Historical Linguistics of Sign Languages: Progress and Problems.

Justin M Power

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.818753

Abstract

In contrast to scholars and signers in the nineteenth century, William Stokoe conceived of American Sign Language (ASL) as a unique linguistic tradition with roots in nineteenth-century langue des signes française, a conception that is apparent in his earliest scholarship on ASL. Stokoe thus contributed to the theoretical foundations upon which the field of sign language historical linguistics would later develop. This review focuses on the development of sign language historical linguistics since Stokoe, including the field's significant progress and the theoretical and methodological problems that it still faces. The review examines the field's development through the lens of two related problems pertaining to how we understand sign language relationships and to our understanding of cognacy, as the term pertains to signs. It is suggested that the theoretical notions underlying these terms do not straightforwardly map onto the historical development of many sign languages. Recent approaches in sign language historical linguistics are highlighted and future directions for research are suggested to address the problems discussed in this review.

Highlights

Today, signers and scholars alike commonly view each sign language as representing a distinct linguistic tradition
If American Sign Language (ASL) has not developed from the langue des signes française (LSF) of the nineteenth century via linguistic descent—or from any other language by that process— how do we describe the historical relation obtaining between the contemporary signs in ASL and LSF for the number three? See Section The identification of cognates for a discussion of this problem as it relates to the term cognate
The two subfields of historical linguistics—namely, those focusing on spoken and signed languages—have rarely engaged one another, despite the relevance of both subfields to an overarching theory of language change

Summary

Introduction

Signers and scholars alike commonly view each sign language as representing a distinct linguistic tradition. As with the study of language relationships, the study of change in sign languages was influenced by the theories and methods of traditional historical linguistics. By adapting the methods and theories of historical linguistics to the study of sign languages, early scholars made important advances in our understanding of sign language relationships.

Results

Conclusion