Experiencer object (EO) Constructions in ASL

The problem that we address is a repeated claim that sign languages do not have experiencerobject (EO) constructions. We survey the history of research that has led tothis perspective and, with hindsight, provide some explanations for why EO verbs wereoverlooked. We present new data that shows that EO constructions do exist in ASL andoccur robustly in a variety of contexts. We illustrate 3 of these contexts here (followingTemme 2018): (1) when co-occurring with inanimate subjects, (2) when they are in embeddedclauses, and (3) when they occur in narratives or dialogues in which they arenot providing new information. We offer a pragmatic rather than a syntactic or semanticexplanation for why EO constructions are often rejected, namely that their functionof describing a caused experiential reaction in the experiencer object makes them poorcandidates to serve as the main focus of a narrative (e.g., not the target elicited punchline)or in an out-of-the-blue isolated sentence.