The Importation of English to Japan: the Myth and Promotion of Native English Speaker (NES) Superiority and the False Promise of Internationalization
Damian Rivers, Japan
Damian Rivers has been teaching in Japan for over 7 years working within a number of major companies teaching ESP / EAP and business English. He is also a column editor for 'The Language Teacher', a monthly Japan Association of Language Teachers publication. E-mail: damiworld@mac.com
Menu
Abstract
A brief history of the NES and English tuition within Japan
The tuition of the English language in Japan today
Internationalization in the eyes of the BIG 3
The promotion of the myth of NES superiority
Conclusion
Footnote
References
The English language within Japan is currently in a state of crisis. For over a century the Japanese government has continued to rely on NES's to come to Japan to educate its people. This unproven and failing approach to English language tuition is currently inhibiting the language progression of the Japanese people. In a system filled with myth, false beliefs and rife discrimination the position of the NES should be reconsidered. The current paper looks at the history of English in Japan and the current approaches to English tuition from the point of view of the government sponsored JET Program, the major eikaiwa schools as well as within the university system. It paints a bleak picture for Japans future based on a government unwilling to explore new avenues and education its people from a truly international perspective.
As early as the 18th century, powerful nations such as, Russia and Britain had attempted to break the seclusion policy of Tokugawa Japan. But, it was the U.S who was the first to succeed. The visit of the American Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry was the event that triggered the opening of Japan to a multitude of western influences (Ishikawa, 1997). Perry and his fleet of ships were charged with the task of delivering a personal letter from the American president, Millard Fillmore, which asked the Japanese for the establishment of a commercial trade relationship between the two countries. In 1854, the Treaty of Kanagawa was agreed upon. This effectively ended Japan's 200 year policy of seclusion know as sakoku, which literally meant "country in chains" or "lock up of country", during which time there had been a total ban on entering or leaving Japan.
Commodore Perry was highly praised for his actions in succeeding where other missions had previously failed. In acknowledgment of his achievements he was sent a collective memorial by the American merchants at Canton September 1854 on his return trip to the U.S. It read:
"You have conquered the obstinate will of man and, by overturning the cherished policy of an empire, have brought an estranged but culturated people into the family of nations. You have done this without violence, and the world has looked on with admiration to see the barriers of prejudice fall before the flag of our country without the firing of a shot."
Although there was no military conflict at the time, the threat of violence, and intimidation played a role in the Japanese submission to the demands of its western intruders. The hurried signing of the treaty was done in part due to fear of saying no to the U.S, who clearly had superior military power and technology at the time. The technological and military differences between the U.S and Japan were noted by Buruma, (2003) who stated:
"There was Perry with his four black ships of evil, thundering an ominous salute at the Japanese coast by firing his canon. And there were the Japanese, lined up on the shore, armed with swords and old-fashioned muskets"
During the subsequent Meiji period between 1868 and 1912 the Japanese rapidly developed a fixation with matching their western counterparts in military technology, manufacturing methods and academic knowledge. This period saw, capitalism and industrialization within Japan boom as numerous western style factories were established. This expansive rapid development was achieved with the assistance of many foreign consultants who were invited to Japan by the government to help transfer western knowledge to the Japanese. Of course, the majority of such information was conveyed in English.
At this time access to the world's vast and rapidly developing knowledge could only be obtained through the use of the English language and thus it held a highly respected status in Japan, as did the NES's who spoke it. These early foreign visitors or temporary residents could be found working as teachers of subject specific material or, working as university lecturers. The lack of native Japanese teachers with sufficient English abilities and knowledge required for the task provided the main motivation behind the invitations. What followed was the importation of more than 3000 NES's to Japan to teach western languages and technology.
Later though, the Japanese renegotiated the terms of the Kanagawa Treaty as they believed it was unilaterally in favor of the U.S. After the successful renegotiation the Japanese government selected a number of Japanese students to go to western countries to learn about foreign technologies and education. Upon their return in 1883 the need for the foreign English teachers decreased and many were asked to return to their country of origin. From this point onward the decline of the English language was somewhat inevitable. The prestigious Tokyo University stopped teaching in English and Japanese became the primary language by which Japanese people could learn about the world. After a period of relative stability known as the Taisho era further actions against the English intrusion were taken in 1931 when the anti-foreign ideology promoted under Emperor Hirohito took hold. The number of English lessons within Japanese schools was decreased for the first time (Imura, 2003), then in 1942, a year after Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor all remaining U.K and American lecturers in Japanese universities were dismissed. This time saw the rise of nationalistic behaviors, western influences were increasingly rejected and the theory of Japanese uniqueness "nihonjinron" evolved at a rapid rate (Yoshino, 1992).
Today, over 50 years later, the Japanese have successfully attained one of their early objectives, to lead the world in technological advancements. Whilst this rapid increase in technological ability is admirable, less admirable is the fact that since the Meiji period the Japanese governments view on the advancement and spread of the English language within Japan has been reliant on the same unproven methodology. A recent Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) press release stated:
" With the progress of globalization in the economy and in society, it is essential that our children acquire communication skills in English, which has become a common international language, in order for living in the 21st century. This has become an extremely important issue both in terms of the future of our children and the further development of Japan as a nation.
At present, though, the English-speaking abilities of a large percentage of the population are inadequate, and this imposes restrictions on exchanges with foreigners and creates occasions when the ideas and opinions of Japanese people are not appropriately evaluated.
Accordingly, we have formulated a strategy to cultivate "Japanese with English abilities " in a concrete action plan with the aim of drastically improving the English education of Japanese people ". 2002/07/12
The semi-acknowledgement of prior failure and the proposal of a new strategy to "cultivate Japanese with English abilities" sounds promising, but deep-routed, fundamental problems cannot simply disappear overnight after existing unchallenged for well over a century. As was the case in the Meiji period, the Japanese today possess a self-defeatist, fatalistic attitude, along with an actual lack of practical skills and knowledge when it comes to second language acquisition. Unfortunately, this means that the government continues to invite and rely upon NES's to come to Japan to educate its people not only in the English language but also in knowledge of the "outside world" and all its cultural variations. Therefore, the "formulated strategy" is essentially a variation of the programs introduced over 100 years ago.
During the past 10 years the Japanese enigmatic relationship with the attainment of English language skills has enjoyed a renewed boom period, during which time the number of students actively seeking some form of English instruction has increased dramatically. This increased demand for English language skills has once again opened up Japan to an influx of NES's who come to take up so called "teaching" positions (see Carmichael, (2002) for a critical look at the EFL teacher). It has also fuelled the rise in the number of establishments offering English language services. Financial powerhouses such as the NOVA group (720 branches), GEOS (510 branches) and AEON (300 branches) can all be found in the majority of Japanese cities, usually conveniently located to a near by busy train/bus station. Add to this the thousands of smaller eikaiwa or conversation schools littering Japan and it becomes clear that the English language in Japan, like many other Asian countries is a multi-million dollar business. Yet, the quality of the product that these financially successful businesses deliver is questionable. The consistent poor performances of the Japanese in English have been highlighted through the average scores of candidates who sat for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) in 2005. As a nation, Japan ranked the lowest among all other Asian nations (41st out of 42 countries) except North Korea. Although such tests are fraught with problems and are by no means an accurate measure of communicative ability they do illustrate the differences in Japanese test behaviors when compared to other Asian countries. Davidson, (1994) commented on major international tests of English such as TOEIC and TOEFL:
"several large English tests hold sway world-wide; tests which are clear agents of the English variety of the nation where they are produced. These tests maintain their agency through the statistical epistemology of norm-referenced measurement of language proficiency, a very difficult beast to assail"
At the very least, such data suggests a revision of basic test design and test preparation methods be undertaken.
Not only are today's methods of language transference similar to those of the Meiji period, but also, the assumed nature of the foreigner - Japanese dynamic is reflective of that from the Meiji era. Specifically, that foreign language instructors are not here to be full-time residents of Japan but to merely provide a function to satisfy the Japanese requirement. It was, and still is expected, that after a native speaker fulfils the terms of his/her limited contract he/she will return to his country of origin. Within the eikaiwa industry evidence of this can be seen across the board. Major chain schools as well as the acclaimed, government sponsored, J.E.T program offer return airfare to the participant's home country after the agreed contract period is over. A wide number of universities in Japan openly discriminate against foreign teachers with contract capping and limited renewals of contracts based on factors such as age and nationality. Such problems within the university system have been widely documented and are often grouped under the heading of "Academic Apartheid", where teachers are given "sudden death" contracts as they offer little or no job security and can be ended at anytime due to a variety of suspicious reasons (Hall, 1995). There have been a number of court cases in recent years where teachers have fought back against discrimination based on race and nationality (Korst case against University of the Ryuukyuus, April 1998; Galagher case against Asahikawa University, August 1998 and Spring, 2001; Union action against Kumamoto Prefectual University, December, 1998, Autumnn, 1999 and Spring 2001; Van Dresser case against Miyazaki International College, Spring, 2001). All of the discriminatory and employment restricting measures are in part designed to enforce the balanced ideological view that, Japan is home for the Japanese but no more than a working holiday for the foreign teachers.
The biggest post Meiji importation of foreigners to Japan has been through the J.E.T program. Since 1987, the Japanese government has persisted in financing this program. Their dogged reluctance to try something new appears to ignore the program's practical and economic inefficiencies. The program is promoted on the official website as a program that:
"aims to promote internationalization in Japan's local communities by helping to improve foreign language education and developing international exchange at the community level"
For the foreigner teachers, at least, internationalization it would appear has an expiration date and a return air ticket included. In September 2004, the government announced that the number of ALTs (Assistant Language Teachers) employed at public elementary schools was to be dramatically increased. The minister of public management, home affairs, posts and telecommunications who at the time was, Taro Aso announced that the current number of 73 ALTs would be boosted to 400 in the 5th and 6th grades by 2005. The subsequent year, 2006 saw a further increase of up to 1,000 ALTs teaching at elementary school 3rd grade and above (in 2006 the J.E.T program sent a total of 5,853 native English speakers to Japan to work at all levels of the public school system). The primary driving force behind this increase has been the demand to help students become familiar with English and foreign cultures (taken to mean only western English speaking cultures) at an early age. The government increase seems substantial on the surface, (although the effectiveness of the entire program is a separate area for debate) but when one considers that the increase in actual contact time will rise from one lesson per month to only two lessons per month, the increase in teacher numbers seems somewhat insignificant and ineffective.
Perhaps more important than university education in terms of English exposure and foreign image promotion are the big 3 eikaiwa schools previously mentioned. NOVA, AEON and GEOS deserve a special mention as they are major variables in the current evolution of the English language within Japan. These schools tend to have a large number of young children studying with them, these children are learning not only about English through repetition and games but also about what kind of people speak English. The "us" and "them" classroom relationship is not only based on linguistic ability but also nationality and race, this is not a healthy message to be promoting in the 21st century to children of a democratic country. These schools are central to many students learning attempts and provide a public face of English tuition in Japan due to high-budget T.V commercials and catchy slogans. The relationship between the school and the student is though, only one side of a multisided equation, the teachers who usually find themselves in the middle of this relationship are the core of the learning process. Many new NES's who come to Japan find themselves working at one of these eikaiwa schools as the entry requirements are minimal and the schools are keen to accept fresh, culturally naive teachers straight off the plane. However, these are not companies that most people find themselves wanting to work for beyond a one-year contract. The teacher turn over rate is and has always been very high at NOVA, AEON and GEOS. The Japan Times reports that the teacher turn over rate at NOVA is as high as 70% a year (February 24, 2004). It would be correct to assume that something is not quite right within these institutes, as a 70% teacher turnover rate is astounding.
The NOVA company website currently states that:
"People from all around the world gather at Nova, and communicate. Through Nova, they are able to come into contact with many other cultures, and, having equipped themselves with a high level of cross-cultural education and understanding, are active in many fields throughout the world. We at Nova feel it is our mission to produce people who are able to overcome the restraints of nationality and race, and comprehend other cultures and languages."
A reasonable assumption based on this information would be that NOVA was an undiscriminating employer who valued and appreciated the cultural varieties that shape the English language in a modern international arena. Put simply, this assumption would be wrong. Whilst Nova claims to have "overcome the restraints of nationality and race", it remains a fact that it employs primarily NES's only. This hiring is done not on the basis of their linguistic ability but on the basis of their physical appearance and nationality. These teachers are then subject to minimal pay, pressure to sell materials to students and grueling work conditions. Over recent years the NOVA group has been the target of a number of law-suits claiming violations of human rights and general unprofessional business practices both against the employee and the customer (Nova's ban on dating violates rights, Japan Times, March 1, 2003, Court slams Nova's shady business practices, Mainichi, July 14, 2004, NOVA not enrolling foreign instructors on social insurance, Asahi Shimbun, March 3, 2005, Nova to pay teacher over demotion, Japan Times, December 11, 2005 and Court rules English language school Nova billed student illegally, Mainichi, January 31, 2006).
Likewise, a rival major company, AEON who have been accused of cheating its employees out of paid holiday entitlement (National Union Voice, October 2004, Vol 1, No 18) and violating the regulations set forth by the Labour Standards Law states on it's website that:
"AEON recruits from several English speaking countries around the world, as we realize that diversity is essential to the well-rounded education of our students. The greater the spectrum of individuality to which we can expose our students, the greater their understanding of foreign cultures will be. We are eager to meet with any qualified applicant."
Once again, the promise of cultural exposure is somewhat shaded by other more rigid regulations. In order to be considered as a qualified applicant at AEON, one must hold a "masterful command of the English language". The classification of language ability can be interpreted as highly misleading and something of an anomaly. How many people can claim to have a mastery of the English language? What exactly constitutes as a "masterful command" ? How can such a school measure an applicant's mastery of English?
Such elevated problematic promotions of the NES's status can also be found on the GEOS website where they state that:
"Teaching English in Japan with GEOS is an opportunity of a lifetime. GEOS Corp. is a global network of more than 500 schools in Japan and 47 worldwide, committed to furthering international communication through language education". "Since a perfect command of English is required, only applicants who have completed their entire education in English (from elementary school through to university) will be considered".
The tragic use of the term "perfect command" provides us with an accurate reflection of the value that is placed upon education by such establishments. For such a major chain specializing in language education to use the term with obvious disregard for its implications is at the very least questionable in its motives, and students and teachers alike should approach with caution. A fundament question here, which begs for an answer, is, who makes the judgment that persons all round ability in a language is perfect? Is anybody qualified to pass judgment on the perfection of another human beings language ability?
GEOS has also had experience with employees claiming poor business practices. In 1999 GEOS was taken to court by 14 of its managers over unpaid overtime. The main plaintiff said that she was working a 72-hour week under constant unmanageable pressure to increase sales at her school. Even though the managers won their suit, costing GEOS 3 million yen in unpaid overtime.
Whilst they are by no means alone NOVA, AEON and GEOS must take some responsibility for the underachievement in English of the Japanese people. These schools provide many students with a reference model on what the teacher-student dynamic should be; although the most successful method of language transference and acquisition is debatable, such schools are acting to enforce a number of false beliefs concerning the language learning process.
Responsibility also comes through the fact that the school provides the teacher, curriculum and the classroom materials to the students. If the teacher is not satisfied or happy within their employment situation then the quality and sincerity of a lesson will surely suffer as a result. The real victim in such cases is the student, who having paid out a substantial amount of money receives very little in return. I would suggest a complete overhaul in teacher recruitment policies, employment terms and equality practices within these companies. Teaching English for the benefit of the student's proficiency rather than for massive financial profits must be emphasized if such large-scale institutes are to be successful in their deliverance of a final product over the long term. It is unreasonable for the Japanese to expect quality English tuition from NES's when the rewards they provide are far lower than those in the teacher's home countries.
The concept of the native speaker has been debated repeated. Davies, (2003) referred to it as both myth and reality. Assuming that the native speaker does exist Nayar, (1998) argues, "the concept of the native speaker, particularly for a language with such a trans-national and trans-ethnic profile as English, creates some insidious pragmatic problems". One such problem that is applicable to Japan is the confusion of language and cultural identity with academic and linguistic excellence. Within the Japan the NES does exist and is considered the benchmark for comparing ones own language skills to, they provide a knowledge and authority of the language which many believe non-native English speakers (NNES) are unable to do. There is very little evidence available to support the idea that native speakers are more "masterful" or "perfect" in their command of the language when compared to their non-native counterparts. The majority of NES's possess a vocabulary of 10,000 to 20,000 words; in effect they only actively use a fraction of this vocabulary. This may seem like a substantial native speaker vocabulary but when you consider that the Oxford English Dictionary has 616,500 entries, it becomes apparent that a "masterful or perfect command of the English language" is something that evades most, if not all speakers of English. One study that served to illustrate the flaws in native speaker ability was conducted by Spear, (1999). He compiled a list of 100 words for a native speaking copy-editing class at the University of Richmond. The words didn't represent any pattern or standard but were words that he expected future journalists to know. Having selected the words from random sources such as, Editor & Publisher, Columbia Journalism Review, American Journalism Review, Sports Illustrated, Newsweek, Harpers, RollingStone, The New Yorker, The New York Times, and The Richmond Times-Dispatch he administered the multiple choice test. The 16 students who took the 100-question test had a mean score of 44.7 incorrect answers with many students claiming that they had never even seen some of the selected words before. Whilst the majority of NES's in Japan are not journalism students this illustrates the point that a "masterful or perfect command of the English language" is something that is extremely difficult to obtain, does not occur naturally and in the majority of cases will forever be unobtainable.
The majority of NES's in Japan come from countries that are members of the "Inner Circle" (i.e., Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) as identified by Kachru (1985). Speakers of English from countries which are outside this Inner Circle often find it difficult to gain employment within Japan due in-part to what Lippi-Green (1997) refer to as a form of linguistic discrimination. Additionally, it has been found that NES's without any form of teacher qualifications are more likely to be hired for teaching jobs than experienced, qualified NNES's (Amin, 2000). It is often these unqualified NES teachers who fall within the connotation of being as elitist or purist. These pseudo teachers often force their superior form of language onto the foreign language student (Offner, 1995). Therefore, the benefit of such employment practices cannot be justified in terms of English language progression alone.
Medgyes, (1996) conducted a research survey of both NES and NNES who were working as English teachers to determine the success of both groups. His conclusions stated that both the NES and NNES had an equal chance of English teacher success. Interestingly, Medgyes pointed out that the only area in which NNES were less effective than NES was also an area which worked in their favour, English language proficiency. Since the NNES would have studied the language much in the same way as their students, the NNES has an advantage over the NES. The NNES can empathize and show deeper sensitivity to student needs and problems, as they themselves are products of a learning process. They also serve as good leaner models and motivations for the students to achieve a high level of English proficiency. Perhaps the constant importation of foreign teachers is creating an environment where Japanese teachers can no longer be role models for their students due to a lack of practical ability in English.
The variety of English taught or believed to be the most useful also has the power to effect recruitment practices, teacher preferences and student motivations. McConnell, (2000) found that many Japanese teachers of English in Japan believed that learning American English should be the target for students. This would theoretically make any American English speaker a native speaker within Japan. This ignores issues of biracialism and bilingualism and tends to assume that the American NES will be of white ethnic origin. Only 1-year prior, the Ministry of Education, (1999) promoted the view that teaching English which is not biased toward any individual group or race was the way forward for Japan. Whilst this maybe the case the actual practices of both governmental and non-governmental establishments do not reflect this opinion. Misguided educational beliefs are not only present in teaching populations. Japanese students of English also hold a number of interesting opinions about the English language. Kubota, (2004) looked at Japanese university students perception of NES's, one student commented in an open-ended interview that:
"American English is the best variety as a model, but British English and Australian English are acceptable substitutes".
Clearly, both attitudes among Japanese teachers of English and Japanese students of English have developed in way which views American English as the ultimate model to aspire to. Although the practical applicability of American English (if we take it to mean what some refer to as Standard American English) in Japan is minimal, domestically the English language in any form has no function, for international business especially in Asia such a variety of English will isolate more people than it includes, therefore it seems that the benefits to the students are minimal if not non-existent. It does though reinforce the myth that the NES is the almighty authority and superior holder of perfect English form, a myth which schools, governments and teachers seem to have bought into without question.
Even among populations of NES's consensual agreement on both the variety of English that should be taught in EFL and the type of teacher who is the most effective is hotly debated. In a BBC educational online poll (2006) visitors to a website were encouraged to vote for which variety of English should be taught around the world. Country specific English recorded 45% of the votes, International English was preferred by 36% of the visitors and 19% indicated that it didn't matter. What these results suggest is that like the Japanese students country specific English is perceived as the most favorable. In a subsequent follow up poll the viewers were asked, do NES's make the best EFL teachers? Only 15% indicated that they totally agreed, 29% agreed somewhat, 28% disagreed somewhat, 24% totally disagreed and 4% were unsure. These results seem to conflict each other, based on the current data alone it would suggest that the most favorable combination would be to teach country specific English through a NNES. Further research is required here to make more accurate conclusions based on such results.
One possible explanation for the above data is that, countries which have English as a native first language tend to claim it as their own with much pride, as if it were a possession of some kind. Marton & Preston, (1975) suggested that native speakers act in a specifically guarded way toward their own first language. They proposed the "personal possession hypothesis" which views any use of slang, gesturing or informal pronunciation by non-native speakers as a case of thieving. The variety of English that NES's exhibit, believe in, are familiar with, and teach to others is usually the kind that is specific to their home countries, not what is internationally widespread or that which is the easiest to understand as an international language. When considering English as an international language it should not be confused or even aligned toward standard forms of British or American English (take note Japanese educators). These two minority sub-groups of the English language only represent a small percentage of the worlds English speaking populations. In this respect it seems somewhat odd that students all over Japan are being taught "Real British English" or "American Standard English" through government sponsored programs. In effect these forms of English are much better suited to native to native speaker interactions rather than to be learned as a second language or as a tool for international communication. These points were further illustrated by Widdowson, (1994) who believed:
"How English develops in the world is no business whatever of native speakers in England, the United States, or anywhere else. They have no say in the matter, no right to intervene or pass judgment. They are irrelevant. The very fact that English is an international language means that no nation can have custody over it. To grant such custody of the language is necessarily to arrest its development and so undermine its international status. It is a matter of considerable pride and satisfaction for native speakers of English that their language is an international means of communication. But the point is that it is only international to the extent that it is not their language. It is not a possession which they lease out to others, while still retaining the freehold. Other people actually own it."
This myth of NES superiority and ownership has grown to such lengths in Japan that, in Tokyo, students can take speech therapy classes to sound more like a NES's (www.speechtherapy.jp/seminar.html).This somewhat misguided therapy focuses on producing Japanese students who speak with either a standard British or standard American accent. What actually qualifies as such an accent is unknown. If we consider the standard British accent to mean "Received pronunciation" then it is not standard at all. The number of NES's who speak with such an accent is minimal. The term "British English" alone is often misplaced and misunderstood by teachers, students and policy makers. Britain is the official term for an island that is made up of 3 individual countries; the vast majority of its inhabitants do indeed speak English. Although when we analyze the lexicon, culture and style of communication we find that there are huge variations in effect. Even if we considered Britain just to refer to England alone the problem remains. There are an abundance of different accents and dialects within England that can be referred to as "northern" or "southern". Dialects which form a continuum and as Trudgill (1999) describes:
"they can be differentiated on a "more-or-less" basis rather than an "either-or" one. It is common in Britain for people who display particularly broad accents to be labeled by terms such as "Geordie", "Cockney", "Jock" or "Scouse."
All of these identify a specific regional accent, most of which are recognizable to many of the people in the country. Along with the accent recognition come other attached stereotypical images and socio-economic assumptions. If the Japanese were to learn such regional accents, even though they do constitutes "British English" through a program of EFL study or speech therapy, this would only further isolate them from international communication and in many respects stigmatizes them due to the stereotypical assumptions which are made based solely on accent.
Even when students, teachers and other parties are in possession of such information there is very little which employers can do without a shift in attitude. If one takes a look at some of the core employment websites in Japan (www.gaijinpot.com / www.jobsinjapan.com) it is apparent that the majority of employment advertisements for teachers request NES's only. In some cases they even specify which nation they would like the teacher to be from, this is reinforcing the false belief that even countries from the Inner Circle of nations can be ranked preferentially based on some unknown linguistic measure. Phillipson (1992) stated that such behavior constitutes "linguistic imperialism" and is a danger to the future of the language, especially to those who speak English in non-native countries such as Japan. Paradoxically, the Japanese are harming themselves in supporting such false beliefs of NES superiority. The current situation represents a dangerous circle of false beliefs, linguistic imperialism, discriminatory hiring practices and mixed quality tuition. Whilst attributing blame is not easy, it would appear that the Japanese core opinions and views on the English leaner process are most at fault in this process. This is due to poor education by the Japanese government and a continued reliance on the foreign teacher. Eikaiwa schools simply act to compound these problems through the reinforcement of false beliefs. Additionally, these beliefs are creating an employment environment based on opportunism and favoritism, both to the NES and within the native speaking sub-groups based on national preferences.
On the opposite end of the scale these prejudicial practices also affect NNES teachers who are Japanese. The lack of quality Japanese English speaking teachers in Japan can also be in part attributed to this obsession with NES's. It affects the attitudes of local non-native teachers and, in turn, their students. Japanese students, who hold the opinion that they need English primarily for international communication, also believe that their goal should be to sound as much like a native speaker as possible, and regard non-native varieties as deficient. This immediately creates an enormous bias in Japan toward NNES's and in turn fuels the problem of a nation struggling to come to terms with its dire performance in English. One possible alternative was suggested by Suzuki, (1999) who suggested that Japanese English learners should be encouraged to use the English language in a manner which has distinct Japanese characteristics. The acceptance of an English with Japanese characteristics presents problems for NES and other NNES in terms of in intelligibility, practicality and functionability although Seidlhofer, (2000) claims:
"There is really no justification for doggedly persisting in referring to an item as an "error" if the vast majority of the world's L2 English speakers produce and understand it".
Therefore any Japanese characteristics should be accepted as a valued form of NNES English as long as other NNES's can understand them. Many Japanese students of English are surprised to read guidelines which were put forward by Smith, (1983) who suggested that no student needs to become more like the Americans, the British, the Canadians or any other English speaking country in order to lay claim to the language. He added that it was not even necessary for the student to appreciate the culture of the English speaking country in order to use the language effectively. He finally added that just because the other person doesn't speak English in the way we do it doesn't mean that they are speaking incorrectly or wrongly.
So, if native speakers, by design have flaws in their ability/suitability why are they in constant demand in Japan? For many institutions, a great deal of this has nothing at all to do with NES ability, linguistic talent or any other feature related to academic knowledge (other than a degree which is a requirement for a VISA). English schools are not educating for the benefit of the students, they are selling a product for financial profit. In a business sense, they are doing well, meeting the demand of the market. The demand from the Japanese students usually center on a number of predictable factors. The NES employed as a teacher should be preferably white Caucasian, from a middle class environment, have blonde hair and in some extreme cases have blue eyes. These exaggerated stereotypes are based on the stereotypical western English speaker appearance within Japan. Such an image has been reinforced in Japan through a combination of advertising, desirability and also traditional Japanese Manga. Additionally, there is a desire (although not so strong) to have a native English speaking teacher with Japanese language knowledge, but only to an extent in order to keep the power balance between the guest and the host. This is connected to the entrenched Japanese belief that cultural origin and language are inseparable, therefore the Japanese language essentially belongs to only the Japanese people. It could be argued that such an attitude is at the core of the Japanese failings in English. The attitude that they are simply borrowing another cultures language can only act as a hindrance in the quest for proficiency.
The only hope currently shining in Japan is the example being set by the Yokohama City Board of Education. The Yokohama BOE has decided to make use of its large foreign NNES population by employing them as part-time teachers. These people from places such as India, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, and Pakistan are being invited to Elementary schools to introduce their countries and customs to young impressionable Japanese students. This introduction is a sign of a shift away from the typical NES only cultural exposure that has plagued Japan since the arrival of Commodore Perry. The city should be commended for its efforts and for the sake of Japan's international future it can be hoped that other cities will follow suit.
The critique presented above clearly indicates that the progression of English proficiency within the Japanese population is in crisis. It is also clear that teacher numbers alone are not the problem, neither is the amount of schools or the quality of the English taught (although this requires more attention). The problem lies at the heart of both the Japanese government and in the perceptions of the Japanese people. Whilst the government consistently relies on and promotes NES's to teach their own Anglophile form of English in Japan there will be seriously problems in the ability of the Japanese to communicate internationally due to the restrictive nature of the English acquired.
Currently, due to a century of misinformation the Japanese English education market demands NES's to teach English regardless of plethora of issues that surround them. Until the Japanese attitude changes enough to recognize their own failure and the reasons for such failure, this pattern will, sadly continue. The Japanese would be wise to consider the words of (Swales, 1993) who pointed to the fact that:
"It no longer makes any sense to differentiate between the native speaker and the non-native speaker."
But then, the idea of common sense is never that simple within Japan.
Recently the Japanese government published a full report after an enquiry looking at the NOVA English school system of selling lessons to students and not offering any kind of refund etc.; link to the story is www.japantoday.com/jp/news/409332. The report describes their business practices as malicious and highlights the fact that they intentionally lied to prospective students in order to persuade them to sign contracts with the school in which all consumer rights were overlooked. This investigation comes after the company received over 7000 complaints regarding this policy.
AEON Group. Application Requirements. Retrieved September, 26, 2006 from www.aeonet.com/application/index.html
Amin, N. (2000). Negotiating nativism: Minority immigrant women ESL teachers and the native speaker construct (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, A 4579.
Bialystok, E. and Smith, M.S. (1983). Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the construct for second-language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 1985 6(2):101-117
Buruma, I. (2003). Inventing Japan 1853-1964. New York: Modern Library.
Carmichael, S. (2002). An Expose of 'What Is An English Teacher. Asian EFL Journal. Vol 4/1. Retrieved October 22, 2006, from www.asian-efl-journal.com/marcharticles_sc.php
Davidson, F. (1994). Comments and replies. World Englishes 13 (1), 119-120.
Davies, A. 2003 The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Empire of Japan Treaty, (1854). Treaty between the United States of America and the Empire of Japan. U.S. Sen., Exec. Docs., 33rd, 2nd (1854-5), Vol. 6, #34, pp. 153-5.
GEOS Group. Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved September, 26, 2006 from www.geoscareer.com/faqs.html
Hall, I. (October, 1994). "Academic Apartheid at Japanese Universities." The Japan Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from www.jpri.org
Ichikawa, E. (1997). (Samurais crossed the ocean). Tokyo : Yomiuri Shimbun.
Imura, M. (2003). (English education in Japan during the past 200 years). Tokyo : Taishukan Shoten.
Japan Local Government Center (CLAIR, New York). What's the JET Programme. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from www.jlgc.org/en/activites_JETP01.html
Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Ed. by R. Quirk and H.G.Widdowson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and the British Council:11-30.
Kubota, M. (2004). Native speaker: A unitary fantasy of a diverse reality. The Language Teacher, 28(1), 3-10.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent. Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States. New York: Routledge.
Marton, W. and Preston, D.R. (1975). British and American English for Polish university students: Research report amd projections. Glottodidactica 8, 27-43.
McConnell, D. L. (2000). Importing diversity: Inside Japan's JET program. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Medgyes, P. (1996). Native or non-native: Who's worth more? In T. Hedge & N. Whitney (Eds.), Power, pedagogy & practice (pp. 31-42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, (July, 12, 2002). Developing a strategic plan to cultivate "Japanese with English Abilities".
[Press Release]. Retrieved from www.mext.co.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm
Monbusho. (1999). Koutougakkou gakushu shidou yoryo kaisetsu: Gaikokugo hen eigo hen (Explanations for the course of study for high schools: The volumes for foreign languages and English). Tokyo: Kairyudosyuppan.
Nayar, P. B. (1994). Whose English is it? TESL-EJ, 1(1), F-1. Retrieved October, 16, 2006, from www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL- EJ/ej01/f.1.html
NOVA Group. Corporate Concept and Vision. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from www.nova.ne.jp/english/corporation/01visions/visions.html
Offner. M. (1995). Communicating in English. Flexibility within a norm. Bulletin Aichi Institute of Technology. Japan Vol. 30. Part A. 23-29
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Trudgill, P. (1998). "Standard English : What it isn't". The European English Messenger VII (1):35-39
Seidlhofer, B. (2000). 'Mind the gap: English as a mother tongue versus English as a lingua franca' University of Vienna Department of English Views 9/1: 51-68
Spear, M. (1999). Lingually Challenged. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/journalism/chal.html
Swales, J. (1993). "The English language and its teachers: thoughts past, present and future". ELT Journal 47/4: 283-291
Suzuki, T. (1999). Nihonjin wa naze eigo ga dekinaika (Why can't Japanese speak English?). Tokyo: Iwanamishoten.
Widdowson, H. G (1994). "The ownership of English". TESOL Quarterly 28/2: 377-389
Yoshino, K. (1992). Cultural nationalism in contemporary Japan. London, New York: Routledge.
The Skills of Teacher Training course can be viewed here
|
