[Slling-l] Call for Abstracts - RECOGNIZING SIGN LANGUAGES

[Maartje De Meulder]

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 <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/slling-l/attachments/20170131/836ea376/attachment.htm>