[lg policy] CFP: Recognizing Sign Languages, edited volume

[H-Dirksen Bauman]

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS FOR AN EDITED VOLUME
Deadline: 6 March 2017

RECOGNIZING SIGN LANGUAGES:
AN INTERNATIONAL OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS FOR SIGN LANGUAGE
LEGISLATION AND THEIR OUTCOMES

Maartje De Meulder, Joseph J. Murray and Rachel McKee, editors

Over the past two decades, deaf communities around the world have mobilized
for the legal recognition of their sign languages in national laws. Today,
over 30 countries have some form of legal recognition of their sign
languages and deaf communities in other countries continue to campaign for
such recognition. Forms of recognition vary from explicit recognition via
constitutional amendment or independent language laws to implicit
recognition embedded in other legislation, such as disability access
legislation. The content of these laws vary as well, with some giving the
language official status whereas others are twinned with access measures.
In some countries, deaf community members and policy makers have begun
evaluating the outcomes of this legislation, measured against deaf
community goals and the experience of other language groups. There is a
need for a comprehensive overview of the type and impact of different
national laws on sign language, as well as the campaigns leading up to
these laws.

This edited collection surveys national advocacy campaigns for the legal
recognition of sign languages around the world and the legislation which
sometimes resulted from these campaigns. Each chapter will focus on a
country’s campaign, its outcomes in terms of the type of sign language
legislation achieved versus desired outcomes and deaf community
expectations for this legislation. Chapters will cover strategies used in
achieving passage of this legislation, including alliance building and
negotiations with governments and other stakeholders, as well an account of
barriers confronted in the legislative process and how these were or were
not overcome. The legislation will be summarized and chapters will look at
the work undertaken in the implementation of the law, including language
promotion bodies and the policy-making processes post-passage. This
includes evaluation of the success of the legislation vis-à-vis deaf
community goals. Chapters will set sign language laws within their national
settings, with reference to the language policies and the status of other
minority languages of that country.

Since this volume looks at deaf community mobilizations towards legislative
goals, we encourage contributions from those who worked on sign language
recognition campaigns and those with critical insight on post-legislative
implementation and evaluation. We invite submissions both from cases where
legislation was passed and from cases where legislation is stalled or
pending. In this last case, we invite further discussion of the reasons for
this situation and possible strategies going forward. The editors look
positively on submissions inclusive of deaf researchers and/or deaf people
who were involved in the campaigns.

Potential contributors should send a one paragraph abstract (max. 200
words) and a three-sentence biography (including previous publications
relevant to the book) to maartje.demeulder at unamur.be by March 6, 2017.

Contributors will be notified of acceptance of their proposals by March 31,
201. First draft of chapters will be due for editorial review on September
30, 2017.

Each chapter should follow a similar template and include information about:

• Explicit and implicit language policies of the country.
• Legal status of other languages used in the country.
• Factors influencing the decision to advocate for a sign language law. Why
did the deaf community coalesce around this goal? What national and/or
extra-national factors influenced the decision to make this a priority?
• Campaigners: who were the core campaigners?
• Timeline of the campaign (to date).
• Desired outcomes of the campaign. What did campaigners want to see from
the legislation: official recognition, increased access, right to sign
language acquisition in education, or other?
• What sort of legislation did the campaigners seek to accomplish their
goals? (constitutional, independent legislation, legislation as part of
language act, or disability legislation (cf. De Meulder 2015)? How was this
determined?
• Arguments used for sign language legislation: why was recognition needed,
how was this justified to policymakers and how was “success” measured by
the campaigners?
• Strategies used to achieve these outcomes: top-down or bottom-up or both,
who was involved, negotiations with government, involvement of deaf
community outside the national association, other stakeholders (other
language groups).
 • Did campaigners draw on a disability model, a language rights model, a
deaf cultural minority model or other frames in their arguments to
policymakers?
• Discussion of the various barriers confronted during the campaign (and
what worked well).

For chapters with passed legislation:
• Factors which enabled passage. Was coalition building important and if
so, with whom? Was the country itself open to minority languages or was it
a disability paradigm which enabled passage?
• Brief explanation of the law itself in lay language. (If links are
available to the actual legislation please send these to the editors for
possible inclusion in online materials).
• Did the final legislation meet the expectations of campaigners and the
deaf community? If not, what was missing and why (if not answered above).
 • Implementation: how was this done or how is this planned to take place
(with specific attention to the working of sign language boards and
councils)? What are the challenges/problems?
• If applicable: is there any plan to amend/improve the legislation?

For chapters with legislation stalled or pending:
• Further discussion of reasons for lack of implementation.
• Core campaigners strategy going forward
-- 
Dr. H-Dirksen L. Bauman
Chair and Professor, ASL and Deaf Studies (deafstudies.gallaudet.edu)
Gallaudet University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20170201/e56a73ba/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list