<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3105.105" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Dear all, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Yesterday Myriam Vermeerbergen tried to send this message to
the list but apparently something went wrong. So she asked me to forward it to
the list. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Bye, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Mieke</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> <BR></FONT>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
href="mailto:mvermeer@vub.ac.be" title=mvermeer@vub.ac.be>Myriam
Vermeerbergen</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A href="mailto:Mieke.Vanherreweghe@RUG.AC.BE"
title=Mieke.Vanherreweghe@RUG.AC.BE>Mieke.Vanherreweghe@RUG.AC.BE</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> donderdag 13 september 2001 11:59</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> colloquium on the standardisation of sign languages at
SS14</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>Myriam
<BR><BR><BR>Dear colleagues,<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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:<BR><BR><I>" 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%."<BR><BR></I>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:<BR><BR>1. Introducing the issue (i.e. a
short introduction of the topic) (20 minutes)<BR>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)<BR>3. Discussant(?) and questions (20 minutes)<BR>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)<BR>5. Discussant(?) and questions (20 minutes)<BR>6.
Open discussion (in more than one group if possible) (40 minutes)<BR>(For
topics, questions that may be discussed please see the abstract of the
colloquium) <BR>7. Summary of the outcome of group discussion(s) (+ questions)
(40 minutes)<BR>8. Conclusion (10 minutes)<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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).<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR><BR>!!! 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). <BR><BR>Three concluding remarks:<BR><BR>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".<BR><BR>2. For information concerning (sign language) interpreting,
please contact Mieke Van Herreweghe from the organising committee of the
symposium: <U><?fontfamily><?param Times><?color><?param 0000,0000,00FF><?bigger>Mieke.Vanherreweghe@rug.ac.be<BR><BR><?/bigger><?/color><?/fontfamily></U>3.
For more information on the Sociolinguistic Symposium 14 please visit the
website of the symposium: http://bank.rug.ac.be/ss14<BR><BR>That will be all for
now.<BR><BR>Kind regards,<BR><BR>Myriam Vermeerbergen<BR><BR><BR><BR>Below: copy
of the abstract of the
colloquium<BR><BR><BR>----------------------------------------------------<BR>ABSTRACT<BR>This
colloquium will focus on the standardisation and the accompanying codification
(i.e. the making of dictionaries, grammar books, ...) of sign languages.
<BR>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?<BR>"Opting for controlled standardisation or not?" This will be the
central issue of the colloquium. Other questions that could be raised are:<BR><?fontfamily><?param Times>…<?/fontfamily> How can we find out whether a
sign language is going through a process of spontaneous standardisation?<BR><?fontfamily><?param Times>…<?/fontfamily> Advantages and
disadvantages of spontaneous standardisation versus controlled
standardisation?<BR><?fontfamily><?param Times>…<?/fontfamily> How is controlled
standardisation initialised?<BR><?fontfamily><?param Times>…<?/fontfamily> Is it
possible to have a process of controlled standardisation that respects the
spontaneous standardisation process?<BR><?fontfamily><?param Times>…<?/fontfamily> Spontaneous
standardisation and codification<BR><?fontfamily><?param Times>…<?/fontfamily>
Controlled standardisation and codification<BR><?fontfamily><?param Times>…<?/fontfamily> Factors influencing
the success or failure of controlled standardisation<BR><?fontfamily><?param Times>…<?/fontfamily> etc.<BR>The format
of the colloquium has yet to be determined but the aim is to organise an event
which is as interactive as possible.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BODY></HTML>