Inscribing indigeneity: Ethnolinguistic authority in the linguistic landscape of Amazonian Ecuador

Abstract

This article takes a linguistic anthropological approach to analyzing multilingualism in the linguistic landscape of the Amazonian city of Tena, Ecuador, a key locus of indigenous Kichwa language revitalization, identity formation, and politics. Following recent scholarly reconsiderations of multilingual linguistic landscapes as sites of ideological contestation and performative display, I seek to expand on the foundational concept of ethnolinguistic vitality. Building on an analysis of shifting materiality and semiotics of bilingual Kichwa-Spanish hospital signs, I argue for the use of longitudinal and deep ethnographic study of public sign-making in progress to identify oppositional struggles over ethnolinguistic authority, or control of authorship in displays of ethnolinguistic presence. In Tena, Kichwa-language signage represents a new venue for the decolonization of politics, the performance of indigeneity, and the centralization of state power, which are expressed through competing visions by agents with distinct ideological orientations toward language. I submit ethnolinguistic authority as a critical concern for the ethnographic study of public inscriptions of minority languages, which reflect contrasting ideologies of language, notions of group identity, and claims to representational sovereignty.

Fighting COVID-19 with Mongolian fiddle stories

“…How does the contact between new dominant discourses and a traditional cultural/ conceptual framework transform minority languages and their speakers' attitude towards their own languages? The process and consequences of the insertion of heteroglossic and half-assimilated voices into minority languages in changing societies have yet to be explored further (Schieffelin 2002;Wroblewski 2020). A particularly telling instance is that some Mongolian glosses of Chinese expressions that violate the usage of Mongolian are derogatively referred to as modon hel ('wooden language')a language awkwardly and disturbingly garbed in Mongolian yet in nature nakedly Chinese.…”

The Potential of Linguistic Landscapes for the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language in Cuenca, Ecuador

“…Studies on this field have mainly focused on the use of languages for commercial purposes, especially the use of Kichwa, which is one of the indigenous languages recognized by the Ecuadorian Constitution as an official language for intercultural relations, along with Spanish and Shuar (Constitución de la República del Ecuador, 2008). The studies conducted by Litzenberg (2018), Enríquez Duque (2020), Zambrano et al (2020), andWroblewski (2020) analyzed the presence of Kichwa in the LLs of different cities, the latter aimed at creating awareness in university students. In studies conducted in Otavalo, Katz (2019) compared using Kichwa with Spanish and with English, and Puma Ninacuri and Narváez (2021) studied the presence and relationship of Kichwa and English.…”

“…Similarly, a longitudinal ethnographic study conducted by Wroblewski (2020) analyzed the use of Kichwa in the LL of a public hospital in Tena, located in the Amazon region of Ecuador. The study focused on ethnolinguistic authority, emphasizing the power dynamics in representations of ideologies.…”

A Panorama of Linguistic Landscape Studies

“…Other different survey areas, or research sites, have been chosen for linguistic landscape work, for example, shopping malls (Akindele, 2011;Trumper-Hecht, 2009), airports (Blackwood, 2019;Cunningham & King, 2021;Woo & Riget, 2022), markets (Choksi, 2015;Gorter et al, 2021;Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015;Ramos Pellicia, 2021), museums Xiao & Lee, 2019), monuments (Huebner & Phoocharoensil, 2017;Shohamy & Waksman, 2009), hospitals (Sumarlam et al, 2020a;Wroblewski, 2020) and restaurants (Abas, 2019;Xu & Wang, 2021). Unsurprisingly for academic researchers, universities and campuses (Adekunle et al, 2019;Debras, 2019;Jocuns, 2019Jocuns, , 2021Milani, 2013a) and various other educational institutions are popular survey areas (see Chapter 10).…”