9. 18.0_pp_180_211_Technologies_of_Subjectivity_Language_Tests_and_Identification

9. Technologies of Subjectivity: Language Tests and Identification

9.1 Introduction: The Shibboleth

  • Language used as a tool for classifying subjects.

  • Accent and speech patterns categorized individuals socially/geographically.

  • Shibboleth: A biblical term meaning ‘ear of wheat’; pronunciation as identification tool.

  • Misuse of language for identification evident across cultures and times, e.g.,

    • Nigeria: Attackers differentiated between groups by chanting a Fulani word.

    • Assam, India: Counting from 1 to 7 belonged to Assamese or Bengali identity.

  • Use of shibboleth for identification can lead to violence or protection during conflicts, exemplified through historical and contemporary instances.

9.2 LADO: Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin of Asylum Claimants

  • Significant increase in asylum seekers, complicating differentiation between forced and economic migrants.

  • Asylum seekers often have poor identification records, making categorization essential.

  • LADO involves linguistic analysis of speech to determine an individual’s background.

  • Language as evidence can reveal the socialization context of asylum seekers.

  • Government pressures can influence the outcomes of asylum claims.

9.3 LADO and Language Testing

  • Validation of language testing practices is crucial, seeing language analysis akin to formal testing but with sociolinguistic focus.

  • Issues like linguistic knowledge or proficiency inform identification, along with performance context neglected in traditional language testing.

  • Language analysis impacts asylum decisions and needs careful interpretation and validation to avoid unfair outcomes.

9.4 The Process of Validation in Language Testing and in LADO

  • Important stages include the elicitation of language samples, scoring, and interpretation.

  • Candidate impressions based on different sampling processes can lead to differing conclusions about language socialization.

  • Considerable variation in how samples are collected and analyzed presents challenges to validating results.

9.5 Interpreting the Evidence

  • Interpretation in LADO requires understanding of the individuals’ claimed backgrounds against standard sociolinguistic expectations.

  • Not all attributes may align perfectly due to factors such as mixed ancestry, migration history, or imperfect sociolinguistic data availability.

9.6 Validation: The Social Context

  • Construct validity remains essential but should also consider broader social and policy contexts of language analysis.

  • Political pressures can lead to biased application of language assessments.

9.7 Language as Shibboleth: A Poststructuralist Perspective

  • Shibboleth serves as both inclusion and exclusion tool.

  • Language tests often conceive a definitive construct but can yield ambiguous results that benefit or harm individuals.

9.8 Conclusion

  • Language analysis relies on effective and ethical execution to ensure fair asylum processes.

  • Procedures that misapply language analysis can unjustly deny rights of asylum seekers.

9.9 Suggestions for Further Reading

  • Key texts include:

    • Messick (1989): Validity in language assessment.

    • Kane (2006, 2012): Validation of language assessments.

    • Spolsky (1995) and Shohamy (2001): Social and political implications in language assessments.

    • Eades (2005, 2009) and related authors discussing LADO policy implications.