OBO Myriam Vermeerbergen <mvermeer at vub.ac.be>

[Paul Cowley]

MESSAGE TO SLLING-L:

After writing this mail yesterday evening I turned on the radio and
heard about the terrorist attacks in the US. I want to express my horror
at what has happened and my sincere sympathy with the families and loved
ones of all those who were a victim of this terrible act.

Myriam


Dear colleagues,

My proposal for a colloquium on the standardisation and codification of
sign languages has been accepted for inclusion in the programme of the
Sociolinguistic Symposium 14 (to be held in Gent, Belgium, April 4-6,
2002) and so we (i.e. those interested in participating) can go ahead
and discuss the set-up of the colloquium.

I have been informed that colloquia should not exceed (a single slot of)
3 hours and 20 minutes and that colloquia should be properly
interactive:

" As a guide, colloquia should aim for at least 1/3 of interaction from
the floor. The opportunity to have colloquia is specifically designed to
increase the scope for open discussion, and indeed we'd be unlikely to
have any objections if you wanted to increase the proportion of open
talk to even 50%."

I myself feel that the subject of the colloquium requires a high degree
of interaction and I would therefore prefer to have a very limited
number of presentations/papers and as much time for (open) discussion as
possible. Here is my suggestion for a possible set-up:

1. Introducing the issue (i.e. a short introduction of the topic) (20
minutes)
2. Paper, for instance by someone who is/has been involved in a
standardisation process of a sign language, discussing a.o.: the reasons
to opt for a "controlled standardisation"/language planning and the way
that standardisation was inititialised (20 minutes)
3. Discussant(?) and questions (20 minutes)
4. Paper, for instance on "non-standardisation and codification" i.e. on
how is/can be /should be dealt with (regional) variation when compiling
a dictionary or writing a reference book on the grammar of the sign
language or collecting data for research,Š (20 minutes)
5. Discussant(?) and questions (20 minutes)
6. Open discussion (in more than one group if possible) (40 minutes)
(For topics, questions that may be discussed please see the abstract of
the colloquium)
7. Summary of the outcome of group discussion(s) (+ questions) (40
minutes)
8. Conclusion (10 minutes)

I would like to stress the fact that this is only a suggestion so please
let me know what you think of it! Should you prefer a more "traditional"
set-up (e.g. a 25-minute intro, five 20-minute papers followed by 10
minutes for questions and a final 25 minutes for concluding discussion),
than please tell me so.

Also, the fact that I suggest to above mentioned topics for the two
papers does not imply that I have already invited someone to give a
presentation. The only reason why I proposed these topics is that I feel
they would provoke many questions, remarks, thoughts,... that could then
be dealt with in the subsequent group discussion(s).

Until now no arrangements for individual contributions to the colloquium
were made. If anyone is interested in presenting one of the above
mentioned papers (or a paper addressing another issue concerning the
standardisation and codification of sign languages) please let me know
as soon as possible.


!!! The organising committee of the Sociolinguistics Symposium 14 has
decided that individual contributions solicited by the colloquium
organisers will undergo the normal refereeing process. For each paper an
individual abstract will need to be submitted before 1 October 2001.
This means there is not a lot of time left to discuss the set-up of the
colloquium and/or to decide upon individual contributions. So I would
suggest that those interested in this colloquium will let me know how
they feel about the above suggested set-up and/or inform me about their
intentions to present an individual paper and/or act as discussant
before the beginning of next week (Monday, 17 September).

Three concluding remarks:

1. I would like to repeat what I have already said in a previous mail:
all participants, including presenters, will have to finance their own
travel and accommodation costs. I know (from my own experience) that
some universities/institutes are only willing to refund costs for
attending colloquia, conferences, symposia,... of participants
presenting a paper. My suggestion to keep the number of papers limited
may therefore prevent some people from attending due to financial
reasons. I am more than willing to issue invitations maybe they "will do
the trick".

2. For information concerning (sign language) interpreting, please
contact Mieke Van Herreweghe from the organising committee of the
symposium: Mieke.Vanherreweghe at rug.ac.be

3. For more information on the Sociolinguistic Symposium 14 please visit
the website of the symposium:
http://bank.rug.ac.be/ss14

That will be all for now.

Kind regards,

Myriam Vermeerbergen



Below: copy of the abstract of the colloquium


----------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT
This colloquium will focus on the standardisation and the accompanying
codification (i.e. the making of dictionaries, grammar books, ...) of
sign languages.
Many sign languages seem to undergo at some stage a process of change
from a language used (almost) exclusively within the deaf community to a
language with a wider role in society. At a certain point in that
evolution the teaching of the sign language in question begins -to
hearing family members and friends of deaf children and adults, to
future sign language interpreters, teachers and educators of deaf
children,...- and the language also starts to serve as a teaching
medium for deaf children (and adults). An evolution of this type often
raises questions concerning the standardisation of the sign language.
When a sign language starts to take on a wider role in society, it is
often the case that there is not yet a standard variety of the language
i.e. that different regional varieties of the sign language are still
being used side by side and/or intermixedly. Within the deaf community,
-but more often: amongst those responsible for the education of deaf
children and/or amongst policy makers considering a possible recognition
of the sign language- the question is asked whether the existence of a
standard variety is not a prerequisite for using the sign language in
education and for the official recognition of the language by the
government,... i.e. is controlled standardisation to be the first step?
"Opting for controlled standardisation or not?" This will be the central
issue of the colloquium.

Other questions that could be raised are:

 How can we find out whether a sign language is going through a process
of spontaneous standardisation?

 Advantages and disadvantages of spontaneous standardisation versus
controlled standardisation?

 How is controlled standardisation initialised?

 Is it possible to have a process of controlled standardisation that
respects the spontaneous standardisation process?

 Spontaneous standardisation and codification

 Controlled standardisation and codification

 Factors influencing the success or failure of controlled
standardisation

 etc.
The format of the colloquium has yet to be determined but the aim is to
organise an event which is as interactive as possible.

--
Up thumb, Paul Cowley
PCowley at terpsnet.com