Language Choice of Japanese High School Students in
Intra-national Communication:
Critical Reflection on Language Use and Users in Japan
Ryosuke Aoyama
Kanagawa Prefectural Yokohama Senior High School of International Studies
Lucas Denton
Kanagawa Prefectural Yokohama Senior High School of International Studies
Abstract
MEXT’s ongoing educational reform of foreign language education places a greater emphasis on the English language, with the focus being on improving English skills over different domains and fostering a positive attitude towards communicating in English autonomously. However, understanding the factors surrounding language choice in a given context has rarely been a topic of focus in English classrooms. Hypothesizing that the lack of awareness about language use and users in intra-national communication leads to students having an overly simplistic view of English as an international language, we explored how Japanese high school students make decisions about language choice when interacting with non-East-Asian-looking people in Japan. Focusing on language use and users in Japan, the lesson unit observed students’ perceptional change regarding their choice of language through discussions. The unit challenged students’ uncritical way of viewing English as an international language, nurturing a nuanced understanding of English’s role as an international language so that students would be able to better choose which language they should use according to their situation, allowing them to become more understanding and respectful of the people they interact with in their future intra-national communication.
Key Words: Language Choice, Student Perceptions, Critical Reflection, English as an
International Language
1. Introduction
MEXT’s (2013) ongoing educational reform of foreign language education places a greater emphasis on the English language, highlighting Japan’s double monolingualism (Oyama, 2016, p. 4) with Japanese being the national language and English being the international language. Under the national curriculum standard for foreign language education in upper secondary schools, the focus is on improving English skills over different domains and fostering a positive attitude
73
towards communicating in English autonomously (MEXT, 2018). However, an understanding of the factors surrounding language choice in a given context has not been given much focus in English classrooms. This language choice that students make when given potential opportunities for communication in foreign languages often requires pragmatic competence, defined as “speakers’ choices regarding use of language in socially appropriate ways” (LoCastro, 2012, p. 307). Language choice in this context tends to refer to speakers’ decision-making within a language; for example, research related to language choice within English in Japanese EFL contexts is not uncommon (e.g., Kondo, 2008; McGroarty & Taguchi, 2005: Tanaka & Oki, 2015). However, language choice over more than one language, in other words, consideration of which language can best contribute to socially and interpersonally appropriate interaction in intra-national communication has rarely been a topic given focus in research and in English classrooms in Japan. We designed a lesson unit which would test our hypothesis that students had an overly simplistic view of English as an international language due to a lack of awareness about the complexities of intra-national communication, which would allow us to investigate Japanese high school students’ decision-making regarding language choice (i.e., whether they choose to use English or Japanese) when interacting with non-East-Asian-looking people in Japan. To achieve this, our lesson unit in this case report was framed by the following two questions: (a) How do Japanese high school students make decisions about language choice when interacting with non-East-Asian-looking people in Japan?(b) How does an instructional unit about language use and users in Japan impact students’ perceptions toward appropriate language choice in intra-national communication?
1.1 Intra-national Communication With Non-Japanese in Japan
In multilingual communities where people speak more than one language, they make
language choices based on various factors in their everyday lives, such as who they are communicating with, when and where the communication is happening, and what function the communication is intended to achieve (Ansah, 2014; Okumura et al., 2006). These practices regarding language choice are often observed in Outer Circle countries (Kachru, 1985) such as Singapore and India, where English is widely used in everyday interaction. In Japan, however, categorized by Kachru as an Expanding Circle country where English is studied as a foreign language, factors surrounding language choice Japanese people make in intra-national communication pertain to unique sociolinguistic and sociopsychological factors. Ostheider (2002) found that the language used for intra-national communication with foreign-born people in Japan tends to vary depending on their racial factor, indicating that Japanese is the language generally used for intra-national communication with foreign-born people of Asian origin, while English is frequently selected when interacting with those of Western origin. In addition, the study revealed that Japanese people’s perception of communication with foreign-born people is overwhelmingly an image of communication with Caucasians in English, despite the fact people from other Asian
74
countries comprise the vast majority of foreign residents in Japan. The concept of English as an international language is not always a critical factor for Japanese people’s decision-making about language choice when interacting with non-native Japanese speakers. Rather, as Ostheider claims, motivations for using English for intra-national communication highlight stereotypical views toward foreign-born people and foreign languages in Japan, due to an emphasis on Caucasians and the English language. In addition, the image of being bilingual in Japan is associated with the ability to speak Japanese and English, which is highly valued and privileged, while it is rare for being bilingual in Japanese and another language such as Korean to attract attention (Kubota, 2011).
1.2 English as an International Language in the Japanese EFL Context
Responding to the complexities regarding the rapid, global spread of English in recent
decades, the notion of English as an international language reflects a paradigm shift in the field of TESOL, SLA and the applied linguistics of English (Sharifan, 2009). Kubota (2012) argues that change brought by the rise of English as an international language furthers our understanding of the role English plays in the world; however, it also strengthens the presence of English, “shaping people’s consciousness, social practice and institutional policies, including the current heavy focus on teaching English worldwide” (p. 55). In Japan, explicit emphasis on the notion that English is an international language appeared in 2003, in a governmental action plan proposed by MEXT (MEXT, 2003). The more recent proposals, reform plan, and national guideline for English education are also based on the established notion of English as an international language (MEXT, 2011; MEXT, 2013; MEXT, 2018).
Under the current reform, the focus on English for foreign language education in Japan has resulted in the necessity for a coherent English curriculum across the elementary, lower secondary, and upper secondary levels, and there is no sign that this trend will lose its momentum. Kubota (2012), however, points out the importance of raising awareness about our increasingly diverse, multilingual communities and moving away from a monolingual focus in the pedagogy of English as an international language. She further stresses the importance of developing “border-crossing communicative awareness, attitudes and skills beyond English” (p. 63) taking into consideration complex situations in which multiple languages are used in local and global communities today. Defining border-crossing communication as “active, critical, and reflective engagement in communication across diverse ethnic, racial, linguistic and socioeconomic differences” (p. 63), Kubota calls for a need to raise students’ critical awareness of the power surrounding language use and of the importance of open-mindedness and positive attitudes for border-crossing communication.
75
2. Method 2.1 Setting and Participants
The subject of this case report was a course called “International Communication,” a two-credit English integrated skills course for third-year Japanese high school students. The course aimed to improve students’ English ability through pair, group and class discussion activities, and 38 students participated in the lesson unit.
The course took place at a high-level language-learning focused prefectural high school in Japan. Third-year students scored an average of 618 on their TOEIC IP test in April, showing they possessed relatively advanced language ability. The school provides various foreign language courses with about 20 students in each class. Students are also provided with the opportunity to take part in exchange programs with schools overseas, the chance to go on study tours abroad, and other such activities in which they are able to put their language ability into practice and learn about foreign cultures firsthand. Students’ motivation to study foreign languages is generally high. Foreign language classes are often performed in the target language by native speakers of the language alongside Japanese non-native teachers. While a set curriculum is followed, teachers are free to teach alternative content when they believe it will be to the benefit of their students and will help to achieve course objectives.
2.2 Data Collection and Analysis
Students’ perceptions before and after the lesson unit were recorded through the use of two
questionnaire surveys. At the beginning of the unit, students were given a printout which contained questions and a space to write their answers. Students filled out the questionnaires individually in class at the same time as their peers. The pre-unit questionnaire aimed to find out what language students would use in a given scenario where they encountered a seemingly Caucasian person in trouble. Students were allowed to write their answers in English or Japanese. After the unit was completed, students were asked to fill out a second questionnaire, completed in a similar fashion. The post-unit questionnaire aimed to discover what students had found valuable in completing the unit, and what, if any, perceptional changes had occurred as a result of their participation.
This case report used the qualitative research methods outlined by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) for its data analysis. They explain that data analysis starts by identifying key segments in the data which will help answer the research questions. Utilizing the MAXQDA 2018 software program, the questionnaire responses were read to identify statements of interest, assigning them open codes. These statements were then reread to determine what themes were represented, and grouped into codes with matching themes. This method of “analytical coding” as explained by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) was used to identify emergent themes and answer the unit’s research questions. For the purpose of presentation, the Japanese responses were translated by the
76
researchers into English.
2.3 Instruction
At the beginning of the lesson unit, before any instruction began, students were asked to complete a short questionnaire. The questionnaire stated, “Situation: There is a Western-looking person who seems to be in need of help at a station in Japan. You want to help the person and decide to talk to them.” This was followed by two questions, “Which language would you use to talk to the person?” and “How would you start talking to the person?” The scenario was explained to students before their completion of the questionnaire survey in the form of a PowerPoint presentation which included a photo of a Caucasian man. After the questionnaire was completed, the instruction portion of the unit began, a large part of which took place in the form of student discussion. Students formed pairs or small groups based on their seating positions, which were determined randomly at the beginning of each class.
First, the students were left to discuss the questions with their peers in English for a few minutes, which was followed by another question, “What are the advantages of using English in the situation?” The goal of this discussion question was to have students start thinking about their reasons for using English, and how it could benefit their speaking partner. This was followed by a complementary question, “What are the disadvantages of using English in the situation?” This aimed to have the students consider what, if any, downsides use of English could have. After each discussion, instructors chose a few students at random to share their ideas and views about the question with the rest of the class before moving onto the next question. In a similar manner, students were also asked to have discussions about the questions, “What are the advantages of using Japanese in the situation?” and “What are the disadvantages of using Japanese in the situation?” Equal time and emphasis were given to each discussion section, affirming that each method of communication had its own faults and advantages. Since a deeper understanding of the complexity surrounding intra-national communication was one of the unit’s goals, instructors did not favor either side of students’ discussion, encouraging students to consider the benefits of not only their preferred language but the advantages of their non-preferred language as well.
Following these discussions, to stimulate students’ thinking about the different groups of non-East-Asian-looking people who they could meet in Japan, they were asked the questions, “What if the person doesn’t speak English? How do you think the person would feel?” and “What if the person is actually a hafu (someone who has a non-Japanese parent) and speaks perfect Japanese? How do you think the person would feel?”
Another scenario which students were introduced to, this time through a video, was one in which a group of friends made up of three Caucasian-looking customers, an African-looking customer, and an East-Asian-looking customer are seated together at a restaurant. The Japanese waitress ignores the Caucasian-looking customers who speak Japanese and continually addresses the East-Asian-looking customer despite her and the others’ insistence that she doesn’t speak
77
Japanese. The skit is a parody of what “foreign-looking” Japanese speakers in Japan sometimes experience, over-exaggerated for comedic effect. After watching the video, students were asked to discuss its contents using some simple reflective questions. They were asked “What did the waitress do?,” “Why did she act that way?,” “What should she have done instead?,” and “How do you think the non-East-Asian-looking people in the video feel?”
As the video contained only a hyperbolic example, after the discussions had finished, the Caucasian English instructor gave some short anecdotes about his actual experiences as a “foreign-looking” Japanese speaker in Japan. He talked about his experiences asking for directions in Japanese at a ward office and being told in English to wait for a translator, being communicated in gestures instead of words when being asked if he required a receipt at the convenience store, and going out for dinner with Japanese friends and having staff ignore him and address his Japanese companions instead. He also talked about a Japanese acquaintance who had been born in Japan and spent his entire life in Japan, but who didn’t have typical Japanese facial features and as a result was constantly asked where he was from and complimented on how good his Japanese was. Students were then encouraged to imagine other potential circumstances, such as international university students on exchange programs, with the question “What different backgrounds can you think of for non-East-Asian-looking people in Japan?” Backgrounds which would lead a person to prefer being spoken to in Japanese and those which would lead a person to prefer being spoken to in English were both discussed. Once the lesson unit had been completed, students were asked to fill out another set of questions in order to gauge how important the students had felt the unit was. This also allowed the researchers to receive responses on whether students’ perceptions had changed as a result of their participation in the unit. They were asked three questions: “What did you learn from this unit?,” “Did your perspectives on this issue change through this unit?,” and “If your perspectives changed, how? If not, why?”
3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Students’ Language Choice
In the pre-unit questionnaire, of the 38 students who participated, 11 (29%) reported that they would speak to the Caucasian-looking person in Japanese, while the majority, 27 (71%) reported that they would use English. When asked “How would you start talking to the person?,” eight of the students who responded they would speak in English said they would start their conversations with variations of “May I help you?” or “Do you need help?” Some gave reasons for their choice, saying, “English is one of the best languages which is used in the world,” and “Many people can speak English so I wouldn’t really have to worry about being unable to communicate.” These students were demonstrating their understanding of English’s common utilization as a lingua franca; however, their understanding of their use of English did not emerge from their critical reflection on actual potential situations regarding language use and users in
78
Japan at this point. This supports Ostheider (2002) in that the majority of students in this case report selected English when interacting with a Caucasian-looking person for intra-national communication. In fact, the scenario given to the students in order to examine their language choice was akin to one used in lesson units in English textbooks where the focus is on giving directions. The skit in such a unit often takes place in Japan, where a Japanese character identifies a non-East-Asian-looking traveler and starts to talk to them in English by saying, “Excuse me. Would you like some help?” (Sunshine English Course 2, 2016, p. 68) or “Excuse me, do you need any help?” (One World English Course 2, 2016, p. 78). Although influence from such skits on the students’ language choice and phrases used in a situation such as the one presented in this case report cannot be presumed here, it should be noted that skits in English textbooks often display language choice in intra-national communication through Japanese characters and non-East-Asian-looking people.
On the other hand, students who responded they would begin their conversations in Japanese said they would “test the waters by saying ‘Konnichiwa’” or “ask them basic things like ‘Is everything alright?’ or ‘Are you okay?’ in Japanese.” One student explained, “First, I would speak to them in Japanese, and if it seemed like they couldn’t speak Japanese, I’d talk to them in English. This is because if I were studying English abroad, I’d want to be spoken to in English first.” Another explained their choice by saying, “If I spoke to them in a language other than Japanese, it feels like I’d be judging them based on their appearance so it wouldn’t sit right with me.” These students were demonstrating that they were already considering some of the less commonly considered scenarios we wanted to bring to their attention through our teaching of the unit.
3.2 Things the Students Learned From the Lesson Unit
In the post-unit questionnaire, students were asked, “What did you learn from this unit?” to elicit their thoughts on if and how they found the unit to be helpful for their learning. After the collected data was analyzed, three salient themes emerged.
The first of these was coded “reflection on appearance-based judgements.” Students acknowledged the risks of judging people on their first impressions, recognizing that “depending on the person, we may make some people feel uncomfortable.” After learning about the different groups of “foreign-looking” people in Japan through group discussion, one student began to think about whether all “foreign-looking” people are actually from another country, reflecting, “Even if I think someone looks like a person from overseas, sometimes this won’t be the case, so I should keep this in mind.”
A similar theme that was discovered was coded “acknowledgement of a diversity of backgrounds,” representing students’ realization that not all non-East-Asian-looking people are tourists, but instead come from a variety of backgrounds. One student reflected, “Even if someone looks like a person from another country, people have various backgrounds, and so if we just
79
judge who they are based on our own bias, we might end up hurting them. From now on, I want to try and think about the person’s feelings in those kinds of situations,” expressing a desire to use their newfound knowledge in their own life in order to have more harmonious interactions with others. Students also reported that they hadn’t previously considered the existence of Japanese people “who are suffering just because they look a little different to what we think Japanese people should look like” or exchange students’ desire to use their Japanese, showing that the unit had brought new types of social circumstance to their attention. This realization that people with diverse backgrounds exist in Japan leads to questioning the simplistic notion of English as an international language. This is increasingly important as many local communities have experienced demographical change due to increased migration, and, in many cases, foreign residents in Japan are from non-English speaking countries (Kubota, 2012).
A third theme was coded “ability to think from another perspective,” which reflected students’ ideological shifts. One student who had never even considered that there was a choice involved in communication stated, “I’d never even thought of the idea of starting conversations [with non-East Asians] in Japanese, so I realized my way of thinking had been narrow,” indicating the unit had been an eye-opening experience. Another student reported that as a result of the content learned in the lesson, they would change their approach towards people who may be from another country in the future, writing, “If I had seen a person from a foreign country, I’d definitely have begun to talk to them in English. This is because it would be easier for them, and good practice for me. However, after learning that doing so can be considered a kind of discrimination, I thought that I’ll try to start my conversations with people from foreign countries in Japanese from now on.” Many students reported that, as a result of the unit, they had started to question their belief that you should obviously talk to any Caucasian-looking person in English after reflecting on potential situations where it could be a less appropriate language choice than Japanese.
3.3 Student’s Perceptional Change
In the post-unit questionnaire, students were asked, “Did your perspectives on this issue change through this unit?” Of the 27 students who initially answered that they would use English for communication with a Caucasian-looking person in Japan, 27 (100%) replied that their perceptions had changed. This indicates that the discussions the students had during the lesson unit opened them up to different ways of thinking. Of the 11 students who answered that they would use Japanese for communication with a Caucasian-looking person in Japan, 10 (91%) answered that their perceptions had not changed, and one (9%) answered that they had. This indicates that these students were previously aware of some of the information discussed in class activities, and that the group discussions had cemented their ways of thinking.
To explore students’ voices and attitudes, the questionnaire also asked, “If your perspectives changed, how? If not, why?” After all student responses had been analyzed, four themes emerged from their answers. The first was coded “the value of using Japanese.” One student reminisced
80
about their experience traveling abroad, recalling how they had memorized some phrases in the language of the visited country. The student reasoned that just as they wanted to try speaking the foreign language, people who come to Japan may want to do the same, and expressed a desire to allow them to do so. Other students had a similar line of thinking, stating that they felt they should try to speak the language of the foreign country they’re visiting even if just a little, with one student saying, “Now I think we should try to speak to people in the native language of the place we’re in.” The student wrote, “I realized that there are people from foreign countries in Japan who can speak Japanese, and also those who can’t speak English,” showing that their understanding of the different circumstances people from overseas may be in had improved. Students also showed they had become able to better sympathize with the situations of non-East-Asian-looking Japanese speakers in Japan, stating, “I thought we should start conversations by saying ‘Hello’ in Japanese in situations like at my part-time job. I want to be able to communicate without arbitrarily deciding that the other person cannot speak Japanese,” and “Also, it’s impolite to speak in English to people who are living their lives speaking Japanese.”
Another theme was coded “English as a language repertoire,” where students showed indications of a realization that you weren’t “locked in” to the first language you used, but that you could switch languages based on your speaking partner’s response. One student acknowledged that the influx of international visitors during the Tokyo Olympic Games period would increase the likelihood that English would be the more appropriate language of choice, but still believed that they should speak to international visitors in Japanese first. Another student explained their reasoning for doing the same by saying, “I’ve always thought that obviously you can’t know a person’s situation or whether they can speak Japanese or not just based on their appearance, so I thought starting a conversation in Japanese and switching languages based on the situation would be the best course of action.”
A third theme was coded “reflection on language use and users,” formed from responses in which students considered their newfound awareness of the varying backgrounds of non-East-Asian-looking people and talked about how it would affect their future behavior regarding interactions with them. One student talked about how their thinking had completely flipped around, saying, “At first, I thought that we should start speaking in English since it’s a lingua franca, but after realizing that doing so would mean judging people based on their appearance, I thought that since this is Japan, we should start by speaking in Japanese.” Another student recounted a school trip to Tokyo, on which they had interviewed some international visitors by approaching them in English. The student found they had come from a variety of countries where English was not the main language, such as Denmark and France, and reflected on what their feelings must have been when approached in such a way. Having realized that there were also half-Japanese people and Japanese people who do not have typical East Asian facial features, another student felt that starting conversations in Japanese would be more appropriate, showing an appreciation for the difficulty these groups of people may be facing due to their exotic
81
appearance. This perceptional change highlights students’ critical reflection on actual language use and users in Japan, where the act of using English carries the risk of “othering” mixed-ethnicity people and of positioning them within a homogeneous discourse that threatens their identity (Kamada, 2011). A different student also reflected on the different circumstances of Caucasian-looking people, reporting, “I thought that rather than arbitrarily deciding that we should speak English with Western people, we should take into consideration their reason for coming to Japan and what kind of background they may have, then decide whether using English or Japanese would be more appropriate.”
The last theme was coded “understanding others’ desire to speak Japanese,” where students reflected on the position of international visitors to Japan. One student talked about a desire to think less subjectively about what interactions with people from other countries should be like in order not to obstruct their speaking partner’s desire to learn Japanese. Another student expressed a newfound ability to sympathize with Japanese learners’ viewpoint, explaining, “I realized that if we judge people based on their appearance and start conversations with them in English, there are both people who will find it helpful and those who will not. Just as it’s a chance for us to speak in English, it’s a chance for them to speak in Japanese, so at first, I think I’ll try to speak to them in Japanese.”
Many students reported that their perceptions surrounding their use of language had changed dramatically as a result of their coming into contact with new ways of thinking. While the points they took away vary, a common theme across all the responses was students’ improved ability to see things from a perspective other than their own. However, we acknowledge that this case report potentially has a limitation. While the advantages of using English were already clear to many students, the advantages of using Japanese and the disadvantages of both had largely not been considered by students at the beginning of the unit before the actual instruction. The fact that a unit was conducted for the purpose of having students consider these ideas may have influenced students to believe that the instructors favored Japanese over English. Due to the nature of the discussion questions and the instructor’s anecdotes used in the unit, social desirability bias in the form of the desire to please their instructors may have guided students’ post-unit questionnaire answers when they chose to report that the unit had changed their preferred language for starting conversations with non-East-Asian-looking people. It is hoped that this is not the case, and that this change was a result of students’ personal reflection on the complexity surrounding such interactions.
4. Conclusion
This case report explored Japanese high school students’ language choice when interacting with non-East-Asian-looking people in Japan and their perceptional change as a result of a lesson unit about the complexities of language use and users in Japan. Although a simplistic mindset in
82
which English is considered the norm for intra-national communication with Caucasian-looking people was strongly observed in students at the beginning of the lesson unit, through a group discussion guided by the instructors’ questions and anecdotes, students began to understand how English use could be perceived differently by people depending on their situation. By the end of the unit, students had become able to appreciate that English use may not be appropriate in all situations, as well as the value of using Japanese to provide a welcoming and respectful environment for people of various ethnic, racial, and linguistic backgrounds in Japan. The unit in this report, which had language user backgrounds as its central focus, challenged students’ uncritical way of viewing English as an international language. The in-class discussion helped them to increase their awareness of how one can be truly respectful and understanding of others in their future intra-national communication by choosing an appropriate language in a given context, while also nurturing nuanced understandings of English as an international language. As discussed in the previous section, this case report offers some implications for English education in schools of all stages in Japan. We hope that the foreign language education in Japan will expand, not simplify, students’ conception of language use in a globalized world with increasing diversity, enabling them to examine their own language choice based on a nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding language users and language use in both intra-national and international communication. As Canagarajah (2006) notes, the question here is not whether but how English should be taught. Touching upon the pedagogy of English as an international language, Canagarajah insists that curricula and pedagogies should reflect the particularities of the local context and teaching materials should also take into consideration the values and needs of diverse settings. This claim overlaps with the implication of this case report, and it should be extended and applied in the EFL context in Japan, where a normative, instrumental focus on the English language from a utilitarian perspective can be observed in foreign language education. As the unit in this report indicated, the first step would be to facilitate awareness-raising activities on the realities of language use and users in Japan, focusing on increasing students’ understanding of ethnic, racial, and linguistic diversity. The discussion questions used in the unit can easily be used for such activities with minor modification. These activities would remind students of the core value of foreign language education, which includes, but not is limited to, learning to understand things from various points of view and developing a sense of fair judgment and compassion as a person living amongst diverse cultures and languages (MEXT, 2009). Through such a realization, students would better understand the role English plays as a shared language in intra-national and international communication with a nuanced understanding of English as an -not the- international language and a heightened level of sensitivity towards language use and the diversity of language users they may encounter throughout their lives.
83
Acknowledgment
We would like to acknowledge and thank KATE Journal reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier version of the article.
Note
This article is based on the authors’ presentation at the 43rd Annual Convention of the Kanto-Koshinetsu Association of Teachers of English.
References
Ansah, M. A. (2014). Language choice in multilingual communities: The case of Larteh, Ghana.
Legon Journal of the Humanities, 25, 37–57. http://doi.org/10.4314/ljh.v25i1.3
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 9–34. http://doi.org/10.2307/40264509
Kachru, 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 University Press.
Kamada, L. (2011). The position of English for a new sector of ‘Japanese’ youths: Mixed- ethnic girls’ constructions of linguistic and ethnic identities. In P. Seargeant (Ed.), English in Japan
in the era of globalization (pp. 143–165). Palgrave Macmillan.
Kondo, S. (2008). Effects on pragmatic development through awareness-raising instruction: Refusals by Japanese EFL learners. In E. Alcón and A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating
pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing, (pp. 153–177). Multilingual
Matters.
Kubota, R. (2011). Immigration, diversity, and language education in Japan: Toward a glocal approach to teaching English. In P. Seargeant (Ed.), English in Japan in the era of
globalization (pp. 101–124). Palgrave Macmillan.
Kubota, R. (2012). The politics of EIL: Toward border-crossing communication in and beyond English. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an
international language (pp.55–69). Multilingual Matters.
LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for Language Educators. Routledge.
McGroarty, M., & Taguchi, N. (2005). Evaluating communicativeness of EFL textbooks for Japanese secondary schools. In J. Froedson & C. Holten (Eds.), The power of context in
language teaching and learning (pp. 211–224). Thomson Heinle.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
84
MEXT. (2003). Action plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities”. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpac200201/hpac200201_2_015.html MEXT. (2009). Kotogakko gakushu shido yoryo kaisetsu. [Explanation of the Course of Study for
upper secondary schools. Foreign language and English version].
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/201 0/01/29/1282000_9.pdf
MEXT. (2011). Five proposals and specific measures for developing proficiency in English for
international communication.
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/07/09/1319707_1.pdf MEXT. (2013). English education reform plan corresponding to globalization.
http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/31/134370 4_01.pdf
MEXT. (2018). Kotogakko gakushu shido yoryo kaisetsu. [Commentary on the Course of Study for upper secondary schools].
https://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/201 9/11/22/1407073_09_1_2.pdf
Okumura, M., Kaku, S., & Koda, Y. P. (2006). Taminzoku shakai no gengo seijigaku: Eigo o
mononishita Singapōrujin no yuragu aidentiti [Political linguistics in a multiethnic society:
The wavering identity of English-fluent Singaporeans]. Hitsuji Shobo.
One World English Course 2. (2016). Kyoiku Shuppan.
Ostheider, T. (2002). ‘Communication with foreigners’ in Japan: Reconsidering a concept. In M. Morizumi (Ed.), On the future of language and culture education: Papers on language and
culture education (pp. 303–314). Sanseido.
Oyama, M. (2016). Gengo eno mezame katsudo: Fukugengo shugi ni motozuku kyojuho [Awakening to languages: Pedagogy based on plurilingualism]. Kuroshio Shuppan.
Sharifan, F. (2009). English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues. Multilingual Matters.
Sunshine English Course 2. (2016). Kairyudo.
Tanaka, H., & Oki, N. (2015). An attempt to raise Japanese EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness using online discourse completion tasks. JALT CALL Journal, 11(2), 143–154.
85
