Three Multilingual Dynamics of Indigenous Language Use that Challenge Standardized Linguistic Assessment

ABSTRACT

Global efforts for standards-based linguistic assessment increasingly hold that examinees should be tested in the language with which they are most familiar. Yet, language use still occurs differently from its characterization in exams, even as exams are increasingly developed in historically minoritized languages. Drawing from two years of ethnographic research on bilingual education in Ecuadorian Quechua (Kichwa) and Spanish, this article examines a national-scale proficiency exam in Kichwa for planners and teachers in Ecuador. It foregrounds three dynamics of Indigenous language heterogeneity that contrast with how exams reinscribe standardized language ideologies: (1) There are different regional varieties that may not be mutually intelligible; (2) Standardizing initiatives have included lexical “purism,” whereas speakers often blend words and grammatical categories from Spanish into an Indigenous linguistic variety; (3) There are a range of forms and degrees of standardization, some of which are difficult to comprehend and produce, especially in writing. Ultimately, standardization and authority in exams may cause concern and anxiety for a number of examinees and, further, may not recognize proficiency. For languages undergoing shift to more spoken languages, such concern risks discouraging Indigenous language use and increasing shift to Spanish.

Acknowledgments

I am deeply grateful to employees the National Directorate of Intercultural Bilingual Education and to intercultural bilingual teachers for their support of this research. I also thank Jamie Schissel, Mario López-Gopar, anonymous reviewers, and LAQ editor Gary Ockey for helpful comments on drafts of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

¹ I follow the alphabet of standardized convention here for writing the name of the language family in using Kichwa instead of Quichua, since the first spelling is used by those who administer the exams. See Limerick (2018) for a detailed history of contrastive alphabets.

² From a 2013 Ministry of Education Excel spreadsheet.

³ A similar version of this section appears in another of the author’s forthcoming articles, one with a different focus and argument.

⁴ Though they would be helpful for illustrating some of this article’s points, I am unable to print portions of the exam here, as I agreed not to reproduce its content.

⁵ Interview with official 12/15/11.

⁶ This is a requirement of 2009’s Law of Organic Intercultural Education.

⁷ This number also depended on the examiner. Some examiners made 40 correct questions (66%) the threshold. Adapting the exam for examiners who they were sure spoke Kichwa was a helpful feature.

⁸ As described to me by an examiner in the National Directorate on 9/6/11.

⁹ One exam proctor explained that this flexibility was to help the examinee in light of language shift. “There are people who don’t pronounce well, who have some difficulties, so [it’s that way] because of helping them in the written part, like to explore a little more [their knowledge] they’re given 60 questions.” (Transcript, 9/6/11, translated from Spanish by the author).

¹⁰ https://www.ethnologue.com/language/yua.

¹¹ For example, the dialect map at http://www.muturzikin.com/cartesamerique/ameriquedusud2.htm describes 10 different regional varieties of Kichwa in Ecuador alone.

¹² The author has translated all Spanish to English because of word limits. Since translating from Kichwa to English is a more contested process, speech in Kichwa is transcribed here alongside its translation to English.

¹³ Occurred on 1/9/12, translated from Spanish to English by the author.

¹⁴ “Intindisha, o sea shina panta panta uyanchik.” Occurred on 9/2/11.

¹⁵ Quote translated from Spanish by the author.

¹⁶ From fieldnotes on 6/14/13.

¹⁷ Occurred on 9/2/11.

¹⁸ Fieldnotes 1/10/12.

¹⁹ Ruth accidentally wrote a k into the first example, writing tandanacuichik instead of tandanacuichij. Her examples were otherwise perfect illustrations of the two alphabets. I changed the k to j above to avoid detracting from the main argument of the section, but the “mistake” is another example of the difficulties of separating the alphabets.

²⁰ This ethnographic example also appears in Limerick (2018) and Limerick and Hornberger (2019).