Writing Across the World’s Languages:
Deep Internationalization for
Gboard, the Google Keyboard
Daan van Esch∗
, Elnaz Sarbar, Tamar Lucassen,
Jeremy O’Brien, Theresa Breiner, Manasa Prasad,
Evan Crew, Chieu Nguyen, Françoise Beaufays
Google Mountain View, CA, USA
This technical report describes our deep internationalization program for
Gboard, the Google Keyboard. Today, Gboard supports 900+ language
varieties across 70+ writing systems, and this report describes how and
why we have been adding support for hundreds of language varieties from
around the globe. Many languages of the world are increasingly used in
writing on an everyday basis, and we describe the trends we see. We cover
technological and logistical challenges in scaling up a language technology
product like Gboard to hundreds of language varieties, and describe how
we built systems and processes to operate at scale. Finally, we summarize
the key take-aways from user studies we ran with speakers of hundreds of
languages from around the world.
Our world has a tremendous wealth of linguistic diversity, with thousands of
languages spoken around the globe every day. Historically, most of the world’s
languages have by and large been used only in spoken face-to-face conversa-
tions, with very little writing taking place in the majority of languages. But
as more of the world comes online, many language varieties that have mostly
been limited to spoken usage in the past are now being used increasingly in
writing to communicate using online message boards, chat apps, and social me-
dia, as described by e.g. Kral (2010), Osborn (2010), Kral (2012), Jones and
Uribe-Jongbloed (2012), Pischloeger (2014), Nguyen et al. (2015), Keegan et al.
∗Correspondence about this technical report can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. For
product feedback or feature requests, please visit the Play Store page for Gboard at
(2015), Cru (2015), Lillehaugen (2016), Lacka and Moner (2016), Jongbloed-
Faber et al. (2017), Jany (2018), Soria et al. (2018), McMonagle et al. (2019),
Eberhard and Mangulamas (2019), and McMonagle (2019).
In general, the trend seems to be that people want to communicate in infor-
mal environments like chat apps and social media in the same kind of language
they would normally speak in face-to-face conversations. And since chat apps
and social media are usually (but not always) used to communicate through text,
many more of the world’s languages are now being written regularly by their
users; perhaps only in informal contexts for now, but the trend is unmistakably
moving in the direction of more languages being written on an increasingly reg-
ular basis. Regular use of smartphone applications for informal communications
appears to be amplifying the grassroots-literacy trends observed in works such
as Blommaert (2008).
In this technical report, we describe how we have been bringing support for
hundreds of such language varieties to Gboard, Google’s smartphone keyboard
for the Android operating system1, in order to help smartphone users around the
world communicate and share knowledge in their preferred language(s). Gboard
supports more than 900 language varieties today. It is installed out-of-the-box
on many Android smartphones, and for most other Android smartphones, the
application can be downloaded from the Google Play Store. Overall, it has more
than 1 billion installs worldwide. As this report will show, the hugely diverse
pool of people using smartphone apps like Gboard means that language tech-
nology now needs to support many more language varieties than has historically
been the case.
The focus of this report is not on the technical implementation of our key-
board application, which is described in Ouyang et al. (2017) and other tech-
nical papers. Rather, this report focuses on the implications of the complex
interactions between today’s global linguistic usage trends and language tech-
nology products such as keyboards. In short, the conuence of widely acces-
sible technology and informal written communication platforms has led to de-
mand for many more language varieties to be supported in applications such
as smartphone keyboards. This report describes in some detail technical and
non-technical challenges that language technology product development teams
face when scaling up to hundreds of language varieties, and the solutions we
invented along the way.2
First, we’ll describe in some more detail the sociolinguistic background against
which many of the world’s language varieties are now increasingly written, as
well as some of the technological challenges encountered by language commu-
nities when doing so. Users have generally responded to these challenges by
inventing various work-arounds, which we’ll catalog briey. Then, we’ll de-
1Gboard is also available on the iOS operating system, supporting a subset of the language
varieties available on Android.
2Throughout this report, ISO 639 language codes are formatted like en or nan, where two-
letter language codes are used whenever available. Four-letter codes like Latn are ISO 15924
script codes. Character names from the Unicode standard are formatted like latin small
scribe how we have been going about building support for many more language
varieties in our smartphone keyboard application. Finally, we will present an
analysis of some of the usage trends we are seeing, and provide an overview of
future challenges to be solved.
2.1 Languages, Writing, and Technology
Historically, writing was commonplace only for language varieties that were used
in formal written publications, like books, newspapers, and religious materials.
Today, however, many language communities have access to chat apps and social
media, which are generally informal environments. Most communication in chat
apps and on social media happens in writing, but language usage is more similar
to the patterns that would historically have been restricted to spoken usage
(McCulloch, 2019). Along these lines, to communicate in natural ways within
this informal yet mostly written context, many speakers across the world have
picked up writing in their own language varieties, even if these language varieties
were rarely written historically.
In general, however, support for these language varieties without a long-
standing widespread written tradition remains rare within language technology
products, despite early eorts to address this problem, as described in e.g.
Paterson (2015). This means there are signicant opportunities for language
technology products to make a positive dierence for their users by adding in
support for many more language varieties around the world. To cite just one
example, the Digital Language Diversity Project, which studied a number of
European regional languages, calls out “technological barriers, such as the un-
availability of a specic keyboard or spell checkers that would ease the writing”
as one of the main problems facing the languages communities they studied in
the use of their languages online (Soria et al., 2018).
Typically, chat apps and social media are accessed using smartphones. Text
input on these devices is generally facilitated by a virtual keyboard application,
displaying a keyboard layout (such as QWERTY or AZERTY) on-screen and us-
ing the touchscreen capability to detect taps or gestures. Because these screens
are small, machine-learning language technologies like predictive text and auto-
correction can help make input faster and more accurate (Fowler et al., 2015;
Ouyang et al., 2017). Until about 2016, these technologies have only been avail-
able in about 100 language varieties.
In the last few years, however, it has become very clear that, with the rise
in informal written communication globally, along with the increasing ubiquity
of smartphones (ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission, 2017), language tech-
nology needs to scale beyond the traditional set of about 100 language varieties
in order to support communities across the world. Wikipedia, for example,
is already available in about 300 language varieties (Wikipedia, 2019). Beyond
Wikipedia, Scannell (2007) and our previous research (Prasad et al., 2018) found
textual data in more than 2,000 language varieties online.
We propose calling eorts to bring technology to many more languages at
scale ‘deep internationalization’, after the industry-standard term ‘internation-
alization’3, which is typically used to mean extending support to languages
and communities beyond American English, the language and locale that most
software products are designed to support rst. However, the term ‘internation-
alization’ has not typically been thought of as extending to hundreds or even
thousands of language varieties, so we added the adjective ‘deep’ to distinguish
our eort from more limited internationalization eorts.
2.2 Linguistic Diversity Online
Over the last few years, we have been working on a deep internationalization
project to add support for many more languages to Gboard, our smartphone
keyboard application. Before we decided to start working on deep international-
ization for Gboard, we conducted a number of literature surveys, data analyses,
and observational studies to understand user expectations around the use of
language in the smartphone age.
Earlier in this report, we already referenced a number of papers analyzing
the general usage trends for these language varieties, e.g. in analyses of Twitter
posts. It stands to reason to assume that use of these language varieties would
be even more common in less public spaces than Twitter, such as semi-private
community groups on social media platforms, and private chat apps with small
group conversations. Some language-specic evidence for this assumption is
found in Jongbloed-Faber et al. (2016), but it is hard to prove this assumption
conclusively on a global scale.
However, some additional signals for the linguistic diversity of the digital
world can be seen in projects where communities created their own user interface
translations for popular social media sites (Scannell, 2012), following a trend of
creating localized input methods and user interfaces for open-source operating
systems such as Linux (Reina et al., 2013).
Another data point is that even back in 2016, when we started this project,
there were already hundreds of languages with an active Wikipedia edition. The
text in Wikipedia articles is generally well-edited, in addition to being labeled
with a standard ISO 639 language variety tag (with some unfortunate excep-
tions, such as als being used for Alemannic instead of Tosk Albanian), so it is
often quite suitable for deriving candidate wordlists for spell-checking purposes.
It is worth pointing out that having a dedicated Wikipedia is not, in and of it-
self, conclusive evidence of wide-spread use by language communities, since the
pool of editors for some of these editions is relatively small, and the content of
some of these editions appears to have been mostly generated automatically by
bots, but all the same, it is encouraging to see so many languages represented
online in Wikipedia.
3Also known as ‘i18n’, pronounced ‘i-eighteen-n’, with ‘18’ representing the number of
letters in between the initial ‘i’ and the nal ‘n’ in ‘internationalization’.
2.3 Making Do Without Tailored Language Technology
2.3.1 Character Sets, Writing Systems, and Keyboard Applications
In our user studies, we observed a number of creative work-arounds for problems
that language technology was putting in the way. For example, in Kanuri (kr),
spoken in the region around Lake Chad in Western Africa, some speakers use
the digit ‘3’ to stand in for the letter ‘ǝ’ (latin small letter turned e),
due to ‘ǝ’ being unavailable on standard English keyboard layouts, and the
unavailability of a language-specic layout with ‘ǝ’ included. In other languages,
we observed users omitting the diacritics the regular orthography would use; this
was not always because users preferred to skip these diacritics, but frequently
also because they were simply unavailable on the virtual keyboards these users
were using, as they were designed for English.
Of course, many language varieties are not written in the Latin/Roman al-
phabet that is used for English. High-quality input methods have long existed
for some other writing systems, such as Cyrillic (Cyrl), Chinese (Hans,Hant),
Japanese (Jpan), and Korean Hangul (Hang). But even though smartphone
keyboards have long supported the Cyrillic alphabet in general, Cyrillic-script
layouts were typically restricted to the character sets used in large languages
like Russian. This meant that, even though the Cyrillic script was generally
thought of as well-supported in technology, for many years, speakers of e.g. the
Yakut language in Siberia (sah) still faced issues with characters they needed
being unavailable in their keyboard layout, specically ‘ҕ’ (cyrillic small
letter ghe with middle hook), ‘ҥ’ (cyrillic small ligature en ghe),
‘ө’ (cyrillic small letter barred o), ‘һ’ (cyrillic small letter shha),
and ‘ү’ (cyrillic small letter straight u), and their capital-letter equiva-
lents. Examples like Yakut and Kanuri make it clear that keyboard layouts need
to be tailored to each language variety, even for languages written in scripts that
already have existing keyboard layouts.
While input methods have been reasonably widely available for Latin, Cyril-
lic, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, input methods for many other writing sys-
tems have been harder to nd. This has resulted in language communities
creating ‘online’ orthographies for languages written in these writing systems,
typically using the Latin alphabet instead of the standard writing system.
One well-known example is Arabizi, where Arabic (ar) is written using Latin
letters and digits, e.g. ‘keif 7alak?’ rather than the standard Arabic script, i.e.
‘؟ﻚﻟﺎﺣ ﻒﻴﻛ’ in this case. More details on Arabizi can be found in Bjørnsson
(2010) (which also explains how the emergence of Arabizi is also related to the
wide gap between standard formal Arabic writing and conversational everyday
Similarly, many languages of the Indian subcontinent, such as Hindi (hi),
now also have a widely used ‘online’ Latin-script orthography, which has emerged
alongside the native writing systems used for the standard orthography, such
as Devanagari (Deva) in Hindi (Wolf-Sonkin et al., 2019).
In some of these situations, our user studies suggest these ‘online’ orthogra-
phies carry additional symbolic connotations, such as an association of the Latin
alphabet with English leading to these new orthographies being seen as trendier
than the standard writing system, as in Hindi. In these cases, users may well
prefer to keep using this ‘online’ orthography, and it may make sense to support
this newly emerging orthography directly in a keyboard application as well, as
Gboard does for a number of Indian languages. Even so, we do believe that lan-
guage communities should have the option to use a high-quality input method
tailored exactly to their language variety in its standard writing system.
2.3.2 Linguistic Typology and Language Technology
During our research, we observed a number of interesting characteristics of
‘online’ orthographies, such as the use of the digit ‘2’ in languages like Indone-
sian (id) to mark a common morphological construction called reduplication,
meaning the (partial) repetition of a word to achieve a dierent meaning. This
phenomenon is rare in English, but can be observed in the sentence pair ‘I like
you’ vs. ‘I like-like you’, where the second version, with the reduplicated verb,
indicates romantic interest unambiguously.
Reduplication is very common in Indonesian and its linguistic relatives, and
even though many smartphone keyboard applications already oer support for
Indonesian, next-word prediction algorithms do not make special allowances for
reduplication, meaning users would have to re-enter the same word all over
again. Rather than re-typing the previous word from scratch in many cases,
it seems that many users prefer to just type ‘2’, as in e.g. ‘makan2’ instead
of ‘makan-makan’. This can be seen as another creative solution to language
technology that isn’t quite tailored to the specics of the language at hand. To
the best of our knowledge, a systematic way to handle reduplication and similar
morphological phenomena in n-gram language models is yet to be developed,
and we believe it would be a fruitful area for future work.
More generally, even typological phenomena such as reduplication, which
are well-known to linguists, can be challenging to handle using many standard
approaches, such as n-gram models. Beyond reduplication, linguists would be
quick to point out that many more phenomena exist that equally pose challenges
for language technology, such as agglutination and polysynthesis (Littell et al.,
2018; Mager et al., 2018). These phenomena appear in many of the world’s
languages, and it seems like an important area for future work to support them
better in language technology, although it is also important to mention that
these terms may be dened too broadly to be practically applicable (Haspel-
math, 2018). We think it would also be fruitful to investigate further what
kind of a user experience may be ideal for users whose languages feature such
typological phenomena: for example, perhaps instead of having a next-word
prediction feature, there should be a next-morpheme prediction feature.
2.3.3 Linguistic Variation and Language Technology
Even for language varieties whose writing systems and character sets have long
been readily supported by smartphone keyboards, users may encounter chal-
lenges due to the lack of technological support for their specic variety. For ex-
ample, speakers of Frisian (fy) and Limburgish (li), spoken in the Netherlands
by 500,000 and 1,000,000 speakers respectively, would generally be able to ac-
cess all relevant characters and diacritics by just conguring their smartphone
to use a standard Dutch (nl) keyboard layout. However, spell-check, auto-
correction and next-word prediction would then operate in Dutch, not Frisian
or Limburgish. This means that most Frisian or Limburgish words would be
auto-corrected wrongly by the underlying Dutch language models, or underlined
as spelling mistakes due to their absence in the Dutch spell-checking wordlists.
Our research showed that such situations are commonplace the world over—
speakers of a given language variety can frequently access the writing system
and the character set they need via a similar language variety, but this means
that other features such as auto-correction and spell-checking are mismatched
with the target language variety.
To give just one other example, many users in the Arabic-speaking world,
even when using a keyboard layout designed for Modern Standard Arabic, told
us that most chat and social media messages are handled incorrectly by the
auto-correction and spell-checking features built into their keyboard, because
they typically write such messages in colloquial local varieties of Arabic, not
Modern Standard Arabic.
We found that speakers, in general, adopt one of two approaches when faced
with such mismatches. Most commonly, users appear to simply address such
situations by continuing to type in their own language variety while teaching
the on-device personal dictionary in their keyboard software all the words they
need: they do this by reverting any incorrect auto-corrections manually, and
adding words to the spell-check dictionary as they go.
Another approach is that users simply go into the settings and turn o all
smart features, sticking with just the target layout, taking away the inconve-
nience of having to revert lots of inappropriate auto-corrections manually. In
these situations, these users can input faster than when auto-correct is operat-
ing in the wrong language, but they will not benet from the additional typing
speed improvements that they would see if they were to use auto-correct and
spell-checking in their preferred language variety.
2.3.4 Avoiding Language Technology Altogether
To wrap up, we will point out a few other approaches that we observed or
heard about. One relatively common approach, especially in some languages
of East Asia, such as Chinese varieties, appears to be sending voice recordings
rather than typing out messages in writing. Such voice recordings are typically
sent through private chat apps, not shared on public social media, and it is
unclear how frequently users elsewhere use this approach. However, based on
anecdotal evidence from East Asia and India, we believe it may be very common,
particularly in low-literacy language communities.
Finally, one creative approach, which we believe to be rare, but which does
illustrate the great challenges that the absence of language technology can pose
for communities: some speakers of West African languages told us that, because
they could not type in the writing system they generally used for their language,
they were simply hand-writing notes, then taking photos of these notes, and
sending these photos to each other via chat apps - thus avoiding the need for
digital language technology altogether, but at a high cost in terms of convenience
and data transferred, with digital photos being much larger to transmit than
3 Creating a Language Roadmap
Once we had concluded that we wanted to add support for many more language
varieties to Gboard, the rst question we asked ourselves was which ones we
should add, and in what order. Creating such a language roadmap turns out to
be a relatively challenging task even in itself, given the sheer linguistic diversity
of our world, and the large number of factors involved.
Even just arriving at a precise count of our world’s inventory of languages is
generally agreed to be an impossible task, with unclear demarcations between
similar language varieties, and lots of linguistic variation even within languages
generally seen as one unied formalized language: for example, even English has
many regional varieties, and there are also varieties such as African-American
English. Even if we simply assume that there are thousands of language va-
rieties in our world today, without attaching a precise number, it’s clear that
determining which varieties to add, and their relative prioritization, is a complex
3.1 Which Languages to Include
As an ideal, one goal might be for all language technologies to support all
languages. However, we should recognize that in this particular context of
building a smartphone keyboard application, it does not necessarily make sense
to support all 6,000-7,000 languages at the present moment.
Even considering the trend towards writing many more languages online
which we described above, perhaps half of the world’s language communities
have yet to develop (and some may never develop) even informal, ‘online’ or-
thographies. These languages may be used by groups where:
• literacy rates remain low
• technology is not yet accessible or available
• there is simply no demand (yet) for writing in their language, and perhaps
no orthography exists at all yet
In these situations, speakers would be unlikely to benet from the creation
of a keyboard application for the language variety at this point in time: they
would not necessarily use it, and it will probably even be unclear what characters
should be included in the layout. In many situations, developing other language
technologies may make more sense: for example, automatic speech recognition
technology may be a better t than a keyboard application. And of course, some
of the world’s languages are sign languages, where dierent kinds of technology
may be needed.
As a general philosophy, we think it is important to focus on what would
be most helpful for the users of each of the world’s language varieties, and to
proceed from there, while also understanding that the needs of these users are
not homogeneous. We also think it is important to re-evaluate the situation
regularly, since the situation on the ground may shift over time.
It is also worth pointing out that language communities can, and increas-
ingly do, develop their own third-party Android keyboard applications or other
types of language technology, frequently working with eldwork linguists or
other academics collaborating closely with these communities, using the kinds
of approaches described in Paterson (2015). Thus, even if a language is not yet
included in Gboard, it is still possible for an Android keyboard to be created
and distributed for use among the community.
3.2 Prioritizing the Roadmap
Even so, the set of language varieties that needs to be considered for inclusion
would still be quite large, so we had to create a prioritization system, allowing us
to create a roadmap for language support. To be clear, of course, we believe all
language varieties are equally valuable, but it is simply not feasible to work on
hundreds of varieties simultaneously, so a rough prioritization is needed, max-
imizing the impact that can be achieved within the resources available. There
are a number of factors that can be used in deciding the relative prioritization
of each language variety, including:
• Can we nd evidence of this language already being written online, even
if just in informal contexts? Approximately how common is this, as far
as we can determine? Is the language present in major multilingual sites,
such as Wikipedia?
• Are there books, newspapers, magazines, or other formal written publica-
• What’s the approximate number of speakers?
• What do smartphone usage trends look like today, and what are the
• Are all the other i18n building blocks (Unicode encoding, fonts, etc.) in
place for this language variety?
• Have we received feature requests for this variety to be added through
various product feedback channels?
• What alternatives do speakers of this language currently have, e.g. is a
layout for another language available that they may be able to use to input
all relevant characters (even if they would have to disable the keyboard’s
• Is it an ocial, administrative language of any country/territory?
When building roadmaps, some of these factors can be fetched from industry-
wide resources such as the Unicode Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR),
while others require in-house research. Collating this data makes it possible to
bucket the language varieties based on these various factors. Then, we can work
on a set of varieties with approximately equivalent priorities in parallel.
In our work, the presence of other i18n building blocks was only a fac-
tor to a limited extent, as virtually all relevant scripts were already included
in the Unicode standard, and had fonts available through Google’s Noto ef-
forts (https://google.com/get/noto). The main technical consideration was
whether most Android smartphones included an appropriate font for the writing
system at hand, such as Google’s Noto font for the script. However, the other
questions frequently required signicant research.
3.2.1 Uncertainty about Statistics
For example, beyond the academic studies in a handful of languages cited above,
there is virtually no public information on how frequently most of the world’s
language varieties are used in e.g. private chat apps or in semi-private social
media communities. And even determining seemingly simple statistics such as
approximate speaker numbers is a tough challenge for many language varieties,
with various sources, such as the English-language Wikipedia, Eberhard et al.
(2019), and ocial government censuses all reporting wildly inconsistent num-
Certainly, in many cases, our roadmap planning involves making rough es-
timates, as much of the data that we would need to determine these numbers
with any degree of certainty is unavailable. Given all this uncertainty, roadmaps
are by necessity imperfect, but the goal is to sort the languages of the world
in roughly the right order to maximize the impact and helpfulness of our work,
given the resources available, and we nd that this method generally achieves
3.3 Writing Systems and the Roadmap
In creating the roadmap, one complication we had not anticipated was deter-
mining the appropriate writing system(s) to support in the keyboard for each
3.3.1 Languages of India
For example, multiple writing systems are commonly used for many languages
of India, such as Santali (sat), one of the 22 languages listed in the 8th Schedule
to the Indian Constitution. Santali is written in a number of writing systems,
including Devanagari (Deva), Bengali/Assamese (Beng), Ol Chiki (Olck), and
Latin (Latn). In this case, it required a signicant amount of research to de-
termine which of these writing systems is more commonly used, and which of
these writing systems Santali speakers would want to use. These two questions
do not necessarily result in the same answer, given that the choice of writing
system is frequently informed by the availability of technologies like keyboard
Santali is by no means the only language of India for which multiple writing
systems are in use. As described by Brandt (2014), in India, the choice of writing
system for Indian languages is inuenced by many extra-linguistic factors, and
we nd that generally, extensive research is necessary to determine which writing
system(s) to use for most languages of India.
Beyond native writing systems and standard orthographies, as mentioned
above, many Indian users express a strong preference for the use of the Latin
alphabet for languages such as Hindi (typically written in Devanagari), even
when presented with a fully functional keyboard for the standard writing system.
As a result, we decided to oer support for Latin-script input for many Indian
languages, with output either in the standard script through transliteration
(Hellsten et al., 2017) or in the Latin alphabet (Wolf-Sonkin et al., 2019).
3.3.2 Indigenous scripts in South-East Asia
India is by no means the only country in which we face a complex landscape in
terms of selecting which scripts to use for a given language variety. For example,
in Indonesia, many languages have a historical tradition of being written in
local scripts, such as Sundanese (Sund), Javanese (Java), Balinese (Bali), and
Buginese (Bugi). These indigenous scripts have now largely been replaced by
the use of the Latin alphabet in everyday usage, but they are still found in
public signage, and form an important aspect of the cultural heritage (Kuipers,
2003). We generally choose to add support for the everyday writing system rst,
since that will be most helpful to people using our keyboard application, and
potentially add support for lesser-used heritage scripts later. In Indonesia, for
example, we added support for all four scripts mentioned here, but only after
we had already added support for these languages in the Latin script.
In the Phillipines, the situation is somewhat similar: the everyday writing
system is Latin, but heritage scripts such as Baybayin (Tglg) also remain in
use. Again, we added support for the most commonly used writing system rst,
and later on, we added support for Baybayin, as well as three other indigenous
scripts of the Phillipines (Tagbanwa Tagb, Hanunuo Hano, and Buhid Buhd).
3.3.3 Use of the Arabic script
During our research, we learned that in the Indonesian archipelago, historically,
the Arabic script (Arab) was used for many languages spoken along trade routes,
such as Acehnese (ace) (Daud, 1997). While the Arabic script has fallen out of
use in most places in modern Indonesia, it continues to be used to some extent
for Malay, although it may also be dwindling there (Yaacob et al., 2001). We
have added support for some Arabic-script keyboards for languages of Indonesia
and Malaysia, but again, we added support for the more commonly used Latin-
script orthographies rst.
Beyond Indonesia, many language varieties of Western Africa also continue
to be written in the Arabic script in addition to the Latin script, due to historical
inuences in the region (Souag, 2011).
3.3.4 Multiple Orthographic Standards
Even for language varieties with just one writing system in common use, varying
orthographic standards may still be used: in fact, this happens even in English,
where the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, use slightly
dierent orthographic standards. In many languages, the dierences between
varying orthographic standards are signicantly larger, and the decision of which
orthographic standard(s) to include can be challenging. Sometimes, it was clear
that only one orthographic standard was still in everyday use, while in other
cases, speakers of the target language are still debating which standard to adopt.
These situations require a nuanced, tailored approach for each language variety.
We found Oko (2018) a helpful case study to understand the complexities that
can be at play; Jones and Mooney (2017) and Cahill and Rice (2014) also oer
a wealth of knowledge.
3.3.5 Useful Resources
In the end, we primarily based the decision of which writing system(s) to include
on on-the-ground usage factors, and on feature requests we received. Useful
sources we consulted included Daniels and Bright (1996), the Unicode Stan-
dard, and related documentation (such as proposals to the Unicode Technical
Committee, for which we found SIL International (2019) to be of immense
value). We made extensive use of aggregators of linguistic research such as
Hammarstrom et al. (2019). We also made use of Eberhard et al. (2019). Fi-
nally, simple overview charts with all relevant graphemes, as found in many
language-specic Wikipedia articles, as well as on Omniglot (Ager, 2019), were
tremendously useful to us.
3.4 Automatic Dashboards
Once we had decided which language varieties we would be supporting, in
roughly what order, and in which writing systems, we needed a way to track
our progress. Given the number of languages involved, manual tracking solu-
tions such as spreadsheets would not be ideal: with dozens of sub-tasks per
language, there would be many thousands of sub-tasks to track, and prior ex-
perience taught us that manually maintained spreadsheets would inevitably get
out of date very quickly.
To give team members access to up-to-date information, we created a set
of dashboards which automatically take in status information from our source
control repository, such as whether a layout design has already been committed
into the repository. We created dashboards for each of the major sub-tasks
per language, so we can easily see which languages would need to be worked
on next for each of these categories. For each sub-task to be executed for
a given language variety, our dashboard automatically links in a pointer to
detailed, step-by-step documentation on how to complete this sub-task. We
also integrated this dashboard with our internal issue tracking system, so we
can easily see if anyone is already working on an individual sub-task for a given
language variety (tracked with an issue in our system), and if so, who; a critical
feature in a globally distributed team.
This may appear as a nitty-gritty description of task management that would
not typically warrant being described in detail, but it is interesting to consider
that without the work that went into these automatic dashboards and our pro-
cess documentation, the logistical challenges involved in adding support for
hundreds of language varieties would have been daunting, presenting a nearly
insurmountable obstacle to the large-scale deployment of language technology -
and one that is in no way due to any complexity innate to the technology itself.
More generally, it strikes us that non-technical issues (such as scaleable task
management systems, process documentation, unavailability in a standardized
format of even the most basic information on orthographic systems for many
of the world’s languages, and limited availability of trustworthy standardized
data on linguistic usage patterns across the world), in aggregate, are much
bigger factors than many realize in contributing to the limited level of support
in language technology for the world’s languages today.
4 Designing Keyboard Layouts
In our experience, the most challenging aspect of our deep internationalization
eorts for Gboard has been designing and implementing keyboard layouts across
language varieties and writing systems. Virtual on-screen keyboard layouts have
many benets over physical keyboards, including that they:
• are easily adaptable for each language variety, with mere software cong-
• can contain more rows and columns than a physical layout
• allow designers to create dynamic layouts, where keys can change appear-
ance after a key has been tapped—this helps account for complex writing
systems with more graphemes than can comfortably t on a single screen
• enable per-user layout personalization, e.g. by making it possible to enable
or disable a permanent number row at the top of the layout
• oer the option to switch easily from one keyboard layout to another, e.g.
for users who are familiar with multiple writing systems
All the same, it can be challenging to design usable layouts that can t the
necessary characters for each language into the limited amount of on-screen real
estate that is available. All the characters that are required for a given language
need to be placed in positions that make sense to the target user base, but at
the same time, the overall space that the keyboard takes up should not cover
too much of the device’s screen. In many cases, even with dynamic layouts, it
is practically impossible to put all required characters on the rst page in the
keyboard layout, and we had to decide which characters to make available as
long-presses (i.e. keys which become accessible as their host key is held down
for some longer period of time), and sometimes even which keys to put on a
second or even third page.
While there are plenty of challenges when manually designing layouts across
dozens of dierent scripts, we found that these factors made even seemingly
simple Latin-script languages dicult to support at scale. We originally de-
signed each layout manually, with linguists or native speakers starting out from
a basic layout grid (such as QWERTY, QWERTZ, or AZERTY), then adding in
long-press characters. To some extent, of course character frequency is the main
consideration in deciding which long-press characters to include, and so given
a text corpus, it seemed to us like this part of the layout design process could
be automated. We have described our approach for doing so for Latin-script
orthographies in Breiner et al. (2019).
Although we can employ automation to accelerate our layout design process
for Latin-script orthographies, even layouts generated through this automatic
system still require some human input to ensure they are laid out in the best-
possible way, while languages with non-Latin script orthographies virtually al-
ways require extensive human input. The reasons human input is required for
even Latin-script layout design are manifold, but include:
• The basic layout grid of choice for a given community is typically in-
uenced by complex historical and cultural considerations. In many lan-
guages, familiarity with key placements of layouts for major lingua francas
inuences users’ preferences for key placements in their native language:
for example, if users have grown used to typing on a QWERTY layout
when writing in English, or when writing their native language using an
English keyboard layout, they tend to prefer to stick to the layout they
know. It seems very challenging to design an automatic system that can
accurately decide whether a given language community would prefer QW-
ERTY, AZERTY, QWERTZ, or yet another basic layout grid.
• In some cases, dierent countries may have adopted dierent standard
layouts for typing in their languages, even if these languages use the same
writing system. For example, Canadian French uses a QWERTY layout
by default, unlike French of France, which uses an AZERTY layout.
• Frequently, entirely new keys need to be added to the basic layout grid, as
in the layout for German of Switzerland, which has keys for ‘ä’, ‘ö’, and
‘ü’ to the right of the standard QWERTZ grid. Without human linguistic
input, it is not possible to determine whether such keys need to be included
as stand-alone keys, or whether it would be sucient to include them as
• In many cases, existing ocial layout standards exist, but these are not
typically machine-readable. Even if such standards exist, there may be
locally-developed keyboard apps that do not follow these standards, but
that implemented a dierent keyboard layout instead that many users in
the community have grown accustomed to.
• Even if the standard orthography for a given language does not include
some letters, these letters may still be needed to write commonly used
loanwords from neighboring or major world languages.
In languages using non-Latin scripts, the type of writing system signicantly
inuences how layouts are designed. In some cases, the same principles outlined
above apply equally, as in languages that use the Cyrillic script (Cyrl) or the
Greek script (Grek). Similarly, for many abjads, such as the Arabic (Arab)
script, a simple non-dynamic one-page layout is sucient. However, for many
abugidas, such as the Brahmic scripts of India (e.g. Deva), we use dynamic
layouts extensively to facilitate typing all relevant characters on just one page.
Similarly, in syllabaries such as Cherokee (Cher), we use dynamic layouts to
make all necessary characters easily accessible.
In some cases, when developing dynamic layouts for abugidas and other com-
plex scripts, very specic ordering is required for the rules that govern which
keys are shown dynamically, in order to achieve proper rendering of the char-
acters. Dynamic keys may remain blank until the relevant rules are activated,
when the character combination is shown on the key. This allows for only licit
characters to be combined dynamically and presented to the user. Without
these combination rules, illegal or nonsensical character combinations would of-
ten appear on the keys, creating clutter and causing issues for the user when
Another interesting factor is that some non-Latin script layouts are inu-
enced by well-known Latin-script layouts such as QWERTY, leading to designs
where similar graphemes from, say, the Cyrillic script are placed in the same
positions on the layout as the equivalent graphemes would be in a Latin-script
All these layout design considerations mean that it typically requires a sig-
nicant amount of human linguistic input to design a well-functioning layout.
Overall, Gboard today includes 900+ layouts across over 70 scripts. Even if all
the layouts in each script typically share some basic characteristics, each and
every single one of these layouts has required a signicant amount of linguistic
work to tailor it to the individual language variety it will be used for.
5 Building Language Models
5.1 Gathering and Normalizing Data
Supporting features such as auto-correct, next-word prediction (predictive text)
and spell-check requires the use of a machine-learning language model, such
as n-gram language models, which can be used in a nite-state transduction
decoder (Ouyang et al., 2017). These language models can be created based
on a variety of textual sources, e.g. web crawls, external text corpora, or even
wordlists (to create unigram language models). A detailed description of our
standard approach to mining training data for language models across many
languages can be found in Prasad et al. (2018). Since the data that we mine
can be quite noisy, we apply our scalable automatic data normalization system
across all languages and data sets, as described in Chua et al. (2018). Our model
training algorithms are described in Allauzen et al. (2016).
5.1.1 Eliciting Additional Text Corpora
Where text corpora or wordlists are unavailable, or not suciently large to
create a decent wordlist, we decided to work with language communities to
create small text corpora. Our elicitation approach for such corpora is to provide
prompts for native speakers to respond to in writing, such as “What was your
favorite food growing up? Describe how you prepare it and why you like it.”
Our experiments showed that about 10,000 sentences is typically sucient to
train a small language model with a sucient level of quality to handle basic
auto-correction and spell-checking, so we created 5,000 unique prompts across
dierent domains, gathering two responses for each of the prompts.
Creating corpora using such free-writing prompts generally works well, but
one challenge that comes up from time to time is that for some language vari-
eties, the native speakers we work with do not have access to any other keyboard,
even on desktop or laptop computers, with the right writing system and char-
acter inventory. In those cases, a quick web-based virtual keyboard can be put
together. In yet other cases, non-Unicode font encodings may be used in the
data we receive from native speakers, necessitating the creation and/or use of a
Another interesting challenge with these free-writing prompts was that the
prompts we designed did not necessarily make sense around the world. We
did our best to create a set of prompts that would apply across cultures and
countries, but even though we had paid careful attention to this topic, we’ve
still received notes from some native speakers pointing out that some questions
do not make sense for them. For example, some native speakers pointed out
that the question “What are the ten biggest cities in your country, and what are
some of the best-known places in each of them?” did not make sense in their
country, given that there weren’t quite that many cities in their country. This
once more emphasized the importance of having diverse perspectives throughout
the development process.
5.2 Linguistic Variation and Language Models
While in general, creating a language model for given linguistic varieties using
the approaches outlined above works quite well, in some situations, more com-
plications arise due to the sheer amount of linguistic variation in the world. In
the extreme, one could say everyone speaks every language variety that they
speak in a slightly dierent way from all other speakers of that variety: people
have their idiolects, meaning they have their own individual linguistic prefer-
ences and usage patterns, diering in terms of word choice, topics, and loanword
sources, to name but a few sources of individual variation in language use.
Generally, though, such dierences can be modelled with on-device person-
alization towards the user’s individual language usage, with the core language
being modelled by a generic model built for the language variety at hand, and
on-device personalization taking care of the rest (Fowler et al., 2015).
However, some language varieties have a large degree of internal linguistic
variation, e.g. Romansh (rm) of Switzerland, and Limburgish (li) of the Nether-
lands. In such language varieties, providing high-precision auto-corrections is
challenging due to local orthographic and lexical variation, and such variation
also complicates providing accurate next-word predictions.
Of course, one approach could be to simply handle each version of Romansh
and Limburgish as an individual variety, building separate models for each and
every one of them. This is, however, hardly practical, because enumerating and
demarcating these varieties is quite challenging, and even if this could be done,
handling each variety individually would also require a large set of language
models to be built.
The approach we have adopted is to build one model covering all sub-varieties
for each language variety, where we tune the auto-correction parameters to be
signicantly more lenient, and then to rely on on-device personalization to learn
the user’s individual preferences. Similar approaches can be adopted for many
languages the world over, including colloquial Arabic varieties, which also oer
a wide range of internal linguistic variation with unclear boundaries between
varieties (Abdul-Mageed et al., 2018).
In fact, such personalization approaches may even make sense in languages
that would not normally be considered to have a large degree of internal linguis-
tic variation. For example, in English, there is a widely used standard form that
is commonly used in writing (i.e. the form this report uses), but there is also a
large degree of linguistic variation in English (Labov, 2012; Trudgill, 2016) that
makes its way into informal writing, as shown by e.g. Eisenstein (2013) and
Nguyen (2019). On-device personalization can help account for such dierences
in English, too. In future research, we hope to explore further how and when
on-device personalization can help model ne-grained linguistic variation.
Of course, even for an individual language user, dierent degrees of formality
and dierent linguistic registers may be used depending on the context (e.g.
writing a business email vs. having an informal chat with a friend), so beyond
personalization, investigating contextualization also appears to be a fruitful area
for future work.
5.3 Multilingual Input
Many people around the world speak multiple languages. For example, in Eu-
rope, more than half of the population speaks more than one foreign language in
addition to their native language (European Commission, Directorate-General
for Communication, 2012). In most countries in Africa, multilingual speakers
also form a majority of the population (Logan, 2018). Reliable statistics for
other areas of the world are harder to come by, but it appears the trends hold
elsewhere, with widespread multilingualism also reported in e.g. India and In-
donesia. Overall, it seems reasonable to assume that more than half of the
world’s population speaks two or more languages.
To account for multilingualism in Gboard, users can enable on-the-y, on-
device mixing of many of Gboard’s monolingual language models. In this multi-
lingual mode, Gboard aims to automatically handle language switches by mixing
these user-selected monolingual language models together to build a model that
can account for multilingual usage. Because of keyboard layout constraints, it
is not currently possible to enable this multilingual mode across languages that
use dierent scripts.
5.4 Improving Quality Over Time
In general, the quality of a language model (and thus the quality of the input
experience) depends on the size of the text corpus and on how well the corpus
is matched to the target application domain. For example, a language model
trained on news articles may show unexpected next-word predictions in conver-
sational contexts, because it will rely on n-grams observed in news contexts.
More generally, for commonly written language varieties such as English
(en), Russian (ru) and Chinese (zh), large text corpora can be found easily
across many domains. This means that the typing experience upon rst use will
typically be better than in languages where smaller text corpora are available,
with limited domain coverage. As described above, on-device personalization
can help improve pre-built generic language models as the keyboard applica-
tion is used over time, by creating a personal dictionary with out-of-vocabulary
words and common phrases. In our user studies, we nd that such on-device
personalization usually helps improve the typing experience signicantly.
Beyond on-device personalization, however, there are a number of ways in
which these pre-built generic language models can be strengthened over time.
Most obviously, as these language varieties become increasingly common on the
public internet, web crawls can result in larger and more diverse text corpora.
Another approach is to apply a relatively new technique called “federated learn-
ing”, where a distributed, privacy-preserving, on-device learning framework is
used to train high-quality language models, as described in Hard et al. (2018)
and Chen et al. (2019).
6 User Reactions
6.1 User Studies
After we’ve designed a layout and built a language model for a given language
variety, we typically run a user study with a number of speakers of the target
variety. This helps us make sure that the keyboard that’s been built meets the
needs of the community, which is critically important, as highlighted by Paterson
(2015). These speakers are asked to install a beta version of the keyboard, and
answer a survey with a variety of quantitative and qualitative questions to gauge
their typing experience. This survey was originally conducted only in English,
but we have since translated it into a number of other major world languages,
such as French and Modern Standard Arabic, to make the survey easier to
understand for communities around the world who may not be as familiar with
It would be impractical to present a full analysis of testers’ responses across
all language varieties here. In general, users express satisfaction at having full
keyboard support for their language variety. Conrming our expectations at
the start of this project, users frequently indicate they will use this keyboard to
input their language in social media and chat apps in particular. Users typically
also indicate they would be likely to recommend this keyboard app to others,
with one of the top reasons being that it supports their own language variety.
Some testers also pointed out that having a keyboard application with sup-
port for their native language would help them feel more condent when typing,
since they were still getting used to writing in their native language, and having
features like auto-correction and spelling completions made it easier to spell
their language correctly, since they weren’t always entirely condent about the
spelling of certain words.
Testers have, of course, also identied areas of improvement: most com-
monly, users indicate that the dictionary still appears to be relatively small,
presumably arising from nding too many correctly spelled words being high-
lighted as spelling mistakes. This makes sense, given that the training corpora
we trained the language models on are typically smaller than the corpora in
other languages that our testers may be familiar with. Fortunately, on-device
personalization can help address this by learning words over time as the key-
board is used.
Only in a handful of cases across the hundreds of user studies we have run
so far did any testers indicate they would never write in their language variety.
Even then, there was never agreement among the testers for a given language
variety on this topic, with at least some testers indicating that they do use their
language in writing, suggesting that perhaps writing is an emergent phenomenon
in these language varieties.
To be fair, we did already exclude a handful of languages from our roadmap
initially where we could nd absolutely no evidence of any written tradition,
despite them having a large number of speakers. Additionally, as described
above, we prioritized our roadmap such that we work rst on the languages
where the impact is likely to be the highest. There is, therefore, certainly some
amount of selection bias in these ndings.
However, it has been exciting to see that, across many hundreds of languages,
people indicate that a keyboard application with support for their language will
make their everyday typing experience signicantly easier, further arming the
theory that many of the world’s languages are now increasingly used in writing
to communicate in informal online environments, such as chat apps and social
These ndings give us some cause for optimism: at least for the languages
we have surveyed, which cover about 95% of the world’s population by rst
language, the situation seems less bleak than was feared a few years ago, e.g. by
Kornai (2013), who feared that “less than 5% of all languages can still ascend
to the digital realm”, and who suggested that perhaps at most 300 languages
would see ever widespread usage online. Our surveys paint a somewhat more
positive picture—although to be fair, we’ve only surveyed speakers of about
10% of the world’s languages.
6.2 Usage Trends and Discoverability
We have generally seen an enthusiastic reception for most of the language vari-
eties we have been releasing publicly. However, an interesting problem we have
observed in follow-up interactions with speakers of these language varieties (who
were not in the group of initial testers) is that many potential users remain un-
aware that their language is supported by their smartphone keyboard, even a
year or so after it rst became available.
This lack of awareness means speakers continue to use a sub-optimal input
method for their variety, as described in the initial section showing how users
solve for the limitations of language technology, even when those limitations
have been removed. We have not done detailed studies in this area yet, but
so far, it appears that there are a few factors at play. First, speakers may not
have any expectation technology would support their language variety, because
of a historic lack of support (of course, it would be unreasonable at any rate to
expect most users to look at their phone’s language settings menu on a regular
basis). Second, even if users do look for their variety in the settings menu, these
menus are complicated and challenging to less technically-savvy users.
In other cases, users are aware of their language variety being supported,
but they express concerns that it will be hard to switch back to other language
varieties that they commonly type in. Addressing these problems is an inter-
esting area for future work: there may be technical solutions (e.g. creating an
on-device system to automatically suggest the right language settings), but this
is clearly non-trivial. In the meantime, it is worth noting here that again, we
see problems that do not arise from the core underlying complexity of language
technology, but more so from factors such as user interface design and user
expectations of technology.
Many people without a linguistic background are surprised to learn that there
are thousands of languages out there in the world. Even to those of us on the
Gboard team with linguistic backgrounds, though, seeing the actual linguistic
diversity of the world up close throughout our deep internationalization eorts
for Gboard has been humbling. There is clearly an enormous linguistic diversity
online these days, even if it is somewhat hidden from public view and awareness.
In this context, localized keyboard applications can be of enormous benet to
users, as we have seen in many user studies across the world.
We hope that this technical report helps increase awareness of the needs and
desires of language communities around the world, not just among developers of
keyboard applications, but also more generally among practitioners in the eld
of language technology. We think there are bound to be more contexts in which
product teams may be able to adopt the approaches we have developed to be
eective in dealing with the unprecedented demands for scale in our keyboard
• designing natural-language processing algorithms and modeling approaches
that scale to many languages, factoring in the world’s linguistic diversity
• having clear, prioritized roadmaps for language support
• building automatic dashboards to track what has been done for each lan-
guage, and what still needs to be done
• creating well-documented easy-to-follow processes for linguists and native
speakers to inject knowledge
• using scalable infrastructure designed to work across any number of lan-
• ensuring there are built-in mechanisms for feedback from language com-
It may seem like a daunting project to add support for hundreds of language
varieties to a given product, but we hope we have shown it is possible to design
scaleable approaches that help build products that support a very large number
of languages. In our experience, it is especially helpful to do such design thinking
before jumping in to doing any signicant product development work, rather
than designing a process that does work for a few dozen languages, but that
does not scale to hundreds of languages.
Of course, many more language varieties remain that are not yet included
in today’s Gboard. And smartphone keyboards are just one application of
language technology, with many other technologies, such as speech-to-text (voice
dictation), still available in only dozens of languages. To achieve the goal of
building for everyone, there is a lot of work ahead still for the eld of language
technology. But with the right approach in place, the focus can be on the
interesting research, engineering and product challenges, as well as the rich
human interactions, that are so critical to building technology for the world’s
Many people have been involved in the Gboard deep internationalization eort
in various roles over the years. First, we’d like to thank our fellow linguists in
Google’s Speech & Keyboard group, who have contributed to the research and
engineering work for many of the language varieties supported in Gboard today:
Alexa Cohen, Jonas Fromseier Mortensen, Shayna Lurya, Amanda Ritchart-
Scott, Sandy Ritchie, Pierric Sans, and all the other linguists at Google who
have helped us build these keyboards.
We’d also like to thank Caroline Kenny and Sarah Abu Sharkh for their
invaluable eorts to support our data collection projects. Our thanks also go to
Reena Lee, Angana Ghosh, and Linda Lin of the Gboard product management
team, and all the members of the Gboard engineering team around the world.
Beyond the Gboard team, we’d also like to thank the members of Google’s In-
ternationalization Engineering team: Gboard could not function without their
work on the Unicode libraries, the Google Noto fonts, and the Android text
rendering stack. We would also like to thank the Speech/Language Algorithms
team and our Language Model Infrastructure team for their help in extending
our model training infrastructure so it could easily scale to hundreds of lan-
guages. Thanks, as well, to many other enthusiastic Googlers who have pitched
in to help us with their own languages.
For providing inspiration and executive support, we thank Xu Liu, Pedro
Moreno, and Johan Schalkwyk.
Finally, and most importantly, our deepest thanks go to all the linguists
and native speakers outside of Google who have helped us create smartphone
keyboards for their language varieties.
Abdul-Mageed, M., Alhuzali, H., and Elaraby, M. (2018). You tweet what
you speak: A city-level dataset of Arabic dialects. In Proceedings of the
Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
(LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Resources Association
Ager, S. (2019). Omniglot. https://www.omniglot.com/.
Allauzen, C., Riley, M., and Roark, B. (2016). Distributed representation and
estimation of WFST-based n-gram models. In Proceedings of the SIGFSM
Workshop on Statistical NLP and Weighted Automata, pages 32–41, Berlin,
Germany. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Bjørnsson, J. A. (2010). Egyptian Romanized Arabic: a study of selected fea-
tures from communication among Egyptian youth on Facebook. Master’s
thesis, University of Oslo.
Blommaert, J. (2008). Grassroots literacy: Writing, identity and voice in Central
Brandt, C. (2014). Script as a potential demarcator and stabilizer of languages
in South Asia. In LD&C Special Publication No. 7: Language Endangerment
and Preservation in South Asia. University of Hawai’i Press.
Breiner, T., Nguyen, C., van Esch, D., and O’Brien, J. (2019). Automatic
Keyboard Layout Design for Low-Resource Latin-Script Languages. arXiv
e-prints, page arXiv:1901.06039.
Cahill, M. and Rice, K. (2014). Developing orthographies for unwritten lan-
guages. SIL International.
Chen, M., Theertha Suresh, A., Mathews, R., Wong, A., Allauzen, C., Beaufays,
F., and Riley, M. (2019). Federated Learning of N-gram Language Models.
arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1910.03432.
Chua, M., van Esch, D., Coccaro, N., Cho, E., Bhandari, S., and Jia, L. (2018).
Text normalization infrastructure that scales to hundreds of language vari-
eties. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language
Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Lan-
guage Resources Association (ELRA).
Cru, J. (2015). Language revitalisation from the ground up: promoting Yucatec
Maya on Facebook. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
Daniels, P. T. and Bright, W. (1996). The world’s writing systems. Oxford
University Press on Demand.
Daud, B. (1997). Writing and reciting Acehnese: perspectives on language and
literature in Aceh. PhD thesis, School of Languages and Linguistics, The
University of Melbourne.
Eberhard, D. and Mangulamas, M. (2019). Who texts what to whom and when?
The use of the Maguindanaon language in texting. In Proceedings of the
6th International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation
Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., and Fennig, C. D. (2019). Ethnologue: Lan-
guages of the world. https://www.ethnologue.com/.
Eisenstein, J. (2013). Identifying regional dialects in on-line social media. The
Handbook of Dialectology, 2013:368–383.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication (2012). Euro-
peans and their languages. Special Eurobarometer 386.
Fowler, A., Partridge, K., Chelba, C., Bi, X., Ouyang, T., and Zhai, S. (2015).
Eects of language modeling and its personalization on touchscreen typing
performance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (CHI 2015), pages 649–658, New York, NY, USA.
Hammarstrom, H., Bank, S., Forkel, R., and Haspelmath, M. (2019). Glottolog
Hard, A., Rao, K., Mathews, R., Ramaswamy, S., Beaufays, F., Augenstein,
S., Eichner, H., Kiddon, C., and Ramage, D. (2018). Federated Learning for
Mobile Keyboard Prediction. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1811.03604.
Haspelmath, M. (2018). The last word on polysynthesis: A review article.
Linguistic Typology, 22(2).
Hellsten, L., Roark, B., Goyal, P., Allauzen, C., Beaufays, F., Ouyang, T.,
Riley, M., and Rybach, D. (2017). Transliterated mobile keyboard input
via weighted nite-state transducers. In Proceedings of the 13th Interna-
tional Conference on Finite State Methods and Natural Language Processing
ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission (2017). The State of Broadband 2017:
Broadband catalyzing sustainable development. Broadband Commission for
Jany, C. (2018). The role of new technology and social media in reversing
language loss. Speech, Language and Hearing, 21(2):73–76.
Jones, E. H. G. and Uribe-Jongbloed, E. (2012). Social media and minority
languages: Convergence and the creative industries, volume 152. Multilingual
Jones, M. C. and Mooney, D. (2017). Creating orthographies for endangered
languages. Cambridge University Press.
Jongbloed-Faber, L., Van de Velde, H., van der Meer, C., and Klinkenberg, E.
(2016). Language use of Frisian bilingual teenagers on social media. Treballs
de sociolingüística catalana.
Jongbloed-Faber, L., van Loo, J., and Cornips, L. (2017). Regional languages
on Twitter. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(2):174–196.
Keegan, T. T., Mato, P., and Ruru, S. (2015). Using Twitter in an Indigenous
language: An analysis of te reo Māori tweets. AlterNative: An International
Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 11(1):59–75.
Kornai, A. (2013). Digital language death. PLOS ONE, 8(10):1–11.
Kral, I. (2010). Plugged in: Remote Australian Indigenous youth and digital
culture. CAEPR working paper.
Kral, I. (2012). Talk, text and technology: Literacy and social practice in a
remote Indigenous community, volume 14. Multilingual Matters.
Kuipers, J. (2003). Indic scripts of Insular Southeast Asia: Changing structures
and functions. In Bhaskararao, P., editor, Indic Scripts: Past and Future.
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Labov, W. (2012). Dialect diversity in America: The politics of language change.
University of Virginia Press.
Lacka, D. and Moner, W. J. (2016). Local languages, global networks: Mobile
design for minority language users. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Inter-
national Conference on the Design of Communication, SIGDOC ’16, pages
14:1–14:9, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Lillehaugen, B. D. (2016). Why write in a language that (almost) no one can
read? Twitter and the development of written literature. Language Docu-
mentation & Conservation, 10.
Littell, P., Kazantseva, A., Kuhn, R., Pine, A., Arppe, A., Cox, C., and Junker,
M.-O. (2018). Indigenous language technologies in Canada: Assessment, chal-
lenges, and successes. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on
Computational Linguistics, pages 2620–2632, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
Association for Computational Linguistics.
Logan, C. (2018). 800 languages and counting. In Albaugh, E. A. and de Luna,
K. M., editors, Tracing Language Movement in Africa. Oxford University
Mager, M., Gutierrez-Vasques, X., Sierra, G., and Meza-Ruiz, I. (2018). Chal-
lenges of language technologies for the indigenous languages of the Americas.
In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Lin-
guistics, pages 55–69, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Association for Compu-
McCulloch, G. (2019). Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of
McMonagle, S. (2019). Aspects of language choice online among German-Upper
Sorbian bilingual adolescents. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 0(0):1–21.
McMonagle, S., Cunlie, D., Jongbloed-Faber, L., and Jarvis, P. (2019). What
can hashtags tell us about minority languages on Twitter? A comparison of
#cymraeg, #frysk, and #gaeilge. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Nguyen, D. (2019). Dialect variation in social media. In Zampieri, M. and Nakov,
P., editors, Similar Languages, Varieties, and Dialects. Cambridge University
Press. Preprint accessed via https://www.dongnguyen.nl/publications.
html, November 21, 2019.
Nguyen, D., Trieschnigg, D., and Cornips, L. (2015). Audience and the use of
minority languages on Twitter. In Ninth International AAAI Conference on
Web and Social Media.
Oko, C. W. (2018). Orthography development for Darma (the case that wasn’t).
Language Documentation & Conservation.
Osborn, D. (2010). African Languages in a Digital Age: Challenges and Oppor-
tunities for Indigenous Language Computing. HSRC Press.
Ouyang, T., Rybach, D., Beaufays, F., and Riley, M. (2017). Mobile Key-
board Input Decoding with Finite-State Transducers. arXiv e-prints, page
Paterson, H. (2015). Keyboard layouts: Lessons from the Me’phaa and Sochia-
pam Chinantec designs. In Jones, M., editor, Endangered Languages and New
Technologies, pages 49–66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pischloeger, C. (2014). Udmurtness in Web 2.0: Urban Udmurts resisting lan-
guage shift. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen Band 38.
Prasad, M., Breiner, T., and van Esch, D. (2018). Mining training data for
language modeling across the world’s languages. In Proceedings of the 6th In-
ternational Workshop on Spoken Language Technologies for Under-resourced
Languages (SLTU 2018).
Reina, L. A., Robles, G., and González-Barahona, J. M. (2013). A prelimi-
nary analysis of localization in free software: how translations are performed.
In IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems, pages 153–167.
Scannell, K. (2012). Translating Facebook into endangered languages. In Pro-
ceedings of the 16th Foundation for Endangered Languages Conference, pages
Scannell, K. P. (2007). The Crúbadán Project: Corpus building for under-
resourced languages. In 3rd Web as Corpus Workshop, 2007, Louvain-la-
SIL International (2019). Scriptsource. https://www.scriptsource.org/.
Soria, C., Quochi, V., and Russo, I. (2018). The DLDP Survey on Digital Use
and Usability of EU Regional and Minority Languages. In Proceedings of the
Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation
(LREC 2018), Miyazaki, Japan. European Language Resources Association
Souag, L. (2011). Ajami in West Africa. Afrikanistik online, 2010(7).
Trudgill, P. (2016). Dialect matters: Respecting vernacular language. Cambridge
Wikipedia (2019). List of Wikipedias. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/
Wolf-Sonkin, L., Schogol, V., Roark, B., and Riley, M. (2019). Latin script
keyboards for South Asian languages with nite-state normalization. In Pro-
ceedings of the 14th International Conference on Finite-State Methods and
Natural Language Processing (FSMNLP).
Yaacob, M., Zainab, A., Mahmud, R., and Nasir, N. E. C. (2001). Digitisation of
an endangered written language: the case of Jawi script. In The International
Symposium on Languages in Cyberspace, pages 26–27.