skip to main content
10.1145/2987592.2987612acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Local languages, global networks: Mobile design for minority language users

Published:23 September 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Minority and indigenous languages have a complex relationship with contemporary communication media. Social media, in particular, provide new venues for language use and revitalization, but also subject minority languages to inhibiting technological and social pressures. The present study contributes to a better understanding of social media and language use dynamics via an analysis of a survey of Irish language users (n=617) and their sociotechnical contexts. We develop a typology of social, linguistic, and technical factors that provide a theoretical and analytical foundation for future work. A complex interplay of social and technical factors impact minority language use in social media, and we suggest potential interaction design strategies for language activists and technologists to promote more effective engagement.

References

  1. Lewis, M.P., Simons, G.F. and Fennig C.D. eds. 2016. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 19th edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL Int.. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Siebens, J. and Julian, T. 2011. Native North American languages spoken at home: 2006-2010. http://www.census.gov/library/publications/2011/acs/acsbr10-10.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lakota Language Consortium. 2016. Lakota language now critically endangered. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lakota-language-now-critically-endangered-300222955.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Nettle, D. and Romaine, S. 2000. Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World's Languages. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Harrison, K.D. 2010. The Last Speakers: The Quest to Save the World's Most Endangered Languages. National Geographic Books, Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Cormack, M. 2007. Studying minority language media. Minority language media: Concepts, critiques, and case studies. Multilingual Matters. 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Reershemius, G. 2016. Autochthonous heritage languages and social media: writing and bilingual practices in Low German on Facebook. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. (Mar. 2016), 1--15. doi: 10.1080/01434632.2016.1151434Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Penttonen, M. 2011. ICT at service of endangered languages. Proc. of the 11th Koli Calling Int. Conf. on Comput. Educ. Research (New York, NY, USA, 2011), 95--101. doi: 10.1145/2094131.2094150 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Pretorius, L. and Bosch, S.E. 2003. Enabling computer interaction in the indigenous languages of South Africa: The central role of computational morphology. interactions. 10, 2 (Mar. 2003), 56--63. doi: 10.1145/637848.637863 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Billey, K.T. 2015. An interview with Sjón. Asymptote J. Oct15. http://www.asymptotejournal.com/interview/an-interview-with-sjon/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Berment, V. 2002. Several directions for minority languages computerization. Proc. of the 19th Int. Conf. on Computational Linguistics - Volume 2 (Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2002), 1--5. doi: 10.3115/1071884.1071900 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Gawne, L. 2015. Language documentation and division: Bridging the digital divide. Digital Studies / Le champ numérique. 5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Bird, S., Hanke, F.R., Adams, O. and Lee, H. 2014. Aikuma: A mobile app for collaborative language documentation. ACL 2014. (2014), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Perley, B.C. 2012. Zombie Linguistics: Experts, endangered languages and the curse of undead voices. Anthropological Forum. 22, 2 (Jul. 2012), 133--149. doi: 10.1080/00664677.2012.694170Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Ward, M. 2014. Using Irish NLP resources in Primary School Education. Proc. of the 1st Celtic Language Technology Workshop, (Dublin, Ireland, 2014), 6--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Lyden, J. 2011. Berenstain Bears reconnect Sioux to native language. NPR.org. http://www.npr.org/2011/09/26/140807178/berenstain-bears-reconnect-indians-to-native-language.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Parkinson, H.J. 2014. Alaska's indigenous game Never Alone teaches co-operation through stories. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/29/never-alone-alaskas-indigenous-game-never-alone-teaches-cooperation-through-stories.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Scannell, K.P. and Ó Ciardhuáin, S. 2007. Translations of free software into Irish. Translation Ireland. 17, 2 (2007), 19--30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mato, P. 2015. Translated application interfaces: Issues of engagement. Proc. of the 15th New Zealand Conf. on Human-Comput. Interaction (New York, NY, USA, 2015), 1--4. doi: 10.1145/2808047.2808061 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Böcker, M., Larsson, K.I. and von Niman, B. 2006. Character repertoires, ordering and assignment to the 12-key keypad supporting European cultural diversity. Proc. of the 8th Conf. on Human-Comput. Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (New York, NY, USA, 2006), 281--282. doi: 10.1145/1152215.1152287 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Thurow, C. 2003. Generation Txt?: The sociolinguistics of young people's test-messaging. Discourse Analysis Online. 1, 1 (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Bulkeley, W.M. 2009. How the lowly text message may save Languages that could otherwise fade. Wall Street J. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123085399947547573Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Bautista, M.L.S. 2004. Tagalog-English code switching as a mode of discourse. Asia Pacific Educ. Review. 5, 2 (Jun. 2004), 226--233. doi: 10.1007/BF03024960Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Carrier, L.M. and Benitez, S.Y. 2010. The effect of bilingualism on communication efficiency in text messages (SMS). Multilingua. 29, 2 (Jun. 2010), 167--183. doi: 10.1515/mult.2010.007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Androutsopoulos, J. 2015. Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications. Int. J. of Bilingualism. 19, 2 (Apr. 2015), 185--205. doi: 10.1177/1367006913489198Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Deumert, A. and Masinyana, S.O. 2008. Mobile language choices --- The use of English and isiXhosa in text messages (SMS) Evidence from a bilingual South African sample. English World-Wide. 29, 2 (Apr. 2008), 117--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Cunliffe, D. and Harries, R. 2005. Promoting minority-language use in a bilingual online community. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia. 11, 2 (Dec. 2005), 157--179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Lynn, T., Scannell, K. and Maguire, E. 2015. Minority language Twitter: Part-of-speech tagging and analysis of Irish tweets. Proc. of the ACL 2015 Workshop in Noisy User-generated Text (Beijing, China, 2015), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Jongbloed-Faber, L., Van de Velde, H., van der Meer, C., and Klinkenberg, E.L. 2016. Language use of Frisian bilingual teenagers on social media. Treballs de Sociolingüística Catalana. 2016, 26 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor, C. Irish language gets boost from Duolingo mobile app. The Irish Times. http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/irish-language-gets-boost-from-duolingo-mobile-app-1.2017359Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Scannell, K.P. 2013. Localization in minority language contexts. University of Limerick L10n Summer School. http://borel.slu.edu/pub/luimneach.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Central Statistics Office 2012. Census 2011 This is Ireland (Part 1) - CSO - Central Statistics Office. Government of Ireland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Ó Giollagáin, C. and Charlton, M. 2015. Nuashonrú ar an Staidéar Cuimsitheach Teangeolaíoch ar Úsáid na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht: 2006-2011. Údarás na Gaeltachta.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Moseley, C. ed. 2010. Atlas of the world's languages in danger. UNESCO.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Judge, J., Ní Chasaide, A., Ní Dhubhda, R., Scannell, K.P. and Uí Dhonnchadha, E. 2012. The Irish Language in the Digital Age. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jongbloed-Faber, L. 2014. Social media in bilingual environments: online practices of Frisian teenagers {blog}. Indigenous Tweets. http://indigenoustweets.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-media-in-bilingual-environments.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGDOC '16: Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication
    September 2016
    304 pages
    ISBN:9781450344951
    DOI:10.1145/2987592

    Copyright © 2016 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 23 September 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    SIGDOC '16 Paper Acceptance Rate36of102submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader