<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3199" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rosalyn LaPier</DIV>
<DIV>Piegan Institute</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 12/12/2007 12:14:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
andrekar@NCIDC.ORG writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>The
arguments against Rosetta stone remind me of the complaints I <BR>have
heard about the Phrasealator. Why do we need to pay so much
<BR>money, people are just trying to get rich.<BR><BR>I agree in a perfect
world the items to help tribes recover and <BR>preserve their languages
would be free to them (either through <BR>generosity, grants or other
subsidy), but alas we are in less than a <BR>perfect world. The
next best thing is to find out what works best <BR>(program, sytem,
software, etc) regardless of costs and then work <BR>like the devil to
get the costs covered. The paramount objective is <BR>preservation
of my language. Profiteers have to face their music <BR>when
creator chooses.<BR><BR>On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Mia Kalish
wrote:<BR><BR>What a lovely response, Don. I enjoyed the multiple perspectives
and the<BR>thoughts that they engendered. And most of us have seen all of
this, <BR>yes?<BR>By the way, a very nice lady from Rosetta Stone is on
this list - or she<BR>used to be. Their technology is a lot like the
technology we put <BR>together<BR>and researched. It is not exact; I
don't want anyone to infer that I am<BR>implying any misbehavior on anyone's
part. The point I want to make <BR>is that<BR>presenting the visual, the
sound and the text simultaneously in what <BR>we did<BR>was 78%
effective Across populations - that was, people who had heard
<BR>Apache<BR>but were either not fluent or not literate, and people who had
never <BR>been<BR>exposed to Apache ever. "Across populations" is a
statistical <BR>characteristic<BR>that says that the populations are so
alike they can be analyzed as a <BR>single<BR>group. This is rare in
pedagogies.<BR>As for the publicity . . . Rosetta Stone advertises on
television. <BR>They have<BR>lots of languages. I've lost track of how
many. Publicity tells people<BR>what's happening. It tells People what Other
People think is important.<BR>Right now, in New Mexico, there is a huge "DWI
Blitz" (You drink; you <BR>drive;<BR>you lose.) This is telling people
who drive that people are taking <BR>driving<BR>sober very seriously.
And there are lots of billboards talking about <BR>DWI;<BR>it's in the
papers, on the news. Now, is this a current issue in a <BR>lot
of<BR>state? No-o-o-o-o-o. But, my point here is that Publicity is how you
let<BR>people know what others are thinking. I saw another sign today,
"Ron <BR>Paul<BR>for President . . . A new view" and I thought, Who is
Ron Paul? There <BR>was<BR>just one sign, and I couldn't connect it to
anything else I had seen or<BR>heard. One sign won't get me to vote for Ron
Paul for president, but <BR>many,<BR>many signs will get a lot of drunk
drivers off the road, and will change<BR>attitudes.<BR>So maybe all the
publicity for Rosetta Stone will start to change <BR>attitudes<BR>about
what is important about People. For a long time, there has been
<BR>the<BR>"white ruling class" and everyone else. Like Don pointed out,
there <BR>hasn't<BR>been much real knowledge about "everyone else." I am
so happy to see <BR>even<BR>the little bits of beginnings where we start
to know about Everyone <BR>Else,<BR>even the Everyone Elses of us
:-)<BR><BR>Thanks Don,<BR>Really, really good piece - I
think,<BR>Mia<BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Indigenous
Languages and Technology <BR>[mailto:ILAT@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]<BR>On
Behalf Of Don Osborn<BR>Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:53 PM<BR>To:
ILAT@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU<BR>Subject: Re: [ILAT] Rosetta Stone<BR><BR>As I
look at this thread several thoughts occur. One is Robert
Chambers'<BR>discussion of "positive practitioners" and "negative academics"
in<BR>international development. The former try to do something, whatever
the<BR>agenda, and sometimes ineptly. The latter critique, sometimes
<BR>insightfully<BR>and incisively and sometimes less so. That is not to say
that one is <BR>right<BR>and the other wrong, but that in some ways they
are like two different<BR>cultures.<BR><BR>Jess Tauber is right to point out
the ironies in the historical <BR>sweep. The<BR>same dominant culture
that via education and technology tried to wipe <BR>out<BR>languages or
systematically marginalize them (not just in the <BR>Americas),
now<BR>is in part (at least the parts you see) trying to save them. It
is <BR>natural<BR>to ask why.<BR><BR>Part of it is the dynamic of power.
I've noted - again in international<BR>development - that the people in
positions to do so end up occupying or<BR>pre-empting both sides (or all
positions) in many debates. Even about <BR>the<BR>nature of a people
themselves. This was particularly striking in several<BR>decades of debates on
pastoralism in Africa - an evolution of two <BR>opposing<BR>views on the
rationality or not of transhumant (semi-nomadic) <BR>herding.
An<BR>evolving debate entirely outside of the cultures discussed, with
<BR>indirect<BR>and imperfect references to the herders' knowledge systems,
and in terms<BR>totally outside pastoralists' languages, and totally immersed
in Western<BR>terms of reference.<BR><BR>I see a little of this in discussions
on languages and on languages &<BR>technology.<BR><BR>In part, this
dynamic of power is just that way, like the wind just <BR>blows.<BR>It
shifts too, and you can find a way to explain it, but in the end <BR>how
do<BR>you protect yourself from it and better yet use its force to some
<BR>advantage?<BR><BR>So, on one level, Jess's generalizing about "they"
responds to a real <BR>set of<BR>issues. However on another level it
seems to blur some realities.<BR><BR>When looking at the specific case of
companies like Rosetta Stone (or <BR>for<BR>that matter bigger
technology companies) part of what one must <BR>appreciate is<BR>the
nature of the beast and the environment it is working in. The bottom<BR>line
and survival in that environment is money. How to get it can raise<BR>issues,
but without it, *poof*. James's suspicion is natural, but with a<BR>company,
what else is new?<BR><BR>But even that is more complex. I resist reifying the
notion of <BR>corporation<BR>too far to the point of overlooking the
agency of people in <BR>organizations<BR>like Rosetta Stone, who may be
very sincerely devoted to somehow <BR>changing<BR>the world for better.
The latter may end up being the "positive<BR>practitioners" per Chambers'
dichotomy, with their more or less <BR>imperfect<BR>human (and
culturally bound) understanding of what they are dealing <BR>with
-<BR>and their own environment to survive in.<BR><BR>From what little I know
of Rosetta Stone I see it as a business that <BR>is at<BR>least trying
to do something. It's making good money, apparently, in
<BR>general<BR>language learning with a product that has positive reviews.
It's <BR>stepping<BR>outside of that market in an interesting way. Of
course they are <BR>milking it<BR>for publicity too, but again, that is
the nature of companies. I <BR>don't know<BR>enough about the program,
its approach or results to judge it, but I'm<BR>absolutely not surprised if
there are limits in terms of what they <BR>spend on<BR>it (anything has
limits).<BR><BR>Let me finish with another technology example. A company named
Lancor <BR>just<BR>sued the One Laptop Per Child project for alleged use
of codes in a <BR>patented<BR>keyboard. The object of both keyboards is
to facilitate input of <BR>"extended<BR>Latin characters" and diacritics
for West African languages. I don't <BR>know<BR>the technical or patent
issues well enough, but whatever the merits <BR>of the<BR>case may or
may not be, the ultimate victims will be people who might
<BR>have<BR>been able to use the technology sooner for their
languages.<BR><BR>The collateral damage to common aims from disputes over
methods can be<BR>considerable, and avoidable to the extent one accepts that
everyone has<BR>honorable intent. (Maybe a key question is how to establish
the <BR>latter and a<BR>sense of trust.)<BR><BR>I'd agree with Mia's
bottom line conclusion that someone has to do <BR>it. If<BR>you start
subtracting potential partners from the equation, are you
<BR>better<BR>off?<BR><BR>Don
Osborn<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">See AOL's <A title="http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004" href="http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004" target="_blank">top rated recipes</A> and <A title="http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003" href="http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003" target="_blank">easy ways to stay in shape</A> for winter.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>