Thursday 13 March 2014

The Objectification of English and L1 Use in the Japanese Classroom

I’ve got a fair bit of training to deliver over the next few weeks and I need to get some ducks in a row, so here are some thoughts on the above (which is basically just a glorified way of describing the inevitable ‘Can we use Japanese in class?’ question). Imagine it’s addressed to an audience of new or minimally experienced ALTs, and also bear in mind that I might cut and/or tone down a fair bit of it – writing this is part of the process of whittling it back to the core message (still need to provide enough explanation to avoid training by diktat, however).


“It probably won’t surprise many of you if I say that there are a number of problems with Japan’s relationship with the English language. However, if you dig beneath the superficialities you’ll find that almost all of these problems stem from how foreign languages in general, and English in specific, are conceived of over here. English in Japan is conceived of as an object, not a process. It’s a commodity to be sold, an academic subject to be studied, and not a living language, an ongoing method of negotiating meaning among a community of users (which is what all languages are, really).

“This is why you see all the ‘hilarious’ Engrish on t-shits and adverts. This is English as a commodity; it basically exists here as an element of graphic design and is intended to convey some sociocultural and ideational meaning, but no linguistic meaning whatsoever. Object, not process. It’s also a conception which is manifested in and promoted by the way English is generally taught in Japanese schools.

“Now, in fairness, every large-scale, bureaucratized education system will tend to objectify understanding, to treat knowledge as a collection of discrete ‘things’ which can be standardized, organized, examined, and –crucially– the ‘ownership’ of which can be evaluated (tests, I’m talking about test here). But, as is so often the case, the situation is Japan is one where a globally common phenomenon has been pushed to such a point where it can initially appear to be completely different or unique.

“Because the situation in Japan, and Japanese schools specifically, is an almost perfect storm of objectification. Take the ‘Grammar Translation’ method: in and of itself it’s as valid a method of tuition – as useful a tool – as any other; the main complaint most people have with it is that it’s usually the only method which is used, regardless of suitability, and that can sometime be like using a hammer to drive in a screw.

“The issue I have with it here is more specific. The issue here is that, perhaps more than any other method, it promotes this idea of language as object – the ‘slot and filler’ conception of language as a succession of discrete units with clearly and unambiguously delineated boundaries: subject, verb, object; noun phrase, verb phrase, complement; box, box, box; tick, tick, tick. And this is further exacerbated by the way it’s taught by most JTEs – slap the target English structure on the board, and then explain what it ‘really’ means in Japanese: ‘This is the artifact we shall study at a remove, and to explain it to you I’ll now have to use a ‘real’ language, because English is demonstrably insufficient to adequately convey what I need to say.’

“Again, to a certain degree this is a universal weakness with basic foreign language instruction in any country, and so teachers and planners adopt strategies to compensate for this weakness. In Japan, the principal strategy that’s been chosen is you. We’ve been hired based almost solely on our ability to use the English language. We’ve been hired specifically to compensate for those weaknesses in the system by providing a model of English in use, by being a tangible embodiment of English as a living, viable process of communication. You’ve not been hired to explain grammar in Japanese; they’ve already got people who can do that, and they can all do it better than you.

“So this is why it’s especially damaging when you, when we, use Japanese in the classroom. Believe me I understand the temptation to explain an activity quickly using Japanese so the students can spend more time on the production phase. We want to get them using the language as much as possible, right? But the trouble is, by switching to Japanese because it’s more immediately convenient than English you’re actively denying them the chance to really use it. Language in use is not an abstract, it’s not a gap fill exercise conducted because your teacher told you to do so, language in use is the telling itself. Language in use is the negotiation of real, purposeful meaning between users, with real, observable outcomes.

“So, every time you use Japanese in class because it’s more immediately convenient than English, the message you’re sending to you students is the same as the JTE’s: English is an artifact to be studied, not a real language to be used. What are your students going to take from that? You’re a native speaker! If you can’t make English work as a real method of communication, how the hell are they meant to? ‘Well, if even Trevor-Sensei needs to use Japanese then what hope do we have?’

“Every time you use Japanese in class because it’s more immediately convenient than English you subtly reinforce your students’ conceptions of English as ‘merely’ an academic subject and incrementally undermine your own claims that English is a viable, living, real language for communication. Every time you use Japanese in class because it’s more immediately convenient than English you give your students tacit license to do the same. Every time you use Japanese in class because it’s more immediately convenient than English you defeat the entire point of you even being there in the first place.

“So no Japanese in the classroom. Make it work in English, because that, that’s your job now.”

No comments:

Post a Comment