An Outline of the Grammar with Texts, Translations, and Dictionary. Oslo: Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. Watanabe, Honoré. 1996. Sliammon (Mainland Comox) transitive constructions with -‘әm, -ni, and -mi. Papers for the 31st International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, 327–338. Vancouver BC. Watanabe, Honoré. 2003. A Morphological Description of Sliammon, Mainland Comox Salish, with a Sketch of Syntax [Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim Publication Series A2–040]. Osaka: Osaka Gakuin University, Faculty of Informatics. Willett, Marie Louise. 2003. A Grammatical Sketch of Nxa’amxcin (Moses-Columbia Salish). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Victoria.
Salish applicatives 
Zavala, Roberto. 1999. External possession in Oluta Popoluca (Mixean): Applicatives and incorporation of relational terms. In External Possession [Typological Studies in Language 39], Doris L. Payne & Immanuel Barshi (eds), 339–372. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zavala, Roberto. 2000. Inversion and Other Topics in the Grammar of Olutec (Mixean). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon. Zúñiga, Fernando. In preparation. The Grammar of Benefaction.
Beneficiaries and recipients in Toba (Guaycurú) Marisa Censabella
Conicet*/Universidad Nacional del Nordeste This paper examines the coding properties of benefaction in Toba, such as case marking, agreement and word order, as well as the alignment patterns in derived ditransitive clauses. Toba does not have non-derived ditransitive verbs with three obligatory arguments (agent, theme and recipient) but uses applicatives in order to incorporate more than two arguments in a clause. In clauses where the arguments appear as lexical noun phrases, the recipient or beneficiary argument of the ditransitive clause behaves as the patient of the transitive one, appearing in the same functional slot and behaving alike as to verb agreement. Only with the derived verb ‘give’ is it possible to clearly distinguish between a recipient and a recipient-beneficiary. Thus, following Kittilä’s (2005: 277) classification, Toba is a beneficiary-prominent language.
1.â•… Introduction Toba is a Guaycuruan language spoken mainly in the Argentinean Chaco region (provinces of Chaco, Formosa, and Salta), as well as in some cities like Rosario and the surroundings of Buenos Aires. There are approximately 60,000 speakers with different levels of linguistic and communicative competence, which basically depends on the type of demographic concentration: in urban settlements, young Tobas are frequently less communicative competent; in rural ones, higher communicative competence is found, even among young people.1 Toba speakers—as well as linguists (Klein 1981)— identify four main dialects in the Chaco province: lañagashek, no’olgranaq, rapigeml’ek, and takshek, all mutually intelligible.2 It is an endangered language, despite the relatively *Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas 1.â•… Messineo (1991) mentions 500 Tobas in the surroundings of El Cerrito (Paraguay). Gordon (2005) estimates 700 Tobas in Paraguay, some 60 km northwest of Asunción, and 147 Tobas in southern Bolivia. The latter group has strong links to the Tobas in the province of Salta (Argentina). 2.â•… In this paper I present sentences and clauses from the lañagashek, no’olgranaq and rapigeml’ek dialects.
 Marisa Censabella
high number of speakers and the existence of programs of educación intercultural bilingüe ‘bilingual intercultural education’ in all the provinces where the Tobas live. An advanced stage of language shift is observed in all urban settlements, even in some rural ones, due to particular historical and social causes (Censabella 1999: 72–75). This paper will examine the coding properties of benefaction in Toba (case marking, agreement, and word order), the alignment patterns in derived ditransitive verbs, and a coordination strategy used to introduce beneficiary arguments. Finally, other applicatives and their distribution around the semantic notions of beneficiary and human goal are presented in order to understand the semantics of benefaction in the language. The examples below were taken mainly from narrative texts (collected and translated by myself) and from Buckwalter (1980). For expository reasons, I have simplified some sentences, testing their acceptability with two Toba consultants by means of elicitation techniques.
2.â•… Brief typological sketch Toba is a polysynthetic language with non-rigid word order (mainly VS, AVO, and OVA when O is pronominal), a verb/noun opposition, head marking, an alienable/inalienable possession distinction, and neither case marking nor an adjectival class of words. Toba has four types of nominal categorization: nominal classes or genders, nominal classifiers (to indicate the shape of same derived nouns), possessive classifiers, and demonstrative or deictic classifiers.3 The expression of number in nouns combines a category of morphological number with three differences (singular, paucal and plural), one of collectives, and another of distributives, while dual number is marked syntactically.
3.â•… The phoneme inventory of Toba is shown below (see Censabella 2002: 53 for more details). The graphemes in brackets are the ones used in this paper. plosives voiceless fric. voiced fric. laterals semi-con. tap nasals
labial p
w m
alveolar t s
pre-palatal t∫ [ch] ∫ [sh] Š
l
λ j
n [r] n
close open
palatal
n˜ front i e
back o a
velar k > [g]
uvular q t [g]
glottal ô h
Beneficiaries and recipients in Toba 
Table 1.╇ Active and middle voice personal markers4 Person
Active voice
Middle voice
1sg 2sg 3sg
sawi-; r-; Ø-; t-; w+ trn ……………………… − trn s…q qaw…i i-…ô; r-… ô; Ø-… ô; t-… ô; w-…ô + trn ……………………… − trn
ñann-
1pl 2pl 3pl
ñ…q qan…i n-…ô
The verb system is organized according to an active/middle opposition for all persons (see Table 1); the active voice presents an interesting split for the third person used to distinguish actions, events, different kinds of processes, and states. This continuum can be interpreted, mainly, as a scale of semantic transitivity. With non-derived verbs, the third personal marker i- appears with canonical transitive verbs and it is coreferential with the A; the complete clause needs plain or pronominal A and P arguments, with or without applicatives.5 The personal markers r-, ∆-, t-, and w- are coreferential with the S argument, and they may appear in monovalent intransitive clauses, but also in extended intransitive clauses (i.e., with an intransitive verb plus the applicative).6 There is no verbal tense, and the aspectual system consists in an obligatory perfective/imperfective opposition for all verbs. It has two groups of verbal adpositions, one
4.â•… Regarding their co-occurrence with voice, defined here as an inflectional category that signals the orientation of the verb within the participants of the clause, Toba verbal bases fit in three categories: (1) Active voice verbs: some prototypical transitive verbs (sa-lawat ‘I kill’/*ña-lawat; i-lo ‘he looks at’/*n-lo). (2) Active/middle voice verbs: some grooming verbs (s-ijo ‘I wash (sthg.)/ñ-ijo ‘I wash myself’); motion verbs with lexicalized applicatives (se-lariñi ‘I bury’/ñi-lar-shegem ‘I dig up’); stative verbs (w-etagi ‘he is inside somewhere’/n-etagi ‘he lives somewhere’); path verbs (i-wiô ‘he arrives somewhere’/n-iwiô ‘he arrives willingly somewhere’); transitive verbs (sa-sagawek ñi qomaô ‘I throw out the stone’/ña-sagawek ñi qomaô ‘I throw out the stone with anger or a strong emotion’). (3) Middle voice verbs: indirect middle verbs (n-ato ‘he gathers’/*r-ato; ñiôepe ‘I hunt’/*siôepe); involuntary bodily actions (ñi-jin ‘I cry’/*si-jin; n-qashen ‘he sneezes’/*sa-qashen). 5.â•… With semantically bivalent verbs, applicatives do not necessarily introduce a third argument. Instead, they may change the meaning of the event expressed by the verb. 6.â•… The following example illustrates the extended intransitive clause type (b): a.
RamaŠe ∅-kewo. b. 3sg 3-walk.inside ‘He goes home.’
RamaŠe ∅-kewo-lek na nojik. 3sg 3-walk.inside-appl:loc dem house ‘He walks around the house.’
 Marisa Censabella
of â•›“directional” and another of â•›“locative-movement oriented” paradigms, the elements of the latter functioning as applicatives. Valency changes are expressed by derivational (causatives) and syntactic (applicatives) mechanisms. The semantic notions of human goal, recipient and beneficiary are expressed via applicatives that increase or rearrange syntactic argument structure, showing some degree of semantic overlap in their morphological expression.7
3.â•… Reception and benefaction Kittilä (2005) distinguishes the semantic roles of recipient, beneficiary, and recipientbeneficiary on the basis of the notions of reception and benefaction. For this author, reception refers to the fact that as a result of an event a (concrete) entity enters a recipient’s sphere of control or domain of possession, as in ‘the teacher gave/sent me a book’… Benefaction, on the other hand, implies that the occurrence of an event is beneficial to an entity other than the agent itself. (Kittilä 2005: 273)
The beneficiary notion is further subcategorized as substitutive benefaction and concrete benefaction. The former refers to events where the benefaction “consists in not having to carry out the profiled event oneself… like ‘the teacher parked the car for me/on my behalf ’…”; the latter refers to events in which “the beneficiary does not ‘receive’ anything concrete but benefits from the event, as ‘the teacher lied for me’â•›”(Kittilä 2005: 273). Due to the fact that concrete benefaction is rather irrelevant— because in one way or another it is present in the three mentioned semantic roles—, Kittilä uses only two features in order to classify the recipient, beneficiary, and recipientbeneficiary: reception and substitutive benefaction: “… recipients (as a semantic role) are thus animate entities that receive something concrete transferred to their sphere of control or domain of possession. The prototypical recipient is illustrated by the recipient of the event ‘give’â•›” (Kittilä 2005: 274). Beneficiaries have, on the contrary, substitutive benefaction as their only positive feature value; the notion of reception is completely lacking in this case. Finally, the recipient-beneficiary represents a combination of recipient and beneficiary, and it thus comprises both reception and (substitutive) benefaction (Kittilä 2005: 275).
7.â•… See Censabella (2002) for a general morphosyntactic sketch of the language, Carpio (2004) for the expression of number, and Censabella (2006) and Carpio (2007) for a study of the active personal markers.
Beneficiaries and recipients in Toba 
Since recipients and beneficiaries are formally distinct in most languages of the world, Kittilä (2005: 276) suggests exploring whether the recipients-beneficiaries are coded like recipients or like beneficiaries instead. This is not a simple task when working with less-studied languages. Which are the semantic clues to decide that the reception of an entity is not beneficial for the recipient? Even though the definitions presented above are clear-cut, sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between a recipient and a recipient-beneficiary. Toba clearly encodes these two semantic notions only with the verb ‘give’ (see Example 2 below). With other transitive verbs and with intransitive verbs, this distinction is blurred.
4.â•… Coding properties of recipients and beneficiaries in Toba There are three main ways to express a functional domain like benefaction in a given language: case marking or flagging; agreement or indexing behavior, and word order (Malchukov et al. 2007: 6). I will address them in turn here.
4.1â•… Case marking or flagging In Toba, beneficiaries as well as other non-subject arguments of the recipient type