Why FORGET needs help but HELP does not – an experimental study on the influence of animacy and agreement on the distribution of the DGS agreement auxiliary PAM (English) Many sign languages distinguish agreeing verbs like HELP in (1a), which can be modulated such that their beginning/end point coincides with loci in signing space, and plain verbs such as LIKE in (1b), which cannot express agreement overtly (Mathur/Rathmann 2012). To bridge the agreement gap of plain verbs, many sign languages have developed specific auxiliaries. In DGS, the auxiliary PAM (Person Agreement Marker, 1c), which is signed with the baby‐C handshape facing the object, has been grammaticalized from the noun PERSON (Rathmann 2000; Steinbach/Pfau 2007). It has been observed that PAM is subject to two constraints: (i) PAM only combines with arguments referring to human entities or at least to entities ranked high on the animacy scale; (ii) PAM only combines with plain verbs. The combination with (un)inflected agreeing verbs is only possible in specific uses such as emphasis. Consequently, signers are expected to judge sentences with [+animate] objects (1a) much better than sentences with [–animate] objects (1b). Likewise, sentences with agreeing verbs in an uninflected citation form are predicted to be better when PAM is present (2a), whereas with inflected ones its absence should be preferable (2b). An empirical assessment of the relevant data by means of a controlled experiment, however, was as yet missing. Therefore, we conducted two acceptability judgment experiments using the online questionnaire platform provided by the OnExp experimental software (Onea 2011). Experiment 1 investigates the influence of animacy. 12 plain verbs where combined with an object of one of the following three levels on the animacy hierarchy: (a) domestic animals (b) inanimate objects of material/personal value, e.g. COMPUTER or CAR, and (c) inanimate objects of lower personal value, e.g. BOTTLE or BOX. A level for human beings was not included since the use of PAM with humans is already confirmed (Steinbach/Pfau 2007; Sapountzaki 2012). All sentences were signed both with and without PAM. In experiment 2 we tested the combination of PAM with agreeing verbs. We used 16 agreeing verbs and tested the following four conditions: (a) verb in agreeing form with PAM, (b) verb in agreeing form without PAM, (c) verb in citation form with PAM, and (d) verb in citation form without PAM. All in all, we videotaped 72 sentences for the first experiment and 64 for the second one. In the online questionnaire study, we asked 32 participants to judge a randomized sequence of 36 sentences, along with 8 benchmark items on a rating scale ranging from 1 (totally unacceptable) to 5 (perfectly acceptable). The results show the predicted interaction with raters disfavouring PAM in sentences with inanimate objects but not in sentences with animate objects (Figure 1). The interaction between agreement and PAM is in line with the prediction that with inflected agreeing verbs, PAM is the disfavoured option. By contrast, with uninflected agreeing verbs, PAM gets a better rating than zero marking (Figure 2). We conclude that signers prefer sentences with overt agreement marking, but agreement is preferably encoded on the verb and not on PAM. Accordingly, in DGS, PAM has not yet become a general marker of agreement across all verb types. In addition, the distribution of PAM is sensitive to the animacy hierarchy. Note finally that our results also show that acceptability judgments are a viable methodological option in the investigation of sign languages. (‘I like my cat‘) (‘I like my umbrella‘)‘ (‘I like my umbrella/cat‘)‘ (‘I help my brother‘) (‘I help my brother‘) (‘I help my brother‘) 3.5
Mean Acceptability [1..5]
Mean Acceptability [1..5]
Examples (German Sign Language, DGS) (1) a. IX1 POSS1 CAT LIKE 1PAM3a b. IX1 POSS1 UMBRELLA LIKE 1PAM3a c. IX1 POSS1 UMBRELLA/CAT LIKE (2) a. IX1 POSS1 BROTHER HELP 1PAM3a b. IX1 POSS1 BROTHER 1HELP3a c. IX1 POSS1 BROTHER 1HELP3a 1PAM3a Figures PAM
without PAM
with PAM
3.0
4.0
PAM
without PAM
with PAM
3.5
3.0
2.5
animate
Animacy
+agree
inanimate personal inanimate
Figure 1: Results experiment 1 A repeated measures ANOVA with the factors animacy (animate, inanimate_personal, inanimate) and PAM (+PAM, ‐PAM) showed a significant interaction (F1 (2,62) = 18.37, p < .001, partial eta square = 0.373) with +PAM sentences rated better in the animate condition compared to the two inanimate conditions. -agree
Agreement
Figure 2: Results experiment 2 A repeated measures ANOVA with the factors agreement (+agreeing, ‐agreeing) and PAM (+PAM,
‐PAM) showed a significant interaction (F1(1,31) = 26,69, p < .001, partial eta square = .463) with PAM rated better in the –agree condition compared to the +agree condition. References Mathur, G. and C. Rathmann (2012): Verb Agreement. In: R. Pfau et al. (eds.), Sign Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 136‐157; Onea, E. (2011): OnExp. Software for Online Questionnaires. CRC Textstructures, University of Göttingen; Rathmann, C. (2000): The Optionality of Agreement Phrase: Evidence from Signed Languages. Master’s Thesis, University of Texas at Austin; Sapountzaki, G. (2012): Agreement Auxiliaries. In: R. Pfau et al. (eds.), Sign Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 204‐
227; Steinbach, M. and R. Pfau (2007), Grammaticalization of Auxiliaries in Sign Languages. In: P. Perniss, et al. (eds.), Visible Variation. Comparative Studies on Sign Language Structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 303‐339.