Buffett, Gates, & the future of linguistic diversity

[Charles RIley]

Greets to all;

Hi from a cybercafe in Bamenda, Cameroon!  Don, you raise some great 
points and
it does seem like there's a useful role for Gates et al. to play.  The message
I sent earlier was mostly meant to be facetious, maybe a little out of
frustration and/or mischief though too.  I'd still have concerns about
individual language initiatives perhaps becoming micromanaged, or linguistic
diversity itself becoming stifled in the efforts to preserve it, but overall I
don't see a problem with the project you've proposed.  Especially points 3 and
6, and when it comes to infrastructure of any kind -- network, hardware, and
linguistic necessities such as dictionaries, dialectologies, etc.

Charles



Quoting d_z_o <dzo at BISHARAT.NET>:

> Belated thanks to Phil, Mia, Susan, and Charles for their feedback re
> my posting last month on the topic of this (double-)mega foundation
> and what it might do for minority languages and linguistic diversity
> (esp. where the use of tech might be involved).
>
> I began to compose a follow up but am only now getting back to it. One
> reason is an article I note in today's NY Times entitled "Bill Gates's
> Charity Races to Spend Buffett Billions"
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/us/13gates.html . The title is
> scary. Or at least it does to me, having learned early on about
> international development where people get promoted (or at least used
> to) on the basis of how much money they move, small projects don't get
> much attention, and terms like "burn rate" are part of the discourse
> about funding. In the case of Gates/Buffett, the context of spending
> may be a little different, but any time the priority is on spending,
> it's almost inevitable that some good things get funded, some bad
> things get funded, and some good things get overlooked.  Language -
> revitalization, localization, documentation, education - will likely
> be among the areas overlooked. Unless...?
>
> Last month there was some discussion in this thread of the wisdom of
> looking to the Gates Fndn for support fot language & technology
> initiatives. There is a tendency to conflate Bill Gates + ICT + MS and
> at least for the first two parts I was guilty of that too. But I do
> think that a charitable foundation is not or should not be beholden to
> any particular company (the third part, MS in this instance), even
> when related in the sense of being the original source of wealth that
> created it. So that, for example, a Ford Foundation grant that
> involved a vehicle purchase wouldn't have to go to the Ford Motor
> Company. Likewise we've even seen a little bit of evolution in the
> approach of national agencies that finance international development
> projects, away from insisting that everything possible (regardless of
> adaptedness or cost) that is needed for a project be purchased in the
> funding country. So, hopefully if the Gates/Buffett monies could in
> some small but significant way be allocated to projects for community
> language work, and if those projects involve ICT, this would (should)
> not automatically mean use of a particular package of software
> solutions. (i.e., Gates Fndn $ does not necessarily mean MS applications)
>
> At the same time, ICT these days is the message (per Marshall McLuhan)
> in a lot of ways. It made Gates' fortune (though not Buffett's). It
> offers new approaches to solving problems, including finding ways to
> preserve languages, revitalize them, expand their use for other needs
> (education, social & economic development), and employ them to help
> people learn ICT (bringing things full circle). It is fundamental to
> the rapidly evolving economy. Etc.
>
> So, with a lot of money intended for philanthropy in one corner, a lot
> of questions and needs re language (survival of endangered tongues,
> use & development of vernaculars for more effective communication &
> development) in another corner, and ICT as a potent tool, it is
> natural to look for connections (canals?). Why shouldn't Gates
> Foundation - "turbocharged" it seems by major additional monies and
> requirements for their disbursement - consider multilingual ICT, and
> via that, broader support for language-related initiatives?
>
> The fact that the Gates Foundation already funded technology awareness
> programs (per Phil's e-mail) is an obvious lead. Or seems to be.
> Susan's caveat re the actual aims of the Foundation in those programs
> and what it has *not* done (i.e., language revitalization, etc.) are
> important to know. How can one build on and expand from such a tenuous
> connection?
>
> Mia mentioned that Bill Gates in a recent interview said that "he is
> interested in talking to people who are working on technical solutions
> for learning/education." Well this nexus of issues re language is
> right there, waiting. It may be of interest to add that Gates in a
> speech last month in Cape Town spoke of technology as "a solution" to
> development issues in Africa. At the same conference the issue of
> localization of ICT in African languages came up.
>
> It's easy to get the impression that we are close to some serious
> program breakthroughs wrt multilingual ICT and localization for
> various purposes, but it's precisely at such a time that focused
> effort is needed to create something tangible (what specific programs
> to what specific ends with what specific resources when where & how?).
> Whether this translates into potential programs (or a leadership
> role??) for the Gates Fndn in this regard is a question.
>
> Whether that is what we'd want (if we look past the money) is another
> question (per Charles and Mia). But what's at issue here, IMO, is more
> than another source of funds for documenting endangered languages
> (which has an important place). Or even for a wider range of specific
> language-related projects.
>
> It's arguably more a matter of long-term vision and planning, and how
> significant resources at a high level (along with targetted grants for
> specific kinds of grassroots activities) can improve the environment
> for linguistic diversity. This has many facets. For instance:
>
> 1. Language policy, planning, management.
> 2. Opportunities for speakers of minority languages. (Various, that
> relate to their mastery of the languages.)
> 3. Development of materials and tools for education in minority
> languages (that is more than mere translation from European languages)
> 4. Training of teachers for work in minority language / bilingual
> classrooms.
> 5. Cutting edge ICT for various uses with/in minority languages.
> (Things that market incentives alone will never generate investment for.)
> 6. Linkages among diverse minority language projects around the world
> (co-learning, exchanging experience). The fact that this will
> necessitate resort to more widely spoken languages does not introduce
> anything new.
>
> Maybe I'm just dreaming (in addition to rambling on here), but since
> significant funds are being made available for worthy causes by this
> particular Foundation, isn't there a way to get language on their agenda?
>
> Don Osborn
> Bisharat.net
> PanAfrican Localisation project
>