Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education: Beyond the Standard 9781783091850

Table of contents :
Contents
Contributors
Introduction
Part 1: Theoretical Framework
1. Standardization of Language and Culture
2. Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation
Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’
3. On the Necessity of ‘Being Understood’: Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan
4. Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech
5. Constructing and Constructed Japanese: The History of Standard Japanese and Practice at a Japanese Preschool
6. How Japanese Education for Young People Has Been Discussed: A Critical Analysis from a Relational Viewpoint
7. A Consideration of the Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education: A Case Study of the Practices of Japanese Language Classes for Chinese Returnees and Vietnamese Residents
Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’
8. Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking: Discourses on Thought Patterns in Post-war Studies of Japanese Language Education
9. On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of Japanese Language Textbook
10. Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture
11. The Process of Standardization of Language and Culture in a Japanese-as-a-Foreign-Language Classroom: Analysis of Teacher–Students Interactions
Conclusion and Departure
Index

Citation preview

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Series Editor: John Edwards, St. Francis Xavier University, Canada Multilingual Matters series publishes books on bilingualism, bilingual education, immersion education, second language learning, language policy, multiculturalism. The editor is particularly interested in ‘macro’ level studies of language policies, language maintenance, language shift, language revival and language planning. Books in the series discuss the relationship between language in a broad sense and larger cultural issues, particularly identity related ones. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education Beyond the Standard

Edited by Shinji Sato and Neriko Musha Doerr

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Buffalo • Toronto

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education: Beyond the Standard/Edited by Shinji Sato and Neriko Musha Doerr. Multilingual Matters: 155 Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Language and culture—Japan. 2. Japanese language—Study and teaching. 3. Education—Japan. I. Sato, Shinji, 1969- II. Doerr, Neriko Musha, 1967P35.5.J3R48 2014 306.44’0952–dc23 2013046978 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-184-3 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: UTP, 2250 Military Road, Tonawanda, NY 14150, USA. Canada: UTP, 5201 Dufferin Street, North York, Ontario M3H 5T8, Canada. Originally published in Japanese: BUNKA, KOTOBA, KYOIKU by Shinji Sato and Neriko Doerr Copyright © 2008 by Shinji Sato and Neriko Doerr All rights reserved. Original Japanese edition published by Akashi Shoten Co., Ltd. http://www.akashi.co.jp The English language edition published by Multilingual Matters, 2014, under license from Akashi Shoten Co., Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services Limited. Printed and bound in Great Britain by the CPI Group.

Contents

Contributors

vii

Introduction Shinji Sato and Neriko Musha Doerr

1

Part 1: Theoretical Framework 1

Standardization of Language and Culture Ryuko Kubota

19

2

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation Naoki Sakai

35

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’ 3

On the Necessity of ‘Being Understood’: Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan Neriko Musha Doerr

4

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech Shigeko Okamoto

5

Constructing and Constructed Japanese: The History of Standard Japanese and Practice at a Japanese Preschool Shinji Sato

106

6

How Japanese Education for Young People Has Been Discussed: A Critical Analysis from a Relational Viewpoint Uichi Kamiyoshi

128

v

63 82

vi

7

Contents

A Consideration of the Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education: A Case Study of the Practices of Japanese Language Classes for Chinese Returnees and Vietnamese Residents Yuko Okubo

143

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’ 8

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking: Discourses on Thought Patterns in Post-war Studies of Japanese Language Education Hazuki Segawa

175

9

On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of Japanese Language Textbook Yuri Kumagai

201

10 Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture Ryuko Kubota 11 The Process of Standardization of Language and Culture in a Japanese-as-a-Foreign-Language Classroom: Analysis of Teacher–Students Interactions Yuri Kumagai

218

238

Conclusion and Departure Neriko Musha Doerr

261

Index

267

Contributors

Neriko Musha Doerr teaches at Salameno School of American and International Studies, Ramapo College of New Jersey, USA. Her research interests include bilingual and heritage language education and the anthropology of education. Her publications include Meaningful Inconsistencies: Bicultural Nationhood, Free Market, and Schooling in Aotearoa/New Zealand (Berghahn Books), The Native Speaker Concept: Ethnographic Investigations of “Native Speaker Effects” (Mouton de Gruyter), Heritage, Nationhood, and Language (Routledge), Constructing the Heritage Language Learner: Knowledge, Power, and New Subjectivities (Mouton de Gruyter), and articles in peerreviewed journals, such as Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Critical Discourse Studies and Critical Asian Studies. Uichi Kamiyoshi is lecturer in the Faculty of Foreign Studies at Nagasaki University of Foreign Studies. He received his MA degree (language and culture) in 2001 from Osaka University Graduate School. His areas of research interest are language policy, learning business Japanese and psychology of learning of language. His main publication includes ‘Theories and practices of content-based language instruction: Toward “critical” Japanese language education’ in New Perspectives on Japanese Language Learning, Linguistics, and Culture (National Foreign Language Resource Center, 2013). Yuri Kumagai received her EdD in Language, Literacy, and Culture from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA. Her specializations are critical literacy and foreign language education. She has co-edited the books, Assessment and Japanese Language Education (Kuroshio Shuppan, 2010) and Japanese Language Education for Global Citizens (Hituzi Syobo, 2011). Her articles appear in journals such as Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, Japanese Language and Literature, Japanese Language Education around the Globe, Critical

vii

viii

Contributors

Studies in Education and Social Identities. She has been teaching Japanese as a foreign language to college students in the USA for 20 years. Currently, she is a senior lecturer at Smith College. Ryuko Kubota is Professor in the Department of Language and Literacy Education at University of British Columbia. She teaches courses on second language teacher education, critical approaches to applied linguistics, and Japanese as a foreign language. Her research draws on critical multiculturalism, critical race theory, and critical pedagogy. She is a co-editor of Race, Culture, and Identities in Second Language: Exploring Critically Engaged Practice (Routledge, 2009) and Demystifying Career Paths After Graduate School: A Guide for Second Language Professionals in Higher Education (Information Age Publishing, 2012). She has also published many journal articles and book chapters. Shigeko Okamoto is Professor in the Language Program at the University of California, Santa Cruz, CA. She received her PhD in Linguistics from the University of California, Berkeley, CA. Her research interests include sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, Japanese linguistics and language pedagogy. She has many publications in these areas, including her 2004 co-edited book Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People (Oxford University Press, 2004). Yuko Okubo is a social research scientist at Fujitsu Laboratories of America, also affiliated with the Center for Japanese Studies of the University of California, Berkeley. She received her doctorate from the Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, CA. Prior to joining Fujitsu, she was a Postdoctoral Fellow at the National University of Singapore and a Social Science Research Council-Abe Fellow (2009–2011) and lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley, CA. Her research interests include migration and transnationalism, the (nation-)state and education/learning. She is currently examining how technologies are changing everyday practices and learning in the digital age. Her publications appear in Intercultural Education, Critical Asian Studies, Anthropological Quarterly and elsewhere. Naoki Sakai is Goldwin Smith Professor of Asian Studies and he teaches Comparative Literature, Asian Studies and History at Cornell University. He has published in the fields of comparative literature, intellectual history, translation studies, the studies of racism and nationalism and the histories of textuality. His publications include Translation and Subjectivity

Contributors

ix

(University of Minnesota Press, 1997); Voices of the Past; The Stillbirth of the Japanese as a Language and as an Ethnos (Shiyosha, 1996); Hope and the Constitution (Ibunsha, 2008). He edited and co-edited a number of volumes including Trans-Pacific Imagination (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2012); Translation, Biopolitics, Colonial Difference, Traces – A Multilingual Series of Cultural Theory and Translation Vol. 4 (Hong Kong University Press, 2006); Deconstructing Nationality (Kashiwa Shobô, 1996). Naoki Sakai served as the founding editor for the project TRACES, a multilingual series in five languages – Korean, Chinese, English, Spanish and Japanese. Shinji Sato is Senior Lecturer and Director of the Japanese Language Program, Department of East Asian Studies, Princeton University, USA. His research interests include language policy and teaching and the critical examination of commonplace ideas in language education. Sato is the co-author of several publications, including, Asesumento to nihongokyôiku [Assessment and Japanese Language Education] (Kuroshio syuppan, 2010), Syakaisanka o mezasu nihongo kyôiku [Japanese Language Education for the Global Citizens] (Hituzi shobo, 2011), Ibunka komyunikeisyon nôryoku o tou (Questioning Intercultural Communicative Competence) (Koko syuppan, 2014) and ‘Communication as Intersubjective Activity: When Native/NonNative Speaker’s Identity Appears in Computer-Mediated Communication in Native Speakers Effects: Standardization, Hybridity, and Power in Language Politics’ in Native Speaker Concept: Ethnographic Investigations of Native Speaker Effects (Mouton de Gruyter, 2009). Hazuki Segawa is an Associate Professor in the School of Policy Studies at Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan. Her research interests include the history of Japanese language education as a second language, nationalism in Japanese language education studies, critical discourse analysis and language expression education. She is an author of Sengo Nihongo Kyôikugaku to Nasyonarizumu: ‘Shikô Yôshiki Gensetsu’ ni Miru Hôsetsu to Saika no Ronri (The Relation of Japanese Language Education Studies and Nationalism in Postwar Period: Logics of Assimilation and Differentiation in ‘Thought Pattern Discourses’) (Kuroshio Syuppan, 2012). She introduces her past and present research activities on her website: http://segawa.matrix.jp/.

Introduction Shinji Sato and Neriko Musha Doerr

The current educational climate is dictated by standards and tests. The standardized tests of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) have come to serve internationally to measure the success of an education system and even the well-being of a nation as a whole, pushing countries around the world to reform educational institutions and admonish public and education communities in order to achieve high scores in reading, mathematics and science. Standardized tests are also seen as a reliable way to measure individual aptitude in particular areas, often functioning as a gatekeeper to higher education. To enter certain colleges in the USA, applicants must obtain high scores on the SAT, a standardized test for college admission. (The acronym originally stood for Scholastic Aptitude Test, then for Scholastic Assessment Test; now it is an empty acronym.) The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 required each state to develop standard tests for particular grades in order to receive federal funding. Similarly, exchange students must pass the Japanese Language Proficiency Test Level 1 to enter most Japanese universities. Researchers have argued that in this climate, knowledge is treated as static and uniformly meaningful, rather than dynamic and diverse. Standard tests, such as those promoted by No Child Left Behind, are premised on a view of education as a matter of acquisition and inculcation (Hursh, 2007; Varenne, 2007). Mastery and demonstration of ‘official knowledge’ are accorded much more importance than flexibility, creativity and adaptability to change (Apple, 2000). Ironically, however, business leaders and government officials see flexible, creative, adaptable people as the key to the future. Many educational scholars (e.g. van Lier, 2006), noting the paucity of ways to catch the attention of policymakers, have stressed the urgent need to conduct research to reveal the processes by which knowledge is commodified or homogenized at both the micro and macro levels so that policymakers can recognize these processes and their effects in their policymaking efforts. The most pressing questions are: What are the effects of this 1

2

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

climate of standards and tests? What kinds of schools, teachers and students does it reward, and what kind of learning does it encourage? What kind of knowledge does it promote, how does it do so and to what effect? What can educators and researchers do to challenge this climate? This book seeks to answer these questions by investigating the dynamics of power relations in the processes of the standardization of language and culture and exploring researchers’ and educators’ roles with a focus on the case of Japan. Japan’s language and culture have undergone such extensive standardization that various popular and academic discourses, both in and outside Japan, regard them as homogeneous. This makes Japan an important case for a study on the processes and effects of standardization. This book illustrates a wide range of Japanese language/culture standardization processes in numerous contexts: translation practices during the Edo era in Japan (Sakai), ideologies of the standardization of regional dialects throughout Japan’s recent history (Doerr), nursery and primary classrooms in Japan (Sato, Kamiyoshi and Okubo), the Japanese-as-a-foreign-language college classroom in the USA (Kumagai and Kubota), and discussions of Japanese thought patterns in journals of Japanese language education (Segawa). By ‘standardization’, we mean the processes of setting an ideal model of language and culture as a standard and directing all linguistic and cultural practices to approximate that standard.1 Existing research on language education tends to investigate either the process of acquiring language and culture at the micro level (Uchida, 1990) or the relationship between linguistic varieties at the macro level (Lee, 2004; Mashiko, 2002; Yasuda, 1999). Meanwhile, a lack of communication persists between Japanese language educators working with ‘native speakers’ and those working with ‘non-native speakers’ (Tajiri & Otsu, 2010). This book extends to both the micro and macro levels, and to Japanese language education designed for both ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ speakers, analyzing the processes of language/ culture standardization and the resistance to them by examining discourses, textbooks and classroom practices. In doing so, we suggest a new approach to the field. This project emerged out of the session entitled ‘Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education’ that Neriko Musha Doerr organized for the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association held in Washington DC in November 2005. The session investigated the standardization process of target languages in foreign language education in various countries worldwide. Doerr expanded the project and made it into an edited book focused on the issue of ‘native speakers’ (Doerr,2009).

Introduction

3

Because some of the papers in the session had focused on Japan, Shinji Sato suggested that he and Doerr co-edit another book focused on the Japanese language cases and publish it in Japanese. Original session members who joined the project included Doerr (organizer), Sato, Takato and Kubota (discussant). Upon Doerr’s request, her graduate school mentor, Naoki Sakai, kindly agreed to contribute a chapter. Sato and Doerr’s colleagues – Yuko Okubo, Uichi Kamiyoshi, Yuri Kumagai and Hazuki Segawa – also joined the project, and Ryuko Kubota brought in a final contributor, Shigeko Okamoto. In the wake of that volume’s positive reception (Haruhara, 2009; Makino, 2009; Ohta, 2010; Saito, 2009), we decided to translate it into English for a wider audience; the present book is the result. We revised the introduction and conclusion for this English version to address considerations that are not obvious to international readers and updated some chapters with new literature and information. Due to a conflict in work schedules, Michiyo Takato’s chapter could not be included in this book. Expanding on the anthropological approach taken in the original session on standardization, we sought a more interdisciplinary project. Because our own subject positions in academic fields affect how we approach the topic of standardization, a brief introduction to our academic backgrounds is provided below. Sato is senior lecturer and the director of the Japanese language program at Princeton University. He specializes in educational anthropology with a focus on language education. Doerr received a PhD in cultural anthropology from Cornell University and currently teaches at the Salameno School of American and International Studies at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Her areas of interest are language politics, formation of subjectivities, nationalism, neoliberalism, governmentality, globalization and the politics of schooling. Kubota is a professor in the language and literacy education program at the University of British Columbia. Her research interests include bilingualism and bilingual education, cultural and ecological studies, gender, language education and pedagogy. Sakai is a professor in the Department of Comparative Literature and East Asian Studies at Cornell University. He has published in the fields of comparative literature, intellectual history, translation studies, the studies of racism and nationalism and the histories of semiotic and literary multitude – speech, writing, corporeal expressions, calligraphic regimes and phonographic traditions. Okubo received a doctorate from the Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley. Her research interests include migration and transnationalism, the (nation) state and education/learning. She looks at how concerns of race, ethnicity and nationality translate into the everyday practices of schooling and are reshaping ideas about national culture and identity in Japan today.

4

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

Kamiyoshi studied language and culture and taught Japanese for several years. He currently works for the Faculty of Foreign Studies at Nagasaki University of Foreign Studies. Kumagai is a senior lecturer at Smith College and holds a doctoral degree in language, literacy and culture. Her research interests include critical literacy, critical discourse analysis, foreign language education and ideology of language. Segawa is an associate professor at the School of Policy Studies at Kwansei Gakuin University. Her PhD is in Japanese language education, and her research interests include culture, critical discourse analysis, the history of Japanese-as-a-second-language education and learner centeredness. Okamoto is a professor in the Language Program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Her research interests include sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and pragmatics, in particular topics concerning Japanese sociolinguistics. The chapters by these contributors from various fields offer analyses and raise questions about the process of Japanese language and culture standardization from an interdisciplinary perspective encompassing cultural anthropology, East Asian studies, foreign language education and sociolinguistics. For international readers who may not be familiar with the Japanese context, we will next briefly summarize the history of views of Japanese culture, standard language and the education system.

Culture: ‘Japanese Culture’ and Nihonjinron, Theories about the Japanese Japanese culture is often said to be homogeneous. This, however, is a historically constructed view that ignores not only regional difference but also class, ethnic, gender and age differences that exist throughout the Japanese archipelago. Moreover, the belief that Japanese culture is homogeneous is based on the assumption that there is a bounded unit called Japan, that it is static, and that it can be explained with several key notions. Bourdieu (1989) argues that to impose one’s vision (and division) of the world on others is to reproduce one’s domination over others: this is what is at stake in political struggle – and in the debate over what is considered ‘Japanese culture’. The investigation and teaching of ‘culture’ are often linked to the political and economic domains. In Japan, for instance, the notion of culture arose in the 19th century to describe the way of life and customs in Japan’s colonies. Ruth Benedict’s The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, a study in cultural anthropology published in 1946, was initiated at the invitation of the US Office of War Information as part of an effort to understand

Introduction

5

America’s wartime enemy, Japan. In the USA, research on Russia during the Cold War, research on Japan (especially its schools and business practices) during its ‘economic miracle’ (Vogel, 1979) and the recent popularity of Arabic language learning are other examples of how politics and economics can spur people to learn about the cultures of particular others. Within Japan, the question ‘What is Japanese culture?’ was addressed as early as the 18th century (Sakai, 1996). However, the primary influence on the concept of Japanese culture as a singular and homogeneous unit was the establishment of the nation state of Japan in the late 19th century, along with the ideology of the nation state being constituted of one nation, one language, one culture (Yasuda, 2003). The modern nation state of Japan began in the second half of the 19th century, when the Tokugawa shogunate, after 250 years of political dominance, transferred its power to the Japanese emperor and opened the country’s doors to the wider West, 2 ending its isolationist policy. The new Meiji government then set to building the foundation on which a centralized imperial state could become a member of the ‘international’ society (Passin, 1967). To develop a modern nation state in line with its ideology, the Meiji government established national systems for education, railroads, communication and the military, laying the groundwork not only for the imposition of standardized knowledge, discourses and practices deriving from the capital, Tokyo, but also for more interaction between people from various regions (Gluck, 1989). In recent years, the notion of Japaneseness has been crystallized in a field of study called nihonjinron (Japanology; theories about the Japanese), a set of pseudo-academic theories popular in the 1960s and 1970s that continue to enjoy prominence both in and outside Japan. It delineates and discusses unique features of the Japanese culture, language and personality. From a Japanese point of view, nihonjinron helped explain both Japan’s economic success in those decades and the lack of acceptance of Japanese ways abroad, and boosted nationalistic pride. From a non-Japanese perspective, it derived from and bolstered the image of the exotic cultural Other in the existing anthropological framework of the patterns of culture school established by Ruth Benedict, whose The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (Benedict, 1946) is a nihonjinron classic. Reflecting the ideology of nation states (Anderson, 1991), nihonjinron assumes a tight correspondence between the Japanese nation, Japanese language and Japanese culture, all imagined to be static and internally homogeneous. It constructs the genealogical coherence of the history of the Japanese people, language and culture by presuming that the subject of its expression has been in existence continually (Sakai, 1997). That is,

6

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

nihonjinron focuses on finding an unchanging essence of unique Japaneseness, defined in opposition to the West, usually the USA, suggesting its audience and frame of reference (Kowner, 2002; Lie, 2001; Sakai, 1996). Some examples of Japanese characteristics in nihonjinron are groupism, verticality (Nakane, 1970) and dependence (other-directedness) (Doi, 1973), which are depicted as contrasting with Western society, characterized by notions of individualism. Nihonjinron has been critiqued as an ideology supportive of nationalist aspirations (Befu, 1987; Lie, 2001; Mashiko, 2003; Sakai, 1996). Nonetheless, as Mashiko (2003) points out, in casual conversation even these very scholars still fall back on the concept of Japan as a bounded, homogeneous unit. He argues that this happens because they critique nihonjinron to differentiate themselves from the nihonjinron-believing masses, not to critically examine in earnest the notion of Japan as a bounded, homogeneous unit with a unique essence. Thus, the framework of nihonjinron continues to prevail, both in and outside Japan. In recent years, as the flow of people across Japan’s border has increased, the view of Japan as homogeneous has been reinforced by those who are attracted to the exotic image of Japan or those who present themselves as exotic Japanese in response (see Whiteley, 2003). This process has always existed, although the image has changed in content, from representations of ‘traditional’ Japanese culture to images more centered in popular culture, such as ‘Cool Japan’ and cuteness (kawaii) (Miller, 2011). For those who study Japanese as a second/foreign language, the recent move toward standardization, as will be described later, has been combined with the ‘cultural turn’, which shifts the focus to the culture of the target language in second/foreign language education and further pushes a view of Japanese as static and homogeneous (Tai, 2003). For example, many Japanese textbooks describe culture as static, simplistic peculiarities such as Japanese communication style (Matsumoto & Okamoto, 2003; Sato, 2007), female language (Shibamoto-Smith & Okamoto, 2004; Siegal & Okamoto, 2003; for also critique see Okamoto’s chapter in this book) or dialect (Matsumoto & Okamoto, 2003). This type of knowledge is constantly produced by researchers and modified or simplified by textbook authors. (See another example in Kubota’s chapter.) By accentuating a particular aspect of life of a particular group of people as representative of the entire Japanese people’s cultural life, discourses of culture such as nihonjinron not only serve normatively to marginalize individuals in Japan who are out of step with what is considered Japanese culture but also inaccurately explain and describe certain behavior and

Introduction

7

events. It is worth noting here, however, that the domain of culture was not subjected to the systematic standardization as was imposed on the domain of language, which we introduce below.

Language: Making and Sustaining Standard Japanese The linguistic situation in the Tokugawa period (1603–1867) was very heterogeneous, so much so that people of different classes or different regions could not communicate with each other (Gluck, 1989; Lee, 2004). Until the middle of the Tokugawa period, the lingua franca was the dialect of Kyoto, the capital at the time. Around the middle of the 18th century, the dialect of Edo (currently Tokyo) became a contender for lingua franca status (Gottlieb, 2005). Changes came rapidly with the Meiji restoration. To create a unified modern state, statesmen and intellectuals in the mid-1880s claimed that Japan needed a standard form of both spoken and written Japanese (Lee, 2004). The National Language Research Council, Japan’s first language policy board, was formed in 1902. One of its tasks was to conduct a survey of dialects and settle on one as the standard (Yasuda, 1999). By this time, however, the Tokyo dialect already had substantial support. For example, the Ministry of Education had stipulated in 1901 that the Japanese taught in schools would be that of middle- and upper-class Tokyo residents, and textbooks had subsequently begun to disseminate it throughout Japan (Gottlieb, 2005). The standard was formally defined in 1916 as the Japanese spoken by the educated people of Tokyo, specifically the speech of the Yamanote district (Lee, 2004). The Ministry of Education spread the standard language in textbooks and schools throughout Japan. The use of regional dialects was banned at school, where children found speaking them were often punished (Gottlieb, 2005; Suzuki, 2003). As will be detailed later, the standard form of Japanese is currently spoken and understood throughout the country, especially in writing and in formal settings such as government offices. Regional dialects remain, however, and some of them differ significantly from those of other areas (Gottlieb, 2005). As linguistic forms change constantly, new linguistic forms emerge between dialects and the standard (Mashiko, 2003). Here, we want to note that some chapters in this book use the term ‘standard language’ (hyôjungo) and others use ‘common language’ (kyôtsûgo). This differential use reflects the historical context and the way that the people under discussion used the term. Historically speaking, since the Meiji era, the term standard language has been used to capture the language

8

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

as a bounded unit whose inside is homogeneous. According to Nakamura (quoted in Yasuda, 1999: 295), the term’s meaning changed over three stages: (1) from the early to mid Meiji era, when a process of nurturing the Tokyo dialect turned it into standard Japanese; (2) in the Taisho era, when it meant a language shared by everyone; and (3) during WWII, when it referred to the standard of a national language linked to the call for a pure Japanese language in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. After WWII, the notion of common language spread alongside that of standard language, yet several views of what common language means coexisted. First, standard language is understood as ‘it can be understood everywhere’, whereas common language is understood as ‘let’s get this linguistic variety understood everywhere’. This understanding of the notion of ‘common language’ was a working hypothesis that spread in the process of collecting linguistic data for the research project ‘Language [use in daily] Life’, supported by the National Language Research Center right after WWII. A second view understood standard language as ‘normative common language’ based on the Tokyo dialect, even though some pronunciations and usage in the Tokyo dialect were eliminated, as seen in the Kokugo Standard Committee’s 1954 report entitled ‘For Standard Language’. Third, common language is understood to be a lingua franca, spread since the 1970s, that is less explicitly normative compared to standard language (Shibata in Yasuda, 1999: 292–298). However, Yasuda (1999, 2003) argues, regarding the claim ‘common language is the language that can be understood everywhere’, that those who judge whether it is understood tend to be the Tokyo dialect speakers whose language is the basis of the standard language; therefore, the notion of ‘understood’ includes the normativity while the notion of ‘common’ masks the power relation that positions Tokyo as the standard. Fourth, common language is considered the end result of the spread of standard language via national radio and television broadcasting, which encourages the existence of a language that shares a vocabulary and grammar with the standard but uses different stresses and intonations (Yasuda, 1999, 2003). Meanwhile, there is no word ‘commonization’, so the term ‘standard language’ is used when focusing on the process of standardization. As for the writing system, Japanese is written with a combination of kanji (Chinese characters as used in Japan) and two phonetic scripts, hiragana and katakana (known collectively as kana) (Seeley, 1991). It too is a result of standardization processes. A list of 2136 kanji characters recommended by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology in 2010 is taught in schools for general use, although, in practice, books, magazines and newspapers use around 3000 characters (Gottlieb, 2005). Hiragana and katakana consist of 46 syllable signs each. Chinese characters tend to be

Introduction

9

used for most nouns and for stems of verbs and adjectives; hiragana are used to represent conjugational endings or grammatical particles; and katakana are used for foreign loanwords, foreign names (other than those of Chinese origin) and emphasis (Coulmas, 1989; Seeley, 1991). However, the choice of script is dynamic, and it is worth noting that such explanations themselves performatively create norms (Doerr, 2011; Doerr & Kumagai, 2014).

Education: The Japanese School System and Japanese Language Education in the USA The Tokugawa system was largely based on schools serving three social classes. The noble class provided its own schools in Kyoto, where the emperor and much of the nobility resided. The future ruling elite of the samurai (warrior) class were educated in shogunate schools; other samurai attended domain schools (hankô), local schools (gôgaku) and private academies (shijuku). Temple schools (terakoya) taught the ‘three Rs’ (reading, writing and arithmetic) to children of the farming, craftsmen and merchant classes and inculcated the basic skills needed to become merchants, artisans and farmers. Of all these institutions, only the terakoya accepted female students. Basically, the children received education to prepare them to perform the tasks of their respective classes when they reached adulthood (Dore, 1965). Unlike the Tokugawa system, Meiji schooling welcomed every child, regardless of his or her residence, gender or class background. Schooling was an important part of the national policy of ‘rich nation and strong army (fukoku kyôhei)’ and ‘increased production and founding of industrial enterprises (shokusan kôgyô)’. Believing that a rich nation required Western civilization and educated citizens (Gluck, 1989), the government promulgated the Education Law (Gakusei) in 1872 (Okano & Tsuchiya, 1999). Mori Arinori, appointed Japan’s first Minister of Education in 1885, introduced overtly nationalist schooling, which was fully established in 1890 with the enactment of the Imperial Rescript on Education (Kyôiku Chokugo). The rescript offered an overarching moral basis, clearly stating that construction of a unified nation state required both Confucian morals to guide family relationships and the morals of a modern nation, including public benefits and public duties (Schoppa, 1991). It remained the state ideology, continuing in effect until the end of WWII. Defeat in WWII changed Japanese education dramatically. Toward the end of 1945, the general headquarters of the occupation forces ordered the removal of militarist and nationalist ideology from the school curriculum

10

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

and textbooks. The Fundamental Education Law (kyôiku kihonhô) of 1947 established new directions for education. Also in 1947, the Ministry of Education issued its first Course of Study (gakusyû shidô yôryô), which described goals and a set of standards for the educational content and was to be used as a guideline (Suzuki, 2003). With reference to the US system, the old 6-5-3-3 system was changed to a 6-3-3-4 system (6 years of elementary school, 3 years of junior high school, 3 years of senior high school and 4 years of university). The six years of elementary school and three years of junior high school are compulsory. The Japanese school year starts in April and consists of three terms (I, II and III) (Okano & Tsuchiya, 1999). Japanese educational policy is generated and administered at three levels: national, prefectural and municipal. Although all levels of government develop educational policy, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (formerly the Ministry of Education) serves as the supervising body and is responsible for developing the Course of Study and approving textbooks. This book examines not only the Japanese language and culture education designed for ‘native speakers’ of Japanese in Japan, but also that found in the USA, where some contributors to this book reside and teach the Japanese language to ‘non-native’ speakers. In the USA, the Japanese language has been taught since 1868. The earliest Japanese schools, opened in Hawaii and California, were for Japanese heritage speakers. Japanese-asa-foreign-language education started in 1934 at the University of California, Berkeley, and by 1990, Japanese was offered at eight universities in the USA (Miura, 1990). During WWII, the US Military Intelligence Service founded its own specialized language school with the aim of training specialists in interpretation, interrogation and translation (McNaughton, 2006). With the rise of the Japanese economy in the 1980s came a dramatic increase in Japanese language learners. As of 2012, 1,449 educational institutions offered Japanese and 155,939 learners were studying Japanese in the United States. Current Japanese language education in the USA has been greatly influenced by Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century (National Standards in Foreign Language Project, 1999), a volume produced by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages in collaboration with various foreign language education associations. It defines clear goals for learning and content areas in foreign language education and represents a ‘consensus’ among educators, business leaders, government and communities on the definition and role of foreign language instruction in US education. Standards for Foreign Language Learning identifies five goal areas: Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons and Communities, each of which has subsets of standards.

Introduction

11

Teachers, administrators and curriculum developers use Standards for Foreign Language Learning at both state and local levels, from kindergarten through college. Keeping in mind the historical trajectory of and theories about Japanese culture, the standard Japanese language and Japanese education in and outside Japan, this book discusses the processes of standardization in light of current educational research as well as hegemonic representations of culture and the standardization of language in the settings aimed at ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ speakers of Japanese.

Structure of this Book This book consists of three parts. Part 1, Theoretical Framework, introduces and reviews theoretical frameworks relevant to various arguments in this book. Chapter 1, ‘Standardization of Language and Culture’ by Ryuko Kubota, reviews the theoretical frameworks underlying the arguments in this book by focusing on the standardization of culture and the resistance toward it, language diaspora, the notion of ‘non-native speaker’, critical literacy, critical multiculturalism and critical applied linguistics. In Chapter 2, ‘Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation’, Naoki Sakai critically analyzes the notion that language is a countable entity in relation to the emergence of modern nation states and the concept of translation. Part 2, Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’, analyzes standardization processes of Japanese language, past and present. Chapter 3, ‘On the Necessity of ‘Being Understood’: Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan’ by Neriko Musha Doerr, examines the discourse ‘all Japanese have to be able to communicate with each other’ as the language ideology that legitimizes the standardization of the Japanese language, and seeks to overcome this ideology. Chapter 4, Shigeko Okamoto’s ‘Rethinking “Norms” for Japanese Women’s Speech’, analyzes the understanding that what researchers call ‘feminine language’ is a reflection of a hegemonic language ideology that normalizes women’s utterances. She calls for rethinking what the norm is and focusing on localized awareness of norms and their fluidity and multiplicity. In Chapter 5, ‘Constructing and Constructed Japanese: History of Standard Japanese and Practice at a Japanese Preschool’, Shinji Sato examines how standard language is reproduced as kyôtsu-go (common language) and orthography at the local level by analyzing practices at preschool, the first space where children encounter the national educational system. Sato then situates those practices to the history of Japanese language since the modernization period.

12

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

Chapter 6, ‘How Japanese Education for Young People Has Been Discussed: A Critical Analysis from a Relational Viewpoint’ by Uichi Kamiyoshi, investigates dominant discourses about how to support Japanese-language and other education of children whose first language is not Japanese. Focusing on the notions of ‘competency’ and ‘standardization’, Kamiyoshi suggests a discourse of resistance based on his field data. Chapter 7, Yuko Okubo’s ‘A Consideration of the Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education: A Case Study of the Practices of Japanese Language Classes for Chinese Returnees and Vietnamese Residents’, examines practices at after-school Japanese language classes and ethnic clubs for Japanese war returnees from China and Vietnamese immigrant children born in Japan at a school that practices multicultural education. Okubo argues that emphasizing these children’s mother tongue education in an effort to defy ‘standardization’ has the unexpected effect of marking these children as ‘non-Japanese’, leading to their alienation. Part 3, Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’, examines ideologies in Japanese-as-a-foreign-language education and classroom practices. In Chapter 8, ‘The Japanese Mind and Thought: Theorization over Patterns of Thought in Post-War Japanese Language Education,’ Hazuki Segawa traces changes in ‘the discourse of thought patterns’ in Japanese language education from the end of World War II to the present. She points out that (1) the understanding that ‘knowing proper Japanese language equals Japanese spirit,’ which is strongly linked to Japan’s imperialism up to World War II, also existed after the war; and (2) an essentialized view of ‘Japanese thought patterns’ still exists in the current discourse of multicultural education. Chapter 9, ‘On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of a Japanese Language Textbook’ by Yuri Kumagai, understands the textbook as a mechanism for passing on ideologies and analyzes what they teach students along with Japanese language: the ‘standard’ value system in Japan, what is considered common sense in Japan, what Japanese people are like and Japanese behavior patterns. Chapter 10, Ryuko Kubota’s ‘Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture’, critiques the essentialist notions of culture common in Japanese language education. Kubota suggests four conceptual models for understanding culture: (1) descriptive rather than prescriptive understanding of culture, (2) diversity within culture, (3) the dynamic or shifting nature of culture, and (4) the discursive construction of culture – the notion that knowledge about culture is invented by discourses. In Chapter 11, ‘The Process of Standardization of Language and Culture in a Japanese-as-a-Foreign-Language Classroom: Analysis of Teacher–Students Interactions’, Yuri Kumagai uses the results of interviews and participant observation in a Japanese language class at a US

Introduction

13

college to analyze processes by which Japanese culture and language become standardized through classroom interactions between teacher and students. Neriko Musha Doerr’s ‘Conclusion and Departure’ discusses ways to move forward with the understanding offered in this book and urges habitual attention to the issue of scale making and the attraction of stereotypes that still haunt us.

Moving Forward In December 2007, when we were editing the Japanese version of this book, a decision was taken to revise the Fundamental Education Law (kyôiku kihonhô) in Japan. In the new Fundamental Education Law, ‘an attitude of respect for tradition and culture and love of our country and land’ came to be a target of assessment. We felt a need to ask which tradition and which culture are seen as desirable of respect, who assesses that respect, and how they do so. The research in this book suggests avoiding static views of difference between languages and between their speakers. A static view not only neglects the dynamic nature of language and culture, and the diversity within them, but also overlooks the political and ideological construction of knowledge: it blinds us to the question of who actually needs the standard language and culture, and for what purpose. The focus should be on the process as much as on the products of language/culture standardization. We also strive to discover ways to create space for education where differentiated languages and their speakers are not hierarchized, and find out what teachers can do to that end. It is imperative to keep in view both the macro-level dynamic power relations between linguistic varieties and the micro-level process of acquiring language and culture. The viewpoint this book suggests is useful not only for those involved in teaching Japanese language and culture in and outside Japan as well as in between such borders (i.e. heritage language education), but also for those who are interested in the processes of differentiation, hierarchization, politics of education, multicultural education, bilingual education and globalization as it relates to education. We would like to conclude this introduction by expressing our gratitude to Hideo Hosokawa of Waseda University, who introduced us to Akashi Shoten, publisher of the Japanese version of this book. We would also like to thank Michimasa Oe of Akashi Shoten for his support in the process of producing the Japanese volume long distance between Japan and the USA, and Anna Roderick and Martisse Foster at Multilingual Matters, for their kind assistance in creating this English version of the book.

14

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

Notes (1) See Kubota (Chapter 1 in this book) for details on understandings of standardization processes. (2) The Tokugawa government had nonetheless maintained formal relations with both the Netherlands and China during the isolationist period.

References Anderson, B. (1991 [1983]) Imagined Communities. New York: Verso. Apple, M. (2000) Official Knowledge: Democratic Knowledge in a Conservative Age. New York: Routledge. Befu, H. (1987) Ideorogii Toshite no Nihonbunkaron (Nihonbunkaron as an Ideology). Tokyo: Shisô no Kagakusha. Benedict, R. (1946) The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Bourdieu, P. (1989) Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory 7, 14–25. Coulmas, F. (1989) Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their Linguistics Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doerr, N. (2009) The Native Speaker Concept: Ethnographic Investigations of ‘Native Speaker Effects’. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Doerr, N. (2011) Saika no dôgu toshite no katakana: ‘Katakana wa gaikokugo no shakuyô go o kakutoki ni tsukau’ to oshienai koto no imi (‘Katakana,’ a Japanese phonetic alphabet, as a tool of differentiation: Implications of not teaching ‘katakana is for foreign loan words’). In S. Sato and Y. Kumagai (eds) Syakai Sanka o Mezasu Nihongo Kyôiku ( Japanese Language Education for the Global Citizen) (pp. 19–42). Tokyo: Histsuji Shobo. Doerr, N. and Kumagai, K. (2014) Race in conflict with heritage: ‘Black’ heritage language speaker of Japanese. International Multilingual Research Journal. Doi, T. (1973) The Anatomy of Dependence: The Key Analysis of Japanese Behavior. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Dore, R. (1965) Education in Tokugawa Japan. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Gluck, C. (1989) Japan’s Modern Myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji Period. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gottlieb, N. (2005) Language and Society in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haruhara, K. (2009) Book review of bunka, kotoba, kyôiku: Nihon no kyôiku no hyôjun o koete (Culture, language, education: Beyond the standardization of the Japanese language and Japanese education). Syakai Gengogaku (Sociolinguistics) 9, 311–316. Hursh, D. (2007) Assessing ‘no child left behind’ and the rise of neoliberal education policies. American Educational Research Journal 44 (3), 493–518. Japan Foundation (2011) Kaigai no Nihongo Kyôiku no Genjô (Survey Report on Japanese Language Education Abroad 2009). Tokyo: Japan Foundation. Kowner, R. (2002) Deconstructing the Japanese national discourse: Laymen’s beliefs and ideology. In R.T. Donahue (ed.) Exploring Japaneseness: On Japanese Enactments of Culture and Consciousness (pp. 169–182). Westport, CT: Ablex. Lee, Y. (2004) The Ideology of Kokugo. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Lie, J. (2001) Multiethnic Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Introduction

15

Makino, S. (2009) Book review of bunka, kotoba, kyôiku: Nihon no kyôiku no hyôjun o koete (Culture, language, education: Beyond the standardization of the Japanese language and Japanese education). Japanese Language and Literature 43 (2), 461–476. Mashiko, H. (2002) Kotoba no Seiji Syakai Gaku (Politico-Sociology of Language). Tokyo: Sangensya. Mashiko, H. (2003) Ideorogii to Shite no Nihon ( Japan as Ideology). Tokyo: Sangensya. Matsumoto, Y. and Okamoto, S. (2003) The construction of the Japanese language and culture in teaching Japanese as a foreign language. Japanese Language and Literature 37 (1), 27–48. McNaughton, J. (2006) Nisei Linguists: Japanese Americans in the Military Intelligence Service During World War II. Washington, DC: United States Army Center of Military History. Miller, L. (2011) Cute masquerade and the pimping of Japan. International Journal of Japanese Sociology 20 (1), 18–29. Miura, A. (1990) Amerika syakai ni okeru nihongo Kyôiku no tenkai (Development of Japanese language education in the U.S.). Nihongo Kyôiku ( Japanese Language Education) 70, 21–33. Nakane, C. (1970) Japanese Society. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. National Standards in Foreign Language Project (1999) Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. Ohta, H. (2010) Book review of bunka, kotoba, Kyôiku: Nihon no Kyôiku no hyôjun o Koete (Culture, language, education: Beyond the standardization of the Japanese language and Japanese education). Ibunkakan Kyôiku (Intercultural Education) 31, 94–97. Okano, K. and Tsuchiya, M. (1999) Education in Contemporary Japan: Inequality and Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Passin, H. (1967) Society and Education in Japan. New York: Teachers College Press. Saito, M. (2009) Book review of bunka, kotoba, kyôiku: Nihon no kyôiku no hyôjun o Koete (Culture, language, education: Beyond the standardization of the Japanese language and Japanese education). Social Science Japan Journal 12 (2), 310–313. Sakai, N. (1996) Shizan Sareru Nihongo, Nihonjin: ‘Nihon’ no Rekishi—Chiseiteki Haichi (The Stillbirth of Japanese: The History of Japan—The Topographic Configuration). Tokyo: Shinyôsya. Sakai, N. (1997) Translation and Subjectivity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Sato, S. (2007) ‘Nihonjin no Komyunikesyon sutairu kan to sono Kyôiku no saikô (Rethinking Japanese communication style). Riterashiizu (Literacies) 4 (1), 43–56. Schoppa, L. (1991) Education Reform in Japan. London: Routledge. Seeley, C. (1991) A History of Writing in Japan. New York: E.J. Brill. Shibamoto-Smith, J.S. and Okamoto, S. (2004) Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People. New York: Oxford University Press. Siegal, M. and Okamoto, S. (2003) Toward reconceptualizing the teaching and learning of gendered speech styles in Japanese as a foreign language. Japanese Language and Literature 37 (1), 49–66. Suzuki, Y. (2003) Tsukurareta Nihongo, Gengo to iu Kyokô—‘Kokugo’ Kyôiku no Shitekitakoto (Constructed Japanese). Tokyo: Ubun syoin. Tai, E. (2003) Rethinking culture, national culture, and Japanese culture. Japanese Language and Literature 37 (1), 1–26.

16

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

Tajiri, E. and Otsu, Y. (2010) Gengo Seisaku o Tou (Questioning Language Policies). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Uchida, N. (1990) Gengo Kinô no Hattatsu (Development of Language Function). Tokyo: Kaneko shobo. van Lier, L. (2006) Foreword. In G. Beckett and P. Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present, and Future (pp. xi–xvi). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Varenne, H. (2007) On NCATE standards and culture at work: Conversations, hegemony, and (dis-)abling consequences. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 38 (1), 16–23. Vogel, E. (1979) Japan as Number One. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Whiteley, X. (2003) Do ‘language rights’ serve indigenous interests? Some Hopi and other queries. American Anthropologist 105 (4), 712–722. Yasuda, T. (1999) ‘Kokugo’ to ‘Hôgen’ no Aida: Gengo Kôchiku no Seijigaku (Between National Language and Dialects). Tokyo: Jinbun syoin. Yasuda, T. (2003) Datsu Nihongo Heno Shiza: Kindai Nihongo Shi Saikô 2 (Perspectives of Post-Japanese: Rethinking the History of Modern Japanese 2). Tokyo: Sangensya.

Part 1 Theoretical Framework

1 Standardization of Language and Culture Ryuko Kubota

Introduction The standardization of language and culture in Japanese language education is reflected in textbooks in which culture is portrayed in an essentialist way. It also used to be part of the process of the standardization of Japanese as seen in a history of Japanese language education in the pre-WWII era (Yasuda, 1999). As our society is becoming increasingly globalized and diverse, the significance and impact of standardization pose many challenges. As an introduction to the chapter, I shall present an intriguing news article as an analogy, although it is not directly related to Japanese language education. On 2 November 2006, the Asahi Shimbun published an article entitled ‘Authentic Japanese food for overseas countries: Restaurant certification system by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)’. According to this article, the recent Japanese food boom had increased the number of Japanese restaurants abroad. However, MAFF was concerned that these restaurants were using ingredients and cooking methods that were far from authentic Japanese cuisine.1 In order to disseminate correct information about Japanese food, the article reported that MAFF would establish a Japanese restaurant certification system in 2007. Japanese food is popular even in the small college town where I live,2 and packed sushi began to be sold in corners of supermarkets several years ago. Such varieties of sushi as California roll (avocado and nori in sushi rice), vegetarian sushi (julienne carrots inside) and brown rice sushi are not common in Japan, so they would probably not be certified as ‘authentic Japanese food’. However, reflecting on the situation in Japan, the following question is raised: ‘Are ethnic cuisines served in Japan authentic?’. The answer is clearly ‘No’. Take pasta for example, the most popular Italian food. The familiar tomato ketchup-flavored ‘Napolitan’ was invented in Japan and so-called 19

20

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

‘Japanese-style spaghettis’ that use ingredients that are far from Italian, such as shiso (the herb perilla), ume (pickled plum) and tarako (salted cod roe), are certainly not ‘authentic’ cuisine. Food travels beyond the borders of cultures and nation states, spreading out and transforming itself as it makes contact with other cultures. We can call such spreading out a food diaspora as hybrid forms of cuisine create new cultures. Such spreading out and the resulting hybridity indicate that judging what is right and what is wrong is not a matter of confirming a scientific, objective or absolute truth, but rather it is an arbitrary and political activity that prevents a natural transformation of culture. What are the criteria for determining the ‘right’ food, if the food culture is diverse regionally and individually? Who, with what authority, can make that judgment? These questions pose a risk to criteria setting. If this certification system were indeed implemented, the expected outcome would be an emergence of a clear distinction between ‘authentic’ and ‘fake’ Japanese food, serving its purpose of shaping people’s awareness. Moreover, a clear distinction would be created between restaurants that serve authentic Japanese food and those that do not. However, restaurant food is a commodity with monetary value and the value is decided by the consumer’s preference. Therefore, if the food, even if it is authentic, is unpalatable to the consumers, its commodity value would become lower than that of the ‘fake’ hybrid food. Of course, food standardization in this food certification system does not overlap completely with language standardization. Dining out is a pastime and is not indispensable for life, whereas language use is a social activity that occurs in both private and public scenes with a gate-keeping function. Therefore, certifying a restaurant that serves the right Japanese food and regulating the correct language use through Japanese language teaching are rather different in terms of their impact on society and individuals. However, they share many similarities with regard to the purpose of standardization, their political and arbitrary nature, and the ways in which they function as hegemony through forming individuals’ consciousness despite the impossibility of regulating individuals’ behavior. Drawing on critical scholarships in applied linguistics and English language education, this chapter raises questions about the standardization of language and culture.

Standardization of Language What are the implications of linguistic standardization on language education? Reflecting on various components of language, we can see some examples. Using a language involves different elements, such as

Standardization of Language and Culture

21

pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar and pragmatics. Linguistic variations are observed according to the individual difference, age group, geographical region, social class and occupation. However, an examination of Japanese textbooks and other teaching materials quickly reveals the fact that these linguistic elements are all in standardized Japanese that is based on the Tokyo dialect. Also, linguistic styles differ even within the Tokyo dialect according to the individual differences or situational differences in which the language is used. Therefore, standardized expressions as seen in textbooks are fictional standardized expressions in a sense. In fact, setting a rule undermines the diversity of language mentioned above, constructing an imaginary normalized Japanese language and thus creating an ‘imagined language community’ (Anderson, 1983). Once certain language use becomes normalized as correct, values and hierarchies emerge, attaching superiority to certain language use on the one hand while excluding non-standard language use on the other. This is clearly demonstrated in the anti-dialect campaign in the language standardization movement during Japan’s modernization. As Sato’s chapter (Chapter 5) in this book shows, strong contempt for non-standard forms of language exists to date. In Japanese language education during the Imperial era, many Japanese teachers who taught overseas were from rural Japan and their use of dialects was criticized as undesirable for instruction (Yasuda, 1999). Even today, in my professional experience, some teachers think that speaking with accents other than the Tokyo dialect is not suitable for teaching Japanese. However, with the recent dialect boom, some young people in the Tokyo metropolitan area use dialects like wearing a playful accessory, and they envy those who can speak dialects (Jinnouchi, 2006; see the discussion on language creativity in section 4). Furthermore, language standardization not only indicates what is right or wrong, but it also constructs linguistic norms for certain social categories. For example, a description of the difference between the ‘feminine style’ and ‘masculine style’ of language use without taking into account regional and individual differences constructs gendered language use that is far from the reality and constructs a fixed binary gender image (see Chapter 4 of this book; Kinsui, 2003; Okamoto & Shibamoto-Smith, 2004). This parallels the social norm which determines that women are (should be) polite, kind and reserved and which regulates social practices. In other words, although we tend to think that an objective description of language use reflects the language used in real life, it is, in fact, fictional, contributing to social control. Furthermore, not only does standardization construct the norms of linguistic forms and social behaviors, but it also constructs discourses

22

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

of the uniqueness of the language itself. In other words, it functions as the ‘standardization of the linguistic view’, defining the uniqueness of a particular language. For example, a widely supported idea, as seen in the discourse of Japanese honorifics, is that honorifics originate from a delicate and respectful mindset toward others, which is unique to the Japanese national characteristics, and that they reflect the uniqueness and beauty of the Japanese language (Yamashita, 2001). Here, the national character is used to explain the existence of honorifics and it constructs an image about a language. Furthermore, in contrastive rhetoric or research on written discourse structures, cultural thought patterns behind language use emerged in the 1960s (Kaplan, 1966). The theory was proposed to explain international students’ lack of competency in academic writing in the USA in the 1960s, when the number of international students dramatically increased. According to this theory, English writing reflects a linear logic whereas Eastern languages are based on a circular logic. In the 1980s, this research emphasized the uniqueness of the logic reflected in Japanese written discourse vis-à-vis English writing, and the uniqueness of Japanese was explained in terms of ki-shô-ten-ketsu (introduction, development, turn, conclusion) and an inductive reasoning (Hinds, 1983, 1987). However, as in the studies on honorifics and women’s language use, the discourse that emphasizes the uniqueness of the Japanese language in terms of its ambiguity, non-logicalness and indirectness constitutes nihonjinron (theory of the Japanese), and is linked to the essentialist understanding of the thinking style of the Japanese as argued by Segawa in Chapter 8 of this book. In recent years, such a fixed and essentialist view of language in general has been critiqued within the field of teaching English as a second language (see Casanave, 2004; Kubota & Lehner, 2004). Moreover, in recent instruction of written composition in kokugo (Japanese language arts), the emphasis has been on clearly stating one’s position and opinion in the introduction as well as organizing the text in a logical manner, which indicates a rhetorical standard opposite to indirect expressions (Kubota & Shi, 2005). This is an example that indicates the shifting nature of language and culture. As argued so far, linguistic standardization and descriptions of standard language use assign a superior status to a particular language variation and create a hierarchy among diverse linguistic forms, while constructing a fixed image about a particular language as well as a social category such as gender. Through a process of language standardization, language is constructed as an essentialized and fictional entity. I shall now turn to cultural standardization.

Standardization of Language and Culture

23

Standardization of Cultural View In applying the discussion of linguistic standardization to culture, it is first necessary to examine the meaning of culture. Language is a concrete phenomenon that exists as sounds, vocabulary, grammar, letters and texts. But what is culture? As argued in Chapter 10, the US National Standards in Foreign Language Education conceptualize culture in three components: ‘practices’, ‘products’ and ‘perspectives.’ One of the learning goals is to understand how ‘perspectives’ such as cultural values are related to the other two components. Conceptualizing culture in this way and applying the concept of standardization, we can imagine how the knowledge and skills about cultural practices and products lead to concrete definitions and become a target of standardization in Japanese language teaching. For example, taking your shoes off in the hallway of private homes, giving midyear ochûgen gifts and end-of-the-year oseibo gifts to the people you owe, saying ‘itadakimasu’ before a meal and ‘gochisô sama deshita’ after a meal, customs such as not washing yourself in bathwater with soap, or authentic food culture like the ingredients inside sukiyaki and Japanese-style breakfast are all conceptually standardized as normative knowledge. In contrast, cultural perspectives do not indicate any concrete matter; they are understood as abstract concepts that explain the background of cultural customs and products. For example, it is explained that the custom of taking one’s shoes off in a hallway is based on the concept of uchi-soto (inside-outside), ochûgen and oseibo derive from the concept of giri (obligation), and each of these concepts is unique to Japan. Just like language standardization produces the language system itself (e.g. pronunciation and grammar) and normalizes the view about various aspects of language, cultural perspectives normalize the way of talking about certain cultural characteristics and construct people’s knowledge about culture. Thus, the standardization of Japanese culture in Japanese language teaching contributes to an essentialist cultural understanding through the emphasis on the uniqueness of Japanese culture. As in the case of authentic Japanese food mentioned in the introduction, this standardized view ignores diversity, fluidity and creativity and instead considers essentialized cultural values and concepts as representative of the nation. Such discourse of the uniqueness of Japanese culture is identified as nihonjinron (a theory of the Japanese), which was popular between the 1960s and the 1980s. This idea of the uniqueness of Japanese people and culture emerged as a theory to explain Japan’s strong post-war economic growth. Simply put, it is a discourse that functions as social control, forming people’s consciousness about their own culture based on the idea of homogeneity and harmony (Sugimoto & Mouer, 1982). More precisely, it is based on the idea that

24

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

Japanese culture has little diversity in terms of ethnicity, lifestyle and values and that, as exemplified by collectivism and social harmony, Japan is a cooperative society that avoids conflicts in human interactions and social life. Also, various cultural concepts, such as uchi-soto, amae (dependency), giri-ninjo (obligation-compassion) and respect for nature, are promoted as something unique to Japan, while emphasizing the characteristics of the Japanese language such as haragei (implicit way of communicating), silence and indirect expression. Much criticism has been raised against the problems of essentialism in nihonjinron in general and it has been taken up in Japanese language teaching (see Befu, 1987; Kawakami, 1999; Kôno, 2000; Sugimoto & Mouer, 1982; Yoshino, 1997). Some may argue that nihonjinron has already gone through a thorough criticism. However, from my observation, while some claim that nihonjinron has gone out of fashion and thus it is not worth mentioning (in fact, I was criticized for mentioning the term at a symposium), an essentialist view of Japanese culture still persists. One such example is The Japanese Mind: Understanding Contemporary Japanese Culture by Davies and Ikeno (2002), a textbook targeted toward overseas students specializing in Japanese studies or Japanese university students with high English proficiency. In the table of contents, themes that have been conventionally considered as representing Japanese cultural uniqueness are listed, including linguistic ambiguity, amae, Japanese aesthetic, bushido (the way of the warrior), silence, giri, haragei, honne and tatemae (private and public stance), collectivism, uchi-soto and wabi-sabi (simplicity and elegance as Japanese ideals of beauty). Also, as exemplified in expressions such as ‘respect for traditions and culture’ in the (regressively) revised Fundamental Law of Education and the recent political debates over aikokushin (love of country), many reactionary discourses are observed. In education, the Kyoto City Board of Education, for example, distributed a free textbook edited by the business community to elementary school students in order to launch the ‘Junior Test for Understanding Japanese Culture through the Historical City, Kyoto’ (known as the ‘Junior Kyoto Test’). However, a citizens’ group has filed a lawsuit because this textbook ‘has many historical descriptions centering around the emperor at the cost of human rights and peace’ and imposes a distorted historical view on the children (Mainichi Shimbun, 26 October 2006). The idea of certifying authentic Japanese food discussed earlier can be seen as an extension of this discourse. Thus, the essentialist view of Japanese culture still pervades and it is incorporated in the recent rise of nationalism. Drawing on the term ‘postcolonialism’, Tai (2006) calls today’s view of Japanese culture ‘postnihonjinron’. In fact, postcolonialism does not mean that colonialism is over and a new era without domination/subordination has come; rather,

Standardization of Language and Culture

25

it refers to the situation where such unequal relationships still remain in the rearticulated political, economic and cultural systems, while a new power structure resisting such relationships emerges, creating a new history of conflict. This leads to various aspects of resistance against the standardization of language and culture in language education, to which I shall now turn.

Resistance against Standardization As I have argued so far, the standardization of language and culture constructs fixed, essentialized and taken-for-granted knowledge and such knowledge as hegemony regulates people. Those negatively influenced by standardization are especially linguistic, cultural and ethnic minorities who are disadvantaged in society. Active debates on this problem are seen in the field of English language teaching. English is an international language that has spread around the world as a result of colonialism and globalization. Given that English language teaching is a global activity, various problems around it have been discussed since the 1990s. Although Japanese and English have different historical and social characteristics that make a simple comparison risky, many aspects such as colonialism and diasporic immigrants do overlap despite a difference in scale. In what follows, I discuss perspectives that resist the standardization of language and culture in second language education, particularly in English language teaching, and their implications for Japanese language teaching.

Linguistic diaspora: World Englishes The linguistic norm in teaching English in Japan has been British or American English. This is actually a common universal tendency even today. However, scholars have paid increased attention to the diversity of English used around the world, critiquing the tendency that the learning goal is identified only with the varieties of English used by former colonial powers and that these varieties have social, cultural, political and economic hegemony. The inquiry area called World Englishes represented by Kachru (1992) categorizes the geographical areas where different varieties of English are used in roughly three circles: Inner Circle – the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; Outer Circle – former colonies where English functions as an institutionalized language (e.g. India, Pakistan and Singapore); and Expanding Circle – countries where English is learned as a foreign language (e.g. China, South Korea and Japan). This research area describes the characteristics of especially the Outer and Expanding Circle

26

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

varieties of English from a sociolinguistic point of view, examines the linguistic creativity seen in English literature around the world and critiques the superiority of the native speaker (Anglo-English speaker), addressing the importance of focusing on linguistic diversity in English language teaching and teacher education (Kachru, 2005). In Japan, the Japanese Association for Asian Englishes3 promotes research on the varieties of English used in Asia as well as on language policies. How can this perspective be applied to research on Japanese language teaching? A large diversity of Japanese is observed in dialects as seen in a number of studies. However, the linguistic diaspora of Japanese is not as prominent as that of English and thus not very many studies investigate varieties of Japanese beyond Japan. Recently, however, teaching Japanese as a heritage language has become popular abroad. For example, in the USA where I live, kokugo (Japanese language arts) is taught to Japanese children at a supplementary Japanese Saturday school. Questions are raised about the guidelines for teaching Japanese language and culture to those who are longterm residents and less likely to go back to Japan. Should kokugo education as implemented in Japan be faithfully applied? Or should new linguistic skills be nurtured through embracing the non-standard forms of Japanese used by those children and through promoting creativity? Furthermore, if these children were to go to Japan and use Japanese, how can linguistic tolerance be cultivated among Japanese children who interact with them? These are challenging questions that address the fundamental issues of linguistic awareness that underlie World Englishes research. They also reflect a critical stance of problematizing the conventional knowledge and social system and of envisioning the construction of social equality by means of challenging the power held by the center (Inner Circle), affirming the legitimacy of the peripheral (i.e. Outer and Expanding Circles) and exploring linguistic creativity. In this sense, World Englishes research has significant implications for Japanese language teaching.

Non-native speakers Many scholars have addressed the problems of the superiority of the native speaker in World Englishes research. In 1998, an international organization called Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) created Non-Native English Speakers in TESOL (NNEST) Caucus in order to promote the professional status of non-native-speaking teachers and research on related issues. Various research on the personal experiences of non-native English-speaking teachers and the attitudes of teachers, students and employers toward (non)-native teachers has uncovered the

Standardization of Language and Culture

27

ideology of native speaker superiority and prejudice against non-native speakers. Research has also investigated the strengths of non-nativespeaking teachers compared to native-speaking teachers (e.g. knowledge of grammar, sharing the same language and culture with learners, empathy for learners and intercultural communication ability) (Braine, 1999; KamhiStein, 2004; Llurda, 2005; Mahboob, 2011). Furthermore, TESOL issued a position statement denouncing employment discrimination against non-native speaking teachers. This new field of research resists power by questioning the superiority of native speakers, which is a facet of language standardization, and assigns positive meaning to the quality of non-native English-speaking teaching. Such arguments can be applied to Japanese language teaching. However, academic and professional support for non-nativeness faces one big challenge, namely, situating the problems arising from the linguistic categories of native and non-native speakers in a broader social perspective. In other words, it is necessary to closely examine how linguistic categories intersect with other social categories, such as gender, race, ethnicity, age, economic status and sexual identity, and construct social practices and human experiences in education. For example, there might be Asian, white or black native Japanese-speaking teachers. Taking into consideration diverse teachers who are young, senior, female, male, heterosexual or gay or a combination of these categories yields a diversity of identities. Power relations observed here cannot be understood merely within the dichotomy of native versus non-native speakers. The relationship between radicalization and language education has recently become an important topic of inquiry and further research is expected (Curtis & Romney, 2006; Kubota & Lin, 2006, 2009). Furthermore, the intersectionality of social categories should be examined with regard not only to the issues of teachers but also to other dimensions. For example, interacting with racial ideologies, non-nativeness or not even speaking Japanese can become a target of exoticism and idolization or a cause of prejudice and assimilation. Piller and Takahashi (2006), for instance, point out that female Japanese students in Australia prefer white men who do not speak Japanese for romantic relationships. This indicates that whiteness is closely related to the image of English monolingual speakers, further encouraging us to question what ‘Japaneseness’ would be (Matsuo, 2005). Standardization as seen in the superiority of native speakers goes beyond linguistic categories of native/non-native speakers and intersects with various relations of power that exist in our society, constructing social practices and people’s consciousness. At the same time, studies on nonnative language teachers spotlight peripheral identities with new positive meanings.

28

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

Critical literacy and critical multicultural education In the general field of education, critical pedagogies have critiqued normalized knowledge and social structures based on (neo)-Marxism. Their aim is to construct an equal society based on democratic education through problematizing the production and reproduction of inequality and critically examining repressive systems, unequal power relations and ideologies. Leading educators include Michael Apple, Henry Giroux and Peter McLaren. Critical literacy and critical multicultural education are closely related to critical pedagogies, providing important perspectives about the problems of standardization in language education. Below, I examine these two approaches. First, critical literacy is an educational movement informed by the philosophy of Paulo Freire, a Brazilian leader of literacy education and an educational philosopher. It is an educational movement that aims to emancipate the poor and minorities who are oppressed in unequal relations of power by means of developing critical consciousness among them (Freire, 1998). More specifically, acknowledging the fact that subordinate groups such as peasants are often unaware of their own oppression, critical literacy aims to raise critical consciousness and use the acquisition of literacy skills for social change. Critical literacy provides important implications in that it critiques the oppression of minority languages and dialects caused by language standardization, while attempting to use the acquisition of the dominant language by the minorities for self-empowerment and social change. This means that the so-called standard language is not always an oppressive tool; rather, it can be appropriated as a means of emancipation. This view is similar to the argument by Delpit (1995) that the purpose of African American and indigenous children’s learning standard English in school should not be to assimilate them into the white society, but for individual achievement in the mainstream society as well as empowerment of minority groups. This is an important perspective that applies to Japanese language teaching. While critical literacy is related to language standardization, critical multicultural education offers insight into cultural standardization. Of the many approaches to multicultural education in the USA, Nieto (1995) classifies them into conservative, liberal and radical approaches. First, the conservative approach rejects multiculturalism and multicultural education since it views them as undermining a national unity. Conversely, a liberal approach values cultural difference, but it tends to merely acknowledge diverse cultures, leading to a superficial celebration of cultural differences. In contrast, critical multicultural education as a radical approach aims to

Standardization of Language and Culture

29

directly confront discrimination and oppression to eliminate them through scrutinizing differences and critically examining how differences are produced and fixed in unequal relations of power (Kubota, 2004). Whereas the liberal approach that celebrates cultural differences emphasizes the commonality among human beings and disregards racial discrimination, the critical approach confronts discrimination and injustice head-on and problematizes egalitarianism and meritocracy that actually contribute to inequality. In relation to cultural standardization, the liberal approach would create a list of the characteristics of a particular culture, reproducing the ‘right’ knowledge about the cultures of the Self and the Other. For example, Hatano (2006), in her example of educational practice entitled ‘“Brazilian culture” that Japanese teachers teach for Brazilian children’, points out that the wellmeaning Japanese teachers and volunteers who support Brazilian students in Japan tend to essentialize Brazilian culture despite its heterogeneity. They disseminate it even to the Brazilian students as fixed knowledge that they should know about. As cultural diversity is increasing inside and outside of Japan, critical multicultural education provides a lens that disrupts fixed cultural knowledge while providing a critical perspective about the unequal power relations that support and produce essentialist cultural knowledge.

Critical Applied Linguistics While critical literacy and critical multicultural education are part of educational studies, critical applied linguistics is interdisciplinary inquiry involving applied linguistics and educational studies. Similar to critical literacy and critical multicultural education, critical applied linguistics investigates power relations by exposing the political nature of language teaching and learning and questioning various forms of knowledge that are taken for granted (e.g. a Japanese native speaker equals a Japanese). Inquiries in critical applied linguistics include criticism of the linguistic imperialism of English as represented by Phillipson (1992, 2009) and critical discourse analysis as proposed by Fairclough (1995). The former criticizes the inequalities among languages, cultures and nations caused by the global spread of English. Linguistic imperialism – communicative inequality and colonialization of the mind caused especially by the dominance of English – has also been debated in Japan since the 1990s (Miura & Kasuya, 2000; Tsuda, 2003). However, we should be cautious about the fact that criticism of English linguistic imperialism may lead to a reactionary glorification of the Japanese language and culture, undermining critical reflections on the domination of the Japanese language during Japanese colonialism

30

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

(Yasuda, 2000) and in today’s multicultural Japan. Critical discourse analysis aims to uncover ideologies that support unequal, discriminatory and unjust social structures through critically analyzing discourses. It critiques power and ideology and is considered to be a Marxist approach. In contrast, a post-structuralist approach, as suggested by Pennycook (2001), captures power not as a fixed dichotomy between the dominator and the dominated but rather as a relationship that exists in all sorts of organizations and as an apparatus that produces discourse and possibilities of resistance. In this perspective, language is a tool that individuals use proactively and a multifaceted and fluid set of objects that change their forms and meaning instead of an autonomous, fixed and closed system that regulates individuals’ behaviors. This perspective parallels critical literacy as well. For example, in linguistic imperialism, English is critiqued as a dangerous tool for dominance that threatens linguistic ecology and multiculturalism/multilingualism. However, a particular language cannot always be equated with an oppressive apparatus. This is because standardized linguistic forms can be disrupted, making the language a tool for resistance and a site for creative production of new meanings and identities. For instance, an observation of the lyrics of Japanese hip hop reveals hybrid and creative expressions of English that disrupt the standard English and mix the mother tongue (Pennycook, 2003). The use of dialects by youths as a playful accessory, as mentioned earlier, is also a manifestation of linguistic creativity. Thus, language (Japanese for instance) and a particular identity (Japaneseness) are not in a fixed, objective or coherent relationship, but rather they are what people ‘perform’, producing various shades of meaning (including dominant ones). This overlaps with the concept proposed by Butler (1990) that gender identity is not regulated by objective fixed gender categories of male and female but rather constructed through repeated performativity (Pennycook, 2003). Revisiting the issue of the Japanese food certification system once again, we see it as standardization imposed by the government. Yet, not all restaurant managers may accept the policy. Cooking is indeed what people ‘perform’ and has unlimited possibilities for creativity. Furthermore, while some customers may desire authentic food, others may desire something different. This explicit political control for standardization may not actually result in cultural standardization. In a similar vein, an intentional regulation of the Japanese language would not undermine unlimited possibilities for creative language use and resistance. To what extent should such possibilities be allowed and promoted in education? Does an understanding of unequal relations of power underlying standardizations lead to raising the status of marginalized people? The answers to these questions depend on teachers’ knowledge, awareness and actions.

Standardization of Language and Culture

31

Unresolved Issues This chapter has introduced criticisms raised about cultural standardization and the possibilities for resistance. Yet, some unresolved issues should be mentioned. One problem is concerned with the strategic use of the majority language and cultural practice. That is, even if minority members critically and strategically use the majority language and cultural practice, it may result in affirming the existence of the language and culture of the majority and in turn further marginalize those who do not speak the majority language or do not have the cultural orientation of the majority group. In addition, the strategic use of the majority language and culture can lead to the elimination of minority languages and cultures unless it supports the maintenance of the minority language and culture, minority language rights and the improvement of the minority status. If the standardized majority language and culture threatens the minority language and culture, removing such standards from education could be a strategy. However, in reality, we would face difficult issues, such as how to develop curricula and textbooks and what criteria to use for evaluation purposes. In other words, standardization can be critiqued and resisted at the level of academic discussion, but the actual removal of the standards would involve the challenge of finding alternatives. Yet, if the solution to this conundrum is to maintain the status quo, the oppressive ideology will be reinforced and the existing unequal social structures will be perpetuated. With globalization, in which English and American military power continues to spread, the rise of reactionary nationalism in Japan is assimilating and at the same time marginalizing minorities. Language educators must say no to the policies and educational practices that put language and culture into a fixed framework and ignore the parts that do not fit. Moreover, no matter how grand its vision is, critical consciousness is not a panacea for all problems. We need to be critically reflective and understand that there are limitations and problems. At the same time, we must make efforts to construct a society in which each individual’s dignity is equally respected.

Acknowledgments I thank Ai Mizuta for assisting with translation.

Notes (1) The Washington Post (24 November 2006) also reported this by quoting Mr Toshikatsu Matsuoka (then Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries). ‘What we are

32

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

seeing now are restaurants that pretend to offer Japanese cooking but are really Korean, Chinese or Filipino. We must protect our food culture’. The article interprets this as a form of nationalism but also mentions that there are similar trends in other countries (e.g. Italy and Thailand). Also in late November 2006, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries opened a website titled ‘The recognition of Japanese restaurants overseas’ (http://www.maff.go.jp/gaisyoku/kaigai/: this link is no longer active). (2) The town is Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. (3) See http://www.jafae.org/.

References Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities. London: Verso. Befu, H. (1987) Ideorogii to shite no nihon bunkaron (Theory of Japanese Culture as an Ideology). Tokyo: Shisô no Kagaku Sha. Braine, G. (ed.) (1999) Non-native Educators in English Language Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge. Casanave, C.P. (2004) Controversies in Second Language Writing: Dilemmas and Decisions in Research and Instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Curtis, A. and Romney, M. (eds) (2006) Color, Race, and English Language Teaching: Shades of Meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davies, R.J. and Ikeno, O. (2002) The Japanese Mind: Understanding Contemporary Japanese Culture. Boston, MA: Tuttle Publishing. Delpit, L. (1995) Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press. Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman. Freire, P. (1998) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Hatano, L.T. (2006) Zainichi Brazil jin o torimaku ‘tabunka kyôsei’ no sho mondai (Issues of ‘multicultural coexistence’ surrounding Brazilians in Japan). In K. Ueda and H. Yamashita (eds) ‘Kyôsei’ no Hihanteki shakai gengo gaku kara no toikake (Inside Coexistence: Questions from Critical Sociolinguistics) (pp. 55–80). Tokyo: Sangen Sha. Hinds, J. (1983) Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text 3, 183–195. Hinds, J. (1987) Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan (eds) Writing across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text (pp. 141–152). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Jinnouchi, M. (2006) Hôgen no nenrei sa: Wakamono o chûshin ni (Age gap in dialects: Focusing on youth). Nihongogaku ( Japanese Study) 25 (1), 42–49. Kachru, B.B. (ed.) (1992) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures (2nd edn). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, Y. (2005) Teaching and learning of World Englishes. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 155–173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kamhi-Stein, L.D. (ed.) (2004) Learning and Teaching from Experience: Perspectives on Nonnative English-speaking Professionals. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Kaplan, R.B. (1966) Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning 16, 1–20.

Standardization of Language and Culture

33

Kawakami, I. (1999) ‘Nihon jijô’ kyôiku ni okeru bunka no mondai (Issues of culture in teaching ‘Japanese culture and society’). Nijû isseiki no ‘nihon jijô’: Nihongo kyôiku kara bunka literacy e (Teaching Japanese Culture and Society in the 21st Century: From Teaching Japanese to Cultural Literacy) 1, 16–26. Kinsui, S. (2003) Virtual nihongo: Yakuwari go no nazo (Virtual Japanese: The Mystery of yakuwari go). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kôno, R. (2000) ‘Senryaku’ teki ‘nihon bunka’ hi sonzai setsu: ‘Nihon jijô’ kyôiku ni okeru ‘bunka’ no torae kata o megutte (The non-existence theory of ‘strategic’ ‘Japanese culture’). Nijû isseiki no ‘nihon jijô’: Nihongo kyôiku kara bunka literacy e (Teaching Japanese Culture and Society in the 21st Century: From Teaching Japanese to Cultural Literacy) 2, 4–15. Kubota, R. (2004) Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In B. Norton and K. Toohey (eds) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning (pp. 30–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kubota, R. and Lehner, A. (2004) Toward critical contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 7–27. Kubota, R. and Shi, L. (2005) Instruction and reading samples for opinion and argumentative writing in L1 junior high school textbooks in China and Japan. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 15, 97–127. Kubota, R. and Lin, A. (eds) (2006) Special topic issue: ‘Race and TESOL’. TESOL Quarterly 40 (3). Kubota, R. and Lin, A. (eds) (2009) Race, Culture, and Identities in Second Language Education: Exploring Critically Engaged Practice. New York: Routledge. Llurda, E. (ed.) (2005) Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges and Contributions to the Profession. New York: Springer. Mahboob, A. (ed.) (2011) The NNEST Lens: Non-native English Speakers in TESOL. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Matsuo, T. (2005) ‘Whiteness kenkyû’ to ‘nihonjin sei’: Ibunka kyôiku kenkyû e no atarashii shiza (‘Whiteness study’ and ‘Japaneseness’: A new perspective of intercultural education study). Ibunka kan kyôiku (Intercultural Education) 22, 15–26. Miura, N. and Keisuke, K. (eds) (2000) Gengo teikoku shugi to wa nani ka (What is Linguistic Imperialism?). Tokyo: Fujiwara Shoten. Nieto, S. (1995) From brown heroes and holidays to assimilationist agendas: Reconsidering the critiques of multicultural education. In C.E. Sleeter and P.L. McLaren (eds) Multicultural Education, Critical Pedagogy, and the Politics of Difference (pp. 191–220). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Okamoto, S. and Shibamoto-Smith, J.S. (eds) (2004) Japanese Language, Gender and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pennycook, A. (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pennycook, A. (2003) Global Englishes, Rip slyme, and performativity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 513–533. Pennycook, A. (2004) Performativity and language studies. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 1, 1–20. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2009) Linguistic Imperialism Continued. New York: Routledge. Piller, I. and Takahashi, K. (2006) A passion for English: Desire and the language market. In A. Pavelenko (ed.) Bilingual Minds: Emotional Experience, Expression and Representation (pp. 34–58). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

34

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

Sugimoto, Y. and Ross, M. (1982) Nihonjin wa ‘nihon teki ka’ (Are Japanese People Japanese?). Tokyo: Toyo Keizai Shinbun Sha. Tai, E. (2006) A post-nihonjinron approach to the teaching of Japanese culture. Paper presented at the International Conference on Japanese Language Education, New York, 2006. Tsuda, Y. (2003) Eigo shihai to wa nani ka: Watashi no kokusai gengo seisaku ron (What Does English Dominance Mean? My Theory of International Language Policy). Tokyo: Akashi Shoten. Yamashita, H. (2001) Keigo kenkyû no ideorogii hihan (Criticism of ideology of honorifics study). In K. Noro and H. Yamashita (eds) Tadashisa e no toi: Hihanteki shakai gengo gaku no kokoromi (Questions about Correctness: Challenges of Critical Sociolinguistics) (pp. 51–83). Tokyo: Sangen Sha. Yasuda, T. (1999) ‘Kokugo’ to ‘hôgen’ no aida: Gengo kôchiku no seiji gaku (Between ‘Kokugo’ and ‘Dialect’: Politics of Language Construction). Kyoto: Jinbun Shoin. Yasuda, T. (2000) ‘Eigo daini kôyôgo ron’ ni omou (My thoughts on English as a second official language). Soubun 420, 11–15. Yoshino, K. (1997) Bunka nasyonarizumu shakai gaku: Gendai nihon no identity no yukue (Sociology of Cultural Nationalism: Whereabouts of Japan’s Identity Today). Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppan Kai.

2 Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation Naoki Sakai

When it comes to the question of a ‘correct’, ‘standard’ or even ‘beautiful’ language, we find an astonishingly large number of people who are recklessly dogmatic in their assertions or disgracefully erratic in their reasoning. Some may know of a weekly column in the New York Times written by William Safire whose job is to complain about the hybridization, contamination and corruption going on in the current English language. This columnist is the kind of writer whose judgment is unambiguously dogmatic and whose reasoning is erratic. I am sure that one can find in every country with wellestablished mass media one or several William Safires, whose task is to alert the public that the proper Japanese language – or French, Spanish, Chinese, Russian or what have you – is always being contaminated, corrupted and bastardized. Such rhetoric is designed to appeal to the sense of cultural insecurity evidently shared by an amazingly large number of readers with a certain authoritarian orientation. Not surprisingly, never does he give any coherent explanation, not to mention a comprehensible definition, of what he means by ‘good English (or Japanese, French, Chinese or else)’ while he illustrates so many instances of ‘bad English’. He seems to be exempt from the demand for scientific objectivity thanks to the literariness of his writing. There is no point in laboring to show how whimsical his – or their – complaints are since, from the outset, he did not care to ground his argument on scientific linguistics. Undoubtedly, this sort of popular writing on language is a matter that has to be dealt with in terms of the hegemonic configuration of a culture and the dynamics of a collective fantasy, yet even in this sort of journalistic drivel there is a connection with the discursive formation of modern linguistic knowledge in general. That the English language is a national matter and that the soundness of the language is intimately related to the welfare of the nation is rarely called into question. Moreover, by focusing exclusively on the language

35

36

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

of the majority, it seems that little attention is paid to the fact that many other languages, which are heterogeneous to what is assumed to be ‘good English’ are spoken in the nation coextensive with the territory of the USA. Ultimately, we would have to confront the fundamental and misguided assumption that many of us have taken to be self-evident: a language is something that is identifiable in terms of a social collectivity called ‘nation’. Evidently, the English language is spoken predominantly in other nation states such as the UK, Singapore, Australia and Jamaica, but more importantly it is used by a huge number of people all over the world, irrespective of their geopolitical locations. Today, many engineering treatises are written in English in Germany, Japan, Brazil and so forth; many scholars study English language literature in the Indian subcontinent, Africa, Korea and Taiwan; a commercial airline pilot today has to learn English in order to operate internationally, regardless of his or her nationality. Yet, it is still believed that English is a language that serves to distinguish the USA from other nations, thereby securing the national unity of this nation. Then, what is the language in the specific usage of the idiom, ‘the English language’, consisting of the genitive of a proper name ‘England’ and a general noun ‘language’? To illustrate what I would like to call attention to by this question, let me further ask: is it possible to conceive of a language that is not ethnically or nationally identified?

Many in One It is implicitly assumed – and rarely thematically questioned – that, while there is one common world, there are many languages. The world accommodates many languages. Even though humanity is one, it consists of a plurality of languages. It is generally upheld that, precisely because of this plurality of languages, we are never able to evade translation. Thus, our conception of translation is almost always premised upon a specific way of conceiving the plurality of languages. Not surprisingly, we are often obliged to resort to a certain interpretation of the fable of Babel when we try to think through the issues of the unity of humanity and translation. But, can we take this assumption of a unity in the plurality of humanity for granted transhistorically? That is, can we possibly conceive of discourses in which the thought of language is not captured in the scheme of ‘the unity in plurality’? Are we able to entertain some epistemic possibilities in which language is conceived of differently? How do we recognize the identity of each language, or to put it more broadly, how do we justify ourselves in presuming that the diversity of language or languages can be categorized in terms of one and many? Appealing

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

37

to our familiar grammatical category, I can pose the question this way. Is language a countable, just like an apple and an orange and unlike water? Is it not possible to think of language, for example, in terms of those grammars in which the distinction between the singular and the plural is irrelevant? What I am calling into question is the unity of language, a certain ‘positivity of discourse’ or ‘historical a priori’ in terms of which we understand what is at issue whenever a different language or a difference in language is at stake. My question is: how do we allow ourselves to tell one language from other languages? What allows us to represent language as a unity? I stated my answer to this question some 20 years ago, and I still believe that it is valid (Sakai, 1991). My answer was: the unity of language is a regulative idea. It organizes knowledge, but it is not empirically verifiable. Immanuel Kant introduced the term ‘regulative idea’ in his Critique of Reason. The regulative idea does not concern itself with the possibility of experience; it is no more than a rule according to which a search in the series of empirical data is prescribed. What it guarantees is not the empirically verifiable truth but, on the contrary, ‘forbidding [search for truth] to bring it [self] to a close by treating anything at which it may arrive as absolutely unconditioned’ (Kant, 1929: 450). Therefore, the regulative idea gives only an object in idea; it only means ‘a schema for which no object, not even a hypothetical one, is directly given’ (my italics) (Kant, 1929: 550). The unity of language cannot be given in experience because it is nothing but a regulative idea, so that it enables us to comprehend other related data about languages ‘in an indirect manner, in their systematic unity, by means of their relation to this idea’ (Kant, 1929). It is not possible to know whether or not a particular language as a unity is existent. It is the other way round: by prescribing to the idea of the unity of language, it becomes possible for us to systematically organize knowledge about languages in a modern, scientific manner. To the extent that the unity of national language ultimately serves as a schema for nationality1 and offers the sense of national integration, the idea of the unity of language opens up a discourse to discuss not only the naturalized origin of an ethnic community but also the entire imaginary associated with ‘national’ language and culture. A language may be pure, authentic, hybridized, polluted or corrupt, yet regardless of a particular assessment about that language, the very possibility of praising, authenticating, complaining about or deploring it is offered by the unity of that language as a regulative idea. However, the institution of the nation state is, we all know, a relatively recent invention. Then, we are led to suspect that the idea of the unity of

38

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

language as the schema for ethnic and national communality must equally be a recent invention. How should we historically understand the format of ‘many in one’, the plurality of languages in one humanity, when the unity of language has to be understood as a regulative idea or schema for an object in idea? For Kant, a regulative idea is, as I mentioned before, explicated with regard to the production of scientific knowledge; it ensures that the empirical inquiry of some scientific discipline will never reach any absolute truth, and is therefore endless. Every scientific truth changes as more empirical data are accumulated. This epistemic alterability guarantees the scientific validity of empirical truth. Clearly, the unity of language gave rise to the discipline of linguistics, particularly that of the national language. However, what we are asking is a question of a different sort. By now, this much is evident. From the postulate that the unity of national language is a regulative idea, it follows that we do not and cannot know whether a national language such as English and Japanese exists as an empirical object. Then, instead of asking what we can know, let me ask a slightly different question: what do we do, perform or bring into being by postulating the unity of national language? The unity of national language enables us to organize various empirical data in such a systematic manner that we can continue to seek knowledge about the language. At the same time, it offers not an object in experience but an objective in praxis toward which we aspire to regulate our uses of language. It is not only an epistemic principle but also a strategic one. Hence, it works in double registers: on the one hand, determining epistemologically what is included or excluded in the very database of a language, what is linguistic or extra-linguistic and what is proper to a particular language or not; on the other, indicating and projecting what we must seek as our language, what we must avoid as heterogeneous to our language and accept as proper to it and what is just or wrong for our language. However unscientifically and arbitrarily his argument may be composed, William Safire rarely betrays the strategic principle of national language. It is precisely because of this strategic aspect of the schema of national language that the discussion of good and proper language has never failed to be oppressive toward the minorities who are perceived to deviate from the ‘standard’, thereby rendering it possible to mark the authentic from the inauthentic from the viewpoint of nationality. Nationality is not simply a matter of inside and outside of the national community, it is also a matter of prescription and manipulation. It indicates how prescriptively one should conduct oneself in order to participate in the feeling of nationality – kokutai no jô in Fukuzawa Yukichi’s terminology2 – rather than whether in a merely

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

39

descriptive way one is or is not in the national community. One is offered the choice of national inclusion and exclusion in the conditional: if you conduct yourself in such and such a manner, then you will be entitled to belong to the nation or ethnicity; but if you do not, you will deserve to be discriminated against. It is a threat, but it is given as a modality of conduct. So far, we have dealt with the unity of language in its singularity, but how can we accommodate this epistemic and strategic principle in the broader framework of ‘many in one’? In this respect, it is worth noting that invariably the modern discussion of national language assumes itself to be situated ‘after the Babel’ so to speak, whenever the ‘many in one’ is at issue. In the modern era, an inquiry into language begins with an acknowledgment that universal language has been lost, so that humanity is inevitably fragmented into many languages. None of us can occupy the position of totality from which the oneness of humanity is immediately apprehended. Every one of us is necessarily situated within one or a few languages; our apprehension of humanity is destined to be partial because it is no longer possible for any of us to have access to an aerial view from the top of the pinnacle from which the entirety can be grasped instantaneously. The apprehension of oneness requires tedious processes that take place in the interstices of many incongruous fragments, and I want to tentatively call these processes translations as it is represented according to the modern regime of translation. Translation is a term with much broader connotations than an operation of the transfer of meaning from one national or ethnic language into another, but in this context I am specifically concerned with the delimitation of translation according to ‘the modern regime of translation’, by means of which the idea of the national language is given rise to. What I would like to suggest is that the representation of translation in terms of ‘the modern regime of translation’ serves as a schema of co-figuration: only when translation is represented through the schematism of co-figuration, does the putative unity of a national language as a regulative idea ensue. In other words, the unity of a national or ethnic language as a schema is already accompanied by another schema for the unity of a different language. This is why the unity of a language is possible only in the element of ‘many in one’. I do not hesitate to admit that the chronological index ‘modern’ that I employ here is no more than hypothetical. What must be marked by ‘modern’ in this instance is a distinction between two contrasting states of affairs. The pre‘modern’ points to a situation where it was still possible to believe in the existence of a universal language beyond particular situatedness. The ‘modern’, in contrast, suggests the loss of that putatively universal medium. In order to further illustrate this hypothetical use of modernity, let me refer

40

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

to the intellectual and cultural history that took place in big cities in the Japanese archipelago in the 18th century.

The Schema of Co-figuration In the context of our discussion of translation, the ‘modern’ is marked by the introduction of the schema of co-figuration, without which it is difficult to imagine a nation or ethnicity as a homogeneous sphere. As Berman (1984) taught us about the intellectual history of translation and Romanticism in Germany, the economy of the foreign, that is, how the foreign must be allocated in the production of the domestic language, has played the decisive roles in the poietic – and poetic – identification of the national language. Most conspicuously manifest in 18th-century movements such as Romanticism in Western Europe and Kokugaku (National Studies) in Japan, intellectual and literary maneuvers to mythically and poetically invent the national language were closely associated with a spiritual construction of new identity, in terms of which national sovereignty was later naturalized. As Negri and Hardt argued, it makes ‘the relation of sovereignty into a thing (often by naturalizing it) and thus weed out every residue of social antagonism. The nation is a kind of ideological shortcut that attempts to free the concepts of sovereignty and modernity from the antagonism and crisis that define them’ (Hardt & Negri, 2000: 95; italics in the original). This natural base for the legitimation of national and popular sovereignty was put forward as a ‘natural’ language specific to the ‘people’, which ordinary people supposedly spoke in their everyday lives. Literary historians generally refer to this historical development as the emergence of the vernacular. Let us keep in mind that this emphasis on ordinary and colloquial languages correlated with the re-conception of translation and the schema of co-figuration. In the regions of the Japanese archipelago, a small number of intellectuals, usually grouped together under the heading of Kokugakusha (National Studies scholars) by present-day historians, began to talk about something like ‘people’ in the 18th century. It is important to note that the National Studies scholars claimed the worth of their learning only inside the restricted context of Japanese national history. And this claim itself is rather astonishing. In general education as it was taught in Terakoya tutoring schools in the 17th and 18th centuries, for example, the canonical texts that were regarded as classics were primarily the Four Books and Five Classics of Confucian traditions, and there hardly existed an acknowledged need to distinguish Japanese texts from Chinese texts or to teach Japanese classics to Japanese children. Just as we do not insist on finding the features of national character in the texts of the Koran and the Bible or in the

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

41

textbooks of mathematics and biology today, so most people in East Asia did not seek the conspicuous traits of national history in the classics. Clearly, social formations were not organized on the basis of a desire for national identity; people lived free from the tenets of nationhood, and, accordingly, the classics they worshipped stood indifferent to national identification. Therefore, we cannot help noticing something extremely novel and eccentric in the National Studies’ insistence on a distinction between the Chinese orientation of the canonical texts of the day and the Japaneseness inherent in a few selected ones such as the Kojiki (Record of Ancient Matters), Manyôshü (Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves) and Genji Monogatari (The Tale of Genji). While the Kojiki was a historiographical attempt in the 8th century to construct the histories of the Yamato dynasties and the imperial lineage, Motoori Norinaga, the leading scholar in the National Studies movement, reconstructed the entire Kojiki, more than a thousand years after its initial compilation, on the assumption that Japanese national or ethnic language existed when it was originally written; he thereby ‘translated’ the Kojiki into a self-consciously Japanese text.3 Thus, Motoori insisted on reading the text of the Record of Ancient Matters (Kojiki) on the explicitly declared premise that it was written in the Japanese language. According to the Jakobsonian taxonomy, this would be an intralingual as well as intersemiotic translation project, but never a ‘translation proper’ precisely because of his insistence on the trans-historical existence of the Japanese language. How should we assess the significance of Motoori’s insistence on Japanese language? Were many previous writings such as the Manyô-shû (Collection of Ten Thousand Leaves), the Kokinshû and The Pillow Books of Seishônagon not also written in Japanese? Is it a truism that statements in The Tale of Genji, for instance, were mainly written in kana characters as opposed to many contemporary documents that were composed in mana or literary Chinese? It is only after a massive transformation of discursive formation was under way that such a demand for the recognition of Japanese as an ethnic/national linguistic identity could arise. What was at issue in Motoori’s project of the Kojiki-den, of translating the Kojiki and writing an extensively annotated revision of an ancient mythohistoriography, taking some 35 years, was an ongoing epistemic change in the ways in which people apprehended what were meant by speaking, hearing, writing, reading and translating. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that this change involved plural eruptions of the new regimes of narrating, reciting, listening, writing, reading and translating and that it occurred not homogeneously throughout the imagined whole of that contemporary Japan, but dispersedly and sporadically in 18th century social formations in the central regions of the Japanese islands. I would not attribute the eruptive

42

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

emergence of these new regimes to any single genius or personality, scholarly group, school or a Zeitgeist. Yet, undeniably, around that time some people began to see various forms of representation and textuality differently and to engage textual production in ways hitherto unknown. What we can now find in the National Studies works as well as in treatises by some Confucian scholars of the so-called Kogaku (Ancient Studies) affiliation, such as Itô Jinsai and Ogyû Sorai, was not merely an introduction of one more commentary of the ancient text, but also the creation of a new set of regimes whereby the classic text was recreated. Therefore, it is impossible to understand the works of the National Studies simply in terms of Motoori’s discovery of ancient Japanese language, Japanese phonetics, syntax, grammar and so on, that is, in those terms which are believed to have existed before the Kokugaku and Kogaku scholars’ interventions. It seems that what he achieved by ‘reading’ the Kojiki was to establish the conditions of possibility for the knowledge of Japanese language to emerge. In other words, Motoori and others invented the Japanese language as an object of systematic knowledge in the 18th century. In this respect, compared with his ‘translation’ of the Kojiki, the previous canonical works clearly lacked the sense of national affiliation, and, even though some of them were in so-called ‘Japanese inscription systems’, these works did not claim to belong to the lineage of particularly Japanese literature. There are a few other well-known texts of the 18th century which can be seen as testimony to these epistemic changes or discontinuities, but they do not highlight the new enunciative possibility which was given rise to along with these changes as dramatically as Motoori’s intralingual and intersemiotic translation of the Kojiki. This is to say, the intellectual and literary maneuvers by the Kokugakusha inaugurated the ‘modern’ prescription of the national imaginary. We cannot not recognize the aura of modernity in the National Studies precisely because, generally speaking and even beyond the context of Japan’s history, the imaginary affiliation with nation and national culture and tradition is specifically modern. How did the Kojiki-den rearticulate or newly invent the senses of reading, writing, reciting, narrating and translating? In this respect, the problem of kana, mana and phoneticism and ideography is crucial. However, a precaution must be taken to deliberately avoid the culturalist scheme in which the unities of Japanese culture and Japanese language are supposed to be existent trans-historically throughout Japanese history.4 It is important to keep in mind that today’s readers, regardless of whether they are resident in North America, Japan or European Union countries, inhabit the social and discursive formations that are markedly modern. To the extent that they take the modern regimes of reading, writing, reciting,

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

43

translating and so forth for granted, they tend to assume the regularities sustained by these regimes to be universally valid, and can become incapable of imagining the possibilities of regimes other than that of monolingual address; to that extent, they are still operating within the formula of ‘many in one’. And, as far as those regimes are concerned, there seems to be a certain commensurability among many ‘modernized’ societies in the world despite different historical developments and geopolitical conditions. The sense of this commensurability was aptly expressed by Benedict Anderson’s well-known phrases ‘modules of the nation-state’ and ‘print culture’, both of which strongly suggest the transferability of modernity and its essential uprootedness and which implicitly deny the evolutionary and linear model of modernization even though I do not agree with Anderson’s summary representation of the modernity by print culture due to his phonocentrism. Here, I want to stress the transferability or transplantability of modernity for two main reasons. First, the modern regimes of reading, writing, reciting, narrating, translating and so forth can be practiced even if regimes in other behavioral spheres remain non-modern. In our case of 18th century epistemic changes, there is no doubt that the polity, that is the Tokugawa shogunate-domainal system, was antithetical to the idea of national sovereignty, but these modern regimes could inhabit, so to say, or coexist with rather ‘feudal’ politico-social formations. Although I have no intention of claiming that the epistemic regimes that emerged in the 18th century would continually grow into the post-Meiji ones, it is possible to see a certain commensurability between those regimes which underwrote the translation of the Kojiki and the ones which sustained the production of knowledge in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in disciplines such as national history and national literature. Secondly, the transferability and uprootedness of modernity simultaneously creates two contrasting but mutually supplementary conditions, one that allows for comparing many areas in the world in the translational relationship of equi-valence, and the other contrasting one which calls for an obsessive emphasis on the historical authenticity and irreplaceability of a particular land and its inhabitant population. Just as in the table of trade balance, two contrasting pieces of land are presented as differing but being on the commensurate e-valuation, on the one hand. Yet, each land is supposed to be recognized as unique and exceptional so that it constitutes itself as an organic unity, on the other. This somewhat predicts the economy of species difference or specific difference in which the particularity is identified against the background of the generality. Undoubtedly, the formula of ‘many in one’ works to establish a framework

44

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

in terms of which the internationality of the modern international world since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) could be accommodated.5 It goes without saying that the insistence on the irreplaceable historical uniqueness of Chinese antiquity by Ogyû Sorai and of Japanese antiquity by Kamo Mabuchi, an insistence which Motoori emphatically repeats in favor of Japanese uniqueness over against the Chinese empty generality in the Kojiki-den and his other writings, unambiguously testifies to the necessity of these two conditions according to which the distinctive unity of the Japanese linguistic and cultural sphere could be figured out within an international configuration. In this sense, Motoori’s obsessive emphasis on the particularly Japanese nature of the Kojiki and his evaluation of the superiority of Japanese traditions over other ethnic or national ones may be viewed as an indication of the prototypical international consciousness, somewhat on a parallel with the development of internationalism and nationalism in 18th- and early 19th-century European diplomacy. Here, let me note that the transferability of modernity is an issue that had nothing to do with the factual transfer or importation of cultural and social artifacts and institutions from one area to another. There has always been a transfer of that nature between areas in East Asia since antiquity. Instead, I would like to suggest that, as the distinction of the domestic and the foreign played an increasingly important role in organizing the representations of various social relations, certain cultural and social institutions began to be evaluated in terms of this distinction. The best example can be found in the case of kana. Since the late 19th century when compulsory national education was established by the Japanese government, the writing system has been standardized. Today, schoolchildren in Japan are taught 46 basic hiragana characters and 46 katakana characters. Hiragana and katakana characters form two parallel alphabetical systems, and each hiragana character has a corresponding katakana character and they are understood to express 46 basic phonetic units. Since the end of WWII the Japanese Ministry of Education has adopted the policy of making hiragana the main system of phonetic characters and the katakana a supplementary one so that katakana are now used mainly to transcribe foreign names and pronunciations, and occasionally for onomatopoeia. By the time they graduate from junior high schools usually at the age of 15, Japanese children are expected to have learned between two and three thousand kanji (hanzi in Mandarin Chinese or the characters of the Han) characters, which are supposed to function as ideographic symbols in addition to hiragana and katakana. And the overwhelming majority of verbal publications such as daily

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

45

newspapers, academic papers, literature, government ordinances, business correspondences and textbooks are written in a mixture of hiragana, katakana and kanji characters. So often the co-presence of two heterogeneous inscriptional principles in Japanese writing has been pointed to as a symptom of the ‘peculiarity’ of the Japanese language and, by extension, Japanese culture in general. Very often, wa-kan was used to designate this ‘peculiarity’ of the Japanese writing system.6 It is widely believed that, whereas kanji characters are multivocal with respect to their phonetic expressivity but are univocal in their ideation, kana characters are univocal with respect to their phonetic expressivity and non-vocal in their ideation. Etymologically, kana in hiragana and katakana derives from the opposition between kana and mana, ad hoc characters as opposed to true or authentic characters. And it is believed that, since mana have been identified unambiguously with Chinese ideographic characters of kanji, kana must imply something inherently Japanese and phonetic. But, to what extent does this characterization of kanji and kana in terms of nationality hold up, unless the schematism of co-figuration is assumed? Since there were no standardizing governmental regulations about the uses of characters until the Meiji period, there used to be many more than the 46 hiragana and 46 katakana characters used today. In a sense, one was allowed, though never on a whim, to invent kana characters out of kanji characters through simplification and abbreviation, although unofficial standardization could be recognized particularly in katakana. Here, let us ponder the fact that kana meant an ad hoc or makeshift character. It was a sort of shorthand to outline a proper kanji character without drawing all the necessary brushstrokes of its ideographic unity. We must recall that, except for very simple ones, one typical kanji character involves from 5 to 30 strokes when it is written in the so-called ‘square style’. Written in the fluid and more individualized ‘grass style’, the graphic complexity of a kanji character can be reduced. Furthermore, by abbreviating more strokes, one can create a graphic ad hoc symbol which evokes the original kanji. The simplified character thus obtained is usually called hiragana. Katakana is also obtained from the kanji character through a similar but slightly different procedure. Kana is a sign indicating a kanji character, a graphic sign that refers to another graphic sign. The way in which the kanji character can be simplified varies from one person to another, and, accordingly, kana, particularly hiragana, very much retains the signatory quality of calligraphy, something suggestive of the sacred status given to an individual’s signature which industrial capitalism comes to worship as the symbolic expression of the individual property rights.

46

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

Yet, it should be invariably true that, unless one is familiar with a wide variety of handwriting traits, the handwritten text of kana is in due course extremely difficult to read. In order to decipher those ad hoc characters, one would have had to know from which kanji characters they originated. Precisely because kana is a doubly articulated sign, its decipherment required some reference to the knowledge of the primary signs, that is, of mana, until the sense of kana’s double articulation was totally erased by the general shift from wood block printing to movable printing in the Meiji period. Even a cursory survey like this of the opposition between mana and kana demonstrates that, unless certain conditions are imposed on the systematic uses of kanji and kana characters, the mana and kana opposition cannot be equated to either the binary of the ideographic and the phonetic, or of Chinese and Japanese. What is overlooked in the binary evaluation of kana is that all the groups of characters, kanji, hiragana, katakana and even manyôgana, could serve differently according to the way a desire for meaning is invested in those graphic signs, that is to say, according to a specific ideology to which the sign is submitted (cf. Sakai, 1991: 251–255). In other words, neither hieroglyphy, phoneticism nor ideography is characteristically inherent in the graphic constitution of the character. As the use of manyôgana best exemplifies, the kanji character can be used phonetically or ideationally. At the same time, however, no graphic sign is purely phonetic or ideographic; it is always not only multiple but also over-determined. No ideology is able to reduce a text without residue or remainder because of the textual materiality inherent in any text. In this sense, it is probably misleading to treat any graphic sign as pertaining to a system unless we are conscious that to do so is to determine it unitarily and to repress other co-present possibilities. This means that a hiragana character, for example, can be an ideographic kanji character drawn in grass style, a phonetic symbol indicating a specific phonetic unit and so forth, at the same time. Writing is always open to multiple channels of the investment of desire for meaning. The problem of reception in reading has little to do with the hermeneutic understanding of the text, and more to do with the institutionalized repertoire of channels for the investment of desire for meaning. What Motoori’s rewriting of the Kojiki declares unambiguously is the inauguration of a completely different way of relating the agent/subject of writing and reading to those graphic signs, and I have collectively called these newly emerging regimes by which to relate oneself imaginarily to inscription ‘phonocentrism’. By retranscribing the original text of the Kojiki in which neither hiragana nor katakana characters were used at all into a new text of the Kojiki which is mainly in hiragana characters, Motoori Norinaga – or to be more precise, the discursive

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

47

change at large – destroyed the previous regimes of reading, writing, reciting, narrating and so forth which were comparatively tolerant of the overdeterminacy of graphic signs, and replaced them with ones in which different inscriptional ideologies – ideologies in each of which a particular imaginary relationship to inscription is invested – such as ideography, hieroglyphy, phoneticism and so on were discriminated from one another. A puritanism of the voice was thus vehemently imposed. In the regimes of my hypothetical premodernity, characters were permitted to shift their ideological register fairly freely and could float, so to say, from the status of phonetic signifier to that of ideographic signifier, to that of illustrative symbol. Perhaps the best example of this ideological overdeterminacy can be found in calligraphy in which each character is not immediately determined with respect to its ideological register. Is a calligraphic piece of Tang poetry, for instance, a text to read, to look at or to recite? To determine a calligraphic text solely as a text to recite is, in fact, tantamount to denying it its essential quality as calligraphy. Nevertheless, what Motoori attempted to do in his translation of the Kojiki was to determine the text of the Kojiki unitarily as a text to recite, and to prove that it should be possible to exclude other relationships to this text. Of course, to exclude other inscriptional relationships to this text and to determine this text unitarily as a text to recite was to recover the original recitational voice and gesture of ancient Japan. All his aspiration to recitation notwithstanding, I do not believe that he could successfully repress the excess of textual materiality. What is impressive about Motoori is that he unwittingly demonstrated the irreducibility of voice to its phonetic or aural/orality. It is as a consequence of this ‘phonocentric’ transformation that the co-presence of two heterogeneous inscriptional principles in Japanese writing began to be perceived as a marker of the ‘peculiarity’ of Japanese language and, by extension, Japanese culture in general. In other words, the National Studies scholars could detect the heterogeneous constitution of graphic signs as an abnormality of their contemporary social and cultural formations, thanks to their adherence to phonocentrism, and they began to allocate these inscriptional ideologies according to the schema of co-figuration, phoneticism for Japan and ideography for China. The distinction of Japan and China was brought about by phonocentrism’s insistence on the distinguishability of speech from writing. Consequently, it was made possible to construe the abnormality of their contemporary formations as a trait of contamination by an alien influence in terms of the relationality of geographical areas. Even today, this type of assessment of Japanese uniqueness still dominates culturalist literature on Japan, no matter

48

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

whether it is produced by American Japan experts, European journalists or Japanese writers of cultural nationalism. Here, it is important to note that the phonocentrism I refer to here is not so much an insistence on the superiority of alphabetical phonetic writing over non-phonetic writing as the belief that these different ideologies can be distinguished from one another without trace. In this, I closely follow Jacques Derrida in his discussion of phonocentrism. The phonocentric reorganization of the regimes also created the possibility of discovering the spoken language of the native illiterate people, which could not be recorded in ideographic kanji characters, but which on rare occasions manifested itself in spite of ideographic oppression. Thus, through phonocentrism, a group of writers in the 18th century could project into antiquity an archetypal unity of Chinese or Japanese language of which they could only find remnant fragments in their contemporary world. So, Ogyû Sorai, Kamo Mabuchi, Hattori Nankaku and Motoori Norinaga among others posited the archetypal unity of Chinese or Japanese language in the past and thereby rendered it possible to talk about the loss or fragmentation of the social whole in 18th century social formations on the Japanese islands. In this sense, the unity of the Japanese language and the Japanese ethnos was invented out of the phonocentric reorganization of discourse as two absences, two figures that should be fulfilled by corresponding existent referents but that could not find their respective referents in reality: Japanese language and Japanese ethnos were thus stillborn in this discourse in the 18th century through the schematism of co-figuration. Thus, the unity of national language is given in relation to another language co-figuratively. The unity of the Japanese language became conceivable when that of the ancient Chinese language was figured out. But, it is important to note that, until then, the Chinese language had not been predicated in terms of ethnic or national index. While the task of historicizing the concept of language is still to be done, mana were a set of authentic characters that was not associated with either Chinese ethnicity or kingdom. They were simply true or authentic characters, whose nationality remained undetermined. Or, to put it differently, it was pointless to talk about the ethnicity of mana just as it is futile to determine the ethnicity of today’s mathematical symbols and chemical signs. Although one may not help noting some incongruity in attributing ‘language’ to mana as an assembly of some tens of thousands of characters, I claim that mana was just the universal language.7 It had yet to be caught in the formulaic framework of ‘many in one’. Accordingly, translation was differently grasped. Historically, there can be many ways of conceiving translation, but the

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

49

regime of translation came to dominate our comprehension of translation, and to condition the manner in which translation is represented.

Translation as Continuity in Discontinuity What may be summarily called ‘translation’ has been practiced in many parts of the world. The rendering of the Buddhist texts in literary Chinese and the Latinization of the Bible are two instances during the first millennium, of celebrated achievements in the long histories of ‘translation’, while there are innumerable cases of translation that are known to have played decisive roles in the developments of literary cultures, pedagogical institutions and ecclesiastic reformations, and the global spread of the nation state and capitalism, particularly since the Renaissance and the European conquest of the Americas. Today, an increasing number of scholars are aware of the conceptual complexity as well as the politico-ethical significance of translation. At the same time, they have come to realize that translation must be problematized not only in the fields of artistic literary works and religious canons, but also in the spheres of commercial advertisement, popular entertainment, public administration, international diplomacy, scientific research and publication, judiciary procedure, immigration, education and family livelihood. First, let me discuss the conceptual complexity of the term ‘translation’ and measures to define it, with a view to historicizing the particular ways in which translation has been understood and practiced in modern social formations. And, second, I will discuss the politico-ethical significance of translation in reference to the fact that it is always complicit with the building, transforming or disrupting of power relations. Translation involves moral imperatives on the part of both the addresser and the addressee, and can always be viewed, to a greater or lesser degree, as a political maneuver of social antagonism. Thirdly, I will investigate how the representation of translation brings about sociopolitical effects and serves as a technology by which the individual imagines his or her relation to the national or ethnicized community. And, finally, we will return to the question of the relationship between the issues of translation and modernity. In other words, we will probe how our commonsensical notion of translation is delimited by the schematism of the world (i.e. our operation of representing the world according to the schema of co-figuration) and inversely how the modern image of the world as the ‘inter-national’ world (i.e. the world consisting of the basic units of the nations) is prescribed by our representation of translation as a communicative and international transfer of the message between a pair of ethno-linguistic unities.

50

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

An inquiry into translation invokes a seemingly endless series of questions as soon as some formulaic response to that inquiry is postulated. Retracing the network of affinity in translational equivalence, you may well find the sense of transferring, of conveying or moving from one place to another, of linking one word, phrase or text to another, all of these common among the words connoting ‘translation’ in modern languages, fanyi in Chinese, translation in English, traduction in French, honyaku in Japanese, Übersetzung in German and so forth. Comparing the lexicographical and etymological explications of the word ‘to translate’ or its cognates in many languages, one may feel vindicated to offer this definition: translation is a transfer of the message from one language to another. Even before specifying what sort of transfer it can be, you would realize it is hard to refrain from asking such questions, initially, about the message. Is what is referred to as the message in this definition not a product or consequence of the transfer called translation rather than something whose being precedes the action of transfer or something that remains invariant in the process of translation? Is the message that is supposedly transferred in this process determinable in and of itself without first being operated on or affected by something? And then about language. What is the status of the language from which or into which what is called the message is transferred? How can you assume that the source language in which the source text originally makes sense is different and distinct from the target language in which the translated text is made to convey the original sense or its closest approximation? Are these languages countable in the sense that you may isolate and juxtapose them as individual units like apples, and unlike water? By what measures can you distinguish one from another, and endow each of them with a unity or body? Do we not have to suppose the organic unity of language rather than a random assemblage of words, phrases and utterances, in order to talk about translation in this way? Accordingly, the message that is transferred in translation is, above all else, a supposition of the transmitted invariant that is confirmed, retroactively, after the fact of translation. Then, what kind of definition is this, that includes the term that ought to be explained by what the very definition aims at determining? Does it not constitute a typical circular definition? Likewise, the unities of languages are also suppositions in the absence of which the above-mentioned definition would hardly make sense. Then, are we not required to examine what translation could be when languages are not countable or when one language cannot be so easily distinguished from another? Here, we are already concerned with a range of problems that are difficult to evade when we attempt to comprehend the terms ‘meaning’ and ‘language’. At the very least, we can now say that, logically, translation is

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

51

not derivative or secondary to meaning or language; it is as fundamental or originary in our attempts to elucidate the concepts of meaning and language. To the extent that translation suggests our contact and encounter with the incomprehensible, unknowable or unfamiliar, that is, with the foreign, we must insist that nothing starts until we come across the foreign. If the foreign is unambiguously incomprehensible, unknowable and unfamiliar, it is impossible to talk about translation because translation simply cannot be done. If, on the other hand, the foreign is comprehensible, knowable and familiar, it is unnecessary to call for translation. Thus, the status of the foreign must be always ambiguous in translation. The foreign is incomprehensible and comprehensible, unknowable and knowable, and unfamiliar and familiar at the same time, and this foundational ambiguity of translation derives from the ambiguity of the positionality generally indexed by the peculiar presence of the translator. For the translator is summoned only when two kinds of audiences are postulated with regard to the source text, one for whom the text is comprehensible at least to some degree, and the other for whom it is incomprehensible. Apparently, the translator’s work consists in dealing with the difference between the two kinds of audience. This situation may be rephrased as follows: for the first kind of audience, the source ‘language’ is comprehensible while for the second it is incomprehensible. Yet, it is important to note that the ‘language’ in this instance is figurative in the sense that it need not refer to any ‘natural’ language of an ethnic or national community such as German or Tagalog, since it is equally possible to have two kinds of audiences when the source text is a heavily technical document or an avant-garde literary piece. Here ‘language’ may well refer to a set of vocabulary and expressions which are associated with a professional field or discipline such as ‘legal language’; it may imply the style of graphic inscription or an unusual perceptual setting in which an art work is displayed. The figurative and loose use of the term ‘language’ would invariably render the task of determining ‘meaning’ within the definition of translation extremely difficult. It goes without saying that this conception of translation is a schematization of the globally shared commonsensical vision about the international world, consisting of basic units of nations and segmented by national borders into territories. In this schematization, the propriety of ‘translation proper’ does not only claim to be a description or representation of what happens in the process of translation, but it also prescribes and directs how to represent and apprehend what one does in translation. In this respect and in line with Michel Foucault’s use of the word ‘discourse’, the propriety of ‘translation proper’ is a discursive construct: it is part and parcel of the discursive regime of translation, an institutionalized assemblage

52

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

of protocols, rules of conduct, canons of accuracy and manners of viewing. In other words, the discursive regime of translation is poietic or productive in bringing out what Speech Acts theorists call the ‘perlocutionary’ effect, repeatedly discerning the domestic language from an other foreign one co-figuratively as if the two unities were already present in actuality. As long as one is captive to the regime of translation, one can only construe an ambiguity inherent in the positionality of translator as the duality of the position a translator occupies between the native and the foreign languages. One either speaks one’s own mother tongue or a foreigner’s. The task of the translator would then be to figure out the differences discernible between the two languages. In each language, one’s position is discernibly determined, so that difference which one deals with in translation is figured out always as that of two linguistic communities. Despite innumerable loci of potential difference within one linguistic community, the regime of translation obliges one to speak in such a manner as to address oneself according to the binary opposition of either speaking to the same or the other. I call this attitude of address homolingual address, an attitude of relating to others in enunciation whereby the addresser adopts the position representative of a putatively homogeneous language community and relates to the general addressees who are also representative of an equally homogeneous language community. However, I must hasten to add a disclaimer: by homolingual address I do not imply the social condition of conversation in which both the addresser and the addressee supposedly belong to the same language; they believe themselves to belong to different languages yet could still address themselves homolingually. Ineluctably, translation introduces a disjunctive instability into the putatively personal relations among the agents of speech, writing, listening and reading. In respect to personal relationality as well as to the addresser/ addressee structure, the translator must be internally split and multiple, and devoid of a stable positionality. At best, he or she can be a subject in transit. This is first because the translator cannot be an ‘individual’ in the sense of individuum in order to perform translation, and secondly because he or she is a singular that marks an elusive point of discontinuity in the social, while translation is the practice of creating continuity at that singular point of discontinuity. The space that he or she occupies is, therefore, an intensive rather than an extensive one. Translation is an instance of continuity in discontinuity8 and a poietic social practice which institutes a relation at the site of incommensurability. This is why the aspect of discontinuity inherent in translation would be completely repressed if we determined translation as a form of communication. And this is what I have referred to above as the ambiguity inherent in the positionality of the translator.

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

53

Thus, considering the positionality of the translator, we are introduced into the problematic of subjectivity in an illuminating manner. The internal split within the translator, which reflects in a certain way the split between the addresser – or the addressee, and furthermore the actualizing split within the addresser and the addressee themselves9 – and the translator, demonstrates the way in which the subject constitutes itself. In a sense, this internal split within the translator is homologous to what is referred to as the fractured I, the temporality of ‘I speak’ which necessarily introduces an irreparable distance between the speaking I and the I that is signified, between the subject of the enunciation and the subject of the enunciated. Yet, in the case of translation, the ambiguity in the personality of the translator marks the instability of the ‘we’ as the subject rather than the ‘I’, suggesting a different attitude of address which I elsewhere call ‘heterolingual address’ and in which one addresses oneself as a foreigner to another foreigner. Heterolingual address is an event because translation never takes place in a smooth space; it is an addressing in discontinuity. Captured in the regime of translation, however, the translator is supposed to assume the role of the arbitrator not only between the addresser and the addressee but also between the linguistic communities of the addresser and the addressee. And, in the attitude of homolingual address, translation as repetition is often exhaustibly replaced by the representation of translation.

The Regime of Translation as a Poietic Technology Let me elaborate on the process in which translation is displaced by its representation, and the constitution of collective subjectivity such as national and ethnic subjectivity in the representation of translation. Through the labor of the translator, the incommensurability as difference which calls for the service of the translator in the first place is negotiated and worked on. In other words, the work of translation is a practice by which the initial discontinuity of the addresser and the addressee is made continuous and recognizable. In this respect, translation is just like other social practices which render as continuous the singular points of discontinuity in social formation,10 and translation is an action which renders difference that is unrepresentable representable. Only retrospectively and after translation, therefore, can we recognize the initial incommensurability as a gap, crevice or border between fully constituted entities, spheres or domains.11 But, when represented as a gap, crevice or border, it is no longer incommensurate. It is already mapped onto the striated space that can be segmented by national borders and other apparatuses of national and racial identification.

54

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

Incommensurability as difference is more like ‘feeling’ which is prior to the explanation of how incommensurability is given rise to, and cannot be determined as a represented difference (or specific difference in the arborescent schemata of the species and the genus) between two subjects or entities.12 What makes it possible to represent the initial difference as an already determined difference between one language unity and another is the work of translation itself. This is why we have to always remind ourselves that the untranslatable or what appears not appropriable through the economy of translational communication cannot exist prior to the enunciation of translation. It is translation that gives birth to the untranslatable. The untranslatable is as much a testimony to the sociality of the translator whose figure exposes the presence of an aggregate community of foreigners between the addresser and the addressee, as to the translatable itself. However, his or her essential sociality of the untranslatable is disregarded in the monolingual address, and with the repression of this insight, the homolingual address ends up equating translation to the representation of translation. By erasing the temporality of translation with which the ambiguity of the positionality of the translator manifests itself as disjunctive, we displace translation with the representation of translation. By virtue of the fact that the disruptive and dynamic processes of translation are all flattened out, the representation of translation enables the representation of ethnic or national subjects, and, in spite of the presence of the translator who is always ambiguous and disjunctive, translation, no longer as difference or incommensurability but rather as representation, is made to discriminatorily posit one language unity against another (and one ‘cultural’ unity against another). In this sense, the representation of translation transforms difference in repetition into specific difference between two particularities, and helps constitute the putative unities of national languages. It thereby reinscribes the initial difference and incommensurability as a specific, that is, commensurate and conceptual, difference between two particular languages within the continuity of the generality of languages.13 As a result of this displacement, translation is represented as a form of communication between two fully circumscribed, different but comparable language communities where social antagonism and various loci of difference are expunged. In the first part of this presentation, I called attention to a poietic technology embedded in the regime of translation which renders translation representable as ‘the schema of co-figuration’, following Kantian terminology. As the practice of translation remains radically heterogeneous to the representation of translation, translation need not be represented as a communication between two clearly delineated linguistic communities.

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

55

There should be many different ways to apprehend translation in which the identity of a community does not necessarily constitute itself in terms of language unity or the homogeneous sphere of ethnic or national culture. What must be emphasized here is that the unity of a language or the homogeneous sphere of ethnic or national culture as a whole comes into being in the imagination. Accordingly, it is this particular representation of translation that gave rise to the possibility of figuring out the unity of ethnic or national language together with another language unity. This is to say that the schema of co-figuration is a technology by means of which a national community represents itself to itself, thereby constituting itself as a subject. Thus, I allowed myself to use the term ‘modern’. In talking about ‘modern’ as it is apprehended in many parts of the world today, however, it is historically necessary first to anchor it in the original uses of this notion in the history of Western Europe. This is neither because the most authentic forms of modernity can be found in Western Europe nor because modernity emanated from the center somewhat associated with Western Europe to the periphery of the Rest, but because the notion of ‘modern’ has been accepted and used primarily as a translation from its European originals for more than a century in many places including ones outside the geographic terrain of Europe. One can talk about ‘modern’ as if there were a globally common apprehension of it precisely because, all over the world, people assume it impossible to apprehend it without referring it back to its European equivalents, from which their local translations are believed to have derived. Today, Eurocentrism is not particularly a European or Euro-American phenomenon. In the globally accepted conception of modernity, the schema of co-figuration between the West and the Rest is working powerfully. Despite linguistic and social diversities among the different sites of the world, therefore, the notion of ‘modern’ is supposedly retraceable to the singular history of Western Europe, thanks to the Eurocentric structure incorporated in the very notion itself. In this respect, the schema of co-figuration is the form most appropriate to the representation of the Eurocentric world, and it is also a form in which the legacy of European colonialisms is preserved. As far as the local terms used for modernity are concerned, however, the situation was drastically different in the ‘premodern’ periods before the translation of ‘modern’ into their local equivalents. It is often presumed that genealogically the word ‘modern’ of modern English derives from the Latin adverb modo meaning ‘lately’ or ‘just now’. It means the array of recent events close to the present moment, or the recent times as contrasted to the distant past, along the chronological axis. In the

56

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

premodern periods, many of the terms and expressions, which are used to connote ‘modern’ today in places and communities outside Western Europe, meant something like the Latin modo, and did not imply any necessary reference to Western Europe. In the cosmological universes of those peoples inhabiting many regions around the globe, Western Europe did not carry any prestige, and ‘the West’ simply did not exist. The introduction of ‘modern’ qualitatively changed the manner in which people customarily organized their historical experience. With the arrival of ‘modern’, people in many places in the world began to map geopolitical directives centering around the colonial powers of Western Europe onto their pasts and futures, and to order their destinies and desires in terms of cartographic relativity. ‘Modern’ now implied much more than the chronological closeness to the present moment in which periods were classified. Consequently, they sought coherence in the transition from the experience of their past into the anxiety or hope of their future by projecting a trajectory from a topos outside the modern into a topos within it. The progression of time from the past to the future was thus associated with a movement, on the cartographically imagined surface of the globe, from a geographic location outside the ‘modern’ civilization to another within it. The dynamic ecstatic or ex-static process from the past to the future was deprived of its temporality and then represented spatially as a vector from a geopolitical location in the periphery to another in the center. Thereby, the temporal movement could be appropriated by the schema of co-figuration, and consequently the two pairing figures of the West and the Rest were imagined as if each was somewhat homogeneous within, despite the fact the neither the West nor the Rest could be an entity or a unity of language on any account. As a matter of fact, this explains how the mythic construct called the West was constituted, and why the West is structurally indissociable from the modern. In the domain of the current production of knowledge on Japan, however, it is a point of urgency to remind ourselves that Japanese Studies, not only in Japan, such as Kokubungaku (Japanese Literature) and Kokushi (Japanese History), but also in the USA, Europe and other regions, have continued to produce new knowledge on Japan in the mode set by the modern regime of translation. The formation of an area in Area Studies is still tied with the co-figuration of the West and the Rest. Of course, at modern universities, disciplines whereby knowledge on Japan is being produced have been modified considerably in recent years. But, there are remaining traits of cultural and national essentialism which many of the so-called Japanologists in Japan, the USA and elsewhere have unwittingly inherited from the Area Studies of the Cold War period.

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

57

The study of translation as a heterolingual address should also be seen as one of the ways in which to engage ourselves in the transformation and revitalization of Area Studies, for this reason.

Notes (1)

The English term ‘nationality’ was translated into ‘kokutai’ by Fukuzawa Yukichi. By ‘kokutai’, Fukuzawa meant ‘a portion of mankind’ that ‘are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others – which make them co-operate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively. This feeling of nationality may have been generated by various causes. Sometimes it is the effect of identity of race and descent. Community of language, and community of religion, greatly contribute to it. Geographical limits are one of its causes. But the strongest of all is identity of political antecedents; the possession of a national history, and consequent community of recollections; collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in the past’ (Mill, 1972: 391). In his Outline of the Theory of Civilization, Fukuzawa includes the above almost verbatim in his exposition of ‘kokutai’. (2) See, note 1 above. (3) cf. VP Chapters 7 and 8. (4) A typical trans-historical cultural essentialism can be found in Pollack (1985). Refer to my critique of Pollack in Sakai (1988). (「近代の批判：中絶した投企」in『現代思 想』vol. 15, no. 15 December 1987.) (5) For a more detailed account of the system of internationality, see Solomon and Sakai (2006). (6) This assessment was widely accepted until the 1990s. Again, Pollack (1985) is exemplary. (7) It is imperative to note that the language in the sense of a general abstraction of particular ethnic or national languages was also a historical construct. (8) This phrase with an apparent resonance with modern mathematics is from Nishida Kitarô (1870–1945). In conceptualizing social praxis and self-awareness (jikaku), Nishida appealed to the mathematical formulation of discontinuity. Following the tradition of modern philosophy since Leibniz and Kant, he conceived of the formation of the practical subject after the model of differential calculus but at the singular point of discontinuity. Therefore, for Nishida, as his later formulation clearly shows, the constitution of the subject in ethical action is also the making of the social formation. Hirenzoku no renzoku (or continuity of discontinuity) thus suggests the possibility of conceptualizing the constitution of the subject at the site of the incommensurate in the social (cf. Nishida, 1965a, 1965b). (9) The split cannot be contained only in the cases of translation. For, as Briankle Chang suggests, the putative unities of the addresser and the addressee can hardly be sustained because the addresser himself or herself is split and multiplies as is figuratively illustrated by the Plato–Socrates doublet in Derrida’s (1987) ‘Envoi’ in The Post Card. With regard to communication in general, Chang (1996: 216) argues, ‘Because both delivery and signing are haunted by the same structural threat of the message’s nonarrival or adestination, the paradox of the signature also invades

58

(10)

(11)

(12) (13)

Part 1: Theoretical Framework

communication. Communication occurs only insofar as the delivery of the message may fail; that is, communication takes place only to the extent that there is a separation between the sender and receiver, and this separation, this distance, this spacing, creates the possibility for the message not to arrive’. Putting forth a different conception of continuity in discontinuity, Tanabe Hajime, who like his mentor Nishida based his argument on insights from modern mathematics, insisted that social formation in general is infinitely discontinuous and that a society cannot be conceived of as a homogeneous and harmonious unity. Quite the reverse, a society always contains an infinite number of societies, and every society consists of discontinuities and conflicts. What unites a society into one is not naturally given. Even an ethnic society, he argued, is not a given unity. Whether racial, ethnic or national, no identity is naturally given and every identity has to be socially constructed through the dialectic process of negativity (Tanabe, 1963a, 1963b). It is important to keep in mind that Nishida and Tanabe both offered philosophical formulae by which to undermine the validity of ethnic nationalism and to legitimate the unity of the Japanese Empire against the implicit threat of anti-colonial ethnic separatism. I am most critical of the philosophical discourses of Nishida Kitarô and Tanabe Hajime, two champions of what is usually referred to as the Kyoto School of Philosophy. But my critique of their philosophical formation is not premised upon an assumption that their philosophy was primarily concerned with the justification of Japanese ethnic and cultural nationalism. On the contrary, I characterize theirs primarily as a universalistic philosophy of imperial nationalism, and only secondarily as an ethnic nationalism in the sense that every universalism which does not denounce imperialism is inherently ethnocentric. For example, Quine’s (1960) hypothesis of the radical translation, from which all the help of the interpreter is excluded, suffers from this type of retrospectivism. If there is no help from the interpreter, is it possible to recognize ‘a language of a hitherto untouched people’?. For a more detailed discussion about the ‘feeling’ and difference, see Chapter 4, note 7. Also see Deleuze (1994) for the poetic aspect of ‘feeling’. See Sakai (1991), Chapter 7.

References Berman, A. (1984) L’Épreuve de l‘étranger: Culture et traduction dans l’Allemagne romantique. Paris: Gallimard (The Experience of the Foreign: Culture and Translation in Romantic Germany [S. Heyvaert, trans.]. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992). Chang, B.G. (1996) Deconstructing Communication. Minneapolis, MA: University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, G. (1994) Difference and Repetition (P. Patton, trans.). New York: Columbia University Press. Derrida, J. (1987) To Speculate—on ‘Freud’. In The Post Card (pp. 1–256) (A. Bass, trans). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000) Empire. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.

Language as a Countable and the Regime of Translation

59

Kant, I. (1929) Critique of Pure Reason (N. Kemp Smith, trans.). New York: St. Martin’s Press. Nishida K. (1965a) Genjitu no sekai no ronri-teki kôzô (The logical structure of the real world (1934)). In Nishida Kitarô Zenshû, vol. 7 (pp. 217–304). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Nishida K. (1965b) Sekai no jiko dôitsu to renzoku (The self-identity of the World and continuity (1935)). In Nishida Kitarô Zenshû, vol. 8 (pp. 7–106). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Mill, J.S. (1972) Utilitarianism, on Liberty, Considerations on Representative Government. London and Rutland: Everyman’s Library (original work published 1861). Pollack, D. (1985) The Fracture of Meaning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Quine, W.V.O. (1960) Translation and meaning. In Word and Object (pp. 26–80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sakai, N. (1988) Modernity and its critique. South Atlantic Quarterly 87 (3), 475–504. Sakai, N. (1991) Voices of the Past: The Status of Language in 18th-century Japanese Discourse. New York and Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Solomon, J. and Sakai, N. (2006) Introduction: Addressing the multitude of foreigners, echoing Foucault. In J. Solomon and N. Sakai (eds) Traces – Translation, Biopolitics, Colonial Difference (pp. 1–35). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Tanabe H. (1963a) Shakai sonzai no ronri (The logic of social beings). In Tanabe Hajime Zenshû, vol. 6 (pp. 51–168). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo Tanabe H. (1963b) Shu no ronri to sekai zushiki (The logic of the species and the schema ‘World’). In Tanabe Hajime Zenshû, vol. 6 (pp. 299–397). Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo.

Part 2

Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

3 On the Necessity of ‘Being Understood’: Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan Neriko Musha Doerr

Introduction The 1993 report by Japan’s 19th Kokugo1 Council (kokugo shingikai), entitled ‘On Issues Concerning Current Kokugo’, states: Currently, the ‘common language’ [kyôtsûgo; similar to the standard language of Japanese2] is widely understood in society in general. Dialects help transmit the regional culture and support rich social relations in the region. Therefore, nurturing the rich expressions passed on in the daily life of the region also leads to the revitalization of regional language culture. It is desirable to respect dialects along with the common language. This was the first Kokugo Council report to suggest that dialects be respected (Yasuda, 1999). The report the 20th Kokugo Council put together two years later, ‘On Kokugo Policies in Response to the New Era’, also calls for respecting dialects. Nonetheless, it also states: ‘The basis of nationwide communication is our common language. The common language is widespread in the nation due to the [nationally standardized] education system and national television broadcasting. It is desirable that both [common language and dialects] coexist, constituting a division of labor’ (Yasuda, 1999). This reflects the curriculum shift of the late 1980s toward students learning to use both the dialect of their region and the common language as appropriate depending on the context (Carroll, 2001). 63

64

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

This chapter takes up this turn toward the ‘rejuvenation of dialects’ with a focus on the discourse about respecting the common language for nationwide communication while also respecting dialects. Why is it that every Japanese has to ‘communicate nationally’? Or, more importantly, what kinds of institutions and practices does such a discourse on the need for nationwide communication promote? Until the end of the Edo era in the late 19th century, people from different regions and classes could not understand each other’s speech (Yasuda, 2003). With the subsequent formation of the modern nation state of Japan, there emerged a discourse contending that ‘all Japanese people should be able to understand each other’s utterances’. The framework of the nation state assumes that Japanese people constitute a single entity and that the Japanese language is one unit of language, and thus all Japanese speakers should be able to communicate with each other perfectly. Various researchers have recently discussed this relationship between the birth of a modern nation state and the standardization of the Japanese language (Lee, 1996; Mashiko, 2000; Sakai, 1996; Yasuda, 1999, 2003). However, little discussion has addressed the claim that all Japanese should be able to communicate with each other. This chapter views the notion of ‘a need for communicability’ (and the related notion of ‘a need for intelligibility’) as a language ideology and discusses the processes that reproduce power relations when speakers of dialects are silenced by the imposition of ‘common’ and ‘standard’ languages based on the claim ‘otherwise we cannot communicate with each other’. I discuss ways to challenge this situation by drawing on existing debates about the standardization of English. This is part of my wider work on language and power through ethnographic and discourse analyses. As a cultural anthropologist, most of my work derives from ethnographic data. Therefore, the discourse analysis of this chapter can be positioned as a foundation for an ethnographic analysis not only for my own work on language and power (Doerr, 2009; Doerr & Lee, 2013) but also for other chapters in this book. This chapter thus relies on secondary sources. Not only because this chapter is not based on ethnographic data but also because I was born and raised in Tokyo where the standard language prevails, the analyses of the complexity of the daily use of several linguistic varieties remain at the level of discourse. In the following sections, I review theories on ideologies of standardization, the history of the Japanese language since the dawn of the modern era and debates on intelligibility in English. I then suggest three ways to stop the reproduction of power relations mentioned above.

Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan

65

Language Ideologies and Standardization Language standardization is closely linked to language ideologies. Language ideologies connect linguistic activities to the identity, aesthetics, morals and characteristics of individuals and social groups (Woolard, 1998) and are key to understanding the relationship between linguistic activities and political and economic issues. According to Kroskrity, language ideologies represent perceptions of language that are constructed in the interest of specific groups. These ideologies are multiple because of the multiplicity of meaningful alignments (e.g. class, gender and generation) within sociocultural groups. Individuals display varying degrees of awareness of local language ideologies, and their own language ideologies mediate between social structures and forms of speech (Kroskrity, 2000; also see Woolard, 1998). Irvine and Gal (2000) have identified three ways of constructing ideological representations of linguistic differences between groups of people: iconization, which involves indexing certain groups within a society or activities as iconic representations of the whole society; erasure, through which persons or activities that are inconsistent with the ideological scheme are rendered invisible by causing them to go unnoticed, transforming them to match the scheme and/or explaining them away; and fractal recursivity, which is the projection of an opposition that is salient at some level of a relationship onto some other level. In these ways, language ideologies make the representation of language differences appear natural, universal, objective, neutral and nonpolitical (Woolard, 1998). One example of a language ideology is the framework that views a linguistic variety as either a ‘language’ or a ‘dialect’ – at first blush perhaps a seemingly innocuous distinction. Yet, it is not linguistic but political concerns that determine what is a ‘language’ and what is a ‘dialect’. That is, the linguistic variety of the politically successful group becomes the ‘language’, while that of the politically unsuccessful group becomes the ‘dialect’. In many societies, a politically powerful group imposes its ‘language’ on the politically weak speakers of a ‘dialect’. Such an imposition – justified by the ideology that the ‘dialect’ is inferior to the ‘language’ – is itself the standardization process (Bourdieu, 1991; Milroy & Milroy, 1991; Phillipson, 1992; Tanaka, 1981). Similarly, in the case of Japanese, the reason why the linguistic variety used by Tokyo’s educated class became the standard language and the basis of kokugo was not linguistic but political – Tokyo is the center of politics and the economy in Japan. This fact, which was acknowledged when the Tokyo variety was chosen as standard Japanese, was nonetheless masked soon afterward by various language ideologies that justified the choice in other terms (Lee, 1996). Behind this language

66

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

standardization lies an ideology that renders Japan, Japanese people and the Japanese language as distinct, bounded units. Widespread in the modern nation state of Japan since the Meiji era, this ideology has recently been deconstructed (Mashiko, 2003; Morris-Suzuki, 1998; Sakai, 1996; Sakai et al., 2005). In this chapter, I focus on the little-discussed ideology that claims ‘everyone in the nation should be able to communicate with each other’, which is one of the language ideologies that support the ideology of the unity of a nation. In other words, this chapter does not aim to judge and measure ‘objectively’ whether an utterance is communicable. Rather, it examines the processes by which the judgment of ‘intelligibility’ or ‘unintelligibility’ (regardless of whether the utterance is actually intelligible) is used as an ideology and looks at this judgment’s effects. In this sense, ‘intelligible’ and ‘unintelligible’ need to be written with quotation marks, but in the interest of readability I will forgo the quotation marks hereafter. In the same vein, terms such as Japan, Japanese people, the Japanese language, language, dialect, common language, standard language, kokugo and native speaker – which also warrant quotation marks because they are notions constructed via ideologies of modern nation-state building and maintenance – will appear without quotation marks in this chapter. Until recently, few sociolinguistic studies shed any light on the relationships among language, ideology, nation-state formations, politics and the oppressive structure in language policies vis-à-vis minority groups, colonized peoples and dialect speakers in Japan. Scholarship on the cultural invasion of the colonies, Okinawa and Ainu under Japan’s imperialism has begun to emerge (Mashiko, 2003, 2010; Morris-Suzuki, 1998; Weiner, 1997), but little research has looked into the issue of the cultural invasion of people in mainland Japan who are not minority groups (the exception is Yasuda, 1999, 2003; also see Chapters 4 and 5 of this book). By focusing on the linguistic invasion on non-minority groups, for instance people residing outside the Tokyo region who are often considered mainstream Japanese but speak dialects, this chapter aims to begin to fill the gap. The next section will review the historical spread of notions such as the Japanese language, kokugo, common language, standard language and dialect, as well as the relationships among them, in light of the ideology that treats the Japanese language as a bounded unit and the ideology that claims ‘language needs to be intelligible nationwide’.

Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan

67

Spread of the Notions of Japanese Language, Kokugo, Common Language, Standard Language and Dialect The notion of dialect was constructed in the process of creating a standard Japanese language and kokugo as part of nation building. For this reason, the questioning of the notion of the nation state of Japan coincided in time with the popularization of research on dialects in Japan (Yasuda, 1999, 2003). In this section, I will trace such shifts in linguistic situations in Japan in stages marked by shifts in the imaginings of Japan as a nation state. Sakai (1996) argues that the notion of the Japanese language that became the basis of Meiji nation building was stillborn; that is, it had to be born as something that was already lost. The unity of the Japanese language did not emerge as a result of the establishment of standard Japanese, but rather was imagined as something that had already come and gone (i.e. something we cannot experience in daily life) in antiquity: a homogeneous language and community in which everyone was able to communicate with each other. Therefore, people in Japan had to learn this unitary Japanese as a process of revitalizing the lost original, as though learning a foreign language (Sakai, 1996). This is still evident in the peculiar situation in which schools teach Manyô-shu, a compilation of poetry from the late 7th to 8th century Japan, as something that was ‘written by Japanese in the Japanese language’: the poetry is incomprehensible to most current-day Japanese, not only because it is old but also because immigrants at that time may have used several linguistic varieties to write it (Mashiko, 2003). Here, Japanese people and the Japanese language in antiquity are imagined as coinciding bounded units so that they match the political borderline of the modern nation state of Japan. Actual movements for establishing a standard Japanese came in waves, reflecting the political and sociocultural landscape of the time. In the 1870s, the genbun itch (‘oral and written language as one’) movement impelled the debates on standardizing language. As a challenge to Sino-Japanese (Chinese language as used in Japan), which up to that point had been used as the prevailing literary form in Japan, the genbun itch movement promoted the use of the vernacular in writing. Given the diversity of linguistic varieties spoken throughout Japan, the question of which variety should become ‘the vernacular’ gained currency, setting the stage for a debate over which linguistic varieties should be considered standard. By the turn of the century, the development of national systems of education, law, telecommunications and military laid the foundation for the acknowledgment of the Japanese language as a bounded unit. Also by this time, the first Sino-Japanese War had created Japanese nationalism in

68

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

opposition to China and the Japanese Empire was beginning to emerge, stoking desires for a language befitting ‘Japan, the big country’. This was the context in which kokugo came to be established. Yasuda (2003: 22–24) defines kokugo as ‘one of the institutions used to create and unify a nation in modern nation-states… The language chosen to be kokugo tends to be the variety that symbolizes the unity of the nation or the position of the nation within the international order of nation states’ (translated from Japanese by the author). Kazutoshi Ueda, who was closely linked to the Ministry of Education, called Japan ‘one state, one nation, one language’ because he felt such a view was more conducive to modernizing Japan (Yasuda, 2003). This standpoint heralded the ideologies that Japan is a bounded unit and that each utterance of every member of the nation should be intelligible to the other members. For Ueda, kokugo was not about the actual linguistic interactions among people in Japan, but about the ideal language model. He modeled the relationship between Sino-Japanese and kokugo after the relationship between Latin and modern European languages, and called for kokugo-gaku (study of kokugo) in order to produce such a relationship (Lee, 1996). In 1900, a change in the Elementary School Order (shôgakkôrei) established a school subject, kokugo-ka, thus laying out an institutional basis for making kokugo the valued norm for everyone in the nation. Because Tokyo is the capital of Japan and the center of its politics, economy and transportation, the linguistic variety used by educated people in Tokyo was proclaimed the standard Japanese in 1902 and thereafter made up the content to be taught in kokugo classes (Lee, 1996; Yasuda, 1999, 2003). The Japanese government also involved itself in the issue of language through the Kokugo Investigative Committee (kokugo chôsa iinkai) and a national survey of dialects. Two images of dialect coexisted at the time. One saw dialect as a static impediment – ‘undeveloped’ and an ‘obstacle to intelligibility’ – to the creation of the homogeneous space of a modern nation state. The other viewed it as harking back to the origins of the Japanese language, as shown in the discourse ‘old Japanese remains in dialects’. Reflecting these dual views, the discussion of dialect proceeded in terms of elimination and inclusion, respectively (Yasuda, 1999). On the one hand, two reasons compelled the elimination of dialects. First, as the development of a national education system and a nationwide transportation network allowed unprecedented levels of interaction among people from various regions, failure to communicate became problematized via the ideology that ‘everyone in the nation needs to be able to communicate with each other’. Second, the belief spread that ‘national spirit’ resided in kokugo, which actively devalued dialects. What is important here is that the ideology of the functionality of

Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan

69

‘communicability’ was reinforced by another ideology that assigned moral value to kokugo. On the other hand, dialects came to be viewed in hierarchical relation to kokugo and, by the 1930s, had been collected, researched and systematized to be contained as part of kokugo—inclusion of dialects. For example, the ‘hôgenshuuken ron’ (dialects-in-periphery theory) of Kunio Yanagita, published around this time, offered a diagram that reorganized the diverse universe of linguistic varieties by setting up the linguistic variety of Kyoto (the old capital of Japan) as ‘the center’ and rendering everything else as ‘periphery’. Meanwhile, Isao Tojo’s ‘hôgen-kukaku ron’ (dialects-section theory) proposed that dialects be understood as a part of the whole of the Japanese language. This led to the view that speakers of dialects could be ‘corrected’ so as to become speakers of standard Japanese because both variants were part of the same language (Yasuda, 2003). This relationship of containment between kokugo and dialects was replicated in the hierarchical relations between Japan and its colonies. For example, spoken kokugo that was influenced by the non-Japanese language in Japan’s colonies came to be called dialect (e.g. ‘Taiwan dialect’ and ‘Korean dialect’) in order to establish a relationship to the Japanese language spoken in Japan proper. Similarly, in Korea under Japanese colonialism, some sought to justify the imposition of the Japanese language on Koreans by pointing out how the relationship between the standard and its dialects resembled that between kokugo/Japanese and Korean (Lee, 1996; Yasuda, 1999). As the Japanese Empire expanded, a different viewpoint came to dominate discussions of standard Japanese. The need to teach a single model of Japanese to people in Japan’s colonies led to demands for a standard form of Japanese, yet with two different understandings. Under Japan’s colonialism, kokugo was imposed in Taiwan and Korea as a way to nationalize them, which necessitated a single standard as the content to be taught. But in other colonies of Japan after 1937, the issue of what was standard came to be approached from the debate regarding what kind of language Japanese should be as ‘the common language of East Asia’ in the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. With the rise of nationalist movements in South East Asia, it became important to show consideration for these nationalist movements and support the retention of local languages when governing the area. Thus, in these colonies, Japanese was imposed not as their kokugo (national language) but as a foreign language coexisting (yet hierarchized) with their local language of the colonized. Here, Japanese was considered ‘the common local language of East Asia’, not kokugo tied to a particular nation state. This allowed the argument that Japanese was a universal language (like ‘civilization’ that can be spread to various parts

70

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

of the world) that could be accepted by other communities outside Japan (Lee, 1996; Yasuda, 2003). The latter argument shows that, in theory, kokugo as a homogeneous language can exist without eliminating dialects. However, within Japan, the imposition of kokugo went hand in hand with efforts to eliminate dialects, which resulted in the devaluation of dialects at school and an ingrained inferiority complex in speakers of dialects (Lee, 1996; Mashiko, 2003; Sanada, 2001). One effort to resist this situation was the call for ‘double language life’ and ‘double-tongue-ism’, which encouraged the use of dialects in the private sphere and the use of the standard in the public sphere; however, this proposal never became a dominant force (Lee, 1996; Yasuda, 1999, 2003). Overall, the language politics in Japan’s Empire sharpened the notion of standard Japanese that was originally born in the process of building the nation of Japan proper (Yasuda, 1999, 2003). After WWII, the slogan in the ‘new’ nation state of Japan without colonies was ‘democratization’. However, speaking one’s own dialect was not regarded as part of ‘democratization’; rather, standard Japanese was held to be the only linguistic variety that could support the democracy of the new nation state (similar to the way kokugo was considered the sole linguistic residence of ‘national spirit’ before the war), which perpetuated the hierarchy between the standard and dialects (Yasuda, 1999). Nonetheless, following a survey by the National Kokugo Research Laboratory that examined ‘language life’ in various parts of Japan, the notion of kyôtsuugo (common language), with its less explicit normatization impulse, began to spread. Some view the notion of common language as less normative than that of the standard (hyôjungo). However, the determinant of common language – regardless of whether it ‘is understood anywhere in Japan’ – is whether or not the speakers of the Tokyo variety, that is, the standard, can understand it. Therefore, it cannot escape from the normative aspect. In this sense, the term ‘common’ masks the power relations in which the Tokyo variety dominates. Still, there are other views of what the common language is. Some regard the language used ‘in order to communicate anywhere in Japan’ as the common language, whereas the language ‘that is understood anywhere in Japan’ is the standard language. Also, since the standard has spread through national radio and television broadcasting, linguistic activities have emerged that share vocabulary and grammar with the standard but are spoken with non-standard accents. Some call these varieties the common language (Yasuda, 1999, 2003). In the 1980s, with the appearance of catchphrases such as ‘discover Japan’ and ‘revitalization of rural area’ in the midst of globalization, a discourse of ‘revitalization of dialects’ gathered impetus. Yasuda (1999) views this

Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan

71

movement as an effort to revitalize dialects inspired by the fact that the Japanese language had become somewhat homogenized. According to Yasuda, confidence that revitalization of dialects was a cultural movement, not a political one, lent support to the trend. In the 1990s, dialects came to be discussed in the context of moving toward a multilingual society. The proposal to ‘respect dialects’ in the 1995 report of the 20th Kokugo Council, mentioned earlier, is one such example. Yasuda (1999), however, does not view this as an important shift because the report still holds that ‘the basis of communication at the national level is common language’. That is, the ideology that all members of the nation need to be able to communicate with each other has not changed. It is noteworthy that multilingualism in Japan came to be acknowledged primarily because of an increase in foreigners, while multilingualism in Japan’s history, as in the case of ‘double language life’ mentioned earlier or the language of the resident Koreans, was merely tacked on as an afterthought (Yasuda, 1999). Dialects have been targeted for elimination and containment and in the process have supported kokugo as a bounded unit. Moreover, with the spread of television and the shift in the frame of reference, most people in Japan came to speak linguistic varieties that are close to the standard, which spawned new concepts of linguistic variation. For example, Inoue (1998) discusses ‘new dialects’ used increasingly by younger generations, which are not rooted in the local tradition, culture and life or in the common language. Sanada (2001) calls current dialects that are influenced by the common language ‘neo dialects’, differentiating them from ‘traditional dialects’ and maintaining that the difference between dialects and the common language is no longer a difference in linguistic system but rather one of style. Each variant is a code that can be used differently depending on the context (e.g. the common language for the public domain and the dialect for the private domain). However, the notion of ‘new’ and ‘neo’ indicates the existence of static ‘traditional dialects’ against which they are defined. This overlooks the fact that dialects themselves are always changing, influenced by dialects from other areas and class-specific linguistic variations.3 Mashiko (2003) proposes the notion of regional common language groups, which are a region-based approximation of the standard language. With the development of national schooling and media, the common language spread at the level of ‘listening comprehension’. Yet, Japanese has never been a homogeneous unit of the ‘nationally common language’. Nonetheless, one current discourse contends that because the common language has spread throughout Japan, the Japanese language is (at least now) a bounded unit. Despite recent efforts to deconstruct the notion of

72

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

unitary Japan, the ideology in which Japan, the Japanese language and Japanese people are bounded units prevails from mass media to school textbooks (Mashiko, 2003). To treat the current bilingualism that embraces both the common language and dialects as proof that the Japanese language is always already a bounded unit is to mask the history of the imposition of standard Japanese throughout Japan via education, of the modern nationstate’s ideological positioning of dialects as inferior versions of the standard and of the violence of imposing one group’s norm on the rest of the groups in the country (Mashiko, 2003). Meanwhile, in the above context, the ideology of ‘the need for communicability within the nation’ has taken various forms other than ‘the need for communication’. For example, when ‘communicability’ is considered ‘correct’, it leads to the sentiment of ‘yearning’ for the standard (Yasuda, 2003). Yasuda (2003) likens the attraction of the term ‘international’ luring people to learn English as a necessary tool for ‘international communication’ to the attraction of learning and using standard Japanese for ‘national communication’. In other words, the violence in the imposition of the standard is internalized in the form of ‘yearning’. However, the ideology of ‘the need for communicability’ underlying the standard–dialect relations in Japan has received little attention in Japanese sociolinguistics, except for Yasuda (2003) (also, Chapter 5 in this book are such exceptions). In the next section, I will review recent discussions on ‘intelligibility’ in English and discuss its relevance in thinking about the case of Japanese, as communicability is almost synonymous with intelligibility in such a discourse.

On ‘Intelligibility’: From the Debate on English Standardization of English has been discussed at the national level in ‘anglophone’ countries (Crowley, 1989; hooks, 1992; Labov, 1972; LippiGreen, 1997; Milroy & Milroy, 1991) as well as at the global level as it becomes ‘the global language’ (Canagarajah, 2002; Kachru, 1984, 1991, 1992a, 1992b, 1997; Pennycook, 1994; Philipson, 1992; Quirk, 1985, 1988). The variety spoken in British public schools and the variety spoken by the white middle class in the US Midwest are considered the ‘standard’; the varieties influenced by non-English or spoken by non-white ethnic groups (e.g. Ebonics) or lower-class people (e.g. Cockney) are often considered ‘nonstandard’ (Kachru, 1992a). Researchers who justify the standardization process include Randolph Quirk, who argues that British English4 should be the standard imposed on those who speak English as a foreign language around the world (Quirk, 1985, 1988). Against such an argument, other researchers study what intelligibility actually means, as we see below.

Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan

73

Smith (1982) suggests that the judgment of whether or not an utterance is intelligible needs to be seen as a continuum. The continuum consists of (1) intelligibility, regarding whether or not one can recognize words and utterances; (2) comprehensibility, that one can comprehend the meaning of the words and utterances; and (3) interpretability, that one can understand the meanings behind the words and utterances. Smith argues that in communication, the most important element of the three is interpretability. Nelson argues that judgment regarding whether or not one can communicate is not an ‘objective’ practice decided in light of the normative grammar in the same way at all times; rather, the judgment changes depending on the wider context and the genre of linguistic activities. For example, despite the fact that British English and American English differ in vocabulary, accent, pronunciation and spelling, both are considered correct in both countries. That is, British English is considered correct in the USA not for linguistic reasons but because of the sociocultural position of British English (i.e. British English is treated as a ‘language’ with the support of a nation state and the existence of the British English lexicon and grammar). Therefore, although British English does not follow the normative grammar of American English, British English is considered ‘correct’ in the USA. Another example is that of written language: the judgment of whether a sentence has a ‘mistake’ in it depends on the recognition of what genre the sentence is written in. For example, a ‘grammatically wrong’ sentence can lower the grade of a student’s composition, but the same sentence can be evaluated as ‘creative’ when it is read in a poem (Nelson, 1992). In speech, a sentence spoken by a user of English as a second language that strays from the normative grammar can be understood perfectly if the listener receives the sentence with the expectation that the user’s first language may have influenced the sentence (e.g. lacking articles). Also, the speaker of English as a second language from the same first language background may find each other communicable in English and find a sense of solidarity, while judge each other as not so competent in English (McKenzie, 2008). From another angle, English influenced by the speaker’s first language can be considered Indian English or Japanese English, just as there are British English and American English. As I discuss later, there is a call for such recognition (Kachru, 1992a). Rubin (1992) argues that judgment about whether or not something is communicable is often influenced by non-linguistic factors. Rubin conducted a study on how American students decide that an utterance has an ‘accent’ and thus it is difficult to understand, while another utterance is free of ‘accent’. In that research, a recording that was not accompanied by the face

74

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

of the person speaking was considered free of accent and communicable. However, the same recording was considered to have an ‘accent’ and be difficult to understand when it was accompanied by a picture of the face of a non-white person. That is, the judgment on whether an utterance was spoken with an ‘accent’ and whether it was intelligible was a matter not just of how it sounded (linguistic) but also of the appearance (race) of the person making the utterance. In thinking about intelligibility, therefore, it matters who is judging and in what ways. It is often believed that ‘native speakers’ are the best judges of utterances by speakers of English as a foreign or second language. However, the concept of native speaker is itself constructed upon ideologies stipulating that there is a homogeneous, linguistic community and that one masters one’s mother tongue perfectly (Doerr, 2009b; Firth & Wagner, 2007a; Pennycook, 1994; Philipson, 1992). Also, Smith’s research on intelligibility concludes that native speakers are not necessarily the best at understanding various varieties of English (nor are they the most easily understood by speakers of various varieties of English). Instead, the key to understanding diverse varieties of English is familiarity with many varieties of English (Smith, 1982). Also, in the study of English as a lingua franca – a communication tool between two people for whom English is a second language – researchers argue that the grammatical items and pronunciations necessary for mutual understanding are not necessarily those of standard English (Jenkins, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2001). Nonetheless, people who are considered native speakers continue to judge what is intelligible and what is not (Firth & Wagner, 2007b). Within anglophone countries, speakers of standard English decide what is intelligible; speakers of non-standard English may lose their jobs because they do not speak the standard (Lippi-Green, 1997) or they may be silenced by shame (Santa Ana, 2004). Bell hooks argues that this situation derives from the attitude that ‘what is worth listening to is the utterance of those who speak standard English’. She considers it a manifestation of imperialism in which standard English is used as a weapon to silence speakers of nonstandard English (hooks, 1992). The structure in which the speaker of the standard judges what is intelligible reflects the social, economic and cultural hierarchy between that group and other groups. Nowadays, sociolinguists tend to view the position of a non-standard variety as dependent on the social, economic and cultural relationships between the standard and non-standard speaker communities: it is a matter of who is put in the position of deciding whether the utterance is intelligible. Rendering unintelligibility as a problem therefore becomes a project of assimilating speakers of non-standard English or of differentiating and

Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan

75

creating a hierarchy by pointing out inconsequential differences in accent, even if the non-standard English speakers are assimilated enough to speak the standard English fluently (Bourdieu, 1991; Crowley, 1989; Lippi-Green, 1997; Milroy & Milroy, 1991). Linguistic notions such as the distinction between ‘language’ and ‘dialect’ and the notion of ‘interlanguage’, even the notion of ‘language’ itself, make linguistics complicit in the differentiation and hierarchization of language varieties, as they create an impression that these concepts are supported by research (Bhatt, 2001; Firth & Wagner, 2007a; Jenkins, 2006; Pennycook 2010; Romaine, 1997). This chapter looks at the case of Japan in a similar light, with consideration of the political, economic and sociocultural power relations between groups. For example, in a communication breakdown between a speaker from Tokyo who speaks only the standard variety and a speaker from Niigata region who speaks the Niigata variety, which is quite different from the standard, the speaker from Niigata is held to be at fault (Mashiko, 2003). Historically, the solution to such a situation has been for speakers from Niigata to learn the standard in the name of communicability, given that their utterances are ‘unintelligible’ to people in Tokyo (Lee, 1996; Mashiko, 2003; Yasuda, 1999, 2003). I would ask why each speaker does not learn the variety of the other so that they can communicate. Instead, the question commonly posed is whether the speaker from Tokyo finds the utterance intelligible. This suggests a structure in which speakers from Tokyo impose their knowledge (standard Japanese, i.e. the Tokyo variety) on others by publicly acknowledging their own ignorance of the Niigata variety. The linguistic ideology of ‘a need for communicability’ skirts consideration of the socioeconomic reasons underlying the choice of the Tokyo variety as the standard and instead implies ‘a need for intelligibility’ (to Tokyoites), which is then presented as neutral and justifies the imposition of the standard. This process of standardization is traceable also in the educational arena. Researchers studying education have asked what kind of knowledge do schools seek in students and how that knowledge links to the socioeconomic structure of the given society (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Oakes, 1985; Olneck, 2000; Varenne & McDermott, 1999). Regardless of what is considered desired ‘knowledge’, having it is a prerequisite to holding authority; ‘ignorance’ of it is rated negatively in the domain of education (Willis, 1977). By contrast, the ideology of ‘a need for intelligibility’ allows people in a position of power to remain ‘ignorant’ of the knowledge valued by marginalized groups: dominant group members do not need to know the ‘common sense’ of the marginalized groups, whereas marginalized group members need to know the ‘common sense’ of the dominant groups in order to survive. The ignorance of the powerful becomes the rationale

76

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

for suggesting that marginalized groups should relinquish their right to use their language, as for instance when the use of a marginalized language is discouraged because not everyone (dominant group members) can understand it (Doerr, 2009a). This situation has been little discussed in the study of education, as I have argued elsewhere (see Doerr, 2009a, 2009b); this chapter has meanwhile focused on linguistic ideology and the reproduction of power relations.

Departure To recap, the discourses of ‘a need for communicability’ and ‘a need for intelligibility’ are ideologies that justify the imposition of a standard language upon speakers of dialects. What, then, can be done to challenge such ideologies? In this section, I will introduce three ideas drawn from studies of both English and Japanese languages. The first suggestion is to acknowledge that an utterance need not be intelligible to everyone who speaks the language, as long as it is intelligible to the people with whom the speaker wishes to communicate (Jenkins, 2006; Phillipson, 1992; Seidlhofer, 2001; Smith, 1992). For example, in India, where English is one of the official languages, what matters is whether an Indian can communicate with another Indian – not whether the utterances are intelligible to speakers of standard English in the UK or the USA or anywhere else in the world (Kachru, 1992a). This led to the call for the notion of plural ‘World Englishes’ in order to make the point that there is more than one English standard and that World Englishes should have their own grammars and be acknowledged as legitimate languages (Kachru, 1984, 1992a, 1992b). This suggestion relates to the argument that the English used as a lingua franca among speakers of English as a foreign language does not take any standard English as its frame of reference (Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2001). These views acknowledge the political hierarchy behind the designation of the standard and dialects. In the case of Japan, Yasuda (1999) similarly suggests turning dialect revitalization movements into political movements, recording phonemic systems and publishing grammars and lexica. However, such measures risk rendering the linguistic variety homogeneous within and also risk its standardization as it is promoted to ‘language’ status (as in the case of standardization within Indian English; see Kachru, 1992b). These suggestions, then, do not present a way to equalize the power relations that govern standardization processes (Canagarajah, 1999; Yasuda, 1999). However, the understanding that dialects are not imperfect versions of the

Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan

77

standard is worth promoting and can be developed into a conception of dialects and standard language as parts of a language continuum. The second idea is to educate those who know only the standard language. They can learn (1) the non-standard varieties of minority groups, (2) the reasons why and processes by which a certain linguistic variety became the standard and other varieties became non-standard and (3) the link between those processes and the relationships between various linguistic communities. Such an approach aims to nurture critical language awareness in the standard language speakers (Fairclough, 1995). Kubota (2001) reports on an attempt to provide such an education to standard English-speaking high school students in the USA. The students were made aware that there are many varieties of English, that one’s first language influences the way one speaks a second language and that it is difficult to master pronunciations after a certain age (i.e. the ‘accented’ pronunciation of adult speakers of English as a second language does not reflect unwillingness or lack of effort to learn the ‘correct’ pronunciation). As a result, these students learned to communicate better with speakers of non-standard English. They were also encouraged to think critically about the spread of English around the world. Such an educative attempt to increase the kinds of knowledge that are considered important can be made in Japan. As Smith suggests, the more exposure that people have to diverse varieties of Japanese, the more the intelligibility of dialects will increase. Also, following Nelson, instead of focusing on ‘correctness’ in light of the normative grammar, we can focus on the interpretation of meaning. The third idea is to create an environment where it is safe to say, ‘It’s okay not to understand everything others say’. Yasuda (2003: 16) argues that ‘we should aim at a society in which we don’t have to be afraid, even if we can’t understand each other’s language perfectly, or even if we can’t understand each other’s language at all’. Behind our concern over ‘intelligibility’ lies the uncertainty and mistrust that have developed between groups over the course of history. During the time of slavery in the USA, for example, it was feared that slaves would plan a rebellion, so slaves from Africa who spoke the same language were not put in the same place together. In this way, slaves were forced to speak English among themselves, and their masters could understand what they were saying (hooks, 1992).5 This reflects a structure wherein a dominant group that violently oppresses other groups fears, based on its guilt about oppressing others, that the dominated groups ‘must be trying to rebel against the oppression’. Thus, the dominator develops distrust of the dominated groups and wishes to maintain the status quo. Such fears are multiplied when the dominant group does not understand the language of the dominated (see Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1997).

78

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

It follows that, in order to have a society where one can comfortably say, ‘It’s okay not to be able to communicate perfectly’, we need a social structure that is free of oppression. In Japan, relations between speakers of the standard and speakers of dialects do not involve the kind of violence inherent in slavery (although the standardization process in Japan was accompanied by some violence at times). Therefore, the ideology that supports the hierarchy of linguistic varieties is not based on fear but on ‘the need for communicability/intelligibility’, which is linked more to the notion of the unity of the modern nation state (Mashiko, 2003). Nonetheless, in order to avoid buying into the language ideology of ‘the need for communicability/ intelligibility’ that imposes the standard on everyone, one can (1) accept that the nation is not homogeneous and that its members need not understand one another’s utterances perfectly and (2) nurture relations of trust so that miscommunication is not viewed with suspicion. This chapter is an attempt to think about the relationship between the standard/common language and dialects through an analysis of the language ideology that claims there is a ‘need for communicability/ intelligibility’ throughout Japan. I pointed out that this ideology has been used to justify the dominant group’s imposition of its language variety (the standard) on the dominated. In order to avoid such linguistic oppression, it is important to first acknowledge that the understanding of Japan, Japanese people and the Japanese language as bounded units is a construction, not a natural given. Then, we can begin to address the need to develop social relations so that ‘accented dialects’ and the ‘standard’ are viewed and treated as language varieties with equal linguistic value, all people familiarize themselves with other people’s linguistic varieties and failure of communication does not lead to fear.

Notes (1) Kokugo literally means ‘national language’. It is also the name for the school subject of language arts. (2) The term ‘common language’ is often used interchangeably with the term ‘standard language’ in the Japanese context. As I discuss later, however, they have different connotations. (3) Sanada (2001) himself describes the dynamic changes of dialects, despite also suggesting the more static binary opposition of ‘traditional dialects’ and ‘neo dialects’. (4) Although there is a hierarchy between standard and non-standard English within the UK, that standardization process gets ignored when talking about English standardization in the world scale. See Doerr (2009b) for a critical discussion on this. (5) Nonetheless, slaves could speak non-standard English, which their masters did not comprehend, and were able to use it as a means of resistance (hooks, 1994).

Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan

79

References Bhatt, R.M. (2001) World Englishes. Annual Review of Anthropology 30, 527–550. Bourdieu, P. (1991 [1977]) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J-C. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage Publications. Canagarajah, A.S. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, A.S. (2002) Globalization, methods, and practice in periphery classrooms. In D. Block and D. Cameron (eds) Globalization and Language Teaching (pp. 134–150). London: Routledge. Carroll, T. (2001) Language Planning and Language Change in Japan. Richmond, VA: Curzon Press. Crowley, T. (1989) Standard English and the Politics of Language. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Doerr, N.M. (2009a) ‘Rude speech’ and ‘ignorant audience’: Power of ignorance and language politics at an Aotearoa/New Zealand school. Critical Studies in Education 50 (3), 323–335. Doerr, N.M. (2009b) Investigating ‘native speaker effects’: Toward a new model of analyzing ‘native speaker’ ideologies. In N. Doerr (ed.) The Native Speaker Concept: Ethnographic Investigations of Native Speaker Effects (pp. 15–46). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman. Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (2007a) On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research (republication from The Modern Language Journal 81, 1997, 285–300). The Modern Language Journal 91, 757–772. Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (2007b) Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. The Modern Language Journal 91, 800–819. hooks, b. (1992) Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston, MA: South End Press. Inoue, F. (1998) Nihongo Wotchingu (Watching Japanese Language). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Irvine, J.T. and Gal, S. (2000) Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P.V. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities (pp. 35–83). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Jenkins, J. (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006) Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly 40 (1), 157–181. Kachru, B.B. (1984) The alchemy of English: Social and functional power of non-native varieties. In C. Kramarae, M. Schultz and W. O’Barr (eds) Language and Power (pp. 176–193). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Kachru, B.B. (1991) Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern. English Today 25, 3–13. Kachru, B.B. (1992a [1982]) Models for non-native Englishes. In B.B. Kachru (ed.) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures (pp. 48–74). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

80

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

Kachru, B.B. (1992b) Teaching world Englishes. In B.B. Kachru (ed.) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures (pp. 355–366). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B.B. (1997) Past imperfect: The other side of English in Asia. In L.E. Smith and M.L. Forman (eds) World Englishes 2000 (pp. 68–89). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii. Kincheloe, J.L. and Steinberg, S.R. (1997) Changing Multiculturalism. Buckingham: Open University Press. Kroskrity, P.V. (2000) Regimenting languages: Language ideological perspective. In P.V. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities (pp. 1–34). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Kubota, R. (2001) Teaching world Englishes to native speakers of English: A pilot project in a high school class. World Englishes 20 (1), 47–64. Labov, W. (1972) Academic ignorance and black intelligence. The Atlantic 229 (6), 59–67. Lee, Y. (1996) ‘Kokugo’ toiu Shisô: Kindai Nihon no Gengo Ninshiki (Philosophy Called ‘National Language’: Language Cognition of Modern Japan). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Lippi-Green, R. (1997) English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge. Mashiko, H. (2003) Ideologii to shite no ‘Nihon’: ‘Kokugo,’ ‘Nihonshi’ no Chishiki Shakaigaku (‘Japan’ as an Ideology: Sociology of Knowledge of ‘National Language,’ ‘Japanese History’). Tokyo: Sangensha. Mashiko, H. (2010) Chi no Seijikeizaigaku: Atarashii Chishikishakaigaku no tame no Josetsu (Political Economy of Knowledge: Introduction to New Sociology of Knowledge). Tokyo: Sangensha. McKenzie, R.M. (2008) Social factors and non-native attitudes toward varieties of spoken English: A Japanese case study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18 (1), 63–88. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1991 [1985]) Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardization. London: Routledge. Morris-Suzuki, T. (1998) Re-Inventing Japan: Time, Space, Nation. Armonk, NY: East Gate Books. Nelson, C. (1992) My language, your culture: Whose communicative competence? In B.B. Kachru (ed.) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures (pp. 327–339). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Oakes, J. (1985) Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Olneck, M. (2000) Can multicultural education change what counts as cultural capital? American Educational Research Journal 37 (2), 317–348. Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman. Pennycook, A. (2010) Language as a Local Practice. London: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Quirk, R. (1985) The English language in a global context. In R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (eds) English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures (pp. 1–6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quirk, R. (1988) The question of standards in the international use of English. In P.H. Lowenberg (ed.) Language Spread and Language Policy: Issues, Implications, and Case Studies (pp. 229–241). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Rethinking the Ideology of Standardization in Japan

81

Romaine, S. (1997) World Englishes: Standards and the new world order. In L.E. Smith and M.L. Forman (eds) World Englishes 2000 (pp. ix–xvi). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Sakai, N. (1996) Shizan sareru Nihongo, Nihonjin: ‘Nihon’ no Rekishi—Chiseiteki Haichi ( Japanese Language and Japanese People That Are Being Stillborn: History and Geopolitical Location of ‘Japan’). Tokyo: Shinyosha. Sakai, N., de Bary, B. and Toshio, I. (eds) (2005) Deconstructing Nationality. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sanada, S. (2001) Hogen wa Zetsumetsu Surunoka—Jibun no Kotoba wo Ushinatta Nihonjin (Will Dialects Become Extinct? Japanese Who Have Lost Their Language). Tokyo: PHP Kenkyujo. Santa Ana, O. (ed.) (2004) Tongue-Tied: The Lives of Multilingual Children in Public Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Seidlhofer, B. (2001) Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (2), 133–158. Smith, L.E. (1982) Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In B.B. Kachru (ed.) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures (pp. 75–90). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Tanaka, K. (1981) Kotoba to Kokka (Language and the State). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Varenne, H. and McDermott, R. (1999) Successful Failure: The School America Builds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Weiner, M. (ed.) (1997) Japan’s Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity. New York: Routledge. Willis, P. (1977) Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia University Press. Woolard, K. (1998) Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard and P. Kroskrity (eds) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory (pp. 3–50). New York: Oxford University Press. Yasuda, T. (1999) ‘Kokugo’ to ‘Hôgen’ no aida: Gengo Kôchiku no Seijigaku (Between ‘National Language’ and ‘Dialects’: Politics of Language Construction). Tokyo: Jinbun Shoin. Yasuda, T. (2003) Datsu ‘Nihongo’ eno Shiza (Perspectives toward Post-‘Japanese Language’). Tokyo: Sangensha.

4 Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech Shigeko Okamoto

Introduction1 Regarding Japanese as a language with distinct gender differences, earlier studies focused on the differences between joseigo (women’s language) and danseigo (men’s language) with regard to their vocabulary, grammar, phonology, style, etc. These differences were usually described in terms of a set of linguistic features in standard Japanese – for example, self-reference terms (watakushi, atashi, etc.), sentence-final particles (wa, kashira, etc.) and honorifics (o-verb-ni naru, etc.). (Note that in this study, I use the terms joseigo and danseigo in this specific sense, that is, those scholarly characterizations based on standard Japanese.) However, in recent years, it has been increasingly recognized that these ‘descriptions’ in fact correspond to prescriptive gender norms for speech, or a particular language ideology, rather than accurate descriptions of how women and men actually use language (e.g. Nakamura, 2001; Okamoto & Shibamoto-Smith, 2004). This recognition, on the one hand, has prompted researchers to closely examine actual speech data in order to see how women and men actually speak. On the other hand, it has also encouraged scholars to investigate how prescriptive gender norms for speech, especially for women’s speech, are constructed in society (e.g. Endo, 1997, 2002, 2006; Gendai Nihongo Kenkyuukai, 1999, 2002; Inoue, 1994, 2006; Nakamura, 2001, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2012; Okada, 2006, 2008; Okamoto 1995, 2004, 2010a, 2011; Okamoto & Shibamoto-Smith, 2004, 2008). Further, previous research on Japanese language and gender has focused on the speech of (heterosexual) women, although the speech of other gender and sexuality groups has begun to receive increasing attention in recent years (e.g. Abe, 2004, 2010; Kinsui, 2010; Maree, 2011; SturtzSreetharan, 2004, 2009). It seems that women’s speech has been the primary focus of study, because, as will be discussed in the ensuing 82

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

83

sections, historically, women’s speech as part of their behavior has been the main target of critical evaluation. Accordingly, in this chapter, I focus on women’s speech norms. As mentioned above, recent research has pointed out that what has been regarded as joseigo, based on standard Japanese, in fact represents a prescriptive norm for women’s speech. However, the question is if joseigo, characterized in this way by linguists, is actually comparable with what ordinary Japanese understand as prescriptive norms for women. Previous research has not adequately examined the ‘content’ of speech norms for women itself. The present study therefore focuses on this question, as it is an important issue when we consider the construction of the linguistic ‘standard’. Considering the ‘content’ of linguistic norms is also closely related to Japanese language education. Note that joseigo and danseigo are technical terms used mainly by scholars, while phrases such as onnarashii hanashikata (feminine ways of talking) and otokorashii kotobazukai (masculine ways of using language) are more commonly used by laypersons. Accordingly, when we consider speech norms for women, we should investigate how the notion of onnarashii hanashikata is understood by ordinary Japanese people and how such a notion has been historically constructed. This is particularly because, as Jugaku (1979: 7) pointed out, the ideology of onnarashisa (womanliness) serves as a basis for evaluating and constraining all aspects of women’s behavior, including language use. What, then, is onnarashii hanashikata? As we will see in the following sections, it is often described by such attributes as teinei (polite), yawarakai (soft/gentle), hikaeme (reserved) and jōhoin (refined). But how are these characteristics related to a set of specific linguistic forms (e.g. certain sentence-final particles, honorifics) in standard Japanese that are regarded as joseigo features? Furthermore, is what is regarded as onnarashii hanashikata or joseigo understood as a norm universally applicable to any situation? This chapter addresses these questions, which will lead us to the following three conclusions: (1) The interpretation of the social meanings of linguistic expressions is mediated by language ideology and hence it is variable among individuals and across time. Accordingly, the kinds of linguistic forms that are perceived as onnnarashii are also variable. (2) But, according to the dominant ideology concerning modern Japanese, a set of linguistic forms in standard Japanese has been regarded as polite, gentle and refined, and hence onnarashii. Accordingly, it has often been treated as though it were a universal norm for women’s speech. (3) However, such a norm may be regarded as an abstract or ‘global’ norm and, in reality, speakers negotiate it vis-à-vis a specific context and

84

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

use language based on what they regard as the relevant ‘local’ norm for a given community or situation. In other words, the use of specific ‘gendered’ linguistic forms cannot be adequately accounted for without considering the relationship between the macro-level social meanings and the micro-level interactional meanings. The present study is part of my research in sociolinguistics. In particular, I have been interested in the diversity in sociolinguistic practice as it pertains to the following aspects of the Japanese language: (a) regional dialects as opposed to standard Japanese, (b) ‘gendered’ speech and (c) honorifics and politeness. Native speakers’ linguistic practices concerning these aspects of Japanese have been highly regulated in modern Japan by what Milroy (2001) calls the standard language culture. However, recent research, including my own, in particular research based on discourse analysis, has revealed a wide diversity in actual speech practice. The present chapter is not intended to add yet another piece of evidence for such diversity. Rather, it questions the notion of the linguistic norm itself and considers the diversity in the conceptualization of this notion. While this notion tends to be taken for granted, it requires close scrutiny, because native speakers’ beliefs about what constitutes the normative use, or ‘the standard’, seem to vary considerably, which in turn can lead to diverse language practice. Addressing this issue also has important implications for teaching Japanese language and linguistics. For example, we are familiar with language textbooks and grammar books that regard standard Japanese as the Japanese language and present the ‘correct’ use of honorifics and other linguistic forms. When I teach courses in Japanese or Japanese sociolinguistics, I therefore face the interesting but challenging task of how to conceptualize the Japanese language and its norm in the face of its extensive social and contextual diversity in use as well as in beliefs about language use. I hope my discussion in this chapter will serve as a step toward addressing this challenging task. This chapter is organized as follows: the first section discusses the relationship between the social meanings of linguistic expressions and language ideologies; the second section reviews previous studies to see what kinds of speech have been considered onnarashii in the history of Japan and how they served as prescriptive norms for women’s speech; the third section considers the role of the dominant ideology in the construction of such speech norms, also arguing that what has been regarded as women’s language in previous research is actually not a universal norm, and that what Japanese regard as speech norms for women are, in fact, diverse and variable. The fourth section presents a conclusion.

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

85

Social Meanings and Language Ideology Earlier studies of language and gender emphasized gender differences in speech whether it involved Japanese or other languages like English. These studies are based on the essentialism in which women and men are believed to be fundamentally different and hence behave differently. In other words, it is assumed that women naturally use joseigo. The relationship between gender and language is thus taken for granted. However, as has been demonstrated by numerous recent studies, it is implausible that all women (or men) use language in the same way. Rather, women’s (or men’s) actual language practices are diverse as they are affected by a variety of factors, including the speaker’s sexuality, age, class, region, setting, the interlocutor, as well as the speaker’s attitude toward language use (Bucholtz, 1999; Eckert & McConnell-Ginet, 1999; Hall & Bucholtz, 1995; Holmes, 2007; Inoue, 2006; Mills & Mullany, 2011; Nakamura, 2001, 2007a; Okamoto, 1995, 2004; Okamoto & Shibamoto-Smith, 2004). This means that language uses that have been regarded as ‘exceptions’ (to the group) are, in fact, not exceptions but rather meaningful in specific contexts. Why, then, is the use of certain linguistic forms considered onnarashii hanashikata or joseigo? This question cannot be adequately answered without considering the role of language ideology in the conceptualization of linguistic femininity. Silverstein (1979: 193) defines linguistic ideologies as ‘any sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use’. In other words, they represent one’s beliefs and attitudes regarding language use (e.g. what is the correct use of honorifics; how women should talk) and mediate forms of talk and social structure (Irvine, 1992; Woolard, 1992). In Japanese language textbooks, for example, a set of sentence-final particles is given as components of joseigo. This treatment relates language and social structure, or a contextual feature (i.e. woman), directly without considering the ideology that mediates the relationship between the two. But as discussed by Ochs (1992), the reason why a particular linguistic form is considered feminine is because it is thought to index such pragmatic meanings as polite and gentle, and because such traits as polite and gentle are considered as properties that women naturally possess (e.g. Horii, 1993). However, this relationship is, in fact, based on the ideology that women should speak politely and gently. Furthermore, the interpretation of certain linguistic forms as polite and gentle is also ideologically based. For example, as will be discussed below, when the so-called teyo dawa kotoba (teyo dawa language) in the Meiji era was first used by female students it was censured as rough and vulgar, but as it started to be used by older women of the middle and upper middle classes, it

86

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

came to be perceived as polite and gentle. In other words, the interpretation of linguistic forms is justified on the basis of the evaluation of the context of its use (e.g. the speaker’s social group). The social meanings of linguistic expressions are thus closely related to the context of their use. The interpretation of social meanings and the evaluation of language use are thus greatly affected by language ideologies. Such an interpretation and evaluation are subjective and based on the interest of a particular social group (Doer, this book; Irvine & Gal, 2000; Schieffelin et al., 1998). Language ideologies are thus not simply about language but are about ‘entangled clusters of phenomena’, including ‘aspects of culture like gender and expressions and being civilized’ (Kulick, 1992: 295). Language ideologies are therefore by definition contested (Briggs, 1998; Irvine & Gal, 2000). In other words, the same linguistic form may not be perceived, or interpreted, in the same way by all speakers. Eckert (2008: 453) argues that the meanings of a linguistic form as an indexical sign constitute ‘an indexical field, or constellation of ideologically related meanings’ that are always potentially multiple, variable and imprecise. A particular ideology, however, may become a dominant norm in a society by repeated presentations in such channels as education and the media and influence actual language use and interpretation considerably. Yet, actual language use does not always conform to the dominant ideology, or speech norms, as speakers (need to) negotiate norms in specific interactional contexts. It is therefore important to distinguish between ideology and practice (Irvine & Gal, 2000; Silverstein, 1979) and to consider how the former, or macro-level social meanings, are related to the latter, or micro-level social meanings (see, e.g. Agha, 2007; Holmes, 2007; Mills & Mullany, 2011 for discussions of this issue). When we say ‘Japanese women’s speech norms’, exactly what kinds of speech are thought to constitute them? I address this question in the following section.

Prescriptive Norms for Women’s Speech: A Historical Overview As mentioned earlier, one of the foci in recent Japanese language and gender studies is the investigation of the societal norms for women’s speech in the history of Japan. In this section, I review these valuable studies in order to see those societal norms observed in various periods in Japanese history. More specifically, I examine the structure of these norms in terms of two kinds of relationships: (1) that between general modes of speaking (e.g. polite and gentle) and femininity and (2) that between general modes of speaking and specific linguistic forms (e.g. honorifics and sentence-final

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

87

particles). That is, I investigate what kinds of general modes of speaking have been regarded as feminine and what kinds of specific linguistic forms have been thought to realize the modes of speaking deemed feminine. Previous studies have tended not to clearly distinguish modes of speaking and specific linguistic forms and instead have related both straightforwardly to femininity. But as will be demonstrated in this study, it is important to distinguish them clearly in order to see the structure of linguistic femininity, or normative speech for women. My objective here is not to review in detail the findings of previous studies about prescriptive norms for women’s speech in various periods in Japanese history. Rather, I discuss only those historical phenomena that I consider important for understanding the notion of linguistic femininity in Japanese.

Premodern Japan During the Heian era (794–1192), the earliest period in Japanese history, there was a gender difference in the normative language use (in the nobility class): Kango, or words of Chinese origin (or Sino-Japanese words), kanji, or Chinese characters and kanbun, or Chinese writing (lit. sentences), were regarded as appropriate for men while wago, or words of Japanese origin, hiragana characters and wabun, or Japanese writing, were considered gentle and hence appropriate for women. For example, Nakamura (2002: 19) states that discourses in Genji Monogatari (The Tale of the Genji) (1003–1008) show that ‘the use of Chinese characters and Chinese words was considered the ultimate unfeminine behavior’. Endo (1997: 26) notes that the division of ‘public-men-mainstream-kanji/kanbun’ and ‘private-women-second classhiragana/wabun’ lasted until the end of the Edo period (1603–1867). It has also been reported that metapragmatic comments made in Genji Monogatari, Makurano Sôshi (The Pillow Book) (around 1017), and other stories written in this period indicate that women who were reserved and spoke in a low voice without being too direct were considered desirable (Endo, 1997, 2006; Jugaku, 1979; Nakamura, 2002; Sugimoto, 1997). In other words, from the very earliest period of Japanese history, traits such as gentleness and reserve were perceived as womanly and were believed to be realized by the use of such linguistic forms as a low voice and indirect speech. While the same kind of instructions for how women should talk continued in the medieval period (13th to 16th century), another important phenomenon emerged in this period. That is, a variety called nyōbō kotoba (court lady’s language) started to be used by women in the imperial court. This variety is characterized by a set of features, including the polite prefix o- for nouns (e.g. o-imo ‘potatoes’), the suffix –moji for nouns (e.g. ka-moji for

88

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

kami ‘hair’) and indirect expressions formed through abbreviations (e.g. take for takenoko ‘bamboo shoot’) and word association (e.g. kabe ‘white wall’ for tôfu). This special language was considered gentle, polite and refined, as it avoided direct expressions, and came to be regarded as the model speech for women in general (Endo, 2008; Nakamura, 2007a; Sugimoto, 1997). Furthermore, it has also been reported that in dialogues in kyôgen2 and other stories, female characters almost always used honorifics when talking to their husband (Endo, 1997: 50). Other documents (e.g. short stories like Menoto no Zôshi) include references to women’s speech that instruct them not to express their emotions, speak equivocally and gently, and in a low voice. These observations indicate that in this period, such modes of speaking as politeness, gentleness and reserve were considered womanly and were believed to be realized by the use of linguistic forms, including those of nyôbô kotoba, honorifics, a low voice and Japanese-origin words. In the Edo period (1603–1867), women’s behavior, including women’s language use, started to be regulated by government (Shogunate) policy and the Confucian ethic that endorses the ideology of dansonjohi (male supremacy) (Sugimoto, 1997: 178; see also Endo, 1997, 2006; Nakamura, 2007a). Many conduct or discipline books for women (e.g. Fujin-yashinaigusa 1689 and Onna-chôhôki [Record of Useful Instruction for Women] 1692) were produced during this period. These books instructed women to use gentle words of Japanese origin (rather than words of Chinese origin), to speak gently and politely, using the prefix o- and the suffix –moji, to speak in a low voice, to be taciturn and reserved. Here, what was considered ideally feminine was yamato kotoba, a variety basically the same as nyōbō kotoba used in the previous period. In addition to yamato kotoba, a variety known as yūjo kotoba (language of yuujo, or women in pleasure quarters) or arinsu kotoba (named after its characteristic honorific form arinsu), was regarded polite, urban, sophisticated and feminine; and in consequence some of its features came to be adopted by ordinary women (Endo, 1997, 2006; Sugimoto, 1997). Thus, in the Edo period, too, polite, gentle, reserved and refined ways of talking, realized by a variety of means, including honorifics, indirect expressions and a low voice, were believed to be feminine. In this respect, the dominant ideology of linguistic femininity had changed little from the previous time.

Modern Japan Meiji era It is often pointed out that with the birth of the modern Japanese nation state in the Meiji era (1987–1912), government policies to modernize

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

89

the country began to influence many aspects of Japanese life, including women’s education, which also involved the prescription of women’s language use (Inoue, 1994, 2006; Komori, 2000; Nakamura, 2006, 2008). In particular, as a result of government policy to standardize the Japanese language, standard Japanese, based on what was believed to be the speech of educated Tokyoites, started to be ‘taught’ through education and the media, including newspapers, radio, magazines and novels. For women, the female variety of standard Japanese was presented as a model language in textbooks, newspapers and other media (Bohn & Matsumoto, 2008; Inoue, 2006). The question is whether the ideology of onnarashisa and onnnarashii hanashikata changed along with the modernization of the country. Did the new ideology of gender equality lead to the formation of new behavioral norms for women? It was during this period that the idea of ryōsai kenbo (good wife and wise mother) began to be emphasized as a paragon for women. When this idea first emerged, it was thought that women should have equal rights as men and that they should be educated and they should contribute to the nation building as men do. However, in the course of the nation becoming more militaristic and reactionary, the idea of ryōsai kenbo shifted to the feudalistic ideology that sustained male supremacy and gender role differentiation (Higuchi, 1980). Accordingly, ethics textbooks, discipline books and women’s magazines referred to such words ask jokun (women’s code of ethics) and jotoku (women’s virtues) – words that were used in discipline books in the previous Edo period – and indicated the desire to restore a feudalistic social order. They then taught women to become ryōsai kenbo, or to be reserved, gentle and refined. These instructions of behavioral norms without fail included language use and women were encouraged to be taciturn and speak in a low voice, to use polite and refined expressions, such as honorifics, and to use gentle Japanese-origin words (Bohn & Matsumoto, 2008; Endo, 1997, 2006; cf. Nakamura, 2007a). In other words, even though the country strived for modernization, the dominant ideology of linguistic femininity seemed to have hardly altered in that the same kinds of modes of speaking and linguistic forms were believed desirable for women. One notable difference from the previous era is the influence of the standard language ideology (Komori, 2000; Milroy, 2001) on the notion of women’s speech norms. That is, although in general, the same kinds of modes of speaking and linguistic forms continued to be deemed feminine, standard Japanese began to be incorporated into the notion of normative, or ideal, speech for women. For example, it has been reported that in novels and stories, women characters who spoke (the female variety of) standard Japanese were usually in ‘desirable’ social positions and used polite expressions

90

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

with many honorifics, gentle sentence endings and certain self-reference and address terms, such as watakushi and atashi (Bohn & Matsumoto, 2008; Endo, 1997, 2006; Inoue, 2006; Komori, 2000; Satake, 2002). One phenomenon that is often mentioned when discussing women’s language in the Meiji era is the so-called teyo dawa kotoba (teyo dawa language) (so named because of its characteristic sentence-final particles, including teyo and dawa). As mentioned earlier, it was first used by female students, who were in general from privileged families, and was criticized severely as rough, rude, vulgar and unfeminine. Yet, it continued to be used because, it is argued, it was used as a form of resistance by female students to the traditional onnarashisa, or the idea of ryōsai kenbo (Bohn & Matsumoto, 2008; Nakamura, 2008), and also because it began to be increasingly used by female student characters in novels, which affected its perception as modern and youthful and influenced the speech of young as well as older women in the real world (Bohn & Matsumoto, 2008; Inoue, 1994, 2006; Kinsui, 2003; Nakamura, 2006, 2007a). Eventually, this teyo dawa kotoba came to be regarded as part of (the female variety of) standard Japanese, or Yamanote Kotoba ‘uptown language’.3 In other words, the linguistic forms that were first condemned as vulgar and unfeminine came to be seen more positively as modern and youthful, but later lost the latter meanings as well and came to be perceived as polite, gentle, refined and hence onnarashishii language. Interestingly, however, it has been pointed out that in the ethics textbooks and readings for Japanese language courses published by the Ministry of Education during the Meiji era, the traditional onnnarashisa expressed through the use of polite and gentle language was emphasized, as in the previous time, and that the sentence-final forms in teyo dawa kotoba were not recommended for women to use (Bohn & Matsumoto, 2008; Nakamura, 2006, 2007a). Nor were these sentence-final forms included in Japanese grammar books published during this period (Nakamura, 2006). In other words, teyo dawa kotoba was not yet sanctioned as part of (the female variety of) standard Japanese.

Pre- and during WWII Before and during WWII, women’s behavior, including their language use, came to be increasingly regulated. In the context of growing ultranationalism, in 1941, the Ministry of Education issued Reihōyōkō (Guidelines for manners) to teach manners and respect as manifestations of kokumin seishin (national spirit). It included instructions about women’s language use and recommended that women speak onnarashiku, that is, to be reserved and polite using honorifics and not to use ‘masculine’ self-reference and address terms, such as boku (I) and kimi (you) (Washi, 2004).

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

91

One notable phenomenon in this period is the role that scholars and intellectuals played in prescribing women’s speech. It was during this period that the terms funjingo and joseigo, both meaning ‘women’s language’,4 started to be used by scholars and intellectuals, who often discussed women’s language use in the media, including newspapers, magazines and radio (Endo, 1997; Washi, 2004). These metapragmatic discourses presented the ‘beauty’ and ‘elegance’ of fujingo or joseigo as evidence for the superiority of the Japanese culture and nation (Yukawa & Saito, 2004). Furthermore, Japanese language scholars like Kikuzawa (1929) claimed that fujingo originated in nyôbô kotoba, which included indirect expressions and Japaneseorigin words and was very polite, gentle, graceful (yuubi) and refined, and hence a feminine way of talking (Nakamura, 2007a; Washi, 2000, 2004). As argued by Washi (2000, 2004), even though the language that women used at the time was quite different from nyôbô kotoba, regarding nyōbō kotoba, or the language of women in the imperial court, as the origin of fujingo and the model of women’s language had a symbolic meaning and must have been a politically effective strategy. Another well-known linguist Kindaichi (1942) claimed that the complex honorific system is a pride of Japan and joseigo, which requires a good command of honorifics, demonstrates Nihonfudô (a way of Japanese women) (Nakamura, 2007a; Yukawa & Saito, 2004). Nakamura (2004) points out that during this period, an increasing number of grammar books of spoken standard Japanese started to characterize joseigo with a set of linguistic forms, including the prefix o-, certain selfreference and address terms and sentence-final particles. Interestingly, those sentence-final particles (e.g. teyo and dawa) that were first criticized as vulgar and unfeminine were also included, or ‘promoted’, as joseigo forms and characterized as polite and refined. These observations show that the view of onnarashii hanashikara in this period had hardly changed from the previous time. They also indicate that even scholars, who were expected to be objective, were not free from the dominant ideology of language and gender and they presented joseigo based on standard Japanese as a ‘scientific’ category. This approach continued to be adopted by descriptive grammarians and sociolinguists after the war.

Post-war and contemporary Japan The dominant ideology of onnarashii hanashikata does not seem to have changed in the more democratic society of post-war Japan. In particular, what is regarded as joseigo based on standard Japanese has been produced and reproduced in a wide variety of discourse genres, including films, television dramas, manga, anime, novels, newspapers, magazines, manner books for women, as well as in textbooks and grammar books. For example, Mizumoto

92

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

(2006) compared the speech of female characters in 16 television dramas with the conversations of real women (who were speakers of the Tokyo dialect, or standard Japanese) in regard to the use of sentence-final forms that were considered features of joseigo (e.g. wa, yo and kahira). Miszumoto found that in the television dramas, female characters used those sentence-final forms in most sentences, whereas real women in actual conversations hardly used them, although there were some age differences. A similar discrepancy was observed by Shibamoto-Smith (2004), who compared real women’s speech with the speech of female characters in nine romance novels with regard to the use of gendered personal pronouns and sentence-final forms. Satake (2003) also found a similar discrepancy between the use of sentence-final forms and expressions of request in six television anime shows and the use of the same forms in the speech of real women that had been reported by several studies. She also noted that gentle, cute, well-behaved and/or decent female characters used more feminine language, or the speech forms that were much different from the speech forms used by male characters. The fact that many women do not use certain joseigo forms (e.g. such sentence-final particles as wa and kashira) in actual speech may suggest that they are not recognized as part of the normative speech for women – a point discussed further in the following section. The use of joseigo in the fictional world, on the other hand, suggests that such speech is regarded as ideal and is repeatedly used as a stereotype. Kinsui (2003) states that stereotypes tend to be used for creating a variety of characters, because they fit the expected patterns and are easy to understand. It seems that in the case of women, the traditional onnarashisa is believed to fit the expected image of the ideal woman and tends to be used for female characters, especially for heroines, in the fictional world. They also use joseigo forms that are deemed polite, gentle and refined. While films, television dramas, etc., are indirect in prescribing onnarashii hanashikata in that they present models by way of the speech of female characters, there are also more direct attempts to evaluate women’s speech and teach women how they should talk. For example, readers sometimes send letters to newspapers and magazines criticizing young women’s language use as rough, impolite and unfeminine; scholars and intellectuals also express their subjective evaluations of women’s speech in books, newspapers and magazines (Inoue, 2006; Nakamura, 2001, 2007b; Okamoto, 1995, 2004). Inoue (2006) observes that during the bubble economy in the late 1980s, when the traditional hierarchical relationship between men and women was thought to be collapsing due to women’s advancement in society, women’s speech was criticized for becoming rough, impolite and unfeminine, suggesting the existence of a deep-rooted belief

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

93

that women should speak politely and gently. Another genre that overtly attempts to prescribe women’s speech is the large number of self-help books on women’s speech that are published every year and are read by many women. These books claim that the manner of speaking is an essential element for onnarashisa and instruct women to speak politely, gently and in a refined manner, using honorifics, indirect speech, certain sentence endings and other linguistic forms, including aizuchi (backchannels) and qualifiers (Okamoto, 2010b; Okamoto & Shibamoto-Smith, 2008). As mentioned earlier, scholarly books and language textbooks also present normative women’s language by providing a catalog of specific linguistic forms based on standard Japanese as well as general modes of speaking, but they differ from the self-help books in that they do not overtly prescribe women’s speech as the latter do; instead, they present seemingly more objective, or scientific, descriptions of joseigo. I discuss the implications of this approach in the following section.

Critical Examination of Societal Norms for Japanese Women’s Speech Women’s speech norms and the dominant ideology According to the review in the preceding section, the view that regards such modes of speaking as gentle, reserved, polite and refined has been the dominant ideology of linguistic femininity in the long history of Japan. These modes of speaking have been linked to a variety of specific linguistic forms. Some of these linguistic forms have changed over time (e.g. yuujo kotoba, sentence-final particles) and depending on the historical period, a different variety (e.g. nyôbô kotoba, female variety of standard Japanese) has been regarded as a model speech for women. Furthermore, onnarashii hanashikata was assigned a different political significance in a different historical context (e.g. for maintaining the feudalistic gender hierarchy, for producing ryôsai kenbo that contributed to the modern nation state and for preserving the ‘beautiful Japanese culture’ in the context of an ultranationalistic political climate). In this section, I examine more closely the notion of onnarashii hanashikata reviewed in the preceding section, taking into consideration the role of language ideology in constructing the relationship between femininity and general modes of speaking, on the one hand, and the relationship between general modes of speaking and specific linguistic forms, on the other hand. With regard to the former relationship, such modes of speaking as polite, gentle, reserved and refined have been regarded as feminine. However, as

94

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

discussed earlier, the relationship between these modes of speaking and femininity is not a given. Women are not always polite, reserved and gentle, but they are expected to be as such. This expectation seems to reflect the gender ideology that places women in a subordinate position relative to men and that, in effect, constrains women’s behavior. On the other hand, (‘ideal’) femininity has also been linked to a class status. That is, women are expected to behave politely, gently and in a refined manner, as women in higher social echelons. For example, the use of hiragana, wago (words of Japanese origin) and wabun (Japanese writing) in the Heian period primarily concerned women in higher social classes; in premodern Japan, nyōbō kotoba was considered a model speech for women, because court ladies were thought to use polite, elegant and refined language; and in modern Japan, the variety (presumably) used by women in Yamanote, or the middle and upper middle classes, in Tokyo has been regarded as an exemplar of women’s speech. In other words, women are expected to be both subordinate (in gender arrangement) and superior (in class status). Thus, the normative relationship between femininity and certain modes of speaking cannot be taken for granted, as it reflects the dominant ideology of class and gender. Let us now consider the relationship between general modes of speaking and specific linguistic forms. As seen in the preceding section, even though many of the specific linguistic forms regarded as onnarashii have changed over time (e.g. yuujo kotoba, teyo dawa kotoba), the modes of speaking perceived as onnarashii have not changed much. That is, even though specific forms may differ, they are, in general, interpreted as gentle, elegant, refined, etc. Why? For example, why are Japanese-origin words (e.g. oshieru [teach/instruct] and tsukau [use]) considered gentle, while Chinese-origin words (e.g. shidōsuru [teach/instruct] and shiyô-suru [use]) are perceived as stiff or rigid? It seems to reflect the fact that the former tend to be used in the private domain, while the latter tend to be used in the public or official domain, likely to be more formal and rigid than the former. As mentioned above, forms used in nyōbō kotoba (the prefix o-, the suffix –moji, words derived through the process of abbreviation or word association) were considered polite, elegant and refined, not because they inherently possessed such properties, but because they were used by court ladies. Likewise, the reason why standard Japanese forms are considered polite, refined, etc., seems to be related to the fact that standard Japanese is (presumed to be) used by middle- and upper-class residents of Tokyo, the prestigious urban center. Another good example is the perception of teyo dawa kotoba. As we saw earlier, when female students started using teyo dawa kotoba, it was condemned as rough, impolite, vulgar and unfeminine. However, it started to be seen positively as modern and youthful, probably because it was used

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

95

by young urban female students from higher social classes. Its evaluation further changed to polite, gentle and refined, as it began to be used by older women, particularly those in the middle and upper middle classes. One last example concerns yuujogo (language of women in pleasure quarters), or the so-called arinsu kotoba. As mentioned earlier, when this was used in the Edo period, it was seen as urban and sophisticated and some of the expressions in yuujogo were adopted by ordinary women. However, during WWII, nyôbô kotoba was recommended as the ideal model, but yuujogo was criticized as vulgar and unfeminine (Washi, 2004). All of these examples demonstrate that specific linguistic forms are deemed polite, gentle, refined, etc., not because of their inherent properties, but because of the way that the context of their use (e.g. their users’ social group, the social situation in which they are used) is evaluated. The foregoing discussion indicates that normative speech for women is ideologically constructed by linking femininity to certain modes of speaking, which are in turn linked to specific linguistic forms. The way joseigo is presented by scholars in terms of standard Japanese may appear to be objectively descriptive, but it is in fact highly ideological. By stating that women speak or tend to speak politely, gently, etc., by using a set of linguistic forms in standard Japanese, or Yamanote kotoba, women who do not speak in this manner are, in effect, ignored. Self-help books that teach women to speak onnarashiku also offer example speech forms in standard Japanese, but such books presuppose that there are many women whose speech is unfeminine or undesirable for women. It is also the case that although joseigo is often used for female characters, especially for heroines in films, novels, etc., there are also many female characters that do not use such speech (Okamoto, 1996; Okamoto & Shibamoto-Smith, 2008; Satake, 2003). In contrast, if we as linguists present a particular variety based on standard Japanese as women’s language, it is to uphold this variety as an ‘icon’ (Irvine & Gal, 2000) that expresses femininity, while at the same time ‘erasing’ all other diverse speech patterns that Japanese women use. Before turning to the following section, a brief discussion regarding the ‘origin’ of joseigo is in order. Differing views have been proposed for the origin of joseigo. As mentioned earlier, Kikuzawa and other linguists claimed that funjingo, or joseigo, originates in the medieval nyōbō kotoba (see also Ide & Terada, 1998). Another view regards joseigo as a product of modern Japan (Inoue, 1994, 2006). As evidence for their claim, the former cite the use of the prefix o- and Japanese-origin words, which were considered polite and gentle, while the latter refers to the use of gendered sentence-final particles (e.g. teyo and dawa) that started to be used as part of the female variety of standard Japanese, or Yamanote kotoba, that emerged and gained

96

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

prestige in modern Japan. Neither view, however, seems adequate, as their linguistic evidence is mainly focused on (selected) forms. I argue that in order to adequately understand how women’s speech has been regulated in the history of Japan, we should consider both general modes of speaking (e.g. polite and gentle) as well as the whole gamut of linguistic forms that have been recommended for women to use. As we saw above, such modes of speaking as polite, gentle and reserved were considered desirable for women even before the emergence of nyōbō kotoba. Further, although it is true that such sentence-final forms as teyo and dawa were not used in premodern Japan as feminine forms, women’s speech norms in modern Japan were not radically different from those in premodern Japan in that women continued to be instructed to speak politely, elegantly, etc., using honorifics, Japanese-origin words, etc. It is indeed noteworthy that the ideology that links standard Japanese to women’s speech norms was shaped in modern Japan and that women’s speech started to be regulated through education and the media in modern Japanese society as a whole. In this respect, today’s joseigo cannot be regarded as identical to the normative speech in premodern times. But that does not mean that joseigo is totally unrelated to the ideology of onnarashii hanashikata observed in previous times. Rather, it seems reasonable to assume that the ideology of linguistic femininity as a prescriptive norm in contemporary Japan has evolved through the complex historical process in which the modern standard language ideology is incorporated into the ideology of onnarashii hanashikata in premodern times.

Variability in the conception of linguistic femininity I have discussed above the link between femininity, general modes of speaking and specific linguistic forms as ideologically constructed. However, as mentioned earlier, a language ideology, being a reflection of the interest of a concerned group, is by definition contested (Gal, 1992; Irvine & Gal, 2000; Schieflin et al., 1998). Briggs (1998: 249) argues that ‘contestation is a crucial fact of how particular ideologies and practices come to be dominant’ (see also Gal, 1992; Kroskrity, 2000). If this is, in fact, the case, is the dominant ideology of onnarashii hanashikata understood by everyone as a universal norm for women’s speech? Although the way that joseigo is presented in the linguistic literature and many Japanese language textbooks may suggest it is universally accepted, the evidence of diverse linguistic practices that have been observed indicate that people’s understandings of normative speech, or how women should talk, are diverse and variable. I discuss this issue in this section.

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

97

As noted earlier, in the media, including newspapers and manner books, women are sometimes criticized for not speaking politely and in a refined manner. Studies have also demonstrated that there are many cases in which women do not use stereotypical joseigo forms. These observations suggest that it is possible that individual speakers may not conceptualize normative speech in the same way (Kroskrity, 2000). The dominant view of onnarshii hanashikata seen in ‘Prescriptive Norms for Women’s Speech: A Historical Overview’ above, may be regarded as an abstract or global norm. But in situated conversations, women negotiate such a norm vis-àvis the local community and specific social situations; that is, they take into consideration fine-grained local norms and choose linguistic forms that they think most appropriate for the given interaction in order to construct desired identities and relationships (Bucholtz, 1999; Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Holmes, 2007). Furthermore, the idea of onnarashii hanashikata may vary among individuals and across time, which is related to different forms of femininity that individual women may wish to construct. Historical evidence supports this variation in the view of linguistic femininity, or how women should talk. For example, Sugimoto (1997: 161) notes that in Menoto no Zôshi, a story written in the medieval time (early 14th century), two views regarding women’s ways of living are presented through the two female characters, or nursemaids, looking after two princesses; one of them taught one of the princesses to speak properly as a princess, using honorifics, while the other recommended the other princess to become a strong woman and used expressions that were considered unfeminine at the time (e.g. ore [I] and zeni [money]). The view of the latter nursemaid suggests the existence of an alternative ideology that regards strong and forceful women as ideal. Endo (1997: 168; 2003: 51–52) reports the existence of competing ideologies of linguistic femininity at a different historical time. As we saw earlier, even in post-war Japan, the dominant view continued to emphasize the importance of traditional femininity and instructed women to be polite, reserved and gentle; however, in the late 1940s, Bunshirō Suzuki, a journalist, proposed to eradicate the traditional feminine speech and argued that gender equality would not be attained as long as gendered speech norms existed. Such a view was also evident when women in the uuman ribu (women’s liberation) movement in the 1970s refused to speak in an onnarashii manner (Yukawa & Saito, 2004). Variability in the view of normative speech for women is also seen in contemporary Japan. Inoue (2006), for example, reports that female workers who worked at the same office expressed differing views about joseigo, or a stereotypical women’s speech based on standard Japanese: some of them said they refused to use it, because they considered it as a variety used by

98

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

middle-aged women, while others noted that depending on the situation, they used it as an interactional strategy. Similarly, in analyzing her survey results, Mizumoto (2006) observed a considerable gender difference in the perception of the use of stereotypically feminine sentence-final particles such as wa and kashira in that many men thought it was onnarashii and it reminded them of otona no josei (adult women), whereas only a few women shared such perceptions; women instead said they used such expressions when talking with older and/or higher-status persons, or when they wanted to make fun of the use of such particles as a sign of exaggerated femininity. Similarly, Okamoto (1995) and Miyazaki (2004) found that many young women reported that they used ‘neutral’ or ‘masculine’ forms and avoided joseigo forms, because they felt the latter indexed older women, or excessive femininity. These observations suggest that not everyone shares the view of joseigo as normative speech, or as appropriate, for all women interacting in any situation. They also indicate that the same linguistic form may be interpreted quite differently by different individuals, or that the social meanings of linguistic forms are context dependent, multiple and variable (Eckert, 2008). The foregoing discussion also suggests that depending on the context (e.g. the addressee and setting), the use of normatively feminine speech patterns may or may not be perceived as appropriate. A well-known example is a segment from Ukiyoburo, a kokkeibon (funny storybook) written in the late Edo period. In this segment, a young woman in the merchant class criticizes another young woman, who is also from the same social class but works as a maid for a samurai family, for using oyashiki kotoba, or nyôbô kotoba, at the public bathhouse and tells her that such a language is not straightforward and unbecoming of her, and that she should use her own language at least when she comes to the public bathhouse (Kinsui, 2003; Sugimoto, 1997). Another example comes from Mizumoto’s (2006) finding that some women reported that they used joseigo forms when talking with older and/or higherstatus persons, which suggests that they thought the use of joseigo would be positively received by those addressees. On the other hand, they also reported that they normally did not use joseigo when talking with their friends, except when they wished to create humorous effects by expressing exaggerated femininity. The latter use suggests that they use joseigo for reinforcing solidarity by mocking it. Similarly, both Okamoto (1995) and Miyazaki (2004) pointed out that young women reported that they used masculine speech patterns when talking with their peers, but avoided using them when talking with their teachers, parents, etc. The variability in the view of linguistic femininity must also be considered from the viewpoint of regional dialects. Although the scholarly

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

99

notion of joseigo is usually characterized by a set of linguistic features in standard Japanese, it is possible to speak in a feminine way without using joseigo forms. Or, to put it differently, using joseigo may not always be perceived as particularly polite, gentle and feminine. Speakers of regional dialects may express politeness, gentleness, etc., using their dialects. Sunaoshi (2004), for example, points out that the female speakers of the Ibaraki dialect that she observed use forms that are considered masculine or rough (e.g. ore [I] and ikanee [do not go]) from the standpoint of joseigo. But, as explained by Sunaoshi, they are not intending to speak in an unfeminine manner; that is, the use of such forms is normal for them and contributes to reinforcing the feeling of solidarity among them. If they use joseigo forms in standard Japanese when talking among themselves, it is likely to be perceived as distant, rude and/or inappropriate – a view analogous to the view of the commoner woman character in Ukiyoburo, who criticized another commoner woman’s use of nyôbô kotoba as inappropriate for interacting in the public bathhouse. There have also been metapragmatic discourses that assert that femininity, or politeness, gentleness, etc., can be expressed using a regional dialect. Maeda (1977: 188), for example, talking about the honorific form –haru in the Osaka dialect, states that women always wish to speak in a refined and elegant manner, which can be realized by using the honorific –haru that makes their speech polite. Similarly, Tanabe (1985: 90) maintains that the Osaka dialect includes honorifics as well as polite and gentle speech like women’s language and children’s speech. As mentioned earlier, joseigo is often used for female characters, especially for heroines, in films, novels, anime, etc. However, there are also many female characters that use ‘unfeminine’ speech patterns (Okamoto, 1996; Satake, 2003) as well as those who speak in a ‘feminine’ way using a regional dialect. For example, according to Okamoto and Shibamoto-Smith (2008), in a television drama entitled ‘Koi-suru Kyoto’, an Osaka woman tries to learn from a geisha in Kyoto onnarashii demeanors, including her language, or (old-fashioned) Kyoto dialect. Here, the variety of Kyoto dialect used by the geisha is presented as feminine. A male friend of this Osaka woman, however, tells her that she does not need to learn from the geisha, because she is attractive as a woman in her own way, including the way she talks.

Conclusion Based on a survey of previous studies, we have seen that in the long history of Japan, certain modes of speaking, in particular polite, gentle and refined ways of talking, have been regarded as onnarashii, and that those

100

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

modes of speaking have been thought to be realized by the use of a variety of linguistic forms, including honorifics, the prefix o- for nouns, indirect expressions, self-reference and address terms, certain sentence-final particles, a low voice and words of Japanese-origin, although specific linguistic forms have undergone some changes over time. In particular, in modern Japan, the ideology of standard Japanese has been incorporated in the structure of normative women’s speech. I have argued that the relationship between femininity, general modes of speaking and specific linguistic forms is not a given, but rather constructed based on the ideology of class and gender. Normative women’s speech has been produced and reproduced through various channels, such as education at home and school, manner or discipline books, films, novels and newspapers. It has also been accorded political significance in various historical contexts (e.g. for sustaining the feudalistic social order and for promoting the ultranationalistic idea of a ‘superior’ Japanese culture). On the other hand, the conceptualization of linguistic femininity is variable; that is, the normative speech based on the dominant gender ideology has not always been viewed as desirable for women. As we have seen above, some asserted that women need not speak politely, gently, etc., and proposed an alternative form of linguistic femininity. We have also seen that there are many situations in which the use of stereotypically feminine speech may not be considered appropriate. This suggests that there are local norms or speech patterns that are considered appropriate for specific communities or social situations. I have argued that the dominant form of linguistic femininity that we saw in ‘Prescriptive Norms for Women’s Speech: A Historical Overview’ above may be regarded as an abstract or global norm that is detached from specific contexts and that in situated conversations speakers negotiate them against the local norms, or what they think as appropriate for specific communities or situations. Another variability in the view of linguistic femininity is the idea that women need not use joseigo-based standard Japanese to express femininity and that they can speak politely and gently, that is, in a feminine manner, using a regional dialect. In sum, the idea of linguistic femininity, or how women should talk, is structurally much broader and more complex than what has been regarded as joseigo. This conclusion also suggests that speakers do not use stereotypically feminine speech, or joseigo forms, simply because they are women. Rather, they use linguistic forms, including stereotypical feminine speech patterns, as resources for constructing their identities (e.g. Bucholtz & Hall, 2005; Hall & Bucholtz, 1995; Holmes, 2007; Holmes & Schnurr, 2006; Irvine & Gal, 2000; Kroskrity, 2000; Nakamura, 2007b) desired for specific social situations.

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

101

While it is important to distinguish speech norms and practices and to consider the relationship between the two (e.g. Holmes, 2007; Mills & Mullaney, 2011), this study illustrates the need for a re-examination of what constitutes those norms, or the notion of the (dominant) norm itself. In the case of Japanese, the question of what constitutes onnarashii hanashikata, or normative speech for women, has often been taken for granted as something that constrains women’s behavior and women are thought to conform to or resist/contest this normative expectation. Such a view seems to assume that all speakers share the same idea about women’s speech norms. However, it is unclear whether such normative speech simply refers to general modes of speaking such as politeness and refinement, or whether they include a set of specific linguistic forms in standard Japanese. If it is the latter, which linguistic forms are expected to constitute onnarashii hanashikata? Nor is it clear if or to what extent speakers of regional dialects regard joseigo based on standard Japanese as their speech norms and how they understand onnarashii hanashikata in regional dialects. Further, how are norms for different social situations understood? Examining the notion of speech norms itself by considering these issues seems to have important implications for Japanese language education. Further research is called for to address these issues.

Acknowledgment I would like to thank Neriko Doerr and Shinji Sato for their valuable comments.

Notes (1) This study is based on my earlier work (Okamoto, 2008). (2) Kyōgen (literally ‘mad words’ or ‘wild speech’) is a form of traditional Japanese theater. It is a farce performed along with noh as an intermission of sorts between noh acts; its primary goal is to make its audience laugh. (3) There are two areas in Tokyo: Yamanote (uptown [literally hillside]) and Shitamachi (downtown), although the boundaries between them are not as clear-cut today as they were before. Yamanote is associated with the middle and upper middle classes. Yamanote Kotoba is said to be a variety of Japanese spoken in the Yamanote area and to be ‘soft-spoken’, ‘polite’, ‘indirect’ and ‘refined’. (4) Fujin and josei mean women, but fujin has the connotation of a mature or married woman, while josei does not have such connotations.

References Abe, H. (2004) Lesbian bar talk in Shinjuku, Tokyo. In S. Okamoto and J.S. ShibamotoSmith (eds) Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People (pp. 205–221). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

102

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

Abe, H. (2010) Queer Japanese: Gender and Sexual Identities through Linguistic Practices. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Agha, A. (2007) Language and Social Relations. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Bohn, M. and Matsumoto, Y. (2008) Young women in the Meiji period as linguistic trendsetters. Gender and Language 2, 51–85. Briggs, C.L. (1998) ‘You’re a liar – You’re just like a woman!’: Constructing dominant ideologies of language in Warao men’s gossip. In B.B. Schieffelin, K.A. Woolard and P.V. Kroskrity (eds) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory (pp. 229–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bucholtz, M. (1999) Bad examples: Transgression and progress in language and gender studies. In M. Bucholtz, A.C. Liang and L.A. Sutton (eds) Reinventing Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse (pp. 3–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005) Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7, 585–614. Eckert, P. (2008) Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12 (4), 453–476. Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1999) New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research. Language in Society 28, 185–201. Endo, O. (1997) Onna no Kotoba no Bunkashi (Cultural History of Japanese Women’s Language). Tokyo: Gakuyo Shobo. Endo, O. (2002) Joseigo to yuu shisôô (The ideology of ‘women’s language’). Kotoba (Word) 23, 40–58. Endo, O. (2006) A Cultural History of Japanese Women’s Language. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Endo, O. (2008) The role of court-lady language in the historical norm construction of Japanese women’s language. Gender and Language 2, 9–24. Gal, S. (1992) Multiplicity and contention among ideologies: A commentary. Pragmatics 2, 445–449. Gendai Nihongo Kenkyukai (ed.) (1999) Josei no Kotoba: Shokuba-hen (Women’s Language: At the Workplace). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobō. Gendai Nihongo Kenkyukai (ed.) (2002) Dansei no Kotoba: Shokuba-hen (Men’s Language: At the Workplace). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobō. Hall, K. and Bucholtz, M. (eds) (1995) Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. New York: Routledge. Higuchi, K. (1980) Joshi-kyôiku to fujin-zasshi: Ryosai-kenbo to shufu no keifu (Women’s education and women’s magazines: The genealogy of good wives and wise mothers and housewives.) In Mainichi-shibunsha (ed.) Kindai-Nihonshi no naka no Josei (Women in the Modern Japanese History) (pp. 119–149). Tokyo: Mainichi-shibunsha. Holmes, J. (2007) Social constructionism, postmodernism, and feminist sociolinguistics. Gender and Language 1, 51–66. Holmes, J. and Schnurr, S. (2006) ‘Doing femininity’ at work: More than just relational practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10, 31–51. Horii, R. (1993) Joseigo no Seiritsu (The formation of women’s language). Nihongogaku ( Japanese Linguistics) 12, 100–108. Ide, R. and Terada, T. (1998) The historical origins of Japanese women’s speech: From the secluded worlds of ‘court ladies’ and ‘play ladies’. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 129, 139–156. Inoue, M. (1994) Gender and linguistic modernization: Historicizing Japanese women’s language. In M. Bucholtz, A.C. Liang, L.A. Sutton and C. Hines (eds) Proceedings of

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

103

the 3rd Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 322–333). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. Inoue, M. (2006) Vicarious Language: Gender and Linguistic Modernity in Japan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Irvine, J.T. (1992) Ideologies of honorific language. Pragmatics 2, 251–262. Irvine, J.T. and Gal, S. (2000) Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P.V. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities (pp. 35–83). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Jugaku, A. (1979) Nihongo to Onna (The Japanese Language and Women). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kikuzawa, S. (1929) Fujin no kotoba no tokucô nit suite (On the characteristics of women’s language). Kokugo Kyôiku (National Language Education) 14 (3), 66–75. Kindaichi, K. (1942) Joseigo to keigo (Women’s language and honorifics). In K. Kindaichi (ed.) Kokugo Kenkyuu (A Study of the National Language) (pp. 293–315). Tokyo: Yakumoshorin. Kinsui, S. (2003) Vaacharu Nihongo: Yakuwarigo no Nazo (Virtual Japanese: Enigma of Rolelinked Lexicon). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kinsui, S. (2010) ‘Otoko kotoba’ no rekishi (A history of men’s language). In M. Nakamura (ed.) Jendaa de Manabu Gengogaku (Studying Linguistics through Gender) (pp. 35–49). Tokyo: Sekaishiōsha. Komori, Y. (2000) Nihongo no Kindai (The Japanese Language in Modern Times). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kroskrity, P.V. (2000) Regimenting languages: Language ideological perspectives. In P.V. Kroskrity (ed.) Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities (pp. 1–34). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Kulick, D. (1992) Anger, gender, language shift and the politics of revelation in a Papua New Guinean village. Pragmatics 2 (3), 281–296. Maeda, I. (1977) Ôsakaben (Ōsaka Dialect). Tokyo: Asashi-shinbunsha. Maree, C. (2011) Crossing into Print—Writing Queerness/Reinforcing Heteronormative Beauty in Self-help Manuals. Paper presented at the 2011 International Pragmatics Conference, Manchester, UK. Milroy, J. (2001) Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4), 530–555. Mills, S. and Mullany, L. (2011) Language and Feminism: Theory, Methodology and Practice. New York: Routledge. Miyazaki, A. (2004) Japanese junior high school girls’ and boys’ first-person pronoun use and their social world. In S. Okamoto and J.S. Shibamoto-Smith (eds) Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People (pp. 256–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mizumoto, T. (2006) Terebi dorama to jisshakai ni okeru josee bunmatsushi shiyôô no zure ni miru jendaa firutaa (The gender filter as seen in discrepancies in women’s use of sentence-final forms in television dramas vs. real society). In Nihongo Jendaa Gakkai (Japanese Gender Association) (ed.) Nihongo to Jendaa ( Japanese and Gender) (pp. 73–94). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobō. Nakamura, M. (2001) Kotoba to Jendaa (Language and Gender). Tokyo: Keisō-shobō. Nakamura, M. (2002) Discursive construction of the ideology of women’s language: The Heian period. Nature-People-Society: Science and the Humanities 33, 1324. Nakamura, M. (2004) Discursive construction of the ideology of ‘women’s language’: The impact of war (1914–45). Nature-People-Society: Science and the Humanities 37, 1–39.

104

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

Nakamura, M. (2006) Gengo ideorogii toshite no ‘onna kotoba’: Meiji-ki ‘jogakusei kotoba’ no seiritsu (‘Women’s language’ as a language ideology: Formation of schoolgirls’ language in the Meiji era). In Nihongo Gendāgakkai (ed.) Nihongo to Jendā ( Japanese Language and Gender) (pp. 121–138). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobō. Nakamura, M. (2007a) Onna no Kotoba wa Tsukurareru (Women’s Language is Constructed). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobō. Nakamura, M. (2007b) ‘Sei’ to Nihongo: Kotoba ga Tsukuru Onna to Otoko (‘Sex’ and the Japanese Language: Women and Men Created by Language). Tokyo: Nippon Hōsōshuppan Kyōkai. Nakamura, M. (2008) Masculinity and national language: The silent construction of a dominant language ideology. Gender and Language 2, 25–50. Nakamura, M. (2012) Onna-kotoba to Nihongo (Women’s Language and Japanese). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Ochs, E. (1992) Indexing gender. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds) Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 335–358). New York: Cambridge University Press. Okada, M. (2006) Speaker’s sex or discourse activities? A micro-discourse-based account of usage of nonparticle questions in Japanese. Language in Society 35, 341–365. Okada, M. (2008) When the coach is a woman: The situated meanings of so-called masculine directives in a Japanese boxing gym. In J. Mori and A.S. Ohta (eds) Japanese Applied Linguistics: Discourse and Social Perspectives (pp. 160–187). New York: Continuum. Okamoto, S. (1995) ‘Tasteless’ Japanese: Less ‘feminine’ speech among young Japanese women. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds) Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self (pp. 297–325). New York: Routledge. Okamoto, S. (1996) Representations of diverse female speech styles in Japanese popular culture. In N. Warner, J. Ahlers, L. Bilmes, M. Oliver, S. Wertheim and M. Chen (eds) Proceedings of the 4th Berkeley Women and Language Conference (pp. 575–587). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group. Okamoto, S. (2004) Ideology in linguistic practice and analysis: Gender, and politeness in Japanese revisited. In S. Okamoto and J.S. Shibamoto-Smith (eds) Japanese Language, Gender and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People (pp. 38–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Okamoto, S. (2008) Nihongo ni okeru josei no kotoba-zukai ni taisuru ‘kihan’ no saikôôsatsu (Rethinking the ‘norms’ for Japanese women’s speech). In S. Sato and N. Doerr (eds) Bunka to Kotoba no ‘Hyôôjun’ o Tou (Examination of the Linguistic and Cultural ‘Standard’) (pp. 83–105). Tokyo, Akashi Shoten. Okamoto, S. (2010a) Politeness in East Asia. In M.A. Locher and S.L. Graham (eds) Handbooks of Pragmatics Vol. 6, Interpersonal Pragmatics (pp. 71–100). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Okamoto, S. (2010b) ‘Kotoba-bijin ni naru hôô’: Josei no hanashikata o oshieru jitsuyôôsho no bunseki (‘How to become a language beauty’: Analyses of self-help books that teach women how to talk). Nihongo to Jendaa ( Japanese Language and Gender) 10, 1–25. Okamoto, S. (2011) Gengo to jendaa kenkyū no aratana tenkai (Current issues in gender and language research). Nihongogaku; Tokushuu Gengo-kenkyuu no shin-tenkai ( Japanese Linguistics: Special Issue on Current Issues in Linguistics) 30 (14), 232–243. Okamoto, S. and Shibamoto-Smith, J.S. (2004) Japanese Language, Gender and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rethinking ‘Norms’ for Japanese Women’s Speech

105

Okamoto, S. and Shibamoto-Smith, J.S. (2008) Constructing linguistic femininity in contemporary Japan: Scholarly and popular representations. Gender and Language 2, 87–112. Satake, K. (2002) Nihongo no jendaa-kihan-keisei o megutte: Jogaku-zasshi no gensetsu (On the construction of gender norms in Japanese: Discourses in female students’ magazines). Kotoba (Language) 23, 59–70. Satake, K. (2003) Terebi-anime no rufu-suru ‘onna-kotoba/otoko-kotoba’ kihan (Norms for women’s language and men’s language promulgated through T.V. Anime). Kotoba (Language) 24, 43–59. Schieffelin, B.B., Woolard, K.A. and Kroskrity, P.V. (eds) (1998) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shibamoto-Smith, J.S. (2004) Language and gender in the (hetero)romance: ‘Reading’ the ideal hero/ine through lovers’ dialogue in Japanese romance fiction. In S. Okamoto and J.S. Shibamoto-Smith (eds) Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People (pp. 113–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Silverstein, M. (1979) Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P.R. Clyne, W. Hanks and C.L. Hofbauer (eds) The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. SturtzSreetharan, C.L. (2004) Students, sarariiman (pl.), and seniors: Japanese men’s use of ‘manly’ speech register. Language in Society 33, 81–107. SturtzSreetharan, C.L. (2009) Ore and omae Japanese men’s uses of first- and secondperson pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 19, 253–278. Sugimoto, T. (1997) Onna-kotoba Ima-mukashi (Women’s Language, Now and Then). Tokyo: Yuuzankaku. Sunaoshi, Y. (2004) Farm women’s professional discourse in Ibaraki. In S. Okamoto and J.S. Shibamoto-Smith (eds) Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People (pp. 187–204). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tanabe, S. (1985) Ôsakaben Omoshiro Zôshi (Interesting Tales about Osaka Dialect). Tokyo: Kôdansha. Washi, R. (2000) Nyôbô kotoba no imisayô: Tennôsei, kaisôsei, sekshuaritii (The political function of nyôbô kotoba: Symbolizing the imperial system, class consciousness, and sexuality). Jseigaku Nenpō (Annual Review of Women’s Studies) 21, 18–35. Washi, R. (2004) ‘Japanese female speech’ and language policy in the World War II era. In S. Okamoto and J.S. Shibamoto-Smith (eds) Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People (pp. 76–91). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woolard, K.A. (1992) Language ideology: Issues and approaches. Pragmatics 2 (3), 235–249. Yukawa, S. and Saito, M. (2004) Cultural ideologies in Japanese language and gender studies: A theoretical review. In S. Okamoto and J.S. Shibamoto-Smith (eds) Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People (pp. 23–37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5 Constructing and Constructed Japanese: The History of Standard Japanese and Practice at a Japanese Preschool Shinji Sato

Introduction The matching of a spoken language to a written form is now viewed as self-evident, arbitrary and unproblematic. However, in Japan, as in many countries concerned with nation building, the development of an orthography and a standard Japanese for vernacular literacy has been neither a neutral activity nor simply a search for a way to mechanically reduce a spoken language to a written form. The selection of a standard language and orthography always involves choices based on someone’s idea of what is important. This process of representing the sounds of language in written form is thus an activity deeply grounded in frameworks of value (e.g. language for easier communication or language as cultural depository). The examination of the language used in classrooms is particularly intriguing because national institutions (e.g. schools) serve a special translating function in a society. However, Japanese sociolinguists do not really focus on the relationship between language and ideology, national formation, politics or history. Therefore, until recently, they have not paid much attention to the oppressed structure of language policy toward minorities in Japan or people who speak a dialect. I, as a Japanese language educator whose field is educational anthropology, 106

Constructing and Constructed Japanese

107

constantly face the challenge of how I should engage with the standard language and variations: Should I include variations in the classroom or just focus on the standard language? If I decide to include variations, which variation should I include? When a student uses a variation, should I accept it or correct it as a ‘mistake’? How can I treat the language that some people are actually using as a mistake? Anthropological research that focuses on language ideology makes a promising bridge between linguistic and sociocultural theory. It allows us to relate the micro studies of communicative action (Clancy, 1986; Shibayama, 2001; Uchida, 1990) to macro-political considerations of power (Carroll, 2001; Li, 1996; Mashiko, 2002; Sakai, 1996, 2003; Sanada, 1991; Suzuki, 2003; Twine, 1991; Yasuda, 2006). In this chapter, I briefly review the history of the written (i.e. orthographic) as well as the spoken Japanese language (i.e. standard Japanese) and the current policy on national language education in Japan. I then examine language use in reading and ‘letter (moji) play’ activities to demonstrate how this orthography and standard spoken Japanese is presented and reproduced in the classroom. The goal of this chapter is not to describe the system of Japanese orthography or standard Japanese, but rather to seek the ways that people have engaged in making Japanese orthography and standard Japanese come alive.

Distortion of Japanese Language The disorder of the Japanese language (kotoba no midare) has long been pointed out in different times. More recently, in the expressions of respect in the modern age (gendai syakai ni okeru keii hyogen), which was the outline for reviewing the language policy of the new age (atarashii jidai ni iota kokugo seisaku ni tsuite), it is stated that ‘national language should be simple, exact, beautiful, and rich’ and ‘the current situation was described as “disorder of Japanese language”’. ‘If language is used inappropriately without considering whom and where we talk, it can interfere with a smooth communication or a good relationship with other people’. As a result, the National Language Committee set forth the ‘proper use of language to be considered’ ‘based on the spirit which loves and cherishes national language’ (Bunkachô, 1993). I would like to point out that the people who define a language as a distorted language are usually not the same people who actually live with or communicate in this distorted language. However, the phenomenon of problematizing distorted language is not just a recent trend. For example, the

108

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

government treated dialects as what should be corrected in the 1940s, but now their stance is that dialects ‘should be used appropriately depending on a situation’ (Yasuda, 1999). In the next section, I briefly review the history of the written (i.e. orthographic) as well as the spoken Japanese language (i.e. standard Japanese).

History of Standard Japanese and Orthography The Meiji government found it necessary to create a unified standard language in order to compete with modern Western powers (Gluck, 1989). The linguistic situation in the pre-Meiji period was very complex. In terms of the spoken language, there were many varieties of regional dialect, and some of them were quite different from those of other areas (Gottlieb, 2005). Pre-Meiji Japan spawned a wide range of literary styles, which were very different from everyday speech at the time. For example, four main styles were used including kanbun, or Sino-Japanese; sôrôbun, the so-called epistolary style, used by men in both private and official correspondence and in public notices, advertisements, reports, archives, laws and ordinances; wabun, or classical Japanese; and wakankonkôbun, a mixture of Chinese and Japanese elements (Twine, 1991).

Standard Japanese and dialects Around the middle of the 1880s, statesmen and intellectuals claimed that Japan needed a standard form of both spoken and written Japanese. The National Language Research Council, Japan’s first language policy board, was formed in 1902 and one of its tasks was to conduct a survey of dialects in order to settle upon one as the standard. Around 1890, some novelists started to develop a modern written language based on the colloquial style of the language instead of the wide range of historical and classical styles previously used. This movement was called the genbunitchi (oral and written language as one) (Twine, 1991). However, for most people this did not mean that they wrote as they spoke because at the time there was still a variety of dialects in Japan. In 1916, the standard was formally defined as the Japanese spoken by the educated people of Tokyo, specifically the speech of the Yamanote district (Gottlieb, 2005; Lee, 2009). This standard is now called common language (kyôtsûgo). It is spoken and understood throughout the country and is used in writing and in formal speaking situations. However, regional dialects still remain, and some of them are quite different from those of other areas (Carroll, 2001).

Constructing and Constructed Japanese

109

Orthography in Japan According to Seeley (1991), Japanese is written with a combination of kanji (Chinese characters as used in Japan) and two phonetic scripts, hiragana and katakana. The historical kana spelling (Rekishiteki kanazukai) had been used several centuries earlier and continued to be espoused in official texts of the Meiji period. Conservatives argued that the tradition and ‘culture’ were worth preserving as values in their own right, no matter how cumbersome or irrational they might have appeared. However, reformists proposed modern kana spellings, the rules for which were based on pronunciation in the modern standard language, because it was easier for communication (Lee, 2009; Twine, 1991). In the immediate post-war years, the conservatives were swept from power. The reformists presented a transparent written language accessible to all as a precondition for political participation and democratic citizenship. The change to kana spelling became one of the most important tasks of social reform. In 1946, the policy of modern kana spelling (Gendai kanazukai) replaced the historical kana spelling. However, the policy was binding only on government departments, which included the writing of textbooks, but individuals were free to follow it or not as they chose (Carroll, 2001).

Dissemination of Standard Japanese through Education The process of the dissemination of standard Japanese and orthography does not depend only on the activities of policymakers and researchers. At the ground level, dissemination is accomplished through instruction by teachers, often using textbooks. In the following sections, I examine the role of language standardization in Japan and its relationship to teacher education and the construction of the nation. I look at how the Course of Study (gakusyû shidô yôryô) published by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), especially for kokugo (national language), is implemented by policymakers and how it is applied in textbooks and teachers’ manuals.

Course of Study for Kokugo (National Language) A new subject, kokugo, which combined reading, composition and calligraphy, was implemented in the elementary school curriculum in August 1900. The goal of the new subject was to teach ‘model kokugo’ (Kai, 2008). Based on the censorship of national textbooks that was implemented in 1903, the first national kokugo textbooks were published. Its ‘editorial prospectus’

110

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

stated that the textbook was designed ‘in the effort to bring unity in kokugo by teaching its standard, using colloquial style texts and the language of the middle-class in Tokyo’ (Lee, 2009). The textbook also placed emphasis on ‘correct’ pronunciation. As for dialects, the 1947 national language Course of Study for elementary schools stated that dialects should be avoided as much as possible (Monbushô, 1947). The 1951 Course of Study took the same approach, stating that students should be able to speak politely by using the standard language and correct expressions (Monbushô, 1951) and the 1958 version stated that students should be aware of the differences between the common language and their local dialect (Monbushô, 1958). This was achieved not only through textbooks, but also by reading widely and by listening to the radio (Bunkachô, 1977: 92). This overt discouragement of local dialects faded out around the late 1960s and was replaced using different varieties depending on the situation. By 1968, the guidelines had been modified to state the importance of learning to use both the common language and the students’ local dialects appropriately, according to the setting and circumstances (Monbushô, 1968). The 2008 Courses of Study for national language at the primary and secondary levels employed the same approach. It stated that students should learn to understand the differences between their local dialect and the common language, and at the same time understand honorific language (keigo) and use each appropriately in an actual situation (Monbushô, 2008). Here, the key to the current approach is the idea of using different language varieties including dialects and honorific language according to the setting and circumstances (Carroll, 2001).

Textbook and textbook manual Education authorities create and revise the Course of Study, but textbooks and teachers’ manuals play a significant role in shaping what students learn and what teachers teach in school: the textbook curriculum sets daily content, and teachers’ manuals often play a significant role in determining a teacher’s instructions in the classroom. In elementary school, students must learn two phonetic syllabaries and the Roman alphabet. Hiragana is introduced in volume 1 of the two-volume first-grade textbook Shinpen atarashii kokugo (New National Language). Katakana is introduced in volume 2. The study of rômaji (roman letters) begins in the fourth grade. For example, Tokyo Shoseki, one of six commercial publishing companies specializing in educational materials, has published a Japanese language textbook for elementary school. The textbook, Atarashii Kokugo (‘New Japanese’) (Tokyo syoseki, 2005a), includes the following passage where particles are taught.

Constructing and Constructed Japanese

111

わには、えびへ　おてがみを　かいた。 Wani wa, ebi e otegami o kaita. An alligator wrote a letter to a shrimp. はとは、へびへ　おへんじを　かいた。 Hato wa, hebi e ohenji o kaita. A dove wrote a reply to a snake. わたしはゆみです。 Watashi wa Yumi desu. I am Yumi. はなはきれいです。 Hana wa kirei desu. Flowers are beautiful. The teacher’s manual (Tokyo syoseki, 2005b) suggests the following exercise: ‘Let’s listen to what the teacher reads, and read aloud together with the teacher’. The teacher is advised to tell the students that the sentence does not make sense if they do not follow the rules and to advise them to practice correct orthography. However, this logic is applied to only those who have already mastered the ‘correct’ orthography. For those who have not mastered the orthography, it may make sense even if they do not follow the ‘correct’ orthography.

Guidelines for kindergartens and childcare centers Before entering elementary school, many children can already read and write hiragana. Almost all preschoolers in Japan pick up some hiragana at home and in either kindergarten or childcare centers by being exposed to television and printed materials (Taylor & Taylor, 1995). In the following, I will examine the ways in which knowledge about standard Japanese is presented, received, shared and controlled by teachers and children at a preschool. The majority of preschoolers are enrolled either in childcare centers (hoikuen) or in kindergartens (yôchien). Children in childcare centers, which are regulated by the Ministry of Welfare and Labour, are between the ages of six weeks (when the national maternity leave program expires) and age six. The standard childcare center program runs eight hours a day, six days a week, though some now offer extended hours to accommodate parents with irregular working hours or long commutes. Under the authority of the MEXT, kindergartens accept children from age three until six, when they enter elementary school. Most programs run for four hours a day, though some have now extended their hours in response to the demands of working mothers.

112

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

The Child-Care Center guidelines (hoikusyo hoiku shishin) (Kôsei Rôdôsyô, 1999) include the following statement of goals regarding language: ‘To naturally develop children’s interest in and awareness of language in their daily lives, and to foster positive attitudes toward speaking and listening and rich language’. The official kindergarten curriculum guidelines (Yôchien kyôiku shidô yôryô) (Monbushô, 1998) also describe the goals of kindergarten education in section 2. Among five stated goals in section 2, the number four: language (kotoba) is related to letters (moji): To develop an interest in and an appreciation of the words used in everyday life, and to cultivate an attitude of pleasure in speaking and listening and a sense of the meaning of words. The professional consensus among childcare centers, kindergartens and elementary schools is that the rule of thumb for the upper limit of preschool and childcare center training is to teach the students no more than to recognize and write their own names and to count up to ten. Both childcare centers and kindergartens do not encourage ‘direct’ instruction of language. Rather, they encourage teachers to develop children’s interest and awareness of language ‘naturally.’

Data: Language Play at a Japanese Childcare Center Akebono childcare center is 1 of 61 childcare centers in Hakodate, a city located in Hokkaido, the large northern island of Japan. It is located in the eastern region of the city in a residential area. The center was 24 years old at the time of my study and had a total enrollment of 92 students (50 boys and 42 girls). The 5- to 6-year-old Himawari (Sunflower) class had 12 boys and 12 girls. Ms Sakamoto1 was a classroom teacher for the Himawari class. She graduated from a community college where she received a teaching certificate for both childcare centers and kindergartens. She worked for a kindergarten for three years and at a children’s club for five years before she came to Akebono childcare center. She had been teaching at Akebono childcare center for eight years. Akebono childcare center has been incorporating Kana character play activity into its curriculum since 1982. In 1982, the Akebono childcare center received a phone call from the parents of a child. They said their child had lost interest in Japanese script. Whenever the parents encouraged the child to learn Japanese script or numbers, she would say that Ms Mori would scold her if she showed interest. The parents were very upset and asked why it was wrong to teach letters or numbers to children if they were interested. As soon as the principal and the head teacher at the center received the phone call, they talked to Ms Mori. She admitted that she thought it was wrong to teach Japanese script and numbers to the children before they

Constructing and Constructed Japanese

113

went to elementary school because they could lose interest in play. Soon after this, the center asked parents and other teachers for their opinions about teaching Japanese script and numbers. Most parents requested that the center teach them. Based on this feedback, the principal and the head teacher created guidelines for the center that focused on children’s interests in daily life. It said that when children showed an interest in Japanese script and numbers, teachers should not discourage it. In the 5- and 6-year-old class between January and March, while the younger children were taking a nap, these children could study letters and numbers. I observed the class on a regular basis in order to get an overall sense of classroom activities between November 2003 and June 2004. I then videotaped various language-related activities of the Himawari (Sunflower) class such as letter play (moji asobi) or book reading. In the following sections, keeping in mind the history of Japan’s standard language and the politics of education, I look at three aspects of education through the lens of a school’s institutional practice: linguistic variation, orthography and correct pronunciation.

Representation of Linguistic Difference in Spoken Language: Dialects and the Standard Language In everyday speech, people tend to distinguish between languages and dialects as if there were a meaningful distinction between the two. The problem is that the labels ‘language’ and ‘dialect’ are not, in fact, real, technical linguistic terms. The distinction between a language and a dialect is merely based on social, political and economic factors (Coulmas, 2002). There is some evidence of this in the classroom that I observed. The following examples are taken from a book reading. The teacher was reading a book, Kamortori Gonbei, in which Gonbei catches ducks. In this story, Gonbei speaks the Kansai dialect, which is spoken in the Osaka, Kyoto and Kobe areas. The teacher commented on Gonbei’s language several times in the reading. 109

Teacher2 (T): Gonbei san ga ochita tokoro wa kasaya no mise saki no kasa no ue deshita. The place where Gonbei fell with right on top of an umbrella in front of the umbrella shop.

110

Kasa wa tsuburete barabara The umbrella broke into small pieces.

114

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

111

Kasaya no syujin ga detekite, erai okori yotta. The owner of the store came out and got very upset.

112

‘Kora, nanchû koto o shite kuretanya’. ‘Hey, what did you do to the umbrella’.

113

‘Erai sunmahen’. ‘Erai sunmahen (=I am so sorry)’.

114

‘Kasahari tetsudawasete morai’. ‘I will help you make umbrellas’.

115

Erai sunmahen datte. (Aside, to students) He said erai sunmahen (=I am so sorry).

116

Osaka no hito dakara, sôiufû ni iun da yo ne. He is from Osaka, so he uses such an expression.

117

Minna sôiufû ni iwanai yo ne. We do not use such an expression.

118

Akihiro (A): Un No.

119

T:

Minna, nan te iukke? What do we say?

120

Shun (S):

Suimasendeshita. Suimasendeshita (=I am sorry).

121

T:

Suimasendeshita tte iu/ We say Suimasendeshita (=I am sorry)?

122

A:

Suimahen. Suimahen (=I am sorry).

123

T:

Ne, Osaka no hito da kara ne. Erai sunmahen tte itta n date. Yes, it’s because he is from Osaka. That’s why he said Erai sunmahen (=I am so sorry). Hahahahaha… (The teacher laughs.)

124

Chigau kotoba da ne, Osaka no hito ne. They use different language, people from Osaka, right.

Constructing and Constructed Japanese

115

As we have seen here, the students did not react to the difference between their language and Gonbei’s language when the teacher first read the line. The difference was pointed out by the teacher afterward and the students were encouraged to seek the difference. In line 115 after she read the line Erai sunmahen (=I am sorry), the teacher encouraged the students to pay attention to the phrase by saying that Erai sunmahen deshita and added the reason in line 116 (Osaka no hito dakara, sôiufûni iun da yo ne. [=He is from Osaka, so he uses such an expression.]) Then she contrasted people from Osaka with the children in the class, who were from Hokkaido or Hakodate. She said, ‘Minna sôiufûni iwanai yo ne. (=We [as opposed to people from Osaka] do not use such an expression)’ in line 117. After she made a distinction between people from Osaka and the children, she asked the children what they, as opposed to people from Osaka, say in the same situation. Shun answered ‘Suimasendeshita (=I am sorry)’, but this answer was questioned by the teacher (We say Suimasendeshita?). Before she gave her answer to the students, in line 123 she emphasized the distinction between them and people from Osaka by noting Gonbei’s Osaka origins. Then the teacher laughed and differentiated people from Osaka again by saying, ‘Chigau kotoba da ne, Osaka no hito ne (=They use different language, people from Osaka, right.)’. The teacher continued reading and commenting on Gonbei’s Osaka dialect. She assumed that the children did not know the expression, Kanninya (=I am sorry), so she pointed it out. When the students heard the expression, they laughed at it. Then the teacher translated a phrase for the students, Yurushite tte koto da ne (=That means please forgive oneself). 128

Teacher:

Kasahari tetsudawashite moraimasu kara I would like to help you make umbrellas,…

129

Kannin ya. Kannin ya (=I am sorry).

130

Kannin ya. Kanninya tte no mo kiita koto aru/ (Aside, to students) Kannin ya. (=I am sorry.) Have you ever heard of the expression, Kannin ya? Hahahahaha… (Children laugh.)

131

Yurushite tte koto da ne. That means please forgive me.

116

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

In the above examples, both the teacher and the students laughed at the phrases in the Osaka dialect. A major function of laughing or mocking a type of language (i.e. the Osaka dialect) is to differentiate the majority language populations from minority language populations (i.e. members of historically dialect-speaking populations) (Hill, 2001; Inoue, 2000). In the past children were banned from speaking their own regional dialects at school and if they were caught, they were often subjected to punishment. For example, in Okinawa, the hôgen fuda (dialect placard) was used to punish children who spoke the Okinawa dialect at school (Gottleib, 2005). The teacher and students were producing and reproducing categories of ‘difference’ such as dialects, establishing a hierarchy by correcting, accepting the correction and laughing at linguistic variance.

Orthography: Exceptions Every writing system is an abstraction. Artifact and speech can be represented by graphical means only imperfectly (Coulmas, 1989). A writing system is a way of reducing the continuous sound stream of speech to the necessarily discrete units of written representation. The standard Japanese orthography is no exception. Children formally learn the first Japanese phonetic script, hiragana, when they are in first grade, though some children at the center were already able to read and write script. They had learned script at home. Japanese has two phonetic scripts (e.g. hiragana and katakana) and once children master one of these phonetic scripts, technically they are able to write anything they want. However, there are some ‘exceptions’. Modern kana spellings are based on pronunciation in the modern standard language. However, modern kana spellings retain a number of ‘exceptions’ which reflect a degree of consideration for earlier historical usage: the use of the kana は (ha), へ (he) and を (o)3 for the grammatical particles pronounced wa, e and o, respectively (Monbushô, 1946). Even though this document stated that the new orthography of 1946 (List of Characters for General Use and Modern Kana Usage) was intended to show the ground rules for writing modern Japanese in kana as stated in the preface, it was adopted by newspapers, magazines and official texts of all kinds almost immediately, and was put into effect in school textbooks from April of the following year (Seeley, 1991; Twine, 1991). In 1982, the minister requested a re-examination of modern kana usage and a special committee was set up. After four years, the committee submitted a report entitled ‘Revised Modern kana Usage’ (Kaitei Gendai Kanazukai) in 1986 (Seeley, 1991; Monbushô, 1986). This report recommended the abolition of little-used alternatives such as writing the grammatical particles ‘wa’ and ‘e’ using わ (wa) and え (e).

Constructing and Constructed Japanese

117

This type of creation of supposedly arbitrary sound/sign (signifier/ signified) relationships that constitute the orthography always involves valuation. Even though modern kana usage is a historical product of a nationbuilding activity and has been changed from time to time, this rule is still discursive. This is now represented as a part of the orthography. However, as we have seen, modern kana usage still retains a number of features, which reflect a degree of consideration for the earlier historical usage. For example, the use of the kana は, へ and を to represent the grammatical particles wa, e and o, when わ, え and お are normally used for these sounds. This rule is a historical remnant: every aspect of language was contested and there was no single ideology of language. When the nation was built, multiple, competing and contradictory ideologies were offered as the ‘logic’ for contesting particular features. However, such logics were claimed to be strictly scientific, when they were culturally constructed and represented particular political and social interests. In this chapter, I examine how the teacher presents these arbitrary features to students. In the following excerpt the teacher asked students to write a letter to their favorite person. Here a student asked how to write the phrase ‘~e (Dear–)’, which includes the grammatical particle ‘e’ in Japanese. 310

Kota:

Sensei, ‘e’4 tte dô kaku no? Teacher, how do I write ‘e’?

311

Teacher: へ. E tte no wa ne, へ tte kaku no. へ. For ‘e’ here you write へ.

312

Nani nani. Koichi-kun e dattara ne, e dattara, When you want to write ‘Koichi-kun e (=Dear Koichi)’, you want to write ‘e’,

313

へ tte kaku no. You write へ.

314

Ano ne, nani nani e tte no wa ne. When you want to write ‘nani nani e’ (Dear such and such),

315

Kono へ. ヘ tte kaku no. You use へ. This へ.

316

Kawatteru desyo. It is very strange, no?

118

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

In this excerpt the teacher simply repeated the fact that for the grammatical particle ‘e’, へ should be used instead of え. She comments that it is very strange. The following excerpt shows another example. In this play, the teacher introduced a letter ‘を (o)’ first and then asked students to write the letter in their workbooks. The grammatical particle ‘o’ is written not as お, but を, which has exactly the same pronunciation. The teacher explains when students use を in this excerpt. 424

Teacher (T):

Kondo wa ne, ue ni tsuku n ja nai desu yo, ne. This time this letter doesn’t come first, OK?

425

Kore wa ue ni tsuku o ja arimasen. This ‘o’ does not come first.

426

Chisaki (C):

E, nande? Huh, why?

427

T:

Ue ni tsuku o ja naindesu. This is not the one that comes first.

428

Haru (H):

Shita, ichiban shita. Last. The very last.

429

T:

(The teacher is pointing to a hiragana chart on the wall.) Itsumo tsukatteru o wa ne, chotto mieru kana, Koko no shita no o dake do. ‘O’ that we normally use is… can you see? this bottom one. (The teacher points to お on the hiragana chart.)

430

Ue ni tsuku ‘o’ wa kono ‘o’ dakedo ne. ‘O’ that comes first is this お, but

431

Kono ‘o’ wa chigaimasu. This ‘o’ is different, you know.

432

Mite mite. Look. Look.

433

Kono otehon no shita no tokoro ni ‘te o arau’

Constructing and Constructed Japanese

119

This book has ‘te o arau (=wash hands)’ at the bottom. 434

Te o arau. Te o arau (=wash hands)

435

Soiu toki ni tsukaimasu. It is used like that.

436

Sho (S):

437

Mika (M):

Sore dare no? Whose book is that? Sore dare no? Whose book is that?

438

M:

Sore dare no? Whose book is that?

439

T:

Nani nani o suru toka, Like something o suru (=Like do something).

440

Kore wa Sensei no desu. This is mine.

441

Nani nani o nani nani Something o something (=do something)

442

Mamoaru (M):

Wakatta. I get it.

443

Tatoeba, ringo o taberu? Like ringo o taberu (=eat an apple).

444

T:

Sô desu. That’s correct.

445

Sôiufûni tsukaundesu. It is used like that.

The teacher explains that を is ‘not the one that comes first’ and it is simply used like naninani o naninani. However, this phrase, naninani o naninani, is very ambiguous. This can be translated as ‘do such and such’ (object + o + verb) or something + o + something (a word that has the sound ‘o’ in the middle).

120

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

The point is not that teachers should explain about the orthography to the students more clearly. Even though this discourse is determined as orthography by the MEXT, it can never be captured precisely because it is constantly changing; there are always exceptions and some varieties. Even if the rule is well written, it is impossible to include an exhaustive listing of exceptions and there will always be new words and usages.

Pronunciation When they learn hiragana, children also learn sounds that correspond to the letters. Historically, two tables have been used to present hiragana, one of the two Japanese phonetic scripts: the Gojûon chart (literally, ‘fiftysound’ chart) and the Iroha chart. According to Mabuchi (1993), the Gojûon chart was systematic and consistent at the time it was made around the Heian period (794–1192 BC). In the Gojûon chart, the kana syllabaries are arranged in 5 horizontal vowel rows and 10 vertical consonant columns. The order of the consonants is k, s, t, n, h, m, y, r and w. Right after the Gojûon chart was created, a mnemonic device was created: The Iroha Song is a poem which uses each hiragana only once. The major difference between the two charts is that the Gojûon chart systematically arranges all Japanese sounds, while The Iroha Song is just a song which includes all hiragana (Komatsu, 1979). For the necessity of teaching standard pronunciation, the Meiji government decided to adopt the Gojiûon chart in the classroom (Mabuchi, 1991). This study of children learning hiragana shows us not only how children learn letters, but also how arbitrary the writing system is: children need to match sound from a continuous sound stream of speech with letters. In the next section, I look closely at letters and sounds, especially the matching process between letters and sounds. To take a very simple example, in letter (moji) lessons, children are expected to learn letters as well as how to match letters to sounds. At this stage, 5- to 6-year-old children can live their lives without using any letters. They are already using Japanese to communicate with other people, but here when they learn letters and orthography, they need to relearn the language. In the classroom, students’ ‘mispronunciations’ are discovered and corrected by the teacher. In the following excerpt, the teacher asks the students to give her a word which starts with ‘ro’, but a student answers with a word starting with ‘do’ instead.

Constructing and Constructed Japanese

640

121

Teacher (T): Rika-san Rika.

641

Rika (R):

Rorinku Rorinku

642

R:

Bôring? Bowling?

643

T:

Chigau chigau. ‘Bo’ ja nai. No. no. Not ‘bo’.

644

Chotto Yuri-kun, suwattete kudasai. Yuri, please sit down.

645

R:

Osake de katteru yatsu. The ones which we buy at liquor (stores)?

646

T:

Osake de katteru yatsu. The ones which we buy at liquor (stores).

647

Kai (K):

Tankobu Bump.

648

T:

Tankobu no hanashi shite nai desu. We are not talking about bumps.

649

Sonna hanashi shitemasen. We are not talking about it.

650

Nan darô, osake de katte ru no What are the things which we buy at liquor (stores)?

651

Rorinku/ Rorinku?

652

Aa, dorinku/ Ah, drink?

653

Aa, dorinku datta ra, ano ne, ‘do’ de nai na, I see. If you meant drink, the answer would be incorrect.

654

‘Ro’ da ne.

122

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

It is ‘ro’. 655

R:

‘Ro’ ‘Ro’

656

T:

Iya chigau chigau, ‘do’. No. You are wrong. ‘Do’.

657

R:

658

T:

Chigau No. Dorinku tte itta? You said drink?

659

Uun, chotto chigau. Well, it is a bit different.

Before we rush to correct it, let us try to understand the ‘mistake’. First, the student gave a word to the teacher without any context and the teacher could not figure out what it was. But after the children explained ‘osake de katteru yatsu (=What we buy at liquor [stores])’, the teacher figured out what the student meant. In this process, another student tried to create a meaning to make sense of it by saying ‘bôring (=Boring?)’ in line 642. However, the teacher interrupted this attempt because the word did not start with ‘ro’. In the next excerpt, the teacher asks students if they know any words which start with ‘り’, which would include words starting with either ri (り), rya (りゃ), ryu (りゅ) or ryo (りょ). A student then gives the teacher a word which starts with ‘yo’. 425

Teacher (T): Hai (The teacher looks at Dai.) Yes.

426

Dai (D):

Yôkin Yôkin.

427

T:

428

D:

N? Huh? Yôkin Yôkin.

429

T:

Yôkin? Yôkin?

430

Yôkin tte nan desu ka.

Constructing and Constructed Japanese

123

What is yôkin? 431

Koji (K):

Zôkin da. It must be zôkin (rag).

432

D:

Yôkin Yôkin

433

Masako (M) Ryôkin, okane no koto ja nai?

434

D:

It must be ryôkin. Money. Sore ryôkin. That’s ryôkin. 435

Yôkin, okane no koto, yôkin. Yôkin. I meant yôkin, money.

436

T:

Yo ja nai, ryokin. That’s not ‘yo.’ Ryôkin.

437

Okane no koto wa ‘ri,’ ‘ri’ desu. The word, ryôkin (fare) starts with ri, ri.

438

Ryôkin Ryôkin

439

Hai, ( ) kun Yes, ( ).

In this example, again, the teacher could not figure out what the student meant, but before the teacher had figured it out, other students tried to understand what it might mean. The first attempt, ‘zôkin da (=It must be a rag)’ in line 431 by Koji was not successful, but Masako figured out what it was. In line 433, a student said, ‘Ryôkin. okane no koto ja nai?(=Ryôkin. It must be ryôkin. Money.)’ and Dai, a student who answered, agreed by saying ‘Yôkin, okane no koto, yôkin. (=Yôkin. I meant yôkin, Money.)’. Then the teacher corrected his pronunciation. ‘Okane no koto wa ‘ri,’ ‘ri’ desu.’ in lines 436–438. As we have seen in the above examples, students are corrected in their pronunciation by the teacher. These examples are interesting because the wrong pronunciations were actually ‘discovered’ in the letter class when a sound was matched with a letter. Previously, the students might not have any problems in their daily lives using ‘inappropriate’ pronunciation. In fact, I have never encountered teachers correcting students’ pronunciation other than in this letter class.

124

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

Conclusion In this chapter, as we have seen, standard Japanese and orthography have been fundamentally shaped by the emergence of modern power and the nation state, and they have been maintained by statesmen and intellectuals. A major challenge facing modern states has been how to form a culturalideological national identity among the diverse populations’ rules and regulated by a given state, and establishing a common or standard language is one of the most important projects (Gluck, 1989). I have emphasized that educational institutions such as school play a key role in the construction of a legitimate standard language. At one point, the working classes and people outside Tokyo had to struggle in a political system when the standard Japanese was created based on the speech of educated people in Tokyo. In the struggle, schools have been important tools because in a social order in which the standard language and education are increasingly seen as essential to proper, full and effective moral citizenship, nobody would deny the benefits of learning the standard language (Anderson, 1983; Gellner, 1983; Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983). In other words, language policy, in the form of a standard language, can indeed serve as a tool for empowering groups and individuals and for unifying a nation, but at the same time it can also be used to reproduce the current social inequalities and discrimination (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). This is apparent if we see a local practice. For example, people distinguish dialect from the standard, a correct way of writing (orthography) from a wrong way, correct pronunciation from wrong pronunciation. When people distinguish them, people laugh at, rephrase or correct them. In other words, people give a value (such as funny, wrong or strange) to different language varieties. The processes of recognizing and legitimizing different language varieties (e.g. dialects) always come with valuation and the processes of valuation are never just about language. It is always attached to people who use the language variety. As we have seen, ‘wrong’ pronunciation and ‘wrong’ writing are subject to social pressure, thus bringing to bear a cultural influence on language. The process of language valuation, among many other things, accompanies the construction and legitimation of power, the product of social and cultural relations of sameness and difference and the creation of cultural stereotypes about social and cultural groups (Giroux, 1992). The decision about which language is to be used in schools is a language policy decision, as are decisions about what other languages or dialects are taught and how language will be taught. In other words, language educators’ existence as a profession depends on language policies. Language educators are the ones who actually contribute to maintain the existing power relations

Constructing and Constructed Japanese

125

(Bourdieu, 1991). Therefore, it is very important for language educators as well as policymakers to have critical language awareness (Fairclough, 1992). Here, critical language awareness emphasizes the non-neutrality of language as a medium of communication; language is constantly changing, but it is not transforming by itself. Individuals who relate to the language in any ways are responsible for the change (Yamamoto, 2004). Researchers and educators tend not to be critical about matters relating to language policy, but we need to think about language issues as more personal rather than abstract and removed from daily concerns. I have looked at the Japanese language by shifting attention to linguistic differentiation rather than community. However, this shift opens the door to reflections on some fundamental questions about the Japanese language itself. As we have seen in the first half of this chapter, the standard Japanese language is a historical product. It was chosen in the modern era and is being maintained by the Japanese government. The latter half of the chapter demonstrates how the standard language, including orthography, and different varieties were reproduced and maintained at the level of local practice. It is important that both language learners and teachers question and respond to the common-sense assumptions such as distorted Japanese because Japanese language in the future depends on how each individual relates to the language. Educators need to be aware that teachers and students are the ones who must be empowered to make the linguistic modifications that could result in ideological change.

Acknowledgment I would like to thank the teachers and children at Akebono childcare center, especially the head teacher Ms Nakamura. I also thank Neriko Doerr, Miyuki Fukai, Ikuko Gyobu, Motoko Igarashi, Yuji Moro, Fumiko Nazikian and Kiyoe Sakamoto who made comments on the earlier version of this chapter.

Notes (1) (2) (3) (4)

The names used in this chapter are fictitious to protect privacy. Formally, the word caregiver (hoikushi) should be used at childcare centers, but people conventionally use the word teacher (sensei). There are two different Chinese characters to represent the sound ‘o’: お and を. ‘E’ and ‘o’ here show pronunciation. ‘E’ is pronounced as ‘e’ in ‘egg’ and ‘o’ in ‘old’.

References Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities. New York: Verso. Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

126

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. London: Sage. Bunkachô (1993) Gendai Syakai ni Okeru Keii Hyôgen (Polite Expressions in Modern Society). See http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/t20001208001/t200012 08001.html (accessed December 2013). Carroll, T. (2001) Language Planning and Language Change in Japan. Richmond: Curzon. Clancy, P. (1986) Acquiring communicative style in Japanese. In B. Schieffelin and E. Ochs (eds) Language Socialization across Cultures (pp. 213–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coulmas, F. (2002) Language policy in modern Japanese education. In J. Tellefson (ed.) Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues (pp. 203–223). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fairclough, N. (1992) Critical Language Awareness. London, New York: Longman. Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Giroux, H. (1992) Border Crossing: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. London: Routledge. Gluck, C. (1989) Japan’s Modern Myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji Period. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gottlieb, N. (2005) Language and Society in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (1983) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hill, J.H. (2001) Language, race, and white public space. In A. Duranti (ed.) Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader (pp. 450–464). London: Blackwell. Inoue, F. (2000) Nihongo no Nedan (Price of Japanese). Tokyo: Taisyukan Shoten. Kai, Y. (2008) Kokugoka no Seiritsu (Establishment of National Language as a School Subject). Tokyo: Toyokan Syuppansya. Komatsu, H. (1979) Iroha Uta: Nihonshi e no Izanai (Iroha Song). Tokyo: Chuokoronshinsya. Kosei-shô (1999) Hoikisyo hoiku shishin (National Guidelines for Child-care Centers). Tokyo: ôkura-syô Insatsu-kyoku. Lee, Y. (2009) Ideology of Kokugo. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii. Mabuchi, K. (1993) Gojuonzu no Hanashi (Story about Fifty Sounds). Tokyo: Taishukan shoten. Mashiko, H. (2002) Kotoba no Seiji Syakai Gaku (Politico-Sociology of Language). Tokyo: Sangensya. Mashiko, H. (2003) Ideorogii to Shite no Nihon ( Japan as Ideology). Tokyo: Sangensya. Monbushô (1890) Syôgakkô rê (Elementary School Order). Tokyo: Ôkura-syô Insatsu-kyoku. Monbushô (1947) Gakusyû Shidô Yôryô (Shian): Syôgakkô Kokugo (Course of Study (Tentative): Elementary School National Language). Tokyo: Ôkura-syô Insatsu-kyoku. Monbushô (1951) Gakusyû Shidô Yôryô: Syôgakkô Kokugo (Course of Study: Elementary School National Language). Tokyo: Ôkura-syô Insatsu-kyoku. Monbushô (1958) Gakusyû Shidô Yôryô: Syôgakkô Kokugo (Course of Study: Elementary School National Language). Tokyo: Ôkura-syô Insatsu-kyoku. Monbushô (1968) Gakusyû Shidô Yôryô: Syôgakkô Kokugo (Course of Study: Elementary School National Language). Tokyo: Ôkura-syô Insatsu-kyoku. Monbushô (1998) Yôchien Kyôiku Yôryô (Guidelines for Kindergartens). Tokyo: Ôkura-syô Insatsu-kyoku. Monbushô (2008) Gakusyû Shidô Yôryô: Syôgakkô Kokugo (Course of Study: Elementary School National Language). Tokyo: Ôkura-syô Insatsu-kyoku.

Constructing and Constructed Japanese

127

Naikaku Kokuji 33 gô (1946) Gendai Kanazukai (Modern Kana Usage). Naikaku Kokuji 1 gô (1986) Gendai Kanazukai (Modern Kana Usage). Sakai, N. (1996) Shizan Sareru Nihongo, Nihonjin: ‘Nihon’ no Rekishi—Chiseiteki Haichi (The Stillbirth of Japanese: The History of Japan – The Topographic Configuration). Tokyo: Shinyôsya. Sanada, S. (1991) Hyojungo wa Ikani Seiritsu Shitaka (How was the Standard Japanese Constructed?). Tokyo: Sotakusya. Seeley, C. (1991) A History of Writing in Japan. New York: E.J. Brill. Shibayama, M. (2001) Koui to Hatsuwa Keisei no Esunogurafi (Ethnography of Forming Action and Speech). Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku syuppan kai. Suzuki, Y. (2003) Tsukurareta Nihongo, Gengo to iu Kyokô – ‘Kokugo’ Kyôiku no Shitekitakoto (Constructed Japanese). Tokyo: Ubun syoin. Tokyo syoseki (2005a) Shinpen Atarashii Kokugo Jô (New National Language) (Volume 1, new edn). Tokyo: Tokyo syoseki. Tokyo syoseki (2005b) Shinpen Atarashii Kokugo Jô: Kyôshiyô Shidô Syo (New National Language) (Volume 1, new edn, Teachers’ manual). Tokyo: Tokyo syoseki. Twine, N. (1991) Language and the Modern State: The Reform of Written Japanese. New York: Routledge. Uchida, N. (1990) Gengo Kinô no Hattatsu (Development of Language Function). Tokyo: Kaneko shobo. Yamamoto, M. (2004) Gengoteki Kindai o Koete (Beyond Linguistic Modernization). Tokyo: Akashi shoten. Yasuda, T. (1999) ‘Kokugo’ to ‘Hôgen’ no Aida: Gengo Kôchiku no Seijigaku (Between National Language and Dialects). Tokyo: Jinbun syoin. Yasuda, T. (2006) Tôgôgenri to Shite no Kokugo (National Language as Integration Principle). Tokyo: Sangensya.

6 How Japanese Education for Young People Has Been Discussed: A Critical Analysis from a Relational Viewpoint Uichi Kamiyoshi

Introduction Since the 1990s, Japanese society has witnessed an increase in the number of people residing in Japan for various reasons whose mother tongue is not Japanese, with no sign of a significant reduction in the future. Among them is a considerable population of school-age children. According to statistics from 2012, ‘foreign children and students requiring JSL instruction’1 enrolled in schools throughout Japan numbered 27,013. Starting in the 1990s, this change in demographics prompted researchers of Japanese language education to point out the importance of Japanese language instruction and educational support for children whose mother tongue is not Japanese (hereafter, JSL children 2). Since the beginning of this century, discussions regarding JSL children have received further attention. However, how the educational needs of JSL children are discussed has not been examined. From what viewpoints do researchers of Japanese education for young people narrate the present situation of JSL children? What ‘problems’ and support concerning JSL children are they discussing? This chapter looks in detail at the discourse3 that ‘JSL children are not sufficiently participating in learning activities at school due to problems in their language competence, particularly in the language of instruction’. Indeed, it is probably true that compared to children who are native Japanese speakers, JSL children are weaker in ‘Japanese language proficiency’. Also likely is that this lower level of ‘Japanese language 128

How Japanese Education for Young People Has Been Discussed

129

proficiency’ causes actual hardship in some aspects of learning. At the same time, however, the success or failure of learning activities is not determined only by the internal ability of the participant in question (Varenne & McDermott, 1998). A relational viewpoint perceives success or failure in learning as resulting instead from interrelationships among such aspects as learning contexts, the nature of relationships with other people and objects, the purposes of the learning activities, the culture of the classroom and the culture and language of the JSL child. This contrasts with the conventional ‘individual ability’ standpoint, which attributes success or failure in learning to an individual’s ability, and the outcome of learning to an individual’s problem-solving skills. This chapter aims to reconsider JSL children’s learning from a relational point of view. ‘Individual meritocracy’ views learning as the effect of an individual’s capability only. This chapter will critically examine ‘standardization’, the theme of this book, and, in particular, the culture that standardizes learning outcome as the effect of individual ability. Here, ‘standardization’ refers to establishing a ‘correct’ standard, whether in learning or in language use, as a model that education and learning should approximate (see Chapter 1).

Discourse and Discourse Analysis How are the ‘problems’ of JSL children covered in the research on Japanese education for young people? Discourse regarding JSL children as having ‘problems’ likely did not exist prior to the surge in their numbers but was discursively constructed through continual discussions about JSL children. The term discourse refers to a body of thought on a given matter and is ‘a set of meanings, metaphors, representations, images, stories, statements and so on that in some way together produce a particular version of events’ (Burr, 1995: 32). A discourse is not a mere collection of sentences or utterances but determines, and is determined by, its social context (Mills, 2004). A widely distributed discourse is socially persuasive and thus becomes sanctified and understood as self-evident, becoming in turn a source of authority, sometimes attaining a ‘holy’ character that almost binds people4 (Imazu, 1997: 12). It is said that discourses developed by researchers are powerful and influence social practices (Spector & Kitsuse, 1977). The field of second language education for young people is no exception to this rule (Valdés, 2004): in their production and circulation, the relevant discourses create a ‘standard’ and ‘common sense’ for society.

130

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

The Discourse in Studies on Japanese Language Education for Young People The discourse that ‘JSL children cannot sufficiently participate in learning activities at school due to problems in their language competence, particularly with cognitive academic language proficiency’, which is present in some studies on Japanese education for young people, seems to be built on two assumptions. First, the discourse takes JSL children’s individual abilities as the focus of discussion. This assumption is based on an ideology that attributes the success of learning activities solely to individuals’ abilities, such as academic attainment and competence in the language. Second, the discourse assumes that the success of learning activities is measurable solely in comparison with a predetermined learning objective and achievement goals.

The ability assumption The first assumption, the focus on ability, has been discussed as follows: [Children who cannot keep up with a course of study are labeled as intellectually challenged, but] the real issue is that those around them do not realize that it may not be that the child is lacking in intellectual ability itself, but that he or she has a problem in the acquisition of language proficiency, which supports the intellectual activities. (Nishihara, 1996: 5; emphasis added) In the instruction of foreign children learning Japanese as a second language, the challenge lies in how best to help them acquire the two laterals ‘Japanese for daily life’ and ‘Japanese for learning’. (Saito, 1998: 106–107; emphasis added) Japanese language education that supports the growth of a child aims to develop his or her command of the Japanese language by first taking into consideration various facets of development, and then comprehending how the child’s linguistic capability relates to such facets of development. (Ishii, 2006: 4; emphasis added) In order to grasp a full picture of a child’s language development, the entirety of his or her language life must be taken in to consideration, beyond the place of learning. It is important to look at a child’s language use and language competence from various necessary viewpoints in order to gain a full understanding of the child’s language life. Such viewpoints include his or her ability to use language to convey information accurately,

How Japanese Education for Young People Has Been Discussed

131

ability to establish relationships with people by using language appropriate to the place and situation, his or her linguistic ability to express his or her emotions and to share feelings with others, and his or her linguistic capability to reason. (Ishii, 2006: 5; emphasis added) These extracts show the discussions’ development from a stage concerned with JSL children’s language competence to a stage considering a wider range of abilities and competences. Ultimately, however, the problems that JSL children face are attributed to the abilities of the individual. This focus on individual ability rules out a relational point of view and consequently downplays the contextual factors of learning activities. In turn, the discourse on the present situation of JSL children is reduced to a dichotomy of the more and the less capable individual, based on individual meritocracy.

Measurement of abilities The discussion of individual ability also raises the topic of methods for measuring such ability. Clearly, one measure of learning ability is whether or not a child is able to cope with the course of learning in Japanese schools and classrooms in ways that conform to the norms regarded as most valuable. Setting models of ‘what should be attained’ and ‘what is desirable’ can be regarded as a process of standardization. Standardization leads to the simplification of a complicated phenomenon, whereby a vast number of people can be measured against the simplified standard. But even though this process overlooks JSL children’s individual characteristics and cultural factors, their learning activities and capability are then discussed based on this standardized model. Not reaching the set objective is regarded as a deviation and a failure. From the perspective of individual meritocracy, deviations and failures are perceived as problems attributable to the abilities of the individual JSL children. This is likely to result in some children being judged as ‘incapable’, even in cases where their learning style simply differs from the standardized model. Because JSL children’s linguistic disadvantage tends to be emphasized, 5 measurement of their language ability in particular has become a focal point of discussion. It follows, then, that it is necessary to ‘develop a test for measuring Japanese proficiency to make a diagnosis of their ability in the Japanese language’ (Ito, 1999: 41) and that ‘in order to carry out stratified, efficient Japanese language instruction, it becomes important to always have an understanding of the state of the children’s Japanese language acquisition’ (Ito, 1999: 41) to resolve the issue of children who lack language ability.

132

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

Accordingly, it would also be imperative to evaluate children’s language capability in both their first and second languages, so as to grasp their overall linguistic competency (Ikuta, 2002; Okazaki, 1995) and measure any discrepancy between their mother tongue ability and their second language ability (Nakajima, 2002). Here, the focus on the individual ability is presupposed, leading to an argument for assessing individual ability. This discourse, which emphasizes the need to improve ability – especially language ability as a measurable entity – emerges in both researchers’ discussion of the success or failure of JSL children’s learning and practitioners’ discussion of how to resolve JSL children’s learning difficulty. In recent years, there has also been a movement toward assessing ability not as a static phenomenon but as a dynamic one. Ability in a second language is not something to be measured in a one off written test. It is constantly changing (dynamic nature), and the ways it is used in different settings and situations are by no means the same (non-homogeneity). For these reasons, the language capability is diverse and shifting depending on the purpose of the language use and the relationship with the interlocutor (interactivity). Consequently, … it is more desirable for more than just one judge to assess the JSL children’s Japanese language proficiency than for a single judge to assess or to assess based on the language use in a single setting or situation. (Kawakami & Takahashi, 2006: 33) This aims to measure a child’s ability dynamically, in interaction. In one aspect, therefore, this orientation perceives language ability relationally. However, a ‘yardstick’ is an inevitable part of assessing ability. And whether there is one yardstick or more, the introduction of a model of ‘what should be attained’ and ‘what is desirable’ is an unavoidable part of producing any yardstick. In other words, while this movement presents a multidimensional view of measuring ability, it still standardizes individual ability.

Unification of the discourse according to ‘individual competency’ At this point it becomes evident that discussions about JSL children necessarily concern deficits in individuals’ abilities and development. In this respect, we can say that these discussions form a discourse that is a unified entity. Looking diachronically, discussions originally centered on the linguistic ability and Japanese proficiency of these children. In recent years, diverse abilities and the dynamic nature of competency have become

How Japanese Education for Young People Has Been Discussed

133

the focus. Nonetheless, the viewpoint remains the same in either case: JSL children’s learning is perceived as a result of individual ability. Because JSL children’s weaknesses in the area of language stand out, many discussions regarding these children end up focusing solely on their linguistic ability. Taking into consideration the diversity and complexity of learning, though, it becomes necessary to describe JSL children’s learning from a relational point of view, as a whole that includes all of the various factors surrounding the main constituent of learning.

Different Viewpoints, Counter-Discourses Research as a counter-discourse Some studies, although they are in the minority, argue for points of view other than the one centered on individual competency. Gyobu (1998) studied the processes that a daycare child who ‘is a bit of a concern’ undergoes until being constructed as a child who requires attention or not. She discussed these processes relationally from the framework of legitimate peripheral participation (hereafter LPP) (Lave & Wenger, 1991). LPP does not treat learning as solely an individual’s acquisition of knowledge and skill. Instead, it perceives learning as a process of fully participating in the activities of a community. This view of learning takes account of things like changes in the relationships between agents and their surroundings, changes in agents’ identities and changes in their knowledge and skill. Gyobu’s study did not deal with JSL children, but it held suggestions pertinent to a discussion of children’s learning and development in difficult conditions, because it discussed the processes of constructing children as ‘incapable’ or ‘hopeless’. Similarly, Shibayama (2001) discussed, from a relational viewpoint, JSL kindergartners’ behavioral and speech development as they formed relationships with those around them. However, both of these studies studied preschoolers; they did not analyze the learning of school-age children. Ishiguro (2004) positioned school-age JSL children as agents who actively construct learning activities, rather than being mere passive receivers of knowledge and skill. He made this position clear through an analysis of a situation in which JSL children were playing shiritori (a Japanese word chain game in which a player must give a word starting with the last syllable of the word given by the previous player) as part of Japanese language learning. The JSL children did not participate in the activity from a passive standpoint of only collecting knowledge. Instead, it was clear from their manner that they were actively trying to display their own positions as

134

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

able learners. Moreover, as Ikegami (1998: 143) has stated, ‘if we understand acclimatization in a multicultural symbiotic society to require a change from both sides of the new comers and the environment, then surely it is proper for the environment itself, the school’s society, to be urged to change too’. She argued that instead of simply attributing JSL children’s issues to individual JSL children, changes in their surrounding environment should also be taken into consideration. To date, however, almost no studies have empirically discussed JSL children’s learning and development from a relational point of view.

Field data as a counter-discourse This section, based on data collected from the author’s ongoing fieldwork, discusses JSL children’s learning in terms of context, activities and relationships between agents and their surroundings.

About the data The data for this research were collected during fieldwork at a public elementary school (hereafter Momiji Elementary School) in the Kansai region.6 Momiji Elementary School, which is located in a residential area, has a student body numbering over 600, with 19 homeroom classes comprising 6 grades. The school district it serves is a site of housing for international students and foreign researchers at a neighboring university, so a number of children enrolled at Momiji Elementary School every year have come to Japan as part of a foreign researcher’s family. This school district is not an ‘immigrant community’,7 but because JSL children are intermittently enrolled there, Momiji Elementary School has been assigned a part-time teacher to carry out Japanese language education (Japanese support teacher, hereafter JST) and furnished with a Japanese language classroom. The JST engages children in two types of Japanese language instruction. Newly arrived JSL children attend ‘pull-out instruction’ sessions, leaving their regular class for the Japanese language classroom to receive special instruction in the Japanese language instead of regular Japanese and social studies lessons. Meanwhile, the JST also visits the JSL child’s classroom in other subjects to provide ‘in-class assistance’, sitting next to the JSL child to support his or her learning. Children who stay longer at the school receive only in-class assistance. Pull-out and in-class instruction tends to take place mainly during Japanese and mathematics classes, but the classes that the homeroom teacher requests for instruction are given priority. At the time of data collection, two JSL children were enrolled at Momiji Elementary School. This section takes up the case of one of these children,

How Japanese Education for Young People Has Been Discussed

135

Sally,8 an eight-year-old girl in the second grade. Sally came to Japan in June 2005 and returned to her home country in January 2007. At the time of data collection, it seemed on the surface that she had no problems with the Japanese language. The following case study looks at Sally’s learning.

The case study [Case 1 – Mathematics: A worksheet for practicing the addition of twodigit numbers with no carrying] This period is scheduled for in-class guidance, but at the time the class is due to start, the JST is yet to come to the JSL child’s classroom. Class starts without the JST, and the homeroom teacher distributes worksheets for addition practice. Exclaiming ‘This is easy!’ Sally sets about solving the 10 problems. She finishes all the problems, and her speed is no different from that of the other children. Following that, the whole class checks the answers. After a while, the JST comes to the classroom and sits next to Sally. The class starts working on a math worksheet that they had started in class the day before. The problems are for practicing the addition of two-digit numbers with carrying. Sally starts to solve the problem ‘41 + 79’. Almost immediately she turns to the JST and asks, ‘Miss, what is the answer for this one?’. From that point on, for most of the questions, Sally has the JST explain how to solve the problem and tell her what the answer is. She then writes down the answers on her worksheet. Then, she raises her hand to give her answers, when the class checks the answers. (Field Notes, 15 June 2006) In this case, Sally exclaimed, ‘This is easy!’ and readily solved all the problems before the JST arrived. However, as soon as the JST came in as support, Sally was quick to ask for the answers. In a setting with no JST, Sally attempted to think things over herself, but when that support was present, her attitude of trying to solve problems on her own disappeared and she depended on the JST a lot more, seeking confirmation and solutions. In reality, a difference did exist in that the problems that Sally said were easy and solved on her own accord were addition with no carrying, whereas the problems she solved while receiving support were addition with carrying. However, this behavior of directly asking the other person for solving methods and the solutions was frequently observed to be one of Sally’s learning strategies. This pattern of behavior also emerged in many other situations.

136

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

[Case 2 – Art Studio: Painting] Sally prepares paints and a bucket of water for painting. The setting for this case is when Sally and the researcher discuss where to put the bucket. Sally: U9: Sally: U: Sally:

Where should I put this water [the bucket of water for the paints]? (as she says this, she moves to put it on her desk) Won’t it spill if you put it there? Then, where do I put it? What are the others doing? Don’t know.

(Field Notes, 22 July 2006) Sally was in doubt about where to put the water for painting, but rather than making a decision herself, she went directly to the researcher, in this case the author, to seek the solution. Taking both Case 1 and Case 2 together, it becomes clear that while participating in different learning activities, Sally used the same strategy of directly asking other people for the solutions. The author observed similar situations taking place frequently. This behavior of depending on others in seeking solutions, seen from the standpoint of individual ability, will very likely cause Sally to be labeled a problematic child who has an issue with ‘schooling’ because she is unable to resolve matters herself. In Case 3, Sally’s strategy of attempting to solve matters by depending on other people was not well received by other children, and she gradually withdrew from learning activities. However, when changes occurred in her surroundings, Sally eventually played a central role in the activities. [Case 3 – Art Studio: Toy Making] These data are from the Art Studio class, where the students are making toys in groups. Group 1, of which Sally is a member, consists of three boys (Jun, Takashi, Kohei) and three girls (Sally, Ayumi, Reina). The six of them will use plastic bottles, cardboard and craft paper to make two marble runs. At first, the children try to make two together, but as the activity progresses they divide themselves into two groups and make one each.

The children, having finished cutting the paper to the appropriate width and length, are now about to crease and fold the paper into a U-shape for the marble run course. (Continued)

How Japanese Education for Young People Has Been Discussed

137

Sally: How should I fold this? Ayumi: Pass it here. (On saying this she takes the paper, goes to the school lunch table and shows Sally how to fold it) Sally watches Ayumi folding the paper for a short while, but before long she moves away and starts to wander around. The paper that Sally was supposed to fold after being taught how to do it, ends up being folded by Ayumi. Sally goes back to her own seat and begins playing around with some pliers and wire. After a while, Sally returns to the school lunch table, where Ayumi and Takashi are working on the task of folding the paper, and tries to join in. Sally: (to Takashi) What do we do? Takashi: Think for yourself. (Field Notes, 21 September 2006) In this case, Sally once again sought for solutions from other people, but with Takashi’s utterance ‘Think for yourself’, she was rejected. Thereafter, Sally once again took no part in the task and instead played around with plastic bottles, wire and pliers back at her seat. In the first half of this episode, Ayumi had already instructed Sally how to fold the paper to make the marble run. Therefore, it was evident that Sally understood the task and the method. However, rather than taking the task on herself, Sally compelled the other children to act by inquiring ‘What do we do?’. However, her implicit request was denied, causing her to become less engaged and to gradually withdraw herself from this group activity.

Partway through the task, Jun proposes that the group divide into two groups that will each make one marble run. He then suggests that Takashi, Ayumi and himself form one of those groups. Sally asks ‘Why?’ but soon says, ‘Okay. Let’s go, Kohei’, and proceeds to work together in a group of three with Kohei and Reina. Until now, the central roles of the exercise were taken on by Jun and Takashi. On the other hand, Reina and Kohei, now in the same group as Sally, had almost no involvement in the construction. However, by becoming a group of three, Sally, Kohei and Reina come to participate actively in the activity and immerse themselves in the creation of their toy. (Field Notes, 21 September 2006)

138

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

Sally says to Reina, ‘Hey, let’s call Ayumi over and work in a group of four’. She then says to Ayumi, ‘Why don’t you come over here and join us’. Ayumi soon goes over to Sally’s group. Jun and Takashi continue the task as a pair. Before long, Jun and Takashi complete their marble run, but they then decide to make it into a loop and proceed to start over again. They make small cuts in the craft paper, wrap it around an empty cellophane tape roll and endeavor to form a loop. However, this does not go as planned. When they roll the marble down, it comes to a stop. Nevertheless, they don’t give up and continue trying. Meanwhile, Sally’s group’s marble run is completed. Just then, the allotted time for this task comes to an end. Due to the time restriction, the loop marble run that Jun and Takashi were making remains incomplete. From here, the focus moves to the preparation for the next task, in which each group presents its toy to the rest of the class. Sally’s original group of six starts discussion about which of the two marble runs they will show. Jun points to the one that Sally’s group made and says to Takashi, ‘Let’s use this one. This one’s good’. At this point, Jun is abandoning his and Takashi’s incomplete marble run and conceding that Sally’s group should represent the entire group. He then seeks approval of this from Takashi. Through this sequence of events, the marble run Sally’s group made is acknowledged as the entire group’s toy and will be presented to the whole class. When children from other groups come to look at their finished marble run, Sally says, ‘I made that’. (Field Notes, 21 September 2006) During the first half of this group learning activity of making a marble run, Sally’s learning strategy was criticized, and Sally herself seldom made an effort to participate in the activity. However, the group’s division into two groups partway through gave Sally an opportunity to take on a central role in her group. In the final stages, due to the change in surrounding circumstances – namely, that Jun and Takashi’s marble run was unfinished – she became the central participant of the exercise, who created the product that represented the group. Thus, the children’s learning activities were always dynamic, and patterns of participation shifted radically. In Case 3, no noticeable changes took place in Sally’s skill or ability through this group activity. However, the surrounding circumstances, such as the groupings and the success or failure of other children’s tasks, were constantly changing. These changes in circumstances enabled Sally to be centrally

How Japanese Education for Young People Has Been Discussed

139

involved in the activity, and consequently reveal the different positions that Sally took on. As a result, it seemed that Sally was able to fully execute the learning activity. When children’s learning is relationally described and analyzed in this manner, it becomes clear that the success and failure of learning does not always depend solely on an individual’s capabilities. To be sure, individuals’ knowledge and skill are indispensable for carrying out a learning activity without serious complications. At the same time, though, it is necessary to view learning from a wider perspective. Instead of judging individual ability as a stable result, it is essential to document and analyze learning activities as a confluence of all matters surrounding the agent.

Conclusion Human beings develop socioculturally (Vygotsky, 1987). Not only do people develop through changes in the course of their involvement in sociocultural activities in the communities they are affiliated with, but those communities change likewise (Rogoff, 2003). The data and analysis in this chapter have pointed to the dynamic nature of learning activities and the variability in how learning success or failure can be viewed depending on circumstances. However, the role of language and culture, especially regarding issues peculiar to JSL children, has still not been duly examined. It seems imperative that future research on Japanese education for young people address JSL children’s learning in its entirety. This chapter urges reconsideration of the currently predominant discourses, which discuss JSL children exclusively from the standpoint of capability based on standardized knowledge and skills, and in some cases attach labels such as ‘incapable’ or ‘low ability’. Language competence is an important issue for JSL children, but it does not necessarily equal happy participation in the community. I call for conscious discussion of such differences. Lastly, discussions of language competence in many cases assume a highly transactional view of language. Yet, people use language not only for transactions, but also to become acquainted with each other and to share and accumulate experiences. These roles of language should receive more attention in discussion of JSL children’s education.

Notes (1) Results of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology’s ‘2012 Survey on the Acceptance of Children and Students Requiring Instruction

140

(2)

(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

in the Japanese Language’. See www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/25/04/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2013/04/03/1332660_1.pdf (accessed 15 April 2013). For convenience, this chapter refers to children and students whose mother tongue is not Japanese, as Japanese-as-a-second-language (JSL) children. The term does not refer to all children with foreign nationality, as it does not include children who are foreign by nationality but whose native language is Japanese. For more details on discourse and discourse analysis, see, for example, Berger and Luckmann (1966), Burr (1995), Foucault (1969, 1971, 1976), Macdonell (1986), Mills (2004), Sato and Tomoeda (2006) and Spector and Kitsuse (1977). For example, a variety of discourses pertains to education. Imazu and Hida (1997) discussed such discourses as ‘school is a place that values children’s individuality’, ‘education must be diverse’ and ‘education must not be inculcated’. This simple link between language competence and learning capability is discussed in the literature (e.g. Baker, 1993), but this chapter does not deal with the issue. The information on the data in this chapter was accurate as of November 2006. Details, such as the number of students enrolled, have changed. ‘Immigrant community’ refers to areas in which groups of, for instance, South American laborers of Japanese descent or Japanese returnees from China live, to some extent collectively, in a cluster of low-rent, multi-unit apartments. The names used in these data are all fictitious. Sally is a JSL child; the other names mentioned are all children who are native speakers of Japanese. Within this data the researcher himself is represented as U.

References Baker, C. (1993) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday. Burr, V. (1995) An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1969) L’archéologie du Savoir. Paris: Éditions Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1971) L’ordre du Discourse. Paris: Éditions Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1976) L’Histoire de la Sexualité, I, La Volonté de Savoir. Paris: Éditions Gallimard. Gyobu, I. (1998) ‘Chotto kininaru kodomo’ no shûdan heno sankakatei ni kansuru kankeironteki bunseki (The transition to participation in a nursery school group: A relational analysis of a ‘difficult’ child). Hattatsu Shinrigaku Kenkyû (The Japanese Journal of Developmental Psychology) 9, 1–11. Ikegami, M. (1998) Jidôseito ni taisuru nihongokyôiku no kadai saikentô: Kenkyû note (Rethinking the educational problem of Japanese as a second language for a schoolchildren and junior high school students: Research notes). Chugoku Kikokusha Teichaku Sokushin Center Kiyou (The bulletin of placement centers for persons returning from China), Saitama: Chugoku Kikokusha Teichaku Sokushin Center (Placement centers for persons returning from China) 6, 131–146. Ikuta, Y. (2002) Brajiru jin Chugakusei no dai1 gengonôryoku to dai2 gengonôryoku no kankei: Sakubun task wo tôshite (Interrelationship between first- and secondlanguage proficiency in written compositions by young Brazilian learners of Japanese as a second language). Sekai no Nihongo Kyôiku ( Japanese-Language Education Around the Globe) 12, 63–77.

How Japanese Education for Young People Has Been Discussed

141

Imazu, K. (1997) ‘Kyoiku gensetsu’ towa (What is educational discourse?). In K. Imazu and D. Hida (eds) Kyoiku Gensetsu wo Do Yomuka: Kyoiku wo Kataru Kotoba no Shikumi to Hataraki (How to Read Educational Discourse: The Construction and Function of Discourse to Discuss Education) (pp. 1–17). Tokyo: Shinyosha. Imazu, K. and Hida, D. (eds) (1997) Kyoiku Gensetsu wo Do Yomuka: Kyoiku wo Kataru Kotoba no Shikumi to Hataraki (How to Read Educational Discourse: The Construction and Function of Discourse to Discuss Education). Tokyo: Shinyosha. Ishiguro, H. (2004) Gakushu katsudo no rikai to henkaku ni mukete: gakushu gainen no shakaibunkateki kakucho (Toward understanding and change of learning activities: Sociocultural expansion of the concept of learning). In Ishiguro, H. (ed.) Shakaibunkateki Approach no Jissai (The Actual of Socio-Cultural Approach: Ethnography of Understanding and Change of Learning Activity) (pp. 2–32). Kyoto: Kitaoji Shobo. Ishii, E. (2006) Nenshosha nihongo kyoiku no kochiku ni mukete: kodomo no seicho wo sasaeru gengo kyoiku toshite (Toward construction of Japanese language education for children: The underlying language education supporting the growth of a child). Nihongo Kyoiku ( Journal of Japanese Language Teaching) 128, 3–12. Ito, S. (1999) Gaikokujin jidoseito ni taisuru nihongokyoiku no genjo to kadai (Current issues in Japanese language instruction for children with limited Japanese proficiency). Nihongo Kyoiku ( Journal of Japanese Language Teaching) 100, 33–44. Kawakami, I. and Takahashi, R. (2006) JSLjido no nihongo noryoku no haaku kara jissen heno michisuji: Shinjuku kuritsu okubo shogakko no jissen wo motoni (From evaluation of Japanese language proficiency to Japanese language education for children learning Japanese language as a second language: Based on practice at Okubo primary school in Shinjuku ward). Nihongo Kyoiku ( Journal of Japanese Language Teaching) 128, 24–35. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Macdonell, D. (1986) Theories of Discourse: An Introduction. New York: Basil Blackwell. Mills, S. (2004) Discourse (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Nakajima, K. (2002) Bilingual-ji no gengo noryoku hyoka no kanten: Kaiwa noryoku test OBC kaihatsu wo chushin ni (Perspectives of language proficiency assessment for bilingual children). In National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (UK) (ed.) Tagengo Kankyo ni Aru Kodomo no Gengo Noryoku no Hyoka (An Assessment of Language Proficiency for Children in a Multilingual Environment) (pp. 25–44). Tokyo: National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics. Nishihara, S. (1996) Gaikokujin jidoseito no tame no nihongokyoiku no arikata (The nature of Japanese language education for foreign children). Nihongogaku (The Study of Japanese Linguistics) 15 (2), 67–74. Okazaki, T. (1995) Nensyhosha gengo kyoiku kenkyu no saikosei: Nenshosya nihongo kyoiku no shiten kara (Reconstruction of studies of language education for children: From the viewpoint of Japanese language education for children). Nihongo Kyoiku ( Journal of Japanese Language Teaching) 86, 1–12. Rogoff, B. (2003) The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press. Sato, T. and Tomoeda, T. (2006) Gensetsu Bunsei no Kanosei: Shakaigakuteki Hoho no Meikyu kara (Discourse Analysis in Contemporary Sociology: From the Labyrinth of Sociological Methodology). Tokyo: Toshindo. Saito, H. (1998) Naiyo jushi no nihongo kyoiku no kokoromi: Shogakko chukogakunen no kodomoclass ni okeru jissen (Trial of content-based Japanese instruction: Practice

142

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

in children’s classes from 3rd grade to 6th grade). Chûgoku Kikokusha Teichaku Sokushin Center Kiyôu (The bulletin of placement centers for persons returning from China), Saitama: Chûgoku Kikokusha Teichaku Sokushin Center (Placement centers for persons returning from China) 6, 106–130. Shibayama, M. (2001) Kôi to Hatsuwa Keisei no Ethnography: Ryûgakuse¯ Kazoku no Kodomo wa Hoikuen de Dô Sodatsunoka (Ethnography of an Act and Construction of Narrative: How to Development Foreign Student’s Children at a Nursery School in Japan). Tokyo: Tokyo University Press. Spector, M. and Kitsuse, J.I. (1977) Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings. Valdés, G. (2004) The teaching of academic language to minority school language learners. In A.F. Ball and S.W. Freedman (eds) Bakhtinian Perspectives on Language, Literacy, and Learning (pp. 66–98). New York: Cambridge University Press. Varenne, H. and McDermott. R. (1998) Successful Failure: The School America Builds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1987) In R.W. Reiber and A.S. Carton (eds) The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of General Psychology, Including the Volume Thinking and Speech. New York: Plenum Press.

7 A Consideration of the Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education: A Case Study of the Practices of Japanese Language Classes for Chinese Returnees and Vietnamese Residents Yuko Okubo

Introduction As multicultural education is recently gaining support in schools in Japan, there is a growing recognition that Japanese language instruction to ‘newcomers’ (hereinafter, newcomers) should not also impose the Japanese language and culture on them. A pioneering example is an instruction aimed at preserving the mother tongue in schools. However, some may argue that aiming for ‘de-standardization’ and emphasizing the teaching of the mother tongue, which is regarded as in the opposite of Japanese language instruction, in the Japanese language education for newcomer children, on the contrary, results in excluding children with markers of ‘non-Japanese’ from school and Japanese society. The purpose of this chapter is to elucidate the mechanism of this argument.

143

144

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

Since my research started as a project for my PhD thesis in sociocultural anthropology, I took an anthropological approach and research method, that is, a long-term fieldwork and ethnography, in order to holistically understand the people and culture of the field site. Although my main field site was a public primary school, in particular the Japanese language classes for newcomers, the goal of conducting an ethnographic study was to find out how newcomers are incorporated in a multi-ethnic neighborhood in a relatively homogeneous Japan. In the broader space outside of the educational arena, I wanted to examine the incorporation or integration patterns of Japanese society, which was slowly becoming more mixed. By researching the actual practices in a school and a neighborhood, I was examining the configuration of Japan’s emerging ‘multiculturalism’. After receiving a doctorate from the Department of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, I conducted postdoctoral research as a postdoctoral fellow (2007–2009) at the National University of Singapore and as a Social Science Research Council-Abe Fellow (2009–2011) at the University of California, Berkeley. My research interests include migration and transnationalism, the (nation) state and education/learning. I look at how concerns of race, ethnicity and nationality are translated into the everyday practices of schooling, and reshaping ideas about national culture and identity in Japan today. Here, the after-school practices of Japanese language instruction and ethnic clubs conducted in Japanese language classes for Chinese returnees and Japan-born Vietnamese are analyzed from my fieldwork in a primary school in Osaka Prefecture. The school has implemented a multicultural education program (tabunka kyōsei kyōiku). In my analysis, I intend to clarify how the discourse, which is similar to multicultural education and which could be understood as counter-hegemony, represented by ‘a respect for mother tongue and mother culture in Japanese language education’ (Ota, 1996, 2000) and ‘Japanese language education for multicultural education and education for co-existence’ (Osaka Prefecture Resource Council 1998), is practiced in social and cultural contexts and what kind of environment for newcomer children is being created in Japan. The apparently counter-hegemonic discourse in Japanese schools, where the ‘standardization’ of Japanese language and culture proceeds, does not necessarily function as a mechanism to help children with diverse cultural backgrounds. Conversely, it may further marginalize ethnic minority groups in Japanese society and culture. I would like to examine the reason.

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

145

Two Perspectives in Studying Education, Society and Culture The theoretical framework for the standardization of language and culture is summarized in Chapter 1 of this book. Here, I would like to discuss only the theoretical outline of cultural reproduction and education that relates to the theoretical development of this chapter.

Social and cultural reproduction approach As Bourdieu and Passeron (1990: 5) write, ‘All pedagogic action (PA) is, objectively, symbolic violence insofar as it is the imposition of a cultural arbitrary by an arbitrary power’. Furthermore, as pedagogic action imposes a certain cultural norm while hiding the power action, it is cultural imposition in the double meanings, namely, a symbolic violence. In this case, it is the dominant group, that is, the majority, which imposes culture, and the culture imposed arbitrarily is its values and norms, namely, that of the majority culture. Therefore, the two argue that the institution of education has the ability to preserve and justify the basis of social structure consisting of the majority, and that it will lead to the reproduction of social structure. Here, the mainstream is the middle class, and ethnic minorities in the nation state have not been discussed. However, ethnic minorities in the nation state are often a minority in political and economic fields. Thus, their theory also applies to ethnic minorities in the nation state and their relationship with the nation as a majority. That is, pedagogic action and the education system supporting it would impose a national culture, which is a majority culture, in order to maintain and reproduce the social structure supporting the superiority of a majority of the people, the nation. Balibar (1991) also argues about schooling and the creation of ethnicity.1 According to these theories, the school preserves social relations and structure through the reproduction of the culture and values of the majority group, and thus, continues to reproduce the social relations and structure. In this diagram, as a social norm, minorities participate equally in society, but they are subject to exclusion in real social life, and thus, the national culture as a culture of the majority continues to permeate.

Cultural production approach On the other hand, Bradley Levinson, a proponent of critical ethnography, and other scholars propose the concept of ‘cultural production’ that came out in the 1980s. By focusing on the culture that students create at school,

146

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

critical ethnography is intended to add a perspective of ‘resistance’ to the reproduction of the monolithic dominant ideology. According to these scholars, ‘cultural production’ is ‘an ongoing social process which could occur independently of, but enter into complex relations with, processes of the social and cultural reproduction of class structures’ (Levinson & Holland, 1996: 9). Levinson and others further propose a new ‘cultural production’ approach inheriting the theoretical development in anthropology afterward. They argue that school ethnographies employing the ‘cultural production’ approach see schools as ‘sites for the formation of subjectivities through the production and consumption of cultural forms’ (Levinson & Holland, 1996: 13–14). Everyday practice is being placed under the influence of social forces represented by schools and other social institutions. They ask how people are being formed by everyday practice. This is a ‘cultural production’ approach focused on the studies of school, but this approach is not limited to studying schools and can also be widely adopted to study everyday practice. For example, Paul Willis similarly finds the possibility of ‘cultural production’ in everyday life. Willis argues that, as social and cultural reproduction takes place through education, counter-hegemony underlying ‘cultural production’, which can lead to the creation of an ideology against various repressions, is seen on a daily basis due to the creative behavior of subjectivity (agency). However, such counter-hegemony occurs in a moment but will not always lead to a force to resist the social and cultural reproduction because of its drifting nature (Willis, 1981: 65). In order to ensure such counter-hegemony, counter-hegemony that de Certeau (1984: xix–xx) calls the ‘tactic’ needs to be changed to the ‘strategy’, which occupies a permanent position in the social system. Thus, to analyze a moment and practice of resistance that appears to be such at first glance, both the macro-level structure, which contributes to ‘the social and cultural reproduction’, and the everyday practice and ‘cultural production’ at the micro level, which resist the former, must be considered. Although ‘mother tongue teaching’ for newcomer children appears to be counter-hegemonic against Japanese public education, an institution for educating national subjects, the effect of the instruction needs to be examined in such a framework. In this chapter, the micro data are the data collected from my field research in A Primary School, while the macro data are the situation in Japanese society surrounding ethnic minorities.

‘Japanese Language Classroom’ as the Hegemony of the State In order to understand the significance of the ‘Japanese language classroom’ and its location in the education of foreign nationals, let us look

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

147

at the breakdown of the children who are so-called newcomers in Japanese public elementary and secondary schools and the policies implemented by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (hereinafter, MEXT). In contrast to Koreans living in Japan for several generations (so-called resident Koreans or Zainichi), Chinese and others living as ‘special permanent residents’, the ‘newcomer’ foreigners began to enter Japan in the late 1970s and increased in the mid-1980s. Many of them are unskilled workers in the fields, which does not require specific skills or experience (Kojima, 2006; Okano, 2006; Sekine, 2003). According to the Immigration Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, the number of registered foreigners reached 2.085 million or 1.63% of the total population of Japan in December 2006 (Immigration Bureau, 2007).2 Additionally, the countries of registered foreigners living in Japan ranged over 188 countries, led by Koreans who accounted for 28.7% of the total, followed by the nationals of China, Brazil, Philippines and Peru (Immigration Bureau, 2007). Many are migrant workers who come to Japan for the purpose of employment, the nikkei Japanese people and their families (primarily those from Latin America), returnees and their families from China, refugees who arrived in Japan due to Japan’s ratification of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (people from Indochina), etc.; newcomers enter Japan under various circumstances. The newcomer children dealt with here are the children who accompany their parents in such circumstances. At the elementary school where I conducted my fieldwork, children born in Japan were also considered newcomers. According to the MEXT 2006 ‘study on the situation regarding the acceptance of foreign children and students requiring Japanese language instruction’, on 1 September 2006 when the study was conducted, the number of foreign children and students requiring Japanese language instruction enrolled in public elementary school, junior high school, senior high school, secondary school and special education school was 22,413. Of these children and students, 15,946 or 70% were in elementary school. As for the enrollment period, 44% (9796) were in school for ‘more than 2 years’. Since the numbers of students for all enrollment periods are increasing, it is assumed that the period of stay for foreigners is becoming longer and that their settlement is proceeding in Japan. In addition, the native languages of the foreign children and students ranged across 63 countries. In response to the countries of origin of the registered foreigners, more than 70% spoke Portuguese (8633), Chinese (4471) and Spanish (3279) as native languages (MEXT, 2008a). As compulsory education in Japan is only intended for holders of Japanese

148

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

nationality, the education of foreign children is given to parents ‘as long as they desire’ rather than as ‘schooling as their duty’ (Ota, 2000: 139–144). In 2007, it was reported that the government initiated an adjustment in the direction of providing foreign residents with compulsory education in Japan (Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 2007). Whether this will substantially expand educational opportunities for foreign residents in Japan remains a major challenge for the future.

The establishment of the ‘Japanese language class’ and its development In response to the increase in the number of registered newcomer children enrolled in school along with more foreign workers arriving in Japan since the 1980s, MEXT has been offering educational support, mainly ‘Japanese language instruction’ and ‘guidance for adjustment’ for newcomer children who do not understand Japanese (Kojima, 2006). ‘Japanese language instruction’ has been provided as one of the measures for the ‘enhancement of foreign children’s education’ since 1992. Teachers in charge of ‘guidance in terms of Japanese language, studying, and life’ have been allocated to children and students whose ‘Japanese language ability is very inadequate, and who are not accustomed to Japanese lifestyle along with their family’ in schools where a certain number of ‘foreign children and students who are in need of Japanese language instruction’ are enrolled (Ota, 1996: 126; 2000). With such full-time teachers in so-called ‘Japanese language classes’ and ‘international classes’, instructions are provided as individual guidance by means of ‘taking out’ the child from his/her homeroom, the full-time teachers ‘entering’ the child’s homeroom for guidance, and guidance given to these foreign children together in these classes after school. However, of the full-time teachers engaged in teaching Japanese, few have expertise in teaching Japanese to non-native speakers. In addition, due to the budgetary provision, Japanese language classes with full-time teachers are not established in all schools where foreign children who are in need of Japanese language instruction are enrolled. In schools with only a few newcomer children, sufficient Japanese language instruction is difficult without additional teachers. According to a 2006 MEXT study, 80% of schools with foreign children and students who are in need of Japanese language instruction had ‘less than five’ students enrolled, which leads to our assumption that a ‘Japanese language class’ exists only in schools situated in areas with a high concentration of newcomers. Ota (1996) states that Japanese language instruction provided in special classes such as ‘Japanese language classes’ or ‘international classes’ with additional

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

149

teachers, has been described as a model in terms of education policy for newcomer children (MEXT, 2008b). ‘Guidance for adjustment’, the other pillar of educational support for newcomer children, is actually being carried out in parallel with Japanese language instruction. This is provided as guidance for newcomer children to get accustomed to school life and life in Japan, and the goal is to guide foreign children so that they can enjoy school life in the same way as their Japanese peers, rather than to guide them according to their cultural backgrounds. Therefore, children are confused and frustrated with educational activities in Japan which are presumed to be collective and cooperative, and even with the observance of regulations and cultural rules (Kojima, 2006; Ota, 2000). As of 2008, MEXT has implemented the ‘MEXT policies to educate returning and foreign children and students’ in the following five areas: guidance, research, teacher training, Japanese language instruction and others. If limited to the measures for foreign children, they are as follows: ‘training for the purpose of developing instructors for Japanese language instruction for foreign children and students, etc.’, which has been implemented since 1993; development of the ‘curriculum for JSL (Japanese as a second language)’ since 2001; ‘support for foreign children not enrolled in school’ in the designated areas in 2005–2006; research on the models of the regional support systems and the promotion of schooling for non-schooled foreign children in the designated areas to maintain a comprehensive regional framework for the acceptance of foreign children, which has been implemented as part of the ‘project to promote acceptance of returnees and foreign children and students’ since 2007; and the creation of teachers’ instructional materials for accepting foreign students (since 1995) and guides for schooling for foreign children in seven languages (since 2005). Recently, research has been poured into understanding the actual condition of foreign children. Education for foreign children is placed under the same policy as education for returnees. The education to value the school and life experience of overseas is required for the returnees, promoted as international education, while for foreign children, schooling is admitted only if they request. On admission to school, particular attention is given to foreign children’s Japanese language instruction and guidance in terms of studying and daily life; however, it is also stated that they are supposed to be treated similarly to Japanese. Despite the fact that returnees and foreign children are placed under the same measures, the former are encouraged to appreciate their overseas experience, while the latter are expected to assimilate to Japanese culture; the two are schooled in Japan with different educational goals and initiatives (MEXT, 2008b).

150

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

A new attempt in the ‘Japanese language class’ Ota (1996) criticizes such educational practice based on the MEXT educational measures for newcomer children as compensatory language teaching with a goal to compensate for socio-economic and cultural disparities, and proposes Japanese language instruction that respects native language and culture. This education ‘regards different elements as rich resources, and promotes Japanese language education based on the evaluation of their abilities’ (Ota, 1996: 138). This ensures educational opportunities by positively evaluating foreign children’s linguistic, cognitive and cultural abilities in Japanese schools, and it is important for the positive self-affirmation and identity of foreign children who cannot have positive feelings toward their own cultures and languages and who are having difficulty learning the Japanese language. Because they are immersed in Japanese language prior to the full development of the native language ability, the concern is also expressed that against foreign children who fail to reach masterly of language of thought in either native language or Japanese and that they may not be able to master subject matters. From this position, as practice tasks for newcomer education, Ota (1996: 140–141) makes three suggestions: Japanese language education according to the newcomer’s ability in his/her mother tongue, Japanese language education in subject matters and mother tongue education aimed at expanding and retaining the native language. That is, Japanese language education that cherishes the native language and culture is proposed in terms of newcomer children’s right to education, educational consideration to foster children’s positive self-affirmation and cognitive psychology from the standpoint of children’s development of language and learning abilities. Based on the education for resident Koreans practiced in Japanese schools, and aiming for the education of foreign residents that can address the issues of newcomer children, Osaka Prefecture Resource Council for Education of Foreign Children in Japan (hereafter, Osaka Prefecture Resource Council) was formed in 1992 as a subsidiary body of the Osaka Prefectural Board of Education. Osaka Prefecture Resource Council (1998) explored and proposed ‘language for living’, ‘language for learning’, concern for a ‘wall of nine years old’ and ‘Japanese language education for multicultural coexistence’, which does not force the assimilation of foreign children into the Japanese language and culture (Osaka Prefecture Resource Council, 1998). In their proposal, similar to Ota (1996), mother tongue teaching for the improvement of children’s literacy and cognitive development and the establishment of identity are stated as a direction for Japanese language

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

151

education of newcomer children (Osaka Prefecture Resource Council, 1998: 10). While Ota proposes Japanese language education in respect for native language and culture based on knowledge gained from a study of multicultural education in the USA, Osaka Prefecture Resource Council recommends ‘Japanese language education as multicultural education’ from their experience of resident Korean education. Although the backgrounds are different, the views are common in that Japanese schools are an institution for national education, that ethnic minorities are treated and expected to be like the Japanese (despite cultural and language differences), and thus, Japanese schools result in forcing ethnic minorities to assimilate to Japanese culture. This position is observed in the criticism over schools as a reproductive apparatus of the majority culture and national culture, and education as an institution for national formation as previously discussed. Since schools in Japan are characterized by standardization, Japanese language education with consideration for ethnic minorities’ native languages and cultures or mother tongue teaching, proposed by Ota (1996) and Osaka Prefecture Resource Council (1998), hold a critical stance against the policies of MEXT, and thus, are regarded as an attempt to challenge the counter-hegemony of Japanese schooling that encourages the standardization of culture. However, in A Primary School, educational practice conducted from this perspective furthered the formation of the national culture and national subjects, along with the marginalization of newcomer children as ethnic others. The process is discussed in the following section.3

From the Fieldwork: The Case of A Primary School Public A Primary School in City A, where the field research was conducted, is located in the south-eastern part of Osaka. There are many small- and medium-sized enterprises in this area. The percentage of registered foreigners in 1998 when the investigation was conducted was 2.8% of the whole population of City A. As the ratio of the registered foreigners to the total population of the country was 1.2% at that time, City A was regarded as a city with a relatively high concentration of foreigners. Among the registered foreigners of City A, 75% were Koreans including resident Koreans (about 6000), followed by Chinese (about 900), Vietnamese (about 400) and Brazilians (about 250). Vietnamese are Vietnamese refugees and their families that the Japanese government accepted after the ratification of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees in 1981. The Chinese are Chinese returnees and their families

152

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

who returned to Japan at public expense after the normalization of relations between the two countries in 1972. Here, regardless of nationality, Vietnamese and their families from Vietnam who arrived in Japan in this context are referred to as ‘Vietnamese’, and Chinese and their families from China, ‘Chinese’. There is a possibility that this designation may lead to their marginalization; however, following school practices, this chapter employs these names for the groups. Unlike other cities where Latin Americans of Japanese descent were the largest group among newcomers, newcomers in City A were mainly Chinese and Vietnamese (Osaka Prefecture City A).

Demographics of A Primary School Proportional to the number of foreign residents of City A, newcomers in A Primary School, where this study was conducted, were Chinese and Vietnamese. In contrast to the northern part of City A where many Chinese resided, there were many Vietnamese in the southern part of the city where A Primary School was located. The ethnic composition of the school at the time of the study (1998–2000) follows. According to my record in 1998–1999, there were 19 Vietnamese (including 1 Japanese national) and 12 Chinese (including 1 Japanese national). With naturalized resident Koreans and those who were regarded as ‘double’4 such as children with one of their parents being foreign, the total number of children with an ethnic minority background was 92 out of 418 of the total student body, which accounted for 22%. In A Primary School, the first Vietnamese (male fourth grader) entered as a transfer student in 1984. In 1988, prior to the national measures for foreign students, 11 Vietnamese children received supplementary Japanese language classes and after-school instructions by means of ‘taking out’ these children from their homerooms. Thereafter, the number of foreign children increased every year, with 13 Vietnamese (including 2 Japanese nationals), 1 Chinese (Japanese national) and 1 Filipino (Japanese national) in 1995. In 2001, there were 27 Vietnamese, 11 Chinese (with 3 transferred in 1997) and 1 Filipino, recording 15.5% as the ratio of foreign children including 23 Korean nationals (resident Koreans) out of the total student body (‘Our School’s Efforts for the Vietnamese Children in 1995’; ‘School Practice of A Primary School in 2001’). However, the data from the school in 2001 did not include children who were naturalized or ‘doubles’. Therefore, the percentage of ethnic minorities in 2001 was higher than that reported by the school, and was estimated to be around 20% (‘School Practice of A Primary School in 2001’).

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

153

The establishment and development of ‘Japanese language class’ in A Primary School A Primary School with a relatively high enrollment of ethnic minorities as previously described has a background of providing Dowa education (education for the Buraku community) and education for foreigners such as resident Koreans since it opened in 1975. From 1987, the education of Vietnamese children was placed within the educational practice plan for Dowa education, and Japanese language instruction for newcomers was offered. According to the 1995 school records, enrollment in the Japanese language classroom then was 13 Vietnamese children (including 2 naturalized Japanese) and a child who was a Japanese national and who had a Filipina mother, for a total of 14. Among these 14 children, 12 were born in Japan including a child whose mother was a Filipina. The teacher in charge of the Japanese language class at that time recorded that ‘they do not seem to have any difficulty with “daily conversation”’. However, despite individual differences, because some children did not understand the notices from the school, the instructions of homeroom teachers and other teachers, or they did not have a proper understanding of the words and terms used in textbooks and in class, it was mentioned that more assistance or confirmation was required for foreign children than for Japanese children. As for the two children born in China and Vietnam, the record stated that a first-grade boy who came to Japan when he was three years old (Japanese national, parents were from China) did not have any difficulty learning, but a fifth-grade boy (Vietnamese national) who came to Japan around three years of age was ‘poor at remembering kanji (Chinese characters)’ but he learned to ‘selectively read words and phrases, and fluently read sentences’ of a textbook. Although the teacher in charge of the Japanese language class assisted the children in homeroom classes in Japanese language and social studies, the initial Japanese language instruction was not necessary. For the Japanese language class of A Primary School in the 1980s, the biggest challenge in Japanese teaching was instructing recently arrived Vietnamese. But the Japanese language class by 1995 has changed from giving Japanese language instruction to children who did not understand Japanese, to the teacher of the Japanese language class assisting the children together with the homeroom teachers of the children, who require more consideration and detailed instruction in terms of communication and learning than Japanese children. This differs significantly from the Japanese language classes at other schools, where the initial Japanese language instruction is entirely left to the Japanese language classes (‘Our School’s Efforts for the Vietnamese Children in 1995’).

154

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

In 1984, the first newcomer child transferred to A Primary School. By 1998 at the time of my research, the number of newcomer children increased enough to divide the Japanese language class into two. Since three Chinese who needed Japanese language instruction transferred to the school in 1997, they were taken from their homerooms to the Japanese language classroom for Japanese language instruction. As three more Chinese who needed Japanese language instruction were enrolled in A Primary School, as well as more Chinese children who arrived in Japan in their childhood and who understood Japanese daily conversation, the number of Chinese children increased from 1 (Japanese national) in 1995 to 12 in 1998. With the rapid increase of Chinese in need of Japanese language instruction, the school requested the City Board of Education to assign a teacher who could understand Chinese language to their school. In April 1998, a teacher who understood Chinese was assigned as the teacher in charge of the Japanese language class for Chinese in A Primary School. This teacher taught Japanese and assisted with teaching the Chinese children (including one who acquired Japanese nationality) at the school. On the other hand, 19 Vietnamese children were enrolled in the Japanese language class for Vietnamese under the guidance of another teacher. At the same time, a child whose mother was Filipina (fifth-grade girl) had not been observed in the Japanese language class activities since the second semester of 1998. She had previously been enrolled in the Japanese language class, and was initially enrolled in the Japanese language class for Vietnamese children after the split. This was mentioned at a staff meeting in the school; however, her homeroom teacher replied that the child was not willing to participate, and there was no further discussion. On the other hand, for the children whose parents were from China and Vietnam, their participation in the Japanese language class activities was required without asking the views of the children or their parents. If the child did not participate in the activities, the teacher in charge of the Japanese language classes contacted the children’s homeroom teachers, and the homeroom teachers encouraged the children to participate in the Japanese language classes. This support was very different from the case of the child whose mother was Filipina. At A Primary School, the teachers in charge of the Japanese language classes were responsible for Chinese and Vietnamese children, along with these children’s homeroom teachers. In other words, the two Japanese language teachers at A Primary School shared the instruction of the Vietnamese and Chinese children with their homeroom teachers. As a result, there was an understanding that the teachers in charge of the Japanese language classes did not have to teach newcomer children other than Vietnamese and Chinese.

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

155

At the time of my fieldwork in 1998–2000, the Japanese language class activities at A Primary School were conducted in two classrooms – one for 12 Chinese children and the other for 19 Vietnamese children. In the following sections, teachers in charge of the Japanese language classes and other stakeholders that enact the Japanese language classes, the activities in the Japanese language classes, and the children who were called ‘newcomers’ ‘in need of Japanese language instruction’ at A Primary School are examined in each Japanese language class. Since there was a difference in the children’s Japanese language ability according to their length of stay in Japan, in A Primary School, the initial Japanese language instruction was provided in the Japanese language class for Chinese, while remedial instruction for subject matters was offered in the Japanese language class for Vietnamese.

The Japanese language class for Chinese children The Japanese language class for Chinese children was run by a teacher who was transferred to A Primary School in 1998. Twelve Chinese children were born in China, and were from Jilin and Heilongjiang provinces in northeastern China. Eight children, except for the four who had arrived in Japan in early childhood, required Japanese language instruction. Despite their poor Japanese, children in the lower grades in general were able to associate and play together with Japanese children. In the Japanese language class for recently arrived Chinese children of A Primary School, initial Japanese language instruction was also provided. In addition to taking children out of their homerooms and entering the homerooms for guiding, regular Japanese language class activities were given twice a week (one day was for ethnic club) after school; however, at the discretion of the teacher in charge of the Japanese language class, homework assistance and supplementary lessons were provided almost everyday after school. Twice a week when the instruction was given to all children, a Chinese instructor visited the Japanese language class to assist with Japanese language instruction and ethnic club activities. Since many of the children in need of initial Japanese language instruction were first graders, the teacher in charge of the Japanese language class for Chinese (together with the teacher in charge of the Japanese language class for Vietnamese) provided guidance in the children’s homerooms. Therefore, in the Japanese language classes after school, the emphasis was on learning to read and write hiragana (Japanese alphabet) and kanji (Chinese characters) using worksheets for kanji. Once the worksheet for kanji for each gradelevel was completed, each child submitted it to the teacher in charge of the Japanese language class to be checked on the spot. The teacher also

156

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

repeatedly let the children read textbooks aloud because it was difficult for Chinese students to distinguish Japanese sounds, such as ‘clear sound and voiced sound’ in ‘otōsan → odōsan’, ‘nante → nande’ etc., which do not exist in Chinese pronunciation. In addition, the teachers guided the children so that they could learn by mutually assisting each other using cards to practice calculation in supplementary lessons for math (‘Our School’s Efforts for the Chinese and Vietnamese Children in 1998’; ‘School Practice of A Primary School in 2001’).

The Japanese language class for Vietnamese children In the Japanese language class for Vietnamese children, previous teachers in charge of the class had changed often after a short period of time. Since A Primary School was designated as MEXT’s center school for the region specified in the promotion of acceptance of foreign children together with four neighboring primary and junior high schools from 1998 to 2001, one teacher was in charge of the Japanese language class for Vietnamese during that time. In 1998, a retired teacher also taught the Japanese language class as a part-timer. In addition to guiding Vietnamese children by entering their homerooms, regular Japanese language class activities were offered twice a week (one day was for ethnic club) after school; however, in both Japanese language classes, instructions were given almost everyday after school at the discretion of the teachers. For the Vietnamese children, homework assistance and supplementary lessons for homeroom classes were offered even early in the morning. Similar to a Chinese instructor visiting the Japanese language class for Chinese, a Vietnamese instructor visited the school twice a week. They also had a class once a week taught by a Japanese instructor who visited other Japanese language classes in the city, and guidance for the Vietnamese ethnic club was provided by a resident Korean instructor from an ethnic club in the neighborhood. Among 19 Vietnamese children, 2 were born in Vietnam and 2 were born in refugee camps in Southeast Asia (Indonesia and Malaysia). Except for one child who had recently arrived in Japan, all the children had a command of the Japanese language at the level of everyday conversation. Also, as the Vietnamese children were raised among Japanese in a daycare, there was no difference in the exchanges between Vietnamese and Japanese children and Japanese and Japanese children in the school. However, the fact that the children interacted without being aware of the differences in their ethnic background was regarded as a problem by the teacher in charge of the Japanese language class for Vietnamese. In addition, while learning the Japanese language, to a certain extent the Vietnamese

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

157

children were becoming distant from the Vietnamese language. To that end, the school was concerned about the communication gap between parents who were not fluent in Japanese and children who could not speak Vietnamese (‘Our School’s Efforts for the Vietnamese Children in 1995’, p. 1; ‘Our School’s Efforts for the Chinese and Vietnamese Children in 1998’, pp. 4–5). The teacher in charge of the Japanese language class for Vietnamese and their homeroom teachers recognized that Vietnamese children had acquired ‘language for living’ but they had not sufficiently acquired ‘language for learning’. Indeed, fluency in Japanese daily conversation does not guarantee Japanese fluency in learning. Therefore, the Japanese language class for Vietnamese functioned as a space for assisting Vietnamese children with learning, as well as for raising the standard of low achievers, which was offered during lunch break or after school in A Primary School. What did Vietnamese children think about such Japanese language class? Since the teacher in charge of the Japanese language class was on a business trip, the Japanese language instructor visiting the Japanese language classes in the city was in charge of the class activities. The children practiced a Vietnamese song ‘Con chó (Dog)’, looking at a sheet that came with a Japanese reading (furigana) of the Vietnamese verse. On my request, the Japanese language instructor asked the children, from the first and second grades who came to the class, then the third and fourth graders, and the fifth and sixth graders, why they came to the Japanese language class. For the few pupils who responded simultaneously, their answers included incomplete sentences. Instructor:

Why do you all come to the Japanese language class? What do you do in the class?

Second-grade boy A: To study. I only understand a little. Second-grade boy B: Because we have to study hard. Second-grade girl A: To learn things that I do not understand, and to learn kanji (Chinese characters) and to take tests. Second-grade girl B:

To learn Japanese language and kanji, and about Japanese people.

Second-grade boy C: To enjoy studying. Instructor:

Are you enjoying it?

Second-grade boy C: Sometimes…. Fourth-grade boy A: Because I don’t understand Japanese enough.

158

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

Third-grade girl A:

To learn Japanese words.

Third-grade girl B:

To learn the materials not covered in homeroom.

Third-grade boy A:

To learn about Vietnam and Vietnamese play.

Third-grade girl C:

To be smart.

Fourth-grade boy A: Because I cannot understand [the homeroom lessons]. That’s why I use a dictionary. Instructor:

Do you have anything you don’t understand?

Fourth-grade boy A: kanji (Chinese characters) are difficult. Third-grade girl C:

I want to become smart. If I can be smart, I will be able to do more when I grow up.

Instructor:

Aren’t you smart now?

Third-grade girl C:

I am a little closer to stupid than a middle-point between smart and stupid. The instructions in the Japanese language class are detailed. As my homeroom teacher is not detailed, the Japanese language class is good. [To fifth and sixth graders who came and joined the others later on.]

Instructor:

All of you speak and understand Japanese really well, right? (minna nihongo umaiyone.)

Sixth-grade girl A:

[It is because] I was born in Japan. Japanese language class is not fun, but I can understand [the lessons] better.

Instructor:

Why do you come to the Japanese language class?

Sixth-grade girl A:

It is not fun, but as I understand the materials.

Sixth-grade boy B:

When I was a first or second-grader, it was fun. I cannot understand some Japanese. Especially difficult words [and phrases].

Fifth-grade boy B:

I understand every Japanese word and everything about Japan.

Fourth-grade boy B:

The teacher when I was a first or second grader made us write compositions (sakubun) on Mondays and [let us] play (asobi) on Thursdays. She repeated the same activities again and again. But now, the teacher makes us study all the time.

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

Sixth-grade girl A:

I do not like worksheets.

Instructor:

How about compositions? You are good at it.

Sixth-grade girl A:

Compositions are OK.

159

(My additions are made in square brackets.) These conversations were recorded in my field notes. The children who had already acquired Japanese as ‘language of living’ regarded the Japanese language class not as a place to learn Japanese language, but as a class to study in Japanese in a broad sense, including supplementary lessons. After the children returned home, the Japanese language instructor mentioned that children were not aware of the meaning of attending the Japanese language class, but they were told to attend the class by their parents, or they think they should study Japanese (June 1999).

The location and functions of the ‘Japanese language class’ in A Primary School Daniel Linger (2001: 62–65) argues that the values that the school is trying to encourage could be understood from the spatial and ritual practices of the Japanese language class called ‘international class’, based on his research on the Japanese-Brazilians in the middle school in Toyota City, Aichi Prefecture, in 1994–1996. In A Primary School, there were three school buildings in total: one with special rooms frequently used by children (teachers’ room, infirmary, library, etc.), the other two with less frequently used special rooms (computer rooms, classroom for the students with special needs) with a mixture of classrooms. The Japanese language class for Chinese children was assigned the room which was used by the school office until the previous year, while the Japanese language class for Vietnamese children, as well as the class for the students with special needs was placed in a corner with other rooms that were infrequently used (rooms for storing materials, studio). This was not unique to A Primary School. I visited several primary and secondary schools in the Kansai region during my field research, and most likely, the Japanese language classes and international classes were assigned the open rooms or storerooms in a remote location from the school’s front door or other classrooms. Except for open days of the Japanese language classes to learn ethnic cultures and play of ethnic groups several times a year, in A Primary School, only those who were enrolled in the Japanese language classes (Vietnamese and Chinese), the teachers in charge of the Japanese language classes, and other teachers and staff members of the school and outside the school assisting the classes dropped in. Chinese and Vietnamese

160

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

children sometimes visited their Japanese language classrooms during a recess; however, they seldom went to their Japanese language classrooms with their Japanese friends. Therefore, the impression that the Japanese language classes were for Chinese and Vietnamese children was widely held in the school and district. In this way, in A Primary School, except for the guidance entering homerooms and extracting newcomer children from their homerooms, all instructions were provided after school. In addition to Japanese language instruction once a week, at the discretion of the teachers in charge of the Japanese language classes, homework assistance and supplementary lessons for homerooms were offered as part of the Japanese language class activities before class, during a recess, after school, etc., on a voluntary basis. Looking at newcomer children in A Primary School from the Japanese language classes, you would be amazed by abundant educational support for them. Nevertheless, during my study, the activities of the Japanese language classes unfolded in a space isolated from other children.

Ethnic club: Ethnic club and ‘mother tongue instruction’ as counter-hegemony In the previous section, we have observed that the Japanese language classes functions as places for Japanese language instruction and guidance for learning. Although guidance for learning in order to acquire the ‘language for learning’ in a broad sense is equivalent to Japanese language instruction, it differs in the purposes from Japanese language instruction included in MEXT’s educational measures for newcomer children. Therefore, the Japanese language classes with the goals of guidance for learning can be regarded as the pioneering efforts of A Primary School. In addition, as an independent effort of the school, they had ethnic club activities for newcomer children. Although ethnic clubs were carried out as activities of the Japanese language classes in A Primary School, it is not included in MEXT’s educational measures for newcomer children. When the ‘memorandum’ of Japan-Korea third-generation consultation was signed by foreign ministers in Japanese and Korean governments in 1991, the Ministry of Education then issued a notice, ‘not to constrain the provision of the opportunities for learning Korean language and Korean culture, etc. as extracurricular activities after school’ (Ota, 2000: 146). Since then the government’s position is consistent; it is not necessary to design special curriculum for foreigners, but may authorize extracurricular special educational activities. Thus, ethnic clubs in A Primary School are carried out, not as part of the

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

161

national educational policies, but originate from extracurricular ethnic classes for resident Koreans in Osaka Prefecture and based on a local education policy, which started from responding to resident Koreans seeking for ethnic education (Okano, 2006). The circumstances of this incident and the formation of ethnic classes in Osaka City are discussed in detail by Hester (2000). As the education for foreigners was placed within the framework of Dowa education, the education for foreigners such as resident Koreans was offered with goals to let Japanese (the Buraku), resident Koreans, and Vietnamese be aware of their social locations, to respect ethnic groups, and to live together with mutual encouragement rather than to ‘assimilate’ to Japanese (‘Our School’s Efforts for the Vietnamese Children in 1995’). Not to ‘assimilate’ to Japanese had been the goal from the beginning in the education for newcomer children. Early in 1995, the following was already described in the school report. As more Vietnamese children are born in Japan, the disruption between the parent-child has occurred in terms of language and culture, which has become a new challenge. Not simply to ‘assimilate’ Vietnamese into Japan, we aim to live together by letting Japanese, Koreans, and Vietnamese be aware of their positions, by respecting ethnic groups, and by mutually encouraging each other (‘Our School’s Efforts for the Vietnamese Children in 1995’, p. 11). Unlike the Japanese language classes at other schools where they function as a space for Japanese language instruction and education for adaptation, the Japanese language classes of A Primary School was a place to strengthen the unity of each ‘ethnic group’. Such a feature of the Japanese language classes were played by ethnic club activities offered in the Japanese language classes every week. In the following section, we will look at how the instruction not to ‘assimilate’ newcomer children to Japan was practiced in ethnic club activities.

Ethnic club activities In the Japanese language classes, ethnic club activities were held after school once a week. Ethnic club activities go back to the educational activities for resident Korean children in the district in 1974. Later in the 1980s, ethnic club activities for resident Korean began in school. Activities in school originally were restricted to children of resident Koreans, but they became open to all children interested in Korean culture in the mid 1980s. When the research was conducted, ethnic clubs for children of resident Koreans were carried out in the school as well as clubs for Vietnamese and Chinese. However, during the study, ethnic club activities for newcomer children were limited to Chinese and Vietnamese children along with

162

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

Japanese language instruction as described above. To my question in this regard, the answer from the teacher was, ‘It is still early (to open the clubs to all children)’ (parentheses added by the author). This response suggests that it is desirable for ethnic clubs to gather the children of the same ethnic backgrounds for a certain time period. When ethnic club activities were carried out once a week, a resident Korean instructor from the district participated in the ethnic club activities for Vietnamese, as well as Chinese and Vietnamese instructors who participated in each ethnic club respectively. The purpose of the activity was to learn about the culture and language of children with a goal to ‘retain and nurture ethnic identity’. The phrase was heard often during the study, which was believed by teachers in school to originate from MEXT. However, MEXT educational policies for newcomer children do not stipulate other than Japanese language instruction, and the education for foreigners does not allow special instruction other than extracurricular activities. Thus, the understanding of teachers that their efforts to ‘retain and nurture ethnic identity’ came under the guidance of MEXT remains questionable (Enoi, 1997; Ota, 2000: 26–28). The discussion over this interpretation will not be touched here, and ethnic club activities for Vietnamese and Chinese children will be described below. The main activities of the ethnic clubs were the participation in ethnic cultural festivals organized by teachers’ union, teachers’ study group on the education for foreign residents, and an ethnic club for resident Koreans in the neighborhood. In order to participate in the ethnic cultural festival every fall, ethnic clubs became busy preparing for the festivals in the beginning of the second semester. Vietnamese children of A Primary School presented a play based on a Vietnamese fable explaining the origin of the Vietnamese country with Vietnamese children from other schools. Although the play was based on the Vietnamese fable, except simple greetings, all lines were in Japanese. Chinese children greeted in Chinese language, and then, introduced themselves in Japanese language, and fifth and sixth graders recited Chinese poems while the other children showed the audience the paper that poems were written on. As it was an ethnic cultural festival, participants were wearing traditional ethnic dresses. Vietnamese and Chinese children also changed to their traditional ethnic dresses, which were the properties of the school, in each Japanese language class on the day of the ethnic cultural festival, and then, headed to the venue of the ethnic cultural festival. In addition to the efforts towards the ethnic cultural festival, in each Japanese language class, a variety of activities were carried out to retain ethnic identity of the children. During my fieldwork, Chinese children played the Chinese game, sang Chinese songs, made pancakes (as Chinese

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

163

dishes were difficult to cook) and played the game to translate Chinese to Japanese (katakana), etc., in their ethnic club. Vietnamese children performed traditional Vietnamese plays, learned about the history of Vietnam (only fifth and sixth graders), made simple Vietnamese dishes, learned how to make a Japanese-style lunch box before a field trip, and made picture books based on the interviews with their parents about their arrival in Japan, etc., in their ethnic club. Both clubs jointly held events such as the Star Festival in July, Christmas party in December, and a tea party in March to lean Japanese culture.

‘Mother tongue instruction’ supported by the discourse of ‘retaining and nurturing ethnic identity’ In addition to teaching children’s ethnic cultures, the ethnic club for Vietnamese children had instructed the Vietnamese language to preserve their mother tongue. The Japanese language class for Chinese children also began mother tongue instruction in their ethnic club after my fieldwork, but it was to deal with children who might return to China, which was separate from the efforts to ‘retain and nurture ethnic identity’. The instructor who came to the Japanese language class for Vietnamese children was a Vietnamese college student. She was asked to read aloud Vietnamese picture books, correctly pronounce Vietnamese words, and to speak to the children in Vietnamese by the teacher in charge of the Japanese language class. In addition, she was requested to share her experiences in Japanese schools with the children. It was based on the judgment that the experiences of a senior, ‘resident Vietnamese’, was educationally beneficial for the children. As such, the efforts to inform children of their seniors’ experiences who have the same ethnic backgrounds were often seen in A Primary School and in the neighborhood. Learning the Vietnamese language was important for the following three reasons. First, so that children can communicate in Vietnamese with their parents who could not speak Japanese language that much; second, so that children can improve their Japanese language ability based on the discourse among teachers that the children who retain mother tongue have a higher ability in Japanese language; and lastly, so that the ethnic identity as Vietnamese can be nurtured. Along with mother tongue instruction practiced from these reasons, the following messages were sent in the Japanese language class where Vietnamese children studied. ‘Not only Japanese language, but use both Japanese language and Vietnamese language’. ‘Take pride in yourself as the Vietnamese living in Japan’. And to the Vietnamese children using their Japanese names, they were told to ‘use your real ethnic name’. Even in the school report, as a result of the initiatives

164

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

for the education for foreign children, the episode is listed that a Vietnamese child (girl) decided to graduate with her Vietnamese name, instead of her Japanese name, after being told the importance of the Vietnamese name by a Vietnamese college student (‘The Area for Promoting the Acceptance of Foreign Children in Education in the Academic Year 1998–1999’ ‘Interim Report’, pp. 9–10). The significance of ethnic names was heard not only in A Primary School, but also in elementary schools and junior high schools nearby. The mother tongue instruction for enhancing parent–child communication, children’s language and cognitive abilities, and for establishing an identity was the practice of the Japanese language education considering children’s mother tongue and culture, proposed by Ota (1996) and Osaka Prefecture Resource Council (1998). This could be regarded as counter-hegemony against the Japanese schooling that encourages the standardization of culture in school; however, by understanding these messages that support the educational goal of ‘retaining and nurturing ethnic identity’, marginalization, another aspect of this practice, starts to appear. In fact, newcomer children and their parents face the reality in which they cannot wish to live as Chinese or Vietnamese, unlike reported by the school.

Attitude toward mother tongue, names in mother tongue/ethnic names The educational practice based on ‘retaining and nurturing ethnic identity’ was carried out in homerooms, even outside the ‘Japanese language classes’ (to a varying degree). Some homerooms said daily greetings in the languages of all children enrolled (Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese). Therefore, the children in the homeroom chanted in unison, ‘Good Morning’ and ‘Good Bye’ in three languages including Japanese everyday with the children on duty. Even in this environment, when a Vietnamese child (girl) was asked about a Vietnamese greeting during a recess, without responding immediately, she left simply saying, ‘Dunno’. In addition, during the Japanese language class for Chinese children, I recall that the children kept silence when prompted by the teacher in charge of the class to introduce themselves in Chinese language to a newly transferred student. It was in the classroom where it should be a worry-free space for newcomer children. ‘Why aren’t you saying anything?’ the teacher asked children who just stood silent when it was their turns to introduce themselves in Chinese. Then, a child (girl) finally responded, ‘I hate (to speak Chinese) at school’ (parentheses added by the author). As was seen in the comments about the Japanese language classes for Vietnamese children, the Japanese language classes for them

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

165

were a place to study at school (by means of Japanese language) after school. For newcomer children, a school was a space to learn Japanese culture and speak Japanese language. Therefore, only the contact with Vietnamese/ Chinese embedded in Japanese culture, which was arranged by the school, could be accepted by the children, but the contact with ‘mother tongue’ other than these ways, on the contrary, reminded them of the school as a place to speak Japanese. Also, as for the use of ethnic names, as some Chinese and Vietnamese parents are in favor of the Japanese names, there is a discrepancy of the recognition between the parents and the school. Nine out of 12 Chinese used their Japanese names or the Japanese reading of their Chinese names, and four out of 19 Vietnamese used their Japanese names at school. They suggest the inclination of newcomers for ‘assimilation’ to Japanese culture. From the author’s research, even the children and parents who were using their Vietnamese names in everyday life, they may be considering the use of the Japanese names or obtaining Japanese citizenship (nationality). Although Japanese names and naturalization tended to be regarded as a bad habit of succumbing to the pressure of ‘assimilation’, for the Vietnamese who arrived in Japan as a refugee, they were considered positively as a means to make their life in Japan convenient. However, as Bauböck (1996: 208) states, ‘Assimilation (of ethnic minorities) therefore should be considered as involuntary if a state denies a recognition minority culture’ (parentheses added by the author). According to this interpretation, unless the institutions that support a state such as education accept minority cultures, the inclination of ethnic minorities toward assimilation into Japanese culture in Japan would all be involuntary. In Japanese society where the standardization of Japanese language and Japanese culture is enhanced, the use of Japanese names and obtaining Japanese citizenship (nationality) for the Vietnamese may be a difficult choice. The significance of ‘mother tongue instruction’ in the Japanese language class in such contexts is discussed below.

Consideration According to Bauböck (1996: 208), in order to achieve the voluntary assimilation of ethnic minorities, the dominant group has to refrain from hurting the ability of ethnic minority for cultural reproduction, and should not seek a waiver of membership of minority groups as a prerequisite for equal citizenship5 and equal opportunity. A Primary School was certainly maintaining the ability to reproduce Chinese and Vietnamese cultures through ‘mother tongue and mother culture instruction’. In addition, efforts

166

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

were continued so that each individual could live as members of minority groups. Accordingly, the criteria towards voluntary assimilation of ethnic minority groups, proposed by Bauböck, should have fully met. Then, why should a potentially counter-hegemonic ‘mother tongue instruction’, on the contrary, resulted in reinforcing the perception of Japan, the dominant group on which Japanese language and Japanese culture are based? Here, the two points of view are presented that become important for the correct understanding of the identity of the child in analyzing the practices of ‘mother tongue instruction’ at A Primary School. First, the identity of the child is understood as Vietnamese and Chinese ethnic identity vis-à-vis the Japanese, and thus, a personal identity is replaced to a collective identity based on ethnic background. Osaka Prefecture Resource Council (1996) proposes multicultural education and education for co-living that reflects the reality of the schools, with diversifying resident Koreans due to the increasing naturalization and international marriages and newcomers. In their report, the replacement of personal identity of the children with a collective identity is observed as well. While Osaka Prefecture Resource Council (1996: 54) shows an understanding that identity is ‘caring for self’, not given but ‘something that sprouts and grows’ (p. 56) in relationships, regards identity as personal, and suggests building a society that acknowledges diverse identities, they state that self realization of resident Koreans after their identity struggles becomes a hope for Japanese (p. 58), that an ethnic identity becomes important as a self expression at the moment rather than either Japanese or resident Korean (pp. 56–58), and that ‘each individual child should cherish his/her attachment, increase ethnic identity, and value as much as possible the desire to live true to him/herself’ (p. 116). From these words, we notice that although Osaka Prefecture Resource Council (1996) regard identity as personal, they present a collective identity such as ethnic identity, etc. in the discussion. This is not limited to Osaka Prefecture Resource Council, but the tendency is also seen in the literature dealing with the education for newcomers, resident Koreans, and Dowa education. Since these education guide (ethnic) minorities that are positioned as subgroups of the Japanese nation, teachers cannot escape from the composition facing ‘against the Japanese as the majority’. It is because, within the composition of guiding minority children who are ‘against the Japanese as the majority’, ethnic identity as a collective identity has played an important role in developing educational support that gives attention to the ‘structure of anti-ethnic groups and discrimination’ (Osaka Prefecture Resource Council (1996: 22), inherent in Japanese schools and society. On the other hand, education of newcomer children may be positioned within the framework of education for returnees or international education. In this

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

167

case, although they are different from ethnic minorities in their nature, they are cultural minorities in terms of having cultural backgrounds other than Japanese culture. In these education, there is a tendency to classify children according to host countries or countries of origin (Nukaga, 2003; Tsuneyoshi, 2004; Tsuneyoshi et al., 2010). Therefore, in education for ethnic and cultural minority children, in contrast to the ideal of nurturing a personal identity of each child, in practice, categorization of children based on collective identities cannot be easily removed. Children are categorized based on collective identities of ethnic groups who are minorities among the Japanese nationals, or of nationals different from Japanese nationals. As such, Japanese nationals as a collective are always the foundation. This is the effect of school and family, which shares a function of nation formation, described in the beginning of this chapter, and becomes a factor that prevents practices for mother tongue instruction and multicultural education and education for co-living in schools from functioning as counter-hegemony. Shimizu and Shimizu (2001: 350) analyze newcomer families’ educational strategies and discuss ‘cultural production’ that hinders the reproduction of Indochina refugees as minorities. They list ‘positive feeling toward ethnicity’ as a resource that enables this. As efforts that actively support it, they mention the establishment of mother tongue class and activities that support home visits by Japanese volunteers in the community. These cases were reported to be effectively conducive to children’s ethnic backgrounds through mother tongue teaching. Thus, the practice of mother tongue teaching itself cannot be criticized (Shimizu & Shimizu, 2001: 350–353). What should be regarded as a problem is the difference of contexts between the case in Shimizu and Shimizu (2001) and that in A Primary School. The ‘positive feeling toward ethnicity’ discussed in Shimizu and Shimizu (2001)’s case is not based on a rigid ethnic identity of Vietnamese, but a ‘flexible identity’ (Kim, 1999: 359) that can accept ‘to live as an in-between being’ (Shimizu & Shimizu, 2001: 352). On the other hand, in A Primary School, ‘ethnicity was parents’ ethnic backgrounds or countries of origin’. The wish for ‘flexible identities’ was also observed in the interviews by the author with Vietnamese and Chinese. Second, rather than a fixed identity based on ethnic background or countries of origin, I would like to propose a flexible concept of identity that may be transformed over time, which could be a perspective to prevent the standardization of Japanese language and culture, marginalization of ethnic minorities, and the reproduction of rigid majority culture (in this case, Japan culture). This is also seen in Osaka Prefecture Resource Council’s (1996: 56) view to understand identity as ‘something that sprout and grow’ in relationships. Lave and Wenger (1991: 53) examine learning from social

168

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

practice theory, and state that identity is a long-term, living relations between persons, place, their everyday participation in ‘communities of practice’ where they daily participate. Accordingly, along with the factors that form the ‘community of practice’ to which a person belongs, the person’s meanings attached to his/her identity also change, which suggests mutual changes in persons and their social relations and meaning worlds. Therefore, the possibility of change can be read even at the micro everyday level and at the macro social structural level. However, despite the possibility of change in everyday practice, we should not forget the fact that the forces that may encourage the reproduction of society and culture are simultaneously at work. It is because all everyday practices including educational practice are caught in the power relations that consist in the ‘reproduction’ of social and cultural structures and ‘cultural production’, challenging the former.

Summary and Suggestions Japanese language instruction and mother tongue teaching for newcomer children in the Japanese language classes discussed in this chapter symbolize the two forces of social and cultural ‘reproduction’ and ‘cultural production’. Japanese language is taught as a national standard language to newcomers as to form Japanese nationals, while their mother tongues are also taught from the consideration of their ethnic backgrounds. However, as we have previously discussed, the enrollment decisions in Japanese language classes are made, not based on the children’s language abilities and wills of children and parents, but on the countries of origin (not nationalities) of their parents and ethnic backgrounds, and as activities of Japanese language classes are provided in a closed space from daily activities of other Japanese children, the fixed perspective to regard newcomers as ethnic minorities is further strengthened. As a result, the educational practice of ‘mother tongue teaching’, which has the counter-hegemonic potential, is converged on a national ideology of the formation of the nation and the production of the national subjects and ethnic minorities. And thus, even the practice of mother tongue teaching is transformed to a device to promote the standardization of Japanese culture and language, which results in social and cultural ‘reproduction’. It is because cultural citizenship, in the first place, is not for (cultural) minorities to request the full citizenship as discussed by Ong (1996: 737–738), but a dual process in which subjects are made within power relations linked to the nation state and civil society and in which subjects become subjects. For this framework, various regulatory regimes in the state (agencies) and civil society cannot be ignored. In Japan,

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

169

the categorization of Japanese (ethnic group, culture, language) and nonJapanese (ethnic group, culture, language) is working in the process of social integration (inclusion, exclusion). In the future, a flexible view is required in understanding the identity of newcomer children – that their ethnic background is merely one element that constitutes their identity, and that the dominant Japanese and all accept newcomer children’s wishes to live as in-between beings between Japanese and foreigners, as Japanese, as foreigners, or as any other subject. Furthermore, the perspective that identity is capable of transformation over time is the first step in the attempt to prevent social and cultural ‘reproduction’.

Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have participated and cooperated in my research. Upon revisions of this draft, I also appreciate the comments and advice of the editors, Shinji Sato and Neriko Doerr, and Izumi Tanaka who was a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley at the time of writing (now professor at Hiroshima University of Economics).

Notes (1)

(2)

(3)

According to Balibar who argues for social formation as nation form, family and school not only support a few institutions of the dominant group, which enact the state’s ideological apparatus that Louis Althusser proposes, but create a place where ‘fictive ethnicity’ is constructed through the formation of closed and mutually exclusive language and racial communities. Here, ethnicity is regarded as ‘fictive’, for a state and nation state are not founded on ethnicity, but they disseminate universal nationality. The larger the functions of school and family become, individuals are imposed their ‘social fate’ by their ethnicity (Balibar, 1991: 45–64, 100–105). Accordingly, family and school not only promote the nation formation, but also function to manifest ethnicity, which may lead to discrimination and exclusion in that process. It is said that the number of illegal overstayers exceed 250,000. Many of them are illegally working as factory workers, construction workers, and hostesses in a so-called unskilled labor (Kojima, 2006: 2). The number of registered foreigners recorded 800,000 in 1985, 1.1 million in 1990, 1.68 million people in 2000 (1.31% of the total population) (Okano, 2006). Compared with the population shift of Japan during that time period from 121 million (1985) to 127 million (2007), the increase of registered foreigners is said to be remarkable (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau, 2008). Citing other studies on intercultural contact, Shimizu and Shimizu (2001: 17) define ‘marginalization’ (kyōkaika/placed between the boundaries) as a ‘situation in which one’s cultural identity and cultural aspects cannot be maintained, and in

170

Part 2: Kokugo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Native Speakers’

which relations with the Japanese cannot be constructed’. Here, ‘marginalization’ is used for the same concept, but with a different Japanese translation, shūenka. It is because newcomer children are marginalized not because they exist between the boundaries, but because this situation itself is the marginalization of newcomers in Japanese society. (4) Among the ‘doubles’, there are a few children whose mothers were Filipina (one in 1998). (5) Here, following Shafir (Gershon Shafir), citizenship is regarded as legal and social framework for individual autonomy and political democracy (Shafir, 1998: 2). (6) According to social practice theory proposed by Lave, Wenger and others, persons are defined by social systems and meaning worlds surrounding everyday practice and activity.

References A Primary School (1995) “Our School’s Efforts for the Vietnamese Children in 1995.” (unpublished report). A Primary School (1998) “Our School’s Efforts for the Chinese and Vietnamese Children in 1998.” (unpublished report). Balibar, E. (1991) Racism and nationalism. In E. Balibar and I. Wallerstein (eds) Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities (pp. 37–67). London: Verso. Balibar, E. (1991) The nation form: History and ideology. In E. Balibar and I. Wallerstein (eds) Race, Nation, Class: Ambiguous Identities (pp. 86–106). London: Verso. Bauböck, R. (1996) Cultural minority rights for immigrants. International Migration Review 30 (1), 203–250. Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J-C. (1990) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (2nd edn). London: Sage Publications. de Certeau, M. (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Enoi, Y. (1997) On the Possibility of Multicultural Education and Education for Co-Living in School. A City Report of Activities of Study Group on Education for Resident Foreigners 6, 4–16. Osaka: A City Study Group on Education for Resident Foreigners. Hester, J. (2000) Kids between nations: Ethnic classes in the construction of Korean identities in Japanese public schools. In S. Ryang (ed.) Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin (pp. 175–196). New York: Routledge. Kim, T-Y. (1999) Beyond Identity Politics: Ethnicity of Resident Koreans. Tokyo: Sekai Shisosha. Kojima, A. (2006) Newcomer Children and School Culture: Educational Ethnography of Japanese Brazilian Students. Tokyo: Keiso Shobo. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, B. and Holland, D. (1996) The cultural production of the educated person: An introduction. In B. Levinson, D. Foley and D. Holland (eds) The Cultural Production of the Educated Person: Critical Ethnographies of Schooling and Local Practices (pp. 1–54). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Linger, D. (2001) No One Home: Brazilian Selves Remade in Japan. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2008a) Study on the acceptance, etc. of foreign children and students that require Japanese language

Discourse on Mother Tongue Instruction in Japanese Language Education

171

instruction. See www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/19/08/07062955.htm (accessed June 2008). Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2008b) The information on MEXT’s measures for returnees and foreign children and students, etc. See www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/clarinet/003/001.htm (accessed June 2008). Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication, Statistics Bureau (2008) Monthly population estimates. See www.stat.go.jp/data/jinsui/pdf/200805.pdf (accessed June 2008). Ministry of Justice, Immigration Bureau (2007) About foreign registration statistics as of the end of 2008. See www.moj.go.jp/PRESS/070516-1.pdf (accessed June 2008). Nihon Keizai Shimbun (2007) Compulsory education for foreign children – The government is Considering It for Long-Term Residents, etc. 11 January. Nukaga, M. (2003) Japanese education in an era of internationalization: A case study of an emerging multicultural coexistence model. International Journal of Japanese Sociology 12 (1), 79–94. Okano, K. (2006) The global–local interface in multicultural education policies in Japan. Comparative Education 42 (4), 473–491. Ong, A. (1996) Cultural citizenship as subject-making: Immigrants negotiate racial and cultural boundaries in the United States. Current Anthropology 37 (5), 737–762. Osaka Prefecture Resource Council for Education of Foreign Children in Japan (1996) The Concept of Multicultural Education and Education for Co-Living for the 21st Century – Education for Resident Foreigners that Osaka Prefecture Resource Council Aim For. Osaka: Osaka Prefecture Resource Council for Education of Foreign Children in Japan. Osaka Prefecture Resource Council for Education of Foreign Children in Japan (1998) Japanese Language Education for Multiculturalism and Co-Living. Osaka: Osaka Prefecture Resource Council for Education of Foreign Children in Japan. Ota, H. (1996) Japanese language education and mother tongue education: Educational agenda for newcomer foreign children. In T. Miyajima and T. Kajita (eds) From Foreign Workers to Citizens: From a Perspective and Agenda of Local Society (pp. 123–143). Tokyo: Yuhikaku. Ota, H. (2000) Newcomer Children in Japanese Public Schools. Tokyo: Kokusai Shoin. Sekine, M. (2003) An introductory note on the special issue on Japanese society and ethnicity. International Journal of Japanese Sociology 12 (1), 2–6. Shafir, G. (1998) Introduction: The evolving tradition of citizenship. In G. Shafir (ed.) The Citizenship Debates: A Reader (pp. 1–28). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Shimizu, K. and Shimizu, M. (eds) (2001) Newcomers and Education: On Conflicts between School Culture and Ethnicity. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten. Tsuneyoshi, R. (2004) The new foreigners and the social reconstruction of difference: The cultural diversification of Japanese education. Comparative Education Review 40 (1), 55–81. Tsuneyoshi, K.R., Okano, K.H. and Boocock, S.S. (eds) (2010) Minorities and Education in Multicultural Japan: An Interactive Perspective. London: Routledge. Willis, P. (1981) Cultural production is different from cultural reproduction is different from social reproduction is different from reproduction. Interchange 12 (2–3), 48–67.

Part 3

Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

8 Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking: Discourses on Thought Patterns in Post-war Studies of Japanese Language Education Hazuki Segawa

Nationalism and Japanese Language Education Modern Japan’s formation and the ‘national language’ The increasing research on the nation state since the 1990s has shown the important roles that language plays in the construction of a nation. In Imagined Communities, Anderson (1991, Japanese translation 1997) argued that the gradual language unification process in Europe gave birth to the ‘language of publication’, through which awareness of communities emerged among readers. He further argued that such communities became bases for popular movements and the formation of nation states by royal dynasties (Anderson, 1991). Similarly, the Japanese language has played a significant role in the formation of the modern nation state of Japan. According to Sakai (1996: 177–190), 18th century scholars of ancient history and national studies filled ‘a void currently missing’ by inventing the Japanese language that should have been used in the past and the community that should have made use of the language. Also, Lee (1996), who examined the discourses of Kazutoshi Ueda, a forefather of modern Japanese language studies, and his disciple, the bureaucracy scholar Kôichi Hoshina, concluded that modern Japanese language studies are in fact aimed at establishing a normative ‘national language’, and that the modern nation state of Japan was born out of learning 175

176

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

and using this so-called ‘national language’ (Lee, 1996). These studies confirm the likelihood that conceiving the standard Japanese language as one unified entity enabled the emergence of nationalism – in other words, the belief that Japan and Japanese people are also unified entities. As Sato’s chapter in this book (Chapter 5) also points out, schooling played a vital role in the process of forming and disseminating this conception of the unified Japanese language. ‘National language’ education provided by schools was an indispensable tool for spreading the ideology that there exists a unified Japanese language that all Japanese people should be able to use (Lee, 1996: 148–151). Supporting this ideology of language homogeneity necessitated strict exclusion of ‘dialects’ whose existence belied it.1

Japanese language education with (anti-)national potential? If we posit that the Japanese language undergirds nationalism in Japan and is diffused through ‘national language’ education, then what would language education for non-Japanese have to do with this nationalism? The simple response is that the Japanese language, as a ‘national language’, should be a tool for expanding the influence of Japanese patriotism overseas. If the Japanese language is perceived as belonging to Japan’s people in a nationalistic way, then Japanese language education becomes a way of diffusing the influence of a ‘Japan = Japanese language’ ideology to other countries. Indeed, under Japanese imperial colonialism, Japanese language education was clearly promoted with the diffusion of the ideology as its official goal. For instance, the Taiwan Common School Ordinance in colonial Taiwan (1904) stated that the study of the Japanese language bestows the character, mind and skill of a Japanese (Komagome, 1996: 68). Moreover, Yasuda (1997) reported that the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Act of Ordinary Education in Korea (1911) and The First Educational Ordinance of Korea (1911) assumed the logic that ‘the population’s consciousness of “nationalism” lies within the “national language”, so the teaching of the national language at common schools from the first educational stages would aid the development of proper nationalist character in the population, resulting in the creation of “loyal and patriotic people”’ (Yasuda, 1997: 127). These authors have also pointed out that education carried an official goal of spreading the Japanese spirit and Japanese customs in other areas that Japan once occupied, such as Manchuria and some South East Asian countries (Komagome, 1996: 341; Yasuda, 1997: 230–231, 295–296).

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

177

Komagome referred to the nationalistic ideology that the Japanese language is itself ‘the Japanese spirit’ as the ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit theory’ (Komagome, 1996: 330). The education ordinances named above indicate that Japanese language education policy at the time aimed at the Japanization of minds through the Japanese language, premised on this ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit theory’. In short, Japanese language education in the colonies and occupied territories used the ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ ideology at its core to advance its goal of expanding nationalism. Paradoxically, however, the Japanese language was also meant to underline the homogeneity of Japan and its people, so the reality of the Japanese language expanding to non-Japanese areas and non-Japanese people would also result in cracks in the basis of nationalism. The more the ‘Japanese language (which is the same as the Japanese spirit)’ was diffused throughout occupied nations and colonies (in other words, the more Japanese nationalism spread), the less exclusive the Japanese language would become – it would no longer belong only to Japan and the Japanese people. Komagome (1996: 5–8) presented the idea that the spread of Japanese nationalism also erodes that nationalism as a basic discussion point. According to the same study, the formula ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’, one of the essential ideologies used to uphold imperialist rule and administrative order, collapsed as the Japanese language was transmitted to people of other ethnicities. For example, Tetsushirô Kudô, a trainer of Japanese language teachers in Shangdong, pointed to his experience of seeing anti-Japan activists express their anti-Japan ethos in the Japanese language. Given this reality, the policy ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ was bound to fail (Komagome, 1996: 347–348), and the ideology that assumed that merely teaching the Japanese language would naturally spread the Japanese spirit came into question. Reflecting on Tetsushirô Kudô’s experience, Komagome (1996: 348) wrote that ‘the most important fact is that in the process of looking out for imperialistic control, internal problems and criticisms like this could not be avoided’, and ‘exactly for that reason, imperialism is both a development of nationalism and its negation’. The success of ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ diffusion brought about the possibility of nonJapanese expressing their anti-Japanese thoughts in Japanese. In sum, education that spreads the ideology ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ to non-Japanese people essentially holds the potential to create fissures within the ideology itself. Nevertheless, Japanese language education policy in times of war did not abandon the goal of diffusing ‘Japanese language = Japanese

178

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

spirit’ (Komagome, 1996: 348–349). Even after the defeat in WWII, even after the expurgation of nationalistic writings, the ideology of ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ remained in some national Japanese textbooks (Komagome, 1996: 383). Komagome did not discuss post-war Japanese language education for non-Japanese people. Even after the war, Japanese language education itself had the potential to contribute to the extension of ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ to non-Japanese people, thus expanding Japanese nationalism overseas. Yet, because Japanese language education teaches the Japanese language to (mainly) non-Japanese people, it can give rise to varieties of the Japanese language, which may be used to express ideas of no relevance to ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’. Did post-war Japanese language education inherit the ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ ideology of wartime Japanese language education? If so, does it aim to expand Japanese nationalism overseas, based on this ideology? Or does it instead question the ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ ideology, contributing to the possibility of anti-nationalism? This chapter attempts to answer these questions.2 One could counter these questions by arguing that there is nothing wrong with the expansion or diffusion of Japanese nationalism via Japanese language education based on the belief that the Japanese language unifies, or that this is exactly what Japanese language education should look to do. After all, nationalism and its expansion are not necessarily problematic. Anderson (1991/1997: 249–250), discussing the example of the Philippines under the Spanish Empire, mentioned the possibility of people’s anti-colonial nationalism being mobilized against imperialistic racism.3 However, as previous studies pointed out, nationalism also promoted the expansion of imperialism and imperialist countries’ subordination of colonized people. In this chapter, I will consider whether or not nationalism has had a problematic function in post-war Japanese language education.

Scope and Method of the Research Study This chapter examines expressions of any type of mental activity (hereafter termed ‘thought patterns’) as ‘mind’, ‘thought’, ‘conceptualization’ or ‘way of thinking’, as well as descriptions thereof (hereafter, ‘discourses on thought patterns’), in published post-war studies on Japanese language education. Its object is to sketch the relationship between post-war Japanese language education and nationalism, and particularly what became of the ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ formula in post-war Japanese language education.

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

179

Although materials relevant to the history of the ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ formula in post-war contexts comprise a large body of historical documents found in mass media, policy and textbooks, this study limits its scope to articles published in the academic journal Nihongo Kyôiku ( Japanese Language Education), published by the Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language (Nihongo Kyôiku Gakkai), for several reasons. First, it has a longer post-war publication history than any other specialized Japanese education journal, enabling a longitudinal examination of changes in discourses. Also, as the only specialized periodical on Japanese language education that has been issued continually since the 1960s, Nihongo Kyôiku has a tradition and authority that give it unparalleled influence on the various Japanese language education organizations and stakeholders. Moreover, the various members of the Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language – researchers, practitioners, governmental organization members – who opine on educational policy changes include functionaries from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Monbu Kagaku Syô) as well as the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics (Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyûjo). With 4488 registered members (31 March 2011 to the present day), it has a larger membership than any other society for Japanese language education (Nihongo Kyôiku Gakkai, 2011). Because Nihongo Kyôiku is a hugely authoritative medium with the potential to influence a wide-ranging, sizable body of readers, its content can be taken as representative of, and influential on, discourses about postwar Japanese language education. Thus, the present investigation relies on discourses on thought patterns chosen from articles published in Nihongo Kyôiku, from its first edition in 1962 to its 123rd edition in 2004. It also refers to articles that appeared between 1945 and 1961, before publication of this journal. I chose articles via keyword and title searches related to Japanese language education, using such databases as Senryôki Zasshikiji Johô Dêtabêsuka Purojekuto Iinkai (2003), Kanichi Jôkô (1956), Kokuritsu Kokkai Toshokan (2005) and Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyûjo (1960). I would like to note that the analysis here concerns only the discourses on thought patterns in post-war studies on Japanese language education, and not their effects. In other words, the goal of this chapter is to unveil the manner in which thought patterns have been described or written. Effects – for example, influence on classroom instruction or on language learners – are outside the scope of this chapter. Imazu (1997: 12) wrote that pedagogic discourses could be understood as ‘somewhat coherent arguments related to education, which are endowed with sacredness that dazzles people, which serve as basic framework for

180

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

the process of understanding and evaluating educational problems, and which function as motivation and guidelines for educational practice’. He also stated, ‘The pedagogic discourses that are strongly endowed with “sacredness” have characteristics similar to those of religious doctrines, in that the analytical or critical arguments over those discourses come to be seen as a taboo, and they become the self-evident framework for understanding education and value judgment, and function as the motivation and guideline for educational practice’ (Imazu, 1997: 13). The ideology of the ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ discourse that aims to Japanize people through the Japanese language is one such ‘sacred’ pedagogic discourse. Such discourses and ideologies are the wellspring of the motivation and guidelines that work to promote the practice of Japanese language education. To eventually discuss discourses’ effects, it is necessary first to understand what they are. Consequently, the focus of this chapter is at the level of discourses on thought patterns. Many scholars of Japanese language education have pointed out the problems with understanding the Japanese culture as a fixed, unified entity, or teaching it as such to language learners (e.g. Hosokawa, 1997, 2002; Kawakami, 1997, 1999; Kôno, 2000; Ogawa, 1997; Segawa, 2000). However, though these critiques identified the problems with the discourses, few examined how these discourses had become self-evident. The goal of this chapter is precisely to trace the discourses over the long term to examine how they have constructed the problems.4 What follows summarizes the process of transitions in the discourses. The main objective here is to outline the ways in which post-war discourses in Japanese language education relate to nationalism by taking up representative discourses on thought patterns defined by coding over several time periods. For further discussion of coding-based classification and details on the discourses, see Segawa (2004a, 2004b, 2005b, 2012).

First Period: Revival of the ‘Japanese Language = Japanese Spirit’ Discourse in Studies on the Japanese Language From defeat in WWII to the early 1950s: ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ discourses in latent forms In the literature from the immediate post-war period, there is no mention of Japanese language education’s goal during the war, namely, to transmit the Japanese spirit through the Japanese language. Nevertheless, it is highly

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

181

probable that the earlier ideology of ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ was inherited subconsciously in the new form of ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’. Kanichi Jôkô (1948), who was a teacher trainer at the Beijing Normal School during the war, published his Nihongo kyôju no gutaiteki kenkyû (Specific Studies on Japanese Language Instruction) after the end of the war. In a section discussing the emergence of languages, he wrote that whereas the reason for their emergence was not yet evident, languages clearly emerged from each ethnicity’s world view, and that the Japanese language reflects the nature of the Japanese ethnic group (Joko, 1948: 26–27). The formula ‘Japanese language = Japanese ethnic world view’ was stated without any proof, as some kind of natural truth. Other examples of such an equation come from interviews conducted in 19535 with educators and others involved in Japanese language education, where it was commented that difficulty in reading Japanese results from not knowing the Japanese people’s ways of thinking (Tomobe, 1953: 33). These kinds of comments assume a strong relation between the Japanese language and the Japanese people’s ways of thinking as a self-evident premise. Furthermore, people who were involved in Japanese language education in the occupied territories and colonies did not reflect upon their actions after the end of the war. Jôkô’s 1948 publication is understood as the result of the author’s experience training teachers during the war (Ikeo et al., 1991: 86, 91), but he did not refer to wartime Japanese language education itself.6 His work aimed to point out concrete methods of Japanese language instruction, viewing Japanese language education as ‘one of the basic works to be done in reconstructing Japan’ (Jôkô, 1948: 1). This was also the stance of the post-war writings of Kôichi Hoshina (1949), who was deeply involved in Japanese language education policy during the war. His description of Japanese language education in the colonies, Manchuria and occupied territories made it seem as if the subjugated people naturally wanted to receive the education (Hoshina, 1949: 269–270). It made no mention of the compulsory nature of Japanese language education to transmit the Japanese spirit, or the accompanying exclusion of the learners’ mother tongues. Those involved in wartime Japanese language education seem to have either forgotten the problems with its structures and goals, or they hid the problems once their involvement in Japanese language education was considered criminal.7 In other words, they did not reflect on either the educational goal of transmitting the Japanese spirit through language or the premise of the ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ ideology behind that education. Maybe this lack of reflection was precisely what allowed the revival of

182

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

the ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ ideology in post-war studies on Japanese language education. Unlike wartime Japanese language education, Jôkô (1948) and Tomobe (1953) did not argue that Japanese people’s thought patterns or world view should be taught. For them, the relationship between the Japanese language and Japanese mental activity was only a secondary subject, not a point of discussion. However, they noted the strong link between the Japanese language and Japanese mental activities as if it was a self-evident truth, without examining the actual connection. This shows that post-war Japanese language education inherited the ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ ideology in all its depth, although not in an apparent way.

The mid-1950s to mid-1960s: Errors and interference with the discourse of ‘ways of thinking in the Japanese language versus the mother tongue’ Japanese language education started to take shape as a unified educational and research field in the mid 1950s.8 Prevalent research areas at this time concerned differences between ways of thinking in Japanese and in other languages, and the issue of interference of the mother tongue’s way of thinking in Japanese language acquisition. In essays regarding the difficulties that ‘the British and the Americans’ had in learning Japanese, Tsuruko Asano, who was head of the Language and Culture Research Center (Gengo Bunka Kyôiku Kenkyûjo) at the time, wrote, ‘We have lots of comedic stories that were caused by small mistakes, but I believe that the educator has to consider carefully the issues originating from differences in the ways of thinking, since even though no grammatical mistakes were made, sometimes the learners utterances sound funny’ (Asano, 1956: 60). Descriptions of differences in ‘the ways of thinking’ that somehow evoked a sense of strangeness in Japanese language usage are also found elsewhere (Nishio, 1956; Sakata, 1960: 66). Nishio (1956: 16) presented three examples of non-Japanese-like sentences9 as ‘ways of conceptualizing sentences’. He used the concept of ‘different ways of thinking’ to categorize those phrases as somewhat ‘strange’ Japanese, although he provided no specific judgment criteria. Mizutani (1959), in a detailed study on the relation between differences in ways of thinking and the Japanese language, gave an example of learners who were not easily convinced that shinakereba naranai (Japanese for ‘must’) and ‘must’ are similar expressions but they are not perfect correspondents.

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

183

He claimed that ‘their already existing views of grammar and vocabulary from their mother languages become a big obstacle in understanding and acquiring Japanese at some point in language learning’ (Mizutani, 1959: 85). Today, this argument would fit into research on error analysis due to mother tongue interference, but in that era, the argument was expressed in a discourse positing that conceptual understandings in the mother language hinder the acquisition of the Japanese language. What is noteworthy in the above arguments is their failure to account for what the differences in the conceptual understandings or ways of thinking actually are, whether they are really responsible for the ‘strange’ Japanese, and whether they actually become obstacles to the acquisition of Japanese. The influence of differences in ways of thinking on Japanese language acquisition became an active area of research in the late 1960s, but even then these questions were not scientifically examined (Mizutani, 1969; Sakakibara, 1970). Meanwhile, literature from this period made little mention of the national framework. Asano (1956) and Sakata (1960) both argued for the need to account for ‘different ways of thinking’ and ‘different interpretations’, but they did not specify the parties whose ways of thinking differed. Also, Nishio (1956) and Mizutani (1959) identified the problem of ‘different ways of structuring sentences’ and ‘grammatical and lexical conceptualization from the mother language’, not the ways of thinking of people in a specific nation. In this period, the focus of Japanese language education shifted to the problematic of conceptualization in languages, rather than the difference between the ways of thinking of the Japanese ethnic group and those of other ethnicities. Even though studies used terms such as ways of thinking and thought patterns, which necessarily have human beings as their agents, their authors apparently exercised restraint to avoid bringing up national categories.

The late 1960s: ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’ for the purpose of explaining the Japanese language Because discourses on differences in ways of thinking and thought patterns in languages are vague and endowed with self-evident holiness, they fit easily into national frames. Some texts in the Japanese language studies of the late 1960s attempted to attribute the characteristics of the Japanese language to the Japanese people’s thought patterns. The difference between the Japanese grammatical markers wa and ga was a constant focus of discussion in studies on the Japanese language and Japanese language education, and Akira Mikami’s (1960) Zo wa Hana ga Nagai

184

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

(Elephant’s Nose is Long), published in 1960, especially energized research on how to explain that difference. As if to symbolize the enthusiasm for this topic, the first special issue of Nihongo Kyôiku was precisely ‘wa and ga’ (1965, 7th edn), with five articles on the subject, not one of which attempted to attribute differences in the usage of wa and ga to the thought patterns of Japanese people. However, studies emerging in the late 1960s attempted to relate wa and ga to characteristics of Japanese people’s thought patterns. Kawase (1968) attempted to classify Japanese syntactic particles, focusing on the differences between wa and ga. His study noted the use of wa with a wider demonstrative area before ga and attributed it to ‘Japanese people’s ways of thinking’, specifically Japanese people’s tendency to pay attention to the group before the individual. The same type of attribution is observable in Teramura (1968), who classified Japanese nouns and pronouns based on Japanese people’s ways of perceiving things, intuition and patterns of classification of the external world. Kawase and Teramura’s texts aimed to analyze and describe the Japanese language itself and thus touched only briefly on Japanese people’s thought patterns. But despite this brevity, it is a certainty that such links between the Japanese language and Japanese people’s thought patterns emerged and, moreover, tried to explain the former as an effect of the latter. These studies assume the existence of such things as Japanese people’s thought patterns and their relation to the Japanese language as absolutely self-evident truths. We can infer that for this period’s Japanese language researchers, referring to Japanese people’s thought patterns was an acceptable way to explain the characteristics of the language. The pre-war and wartime ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ formula and the ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’ formula of the 1960s differ distinctly with regard to their goals. On the one hand, ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ had the purpose of justifying the spiritual Japanization of non-Japanese people through Japanese instruction. On the other hand, the post-war ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’ was used to explain semantic and syntactic features of the Japanese language. However, the two formulas resemble each other in that both argue for a strong connection between the Japanese mind and the Japanese language, yet fail to account for what exactly the Japanese mind is, or why the Japanese people’s mind and the Japanese language could be linked. The ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’ formula, an unconscious legacy of wartime, resurged in a clearer form in Japanese language at the end of the 1960s.

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

185

Second Period: Education to Force Acquisition of the ‘Japanese Language = Japanese People’s Thought Patterns’ Discourse The early 1970s: The inseparable relation between foreign language education and the ‘foreign country’s thought patterns’ In the early 1970s, the discourse that argued for an inseparable relationship between learning a foreign language and the thought patterns of the people and ethnic groups who speak the language became widespread in research on second language education. Kuramata (1973: 28) argued for ‘understanding’ as one of the general goals of foreign language education, claiming that language and the speaking subject’s mind and activity are mutually regulated, and that because the world view of the ethnic group and language community is crystallized in every language, it would be impossible to ‘understand’ a language without understanding the specific world view of the ethnic groups that speak it. Similarly, Ogawa (1973: 5), who studied the goals of foreign language education, quoted John Dewey and Thomas Sheridan to show how language and thought are deeply mutually regulating, and claimed that learning a foreign language is ‘to learn thought patterns characteristic to foreign countries’. These studies transformed the mutually regulating relationship between language and the mind into a completely distinct relationship between a foreign language and the thought patterns characteristic of foreign countries, and, based on this unfounded transformation, concluded that learning a foreign language was equal to acquiring thought patterns characteristic of foreign countries. Furthermore, this theory of the mutually regulating relationship between language and thought was not scientifically proved in these arguments. Without evidence, the explanation that language and thought regulate each other reinforced the formulas ‘language = thought patterns of the ethnic group’ and ‘foreign languages = thought patterns characteristic of foreign countries’, creating a sense of their verisimilitude. With these verisimilar formulas as evidence, these discourses try to insist that the relationship between ‘the acquisiton of second-language’ and ‘the understanding and acquisition of the thought patterns of the ethnic groups and people of the countries’ is substantial. Neither Kuramata (1973) nor Ogawa (1973) actively promoted or demanded the acquisition of the thought patterns of the ethnic groups or the people of the countries. Whereas these two studies discussed various goals

186

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

of foreign language education, they only sparingly discussed the relationship between language and the thought patterns of its ethnic groups or the people of its countries, or the relationship between foreign languages and the thought patterns characteristic of them. The number of sentences referring to the relationships was very few; however, such sentences appeared in multiple papers. These appearances suggest that this type of discourse had become common sense in the context of second language education research at the time, or that descriptions like these contributed to these discourses’ further becoming common sense.

The mid-1970s to the early 1980s: Acquisition of ‘Japanese people’s thought patterns’ as a prerequisite for acquisition of Japanese language As if to prove the points above, the formulas ‘language = thought patterns of the ethnic group’ and ‘foreign language = thought patterns characteristic of foreign countries’ emerged in the mid 1970s in the field of Japanese language education as well. Arguments for the need to acquire the thought patterns of the Japanese people appeared, based on the formula ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’. Miyaji (1975) went so far as to call for ‘brainwashing’ with ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’. First, he described how the Japanese society and people’s thought patterns regulate the Japanese language. For instance, he reflected on the situation where a person would ask, ‘Where are you going?’ and be satisfied with the meaningless answer ‘I’m just going over there’, arguing that this was a realization of the high value that Japanese people assign to doing the thinking for the interlocutor (Miyaji, 1975: 21). Then he claimed this example was evidence that expressions in the Japanese language are defined by Japanese society, Japanese norms of behavior and Japanese people’s ways of perceiving themselves and others (Miyaji, 1975: 22). However, the question remains whether Japanese people really value thinking for others above all. And even if such a value actually existed in Japanese people’s minds, does it follow that it determines the language? Miyaji’s essay assumed the existence of a unified entity, a so-called Japanese society, that shares one single solid value, and this assumption was never questioned. Such premises led to the following views on language learning: What would it mean to teach the Japanese language with these characteristics [that is, thinking for others, other-centered] to people who have a completely different background in social structure, customs, and manners, for example those who were born into the American language

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

187

and have used it? In extreme terms, it is as if we cause a change in the value judgment and the ways of thinking. Learning a foreign language, and learning to live a foreign language entails allowing a foreign language to regulate one’s thoughts and perceptions. (Miyaji, 1975: 22) This quote unhesitatingly mentions that the American language speaker’s thought patterns should be replaced with the Japanese language, regulated by Japanese people’s thought patterns. It doesn’t just mention it, but it emphasizes the importance of changing the thought patterns in the Japanese language education. Prefacing his continuing remarks with the warning that ‘this might be too extreme’, Miyaji (1975: 22) observed that ‘teaching Japanese language as a foreign language is equivalent to attempting a brainwashing’. In conclusion, to him, teaching Japanese meant to ‘brainwash’ American language speakers through the Japanese language, which is regulated by the Japanese people’s thought patterns. In the early 1980s, Tomita (1982) argued even more forcefully for transmission of Japanese people’s thought patterns. This work reviewed beginning-level curricula and teaching methods and in the first section, ‘Teaching contents and materials’, he asserted that language was tightly bound to thought patterns and ethnic culture. Then he maintained that teaching the adversative passive voice would mean transmissioning the sense of ‘adversity’ perceived by Japanese people onto people from other cultures. Similarly, in order to acquire the Japanese word naru (to become or turn out), he claimed that ‘one has to help learners to acquire the mind of the Japanese people, which perceives various phenomena as a change in conditions and expresses such change with certain sentiments’ (Tomita, 1982: 24–25). In this essay, Tomita expressed no doubt about the existence of such things as Japanese people’s sense of ‘adversity’, or the sentiments of Japanese people that result in wide use of the word naru. Yet, based on these cases, he asserted without qualification that it was indispensable to teach not only linguistic structures but also the Japanese mind and thought patterns from an early stage of language learning (Tomita, 1982: 25). Miyaji (1975) and Tomita (1982) positioned the acquisition of Japanese people’s thought patterns as a requirement for the acquisition of the Japanese language, on the premise of the existence of a strong connection between the Japanese language and the thought patterns of the Japanese people. This bears close resemblance to the goals of pre-war and wartime Japanese language education, namely, the ‘Japanese language = Japanese spirit’ ideology. Writing in the mid-1970s, Sakakibara (1975: 32–33) described language as the blood that formed a group and maintained a society. This kind of comparison unfortunately harks back to Kazutoshi Ueda’s slogan,

188

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

which attempted to justify the pre-war and wartime dissemination of the Japanese language: ‘Japanese language is the spiritual blood of the Japanese people’ (Ueda, 1895: 12). Given this drift, research on the Japanese language in the mid 1970s to the early 1980s can be characterized as a revival of the wartime educational philosophy. Nevertheless, I must point out here that Japanese language education had distinctly different goals in these two eras. Whereas the ultimate goal of Japanese language education in the colonies and occupied territories during the war was the Japanization of their subjects through cultivation of the Japanese mind, Japanese language education from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s strove for acquisition of the Japanese language. Put another way: through the war, Japanese language education was merely a means to the end of turning subjects mentally into Japanese, but this was reversed from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s, when acquisition of Japanese people’s thought patterns was meant to realize the goal of acquisition of the Japanese language. It would have been inconceivable for post-war Japanese education to aim to Japanize learners. As Kimura (1991: iv) stated, after the war ‘the foreign learner himself feels the necessity to learn and has the motivation, and the Japanese language education meets such needs’, in vivid contrast to wartime Japanese language education. Kimura (1991: iv) went on to note that ‘Since the peace treaty, motivating factors for the study of Japanese language have remarkably increased, and the learners have grown in number and diversity’, so Japanese language education was assigned a new mission: to meet all the diverse needs of its learners. Accordingly, both Miyaji (1975) and Tomita (1982) regarded the transmission of the thought patterns of the Japanese people not as the ends but as the necessary means to the acquisition of the Japanese language. This point distinguishes itself clearly from the thrust of wartime Japanese language education. However, even if the descriptions in these studies positioned the acquisition of thought patterns not as an end but as the means to an end, they retain their predecessors’ expectation that the learner acquire the thought patterns of the Japanese people. Indeed, the lack of awareness of such an expectation in the discourses of the 1970s may indicate an even deeper-rooted issue, compared to wartime discourse. The discourse of the acquisition of Japanese people’s thought patterns being a prerequisite for the acquisition of the Japanese language covers its ideological roots by seeming to support learners’ own motivation to acquire Japanese. By stating that the ultimate goal was the acquisition of Japanese, proponents of teaching the thought patterns of the Japanese people were able to remain unaware of their own desire to expand Japanese nationalism. As I will discuss in

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

189

the next section, arguments for the acquisition of the thought patterns of the Japanese people as background for the Japanese language have been advanced even very recently. The ‘goodwill’ behind this ideology, namely, the preoccupation with the learner better acquiring the Japanese language, is exactly the reason why it is so difficult for both Japanese language educators and learners to reject this discourse. From my point of view, Japanese language education since the 1970s has attempted to strongly internalize the thought patterns of the Japanese people, though in a much more carefully guarded way than during the war.

Third Period: Japanese Language Education Prompting Differentiation between ‘Thought Patterns of the Japanese People’ and ‘Thought Patterns of Another People’ The mid-1980s to the mid-1990s: Dealing with and adapting to Japan Research descriptions of the thought patterns of Japanese people changed significantly from the mid-1980s on. The formula ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’ practically disappeared, as did the descriptions arguing for the acquisition of the Japanese people’s thought patterns as a means to the acquisition of the Japanese language. As discussed below, these discourses lingered in abstracts of conference presentations, which suggests that installing ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’ remained a teaching goal; however, the formula disappeared from published studies and survey reports. Instead, there appeared arguments for learning the Japanese people’s thought patterns for reasons other than the acquisition of the Japanese language. The mid-1980s to the early 1990s saw a push to promote the teaching and learning of Japanese people’s thought patterns for the purpose of adapting to and dealing with Japanese society. For example, Ingkaphirom (1988) and Ogawa (1995) argued that teaching materials should help language learners learn Japanese people’s thought patterns in order to develop the capacity to adapt to and deal with Japanese society, values and thought patterns. From the mid-1980s on, opportunities for direct communication between foreigners and Japanese people increased. Ingkaphirom (1988) discussed the Japanese studies course at Thammasat University in Thailand. Making a case for giving the course a higher profile, she cited as one reason the sudden strength of the Japanese currency, which was increasing Japan’s overseas

190

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

investments and thus creating demand for Thai people who could speak Japanese or were knowledgeable about Japanese society (Ingkaphirom, 1988: 109). Similarly, Ogawa (1995) drew attention to the preparatory education curriculum at Malaya University in Malaysia. This study appealed for the enrichment of the Japanese studies curriculum to prepare Malaysian students to smoothly adapt to college life in Japan and to Japanese society. This preparatory curriculum, initiated by Prime Minister Mahathir’s ‘Look East’ policy (Ogawa, 1995: 151), together with the ‘100,000 Foreign Students Plan’ presented by the Round Table Meeting for International Student Policy in 1983, was likely influential in accelerating study abroad in Japan in this era. Given this background, Japanese language education was increasingly expected not only to teach the Japanese language but also to develop the capacities to cope with and adapt to Japanese society. Scholarship in this third period did not prescribe mental Japanization as a prerequisite for Japanese language acquisition as was done in the second period. Now, the goal was instead to equip learners with advance knowledge about Japan, so that they would not cause problems or conflicts in actual contact situations in Japan. However, studies at this time did not conceive that learners, when faced with an uncomfortable situation, could speak against and act to change the situation itself. The aim was to avoid problems by preparing learners to adjust to Japanese society and people. Although different from the discourse in the second period, which argued for mental Japanization as strongly related to language acquisition, this newer discourse was also, in a broad sense, an educational philosophy inclined toward subsumption.

After the late 1990s: Toward understanding of diversity and difference From the late 1990s on, practitioner reports aiming for an objective and relative understanding of differences and diversity started to refer to Japanese people’s thought patterns. In other words, a completely distinct kind of argument emerged from those of the mid-1970s to the 1990s that had expected learners to Japanize and unilaterally adapt to Japanese society. This new approach to the matter seemed to be grounded in ideas of multiculturalism and intercultural education that valued mutual understanding and respect. Tokumaru (1998) and Mikuni and Oyama (2000) reported that learners understood diversity and differences through studying the Japanese people’s ways of thinking (Tokumaru, 1998: 173–175; Mikuni & Oyama, 2000: 119). However, the practices reported in the studies ended up

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

191

giving learners a one-sided, stereotypical view of Japanese people’s ways of thinking. Tokumaru (1998: 172–173) discussed the project of an essay exchange between international and Japanese students. She claimed that by writing essays on an assigned topic, and then reading essays on the same topic written by their Japanese counterparts, learners of Japanese experientially improved their understanding of differences involving Japanese people’s thinking and customs. Examples of Japanese people’s ways of thinking in the study included the belief that it is good not to state one’s real intentions in order to maintain good relationships, and the value placed on socializing with friends so as to learn to socialize for career success, among other things (Tokumaru, 1998: 172–173). Mikuni and Oyama (2000) reported on a short-term intensive program conducted in Japan. They summarized the results of the program, in which learners of Japanese undertook exchange with, observation of and discussion with Japanese people, as follows: ‘the learners went beyond the criticisms of the Japanese group behavior and their standards of value judgment that at first looked strange to them, but also came to objectively grasp its merits and shortcomings, and recognized the cultural diversity’ (Mikuni & Oyama, 2000: 119), and ‘the learners were able to deepen their understandings of Japanese culture as different culture, and consequently even of [the learners’ own] American culture’. This study reported that contents of Japanese culture grasped objectively by students through this program were priority for the belonged group, voluntary self-sacrifice, politeness, patience and nonaggressiveness on the one hand, but on the other hand burying oneself in the belonged group, hiding their own individuality and avoidance of stating real intentions (Mikuni & Oyama, 2000: 118). Tokumaru (1998) and Mikuni and Oyama (2000) claimed that the learners understood the difference of the Japanese people’s ways of thinking and the existence of diversity in their ways of thinking, yet the Japanese ways of thinking treated here were extreme stereotypes, such as not speaking one’s real intentions for the sake of the community. The argument that Japanese people’s ways of thinking were collectivist, presented in Kawase’s (1968) work, was astonishingly unchanged after 30 years. However, differing from Kawase, Tokumaru (1998) and Mikuni and Oyama (2000) focused on the merit of learners’ understanding of differences and diversity, even though their understanding was stereotypical. They also did not problematize the tendency to discuss differences and diversity at the national level – as a matter of fact, they demonstrated high regard for understanding at this level.

192

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

This philosophy of teaching Japanese people’s ways of thinking for the purpose of understanding diversity and differences had no intent to subsume non-Japanese learners into Japan. Moreover, as the ultimate goal was not the acquisition of the Japanese language, these studies did not contend that the acquisition of Japanese people’s thought patterns was a prerequisite for Japanese language acquisition, as research had done in the early 1980s. On the contrary, the goal was the coexistence of different cultures as they were through learners’ understanding of Japanese people’s ways of thinking and culture as well as their own culture and way of thinking, leaving open the possibility of problematizing the Japanization of non-Japanese people’s ways of thinking. Nevertheless, the philosophy of finding differences between the Japanese people’s ways of thinking and another people’s ways of thinking was highly problematic. This approach could create a massive wall between the two cultures, in the name of respecting differences. The understanding that each people’s ways of thinking differ along nation-state lines is likely to stifle the motivation to enter into the deep communication that allows understanding of an individual’s ways of thinking that cannot be attributed to the traits of the national category, or understanding of mutual influences on one another’s ways of thinking. In addition, this approach could mistakenly lead learners to believe that any sense of discomfort in life in Japan or in communication with Japanese people is due to differences between the Japanese and the learner’s own people. Even after experiencing a burdensome difficulty, such learners would be unable to criticize anything or attribute blame as long as they remained bound to the imperative to respect differences between the Japanese and themselves. Requiring learners to understand and respect Japan and the Japanese as different would limit their recognition of Japan and the Japanese to little more than an alien existence. There would be no path for Japanese people and others to walk together, and learners would be doomed to exclusion from Japan and by the Japanese people. Also, by blocking the desire to express any sense of discomfort, this approach could make learners unwilling to complain about Japan or the Japanese people, or to cause trouble. Unlike the formulas that prevailed from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, this discourse does not directly facilitate the social adaptation of learners. Nonetheless, the emphasis on understanding diversity and differences could become a justification for turning learners into docile subjects unwilling to demand change of Japan or the Japanese people.10 My final discussion point here is that arguments for the need to learn Japanese people’s ways of thinking for the purpose of studying the Japanese language persisted in conference presentations of the Society for Teaching

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

193

Japanese as a Foreign Language even in the 1990s (Kuno, 1996; Machida, 1991; Nakai, 2001; Sueta, 2003; Yasui et al., 2004). These arguments did not appear in articles and reports published in Nihongo Kyôiku, which suggests that they were not representative of Japanese language education in that era. However, considering that what is presented in conference of the Society for Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language is only the tip of the iceberg, the likeliest conclusion is that the ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’ discourse of the mid-1970s to the early 1980s still survives in current educational practices.

Conclusion Did post-war Japanese language education contribute to the expansion of nationalism, or to the anti-national possibilities that the expansion of nationalism inevitably holds? The discussions in this study indicate that it aided the expansion of nationalism without increasing the potential for anti-national possibilities. The ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’ formula endured from the end of the war to the early 1980s, excluding a short time during the first period discussed. It is still present, if source material extends to conference abstracts. Based on this formula, during the second period (mid-1970s to early 1980s) the acquisition of the thought patterns of the Japanese people was called for as necessary to the process of learning Japanese. This call resembled the ideology of pre-war Japanese language education in its emphasis on a strong relationship between the Japanese language and Japanese people’s thought patterns, and in its demand that those patterns be acquired. We could term this second period a revival of the philosophy of wartime Japanese language education, considering some of its arguments closely resemble Ueda Kazutoshi’s stance that ‘Japanese language is the spiritual blood of the Japanese people’. However, Japanese language education during the war and in this period had different goals: until the end of the war its chief aim was to mentally Japanize learners, whereas after the war its ultimate goal was language acquisition. Consequently, the arguments in the latter period did not intend a total transformation of learners’ minds, but only stressed the need to acquire Japanese people’s thought patterns for the purpose of using the Japanese language. Still, they both assumed the normative standard of Japanese people’s thought patterns, and the attempt to internalize it in learners. Further, as the assumption was concealed by the ‘goodwill’ that required it for the sake of learners’ acquisition of the Japanese language, the danger of education in the latter period tended to be overlooked by

194

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

the standard’s proponents, educators practicing the philosophy and even learners. In that sense, the education from the mid-1970s on had a more scrupulous form, but it also fiercely imposed the internalization of Japanese people’s thought patterns. However, students make use of Japanese to express their own thoughts, not to reproduce Japanese people’s thought patterns. To express their thoughts as appropriately as possible, they sometimes alter the textbook ‘Japanese language’. But because discourses in Japanese language education from the mid-1970s on helped spread the ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’ formula, they contributed to the expansion of nationalism and suppressed possibilities of expression via a diverse Japanese language. In the mid-1980s, during the third period discussed here, the ‘Japanese language = Japanese people’s thought patterns’ formula nearly disappeared, as did the call for the acquisition of Japanese people’s thought patterns for the purpose of Japanese language acquisition. If we limited our discussion to the discourses on the thought patterns, we could say that at this point, Japanese language education stopped contributing to the spread of nationalism. Nevertheless, this did not mean an end to appeals to study Japanese people’s thought patterns. The discourse shifted because the purpose of studying Japanese people’s thought patterns changed from language acquisition to adaptation to Japanese society. Studies from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s argue that learners should study Japanese thought patterns in advance to prevent their causing or getting into trouble when in contact with Japanese people. This argument did not aim for the Japanization of learners’ minds, as its predecessor had, but for learners’ adaptation to life among Japanese people. In a broad sense, it intended to integrate the learners. Finally, studies in the late 1990s started to criticize Japanization and the integration of learners as the goal became understanding diversity and differences in objective and relative ways through understanding the Japanese people’s ways of thinking. These studies, however, offered highly stereotyped examples of Japanese ways of thinking that learners became aware of. The theory that Japanese people value groups highly remained unchanged from studies conducted in the late 1960s, during the first period discussed. Besides, the emphasis on understanding differences could mislead learners to attribute a sense of incongruity to differences in the ways of thinking. To summarize, studies that stress understanding of differences and diversity could turn learners into docile subjects who would never demand change of Japanese people or society.

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

195

Despite the differences in their intent, all the discourses on thought patterns from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s and thereafter ended up subsuming learners into Japan, a result that contributed to ensuring the conception of Japan and the Japanese people as a homogeneous entity. Studies of Japanese language education in the third period thus also contributed to the maintenance of nationalism. Post-war Japanese language education never doubted the existence of the Japanese people’s thought patterns and called for acquiring or understanding them. Japanese language education had the potential to facilitate ownership of the Japanese language by non-Japanese people too, and held the possibility of various expressions and diversified linguistic manifestations. Nevertheless, the seemingly justifiable causes of helping learners with acquisition or with intercultural and multicultural understanding completely suppressed the possibility that learners might change the Japanese language to reflect their ideas, or transform Japanese society and the Japanese people by speaking up about their sense of discomfort. On an abstract level, post-war Japanese language education has both suppressed those possibilities and contributed to the security of the Japanese people’s Japanese language, and of Japan as unchangeable by non-Japanese. The history that has been defined by and assisted nationalism is still with us. However, new reports and studies suggest that ways to overcome the unified view of Japanese language and culture are starting to take shape. For example, one study focused on expressing learners’ ‘individual’ awareness of problems in project-based learning (Hosokawa, 2002), and another reported on a practice that attempted to deconstruct stereotypes (Kôno, 2003). Japanese language educators, who once promoted Japanization and passed on the discourses to maintain the unity of Japan, have started to criticize such discourses and create new ones. An utterance in the classroom is defined by various discourses, but at the same time, it can also be the first decisive step toward creating a new discourse. Educators of language and culture need a strong will to move forward with hope, while turning a critical eye to the past.

Notes (1) For a discussion of the strict prohibition of the Okinawan dialect in wartime, see Chapter 12 of the original Japanese book, ‘Bunka, Kotoba, Kyôiku: Nihongo/nihon no Kyôiku no Hyôjun o Koete’. (2) About the importance of discussing post-war Japanese language education in relation to nationalism, see Segawa (2006).

196

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

(3) In Imagined Communities, language is seen as an effective tool for implanting nationalism, as it could be used as a normative standard to oppress a dominated people (Segawa, 2005a). (4) A series of studies by Rina Tanaka follows nationalist ideologies over time in Japanese language education textbooks and their authors’ beliefs (Tanaka, 2005, 2006a, 2006b). (5) Interviews were held with the Tokyo Japanese Language School’s then principal, Naoe Naganuma, and other staff (Tomobe, 1953: 31). (6) Seki (1997: 18) also points this out. (7) At a round-table discussion on the conditions of Japanese language education during periods of occupation, Muneo Kimura spoke of a head educator in the Philippines who was accused of leaking confidential information and exiled. And Morito Naganuma stated that ‘even now there are some who tremble when questioned about those times’ (Ikeo et al., 1997: 45). (8) In my opinion, the 1956 November issue of Gengo Seikatsu (Language in Life), entitled ‘Tokushû Gaijin no Nihongo Gakushû’ (Special issue: Japanese Language Learning by Foreigners), is the first example of a special issue dedicated to post-war Japanese language study and education. Nihongo Kyôiku also started publishing scientific articles at roughly the same time. (9) For instance, ‘Aru tokoro de fuyu wa taihen desuga, soto no tokoro de amari samuku arimasen’ (‘at some places the winter is terrible, but outside of places it is not very cold’) is a case of mistaken phrasing (Nishio, 1956: 16). (10) Chapter 9 of this book further discusses the problematic of understanding language and culture based on ‘difference’ and ‘resemblance’ variables.

References Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (rev. edn). London: Berso. [In Japanese: Zoho Sôzo no Kyôdôtai: Nasyonarizumu no Kigen to Ryûkô (1997). Translated by S. Shiraishi and T. Shiraishi. Tokyo: NTT Shuppan.] Asano, T. (1956) Kotoba zuihitsu (Short essay on language). Gengo Seikatsu 57, 59–61. Hoshina, K. (1949) Kokugo Mondai Gojûnen (Problematic Matters on National Language for This 50 Years). Tokyo: Sanyo Shobo. Hosokawa, H. (1997) Gengo shûtoku niokeru ‘bunka’ no imi nitsuite (How should be Culture understood in language acquisition). Waseda Daigaku Nihongo Kenkyu Kyôiku Center Kiyo 9, 1–19. Hosokawa, H. (2002) Nihongo Kyôiku O Nani wo Mezasuka: Gengo Bunka Katsudô no Rriron to Jjissen (What is the Goal of Language Education: Theory and Practice of Language and Cultural Activities). Tokyo: Akashi Shoten. Ikeo, S. et al. (1991) Senchû sengo shoki no nihongo kyôiku O kataru (Dai ikkai): Naganuma Naoe to Nihongo Kyôiku Shinkôukai oyobi Sôsôki no Gengo Bunka Kenkyûjo and Tokyo Nihongo Gakkô (The first round-table discussion on the Japanese language education in the wartime and the beginning of postwar period: Naoe Naganuma and Institute for the Promotion of Japanese Language Education, and the incipient period of Institute for Language and Culture and The Naganuma School). Nihongo Kyôiku Kenkyû 25, 63–104. Ikeo, S., Kimura, M., Kurihara, Y., Sugita, M., Naganuma, Morito and Naganuma, Minako, Yasuraoka, K., Yasuraoka, M., Yamashita, H., Tanaka, H. and Todoroki, Y. (1997) Taikensha no shôgen 2 Zadankai dainiji taisenka to sengo shoki ni okeru

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

197

nihongo kyôiku (II).Naganuma Naoe no kyôkasyo to Nihongo Kyôiku Shinkôukai, tairiku to nanpô no nihongo kyôiku (The second round-table discussion on Japanese language education in the world war II and the beginning of postwar period: Textbooks written by Naoe Naganuma and Institute for the Promotion of Japanese Language Education, Japanese language education in the continent of China and the South Pacific areas). Nihongo Kyôiku Kenkyû 33, 40–76. Imazu, K. (1997) ‘Kyôiku gensetsu’ towa (What is the educational discourse). In K. Imazu and D. Hida (eds) Kyôiku Gensetsu wa Dô Yomu ka: Kyôiku wo Kataru Kotoba no Shikumi to Hataraki (How Can We Interpret ‘the Educational Discourses’: Systems and Functions of Narratives on Education) (pp. 1–17). Tokyo: Shinyôsha. Ingkaphirom, P. (1988) Tamasât daigaku ni okeru Nihon bunka shakai no kyôjyu hôhô (A course at Thammasat University on Japanese culture and society). Nihongo Kyôiku 65, 109–115. Jôkô, K. (1948) Nihongo Kyôju no Gutaiteki Kenkyû (Specific Research on Japanese Language Education). Tokyo: Ôbunsha. Kawakami, I. (1997) Nihon bunka wo kaku: ‘Nihonjijô’ wo tsûjite donoyôna chikara wo ikusei suruka? (Writing about Japanese culture: What kind of competences can we develop by teaching ‘the state of affairs in Japan’?) Miyagi Kyôiku Daigaku Kiyô 32, 1–16. Kawakami, I. (1999) ‘Nihonjijô’ kyôiku ni okeru bunka no mondai (Problems of culture in teaching ‘the state of affairs in Japan’). 21 seiki no ‘Nihonjijyô’ 1, 16–26. Kawase, I. (1968) Joshi no bunruihô nitsuiteno ichishian to jakkan no joshi nitsuiteno kôsatsu (A comment on the classification of particle and a look at a few specific particles). Nihongo Kyôiku 11, 28–36. Kimura, M. (1991) Henja no kotoba (Message from an editor). Kôza nihongo to nihongo kyôiku 15: Nihongo kyôiku no rekishi (pp. iii–iv) (Lecture series vol.15 Japanese language and Japanese language education: History of Japanese language A composition). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin. Kokuritsu Kokugo Kenkyûjo (1960) Gengo Seikatsu ichigô kara hyaku gô made shuyô mokuroku (Lists of articles in Language Life). Gengo Seikatsu 100, 102–112. Kokuritsu Kokkai Toshokan (2005) Zasshi Kiji Sakuin Kensaku. See www.ndlopac.ndl. go.jp/F?func=file&file_name=login&?RN=389338348 (accessed 11 June 2005). Komagome, T. (1996) Shokuminchi Teikoku Nihon no Bunkatôgô (Cultural Integration of the Japanese Colonial Empire). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kono, R. (2000) ‘Senryaku’ teki ‘Nihon bunka’ hisonzaisetsu: ‘Nihonjijo’ kyôiku ni okeru ‘bunka’ no toraekata wo megutte (A strategic method in education of ‘Nihonjijô’: The nonexistence approach to explaining Japanese culture). 21 Seiki no ‘Nihonjiô’ 2, 4–15. Kono, R. (2003) Daigakuin deno ‘nihonjijô’ kyôiku: ‘Nihonjin ron’ wo tôshite (‘Nihonjijo’ education for graduate students: Through teaching ‘Nihonjin ron’). 21 Seiki no ‘Nihonjiô’ 5, 96–109. Kuno, Y. (1996) Nihongo chûkyû towa nani ka: Bunka Chûkyû Nihongo I no sakusei wo tôshite (What is the intermediate level of Japanese language: From my editing experience of Culture Intermediate Japanese Language vol. 1). Nihongo Kyôiku 88, 160. Kuramata, K. (1973) Daini gaikokugo toshiteno Doitsugo kyôiku no saishû mokuhyô (The final goal of teaching German as a second language). Nihongo Kyôiku 22, 27–34. Lee, Y. (1996) ‘Kokugo’ toiu Shisô: Kindai Nihon no Gengo Ninshiki (The Ideology of Kokugo: Nationalizing Language in Modern Japan). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.

198

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

Machida, K. (1991) Shinbun kyôzai wo shukyôzai ni shita Nihongo kyôiku (Japanese language course using newspapers as main teaching materials). Nihongo Kyôiku 73, 219–220. Mikami, A. (1960) Zô wa Hana ga Nagai (Elephant’s Nose is Long). Tokyo: Kuroshio Syuppan. Mikuni, J. and Oyama, M. (2000) Kaigai no daigakusei o taishô toshita tanki shûchû nihon bunka gakushû no kokoromi (An assessment of a short-term Japanese culture program for overseas college students). Nihongo Kyôiku 105, 111–120. Miyaji, H. (1975) Me niwa aoba… (Blue leaves on the eyes). Nihongo Kyôiku 27, 17–24. Mizutani, N. (1969) Nichiei ryôgo no hikaku: Kateihôteki hyôgen o chûshin toshite (A comparison of Japanese and English: Subjunctive expression). Nihongo Kyôiku 14, 2–23. Mizutani, O. (1959) Amerikajin ni nihongo o oshiete (Teaching Japanese to the American people). Jidô Shinri 13 (12), 82–87. Nakai, J. (2001) Ibunka komyunikêsyon nôryoku o nobasu akusyon rôru purê no jissen hôkoku (Report on teaching practice applying a role play method to develop crosscultural communication competence). Nihongo Kyôiku 111, 135. Nihongo Kyôiku Gakkai. (2011) Kaiinsû no Suii (Change of number of members). See www.nkg.or.jp/guide/g-kaiinsuii.htm (accessed 5 November 2011). Nishio, T. (1956) Gaikokujin no nihongo gakushû (Japanese language learning of foreigners). Gengo Seikatsu 62, 12–19. Ogawa, M. (1995) Maraya daigaku yobi kyôiku katei niokeru nihongo kyôiku (Japanese language education in the preparatory course for Japanese University of Malaya). Nihongo Kyôiku 85, 151–159. Ogawa, T. (1997) Nihonjijô kyôiku no ichishiza toshite no Nihonjin ron (Nihonjinron: A perspective for Japanese culture class). ICU Nihongo Kyôiku Kenkyû Sentâ Kiyô 6, 61–69. Ogawa, Y. (1973) Gaikokugo gakusyû no hôhô to igi (Method and values of foreign language study). Nihongo Kyôiku 22, 1–9. Sakai, N. (1996) Shizan sareru Nihongo, Nihonjin: Nihongo toiu tôitsutai no seisaku o meguru (han) rekishiteki kôsatsu (Stillbirth of the Japanese as an ethnos and as a language: (Anti-) historical analysis on creating Japanese language as one entity). In Shizan Sareru Nihongo, Nihonjin: ‘Nihon’ no Rekishi-Chiseiteki Haichi (The Stillborn of the Japanese as Language and as Ethnos: “Japanese” History-Geopolitical Configuration) (pp. 166–210). Tokyo: Shinyosha. Sakakibara, M. (1970) Joshi ‘mo’ o chûshin toshite Nihongo o miru (Some thoughts on the Japanese particle ‘mo’). Nihongo Kyôiku 15, 14–36. Sakakibara, M. (1975) Gengo to bunka to kyôiku to heiwa to (On language, culture, education and peace). Nihongo Kyôiku 27, 30–38. Sakata, Y. (1960) Gaikokujin ni Nihongo o oshieru toiukoto (Teaching Japanese language to foreigners). Gengo Seikatsu 104, 66–88. Segawa, H. (2000) Hagitori kara hajimaru ‘nihonjijô’ (Nihonjijô: Starting with the deconstruction of stereotypes). 21 seiki no ‘Nihon Jijô’ 2, 28–39. Segawa, H. (2004a) Nihongo kyôiku niokeru gengo to shikô: Sono imizuke no hensen to mondaiten (The relation between language and thought in teaching Japanese as a foreign language: How the relation has been described and what problems it has brought). Yokohama Kokuritsu Daigaku Ryûgakusei Sentâ Kiyô 11, 61–85. Segawa, H. (2004b) Nihongo kyôikugaku niokeru ‘shikô yôshiki gensetsu’ no hensen (The history of thought pattern discourse in Japanese language teaching studies). Nihongo Kyôiku 121, 14–23.

Teaching Japanese People’s Thinking

199

Segawa, H. (2005a) ‘Sôzô no Kyôdôtai’ shiron: nasyonarizumu ni okeru gengo no yakuwari ni chakumoku shite (An essay on ‘Imagined Communities’: Focusing on language roles in the nationalism). Gengo Bunka Kyôiku Kenkyû 3, 237–249. Segawa, H. (2005b) Nihonjin no kangaekata wo rikaisuru toiukoto: 90 nendaimatsu ikô no Nihongo kyôiku jissen kara (The problems of teaching Japanese thought patterns: Analysis of recent practical reports on Japanese language education). Waseda Daigaku Nihongo Kenkyû Kyôiku Sentâ Kiyô 18, 31–53. Segawa, H. (2006) Sengo Nihongo kyôikushi kenkyû no kadai: Nihongo nasyonarizumu nikansuru bunken rebyû kara (Japanese language nationalism and the history of Japanese language education in postwar Japan: A historiographical review). Yokohama Kokuritsu Daigaku Ryûgakusei Sentâ Kyôiku Kenkyû Ronshû 13, 31–53. Segawa, H. (2012) Sengo Nihongo Kyôikugaku to Nasyonarizumu: ‘Shikô Yôshiki Gensetsu’ ni Miru Hôsetu to Saika no Ronri (The Relation of Japanese Language Education Studies and Nationalism in Postwar Period: Logics of Assimilation and Differentiation in ‘Thought Pattern Discourses’). Tokyo: Kuroshio Syuppan. Seki, M. (1997) Nihongo Kyôikushi Kenkyû Josetsu (Introduction of Japanese Language Education Studies). Tokyo: 3A Network. Senryôki Zasshikiji Johô Dêtabêsuka Purojekuto Iinkai (President Yamamoto T.) (2003) Senryôki Zasshikiji Johô Dêtabêsu (The database of magazines published during the post-war occupation period from 1945 to 1949). See www.m20thdb.jp/login (accessed 22 March 2005). Sueta, M. (2003) Nihonjin sanka wo katsuyôshita kaiwa shidô no kokoromi: Intâakusyon notameno shiten ni chakumoku shite (Conversation training with Japanese participants: Focusing on a point of view for interaction). Nihongo Kyôiku 177, 143. Tanaka, R. (2005) Nihongo kyôiku niokeru kyôikunaiyô no shisôteki ‘renzokusê’ no mondai: Kyôkasho no naiyô bunseki kara miru ‘ kokka’, ‘ kokumin’, ‘ gengo’, ‘ bunka’ (Problematic continuity in an ideological realm of Japanese language teaching contents: Contents analysis of ‘state’, ‘nation’, ‘language’ and ‘culture’ in textbooks). MA thesis, Waseda Daigaku Daigakuin Nihongo Kyôiku Kenkyûka. Tanaka, R. (2006a) Sengo no Nihongo kyôiku niokeru shisouteki ‘ renzokusei’ no mondai: Nihongo kyôkasho nimiru ‘ kokka’, ‘ kokumin’, ‘ gengo’, ‘ bunka’ (Problematic continuity over the postwar period in an ideological realm of Japanese language teaching: Contents analysis of ‘state’, ‘nation’, ‘language’ and ‘culture’ in textbooks). Literacies 2, 83–98. Tanaka, R. (2006b) ‘ Kokka’, ‘kokumin’, ‘ gengo’, ‘ bunka’ no musubitsuki: Sengo kara 1980 nendai niokeru Nihongo kyôkasho no naiyôbunseki to sakusêsha no ronkô wo chûshinni (The relation between ‘state’, ‘nation’, ‘language’ and ‘culture’: Analysis of textbooks and the authors’ papers from 1945 to 1980s). Waseda Daigaku Nihongo Kyôiku Kenkyû 9, 77–92. Teramura, H. (1968) Nihongo meishi no kai bunrui (A sub-classification of Japanese nouns). Nihongo Kyôiku 12, 42–57. Tokumaru, T. (1998) Ryûgakusei to Nihonjin gakusei niyoru sakubun kôkan katsudô: Kôseiteki enkauntâ gurûpu wo ôyôshite (A composition exchange project between foreign university students and Japanese university students). Nihongo Kyôiku 96, 166–177. Tomita, T. (1982) Shokyû no karikyuramu to sono kyôjuhô: Azia daigaku no baai (Curriculums and teaching methods at the beginner’s level: Asia University). Nihongo Kyôiku 46, 23–30.

200

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

Tomobe, K. (1953) Nihongo wo manabu gaikokujin: Kotoba de kurôsuru hitobito 9 (Foreigners learning Japanese language: People having hard time for language 9). Gengo Seikatsu 21, 31–33. Ueda, K. (1895) Kokugo to kokka to (National language and nation). Kokugo notame, 1–28. Yasuda, T. (1997) Teikoku nihon no gengo hensei (Linguistic Formation in the Empire of Japan). Tokyo: Seori Shobô. Yasui, A., Miyamoto, S. and Meguro, A. (2004) Bideo ban karuchâ asimireitâ o riyôshita ibunka rikai oyobi nihongo gakushu no kokoromi: Nihonjin ryûgakusei no kankoku deno taiken kara (Culture assimilator of video version for cross-cultural understandings and Japanese language learning: From Japanese students’ experiences in Korea). Nihongo Kyôiku 120, 133.

9 On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of Japanese Language Textbook1 Yuri Kumagai

Introduction Using commercially available textbooks to teach and learn the Japanese language at schools is a common practice, especially at the beginning and intermediate levels. The influence of textbooks, particularly when the language is studied as a foreign language (as opposed to a second language), is indeed immense. That is because, in comparison with the second language context, the students’ exposure to the language, the people and the society in the foreign language context is extremely limited. Thus, what are the kinds of things that learners learn through textbooks? It is believed that textbooks, including language textbooks, present and impart ‘right’ information and knowledge that are objective, neutral and necessary for all. However, the idea of the ‘neutrality’ and ‘objectivity’ of textbooks (or knowledge) has been questioned and critiqued in the past years (e.g. Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991; Nozaki et al., 2005). Such questions as the following are important to raise: Who decides (with what criteria) what is ‘right’ information and knowledge? Who benefits from selecting such knowledge as valid? In their introduction to The Politics of the Textbook, Apple and Christian-Smith (1991: 3) state that ‘[textbooks] signify – through their content and form – particular constructions of reality, particular ways of selecting and organizing that vast universe of possible knowledge’. They further argue that ‘[textbooks] embody… the selective tradition – someone’s selection, someone’s vision of legitimate knowledge and culture, one that in the process of enfranchising one group’s cultural capital disenfranchises another’s’ (Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991: 4). 201

202

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

In other words, questions are raised about how the textbook authors’ world views, values and moralities (i.e. ideologies), which are embedded in the sociopolitical and cultural context, influence the contents of textbooks, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Knowledge and information that was selected via such a filter of the authors’ ideology will be distributed in the form of textbooks, consumed by learners and consequently regarded as the ‘standard’ and ‘normal’ form of information and knowledge. Specifically for the creation of a language textbook, the first decision that has to be made is what type of language is used as a norm with a consideration of the target audience. Then, a decision must be made on the information and knowledge that need to be included, and what kinds of interaction or linguistic behavior as a model should be practiced and learned. With a premise that a textbook has a function to circulate particular ideologies, in this chapter I critically read a beginning-level Japanese language textbook, Genki I and II (1st edn) (Banno et al., 1999). By doing so, I examine what values, belief systems, images and behavior patterns students learn from this textbook as norms while learning the Japanese language.2

Why is it Important to Engage in Critical Reading? The purpose of this chapter is neither to evaluate the textbook nor to criticize the authors. Reading a textbook critically involves the task of reading the textbook not as a tool to learn the language, but as a representation of certain values and assumptions. By reading a textbook critically, we can unpack the criteria used to make certain choices about what (and what not) to include in the textbook and the underlying assumptions and values that shape such choices. By reading the micro-level meanings of textual features, such as language choices and styles (including illustrations and the layout of pages), characters depicted and interactional situations set, we can also read macro-level meanings that are influenced by a historical, political and sociocultural context. A critical analysis of a textbook is not necessarily a new endeavor. Specifically with foreign language textbooks, the researched topics include: the prescribed relationship between linguistic behaviors and national culture (Curdt-Christiansen, 2008; De los Heros, 2009; Kubota, 2003; Kramsch, 1987; Matsumoto & Okamaoto, 2003; Sato, 2005a, 2006), issues related to gender including what is often called ‘women’s language’ (Nagata & Sullivan, 2005; Porreca, 1984; Poulou, 1997; Siegal & Okamoto, 2003; Thomson & Otsuji, 2003) and the roles that textbooks play in promoting nationalism (Suaysuwan & Kapitzke, 2005; Tanaka, 2006). More recently, the influence

On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of Japanese Language Textbook

203

on, and construction of, learner identity (Shardakova & Pavlenko, 2004) promoted by textbooks has been investigated. Despite the different topics studied, the common aim is to ‘problematize the dominant discourse and social inequity’ that are implicitly communicated through texts (broadly defined) (Noro, 2001: 19, translation mine).

Genki I and II: An Elementary-level Japanese Textbook In conducting a critical analysis on a Japanese textbook, I have chosen Genki I and II (1st edn) (Banno et al., 1999). Genki, published by the Japan Times in 1999, has become extremely popular and is used by many high schools and colleges across the USA. Endo Hudson (2001: 190), in her review of Genki II, evaluates the textbook positively by saying ‘Genki II… is the best textbook of its kind currently available’. Below, I briefly introduce the content and organization of the textbook.

The authors The four authors of the Genki textbook are Japanese nationals who have completed at least part of their higher education in the USA, and have taught Japanese as a foreign language to college students in both the USA and Japan. Therefore, we can assume that they have chosen the theme for each chapter based on their knowledge and understanding of the lives of American college students. The choice of the themes could also have been influenced by their own life experience as international students who have lived and studied in the USA. Thus, the textbook was written from the perspective of Japanese teachers who have certain knowledge about their Japanese language students’ lives, whose desire is to help them learn Japanese and certain aspects of the culture, and to assist them to adapt smoothly into the Japanese society.

The content and organization Genki I and II, respectively, consist of 12 and 11 chapters for a total of 23 lessons. Workbooks (Vol. 1 & 2), a Teacher’s Guide and the CD set that accompany the main textbooks are also being published.3 Further, the publisher’s website for Genki provides useful learning aids for students as well as supplemental materials for teachers (www.genki.japantimes.co.jp). As is typical of many language textbooks, each chapter opens with two or three dialogues, which are used to introduce new vocabulary, phrases and grammatical structures. The dialogues are followed by a new vocabulary list, grammar explanations and drills and exercises.4

204

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

The dialogues revolve around the two main characters: Mary, a female exchange student from a US university, and Takeshi, a male Japanese student who later becomes Mary’s boyfriend. Their interactions with friends constitute the core of the dialogues and the learner-readers learn Japanese by witnessing the characters’ school and daily lives. The textbook also introduces three additional foreign students from various countries (i.e. Korea, England and Australia), two other Japanese students and members of Mary’s host family (i.e. a mother, a father and a daughter), all of whom play particular roles in creating and presenting a type of social world of which the learner-readers could imagine being a part of. By observing how each character plays a different social role and acts in the dialogues as well as by enacting the characters’ linguistic behavior (through performing the dialogue), the learner-readers learn to internalize values regarding what actions or attitudes are considered appropriate, what behaviors are frowned upon and what is presented as the ideal image of international (or exchange) students living in Japan. The readers of the textbook are supposedly, therefore, eavesdroppers and observers of fictional characters who study Japanese in a university context and who aspire to go to Japan as exchange students. By superimposing themselves on the foreign student characters in the textbook and experiencing an imaginary life in Japan, the learner-readers will also learn how to relate and interact with people in various situations.

What is Considered ‘Standard’ and ‘Normal’? In this section, I first discuss what kind of genre the ‘dialogues’ is. I then examine such topics as ‘an ideal image of international students’, ‘Japanese language’, ‘Japanese culture’, ‘social structures’ and ‘ideal social human relationships’ that are constructed in the storyline created by the dialogues. The aim is to unpack what is considered as valuable and normal in the textbook.

Genre of ‘dialogue’ In the dialogues, all the characters – the Japanese characters as well as the foreign students – speak in simple, yet ‘correct’ and fluent Japanese. Curiously, in the dialogues throughout the entire textbook, neither the learners of Japanese nor the Japanese speakers ever have to rephrase, repeat, clarify or elaborate on their utterances. The speakers are always completely understood by their listeners. As well, the interlocutors are all sympathetic listeners who immediately understand the speakers. Such

On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of Japanese Language Textbook

205

actions as negotiation, repair and false start, which are normal parts of regular conversation, never occur; everyone waits their turn and no one ever dominates the conversational floor. Some would think that the genre discussed above is ‘natural’ for a foreign language textbook. Why, then, is it ‘natural’? It is ‘natural’ because dialogues in a foreign language textbook are not representations or models of conversations or interactions that could happen in reality. Dialogues in a textbook are not really ‘dialogues’, but rather they are ‘texts’ that afford practice with a particular set of grammatical features and serve multiple pedagogical purposes (Armour, 1998; Jones et al., 1997). For example, in many classrooms, students are asked to memorize the exchanges, or to create their own dialogues, skits or stories using the elements in the dialogues. In other words, the dialogue becomes a mediational tool for students to learn discrete elements of language such as grammar, vocabulary and sentence structure. These dialogues also serve as oral reading practice for decoding and pronunciation in a foreign language classroom. After the students read them as ‘texts’, the dialogues are further used as tools for checking reading comprehension by teachers’ asking them questions about the content. Rather than merely reading for compliance with the pedagogical purposes mentioned above, a ‘resistant’ reading (Faust, 1992; Janks, 2010; Vasquez, 2004; Wallace, 2003) of these characters and their relations could also take place. In order to do so, we could ask questions such as: How does the language used reveal the power relations between the characters? How do these interactions benefit (or not) the various interlocutors or ‘ideal’ readers of the text (i.e. the learners)?

Image of the language learner The main character, Mary, is depicted as independent, friendly and outgoing. She knows how to get the necessary information in order to live in Japan and does not hesitate to go to unfamiliar places. We should probably see Mary as a ‘Japanese language user’ rather than as a ‘Japanese language learner’. Nowhere in the textbooks’ 23 chapters is Mary depicted as a leaner who has trouble finding Japanese words or who needs to negotiate meaning with her interactants in order to communicate. At the beginning of the textbook, Mary uses polite expressions when speaking with people she meets for the first time, and skillfully uses sentence-final, interpersonal markers5 such as ‘ne’ in order to build smooth relationships with them. Gradually, as she develops relationships with others, her language changes to a more casual style. Throughout the

206

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

textbook, Mary is depicted as an ideal Japanese speaker who speaks ‘good’ language and is able to act like a Japanese. The question that concerns our analysis is: What image of learners is set as ideal in the textbook, with Mary as a representative? One aspect that is noticeable is the different depictions of Western students and Asian students throughout the textbook. It appears that the authors are painting a picture of a world where students from Western countries are rather well financed, perhaps even more so than Asian students (including Japanese students). For example, Mary, without concern for money, travels to the Japanese city of Nagano, and to Korea during her vacation (Chapters 10 and 15). Robert, who is a student from England, seems to be wealthy and visits Okinawa in one weekend; in one dialogue, Takeshi in talking with Robert, enviously speculates how costly the plane ticket to Okinawa might have been (Chapter 5). The life depicted for John Wang, a Chinese heritage student from Australia, is in stark contrast to those of Mary and Robert. John seeks and takes up a part-time job in an Asian restaurant called ‘Little Asia’ perhaps due to financial reasons (Chapter 18). John’s life in general is also portrayed as somewhat negative. For example, John frequently wakes up late for classes, loses his homework on a train (Chapter 16) and even becomes a victim of burglary because he came home too drunk to lock his apartment door at night (Chapter 21)! What are the values or moral lessons implicated in the above situations? We can read between the lines that if one can afford it, taking a trip to neighboring Asian countries – or even elsewhere in Japan – is highly valued and encouraged while taking up a part-time job as a student is neither valued nor commendable because it could negatively affect college studies. In fact, there are many positive aspects in terms of language learning that we can think of for foreign students taking up a part-time job. For example, they can gain access to a wider range of language registers (e.g. keigo, honorific language and/or casual speech), or have opportunities to interact widely with a variety of Japanese clients and customers. In fact, during the situation of a job interview in a dialogue, John gave ‘meeting with many people and using the language’ as his reasons for applying for the job. A job also provides the learners with an opportunity to take up an alternative social role (or a subject position) apart from that of a ‘foreign student’ or a ‘non-native speaker’. Yet nowhere are these merits mentioned. Certainly, it may not be an intention of the authors to portray contrasting financial power relationships between Western students versus Asian students. However, unfortunately, such a picture is created.

On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of Japanese Language Textbook

207

Standard Japanese language The scenes in the dialogues take place mostly in Kansai area, as is evident when Mary goes shopping in a department store in Kyoto (Chapter 3), and when Mary and Takeshi plan a date to go to a movie in Kyoto (Chapter 4). However, the language used in the textbook is the ‘standard’ language. In creating a textbook, the authors have without doubt to make a choice in terms of what language to include. In the context of foreign language education, in general, learning the ‘standard’ form of the language is considered to be appropriate and normal. However, it is important to note that the language introduced in the textbook is the so-called ‘standard’ form of the language, and there are various dialects spoken in Japan. Nowhere in the textbook is such information provided. While there is no reference to various forms of dialects, an explanation about the differing accents is provided in the following way: The accent of a Japanese word varies considerably, depending on the region, the speaker’s age (including the generation gap between speakers), the word’s paradigmatic form, and its connection with other words. Therefore, don’t be overly concerned about the accent, but try to imitate as closely as possible the intonation heard on the accompanying CD… Students are encouraged to practice regularly by listening to the CD and carefully noting pronunciation and intonation. (Genki I, ‘About this book’: 9; emphasis mine) We can see contradictions in the above explanation. While the authors state that ‘don’t be overly concerned about accent’, they also suggest to ‘imitate as closely as possible the intonation heard on the accompanying CD’. They further state that ‘students are encouraged to practice regularly by listening to the CD and carefully noting pronunciation and intonation’. In other words, the textbook’s intention is for learners to internalize the pronunciations and intonations of the ‘standard’ language by imitating them.

What Values are Attached to Japanese Culture? In this section, I would like to pay closer attention to what kinds of cultural products are introduced through the dialogues. By examining what are included (and excluded) in the storyline, we can read unstated values regarding what needs to be learned by the learner-readers about Japanese culture.

208

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

‘Historical products/traditional culture’ versus ‘popular culture’ Generally, when introducing cultural products and traditions, foreign language textbooks appear to have a tendency to emphasize what is considered as unique and particular to the country in question. This is certainly true for Genki as well. For example, Mary strolls around Kyoto to visit many old temples (Chapter 4); Mary and Takeshi go to watch Kabuki on a weekend (Chapter 9); Mary buys a sensu (a fan) as a souvenir to bring back home (Chapter 20). Whether or not the present-day Japanese youth attach values or have a sense of cultural affiliation to shrines and temples, kabuki and a sensu is questionable. Yet, as we have seen, through the actions of Mary and the other students in the dialogues, the importance of and appreciation toward traditional culture appear to be highly emphasized. Conversely, popular cultures are devalued and ignored by not being mentioned anywhere in the textbook. Such popular cultural products as anime, manga and computer games, even though they are extremely popular among the youth in many countries – and many Japanese language learners often indicate these cultural artifacts as motivating their study of Japanese – are not included as a part of the world constructed in the textbook. What does this curious lack indicate? For one, it could be interpreted as a reflection of a belief that such popular cultures are not worthy of inclusion for studying Japanese in the school context. In other words, an aspect of the real learners’ lifeworld may be regarded as not valuable and is thus ignored. Another interpretation would be that, since anime, manga and computer games have already gained global status in the world youth beyond Japan, they do not have the qualities of specialty or uniqueness necessary to be considered as truly Japanese culture. It is interesting to note that icons from US popular culture are abundantly used in the textbook exercises. Mickey Mouse, Madonna, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Sylvester Stallone, Eric Clapton, Alfred Hitchcock, Batman and Superman are such examples.6 This could be indicative of the effect of the globalization of US pop culture figures in the 1980s and 1990s that are appreciated and idolized by youth in Japan. This could also mean that the authors had US students in mind as their primary target readers. The use of these names and the accompanying manga-like illustrations in order to activate learner-readers vocabulary could be considered as a way to appeal to a young population who has grown up with television, especially Hollywood movies, in a modern era. We can observe contrasting images and choices for representatives discussing ‘Japanese culture’ and ‘Western/American culture’ above. For Japanese culture, ‘exotic’ images, images of history and traditions that are

On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of Japanese Language Textbook

209

represented by shrines/temples, sumo and kabuki, are highlighted, whereas for Western cultures, ‘modern’ images are symbolized by Hollywood and Disney (Said, 1979). We can also interpret the inclusion of such Western images as a suggestion for recognizing the cultural hybridity that is beyond the boundary of a country in this globalized and high-tech era of the information age.

Sociocultural beliefs and ideals Through the interactions enacted in the dialogues, Japanese cultural routines and ideals are transmitted. Some are explicitly communicated to the readers while others are more subtly displayed. For example, stereotypically emphasized ‘indirect’ speech behaviors, such as declining an offer without saying ‘no’ (Chapter 3), are explained as follows: Japanese people don’t normally reject requests, suggestions, or invitations with iie (no), because it sounds too direct. (Genki I: 64) Or, leaving the obvious unstated as a politeness strategy (Chapter 10) is explicitly described and explained as: We sometimes use ga and kedo at the end of a sentence when we want our partners to treat what we have just said as given, common ground to build upon. These words often indicate the speaker’s intention to give her partner a chance to react and speak up. By relegating the right to speak to one’s partner, they also contribute to the politeness of one’s utterance. (Genki I: 19) Other cultural ideals and virtues such as ‘omoiyari (empathy)’ through the acts of giving ‘omiyage (souvenirs)’ (Chapters 4 and 10), sending a postcard while traveling (Chapter 5) and giving ‘okaeshi (a gift for reciprocity)’ (Chapter 20); ‘keirô (respect and care for elders)’ by offering one’s seat on the bus (Chapter 6) and helping to carry a heavy bag (Chapters 6 and 20); and ‘enryo (modesty and respect for others feeling)’ (Chapter 19) are interwoven interactionally in the dialogues without being labeled or explained as such. Through practicing and modeling the dialogues, the learners are expected to learn such ideals.

What Status Quos are Maintained? In this section, I examine how social hierarchy (e.g. men versus women and Japanese versus foreigners) in Japan is maintained and reproduced through the textbook.

210

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

Gender role and relationship The major theme of ‘dating’ runs throughout the textbook. The textbook begins with Mary and Takeshi meeting for the first time (Chapter 1), which is followed by such topics as making a plan for a date (Chapter 3), the first date (Chapter 4), going to Kabuki (Chapter 9), Mary giving Takeshi a handmade sweater for Valentine’s Day (Chapter 14) and visiting a friend in Nagano together (Chapter 15). The story ends with the scene where Mary and Takeshi are saying goodbye to each other at the airport as Mary returns to the USA (Chapter 23). Apparently, the issue of dating is treated as one of the most important attempts in the textbook to appeal to college students. First, what types of romantic relationships are considered as normal in the storyline that the textbook constructed? Looking at exercises in the textbook, when the situations are set for making a plan for fun, all of the accompanying illustrations without exception are depictions of a couple, a man and a woman. Therefore, the relationship regarded as important and even imagined is a heterosexual relationship. Indeed, it is the generally accepted form of romantic relationship in our society and it may be the safe option for the authors as well as for the publisher. However, what is maintained and reproduced through such choice are morals and values that define and sanction only the heterosexual relationship as legitimate and normal. Next, what social roles are assigned to men and women? For the exercises used to learn ‘adjectives’, the words ‘kind’, ‘beautiful’ and ‘gentle’ are used to describe women while ‘interesting’, ‘energetic’, ‘tall’ and ‘good-looking’ are used for men (Chapters 5 and 7). For practicing the use of verbs, actions associated with men are, helping others by carrying luggage (Chapter 16), changing a flat tire and buying an expensive present for a girlfriend (Chapter 23) whereas with women the examples describe taking too much time to choose a dress to wear (and making a boyfriend wait) (Chapter 6), knitting a sweater for a boyfriend (Chapter 16), ironing shirts, cleaning a room, listening to a boyfriend’s complaints and polishing a boyfriend’s shoes (Chapter 23). Furthermore, a mother is presented as a stereotypical housewife who cooks, cleans, does laundry and ironing and makes a lunch box (Chapters 1 and 16). Mary’s host mother (the only character playing a Japanese mother in dialogues) is portrayed as ‘educational mama’ who nags her high school aged daughter to study, a stereotype that is often assigned to Japanese mothers (Chapter 22). In contrast, a father is described stereotypically as being a ‘salaried man’ (Chapter 1), and is almost completely absent from the life and world that the textbook portrays.

On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of Japanese Language Textbook

211

As evident from the above, the traditional gender roles and relationships, and established power relationships between men and women are perpetuated and presented as normal through dialogues, exercises and illustrations in the textbook.7

Social hierarchy and power relationship Most of the interactions in the dialogues are between friends. By looking at their linguistic choices, we can read subtle power relations as a result of age or gender differences that are considered as normative in Japanese society. At the beginning, Mary and Takeshi speak in a formal, polite register to each other. As time passes, they begin speaking to each other in a casual, plain register. In Genki I, Mary and Takeshi address each other with the polite suffix ‘san’. Later on, Mary begins to address Takeshi with ‘kun’, a more friendly, affectionate suffix usually used only for a boy, while Takeshi begins to address Mary as simply ‘Mary’. In Japan, whether or not one calls someone without a suffix depends on the degree of closeness and on the social hierarchy. Usually, non-use of suffixes is limited to the contexts where superiors call subordinates (e.g. parents to children and elder siblings to younger ones in a family, and seniors to juniors in work or school situations) or among truly close friends. In English, however, the kinds of relationships that allow for such linguistic behavior (i.e. addressing each other without Mr, Mrs, Miss or Ms) become much wider. In the textbook, the non-use of suffixes is limited to the occasions when Mary’s hostmother calls her daughter (Yumi), John’s boss calls John, Yumi calls Mary and Takeshi calls Mary. For the rest of the situations, the polite suffix ‘san’ is used except for Mary calling Takeshi with ‘kun’ and Mary calling Yumi with ‘chan’. The linguistic behaviors of Takeshi and Yumi when addressing Mary in the dialogues may indicate the Japanese people’s tendency to call foreigners whom they know to a certain degree without a suffix in a casual context following the English norm. Interestingly, however, there is no situations in the textbook where foreign students address Japanese by their first name without a suffix. Why does Mary continue to address Takeshi with ‘kun’ even though Takeshi has shifted from ‘Mary san’ to just ‘Mary’? This discrepancy can be interpreted as a sign of a taken-for-granted norm that women should speak in a politer language than men (see more discussion in Okamoto, Chapter 4, in this book). If we read these linguistic choices from the perspective of gendered power relationships, we can also interpret that it is appropriate

212

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

and normal for a man to call his girlfriend without a suffix, while it is not appropriate for women to do so. By closely reading their relationship as constructed in the dialogues from the perspective of gendered power relationships, we notice that Takeshi is always the one who provides information to Mary (Chapters 9 and 5) and makes decisions for their joint activities (Chapter 15). In contrast, Mary often seeks suggestions from Takeshi. In other words, Mary and Takeshi reproduce stereotypical gender norms which tend to position a man as a ‘knower’ and a ‘decision maker’ while a woman is a ‘receiver’ of knowledge and a follower of men’s decisions. An alternative reading would be that Mary and Takeshi’s relationship is such because Takeshi is a Japanese who is, supposedly, more knowledgeable about Japan than Mary, a foreigner. In fact, throughout the dialogues, foreign students are usually positioned as an ‘information seeker’ or a ‘receiver’ of knowledge. It appears that a clear-cut, unambiguous power relationship (though it is very subtle) is set up for native versus non-native interactions. The only exception where we can observe a shift in such power relations is when Robert, a student from England, gives information about a bus route to a Japanese old lady (Chapter 6), thus taking up the position of a ‘knower’.

An imagined Japanese society: Polite, conflict-free, cooperative human interactions What kinds of life do the learner-readers experience through the textbook? What types of images do they develop of the Japanese people and society? Most of the time, everyone in the dialogues speaks politely using a formal register. Everyone gets along well with everyone. All the interactions illustrated in the textbook – among friends, between a member of the host family and Mary, John and his boss, John and his landlord, Takeshi and his superior, etc. – are smooth and cooperative. No conflicts or tension are included as possible contexts where communication may occur. Throughout the 23 chapters, the Japanese social world is presented as constituting universally good and cooperative interactants that model Japanese values and ideals. Even though most of the interactions fall into the category of ‘intercultural’ or ‘cross-cultural’ communication, somehow, magically, they all seem to understand each other perfectly. Therefore, neither miscommunication (which often displays the unintended effects of communication) nor cross-communication (where no understanding is achieved) occurs. Further, interactions are harmoniously and peacefully constructed by all the participants. Unlike reality, no one dominates the

On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of Japanese Language Textbook

213

floor, turns are evenly distributed and equal contributions are maintained. Not only are people presented as nice, but also life itself is depicted as all positive. Even the burglary incident where John was victimized is eventually portrayed as an opportunity for him to realize his happiness and fortune for having good friends.

Discussion: Standard Language and Perfect Communication By reading the textbook critically as we have done in this chapter, the role a textbook plays as a ‘cultural mediator’ and as a means to transmit a particular ideology becomes clear. In this section, I further discuss the notion of ‘standard language’ and the idea of ‘perfect communication’. It is not a problem in and of itself to introduce and teach the ‘standard language’. Learning standard language as ‘cultural capital’ (Bourdieu, 1991) is important and necessary for learners (Delpit, 1995). The problem is that because there is no mention of the diversity and fluidity of the Japanese language, there is a danger of creating a myth as if there is the Japanese language that is spoken by all. In order to avoid this misconception, it is important to explain that the language in the textbook is what is considered as ‘standard’ and students should be provided with opportunities to encounter and experience various dialects (Davies, 2003; Sasaki & Machi, 2006). As described previously, in the dialogues everyone speaks perfect Japanese and no one encounters any difficulties or hardships in their interactions. Because of the textbook’s role as ‘a tool for teaching a language’, it may be considered natural to only show ‘correct’ language inputs in the textbook. Perhaps the lack of conflict or negative interactions in the dialogues may be an attempt to persuade learner-readers to believe that their future encounters and interactions with Japanese people will also be positive. It may be that by portraying only positive situations, it is hoped that learners continue to have good ideas and images about Japan, to keep their motivation for learning the Japanese language, and not to develop a fear of interacting with Japanese people. We could also read that the textbook fosters the belief that if the correct grammar is used, everyone will understand you. The authors’ omission of a negotiated dialogue distorts how exchanges to make meaning actually occur between skilled and unskilled language users. Without the presence of negotiated conflicts, students will most likely not be prepared to negotiate in a complex web of power relations in real life.

214

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

In many situations in reality, ‘non-native’ speakers are likely to be put in a weaker position when interacting with ‘native’ speakers. Also, it is often the case that ‘non-native’ speakers are willing to take such a position (Hosokawa, 2002; Kadoya, 2006). Such a scheme was maintained and reproduced in Genki as well. However, the weaker position, such as a ‘non-native’ speaker or a foreigner, is not the only position that is available for learners: they can take up the position of a multicultural knowledge holder or a multilingual speaker. It is important for learners to know that such social positions are available to them, and by taking up such positions, they can control and shape the flow of interactions to their advantage.

Conclusion We use language everyday without paying much attention to the choices we make. We read textbooks without questioning their underlying assumptions or values. When we read a textbook critically, many questions and issues surface. The point I wanted to make through analyzing one textbook is not to point out that there may be a bias or distortion against certain groups of people. The purpose of the analysis is to highlight the fact that ‘learning Japanese language’ through a textbook does not only entail learning linguistic rules or cultural information. From textbooks, learnerreaders learn sociocultural ideals, value systems and world views that are implicitly communicated in the textbooks. That, in turn, functions as a mechanism to promote and maintain the ‘standards’ of language and culture. It is easily imagined that some would question the benefits of discussing such details about a beginning-level foreign language textbook. Some would further argue that it is only natural that the world created in the textbook is not real and the learner-readers are well aware of that. However, as we saw in this chapter, the world constructed through dialogues forces the learner-readers to comply with rules and norms, and if they are not willing to comply, they may be negatively judged (Sato, 2005b) or they may not even be allowed to continue studying the language. Such coercion denies the student’s sense of identity and their motivation for learning may be completely diminished. The purpose of foreign language education is not just to teach rules and norms so that the learners understand the ‘standards’ well and learn to live without deviating from them. But rather the mission of foreign language education should be to support the learners to become language users who recognize and understand various unstated rules in different interactional contexts, who are able to assess and maneuver the complex web of power relationships and who can think critically and act in order to build

On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of Japanese Language Textbook

215

relationships with others as they desire (Kern, 2000; Kumagai & Sato, 2009; Reagan & Osborn, 2002; Sato & Kumagai, 2011). In order to achieve that, it is necessary for teachers to understand and recognize the ideological effects that are implicated even in a beginning-level foreign language textbook. In this chapter, I examined the role of textbooks as an ideological apparatus; in reality, teachers as users and consumers of textbooks also have an important role to play in that mechanism (see Kumagai, Chapter 11 in this book). It is important to note, however, that there are moments when the readers of a textbook – both teachers and students – resist, problematize and refuse the world that is represented by the textbook in a foreign language classroom (Kumagai, 2004, 2007). There are no perfect textbooks, and because they are not perfect, they provide us with valuable opportunities to think about many issues such as stereotypes and other sociopolitical phenomena (see Kubota, Chapter 10 in this book; Kumagai & Fukai, 2009). In order not to miss such opportunities, teachers should critically engage with texts (Hayashi, 2006; Iwasaki & Kumagai, 2008; Kumagai & Iwasaki, 2011); they need to provide additional information and raise meaningful topics for discussion if and when necessary. And most importantly, we language teachers have to take students’ questions and oppositions invoked by texts seriously and open up the classroom floor for discussions so that we can disrupt the process of the standardization of language and culture (see Kumagai, Chapter 11 in this book; also Kumagai, 2004, 2007).

Notes (1) This chapter is based on a research on critical literacy that I conducted in collaboration with Dr Theresa Austin from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. (2) In reading the textbook critically, I have drawn on the theory and method of critical discourse analysis espoused by Fairclough (1993). (3) The second edition published in 2011 comes with CDs. (4) Each volume of the textbook consists of two sections: the first half is ‘Dialogue and Grammar’ and the second half is ‘Reading and Writing’. In this chapter, only the first section is analyzed. (5) Ne and yo are called ‘interactional particles’ (Maynerd, 1992). While ne is used to seek the listener’s confirmation or agreement to the statement uttered, yo is used when the speaker, with an authoritative tone, wants to assure the listener of what has been said. (6) Although it is infrequent, we can see the authors’ effort to include diversity by bringing such cultural icons from Asian countries as Ghandi, Mao Zedong and Aung San Suu Kyi. (7) There are some examples in the textbook where the traditional gendered roles are reversed, such as Takeshi is molested by a pervert on a train (Chapter 21) and a boyfriend is forced to make lunch for his girlfriend (Chapter 23).

216

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

References Armour, W. (1998) Putting more than words in their mouths: Using model dialogues to construct social reality in the Japanese language classroom. Japanese Studies 18 (2), 181–197. Apple, M.W. and Christian-Smith, L.K. (eds) (1991) The Politics of the Textbook. New York: Routledge. Banno, E., Ohno, Y., Sakane, Y. and Shinagawa, C. (1999) An Integrated Course in Elementary Japanese: Genki I and II. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. (2008) Reading the world through words: Cultural themes in heritage Chinese language textbooks. Language and Education 22 (2), 95–113. De los Heros, S. (2009) Linguistic pluralism or prescriptivism? A CDA of language ideologies in Talento, Peru’s official textbook for the first-year of high school. Linguistics and Education 20, 172–199. Delpit, L. (1995) Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press. Endo Hudon, M. (2001) Book review, Genki II: An integrated course in Elementary Japanese. Japanese Language and Literature 35, 190–193. Fairclough, N. (1993) Discourse and Social Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Faust, M.A. (1992) Ways of reading and ‘the use of force’. The English Journal 81 (7), 44–49. Hayashi, S. (2006) Kuritikaru ni nihon o kangaeru: nihongo kyôiku no genba kara. In K. Suzuki, K. ôi and F. Takemae (eds) Kuritikaru shinkingu to kyôiku: Nihon no kyôiku o saikôchiku suru (pp. 194–216). Tokyo: Sekai shisôsha. Hosokawa, H. (2002). Nihongo kyôiku wa nani o mezasuka: Gengo bunka katsudô no riron to jissen. Tokyo: Akashi. Iwasaki, N. and Kumagai, Y. (2008) Towards critical approaches in an advanced level Japanese course: Theory and practice through reflection and dialogues. Japanese Language and Literature 42, 123–156. Jones, M.A., Kitetu, C. and Sunderland, J. (1997) Discourse roles, gender and language textbook dialogues: Who learns what from John and Sally? Gender and Education 9 (4), 469–490. Kadoya, H. (2006) Gengo-ken kara keikaku-gengo e. In H. Mashiko (ed.) Kotoba, kenryoku, sabetsu: Gengo-ken kara mita jôhoo jakusha no kaihô (pp. 107–130). Tokyo: Sangensha. Kern, R. (2000) Literacy and Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (1987) Foreign language textbooks’ construction of foreign reality. Canadian Modern Language Review 44 (1), 95–119. Kubota, R. (2003) Critical teaching of Japanese. Japanese Language and Literature 37 (1), 67–88. Kumagai, Y. (2004) (De)mystifying literacy practices in a foreign language classroom: A critical discourse analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Kumagai, Y. (2007) ‘Moments of tension’: An opportunity for critical literacy in a foreign language classroom? Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 42 (23), 85–116. Kumagai, Y. and Fukai, M. (2009) Nihongo gakushuu ni okeru hihan-see, sôzoo-see no ikusee e no kokoromi: ‘Kyôkasho kakikae’ purojekuto [Cultivating critical thinking and creativity in Japanese language learning: ‘Revising textbook’ project]. Japanese Education Around the Globe 19. 181–202.

On Learning Japanese Language: Critical Reading of Japanese Language Textbook

217

Kumagai, Y. and Sato, S. (2009) ‘Ignorance’ as a rhetorical strategy: How Japanese language learners living in Japan maneuver their subject positions to shift power dynamics. Critical Studies in Education 50 (3), 309–321. Kumagai, Y. and Iwasaki, N. (2011) What it means to read ‘critically’ in a Japanese language classroom: Students’ perspective. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 8 (2), 125–152. Matsumoto, Y. and Okamoto, S. (2003) The construction of the Japanese language and culture in teaching Japanese as a foreign language. Japanese Language and Literature 37 (1), 27–48. Nagata, Y. and Sullivan, K. (2005) Hegemonic gender in Japanese as a foreign language education: Australian perspectives. In M. McLelland and R. Dasgupta (eds) Genders, Transgenders, and Sexualities in Japan (pp. 15–32). New York: Routledge. Noro, K. (2001) Kuritikaru disukôsu anarishisu. In K. Noro and M. Yamashita (eds) ‘Tadashisa’ e no toi: Hihanteki shakaigengogaku no kokoromi (pp. 13–49). Tokyo: Sangensha. Nozaki, Y., Openshaw, R. and Luke, A. (eds) (2005) Struggles over Difference: Curriculum, Texts, and Pedagogy in the Asia-Pacific. New York: State University of New York Press. Porreca, K.L. (1984) Sexism in current ESL textbooks. TESOL Quarterly 18 (4), 704–724. Poulou, S. (1997) Sexism in the discourse roles of textbook dialogues. Language Learning 15, 68–73. Reagan, T.G. and Osborn, T.A. (2002) The Foreign Language Educator in Society: Toward a Critical Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Said, E.W. (1979) Orientalism. New York: Random House. Sasaki, A. and Machi, H. (2006) Hôgengaku, isôron. In H. Machi (ed.) Kôza nihongo kyôikugaku, Vol. 2: Gengo kôdoo to shakai, bunka (pp. 72–86). Tokyo: Surii ee nettowaaku. Sato, S. (2005a) Teaching communication skills in Japanese: Critical examination. Paper presented at American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. Sato, S. (2005b) Kuritikaru pedagogii to nihongo kyôiku. Riterashiizu 1, 95–102. Sato, S. (2006) Reproduction, distribution, and consumption of communication. Paper presented at Annual Convention of Communication Association of Japan, Tokyo. Sato, S. and Kumagai, Y. (2011) Shakai sanka o mezasu nihongo kyôiku: shakai ni kakawaru, tsunagaru, hatarakikakeru [ Japanese Language Education for Global Citizenship]. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo. Shardakova, M. and Pavlenko, A. (2004) Identity options in Russian textbooks. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 3 (1), 25–46. Siegal, M. and Okamoto, S. (2003) Toward reconceptualizing the teaching and learning of gendered speech styles in Japanese as a foreign language. Japanese Language and Literature 37 (1), 49–66. Suaysuwan, N. and Kapitzke, C. (2005) Thai English language textbooks, 1960–2000: Postwar industrial and global changes. In Y. Nozaki, R. Openshaw and A. Luke (eds) Struggles over Difference: Curriculum, Texts, and Pedagogy in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 79–97). New York: State University of New York Press. Tanaka, R. (2006) Sengo nihongo kyôiku ni okeru shisôteki ‘renzokusee’ no mondai: Nihongo no kyôkasho ni miru ‘koka,’ ‘kokumin,’ ‘gengo,’ ‘bunka’. Riterashiizu 2, 89–98. Thomson, C.K. and Otsuji, E. (2003) Evaluation of business Japanese textbooks: Issues of gender. Japanese Studies 23 (2), 185–203. Wallace, C. (2003) Critical Reading in Language Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

10 Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture1 Ryuko Kubota

Introduction The world today increasingly faces cultural and political clashes among groups with different racial, ethnic, religious and political affiliations. Various conflicts in the wake of 11 September 2001, make many wonder how the field of teaching foreign languages can help build a better world. Some language specialists in the USA may focus on the functional aspect of language learning and emphasize the benefit of foreign language education for national security and intelligence, while others may explore how our profession can help end hatred and mass killing and, instead, promote mutual understanding and global peace. Those who pursue the latter goal may argue that by encouraging learners to understand different cultural perspectives, learning a foreign language may reduce conflicts among different racial, ethnic and religious groups, as well as among nation states. They may further argue that learning a foreign language, regardless of the language, helps students become culturally sensitive in the global community. However, the current reconceptualization of culture developed in the fields of anthropology and cultural studies, poses a challenge for such an optimistic vision. This challenge can be found in a work of cultural criticism written in relation to the 9/11 tragedy. In October 2001, The Nation published an article titled ‘The Clash of Ignorance’ written by the renowned cultural critic, Edward Said, who critiqued a thesis proposed by Samuel Huntington (1993, 1996). According to Huntington, the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world would be cultural rather than ideological or economic; that is, world conflicts would be between nations and groups of different civilizations, particularly Islam and the West. Said (2001) criticizes this view as essentializing and dichotomizing the civilization of the West and that of Islam. As Said argues, public opinion since 9/11 indeed seems to uncritically 218

Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture

219

support a binary view of Islam versus the West. Said states, ‘The basic paradigm of West versus the rest (the cold war opposition reformulated) remained untouched, and this is what has persisted, often insidiously and implicitly, in discussion since the terrible events of September 11’. Said criticizes how current political discourse ignores the internal dynamics and plurality that every civilization has and neglects the fact that the challenge in modern cultures concerns the definition or interpretation of each culture. He opposes speaking for a whole religion or civilization in a single term. Referring to the contradiction between the alleged 9/11 terrorists’ ability to maneuver sophisticated Western technologies and the concept of ‘Islam’s’ inability to be a part of ‘modernity’, Said states: How… inadequate are the labels, generalizations and cultural assertions. At some level, for instance, primitive passions and sophisticated knowhow converge in ways that give the lie to a fortified boundary not only between ‘West’ and ‘Islam’ but also between past and present, us and them, to say nothing of the very concepts of identity and nationality about which there is unending disagreement and debate. In his essay, Said warns readers of the danger of drawing a rigid boundary between two cultures or civilizations, creating a binary between ‘US (or “with US”) versus THEM (or “with TERRORISTS”)’, which legitimates the rationale for the conflict. In terms of teaching foreign languages, Said’s insight provides some critical implications for a common understanding of culture in our field. His insight indeed raises the possibility that Japanese language educators in the USA might unintentionally create a rigid dichotomy between the USA and Japan, or US and THEM. It also raises the following questions: For what social, political or economic purpose is our understanding of cultural difference mobilized? What are the sociopolitical implications? The construction of the concept of Japanese culture is indeed closely related to domestic and international politics and relations of power. For example, Japanese culture was studied and described by Ruth Benedict in The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, a study commissioned by the US government for the purpose of ruling Japan after America’s anticipated victory in WWII. In the 1960s and 1970s, the uniqueness of Japanese culture was interpreted as the cause of Japan’s economic success and became the core tenet of Nihonjinron. In the 1980s and 1990s, the concept of Japanese uniqueness was appropriated by political and opinion leaders to revive the Japanese identity threatened by globalization and Westernization. The recent controversy over the textbooks developed by Atarashii rekishi kyōkasho o tsukuru kai (the

220

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform) demonstrates the efforts of conservative groups to strengthen nationalism by turning to identity politics. It is necessary to be aware that the way we present Japanese language and culture in our classrooms is not isolated from the politics and discourses that surround us. This chapter explores critical approaches to culture in Japanese language education. Critical explorations of culture are particularly important because of the recent emphasis on teaching culture in foreign language education, as seen in the development and implementation of the National Standards for Foreign Language Learning (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project 1999; referred to as ‘National Standards’ hereafter). This chapter will critically examine how culture is conceptualized in the National Standards and propose an alternative conceptual model for understanding culture that incorporates a descriptive understanding of culture, diversity within a culture, the dynamic nature of culture and the discursive construction of culture. The following section presents a critical examination of the way in which culture is conceptualized in the National Standards.

National Standards and an Anti-Essentialist Critique of Culture The National Standards have been developed in response to the national initiative to create clear learning goals in various subject areas for pre-college students. In the case of foreign language learning, however, the National Standards have been adopted for most languages, including Japanese, from kindergarten through college, indicating their large impact on how languages and cultures are taught and learned. In the National Standards, culture constitutes an important component as one of the five Cs (i.e. Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparisons, and Communities). Culture is also mentioned in one of the Comparisons standards. This section critically examines how culture is conceptualized in the Cultures standards and the Comparisons standards.

Standards on culture There are two standards on culture (National Standards, 1999: 50–51): Standard 2.1 Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the practices and perspectives of the culture studied.

Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture

221

Standard 2.2 Students demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between the products and perspectives of the culture studied. These standards conceptualize culture in three elements or three Ps, namely, ‘perspectives (meanings, attitudes, values, ideas), practices (patterns of social interactions) and products (books, tools, foods, laws, music, games)’ (National Standards, 1999: 47), which are seen as interconnected to constitute various cultural phenomena in society. The National Standards document stresses the importance of avoiding cultural misunderstandings and stereotypes. It refers to the misconception that people who share the same language represent only one culture by pointing out as examples the diversity among Spanish-speaking and French-speaking peoples around the world. The document then states that a lack of information about the target culture often leads to interpreting the culture based only on one’s own cultural view, which lends itself to stereotyping. The document goes on to stress the importance of teaching both similarities and differences. It states that focusing on similarities fosters a positive mindset toward speakers of the target language, while analyzing differences helps learners understand common cultural misunderstandings and conflicts. It is argued that learning a second language allows learners to understand an ‘insider’s’ perspectives through directly interacting with members of the other culture in their native language. The explicit focus on the three dimensions of culture delineated in the document would certainly avoid a cursory treatment of culture in a foreign language curriculum. The National Standards certainly guide learners to take an important step in developing a cultural understanding of the Self and the Other. However, there are several limitations. First, the National Standards tend to view a particular culture as a homogeneous group, overlooking the diversity that exists within a culture. Although diversity within a particular linguistic group is mentioned in the document, it is not incorporated into the wording of the National Standards 2.1 and 2.2 above. Thus, in conceptualizing culture as consisting of three interrelated elements, teachers may interpret the National Standards as promoting the view that there are standard sets of cultural practices, products and perspectives, and that they are interrelated in a certain predictable way. What is missing from the National Standards is not only cultural diversity but also a focus on the dynamic nature of culture. Postmodern understandings of culture in many scholarly fields no longer view culture as a neutrally, inherently and ahistorically determined fixed category. Rather, culture is viewed as diverse, dynamic and fluid, constructed and transformed by political and ideological forces. From this perspective, the static and fixed view of culture in the National Standards is limited.

222

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

Second, learners’ knowledge about culture is viewed in terms of a binary opposition, ‘correct versus incorrect’, preventing a broader understanding of cultural knowledge. In encouraging teachers and learners to understand the relationship between cultural practices or products and cultural perspectives, the National Standards presuppose these categories of culture as well as the interrelationships among them as objective truths about which learners are eventually supposed to demonstrate an understanding. Some of the terms used in the document, such as ‘misunderstanding’, ‘stereotypes’ and ‘erroneous judgment’, suggest that there is ‘correct’ cultural knowledge or information that reflects the authentic ‘insider’s’ perspectives, and that developing understandings of such accurate information reduces stereotypes. While learners may hold clearly erroneous beliefs such as that all Japanese wear kimono every day, the question of whether correctness in all cultural information can be obtained is a contentious issue. This is partly because culture has a diverse and dynamic nature. For example, cultural practices and products can vary according to gender, race, ethnicity, generation, class, occupation, geographic region and historical period. When it comes to cultural perspectives, the assumption that there are accurate cultural perspectives that are applicable to all members and situations becomes even more problematic. For instance, cultural perspectives such as respect for and emphasis on nature, harmony and social hierarchy are often believed to characterize Japanese culture. However, there are many sociocultural phenomena that contradict these concepts (Sugimoto & Mouer, 1982). It is difficult to determine objective accuracy in cultural perspectives because cultural perspectives are not readily observable and because perspectives, including values, beliefs and meanings, are often implicated in politics and ideology. As Sugimoto and Mouer (1982) argue, the Japanese emphasis on social harmony, for instance, can be interpreted as a tool for political and ideological control to prevent or hide various kinds of conflicts that do exist in society. Although it could still be argued that Japanese culture is unique for its ideology that emphasizes social harmony for the purpose of social control, it cannot be argued that Japanese culture is characterized by an emphasis on social harmony in an objective sense. Put differently, it is difficult to determine whether the notion that the Japanese culture values social harmony is ‘correct’ information that reflects a neutral and objective fact. Third, the assumption that ‘correct’ cultural information exists is likely to lead to a prescriptive approach to teaching and learning about culture. There are cultural assumptions that are commonly accepted, such as the notion that Japanese society exhibits a rigid social hierarchy. Once this

Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture

223

notion is conceptualized as a ‘correct’ insiders’ perspective, it influences the way we interpret various cultural practices and products and works as a fixed and convenient formula to explain cultural phenomena. This danger is demonstrated in examples of gender- and status-specific language use, as Meryl Siegal, Yoshiko Matsumoto and Shigeko Okamoto discuss in this issue. Lacking here is a descriptive approach to culture that gives rise to an understanding of how people actually use language and act in social situations. Fourth, the National Standards’ conceptualization of stereotypes may further reinforce static and fixed images of the culture. While the National Standards address the importance of counteracting stereotypes, the underlying assumption about stereotyping is based on a binary distinction between true and false, which limits our understanding of the social, cultural and political motivations and implications behind essentialism, the term I prefer for referring to the pursuit of a pure, unique and allencompassing identity for a certain group. The logic behind the National Standards document is that stereotyping is created by making assumptions about another’s culture only through one’s own cultural lens and thus leads to negative reactions or prejudices against the people in the target culture. This implies that once learners gain accurate, detailed information about the target culture from the insider’s perspective, stereotypes are likely to be eliminated. While this might be the case in some instances, one limitation lies in the interpretation of stereotyping merely as negative false consciousness juxtaposed with the existence of accurate knowledge of the target culture as truth. As argued above, a postmodern understanding of culture would reject the assumption that cultural perspectives reflect transcendent objective truths. Moreover, when stereotyping is interpreted only as negative reactions against another culture, it misses various political and ideological motivations behind essentialism. This leads to the next point. Fifth, the National Standards document overlooks the political and ideological construction of knowledge about culture and reflects a limited understanding of cultural essentialism. As Eika Tai explains in this issue, notions such as national culture and cultural homogeneity are actually constructed in the process of nation building, which seeks a unified identity and ethnic pride. The concepts that Tai introduces, such as imagined community and invention of tradition, suggest that many aspects of our knowledge about cultural practices, products and perspectives are indeed political invention. In creating the imagined unity of a certain culture, the notion of essentialism plays an important role. Whereas the stereotyping that the National Standards document mentions is a negative form of

224

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

essentialism that is often used to describe the Other as an inferior category, it is important to understand that essentialism is not only negative; it can romanticize the culture of the Self or the Other, giving positive and yet fixed homogeneous images. For instance, affirmation of Japanese culture for its uniqueness, particularly its homogeneity and harmony (Sugimoto & Mouer, 1982), prevailed between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s (Aoki, 1990). These images were produced by both Japanese and non-Japanese scholars. The self-affirmation of a unique Japanese identity as promoted by Nihonjinron has been reinforced by such influential publications as Nakane (1967), Doi (1971) and Tsunoda (1978), constructing Self-Orientalism (see Kubota, 1999; Susser, 1998), whereas publications by non-Japanese scholars such as Vogel (1979) and Reischauer (1978) reflect the romanticization or exoticization of the Japanese as a homogeneous group that is completely different from the Western cultural groups. Underlying the contemporary construction of the uniqueness of the Japanese are the social, political and economic conditions of the 1960s and 1970s, when Japan experienced rapid economic growth and Westernization. This economic success compelled non-Japanese scholars to find cultural explanations, whereas Westernization encouraged Japanese scholars to explore strategies for resistance in order to preserve pure Japaneseness (Befu, 1987). In this co-construction of the Nihonjinron discourse, essentialism is reflected both in defining the Other and in inventing a pure, unique identity of the Self. In both cases, essentialism is not a negative false conception juxtaposed with a true reality but rather a strategy to define who the Self or the Other is, giving truth claims to particular cultural perspectives and practices. When culture is understood in this way, it becomes clear that a large part of our knowledge about culture is produced by political influence and motivation – a notion that is absent from the account on stereotyping in the National Standards document. Some alternative conceptualizations of culture discussed thus far – for instance, a focus on diversity and dynamism, the notion that objective accuracy in cultural information is often unobtainable, a descriptive approach to culture, the importance of moving beyond the interpretation of stereotype as false conception and an understanding of culture as political and discursive invention – indicate that learning Japanese as a foreign language should not aim only to demystify inaccurate information, such as that all Japanese eat sushi every day. It should also aim to explore the diverse and shifting nature of culture and raise critical consciousness about the political and ideological underpinnings of popular cultural images and interpretations.

Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture

225

Standards on comparisons While culture constitutes one of the five Cs in the National Standards, it also appears in the Comparisons standards that aim to develop insight into the nature of language and culture, as seen below (National Standards, 1999: 58, 60): Standard 4.1 Students demonstrate understanding of the nature of language through comparisons of the language studied and their own. Standard 4.2 Students demonstrate understanding of the concept of culture through comparisons of the cultures studied and their own. Comparing and contrasting the target culture or language with one’s own certainly helps learners understand the language system, language use in context and world views that are different from what they are familiar with. However, linguistic and cultural comparisons may reinforce fixed ideas about differences and exotic foreignness if language and culture are approached with a static view. In teaching Japanese in the USA, the concept of the uniqueness of the Japanese language and culture as evident in Nihonjinron tends to underscore cultural and linguistic differences. The section that describes some features of Japanese language and culture in the National Standards indeed emphasizes the uniqueness of Japanese culture and language by stating that they are extremely distant and different from the language and culture with which American students are familiar. While affirming cultural and linguistic differences is essential in teaching and learning a foreign language, it is equally important to understand the politics of difference and essentialism in relation to cultural comparisons. It is important to note that an assertion of difference is naturally built upon comparisons between two categories. As many critics of Nihonjinron have pointed out (e.g. Befu, 2001), the uniqueness of the Japanese culture and people in the post-WWII world has been constructed through cultural comparisons only between Japan and the West. In other words, Japanese culture is made unique and exotic vis-à-vis the West. This point may not be so problematic when the teaching context is in the USA, which belongs to the West. However, as Osborn (2000) points out, this view presumes the existence of a homogeneous American culture and language, which is represented mainly by the White monolingual English-speaking population, ignoring the multicultural and multilingual reality of the USA. Just as the culture and language of the Other (Japan) is essentialized, the culture and language of the Self (the USA) is essentialized as well. This indicates that cultural and linguistic comparisons in Japanese language classrooms could run the risk of confirming and further reinforcing

226

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

the static binaries and essentialism that already persist in academic, educational and public discourses. Some may argue that a focus on similarities would alleviate the problem of essentialism and cultural dichotomies. The National Standards document indeed promotes the exploration of similarities so that students can have a positive view of people from other cultures. However, a focus on similarity juxtaposed with difference is based on a binary logic of similar versus different, paralleling the binary opposition between correct and incorrect. Moving beyond such binary thinking, the view that conceptualizes culture as invented or discursively constructed, as mentioned above, enables us to explore why these differences and similarities are claimed and what kind of political motivations or implications are hidden behind these claims. It is important to note that the pursuit of both similarity and difference between the Self and the Other reflects the liberal pluralist approach to multiculturalism, which endorses a color-blind vision of society based on individual equality and meritocracy while reinforcing the exoticization and romanticization of the Other through celebrating differences (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1997; Kubota, forthcoming; Nieto, 1995).

Critical Approaches to Teaching Culture: The Four Ds The above discussion underpins the following four concepts (the four Ds) that could help teachers reconceptualize their approaches to teaching culture: (1) descriptive rather than prescriptive understandings of culture; (2) diversity within culture, which addresses notions such as diaspora and hybridity; (3) the dynamic or shifting nature of culture, which allows one to interpret cultural practices, products and perspectives in historical contexts; and (4) the discursive construction of culture – a notion that our knowledge about culture is invented by discourses, which requires us to understand the plurality of meaning as well as the power and politics behind cultural definitions. By offering these concepts, I recognize the danger of reducing the complexity of cultural understanding to fixed knowledge. Thus, my intention here is not to offer these concepts as the only alternative way to approach culture, but rather to suggest them as a heuristic device that teachers and students can utilize in order to gain insight into cultural politics. The following sections provide a conceptual foundation for each of the four Ds.

Descriptive understanding of culture As discussed earlier, teaching Japanese language and culture tends to rely on prescriptive knowledge, such as the belief that there is a clear distinction

Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture

227

between male and female speech patterns or that the difference in social status between two speakers determines which register they should use. However, the ways that people actually use language in naturalistic situations may be quite different from such prescribed knowledge. In understanding culture, a common belief that the Japanese respect nature, for instance, is a prescriptive notion that contradicts many realities including environmental destruction. This does not imply that prescriptive ideas or dominant perspectives should never be presented in order to avoid false cultural information; rather, it is important for students to understand that commonly accepted beliefs about the target culture may not reflect the complexity of how people actually live and communicate or how society functions. Teachers should critically evaluate the prescriptive information about language and culture presented in a textbook or other material and understand language and culture in a more descriptive way. For instance, in discussing male/female speech styles or honorifics, one can audiotape naturally occurring conversations among native speakers and analyze what forms are actually used. If native samples are not available, one can use Japanese movies or television shows, although some of the interactions may be scripted. It is important to note that although a descriptive understanding of language and culture is important, it does not escape the binary opposition between true and false; that is, descriptive data are regarded as accurate whereas prescriptive information is viewed as inaccurate. This limitation will be discussed in more detail later.

Diversity within culture Diversity exists in any culture. Cultural practices, products and perspectives vary depending on various categories such as geographical region, gender, generation, occupation, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and language. They are also manifested differently for each individual member of a culture. Discussing such diversity in the classroom can facilitate a non-essentialist understanding of language and culture. Students and teachers need to focus on the above-mentioned multiple categories and explore the multiplicity of cultural practices, products and perspectives. In exploring diversity, students can develop in-depth understandings of politics and history. For instance, students might explore the geographical diversity observed in food culture. To take ozōni (a New Year’s dish) as an example, there are many recipes and, moreover, it does not traditionally exist in Okinawa. This topic can be extended to a discussion on the culture, politics and history of Okinawa that reflects the legacy of its struggle over sovereignty, marginality and US-Japan relations. Another example is

228

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

cultural diversity among generations. Younger generations are likely to differ from older generations in terms of their lifestyles and values. Ethnic diversity also demonstrates the hybrid nature of culture. Contrary to the belief that Japan is a monoethnic nation, there is a considerable amount of ethnic diversity, reflecting past colonialism as well as recent globalization. Minority ethnic cultures in Japan have played an important role in various aspects of the mainstream culture, while they have also been marginalized and oppressed. The above example of ozōni can be applied to the exploration of how people with Korean and Chinese heritage celebrate the New Year’s holidays in Japan, which brings up a number of related questions. How important is cultural heritage to minorities? In what way do the minority cultural heritage and the mainstream dominant culture merge together? How do the forces of assimilation affect the lives of ethnic minorities? What diversity exists within minority communities? Do minority experiences in Japan parallel those in the USA? How can we create a better society that values diversity and promotes equality among diverse people? Moreover, many aspects of Japanese culture have been influenced by other cultures around the world. Japan’s industrial and economic growth and the more recent globalization of the economy have promoted Westernization, Americanization and even McDonaldization (Ritzer, 1996). With all these diverse facets of society, Japanese culture cannot be defined as monoethnic or purely unique; rather, it has integrated the experiences of various groups, constituting a hybrid culture. Another aspect of the diversity of Japanese culture is related to the diaspora. While many ethnic minorities have been in Japan for generations, many Japanese went abroad and established communities. For American learners of Japanese, understanding the Japanese diaspora in the USA and their experiences and historical struggles would broaden their understanding of diversity within the USA, which should be one of the foci for foreign language education (Osborn, 2000). Furthermore, the recent arrival in Japan of migrant workers of Japanese heritage from Latin America is an important topic to explore in relation to issues of cross-cultural influence and identity.

Dynamic nature of culture The above discussions indicate that culture is always shifting and reshaping itself into new forms. This indicates that culture should be viewed as a dynamic organism and that cultural practices, products and perspectives need to be understood in historical contexts. For example, some of the features of the Japanese management system that were once believed to be culturally unique, such as the lifetime employment system and the seniority

Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture

229

wage system, are no longer maintained in many organizations. Likewise, family values, seen in the expectation that children should take care of their elderly parents, are changing. Thus, it is necessary to critically evaluate a commonly held notion that, for instance, Japan and so-called ‘traditional’ cultures respect and support the elderly more than Western cultures do, not only emotionally but also physically and financially. Other examples can be seen in sociocultural transitions, observed in the practice of marriage, family structures (i.e. multigeneration versus nuclear families) and gender roles. It is important to note that the dynamic as well as the diverse nature of culture is closely related to domestic socioeconomic and political conditions as well as international influences. Hybridity and diaspora were generated largely by past Japanese colonial politics and economy as well as by the more contemporary globalization of the economy. Thus, the diversity and dynamics of cultural practices, products and perspectives cannot be divorced from domestic and international politics and economy.

Discursive construction of culture While the above concepts (i.e. a descriptive understanding of culture and the diverse/dynamic nature of culture) would broaden teachers’ and learners’ understanding of culture, there are limitations and caveats that need to be considered. The fundamental challenge is to overcome the modernist pursuit of objective truth that is inherent in these concepts. A descriptive understanding of culture implies that a descriptive analysis generates illustrative facts about Japanese language and culture, whereas a prescriptive approach reinforces counterfactual or false knowledge. While a descriptive approach is an important step toward challenging fixed and essentialized images of culture and language, the implied dichotomy between true and false parallels the problem of the way in which the National Standards document conceptualizes stereotypes, as discussed earlier. That is, stereotypes are viewed as false beliefs which can be eliminated by knowing the true insiders’ perspectives. However, because of the complexity of linguistic and cultural phenomena caused by situational specificity, individual variation and so on, it is often difficult to identify certain observed cultural or linguistic practices as generalizable reality. Descriptive understandings of culture and language also tend to assume that there are certain normative cultural and linguistic codes accepted by ‘Japanese people’ or ‘native speakers’, thus potentially undermining the possibilities of cultural and linguistic creativity, particularly creativity performed by the marginalized, including learners of Japanese as a second/foreign language. Whereas a prescriptive approach fixes the norm with no empirical evidence, the descriptive approach generates knowledge

230

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

about a certain norm based on actual observations. Thus, no matter how well intended, the descriptive approach cannot escape the pursuit of a norm. A similar paradox exists in the focus on the diverse/dynamic nature of culture. While a focus on diversity related to various categories, such as gender, class, ethnicity, age and geographical location, or on cultural dynamism, aims to avoid essentializing a particular culture, it may not escape essentializing groups within each category or at a specific time in history. For example, in exploring ethnic diversity in Japan, one might make generalized claims about the characteristics of Ainu, Chinese or Korean culture in Japan. Also, in discussing cultural hybridity influenced by Westernization or Americanization, Western or American culture might be perceived as unitary and homogeneous. Thus, it is necessary to be aware that the notion of hybridity does not evade essentialism when it assumes a blend of two cultures that are pure, unique and essentialized (May 1999, 2009). These limitations need to be overcome by a post-structuralist notion of discourse and the discursive construction of culture, which provides an alternative understanding of culture. Indeed, our knowledge about a certain culture is produced by discourses. Weedon (1987: 108) defines discourses as ‘ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power relations which inhere in such knowledges and the relations between them’. Simply put, discourse is the use of language and other modes of communication to organize our knowledge about the Self and the Other in a certain way. Thus, Nihonjinron, for instance, can be seen as a discourse that constructs a particular understanding of the Japanese language and culture. In this view, many of the common beliefs about a culture, such as the Japanese respect for nature, reticence and indirectness in communication, or collectivism, are constructed by discourses rather than reflecting objective or scientific truths. A dominant discourse serves the major political and economic interests, convincing the general public to endorse the dominant way of thinking. Yet, there are discourses that challenge the dominant world view. Thus, for example, while a dominant discourse may define the characteristics of Nihonjinron or Japanese people in a certain way, there are counter-discourses that challenge that definition, as seen in the various critiques of Nihonjinron (Befu, 1987, 2001; Dale, 1986; Iwabuchi, 1994; Lummis & Ikeda, 1985; Mouer & Sugimoto, 1986, 1995; Sugimoto & Mouer, 1982; Yoshino, 1992, 1997). This means that the answer to the question ‘What characterizes Japanese culture?’ is neither singular nor fixed; rather, it embodies a multiplicity of meanings that are constructed within discourses and compete against each other in a struggle for power. In this view, there is no transcendent truth outside of discourses and power

Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture

231

relations. This perspective indicates that the descriptive approach to culture, despite its usefulness in providing alternative knowledge that challenges prescriptive Nihonjinron, works within a modernist discourse of positivism that seeks objective truths. The notions of discourse and the discursive construction of knowledge further reveal the politics behind certain knowledge about culture and cultural difference, providing an understanding that such knowledge is often used strategically for pursuing certain political and ideological purposes. For instance, as Tai (1999) discusses the concept of cultural difference is used for different purposes. Under Japanese colonialism, cultural or linguistic difference was used as a rationale for assimilating the colonized people through teaching kokugo. However, the same concept was later used to draw a rigid boundary between the colonizer and the colonized, as seen in the distinction between kokugo and Nihongo, which served to preserve the pure essence of the culture of the Japanese, preventing the colonized from having access to it. Here, cultural difference is strategically used in different ways. While the former strategy is based on the logic of assimilation (i.e. ‘They are different, so they need to become like us’), the latter is based on alienation (i.e. ‘They are different, so they need a language different from ours’). Either way, cultural difference in this example is used for domination. Conversely, the same concept of cultural difference can be used by the oppressed to create a positive meaning for their own culture. Shifting the focus to the US context, we find this strategy in the Black Movement or Chicano Movement, in which these historically oppressed peoples redefined their identities by emphasizing their uniqueness in a positive sense. The plurality of meanings and functions of discourses implies the existence of contradictions and paradoxes in society. In the case of the Japanese colonial language policy, two contradictory policies (i.e. providing versus not providing access to kokugo) served the same underlying political aim. The global military conflicts after the events of 9/11 reveal many contradictions involving such concepts as freedom and justice. Teachers, as intellectuals committed to multiculturalism and cross-cultural understanding, need to notice and scrutinize the contradictions and paradoxes that a discourse reveals. A critical analysis of discourses is important for teachers and students, who are often passive consumers of various kinds of information, including teaching materials. It is commonly assumed that textbooks convey accurate facts about the target culture and language. However, as discussed so far, the definition of Japanese culture is highly contested. It is essential for teachers to become critical consumers and users of cultural information and to avoid conveying to the students fixed images of the target culture as objective

232

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

truths. To put the above discussion in context, the following section presents some examples from a textbook, which demonstrate that in many cases, if not all, things that are often understood as unique products, practices and perspectives of Japanese culture are discursive constructs rather than objective truths.

Critical Understanding of Cultural Information in Textbooks: Examples Some examples of how cultural information is presented are seen in Adventures in Japanese (Peterson, 1998, 1999, 2000; Adventures hereafter), a comprehensive textbook series developed for high school learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Divided into three volumes, Adventures contains a number of creative and useful communicative activities. The series also includes ‘cultural notes’ and a ‘cultural corner’, which present such topics as culturally specific language use, cultural products (e.g. food, parts of a house/ building and pop culture), cultural practices (e.g. school life, manners, retail services, gift giving, parties, sports and commuting), cultural perspectives or rationales behind products and practices (discussed below) and other cultural phenomena or concepts (e.g. nature, seasons and foreign influence). In the following discussion, it is not my intent to undermine the usefulness of this text or imply that teachers should not use it. Rather, I argue that the cultural information that appears in textbooks such as Adventures needs to be critically consumed and utilized in order to develop a deeper and nonessentialist insight into culture and language. In this sense, textbooks such as Adventures can provide excellent opportunities for further intellectual explorations and dialogues. The discussions in the previous section suggest that our understandings of culture and cultural difference are often products of discursive construction. Nihonjinron as a discourse significantly influences how teachers understand and present cultural practices, products and perspectives to their students. Revisiting the example of eating ozōni for the New Year’s holidays, to say that everyone in Japan enjoys this food for New Year’s celebrations reinforces the monoethnicity and cultural homogeneity promoted by Nihonjinron. Shifting attention from concrete objects (cultural products) to cultural practices and perspectives, cultural explanations become more problematic. For example, in explaining ‘Why are Japanese people ‘reserved’?’, Adventures states: …Japanese tend not to express their opinions freely. It may have to do partly with family upbringing and the education system. At home,

Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture

233

children are not always encouraged to form or express their own opinions, but must often subordinate themselves to their parents’ thinking. At school, students are not provided time for much discussion because of traditional teaching styles and large class sizes… (Peterson, 1998: 131) Here, a major difficulty is justifying the claim that the Japanese on the whole are more ‘reserved’ than Westerners, although the text mentions elsewhere that this is a stereotype. The explanation of this claim also requires scrutiny. The textbook takes it for granted that children in Japan are expected to comply with their parents more than in other cultures. An authoritarian teaching style and lack of class discussion are further presented as reasons for the Japanese reticence, but again, it is difficult to justify this claim. Although this image of the Japanese classroom may generally characterize junior and senior high schools in Japan, recent research has dispelled the myth that Japanese schools discourage independent thinking (LeTendre, 1999). Yet, the image of teacher-centered pedagogy and lack of critical thinking among Japanese students persists as a stereotype, influencing the thinking not only of the general public but also of researchers in creating a dichotomy of US and THEM. Ironically, when US researchers focus on domestic problems of education, the same negative images tend to be associated with American classrooms (Kubota, 2001). As the above example illustrates, trying to make an explicit connection between cultural practices and perspectives (or finding a causal link) can be problematic. In another example of this problem, Adventures provides the following explanation in response to the question, ‘Why do Japanese people always discuss weather when they greet each other?’: First, Japanese do not like to get directly to the point when speaking with one another. Talking about the weather is a ‘safe’ common ground from which to start a conversation. Another reason is the Japanese respect for nature. The native ‘religion’ of Japan is Shinto, which among other things can be described as a form of nature worship…. This ‘oneness’ with nature is reflected even in everyday interaction such as greetings. (Peterson, 1998: 30) Here, the practice of talking about the weather in greetings is considered to be culturally specific. While this notion may be commonly accepted, the premise that Japanese speakers tend to mention the weather in their greetings more often than speakers of other languages is mere speculation. Furthermore, the reasons behind this assumption are harder to infer. In this example, a causal link is drawn between the talk about the weather

234

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

and the Japanese tendency toward indirectness and respect for nature. This explanation sounds reasonable within the discourse of Nihonjinron because Nihonjinron emphasizes Japanese uniqueness in terms of language use (indirectness) and spiritual life (Shintoism). However, the perceived Japanese uniqueness such as indirectness in speech and respect for nature can be regarded not as objective facts but rather as discursive constructs for the following reasons. First, the indirectness of the Japanese language is a controversial topic in linguistics and applied linguistics research. It is indeed difficult to generalize the degree of indirectness in one language compared to another. This is partly because there are many speech situations and genres in writing as well as variations among language users in terms of their age, gender, social status and other aspects of their backgrounds. It is also because language, influenced by other languages of power, changes over time. For instance, globalization is homogenizing the ways that people communicate, using as the ideal the communication styles used mostly by white middle-class Americans (Cameron, 2002; Kubota, 2002). Second, as mentioned earlier, the notion that respect for nature is unique to the Japanese contradicts the large amount of environmental destruction happening all over Japan. This example illustrates that the discourse of Nihonjinron indeed makes a causal link between a cultural practice and cultural perspectives appear logical and plausible. As demonstrated in this example, attempting to explain what seems to be a culturally specific practice with cultural perspectives presents problems. Another example is the explanation of why Japanese people do not say ‘… -tai desu ka’ (Do you want to…?) and ‘… hoshii desu ka’ (Do you want…?) to superiors. As an explanation for this linguistic phenomenon, the textbook states that the Japanese avoid directness in language and behavior because they live on small islands and prefer to avoid conflict. The text says, ‘the Japanese are sensitive about living harmoniously and “keeping peace”’ (Peterson, 1998: 244). While these expressions may not usually be used with superiors, the cultural perspectives behind this phenomenon can only be speculated upon. Yet, this causal relationship is justified as cultural fact in the discourse of Nihonjinron. These examples raise the question of whether cultural practices need to be ‘explained’ at all, when very often they are arbitrary. Connecting cultural practices or products with cultural perspectives, as the National Standards encourage students to do, could merely reinforce the dominant discourse or stereotypes. Emphasizing the exotic and alien images of Japan may fascinate and motivate students. However, stressing the uniqueness of Japan reinforces a cultural dichotomy that is embedded in the current West versus Islam paradigm mentioned at the beginning of this chapter.

Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture

235

It is important to be aware that such a dichotomy often manifests a certain perceived relation of power – ‘US’ as ‘superior’ and ‘THEM’ as ‘inferior’ or vice versa. The critiques presented in this chapter indicate that teachers need to challenge cultural essentialism by raising their awareness of competing discourses that generate different views about Japanese culture. To understand these divergent views, teachers need to become familiar with counter-discourses that problematize Nihonjinron through reading works by such critics as the ones cited in this chapter. When encountering teaching materials that present essentialist assumptions about the uniqueness of Japanese culture, teachers may try to deconstruct the information by asking questions such as: Does this cultural explanation apply to all people in all situations in Japan? Can the same phenomena happen in other cultures? Are there any contradicting phenomena? How is this explanation made plausible? Teachers are often encouraged to seek accurate information which may be left out of textbooks or other teaching materials. However, it is important to further understand that in postmodern society with multiple discourses clashing or converging, ‘accuracy of information’ is often difficult to obtain. An important point is that teachers and students need to explore multiple perspectives and to critically examine plural ways of representing perceived cultural facts.

Conclusion Our understanding of culture and cultural difference shapes not only our knowledge of human behaviors, values and beliefs, but also our social, professional and political actions. In discussing multiplicity within culture and the shifting and constructed nature of culture, this chapter does not suggest that culture or cultural difference ceases to exist. Rather, it suggests that teachers as professionals go beyond the static, essentialist and neutral view of culture and explore instead how culture is understood and manifested in many different ways and how common knowledge of culture is implicated in politics and relations of power. The skill to analyze culture in this way is particularly important in an increasingly complex world that requires a sophisticated understanding of how and why people live and act the way they do. As the events of 9/11 and related debates demonstrate, foreign language teachers and students are surrounded by powerful discourses that reduce the world’s cultures into simplistic binary oppositions of US versus THEM. However, foreign language education that aims to foster cross-cultural understanding among global citizens must explore ways to expose the politics of cultural difference and seek non-essentialist understandings of culture.

236

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

Note (1) Reprint from Kubota, R. (2003) Critical teaching of Japanese Culture. Japanese Language and Literature 37, 67–87.

References Aoki, T. (1990) ‘Nihonbunkaron’ no hen’yō: Sengo Nihon no bunka to aidentitī (The Metamorphosis of Nihonbunkaron: Japanese Postwar Culture and Identity). Tokyo: Chūōkōronsha. Befu, H. (1987) Ideorogī to shite no Nihon bunkaron (The Theory of Japanese Culture as an Ideology). Tokyo: Shisō no Kagakusha. Befu, H. (2001) Hegemony of Homogeneity: An Anthropological Analysis of Nihonjinron. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press. Cameron, D. (2002) Globalization and the teaching of ‘communication skills’. In D. Block and D. Cameron (eds) Globalization and Language Teaching (pp. 67–82). London: Routledge. Dale, P. (1986) The Myth of Japanese Uniqueness. London: Croom Helm. Doi, T. (1971) Amae no kōzō (Structure of Dependence). Tokyo: Kōbundō. (Translated as The Anatomy of Dependence by John Bester. Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1973.) Huntington, S.P. (1993) The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs 72, 22–49. Huntington, S.P. (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster. Iwabuchi, K. (1994) Complicit exoticism: Japan and its other. Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media & Culture 8 (2). See http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ ReadingRoom/8.2/Iwabuchi.html (accessed December 2013). Kincheloe, J.L. and Steinberg, S.R. (1997) Changing Multiculturalism. Buckingham: Open University Press. Kubota, R. (1999) Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied linguistics research and English language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33 (1), 9–35. Kubota, R. (2001) Discursive construction of the images of U.S. classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 35 (1), 9–38. Kubota, R. (2002) Impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In D. Block and D. Cameron (eds) Globalization and Language Teaching (pp. 13–28). London: Routledge. Kubota, R. (forthcoming) Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In B. Norton and K. Toohey (eds) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LeTendre, G.K. (1999) The problem of Japan: Qualitative studies and international educational comparisons. Educational Researcher 28 (2), 38–45. Lummis, D. and Ikeda, M. (1985) Nihonjinron no shinsō (The Background of the Uniqueness of the Japanese). Tokyo: Haru Shobō. May, S. (1999) Critical multiculturalism and cultural difference: Avoiding essentialism. In S. May (ed.) Critical Multiculturalism: Rethinking Multicultural and Anti-racist Education (pp. 11–41). London: Falmer Press. May, S. (2009) Critical multiculturalism and education. In J. Banks (ed.) Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education (pp. 33–48). New York: Routledge. Mouer, R. and Sugimoto, Y. (1986) Images of Japanese Society. London: Kegan Paul International.

Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture

237

Mouer, R. and Sugimoto, Y. (1995) Nihonjinron at the end of the twentieth century: A multicultural perspective. In J.P. Amason and Y. Sugimoto (eds) Japanese Encounters with Postmodernity (pp. 237–269). London and New York: Kegan Paul International. Nakane, C. (1967) Tate shakai no ningen kankei; Tan’itsu shakai no riron (Human Relations in Vertical Society: A Theory of a Unitary Society). Tokyo: Kodansha. (Translated as Japanese Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973.) National Standards in Foreign Language Project (1999) Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. Nieto, S. (1995) From brown heroes and holidays to assimilationist agendas: Reconsidering the critiques of multicultural education. In C.E. Sleeter and P.L. McLaren (eds) Multicultural Education, Critical Pedagogy, and the Politics of Difference (pp. 191–220). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Osborn, T.A. (2000) Critical Reflection and the Foreign Language Classroom. Westport, CN: Bergin & Garvey. Peterson, H. (1998) Adventures in Japanese I: Textbook. Boston, MA: Cheng & Tsui Company. Peterson, H. (1999) Adventures in Japanese II: Textbook. Boston, MA: Cheng & Tsui Company. Peterson, H. (2000) Adventures in Japanese III: Textbook. Boston, MA: Cheng & Tsui Company. Reischauer, E. (1978) The Japanese. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ritzer, G. (1996) The McDonaldization of Society. London: Sage. Said, E.W. (2001) The clash of ignorance. The Nation, October 22. See http://www. thenation.com/doc.mhtml?I=20011022&s=said&c=1(accessed December 2013). Sugimoto, Y. and Mouer, R. (1982) Nihonjin wa ‘nihonteki’ ka (Are the Japanese ‘Very Japanese’?). Tokyo: Tōyō Keizai Shinpōsha. Susser, B. (1998) EFL’s othering of Japan: Orientalism in English language teaching. JALT Journal 20 (1), 49–82. Tai, E. (1999) Kokugo and colonial education in Taiwan. positions: east asia cultures critique 7 (2), 503–530. Tsunoda, T. (1978) Nihonjin no nō: Nō no hataraki to tōzai no bunka (The Japanese Brain: Functions of the Brain and the Culture of the East and the West). Tokyo: Taishūkan. Vogel, E.F. (1979) Japan as Number One. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weedon, C. (1987) Feminist Practice & Poststructuralist Theory. Oxford and New York: Blackwell. Yoshino, K. (1992) Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary Japan. London: Routledge. Yoshino, K. (1997) Bunka nashonarizumu no shakaigaku (Sociology of Cultural Nationalism). Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai.

11 The Process of Standardization of Language and Culture in a Japaneseas-a-Foreign-Language Classroom: Analysis of Teacher–Students Interactions Yuri Kumagai

Introduction One of the issues of Japanese language education that takes place outside of Japan that is critically different from those within Japan is the fact that the quantity and quality of Japanese language and cultural practices that students can experience is extremely limited (Thompson-Kinoshita, 2002). Certainly, thanks to the development of the internet and the widespread popularity of Japanese popular cultures such as anime and manga, the opportunities for Japanese language learners to indirectly encounter Japan all over the world have dramatically increased. However, it is still the case in some contexts that direct contacts with Japan for learners of the Japanese language are only Japanese language textbooks and their teachers. Therefore, in the context of learning Japanese as a foreign language (FL; i.e. studying outside of Japan), the kinds of text used as teaching materials as well as the types of interactions between the teachers and students in a classroom are extremely important in shaping the students’ understanding and ideas about Japanese language and culture. In Chapter 9, I discussed the important role that a Japanese language textbook plays as a mechanism to transmit a particular ideology. In this 238

Standardization of Language and Culture in a JFL Classroom

239

chapter, based on the data from a classroom-based ethnography that I have conducted in a Japanese language classroom in a US college (Kumagai, 2004), I examine the process of the standardization of language and culture by analyzing interactions between a teacher and students during literacy events.1 I first and foremost identify myself as a FL teacher. I have been teaching Japanese to US college students for 20 years and I firmly believe in a critical approach in general, and I highly value critical literacy in particular (see Kumagai, Chapter 9 in this book). I question some of the taken-for-granted assumptions about language teaching (and learning) and strive to implement a critical approach in my own teaching practice. As a researcher, I draw on critical sociocultural approaches to language and literacy (e.g. Fairclough, 1993; Gee, 1990) and a feminist post-structuralist theory (e.g. Brodkey, 1996; Weedon, 1997). Informed by a post-structural understanding of knowledge and reality, I take a position that one’s actions (linguistic and otherwise) are strongly shaped and limited by available discourses. By looking at classroom practices as instantiations of multiple and often competing discourses, it would provide me with a way to discuss the participants’ talking and their actions as discursively constructed. In other words, it is not the essential quality of the ‘actors’ that brings about certain actions, but rather it is accessible discourses that severely limit what is possibly done. What is seeable, imaginable and doable depends on various discourses that are available to them. I believe that institutional and educational changes would be possible only ‘if people learn not one but several discourses along with whatever languages they learn’ (Brodkey, 1993: 17). This would ‘disrupt’ and ‘interrupt’ the hegemonic discursive practices. Based on a review of research and pedagogical reports, I briefly summarize and highlight below how texts2 are conceptualized in the field of FL education in order to understand the kinds of discourse a teacher draws on for planning and conducting teaching practices.

The Role of Texts in Teaching a Foreign Language One dominant view regarding the role of texts in FL reading instruction is to treat them as sources of language ‘data’ (Alderson, 1984; Devitt, 1997; Elley, 1984). Typically, these ‘data’ are used for language exercises (Alderson & Urquhart, 1984; Bernhardt, 1991; Elley, 1984), such as to examine grammar and vocabulary (and kanji, Chinese characters, in the case of Japanese language) and to practice oral decoding (Grabe, 1991). The goal of reading instruction in FL teaching is often literal comprehension (Wallace, 2003). Usually, students’ comprehension is considered to be achieved when their

240

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

answers match the instructor’s understanding of the text. In a traditional FL classroom where a teacher-dominated, one-meaning approach to the text is prevalent, reading practice is often reduced to a prescriptive pattern of ‘read– respond–check response for correctness’(Alderson & Urquhart, 1984: 116). An underlying assumption is that there is one correct interpretation of a text. With this assumption, the task of the students is to decipher linguistic codes and uncover the meanings encoded by the authors. Generally speaking, the texts included in Japanese textbooks are written mainly on topics concerning Japanese customs and societal issues. As I discussed in Chapter 9, one of the characteristics of such texts is their tendency to present linguistic and cultural rules and norms as truths. In FL education, it is considered important for learners to receive and accumulate such knowledge about Japanese customs and cultural practices by reading texts (Byram, 1997). The themes introduced by the texts are often used as ‘convenient topics’ for speaking exercises (Wallace, 2003).

Constructing, Consuming and Reproducing ‘Correctness’ It is necessary to emphasize here that the purpose of analyzing classroom interactions is not to criticize or judge the teacher’s abilities or pedagogical approaches. It is important to view a teacher’s actions (linguistic and otherwise) as constructed and constricted by the dominant discourses in the field of FL education (Brodkey, 1996; Gee, 1990). The teacher’s teaching philosophy (e.g. ‘Language learning should be fun’ and ‘It is better for students to speak up about “anything”’) is also a product of such discourses. Students, especially those of college age (as in this study), have been socialized in the school systems for many years. Based on their past experiences, they have internalized what is expected of them and how to be successful in ‘doing school’ (Bloome & Willett, 1991). It is extremely important for students to learn and behave according to classroom rules and routines, and to gain membership within the classroom community (Wenger, 1998). The teaching and learning of language and literacy in a classroom are not only linguistic processes but also socially (and discursively) constructed processes (Bloome & Willett, 1991; Green, 1983). What is socially and discursively constructed in classroom practices through interaction are not only social and linguistic structures (i.e. routine of teacher–student interaction and ways of interacting in the classroom), but also ‘values,

Standardization of Language and Culture in a JFL Classroom

241

roles, categories, and statuses’ (Bloome & Willett, 1991: 214). It is both the teachers’ and the students’ internalized and subconscious ways of being and doing that shape the classroom practices that could potentially facilitate the processes of standardization and normalization of language and culture. In what follows, first, I describe the context and participants in the study, and show critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1993, 2003) of classroom interactions during two literacy events in order to demonstrate how the processes of language and cultural standardization occur in the classroom. Then, I explore the possible reasons for such processes facilitated by the teacher by incorporating her own interpretations of particular events. I end this chapter with some thoughts on ways that we, as language teachers, can disrupt such processes as well as attend to students’ concerns by engaging in ‘dialogues’ in classrooms (Kurachi, 2006a; Wells, 1999).

The Study This chapter is based on the findings from a year-long, classroom-based ethnography I conducted in an intensive, second-year Japanese (Japanese II) classroom at Stanton College,3 a small women’s liberal arts college located in a New England town in the USA (Kumagai 2004). Stanton College is one of the most prestigious women’s colleges in the USA and has a long history of providing the highest education for women emphasizing its feminist missions. The primary data-gathering methods included classroom observations, writing field notes, audio/video-recording of classroom interactions and conducting formal and informal interviews with all the participants. At the end of the data-gathering phase, I met with each student for approximately one hour to conduct a formal interview. With Ms Tanaka, the teacher of the class, I conducted two semiformal, open-ended interviews in Japanese, one at the beginning and the other at the end of the academic year. Each interview lasted for one and a half to two hours. All interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed for analysis. My continuous dialogue with Ms Tanaka over three years (during and after the data-gathering phase) was also an essential part of the research process.4 Upon finishing the draft of the larger study, I asked Ms Tanaka to read the draft and comment on my analysis and interpretations. I used these occasions to further question and build depth into the initial analyses and interpretations. The participants in the study were Ms Tanaka and her whole class.5 Ms Tanaka is a native Japanese woman in her mid thirties (at the time of study) and had extensive training and experience in teaching Japanese as a FL both in Japan and in the USA. During one interview, Ms Tanaka described herself as a ‘friendly’, ‘funny’ and ‘encouraging’ teacher. She described

242

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

her stance as a teacher as favoring student-centered pedagogy and not being authoritarian. She also characterized her general philosophy on life as ‘kotonakare-shugi’ (ostrich philosophy), which signifies that she values smooth and harmonious human relations by avoiding conflict and dispute. During the year that I observed the course, there were 10 students in the class: 6 Asian Americans, 3 white Americans and 1 international student from Korea. It was a small class (typical for this college) where 15 was the maximum number of students allowed in a language course. In terms of socio-economic status, they all identified themselves as middle class during the interviews. Almost all of them were multilingual and multiliterate in other languages besides English and Japanese. In Japanese II class, the everyday lesson was usually organized in such a way that texts from the textbook played a central role. The textbook used in the class, An Integrated Approach to Intermediate Japanese (1st edn) (Miura & McGloin, 1994), is a widely used textbook that targets US college students as its audience. Each unit in the textbook is thematically organized (e.g. ‘On College Campus’, ‘Home-stay’) and highlights specific communicative functions (e.g. asking for permission, giving advice) as objectives. The textbook also has sections for ‘cultural notes’, vocabulary lists, grammar explanations and exercises, and discussion topics. The course was one year long and the class met for 50 minutes each day (Monday to Friday). It is important to mention that the students in Japanese II had Ms Tanaka as their instructor from the beginning of their Japanese studies (i.e. from the previous year); after meeting every day for more than a year, the students and Ms Tanaka had come to know each other quite well, co-constructing a friendly, comfortable and cooperative classroom community.

The Process of Standardization of Japanese Language and Culture I realize that language and culture are interdependent and inseparable, dialectically influencing each other. However, in order to highlight the points that each example vividly demonstrates, I analyze and discuss the standardization process of ‘language’ and of ‘culture’ separately under the different headings below.

The process of language standardization In this section, by analyzing moment-by-moment interactions between the teacher and the students, I demonstrate how the topic of

Standardization of Language and Culture in a JFL Classroom

243

‘women’s and men’s language’ was treated, which subsequently facilitated its standardization and normalization in the classroom. In order to contextualize the event, I briefly introduce how the topic was presented in the textbook. The textbook explains the different styles in Japanese language in the special section called, ‘Notes on Style’ in Chapter 2. Along with explanations about three different types of predicate endings (e.g. desu/masu-forms, da-forms and dearu-forms), the topic of women’s and men’s speech styles is introduced (Miura & McGloin, 1994: 35–36). The authors begin their explanations with a statement, ‘In casual conversation, there is a distinctive difference between men’s speech and women’s speech in Japanese’, and present a chart that lists men’s and women’s lexical options in a separate column. The list includes what the authors call ‘typically feminine’ sentence endings, such as ‘wa’ and ‘kashira’, and ‘typically masculine’ endings, such as ‘dai’, ‘ze’ and ‘zo’. Then they state: Note that younger speakers of Japanese are less likely to use sentence endings strongly typical of their sexes. So, younger women tend not to use the typically feminine sentence particle wa, and some younger men prefer not to use typically masculine particles zo, ze, kai, etc. (Miura & McGloin, 1994: 36) In other words, the authors, although briefly, state that Japanese youth do not typically follow the gendered grammatical rules. Despite the disclaimer, in ‘dialogues’ in the textbook, young men and women speak with ‘typically feminine’ and ‘typically masculine’ sentence ending particles. Also, the authors’ use of a chart presenting separate categories between man and woman indicates their intention to have students recognize the differences visually and learn them as static and distinct (as the line separates the two columns). There is no mention of the variations that exist in the use of the markers depending on historical, generational, geographical, social and political contexts (see Okamoto, Chapter 4, this book; also, Mizumoto, 2006; Okamoto, 1995; Okamoto & Shibamoto-Smith, 2004; Reynolds-Akiba, 1990; Tsujimura, 1996). They ignored the fact that those markers are social conventions that Japanese speakers use to assert their social identities or to signal their membership of a particular group in a particular context. Now I turn to the classroom interactions to examine how the teacher treated ‘women’s and men’s language’ in a classroom lesson. It is important to keep in mind that Stanton College’s educational philosophy is based on feminism and all of the students in Japanese II are female.

244

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

Example 1: Women’s and men’s language The following interactions are the scenes where Ms Tanaka is testing the students’ knowledge of the difference between women’s and men’s language as used in the model dialogue during the lesson.6 Scene 1 1 Tanaka:

…then, this one, this ending, these students A and B, a man and a woman, [their] language are different, aren’t they? 2 Is it all right? 3 For example, let’s see, the most different one is, okay, student A (male) said ‘ôi (hey), English teacher’, right? 4 The word ‘ôi’ is, well, a word that men often use. 5 If it is a woman, what would [she] say when calling on someone? 6 What does [she] say, [as] a woman? 7 Men say ‘chotto, ôi’ but 8 I wonder if you remember. (Ms Danaj raises her hand slightly) 9 Ms Danaj? 10 Danaj: Don’t [women] use ‘ôi’? 11 Tanaka: Wonen don’t use it much, [I] think. 12 Yeah. In this scene, Ms Tanaka highlighted different gendered linguistic choices (line 1) and asked the students what would be the appropriate way of saying the script for the male part as a woman (lines 5 and 6). By asking students ‘Is it all right?’ (line 2) and ‘I wonder if you remember’ (line 8), Ms Tanaka was encouraging the students to recall the different lexical options for male and female that they had studied previously. That is, Ms Tanaka was testing the students’ knowledge of information about gendered linguistic choices. Ms Tanaka began this scene with relative confidence in claiming that ‘ôi’ is a word that men often use – a rule that has no space for any doubt (line 4). Her confidence was demonstrated in the way that she constructed statements in the present tense, simple declarative sentences without any subjective modalities (lines 4 and 7). Then, she positioned women (in general) in opposition to men and asked the students what was the appropriate linguistic option for women (lines 5 and 6). However, unexpectedly, one of the students, Ms Danaj, questioned the truthfulness of Ms Tanaka’s statement (line 10). In response to Ms Danaj’s question, Ms Tanaka adjusted her proposition to a more subjective one by adding ‘I think’ (line 11). Ms Danaj’s spontaneous question seemed to have

Standardization of Language and Culture in a JFL Classroom

245

alerted Ms Tanaka to her categorical assertion. As if to give herself a selfagreeing response, Ms Tanaka ends this scene with ‘yeah’ (line 12). Scene 2 Immediately following the above scene, Ms Danaj remarked, ‘That’s sexism, isn’t it?’. Ms Tanaka appeared to be a little taken aback by the comment. However, she did not take up the topic and quickly ended the interaction by answering her own question. 13 Danaj: That’s sexism, isn’t it? 14 Tanaka: That may be so. 15 Women often say ‘nee, nee’, right? 16 Men [say] ‘ôi’. 17 Women [say] ‘nee’. 18 Okay? As Ms Danaj labeled such practice as ‘sexism’ (line 13), Ms Tanaka giggled a little, acknowledged Ms Danaj’s comment and quickly provided an answer to her own question (lines 15–17). Ms Tanaka’s response, ‘That may be so’ (line 14), reflected her uncommitted stance regarding the issue raised by Ms Danaj. Ms Tanaka’s nervous laughter (giggle) and her haste to end the exchange by offering an answer to her own question seem to indicate that she did not feel comfortable continuing to discuss the possible ‘sexism’ viewpoint of this issue. Her utterance ‘Okay?’ (line 18) functioned as a closure to this short exchange and a signal to move forward to the next phase. By not taking up the topic and quickly ending the interaction, Ms Tanaka was implicitly regulating what can (and cannot) be talked about within the classroom lesson topic. Even though the issue of different gendered linguistic options was put on the floor by Ms Tanaka, the social and political implications or interpretations of such language practice was not the direction that Ms Tanaka was willing to take. Through such interactions, the students were socialized into classroom practices and learned that their role was learning the linguistic rules and facts, rather than questioning or critiquing them. Scene 3 Following the above scene, Ms Tanaka highlighted another line from the dialogue as an example of male speech pattern and asked the students again what would be an ‘appropriate’ way to say the equivalent as a woman. 19 Tanaka: And then, ‘how do [you] say ‘cave’ in English?’ 20 The phrase, ‘something something dai’ too, is in many cases, used by men.

246

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

21 22 23 24 25 Lin: 26 Tanaka: 27 28 29 30 31 32

Then, what’d be appropriate for you all (minasan) to say? Do you have any idea? ‘as for a cave, what…what…?’ How would YOU finish the sentence? Say no (iu no)? Right. It’s good to say ‘how do you say no’, right? ‘how do you say no?’ Okay, good, right? Then, there, do you have any questions, everyone? [about] this sentence, this dialogue Okay?

In this scene, Ms Tanaka’s efforts to elicit an answer from the students were highly observable. Her question in line 21, ‘what’d be appropriate for you to say?’ itself could be interpreted as a cue for an answer to the very question. Another effort is seen in line 23 where she repeatedly said ‘what…what?’. She further encouraged the students to respond by posing a question in English (line 24). In response to Ms Tanaka’s repeated attempts, Ms Lin successfully completed Ms Tanaka’s incomplete statements in line 23 (line 25). Ms Tanaka gave Ms Lin an approving remark and emphasized the phrase by modeling it twice with an overly feminine tone of voice (lines 27 and 28). In this scene, the way Ms Tanaka pointed out the male lexical option was more cautious than in her previous statement in Scene 1. During Scene 1, when pointing out the male speech pattern, she made the categorical statement in simple declarative sentences; in this scene, however, the statement she used was ‘in many cases, used by men’ (line 20). There are two possible interpretations for the slight shift in Ms Tanaka’s position regarding the rule for men’s language that she demonstrated through her language choice. One, Ms Tanaka might have recognized that the gendered linguistic options are not as definite and fixed as the textbook described – or, as she had previously presented. Two, Ms Tanaka wanted to avoid further questions from the students. Since she did not engage the students in discussing the issue of the ‘fuzzy’ boundary between male and female gendered linguistic options, probably the second interpretation is more likely. I will present Ms Tanaka’s own comments about this incident in the discussion section; they clearly indicate that she intended to avoid the problem. What is noteworthy in this scene in comparison with the beginning scene is the fact that Ms Tanaka shifted the subject of the questions from the general category of ‘women’ to the students, ‘you all (minasan)’

Standardization of Language and Culture in a JFL Classroom

247

(said in Japanese) (line 21) and to ‘you’ (said in English) (line 24). Because in the beginning scene the questions were posed with the third person (a woman or women) as the subject of the statement, there was room for the students not to take up the position of ‘those women’ whose linguistic options were restricted. In this scene, however, because of the use of ‘you’ in Ms Tanaka’s statements, the students were positioned as the ones who were subjected to the female linguistic terms. Such restriction is further reinforced by her use of ‘wa’ as in ‘minasan wa’ that is a topic marker used for contrast and/or emphasis (line 21). By doing so, Ms Tanaka implicitly sent a message to the students that their linguistic choices were restricted to those of women. Drawing on the ideology of ‘standardized language’ within the field of Japanese language education, Ms Tanaka emphasized what is ‘appropriate’ for her students.

The process of cultural standardization and differentiation As previously mentioned, Japanese language textbooks have a strong tendency to present such topics as customs and traditions that are considered as unique in Japan at its core. In order to engage students with a topic, it is common for teachers to give speaking exercises where students compare and contrast what is described in the text with their own cultural practices. In this section, by looking at the classroom interactions around the text entitled ‘Japanese people who love gift-giving’, I examine how stereotypes about Japanese language and cultures were possibly constructed and perpetuated.

Example 2: ‘Souvenirs’ and ‘weird Japanese’ Scene 1 In this scene, the students were reading a paragraph from a text that described the two types of the sociocultural practice of ‘omiyage (souvenirs)’ in Japan: one is to buy a small gift to take when visiting someone’s home; the other is to buy souvenirs (for others) when traveling to, for example, other countries. The authors said that the souvenirs (i.e. the second type) sought out were often local food items. The following is the paragraph that describes the souvenir shopping behaviors of the Japanese people: This custom of buying souvenir is becoming extreme. Recently, there has been an increase of Japanese people going to foreign countries; these people [Japanese tourists], as soon as arriving to a foreign destination, begin shopping with a concern for souvenirs. By the locals, such behaviors are viewed as eerie. (Miura & McGloin, 1994: 189, translation mine)

248

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

After the students read the above paragraph out loud in a roundrobin format, Ms Tanaka began asking questions to check the students’ comprehension of the passage. 55 Tanaka: Well then, when foreigners find out the customs, which one do [they] think is ‘weird’, ‘What? Creepy!’? 56 Is it the first type of omiyage [a thing to bring to someone’s home when invited]? 57 The second type [souvenirs during a trip]? 58 Danaj: The second one. 59 Tanaka: uh huh. It is the second type of omiyage, right? 60 why is that, Ms. Chen? 61 Chen: Why 62 Tanaka: uh huh. Why is it weird? 63 Chen: Things from other places are, …[you] don’t know, so, that food are, …um…um…specialties from the regions are strange, [I/they] think. 64 Tanaka: Is that the Japanese people who think it’s strange? 65 Well? Just a minutes, okay. 66 All right, then. Responding to Ms Tanaka’s question, ‘which [omiyage practice] do [foreigners] think is “weird”?’ (lines 55–57), Ms Danaj immediately answered that it was the second kind of omiyage that foreigners think is weird (line 58). Ms Tanaka then asked Ms Chen why that was the case (line 60). Ms Chen’s answer (line 63) indicated that she did not fully understand what was written in the text. Therefore, it prompted Ms Tanaka to create a scenario for an imaginary trip to Hong Kong and asked the students what they would want to do once they arrived there as well as what Japanese people would probably do according to the text descriptions. Scene 2 In Scene 2, Ms Tanaka asked the students what they would want to do once they arrived there. Subsequently in Scene 3, she asked what the Japanese people would do according to the reading, having students compare and contrast the students’ and Japanese people’s behaviors. The purpose of these questions and answers was to make sure that the students correctly understood the content of the text. 67 Tanaka: For example, everyone, do you want to go on a trip now? 68 a place you wanna go, except Japan. 69 Lin: I would like to go to Hong Kong.

Standardization of Language and Culture in a JFL Classroom

249

70 Tanaka: What? 71 Lin: Hong Kong. 72 Tanaka: Hong Kong. 73 Then, [you] want to go to Hong Kong. 74 Now, everyone, [you] go to Hong Kong. … 80 Okay, from now, everyone, [you] will be in Hong Kong for a week. 81 Okay, first, what do you want to do? 82 Lin: Shopping or sightseeing, I want to do. 83 Tanaka: Right. Sightseeing or shopping, you want to do. 84 Lin: Yes. 85 Tanaka: How about other people? (Continues eliciting other activities that the students might do while in Hong Kong.) The purpose of Ms Tanaka’s question above, ‘first, what do you want to do?’ (line 81) was to compare the students’ possible and desired behaviors with that of the ‘weird’ Japanese behavior depicted in the text. In accomplishing that goal, Ms Tanaka must have hoped that the students’ answers were anything but ‘shopping’. Certainly, going shopping while on a trip is not a behavior that is particular to ‘weird’ Japanese; perhaps, many if not most would do that. However, for Ms Tanaka to clearly show what was depicted in the text to the students, ‘shopping’ was not the answer she wanted. Ms Lin who suggested Hong Kong as the destination for the imaginary trip (line 69), however, answered Ms Tanaka’s question by saying ‘shopping and sightseeing’ with a slight chuckle (line 82). Several interpretations for Ms Lin’s chuckle are possible. First, she chuckled because by saying ‘shopping’ as the activity she would like to do first, she might have seen some irony in identifying herself with the Japanese tourists depicted in the text as ‘eerie’. Second, she chuckled because she knew that ‘shopping’ was the answer Ms Tanaka did not want. Third, she chuckled because ‘shopping’ is a kind of activity that could stereotypically be regarded as a ‘girl’s territory’ or something not to be particularly proud about. Nevertheless, let us note Ms Tanaka’s linguistic behavior after Ms Lin’s utterance. In line 83, Ms Tanaka reformulated Ms Lin’s answer by reversing the order of activities by saying ‘sightseeing or shopping’; that is, Ms Tanaka foregrounded ‘sightseeing’ over ‘shopping’, making Ms Lin’s answer a better fit to her agenda. This will become clearer when analyzing the next scene, but in this scene, Ms Tanaka did not pose follow-up questions to find out the purpose of the ‘shopping’. That seems to indicate that she did not want to highlight the answer ‘shopping’ in this context.

250

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

Scene 3 Following the above scene, Ms Tanaka elicited several more ideas for tourist activities from the students, and then moved on to the scene where she asked what would Japanese do in the same situation. 108 Tanaka: Ok, now [let’s talk about] Japanese people. 109 Japanese people went to Hong Kong from Japan. (draws a picture of many Japanese tourists on a blackboard) 110 Okay, these are all Japanese. 111 ‘okaaaay, everone, this way, please!’ (mimics as if being a tour guide) (students laugh) 112 [it’s] a tour 113 Many Japanese came to Hong Kong. 114 As a stereotype for Japanese, there is a camera here. (draws cameras around the necks of the people in the picture) (students laugh) … 121 Okay, these people, first of all, what will they do? 122 Lin: Shopping. 123 Tanaka: Right. It’s shopping, but what kind of shopping is it? 124 Zen: [They are] doing shopping [because they are] worrying about souvenirs. 125 Tanaka: Right, that’s right, isn’t it? 126 Perhaps, the first day arriving to Hong Kong, the places [they] will go are the souvenir shops. At the beginning of this scene, she introduced a new (and contrasting) topic by saying ‘now, Japanese people’ (line 108). In order to highlight the image of Japanese tourists, Ms Tanaka brought in several stereotypical beliefs that are commonly attached to Japanese: (1) participating in a guided tour together as a big group (lines 110–113); (2) moving around as a group (lines 110 and 113); and (3) carrying cameras around their necks (line 114). She quickly drew funny pictures on the blackboard, which captured the students’ attention as indicated by their laughter. After constructing the visual image of Japanese tourists, Ms Tanaka asked the students, ‘these people, first of all, what will they do?’ (line 121). Ms Lin answered, again, ‘shopping’ (line 122). This time, Ms Tanaka asked her to elaborate on her answer by saying ‘but what kind of shopping is it?’ (line 123). Ms Zen gave her a satisfactory answer to this question by saying shopping that is out of ‘worry for souvenirs’ (line 124). After giving Ms Zen an approval remark, Ms Tanaka restated

Standardization of Language and Culture in a JFL Classroom

251

that ‘the first day arriving to Hong Kong, the places [they] will go are the souvenir shops’ (line 126). One of the issues that needs to be problematized here is the fact that Ms Tanaka actively highlighted stereotypes attached to Japanese people. By bringing up the stereotypes, Ms Tanaka successfully painted a picture of Japanese tourists that was markedly in contrast with ‘you’ the students. In other words, Ms Tanaka created a dichotomy of ‘you’ and ‘them’. Interestingly, Ms Tanaka seemed to position herself outside of the discourse of the ‘strange Japanese tourists’. By referring to the drawing of Japanese tourists on the blackboard as ‘these people’ (line 121), she objectified the Japanese tourists and separated herself from them. Scene 4 Immediately after the above scene, Ms Danaj took the floor and asked Ms Tanaka a question about the truthfulness regarding the images of Japanese tourists that were depicted in the text and recreated by Ms Tanaka. 127 Danaj: Is it true? 128 Is it a stereotype? 129 Tanaka: Let’s see [we wonder]. 130 Is there anyone who’s been to Japan? 131 Well, Japanese people, 132 This is my opinion, but 133 Even among Japanese, there are many different Japanese, right? 134 So [I] think it’s different depending on a person. (135–140 Tanaka tells a story about her own souvenir-shopping episode that is different from what is described in the text.) 141 So, I think it depends on the person, but… For Ms Danaj’s question, ‘Is it true or is it a stereotype?’ (lines 127 and 128), Ms Tanaka did not provide a direct answer. Instead, with a disclaimer, ‘This is my opinion, but’ (line 132), she said because ‘there are many different Japanese’ (line 133), it ‘depends on the person’ (line 134). In other words, even though she did not directly state ‘it is a stereotype’, she acknowledged the diversity that exists among Japanese people. She further told the story of her own omiyage shopping experience (lines 135–140), she emphasized that she is different from those Japanese depicted in the text and concluded the scene by saying, again, ‘I think it depends on the person’ (line 141).

252

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

Scene 5 After telling a personal story, Ms Tanaka asked the students for their opinions about the phenomenon depicted in the text. Without waiting for any replies, however, she redirected the question to, once again, what would Japanese people do in another hypothetical scenario. 156 Tanaka: Okaay, everyone, how is it? 157 If you see such a Japanese person, what do you think? 158 For example, your friend, a Japanese friend, came to Stanton College. 159 Well, this is a bit of a stereotype. 160 Please think stereotypically. 161 Then, a Japanese person came to visit Stanton College. 162 Last night, [s/he] arrived at Stanton. 163 [Regarding] the first place that person visits, where would that be? 164 Danaj: Bookstore. 165 Tanaka: A bookstore, that’s right, isn’t it? 166 That’s what, stereotype, it’s a little stereotypical, but 167 this is, what this textbook is saying is, in other words, things like that. Responding to Ms Tanaka’s redirected question, Ms Danaj answered, ‘a bookstore’ (line 164). Initially, Ms Danaj took a critical stance toward the textual representation of stereotypical images of Japanese people; however, by the end of this event, she learned to follow the teacher’s script and give answers that match what is expected from the teacher. What we can observe in this example is the fact that Ms Tanaka was caught up in making sure of the students’ understanding of the content of the text. As a result, she took part in emphasizing and reproducing cultural stereotypes.

Discussion The role of ‘language’ teachers Example 1 closely examined the interactions between the teacher and the students on the issue of rules for ‘women’s language and men’s language’. This issue of gendered language practice is a topic that is well researched and discussed in the field of sociolinguistics (e.g. Bonvillain, 2000; Ide & McGloin, 1990; Lakoff, 1975; Talbot, 1998). In particular, it is well known

Standardization of Language and Culture in a JFL Classroom

253

that Japanese language has special linguistic markers to indicate gender differences (e.g. Kitagawa, 1995; McGloin, 1991; Shibatani, 1990; Takahara, 1991). It is not my intention here to discuss the different gendered language practices in Japanese and the related sociopolitical issues (see Okamoto, Chapter 4, this book; also, Okamoto & Shibamoto-Smith, 2004). It is, however, important to point out that such language practice often evokes tension and conflict for many female students who embody – or attempt to embody – feminist discourses (Kubota, 1996). How, then, should teachers deal with such an emotionally invested issue? In this study, Ms Tanaka decided to deal with the moment by not taking up the topic. To understand her rationale for her own action, her comments below are illuminating: I think we don’t need to talk about feminism and gender issues in a Japanese language class. If the students want to talk about sociocultural or political issues, they should do that in literature or cultural courses. (Ms Tanaka, interview) As we can see from her comments, for Ms Tanaka, the issues of feminism or gender are not something that need to be addressed in the ‘language’ classroom. This belief about the division between the ‘language’ class taught by ‘language’ teachers and the ‘literature/culture’ class (often referred to as ‘content’ class) taught by ‘content’ teachers is quite prevalent in the field of FL education. We often hear from a language teacher: ‘I’m just a language teacher’. The premise behind such a statement is that their job is to teach linguistic pieces (such as vocabulary, pronunciations and grammar) which is done separately and independently from the teaching of ‘culture’. Further, Ms Tanaka’s attitude about how students need to deal with ‘women’s and men’s language’ can be observed in the following comment: If you use masculine language as your choice, I think it’s fine because it is your own choice. But I want to, at least, tell that if you speak in such a way in Japan, it is possible that [people] might be shocked. (Ms Tanaka, interview) I want to raise two problems regarding the comment above. First, this comment does not state who would be ‘shocked’. I assume that what Ms Tanaka meant to say was that the ‘Japanese’ might be shocked. Then, who is this ‘Japanese’? Is it a friend, a member of the host family or an acquaintance from work? What regional ‘dialect’ does this person speak? How old is she/he? What occupation does she/he have? In other words,

254

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

there exists diversity among ‘Japanese’ and depending on whom a student is speaking to, whether or not she/he is shocked is open to question. Further, we can ask: is it OK to use it as a joke? What happens if it is used during a job interview? Such contextual information is also very important. Her comment does not acknowledge the gender boundary that has become increasingly fuzzy especially among the youth in modern Japanese context.7 Second, the comment can be interpreted as a warning that ‘speak[ing] in such a way’ – that is, speaking in a masculine way – is a deviation from and a violation of the Japanese norms and standards. We can assume that at the heart of her comment is Ms Tanaka’s concern for her students so that they will not be unfairly misunderstood or judged in Japan. However, a comment such as the above has a potential danger that would justify and reproduce the static power relationship between Japanese and Japanese language learners, with the former having the right to judge the language spoken by foreigners and the latter with the obligation not to use language that might be frowned upon by the Japanese people. What is important when teaching students the difference between women’s and men’s language is to have open discussions regarding why they want to speak in such a way, how their desire is related to their sense of identity and how they want to represent themselves and be recognized by others. In other words, it is important for the students to have an opportunity to understand the sociopolitical effects that their language choice has in making an informed ‘choice’.

Dichotomizing Us and Them and constructing stereotypes Cultural difference is an important and popular topic of discussion in FL education (Byram, 1997; Guilherme, 2002; Kramsch, 1993; Kubota, 2004; Reagan & Osborn, 2002). Most, if not all of the reading texts in textbooks introduce some aspect of Japanese culture and society. Often, the reading texts emphasize and highlight what the authors believe are the ‘unique’ – thus, ‘different’ – cultural aspects and traditions of Japan and compare them with those of the students (Wallace, 2003). The problem of the ‘compare and contrast’ approach between countries/ cultures is creating a myth that there exists a ‘Japanese culture’ that is recognized and shared by all Japanese. At the same time, it creates yet another myth that there is the students’ ‘own culture’, that is universally shared by all of them and distinct from that of the Japanese. By having classroom discussions that constantly compare and contrast Japanese culture and American culture, it creates a dichotomized view of Us and Them that emphasizes only the differences (Hashimoto, 2001; Kubota, 2004). Through

Standardization of Language and Culture in a JFL Classroom

255

such processes, the idea of culture is treated as universally monolithic and static, and also stereotypes for each culture are perpetuated and reproduced (Kurachi, 2006b). As we have seen in Example 2, for the purpose of facilitating students’ reading comprehension of the text, Ms Tanaka actively engaged the students in comparing Japanese and American cultures and depicted Japanese people in a stereotypical manner. Ms Tanaka’s comment below illuminates why she organized her lesson in such a way: I sometimes feel that I cannot escape from promoting stereotypes as long as I am using a textbook. If we begin challenging everything that is written in the textbook, it would take too much time. And also, if we keep on saying such things as ‘this is not true’ or ‘it doesn’t apply to every situation,’ then the students might start thinking, ‘then, how come are we using such a textbook?’ Although it is true that I am actually using this textbook thinking, ‘why am I using this textbook?’ … It would be a hassle if some students’ mistrust of the textbook develops into mistrust of the teacher and of the curriculum... I think that’s not good for them to think like ‘there is no point of being in this class taught by this teacher’ or ‘this Japanese class is meaningless.’ …I think many of them expect that they would gain some knowledge or learn about facts by reading written materials. (Ms Tanaka, interview) Ms Tanaka’s assumptions and beliefs about textbooks were expressed in her comment above. The first assumption is that a textbook has an absolute authoritative power (Apple & Christian-Smith, 1991; Byram & EsarteSarries, 1991; Osborn, 2000). That is, what she can and is allowed to do in her classroom is dictated and limited by the textbook. The second assumption is that a textbook that provokes students to question and challenge its contents or ideas is a ‘bad’ – ‘useless’ – textbook. What is implied in this assumption is that there are some textbooks that do not provoke students in that manner and that represent the ‘truth’. The third assumption is that the purpose of reading is to ‘learn’ and to gain linguistic and cultural knowledge. The fourth assumption is that using a textbook that does not present the truth would threaten the credibility of the teacher. With this last assumption, Ms Tanaka, avoided comments that might be interpreted as a critique of the textbook and did not actively take up the issues raised by the students. In this way, the standardization process of culture is maintained and facilitated through a textbook by a teacher who consumes and distributes the ideology implicated in the textbook with the rationale that it is ‘for the sake of students’.

256

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

Interrupting/Disrupting the Process of Standardization: Toward Open Dialogues in a Classroom The foreign language classroom can either reinforce negative language attitudes and prejudices, or can be used to empower students to better understand the social roles of language in society (see Lippi-Green, 1997). The choice is very much ours to make in our classrooms and in our interactions with our students. (Reagan & Osborn, 2002: 51) This chapter demonstrated the ways in which the standardization of language and culture can be promoted and facilitated by analyzing momentby-moment teacher–students interactions in a Japanese language classroom in the USA. Textbooks used in class often represented the Japanese language, culture or people in a highly stereotypical, essentializing and static fashion (Kumagai, Chapter 9, this book). Such representations challenged the students’ sense of identity or their sense of truth. Consequently, the students voiced their questions and concerns, and sought an opportunity to discuss the textual representations and some sociopolitical issues. The teacher, in response, to maintain linguistic and cultural rules and norms, or to normalize the classroom proceedings, tended to close down such moments by deflecting the issues at hand. It is important to emphasize here again that this pattern of classroom practice by the teacher, is not a reflection of her teaching ability, but it is strongly influenced and shaped by the dominant discourse that is taken for granted within the field of FL education. One could argue that as teachers need to complete planned materials and lesson contents within a limited instructional time, they do not have enough time to address each and every question raised by students. Also, it is certainly true that not all of the issues that the students raise are worth classroom time. Furthermore, discussing some of the issues requires language proficiency that may be beyond the level of students, making it difficult for the teacher to allow the students to use English. It could also be an issue that the teacher may not be sufficiently prepared or informed to deal with some of the issues that are unexpectedly raised during the lesson. It goes without saying that it is extremely complex and difficult for a teacher to orchestrate the task of judging the relevance of topics raised by students, shifting and adjusting the flow of classroom proceedings and accomplishing the lesson agenda. However, as Reagan and Osborn (2002) contend, the types of interactions that the teacher allows deeply impact students’ understanding of language and culture, their stance toward the

Standardization of Language and Culture in a JFL Classroom

257

notion of Us and Them and, ultimately, their ways of acting in the world around them. That being said, I believe it is a necessity to reconsider the role of teachers and textbooks in the field of FL education. Is it really sufficient for a language teacher to assume a role as a technician who teaches ‘linguistic pieces’ and provides information about ‘culture’ as an add-on? Are there textbooks (or texts) that present objective truth? Aren’t all texts, even those written by experts in the field, nothing but reflections of the authors’ interpretations of a version of realities constructed by their own values, assumptions and world views? If so, the role of the teacher should not be to protect and perpetuate such views, but to critically address issues implicated in the texts together with students (Hayashi, 2006; Hosokawa, 2002). I believe that it is an important role for teachers to nurture students’ sense of agency and responsibility for their own language learning by incorporating issues raised by students into the curriculum and sharing the role with them to decide what is important in learning a language. By reflecting on one’s own thoughts and exchanging ideas with others, we can learn to expand our perspectives, learn the significance of critically engaging texts and the importance of learning through ‘dialogues’.

Notes (1) ‘Literacy event’ is defined as ‘any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of participants’ interactions and their interpretive processes’ (Heath, 1982; in Street, 1995: 162). (2) I use the term a ‘text’ to refer to both kaiwa (dialogues) and yomimono (reading texts) in the language textbook as well as any other reading materials that a teacher uses in class. Some readers may think it is strange to call ‘dialogues’ as ‘texts’. However, in many language classrooms, there is a tendency to treat ‘dialogues’ as texts for the purpose of (oral) decoding and comprehension practices. (3) The name of the college is a pseudonym. (4) During all phases of the research (i.e. the fieldwork, data analysis and writing the report), I engaged in a dialogue with Ms Tanaka. By receiving feedback and comments on my draft reports, I have clarified my questions, further refined my analysis and attempted to reflect on her own interpretations of classroom events. By bringing her own voice into the analysis of data instead of forcing the researcher’s interpretation of data, I took the framework of critical ethnography which questions the power relationship between the ‘researcher’ and the ‘researched’ (Anderson, 1989; Brodkey, 1996; Lather, 1991; May, 1997). (5) All participants’ names are pseudonyms. As in most Japanese-as-a-foreign-language classrooms, individuals in this classroom referred to each other using family names with a personal suffix ‘san’ (equivalent to Mr or Ms). To reflect that usage, ‘Ms’ is used for students’ names. (6) All of the interactions were done in Japanese; the underlined utterances were said in English. The utterances in boldface indicate the focus of the analysis. The italicized

258

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

utterances are Japanese phrases that are untranslatable and necessary to understand the exchanges. (7) Ms Tanaka herself tended to use more ‘masculine’ language during the interview. This may indicate that Ms Tanaka thinks the language in the textbook and that in daily life are different phenomenon, or while she may believe a certain normative practice of gendered linguistic use, she may not be conscious about her own use of language.

References Alderson, J.C. (1984) Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In J.C. Alderson and A.H. Urquhart (eds) Reading in a Foreign Language (pp. 1–27). New York: Longman. Alderson, J.C. and Urquhart, A.H. (eds) (1984) Reading in a Foreign Language. New York: Longman. Anderson, G.L. (1989) Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new directions. Review of Educational Research 59, 249–270. Apple, M.W. and Christian-Smith, L.K. (eds) (1991) The Politics of the Textbook. New York: Routledge. Bernhardt, E.B. (1991) Development in second language literacy research: Retrospective and prospective views for the classroom. In B.F. Freed (ed.) Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom (pp. 221–251). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Bloome, D. and Willett, J. (1991) Toward a micropolitics of classroom interaction. In J. Blasé (ed.) The Politics of Life in Schools; Power, Conflict, and Cooperation (pp. 207–236). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Brodkey, L. (1996) Writing Permitted in Designated Areas Only. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Bonvillain, N. (2000) Cross-cultural studies of language and gender. In N. Bonvillain (ed.) Language, Culture, and Communication: The Meaning of Messages (pp. 209–234). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. and Esarte-Sarries, V. (1991) Investigating Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Devitt, S. (1997) Interacting with authentic texts: Multilayered processes. The Modern Language Journal 81, 457–469. Elley, W.B. (1984) Exploring the reading difficulties of second-language learners in Fiji. In J.C. Alderson and A.H. Urquhart (eds) Reading in a Foreign Language (pp. 281–301). New York: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1993) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York: Routledge. Gee, J.P. (1990) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London: The Falmer Press. Grabe, W. (1991) Current development in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly 25, 375–406. Guilherme, M. (2002) Critical Citizens for an Intercultural World: Foreign Language Education as Cultural Politics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Standardization of Language and Culture in a JFL Classroom

259

Hahimoto, H. (2001) Koteiteki bunka-kan e no chôsen: nihongo jijô wa ‘nihon’ tai ‘ibunka’ no wakugumi o koerareruka. 21 seeki no ‘nihonjijô’ nihongo kyôiku kara bunka riterashii e 3, 94–106. Hayashi, S. (2006) Kuritikaru ni nihon o kangaeru: nihongo kyôiku no genba kara. In K. Suzuki, K. Ôi and F. Omae (eds) Kuritikaru shinkingu to kyôiku: Nihon no kyôiku o saikôchiku suru (pp. 194–216). Tokyo: Sekai Shisôsha. Hosokawa, H. (2002) Nihongo kyôiku wa nani o mezasuka: gengo bunka katudoo no riron to jissen. Tokyo: Akashi. Ide, S. and McGloin, N.H. (eds) (1990) Aspects of Japanese Women’s Language. Tokyo: Kuroshio. Kawakami, I. (1999) ‘Nihonjijô’ kyôiku ni okeru bunka no mondai. 21 seeki no ‘nihonjijô’ nihongo kyôiku kara bunka riterashii e 1, 16–26. Kitagawa, C. (1995) Joseego to nihon bunka. Gekkan nihongo, November, 41–44. Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kubota, R. (1996) Nihongo kyôiku ni okeru hihan kyôiku, hihan-teki yomikaki kyôiku. Sekai no nihongo kyôiku 6, 35–48. Kubota, R. (2004) The politics of cultural difference in second language education. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 1, 21–40. Kumagai, Y. (2004) (De)Mystifying the literacy practices in a foreign language classroom: A critical discourse analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Kurachi, A. (2006a) Tabunka kyôsee no komyunikeeshon nôryoku to sono kaihatsu. In A. Kurachi (ed.) Kôza nihongo kyôiku, Vol. 5: Tabunka kan no kyôiku to kinsetsu ryôiki (pp. 149–165). Tokyo: Surii ee netto waaku. Kurachi, A. (2006b) Karuchaa sutereotaipu. In A. Kurachi (ed.) Kôza nihongo kyôiku, Vol. 5: Tabunka kan no kyôiku to kinsetsu ryôiki (pp. 66–81). Tokyo: Surii ee netto waaku. Lakoff, R. (1975) Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper & Row. Lather, P. (1991) Getting Started: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with/in the Postmodern. London: Routledge. May, S. (1997) Critical ethnography. In N. Hornberger and D. Corson (eds) Research Methods in Language and Education. Vol. 8, Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 197–206). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher. McGloin, N.H. (1991) Sex difference and sentence-final particles. In S. Ide and N.H. McGloin (eds) Aspects of Japanese Women’s Language (pp. 23–42). Tokyo: Kuroshio. Miura, A. and McGloin, N.H. (1994) An Integrated Approach to Intermediate Japanese. Tokyo: The Japan Times. Mizumoto, M. (2006) Terebi dorama to jisshakai ni okeru josee bunmatsu-shi shiyô no zure ni miru jendaa firutaa. Nihongo jendaa gakkai (ed.) Nihongo to jendaa (pp. 73-94). Tokyo: Hituji. Okamoto, S. (1995) ‘Tasteless’ Japanese: Less ‘feminine’ speech among young Japanese women. In K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds) Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self (pp. 297–325). New York: Routledge. Okamoto, S. and Shibamoto-Smith, J.S. (eds) (2004) Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People. New York: Oxford University Press. Osborn, T. (2000) Critical Reflection and the Foreign Language Classroom. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Reagan, T.G. and Osborn, T.A. (2002) The Foreign Language Educator in Society: Toward a Critical Pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

260

Part 3: Nihongo Education: Japanese Education Designed for ‘Non-Native Speakers’

Reynolds Akiba, K. (1986/1990) Female speakers of Japanese in transition. In S. Ide and N.H. McGloin (eds) Aspects of Japanese Women’s Language (pp. 129–146). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers. Shibatani, M. (1990) The Language of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Takahara, K. (1991) Female speech patterns in Japanese. International Journal of Sociology of Language 92, 61–85. Talbot, M. (1998) Language and Gender: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press. Thomson, K.C. (2001) Kaigai no nihongo kyôiku ni okeru nihon bunka no gakushuu o unagasu kôsu to kyôshi no yakuwari. 21 seeki no nihonjijô nihongo kyôiku kara bunka riterashii e 4, 4–18. Tsujimura, N. (1996) An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Wallace, C. (2003) Critical Reading in Language Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Weedon, C. (1997) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory (2nd edn). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Wells, G. (1999) Dialogic Inquiry: Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Conclusion and Departure Neriko Musha Doerr

This book has investigated the power relations inherent in the climate of standardization of language and culture by focusing on Japanese language education designed for the ‘native speaker’ (kokugo education) as well as that designed for the ‘non-native speaker’ (nihongo education). We examined the processes of standardization at various levels, from macro to micro. Standardization as the episteme of our time was discussed first by focusing on the notion of language as countable (Sakai) and notions of language and culture (Kubota). The chapters on kokugo education examined diverse contours of standardization processes, from general macro-level discourses that justify the standardization process of a regional dialect (Doerr) to more specific micro-level processes applied to various target populations, such as women (Okamoto), children in early childhood education (Sato), Japanese-as-asecond-language children (Kamiyoshi) and Japanese-as-a-second-language children whose heritage language/mother tongue was also taught (Okubo). Standardization in kukugo education – driven by both the ideology of the nation state, which aspires to the internal homogeneity of the nation and its language, and a recent increase in immigrants – involves both native speakers and non-native speakers, although the education itself is designed for native speakers. Read together, these chapters illustrate standardizing forces aimed at diverse differences – regional difference (Doerr, Sato), diversity within a gender (Okamoto), and native/non-native difference (Kamiyoshi, Okubo) – at work in kokugo education. For nihongo education, the standardization processes of the Japanese language and culture aimed at non-native speakers were analyzed in terms of ‘patterns of thinking’ (Segawa), ‘Japanese culture’ (Kubota, Kumagai) and ‘language’ (Kumagai) at the macro levels of discourse (Segawa, Kubota) and textbook (Kumagai), and at the micro level of daily practices in classrooms (Kumagai). Constructed as linguistic and cultural Others, the Japanese language and culture, respectively, are reified and homogenized to constitute standards that Japanese-as-a-second-language learners aim to acquire. These 261

262

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

chapters show how the conceptualization of language is influenced by mutually supportive discourses that encourage standardization in multiple and nested layers. The chapters uncovered diverse standardization processes through which particular types of knowledge and norms of behavior get constructed and invested with educational capital at both the macro and micro levels, encouraging students’ desire to gain them. In this way, knowledge of the Japanese language based on what is often heard among middle-class people in the Tokyo area and what are perceived as behavior patterns of young, middle-class Tokyo residents came to be considered the ‘standard’. Those who consider themselves Japanese but do not match this standard are found wanting, which not only marginalizes their language practices but also pressures them to desire and learn the standard form. Those who identify as non-Japanese consider linguistic practices that differ from the Tokyo middleclass-based standard ‘incorrect’ and in need of correction. Although not specifically illustrated in this book, however, those who relate ambiguously to Japanese in terms of ‘nativeness’ can see the Tokyo middle-class-based standard or the local linguistic variety as the standard, illuminating the gap between the notion of standard Japanese for native speakers and that for non-native speakers where speakers in disputed theoretical categories reside (Takato, 2009).

Against the Impulse to Standardize Having critically explored the various contours of standardization, our next step is to explore how researchers and educators position themselves and navigate impulses to standardize. In this concluding chapter, I will elaborate two points of departure that may allow us to move forward from the critiques of standardization processes presented in this book.

Scale-making practices The first point of departure is to devote attention to our own and others’ ‘scale-making practices’ (Tsing, 2000) when we discuss a norm, or the fluidity and multiplicity that defy it. Several chapters in this book discussed the difference between the norm and actual practices and explored how the norm is inculcated in children or students learning the Japanese language. Here, we must take care not to cast the norm and actual practices in a static binary opposition, because ‘actual practices’ can become new norms, depending on how they are dealt with. Similarly, when challenging a particular standard, we should avoid referring to another standard. For

Conclusion and Departure

263

example, some use the notion of World Englishes to destabilize the claim that only the Received Pronunciation of the UK and the General American of the USA are standards of English in the world (Kachru, 1992). However, by establishing various World Englishes, such as Indian English and Korean English, this line of argument can create new norms on a different scale (Canagarajah, 1999; Yasuda, 1999). Acknowledging multiple types of practices can slide into this kind of production of new norms – as can acknowledging the fluidity of practices, if fluidity merely means moving among multiple types of practices. Being alert to scale-making practices can keep us from sliding into further production of new norms. Scale making is a process of making claims about locality, regionality and globality as relevant scales, or ‘units of culture and political economy through which we make sense of events and social processes’ (Tsing, 2000: 347). For example, Tsing posits various discourses and anthropological discussions about globalization as such scale-making practices, for they push us to view social processes through the lens of the ‘global’ as the unit. Tsing suggests investigating and contesting ideologies of scale, which, she argues, are cultural claims about relevant scale. Tsing also argues for examining and challenging projects that seek to carry out ideologies of scale in particular times and places. One such analysis of scale making is a study by Uitermark (2002) that shows how changing the scale of social relations affects people’s perception, ideology and solidarity. Discussing the rescaling and changing regime of regulation in the post-Fordist era, Uitermark (2002: 753) shows the shift from ‘class politics’ to ‘place politics’. When economic and political processes were treated within one geographic area, the platform for negotiations between labor and capital was clearly defined and the notion of class was important in political negotiations over the distribution of wealth. However, once economic and political processes came to be located in several geographic spaces (‘scale fragmentation’), the antagonism came to be positioned between the geographic areas (‘place politics’) rather than between classes (‘class politics’). Individuals’ material well-being is thus attributed less to their class position than to the geographic entities they inhabit, creating a myth of coherent communities with shared interests. I suggest that critiques of standardization that contrast the norm against the fluidity or multiplicity of actual practices themselves become scalemaking practices upon merely proposing a level where collective practices can be better analyzed, as exemplified above in the case of World Englishes. It is difficult to avoid scale making when understanding various practices. For example, observing and identifying particular types of linguistic practices as diverging from the norm – whether developmentally (i.e. with

264

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

child learning as the norm), regionally or otherwise – often establishes an imagined community where such practices are shared (thus enabling communication) that is then contrasted to the norm. Identification of such a community is a scale-making practice because it suggests a relevant scale on which to understand the practice. The main question here, then, is who gets to identify who shares what linguistic practice (or belongs to what group of people) and what constitutes a type of linguistic practice. Researchers and educators tend to be in a position to make these identifications. Their decisions lead to tangible results, such as funding to publish a grammar of a linguistic variety that differs from the norm. For this reason, it is important to acknowledge this scaling practice as an aspect of research as well as teaching.

Attraction of stereotypes The second point I would like to address going forward is not only to think critically about the attraction of generalization, but also stereotyping. We need to look at ways to overcome stereotypes, as their simplified images and generalizations about groups of people can be an attractive way to grasp an image of a group of people. And in language and culture instruction, generalized views about a language and its speakers make it easier to teach about a group of people. This is reminiscent of the academic schools of thought that focused on patterns of culture in cultural anthropology in the first half of the 20th century, or in the case of Japan, the still popular nihonjinron (theories about Japan). Sometimes, generalization is even encouraged for the practical purpose of enabling students to understand Others more easily. While the menace of stereotyping has been widely known, its attraction persists which we need to be aware of. A way to avoid generalizing Others includes engaging in learning about them in details. However, here, I would like to shift the focus by asking why and whether we need to know about cultural Others. Should cultural Others be knowable? By whom? For what reason? Foucault (1977), noting how the field of knowledge was formed through the development of an array of new institutions and academic disciplines in the 18th century, observed power relations between those who wished to know and manage access to knowledge via newly developed technologies of knowledge, and those who became the objects of knowledge – criminals, students and ‘delinquents’. In discussing the experience of studying abroad, Law and Mennicke (2007) critiqued both the belief that we can know other peoples and societies, and the attitude of seeking certitude in the notion of immersion that is prevalent in discourses on study abroad. Instead, they argue, we should

Conclusion and Departure

265

encourage negotiating ambiguity, engaging with complexity and cultivating an analytical understanding of social, economic and political relationships in the world. Talking about education in general, bell hooks (1994) likens a desire to know the utterances of others in their entirety to a desire for ‘mastery’ and ‘conquest’ of the narrative of the Others. She condemns this as a ‘culture of capitalist frenzy and consumption that demands all desire must be satisfied immediately’ (hooks, 1994: 174). Ellsworth (1989) also points out the oppressive aspect of the desire to know underlying the assumption that one can and should know everything about Others and Others’ cultures. This is not to say that we should be happy to learn only generalizations and abandon efforts to know what cultural Others ‘really’ do. Rather, it is to say that a need to know unambiguously is not justification to abandon engagement with complexity and settle for generalization. In other words, as researchers and educators, we may be overconcerned that our readers and students, respectively, find the description of the Other accessible and not confusing. We can abandon this impulse by telling ourselves that we need to relinquish the idea that readers and students need to know cultural others in their entirety. Instead, we should encourage them to accept ambiguity and unknowability while engaging with the complex and even contradictory aspects of any human beings and their ways. Such a practice can begin in the classroom, where the main focus of learning is not the precise understanding of every word but a grasp of contextual meanings produced by variously socioculturally positioned interlocutors and the wider sociocultural environment that makes such interactions happen (see Doerr & Kumagai, 2014; Doerr & Sato, 2011; Sato & Kumagai, 2011). This book’s interdisciplinary approach to the dynamic processes of standardization of culture and language in and of Japan, covering both education designed for native speakers (kokugo education) that includes non-native speakers as its target and education designed specifically for non-native speakers (nihongo education), with its focus on both macro and micro levels, raises questions that advance our understanding of standardization and education in any language. Our hope is to continue this conversation with studies of languages other than Japanese, while emphasizing the need for an holistic understanding of particular language politics that can be gained by contextualizing them.

References Canagarajah, A.S. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Doerr, N. and Kumagai, Y. (2014) Power of language ideologies: Challenging the notion of foreign loanwords in the Japanese-as-a-Foreign-Language classroom.

266

Rethinking Language and Culture in Japanese Education

Doerr, N. and Sato, S. (2011) Modes of governmentality in an online space: A case study of blog activities in an advanced level Japanese-as-a-Foreign-Language classroom. Learning, Media, and Technologies 36 (1), 69–83. Ellsworth, E. (1989) Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review 59 (3), 297–324. Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books. hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress. New York: Routledge. Kachru, B.B. (1992 [1982]) Models for non-native Englishes. In B.B. Kachru (ed.) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (pp. 48–74). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Law, A. and Mennicke, S. (2007) A notion at risk: Interrogating the educational role of off-campus study in the liberal arts. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 15, 81–91. Sato, S. and Kumagai, Y. (eds) (2011) Shakai ni Sanka shite iku Shimin to shite no Gengo Kyôiku (Language Education for the Global Citizen). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo. Takato, M. (2009) ‘Native speaker’ status on border-crossing: The Okinawan Nikkei diaspora, national language, and heterogeneity. In N.M. Doerr (ed.) The Native Speaker Concept: Ethnographic Investigations of Native Speaker Effects (pp. 83–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Tsing, A. (2000) The global situation. Cultural Anthropology 15 (3), 327–360. Uitermark, J. (2002) Re-scaling, ‘scale fragmentation’ and the regulation of antagonistic relationships. Progress in Human Geography 26 (6), 743–765. Yasuda, T. (1999) ‘Kokugo’ to ‘Hôgen’ no Aida: Gengo Kôchiku no Seijigaku (Between ‘National Language’ and ‘Dialects’: Politics of Language Construction). Tokyo: Jinbun Shoin.

Index

accents, 207 adapting, 189 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language, 10 assimilation, 150, 165, 166

discourse, 129, 130, 261, 262, 264 discursive construction of culture, 229–232 disorder, 107 double-tongue-ism, 70 Dôwa education, 153, 161, 166

brainwash, 187

elimination of dialects, 68, 71 essentialism, 24, 218, 220, 224, 229 ethnic club, 144, 155, 156, 160–163 ethnic education, 161 ethnic identity, 162–164 everyday practice, 144, 146, 168, 170

Chinese, 143, 144, 147, 151–167 Chrysanthemum and the Sword, 4, 5 circumstance, 181, 182 classroom community, 240, 242 classroom interactions, 241 common language, 63, 64, 66, 70, 71, 78 note (2) communicability, 64, 68, 72, 75, 76, 77 comparisons, 225 contrastive rhetoric, 22 counter-hegemony, 144, 146, 151, 160, 164, 167 Course of Study, 109 critical applied linguistics, 28 critical discourse analysis, 241 critical literacy, 28, 239 critical multiculturalism, 28 critical reading, 202 cultural diversity, 221, 224, 227–228 cultural production, 145, 146, 167, 168 cultural products, 207, 208 cultural reproduction, 145, 146, 165 cultural routines and ideals, 209

Four Ds approach, 226–232 Fundamental Education Law, 9, 13 genbun itchi, 67 gender ideology, 94, 100 gender role(s), 210, 211 gendered language practice, 252 General American, 263 Genki, 202, 203, 208 Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, 69 Guidelines for Childcare Centers, 112 Guidelines for Kindergartens, 191 harmony, 222 hegemony, 146 hogen-kukaku ron, 69 hogen-shuken ron, 68 homogeneous, 4, 5 honorifics, 22, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 96, 99

dialect, 7, 207, 213 dialogue(s), 204, 205 207, 209, 212, 213, 214 differentiation, 189

267

268

Index

hybridity, 20 hyôjungo, 7, 8 ideal Japanese speaker, 206 identity, 144, 150, 164, 166–169 ideology of standardized language, 247 Imagined Communities, 175 in-between being (s), 167, 169 in-class assistance, 134 inclusion of dialects, 68 index(cal), 85, 86 individual ability, 129, 139 individual awareness of problems, 195 individual meritocracy, 129, 131 intelligibility, 64, 66, 72, 74–78 intercultural education, 190 Japanese (language education) in the United States, 10 Japanese colonialism, 231 Japanese culture, 218–235 Japanese Empire, 69–70 Japanese language class/classroom, 143, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152–165, 168 Japanese Language Proficiency Test, 1 Japanese language textbooks, 232 Japanese language=Japanese spirit theory, 177, 178 Japanese language=Japanese thought patterns, 181, 186 Japanese support teacher, 134 joseigo, 82, 85, 91, 92, 95–98, 100 JSL children, 128–133 Kokugaku (National Studies), 40–42, 47 Kokugo, 63, 67–71, 78 note (1) kokugo education, 26, 261, 265 Kokugo Investigative Committee, 68 kokugo vs. nihongo, 231 Komagome, Takeshi, 177, 178 kyôtsûgo, 7, 8 language competence, 128, 130, 131, 139 language ideology, 65, 66, 68, 72, 75, 78, 85, 86, 89, 93 learning strategy, 135 linguistic femininity, 85, 87, 88, 93, 96, 100 linguistic imperialism, 28–29

many in one, 36, 39, 43, 48 marginalization, 151, 152, 164, 167, 170 modern/modernity, 39–40, 42–43, 49, 55–56 monolingual address, 52, 54 mother tongue instruction/teaching/ education, 143, 146, 150, 151, 160, 163–168 Motoori, Norinaga, 41–42, 44, 46, 48 multicultural education, 143, 144, 151, 166, 167 multiculturalism, 190 nation formation, 167, 169 nation state, 64–68, 70, 71 National Kokugo Research Laboratory, 70 national language, 176, 36, 39, 40, 41, 48 National Language Research Council, 7 National Standards for Foreign Language Learning (in the United States), 220–226 nationalism, 176 native speaker, 74, 261, 262, 265 neodialects, 71 new dialects, 71 newcomer, 143, 144, 146–155, 160–162, 164–170 nihongo education, 261, 265 nihonjinron, 5–6, 23–24, 219, 224, 225, 230, 232, 234, 264 No Child Left Behind, 1 non-native speaker(s), 26–27, 261, 262, 265 nyo¯bo¯ kotoba, 87, 91, 94, 95, 99 onnarashii hanashikata, 83, 85, 89, 90, 91, 93, 96 orthography, 109 pedagogic discourse, 180 phonocentrism, 46–48 polite(ness), 86, 88–91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 99 popular culture, 208 poststructuralism, 29 power relations, 261, 264 power relationship, 206, 211, 212, 214 premodern/premodernity, 39, 47, 55–56 prescriptive norms, 83, 84, 86 pronunciation, 120

Index

public elementary school, 134 pull-out instruction, 134 race, 27 reading instruction, 239 received pronunciation, 263 regulative idea, 37, 38 rejuvenation of dialects, 63 relational viewpoint, 129, 133 resistant reading, 205 scale-making practices, 262–264 schema for nationality, 37, 38 schema of co-figuration, 39, 40, 45, 47–49, 51, 54–56 second language education for young people, 129 self-Orientalism, 224 social context, 129 social hierarchy, 209, 211 social positions, 214 social role, 204, 206, 210, 256 standard English, 72–74, 76–77 standard Japanese, 83, 84, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96 standard language, 108, 207, 213 standard language culture, 84 standard language ideology, 89 standardization, 44, 45, 129, 131 standardization (of culture), 29 standardization (of language), 20–22, 27, 30 standardized tests, 1 Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century, 10, 11

269

stereotype(s), 92, 191, 210, 215, 247, 251, 252, 254, 255 stereotyping, 221, 223, 233, 234 teacher’s script, 252 textbook(s), 110, 201, 202, 203, 205, 207, 208, 213, 214, 238, 240, 247, 254, 255, 256, 257 textual representation(s), 252, 256 teyo dawa kotoba, 85, 90, 94, 96 thought patterns, 178 Tojo, Isao, 69 traditional culture, 208 traditional dialects, 71 transferability, 43–44 translation, 36, 41, 48–54 unity of language, 37, 39, 48, 55 Us and Them, 254, 257 Us vs. Them, 235 Vietnamese, 143–144, 151–167 women’s and men’s language, 243, 252, 254 women’s language, 82, 84, 91 women’s speech norms, 83, 84, 86, 89, 93, 97, 100 world Englishes, 25 Yanagita, Kunio, 68 Zainichi (resident) Koreans, 147, 150–153, 161, 162, 166