**1. Introduction**

Emerging sign languages have received increased attention in the field of linguistics in recent decades (see Snoddon and De Meulder 2020). Studies on emerging sign languages predominantly focus on the "emerging" element of these languages; in other words, how these sign languages offer us a unique opportunity to observe the emergence of languages. However, the vulnerability of these languages within an emerging context is often overlooked. From an outsider's perspective, some of these languages appear to be thriving in a regionally bound community in which deaf and hearing individuals sign. However, the language vitality for many emerging sign languages is not as stable as it may appear. By the time linguists are aware of their presence, they may already be at risk of merging with the national sign language in the region, as has been reported in a few sign languages (Dikyuva 2012; Jaraisy 2021; Nonaka 2004; Stamp and Jaraisy 2021).

**Citation:** Jaraisy, Marah, and Rose Stamp. 2022. The Vulnerability of Emerging Sign Languages: (E)merging Sign Languages?. *Languages* 7: 49. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/languages7010049

Academic Editors: Mark Aronoff, Wendy Sandler and Carol Padden

Received: 26 October 2021 Accepted: 25 January 2022 Published: 24 February 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

In this paper, we focus on the sociolinguistic situation of emerging sign languages and potentially the biggest threat to their vitality: language shift. The threat of language shift occurs when a community gradually increases their use of a particular language at the expense of their own (Karan 2011). For example, Nonaka (2004, 2012) describes the situation of an emerging sign language1, Ban Khor Sign Language (BKSL), used in the Ban Khor village in northeastern Thailand, and its increased contact with Thai Sign Language (TSL), the national sign language of Thailand. She argues that younger generations of deaf people in Ban Khor are shifting from the use of BKSL towards TSL as their primary language. In her study, she describes the increased use of language contact phenomena such as code-switching and lexical borrowing from TSL as one indication that language shift is taking place. This case of language shift, along with similar cases in other language communities, have been attributed to increased social mobility and the recent establishment of deaf classes in rural areas, which in turn leads to increased contact between smaller local sign languages and larger national sign languages (Nonaka 2012, 2014; Stamp and Jaraisy 2021). Because many emerging sign languages are characterized by smaller communities and a lack of prestigious status and institutional support, the social status of emerging sign languages when in contact with a larger national sign language is reduced to that of a minority language. Therefore, when contact occurs, some emerging sign languages can be considered as endangered as soon as they arise.

In this paper, we look at the language contact situation taking place in Kufr Qassem, Israel, between Kufr Qassem<sup>2</sup> Sign Language (KQSL) and Israeli Sign Language (ISL)—two emerging sign languages with different social characteristics. While both sign languages are of a similar age—less than 100 years old (Kastner et al. 2014)—they emerged into communities with different social situations, as we describe in Section 1. Following this, we provide details about the factors that influence language vitality (Section 2.1), and we give different examples of language shift presented in the sign language literature (Section 2.2). In the current study, we examine language shift by looking at the distribution of ISL and KQSL lexical signs in the sign language repertoires of young bilinguals who reside in Kufr Qassem, Israel. In Section 3, we provide a detailed description of the methods used to elicit a range of productions by experimentally manipulating the interlocutor. We present the results in Section 4, which show a strong preference among KQSL-ISL sign-bilinguals towards the use of ISL, even when they converse with a monolingual KQSL signer. In the Discussion, in Section 5, we sugges<sup>t</sup> that language shift is taking place in Kufr Qassem, and we discuss the considerations one should make when working with emerging sign languages. In Section 6, we consider language endangerment within the broader context of language vitality—looking at the life cycle of sign languages from their emergence to their *mergence*.
