reaction. Sometimes the thing has a primary relevance as the object,
but in other cases the recipient is considered to be the primary
object.^36 This means that issues of unilaterality and reciprocity need
to be approached with some common sense. A unilateral gift transfer
from A to B already involves some mutuality, as B is assumed to be a
living recipient who reacts in some way. Thus I‘give’this book to you,
but‘put’it on the shelf. Nevertheless, A’s unilateral giving is very
different from the more demanding reciprocity in which B is also
claimed to perform an act of giving. In other words, the activity of
receiving is something else than the activity of giving, although the two
activities are in a correlative and complementary relationship.^37
The most important literal semantic domains of‘give’are of four
kinds. In the spatio-temporal domain, the thing moves from the agent
to the recipient. In the control domain, the control of the thing
is transferred. In the force-dynamics domain, the energyflows from
the giver to the recipient. In the domain of human interest, the act
of giving has a benefactive effect on the recipient.^38 In addition, a
variety offigurative domains of‘give’are listed by Newman, including
emergence, manifestation, permission, and completion. Different
domains often overlap: when one receives a thing in a spatio-
temporal fashion, one also typically benefits from it.
Linguistic research has also addressed cases in which A gives B to
C in order that D may benefit from this act. Religious offerings, for
instance,‘I give God this lamb for our sins’, typically represent this
category in which the recipient and the beneficiary differ from one
another in the act of giving. Some linguists label such cases as
instances of ‘tritransitive’ giving with three objects, namely, the
thing, the recipient, and the beneficiary.^39
The literal domain of human interest is particularly interesting for
our study, since Newman considers that many acts of giving assume
that the recipient benefits from this act. The idea of recipient as
beneficiary in the act of giving explains why gift transfer can easily
be associated with recognition. In giving something, the giver typic-
ally evaluates the recipient positively. While not all material acts of
(^36) Newman 1996, 80.
(^37) For the relationship between giving and receiving, see Newman 1996, 49– 51
and below.
(^38) Newman 1996, 37–53.
(^39) For this phenomenon, see Kittilä 2007 and Saarinen 2010.
224 Recognition and Religion