Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-28T13:28:34.630Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weighing in on scales: A reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Stephen Wechsler
Stephen Wechsler*
Affiliation:
University of Texas
*
University of Texas Linguistics Department 1 University Station B5100 Austin, TX 78712-1196 [wechsler@mail.utexas.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. 465 - 473
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
Beavers, John. 2005. Scalar complexity and the structure of events. Event structures in linguistic form and interpretation, ed. by Dolling, Johannes and Heyde-Zybatow, Tatjana. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, to appear.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2000. Resultative constructions in English and German. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina dissertation.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. (Stanford monographs in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2005. Determining the productivity of resultatives: A reply to Goldberg and Jackendoff. Language 81. 448–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denis, Pascal, Kuhn, Jonas; and Wechsler, Stephen. 2003. V-PP goal motion complexes in English: An HPSG account. Proceedings of the ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on the Linguistic Dimensions of Prepositions and their Use in Computational Linguistics Formalisms and Applications, ed. by Saint-Dizier, Patrick, 121–32. Toulouse, France, September 4-6, 2003.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1972. Some observations on the syntax and semantics of instrumental verbs. Chicago Linguistic Society 8. 83–97.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Kennedy, Christopher; and Levin, Beth. 1999. Scalar structure underlies telicity in ‘degree achievements’. The proceedings of SALT IX, ed. by Mathews, Tanya and Strolovitch, Devon, 127–44. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.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
Kennedy, Chris. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics.) New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris, and McNally, Louise. 1999. From event structure to scale structure: Degree modification in deverbal adjectives. The proceedings of SALT IX, ed. by Mathews, Tanya and Strolovitch, Devon, 163–80. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publication.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Chris, and McNally, Louise. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language 81. 345–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Ewan. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 1.-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1998. The origins of telicity. Events and grammar, ed. by Rothstein, Susan, 197–236. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2002. Tipping the scales: The syntax of scalarity in the complement of seem. Syntax 5. 219–76.Google Scholar
Rotstein, Carmen, and Winter, Yoad. 2004. Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 12. 259–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1944. On grading: A study in semantics. Philosophy of Science 2. 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Carlota. 1991. The parameter of aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1957 [1967]. Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 56. 143–60. [Reprinted in Linguistics in philosophy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967.].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. 2002. Paths to results: Explaining constraints on resultative secondary predicates. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, San Francisco, January 4, 2002.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2003. Serial verbs and serial motion. Proceedings of the Workshop on Multi-Verb Constructions, Trondheim Summer School 2003, ed. by Beermann, Dorothee and Hellan, Lars. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 2005. 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
Yoon, Youngeun. 1996. Total and partial predicates and the weak and strong interpretations. Natural Language Semantics 4. 217–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar