The Amsterdam Manifest

[Mike Morgan]

As we seek ways to make future TISLR congresses, and any international sign
linguistics association that may take form in the future, more international
and more accessible, perhaps we can learn something from other analogous
international organisations. As an ex(?)-Slavist, I can put forward the
example of the International Congress of Slavists. Putting the question of
interpretting aside for a second, at these conferences papers are accepted
in ANY Slavic language (about a dozen, depending on what you count as a
separate language), as well as English French or German. While this may in
fact still be a bit Eurocentric, it can be asssumed reasonably that a
serious Slavist from anywhere in the world will have DIRECT access to at
least some of the papers presented (at the minimum, those presented in the
Slavic language of his or her specialty). Would it be unreasonable
(impractical?) to make presentation in English and/or ANY Sign Language
acceptable at future TISLRs?

As for indirect access (the question of interpreting), this is not an issue
for the International Congress of Slavists, since there is no
generally-provided interpretting. It is up to the presentor to decide the
most appropriate language for the audience he or she hopes to reach, and up
to the attendee to select papers to attend based both on topic and language
of presentation. OR anyone is free to bring their own (personal or group)
interpretor for whatever language.

Here the analogy is perhaps not as appropriate since for Deaf participants
it is not simply a question of KNOWLEDGE of the language, but of
accessibility to it. Oral presentations are NOT directly accessible, so
OBVIOUSLY some interpretting is required. (For Signed presentations the same
is NOT true, since it is only the KNOWLEDGE of the language that would
necessitate interpretors for hearing participants. One would HOPE that even
hearing researchers would have access to SOME Sign Language presentaions;
though from my experiences here in Japan, I think I'm indulging a bit too
much in wishful thinking.)

The question of WHAT sign languages should be provided should be, I think,
as Ulrike says, an empirical one ... or one voted on by members of the
International Sign Linguistics Association. (As a native speaker of English
and someone who can, if needs be, follow a presentation in ASL I feel
embarrassingly priveledged if both are automatically chosen as conference
languages ... and afraid that such decisions might be Imperialistic in
effect if not in intention. But maybe as the great great great grandson of
a slave owner my skin is thinner than it needs be.)

(My experience on the streets of Bangkok, however, trying to practice a bit
of ThaiSL with street stall sellers whose ASL was always better than my
ThaiSL, tells me that ASL MAY in fact be the SL lingua franca if there is
one. As for BSL .... I draw a blank, except for the Australians and New
Zealanders and South Africans, I can't say who it might be accessible to ...
my ignorance, I'm afraid.)

Mike Morgan
Mike.Morgan at mb3.seikyou.ne.jp

PS to Ulrike: A reminder about a paper.