Rosetta Stone

[awebster@siu.edu]

To those of you who get the Navajo Times via mail, my Dec. 6, 
2007 copy just came and there is an article on the Rosetta 
Stone on A-9. Best, akw

---------Included Message----------
>Date: 12-dec-2007 13:33:02 -0600
>From: "Andre Cramblit" <andrekar at NCIDC.ORG>
>Reply-To: "Indigenous Languages and Technology" 
<ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
>To: <ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
>Subject: Re: [ILAT] Rosetta Stone
>
>The arguments against Rosetta stone remind me of the 
complaints I  
>have heard about the Phrasealator.  Why do we need to pay so 
much  
>money, people are just trying to get rich.
>
>I agree in a perfect world the items to help tribes recover 
and  
>preserve their languages would be free to them (either 
through  
>generosity, grants or other subsidy), but alas we are in less 
than a  
>perfect world.  The next best thing is to find out what works 
best  
>(program, sytem, software, etc) regardless of costs and then 
work  
>like the devil to get the costs covered.  The paramount 
objective is  
>preservation of my language.  Profiteers have to face their 
music  
>when creator chooses.
>
>On Dec 10, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Mia Kalish wrote:
>
>What a lovely response, Don. I enjoyed the multiple 
perspectives and the
>thoughts that they engendered. And most of us have seen all of 
this,  
>yes?
>By the way, a very nice lady from Rosetta Stone is on this 
list - or she
>used to be. Their technology is a lot like the technology we 
put  
>together
>and researched. It is not exact; I don't want anyone to infer 
that I am
>implying any misbehavior on anyone's part. The point I want to 
make  
>is that
>presenting the visual, the sound and the text simultaneously 
in what  
>we did
>was 78% effective Across populations - that was, people who 
had heard  
>Apache
>but were either not fluent or not literate, and people who had 
never  
>been
>exposed to Apache ever. "Across populations" is a statistical  
>characteristic
>that says that the populations are so alike they can be 
analyzed as a  
>single
>group. This is rare in pedagogies.
>As for the publicity . . . Rosetta Stone advertises on 
television.  
>They have
>lots of languages. I've lost track of how many. Publicity 
tells people
>what's happening. It tells People what Other People think is 
important.
>Right now, in New Mexico, there is a huge "DWI Blitz" (You 
drink; you  
>drive;
>you lose.) This is telling people who drive that people are 
taking  
>driving
>sober very seriously. And there are lots of billboards talking 
about  
>DWI;
>it's in the papers, on the news. Now, is this a current issue 
in a  
>lot of
>state? No-o-o-o-o-o. But, my point here is that Publicity is 
how you let
>people know what others are thinking. I saw another sign 
today, "Ron  
>Paul
>for President . . . A new view" and I thought, Who is Ron 
Paul? There  
>was
>just one sign, and I couldn't connect it to anything else I 
had seen or
>heard. One sign won't get me to vote for Ron Paul for 
president, but  
>many,
>many signs will get a lot of drunk drivers off the road, and 
will change
>attitudes.
>So maybe all the publicity for Rosetta Stone will start to 
change  
>attitudes
>about what is important about People. For a long time, there 
has been  
>the
>"white ruling class" and everyone else. Like Don pointed out, 
there  
>hasn't
>been much real knowledge about "everyone else." I am so happy 
to see  
>even
>the little bits of beginnings where we start to know about 
Everyone  
>Else,
>even the Everyone Elses of us :-)
>
>Thanks Don,
>Really, really good piece - I think,
>Mia
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Indigenous Languages and Technology  
>[mailto:ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU]
>On Behalf Of Don Osborn
>Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:53 PM
>To: ILAT at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
>Subject: Re: [ILAT] Rosetta Stone
>
>As I look at this thread several thoughts occur. One is Robert 
Chambers'
>discussion of "positive practitioners" and "negative 
academics" in
>international development. The former try to do something, 
whatever the
>agenda, and sometimes ineptly. The latter critique, sometimes  
>insightfully
>and incisively and sometimes less so. That is not to say that 
one is  
>right
>and the other wrong, but that in some ways they are like two 
different
>cultures.
>
>Jess Tauber is right to point out the ironies in the 
historical  
>sweep. The
>same dominant culture that via education and technology tried 
to wipe  
>out
>languages or systematically marginalize them (not just in the  
>Americas), now
>is in part (at least the parts you see) trying to save them. 
It is  
>natural
>to ask why.
>
>Part of it is the dynamic of power. I've noted - again in 
international
>development - that the people in positions to do so end up 
occupying or
>pre-empting both sides (or all positions) in many debates. 
Even about  
>the
>nature of a people themselves. This was particularly striking 
in several
>decades of debates on pastoralism in Africa - an evolution of 
two  
>opposing
>views on the rationality or not of transhumant (semi-nomadic)  
>herding. An
>evolving debate entirely outside of the cultures discussed, 
with  
>indirect
>and imperfect references to the herders' knowledge systems, 
and in terms
>totally outside pastoralists' languages, and totally immersed 
in Western
>terms of reference.
>
>I see a little of this in discussions on languages and on 
languages &
>technology.
>
>In part, this dynamic of power is just that way, like the wind 
just  
>blows.
>It shifts too, and you can find a way to explain it, but in 
the end  
>how do
>you protect yourself from it and better yet use its force to 
some  
>advantage?
>
>So, on one level, Jess's generalizing about "they" responds to 
a real  
>set of
>issues. However on another level it seems to blur some 
realities.
>
>When looking at the specific case of companies like Rosetta 
Stone (or  
>for
>that matter bigger technology companies) part of what one 
must  
>appreciate is
>the nature of the beast and the environment it is working in. 
The bottom
>line and survival in that environment is money. How to get it 
can raise
>issues, but without it, *poof*. James's suspicion is natural, 
but with a
>company, what else is new?
>
>But even that is more complex. I resist reifying the notion 
of  
>corporation
>too far to the point of overlooking the agency of people in  
>organizations
>like Rosetta Stone, who may be very sincerely devoted to 
somehow  
>changing
>the world for better. The latter may end up being the "positive
>practitioners" per Chambers' dichotomy, with their more or 
less  
>imperfect
>human (and culturally bound) understanding of what they are 
dealing  
>with -
>and their own environment to survive in.
>
> From what little I know of Rosetta Stone I see it as a 
business that  
>is at
>least trying to do something. It's making good money, 
apparently, in  
>general
>language learning with a product that has positive reviews. 
It's  
>stepping
>outside of that market in an interesting way. Of course they 
are  
>milking it
>for publicity too, but again, that is the nature of companies. 
I  
>don't know
>enough about the program, its approach or results to judge it, 
but I'm
>absolutely not surprised if there are limits in terms of what 
they  
>spend on
>it (anything has limits).
>
>Let me finish with another technology example. A company named 
Lancor  
>just
>sued the One Laptop Per Child project for alleged use of codes 
in a  
>patented
>keyboard. The object of both keyboards is to facilitate input 
of  
>"extended
>Latin characters" and diacritics for West African languages. I 
don't  
>know
>the technical or patent issues well enough, but whatever the 
merits  
>of the
>case may or may not be, the ultimate victims will be people 
who might  
>have
>been able to use the technology sooner for their languages.
>
>The collateral damage to common aims from disputes over 
methods can be
>considerable, and avoidable to the extent one accepts that 
everyone has
>honorable intent. (Maybe a key question is how to establish 
the  
>latter and a
>sense of trust.)
>
>I'd agree with Mia's bottom line conclusion that someone has 
to do  
>it. If
>you start subtracting potential partners from the equation, 
are you  
>better
>off?
>
>Don Osborn
>
>
---------End of Included Message----------

Anthony K. Webster, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology &
Native American Studies Minor
Southern Illinois University
Mail Code 4502
Carbondale, IL 62901-4502
618-453-5027