ELL: Re:Transparent Language Systems offer and smaller commu

Fri Apr 9 23:53:41 UTC 1999

*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au>
X-Authentication-Warning: carmen.murdoch.edu.au: majodomo set sender to
owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au using -f
X-Sender: ANTH_RG at centum.UTULSA.edu
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 18:53:41 -0500
To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
From: "Richard A. Grounds" <richard-grounds at utulsa.edu>
Subject: ELL: Re:Transparent Language Systems offer and smaller commu
In-Reply-To: <9904089235.AA923582671 at tl2.transparent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au

At 10:50 AM 4/8/99 -0500, Michael Quinlan wrote:
>The ELRP Project is really just a name
>for an idea of mine that funding could be found for highly cost-effective,
but
>non-commercial projects if:

Michael--

Thanks for your response to remarks on the list and for your initiative
relative to endangered languages.
My previous remarks centered primarily around the issues of public access
to the languages of smaller Native communities here in Oklahoma.  The
purpose in designating the smaller Nations was to distinguish them from
among the numerous larger Native American language populations for whom, in
many cases, the question of non-community access is no longer a live issue.
 The Cherokees, for example, already have substantial public-access or
 commercially supplied language materials in the form of printed materials,
 audio tape sets, translation programs, etc.

 In the case of the Euchee community the use of computer technology has been
 guardedly accepted.  The advantages of multiplying the voice of our few
 elders, of providing unending repetition for drill, of utilizing visual
 imaging so that English language can be circumvented, of incorporating
 videos of our elders so that the full expression of language use can be
 picked-up, etc, utlimately outweighed cautions about the implications of
 the new technology.  In our work with the children we are not stressing
 literacy, but trying to pass forward oral language skills for which the
 computer environmnent can work as a helpful tool.  I suppose it still
 remains to be finally worked out as to whether CD-ROM Yuchi language
 programs would be appropriate for use in public school settings.

 Meanwhile, we are slowly attempting--on a shoe-string budget, without paid
 personnel, to work with our few precious elders to generate simple software
 applications in the Euchee language using Apple Media Tool in combination
 with sound, photo, and video editing programs.  Like the approach employed
 in the LanguageNow! software we are trying to generate language materials
 in a game style format as part of the program which would increase the
 appeal to younger users.  As compared to the simple approach now being
 pursued a program such as LanguageNow! would seem to offer some
 techonological advantages in terms of the flexibility of an end product.

Beyond the issues of the technological applicability of the programming it
seems to me that further discussion might be particularly helpful in two
areas of concern.  Perhaps clarification as to who would own or have final
say about the end product would be useful for some communities who may
consider the Endangered Languages Preservation and Revitalization Project
for their language efforts.
That is, more broadly, what are the commitments and vehicles for protecting
the interests and wishes of the language community relative to the joint
partnership and the final product which would be developed from their
language?
This would relate to issues such as public access, commercial usage, etc.,
for those communities for whom these questions may be of great importance.

The other critical matter is, of course, the difficulty of finding the
funding (hence, the opening quotation).  I think that a powerful software
program specialized to local languages could potentially be of help.  The
challenge in exceedingly small langauge communities is how to best allocate
the extremely limited cultural resources.  The foremost concern is the
available time of the few speakers.  That time is measured both in terms of
the hours of their availability during any particular week and literally in
terms of the weeks and months which we may still have to work with them.
Hence, the prospects of launching and successfully completing a major
funding effort such as that required for developing such a powerful program
presents a set of tough questions and difficult trade-offs.  The funding
would have to encompass the $100,000 in fees for the software development
by Transparent Language, Inc., plus the substantial monies for the
gathering and production of the language source materials.  Although I
admit that some of us working at the grassroots level may not have a very
clear window into the corporate world, I am not sure that potential
corporate partners here in Oklahoma are that easy to corral.  Our small
Native communities do not represent a significant consumer base nor a
substantial political block.  Sadly, in the state which has taken the
phrase, "Oklahoma: Native America," as its publicity motto, I'm not sure
that their is much commitment to deepening the relationship with our
communities beyond the level of displaying feathers and attending dances.

Perhaps I have already said too much...

KAdatA (that's enough)

RAG
*  *  *  *

Richard A. Grounds		richard-grounds at utulsa.edu
Dept. of Anthropology			1-918-631-3759 (office)
University of Tulsa				       1-918-631-2540 (fax)
Tulsa, OK  74104  USA
----
Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Web pages http://carmen.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
----