InvestigatingtheroleofdigitallanguageresourcesintheecologyofAustralianIndigenouslanguages

CathyBowConfirmationofCandidature

7July2017

Acknowledgments

§ Professor Michael Christie

§ Professor Helen Verran

§ Professor Jane Simpson

§ Dr Susy Macqueen

Outline

§ Introduction

§ Digital language resources for Australian languages

§ Theoretical framework

§ Affordances

§ Boundary objects

§ Sites of research

§ Research design

Digital language resources for Australian languages

§ Software programs

§ Websites and web apps

§ Mobile and tablet apps

§ Interactive whiteboard resources

§ Multimedia CD-ROMs or DVDs

§ Interactive dictionaries, wordlists,

phrase books, flash cards

§ eBooks, computer games

§ Radio programs and audio podcasts(First Languages Australia, 2014)

Examples of digital language resources

Digital language resources for Australian languages

§ Language learning

§ Language description and documentation

§ Language archiving

§ Result of a range of aspirations and practices

§ Involve various representations of Australian

languages in the digital realm

§ Digital tools do not contain ‘knowledge’ but

simply information (Christie, 2004)

§ Assumptions about the nature of language

inherent in digital representations

Language ecology

§ “the study of interactions

between any given language

and its environment” (Haugen 1972)

§ Reaction to abstract notion of

language as monolithic,

decontextualised, static entity

§ Language as emergent in

social activities and practices

Technology as saviour

§ “An endangered language will progress if its

speakers can make use of electronic

technology” (Crystal, 2000, p. 141)

§ Over 95% of languages have already lost

the capacity to ascend digitally (Kornai, 2013)

§ Technology as necessary but not sufficient

for language maintenance

§ “Apps don’t save languages, people do” (Bowern 2012, Dickson, 2016)

Digital access in remote Australia

§ Common claim that Indigenous people are

symbolic of ‘digital divide’ in Australia

§ Major obstacles

§ Access, affordability, security, skills (IRCA 2016)

§ English literacy, power supply, space (Rennie, Crouch, Wright & Thomas, 2013)

§ Misappropriation, decontextualisation (Dyson & Underwood, 2006)

§ Availability doesn’t ensure access or guarantee uptake (Leung 2014)

Evaluation of digital resources

§ Funding allocated to creation of new resources (Simpson 2006)

§ Little evaluation activity – not required (Saracevic, 2004)

§ What is being evaluated? How?

§ Usability

§ Usefulness

§ Uptake

§ Usage

§ Impact

§ Who is being asked?

Research question

§ What role are digital language

resources playing in the

ecology of Australian

languages?

Aims1. To explore the origins of two digital language resources

in order to identify their imagined purposes and the assumptions inherent in their development

2. To tell the story of their implementation and actual uses from different perspectives

3. To elicit responses from different user groups about the affordances and constraints of the resources, and their role in the ecology of Indigenous languages

4. To better understand and support the ways in which digital language resources come to life and are mobilised under Aboriginal authority.

Significance

§ Exploring the assumptions about the

nature of language and technology

inherent in these digital language

resources, and evaluating their use in

different contexts, will inform future

development of digital language

resources

Outline

§ Introduction

§ Digital language resources for Australian languages

§ Theoretical framework

§ Affordances

§ Boundary objects

§ Sites of research

§ Research design

Theoretical framework

§ Affordances

o Based on work in vision and perception in 1970s (Gibson 1979)

§ Affordances as ‘relationships of possibility’ (van Lier, 2007:53)

but are independent of the individual's ability to

perceive this possibility

§ Humans have the capacity and motivation to alter

their environment in order to take advantage of

certain affordances to suit them better

Affordances in language

§ Language learning as process of

perceiving linguistic affordances

and using them for communicative

interaction (van Lier, 2000)

§ Affordances as potential – not

always realised (Aronin, 2014)

§ The affordance is not the object

itself, but relationship between the

user/actor and the object (van Lier, 2000)

Affordances for digital language resources

• Archival – making available

• Emblematic – claiming presence

• Interactional – inviting engagement

o To whom? Under whose authority?

o For what purpose/s?

• Constraints

o Decontextualisation - alienation from the original

context of knowledge production

o Risk of misuse, misappropriation

Copyright and IP concerns

• Mismatch between perspectives on

copyright and intellectual property

• Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual

Property (ICIP)

• Not covered under Australian law

• Only protected when copyright applies

• Challenge of making language resources

available while protecting Indigenous rights (Janke & Quiggin 2005; Janke 1998; Janke & Iacovino 2012; Anderson & Christen 2013)

Boundary objects

§ “a sort of arrangement that allow different groups

to work together without consensus” (Star, 2010, p602)

§ “an analytical concept of those

scientific objects which both

inhabit several intersecting social

worlds … and satisfy the

informational requirements of each

of them” (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 393)

Boundary objects

§ Interpretive flexibility allows different groups to share • Common meanings

• Different perspectives

• Without requiring consensus

§ Object inhabits space between social worlds (or

communities of practice) – enables negotiation and

collaboration without demanding agreement

§ Allows coherence across social worlds

§ Enables analysis which takes all social worlds seriously

Connecting boundary objects and affordances

linguist

Tiwi elder

non-Indigenous teacher in Canberra

anthropologist

archivist

community member

ethno-botanist

Indigenous teaching assistant

librarian

creator

visual artist

digital humanist

emerging reader

turtle lover

(Kerinaiua, 1996)

Outline

§ Introduction

§ Digital language resources for Australian languages

§ Theoretical framework

§ Affordances

§ Boundary objects

§ Sites of research

§ Research design

Sites of research

§ Two digital language

infrastructures

§ My involvement

Living Archive

• Digitisation of language

materials from the NT

• ARC LIEF project between

CDU, NT Dept Education,

Batchelor Institute, NT Library,

Catholic Ed, ANU

• 50 NT languages(Bow et al, 2014; Bow et al 2016; Christie, et al 2014; Devlin et al,

2014)

www.cdu.edu.au/laal

Background

• Bilingual education program in NT

from 1973 (Devlin et al, 2017)

• 20+ Literature Production Centres

creating resources for bilingual

classrooms

• Programs defunded

• Books in many places were being

lost, damaged or destroyed27

Contents of archive

• Written and illustrated materials from

remote NT communities

• Ancestral knowledge and life

• Everyday life and contemporary stories

• Language / literacy teaching – primers, readers

• Translations from English & other languages

• 3310 books publicly available

• +1500 awaiting permission

• Preservation format (TIFF), presentation (PDF, txt) 28

Usage of archive

• Designed for engagement and

collaboration

• Open access – no login required

• Anecdotal reports of usage

• Who is using the Archive? What are

they doing with it?

• Are Indigenous people engaging

with it? How?

29

Digital language resources in LAAL

• Material from 1970s to now

• Textual material – little audio or video

• Original books rarely used in classrooms (Christie 1995)

• Tension of ideologies of knowledge and language

as represented in digital archives

• Underlying assumptions of archive developers at

odds with those of users and those represented?

• Language resources as boundary objects

Role of archives

• Collect resources and store safely

• Past-orientation and future-thinking

• Curation and control are political (Derrida, 1995)

• Cultural heritage archives – colonial overtones

• Connections with communities represented

• Call to “design digital libraries that admit alternate futures” (Nowviskie, 2016)

• Archive as collection of boundary objects becomes

boundary infrastructure (Star 2010, p.602)31

Digital humanities

• Intersection of digital technologies

and the disciplines of the humanities

(literature, history, philosophy)

• New means of analysing materials

• Creative ways to represent

knowledge

• Use of data for corpus analysis

• Tools for visualisation and analysis32

Digital Shell

• Proposal to develop a digital shell• used by any language group to share knowledge• linguists, educators and language authorities work together • identify language materials, negotiate access, authority

• Seed funding from Australian government (Bow, 2017)

• Address lack of opportunities to learn Indigenous languages at Australian universities

• Difficulties inherent in developing new courses

Pilot – Bininj Kunwok

• Language family from West Arnhem Land, NT

• Actively involved in language resource development

• Social media (Facebook page, Twitter)

• Kunwinjku materials in the Living Archive

• Mailing list of people receiving “Karriborlhme Kunwok!”

• Call out for volunteer learners

Pilot program 2016

• 4 units of Kunwinjku delivered over 12 weeks

• Videos of Bininj talking about topics

• Some subtitled in English or Kunwinjku

• Lessons explored details of these topics

• Skin / kinship systems

• Grammar and vocabulary

• Audio files for vocabulary, pronunciation

• Reading materials from Living

Archive

• WordPress and LearnPress35

IntroductionUNIT 1 2 3 4

Theme Introductions Familymatters Coming&going Karrinahnarren

Culturalinfo Skinsystems Skin&family Grandparents/grandchildren

Stayingsafe/showingrespect

Vocabulary Skinnames,verbs,nouns

Kin terms(reference,address)

Kinterms,animals,places,

Kinterms,verbs,nouns

Usefulphrases Introductions WhatdoIcallyou? etc

‘Speakslowly,’‘Idon’tunderstand,’etc

‘IsitOKtogothere?’‘Whodo Iask?’

Grammar Basicsentences,1sg

2sg,3sg,verbs Q&A,past tense,pluralpronouns

Dual,trial,inc/exc,negative

Pronunciation Overview,spelling

Vowels Nasals,h,retroflex Stops,r/rr,diphthongs

Reading Duruk kanan… Kokok wam …,Kakkak nang …

Wurdwurdbirriwam …,Balehyabok?

Kokok dja …,Yunyikarrme

User statistics

Expressionsofinterest

154

Consentforms 131

Logged in 130*

Activities no %(of130)

1Introductions 43 33%

2Family 27 21%

3Come&go 19 15%

4Respect 12 9%

Feedback brings out affordances for learners

• “if you don’t have the language you can’t learn the cultural stuff”

• “It has given me a feeling of connection to the community”

• “it's actually helping me to build my sense of identity as a person, where I fit in here”

• “I think of Arnhem Land and Kakadu when I speak it, it's a nice association”

38

Affordances for Bininj authorities

Bininj Kunwok Language Reference Committee

39

“I want to learn to read and write Kunwinjku so I can teach my children, the next generation. And Balanda can learn Kunwinjku too, so we can share and work together here at Gunbalanya. And so we can communicate with each other in language. And teach children together, teach them in our language and in English, what they call "both ways learning". Also it can help Balanda to know how to be safe on our country, to avoid sacred or dangerous places, and so we can learn from each other more.” Cheryl Nadjalaburnburn

Outline

§ Introduction

§ Digital language resources for Australian languages

§ Theoretical framework

§ Affordances

§ Boundary objects

§ Sites of research

§ Research design

Research approach

• Ethnography of infrastructure (Star, 1999)

• “a call to study boring things”

• Using traditional ethnographic tools (interviews,

observations, etc) to study non-human constructs

• Ground-up approach

• “Uses collaborative knowledge

work to generate new methods,

new objects, new practices and

new worlds” (Christie 2013, p.3-4) 41

Method

• Critical reflections on practice

• Critical evaluation of Archive and Shell

• Evaluating the uses of the Living Archive

• Expanding the Digital Shell

• Collaboration with language centres and

language committees

• Pilot expanded BK course – feedback

• Ethnographic observations of community practices

using and creating digital language resources

Online survey of visitors

• Why did you come

here today?

• Did you find what

you were looking for?

• How was your

experience?

• Transaction Log Data

(beyond Google

Analytics) (Keegan 2007)

Evaluation tool

• Balanced Value Impact Model (Tanner 2012)

• Framework for evaluating digital cultural heritage

projects

Expanding the Digital Shell

• To other language groups

Expansion & extension

• Extend 4 BK units to 12

as full semester course

• Include assessment

tasks

• Interaction with Bininj

• Beta pilot 2018/2

• Full delivery 2019/1

• Negotiations with CDU

Ethnographic research• Visit remote communities to observe and discuss

use (or non-use) of digital language resources

• Working with Indigenous authorities relies on their

availability and interests

• Boundary objects and ethnography of

infrastructure as sources of new insights which

take seriously Aboriginal views of language

ecology/ies and the role of digital resources

Proposed chapter outline• Ch 1 – Intro & overview

• Ch 2 – Origins

• Critical reflection of origins of 2 digital language resources

• Ethnography of infrastructure

• Ch 3 – Pedagogical uses

• Uses of LAAL in school & other contexts

• Pilot and expansion of Digital Shell

• Ch 4 – Uses in Aboriginal life

• Boundary objects

• Ch 5 – Uses in academic life

• Digital humanities context – uses of tools

• Ch 6 – Conclusions 49

Thesis by publication???• Exploring the Living Archive

• Copyright and permissions – JCEL (in preparation)

• Uses of the Living Archive (ASA/ITIC)

• Text, genre and literacy (ACAL conference 2017)

• Evaluation of the Living Archive – (Puliima, LREC 2018)

• Developing a Digital shell

• BK pilot project (ALS 2016, ICLDC 2017, LLT?)

• Expansion of shell (LDC?)

• Digital language resources as boundary objects

• Affordances of digital language resources for Aust lgs 50

TimelineDATE ACTIVITY WRITINGFeb – May 2017 ANU Coursework Thesis proposal, OLT reportJune Ethics BK pilot paperJuly Prepare fieldwork Finish copyright paperAug – Sept Fieldwork Prepare Archive surveyOct – Dec Conferences Write up fieldwork/usesJan – Mar 2018 Evaluation of ArchiveMar – June Extend BK course Write up evaluationJuly – Aug Fieldwork, surveySept – Dec Pilot BK course Write up survey resultsJan – Mar 2019 Write up pilot resultsMar - June Roll out BK courseJuly - Sept Write up BK course Oct - Dec Final writing 51

Limitations

• Non-Indigenous researcher

• My own biases

• Privileged, female, educated, middle class

• Don’t speak the language

• Subjectivity – investment in both sites

• Focus only on two sites

• Difficulties of generalising to other domains

• No model to follow52

Contribution to knowledge

• By examining two digital language infrastructures, I aim to

identify the role of such resources in the ecology of

Australian languages

• Evaluation of digital language resources

• Engaging Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in

evaluating language resources

• Ethnography of digital language infrastructures

• Creation of new course materials for Indigenous languages

• Methodological approaches to evaluation 53

References• Anderson, J., & Christen, K. (2013). ‘Chuck a Copyright on It’: Dilemmas of Digital Return and the Possibilities for Traditional Knowledge Licenses

and Labels. Museum Anthropology Review 7(1-2) Spring-Fall 2013, 7(1–2), 105–126.

• Aronin, L. (2014). The Concept of Affordances in Applied Linguistics and Multilingualism. In M. Pawlak & L. Aronin (Eds.), Essential Topics in

Applied Linguistics and Multilingualism (pp. 157–173). Springer International Publishing.

• Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2012). Affordances theory in multilingualism studies. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 311.

• Bow, C., Christie, M., & Devlin, B. (2014). Developing a Living Archive of Aboriginal Languages. Language Documentation & Conservation, 8,

345–360.

• Bow, C., Christie, M., & Devlin, B. (2017). Digital futures for bilingual books. In B. Devlin, S. Disbray, & N. R. F. Devlin (Eds.), History of Bilingual

Education in the Northern Territory: People, Programs and Policies (pp. 347–353). Singapore: Springer.

• Bow, C. (2017). Activating Community-based Indigenous Language and Culture Resources for University teaching – Report on the

development of a digital shell and pilot delivery (Promotion of Excellence in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (PELTHE)). Canberra,

ACT: Department of Education and Training.

• Bowern, C. (2012, September 21). Our Land, Our Languages and Preserving Our Heritage [crikey.com.au].

• Candlin, F. (2000). Practice-based Doctorates and Questions of Academic Legitimacy. Journal of Art & Design Education, 19(1), 96–101.

• Carew, M. L. (2016). Gun-ngaypa Rrawa ‘My Country’: intercultural alliances in language research (thesis). Monash University. Faculty of Arts.

School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics.

• Christie, M. (1995). Drawing the Line - A History of Yolngu Literacy. In D. Myers (Ed.), Reinventing Literacy - the Multicultural Imperative (pp. 78–

83). Rockhampton, Qld: Phaedrus Books.

• Christie, M. (2004). Computer Databases and Aboriginal Knowledge. Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in Social

Contexts, 1, 4–12.

• Christie, M. (2013). Generative and ‘Ground-Up’ Research in Aboriginal Australia. Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in

Social Contexts, (13), 3–12.

• Christie, M., Devlin, B., & Bow, C. (2014). The Birth of the Living Archive: An emerging archive of Australian Aboriginal languages and literature.

Archifacts, October 2014, 48–63.54

References• Costley, C., Elliott, G. C., & Gibbs, P. (2010). Doing work based research: Approaches to enquiry for insider-researchers. Sage.

• Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death. Cambridge University Press.

• Derrida, J. (1995). Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression. Diacritics, 25(2), 9–63.

• Devlin, B., Christie, M., Bow, C., Joy, P., & Green, R. (2014). Exploring the Living Archive of Aboriginal Languages. Curriculum Perspectives, 34(3),

39–47.

• Devlin, B., Disbray, S., & Devlin, N. R. F. (Eds.). (2017). History of Bilingual Education in the Northern Territory (Vol. 12). Singapore: Springer

Singapore.

• Dickson, G. (2016, October 6). Taking Indigenous languages online: can they be seen, heard and saved? [The Conversation].

• Dyson, L. E., & Underwood, J. (2006). Indigenous people on the web. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 1(1),

65–76.

• First Languages Australia. (2014). Angkety map: Digital resource report. First Languages Australia.

• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Dallas: Houghton Mifflin.

• Haugen, E. (1972). The Ecology of Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

• Indigenous Remote Communications Association. (2016). Third Indigenous Focus Day a success | IRCA (Media release).

• Janke, T. (1998). Our Culture: Our Future. Report on Australian Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights. Australian Institute of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.

• Janke, T., & Quiggin, R. (2005). Indigenous cultural and intellectual property and customary law (Aboriginal Customary Laws No. Background

paper 12). Perth, W.A.: Law Reform Commission of Western Australia.

• Janke, T., & Iacovino, L. (2012). Keeping cultures alive: archives and Indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights. Archival Science,

12(2), 151–171.

• Keegan, T. T. (2007). Indigenous Language Usage in a Digital Library: He Hautoa Kia Ora Tonu Ai (PhD). University of Waikato,

Kirikiriroa/Hamilton, NZ.

• Kerinaiua, Marguerita (1996). Kirijini Jarrakalani. Nguiu, N.T.: Nguiu Nginingawila Literature Production Centre.

• Kornai, A. (2013). Digital Language Death. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77056. 55

References• Kral, I. (2013). The acquisition of media as cultural practice: Remote Indigenous youth and new digital technologies. In L. Ormond-Parker, A.

Corn, C. Fforde, K. Obata, & S. O’Sullivan (Eds.), Information Technology and Indigenous Communities (pp. 53–73). Canberra, A.C.T.: AIATSIS

Research Publications.

• Leung, L. (2014). Availability, access and affordability across ‘digital divides’: Australian Journal of Telecommunications and the Digital

Economy, 2(2).

• Nevins, M. E. (2013). Lessons from Fort Apache: Beyond Language Endangerment and Maintenance. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

• Nowviskie, B. (2016). Speculative Collections. Presented at The Transformation of Academic Library Collecting, Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Library.

• Rennie, E., Crouch, A., Wright, A., & Thomas, J. (2013). At home on the outstation: Barriers to home Internet in remote Indigenous communities.

Telecommunications Policy, 37(6–7), 583–593.

• Sherratt, T. (2017, February 25). The practice of play [discontents].

• Simpson, J. (2006, November 16). Money - I can’t stop thinking about it [Transient Languages & Cultures].

• Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 377–391.

• Star, S. L. (2010). This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science, Technology & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.

• Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and. Professionals in Berkeley’s

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

• Tanner, S. (2012). Measuring the Impact of Digital Resources. London: King’s College.

• Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory

and second language learning (pp. 245–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based Teaching, Autonomy and Identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46–65.

56