Keywords: tsunami, lexical concept, LCCM theory, cognitive model, Japanese, English, loan words.

Abstract

This article reviews the results of various sequential research with a focus on two main topics related to the Japanese language. The first major strand of research defines the primary senses of the Japanese loan word ‘tsunami’ in English and its various meteorological derivations. Cognitive linguistic aspects of this lexical concept are discussed in the context of an unprecedented flooding event in Australia in early 2011. The second main research focus supports some of the features of ‘Japanese English’ as a distinct language variety. Specifically, there are numerous examples of common, predictable choice of lexical items, expressions and lexical sequences, as well as some semantic features indicative of the way that Japanese native speakers express themselves when communicating in English. These examples concur with some of those mentioned by Honna （2009）. There is also an explanation of variation among some English and Japanese lexical concepts within the framework of the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models

（LCCM theory） （Evans, 2009）. Overall, the main focus of the research reported here is a descriptive account of English production by native Japanese university students and also to some degree, their cognitive processing to achieve this.

Keywords: tsunami, lexical concept, LCCM theory, cognitive model, Japanese, English, loan words.

1. Introduction

The first section of this paper reviews various terminology associated with damaging wave events.

The next section provides dictionary entries that define the prototypical lexical concept ［TSUNAMI］, including numerous collocations as recorded in two major corpora.

In section 3, there is an outline of fundamental concepts from the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models （LCCM theory） （Evans, 2009）. Fundamental components of primary and secondary cognitive model profiles for the lexical concept ［TSUNAMI］

feature. From numerous eyewitness accounts of an unprecedented flooding event in Australia, key aspects of a cognitive model profile for the lexical concept

［INLAND TSUNAMI］ are suggested. There is clearly semantic broadening of the Japanese loan word

‘tsunami’ evidenced by the addition of primary and especially, secondary cognitive models in the context of this Australian natural disaster （Small, 2012a, 2012b）.

The second main area of research reviewed is based on extensive and repeated collection of data from native Japanese university students who study English, enabling the compilation of focused corpora from various exercises in written and spoken English. The research essentially aims to provide a concise collation of English lexical items that native Japanese speakers prefer to choose, as shown throughout section 4. Based on the frequency of responses, another purpose is to identify predictable lexical patterns that reflect a Japanese style of communicating in English. Variation between some English and Japanese lexical concepts is discussed within the framework of LCCM theory

（Evans, 2009）.

The scope of this research does not extend to the historical influences of language contact in Japan and as such, represents a more synchronic approach. Nor is there discussion of sociolinguistic perspectives, including linguistic landscapes, ad hoc examples from signage, fashion, or advertising and therefore the content represents a significantly different approach to that of Stanlaw （2004）. Furthermore, there is a deliberate intention not to present a distorted description of

‘Japanese English’ by focusing on ‘made in Japan’

forms of loan words referred to as ‘waseieigo’「和製

Lyndon Small

Expanding the Lexical Concept ［TSUNAMI］ and

Characteristic Lexical Patterns of Japanese English

英語」used in Japanese. Although these lexical forms are not often used in conventional English lexical sequences, they are nevertheless valid expressions to convey lexical concepts that are often culturally specific. Consequently, their semantic potential might not be accessible to native English speakers, especially those not familiar with particular aspects of Japanese culture.

2. What is a Tsunami?

2.1 Types of tsunami

In addition to a prototypical tsunami triggered by an earthquake, undersea volcanic or landslide activity, there are various types of tsunami events.

A ‘teletsunami’ is one that travels from its origin for more than 1000 kilometres before reaching land and they are also known as an ‘ocean-wide tsunami’, ‘distant tsunami’, ‘distant-source tsunami’, or ‘far-field tsunami’

（Teletsunami, 2010）.

On July 9th, 1958, a major earthquake caused millions of tons of rock and glacial ice to fall into Lituya Bay, Alaska. This created a wave, known as a ‘splash’, 524 meters （1,720 feet） high, which was probably the world’s highest ever tsunami （Hendrickson, 2004, p.

682）.

Another case involved a high impulse wave, also known as a ‘mega tsunami’, which destroyed the Vajont Dam in Italy. This disaster was caused primarily from a series of human errors over time. As Panizzo, De Girolamo, Di Risio, Maistri and Petaccia （2005, p.

737） recount, on October 9th, 1963, the dam’s water level was about 200m. A major, predicted landslide occurred into the dam, generating a wave that rose 235m above the previous water level, overtopping and breaking the dam. The subsequent flood of 120 million

cubic metres of water and associated debris destroyed the nearby valley city of Longarone, killing about 2500 people （Panizzo et al., 2005, p. 737）.

A ‘meteotsunami’ is commonly referred to as a

‘storm surge’ and is therefore unrelated to trigger events such as earthquakes, volcanoes and landslides.

This type of tsunami is the result of ‘a meteorologic disturbance, resonance between the speed of the meteorological disturbance and deep-water wave speed

（or） amplifying qualities of a harbor, bay or inlet’

（meteotsunami, 2015）. Therefore, they are site- specific, depending on localised coastal topography and also meteorological conditions such as the effects of intense low atmospheric pressure, not limited to, but for example, during a tropical cyclone.

2.2 Defining a prototypical tsunami

Definitions for ‘tsunami’ vary according to the choice of dictionary. An entry such as that in Merriam- Webster （2015） equates it with ‘tidal wave’, which is a misnomer. Despite that the kanji for tsunami

「津波」is a compound of ‘harbour’ and ‘wave’, one dubious translation states that tsunami means ‘storm wave’ in Japanese （Hendrickson, 2004, p. 734）. There is also a somewhat vague definition in The Chambers Dictionary （2003） ; refer Table 1.

The American Heritage Science Dictionary（2005）

provides a concise comparison and explanation of various tsunami definitions. The waves of tsunami are not always high, nor destructive. In fact, many tsunami are less than one metre and even just a few centimetres high by the time they reach shore.

Common definitions, indicating various pronunciation and semantic features of ‘tsunami’ are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Initial Dictionary Entries for ‘Tsunami’

‘Tsunami’ pronunciation Definition

/（t）su

-ˈnä-mē/ A large sea wave caused by a great disturbance under an ocean, as a strong earthquake or volcanic eruption.

（Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 1996, p. 1437）.

/tsōō-nä’mē/ A very swiftly traveling sea wave that attains great height.

（The Chambers Dictionary, 2003, p. 1631）.

/tsʊˈnæmɪ/ A large, often destructive, sea wave produced by a submarine earthquake, subsidence, or volcanic eruption. Sometimes incorrectly called a tidal wave.

（Collins English Dictionary, 2015）.

The information in Table 1 shows that the pronunciation of ‘tsunami’ can vary in English. A more detailed description of the pronunciation of ‘tsunami’ in Australian English （AusE） is provided in the following section.

2. 3 Linguistic description of ‘tsunami’ in English 2.3.1 Phonemic transcription of ‘tsunami’ in Australian English （AusE）

This section provides a phonemic description of

‘tsunami’ according to HCE transcription of AusE

（Harrington, Cox & Evans, 1997 in Cox, 2012）.

Because it is a （Japanese） loan word, the pronunciation of ‘tsunami’ is subject to phonemic modification in AusE. The official reference for AusE, The Macquarie Dictionary （2009, p. 1767）, includes four ways to pronounce ‘tsunami’, shown in IPA in order: /su ˈnami/;

/səˈnami/; /tsuˈnami/; and /tsəˈnami/.

In Japanese, the first syllable of ‘tsunami’/

t͡su ͍ namʲi/ comprises the voiceless alveolar affricate /t ͡ s/. Although this does not feature as a distinct phoneme in AusE, it is not a completely foreign sound.

Some utterances combine the alveolar plosive /t/ and the alveolar fricative /s/, for instance those ending in ‘ts’, such as ‘nuts’/nɐts/. In addition, consonant epenthesis can also be realised when a nasal consonant is followed by a voiceless fricative （Cox, 2012, p. 114）.

This might be transcribed in words such as ‘fence’/

fents/, ‘sense’/sents/ and ‘once’/wɐnts/. The alveolar

plosive and alveolar fricative can also combine in sequence to link words, for example, ‘lots of’/lɔtsəv/.

In an initial position, such a transcribed combination can indicate elision, without the high front unrounded vowel / ɪ / for utterances beginning with ‘It’s /Its ’ , such as “ It ’ s a nice day ” /tsəˈnɑesdæ ɪ / or “It ’ s been a while”

/tsbiːnəwɑel/.

The Macquarie Dictionary （2009, p. 1767） indicates the possibility that the first syllable of ‘tsunami’ can be realised as a voiceless alveolar affricate, even though this is not a distinct phoneme in AusE. However, the lack of stress indicated by a schwa, highlights the predominant phonological feature of the first syllable and a prevalent feature of AusE. The stress is on the second syllable in a sequence of alveolar nasal /n/ and open central unrounded vowel transcribed /ɐ/ in general AusE on the pronunciation broadness continuum （Cox, 2005）.

This vowel in broad pronunciation is realised as a long monophthong /ɐː/. The third syllable, which is also unstressed, features a bilabial nasal /m/ and a close front rounded vowel that can also be realised as a long monophthong /iː/. Pronunciation of ‘tsunami’ in AusE can therefore appear as an oronym, underlined in the following utterances: “It’s an army of soldiers” / ɪ tsəˈnaːmiːəvˈsɔldʒəz/ and “It was once an army depot”

/ ɪ twəzw ɐ ntsəˈnaːmiːdepə ʉ /. The pattern of stress and also the phonemic combinations of ‘tsunami’ are similar to that of ‘salami’/ səˈlɐːmiː/ and the pronunciation of some Japanese words with broad AusE pronunciation, /tsuˈnɑmi/（US）

/suˈnɑmi/（US）

/tsuːˈnɑːmi/（UK）

A very large wave or series of waves caused when something such as an earthquake moves a large quantity of water in the ocean.

（Macmillan Dictionary, 2015）.

/（t）su

-ˈnä-mē/ A great sea wave produced especially by submarine earth movement or volcanic eruption:

tidal wave. Tsunami First Known Use: 1897.

（Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2015）.

/tsu na mi/ A very large, often destructive sea wave caused by a marine earthquake or volcanic explosion.

（Wordsmyth, 2015）.

/tsu ‧ na ‧ mi/ A very large wave, caused by extreme conditions such as an earthquake, which can cause a lot of damage when it reaches land. （Longman Dictionary, 2015）.

/tsuːˈnɑː.mi/ A long, high sea wave caused by an earthquake or other disturbance.

Noun （plural same or tsunamis） （Oxford Dictionary, 2015）.

/tsuːˈnɑː.mi/ An extremely large wave caused by movement of the earth under the sea, often caused by an earthquake. （Cambridge Dictionaries Online, 2015）.

/suˈnami/

/səˈnami/

/tsuˈnami/

/tsəˈnami/

A large, often destructive sea wave or series of waves caused by an underwater earthquake, landslide or volcanic eruption.

（Macquarie Dictionary, 2009, p. 1767）.

including ‘tatami’/ təˈtɐːmiː/ and ‘Nagano’/ nəˈɡɐːnəʉ/.

2.3.2 Variations in pronunciation and orthography As an example of a loan word in languages other Table 2.

Features of Pronunciation and Orthographic Form of ‘ Tsunami ’ in Various Languages

Linguistic features Language Orthographic form

Quite similar to Japanese pronunciation and English （romanised） orthographic form

Brazilian Portuguese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, European Spanish, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Polish,

Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish.

tsunami

Quite similar to Japanese pronunciation, but quite different to English orthographic form

Arabic Greek Russian Thai

تسونامي τσουνάμι цунами คลื่นสึนามิ

Quite different to both Japanese pronunciation and English orthographic form

Chinese Korean Vietnamese

海啸 지진해일

sóng thần

than Japanese, the lexical item ‘tsunami’ can vary in both pronunciation and in orthographic form, as indicated in Table 2.

2.4 Collocation from corpora

This section presents the various syntactic collocations for the lexical item ‘tsunami’ compiled from two major corpora: the Corpus of Contemporary American English （Davies, 2008）, shown in Table 3 as （COCA, 2012） and The British National Corpus

（BNC, 2010）. The collocations for the first 500 entries for ‘tsunami’ were recorded from the COCA, which covers 425 million words from 1990 to the present.

In addition and for comparison, ‘tsunami’ collocations

were recorded for the first 224 entries in the BNC, which includes 100 million words. Data cited herein have been extracted from the British National Corpus Online service, managed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium.

It is noteworthy that there are comparatively few collocations common to both corpora. Furthermore, in comparison to the BNC, the COCA included a large number of metaphorical expressions; refer Table 3.

Table 3.

Corpora Collocations with ‘Tsunami’

Collocated form COCA （2012） BNC （2010）

verb + a/the tsunami spawned, unleashed. affected （by）, caused （by）, created, destroyed （by）, produce/d, raised, hit （by）, swept （by）, thrown （by）, washed （inland by）.

tsunami + verb blasted, hit, knocked out, pummeled, raced across, ravaged, struck, swallowed, swamped, swept in, took out, triggered, washed away, wiped out.

caused（by）, damaged, destroy, did （damage）, generated （by）, had come, hit, killed, moved

（rapidly）, produced （by）, reached, struck, swept into, travel, triggered （by）, washed ashore, washed away.

adjective + tsunami 2004, 6m ［heights］, Asian, devastating, ebbing, horrible, horrific, huge, Indian Ocean, killer, land-swallowing, major, massive, monumental, subsequent.

1946, （December） 2004, Asian, big, Boxing

Day, colossal, devastating, Indian Ocean,

initial, massive, notable, Pacific-wide,

resulting, small, South Asian.

3. ［INLAND TSUNAMI］ as a Conceptual Metaphor or Metonym

The aim of this section is to establish a basis for how we might comprehend the lexical concept

［INLAND TSUNAMI］. This neologism was coined on January 11

, 2011 （ABC News） in Australia, but has not become commonly used since then in the broader context of Australian English.

The modification of the conventional lexical concept ［TSUNAMI］ can be viewed in a number of ways. One of these is that the lexical concept ［INLAND TSUNAMI］ is an oxymoron, because in the （flash）

flood disaster of January 2011, the direction of （a wave of） water flow was from the land towards the sea. It also contradicts typical secondary cognitive models of ［TSUNAMI］, that their cause is usually seismic activity and also that their waves are sea/salt water.

The neologism created with the modifying adjective

‘inland’ essentially represents a metaphor, indicating that the sudden scale and intensity of destruction in terrain where floods have rarely （if ever） occurred, turned a vast area into what appeared to be an inland sea for a few days.

An alternative perspective is that the lexical concept ［INLAND TSUNAMI］ can be viewed as an example of metonymy because of initial, large-scale, fast-moving and high waves of water. These comprise fundamental components of a suggested cognitive model profile for the new lexical concept ［INLAND TSUNAMI］. Numerous eyewitness accounts of this disaster stated ‘walls of water’ （Gearing, 2012）. “A great big wall of water just went over the car” （Besley as cited in Gearing, 2012, p. 126）. “As the crest of the first wave passed … more waves came, about a minute apart, for about 20 minutes.”

I saw the wall of water. It looked like a giant chocolate milkshake full of debris. It was rolling at us like a wave on a beach. It was rolling across the paddock. There was no floodwater in front – it was just a wall of water （Spierling as cited in Gearing, 2012, p. 143）.

It was very similar to the footage you see of a tsunami, except those tsunamis seem to move a lot slower than this was moving. This was a wall of boiling, brown, highly aerated water moving huge shipping containers, water tanks, big gum trees like they were nothing. The ground was dry and then this wall would hit the ground and consume everything in its path

（Chadwick as cited in Gearing, 2012, p. 95）.

Although this unprecedented event was more conventionally reported as a major （flash） flood, the

‘wall/s of water’ witnessed, triggered an ‘integrated simulation’ （Evans, 2009, p. 205）, a conception that results from access to semantic potential through the contextual interpretation of secondary lexical concepts.

3.1 Cognitive model profiles

Typically, there is a dominant lexical concept in one utterance or sentence. However, cognitive processes are extremely fertile, dynamic and spontaneous.

Therefore, the syntactic interplay between primary cognitive models can result in considerable variation in utterances and their associated meanings. As components of cognitive models, open-class lexical items can be activated and integrated to form conceptions.

These processes of activation and integration involve accessing a primary cognitive model profile, which features what is generally referred to as the ‘sense’ of a particular lexical concept （Evans, 2009, pp. 79, 207）.

Primary cognitive models, as their name suggests, provide an initial step to allow access to conceptual content. One aspect of lexical coherency is that there cannot be a clash between individual primary cognitive models within a sentence. If such as clash were to occur, the result would be a degree of incongruity.

Processes of cognition that occur among primary and secondary cognitive models of the lexical concept

［TSUNAMI］ demonstrate how spontaneous and vivid integrated simulations can exploit vast amounts of contextual detail via access to related lexical concepts.

This can help to explain the interpretation of a particular, unique and unconventional lexical concept

［INLAND TSUNAMI］. Its selection, integration, tsunami

（adjective） + noun

alert, area/s, death toll, effect （political domino effect）, （media） coverage, drills, flooding, flood/s, flood maps, heights, museum, relief, shelter, situation, story, victims, warning, watches, waves,

（inundation） zone.

appeal, arrival （times）, Committee, effects, disaster, Disaster Relief Effort, early warning system, Project, propagation, reconstruction, recovery, refugee camps, relief, Relief committee, relief efforts, survivors, victim

（numbers）, warnings, wave/s.

interpretation and figurative conception can be explained within the framework of the Theory of Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models （LCCM theory）

（see Evans, 2009）. Although ［INLAND TSUNAMI］

is interpreted as a lexical substitution for ［FLASH FLOOD］, it draws upon an established lexical profile of ［TSUNAMI］. The listener not only comprehends the lexical concept ［INLAND TSUNAMI］ as a particular natural disaster event, but also in this case, its location. Hence two significant secondary cognitive model components of the lexical profile are accessed and simulated as ［EVENT］ and ［LOCATION］. The fact that any reference beyond a prototypical cognitive model profile of ［TSUNAMI］ is understood, shows the power of the mind’s ability to spontaneously access and interpret one’s experience （knowledge）

via unconventional utterances. The modification of this lexical concept with the adjective ‘inland’ exemplifies

‘selection’ as one of the compositional processes central to meaning construction in LCCM theory. Broad, narrow, single and multiple selection is discussed by Evans （2009, p. 235）. For further explanation of the lexical concept ［INLAND TSUNAMI］ with reference to LCCM theory, see Small （2012a, 2012b）.

4. Language Varieties

We all communicate in a language variety whether it is our first or another language. Most of us communicate with others from our own culture within a shared cultural context and comprehension of the language variety we choose. Varieties of a language, for example, English, Spanish and Chinese, comprise elements that differ both among and within them from ‘standard’ forms, to dialects and to idiolects.

Socio-cultural factors and paralinguistic features of communication are also paramount to accurately, efficiently and smoothly convey our intended meanings.

Beyond an overgeneralised perception of English comprising a main dichotomy of British English

（BrE） and American English （AmE）, minor, if noticeable differences between New Zealand English and Australian English do not affect comprehension between speakers of these distinct English varieties.

Globally, the English language is evolving, as it is used more as a lingua franca in the fields of business, travel and entertainment, for example. Characteristics of emerging varieties of English are all, in their own valid way, an expression of how individuals use English

from their own cultural perspective. If such language use can be described by the frequency of particular patterns, this can only contribute to validating these as characteristics of an identifiable and perhaps distinct English variety （see Bayley, Greer & Holland, 2013）.

A variety of English is ultimately an expression of how speakers communicate in their own way, as opposed to how their formal education systems believe they should communicate according to other, perhaps prescribed, standard forms. With reference to Singapore Standard English （SSE） and the less formal, Singapore Colloquial English （SCE） referred to as ‘Singlish’, Gupta （as cited in Chang, 2011, p. 193）

outlines an individual/ institutional disparity between

‘on the street’ communication and the form/s of English the government of Singapore officially desires its citizens to speak. The ongoing Speak Good English Movement （SGEM） launched in 2000, based on British English, aims to encourage Singaporeans to speak

‘better’ English. Despite such a long-established and overt campaign, Toh （2014） points out that speaking Singlish is an essential part of Singaporean cultural identity. Similarly, in a lexico-semantic study explaining various interactional and pragmatic meanings of three English particles in Singapore English, Wong （2004）

asserts that the way Singaporeans express themselves in English reflects their own cultural influences on communication style.

Varieties of English are often described according to their lexico-grammatical forms, including verbal and written lexical choice, grammatical forms and longer lexical sequences such as collocation, phrases, expressions and idioms: Poole （2012） Singapore English; Al-Rawl （2012） Saudi English; Fussell （2011）

Persian Gulf English; Eaves （2011） Chinese English;

Meyler （2009） Sri Lankan English; and Edwards

（2010） Dutch English. In addition, Kasanga （2006）

discusses lexico-pragmatic aspects of a South African variety of English.

4.1 A Japanese variety of English

There are distinct, cultural styles in which native

Japanese speakers communicate in English. Data from

a 2013 study were used to tabulate the most frequent

lexical forms, albeit from rather small corpora,

revealing preferences in lexical choice and syntactic

patterns indicative of the way that native Japanese

speakers communicate in English （Small, 2014）. The

findings of this study complement and reinforce those

discussed by Small （2011）. The overall opinion is that particular styles of communication by native Japanese speakers in English are generally comprehensible and acceptable to native English speakers （Small, 2011, 2014）. However, a preference for particular lexical choices and expressions can result in utterances that seem stilted and unconventional to a native English speaker. As such, effective communication in English might be at least pragmatically challenged by ‘odd’ word choice or by formulaic expressions that either do not exist in English, do not translate well, or are perhaps inappropriate or superfluous.

Nevertheless, such definable and quantifiable choices further support the validity of Japanese English as a distinct variety. It also supports the opinion of Kirkpatrick （2012） that shared comprehensibility is a key factor when Japanese use English as a lingua franca. Specifically, this relates to the ability of native Japanese speakers to comprehend speakers of English from different cultures and also each other in English

（intracultural communication）, in contrast to a focus

on grammaticality. In addition, a suggestion is that EFL learners can raise their English proficiency by increasing their lexical range and also by gaining an awareness of pragmatic aspects of language use such as its contextual appropriacy （Small, 2011, 2014）.

4.1.1 Prototypical responses

This section outlines the results of various written and spoken exercises carried out in English between 2010 and 2014 by native Japanese university students. The purpose was to help further validate a Japanese variety of English by showing features of its expression that are frequent, consistent and therefore predictable. Some English lexical items and syntactic patterns used by native Japanese speakers were compiled from numerous written and spoken translation exercises between 2010 and 2014 （Small, 2011, 2014）. The lexical focus of such exercises is indicated in the following sample of twenty sentences

（Small, 2014）; refer Table 4.

Table 4.

Lexical Focus of Translation from Japanese to English

Japanese sentences for translation Lexical focus

English lexical items/sequence Idiom

1. 今週日曜日お友達と遊ぶ予定です。

2. パーティーを楽しみにしています。

3. お大事にしてください。

hang out with/meet friends look/ing forward to Take care / Get well soon Collocation

4. 夜11時お風呂に入る。

5. アルバイトをしています。

6. 毎日１時ごろ昼ごはんを食べています。

7. 趣味は写真を撮る事です。

8. 普段学校まで電車で通います。

have a bath

have a part-time job have lunch

take photos

take/catch/get/ a train Expression

9. 暇な時山に登ることが好きです。

10. 来週水曜日東京に飛行機で行く予定です。

11. 昨日熊本に車で日帰りしました。

12. 午前１時ごろ寝ます。

13. 彼女は一人暮らしです。

14. 京都に観光したいです。

15. 風邪を引いたので調子が悪い。

16. 先週海で泳いだ。

go walking in the mountains fly （to Tokyo）

drove + a day trip go to bed

lives by herself

I’d like to + go sightseeing I don't feel well / I feel bad went swimming at the beach Lexical items

17. 平日仕事ですが週末は休みです。

18. 時々スポーツの雑誌を読みます。

19. その番組は大人気です。

20. この焼き物は手作りです。

work/don't work, weekday/s, weekend/s sometimes, sport/s magazines

program/show, popular

pottery, handmade

The forms translated from Japanese to English by the students were overall conventional and comprehensible in English. There were some consistent patterns of English expression and based on the frequency of these forms, four general categories were identified. These indicated equivalence and variation in lexical choice, syntactic patterns, grammatical forms and semantics. The examples of these patterns shown in Table 5 might be referred to as prototypical responses, indicating the most frequent forms,

reflecting the way that native Japanese speakers think and communicate in English. It is important to state that there can be considerable semantic differences between the English forms produced by Japanese in comparison to conventional English forms. In particular, the lexical concept ［CLIMB A MOUNTAIN］ in Japanese （see Small, 2011） features vastly differing primary and secondary cognitive models in comparison to those in English; refer Table 5.

Table 5.

A Comparison of Lexical Choice, Patterns of Syntax and Semantic Equivalence

（modified after Small, 2011, 2014）

Native Japanese speakers Native English speakers

Lexical/semantic equivalent

I’m looking forward to the party. I’m looking forward to the party.

Take care. Take care/Get well soon.

She lives alone. She lives alone/She lives by herself.

I usually go to school by train. I usually take a/get a/go by train to school.

Lexical variation/semantic equivalent I will

I want to

I will go by plane to Tokyo.

I went by car to … I eat lunch

What are your hobbies?

This food is delicious.

What is your job?

My dream is to become a doctor.

I went to Tokyo for two nights and three days.

My apartment is wide.

Please teach me how to use this computer.

I take a bath at 11 p.m.

My hobby is take a picture.

I will play with friends in this Sunday.

I work Monday to Friday, but weekend is holiday/

I don’t work in weekend.

I went to Kumamoto by car and came back yesterday.

This yakimono* is handmade.

　 （* Japanese lexical item）

I’m going to I’d like to

I’m going to fly to Tokyo/I’m flying to Tokyo.

I drove to … I have lunch

What are you interested in?

What do you （like to） do in your free time?

This ［food］ is/tastes good/great/nice…

What do you do?

I want to be/become a doctor.

I dream of becoming a doctor.

I went to Tokyo for two nights.

I went to Tokyo for three days.

My apartment is big/large.

Please tell/show me how to use this computer.

I have a bath at 11 p.m.

I’m interested in taking photos/photography I’m going to meet/ hang out with/have fun with/

go out with friends this Sunday.

I work weekdays, but not on weekends/

but I have weekends off.

I drove to Kumamoto for a/on a day trip yesterday.

This pottery is handmade/made by hand.

Grammatical variation/semantic equivalent I swam in the sea last week.

I am bad because I caught a cold.

What do you like （sport）?

I sometimes read sports magazine.

I went swimming at the beach last week.

I don’t feel well/I feel bad because I have a cold.

What （sport） do you like?

I sometimes read sport/s magazines.

Ice coffee / Mix cheese will marry （with…）

Did you change your hair?

Please write your sign.

Iced coffee / Mixed cheese get married （to …）

Did you change your hair style/colour?

Please sign （your name）.

Grammatical and semantic variation I like to climb mountain when I’m free.

I want to sightseeing Kyoto.

I like to go walking in the mountains in my free time.

I’d like to go sightseeing in Kyoto.

I want to go to Kyoto. （inferred though unstated purpose）

Did you cut your hair? I’d like to go to Kyoto for sightseeing.

Did you have a haircut? / Did you have your hair cut?

The translation exercises that produced the prototypical responses in Table 5 were repeated as a spontaneous, spoken translation exercise during the first and second academic term in 2014. The subjects comprised a total of 102 first year and 90 second year students, studying an IELTS preparation ESP course. Each student was interviewed individually and shown the same twenty sentences at random one by one written in Japanese. Each student had up to ten seconds to translate the sentence. No response was recorded after this time or for minimally-formed sentences. Students also had the option to pass and move on to the next sentence if they had no idea how to translate it into English. The purpose of this repeated exercise was to compare spontaneously uttered English forms to results from written responses to the same sentences in an earlier study with different students. The results from the spoken translation practice confirmed that there was little variation between written and spoken forms.

In review of the forms shown in Table 5, some further comments indicate characteristics of a Japanese style of English. Some high frequency utterances by native Japanese university students, include forms which are unconventional for a native English speaker to speak or write. The following examples show characteristics of Japanese English forms that might impede effective communication in verbal or written English contexts by native Japanese speakers. Some grammatical forms were not consistent with acceptable English forms. In addition, these forms and also some with correct grammar, could challenge a native English listener to comprehend intended meaning. Some examples of these forms included; ‘What do you like hobbies?’; ‘What are you like hobby?’; ‘What are you job?’; ‘What job is it?’; ‘Do you do what job?’; ‘Please tell this computer （how） to use’; ‘Please teach this computer’; and ‘My apart is wide’. Some collocation was not consistent with acceptable English forms.

There might be overall listener comprehensibility of intended meaning, but the onus is on the listener to interpret the utterance clearly. Some examples of these forms included ‘played barbecue in the sea’

and ‘ate a barbecue on the sea’. Other noteworthy frequent patterns indicated a limited ability to translate some expressions. There was a notable inability to translate ‘for two nights and three days’ beyond an initial translation ‘I went to Tokyo.’ There was a high frequency of ‘apart’ as the translation for ‘apartment’

because 「アパート」is an example of a clipped loan word in Japanese. A high frequency of ‘I want to’

was noted, indicating restricted, although efficient expression of desire.

4.1.2 Characteristic Japanese English choices and patterns

Discussions of what constitutes a Japanese variety of English have been going on for decades. It is loan words that many people first think of when they hear the term 'Japanese English'. Various distinctions have been made between Japanised English loan words and 'Japanese English' （see Stanlaw, 1987）. In contemporary Japan, the coining and use of loan words continues to expand. With reference to foreign loan words, known as 'gairaigo'「外来語」in Japanese and also lexical items referred to as 'waseieigo'「和製英語」

coined in Japan using elements of foreign vocabulary, culture-specific Japanese syntax and semantic properties clearly distinguish Japanese English from other English varieties. This potentially has negative implications for the Japanese to effectively communicate in English for a number of reasons. One of these is that not all common loan words come from English. A common example, 'arubaito'「アルバイト」

means 'part-time job' derived from the German verb 'arbeit' （to work）. Another issue for the use of loan words is that a majority of them are clipped and/

or compounds. Moreover, communication difficulties

can arise when native Japanese speakers use loan words assuming that the foreigners they communicate with understand their meaning. However factors such as variations between Japanese and English semantic properties, parts of speech, collocation, lack of contextual support and pronunciation, can combine to interfere with spontaneous and clear comprehension by native English speakers. These problems can also occur when Japanese communicate using English as a lingua franca with native speakers of other languages.

As mentioned in section 4.1, Kirkpatrick （2012）

firmly believes that the goal when using English as a lingua franca is mutual comprehension rather than a focus on ‘correct’, ‘standard’ forms. The slight emphasis expressed here is to consider by which criteria that forms might be considered correct and standard. For example the numerous and consistent differences of spelling, lexical choice and also some grammar between BrE and AmE are both correct and standard. In cross-cultural communication between native English speakers, such differences are not considered ‘errors’, but maintain interpretability, even though some forms might be considered unconventional by speakers of the alternate variety. This also applies to individual lexical items, expressions and even some idioms. Kirkpatrick’s main point is that speakers of ELF are most likely to be non-native English speakers communicating with each other. This can include intracultural communication, whereby, for instance, native Japanese speakers communicate with each other in English. Alternatively there might be cross-cultural communication, whereby Japanese communicate in English with other non-native English speakers.

It does not always follow that because key vocabulary has high intelligibility, interpretability is also high （see Smith & Nelson, 2009）. That is, the particular lexical choice of native Japanese speakers might not seem obscure to a native English speaker.

However, it is not the lexical items per se, but the way they are expressed, the cognitive-linguistic processing of their associated lexical concepts, which can invoke and exploit vastly different semantic potential. Consider the lexical concepts ［THE SEA］ and ［THE BEACH］.

These are further differentiated by certain activities that can take place, for example, ‘at’ or ‘in’ them. The lexical concept ［SWIM］ collocates well with both of these concepts grammatically and semantically, for instance. The English phrase ‘in the beach’ would be unusual, however. In contrast, an attempt to express an

activity such as the lexical concepts ［A PICNIC］ or ［A BARBECUE］ combined with ‘in the sea’ would create a clash in cognitive model profiles, including

［LOCATION］ for a picnic or a barbecue. This is because the Japanese lexical concept ‘umi’ 「海」 triggers the same secondary cognitive model ［LOCATION］ and includes secondary cognitive models of activities that take place not only in, but also near the water. Hence, in Japanese, the location referred to in English as ‘the beach’ is consistently referred to as ‘the sea’. This indicates the importance for learners of English to study the appropriacy of lexical choice and also the importance of prepositions to convey conventional usage in English for clearer communication.

Moreover, even forms that seem conventional in English, can have low interpretability owing to the accessing of quite different semantic potential via considerably different secondary cognitive models.

The issue is therefore not intelligibility. Japanese speakers might be able to express their intended meaning simply and with confidence with utterances such as ‘climb a mountain’, live in a ‘mansion’ and

‘play with friends’. However, these utterances might have low interpretability by native English speakers, unless they have the cultural competency to interpret such expressions （see Kachru and Smith, 2008, p. 66）.

Similarly, a ‘proficient’ speaker of English as their second language would also be aware of the semantic differences in such expressions and be able to express themselves in more conventional English forms, such as ‘go walking in the mountains’, live in an ‘apartment’

and ‘hang out with friends’.

5. Conclusion

This article has reviewed some of the research the author undertook between 2010 and 2014. The focus of the research has been summarised in two main sections.

The first main section reported the investigation of the Japanese lexical concept ［TSUNAMI］ and how its semantic and lexical modification has occurred as a loan word in various contexts in English. It is interesting to note the semantic expansion of this lexical concept, to include ［INLAND TSUNAMI］

in reference to an unprecedented flooding event in

Australia. Furthermore, the neologism ［INLAND

TSUNAMI］ coined on January 11

, 2011, referring to

the scale and characteristics （waves） of this event, was

understood by Australian and international audiences,

of course with comprehension aided by graphic images and eyewitness testimonies. The comprehension of Australia’s ［INLAND TSUNAMI］ was also aided by the fact that the Japanese lexical concept ［TSUNAMI］

has long existed as a loan word in English and had received extensive media coverage from the South Asian （‘Boxing Day’） tsunami of December 26

, 2004.

The second main section reported examples of English lexis and patterns produced by native Japanese university students in a range of repeated translation exercises. The purpose was to identify particular examples of a Japanese variety of English. Overall, characteristics of Japanese English include particular lexical choices, sequences, grammatical forms and patterns of collocation that might sound unconventional, unexpected, or inconsistent with acceptable English forms. High comprehensibility of lexical choice and patterns is not necessarily synonymous with high interpretability. From a cognitive-linguistic perspective, the written and verbal production of Japanese English can be attributed to the activation of primary and secondary cognitive models by which culture-specific semantic properties are accessed. Sometimes, these indicate that native Japanese speakers are essentially processing the same lexical concepts as a native English speaker, but that these can be expressed in different linguistic forms e.g. ［part-time job］ compared with

［‘arubaito’］ and also ［go walking in the mountains］

compared with ［climb a mountain］.

A native English listener will try to interpret intended meaning by repairing perceived errors and making alternative lexical choices to substitute unconventional forms. This can result in more time required for language processing and possible repetition by both interlocutors. Therefore, a conversation might require more deliberate effort on the part of both speakers/listeners, featuring explicit negotiation of meaning and communication strategies rather than a spontaneous and coherent development of discussed topic content. Moreover, negotiation of meaning usually means increased stress and possible frustration for both interlocutors.

Some concluding comments about the nature of Japanese English will help to consolidate the content presented in this paper. Japanese English is an acceptable variety of English. In essence, it is a style of communicating in English as a lingua franca intranationally among native Japanese speakers and cross-culturally when they communicate with native

speakers of English and also other languages. Japanese English comprises identifiable, quantifiable and predictable lexico-semantic features. Although some of its forms might not be erroneous, they can be noticeably different from varieties of ‘standard English’, for example, BrE or AmE. Cognitive processes that allow native English speakers to notice characteristics of Japanese English as a variety can be explained in the framework of LCCM theory, whereby Japanese production of particular lexical concepts does not spontaneously correspond to usual, predictable forms of English. Indeed, in the case of loan words, particular lexical concepts in Japanese might not exist in English, resulting in a lack of comprehension without further explanation or context-specific clues. Finally, considering communication style when Japanese speak in English, including pragmatic aspects, a reliance on ‘efficient’

forms might impede effective communication, reflecting a restricted lexical range and limited flexibility of language use.

References

Al-Rawl, M. （2012）. Four grammatical features of Saudi English, English Today, 28（2）, 32-38.

Bayley, R., Greer, K. & Holland, C. （2013）. Lexical frequency and syntactic variation: A test of a linguistic hypothesis. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 19（2）, Article 4.

Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/

vol19/iss2/4/

Chang, B. M. （2011）. The roles of English language education in Asian context. Journal of the Pan- Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 15（1）, 191-206.

Cox, F. （2005）. Australian English pronunciation into the 21

century. ［PowerPoint slides］. Keynote presentation at the AMEP national conference, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.

docstoc.com/docs/72001680/Australian-English- Pronunciation -into-the-21st-Century

Cox, F. （2012）. Australian English: Pronunciation and transcription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, M. （2008）. The corpus of contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Retrieved from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/

Dictionary, A. H. （2005）. The American Heritage science

dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Eaves, M. （2011）. English, Chinglish or China English?

English Today, 27（4）, 64-70.

Edwards, A. （2010）. Dutch English: tolerable, taboo, or about time, too? English Today, 26（1）, 19-25. doi:

10.1017/S0266078409990563

Evans, V. （2009）. How words mean. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fussell, B. （2011）. The local flavour of English in the Gulf. English Today, 27（4）, 26-32.

Gearing, A. （2012）. The torrent. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Hendrickson, R. （2004）. Tsunami. In The Facts on File Encyclopedia of World Phrase Origins （3

ed., p.

734）. New York: Facts On File, Inc.

Honna, N. （2009）, East Asian Englishes, In B. Kachru, Y., Kachru & C. Nelson （Eds.）, The handbook of world Englishes （pp. 118-123）. New York: Wiley- Blackwell.

Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. E. （2008）. Cultures, contexts, and world Englishes. Routledge.

Kasanga, L. A. （2006）. Requests in a South African variety of English. World Englishes, 25, 65-89.doi:

10.1111/j.0083-2919.2006.00447.x

Kirkpatrick, A. （2012, August）. Teaching English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: Maintaining linguistic and cultural diversity. Paper presented at Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in ASEAN, Bangkok.

Retrieved from http://www.ilac.dusit.ac.th/wp- content/uploads/2012/09/Andy-Kirkpatrick.pdf Meteotsunami. （2015）. In Meteotsunamis: Mechanisms.

Retrieved from http://meteotsunami.weebly.com/

mechanisms.html

Meyler, M. （2009）. Sri Lankan English: a distinct South Asian variety, English Today, 25（4）, 55-60. doi:

10.1017/S0266078409990447

Panizzo, A., De Girolamo, P., Di Risio, M., Maistri, A., &

Petaccia, A. （2005）. Great landslide events in Italian artificial reservoirs. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 5（5）, 733-740.

Poole, B. （2012）. Characteristic lexical choices in Singaporean English, English Today, 28（4）, 55-59.

Small, L. （2011）. Translation Equivalence Vs Translation Equivalents: Quantifying Lexical and Syntactic Examples of Japanese English, International Journal

of Arts & Sciences, 4（18）, 33-43.

Small, L. （2012a）. Australia's 'inland tsunami': Media and meaning, The Asian Conference on Media &

Mass Communication, Dec 2012, pp. 73-85.

Small, L. （2012b）. Constructing a partial cognitive

model profile for Australia's "inland tsunami", 福岡 大学言語教育研究センター紀要（FULERC）, 11, Dec 2012, pp. 71-83.

Small, L. （2014）. Quantifying Lexical Choices and Syntactic Patterns of Japanese English. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 7（6）, 517-541.

Smith, L. E. & Nelson, C. L. （2009）, World Englishes and issues of intelligibility, In B. Kachru, Y., Kachru &

C. Nelson （Eds.）, The handbook of world Englishes

（pp. 428-445）. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Stanlaw, J. （1987）. Japanese and English: Borrowing and Contact. World Englishes, 6, 93-109.

Stanlaw, J. （2004）. Japanese English: Language and culture contact. Hong Kong University Press.

Teletsunami. （2010）. Tsunami Smart glossary, The Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency

（CDEMA）. Retrieved from http://weready.org/

tsunami/index.php?option=com_glossary&letter

=T&id=64

The British National Corpus. （2010）. version 3 （BNC XML Edition）. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/

Toh, A. （2014, May 30）. Wah! Wary of competition, Singapore renews push for good English. Reuters.

Retrieved May 31, 2014 from http://www.reuters.

com/article/2014/05/30/us-singapore-singlish-id USKBN0EA0DJ 20140530

Toowoomba swamped by deadly ‘inland tsunami’

（2011, January 11）, ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-01-11/toowoomba- swamped-by-deadly-inland-tsunami/1900720 Tsunami.（1996）. In V. Neufeldt & D. Guralnik. Webster’s

new world college dictionary. Cleveland: Macmillan.

Tsunami.（2003）. In I. Brookes. The chambers dictionary.

Chambers Harrap Pub Ltd.

Tsunami.（2009）. In S. Butler. Macquarie dictionary.

Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd.

Tsunami.（2015）. In Cambridge Dictionaries Online.

Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

dictionary/british/tsunami

Tsunami.（2015）. In Collins English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/

english/tsunami?showCookiePolicy=true

Tsunami.（2015）. In Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Retrieved from http://www.ldoceonline.

com/dictionary/tsunami

Tsunami. （2015）. In Macmillan Dictionary. Retrieved

from http://www.macmillandictionary.com/

dictionary/british/tsunami

Tsunami. （2015）. In Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/

dictionary/tsunami

Tsunami. （2015）. In Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/

english/tsunami

Tsunami. （2015）. In Wordsmyth. Retrieved from http://

www.wordsmyth.net/?level=3&ent=tsunami.

Wong, J. （2004）. The particles of Singapore English: A

semantic and cultural interpretation. Journal of

Pragmatics, 36（4）. 739-793.