Three Voices: Contextualizing English Use in Japan
Nathanael Rudolph
Department of English Mukogawa Women’s University
Abstract
This paper briefly explores the lived experiences of three young Japanese professionals, who are negotiating contextualized English language use in their respective workplaces. The author contends that their co-constructed narratives （Ellis & Berger, 2003）, provide one sociohistorically-situated account of interaction that serves as a catalyst for re-conceptualizing English language learning, use and acquisition beyond the idealized Native Speaker （Chomsky, 1965）, in a manner that contextually accounts for the use of English as an international language.
I. Introduction
In the field of English language teaching （ELT）, there is great debate regarding linguistic and cultural targets for acquisition, instruction and use in the classroom. Within ELT and its corresponding disciplines, an idealized native speaker/listener （Chomsky, 1965） has long served as the theoretical standard by which the proficiency of learners, instructors and users of English is measured. Within ELT scholarship, the idealized native speaker has generally been constructed as Western, Caucasian, and often male（Braine, 2010）. Frameworks for communicative competence, grounded in the acquisition of linguistic and cultural knowledge constructed as that of the “native speaker,” have influenced approaches to inquiry, instruction, assessment and hiring practices in ELT contexts around the globe. In fluid concert with the discourses1 of
globalized ELT, local discourses of identity construct notions of “inside” and “outside” and “us” and “them” within context. As the idealized native speaker is constructed, and his or her linguistic and cultural knowledge is assigned and prioritized, so too are local constructions of being and becoming. In other words, the native speaker
construct （e.g., Leung, 2005） relates both to defining the boundaries of being and
becoming relating to the English language, as well as to contextual conceptualizations of an idealized native speaker of the local language or languages （e.g., Menard-Warwick, 2008; Rudolph, 2012）.
ELT in the Japanese context is no exception to this rule （e.g., Kubota, 1998; Matsuda, 2003）. As linguistic, cultural, ethnic and national borders of “inside” and “outside” and “us” and “them” are constructed within Japanese society, so too are the borders of being and becoming within ELT in the Japanese context （e.g., Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Rudolph, 2012, 2013）. In and through its ongoing negotiation of identity from the late Edo period to present, Japanese society and ELT within Japan has constructed globalization as Westernization, and more specifically, as Americanization （e.g., Heinrich, 2012）. Local and global discourses of identity have interacted in Japan to construct the idealized native speaker of English as Caucasian, Western and largely male （e.g., Braine, 2010; Iino, 2002; Kubota, 2002; Oda, 1999, 2007）. English language education has conceptualized and prioritized the linguistic and cultural knowledge of this idealized native speaker. In concert with such constructions, the nature of Japaneseness has been essentialized2 as well, effectively eliminating different
ways of being and/or becoming Japanese （e.g., Rudolph, 2012; Willis & Murphy-Shigematsu, 2008）. Thus, within Japanese society and ELT in Japan, space for
innovation （the creation of new ways of being）, and incorporation （something or
someone can become “Japanese” or an “owner of English”） has largely been limited or eliminated. This manifests explicitly, for example, in the way in which native speakers of English who do not fit the idealized native speaker construct are eliminated conceptually and practically from roles in education, with non-Japanese, “non-native” speakers of English experiencing similar theoretical and practical marginalization （Rudolph, 2012; 2013）. In addition, Japanese teachers of English and those native speakers of English deemed “worthy” of participation in education, are confined within
essentialized categories and corresponding roles （Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Rudolph, 2012）. These categories and roles may relate to how a teacher can and/or should behave both within and beyond the classroom, and what they can or can’t and should or shouldn’t “know” and “do” as professionals. Border crossing in whatever form, wherein individuals traverse boundaries of doing and being constructed, maintained and perpetuated in society and in ELT, may be viewed as aberrant and threatening to the power and position of those who derive their authority from this “native speakerism” （Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Rudolph, 2012, 2013）.
In recent years, however, scholarship grounded in sociocultural, post-colonial, postmodern and post-structural theory has challenged the native speaker construct and native speakerism, for reasons concomitantly practical and critical （e.g., Canagarajah, 2007; Kachru, 1985; Leung, 2005; Phillipson, 1992）. Around the world, for instance, Crystal （2012） posits that English is regularly used by approximately two billion individuals. English has been and is being nativized by individuals within former colonies, leading to the emergence of a wide variety of World Englishes （e.g., Kachru, 1985, 1992; Y. Kachru, 2005; Rajadurai, 2005）. English is being nativized, owned and employed as a lingua franca in and across a wide variety of contexts by a diverse population of users hailing from varying linguistic, cultural, national and ethnic backgrounds （e.g., Canagarajah, 2007; Crystal, 2003）. Critically, therefore, scholarship has conceptualized the NS construct as a vehicle for the construction, maintenance and perpetuation of power and privilege both within the field of ELT and the context in which it is situated （e.g., Alptekin, 2002; Leung, 2005）. Practically, scholars are arguing for a move beyond the “myth” （Kachru, 2005） that users, interacting in English, will do so with Western native speakers, as well as for a move beyond conceptualizations of English instruction, assessment and use grounded in the NS construct, as such approaches to education neglect the vast array of contextualized uses of English around the globe （e.g., Alptekin, 2002; Braine, 2010; Canagarajah, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c; Leung, 2005; Lowenberg, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2004）.
In contrast, scholarship seeking to move beyond the NS construct and the discourses of native speakerism in English education, posits context-specific questions, including: Who are learners? Who will they likely be interacting with? In what context（s） and in
what ways will they employ English? How might they be equipped for interaction in such contexts? The goal of English education from such an approach involves equipping learners with the linguistic, sociocultural and academic knowledge/tools to share with, learn from and connect with others （e.g., Canagarajah, 2006a; 2007）. Being or becoming like the “native speaker” linguistically and culturally, from such a perspective, does not equip learners for translinguistic and transcultural interaction. Furthermore, in contrast to an essentialized approach to language education wherein space for different ways of being and becoming is limited and/or eliminated （e.g., Alptekin, 2002; Kramsch, 1998; Widdowson, 2004）, scholars drawing upon postmodern and post-structural theory argue for instruction that conceptualizes learners, users and instructors of English as linguistic, cultural, national and ethnic border crossers （e.g., Motha, Jain & Tecle, 2012; Park, 2012; Rudolph, 2012, 2013）. Learners’, users’ and instructors’ glocally negotiated identities are something to value and something upon which to draw in the classroom. This is a challenge to the essentialized identities, categories and roles wherein individuals might be confined. “Language ownership” and “expertise,” grounded in the discourses of the NS
construct, are no longer satisfactory measures of who might be equipped to teach. Whether speaking of the NS construct, native speakerism or the NS fallacy （Phillipson, 1992）3 scholars are arguing for a move beyond a decontextualized,
one-size-fits-all approach to ELT, and towards one, “more appropriate to the demands of a global, decentered, multilingual and multicultural world, more suited to our uncertain and unpredictable times” （Kramsch, 2008, pp. 405-406）. Learners would be, “both global and local speakers of English,” able to interact with a wide array of individuals from a range of different linguistic, sociocultural, ethnic and national backgrounds （e.g., Alptekin, 2002; Canagarajah, 2007: Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996）.
2. Purpose and Organization of the Paper
This brief paper seeks to explore the nature of contextualized English use in Japan. In doing so, I pose the following research question: How do three young Japanese
professionals conceptualize English use in their respective workplaces? In and through our interaction, the participants and I return to the debate surrounding worldviews of English learning, use and instruction. The primary purpose of this paper to provide a sociohistorically-situated account of these individuals’ lived experiences negotiating English use, which might in turn serve as a catalyst for approaching the issue of how stakeholders in English language education in Japan might better equip learners for interaction.
In this paper I will first establish context for and subsequently describe my methodological approach to the study. I will then re-story （Creswell, 2008） the narratives my participants and I co-constructed via informal chats and in written form. I will conclude by discussing the implications their words have for the way in which English use, and therefore education, is conceptualized in the Japanese context.
3. The Study
Introduction
From the time of Japan’s forced “opening” to the West, which ushered in the Meiji drive toward modernization, discourses of identity in Japan have sought to establish borders of “inside” and “outside” and “us” and “them” relating to Japan’s relationship with the global community4. This construction and negotiation of identity has
essentialized the nature of the “international/global community” as Caucasian and Western. At the same time, “Japan” and “Japaneseness” has been essentialized and constructed in a manner that limits and/or eliminates space for different ways of being and becoming. In the 1980’s, the discourse of 国際化 （kokusaika） encapsulated such a view of Japan and its place in the world. According to Kubota （1998）, mainstream political, economic, educational and sociocultural discourses in Japan, “sought to accommodate the hegemony of the West by becoming one of the equal members of the West and to convince the West and other nations of its position based on a distinct cultural heritage” （p. 300）. Through the lens of kokusaika, the world was/is increasingly interconnecting, potentially challenging “us” （Japan, Japaneseness）. As a
result, “we” must actively ascertain who “they” are, construct and reinforce the borders of “us,” and spread “us” into the world of “them” （e.g., Burgess, 2004）5.
Within Japanese society, the dominant view of the more recent term グローバル化 （globalization） is virtually indistinguishable from kokusaika. In addressing
globalization politically, economically, socioculturally and academically, government, business and education has attempted to conceptualize and cultivate グローバル人材 （individuals equipped for participation in an ever-globalizing world）. From an
essentialized perspective, cultivating global human resources involves:
1） Interacting with the “Other”/global citizens （constructed as Western, Caucasian, native English speakers）. Any NS fitting the construct is a good NS-ing representative （credentials not so important—knowledge of Japan unnecessary and even undesired）;
2） In the interest of interaction, learning the “language” and “culture” of the native-speaking “Other” and learning to become like them, though they will always be “them” and “we” will always be “us”;
3） Travel to the land of the “Other” （the West）;
4） Acquire an （essentialized） knowledge of “Japanese culture” and “Japaneseness” in order to be able to contrast Japan and the world, and to reinforce and spread Japanese culture around the world.
In May of 2013, the Education Rebuilding Implementation Council （教育再生実行 会議）, a governmental advisory body, produced a third proposal related to the essential relationship between university education and preparation for globalization, entitled
University Education and Global Human Resource Development for the Future （これ
からの大学教育等の在り方につい） （2013）. The worldview underpinning educational objectives within the document, corresponds with an essentialized approach to identity, globalization and language education, as do earlier governmental approaches （e.g., MEXT, 2002, 2003）6. The document refers to building upon the knowledge and
experience gleaned from the establishment and ultimate termination （in March, 2014） of the Global 30 Project （MEXT, 2014）, an earlier government-sponsored attempt at “internationalizing” universities via the creation of English-medium education,
Indeed, equipping learners for negotiating an ever-globalizing world, both within and beyond Japan, is a priority for the government, for business （e.g., Mori, 2011; Neeley, 2011）, and for stakeholders in education （e.g., Butler, 2007; Iino, 2002）. Yet approaches to identity, globalization and language teaching have remained bound to essentializing discourses of “inside” and “outside” and “us” and “them,” resulting in an education that generally ignores the nature and shape of glocal interaction across linguistic, sociocultural and national borders, and overlooks who is involved in interaction, and in what contexts and for what contextualized purposes.
Approaching the Study
This study attempts to provide one sociohistorically-situated account of what Japanese users of English are experiencing in their professional lives. The study focuses on three members of a group of former classmates who graduated in 2011 from a mid-sized, four-year women’s university in west-central Japan. Through feedback provided via online correspondence, the study co-constructs and approaches the narratives of three particular young professionals, exploring their experiences negotiating glocal participation.
I have chosen to approach this study via narrative inquiry shaped by postmodern and post-structural theory （e.g., Park, 2008, 2012; Tsui, 2007）, with a focus on my participants’ negotiation of lived experiences. Narrative inquiry generally seeks to explore these experiences, and to provide individuals with voice through their stories （Creswell, 2008）. Canagarajah （1996） argues that narratives afford participants opportunities to, “participate in knowledge construction in the academy” （p. 327）. Narratives or stories, from a postmodern approach to narrative inquiry, according to Clandinin and Rosiek （2007）, “are the result of a confluence of social influences on a person’s inner life, social influences on their environment, and their unique social history” （p. 41）. From a postmodernist perspective, narrative inquiry is not about uncovering “truths.” Experience and reality, according to Clandinin and Rosiek （2007）, are, from a postmodern approach, “relational, temporal and continuous” （p. 44）. The stories individuals tell are, “the result of a confluence of social influences on a person’s inner life, social influences on their environment, and their unique social
history” （Clandinin & Rosiek, 2007, p. 41）. For researchers employing such an approach to narrative inquiry, narratives are co-constructed （Ellis & Berger, 2003）, sociohistorically-situated accounts of contextualized experiences.
In approaching the “crisis of representation” （Marcus & Fischer, 1986）, in the inquiry process, I sought to be self-reflexive （Lather, 1986, in Lenzo, 1995）. Hesse-Biber （2006） describes self-reflexivity as:
“the process through which a researcher recognizes, examines, and understands how his or her own social background and assumptions can intervene in the research process. Like the researched or respondent, the researcher is a product of his or her society’s social structures and institutions. Our beliefs, backgrounds, and feelings are part of the process of knowledge construction” （p. 129）.
Sultana （2007） notes self-reflexive researchers attend to “positionality,” by continually reflecting upon how they are “inserted in grids of power relations and how that influences methods, interpretations, and knowledge production” （p. 376）. In doing so, I must therefore share that I am a Caucasian male from the western United States, currently teaching and researching at the university level in Japan. In and through my professional activities, I am advocating, for reasons both critical and practical in nature, for a move beyond the NS construct and native speakerism in ELT both within and beyond Japan. During this study, participants were aware of my worldview and the purposes of my inquiry.
Data for the study was gathered in two specific ways: 1） online correspondence, via e-mail, with members of the senior seminar course, and 2） continued correspondence, via e-mail and Facetime, with the three participants. None of the students were available for in-person interviews （whether due to work location or work schedules）. Selecting and Describing Participants
The three participants in the study are former members of the Department of English at their university, who studied with seventeen other students in a two-year long
seminar course on sociolinguistics. All twenty students in the class had originally chosen the department with the idea in mind of being able to use English in their future careers. The participants in this study provide a snapshot of the lived experiences of a particular group of Japanese English learners and users who purposefully sought to be prepared for interaction in English in their future workplaces. Their experiences are not meant to be generalized, but are rather to be viewed contextually as three conceptualizations of what is transpiring in the working world in Japan, terms of English use.
Within the seminar class of which the three were members, 10% of the students in the study became English teachers, 25% entered the service industry, 30% entered office and administration work and 10% entered sales and business, while 10% became Japanese teachers, and one student （5%） became a nurse. Two students （10%） did not provide information about their current employment status.
Chart 1: Students and Occupations
Seminar Students Occupation
1 Japanese teacher （Japan） 2 Japanese teacher （SE Asia） 3 Elementary school English teacher
4 No information
5 Service
6 Elementary school English teacher
7 Sales
8 Office work: Industry/Manufacturing
9 Nursing
10 Service （Hotel）
11 Office work: Sales
12* Sales: Insurance （domestic only）
13 Office work: service
14 Service （airline）
15 Office work: Service
Seminar Students Occupation
17 Office: Industry
（quit her job and married）
18 Service （airline）
19 No information
20* Office work: Industry
*One-year studying abroad in the U.S.
The three participants in this study were selected due to the fact that: a） they use English in their workplace, and b） they made themselves available for detailed online chats and correspondence. The three are Students 1, 12 and 20 （listed in chart 1）. Two other participants （Students 14 and 16） chose to withdraw from participation due to work-related activities. Students 10 and 18, the other individuals using English at work, declined the invitation to participate.
Participant 1, “Sayuri,”7 is originally from Osaka prefecture. After graduating from
high school she chose to pursue English studies in the interest of finding employment wherein she might interact with individuals from differing linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Sayuri entered her university specifically because it offered four months of study abroad at its American branch campus. Participant 2, “Aya,” is originally from Hyogo prefecture. After completing high school in Kobe, Aya opted to study in the Department of English due to its convenience （in terms of commuting from her house）, as well as a result of word-of-mouth recommendations from family and friends. Aya entered the program hoping to enter a workplace wherein English would be a medium of communication. Participant 3, “Nami,” was born and raised in southern Osaka prefecture. Nami completed high school in Osaka and then chose her university due to recommendations from family and friends. She was also interested in the study abroad options advertised by the university.
Results
Sayuri
Sayuri spent the first year and a half of her four-year program confused about what she wanted to do with her life. This confusion extended to her feelings about the
nature and role English would play in her life. During her semester studying in the U.S., however, one thing became clear for Sayuri: she wanted to work in a place in which she would have the opportunity to meet a variety of people, irrespective of linguistic, cultural or national background. Upon graduation, Sayuri spent a year in North America working as a Japanese teacher. The position was low-paying, but she had “been interested in finding a way to live abroad and continue her English studies for another year.” This experience provided a potential career path for Sayuri, in which she would be able to connect with others through her love of learning. Sayuri then pursued employment as a Japanese teacher upon her return to Japan. After searching for positions both domestically and overseas, Sayuri settled on a job at a Japanese language school in southern Japan. In her workplace, she had expected to interact with a wide variety of individuals, and in particular, with Americans, as there was a base not too far from her workplace. In fact, nearly all her students are from East and Southeast Asia, with “the majority from Nepal in my case.” Sayuri’s interaction with her students and their guardians occurs, “in English about business by e-mail” at first, and then subsequently in person. She also occasionally travels to Nepal for work-related business, during which she participates in meetings, addresses academic and social issues that arise related to her school, and seeks to connect with potential students. According to Sayuri, when she first began working she, “had hard time communicating with them in English, since their accent was different from American （sic）.” Sayuri notes that she was prepared in her education to exclusively interact with “Americans.” Reflecting upon her education, however, Sayuri argues that the “key to English is context.” In Sayuri’s opinion, becoming native-like is not necessary: “Even if your English were bad, the listener would understand what you are trying to say” because there is “more to interaction than words.” Interaction is “two-way” and successful communication involves learning how the other person behaves and speaks English: “words are just words.” Sayuri does note that vocabulary is important, though the prioritization of vocabulary should relate to real-life necessities in the workplace. Sayuri argues that learning language involves, “know（ing） other cultures that you do not know. You would be able to see things from different perspective, and be easier to understand more types of people.” This type of knowledge is something that Sayuri
believes students “can and should pursue” on their own. They must actively learn about who they will speak with and where they will use English. Sayuri believes English education in Japan does not provide such opportunities, as English is associated almost exclusively with Westerners, and particularly, with Americans.
Aya
Upon entering university, Aya immediately realized that she wanted to pursue an education as an exchange student. Aya imagined herself “working in an “internationalized setting,” wherein she would have the opportunity to build a career while sharing with and learning from others. Aya was also interested in learning English because English served as a tool to access ideas and information produced around the world: “if you read English, you can get a lot of materials of the world written in English to learn.” After exploring where to consider studying abroad, Aya realized her viable options largely related to studying in North America. Aya spent a year at a small university in the U.S., after which she returned to Japan to participate in the job-hunting process. As Aya had “missed a portion of the job-hunting season due to her studies,” she settled on a job in sales at an insurance company, which sold insurance only within the domestic market. Thus, Aya’s “opportunities for using English are extremely limited” , though she is called upon when such a need arises.
Drawing upon her experiences studying abroad, working in Japan and interacting with her classmates, Aya argues that, “it’s not so important to learn how to become a native English speaker. It is more important to learn how to communicate with people in the world using English or understand other cultures and express yourself in English.” Becoming “native-like” in the sense it is imagined in Japan, Aya argues, serves no great practical purpose for English learners and users, as those kinds of people are not who English users interact with in this context. Aya further argues that her experience demonstrates that English should not be imagined as the only tool to access the world: “other languages are certainly important, as is Japanese.” All language study serves as a vehicle for better understanding the world, in Aya’s opinion, whether studying the language and culture shaping the English of other users, or studying their language and culture in their language. Aya asserts that language study
should take students beyond stereotypes, and not reinforce them. It should, challenge, “the way you think about and express your thoughts.” Such language study, “helps you make your society wider （more open）.” As with Sayuri, Aya argues that language learners should be taught to seek out linguistic and cultural “information about others” with whom Japanese English users communicate, as well as about themselves and their “own world.”
Nami
Nami entered university wanting to escape “Japan.” For Nami, this meant traveling to and perhaps even living permanently “overseas,” which she conceptualized as “America.” In her third year of university, Nami decided to study abroad in the U.S. in a small northwestern university. Around the time she was supposed to return to Japan, Nami scrambled to find a way to keep herself overseas. Nevertheless, “time ran out” and she was forced to return to Japan. As with Aya, Nami entered job hunting late in her fourth year. She was greatly surprised not to be able to locate positions wherein English might be used regularly. This discouraged her greatly, as she had hoped to find a job that would allow her to travel outside of Japan. She resolved, however, to “take whatever job available, and then save money to head overseas after one year.”
To Nami’s surprise, she was hired for a job at an agrochemical company wherein she could “use English everyday.” Further surprise came, however, when she realized that, the English speakers in her office “were Belgian!” Each day, she speaks English with her Belgian co-workers “when I give information” related to sales and administrative affairs. Nami also “e-mails in English with Belgians working at our subsidiary company.” Nami also regularly uses English “with people from India, Thailand, China, and Brazil.” In these situations, according to Nami, “English is just a tool in my professional situation. We don't care if we speak ‘correct’ English.” What is important in her workplace, in Nami’s opinion, is “how much I can communicate with people from other countries.” Nami therefore posits the following: “Therefore, I think studying World English（es） and how other people use English as an international language would be helpful.” After all, according to Nami, “I have much more opportunity （sic） to use English with ‘non-native speakers.’” Nami’s worldview of
who owns English, how English is used, who uses it and how to prepare for such use, has therefore experienced a dramatic shift.
Discussion
What can be taken from the words of Sayuri, Aya and Nami? First and foremost, in and through their personal and professional experiences, Sayuri’s, Aya’s and Nami’s view of communicative competence and performance changed dramatically. All three noted a change in how they perceived the nature and purpose of successful English use, which they formerly associated with the idealized “native speaker.” In contrast, they each argue for the need to contextualize language learning in the interest of preparing learners for interaction with a variety of individuals （the majority of whom were Asian）. This involves, they argue, a shift away from an exclusive focus on the West and the idealized NS, and towards the use of English as an international language. This entails paying active attention to acquiring linguistic and cultural knowledge related to those individuals with whom Japanese users may come into contact. For policymakers and teachers, this involves the creation of curricula, courses and materials focusing on equipping learners with the linguistic, sociocultural and academic knowledge and tools to express themselves and to connect with others, in order to create meaning in interaction. This kind of curriculum would be highly context-specific and would change depending on who learners are, who will they likely be interacting with, and in what context（s）. Teachers would actively pursue a knowledge of their students, and of the context（s） in which their students might interact, modeling such behavior for students. Learners would be, as in the words of Sayuri, Aya and Nami, guided and potentially equipped to pursue contextualized knowledge, pertinent to their personal and professional goals, independently.
In addition, Sayuri, Aya and Nami challenge the essentialized categories “native speakers” and “non-native speakers” are located and confined in. All three argue for language education that reflects the type of English use that is occurring within and beyond Japan. This would also include, I would argue, a reconsideration of who might be hired to teach in the classroom. Such reconsiderations would potentially create space for NSs who do not fit the image of the idealized NS, as well as for
non-Japanese, non-native speakers of English. This would also involve a reconceptualization of the roles of Japanese teachers of English. Such teachers would no longer be prevented from teaching writing or speaking, for instance, simply because of their “non-nativeness.” Linguistic and cultural authority, whether in terms of Japanese or English, would no longer be assigned or denied in a manner measured by “nativeness” of a select group.
4. Conclusion
Preparing learners for glocal participation beyond the NS construct is no easy task. Fundamentally, this involves a shift in the way individuals in society, and ELT situated therein, conceptualize the nature of “us” and “them,” and “inside” and “outside.” This is a shift in the way we perceive the nature of being and becoming as language users and members of the local and global community. In acknowledging that linguistic, cultural, ethnic and national border crossing occurs, leading to many ways of being or becoming an English user, one is also acknowledging that there are many ways to be or become Japanese, both as a member of society and as a user and instructor of English. In essence, by calling for a shift away from English education hinging upon the idealized NS construct, we are challenging the way mainstream discourses in Japanese society have constructed the “outside” world, as well as “Japaneseness” and “Japanese culture.” A final question therefore lingers: what “globalization” are we hoping to prepare learners to negotiate?
5. References
Alptekin, C. （2002）. Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT
Journal, 56（1）, 57-64.
Bhabha, H. K., & Appignanesi, L. （1987）. Identity: the real me. Institute of Contemporary Arts.
Braine, G. （2010）. Nonnative speaker English teachers: Research, pedagogy, and
professional growth. New York: Routledge.
Burgess, C. （2004）. Maintaining Identities Discourses of Homogeneity in a Rapidly Globalizing Japan. Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies, Article 1. Retrieved from http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/Burgess.html Butler, Y. G. （2007）. Foreign language education at elementary schools in Japan:
Searching for solutions amidst growing diversification. Current Issues in
Language Planning, 8（2）, 129-147.
Canagarajah, A. S. （1996）. From critical research practice to critical research reporting. TESOL Quarterly, 30（2）, 321-331.
Canagarajah, A. S. （2006a）. TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly,
40（1）, 9-34.
Canagarajah, A. S. （2006b）. Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197-218.
Canagarajah, A. S. （2006c） Changing communicative needs, revised assessment objectives: Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 3（3）, 229-242.
Canagarajah, A. S. （2007）. Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91（5）, 923-939.
Chomsky, N. （1965）. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Rosiek, J. （2007）. Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry:
Borderland spaces and tensions. Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a
methodology, （pp. 35-75）.
Creswell, J. W. （2008）. Narrative research designs. In Educational research:
Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research （3rd
ed., pp. 511-550）. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Crystal, D. （2003）. English as a global language （2nd ed.）. Cambridge: CUP. Crystal, D. （2012）. English as a global language. Cambridge University Press. Education Rebuilding Implementation Council （教育再生実行会議）（2013）. University
Education and Global Human Resource Development for the Future （これから
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/kyouikusaisei/teigen.html
Ellis, C. & Berger, L. （2003）. Their story/my story/our story: Including the researcher’s experience in interview research. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein （Eds.）, Postmodern interviewing （pp. 157-186）. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage. Foucault, M. （1984）. The Foucault reader （P. Rabinow, Ed.）. New York: Pantheon. Haraway, D. J. （1991）. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature.
Routledge.
Heinrich, P. （2012）. The making of monolingual Japan: Language ideology and Japanese modernity. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. （2007）. The practice of feminist in-depth interviewing. Feminist
research practice: A primer, 111-148.
Houghton, S. A. & Rivers, D. J. （2013）. Introduction: Redefining native speakerism. In S. A. Houghton, & D. J. Rivers （Eds.）: Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup
dynamics in foreign language education （pp. 1-16）. Bristol, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Iino, M. （2002）. English language education in Japan. In R. E. Silver, G. Hu & M. Iino （Eds.）, English language education in China, Japan, and Singapore （pp. 81-97）. Nanyang, Singapore: Nanyang Technological University National Institute of Education.
Kachru, B. B. （1985）. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In R. Quirk, & H. G. Widdowson （Eds.）, English
in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures （pp. 11-30）.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, B. B. （1992）. Teaching world Englishes. The other tongue: English across
cultures, 2, 355-365.
Kachru, Y. （2005）. Teaching and learning of World Englishes. In E. Hinkel （Ed.）,
Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching （pp. 155-173）.
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kramsch, C. （1998）. Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. （2008）. Ecological perspectives on foreign language education.
Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. （1996）. Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50（3）, 199-212.
Kubota, R. （1998）. Ideologies of English in Japan. World Englishes, 17（3）, 295-306. Kubota, R. （2002）. The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In D. Block, & D. Cameron （Eds.）, Globalization and language teaching （pp. 13-28）. London: Routledge.
Lenzo, K. （1995）. Validity and self-reflexivity meet poststructuralism: Scientific ethos and the transgressive self. Educational Researcher, 24（4）, 17-45.
Leung, C. （2005）. Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15（2）, 119-144. Lowenberg, P. H. （2000）. Non-native varieties and issues of fairness in testing
English as a world language. In A. J. Kunnan （Ed.）, Fairness and validation in
language assessment: Selected papers from the 19th language testing research colloquium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marcus, G., & Fischer, M. （1986）. A crisis of representation in the human sciences.
Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences, 7-16.
Matsuda, A. （2003）. The ownership of English in Japanese secondary schools. World
Englishes, 22（4）, 483-496.
Menard-Warwick, J. （2008）. The cultural and intercultural identities of transnational English teachers: Two case studies from the Americas. TESOL Quarterly, 42（4）, 617-640.
MEXT （2002）. Developing a strategic plan to cultivate ‘Japanese with English abilities. Retrieved October 4, 2009 from
http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm
MEXT （2003）. Action Plan to Cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities.’’ Retrieved December 10, 2009 from
http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/03072801.htm
MEXT （2014）. Global 30 Project. Website accessed on February 4, 2014 at: http://www.uni.international.mext.go.jp/ja-JP/
Davison （Eds.）, International handbook of English language teaching （pp. 1033-1052）. New York: Springer.
Mori, J. （2011）. 〈Survey Report〉 G30 and its Implications for Japan. 京都大学国際 交流センター論攷 , 1, 63-71.
Motha, S., Jain, R. & T. Tecle. （2012）. Translinguistic identity-as-pedagogy: Implications for language teacher education. International Journal of Innovation
in English Language Teaching 1（1）. 13-27.
Neeley, T. （2011）. Language and Globalization: “Englishnization” at Rakuten. SSRN
eLibrary. Retrieved from:
http://pagpers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1993062
Norton, B. （2010）. Language and Identity. In N. Hornberger and S. McKay （Eds.）,
Sociolinguistics and language education （349-369）. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Oda, M. （1999）. English only or English plus? The language （s） of EFL organizations.
Non-native educators in English language teaching, 105-121.
Oda, M. （2007）. Globalization or the World in English: Is Japan Ready to Face the Waves? International Multilingual Research Journal, 1（2）, 119-126.
Park, G. （2008）. Lived pedagogies: Becoming a multicompetent ESOL teacher. In J.A. Carmona （Ed.）, Perspectives on community college ESL, Volume 3: Faculty,
administration, and the working environment （pp. 17-30）. Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.
Park, G. （2012）. “I am never afraid of being recognized as an NNES”: One teacher’s journey in claiming and embracing her Nonnative-speaker identity. TESOL
Quarterly, 46（1）, 127-151.
Phillipson, R. （1992）. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rajadurai, J. （2005）. Revisiting the concentric circles: Conceptual and sociolinguistic
considerations. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 7（4）, 111-130.
Rudolph, N. （2012）. Borderlands and border crossing: Japanese professors of English
and the negotiation of translinguistic and transcultural identity. University of
Maryland, College Park, pp. 181. Online version available at: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/13852
Rudolph, N. （2013）. Beyond binaries: Constructing and negotiating borders of identity in glocalized ELT. NNEST IS Newsletter, 14. TESOL, Inc. Online at: http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolnnest/issues/2013-08-27/email.html Seidlhofer, B. （2004）. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.
Sugimoto, Y. （1999）. Making sense of nihonjinron. Thesis Eleven, 57（1）, 81-96. Sultana, F. （2007）. Reflexivity, positionality and participatory ethics: Negotiating
fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International E-Journal
for Critical Geographies, 6（3）, 374-385.
Tsui, A. B. M. （2007）. Complexities of identity formation: A narrative inquiry of an EFL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 657-680.
Widdowson, H. G. （2004）. A perspective on recent trends. In A. P. R. Howatt, & H. G. Widdowson （Eds.）, A History of English Language Teaching （pp. 353-372）. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D. B. & Murphy-Shigematsu, S. （2008）. Transcultural Japan: At the borderlands of race, gender and identity. New York: Routledge.
1 From a postmodern and post-structural perspective, discourses are “systems of power/knowledge （Foucault, 1980） that regulate and assign value to all forms of semiotic activity” （Morgan, 2007, p. 1036）. Postmodern and Post-structural scholars argue that identity is socio-historically negotiated at the interstices of discourses （e.g., Bhabha & Appignanesi, 1987; Haraway, 1991; Norton, 2010）. Social, cultural and political discourses seek to define the nature of “truth” - what is considered ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’- how “truths” are distinguished and scrutinized, and who is empowered to do so （Foucault, 1984）.
2 An essentialized view of culture and “being” posits the following: we can define “pure” and “impure” in terms of culture and identity. We can therefore define “inside” and “outside”: what is “Japanese” and what is NOT; “Change” in society is not positive; it is the degradation of language, culture and identity. Within Japanese society, “Japaneseness” and “Japanese culture” have been essentialized and constructed from a combination of nationality, ethnicity and culture （Sugimoto,
1999）.
3 The NS fallacy （Phillipson, 1992） is the notion that a native speaker of a language is best equipped to serve as a teacher, by default.
4 For a more in depth overview of discourses of identity in Japan, see Burgess （2004）. 5 Government-inspired, kokusaika-oriented efforts have included the promotion of 国
際交流 （international exchange） events, the creation of the Assistant Language Teacher （ALT） Program importing “native speakers” of English into Japanese primary and secondary schools, and the establishment of the 国際交流基金 （Japan Foundation） to promote essentialized views of Japaneseness and Japanese culture around the globe.
6 The document does refer briefly, however, to East Asia being involved in “globalization,” and causally mentions learning “practical Chinese,” after students
advance in English study, as a further step toward navigating globalization. 7 All names in this study are pseudonyms.
