304 JULIA A. JOLLY
accomplishment structure of bake. Thus, the semantic components for
PURP proposed for class three functions cover the content of purposive for
in benef active situations, as well. The predicative functions of purposive for
specified in (68), (69) and (72) are class three prepositions in the classifica
tion system outlined above. They serve an adjunct function, specified by
PURP, to the main clause and introduce a clause having an implied
BECOME be-at'/have' structure (LS 2 ). Their functions are not specified in
the LS of the verbs with which they co-occur. Benefactive for also functions
as a class three preposition in activity verb contexts, such as that cited in
section 2.3, repeated here in (74).
(74) The mimes were clowning around for the audience.
This sentence is semantically similar to the benefactive-accomplishment
sentence in (73a), but, formally, it functions more like the deputative read
ing of (73) discussed below. Benefactive for with accomplishment verbs is
the prototypical class two preposition. The prepositional content is not
specified in the LS of the verb (i.e., nothing in the LS of bake requires that
for follow the verb). As AUerton (1982) notes, "clearly people can benefit
by having something made for them, having something repaired for them,
having the environment changed for them, or simply by having a job done
for them." (127) However, unlike class three functions, benefactive for
shares an argument with the verb (see (73b), where cake is specified as an
argument of the main clause verb in the accomplishment structure and an
argument of [BECOME have'] in the PURP clause). Thus, for present pur
poses, we must regard benefactive for as a separate category having the
same semantic content as the class three functions. Sentence (73) {John
baked a cake for Rita) is ambiguous between a benefactive reading, as dis
cussed above, and a deputative or "in place of" reading, describing a situa
tion in which John baked a cake in place of Mary (because, for example,
she was too tired or busy). The proposed LS for the deputative interpreta
tion of (73) is specified in (75).
(75) [[do' (John)] CAUSE [BECOME baked' (cake)]] PURP [[NOT
do' (Rita)] CAUSE [BECOME baked' (cake)]]
This LS suggests that in the deputative reading, LS 2 = NOT LS1. This struc
ture does not conflict with the semantic content specified thus far for
PURP. In this sentence, PURP = [want' (John, [NOT LS 2 ])] & [DO (John,
[LS1 CAUSE NOT LS 2 ])]. Thus, the LS of the deputative reading is a more
constrained version of the benefactive structure, but the components of