Volume 21, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-9316
  • E-ISSN: 1569-996X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The status of syntactic resultative constructions has been disputed in the American Sign Language (ASL) literature. These are single sentences such as “Mary hammered the metal flat,” where two predicates share the same object and an event () causes the affected object () to change state ( as a result. While not all languages permit such constructions, this study shows that (several) alternate multi-sentential analyses can be ruled out. WH-clefts are used to provide a test for independent clausal boundaries, providing additional support that American Sign Language (ASL) permits resultative constructions. We also observe possible word order variations and note common features of the result predicates in these constructions.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aarons, Debra
    1996 Topics and topicalization in American Sign Language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics30. 65–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aarts, Bas
    1992Small clauses in English: The nonverbal types. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110861457
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110861457 [Google Scholar]
  3. Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari
    2004 Where did all the arguments go?: Argument changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory22(4). 743–810.10.1007/s11049‑003‑4698‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-003-4698-2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernath, Jeffrey L.
    2010Adjectives in ASL. Paper presented atTISLR 10, West Lafayette, IN.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boas, Hans Christian
    2003A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brentari, Diane
    1998A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Chomsky, Noam
    1955/75The logical structure of linguistic theory. Boston: MIT Press / Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dudis, Paul
    2004Depiction of events in ASL: Conceptual integration of temporal components. Berkeley, CA: UC BerkeleyPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Eccarius, Petra & Diane Brentari
    2008 Handshape coding made easier: A theoretically based notation for phonological transcription. Sign Language & Linguistics11(1). 69–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fischer, Susan D.
    1973 Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of Language9(4). 469–480.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gökgöz, Kadir
    2013The nature of object marking in American Sign Language. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue UniversityPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff
    2004 The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language80(3). 532–568.10.1353/lan.2004.0129
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoekstra, Teun
    1988 Small clause results. Lingua74(2–3). 101–139.10.1016/0024‑3841(88)90056‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(88)90056-3 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kegl, Judy
    1990 Predicate argument structure and verb-class organization in the ASL lexicon. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sign language research: Theoretical issues, 149–175. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally
    2005 Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language81(2). 345–381.10.1353/lan.2005.0071
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0071 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kentner, Ashley
    2014Event structure of resultatives in ASL. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue UniversityMA thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi
    1979The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kratzer, Angelika
    2005 Building resultatives. In Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Event arguments, 177–212. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.10.1515/9783110913798.177
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110913798.177 [Google Scholar]
  19. Liddell, Scott K.
    1978 Nonmanual signals and relative clauses in American Sign Language. In Patricia Siple (ed.), Understanding language through sign language research, 59–90. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lillo-Martin, Diane
    1986 Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory4(4). 415–444.10.1007/BF00134469
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134469 [Google Scholar]
  21. Loos, Cornelia
    2017The syntax and semantics of resultative constructions in Deutsche Gebärdensprache (DGS) and American Sign Language (ASL). Austin, TX: The University of Texas at AustinPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Müller, Stefan
    2002Complex predicates: verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Napoli, Donna Jo
    1992 Secondary resultative predicates in Italian. Journal of Linguistics28(1). 53–90.10.1017/S0022226700014997
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700014997 [Google Scholar]
  24. Padden, Carol
    1988Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Pfau, Roland , Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll
    (eds.) 2012Sign language: An international handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110261325
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261325 [Google Scholar]
  26. Pustejovsky, James
    1991 The syntax of event structure. Cognition41(1). 47–81.10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90032‑Y
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90032-Y [Google Scholar]
  27. Ramchand, Gillian
    2008Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486319
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486319 [Google Scholar]
  28. Rathmann, Christian Georg
    2005Event structure in American Sign Language. Austin, TX: University of Texas at AustinPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ross, John Robert
    1967Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MITPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Shepard-Kegl, Judy Anne
    1985Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax and discourse. Cambridge, MA: MITPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Snyder, William
    1995Language acquisition and language variation: The role of morphology. Cambridge, MA: MITPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2001 On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language77(2). 324–342.10.1353/lan.2001.0108
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0108 [Google Scholar]
  33. Stewart, Osamuyimen T.
    1998The serial verb construction parameter. Montreal: McGill UniversityPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Stowell, Tim
    1981Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MITPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 1983 Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review2(3), 285–312.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Wechsler, Stephen
    2001 An analysis of English resultatives under the event-argument homomorphism model of telicity. InProceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Text Structure. Austin: University of Texas Linguistics Department.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 2005 Resultatives under the ‘event-argument homomorphism’ model of telicity. In Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Tova Rapoport (eds.), The syntax of aspect: Deriving thematic and aspectual interpretation, 255–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199280445.003.0012 [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
    1996 Evidence for the function and structure of WH-clefts in American Sign Language. In William H. Edmondson & Ronnie B. Wilbur (eds.), International review of sign linguistics, 209–256. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2005 A reanalysis of reduplication in American Sign Language. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies in reduplication, 593–620. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110911466.595
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911466.595 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
    2008 Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar?InJosep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Wilbur, Ronnie B.
    2009 Productive reduplication in a fundamentally monosyllabic language. Language Sciences31(2). 325–342.10.1016/j.langsci.2008.12.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.12.017 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2011 Nonmanuals, semantic operators, domain marking, and the solution to two outstanding puzzles in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics14(1). 148–178.10.1075/sll.14.1.08wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.14.1.08wil [Google Scholar]
  43. 2017 Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages. Glossa2(1). 101–410.10.5334/gjgl.183
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.183 [Google Scholar]
  44. Wilbur, Ronnie B. , Evie Malaia & Robin A. Shay
    2012 Degree modification and intensification in American Sign Language adjectives. In Maria Aloni , Vadim Kimmelman , Floris Roelofsen , Galit Sassoon , Katrin Schulz & Matthijs Westera (eds.), Logic, language and meaning, 92–101. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978‑3‑642‑31482‑7_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31482-7_10 [Google Scholar]
  45. Wright, Tony
    2014Strict v. flexible accomplishment predicates. Austin, TX: University of Texas at AustinPhD dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ASL; classifiers; event visibility hypothesis; resultatives; WH-cleft
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