The Vulnerability of Emerging Sign Languages: (E)merging Sign Languages?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to authors

I have reservation about the use of the word fragility and prefer the more commonly used term vulnerable or vulnerability.  Fragile, to my mind, is too subjective. Likewise, there are additional terms and use of language throughout this article that seem odd (e.g., confederate (p. 10), the use of the term contrastive (p. 11) is puzzling. Do you mean that there are different signs for these items in the different sign languages? How is this contrastive? Is it not simply different? Do you wish to identify the university where this research was conducted or shall it remain unidentified, as X (p. 10)?

I think you might look to additional sources that are mentioned scarcely here, such as Kata Kolok Sign Language, as well as sources about language contact in sign languages, like Maritime Sign Language. I would like to see some mention of a bigger picture, and where this research fits in, such as the mention of minority sign languages, because the impression I get from this article is that there are officially recognized sign languages like ISL and village sign languages like KQSL and no other types.

I think this article has to be re-edited for English language use (e.g., use of the word rapidly instead of drastically? p.6, the introduction of the term TSL with no prior presentation of this acronym (p. 6), inconsistency in Table 4 in capitalization and punctuation (p. 10),  

There is discrepancy in spelling i.e., Kufr Qassem, Kafr Qasam throughout, and while I realize this stems from the reference to different sources, this must be addressed, perhaps as a footnote. Multiple spellings often appear on the same page (p. 8).

On the map, (p.9), it would be helpful for readers if the main body of water and surrounding countries were added.

The discussion of ISL and KQSL on pages 8 and 9 is not well balanced, because mainly ISL is discussed. I suggest that information presented earlier (e.g., Section 2.1.2, last sentence) and at other locations, some of which is repetitive, be moved here.

In Section 3.2, it would be helpful to summarize information for readers, such as there were five female and seven male participants, instead of readers having to go to the table to count letters indicting gender.

In the section titled Procedure, 3.4, I see no reason why Figure 3 should be included. The physical set up of this study can be accurately and concisely described in the text without the inclusion of this photograph. What is the source of the illustrations/scenes used in this task? The source does not appear to be mentioned or referenced.

The authors' presentation of the results must remain objective, and all subjective language should be omitted (e.g., As expected p. 12, only 17.1% p. 12). While this is not the case in the section titled Discussion, still there is over-use of we and our.  Likewise, there is repeated use of colloquial/vague language (e.g., around fifteen minutes, In some cases, p. 12, is a great example p. 15).

Figure 4 (p. 12 & 13 – a figure should not spread across two pages) is not adequately discussed in the previous paragraph, and I found myself examining it, rereading the previous paragraph and going back and forth trying to figure out what information was represented here.

In the results, bold seems to be used for emphasis where it is unnecessary (p. 14, 15). This article describes some language shift, yet language shift is repeatedly  described as being comprised of only two features, codeswitching and borrowing. Other aspects of shift are repeatedly implied with the repeated use of etc. (which is also over-used). I, as a reader interested in language shift, would like to learn what additional aspects of shift are relevant, to this research. (There is some mention of mouthing, but only in the discussion). There is also some discussion of domains, but this too is quite vague (e.g., domain- specific, p. 14). Which domains are/were relevant? While I acknowledge that the results are quantitative, I would like to see some specific examples of how and where  the specific behaviours mentioned  throughout the article come to light, namely specific examples or explanations or types of code switching, borrowing, and domain-specific language use.

In the Discussion section, (p. 13- 16), there is a need to reexamine the lengthy paragraphs as to where and how these can be divided up. The present structure sometimes makes for a dense and difficult reading of the points raised. For example, it is unclear what you are saying about the relation between KQSL and Arabic (p. 14).

In the discussion, (Section 5) the content leaves me wondering if social situations (p. 15) are enough and the most important factors to consider. While I agree that these are "key," I feel there are additional relevant factors that are unmentioned and/or underdeveloped.

I like how you end this article with the irony that learning about isolated sign languages means that they are no longer isolated – very nice!  

Author Response

We wish to thank both reviewers for their very useful and helpful feedback. We hope that these changes significantly improve the readability, accuracy, and quality of our paper.  

Reviewer 1: Comments to authors

I have reservation about the use of the word fragility and prefer the more commonly used term vulnerable or vulnerability.  Fragile, to my mind, is too subjective. Likewise, there are additional terms and use of language throughout this article that seem odd (e.g., confederate (p. 10), the use of the term contrastive (p. 11) is puzzling. Do you mean that there are different signs for these items in the different sign languages? How is this contrastive? Is it not simply different? Do you wish to identify the university where this research was conducted or shall it remain unidentified, as X (p. 10)?

Response: Thank you for your useful comments. The word “fragility” was changed to “vulnerable” or “vulnerability” throughout the text (see title on page 1 as an example). In Section 3.2, the term “confederate” was changed to “consistent conversational partners” for ease of clarity. ‘Contrastive’ was removed and alternatively, we explain that the signs differ across the two languages. The name of the university was anonymized for review – but this will be changed in the final version before the paper is published.

I think you might look to additional sources that are mentioned scarcely here, such as Kata Kolok Sign Language, as well as sources about language contact in sign languages, like Maritime Sign Language. I would like to see some mention of a bigger picture, and where this research fits in, such as the mention of minority sign languages, because the impression I get from this article is that there are officially recognized sign languages like ISL and village sign languages like KQSL and no other types.

Response: We fully understand that there are several sources and contact scenarios unmentioned in this paper, however, we feel that it is beyond the scope of this paper. Yet, in the background of contact-based sign languages such as Martha’s SL, we have added citations to Maritime Sign Language. Kata Kolok is also included in Table 2, where we include information about its vitality rating and community size.

I think this article has to be re-edited for English language use (e.g., use of the word rapidly instead of drastically? p.6, the introduction of the term TSL with no prior presentation of this acronym (p. 6), inconsistency in Table 4 in capitalization and punctuation (p. 10),  

Response: English language use has been revised throughout. TSL is introduced on page 2 when first mentioned. The inconsistencies in Table 3 and Table 4 were corrected.

There is discrepancy in spelling i.e., Kufr Qassem, Kafr Qasam throughout, and while I realize this stems from the reference to different sources, this must be addressed, perhaps as a footnote. Multiple spellings often appear on the same page (p. 8).

Response:
A footnote was added on page 2 to clarify the reason why different orthographies are used in different papers or official documents and reports (see footnote 2). For reference purposes, we have followed the spellings used by the authors; for example, the online dictionary is named the ‘Kafr Qasem Sign Language Dictionary’.

On the map, (p.9), it would be helpful for readers if the main body of water and surrounding countries were added.

Response:
The map was changed accordingly – see page 11.

The discussion of ISL and KQSL on pages 8 and 9 is not well balanced, because mainly ISL is discussed. I suggest that information presented earlier (e.g., Section 2.1.2, last sentence) and at other locations, some of which is repetitive, be moved here.

Response: We have revised the sections on ISL and KQSL in pages 10-12. Unfortunately, the information on the Kufr Qassem deaf community is rather limited compared to the information on ISL and therefore, we present here all the information we have in regard to both communities.

In Section 3.2, it would be helpful to summarize information for readers, such as there were five female and seven male participants, instead of readers having to go to the table to count letters indicting gender.

Response: Details about gender distribution and age range has been added into the text, Section 3.2, pages 12-13.

In the section titled Procedure, 3.4, I see no reason why Figure 3 should be included. The physical set up of this study can be accurately and concisely described in the text without the inclusion of this photograph. What is the source of the illustrations/scenes used in this task? The source does not appear to be mentioned or referenced.

Response: Figure 3 was deleted, but the description of the physical set remains in the text. The source of the illustrations was mentioned – the illustrations were built by the authors for the purposes of this paper, but they were based on similar designs in previous studies (see reference on page 13).

The authors' presentation of the results must remain objective, and all subjective language should be omitted (e.g., As expected p. 12, only 17.1% p. 12). While this is not the case in the section titled Discussion, still there is over-use of we and our.  Likewise, there is repeated use of colloquial/vague language (e.g., around fifteen minutes, In some cases, p. 12, is a great example p. 15).
Figure 4 (p. 12 & 13 – a figure should not spread across two pages) is not adequately discussed in the previous paragraph, and I found myself examining it, rereading the previous paragraph and going back and forth trying to figure out what information was represented here.

Response:
The use of subjective language has been removed. We have tried to reduce the use of ‘we’ and ‘our’ in the Discussion section. Colloquial or vague language has been corrected.

Figure 4 (now Figure 3) no longer appears across two pages. More description was added to the text to explain the graph adequately, without having to go back and forth between the text and the graph (page 16).

In the results, bold seems to be used for emphasis where it is unnecessary (p. 14, 15). This article describes some language shift, yet language shift is repeatedly described as being comprised of only two features, codeswitching and borrowing. Other aspects of shift are repeatedly implied with the repeated use of etc. (which is also over-used). I, as a reader interested in language shift, would like to learn what additional aspects of shift are relevant, to this research. (There is some mention of mouthing, but only in the discussion). There is also some discussion of domains, but this too is quite vague (e.g., domain- specific, p. 14). Which domains are/were relevant? While I acknowledge that the results are quantitative, I would like to see some specific examples of how and where the specific behaviours mentioned throughout the article come to light, namely specific examples or explanations or types of code switching, borrowing, and domain-specific language use.

Response: Bold is removed from the Results section. In addition, a paragraph was added at the beginning of the Discussion section [pages 16 and 17] that gives examples of code-switching, borrowing, and domain-specific signing behavior/language use from the data and data from previously published paper by the same authors.

In the Discussion section, (p. 13- 16), there is a need to reexamine the lengthy paragraphs as to where and how these can be divided up. The present structure sometimes makes for a dense and difficult reading of the points raised. For example, it is unclear what you are saying about the relation between KQSL and Arabic (p. 14).

Response: The Discussion section has been revised and hopefully it now reads in a clearer and more concise manner. More specifically, the point about the relation between KQSL and Arabic has been clarified.

In the discussion, (Section 5) the content leaves me wondering if social situations (p. 15) are enough and the most important factors to consider. While I agree that these are "key," I feel there are additional relevant factors that are unmentioned and/or underdeveloped.

Response: It is not clear to us what other key factors might be ‘key’ here. Social factors are the main issues addressed in this paper and while we acknowledge that other issues may also be important, we feel that it is beyond the scope of this paper. We have mentioned some areas for future research in the Methods on page 12, Discussion in pages 19 and 20.

Based on the response from Reviewer 2 also, we have added in a section about the political situation in Israel and the effect of different political powers on the status and institutional support received by each language community (sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3, pages 7 and 8). 

I like how you end this article with the irony that learning about isolated sign languages means that they are no longer isolated – very nice!  

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “The fragility of emerging sign languages: (E)merging sign languages?” describes the linguistic context of the third generation of deaf signers in Kufr Qassem, who are exposed to two sign languages: the local sign language, Kufr Qassem Sign Language (KQSL) and the dominant sign language of the wider Israel deaf community, Israeli Sign Language (ISL). It reports data supporting the hypothesis that KQSL may be at risk from mergence with ISL. Overall, the paper is interesting, clear and well written, but it needs some revisions in relation to its contents, in order to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

General comments:

The authors should explicitly mention that they have assessed only lexical signs. Lexical signs (lexical elements) are only a small part of an entire SL.

In addition, authors should also take into account that young people receive a lot of linguistic input also from TV and social media and that villages today are not as isolated as they were in the past. I believe that today villages (and then village SL) are quite different from villages (and then village SLs) of 100 years ago.

One of the main issues, in my opinion, is that there are political forces that are pushing and lobbying (explicitly or implicitly) for the use of ISL rather than an Arabic sign language in Israel. The authors leave it implicit, but this issue should probably be made more explicit.

Belove I report specific comments and suggestions:

Lines 16-17: I completely agree with this perspective

Lines 34-35: This a special definition, but these languages usually do not appear suddenly "de novo". This way of looking at the emerging sign languages characterize the whole manuscript. In several places it should be made explicit that there is strong continuity between the gestures used by the hearing population and the lexicon of the emerging sign language. In addition, sign languages are described as being isolated from the spoken languages used in the community/village. In reality this never happens, or very rarely. For a discussion on this topic, please, see https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1107876

Lines 76-77: Are there differences with similar situations in which spoken minority languages or dialects are involved?

Lines 110-118: But see Polich (2005) http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/bookpage/EDCNbookpage.html) for a different perspective, at least (but not only) about the emergence of NSL.

Lines 165-166: Please, also mention, and consider, that also the research itself contributes to such differences. ABSL has been studied since ???? while KQSL started to be described more recently (I believe...). Furthermore, the researchers themselves spending long periods of time in the village and collecting data have increased contact with other SLs.

Lines 230-248: If I remember correctly (but I may be wrong) young deaf members of the community of ABSL were watching also SL interpreters of other countries TV. Other members were truck drivers and were travelling and entering in contact with other SLs. This is to say that the conditions each community encounters (deaf community SL or Village SL) may be quite different and that there are many contacts between sign languages and between the signed and the spoken language.

Line 248: See also Polich, 2005.

Lines 317-347 One of the huge problems is that the research of Meir, Padden and Aronoff did not take into account Kisch's observations.

Lines 406-407: But they could be also exposed to other SLs through TV programs or other media, or social networks.

Table 3: Doesn’t KQSL be also used in the class for deaf children which was opened in 1979 in the local school in Kufr Qassem? See lines 379-…

Line 427: In which spoken/written/signed (?) language(s) this questionnaire was administered?

Lines 429-430: Did all of the participants attend the same high school? Which type of school(s)? School(s) for deaf or school(s) for hearing and deaf? Bilingual school(s)? Please provide more details about the school situation of participants.

Lines 591-592: Younger signers are exposed to Colloquial Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic, Hebrew, English, etc, but also to other SLs.

Lines 595-596: I agree with this observation! And I believe that contact processes should be studied also taking into account the language in which participants “say” (mouthing) the word while they are signing it in ISL, not only the language used for the production of the sign.

Lines 665-666: It is quite difficult to imagine a scenario nowadays without language contacts.

Author Response

Reviewer 2: comments to author

The manuscript entitled “The fragility of emerging sign languages: (E)merging sign languages?” describes the linguistic context of the third generation of deaf signers in Kufr Qassem, who are exposed to two sign languages: the local sign language, Kufr Qassem Sign Language (KQSL) and the dominant sign language of the wider Israel deaf community, Israeli Sign Language (ISL). It reports data supporting the hypothesis that KQSL may be at risk from mergence with ISL. Overall, the paper is interesting, clear and well written, but it needs some revisions in relation to its contents, in order to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

General comments:

The authors should explicitly mention that they have assessed only lexical signs. Lexical signs (lexical elements) are only a small part of an entire SL.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their suggestion. This was added and explicitly mentioned in the Introduction (page 2) and the methodology sections 3.3 and section 3.5 (pages 13 and 15).

In addition, authors should also take into account that young people receive a lot of linguistic input also from TV and social media and that villages today are not as isolated as they were in the past. I believe that today villages (and then village SL) are quite different from villages (and then village SLs) of 100 years ago.

Response: We agree with the reviewer – there has been a large influence from social media and mobility – this is however beyond the scope of this paper. However, we recognize its importance and we make suggestions for future studies on pages 12 and 19.

Below I report specific comments and suggestions:

Lines 16-17: I completely agree with this perspective

Lines 34-35: This a special definition, but these languages usually do not appear suddenly "de novo". This way of looking at the emerging sign languages characterize the whole manuscript. In several places it should be made explicit that there is strong continuity between the gestures used by the hearing population and the lexicon of the emerging sign language. In addition, sign languages are described as being isolated from the spoken languages used in the community/village. In reality this never happens, or very rarely. For a discussion on this topic, please, see https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1107876

Response: ‘de novo’ was removed from page 1. The issues raised here were explained on page 3 and the suggested reference was added

Lines 76-77: Are there differences with similar situations in which spoken minority languages or dialects are involved?

Response: It can be important to compare and give the broader context, but in this paper, we focus on sign languages and mainly emerging sign languages by comparing different types and subtypes of sign languages and how the different social situations on their vulnerability.

Lines 110-118: But see Polich (2005) http://gupress.gallaudet.edu/bookpage/EDCNbookpage.html) for a different perspective, at least (but not only) about the emergence of NSL.

Response: We found that the perspective of Polich (2005) was clearer and is based on reports from teachers of the deaf and deaf people of the community. Therefore, the emergence of NSL as described in the paper was changed according to Polich (2005) perspective on pages 3 and 4.

Lines 165-166: Please, also mention, and consider, that also the research itself contributes to such differences. ABSL has been studied since ???? while KQSL started to be described more recently (I believe...). Furthermore, the researchers themselves spending long periods of time in the village and collecting data have increased contact with other SLs.

Response: We agree with this point. We have highlighted the fact that research itself can lead to more interaction and a reduction in isolation in the Discussion section. Note, for this research, the authors did not spend an extended amount of time in Kufr Qassem.

Lines 230-248: If I remember correctly (but I may be wrong) young deaf members of the community of ABSL were watching also SL interpreters of other countries TV. Other members were truck drivers and were travelling and entering in contact with other SLs. This is to say that the conditions each community encounters (deaf community SL or Village SL) may be quite different and that there are many contacts between sign languages and between the signed and the spoken language.

Response: we are aware that some younger signers may be exposed to other sign languages through travel or TV or social media. However, this exposure is not necessarily consistent, systematic, or constant. In addition, this paper examines the vulnerability of small-community sign languages that emerge and develop in the same region as a larger national sign language. When these languages come into contact, the small-community sign language becomes at risk of disappearing due to the status of the larger national sign language – the contact with which is consistent and systematic.

Added on page 12, lines 506-514.

Lines 406-407: But they could be also exposed to other SLs through TV programs or other media, or social networks.

Response: This factor has been discussed in Section 3.1 (communities under investigation) and again in the Discussion on page 19.

Lines 591-592: Younger signers are exposed to Colloquial Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic, Hebrew, English, etc, but also to other SLs.

Response: Added on page 12, lines 445-456. Also, raised for future studies in the Discussion on page 17.

Line 248: See also Polich, 2005.

Response: Thank you for your comment but unfortunately it is not clear to us what this reference refers to. We checked the line mentioned but we do not understand how Polich would fit in here.

Lines 317-347 One of the huge problems is that the research of Meir, Padden and Aronoff did not take into account Kisch's observations.

Response: We agree with the reviewer, we feel that Kisch’s observations are important and that is why we describe them on page 10, and we think that this study is a follow-up to these observations, in a similar sign language community.

Table 3: Doesn’t KQSL be also used in the class for deaf children which was opened in 1979 in the local school in Kufr Qassem? See lines 379-…

Response: ISL was introduced in the 1985 class, the only thing we know about the 1979 class is that the teacher did not know any sign language. However, it is not accurate to assume that the educational method was oralist and it is hard to know what the language(s) of instruction was. These pieces of information were added and clarified in the paper [page 11].

Line 427: In which spoken/written/signed (?) language(s) this questionnaire was administered?

Response: The languages in which the questionnaire and consent forms were administered were added and clarified in the paper (lines 559 and 561).

Lines 429-430: Did all of the participants attend the same high school? Which type of school(s)? School(s) for deaf or school(s) for hearing and deaf? Bilingual school(s)? Please provide more details about the school situation of participants.

Response: The participants did not go to the same school nor were they taught in the same educational approach. This information about their diversity was added, and the situation has been better clarified in the paper (lines 541-544).

Lines 595-596: I agree with this observation! And I believe that contact processes should be studied also taking into account the language in which participants “say” (mouthing) the word while they are signing it in ISL, not only the language used for the production of the sign.

Response: while this is a very important topic, it is beyond the scope of the study. Therefore, we signpost the reader to two papers that extensively discuss mouthing frequency and patterns in the Kufr Qassem deaf community (Jaraisy, 2021; Jaraisy and Stamp, in prep.).

Lines 665-666: It is quite difficult to imagine a scenario nowadays without language contacts.

Response: We thank the reviewer for making this point. We have added the same important observation in the Discussion section, lines 810-816.  

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.