FW: 2011 AAA panel : Decolonizing Indigenous and Village Sign Languages.

[Ulrike Zeshan]

Hi, the only theme I recognise is discussion about the "developmental
cycle of sign languages", where various different views have been
expressed and there is some current debate. Other than that, I don't
think I have seen any of these other expressions in "recent academic
descriptions" in sign linguistics. In fact, recent academic descriptions
are full of statements to the contrary, as to the importance of these
sign languages. 
 
I wonder if there are other "academic descriptions" from people outside
sign linguistics that he could be referring to? Or maybe in
Spanish-speaking academia, as much of his work has been in Central
America? Otherwise this is simply a mis-representation.
 
Ulrike
 
 
Prof. Ulrike Zeshan
Director, International Institute for Sign Languages and Deaf Studies
Livesey House, LH212
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR12HE, UK
uzeshan at uclan.ac.uk
Ph. +44-1772-893104
Fax +44-1772-894933


>>> "Adam Schembri" <A.Schembri at LATROBE.EDU.AU> 14/03/2011 00:44 >>>
I'm not sure that many (anyone?) in the field of village sign language
linguistics refers to these languages as 'primitive', but this is a very
important workshop nonetheless.

Adam
-- 
Associate Professor Adam Schembri
Director, National Institute for Deaf Studies and Sign Language
La Trobe University | Melbourne (Bundoora) | Victoria |  3086 | 
Australia
Tel: +61 3 9479 2887 | Fax: +61 3 9479 3074 | www.latrobe.edu.au/nids







From: Erich Fox Tree [mailto:efoxtree at hamilton.edu] 
Sent: Friday, 11 March 2011 3:37 AM




Call for Papers for the American Anthropological Association (AAA)
meetings in Montreal, Canada, November 16-20, 2011:

DECOLONIZING INDIGENOUS AND VILLAGE SIGN LANGUAGES 
BY SEEING THE SILENT

  “Immature,”  “inchoate,”  “less complex,” “limited in range,”
“primitive,” “of peripheral importance,” or at a lower stage in the
“normal” developmental cycle of sign languages: Recent academic
descriptions of the sign languages of indigenous groups or of small,
bimodally-bilingual rural communities with high incidences of deafness,
are distressingly reminiscent of missionary-linguists’ characterizations
of the spoken vernaculars of colonized Natives centuries ago. What
similar colonial relationships do the modern claims encode?
 Since Stokoe (1960) proved that American Sign Language, ASL, was a
real language, with a systematic structure and grammar, scholarship has
contested the general colonization of the Deaf by challenging claims
that signers are intellectually deprived or socially immature. It has
also invigorated efforts to gain recognition and support for national
sign languages, and thereby helped change patronizing oralist models of
education for many deaf people not only in the USA, but in other
industrialized countries. 
 Yet the indigenous and village sign languages that constitute much of
the diversity of the world’s natural sign languages have not enjoyed
important advances made by national sign languages.  They face
intensifying marginalization, domination, and endangerment, and scholars
have scarcely studied their plight, let alone their structures and
usage. Indigenous and village sign languages are crucial not only for
scientific and humanistic understanding of human language (Nonaka 2003),
but for issues of linguistic, indigenous, and human rights, especially
as their predicament may be driven not only by hearing hegemonies, but
also by those of national sign languages. 
This panel brings together established and new cultural scholars to
examine this double-colonialism ofindigenous and village sign languages:
colonization both AS SIGN LANGUAGES and BY SIGN LANGUAGES.  Case studies
question how advancements by official and aspiring national sign
languages sometimes come at the expense of other sign language.  They
ask how scholarly claims of isolation, minority status, and recent
origin reduce the legitimacy of indigenous and village sign communities.
What do 
new theories about the development of sign languages mean for
anthropological ideals of cultural survival and relativism? Does
advocacy for national sign languages replicate nationalists’ imagining
of communities around single spoken vernaculars? Can sign languages
persist without Deaf schools, modern technologies, and video capitalism?
 How does denial of existence, complexity, and rights, or premature
classification as “minority” languages help suppress linguistic, ethnic,
and cultural diversity? Does promotion of “modern” features, such as
signed alphabets, create a hierarchy of sign codes, while aiding
standardization of spoken languages? In short, how do hearing
authorities and promoters of national (or international) sign languages
collaborate to “silence” indigenous and village ones?
  Through its focus on the invisible “voices” of indigenous and village
signers, this panel aims to help them. Diverse case studies from North
America, to Asia, Africa and Mesoamerica advocate more intense study of
indigenous and village sign languages.  Going beyond description of
linguistic contact, competition, and conflict, papers support increased
collaboration between advocates of national sign languages and
indigenous or village signers to consider how law, scholarship, and
economic practices might better empower both communities. 

TO HAVE YOUR PAPER CONSIDERED FOR THIS PANEL, contact Dr. Erich Fox
Tree (efoxtree at hamilton.edu). 

-- 
Prof. Erich  Fox Tree
Department of Religious Studies
Hamilton College
198 College Hill Road
Clinton NY, 13323
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20110314/86ba107e/attachment.htm>