View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

DHH and L2 College Students' Knowledge of English Resultatives and Depictives

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: DHH and L2 College Students' Knowledge of English Resultatives and Depictives
Language: English
Authors: Ronald R. Kelly, Gerald P. Berent, Erin Finton, Tanya Schueler-Choukairi, Stanley Van Horn, Zhong Chen, Kimberly Persky, Susan Post Rizzo, Kathryn L. Schmitz
Source: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2025 30(2):226-233.
Availability: Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44-1865-353907; Fax: +44-1865-353485; e-mail: jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org; Web site: http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Deafness, English (Second Language), Second Language Learning, Hard of Hearing, College Students, Native Speakers, Student Characteristics, Sentence Structure, Grammar, Comparative Analysis, Language Proficiency, Student Improvement, Student Evaluation
DOI: 10.1093/jdsade/enae046
ISSN: 1081-4159
1465-7325
Abstract: College-level deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students and hearing students of English as a Second Language (L2) along with hearing native speakers (NS) of English were assessed in their knowledge of English resultative and depictive sentences. In "Kevin wiped the table clean," the resultative phrase "clean" indicates that the table became clean as a result of Kevin wiping it. In "Megan drove the car drunk," the depictive phrase "drunk" describes Megan's state throughout the entire event of driving. Findings of a sentence-acceptability rating scale task revealed higher performance by the NS group compared to the DHH and L2 groups, whose near-equivalent performance improved with increasing overall English proficiency. Participants exhibited higher performance on active, passive, and unaccusative resultative sentences than on ungrammatical unergative resultatives and higher performance on grammatical than ungrammatical depictive sentence types. These findings contribute new insights into the comparative study of English acquisition by DHH and L2 learners.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1465648
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHYuajB6xKng3vJR_grMTD9AAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEfHIGNsugEdMGgPdAIBEICBmTxrWKGEeXX8xHmbJexcWvNlHmHO4vI6AAGGmjqi7xAMI9ZzGwR_QiamEDLQgAWSCVZjRiWCOC26GujhaPbH6uIauFpwM3LBiuOmqlS2Scp7i9LHxzy5IkM9KD6j1w2t2SY5yz26xfDk73RX3lFgy74soyDJAiXCPf_AJTmWQzBLTaJK8KcKRSaIeNyrkQ90NQRGr5MpNDbRww==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184039822;big01apr.25;2025Apr01.01:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184039822-1">DHH and L2 college students' knowledge of English resultatives and depictives </title> <p>College-level deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students and hearing students of English as a Second Language (L2) along with hearing native speakers (NS) of English were assessed in their knowledge of English resultative and depictive sentences. In "Kevin wiped the table clean," the resultative phrase "clean" indicates that the table became clean as a result of Kevin wiping it. In "Megan drove the car drunk," the depictive phrase "drunk" describes Megan's state throughout the entire event of driving. Findings of a sentence-acceptability rating scale task revealed higher performance by the NS group compared to the DHH and L2 groups, whose near-equivalent performance improved with increasing overall English proficiency. Participants exhibited higher performance on active, passive, and unaccusative resultative sentences than on ungrammatical unergative resultatives and higher performance on grammatical than ungrammatical depictive sentence types. These findings contribute new insights into the comparative study of English acquisition by DHH and L2 learners.</p> <p>This study reports the findings of research that investigated knowledge of English <emph>resultative</emph> and <emph>depictive</emph> sentences among two English-learning populations at the college level: (i) deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students and (ii) hearing students of English as a second language (L2).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] This research is part of a larger research agenda that has investigated English acquisition in these two populations and uncovered striking acquisitional parallels between the two across diverse English language phenomena. For example, acquisitional parallels have been uncovered and explained relative to DHH and L2 learners' knowledge of the morphosyntax of English verbs ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]), infinitive complement interpretation ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]), universal and numerical quantifier sentences ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref5">7</reflink>]), and transitive and intransitive verb and sentence structures ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]). This agenda has also uncovered lexical parallels in DHH and L2 learners' knowledge of general-purpose and academic English verbs ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]) within and across corpus-based lexical frequency ranges ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]-present; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>]). Learner parallels have also been identified in DHH and L2 learners' <emph>written</emph> English productions as analyzed, for example, in [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>].</p> <p>Although DHH and L2 students are distinct English-learning populations, they share fundamental acquisitional circumstances that constrain their English acquisition in similar ways. The first circumstance is delayed onset of exposure to English language input. In the case of a DHH child, a significant hearing loss in infancy or early childhood, especially in the absence of early intervention, typically produces long-term deleterious effects on acquisition of an auditory-based language such as English ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref12">24</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref13">2</reflink>] In the case of L2 acquisition by hearing learners, the later exposure to the L2 also typically results in compromised, though variable, ultimate attainment of that language ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref14">8</reflink>]). Numerous other cognitive, linguistic, and developmental factors interact to yield great variation in ultimate attainment of English by these two populations ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref15">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]). Amid this variation, the research agenda that includes the present study has uncovered parallel knowledge of specific linguistic properties by these two learner groups overall and at any given assessed English proficiency level. The present study investigates possible parallels between DHH learners and L2 learners in knowledge of English resultative and depictive sentences, which are described and illustrated below.</p> <hd id="AN0184039822-2">Resultative and depictive sentences and phrases</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref17">34</reflink>] analyzed resultative and depictive sentences as <emph>complex predicate constructions</emph> in which the higher predicate describes an event and the lower or <emph>secondary predicate</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>]) describes a "resultant state" of that event in the case of a <emph>resultative phrase</emph> (ResP) or a "concomitant situation" to that event in the case of a <emph>depictive phrase</emph> (DepP). As illustration, in sentence (1a) below, the higher predicate "Kevin wiped the table" results in the table becoming "clean," as specified by the lower predicate [<subs>ResP</subs> clean] in (1b).</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>) a. Kevin wiped the table clean.</p> <p>b. [Kevin [<subs>VP</subs> wiped the table] [<subs>ResP</subs> clean]]</p> <p>We say that the ResP "clean" <emph>is predicated</emph> of the direct object "the table" in (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>) in accordance with the <emph>Direct Object Restriction</emph> (DOR; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>]). In sentence (2a) below, the higher predicate "Megan drove the car" occurs concomitantly with the lower predicate [<subs>DepP</subs> drunk] in (2b), which depicts the state of the subject "Megan" throughout the entire event of driving.</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref22">2</reflink>) a. Megan drove the car drunk.</p> <p>b. [Megan [<subs>VP</subs> drove the car] [<subs>DepP</subs> drunk]]</p> <p>In this case, the DepP "drunk" is not governed by the DOR but rather is considered an <emph>adverbial adjunct</emph> that describes the state of a sentence subject or object throughout the event ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>The distribution of resultative and depictive sentences in English is not limited to transitive active sentences like (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref24">1</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>). Transitive resultative sentences can also be passive as in (3a), which is derived from the underlying structure (3b).</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>) a. The table was wiped clean.</p> <p>b. [____ [<subs>VP</subs> was wiped [the table] [<subs>ResP</subs> clean]]]</p> <p>Resultative sentences can also be intransitive as in the <emph>unaccusative</emph> sentence (4a), which is derived from (4b); see [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref28">28</reflink>].[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>) a. The front door slammed shut.</p> <p>b. [____ [<subs>VP</subs> slammed [the front door] [<subs>ResP</subs> shut]]]</p> <p>In the parallel derivations (3b) and (4b), the underlying direct objects "the table" and "the front door" move to the empty sentence subject position in order to receive their subject and agreement features ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref31">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref32">30</reflink>]), yielding grammatical sentences (3a) and (4a), respectively. Derivations (1b), (3b), and (4b) demonstrate that resultative phrases are predicated of a direct object ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref33">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref34">35</reflink>]), whether explicit as in (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>) or underlying as in (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>) and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref37">4</reflink>).</p> <p>The DOR explains the non-occurrence of resultatives in intransitive <emph>unergative</emph> sentences like (5a) below, even with preceding context as in (5b). Instead, the presence of a <emph>fake reflexive</emph> object pronoun ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref38">16</reflink>]) such as "herself" in (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>) serves to satisfy the DOR.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref40">4</reflink>]</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>) a. *Nicole laughed sick.</p> <p>b. *Nicole laughed so long that she laughed sick.</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>) a. Nicole laughed herself sick.</p> <p>b. [Nicole<emph><subs>i</subs></emph> [<subs>VP</subs> laughed [herself<emph><subs>i</subs></emph>] [<subs>ResP</subs> sick<emph><subs>i</subs></emph>]]]</p> <p>Although the DOR does not apply to depictive sentences (see [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref43">31</reflink>]) because a DepP is an adverbial adjunct, a property of a DepP is that it can be either <emph>subject-oriented</emph> or <emph>object-oriented</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref44">19</reflink>]). A subject-oriented DepP describes the state of an active sentence subject over the course of an event, as in the case of [<subs>DepP</subs> drunk] in (2b) above, or the state of a passive sentence subject as in the case of [<subs>DepP</subs> young] in (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref45">7</reflink>) below. In the latter instance, the DepP describes the underlying direct object "Jordan," which has moved to the empty subject position as indicated in (7b) following [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref47">30</reflink>].</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>) a. Jordan was hired young.</p> <p>b. [Jordan<emph><subs>i</subs></emph> [<subs>VP</subs> was hired ____<emph><subs>i</subs></emph>] [<subs>DepP</subs> young<emph><subs>i</subs></emph>]]</p> <p>An object-oriented DepP occurs in sentence (8a) below, with structural detail shown in (8b).</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref49">8</reflink>) a. Tyler drinks his coffee black.</p> <p>b. [Tyler [<subs>VP</subs> drinks [his coffee]<emph><subs>i</subs></emph> [<subs>DepP</subs> black<emph><subs>i</subs></emph>]]]</p> <p>In this case, [<subs>DepP</subs> black] describes a surface direct object "his coffee" rather than an underlying direct object as in (7b). However, as adverbial adjuncts, the DepP's in (7b) and (8b) are not <emph>predicated</emph> of the direct object. Nevertheless, for a depictive sentence to be grammatical, it must understandably contain a subject or object noun phrase to depict. This explains the ungrammaticality of a sentence like (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref50">9</reflink>) below.</p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref51">9</reflink>) *The lecture was attended sick.</p> <hd id="AN0184039822-3">Assessing learners' knowledge of English resultative and depictive sentences</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184039822-4">Targeted sentence types</hd> <p>In association with the overview above, the specific resultative and depictive sentence types targeted for assessment in this study are listed in Table 1 along with examples.</p> <p>Table 1 Sentence types targeted for assessment.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Resultative Sentence. </th><th>Example. </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Active</td><td>Sue cooked the steak well-done.</td></tr><tr><td>Passive</td><td>The house was painted white.</td></tr><tr><td>Unaccusative</td><td>The wooden gate swung open.</td></tr><tr><td>Unergative</td><td>*Jill laughed so much that she laughed dizzy.</td></tr><tr><td>Unergative fake reflexive</td><td>Bob ran so long that he ran himself tired.</td></tr><tr><td>Depictive Sentence</td><td>Example</td></tr><tr><td>Active, subject-oriented</td><td>Elizabeth left the party happy.</td></tr><tr><td>Active, object-oriented</td><td>Michael ate the fish raw.</td></tr><tr><td>Passive, derived subject-oriented</td><td>Alexandra was found alive.</td></tr><tr><td>Passive, implicit agent-oriented</td><td>*The movie was watched sleepy.</td></tr><tr><td>Active, object-oriented (semantically anomalous)</td><td>*Joe bought the flowers expensive.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Resultative Sentence. </th><th>Example. </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Active</td><td>Sue cooked the steak well-done.</td></tr><tr><td>Passive</td><td>The house was painted white.</td></tr><tr><td>Unaccusative</td><td>The wooden gate swung open.</td></tr><tr><td>Unergative</td><td>*Jill laughed so much that she laughed dizzy.</td></tr><tr><td>Unergative fake reflexive</td><td>Bob ran so long that he ran himself tired.</td></tr><tr><td>Depictive Sentence</td><td>Example</td></tr><tr><td>Active, subject-oriented</td><td>Elizabeth left the party happy.</td></tr><tr><td>Active, object-oriented</td><td>Michael ate the fish raw.</td></tr><tr><td>Passive, derived subject-oriented</td><td>Alexandra was found alive.</td></tr><tr><td>Passive, implicit agent-oriented</td><td>*The movie was watched sleepy.</td></tr><tr><td>Active, object-oriented (semantically anomalous)</td><td>*Joe bought the flowers expensive.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184039822-5">Research question</hd> <p>In view of the resultative and depictive sentence properties summarized above, this study seeks answers to whether and to what extent (s) DHH and L2 college students along with their native-English-speaking college peers have knowledge of English resultative and depictive sentences as detailed further in the hypotheses articulated below.</p> <hd id="AN0184039822-6">Hypotheses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184039822-7">Resultative sentences</hd> <p>Hypothesis 1</p> <p>As hearing native speakers (NS) of English, the NS group will exhibit greater knowledge of each of the five targeted English resultative sentence types than the L2 and DHH learner groups, including greater recognition of the ungrammaticality of unergative resultative sentences (i.e. those without a fake reflexive; see Table 1).</p> <p>Hypothesis 2</p> <p>In view of commonly observed proficiency level effects in language acquisition research, the DHH and L2 learner groups will demonstrate increasing acceptance of the grammatical resultative sentence types and decreasing acceptance of the ungrammatical unergative resultative sentence type as their overall English language proficiency increases.</p> <hd id="AN0184039822-8">Depictive Sentences</hd> <p>Hypothesis 3</p> <p>As hearing NS of English, the NS group will exhibit greater knowledge of each of the five targeted English depictive sentence types than the L2 and DHH learner groups, including greater recognition of the ungrammaticality of (i) passive, implicit agent-oriented depictive sentences and (ii) active, object-oriented semantically anomalous depictive sentences (see Table 1).</p> <p>Hypothesis 4</p> <p>In view of commonly observed proficiency level effects in language acquisition research, as the DHH and L2 learner groups increase in overall English language proficiency, they will demonstrate increasing acceptance of the three grammatical depictive sentence types and decreasing acceptance of the two ungrammatical depictive sentence types—(iii) passive, implicit agent-oriented, and (iv) semantically anomalous active, object-oriented (see Table 1).</p> <hd id="AN0184039822-9">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184039822-10">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 319 college-level students participated in this research study, two English learner groups and one group of hearing NS of American English. One learner group was comprised of 134 DHH students enrolled in associate's degree programs at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID), one of the nine colleges of the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in Rochester, New York, or in bachelor's degree programs at NTID or in RIT's other eight colleges. This learner group is designated the "DHH group." Recruitment of these learners ensured, via the recruitment flyer and in-person verification, that they had hearing parents and were not native American Sign Language (ASL) signers. Any exposure to ASL, as opposed to English-based signing, would have occurred during a student's school years and not in early childhood. Accordingly, none of the DHH students were native ASL signers. The second learner group was comprised of 140 hearing learners of English as an L2 studying English (or having completed study) in the RIT English Language Center or enrolled in bachelor's degree programs at the university. This group is designated the "L2 group."[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>] A group of 45 hearing native-English-speaking students enrolled in bachelor's degree programs at RIT, the "NS group," served as a comparison group. This group would demonstrate how typical hearing college students judge the acceptability of English resultative and depictive sentences. The mean ages (and standard deviations) of the participant groups were as follows: DHH, 20.74 (2.86); L2, 24.17 (3.95); NS, 20.31 (1.66). Although participant recruitment resulted in unequal <emph>n</emph>, analysis of variance is sufficiently robust to violations of the assumptions of equal <emph>n</emph>, provided the groups' sample sizes are reasonably large ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref53">36</reflink>]).</p> <p>The two learner groups were each divided into three English proficiency level subgroups on the basis of their scores on the [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref54">25</reflink>]. The MTELP was used as an English level placement test at the time of this research study for both the DHH and the L2 English participants (see [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref55">10</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref56">6</reflink>] Participants assigned to the "Low English" level had MTELP scores < 60; those assigned to the "Mid English" level had scores between 60 and 75; and those assigned to the "High English" level had scores > 75. The breakdown of the DHH and L2 groups by English level, including mean MTELP scores, was as follows: DHH Low, <emph>n</emph> = 43, MTELP <emph>M</emph> = 51.92 (5.90); L2 Low, <emph>n</emph> = 49, MTELP <emph>M</emph> = 47.16 (8.11); DHH Mid, <emph>n</emph> = 46, MTELP <emph>M</emph> = 65.91 (4.02); L2 Mid, <emph>n</emph> = 40, MTELP <emph>M</emph> = 68.23 (4.29); DHH High, <emph>n</emph> = 45, MTELP <emph>M</emph> = 80.56 (5.25); L2 High, <emph>n</emph> = 51, MTELP <emph>M</emph> = 80.45 (2.69). The mean MTELP scores of the DHH group as a whole and the L2 group as a whole were 65.75 (12.51) and 65.98 (15.06), respectively. The above values indicate that the DHH and L2 groups as a whole and at each English proficiency level were well-balanced in overall English proficiency.</p> <hd id="AN0184039822-11">Assessment Methodology</hd> <p>Sentence acceptability rating-scale task</p> <p>Participants' knowledge of the resultative and depictive sentence types listed and illustrated above in Table 1 was assessed as a component of a larger 234-item 6-point rating scale Linguistic Events Task. In addition to targeted resultative and depictive English sentence types, the larger task assessed participants' knowledge of sentences representing state, activity, accomplishment, and achievement event types ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref57">38</reflink>]) and included 30 filler items consisting of syntactically and semantically aberrant structures. The present study reports only the results of the resultative and depictive sentence component. The filler items served to assess whether participants would indeed assign their lowest acceptability ratings to such "impossible" English sentences. Lowest acceptance of these items would also serve to ensure that participants were attending to the task by noticing these impossible sentences and not responding randomly to task items.</p> <p>Task format</p> <p>The format of the sentence acceptability task, along with sample items, is illustrated in Table 2. Three randomized versions of the larger sentence acceptability task were produced and employed to guard against fatigue effects or the development of response biases. Task instructions were provided to participants in writing and in speech and, for the DHH participants, were also explained in either ASL or English-based signing with speech, depending on participants' language preferences. Participants were instructed to read each sentence carefully and to decide how "acceptable" or "unacceptable" the sentence felt to them. If the sentence, in their opinion, seemed completely acceptable, they were to circle the number 6 on the scale (= DEFINITELY GOOD). If the sentence seemed completely unacceptable, they were to circle the number 1 (= DEFINITELY BAD). For a sentence that did not seem fully acceptable or fully unacceptable, participants were told to circle a 2, 3, 4, or 5 depending on how bad or how good the sentence was in their opinion. Table 2 item (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>) is an example of an aberrant filler item sentence.</p> <p>Table 2 Item format and sample items on the linguistic events task.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>. </th><th>definitely bad. </th><th>. </th><th>. </th><th>definitely good. </th><th>. </th><th>. </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(1) James sliced the meat thin.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>(2) Tiffany was knowing the answer.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>(3) Your drank out clothes the appreciate.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>(4) Dan cried so much that he cried himself sick.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>(5) Chelsea bought the car new.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>. </th><th>definitely bad. </th><th>. </th><th>. </th><th>definitely good. </th><th>. </th><th>. </th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(1) James sliced the meat thin.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>(2) Tiffany was knowing the answer.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>(3) Your drank out clothes the appreciate.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>(4) Dan cried so much that he cried himself sick.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>(5) Chelsea bought the car new.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For each targeted resultative and depictive sentence type in Table 1 above, six task items were constructed for inclusion on the sentence acceptability rating-scale task. Accordingly, there were 30 resultative and 30 depictive sentence items on the task. Items were constructed to be as naturalistic as possible using high-frequency English vocabulary. After all task items had been constructed, three of the research team members reviewed each task sentence for naturalness and to ensure that it properly exhibited the targeted properties. Any item that was not endorsed unanimously was discarded and replaced with a new item judged fully acceptable.</p> <p>Task reliability</p> <p>The reliability of the resultative and depictive sentence items of the Linguistic Events Task for all participants (<emph>n</emph> = 319) was calculated using Cronbach's alpha (α) for internal consistency as follows: resultative sentence items, α =.91 and depictive sentence items, α =.91. Both reliability values exceed the recommended values of commonly consulted authors ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref59">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref60">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref61">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Analysis protocol</p> <p>Participants' acceptance ratings on the resultative and depictive sentence items of the Linguistic Events Task were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (mixed between-within subjects ANOVA). Analysis of each sentence type grouping consisted of two ANOVAs—one analyzing the performance of the three Participant Groups overall (DHH, L2, NS) and, second, a factorial analysis of the two Learner Groups (DHH, L2) at each of their MTELP-based English proficiency levels (Low, Mid, High). For all analyses significance was set at <emph>P <</emph>.05.</p> <hd id="AN0184039822-12">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184039822-13">Resultative Sentences</hd> <p>Participant groups</p> <p>Performance by the three participant groups on the resultative sentence items on the sentence acceptability rating-scale task was assessed using a 3 × 5 mixed between-within subjects ANOVA: Participant Group (DHH, L2, NS) × Resultative Sentence Type (Active, Passive, Unaccusative, Unergative, Fake Reflexive). While this ANOVA yielded a significant main effect for both Group and Resultative Sentence Type, a significant interaction between Group and Resultative Sentence Type, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref62">8</reflink>, 1,<reflink idref="bib264" id="ref63">264</reflink>) = 19.77), <emph>P <</emph>.0001, partial eta squared (η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups>) =.11, offers better interpretive insight into the participant groups' performance patterns, as illustrated in Figure 1.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 Participant Group × Resultative Sentence Type Interaction.</p> <p>This figure reveals, in support of Hypothesis 1, that the NS group exhibited greater knowledge of the five targeted resultative sentence types compared to the DHH and L2 learner groups, including lower acceptance of the ungrammatical unergative resultative sentences. However, although the NS group's acceptance of the fake reflexive sentences was higher than the learner groups' acceptance, it was only slightly higher and represented a less-than-60% overall acceptance rate. This lowest acceptance of the fake reflexive sentences among the four targeted grammatical resultative sentence types by the learner groups as well as the NS group may be a consequence of the somewhat idiomatic feel that fake reflexives have, perhaps related to the fact that it is the insertion of a reflexive pronoun that preserves the grammaticality of these sentences.</p> <p>Another factor that might have contributed to the fake reflexive resultative sentences' lower relative acceptance might be tied to the stimulus design of these specific task items. Although all other task items included single-clause sentences, it was felt that the fake reflexive sentence items should include two clauses of which the first clause established the context for the second clause reflecting the result state through the fake reflexive. Accordingly, to provide sufficient context, stimulus sentences such as "Meg danced so long that she danced herself tired" were employed instead of just "Meg danced herself tired." It is possible that the stimulus length—and verb repetition—of these two-clause sentences might have artificialized them somewhat and degraded their acceptability relative to the other grammatical sentence types.</p> <p>Learner groups and English proficiency level</p> <p>Acceptability Task performance by the DHH and L2 learner groups at each of their three English proficiency levels was assessed using a 2 × 3 × 5 Factorial mixed between-within subjects ANOVA: Learner Group (DHH, L2) × English Level (Low, Mid, High) × Resultative Sentence Type (Active, Passive, Unaccusative, Unergative, Fake Reflexive). While the ANOVA results produced significant main effects for Proficiency Level and Resultative Sentence Type, the Factorial ANOVA also produced a significant two-way interaction, Resultative Sentence Type × Proficiency Level, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref64">8</reflink>, 1,072) = 9.21, <emph>P <</emph>.0001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> =.06, and a significant three-way interaction, Learner Group × Proficiency Level × Resultative Sentence Type, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref65">8</reflink>, 1,072) = 3.16, <emph>P <</emph>.01, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> =.02. These significant interactions again provide better interpretive insight into learner group performance as illustrated in Figure 2.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2 Learner Group English Level × Resultative Sentence Type Interaction.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3 Participant Group × Depictive Sentence Type Interaction.</p> <p>The performance patterns in Figure 2 indicate partial support for Hypothesis 2 pertaining to English proficiency level effects. The DHH group demonstrated increasing performance on active, passive, and unaccusative resultative sentence types across their Low, Mid, and High English levels. However, with respect to the ungrammatical unergative resultative sentences and the fake reflexive sentences, the three DHH English levels sustained lower and roughly equivalent acceptance rates. The L2 group's relative acceptance of the resultative sentence types was roughly proportionate to the DHH group's but exhibited a slightly different performance pattern. Their acceptance of active, passive, and unaccusative resultative sentences increased between the L2 Low and the L2 Mid and High levels, where it leveled off. For some reason the L2 Mid level exhibited higher acceptance of the ungrammatical unergative resultatives than the L2 Low and High levels, and they also exhibited higher acceptance than the other group/levels of the grammatical fake reflexive resultatives. We have no principled explanation for the L2 Mid level's greater performance than the L2 High level's performance on the unergative and fake reflexive resultative sentences.</p> <hd id="AN0184039822-14">Depictive Sentences</hd> <p>Participant groups</p> <p>Performance by the three participant groups on the depictive sentence items on the sentence acceptability rating-scale task was assessed using a 3 × 5 mixed between-within subjects ANOVA, Participant Group (DHH, L2, NS) × Depictive Sentence Type (Active/subject-oriented, Active/object-oriented, Passive/derived subject-oriented, Passive/implicit agent-oriented, Active/object-oriented/anomalous). This ANOVA yielded a significant interaction between Participant Group and Depictive Sentence Type, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref66">8</reflink>, 1,<reflink idref="bib264" id="ref67">264</reflink>) = 14.97), <emph>P <</emph>.0001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> =.09, which is plotted in Figure 3.</p> <p>Figure 3 reveals considerable support for Hypothesis 3, which predicted that the NS group would exhibit greater knowledge than the DHH and L2 groups of each of the five depictive sentence types via higher acceptance of the three grammatical sentence types and lower acceptance of the two ungrammatical sentence types (third and fifth bars from the left). The figure shows that, indeed, the NS group outperformed the learner groups in its somewhat higher acceptance of the active and passive subject-oriented depictive sentences and the active object-oriented depictive sentences. However, although the NS group exhibited the predicted lower acceptance than the learner groups of the ungrammatical active object-oriented sentences, its mean acceptance of the ungrammatical passive implicit-agent depictive sentences was roughly equivalent to the DHH and L2 learner groups' mean acceptance. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was mostly but not entirely supported.</p> <p>Learner groups and English proficiency level</p> <p>The DHH and L2 learner groups' performance on the depictive sentence items on the Acceptability Task was assessed using a 2 × 3 × 5 mixed between-within subjects Factorial ANOVA, Learner Group (DHH, L2) × English Level (Low, Mid, High) × Depictive Sentence Type (active/subject-oriented, active/object-oriented, passive/derived subject-oriented, passive/implicit agent-oriented, active/object-oriented/anomalous). While this Factorial ANOVA produced significant main effects for Proficiency Level and for Depictive Sentence Type, it also yielded two significant interactions: Learner Group × Depictive Sentence Type and Proficiency Level × Depictive Sentence Type. Nevertheless, a significant three-way Learner Group × Proficiency Level × Depictive Sentence Type interaction, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref68">8</reflink>, 1,072) = 5.64, <emph>P <</emph>.0001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> =.04, illustrated in Figure 4, offers the greatest interpretive insight into the learner groups' performance.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4 Learner Group English Level × Depictive Sentence Type Interaction.</p> <p>Hypothesis 4 predicted that, as their overall English language proficiency increased, the DHH and L2 groups would demonstrate increasing acceptance of the grammatical depictive sentence types and decreasing acceptance of the two ungrammatical depictive sentence types—(i) passive implicit agent-oriented and (ii) semantically anomalous active object-oriented (see Table 1). Figure 4 reveals that the performance of the DHH English levels closely supported the predictions of Hypothesis 4 whereas the performance of the L2 English levels was not fully consistent with those predictions. Although the L2 Mid level exhibited the predicted increase relative to the L2 Low level in performance on the three grammatical depictive sentence types (the first, second, and fourth bars from the left), they also exhibited unanticipated higher acceptance of the two ungrammatical sentence types. Regarding the L2 High level, they exhibited lower acceptance than the L2 Mid level of the grammatical active-subject and active-object sentences rather than the predicted higher acceptance. Thus, whereas the DHH English levels performed as predicted by Hypothesis 4, the L2 English levels' performance deviated from some of those predictions.</p> <hd id="AN0184039822-15">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184039822-16">Summary of Hypothesized Performance</hd> <p>Resultative sentences</p> <p>As reported above, the ANOVA results targeting participant group performance on the resultative sentence items on the Linguistic Events Task provided support for research Hypothesis 1. Specifically, the results confirmed that the NS group would exhibit greater knowledge of the five resultative sentence types than the DHH and L2 learner groups, including lower acceptance than the learner groups of the ungrammatical unergative resultative sentences and only slightly higher acceptance of the fake reflexive resultative sentences. In other words, the NS group exhibited principled but small differences in their greater knowledge of the unergative and fake reflexive resultative sentence types.</p> <p>Regarding the DHH and L2 learner groups, the ANOVA results partially supported Hypothesis 2, which predicted increasing knowledge of grammatical resultative sentences and decreasing knowledge of ungrammatical resultative sentences as overall English language proficiency level increased. As noted above, the partial exceptions pertained to the performance of the L2 Mid and High levels (Figure 2). The L2 Mid level displayed higher acceptance than the L2 Low level of the unergative resultative sentences and higher acceptance than the L2 High level of the grammatical fake reflexive sentences. These fluctuations, in contrast to the more consistent performance trends of the DHH English levels, might have arisen under the influences of the L2 participants' native languages, which variously would have typologically different resultative structures from English ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref69">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref70">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref71">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Depictive sentences</p> <p>The ANOVA results reported above that targeted participant group performance on the depictive sentence items on the Linguistic Events Task provided support for research Hypothesis 3. The ANOVA findings confirmed that the NS group would exhibit greater knowledge than the DHH and L2 groups of the five targeted depictive sentence types. Specifically, the NS group demonstrated higher acceptance of the three grammatical sentence types as illustrated in Figure 3 above and lower acceptance of the two ungrammatical sentence types. However, despite principled differences in mean performance within each learner group, there was some overlap in mean performance, as already noted above, between the NS group and the two learner groups.</p> <p>As also already noted above in relation to Hypothesis 4, the performance of the DHH group's English levels more closely supported the hypothesis than the L2 group's English levels. This differential support was underscored by the L2 Mid level's higher acceptance of the two ungrammatical depictive sentence types relative to the DHH Mid level's acceptance rates and in the L2 High level's lower acceptance of these sentence types than the L2 Mid level's acceptance rate. As noted with respect to the resultative sentences, these fluctuations in performance on the depictive sentences might have arisen variably under the influences of any typologically different depictive-like structures occurring in the L2 group's native languages ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref72">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184039822-17">Conclusion</hd> <p>The results of this research investigation of college-level DHH and L2 English learners' knowledge of English resultative and depictive sentences have supplemented existing research findings focusing on English language acquisition in these two populations. As in previous studies within this research agenda (see introductory paragraphs above), the present study has uncovered quite parallel knowledge between the two learner groups in their performance on the resultative and depictive sentence items on the Linguistic Events Task component of the Sentence Acceptability Rating-Scale Task described above. Along with the observed proficiency level effects, the DHH and L2 groups demonstrated a sensitivity to the grammatical status of targeted sentence types—for example, lower acceptance of ungrammatical unergative resultative sentences (Figures 1 and 2) as well as ungrammatical passive implicit agent-oriented depictive sentences and active object-oriented depictive sentences (Figures 3 and 4). Their lower relative acceptance of fake reflexive resultative sentences was presumably a unique reaction to these somewhat idiomatic, lower frequency sentence types along with the fact that the stimulus sentences consisted of an introductory clause followed by a target fake reflexive clause. It is possible that participant responses to these sentences might have been higher without the introductory clause—a methodological issue that should be investigated in future research.</p> <p>Author contributions</p> <p>Ronald R. Kelly (Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software), Gerald P. Berent (Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision), Erin Finton (Investigation, Methodology, Resources), Tanya Schueler-Choukairi (Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision), Stanley Van Horn (Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision), Zhong Chen (Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources), Kimberly Persky (Investigation, Methodology, Resources), Susan Post Rizzo (Investigation, Methodology, Resources), Kathryn L. Schmitz (Investigation, Resources).</p> <p>Funding</p> <p>This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant BCS-1251342 awarded to the Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, New York.</p> <p>Conflicts of interest</p> <p>None declared.</p> <hd id="AN0184039822-18">Author notes</hd> <ref id="AN0184039822-19"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> In this article we use the standard abbreviation "L2" to refer to students of "English as a second language," even though these students may be learners of English as an Additional Language (EAL) who know or are acquiring more than one language beyond their first.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref13" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Acquisition of an auditory-based language by a DHH child takes different courses depending on personal, auditory, educational, and communication variables and preferences, with great variation in ultimate attainment of that language.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> The resultative and depictive phrases targeted in this study are adjectival, such as "clean" and "drunk" in sentences (1) and (2), or participial, such as "shut" in (4). Other types of resultatives such as prepositional phrases as in "Bill broke the bathtub <emph>into pieces</emph>" (Goldberg & Jackendoff, 2004 , p. 6, ex. 7b) and other types of depictives such as noun phrases as in "Alex arrived at the station <emph>a complete wreck</emph>" (Schultze-Berndt & Himmelmann, 2004 , p. 95) are not targeted in the present study.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref6" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> The subscript <emph>i</emph> in (6b) and in other sentences below marks coreference between two or more sentence elements.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> The L2 group represented 19 different L1 backgrounds: Arabic, Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese, Gujarati, Hindi, Japanese, Kannada, Kinyarwanda, Kuchi, Lao, Malay, Marathi, Marwari, Russian, Spanish, Tamil, Telugu, Turkish, and Yoruba. Given this diversity of language background, L2 performance was assessed only on the basis of English language proficiency level.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Because the MTELP was developed for speakers of other languages and other English learners, it was administered only to the two learner groups in this study but not to the native-English-speaking group. Since this research study, the MTELP has been retired and replaced by The Michigan English Test (MET).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref5" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant BCS-1251342 awarded to the Rochester Institute of Technology. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronald R. Kelly at [email protected].</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0184039822-20"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Albertini, J. A., & Schley, S. (2012). Writing: characteristics, instruction, and assessment. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language and education (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 123 – 135). New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199750986.013.0010. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baker, M., Johnson, K., & Roberts, I. (1989). Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry, 20 (2), 219 – 251 https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178625">www.jstor.org/stable/4178625</ulink>. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berent, G. P. (1983). Control judgments by deaf adults and by second language learners. Language Learning, 33, 37 – 53. https://<ulink href="http://www.academia.edu/100967409/">www.academia.edu/100967409/</ulink>. 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00985.x. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berent, G. P., Kelly, R. K., Chen, Z., Finton, E. M., Van Horn, S., Schueler-Choukairi, T., Schmitz, K. L., Rizzo, S. P., & Persky, K. (2024). L2 learner-deaf learner parallels in acquisition of transitive and intransitive English verb and sentence properties [Manuscript under revision].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berent, G. P., Kelly, R. R., Rizzo, S. P., Chen, Z., Schueler-Choukairi, T., Persky, K., Schmitz, K. L., & Van Horn, S. (2024). Academic verb knowledge of DHH college students and their hearing peers. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 29 (2), 158 – 169. 10.1093/deafed/enad053. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berent, G. P., Kelly, R. R., & Schueler-Choukairi, T. (2009). Economy in the acquisition of English universal quantifier knowledge: Sentence interpretation by deaf and hearing students and L2 learners at the college level. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 30, 251 – 290. 10.1017/S0142716409090110. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berent, G. P., Kelly, R. R., & Schueler-Choukairi, T. (2012). L2 and deaf learners' knowledge of numerically quantified English sentences: Acquisitional parallels at the semantics/discourse-pragmatics interface. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 35 – 66. 10.1017/S0272263111000490. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref14" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Birdsong, D. (2004). Second language acquisition and ultimate attainment. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 82 – 105). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 10.1002/9780470757000.ch3. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref15" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Birdsong, D., & Vanhove, J. (2016). Age of second language acquisition: Critical periods and social concerns. In E. Nicoladis & S. Montanari (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan: Factors moderating language proficiency (pp. 163 – 181). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 10.1037/14939-010. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bochner, J. H., & Walter, G. G. (2005). Evaluating deaf students' readiness to meet the English language and literacy demands of postsecondary educational programs. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10 (3), 232 – 243. 10.1093/deafed/eni025. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies (2008 -present). The corpus of contemporary American English. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University. https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fontanals, J. M. (2000). Why can't we wipe the slate clean? A lexical-syntactic approach to resultative constructions. Catalan Working Papers in Linguistics, 8, 71 – 95 https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:117441822. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedmann, N., Taranto, G., Shapiro, L. P., & Swinney, D. (2008). The leaf fell (the leaf): The online processing of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 39, 355 – 377. 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.355. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35, 305 – 327. 10.1093/applin/amt015. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldberg, A. E., & Jackendoff, R. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 80 (4), 532 – 568 https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/4489722">www.jstor.org/stable/4489722</ulink>. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grove, K. W. (2008). Why unergatives select themselves a fake reflexive. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 30, 106 – 119. 10.17161/KWPL.1808.3908. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hasegawa, N. (1999). The syntax of resultatives. In M. Muraki & E. Iwamoto (Eds.), Linguistics: In search of the human mind (pp. 178 – 208). Tokyo, Japan: Kaitakusha. https://<ulink href="http://www.kaitakusha.co.jp">www.kaitakusha.co.jp</ulink>. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Himmelmann, N. P., & Schultze-Berndt, E. F. (2005). Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts. In Himmelmann, N. P. & Schultze-Berndt, E. F. (Eds.), Secondary predication and adverbial modification: The typology of depictives (pp. 1 – 67). New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272266.001.0001. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irimia, M.-A. (2005). Types of secondary predication. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 25, 20 – 29 https://twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6181. Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karchmer, M. A., & Mitchell, R. E. (2003). Demographic and achievement characteristics of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. In M. Marschark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 21 – 37). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufmann, I., & Wunderlich, D. (1998). Cross-linguistic patterns of resultatives. In Working papers "theory of the lexicon", 109 (282). Düsseldorf : University of. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Langston, C. A., & Maxwell, M. M. (1988). Holistic judgments of texts by deaf and ESL students. Sign Language Studies, 60, 295 – 312. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/26203874">www.jstor.org/stable/26203874</ulink>. 10.1353/sls.1988.0004. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface (linguistic inquiry monograph 26). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayberry, R. I., Lock, E., & Kazmi, H. (2002). Linguistic ability and early language exposure. Nature, 417 (6884), 38. 10.1038/417038a. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency (MTELP Series). (n.d.). University of Michigan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunnally, J. O. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perlmutter, D. M. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 157 - 189). University of California, Berkeley. 10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quigley, S. P., & King, C. M. (1980). Syntactic performance of hearing impaired and normal hearing individuals. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 1, 329 – 356. 10.1017/S0142716400000990. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radford, A. (2009). An introduction to English sentence structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511800924. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rapoport, T. (2019). Secondary predication. In R. Truswell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of event structure (pp. 426 – 455). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199685318.001.0001. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schultze-Berndt, E., & Himmelmann, N. P. (2004). Depictive secondary predicates in cross-linguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology, 8 (1), 59 – 131. 10.1515/lity.2004.004. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sevonius, P. (2008). Complex predicates and the functional sequence. In P. Sevonius & I. Tolskaya (Eds.), Tromsø working papers on Language & Linguistics: Nordlyd 35 (pp. 47 – 88). Tromsø, Norway: University of Tromsø. <ulink href="http://www.ub.uit.no/baser/nordlyd/">http://www.ub.uit.no/baser/nordlyd/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson, J. (1983). Resultatives. In L. Levin, M. Rappaport & A. Zaenen (Eds.), Lexical-functional grammar (pp. 143 – 157). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Michigan English Test (MET) (n.d.). Michigan language assessment. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan. https://michiganassessment.org/. Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. 10.7591/9781501743726. Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Preview WorldCat COPAC</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ronald R Kelly; Gerald P Berent; Erin Finton; Tanya Schueler-Choukairi; Stanley Van Horn; Zhong Chen; Kimberly Persky; Susan Post Rizzo and Kathryn L Schmitz</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Corresponding Author: Professor Emeritus, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology, 39 Neuchatel Ln., Fairport, NY 14450, United States. Tel: (<reflink idref="bib585" id="ref73">585</reflink>) 233-6065</p> <p>This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant BCS-1251342 awarded to the Rochester Institute of Technology. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronald R. Kelly at [email protected]</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib264" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib585" firstref="ref73"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1465648
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: DHH and L2 College Students' Knowledge of English Resultatives and Depictives
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ronald+R%2E+Kelly%22">Ronald R. Kelly</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gerald+P%2E+Berent%22">Gerald P. Berent</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Erin+Finton%22">Erin Finton</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tanya+Schueler-Choukairi%22">Tanya Schueler-Choukairi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stanley+Van+Horn%22">Stanley Van Horn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhong+Chen%22">Zhong Chen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kimberly+Persky%22">Kimberly Persky</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Susan+Post+Rizzo%22">Susan Post Rizzo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathryn+L%2E+Schmitz%22">Kathryn L. Schmitz</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Deaf+Studies+and+Deaf+Education%22"><i>Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 30(2):226-233.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Oxford University Press. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, UK. Tel: +44-1865-353907; Fax: +44-1865-353485; e-mail: jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org; Web site: http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Deafness%22">Deafness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hard+of+Hearing%22">Hard of Hearing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Native+Speakers%22">Native Speakers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Characteristics%22">Student Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sentence+Structure%22">Sentence Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grammar%22">Grammar</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Proficiency%22">Language Proficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Improvement%22">Student Improvement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1093/jdsade/enae046
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1081-4159<br />1465-7325
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: College-level deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students and hearing students of English as a Second Language (L2) along with hearing native speakers (NS) of English were assessed in their knowledge of English resultative and depictive sentences. In "Kevin wiped the table clean," the resultative phrase "clean" indicates that the table became clean as a result of Kevin wiping it. In "Megan drove the car drunk," the depictive phrase "drunk" describes Megan's state throughout the entire event of driving. Findings of a sentence-acceptability rating scale task revealed higher performance by the NS group compared to the DHH and L2 groups, whose near-equivalent performance improved with increasing overall English proficiency. Participants exhibited higher performance on active, passive, and unaccusative resultative sentences than on ungrammatical unergative resultatives and higher performance on grammatical than ungrammatical depictive sentence types. These findings contribute new insights into the comparative study of English acquisition by DHH and L2 learners.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1465648
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1465648
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1093/jdsade/enae046
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 226
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Deafness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hard of Hearing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Native Speakers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sentence Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grammar
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Proficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Improvement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: DHH and L2 College Students' Knowledge of English Resultatives and Depictives
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ronald R. Kelly
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gerald P. Berent
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Erin Finton
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tanya Schueler-Choukairi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stanley Van Horn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhong Chen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kimberly Persky
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Susan Post Rizzo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kathryn L. Schmitz
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1081-4159
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-7325
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 30
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1