1
Supplementary Materials for Schlenker and Chemla's 'Gestural Agreement':
ASL raw data
September 1, 2017
We enclose below raw data obtained during elicitation sessions (all judgments were redundantly entered in a computer and signed in ASL on a video, with the exceptions of videos that were re-tested via email).
Ratings (in red) are given on a 7-point a scale, preceded by the initials of the consultant and date (in year.month.day format) in which they were obtained. Judgments are arranged by chronological order, and in each case we provide:
•Column 1: number of the example cited in the text (the video in which the sentence appeared is cited in the text and is not repeated below).
•Columns 2 and up: video on which the judgment was recorded, followed by the initials of the consultant and date (in year.month.day format, followed by -2 if this was the second session of the day), followed by the rating. For instance, the table below would entail that the judgment for example (147)a in the text was recorded in video 14, 182; this judgment was given by consultant JL on October 20, 2012 (i.e. 12.10.20), and the rating obtained was of 7. A second judgment for the same sentence was recorded in video 14, 192, and was obtained on October 21, 2012, with a rating of 7 as well.
(147)a / 14, 182 / [JL 12.10.20]= / 7 / 14, 192 / [JL 12.10.21]= / 7b / 7 / 7
Some inferential questions that mattered for the analysis are also mentioned below right before the relevant tables. There were occasionally obvious typos in the questions, and it was clear from the answers that the consultant rectified; corrections to the questions are indicated explicitly, with the date on which they were made.
For some examples, the last column (in blue) includes comments made by our ASL consultant on the transcription and translation of the examples.
Meaning: What do we infer about John and the addressee?
English influence: Add an E (for 'English') and possibly a remark if the sentence seems to be influenced by English.
*Lacking context or any past/future tenses result in these not meaning “I did or will give money to him” but rather “I would give money to him,” as in he is someone whom I would be willing to give money to. So, I believe a more accurate translation would be:
“Of John and yourself, I would give money to him only.”
b. / 7 / John, but not addressee, will get money from the speaker. / 7 / Speaker gives John money but not the addressee. / 7 / The speaker is giving money to John. The speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker would give money to John, but not to the addressee. / *On b,c,d. eyebrows are raised on IX-2 at beginning of all 2nd sentences, should these be marked? The same is true for all b,c,d in (2), (3), and (5).
*Better translation: “John, I would give money to. You, I would not.”
c. / 3 / John will get money from the speaker only if addressee is not present. / 3 / Two possible interpretations: 1) Speaker would give John money unless addressee is there. 2) Speaker would give money to John but would not give the addressee to John. (Meaning 2 would have good rating with appropriate context to emphasize that speaker is actually talking about giving a person to another person.) / 4 / The speaker is giving money to John unless the addressee is present. -or- The speaker is giving money, but not the addressee, to John. (Former inference is most likely absent context. Latter inference without context has a below acceptable judgment but would have a better judgment with context which suggests the idea of giving a person to another.) / 4 / Speaker apparently would give money to John but due to something about the addressee, speaker will (at least temporarily) not give money to John. / *These (c.) examples are very sensitive to the eyebrows raised on IX-2. Slight changes to the intensity of the expression has strong effects on the sentences, i.e. the meaning at left becomes clear or not depending on the expression.
*Last gloss of c. should be 1-GIVE-a. Same issue of missing initial locus 1- on all final GIVE in all (c.) and (d.) examples throughout this document.
*Translation here would be: “John, I would give money to. Because of you, I won’t.”
d. / 7 / John, but not addressee, will get money from the speaker. / 7 / Speaker gives John money but not the addressee. / 7 / The speaker is giving money to John. The speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker would give money to John, but not to the addressee. / *Better translation: “John, I would give money to. You, I wouldn’t give (money) to.”
Meaning:What do we infer about John and the addressee? [corrected 16.05.26] What do we infer about the addressee's brother, and about the addressee?
English influence: Add an E (for 'English') and possibly a remark if the sentence seems to be influenced by English.
*translation of “among” probably should be changed to “of,” to fit (1) and also because “of” probably fits pairs (not larger groups) better than “among.”
*There are two possible translations here. The one close to yours would be improved as: “Of yourself and your younger brother, I would give money to your brother only.” The other translation would be: “Hey you, your younger brother is the only brother I would give money to.”
b. / 7 / The speaker is giving money to addressee's young brother. The speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the young brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the addressee's young brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker would give money to the younger brother, but not to the addressee. / *Better translation: “Your younger brother, I would give money to. You, I would not.”
c. / 4 / The speaker is giving money to addressee's young brother unless the addressee is present. -or- The speaker is giving money, but not the addressee, to addressee's young brother. (Former inference is most likely absent context. Latter inference without context has a below acceptable judgment but would have a better judgment with context which suggests the idea of giving a person to another.) / 5 / Best inference: Speaker will give money to the young brother, unless addressee is present (or does something that is already understood between speaker and addressee). Secondary inference: Speaker will give money, but not the addressee, to the young brother (works only in a context where it is understood people are being given to other people, and this would have a higher judgment with such given context) / 5 / Speaker is giving money to the addressee's young brother, unless something happens. What is meant by this is vague, either meaning the addressee being present, or something that the addressee might do or not do and which is already understood between the speaker and addressee. / 5 / Speaker apparently would give money to the younger brother but due to something about the addressee, speaker will (at least temporarily) not give money to the younger brother. / *Translation here would be: “Your younger brother, I would give money to. Because of you, I won’t.”
d. / 7 / The speaker is giving money to addressee's young brother. The speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the young brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the addressee's young brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker would give money to the younger brother, but not to the addressee. / *Better translation: “Your younger brother, I would give money to. You, I wouldn’t give (money) to.”
Meaning:What do we infer about John and the addressee? [Corrected 16.09.04] hat do we infer about the addressee's brother and the addressee?
English influence: Add an E (for 'English') and possibly a remark if the sentence seems to be influenced by English.
Note: JL didn't see the context so the judgment video was redone taking the context into account. Original judgment video in 34, 1562. / [JL 16.05.17]= / 7 / Between the addressee and his tall brother, only the tall brother is getting money from the speaker. / 34, 1618 / [JL 16.05. 20]= / 7 / Between addressee and the tall brother, speaker is giving money only to the tall brother. / [by email] / [JL 16.09.03]= / 7 / Speaker would give money to the tall brother, but not to the addressee. / *the meaning question needs to be corrected (not JOHN)
*Better translation: “Of yourself and your tall brother, I would give money to your brother only.”
b. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the tall brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / The speaker is giving money to addressee's tall brother. The speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the tall brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker would give money to the tall brother, but not to the addressee. / *Better translation: “Your tall brother, I would give money to. You, I would not.”
c. / 3 / Because of the addressee, the speaker will not give money to the tall brother. / 4 / The speaker is giving money to addressee's tall brother unless the addressee is present. -or- The speaker is giving money, but not the addressee, to addressee's tall brother. (Former inference is most likely absent context. Latter inference without context has a below acceptable judgment but would have a better judgment with context which suggests the idea of giving a person to another.) Note: use of head movement and eyebrows on IX-2 in (c), as well as (b) and (d) seem to be fairly consistent within video and from video to video, however, very slight differences might encourage one inference more than another. To be specific, with this nod/eyebrows we are getting close to adding an "if.. then.." meaning which would promote former inference. / 4 / Best inference: Speaker will give money to the tall brother, unless addressee is present (or does something that is already understood between speaker and addressee). Secondary inference: Speaker will give money, but not the addressee, to the tall brother (works only in a context where it is understood people are being given to other people, and this would have a higher judgment with such given context) / 3 / Unclear, speaker apparently would give money to the tall brother but due to something about the addressee, speaker will (at least temporarily) not give money to the tall brother. / *eyebrow raise was present on IX-2 but it was weak.
*Translation here would be: “Your tall brother, I would give money to. Because of you, I won’t.”
d. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the tall brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / The speaker is giving money to addressee's tall brother. The speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the tall brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. Note added after video of judgments: JL did not consider the specific context of the tall brother NOT being present until after judgments were recorded. JL re-viewed the videos keeping in mind the context above and confirmed judgments and inferences remain the same. / 7 / Speaker would give money to the tall brother, but not to the addressee. / *Better translation: “Your tall brother, I would give money to. You, I wouldn’t give (money) to.”
Meaning:What do we infer about John and the addressee? [corrected 16.05.26] What do we infer about the addressee's brother, and about the addressee?
English influence: Add an E (for 'English') and possibly a remark if the sentence seems to be influenced by English.
*In this sentence and also in (5a) and (ic), GIVE shows a quicker motion with a more abrupt ending which gives rise to the did/will give meaning more than would give.
*Better translation: “Of yourself and your tall brother, I will/have give(n) money to your brother only.”
b. / 6 / Speaker will give money to the tall brother, but not to the addressee. / 6 / Speaker is giving money to the tall brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 6 / Speaker is giving money to the addressee's young brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 6 / Speaker would give money to the tall brother, but not to the addressee. / *eyebrows were raised on IX-2.
*Better translation: “Your tall brother, I would give money to. You, I would not.”
c. / 3 / Because of the addressee, the speaker will not give money to the tall brother. / 5 / Best inference: Speaker would have given money to the tall brother, but won't because addressee is present (or did something that is already understood between speaker and addressee). (Slightly different inference due to addition of BUT.) Secondary inference: Speaker will give money, but not the addressee, to the tall brother (works only in a context where it is understood people are being given to other people, and this would have a higher judgment with such given context) / 5 / Speaker would be giving money to the addressee's young brother, but for the addressee. A bit unclear if addressee has already screwed this up or if speaker is just warning the addressee, but the gist is the addressee might do or have done something that causes the speaker to not give money to the addressee's young brother. This sentence would probably have a good judgment with proper context but as it, too much is not understood. / 5 / Speaker apparently would have given money to the tall brother but due to something (probably just mentioned by the addressee), speaker will (at least temporarily) not give money to the tall brother. / *eyebrows were raised on “BUT IX-2”
*Translation here would be: “Your tall brother, I would give money to. But because of you, I won’t.”
d. / 6 / Speaker will give money to the tall brother, but not to the addressee. / 6 / Speaker is giving money to the tall brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 6 / Speaker is giving money to the addressee's young brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee.
Note added after filming video: JL realized his inferences refer to addressee's young brother while the sentences were referring to the tall brother. This was an inadvertent mistake by JL. JL did not view the wrong video, and all mentions of YOUNG above can safely be changed to TALL. / 7 / Speaker would give money to the tall brother, but not to the addressee.
Note: this judgment should be 6, but by the time the sentence ends, I forget about the height conflict. / *I did sign BUT before IX-2 – need to add that gloss.
*eyebrows were not raised here on BUT or IX-2.
*Better translation: “Your tall brother, I would give money to. But you, I wouldn’t give (money) to.”
Meaning:What do we infer about John and the addressee? [corrected 16.08.30] What do we infer about the addressee's brother, and about the addressee?
English influence: Add an E (for 'English') and possibly a remark if the sentence seems to be influenced by English.
*Primary translation: “Of yourself and your tall brother, I will/have give(n) money to your brother only.” The secondary translation would be: “You, your taller brother is the only brother I will/have give(n) money to.”
b. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the tall brother, but not to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker is giving the tall brother money. Speaker is not giving addressee money. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the tall brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker would give money to the tall brother, but not to the addressee. / *Better translation: “Your tall brother, I would give money to. You, I would not.”
c. / 4 / Because of the addressee, the speaker isn't giving money to the tall brother. / 4 / Speaker is giving the tall brother money unless addressee is present. -or- Speaker is giving money, but not the addressee, to the tall brother. (Former inference is most likely absent context. Latter inference without context has a below acceptable judgment but would have a better judgment with context which suggests the idea of giving a person to another.) / 5 / Best inference: Speaker would have given money to the tall brother, but won't because addressee is present (or did something that is already understood between speaker and addressee). (Slightly different inference due to addition of BUT.) Secondary inference: Speaker will give money, but not the addressee, to the tall brother (works only in a context where it is understood people are being given to other people, and this would have a higher judgment with such given context) / 5 / Speaker apparently would have given money to the tall brother but due to something (probably just mentioned by the addressee), speaker will (at least temporarily) not give money to the tall brother. / *I never signed BUT before IX-2 – remove that gloss.
*Translation here would be: “Your tall brother, I would give money to. Because of you, I won’t.”
d. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the tall brother, but not to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker is giving the tall brother money. Speaker is not giving addressee money. / 7 / Speaker is giving money to the tall brother. Speaker is not giving money to the addressee. / 7 / Speaker would give money to the tall brother, but not to the addressee. / *Better translation: “Your tall brother, I would give money to. You, I wouldn’t give (money) to.”
Meaning: