The last type of dative alternation concerns benefactives. The examples in (447) show that in Dutch benefactives are usually expressed by a voor-PP.

However, there is a very small subset of verbs denoting activities related to the serving of food and drink that also allow a dative object: typical examples are the verbs schenkento pour and opscheppento dish up in (448).

The cases in (449) show that benefactive constructions like the (b)-example are special in that the direct object can be left implicit. This may have to do with the fact that the direct object must refer to an entity in a restricted semantic field: it must refer to something that can be consumed. We may therefore be dealing with implicit cognate objects of the kind we also find in pseudo-intransitive verbs like etento eat, drinkento drink, rokento smoke, etc.

The two alternants in the examples in (448) are clearly different in meaning. The double object constructions express that the entity denoted by the direct object is intended for the referent of the indirect object: Marie is also the recipient of the drink/potatoes. The periphrastic indirect-object constructions, on the other hand, express that the subject performs the activity on behalf of the referent of the indirect object: Marie may be the recipient of the drink/potatoes, but it may also be the case that Jan is performing the activity of pouring a drink/dishing up potatoes in order to help Marie in her task of serving the guests; cf. Van Hout (1996:47). This is consistent with the semantic representations in Table (347), according to which the nominal but not the periphrastic indirect object is affected by the event denoted by the verb.

The standard Dutch alternation is much more restricted than the corresponding one in English. For example, verbs of food preparation like bereidento prepare and bakkento bake in the primeless examples in (450) do not easily allow it. Note, however, that Dutch still has the idiomatic expressions in the primed examples in (450). Note also that the double object constructions are very common (indeed ubiquitous) in various eastern and southern dialects of Dutch with a wide variety of verbs; cf. Van Bree (1981) and Cornips (1994a).

It seems controversial to analyze the voor-PP as an indirect object. This can be illustrated by the fact that it is only in the second edition of the Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst that it is unambiguously treated as an indirect object (Haeseryn et al. 1997:1160ff); the first edition (Geerts et al. 1984:882ff) treated it primarily as an adverbial phrase. One reason for treating the voor-PP as an adverbial phrase is that this PP differs from objects in that it can always be omitted without being semantically implied. Another reason is that the voor-PP satisfies the adverbial test in (451). Note that (451b) allows the same range of interpretations as (451a); Peter can intend the drink for Marie, or he can perform the activity of pouring drinks for the benefit of Marie.

Another reason is that benefactives can appear in the form of a simplex reflexive, which normally cannot be bound by a co-argument; the acceptability of the examples in (452) with a reflexive pronoun would follow if benefactives are actually not arguments of the verb.

For completeness’ sake, note that a possible argument against adjunct status is that R-extraction is possible from the voor-PP, as shown in (453a). However, we know that this is not a reliable test for establishing complement status, since R-extraction is also possible from other PPs that are usually assumed to be adjuncts, such as the instrumental met-PP in (453b).

The discussion above shows that it is not a priori clear that the supposed dative alternation with voor-PPs should be treated on a par with the dative alternations discussed in the previous sections. We leave this as a question for future research.