Rosetta Stone

Tue Dec 11 17:01:30 UTC 2007

Although I have many other thoughts/comments I could make, for now I just
want to let you all know that I agree with you, James and Jess.  I, too, am
often suspicious of technological methods--but not for exactly the same
reasons.  I'm an older White Mountain Apache, worked on a doctoral
dissertation on our Apache language in which I am fluent along with two
other languages; therefore, i feel that I come at these issues from that
perspective.  There are many issues involved in our attempts at revitalizing
our languages in local communities.  I must state that in our tribe, we
still have many speakers in comparison with other tribes that only have a
few fluent speakers, and we also still have children speakers.  But the
percentages of children and younger people learning our language is
decreasing year by year.  That is our concern.

I taught Apache at the University level and sometimes had non-Indian
students and have been contacted by several non-Indian individuals who
wished to learn Apache and I also had Apache students, some of whom grew up
on their reservations and had been around spoken Apache all their lives and
many have passive knowledge.  Then there are the Apache students who never
lived on the reservation and do not have speakers in their families;
therefore, had language-learning results that were similar to the non-Indian
students.  The fastest learners are those with passive knowledge and written
Apache is not very helpful to learners.  I attempted to not stress reading &
writing for those reasons.  People do not have to learn to read and write
Apache to learn it.  I believe the total immersion method is best and that
involves observational language situations for language learning.  We will
be utilizing that at the local level if we can get funded for immersion
camps in future.

The point that I wish to make is that some of us do not wish for our
languages to be on Internets, websites, or even on CDs.  These open learning
of Apache to many who would misuse, misinterpret, mispronounce, and abuse
our sacred language.  I know that these things happen because of my teaching
experience.  The adult learners I have attempted to teach usually go off on
their own tangents in learning methods, I cannot understand their spoken
Apache (in many instances) even though I am a fluent speaker and I thought I
had taught them the correct pronunciations by going over and over the
alphabet used in written Apache.  But I cannot understand them except for a
very few words and a couple of them have been at it for years.  Another
attempts to sing but that is another whole topic concerning who should be
singing our sacred songs. Abuse of our language is therefore, an issue with
some of us--where would they use the language and why?

Getting to the issue of the Rosetta Stone, I have often thought of misplaced
trust that sometimes occurs in our native communities about so many things
technology has to offer.  There is also another company that has cassette
tapes (and DVDs) for sale that features one Apache language and that would
probably mean people would misconstrue that all Apaches speak that language
when there once were more than ten Apache nations and languages.  Now
several of our nations no longer have fluent speakers left.  For the reasons
that are very close to our hearts and emotions, many of our community
members wish for the children to learn and use our Apache languages but some
of us do not want it abused by publication in various media.  We should
develop our own methods and total immersion and observational language
learning are best taught intergenerationally within our homes.  Language
learning at schools is just a tool available at other domains but should not
be the main or only place for our children to learn their first languages.
Being bilingual is a great educational advantage.

And speaking of PC, our Indigenous communities and histories pre-date the
United States and its constitutional rights, and as polemic as the term is
in contemporary US society, our traditional knowledge, beliefs, and values
should definitely not be judged under such a new and ephemeral term.

Thanks for all your points, I enjoyed reading them.

Bernadette Adley-SantaMaria

On 12/10/07, James Crippen <jcrippen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2007 11:10 AM, Andre Cramblit <andrekar at ncidc.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > But Cook noted that it is not certain the collaboration will continue
> beyond
> > the level 1 program because much depends on funding. Rosetta Stone may
> > extend its grant for level 2, but production of level 3 will not be
> > subsidized so the nonprofit needs to come up with another source of
> money.
>
> I have been somewhat suspicious about this effort by Rosetta Stone to
> promote their language learning software among endangered language
> communities. On the one hand they seem to be actively trying to help,
> but on the other they seem to be milking their effort for all the
> publicity that it is worth.
>
> I can't criticize their software or their efforts because I have not
> seen the software in person. However, learning that they only provide
> "level 1" (presumably the introductory and easiest materials to
> prepare) with their normal grant, and then "may" provide "level 2",
> but do not provide "level 3" as a free service makes me far more
> suspicious of their intentions. It sounds as if they are encouraging
> vendor lock-in so that the community will become dependent on their
> software and then force them to pay for further advancement.
>
> Why not just train community members to develop the materials
> themselves, rather than depend on the company for constant
> handholding? And what sort of nondisclosure agreements do they require
> participants to sign in order to protect Rosetta Stone's valuable
> intellectual property?
>
> > In addition, Cook said, the subsidy does not include paying the
> translators
> > for their work. Currently all are volunteering their time and must also
> pay
> > their own travel costs to meetings.
>
> This is even more suspicious to me. If the company is not willing to
> assist the translators, who among endangered languages are often frail
> and elderly, then what point is there in offering their software
> services? It does not take a large committee to develop language
> teaching materials, merely one or two native speakers suffices in my
> experience.
>
> I would be much more impressed by a nonprofit or academic organization
> which develops a framework and tools for designing language teaching
> software for endangered language communities. This whole Rosetta Stone
> business I keep hearing about sounds more and more like a publicity
> act rather than a serious effort to assist endangered languages in
> revitalization projects.
>
> Pardon me if I sit back and scowl at all of this news about Rosetta
> Stone. While they may have the best intentions in mind, their actions
> are not yet encouraging me to believe in them.
>
> James A. Crippen
> Student in the Department of Linguistics
> University of Hawai'i
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20071211/80093db2/attachment.htm>