Rosetta Stone

[James Crippen]

On Dec 8, 2007 11:10 AM, Andre Cramblit <andrekar at ncidc.org> wrote:
[...]
> But Cook noted that it is not certain the collaboration will continue beyond
> the level 1 program because much depends on funding. Rosetta Stone may
> extend its grant for level 2, but production of level 3 will not be
> subsidized so the nonprofit needs to come up with another source of money.

I have been somewhat suspicious about this effort by Rosetta Stone to
promote their language learning software among endangered language
communities. On the one hand they seem to be actively trying to help,
but on the other they seem to be milking their effort for all the
publicity that it is worth.

I can't criticize their software or their efforts because I have not
seen the software in person. However, learning that they only provide
"level 1" (presumably the introductory and easiest materials to
prepare) with their normal grant, and then "may" provide "level 2",
but do not provide "level 3" as a free service makes me far more
suspicious of their intentions. It sounds as if they are encouraging
vendor lock-in so that the community will become dependent on their
software and then force them to pay for further advancement.

Why not just train community members to develop the materials
themselves, rather than depend on the company for constant
handholding? And what sort of nondisclosure agreements do they require
participants to sign in order to protect Rosetta Stone's valuable
intellectual property?

> In addition, Cook said, the subsidy does not include paying the translators
> for their work. Currently all are volunteering their time and must also pay
> their own travel costs to meetings.

This is even more suspicious to me. If the company is not willing to
assist the translators, who among endangered languages are often frail
and elderly, then what point is there in offering their software
services? It does not take a large committee to develop language
teaching materials, merely one or two native speakers suffices in my
experience.

I would be much more impressed by a nonprofit or academic organization
which develops a framework and tools for designing language teaching
software for endangered language communities. This whole Rosetta Stone
business I keep hearing about sounds more and more like a publicity
act rather than a serious effort to assist endangered languages in
revitalization projects.

Pardon me if I sit back and scowl at all of this news about Rosetta
Stone. While they may have the best intentions in mind, their actions
are not yet encouraging me to believe in them.

James A. Crippen
Student in the Department of Linguistics
University of Hawai'i