CAN'T: The Negation of Modal Notions in ASL

Historical linguistics is at times akin to archaeology. The researcher pieces together bits of evidence to create a complete picture of a particular phenomenon. For a linguist studying a signed language, the task is more daunting still, due to the relative dearth of available data. Nonetheless, linguistic typology and a thorough understanding of the language under investigation can yield exciting returns. This article explores the development of the negative modal can’t in ASL. This study involves many overlapping areas, including modality, negation, lexicalization, and grammaticization. Because of the historical relationship between ASL and French Sign Language (LSF), a diachronic study of certain grammatical features of ASL necessitates a discussion of Old LSF (see Lane [1984] for an account of the historical relationship between ASL and LSF and of the circumstances that brought LSF to the United States). Finally, one cannot ignore the sociolinguistics of the Deaf communities in France and North America. The result is a holistic investigation of the development of can’t that suggests that this modern ASL sign developed not from a positive modal expressing possibility or ability, as one might expect, but from a modal indicating deontic necessity, specifically, Old LSF il faut “it is necessary.”

[1]  T. Humphries,et al.  A Basic Course in American Sign Language , 1981 .

[2]  Leonard Talmy,et al.  Force Dynamics in Language and Cognition , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[3]  Kearsy Cormier,et al.  Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages: Frontmatter , 2002 .

[4]  Terry Janzen,et al.  Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages: Gesture as the substrate in the process of ASL grammaticization , 2002 .

[5]  F. R. Palmer.  Negation and the Modals of Possibility and Necessity , 1995 .

[6]  Patricia Siple,et al.  Understanding language through sign language research , 1978 .

[7]  Eve Sweetser,et al.  From Etymology to Pragmatics: Preface , 1990 .

[8]  J. Gee.  An Interpretive Approach to the Study of Modality: What Child Language can Tell the Linguist , 1985 .

[9]  Johan van der Auwera,et al.  On the typology of negative modals , 2001 .

[10]  J. Coates.  The semantics of the modal auxiliaries , 1983 .

[11]  J. Long.  The sign language : a manual of signs : being a descriptive vocabulary of signs used by Deaf in the United States and Canada , 2022 .

[12]  Sherman Wilcox,et al.  The Gestural Expression of Modality in ASL , 1995 .

[13]  J. van der Auwera,et al.  Modality’s semantic map , 1998 .

[14]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Semantic Substance vs. Contrast in the Development of Grammatical Meaning , 1988 .

[15]  Jennifer Coates,et al.  Modal Meaning: The Semantic-Pragmatic Interface , 1990, J. Semant..

[16]  Paul J. Hopper,et al.  On some principles of grammaticization , 1991 .

[17]  F. Palmer,et al.  Mood and modality , 1986 .

[18]  Joan L. Bybee.  Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form , 1985 .

[19]  From deontic to epistemic: an analysis of modals in the history of English, creoles, and language acquisition , 1982 .

[20]  E. Traugott.  On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change , 1989 .

[21]  Anna Giacalone Ramat,et al.  Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics , 1987 .

[22]  H. Lane.  When the Mind Hears: A History of the Deaf , 1984 .

[23]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World , 1994 .

[24]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Modality in grammar and discourse , 1995 .