Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper explores the interaction between verbal and constructional semantics in the benefactive double object construction in English. My main aim is to disentangle the semantics of the construction exploring the constructional potential of the main alternating verb classes, i.e., verbs of “obtaining”, “creation” and “preparing” (Levin, 1993), and spelling out the cognitive principles that motivate these and other extended uses as cases of lexical-constructional within the framework of the Lexical Constructional Model (cf. Galera Masegosa & Ruiz de Mendoza, 2012Ruiz de Mendoza, 2013). Rather than advocating a polysemous analysis of the ditransitive, as proposed by Goldberg (19921995), the position I take here is that ditransitives with beneficiary arguments and ditransitives with prototypical recipient arguments instantiate two different subconstructions which cannot be treated under the same general rubric, in spite of their “shared surface form” (Goldberg, 2002, p. 330).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allerton, D. J.
    (1978) Generating indirect objects in English. J. Linguistics, 14, 21–33. 10.1017/S0022226700005648
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700005648 [Google Scholar]
  2. Colleman, T.
    (2010a) The benefactive semantic potential of ‘caused reception’ constructions: A case study of English, German, French and Dutch. InF. Zúniga & S. Kittila (Eds.), Benefactives and malefactives: Typological perspectives and case studies (pp.219–243). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.92.09col
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.92.09col [Google Scholar]
  3. (2010b) Lectal variation and constructional semantics: Benefactive ditransitives in Dutch. InD. Geeraerts, G. Kristiansen & Y. Peirsman (Eds.), Recent advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (pp.119–221). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226461.191
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461.191 [Google Scholar]
  4. Croft, W.
    (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. InH. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K-U Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  5. Davies, M.
    (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online atcorpus.byu.edu/coca/
  6. Galera Masegosa, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2012) Lexical class and perspectivization constraints on subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model: The case of say verbs in English. Language Sciences, 34, 54–64. 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.06.017 [Google Scholar]
  7. Geeraerts, D.
    (2006) Words and other wonders: Papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219128
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219128 [Google Scholar]
  8. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1992) The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 37–74. 10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37 [Google Scholar]
  9. (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(4), 327–356. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2013) Constructionist approaches. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gonzálvez-García, F.
    (2009) The family of object-related depictives in English and Spanish: towards a usage-based constructionist analysis. Language Sciences, 31, 663–723. 10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Green, G. M.
    (1974) Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Groefsema, M.
    (2001) The real-world colour of the dative alternation. Language Sciences, 23, 525–550. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00035‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00035-8 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R., & Wilson, R.
    (1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203–257. 10.2307/415332
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415332 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hoffmann, M.
    (1995) The structure and surface form of benefactives and other prepositional grammatical relations. InC. S. Burgess, K. Dziwirek & D. Gerdts (Eds.), Grammatical relations. Theoretical approaches to empirical questions (pp117–129). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kay, P.
    (2005) Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. InFried, M. & H. C. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (pp71–98). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.4.05kay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.4.05kay [Google Scholar]
  19. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Mairal Usón, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2009) Levels of description and explanation in meaning constructionInC. B. Butler & J. Martín Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp.153–198). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.107.08lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.107.08lev [Google Scholar]
  22. Michaelis, L. A.
    (2003) Headless constructions and coercion by construction. InE. Francis & L. A. Michaelis (Eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (pp.259–310). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Panther, K.-U.
    (2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp.355–386). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L.
    (1999) The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp.333–357). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.19pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.19pan [Google Scholar]
  25. Paszenda, J.
    (2017) Motivation behind the extended senses of the Polish ditransitive construction. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza, A. Luzondo Oyón & P. Pérez Sobrino (Eds.), Constructing families of constructions (pp.219–243). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.58.09pas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.58.09pas [Google Scholar]
  26. Pinker, S.
    (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Rosca, A.
    (2012) Accounting for the constructional behavior of “fetch”, “find”, “gather” and “reach”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 64, 163–175.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rosca, A., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2016) Why *John can’t contribute Mary money. Constructional behavior of contribute verbs. Odisea, 17, 139–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rudzka-Ostyn, B.
    (1996) The Polish dative. InW. Van Belle & W. Van Langendonck, (Eds.), The dative, Vol. 1: Descriptive studies (pp.341–394). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cagral.2.14rud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.2.14rud [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2013) Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. InB. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into Functional Linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp231–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.09ib225 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Galera Masegosa, A.
    (2014) Cognitive modeling. A linguistic perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. & Mairal Usón, R.
    (2011) Constraints on syntactic alternation: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical-Constructional Model. InP. Guerrero Medina (Ed.) Morphosyntactic alternations in English. Functional and cognitive perspectives (pp.62–82). Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Shibatani, M.
    (1996) Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. InM. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp.157–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Visser, F. T.
    (1963) An historical syntax of the English language, Part 1: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error