Modality and linguistic change in Spanish Sign Language (LSE)

11/11/13 Modality and linguistic change in Spanish Sign Language (LSE)

cognitextes.revues.org/642#authors 1/16

CogniTextesRevue de l’Association française de linguistique cognitive

Volume 9 | 2013

Modality and linguistic change inSpanish Sign Language (LSE)Obligation and epistemic necessity from the Fernández Villabrille

dictionary (1851) to the DNLSE (2008)

CARMEN CABEZA-PEREIRO

Résumés

Our aim in this paper is to research the historical process of grammaticalization of themodal meanings of necessity (deontic and epistemic) in Spanish Sign Language (lenguade signos española, abbrev iated LSE). We will use as our data source the Diccionario usualde mímica y dactilología (‘Usual dictionary of mime and fingerspelling’), published byFrancisco Fernández Villabrille in 1 851 , in order to identify the signs which expressed themeanings we are interested in and to trace the possible motiv ations for the forms thatconv ey ed them and their relation to other similar signs. Then, we will compare thesedata with some of the current signs prov ided by the Diccionario normativo de la lengua designos española (DNLSE, ‘Standardized Dictionary of Spanish Sign Language’, cf.Fundación CNSE 2008.

Le propos de cet article est d'examiner le processus historique de grammaticalisation dessignifiés modaux de necessité (déontique et épistémique) dans la langue des signesespagnole (lengua de signos española, abrégé LSE). Notre source d’information est leDiccionario usual de mímica y dactilología (‘Dictionnaire d’usage de mimique etdacty lologie’), publié par Francisco Fernández Villabrille en 1 851 . À partir de cetouv rage, nous identifions les signes qui exprimaient les signifiés qui nous intéressent etnous recherchons les motiv ations des formes qui les portaient, ainsi que leur rapportsav ec d'autres signes semblables. Ensuite, nous comparons ces données av ec quelquessignes actuels prov enant du Diccionario normativo de la lengua de signos española(DNLSE, ‘Dictionnaire stardardisé de la langue des signes espagnole’, cf. Fundación CNSE2008).

Entrées d'index

Mots-clés : langue des signes, métaphore, grammaticalisation, langue des signes

espagnole, changement linguistique, modalité

Keywords : metaphor, grammaticalization, signed language, Spanish Sign Language,

linguistic change, modality

Texte intégral

http://cognitextes.revues.org/index.html

http://cognitextes.revues.org/641















0. Introduction

1. Description of the FernándezVillabrille dictionary (1851)

Taking for granted the cognitiv ist approach, according to which linguistic change

must be studied simultaneously in the phonological pole and in the semantic pole,

we will adopt the definition of grammaticalization as the process whereby a lexical

item assumes a grammatical function or a morpheme develops into more

grammatical uses (see Heine, Claudi & Hünnemey er 1991; Hopper & Traugott 1993;

By bee et al. 1994). In the case of signed languages, a gesture can be the first step of

grammaticalization (Janzen & Shaffer 2002), which constitutes a ‘modality -specific’

pathway of grammaticalization (Pfau & Steinbach 2006). Wilcox (2004) has

proposed two ty pes of processes (two routes, in his terminology ) that can originate

in a not conventionalized gesture, used by hearing people accompany ing verbal

discourse. This gesture does not belong to any natural language but, going through

a “gesture-language interface”, it acquires the status of a lexical item in a signed

language and, then, becomes a grammatical morpheme. This is, briefly expressed,

what he calls “the first route from gesture to signed languages” (Wilcox 2004: 48).

He describes a second route which starts not from a “free-standing gesture”, but

rather from “a particular manner of movement of a manual gesture or sign, and

various facial, mouth, and ey e gestures” (ibid.). In this paper, we will identify

gestural units that have their origin in co-verbal articulations.

1

We will focus on the explanation of the causes for the routinization of specific

configurations, movements and hand positions in the articulation of signs. The

status of these units has been the object of controversy in the literature. Stokoe is a

good example of this assertion. In his first analy sis (Stokoe 1960), these

components were considered ‘cheremes’, that is, the manual counterpart of

‘phonemes’, minimal units without meaning. But in the 90’s, he argued that signed

languages articulators could be analy zed as agents carry ing out actions (Stokoe

1991; Armstrong, Stokoe & Wilcox 1995). So, despite the distinctive function which

has constituted the basis for their claim to linguistic status, these units are not

meaningless. On the contrary , some of them can act as classifier predicates and

they are a very rich source of lexical innovation.

2

Grammaticalization and linguistic change are the result of innovation on the part

of the speakers and of the routinization of forms which is inherent to the

conventionalized use of a language. Metaphor is often the resource that speakers

use to make their language more efficient, and for this reason it is to be expected

that it might be behind the processes of linguistic change and grammaticalization

(Heine, Claudi & Hünnemey er 1991; Hopper & Traugott 1993; By bee, Perkins &

Pagliuca 1994).

3

We will focus on the manual component of the signs, without totally excluding

facial articulators. The data contained in the dictionary regarding this component

are scarce and unsy stematic, but for a small group of signs the intervention of

nonmanual components will be crucial.

4

The Fernández Villabrille dictionary (1851) is the first lexicographic work about

Spanish Sign Language (LSE), conceived as a true sign language dictionary . It

contains 1 ,152 entries, which in fact describe a much higher number of signs, since

some of them refer to more than one sign.1 It is currently available online thanks to

the effort of a research team from the University of Alicante, which has launched

the Proyecto Diccionario Histórico (Historic Dictionary Project) (Herrero-Blanco,

Nogueira & Peidro 2001).

5

We are (still) lacking a description of LSE at the time of Fernández Villabrille.

However, this does not mean his work cannot be used as a source for partial studies

6



2. Prior definitions. The status ofmodality in LSE

Ev idence from old ASL suggests that the lexical sign STRONG hasgrammaticized into CAN, which is used to indicate phy sical ability , mentalability , and root possibility , as well as permission and epistemic possibility(Shaffer 2002: 37 )

such as the one concerning us now. Some signs are identical to current signs

(DELGADO [‘thin’], IGUAL [‘same’]), others are clearly related to their present-day

articulation (CONOCER [‘know’], DULCE [‘sweet’]), and y et others give us clues

about a way of signing at the time that was different from today ’s (DÉBIL [‘weak’],

PADRE [‘father’]).

The traditional definition of modality refers to the speaker’s attitude or opinion

(Palmer 1986: 2, 14; By bee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994: 17 6), which means it is a

category that acts in the discourse. As a grammatical category , it takes different

forms in languages, from the suffixal and more grammaticized appearance of mood

to the lexical and less fixed means of modal lexemes, whether they are verbs (can,

must), adjectives (possible, necessary) or modal adverbs (possibly, necessarily)

(cf. Palmer 1986; By bee et al. 1994). In oral languages, intonation can also acquire

modal functions, as it is the case with facial expression in signed languages. Using

the specific terminology of Cognitive Grammar, we could say that modality profiles

that relationship between the speaker and the discourse (Shaffer 2004: 17 5),

mainly between two notions, the possible and the necessary , which may be

understood not as discrete notions, but rather as a continuum in which the

probable constitutes an intermediate degree.

7

We will use the classic distinction between deontic and epistemic modality

(Palmer 1986). In the case of deontic modality , what allows us to assess the content

of the statement in terms of possibility or necessity is a norm or rule of conduct

that acts upon the agent. For judgments regarding epistemic modality , however,

the perception depends on beliefs or assumptions of a general nature (Palmer 1986:

18).

8

In this paper, we shall restrict ourselves to the area of necessity , in both of its

dimensions (deontic and epistemic). Palmer himself has pointed out that it is

common in languages to express them through the same forms (Palmer 1986: 96).

9

In the case of signed languages, the study of modality grammaticalization has

focused especially on American Sign Language (ASL), as it is the case with other

linguistic phenomena, with an interesting exception in the Pfau & Steinbach (2006)

crosslinguistic paper. Researchers have tracked the origin of current ASL modal

signs in Old ASL productions and in the French Sign Language (langue des signes

française, LSF), proved to be the ancestor of ASL (Wilcox & Wilcox 1995; Janzen &

Shaffer 2002; Shaffer 2002, 2004), besides hav ing proposed their gestural source,

as we have already mentioned. The conclusions of these works suggest that ASL is

taking a first step toward a grammaticalization process, where lexical forms are

losing specificity in meaning and, consequently , becoming poly semous. An

example is prov ided by Wilcox & Wilcox (1995: 141) regarding the evolution of ASL

CAN from the lexical sign STRONG. It took on several modal meanings as a result of

its grammaticalization process, as Shaffer points out:

10

Moreover, other effects of grammaticalization in discourse are also studied, as it

is the case of information ordering, which in ASL becomes more fixed with

epistemic modals (Shaffer 2004). A more fixed position is argued to be ev idence of

a higher degree of grammaticalization.

11

This line of research has been extended also to Italian Sign Language (LIS)

Wilcox, Rossini & Pizzuto (2010) and to Catalonian Sign Language (llengua de

12



3. Description of the present situation:expression of the modal contents of(deontic) obligation and epistemicnecessity in LSE

signes catalana, LSC) (Shaffer, Jarque & Wilcox 2011).

The expression of modality in LSE has been the subject of a PhD research paper

by Silv ia Iglesias-Lago (Iglesias-Lago 2006). Her main objective was the analy sis of

facial expression as a marker of modality in LSE. So, besides the identification of the

modal values of lexical entries, Iglesias-Lago makes a contribution by highlighting

the relevant role of facial articulators in the expression of modality . Herrero-

Blanco & Salazar-García (2010) describe the lexical expression of different modal

values in LSE. In oral languages, intonation can also assume the function of

indicating the speaker’s attitude, as it is suggested by Ferreira-Brito for the

Portuguese language (1990: 230).

13

The researcher has worked with a signed language corpus created ad hoc . It

consisted in natural LSE discourse elicited by a selection of topics aimed at

obtaining samples of the different meanings traditionally linked to modality in the

literature: 1) ability / capacity ; 2) obligation and permission; 3) probability ,

possibility and necessity ; and 4) wish, intention and advice. The informants were

four deaf adults who had LSE as their mother tongue or as their first usual language.

The result was four hours of v ideo recording, one for each of them.

14

What follows is a summary of the data prov ided by Iglesias-Lago (2006)

regarding the semantic areas of deontic necessity and epistemic necessity .

According to the classification she offers, in LSE deontic obligation is expressed

through the following signs:

15

DEBER (‘must’): monomanual; the dominant hand, in a handshape with the

thumb and index fingers joined and the rest separated, palm facing up,

describes a straight, diagonal path downward and toward the signer’s body .

In its canonical form, the movement is performed twice.

HACE-FALTA or FALTAR (‘it is needed’): monomanual; the extended index

finger of the dominant hand (with the remaining fingers making a closed fist)

is bent up and down. It is usually accompanied by an oral gesture (or

oralization) that imitates, totally or partially , the mouth movement for one

of the following Spanish words: falta (‘lack’) or necesito (‘need’).



DEBER, with the same manual articulation described for obligation. It isusually accompanied by an oral gesture similar to the mouth mov ement inthe Spanish pronunciation of fijo (‘definite’), seguro (‘sure’) or debe(‘must’).

4. Analysis of the data in theFernández Villabrille dictionary

OBLIGACIÓN (‘obligation’): bimanual; the nondominant forearm is located in

front of the signer with a closed fist oriented downward. It supports the

dominant hand in a 1 handshape. It is a directional sign. It is usually

accompanied by the oralizations obligación (‘obligation’), manda (‘he/she

orders’)or debe (‘should’).

Furthermore, the modal meaning of obligation may be convey ed solely through

facial expression, without any accompany ing manual signs. This non-manual

component consists in frowned brows.

16

For epistemic necessity , the data prov ided by Iglesias-Lago (2006) identify the

manual sign DEBER:

17

As in the case of obligation, epistemic necessity may also be expressed only by

the non-manual component, in this case, a facial expression consisting in frowned

brows and pursed lips.

18

As in every study of a historical nature, we are faced with the limitations imposed

by the text itself. In this case, the dictionary does not include some entries that

19



OBLIGAR (‘to oblige’)

“Se hace la señal de mando repetidas v eces y con energia,2 inclinando bienla punta del dedo hácia abajo.” (p. 1 09)

‘The sign mando is made v igorously sev eral times, tilting the tip of thefinger downward’

MANDO (‘order’)

“La mano derecha cerrada y el índice bien estendido, da un golpe en el airede arriba abajo.” (p. 98)

‘The closed right hand, with the index finger extended, slaps the airdownward’

FALTA (‘lack of something’)

“La mano derecha estendida, con los dedos abiertos y el pulgar apoy ado bajola barba. En esta postura y quieto el pulgar, se muev en los otros dedos.”(61 )

‘The right hand is extended, with the fingers open and the thumb restingunder the chin. In this position, the thumb remains still and the otherfingers mov e.’

NECESARIO, PRECISO – INDISPENSABLE (‘necessary , essential-indispensable’)

“Se juntan el índice y el pulgar como para la O de la dactilología y se danrepetidos golpecitos de arriba abajo en el aire.” (p. 1 05)

‘The index and the thumb come together as for a fingerspelled O andrepeatedly tap each other up and down in the air.’

could prove very useful to us. That is the case of DEBER, which does not appear in

any of its meanings, neither deontic nor epistemic. We do not have access either to

the use signers made of these signs in the discourse at the time. We can only rely on

the contrast with current data.

Regarding deontic modality , with the meaning of obligation we find a description

of the sign OBLIGAR (‘to oblige’). Its articulation is similar to the current one. In

Fernández Villabrille’s description, it is associated with the sign MANDO (‘order’),

which undoubtedly refers to its deontic meaning:

20

If we look up MANDO, we will find the following description:21

The articulation is quite similar to the current one,3 with two main differences: In

the first place, the use of the non-dominant hand, which we do not consider

relevant, since it simply introduces a background for the performance of the sign.

In the second place, the repetition of the movement in the 19th -century sign. In

general, the repetition of the gesture, or what could be described as greater

dramatization in comparison with current articulations, is a characteristic of the

way of signing described by Fernández Villabrille, and its simplification can be

explained as a process of phonological reduction due to grammaticalization.

22

The articulation described by Fernandez Villabrille for MANDO (explained as the

source for OBLIGAR) is also used in co-verbal gesture articulation in ordinary

conversation among hearing people in Spain.4 The extended index finger, the most

general expression of deix is, acquires a meaning of ‘acting over other people’ when

produced with an up-down movement of the forearm. So, the deontic sense ‘y ou

have to’, ‘y ou must’ is easily deduced. It can even take on a meaning of warning

(Pay rató 1993: 211).

23

Searching for any other entries that might lead us to the expression of deontic

obligation, we have found the following two entries:

24

The first entry describes a completely different articulation from the sign that

currently expresses deontic necessity , which is usually glossed as HACE-FALTA or

25



It is generally accepted that agent-oriented modality is in some sense morebasic than epistemic modality . A number of researchers (By bee et al. 1 994;Coates 1 983; Gee 1 985; Traugott 1 989) suggest that epistemic modals(such as English could) dev elop out of agent-oriented modals (i.e., canforEnglish). By bee (1 985) in her cross-linguistic study of morphology suggeststhat v erbal inflections in languages with morphologically marked moodsmay hav e grammaticized from lexemes prev iously used to mark agent-oriented modality . (Shaffer 2004: 1 7 7 )

The question of the origin of markers of modality is germaine to theinv estigation here, because it is claimed that more grammaticized formsare also more subjectiv e (Traugott 1 989) and thus serv e different discoursefunctions than less grammaticized modals. (ibid.)

FALTAR. Since Fernández Villabrille does not usually include meanings, we do not

know whether this sign refers to the meaning of lack or to the meaning of error or

defect. We do not have any ev idence either to assess whether or not it had a modal

use at the time. We reproduce here the first two meanings given for the entry

FALTA in the 1843 edition of the dictionary of the Real Academia Española (Roy al

Spanish Academy ): 1 . “Defecto ó privacion de alguna cosa necesaria ó útil; como

FALTA de medios, de llubias, etc.”(‘Lack or deprivation of a necessary or useful

thing; such as LACK of means, of rains, etc.’) 2. “El defeto en el obrar contra la

obligación de cada uno” (‘The defect in behaving against each one’s obligation’). The

text is identical in the following edition, dating from 1852, with spelling adaptations

(Real Academia Española, 2001, online edition).

Regarding NECESARIO, PRECISO-INDISPENSABLE (which we will abbrev iate as

‘NECESARIO’ when the reference to the three entry words is not relevant), its

articulation is almost identical, with slight variations in the movement, to the one

identified in current LSE with the gloss DEBER. The latter now has two meanings,

deontic necessity and epistemic necessity , as can be gathered from the data in

section 3. Once again, we have to refer to the absence of meanings in the dictionary

we are using as our source and, therefore, to the impossibility of verify ing, without

further clues, the deontic use of the sign in question. Nonetheless, we are going to

put forward the hy pothesis that it did have this use. In general, deontic meanings

precede epistemic meanings, and the latter derive from the former, as indicated in

the following citation from Shaffer, who uses the term agent-oriented instead of

deontic:5

26

Also Heini, Claudi & Hünnemey er (1991: 17 6): “The ev idence available suggests

that there is a unidirectional process leading from deontic to epistemic modality

and that this process is linked to grammaticalization.” Refering to LSE modals,

Herrero-Blanco & Salazar-García (2010: 32) state that “deontic contents are more

basic than epistemic ones, a fact which usually goes hand in hand with several

formal consequences.”

27

This explanation is simpler than assuming that the deontic meaning stems from

the epistemic meaning, which we can easily surmise from the series of words that

introduce the sign in question (necesario, preciso, indispensable, ‘necessary ,

essential-indispensable’). Considering the way it is stated, by means of three

adjectives with an epistemic meaning, we believe it was used to express a ty pe of

necessity that does not arise from conditions that are external or internal to the

agent, nor from the authority of a speaker that imposes some conditions, but that

“[it] indicates the extent to which the speaker is committed to the truth of the

proposition” (By bee, Perkins & Pagliuca, 1994: 17 9).

28

In the article cited above, Shaffer relates the fact that the marks of epistemic

modality are less basic with their greater grammaticalization and with a more

subjective function in the discourse. Thus, following the prev ious citation, we read:

29

In our case, Shaffer’s hy pothesis would lead us to defend a greater degree of

grammaticalization of the current uses of the sign derived from that introduced by

Fernández Villabrille with the words necesario, preciso and indispensable, that is,

of the sign DEBER. According to the data of Iglesias-Lago, the epistemic modality

30



In our corpus of recorded conv ersations there are many instances of theRing and a rev iew of these suggests that it has sev eral different, thoughrelated, usages. These may be summed up by say ing that the Ring occursin association with a segment of speech that prov ides precise information,makes a specific reference to something, makes something specific incontrast to other possibilities or in contrast to something more general, orwhich giv es a specific example of something. (Kendon 1 995: 268)

PENSAR (‘to think’)

“Se ponen los dedos en la figura de la letra Q, y se estan rozando un poco enla frente.” (1 1 6)

‘The fingers in the shape of a fingerspelled Q touch the forehead lightly ’

REFLEXIONAR (‘to reflect’)

“Inclinada la cabeza, se trazan circulitos muy despacio en la frente con losdedos de la mano derecha, unidos por las puntas.” (1 27 )

‘With the head tilted, small circles are drawn v ery slowly on the foreheadwith the fingers of the right hand, joined at the tips.’

SABER (‘to know’)

“Se pone el dedo índice derecho sobre la frente y se tiene un rato quieto enella, manifestando reflexion.” (1 31 )

‘The index finger is placed on the forehead and it is kept there for amoment, showing reflection.’

RAZON, DISCERNIMIENTO (‘reason, discernment’)

“Con ademan reflexiv o se fija el índice en la frente y alli se dan suav es yrepetidos golpecitos, acompañados de un mov imiento afirmativ o.” (1 26)

‘With a thoughtful gesture, the index finger is placed on the forehead andknocks on it softly and repeatedly , with an affirmativ e mov ement.’

content is convey ed only through that manual sign in present day LSE, in contrast

with deontic obligation, which is expressed through three alternating signs, as

described in section 3. The use of a single lexeme would suggest a greater degree of

generalization of the meaning than the use of several alternative lexemes, since in

this case the sy nony ms allow at least part of the different shades of meaning of the

three lexical items involved to be maintained.

Used as a co-verbal gesture, this articulation is commonly linked to a meaning of

precision or specificity , as it is described by Kendon (1995), who refers to it as ‘the

Ring’:6

31

As an emblem it could be ‘translated’ as ‘all right’ and it expresses agreement

(Pay rató 1993: 211).

32

It is worth asking how we arrive at this epistemic, speaker-oriented meaning, for

which Fernández Villabrille uses no less than three Spanish words that refer to a

judgment of a general nature. To answer this question, we have looked in the

Fernández Villabrille dictionary itself for another sign or signs that may give us a

clue regarding the possible changes in meaning that might have led to the one in

which we are interested. To make the search easier, we can formulate some

hy potheses:

33

a. First hypothesis: the migration towards the epistemic meaning takes placethrough certainty in judgment

In order to verify whether this is the case for LSE, we have examined the signs

PENSAR, REFLEXIONAR, SABER, and RAZÓN-DISCERNIMIENTO, to see if the sign

in question might have been derived from them. The four signs use metaphors that

have been widely explained for SL:

34

As Phy llis Wilcox said (2000: 95), “The forehead is a metony m for the brain,35



VERDADERO – CIERTO (‘true, certain’)

“Se hace el signo de hablar, y colocando la mano en la postura de la Q7 de ladactilología, se baja con v iv eza hacia abajo.” (1 48)

‘The sign for speak is made and, placing the hand in the fingerspelled Qhandshape, it mov es downward firmly .’

AFIRMAR (‘to assert’)

“Afirmación etc. Signo de cierto, y además se muev e la cabeza una ó dosv eces de arriba á bajo, como para decir que sí.” (p. 1 6)

‘Sign for certain, and the head also mov es up and down once or twice, as ifsay ing y es.’

INGENUO8 (‘sincere’, at the time of Fernández Villabrille)

“Se pone el dedo cerca de la boca, mov iéndola al mismo tiempo que lalengua, dando un golpe en el aire con el dedo pulgar e indice unidos que es elsigno de cierto.” (p. 86)

‘The finger is located near the mouth, which mov es at the same time as thetongue. Then the air is slapped with the thumb and index fingers joined,which is the sign for certain.’

CABAL.1 0 Justo, Exacto. etc. (‘upright, just, exact’)

“Las dos manos en la postura de la O de la dactilologia, imitanhorizontalmente el balance de un peso y luego se paran y se fijan derepente.” (28)

‘Both hands in the fingerspelled O handshape imitate horizontally thebalancing of a weight, and then suddenly stop and remain fixed.’

BALANZA, Peso, etc. (‘scale, weight’)

“Se imita con las dos manos v ueltas hácia arriba y un poco encorv adas, lanatural oscilacion de una balanza.” (24)

which can serve as an ontological metaphor for a container of thought processes.”

The four signs whose articulatory descriptions we have just mentioned match the

metony m according to which the forehead stands for the brain, as well as the

metaphor that sees the brain as a material domain (container) profiling an abstract

domain (the ideas or thoughts, which constitute the content).

None of these articulations allows us to establish a link with the sign glossed by

Fernández Villabrille as NECESARIO, PRECISO-INDISPENSABLE.

36

b. Second hypothesis: the epistemic content stems from certainty in speech

We have examined VERDADERO-CIERTO, AFIRMAR, and even INGENUO.37

This last sign is associated by Fernández Villabrille himself with certainty in

speech. The first (VERDADERO-CIERTO) contains a downward movement that may

seem similar to that of NECESARIO, but the handshape is not the same.9

Interestingly , in the description of the sign INGENUO, the sign CIERTO is not

related to a Q handshape, but precisely to the configuration we are looking for:

thumb and index fingers joined.

38

Once again, we find another case of metony m: the mouth for the action of say ing

or speaking.

39

However, there is one entry that holds the key to the metaphorical relationship

that gives rise to the meaning we are examining: CABAL. Fernández Villabrille

introduces as sy nony ms the terms justo and exacto, which refer to a value

judgment in the area of the epistemic.

40

Here we find the metaphor of the scale, which allows us to easily profile an

abstract domain (what is said is exact or certain, and it is therefore judged as such)

through a more concrete one (the balancing of weights, in this case).1 1

41



‘With both hands turned up and slightly bended, the natural oscillation of ascale is imitated.’

5. Current situation: a short survey ofthe DNLSE

Just like the scale allows a measurement to be determined exactly by balancing

the two weights that it compares, it can also serve as a vehicle to express

metaphorically what is considered exact in judgment. From this meaning, a

metony my turns what is exact in a particular situation into something

paradigmatically exact and, therefore, necessary in general terms.

42

Some present-day signs in LSE confirm our hy potheses, since they contain the

same handshape identified in the sign NECESARIO, and they share with this sign the

meaning of something precise, that can be measured exactly . That is the case of

IGUAL (‘same’, in the sense of “constant, invariable”), FIJO (‘sure’), ASEGURAR (‘to

assure’) and AUTÉNTICO (‘genuine’). Herrero-Blanco (1998) includes these LSE

signs among others that he considers examples of an archety pal handshape,

revealing an associated iconicity . According to this author, what these signs have in

common is that “they refer to a field that we could call binding assessment or

judgment” (1998: 217 ). See also Cabeza-Pereiro (2012).

43

In the next section we will present the result of a short exploration of current

lexicographic data related to these articulations bearing modal meanings.

44

It is relevant to remark that the DNLSE is the result of a project monitored by the

CNSE Foundation with the aim of prov iding the Spanish deaf community with a

dictionary of standardized forms of LSE. We consider this standardizing objective a

very important one, as it is the fact that the dictionary was cross-referenced with

the entries of the Diccionario de la lengua española (Dictionary of Spanish

language), by the Roy al Spanish Academy of Language, which is also a reference for

standard Spanish language.

45

The current articulation related to Fernández Villabrille’s OBLIGAR is very

similar to the one discussed above. As described in the prev ious section, two main

differences have taken place: the use of the non-dominant hand as a sy mbolic

background and the reduction of the repetition to just one movement. The resulting

simplification can be interpreted in terms of phonological reduction, as commonly

described in grammaticalization processes, in which movement simplification is

concerned.

46

However, the evolution of the sign NECESARIO shows greater complexity ,

because the DNLSE presents several entries1 2 which can be related to it. Besides the

expression of modal meanings of necessity (as we have argued, in both the deontic

and epistemic domains), we have seen this articulation associated to certainty in

speech, and we have identified an interesting formal similarity between this sign

and another one meaning exactness in judgment (CABAL), through the metaphor of

exactness in weights. These associations, and also the changes in the movement

with respect to the original sign, will give us the opportunity to evaluate the current

signs supposed to derive from the one referred to by Fernández Villabrille as

NECESARIO, PRECISO-INDISPENSABLE.

47

The DNLSE allows for two ty pes of searches: from the basic sublexical

components of LSE or from a list of Spanish words. In the first case it is easy to look

for signs hav ing a specific handshape, which is the ty pe of research we are

interested in. Doing so, we have obtained a large number of the signs which fulfill

the condition of being articulated with the O-handshape (56), but not all the

expected signs were found by this procedure, so we had to check the dictionary

using the other ty pe of search (try ing Spanish equivalents of signs supposed to

contain the O-handshape) in order to complete the list (up to 60). So we are not

completely sure that our examination of the DNLSE has totally covered the O-

48



handshape signs included in it.

We have used Access to create a database where all these signs were registered

with the aspects of their manual and nonmanual articulation which we considered

relevant for the research. Moreover, we have incorporated the SEA notation

(Sistema de Escritura Alfabética, ‘Alphabetical Writing Sy stem’), designed by

Herrero-Blanco (Herrero-Blanco 2003), with the aim of hav ing at our disposal a

conventionalized transcription of each concrete item. This will prov ide us with a

tool to easily compare the different articulations in their sublexical components.

49

Among the 60 O-handshape entries, we have identified 31 which undoubtedly

bear a meaning of precision. Of them, 13 are monomanual, and the remaining 18 are

articulated with both hands. As Fernández Villabrille’s sign NECESARIO is one-

handed, we will search for the most reliable diachronically related ones among the

13 monomanual signs. But, as the sign CABAL ‒which we have hy pothesized as

related in meaning‒ is two-handed, the analy sis of bimanual signs can be useful in

order to check if there is any correlation between the exactness meaning and the

situation of both hands in the same horizontal plane, as simulated by the metaphor

of the scale (see above, in section 4, on the CABAL sign).

50

Observ ing the articulation of the 13 one-handed signs, it is noticeable that only a

reduced number of them have the downward movement described by Fernández

Villabrille for NECESARIO:

51

The one glossed as FIJO (‘sure’), which appears in the DNLSE entry luz (see

footnote 12), linked to the idiom a toda luz or a todas luces (‘ev idently ,

without any doubt’), and

ASEGURAR (‘to assure’), in the dictionary entry asegurar, with two

associated signs, the other one formed on the fingerspelled sign SÍ, ‘y es’ (we

are not considering this second sign).

Both articulations are very similar. The SEA notation prov ided by the DNLSE is

ebeämiwup for FIJO and oleämiwu in the case of ASEGURAR. One difference is the

place of articulation: in front of the signer’s body in both cases, but in a lateral

position for FIJO and in a central location for ASEGURAR. The second difference

consists in a slight local movement which, in our perspective, can be recognized for

both signs, although it has not been reflected in the transcription of ASEGURAR.

52

VERDAD21 3 (‘true’), transcribed as olëamipub. This is another candidate to

be directly related to Fernández Villabrille’s NECESARIO. A simplified

downward movement –so simplified that it has been interpreted as a local

movement in the SEA notation– is articulated in front of the signer, in a

central location. It is worth mentioning the repetition of this downward

movement.

AUTÉNTICO (‘genuine’), with exactly the same manual articulation as

VERDAD2, but with a different facial expression: frowned brows and

oralization (lip movement close to the Spanish word auténtico).

Other O-handshape signs can be hy pothesized as related to Fernández

Villabrille’s NECESARIO. That is the case of DEBER and the second part of two

compound signs, those glossed as CREER (‘to believe’) and ORIGINAL (‘original’):

53

DEBER (‘must’) appears in the DNLSE entry haber, associated with a meaning

of deber, conveniencia o necesidad (‘duty , convenience or necessity ’). It is

transcribed as eäaâadoheb. The main difference with respect to Fernández

Villabrille’s NECESARIO sign is the orientation and direction of the

movement, towards the signer in the current articulation.1 4 We have already

mentioned the simplification with respect to the characteristic repetition of

19th century signs, which we have hy pothesized as a consequence of the

grammaticalization process.

The second part of the compounds CREER (‘to believe’) and ORIGINAL

(‘original’) match VERDAD2 in their manual articulation. They are



With phy sical objects, if y ou can grasp something and hold it in y our

hands, y ou can look it ov er carefully and get a reasonably goodunderstanding of it. It’s easier to grasp something and look at it carefully ifit’s on the ground in a fixed location than if it’s floating through the air(like a leaf or a piece of paper). Thus UNKNOWN IS UP; KNOWN IS DOWN iscoherent with UNDERSTANDING IS GRASPING. (Lakoff & Johnson 1 980:20)

transcribed respectively as fe eämipub and je-eämipub.

All these signs share a meaning of certainty . It is not easy to decide which of them

also have a modal meaning of (deontic or epistemic) necessity , because the

definitions do not prov ide enough information. We can hy pothesize that is the case

for FIJO and for DEBER. Both articulations are coincident with the data prov ided by

Iglesias-Lago (2006) in her description of current LSE modals.

54

From a formal perspective, we can conclude that in current LSE, according to the

data from the DNLSE, this meaning of certainty is convey ed through monomanual

signs with the O-handshape, as it was also proved for Fernández Villabrille’s signs

NECESARIO, VERDADERO, AFIRMAR and INGENUO (see above, section 4).

Divergences with respect to the downward movement can be explained as

phonological reductions due to the grammaticalization process, but in certain signs

the downward movement remains unchanged, which can indicate that this formal

feature maintains its association to decisiveness. In fact, we have observed it

appears accompanied by a head nod, which is also a downward movement, but

produced with another articulator, a nonmanual component. It is the case for FIJO

and ASEGURAR, but also for CONFIRMAR, a two-handed sign.

55

An anony mous rev iewer suggests that the downward movement can constitute

an expression of the metaphor KNOWN IS DOWN as it was stated by Lakoff and

Johnson (1980: 20). It is necessary to say that in the Lakoff and Johnson

perspective, this metaphor is strongly related to UNDERSTANDIND IS GRASPING.

The embodied experience on which it is based is explained in the following way :

56

It is in question whether the grasping action could be the experiential basis for

the LSE signs we are interested in, although embodied action is usually at the origin

of the signs (in LSE ‘to understand’ is expressed with a grasping movement), but it is

possible to relate the downward movement to the enactment of fix ing something

like a stick to the ground. In this gestural and experiential basis for the downward

movement we agree with the rev iewer’s point of v iew. However, the meanings

associated with it go bey ond deontic and epistemic necessity , expanding to

assertion and warning (the latter in co-verbal gesture), as we have seen. Cross-

linguistic research is needed in relation to the bodily experience which gives rise to

the different uses of the downward movement in signed languages.

57

For the 18 two-handed signs we have registered in the DNLSE, it is worth

mentioning that some of them coincide in their manual articulation. In fact, those

glossed as CONCRETO (‘concrete’), ASÍ (‘like that’), POR-HOY (‘right now’), MISMO

(‘same’), UNIFORME (‘uniform’) and JUSTO1 (‘just’) share the same SEA notation (s

eämape), and PELO3 (linked to the idiom pelo a pelo, with the sense of Cambiar

una cosa por otra sin ningún otro añadido ‘to exchange one thing for another

without any modification’) adds a repetition to this manual articulation (s

eämapeb). It is just the nonmanual articulation which differentiates these signs. In

some cases, it is the lip movements known as oralizations in the literature (Sutton-

Spence & Boy es-Braem 2001), as in CONCRETO and UNIFORME (the latter with the

oralization of igual, ‘equal’).

58

This shared manual articulation is formed by both hands maintaining the O-

handshape on the same horizontal plane. This particular feature can also be

observed in the other bimanual signs registered with the precision meaning:

59

With a circular onwards movement, as in IGUAL2 (‘constant’) and

COTIDIANO (‘daily ’), both with the same manual articulation: s

eämewraeheb.



6. Conclusions

With a wrist turn (NORMAL, ‘normal’, and CORRIENTE, ‘usual’, also sharing

the manual form: s eämégrob).

Or it can be associated to other specific movements. There is an interesting

exception to this arrangement of the hands on a horizontal plane in the sign

JUICIO, ‘judgement’ (sl eämewub), similar to Fernández Villabrille’s CABAL sign, in

which the hands move up and down alternatively .

60

There is a constant semantic nuance in all these bimanual signs with an equal-

plane position of the hands: all of them suggest the idea of a comparison between

two or more objects, ideas or situations.

61

So we can confirm that in bimanual signs with the O-handshape, the position of

the hands on a horizontal plane was related in origin to the same exactness

meaning, through the scale metaphor we have referred to in section 4. That is, each

hand (source domain) stands for a scale pan (target domain) and, consequently , the

coincidence of both hands on the same plane would express exactness in measure,

the precision meaning shared by all the signs we are study ing.

62

We have examined the Diccionario usual de mímica y dactilología, by Fernández

Villabrille (1851), in order to identify the signs that might have expressed, in the

LSE of the time, meanings associated with the deontic modality of obligation and

with epistemic necessity . The first is, without any doubt, linked to the sign

OBLIGAR. We suggest it must also have been expressed through the sign that

appears in the dictionary under the entry NECESARIO, PRECISO-INDISPENSABLE,

following the reasoning that the deontic meaning is usually more basic than the

epistemic meaning, which can also be identified in this sign.

63

Both signs, OBLIGAR and NECESARIO, have a gestural source. The fact that a

gesture used in the general domain of hearing people enters the lexicon or even the

grammar of a signed language is documented in the literature (Janzen & Shaffer

2002, Wilcox 2004), and it is considered a peculiarity of the grammaticalization of

signed languages (Pfau & Steinbach 2006).

64

We have investigated two hy potheses in order to prov ide an explanation for the

modal meaning of necessity of the sign NECESARIO: first we explored the

possibility that the migration towards the epistemic meaning might take place

through certainty in judgment, but the examination of some signs related to this

domain of thinking does not offer any relation to the Fernández Villabrille

NECESARIO sign. However, the second hy pothesis, according to which the

epistemic content stems from certainty in speech, leads us to an interesting

connection between the signs VERDADERO – CIERTO (‘true, certain’), AFIRMAR

(‘to assert’) and –particularly - INGENUO (‘sincere’), on the one hand, and the sign in

question, NECESARIO, on the other.

65

Moreover, the Fernández Villabrille dictionary allows us to identify the

conceptual domain underly ing the metaphor that leads us to consolidate the

meaning of epistemic necessity associated with the sign NECESARIO. This can be

found in the sign CABAL (‘upright’), which is articulated with the same handshape

and is also associated to a downward movement. We can claim that in LSE,

exactness in judgment (that is, what is necessary ) is profiled through exactness in

weight, through an association which also includes the sign BALANZA.

66

Another surprising observation is that, except for the sign described in

Fernández Villabrille under the entry FALTA (of whose modal use we have no

ev idence), the meanings associated with necessity are alway s expressed through a

downward movement that convey s the energy and decisiveness contained in this

meaning. This is also true of the sign used in ASL (MUST/SHOULD) and in LSC, as

described by Wilcox and Wilcox (1995). Moreover, the O-handshape (thumb and

index fingers joined) is related to a meaning of exactness or specificity .

67



Bibliographie

In section 5, we have offered a survey of the data prov ided by the DNLSE in order

to corroborate the relation between the O-handshape and the precision nuance

which is part of the meaning of necessity . With this objective, we have observed the

signs articulated with an O-handshape and selected those whose meaning has a

nuance of precision. This constitutes a sort of ‘semantic feature’ or ‘semantic

component’ shared by a set of signs among which those expressing modal necessity

are a subset.

68

On the other hand, we have proposed that the downward movement comes from

an embodied action of fix ing something firmly , and it expresses a decisiveness

nuance which is still recognized in certain signs. We think that is the case with FIJO

or ASEGURAR, which also incorporate a head nod reinforcing the manual

downward movement. It is noticeable that OBLIGAR, one of the signs identified in

the Fernández Villabrille dictionary as responsible for the deontic meaning of

necessity , also shares this downward movement.

69

Finally , the observation of the bimanual signs articulated with the O-handshape

and bearing the precision meaning has shown us that the horizontal position of both

hands on the same plane is extensively used in a number of signs. In these cases a

semantic nuance of comparison can be observed, which can justify the use of the

scale metaphor.

70

Armstrong, D., W. Stokoe & S. Wilcox 1 995. Gesture and the nature of language.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ ersity Press.

By bee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca. 1 994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspectand Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: Univ ersity of Chicago Press.

By bee, J. & S. Fleischman (eds.) 1 995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse.Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Cabeza-Pereiro, C. 201 2. En busca de la precisión: análisis de una configuraciónmanual en el Diccionario normativ o de la lengua de signos española. In: Jiménez,T., B. López, V. Vázquez & A. Veiga (eds.) Cum corde et in nova grammatica:Estudios ofrecidos a Guillermo Rojo. Santiago de Compotela: Univ ersidade deSantiago de Compostela, 1 67 -1 81 .

Fernández-Villabrille, F. 1 851 . Diccionario usual de mímica y dactilología útil á losmaestros de sordo-mudos, á sus padres y á todas las personas que tengan que entraren comunicación con ellos. Madrid: Imprenta del Colegio de Sordo-Mudos y Ciegos.Biblioteca de Signos online edition:http://bib.cerv antesv irtual.com/FichaObra.html?Ref=8388 [Consulted October22nd 201 2].

Ferreira-Brito, L. 1 990. Epistemic, Alethic, and Deontic Modalities in a Brazilian SignLanguage. In: Fisher, S. & P. Siple (eds.) Theoretical Issues in Sign LanguageResearch. Vol. I . Chicago / London: The Univ ersity of Chicago Press, 229-260.

Fundación CNSE 2008. DILSE III . Tesoro de la lengua de signos española. Madrid:Fundación CNSE [DVD edition].

Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. Hünnemey er. 1 991 . Grammaticalization: A ConceptualFramework. Chicago / London: The Univ ersity of Chicago Press.

Herrero-Blanco, Á. 1 998. La seña y el signo. Notas sobre la iconicidad lingüística en laLSE. In: J. Cifuentes-Honrubia (ed.) Estudios de lingüística cognitiva I . Univ ersidadde Alicante, 207 -225.

Herrero-Blanco, Á. 2003. Escritura alfabética de la lengua de signos española. Oncelecciones. Murcia: Publicaciones de la Univ ersidad de Alicante.

Herrero-Blanco, Á., R. Nogueira & A. Peidro. 2001 . Proyecto Diccionario Histórico.http://bib.cerv antesv irtual.com/seccion/signos/psegundoniv el.jsp?conten=materiales&pagina=cat_materiales3&tit3=Proy ecto+Diccionario+Hist%F3rico&menu=diccionario[Consulted October 22nd 201 2]

Herrero-Blanco, Á. & V. Salazar-García. 201 0. The Expression of Modality in SpanishSign Language. In: Wanders, G. & E. Keizer (eds.) Web Papers in FunctionalDiscourse Grammar (WP-FDG) 83, November 2010. Special Issue: The LondonPapers II . Amsterdam: Univ ersity of Amsterdam, 1 9-42. URL:http://home.hum.uv a.nl/fdg/working_papers/WP-FDG-83_Herrero&Salazar.pdf [Consulted July 7 th 201 1 ]

http://bib.cervantesvirtual.com/FichaObra.html?Ref=8388

http://bib.cervantesvirtual.com/seccion/signos/psegundonivel.jsp?conten=materiales&pagina=cat_materiales3&tit3=Proyecto+Diccionario+Hist%F3rico&menu=diccionario

http://home.hum.uva.nl/fdg/working_papers/WP-FDG-83_Herrero&Salazar.pdf





Documents annexes

DEBER (video/x-ms-asf – 552k)

HACE-FALTA (video/x-ms-asf – 646k)

OBLIGACION (video/x-ms-asf – 552k)

Notes

1 A prev ious work (Herv ás y Panduro: 1 7 95) contained a brief sign glossary , with 1 1 5entries. Nev ertheless, according to the author’s own testimony , his informant was a

Herv ás y Panduro, L. 1 7 95 [2008]. Escuela española de sordomudos ó Arte paraenseñarles a escribir y hablar el idioma español. Madrid: Imprenta de FermínVillalpando. [Ed. Á. Herrero. Alicante: Publicaciones de la Univ ersidad deAlicante, 2008].

Hopper, P. & E. Traugott 1 993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CambridgeUniv ersity Press.

Iglesias-Lago, S. 2006. Uso del componente facial para la expresión de la modalidad enlengua de signos española. PhD dissertation, Univ ersity of Vigo.

Janzen, T. & B. Shaffer. 2002. Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASLgrammaticization. In: Meier, R., K. Cormier & D. Quinto-Pozos (eds.) Modality andstructure in signed and spoken languages. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ ersity Press,1 99-223.

Kendon, A. 1 995. Gestures as illocutionary and discourse structure markers inSouthern Italian conv ersation. Journal of Pragmatics 23: 247 -27 9.

Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1 980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Univ ersity of ChicagoPress.

Palmer, F. 1 986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ ersity Press.

Pay rató, L. 1 993. A pragmatic v iew on autonomous gestures: A first repertoire ofCatalan emblems. Journal of Pragmatics 20: 1 93-21 6.

Pfau, R. & M. Steinbach. 2006. Modality -Independent and Modality -Specific Aspects ofGrammaticalization in Sign Languages. Linguistics in Postdam 24: 3-98. URL:http://www.ling.uni-postdam.de/lip [Consulted July 8th 201 1 ].

Real Academia Española 2001 . Nuevo Tesoro Lexicográfico de la Lengua Española.Madrid, Real Academia Española / Espasa Calpe (New Lexicographic Thesaurus ofthe Spanish Language). Online edition:http://buscon.rae.es/ntlle/Srv ltGUISalirNtlle [Consulted October 22nd 201 2].

Shaffer, B. 2002. Can’t: The Negation of Modal Notions in ASL. Sign Language Studies3/1 : 34-53.

Shaffer, B. 2004. Information ordering and speaker subjectiv ity : Modality in ASL.Cognitiv e Linguistics 1 5-2, 1 7 5-1 95.

Shaffer, B., M.J. Jarque & S. Wilcox. 201 1 . The expression of modality : conv ersationaldata from two signed languages. In: Nogueira, M. & F. Lopes (eds.) Modo emodalidade: gramática, discurso e interação. Fortaleza, Brasil: Edições UFC, 1 1 -39.

Stokoe, W. 1 960. Sign language structure: An outline of the v isual communicationsy stem of the American deaf. Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 8. [Re-ed. in1 97 8. Silv er Spring: Linstok Press].

Stokoe, W. 1 991 . Semantic Phonology . Sign Language Studies 7 1 : 1 07 -1 1 4.

Sutton-Spence, R. & P. Boy es-Braem (eds.) 2001 . The Hands are the Head of the Mouth.The Mouth as Articulator in Sign Languages. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.

Wilcox, P. 2000. Metaphor in American Sign Language. Washington D.C.: GallaudetUniv ersity Press.

Wilcox, Sherman 2004. Gesture and language. Cross-linguistic and historical datafrom signed languages. Gesture 4/1 : 43-7 3.

Wilcox, S., P. Rossini & E. Pizzuto. 201 0. Grammaticalization in sign languages. In:Brentari, D. (ed.) Sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ ersity Press, 332-354.

Wilcox, S. & P. Wilcox. 1 995. The Gestural Expression of Modality in ASL. In: By bee, J.& S. Fleischman (eds.) Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1 35-1 62.

http://cognitextes.revues.org/668?file=1



http://www.ling.uni-postdam.de/lip

http://buscon.rae.es/ntlle/SrvltGUISalirNtlle



y oung deaf man from Rome, Ignacio Puppi (Herv ás y Panduro [2008: 225]).

2 We hav e maintained the original spelling.

3 MANDAR (‘to order’) is monomanual and OBLIGAR (‘to oblige’) is bimanual, just as it isdescribed here, that is, with the dominant hand in the same handshape and with thesame mov ement and orientation, and the non-dominant hand in a B configuration andoriented downward, serv ing as background.

4 We are aware of the cultural restrictions which affect gesture use (that is, of the factthat the more a gesture acquires a codified meaning, the more culture-specific its usebecomes). The domain of use of the MANDO gesture is probably wider than in the Spanishcontext, but we hav e not explored it.

5 But the term agent-oriented is not equiv alent to deontic in By bee’s approach.

6 Kendon is referring to the Italian context, but his words can be applied also to theSpanish one.

7 In this text, Q could be a ty ping error for O.

8 In the 1 843 edition of the dictionary of the Real Academia Española, the first meaningof INGENUO, NUA is “Real, sincero, sin doblez” (‘real, sincere, without deceit’). Thisdefinition remains unchanged in the 1 852 edition. The 1 869 edition introduces theadjectiv e candoroso (naïv e): “Real, sincero, candoroso, sin doblez” (‘real, sincere, naïv e,without deceit’).

9 But see footnote 7 .

1 0 We hav e selected two of the meanings of the word cabal included by the RAE in the22nd edition of its dictionary : “(de cabo, extremo) 1 . Ajustado a peso o medida.”; “4.Completo, exacto, perfecto.” [‘(from end, extreme) 1 . Adjusted to weight or measure.’; ‘4 .Complete, exact, perfect.’]. In the 1 843 edition of the dictionary we find the followingmeanings in the first, second and fourth places, respectiv ely : “Lo ajustado á peso ómedida”; “Perfecto, completo”; “Justamente” [‘Something adjusted to weight ormeasure’; ‘Perfect, complete’; ‘Justly ’].

1 1 The Latin word pensare contains in its meaning a reference to the weights of a scale.The same semantic path allows us to explain the sy mbol of the scale as a representation ofjustice. In current LSE, the concepts BALANZA, JUSTICIA and COMPARAR (‘scale’,‘justice’, and ‘to compare’) are articulated in the same way (in a bimanual, sy mmetricalsign, the palms of the hands turned upward, with the fingers in a 5 handshape, performan alternating up and down mov ement).

1 2 It is important to notice that ‘entry ’ cannot be equated with ‘sign’, because the DNLSEentries are in fact Spanish words that hav e one or sev eral (depending on the cases) LSEequiv alents. In some cases, the LSE gloss we use to identify the sign does not match theSpanish word which introduces the dictionary entry . This is the case, for example, of thesign glossed here as FIJO (‘sure’), which appears in a phrasal use of the Spanish word luz(‘light’).

1 3 We hav e registered a VERDAD1 sign, also with an O-handshape articulation. It is av ery common sign used for expressing agreement with the addressee.

1 4 The DNLSE transcription interprets this mov ement as a ‘tuning fork’ one (diapasón,in Herrero-Blanco 2003).

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Carmen Cabeza-Pereiro, « Modality and linguistic change in Spanish Sign Language (LSE) »,CogniTextes [En ligne], Volume 9 | 2013, mis en ligne le 21 octobre 2013, Consulté le 11novembre 2013. URL : http://cognitextes.revues.org/642

Auteur

Carmen Cabeza-PereiroUniversity of Vigo

Droits d'auteur

© Tous droits réservés
