Analyzing Filipino Sign Language through Systematic Functional Linguistics

Analyzing Filipino Sign Language through Systematic Functional Linguistics

Shiela D. Tabingo^* & Ana Helena R. Lovitos

University of Mindanao, Davao City, Philippines

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020347

Received: 21 February 2025; Accepted: 25 February 2025; Published: 24 March 2025

ABSTRACT

The Filipino Sign Language (FSL) has been studied but limited to lexicography and sociolinguistics. The syntax of FSL has not been thoroughly explored. This qualitative study examined how Systemic Functional Linguistics is applied to FSL and how it is adapted to describe a visual-spatial language. An in-depth interview was done to ten deaf learners who served as respondents from two senior high schools in the Philippines. Results revealed the sociocultural aspects of FSL which included natural language of communication among the deaf community, unique linguistic identity and embedded Filipino culture, traditions, and values. Verbs to express tense and mood, meanings of verbs, basic word order patterns are the linguistic aspects of FSL. Handshapes, fingerspelling of loanwords, technical or specialized vocabulary, proper nouns, and iconic signs for family members, animals, food, colors, numbers, action words, parts of the body, greetings, drinks and beverages, vulgar words, onomatopoeic words represent certain lexemes while sign types consist of iconic, arbitrary, initialized, classifiers, spatial grammar, facial expressions, and non-manual signals. For interpersonal metafunction of FSL, it includes respectful signs and use of honorifics. The textual metafunction of FSL consists of visual-gestural nature, spatial grammar, verb agreement, non-manual signals, time sequencing, linguistic features to mark transitions and cohesive elements in sign texts while the ideational metafunction comprises iconic signs (symbols, icons and index) and metaphorical language. The analysis of FSL through Systemic Functional Linguistics contributes to the development of inclusive education and accessibility policies. Understanding its lexicon, grammar, sociocultural, sign types and variations can improve the training of sign language interpreters and educators, ensuring better integration of deaf individuals into mainstream society. FSL is a promising area of linguistic research that challenges conventional understandings of language and highlights the diversity of human communication. Thus, future research in the domain of the language documentation may look into other FSL features of classifier constructions, iconicity, and modality-specific phonology, aspects which are very different from spoken language systems. It may also be concerned with how the Filipino Sign Language Act has been framed in legislative discourse, how politicians talk about deaf rights, and how the very legal recognition of Filipino Sign Language either challenges or reinforces societal representations of the deaf community.

Keywords: Filipino Sign Language, Systemic Functional Linguistics, sociocultural aspects, linguistic aspects, Philippines

INTRODUCTION

Linguistic studies on Filipino Sign Language (FSL) started in the Philippines in the 1990s. As it was treated more as a medium of communication than a language, work in FSL linguistics was severely hampered. In the late 1980s and 1990s, FSL was linguistically described as a language by linguists Dr. Rosalinda Ricasa and Dr. Liza Martinez. Lexicography and sociolinguistics publications are scant relative to the application of FSL. Thus, for the past couple of decades, studies and documentation of the FSL language have continued. But because there was little background information on it plus no expertise in sign linguistics, the FSL syntax never came into focus. An academic textbook on FSL does not exist either (Domingo 2022). Since not many works on the field of Filipino Sign Language were available, this study elaborated on the way Systemic Functional Linguistics may enter into Filipino Sign Language by adjusting itself for the description of a language that works in visual-spatial terrain.

Filipino Sign Language has just lately been documented owing to the country’s emerging studies in sign linguistics. The government infrequently acknowledges it in educational institutions, judicial settings, professional environments, healthcare facilities, and mass communication outlets. Both deaf and hearing Filipinos may continue to dismiss FSL as a legitimate language. Despite more than twenty years of research, the language and its practitioners continue to be ostracized within Filipino culture. The policy on sign language is virtually absent (Martinez &Cabalfin, 2008). Exclusively in 2018 with RA11106, the legislation is titled “An Act Declaring Filipino Sign Language as the National Sign Language of the Filipino Deaf and the Official Language of Government in All Transactions Involving the Deaf, and Mandating Its Use in Schools, Broadcast Media, and Workplaces.”

Widespread fallacies regarding Filipino Sign Language include the following: It is founded on the Filipino and English languages. It is identical to American Sign Language. Similar to other authentic visual languages, FSL possesses a hierarchical linguistic structure founded on manual signals, augmented by further linguistic information derived from non-manual signals of the face and body. It is a systematic and regulated form of visual communication that has organically developed and reflects the cultural identity of the Filipino signing community. The production methods and internal structure of this language are distinct from spoken, written, and other visual languages, enabling it to address various current and emerging communication needs (Martinez & Cabalfin, 2008).

Although sign languages have been utilized globally for decades, the field of sign language linguistics is rather nascent in comparison to spoken language linguistics. Systemic Functional Linguistics has not been thoroughly examined in Filipino Sign Language, resulting in an absence of studies. This research employed Systemic Functional Linguistics to examine Filipino Sign Language. The content assessed in this study can assist the researcher in formulating generalizations and concepts that would enhance knowledge. The researcher has a deeper comprehension of the study issue or subject matter.

In the study of De Guzman (2017), FSL functions not only as a means of communication but also as a powerful tool for cultural preservation and transmission. This research supports the idea that FSL plays a crucial role in passing cultural knowledge from one generation to the next and maintaining the Filipino Deaf community’s unique cultural identity.

Meanwhile, Yang and Tan (2017) investigate the interaction between verb formation, word order, and cultural context in FSL. They explore the connection between emotional verbs and cultural expressions in Filipino society, emphasizing how FSL not only mirrors the language’s syntactic structure but also embodies Filipino values and emotions.

The study by Bautista (2022) examined the complicated lexicon of Filipino Sign Language, emphasizing the combination of handshapes, gestures, and sign location to create complex meanings. It emphasized that FSL’s extensive vocabulary facilitates versatile communication on diverse subjects, reinforcing the notion that its lexicon is both innovative and sophisticated. Filipino Sign Language’s lexicon is influenced by the interplay of handshapes, gestures, and placement, enabling intricate and expressive communication.

In Rudge’s (2018) study, Analyzing British Sign Language, significant impact was noticed using Systemic Functional Linguistics. From an academic standpoint, this is the first in-depth systemic functional description of a visual-spatial language which reveals how such languages function and how their analyses might inform spoken and written language analyses. A social reference for clause formation, BSL system networks can help language learners of any level.

The research aimed to examine the sociocultural aspects of FSL, the linguistic aspects of FSL, and analyze the FSL through Systemic Functional Linguistics.

METHOD

This qualitative study involved ten deaf senior high school students from two senior high schools in the southern part of the Philippines. Participants must have resided in the region for a minimum of five years to mitigate potential regional variance (Stamp et al.,2015). This study excluded individuals in mainstream classrooms. A heterogeneous purposive sample method was employed to select research subjects for accessibility and convenience. An in-depth interview was done to ten deaf learners who consented to the interview. The interview was done in the educational institutions in accordance with stringent health norms. The in-depth interview served as the principal data collection method.

The researcher employed a researcher-developed interview guide questionnaire to analyze Filipino Sign Language through Systemic Functional Linguistics, which underwent content validation by panelists and an external validator. The interview guide questionnaire focused on the sociocultural, linguistic, lexicon, and sign types of Filipino Sign Language, as well as the adaptation of Systemic Functional Linguistics for the analysis and description of a visual-spatial language.

Participants were asked to respond to the interview guide questions while being recorded on video. To guarantee clarity throughout data assessment, participants were shot singly facing a camera against a solid-colored backdrop. To provide a stark contrast between the signers’ hands and their torsos, participants were advised to don a plain garment on their upper bodies. This approach enables zooming without substantial quality degradation, as the data were obtained at an appropriate quality level, guaranteeing that no indicators were overlooked. Triangulation was employed, incorporating in-depth interviews, video recordings, and member checking to ascertain the legitimacy and validity of the findings.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Sociocultural Aspects of Filipino Sign Language

Table 1 outlines the three major themes with core ideas related to Filipino Sign Language: its role as a natural language of communication among the deaf community, its unique linguistic identity, and its embeddedness within Filipino culture, traditions, and values. Each of these themes plays an essential role in shaping the identity and experiences of the Filipino deaf community.

Table 1. Sociocultural Aspects of FSL

The first important theme extracted from the responses in the transcriptions demonstrates that Filipino Sign Language is a natural language of communication among the deaf community. This theme indicates that FSL establishes a powerful connection and strong bond among the deaf community. Filipino Sign Language is more than just a communication tool as it is the lifeblood of the Filipino deaf community. Its organic development, its role in community building, its function in cultural transmission, and its inherent linguistic diversity all contribute to its significance as the natural language of deaf Filipinos. It serves as a unifying language of the deaf community.  The responses of the participants supported this first identified theme when asked about either positive or negative experiences with Filipino Sign Language. The finding corroborates the study of Kendon (2020) on the linguistic status of sign languages and argues that sign languages are full languages, with complex grammar and syntactic structures. He discusses how these languages emerge naturally within Deaf communities and are used for all forms of communication, from everyday conversation to technical discourse.

Another theme which surfaced is unique linguistic identity. It was revealed that the Filipino Sign Language is a mixture of unique traditional and regional signs. The signs used in FSL reflect the diverse linguistic and cultural influences that shape it. This mixture contributes to the dynamic nature of FSL, offering a nuanced form of communication that is influenced by various cultural contexts within the Philippines. FSL has unique grammatical rules, linguistic patterns, and structures: FSL has its own set of rules, including syntax and grammar, that are distinct from spoken languages. In particular, the use of hand shapes, facial expressions, and spatial arrangement conveys grammatical meaning, making FSL a visual-spatial language. These distinct linguistic patterns are integral to its identity as a language in its own right, with structure and rules that serve specific communicative functions. This result supports the idea of Bauman and Murray (2020) that sign language acts as a strong tool for constructing deaf identity and culture. In this regard, it was also stressed that deaf individuals consider sign language as part and parcel of their social and cultural identity in addition to being a basic functional mode of communication. The unique aspects of deaf culture were also emphasized in this context, including their visual-spatial nature which places the deaf into an entirely different cultural worldview.

The last theme which appeared is embedded Filipino culture, values and traditions.  The participants affirmed that Filipino Sign Language is intertwined in Filipino culture, respect for elders is a core value. This is reflected in FSL through signs and gestures that convey respect, such as slight nods, polite facial expressions, or specific signing variations when addressing older individuals. They confessed that Filipino Sign Language still reflects Filipino culture including its values and practices. Further, they also mentioned that through their gestures, body language and facial expressions displayed Filipino culture.  All the ten participants mentioned that “hand blessing” commonly known to Filipinos as “pagmamano” has been a practice in their family since they were young.  It has been also practiced in school since teachers taught this as part of showing respect to elders according to them. Result of the study implies that FSL is deeply embedded in the everyday lives of deaf Filipinos, helping to maintain a unique cultural identity within the community. As Dacumos (2020) and Cabalquinto (2021) point out, FSL is not only a tool for interpersonal communication but also a medium through which Filipino cultural norms are expressed. This includes practices like honoring elders, emphasizing respect through non-manual signals, and sharing stories that carry historical and familial significance.

The studies of Bautista (2022) and Fernandez (2021) point to a relationship between FSL and such traditions as religious practices, family celebrations, and the observance of national holidays that are often expressed in culturally specific signs. Zuniga (2020) further notes that it is through FSL that cultural knowledge may be passed on to other generations and thus is important for cultural continuity in the Filipino Deaf community.

Overall, FSL is a fundamental part of the lives of deaf Filipinos. It connects them, provides a strong sense of identity, and preserves their culture for future generations. Its unique characteristics, both as a language and as a cultural vessel, make it invaluable to the deaf community and to the broader understanding of Filipino culture. FSL plays a critical role in fostering inclusivity, identity, and continuity in Filipino society.

Linguistic aspects of Filipino Sign Language

Table 2 presents the linguistic features of FSL particularly focusing on its verb usage, word order patterns, and question formation. It provides detailed descriptions of how specific verbs (such as “smile,” “laugh,” “cry,” “fear,” and “love”) are expressed in FSL and how these signs are structured in terms of syntax (word order patterns). The table also presents various examples, breaking down the gestures into specific categories like “time-topic structure,” “topic-comment structure,” “question word order” and “object-subject-verb structure.”

Table 2: Linguistics Aspects of FSL

The data consist of FSL verbs with their individual patterns of hand shape and movement as well as facial expression. It shows a combination of gestures and expressions to convey meaning and emotion in the FSL since both the physical and facial aspects are very important attributes of sign language. Some standard signs connected with emotion-breaking verbs (such as smile, laugh, cry, fear, love) generally denote highly specific handshape, movement, and facial expression.

The basic sign for “smile” requires both index fingers to touch the corners of the mouth, with lips curved upward for smile action. This combination of handshape and facial expression denotes the most standard means of showing a smile. A different sign involves using open palms in front of the corners of the mouth to depict the smile action. The change introduces a minor difference in the handshape but continues to maintain the important facial expression, the latter being essential in conveying the real meaning of the verb.

“Laugh,” like other signs, is often represented with mimicking gestures, such as shaking movements of the hands or moving the hands in an “L” shape toward the corners of the mouth.  Further nuances are introduced, such as movement of shaking hands to represent a chuckle. The movements such as shaking, or the shape of the hand (e.g., “L” handshape), are employed to convey the meaning of a verb in a more vivid manner.

The sign for “cry “is by having both hands make “S” handshape movements near the eyes, representing an act of wiping tears-off while wearing a sad facial expression. To further express the emotion, the action is repeated. Index fingers pointing at the eyes and moving downwards reflect tears falling. The sad facial expression enhances the emotionality of the sign.

“In fear,” forming fists along the side of the body, is opened and turned palms facing inwards towards the center of the body. The movements are usually characterized by trembling hands and a face that portrays fear, such as furrowed brows and wide eyes. The “love” instead represents self-love or love for oneself-a common representation for love. Since facial expressions are clearly a distinct part of meaning, it means that FSL has a very high level of expressivity.

There is support raised by this finding with respect to the study of Liddell and Metzger (2021) in addressing how the directional verbs in American Sign Language (ASL) represent tense and mood. This research demonstrates the relevance of the directional movements in representing not just the subject and object of the verb but also the indication of grammatical features of time (tense) and modality (mood), depending on hands’ change in direction and orientation. The finding also corroborates with the study of Schein and O’Brien (2023) that those taught in a signed language are, in a general sense, better at encoding body language and facial expression of emotion than those who are ignorant of signed language. More strikingly, this says that the more familiar one is with signing, the better one offers the capacity for effective body language and facial expression use and therefore becomes more important in this context to express subtle meanings grammatical or semantic issues such as time or moods.

The time-topic-comment structure is the first basic word-order pattern, and it is a fundamental category of FSL. The time reference should be put first in these sentences, and the topic of the sentence comes as second while the comment or action comes last. The time-topic-comment structure must be understood for a thorough analysis of the context regarding Filipino Sign Language as each relevant sentence.

In FSL, pronouns or subjects are represented through finger-pointing or classifiers (such as in the case of the sign “girl” for “she” or “boy” for “he”). This word order is consistent across all the provided examples, suggesting a deeply ingrained syntactic structure in FSL.  In the first example, “They visited the museum yesterday” becomes “Yesterday, museum they visit”. The word “the” was not signed anymore only the important words in the sentence were signed.  The time element “yesterday” is signed first which is an adverb, followed by the location, “museum” which is a noun, and then the action, “visit” which is a verb. The subject pronoun “they” is indicated using a finger point.  Thus, the word order for Time-Topic-Comment structure is Adverb + Noun (Direct Object) + Pronoun (Subject)+ Verb.

While FSL does not have dedicated tense markers attached directly to verbs such as “-ed” or “-d” in English, tense is often indicated through temporal adverbs representing time expressions like “yesterday,” “today,” “tomorrow,” or specific time frames are frequently used to establish the temporal context of the verb. The verb itself remains unchanged, but the temporal adverb provides the necessary tense information. In the example, “They visited the museum yesterday” becomes “Yesterday, museum they visit”, the verb “visit” did not take the past tense form which is visited instead the time expression “yesterday” indicates that the verb is already in the past. In Filipino Sign Language, the “comment “is a combination of noun/pronoun + verb.  The use of time-first structure is a distinctive feature in FSL, providing clarity on when the event takes place before introducing the action and subject.

In the Time-Topic-Comment structure of FSL, facial and body movements play a critical role in conveying meaning. Pronouns are typically indicated with finger-pointing or by classifiers (e.g., “girl” or “boy”), and verbs convey actions, with time and topic being emphasized as separate elements in the sentence. This structure contrasts with the typical subject-verb-object word order in spoken languages, reflecting the visual-spatial nature of sign language.

In the second basic word order, Topic-Comment structure is a more flexible word order, where the topic, subject or focal point is established first, followed by the comment, verb or predicate. This structure is frequently used in FSL to introduce a statement or assertion. In the example, “I need to finish the homework” becomes “Homework, I need finish”, where “homework” is the topic and functions as a noun, and “I need finish” forms the comment. The “comment” is combination of Pronoun (Subject)+ Verb.  “Homework” is a noun, acting as the topic of the sentence (what is being discussed or focused on). “I” is a pronoun, representing the subject (the one who needs to finish the homework). “Need” is a verb, expressing necessity.” Finish” is a verb, representing the action to be performed.

In the example, “They watched the movie together” is signed as “Movie, they watch.”, indicating the movie as the topic which is a noun and “they watch” as the comment is a combination of Pronoun+ Verb.  It is noticed that only the important words in the sentence were signed. The word “the” is not signed anymore.  It is gleaned that Topic-Comment structure emphasizes the topic of the sentence first, followed by the action or information about the topic which is a common word order pattern in many sign languages.

In FSL, the Topic-Comment structure is used instead of the typical Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) structure found in spoken languages. This structure places emphasis on the Topic first, followed by the Comment which elaborates on the topic. The Topic is often the subject of the sentence, and the Comment provides information about the topic. The word order, Topic-Comment structure is made up of Noun (Direct Object) + Noun/ Pronoun+ Verb or Noun + Verb+ Noun.

The Question Word Order in FSL varies slightly depending on the type of question being asked. In FSL, facial expressions play a significant role in forming questions, alongside specific syntactic patterns. In Filipino Sign Language (FSL), questions typically follow a Question Word Order structure, where the question word (e.g., where, what, who, when, how, why) is placed at the beginning, followed by the topic and comment. In FSL, facial expressions also play a crucial role in signaling that a question is being asked, often replacing auxiliary verbs like do, did, will, and other pronouns.

The question “Where do you live?” changes structure depending on the participant. The sign for “house” is used in place of the verb “live,” resulting in the structure “Where house?” This emphasizes the location as the primary focus of the question. “Where” is an Interrogative Pronoun while “house” is a noun, asking about the location or place which is the topic in the sentence. Thus, the word order is made up of Pronoun (Interrogative) + Noun.  The use of the structure “Where live?” omitting the sign for “house,” with “live” represented through classifiers or context. “Where” is an interrogative pronoun while “live” is a verb, the action performed by the subject (represented through classifiers or context) Thus, the word order is made up of Pronoun (Interrogative) + Verb. In both structures, facial expressions (non-manual signals) such as raised eyebrows and head tilt are essential to mark the question in FSL since it indicates the question being asked.

Sign for “name” replaces “is your name” in the FSL structure while the structure “Name you?” is used, with the order flipped to reflect FSL’s word order.  “Name” (Noun) is the subject of the sentence (what is being asked about) while “you” (Pronoun) is the subject (the one being asked about). The word order in this structure is Noun + Pronoun. However, dropping the pronoun “you” altogether, is a common simplification in sign languages.  The question word order typically follows a Question Word + Topic + Comment structure, where the question word comes first, followed by the topic and the comment. The use of facial expressions is crucial for signaling that the sentence is a question, often replacing the need for auxiliary verbs (like do, did, or will in spoken languages). Each part of the sentence plays a specific role in conveying meaning, with interrogative pronouns asking for specific information and verbs expressing the action being questioned.

Another FSL basic word order pattern, the Object-Subject-Verb (OSV) structure is used, where the object is presented first, followed by the subject, and then the verb. This contrasts with the Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) structure typical of many spoken languages. The following analysis identifies and categorizes the parts of speech in FSL sentences based on the OSV structure presented in the data.

In the first statement, “He saved money”, the FSL structure is “Money, he save” (Signed “boy” instead of “he.”). “Money” (Noun) is the object of the sentence, which is being saved. He (Pronoun) is the subject of the sentence, though in FSL, classifiers or other signs may be used to represent the subject. In this case, “boy” is signed instead of using “he.” “Save” (Verb) is the action being performed by the subject (he). The sentence follows the Object-Subject-Verb (OSV) structure, with “money” as the object, “he” as the subject (represented by a classifier for a male person), and “save” as the verb describing the action.  The word order of Noun + Pronoun + Verb is observed in this statement.   It is noted on FSL structure, the pronoun “he” can be represented by classifiers or other handshapes. In this case, “boy” substitutes for “he,” which reflects the importance of context and classifiers in FSL.

The data reveal a consistent pattern in how FSL constructs sentences with the OSV word order. Each sentence places the object at the start, followed by the subject and the verb. This contrasts with English’s SVO order, where the subject typically comes first. This object-first structure allows the signer to emphasize the action being performed on the object, a significant feature in sign languages, where visual space and movement play a large role in sentence construction.

The FSL syntax places the object at the beginning of the sentence to emphasize it, similar to other sign languages like American Sign Language. This object-first order helps the signer focus on the action done to the object-very important in visual-spatial languages where facial expressions and hand movements prioritize clarity (Pereira & Ramos, 2020). The raised eyebrows, being quite a common marker for declarative statements turning into interrogative alike, have also been noted in the study by De La Cruz (2021). Such findings substantiate the assertion that FSL is rather flexible concerning word order since it does not strictly require the application of this SVO model but adapts its word order with what is visualized and spatial mode of sign language.

The study of Bautista and Rojas (2022) supports the notion that FSL adheres to an OSV structure, particularly in declarative sentences, where the object is presented first, followed by the subject, and then the verb. Their findings are consistent with studies on other sign languages, where the topic-comment structure often leads to an object-first syntax. In these studies, the use of classifiers (handshapes that represent categories of objects) also helps express the action directed toward the object, which in turn highlights the object in the sentence.

This study reinforces the significance of word order and facial expressions in sign language grammar, which play crucial roles in ensuring clarity and meaning in communication. Thus, the connection between word order patterns and linguistic aspects in FSL underscores the complexity and richness of sign languages as fully developed languages, with unique syntactic rules that serve to organize communication in visually expressive and contextually nuanced ways.

According to a study by De La Cruz (2021), facial expression, such as raised eyebrows, serves as a key marker to change a declarative sentence into a question. This observation contends that the ordering in FSL does not follow the SVO rule rigidly but rather flexibility in word order is shaped by the visual-spatial modal emotion of sign language.

Analysis of Filipino Sign Language through Systemic Functional Linguistics

Table 3 outlines various metafunctions of Filipino Sign Language (FSL), categorized under three primary functions: interpersonal, textual, and ideational. These categories explore the different ways that FSL serves to communicate social relationships, structure text, and represent ideas through visual-gestural signs, facial expressions, and symbolic gestures.

Table 3: Metafunctions of FSL

The interpersonal function focuses on how FSL is used to express social relationships and interactions. The signs include expressions of respect, and honorifics. Respectful signs are integral to maintaining social harmony and politeness in FSL. For instance, the sign for “Thank you” involves an open flat hand that is placed near the lips and moved away, symbolizing a gesture of gratitude. Similarly, “Please” involves a circular motion with the open palm at chest level, adding a layer of courtesy to requests. These signs, although simple, show a deep connection to Filipino culture where respect is” paramount in everyday interactions. On the other hand, honorifics like “Ate” (elder sister) and “Kuya” (elder brother) are prominent in Filipino culture. The signs involve complex handshapes and gestures, such as the “S” handshape touching the cheek for “Ate” or the “B” handshape for “Kuya” with varying motions. These signs express not only respect but also familial closeness and hierarchy, which are deeply embedded in Filipino society. The sign for “Sir” also follows a specific handshape and movement to denote formality and respect.

This finding supports the assertion Quinto-Pozos’s claim (2021) that respect and honorifics are carried out in ASL through certain signs and the non-manual markers, which are subject to change according to social contexts, as, for example, conferring privilege in speech or respect to the elderly or anyone of higher status.  It is therefore indicative that in ASL both manual and non-manual strategies are applied in realizing deference and respect. Aranzado (2020) thus states, the signs used are so integrated within the Filipino culture that to address persons of higher age or authority through the system is accepted.

The textual function in FSL deals with how the language organizes and structures information, often through visual-gestural features like handshapes and facial expressions. Various handshapes, such as the “A” handshape for “assist” or the “C” handshape for “classmate,” play a key role in conveying meaning. The handshapes are not arbitrary; they are symbolic and carry significant meaning in both a linguistic and cultural context. For example, the “L” handshape for “language” involves a specific wavy motion that visually mirrors the concept of flowing or expanding, which is symbolic of the fluid nature of language. Meanwhile, facial expressions are crucial in FSL to communicate emotional tone and nuance. For instance, “happy” is conveyed by a circular hand motion with fingers spread, accompanied by a joyful facial expression. Similarly, “sad” involves a downward motion of the hands with a sorrowful expression. These facial cues are essential in sign languages, as they help provide context for the message being signed, influencing the interpretation of the signs.

This study supports Valderrama’s (2020) work on how Filipino sign language uses spatial relations for structuring communication. It describes from a pragmatic point of view of location to indicate direction, possession, and relationships of referents. Further, these spatial markers underpin the clarity of concepts and logical flow in the signing of FSL. Spatial grammar organizes information, and FSL functions as a dynamic visual-gestural language.

The ideational metafunction refers to how FSL is used to represent ideas, objects, and concepts through symbols, icons, and metaphorical language.  For “symbols”, signs like “dove” for peace or “heart” for love use specific hand motions or iconic representations to symbolize these abstract concepts. The sign for “peace” involves a twisting motion of the hands, which visually represents the concept of harmony. “Love,” symbolized by crossing both hands over the chest, is a powerful gesture that conveys a deeply emotional and universal concept. The use of iconic gestures, such as “ouch” or “splash,” highlights how FSL visually represents actions or sensations. For example, “ouch” involves tapping a fist on the arm, accompanied by a facial grimace, signaling pain. These iconic signs are especially useful in FSL, where gestures directly imitate the physical or emotional experience they represent, providing a rich, tangible expression of ideas.

This supports the work of Perez and Alvarado (2021) regarding how Filipino Sign Language uses iconic signs that represent abstract concepts. These works illustrate how these signs gesture; to denote the meaning of the concepts; which is symbolic for deeper expressive connotations for these ideas.

This finding supports Diaz’ (2020) study on iconicity in Filipino Sign Language, especially on how signs are made by physical gestures that refer directly to their meanings. In this study, the author highlights handshapes as distinctive features that allow signers to represent concepts in a manner consistent with the physical or conceptual quality of the object.

The use of metaphorical signs, such as “break a leg” (good luck) or “bread and butter” (source of income), demonstrates the flexibility and creativity of FSL. These metaphors are not literal but instead convey cultural meanings. The sign for “good luck” combines “good” and “luck,” while “break a leg” involves a gesture for “break” and “leg.” Such expressions show that FSL can operate on a figurative level, much like spoken languages, providing depth and layers of meaning beyond the literal. This evidence supports Rodriguez’s (2021) study revolves on how Filipino Sign Language, like that of many spoken languages, is goes down to undergo transmutation of metaphorical and idiomatic expressions by gestures. It further takes on a selection of expressions that evaluate how abstract concepts are physically portrayed, furthered by facial expression. It emphasizes how metaphorical syntax is expressed and worked beyond plain literal representation in FSL.

The study affirms Ramos’ (2020) findings on metaphorical expressions in the Filipino Sign Language denoting figurative meanings. He suggested that mime-based signs in FSL have both literal and metaphorical meanings, similar to spoken languages.

The data provide a comprehensive overview of the various ways in which Filipino Sign Language (FSL) fulfills the metafunctions of language—interpersonal, textual, and ideational. Each sign and gesture not only serves a communicative purpose but also reflects the values, emotions, and relationships in Filipino culture. The integration of handshapes, facial expressions, and iconic or symbolic gestures in FSL underscores its richness and complexity, offering insights into the communicative and cultural fabric of the Filipino deaf community.

CONCLUSION

Studying the functions of signs in the system of Filipino Sign Language provided insights into how deaf beings transcend communication in the common sense of the word; they convey meanings based on choices of signs in conjunction with facial expressions and body movement. Realization of the Filipino Sign Language as bolster as richly subtle and multilayered as spoken languages made me marvel further at its complexity and beauty. This research has quite expanded my understanding of Filipino Sign Language and of Systemic Functional Linguistics as a tool to study languages in various modalities. Guided by this newfound enlightenment on the intricate relationship between language and identity and the manner in which social function and context contribute to language use, I shall be with a renewed outlook toward engaging in language studies, namely, inclusively and culturally aware, with a new-found appreciation for the richness of language within the deaf community. Since Filipino Sign Language presents one of the most challenging areas of linguistic research in overturning common perceptions of language, it exposes the richness of human communication. By putting FSL first in research scopes, linguists and future researchers can forge common ground, enhancing academic input and empowering the Filipino deaf community. The study of visual-spatial languages like FSL contributes to enriching linguistic studies and reestablishing the importance of inclusion and diversity toward understanding human interaction. The advancements of linguistic research rely on acceptance of such opportunities that will widen our understanding of language in all its modalities.

Thus, future research in the domain of the language documentation of FSL would need to be conducted as this language uses space to express relationships and temporal sequences which provides an interesting ground for syntactic and semantic analyses. It may look into other FSL features of classifier constructions, iconicity, and modality-specific phonology, aspects which are very different from spoken language systems. These properties challenge traditional linguistic frameworks and invite researchers to reconsider language’s conception across the modalities. Using varied other-linguistic methodologies such as critical discourse analysis (CDA), corpus linguistics and conversational analysis (CA) might provide future researchers with an opportunity to probe several facets of language use, social dynamics, and communication practices within the deaf community.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is indebted to Dr. Ana Helena R. Lovitos, her adviser; Dr. Jerlyn G. Balones, her data analyst; Dr. Riceli C. Mendoza, her external validator and research consultant; Mr. Cesar P. Tabingo Jr., her husband and study buddy in this educational milestone; Maám Cindy, Maám Angilly, Maám Jobellyn, Sir Sardonyx, Dr. Raleigh J. Ojanola and Dr. John Achileeus M. Benoguil, her classmates in the Ph.D. Applied Linguistics Program for their inspiration; Ms. Connie E. Maravilla and Ms. Reena Nina Mae S. Lustan, her esteemed colleagues in the profession, for the persistent support and above all to our Almighty Father, the Architect, and the Supreme Source of Everything.

REFERENCES

1. Aranzado, R. M. (2020) Filipino Sign Language and Its Role in Filipino Culture. University of the Philippines Press.
2. Bauman, H. D. L., & Murray, J. J. (Eds.). (2014). Deaf gain: Raising the stakes for human diversity. U of Minnesota Press.
3. Bautista, Angie C. “Exploring the Nuanced Lexicon of Filipino Sign Language: Handshapes, Movements, and Positioning.” Journal of Philippine Linguistics. (2022): 91-108.
4. Bautista, M., & Rojas, A. (2022). The syntax of Filipino Sign Language: Exploring sentence structure and classifiers. Journal of Sign Language Linguistics, 23(1). 75-91
5. Cabalquinto, Lee. “Sign Language and Filipino Deaf Culture: An Exploration of Cultural and Linguistic Identity.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, vol. 25, no. 3, 2021, pp. 256-269.
6. Dacumos, Alexandra G. “Filipino Sign Language: A Reflection of Filipino Cultural Identity.” Linguistic Society of the Philippines Journal, vol. 44, no. 2, 2020, pp. 12-30.
7. De Guzman, D. M. (2017). The sociocultural role of Filipino Sign Language in the deaf community. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 52(2), 120-137.
8. De La Cruz, S. Non-manual signals in Filipino Sign Language: The role of facial expressions in syntactic structures. Journal of Philippine Language and Culture, 14(2), (2021): 112-127.
9. Diaz, Elisa M. (2020). Iconicity in Filipino Sign Language: Physical Gestures and Conceptual Representation. Journal of Sign Language and Linguistics, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 215-230.
10. Domingo, R. V. D. D. (2022). Syntactic Patterns of Interrogative and Negation Constructions of Filipino Sign Language Consultants in the Philippines. Gallaudet University.
11. Fernandez, B.J. (2021), Filipino Sign Language: Visual Gestures, Cultural Expression, and Syntax. Philippine Linguistics Review, vol. 38, no. 2pp. 72-85.
12. Kendon, A. (2020) Sign Languages: A Cambridge Language Survey. Cambridge UP: 228-237
13. Liddell, S.K., and Robert E. M. (2021), “The Morphology of First-Person Object Forms of Directional Verbs in American Sign Language.” Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, vol. 6, no. 1, 1-29.
14. Martinez, L. B., & Cabalfin, E. P. G. (2008). Sign language and computing in a developing country: a research roadmap for the next two decades in the Philippines. In Proceedings of PACLIC (Vol. 22, pp. 438-444). Waseda University.
15. Pereira, J., & Ramos, M. (2020). Sign languages and their syntactic structures: A comparative study of Filipino Sign Language and American Sign Language. Journal of Linguistics, 35(4). 201-215.
16. Perez, M., & A., L. (2021).  Family-based language acquisition in Filipino Sign Language: An exploration of lexicon and sign types. Deaf Studies International Journal, 19(3), 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/18387269.2021.1941071
17. Quinto-Pozos, D. (2021) “Respect and Honorifics in American Sign Language.” Sign Language Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 2021, pp. 49-75. Gallaudet University Press, doi:10.1353/sls.2001.0015.
18. Ramos, R.D. (2020) Metaphor and Figurative Language in Filipino Sign Language: A Study of Idioms and Expressions. Linguistics of Visual Communication, vol. 19, no. 3, , pp. 105-118.
19. Rodriguez, M. C. G. (2021). Metaphor and Idiomatic Expressions in Filipino Sign Language: A Cognitive and Cultural Analysis. Journal of Sign Language and Linguistic Studies, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 112-127.
20. Rudge, L. A. (2018). Analysing British sign language through the lens of systemic functional linguistics (Doctoral dissertation).
21. Santos, R. D., & Mendoza, L. M. (2016). Metaphors and their role in Filipino Sign Language: A cultural perspective. Sign Language & Culture Studies, 4(2), 15-32.
22. Schein, J.D., and O’Brien. N, (2023) “Encoding of Facial Expressions of Emotion and Knowledge of American Sign Language.” ResearchGate: 39-74
23. Stamp, R., Schembri, A., Fenlon, J., & Rentelis, R. (2015). Sociolinguistic variation and change of British Sign Language number signs. Sign Language Studies, 15(2), 151– 181. doi:10.1353/sls.2015.0001
24. Yang, J., & Tan, S. M. (2017). Verbs, word order, and cultural context in Filipino Sign Language. Sign Language & Culture, 8(1), 49-63.
25. Zuniga, A. S., (2020). “Filipino Sign Language: Its Role in the Cultural Preservation of the Deaf Community.” Asian Deaf Studies Review, vol. 19, no. 4pp. 185-202.