Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T09:08:11.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The search for regular change in sign languages: Response to Law, Power, and Quinto-Pozos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2026

Tory Sampson
Tory Sampson*
Affiliation:
Boston University
*
[tsampson@bu.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper responds to the target article by Law et al. (2025), who explore whether sign languages undergo regular phonological change similar to regular sound change observed in spoken languages. While they argue that iconicity and transmission patterns may inhibit such change, I propose that sign languages evolve systematically in a way that allows for regular change but in modality-specific ways that obscure it. Evidence of grammaticalization, lexicalization, and phonetic variation in sign languages indicates that both signed and spoken languages undergo the same processes, challenging the notion that regular change is absent. Additionally, I propose an approach that examines regular change through bundles of phonological features in signs that act as phonological environments shaping such change. Future research must integrate historical and online data, computer vision, and concerted studies to uncover whether regular phonological change is specific to modality or to language.

Keywords

regular sound changesign languagephonological changelanguage changesign language phonology

Information

Type
Perspectives
Information
Language , Volume 101 , Issue 3 , September 2025 , pp. e274 - e288
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

Anttila, Raimo. 1972. An introduction to historical and comparative linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark, Meir, Irit, Padden, Carol; and Sandler, Wendy. 2005. Morphological universals and the sign language type. Yearbook of Morphology 2004.19–39. DOI: 10.1007/1-4020-2900-4_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artacho, Bruno, and Savakis, Andreas. 2020. UniPose: Unified human pose estimation in single images and videos. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 7035–44. DOI: 10.1109/CVPR42600.2020.00706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battison, Robbin. 2013. Phonological deletion in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 5.1–19. DOI: 10.1353/sls.1974.0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Amelia, Hochgesang, Julie, Tamminga, Meredith; and Fisher, Jami. 2023. Sociophonetics and signed languages. The Routledge handbook of sociophonetics, ed. by Strelluf, Christopher, 467–88. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, Shane. 2017. Indexing gay identities in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 18.5–40. DOI: 10.1353/sls.2017.0019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 1998. A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/5644.001.0001.Google Scholar
Brentari, Diane. 2019. Sign language phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781316286401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, Naomi, and Pyers, Jennie. 2017. The road to language learning is not entirely iconic: Iconicity, neighborhood density, and frequency facilitate acquisition of sign language. Psychological Science 28.979–87. DOI: 10.1177/0956797617700498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, Naomi, and Pyers, Jennie. 2020. Degree and not type of iconicity affects sign language vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 46.127–39. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000713.Google Scholar
Crasborn, Onno, and Zwitserlood, Inga. 2008. The corpus NGT: An online corpus for professionals and laymen. Construction and exploitation of sign language corpora: 3rd Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages, 44–49. Online: https://www.sign-lang.uni-hamburg.de/lrec/pub/08003.html.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21.461–90. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Terra, and Brentari, Diane. 2020. Feeling phonology: The conventionalization of phonology in protactile communities in the United States. Language 96(4).819–40. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2020.0063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenlon, Jordan, Cooperrider, Kearsy, Keane, Jon, Brentari, Diane; and Goldin-Meadow, Susan. 2019. Comparing sign language and gesture: Insights from pointing. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1):2. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.499.Google Scholar
Frishberg, Nancy. 1976. Some aspects of the historical development of signs in American Sign Language. San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Hou, Lynn. 2022. LOOKing for multi-word expressions in American Sign Language. Cognitive Linguistics 33.291–337. DOI: 10.1515/cog-2020-0086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hou, Lynn, Lepic, Ryan; and Wilkinson, Erin. 2020. Working with ASL internet data. Sign Language Studies 21.32–67. DOI: 10.1353/sls.2020.0028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Robert E., and Liddell, Scott K.. 2010. Toward a phonetic representation of signs: Sequentiality and contrast. Sign Language Studies 11.241–74. DOI: 10.1353/sls.2010.0008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Robert E., and Liddell, Scott K.. 2011. A segmental framework for representing signs phonetically. Sign Language Studies 11.408–63. DOI: 10.1353/sls.2011.0002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Trevor. 2007. Auslan (Australian Sign Language) corpus. Sydney: Macquarie University. Online: https://researchdata.edu.au/auslan-australian-sign-language-corpus/ 125009.Google Scholar
Johnston, Trevor, and Schembri, Adam. 2010. Variation, lexicalization and grammaticalization in signed languages. Langage et société 1.19–35. DOI: 10.3917/ls.131.0019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward, and Bellugi, Ursula. 1979. Aspectual modulations on adjectival predicates. The signs of language, ed. by Klima, Edward and Bellugi, Ursula, 243–71. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 3: Cognitive and cultural factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781444327496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 2020. The regularity of regular sound change. Language 96(1).42–59. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2020.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, Danny, Power, Justin; and Quinto-Pozos, David. 2025. Bringing signed languages into the study of regular sound change. Language 101(3).e166–e201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepic, Ryan. 2019. A usage-based alternative to ‘lexicalization’ in sign language linguistics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4(1):23. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.840.Google Scholar
Liddell, Scott K., and Johnson, Robert. 1986. American Sign Language compound formation processes, lexicalization, and phonological remnants. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 4.445–513. DOI: 10.1007/BF00134470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liddell, Scott K., and Johnson, Robert. 1989. American Sign Language: The phonological base. Sign Language Studies 64.195–277. DOI: 10.1353/sls.1989.0027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Ceil. 2001. The sociolinguistics of sign languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511612824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Ceil, Bayley, Robert, McCaskill;, Carolyn and Hill, Joseph. 2015. The intersection of African American English and Black American Sign Language. International Journal of Bilingualism 19.156–68. DOI: 10.1177/1367006913489204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Ceil, Bayley, Robert, Rose, Mary; and Wulf, Alyssa. 2002. Location variation in American Sign Language. Sign Language Studies 2.407–40. DOI: 10.1353/sls.2002.0020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirus, Gene, Rathmann, Christian; and Meier, Richard. 2001. Proximalization and distalization of sign movement in adult learners. Signed languages: Discoveries from international research, ed. by Dively, Valerie, Metzger, Melanie, Taub, Sarah, and Baer, Anne Marie, 103–19. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Online: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/18/monograph/book/4278.Google Scholar
Morgan, Hope E. 2017. The phonology of Kenyan Sign Language (Southwestern dialect). San Diego: University of California, San Diego dissertation.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo, Sanders, Nathan; and Wright, Rebecca. 2014. On the linguistic effects of articulatory ease, with a focus on sign languages. Language 90(2).424–56. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2014.0026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidle, Carol, and Vogler, Christian. 2012. A new web interface to facilitate access to corpora: Development of the ASLLRP Data Access Interface. Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Interactions between corpus and lexicon. Online: https://hdl.handle.net/2144/31886.Google Scholar
Padden, Carol A. 2010. Sign language geography. Deaf around the world: The impact of language, ed. by Mathur, Gaurav Donna, and Napoli, Jo, 19–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732548.003.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padden, Carol A., and Perlmutter, David M.. 1987. American Sign Language and the architecture of phonological theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5.335–75. DOI: 10.1007/BF00134553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau, Ronald, and Steinbach, Markus. 2005. Plural formation in German Sign Language: Constraints and strategies. Gebärdensprachen: Struktur, Erwerb, Verwendung, ed. by Happ, Daniela and Leuninger, Helen, 111–44. Tübingen: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Pfau, Ronald, and Steinbach, Markus. 2006. Modality-independent and modality- specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages. Linguistics in Potsdam 24.5–98. Online: https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/index/index/docId/1005.Google Scholar
Pfau, Ronald, and Steinbach, Markus. 2011. Grammaticalization in sign languages. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, ed. by Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 683–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0056.Google Scholar
Pfau, Ronald, and Steinbach, Markus. 2013. Person climbing up a tree (and other adventures in sign language grammaticalization). Sign Language & Linguistics 16.189220. DOI: 10.1075/sll.16.2.04pfa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathmann, Christian. 2003. The optionality of agreement phrase: Evidence from German Sign Language (DGS). The role of agreement in natural language: TLS 5 proceedings, ed. by Griffin, William E., 181–92. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Rowley, Kate, and Cormier, Kearsy. 2023. Accent or not? Language attitudes towards regional variation in British Sign Language. Applied Linguistics Review 14.919–43. DOI: 10.1515/applirev-2020-0144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Tory, and Mayberry, Rachel I.. 2022. An emerging self: The copula cycle in American Sign Language. Language 98(2).327–58. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2022.0005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 1996. Phonological features and feature classes: The case of movements in sign language. Lingua 98.197–220. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3841(95)00038-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy. 2017. What comes first in language emergence? Dependencies in language: On the causal ontology of linguistic systems, ed. by Enfield, Nick, 63–84. Berlin: Language Science. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.573773.Google Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Belsitzman, Gal; and Meir, Irit. 2020. Visual foreign accent in an emerging sign language. Sign Language & Linguistics 23.233–57. DOI: 10.1075/sll.00050.san.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Wendy, Meir, Irit, Padden, Carol; and Aronoff, Mark. 2005. The emergence of grammar: Systematic structure in a new language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102.2661–65. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0405448102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senghas, Ann, Normoyle, Aline, Caselli, Naomi, Occhino, Corrine; and Dye, Matt. 2025. Measuring changes in Nicaraguan signing using skeletal modeling with analog 2D video sources. Poster presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research (TISLR) 15, Addis Ababa.Google Scholar
Stamp, Rose, Khatib, Lilyana; and Hel-Or, Hagit. 2022. Capturing distalization. Proceedings of the LREC2022 10th Workshop on the Representation and Processing of Sign Languages: Multilingual sign language resources, 187–91. Online: https://aclanthology.org/2022.signlang-1.29/.Google Scholar
Stokoe, William C. 1960. Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. (Studies in Linguistics: Occasional papers 8.) Buffalo, NY: University of Buffalo.Google Scholar
Supalla, Ted. 2025. Historical Sign Language DataBase (HSLDB). Online: https://hsldb.georgetown.edu/, accessed May 6, 2025.Google Scholar
Taub, Sarah F. 2001. Language from the body: Iconicity and metaphor in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511509629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Robin L., Vinson, David P.; and Vigliocco, Gabriella. 2009. The link between form and meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical processing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 35.550–57. DOI: 10.1037/a0014547.Google ScholarPubMed
Thompson, Robin L., Vinson, David P., Woll, Bencie; and Vigliocco, Gabriella. 2012. The road to language learning is iconic: Evidence from British Sign Language. Psychological Science 23.1443–48. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612459763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrone, Matha E., and Mauk, Claude E.. 2010. Sign lowering and phonetic reduction in American Sign Language. Journal of Phonetics 38.317–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.02.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Hulst, Harry, and van, Els Koon, der. 2021. Sign language phonology. The Routledge handbook of theoretical and experimental sign language research, ed. by Quer, Josep, Pfau, Ronald, and Herrmann, Annika, 1–32. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van der Koon, Els. 2002. Phonological categories in Sign Language of the Netherlands: The role of phonetic implementation and iconicity. Leiden: Leiden University dissertation. Online: https://www.lotpublications.nl/phonological-categories-in-sign-language-of-the-netherlands-phonological-categories-in-sign-language-of-the-nethelands-the-role-of-phonetic-implementation-and-iconicity.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Patricia M. 1972. Linguistic change and the Great Vowel Shift in English. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar