As has been previously shown,  markers of modality in ASL are primarily free grammatical morphemes. These markers of modality have been hypothesized as having developed along predictable grammaticization paths described for modality in other languages. For example, in a discussion of markers of possibility,  Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca note (1994:190) that there are several known cases of auxiliaries predicating physical ability that come to be used to mark general ability as well. Two cases are cited. English 'may' formerly was used to indicate physical ability (might) and later came to express general ability. The second case noted was Latin  potere or possum 'to be able' which
is related to the adjective potens meaning 'strong or powerful', and which gives French pouvoir and Spanish poder, both meaning 'can' (1994:190). Wilcox and Wilcox (1995) and Shaffer (1999 in preparation) have suggested that the same grammaticization path can be seen for markers of possibility in ASL as well. Evidence from old ASL suggests that the lexical sign STRONG has grammaticized into the sign CAN which is used to indicate physical ability, mental ability, root possibility, as well as permission and epistemic possibility.

While grammaticization paths can be hypothesized for other ASL modals as well, it is striking that the negation of such modals usually results in a completely different form as well as a differing grammaticization path. In the case of CAN, for example it might be assumed that to indicate inability, or to indicate refusal of permission that a simple negation of CAN resulting in CAN+NOT or NOT+CAN might be seen. This is not the situation. In fact, there is no evidence of the use of CAN+negation seen for ASL, nor (with one exception with the meaning 'unnecessary') for MUST+negation. Distinctly different signs (both lexical and grammatical) are instead exploited for the expression of negative modal concepts. Further, these forms appear to have grammaticized from different lexical elements (Shaffer 1999 in preparation).

This paper explores the negation of modal notions in ASL from a synchronic and diachronic perspective. I explore how these 'so-called' negative modals developed diachronically, as well as their distribution in modern ASL. The syntactic position of these modals will be described, as well as the impact of syntactic position on their scope. Finally,  I will discuss the interplay of syntax, scope, negation and modality, offering the hypothesis that scope of negation and the resulting negative modal form is a predictable paradigm in ASL

References

Bybee, J.,  Perkins R., & Pagliuca, W., (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shaffer, B. (1999 in preparation). Syntactic, Pragmatic Analysis of the Expression of Necessity and Possibility in American Sign Language. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of New Mexico.

Wilcox, S. & Wilcox, P. (1995). The Gestural Expression of Modality in ASL. In J. Bybee &  S Fleishman (Eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Back to the Conference Schedule