**2. Background**

Emerging sign languages are defined in the literature as "new" sign languages, which emerge when deaf people with no shared means of communication form a community and they have the necessity to communicate using a visual language (Meir et al. 2010). There has been debate in the literature as to what degree we can describe these languages as "new" (Russo and Volterra 2005). When sign languages emerge, users have at their disposal the gestural repertoires of the wider community to build on (Coppola and Senghas 2010; Mesh 2017; Mesh and Hou 2018; Polich 2005; Senghas et al. 2004). In fact, all sign languages, emerging and otherwise, are considered to be young when compared with spoken languages, which often developed from older languages or were in contact with other languages. British Sign Language (BSL), for example, which is one of the oldest recorded sign languages, is estimated to be only 260 years old. Emerging sign languages, however, often include signers from the first generation of the language. This gives linguists the chance to track emergence in "real time" by examining how the language changes from its first generation to the current one. Often, emerging sign languages are contrasted with established ones, which, although young, are more difficult to trace back

to their first generations (e.g., BSL). Recently, scholars have problematized the different ways in which researchers classify sign languages (e.g., Hou and de Vos 2021). The term "emerging", for example, is a rather broad classification, grouping together sign languages in terms of their relative youth ("emerging" vs. "established") (Fenlon and Wilkinson 2015; Le Guen et al. 2020; Zeshan and de Vos 2012), regardless of their different social circumstances. Other studies classify sign languages based on the community size: "macro" vs. "micro" (Schembri 2010), the geographical location: "urban" or "rural" (de Vos 2011), or their distribution and status: "national" (Woodward 2000). For the purpose of this study, "emerging" does not capture the difference we see between two sign languages of a similar age (such as the two sign languages under investigation in this study: Israeli Sign Language and Kufr Qassem Sign Language). These two languages exist in different social conditions, and it is these social conditions that are important in the discussion of their vulnerability. Therefore, in this study, we use terminology which refers to the social situations of different types of emerging sign languages, those known as "deaf community" and "village" sign languages (Meir et al. 2010). We argue that the vulnerability of each type of emerging sign language is different and cannot be determined by the languages' "emerging" status alone, but rather based on their relative status and contact with other sign languages. In other words, when two sign languages co-exist geographically, often one is dominant in relation to the other, leading to a situation of language shift.

In this paper, we examine the vulnerability of emerging sign languages which fall into two types: deaf community sign languages and village sign languages. A deaf community sign language emerges when deaf people from different backgrounds come together in a local deaf school, thereby forming a deaf community. For example, in Nicaragua, the educational system for deaf people was oralist, and the language of instruction was Spanish until the 1970s (Polich 2005). Teachers observed deaf children's use of gestures to communicate with each other, although there was no conventional language at a community level (Polich 2005). In 1977, a new educational program opened in Nicaragua, and a larger number of deaf students enrolled. Signing gradually made its way into the classroom; teachers started using signs and gestures with the students, and students increased their use of sign and gesture with one another, both inside and outside of the classroom. This change created an environment for a sign language to emerge (Polich 2005; Senghas 1995). Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL) as it is known today is mainly linked to the establishment of the deaf community in a school environment.

Emerging sign languages of the second type, village sign languages, originate under different social conditions and are not linked to the establishment of a school community (Meir et al. 2010). Rather, a sign language arises in a small community into which several deaf children are born. This is more likely to occur in communities with consanguineous marriage in which the gene for congenital deafness is often passed on within the family (Meir et al. 2010). In these communities, because of the high numbers of deaf people, a sign language emerges. Often, hearing relatives sign with varying degree of proficiency. For this reason such languages are also described as "shared sign languages" (Kisch 2008; Nyst 2010). Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL), which emerged in a Bedouin community located in the Negev desert in Southern Israel3, is one example of a village sign language. The community has a much higher incidence of deafness (2.89%) compared to the other communities around the world (e.g., 0.07% in the USA, Marazita et al. 1993), with around 130 deaf people in a population of 4500 (Kisch 2012). It is claimed that ABSL first emerged around 90 years ago when four deaf children were born into the same family. Now, in its fourth generation, ABSL has been studied extensively by researchers of emerging sign languages (Kisch 2008, 2012; Meir et al. 2010; Sandler 2012).

Deaf community sign languages and village sign languages exist in different sociolinguistic situations. The former, deaf community sign languages, are often used by larger communities, with heterogeneous language and social backgrounds and relatively limited shared knowledge, while the latter, village sign languages, are used by smaller, close-knit communities with shared culture and knowledge. For these reasons, studies

show that there are observable differences in the linguistic structure of these two types of sign languages, most notably in terms of linguistic convergence (Meir and Sandler 2019). In a study by Meir and Sandler (2019), the authors compared two emerging sign languages in Israel, both of a similar age: one, a deaf community sign language, ISL, and the other a village sign language, ABSL. Specifically, they found that ABSL was characterized by more variability than ISL at all levels of the language, and that some linguistic structures developed earlier in ISL than in ABSL (Meir and Sandler 2019; Sandler 2012). The authors argue that these linguistic differences are attributed to the different social contexts of ISL and ABSL, claiming that there is a stronger pressure towards conventionalization in a deaf community sign language than in a village sign language. Table 1 summarizes some of the key differences between deaf community and village sign languages.

**Table 1.** Social situation of deaf community and village sign languages (Meir et al. 2010).


In another study, which compared ABSL with another village sign language used in Israel, Kufr Qassem Sign Language (KQSL), differences were also found (Stamp and Sandler 2021). The results of the study showed that ABSL was conventionalizing at a faster pace than KQSL. The authors attributed this difference to the distinctive social dynamics of ABSL and KQSL. Although these two sign languages are of a similar age (i.e., 90 years old) and language type (i.e., village sign language), they differ in the proportion of deaf people in relation to the general population. In Kufr Qassem, the proportional population is much smaller than in Al Sayyid, with 120 deaf people in a general population of 23,000 compared to 130 deaf people in a general population of 4500, respectively. This may have an impact on language contact and transmission patterns, known to influence rates of conventionalization (Nonaka 2012; Richie et al. 2014). In summary, the social situation of emerging sign languages is fundamental to their character, more so than their language age, and factors including community size, social structure, and status are key measures of language vitality, to which we turn next.

#### *2.1. Sign Language Endangerment & Ethnolinguistic Vitality*

Some scholars argue that all sign languages are endangered (e.g., Schembri 2010), and ye<sup>t</sup> sign language endangerment has been a relatively under-studied topic (Braithwaite 2019) until recently (see Snoddon and De Meulder (2020)). In an attempt to better understand a language's level of endangerment, several assessments of language vitality have been applied to sign languages, including ones by Ethnologue (Eberhard et al. 2021), UNESCO's endangered language survey (Safar and Webster 2014; Webster and Safar 2019), and the Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model (Giles et al. 1977). Ethnologue, which publishes an annual list of living languages, developed an adapted method for assessing the vitality of sign language communities (Bickford et al. 2015; Eberhard et al. 2021). A summary of several sign languages listed within Ethnologue appears in Table 2. Importantly, while most deaf community sign languages are rated as "developing"<sup>4</sup> (e.g., ISL), not all village sign languages reach the same status. In fact, in comparison, KQSL, which was added to Ethnologue in 2020, is classified as "threatened"5.


**Table 2.** Ethnolinguistic status of several sign languages.

Another tool for assessing language vitality is UNESCO's endangered languages survey "Language vitality and endangerment". Until recently, this list only included spoken languages, but in 2011, it was adapted for signed languages (Safar and Webster 2014; Webster and Safar 2019). The adapted survey included questions about a variety of factors, including the size of a community in relation to the wider community, language use across age groups, domains of use (e.g., home vs. school), institutional attitudes and policies, community members' attitudes towards the language, etc. The scoring process resulted in a rating from 0 to 5, with zero as "extinct" and five as "safe". Findings on the analysis of an initial 15 sign languages revealed that not a single sign language was rated as "safe" (see scores for relevant sign languages in Table 2). More specifically, it was found that village sign languages were threatened by the dispersal of the language community, changes in marital patterns, and decreasing birth rates of deaf children (Braithwaite 2019; Safar and Webster 2014; Zeshan and Dikyuva 2013). In contrast, deaf community sign languages were threatened by advancements in cochlear implants and the loss of sign language in schools (Johnston 2006). The languages most threatened by extinction were the ones with the smallest community sizes (i.e., 40–100).

Clearly, more work is necessary as the ratings for some sign languages across Ethnologue and UNESCO are unaligned. For example, according to Ethnologue, Kata Kolok (KK) is rated as "developing", a relatively positive rating, but according to UNESCO, it is "definitely endangered". The results show that while both deaf community sign languages and village sign languages are endangered, the reasons for their endangerment may differ.

According to Giles et al.'s (1977) Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model, a language community's vitality is measured on three parameters: demographics (i.e., the community's size), institutional support, and status. In other words, smaller language communities with less widely distributed populations have lower ethnolinguistic vitality than larger communities with more widely distributed populations. Language communities with limited institutional support—whether financial, legal, or educational—are considered to have a lower vitality. Finally, language communities with a lower status, in terms of political, economic, and social status, have a lower vitality. Put in these ethnolinguistic vitality terms, we ask: which factors might affect the vitality of emerging sign languages? We consider each of Giles et al.'s (1977) factors below within the context of these sign language types:

#### 2.1.1. Demographics: Community Size

Community size refers to the number of language users (speakers or signers). When sign languages first emerge, they are likely to arise with small numbers of signers, regardless of the sign language type. However, there are other ways of viewing community size besides numbers of signers. Community size can be described in relative terms—e.g., percentage of deaf members within the wider community—and when this approach is

taken, the community size is much higher in village sign languages compared to deaf community sign languages. Moreover, community size can also be considered in terms of longevity; that is, the transmission of the language. Is the community likely to grow in forthcoming generations? Language transmission is one of the most important factors in preventing the decline of a language (Fishman 1991), and perhaps even more crucial for sign languages which often face an unusual situation of language transmission (McKee and Manning 2015). This unusual situation is manifested in the fact that most deaf children are born to hearing parents (Mitchell and Karchmer 2004), and therefore many deaf people may not encounter sign language until they enter school, at which point they acquire sign language horizontally from their peers (Hoffmeister 2007). Contrary to this, in village sign languages, due to the higher numbers of adult signers, both hearing and deaf, this is less likely to be the case (Zeshan and de Vos 2012). In summation, community size in terms of absolute number of users renders all emerging sign languages as low in ethnolinguistic vitality. However, in terms of the relative proportion of deaf people in the wider community or language transmission patterns, village sign languages can appear to be more resilient than deaf community sign languages.

## 2.1.2. Institutional Support

Deaf community sign languages emerge as a result of the establishment of educational institutions (Meir et al. 2010), which can be one of the major driving forces in receiving institutional support. For example, in Israel, both ISL and ABSL emerged at similar times, and ye<sup>t</sup> ISL is used in many formal contexts such as education, interpreting programs, and in the media, while ABSL is not. It is worth noting that ISL is not officially or financially supported, as is the case in some other sign languages (e.g., Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT)); however, ISL is informally recognized as being the national sign language of Israel. The lack of institutional support for ABSL and other village sign languages that emerged in Arab towns and villages in Israel is often politically motivated. That is, in Israel, the Palestinian indigenous minoritized society has a much lower political, social, economic, and linguistic status compared to that of Israeli Jewish majority because of the political situation in the country. These differences in political forces are often reflected in policies and practices implemented by the Israeli governmen<sup>t</sup> in many domains, including language. Languages used by the Jewish majority, mainly Hebrew, receive more institutional and academic support than languages used by the Palestinian indigenous minorities, mainly Arabic (for more information on the linguistic inequality in Israel, see Amara (2002, 2006), Saban and Amara (2002); Shohamy and Ghazaleh-Mahajneh (2012)). These differences in institutional support can also be seen in village sign languages and their deaf communities.

Institutional support can also be informal, e.g., within industry, religion, culture, etc. In the adaptation of the UNESCO assessment of language vitality, Webster and Safar (2019) point out that the use of a language in public domains (e.g., education, media, etc.) is viewed as a determining factor of strong language vitality compared to the use of a language in private domains (e.g., home), despite the importance of the home in language transmission in village sign language communities. Additionally, they state that the importance of organizations and activities is often overlooked in these assessments. In Kufr Qassem, for example, the deaf club, set up in 1996, has become the cornerstone of the deaf community. There is an important relationship between status and institutional support in that sign languages which receive institutional support are likely to have a higher status, or vice versa, to which we turn next.

#### 2.1.3. Status of the Language

Status may refer to economic, social, sociohistorical, political, or linguistic status. Language status and institutional support are closely related. When one language receives support, this can create an association between one particular language and progress (e.g., the use of ISL and obtaining a job or education). In such cases, other languages in the region may be viewed as outdated and unnecessary by default (May 2012). As

described in Section 2.1.2, the difference in political power leads to a situation of linguistic inequality, and lower sociopolitical and economic status (among other types of inequality and discrimination), in which village sign languages are viewed as lower in status than deaf community sign languages (such as ISL).

Linguistic status can be viewed from inside and outside of the community (Giles et al. 1977). In other words, the status of a village sign language may be viewed positively from inside of the community, including the hearing community, but negatively outside of the community by the wider deaf and hearing communities. In village sign language communities, for example, there is usually less stigma around the notion of deafness and the use of sign languages. However, the status of the village sign language from outside of the community might be relatively low. That said, an in-depth investigation to determine the attitudes and ideologies in relation to KQSL is necessary, similar to studies by Safar (2015) and Moriarty Harrelson (2017).

According to Giles et al.'s Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model, emerging sign language communities, mainly village sign language communities, are low in ethnolinguistic vitality. What is more important, though, is the relative ethnolinguistic vitalities of language communities in a contact situation. In cases where a deaf community sign language is in contact with a village sign language, the latter is usually more vulnerable, and its users are likely to shift towards the language with a higher vitality. We discuss this topic below.

#### *2.2. Language Contact and Shift*

When two or more languages are in contact, language users in this community often become efficient users of these languages. Continual contact between the languages can result in language contact phenomena such as code-switching and borrowing, or even language shift (Milroy and Muysken 1995; Thomason 2001). Language shift occurs when one language is increasingly used at the expense of the other, leading to a shift in usage (Kulick 1992). Even though this is one of the most common causes of language endangerment in spoken languages (Austin and Sallabank 2013), it is claimed that it may be occurring more rapidly for sign languages (Braithwaite 2019). In particular, when village sign languages are in contact with national sign languages, they are more likely to undergo language shift towards the latter, due to the former's minority status.

Language shift has been reported in several sign language communities which at first had little contact with the wider deaf community. Due to changes in social mobility in recent years, they are now in contact with the national sign language (Groce 1985; Yoel 2009). A famous case is Martha's Vineyard Sign Language (MVSL), a sign language which emerged on Martha's Vineyard Island located off the shores of Connecticut, USA. Nora Groce's (1985) book, entitled "Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language", reports that due to the relatively high incidence of hereditary deafness in the population, a sign language emerged on the island. MVSL was used by both deaf and hearing islanders, which facilitated communication, and thereby minimized some of the limitations typically faced by deaf people. MVSL use gradually declined due to a number of reasons, including changes in marital practices and movement to the mainland for work. In 1817, the first deaf school was opened in Hartford, Connecticut on the mainland, and was attended by many deaf children from Martha's Vineyard. It was claimed that several signing practices, including home signs, MVSL, and French Sign Language (i.e., the teacher's language in the first class), merged to form what we know today as American Sign Language (ASL) (Padden 2010; Romm 2015). In 1952, the last fluent signer of MVSL died, which marked the extinction of MVSL. Similar contact scenarios are evident in the history of other sign languages, such as Maritime Sign Language, which developed due to migration of deaf people from the UK and US to Canada (Yoel 2009).

Another example is the case of Ban Khor Sign Language (BKSL), a village sign language used in Thailand. BKSL emerged around 80–100 years ago (Nonaka 2004, 2012) in a small rice-cultivating population with a relatively high percentage of deaf people (i.e., 1 in 100). The deaf community in Ban Khor was once isolated from the wider deaf community, and therefore uninfluenced by the national sign language, Thai Sign Language (TSL). However, in recent years, deaf people in Ban Khor became increasingly mobile for work and education, leading to an increased contact between BKSL and TSL. Nonaka (2012) also claims that due to the promotion of TSL by educational and governmental institutes, the status of TSL increased within the BKSL community. This has led to a rise in language contact phenomena such as code-switching and lexical borrowing from TSL into BKSL, even within the core vocabulary. Nonaka (2004, 2012) argues that the increase in language contact phenomena serve as evidence of language shift from BKSL to TSL.

Evidence of language shift has also been reported in Israel, the site of the current study. Israel is known for its sign language diversity, hosting both indigenous and migrant sign languages. Algerian–Jewish Sign Language (AJSL), a sign language used by a Jewish community who immigrated from Ghardaia, Algeria to Israel, has been the subject of studies on language survival and extinction. Lanesman and Meir (2012) reported that when the first generation of AJSL signers moved to Israel, they married outside of their community and increasingly interacted with the wider deaf ISL community for work and education. Consequently, the younger generation shifted towards the use of ISL. As a result, Lanesman and Meir (2012) predict that AJSL will inevitably become extinct. In a similar case, Yoel (2007) found evidence of language shift and attrition of Russian Sign Language (RSL) in Israel. In the 1990s, a large wave of Russians immigrated to Israel, resulting in a community of Russian Sign Language (RSL) users of around one thousand. Yoel (2007), who found a decline in the use of RSL, interpreted her results in light of Giles et al.'s (1977) Ethnolinguistic Vitality Model, arguing that the higher ethnolinguistic vitality of ISL (compared to RSL) led to first language (L1) attrition among RSL signers. These results were evident in a number of ways, one of which is an increase in language contact phenomena, such as code-switching from ISL to RSL.

The use of a national sign language in deaf education can also result in a rapid shift from one language to another. Many first-generation deaf signers in Israel did not receive a formal education, and some did not receive any education. This was especially the case in village sign language communities, such as Al-Sayyid and Kufr Qassem. Nowadays, it is common that younger deaf people attend school in both urban and rural parts of Israel. Deaf children in Al-Sayyid and Kufr Qassem have been in contact with other deaf children from outside of their community since the 1980s, and communication mostly takes place in ISL. As a result, younger generations of deaf signers in Al-Sayyid, for example, are now bilingual in ABSL and ISL, and in some cases, even monolingual in ISL (Kisch 2012). Kisch (2012) describes how ABSL and ISL are used in different settings (domains): ABSL is used mostly in informal settings, such as exchanges in shops, conversations, and storytelling; and ISL is used mostly in formal settings for a diverse range of exchanges (e.g., medical, legal, education). Language shift from ABSL to ISL is underway in the ABSL deaf community, but the degree of this shift among younger generations has ye<sup>t</sup> to be investigated.

#### *2.3. The Current Study*

In the current study, we explore the degree of language shift taking place in the Kufr Qassem deaf community in Israel, in which the younger generation are now exposed to two sign languages, the local sign language, Kufr Qassem Sign Language (KQSL), and the national sign language of Israel, Israeli Sign Language (ISL). We focus on the signing behaviors of twelve KQSL-ISL sign-bilinguals from Kufr Qassem in order to assess the impact of increased contact between KQSL and ISL. We ask the following research questions: Is there evidence of language shift in the signing behavior among the younger generations of the Kufr Qassem deaf community? If yes, what is the degree of this language shift? What can this tell us about the vulnerability of emerging sign languages (in contact situations)?

To this end, we quantify the language used by our KQSL-ISL bilinguals in three language interaction conditions: with another bilingual, a monolingual ISL signer, and a monolingual KQSL signer, thereby eliciting a wide range of repertoires from these young deaf signers. We predict that signers will accommodate their signing behaviors in accordance with the interlocutor's language background in each condition: i.e., using ISL predominantly in the ISL condition and KQSL predominantly in the KQSL condition.
