Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-cnfpf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-19T20:39:02.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The end result(ative)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

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

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Discussion Notes
Information
Language , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 474 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 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

Beavers, John. 2002. Aspect and the distribution of prepositional resultative phrases in English. (LinGO working paper 2002-07.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2000. Resultative constructions in English and German. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill dissertation.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2005. Determining the productivity of resultatives: A reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language 81. 448–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa, and Choi, Soonja. 2001. Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. Language acquisition and conceptual development, ed. by Bowerman, Melissa and Levinson, Stephen C., 475–511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Patricia, and Tomasello, Michael. 1999. How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75. 720–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10. 425–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casenhiser, Devin, and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2005. Fast mapping of a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Berkeley Linguistics Society 1. 123–31.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1993. Another look at some learnability paradoxes. Proceedings of the 25th annual Stanford Child Language Research Lorum, ed. by Clark, Eve C., 60–75. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., and Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 1990. -s in Modern High German and West Germanic. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 7. 136–53.Google 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. Loundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. A usage-based model. Topics in cognitive linguistics, ed. by Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida, 127–61. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 1978. The acquisition of morphophonology. (Monographs of the society for research in child development 43.) Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcotte, Jean-Philippe. 2005. Causative alternation errors and innate knowledge: Consequences of the ‘no negative evidence’ fallacy. Constructions in acquisition, ed. by Clark, Eve V. and Kelly, Barbara F.. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, to appear.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1981. Comments on the paper by Wexler. The logical problem of language acquisition, ed. by Baker, C. L. and McCarthy, John J., 53–63. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plunkett, Kim, and Marchman, Virginia. 1991. U-shaped learning and frequency-effects in a multilayered perception: Implications for child language acquisition. Cognition 38. 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, Kim, and Marchman, Virginia. 1993. From rote learning to system building: Acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition 48. 21–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Regier, Terry. 1996. The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John. 1995. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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. Austin: University of Texas Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2005a. Weighing in on scales: A reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language 81. 465–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2005b. Resultatives under the event-argument homomorphism model of telicity. The syntax of aspect, ed. by Erteschik-Shir, Nomi and Rapoport, Tova. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar