Rosetta Stone

[Rrlapier at AOL.COM]

I have read ANA language grants for several years. In the last couple of  
years I have noticed more and more efforts to document language using  
technologies from outside of the community. Oftentimes the community does not  
articulate how they will incorporate these technologies into their whole  language 
revitalization strategy or how it will build their community  capcity.
 
Rosetta Stone is one of those companies. In most cases the community knew  
very very little about the company (they would attach a brochure to their  
application) and so their grant would basically be asking for 90% to cover the  
cost of RS and 10% for at home. The question I always asked to the applicant is  
to show how this is "community capacity building" -- if all the dollars  leave 
the community?
 
I think tribes need to be proactive and require companies like RS to  put 
most of the dollars back into the community, by training technicians,  language 
specialists, etc. Tribes need to make this relationship a  partnership.
 
Rosalyn LaPier
Piegan Institute
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/12/2007 12:14:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,  
andrekar at NCIDC.ORG writes:

The  arguments against Rosetta stone remind me of the complaints I  
have  heard about the Phrasealator.  Why do we need to pay so much   
money, people are just trying to get rich.

I agree in a perfect  world the items to help tribes recover and  
preserve their languages  would be free to them (either through  
generosity, grants or other  subsidy), but alas we are in less than a  
perfect world.  The  next best thing is to find out what works best  
(program, sytem,  software, etc) regardless of costs and then work  
like the devil to  get the costs covered.  The paramount objective is  
preservation  of my language.  Profiteers have to face their music  
when  creator chooses.

On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Mia Kalish  wrote:

What a lovely response, Don. I enjoyed the multiple perspectives  and the
thoughts that they engendered. And most of us have seen all of  this,  
yes?
By the way, a very nice lady from Rosetta Stone is on  this list - or she
used to be. Their technology is a lot like the  technology we put  
together
and researched. It is not exact; I  don't want anyone to infer that I am
implying any misbehavior on anyone's  part. The point I want to make  
is that
presenting the visual, the  sound and the text simultaneously in what  
we did
was 78%  effective Across populations - that was, people who had heard   
Apache
but were either not fluent or not literate, and people who had  never  
been
exposed to Apache ever. "Across populations" is a  statistical  
characteristic
that says that the populations are so  alike they can be analyzed as a  
single
group. This is rare in  pedagogies.
As for the publicity . . . Rosetta Stone advertises on  television.  
They have
lots of languages. I've lost track of how  many. Publicity tells people
what's happening. It tells People what Other  People think is important.
Right now, in New Mexico, there is a huge "DWI  Blitz" (You drink; you  
drive;
you lose.) This is telling people  who drive that people are taking  
driving
sober very seriously.  And there are lots of billboards talking about  
DWI;
it's in the  papers, on the news. Now, is this a current issue in a  
lot  of
state? No-o-o-o-o-o. But, my point here is that Publicity is how you  let
people know what others are thinking. I saw another sign today,  "Ron  
Paul
for President . . . A new view" and I thought, Who is  Ron Paul? There  
was
just one sign, and I couldn't connect it to  anything else I had seen or
heard. One sign won't get me to vote for Ron  Paul for president, but  
many,
many signs will get a lot of drunk  drivers off the road, and will change
attitudes.
So maybe all the  publicity for Rosetta Stone will start to change  
attitudes
about  what is important about People. For a long time, there has been   
the
"white ruling class" and everyone else. Like Don pointed out,  there  
hasn't
been much real knowledge about "everyone else." I am  so happy to see  
even
the little bits of beginnings where we start  to know about Everyone  
Else,
even the Everyone Elses of us  :-)

Thanks Don,
Really, really good piece - I  think,
Mia



-----Original Message-----
From: Indigenous  Languages and Technology  
[mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]
On  Behalf Of Don Osborn
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:53 PM
To:  ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [ILAT] Rosetta Stone

As I  look at this thread several thoughts occur. One is Robert  Chambers'
discussion of "positive practitioners" and "negative academics"  in
international development. The former try to do something, whatever  the
agenda, and sometimes ineptly. The latter critique, sometimes   
insightfully
and incisively and sometimes less so. That is not to say  that one is  
right
and the other wrong, but that in some ways they  are like two different
cultures.

Jess Tauber is right to point out  the ironies in the historical  
sweep. The
same dominant culture  that via education and technology tried to wipe  
out
languages or  systematically marginalize them (not just in the  
Americas),  now
is in part (at least the parts you see) trying to save them. It  is  
natural
to ask why.

Part of it is the dynamic of power.  I've noted - again in international
development - that the people in  positions to do so end up occupying or
pre-empting both sides (or all  positions) in many debates. Even about  
the
nature of a people  themselves. This was particularly striking in several
decades of debates on  pastoralism in Africa - an evolution of two  
opposing
views on the  rationality or not of transhumant (semi-nomadic)  
herding.  An
evolving debate entirely outside of the cultures discussed, with   
indirect
and imperfect references to the herders' knowledge systems,  and in terms
totally outside pastoralists' languages, and totally immersed  in Western
terms of reference.

I see a little of this in discussions  on languages and on languages &
technology.

In part, this  dynamic of power is just that way, like the wind just  
blows.
It  shifts too, and you can find a way to explain it, but in the end  
how  do
you protect yourself from it and better yet use its force to some   
advantage?

So, on one level, Jess's generalizing about "they"  responds to a real  
set of
issues. However on another level it  seems to blur some realities.

When looking at the specific case of  companies like Rosetta Stone (or  
for
that matter bigger  technology companies) part of what one must  
appreciate is
the  nature of the beast and the environment it is working in. The bottom
line  and survival in that environment is money. How to get it can raise
issues,  but without it, *poof*. James's suspicion is natural, but with a
company,  what else is new?

But even that is more complex. I resist reifying the  notion of  
corporation
too far to the point of overlooking the  agency of people in  
organizations
like Rosetta Stone, who may be  very sincerely devoted to somehow  
changing
the world for better.  The latter may end up being the "positive
practitioners" per Chambers'  dichotomy, with their more or less  
imperfect
human (and  culturally bound) understanding of what they are dealing  
with  -
and their own environment to survive in.

>From what little I know  of Rosetta Stone I see it as a business that  
is at
least trying  to do something. It's making good money, apparently, in   
general
language learning with a product that has positive reviews.  It's  
stepping
outside of that market in an interesting way. Of  course they are  
milking it
for publicity too, but again, that is  the nature of companies. I  
don't know
enough about the program,  its approach or results to judge it, but I'm
absolutely not surprised if  there are limits in terms of what they  
spend on
it (anything has  limits).

Let me finish with another technology example. A company named  Lancor  
just
sued the One Laptop Per Child project for alleged use  of codes in a  
patented
keyboard. The object of both keyboards is  to facilitate input of  
"extended
Latin characters" and diacritics  for West African languages. I don't  
know
the technical or patent  issues well enough, but whatever the merits  
of the
case may or  may not be, the ultimate victims will be people who might   
have
been able to use the technology sooner for their  languages.

The collateral damage to common aims from disputes over  methods can be
considerable, and avoidable to the extent one accepts that  everyone has
honorable intent. (Maybe a key question is how to establish  the  
latter and a
sense of trust.)

I'd agree with Mia's  bottom line conclusion that someone has to do  
it. If
you start  subtracting potential partners from the equation, are you   
better
off?

Don  Osborn





**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ilat/attachments/20071212/c2381fc2/attachment.htm>