FUNKNET Digest, Vol 88, Issue 17
Brian MacWhinney
macw at cmu.edu
Sun Jan 23 02:19:13 UTC 2011
Shannon,
If you click through and download the fact sheet at the CASL site, you will find no evidence of anything
that looks like an actual empirical study in the sense of something with a control condition and outcomes measures. There appears to be a good reason for this. The programs that were evaluated were simply not appropriate for the target learners in terms of level or coverage.
Regarding FST, I believe that you may be right about the copyright issue. When we started on the path of building morphological analyzers for the CHILDES and TalkBank databases, one of our early ideas was to simply make use of
FST as an "off the shelf" technology. However, we then found that the various grammars built with FST were not publicly available, often because of copyright issues. This is why we built the MOR system as an alternative. We have developed MOR grammars for 12 languages and used them to tag large segments of the CHILDES and TalkBank databases. These grammars and the code that runs MOR are all open source, thereby avoiding this type of problem.
-- Brian MacWhinney
On Jan 21, 2011, at 6:11 PM, s.t. bischoff wrote:
> The Center for Advanced Study of Language at UM College Park did a few
> studies regarding language programs like RS...you can learn about these
> studies at their website and download the official findings (I haven't read
> these myself):
>
> http://casl.umd.edu/node/541
>
> In conversation I was told that the RS report was not inclusive of all
> findings because RS had blocked the report and was proceeding with
> litigation against CASL to prevent the release of the findings which could
> be damaging to RS. I can't verify the truth of this, but I have no reason to
> doubt the source.
>
> When Xerox released its FST toolkit (useful for creating automated
> syntactic, phonological, and morphological analyzers and thus things like
> spell/grammar checkers, language revitalization tools, etc.), some linguists
> took elements of the copyright notice to mean that "all data used with the
> toolkit" became the property of Xerox in part or whole. This led some
> linguists to work on the development of a similar open source FST toolkit,
> FOMA. I'm not a copyright lawyer so can't comment on the validity of the
> concern.
>
> Cheers,
> Shannon
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:00 PM, <funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>> Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to
>> funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered languages
>> (Wendy Smith)
>> 2. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered languages
>> (Luke Kundl Pinette)
>> 3. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered languages
>> (Tom Givon)
>> 4. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered languages
>> (James J. Mischler)
>> 5. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered languages
>> (Wendy Smith)
>> 6. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 88, Issue 16 (s.t. bischoff)
>> 7. Re: FUNKNET Digest, Vol 88, Issue 16 (A. Katz)
>> 8. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered languages
>> (John Du Bois)
>> 9. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> (Luke Kundl Pinette)
>> 10. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> (Luke Kundl Pinette)
>> 11. Call for papers: Lancaster Postgraduate Conference in
>> Linguistics and English Language (Gabrielatos, Costas)
>> 12. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered languages
>> (Tim Thornes)
>> 13. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered languages
>> (Pamela Munro)
>> 14. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> (Brian MacWhinney)
>> 15. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> (jess tauber)
>> 16. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> (Tom Givon)
>> 17. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> (Marianne Mithun)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:07:07 -0800
>> From: Wendy Smith <wsmith at csusb.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> To: Keith Johnson <keithjohnson at berkeley.edu>
>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID: <4D3879CB.6010503 at csusb.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> This is amazing. I tried to use Rosetta Stone to get started in Russian,
>> and it was hopeless. They say that their materials are based on child
>> acquisition theory and research--therefore direct immersion with no
>> direct instruction. As someone who has studied SLA, I found this to be
>> patently ridiculous. Adult second language learners do not learn in the
>> same way as first language acquirers. In addition, the core of the
>> materials are made up of isolated useless sentences such as "the women
>> are cooking" and "the boys are not reading." My brother-in-law, who
>> works in the biotech industry (in other words, no linguistics training
>> or knowledge) insisted to me that if you just do the program, you will
>> learn Russian. However, a month after he returned from his trip to Saint
>> Petersburg he could not remember the words for "where" or "when." It is
>> virtually impossible to "acquire" (as RS states) a language in your car
>> or at your computer, but there are other programs that help introduction
>> to the language way better than Rosetta Stone.
>>
>> On 1/20/2011 8:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>
>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>> raises a couple of
>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>> languages
>>> unit?
>>>
>>> Keith Johnson
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:15:49 +0900
>> From: Luke Kundl Pinette <lkpinette at comcast.net>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> To: Keith Johnson <keithjohnson at berkeley.edu>,
>> funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID: <4D387BD5.5020305 at comcast.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I'm of two minds about this.
>>
>> Now the Rosetta Stone is not a good program. And I will first confess
>> that I've had a vendetta against the Rosetta Stone because I feel that
>> its entire marketing strategy, from premise to conclusion consists of
>> propagating myths about language instruction:
>>
>> 1. Children learn languages effortlessly.
>> 2. You can learn a language like a child does.
>> 3. You should learn a language like a child does.
>> 4. The Rosetta Stone's program resembles the way a child learns language.
>> 5. Ergo you can learn a language effortlessly using the Rosetta Stone.
>>
>> Nonetheless it's a very effective marketing strategy. Most people have
>> heard of the Rosetta Stone, whether they study languages or not, and
>> quite a lot of them believe it's the best program on the market. It's
>> not the unjustified self-promotion over the competition which bothers me
>> (that's the whole point of marketing), but rather the fact that it fits
>> too well with the attitude Americans tend to have about language learning.
>>
>> I've met far too many people who claim that they simply don't have the
>> knack for learning languages, as their efforts while they were in
>> school, at the local community college, and yes--the Rosetta Stone
>> show. Having studied with some of said people in college, I've observed
>> that most students in language classes believe that less than five hours
>> a week in a language class or on a computer is sufficient to learn a
>> language, and that if they can't they're simply unable to learn a
>> language. In the time I studied Spanish and Arabic in a classroom, I
>> could not find one person willing to speak the language outside of class
>> except for native speakers.
>>
>> I've heard praise for a couple other programs (which I won't name),
>> however the people who use these programs, myself included, recognize
>> that they are a tool and not a teacher. Rosetta Stone claims to be a
>> teacher, and I've never met a person who's tried Rosetta Stone and
>> claimed success in it. It's either a bad program (usually heard from
>> someone who eventually learned the language through more conventional
>> means) or it's the user's own fault (from someone who hasn't).
>>
>> Of course the easiest way to learn a language is to immerse yourself,
>> but endangered languages tend to be in a situation similar to that I
>> experienced in the United States, where native speakers of the target
>> language are hard to come by outside of formal classes. In situations
>> like that it's absolutely essential to practice with other non-native
>> speakers, which requires both will and resources. And the question is
>> whether the Rosetta Stone's contribution to the latter outweighs any
>> detrimental effect on the former.
>>
>> It's well established in psychology that when people find something hard
>> and think that it will always be hard, they tend to give up. I've long
>> suspected that telling hearing a program makes language easy, and then
>> finding that it's not would encourage people to give up more easily than
>> going into it with the assumption it will be a challenge. And while
>> this would be a bad thing when we're talking Americans learning Arabic,
>> it's a great deal worse when we're talking a language on the verge of
>> extinction.
>>
>> But language is quite different from most of human psychology, and I
>> don't think there's been any research on language specifically. The
>> kind of people who buy the Rosetta Stone expecting a
>> brain-translator-slug may not be the kind of people who are all that
>> determined to learn a language in the first place, and the people who
>> use the program to learn an endangered language will go into it with
>> different expectations. They won't be using it because they think it's
>> an easy way to attract Italian models, but rather because it's what's
>> available. And I'd expect that these students will be using it as a
>> tool and not a teacher. Language revitalization takes a good deal more
>> dedication and savvy than learning one of the world's major tongues.
>>
>> The Rosetta Stone does record actual native speakers, and in that sense,
>> when your options are limited, it would almost certainly be a useful
>> tool. I'm not sure if there are other language companies who have
>> endangered languages departments. Personally I'd like to see pretty
>> much any company except the Rosetta Stone doing this, but even despite
>> my dislike of the company I'm inclined to say it's probably beneficial
>> on the balance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Luke
>>
>>
>> On 1/21/11 1:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>
>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>> raises a couple of
>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>> languages
>>> unit?
>>>
>>> Keith Johnson
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:16:32 -0700
>> From: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID: <4D387C00.2050307 at uoregon.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>
>>
>> Rosetta Stone is a f---ing fraud. I certainly won't recommend to my Ute
>> friends that they do anything with them--if they asked me. However,
>> preying on innocent customers is RS's specialty, and the Natives are
>> just as gullible as the rest of us, an in many way more vulnerable. I
>> hope they don't create more damage than history already has. TG
>>
>> ==============
>>
>>
>> On 1/20/2011 9:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>
>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>> raises a couple of
>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>> languages
>>> unit?
>>>
>>> Keith Johnson
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:19:39 -0600
>> From: "James J. Mischler" <mischlerj at nsula.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> To: Wendy Smith <wsmith at csusb.edu>, Keith Johnson
>> <keithjohnson at berkeley.edu>
>> Cc: "funknet at mailman.rice.edu" <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>> <285D95BE552E5A4F9C45A549C5763B3635D9480115 at ex-mbx1.nsula.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> Wendy and all,
>>
>> I wonder if *any* program has been found, via controlled research study, to
>> aid in the learning of a language. Wendy said that there are programs that
>> are better than Rosetta Stone; what are they? Is there any data to support
>> the view that the program(s) did in fact aid learning?
>>
>> Jim Mischler
>> Assistant Professor
>> Language & Communication
>> Northwestern State University of Louisiana
>> Natchitoches, LA
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:
>> funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Wendy Smith
>> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:07 PM
>> To: Keith Johnson
>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>>
>> This is amazing. I tried to use Rosetta Stone to get started in Russian,
>> and it was hopeless. They say that their materials are based on child
>> acquisition theory and research--therefore direct immersion with no
>> direct instruction. As someone who has studied SLA, I found this to be
>> patently ridiculous. Adult second language learners do not learn in the
>> same way as first language acquirers. In addition, the core of the
>> materials are made up of isolated useless sentences such as "the women
>> are cooking" and "the boys are not reading." My brother-in-law, who
>> works in the biotech industry (in other words, no linguistics training
>> or knowledge) insisted to me that if you just do the program, you will
>> learn Russian. However, a month after he returned from his trip to Saint
>> Petersburg he could not remember the words for "where" or "when." It is
>> virtually impossible to "acquire" (as RS states) a language in your car
>> or at your computer, but there are other programs that help introduction
>> to the language way better than Rosetta Stone.
>>
>> On 1/20/2011 8:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>
>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>> raises a couple of
>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>> languages
>>> unit?
>>>
>>> Keith Johnson
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:29:35 -0800
>> From: Wendy Smith <wsmith at csusb.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> To: "James J. Mischler" <mischlerj at nsula.edu>
>> Cc: Keith Johnson <keithjohnson at berkeley.edu>,
>> "funknet at mailman.rice.edu" <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
>> Message-ID: <4D387F0F.7070400 at csusb.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> no language programs can effect language acquisition or learning (in the
>> case of the adult brain we say 'learning,' not acquisition). I have been
>> using Pimsleur which I have found to be quite good in providing the
>> sounds of the language and some useful conversation. It is still
>> repetition and memory, which does not equate SLA. I am now repeating
>> these dialogues in my sleep (!) but when I try to speak to a native
>> speaker, it all goes out the window. I am counting on immersion--I will
>> be in Belarus for 4-5 months as of Monday. (I know of no controlled
>> study of any program--but it doesn't mean they haven't been done--I
>> would check ACTFL for that information).
>>
>> On 1/20/2011 10:19 AM, James J. Mischler wrote:
>>> Wendy and all,
>>>
>>> I wonder if *any* program has been found, via controlled research study,
>> to aid in the learning of a language. Wendy said that there are programs
>> that are better than Rosetta Stone; what are they? Is there any data to
>> support the view that the program(s) did in fact aid learning?
>>>
>>> Jim Mischler
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> Language& Communication
>>> Northwestern State University of Louisiana
>>> Natchitoches, LA
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:
>> funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Wendy Smith
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:07 PM
>>> To: Keith Johnson
>>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>>>
>>> This is amazing. I tried to use Rosetta Stone to get started in Russian,
>>> and it was hopeless. They say that their materials are based on child
>>> acquisition theory and research--therefore direct immersion with no
>>> direct instruction. As someone who has studied SLA, I found this to be
>>> patently ridiculous. Adult second language learners do not learn in the
>>> same way as first language acquirers. In addition, the core of the
>>> materials are made up of isolated useless sentences such as "the women
>>> are cooking" and "the boys are not reading." My brother-in-law, who
>>> works in the biotech industry (in other words, no linguistics training
>>> or knowledge) insisted to me that if you just do the program, you will
>>> learn Russian. However, a month after he returned from his trip to Saint
>>> Petersburg he could not remember the words for "where" or "when." It is
>>> virtually impossible to "acquire" (as RS states) a language in your car
>>> or at your computer, but there are other programs that help introduction
>>> to the language way better than Rosetta Stone.
>>>
>>> On 1/20/2011 8:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>>
>>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>>> raises a couple of
>>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>>> languages
>>>> unit?
>>>>
>>>> Keith Johnson
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:31:36 -0500
>> From: "s.t. bischoff" <bischoff.st at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] FUNKNET Digest, Vol 88, Issue 16
>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID:
>> <AANLkTi=RR1D=Lqef=e_0p+fxiEsbhbZRET7u+3gxqqpp at mail.gmail.com<e_0p%2BfxiEsbhbZRET7u%2B3gxqqpp at mail.gmail.com>
>>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>> The issue of Rosetta Stone and endangered languages seems ripe for
>> controversy. The relationship can be easily exploited by Rosetta Stone. If
>> a
>> community provides data and RS controls the data the community may find
>> itself at the mercy of the RS. For example, as I understand it, often RS
>> provides the "service" to create the resources for "free". They charge a
>> nominal fee for access to the first level lessons. However, that fee
>> increases with advancing levels. Like most minority groups, endangered
>> language communities are easy targets for exploitation (see the recent
>> Coushatta casino scam). Additionally, there is a good deal of controversy
>> regarding weather or not RS actually works. As I understand it, some
>> researchers have done research on RS and the conclusion have been that it
>> doesn't work (linguists working the software can judge for
>> themselves)...the
>> results cannot be released due to litigation. In short, these types of
>> relationships can't help but raise some concerns...I wonder if communities
>> (both endangered language and academic) are always savvy enough to protect
>> themselves. Of course greater detail of the actual relationships that RS
>> creates would be helpful in terms of understanding.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 1:00 PM, <funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Send FUNKNET mailing list submissions to
>>> funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> https://mailman.rice.edu/mailman/listinfo/funknet
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> funknet-request at mailman.rice.edu
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> funknet-owner at mailman.rice.edu
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of FUNKNET digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered languages
>>> (Keith Johnson)
>>> 2. Re: Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered languages
>>> (A. Katz)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:50:19 -0800
>>> From: Keith Johnson <keithjohnson at berkeley.edu>
>>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>>> languages
>>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>>> Message-ID: <EC46FC5D-387C-47B4-A3D8-DAF756DE399F at berkeley.edu>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>>>
>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>
>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>> raises a couple of
>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>> languages
>>> unit?
>>>
>>> Keith Johnson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:38:15 -0800 (PST)
>>> From: "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>>> languages
>>> To: Keith Johnson <keithjohnson at berkeley.edu>
>>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>>> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1101200937300.26715 at well.com>
>>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>>>
>>> Why not? If it helps preserve the language, and the speakers approve,
>> then
>>> there should be no problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>>
>>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>> raises
>>> a
>>>> couple of
>>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>> languages
>>>> unit?
>>>>
>>>> Keith Johnson
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 88, Issue 16
>>> ***************************************
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:12:17 -0800 (PST)
>> From: "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] FUNKNET Digest, Vol 88, Issue 16
>> To: "s.t. bischoff" <bischoff.st at gmail.com>
>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1101201104140.17603 at well.com>
>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>>
>> I think the issue of whether the RS program works is quite marginal to the
>> question of whether RS or some other commercial program can help to
>> preserve the resources of a language community for future generations.
>>
>> Let's grant for a moment that RS -- or any other computerized program --
>> cannot in and of itself cause someone to acquire a language that he cannot
>> speak already.
>>
>> The question is: how are speakers of this language going to be damaged by
>> the program? Surely their language isn't going to be "taken away from
>> them." What they know, they know. What they are able to transmit to the
>> next generation by natural means, they will. So what is really at issue
>> is: will this help them to preserve language resources now in danger of
>> being lost? Will it help keep the language on ice, in case of language
>> death, so that it can be revived later, by people willing to put in the
>> effort?
>>
>> Are there other issues? Is there any fear that these resources will not be
>> available to future generations of would be speakers? Is someone
>> concerned that the language will get "patented" and only RS will have the
>> license to use it?
>>
>>
>> --Aya
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:48:25 -0800
>> From: John Du Bois <dubois at linguistics.ucsb.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> To: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID: <4D38E5E9.9030402 at linguistics.ucsb.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> I agree with Tom's assessment. One should not underestimate the damage
>> that a company with Rosetta Stone's tendencies to mislead could do in an
>> endangered language community.
>>
>> For example, they could insert a legal clause binding speakers that work
>> with them to work with nobody else in the future. If that's the last
>> speaker of the language, that's the end of the language, as far as
>> indigenous language revitalization efforts, language documentation, and
>> linguistic fieldwork go. Even if Rosetta Stone doesn't use this specific
>> legal tactic, if speakers end up feeling abused by them for whatever
>> reason, they may feel leery about working with anyone else on their
>> language. When there are few speakers in an endangered language
>> community, this can have a big negative impact.
>>
>> It may be worthwhile for some people involved in work with endangered
>> language communities to monitor Rosetta Stone's actions closely, and to
>> work with representatives of those communities to devise strategies for
>> mitigating any negative effects.
>>
>> Jack Du Bois
>>
>> On 1/20/2011 10:16 AM, Tom Givon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Rosetta Stone is a f---ing fraud. I certainly won't recommend to my
>>> Ute friends that they do anything with them--if they asked me.
>>> However, preying on innocent customers is RS's specialty, and the
>>> Natives are just as gullible as the rest of us, an in many way more
>>> vulnerable. I hope they don't create more damage than history already
>>> has. TG
>>>
>>> ==============
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/20/2011 9:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>>
>>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>>> raises a couple of
>>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>>> languages
>>>> unit?
>>>>
>>>> Keith Johnson
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ***************************************************
>> John W. Du Bois, Professor
>> Department of Linguistics
>> 3607 South Hall
>> University of California, Santa Barbara
>> Santa Barbara, California 93106-3100
>> USA
>> ***************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 9
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:34:14 +0900
>> From: Luke Kundl Pinette <lkpinette at comcast.net>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to
>> endangered
>> languages
>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID: <4D38F0A6.1010605 at comcast.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> James,
>> So this gets us a bit off topic, but again I of course have to comment.
>>
>> I don't know about a controlled study. Before I decided on pragmatics I
>> considered doing my thesis on second-language learning strategies, and
>> did a fair bit of research to this end, and I didn't see any formal
>> paper specifically mentioning language programs. I'd suspect there's
>> something, but these programs are all designed so differently that a
>> negative result on one wouldn't apply across programs.
>>
>> As I said earlier, no program can be a teacher. Until we design a
>> program that can pass the Turing test, even if we imagine a program that
>> can hold a conversation, it won't be able to teach subtle distinctions
>> in semantics and pragmatics. Consider the difference in spoken English
>> between "Whaddaya doing?" "Whacha doing?" and "Whacha up to?" and
>> consider the fact that not only English, but every language has myriads
>> of minor distinctions like this.
>>
>> There's three programs I know by name; I've had all of them recommended
>> to me by friends and acquaintances: Rosetta Stone, Pimsleur, and Before
>> You Know It. Rosetta Stone as I said was so awful out of the box,
>> contradicting everything I knew about language learning and good
>> pedagogy that I promptly returned it to my brother (who had been foolish
>> enough to buy it and of course never used it).
>>
>> The two programs I've used are Pimsleur and Before You Know It. I like
>> Pimsleur, it teaches grammar from the outset, and starts the way you
>> would start a language class, and teaches you to speak in sentences from
>> the start. I think it would be more useful if you have someone to
>> practice with--the scripts it uses are actually pretty good, but if you
>> don't have someone it's just rote memorization. And it's definitely not
>> a quick way to learn a language. And if you know linguistics, and have
>> broken down the morphology of the sentence less than ten minutes in, it
>> becomes a bit tedious. It's still something I happily recommend to
>> people I know, though I usually suggest they get it from the library,
>> unless the site is having a sale (as I think they sometimes do).
>>
>> On the other hand if you've traveled much to a foreign country without
>> speaking the language, you'll know that pointing, money, and a
>> calculator will get you pretty far. A few words, social niceties like
>> "hello," "thank you," and "I'm sorry" will get you even further, and if
>> you're going right now it's useful to be able to pick which words you
>> need. Before You Know It, which an acquaintance described as a set of
>> computerized flashcards, is useful in this respect. I don't know anyone
>> who's used the paid version, or even what that includes, but the free
>> version is quite extensive.
>>
>> My biggest complaint is that the pronunciations given are generally not
>> the way the speaker would say it. It's like if you paid an English
>> speaker to ennunciate words, and they said "what-are-you-do-ing"
>> "want-to" "ve-ge-ta-ble" and "com-for-ta-ble" every time. For example
>> Koreans don't say "annyeonghaseyo" for "hello," but "anyeseyo" or even
>> "yeseyo." And "thank you" is not "kamsahamnida" but "kamsamnida."
>> Nonetheless, these are useful words. The Koreans understood what I was
>> saying, even if they always cracked up when they heard me, and since I
>> knew what the words sounded like in context I was able to figure out how
>> they were actually pronounced. But if the paid version contained clips
>> of the way people actually say the words, it would be well worth paying
>> for.
>>
>> I think most of the lesser known products on the market are similar to
>> one or the other of these. I've seen other computer programs which are
>> flashcard based, and I inherited a few German records and tapes from my
>> grandfather when he moved to Florida, and they're similar to Pimsleur.
>> (Though I like Pimsleur's layout better.)
>>
>> That said though, when you view language programs as a tool to help
>> study, you might as well ask whether there's any data to support the
>> view that textbooks in fact aid learning. It depends on the program,
>> the student, and the use the latter makes of the former.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Luke
>>
>> On 1/21/11 3:19 AM, James J. Mischler wrote:
>>> Wendy and all,
>>>
>>> I wonder if *any* program has been found, via controlled research study,
>> to aid in the learning of a language. Wendy said that there are programs
>> that are better than Rosetta Stone; what are they? Is there any data to
>> support the view that the program(s) did in fact aid learning?
>>>
>>> Jim Mischler
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> Language& Communication
>>> Northwestern State University of Louisiana
>>> Natchitoches, LA
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu [mailto:
>> funknet-bounces at mailman.rice.edu] On Behalf Of Wendy Smith
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:07 PM
>>> To: Keith Johnson
>>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>>>
>>> This is amazing. I tried to use Rosetta Stone to get started in Russian,
>>> and it was hopeless. They say that their materials are based on child
>>> acquisition theory and research--therefore direct immersion with no
>>> direct instruction. As someone who has studied SLA, I found this to be
>>> patently ridiculous. Adult second language learners do not learn in the
>>> same way as first language acquirers. In addition, the core of the
>>> materials are made up of isolated useless sentences such as "the women
>>> are cooking" and "the boys are not reading." My brother-in-law, who
>>> works in the biotech industry (in other words, no linguistics training
>>> or knowledge) insisted to me that if you just do the program, you will
>>> learn Russian. However, a month after he returned from his trip to Saint
>>> Petersburg he could not remember the words for "where" or "when." It is
>>> virtually impossible to "acquire" (as RS states) a language in your car
>>> or at your computer, but there are other programs that help introduction
>>> to the language way better than Rosetta Stone.
>>>
>>> On 1/20/2011 8:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>>
>>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>>> raises a couple of
>>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>>> languages
>>>> unit?
>>>>
>>>> Keith Johnson
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 10
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:09:16 +0900
>> From: Luke Kundl Pinette <lkpinette at comcast.net>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to
>> endangered
>> languages
>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID: <4D3906EC.7030301 at comcast.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> The question is, why is the Rosetta Stone doing this anyways? According
>> to the article, Rosetta doesn't actually distribute the programs, just
>> makes them. It doesn't say if it's turning a profit, a loss or selling
>> them at cost (though the last is what one would infer from the article).
>> If they're doing it for the PR, they'll probably try not to screw over
>> native communities too badly, though of course you know what they say
>> about the pavement used on the road to hell.
>>
>> If they're in it for the money, I wouldn't put it past them to add a
>> clause like that. Then we've got a legal question on our hands. It's
>> essentially monopolistic practice, particularly if they make a pattern
>> of deliberately blocking competition for language programs in endangered
>> languages. I suspect that if they were to try it, it would be possible
>> to find some lawyer willing to pursue the issue, and when taken to court
>> they would lose. It would certainly cause a lot of trouble in the
>> meantime though.
>>
>> It sounds like nobody on this list has any illusions about the company.
>> It's depressing to see that a linguist like Krauss, and one in such an
>> important position has bought into Rosetta Stone's marketing, but again,
>> unless another company steps up it doesn't sound like there's any
>> options other than no language program. If Rosetta is not in fact
>> inserting insidious clauses into the agreements with their informants,
>> it's still probably better than nothing.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Luke
>>
>>
>> On 1/21/11 10:48 AM, John Du Bois wrote:
>>> I agree with Tom's assessment. One should not underestimate the damage
>>> that a company with Rosetta Stone's tendencies to mislead could do in
>>> an endangered language community.
>>>
>>> For example, they could insert a legal clause binding speakers that
>>> work with them to work with nobody else in the future. If that's the
>>> last speaker of the language, that's the end of the language, as far
>>> as indigenous language revitalization efforts, language documentation,
>>> and linguistic fieldwork go. Even if Rosetta Stone doesn't use this
>>> specific legal tactic, if speakers end up feeling abused by them for
>>> whatever reason, they may feel leery about working with anyone else on
>>> their language. When there are few speakers in an endangered language
>>> community, this can have a big negative impact.
>>>
>>> It may be worthwhile for some people involved in work with endangered
>>> language communities to monitor Rosetta Stone's actions closely, and
>>> to work with representatives of those communities to devise strategies
>>> for mitigating any negative effects.
>>>
>>> Jack Du Bois
>>>
>>> On 1/20/2011 10:16 AM, Tom Givon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rosetta Stone is a f---ing fraud. I certainly won't recommend to my
>>>> Ute friends that they do anything with them--if they asked me.
>>>> However, preying on innocent customers is RS's specialty, and the
>>>> Natives are just as gullible as the rest of us, an in many way more
>>>> vulnerable. I hope they don't create more damage than history already
>>>> has. TG
>>>>
>>>> ==============
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/20/2011 9:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>>>
>>>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>>>> raises a couple of
>>>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>>>> languages
>>>>> unit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Keith Johnson
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 11
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 03:09:08 -0800 (PST)
>> From: "Gabrielatos, Costas" <c.gabrielatos at lancaster.ac.uk>
>> Subject: [FUNKNET] Call for papers: Lancaster Postgraduate Conference
>> in Linguistics and English Language
>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Cc: Helen West <h.west at lancaster.ac.uk>
>> Message-ID: <420317.74566.qm at web113306.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>
>> THE SIXTH LANCASTER UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL POSTGRADUATE CONFERENCE
>> IN?LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE TEACHING
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> We are pleased to announce the Sixth Lancaster University International
>> Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and English Language (LAEL PG
>> Conference) which will take place at Lancaster University's George Fox
>> building,
>>
>> on Tuesday 12th of July 2011.
>>
>> This one-day conference is designed to give linguistics postgraduates from
>> all
>> research areas an opportunity to present and discuss their research in
>> an informal and intellectually stimulating setting.
>>
>> This year's conference will be opened by Prof. Greg Myers (Lancaster
>> University), and there will be guest plenary lectures by:
>> Prof. Paul Kerswill (Lancaster University)
>> Dr. Johnny Unger (Lancaster University)
>>
>> We invite postgraduate students to submit abstracts for oral and poster
>> presentations on any area of linguistics, theoretical or applied (see below
>> for
>> abstract submission guidelines).
>>
>> Topics Include:
>>
>> ? - Cognitive linguistics
>> ? - Corpus linguistics
>> ? - Critical discourse analysis
>> ? - Historical linguistics
>> ? - Literacy studies
>> ? - Pragmatics/semantics
>> ? - Phonetics/phonology
>> ? - Second language teaching/learning/assessment
>> ? - Sociolinguistics
>> ? - Syntax/morphology Stylistics
>> ? - Translation studies
>> ? - Other: please specify
>>
>> For further information, please visit the website:
>> http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/events/laelpgconference/index.htm
>>
>> Key Dates
>>
>> Abstracts must be received by Friday 25 March 2011
>> Notification of acceptancewill be given on Tuesday 10 May 2011
>>
>> Hope to hear from you all soon,
>>
>> Helen Faye West
>> Janina Iwaniec
>> Matteo Di Cristofaro
>> Jonathon Adams
>> Ibrahim Efe
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 12
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:14:57 -0600
>> From: "Tim Thornes" <tthornes at uca.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> To: <dubois at linguistics.ucsb.edu>,<tgivon at uoregon.edu>
>> Cc: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID: <4D394082020000870009B3F2 at gwia1.uca.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>>
>> I would agree with this sentiment as well as with the inherent potential of
>> a company like this to really screw up relationships with members of an
>> endangered language community. I mean, if Rosetta Stone as the "worldwide
>> leader in language learning worldwide (sic)" (
>> http://www.rosettastone.com/backnolang?pc=se2011&cid=se-gg&gclid=CPCPvsm8y6YCFQPsKgodqhCrHA)
>> can't help us, why would I think some nerdy academic with a microphone and a
>> laptop could?
>> As one such, I am as capable as any big company of damaging relationships
>> with community members, and I ought to know better. Is there any
>> expectation that RS does?
>> Best,
>> Tim
>>
>> Tim Thornes, PhD
>> Assistant Professor of Linguistics
>> Department of Writing
>> University of Central Arkansas
>> 201 Donaghey Avenue
>> Conway, Arkansas 72035
>> USA
>> (501)450-5613
>> tthornes at uca.edu
>>
>>>>> John Du Bois 01/20/11 7:48 PM >>>
>> I agree with Tom's assessment. One should not underestimate the damage
>> that a company with Rosetta Stone's tendencies to mislead could do in an
>> endangered language community.
>>
>> For example, they could insert a legal clause binding speakers that work
>> with them to work with nobody else in the future. If that's the last
>> speaker of the language, that's the end of the language, as far as
>> indigenous language revitalization efforts, language documentation, and
>> linguistic fieldwork go. Even if Rosetta Stone doesn't use this specific
>> legal tactic, if speakers end up feeling abused by them for whatever
>> reason, they may feel leery about working with anyone else on their
>> language. When there are few speakers in an endangered language
>> community, this can have a big negative impact.
>>
>> It may be worthwhile for some people involved in work with endangered
>> language communities to monitor Rosetta Stone's actions closely, and to
>> work with representatives of those communities to devise strategies for
>> mitigating any negative effects.
>>
>> Jack Du Bois
>>
>> On 1/20/2011 10:16 AM, Tom Givon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Rosetta Stone is a f---ing fraud. I certainly won't recommend to my
>>> Ute friends that they do anything with them--if they asked me.
>>> However, preying on innocent customers is RS's specialty, and the
>>> Natives are just as gullible as the rest of us, an in many way more
>>> vulnerable. I hope they don't create more damage than history already
>>> has. TG
>>>
>>> ==============
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/20/2011 9:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>>
>>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>>> raises a couple of
>>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>>> languages
>>>> unit?
>>>>
>>>> Keith Johnson
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ***************************************************
>> John W. Du Bois, Professor
>> Department of Linguistics
>> 3607 South Hall
>> University of California, Santa Barbara
>> Santa Barbara, California 93106-3100
>> USA
>> ***************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 13
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:48:38 -0800
>> From: Pamela Munro <munro at ucla.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to endangered
>> languages
>> To: Tim Thornes <tthornes at uca.edu>
>> Cc: tgivon at uoregon.edu, dubois at linguistics.ucsb.edu,
>> funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID: <4D39AAD6.7090508 at ucla.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> All these suggestions are truly scary.
>>
>> Pam
>>
>> Tim Thornes wrote:
>>> I would agree with this sentiment as well as with the inherent potential
>> of a company like this to really screw up relationships with members of an
>> endangered language community. I mean, if Rosetta Stone as the "worldwide
>> leader in language learning worldwide (sic)" (
>> http://www.rosettastone.com/backnolang?pc=se2011&cid=se-gg&gclid=CPCPvsm8y6YCFQPsKgodqhCrHA)
>> can't help us, why would I think some nerdy academic with a microphone and a
>> laptop could?
>>> As one such, I am as capable as any big company of damaging relationships
>> with community members, and I ought to know better. Is there any
>> expectation that RS does?
>>> Best,
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Tim Thornes, PhD
>>> Assistant Professor of Linguistics
>>> Department of Writing
>>> University of Central Arkansas
>>> 201 Donaghey Avenue
>>> Conway, Arkansas 72035
>>> USA
>>> (501)450-5613
>>> tthornes at uca.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> John Du Bois 01/20/11 7:48 PM >>>
>>>>>>
>>> I agree with Tom's assessment. One should not underestimate the damage
>>> that a company with Rosetta Stone's tendencies to mislead could do in an
>>> endangered language community.
>>>
>>> For example, they could insert a legal clause binding speakers that work
>>> with them to work with nobody else in the future. If that's the last
>>> speaker of the language, that's the end of the language, as far as
>>> indigenous language revitalization efforts, language documentation, and
>>> linguistic fieldwork go. Even if Rosetta Stone doesn't use this specific
>>> legal tactic, if speakers end up feeling abused by them for whatever
>>> reason, they may feel leery about working with anyone else on their
>>> language. When there are few speakers in an endangered language
>>> community, this can have a big negative impact.
>>>
>>> It may be worthwhile for some people involved in work with endangered
>>> language communities to monitor Rosetta Stone's actions closely, and to
>>> work with representatives of those communities to devise strategies for
>>> mitigating any negative effects.
>>>
>>> Jack Du Bois
>>>
>>> On 1/20/2011 10:16 AM, Tom Givon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rosetta Stone is a f---ing fraud. I certainly won't recommend to my
>>>> Ute friends that they do anything with them--if they asked me.
>>>> However, preying on innocent customers is RS's specialty, and the
>>>> Natives are just as gullible as the rest of us, an in many way more
>>>> vulnerable. I hope they don't create more damage than history already
>>>> has. TG
>>>>
>>>> ==============
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/20/2011 9:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>>>
>>>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>>>> raises a couple of
>>>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>>>> languages
>>>>> unit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Keith Johnson
>>>>>
>>>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Pamela Munro,
>> Professor, Linguistics, UCLA
>> UCLA Box 951543
>> Los Angeles, CA 90095-1543
>> http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/munro/munro.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 14
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:30:39 -0500
>> From: Brian MacWhinney <macw at cmu.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to
>> endangered
>> languages
>> To: Funknet <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
>> Message-ID: <9A44FA72-E6DF-4498-A4A0-0A4C4E605BD7 at cmu.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I share your low regard for Rosetta Stone, not so much for what they
>> fail to deliver, but rather for the overstated claims they make. I know a
>> couple of students who have worked with them on internships and, so far,
>> there is no evidence of malicious practices vis a vis native communities.
>> Despite this, I agree that it is likely that communities who collaborate
>> with them will get led down the garden path and end up unwilling to
>> participate later with other, more promising, approaches to language
>> maintenance. But these are freely-formed relations between consenting
>> parties, so nothing can militate against it.
>> Regarding the wider issue of effectiveness of language learning
>> programs, I find it strange that Luke has located nothing on this subject.
>> Back in 1968, Paul Pimsleur already demonstrated the effectiveness of his
>> method of graduated interval recall which is picked up, in an admittedly
>> diluted form, by the current Pimsleur series. There are hundreds of studies
>> distributed across six major journals demonstrating the relatively greater
>> effectiveness of specific components of language instruction, from keyword
>> method to corrective feedback. These effects have been demonstrated in both
>> controlled experiments and, somewhat less convincingly, in classroom and
>> online instruction. Nearly all of my own experimental work is now focused
>> on tests of this type embedded within online tutors. Perhaps what Luke is
>> referring to is the absence of evidence of the overall comparative
>> effectiveness of the big commercial language programs such as Rosetta Stone
>> or Pimsleur. In the cases of
>> such full programs, it is extremely difficult to coordinate a decent
>> experimental test, because it would require buy in from a large group of
>> volunteers across a long period with careful controls for study time and so
>> on. So, I think it is generally better to focus on demonstrations of the
>> effects of individual components of programs, because these can be subject
>> to reasonable experimental control. Of course, all of this leaves the
>> naturalistic methods of language learning out in the cold, and that is
>> wrong. In the end, the best way to advance this field will be to increase
>> automatic data collection during the language learning process, within
>> online, classroom, and naturalistic contexts. This is what I am working on.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -- Brian MacWhinney
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Luke Kundl Pinette wrote:
>>
>>> The question is, why is the Rosetta Stone doing this anyways? According
>> to the article, Rosetta doesn't actually distribute the programs, just makes
>> them. It doesn't say if it's turning a profit, a loss or selling them at
>> cost (though the last is what one would infer from the article). If they're
>> doing it for the PR, they'll probably try not to screw over native
>> communities too badly, though of course you know what they say about the
>> pavement used on the road to hell.
>>>
>>> If they're in it for the money, I wouldn't put it past them to add a
>> clause like that. Then we've got a legal question on our hands. It's
>> essentially monopolistic practice, particularly if they make a pattern of
>> deliberately blocking competition for language programs in endangered
>> languages. I suspect that if they were to try it, it would be possible to
>> find some lawyer willing to pursue the issue, and when taken to court they
>> would lose. It would certainly cause a lot of trouble in the meantime
>> though.
>>>
>>> It sounds like nobody on this list has any illusions about the company.
>> It's depressing to see that a linguist like Krauss, and one in such an
>> important position has bought into Rosetta Stone's marketing, but again,
>> unless another company steps up it doesn't sound like there's any options
>> other than no language program. If Rosetta is not in fact inserting
>> insidious clauses into the agreements with their informants, it's still
>> probably better than nothing.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Luke
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/21/11 10:48 AM, John Du Bois wrote:
>>>> I agree with Tom's assessment. One should not underestimate the damage
>>>> that a company with Rosetta Stone's tendencies to mislead could do in
>>>> an endangered language community.
>>>>
>>>> For example, they could insert a legal clause binding speakers that
>>>> work with them to work with nobody else in the future. If that's the
>>>> last speaker of the language, that's the end of the language, as far
>>>> as indigenous language revitalization efforts, language documentation,
>>>> and linguistic fieldwork go. Even if Rosetta Stone doesn't use this
>>>> specific legal tactic, if speakers end up feeling abused by them for
>>>> whatever reason, they may feel leery about working with anyone else on
>>>> their language. When there are few speakers in an endangered language
>>>> community, this can have a big negative impact.
>>>>
>>>> It may be worthwhile for some people involved in work with endangered
>>>> language communities to monitor Rosetta Stone's actions closely, and
>>>> to work with representatives of those communities to devise strategies
>>>> for mitigating any negative effects.
>>>>
>>>> Jack Du Bois
>>>>
>>>> On 1/20/2011 10:16 AM, Tom Givon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rosetta Stone is a f---ing fraud. I certainly won't recommend to my
>>>>> Ute friends that they do anything with them--if they asked me.
>>>>> However, preying on innocent customers is RS's specialty, and the
>>>>> Natives are just as gullible as the rest of us, an in many way more
>>>>> vulnerable. I hope they don't create more damage than history already
>>>>> has. TG
>>>>>
>>>>> ==============
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/20/2011 9:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>>>>> raises a couple of
>>>>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>>>>> languages
>>>>>> unit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keith Johnson
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-rosetta.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 15
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 11:33:26 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
>> From: jess tauber <phonosemantics at earthlink.net>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to
>> endangered
>> languages
>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> 32117937.1295627607528.JavaMail.root at wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>> Just minutes ago as I write this, on the television show 'The View', actor
>> Ed Harris brought up his not so successful attempt to use Rosetta Stone,
>> 'that thing you can get', to pick up a little Russian for his movie opening
>> this week- eventually he had to utilize the services of a Bulgarian, in
>> person.
>>
>> Maybe the public isn't so misinformed?
>>
>> Jess Tauber
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 16
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:40:02 -0700
>> From: Tom Givon <tgivon at uoregon.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to
>> endangered
>> languages
>> To: funknet at mailman.rice.edu
>> Message-ID: <4D39B6E2.3030004 at uoregon.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>
>> They still shell out C-notes by the bushel for this scam. RS does not
>> make their money off satisfied customers, but off poor first-hit
>> suckers. TG
>>
>> ============================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/21/2011 9:33 AM, jess tauber wrote:
>>> Just minutes ago as I write this, on the television show 'The View',
>> actor Ed Harris brought up his not so successful attempt to use Rosetta
>> Stone, 'that thing you can get', to pick up a little Russian for his movie
>> opening this week- eventually he had to utilize the services of a Bulgarian,
>> in person.
>>>
>>> Maybe the public isn't so misinformed?
>>>
>>> Jess Tauber
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 17
>> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:57:58 -0800
>> From: Marianne Mithun <mithun at linguistics.ucsb.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [FUNKNET] Rosetta Stone acquires the rights to
>> endangered
>> languages
>> To: Brian MacWhinney <macw at cmu.edu>, Funknet
>> <funknet at mailman.rice.edu>
>> Message-ID: <D0231B8C222511E5AF887A89@[192.168.7.101]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>
>> I finally have to weigh in here on another aspect of the issue specifically
>> with respect to endangered languages.
>>
>> For communities in danger of losing their traditional languages, learning
>> the heritage language isn't just about being able to order a meal in a
>> restaurant or book a hotel room. It's often about something much deeper,
>> about appreciating traditional ways of viewing the world, of categorizing
>> concepts, of combining ideas, of interacting. And the Rosetta Stone system
>> is one-size-fits-all. People are essentially asked to translate the model
>> sentences into whatever language is at hand, and the results tend to be
>> close to word-by-word translations. So yes, learners learn how to say 'boy'
>> and 'run'. But they don't learn, for example, that ideas expressed by nouns
>> in English are expressed in language X by verbs. Or that in many languages
>> people don't tend to talk sentences consisting of Noun Verb Noun (or Noun
>> Noun Verb). They don't learn about the glorious elaboration of semantic
>> distinctions or domains that have no counterparts in the model language.
>> They probably won't learn about evidentials. They are unlikely to learn
>> about elaborate aspectual distinctions. They certainly won't learn
>> different patterns of subordination or clause combining.
>>
>> For some situations, that may be fine. Heritage speakers just want to be
>> able to use some phrases in everyday talk. And they don't have the time or
>> interest for that kind of complexity. For others, it sort of defeats the
>> whole purpose.
>>
>> Marianne Mithun
>>
>>
>> --On Friday, January 21, 2011 11:30 AM -0500 Brian MacWhinney
>> <macw at cmu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> I share your low regard for Rosetta Stone, not so much for what they
>>> fail to deliver, but rather for the overstated claims they make. I know
>>> a couple of students who have worked with them on internships and, so
>>> far, there is no evidence of malicious practices vis a vis native
>>> communities. Despite this, I agree that it is likely that communities who
>>> collaborate with them will get led down the garden path and end up
>>> unwilling to participate later with other, more promising, approaches to
>>> language maintenance. But these are freely-formed relations between
>>> consenting parties, so nothing can militate against it. Regarding
>>> the wider issue of effectiveness of language learning programs, I find it
>>> strange that Luke has located nothing on this subject. Back in 1968,
>>> Paul Pimsleur already demonstrated the effectiveness of his method of
>>> graduated interval recall which is picked up, in an admittedly diluted
>>> form, by the current Pimsleur series. There are hundreds of studies
>>> distributed across six major journals demonstrating the relatively
>>> greater effectiveness of specific components of language instruction,
>>> from keyword method to corrective feedback. These effects have been
>>> demonstrated in both controlled experiments and, somewhat less
>>> convincingly, in classroom and online instruction. Nearly all of my own
>>> experimental work is now focused on tests of this type embedded within
>>> online tutors. Perhaps what Luke is referring to is the absence of
>>> evidence of the overall comparative effectiveness of the big commercial
>>> language programs such as Rosetta Stone or Pimsleur. In the cases of
>>> such full programs, it is extremely difficult to coordinate a decent
>>> experimental test, because it would require buy in from a large group of
>>> volunteers across a long period with careful controls for study time and
>>> so on. So, I think it is generally better to focus on demonstrations of
>>> the effects of individual components of programs, because these can be
>>> subject to reasonable experimental control. Of course, all of this
>>> leaves the naturalistic methods of language learning out in the cold, and
>>> that is wrong. In the end, the best way to advance this field will be to
>>> increase automatic data collection during the language learning process,
>>> within online, classroom, and naturalistic contexts. This is what I am
>>> working on.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -- Brian MacWhinney
>>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Luke Kundl Pinette wrote:
>>>
>>>> The question is, why is the Rosetta Stone doing this anyways? According
>>>> to the article, Rosetta doesn't actually distribute the programs, just
>>>> makes them. It doesn't say if it's turning a profit, a loss or selling
>>>> them at cost (though the last is what one would infer from the article).
>>>> If they're doing it for the PR, they'll probably try not to screw over
>>>> native communities too badly, though of course you know what they say
>>>> about the pavement used on the road to hell.
>>>>
>>>> If they're in it for the money, I wouldn't put it past them to add a
>>>> clause like that. Then we've got a legal question on our hands. It's
>>>> essentially monopolistic practice, particularly if they make a pattern
>>>> of deliberately blocking competition for language programs in endangered
>>>> languages. I suspect that if they were to try it, it would be possible
>>>> to find some lawyer willing to pursue the issue, and when taken to court
>>>> they would lose. It would certainly cause a lot of trouble in the
>>>> meantime though.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like nobody on this list has any illusions about the company.
>>>> It's depressing to see that a linguist like Krauss, and one in such an
>>>> important position has bought into Rosetta Stone's marketing, but again,
>>>> unless another company steps up it doesn't sound like there's any
>>>> options other than no language program. If Rosetta is not in fact
>>>> inserting insidious clauses into the agreements with their informants,
>>>> it's still probably better than nothing.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Luke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/21/11 10:48 AM, John Du Bois wrote:
>>>>> I agree with Tom's assessment. One should not underestimate the damage
>>>>> that a company with Rosetta Stone's tendencies to mislead could do in
>>>>> an endangered language community.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, they could insert a legal clause binding speakers that
>>>>> work with them to work with nobody else in the future. If that's the
>>>>> last speaker of the language, that's the end of the language, as far
>>>>> as indigenous language revitalization efforts, language documentation,
>>>>> and linguistic fieldwork go. Even if Rosetta Stone doesn't use this
>>>>> specific legal tactic, if speakers end up feeling abused by them for
>>>>> whatever reason, they may feel leery about working with anyone else on
>>>>> their language. When there are few speakers in an endangered language
>>>>> community, this can have a big negative impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> It may be worthwhile for some people involved in work with endangered
>>>>> language communities to monitor Rosetta Stone's actions closely, and
>>>>> to work with representatives of those communities to devise strategies
>>>>> for mitigating any negative effects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jack Du Bois
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/20/2011 10:16 AM, Tom Givon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rosetta Stone is a f---ing fraud. I certainly won't recommend to my
>>>>>> Ute friends that they do anything with them--if they asked me.
>>>>>> However, preying on innocent customers is RS's specialty, and the
>>>>>> Natives are just as gullible as the rest of us, an in many way more
>>>>>> vulnerable. I hope they don't create more damage than history already
>>>>>> has. TG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ==============
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/20/2011 9:50 AM, Keith Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Funksters,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My subject heading is intentionally provocative, but this article
>>>>>>> raises a couple of
>>>>>>> issues. Is it a good thing for Rosetta Stone to have an endangered
>>>>>>> languages
>>>>>>> unit?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keith Johnson
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2011/01/19/1657429/alaska-natives-team-up-with-ros
>>>>>>> etta.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> End of FUNKNET Digest, Vol 88, Issue 17
>> ***************************************
>>
>
More information about the Funknet
mailing list