The Challenge of Motivating Japanese Students to Express Themselves Unreservedly in English Communication
Shigetoshi Mori, Japan
Shigetoshi Mori is a professor at Sendai University, Japan. His current research interests include intercultural communication, ‘Teaching other subjects through English’ and CLIL. E-mail: sg-mori@sendai-u.ac.jp
Menu
Abstract
Introduction
Unique speaking style of the Japanese
Task of Japanese teachers of English
Endnotes
References
All Japanese students learn English for six years; three years at lower secondary school and another three at upper secondary school, respectively. University students further learn English as an obligatory subject for one or two more years. Nevertheless, large numbers of students are hesitant to express themselves unreservedly in English. This paper discusses this issue from a geopolitical point of view, and offers a practical solution to it, which deeply connects with intercultural communication.
It was not until the latter half of the 1960s that overseas travel began to be within the reach of ordinary people in Japan. Before then, only a limited number of people, mainly specialists in some fields and the rich, could go abroad. Although going abroad was quite beyond the reach of ordinary people, however, they could catch the flavor of other cultures or get the newest knowledge and technology from foreign countries through reading books, papers and magazines. It was quite natural, therefore, that the Japanese made a desperate effort to acquire English reading skills. For them, learning English was almost nothing more than acquiring reading abilities.
The monopoly of reading skill in English teaching/learning began to be shaken as Japan developed into an industrialized country. With this economic change, the Japanese began to be required to answer various demands from outside. This meant they could no longer shut themselves within their territory and get useful information from other countries one-sidedly. They were required to express ideas and opinions of their own. This situation became urgent with the spread of globalization.
In terms of English teaching/learning, this paradigm shift to the global relationship meant that the Japanese had to change the focus of English teaching/learning from a reading-centered approach to something else.In the 1980s, the so-called communicative method of English teaching/learning was introduced into Japan, and much attention was paid to improving students’ oral competence in English. In 1989 and 1990, the Japanese Ministry of Education revised its guidelines for English education in lower and secondary schools to promote the students’ speaking and listening skills. According to the new guidelines, students have been encouraged to talk or discuss in English. But, this innovative attempt unfortunately has not always been successful. We can point out some reasons for this: e.g., a university entrance examination system which can/does not pay much attention to checking students’ oral communicative competence chiefly because its implementation is troublesome and Japanese society where ordinary citizens have few opportunities to use English in their daily lives. No one can deny that these are factors preventing students from acquiring oral communicative competence in English. In this paper, however, we examine this issue from a different point of view because we think that the reluctance of Japanese students to express themselves openly in English is deeply connected with one characteristic that was formed geopolitically over a period of a thousand years.
Japan is a unique country from a geopolitical point of view. It is separated by the sea from its neighboring Asian continent, but it is not too far away from the continent to sail over to it. Despite this nearness, Japan was not invaded or occupied by any other countries until its defeat in the Pacific War1: i.e., although powerful dynasties flourished in the continent, Japan was never occupied or forced to accept another language and culture. Instead, Japan formed its own political and cultural foundation in its crucial periods after the example of other powerful countries. The county Japan relied on first was China. The Japanese Imperial Courts sent delegations to the country 18 times from the 6th to 9th centuries to learn about its political system, religion, industrial techniques and culture. The second set of models were the powerful countries in the West, mainly England, France, and Germany after the Meiji Restoration (1867-68). The Meiji government (1868-1912) sent its delegations to these countries, and they brought back new political, military systems and developed industrial techniques. With the defeat of the Pacific War, however, the country on which Japan relied changed; this time, it was America. Despite the fact that Japan was for the first time under occupation of a foreign country, mainly America, and was forced to undergo political, educational, religious and economic reorganizations, the reason postwar Japan relied on America was that the reforms imposed by the GHQ were effective at any rate in rehabilitating its collapsed economy.
In this way, Japan depended on other countries for not only establishing itself as a state but also developing its own culture. But here, we must realize that the relationship between Japan and other countries was basically one-sided. It was always the Japanese who searched abroad for, and actively adopted, what was useful for Japan. The only exception was, as has been noted, the occupation period by America and its allies when Japan had no choice but to accept any reorganization imposed by the GHQ, but the response of the Japanese to the forced reforms was the same as before in that the Japanese actively utilized whatever was effective in reconstructing their country.
The long-term, one-way relationship with other countries had a great influence on the Japanese. It created a tendency to avoid active contact with other countries as long as circumstances permitted. Japan was fortunate in avoiding conflict with other countries to defend its independence for over a thousand years until the Meiji Restoration2. During this long period, Japan became, racially and culturally, a near-homogeneous society, and through this process the communal order of society became an important priority. The Japanese acquired, as a practical way to preserve this order, a tendency to refrain from expressing their own opinions openly on the assumption that each member of the same society/community was naturally expected to anticipate the intentions of other speakers. As this tendency was effective in preserving communal order because it functioned well to prevent emotional hostility among community members by saving face, it became one of the most essential social codes. The Japanese have inherited this style of speaking through generations. It developed over such a long period that it solidified too firmly to be melted in a day. This is the same with the younger generation of Japanese nowadays.
As mentioned above, the speech of Japanese students is deeply controlled by their disposition. This means that the same must be true for cases in which they communicate with people with different cultural backgrounds (i.e., in the case of intercultural communication). It follows that, as will be demonstrated below, of overriding importance is first and foremost to assess whether a reserved speech style of the Japanese is valid in intercultural communication or not. For this purpose two steps are required: first, the students must know about their own culture; second, they must compare it with other cultures.
The first step is aimed at making students notice that their style of speech―to prefer restraint from unreserved expression―is quite Japanese in that it is too naturally expected in Japanese society to be questioned. This understanding can lead them to the next question as to whether their style of speech is valid in intercultural communication or not. To answer this question the second step is indispensable.
The comparison of cultures reveals an indisputable fact that people with different cultural backgrounds have their own styles of speech (i.e., the style of speech naturally differs among different cultures) and that as no peculiar culture is superior to others, so too no peculiar style of speech can claim any decisive superiority. This recognition is very important because when people with different cultural backgrounds encounter one another, they unconsciously tend to interpret the others’ messages according to their own culture or values, which is likely to cause misunderstanding or conflict. It follows that the issue of how to adapt to other cultures is the most important and essential issue in intercultural communication. But, here, ‘to adapt to other cultures’ does not mean ‘to assume a peculiar culture’ because in this tacitly lies a cultural prejudice that some peculiar culture is superior over others. If a speaker has such a misunderstanding, s/he either uncritically submits her-/himself to some peculiar culture or sticks to her/his own culture so tenaciously as to force the other to follow it (a speaker naturally tends to be obsequious in the first case and arrogant in the second case), either of which certainly hinders sound mutual understanding. It is essential, therefore, that students realize that those who meet in an intercultural scene must try to bridge the communication gap resulting from the difference between their cultures for mutual understanding. Here, ‘bridging the communication gap’ means not ‘assuming some speech-style of a peculiar culture’ but rather ‘altering any part of their speech that is too unique to be valid in other cultures’. The very thing that Japanese students must do first of all is to alter their reserved attitude to speech because, as stated above, it is a unique language behaviour based on the Japanese disposition. Then, for this purpose, what are Japanese teachers of English required to do?
Regarding intercultural communication, ambiguous/roundabout expressions used by the Japanese when talking in English are quite often criticized for irritating non-native listeners3. This is because they are, almost unconsciously, dependent on a tacit consensus that listeners can naturally guess the intention of the speaker. There is no need to say that this kind of expression can be workable only in a so-called homogeneous society/community. As mentioned above, intercultural communication occurs between people with different cultures. The reason why the Japanese still use such expressions in intercultural situations is that they hope to avoid conflict, or to keep pacific order between persons concerned, even if outwardly. It follows that a tendency to use roundabout expressions results from exactly the same mentality as preferring to be restrained in speech. Then, it can be reasoned that not using such expressions can unyoke the Japanese from a style of speech deeply-rooted in the social codes of Japan. This acknowledgement reveals what task is imposed on teachers of English: it is to teach students to convey their thinking or opinions in clear expressions which do not depend on the listener’s anticipation as to the speaker’s nebulous, unexpressed intention. Is this effective in changing students’ speech? The principle of linguistic relativity (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) claims that the structure of language affects speakers’ cognitive processes. This suggests the probability that the style of expression alters the pattern of thought: i.e., talking in clear expressions influences the perspective of the students on intercultural communication, through which they come to actually realize that what is important to mutual understanding is not ‘to talk in a roundabout way to save face’ but ‘to express themselves clearly’. The more students become convinced of this through practical experience with using clear expression, the more they become confident in talking; the more they acquire confidence in oral communication, the more their style of speech consequently becomes positive. It is this upward spiral that is indispensable to make the Japanese students open in oral communication in English.
- Specifically, Japan fought for its independence two times. In1274 and1281 the
Mongol Empire and its dependency, Koguryo, attempted to invade the northern part
of Kyushu island of Japan, but this ambition failed both times.
- The only exception was Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who unified Japan for the first time (1590), and sent forces to Korea in 1592 and 1597 to conquer the Ming dynasty, resulting in a disastrous failure.
- The most notorious example is ‘I/We will think about it later’, a Japanese conventional expression to express the listener’s negative response/refusal to the speaker’s offer.
Canagarajah, S. A. 1999. Resisting linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Lee McKay, S. 2002.Teaching English as an International Language.Oxford: OUP.
McCrum, R. 2010. Globish. New York: W.W. Noton& Company.
Scollon, et al. 2012. Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Seargeant, P & Swann, J. 2012. English in the World. Plymouth: Latimer Trend & Company.
Please check the Methodology for Teaching Spoken Grammar and English course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Methodology and Language for Secondary Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the British Life, Language and Culture course at Pilgrims website.
|
