Functional Grammar

13th ICFG 2008

Abstracts

13th International Conference on Functional Grammar

The expression of modality in Spanish sign language

Ventura Salazar,
Universidad de Jaén, Jaén, Spain

The aim of this paper consists of analysing the expression of modality in Spanish Sign Language (Lengua de Signos Española: LSE) from a functional perspective. In order to do this, different semantic values associated with modality (desire, volitive, epistemic, deontic, etc.) will be considered with a view to determining the linguistic forms used for their expression in LSE. At this stage of my research, I am able to offer several conclusions, among which I highlight the following:

a) The standard version of Dik’s Functional Grammar (FG) reveals a high level of explicative power when expressing modality in LSE. This is especially seen in the distinction made in this model between inherent, objective and subjective modality (Hengeveld, 1988; Dik, 1989: 205f).

b) LSE does not have morphemes with a modal value. Consequently, modality is always expressed through lexical means. However, while inherent modality tends to be represented mainly by verbs (MUST, CAN, WANT, etc.), objective and subjective modalities are usually conveyed by other parts of speech: adjectives, nouns (or noun phrases) and adverbs. For example: IMPOSSIBLE, DOUBT, SURE, OPINION MINE (‘my opinion’), WISH (as an adverb, such as the Spanish ojalá), etc. Objective and subjective markers of epistemic modality are compatible within the same sentence, which demonstrates that they function on different structural levels:

1) [OPINION MINE]_subjmod TOMORROW RAIN [POSSIBLE]_objmod ‘I think it is possible that it will rain tomorrow’

c) Previous studies on modality in sign languages (Brito, 1990; Wilcox & Wilcox, 1995; Shaffer, 2004) highlighted certain formal procedures which have an iconical or metaphorical origin: repetition, energetic movement, etc. Nonetheless, these procedures have not been documented in LSE. On the other hand, this language does possess other procedures which, apparently, have not been found in Brazilian Sign Language (BCSL) or in American Sign Language (ASL). Therefore, one could think that, although certain cross-linguistic tendencies could exist, iconicity and metaphor finally act upon grammatical codification in a language-specific way.

In the final section of this paper, certain necessary aspects are taken into consideration to determine to what extent the proposed analysis is compatible with the principles inspired by Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld & Mackenzie, 2006). Verstraete’s (2004) ideas about interaction between modal contents and interpersonal and representational levels have been taken into account. Nevertheless, there are also major discrepancies. To be specific, the aforementioned author proposes a subjective deontic modality which, in my opinion, is problematic and, furthermore, based on an inadequate interpretation of the workings of modal markers with a deontic value.

Back to Programme

References:

Brito, Lucinda Ferreiro (1990). “Epistemic, alethic, and deontic modalities in a Brazilian Sign Language”. Susan D. Fisher & Patricia Siple, eds., Theorietical Issues in Sign Language Research. Vol 1: Linguistics. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 229-259.
Dik, Simon C. (1989). The Theory of Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hengeveld, Kees (1988). “Illocution, mood, and modality in a Functional Grammar of Spanish”. Journal of Semantics, 6, 227-269.
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (2006). “Functional Discourse Grammar”. Keith Brown, ed., Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd Edition. Oxford: Elsevier, Volume 4, 668-676.
Shaffer, Barbara (2004). “Information ordering and speaker subjectivity: Modality in ASL”. Cognitive Linguistics, 15/2, 175-195.
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe (2004). “The problem of subjective modality in the Functional Grammar model”. J. Lachlan Mackenzie & M. Ángeles Gómez-González, eds., A New Architecture for Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 243-273.
Wilcox, Sherman & Phillis Wilcox (1995). “The gestural expression of modality in ASL”. Joan Bybee & Suzanne Fleischman, eds., Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 135-162.