Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T23:14:40.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Signed languages and language change: Response to Law, Power, and Quinto-Pozos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2026

Claire Bowern
Claire Bowern*
Affiliation:
Yale University
*
37 Hillhouse Ave, New Haven, CT 06511, [claire.bowern@yale.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In response to Law et al.’s (2025) target article on signed language change, I discuss two aspects of regularity in sound change: the role of phonemes and the contribution of iconicity. Drawing on work on sound change in spoken languages, I set out some arguments for why linguistics needs to take proper account of signed language change, in order to better understand language dynamics in general. I further argue that signed ~ spoken language dichotomies or arguments from exceptionalism are unlikely to be as helpful as robust hypothesis testing.

Keywords

signed languagesphonologyuniformitarianismacquisitioniconicity

Information

Type
Perspectives
Information
Language , Volume 101 , Issue 3 , September 2025, pp. e250 - e260
Copyright
Copyright © 2025 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, Stephanie A., Idsardi, William J., Golinkoff, Roberta Michnick; and Petitto, Laura- Ann. 2005. The perception of handshapes in American Sign Language. Memory & Cognition 33.887–904. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193083.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beddor, Patrice Speeter, Brasher, Anthony; and Narayan, Chandan. 2007. Applying perceptual methods to the study of phonetic variation and sound change. Experimental approaches to phonology, ed. by Solé, Maria-Josep, Beddor, Patrice Speeter, and Ohala, Manjari, 127–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199296675.003.0009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2012. The uniformitarian principle and the risk of anachronisms in language and social history. The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, ed. by Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo, 80–98. Oxford: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781118257227.ch5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. 2020. The initiation and incrementation of sound change: Community-oriented momentum-sensitive learning. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5(1):121. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.627.Google Scholar
Best, Catherine T., Mathur, Gaurav, Miranda, Karen A.; and Lillo-Martin, Diane. 2010. Effects of sign language experience on categorical perception of dynamic ASL pseudosigns. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 72.747–62. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.3.747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blasi, Damián E., Wichmann, Søren, Hammarström, Harald, Stadler, Peter F.; and Christiansen, Morten H.. 2016. Sound-meaning association biases evidenced across thousands of languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(39).10818–23. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1605782113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blevins, Juliette, and Wedel, Andrew. 2009. Inhibited sound change: An evolutionary approach to lexical competition. Diachronica 26(2).143–83. DOI: 10.1075/dia.26.2.01ble.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1925. On the sound-system of Central Algonquian. Language 1(4).130–56. DOI: 10.2307/409540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2006. Another look at Australia as a linguistic area. Linguistic areas: Convergence in linguistic and typological perspective, ed. by Matras, Yaron, McMahon, April, and Vincent, Nigel, 244–65. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9780230287617_10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2022. Where have all the sound changes gone? Phonological stability and mechanisms of sound change. Linguistics Vanguard 8(s5).499–507. DOI: 10.1515/lingvan-2021-0073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2024a. The historical linguistics of signed languages. Diachronica 41(2).141–48. DOI: 10.1075/dia.24059.bow.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2024b. Phylogenetic signal in the lexicon: Are parental terms influenced by baby talk? Historical Linguistics 2019: Selected papers from the 24th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Evans, Bethwyn, Gallego, Maria Kristina, and Miceli, Luisa, 59–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.367.03bow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Erin E., Sehyr, Zed Sevcikova, Pontecorvo, Elana, Cohen-Goldberg, Ariel, Emmorey, Karen; and Caselli, Naomi. 2025. Iconicity as an organizing principle of the lexicon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122(16): e2401041122. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2401041122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 2003. Against Creole exceptionalism. Language 79(2).391–410. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2003.0114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 2005. Linguists’ most dangerous myth: The fallacy of Creole exceptionalism. Language in Society 34(4).533–91. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404505050207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedorenko, Evelina, Piantadosi, Steven T.; and Gibson, Edward A. F.. 2024. Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought. Nature 630.575–86. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07522-w.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fikkert, Paula. 2007. Acquiring phonology. The Cambridge handbook of phonology, ed. by Lacy, Paul de, 537–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486371.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Susan. 1978. Sign language and creoles. Understanding language through sign language research, ed. by Siple, Patricia A., 309–33. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Susan. 1996. By the numbers: Language-internal evidence for creolization. International review of sign linguistics, vol. 1, ed. by Edmondson, William and Wilbur, Ronnie, 1–22. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Erich. 2009. Meemul Tziij: An Indigenous sign language complex of Mesoamerica. Sign Language Studies 9(3).324–66. DOI: 10.1353/sls.0.0016.Google Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan. 2012. The coarticulatory basis of diachronic high back vowel fronting. The initiation of sound change: Perception, production, and social factors, ed. by Solé, Maria-Josep and Recasens, Daniel, 103–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.323.10har.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Kleber, Felicitas, Reubold, Ulrich, Schiel, Florian; and Stevens, Mary. 2019. The phonetic basis of the origin and spread of sound change. The Routledge handbook of phonetics, 1st edn., ed. by Katz, William F. and Assmann, Peter F., 401–26. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Joseph C. 2017. The importance of the sociohistorical context in sociolinguistics: The case of Black ASL. Sign Language Studies 18(1).41–57. DOI: 10.1353/sls.2017.0020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Joseph C., McCaskill, Carolyn, Bayley, Robert; and Lucas, Ceil. 2015. The Black ASL (American Sign Language) Project: An overview. The Oxford handbook of African American Language, ed. by Bloomquist, Jennifer, Green, Lisa J., and Lanehart, Sonja L., 316–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199795390.013.38.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Why ‘mama’ and ‘papa’? Selected writings, vol. 1: Phonological studies, 538–45. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110892499.538.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis. DOI: 10.4324/9780203716045.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1948. Logic & grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, and Schembri, Adam. 2010. Variation, lexicalization and grammaticalization in signed languages. Langage et société 131.19–35. DOI: 10.3917/ls.131.0019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Harold H., and Michela, John L.. 1980. Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology 31.457–501. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerswill, Paul, and Shockey, Linda. 2007. The description and acquisition of variable phonological patterns: Phonology and sociolinguistics. Phonology in context, ed. by Pennington, Martha C., 51–75. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9780230625396_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 2001. Syntactic change. The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. by Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, 698–729. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470756416.ch22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, Rosenfelder, Ingrid; and Fruehwald, Josef. 2013. One hundred years of sound change in Philadelphia: Linear incrementation, reversal, and reanalysis. Language 89(1).30–65. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2013.0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, Danny, Power, Justin M.; and Quinto-Pozos, David. 2025. Bringing signed languages into the study of regular sound change. Language 101(3).e166–e201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 2010. Language acquisition and language change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(5).677–84. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.39.Google ScholarPubMed
Martinez del Rio, Aurora, Ferrara, Casey, Kim, Sanghee J., Hakgüder, Emre; and Brentari, Diane. 2022. Identifying the correlations between the semantics and the phonology of American Sign Language and British Sign Language: A vector space approach. Frontiers in Psychology 13:806471. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.806471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meakins, Felicity. 2022. Empiricism or imperialism: The science of Creole exceptional- ism. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 37(1).189–203. DOI: 10.1075/jpcl.00092.mea.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Richard P. 2002. Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and noneffects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages, 1st edn., ed. by Meier, Richard P., Cormier, Kearsy, and Quinto-Pozos, David, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meir, Irit. 2010. Iconicity and metaphor: Constraints on metaphorical extension of iconic forms. Language 86(4).865–96. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2010.0044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miceli, Luisa. 2004. Pama-Nyungan as a genetic entity. Australian languages: Classification and the comparative method, ed. by Bowern, Claire and Koch, Harold, 61–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/cilt.249.07mic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdock, George Peter. 1959. Cross-language parallels in parental kin terms. Anthropological Linguistics 1(9).1–5. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30022224.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2002. Uniformitarian assumptions and language evolution research. The transition to language, ed. by Wray, Alison, 359–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199250653.003.0017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Occhino, Corrine, Fisher, Jami N., Hill, Joseph C., Hochgesang, Julie A., Shaw, Emily; and Tamminga, Meredith. 2021. New trends in ASL variation documentation. Sign Language Studies 21(3).350–77. DOI: 10.1353/sls.2021.0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. Chicago Linguistic Society (Parasession on language and behavior) 17.178–203.Google Scholar
Schembri, Adam, McKee, David, McKee, Rachel, Pivac, Sara, Johnston, Trevor; and Goswell, Della. 2009. Phonological variation and change in Australian and New Zealand Sign Languages: The location variable. Language Variation and Change 21(2).193–231. DOI: 10.1017/S0954394509990081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Emily, and Delaporte, Yves. 2011. New perspectives on the history of American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 11(2).158–204. DOI: 10.1353/sls.2010.0006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, Eurie. 2007. How do listeners compensate for phonology? Experimental approaches to phonology, ed. by Solé, Maria-Josep, Beddor, Patrice Speeter, and Ohala, Manjari, 386–404. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199296675.003.0023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sóskuthy, Márton. 2015. Understanding change through stability: A computational study of sound change actuation. Lingua 163. 40–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supalla, Ted, and Clark, Patricia. 2014. Sign language archaeology: Understanding the historical roots of American Sign Language. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Online: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/18/monograph/book/37976.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted, Limousin, Fanny; and McDonald, Betsy Hicks. 2020. Historical change in American Sign Language. The handbook of historical linguistics, vol. 2, ed. by Janda, Richard D., Joseph, Brian D., and Vance, Barbara S., 423–46. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781118732168.ch20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, Peter, and Koch, Harold. 2008. Australian languages: A singular vision. Journal of Linguistics 44(2).471–504. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226708005185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 2015. Phonology. The Routledge handbook of linguistics, ed. by Allan, Keith, 83–103. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walkden, George. 2019. The many faces of uniformitarianism in linguistics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1):52. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.888.Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew B. 2006. Exemplar models, evolution and language change. The Linguistic Review 23(3).247–74. DOI: 10.1515/TLR.2006.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedel, Andrew B., Kaplan, Abby; and Jackson, Scott. 2013. High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition 128(2).179–86. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, Margaret E. 2017. Psycho-historical linguistics: Its context and potential. English Language & Linguistics (Special issue: Cognitive approaches to the history of English) 21(s2).413–21. DOI: 10.1017/S1360674317000223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. (ed.) 2013. Origins of sound change: Approaches to phonologization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zellou, Georgia, and Beddor, Patrice Speeter. 2024. On (mis)aligned innovative perception and production norms. Speech dynamics, ed. by Kleber, Felicitas and Rathcke, Tamara, 343–68. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: 10.1515/9783110765328-012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar