<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Don:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks for reminding us of the Ferguson
article.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Some of my colleagues and I have been
looking at using Fishman's GIDS (Graded Intergenerational Disruption
Scale) as a means of categorizing the status of "development"
of various language communities. Fishman, of course, intended it to be
used as a measure of disruption, but taking his GIDS Stage 6 as the general
norm (most of the world's languages that are being transmitted intergenerationally
are there) we're looking at what kinds of language-based development activities
would be required or indicated to help them move "up one stage"
to Stage 5 (widespread use of literacy that language in the community).
Similarly, following Fishman's RLS (Reversing Language Shift) agenda, what
would it take for a language community that is at Stage 7 (incipient loss
and shift) to be restored to full intergenerational oral transmission at
Stage 6?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The W and S scales suggested by Ferguson
might give a finer-grained way of describing what Stage 5 (and upward)
would or could look like in each situation and so provide a blueprint or
agenda for corpus planning activities.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Warmly,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Paul</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">*****************<br>
M. Paul Lewis<br>
SIL International<br>
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd.<br>
Dallas, TX 75236<br>
<br>
Voice: (972) 708-7521<br>
Fax: (972) 708-7589<br>
Cell: (817) 703-8361</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"Don Osborn"
<dzo@bisharat.net></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: owner-lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">05/09/2007 09:41 PM</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu</font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><lgpolicy-list@ccat.sas.upenn.edu></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Ferguson's schema for written &
standardization categories</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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.” </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1) 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?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">2) 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.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Anyway, it’s a current small area of
interest that I’m trying to gather more information on.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The scales proposed by Ferguson for
discussion are:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">(level of writing of a language)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">W.0 – not used for written purposes</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">W.1 – used for normal written purposes</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">W.2 – original research in physical
sciences regularly published</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">W.3 – languages in which translations
and resumés of scientific work in other languages are regularly published.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">(level of standardization)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">St.0 – a language in which there is
no important amount of standardization</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">St.1 – (this category he recognizes
to pose some challenges, but involves situations where there is more than
one standard)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">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.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks in advance for any information
or thoughts.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Don Osborn</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br>