Cover not available
Article published In:
Sign Language & Linguistics
Vol. 21:1 (2018) ► pp.77–114

Wh-clefts as evidence of resultatives in ASL

 | Purdue University
 | Purdue University
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 (hammered) causes the affected object (the metal) to change state (flat) 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.
Keywords: ASL, resultatives, WH-cleft, classifiers, event visibility hypothesis
Article outline
  • 1.Resultatives: A window into complex structure
    • 1.1Previous research on ASL resultatives: Differing claims
    • 1.2Organization of paper
  • 2.Establishing resultatives in ASL
    • 2.1Resultative constructions as single clauses
    • 2.2The current dilemma: Sentential boundaries
    • 2.3WH-clefts as test for clausal boundaries
    • 2.4WH-cleft constituency test eliminates two-independent-clause analysis
    • 2.5Internal syntax
    • 2.6Further discussion
  • 3.Presentation of word order variation and discussion of constraints governing it
  • 4.Analyzing items through the Event Visibility Hypothesis
    • 4.1Overview of the Event Visibility Hypothesis
    • 4.2Transparent encoding of change-of-state in result predicates
    • 4.3Additional description and discussion of classifiers
    • 4.4Discussion on encoding change of state
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.18002.ken
References (45)
References
Aarons, Debra. 1996. Topics and topicalization in American Sign Language. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 301. 65–106.Google Scholar
Aarts, Bas. 1992. Small clauses in English: The nonverbal types. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benedicto, Elena & Diane Brentari. 2004. Where did all the arguments go?: Argument changing properties of classifiers in ASL. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(4). 743–810. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernath, Jeffrey L. 2010. Adjectives in ASL. Paper presented at TISLR 10, West Lafayette, IN.
Boas, Hans Christian. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1955/75. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Boston: MIT Press / Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dudis, Paul. 2004. Depiction of events in ASL: Conceptual integration of temporal components. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkeley PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Eccarius, Petra & Diane Brentari. 2008. Handshape coding made easier: A theoretically based notation for phonological transcription. Sign Language & Linguistics 11(1). 69–101.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1973. Two processes of reduplication in the American Sign Language. Foundations of Language 9(4). 469–480.Google Scholar
Gökgöz, Kadir. 2013. The nature of object marking in American Sign Language. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3). 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74(2–3). 101–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81(2). 345–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kentner, Ashley. 2014. Event structure of resultatives in ASL. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University MA thesis.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Ursula Bellugi. 1979. The signs of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2005. Building resultatives. In Claudia Maienborn & Angelika Wöllstein (eds.), Event arguments, 177–212. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Lillo-Martin, Diane. 1986. Two kinds of null arguments in American Sign Language. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4(4). 415–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loos, Cornelia. 2017. The syntax and semantics of resultative constructions in Deutsche Gebärdensprache (DGS) and American Sign Language (ASL). Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2002. Complex predicates: verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo. 1992. Secondary resultative predicates in Italian. Journal of Linguistics 28(1). 53–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.). 2012. Sign language: An international handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The syntax of event structure. Cognition 41(1). 47–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first-phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rathmann, Christian Georg. 2005. Event structure in American Sign Language. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Shepard-Kegl, Judy Anne. 1985. Locative relations in American Sign Language word formation, syntax and discourse. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Snyder, William. 1995. Language acquisition and language variation: The role of morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2001. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language 77(2). 324–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Osamuyimen T. 1998. The serial verb construction parameter. Montreal: McGill University PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
. 1983. Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2(3), 285–312.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2001. An analysis of English resultatives under the event-argument homomorphism model of telicity. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Text Structure. Austin: University of Texas Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
2005. A reanalysis of reduplication in American Sign Language. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies in reduplication, 593–620. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In Josep Quer (ed.), Signs of the time, 217–250. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
2009. Productive reduplication in a fundamentally monosyllabic language. Language Sciences 31(2). 325–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Nonmanuals, semantic operators, domain marking, and the solution to two outstanding puzzles in ASL. Sign Language & Linguistics 14(1). 148–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Internally-headed relative clauses in sign languages. Glossa 2(1). 101–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Tony. 2014. Strict v. flexible accomplishment predicates. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Krebs, Julia & Ronnie Wilbur
2024. Word order in the context of extensional and intensional events in Austrian Sign Language (ÖGS). Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.