Article in:
Studies in Language: Online-First Articles

Markers of epistemic modality and their origins

Evidence from two unrelated sign languages

| University of Copenhagen
Native deaf signers express epistemic modality by different means: mental-state words, clause-internal particles, signs indicating hypothesis, and nonmanually. The data for this study come from two unrelated sign languages, Danish Sign Language and Japanese Sign Language. In dialogues the signers use both calques of majority-language words and signs that appear to have emerged in the sign languages only. Based on the multifunctionality of some word forms, the origin of the epistemic modal particles may be traced back to tags, interjections, and lexical signs, a route motivated by interaction and also found in unrelated spoken languages. Furthermore, in both sign languages, the first-person pronoun can be used, without a verb, as an epistemic “anchor” of a proposition, a construction that seems specific to languages in the gestural-visual modality. Another modality-specific feature is the possibility of transferring the expression of a marker of epistemic uncertainty from one articulator to another.
Keywords: sign language, epistemic modality, cognitive motivation, functional motivation, gestural-visual modality
Published online: 07 September 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19065.eng
References

References

Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir & Wendy Sandler
2005 The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81(2). 301–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der & Vladimir A. Plungian
1998 Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2(1). 79–124.Google Scholar
Bavelas, Janet B., Nicole Chovil, Douglas A. Lawrie & Allan Wade
1992 Interactive gestures. Discourse Processes 15(4). 469–489. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, Janet B., Nicole Chovil, Linda Coates & Loti Roe
1995 Gestures specialized for dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(4). 394–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergman, Britta & Elisabeth Engberg-Pedersen
2010 Transmission of sign languages in the Nordic countries. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 74–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder
2007 Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31(3). 569–606. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1). 1–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper
2012 Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boyes Braem, Penny
2001 Functions of the mouthing component in the signing of deaf early and late learners of Swiss German Sign Language. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Foreign vocabulary in sign languages, 1–47. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane, Alessio Di Renzo, Jonathan Keane & Virginia Volterra
2015 Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic sources of a handshape distinction expressing agentivity. Topics in Cognitive Science 7(2–3). 95–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bross, Fabian & Daniel Hole
2017 Scope-taking strategies and the order of clausal categories in German Sign Language. Glossa: A journal of general linguistics 2(1). 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994 Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cabeza-Pereiro, Carmen & Silvia Iglesias-Lago
2015 Spanish Sign Language. In Julie B. Jepsen, Goedele De Clerck, Sam Lutalo-Kiingi & William B. McGregor (eds.), Sign languages of the world: A comparative handbook, 729–769. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cabeza-Pereiro, Carmen
2013 Modality and linguistic change in Spanish Sign Language (LSE). CogniTextes 10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. New York, NY: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Conlin, Frances, Paul Hagstrom & Carol Neidle
2003 A particle of indefiniteness in American Sign Language. Linguistic Discovery 2(1). 1–21.Google Scholar
Cormier, Kearsy, David Quinto-Pozos, Zed Sevcikova & Adam Schembri
2012 Lexicalisation and de-lexicalisation in sign languages: Comparing depicting constructions and viewpoint gestures. Language & Communication 32. 329–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crasborn, Onno
2015 Transcription and notation methods. In Eleni Orfanidou, Bencie Woll & Gary Morgan (eds.), Research methods in sign language studies: A practical guide, 75–88. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Wendy Sandler
2009 Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech 52(2–3). 287–314. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Debras, Camille
2017 The shrug: Forms and meanings of a compound enactment. Gesture 16(1). 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delaporte, Yves
2007 Dictionnaire étymologique et historique de la langue des signes française: Origine et évolution de 1200 signes. Les Essarts-le-Roi: Éditions du Fox.Google Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
1990 Pragmatics of nonmanual behaviour in Danish Sign Language. In William H. Edmondson & Fred Karlsson (eds.), SLR ‘87: Papers from the Fourth International Symposium on Sign Language Research, 121–128. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
1993 Space in Danish Sign Language: The semantics and morphosyntax of the use of space in a visual language. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar
1994 Some simultaneous constructions in Danish Sign Language. In Mary Brennan & Graham H. Turner (eds.), Word-order issues in sign language: Working papers presented at a workshop held in Durham, 18–22 September 1991, 73–87. Durham: The International Sign Linguistics Association, The Deaf Studies Research Unit, University of Durham.Google Scholar
1995 Point of view expressed through shifters. In Karen Emmorey & Judy Reilly (eds.), Language, gesture, and space, 133–154. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2002a Gestures in signing: The presentation gesture in Danish Sign Language. In Rolf Schulmeister & Heimo Reinitzer (eds.), Progress in Sign Language Research: In Honor of Siegmund Prillwitz/Fortschritte in der Gebärdensprachforschung: Festschrift für Siegmund Prillwitz, vol. 40/Band 40, 143–162. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar
2002b Grammatical relations in Danish Sign Language: Topic and subject. In Anneli Pajunen (ed.), Mimesis, sign, and the evolution of language, vol. 3, 5–40. Turku: Turun yliopisto/University of Turku.Google Scholar
2015 Perspective in signed discourse: The privileged status of the signer’s locus and gaze. Open Linguistics, 1. 411–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira Brito, Lucinda
1990 Epistemic, alethic, and deontic modalities in a Brazilian sign language. In Susan D. Fischer & Patricia Siple (eds.), Theoretical issues in sign language research, vol. 1: Linguistics, 229–260. Chicago, ILL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Qunhu Gong
2010 Variation in East Asian sign language structures. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 499–518. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan & Wynne Janis
1990 Verb sandwiches in American Sign Language. In Siegmund Prillwitz & Tomas Vollhaber (eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on sign language research, 75–85. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D.
1996 The role of agreement and auxiliaries in sign language. Lingua 98. 103–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan
2003 The cross-linguistic study of sign languages. TCT Education of Disabilities 2(1). 1–17.Google Scholar
Gabarró-López, Silvia
2017 Discourse markers in French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB) and Catalan Sign Language (LSC): BUOYS, PALM-UP and SAME: Variation, functions and position in discourse. Namur: University of Namur dissertation.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan
2013 Homesign: When gesture is called upon to be language. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silvia Ladewig, David McNeill & Sedinha Teßendorf (eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, vol. 1, 113–125. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Lars Heltoft
2011 Grammatik over det danske sprog I–III [Grammar of the Danish language]. Copenhagen: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tanya Kuteva
2002 World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, Trine, Anna Lindström & Jakob Steensig
2011 Addressing epistemic incongruence in question–answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada & Jakob Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 107–130. Cambridge, ILL: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herrero-Blanco, Ángel & Ventura Salazar-García
2010 The expression of modality in Spanish Sign Language. In Gerry Wanders & Evelien Keizer (eds.), The London Papers II, 19–42 (WEB Papers in Functional Discourse Grammar 83). Available at: http://​home​.hum​.uva​.nl​/fdg​/working​_papers​/WP​-FDG​-83​_Herrero​&Salazar​.pdf last access 5 July 2020.
Herrmann, Annika
2013 Modal and focus particles in sign languages: A cross-linguistic study. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hsin, Ai-li. C.
2016 An analysis of Chinese tag questions with a cross-linguistic comparison to English tags. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 14(1). 67–118.Google Scholar
Janzen, Terry & Barbara Shaffer
2002 Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization. In Richard P. Meier, Kearsy Cormier & David Quinto-Pozos (eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 199–223. West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, Donovan Cresdee, Adam Schembri & Bencie Woll
2015 FINISH variation and grammaticalization in a signed language: How far down this well-trodden pathway is Auslan (Australian Sign Language)? Language Variation and Change 27. 117–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther
2010 Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think . In Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch, & Stefan Schneider (eds.), New approaches to hedging, 237–265. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam
1988 How gestures can become like words. In Fernando Poyatos (ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication, 131–141. Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.Google Scholar
1995 Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 23(3). 247–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lackner, Andrea
2017 Functions of head and body movements in Austrian Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lane, Harlan
1984 When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 Modals: Striving for control. In Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge A. Hita, & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality, 3–55. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsui, Tomoko, Taeko Yamamoto & Peter McCagg
2006 On the role of language in children’s early understanding of others as epistemic beings. Cognitive Development 21. 158–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matsuoka, Kazumi, Uiko Yano, Hitomi Akahori & Norie Oka
2016 Notes on modals and negation in Japanese Sign Language. Studies in Language Sciences: Journal of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences 15. 1–20.Google Scholar
McKee, Rachel L. & Sophia Wallingford
2011 ‘So, well, whatever’: Discourse functions of palm-up in New Zealand Sign Language. Sign Language & Linguistics 14(2). 213–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Richard P.
2012 Language and modality. In Roland Pfau, Marcus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 574–601. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
2013 Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 309–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merriam-Webster.com
2020 Available at: https://​www​.merriam​-webster​.com, last access 5 July 2020.
Mesch, Johanna
2016 Manual backchannel responses in signers’ conversations in Swedish Sign Language. Language & Communication 50. 22–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Melanie
1995 Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language. In Ceil Lucas (ed.), Sociolinguistics in deaf communities, 255–268. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne
2012 Tags: Cross-linguistic diversity and commonality. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 2165–2182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Cornelia
2004 Forms and uses of the palm up open hand: a case of a gesture family? In Cornelia Müller & Roland Posner (eds.), The semantics and pragmatics of everyday gesture: Proceedings of the Berlin conference, April 1998, 233–256. Berlin: Weidler Buchverlag.Google Scholar
Ordbog over Dansk Tegnsprog
[Dictionary of Danish Sign Language] 2019 Available at: http://​tegnsprog​.dk, last access 5 July 2020.
Ordbog over det danske sprog
[Dictionary of the Danish language] 2020 Available at: https://​ordnet​.dk​/ods, last access 5 July 2020.
Padden, Carol, So-One Hwang, Ryan Lepic & Sharon Seegers
2015 Tools for language: Patterned iconicity in sign language nouns and verbs. Topics in Cognitive Science 7(2–3). 81–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol
1988 Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Josep Quer
2007 On the syntax of negation and modals in Catalan Sign Language and German Sign Language. In Pamela M. Perniss, Roland Pfau & Markus Steinbach (eds.), Visible variation: Comparative studies on sign language structure, 129–161. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland & Markus Steinbach
2011 Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 683–695. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pfau, Roland
2012 Manual communication systems: Evolution and variation. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 513–551. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy
2003 On the complementarity of signed and spoken languages. In Yonata Levy & Jeanette C. Schaeffer (eds.), Language competence across populations: Toward a definition of specific language impairment, 383–410. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2010 The uniformity and diversity of language: Evidence from sign language. Lingua 120. 2727–2732. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Visual prosody. In Roland Pfau, Markus Steinbach & Bencie Woll (eds.), Sign language: An international handbook, 55–76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2013 Vive la différence: Sign language and spoken language in language evolution. Language and Cognition 5(2–3). 189–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sapountzaki, Galini G.
2005 Free functional elements of tense, aspect, modality and agreement as possible auxiliaries in Greek Sign Language. Bristol: University of Bristol PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam
2003 Rethinking ‘classifiers’ in signed languages. In Karen Emmorey (ed.), Perspectives on classifier constructions in sign languages, 3–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara & Terry Janzen
2016 Modality and mood in American Sign Language. In Jan Nuyts & Johan van der Auwera (eds.), Oxford handbook of modality and mood, 448–470. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara
2002 CAN’T: The negation of modal notions in ASL. Sign Language Studies 3(1). 34–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Information ordering and speaker subjectivity: Modality in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 175–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siyavoshi, Sara
2019 Hands and faces: The expression of modality in ZEI, Iranian Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics 30(4). 655–686. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I.
2013 Typology and channel of communication: Where do signed languages fit in? In Balthasar Bickel, Lenore A. Grenoble, David A. Peterson & Alan Timberlake (eds.), Language typology and historical contingency: In honor of Johanna Nichols, 47–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spread the Sign
2018 Available at: https://​www​.spreadthesign​.com​/en​.us​/search/, last access 5 July 2020.
Sweetser, Eve
1990 From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
2002 “Object complements” and conversation. Studies in Language 26(1). 125–164. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torigoe, Takashi
1994 Resumptive X structure in Japanese Sign Language. In Inger Ahlgren, Brita Bergman & Mary Brennan (eds.), Perspectives on sign language structure, 187–198. Durham: The International Sign Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam, & Eline Demey
2007 Sign + gesture = speech + gesture? In Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson, & Onno Crasborn (eds.), Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function, 258–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Lorraine Leeson, & Onno Crasborn
eds. Simultaneity in signed languages: Form and function Amsterdam John Benjamins
Wilcox, Phyllis P.
1996 Deontic and epistemic modals in ASL: Discourse analysis. In Adele E. Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 481–492. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Barbara Shaffer
2006 Modality in American Sign Language. In William Frawley, Wolfgang Klein & Stephen Levinson (eds.), Expression of cognitive categories: The expression of modality, 207–237. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman & Phyllis P. Wilcox
1995 The gestural expression of modality in ASL. In Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman (eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse, 135–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman, Paolo Rossini & Elena Antinoro Pizzuto
2010 Grammaticalization in sign languages. In Diane Brentari (ed.), Sign languages, 332–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman
2004 Gesture and language: Cross-linguistic and historical data from signed languages. Gesture 4(1). 43–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Symbol and symptom: Routes from gesture to signed language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7. 89–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Xavier, André Nogueira & Sherman Wilcox
2014 Necessity and possibility modals in Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). Linguistic Typology 18(3). 449–448. CrossrefGoogle Scholar