Cover not available

Article published In: Studies in Language
Vol. 45:2 (2021) ► pp.277–320

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Markers of epistemic modality and their origins

Evidence from two unrelated sign languages

ORCiD logo with link | University of Copenhagen
Published online: 7 September 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19065.eng
Abstract
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 multi-​functionality 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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Epistemic modality
  • 3.Epistemic modality in sign languages
  • 4.The two sign languages and the data
  • 5.How to understand the sign language examples of this study
  • 6.Expressions of epistemic modality in the data
    • 6.1Signs about mental states and activities
    • 6.2Multifunctional particles in the data
    • 6.3Calques of markers of epistemic modality in the majority languages
    • 6.4Nonmanual markers of speaker uncertainty in DTS
  • 7.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (92)
References
Aronoff, Mark, Irit Meir & Wendy Sandler. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81(2). 301–344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der & Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2(1). 79–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavelas, Janet B., Nicole Chovil, Douglas A. Lawrie & Allan Wade. 1992. Interactive gestures. Discourse Processes 15(4). 469–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavelas, Janet B., Nicole Chovil, Linda Coates & Loti Roe. 1995. Gestures specialized for dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21(4). 394–405. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2007. Complement-taking predicates: Usage and linguistic structure. Studies in Language 31(3). 569–606. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1). 1–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cabeza-Pereiro, Carmen. 2013. Modality and linguistic change in Spanish Sign Language (LSE). CogniTextes 101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Conlin, Frances, Paul Hagstrom & Carol Neidle. 2003. A particle of indefiniteness in American Sign Language. Linguistic Discovery 2(1). 1–21.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 321. 329–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dachkovsky, Svetlana & Wendy Sandler. 2009. Visual intonation in the prosody of a sign language. Language and Speech 52(2–3). 287–314. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. 401/Band 401, 143–162. Hamburg: Signum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002b. Grammatical relations in Danish Sign Language: Topic and subject. In Anneli Pajunen (ed.), Mimesis, sign, and the evolution of language, vol. 31, 5–40. Turku: Turun yliopisto/University of Turku.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Perspective in signed discourse: The privileged status of the signer’s locus and gaze. Open Linguistics, 11. 411–431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan D. 1996. The role of agreement and auxiliaries in sign language. Lingua 981. 103–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan. 2003. The cross-linguistic study of sign languages. TCT Education of Disabilities 2(1). 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. 11, 113–125. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik & Lars Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog I–III1 [Grammar of the Danish language]. Copenhagen: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tanya Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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: [URL] last access 5 July 2020.
Herrmann, Annika. 2013. Modal and focus particles in sign languages: A cross-linguistic study. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 271. 117–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers in Southern Italian conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 23(3). 247–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lackner, Andrea. 2017. Functions of head and body movements in Austrian Sign Language. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lane, Harlan. 1984. When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 211. 158–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 151. 1–20.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler. 2013. Competing iconicities in the structure of languages. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 309–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster.com. 2020. Available at: [URL], last access 5 July 2020.
Mesch, Johanna. 2016. Manual backchannel responses in signers’ conversations in Swedish Sign Language. Language & Communication 501. 22–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2012. Tags: Cross-linguistic diversity and commonality. Journal of Pragmatics 441. 2165–2182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ordbog over Dansk Tegnsprog [Dictionary of Danish Sign Language]. 2019. Available at: [URL], last access 5 July 2020.
Ordbog over det danske sprog [Dictionary of the Danish language]. 2020. Available at: [URL], 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Padden, Carol. 1988. Interaction of morphology and syntax in American Sign Language. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. The uniformity and diversity of language: Evidence from sign language. Lingua 1201. 2727–2732. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Vive la différence: Sign language and spoken language in language evolution. Language and Cognition 5(2–3). 189–203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaffer, Barbara. 2002. CAN’T: The negation of modal notions in ASL. Sign Language Studies 3(1). 34–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Information ordering and speaker subjectivity: Modality in ASL. Cognitive Linguistics 15(2). 175–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siyavoshi, Sara. 2019. Hands and faces: The expression of modality in ZEI, Iranian Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics 30(4). 655–686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spread the Sign. 2018. Available at: [URL], last access 5 July 2020.
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. “Object complements” and conversation. Studies in Language 26(1). 125–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Symbol and symptom: Routes from gesture to signed language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 71. 89–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xavier, André Nogueira & Sherman Wilcox. 2014. Necessity and possibility modals in Brazilian Sign Language (Libras). Linguistic Typology 18(3). 449–448. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Wilcox, Sherman, Rocío Martínez & Sara Siyavoshi
2025. Signed Language and Cognitive Grammar, DOI logo
Moya-Avilés, Berta, Gemma Barberà & Carme Bach
2023. Politeness in Catalan Sign Language (LSC). In Multimodal Im/politeness [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 333], ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue