Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon

4. Past imperfect: The Japanese agony

4 Past imperfect: The Japanese agony Introduction This chapter primarily focuses on Japan, which holds a unique position in Asia, and provides important insights for understanding various methodological, attitudinal, and ideological issues about the functions of English and attitudes towards the language.In the East Asian region Japan has been one of the first countries to articulate positions about the acceptance of English and an identity with it, and about rejection of the language and proposing a distance with it. The case study of Japan and its ongoing sweet and sour relationship with the language has a lesson for us all. A large body of such writing is in Japanese and is not as well-known as it ought to be in Asia and elsewhere.1 We see that during the past three decades the profile of English in Asia has substantially changed. It is certainly one of the regions in which bilingualism in English is continuously on the increase — from year to year, from month to month: Japan and China provide enough evidence. There is also a vibrant debate about the issues related to the diffusion of English, and its ideological and cultural implications in this region (e.g. see Hiraizumi and Watanabe, 1975; Suzuki, 1975; Tsuda, 1990, 1993; Stanlaw, 2004). In Asia, we have several technologically established and emerging powers in which English plays a very dominant role in spite of a love-hate relationship with it. At the same time there is the overwhelming baggage of the past and a continuously developing mythology concerning forms and functions of English which has mystified the reality of the functions of English as discussed in Chapter 2. The mythology of ‘Japanese uniqueness’ characterized as nihonjiron has not been restricted to the Japanese mind, interactions, and culture, but has acquired a rather significant place in literature on issues concerning English in Japan and Japanese English. There is an often articulated impression that the general ‘mystique’ of the Japanese mind extends to the Japanese use of English. It is not only distinguished Japanese specialists who have commented on 74 Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon this, but professionals in ELT have also discussed this mystique and developed it into a paradigm. Reischauer is thus not alone when he says: Since the Meiji period, English has been the chief medium for communication with the outside world, but despite prodigious efforts on the part of virtually all students from the seventh grade through high school and the hard work of about 60,000 full-time English teachers, the results have been meager. Teaching methods have remained antiquated and inefficient, and not many of the teachers themselves can really speak English. (Reischauer, 1971: 299) I have no difficulty agreeing with McCreary when he terms nihonjiron a ‘neo fascist’ concept (McCreary, 1994: 1). The mystification of a culture, of a language, and of a people continues to be used as a subtle way of marginalization. One major aim of this chapter is to argue that the past approaches to the discussion of English in Asia are based on a variety of imperfect assumptions. And these assumptions in turn result in the mystification of sociolinguistic, attitudinal, ideological and pragmatic profiles of the English language in Japan and Asia at large. An imperfect assumption naturally contributes to an imperfect profile. I believe that now is the appropriate time to look at the other side of English in Asia; there is a need for demystification in several ways. Perspectives on English in Japan The earlier perspectives on what I shall call Japanese English primarily focus on six aspects of this variety. 1 Historical, within the contexts of Japan’s language policy towards English; 2. Functional, within the contexts of the uses of English; 3. Formal, with reference to various types of nativization; 4. Attitudinal, with reference to what model and method is appropriate for the Japanese consumer of English; 5. Pragmatic, with reference to the interactional contexts within which English is used by the Japanese; and 6. Aquisitional, with reference to the strategies for acquisition and issues related to it. These studies are both by Japanese scholars and Western scholars. However, the main articulators have been the Western scholars. I purposely use the term Western here since there is hardly any work I could locate that addresses these issues by other Asians from an Asian perspective, for example, in India, the Philippines and other regions. I will briefly discuss these six perspectives. In historical terms, as we know, English has...