**5. Discussion**

This study explored the language contact situation in the Kufr Qassem deaf community. More specifically, the study focused on the younger deaf people who are now exposed to at least two sign languages: the local sign language: KQSL, and the deaf community sign language: ISL, which is used by the wider deaf Israeli community. We examined the linguistic situation for these deaf sign-bilinguals by considering one of the biggest threats to KQSL's continuity: language shift. To return to the question posed earlier in the paper: Is there evidence of language shift in the signing behavior among the younger generations in the Kufr Qassem deaf community? The answer is yes. What is the degree of this language shift? Language shift can be measured in terms of language preference as well as the existence of language contact phenomena, including code-switching and lexical borrowing. The results of our study focus on language preference in a range of language conditions which elicit a wide use of KQSL and ISL. Previous studies have shown that KQSL monolinguals from the first and second generations are KQSL dominant with an average of 85% of their overall lexical sign use from KQSL (Jaraisy 2021; Stamp and Jaraisy 2021). Therefore, our findings from the third generation provide evidence of an extreme language shift taking place in the Kufr Qassem deaf community, from predominantly using the local village sign language in the first and second generations (Jaraisy 2021; Stamp and Jaraisy 2021), to predominantly using the national sign language, ISL, by the third generation, with an average of 83% across all conditions (i.e., 17% KQSL lexical signs on average).

Increased code-switching and lexical borrowing from one language to the other can also be an indication of language shift (Kisch 2012; Nonaka 2004; Yoel 2007). Previous studies show an increase in code-switching and lexical borrowing among the younger bilinguals in Kufr Qassem. Code-switching from ISL into KQSL was more prevalent in the third-generation signers (27%) than in the first and second generations (15%) (Jaraisy 2021;

Stamp and Jaraisy 2021). For example, the sign for "girl", when repeated in a compound meaning "spouse" in KQSL, was replaced with the ISL sign with the equivalent meaning in 62% of the cases produced by bilinguals, compared to 5% and 26% of the first and second generations, respectively (Stamp and Jaraisy 2021). While code-switching and lexical borrowing are types of lexical replacement and language change, they differ in their permanency status in the recipient language (Haspelmath 2009; Myers-Scotton 1992). Codeswitching is a temporary language change, while lexical borrowing is more permanent. Evidence of lexical borrowing was found in the first generation of KQSL signers (Stamp and Jaraisy 2021), suggesting that permanent change as a result of language contact is underway. The data in this current study show similar results, with 83% of the cases of the sign "girl" produced in ISL by bilinguals across all language conditions.

The language shift observed here highlights the vulnerability of KQSL as a minority village sign language in Israel. The social assimilation of the KQSL deaf community into the wider deaf community in Israel, mainly through education, work, and other social interactions, has been increasing since the 1980s, beginning with the first deaf class in Kufr Qassem. This social assimilation is reflected in the linguistic mergence evident in this study. It is worth noting that this linguistic mergence is gradual and domain specific. That is, KQSL is used at home and with hearing and deaf relatives by some bilinguals, while ISL is used in wider domains, such as education and work. In another study, it was found that KQSL and ISL are used in different topics of discussion. When examining the language use by bilingual KQSL-ISL signers during guided conversations, KQSL was used more when discussing "local" topics (e.g., local foods, traditions) than "global" topics (e.g., education, travel) (Haj Dawood, in prep7). The reasons for such language shift may vary, but the higher ethnolinguistic vitality of ISL compared to KQSL is a clear factor. Learning ISL has numerous benefits for members of the deaf community in Kufr Qassem, especially younger ones, including access to education, interpreting services, and social interaction with the wider deaf community in Israel. Furthermore, the deaf club in Kufr Qassem, while central to the social interaction of the community and serving as a proud advocate for KQSL, provides ISL classes as part of its social activities. This reflects the fact that ISL receives institutional support, including funding for deaf teachers and interpreters, while KQSL does not (see Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 on motives for this kind of imbalance).

According to Mufwene (2017), one should consider language endangerment within the broader context of language vitality, that is, the entire life cycle of a language from its birth to its death. The term "merging" was used in this study to describe the situation in Kufr Qassem to highlight the threatened status of these sign languages, which might be predictable by some of the characteristics relating to the social situation of emergence (e.g., the relatively small community size), and to the wider general social changes underway, including the increase in social mobility and changes in educational practices. The mergence picture, however, is more complex than presented here. As mentioned in Section 3.1, the participants in this study, as most of the young deaf people in Kufr Qassem, are bimodal multilinguals who make the most of their multilingualism by translanguaging on a daily basis (De Meulder et al. 2019; Kusters et al. 2017). Most younger signers are exposed to Colloquial Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic, Hebrew, and in some cases, English. Changes in education in the Kufr Qassem deaf community not only increased exposure to ISL, but also changed the nature and degree of exposure to Arabic—which is more systematic and extensive now compared to that which was experienced by the older generations (Jaraisy 2021). We sugges<sup>t</sup> that future studies examine the situation in more depth by considering the language situation in terms of multimodality and translanguaging practices (De Meulder et al. 2019; Kusters et al. 2017). Our data show that young signers use multiple languages when signing, in both manual and non-manual features: KQSL, ISL, Arabic mouthing, and Hebrew mouthing8. Mouthing patterns and frequency are beyond the scope of this paper; for a detailed account as to the language contact situation between KQSL and Arabic and Hebrew, see Jaraisy (2021) and Jaraisy and Stamp (in prep).

The bigger picture question here might be: Is language shift inevitable for emerging sign languages? Despite the language shift situation for KQSL signers, the answer more generally is no. As discussed in the background, the ethnolinguistic vitality of an emerging sign language community is, in part, dependent on the type of emerging sign language found in a language contact situation. Village sign languages are at a greater risk than deaf community sign languages because of their relative low vitality in terms of their demographics, institutional support and status when in contact with a national majority sign language. Both languages examined in this study, ISL and KQSL, can be classified as emerging but while KQSL is merging towards ISL, ISL is thriving. In other words, the social situation of the sign language community is key. It is for this reason, that we return to the issue we raised at the beginning of the paper with regards to terminology. We emphasize here that it is not necessarily "emerging" sign languages that are vulnerable; it is the social dynamics of the sign language communities involved, and the language contact situation in which they exist. When discussing language shift, the language contact situation in which a sign language exists is important. In other words, the vitality of any sign language is dependent on what it is in contact with. In the past, it was quite possible for one community to remain relatively isolated from another; however, it is difficult to imagine a scenario nowadays without language contact. In fact, many young deaf people are exposed to multiple languages via social media and changing patterns of social interaction (e.g., international deaf events). This, however, is beyond the scope of this paper and we hope that future studies will consider the bigger picture that is taking place, including processes of globalization.

Deaf community sign languages, whilst potentially having their own language endangerment concerns, are less likely to face the threat of sign language shift compared to village sign languages. That said, recent studies show that some deaf community sign languages may be at risk from contact with other sign languages used over a wider global distribution. Recent papers have highlighted the use of ASL (McKee and McKee 2020; Moriarty 2020) and International Sign (Kusters 2020) and their impact on deaf community sign languages in different countries. While village sign languages might be at a greater risk of merging than deaf community sign languages, it is important to consider whether all village sign languages face the same level of risk of discontinuity. To answer our question, language shift does not have to be inevitable for minority village sign languages, even when the ethnolinguistic vitality may predict it. For example, Kusters (2014) claims that Adamorobe Sign Language (AdaSL), a village sign language used in Ghana, continues to thrive, regardless of its contact with Ghanaian Sign Language (GSL). Although deaf children from Adamorobe attend a residential school where they are exposed to GSL, they switch back to AdaSL when they return home (Kusters 2014). Furthermore, people in Adamorobe value AdaSL and sign bilingualism (Kusters 2014). Considering the situation of village sign languages in Israel more specifically, previous studies show that even two village sign languages within Israel may face different social situations, as is the case with ABSL and KQSL (Stamp and Sandler 2021), and that this is an important factor in the rate of language emergence. These same social factors might also determine a language's rate of mergence. Therefore, every language must be examined on an individual basis to truly understand the situation more sensitively than has been achieved so far (Braithwaite 2019; Webster and Safar 2019, 2020). Despite this, there is a sense of inevitability that so long as ISL is thriving and no other signed languages in Israel are given recognition and support, smaller sign languages might soon disappear.

In summary, no two sign languages are alike, and we cannot assess the vulnerability of all emerging sign languages as one group. Languages exist in different countries with different cultural norms, different levels of accessibility, different attitudes and ideologies towards languages and minority rights, and different legal frameworks. As expressed by Webster and Safar (2019), the vitality of a language is not easy to quantify in a numerical score. It is more complex than that; a language might be endangered based on one factor but thriving based on another, and so each language needs to be assessed based on its own

complexities. The deaf club in Kufr Qassem shows the presence of a thriving deaf community whose members translanguage, using ISL, KQSL, Arabic, among other languages and signing practices. That said, having assessed the situation in KQSL, if we consider the long-term status of this community in relation to the wider deaf community in Israel, the continuity of KQSL is at risk.
