Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T17:57:12.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Adele E. Goldberg and
Ray Jackendoff
Adele E. Goldberg*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Ray Jackendoff*
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
*
Goldberg, Department of Psychology, Green Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 [adele@princeton.edu]
Jackendoff , Volen Center for Complex Systems, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02454-9110 [jackendo@brandeis.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English resultative expressions have been a major focus of research on the syntax-semantics interface. We argue in this article that a family of related constructions is required to account for their distribution. We demonstrate that a number of generalizations follow from the semantics of the constructions we posit: the syntactic argument structure of the sentence is predicted by general principles of argument linking; and the aspectual structure of the sentence is determined by the aspectual structure of the constructional subevent, which is in turn predictable from general principles correlating event structure with change, extension, motion, and paths. Finally, the semantics and syntax of resultatives explain the possibilities for temporal relations between the two sub-events. While these generalizations clearly exist, there is also a great deal of idiosyncrasy involved in resultatives. Many idiosyncratic instances and small subclasses of the construction must be learned and stored individually. This account serves to justify aspects of what we share in our overall vision of grammar, what we might call the CONSTRUCTIONAL view. To the extent that our treatment of the resultative can be stated only within the constructional view, it serves as evidence for this view as a whole.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 80 , Issue 3 , September 2004, pp. 532 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, Farrell, and Nikolaeva, Irina. 2004. Comparative grammar and grammatical theory: A construction-based study of morpho syntax. (Stanford monographs in linguistics.) Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Aske, Jon. 1989. Motion predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Berkeley Linguistics Society 15.1–14.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1979. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10.533–81.Google Scholar
Barđdal, Jóhanna. 1999. Case in Icelandic—A construction grammar approach. TijdSchrift voor Skandinavistiek 20.2.65–100.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans Christian. 2000. Resultatives at the crossroads between the lexicon and syntax: Where are they formed? Proceedings of the Western Conference on Linguistics (WECOL 1999) 11.38–52.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans Christian. 2003. Resultative constructions in English and German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2002. Constructional idioms, morphology and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14.301–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1994. The projection of arguments. Functional projections (University of Massachusetts occasional papers in linguistics 17), ed. by Benedicto, Elena and Runner, Jeffrey, 19–47. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brooks, Patricia, and Tomasello, Michael. 1999. How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75.720–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, Jill, and Randall, Janet H.. 1992. The argument structure and syntactic structure of resultatives. Linguistic Inquiry 23.173–234.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, Devin, and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2004. Fast mapping of a phrasal form and meaning. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, ms.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalizations. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic nuts: Hard cases in syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28.2.195–217.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 1999. The view from the periphery: The English correlative conditional. Linguistic Inquiry 30.543–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul, Michaelis, Laura; and Sag, Ivan. 2004. Construction grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, to appear.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul; and O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of @@i@@let alone@@/i@@. Language 64.501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. Linguistic Inquiry 1.429–38.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2005. A frame-based approach to case alternations: The swarm-class verbs in Czech. Cognitive Linguistics, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1991. A semantic account of resultatives. Linguistic Analysis 21.66–96.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 3.37–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1997. Relationships between verb and construction. Lexicon and grammar, ed. by Verspoor, Marjolijn and Sweetser, Eve, 383–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1999. The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. The emergence of language, ed. by MacWhinney, Brian, 197–212. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2000. Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: The role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences 34.503–24.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005a. Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. Construction grammar(s): Cognitive and cross-language dimension, ed. by Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, to appear.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005b. Constructions, lexical semantics and the correspondence principle: Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of arguments. The syntax of aspect, ed. by Erteschik-Shir, Nomi and Rapoport, Tova. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005c. The language of constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Casenhiser, Devin; and Sethuraman, Nitya. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15.3.289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1972. Some observations on the syntax and semantics of instrumental verbs. Chicago Linguistic Society 8.83–97.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74.101–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1990. English word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantification in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14.305–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin' the night away. Language 73.534–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D., and Joseph, Brian D.. 1999. The modern Greek negator @@i@@mi(n)(-)@@/i@@ as a morphological constellation. Greek linguistics '97: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Greek linguistics, ed. by Babiniotis, G., 341–51. Athens: Elinika Gramata Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D., and Janda, Richard D.. 1985. One rule or many? Sanskrit reduplication as fragmented affixation. Proceedings of the Second Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL '85), 103–19. Columbus: The Ohio State University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2002. English subjectless tagged sentences. Language 78.453–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Fillmore, Charles J.. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75.1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1992. Reference point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4.1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2003. Construction grammars: Cognitive, radical and less so. Paper presented at the 8th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University of La Rioja, Logroño, Spain.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1990. Wiping the slate clean: A lexical semantic exploration. Cognition 41.123–55.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2.201–25.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1978. Conversational implicature and the lexicon. Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 245–59. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 1994. A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language 18.23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A., and Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. Toward a construction-based model of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72.215–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, Tsuguro. 1997. Actions in motion: How languages express manners of motion. Studies in English linguistics: A festschrift for Akira Ota on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, ed. by Ukaji, Masatomo, Nakao, Toshio, Kajita, Masaru, and Chiba, Shuji, 723–38. Tokyo: Taishukan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, Bhuvaneswari. 1998. The encoding of complex events in Hindi and English. Boston: Boston University dissertation.Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T. 1998. Noun after noun. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York, NY, January 1998.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl Jesse, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl Jesse, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth. 2001. An event structure account of English resultatives. Language 77.766–97.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, and Mervis, Carolyn B.. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7.573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2000. Secondary predication and aspectual structure. Approaching the grammar of adjuncts (ZAS papers in linguistics 17), ed. by Lang, Ewald, Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, and Maienborn, Claudia, 241–64. Berlin: Zentrum für Allegemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33.431–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seland, Grete. 2001. The Norwegian reflexive caused motion construction: A construction grammar approach. Oslo: University of Oslo dissertation.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. Papers in lexical-functional grammar, ed. by Levin, Lori S., Rappaport, Malka, and Zaenen, Annie, 143–57. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Snyder, William. 2001. On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language 77.324–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takami, Ken-Ichi. 1998. Unaccusativity and the resultative constructions in English and Japanese. Tokyo: Tokyo Metropolitan University, ms.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1: Concept structuring systems. Vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 1995. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tenny, Carol. 1994. Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantic s interface. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toivonen, Ida. 2002. The directed motion construction in Swedish. Journal of Linguistics 38.313–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74.209–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Valimaa-Blum, Riitta. 1988. Finnish word order as a set of syntactic constructions. Paper presented at the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL '88), The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66.221–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2002. From parts to wholes and back again. Cognitive Linguistics 13.403–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Cornelia Maria. 1997. Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Visser, Fredericus Theodorus. 1963-73. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1995. On the proper treatment of tense. Semantics and Linguistic Theory 5.362–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washio, Ryuichi. 1997. Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 6.1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 1997. Resultative predicates and control. Texas linguistic forum 38: The syntax and semantics of predication, ed. by Blight, Ralph C. and Moosally, Michelle, 307–21. Austin: University of Texas Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2001. An analysis of English resultatives under the event-argument homomorphism model of telicity. Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Text Structure, University of Texas, Austin, October 13-15, 2000.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92.7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1955. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1994. Dealing out meaning: Fundamentals of syntactic constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20.611–25.Google Scholar