<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:388267111;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1659890668 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal>I came across a 1962 article by Charles A. Ferguson entitled
“The Language Factor in International Development” (Anthropological
Linguistics 4(1): 23-27) in which a simple schema for measuring relative
language “development” (quotes are his) according to degree of use
in writing and degree of standardization. Ferguson puts this forth as a “first
approximation.” <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I summarize his system below. I’m interested in
knowing if anyone has tried to apply and/or develop this further. I realize
that such a concept of hierarchies is problematic and even if one accepts the
principle, its application is not easy (IOW the boundaries defining the
categories are not so clear). However I am looking at it for two reasons:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>1)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span><![endif]>as a possible way of sketching the language situation
for language planning purposes (straying here into ground that is not my
specialization) – can it be useful to have sense of language use from application
of such categories despite whatever shortcomings?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>2)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span><![endif]>in localization of ICT there is another kind of
categorization happening, and that is the level of technical resource endowment
for languages. Terms like “under-resourced” languages have emerged
to describe the situation of minority languages without much in to facilitate
their use in computing or the internet. In 2004 Vincent Berment completed a
thesis on this subject in which he also proposed using Greek letter as neutral terms
for the level of endowment: tau (well resourced), mu (moderately well
resourced), and pi (poorly resourced). Such discussions focusing on technology however,
and whatever terms are used, are difficult without reference to other basic
measures. Berment seems to recognize this, but is it useful to separately analyze
such basic (non technical) measures as writing and standardization. The object
in this case is to provide richer information for localization strategies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Anyway, it’s a current small area of interest that I’m
trying to gather more information on.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>The scales proposed by Ferguson for discussion are:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>(level of writing of a language)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>W.0 – not used for written purposes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>W.1 – used for normal written purposes<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>W.2 – original research in physical sciences regularly
published<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>W.3 – languages in which translations and resumés of
scientific work in other languages are regularly published.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>(level of standardization)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>St.0 – a language in which there is no important
amount of standardization<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>St.1 – (this category he recognizes to pose some
challenges, but involves situations where there is more than one standard)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>St.2 – a language which has a single, widely accepted
norm which is felt to be appropriate with only minor modifications or
variations for all purposes and for which the language is used.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thanks in advance for any information or thoughts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Don Osborn<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>