Issues affecting the Development of Bilingualism within Japan-Based Biracial Children
Damian Rivers, Japan
Damian J. Rivers has worked in Japan for a number of years and has a research interest in social issues associated with language development. www.eapstudy.com
Menu
Outline
Introduction
Approaches to childhood bilingualism
Social considerations in childhood bilingualism
Bilingualism within Japan
Conclusion
References
Bilingualism and multiculturalism are two concepts which are taking on greater importance within Japan as we progress through the 21st century. The past decade has witnessed a number of shifting demographic patterns such as a rapidly aging society, the need to import foreign laborers from other parts of Asia, an increase in the number of foreign families living within Japan and a rise in the number of so-called ‘international’ marriages and the biracial children which such marriages have produced. As Daulton & Akinori (2000) illustrate - “in 1998 there were 29,636 new marriages between Japanese and foreigners (twice as many as ten years previously)” (p.32). These phenomena can be said to have had a significant impact on Japan’s ethnolinguistic infrastructure creating numerous implications for educational practices concerning language. Centralized around such issues, this short paper provides a brief overview of some of the most salient factors associated with the development of bilingualism within biracial children based within Japan through highlighting a range of complex social factors which can manipulate the successful acquisition of more than one language.
Our general knowledge and awareness of multiple languages has increased significantly over the past century due in part to the ongoing processes of globalization, internationalization and the intercultural contact opportunities which such processes have created. Grimes (1992) highlights that within the world’s 193 independent countries (U.S Bureau of Intelligence and Research, 2006), an estimated 6,000 languages are spoken. With so many languages being spoken within so few countries it is inevitable that encounters between people of differing ethnolinguistic origins will prevail, often supported by innovative communication technologies which hold little regard for national borders or boundaries. Recent research also suggests that human migration is also creating an increase in intercultural contact opportunities. Warttman (2005) documents that the number of people who live outside of their country of origin has doubled over the past 50 years rising to 191 million. Within the realm of this ongoing evolution of movement with fewer obstacles inhibiting global communication and interaction, bilingualism is a concept which is arguably more relevant than ever before as the number of multilingual speakers represents approximately two-thirds of the world’s population.
Originating out of educational psychology, many of the early psycholinguistic definitions of bilingualism such as Bloomfield's (1933) definition claimed that only a person who has "native-like control of two or more languages" (p.55) could be accurately classified as bilingual. However, such a definition makes the assumption that bilingualism has only one linear fixed state - that being balanced bilingualism in which both languages are used with equally high-levels of proficiency. It also makes no reference to how value judgments associated with the term ‘native-like ability’ are to be made and by whom. Additionally, throughout the period prior to the 1960s one of the most prevalent views of bilingualism was that it represented a kind of abnormality that was negatively appraised against the more normative and acceptable linguistic state of monolingualism. Characteristic of such a perspective, Thompson (1952) concludes - "there can be no doubt that the child who is exposed and reared deliberately in a bilingual environment is handicapped in his language growth" (p.367). Such an assessment was based upon the principle that learning one language was difficult enough, so learning two must be at least twice as difficult, particularly for children. Within many education systems, this type of deductive thinking led school administrators to actively discourage bilingual instruction (Hakuta, 1986). Although such attitudes may still exist within certain communities, contemporary notions framing bilingualism as an abnormality are rare. As society continues to evolve facing new challenges, for many people having competencies in more than one language is a requirement for economic survival and progression.
More recent definitions of bilingualism have tended to steer away from fixations with ‘native-like ability’ in favour of a more measured multidimensional approach. For example, Saunders (1988) simply identifies bilingualism as the ability to use two languages. Although somewhat vague, the definition provided by Saunders allows for a certain degree of freedom of interpretation and flexibility to apply the term bilingualism to a broader spectrum of speakers. For example, one can suggest that there are very few adults on the planet who cannot claim to know at least one or two words of a foreign language. In many respects, and if using the definition of Saunders in a rather extreme manner, they can all be considered as bilingual speakers to some extent. However, critics have drawn attention to the fact that proficiency in an additional language requires skills in listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing, although in practice some of those skills are often considerably less developed than others. Perhaps the most socially situated definition of bilingualism was proposed by Thiery (1976, cited in Liddicoat, 1991) who argues that bilingualism consists of "being taken for a native speaker by native speakers of both languages, with perhaps a small allowance for some amount of syntactic, lexical, and phonological interference from their dominant to their non-dominant language." This definition is structured in a manner which centralizes societal perceptions of speech behaviours in order to determine the existence of a state of bilingualism. It is also a definition which is distinctly problematic in terms of multiple language development as it overlooks instances of dominant bilingualism and can be applied to only a small number of language speakers. It also holds particular relevance to bilingual speakers living in largely monolingual societies where attitudes toward second languages are often deep-rooted. Indeed, the existence of resistance to outside languages can be shown in the fact that only 25% of the worlds 193 countries recognize an official second language (U.S Bureau of Intelligence and Research, 2006).
Ebert & Hawk (2003) assert that the linguistic development of children depends upon the linguistic experiences of childhood and the language and language structures that children encounter. Such a belief has been reflected in a number of the more mainstream approaches to raising bilingual children. Three of the most common approaches to bilingual child raising include: 1) the one parent, one language method in which each parent speaks one language, while the other parent speaks another language (usually each speaking his/her native language to the child and possibly the more prevalent language to each other): 2) both parents speak the minority language in the home while the majority language is used in the school: 3) one language is used in the home and at school and a different language is used in the larger community. Although these approaches are admittedly more complex than the above descriptions suggest and they certainly do not represent the entire spectrum of available methods, they do provide a basic foundation for the majority of bilingual programs used with various global and regional education systems.
Traditionally, many bilingual researchers have recommended keeping bilingual children’s language experiences separate throughout the early stages of development. This stance is reflected in the one parent one language approach. However, when both parents are fluent or highly skilled in two languages they may codeswitch during conversations using both their first and second languages as an almost natural like form of communication. In families where codeswitching is prevalent children may speak both languages with both parents but show no signs of being confused by differing grammatical patterns and other lexical aspects of each language. For example, Lanza (1992) shows that in instances of childhood codeswitching children acquire the required social knowledge at a very early stage in their development. By 2-3 years old the child can choose the language according to the addressee and quickly choose a language based upon the sociolinguistic demands.
Saunders (1988) believes it is vital on a psychological level for bilingual children to understand from an early age that both languages can be used effectively for all functions outside of their own family. For a child to develop effectively in both languages they should be exposed to environmental stimuli from both social/cultural contexts in order to see first hand the wide range of uses which both languages possess. However, in instances where experience of a particular social context or culture is negative, the potential for language rejection increases. As often as possible it is desirable for parents to promote to the child the assumption that written and spoken proficiency in both languages will play a vital role in their lives both as children and as adults regardless of the social context. Promoting a balance in assumptions, expectations, and attitudes will serve the long-term interests of bilingual families more efficiently. Of course feedback, attitude formation and expectations are not only presented to children within the family unit, the relatively uncontrollable social context will also play a significant role in the child’s development of both languages as well as the associated language attitudes which they develop. For example, a positive attitude toward the minority language is vital in maintaining a child’s willingness to express his/her self in a bilingual manner. This is especially true around the time of a child entering public school for the first time (around 5 years old). At this time, conceptualizations of one’s self-identity presents a challenging task for many children, a great deal of children will attempt to negotiate this period by seeking to align themselves within the same context as their peers by attempting to reduce differences and highlight similarities. Indeed, social adaptability is a skill which most bilingual children can deploy in order to protect their self-esteem, identity and social standing. The bilingual child effectively chooses the language that is best suited to the social situation. When approaching the concept of bilingualism from this perspective it can be said that bilinguals operate on a continuum ranging from almost monolingual speech behavior to multilingual, dynamic code-switching behaviors, all dependent on the perceived requirements of the social environment and the trade off against one’s own self-identity, self-esteem concept.
Research into bilingualism within Japan has tended to focus on three core groups: 1) Japanese learners of English: 2) Japanese returnees from an extended period of living abroad: 3) the biracial children of international marriages (Yamamoto, 2001). Within Japan the term bilingualism is one which is quite often misunderstood due to the historical belief of a parallel relationship between nation and language. In one of the few empirical studies conducted on the topic, Hayashi (1998) questioned 680 Japanese people in order to ascertain their knowledge and attitudes toward bilingualism and bilingual education. From this total sample, 60.3% of respondents had never heard of the term ‘bilingual education’ whilst 26.4% had heard the term but had no idea what it meant. It was also reported that the term bilingualism was perceived to refer only to Japanese – English speakers and not other language minority groups. Yamamoto (2001) also interviewed a number of parents of bilingual children living within Japan; the parental feedback gathered suggests that bilingualism is perceived negatively by many Japanese people. As one Japanese parent comments - "people perceive being bilingual as a profanity against the pure Japanese atmosphere and hold strong feelings of both repulsion and jealousy" (p.74).
Being different within a rather collective society such as Japan can be psychologically demanding, especially for children. One can argue that the Japanese find a certain degree of safety and assurance in being perceived as somewhat similar to each other. In extreme cases those people who do possess variations from social norms in linguistic ability and physical appearance are often considered social deviants (Sakamaki, 1996). Biracial children with one parent being of Japanese nationality are one such group of social deviants. On one hand such biracial children are Japanese, often born in Japan with a Japanese passport they will likely be able to speak Japanese from a young age as it represents the dominant tool of social interaction. Yet, on the other hand their physical appearance defines them as not being confirmatory Japanese. In a study by Cummins (1984) which focused on bilingualism within Japan, it was found that many educators and schools viewed bilingual children and their families as distinctly foreign and not Japanese, with the linguistic abilities of these people being the key identifier in marking them as different. A number of the teachers in the study actively worked to eradicate the differences between themselves and the bilingual students following a process of forced assimilation rather than measured negotiation. This included prohibiting the minority language within the school environment, encouraging the development of the majority language and promoting those values that reinforced the cultural norms of the majority.
Through the identification of difference, biracial children with Japan are often labeled in specific ways to denote their mixed heritage status. Such labels often play an important role in the self-empowerment of biracial children (Root, 1996). The most common reference to a biracial child is the term ‘haafu’ - coined from the English word ‘half’. Many parents have difficulty in accepting this term for their children even though many Japanese point out that it is a label which is as equally positive as negative. However, it often implies that a child is only able to access half of their bicultural heritage, usually being the Japanese side and that the other non-Japanese side is ignored (Moriki, 2000). Parents of bilingual children often exhibit a variety of reactions when encountering the word ‘haafu’. A number of parents have elaborated on the basic idea and coined the term ‘daburu’ based on the English word ‘double’, thus changing the perception that their child is half as good to the perception that he/she is twice as good due to the mixed culture and language. This term is also problematic in that the pressure to be ‘extra’ or ‘special’ is increased. As Singer (2000) warns - biracial children in Japan must "tread the fine line between self-confidence and conceit" (p.77). Other negative terms that are often imposed upon used biracial children include ‘konketsuji’ (mixed-blood) and ‘zasshu’ (mongrel) both of which are interpreted as derogatory slurs.
Quite often as a result of the labeling process, Noguchi (1996) notes that biracial children within Japan often possess a strong desire to eliminate the things that alienate them from their peers - including non-Japanese parents. In a Takahashi & Vaipae (1996) study, the case of a biracial child in Japan is reported who requested to her non-Japanese father that he stay away from school events because he did not look Japanese, something which caused the girl in question great embarrassment. In a later study by Smith (1999), a parent of a Japanese biracial child comments that within the context of the education system ". . . people were constantly questioning the naturalness of her existence" by pointing out, directly and indirectly, her foreignness (p. 49). Such issues point toward one of the main concerns of many parents of biracial children within Japanese schooling - bullying. Bullying is not uncommon in Japan and characteristics which differentiate a child from their peers are often picked upon and exploited for the amusement of the majority group. Biracial children who have deeper issues in searching for heritage, identity and a sense of belonging are often emotionally frail, thereby making them more susceptible to bullying. Wardle (1987) suggests that to enhance the self-confidence, self-esteem and positive identity formulation in biracial children they need to be exposed to positive role-models who are also biracial, creating real images which can motivate the child’s desires to embrace biracialism is vital in combating racism and discrimination. However, if biracial children are targeted for bullying because of the nature of their being, McMahill (2000) asserts that the bullying should be classified as an instance of racism, or at least a challenge to the child's right of membership in Japanese society.
In 2005 the United Nations Economic and Social Council conducted an investigatory ‘Mission to Japan’ to investigate the social treatment of minority racial and linguistic groups. The subsequent 2006 U.N report stated that racism, discrimination and xenophobia are very much a reality within Japanese society. The U.N urged the Japanese government to combat racism, discrimination and xenophobia in the country by promulgating comprehensive anti-racism legislation required to build a more harmonious multicultural society. Until this day is forthcoming, the parents of biracial and bilingual children will continue to face issues such as those highlighted with this paper, often unsupported by local agencies and establishments.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
Daulton, F. & Seki, A. (2000). Bullying and biracial children in Japan. The Language Teacher, 24(11), 31-33.
Doudou, D. (2006). Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and all forms of Discrimination: Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance "Mission to Japan JAPAN". United Nations Economic and Social Council.
Ebert, O. & Hawk, W. (1998). Chapter 3: An Overview of Second Language Acquisition. Retrieved December 21, 2004 from www.eslkidstuff.com/Articles.htm
Grimes, B.F. (1992). Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
Hayashi, A. (1998). What is bilingual education?: A survey of opinions on bilingual education and bilingualism in Japan. Presented at the Canadian Association of Japanese Language Education Annual Conference.
Lanza, E. (1992). Can bilingual two-year-olds code-switch? Journal of Child Language, 19(3), 633-658.
Liddicoat, A. (1991). Bilingualism: An introduction. In A. Liddicoat (Ed.), Bilingualism and bilingual education (pp. 1-20). Melbourne: National Languages Institute of Australia.
McMahill, C. (2000). The construction of social identities in bilingual families: Narratives on white parents in Japan. Unpublished manuscript.
Moriki, K. (2000). Kokusai Kekkon Guidebook: Kokusai Kazoku no Jidai ni Mikete [A Guidebook to. International Marriage: Towards the Age of the International Family 2nd Edition]. Tokyo: Meishi Shoten.
Noguchi, M.G. (1996). Adding biliteracy to bilingualism: Teaching your child to read English in Japan. Monographs on Bilingualism no. 4. Osaka: Bilingualism Special Interest Group of the Japan Association for Language Teaching.
Root, M.P.P. (1996). The multiracial experience. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sakamaki, S. (1996, February). Fates worse than death. Far Eastern Economic Review, 159, 38-40.
Saunders, G. (1988). Bilingual children: From birth to teens. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Singer, J. (2000). Japan's Singular 'Doubles'. Japan Quarterly, 47(2), 76-82.
Smith, C. (1999). Making problems work for your family. [Monograph]. Bullying in Japanese Schools: International Perspectives, 4, 47-49.
Takahashi, M. & Vaipae. S. (1996). Gaijin seito ga yatte kita [Here come the foreign students] Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
Thompson, G. (1952). Child Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
U.S Bureau of Intelligence and Research. (2006). Independent states in the world: Washington, DC. Retrieved from September 11, 2006 from www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm
Wardle, F. (1987, January). Are you sensitive to interracial children's special needs? Young Children, 43, 53-59.
Warttman, S. (2005, September). Migration and the millennium development goals. Geneva: IOM.
Yamamoto, M. (2001). Language use in interlingual families: A Japanese-English sociolinguistic study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Please check the Methodology and Language for Primary Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Skills of Teacher Training course at Pilgrims website.
|
