Native-Speakerism: Its Resilience and Undoing 9789811556708, 9789811556715

Citation preview

Intercultural Communication and Language Education

Stephanie Ann Houghton Jérémie Bouchard   Editors

Native-Speakerism Its Resilience and Undoing

Intercultural Communication and Language Education Series Editors Stephanie Ann Houghton, Saga University, Saga, Japan Melina Porto, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina

This book series publishes top quality monographs and edited volumes containing empirical research that prioritises the development of intercultural communicative competence in foreign language education as part of intercultural citizenship. It explores the development of critical cultural awareness broadly aimed at triggering and managing personal and social transformation through intercultural dialogue. Citizenship education and interculturallyoriented language education share an interest in fostering learner exploration, critical analysis and evaluation of other cultures within dynamic socio-political environments. To complement existing research on the development of intercultural communicative competence, this book series explores the techniques, processes and outcomes of intercultural language pedagogy and intercultural citizenship inside and outside the classroom. It also explores the nature, dynamics and impact of intercultural dialogue outside the classroom in real-world settings where various language codes are in use, including World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca. Further, this book series recognizes and explicitly attempts to overcome wideranging real-world barriers to intercultural dialogue and intercultural citizenship. This is especially important in the field of English language education considering the status of English as a global language and associated problems connected to linguistic imperialism, ideology and native-speakerism among others. To promote the development of deeper understandings of how such social problems connect to the use of foreign languages in general, contributions are also sought from disciplines outside foreign language education such as citizenship education, social justice, moral education, language policy and social psychology that shed light upon influential external social factors and internal psychological factors that need to be taken into account.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13631

Stephanie Ann Houghton • Jérémie Bouchard Editors

Native-Speakerism Its Resilience and Undoing

Editors Stephanie Ann Houghton Faculty of Art and Regional Design Saga University Saga, Japan

Jérémie Bouchard Faculty of Humanities Hokkai Gakuen University Sapporo, Japan

ISSN 2520-1735 ISSN 2520-1743 (electronic) Intercultural Communication and Language Education ISBN 978-981-15-5670-8 ISBN 978-981-15-5671-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Contents

1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephanie Ann Houghton and Jérémie Bouchard

Part I

The ‘Resilience’ of Native-Speakerism

2

The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective . . . . . . Jérémie Bouchard

3

Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy and Related Hiring Practices: A Focus on the Japanese ‘Top Global Universities’ Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lisa Fairbrother

4

5

English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native Dichotomy: An Argentine Perspective . . . . . . . . Melina Porto Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps Between Teacher and Pre-Service English Teacher Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephanie Ann Houghton

Part II

1

17

47

69

89

The ‘Undoing’ of Native-Speakerism

6

Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices and Symbols Within a Post-Native-Speakerist Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Stephanie Ann Houghton

7

A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . 157 Martine Derivry-Plard

v

vi

Contents

8

“Native” Japanese Speaker Teachers in Japanese Language Education at Primary and Secondary Schools in Australia . . . . . . . 173 Kaoru Kadowaki

9

Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School Professional Development Programme in Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Gregory Paul Glasgow, Patrick C. L. Ng, Tiina Matikainen, and Tomohisa Machida

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice, and Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Claudia Kunschak and Nariyo Kono

11

Fostering Students’ Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity to Undo Native-Speakerism: A Case Study of a Transnational Education Platform Involving Universities in Hawai‘i and Japan . . . . . . . . . . 243 Chisato Nonaka, Nezia Azmi, and Aaron Levine

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Matthew W. Turner, Matthew Y. Schaefer, Robert J. Lowe, and Stephanie Ann Houghton

About the Contributors

Nezia Azmi, MA, is the International Programs Coordinator for the College of Education at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, as well as Executive Director of Arts Focus Southeast Asia (AFSEA), a Honolulu-based educational arts initiative. She has over sixteen years of experience in program management, project management, and institutional and administrative development, both US- and Asia-based, with a special focus on transcultural interactions in learning environments. Jérémie Bouchard, PhD, is an Associate Professor at Hokkai Gakuen University, Sapporo, Japan. His research is a sociological exploration of language emerging from the complex relationship between culture, structure, and agency. He is the author of Ideology, Agency, and Intercultural Communicative Competence (Springer Nature, ISBN 9789811039256) and co-editor of Agency in Language Policy and Planning: Critical Inquiries (Routledge, ISBN 9781138316188) and Researching Agency in Language Policy and Planning (Routledge, ISBN 9781138316164) with Gregory Paul Glasgow, a contributor to the present volume. Martine Derivry-Plard, PhD, is a Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Bordeaux—School of Education, France. She teaches Applied Linguistics through ELF and tries to develop learning environments to facilitate the integration of a cultural/intercultural approach into language learning and teaching. Her research interests deal with language teachers, social perceptions and ideologies concerning languages, education, and cultures, and the design of a plurilingual/pluricultural framework of language education based on collaborative and mediating practices. She is the author of Les enseignants de langues dans la mondialisation, published in 2015 at EAC (ISBN 9782813002082). Lisa Fairbrother, PhD, is a Professor in the Faculty of Foreign Studies and the Graduate School of Languages and Linguistics at Sophia University, Japan, where she teaches sociolinguistics, intercultural interaction, and English. Her research

vii

viii

About the Contributors

interests focus on the sociolinguistics of intercultural interaction, particularly relating to the multilingual workplace, study abroad, language education, and Language Management Theory. She is co-editor of The Language Management Approach: A Focus on Research Methodology (Peter Lang) and A Language Management Approach to Language Problems: Integrating Macro and Micro Dimensions (John Benjamins, forthcoming). Gregory Paul Glasgow, PhD, is an Associate Professor at Kanda University of International Studies, Tokyo, Japan. He also serves as an English Language Specialist for the Embassy of the United States in Tokyo. He holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of Queensland, Australia, and an MA in TESOL from Teachers College, Columbia University. His research interests are language-ineducation policy and planning, teaching English as an International Language, and the professional preparation of native and non-native English speaking teachers. Stephanie Ann Houghton, PhD, is an Associate Professor at Saga University, Japan. She holds a doctorate in education from Durham University, England. She is co-founder and co-editor of the Intercultural Communication and Language Education book series (Springer). Focusing on ways of overcoming prejudice and discrimination, she has published numerous books and international peer-reviewed articles on the development of intercultural dialogue and native-speakerism. Now based in the Faculty of Art and Regional Design, she is developing the FURYU Educational Program (https://stephhoughton.wixsite.com/mysite-1) which centers on Alzheimer's Disease prevention through heritage management, intercultural dialogue (within a post-native-speakerist framework), technology (STEAM), art generation, health, fitness, and social business. Kaoru Kadowaki, PhD, is Professor in the Faculty of Foreign Studies at Setsunan University in Japan and was Visiting Professor of The University of Queensland from 2017 to 2018. Her research interests are acquisition of Japanese as a second language and teacher training. She received Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (2012–2014, 2015–2018, and 2019–2021) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan to research native Japanese speaker teachers and non-native Japanese speaker teachers outside Japan. Her recent publications include “Japanese Native Speaker Teachers at High Schools in South Korea and Thailand.” (Towards Post-Native-Speakerism, 97-112, 2018). Nariyo Kono, Ph.D, is Senior Fellow, Center for Public Service and Adjunct Assistant Professor, University Studies Program at Portland State University in Oregon, USA. Born and educated in Japan, she received her interdisciplinary Ph. D. from the University of Arizona in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching. Her research interests include community-based learning and teaching, classroom cultures, theory development in language planning and language policy, indigenous language documentation and maintenance, and research ethics. She is a co-manager

About the Contributors

ix

of the community-based teaching and learning program for Japanese professionals since 2015 (https://www.pdx.edu/cps/community-based-teaching-learning-work shop-2019). Claudia Kunschak, PhD, is a Professor at the College of International Relations at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, Japan. She received her MA in Interpreting from the University of Vienna (1992) and her PhD in Education from the University of Arizona (2003). Having taught at universities in Austria, China, Scotland, Spain, Ukraine, and the USA, she is the recipient of two teaching awards from Universidad Europea de Madrid, Spain, and Shantou University, China. Her research interests include intercultural communication, multilingualism, and English Lingua Franca. Aaron J. Levine, MFA, is an Assistant Specialist in the Institute for Teacher Education at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, and he serves as the Partnership and Placement Coordinator for the department. His work focuses on developing multilayered partnerships and professional development schools that (1) enhance both teacher preparation and kindergarten, primary, and secondary school practice and (2) provide opportunities for wide-ranging educational research, both domestically and internationally. Robert J. Lowe, PhD, is a Lecturer in the Department of English Communication at Tokyo Kasei University. He is the co-author of Teaching English as a Lingua Franca: The Journey from EFL to ELF (DELTA Publishing, 2018) and co-editor of Duoethnography in English Language Teaching: Research, Reflection, and Classroom Application (Multilingual Matters, 2020). His work has appeared or is forthcoming in ELT Journal, Language Teaching, and Applied Linguistics Review. Tomohisa Machida, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Global Communication and Language at Akita International University, Akita, Japan. He earned his MA in TESL and his PhD in Elementary Education at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is currently collaborating with local boards of education for developing elementary teacher training programs in Japan. His research interests include elementary school English education, foreign language anxiety, and teacher education. Tiina Matikainen, Ed.D., is currently a Visiting Lecturer at Keio University’s Faculty of Environment and Information Studies. Originally from Finland, she has been teaching EFL and second language acquisition undergraduate and graduate courses in Japan for the last 20 years. Before coming to Japan, she taught academic English courses in the USA. Her research interests include L2 lexicon, English for Academic Purposes programs, L2 academic writing, non-native English speaker teachers (NNETs), and teacher and student beliefs.

x

About the Contributors

Patrick Chin Leong Ng, Ed.D, has been involved in English language teaching for over 20 years. He earned an EdD from the University of Leicester, UK and has also published widely in regional and international journals on language planning policy and English language teaching. He is a Professor at the Faculty of International Economic Studies at the University of Niigata, Japan. Chisato Nonaka, PhD, is an Associate Professor at Kyushu University, Japan. She currently works as a faculty coordinator of an inbound exchange program at the university. Her research interests include issues of language, race, ethnicity, nationality, class, and gender-related identities, particularly in transnational contexts. Some of her recent publications can be found in an edited book (Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018) and academic journals (Comparative and International Higher Education, 2017; JALT, 2019) as well as her own book entitled: Transcending Self and Other Through Akogare [desire]: The English Language and the Internationalization of Higher Education in Japan, published in 2018. Melina Porto, PhD, is a Researcher at the National Research Council (CONICET) and Professor at Universidad Nacional de La Plata (UNLP) in Argentina and Honorary Research Fellow at the University of East Anglia (2019–2021). She was Visiting Academic at the University of East Anglia from 2012 to 2018. Her research addresses the intercultural dimension of English language teaching and intercultural citizenship education in the foreign language classroom. She co-authored the English Curriculum Design for Primary School in the Province of Buenos Aires. She has been involved in research funded by the International Literacy Association (ILA), UNLP, and CONICET. She is a member of the Editorial Advisory Boards of several international journals. She has been an International Research Correspondent for Reading Research Quarterly and a member of the Publications Committee and of the Language Diversity Committee of the International Literacy Association. Matthew Y. Schaefer, has worked as an English language teacher and academic manager in France, Italy, Spain, the UK, and Japan, including at private language schools and primary, secondary, and tertiary education. He holds an MA TESOL from Nagoya University of Foreign Studies and a DELTA. He has published book chapters and journal articles on reflective practice and creating a framework for accommodating students with disabilities, among other topics. His current research interests include course design, syllabus evaluation, and speaking assessment. Matthew W. Turner, is an English language lecturer at Toyo University. He holds an MA in applied linguistics and TESOL from the University of Leicester and is currently working towards a PhD at the University of Warwick. His current research interests include reflective practice, continuing professional development, podcasting in language teacher education, accessibility, and support for learners with special educational needs. He is co-creator of The TEFLology Podcast and coordinator of JALT’s Teacher Development SIG.

Acronyms

AET ALT CEFR CIR CoP EFL EIL ELF ELT EPA FLT ICC JFL JLPT JLT MEXT NJST NNJST NNS NNSE NNSJ NS NSE NSJ WE

Assistant English teacher Assistant Language teacher Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Coordinator of international relations Community of practice English as a foreign language English as an international language English as a lingua franca English language teaching Economic partnership agreement Foreign language teaching Intercultural communicative competence Japanese as a foreign language Japanese-Language Proficiency Test Japanese language teaching Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Native Japanese speaker teacher Non-native Japanese speaker teacher Non-native speaker Non-native speaker of English Non-native speaker of Japanese Native speaker Native speaker of English Native speaker of Japanese World Englishes

xi

Chapter 1

Introduction Stephanie Ann Houghton and Jérémie Bouchard

Abstract The introduction situates this edited book project at the forefront of native-speakerism scholarship by summarizing the courageous militant work by Houghton and associates over the past two decades, tracing the emergence of the concept of native-speakerism—a language-based ideology of inclusion and exclusion—over the years, providing a concise overview of the extensive academic work on native-speakerism in foreign language education, highlighting preliminary concepts and thoughts on its resilience and undoing, and identifying areas in need of further conceptual, legal and practical developments.

1.1

Genesis of the Book

The AILA World Congress held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 23 to 28 July 2017 included a panel entitled Explorations of Native-Speakerism in Foreign Language Education that resulted from AILA Research Network (AILA ReN) activities in the preceding 3-year period. It expanded on Houghton, Rivers and Hashimoto’s 3-year research project (2012–2014), funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science,1 that problematized native-speakerism as a language-based form of prejudice affecting both ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ foreign language teachers. Drawing upon an earlier presentation presented at the CALPIU’12: Higher Education across Borders: Transcultural Interaction and Linguistic Diversity conference held at Roskilde University, Denmark, from 1 to 4 April 2012 (Houghton, Rivers, & Petrie, 2012), Houghton (2017a) reviewed key trends on nativespeakerism research during the five-year period separating the CALPIU and AILA 1

Kakenhi Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (24520627) (2012–2015).

S. A. Houghton (*) Faculty of Art and Regional Design, Saga University, Saga, Japan J. Bouchard Faculty of Humanities, Hokkai Gakuen University, Sapporo, Japan © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_1

1

2

S. A. Houghton and J. Bouchard

events, drawing upon the title of her first ever article published on this theme (Houghton, 2002), which had initially served to bring her own employment status into question at a Japanese university in the year 2002: Gaikokujin dewanai gaikokujin kyoushi. (Foreign lecturers who are not foreign). All the current foreign lecturers are foreign. Where are the non-foreign foreign lecturers?

The article was published in Houghton’s university labour union journal on behalf of the group of six ‘foreign lecturers’ who wanted to complain about the imposition of term-limits (with a limited number of renewals) upon their employment. Notably, the word ‘native-speakerism’ did not appear in the article title because the word itself did not exist then. The only frameworks available through which to analyse the problem from legal standpoints at that time included firstly, Article 3 of the domestic Japanese Labour Standards Law (1947), and secondly, the body of international human rights law, including Article 1 (1) of The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD, 1965), and Article 2 (2) of The International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights (ICSECR, 1966). However, this approach was problematic. For example, while discrimination on the basis of nationality, creed, social status, race, colour, descent, national origin, ethnic origin, social origin, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, property, birth or other status all seemed clearly prohibited by ICSECR (1966), it remained unclear whether or not discrimination specifically on the basis of perceived (non-) native-speaker status was prohibited or not. Writing the protest article (Houghton, 2002) on this uncertain legal ground, and subsequently having the article published for university colleagues to read in the hope of changing actual employment conditions for the group concerned were fundamentally great acts of courage. Rightly or wrongly, they seemed to carry the possible risk of getting fired at the time in a workplace atmosphere that was fast becoming tense and volatile due to the increasing levels of collective anger driving the situation forward. But we felt that we had nothing to lose by pushing forward since we were going to lose our jobs anyway. Despite being warned off this course of action by a supervisor to avoid being nationally blacklisted among Japanese universities, Houghton continued undeterred. The ensuing process unfolded naturally over many years to date because so many people were facing similar problems at other institutions. Notably, in Houghton’s case, this process ultimately led to the overthrow of the “foreign lecturer” (gaikukujin kyoushi) position in 2005, as reported in Houghton (2013), when prolonged labour union activity at the university concerned, both in-house and notably through Fukuoka General Union (FGU), happened to dovetail with legal changes relaxing the problematic system concerned to some extent. A positive but imperfect outcome resulted. But the action was not only local. It had national implications. When Houghton was elected chair of FGU around 2002–2003, she was told that she was the first non-Japanese labour union chair in Japan. Labour union activity on this issue at the

1 Introduction

3

time escalated quickly from the local to the national level, involving extensive collaboration with other labour unions in Japan, notably, the General Union in Osaka and Tokyo Nambu, as well as with Evan Heimlich (2013) and Arudou Debito, a human rights activist based in Hokkaido (https://www.debito.org/), among others. Joint labour union negotiations on the gaikokujin issue were held directly with the Japanese government in Tokyo as part of their annual labour union negotiations, and the General Union took consultative status with the United Nations upon Houghton’s suggestion, with a view to reporting breaches of the International Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) by the Japanese government to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD, n.d.), although the long-term impact of this action is unknown. And in 2005, Houghton reported problems facing ‘native-speaker’ teachers in Japan to the United National Special Rapporteur on Racism, DouDou Diene, with the help of Arudou Debito (http:// www.debito.org/rapporteur.html). In those days, pre-2005, the only meaningful parallels between the painful predicament of many non-Japanese university educators employed as ‘nativespeaker’ teachers at Japanese universities were found in Italy, where many non-Italian university educators employed as lettori at Italian universities were facing similar issues (Petrie, 2013), many of which remain unresolved to this day. And notably, the word ‘native-speakerism’ did not appear in any of the discussions, events or documents arising during that time period because the word itself did not exist. Houghton’s discovery of the word ‘native-speakerism’, which appeared in Holliday’s (2005) book entitled The Struggle to Teach English, and as a key concept in the English Language Teaching Journal (2006), was thus welcome, and served to somewhat clarify muddy conceptual waters. It transformed what had started out as an internal labour issue affecting a handful of people at one university into an academic issue that spanned the globe as connections were made with other complaints already being made on a massive scale notably by non-native-speaker English teachers who were also protesting about employment discrimination based upon their perceived status as ‘non-native-speakers’. It was to support this particular group, non-native-speakers, that Holliday had initially coined the word ‘native-speakerism’. His preliminary definition of nativespeakerism, which was principally intended to support the group of people categorized as ‘non-native-speaker’ teachers, was later expanded by Houghton and Rivers (2013) to also include those people perceived to be ‘native-speaker’ teachers. The definitions are not identical, and one does not necessarily replace the other, so readers should take care when comparing the contrasting definitions of nativespeakerism on offer, along with their surrounding academic literature with its implicit and explicit priorities (see Holliday, 2006; Holliday, Aboshiha, & Swan, 2015). The year 2013 was a pivotal year academically. The publication by Houghton and Rivers in 2013 of the book Native-speakerism in Foreign Language Education: Intergroup Dynamics in Japan, which was the first to focus on the employment problems facing ‘native-speaker’ teachers, became part of an international protest

4

S. A. Houghton and J. Bouchard

movement against employment discrimination based on ‘(non) native-speaker’ status that was sweeping the globe in English language education, that could also be found in the teaching of other languages such as French (Derivry-Plard, 2013) and Japanese as a Foreign Language (JFL) (Hashimoto, 2013). Research collaboration between Houghton, Rivers and Hashimoto in the kakenhifunded project (2012–2014) mentioned at the start of this preface resulted in the 1st International Symposium on Native-Speakerism at Durham University, England (28th April 2014), and the 2nd International Symposium on Native-Speakerism at Saga University, Japan (28–30th September 2014). During the latter, Houghton was interviewed about native-speakerist problems facing native-speaker teachers, along with Enric Llurda for his work on native-speakerist problems facing native-speaker teachers (Turner, Lowe, & Schaefer, 2014). Academic publications resulting from the two symposia noted above include Beyond Native-Speakerism: Current Explorations and Future Visions (Houghton, Rivers, & Hashimoto, 2018) and Towards Post-Native-Speakerism: Dynamics and Shifts (Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018). Within that process, as this growing body of work evolved through and dovetailed naturally with other trends and publications relating more broadly to the need to develop intercultural communicative competence and citizenship education through foreign language education, through a body of work initially inspired by Michael Byram with the Cultnet team at Durham University (https:// cultnetintercultural.wordpress.com/), it ultimately led to the establishment by Stephanie Ann Houghton and Melina Porto of the Intercultural Communication and Language Education book series in 2015 (http://www.springer.com/series/ 13631), within which this very volume has been published, and which recently has been expanded to include textbooks. Thus, the establishment of the book series, and this volume within in it, can thus be considered to result from a series of dramatic personal and professional developments unfolding in Houghton’s life over almost two decades during which native-speakerism was intellectualized and ultimately treated as an academic issue. However, readers should remember that native-speakerism is first and foremost a labour issue that continues to adversely affect the personal and professional lives of countless people around the world as their lives and careers are often deeply tarnished by problems caused by their perceived categorization by other people as either non-native or native speakers of a target language. The year 2013 was a pivotal year legally as well as academically. It was a major turning point in the field of native-speakerism in Japan due to the publication of Houghton and Rivers (2013), but legal changes in Japan were also afoot. In recognition of that point, during the introduction to the AILA ReN (2017) in Brazil, Houghton (2017a) offered some reflections on the changing (post-2005) legal situation in Japan relevant to native-speakerism within its broader encapsulating framework with reference to the General Union website (General Union, n.d.), which documented governmental communications related to employment security and the conversion to unlimited-term employment. In short, the Labor Contract Law of Japan changed in April 2013 so that workers employed under multiple limited-term contracts for a total period of over 5 years

1 Introduction

5

(as of April 1, 2018) could become unlimited-term employees upon request. In order to avoid this, many employers seemed to have set about terminating relevant contracts in advance, ostensibly evading the law, potentially undermining employment security in the process. The governmental communications mentioned above included two emails available on the General Union website (General Union, n.d.) from the Japanese Education Ministry in December 2013 to national universities in Japan highlighting the problem ostensibly to dissuade them from such courses of action. The response to these legal changes is still unfolding at the time of writing. The government line, at least on the surface, appears to have shifted in a positive direction, although in reality, the effects remain to be seen. Persistent problems related to native-speakerism thus need to be understood and solved. To this end, the AILA ReN (2017) included three presentations addressing problems related to native-speakerism: • Houghton (2017a) presented a personal view on the battle against nativespeakerism in Japan since 2000. • Fairbrother (2017) exposed the impact of native-speakerism empirically in Japanese government policy documents relating to the new ‘Super Global Universities’ programme in Japan, highlighting the strengthening of nihonjinron ideologies, and the subsequent effects on hiring practices at individual universities where native-speakerism remains visible in some cases. • Porto (2017) exposed the impact of native-speakerism in Argentina empirically, showing how EFL teachers in Argentina position themselves in the face of the expansion of English worldwide and the imperialist penetration of English in the Argentine context to reveal participants’ understandings of this issue in their specific socio-cultural contexts in connection with native-speakerism. Another three AILA ReN (2017) presentations explored possible solutions to native-speakerism: • Roux (2017) highlighted the need for a shift to a multi-lingual and multi-cultural perspective in the self-perceptions and consequent positionings of teachers in response to large-scale English language education reforms in Japan. Noting that contrasting policy requirements with teacher enactments allow for certain disconnections to be observed, Roux highlighted native-speakerism as an ideology operating in policy frameworks and the educational settings they aim to change. • Derivry-Plard (2017) rejected the monolingual paradigm and proposed a shift towards a multi-lingual paradigm to be used in foreign language education generally, also exploring implications for policy (also see Chap. 6, this volume). • Houghton (2017b) brought student motivation into question by reporting on student reflections on native-speakerism in response to a post-native-speakerist intercultural communication course that incorporated fieldwork in a multicultural, multilingual setting and included the use of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). Persistent post-course dependence on the native-speaker model in Japanese pre-service English teachers was observed, which highlighted gaps between

6

S. A. Houghton and J. Bouchard

teacher and student priorities that seemed symptomatic of resilient underlying native-speakerism (also see Chap. 4, this volume). Notably, Houghton’s case study (Houghton, 2017b; see Chap. 4, this volume) was conducted within the new Faculty of Art and Regional Design at Saga University, Japan. In the course of learning described, English language education and intercultural communication were linked firstly to art (through dance as a performing art), and secondly to regional design (through fitness and community development, initially via Zumba dance-fitness). While the connections with native-speakerism may at first not seem obvious between such apparently disparate themes, hidden connections emerged naturally over a number of years through a series of reported (and as yet unreported) studies, also by taking past and future-oriented views of the evolution of contemporary human society on a grand scale. Some connections between the parts became apparent thanks to a second interview with Houghton in a plenary interview hosted by Matthew Turner (Turner, Lowe, & Schaefer, 2019) (see Chap. 11, this volume) at the JALT PanSIG Conference in Kobe, Japan in May 2019. Post-conference collaborative reflections elaborated through dialogue between Houghton and The TEFLology Podcast team (Turner, Schaefer & Lowe), on emergent themes, linked through Houghton’s FURYU Educational Program (https://stephhoughton.wixsite.com/mysite-1), which is an Alzheimer’s Disease prevention program, are presented in Chap. 11 (this volume), two of which are highlighted below as hints for future research activity in relation to native-speakerism. Firstly, a major new future-oriented line of enquiry resulted from noticing that both dance and foreign language education may help to delay the onset of Alzheimer’s Disease, which is of increasing importance in ageing societies. Notably, in relation to foreign language education, proponents of The Healthy Linguistic Diet (http://healthylinguisticdiet.com/) advocate the rejection of the native-speaker model in foreign language education, rejecting monolingualism in favour of bi-lingualism, and pluri-lingualism more generally, for the explicit purpose of promoting human brain health throughout the lifespan. Secondly, another major new line of past-oriented line of enquiry resulted from attempts to preserve and revitalize Menburyu, an ancient mask dance from Kashima in Saga, north Kyushu, Japan, that is rooted in, and can be considered a living expression of, the culture of the samurai. Collaborative bi-lingual research by Houghton, in both English and Japanese, with students in two faculties and the graduate school at Saga University, over a number of years, uncovered apparently international roots of symbols of Japanese ‘national identity’, bringing the very concept of national identity itself into question (see Chap. 5, this volume). This opens up new pathways through which to explore and unpick some of the nationalist roots of native-speakerism through different channels. In such ways, nativespeakerism may potentially be connected with health and heritage management in future research activity.

1 Introduction

1.2

7

Focus of the Current Volume

As the title of this volume suggests, chapter contributors attempt to explain why native-speakerism—a language-based ideology of inclusion and exclusion—appears to be resilient in various language teaching contexts, and how it can be ‘undone’, or at least how its effects upon other social phenomena including language learning and teaching can be mitigated. This group endeavour rests on the assumption that, although social life nurtures complex networks of ideologies, which are often deeply related to one another and often acquire hegemonic features, their negative effects can be alleviated through active critical engagement by researchers and practitioners at both the levels of discourse and social practice. Researching an ideology is, in this sense, an understandably difficult task, not only when identifying it and delimiting its boundaries but also and rather importantly when attempting to uncover its complex relationship with other discourses and practices. No successionist model of causality will suffice (as they often do in the natural sciences). Instead, a more nuanced understanding of society as a stratified and complex open system is required. What is also at stake in our collective work on native-speakerism is not only the task of clarifying the opaqueness of social and educational life, but more specifically identifying native-speakerism as an oppressive force that needs to be contained and lessened. In this sense, native-speakerism research—an endeavour currently contained within applied linguistics, requiring scholars to describe, explain, and critique the ideology and related practices—is the emergent product of a dialectical relationship between the pursuit of knowledge about native-speakerism, and efforts to curb its constraining influence on language education and the people who populate this field. To a considerable extent, this calls for active reflexive engagement on the part of scholars to ensure a certain degree of commitment on their part with objectivity, in the hope that the critique itself does not become enmeshed with other ideologies, or inadvertently reinforce the ideology being critiqued. For example, one issue for researchers of native-speakerism to contend with involves questioning the ontological basis of the ‘native speaker’ criterion on the one hand, while referring to ‘native speakers’—i.e., people who learned a specific language from infancy, and are thus considered ‘native speakers’ of that language—as real people on the other. Although there is general agreement among researchers that the term ‘native speaker’ itself should be framed within inverted commas to highlight its ideological underpinnings, or at least to distinguish it from other less ideologically-tainted concepts, not all researchers of native-speakerism adopt this rhetorical strategy, as readers of the present volume will notice. Despite diverging uses of the term ‘native speaker’, the pursuit of knowledge about native-speakerism and efforts to curb its constraining influence on language education nevertheless require careful consideration for the terms used to describe, explain, critique, and transform the ideology and the phenomena affected by it. Another issue which further complicates this commitment to objective knowledge is that native-speakerism (as with any other ideologies) is

8

S. A. Houghton and J. Bouchard

notoriously difficult to identify and measure empirically; often what we find in our data is not evidence of the ideology itself as a ‘measurable’ phenomenon, but rather traces of it within a larger data complex. As such, making ontological statements about native-speakerism forces researchers to reach a difficult and precarious balance between empirical and theoretical approaches to critical inquiry. In short, native-speakerism research, unlike more neutral research strands in applied linguistics, poses ambiguous and difficult conceptual and methodological challenges. Yet, without this level of commitment, chances are that the ideology will persist, and its effects will be amplified over time. It is with a sense of necessity, as well as conceptual and empirical curiosity, that the contributors to this volume approach their tasks. For newcomers to native-speakerism scholarship, a definition of the ideology is required at the onset. Perhaps the most comprehensive and revealing definition of native-speakerism to date is provided by Houghton and Rivers (2013, p. 14) thus: ‘prejudice, stereotyping, and/or discrimination, typically by or against foreign language teachers, on the basis of either being or not being perceived and categorized as a native speaker of a particular language, which can form part of a larger complex of interconnected prejudices including ethnocentrism, racism, and sexism’. Since its publication in 2013, this definition has served native-speakerism scholars well, largely because it reveals the stratified nature of the ideology and its embeddedness within a wide network of ideologies within and beyond language education. This definition is also witness to the complex interaction between language and human beings in a social world (Woolard, 1998). Drawing inspiration from recent works that explore native-speakerism as a language-based form of prejudice affecting both ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ language teachers (Breckenridge, 2010; Holliday, 2015; Houghton & Rivers, 2013), and insight from a range of conferences and symposia discussed by Dr. Houghton earlier in this introduction, chapter contributors are guided by the following two questions: 1. Why is native-speakerism a resilient force in foreign language education? 2. What needs to be done by both researchers and practitioners to overcome its largely constraining influences? These two questions serve to divide this volume into two distinct yet closely related parts: Part I (Chaps. 1–4) tackling the first question and Part II (Chaps. 5–11) the second question. In Chap. 1, which strikes a conceptual chord, Bouchard develops a realist approach to understanding the resilience of ideology in context, specifically by conceptualizing the various ‘positions’ of native-speakerism in relation to specific social domains. By drawing from the works of prominent realist thinkers including Margaret Archer, Bob Carter, Alison Sealey, and Derek Layder, and by reconsidering Bourdieu’s notion of habitus in conjunction with Archer’s model of human reflexivity, the author attempts to provide an explanatory account for the apparent resilience of native-speakerism, as well as valuable conceptual tools for subsequent studies of native-speakerism in context.

1 Introduction

9

In Chap. 2, which shows how divergent ideologies can also be parallel to each other, Fairbrother focuses on the ‘Top Global Universities Project’, a recent government-sponsored initiative to globalize Japanese universities, and investigates the extent to which the ideologies of native-speakerism and/or nihonjinron (discourses of Japaneseness) are reflected in this policy and the hiring practices associated with it. In doing so, the author also shows how native-speakerism can be critically unpacked by looking at its traces in texts as well as in the variegated and at times inconsistent ways people interpret the ideology. In Chap. 3, Porto explores how EFL teachers in Argentina position themselves in the face of the expansion of English worldwide and the imperialist penetration of English in the Argentine context. She reveals participants’ understandings of this issue in their specific socio-cultural contexts in connection with native-speakerism. Her findings show that participants at times express uncritical understandings of English as a language of international communication, perhaps due to fluid and at times conflicting understandings of issues related to language in a general sense, and more specifically towards English, its varieties, and the issue of language ownership. In Chap. 4, Houghton explores gaps between teacher and student priorities related to native-speakerism and English as a Lingua Franca, contrasting student views of native speakers and their native English, as tools and goals, respectively. The author highlights persistent post-course dependence on the native speaker model among Japanese pre-service English teachers wanting to communicate with NS to learn English from them, rather than to communicate with them. Together, these four chapters try to elucidate various causes of the resilience of native-speakerism despite growing awareness of its problematic contents and effects upon other realities within the context of foreign language education. Part II, which contains seven chapters, builds on Part I and offers various strategies for researchers and practitioners to overcome the constraining influences of native-speakerism. In Chap. 5, Houghton links post-native-speakerism with social constructivism through the (de)construction of (inter)national cultural practices and symbols by reporting on an exhibition entitled ‘Menburyu: Past, Present and Future’ developed within Houghton’s Furyu Educational Program (FEP). Taking a holistic approach to social development, and native-speakerism within it, practical ways of (de)constructing (inter)national cultural practices and symbols are suggested and exemplified in relation to overarching UN Social Development Goals (SDGs) within a post-native-speakerist framework. Parallel to Chap. 1, Chap. 6 by Derivry-Plard provides a conceptual approach to undoing native-speakerism in context. Specifically, the author draws on the Bourdieusian theory of linguistic fields and symbolic power to consider the problematic relationship between linguistic and cultural essentialism in nativespeakerism. This work leads her to argue that sociolinguists, linguists, and language educators have long been conducting their work within a monolingual paradigm, which includes dichotomies such as ‘native’ and ‘non-native’. She then explains how the adoption of a multilingual paradigm can serve as a way out of the constraining effects of native-speakerism.

10

S. A. Houghton and J. Bouchard

Kadowaki, the author of Chap. 7, explores native-speakerism within the context of Japanese-as-a-foreign-language education in Japan, Thailand, South Korea, and Australia, and attempts to define and explain the various shifting roles of both ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ teachers of Japanese in primary and secondary education in these contexts. She argues that primary and secondary education in Australia is guided by values and pedagogical strategies which could potentially serve to undo native-speakerism. In Chap. 8, Glasgow, Ng, Matikainen, and Machida examine how English language teachers not only recognize native-speakerism but also negotiate its impact. To achieve this task, the authors outline the general features of an elementary school teacher training programme in Japan aimed at encouraging English language teachers to challenge native-speakerism in their everyday practice and articulate and assert their own professional identity. Kunschak and Kono consider in Chap. 9 the multiple facets of multilingualism in educational context, utilizing a praxis-driven theory-building approach to studying language ownership and communities of practice. Based on this work, the authors argue for a renewed understanding of multilingualism in foreign language education as an effective way to undo native-speakerism. In Chap. 10, Nonaka, Azmi, and Levine provide a reflexive analysis of their own teaching practice, mapping out how awareness of the complex and constraining power dynamics within native-speakerist discourses and practices emerges. In parallel, they suggest ways in which language learners can take a more active role in authentic and meaningful intercultural communication. In the closing chapter of this volume, Turner, Schaefer, Lowe (from The TEFLology Podcast), and Houghton present and reflect on the content of the plenary interview with Houghton hosted by Matthew Turner (Turner et al., 2019) at the JALT PanSIG Conference in Kobe, Japan in May 2019. Post-conference collaborative reflections between Houghton and The TEFLology Podcast team (Turner, Schaefer, and Lowe) on emergent themes are presented in this chapter. To provide initial clarity into the complex and often conflicting educational realities explored by the authors of these chapters, we—the editors—believe it necessary to bring attention to a few important principles guiding critical social research. First, we want to distinguish between resilience of native-speakerism in discourse and resilience of native-speakerism in practice. In our view, although it is conceivable for these phenomena to be contained within practice, important ontological differences must also be noted between holding certain beliefs about nativeness, expressing those beliefs, and acting upon them. These three different ‘manifestations’ of native-speakerism certainly draw on different resources, have different causal potentials, and unfold within different time frames. Because of the distinct and emergent properties of native-speakerism in context— i.e., native-speakerism as a set of beliefs, as discourse, as action, and as taking on different ‘shapes’ in different contexts for different purposes and with different effects—one should not conflate different manifestations of the ideology, or reduce one as the epiphenomenon of another. Moreover, as native-speakerism critique in

1 Introduction

11

contexts other than English language education has demonstrated, we should also consider how other ideologies and social realities related to specific language learning contexts might influence native-speakerist discourses and practices in different ways. This explains to a large extent why Swan (2015, p. 59) suggests that ‘the relevance of native-speakerism is diminished by an understanding of how English fits into the local context’. One of our central motivations in this volume is thus to present native-speakerism not as a unified and fixed force of oppression with the same constraining powers across contexts, but rather as an ideology with different meanings and potentials when studied in various contexts, and certainly under threat from newly emerging forms of understanding, researching, communicating, and being. Also important to the project of overall social emancipation—which includes the various projects aimed at undoing native-speakerism in context—is the related distinction between the producers and the consumers of ideological discourse. Rubinstein (2001, pp. 76–77) points out that ‘the reappropriation of ideology is part of everyday life [. . .] dominant ideologies can be reinterpreted by those they are designed to dominate’. In our view, this argument highlights a very important feature of all ideologies: the fact that they can also be ‘turned on their heads’. Indeed, Rubinstein sees this not as a possibility but rather as an unavoidable emergent product of the complex relationship between people and ideologies. Because native-speakerism is not merely a problematic set of beliefs about language and nativeness but a real thing in this world—with real constraining potentials—it must face pressure from other perspectives and ideologies which counter its principles. As Rubinstein (2001, p. 77) argues, ‘the turning of belief systems in alternative directions is unavoidable because to be effective an ideology must be persuasive. This requires that ideologies make gestures toward universal validity, which allows them to be used in ways unforeseen by their creators’. To this, we posit that, due to the contingent nature of the social realm and the people who populate it, ideologies can (indeed are often) consumed differently, in unforeseen ways. In light of these general principles regarding the study of ideology in context, we believe that our collective endeavours rest on the assumption that native-speakerism is not a hegemonic discourse in a strict sense, but rather a site of ongoing debate about nativeness, the nature of language, and the learning of it. In the field of language ideology research, Silverman and Torode (1980) talk less about resisting ideologies and more about interrupting them. This notion is interesting to us because it explains how the gradual emergence of oppositional discourses in terms of steps or micro-processes can potentially lead towards a more comprehensive project of resistance. Interruptions can unfold as lack of engagement with a particular discourse, parody of that discourse, and exposition of the contradictions within that discourse. While these steps might not be sufficient strategies for dismantling an ideology, they can undoubtedly constrain its tendency to become hegemonic. As Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Eagleton, 1991, p. 113) rightfully argues, ‘the language of authority never governs without the collaboration of those it governs, without the help of the social mechanisms capable of producing this complicity, based on misrecognition, which is the basis of all authority’. The fact that different

12

S. A. Houghton and J. Bouchard

aspects of native-speakerism are constantly being negotiated, reformulated, adjusted, contradicted, rejected, and so forth, means that the ideology can never rest on solid grounds; within a social world characterized by constantly shifting allegiances, power struggles, and ongoing educational changes, an ideology can potentially be deployed against its creators. We believe that conceptual deliberations such as these open avenues for explaining the resilience and undoing of native-speakerism in context. We also think that theory must be grounded in empirical knowledge. Directly, indirectly, and certainly in their own ways, the authors of the 11 chapters in this volume approach these challenging tasks with a sense of excitement and possibilities for a world where native-speakerism is no longer influential.

References Bourdieu, P., & Eagleton, T. (1991). Doxa and common life. New Left Review, 1-191, 111–121. Breckenridge, Y. M. (2010). Professional identity and the native speaker: An investigation of essentializing discourses in TESOL. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Canada. CERD. (n.d.). Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cerd/pages/cerdindex.aspx Derivry-Plard, M. (2013). The native speaker language teacher: Through time and space. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 239–252). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Derivry-Plard, M. (2017). A multilingual paradigm in language education. In AILA World Congress 2017, Rio de Janeiro 23–28th July 2017. Fairbrother, L. (2017). Native-speakerism and nihonjinron in Japanese higher education policy and hiring practices. In AILA World Congress 2017, Rio de Janeiro 23–28th July 2017. General Union. (n.d.). Employment security (conversion to unlimited-term employment): Two emails from the ministry. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from http://www.generalunion.org/ news/1620-employment-security-conversion-to-unlimited-term-employment-two-emails-fromthe-ministry Hashimoto, K. (2013). The construction of the ‘native speaker’ in Japan’s educational policies for TEFL. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 156–166). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Heimlich, E. (2013). The meaning of Japan’s role for professional foreigner. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 166–177). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. Holliday, A. (2015). Native-speakerism: Taking the concept forward and achieving cultural belief. In A. Swan, P. Aboshiha, & A. Holliday (Eds.), (En)countering native-speakerism: Global perspectives (pp. 11–25). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Holliday, A., Aboshiha, P., & Swan, A. (2015). (En)countering native-speakerism: Global perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Houghton, S. (2002). Gaikokujindewanai gaikokujinkyoshi? All current foreign lecturers are foreign. Where are the non-foreign foreign lecturers? Forum: Journal of the University of Kitakyushu Union, 23, 54.

1 Introduction

13

Houghton, S. A. (2013). The overthrow of the gaikokujinkyoushi system and its aftermath. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 60–74). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A. (2017a). Native-speakerism across languages and contexts. In AILA World Congress 2017, Rio de Janeiro 23–28th July 2017. Houghton, S. A. (2017b). Gaps between teacher and student priorities related to native-speakerism and English as a lingua franca (AILA ReN: Native-speakerism across contexts). In AILA World Congress 2017, Rio de Janeiro 23–28th July 2017. Houghton, S. A., & Hashimoto, K. (2018). Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts. Singapore: Springer. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (Eds.). (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A., Rivers, D. J., & Hashimoto, K. (2018). Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions. London: Routledge. Houghton, S. A., Rivers, D. J., & Petrie, D. (2012, April). Native-speakerism: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. In International Conference on Cultural and Linguistic Practices in the International University (CALPIU) Roskilde University, Denmark. ICERD. (1965). International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cerd. aspx ICSECR. (1966). International covenant on social, economic and cultural rights. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx Labour Standards Law. (1947). Retrieved November 25, 2019, from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/ docs/WEBTEXT/27776/64846/E95JPN01.htm Petrie, D. (2013). (Dis)integration of mother tongue teachers in Italian universities. Human rights abuses and the quest for equal treatment in the European single market. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 29–60). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Porto, M. (2017). An Argentine perspective on EFL teachers’ understandings of English, its expansion and hegemony, and native-speakerism. In AILA World Congress 2017, Rio de Janeiro 23–28th July 2017. Roux, P. (2017). English education in Japanese elementary schools: Taking positions on the road to reform. In AILA World Congress 2017, Rio de Janeiro 23–28th July 2017. Rubinstein, D. (2001). Culture, structure, and agency: Towards a truly multidimensional sociology. London: Sage. Silverman, D., & Torode, B. (1980). The material word. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Swan, A. (2015). Redefining English language teacher identity. In A. Swan, P. Aboshiha, & A. Holliday (Eds.), (En)countering native-speakerism: Global perspectives (pp. 59–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Turner, M. W., Lowe, R. J., & Schaefer, M. Y. (Producers). (2014, November, 26). TEFL interviews 2: Stephanie Ann Houghton and Enric Llurda on native-speakerism [Audio podcast]. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://teflology-podcast.com/2014/10/08/tefl-interviews2-stephanie-ann-houghton-and-enric-llurda-on-native-speakerism/?fbclid¼IwAR2AfsgahLMQfpj9H4Ne2LHbRPVk_N5n9n_ssDJaBXTCO3k-q0ZS-hjy2k Turner, M. W., Lowe, R. J., & Schaefer, M. Y. (Producers). (2019, September, 11). TEFL interviews 58: Stephanie Ann Houghton (PanSIG 2019) [Audio podcast]. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://teflology-podcast.com/2019/09/11/tefl-interviews-58-stephanie-annhoughton-pansig-2019/ Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Part I

The ‘Resilience’ of Native-Speakerism

Chapter 2

The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective Jérémie Bouchard

Abstract Why are some ideologies more resilient than other ideologies, which gradually fade in the background of history? In this opening chapter, I provide a conceptual exploration of native-speakerism as ideology within a contingent social realm. Specifically, I develop a realist approach to answering the above question by drawing from the works of Layder (Modern social theory: key debates and new directions. UCL Press, London, 1997) and Carter (Realism and racism: concepts of race in sociological research, Routledge, London, 2000), considering the “positions” of native-speakerism in relation to specific social domains. By assuming that “human activity is the outcome of the dual influence of structure and agency” (Carter, Realism and racism: concepts of race in sociological research, Routledge, London, 2000, p. 140), the internal conversation (Archer, Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003; Making our way through the world, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007; The reflexive imperative in late modernity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012) acts as the principal mediating force between culture, structure, and agency, and by looking at possible links between Bourdieu’s notion of habitus and Archer’s model of reflexivity, I attempt to answer why native-speakerism appears to be a resilient force in foreign language education around the world. Hopefully, this exploration can provide (a) a descriptive and an explanatory account for the apparent resilience of the ideology, despite our best efforts to deconstruct it and (b) valuable conceptual tools for subsequent ethnographic studies of native-speakerism in context.

2.1

Introduction

During the Second International Symposium on Native-Speakerism (Saga University, Japan, September 2014), Dr. Damian Rivers grounded part of his insightful and provocative presentation on the following question: Considering the various J. Bouchard (*) Faculty of Humanities, Hokkai Gakuen University, Sapporo, Japan © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_2

17

18

J. Bouchard

problems presented by native-speakerism, and that ‘native’ versus ‘non-native’ distinctions are unfounded and real only in the minds of those who believe in such distinctions, why do we keep on using the term ‘native speaker’ as a criterion in both academic and everyday discourse? Holliday (2015) similarly argues that support for native-speakerist views and practices is strong, despite growing academic interest in native-speakerism and initiatives by professional organizations to eradicate the native criterion. Carter (2000) asks parallel questions regarding the use of the problematic term race, while Layder (1997) asks Why do some practices become stabilized and more widespread than others? It is thus fair to purport that the resilience of ideologies has become an important concern in critical social research. In order to bring further conceptual clarity to these issues, this chapter adopts a realist approach to the study of native-speakerism (Bouchard, 2017), which considers (a) social phenomena (e.g., ideologies, language learning and teaching, etc.) as emergent outcomes of the complex interaction between structure, culture, and agency, (b) such phenomena as necessarily stratified—i.e., as unfolding within and across various domains of social life, (c) emergence as a fundamental property of such phenomena allowing for the possibility of causal links between them, and finally (d) reflexivity (an emergent property of human agency) as principal site where the forces of culture, structure, and agency are mediated. As a language ideology, native-speakerism is part of a complex network of ideologies, language-based, or otherwise. Therefore, questions regarding its resilience inevitably call attention to the sociological context in which it is embedded. The resilience and undoing of native-speakerism are, in this sense, sociological issues which cannot be successfully explored within the confines of applied linguistic scholarship and/or ideology critique: support from social theory is necessary to “relate the microculture of communicative action to political economic considerations of power and social inequality, to confront macrosocial constraints on language behaviour, and to connect discourse with lived experiences” (Woolard, 1998, p. 27). In this chapter, the argument will be made that the resilience of nativespeakerism is not exclusively a property of the ideology, but rather depends largely on reflexive engagement at the level of human agency, all within a contingent social realm. Grounded in understanding that “human activity is the outcome of the dual influence of structure and agency” (Carter, 2000, p. 140), that the social realm and the various social realities within it are stratified—i.e., that they unfold within and across various domains of social life simultaneously (Layder, 1997)—and that reflexivity, at the level of agency, acts as the principal site where the forces of culture, structure, and agency are mediated (Archer, 2003, 2007, 2012), this chapter also diverges momentarily from realist bastions to reconsider Bourdieu’s notion of habitus as an important (albeit somewhat problematic) source of insight regarding the resilience of native-speakerism (or any other ideology for that matter). This chapter also acknowledges Bourdieu’s (1990) emphasis on the potential for sociology and social theory to clarify power relations and devise strategies for dismantling them. In developing a realist understanding of the resilience of native-speakerism,

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

19

this chapter also builds extensively on existing critical work on the ideology, largely by contextualizing this work within a realist ontology.

2.2

Resilience

In the following two sections, I summarize views towards resilience pertinent to the current analysis, as discussed within and across a range of scientific areas. I also summarize how resilience has been discussed in recent native-speakerism research.

2.2.1

A General View of Resilience

Resilience has commonly been understood in various scientific fields as a form of elasticity or flexibility, a capacity for objects/substances/social entities to experience pressure or adversity, recover from their impact, and regain their initial state. Hall and Lamont (2013) argue that resilience is a prominent analytical category in the fields of ecology, developmental psychology, and response to disaster although the notion has recently gained greater attention in the social sciences in general. Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker (2000) identify two critical conditions for resilience to emerge: exposure to significant pressure and a positive adaptation to the conditions imposed by that pressure. For Masten (1994), the term resilience applies exclusively to positive adaptation and changes under pressure, making resilience a process of overcoming negative influences from external factors and achieving favorable outcomes. The return to initial state is often understood as partial (particularly in cases of severe stress and pressure), and as a process of ‘moving beyond’ pressure to become something else. Hall and Lamont (2013, p. 6) define social resilience as the ability of groups to “bound together in an organization, class, racial group, community or nation to sustain and advance their well-being in the face of challenges to it.” The authors argue that social resilience results from the links between micro, meso, and macro levels of social life, or the institutional and cultural scaffolding around people and groups which present themselves in the form of constraints and enablements. According to them, individual and group resilience requires people to fashion responses to challenges by locating resources in different social spheres (e.g., family, community, area, nation-state, and transnational entities), and use those resources not only to overcome adversity, but also to foster community bonds and collective identity. This process requires people to mobilize through loyalties and attachments, thus suggesting the involvement of ideological processes. The authors highlight the enabling potential of ideology by claiming that “the shared cultural references, myths and narratives embodied in collective imaginaries can buttress an individual’s sense of self and capabilities in many ways” (p. 31). With regard to nativespeakerism, one could argue that the victims of native-speakerist discourses and

20

J. Bouchard

practices—a community which includes ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ speakers—can develop resilience by accessing and nurturing alternative repertoires for pedagogy, professionalism, and identity work, with the goal of distancing themselves from the problematic native standard and status. The ability of these agents to formulate collective responses to the challenges imposed by native-speakerism depends on their initial ability to recognize themselves as a group and their ability to identify native-speakerism as a source of pressure. Is it possible to apply this general understanding of resilience to an ideology? Specifically, is it possible for native-speakerism to learn from its surroundings, ‘bounce back’ from pressure imposed upon it, and ‘survive’ despite efforts to undo it? This question, which provides a frame within which to interpret what follows, will be explored near the end of this chapter.

2.2.2

References to the Resilience of Native-Speakerism

Within native-speakerism research, the notion of resilience is new although parallel concepts have been proposed. Holliday (2006) and Hino (2018), for example, talk about the pervasiveness of native-speakerism within ELT, while Glasgow (2018) and Houghton (2018) talk about the persistence of native speakerism in ELT pedagogical practices. The following sub-sections summarize six distinct, yet closely related perspectives towards the resilience of native-speakerism in recent publications.

2.2.2.1

Policy, Textbooks, and Classroom Practices

Native-speakerism critics have, for the past decade or so, revealed numerous traces of the ideology in policy discourse. Bouchard (2017, 2018a, 2018b) delimits the presence of native speakerism in Japan’s recent policies on foreign language education as the products of congruent and divergent beliefs among policy makers regarding English education, and as the outcome of a complex interplay between cultural immunity and permeability discourses (Roesgaard, 2011). Evident in these policy texts are “multiple depictions of ‘native speakers’ as both models of target language use and as ‘tools’” (p. 199). Specifically, “native speakers” are positioned by policy makers as ideal models for Japanese EFL learners, while descriptions of Japanese EFL instructors are conspicuously absent. Also present is a dichotomous view of “native/non-native” teachers along etic-emic parameters. Perhaps more alarming is evidence that (a) unlike other ideologies such as nihonjinron (the ideology of Japanese uniqueness), native-speakerism does not appear to be contradicted by other discourses in policy texts, and (b) native-speakerism has been institutionalized through concrete governmental actions, notably via the implementation of the decades-long Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme,

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

21

suggesting direct causal links between policy and pedagogy and between ideology and educational practice. Japan’s recent policies on foreign language education are not particularly unique in this respect. Together, they provide good examples of complex, contradictory, and ideologically guided responses from liberal democracies to the pressures of globalization. Nelson (2017, p. 19) argues that, in the field of language education, “the focus is less on developing knowledge and questioning norms than on building learners’ capacities for effective communication in an additional language.” Also obvious is the primacy of pedagogical objectives and strategies aimed at building measurable human capital (e.g., developing linguistic and cultural knowledge translatable into economic capital), over critical thinking and engagement towards social justice and citizenship. Looking at ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ English teachers in Japanese high schools, Glasgow (2018, p. 197) warns that the discourses of the “English in English” initiative fail to address lingering tensions with respect to how [Japanese teachers of English] and their native English-speaking counterparts’ roles are framed in policy discourse, and perceived and enacted at the institutional level. These tensions, if unresolved, may preclude the possibility for native speakerism in [team-teaching] practice to be eradicated at the classroom and institutional level.

Glasgow exposes the resilience of colonialist principles and practices at the macro, meso, and micro levels of the Japanese EFL system, while critiquing policy makers’ insistence on communicative language teaching, a dominant perspective in TESOL largely guided by the native criterion, promoting cultural assumptions about how students should behave while learning languages. In the Japanese EFL context, for example, where there is limited use for English outside the classroom, this ideological perspective is perceived by many analysts as providing grounds for the resilience of native-speakerism. This reported emphasis by policy makers, board of education officials, and school administrators on ‘native speakers’ as authentic references to target language use also leads to dubious hiring practices. Swan (2015, p. 72) argues that “the reasons for employing foreigners are somewhat superficial, as there is no mention of important professional skills, simply the intrinsic ability of a ‘native speaker’ to speak their own language and model it for others.” Together, these complex links between native-speakerism—as denoted in policy discourse—and actual educational practices on the ground underscore a general lack of awareness and/or unwillingness on the part of agents situated at multiple levels of specific education systems to investigate underlying ideologies and principles behind specific language-in-education policies, a problem which can ultimately lead to consent and support for these policies on the ground (Yphantides, 2013). In terms of textbooks, tests, and classroom materials, consensus suggests that communication in the target language is idealized and that a strong neoliberal focus on globalization, business, traveling, leisure, and service encounters projects idealized visions of success and of foreign language learning as guaranteeing access to higher socio-economic status. Critics argue that this viewpoint exacerbates the gaps between learning materials and learners’ experiences. Focusing on Japanese

22

J. Bouchard

language education, Nomura and Mochizuki (2018, p. 91) stress that “almost every material [. . .] follows Japanese spoken by native speakers (particularly Standard Japanese spoken in and around Tokyo), and teachers are prone to native-speaker Japanese as their instructional target.” In English language education, Heimlich (2018, pp. 187, 188) argues that “Japan has helped publishers in the UK and the USA maintain dominance in the international market for TOEFL textbooks and the like,” demonstrating how the discourse of the cultural Other is often self-imposed. Finally, studies of native-speakerism in classroom practices, although few in numbers, have produced revealing insight. Triangulating data gathered from classroom discourse and practices and interview data gathered in Japanese junior high schools, Bouchard (2017) finds random traces of native-speakerism, with limited connections between them. When evidence of native-speakerism surfaces, however, it is rarely contradicted by other discourses, suggesting that the presence of “uncontested ideology –however marginal– does suggest the presence of a consensus with regards to its content, even if the ideology in question does not necessarily materializes into empirically observable practices” (p. 306). To some extent, these findings support Houghton and Rivers’ (2013, p. 8) assertion that “the institutional expectation that all form of criticality, dissent, questioning and resistance remain silent is persistent and powerful.” Stanley (2015) looks at the resilience of native-speakerism as one of the many outcomes or effects of learners’ expectations regarding the teachers, demands which are most likely related to imagined teacher identity and perceived authenticity. These expectations (e.g., “native speaker” teachers as (a) possessing insider’s knowledge of the target language and culture, (b) friendly and entertaining, (c) Caucasian and from inner circle countries, and (d) reproducing stereotypical behaviors expected of them) also likely contribute to the delimitation of teachers’ roles and how the latter conceptualize their own identity as language teachers. The author discusses this possibility in the context of tertiary foreign language education in Shanghai, arguing that stereotypes are powerful points of reference against which ‘native speaker’ teachers are evaluated. In turn, these teachers are often pressured into reproducing these stereotypes, largely because of the professional and economic implications of not doing so. Parallel to Fairbrother’s work in Chap. 3 (this volume) and Bouchard (2017), Stanley’s references to a Chinese social imaginary of the Western Other find echoes in the nihonjinron discourse: “students want a cultural entry point and insider information, but they do not necessarily want their own stereotypes to be disrupted too much” (Stanley, 2015, p. 35). In addition to expectations, the author also highlights essentialist and deterministic classroom practices as possible causes for the resilience of native-speakerism; specifically, approaches to teaching culture which emphasize superficial aspects including food and festivals and what she calls ‘culture as context’ rather than ‘culture as content.’ Parallel conclusions are provided in Bouchard (2017). Finally, the resilience of native-speakerism is seen by critics as facilitated at the classroom level when opportunities for learners to communicate in English are unevenly distributed, particularly in educational contexts of lower socio-economic levels. Schools which cannot afford to create opportunities for intercultural

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

23

communication, hire teachers from a variety of linguistic and cultural backgrounds, or provide access to higher quality materials might therefore constitute ideal contexts within which native-speakerism can thrive.

2.2.2.2

Teacher Training

Teachers’ awareness and practical knowledge of the connections between policy, material, and classroom practice emerge largely through teacher training, a site where the basic components of critical cultural awareness can potentially be recognized and developed. This process takes place when common-sense ideas are challenged through theory and methodology, and where the complex meanings and implications of problematic assumptions about language, pedagogy, and society can be exposed. According to Bakhtin (1986, p. 7) “a meaning only reveals its depth once it has encountered and come into contact with another, foreign meaning: they engage in a kind of dialogue, which surmounts the closedness and one-sidedness of these particular meanings, these cultures.” Accordingly, if teachers (and students for that matter) are not encouraged to explore Otherness in creative ways through dialogs and creative questionings, the Other—which includes the target language and its communities of speakers—is likely to remain essentialized, idealized, and fixed as an unattainable yet desired instantiation of Otherness. Hino (2018) sees current teacher training practices as limiting the range of choices and possibilities for prospective English teachers in Japan, arguing that one of the major problems, undoubtedly, is the paucity of concrete pedagogy available for teachers to put the post-native-speakerist philosophy into classroom practice. As long as models, materials, and methodologies simply remain Anglo-American, teachers have no choice but to end up with enhancing the same old aspiration among learners toward the English of native speakers (p. 217).

While teacher training is crucial to the understanding and development of pedagogical strategies and worldviews, learning experiences prior to teacher training also have a considerable influence on these processes (Kunschak, 2018; Swan, 2015), as the ways one learns at school and at home during childhood and primary and secondary education constitute valuable experiential resources, or the ‘raw materials,’ an individual most often draws from to formulate views of education which echo throughout his or her lifetime.

2.2.2.3

Emotionality and Self-Imposed Oppression

Although most social researchers would agree that power constitutes a sort of social ‘glue,’ it is also important to underscore the centrality of emotionality in the construction of social life (Layder, 1997). Although not a particularly prominent theme in native-speakerism critique, emotions (e.g., fear of discomfort, making mistakes, and antagonizing others in critically engaged pedagogies) have been identified as facilitating the resilience of native-speakerism. When languages and

24

J. Bouchard

cultures are presented and understood as bounded entities directly shaping what people say, do, and become, people can opt to engage in self-Othering or selforientalizing practices (Iwabuchi, 1994; Kubota, 1999; McVeigh, 2002; Bae, 2015). Through this complex process, students might recognize themselves as the dependent variables in a broader movement towards westernization through foreign language education, and potentially construct a view of their cultural identity as flawed. They might self-marginalize with regard to a perceived center, legitimizing superior-inferior rapports with a ‘native’ group perceived as dominant. In short, a cultural deficit perspective (inherent to native-speakerism) can be self-imposed, and lead students to become complicit in their own domination. On these issues, readers are encouraged to consult Rivers (2015), who analyzes a range of issues related to native-speakerism and emotions, particularly how the latter can steer people towards conservative modes of thought (or as the author puts it, ‘cognitive entrenchment’), including essentialized views of nativeness and identity in language learning. Houghton (2013, p. 72) also explores how the struggle for power and voice in language learning contexts can also generate and reinforce relations of domination, emphasizing the possibility for the oppressed to become oppressors themselves (Freire, 1996).

2.2.2.4

Rigid Views of Language and Culture

Native-speakerism critics have identified self-Otherizing practices through uncritical adherence to communicative language teaching approaches, particularly the monolingual paradigm, which depends in large part on the native criterion. In the current academic and professional zeitgeist in most EFL contexts around the world, teachers might not question the communicative approach out of fear of being evaluated negatively. Overemphasis on the communicative approach by prioritizing the role of the idealized ‘native speaker’ as benchmark for learning and communicating can also reinforce an unequal distribution of cultural/linguistic capital and devalue local knowledge (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Coupled with the forces of occidental romanticism, which project “a racialized and gendered ideal onto the body of the Western English language teacher” (Appleby, 2017) and position these idealizations as more valuable than the professional qualifications and expertise of Western teachers, an uncritical acceptance of communicative approaches can understandably contribute to the resilience of native-speakerism. Tsuneyoshi (2013) provides an insightful analysis of naïve understandings of linguistic and cultural realities within the Japanese EFL context as reinforcing self-marginalization in a general sense.

2.2.2.5

Native-Speakerism as Part of a Network of Ideologies

In recent native-speakerism research, links between native-speakerism and other ideologies have received much attention. Although native-speakerism is perhaps best understood as part of a complex network of language ideologies, nationalism is

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

25

often identified by critics as a principal influence on the ideology (Heimlich, 2018). Bouchard (2018a, p. 35) explains that “ideologies linking language and nation essentially highlight national languages as pivotal to the construction of national identities.” Byram (2008) states that “the national language becomes a vital possession of the state requiring protection from outside influences, making foreign language education a paradoxical project for foreign language teachers and learners.” Within current neoliberal approaches to nationalism, the responsibility for multilingualism tends to be assigned to the individual rather than as a collective (or national) project. Blommaert and Verschueren (1998, p. 207) distinguish between individual and societal multilingualism within a nation-state paradigm thus: “On a par with tolerance, dynamism, or a sense of humor, individual multilingualism is relegated to the sphere of personal characteristics and of free individual choice, which cannot be enforced by the state. Societal multilingualism, on the other hand, is problematic and undesirable, because it breaks the ‘natural’, homogeneistic norm of societies.” Rivers (2018b) discusses how nation-state ideologies are drawn from to construct national identities as a process of self-Otherization, particularly during contact with people from other countries. Houghton (2018) echoes this view by arguing that adherence to native-speakerism in language education may be stronger when teachers see their own national language as important. These parallel perspectives draw from the work of Yoshino (1992), who discusses how rigid constructions of Japanese linguistic and cultural uniqueness impede communication between Japanese and non-Japanese. Within this epistemological strand, Bouchard (2017) identifies racial identity and monolingual ideology as the main points of contact between nihonjinron and native-speakerism. Hashimoto (2018) sees similar processes unfolding within Japanese language education, arguing that the Japanese teachers in her study believe “in the inseparable relationship between people, language and place, which is extended to the assumed qualities of native speakers of Japanese” (p. 61). Native-speakerism critics denote a marked propensity within nationalized EFL systems to actually limit the success of English language education, for example, through paradoxical language policy initiatives, unsatisfactory textbook content, insufficient teacher training programs, lack of supervision of teaching practices, overemphasis on exam preparation, etc. Swan (2015) clarifies that the relevance of native-speakerism may depend more on attitudes towards English language pedagogy within a particular context rather than English posing a threat to local linguistic and cultural realities, an argument which allows us to see how a range of language ideologies can serve to mask native-speakerism while simultaneously reinforcing it. Relevance is understood in this chapter in parallel to Swan (2015) as determined through agentive choice and as a possible precondition for resilience. A similar understanding is found in the work of Bourdieu, particularly in the notion of legitimization of some cultural practices in opposition to other cultural practices, not only as a contrastive exercise but mainly in the subordination of one element for another due to the nature of a particular project.

26

J. Bouchard

2.2.2.6

The Possibility of Hegemony

The conceptualization of native-speakerism as hegemony is perhaps most evident in Holliday’s work (Holliday, 2005, 2011, 2015), with the author describing the ideology as having more or less entirely permeated everyday professional life. In many of his own works, Rivers also identifies native-speakerism as hegemonic, although he seems more concerned with the transition from ideology to hegemony, as the following statement suggests: “One can suggest that the longer a particular concept, notion and/or idea is able to evade challenge, deconstruction or transparent ridicule, the more legitimate its proponents are seen to be and the more resources they are able to muster towards its continuation” (Rivers, 2015, p. 6). However, these critiques are not always formulated consistently. Defining “the known” in language teaching, Rivers (2015, p. 2) paradoxically refers to (a) a “struggle facing individuals within organized structures and system of thoughts, belief and action” and (b) a “tyranny of the expected” and a dogma in which people are conditioned. This unproblematic movement between ideology and hegemony will be critically unpacked later in this chapter. Other writers, however, see native-speakerism as a site of tension where meanings and identities are contested. For example, Nelson (2017, p. 16) maintains that some teachers view antagonism towards native-speakerism as “meaningful and worthy, especially when the aim is to dissuade discriminatory acts and speech in the interest of advancing social harmony and equity, while others prefer to avoid [critical topics], often taking the view that such topics are irrelevant to students or likely to generate too much discomfort in class.” While acknowledging these two possibilities, the author concludes that language teachers are less concerned with their students’ linguistic ability to discuss critical topics, and more with how such pedagogy might trigger clashes between diverging attitudes and beliefs among students. In this sense, Nelson’s focus remains on the potential for native-speakerism to become hegemonic, rather than on native-speakerism being hegemonic.

2.3

Conceptual Building Blocks

The above summary reveals multiple perspectives towards the resilience of nativespeakerism although what permeates most is the idea that ideological resilience is the product of unconscious processes. In this section, this perspective is presented as somewhat problematic, and a broader conceptual basis is suggested as contributing further sophistication to the current discussion on the resilience of nativespeakerism. To this end, features of native-speakerism are highlighted, along with some of Bourdieu’s contributions to ideology research, followed by a recontextualization of these valuable contributions within a realist ontology.

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

2.3.1

27

Native-Speakerism as (Language) Ideology

To establish solid conceptual grounds for the overall argument in this chapter, a distinction between ideology and hegemony is necessary. Drawing from the works of Comaroff and Comaroff (1991), Bouchard (2017) conceptualizes ideology and hegemony as different ‘stages’ in the normalization of ideas. Hegemony is commonsense, thus closely connected to everyday praxis, whereas ideology is a site of debate and contestation. With ideology, “there is always some degree of ideological diversity, and indeed conflict and struggle, so that ideological uniformity [. . .] is never completely achieved” (Fairclough, 2001, p. 71), especially in democratic societies where power relationships are constantly (and often openly) negotiated, and where converging and contrasting ideologies are constantly produced and consumed. Ideologies, according to Fairclough, come from differences between people and groups in terms of social positions and interests, which influences both the struggle for control over power and the type of social relationships available within a particular context. With hegemony, however, this struggle is neutralized, as power structures and relations are no longer challenged. The argument is made at different points in this chapter that ideology and hegemony are often considered homologous phenomena in native-speakerism research, a tendency which unfortunately complicates the design and development of a critical and emancipatory agenda. Accepting the idea that ideology and hegemony are different, the guiding question for native-speakerism researchers then becomes How does an ideology become common-sense or backgrounded? Equally important, Who makes that possible? To answer these questions, we first need to reject the prominent poststructuralist view of discourse as constitutive of social life, and acknowledge that, while discourse is the main site where ideological processes unfold, discourse is not the culprit: people are. In the case of native-speakerism, the ideology then becomes a site where ideas, relationships, and power are contested by human agents, who are often differently invested towards the project of language education. Historically, ideology has been understood from four general perspectives: (1) ideology as belief, idea, or conceptual phenomenon, (2) ideology as reflective of the interests of particular social groups, (3) ideology as both discourse and practice aimed at acquiring and/or maintaining power, and (4) ideology as strayed epistemologies or mistaken rationalizations, which while resulting from human limitations can simultaneously be construed towards the maintenance of power interests. The first perspective, prominent in anthropology, sees ideology very much as a pre-reflective process located between conscious and sub-conscious deliberations, and is sometimes associated with what Thompson (2007) calls the neutral view of ideology. The second perspective—the critical view of ideology— introduces the element of power inequality (common to the second, third, and fourth perspectives), thus relating discursive processes with material phenomena in the social realm, while presenting ideology as common-sense, universally true, or as a regime of truth (Foucault, 1980). Seen from this angle, ideology and hegemony are

28

J. Bouchard

not clearly distinguishable. The third view, however, looks at ideology as a site of debate and struggle for the maintenance of power asymmetries, as an ongoing process of legitimizing and naturalizing power relations. Having lost its association with common-sense ideational structures, ideology is thus distinguished from hegemony. From the angle of critical social research, this distinction is crucial because it introduces agency as an important causal force, thus as a central research concern. As Verschueren (2012, p. 3) clarifies, “however constraining frames of thought may be, people do not just passively absorb [ideologies]; the importance —and potential— of agency should never be ignored.” With hegemony, however, this passive acceptance is ubiquitous. The fourth view of ideology remains anchored in issues of power, although it is rooted in the Marxist notion of false-consciousness or ideology as an illusion or mystification of social phenomena and relationships, used by people in power to sustain oppression. A parallel understanding can be found in Bourdieu’s notion of misrecognition (Bourdieu, 1990). Knowledge, seen as a central element in the struggle for power and domination, is conceptualized as the privilege of the elite, while agentive potential is largely—and unfortunately—overlooked. In short, only a narrow (or ‘flattened’) account of the elements leading to the production of social life is provided. As the above discussion reveals, analytical understandings of native-speakerism and of its resilience diverge because they are rooted in different understandings of hegemony and ideology, understandings which are themselves grounded in diverging accounts of the relationship between agency, culture, and structure. From a realist perspective, ideologies are emergent products of the interaction between social agents and the forces of structure and culture—i.e., they emerge out of human interaction (namely, because humans have projects to achieve), and in the process “acquire ontological status largely due to the fact that, over time, they acquire a social reality” (Bouchard, 2017, p. 115). Stated differently, humans develop, share, and reinforce ideologies through situated interaction, for a variety of purposes including the achievement of power and control. Over time, this leads to the emergence of ideologies as structural and cultural resources with antecedent properties and constraining and enabling effects upon agency. With hegemony, however, agency is simply denied emergent properties, and critique becomes considerably complicated without an account of agentive potentials. Assuming that native-speakerism is an ideology and not a hegemonic device, what claims can we then advance with regard to agency and causality? Firstly, critics should not be tempted to formulate their observations by investing the ideology with agentive properties (e.g., “native-speakerism generates . . .,” “native-speakerism imposes . . .,” etc.); instead, they should maintain analytical focus on people, the agents who are principally responsible for making things happen in society. As Verschueren (2012) reminds us, although structural and cultural forces can be said to affect things on the ground, these effects must be activated through agentive involvement, not merely through top-down imposition. Similarly, Gal (1998, p. 321) argues that the dominance of ideas and practices is less dependent on imposition by dominant groups than on recognition and acceptance by larger and

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

29

less powerful social groups. In other words, explanations of the acceptance of ideological forces must be grounded in a model of human agency. The main reason why top-down imposition is an unsatisfactory explanatory model for the resilience of native-speakerism is that social processes unfold within and across different domains of social life simultaneously (i.e., they are stratified), making direct causality from structure down to agency an unlikely process. Nativespeakerism researcher Zotzmann (2017, p. 37) provides a stratified ontology thus: “the social world consists of different elements with their own distinctive properties and powers, such as material objects and structures, discourses, social practices, individual agency, identities and language. These powers exist, i.e., they are ‘real’, but can be dormant or inactive [. . .] Powers thus need to be activated.” Although not explicit, what transpires most in this statement is the importance of human agency, particularly people’s distinct ability to recognize, accept, “work with,” question and resist certain ideational structures and discourses of relevance to specific agentive projects. Kroskrity (1998, p. 104) argues that “the notion of linguistic ideology directs attention to cultural actors’ rationalization of their own language activity,” rationalizations which are closely related to perceptions of language use. The author stresses that speech behavior is widely seen as reflecting one’s linguistic background or biography because the ways in which we use language is most often taken as direct reflections of our identity makeup. Such ideological process does not unfold in the margins of human communication but deeply within it. Mertz (1998, p. 151) sees the emergence of language ideologies as an inevitable aspect of human communication thus: As people interact through language, they draw on and create ideologies about language, thereby developing linguistic worldviews or epistemologies that guide them in deciding how to speak and what to say.” From this angle, it is possible to conceptualize native-speakerism (not exclusively but principally) as a metadiscourse. Given the inherently indexical nature of language and human communication, language ideologies—which include native-speakerism—are one of the inevitable (although certainly problematic) outcomes of humans’ reflexive use of linguistic signals, which in turn can (and often does) refer back to its own signalling. Spitulnik (1998, pp. 163, 164) suggests that the structural grounding of language ideologies in institutional practice is best understood as a process of language valuation and evaluation which occurs through specific kinds of semiotic processes [which] function to naturalize or neutralize language value; that is, they obscure the historically contingent nature of language values, as well as the relations of power and interest underlying them.

Some of these semiotic processes include “the indexical transfer of social stereotypes about speakers to the languages themselves” (Spitulnik, 1998, p. 166). Language ideologies are, in this sense, also phenomena unfolding within the realm of practice. In arguing that ‘native speaker’ teachers in Japan are often excluded from day-to-day institutional decisions and actions, Rivers (2013) demonstrates how nativespeakerism is not neatly contained within a discursive realm but indeed permeates objective realities through specific practices of social and professional oppression.

30

J. Bouchard

Briggs (1998, p. 232) emphasizes the importance of praxis when arguing that language ideologies are not part of a homogeneous cultural substratum, but aspects of practices used by agents to construct and naturalize discursive authority. To illuminate the centrality of agency in ideology critique, Archer’s (1995) approach to culture—which contains complex networks of ideologies—serves as another reliable conceptual point of reference. According to Archer, culture is constituted of two “layers”: the Cultural System (e.g., cultural knowledge, beliefs, norms, language, mythology, etc., elements with antecedent properties) and the Socio-Cultural Domain (i.e., how people adopt, reproduce, resist, or challenge influences from the Cultural System). This layered or stratified view provides additional insight into native-speakerism as stratified social phenomenon. Accordingly, native-speakerism can be understood as a set of conceptualizations of ties between language as resource within the Cultural System, and language as practice unfolding within the Socio-Cultural Domain (i.e., as situated social phenomenon) (Bouchard, 2018b). The ties between these distinct and emergent layers of language—as both resource and situated activity—are not necessarily one-directional or causative, given that discourses and processes within each layer (e.g., day-to-day online chatting, classroom discourse, discourse about the “proper way” to use a language, media discourse, policy-making, etc.) often unfold within different contexts, time frames and draw from different structural and cultural resources, with different effects. In addition, the production and consumption of language ideologies by invested human agents highlight other important features of the social realm (both within and beyond discourse) such as identity, authenticity, aesthetics, morality, and of course unequal distributions of power and resource within society. Archer’s approach to culture is valuable because it reveals the inherent complexity in mapping the links between social and cultural phenomena while serving as conceptual grounds from which claims about direct causality between ideology and practice can be criticized. Before moving on to more detailed features of native-speakerism, it is important to remind ourselves that the ideology, as a stratified social phenomenon with distinct and emergent properties, can be (a) a set of ideas regarding the fact that most people (although not all) are born in a specific linguistic environment within which knowledge of and competence in a particular variety of language can be developed; (b) a set of ideas related to authenticity, ‘owning’ a particular dialect or language, and/or ‘nativeness’ as a desirable attribute; (c) a cultural resource drawn from by human agents when engaging in particular educational and/or communicative practices; and (d) an ideological structure used by agents to sustain relations of domination within educational contexts. These different ‘layers’ of native-speakerism are not ontologically equivalent: they possess emergent properties, which mean that they cannot be reduced to or conflated within each other.

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

2.3.2

31

Native-Speakerism and Nation-State Ideology

As language ideology, native-speakerism is also a cause and a consequence (Kumaravadivelu, 2015) of the forging and positioning of social groups and institutions throughout nation-state building (see Annamalai (1998) and Rivers (2018b) for discussions on native-speakerism and nation-state ideologies). Blommaert and Verschueren (1998) and Woolard (1998) uncover the roots of this phenomenon by arguing that the lack of a distinct language can considerably hinder the legitimacy of a group’s claims to nationhood. In this sense, native-speakerism is grounded in the idea that nations possess a single language—the national language—and that one’s ‘mother tongue’ is both the prerequisite for and the gateway to linguistic and cultural authenticity. This characterizes native-speakerism critique simultaneously as a critique of nationalism and nation-state ideologies. Blommaert and Verschueren’s (1998) point regarding nationalism provides us with grounds for exploring the resilience of both nationalism and native-speakerism as interrelated ideologies: “It appears both as an emotional, irrational matter and as a respectable phenomenon. The shortcomings of language learning, or education at large, as a potential solution for interethnic conflicts demonstrate that nationalism is based on the fundamental, natural need for a homogeneous society” (p. 206). The authors conclude that human beings’ socio-political instincts demonstrate a tendency towards homogeneism, a conclusion of potential relevance to the study of native-speakerism in context. In foreign language education, mapping the complex interconnections between native-speakerism and nationalism requires a broader sociological perspective towards education in general, specifically one which pays due consideration to the socializing potential of state-run education systems and how they contribute to national identification (Anderson, 1991; Billig, 1995; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Critical attention is also required to explain the paradoxical nature of ideology— including its critique—as discourse types and social phenomena, a subject explored in the following section.

2.3.3

Questioning the Notion of Ideology, and Bourdieu’s Notion of Doxa

While the study of native-speakerism in foreign language education has a relatively short history (see Derivry-Plard (2018) and Rivers (2018a, 2018b) for historical accounts of the roots of the ideology and related critique), the term ideology has been scrutinized for more than 200 years. Consequently, it has meant different things in different contexts, and its critique has often been aimed at fulfilling different and at times contradictory purposes. In Eagleton (1991, pp. 111, 112), Bourdieu (1990) explains that the labeling of a particular discourse or practice as ‘ideological’ is often interpreted as an insult, and that the use of the term becomes an instrument of

32

J. Bouchard

symbolic domination. Instead, Bourdieu prefers broader concepts such as ‘symbolic domination,’ ‘symbolic power,’ or ‘symbolic violence,’ which he sees as revealing “unperceived form of everyday violence” (p. 112). A similar perspective is suggested by Houghton and Rivers (2013, p. 3) thus “The mere use of any given term (especially terms such as orientalism, sexism, male chauvinism and feminism) may accuse a certain group by automatically suggesting in the minds of people who are the perpetrators (in need of challenge), and who are the victims (in need of protection).” Although Bourdieu’s critique is somewhat ambivalent—after all, labeling a phenomenon as ‘symbolic domination,’ ‘symbolic power,’ and ‘symbolic violence’ can also be considered a manifestation of symbolic domination—it shows that any theory of ideology relies on a concept of representation. As Eagleton (1991, p. 112) points out, “certain models of representation have been called into question and thereby also, so it is thought, the notion of ideology.” Stated differently, since ideology critique operates to a large extent on the assumption that a world devoid of ideology is not only possible but desirable, it is also partly based on the assumption that critics have access to ‘absolute truth,’ or at least have a vision of a non-ideological world. The problem with such assumption is that, while ideology critique depends on the core understanding that discourse itself constitutes an ideological site, the very discourse used to conduct such critique escapes this condition. In response to this fundamental paradox in ideology critique, Bourdieu and many others have highlighted researcher reflexivity as an effective countermeasure. In native-speakerism research, however, reflexivity has yet to gain much attention. As the above summary of accounts of the resilience of native-speakerism shows, the concept of ideology has often been understood from a Marxist perspective as a form of false consciousness, or a discursive system presenting reality in a skewed fashion to preserve hegemonic power. While equally critical of and inspired by Marxist critique, Bourdieu suggests misrecognition as a concept akin to falseconsciousness. In the field of native-speakerism research, critics including Holliday (2011, 2013) and Rivers (2015) also adhere to this conceptualization of the ideology. This approach, however, relies on an understanding of social discourses and actions as the outcome of unconscious processes. However, explaining the (potential) effects of ideology on practice as the outcome of unconscious processes effectively bypasses reflexive engagement by human agents, and overlooks the possibility for resistance and change, which is an integral part of ideology critique. Although possible in certain situations, models of ideology as false-consciousness/misrecognition overemphasize morphostasis, or the maintenance of the status quo, and fail to account for morphogenesis, or social and cultural change (Archer, 2004). While certain aspects of culture and society are undeniably maintained over time, the assumption that people’s everyday decisions and actions are determined by ideology as false-consciousness—a discourse systems unbeknownst to them which subjugates them to a life of subservience—is insufficient because it lacks ontological depth. Eagleton (1991) brings attention to human reflexivity by pointing out that “people are actually much more cynically or shrewdly aware of their values than [the notion of false consciousness] would suggest” (p. 112). This critique resonates more

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

33

strongly when considering that Bourdieu sees misrecognition as part of a broader process of the internalization of social structures within individuals. In doing so, he prioritizes socialization over reflexivity, leaving little room for social and cultural elaboration. As Swartz (1997) rightfully points out, “Bourdieu sees the internalization through socialization of external opportunity structures as a straightforward and nonproblematic process” (p. 110). In short, there is a marked tendency not only in Bourdieu’s influential work but also in ideology critique at large towards presenting agents as unable to escape socialization as dominant cultural pressure, forcing them to reproduce oppressive structures and ideologies. Despite these criticisms, Bourdieu’s concept of misrecognition has considerable value to our collective work on native-speakerism. According to Bourdieu, power can be legitimized and have causal potential when it is not recognized as power. This condition is facilitated by habitus, a “system of structured, structuring dispositions [. . .] constituted in practice and [. . .] always oriented towards practical functions” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 52). His emphasis on practice—and not discourse—is important precisely because, from his perspective, much of what people do is not the product of conscious deliberation but rather the outcome of patterns of practice internalized largely during primary socialization. In this sense, and while the distinction between ideology and hegemony remains crucial to any critical project, it is also important for native-speakerism critics to acknowledge the very real potential for people to say and do things without thinking, without fully and consciously reflecting on all the ramifications involved. Because of that, critics must also consider the value of doxa as unquestioned ‘natural’ knowledge (Bourdieu, 1990), and the possibility that the boundaries between ideology and hegemony may not be so clearly distinguishable. Traces of Bourdieu’s approach to ideology are discernible in, for example, Seargeant’s (2009) work in the Japanese context, as the following statement by the author reveals: “ideologies should not be seen as primarily mentalist, but also as behavioral, as practice-based, and, in a sense, prereflective, in that they need not involve explicit rationalization” (p. 28). From the angle of social theory, however, reducing ideological resilience to unconscious processes unfortunately overemphasizes social reproduction and leaves little room for agency’s full potential, thus little room for the possibility for social and cultural morphogenesis (Archer, 1995). As Green (2013, p. 143) points out, “Bourdieu’s theory remained heavily influenced by structuralism as he sought a more ‘scientific’ account of socialisation and social reproduction.” Although the notion of habitus is useful in labeling the assumptions, beliefs, and ideologies which permeate people’s lives, it is also important to recognize the dangers in using doxa as equivalent to ideology, and habitus as the mechanism through which ideology becomes legitimized and transformed into actions. Instead, Bourdieu’s approach to ideology must be revised to include a stronger emphasis on agency, including a model which accounts for resistance and the possibility for social and cultural elaboration.

34

2.3.4

J. Bouchard

Implications for Native-Speakerism Critique

By integrating agents’ reflexive powers in the equation, Archer’s (2003) theory of reflexivity offers interesting possibilities. The author stresses that structural and cultural causal powers are dependent on two open systems: a contingent world and human reflexivity. Elder-Vass (2010) defines reflexivity as “a power that human beings possess: it is the ability to monitor ourselves in relation to our circumstances [. . .] It is exercised through a process of conscious reflexive deliberations, during which we conduct internal conversations with ourselves about ourselves” (p. 102). The complex production of social life is hereby understood as taking place largely because human agents have projects to achieve, and the reflexive powers to do so, albeit within a contingent social realm. Archer’s theory of reflexivity draws to some extent from Bakhtin’s (1981) notion of the internally persuasive discourse as process of people thinking for themselves and persuading themselves to do things. Archer’s theory of reflexivity should not, however, be interpreted as another, more recent version of interactionism used to justify claims that human actions and discourses are entirely the products of agentive volition. Instead, critics need to combine habitus and doxa—which tend to overlook the distinct and emergent properties of agency—with a model of human reflexivity—which emphasizes the distinct and emergent properties of agency. In other words, a certain conceptual backand-forth between these two models is necessary (Elder-Vass, 2010). While human reflexivity—as the site where cultural, structural, and agentive forces are mediated— can be presented as the principal engine behind the production of social life, people cannot do anything they want simply by drawing from their own resources and powers. They cannot extricate themselves from ideological constraints simply by changing discursive practices. Instead, native-speakerism critics must consider underlying generative mechanisms, including doxa and habitus, as powerful forces. This new level of complexity, however, does not imply stronger commitment with a relativist viewpoint: greater complexity is understood as a necessary outcome of social researchers’ greater commitment with objective truth. As Williams and Dyer (2017, p. 3) argue, “despite what the social constructionists would say, it is possible to explain and predict the social world, partly because it is rule based and partly because agents in it act inductively on past experience, which mostly exhibits a large degree of predictability.” Our everyday lives tend to be guided by a panoply of systems, including ideational systems, of which we are only partly aware of in the moment, and which lead to the emergence of relatively predictable behaviors and the resilience of particular ideological structures. In short, adopting a systemic viewpoint in ideology critique is not only possible but desirable. At the same time, human actions and discourses are not linear processes, which mean that they are predictable only to some extent. Consequently, when we are talking about how humans structure their world in terms of power relationships, critics also need to make space for people ‘getting it wrong,’ or ambiguity, contradictions, lack of clarity, carelessness, and so forth at the level of human agency

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

35

(Bouchard & Glasgow, 2019). In other words, constraints upon agency are not exclusively imposed in a top-down fashion; they are sometimes self-imposed. In sum, more sophisticated analytical tools and a certain degree of skepticism towards ideology critique are needed in native-speakerism research. Below, a stratified view of the social realm is offered as possible conceptual enrichment of existing ideology critique.

2.4

Domain Theory

One of the arguments made so far in this chapter is that native-speakerism critique should be grounded in analytical distinctions between (a) ideology and hegemony, and (b) structure, culture, and agency. Layder’s (1997) Domain Theory (DT) provides a particularly useful addition to a realist ontology and to the task of drawing out the distinct and emergent properties of various social phenomena including ideology. The following two sub-sections summarize the main features of DT and explain how a DT-informed critique can shed light on the resilience of native-speakerism. DT can be understood as theoretical improvement of the structure-agency dichotomy (Bouchard & Glasgow, 2019). Layder (1997) identifies four domains of social life: psychobiography, situated activity, social settings, and contextual resources. The first two domains are often associated with agency and the latter with structure. Within psychobiography, the domain which includes human reflexivity, the self experiences identity development in terms of transformational stages which are related to the different events in one’s life. Situated activity highlights the importance of face-to-face interaction with people generally close to us. The domain of social settings contains the structural/contextual elements influencing interaction (e.g., places such as schools and workplaces, and routinized patterns of communication within those spaces). In this domain, language becomes a cultural and political resource (Carter & Sealey, 2000) which can be used to generate and reinforce particular ideologies. Contextual resources, the domain farthest from the individual, include all the structural and cultural resources and conditions of social life—i.e., the material, cultural, and structural conditions inherited by human agents as a result of having been born in a specific area of the world at a specific time in history. DT presents the social world as stratified into distinct and emergent social realms, from micro- to macro-level domains, each with ontological depth and width. Domains, however, are not nested within other domains. Emphasizing the distinct and emergent properties of each domain, Layder (1997, p. 2) argues that “the elements that bind these domains together are social relations and positions, power, discourses and practices. [. . .] The domains are related to each other not only as ‘layers’ of social life within the same time unit, but also as stretched-out over time and space.”

36

J. Bouchard

Applying DT to native-speakerism critique, it is possible to explain people’s tendency to reproduce native-speakerist discourses and practices unintentionally as the effect of the ideology not having caught their attention. As suggested earlier, however, the resilience of native-speakerism cannot be entirely reduced to a matter of degrees of consciousness, for this would essentially reduce ideology to hegemony, and overlook important aspects of native-speakerism as site where meanings and identities are contested. What DT offers is the possibility of native-speakerism being ‘more than one thing’ simultaneously—i.e., being a stratified social phenomenon. Drawing from Layder, Carter (2000) argues that the relevance of particular social phenomena (e.g., native-speakerism) to human discourse and practice can vary depending on their position in relation to specific social domains. Here are a few situations which might help clarify Carter’s point as it applies to native-speakerism research. At the level of psychobiography, the notion of the ‘native speaker’ may have limited relevance because of its potentially limited value as cultural resource for the accomplishment of particular personal goals. However, it might gain relevance at the levels of situated activity or contextual resource, where projects become shared (thus increasing in scope), and where interaction (including the resources necessary for such interaction) constitutes a central arena where collective purposes are established and pursued at specific points in time and in specific contexts. The idea of the ‘native speaker’ may be reified, for example, to forge a collective identity and build solidarity in relation to a cultural and linguistic Other. At the level of social settings, the very same notion can occupy a space somewhat beyond the attention of individuals or groups, although it may play an important role in the creation and maintenance of unequal distribution of power and resources (processes which, it must be said, also depend on discourses formulated and actions taken at the levels of psychobiography and situated activity). This would explain, for example, the potentially limited impact of people questioning and resisting nativespeakerist views and practices (during situated interaction) on processes within the domains of social settings and contextual resources, given the latter’s full range of antecedent properties. It would also explain, for example, people untangling the discriminatory effects of native-speakerism in context, not necessarily to undo native-speakerism as a problematic cultural resource and act of symbolic violence, but instead simply to forge and maintain human bonds. This range of possibilities highlights an important point about the use of DT in critical social research: because ideologies are stratified entities, they are not situated exclusively within a particular domain; indeed, they exist simultaneously across domains, with human agency often facilitating cross-domain movements. For example, someone can choose to reify native-speakerism to gain access to particular forms of capital (e.g., get a new job), or reject it for the very same reason (e.g., write critical analyses of native-speakerism in context to build one’s body of academic publications), and in doing so effectively act both within and across social domains. In short, because ideology is a multi-domain phenomenon, and given that domain-specific processes unfold within domain-specific time frames and draw from domain-specific resources, contradictions and points of friction are bound to emerge. Yet,

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

37

contradictions do not inevitably lead to cultural elaboration and the dismantlement of ideological structures: they can potentially lead to the resilience of nativespeakerism. The selection of the road to be taken then becomes, to a large extent, a question of studying the distinct and emergent properties of human agency. DT allows us to see that the fundamental issue in native-speakerism critique is not the direct causal effect of ideology upon practice but the relationship between ideology and practice as distinct and emergent phenomena within a stratified social world. DT also helps us contextualize the question of degrees of consciousness— and in the same vein, the issue of hegemony versus ideology—within a broader sociological perspective, while avoiding the trap of structural and cultural determinism. Moreover, DT allows critics to see how social realities, including nativespeakerism, are very much the outcomes of complex interactions between localized forces (agency) and broader constraints and enablements (structure, culture). Carter and Sealey (2000) point out that realist studies of language—including those which use DT as theoretical basis—need to contend with the possibility that, due to the stratified nature of the social world, language can have a different significance “depending on which domain is the focus of the researcher’s interest” (p. 9). A parallel statement can be made within the context of native-speakerism critique. Another useful element in DT is Layder’s emphasis on emotionality as part of our everyday agentive deliberations, as both “the site of contradictory impulses, wishes, opinions and behavior” (Layder, 1997, p. 41), and as mediation between opposing forces of the unconscious (e.g., desires, impulses, etc.) and the more rational representation of self in the public sphere. For Layder, both power and emotionality provide important generating forces behind discourse and the production of social life. However, the author warns against associating emotionality with agency and power with structure, because doing so would overlook the possibility of collective emotionality (e.g., public opinions and political discourse during elections) playing another important role in the mediation of structural, cultural, and agentive forces. Rodriguez (2017) also discusses briefly the importance of emotions to the emergence of ethnocentric views and other forms of parochialism, and rightfully points out that the latter are less errors of judgment than emotional responses to constraints and enablements. Gray (1987, p. 46) similarly emphasizes the centrality of emotions in identity processes: “A great deal of human behaviour is not purposeful or calculational at all, [it is] rather self-expressive or self-disclosing.” The usefulness of emotion in the construction of social reality is also highlighted by Rubinstein (2001, p. 168), who points out that emotions “provide an alternative to, or reinforcement of, the discipline of moral training and/or rational restraint.” At the same time, emotions, as with power, do not ‘make the social world turn,’ nor do they entirely guide our actions. An important distinction between emotions, power, agency, culture, and structure is drawn by Rubinstein thus “because the actor can read feelings in light of opportunities and cultural resources, a measure of autonomy is possible. The actor has but is not, as it were, filled with emotions” (p. 179). People negotiate their place in the world by managing often contradictory impulses, wishes, opinions, and behavior and by balancing both unconscious and more rational self-representations within and across domains of social life.

38

J. Bouchard

Emotionality emerges through our reflexive and ongoing deliberations regarding the structural and cultural constraints and enablements which bear most relevance to our ultimate projects and concerns. When we move beyond the domain of psychobiography towards situated activity, however, human reflexivity and emotionality become shared activities. Often at this point, individualized reflexive approaches tend to be re-calibrated as people mobilize to meet the needs of the group (Bouchard & Glasgow, 2019). The use of DT to native-speakerism critique becomes clear when considering that ideology not only navigates in complex ways within and across discourses in specific domains—e.g., chats among classmates, pedagogical talk, classroombased education, policy and media discourses, etc.—but also takes on diverging trajectories depending on which domain is being investigated. Insightful here is Hernandez-Zamora’s (2017) understanding of the resilience of native-speakerism, which echoes both a Bourdieusian viewpoint and a DT-oriented perspective: “Social reproduction (particularly social class relationships) appears more or less evident depending on the scale you observe (e.g., at macro or micro levels)” (p. 168). In the final section of this chapter, the centrality of agency in accounts of the resilience of native-speakerism is further highlighted.

2.5

Ideological Resilience and the Centrality of Agency

Can an ideology be resilient—i.e., learn from its surroundings and bounce back from pressure imposed upon it? Answering this question inevitably brings attention to agency and the realization that ideology, in and of itself, simply does not have agentive properties. While a plant, an ecosystem, an animal, a person, or group of people can ‘bounce back’ because they can do things in the real world, an ideology simply cannot enjoy this privilege. Ideologies do not, as Zotzmann and Rivers (2017, p. 1) put it with regard to native-speakerism, enhance or constrain identities, nor do they shape our meaning making endeavors. They do not oppress segments of the population, nor do they fool people into believing certain things and not others. Ideologies can only have these effects when they become part of people’s reflexive deliberations and social engagement, in light of agentive goals and projects. Actions are taken by agents endowed with the ability to effect change in the world. This view does not overemphasize subjective involvement, nor does it constitute a movement back to interactionism. Instead, it merely presents all social phenomena as stratified realities unfolding simultaneously within and across social domains, each with their distinct and emergent properties, thus leading to various points of friction between them, and possibly to social and cultural elaboration. It does, however, highlight the centrality of agency—both individual and collective—in the reproduction and transformation of social life. In short, this view provides a constructive approach to ideology critique rooted in ontological depth. Since an ideology cannot do things in the world, the notion of ideological resilience is inherently metaphorical, which also means that any perspective towards

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

39

ideological resilience depends on consideration for elements beyond the boundaries of ideology, particularly the sociological contexts in which ideologies are embedded. Understanding the resilience of native-speakerism thus begins with a dislocation of ideology from agency, achieved through an account of the distinct and emergent properties of both. Although ideologies might not cause specific things to happen in the real world, they can nevertheless provide satisfactory ideational frames for our rationalizations of sociolinguistic performances, identities, and socio-cultural differences. Yet, as Rubinstein (2001, p. 164) argues, “we must account for the human traits that induce normative compliance and explain why norms are often rejected or modified.” The notion of coherence (Fairclough, 2001) provides another valuable conceptual entry point. The coherence of an ideology can be understood as its perceived internal logic, or how its constituting elements are seen as fitting together logically, conceptually, sequentially, and in the case of native-speakerism, as a comprehensible narrative about nativeness and language-based identities. Ideological coherence depends on the conventions within discourse drawn upon by agents when attempting to make sense of text and world. The coherence of an ideology can also be explained by looking at how the links between text and world are not only interpreted but also facilitated by agents. In addition, the degree and manner in which resources are drawn from the Cultural System to conduct discourse and practice within the SocioCultural Domain are useful explanatory categories from which the relevance of specific ideational structures to human practice can be accounted for, thus providing a basis for understanding ideological resilience. Above all, the notion of ideological resilience must include a strong version of agency. While critics needs to account for the existence and influence of relatively stable rule-bound social structures (Williams & Dyer, 2017), they also need to include human reflexivity as the main site where the forces of structure, culture, and agency are mediated (Bouchard & Glasgow, 2019). Equally important, however, while a strong version of agency is needed, agents should not be depicted as entirely rational and calculating individuals, since this would fail to account for the full range of agentive discourses and actions, including behaviors which go against selfpreservation and self-interest.

2.6

Conclusion

Questions such as What is the resilience of ideology? and Why do ideologies persist despite our best efforts at unpacking and dismantling them? are necessary in critical social research, for this brand of scholarship is not merely content with descriptions of the ontological features and boundaries of ideologies, but rather aimed at reducing the negative impact of ideology upon discourse and social practice. Bourdieu was particularly aware of this connection between social theory, resistance, and social and cultural change.

40

J. Bouchard

As this chapter has demonstrated, these questions require answers rooted in a conceptual distinction between hegemony and ideology, and between agency, structure, and culture. For hegemony, resilience is a foregone conclusion. If we focus exclusively on habitus to explain the resilience of native-speakerism, we unfortunately rob agency of its reflexive potential, and as Habermas (2006, p. 355) puts it, consciousness is robbed of its power to synthesize, becoming fragmented, and blocking enlightenment by the mechanism of reification. At the same time, it is important to see hegemony and ideology as dialectically related. Kroskrity (1998, p. 117) points out that any rethinking of language ideology that would exclude naturalized, dominant ideologies and thus analytically segregate beliefs about language according to a criterion of consciousness seems to me to be unwise. Since dominant ideologies can become contended ideologies over time and since members vary, both interindividually and intraindividually, in their degree of consciousness, the creation of a categorical boundary between such language beliefs would falsify their dynamic relationship.

Yet, the fact that we can talk about native-speakerism as being resilient in a particular context suggests that the ideology possesses emergent properties which distinguish it from other ideologies and other social phenomena. As previously stated, ideologies are emergent realities existing within and across domains. Because domain-specific processes unfold within domain-specific time frames and draw from domain-specific resources, with different effects, multiple outcomes are possible over time. These include the emergence of contradictions in social life, and the resilience of particular ideational structures. In native-speakerism critique, it is also crucial to conceptualize all analytical categories as stratified social realities. Critics must consider the following five facts and possibilities: students and teachers (1) have different psychobiographies and histories; (2) might be differently invested towards language learning and the project of social emancipation (Nelson, 2017); (3) might have diverging understandings of the boundaries and substance of native-speakerism; (4) might not have effective strategies for dealing with a possible sense of discomfort emerging from critical engagement; and (5) might not know how to construct alternatives to essentializing discourses. Considering these realities and possibilities, native-speakerism critics might find value in referring to habitus and specific systems of dispositions as explanatory models for ideological resilience. At the same time, and this cannot be stated too often, understanding the resilience of native-speakerism in context requires a strong version of agency within a contingent social realm, and habitus simply does not include one. In closing, although it has not been the purpose of this chapter to provide practical strategies for a renewed native-speakerism critique—it has instead attempted to clarify important conceptual issues shaping this sort of research, with potential ramifications for methodology—I invite readers to consult Sealey and Carter (2004), who draw from Pawson (1989) to map out an approach to conducting applied linguistics research in line with some of the core principles of the social realist ontology summarized in this chapter. They list five steps:

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

41

1. Formulating general causal propositions as they pertain to the processes, elements, and contexts being researched (e.g., Educational processes are structured in important ways by structural and cultural constraints and enablements; reflexivity is a crucial element in the production and reproduction of social life, since it mediates the forces of culture, structure, and agency). 2. Identifying the distinct and emergent properties of processes, elements, and contexts which can be deemed relevant to observed outcomes (e.g., Although ideologies do not have causal potentials, they are emergent cultural products antecedent to agency, which means that they can indeed act as powerful constraining influences upon agency). 3. Developing testable propositions or questions (e.g., What are the challenges shaping foreign language education in a particular context? What can be said about the presence and importance of native-speakerism in a particular educational context?). 4. Collecting empirical data (e.g., classroom discourse, interview data, textbooks and other materials, teacher training course materials, online job postings, educational policies, etc.) and identifying salient and relevant outcomes (i.e., looking at points of convergence and divergence in the overall body of empirical data). 5. Explaining salient causal links between processes, elements, and contexts. Any movement from Steps 1 through 5 must ultimately arch back to theory—i.e., analysis refining existing theories, models, and causal propositions. In addition to Sealey and Carter’s work, readers are also invited to consult a similar realist approach suggested by Bouchard and Glasgow (2019), which guides researchers as they develop preliminary understandings of the causal links between agency and language policy and planning, an endeavor which necessitates consideration for a broad range of language ideologies including native-speakerism.

References Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. London: Verso. Annamalai, E. (1998). Nativity of language. In R. Singh (Ed.), The native speaker: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 148–157). New Delhi: Sage Publications. Appleby, R. (2017). Occidental romanticism and English language education. In D. J. Rivers & K. Zotzmann (Eds.), Isms in language education: Oppression, intersectionality and emancipation (pp. 249–266). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. (2004). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. (2007). Making our way through the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

42

J. Bouchard

Bae, Y. (2015). The influence of native-speakerism on CLIL teachers in Korea. In A. Swan, P. Aboshiha, & A. Holliday (Eds.), (En)countering native-speakerism: Global perspectives (pp. 75–90). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: SAGE Publications. Blommaert, J., & Verschueren, J. (1998). The role of language in European nationalist ideologies. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 189–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bouchard, J. (2017). Ideology, agency, and intercultural communicative competence: A stratified look into Japanese EFL education. Singapore: Springer. Bouchard, J. (2018a). Native-speakerism in Japanese junior high schools: A stratified look into teacher narratives. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 16–39). Singapore: Springer. Bouchard, J. (2018b). On language, culture, and controversies. Asian Englishes, 20, 268–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2018.1449487 Bouchard, J., & Glasgow, G. P. (2019). Agency in language policy and planning: A theoretical model. In J. Bouchard & G. P. Glasgow (Eds.), Agency in language policy and planning: Critical inquiries. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage Publications. Briggs, C. L. (1998). “You’re a liar – You’re just like a woman”: Constructing dominant ideologies of language in Warao Men’s gossip. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 229–255). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Carter, B. (2000). Realism and racism: Concepts of race in sociological research. London: Routledge. Carter, B., & Sealey, A. (2000). Language, structure and agency: What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics? Journal of SocioLinguistics, 4(1), 3–20. Comaroff, J., & Comaroff, J. (1991). Of revelation and revolution, Vol. 1: Christianity, colonialism and consciousness in South Africa. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Derivry-Plard, M. (2018). A multilingual paradigm in language education: What it means for language teachers. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 131–148). Singapore: Springer. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology. London: Verso. Elder-Vass, D. (2010). The causal power of social structures: Emergence, structure and agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. Brighton: Harvester. Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised). New York: Continuum. Gal, S. (1998). Multiplicity and contention among language ideologies: A commentary. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 317–332). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Glasgow, G. P. (2018). The persistence of native speakerism in Japanese senior high school curriculum reform: Team-teaching in the “English in English” initiative. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 197–216). Singapore: Springer. Gray, J. (1987). The economic approach to human behavior: Its prospects and limitations. In G. Radnitsky & P. Bernholz (Eds.), Economic imperialism (pp. 33–51). New York: Paragon.

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

43

Green, E. (2013). Research in the new Christian academies: Perspectives from Bourdieu. In M. Murphy (Ed.), Social theory and educational research: Understanding Foucault, Habermas, Bourdieu and Derrida (pp. 138–152). London: Routledge. Habermas, J. (2006). The theory of communicative action (Vol. two). Lifeworld and system: The critique of functionalist reason. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hall, P., & Lamont, M. (2013). Introduction. In P. Hall & M. Lamont (Eds.), Social resilience in the neoliberal era (pp. 1–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hashimoto, K. (2018). “Mother tongue speakers” or “native speakers”?: Assumptions surrounding the teaching of Japanese as a foreign language in Japan. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 61–77). Singapore: Springer. Heimlich, E. (2018). Jumping scale in the world-system with English as a lingua franca: Branding, post-native-speakerism, and the meaning of “a Singapore”. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 169–193). Singapore: Springer. Hernandez-Zamora, G. (2017). Academicism in language: “A Shelob’s web that devours and kills from inside”. In D. J. Rivers & K. Zotzmann (Eds.), Isms in language education: Oppression, intersectionality and emancipation (pp. 165–184). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hino, N. (2018). Pedagogy for the post-native-speakerist teacher of English. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 217–233). Singapore: Springer. Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural communication and ideology. London: Sage Publications. Holliday, A. (2013). Native speaker teachers and cultural belief. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 17–26). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Holliday, A. (2015). Native-speakerism: Taking the concept forward and achieving cultural belief. In A. Swan, P. Aboshiha, & A. Holliday (Eds.), (En)countering native-speakerism: Global perspectives (pp. 11–25). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (Eds.). (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A. (2013). The overthrow of the foreign lecturer position and its aftermath. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 60–74). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A. (2018). Shifts needed in foreign language teacher educational activities. In S. A. Houghton, D. J. Rivers, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions (pp. 182–209). London: Routledge. Iwabuchi, K. (1994). Complicit exoticism: Japan and its other. Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media and Culture, 8-2. Retrieved March 21, 2012, from http://kali.murdoch.edu.au Kroskrity, P. V. (1998). Arizona Tewa Kiva speech as a manifestation of a dominant language ideology. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 103–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourse: Implications for applied linguistic research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9–35. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539–550. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2015). Foreword. In A. Swan, P. Aboshiha, & A. Holliday (Eds.), (En)countering native-speakerism: Global perspectives (pp. viii–xi). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kunschak, C. (2018). Going beyond native-speakerism: Theory and practice from an international perspective. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 149–168). Singapore: Springer.

44

J. Bouchard

Layder, D. (1997). Modern social theory: Key debates and new directions. London: UCL Press. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. Masten, A. S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation despite risk and adversity. In M. C. Wang & E. W. Gordon (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. McVeigh, B. J. (2002). Japanese higher education as myth. London: M.E. Sharpe. Mertz, E. (1998). Linguistic ideology and praxis in U.S. law school classrooms. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 149–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nelson, C. D. (2017). The -isms as interpretive prisms: A pedagogically useful concept. In D. J. Rivers & K. Zotzmann (Eds.), Isms in language education: Oppression, intersectionality and emancipation (pp. 15–33). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Nomura, K., & Mochizuki, T. (2018). Native-speakerism perceived by “non-native-speaking” teachers of Japanese in Hong Kong. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 79–95). Singapore: Springer. Pawson, R. (1989). A measure for measures: A manifesto for empirical sociology. London: Routledge. Rivers, D. J. (2013). Institutionalized native-speakerism: Voices of dissent and acts of resistance. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 75–91). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rivers, D. J. (2015). Introduction: Conceptualizing ‘the known’ and the relational dynamics of power and resistance. In D. J. Rivers (Ed.), Resistance to the known: Counter-conduct in language education (pp. 1–20). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rivers, D. J. (2018a). The idea of the native-speaker. In S. A. Houghton, D. J. Rivers, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Beyond native-Speakerism: Current explorations and future visions (pp. 15–35). London: Routledge. Rivers, D. J. (2018b). The sociohistorical foundations of Japan’s relationship with the native speaker of foreign languages. In S. A. Houghton, D. J. Rivers, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Beyond native-Speakerism: Current explorations and future visions (pp. 36–58). London: Routledge. Rodriguez, J. R. (2017). Against ethnocentrism and towards translanguaging in literacy and English education. In D. J. Rivers & K. Zotzmann (Eds.), Isms in language education: Oppression, intersectionality and emancipation (pp. 98–121). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Roesgaard, M. H. (2011). ‘The ideal citizen’, globalization, and the Japanese response: Risk, gatekeeping, and moral education in Japan. In D. B. Willis & J. Rappleye (Eds.), Reimagining Japanese education: Border, transfers, circulations, and the comparative (pp. 85–106). Oxford: Symposium Books. Rubinstein, D. (2001). Culture, structure, and agency: Towards a truly multidimensional sociology. London: Sage. Sealey, A., & Carter, B. (2004). Applied linguistics as social science. London: Continuum. Seargeant, P. (2009). The idea of English in Japan. New York: Multilingual Matters. Spitulnik, D. (1998). Mediating unity and diversity; the production of language ideologies in Zambian broadcasting. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 163–188). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stanley, P. (2015). Language-learner tourists in Australia: Problematizing ‘the known’ and its impact on interculturality. In D. J. Rivers (Ed.), Resistance to the known: Counter-conduct in language education (pp. 23–46). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Swan, A. (2015). Redefining English language teacher identity. In A. Swan, P. Aboshiha, & A. Holliday (Eds.), (En)countering native-speakerism: Global perspectives (pp. 59–74). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Thompson, J. B. (2007). Studies in the theory of ideology (4th ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

2 The Resilience of Native-Speakerism: A Realist Perspective

45

Tsuneyoshi, R. (2013). Communicative English in Japan and ‘native speakers of English’. In S. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 117–129). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Verschueren, J. (2012). Ideology in language use: Pragmatic guidelines for empirical research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, M., & Dyer, W. (2017). Complex realism in social research. Methodological Innovations, 10(2), 1–8. Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yoshino, K. (1992). Cultural nationalism in contemporary Japan: A sociological enquiry. London: Routledge. Yphantides, J. (2013). Native-speakerism through English-only policies: Teachers, students and the changing face of Japan. In S. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 207–216). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Zotzmann, K. (2017). Intersectionality from a critical realist perspective: A case study of Mexican teachers of English. In D. J. Rivers & K. Zotzmann (Eds.), Isms in language education: Oppression, intersectionality and emancipation (pp. 34–49). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zotzmann, K., & Rivers, D. J. (2017). Introduction: Bringing the ISMs into focus. In D. J. Rivers & K. Zotzmann (Eds.), Isms in language education: Oppression, intersectionality and emancipation (pp. 1–14). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chapter 3

Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy and Related Hiring Practices: A Focus on the Japanese ‘Top Global Universities’ Project Lisa Fairbrother

Abstract This chapter focuses on the ‘Top Global Universities Project’, a recent government-sponsored initiative to globalize Japanese universities, and investigates to what extent the ideologies of native-speakerism and/or nihonjinron (discourses of Japaneseness) are reflected in this policy and the hiring practices associated with it. Drawing on critical discourse analysis (CDA), publicly available documents relating to the programme as well as job advertisements published by the participating universities are analysed and compared with information available online concerning the actual people hired. Although the term ‘native-speaker’ is never explicitly mentioned in official documents relating to the programme, terms implicitly referring to ‘native speakers’ are, and an analysis of 36 job advertisements reveals that many participating universities seemed to interpret the wording of the documents in this way, as their frequent use of the terms ‘native-speaker’ and ‘native-level English’ illustrates. An examination of the types of people hired reveals that some clear cases of native-speakerism can still be seen; nevertheless, both ‘native speakers’ and ‘non-native speakers’ were hired for both permanent and non-permanent positions, although there seemed to be a preference for hiring ‘non-native speakers’ who were either northeast Asian or white in appearance. On the other hand, when the term ‘native speaker’ was not used or when Japanese proficiency was mentioned in the advertisements, there was a clear preference for hiring Japanese nationals, suggesting the presence of ‘Japanese native-speakerism’, which may place non-Japanese applicants at a disadvantage.

L. Fairbrother (*) Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_3

47

48

3.1

L. Fairbrother

Introduction

Because of the difficulties involved in attempting to describe its characteristics precisely and logically, the term ‘native speaker’ has been described as ‘a useless construct in linguistics’ (Piller, 2001, p. 13) and is commonly considered by sociolinguists as a political rather than a linguistic concept (Coulmas, 2005). Nevertheless, in practice the term is still used widely, particularly in the language teaching profession, where the ‘native speaker’ is often is commonly presented as the model of good language usage. Research into native-speakerism has revealed that certain teachers perceived as ‘native speakers’, particularly white1 males from the USA or UK, may be given certain advantages in the field of English language education (Holliday, 2006; Houghton, 2013; Rivers, 2013; Hayes, 2013). They may be considered better teachers than their ‘non-native’ peers, just based on their country of origin, rather than their experience or qualifications, and their use of English may be conceptualized as the ‘best’ variety to learn (Gonzáles & Llurda, 2016). Conversely, prejudice and discrimination against ‘native speakers’ particularly in relation to hiring practices in Japan have been well-documented, with many cases of Japanese candidates more likely to be offered permanent contracts than ‘native speakers’ (Houghton & Rivers, 2013). Hashimoto (2013a) has argued that even within public policy, this distinction between Japanese and the Other can be clearly seen and such public discourse has the potential to permeate down into practice on the institutional level. This bifurcation between Japanese and the Other reflects the ideology of nihonjinron (discourses of Japaneseness), which positions the Japanese and Japanese culture as unique in contrast with non-Japanese (Ko, 2010). Hashimoto (2013a, p. 29) even goes so far as to argue that the Japanese government’s conceptualization of internationalization ‘requires a view that Japan should remain a monolingual state in order to stand as a unified entity against the rest of the world’. Although critiques of native-speakerism are becoming more well-known (Yoshida, 2013) and discussions of post-native-speakerism (Bouchard, 2017; Houghton, Rivers, & Hashimoto, 2018) are well underway, the influences of the ideologies of native-speakerism and nihonjinron can still be seen in Japan. In order to examine the manifestations and effects of these ideologies in more depth, this chapter will examine a recent government initiative in higher education in Japan to see whether, and to what extent, native-speakerism and nihonjinron can be seen in publicly accessible documents and how these documents are being interpreted within hiring practices at the university level. An analysis of the wording of public documents and job advertisements compared with information collected about actual hiring practices reveals the resilience of the ideologies of both native-speakerism and

In this paper I use the terms ‘white’, ‘Asian’, etc. as descriptors of racialized people, reflecting the common usage of these terms in the public domain, whilst also recognizing the inadequacy of these terms to describe the concept of ‘race’, which is in fact a social construction rather than a biological reality (see Kubota & Lin, 2009). 1

3 Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy. . .

49

nihonjinron to some extent. This suggests that the influence of ‘Japanese nativespeakerism’ needs to be examined in more depth.

3.2

Native-Speakerism, Nihonjinron and Hiring Practices

The first conceptualizations of native-speakerism stem from observations that the language of ‘native speakers’ and subsequently the ‘native speakers’ themselves are frequently idealized within the context of teaching English as a foreign language. Holliday (2006, p. 385) first defined native-speakerism as ‘the belief that “native speaker” teachers represent a “Western culture” from which spring the ideals both of the English language and of English language teaching methodology’. As such, the typical ‘native-speaker’ teacher is commonly envisioned as someone originating from what Kachru (1992) terms ‘inner circle’ countries (Rivers, 2013; Seargeant, 2013), notably the USA and the UK. They are imagined as the bearers of a ‘foreign’ culture (Tsuneyoshi, 2013) and often considered to be the best teachers of language and culture (Holliday, 2006; Kubota, 2009; Houghton, 2013), regardless of their teaching qualifications or experiences. This has led to biases and outright discrimination targeted against ‘non-native-speaker’ English teachers. Indeed, much lower academic credentials may be required of ‘native-speaker’ teachers compared to ‘non-native’ teachers (Hayes, 2013; Keaney, 2016) and ‘non-native’ teachers may be paid much less (Gonzáles & Llurda, 2016). Other researchers have pointed out the links between racialization and the ‘native speaker’, and associations with whiteness. Indeed, ‘native speakers’ of English are often imagined as phenotypically Caucasian (Kubota & Fujimoto, 2013; Kubota & Lin, 2009; Kubota & McKay, 2009; Rivers, 2013) or as speakers of predominantly ‘White Englishes’ (Mahboob, 2009). This phenomenon has also been observed in the context of Japan and Hayes (2013) has argued that such racial preferences intersect with issues of gender and nationality, noting a preference in Japan for hiring ‘native-speaker’ teachers of English, who are predominantly white, American and male. Whilst acknowledging the discriminatory practices targeting ‘non-nativespeaker’ teachers, practices which fall within the scope of native-speakerism, more recent research has highlighted another side of native-speakerism, namely prejudice and discrimination against ‘native speakers’, particularly with regard to hiring practices (Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Copland, Garton, & Mann, 2016). As Houghton has argued, ‘[n]ative-speakerism can cause employment discrimination against both “native speakers” and “non-native speakers”’ (2013, p. 66). Indeed, Houghton (2013) has shown evidence of the existence of a two-tier hiring system at one university in Japan, where permanent contracts were given to Japanese candidates, while non-Japanese employees, employed as ‘native speakers’, were more likely to have non-permanent contract positions. Therefore, the broader definition of native-speakerism provided by Houghton and Rivers (2013, p. 14) can be considered more comprehensive and accurate than earlier definitions:

50

L. Fairbrother Native-speakerism is prejudice, stereotyping and/or discrimination, typically by or against foreign language teachers, on the basis of either being or not being perceived and categorized as a native speaker of a particular language, which can form part of a larger complex of interconnected prejudices including ethnocentrism, racism and sexism. Its endorsement positions individuals from certain language groups as being innately superior to individuals from other language groups. Therefore native-speakerist policies and practices represent a fundamental breach of one’s basic human rights.

In the Japanese context, the employment disparities between ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ teachers have been attributed to the importance placed on Japanese language proficiency, particularly literacy skills, in order to carry out administrative duties at Japanese universities, which is often considered a reasonable requirement by hiring committees (Hayes, 2013). However, many scholars have argued that hiring practices that give priority to administrative duties disadvantage ‘native-speaker’ English teachers (Houghton, 2013; Tsuneyoshi, 2013; Hayes, 2013; Fairbrother, 2014). This is not only a Japanese phenomenon, however. Research from the USA has also shown how proficiency in the local language for administrative purposes (in this case English) is sometimes given more weight than the actual skills and experience required to fulfil the teaching part of the contract (Kubota, 2009). Focusing on the Japanese context, Rivers (2018) argues that ‘native-speakerism stands as the normative nativist condition within Japan, developed not through the imposition of ideologies from the English-speaking West, but rather in relation to historical constructs of Japanese national self-identity and the role afforded to language’ (p. 84). In order to understand the ideologies underlying this notion of Japanese identity, a closer examination of the ideologies collectively termed nihonjinron is useful. Ko (2010) translates nihonjinron as ‘discourses of Japaneseness’, a set of dominant ideologies particularly prevalent since the post-war era, which emphasize the supposed unique and exclusive characteristics of the Japanese. In addition to its focus on the characteristics of Japaneseness, it has been argued that the concept of Japaneseness is constructed in contrast to ‘otherness’ (Hayes, 2013, p. 136). Indeed, Hashimoto (2013a) has argued that the promotion of internationalization of Japan has been founded on the premise that Japan and the rest of the world are completely separate entities. Hashimoto (2018) further argues that this sense of the Japanese language belonging only to those born and bred in Japan functions as a way to protect the Japanese language from potentially harmful foreign influences. It is in this sense that nihonjinron can be linked to the concept of native-speakerism. Indeed, Bouchard (2017, p. 61) argues that both nihonjinron and native-speakerism ‘prioritize specific forms of cultural, ethnic, and linguistic identities’, whilst at the same time being ‘dependent on alterity as a process of formulating “Otherness” or “Otherization”’. In her study of the discourses surrounding the hiring process at a Japanese university, Fairbrother (2014) found that being perceived as culturally, linguistically and/or communicatively ‘not-quite-pure Japanese’, such as being a bilingual or bicultural Japanese person, resulted in some Japanese nationals being excluded from the

3 Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy. . .

51

nihonjin [Japanese person] or Japanese ‘native-speaker’ category. In contrast, she found other examples of balanced Japanese/English bilinguals not being described as English ‘native-speakers’ by their Japanese colleagues, based not on their English skills, but rather based on the fact that they could ‘pass’ (Moon, 2001) as monolingual, mono-cultural Japanese speakers. To borrow Hayes’ words, it is not that they ‘weren’t foreign enough to be considered native English speakers’ (2013, p. 138), but rather that they displayed enough Japaneseness to be included in the ‘pure’ nihonjin category. Thus, in nihonjinron terms, they could not be categorized as anything other than nihonjin. Because of the racial undertones of native-speakerism that combine with the common bifurcation of ‘Japanese’ and ‘Others’, the hiring practices that reflect these ideologies then take native-speakerism into the realm of institutional racism, defined as systemic institutional inequality based on race (Hardie & Tyson, 2013). In contrast to cases of overt racism committed by individuals, institutional racism is often more subtle and ‘can be viewed as one of the many products borne from implicit bias’ (Chapple, Jacinto, Harris-Jackson, & Vance, 2017, p. 4). In relation to hiring practices, a number of studies conducted in the USA have shown how racial bias, including biases stemming from racial associations made with certain names, can affect the success of certain candidates, regardless of ability. For example, Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) have shown how resumes sent by applicants with white-sounding names were 50% more likely to receive interviews in comparison with applicants with Black-sounding names. Regarding bias in job interviews, Pager and Western (2012) found that white interviewees for low-paid positions were twice as likely to receive job offers or callbacks compared to Black applicants. Similarly, in their meta-analysis of the results of 24 studies focusing on hiring discrimination in the USA, Quillian, Pager, Hexel, and Midtbøen (2017) found that whites and Latinos received considerably more callbacks than African Americans. These empirical findings suggest that any analysis of hiring practices needs to pay attention to not only individual cases but also, more importantly, to systematic inequality within the practices of institutions themselves. One method that has been used to detect such implicit bias and systematic inequality relating to native-speakerism in hiring practices is the analysis of employment advertisements, in particular, the terminology used to describe desirable candidates. For example, in their investigation of employment advertisements relating to English language teaching posted in the Middle East and Asia, Mahboob and Golden (2013) found that almost 80% of the advertisements contained the term ‘native speaker’. Similarly, in his survey of employment advertisements for Englishlanguage teaching positions posted in Japan, Rivers (2016) found that over 60% of them included the ‘native speaker’ term, although this assumed, yet ‘unstated set of preferential attributes’ (pp. 77, 78) was never defined. Rivers also notes the use of more inclusive terms such as ‘native level’, ‘native-like’ and ‘near native’ which upon first glance give the impression that more equitable practices are underway; however, as he aptly points out, ‘the fact that native speaker language ability is used as a benchmark without evidence suggests that the discursive practices of such employment advertisements are far from being equitable’ (p. 78). Rivers also argues

52

L. Fairbrother

that the presence of Japanese language requirements for administrative purposes in the employment advertisements can be used to discriminate between different groups, namely Japanese nationals and non-Japanese. In other words, the dominant ‘host’ language may be more important than the language actually being taught. Indeed, as Tsuneyoshi (2013) has pointed out permanent tenured positions in some English-medium programmes are much more likely to be filled by Japanese scholars, because of the Japanese language requirements. Regarding contract types, Rivers also points out that over 80% of the advertisements that he analysed were offering limited-term contracts only. He argues that this leads to a continual turnover of language teachers, positioning them as ‘guest’ workers. This also reflects Tsuneyoshi’s (2013) findings at the University of Tokyo, where foreign faculty were more likely to be hired on fixed-term contracts. With the Japanese government’s introduction of the new Labour Contract Law in 2013, which has resulted in universities restricting many new contracts to a maximum of 5 years (Houghton, 2017), it can be expected that the divide between holders of permanent contracts and limited contracts will only widen. The studies on native-speakerism in employment advertisements, however, have tended to limit their analysis to English-language teaching positions rather than including English-medium education. The latter in particular has been gaining more attention recently in Japan since the Japanese government’s recent initiatives to globalize Japanese higher education and increase the number of international researchers at Japanese universities, such as the Top Global University Project (MEXT, 2014). With mounting government pressure to increase the number of courses taught through the medium of English, while at the same time pressuring universities to reduce the length of contracts, there is a need to consider the impact of native-speakerism and nihonjinron on hiring practices relating to these types of courses as well.

3.3

This Study

Drawing on the findings of past studies, this study investigates whether the ideologies of native-speakerism and nihonjinron are reflected in the formulation and implementation of recent Japanese higher education policy, with a particular focus on the recently implemented Sūpā gurōbaru daigaku sōseishienjigyō, known in English as the Top Global University Project (hereafter TGUP: MEXT, 2014). This project, promoted by the Japanese government, will invest 7.7 billion yen (68.3 million US dollars) over 10 years in the 37 selected participating universities.2 The project is of particular interest to those interested in the study of ideologies relating to foreign languages and their speakers because of its clear focus on

2

A list of the private and public universities participating in the project can be found on MEXT’s website: https://tgu.mext.go.jp/en/downloads/pdf/sgu_flier.pdf

3 Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy. . .

53

globalization and the international competitiveness of Japanese universities. Indeed, MEXT claims that overall the project ‘aims to enhance the international compatibility and competitiveness of higher education in Japan’ (2014). Specifically relating to foreign languages and their speakers, the project’s aims include increasing the proportion of ‘international full-time faculty staff and full-time staff who have received their degrees at a foreign university’, ‘increasing lectures in English, etc.’ (MEXT, 2014) and increasing the number of ‘classes conducted in foreign languages’ (TGUP 2014–2023, n.d.). From the perspective of language planning in higher education in Japan, Rose and McKinley (2017) analysed the public documents published in English relating to this project and the 37 participating universities and while they did find that the policy maintains the ideology that ‘Englishization3 equals internationalization’, they concluded that the programme generally does aim to integrate Japanese universities more rigorously into the global academic community. They argue that compared to previous higher education policies in Japan, ‘the TGUP also seems to have lessened the rhetorical divide between Japanese and “Others”’, particularly because it does not distinguish between Japanese and international faculty in its targets. However, as of yet, no research has been conducted to see how far this lessening of the rhetorical divide can be observed in the wording of the original Japanese language documents and whether such a shift has been interpreted as such in the implementation of the policy, in particular with relation to hiring practices at participating universities. This chapter aims to address these issues and explore whether ‘the rhetorical divide between Japanese and “Others”’ actually has been lessened. In order to examine how the participating universities in this project interpret the policy in relation to their hiring practices, I applied critical discourse analysis (CDA), an approach which examines ‘the “hidden agenda” of discourse’ (Cameron, 2001, p. 123). Specifically, I used Fairclough’s (2001) model of discourse as text, interaction and context. This model follows three stages of analysis: first, the surface features of the text are described; second, the stage of interpretation focuses on how the text is produced and consumed and third, the relationship between interaction with the text and the social context is explained. Three types of data sources were analysed. First, I analysed the terminology used in publicly available documents published by the Japanese government relating to TGUP. Rose and McKinley (2017) concentrated their analysis on the English-language documents only, but as Hashimoto (2013b) has illustrated, there are sometimes very clear discrepancies in the translations between the English and Japanese versions of Japanese government documents, so in this study documents published in both Japanese and English were analysed (MEXT, 2014; TGUP 2014–2023, n.d.; MEXT, 2016: JSPS, 2016). In particular, I compared the terms used in the documents with past research on native-speakerism and nihonjinron in order to uncover potential ideological

Rose and McKinley (2017) use the term ‘Englishization’ to refer to the increase in English-as-amedium-of-instruction courses at universities in contexts where English is not a first or official language, for the purpose of internationalization. 3

54

L. Fairbrother

connections between the two. Secondly, I randomly selected a sample of 36 job advertisements published in 2016 by 19 of the 37 participating universities, relating to positions that mentioned either the teaching of foreign languages or teaching through the medium of a foreign language. The advertisements were obtained either directly from the websites of the participating universities or from the Japan Research Career Information Network (JREC-IN),4 which is run by the Japan Science and Technology Agency. Job advertisements can be posted in English and Japanese on this platform but in many cases only one language is used. Some job advertisements are posted with both an English and a Japanese version but sometimes the content of the two versions will differ. According to the JREC-IN website, its regulations ‘are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Japan’, which implies that they follow the Employment Security Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and nationality. In contrast to Rivers (2016), all the employment advertisements selected in this study were originally posted in Japanese. Some included original English translations, but when they did not, I provided my own translation. Finally, I compared the 2016 and 2017 online staff lists for each of the departments that had placed the advertisements in the sample, in an attempt to ascertain what type of people had been newly hired. Many university websites include photographs and detailed biographical information about their staff members, so in many cases it was possible to collect information about the new staff members’ nationality, gender, race, ethnicity, first language and academic history. However, some departments had hired more than one new member of staff in 2017 and may have posted other advertisements that were not included in my sample, so it was impossible to ascertain exactly which advertisement had led to the hiring of which new members of staff. Therefore, the information collected from the university websites needs to be treated with caution. Despite these considerable limitations however, some interesting tendencies could be seen, which will be introduced in the following sections.

3.4

Terminology Used in Public Documents Relating to TGUP

The use of certain terms in texts can sometimes reveal the ideologies of the authors of public documents and research has shown that this is also true in the case of native-speakerism (Hashimoto, 2013b; Tsuneyoshi, 2013). The following sections examine the terms used in official documents relating to TGUP and then, as one

4 Its regulations ‘are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Japan’, which implies that they follow the Employment Security Act (http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/ %2D%2D-ed_protect/%2D%2D-protrav/%2D%2D-ilo_aids/documents/legaldocument/wcms_ 117326.pdf) which prohibits employment discrimination based on race and nationality.

3 Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy. . .

55

indicator of how these terms are being interpreted by the participating universities, the terms used in the job advertisements that the participating universities published.

3.4.1

Terminology Used in Official Documents

Based on their analysis of public documents available in English, Rose and McKinley (2017) argue that the TGUP, does not make a distinction between international foreign faculty and Japanese faculty with international research experience, allowing both types of faculty to be included in international faculty targets, further circumventing the issue of “Othering” in this policy.

Indeed, there are no references to ‘native speakers’ in any of the documents published by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT, 2014, 2016: TGUP 2014–2023, n.d.; JSPS, 2016). Rather, as Rose and McKinley (2017) point out, there appears to be a focus on ‘internationalization’ and a sensitivity to Japan’s position in relation to the global community. For example, TGUP ‘aims to enhance the international compatibility and competitiveness of higher education in Japan’ and promotes both ‘the internationalization of Japanese universities’ and ‘the internationalization of Japanese society’ (MEXT, 2014). This choice of language positions Japanese universities and Japanese society as somewhat inadequate when compared to universities overseas, and emphasizes the need to improve the international competitiveness, appraisal and popularity of Japanese universities. The measures proposed to rectify this situation include ‘increasing lectures in English’, reflecting Rose and McKinley’s argument that a central tenet of the Japanese government’s conceptualization of internationalization is actually Englishization, i.e. an increase in the number of English-as-a-medium-of-instruction (EMI) courses. However, no details are provided as to how such courses should be run, the level of English that should be required of students and instructors, and in what language assessment should be made. Another goal of TGUP is ‘improving [the] ratio of foreign faculty and students’, which suggests that rather than focusing on the training of Japanese academics and students domestically, emphasis is placed on importing teaching staff and students from overseas. Notably, the only time the term ‘foreign’ is used in the MEXT documents published in English is in reference to increasing the number of staff members and students. Although this use of language may not automatically conjure up images of ‘native speakers’, it has been argued that the use of the term ‘foreign’ does strongly indicate ‘non-Japanese’ (Tsuneyoshi, 2013), which arguably does still uphold the binary of Japanese versus the Other (Hashimoto, 2013a). Similar to the TGUP-related documents published in English, the documents published in Japanese also include no explicit reference to ‘native-speakers’. The term ‘gaikoku’ (foreign: lit. foreign country) is included on a number of occasions, but mainly as a component of ‘gaikokugo’ (foreign language: lit. foreign country language). For example, the ‘main performance indicators set by the Top Global

56

L. Fairbrother

Universities’ (omona seikashihyō) (TGUP) include an ‘increase in the number of subjects taught in a foreign language’ (gaikokugo ni yoru jugyō), an ‘increase in the number of students enrolled in degree courses conducted in foreign languages only’ (gaikokugo nomide sotsugyō dekiru kōsu no zaisekisha no zōka) and an ‘increase in the proportion of students who meet the standards of proficiency in foreign languages’ (gaikokugoryokukijun wo mitasu gakusei wo fuyasu). The terminology used here indicates that English is not the only focus of the programme but that other foreign languages will also be given comparable consideration. Nevertheless, the central position of English is highlighted where the performance indicators call for universities to ‘develop English syllabi’ (shirabasu no eigoka wo susumeru, lit. ‘advance the Englishization of syllabi’), and another document published by MEXT (2016) calls for the universities to increase their use of external English exams, such as TOEFL, as undergraduate entry requirements. However, a comparison of the English and Japanese versions of the performance indicators of the TGUP reveals one quite different nuance in the choice of language. The English-language website version states that one of the TGUP’s aims is ‘an increase in international full-time faculty staff and full-time staff who have received their degrees at a foreign university’ (TGUP 2014–2023, n.d., current author’s emphasis). In this statement, the term ‘foreign’ is used to describe non-Japanese universities; however, the type of faculty and staff that will be increased are described as ‘international’. This could be translated into Japanese as ‘kokusai’ or ‘kokusaiteki’, however this is quite different from the term actually used in the original Japanese version of the same explanation. The Japanese document calls for an increase in ‘gaikokujin oyobi gaikoku no daigaku de gakui wo shutoku shita senninkyōin nado no wariai’ (an increase in the proportion of full-time [usually meaning tenured] staff who are foreigners [lit. Foreign country person] or have received a degree from a foreign university]) (TGUP 2014–2023, n.d.; MEXT, 2016). Therefore, the Japanese version clearly uses the term ‘foreigner’, rather than the arguably less binary term ‘international’ present in the English version. It can be assumed that this choice of words was deliberate, either on the part of the translator or some other actor involved in the formulation of the English document, in order to avoid the discriminatory nuances that the term ‘foreigner’ could evoke in English, but which might be overlooked in Japanese because of the strength of nihonjinron ideology. Use of the Japanese term is repeated on the governmentsponsored Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) website, where charts relating to the interim results of the TGUP are labelled in Japanese as ‘gaikokujin kyōin nado’ [foreigner faculty, etc.] (JSPS, 2016) with no English translation provided. This choice of the term ‘gaikokujin’ [foreigner] rather than a Japanese translation of the term ‘international’ is significant because as Tsuneyoshi (2013, p. 123) has argued, ‘Japanese government documents often use the words “foreigner” to imply a “native speaker of a foreign . . . language”’. This use of the term ‘foreigner’ in the Japanese-language documents then implies that the ‘rhetorical divide between Japanese and “Others”’ (Rose & McKinley, 2017) is in fact still evident, at least in the TGUP documents published in Japanese, and suggests the

3 Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy. . .

57

possible underlying presence of the ideologies of native-speakerism and nihonjinron. Therefore, although there is no explicit mention of ‘native speakers’ in the government-published documents, the use of the term ‘foreigner’ could be interpreted as a covert reference to both nihonjinron, because of its emphasis on non-Japanese, and native-speakerism, because of the implication that a ‘foreigner’ will be a ‘native speaker’ of a foreign language. Of further interest is the categorization of gaikokujin applicants alongside those who have received a degree from a foreign university (JSPS, 2016). In other words, the term gaikokujin is used to label a category that can also include Japanese nationals who have academic experience overseas. As gaikokujin could also refer to international scholars who obtained their graduate degrees in Japan rather than at foreign universities (as is the case of the present author), the focus of this categorization cannot simply be described as overseas scholars, but rather might be better described as non-traditional Japanese scholars. This labelling thus evokes Hayes’ (2013) claim that the term gaikokujin is not constructed based on one’s country of origin but rather on one’s lack of Japaneseness, in this case either being non-Japanese or having overseas academic experience. This further suggests, at least implicitly, that the rhetorical divide between Japanese and ‘Others’ still exists.

3.4.2

Terminology Used in Job Advertisements

Just because a government formulates a piece of policy, however, does not mean that that policy will in fact be implemented. As research on educational policy in Japan demonstrates, policy implementation may be avoided because of a number of reasons, including ideological opposition, institutional constraints, logistic constraints on individual actors, and government agencies’ lack of expectation of full implementation (Fairbrother, forthcoming; Fukunaga, 2016). Therefore, regardless of the intentions of the Japanese government in setting up and defining the goals of the TGUP, it is important to examine how such policy is implemented by the participating universities and, particularly for the purposes of this study, how the terminology used in the policy documents is interpreted. As one of the key components of the TGUP is to increase the number of foreign faculty members (gaikokujin in the Japanese documents) and those who have obtained degrees at foreign universities, it is possible to hypothesize that different institutions may have different interpretations of the term ‘foreign faculty members’ and these interpretations, including traces of native-speakerism and nihonjinron may be visible in their hiring practices. Table 3.1 shows the frequency of the terms used to refer to the foreign languages required or their speakers in the sample of 36 job advertisements. Some advertisements contained two or more of these terms, which explains why the number of terms exceeds the number of advertisements. The terms are arranged in Table 3.1 according to the explicitness of their reference to the term ‘native speaker’,

58

L. Fairbrother

Table 3.1 Frequency of language-related terms used in the employment advertisements Term used 1. English native speaker [eigo bogowasha] 2. English native speaker (or equivalent)[eigobogowasha(sōtō)] 3. An English native speaker (or equivalent), preferably with a specialization in Japan-related research 4. An English native speaker, or someone who has lived in an English-speaking country, and has native speaker-level English proficiency 5. High level proficiency in English and Japanese 6. Can supervise research in English and Japanese 7. Can lecture in English and Japanese 8. Can lecture in English and has working experience in Japan as well as in a multicultural environment 9. Can lecture in English, and has motivation and ability to contribute to globalization of the university 10. Can teach in English/can lecture in English 11. Can teach in English, any nationality Total

Frequency 2 12 5 4 8 1 3 2 1 3 6 47

language proficiency and other pedagogical requirements. Terms relating to language requirements are presented in bold type. Despite the TGUP documents’ emphasis on ‘foreign languages’, rather than just English, Table 3.1 demonstrates how all the advertisements in the sample were recruiting English speakers. Furthermore, although the term ‘native speaker’ was notably absent from the TGUP documents, the term was used in around half of the job advertisements published by the participating universities (terms 1–4). Therefore, even if we are to accept Rose and McKinley’s argument that the ‘rhetorical divide between Japanese and “Others”’ has decreased to some extent in language education policy, this does not seem to have translated into practice in many of the participating universities from the viewpoint of their hiring practices, where the term ‘native speaker’ was used quite liberally. However, upon closer examination, only two of the advertisements used the term ‘native speaker’ on its own without any other qualifiers. By far, the most commonly used term was eigobogowasha (sōtō) [Native English speaker (or equivalent)]. Yet, as Houghton (2013) and Rivers (2016) have observed, it seems to be common practice for these terms to be used without any definition provided. Indeed, in all of the advertisements analysed here, no definitions of ‘native speaker’, or what would be deemed ‘equivalent’, were provided in any of the advertisements using these terms. The only case of terminology more specific than ‘or equivalent’ can be seen when the requirements of residence in an English-speaking country and native speaker-level English proficiency were added. However, again, there is no definition of what ‘native speaker’ or ‘native speaker-level proficiency’ would entail, and there is no explanation given as to exactly which skills gained from residing in an English-speaking country would be relevant.

3 Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy. . .

59

There were, however, many advertisements that did not use the term ‘native speaker’. These advertisements were more explicit with regard to the skills required for the position, such as the ability to supervise, lecture or teach in English, as well as in Japanese in some cases. Eight advertisements specified high-level language proficiency in both English and Japanese, but no clear specifications as to how ‘high-level proficiency’ would be measured in either language were provided. Therefore, despite the lack of overt native-speakerism in official policy documents relating to the TGUP, some universities still appear to be reproducing discourses of native-speakerism in their choice of terminology used in employment advertisements, reflecting Bourdieu and Boltanski’s observation that dominant ideologies tend to be concealed (Bourdieu & Boltanski, 2008 [1976], in Susen, 2014). Also, in line with the findings of previous research the terms ‘native speaker’ or ‘native speaker (or equivalent)’ were never defined. Similarly, even advertisements that did not use the term ‘native speaker’ listed requirements such as ‘high-level proficiency’ and ‘can teach/lecture in English’ without specifying how they would be measuring this. This use of vague terminology then can lead us to question the transparency of the hiring practices in each of the participating universities.

3.5

The People Actually Hired

As past research on native-speakerism in Japan has shown, adherence to nativespeakerism can have various effects on hiring practices (Hayes, 2013; Houghton, 2013; Rivers, 2016; Tsuneyoshi, 2013). For example, only certain types of people (often white males from inner circle countries) may be hired as ‘native speakers’, and the types of contracts and salary levels offered to those classified as ‘native speakers’ may be different from those not classified as such. It is therefore important to not only look at the terminology used in policy documents and employment advertisements, but also to examine the actual hiring practices resulting from these documents. In order to do this, the 2016 and 2017 online staff lists of the university departments that posted the 36 employment advertisements analysed in this study were compared to ascertain what type of people had been newly hired in each department that posted an advertisement. As was mentioned previously in Sect. 3.3, it was difficult to correlate each employment advertisement exactly with the revised staff lists for the following year; there may have been other advertisements posted outside the data collection period and multiple people (or no-one) could have been hired at one time. However, a comparison of the staff lists of the departments that posted employment advertisements can help to identify the type of people hired in departments using particular types of terminology. Thus, even though the advertisements and the staff lists may not match exactly, they have the potential to reveal certain ideologies underlying the hiring practices of certain departments. A comparison of the staff lists revealed that 47 new people had been hired in the departments that had posted the 36 advertisements analysed here. Of those 47, 19 obtained fully tenured positions (kyōju or junkyōju), 11 obtained 5-year tenure-track

60

L. Fairbrother

contracts ( jokyō) and 17 obtained limited-term contracts without the possibility of tenure. As it was impossible to ascertain the exact background of each of the new staff members based on their online profiles alone, they were initially classified based on their names and whether their names were represented in Japanese or the Roman alphabet on the Japanese language webpages of each university. For names represented in Chinese characters (kanji), it is possible to distinguish Japanesesounding names from other Asian names to some extent. In addition, the Japanese names of people with Japanese heritage but without Japanese nationality, such as Japanese Americans, for example, are often represented in the Roman alphabet or katakana, the Japanese syllabary often used to represent words of non-Asian origin, so it is sometimes possible to differentiate Japanese nationals from non-nationals of Japanese descent. These are important distinctions to make considering that the term ‘native speaker’ has frequently been used to refer to teachers who are white, and the term gaikokujin has been used to describe those who lack Japaneseness in some way, which has often led to the exclusion of people of Japanese descent from these categories. Further categories were made to distinguish those with English-sounding names and those with European-sounding names, although of course neither of these categories alone can determine whether someone’s strongest language is English or not. Although there are of course many people with non-Asian, non-European and non-English sounding names for whom English is their strongest language, no such names were observable in the list of the 47 new staff members. Table 3.2 (below) shows the types of names of the applicants that were hired according to the terminology used in the advertisements posted by their departments. As can be seen from Table 3.2, the majority of all positions were filled with people with Japanese names written in kanji (31 hires, making up 66% of the total). After the classification of the new hires’ names, other details were gathered from their public online profiles and where possible information relating to the race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, place of study and first language of the staff members was collated. However, such information was not available for every staff member and in many cases firm conclusions about the backgrounds of each member of staff could not be drawn; therefore, when information was available, it will be included in the analysis below where relevant. In spite of the obvious limitations of this method, some tendencies could be seen when comparing the terminology used in the advertisements with the types of people eventually hired in the departments that had posted those advertisements. While some clear traces of native-speakerism could be seen, interestingly, the influence of nihonjinron seems to be more prominent when analysing the types of people hired. Firstly, when the term ‘native speaker’ was used alone without any other qualifiers (term 1) it seemed to imply the typical profile of the white inner circle ‘native speaker’ teacher (Mahboob, 2009; Hayes, 2013; Kubota & Fujimoto, 2013; Rivers, 2013). Indeed, the two new staff members hired at the departments that posted advertisements using the term ‘native speaker’ only were both males from inner circle countries and one was confirmed as white.

3 Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy. . .

61

Table 3.2 Advertisement terms compared with the types of names of the people hired

Job type 1. English native speaker 2. English native speaker (or equivalent) 3. An English native speaker (or equivalent) preferably with a specialization in Japanrelated research 4. An English native speaker or someone who has lived in an Englishspeaking country and has native speaker-level English proficiency 5. High level of proficiency in English and Japanese 6. Can supervise research in English and Japanese 7. Can lecture in English and Japanese 8. Can lecture in English and has working experience in Japan as well as in a multicultural environment 9. Can lecture in English, and has motivation and ability to contribute to globalization of the university 10. Can teach in English/ can lecture in English 11. Can teach in English, any nationality Total name types

Japanese name in romaji or katakana 0 2

Other Asiansounding name in kanji 0 1

Englishsounding name 2 4

Europeansounding name 0 4

4

0

1

0

0

5

4

0

0

0

0

4

8

0

0

0

0

8

1

0

0

0

0

1

3

0

0

0

0

3

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

1

1

3

0

0

0

0

3

5

0

1

0

0

6

31

2

3

6

5

Japanese name in kanji 0 1

Total terms 2 12

On the other hand, the most diversity was found among the new staff members hired at departments that had posted the 12 advertisements looking for an ‘English native speaker (or equivalent)’ (term 2). In addition to the hiring of four white inner circle ‘native speakers’, there were two scholars with Japanese names written in Roman letters (potentially ‘native speakers’ of English), one scholar with a Japanese

62

L. Fairbrother

name written in kanji (potentially a ‘native speaker’ of Japanese), and based on their educational biographies, (possibly) ‘non-native speakers’ of European (4), North East Asian5 (1) and Latin American (1) heritage were also hired. Photographs of all the people hired were not available online but of the photographs that were available, interestingly four of the five (possibly) ‘non-native’ hires with a European or Latin American background were phenotypically white. Therefore, although some diversity can be seen, the presence of a racial bias towards teachers of white and North East Asian appearance cannot be ruled out. However, an analysis of the staff members hired for positions where the term ‘native speaker’ was not used at all (terms 5–11) revealed an even more interesting tendency. In these cases, there seemed to be a clear preference for Japanese hires. In the sample, there were 24 advertisements that did not use the term ‘native speaker’ in the position title. These were the advertisements that used terms such as ‘can teach in English’ or ‘can lecture in English’.6 Surprisingly, all but two of these positions went to scholars with Japanese names written in kanji, which suggests that underlying the avoidance of the term ‘native speaker’ was a preference for Japanese candidates. This tendency could be taken to suggest the presence of a dichotomy between Japanese, who can use English, and ‘native speakers’ who are not ‘native speakers’ of Japanese. The dichotomy between Japanese and Other could be seen even more clearly when the 11 advertisements that specified Japanese skills were analysed (terms 5–7). These were the advertisements that used terminology such as ‘high level of proficiency in English and Japanese’ and ‘can lecture in English and Japanese’. In the departments where Japanese skills were required alongside English, only scholars with Japanese names in kanji were hired, without exception. Considering that there are many non-Japanese scholars who can lecture in Japanese, this tendency suggests the presence of the nihonjinron ideology, i.e., only Japanese ‘native speakers’ will be good enough at Japanese, regardless of the English requirement. It also reveals the often-hidden prioritization of proficiency in the local majority language. As Kubota (2009) has argued in the US context, ‘native-level’ proficiency in the local majority language (i.e., English in the USA) is often prioritized in the hiring process. Similarly, tendencies have been found in the Japanese context, where high-level Japanese literacy skills for administrative work are often given more weight than other achievements (Houghton, 2013; Tsuneyoshi, 2013; Hayes, 2013). References to Japanese language proficiency in the language used in job advertisements seem to clearly index this tendency, as well as imply that only Japanese ‘native speakers’ will ever have adequate Japanese proficiency. 5 The term ‘North East Asian’ is used in this paper to refer to people of Asian appearance, originating from the geographical region of China, Korea and Japan. Typically, people from this region use a Chinese character-based writing system to some extent. 6 Although it goes beyond the current analysis, there is also the possibility that different nuances may be triggered by the use of the terms ‘teach’ and ‘lecture’ in job advertisements. It is possible that ‘lecture’ may imply a higher status within the university teaching hierarchy and thus impact on the type of people hired to fill such positions.

3 Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy. . .

63

Table 3.3 Name types compared with the contracts offered

Types of names Japanese name in kanji Japanese name in alphabet or katakana Other Asiansounding name in kanji English-sounding name European-sounding name Total

Permanent/ tenured (Sennin) 14

Tenuretrack (Jokyō) 8

Limited-term contract positions (other than Jokyō & Tokunin Jokyō) 9

Sub total 31

0

1

1

2

2

1

0

3

2

0

4

6

1

1

3

5

19

11

17

47

Other interesting tendencies could be seen in the types of contracts obtained by certain types of new staff members. Table 3.3 shows the types of contracts offered to applicants with different types of names. As can be seen in Table 3.3, the majority of all types of contracts were given to applicants with Japanese names written in kanji and 14 out of a total of 19 permanent/tenured positions (74%) also went to applicants with Japanese names written in kanji. However, permanent contracts were not only given to applicants with Japanese names in kanji, as two permanent positions (11%) went to people with other Asian-sounding names written in kanji. When North East Asian names are represented in kanji in university documents in Japan, this often suggests that the person is a ‘native-speaker’ of a North East Asian language that uses kanji, i.e., Chinese, Korean or Japanese. Thus, as it can probably be assumed that people with names presented in kanji characters can also read and write kanji, these findings suggest that 85% of the permanent positions went to people presumably with strong Japanese literacy skills and a North East Asian background. However, some people with non-Japanese and non-kanji names were hired for permanent tenured positions. Two positions went to people with English-sounding names (both with university backgrounds in inner circle countries) and one position to a scholar with a presumably Russian background based on their name and academic background. On the other hand, the only name type not to receive any permanent contracts in this sample were applicants with Japanese names written in the alphabet or katakana. As can be seen in the ‘limited-term contract positions’ column, applicants with English or European-sounding names were more likely to be hired for contract positions without tenure (seven out of a total of 11 hires) than permanent or tenure-track positions. Additionally, no applicants with other Asian-sounding names written in kanji were offered limited-term contracts without tenure. Whilst it is difficult to make any conclusions based on such limited data, this does raise the

64

L. Fairbrother

question of whether non-Japanese Asian speakers of English, who do not fit the typical image of the inner circle white ‘native speaker’, might be overlooked for the type of limited-term positions traditionally reserved for ‘native speakers’. Overall, although there seems to be a preference for hiring Japanese nationals with Japanese literacy skills, tenured positions are also offered to non-Japanese, including English ‘native speakers’ from inner circle backgrounds, (presumably) ‘non-native’ speakers from Eurasian backgrounds and Asian scholars from kanji backgrounds. Interestingly all the departments that hired people with non-Japanese names for these five permanent positions used the term ‘native speaker (or equivalent) [eigobogowasha sōtō]’ in their advertisements. This reinforces the argument made previously that the use of this term in particular appears to result in the most diversity. It can therefore be argued that although the two-tier hiring system (Japanese ‘native-speakers’ for permanent positions; non-Japanese ‘nativespeakers’ for contract positions) is still being reproduced to some extent, it appears to be losing considerable strength.

3.6

Conclusions

The findings of this study have shown that even though explicit references to nativespeakerism are not present in the publicly available documents relating to TGUP, the use of the term gaikokujin [foreigner] in some of the Japanese language documents clearly has the potential to be interpreted as ‘native speaker’. Indeed, employment advertisements posted by the participating universities did explicitly use the term ‘native speaker’, and the use of this term alone, without any other explanation, resulted in the hiring of two males from inner circle countries, one of whom was confirmed as white. This suggests that, at least to some extent, the ideology of native-speakerism, favouring inner circle, white, ‘native speakers’, may still be influential in certain institutions. Of course, even if the term ‘native speaker’ is used in official documents, this does not automatically imply that institutions will adhere to native-speakerism, but the use of the term could be interpreted as legitimizing the ideology and contributing to its resilience. Clearly, further research needs to be conducted to ascertain the extent to which native-speakerism may influence specific hiring practices. On the other hand, much more diversity, at least in terms of names, could be seen when ‘or equivalent’ was added to the term ‘native speaker’. Such employment advertisements resulted in the hiring of (presumably) ‘non-native speakers’ of European, North East Asian and Latin American heritage, in addition to (presumably) ‘native speakers’ and ‘non-native speakers’ of Japanese heritage. Nevertheless, a racial bias favouring white or North East Asian candidates could not be ruled out. Also, although some candidates with non-Japanese names were hired for permanent tenured positions, generally they were much more likely to be hired for contract positions. Therefore, although it may be weakening overall, there is still some evidence of the continuation of a two-tier hiring system at some institutions, where

3 Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy. . .

65

Japanese candidates are more likely to receive permanent contracts and non-Japanese, particularly those from non-kanji backgrounds are more likely to have limited contracts. While it is very likely that the individuals involved in the hiring process at each of these institutions had no intention of being biased against particular types of candidates, and undoubtedly tried to select the ‘best’ candidate, the research findings relating to institutional racism in other countries suggest that such tendencies can indicate the possibility of systemic bias. Concerning Japanese language proficiency requirements, however, there was an obvious preference for Japanese candidates with names written in kanji characters as no other candidates were hired for such positions. This suggests that the ideology of nihonjinron is still present in the conceptualization of who can be good enough to use/teach in Japanese, indicating the presence of a different type of native-speakerism, namely Japanese native-speakerism. Indeed, Hashimoto (2018) highlights a common perception in Japan that language, nation and people are inseparable, whereby ‘being a native speaker of Japanese is assumed as equivalent to being a Japanese national’ (p. 110). Although the term ‘Japanese native speaker’ was never used in any of the job advertisements, the clear tendency of hiring only people with Japanese names written in kanji for positions that required Japanese language proficiency gives the impression that perhaps only Japanese ‘native speakers’ could ever be considered to have an acceptable level of proficiency, particularly concerning literacy. The concept of Japanese native-speakerism, thus, ironically mirrors the very facets of English native-speakerism that hinder the hiring of Japanese ‘non-native’ English teachers. This also reflects Bourdieu and Boltanski’s (2008) observation that the interests of the most powerful groups in society, in this case Japanese ‘native speakers’/nationals, are likely to be concealed. Furthermore, when the term ‘native speaker’ was not included in an advertisement at all, there was a clear preference for the hiring of candidates with Japanese names written in kanji. Thus, while there was no indication of a ‘rhetorical divide between Japanese and “Others”’ (Rose & McKinley, 2017) in the wording of the advertisements, actual hiring practices appear to reflect Hayes’ (2013, p. 136) findings that there is a commonly reproduced Japanese/‘native speaker’ dichotomy in Japanese higher education. This then raises the question of whether the ideology behind the use of the term ‘native speaker’ might conjure different meanings and interpretations in different communities. The findings of this study suggest that in a Japanese context the term gaikokujin may be used not only to refer to the typical inner circle, male, white, ‘native speaker’, but also as a means to reproduce the Japanese/‘native speaker’ dichotomy. In other words, certain terms may be used not only to insinuate specific features of the Other but also, and probably more importantly, to distinguish them from us. Conversely, the complete absence of the term ‘native speaker’ may, consciously or unconsciously, index a Japanese national identity. Another issue raised by this study, particularly regarding policy documents, is the issue of translation. English translations may evoke very different impressions compared to the nuances evoked in the original Japanese language texts, and it

66

L. Fairbrother

cannot be overlooked that perhaps some English translations might include slightly more politically correct versions compared with the Japanese-language originals. Indeed, Rose and McKinley’s (2017) conclusions regarding the lack of a Japanese/ Other divide based on the English documents are somewhat different from the findings presented here, which analysed both the Japanese and English documents. Even though education policy, such as TGUP, may not explicitly promote nativespeakerism or nihonjinron, it cannot be overlooked that certain terms, such as gaikokujin, can be interpreted in different ways and in some cases may trigger the enactment of ideologies of native-speakerism and nihonjinron. Therefore, any analysis of public policy needs to pay careful attention to how policy documents are interpreted and implemented in practice. The ways that the TGUP policy is implemented in the hiring practices of some of its member institutions reveal the resilience of the ideologies of native-speakerism and nihonjinron to some extent, as they are still being reproduced. Therefore, in order to lessen the effects of these ideologies and prevent the reproduction of institutional racism, future policy initiatives need to pay particular attention to the wording of policy documents and provide strict guidelines on how such policies should be implemented.

References Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94, 991–1013. Bouchard, J. (2017). Ideology, agency, and intercultural communicative competence: A stratified look into EFL education in Japan. Singapore: Springer. Bourdieu, P., & Boltanski, L. (2008). La production de l’ide’ologie dominante [the production of the dominant ideology]. Paris: Demopolis / Raisons D’agir. Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chapple, R., Jacinto, G. A., Harris-Jackson, T. N., & Vance, M. (2017). Do #BlackLivesMatter? Implicit bias, institutional racism and fear of the black body. Ralph Bunche Journal of Public Affairs, 6(1), 3–11. Copland, F., Garton, S., & Mann, S. (Eds.). (2016). LETS and NESTS: Voices, views and vignettes. London: British Council. Coulmas, F. (2005). Sociolinguistics: The study of speakers’ choices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fairbrother, L. (2014). Conflicting discourses of native-speakerism during the hiring process at a Japanese university. In S. A. Houghton, D. J. Rivers, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st and 2nd international Symposia on native-Speakerism: Native-speakerism and beyond: Constructing the vision of the post-native-speakerist language teacher (pp. 61–74). Saga: Saga University. Fairbrother, L. (forthcoming). Interests and power in English education policy in Japan: A focus on the high school ‘teaching/learning English in English’ policy. In M. Nekula, T. Sherman, & H. Zawiszova (Eds.), Interests and power in language management. Berlin: Peter Lang. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power. Harlow: Longman. Fukunaga, S. (2016). Implementing English education policy in Japan: Intersubjectivity at the micro-, meso-, and macrolevels (doctor of philosophy). Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

3 Native-Speakerism and Nihonjinron in Japanese Higher Education Policy. . .

67

Gonzáles, A., & Llurda, E. (2016). Bilingualism and globalization in Latin America: Fertile ground for native speakerism. In F. Copland, S. Garton, & S. Mann (Eds.), LETs and NESTs: Voices, views and vignettes (pp. 90–109). London: British Council. Hardie, J. H., & Tyson, K. (2013). Other people’s racism: Race, rednecks, and riots in a southern high school. Sociology of Education, 86(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0038040712456554 Hashimoto, K. (2013a). ‘English-only’, but not a medium of instruction policy: The Japanese way of internationalizing education for both domestic and overseas students. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(1), 16–33. Hashimoto, K. (2013b). The construction of the “native speaker” in Japan’s educational policies for TEFL. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 159–168). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hashimoto, K. (2018). The construction of the native speaker of Japanese. In S. A. Houghton, D. J. Rivers, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions (pp. 99–114). New York: Routledge. Hayes, B. (2013). Hiring criteria for Japanese university English-teaching faculty. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 132–146). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. Houghton, S. A. (2013). The overthrow of the foreign lecturer position, and its aftermath. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 60–74). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A. (2017, July). Native-speakerism across languages and contexts. Paper presented at the AILA World Congress (AILA ReN 10), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2013). Introduction: Redefining native-speakerism. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 1–14). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A., Rivers, D. J., & Hashimoto, K. (Eds.). (2018). Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions. New York, NY: Routledge. JSPS (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science). (2016, March 28). スーパーグローバル大学 創成支援フォローアップ結果について[Sūpā gurōbaru daigaku sōseishien forōappu kekka ni tsuite]. Retrieved November 3, 2019, from http://www.jsps.go.jp/j-sgu/follow-up.html Kachru, B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana and Chicago, IL: The University of Illinois Press. Keaney, G. (2016). NEST schemes and their role in English language teaching: A management perspective. In F. Copland, S. Garton, & S. Mann (Eds.), LETs and NESTs: Voices, views and vignettes (pp. 126–146). London: British Council. Ko, M. (2010). Japanese cinema and otherness: Nationalism, multiculturalism and the problem of Japaneseness. London and New York, NY: Routledge. Kubota, R. (2009). Rethinking the superiority of the native speaker: Toward a relational understanding of power. In N. Doerr (Ed.), The native speaker concept: Ethnographic investigations of native speaker effects (pp. 233–247). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. Kubota, R., & Fujimoto, D. (2013). Racialized native speakers: Voices of Japanese American English language professionals. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 196–206). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (Eds.). (2009). Race, culture, and identities in second language education: Exploring critically engaged practice. New York: Routledge. Kubota, R., & Mckay, S. L. (2009). Globalization and language learning in rural Japan: The role of English in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 593–619. Mahboob, A. (2009). Racism in the English language teaching industry. In A. Mahboob & C. Lipovsky (Eds.), Studies in applied linguistics and language learning (pp. 29–40). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

68

L. Fairbrother

Mahboob, A., & Golden, R. (2013). Looking for native speakers of English: Discrimination in English language teaching job advertisements. Voices in Asia Journal, 1(1), 72–81. MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology – Japan). (2014, September). Press release: Selection for the FY 2014 top global university project. Retrieved July 15, 2017, from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/_icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/10/ 07/1352218_02 MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology – Japan). (2016, October 7). スーパーグローバル大学創成支援事業[Sūpā gurōbaru daigaku sōseishienjigyō]. Retrieved July 15, 2017, from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/kaikaku/sekaitenkai/__ icsFiles/afield/2016/09/08/1360288_03.pdf Moon, D. (2001). Interclass travel, cultural adaptation, and “passing” as a disjunctive inter/cultural practice. In M. J. Collier (Ed.), Constituting cultural difference through discourse. International and intercultural communication annual XXIII (pp. 215–240). New Delhi: Sage. Pager, D., & Western, B. (2012). Identifying discrimination at work: The use of field experiments. Journal of Sociology Issues, 68(2), 221–237. Piller, I. (2001). Who, if anyone, is a native speaker? Anglistik. Mitteilungen Des Verbandes Deutscher Anglisten, 12(2), 109–121. Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2017). Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(41), 10870–10875. Rivers, D. J. (2013). Institutionalized native-speakerism: Voices of dissent and acts of resistance. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 74–91). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rivers, D. J. (2016). Employment advertisements and native-speakerism in Japanese higher education. In F. Copland, S. Mann, & S. Garton (Eds.), LETs and NESTs: Voices, views and vignettes (pp. 68–89). London: British Council. Rivers, D. J. (2018). Contemporary English language teachers’ views on native-speakerism-incontext. In S. A. Houghton, D. J. Rivers, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions (pp. 82–96). New York: Routledge. Rose, H., & McKinley, J. (2017). Japan’s English medium instruction initiatives and the globalization of higher education. Higher Education., 75, 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734017-0125-1 Seargeant, P. (2013). Ideologies of nativism and linguistic globalization. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 231–242). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Susen, S. (2014). Reflections on ideology: Lessons from Pierre Bourdieu and Luc Boltanski. Thesis Eleven, 124(1), 90–113. TGUP (Top Global University Project). (n.d.). Top global university project 2014–2023. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from https://tgu.mext.go.jp/en/downloads/pdf/sgu.pdf Tsuneyoshi, R. (2013). Communicative English in Japan and ‘native speakers of English’. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 119–131). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Yoshida, K. (2013). Reconsidering Japan’s English education based on the principles of plurilingualism. In Selected papers from the twenty-second international symposium on English teaching (pp. 121–129). Taipei: Crane Publishing.

Chapter 4

English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native Dichotomy: An Argentine Perspective Melina Porto

Abstract This research, oriented towards a qualitative approach, investigates the conceptions of a group of 75 English language teachers from Argentina regarding the expansion, use and teaching of English as an international language, with particular attention to the native vs. non-native dichotomy. The study aims to reveal the participants’ understandings of this issue in their specific sociocultural contexts. Research instruments comprise two questionnaires with open and closed questions, and semi-structured in-depth interviews. The questionnaires were designed and administered online in October 2014 with the use of free software (www.eencuesta.com) and 21 in-depth interviews were conducted in November 2014. Data were analysed following the guidelines and procedures of content analysis, complemented by a quantitative perspective. General findings show that participants view the hegemony of English as a language of international communication uncritically; they have fluid and sometimes conflicting understandings about the language, its varieties and the question of language ownership; and at the same time, they reflect critically on the native/non-native-speaker/teacher dichotomy. This chapter focuses on the native vs. non-native dichotomy in this setting.

4.1

Introduction

While 30 years ago the “superiority” of the native speaker was unchallenged in foreign language education, a shift began in the early 1990s with Phillipson’s (1992) pioneering work on linguistic imperialism in which he cautioned about the hegemony of English as an imperial language. Later on Byram and Zarate (1996) proposed the notion of the intercultural speaker, further developed by Byram (1997), to point out that foreign language learners need the ability to interact with

M. Porto (*) Universidad Nacional de La Plata and CONICET (National Research Council), La Plata, Argentina e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_4

69

70

M. Porto

speakers and users of the foreign language they are learning (but also other languages) without the need to identify with the native speakers of that language. This matter of identification is important because language teaching was considered to involve the transmission of particular beliefs (Barrow, 1990; Valdes, 1990) and English teaching in particular was thought of as a form of ideological and cultural colonisation (Holly, 1990). The argument was that because language learners’ cultures were considered to be “totally submerged” (Alptekin & Alptekin, 1984, p. 15), English language learning was a threat to their national identities. As mentioned before, Phillipson (1992) began to speak of linguistic and cultural imperialism, and referred to “the infectious spread of English” (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996, p. 436) and “triumphant” English (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996, p. 440) emerging through processes of Americanisation, Europeanisation, and McDonaldization (Phillipson, 2001). He raised concerns about the role of political, cultural, religious, military and corporate organisations, and also TESOL, in such hegemony, highlighting its negative effects and pointing to the status of English as “lingua frankensteinia” (Phillipson, 2008, p. 250, 2009). Meanwhile, forms of resisting this imperialism in the context of the English classroom emerged (Canagarajah, 1999a). The predominant idea in language education, particularly in English language teaching but also in the teaching of other languages, that the native speaker should be a model for learners to follow, was challenged by Canagarajah (1999b), Holliday (2005) and others. More recently, Houghton and Rivers (2013) and Houghton, Rivers, and Hashimoto (2018) proposed a post-native-speakerist approach that rejects the native-speaker paradigm as a linguistic and sociocultural model for learners. The rejection of native-speaker norms (linguistic, sociocultural and others) to frame language education in classrooms, guide teacher education and determine employment requirements for teachers, is based on many identified problems, in different teaching contexts and cultures. These comprise issues of prejudice and discrimination in the treatment and employment of both native and non-native teachers, issues of stereotyping and idolising of native speakers, and the perceived threats of language users in terms of linguistic and cultural imperialism, among others (Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Houghton et al., 2018). Discussions in the previous decade and earlier about the significance of English as a language of international communication (Paran & Williams, 2007), lingua franca (Jenkins, 2006) or global language (Nunan, 2001) have considered the concerns associated with the native-speaker concept and have been complemented by the notion of World Englishes. The scenario is complex as it involves political, economic, ideological and sociocultural concerns, among others (see Crystal, 2017; Jenkins, 2017; Seidlhofer & Widdowson, 2017). For example, Seidlhofer and Widdowson (2017, p. 361), reflecting on the effect of Brexit on the emergence of a “Euro-English variety”, refer to “denationalised” English as an “expedient means of communication”, away from native-speaker norms. They state: The effect of Brexit is to make the language itself more independent in that it allows for English to be dissociated from the English and denationalized so that it can be appropriated as an expedient means of communication without speakers feeling they have to defer to the

4 English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native. . .

71

norms of British native speakers [leading to] a less inhibited and stigmatised use of English as a lingua franca (ELF).

By “a less inhibited and stigmatised use of English as lingua franca” they mean: a variable expedient deployment of linguistic resources as appropriate to the requirements of any specific speech event. What is fascinating about attempts to understand how this negotiation of meaning works is just how flexible and creative speakers are in adjusting to the communicative needs in particular contexts [through] processes of negotiation and adaptation in their actual communicative use (ibid, 2017, p. 361, emphasis added).

This meaning negotiation that Seidlhofer and Widdowson (2017) refer to, which involves processes, strategies and skills of “negotiation and adaptation” and is characterised by user variability (“variable deployment”), flexibility and creativity (“flexible and creative”), is central in the translanguaging that illustrates the needs of language learners (Canagarajah, 2011, 2013; García & Wei, 2014). Translanguaging as “the fluid and dynamic practices that transcend the boundaries between named languages, language varieties, and language and other semiotic systems” (Wei, 2018, p. 9) challenges the static focus on language systems (Canagarajah, 2013; Hall, 2013; Larsen-Freeman, 2018; Otsuji & Pennycook, 2011; Taylor & Snoddon, 2013) presupposed by models of linguistic competence based on the native-speaker norm. The reason is that the features [of a language] are used flexibly and variably (. . .) according to who is speaking with who in any specific interaction. In other words, the features are emergent, not ‘engraved in stone’ (Jenkins, 2017, p. 344).

From this basis, this chapter aims to contribute to this discussion with a perspective from a peripheral country (Canagarajah, 2002) such as Argentina and an underrepresented region such as South America. I begin with a brief historical overview of education, language education, and English language teaching in this country. After that, I describe a case study undertaken in 2014, intended to reveal the perspectives of English language teachers in this Argentinean setting regarding the native vs. non-native dichotomy.

4.2 4.2.1

Background Context

Argentina (the Argentine Republic) is located in South America and has nearly 44 million inhabitants. With 23 provinces plus the autonomous city of Buenos Aires, Spanish is the official language. There are 24 living languages, of which 15 are indigenous. Immigrant languages comprise Basque, Catalan, Central Aymara, Hunsrik, Italian, Japanese, Lithuanian, Levantine Spoken Arabic (North and South), Paraguayan Guaraní, Plautdietsch, Slovene, Turoyo, Ukrainian and Vlax Romani (Simons & Fennig, 2018).

72

4.2.2

M. Porto

The Argentine System of Education

Porto (2014, 2016) and Porto, Montemayor-Borsinger, and López Barrios (2016) describe Argentina’s system of education in historical perspective with consideration for the political, ideological, economic and cultural forces that have played a role. Below is a brief overview. It should be noted that Argentina was a Spanish colony until the Declaration of Independence in 1816. The Argentine State was organised by the end of the nineteenth century (López Armengol & Persoglia, 2009). For instance, Law 1420, enacted in 1884, was intended to shape the Argentine citizen, in particular through processes of unification and homogenisation of the population. Examples are the obligatory military system and the conceptualisation of primary school education as universal, obligatory, secular and free. As the new nation received impressive flows of immigration from Europe, the underlying rationale behind the obligatory and free system of primary education was the imposition of the dominant culture and the Spanish language, with the eradication of linguistic, social and cultural differences (Puiggrós, 1990, 1996, 2003). This paradigm of homogenisation continued during the twentieth century (Puiggrós, 1990). As Rivas (2005) states, education in current times also contributes to this process of homogenisation. It does so by focusing on four areas: (1) citizenship: by fostering the development of democratic competences and values; (2) social life: by aiming at social inclusion and integration; (3) economic development and well-being: by developing “productive” citizens; and (4) cultural development: by fostering intercultural understanding, considering the linguistic and cultural diversity of the country. In 2006, the National Education Act was enacted (Ley Nacional de Educación 26.206) and is still in force. Education is considered a public good to be guaranteed by the State. It rests on principles of equality, inclusion, plurilinguism and interculturality, social cohesion and integration, and respect for and recognition of linguistic and cultural diversity, among others (Chapter II, Article 11). According to López Armengol and Persoglia (2009), this law sets the basis for the current characteristics of education in the country: • Thirteen years of obligatory education (ages 5–17). • Four strands: Initial Education (age 3–5), Primary Education (6–11 in two cycles; first cycle ages 6–8 and second cycle ages 9–11), Secondary Education (ages 12–17 in two cycles; first cycle ages 12–14 and second cycle ages 15–17) and Higher Education (18 and over). • Eight modalities: Technical Professional Education, Artistic Education, Special Needs Education, Youth and Young Adults Permanent Education, Rural Education, Intercultural Bilingual Education, Education in Contexts of Deprivation of Liberty, and Home and Hospital Education. These modalities guarantee the right of education for all, irrespective of the particular situation and characteristics of the individual.

4 English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native. . .

73

Despite these advancements, the actual provision for education is faced with many problems. For instance, although 13 years of obligatory education constitutes one move toward the democratisation of education, other factors place Argentina behind neighbouring countries such as Brazil, Chile and Uruguay, for example, regarding the number of days, classes and hours of classes per year in public primary schools (Perez Centeno & Leal, 2011). Moreover, Perez Centeno and Leal (2011) highlight that the educational capital tends to be reproduced in the country, or in other words, it is possible to anticipate someone’s school trajectory depending on the socioeconomic and family context in which the individual is born. In general, public schools serve mainly socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, there is high socioeconomic segmentation in school enrolment (Gvirtz & Beech, 2014; Veleda, 2014). This means that children and youth are naturally grouped in schools according to socioeconomic factors and therefore they interact with peers from similar backgrounds. The consequence is that the quality and efficiency of the system are affected, leading to stigmatisation and hindering social integration (Veleda, 2014), also resulting in cultural and symbolic fragmentation (Gvirtz & Beech, 2014).

4.2.3

Language Education and the Case of English Language Teaching

Arising from complex immigration processes, as described in Porto et al. (2016), Spanish is a native language for a majority of Argentinians but also a second or additional language for indigenous and other populations. This situation highlights issues of linguistic and cultural imperialism in relation to Spanish, not only English, in the country (López, 2008, 2009; López & Sichra, 2008). The most widely taught foreign languages are English, French, German, Italian and Portuguese, which are included in the national curriculum guidelines for language education. Other languages are also taught such as Hebrew, Armenian, Russian, Chinese and Arabic, for instance in heritage schools. In this way, the linguistic rights of ethnic minorities are explicitly recognised throughout the country. The national curriculum guidelines for languages provide general principles for the teaching of foreign languages both in primary and secondary schools. The document intends to provide coherence, unity and harmony to the linguistic and cultural practices associated with language education in the country. It aims to develop in students the knowledge, skills and attitudes to become responsible citizens who are able to engage in intercultural dialogue using the foreign languages they are learning. It rests on a sociocultural perspective that sees language as discourse and that involves meaning negotiation as a requirement of intercultural communication, and that is built around the development of multiliteracies and multimodality. The intercultural, plurilingual and citizenship orientations are paramount.

74

M. Porto

In the case of English, it was first taught as a foreign language in the secondary school system, organised in 1863 (López Barrios & Villanueva de Debat, 2011). Because secondary education was not compulsory then, its teaching was limited. British community schools were created in the nineteenth century to provide education to the children of English-speaking settlers (Banfi & Day, 2005; TocalliBeller, 2007) and English was the language of instruction in these settings. It is important to note that the British influence was very important in Argentina throughout the nineteenth century particularly in the areas of railway infrastructure, farming, business and sports (Maersk Nielsen, 2003). This influence has been so significant that it still remains today, for example, in the form of cultural associations such as the Argentine Associations of English Culture and the British Council. Furthermore, Maersk Nielsen (2003) states that this British influence can also be recognised at present in the field of sports, particularly football, rugby, tennis, yachting, polo and golf, where sports club names reflect their British origin (e.g. Newell’s Old Boys, Boca Juniors, River Plate, Buenos Aires Lawn Tennis Club, Yacht Club Argentino). In the early twentieth century, many private schools copied the English-Spanish bilingual curriculum of British community schools. The 2006 Education Act extended English as a mandatory subject throughout secondary education. Since 2007, English has been taught compulsorily from grade 4 (age 9) both in private and public schools. The Ministry of Culture and Education recommended the teaching of a second foreign language, but this was not mandatory. After the creation of Mercosur (the regional trade and political bloc consisting of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), Spanish-speaking member states agreed to teach Portuguese and Brazil agreed to teach Spanish. Before that, French and Italian had been the only second foreign language options at secondary schools in Argentina. Children and youth from middle and high socioeconomic sectors are taught English privately, in addition to the mandatory lessons at school. Pedagogically, English language education is attuned to the latest developments in the field. Nowadays the intercultural and citizenship dimensions are acknowledged and valued (see Porto, 2016). The rationale is that schools should foster literacy development with the ultimate aim of empowering students for active citizenship. Methodologically, the approach is task-based, project-based and geared around CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning). However, classroom practice faces difficulties that hinder the implementation of intercultural citizenship perspectives with these methodologies. Even though English teachers are in general highly qualified (to get a degree they must complete a four- to five-year undergraduate program), the most compelling concern according to Corradi (personal communication, 2016) is that the available teacher workforce is insufficient to cater for the positions needed nationwide to comply with language education policies and curricular developments since 2006. As a consequence, unprepared and/or uncertified teachers are hired to satisfy the demand. There is agreement that English is a dominant and prestigious foreign language in the country (Maersk Nielsen, 2003; Tocalli-Beller, 2007; Rajagopalan, 2010; Zappa-

4 English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native. . .

75

Hollman, 2007). These authors note that it is used in business with foreign countries, language education (in primary and secondary school curricula in most provinces), and tourism. More specifically, Maersk Nielsen (2003) remarks that English in Argentina fulfils four key functions: • Interpersonal: English dominates the fields of advertising, businesses and consumer goods (particularly fashion, cars, perfumes, music, decoration and others). • Instrumental: English is used as a medium of instruction at bilingual schools, and as an international language in international conferences and tourism. • Regulatory: Business contracts with foreign companies must be written in Spanish and translated into English if necessary. • Innovative: Borrowings from English are common in the fields of sports, computers, shopping, advertising, fashion and others. Furthermore, Rajagopalan (2010) speaks of the nativisation of English in Latin America and mentions the perceived need for English as something vital among Argentineans. Overall, many people perceive English in utilitarian rather than hegemonising terms. By contrast, particularly in the field of politics and international relations, English is often seen in hegemonic terms, as a form of linguistic and cultural imperialism (Phillipson, 1992). The rationale is that there exist “hegemonising processes that tend to render the use of English ‘natural’ and ‘normal’, and to marginalise other languages” (Phillipson, 2001, p. 191). Some political scientists in Argentina have highlighted this rhetoric of imperialism, stressing the “profoundly evil” impact of English in many Latin American countries (Borón, 2009; Boron & Vlahusic, 2009). For example, Borón (2009) claims that social unrest, violence, xenophobia and racism derive from the “diabolic” influence of imperialism. The problem, Borón (2009) and Boron and Vlahusic (2009) point out, is not restricted to the processes of Americanisation, Europeanisation and McDonaldisation highlighted by Phillipson (2001), which are the tip of the iceberg, but comprise the “mechanisms of domination, and the multiplication of its [the United States’] devices of manipulation and ideological and political control” (Borón, 2005, p. 271; my translation of the original in Spanish). This view is predominant among populist political parties in the country and co-exists with anti-American and anti-British movements that are much more widespread and have penetrated the narratives of parties situated at multiple points along the political spectrum. For example, the last government aligning with this discourse (2003–2015, in three periods) closed diplomatic and commercial relations with the USA and engaged in diplomatic rivalry with Britain over the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands. The Malvinas war fought in 1982 between both countries is a historical event that is currently also associated with questions of imperialism, domination and subjugation (see Porto, 2014).

76

4.3

M. Porto

The Case Study: Methodology

Prompted by the complex scenario described before, this qualitative case study (Yin, 2013), carried out in 2014, aims to answer the following research questions: 1. How do Argentine teachers of English as a foreign language conceptualise the expansion, use and teaching of English in their local contexts? 2. How do Argentine English as a foreign language teachers conceptualise the native vs. non-native dichotomy in this setting? Participants include 75 English language teachers (71 female and four male), aged between 18 and 59, who teach English in primary and secondary school settings in the province of Buenos Aires, which is the biggest, richest and most populated province in the country. The research instruments comprise two questionnaires with open and closed questions, and semi-structured in-depth interviews. The questionnaires, written in Spanish, were designed and piloted in early 2014 and administered through the Internet in October 2014 with the use of free software (www.e-encuesta.com). Then 21 in-depth interviews were conducted in November 2014. Data was analysed following the guidelines and procedures of content analysis, complemented by a quantitative perspective (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Mertens, 2015). After a holistic analysis of all data types, which involved the reading and re-reading of all data transcripts, a first layer of analysis was undertaken, intended to reveal an overall view, permeated by continuous informal annotations and comments. There was then a second deductive or a priori phase in which I relied on key concepts from the literature. I traced any relevant references to issues of imperialism, English as a global or international language, World Englishes, the native vs. non-native-speaker/teacher dichotomy, and other issues, in order to identify the ways in which these concepts were understood, expressed, referred to and “lived” in the particular settings where the participants worked. I coded the data by separating it into pieces corresponding to natural breaks and assigning a code that corresponded to one big concept or category, followed by sub-categories. After that there was a third phase, inductive or data based, during which I coded emerging themes and sub-themes, unique perspectives and commonalities. The process allowed me to identify three main themes prevalent in the data. I arranged these themes as phrases that captured the essence of these teachers’ conceptualisations, which I describe in the following section. The whole process was complemented by the writing of descriptive, narrative and interpretive vignettes, and the identification of multiple examples to document the analysis and illustrate findings. I also addressed validity, reliability and triangulation issues. It should be noted that there were three phases of data analysis (holistic, a priori and data based), which in turn consisted of at least three cycles: one by myself independently, another one by an expert external adviser and a third one by both of us with the purpose of coming to agreements and resolving discrepancies by discussion. The Atlas.ti (Muhr, 1991, 2005) software was used as support in the handling, storage and analysis of the data.

4 English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native. . .

77

Confidentiality and ethical issues were addressed. Teachers signed informed consent forms to allow disclosure of the data and anonymity is preserved here. Data, produced in Spanish, are presented verbatim and translated into English by the author. The evidence for the arguments made are italicised in the multiple data samples used in the illustration of findings, where the data type (questionnaire 1, questionnaire 2, interview) appears between brackets (Q1, Q2, I, respectively) and each participant is identified with a number.

4.4

Findings and Discussion

Emerging from the first layer of holistic analysis and the second a priori analysis based on the literature, I found three dominant themes in the data from the participants’ perspective: 1. An uncritical view in relation to the hegemony of English as a language of international communication; 2. Fluid and sometimes conflicting understandings about the language, its varieties and the question of language ownership; and 3. Critical reflections on the native/non-native-speaker/teacher dichotomy touching upon perspectives associated with the concept of native-speakerism. I summarise the main findings related to the first two themes before describing in detail the native/non-native teacher (hereafter NS-NNS teacher) dichotomy. 1. Uncritical views in relation to the hegemony of English as a language of international communication. Overall, the majority of the participants revealed an instrumental perspective in relation to the hegemony of English as a language of international communication, resonating with Paran and Williams (2007) but also with some perspectives on English as lingua franca (Jenkins, 2006) and global language (Nunan, 2001). They expressed that, in the face of globalisation, the spread and use of English globally, including in Argentina, can be justified because it is a useful means of communication that functions as a shared lingua franca, i.e. it is “an expedient means of communication” (Seidlhofer & Widdowson, 2017, p. 361). Participants listed a variety of utilitarian reasons why individuals should know or learn English, for instance to communicate with others, to access academic, scientific and other sources, to obtain benefits in employment and higher education, to access study opportunities, and to engage in business and politics. This line of thought echoes Freire’s (1973) view of education as liberation, particularly in contexts of oppression and underdevelopment, based on the tenets of self transformation as a springboard for social transformation by developing the capacity of people to act upon their reality and change it. These ideas are associated with an important world model of education in Argentina, Progressive Education (Spring, 2009), which sees education as a form of empowerment, with a focus on students’ interests and participation, the

78

M. Porto

protection and celebration of their local languages and cultures, and the development of the tools for active citizenship and social justice. In this sense, these teachers did not identify at all with the views of English as a form of imperialism (Phillipson, 1992) or with the local associations in political science as a form of subjugation and domination (Borón, 2005, 2009; Boron & Vlahusic, 2009). 2. Fluid and sometimes conflicting understandings about the language, its varieties and the question of language ownership. When prompted to reflect on the English language and its varieties and the question of language ownership, participants had fluid and at times conflicting understandings. While most expressed that English belongs “to the globalised world”, at the same time they associated the issue of ownership with particular countries and “their nations”, mainly the United Kingdom and the USA. Nonetheless, it is possible to say that views of English as de-territorialised (Widdowson, 1994) or de-nationalised (Seidlhofer & Widdowson, 2017) predominated. When encouraged to think about the variety of English to teach in the classroom, the majority referred to standard English although there were variations regarding the meaning of the term. For some, it meant British English with RP (received pronunciation), others referred to a “neutral” variety, whereas others thought of American English. Clearly, these were fluid and contradictory understandings, in need of deeper analysis. 3. Argentine teachers’ perspectives on the native/non-native-speaker dichotomy. The participants’ understandings of the NS-NNS dichotomy need to be read within the initial historical description of education and language education in Argentina and also with consideration for the context described earlier. Interestingly, while an instrumental view of the hegemony of English as a useful, “neutral” and international means of communication prevailed, the majority did not endorse such perceived superiority of the NS in terms of norms that are made available to students, neither for teachers to model or imitate. In the interviews, participants echoed current discussions in the field in this regard (Canagarajah, 1999b; Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Houghton et al., 2018) as the following data extract shows: The NS myth as model and norm is no longer applicable. [El mito del hablante nativo como modelo y norma ya no es aplicable] [Q1:45]

All participants reflected on this dichotomy by considering the advantages and disadvantages of both native-speaker teachers (NST) and non-native-speaker teachers (NNST). Reflections centred on three dimensions: (a) the linguistic; (b) the cultural/intercultural; and (c) the pedagogic, in both directions, native and non-native. Figure 4.1 summarises these findings.

4 English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native. . .

79

Fig. 4.1 Native/non-native dichotomy in data analysis (translated by the author from Spanish into English)

80

M. Porto

4.4.1

The Linguistic and Intercultural Dimensions

Regarding the linguistic and intercultural dimensions, the participants took into account the advantages for classroom teaching in this particular setting that an English NS has, but also the advantages of a Spanish NS. In general, there was overwhelming agreement that the NS of both languages would have more linguistic knowledge of their native language (e.g., “knows colloquial jargon”), which would be reflected in their mastery of the language (e.g., “handles the language without difficulty”). One NS was also thought to possess increased cultural sensitivity about their own cultural context. In turn, the NNS was perceived to have less linguistic (e.g., “has fewer linguistic tools”) and cultural knowledge (e.g., “may not know the reality/real context of the students”). An NS teacher handles the language without difficulty but the disadvantage is they don’t belong to the same context as the students. [Un profesor nativo maneja sin dificultades la lengua pero la desventaja es que no pertenece al mismo contexto que los alumnos] [I:9] they [NNST] may not know the reality/real context of the students and this can make the learning process less meaningful than it might be [puede desconocer la realidad/contexto real de los alumnos y hacer que el proceso de aprendizaje sea menos significativo de lo que podría llegar a ser] [I:21] The NS knows colloquial jargon that doesn’t appear in dictionaries. [El hablante nativo sabe la jerga coloquial que no figura en el diccionario] [Q1:16] they [NNST] have fewer linguistic tools to solve [problems] when there is a communicative dilemma tiene menos herramientas lingüísticas para resolver cuando se produce algún dilema a nivel comunicacional [I:13]

Participants focused in particular on the advantages that an NNST in this Argentinian setting would have, for example, in terms of knowing the students’ linguistic and cultural context as already mentioned (“linguistic and cultural closeness to the students”) but also in terms of being able to draw on processes of comparison and contrast (e.g., “possibility of comparing languages”) Linguistic and cultural closeness to the students, possibility of comparing languages, knows the areas of difficulties students can have, good professional training [Cercanía con los alumnos lingüística y culturalmente, posibilidad de comparar lenguas, conocer las áreas de dificultades que los alumnos pueden tener, buena formación docente] [I:1]

Some participants explained what they meant by “the cultural context”, and this involved not only local contextual factors in nationalistic terms, including history and the local system of education (“the schooling reality of the Argentine system of education”) but also broader aspects in regional terms (e.g., South America). The cultural context was thus considered to be local as well as regional (“the national and regional culture and history”)

4 English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native. . .

81

they know the student, the context where they teach, the national and regional culture and history. [conoce al alumno, el contexto donde enseña, la cultura e historia nacional y regional] [I:7] surely they are knowledgeable of the schooling reality of the Argentine system of education and have been educated within it [seguramente será conocedor de la realidad escolar del sistema educativo argentino y habrá sido formado en este] [Q1:5]

The advantage of the familiarity with the local context that a NNST has (e.g., “knows the local context”) was thought to be a point of departure for resisting imperialism (Canagarajah, 1999a) by offering students access to different varieties of English (e.g., “alternative to the hegemonic”, “not limited to one accent”) emerging precisely from this knowledge of the local. The variety[ies] of English they will propose may be alternative to the hegemonic. They also know the local context. [Las ventajas del profesor no-nativo es que la(s) variedad(es) de inglés que propondrá serán quizás alternativas a la hegemónica. En nuestro contexto, tiene también la ventaja de conocer el contexto en el cual trabaja] [I:3] reliance on one’s own culture is paramount. They are not limited to one accent or the restricting aspects that knowing English from only one region has (grammatical, lexical, etc.). Being non-native implies greater openness and flexibility in terms of language use [prima el apoyo sobre la propia cultura. No está encasillado en un acento o los aspectos restrictivos que tiene el conocer el Inglés desde una sola región (gramaticales, lexicales, etc.). Al no ser nativo creo que esto implica una mayor apertura y flexibilidad en cuanto al uso del idioma] [EPI14:49]

The NNST was also perceived to contribute to resisting imperialism by providing access to other cultures, where English was perceived as “a tool” along the tenets of Progressive Education (Spring, 2009) rather than as a form of imperialism (Borón, 2005, 2009; Phillipson, 1992). the cultural aspect that an Argentine teacher brings to the classroom is fundamental, that is, teaching English as a tool to access other cultures, always departing from one’s own, and not as an end in itself [considero indispensable el aspecto cultural que un docente Argentino lleva al aula, es decir, enseñar el inglés como una herramienta de acceso a otras culturas siempre partiendo de la propia y no como una finalidad en sí misma] [Q1:36]

When reflecting on the disadvantages that an NNST in this setting would have, the most significant limitation was considered to be an overemphasis on linguistic accuracy (from the linguistic dimension) and lack of cultural knowledge associated with the foreign language. This finding can be explained contextually as linguistic competence tends to dominate teacher education (Porto, 2018) despite orientations in the national curriculum guidelines for languages (NAP, 2012) and the theoretical foundations of language education in the country. These foundations involve a plurilingual and pluricultural perspective on language teaching (Corradi, personal communication, 2016, Ministry of Education of the Nation).

82

M. Porto Excessive background on norm correction that distances them from other pedagogic possibilities; inability to satisfy the students’ curiosity about some cultural aspects. [excesiva formación en la corrección de la norma que lo aleja de otras posibilidades pedagógicas; incapacidad de satisfacer la curiosidad de los alumnos respecto a algunas cuestiones culturales] [I:2]

More specifically, this strong focus on accuracy was related to linguistic mistakes and non-native-like pronunciation (e.g., “cannot imitate the pronunciation of the NS”) which evokes a powerful conception based on the NS model and the idolising of native speakers (Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Houghton et al., 2018). cannot imitate the pronunciation of the NS teacher and makes linguistic mistakes that a NS teacher doesn’t make. [no se llega a lograr la pronunciación del profesor nativo, y se cometen errores lingüísticos que el profesor nativo no suele cometer] [I:7]

The excessive focus on linguistic correctness of the Argentine English teacher (i.e., an NNST) was contrasted with the flexibility of the NST in terms of aiming at “efficient and natural communication”. Being a native-speaker, the native teacher is not rigidly tied to the grammar, to what is “correct”, but rather aims at communicating and does so efficiently and naturally [Al ser el inglés es su idioma materno, el hablante o profesor nativo no se apega totalmente a la gramática, a lo que es "correcto", sino que busca poder comunicarse y lo hace eficientemente y naturalmente] [Q1:30]

4.4.2

The Pedagogic Dimension

In terms of pedagogy, opinions were contradictory. Although the NST was considered “a good model of the language” and valued for offering a sense of novelty in the classroom (e.g., “fresh wind”), this teacher was believed to lack specific pedagogical knowledge when compared to an NNST (e.g., “would not necessarily have the didactic tools”, “might not have the necessary knowledge about the didactics”). I see that an NS teacher would be like fresh wind in the classroom. [Veo que un profesor nativo sería como una brisa fresca en el aula] [I:15] An NS can be a good model of the language but this doesn’t assure that they have adequate pedagogic tools. [Un hablante nativo puede ser un buen modelo de lengua pero esto no garantiza que posea herramientas pedagógicas adecuadas] [Q1:5] a native speaker would not necessarily have the didactic tools to teach their own language [un hablante nativo no necesariamente tendría herramientas didácticas para enseñar su propia lengua] [Q1:2] a native speaker might not have the necessary knowledge about the didactics of foreign language teaching [un hablante nativo podría no tener los conocimiento necesarios en relación a la didáctica de enseñanza de una lengua extranjera] [Q1:45]

4 English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native. . .

83

Some respondents contrasted the NST and NNST in terms of the good professional training of the local NNST. good teacher education [buena formación docente] [I:1] is educated on the basis of the pedagogic practice of teacher educators with years of experience [está formado en base a la experiencia de años de práctica pedagógica de sus antecesores docentes] [I:18]

The possibility that the NNST has of “knowing the student” and using that knowledge pedagogically to foresee areas of difficulty (e.g., “knows the difficulties”, “is able to anticipate them”) was also highlighted in positive terms and contrasted with the NST who “cannot do that”. being a native speaker of Spanish, they know the difficulties of the Spanish-speaking student and are able to anticipate them. A native speaker of English cannot do that. [al ser nativo del español, conoce y anticipa las dificultades del alumno hispanohablante. Un nativo del inglés no puede hacer esto] [Q1:9] knows the idiosyncrasy of the student [conoce la idiosincrasia del alumno] [I:18]

This kind of knowledge of the NNST was highly valued, not only in terms of knowing the student as mentioned before (including the students’ linguistic difficulties and needs), but also regarding the familiarity with the local culture (“knows the Argentine culture”) and with frames of mind and thought (“the frame within which our lives develop and how we think”), in addition to an increased sense of “perspective and sensibility”. As the teacher is from Argentina, they have specific knowledge and mastery of our culture and this contributes to lessons being more enriching and students learning better. [Creo que el ser de Argentina hace que el docente tenga ciertos conocimientos y dominios de nuestra cultura que hacen que las clases sean más enriquecedoras y que los alumnos aprendan mejor] [Q1:62] They know the Argentine culture, the frame within which our lives develop and how we think in relation to other countries. They would have a better perspective and sensibility to attract the attention of the Argentine student in order to teach them English. In addition, they know our linguistic difficulties much better than a native speaker of English because they have experienced them in their own flesh. [conoce mejor la cultura argentina, el marco en que se desarrolla nuestra vida y cómo pensamos con respecto a otros países. Tendría una mejor perspectiva y sensibilidad para llegar a captar la atención del alumno argentino para enseñarle inglés. Además que conoce nuestras dificultades lingüísticas mucho mejor que un nativo inglés por haberlo experimentado en carne propia] [Q1:33]

Teacher education in Argentina was also valued positively, in particular regarding the process of awareness of and reflexivity towards language and teaching (“reflected upon”, “conscious of”)—something that a NNST was said to lack. Moreover, this teacher has studied to become a teacher and has reflected upon their language; the native [teacher] speaks naturally, but has not become conscious of their

84

M. Porto knowledge and this exercise is necessary in order to be able later to provide explanations to students. [Además, el docente se preparó para enseñar y reflexionó sobre su lengua; el nativo habla naturalmente, pero no hizo consciente lo que sabe y ese ejercicio es necesario para después poder dar explicaciones a los alumnos] [Q1:9]

Comparing and contrasting languages, emerging from knowledge of native and foreign languages (“both languages”), was said to lead to awareness of specific areas of “difficulties” and the “peculiarities” of the foreign language that deserve special attention in the classroom. they have knowledge of both languages, which allows them to be more aware of the difficulties or peculiarities of the language to be learned. [tiene conocimiento de ambas lenguas lo cual le permite ser más consciente de las dificultades o particularidades de la lengua a aprender] [CI55] they know the difficulties of the foreign language student, aim at these difficulties to overcome them, look for new strategies to catch the student’s attention taking the local context into account conoce las dificultades del alumno extranjero, que apunta a ellas para subsanarlas, que busca nuevas estrategias para captar su atención teniendo en cuenta el contexto en el que se mueve el alumno [I:13]

4.4.3

Self-Perceived Prejudice and Stereotyping against the NNST

The third level of data analysis focused on content analysis with particular attention to emerging topics. For example, the disadvantages that these teachers attributed to the NNST worked as a form of prejudice by and on themselves, which was evidenced in “efforts” to emulate the NS, especially in the area of “pronunciation and intonation”, and the inability to “belong” despite such efforts. I must recognize that, despite my efforts to keep a pronunciation and intonation that would allow my students to get accustomed to the standard variety, I surely manifest signals of my not belonging to the group of native speakers of some English-speaking region in particular. [Debo reconocer que, a pesar de mis esfuerzos por observar una pronunciación y entonación que permita a mis alumnos acostumbrar su oído a la variedad estándar, seguramente manifiesto señales de mí no-pertenencia al grupo de hablantes nativos de alguna región angloparlante particular] [I:2]

The participants perceived and evaluated their non-native status negatively in the local context (“has less culture”, “is not a native speaker”), echoing the issues of prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping reported in the literature (Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Houghton et al., 2018). exposure to a non-native speaker [is a disadvantage], and surely has less culture within the language than the native [la exposición a un hablante no nativo [es una desventaja], que seguramente tiene menos cultura dentro del idioma que el nativo] [EPI5:42]

4 English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native. . .

85

they are not a native speaker of the language they teach [no es hablante nativo de la lengua que enseña] [I:10]

They perceived they had a detached knowledge of English (e.g., “lack of experience in the language”) and pointed to a said superiority of the NS (e.g., “a native is many years ahead of us”). has less knowledge of the English culture than a native and a foreign person cannot resolve that because of their lack of experience in the language. I say this because it is very important not only to “master” a language, “know” it, but also “live” it, and a native is many years ahead of us in this respect, because they have lived in this language [conoce menos la cultura inglesa que un nativo, y que no puede resolver un extranjero por su falta de experiencia en el idioma. Esto lo digo, porque es muy importante no solamente "saber" un idioma, "conocerlo", sino también hay que "vivirlo", y un nativo nos lleva muchos años de ventaja en ello, ya que se subjetivó en este idioma] [EPI13:56]

However, when prompted in the initial questionnaire to imagine they were running a school or language school, and had to hire staff, 57 participants said they would hire an Argentine teacher of English while only 14 would prefer an NST. Another item in this questionnaire asked about the variety of English that this teacher should handle. Here 53 respondents expressed that no specific variety should be required as opposed to 19 participants who preferred British English and one who preferred American English. Finally, regarding the accent that this teacher should have, 43 respondents said accent is not an important variable when hiring a teacher while the rest chose particular accents (n ¼ 19 British English, n ¼ 1 American English, n ¼ 9 other Englishes). This contradiction between their self-perceived prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping for being non-native, and the fact that they would not favour an NS in terms of local employment, is in need of further exploration.

4.5

Conclusion

This study illuminates how the NS-NNS dichotomy is constructed in a peripheral country located in South America. This is significant because Argentina and surrounding nations are clearly under-represented in the literature. The most important finding is that these Argentinian teachers’ conceptions about the native speaker vs. non-native-speaker dichotomy were fluid, sometimes contradictory, but always critical. Considering the historical description regarding the status of English as an international language in the country, with the imperialist conceptualisations that exist locally, the fluidity and criticality of these teachers’ conceptualisations are indicative of the complexity of the issue at hand and the need for further research in under-represented regions of the world.

86

M. Porto

References Alptekin, C., & Alptekin, M. (1984). The question of culture: EFL teaching in non-English speaking countries. ELT Journal, 38, 14–20. Banfi, C., & Day, R. (2005). The evolution of bilingual schools in Argentina. In A. de Mejía (Ed.), Bilingual education in South America (pp. 65–78). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Barrow, R. (1990). Culture, values and the language classroom. In B. Harrison (Ed.), Culture and the language classroom. ELT documents 132 (pp. 3–10). London: Modern English Publications and The British Council. Borón, A. (2005). Un imperio en llamas [An empire on fire].Observatorio Social de América Latina (Vol. VI/18, Print ed., pp. 271–287). Buenos Aires: CLACSO. Borón, A. (2009). De la guerra infinita a la crisis infinita [From infinite war to infinite crisis]. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from https://www.tni.org/es/art%C3%ADculo/de-la-guerrainfinita-a-la-crisis-infinita Boron, A., & Vlahusic, A. (2009). El lado oscuro del imperio. La violación de los derechos humanos por los Estados Unidos. [The dark side of the empire. The violation of human rights by the United States]. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Luxemburg. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., & Zarate, G. (1996). Defining and assessing intercultural competence: Some principles and proposals for the European context. Language Teaching, 29(4), 239–243. Canagarajah, S. (1999a). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, S. (1999b). Interrogating the “native speaker fallacy”: Non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 77–91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Canagarajah, S. (2002). Globalization, methods and practice in periphery classrooms. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 134–150). London: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1–28. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York: Routledge. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Riverside, CA: Sage. Crystal, D. (2017). The future of new Euro-Englishes. World Englishes, 36, 330–335. https://doi. org/10.1111/weng.12266 Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging. Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gvirtz, S., & Beech, J. (2014). Educación y cohesión social en América Latina: una mirada desde la micropolítica escolar. [Education and social cohesion in Latin America: a micro-political perspective]. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 22(44), 1–24. https://doi.org/10. 14507/epaa.v22n44.2014. Originally published in: Revista de Política Educativa, Año 1, Número 1, UdeSA-Prometeo, Buenos Aires, 2009. Hall, C. (2013). Cognitive contributions to plurilithic views of English and other languages. Applied Linguistics, 34(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams042 Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holly, D. (1990). The unspoken curriculum, or how language teaching carries cultural and ideological messages. In B. Harrison (Ed.), Culture and the language classroom. ELT documents 132 (pp. 11–19). London: Modern English Publications and The British Council. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. (Eds.). (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

4 English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Understandings of the Native/Non-native. . .

87

Houghton, S. A., Rivers, D., & Hashimoto, K. (2018). Beyond native-speakerism. Current explorations and future visions. London: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 157–181. Jenkins, J. (2017). An ELF perspective on English in the post-Brexit EU. World Englishes, 36, 343–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12269 Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 55–72. López Armengol, M., & Persoglia, L. (2009). El sistema universitario Argentino. [The Argentine university system]. In J. Olaskoaga Larrauri (coordinator), Hacia una educación superior de calidad. Un análisis desde la perspectiva del profesorado en Argentina, Chile, España y México. [Toward quality higher education. An analysis from the perspective of teacher education in Argentina, Chile, Spain and México] (pp. 19–42). La Plata: Edulp. López Barrios, M., & Villanueva de Debat, E. (2011). From grammar translation to CLT: A retrospective view of coursebooks produced in Argentina. In D. Fernández, A. Armendáriz, R. Lothringer, L. Pico, & L. Anglada (Eds.), Communicative language teaching and learning revisited: What more than three decades of experience have taught us. XXXVI FAAPI Conference Proceedings (pp. 21–33). FAAPI: Tucumán. López, L. E. (2008). Indigenous contributions to an ecology of language learning in Latin America. In A. Creese, P. Martin, & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Ecology of language (Vol. 9, pp. 141–155). New York: Springer. López, L. E. (Ed.). (2009). Interculturalidad, educación y ciudadanía. Perspectivas latinoamericanas [Interculturality, education and citizenship. Latin American perspectives]. La Paz: Plural Editores. López, L. E., & Sichra, I. (2008). Intercultural bilingual education among indigenous peoples in Latin America. In J. Cummins & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Bilingual education (Vol. 5, pp. 295–309). New York: Springer. Maersk Nielsen, P. (2003). English in Argentina: A sociolinguistic profile. World Englishes, 22, 199–209. Mertens, D. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Muhr, T. (1991). ATLAS/ti – A prototype for the support of text interpretation. Qualitative Sociology, 14(4), 349–371. Muhr, T. (2005). User’s manual for Atlas ti 5.0. Berlín: Scientific Software Development. Nunan, D. (2001). English as a global language. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 605–606. Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2011). Social inclusion and metrolingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14, 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13670050.2011.573065 Paran, A., & Williams, E. (2007). Editorial: Reading and literacy in developing countries. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 1–6. Perez Centeno, C. G., & Leal, M. (2011). ¿Han funcionado las reformas educativas en Argentina, Brasil y Chile? [have the educational reforms worked in Latin America? A case study of Argentina, Brazil and Chile]. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 19, 36. Retrieved December 27, 2019, from https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/950/948 Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2001). English for globalisation or for the world’s people? International Review of Education, 47, 185–200. Phillipson, R. (2008). Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European integration and globalization. World Englishes, 27, 250–267. Phillipson, R. (2009). (Re-)locating TESOL in an age of empire. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 163–166. Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1996). English only worldwide or language ecology. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 429–452.

88

M. Porto

Porto, M. (2014). The role and status of English in Spanish-speaking Argentina and its education system: Nationalism or imperialism? SAGE Open, 4(1), 2158244013514059. https://doi.org/10. 1177/2158244013514059 Porto, M. (2016). English language education in primary schooling in Argentina. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2450 Porto, M. (2018). Does education for intercultural citizenship lead to language learning? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32, 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2017.1421642 Porto, M., Montemayor-Borsinger, A., & López Barrios, M. (2016). Research on English language teaching and learning in Argentina (2007-2013). Language Teaching, 49, 356–389. Puiggrós, A. (1990). Imaginación y crisis en la educación latinoamericana. [Imagination and crisis in Latin American education]. México City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. Puiggrós, A. (1996). Educación neoliberal y quiebre educativo. [neoliberal education and a fracture in education]. Nueva Sociedad, 146, 90–101. Puiggrós, A. (2003). Qué pasó en la Educación Argentina. Breve historia desde la Conquista hasta el presente. [what has happened in education in Argentina. Brief history from the conquest to the present times]. Buenos Aires: Galerna. Rajagopalan, K. (2010). The English language, globalization and Latin America: Possible lessons from the ‘outer circle’. In M. Saxena & T. Omoniyi (Eds.), Contending with globalization in World Englishes (pp. 175–195). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Rivas, A. (2005). Tiempos de inversión educativa. Comentarios a la propuesta de Ley de Financiamiento Educativo. [Times of investment on education. Commentary based on the proposal for a law for the financing of education]. Políticas públicas. Análisis no 15. Buenos Aires: Fundación CIPPEC. www.cippec.org Seidlhofer, B., & Widdowson, H. (2017). Thoughts on independent English. World Englishes, 36, 360–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12274 Simons, G., & Fennig, C. (Eds.). (2018). Ethnologue: Languages of the Americas and the Pacific (21st ed.). Global Publishing: SIL International. Spring, J. (2009). Globalization of education. An introduction. New York: Routledge. Taylor, S., & Snoddon, K. (2013). Plurilingualism in TESOL: Promising controversies. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 439–445. Tocalli-Beller, A. (2007). ELT and bilingual education in Argentina. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching: Part I (pp. 107–122). Singapore: Springer. Valdes, J. (1990). The inevitability of teaching and learning culture in a foreign language course. In B. Harrison (Ed.), Culture and the language classroom. ELT documents 132 (pp. 20–30). London: Modern English Publications and The British Council. Veleda, C. (2014). Regulación estatal y segregación educativa en la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 22(42), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa. v22n42.2014. Originally published in: Revista de Política Educativa, Año 1, Número 1, UdeSA-Prometeo, Buenos Aires, 2009. Wei, L. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 377–389. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research. Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zappa-Hollman, S. (2007). EFL in Argentina’s schools: Teachers’ perspectives on policy changes and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 618–625.

Chapter 5

Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps Between Teacher and Pre-Service English Teacher Priorities Stephanie Ann Houghton

Abstract The study described in this chapter connects native-speakerism (as a language-based form of prejudice affecting both “native” and “non-native” foreign language teachers) with dance-fitness (as a form of non-verbal communication) through a post-native-speakerist intercultural communication course, which involved the use of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) as one strategy to overcome native-speakerism. Native-speakerism was investigated through an explicit attempt to replace it with something different, so native-speakerism itself was not the central theme of the course followed by participants. However, in a case study based upon the course, data collection was conducted through pre-course questionnaires, documentary evidence through coursework and learning diaries, and follow-up focus group interviews encouraged participants to reflect on their experience. Although the course was broadly deemed to have met its own objectives, and many ways are suggested for future development of post-native-speakerist pedagogy, it was considered insufficient to overcome native-speakerism on its own. Although pedagogical approaches may be developed at lower language learning levels to support general shifts in language education that will ultimately help to overcome nativespeakerism, more explicit efforts should perhaps be located primarily at higher teacher training levels, to induce shifts not only in teacher activities, but also teacher attributes.

S. A. Houghton (*) Faculty of Art and Regional Design, Saga University, Saga, Japan © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_5

89

90

S. A. Houghton

5.1

Background to the Study

5.1.1

A Post-Native-Speakerist Framework for Language Learning

To overcome problems posed by native-speakerism, various shifts in teacher activities and attributes were proposed by Houghton (2018) in a prescriptive post-nativespeakerist framework for language learning developed through consultation with a wide range of doctoral and post-doctoral experts in the fields of intercultural communicative competence (ICC), ELF and World Englishes, all of which reject the native-speaker as model. The framework was divided into shifts needed in teacher activities and attributes. Areas of agreement on some main post-nativespeakerist shifts needed in teacher activities are summarized in Table 5.1 below. Questions arose, however, regarding whether or not learners should be presented with “non-native-speaker” interaction only, or a blend of interaction between “native-speakers” and “non-native-speakers”. The possible prioritization of “nonnative-speaker” interaction raised questions related to the selection from options that potentially include all available varieties, standard English, ELF norms and/or

Table 5.1 Post-native-speakerist shifts needed in teacher activities 1

2

3

From System control through the concept of nativeness and the use of the native-speaker model as model for language learners Target language as a good in itself with predefined grammar and pre-defined language norms, primarily with reference to the language norms of established varieties (e.g. US, UK, inner circle) Language accuracy, correctness, strict error correction

4

Content-based representations of specific target cultures (e.g. inner circle countries only)

5

Top-down decision-making, use of published teaching materials Teacher-centred teaching and learning processes and products

6

To Non-nativeness, variety, appropriation, hybridity and language variety through plurilingualism and the presentation of diverse models of language and culture Target language as a vehicle for mutual interactional exchange between people through intercultural communication characterized by emergent grammar and emergent language norms Communication flexibility, shuttling between communities, repertoire building, fluency, open-ended development, contextual adaptation, self-expression, mutual intelligibility, language and cultural awareness, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, criticality, intercultural competence, communication and negotiation skills/strategies and active citizenship Intercultural content that represents “nonnative-speaker” interaction in a contextually sensitive curriculum Teaching materials selected or generated by teachers themselves Learner-centred teaching and learning processes and products

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

91

nativized Englishes, with some interviewees recommending greater explicitness in norm selection and/or a contrastive intercultural approach instead. In the post-native-speakerist intercultural communication course explored in this study, an attempt was made to overcome native-speakerism by implementing the recommendations listed in Table 5.1 (in the right column), combined with dance as a form of non-verbal communication (Houghton, 2015). Dance was included as an additional component as a form of non-verbal communication. Why dance? Houghton, Rivers, and Hashimoto (2018) highlighted the zombie role played by the concept of the native-speaker in the drama of English language education on the world stage; a concept that is at once dead and alive. The social categories of “native” and “non-native-speaker” can, in this sense, be categorized as “zombie categories” (Beck, 2001; Schneider, 2014). Warning that the concept of native-speakerism may not solve the set of problems that have recently come under scrutiny under his heading, Houghton et al. (2018) suggested that the terms native-speaker and native-speakerism should both be explicitly discarded and allowed to fall into disuse. Although a new vision of the future should not be based on the binary of native-speaker and non-native-speaker, another approach must be found. Partly inspired by Schneider (2014), the recommendations listed in Table 5.1 (in the right column) were implemented in this study.

5.1.2

Dance as Non-Verbal Communication

The study described in this chapter treated dance as a form of non-verbal communication inspired by Zumba. But what is Zumba, and why Zumba? Zumba is a dance-fitness program developed by Beto Pérez from Colombia in the mid-1990s through the accidental fusion of aerobics and Latin dance. In 2001, the Zumba Fitness company was established in Miami, and according to Diu (2013), it had around 14 million weekly participants in more than 150 countries by 2013. According to the American College of Sports Medicine (Lloyd, 2011, cited in Brendscheidt gen, 2013), Zumba was in the top-ten fitness trends in the USA in 2012, but it has universal appeal. By 2015, an estimated 15 million people were taking Zumba classes around the world in 200,000 locations in 180 countries (Zumba Fitness, 2015). Along with Pilates and yoga, Zumba is “a mainstay program for fitness centers around the world” (Woods, 2011, p. 41), and has become “one of the main fitness programs promoted worldwide” (Brendscheidt gen, 2013). Since it started in the 1990s, Zumba has exploded globally, crossing cultural borders, connecting people through dance and fitness. And it has clear health benefits. For example, to help prevent diabetes, Zumba is available on the National Health Service (NHS) to obese patients in the UK (Borland & Smyth, 2015). And it can be considered a healing form of dance therapy (Mau, 2015). But what is the potential for linking dance and language practices in relation to native-speakerism? Zumba is one of many types of dance-fitness programs that combine dance and fitness in a party atmosphere, bringing the dance party into the health club (Lloyd,

92

S. A. Houghton

2011). It incorporates into fitness activities the four basic Latin-American rhythms and accompanying dance steps of merengue, salsa, cumbia and reggaeton (Brendscheidt gen, 2013), each of which has its own long cultural history and evolving contemporary context. Zumba combines these basic “Latin-flavoured music and traditional dance moves . . . with aerobics to keep people moving and shaking while they are body sculpting” (Parcher, 2008, cited in Brendscheidt gen, 2013). However, unlike aerobics and Latin dance, which can become highly technical (and thus, highly exclusive) with levels of increasing difficulty to pass through, Zumba is by contrast inclusive because it is easy. Anyone can handle a Zumba class regardless of age, fitness or natural rhythm. People can have fun while getting fit. Zumba was created so that anyone and everyone can participate, and classes are notoriously welcoming to newcomers (Klein, 2012). Thus, Zumba is inclusive and fun (Diu, 2013). It has wide appeal as a highly social activity deeply rooted in human dance history and culture. But what is the potential for linking dance and language practices more specifically? Notably, Zumba dance-fitness classes are conducted worldwide through non-verbal communication. Language barriers are overcome through non-verbal cueing by instructors who convey moves to participants via that mode, which may be more efficient than through verbal communication for such activity according to Jordan (2015), who claims that words can take longer to connect with action than non-verbal cueing and are often misinterpreted. And how might this ultimately relate to native-speakerism? As an ideology, might native-speakerism become more potentor salient when discursively constructed? When people are not talking but moving and communicating nonverbally instead, might their views become more accepting and open in the process? How might ideologies be linked to verbal and non-verbal processes?

5.1.3

Non-Verbal Communication in the CEFR (2001)

More generally, how might non-verbal communication be analysed in relation to language? Section 4.4.5 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001) views non-verbal communication within an action-oriented approach that views language as an aspect of a total communicative event, in which the participants exchange information and achieve mutual understanding by all means open to them. Language is often not the only means of communication. Practical actions may accompany language and modify its use, accompanied by paralinguistic behaviour (e.g. body language, voice use) that signals meaning outside the main language system (Bailly et al., n.d.). Section 4.4.5.1 of the CEFR (2001) reviews practical actions accompanying language activities (normally face-to-face oral activities) that include pointing, demonstration, mediating activities and clearly observable actions. Section 4.4.5.2 distinguishes paralinguistic body language from practical actions accompanied by language by carrying conventionalized culture-specific meanings (e.g. gestures,

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

93

facial expressions, posture, eye contact, body contact, proxemics) and the use of extra-linguistic speech-sounds (or syllables) that also carry conventionalized meanings, but lie outside the regular phonological system of a language. Many paralinguistic effects are produced by combinations of pitch, length, loudness and voice quality.

5.1.4

Intercultural Communicative Competence in the CEFR (2001)

As noted earlier, Houghton (2018) proposed various shifts in teacher activities and attributes to overcome problems posed by native-speakerism in a prescriptive postnative-speakerist framework for language learning developed with reference to academic fields that reject the native-speaker as model: (1) ICC, (2) ELF, and (3) World Englishes. Neither of the latter two fields were addressed in the CEFR (2001). Indeed, the deeper foundations of this study lie partly in the earlier version of the CEFR, which marked a shift from sociocultural competence to intercultural competence in the early 1990s when Michael Byram and Geneviève Zarate were initially commissioned by the Council of Europe (CoE) to provide input to the CEFR to facilitate the assessment of sociocultural competence. Their model was first presented in a CoE publication (Byram and Zarate 1996) and its influence upon the CEFR (2001) is somewhat apparent (Council of Europe, 2001, pp. 101–106). A comparative overview of the CEFR (2001) and Byram’s (1997) ICC model is presented in Table 5.2, where it can be seen that non-verbal communication (a key defining feature of Zumba) was not addressed. However, the wide appeal and inclusive nature of Zumba are somewhat more (albeit indirectly) reflected in the frameworks by viewing dance-fitness as social activity deeply rooted in human dance history and culture, with the ability to cross cultural borders, connecting people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. A notable element in this regard is attitudes towards otherness. While the CEFR (2001) highlights the need for having a general disposition of respect and tolerance towards cultural difference in Sect. 5.1.3 (Savoir être: Existential competence), Byram’s (1997) ICC model highlights the need for curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own as key attitudes. Knowledge dimensions also come into play through embodied dance-related cultural practices physically experienced in group-based social activity.

5.1.5

Connecting Dance and Language Practices

In such ways, then, dance-based social activity can be connected to foreign language education to some extent, not only through its non-verbal communication aspects

94

S. A. Houghton

Table 5.2 Comparison of CEFR (2001) and Byram’s (1997) ICC model CEFR (2001) Savoir: Declarative knowledge (Sect. 5.1.1)

having the declarative knowledge of a culture

Savoir-faire: Skills and know-how (Sect. 5.1.2)

The ability to apply intercultural skills

Savoir être: Existential competence (Sect. 5.1.3) Savoir apprendre: Ability to learn (Sect. 5.1.4)

a general disposition of respect and tolerance towards cultural difference The ability to learn cultures

Byram’s (1997) ICC model Savoir: Knowledge Of social groups and their products and practices in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction Savoir apprendre/ Ability to acquire new faire: Skills of disknowledge of a culture and covery and cultural practices and the interaction ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of real-time communication and interaction Savoir être: Curiosity and openness, readAttitudes iness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own Savoir comprendre: Ability to interpret a docuSkills of interpreting ment or event from another and relating culture, to explain it and relate it to documents from one’s own Savoir s’engager: Ability to evaluate critically Critical cultural and on the basis of explicit awareness /political criteria perspectives, practices education and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries

but also through attitudes, knowledge and other dimensions of ICC. However, even clearer links between dance and language were identified in Schneider’s (2014) sociolinguistic exploration of dance and language practices documented in an academic monograph published by Multilingual Matters entitled Salsa, Language and Transnationalism. Through the use of ethnographic methodology, language deconstruction, and sociolinguistic analysis of interaction between social discourses in local, national and transnational realms, Schneider (2014) investigated the language ideologies of German and Australian communities of practice. The communities were constituted by salsa dance, and considerations explored related to what languages symbolize in transnational, non-ethnic cultures, and what happens in globalized social contexts if people identify with a language that is not traditionally considered to be “their” language as they engage in group-based dance activity affiliated with specific and contrasting social groups. Notably, Schneider highlights potential roles for Byram’s (1997) concepts of critical cultural awareness and cultural knowledge development in relation to dance-based activity, and the skills of discovery/interaction and interpreting/relating, as well as identity-related issues influencing social activity through foreign language and culture use.

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

5.2 5.2.1

95

Research Methods Framing the Research Question

A course of learning based on Houghton’s (2018) guidelines (see Table 5.1, right column) was designed and implemented in a case study conducted with a group of pre-service English teachers at a university in Japan following Yin (2003). Generally, it explored participants’ experience of verbal and non-verbal intercultural communication through dance-fitness across languages and contexts with reference to the role of the native-speaker in intercultural communication. Guiding the analysis in this chapter is the following research question: To what extent and in what ways could native-speakerism be overcome?

5.2.2

Research Design

According to Yin (2003, p. 40), unitary or multiple units of analysis can exist within both single and multiple case studies, but contextual conditions always should be considered, and are made explicit here. The course was embedded within an “English Thesis Writing” (ETW) course that ran from April to July 2015, which comprised 15 90-min classes. The contextual background of the study has been made explicit to enable future researchers seeking to apply the findings to their own contexts making appropriate adjustments considering contextual considerations to enhance credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability, following Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) guidelines for establishing the trustworthiness of naturalistic research. Twenty-nine students took part (including 24 Japanese students and five international students from China, Taiwan, France, Australia and Lithuania). In this study, perceived social contexts and potential future working environments probably influenced the university student participants and their aspirations before they registered for the course insofar as they were actively seeking international experience and/or to make connections with either Japanese or international students from countries outside Japan, for example. Teaching materials were both selected and generated by the teacher, and they were learner-centred in nature. Intercultural content was included that represents “non-native-speaker” interaction in a contextually sensitive curriculum by actively incorporating languages other than ELF, notably but not exclusively Japanese and Spanish, while allowing other languages to come into play. Guiding learning objectives are presented in Table 5.1 (right column) and a syllabus overview is presented in Table 5.3 below, where it can be seen that the official language policy shifted during the course depending on the context. Actual language use was not controlled in practice. While ELF was used in the classroom, a bi-lingual English/ Japanese policy was used in the sports centre and a multilingual English/Japanese/

96

S. A. Houghton

Table 5.3 Syllabus overview

1 2 3 4

Class Introduction: Dance-fitness/intercultural communication Literature review 1: Non-verbal communication Practical: Dance-fitness

Homework Thesis development Learning diary

Context Classroom

Sports Centre Classroom

7

Diary discussion/thesis overview/ introduction Literature review 2: Verbal communication (native-speakerism, ELF) Literature review 3: Multilingualism/ code-switching Practical: Dance-fitness

8 9 10

Diary discussion/research methods Data analysis/presentation PRACTICAL: Dance-fitness

Classroom

11

Diary discussion/data analysis/ discussion Discussion/conclusion One-day fieldtrip

Classroom

5 6

12 13– 15

Sports Centre

Sports Centre

Ibero-American culture Centre

Language policy ELF

ELF/ Japanese ELF

ELF/ Japanese ELF ELF/ Japanese ELF

ELF/Japanese/ Spanish

Spanish approach was used in the Ibero-American culture centre. Other languages also naturally came into play due to the presence of international students. A single case study was conducted with one group of students following one course of study. However, the study had three embedded units of analysis within a single research design that allowed native-speakerism to be investigated through an explicit attempt to replace it. While the course had post-native-speakerist aims at the level of course design, it addressed native-speakerism directly at some points in the course as indicated in the syllabus overview, most notably (but not only) in Week 5. All participants researched their own experience of verbal and non-verbal intercultural communication through dance-fitness across different sociolinguistic contexts. Within that, they could formulate their own research question through which to explore their particular area of interest. To develop their research skills, students were trained in diary-based research methodology, and required to conduct their own independent research project within the course, and develop a 1000-word mini-thesis in English (individually) following this structure: (1) Introduction, (2) Literature Analysis, (3) Research Methods, (4) Data Analysis, (5) Results, (6) Discussion, (7) Conclusion, (8) References, and (9) Appendices. Some classes focused on the development of specific sections. Notably, literature review

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

97

preparation focused on non-verbal communication in week 2, verbal communication in week 5 (with a special focus on problems related to native-speakerism and possible solutions through the use of ELF instead of “native” English), with multilingualism and code-switching suggested as possible solutions to help overcome native-speakerism by extending students’ linguistic repertoire available in week 6. In addition to being explored within course content, native-speakerism was also investigated separately at the level of research design. Participant views on NS and NNS were investigated by the author before the course, as well as the unfolding and the impact of the course (i.e. the extent to which native-speakerism could be overcome through the course). For this reason, data generated by participants during the course was gathered in the form of post-class learning diaries and documentary evidence in the form of homework culminating in an end-of-course mini-thesis. In this way, the extent to which the course data seemed to meet its own post-nativespeakerist aims within the course was investigated. Further, this was supplemented with extra layers of data collection that explored participants attitudes related to native-speakerism in the form of pre- and post-course questionnaires and follow-up focus group interviews at the end of the course to enhance the credibility of the research by representing multiple constructions of participants adequately and credibly in ways that could be confirmed. Thus, in this case study, questionnaire and interview-based data sources supplemented documentary data generated by participants within the course.

5.3

Results

The pre-course questionnaires were divided into three parts exploring student background in Part 1, their definitions, experiences and friendship with nativespeakers and non-native-speakers of English in Part 2, their ideas about nativespeakers in Part 3, and their ideas about non-native-speakers in Part 4. Post-course semi-structured focus group interviews were based on the following three questions: 1. Do you want to speak English like native-speakers and/or non-native-speakers of English or not, and why? 2. Do you want to speak English with native-speakers and/or non-native-speakers of English or not, and why? 3. Do you want to learn English from native-speaker and/or non-native-speaker English teachers, and why? While the use of the term “native-speaker” may reify the concept if presented to learners unproblematically, the term itself was brought into question during the course as part of course design. Participants were selected and divided into groups based on availability. Overviews of data generated by pre-course questionnaires and post-course focus group interviews are presented below. Japanese and international students, males and females were not distinguished or treated as separate groups at any point.

98

S. A. Houghton

5.3.1

Pre-Course Questionnaires (PCQ)

5.3.1.1

Parts 1 and 2

The PCQ group included five female international students (from China, Taiwan, France, Australia and Lithuania), and 24 Japanese students (18 females and three males) aged 20–23 (average 21). Twenty-one questionnaires were gathered at the start of the course. Regarding English language, the TOEIC scores of 14 students ranged from 450 to 720 (average 588), while the TOEFL scores of 4 students ranged from 443 to 547 (average 488). When asked how much they knew about NS, students claimed to know nothing (1), a little (14) or a lot (6), and when asked how much they knew about NNS, they claimed to know nothing (1), a little (12) or a lot (10). The data suggests that participant estimated levels of knowledge about NS and NNS was somewhat comparable. Analysis of student definitions of NS and NNS suggested that they focused on the country where the language is used (S2, S9), or the speaker’s country of birth (S6, S7), first use of the language (S8, S10, S11, S15, S19), family membership (S11), where they grew up (S16), their language proficiency (S12, S13, S19), dialect use (S13) and whether the language had been studied (S4, S15). Many participants, however, focused on the purposes for which the language is used (S11, S18, S21), including its use as a mother tongue/first language/native language (S1, S3, S4, S5, S6, S9, S10, S11, S12, S14, S17, S18, S20), as a foreign language (S8, S14), a lingua franca (S5) or as a communication tool (S18). The data suggests that the participants’ dominant conceptual reference point (when defining NS and NNS) related to their use of English as a mother tongue/first language/native language, with some attention paid to the first time they had used it. Regarding their acquaintances, students claimed to have met 0 (1), 1–5 (4), 6–10 (5), 11–20 (2), 21+ (7) native-speakers and 0 (1), 1–5 (3), 6–10 (3), 11–20 (1) and 21 + (11) non-native-speakers before, from the countries listed in Table 5.5 below. Regarding friends, students claimed to have 0 (3), 1–5 (9), 6–10 (5), 11–20 (1), 21+ (3) native-speaker friends and 0 (1), 1–5 (3), 6–10 (2), 11–20 (5) and 21+ (10) nonnative-speaker friends. When participant estimates were tallied up to give a general impression of their perceived interaction levels with both NS and NNS, the combined number of their native-speaker friends and acquaintances (104 people from 24 countries/regions) seemed greatly outnumbered by the combined number of their NNS friends and acquaintances (288 people from 93 countries/regions).

5.3.1.2

Parts 3 and 4

Regarding NS, PCQ data revealed that 23 participants wanted to speak English like NS (only 1 did not), and they all claimed that it was difficult. 8 participants said it was important to speak English like NS (but 14 said it is not). Participants specifically wanted to develop accents like native-speakers of English from the following

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

99

countries: USA (14), UK (2), Australia (1), Canada (1) and Ireland (1). By contrast, they did not want to develop accents like native-speakers of English from the following countries/regions: Japan (2), UK (1), Australia (3), Ireland (1), New Zealand (1), North East England (1) or West America (1). Regarding speaking with NS, 22 participants said they wanted to speak English with NS (but 1 did not), 20 participants said it is important to speak English with NS (but 4 said it is not). 5 students said it is easy to speak English with NS (but 19 said it was not). While the data suggests high levels of aspiration to speak like NS from particular countries, there was less recognition of its importance. Participants seemed to recognize the importance of speaking English with NS, despite the difficulties involved. Regarding NNS, PCQ revealed that 5 participants wanted to speak English like NNS (but 14 did not). 11 participants said it is difficult to speak like a NNS (but 7 said it was easy). 8 participants said it was important to speak like a NNS (but 8 said it was not). Participants specifically wanted to develop accents like NNS from the following countries: France (1), Thailand (1), Germany (2), Europe (1), Japan (1), Italy (2), Malaysia (1), Russia (2). By contrast, participants said they did not want to develop accents like NNS from the following countries/regions: Japan (4), India (1), China (3), Korea (1), SE Asia (2). Regarding speaking with NNS, 18 participants said that they wanted to speak English with NNS (but 1 did not). 17 participants claimed said that it was important (but 2 said that it was not). 6 students said that it was easy (but 13 said it was not). The data suggests that most participants did not want to speak English with NNS, although some target countries seemed attractive. There was less recognition of its importance. Most participants, however, wanted to speak English with NNS, recognized its importance and the difficulties involved.

5.3.1.3

Summary

PCQ data suggested comparable estimated knowledge levels about NS and NNS in participants, whose dominant conceptual reference point when defining the groups related to speaker use of English as a mother tongue/first language/native language, with some attention paid to its first use. Participants’ perceived interaction levels with NNS speaker friends and acquaintances greatly outnumbered that of NS.

5.3.2

Coursework and Learning Diaries

5.3.2.1

Student-Generated Themes

All participants researched their experience of verbal and non-verbal intercultural communication through dance-fitness across different sociolinguistic contexts. Within that, they formulated their own research questions focusing on connections between dance-fitness and intercultural communication (10 students) using ELF (8

100

S. A. Houghton

participants), and the effects and role of verbal communication and non-verbal communication in international communication (6 participants). Participant diary codes fell into the inter-related categories of “Communication”, “Language”, “Feelings” and “Other” themes, the first three of which will be presented below.

5.3.2.2

Communication

Firstly, the importance of verbal and non-verbal communication in communication was recognized by S8 and S5, while S9 suggested that non-verbal communication facilitates verbal communication. Secondly, participants sometimes reflected upon both positive and negative aspects of communication. Positive aspects of communication with other students seemed connected to communication with international students using ELF, and feelings when communicating with friends. S5 highlighted frequent diary entries related to linguistically useful communication in English with international students that involved teaching and learning about the English language itself, in terms of its structure and meaning through language and explanation, while S8 focused on the apparently inter-connected roles of simple, easy vocabulary to support communication during Zumba practice. Combined with feelings of happiness and attitudes of openness generated by Zumba, this seemed to create a low-pressure linguistic environment supporting communication between Japanese and international students, on both sides, not only during the Zumba practice itself, but also after the session had finished. By contrast, negative aspects of communication with other students seemed to be connected to the level of difficulty of the dance. S8 claimed that the increased challenge to the brain required by aerobics, and more difficult Zumba routines, seemed to inhibit feelings of happiness and attitudes of openness generated by easier Zumba routines. Thirdly, regarding communication and activities, S8 questioned the teacher’s division of the semi-structured diary into dance-fitness (non-verbal communication) in the sports centre and English as a lingua franca (verbal communication) in the classroom, highlighting the inseparability of the two, because both types of communication actually took place in both locations, and dance-fitness actually incorporated both types, despite the teacher’s claim that dance-fitness was conducted nonverbally. S9 noted the positive effects of dance-fitness on communication, noting not only how both instructor and students expressed their feelings through body language and non-verbal communication while dancing, but also accompanying feelings of happiness. However, echoing the themes of dance difficulty and affect highlighted by S8, S10 contrasted the changing feelings of difficulty, enjoyment and excitement at learning new things that seemed to be accompanied by two key dynamics. Firstly, decreasing levels of difficulty came with increasing familiarity with dance-fitness routines, and secondly, more static feelings of difficulty related to English use seemed to punctuate the diary, without changing from negative to positive during the course. In affective terms, then, there may have been a disconnect between

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

101

learning to dance and learning English (i.e. separability between verbal and nonverbal communication) during the course. Participants’ general expectations about the course may also have played a role.

5.3.2.3

Language

As noted above, language policy shifted during the course depending on context. While ELF was used in the classroom, a bi-lingual English/Japanese policy was used in the gymnasium and a multilingual English/Japanese/Spanish was used in the Ibero-American culture centre. S7 noted the code-switching pattern using ELF, but automatically switched into Japanese when conversing with Japanese classmates ostensibly following the official language policy. However, in addition to the Japanese students, the group included five international students from China, Taiwan, France, Australia and Lithuania, some of whom naturally brought other languages into the group. Reflecting on interaction with the Chinese student who was fluent in both English and Chinese, S5 noted that while English was selected as the lingua franca in week 3 of the course as few others could understand Chinese, Japanese seemed to have established itself as the lingua franca of choice by week 11, illustrating how lingua franca selection may depend on the interlocutor and how students departed from the language policy through free language selection.

5.3.2.4

Feelings

S4 reflected on feelings related to difficulty when communicating verbally with foreign students in English, highlighting the facilitating role of non-verbal communication (gestures) and images (pictures) mentioned earlier. Similarly, S7 expressed feelings of shyness when talking with international students, noting the fortifying role of Zumba, when taught non-verbally, in reducing the hesitation to communicate after Zumba. S4 and S7 expressed feelings of enjoyment through non-verbal communication and Zumba.

5.3.2.5

Japanese Student Conclusions

Reflecting on the relation between dance and intercultural communication, S4 claimed that dance can be a tool for intercultural communication and hoped to use this idea as a teacher in the future. S5 concluded that despite differing levels of language ability in different languages (including but not exclusively ELF), intercultural communication between students from different countries was facilitated by Zumba because of its role as a stimulating dance-fitness activity that opened people’s hearts, reducing communication barriers and hesitation in the process. This was coupled with recognition and increasing openness to the idea that intercultural communication could, and sometimes should, take place in language(s) other than

102

S. A. Houghton

English depending on the interlocutor(s). Further, S5 concluded that the emphasis on non-verbal communication allowed for connections to establish themselves naturally between people when dancing, without the need for verbal communication, especially between students and professional dance instructors who used non-verbal communication with great skill. In general, dance-fitness and intercultural communication were connected by non-verbal and verbal communication. Noting mutually complementary relationships firstly between dance-fitness and intercultural communication through ELF, and secondly between positivity and dance, S6 claimed that non-verbal communication could be used to support verbal communication (e.g. through gestures or facial expressions), and that dance could increase openness and positive attitudes, serving as a valuable communication tool in the process. This view was echoed by S7, S10 and S8, although the latter claimed that it might depend on the kind of dance-fitness, and also noted that over-use or under-use of non-verbal communication might carry their own set of problems. S10 cautioned that although dance-fitness can promote intercultural communication, it might not be directly connected to it because English use during dance-fitness does not necessarily affect it afterwards.

5.3.2.6

International Student Conclusions

Data from three of the international students from Lithuania (S1), Taiwan (S2) and Australia (S3) are presented below. S1 (Lithuania) S1, who was highly fluent at English, highlighted the role of Zumba in connecting students from different countries with the help of both verbal and non-verbal communication related to body language, space and sound, noting improvements in relationships with other students by using more body language while practising Zumba, which seemed to have helped overcome initial feelings of social isolation at the start of the course. Feelings of social exclusion experienced in week 1 attributed to the lack of English language ability and Japanese student shyness eased off around week 7, with relationships developing well between weeks 6 and 11. Notably, the use of Japanese by Japanese students around week 4 still seemed to be causing feelings of social exclusion, which had resulted in attempts by S1 to communicate in Japanese rather than English around week 5, despite the language policy, which in turn also seemed to have eased the situation by week 6. S1 analytically reflected on this language-related social integration process, revealing links between language ability in different languages and their use at different junctures, which culminated in a positive communal dance experience at the end of the course. S1 speculated on why intercultural relations with other students had improved during the course of this class. She noted that they used many types of communication including (1) verbal communication through language in the classroom, not only in Japanese and English, but also in a local Japanese dialect from Shizuoka near Tokyo, (2) non-verbal communication through body language (connected to sound)

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

103

through Zumba in the sports centre when the instructor came. Further, mutually supportive non-verbal communication took place between students during Zumba practice when trying to remember the steps, which also involved the negotiation of physical space. S1 recommended the use of Zumba to promote intercultural communication because it involves the use of various kinds of communication during practices, and the coordination of movement in groups, which requires both verbal and non-verbal communication, although the need for caution was also recognized due to the often culture-specific nature of body language, notably gestures, despite dance being considered a universal language. S2 (Taiwan) Highlighting the joint role of verbal and non-verbal communication in the enhancement of both intercultural communication and dance-fitness Zumba performance, S2 claimed at that everyone had positive feelings at the end of the course. Important themes identified by the S2 included “group”, “team”, “English”, “Japanese”, “learn”, “Zumba”, “talk”, “discussion”, “write” and “practice”. Highlighting the purpose of the groupwork as being to connect Japanese and international students partly through Zumba and partly through talking, dancing and discussion-based intercultural communication using ELF, S2 noted that communication gaps arose that could not be overcome in Japanese due to her lack of Japanese ability. Differences were also noticed in relation to communication-related attitudes between Japanese and Taiwanese people in terms of the willingness to initiate, express and share opinions. And notably, despite the teacher’s language policy, Chinese was also used as a lingua franca, not only when speaking, which was possible because one of the Japanese students could speak basic Chinese, but also by making use of the shared system of Chinese characters (kanji) between Chinese and Japanese, which served as a lingua franca, although most Japanese students could not pronounce the characters that they could read or guess at understanding. Ultimately, S2 recognized that “English”, “Japanese” and “writing” all served as important tools for intercultural communication while enjoying Zumba, and non-verbal communication also played an important role, all of which led to recognition of the point that verbal communication is not the only tool for intercultural communication. S3 (Australia) Although Zumba is primarily taught through non-verbal communication, S3 claimed that it bridged verbal and non-verbal communication because relationship development took place through dancing, laughing, sweating and ELF use, increasing openness and confidence in the process. Further, in relation to ELF, S3 also suggested that people should not be afraid of using English as a communication tool because making oneself understood is all that matters. S3 focused primarily on feelings about verbal communication and non-verbal communication related to Zumba. Regarding verbal communication, she noted firstly that the Japanese fitness instructor’s body language helped her to overcome difficulty in understanding his verbal Japanese instructions (due to her low level of Japanese language ability), and secondly that participation in dance workshops seemed to help Japanese students to overcome their shyness when speaking English, all of which seemed to support relationship development in general. Interest and

104

S. A. Houghton

enjoyment seemed to accompany the use of non-verbal communication through Zumba, partly in response to the Japanese fitness instructor’s positive energy, which released a sense of passion in everyone. Although the level of difficulty seemed to increase from week 5, confidence rose towards the end of the course which culminated in stage performance. In general, she claimed that inter-student relationships seemed to establish themselves over time, which was accompanied by increasing confidence in speaking Japanese and dancing with others. This resulted in friendship development both inside and outside the class as classmates overcame their shyness and developed confidence when speaking English and talking to foreigners. The following point was emphasized: “I learned that English is a tool of communication. You don’t have to speak perfect English as long as people understand you”.

5.3.2.7

Summary

Participants expressed some interest in language-related issues in research question formulation, exploring connections between dance-fitness and intercultural communication using ELF, and the effects and role of verbal communication and non-verbal communication in international communication, with communication, language and feelings emerging as recurrent themes. The importance of both verbal and non-verbal communication in communication, and the potential for non-verbal communication to facilitate verbal communication, was recognized. Dance can thus be considered a tool for intercultural communication. Non-verbal communication allowed for connections to establish themselves naturally between people when dancing, trying to remember the steps, and negotiating physical space, often without the need for verbal communication. The important role of the instructor was recognized. Positive and negative aspects of communication were addressed in relation to Zumba dance-fitness, which created a low-pressure linguistic environment infused with positive feelings, supporting both verbal and non-verbal communication between Japanese and international students, not only during the Zumba practice itself, but also after the session had finished. The importance of using language for the purpose of mutual understanding was recognized. Zumba bridged verbal and non-verbal communication because relationship development took place through dancing, laughing, sweating and ELF use, increasing openness and confidence in the process. Despite differing levels of language ability in different languages (including but not exclusively ELF), intercultural communication between students from different countries was supported by Zumba because of its role as a stimulating dance-fitness activity that opened people’s hearts, reducing communication barriers and hesitation in the process. Non-verbal communication through gestures and images and/or related to Zumba seemed to help some students overcome shyness, feelings of social isolation and exclusion, and Japanese participants’ negative feelings related to difficulty in verbal communication with international students in English, especially after Zumba, after affective filters had dropped. However, more difficult dance routines could have a negative impact

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

105

on communication by inhibiting feelings of happiness and attitudes of openness generated by easier ones. Various kinds of communication were needed during practices while coordinating movement in groups. Culture-specific features of body language, notably gestures, were also recognized. Despite dance being considered a universal language, the over-use or under-use of non-verbal communication in some situations might carry their own set of problems. Although language policy shifted during the course depending on context, and the language policy was followed to some extent, the presence of five international students from China, Taiwan, France, Australia and Lithuania naturally introduced other languages into the group. Sometimes, participants departed from the language policy through free language selection. It was noticed that lingua franca selection may depend on the interlocutor regardless of language policy and intercultural communication could, and sometimes should, take place in language(s) other than English depending on the interlocutor(s). Further, written language may be selected as a lingua franca and prioritized over spoken language.

5.3.3

Post-Course Focus Group Interviews

Students took part in semi-structured post-course focus group interviews based on three guiding questions (Q1–3 below). An overview of data generated by Groups 2 and 4 is presented below. Ten students took part in these two focus group interviews (in two groups of five), which constituted almost half of the whole group, Group 2 (FG1) consisted of five students (all female Japanese), while Group 4 (FG2) consisted of five students (2 male, 3 female; 2 Japanese, 2 Chinese, 1 Lithuanian). Q1: Do you want to speak English like NS and/or NNS of English or not, and why? General views are presented in Table 5.4 below, where it can be seen that four participants (S4, S7, S9, S20) wanted to speak like NS, while two (S11, S17) did not, and three others (S1, S13, S15) decided on a case by case basis. However, when asked to reflect specifically on their experience of using English during the course in FG1, S15 echoed S4’s view that while pronunciation and accent were important, it was not necessary for her to speak fluently as long as she was understood. S21 noted that exchange students probably do not expect Japanese students to speak like NS anyway, and that fluent language was not important in this intercultural communication course, while S9 claimed that she had learned to convey thoughts and feelings using non-verbal communication (facial expressions, gestures, eye contact) even if she could not speak English well. In FGU 2, S20 echoed S7’s view that while speaking like a NS was not important, and he did not care about it, it was important to express feelings, noting the role of language as a communication tool. S1, S11 and S17 all agreed that it was not necessary to speak like a NS as long as people understand each other. S1 from Lithuania noted that NS sometimes use difficult language, making it hard for others to understand, highlighting the importance of making yourself understood using simpler words. In this class, it was important for

106

S. A. Houghton

Table 5.4 Participant comments (Q1)*

Group FG1

Code S4

Wants to speak like NS? Yes

S9

S15

Case by case

S13

FG2

S1 (Lithuania)

S11 (China)

No

S17 (China) S7 (China)

S20

Yes

Comments But she also wanted people to express their own culture through English Because she liked communicating with people and to convey her thoughts and feelings smoothly like a NS considering English a global language Her desire was not so strong. If others assume that she is very fluent at English, they might speak fast and confuse her. She wanted them to speak slowly instead She wanted to speak like a NS when home-staying in the USA due to shock that her host family could not understand her But when asked for directions in Kyoto, Japan, she spoke like a NNS to avoid being asked details about Japan or sightseeing places in the local area It depends on the kind of NS and their ability When learning a language, the main goal is to communicate so if you can do that, it does not matter. However, in her case, she could already communicate, so she wanted to improve her English at a higher level She would rather speak like a well-educated NNS that a NS who lacks colourful vocabulary and grammar, who may even speak terrible English Unnecessary to speak like a NS. She recognized her own accent and considered it acceptable to speak like a NNS, although she cannot understand them sometimes, which may cause problems. She may need time to understand them, and their grammar may differ from hers, but the most important thing when using English is to communicate with foreigners Unnecessary because language is a tool of communication for mutual understanding. Keeping one’s accent, which expresses identity, is important She wanted to speak English like a NS, although it was unnecessary. Her role models came from mostly American movies and music. At this university, there were teachers from Canada and Australia, so she often heard their English Because he wanted to become an English teacher, he did not want to teach the wrong pronunciation, so he needed correct pronunciation

*Participants were Japanese unless otherwise stated

her to speak like a NS by using simpler words and simple sentences to equalize the English language level of the group members. Q2: Do you want to speak English with native-speakers and/or non-nativespeakers of English or not, and why?

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

107

General views are presented in Table 5.5 below, where it can be seen that all participants wanted to speak English with NS, while only 4 participants (S15, S13, S21, S1) also wanted to speak with NS (for the reasons italicized). By way of example, S20 wanted to speak English with NS because he thought it was the best way to learn English, and he could also get new ideas from them, so he wanted to talk to them. Like S7, he wanted to speak English with NS to develop speaking skills, but he wanted to communicate with both NS and NNS to learn about their cultures, ways of thinking and feeling, and also their pronunciation, which he thought might vary by country. Q3: Do you want to learn English from NS and/or NNS English teachers, and why? General views are presented in Table 5.6 below, where it can be seen that while all participants wanted to learn English from NS, four participants (S4, S7, S15, S17) also wanted to learn English from NNS (for the reasons italicized). By way of example, S11 agreed with S17 that it was important to learn from both NS and NNS to develop speaking skills and grammar, while S8 preferred having two teachers, one NS and one NNS, suggesting that while younger English learners need NNS who speak their own language so they can explain and give examples, students in higher grades need NS teachers to help them to apply knowledge in practice to learn ways of communicating that sound more “natural”, and involve skills development. The interviewer noticed Table 5.5 Participant comments (Q2)a

Group FG1

Code S15 S4 S13 S21

FG2

S17 (China) S11 (China) S1 (Lithuania)

a

Wants to speak with NS? Yes

Comments To learn new English expressions And with NNS to improve her English skill To learn many things. Although she had studied English since junior high school, she had not learned it well Both NS and NNS to develop her English skills, and to learn about their cultures to broaden her view Both NS and NNS because they each had their strengths and weaknesses Learn interesting things from both Because of their good pronunciation and language learning opportunities they generated (language structures/use/communication style) To learn how to use English because NNS just learn from school textbooks although grammar often differs in real life Interest in different NS accents from around the world, especially Irish To learn naturally spoken language rather than textbook English Also with NNS, regardless of their language skill, to learn new words from other cultures

Participants were Japanese unless otherwise stated

108

S. A. Houghton

Table 5.6 Participant comments (Q3)a Group FG1

Code S15

Wants to learn from NS? Yes

S4

S9

FG2

S17 (China)

S20 S7 (China) a

Comments Because they speak English in everyday life in contrast to NNS for whom English is their second or third language NNS teachers who can speak fluently are acceptable, but she wants to learn perfect English To learn about their language/culture even if she cannot understand their English NNS teachers are acceptable because they can teach in ways that are easier to understand To learn English: Try hard, listen, take interest in NS language use Japanese teachers did not motivate her to study From both NS and NNS. Each has advantages and disadvantages NS have good pronunciation/English is their mother language. They can explain more clearly/speak English not based on textbooks, although they do not focus on grammar as much as NNS Because they tended to have better pronunciation than NNS Keep a balance. High school teachers in Japan are NNS, and often focus on grammar

Participants were Japanese unless otherwise stated

that interviewees were assuming that NNS spoke the same language as them, and having confirmed this assumption, pointed out that sometimes NNS teachers might be from different cultures and may not speak their own language (Japanese). S11 rejected the idea of having non-Japanese NNS teachers due to concern at not being able to understand their accent (e.g. from India). S20 had learned English almost exclusively from NS teachers, and sometimes had trouble learning from NNS because it was difficult to hear and understand their English. S7 claimed that students who go abroad need to develop communication skills, but it would not be a problem for them if they lived in Japan because they would mostly use Japanese and not have to use English in everyday life.

5.4

Discussion

This chapter presented a course of learning based on Houghton’s (2018) guidelines (see Table 5.1, right column), designed and implemented with a group of pre-service English teachers at a university in Japan. Generally, it explored participants’ experience of verbal and non-verbal intercultural communication through dance-fitness across languages and contexts with reference to the role of the native-speaker in intercultural communication. Guiding learning objectives were presented in

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

109

Table 5.1 (right column) and a syllabus overview was presented in Table 5.2. Guiding the study was the following research question: To what extent and in what ways could native-speakerism be overcome within this framework? During the course, the importance of both verbal and non-verbal communication in communication, and the potential for non-verbal communication to facilitate verbal communication, was recognized. It was also revealed that dance can be tool for intercultural communication. In the study, non-verbal communication allowed for connections to establish themselves without teacher intervention between people when dancing, trying to remember the steps, and negotiating physical space, often without the need for verbal communication. The important role of the instructor was also recognized. Positive and negative aspects of communication were addressed in relation to Zumba dance-fitness, which created a low-pressure linguistic environment infused with positive feelings, supporting both verbal and non-verbal communication between Japanese and international students, not only during the Zumba practice itself, but also after the session had finished. The importance of using language for the purpose of mutual understanding was recognized. To some extent, then, the target language constituted a vehicle for mutual exchange between people through intercultural communication characterized by emergent grammar and emergent language norms. Zumba acted as a bridge between verbal and non-verbal communication because relationship development took place through dancing, laughing, sweating and ELF use, increasing openness and confidence in the process. Despite differing levels of language ability in different languages (including but not exclusively ELF), intercultural communication between students from different countries was facilitated by Zumba because of its role as a stimulating dance-fitness activity that opened people’s hearts, reducing communication barriers and hesitation in the process. Nonverbal communication through gestures and images and/or related to Zumba seemed to help some students overcome shyness, feelings of social isolation and exclusion, and Japanese participants’ negative feelings related to difficulty in verbal communication with international students in English, especially after Zumba, after affective filters had dropped. However, more difficult dance routines could have a negative impact on communication by inhibiting feelings of happiness and attitudes of openness generated by easier ones. Various kinds of communication were needed during practices while coordinating movement in groups. Culture-specific features of body language, notably gestures, were also recognized. Despite dance being considered a universal language, over-use or under-use of non-verbal communication in some situations might carry their own set of problems. Although language policy shifted during the course depending on context and purpose, and the language policy was followed to some extent, the presence of five international students from China, Taiwan, France, Australia and Lithuania naturally introduced other languages into the group. Sometimes, participants departed from the language policy through free language selection. It was noticed that lingua franca selection may depend on the interlocutor regardless of language policy and intercultural communication could, and sometimes should, take place in language (s) other than English depending on the interlocutor(s). Further, this study suggested

110

S. A. Houghton

that written language may be selected as a lingua franca and prioritized over spoken language, which was based on Chinese characters used by both Japanese and Chinese participants in this study. To some extent, then, participants engaged in communication flexibility, shuttling between communities, repertoire building, fluency, open-ended development, contextual adaptation, self-expression, mutual intelligibility, language and cultural awareness, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, criticality, intercultural competence, communication and negotiation skills/strategies and active citizenship. Overall, the course was broadly deemed to have met its objectives following guidelines laid out in Table 5.1 (right column), but considering data generated by follow-up interviews, was this enough to overcome native-speakerism? PCQ data had suggested comparable estimated knowledge levels about NS and NNS in participants. Their dominant conceptual reference point when defining the groups seemed to relate to speaker use of English as a mother tongue/first language/native language, with some attention paid to its first use. This suggested that participants were adhering to the native-speaker model in their language learning. By the end of the course, how far had they seemed to move towards accepting non-nativeness, variety, appropriation, hybridity, language variety, plurilingualism, and diverse models of language and culture (see Table 5.1, right column)? Such broad aims seemed justifiable considering questionnaire data that suggested that the participants’ own perceived interaction levels with NNS speaker friends and acquaintances greatly outnumbered that of NS friends and acquaintances. Generally, while some participants still wanted to speak like NS by the end of the course, others did not, and yet others decided on a case by case basis. However, upon further reflection, recognition of the importance of mutual understanding over pronunciation and accent was evident, as was a lack of real need to speak like NS under actual social conditions. The ability to convey thoughts and feelings using non-verbal communication seemed to have increased, along with recognition of the role of language as a communication tool. However, all participants still wanted to speak English with NS at the end of the course, while only 4 participants also wanted to speak with NNS. Similarly, all participants still wanted to learn English from NS at the end of the course, and only four participants also wanted to learn English from NNS. Overall, then, it seemed that despite the fact that the course was broadly deemed to have met its own objectives, some post-course dependence on the NS model was still found among pre-service English teachers. This study highlights gaps between teacher and student priorities in this regard, so how should this be interpreted? Although the course seemed to provide students with wide-ranging cultural experience and alternative ways of being that incorporated both verbal and nonverbal communication in various cultural contexts, which is not without its merits, it seemed insufficient in helping participants to overcome native-speakerism in itself. This might be addressed in future studies by refining the reflective diary structure and/or adjusting course content. Further, it suggests that visions of what constitutes “an English teacher” may also be brought into question in general terms as well as in relation to perceived native-speakerhood, which hints at the importance of addressing such issues at higher levels of teacher training that takes into

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

111

Table 5.7 Shifts needed in teacher attributes (Houghton, 2018) 1

Skills/competences

2

Knowledge

3

Background (practical knowledge/experience)

4

Teacher tendencies (attitudes)

Traditional language proficiency should be complemented with sociolinguistic sensitivity, and a wide-ranging form of (intercultural, strategic, sociolinguistic and meta-cultural) competence Communication skills to negotiate different grammars in newer varieties of English The ability to deconstruct traditional theories and practices, and to overcome linguistic imperialism Multidialectal and multilingual competence to handle unfamiliar situations, co-construct shared culture, negotiate/ mediate between cultures Diversity in language and communication, language change/ language variety including ELF, world Englishes, hybrid Englishes, standard English Multi-disciplinary teacher knowledge, new viewpoints on language education, including critical pedagogy, as well as traditional and outdated framework and practices so that the history of ideas can be seen Intercultural studies/citizenship education/practice-based theories of communication, teaching, and identities in social interaction/educational technologies/linguistic education/linguistic imperialism Teachers should have lived, studied and/or travelled abroad (for over 6 months?), and have experienced membership of a local community during that time that gave them first-hand experience of language in use that enabled them to see how language functions in society and to know what it is like to communicate with speakers from different linguistic backgrounds. This can be considered a form of on-site training in specific cultures that involves personal experience as an outsider Teachers should cast themselves as learners engaging in lifelong learning as a form of professional development that leads to the ongoing development of intercultural awareness and cultural sensitivity Engagement with global perspectives and local diversity develop a battery of supporting attitudes that lead them to respect language norm development through openness to different varieties of English, respecting and acknowledging their legitimacy Willingness to apply multidialectal and multilingual competences in teaching through a translingual mindset and the constant deconstruction of existing practices

consideration the ways in which English education fits within the broader realm of education in Japan. Indeed, Houghton (2018) suggested that shifts towards a postnative-speakerist framework were needed not only in relation to teacher activities, but also in relation to teacher attributes as shown in Table 5.7 below.

112

5.5

S. A. Houghton

Conclusion

Overall, although pedagogical approaches may be developed to support general shifts in language education that will ultimately allow the zombie NS and NNS categories to fall into disuse, more explicit efforts to overcome native-speakerism should perhaps be located primarily at teacher training levels, addressing not only teacher activities but also teacher attributes. Further, ways need to be sought that engage learners as active agents in the broader project of ideology critique and human emancipation in relation to native-speakerism as well as other social issues. Problematic social issues related to native-speakerism were not placed at the heart of this study taking a more goal-oriented view in line with interviewees’ recommendations for post-native-speakerist course design. However, the concepts of nativespeaker, non-native-speaker and native-speakerism may need to be included and unpacked more explicitly at the levels of both syllabus and research methods design. The importance of the relative balance between problem-oriented and goal-oriented views of native-speakerism in course design and implementation was brought to the fore in this study and presents itself as an issue for further consideration in future research.

References Bailly, S., Devitt, S., Gremmo, M., Heyworth, F., Hopkins, A., Jones, B., et al. (n.d.). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment: A guide for users. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Beck, U. (2001). Zombie categories: Interview with Ulrich Beck. In U. Beck & E. Beck-Gernsheim (Eds.), Individualization: Institutionalised individualization and its social and political consequences (pp. 202–212). London: Sage. Borland, S., & Smyth, S. (2015). Zumba and aerobics classes on NHS to prevent diabetes: Obese patients most at risk of the illness will also be taught how to poach and boil food. The Daily Mail. Retrieved July 31, 2019, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2990632/ Zumba-aerobics-classes-NHS-prevent-diabetes-Obese-patients-risk-illness-taught-poach-boilfood.html Brendscheidt gen, J. D. (2013). “A mover La Colita”: Zumba dance-fitness in Mexico and beyond. In E. Maside Casanova & A. Jafar (Eds.), Bodies without borders (pp. 143–161). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Byram, M., & Zarate, G. (1996). Defining and assessing intercultural competence: Some principles and proposals for the European context. Language Teaching, 29(4), 239–243. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of references for languages. Strasbourg: Author. Diu, N. (2013). Why Britain is going crazy for Zumba. The Telegraph. Retrieved July 31, 2019, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/9843930/Why-Britain-is-going-crazy-forZumba.html Houghton, S. A. (2015). Dance, dance-fitness and intercultural language education: Exploring connections between dance and intercultural communication using English as a lingua franca

5 Overcoming Native-Speakerism Through Post-Native-Speakerist Pedagogy: Gaps. . .

113

across different socio-linguistic contexts. In Collaborative Conference on Language, Literature & Linguistics (CC3L 2015), Beijing, China, 18–21 September 2015. Houghton, S. A. (2018). The post-native-speakerist shift. In S. A. Houghton, D. J. Rivers, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions (pp. 159–249). New York: Routledge. Houghton, S. A., Rivers, D. J., & Hashimoto, K. (2018). Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions. London: Routledge. Jordan, M. (2015). ZumbaForHealth.ComBlog by Melanie Jordan: Why do many Zumba instructors cue non-verbally? Zumba for Health. Retrieved July 31, 2019, from http://www. zumbaforhealth.com/2011/04/ask-the-zumba-instructor-why-do-many-zumba-instructors-cuenon-verbally.html Klein, S. (2012). Zumba: What to expect at your first class. The Huffington Post. Retrieved July 31, 2019, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/first-zumba-class_n_1418895.html Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lloyd, J. (2011, October 27). Zumba brings the dance party into the health club. USA Today. Retrieved July 31, 2019, from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/wellness/fitnessfood/exercise/story/2011-10-27/Zumba-brings-the-dance-party-into-the-health-club/50940786/1 Mau, L. W. (2015). An invitation to those making the world a better place through dance. Retrieved July 31, 2019, from https://dancetherapy.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/an-invitation-to-thosemaking-the-world-a-better-place-through-dance/ Schneider, B. (2014). Salsa, language and transnationalism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Woods, R. B. (2011). Social issues in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage Publications. Zumba Fitness, LLC. (2015). Zumba Fitness: About. Retrieved July 31, 2019, from https://www. zumba.com/en-US/about

Part II

The ‘Undoing’ of Native-Speakerism

Chapter 6

Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices and Symbols Within a Post-Native-Speakerist Framework Stephanie Ann Houghton

Abstract How might (inter)national cultural practices and symbols be (de)constructed within a post-native-speakerist framework? This question will be explored in relation to Menburyu and the shaguma, which are interconnected cultural symbols and practices found in Saga Prefecture where the author works. To that end, this chapter is split into two main parts prior to discussion and conclusion. Firstly, the relationship between post-native-speakerism and social constructivism is explored with reference to socialization and identity development, including cognitive, moral and intercultural development. Secondly, the (de)construction of (inter)national cultural practices and symbols is exemplified by reporting on an exhibition entitled Menburyu: Past, Present and Future developed within Houghton’s Furyu Educational Program (FEP). The report consists of reflective teacher narrative and commentary on selected exhibition panels related to Menburyu and the shaguma. Insofar as personal and social memory are linked, the preservation and revitalization of both can be pursued through the (de)construction of (inter)national symbols within citizenship education in FLE in ways that can support human brain health and cultural development through heritage management, intercultural dialogue, technology, health and fitness, art generation and social business. Taking a holistic approach to social development, practical ways of (de)constructing (inter)national cultural practices and symbols are suggested and exemplified in relation to overarching UN Social Development Goals (SDGs).

S. A. Houghton (*) Faculty of Art and Regional Design, Saga University, Saga, Japan © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_6

117

118

6.1 6.1.1

S. A. Houghton

Background to the Study Post-Native-Speakerism and Social Constructivism

Building on the body of work exploring widespread exclusionary attitudes and practices rooted in native-speakerist forms of prejudice in Japan presented in Houghton and Rivers (2013), Houghton, Rivers and Hashimoto received a grant1 for a 3-year project entitled ‘Native-speakerism and beyond’ which resulted in the publication of two volumes in (Houghton, Rivers, & Hashimoto, 2018; Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018) that attempted to look beyond native-speakerism by reviewing it in terms of current explorations, dynamics, shifts and future visions. The italicization of the word current by the author here highlights a present-oriented time reference notable for the purposes of this chapter. Houghton et al. (2018) creatively delineated emerging concepts forming part of potential post-native-speakerism elucidated through interviews from experts in the field of intercultural communicative competence (ICC), English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and World Englishes (WE), all of which seemed to reject the native-speaker as the model for foreign language learners. The resulting overarching concept of postnative-speakerism was categorized into (1) a set of shifts needed in the educational activities of the foreign language teacher (see Appendix 1) and (2) a set of desirable characteristics of the foreign language teacher (see Appendix 2). In a subsequent classroom research project (see Chap. 4, this volume), Houghton directly applied the suggested shifts needed in the educational activities of the foreign language teacher (see Appendix 1). However, although post-nativespeakerist attitudes were displayed by some European students, and despite the fact that the course had broadly met its own aims, the outcome was somewhat disappointing as some Japanese pre-service English teachers who still seemed to display clear native-speakerist attitudes at the end of the course. This study highlighted the resilience of native-speakerism Japanese pre-service English teachers and the need for some fresh views. To that end, this chapter places the spotlight on (inter)national cultural symbols and cultural practices considering how they might be handled within a post-nativespeakerist framework using Menburyu and the shaguma as examples from Saga Prefecture where the author works. Menburyu is an ancient form of mask dance found in the former Hizen Province in Northern Kyushu, in modern-day Saga and Nagasaki. Otonashi Menburyu and Hogaura Menburyu were designated as important intangible folk culture assets of Saga Prefecture on 24 March 1960 and 11 March 1977, respectively. Representative photographs (taken by Stephanie Ann Houghton in Kashima, Saga, Japan) are presented in Figs. 6.1 and 6.2. The Japanese term ‘menburyu’ can roughly be translated into English as ‘drifting in the breeze’ ( furyu) wearing ‘a mask’ (men), while the Japanese term shaguma is 1 Kakenhi Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (24520627) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (2012–2015).

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

119

Fig. 6.1 An Otonashi Menburyu performer

Fig. 6.2 A Hogaura Menburyu performer

the name of the headdresses shown in the two photographs, which differ in style. Menburyu has legendary character and although its true origins seem shrouded in mystery, it is commonly said locally to originate in the Battle of Tadenawate 1530, harvest ritual and/or a legend about demons and gods. Hogaura Menburyu was

120

S. A. Houghton

profiled on the ANA Global Channel (n.d.). Also see Houghton’s FURYU homepage2 and FURYU Facebook page3 for further background and images.

6.1.2

Post-Native-Speakerism as Social (De)Construction

Rivers (2018) recommends comprehensive language deconstruction to undermine the concept of native-speakerism itself by revealing its fundamental illegitimacy. This approach to language analysis was also taken by Hashimoto (2013) through the application of critical discourse analysis. But language construction also deserves consideration, partly in relation to the construction of language code itself. Indeed, the initial coinages of the terms ‘native-speakerism’ and ‘post-native-speakerism’ can be considered creative acts of social constructivism. Having reviewed Holliday’s (2006) definition of the term native-speakerism, Houghton and Rivers (2013) accepted, but expanded it, to reflect their shared understanding of it, which differed somewhat from Holliday’s. There thus remains a tension between them, despite overlapping concerns. This highlights the inconstancy of language; how language moves in flux as we attempt to understand and shape the world around us, sometimes deploying it purposefully. Language (de)construction is thus important research activity with personal and social transformative potential. The TEFLology Podcast team (see Turner, Lowe, & Schaefer, 2019; Chap. 11, this volume) suggest that despite the recent burgeoning academic literature on native-speakerism, there has been little change on the ground. However, in her plenary speech at the PanSIG Conference in Kobe, Japan in 2019 (also see Chap. 11, this volume), Houghton reflected on difficulties in responding to perceived racial discrimination related to ascribed native-speaker status in the year 2000, before the term ‘native-speakerism’ had even been coined. Although serious problems remain, as recognized by the contributors to this edited volume, perceptible change has actually happened at various levels since the word ‘native-speakerism’ was coined: at personal levels (as teacher-researchers work through their own predicaments while attempting to help others through academic writing in volumes such as this one), at institutional levels (as institutions such as BAAL develop, implement and enforce anti-native-speakerist policies) and beyond (as international academic communities have formed to tackle native-speakerism). Further, and perhaps more importantly, the initial coinage of the nativespeakerism and post-native-speakerism highlights how problems in the world may exist in the absence of language attached to relevant social phenomena. In other words, social problems can exist even if they do not have a name. In such cases, new concepts and language code may be generated creatively as people start to recognize and discuss shared problems with a view to solving them, holding language lightly

2 3

https://stephhoughton.wixsite.com/mysite-1. https://www.facebook.com/StephanieAnnHoughton/.

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

121

and creatively as the processes of active social (de)construction unfold. To enhance such constructive processes at more basic levels, then, it is worth reviewing some psychological underpinnings of active social (de)construction in relation to socialization. The analysis thus goes beyond the limits of discourse to include broader processes, which also involve material and discursive realities that include the analysis and naming of local realities within constantly evolving sets of broader social and cultural phenomena. See Houghton (2012) for a general outline of socialization in relation to intercultural language education.

6.1.3

Social Constructivism and Socialization

According to the International Sociological Association (n.d.), Berger and Luckman’s (1966) book on social constructivism, which originated as an attempt to grasp the nature of reality, was the fifth-most important sociological book of the twentieth century. Rooted in sociology, it explores the nature and creation of knowledge, and its acquisition of social significance, viewing society in terms of both subjective and objective reality (Andrews, 2012). It presents one useful lens through which the world may be viewed by suggesting that objective reality emerges through human interaction with the social world, giving rise to habit. As repeated actions become easily replicable patterns, routines form and generate a body of institutionalized knowledge which on the one hand may seem objective to future generations, but on the other hand releases people to become innovative, rather than starting everything anew. This empowers people (including students engaged in social interaction within educational contexts) to both review and generate that objective reality through group-generated exhibition work through discourse, as described in this chapter, in ways that can potentially release individuals from reified views of objective reality in the process, as discrepancies become apparent through dialogue. In this dual sense, human beings are active social agents who work with established objective reality and its seemingly fixed accompanying language-related knowledge while also working more subjectively to innovate creatively without its conceptual and linguistic constraints. However, change may be slow and perhaps only perceptible from one generation to the next. Human beings may need to look beyond their own lifetimes to envisage the long-term impact of their activity on this earth; to imagine what their future legacy might be. However, one’s legacy may only be perceived by future onlookers by perusing what was left behind; messages committed in durable forms that continue to be communicated sometimes through millennia. This may take place through writing (e.g. on paper) or in pre-writing forms of social media such as stone, tree bark or animal products (e.g. bone, skin or hair). In order to learn and benefit from human experience, historical views involving flexible language use are needed while constructing the future as we engage in social (de)construction with transformative goals. This point will be returned to later.

122

S. A. Houghton

While society contains institutions, social classes, resources and constraints of all kinds, all of which are emergent products of historical contingencies, and many of which are beyond the immediate reach of humans merely undergoing socialization at home and school, society is experienced as subjective reality achieved by individuals through primary, and to a lesser extent, secondary socialization in the home and early schooling. Geertz’s (1973) notion of culture as ‘web of significance’ is relevant here. Within this view, humans are cultural animals embedded in a complex network of significance of their own making, which mainly serves to maintain the ongoing production and sharing of meaning. Doyé (1992) breaks the concept of socialization down into cognitive, moral and behavioural parts, notably drawing upon the work of Piaget and Kohlberg on cognitive and moral development. See Crain (2000) for an overview. The brain-related need to understand socialization and social (de)construction in terms of cognitive and moral development, identity formation and basic dialogic process is highlighted here (with reference to the phrase ‘the role of the yak in the evolution of Japanese culture’). On cognitive development, Piaget suggested that during information processing, new information about the world can either be assimilated into existing conceptual frameworks, or the frameworks themselves may be modified to accommodate inconsistent information. The continuous processes of assimilation and accommodation can produce both adaptive change and disequilibration, both of which can trigger various readjustment mechanisms (such as selection, categorization and combination) as individuals strive to resolve cognitive conflict. For example, the phrase ‘the role of the yak in the evolution of Japanese culture’ may confuse and cause cognitive conflict in people who have not considered any possible connections between yaks and Japanese culture before, as their stereotypes of both ‘yaks’ and ‘Japan’ are simultaneously broken as the phrase ‘the role of the yak in the evolution of Japanese culture’ first enters their cognitive system. (For an overview of stereotypes research in relation to intercultural language education, see Houghton, Furumura, Lebedko, & Song, 2013.) This cognitive developmental view also characterizes Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. And within this view, dialogue and dissonance are considered central drivers of change. For example, the integration of the phrase ‘the role of the yak in the evolution of Japanese culture’ into a cognitive system may later lead to intercultural dialogue between Japanese and Tibetan people from the Tibetan plateau stimulating new forms of social constructivism with great personal and social transformative potential in the process. On moral development, Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, which were based upon Piaget’s work, evolved into a Neo-Kohlbergian approach in the 1990s through the work of Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and Thoma (1999). They viewed the development of moral reasoning in terms of the gradual replacement of more primitive forms of thinking by more complex moral schemata residing in long-term memory, which develop through the recognition of similarities and recurrences in socio-moral experience. In this process:

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

123

• child-like egocentric perspectives rooted in personal interest schema, within which individual views are limited to personal stakes in a dilemma and those of the people with whom they are close related, lack any overarching, guiding concept of an organized society. • Adolescent viewpoints rooted in maintaining norms schema may then be characterized by perceived needs for a society-wide system of cooperation, laws and social norms, as well as duty-based, authoritarian orientations. • These may (or may not) later give rise to more flexible thinking and the use of multiple mental frameworks rooted in post-conventional schema (the most complex of the three schematic types), which can be applied in the construction of a common morality based on community framework of shared ideals. Following this thread, academic research into ‘the role of the yak in the evolution of Japanese culture’ may yield hitherto unnoticed historical connections between the yak and Japan that long pre-date the sixteenth century unification of Japan by Shogun Toyotomi Hideyoshi (Kuwata, 2019) after the Warring States Period. This approach is relevant to native-speakerism research insofar as ‘the nation’, as with any concept, is constructed and can be critically deconstructed. The Socratic Method (see Crain, 2000), which is partly based upon the identification and resolution of contradiction, may, for example, be used to challenge stereotypes about yaks, Japan, and the ongoing relationships between people from the relevant geographical locations across time and space in ways that challenge the concept of the ‘nation’ itself (e.g. ‘Japan’, ‘Tibet’ and ‘China’). On social psychology, Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971; Tajfel, 1982) illuminated the role played by identity dynamics in terms of personal and social identity (e.g. national identity), which form the self-concept, or the conceptualization of the self. The social categorization of people into distinct groups can lead to discrimination as the in-group (e.g. Nation X) is favoured over the out-group (e.g. Nation Y), the drive for which is psychologically rooted in a basic human need for self-esteem. Cultural influences may also be influential, particularly with regard to the relative emphasis placed on the group or the individual within self-concept, or the conceptualization of the self, as illustrated in Figs. 6.3 and 6.4.

Group

Self-concept

Sub-concept

Sub-concept

Sub-concept

Fig. 6.3 Construction of the self: identity and group affiliation (with group emphasis) (Houghton, 2012)

124

S. A. Houghton

Group

Self-concept

Sub-concept

Sub-concept

Sub-concept

Fig. 6.4 Construction of the self: identity and group affiliation (with individual emphasis) (Houghton, 2012)

To illustrate, the introduction of the phrase ‘the role of the yak in the evolution of Japanese culture’ into a cognitive system with group emphasis (see Fig. 6.3) may lead to a view of the yak more linked to the concept of the nation-state, while its introduction into a cognitive system with individual emphasis (see Fig. 6.4) may lead to a view of the yak more linked to a diversity-oriented concept of individual intercultural relations within the self-concept of the person concerned, which highlights the important role of intercultural education when handling identity-expressive cultural symbols in relation to native-speakerism, and national identity within that. Within a post-native-speakerist educational approach, this will be linked to overarching social development goals, as we shall see. Reflexivity upon the social, contextual aspects of identity construction through cognitive processes is of value in this regard.

6.1.4

Social Constructivism and Intercultural Education

Transformative social constructivism through FLE characterizes many educational frameworks for teaching and learning, including the Delors Report (1996), Byram’s (1997) ICC model and the CEFR (2001), as outlined in Tables 6.1 and 6.2. However, the concept of citizenship education, with its focus on social development, is central among them. Citizenship education characterizes the Byram’s (1997) concept of ‘savoir s’engager: Critical cultural awareness /political education’, and the dual notion of personal/social transformation in Houghton’s (2012) Intercultural Dialogue Model, which sequences foreign language learning activities through the phases of structured self-reflection and information gathering about the interlocutor, prior to systematic critical analysis and evaluation of self and other, all of which culminates in purposeful personal and social transformation, with reference to clear standards such as clearly stated social development goals. However, such frameworks are conceptualized in generic terms and require practitioner application in the real world. Byram et al.’s (2016) concept of intercultural citizenship, which builds upon Barnett’s (1997) abstract theoretical framework, is just one example. Actual applications are not always self-evident,

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

125

Table 6.1 Guiding educational frameworks for teaching and learning

The Delors report (1996) 1. Learning to know: Learning how to learn 2. Learning to do: Skills training linked to personal competence 3. Learning to live together: Peace-oriented education 4. Learning to be: Fulfilment of each and every human being in all their capacities

Byram’s (1997) model 1. Savoir: Knowledge 2. Savoir apprendre/ faire: Skills of discovery and interaction 3. Savoir être: Attitudes 4. Savoir comprendre: Skills of interpreting and relating 5. Savoir s’engager: Critical cultural awareness/political education

The Common European Framework of References for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) 1. Section 5.1.1: Savoir: Declarative knowledge 2. Section 5.1.2: Savoir-faire: Skills and know-how 3. Section 5.1.3: Savoir être: Existential competence 4. Section 5.1.4: Savoir apprendre: Ability to learn

Table 6.2 The sustainable development goals (SDGs) (United Nations, n.d.) Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The 17 goals No poverty Zero hunger Good health and well-being Quality education Gender equality Clean water and sanitation Affordable and clean energy Decent work and economic growth

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Reducing inequality Sustainable cities and communities Responsible consumption and production Climate action Life below water Life on land Peace, justice, and strong institutions Partnerships for the goals

and practical connections to the real world outside the classroom can be elusive. UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, n.d.), however, provide an alternative but complementary approach (see Table 6.2). Consisting of 17 social transformation goals, the SDGs encourage nations to promote prosperity while protecting the planet, by linking poverty reduction to strategies that build economic growth and address social needs such as education, health, social protection, job opportunities, climate change and environmental protection. How might the phrase ‘the role of the yak in the evolution of Japanese culture’ be incorporated into the SDGs cognitive framework? This very thought may confuse and cause cognitive conflict in people who have not considered any possible connections between yaks and Japanese culture before, but by way of example, it may initially be categorized within Item 15 ‘Life on Land’ before any further meaningful connections (such as the conservation of wild yaks) are made.

126

S. A. Houghton

6.1.5

The FURYU Educational Program (FEP)

6.1.5.1

Overview

The SDGs (see Table 6.2) provide a suitable overarching referential and guiding framework for Houghton’s (2018) FURYU Educational Program (FEP) (see Fig. 6.5), notably through Item 3: ‘Good Health and Well-Being’ (through Alzheimer’s Disease Prevention) and Item 4 ‘Quality Education’. These are linked to heritage management, intercultural dialogue (within a post-native-speakerist framework), health/fitness, technology, art generation and social business in Houghton’s FEP. For more information about Alzheimer’s Disease Prevention, useful starting points include firstly, The Wicking Dementia Research and Education Centre at the University of Tasmania in Australia, which offers free online MOOCs to promote public awareness about understanding and preventing dementia,4 and secondly, the Healthy Linguistic Diet5 project, which specifically links Alzheimer’s Disease Prevention with foreign language learning. Heritage management (FEP: Aim 1) provides the entry point into the model, for which the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM, n.d.) provides a suitable reference point. Initially established by UNESCO but independent from it, ICCROM is an intergovernmental organization that encourages its Member States to promote the conservation of all forms of cultural heritage, in every region of the world. It operates in the spirit of the

Fig. 6.5 Aims of Houghton’s (2018) FURYU Educational Program (FEP)

Aim 1: Heritage Management Aim 2: Intercultural Dialogue

Aim 6: Social Business Central Aim: Alzheimer’s Disease Prevention

Aim 3: Health/ Fitness

Aim 5: Art Generation Aim 4: Technology

4 5

https://www.utas.edu.au/wicking/understanding-dementia. http://healthylinguisticdiet.com/.

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

127

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO, 2001), within which ‘[r]espect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and cooperation, in a climate of mutual trust and understanding are [considered to be] among the best guarantees of international peace and security’. Intercultural dialogue (FEP: Aim 2) (italicized by the author in the previous sentence) is a key concept in intercultural communication (see Houghton, 2012). The dynamic nature of intercultural communication and identity characterizing dialogue are highlighted by Stenou (2005) and Kozakai (2005). As intercultural communication and identity are viewed transformatively and dialogically, tension between the tendencies towards cultural (and linguistic) reification and dynamism emerge, but flexible handling and cultural sensitivity are needed. “Dialogos” is a Greek word widely mistranslated and wrongly understood because of a confusion between “dyo” et “dia”. It does not mean a conversation between two people or two groups but an acceptance, by two participants or more, that they will compare and contrast their respective arguments to the very end. Dialogue is accordingly a perilous exercise, for it implies a risk that either participant may find his or her argument transformed, and thus their very identity put to the test. The prefix “dia” is equivalent to the Latin “trans” connoting a considerable shift in space, time, substance and thought (Stenou, 2005, p. 125). Imagine a small wooden boat, which every morning we drag down to the sea to go fishing. As the years go by, there is wear and tear on the boat: it gets damaged now and then, pounded against rocks; so from time to time we have to replace the damaged bits with new ones. Sooner or later, all the material will have been replaced and no part of the original boat remains. Now, a crucial question will be asked, is it the same boat? We certainly have the feeling that it is, as we use it every day; but. . .the feeling that an identity has been maintained stems from the fact that the alterations are gradual and imperceptible. It’s an optical illusion. Here is the secret of cultural identity. It should not be thought of in terms of content, but as a movement or process of identification. Cultures are not things to be preserved like works of art in a museum or an endangered species: and culture must not be regarded as an object, but considered from the point of view of the subjects, the actual men and women, the social agents involved. The important question is not whether we ought to maintain tradition or let evolve by accepting other people’s values, whether we ought or ought not to change. The real problem arises when people are forced to become what they do not want to be, or are prevented from becoming what they do want to be.

Taking an example from architecture, stone and wood are not equally physically durable over time, which gives rise to culture-specific approaches to building conservation in Japan, for example, where wooden buildings are common. The conservation of Ise Jingu Shinto Shrine in Japan, with philosophical underpinnings rooted in Buddhism and Shintoism, is a notable example (Fleming, 2019). The shrine is destroyed and rebuilt (deconstructed and reconstructed) every 20 years, partly as a conservation strategy to help overcome the unavoidable deterioration of the physical materials used to construct the shrine. This approach to conservation is echoed in Kozakai’s description of identity development (and by extension language development). Taking a broad international view, however, ICCROM aims to harness the power of human cultural heritage to make the world a better place to live by empowering its Member States to preserve their cultural heritage by preserving, protecting and celebrating it in ways that support progress, inclusivity, well-being and stability,

128

S. A. Houghton

contributing to the environmental, social and economic sustainability of communities in the process. This may take place through intercultural dance-fitness events to promote health and fitness (FEP: Aim 3) (see Chap. 4, this volume), which may involve the use of technology (FEP: Aim 4) such as audio-visual recording in art generation (FEP: Aim 5) through performing arts that generate new forms of social business (FEP: Aim 6), all of which can be used to help prevent the development of Alzheimer’s Disease (FEP: Central Aim). Dynamic links between cultural heritage management and business are evident in the quotation below, which can potentially be connected to social business (Yunus Social Business, n.d.) within Houghton’s FEP (Aim 6: Social Business). Worshippers have been coming to Ise Jingu — Shinto shrines less than two hours away from bustling Nagoya — for around 2,000 years, but work on this venerable place of pilgrimage is still not finished, nor will it ever be. And that's a good thing. Every 20 years, an army of thousands of craftsmen is employed at the complex to completely rebuild the buildings that house its ancient pantheon, as well as a number of other structures and artifacts — exactly in the manner in which they were originally constructed. The work involves recreating 65 buildings and 1,600 sacred objects, and has been carried out since the year 690. The 62nd renovation of Ise Jingu is scheduled for 2013, and a budget of $5.5 million has been earmarked (Oda, 2009)

6.1.6

Post-Native-Speakerism as Heritage Management

A central tenet of intercultural language education is that language and culture are integrally connected. Attempts to reify language can thus plausibly be considered as attempts to reify (i.e. conserve) culture (with its associated language). Some links between conservation, language and culture are italicized in Appendices 1 and 2, notably but not exclusively related to nativism and imperialism. Both may have conservation elements insofar as nativism aims to conserve what is considered ‘native’, and resistance to perceived imperialism may involve attempts to conserve what is considered threatened. Although the preservation and revitalization of culture do not appear explicitly in Appendices 1 and 2 in relation to language, they are influential considerations if proponents of native-speakerism are implicitly trying to preserve culture (through language), while proponents of post-nativespeakerism are implicitly trying to stimulate cultural development (through language), which may or may not involve the revitalization of traditional culture. Since the tension between cultural and linguistic reification and dynamism is clearly apparent in general terms, especially in Appendix 1, establishing links between the preservation, revitalization and stimulation of new language and culture through heritage management may ultimately generate new lines of enquiry of potential value to the native-speakerism debate. The native-speakerism concept can be deconstructed by linking nativism, communication and conservation issues within a broader framework that picks up on a number of time-oriented threads appearing in the academic literature on nativespeakerism that make reference to the past, present and future. For example,

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

129

historical views of the study of native-speakerism were taken by Derivry-Plard (2013, 2018) and Rivers (Houghton et al., 2018), who reviewed native-speakerism in relation to Japan’s historical relationship with Portugal and China. By contrast, more present and future-oriented views were taken by Hashimoto (2018), who reviewed native-speakerism in relation to future visions of foreign language teachers, and Japanese and non-Japanese caregivers in Japan’s rapidly ageing society, respectively. And on a general note, Houghton emphasized the point that none of the post-native-speakerist visions of experts interviewed in her project mentioned above (Houghton, 2018) appeared to consider future social projections from different disciplines when formulating and expressing their visions of postnative-speakerism which seemed grounded in understandings of the present.

6.1.7

Historical Views Shaping Future Visions

Viewing future-oriented post-native-speakerism within Houghton’s FEP as heritage management (FEP: Aim 1) requires shifting past, present and future time references, starting with the past through heritage management, but how might this be approached? Rivers (2018) took a historical approach through sociohistorical analysis of Japan’s relationship with the native-speaker of foreign languages. Starting in the late eighteenth century, he reviewed persistent beliefs surrounding the nativespeaker concept, ultimately advocating comprehensive language deconstruction to undermine the concept itself by revealing its fundamental illegitimacy as noted earlier. Through identity-based analysis, he claimed that the foreign language native-speaker in Japan functions as an identifiable national-other as a point of comparison for the national-self, reifying linguistic identity and political membership (via the nation) in a process within which the identification of difference between self and other (for self-affirmation purposes) outweighs interest in diversity. The foreign language native-speaker thus establishes and maintains imaginary, mythical and folkloric belief in a homogenous Japanese speech community, which drives linguistic prejudice (including native-speakerism). Folklore studies may thus ultimately illuminate links between heritage management and native-speakerism, although they are not with in depth in this chapter due to lack of space. Studies of native-speakerism in Japan to date have, instead, focused on the English language within FLE, especially related to UK–US related English linguistic imperialism. But, in the case of Japan, Rivers notes that language attitudes would, before English, have first been shaped by speakers of other foreign languages, notably Chinese, Portuguese and Dutch. Language attitudes would already have established deep roots in (what we now know as) ‘Japan’ when Briton William Adams first entered through Oita Prefecture on 19th April 1600 as the pilot of the Dutch trading ship, the Liefde, and after his arrival as well, through contact with individuals such as Hendrik Doeff and Jan Cock Blomhoff, for example. They were directors of Dejima, the Dutch trading colony in the harbour of Nagasaki city in Nagasaki Prefecture, Japan (1817–1824).

130

S. A. Houghton

Studies of native-speakerism in Japan should not therefore only focus on Japan’s relationship with English and its users, but also on underpinning language attitudes grounded and hidden more deeply in the multilingual, multi-cultural historical and shifting contexts of ancient Japan, before it was even established as the nation we know today. Highlighting Billig’s (1995, p. 37) point that ‘ideology operates to make people forget that their world has been historically constructed’, Rivers suggests that historical events and actions influence contemporary practices and beliefs in Japanese society. Given the depth of the historical record and the ideologies which have underpinned the construction and maintenance of the Japanese nation-state, the more recent notion of nativespeakerism and the supposed prejudices that it reflects are overshadowed and overpowered by the historical record. One can suggest that this historical record is more useful in understanding contemporary language contact situations, attitudes and prejudices that are encountered on account of the fact that the historical record remains context specific, a crucial factor that ideological native-speakerism is unable to account for or explain (Rivers, 2018, pp. 52–53).

According to Rivers (2018), ‘[o]ne of the most challenging aspects of entering into a chronological account of events and discussions pertaining to national identity, language and interactions with national-others is where to begin’ (p. 40). Rivers starts by highlighting the importance in Japanese history, in relation to China, of the two ancient documents known as the Kojiki (Record of Ancient Matters) and the Nihon Shoki (Chronicles of Japan), both composed by Ōno Yasumaro in the early eighth century. To this could be added the Manyoshu poetry anthology compiled around the same time (Japan Heritage Dazaifu, n.d.), which originates in Dazaifu, in (modern) Fukuoka Prefecture, and Yamamoto Tsunetomo’s Hagakure, completed much later in 1716, which originates in the neighbouring prefecture in (modern) Saga Prefecture and was translated into English by Alexander Bennett (Bennett, 2014). In addition, study of the Silk Road via China highlights ancient relationships between Japan and other countries whose cultures fed into it, notably Buddhism from India (and Indian curry (Aiyar, 2018), discussion of which is related to nativism but beyond the scope of this chapter). The story of the Silk Road can be explored in detail through UNESCO Silk Roads Project6 and NHK’s7 acclaimed documentary series The Silk Road which is available online in Japanese (NHK, 1980~), and also on YouTube in English. An overview of the historical timeline of the introduction of Buddhism into Japan from India is presented in Appendix 4 (also see BuddhaNet and Japan Buddhist Federation, n.d.). This partly connects with Rivers’ (2018) discussion of the National Learning (kokugaku) movement in Japan through the rejection of Buddhism at the start of the Meiji period in Japan. It can also be crossreferenced to Chap. 11 (this volume) in relation to the role of public dialogue in

6 7

https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/unesco-silk-roads-project. https://www.nhk.or.jp/digitalmuseum/nhk50years_en/history/p20/index.html.

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

131

addressing native-speakerism by illuminating some of the problematic cultural foundations. Having briefly recognized the importance of China in passing, Rivers starts sociohistorically mapping Japan more deeply through its first contact with the West, highlighting the year 1543 when Portuguese traders landed at Tanegashima Island (Kagoshima Prefecture), which opened up trade with Holland, England and Spain. They were later followed by religious missionaries such as the Catholic Jesuits led by Francis Xavier, who started arriving in Kagoshima Prefecture in 1549. However, as we shall see, the exhibition reported later in this chapter focused primarily on the historical links between ancient ‘China’ and ancient ‘Japan’ through the Silk Road, which originated in Chang’an (modern-day Xi'an) to Rome and later extended into Japan up to Nara passing through Northern Kyushu (NHK, 1980~; UNESCO, n.d.). Further, the exhibition highlighted the point that despite the importance in ‘Japanese’ history of eighth century texts such the Kojiki, Nihon Shoki and Manyoshu, ‘Japan’ was not unified in its present form until the sixteenth century, after the Warring States Period, by Shogun Toyotomi Hideyoshi (Kuwata, 2019), as noted earlier. Throughout all of these historical phases, and long before, the island of ‘Kyushu’ (in southern ‘Japan’) arguably served as the main island of entry for inbound foreigners from the West, China and Korea in particular. (For a historical overview, see Cobbings, 2008.) Kyushu is where the modern-day prefectures of Oita, Kagoshima, Fukuoka and Nagasaki (all highlighted in bold by the author above) are all located. Notably, however, Nagasaki Prefecture, however, was not established in its present form until the start of the Meiji Period (1869–1912) when the powerful Hizen Province was divided into Nagasaki Prefecture and Saga Prefecture (where the author currently works). Hizen Province is thus also an important geo-political reference when reviewing modern Japan’s ancient historical links with other countries. Returning to a point made earlier, Rivers advocated comprehensive language deconstruction to undermine the native-speaker concept by revealing its fundamental illegitimacy. However, if the unification ‘Japan’ was not completed until the sixteenth century, what are the implications for research on native-speakerism? As with native-speakerism or any other concept, can the concepts of the ‘nation’ and the ‘nation-state’ be deconstructed through education, and if so, to what end? What might be the potential impact of such moves be in Japan, and other specific countries such as Italy, where native-speakerism is an ongoing problem (see Petrie, 2013)? Notably, Italy was not united as a nation until 1861, before which it was divided into city states (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, n.d.). To what extent might such old regional divisions form part of historical context still be shaping nativespeakerist attitudes today in Japan, Italy and other areas? Such questions lie beyond the scope of this chapter. Here, we focus instead on ways in which (inter)national cultural practices and symbols might be (de)constructed within a post-native-speakerist framework? In the exhibition report presented below, which consists of teacher narrative and commentary on selected exhibition panels, this question will be explored in relation to Menburyu and the

132

S. A. Houghton

shaguma, which are interconnected cultural symbols and practices found in Saga Prefecture where the author works.

6.2

Exhibition

This section reports on the development and display of an exhibition, entitled ‘Menburyu: Past, Present and Future’, developed through classroom research conducted by Houghton within the FEP from April 2018 to Sept 2019, with associated activities. Taking a social constructivist, post-native-speakerist approach, it showcased collaborative research conducted by Houghton and her students on a traditional form of mask dance with specific cultural symbols and practices called Menburyu, which is found in Kashima (and its surrounding areas) in Saga Prefecture, Japan. The exhibition consisted of 34 panels with supplementary materials and exhibits. The exhibition booklet is available online on the FURYU website (https:// stephhoughton.wixsite.com/mysite-1) linked with the FURYU Facebook homepage (https://www.facebook.com/StephanieAnnHoughton/). The project generated data in the form of a reflective teacher narrative, documentary evidence in the form of student homework finally presented in a series of public exhibitions (and MenburyuInspired Dance-Fitness (MIDF) performances), all of which triggered a series of media reports in local and national newspaper and television. The media reports to date are listed chronologically below. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Saga Shimbun (8 December 2017). Kashima Cable TV (8 January 2018). Saga Shimbun (10 June 2018b). Saga Shimbun (12 December 2018a). Saga Shimbun (14 Dec 2018c). Yomiuri Shimbun (4 Jan 2019). Nagasaki Shimbun (17 July 2019) (Takahira, 2019). Saga TV (21 February 2019). NHK (Saga) (11 September 2019).

An overview of the exhibition will be presented below through reflective teacher narrative, with a special focus on exhibition panels about Menburyu and the shaguma, (de)constructing them by way of example as (inter)national cultural practices and symbols with reference to (1) social development goals, (2) shifts needed in the educational activities of the foreign language teacher, hereafter referred to as FLT/EA (see Appendix 1) and (3) desirable characteristics of the foreign language teacher hereafter referred to as FLT/DC (see Appendix 2), within a post-native-speakerist FLE approach, within the FEP as an encompassing educational framework and approach. The narrative is written in the first person (with reference to Appendices 1 and 2).

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

6.2.1

133

Teacher Narrative

After the author’s transfer from the Faculty of Culture and Education into the Faculty of Art and Regional Design at Saga University in April 2016, I tried to link culture, education, art and regional design through dance, fitness and community development in a project initially inspired by Zumba, with a special focus on Latin dance, reported by Houghton in Chap. 4 (this volume). • I had to embrace diverse models and plurilingualism in my new work as usual, but this also included dance as a form of non-verbal communication. This is how I discovered Menburyu, a religious performing art. It opened up new opportunities to study language in relation to ancient cultures that even my students had trouble understanding, so the notion that there is a single ‘Japanese’ language and culture was undermined (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • I myself could not read written information about Menburyu in Japanese, so students had to teach me many things. I had to cast myself as a learner, but this was exciting and invigorated the project (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2). An interesting aspect of this research activity was the way that explorations into Latin dance illuminated historical threads linking various Latin dance genres with Africa through the slave trade. Thus, when a graduate student informed that author that Saga Prefecture had its own original traditional mask dance called Menburyu, reportedly originating in a local battle that took place in 1530, the foundations for what became the historically oriented dance-fitness project here reported had already partially been laid. • I did not know about Japanese history in detail, and neither did Japanese students without checking. We had to learn about many historical eras, important leaders and events, and connections between them. Shuttling between communities in this project meant shuttling between different historical eras and interpreting messages from people in the past (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • I became more connected to the local community in this project by exploring its history, an approach I had never taken before. Tracking historical roots back in time opens up doorways to so many cultures, revealing deep levels of past connectivity shaping the present. It was fun to unexpectedly discover Africa through Latin dance, and it is fun to unexpectedly discover the Silk Road through Menburyu too (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2). The Japanese term Menburyu can roughly be translated into English as ‘drifting in the breeze’ (furyu) wearing ‘a mask’ (men). Early enquiries into Menburyu, both online and offline, yielded little information in either English or Japanese, as few local people had ever heard the word Menburyu before, even within the university. Limited online information, in Japanese, recommended enquirers to contact Kashima City Hall for further information. Upon further investigation, it became apparent that while Menburyu is prefecturally registered cultural heritage, it is also

134

S. A. Houghton

endangered in Japan’s rapidly ageing society due to the falling birth-rate and lack of potential successors. • The lack of availability about local culture on and offline online became apparent, revealing the need to gather and analyse locally generated materials, often ancient documents. We rely so much on the internet these days, but it was not enough. We needed books, and we needed to communicate directly with many kinds different people (e.g. librarians, historians and mask-makers), developing various communication skills in the process that were not only intercultural but also intergenerational. Communication gaps between older and younger Japanese people were very apparent (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • I absorbed many aspects of local culture into my evolving identity and now know more about local culture than many of my students, 2 years into the project. Culture change is occurring very quickly within me (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2). The conservation and revitalization of Menburyu were incorporated into the FEP through heritage management as the entry point into the program. The initial idea was to develop a modern dance-fitness version of Menburyu that might appeal to young people, to stimulate their interest in the original dance. Permission for Stephanie Ann Houghton (the author) and professional fitness instructor Kazuki Miyata, who had initially inspired the FEP through his Zumba classes, to develop Menburyu-Inspired Dance-Fitness (MIDF) was sought and granted by Kashima City Hall in July 2017. • The development of MIDF took place over a two-year period. It involved deconstructing Menburyu with students (basic moves, concepts, symbols, designs) before re-expressing them in ways that we could enjoy which was an exciting constructive process (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • It felt great to construct something new based on Menburyu, helping to both conserve and revitalize it in the process. I could not have done this when I was younger when my mind was more trapped by insider outsider dichotomies (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2). Audio-visual data of Menburyu was gathered in the form of video and photographs at Hogaura, Kashima, in September 2017. MIDF was developed (by Houghton and Miyata) over a two-year period through a series of dance-fitness events with students and community members and interviews with local maskmakers. Three MIDF dance routines were developed to non-verbally express the three main storylines of Menburyu, incorporating some of its original movements, concepts, symbolism and designs. This culminated in MIDF performances and workshops at two major public performing arts events in September 2019, as well as within the ICCROM Summer School, held at Saga University (Arita Campus), as listed below: • 22nd Kashima Densho Geino (Orally Transmitted Performing Arts) Festival at Yutoku Inari Shrine, Kashima (8 Sept 2019)

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

135

• ICCROM Summer School: Communication and Teaching Skills in Conservation and Science 2019 (9–20 September 2019) (ICCROM Summer School, 2019). • 2nd Saga Denshou Geinou (Orally Transmitted Performing Arts) Festival at Saga Bunka Kaikan (Saga Culture Hall) (23 September 2019) (Saga Denshou Geinou, 2019). The ultimate inclusion of MIDF at these events aimed to support the conservation and revitalization of Menburyu, a little-known traditional mask dance, had relied greatly upon flexible language use in the classroom preparation that led up to its development. At the start of the project, the author had felt extremely disadvantaged by her lack of ability to read the public information about Menburyu published by Kashima City Hall and other sources in Japanese, so Japanese students (with advanced English language ability) were asked to translate it (in July 2018), but even they had great trouble understanding the information in Japanese for various reasons that included the use of (1) unfamiliar old Chinese characters, (2) unfamiliar place names, (3) names of unknown people, as well as (4) confusing historical references from different eras, spanning almost 500 years of Japanese history or more. • Intercultural FLE tends to prioritize languages from different countries in relation to national cultures, but in this project, we studied local cultures and microcultures, with their own dialects and inter-group relations, bringing into question what counts as intercultural communication (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • I needed all my intercultural communication skills to manage this project and it was interesting to see how basic intercultural communication processes play out between local rural groups as well as between national and other groups (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2). Further, as a matter of intercultural translation, students also had great trouble translating the information into English, due to the need to explain various cultural references through the addition of extra sentences. And to complicate matters, the students basically did not want to read the information because it was written in the language of older generations of Japanese people that did not seem to appeal to these younger Japanese who were more attuned to social media such as Instagram with its short sound-bites and accompanying imagery. • Intergenerational communication, in relation to the digital divide separating older and younger generations, needed special consideration (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • I am interested now in cultural transmission processes between generations, especially orally, considering what the potential benefits to all may be in terms of the conservation and revitalization of personal and social memory in relation to Alzheimer’s Disease Prevention (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2). The project was thus fraught with language barriers of various kinds from the outset, and the author lacked relevant historical knowledge too, so upon the suggestion of colleagues, an exhibition was developed within which to explore and

136

S. A. Houghton

Fig. 6.6 Himalayan Yak image used by Menburyu mask maker to teach local children about the Shaguma in Kashima, Saga, Japan (used with kind permission from Furyumen mask maker, Keiun Komori (http://www.sugicho.com/en/shop/profile.php), Sugicho workshop, Kashima)

publicize the issues. Students in a number of classes in two undergraduate faculties and the graduate school were involved in collaborative exhibition development (from October 2018 to January 2019). Preparation began with the allocation to pairs of students of specific Japanese eras along a timeline starting with the Jomon period, which was typically considered the start of Japanese history. The students were asked to seek possible links, of any kind, to Menburyu. They developed bi-lingual (English/Japanese) exhibition panels structured as follows: (1) Key Points, (2) Representative Images, (3) Text (200-word summary in English, with a Japanese translation) and (4) Questions that remained unanswered after completion of the panel. Exhibition development was thus an act of cross-faculty social constructivism within the university at various levels. Although the historical timeline had initially started with the Jomon period, the important impact of the Silk Road upon Japan became increasingly apparent as exhibition panels developed, notably due to apparent historical links between Himalayan yak hair (see Fig. 6.6) and Menburyu wigs, known as shaguma (see Fig. 6.7). • I remember my surprise when the mask-maker told us about the shaguma being made of yak hair(?) I thought ‘what was a yak doing in Japan?’ This moment opened up the hidden gateway to the Silk Road allowing a wealth of new culture to flow in, impacting upon the project in immeasurable ways (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • I like animals, so I was interested in the yak. I would like the yak to play a role in my lifelong learning in the future (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2).

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

137

Fig. 6.7 Hogaura Menburyu performers wearing Shaguma headdresses. Photograph taken by Stephanie Ann Houghton at Chinju Shrine, Hogaura, Kashima (8th September 2019)

The impact of the Silk Road upon Japan was researched not only by the students but also independently by the author through the landmark documentary television series, The Silk Road (NHK, 1980~), which first aired throughout the 1980s, which illuminated countless links between Japan and the Silk Road relevant to the project. It covered the history, archaeology, culture, religion and art of many regions, revealing how ancient Japan was influenced by the exchange of goods and ideas along the trade routes which originated in Chang'An (modern-day Xi'An) to Rome and later extended into Japan up to Nara passing through Northern Kyushu. The particular relevance of the yak is highlighted in Season 2 of The Silk Road in Episode 1 entitled Across the Pamirs (Chuter, 2013; NHK, 1980). • In class, one of the students told us about artefacts from ancient Rome being housed in a museum in Nara (?). Student background knowledge like this influenced the course at many points in time reflecting the need for learnercentred approach if the teacher knows less about local history than students (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • I remembered learning a bit about the Silk Roads Project at UNESCO (UNESCO, n.d.) when I was an intern there in Paris.8 Intercultural communication often focuses on people from different groups, implicitly emphasizing lines and distinctions between them, but that project seemed to focus more on connectivity. It is nice to see possible connections emerging through this project through Menburyu and the Silk Road so many years later (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2).

8

https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/unesco-silk-roads-project.

138

S. A. Houghton

As the Menburyu timeline reached deeper into the past, the author supplemented student exhibition panels by tracing selected individual elements of Menburyu back through time to the start of homo sapiens, using masks as a connecting thread, taking a past-oriented view. A future-oriented view was also taken by looking ahead to the possible extinction of human beings (Sterling, 1999) in relation to artificial intelligence (AI), raising the question ‘What does it mean to be a human being?, inviting viewers to review past and projected flows of human development in relation to AI and robots. • This reflects a future-oriented approach. It may seem strange to link a traditional mask dance with AI, for example, but masks may increase in importance in the future considering the increasing use of facial recognition. How can we link past, present and future meaningfully? What does it mean to be a human being? These are important questions underpinning intercultural citizenship these days (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • Culture is changing all the time. What does lifelong learning mean to me as a teacher, and as I get older? What can I contribute to the evolution of human society from now as we enter the 4th Industrial Revolution? What might my legacy be in such times? Through study of the Silk Road, the legacies, sometimes spanning millennia, of so many individuals have been striking. The idea of legacy is interesting for a teacher trying to connect the past, present and future (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2). The final exhibition, entitled Menburyu: Past, Present and Future, captured these wide-ranging time-references, and the exhibition was designed to be portable, so that it could be shared with the local community by the author after the courses had finished. The exhibition was first displayed in Saga University Art Museum (SUAM, December 2018), Kuretake Brewery during the Sakagura Tourism (sake) festival in Hizen Hamashuku, Kashima (March 2019), at the ICCROM Summer School at Saga University (Arita Campus) (September 2019), at the 2nd Saga Densho Geino (Orally Transmitted Performing Arts) Festival at Saga Bunka Kaikan (Saga Culture Hall) (23 September 2019, in part) and finally at the JALT OLE-SIG Conference at St. Mary’s College in Kurume (October 2019, in part). • This bi-lingual exhibition comprised panels on paper with student homework stuck on with glue. It is amazing that social constructivism developed in this way has permeated various local communities in this way (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • It was interesting to see how local people connected with and influenced the ongoing evolution of the exhibition to some extent, even after the courses had finished. Many new relationships and memories were made in this process that involved continuing personal and professional development of various sorts on my part (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2). The project received widespread media coverage since its inception in July 2017 as noted earlier. However, media reports seemed to focus on the author’s nationality by highlighting the point that a foreign person, a British lady, was attempting to support traditional Japanese culture Menburyu in innovative new ways.

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

139

• The media uses language and concepts in politically oriented ways. It was necessary and of great educational value in this exhibition to consider and analyse Japanese media reports to identify the political slant through critical discourse analysis (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • I was shocked when my friend alerted me to possible nationalist overtones in the report by a leading right-wing national newspaper in Japan (and indeed I had been informed in advance of publication that the exhibition theme of the Silk Road would be cut, reportedly due to lack of available space in the article). This was when I started to notice subtle forms of nationalism (?) moving as an influential dynamic in this project (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2). Then, although Menburyu had seemed to be a somewhat forgotten form of a local orally transmitted performing art lacking successors in Japan’s rapidly ageing society during the life of the project, and this still seems to be the cases locally, a contrasting view unexpectedly emerged in September 2019 when it was announced at the Menburyu dedication at Chinju Shrine in Hogaura, Kashima that the Hogaura Menburyu group was one of a small number of selected folk art groups invited by The Celebration Committee of the Emperor’s Accession to the Throne to perform in the nation’s capital, Tokyo, at the enthronement of the Emperor on 9 November 2019 (The Celebration Committee of the Emperor’s Accession to the Throne, 2019) (also see: https://www.houshuku.org/). • Menburyu and the shaguma initially seemed like highly localized folk art at the start of this project. I never imagined that links both with the Silk Road and the Japanese Imperial line would emerge, highlighting local, regional, national and international levels spanning centuries and historical eras so strikingly, pre-dating the unified nation itself. The educational value of folk art to the academic field of intercultural communication seems vast and limitless (FLT/EA) (see Appendix 1). • This project has opened up many new doors to the past, present and future (FLT/DC) (see Appendix 2). How could this be? And how might this relate to the role of the yak, through the Menburyu shaguma, in the evolution of Japanese culture? Author speculation on possible reasons for the inclusion of Menburyu in the enthronement celebrations is presented below with reference to selected Menburyu: Past, Present and Future exhibition panels.

6.2.2

Exhibition Panels

According to ‘Exhibition Panel 30: The Cultural Registration of Menburyu’, Otonashi Menburyu and Hogaura Menburyu were officially designated by the Prefectural Board of Education as important intangible folk culture assets of Saga Prefecture in the Showa Period (1926–1989), in 1960 and 1977, respectively. Little

140

S. A. Houghton

known outside its areas of activity in modern times, even in Saga city, Menburyu seems from within Saga University to be a highly localized rural culture centred in Kashima, which lies between Saga city and Nagasaki city (formerly Hizen Province). Hogaura Menburyu dedications take place between two specific rice fields in front of a small shrine in rural Kashima. Why might Hogaura Menburyu performers be invited to perform at the enthronement of the Emperor in the nation’s capital? The shaguma may hold a key. The shaguma is the wig worn by Menburyu performers. Although the Chinese characters of shaguma are ‘red bear’ (赤 熊), the term shaguma actually means ‘yak hair dyed red’, according to local mask-maker, Keiun Komori. This highlights the import of Himalayan yak hair into ancient Japan through the Silk Road. How was the shaguma used, when and why? Among others, ‘Exhibition Panel 20: The Shaguma’ and ‘Exhibition Panel 4; The Yak’ shed light on these questions, but it seems to depend upon the historical period as the usage and accompanying language appears to have shifted. According to exhibition ‘Panel 4; The Yak’, there may have been a relatively large inflow of yak hair into Hizen Province into (what is now) Saga through (what is now) Nagasaki, which was the gateway to the shogunate in the Edo period (1600–1868), when Japan was formally closed from the world. Yak hair was generally imported for decorative items attached to helmets and spears. White yak tail hair was especially rare. It was so expensive and favoured by the samurai, including Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of the Edo shogunate. At the end of the Edo period (1600–1868), the Shogun was toppled, and the Emperor was placed on the throne, which marked the start of the Meiji Period (1868–1912) in Japan (Atsushi, 2018). Exhibition ‘Panel 20: The Shaguma’ contains two images from the Battle of Ueno in the Boshin War, which was a key defining battle (see Figs. 6.8 and 6.9). The usage of the term shaguma in the title of Fig. 6.8 (italicized by the author) suggests that the shaguma was a worn item, while the second usage in the title of Fig. 6.9 (italicized by the author) suggests that the Shaguma was, along with Shogitai, a warrior group name. While Shogitai warriors supported the (ultimately overthrown) Shogun, Shaguma warriors supported the (ultimately victorious) Emperor. Did ancestors of the (Hogaura) Menburyu group(s) fight in the Boshin War, helping to place and establish the Emperor on the throne? Were they wearing shaguma? If so, were they made of yak hair from the Himalayas and if so, how did it get there? Such questions remain unanswered, but the ongoing use of the shaguma by Menburyu groups in modern Saga Prefecture suggests such historical links, possibly through the powerful Nabeshima clan, who governed Hizen Province at that time. In any case, insofar as they are included in imperial enthronement celebrations, both (Hogaura) Menburyu and the shaguma may be seen as national symbols of (modern) ‘Japan’. From this standpoint, they may potentially be used as instruments of nationalism. However, yaks are not native to Japan. Yak hair does not seem to originate in Japan. It seems to have been imported into Japan from the Himalayas. It was widely

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

141

Fig. 6.8 Warriors from the Tosa division wearing Shaguma at the Battle of Ueno in the Boshin War. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shaguma_troops_in_the_Battle_of_Ueno_at_ Ueno_Park_temple.jpg

Fig. 6.9 Duel between a Shogitai and Shaguma in the Battle of Ueno. https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/File:Duel_between_a_Shogitai_and_Shaguma_in_the_Battle_of_Ueno.jpg

142

S. A. Houghton

used in the past for various purposes. According to ‘Panel 4: The Yak’, yaks inhabit highland areas of inland Asia, the Himalayan region, and have been kept in Tibet and Kyrgyzstan. The domestic yak has supported human life and culture in various ways for around 2000 years. This potential symbol of national identity may also thus be a symbol of international identity and intercultural interconnectivity by virtue of its historical roots and intercultural exchange that gave rise to its transport. Did yak hair enter Japan and evolve into the Menburyu shaguma? If so, how and why? According to ‘Exhibition Panel 20: The Shaguma’, the Muromachi Period (1336–1573) was characterized by ongoing battles between warring states that were brought under control, initially by Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who established the basis for what became ‘Japan’. Yak hair dyed red was used in military uniform and in decorations of traditional performances in the past, notably in the Battle of Tadenawate (1530), which is commonly considered to be the origin of Menburyu. However, the author of Exhibition Panel 20 doubted that yak hair was actually used as Shaguma during the Battle of Tadenawate, as yak hair only seemed to have been brought to Japan by the Portuguese in 1549. According to ‘Exhibition Panel 4: The Yak’, however, yak hair was apparently imported periodically into Japan through Qing China (1644–1911/12), even when restricted by the isolated Japan of the Edo period. In addition, yak hair was notably often used in Hossu, or fly whisks (used like dusters by Buddhist monks). As we can see in the previous paragraph, having researched the role of yak hair in relation to Menburyu, both in English and Japanese, students came up with slightly different accounts of its entry into Japan in Exhibition Panels 20 and 4. It is not easy to establish the historical facts, especially in the orally transmitted culture of Menburyu with its folkloric characteristics. However, while any given cultural artefact may be seen as a national symbol as noted above, it may also be seen as an international symbol if its international roots can be revealed. What cultural artefacts such as the yak hair and the shaguma come to mean in the future is open to outside influence, which makes it a matter for education.

6.3

Discussion

Japanese national identity can thus partly be deconstructed through Menburyu, which can in turn partly be deconstructed through the shaguma with its local meanings and significance, which can in turn partly be deconstructed through yak hair originating ostensibly in the Himalayas. This highlights ancient links between modern Japan and the Himalayas through the Silk Road and complex interplay between local and (inter)national symbols and identities over large swathes of time. Further, when international roots of national symbols, such as the shaguma, are analysed piece-meal, the trail may lead back to historical eras that pre-date the establishment of the ‘nation’ itself, bringing it into question in the process. The failure to recognize international roots of what have somehow become national symbols (by allowing them to atrophy in the collective consciousness, for example)

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

143

Fig. 6.10 A branch severed from its system and roots

may be used to strengthen nationalism (by separating Japan from its Silk Road history in media reports, for example). This idea is crudely depicted in Fig. 6.10 as a branch severed from its tree system and roots to represent a nationalist symbol cut off from its international roots. However, the existence of an objective base upon which to base nationalism seems mythical. The nation is an imagined space within and around which political borders and cultural content shift through time and space. Not even physical geographical boundaries remain constant. Nationalism may be explored through discursive and imaginative construction (Wodak et al., 2009). To claim ownership of cultural practices and symbols, nationalist activity requires the selection and rejection of specific elements from the past, severing them off like branches from a tree to treat them as independent parts, denying their nature within a historical system, transforming perceptions of their elements in the process. What is claimed to be valued, therefore, may simultaneously actually be denied, leading to a lack of understanding by future generations, which may result in atrophy. Nationalism may inadvertently endanger the cultural practices and symbols it claims to hold dear in this way. Conservation issues may come to the fore in relation to nativespeakerism as language is utilized as a tool of cultural hijack. Alternatively, revealing and recognizing any international roots of national symbols may ultimately reveal hitherto unnoticed examples of world heritage. Menburyu may deserve recognition as world heritage status, as suggested in ‘Menburyu: Past, Present and Future’ Exhibition ‘Panel 33: Apply for UNESCO World Heritage Status (following Namahage and Toshidon)’. While this too may hold nationalist appeal, an educational approach oriented towards the conservation and revitalization of world heritage within the FEP (taking a post-native-speakerist approach) might instead be taken in line with Quality Education (UN SDG4) that recognizes the vast

144

S. A. Houghton

educational value of a deep-rooted culture such as Menburyu that has the capacity to cross time and space, connecting people around the world across millennia. It may also be explored as intangible cultural heritage with reference to the UNESCO (2003) Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage9 (also see UNESCO, 1982, 1995, 2001, 2018). Helpful websites with information about Japan’s tangible and intangible cultural heritage are presented in Appendix 3. The work of Antons and Logan (2018) in relation to intellectual property, tangible and intangible heritage also provides wide-ranging academic standpoints on issues that arise. Within post-native-speakerist FLE, new lines of investigation into national identity emerge as new forms of intercultural communication with people from the past open up to help people in the present and the future. Further, linguistic analysis with a historical orientation is needed to understand and interpret differing cultural frames of reference in different historical eras in ways that inform the present. Interpreting messages from people in the past through both written and non-written communication forms (through the analysis of cultural practices and symbols, for example) resembles Byram’s (1997) skills of interpreting and relating in intercultural communication. FLE is generally conceptualized in terms of the four skills (speaking, listening, reading and writing) as assumed goals. Insofar as they are framed within and/or connected to FLE, academic activity in the fields of ICC, ELF and WE, highlighted earlier as ways of responding to native-speakerism, deals primarily with written and verbal messaging expressed through language codes, which implicitly sets a time limitation on what is considered by implicitly excluding pre-writing forms of social media, such as stone, tree bark or animal skin/products (such as yak hair) that may be categorized and cast off as ‘art’, rather than being seen as tools of communication. But as we can see in the story of Menburyu and the shaguma presented above, cultural practices and symbols associated with national identity can be accessed through both linguistic and non-linguistic channels linking language and culture in the process. Indeed, as made clear by The Silk Road (NHK) documentary, non-written communication through art forms preceded written communication and the invention of paper. FLE can thus benefit from making connections with forms of communication other than those based solely on language, and perhaps also with orally transmitted forms of communication based primarily on listening and speaking, perhaps combined with non-verbal communication through dance (including learning through demonstration and observation), interest in which initially inspired this project. This chapter has focused on one example of Japan’s orally transmitted culture, Menburyu, which is an orally transmitted traditional performing art (densho geino) in (modern) Japan, with some deep international historical roots. The shaguma was highlighted above, but study of its masks may reveal historical links traceable back to Socrates himself through Greco-Buddhist culture, characterized by Buddhist mask

9

For a list of Japan’s intangible cultural heritage, see https://ich.unesco.org/en/state/japan-JP.

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

145

theatre and Greek mask theatre, via Alexander the Great through series of interlinked stories related in The Silk Road (NHK) (also see Attisani, 1996; Pound & Fenellosa, 1959), but in the absence of clear historical evidence, such possibilities remain categorizable perhaps only as folklore insofar as they are orally transmitted or rely upon dubitable historical evidence dating back through millennia, lost in the mists of time. Such enquiry is not devoid of educational value, however, as puzzling over available disconnected historical evidence from different eras, with their shifting language codes, cultures and social media in the spirit of critical enquiry may develop the critical faculty often nurtured through citizenship education in its various forms. Insofar as orally transmitted culture transmitted through folklore, or Volkskunde in German, seems particularly vulnerable exploitation, criticality is clearly needed when handling the information transmitted. Indeed, folklore studies have a history of debunking falsehood and propaganda. The term folklore was first used in 1846 by William J. Thoms, who was known among other things for debunking longevity myths (Emrich, 1946; Thoms, 1879, 2016). The branch severed from its tree system and roots used to represent a nationalist symbol cut off from its international roots in Fig. 6.10, however, might also represent language cut off from its surrounding cultural system and roots. Too narrow a focus on language, or focusing only on deconstructing native-speakerism, may limit the potential of citizenship education and social development in the process. Indeed, casting FLE as citizenship education within broader overarching educational frameworks linked to UN SDGs may be considered an attempt to overcome this general problem by building links between often isolated classroom activity and the world outside.

6.4

Conclusion

Outside the author’s classroom, Japan has a rapidly ageing society (United Nations, 2017) and the number of dementia cases globally is set to triple from 50 million in 2017 to 152 million in 2050 (World Health Organization, 2017). Within this context, how might (inter)national cultural practices and symbols be (de)constructed within a post-native-speakerist framework? This question was explored in this chapter in relation to Menburyu and the shaguma, as interconnected (inter)national cultural symbols and practices found locally in Saga Prefecture where the author works. The relationship between post-native-speakerism and social constructivism was explored with reference to socialization and identity development including cognitive, moral and intercultural development. Secondly, the (de)construction of (inter)national cultural practices and symbols was exemplified by reporting on an exhibition entitled Menburyu: Past, Present and Future with associated activities developed within Houghton’s Furyu Educational Program. The report consisted of teacher narrative and commentary on selected exhibition panels focusing on Menburyu and the shaguma.

146

S. A. Houghton

A holistic approach to the pursuit of post-native-speakerist aims was taken in this chapter by linking FLE through citizenship education with reference to UN SDGs, taking as one of many possible top priorities the prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease Prevention, in line with UN SDG Item 3: ‘Good Health and Well-Being’ (see Table 6.2). Insofar as personal and social memory are linked, the preservation and revitalization of both can be pursued through the (de)construction of (inter)national symbols within citizenship education in FLE in ways that can support human brain health and cultural development, following the Healthy Linguistic Diet (Healthy Linguistic Diet, n.d.) and other dementia prevention guidelines (United Nations, 2017). Within Houghton’s FEP, this connects heritage management, intercultural dialogue, technology, health and fitness, art generation and potentially social business. This involves (de)constructing (inter)national cultural practices and symbols within a post-native-speakerist framework as illustrated through the story of Menburyu and the shaguma. Acknowledgements I would like to thank all of the following individuals and groups that have supported this project so far. This includes professional fitness instructor Kazuki Miyata for inspiring and continuing to sustain this program, NPO Tiempo Iberoamericano in Fukuoka for helping to lay initial foundations for the project before the discovery of Menburyu, Mai Mishima, Kotaro Ideta, Professors Igarashi and Inoue for supporting the project within Saga University, my husband Takao Suenaga for helping me to research the history of Menburyu especially in the early stages of the project, Bailey Onaga for her artwork, Furyu mask-makers Keiun Komori and Keihou Nakahara with his son Hirokazu Nakahara, members of the Hogaura Menburyu community, Noh expert Masanori Inouchi, Kashima City Hall (Culture Division), Saga Board of Education (Culture Division), Kashima Densho Geino Festival organizers, Saga Densho Geino Festival organizers, Ureshino City Hall (Tourism Division), Mie Ishii (Saga University, Faculty of Art and Regional Design) and the ICCROM team who gave space for this project within the Arita Summer School as well as all the ICCROM participants whose ideas nourished the content of this chapter through illuminating discussion. I would like to thank the organizers of the JALT PanSig, JALT OLE-SIG, The TEFLology Podcast team (Turner, Schaefer & Lowe; see Chap. 11, this volume) for providing me with important plenary speaking space through which to both express and further develop my ideas and Jeremie Bouchard for his constructive comments on this chapter. I would like to thank all the journalists who have covered various stages of this project including Saga Shimbun, Nagasaki Shimbun, the Yomiuri Shimbun, Kashima Cable TV, Saga TV and Saga NHK. I would like to thank all the students and community members who have participated in this project so far, and the countless others who have contributed in various ways.

Appendix 1: Shifts Needed in the Educational Activities of the Foreign Language Teacher (Houghton, 2018)

1

From Native-speaker model Nativeness System control

To Diverse models, plurilingualism Non-nativeness, variety, appropriation, hybridity, language variety (continued)

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

2

From L2 as a good in itself Target language (Predefined) grammar (Predefined) language norms Language norms of established varieties (e.g. US, UK, inner circle)

3

Accuracy, correctness, error correction (fluency)

4

Target culture (content)

5

Published teaching materials/topdown decision-making Teacher-centred

6

147

To L2 as vehicle for mutual exchange of people (Emergent) grammar (Emergent) language norms NNS interaction only? NS and/or NNS interaction? Intercultural communication Prioritize NNS interaction? Select from all available varieties? Standard English? ELF norms? Nativized Englishes? Greater explicitness in norm selection? Contrastive intercultural approach? Communication flexibility, shuttling between communities, repertoire building (fluency) Open-ended development, contextual adaptation Self-expression, mutual intelligibility Language and cultural awareness, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, criticality Intercultural competence, communication and negotiation skills/strategies, active citizenship Intercultural content Represent NNS interaction in contextually sensitive curriculum Teacher-selected/teacher-generated teaching materials Learner-centred

Appendix 2: Desirable Characteristics of the Foreign Language Teacher (Houghton, 2018)

1

General Skills/competences

Specific Traditional language proficiency Sociolinguistic sensitivity Intercultural/strategic/sociolinguistic/meta-cultural competence Communication skills to negotiate different grammars in newer varieties of English Deconstruct traditional theories/practices and overcome linguistic imperialism Multidialectal/multilingual competence Deal with unfamiliar situations Co-construct shared culture Negotiate/mediate between cultures (continued)

148

2

S. A. Houghton General Knowledge

3

Background/practical knowledge/experience

4

Tendencies

Specific Language/communication diversity/(language) change/language variety including ELF, world Englishes, hybrid Englishes, standard English Multi-disciplinary knowledge including new/traditional/outdated viewpoints and practices/critical pedagogy Intercultural studies/citizenship Practice-based theories of communication, teaching and identities in social interaction including educational technologies Linguistic education/imperialism Living/studying/travelling abroad (over 6 months?) Membership of local community Experience of language in use/how language functions in society/communicating with speakers from different linguistic backgrounds Training in specific cultures Experience as outsider Teacher as learner/lifelong learning/professional development Intercultural awareness/cultural sensitivity/engage with global perspectives/local diversity with battery of supporting attitudes Respect language norm development/open to different varieties of English/respect and acknowledge their legitimacy/ willingness to apply multidialectal/multilingual competences in teaching Translingual mindset Deconstruct existing practices Engage in lifelong learning

Appendix 3: Helpful Websites with Information About Japan’s Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritages (English) Cultural Properties Database (Japanese) Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in Japan (English) Japanese Architecture and Art Online Dictionary (English) Department of Intangible Cultural Heritage (both English and Japanese) Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)— Intangible Cultural Heritage Page (English) Essay on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritages (English) Nippon Hoso Kyokai (NHK) online cultural heritage database

https://ich.unesco.org/en/state/japan-JP http://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/bsys/index_pc. html https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/00177-EN. pdf http://www.aisf.or.jp/~jaanus/ http://www.tobunken.go.jp/ich-e/ http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/culture/coop/ unesco/c_heritage/i_heritage/index.html http://www.accu.or.jp/ich/en/pdf/ c2005subreg_Jpn2.pdf https://ich.unesco.org/en/nhk

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

149

Appendix 4: A Historical Timeline of Buddhism in Japan Table 6.3 Timeline of history (adapted from Harari, 2011, pp. ix–x) Years before the present 13.5 billion 4.5 billion 3.8 billion 6 million 2.5 million 2 million 70,000 years 12,000 years 5000 years 4250 years 2500 years 2000 years 1400 years 500 years 200 years The present

The future

Matter and energy appear. Beginning of physics. Atoms and molecules appear. Beginning of chemistry Formation of planet earth Emergence of organisms. Beginning of biology Last common grandmother of humans and chimpanzees. Evolution of the genus Homo in Africa. First stone tools Humans spread from Africa to Eurasia. Evolution of different human species The cognitive revolution. Emergence of fictive language. Beginning of history. Sapiens spread out of Africa The agricultural revolution. Domestication of plants and animals. Permanent settlements First kingdoms, script and money. Polytheistic religions First empire—The Akkadian empire of Sargon The Persian empire. Buddhism in India Han empire in China. Roman empire in Mediterranean. Christianity Islam The scientific revolution The industrial revolution Humans transcend the boundaries of planet earth. Nuclear weapons threaten the survival of humankind. Organisms are increasingly shaped by intelligent design rather than natural selection Intelligent design becomes the basic principle of life? Homo sapiens Is replaced by superhumans?

The cognitive revolution occurred around 70,000 years ago along with the emergence of fictive language. Cultures arising during the permanent settlements characterizing the agricultural revolution seem to have started around 12,000 years ago. From 5000 years ago, religions started to emerge, starting with polytheism. The first empire arose around 4250 years ago, followed by the Persian Empire, Buddhism in India, the Han Empire in China, the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean, Christianity and Islam from 2500 to 1400 years ago. Intercultural dialogue probably characterized these processes from the cognitive revolution, but it was harnessed to great effect around 2400 years ago by Socrates (470–399 BC) in ancient Greece, in ways that continue to have an impact upon society today Episode 2 of Season 2 of the NHK’s acclaimed documentary series, The Silk Road, entitled The King’s Road, reviews how the Macedonian king Alexander the Great, who had studied under Aristotle in ancient Greece, ended the Persian age in the fourth century BC as he moved the allied forces of Macedonia and Greece

150

S. A. Houghton

eastwards. In 327 BC, they reached the 10,000 km Khyber Pass, which took 7 years to cross, ultimately reaching the Indus River. This laid the foundations for the Silk Road and the emergence of Greco-Buddhism which flowed towards Japan, evolving along the way. But how? By the third century BC, soon after the death of Alexander the Great, Buddhism is thought to have reached what was known as the Gandhara region, in what is now northwestern Pakistan (The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019a). Reigning near the Indian border in the second century BC, Greek King Menander sought to understand Buddhism, engaging in public dialogue about it with Nagasena, a Buddhist sage, in a style that may have been influenced by Plato’s dialogues (The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019a). By fostering the evolution of Greco-Buddhism, this public dialogue changed the world, and Buddhism reached Japan directly in the process The sage and the king had a profound discussion about Buddhism. This dialogue between the two, known as King Menander’s questions, was brought to Japan in ancient times in the form of a book of sutra named after Nagasena. King Menander visited Nagasena at his palace, with a large entourage of his Greek subjects. The moment their eyes met, the king said to the Buddhist sage, “Many a time have I heard eloquent speakers, and I have had discussions with them, but at no time have I felt greater thrill in my heart than in the talk I am having with you now”. According to the ancient record, the dialogue between King Menander and the Buddhist sage Nagasena, was watched by more than 80,000 people (NHK, 1980~)

After the dialogue, which continued for hours, King Menander is said to have been converted to Buddhism. Buddhist images excavated from sites across the Gandhara area reflect the Greco-Buddhist cultural fusion characterizing these times. As displayed in The King’s Road episode of The Silk Road, the Gandhara Buddhist images of earlier times were modelled on Greek gods such as Zeus and Apollo, some with western features such as wavy hair, moustaches and pleated togas that differed in style from Buddhist images found in China or Japan in later times The process through which Buddhism was introduced to Japan was greatly facilitated by Buddhist monk Xuanzang (602–664) in the seventh century (The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019b). In an epic journey, he travelled from the ancient city of Chang’An in eastern China (now Xi’An) to India to collect and bring back Buddhist scrolls. His story is told in Episode 4 of Season 2 of The Silk Road, entitled The Travels of Xuan Zang in India (NHK, 1980~). His legendary achievements inspired generations to come and were documented much later by Wu Cheng’en, a novelist and poet of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), in a popular novel entitled (in English) Journey to the West (The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019c) Composed of 100 chapters, the novel can be divided into three major sections. The first seven chapters deal with the birth of a monkey from a stone egg and its acquisition of magic powers. Five chapters relate the story of Xuanzang, known as Tripitaka, and the origin of his mission to the Western Paradise. The bulk of the novel recounts the 81 adventures that befall Tripitaka and his entourage of three animal spirits—the magically gifted Monkey, the slowwitted and clumsy Pigsy, and the fish spirit Sandy—on their journey to India and culminates in their attainment of the sacred scrolls. In addition to the novel’s comedy and adventure,

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

151

Journey to the West has been enjoyed for its biting satire of society and Chinese bureaucracy and for its allegorical presentation of human striving and perseverance. An English translation by Arthur Waley entitled Monkey was published in 1942 and reprinted many times. A new translation by Anthony C. Yu, A Journey to the West (4 vol.), was published in 1977–83. (The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019c)

In its long journey from India to Japan, Buddhism went through many transformations as it fused with cultures and other spiritual systems along the way, and this included Japan’s ‘native’ religious belief system known as Shinto Buddhism came from China, and when it reached Japan it complemented, rather than threatened, Japan’s native religious beliefs now known as Shinto (the way of the gods). Shinto involved the worship of thousands of kami (deities), who were regarded by Buddhists as being manifestations of buddham himself, so the two creeds co-exited very happily. The imperial family, who were regarded as kami themselves, were closely involved with the spread of Buddhism from very early on, and when Nara became Japan’s first capital in 710 the great Buddhist temples of Nara such as Todaiji and Kofukuji grew to exert considerable political influence (Turnbull, 2003, p. 5)

While such influence was never exercised through military means at this stage in Japanese history, warrior monks were attached to Buddhist institutions as fighting forces between the tenth and sixteenth centuries according to Turnbull (2003), who highlights the complicated and often violent nature of Buddhism, ‘the religion that underpinned the warrior monks’ (ibid, p. 42), in Japan in those times. However, although ‘[t]he brand of Buddhism espoused by the first warrior monks was that taught by the great temples of Nara and Mount Hiei, whose attitudes and opinions dominated the religious scene, [t]he disputes between them were never about points of doctrine, nor was there any disagreement with Shinto’ (Turnbull, 2003, p. 42). Indeed, Shinto and Buddhism had been woven together syncretically for centuries through the historically significant process of shin-butsu shugo (Shinto-Buddhism coalescence), described by Prideaux (2007) as follows: The syncretism, or weaving together of religions, [continued] over centuries as Japan went about absorbing Pure Land, Zen and other Buddhist sects from China. Over time, crosspollination between Buddhism and Shinto would deepen in a process known as “shin-butsu shugo” (Shinto-Buddhism coalescence), or less flatteringly as the “shin-butsu konko” (Shinto-Buddhism jumble) (Prideaux, 2007)

Shinto-Buddhism coalescence was, however, later seriously disrupted as nationalist yearnings, especially during the Meiji Era (1868–1912), resulted in calls to rid Shinto of its foreign influence with movements to purge State Shinto of its foreign Buddhist influences. At Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gu shrine in Kamakura, Kanagawa Prefecture, for example, Buddhist artefacts were burned and otherwise removed (Prideaux, 2007). When Japan opened its borders to the world at the end of the Edo period: the separation of the two religions was one of the early reforms of the Meiji regime, which in 1868 issued an edict ordering Buddhist priests connected with Shintō shrines either to be reordained as Shintō priests or to return to lay life. Buddhist temple lands were confiscated, and Buddhist ceremonies abolished in the imperial household. Shintō was proclaimed as the

152

S. A. Houghton

national religion; later it was reinterpreted as a suprareligious national cult (The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannia, 1998)

In contrast to the process of shin-butsu shugo (Shinto-Buddhism coalescence), this separation process is known as shin-butsu bunri (the separation of gods and Buddhas). It characterized the kokugaku (National Learning) movement in the late seventeenth and eighteenth century Japan, which emphasized Japanese classical studies (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2010). This can be connected to nativism (Teeuwen, 2006), and ultimately to native-speakerism, as related by Rivers (2018) The term shinbutsu bunri refers to the separation of Shinto and Buddhism (actually the expulsion of Buddhism from syncretic Shinto-Buddhist sanctuaries) that occurred from the spring of 1868. This separation was one of the central events in the formation of modern Japanese Shinto (Antoni, 1995) Kokugaku, (Japanese: “National Learning”), movement in late 17th- and 18th-century Japan that emphasized Japanese classical studies...[T]he Kokugaku movement attempted a purge of all foreign influences, including Buddhism and Confucianism. . .The Shintō revival, Kokugaku movement, and royalist sentiments of the Mito school all combined in the Meiji period (1868–1912) in the restoration of imperial rule and the establishment of Shintō as a state cult (The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2010)

References Aiyar, P. (2018). Bose of Nakamuraya. The Hindu. Retrieved December 7, 2019, from https://www. thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/bose-of-nakamuraya/article22661567.ece? fbclid¼IwAR0NhwyBji7vphueim_SQI0AqtbeRxkR_f06oDLDhEswexrIh_QGPsUFeqA ANA Global Channel. (n.d.). Menburyu – Is Japan cool? Retrieved December 9, 2019, from https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v¼ogMKo30fnc0&feature¼emb_logo Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? Grounded Theory Review, 1/11. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-socialconstructionism/ Antoni, K. (1995). The “Separation of Gods and Buddhas” at Ōmiwa Jinja in Meiji Japan. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 22(1/2), 139–159. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https:// www.jstor.org/stable/30233540?seq¼1 Antons, C., & Logan, W. (2018). Intellectual and cultural property and the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. In C. Antons & W. Logan (Eds.), Intellectual property, cultural property and intangible cultural heritage (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge. Atsushi, K. (2018). The Meiji Restoration: The end of the shogunate and the building of a modern Japanese state. Retrieved October 13, 2019, from https://www.nippon.com/en/views/b06902/ the-meiji-restoration-the-end-of-the-shogunate-and-the-building-of-a-modern-japanese-state. html Attisani, A. (1996). Facets of Tibetan traditional theatre. Shaping the mind: Artistic facets of Tibetan civilization. The Tibet Journal, 21(2), 128–139. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/43302280 Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bennett, A. (2014). Hagakure: The secret wisdom of the samurai by Yamamoto Tsunetomo, translated into English by Alexander Bennett. Tuttle: Tokyo.

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

153

Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Berger, P., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Double Day & Company. Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. London: Sage. BuddhaNet and Japan Buddhist Federation. (n.d.). Japanese Buddhism. Retrieved December 7, 2019, from http://www.buddhanet.net/nippon/nippon_partI.html? fbclid¼IwAR1vFCV7gN4Aq-Q1DxHq4TQq2IRAikd38fMAVM1KPM4LEwhOg0_ XWJP8Z2M Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., et al. (2016). Education for intercultural citizenship: Principles in practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Chuter, A. (2013). NHK (1983) Silk Road 2. Episode 1. Across the Pamirs. Retrieved July 27, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼cUqIp9ARVIg. Cobbings, S. (2008). Kyushu: Gateway to Japan. Folkestone: BRILL/Global Oriental. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for foreign languages. Strasbourg: Author. Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: Concepts and applications. New York: Prentice Hall. Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Paris: UNESCO. Derivry-Plard, M. (2013). The native-speaker language teacher through time and space. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan (pp. 239–251). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Derivry-Plard, M. (2018). A multilingual paradigm in language education: What it means for language teachers. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 131–148). Singapore: Springer Nature. Doyé, P. (1992). Fremdsprachenunterricht als Beitrag zu tertiare Sozialisation. In D. Buttjes, W. Butzkamm, & F. Klippel (Eds.), Neue Brennpunkte des Englishunterrichts. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang. Emrich, D. (1946). “Folk-Lore”: William John Thoms. California Folklore Quarterly, 5(4), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1495929. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www. jstor.org/stable/1495929 Fleming, S. (2019). Japan’s holiest shrine is pulled down and rebuilt every 20 years – On purpose. World Economic Forum. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/ 2019/04/japans-holiest-shrine-is-pulled-down-and-rebuilt-every-20-years-on-purpose/ Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books. Harari, Y. N. (2011). Sapiens. A brief history of humankind. London: Vintage. Hashimoto, K. (2013). The construction of the ‘native speaker’ in Japan’s educational policies for TEFL. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 159–168). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hashimoto, S. A. (2018). Japanese native-speakerism: Past, present and future. In S. A. Houghton, D. J. Rivers, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions (pp. 97–158). New York: Routledge. Healthy Linguistic Diet. (n.d.). Healthy Linguistic Diet. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from http:// healthylinguisticdiet.com/ Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ ccl030 Houghton, S. A. (2012). Intercultural dialogue in practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A. (2018). The post-native-speakerist shift. In S. A. Houghton, D. J. Rivers, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions (pp. 159–249). New York: Routledge.

154

S. A. Houghton

Houghton, S. A., Furumura, Y., Lebedko, M., & Song, L. (Eds.). (2013). Developing critical cultural awareness: Managing stereotypes in intercultural (language) education. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Houghton, S. A., & Hashimoto, K. (Eds.). (2018). Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 61–77). Singapore: Springer Nature. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A., Rivers, D. J., & Hashimoto, K. (2018). Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions. New York: Routledge. ICCROM. (2019, September 9–20). Summer school: Communication and teaching skills in conservation and science 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.iccrom.org/courses/ communication-and-teaching-skills-conservation-and-science-2019 ICCROM. (n.d.). International centre for the study of the preservation and restoration of cultural property homepage. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.iccrom.org/ International Sociological Association. (n.d.). Books of the XX century. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.isa-sociology.org/en/about-isa/history-of-isa/books-of-the-xx-century/ Japan Heritage Dazaifu. (n.d.). Story-composing cultural assets. Man'yoshu Tsukushi Kadan. Retrieved October 13, 2019, from https://www.dazaifu-japan-heritage.jp/en/bunkazai/detail. php?cId¼330. Kashima Cable TV. (2018, January 8). Menburyu-inspired dance-fitness. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://stephhoughton.wixsite.com/mysite-1/program-overview-japanese Kozakai, T. (2005). Another culture of dialogue. In Proceedings of the International Symposium Cultural diversity and globalization. The Arab-Japanese Experience: A cross-regional dialogue. Paris: UNESCO Publications, pp. 127–130. Kuwata, T. (2019). Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Toyotomi-Hideyoshi NHK. (1980~). NHK特集 シルクロード [The Silk Road]. Retrieved December 9, 2019, from https://www.nhk-ondemand.jp/program/P200800008800000/index.html?capid¼TV60 NHK (Saga). (2019, September 11). Live interview with Stephanie Ann Houghton about Menburyu-inspired dance-fitness. Hirumae Johoobin. Live TV interview. Oda, Y. (2009). Constant change. Time. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from http://content.time.com/ time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1893324_1893306_1893304,00.html Petrie, D. (2013). (Dis) integration of mother tongue teachers in Italian universities. Human rights abuses and the quest for equal treatment in the European single market. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 29–60). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pound, E., & Fenellosa, E. (1959). The classic Noh theatre of Japan. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation. Prideaux, E. (2007). Japan’s Shinto-Buddhist religious medley. The Japan Times. Retrieved December 9, 2019, from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/09/04/reference/japansshinto-buddhist-religious-medley/#.Xe2nV-gzbIU Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). A neo-Kohlbergian approach: The DIT and schema theory. Educational Psychology Review, 11(4), 291–324. Rivers, D. J. (2018). The native-speaker criterion: Past traditions, current perspectives and future possibilities. In S. A. Houghton, D. J. Rivers, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Beyond nativespeakerism: Current explorations and future visions (pp. 13–96). New York: Routledge. Saga Denshou Geinou. (2019, September 23). In 2nd Saga Densho Geino Festival. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from http://www.saga-denshou.jp Saga Shimbun. (2017, December 8). 鹿島「面浮立」で国際交流 佐賀大 : 創作ダンス作り教 室 [Kashima Menburyū de kokusai kōryū Sagadai: Sōsaku dansu-tsukuri kyōshitsu]. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from www.saga-s.co.jp/articles/-/160963 Saga Shimbun. (2018a, December 12). 面浮立でエアロビ創作 文化、世代超え80人交流: 佐賀 大の異文化交流授業 [Menburyū de earobi sōsaku bunka, sedai koe 80-nin kōryū: Sagadai no ibunkakōryū jugyō]. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from www.saga-s.co.jp/articles/-/160963

6 Menburyu and the Shaguma: (De)Constructing (Inter)National Cultural Practices. . .

155

Saga Shimbun. (2018b, June 10). 「面浮立」でエアロビ. [Menburyū aerobi]. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.saga-s.co.jp/articles/gallery/228444?ph¼1 Saga Shimbun. (2018c, December 14). 面浮立の歴史紹介 佐賀大学美術館で企画展: 写真や 本、資料を展示. [Menburyū no rekishi shōkai Sagadaigaku bijutsukan de kikaku-ten: Shashin ya hon, shiryō wo tenji]. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.saga-s.co.jp/articles/-/ 314432 Saga TV. (2019). かちかちPress: さがまちかど20. [KachiKachi Press: “Saga machikado (at the street corner)] 20. TV interview. Stenou, K. (2005). Cultural diversity and dialogue: An interface. In K. Stenou (Ed.), Dialogue. Cultural diversity and globalization: The Arab-Japanese experience (pp. 123–126). Paris: UNESCO. Sterling, B. (1999). Homo sapiens declared extinct. Nature, 402, 125. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.nature.com/articles/45932 Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. London: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorisation and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178. Takahira, Y. (2019, July 17). 「面浮立のルーツ探る~高来・川上神社で調査、佐賀大ホート ン准教授ら」[Menburyu no roots saguru. Kourai Kawakami jinja Chosa. Saga Daigaku Houghton Junkyoju ra]. Nagasaki Shimbun newspaper article. Teeuwen, M. (2006). Review: Kokugaku vs. nativism. Monumenta Nipponica, 61(2), 227–242. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/25066432?seq¼1 The Celebration Committee of the Emperor’s Accession to the Throne. (2019). 天皇陛下御即位奉 祝委員会 [Tenno Heika Gosokui Hooshuku Iinkai]. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https:// www.houshuku.org/document/pdf/festival_20191109.pdf? fbclid¼IwAR3Mjb5W5tNXYhayTWVgRwlAc7zFrh2F6LkeLErfqxqkOOXBhgJ9kBxpx9U The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1998). Shinbutsu shūgō. Japanese religion. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shinbutsu-shugo The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2010). Kokugaku. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kokugaku The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2019a). Gandhara. Historical region, Pakistan. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/place/Gandhara The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2019b). Xuanzang. Buddhist monk. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Xuanzang The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2019c). Journey to the West, Novel by Wu Cheng’En. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Journey-to-the-West The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Risorgimento. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/event/Risorgimento Thoms, W. J. (1879). The longevity of man. Its facts and its fictions. With a prefatory letter to Prof. Owen, C.B., F.R.S. on the limits and frequency of exceptional cases. London: F. Norgate. Thoms, W. J. (2016). Human longevity, its facts and its fictions including an inquiry into some of the more remarkable instances, and suggestions for testing reputed cases. South Yarra, VIC: Leopold Classic Library. Turnbull, S. (2003). Japanese warrior monks AD 949-1603. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. Turner, M. W., Lowe, R. J., & Schaefer, M. Y. (Producers). (2019, September 11). TEFL interviews 58: Stephanie Ann Houghton (PanSIG 2019) [Audio podcast]. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://teflology-podcast.com/2019/09/11/tefl-interviews-58-stephanie-ann-houghtonpansig-2019/ UNESCO. (1982). Mexico city declaration on cultural policies. Retrieved January 19, 2019, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000052505 UNESCO. (1995). Our creative diversity. Paris: World Commission on Culture and Development. Retrieved January 19, 2019, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001016/101651e.pdf

156

S. A. Houghton

UNESCO. (2001). Universal declaration on cultural diversity. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/5_Cultural_Diversity_ EN.pdf UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage 2003. Retrieved January 19, 2019, from https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention UNESCO. (2018). Intangible cultural heritage. Retrieved January 19, 2019, from https://ich. unesco.org/ UNESCO. (n.d.). Silk roads. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/ content/nara United Nations. (2017). United Nations, world population ageing: Highlights, 2017. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ ageing/WPA2017_Highlights.pdf United Nations. (n.d.). UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment Wodak, R., et al. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. World Health Organization. (2017). Infographic on dementia. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://www.who.int/mental_health/neurology/dementia/infographic_dementia/en/ Yomiuri Shimbun. (2019, January 4). 「面浮立でフィットネス~英国人准教授らが考案」 [Menburyu de fitness. Eikokijin junkyoju raga kouhan]. Yunus Social Business. (n.d.). Yunus social business. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https:// www.yunussb.com/

Chapter 7

A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice Martine Derivry-Plard

Abstract Language education has been driven by a monolingual paradigm, which reached a climax with the ideologies conveyed with the nation-states. Deeply rooted in perceptions about languages and cultures and the perennial dichotomy between us and them, the monolingual–monocultural paradigm was progressively built upon the standardization of languages for pedagogical purposes (Derivry-Plard, Les enseignants de langues dans la mondialisation, la guerre des représentations, postface de Claire Kramsch, EAC/PLID, 2015; Towards post-native-speakerism. Dynamics and shifts, Springer, 2018). Native-speakerism has been part and parcel of the monolingual paradigm. When one fully addresses the emergence of a multilingual paradigm in language education with regard to both language teachers (L1 or L2) and other subject teachers, and their increasingly plurilingual–pluricultural learners, native-speakerism starts being undone. In order to investigate how language teachers and learners could contribute to the multilingual–multicultural paradigm, projects of intercultural telecollaborations at secondary and higher education were undertaken. These projects show the complexity of these learning environments (different students, levels of target languages, perceived objectives) while addressing the notion of intercultural citizenship in practice. These intercultural learning environments have to be apprehended in terms of linguistic, cultural and intercultural openness and curiosity—two attitudes that can be fostered through intercultural communication mediated by language education and education through languages. Experience journals appear to be essential activities in supporting students’ reflexive approach towards self and others within a multilingual–multicultural paradigm.

M. Derivry-Plard (*) University of Bordeaux, INSPE, Bordeaux, France e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_7

157

158

7.1 7.1.1

M. Derivry-Plard

Introduction Research in Language Teaching and Learning

The teaching and learning of languages, especially “foreign” languages (FL) at schools has always been in an incongruous position since it highlights differences, both cultural and linguistic, between learners and otherness. Teaching and learning another language and culture as a school subject is characterized by some educational schizophrenia since proposing an alterity as an objective, i.e., learning and engaging in another language and culture, is carried out within the same mindset of the language curriculum and programme where it is delivered, and not with the curriculum or programme of this other language or culture. In other words, when one is reminded of Durkheim’s work on education and society (Blommaert, 2018), and its close link to national identities, the teaching of foreign languages at school needs to be perceived through the linguistic and cultural filter of the educational and cultural setting of a specific country. For example, the teaching and learning of English in France was designed for French learners by French teachers of English: the socialization of future French citizens was thus not hampered by the FL subject since learning English in a French school was imbibed by the French curriculum (Derivry-Plard, 2003). This proposal also applies to any teaching of the so-called foreign languages. In fact, other additional languages to be learned, traditionally called foreign languages are taught in a given society, and FL teaching, more particularly in its institutional and educational form, cannot go beyond the national or contextual bias but has to deal with it. The turning point in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has been particularly innovative in that the field of language teaching and learning research as linguistics, or applied linguistics, is no longer the unique reference, and research has brought together a whole range of other disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, history, educational sciences, sociolinguistics, the sciences of language, research in language acquisition (bi/multilingualism). The plurilingual perspective—increasingly more prominent in international research in language teaching and learning—accompanies the acceleration of globalization processes by questioning the status of languages (Blommaert, 2010), their circulation, the tensions between “major languages” and “small languages” (Alao, Argaud, Derivry-Plard, & Leclerq, 2008) and between the hyper-language of world markets and other languages (Gazzola, 2018; Grin, 2005; Phillipson, 2009). It is, therefore, according to the principles of plurilingualism (Coste, Moore, & Zarate, 1997/2009; Zarate, Levy, & Kramsch, 2011) that the history of language teaching is presented in this chapter (Germain, 1993; Howatt & Widdowson, 2004), a story related to the construction of nation-states and the monolingual–monocultural paradigm (Baggioni, 1987; Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018; Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Thiesse, 1999). The cultural fragmentation of societies as a result of migration or economic globalization multiplies the social and political responses through integration and conflict processes on several scales—local, regional, national, transnational—and through the power struggle of

7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice

159

defining norms and standards. The emergence of a multilingual–multicultural paradigm1 is related to this cultural fragmentation, these various language norms and the power balance between languages or registers due to increased language contacts. This unprecedented situation invites us to re-conceptualize language teaching once we take into full account the new practices of actors and particularly the new Y generations who have been learning languages in and out of school with the Internet and social networks or through mobility. How can language and subject teachers consider the linguistic and cultural diversity of their learners for language learning and content learning, which is always delivered through a language? How does language teaching and learning accommodate or not with new inequalities in terms of discrimination and exclusion when the international motto for educational excellence is to implement English Medium Instruction (EMI) through a massive global competition? How can the teaching and learning of languages from a plurilingual and pluricultural perspective initiate new patterns of socialization for the education of intercultural citizenship (Porto, Houghton, & Byram, 2018)? The linguistic field of teaching (Derivry-Plard, 2015) should be understood as a framework in the fabric of individuals with plural or multiple identities (Lahire, 1998) and who will share different communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) all through their lives. How can the linguistic field of teaching still remain within the boundaries of school education and go beyond them through the reshaping of the socio-cultural links that can be encapsulated with the notion of intercultural citizenship (Byram, Golubeva, Hui, & Wagner, 2016; Orsini-Jones & Lee, 2018; Porto et al., 2018). A theoretical reconceptualization of the language/cultural curriculum worldwide based on a multilingual paradigm helps set new core practices of multilingual learning environments that include monolingual learners and teachers or native-speakers, thus going beyond the native-speakerist stance and focus of the monolingual paradigm. In the rest of the chapter, a brief history of the monolingual paradigm is presented followed by a discussion and clarification of the plurilingual paradigm. Intercultural telecollaborative learning environments from primary, secondary and higher education are then presented to conceptualize the educative potential of these emerging practices as part of a multilingual paradigm in language education.

7.1.2

A Monolingual Paradigm in Language Teaching and Learning

What we know about the origins of languages is that they were diverse and multiple contrary to the myth of a common, pure and sacred language. Perceptions have been progressively constructed to view through this diversity a linguistic world made of separate, self-contained languages: the monolingual paradigm. We can say that from the origin of writing (circa 3500 BC) the monolingual paradigm emerged and slowly 1

Or plurilingual/pluricultural as these adjectives would be used as synonyms in this chapter.

160

M. Derivry-Plard

evolved to reach a climax with the advent of nation-states in Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This powerful ideology, which is widespread all through the world, is still dominant, but no longer unchallenged, particularly within the domain of sociolinguistics and research in language learning and teaching and within other new communities of practices that are de facto plurilingual.

7.1.2.1

Plurilingual Origins Towards a Monolingual Construction

From the beginnings of humanity, numerous languages have emerged with people seeking to be understood, including through the use of translation: the Rosetta Stone (196 BC) represents an exemplary illustration in this regard. History also tells us that languages with a written code have had advantages over others in terms of language mnesis and development, which is also the result of geopolitical and symbolic power relations between nations and languages. Languages with scripts will gain social power when they are not only used by a community of people but are taught as L1 or “first” language. Thus, the higher the status of a language, the more a language is taught not only as a vector of all other disciplines or subjects but also as a subject in its own right. The higher its geopolitical status, the more widespread a language is taught, not only as a L1 but also as a second or foreign language and eventually as a world language: this is what occurred with French in the eighteenth century (Casanova, 2015) and English in the twentieth century (Phillipson, 2009). In the Greco-Roman era (Germain, 1993) two kinds of teachers appeared: the teacher (didascalos) or philosopher, the one who has knowledge and makes learners think through maieutics and the pedagogue (paidagôgos) who leads the child and helps them to recite lessons. This pedagogue was often working for great Roman families, for example, a Greek slave who taught Greek to the children of a rich Roman family. The children would thus acquire Greek in a natural way with the care of a “native” speaker of Greek (Germain, 1993). Bilingual learning is acquired through contact and exchanges with the pedagogue, and the issue is of importance since Greek was at that time the language of prestige and culture. From the beginning, “the language teacher” was a “native” speaker and a “slave” at the service of children and the family. Later, foreign preceptors and governesses attended the rich families to teach certain disciplines but especially the prestige language of the moment. As vernacular languages gained status, grammars needed to be developed for language learners. Thus, the first grammar of French (Lesclarcissement de la langue francoyse) was published in London in 1530 and was designed by John Palsgrave, an English, “non-native” speaker of French (Palsgrave, 2003).

7.1.2.2

Nation-States and a Monolingual/Monocultural Paradigm

If the world is multilingual, Europe as a geographic region was built with the economic development that accompanied the progress and formalization of

7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice

161

European vernacular languages and their dissemination on the world stage. Nationstates gradually build on a monolingual discourse that they are shaping. The monolingual paradigm is part of this powerful linguistic-national ideology exemplified by the slogan “a people, a language, a nation,”2 the credo of nation-states, which draw from it the fabrication of national identities (Baggioni, 1987; Thiesse, 1999). For this reason, education systems are set up from basic compulsory education for all through a language of schooling (Beacco, Byram, Coste, & Fleming, 2009). In other words, compulsory education and language are both built to form the future citizens of the nation. Languages and cultures (in the sense of the “national” culture) are gradually formalized and standardized in textbooks and taught as necessary elements for socialization (Durkheim, 1938/2014). This creates a strong structural opposition between the learning of languages in the institutional and non-institutional spaces not only in France but throughout the powerful Europe of the time depending on the progress of the nation-states. Thus, at the end of the nineteenth century, when Western countries set up systems of universal education, public and elite schools, both demonstrated an institutional difference in preference for foreign language teachers.

7.1.2.3

Language Teachers and the Monolingual/Monocultural Paradigm

If L1 teachers are “native” to the language they teach, L2 or foreign language teachers were divided into “native” or “non-native” L2 speakers. For these FL teachers, there was no competition between their differentiated legitimacies or teaching profiles as they occupied different spaces: “native” L2 speakers taught for adults in language schools that were usually private (Berlitz was created in 1878) and “non-native” L2 speakers taught children and teenagers in schools that were usually state-owned (Derivry-Plard, 2015, 2018). Discourses and perceptions were interrelated and opposed the native speaker teachers as “better” for “language and culture”—the language model to the non-native speaker teachers as better for teaching due to the fact they have followed the same learning process as their students—the learning model (Derivry-Plard, 2003, 2018). This particularity of the field of foreign language teaching based on the differentiation of the linguistic profile of teachers and their teaching places (non-institutional/institutional) has favoured the development of two opposing educational legitimacies: that of the native teacher as a language model within the non-institutional and private space and that of the “non-native” teacher as a model of learning within the institutional and public space.

2

“Race” could even be added, notably with Nazi Germany.

162

7.2

M. Derivry-Plard

A Multilingual Paradigm in Language Teaching and Learning

At the end of the twentieth century, continuing education and the discourse on lifelong learning for adults developed. New means of communication such as low-cost airlines and the Internet (1990) favoured travel and trade. The two institutional and non-institutional spaces became porous, and both legitimacies (the one for the native speaker teacher as a model of language and the one of the non-native speaker teacher as a model of state-institutionalized learning) found themselves in conflict and competition (Derivry-Plard, 2003, 2015).

7.2.1

Resistance to the Multilingual Paradigm

In a monolingual stance based on the dichotomy (native and non-native), the goal of learning is to move towards the model represented by the native-speakers in an idealized version of their language and culture. This perception is also common to the non-native speaker teachers who chose teaching a L2 with this unattainable goal of the native speaker teachers as they are not. These institutional spaces (places of non-native speaker teachers of FL) are finally weakened by this monolingual paradigm that gives primacy to native speaker teachers, who are more able to claim their place due to social pressure based on native-speakerism even if the right of entry into national “institutional” systems remains particularly high (Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018; Houghton & Rivers, 2013). The predominant monolingual vision reinforces the visibility of native language teachers within institutional spaces now more permeable to social demands. Native language teachers build on their commercial credibility already acquired in private language schools. Non-native speaker teachers, traditionally not present in these non-institutional private spaces, are virtually excluded, while native speaker teachers are gradually included in the institutional space. The situation in universities, institutional places whose discourses are driven by the rhetoric of the internationalization of higher education is particularly interesting in this respect (Le Lièvre et al., 2018). Discourses among language teachers remain generally marked by this “native/non-native” duality, their respective qualities and complementarities, insofar as there is always adherence to both types of language legitimacy. The international literature related to surveys dealing with the perceived advantages and disadvantages of native/non-native speaker teachers also confirms this structuring of the field of language teaching (Derivry-Plard, 2015).

7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice

7.2.2

163

Emergence of a Multilingual Paradigm in Research

Research challenges these rigid perceptions and discourses and suggests the notion of repertoires: ... in sociolinguistics, ‘communicative competence’ – the knowing what and knowing how to use language which Hymes pitted against Chomskyan ‘competence’ (Hymes 1972b is the locus classicus, see also Hymes 1992). ‘Repertoire’ so became the word we use to describe all the “means of speaking” i.e. all those means that people know how to use and why while they communicate, and such means, as we have seen, range from linguistic ones (language varieties) over cultural ones (genres, styles) and social ones (norms for the production and understanding of language). (Blommaert & Backus, 2012, p. 4).

In this multilingual, diverse world, people have different repertoires of saying either in L1 or L2 (Coste et al., 1997/2009) and these repertoires are not only communicative (language and culture) but can also be pedagogical. The native speaker becomes an intercultural speaker or a plurilingual–pluricultural speaker and the purpose of language teaching becomes plural and much more elaborate and complicated in terms of objectives, content, learners’ knowledge, implementation of integrated ICT systems, practical evaluation, follow-up of learners, collaborative work between learners, between teachers, with administrative staff and external actors of civil society (parents, employers, associations, etc.). It is no longer a question of speaking like a “native,” of following a textbook or a programme but of communicating in an intelligible way across languages and cultures. Learners become social actors (notion present in the CEFR, 2001) with their resources, languages and linguistic and cultural repertoires of teaching and learning. The aim is to develop skills or know-how through more or less specialized and sophisticated learning processes and repertoires dealing with translanguaging (Garcia & Wei, 2014). Taking into account the plurilingual and pluricultural realities of the speakers as social actors who have been overshadowed by the monolingual paradigm, the fetishist ideology of language-culture and related native-speakerist discourses and practices becomes central in the reflection of the teaching and learning of languages in a multicultural world.

7.2.3

Defining the Plurilingual Paradigm

The following figure is to explain what is understood by a plurilingual paradigm. The linguistic field (Bourdieu, 2001) encompasses the linguistic field of teaching as not all languages or repertoires of the linguistic field are explicitly taught and used for teaching. The linguistic field of teaching is broader than the field of language teaching, which only concerns the languages taught as L1 or L2, which comprises the field of Foreign Language teaching as fewer languages are taught as a FL (Fig. 7.1).

164

The Linguistic Field

M. Derivry-Plard

The Linguistic

The Field of

Field of Teaching

Language Teaching

The Field of Foreign Language Teaching

Fig. 7.1 Language and linguistic fields of the plurilingual paradigm (Derivry-Plard, 2018, p. 142)

This “pluri” or “multi” paradigm opposes the binary “mono” categories (native/ non-native; mother tongue/foreign language, etc.) and instead promotes continua and scales (macro-meso-micro), structural hierarchies with their dominant power relations, actors with more or less plural habitus, linguistic and cultural markets and the conditions of a given communication setting for interaction. The teaching/ learning of languages (field of language teaching) and through languages (the linguistic field of teaching) is no longer exclusively organized in the “classroom,” nor in a territory, but in a given community of practice (Wenger, 1998). Culture is viewed as a community of practice when people interact and learn together on a specific domain that they share and thus develop their social and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 2001). Learners and teachers are becoming increasingly plurilingual. The training of language teachers is therefore becoming more demanding, knowing that both teachers and their learners will have to travel and work with colleagues from other countries in other languages, to even settle in other countries either as a desired or imposed move. Faced with the challenges of globalization (as conveying a neo-liberal doxa according to Blommaert, 2010) and Mondialité (as conveying the realization of a diverse, unequal one-world according to Glissant, 1997), new power struggles within education systems that remain national, while at the same time teachers and learners become more diverse linguistically and culturally, open new possibilities to intercultural education and intercultural citizenship. Intercultural education takes into account language, whose essential role “is not the production of linguistic forms but rather the creation, communication and interpretation of meanings” (Dervin & Liddicoat, 2013, p. 9). Language is de-essentialized and conversely, culture is de-essentialized too (Zarate, et al., 2011) as “we need to move beyond seeing cultures as discrete, static entities and see cultures as varied, subjective and power-based construction of lived experience” (Dervin & Liddicoat, 2013, p. 7). This intercultural education is to be considered as part of the plurilingual/pluricultural paradigm that de-essentializes both language and culture while fully acknowledging our diverse, super-diverse one-world. Within that framework, interculturality is more than accepting language and cultural diversity: it is about intercultural speakers (Byram, 2012) with their linguacultural repertoires (Risager, 2007), becoming more competent through intercultural education, more able to engage in dialogues between cultures

7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice

165

(Byram, 2012) and languages through the process of meaning-making (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). If education is about the socialization of the young generation towards social beings and citizens in a given society, intercultural education is about the emerging socialization of intercultural subjects and citizens. This is how many blended learning environments participate nowadays in fostering languages and cultures of their learners towards intercultural citizenship, combining two common objectives: language education and citizenship education (Risager, 2007; Byram, 2008; Miller, Kostogriz, & Gearon, 2009; Houghton, 2012; Diaz, 2013; Cenoz & Gorter, 2015; Majhanovich & Malet, 2015; Holmes & Dervin, 2016; Byram et al., 2016; Orsini-Jones & Lee, 2018).

7.3

New Intercultural Practices In and Through Language Learning

New practices are emerging and entering a real dynamic even if they remain at the margins of educational systems around the world. Among them, the Erasmus program in Europe for student exchange, eTwinning platforms, TILA (2013–2015) and TeCoLa (2016–2019) for secondary school teachers and UNIcollaboration for higher education allow finding a partner to co-construct online learning environments to enhance language learning as well as any subject matter through an intercultural setting (Derivry-Plard & Lenoir, 2017). Through these platforms, teachers implement self-training or guided training in providing online, synchronous and asynchronous exchange learning environments. They develop language and intercultural competences for their learners and for themselves across different education systems. They adapt to the circumstances and affordances of their classes and national curricula especially for compulsory education in primary or secondary schools or adjust to the specific cultures of higher education across different countries. For further information about these new developments, readers are invited to consult the websites of TILA and TeCoLa where they would find concrete activities, teaching guides, research conclusions of the TILA project (Jauregui, 2015) and the TeCoLa seminars online.

7.3.1

Telecollaboration for Languages and for any Subject Matter

The intercultural dimension supported by telecollaborative tasks (learning by doing) is inherent to all these learning environments. However, it requires a lot of knowhow, between the educational, teaching and learning cultures to be effective in terms of intercultural awareness and sensitivity (O’Dowd & Lewis, 2016). Some scholars even argue that the goal of language teaching would now be to address intercultural citizenship: the FL classroom should ‘become a Content and Language Integrated

166

M. Derivry-Plard

Learning (CLIL) classroom, i.e., where the FL is used as a medium of instruction and the content is “intercultural citizenship”’ (Byram et al., 2016, p. xxiii). New language teaching and learning practices are emerging, expanding and growing fast, benefiting from the porosity between the institutional and non-institutional spaces, from some dilution of the “native/non-native” language teachers and the crumbling language class policy of the target language only. Teachers can no longer ignore the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) facilitating intercultural collaborations and telecollaborations. Even if going and studying abroad cannot be replaced as an experience, the language class of the twenty-first century has the possibility on a very large-scale to engage students to travel while staying at home, to encounter others within the security of the language telecollaborative class and to provide the opportunity for millions of students to communicate, interact and learn together. The language class has always represented a third space according to Kramsch (1993), a specific space where languages and cultures meet. However, with online telecollaboration, this third space becomes more authentic due to the co-constructed learning environments that engage teachers and their learners in carrying out common tasks and sometimes even in the joint evaluation of these tasks (Liaw & English, 2013). The foreign language class or the “modern language”, which has always been a place where otherness was introduced (openness to the world), is now a place where learners and teachers can not only imagine and learn about, but actually meet, interact, communicate in an authentic setting (Kohn, 2018). Communication is no more or no less authentic than in the traditional classroom but the telecollaborative environment provides the pedagogical setting of using the target language directly with “foreigners”: no need to go abroad for that authentic experience. Teachers will be able to accompany, support and scaffold the different stages of the experience through meaning-making and knowledge-making.

7.3.2

Telecollaboration for the Cultural and Intercultural

These intercultural practices, still limited within the national education systems, open up common areas of training and socialization, and through their multiplication, open discussions in line with democratic values can take place when allowing different points of views, perspectives and understanding to be expressed and negotiated (Majhanovich & Malet, 2015). These learning environments are also organized beyond the traditional binary exchange of schools and school trips abroad, where only learners of the target language are included (French learners of English and English learners of French). These learning environments provide enriched practice to the traditional modalities of reciprocity of languages (previous example of French learners of English with English learners of French) and add up the lingua franca modality (French learners working in English with Taiwanese learners, for example). In this perspective, the cultural and intercultural dimensions of language learning are even more complex as we no longer deal theoretically with only two

7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice

167

languages and two cultures but rather with more than two languages and cultures. The ecology of the new learning environment requires an even more critical and sensitive approach (Dervin, 2017) than the reductive and cast-aside attitude of the cultural and intercultural curriculum of language learning. The TILA and TeCoLa programmes in Europe are good examples of these new developments in language learning and teaching within the institutional spaces of European education. A plurilingual perspective envisages that the language reciprocity modality as well as that of the lingua franca can be realized in any language, for example, Basque and Kashubian learners in reciprocal language learning, or learners of Yorubà lingua franca, with French and Portuguese speakers. In this last example of a language learned as a lingua franca, the intercultural potential is broadened since beyond the target language (Yorubà), three cultural dimensions can be worked out or crossanalysed: Yorubà, Portuguese and French according to the community of practice of the group considered and their objectives. The intercultural potential offered by these online learning environments through the designing of common tasks or projects allows students to enhance cultural knowledge and intercultural experiential practices. Language learning is seen as intelligible communication, of deeper meaningmaking through the tasks of projects to be carried out and of recognizing oneself and others through doing and negotiating together (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). This learning by doing can be guided in particular with learning logs (or journals of experience), in which the individual learner reflects on his/her experience of accomplishing common tasks related to this specific intercultural learning path. These reflections must help learners to decentre from themselves and adjust to new realities. These narratives aim to develop reflectivity and meta-cognitive abilities related to languages, cultures and learning through the comments of peers and teachers. This is an essential educational development that can be evaluated for itself with the specific communities of practice but cannot be “standardized” neither in terms of contents nor processes. To put it in a nutshell, diversity, once it is taken seriously, cannot be normalized.3

7.4

Bridging Theory and Practice within a Multilingual Paradigm

These examples of intercultural telecollaborations remain marginal within the whole language curriculum but they are part of a dynamic that is concretely supported by the multilingual paradigm. Moreover, language learning can no longer be reduced to the language curriculum as we also learn and do languages through subject matters and outside any formal education. We practise translanguaging (Garcia & Wei,

3

See French Associations ASDIFLE, ACEDLE, TRANSIT-lingua about the new descriptors of CECRL http://asdifle.com/content/d%C3%A9bat-participatif-14-et-15-juin-2019; https:// transitlingua.org/debat-participatif-de-juin-2019.html#deb-5

168

M. Derivry-Plard

2014), which resembles what we have called in France “competence plurilingue” (Coste et al., 1997/2009) even though the French word of “competence” is more open and flexible than the English one. In fact, we do translanguaging as we use different sociolinguistic repertoires and language repertoires within the education system (the linguistic field of teaching) and outside its scope, within the linguistic field when we mobilize our language resources to communicate with others. The linguistic field as conceptualized by Bourdieu is the sociolinguistic reality of diverse human beings with their different languages and the symbolic representations linked to any linguistic forms. Behind languages, there are always geopolitics and ideologies, power struggles for the “best” language, the “best” teacher and the “best” language teacher. In that sense, the monolingual/monocultural paradigm is a powerful nationalistic enterprise promoting one language, one culture, one “race”, one “native” speaker and is therefore a warlike ideological linguicist system, in which people have to compete for the dominance of “their” language and “their” culture viewed as a simplistic entity. Rethinking languages and cultures in terms of a plurilingual/pluricultural paradigm allows going beyond binary oppositions as speakers with monolingual habitus are included along bi/plurilingual speakers (Deyrich & Majhanovic, 2017). Binary oppositions are converted into continua, scales of speech, discourses and meanings, which take place in situated social settings, in which people use language (s) and do translanguaging in order to deal with their multiple activities.

7.4.1

Integrating Pedagogies and Contents

Research in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), i.e., carrying out an educational activity in another language, should gain from the broader perspective of the multilingual paradigm. Usually used for the sole English language, CLIL could be used for any language. The integration of content and language would also require some common know-how between content and language teachers, and it calls for pedagogical training for both types of teachers within the linguistic field of teaching so that they can devise teamwork and co-teaching. Within the field of language teaching, another integration or team teaching should be worked out between the “first” language or the school language and other languages to give more strength and efficiency to language learning (Beacco et al., 2009). Finally, the field of foreign language teaching should also work on integrated pedagogies based on intercomprehension (Escudé & Janin, 2010) and plural approaches (Candelier, 2010) in language learning and teaching. All levels of the linguistic field of teaching have to consider the variety of plurilingual/pluricultural learners, to mobilize their knowledge and know-how as essential resources at hand for all teachers. In order to be able to mobilize these resources, both types of teachers (content and language) need to get some common training. Through collaborative and telecollaborative trainings with pre-service and in-service teachers of languages and of content, we can set the conditions of common integrated practices that are essential to cope with diversity.

7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice

7.4.2

169

Designing Cultural Spaces and Communities of Practice

Even though, inequality is the main steady universal dimension of the linguistic field and therefore of the linguistic field of teaching, people in the digital world function more and more across nation-states and across languages, bringing their diverse languages and cultures when communicating with other people; nonetheless, these people are also very unequal in terms of social and cultural capital, linguistic capital and mobility capital. In other words, people will move from a variety of positions between those having all three types of capital at the highest amount—they are usually the cosmopolitans who can move from one country to the others very easily and use languages equally—whereas other people, with very limited capital, can either be assigned to a territory for life or forced to move. In each communicative situation, either for language learning, or for learning through languages, the speaker can no longer be fully explained through the “native” criterion, as they may have acquired more than one first language and might also have become versed in a range of repertoires. A multilingual paradigm simply considers the realities of the learnersspeakers in the diversity of their own repertoires in order to optimize language learning, communication and intelligibility across cultures. These learners-speakers can also be teachers-speakers to address this linguistic and intercultural diversity within multilingual and intercultural education (Kramsch, 2014; Cenoz & Gorter, 2015).

7.5

Conclusion

A multilingual paradigm in language education combines language teaching and learning and education through languages. Without this conceptual framework we cannot grasp how new practices of plurilingual learners and teachers create or fashion some foundation to intercultural citizenship (Porto et al., 2018). Let us conclude very concretely with a French learner of an intercultural telecollaboration in English where each working group was composed of four students (Bordeaux, Valladolid, São Paulo, Taichung). In her own words in her learning log, she encapsulated the experience reported by all the other learners: Whole experience teach me information about education in the world but also about culture. I realize that we had some similarities around the world, even if we don’t have the same situation (age, way of life, jobs). First of all, this experience was a human experience. What’s more I feel more confident in English, I learnt to speak slowly but surely, being not anxious. I think this experience should be renew with others students but also with pupils. They can improve their level but also develop social skills like empathy, solidarity it will be a real citizen exercise.

170

M. Derivry-Plard

This kind of intercultural telecollaboration in the linguistic field of teaching has a full potential to bridge the gap between theory and practice within a multilingual paradigm as it can be used for: Any language learning and teaching, be it an international language, a “dead” language or a sociolect if need be. Any language speaker (native, bi/plurilingual) and any language teacher (native, bi/plurilingual). Any language and content, Cultural, intercultural and reflexive approach, once teachers and particularly language teachers have a robust training in sociology and anthropology in order to avoid any stereotyping when dealing with the cultural and intercultural dimensions of the community of practice created by the learning environment, Research-action for pre and in-service teachers, either in languages or in different subject matters, Research in language acquisition, critical and reflexive thinking, intercultural sensitivity, educational cultures in any subject matters and comparative education...

With these new practices and curricula in language learning, and in learning through languages within a multilingual paradigm—which is no alternative to linguistic social hierarchies, but a comprehensive model acknowledging language diversity—there is a fresh educational agenda: fostering a democratic and human rights agenda worldwide through these micro-specific situated intercultural spaces based on a speaker-learner with multiple identities (Lahire, 1998), who is a social and intercultural actor.

References Alao, G., Argaud, A., Derivry-Plard, M., & Leclerq, H. (Eds.). (2008). Grandes et petites langues, pour une didactique du plurilinguisme et du pluriculturalisme. Bern: Peter Lang/Transversales. Baggioni, D. (1987). Langues et nations en Europe. Paris: Payot. Beacco, J. C., Byram, M., Coste, D., & Fleming, M. (2009). Language(s) of schooling. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. (2018). Durkheim and the internet, sociolinguistics and the sociological imagination. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Blommaert, J., & Backus, A. (2012). Superdiverse repertoires and the individual. The Future of Education Reserach, 2, 9–32. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Langage et pouvoir symbolique. Paris: Seuil. Byram, M. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship. Essays and reflection. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2012). Language awareness and (critical) cultural awareness - relationships, comparisons and contrasts. Language Awareness, 21, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011. 639887 Byram, M., Golubeva, I., Hui, H., & Wagner, M. (2016). From principles to practice in education for intercultural citizenship. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Candelier, M. (2010). CARAP: Cadre de reference pour les approaches plurielles des langues et des cultures. Graz; Strasbourg: CELV; Conseil de l’Europe.

7 A Multilingual Paradigm: Bridging Theory and Practice

171

Casanova, P. (2015). La langue mondiale, traduction et domination. Paris: Seuil. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2015). Multilingual education. Between language learning and translanguaging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Common European Framework for Languages – CEFR. (2001). https://www.coe.int/en/web/com mon-european-framework-reference-languages Coste, D., Moore, D., & Zarate, G. (1997/2009). Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle. Strasbourg: Ed du Conseil de l’Europe. Derivry-Plard, M. (2003). Les enseignants d’anglais « natifs » et « non- natifs ». Concurrence ou complémentarité de deux légitimités. Thèse, Paris La Sorbonne. Derivry-Plard, M. (2015). Les enseignants de langues dans la mondialisation, la guerre des représentations, postface de Claire Kramsch. Paris: EAC/PLID. Derivry-Plard, M. (2018). A multilingual paradigm in language education: What it means for language teachers. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism. Dynamics and shifts (pp. 131–148). Singapore: Springer. Derivry-Plard, M., & Lenoir, P. (Eds.). (2017). La télécollaboration interculturelle. Les Langues Modernes. Paris: APLV. Dervin, F. (2017). Critical interculturality: Lectures and notes. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Dervin, F., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2013). Linguistics for intercultural education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Deyrich, M. C., & Majhanovic, S. (2017). Language learning to support active social inclusion: Issues and challenges for lifelong learning. Dordrecht: Springer. Diaz, A. R. (2013). Developing critical languaculture pédagogies in higher education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters/LICE. Durkheim, E. (1938/2014). L’évolution pédagogique en France. Paris: PUF. Escudé, P., & Janin, P. (2010). Le point sur l’intercompréhension, clé du plurilinguisme. Paris: CLE International. Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging. Basingstoke: Macmillan Palgrave. Gazzola, M. (2018). Les classements des universités et les indicateurs bibliométriques: Quels effets sur le multilinguisme dans l’enseignement et la recherche? In F. Lelièvre, M. Anquetil, M. Derivry-Plard, C. Fäcke, & L. Verstraete-Hansen (Eds.), Langues et cultures dans l’internationalisation de l’enseignement supérieur au XXIème siècle (pp. 130–159). Bern: Peter Lang. Germain, C. (1993). Évolution de l’enseignement des langues: 5000 ans d’histoire. Paris: Nathan. Glissant, E. (1997). Traité du tout-monde. Paris: Gallimard. One World in Relation. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=aTNVe_BAELYTexte. Grin, F. (2005). L’enseignement des langues étrangères comme politique publique. Paris: Rapport pour le Haut Conseil de l’évaluation de l’école. Retrieved January 14, 2020, from http://www. linguistic-rights.org/francois-grin/Rapport\_GRIN.pdf Holmes, P., & Dervin, F. (2016). The cultural and intercultural dimensions of English as a Lingua Franca. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A. (2012). Intercultural dialogue in practice, managing value judgment through foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A., & Hashimoto, K. (2018). Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts. Singapore: Springer. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Howatt, A. P. R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jauregui, K. (2015). Integrating telecollaboration for intercultural language acquisition at secondary education: Lessons learned. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Critical CALL (pp. 268–273). https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.9781908416292 Kohn, K. (2018). MY English: A social constructivist perspective on ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2018-0001

172

M. Derivry-Plard

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (2014). Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization. Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 296–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12057.x Lahire, B. (1998). L’homme pluriel. Les ressorts de l’action. Paris: Nathan. Le Lièvre, F., Anquetil, M., Derivry-Plard, M., Fäcke, C., & Verstraete-Hansen, L. (Eds.). (2018). Langues et cultures dans l’internationalisation de l’enseignement supérieur au 21ème siècle. (Re)penser les politiques linguistiques : anglais et plurilinguisme. Peter Lang: Bern. Liaw, M. L., & English, K. (2013). Online and offsite: Student-driven development of the TaiwanFrance telecollaborative project. In M. Lamy & K. Zourou (Eds.), Social networking for language education (pp. 158–176). New York: Macmillan Palgrave. Liddicoat, T., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Majhanovich, S., & Malet, R. (2015). Building democracy through education on diversity. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Miller, J., Kostogriz, A., & Gearon, M. (2009). Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms (New perspectives on language & education). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. O’Dowd, R., & Lewis, T. (2016). Online intercultural exchange: Policy, pedagogy, practice. New York: Routledge. Orsini-Jones, M., & Lee, F. (2018). Intercultural communicative competence for global citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Palsgrave, J. (2003). L'éclaircissement de la langue française (1530). In Texte anglais original avec traduction et notes de Susan Baddeley. Paris: Honoré Champion. Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. New York: Routledge. Porto, M., Houghton, S. A., & Byram, M. (2018). Intercultural citizenship in the (foreign) language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 22(5), 484–498. Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a transnational paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. TeCoLa-Pedagogical differentiation through telecollaboration and gamification for intercultural and content integrated language teaching funded by Erasmus+. (2016–2019). Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/tecolaproject/ Thiesse, A. M. (1999). La création des identités nationales, Europe XVIIIè-XXè siècle. Paris: Seuil. TILA-Telecollaboration for Intercultural Language Acquisition funded by the European Commission within the Lifelong Learning Programme. (2013–2015). Retrieved from http://www. tilaproject.eu/ Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zarate, G., Levy, D., & Kramsch, C. (2011). Handbook of multilingualism and multiculturalism. Paris: EAC.

Chapter 8

“Native” Japanese Speaker Teachers in Japanese Language Education at Primary and Secondary Schools in Australia Kaoru Kadowaki

Abstract In teaching Japanese to non-native Japanese speakers in Japan, most of the teachers are native Japanese speakers while outside Japan approximately 70% of Japanese language teachers are non-native Japanese speaker teachers (“NNJSTs”). Particularly at the secondary level where the number of learners is the highest amongst all levels, those teaching Japanese are mainly NNJSTs certified with the local teaching license. In Thailand and the Republic of Korea, native Japanese speakers started to teach Japanese as teachers or language assistants with a growing demand for Japanese language teachers, and cases of emerging native-speakerism have been reported. In Australia that boasts a relatively large number of Japanese language learners at the secondary level, and offers Japanese even at primary schools, native Japanese speaker teachers (“NJSTs”) have been teaching Japanese language in both primary and secondary schools. A few Australian primary and secondary schools offer bilingual/immersion programs, in which some school subjects are taught in Japanese. What roles are NJSTs playing in Japanese language teaching in primary and secondary education in this country? This study conducted an interview survey on the teachers’ roles required of NNJSTs and NJSTs in primary and secondary education in Australia. In this survey, it was found that NNJSTs and NJSTs are contributing to Japanese language education on an equal basis. Australia demonstrates one of the “undoing of native-speakerism” cases in Japanese language education primarily at secondary schools outside Japan.

K. Kadowaki (*) Setsunan University, Osaka, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_8

173

174

8.1

K. Kadowaki

Introduction

Non-native Japanese speaker learners are increasing in numbers and diversifying in and out of Japan with a growing interest in Japanese language and culture. The roles and opportunities for Japanese language teachers have accordingly been expanding. Some people become Japanese language teachers in pursuit of a job outside Japan after learning Japanese language teaching in a Japanese language teacher training course in Japan. While most of the teachers in Japanese language education are native Japanese speakers in Japan, 70% of the Japanese language teachers outside Japan are non-native Japanese speaker teachers, according to the “Survey Report on Japanese Language Education Abroad 2015” published by the Japan Foundation (Japan Foundation, 2017a). The countries that have a high number of Japanese language learners, most of whom are in secondary education, include Indonesia (703,775), Republic of Korea (451,893), Australia (138,345) and Thailand (115,355). In these countries, mainly local non-native Japanese speaker teachers are teaching Japanese at school. However, in some countries particularly in Thailand and Republic of Korea, native Japanese speaker teachers started teaching together with NNJSTs in the early 2000 (Japan Foundation, 2017b). Some research reveals incidents of native speakers of Japanese (NSJs) in an advantageous position over non-native peers due to scarcity of NJSTs in secondary schools in Thailand (Kadowaki, 2018). In the field of teaching English there is an indication of native-speakerism (Holliday, 2006), which in summary conceptualizes such notions as “Any native speaker of English can teach English.” and “Native English speaker teachers can invariably teach English well.” Recently, there have been research outcomes that show aspects of native-speakerism critically from different perspectives (Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018, Houghton, Rivers, & Hashimoto, 2018). Meanwhile in Australia where there are a large number of Japanese learners in secondary education, and Japanese language is taught in primary education, NNJSTs with the local teacher’s certificate have been teaching Japanese in Japanese language education in primary and secondary schools (Japan Foundation, 2017b). What roles are required of NJSTs in Japanese language education in Australia, a country with an active Japanese language education in primary and secondary levels? Is there any case of emerging native-speakerism? Another point is that there are several primary and secondary educational institutions in Australia that implement Japanese-English bilingual/immersion programs, in which subjects are taught in Japanese. And teachers who teach in these programs need to have a high command of Japanese. What kind of teachers are required for these programs? This chapter discusses native-speakerism in Japanese language education in Australian primary and secondary schools, based on the interview surveys conducted among NJSTs and NNJSTs during the author’s visits to primary and secondary schools in Australia in 2018. This study defines a native Japanese speaker teacher as “a teacher whose mother tongue or first language is Japanese”, while a non-native Japanese speaker teacher as “a teacher whose mother tongue or first

8 “Native” Japanese Speaker Teachers in Japanese Language Education at Primary. . .

175

language is not Japanese.” The terms “NNJST” and “NJST” are conveniently used to study native-speakerism in Japanese language education; it is not the author’s intention to promote native-speakerism.

8.2 8.2.1

Background Prior Studies on Non-native and Native Japanese Speaker Teachers

As discussed above, most of the teachers in Japanese language education in Japan are NJSTs. When it comes to the teachers in Japanese language education in Japan, people usually have an image that the teachers are NJSTs (Furukawa & Yokoyama, 2016), and probably for this reason no survey was conducted on the number of NNJSTs in the research of Japanese language education in Japan by the Agency of Cultural Affairs, Japan. Thus, their actual number is uncertain. The total number of teachers teaching Japanese language outside Japan is 64,108, and although the ratio varies by country or region, 70% of them are NNJSTs (Japan Foundation, 2017a) since the number of NSs in each country is limited. Furthermore, only a few discussions and studies have been made on the diversity of teachers despite there being a large number of NNJSTs in Japanese language educational institutions in the world (Ishii, 1996; Yokoyama, 2005). Discussions/studies on NNJSTs outside Japan include those published mainly by instructors involved in the training courses for NNJSTs run by the Japan Foundation. One such is by Abe and Yokoyama (1991) who discussed characteristics of NNJSTs. In addition to the works mentioned above, Kubota (2006, 2017) and Tsubone, Hatta, and Ozawa (2017) studied the belief of NNJSTs while there is also a study on NNJSTs by Lokugamage (2007), who herself is a NNJST. Shin (2006), based on her experience as a NNJST in Japan, discussed new roles and potential of NNJSTs in Japanese language education dominated by NJSTs. On the other hand, the studies on NJSTs outside Japan include works by Sakuma (1999), Hirahata (2014) and Kadowaki (2015). Sakuma reported challenges NJSTs face, based on his interviews with NJSTs who were dispatched to Thailand and China by official agencies. Hirahata (2014) studied the quality of NJSTs, and Kadowaki (2015) researched on collaborations in their teaching between NNJSTs and NJSTs. Despite the existence of the aforementioned prior studies, the studies and researches on NNJSTs and NJSTs are still very limited. Moreover, native-speakerism is hardly discussed by the people involved in Japanese language education in Japan. This is probably because NJSTs are not aware of their identity of being native speakers of Japanese and they do not give a deep thought to native-speakerism in the Japanese language education within Japan where NJSTs are overwhelmingly dominant. Generally speaking, the majority of NJSTs become conscious of themselves being NJSTs once they started teaching Japanese overseas, away from Japan. There is a report on some teachers engaged in teaching Japanese abroad suggesting that they “are acutely

176

K. Kadowaki

aware of the absurdity of the native-speakerism surrounding the teaching of Japanese language“ (Hashimoto, 2018, p.75). In English-language education in Japan, native-speakerism that places value on native English speaker teachers still strongly persists (Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Fujiwara, Naka, & Terasawa, 2017). Despite this, there are studies that criticize and attempt to go beyond native-speakerism in language education (Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018; Houghton, Rivers, & Hashimoto, 2018); yet the research on NNJSTs/ NJSTs as well as native-speakerism are still rather limited. Furthermore, most of the above-mentioned prior studies on NNJSTs/NJSTs in Japanese language education have not focused on teachers in secondary education, who make up a majority of Japanese language learners. Hence, further studies in this area need to be done. The next section discusses NJSTs in primary and secondary education in Thailand and Australia, where there are a large number of NJSTs.

8.2.2

Japanese Native Speaker Teachers in Thailand and Australia

As discussed above, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Australia and Thailand have a large number of learners in secondary education. Among those countries Thailand and Australia have a high ratio of NJSTs in their secondary education: Thailand (21.8%) and Australia (19.9%) (Japan Foundation, 2017a). In Thailand, the Japanese language is one of the eight foreign languages learned as a language, and two-thirds of the Japanese learners are in secondary education (Japan Foundation, 2017a, 2017c). Based on the results of the survey on Japanese language teachers in secondary education in Thailand conducted by the author (Kadowaki, 2015), NJSTs are divided into the following groups with different backgrounds: • Dispatched from Japan by government or public organizations such as the Japan Foundation and Japan International Cooperation Agency • Dispatched from Japan by private organizations in Japan • Employed directly by local schools NJSTs from Japan who are dispatched from Japan by the Japanese government or public organizations are limited in number (Japan Foundation, 2017c). Thus, the schools in Thailand recruit NJSTs through private dispatch programs or employ them directly. Most of the secondary schools in Thailand are government schools; therefore, full-time Japanese language teachers are public servants and need to pass the teacher employment test (Japan Foundation, 2017c). Most of the NJSTs teaching in secondary education there do not hold the local teaching certificate. Some of them teach with special permission to teach Japanese language as NJSTs. Since early 2000, Thailand has been facing a shortage of Japanese language teachers with a rapid increase of Japanese language learners, and this led to the recruitment of more NJSTs in the country. Some of the NJSTs teaching in Thailand serve as teaching assistants,

8 “Native” Japanese Speaker Teachers in Japanese Language Education at Primary. . .

177

although there are some cases where native speakers are asked to conduct Japanese language classes alone, even without sufficient command of Thai language or teaching experience, simply because they are native speakers. As mentioned earlier, some cases of native-speakerism were reported in Japanese education in Thailand (Kadowaki, 2018). On the other hand, Australia is one of the countries with a high number of Japanese language learners in secondary schools, and the Japanese language is also offered in primary schools. This country has the largest number of Japanese language learners in primary education, of all countries, totaling 209,123 (Japan Foundation, 2017a). In this country, NJSTs teaching Japanese hold the official local teaching certificate; native Japanese speakers who hold an Australian teaching license are eligible to apply for teaching posts only if they are permanent residents of Australia, or they are permitted to stay and work in Australia (Japan Foundation, 2017b). Japanese language teaching at the secondary school level in Australia is different from that in other Asian countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea insofar as NJSTs are certified on equal terms to NNJSTs, thus having the same status as Japanese language teachers. As of 2017, there were a total of six primary and secondary schools that offered a bilingual/immersion program, three in Victoria, one in New South Wales, and two in Queensland (Japan Foundation, 2017b). Some schools called their program a “bilingual program”, while others called it an “immersion program.” The combined term “bilingual/immersion program” is used in this chapter. An approach called CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) is used in those schools that implement this program, where specific subjects such as science and mathematics are taught in Japanese instead of English. Japanese is used as a means of instruction to teach contents. Compared with conventional language teaching, teachers are required to have a higher command of Japanese to cover wider subject areas. The author conducted a survey on NJSTs in primary and secondary schools in Australia to explore the roles played by these NJSTs, and to ascertain whether any indication of native-speakerism can be found in the data. The research questions are: 1. What roles are required of NJSTs in Japanese language education in Australia? 2. Is there any case of native-speakerism emerging there?

8.3

Survey on Native Japanese Speaker Teachers in Primary and Secondary Schools in Australia

A survey was conducted among NJSTs in Japanese language education at two primary/secondary schools, i.e., school X and school Y, in Australia. An bilingual/ immersion program is implemented at both schools. To avoid specifying the names of schools or persons, the names of the states where the schools are located are not mentioned. The author visited these two schools several times and conducted semi-

178

K. Kadowaki

structured interviews with five NNJSTs and five NJSTs for approximately 30–40 minutes per person. All these teachers have taught Japanese as a foreign language at secondary schools prior to working in their current schools. The interviews were conducted by the author in Japanese or English, and all the ten teachers were asked what their required roles were, and if NJSTs had any advantage in being native speakers of Japanese. The interviews were recorded, and its audio data was transcribed. Although there was be a possibility that NNJSTs might hesitate to make comments related to NJSTs to the author, who is a NJST, they were encouraged to speak as frankly as possible before the interview survey took place. Results of data analysis are discussed in the next section.

8.4 8.4.1

Survey Results and Discussion Roles Required of Native Japanese Speaker Teachers

The schools implementing a Japanese-English bilingual/immersion program teach part of the contents of the subjects (for instance, mathematics) in Japanese. The roles of Japanese language teachers in the bilingual/immersion program are to teach subject contents in Japanese and speak to learners in Japanese. They are expected to have a good understanding of the Australian curriculum and its contents and teach the subject, employing the Japanese language suitable to the learners’ level. They accordingly need to make teaching materials in Japanese, utilizing the equivalent materials in English, and they work out teaching methods for their classes. Teachers’ comments on their roles are cited with numbers as follows. The number after each “NJST” or “NNJST” indicates the personal identification number given by the author for this research purpose. Their comments in Japanese are translated into English by the author. Teachers’ roles: 1. To teach the curriculum subject contents and to teach Japanese language. (NJST1) 2. To be able to teach at the state standard education level. In a bilingual program, both teaching methods and workloads are not the same as those who only teach Japanese as a foreign language subject. (NJST4) Most of the 12 teachers who teach Japanese in School X are native Japanese speakers from Japan while two of them are from other Asian countries (as of the interview date). In School Y, both NJSTs and Australian NNJSTs are in charge of this program. The above-stated roles are not limited to NJSTs, but the same roles are expected of NNJSTs as shown in comments (3) and (4) below: 3. To teach in Japanese, regardless of being a NNJST or NJST (NJST5) 4. The roles of NJSTs and NNJSTs are the same in the bilingual/immersion program. (NNJST5)

8 “Native” Japanese Speaker Teachers in Japanese Language Education at Primary. . .

179

The Japanese language teachers who teach in Japanese need to adjust their speech according to their students’ Japanese language level, using Japanese vocabulary and expressions the students have already learned. Equally with NJSTs, NNJSTs are also required to use an appropriate Japanese language level, taking the students’ acquisition level of the target language into consideration. 5. We must think of the balance in the use of high and easy levels of Japanese language. Whether you are a NJST or a NNJST, similar outcomes are expected. (NNJST4) In the bilingual/immersion program, NJSTs are also assigned to be classroom teachers and therefore perform school-teacher work like NNJSTs. 6. In my previous school, I was in charge of only Japanese classes. In this school, I am a classroom teacher. (NJST2) 7. NNJSTs and NJSTs are equal colleagues and we make teaching plans together. (NNJST5) NJSTs are not only Japanese language teachers but also required to manage the class as classroom teachers, and participate in pre-semester meetings conducted in English to plan classes together with other subject teachers who teach in English, and communicate with parents and guardians by email and at face-to-face meetings. This suggests that NJSTs in a bilingual/immersion program school have the equal status and responsibilities as the NNJSTs. Also, NNJSTs and NJSTs often work together to teach Japanese language by leveraging each other’s strengths, as found in (8): 8. I ask NJSTs to teach pronunciation to the students who will be participating in a speech contest. With my long experience as a teacher, I share non-language matters like curriculum and activities with NJSTs if they ask me. (NNJST5) The schools implementing a bilingual/immersion program especially focus on Japanese language education. Compared with other schools offering Japanese as a foreign language, students at the bilingual/immersion program schools have a higher motivation to learn the language. Non-Japanese language teachers and Japanese language teachers can easily work together in the areas such as sharing information, teaching materials, planning a cultural event like the Japan Day, because these schools have several Japanese speaker teachers. Further, these schools provide a school-wide support for the program since school principals strongly support the program and the schools reserve budgets to run the program. Their students’ parents are also enthusiastic and supportive of the program. 9. I have great support from my administrative staff and colleagues. They come up with ideas together and help me. (NNJST2) 10. We have a budget to organize events, for example to introduce/present Japanese culture. (NJST1) 11. The motivation of the students is high. Many parents in this area are enthusiastic about their children’s education. (NJST1)

180

K. Kadowaki

Summarizing the above, it is found that in both School X and Y offering a bilingual/immersion program, the Japanese language teachers, regardless of being NNJSTs or NJSTs, work together to implement the program to teach CLIL-based subjects in Japanese with the support from the school and the parents.

8.4.2

Presence/Absence of Advantageousness of Native Japanese Speaker Teachers

As stated above, primary and secondary schools that offer Japanese have both NNJSTs and NJSTs as their teaching staff. The NNJSTs and NJSTs teaching at bilingual/immersion schools have experience in teaching Japanese as a foreign language subject at other secondary schools. NNJSTs and NJSTs were asked in their interview whether being a native speaker is advantageous in teaching Japanese at Australian schools, based on their teaching experiences including past ones at other schools. Their opinions are summarized as below (italicised by the author). Two out of ten respondents mentioned in their comments that NJSTs have advantages over NNJSTs in employment as Japanese language teachers at primary and secondary schools in Australia. The comment below (12) was made by a NJST based on his past experiences of teaching Japanese as a foreign language subject at another school. This comment suggests that some schools have, in the course of employment of a teacher, an aspect of native-speakerism where as long as the person is a native speaker of the language, they can teach the language. As NJST4 points out, native speakers of Japanese who hold teaching certificate are not always equipped with necessary skills to teach Japanese as a foreign language, since not all of them have specialized in teaching of Japanese to speakers of other languages (Japan Foundation, 2005; de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010). 12. NJSTs might be regarded to be able to teach well simply because they are native Japanese speakers. However, NJSTs’ individual teaching skills are often overlooked. Usual assumption is that teaching certification holders can naturally teach, because it is difficult to acquire the teaching certification here. (NJST4) As mentioned in (13), NNJST1 thinks that NJSTs have advantages in certain situations. Since teachers teaching Japanese as a foreign language subject at secondary schools are required to have competence in Japanese conversation to coach the students for conversation tests conducted during the graduation examination. 13. Although NJSTs do not have advantages at the primary level, I think high schools preferentially employ NJSTs. At high schools, teachers who can speak fluent Japanese are preferred because students must take conversation tests during the graduation examination. (NNJST1) There was a comment that indicates an emergent native-speakerism. The below comment (14) was made by an NNJST. This teacher commented that NJSTs are

8 “Native” Japanese Speaker Teachers in Japanese Language Education at Primary. . .

181

necessary for bilingual/immersion programs with an example of English/French immersion programs having the presence of native speaker teachers. 14. Bilingual/Immersion programs should have native speakers, because they can give a lot of inputs. Native speakers are teaching in French immersion programs. (NNJST4) On the assumption that NJSTs can provide a large amount of input to students, this comment seems to illustrate an emergent native-speakerism where only NJSTs are capable of teaching Japanese in Japanese, using the direct method. In Australia, it is a common practice for teachers to teach Japanese using English in Japanese language classes at both primary and secondary schools. Therefore, it would be important and necessary for all teachers, regardless of being native or non-native, to undergo certain training to acquire ways to teach Japanese in Japanese language appropriate to learners’ acquisition level without the help of English. Besides the above, there were cases where students’ parents who are Japanese requested a NJST to teach their children. A tendency towards native-speakerism indicating preference for NJSTs was also observed among some of the students’ parents. 15. Japanese parents of half-Japanese and half-Australian students could not tolerate incorrect Japanese taught by the previous NNJST teacher, and the parents requested a NJST to teach their child. (NNJST4) As stated above, comments representing native-speakerism were observed, though in a small number. This suggests that native-speakerism is emerging to a certain degree in Japanese education at primary and secondary schools in Australia. Nevertheless, most of the respondents commented that no preferential treatment is given to NJSTs in the employment of teachers. Next, the question of whether native speakers of Japanese have an advantage of being a native speaker is discussed mainly in the case of bilingual/immersion schools. As mentioned in Sect. 8.4.1, teachers who teach at bilingual/immersion schools are hired based on their language proficiency level that meets the stipulated requirement and teaching ability, irrespective of them being a NJST or a NNJST. 16. When the school recruited a Japanese language teacher, they did not specify the position whether it was for a NJST or a NNJST. (NNJST2) 17. Schools want a teacher who has a native-Japanese speaker level of proficiency in Japanese, but not necessarily a native speaker of Japanese. (NNJST5) The secondary schools offering a bilingual/immersion program covered in the present survey have both NJSTs and NNJSTs. They are in charge of the school’s Japanese program and teach mathematics, social studies, and other subjects in Japanese. Two of the NNJSTs have sufficient Japanese proficiency to teach high school subjects in Japanese. The comment below suggests that the parents who used to request NJSTs to teach their children have started to accept NNJSTs with a new recognition of their high Japanese proficiency and accepted them to be teachers of their children. This illustrates that the parents’ perceptions have changed in such a

182

K. Kadowaki

way that they do not make any distinction between a NJST and a NNJST as long as the teacher has high language competence. 18. Japanese parents used to request NJSTs before. But the Japanese level of the current NNJSTs is high, so there are no complaints from parents now. (NJST5) As suggested above, both NNJSTs and NJSTs are teaching Japanese in bilingual/ immersion programs without any distinction of NNJST/NJST status. Both NNJSTs and NJSTs employed at a bilingual/immersion school as Japanese language teachers are both motivated to teach Japanese under such a program, as seen in the following comments: 19. My previous school did not appreciate teaching Japanese language as a subject and treated Japanese language teachers unfairly. The current school cares for us. I find my job fulfilling now. (NNJST2) 20. This school is special and values Japanese language very much, so I feel comfortable to work here. It is difficult to work in a school that considers Japanese language merely as an extra curriculum of a foreign language subject. (NJST3) Granting the positive comments given above, it is likely to be difficult to secure personnel who can teach in the bilingual/immersion program at the secondary school level. 21. It is difficult to find NJSTs holding the teaching certificate in any non-Japanese subject or NNJSTs with high level of Japanese proficiency. (NNJST3) There was also a comment indicating a challenge of primary schools with a bilingual/immersion program in finding a NNJST holding both the primary school teaching certificate and high Japanese proficiency. 22. We do not hire NJSs exclusively, but most of the teachers employed are NJSs because the teachers must have Japanese proficiency equivalent to the NJS level. (NJST4) During the interview, NNJST3 commented that “A good balance is important. My ideal is that there are a variety of teachers, including men, women, NNJSTs, and NJSTs.” High schools are currently seeing imbalance in gender among their teaching staff, since there are more female teachers than male teachers. Similarly, it would be preferable that NNJSTs and NJSTs are allocated to schools where there is a good mix of teachers. The above section summarized the roles required for Japanese language teachers who teach Japanese at bilingual/immersion program schools in Australia and also the comments on native-speakerism were presented.

8 “Native” Japanese Speaker Teachers in Japanese Language Education at Primary. . .

8.5

183

Discussion

This section discusses the roles of NJSs and native-speakerism in Japanese language education in Australian primary and secondary schools based on the results of an interview survey conducted among NJSTs and NNJSTs. Many primary and secondary schools in Australia are teaching Japanese as a foreign language subject, while few of them are hired to teach CLIL courses in Japanese at bilingual/immersion program schools. Both NNJSTs and NJSTs holding local Australian teaching certificates are teaching in these schools. While most of the NJSTs covered in the present survey consider that being a NSJ is not always advantageous in employment, there are some comments saying there are cases where NJSTs have advantages in employment. This implies that schools perceive that NSJs are able to teach Japanese because they are native speakers, and people are aware of the advantages of NJSTs in terms of being a preferred choice for teaching conversation. It was also found that there are parents who prefer NJSTs to teach their children. In view of this, emergence of native-speakerism may possibly be seen in Japanese language education in Australian primary and secondary schools. Primary and secondary schools in Australia usually teach Japanese as a foreign language subject. As the CLIL approach gained popularity, bilingual/immersion programs using this approach have been implemented in Japanese language classes in recent years. At the moment there are a total of 6 primary and secondary schools within Australia. The present survey indicated that the schools implementing such programs do not always give preferential treatment to NSJs in terms of employment. In these schools, both NNJSTs and NJSTs play comparable roles and teach Japanese on an equal footing for the purpose of teaching subject contents in Japanese. Meanwhile, it is pointed out that the roles of NNJSTs and NJSTs at high schools in the Republic of Korea and Thailand have been fixed in such a way that NNJSTs explain the Japanese grammar in local language while NJSTs teach Japanese conversation and composition (Kadowaki, 2015). In contrast, it was observed that Australian bilingual/immersion schools do not differentiate the roles between NNJSTs and NJSTs and that they provide more advanced contents in Japanese than usual schools that offer Japanese as one of the language subjects. Australian schools treat NNJSTs and NJSTs equally, but they do place importance on whether they are good teachers; the quality of being a good teacher includes teaching skills, command of the target language, its cultural knowledge, and experiences in education (Jonak, 2016). As stated above, there was a case where the parents who used to request NJSTs to teach their children started to accept their children to be taught by NNJSTs who possesses a high Japanese proficiency and skills. This suggests a change in parents’ perception of native-speakerism that places value on NJSTs. In addition, it was found that both NNJSTs and NJSTs teaching Japanese in bilingual/immersion program schools are motivated to teach in these schools. Both started teaching Japanese under bilingual/immersion programs having experienced teaching Japanese as a foreign language subject at non bilingual/immersion schools before taking up the current positions. Since Australians generally do not regard a

184

K. Kadowaki

foreign language subject as a main subject (Spence-Brown, 2016), schools seem to consider Japanese language a less important subject. Those schools implementing bilingual/immersion programs, on the other hand, are very supportive of and emphasize Japanese language education, and their students are highly motivated. As discussed above, however, finding a qualified teacher who has a high level of Japanese proficiency with ability to teach other subjects on top of Japanese as foreign language is a challenge for bilingual/immersion schools. It was pointed out that there are very few NNJSTs with high proficiency in Japanese who can teach using only in Japanese is particularly small in primary schools. Secondary schools only have a small number of NJSTs who can teach other subjects in Japanese, i.e., CLIL classes. In Japanese education in Australia, the number of schools which have implemented the bilingual/immersion program is still limited. However, there is some information that the number is likely to increase in the future (A school commenced their bilingual/immersion program effective from January 2020). The schools offering bilingual/immersion programs place great emphasis and value on Japanese language education, and the Japanese language teachers who participated in the present survey are teaching Japanese with a sense of fulfillment. It would be necessary to develop, nurture, and further empower both NNJSTs with high Japanese proficiency who can teach in such programs and NJSTs who can teach the CLIL-based subjects in Japanese. Australia has a high number of immigrants from various countries in the world and some teachers in the country are multi-lingual and multi-cultural. And the teachers in the multi-lingual and multi-cultural country of Australia are diversifying, so NNJSTs/NJSTs are also diversifying accordingly (Jonak, 2016). Twenty-one percent of the population of Australia speak languages other than English in their home (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017). It would be difficult to clearly distinguish the competence of NJSTs and NNJSTs because even native speaker teachers have different backgrounds, and their Japanese proficiency may vary depending on whether they completed their schooling in Japanese at Japanese schools. Meanwhile, most teachers teaching Japanese to learners from overseas in Japan are NJSTs, who received Japanese education based on the official Japanese curriculum. The contents of Japanese language teacher training courses facilitated in Japan also focus mainly on teaching Japanese to non-native speaker learners of Japanese living in Japan. NJSTs in Japan are seldom conscious of the fact that they are NJSTs. There are many cases where native Japanese speakers go abroad to teach Japanese language after completion of their Japanese language teacher training courses, but these NJSTs should be aware that they will not receive any preferential treatment in Australia just because they are native Japanese speakers, as the survey results suggest. At the same time, NJSTs need to learn about native-speakerism during their Japanese language teacher training course in Japan. As discussed above, the present survey shows that NNJSTs and NJSTs are motivated to teach Japanese on an equal footing in the Australian schools offering bilingual/immersion programs. Japanese language education in bilingual/immersion schools in Australia is one of the “undoing of native-speakerism” outside of Japan, mainly in secondary education.

8 ”Native“ Japanese Speaker Teachers in Japanese Language Education at Primary. . .

8.6

185

Conclusion

This paper identified the roles of NJSTs in Japanese language education in primary and secondary schools in Australia and considers native-speakerism. Most of the Japanese language teachers who are engaged in Japanese language education in primary and secondary education abroad are NNJSTs who hold teaching certificates in their respective countries. In Australia, Japanese is one of the most popular languages as a foreign language subject, and is widely taught by NNJSTs and NJSTs who hold the local teaching certificates at both primary and secondary schools. In actual Japanese education scenarios, some cases of native-speakerism were observed, although their number is small. Recently, bilingual/immersion programs using the CLIL approach commenced among primary and secondary schools. In these programs, teachers teach the contents of subjects in Japanese, and both NNJSTs and NJSTs play the same role in teaching on an equal footing. It was also observed that both NNJSTs and NJSTs are highly motivated in their careers. Due to the limited number of teachers covered in the survey, the results of this study cannot be used to generalize about the characteristics of the present Japanese language education in Australia. Yet this study can serve as a valuable report to show a portion of the current situation of Japanese language education in Australian schools offering bilingual/immersion programs. In future, the author intends to conduct further research on other schools with bilingual/immersion programs in Australia, and also on Japanese-English bilingual/ immersion program schools in other English-speaking countries to gain further insight into teachers’ roles and the development of teachers. The author sincerely hopes that discussions on native-speakerism can advance Japanese language education in Japan. Acknowledgements This study is based on my Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Grant Number:15K02669,19K00752). I would like to express my gratitude to the School of Languages and Cultures, The University of Queensland for providing me with an opportunity to work on my research as a visiting professor for one year.

References Abe, Y., & Yokoyama, N. (1991). 海外日本語教師長期研修の課題―外国人教師の利点を生 かした教授法を求めて [Challenges of long-term training for Japanese language teacher overseas: In search of teaching methods that take advantage of foreign teachers]. Bulletin of the Japan Foundation Japanese-Language Institute, 1, 53–74. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017) Census reveals a fast changing, culturally diverse nation. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/lookup/Media% 20Release3 de Kretser, A., & Spence-Brown, R. (2010). The current state of Japanese language education in Australian schools. Carlton South: Education Services Australia.

186

K. Kadowaki

Fujiwara, Y., Naka, K., & Terasawa, T. (2017). これから英語教育の話をしよう[Let’s talk about English education in Japan: Debating the future]. Hitsujishobo: Tokyo. Furukawa, Y., & Yokoyama, N. (2016). 海外の日本語教育と非母語話者教師 [Japanese education and non-native speaker teachers overseas]. Kotoba to Moji, 5, 4–16. Hashimoto, K. (2018). “Mother tongue speakers” or “native speakers”?: Assumptions surrounding the teaching of Japanese as a foreign language in Japan. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 61–77). Singapore: Springer. Hirahata, N. (2014). 「ネイティブ」と呼ばれる日本語教師:海外で教える母語話者教師の 資質を問う [Japanese-language teachers called “native”: Questions for attributes of native speaker teachers overseas]. Kanagawa: Shunpusha Publishing. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. Houghton, S. A., Rivers, D. J., & Hashimoto, K. (Eds.). (2018). Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions. London: Routledge. Houghton, S. A., & Hashimoto, K. (Eds.). (2018). Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts. Singapore: Springer. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (Eds.). (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ishii, E. (1996). 非母語話者教師の役割 [The role of non-native speakers]. Nihongogaku, 15, 87–94. Japan Foundation. (2005). 日本語教育国・地域情報 オーストラリア(2005年度) [Information on Japanese-education by country/region Australia 2005]. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from http://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/261594/www.jpf.go.jp/j/japan_j/oversea/kunibetsu/ 2005/australia.html Japan Foundation. (2017a). 2015年海外日本語教育機関調査 [Survey report on Japanese–language education abroad of overseas organizations involved in Japanese language education 2015]. Tokyo: Japan Foundation. Japan Foundation. (2017b). 日本語教育国・地域情報 オーストラリア(2017年度) [Information on Japanese-education by country/region Australia 2017]. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from http://www.jpf.go.jp/j/project/japanese/survey/area/country/2017/australia.html Japan Foundation. (2017c). 日本語教育国・地域情報 タイ(2017年度) [Information on the Japanese-education by country/region Thailand 2017]. Retrieved November 30, 2019, from https://www.jpf.go.jp/j/project/japanese/survey/area/country/2017/thailand.html Jonak, C. (2016). オーストラリアの学校における非母語話者教師の旅 [Journey of a non-native speaker teachers in Australian schools]. Kotoba to Moji, 5, 46–55. Kadowaki, K. (Ed.). (2015). 海外における日本語非母語話者教師と母語話者教師の協働に 関する基礎的研究 [The study on collaborative language teaching among non-native Japanese speaker teachers and native speaker teachers in Japanese education overseas]. The report of Grants-in-Aid for scientific research expenses. Osaka: Setsunan University. Kadowaki, K. (2018). Japanese Native Speaker Teachers at High Schools in South Korea and Thailand. In S. A. Houghton, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards Post-Native-Speakerism: Dynamics and Shifts (pp. 97–112). Singapore: Springer. Kubota, Y. (2006). ノンネイティブ日本語教師のビリーフ--因子分析にみる「正確さ志 向」と「豊かさ志向」[Factor analysis of non-native Japanese teachers’ beliefs: Accuracyoriented and expressiveness-oriented]. Journal of Japanese Language Teaching, 130, 90–99. Kubota, Y. (2017). ノンネイティブ日本語教師のビリーフと学習経験: 2004・2005年度と 2014・2015年度の量的調査結果の比較 [Beliefs and learning experience of non-native Japanese-language teachers : Comparison of quantitative investigations in fiscal year 2004/2005 and 2014/2015]. Bulletin of Japan Foundation on Japanese Language Education, 13, 7–22. Lokugamage, S. (2007). 目標言語を第2言語とする教師とその実践-スリランカの日本語教 師のケース・スタディー [Teachers for whom the target language is an L2: A case study of a Japanese language teacher in Sri Lanka]. Handai Nihongo Kenkyu, 19, 193–221. Sakuma, K. (1999). 海外で教える日本人日本語教師をめぐる現状と課題-タイでの聞き取 り調査結果を中心に- [Perspectives of native speaker teachers of Japanese teaching outside

8 “Native” Japanese Speaker Teachers in Japanese Language Education at Primary. . .

187

of Japan: A report on interviews with teachers in Thailand]. Current Report on JapaneseLanguage Education around the Globe, 5, 79–107. Shin, U. (2006). 日本国内の非母語話者日本語教師に対する学習者のビリーフの変容--早 稲田の初級実践を通して [Transformation of learner’s beliefs for non-native Japanese speaker teachers in Japan: Through the practice of elementary level at Waseda university]. Koza Nihongo Kyoiku, 42, 60–81. Spence-Brown, R. (2016). オーストラリアと世界をつなぐ [Connect Australia and world]. In C. K. Tomson (Ed.), 人とつながり、世界とつながる日本語教育 [Japanese-language education for connection people and world] (pp. 189–209). Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers. Tsubone, Y., Hatta, N., & Ozawa, I. (2017). タイ人日本語教師Aのビリーフの形成と変容 -PAC分析による縦断的調査から [Formation and transformation of the beliefs of Thai Japanese teacher A]. Kaigai Nihongo Kyoiku Kenkyu, 4, 1–22. Yokoyama, N. (2005). 第2言語教育における教師教育研究の概観--非母語話者現職教師を 対象とした研究に焦点を当てて [Research on second language teacher education with a focus on in-service non-native language teachers]. Bulletin of Japan Foundation on Japanese Language Education, 1, 1–19.

Chapter 9

Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School Professional Development Programme in Japan Gregory Paul Glasgow, Patrick C. L. Ng, Tiina Matikainen, and Tomohisa Machida

Abstract This study examines how four teacher educators challenged native speakerist assumptions through two externally funded elementary school English in-service teacher training workshops for 39 teachers and educational administrators in Japan. The training sessions were designed to prepare them for the 2020 English Education Reform Plan Corresponding to Globalization initiated by the Japanese Ministry of Education. Specifically, this study examined (1) the participants’ perceptions of their preparedness to implement the reform plan, (2) the participants’ perceptions of their self-image as non-native English-speaking (NNES) educators in the wake of such reforms, and (3) the overall degree to which the program model succeeded in challenging native speakerism. Data collection for the study is based on qualitative and quantitative data analysed from an online post-program survey. Results found that the program participants realized their emerging roles as key players in the implementation of the reforms, however not without some anxieties. Also, while native speakerist beliefs regarding native speaker models of English were indeed prevalent, evidence shows that a number of participants embraced a new, emancipated role identity as NNES educators, which was to some degree influenced by the program design. The results suggest that, despite several G. P. Glasgow (*) Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan e-mail: [email protected] P. C. L. Ng University of Niigata Prefecture, Niigata, Japan e-mail: [email protected] T. Matikainen Tamagawa University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] T. Machida Akita International University, Akita, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_9

189

190

G. P. Glasgow et al.

challenges, second language teacher education and professional development (SLTE/PD) can indeed be an instrumental force in enabling trainees to reimagine their identities and re-assert their professional legitimacy, thereby serving as a countervailing force against the self-marginalizing effects of native speakerism.

9.1

Introduction

As has been stridently pointed out by a variety of authors (Bayyurt, 2013; Blair, 2015; Cook, 1999; Galloway, 2017; Matsuda, 2006; McKay, 2003; Renandya, 2012), for today’s learners of English as a second or foreign language, a pedagogic approach to English language teaching (ELT) narrowly based on so-called “native speaker” norms and culture is now untenable in the field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). This has also become the case for Japan, the context for this study, where English increasingly functions as an international language for Japanese learners who interact with English speakers of other languages and backgrounds in academic and global business settings. In the wake of intensified ELT policy change (Glasgow & Paller, 2016), Japan seeks ways to further prepare its Japanese teachers of English (JTEs) to face such linguistic realities. In fact, the policy document entitled English Education Reform Plan Corresponding to Globalization (MEXT, 2013b) underscores the need for second language teacher education (SLTE) and professional development (PD) efforts to be significantly improved in tandem with the policy goals of the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), with its aim for English language teachers to be pedagogically prepared and further empowered to meet the ELT challenges of the twenty-first century. The current goals stipulated by the Japanese government, however, suggest a need to revisit the current model of teacher education. In her critique of the ideological assumption that “native speakers” are best qualified to provide guidance and development in SLTE/PD, Matsuda (2009) believes that the traditional approaches of teaching English in Japan may not adequately prepare students for international communication in English. Matsuda observes that the conventional assessment of a learner’s English proficiency tends to focus exclusively on how closely the learner approximates the native speaker model rather than on how effectively they use the language to achieve specific communicative ends. To disrupt the ideology of native speakerism, Matsuda (2009) argues that teacher education programmes play an important role in introducing Japanese teachers of English to the linguistic and functional diversity of English since many pre-service teachers often receive English language instruction that is American/British-oriented. Similarly, Blair (2015) reports that there is evidence of a surge of bi-and multilingualism involving English due to the spread and globalization of English, and forcefully argues that ELT teacher education programmes should move beyond the “native/non-native” distinction towards notions of “beyond-native” competence and a “multilingual principle” for teaching and learning. Thus, Blair suggests that

9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School. . .

191

classroom instruction should accord more importance to the learning of English as a lingua franca (ELF) as the overarching goal for learners, and teacher education should highlight the importance of the multilingual or bilingual identity of local teachers. Kirkpatrick (2007) suggests that the teaching of English should be based on a lingua franca approach that would benefit both students and teachers. As Kirkpatrick (2007) explains, the lingua franca approach will: advantage teachers and learners because the focus and aim of English language teaching shifts. In aiming to teach and learn English in ways that would allow for effective communication across linguistic and cultural boundaries, the focus of the classroom moves from the acquisition of the norms associated with a standard model to a focus on linguistic features, cultural information and communicative strategies that will facilitate communication (p.194).

Furthermore, McKay, in Sharifian (2009), reports that to maintain diversity in the socio-cultural backgrounds of EIL speakers, teacher education and professional development in ELT should “focus strongly on communicative strategies that aim at negotiation, comity and avoidance of misunderstanding” (p.14). Such a focus would further emphasize the importance of “beyond-native” competence mentioned previously; however, due to the persistence of native speakerism in ELT practice, such an emphasis may be easier to imagine than to implement. To illuminate the challenges of countering deeply entrenched native speakerism in SLTE/PD in Japan, this study examines how four teacher education practitioners heightened participant awareness of issues related to native speakerism through a set of workshops in a government-funded English teacher training program. Conducted two times in 2017, these two-day elementary school workshops recruited elementary school educators and administrators from around the country. The teacher training program had originally been in place to target junior and senior high school teachers, but was extended to elementary school teachers due to the critical need for PD and educational support in this area. Specifically, this study examines: 1. the participants’ perceptions of their preparedness to implement the 2020 English Education Reform Plan Corresponding to Globalization, 2. the participants’ perceptions of their self-image as non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) in the wake of the aforementioned Reform Plan, and, 3. the overall degree to which the program model succeeded in challenging native speakerism. We situate this study as one that will hopefully influence future research on how SLTE/PD can serve as a tool that can, through an emancipatory curriculum (Chacón, 2009), dismantle resilient and fixed ways of thinking that have a deleterious effect on the self-image of all teachers, native and non-native alike. Our training workshops were concrete steps towards undoing native speakerism by raising awareness among policy consumers in the process. In Japan, there has indeed been increased interest in the study of English as a Lingua Franca and its pedagogical implications, seen in particular with the formation of the Japan Association of College English Teachers (JACET) ELF Special Interest Group (SIG) in 2016.

192

9.2 9.2.1

G. P. Glasgow et al.

Native Speakerism: Implications for SLTE/PD in Japan Native Speakerism: A Brief Overview

Holliday (2006) provides a comprehensive definition of native speakerism, stating that it perpetuates the belief that “‘native speaker’ English teachers [NESTs] are the ones with absolute rights to speak, and thereby, represent a “Western culture from which spring the ideals of both of the English language and of English language teaching ‘methodology’” (Holliday, 2006, p. 385). Thus, Holliday denounces the apparent disbelief in the contribution of non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) in the English language teaching profession. Houghton and Rivers (2013) expand the concept of native speakerism presented by Holliday (2006) above, adding that it can be also considered to be “prejudice, stereotyping and or discrimination, typically by or against foreign language teachers, on the basis of either being or not being perceived and categorized as a native speaker of a particular language” (p. 14). They go on to say that this “can form part of a larger complex of interconnected prejudices including ethnocentrism, racism and sexism. Its endorsement positions individuals from certain language groups as being innately superior to individuals from other language groups” (p. 14). In addition, through various accounts of native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) who experienced discrimination in hiring practices and teaching duties in Japanese institutions, Houghton and Rivers argue that native speakerism can also marginalize and otherize both NNESTs and NESTs, and they called for more equitable treatment in employment policy in English language education. While both Holliday (2006) and Houghton and Rivers acknowledge the prevalence of native speakerism in ELT practice, more research is needed to further explore the phenomenon and how it can be addressed through SLTE and PD. Native speakerism is an established concern about political inequalities within ELT, as the discourse of native speakerism is based on the assumption that “native speakers” are the prime-knowers of the language and enjoy superior competence in it. In addition, native speakerism proposes that those who use the English language as an additional language have to treat “native speaker” competence as the goal of learning, and that those who speak English as a native language are the best qualified to teach it. According to Phillipson (1992, p. 193), the native speaker fallacy “holds that the ideal teacher is a native speaker, somebody with native speaker proficiency in English who can serve as a model for the pupils”. Native speakerism usually accompanies prejudice and stereotyping, and implicitly devalues non-native foreign language teachers, as this belief “has diverted attention away from the solution of urgent pedagogical questions, and prevented the flourishing of local pedagogical initiatives which could build on local strengths and linguistic realities” (Phillipson, 1992, p. 199). Therefore, its undoing may rely on the increased agency and autonomy of teachers and teacher educators at the local level to attempt to dismantle it. Other scholars have denounced the ideology of native speakerism as demoralizing and diminishing the strengths of local NNESTs (Braine, 1999;

9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School. . .

193

Canagarajah, 1999). However, the voices of NNESTs articulating their own concerns on native speakerism in ELT have not been given full attention (Houghton & Rivers, 2013). It is well established that NNESTs have been discriminated against in employment because of the belief in the dominance of presumed “native speaker” standards in language and language teaching methodology (Aboshiha, 2008; Braine, 1999). Canagarajah (1999) argues that the native speaker fallacy is discriminatory because it prevents periphery teachers from developing their expertise in ways relevant to their local community needs, and forces them to be obsessed with native-like pronunciation. Furthermore, there is a growing concern that native speakerism can be racist, as the image of a “native speaker” teacher tends to be associated with whiteness (Kubota & Lin, 2009). This association becomes more problematic as many periphery teachers, who happen to be non-white TESOL professionals, face significant challenges in finding employment opportunities (Curtis & Romney, 2010). Therefore, diversity in the representation of language models and nationalities is critical in SLTE and PD in order to dismantle racialized assumptions of what makes a qualified English teacher. In sum, the ultimate drawback of native speakerism, as it relates to English language education, is that there remains a persistent gap between the perceived ideal of the language, which many have referred to as the Anglo-American model (McKay, 2003; Toh, 2014) and the increased sociolinguistic realities concerning the language, which beget a newly informed, innovative and inclusive approach that hopefully EIL/ELF can provide in teacher preparation and professional development.

9.2.2

EIL/ELF-Aware Teacher Education and the Resilience of Native Speakerism in the Japanese Context

The pedagogy of EIL (Marlina & Ashish Giri, 2014) is recognized as a paradigm shift in teaching and research in the applied linguistics, TESOL and second language acquisition (SLA) fields (Sharifian, 2009). It shares similarities with other terms such as English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) aware pedagogy (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2017), or global Englishes language teaching (Galloway, 2017). Brown (2006) has also discussed the inclusion of a World Englishes framework into a methods/postmethods approach to language education. The underlying premise behind all these concepts remains the same: the complex sociolinguistic realities of how the English language is used today require a reconceptualization of how the language is taught and learned, and how its teachers are perceived. Following initial calls from McKay and Bokhorst-Heng (2008) to incorporate a more socially and contextually sensitive pedagogy into the teaching of English as a second/foreign language, more researchers began to explore how to effectively incorporate the EIL construct into language pedagogy, only recently extending the discussion to SLTE/PD. For example, Matsuda’s (2017) edited volume on preparing teachers to teach EIL provides a thorough discussion on theoretical perspectives, teacher preparation programs,

194

G. P. Glasgow et al.

EIL-based courses as well as tasks and activities, honing in on more practical issues regarding implementation. Bayyurt and Sifakis (2017), in their effort to propose a framework for EIL-aware teacher education, suggest the three phases of (a) exposure, (b) critical awareness, and (c) action plan. Through Phase A, teacher educators enable teachers to become more aware of the complexity of the spread of English, through prompting them to reflect on the challenges and strength of its global spread, as well as showing them examples of successful non-native speaker interactions. In Phase B, critical awareness, teachers reflect on and begin to question their own perceptions about standard English use and the teacher’s role in the foreign language classroom. Phase C, action plan, is where the teachers integrate areas from the training that they deem to be relevant regarding their contexts of teaching. Kumaravadivelu (2006, 2012), in his interrogation of the notion of “method”, proposes the constructs of particularity, practicality, and possibility as three operating principles suited to a more globally sensitive form of language teacher education. Through the concepts of particularity and practicality, teachers encounter SLTE/PD opportunities tailored to their local situation and delivered in a way that enables them to apply what they have learned. The third principle, possibility, encourages them to reimagine and transform their identities as language teachers. Nevertheless, as Marlina and Ashish Giri (2014) suggest in their edited volume on the pedagogy of EIL, there are indeed strident criticisms of its pedagogical value, citing issues such as its relevance and practicality to be of concern. The sociolinguistic reality of English use across the globe is still not regarded as a key factor that has significantly influenced the design and implementation of ELT teacher education preparation courses. This is particularly the case in Japan, where native speakerism is said to remain resilient. Matsuda (2009), in a study on Japanese university teachers, notes a tepid response with respect to the incorporation of World Englishes in university curricula nationwide. She concludes that JTEs have a tendency to regard EIL-informed teaching approaches as desirable, but not necessary. D’Angelo (2014), in a study that surveyed first-year university students’ experiences at a Japanese university, finds that while students are fundamentally satisfied with the World Englishes orientation of the curriculum, there are still challenges that may work against its success and acceptance, some factors including “deeply entrenched NS-oriented attitudes in Japan: all of which will take a long-term concerted effort to change” (p. 222). This need to reverse entrenched attitudes is not exclusive to teachers, but learners as well. According to Matikainen (2018), equally as resilient are learners’ perceptions that they will never be able to achieve “nativeness” in their English language proficiency. Furthermore, Toh (2014) criticizes policy makers in language education for being “(1) a little late and tentative in their responses to the challenges that have come with the spread of English, [and] (2) opting for cosmetic or piece-meal type arrangements in their speaking of ‘international’ English” (p. 185). He sees native speakerism as entrenched in the Japanese system, as demonstrated through the current discourses of reform which encourage ELT classes in junior and senior

9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School. . .

195

high school to be conducted in English (MEXT, 2013b) and to make English a subject in elementary school. As the EIL/ELF construct in SLTE/PD begins to gain currency, caution needs to be made regarding how it is introduced to those who are unaware of its relevance. Bayyurt and Sifakis (2017) warn that “[t]he key is not to force teachers to accept a dogma and radically change the way they think about teaching. learning, assessment and communication, but to get them to think more extensively” (p.13, italics ours). According to the aforementioned studies, as native speakerism remains resilient in Japan, EIL-aware teacher education could assist teachers in contesting these fixed ways of thinking, hence the rationale for this study.

9.2.3

English in Japanese Elementary School Education

Emphasis on English education in Japanese elementary schools has become increasingly prevalent over the past two decades, with efforts to promote elementary school education in local governments and schools intensifying during the early to mid 2000s (Butler, 2007). Following this period, The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) published the Course of Study in 2008, and in it, stipulated the national guidelines regarding the new launch of Foreign Language Activities (English) at elementary schools as well as the teaching of English at senior high schools (MEXT, 2008). At the elementary school level, fifth and sixth grade classroom teachers began to teach communicative English activities by focusing on speaking and listening once a week, as stipulated in 2011 (Ng, 2016). Classroom teachers were also expected to work with English-speaking assistant language teachers (ALTs) through team-teaching (Machida & Walsh, 2014). Despite MEXT’s intentions, it is instructive to note that the introduction of Foreign Language Activities, according to Hashimoto (2011), has been generally perceived as a “rather elaborate scheme to foster a particular attitude towards communication with foreigners” (p. 167), thereby leading to the assumption that native speakers or ALTs need to be utilized as communication tools (Hashimoto, 2011). At the same time, the curriculum states that homeroom teachers are responsible for preparing lessons and designing teaching programs, in line with 2011 policies, which raises pedagogical and administrative issues (Hashimoto, 2011). Soon after the implementation of elementary school foreign language activities, MEXT (2013b) announced a reform plan to further develop English education at all school levels. Regarding elementary school English, the reform plan proposed two changes: (1) lowering the starting grade of Foreign Language Activities to the third grade, and (2) starting English language education as a formal subject from the fifth and the sixth grades, with an emphasis on teaching the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). Then, MEXT (2017a) published the new Course of Study to activate the reform plan beginning in 2020. MEXT set 2018 and 2019 as a transition period for preparing teachers to fulfil objectives set in the

196

G. P. Glasgow et al.

reform plan, in which they were required to conduct partial or full implementation of English education at school. Elementary school teachers have struggled with respect to their preparedness in terms of (1) professional development and teacher training and (2) their own English proficiency. Higuchi, Kagata, Izumi, and Kinugasa (2013) categorize teacher training into three types: (a) self-study, (b) in-school training, and (c) external training offered by a Board of Education, a university, or an institution from the private sector. Teachers might prepare on their own through self-study; however, due to the broad range of self-study activities and the paucity of data about the actual number of teachers who self-study English, it is difficult to identify how many teachers fulfilled this requirement in Higuchi et al’s study. Regarding other types of teacher training, Eiken Foundation of Japan (2015), a private testing and assessment organization, announced that 22.1% of elementary schools conducted training sessions relating to English language education during in-school training. Also, MEXT (2017b) reported that 16.2% of elementary school teachers participated in teacher training offered by a prefecture and/or city board of education. Another 1.1% of teachers attended private sector training. This lack of teacher training is further complicated by the fact that although two-thirds of elementary school teachers will be required to teach English in 2020, not enough of them have had actual English teaching experience. In addition, in-school and external teacher training programs tend to overemphasize the theory of how to teach English at the detriment of developing teachers’ English skills, even if those practical Engish skills are important for teaching English (Butler, 2005; Yamamori, 2013). Furthermore, teachers are anxious and not confident about their own English proficiency (Machida, 2016b). Many Japanese elementary school teachers think that “their current proficiency levels were far below” (Butler, 2004, p. 268) compared to that of the perceived levels that they need to teach English. Pinter (2017) mentions that regarding the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) guidelines, at least “CEFR B2 or C1” (p. 51) level was necessary for teachers to teach English. Butler (2004) states that “having NESTs in their classrooms did not seem to compensate for their limited proficiency in English” (p. 268) because Japanese teachers appear not to have effective interaction with nativespeaking ALTs. It should be noted that MEXT’s most recent elementary school curriculum emphasizes the importance of communication in English; however, due to their anxiety about communication with ALTs in English, teachers are not able to effectively collaborate during team-teaching or model communication in English to students. Machida and Walsh (2014) point out that “[n]ot being able to discuss details of each lesson with the ALT and not being able to make adjustments during a team-taught lesson proved frustrating and anxiety provoking” (p. 11). In fact, Machida (2016a) shows that 77.4% of teachers felt anxious about their level of English proficiency. The sources of anxiety were “their lack of confidence about their oral English proficiency and an overall lack of preparation” (p. 56). Having teachers improve their confidence in using English and helping them get used to teaching English during the transition period could potentially alleviate teacher anxiety. Therefore, it would be practical for such ideas to be discussed

9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School. . .

197

during teacher training sessions for efficient preparation prior to the 2020 policy and curricular shifts. At the same time, to reduce such anxiety, elementary school JTEs would need to change their self-image, which may indeed be negatively affected by their anxieties about their professional preparation coupled with feelings that their teaching ability is inadequate. These perceptions are arguably symptomatic of native speakerism.

9.3

Methodology

Data collection for the study was facilitated through an online survey designed to (1) examine elementary school teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards native speakerism and (2) cull their responses to the quality of the workshop activities adopted. The setting for the training, as well as the data collection and data analysis approaches, are described below.

9.3.1

Setting and Participants

The authors of this chapter participated in two in-service teacher training seminars in Tokyo prefecture in Japan that constituted part of an elaborate training program funded by an external donor (the name of which is kept anonymous here). The program was administered and coordinated by one of the authors, who was formerly employed as a full-time lecturer at the institution chosen by the donor to conduct the program. The overall goals of the program were to assist in the in-service professional development of Japanese teachers of English in developing their ability to negotiate policy changes in English language education in Japan at the pre-tertiary level. Due to the program’s relative success in motivating and supporting junior and senior high school teachers, the program was extended to elementary school teachers. Consequently, we chose to design a program that we thought would most likely benefit the participants based on our experiences as foreign language teachers and researchers as well as our knowledge of Japanese elementary school education. Special attention was paid to ensure that the program was locally relevant to the target group of teachers. Through the study, we sought participants’ perceptions in a time of important and pressing governmental policy change. A total of 39 participant teachers and administrators (38 Japanese, one of Korean descent, 25 females and 14 males) from two separate programs conducted in January 2017 and July 2017, completed the questionnaire on-site at the end of the two-day teacher training session (40 teachers attended the seminar but one of them was unable to complete the survey due to a school emergency). Out of the 39 educators, six were employed by their respective prefectural boards of education while the remainder were teachers in their respective elementary schools. The inclusion of board of education administrators by the

198

G. P. Glasgow et al.

program donor was in order to allow them to share key principles and practices to their teaching communities through a “cascade” approach (Bett, 2016).

9.3.2

Program Conceptualization and Structure

While drawing from recent scholarship on EIL teacher preparation and professional development (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2017; Kumaravadivelu, 2012; Matsuda, 2017; Selvi & Peercy, 2016), we used our contextual knowledge of the English education system in Japan (Glasgow & Paller, 2016; Glasgow, 2017; Machida, 2016a, 2016b; Machida & Walsh, 2014; Matikainen, 2018; Ng, 2016) to craft workshops catered to the needs of the participants. One benefit was that our international identities and backgrounds as EIL/ELF teacher educators (Singapore, the USA, Japan, and Finland) had the potential to serve as a clear model of diversity (see Selvi & Peercy, 2016), further conveying the message that English speakers are indeed plurilingual and pluricultural. We conducted activities that encouraged the participants to be multicompetent users of the language without solely relying on the native criterion as a point of reference. Workshops consisted of video clips of ELT classrooms in other parts of the world, our personal narratives, and critical reflection about how teaching principles could be applied to local contexts. In this way, Kumaravadivelu’s (2012) operating principles were followed, localized to suit the trainees (i.e., particularity), give them practical activities (i.e., practicality) and empower them to transcend their anxieties and take on the challenge of implementing the Reform Plan (i.e., possibility).

9.3.2.1

Workshop Day 1

The four main training topics in our workshops included overarching principles in teaching young learners (Ng) teaching English in English (Machida), how to collaborate with ALTs (Glasgow), as well as how to design syllabi for young learners (Matikainen). The first day of the two-day workshops covered principles of teaching English to young learners, teaching English in English, and collaboration with native English-speaking teachers. The first session by Dr. Ng was designed to provide an overview of basic principles of teaching English to young learners, some of which include providing an integrated approach to language learning, and basing teaching on children’s skills, abilities, and interests. This workshop provided the necessary framework through which the participants were expected to develop a broader view of contemporary language learning classrooms and included clips of elementary school classrooms around the world. Similarly, the workshop on teaching English in English by Dr. Machida carefully highlighted specific techniques that NNES educators could apply to actively use English as the language of instruction. In addition, this workshop promoted the use of comprehensible English and explicitly positioned

9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School. . .

199

NNESTs as role models who needed to overcome their anxieties about speaking and teaching English. The third workshop, by Dr. Glasgow, reminded teachers of basic principles in collaborating with native English-speaking teachers as presented by Taiwanese researcher Wen-Tsing Luo (2010) and her research on NEST-NNEST collaboration in the Asian context. Role-play scenarios enabled NNESTs to reflect on how to confidently plan and negotiate lesson content with native speaking counterparts, drawing on communication strategies that focus on comity and negotiation, as mentioned earlier (McKay, in Sharifian, 2009).

9.3.2.2

Workshop Day 2

The second day covered principles in curriculum design and gave workshop participants a chance to conduct micro-teaching practice in front of peer participants and workshop trainers for critique and suggestions. Dr. Matikainen, in her session on creating a curriculum for elementary school English, drew upon established concepts in ELT such as the four strands (Nation, 2007). However, in each workshop, she began her session with a personal narrative of her teaching journey as a Finnish NNES educator to further relate with participants and provide them with a reliable model of a plurilingual, pluricultural language teacher. In the micro-teaching sessions, participants were encouraged to use their own locally developed and government sanctioned teaching materials so that they could effectively link the ideas of the seminar to the classroom practices common to them. After the micro-teaching session, the participants completed an online survey.

9.3.3

Data Collection and Analysis

Three Likert scale items and two open-ended questions from the online questionnaire are directly relevant to the content of this chapter and will be further discussed in Sect. 9.4. The Likert items used a five-point scale: 1 ¼ strongly agree, 2 ¼ agree, 3 neutral, 4 ¼ disagree, and 5 ¼ strongly disagree (we address the possible limitations of such a scale later in the chapter). The open-ended questions asked the teachers to write responses either in English or Japanese. The content of the questions and statements was as follows: What do you think about teaching English as a subject in 2020? Write four or five sentences in English or Japanese. It is important for non-native English-speaking teachers to speak with a native-like accent. Elementary school English teaching should focus on English used by native speakers. It is important for non-native English-speaking teachers to raise students’ awareness of aspects of various cultures - not just ‘native speaker’ culture of countries like the U.S., the U. K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

200

G. P. Glasgow et al.

How do you feel about being a non-native English-speaking teacher in terms of teaching English? Write 4 or 5 sentences in English or Japanese.

The authors then translated responses made in Japanese into English and considered comments in English as written by the participants. The other items in the questionnaire, which were designed to elicit feedback about the usefulness of the teacher training workshop sessions will not be discussed here. The quantitative portion of the survey was tallied by descriptive statistics, while the comments were analysed and coded using directed qualitative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), taking note of themes that emerge from the participant responses and relating them to the research questions.

9.4

Results

9.4.1

Views on Elementary School English Curriculum Policy Reform

The first open-ended question asked, “What do you think about teaching English as a subject in 2020? Write four or five sentences in English or Japanese”. The details of what this governmental policy change entails are discussed earlier in the chapter. The results of this question highlight the conflicting feelings held by nearly all the participants regarding the upcoming changes. While the importance of English in the future of the students’ lives is recognized, at the same time, the participants expressed concern regarding most Japanese elementary school teachers’ inability to implement the expected curricular changes, and identified a series of practical constraints.

9.4.1.1

Positive Perceptions of the 2020 Reform

Based on the analysis of the open-ended answers, it is clear that many participants perceive the change to be positive for the learners despite the fact that there are negative factors that need to be considered carefully. One participant enthusiastically writes: I strongly agree about teaching English as a subject. We have to change the way we learn English. I know there are lots of things are not clear. But all of us can try to change our English education. We are still on the way and nobody really not sure what is gonna happen. But I think we just can try many ways and we can figure out the best way for better learning. I am so EXCITING (sic) about how our English education will be changed (Participant A, English response, emphasis in bold)

Another teacher agrees by stating: In my opinion, it's a good attempt for children. For, the older children get, the more they become shy to learn a new language. Also, when English becomes one of subjects rather

9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School. . .

201

than just an activity time, children have more opportunities to be exposed to English. However, we still have to think carefully and thoroughly what to teach them and how to teach them. Otherwise, they'll lose their interest and motivation towards learning English. (Participant D, English response, emphasis in bold)

9.4.1.2

Practical Concerns and Anxieties

At the same time, several teachers express deep concern for how English becoming a subject will affect student motivation, especially due to their language skills being evaluated by the teacher. Some teachers worry that grading students will lead to demotivation, and in the worst case, students disliking English. One teacher conveys this concern by saying: I think English as a subject is fine but grading (A,B,C or Good, So so, Not good) each student is not appropriate. Instead of grading, it is better to write a good comment to students. Motivating is the first. (Participant E, English response, emphasis in bold)

The overwhelming sense of apprehension among the participants involves the unpreparedness of homeroom teachers and the crucial need for more support and training for teachers. One participant expresses this concern in the following way: Many of the elementary school teachers have the idea of “Is it okay for me to teach English at an important time of early English language education” because they do not have an English license? I think that it is necessary to think more about future ways of teaching and the way of training so that everyone can teach English lessons (Participant F, English translation of Japanese response, emphasis in bold).

Another teacher shares this sentiment by stating: Maybe some school has trouble to ready teaching English as a subject (sic). In order to solve this problem we have to share more information such as lesson plan, how to teach, how to team teach, how to use English materials. I think many elementary school teacher also should take English seminar to enhance their skills (Participant J, English translation of Japanese response, emphasis in bold).

Several participants explore this issue further by suggesting practical ways for the government to improve the situation for teachers, one of them suggesting: I believe that the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology should promote the arrangement of special departments. They should set budget and let knowledgeable specialists teach. Someday, once they are ready, they can train the teachers in the field and demonstrate the goodness of English classes to homeroom teachers (Participant M, English translation of Japanese response, emphasis in bold).

Finally, many of the participants comment on the necessity to update and improve Japanese English education because of the changing global landscape. Several of the teachers comment that, “It is needed in the current world situation”, “It needs in current international society”, and “Because internationalization is progressing, I think it is important to learn English”.

202

9.4.2

G. P. Glasgow et al.

Perceptions of the Need for a “Native-Like” Language Classroom

Perceptions of “nativeness” as a focus for language learning are divided. Two respondents (5%) strongly agree that it is important for non-native English-speaking teachers to be able to speak with a native-like accent while ten participants (25%) also agree with this statement. Conversely, two (5%) of the teachers strongly disagree with this statement and 12 (30%) disagree with the idea that non-native teachers should have a native-like accent. The largest group of the participants, 14 (35%) of them, express neutrality. The responses to the statement “It is important for non-native English-speaking teachers to speak with a native-like accent” are shown in Fig. 9.1. Regarding the second statement, “Elementary school English teaching should focus on English used by native speakers”, two respondents (5%) strongly agree that elementary school English teaching should focus on English used by native speakers and five participants (13%) agree with this statement. On the other hand, eight (21%) of the teachers strongly disagree with this statement while nine (23%) disagree with the idea that elementary school English should centre on native-speaker English. The rest of the participants, 15 (38%) of them, express neutral views. The figures are shown in Fig. 9.2. The responses to the third and last statement, “It is important for non-native English speaking teachers to raise students’ awareness of aspects of various cultures—not just ‘native speaker’ culture of countries like the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand”, show that 19 teachers (48%) strongly agree with this

Fig. 9.1 Responses to the Statement “It is important for non-native English-speaking teachers to speak with a native-like accent.” (n ¼ 39)

9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School. . .

203

Fig. 9.2 Responses to the Statement “Elementary school English teaching should focus on English used by native speakers”. (n ¼ 39)

Fig. 9.3 Responses to the Statement “It is important for non-native English-speaking teachers to raise students’ awareness of aspects of various cultures—not just “native speaker” culture of countries like the USA, the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand” (n ¼ 39)

statement while eight (21%) agree. Five participants (13%), on the other hand, strongly disagree while two (5%) disagree. Five teachers (13%) remain neutral on this issue, as shown in Fig. 9.3.

204

9.4.3

G. P. Glasgow et al.

Views on the Self-Image of Participants as NNES Educators

The second open-ended question asked, “How do you feel about being a non-native English-speaking teacher in terms of teaching English? Write four or five sentences in English or Japanese”. The responses to this question show that these teachers are very well informed about the current global situation and the fact that they may be now more likely to encounter people who speak English as a foreign language. Despite lacking confidence at times, the teachers also understand the motivational power they have in the classroom as non-native speakers of English. Many of the participants stress the importance of empowering non-native speakers of English in contemporary society. One teacher expresses this in the following way: In this world, many kinds of people are living together. So we should respect them. Even if we cannot speak English like native English speakers, it does not matter. It is important to communicate with a lot of people in the world and to know the various kinds of cultures (Participant S, English response, emphasis in bold).

Another participant points out that the language classroom and the job of an English teacher is not only about language learning: We believe that interacting with people with diverse cultural backgrounds, not just native, is beneficial to the character formation of children (Participant R, English translation of Japanese response, emphasis in bold).

Another participant focuses on the importance of exposing our students to different varieties of English: There are many people in the world who use it as official language or second language rather than those who use English as their mother tongue. And because there are English in each country, I think that it is necessary for children to know that there are various kinds of English. Also, since I think that there is also a stumbling block of learners who understand it because it is non-native, I think that I should make good use of it (Participant G, English translation of Japanese response, emphasis in bold).

Another teacher says: English is not only native English. Students should know any kinds of English. Home room teacher must do models for students (Participant E, English response, emphasis in bold).

In sum, teachers seem to unanimously understand their transformative influence they have over their students due to their own status as a non-native speaker of English which allows them to share their learning journeys with their students. This importance of a teacher acting as role model is expressed by many of the participants. One participant feels that it would encourage students not to feel selfconscious about making mistakes. Many of the participants also realize that as non-native teachers, they may be able to empathize with their students at a deeper level through presenting themselves as language models and taking advantage of their understanding of the Japanese educational context. Because these teachers have gone through the same experiences as language learners and share linguistic and

9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School. . .

205

cultural backgrounds with their students, their views on language learning and communication complement each other. At the same time, they do have hesitations about their ability to be effective language teachers as non-native speakers of English, expressing their concerns about their pronunciation ability and the time needed to further improve their English skills. Finally, a major theme appearing in the participants’ responses was the critical importance of pedagogical knowledge, despite one’s language background, and the importance of empowering Japanese English teachers through training. One teacher points out, “I think that being a non-native teacher is good, but I think that it is necessary to have a specialty (or specialized support), such as theory of CLT and understanding of the English language”, while another expresses this by stating, “I do not mind teaching non-native (sic), but I think that you should hire only people with teaching methods and basic knowledge of English (including accuracy of pronunciation)”. The participants also comment on the role of teacher training workshops in empowering them as non-native English teachers. One teacher says, “Until now, there was sort of threatening concept like to natively speak English well. However, I heard this story and thought that I should make use of the non-native strengths”, and another writes, “I understood the goodness as a non-native teacher. Until now, I was planning to do well, trying to get close to native, but I would like to take advantage of non-native goodness”. Lastly, one participant comments: I learned through this training that non-native speaker teachers can be very effective. I suddenly realized this truth. Hopefully from now on, I can have more confidence in my lessons (Participant H, English translation of Japanese response, emphasis in bold).

9.5

Discussion

To reiterate, our intentions in this chapter were to determine (1) participants’ perceptions of their preparedness to implement the reforms, (2) the participants’ selfimage as NNES teachers in the wake of such reforms, (3) the overall degree to which the program model succeeded in challenging native speakerism.

9.5.1

State of Readiness for 2020 English Education Reform Plan

The responses to the first research question suggest that the participants understand the necessity to promote English education in elementary school. Some felt the need for such a change in the educational system. As the aforementioned survey responses showed, there is excitement about encouraging the learning of English in a new way, and exposure to English will help young learners feel more comfortable with the

206

G. P. Glasgow et al.

language. However, there exist concerns that a more systematic approach to support teachers has not yet been put in place to implement reforms. MEXT’s English Education Reform Plan Corresponding to Globalization is still promoting the spread of English across the Japanese curriculum, despite the degree to which teachers are prepared to implement it. A major issue is the paucity of training opportunities to meet the challenges of implementation. Notably, participants did not state that as a result of their lack of preparedness, more ALTs should be utilized and recruited, a finding that Glasgow (2017) noted in his study of senior high school JTE preparedness to implement the Japanese government-mandated initiative to teach English classes in English. Instead, they acknowledged the need to rise to the occasion and carry out their roles. Even though they recognized their weaknesses, the educators in the seminar understood that they were to be major contributors in achieving the reform’s success. This may have been due to the incorporation of the principles of EIL and teacher education discussed in Sects. 9.2.2 and 9.3.2, and the localized nature of the program. To date, MEXT has not issued any specific policy guidelines regarding the use of ELF or EIL-informed pedagogical practice in schools. It will therefore be difficult for elementary school teachers to implement it in the classroom without macro-level guidance and pedagogical support. At the same time, teachers could be quite receptive to such pedagogies provided that they receive opportunities to learn more about them. As seen in the participants’ responses above, internationalization is progressing, and interacting with diverse users of English is perceived as beneficial for young learners. The view that students should be familiarized with a variety of English models was also expressed. These stated beliefs suggest that teachers may be more aware now of the negative effects of native speakerism, provided that it is addressed appropriately in teacher training situations. At the same time, we need to ask to what degree such policies in elementary school education in Japan are still being influenced by what Phillipson (1992, 2016) refers to as the early start fallacy, or the perception that English proficiency will improve the earlier one begins studying it. Such beliefs may continue to lead to a lack of policies informed by current TESOL research, which will then in turn negatively impact NNES educators.

9.5.2

Emergent Yet Ambivalent Identities as NNES Educators

Regarding the second research question, the Likert-type answers surveying participants’ views about native-like pronunciation and native-like English tended to be neutral. The findings here may suggest that teachers’ views regarding what Kirkpatrick (2007) refers to as the norms associated with a standard model of English may remain somewhat fixed. Regarding the statement of focusing on native speaker English, though there was a predominant number of educators who answered “neutral”, the total amount of disagreements to this statement outweighed the total amount of agreements. There has been a concern that Likert surveys may encourage “fence sitting” or the proclivity to select a neutral answer (Brown, 2001)

9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School. . .

207

which should be considered to be a limitation of the study. In addition, another limitation is that follow-up interviews could have been conducted to more deeply understand the participants’ perceptions. However, the results clearly show that teachers still appear to be conflicted with this issue, either subscribing to native speakerist beliefs about a standard English model for pronunciation or recognizing the transformative potential of the NNES educator to be an effective pedagogical model. The third statement regarding world cultures could also serve as evidence that the cultural hegemony of U.S./U.K. English, while resilient, may not be as pervasive as once considered. To be sure, participant comments could be indeed influenced by Holliday’s (2006) notion of native speakerism and Western culture promoting ELT and the norms of the English language. However, as the field moves toward EIL and ELF oriented perspectives, perhaps some teachers are also starting to change their views, as evidenced by the comments here as well. Also, this teacher training program was conducted using a variety of “language models” provided by the authors (who were the teacher educators), which could have had an effect on the teachers’ responses, and created the space to interrogate and begin to undo native speakerism. At the same time, regarding this study, it is interesting that these particular responses to the third statement differ from those related to the previous two statements. Perhaps the teachers feel that they can heighten awareness of English being a global language in their classes, but still harbour conservative views of what constitutes a proficient user of English in today’s classroom, hence defaulting back to an image of the so-called native speaker as a preferable model. In this case, the resilience of the so-called standard English ideology is evident here, and the participants may also have insecurities about themselves as teachers having ownership of the language. At the same time, teachers may not necessarily be aware of how to develop concrete and practical lesson plans in light of the current sociolinguistic realities of the English language. One respondent asked if it was even practical—or even feasible—to expose students to World Englishes in the classroom, assuming that learners would have to be exposed to all existing varieties of English around the globe.

9.5.3

Countering the Resilience of Native Speakerism: Implications for SLTE/PD

Finally, the responses to the final research question do leave room for hope. Moderate success in interrogating native speakerism was reflected in particular by JTEs who recognized the so-called threatening concept of having to speak English “natively”, and felt empowered by the workshop content. Those who were able to question native speakerist beliefs made this clear in the last open-ended question, where some of them realized that as a result of the workshop, they can take

208

G. P. Glasgow et al.

advantage of their strengths. Hence, these responses served as ample evidence of the critical need for carefully designed, emancipatory SLTE/PD curricula that heightens awareness. In any event, some respondents still seem to be influenced by the more common “native speaker fallacy” in Japan. Nevertheless, the divide in perceptions in the current study does appear to open up a space for critical language teaching pedagogy. Teacher educators well-versed in current issues on World Englishes and EIL pedagogy could be well positioned to address JTEs’ preconceptions, and to hopefully shift their thinking away from native speakerist assumptions, again through carefully tailored programs. While these results show that there is remaining work to be done to address the resilience of native speakerist assumptions, at least there are teachers who appear more receptive—or at least tolerant—of the idea that English is a global language and that competent teaching professionals in the language do not have to slavishly adhere to a native speaker ideal. Indeed, the results suggest that many teachers, though hesitant in this study, might eventually perceive themselves as multicompetent language users (Cook, 1999). Therefore, the results can be interpreted to cautiously infer that EIL/ELF-aware program initiatives can alter or dismantle native speakerism as suggested by Matsuda (2017), taking into consideration how some JTEs reacted after the training sessions. Indeed, SLTE/PD could foster critical understanding of, and perhaps even resistance against, native speakerism; however, such endeavours will have to be undertaken at several different levels. As suggested before, policymakers will need to ensure that policy initiatives rely less on broadly held assumptions or fallacies of English language learning and instead draw from research on English language teaching and learning and English sociolinguistics. For example, the team-teaching handbook jointly published by MEXT and the British Council (MEXT, 2013a) which targets newly arrived ALTs, makes an effort to explicitly recognize the importance of valuing local pedagogical initiatives (Phillipson, 1992) by the following statement: It is also important to remember that the JTL [Japanese teacher of English] is a qualified teacher of language, and knows the schools, students and local culture far better than you do, as a newcomer. Whatever you may personally feel about the way they approach teaching their subject, it is important to establish a relationship of mutual respect. This means being open to different ways of doing things, and open-minded about the effectiveness of approaches which may not be commonly used in your home country. (MEXT, 2013a, p.8, emphasis in bold).

The above statement may attempt to counter native speakerism by trying to change individual perceptions. However, British dominance in global ELT initiatives, as evidenced through the work of the British Council, remains intact (see Phillipson, 2016). Therefore, unless we begin to address the structural imbalances of native speakerism, its undoing will continue to be a difficult undertaking, especially if professional exchange between Core countries like the U.K, and the Periphery “seems to imply reciprocity but conceals the reality of a one-way transfer of expertise” (Phillipson, 2016, p. 91). More research needs to be carried out in this area to better understand the resilience of native speakerism today.

9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School. . .

209

Secondly, teacher educators and administrators in elementary schools should participate more in teacher training seminars in order to spread innovative ideas to a wider population of teachers. At the same time, another critical group of stakeholders—parents—should become more familiar with the rationale behind an ELF/ EIL-aware pedagogical approach, specifically with regard to its practical applications. It is very likely that parents may harbour native speakerist assumptions about language learning models, and they may be uninformed about the latest paradigm shifts in TESOL, thereby propagating such “common sense” beliefs. Teachers at the local level also need to seek knowledge on their own, comparing their existing knowledge with new developments in the field so that they can come to a better understanding of their role. While WE/EIL/ELF paradigms are increasingly common, their findings and principles are still not being disseminated in a way that reaches educators at a local level and that dismantles native speakerist ideology. More has to be done on this front to eliminate this constraint, which is why it is crucial that senior educators and board of education members with a deep understanding of the issues recruit training professionals carefully.

9.6

Conclusion

The purpose of the present study was to examine the degree to which native speakerist ideology could be challenged through an in-service elementary school teacher training programme in Japan. Firstly, the results of the study show that the participants are apprehensive about their preparedness to meet the challenges of the English Education Reform Plan Corresponding to Globalization (MEXT, 2013b). These perceptions may be linked to a broader anxiety related to teachers’ pedagogical competence and lack of pedagogical support. At the same time, the participants in this study see current and future reforms as valuable opportunities to improve the state of elementary school foreign language education. Secondly, perceived native speakerist notions related to language learning and pronunciation models persist among the participants. A sizeable number of respondents, however, also appear to challenge these assumptions by seeing themselves as empowered and welcoming their potential as language learning models. This empowerment should be promoted much more comprehensively at the local level through systematic training efforts promoted by the Ministry of Education. Overall, there is evidence that a closely tailored educational program that recognizes the struggles and needs of NNES educators can indeed make somewhat of a difference in dismantling negative self-images, thereby challenging native speakerism and restoring a sense of professional legitimacy. As homeroom teachers become increasingly responsible for the implementation of the Reform Plan (MEXT, 2013b), future research should evaluate a wide variety of programs, both pre-and in-service, to determine if there are any general trends in terms of participant reflections regarding reform implementation. Research on this topic should also continue to explore innovative approaches in SLTE/PD, which can be used to

210

G. P. Glasgow et al.

interrogate the stubborn persistence of native speakerist discourse in English language education in Japan.

References Aboshiha, P. (2008). Identity and dilemma: The ‘native speaker’ English language teacher in a globalizing world. Unpublished PhD thesis, UK: Canterbury Christ Church University. Bayyurt, Y. (2013). Current perspectives on sociolinguistics and English language education. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 1, 69–78. Retrieved May 26, 2019, from https:// dergipark.org.tr/download/article-file/209050 Bayyurt, Y., & Sifakis, N. C. (2017). Foundations of an EIL-aware teacher education. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. 3–18). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bett, H. K. (2016). The cascade model of teachers’ continuing professional development in Kenya: A time for change? Cogent Education, 3(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016. 1139439 Blair, A. (2015). Evolving a post-native, multilingual model for ELF-aware teacher education. In Y. Bayyurt & S. Akcan (Eds.), Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua Franca (pp. 89–102). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Braine, G. (1999). Introduction. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. xiii–xxi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, K. (2006). Models, methods and curriculum for ELT preparation. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. L. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 680–693). Blackwell: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. Butler, Y. G. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 245–278. Butler, Y. G. (2005). Nihon-no shogakko eigo-o kangaeru: Ajia-no shiten-karano kensho-to teigen [English language education in Japanese elementary schools: Analyses and suggestions based on east Asian perspectives] (in Japanese). Tokyo: Sansedo. Butler, Y. G. (2007). Foreign language education at elementary schools in Japan: Searching for solutions amidst growing diversification. Current Issues in Language Planning, 8, 129–147. https://doi.org/10.2167/cilp115.0 Canagarajah, S. (1999). Interrogating the ‘native speaker fallacy’: Non-linguistics roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 77–92). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chacón, C. (2009). Transforming the curriculum of NNESTs: Introducing critical language awareness (CLA) in a teacher education program. In R. Kubota & A. Lin (Eds.), Race, culture and identities in second language education (pp. 215–233). New York: Routledge. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587717 Curtis, A., & Romney, M. (Eds.). (2010). Color, race and English language teaching: Shades of meaning. New York: Routledge. D’Angelo, J. (2014). The WEs/EIL paradigm and Japan’s NS propensity: Going beyond the friendly face of west-based TESOL. In R. Marlina & R. A. Giri (Eds.), The pedagogy of English as an international language: Perspectives from scholars, teachers and students (pp. 221–238). Cham: Springer International Switzerland. Eiken Foundation of Japan. (2015). Shougakko no gaikokugo katsudo oyobi eigo katsudo tou ni kansuru genjo chousa [Review of foreign language activities and English activities in

9 Challenging and Interrogating Native Speakerism in an Elementary School. . .

211

elementary schools]. Retrieved October 6, 2019, from http://www.eiken.or.jp/center_for_ research/pdf/market/elementary_press_2712.pdf Galloway, N. (2017). Global Englishes for language teaching: Preparing MSc TESOL students to teach in a globalized world. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. 69–86). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Glasgow, G. P. (2017). Policy, agency and the (non)native teacher: English classes in English in Japan’s high schools. In P. C. L. Ng & E. Boucher-Yip (Eds.), Teacher agency and policy response in English language teaching (pp. 58–73). New York: Routledge. Glasgow, G. P., & Paller, D. L. (2016). English language education policy in Japan: At a crossroads. In English language education policy in Asia (pp. 153–180). Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1080/13488678.1998.10800995 Hashimoto, K. (2011). Compulsory “foreign language activities” in Japanese primary schools. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2011. 585958 Higuchi, T., Kagata, T., Izumi, E., & Kinugasa, T. (2013). Shou gakko eigo kyouiku hou nyumon [An introduction to English education in elementary school]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl030 Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2013). Introduction: Redefining native-speakerism. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intercultural dynamics in foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kubota, R., & Lin, A. M. Y. (Eds.). (2009). Race, culture and identities in second language education: Exploring critically engaged praxis. New York: Routledge. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL, 40, 59–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264511 Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society: A modular model for knowing, analyzing, recognizing, doing and seeing. New York: Routledge. Luo, W. (2010). Collaborative teaching of EFL by native and non-native English speaking teachers in Taiwan. In A. Mahboob (Ed.), The NNSET lens: Non native speakers in TESOL (pp. 263–284). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Machida, T. (2016a). Japanese elementary school teachers and English language anxiety. TESOL Journal, 7(1), 40–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.189 Machida, T. (2016b). Foreign language anxiety and Japanese elementary-school teachers’ characteristics. In J. Crandall & M. Cristison (Eds.), Teacher education and professional development in TESOL: Global perspectives (pp. 176–190). New York: Routledge. Machida, T., & Walsh, D. J. (2014). Implementing EFL policy reform in elementary schools in Japan: A case study. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16(3), 221–237. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14664208.2015.970728 Marlina, R., & Ashish Giri, R. (Eds.). (2014). The pedagogy of English as an international language: Perspectives from scholars, teachers and students. Cham: Springer. Matikainen, T. (2018). Beyond the native speaker fallacy: Internationalizing English-language teaching at Japanese universities. In P. Wadden & C. Hale (Eds.), Teaching English at Japanese universities: A new handbook (pp. 174–180). New York: Routledge. Matsuda, A. (2006). Negotiating ELT assumptions in EIL classrooms. In J. Edge (Ed.), (Re)Locating TESOL in an age of empire (pp. 158–170). Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan. Matsuda, A. (2009). Desirable but not necessary? The place of world Englishes and English as an international language in English teacher preparation programs in Japan. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 169–189). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. (Ed.). (2017). Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

212

G. P. Glasgow et al.

McKay, S., & Bokhorst-Heng, W. (2008). International English in its sociolinguistic contexts: Towards a socially sensitive EIL pedagogy. New York: Routledge. McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/14734192.00035 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2008). Shougakou gakushu shidou yoryo [Course of study for elementary school education]. Retrieved October 6, 2018, from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2009/04/21/1261037_12.pdf Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2013a). ALT handbook. Retrieved May 26, 2019, from http://www.britishcouncil.jp/sites/britishcouncil.jp/files/alt-hand book-en_0.pdf Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2013b). English education reform plan corresponding to globalization. Retrieved May 1, 2019, from http:// www.mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/detail/1372656.htm Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2017a). Shougakou gakushu shidou yoryo [Course of study for elementary school education]. Retrieved October 6, 2018, from http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2018/03/29/1384661_4_2.pdf Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2017b). Eigo-kyoiku jisshi jyokyou chousa no kekka [The result of English education review in 2016AY]. Retrieved October 6, 2018, from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/kokusai/gaikokugo/1403468.htm Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt039.0 Ng, C. L. P. (2016). Primary school English reform in Japan: Policies, progress and challenges. Current Issues in Language Planning, 17(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016. 1147118 Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2016). Native speakers in linguistic imperialism. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 14(3), 80–96. Retrieved May 31, 2019, from http://www.jceps.com/archives/ 3174 Pinter, A. (2017). Teaching young language learners (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Renandya, W. A. (2012). Teacher roles in EIL. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 1(2), 65–80. Selvi, A. F., & Peercy, M. M. (2016). Diversity within TESOL teacher education programs. In J. Crandall & M. Christison (Eds.), Teacher education and professional development in TESOL: Global perspectives (pp. 83–97). New York: Routledge. Sharifian, F. (2009). English as an international language: An overview. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 1–20). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Toh, G. (2014). The cosmetics of teaching English as an international language in Japan: A critical reflection. In R. Marlina & R. A. Giri (Eds.), The pedagogy of English as an international language: Perspectives from scholars, teachers and students (pp. 175–187). Cham: Springer. Yamamori, N. (2013). Gaikokugo katsudo ni motome rareru kyoushi no kyoushitsu eigo ryoku no wakugumi to kyouin kenshu puroguramu no kaihatsu: Riron to genjyou wo fumaete [Teachers’ classroom English ability for foreign language activities and teacher training: Integrating theory and reality]. JES Journal, 13, 195–210.

Chapter 10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice, and Pedagogy Claudia Kunschak and Nariyo Kono

Abstract With English as a Lingua Franca on the rise in Europe, more than 350 languages spoken at home in the USA, Asian Englishes used for both business and pleasure from Hong Kong to New Delhi, and quadrilingual signs and announcements appearing in stores and on public transportation across major Japanese cities, native-speakerism would seem to be losing relevance in today’s language teaching, learning, and usage. At the same time, since language and identity as well as real and imagined communities raise questions of status, belonging and agency, other ways of claiming multilingualism as a valid educational option beyond the native–nonnative dichotomy need to be considered. This chapter will try to trace several options based on the experience of its authors in various multilingual settings where they were at times “native,” “non-native,” local or third language speakers. The authors will triangulate their research and teaching trajectories with findings from their research studies, relevant trends in academia over time, and pedagogical and policy differences across settings. It will be argued that multilingual speakers are not only on the rise among the recipients of education, but also among its providers, and that a paradigm beyond ideologies which reinforce dichotomous worldviews is needed. By comparing policy issues, contexts of language practice and pedagogical opportunities and challenges in various settings from a multilingual practitioner and policy maker’s standpoint, the authors will propose a praxis-driven theory-building approach to the issue of language ownership and communities of practice.

C. Kunschak (*) Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan e-mail: [email protected] N. Kono Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_10

213

214

10.1

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

Introduction

Multilingualism has been the norm in many parts of the world for a long time, especially in language contact situations (Canagarajah, 2013). However, on the part of language policy makers, certain languages, varieties or dialects were declared superior at any given time, and this move towards standardization gave preferential access and voice to speakers of the respective prestige language or variety. The resulting power differential furthermore supported an ideology of monolingual speakers of the local (and now global) language of choice. This static one-dimensional prescriptive model never really reflected language practices, and it is now generally considered an inaccurate descriptor of daily multilingual practices in urban centers across the globe. English as a Lingua Franca (Jenkins, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2001), superdiversity (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011), and translingualism (Canagarajah, 2013) are some of the academic concepts that have been developed to describe this range of intersecting and overlapping language practices. The world of business has similarly taken heed with Rakuten, a Japanese online giant, having chosen English as the company language or Cathay Pacific, a Hong Kong based airline making in-flight announcements in Cantonese rather than Mandarin and English. As far as language policy is concerned, the Barcelona Declaration (European Council, 2002) of “mother tongue + 2 foreign languages” can be cited as well as the current efforts of South Africa to provide multilingual programs in higher education. Yet, systems are slow to change, and gatekeepers have an interest in maintaining the status quo. “English only” (Department of Labor, 2012), “speak Mandarin” (signs on campus where the co-author taught), and “keep French pure” (Reed, 2015) are still the law in some places or slogans we often hear. Given these systemic structures that continue to be in place on the one hand, and the global flow of people, ideas and communication styles on the other, how can we trace the complexity of interplay among language policy, practice, and pedagogy over time and across settings? This chapter attempts to achieve this task by juxtaposing the changing linguistic environment, awareness, and engagement of two applied linguistics researchers, language teachers, and language learners in relation to changing language policies, practices, and pedagogies encountered by the co-authors over the course of their academic careers in multiple settings. The authors would like to invite readers to reflect on their own changing circumstances, beliefs, and practices as they embrace the notions of multilingual subjectivity, “conceptualized dynamically as a site of struggle and potential change” (Kramsch, 2009, p. 25), and translingual communities of practice, where multilingual subjects create new meaning both from the center and the periphery; that is, practice is performed, negotiated, and reshaped in a multidirectional exchange of stakeholders based on their diverse experiences and their ability to establish connections and build new pathways (Kunschak, 2015).

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

10.2

215

Background

Multilingualism has been steadily on the rise (American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2016). From a researcher’s perspective, this phenomenon can be regarded from various perspectives. In this chapter, as indicated in its title, we would like to focus on the multilingual subject as the core entity for explaining the changing needs in language pedagogy, policy and practice. Kramsch (2009) refers to the multilingual subject in terms of subjectivity as being “conceptualized dynamically as a site of struggle and potential change” (p. 25), intersubjectivity as a condition where “subjects can anticipate one another’s behavior and thus trust one another” (p. 19), and subject position as “the way speakers position themselves in discourse” (p. 20). Although developed in a foreign-language context, the three basic aspects are mirrored in both researchers’ personal and professional development as well as their community interactions. Besides the subjective focus on multilingualism, a more instrumental perspective can provide additional insights into the lives of multilingual subjects, i.e., individuals who use more than one language on a regular basis, albeit at different levels of proficiency, depending on the communicative event (cf. Hymes, 1972). As Canagarajah (2013) convincingly argues, translingual practice is not a new phenomenon arising with the spread of globalization but a daily reality for many speakers in multilingual territories over the centuries. It was only with the rise of particularly European centers of hegemonic power, such as the British Empire and the French centralized bureaucratic system, that certain languages and varieties coupled with a monolingual worldview started to impose themselves. Yet, over the past decade, sheer numbers of multilinguals at all levels of society, from low-level service providers to cosmopolitan executives, small business owners to internationally mobile students (see Blommaert & Rampton, 2011 on superdiversity) have contributed to a lingua franca reality for English (Jenkins, 2006; Kirkpatrick, 2010; Seidlhofer, 2001) that counters more traditional views. These new Englishes contest the nativespeakerist model proposed by scholars such as Randolph Quirk (1990) and suggest moving towards a post-native-speakerist era (Houghton & Rivers, 2013) and teaching English as an International Language (McKay, 2018). While this perspective contributes to our understanding of an emerging globalized, mobile workforce, it does not address the underlying displacement of language and identity that happens simultaneously. A third perspective on multilingualism is thus necessary that is community-based and social-justice oriented. Community-based means considering the needs and wants of a particular community as paramount in policy, pedagogy, and practice. That may entail a focus on language ownership (Norton, 1997) that goes along with paradigms such as World Englishes, English as a Lingua Franca, and English as an International Language, an emphasis on multiple languages for social cohesion, European identity and intercultural citizenship (Byram, 2008, 2014)—in fact, before becoming the European Union, its predecessor was called European Community— or a spotlight on communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) that serve to

216

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

coalesce members from the periphery with those of the center, changing dynamics across the entire group. This goes along with the second related aspect, a socialjustice orientation or a focus on social change, that originated with Freire’s consciousness-raising (1970), can be found in Hymes (1992) ethnography for social change addressing educational inequalities, and is expressed in the New London Group’s advocacy for multiliteracies (Cazden, Cope, Fairclough, & Gee, 1996) addressing an increasing linguistic, cultural as well as textual and multimediatically diverse society to enable students to become active participants in their future work, citizen, and life worlds. It is particularly the impact of multilingualism and multiliteracies on the intersecting planes of individuals and the communities they are part of that we aim to explore in our chapter. Before delving further into these issues, we would like to briefly comment on the terminology used in this chapter. Although the theme of the book and the chapter takes a critical stance towards the concept of native speaker, we still employ it sometimes as a lens to dissect current ideology. However, as the title suggests, we would like to propose multilingual subject as the key concept, underlining the psychological, social, and political realities of a sizeable proportion of our current globalized society. We have taken a conscious decision to pair this concept with both intercultural and multicultural, referring to the mediating function on the one hand and the societal set-up on the other. When we borrow the MLA (2007) pair of translingual transcultural, we refer to acquired competences similar to but not entirely overlapping with plurilingual and pluricultural, which are used in the European context (Council of Europe, 2018a) to refer to repertoire or potentialities. The term cross-cultural on the other hand is often employed in business contexts comparing two different working cultures and suggesting ways to improve teamwork “across the cultural divide.” It thus focuses more on essential features and specific ways to accomplish a clear goal and, while highly useful in its context, does not seem to encompass the various psychological, social, and political aspects this chapter aims to illustrate. Looking for ways to make sense of our experience and make it available to others, being inspired by the duoethnographies we encountered, and taking the three areas reviewed above as the point of departure, we embarked on a dialogic investigation of our personal and professional trajectories in relation to the different living and working contexts we encountered, the theories and empirical research we were exposed to and produced, and the points of inflections and new opportunities that emerged from our experience and practice. The following research questions were guiding our research process, again combining personal experiences, social dynamics, and pedagogical implications. 1. How do multilinguals in academia experience the tensions of native-speakerist models? 2. What affordances can life trajectories, changing theoretical paradigms, and empirical research data provide to challenge discourses of native-speakerism, cultural hegemony, and exclusivity?

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

217

3. How can multilingual subjects harness their academic training, research output, and personal experiences to create an inclusive, multilingual, multicultural classroom that empowers all students? We hope that these questions will also serve to guide the reader through this chapter and provide a sort of scaffolding for the reader to reflect on their own experiences, professional challenges, and pedagogical aspirations.

10.3

Research Methodology

As mentioned in the introduction, this project was inspired by a duoethnography conducted by a native and a non-native teacher of English (Lowe & Kiczkowiak, 2016). Based on these previous studies and our own understanding of the research methodology, we decided to draw on three main theories in a multi-step process: narrative analysis, constructivist grounded theory, and dialogic ethnography. At this point, it should also be mentioned that this specific duoethnography has been in the making so to speak since the two authors met in graduate school. While taking different trajectories and never formally collaborating in a project, we have always had a strong professional interest in each other’s work and are reviewing 20 years of inquiry, struggles, and growth. The research design, involving individual narratives, dialogic ethnography and constructivist grounded theory, is the pivotal structure that ensures that familiarity does not lead to assumptions but mutual clarification, inconsistencies can be explored in the process and bisecting trajectories in pedagogy, research, and policy agendas can be reliably traced and verified. The foundational structure of this chapter are two professional narratives that aim to make sense of the interplay between personal and professional experiences, research projects, and concurrent trends in pedagogy and policy studies. We chose narratives as the power of story to make meaning and share experiences is central not only in education but also in community building (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Dyson & Genishi, 1994). The narratives also served to provide two separate accounts to work with that were not influenced by the views or later discussions of the two co-authors. The second and related theory we are basing our analysis on is the concept of constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014). While grounded theory refers to the process of building theory from data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), constructivist grounded theory takes into consideration the fact that meaning making and theory building is necessarily constructivist in nature, even more so in the case of duoethnographies. We are dealing here not only with shaping theory based on narrative and later discourse data but constructing that theory by reflecting on the narratives as well as the ensuing exchange. This exchange leads us to the third pillar of our research, dialogic ethnography (Tedlock & Mannheim, 1995). While dialogic ethnography may refer to the dialogue between the researcher and the participating community members, we understand it

218

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

as an ethnography, examining wide areas of the co-authors lives, that comes to live in the weekly discussions on the narratives, holes and inconsistencies, crossreferences and mutual inspirations, as well as a critical lens on each other’s development in theory and practice. To sum up, beyond the underlying, sometimes superficial, sometimes intuitive connections in the professional lives of the two co-authors, this chapter is based on an elaboration of individually constructed narratives to serve as the groundwork for further analysis, a critical review of those two narratives by focusing on commonalities and differences with a view to identifying patterns and gaps that might in turn be influenced by theory or practice or build theory or praxis, both in this project and for the researchers in their separate professional lives, and finally, to jointly interpret and reinterpret the previously constructed narratives based on the weekly discussions on the chapter, the factors that seem to have influenced the authors in their work as multilingual intercultural educators, researchers, and advocates, and a framework we would like to present that would integrate social, cultural, economic, and political ramifications of and for multilingual subjects. Duoethnography is a method of inquiry, collaborative practice, and meaning making. It is a relatively recent tool of qualitative inquiry that “examines how individuals have acquired beliefs that influence their actions and the meaning they give them” (Norris, 2008). It draws on the concepts of currere (Pinar, 1975), heteroglossia (Bakhtin, 1981), and conscientization (Freire, 1970) and offers thus a reflective, dialogic, transformative framework, “creating a third space. . .into which readers may insert their own stories” (Norris, 2008). One of the intended consequences is to “nurture positive change in the multiple ‘selves’ that comprise our identities” (Brock et al., 2017; cf. also Houghton & Rivers, 2013). Among the studies that have influenced the current project are Lowe and Kiczkowiak’s take on native-speakerism (2016), who utilize duoethnography to overcome the dichotomy of native vs. non-native speaking professionals, Hernandez, Ngunjiri, and Chang (2015), who focus on strategies to survive and thrive, “exploiting multifocal lenses, reconfiguring identities, and engaging in tempered radicalism,” as well as Nganga and Beck (2017), who describe their quest in terms of their professional identities, their need for groundedness and integration, and reclaiming their space and voice. Duoethnography can also be viewed from the perspective of intertextuality (Bakhtin, 1986; Fairclough, 1992a; Foucault, 1972; Kristeva, 1986). On the one hand, by retracing two professional trajectories, the researchers examine how concepts they had taken for granted were superseded over time which seems to mirror the Foucaultian genesis of knowledge based on presence (what is currently accepted), concomitance (what is valid in related fields), and memory (what used to be accepted). At the same time, we make use of several overlapping genres such as narrative, dialogic reflective discussion, and scientific texts as in Fairclough, who discusses the overlap of genres, discourses, and styles. Most important, by putting our respective trajectories and academic productions in contexts of both mainstream History and alternative history from multiple perspectives, we see a connection to Kristeva’s work on the historical significance of text as in both reflective and

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

219

generative of history. From Bakhtin, we borrow a dynamic and dialectical perspective that juxtaposes the personal and the professional, policy and practice, as well as social positionality over time. A final caveat from a Faircloughian (1992b) view of text, context, producer, and interpreter: We are in turns producers and interpreters of individual texts and joint texts, we represent discourse from our specific social and historical vantage points, and we may re-accentuate and mix along the way. We hope that with utmost transparency on our part, the reader as interpreter can identify presuppositions, coherence, and subjectivity. As a matter of fact, this project has been incubating for a long time as we, the co-authors, have witnessed our respective personal developments and professional careers. When duoethnography as an epistemological perspective presented itself, it provided us the needed framework for disciplined inquiry into the different experiences and encounters that had an impact on our multilingual subjectivity over time and across different settings. In the dialogic research process, it channeled our thus far separate scholarly activities into a collaborative practice that both underscores common motivations and disciplinary references while allowing us to learn from the differences in our personal and professional trajectories. Ultimately, it helped us in the process of meaning making, not just regarding our experiences as multilingual subjects thus far, but also in devising future pathways of collaboration in order to support the development of networks of learning, teaching, and research across borders, cultures, and institutions.

10.4

Findings

10.4.1 Entering Dialogue: Claudia’s Narrative and Nariyo’s Narrative Claudia When I was born in Vienna, Austria, Europe was divided; my country was not a member of the European Union, formerly the European (Economic) Community, but of EFTA (European Free Trade Association), and young people discovered the continent by interrail, a cheap one-month rail pass for everyone below the age of 26. Erasmus, the student exchange program (Council of Ministers, 1987) had not been launched, neither was the mother tongue +2 policy (European Council, 2002) in place, and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001) had not been established. Yet, the historical and geographical situation was unique and, coupled with personal support from my family, made it possible for me to embark on a multilingual journey early on. Geographically, Austria was situated at the cross-roads of then Eastern and Western Europe, linguistically at the intersection of Germanic, Romance, and Slavic languages, and surrounded by then seven, now eight countries. Historically speaking, Vienna was an important diplomatic location for high-level conferences in the

220

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

age of detente in the late 1960s and early 1970s following its post-war transition (Gehler, 2005) and is still one of the UN seats in Europe together with Geneva. It was also the age of the rise of social democracy (Clark, 2011) and the blossoming of humanities so that language study was attractive then. It was thanks to my parents, who both speak several languages fluently, had studied abroad in the 1950s when it was not common at all, and instilled in me a curiosity and love for travel, foreign languages, and other cultures, that the foundations for my personal and professional trajectory were laid. English as a Foreign Language in primary education, Latin, French, and Italian in secondary education, Spanish as a new major language during my university years besides dabbling in Catalan, Portuguese, Dutch, and Modern Greek helped me to discover the world but also see it differently each time. My first brush with language policy and ideology came when working in Spain after my first year of college to improve my Spanish. Without any coursework in area studies, the quadrilingual set-up of the peninsula had escaped me, forcing me to learn Catalan rather than work on my Spanish as I had chosen a ski school in the Pyrenees run by an Austrian to ply my trade. It was not until a decade later, in my graduate program, that I encountered the theoretical literature on language ideology, with a specific focus on the situation in Catalonia (e.g. Schieffelin, Woolard, & Kroskrity, 1998; Woolard, 1989; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994). A few years later, on my first teaching assignment abroad, in Edinburgh, Scotland, the meaning of language variation was demonstrated to me in two distinct ways: on the one hand, even though my major was translation and interpreting, initially, it was nigh impossible to understand the local spoken language. On the other, the Irish head of the language section quipped that “at least I was Austrian, and not Swiss” referring to the varieties of the German language and their ascribed status. This exchange eventually would develop into a dissertation topic a decade later. (Kunschak, 2004a). Learning about pluricentric languages during graduate school (Clyne, 1992) helped explain my experiences at the time. Before entering graduate school though, having moved to Western Ukraine for 2 years, the next encounter with language policy and planning was looming. Studying Ukrainian with a colleague at university, when traveling through the country with an Austrian friend who spoke fluent Russian, we would take turns talking: me in Ukrainian in the Western part of the country, she in Russian in the rest of the country. Locals mostly were able to speak or at least understand both, but Ukrainians were more likely to speak Russian than the other way around due to higher exposure in the media, that is, until the language policy change enacted in August 2012 that sought to bolster Russian as a regional language and further disadvantaged Ukrainian in predominantly Russian speaking areas (Khromeychuk, 2012), which was eventually declared unconstitutional in 2018 (UKRINFORM, 2018), and replaced by a new law strengthening Ukrainian as the state language in May 2019 (UNIAN, 2019). Issues of language and identity unfortunately continue to exacerbate the tensions prevalent in those countries and regions until the present day. Up to that point, my encounters with language ideology, language planning, and multilingualism had been of a purely pragmatic nature, experiential learning (Kolb, 1984) so to speak, and entering graduate school at the Department of Language,

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

221

Reading and Culture (LRC), College of Education, University of Arizona, provided opportunities to learn about those phenomena from the perspective of linguistics, anthropology, and pedagogy. Freire (1970) on critical pedagogy, Ruiz (1984) on orientations in language planning, and Cummins (1994) on additive vs. subtractive bilingualism shall be mentioned here as examples of seminal works in the field. In addition, by teaching in the German Studies and Spanish departments, interning and volunteering in ESL, I was able to experience multilingualism from the learner, teacher, and researcher perspectives as I was taking coursework from all three departments. Perhaps the most important influence of that period was the immensely supportive environment towards other languages and cultures, particularly among the LRC community, most likely due to a multilingual/multicultural environment including substantial numbers of Hispanic and Native American students and faculty members as well as an advocacy-oriented approach to education that would enter my research at a later stage. Upon graduation, I moved to Spain for 4 years to teach translation and interpreting at a private university in Madrid. In terms of teaching, I was working with German, English, and Spanish. In research terms, I was similarly focusing on the foreign language context, culture in textbooks (Kunschak, 2004b), and language awareness in translation (Kunschak, 2004c). Multilingualism/multiculturalism or lack thereof was part and parcel of both. As a case in point, half of the faculty were teaching in both their first and their second language, 10% or three faculty members taught classes in their first, second, and third language (Kunschak, 2018). On my next assignment, in China, the research was focused on pedagogy issues (Kunschak, 2009a, 2009c), program issues (Kunschak, 2011; Kunschak & Krivanova, 2006), multilingual/multicultural issues emerging with CALL and EMI (Kunschak, 2009b, 2010) and a move away from foreign language learning to World Englishes (Kachru, 1986), and English as a Lingua Franca (Jenkins, 2000; Kunschak & Fang, 2008; Seidlhofer, 2001). Kunschak and Fang (2008) demonstrated that whereas students tended to favor “native” varieties as their models, teachers were already moving towards selecting a wide range of input for their students, who in turn were also transitioning from perfect imitation of native speakers to intelligibility in their communicative endeavors. Besides these findings, the experience of having been rejected as a non-native speaker of English for a job at one university, but then having been not only accepted but promoted to an administrative position by the local Chinese hiring committee, strongly contributed to my rising interest in Asian Englishes and ELF (cf. Kirkpatrick, 2010). Arguably due to its location in the bilingual/multidialectal province of Guangdong, this particular university was open to hiring a wide variety of faculty although the provincial authorities were more reluctant to hire English instructors from non-English speaking countries. Eventually, besides Chinese faculty members, about half of instructors had international background, including voice trainers from India and lecturers from various European, American, and Asian countries. This trend can increasingly be observed at institutions around the world (Ellis, 2013; Kunschak, 2018) and accounts for new modalities of collaboration (Kunschak, 2015).

222

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

As expected, initial job applications for Japan were rejected on the basis of being a non-native speaker of English. After 3 years of being part-time, a full-time position at a College of International relations that offers programs both in Japanese and English became available. Based on my own experience and that of my students as well as colleagues, my research both in China and now in Japan turned to issues of translingual transcultural practices and identities (Canagarajah, 2013; Kunschak, 2015; Kunschak & Girón, 2013), code switching (Kunschak, 2013; Lin, 2013), and the issue of native-speakerism (Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Kunschak, 2018). This move has also been influenced or accompanied by the Modern Language Association’s espousal of the concept of translingual transcultural competence (MLA, 2007) and the Common European Framework’s replacing of native speaker as the target norm with speaker of the target language and an addition of the competence of mediation and plurilingual pluricultural competence (Council of Europe, 2018a, 2018b). As the globalized world is moving towards superdiversity (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011), not only researchers, but practitioners and policy makers need to take heed of this development. The Launching Conference of the CEFR Companion Volume with New Descriptors hosted by the Council of Europe in May 2018 (Council of Europe, 2018b) was one such initiative to bring researchers, policy makers, and practitioners together. Nariyo Having a long family history of contribution to local and international societies and growing up with a liberal father who planted the seed for critical thinking at my early age, I consciously and unconsciously searched for ways to explore how I can use my language teaching profession to be meaningful to both myself and others. After I finished my Ph.D. at University of Arizona where I met the co-author, I decided to change my direction in academics, inspired by a group of scholars who contribute to Indigenous language maintenance and revitalization efforts: Arizona Indian Language Development Institute, which has been promoting Indigenous language teacher education for over 30 years. From an English language teacher, to a Japanese as second/foreign language teacher, to a Japanese as a heritage language teacher to an Indigenous heritage language educator and researcher, my journey covertly and overtly found ways to make more connections between the language education and social issues through my life work in academia. During the period, my life status has also changed from an international student, to an international scholar, and to an immigrant scholar, currently teaching capstone classes and researching in the Indigenous language sustainability and community-based learning areas as an adjunct professor in Oregon, USA. My first language is Japanese and language for communication is English with a specialization of Indigenous language sustainability. My journey in the USA as a graduate student started in Portland where my grandfather used to live as a Buddhist missionary with his family before World War II. At the beginning, I searched for my family history in the USA as part of my family also was in the internment camp in Utah, and it was an important history that I had to discover by myself in order to know who I am and how I live. At the same time, I fell in love with Indigenous cultures, which I can relate to myself due to some

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

223

cultural similarities and started to look for intersections between the Indigenous people and my own life work. I continued my graduate study in interdisciplinary language acquisition after an MA in TESOL where Language Planning and Critical Pedagogy added another dimension to my work. As I continued my journey and kept changing my status, I experienced and faced numerous challenges and opportunities to shape my intercultural lenses and perspectives. I also learned through my experiences that Indigenous communities have been divided as Natives vs non-Natives, among different tribes, tribal communities vs Urban Native communities just like divisions I experience in my life (e.g., Asian vs American; citizen vs immigrant; English native speaker vs non-native speaker of English). Experiences of mine led me to deeply reflect on my own biases inside of myself and gradually, I developed a deep sense of empathy and historical understanding by reflecting on my own and others’ lives. Leanne Hinton keenly described language revitalization as “not really about language” but all of the historical (decolonization), communal, societal, and identity development issues (Hinton, Huss, & Roche, 2018). I gradually learned by working with communities and researching that these divisions came from historical trauma, being demobilized in a vicious circle through continuous experience of former and current discrimination and also economic/social status. As I continue to teach Indigenous content, I learned that both groups (oppressor/oppressed) are consciously and unconsciously looking for ways to heal. As Freire suggests (1970), dichotomized perspectives are problematic. In a recent example, Houghton and Rivers (2013) described that “native speakers” can be also affected negatively by this dichotomized ideology “native speakerness.” Not belonging to either of the divided groups (Indigenous/White) gave me a space to work at the beginning; however, I had to constantly struggle to overcome another considerable divide: “community vs academy,” which exists through my professional life regardless of ethnicity. I attempted to bridge the two worlds by various ways including collaborative projects, collaborative research and continued to search for fruitful pedagogy and research methodology with special attention to “ethics in research” (Kono, 2013, 2019). Community-participatory research (Holkup, Tripp-Reimer, Salois, & Weinert, 2009) and community-based learning (American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2017), the methods I am currently promoting, both focus on reflective exercises and power struggles inside and outside of ourselves. The project team can collaborate, develop the process, and confirm the results among community, faculty and students while I position myself as a collaborator alongside the team. This ideology is based on my learning experience working with the communities and teaching, personally and professionally. Bridging between Japan and the USA is another aspect I have engaged in by sharing the institutional practice of community-based learning as the Japanese government has been promoting faculty and student engagement in community and has been implementing some related policies for the last couple of years (Fitzmaurice & Kono, in press; Kono, 2017) through the group workshop efforts to advance “Community-based learning and teaching” for the higher education faculty and staff in Japan (https://www.pdx.edu/cps/japan-cbl).

224

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

If I had not experienced racism or if I had not had a status as a “third person”— rather than a member of the divided—I might not have pursued this journey this far. I also consider that all of the collaborative class or grant-related projects in the fields are gifts (Eckert, 2015), and all of these projects can be achieved through trustworthy relationships which require either emotionally invested space and time and/or “friendship” beyond job obligation or monetary service. Based on my experiences, I believe that intercultural communication skills help build “trust” by bridging different cultural orientations or values across language barriers. As I engaged more in the process of grant projects and community-higher education trust building, I started to be deeply interested in the topic of research ethics (Kono, 2013) working alongside with Indigenous communities. Consideration of historical trauma working towards the healing can be integrated into research practice and class projects by listening closely to the communities and figuring out what is the purpose of the research and who the research is for (Kono, 2019; Smith, 1999). For example, due to the historical trauma, in the Native communities Language Ownership is considered to be unique to the community regardless of the stage of the language. There are stronger connections between their heritage language and culture, as well as the language and their identity. Understanding the historical trauma and associated ethical considerations is key to successful partnerships with communities (Kono, 2013, 2019). As a person who has been working as a non-member of an Indigenous community, understanding the historical trauma and working alongside with the community is a prerequisite for any projects and research. By engaging in community-based projects and research, we are gradually developing intercultural abilities as Cress, Collier, and Reitenauer (2013) claim that “community-based learning is an intercultural context” (p. 78). Also, I started to closely observe the local language policy development processes by Indigenous groups, for example, Senate Bill 690 (Indigenous Language Teacher Certification) and I felt that I found my voice to participate in the movement to directly support Indigenous language teachers as Indigenous languages are rapidly disappearing. My voice, my research stance and classroom pedagogy have gradually aligned as I had hoped before. Freire’s (1970) praxis (theory to practice) started to have more gravity as I can fully integrate these perspectives into my academic life.

10.4.2 History, Trajectories, Bumps, and Revelations The following section will address some common themes that can be found in the narratives of the co-authors. We would like to invite the reader to consider how their own story might fit into a framework built of life stories, critical events, academic reception, production, and positionalities, similar to the one described by the present reflections on multilingual multicultural lives. While obviously particular in their respective circumstances, we believe that patterns and intersections in life stories can

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

225

help us understand how our diverse society works, how we can position ourselves, and how we can effect change among our students and for our communities.

10.4.2.1

Family History and Geopolitical Developments

History with a capital H, the grand (inter)national, currently capitalist, top-down, supposedly unifying narrative shapes people’s lives just as much as history with a small h, individual vagaries, a multiplicity of voices, counter-narratives, histories from below, only that little is known about the latter (e.g. Brewer, 2010; Middleman, 2006; Myers & Grosvenor, 2018). In the case of the co-authors, from very different geopolitical zones, we are both strongly influenced by the small h history of our families that have shaped us and inspired us. Nariyo talks about her father and grandfather and their history of liberal and spiritual guidance and outward trajectory that influenced her from a young age. Claudia mentions both her parents as being explorers themselves and transmitting that internationalist viewpoint through language, culture, and international travel. At the same time, History with a capital H played a significant role in both authors’ quest for knowledge. While Nariyo traces her family history that was affected by WWII and her grandfather’s internment in a camp, Claudia experiences the changing European order as the continent tries to make sense of its history, and powers shift and realign across and within countries and along the geopolitical fault lines of the latter half of the twentieth century. In the end, Nariyo comes away with a historical empathy and understanding for the community she engages with, indigenous people. Claudia, on the other hand, develops an understanding of identity struggles of nationalities that have shaped and are still shaping Europe’s contemporary history. As can be seen from the above narratives and the table below that highlights critical events and positionalities, community involvements, identity and history are closely linked, at the individual, social and political levels, and can be developed into multidimensional factors and shifting over time.

10.4.2.2

Personal Trajectories, Obstacles, and Opportunities

Personal trajectories are influenced by family, partners, and friends, academic and professional opportunities and challenges, as well as larger societal conditions. While change and adaptability has become the leading paradigm of modern life, moving from life-time employment to the gig economy, from life-time partnerships to patchwork families, change is particularly noticeable and profound for multilingual multicultural individuals as “identity change is an unavoidable aspect of intercultural communication” (Houghton, 2012). Nariyo started out as an English language teacher, became a Japanese as a Second/Foreign Language teacher before focusing on Japanese as a Heritage Language and eventually found her niche as an Indigenous Heritage Language educator and researcher. In a similar way, Claudia’s point of departure was teaching German as a Foreign Language, taking a brief detour

226

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

into Spanish as a Foreign Language and English as a Second Language, before converting English as a Foreign Language into English as a Lingua Franca/English as an International Language. At the same time, Nariyo started out as an international student, turned into an international scholar and then an immigrant scholar. Claudia, in a similar way, went from foreign language teaching assistant to visiting lecturer, international student to associate professor, executive director back to adjunct lecturer, finally becoming tenured and planning for, but not having been granted yet, permanent residence. Both authors thus moved not only from one language to another within a specific socio-political context, but also changed their perspective on the languages they were teaching, researching and using depending on their evolving experience, and thinking about the interrelationship among language, culture, and identity, language rights, and communities of practice. While this duoethnography does not pretend to speak for all multilingual intercultural transnational subjects in academia let alone beyond, we believe that the intersecting and overlapping experiences in a variety of contexts, at times challenging, at times rewarding, can contribute to the growing body of research that sheds light on the political, economic, social, and psychological aspects of transcultural lives (see also the studies mentioned in the section on duoethnography). Besides helping fellow transnationals reflect and act on their situation, it is hoped that it will move the conversation forward such that the TESOL NNEST (non-native English speaker teachers) interest section may be reframed as multilingual teachers of English, to name just one residual artifact of the afore-mentioned dichotomy.

10.4.2.3

Challenges and Divisions

Spanning several decades of personal and professional development, the pathway to multilingual intercultural citizenship (cf. Byram, 2008, 2014; Porto, Houghton, & Byram, 2018) has not been a straightforward one or one without obstacles as has been described by other scholars (e.g., Hernandez et al., 2015). Nariyo focuses on the different ways of dividing people into categories that she has encountered in her path, among those the subdivisions within Indigenous culture such as native vs. non-native, different tribes, and the distinction between tribal communities and Urban Native communities. These divisions resonate with her due to the classification she experienced over time such as Asian vs. American, citizen vs. immigrant, English native speaker vs. non-native speaker of English. In some ways, as a third language/culture person, Nariyo was able to mediate between the different groups she encountered, even bridging the “academy vs. community” gap through collaborative projects, community-based learning, and communityparticipatory research. Claudia grew up with the division of Europe into East and West, but her perspective was also shaped by the geographical and political position of Austria as a neutral country at the crossroad of major geopolitical movements. Regarding language policies, intranational or intralinguistic divisions (cf. Clyne, 1992) stood

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

227

out as in Catalan vs. Spanish in Catalonia, varieties of English and German in Scotland, Ukrainian vs. Russian in Ukraine, as well as Cantonese vs. Mandarin (vs. the local dialect, Chaoshanese) in China. In all cases, locals strongly resisted national policies and the author had to move very gingerly depending on her interlocutors. On the other hand, the division into native-non-native speakers became an issue of language ownership (Norton, 1997) in China and Japan during her job search, and among academic disciplines, World Englishes and English Lingua Franca have developed along parallel but not always uncontested lines (Jenkins, 2006, 2017; Seidlhofer, 2009). This further illustrates the interrelated complex relationships between language and power, language and identity, and the potential for multilingual pluricultural subjects to build bridges across linguistic and cultural divides. It also demonstrates that the issues of native-speakerism, language ownership, individual and collective agency can potentially be addressed by sharing and comparing stories, experiences, knowledge, and practices within and across intersecting communities.

10.4.2.4

Connecting Dots: Critical Analysis

Living one’s life and making a living in unfamiliar territories ultimately relies on making connections rather than dwelling on the divisions by overcoming challenges and making efforts to be able to function in the community as somebody different, foreign or not belonging. One lens from which to examine the pathways of the two co-authors in that respect is through the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)’s 5 Cs (The National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015): Communication, cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities. Regarding the first C, English is the language of communication for Nariyo, with Japanese her first language and Indigenous language sustainability her scholarly specialization. Claudia has used several languages as her main channels of communication over time but would also consider English her most versatile tool for interaction on a professional and personal level (see the analysis table below). Culturally speaking, Nariyo was drawn to Indigenous cultures due to cultural similarities she discovered and the empathy she felt when learning about their historical background not unrelated to her own life. While spending time in the UK, in the USA, and in Ukraine developed naturally out of Claudia’s academic trajectory, China and Japan entered her life through cultural affinity with friends she made during her two stays in the USA including her graduate studies where the two authors first met. This may serve as a segue to our interpretations of the role of connections. Nariyo, who emphasizes finding ways to get socially connected through her life work in academia, discovered her career path through the American Indian Language Development Institute at the University of Arizona in her PhD program, connecting her with native communities and bridging academic with sociopolitical concerns. Although Claudia had lived and taught in other countries before, her experience as a graduate student, graduate assistant in teaching, and communitybased researcher and volunteer connected her not only with ideas and people but also

228

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

helped to develop a community-oriented critical approach to teaching, research, and outreach that she is now able to pursue further in her current position teaching and researching language and culture in the context of international relations by exploring the social, economic, and political aspects of language, culture, and identity. Comparing languages and cultures, Nariyo was able to engage both in Japanese as a foreign/second language and Japanese as a heritage language besides having worked as an English teacher before. When working with Indigenous languages, it became quite clear that those languages could not be considered separate from their historical, communal, societal, and identity development issues. Claudia started out with macro-comparisons between Indo-Germanic, Romance, and Slavic languages but soon discovered that the varieties contained within warranted more attention as they were often socio-culturally quite distinct. Later on, similarities and differences between the Chinese and the Japanese language and culture became an obvious personal and professional interest. However, more than comparing and contrasting, seeing the interaction unfolding in multilingual multicultural communities proved to be a more helpful approach to understanding the phenomenon of translingual and transcultural competence. In fact, our binary, dichotomy-oriented, academically trained, compare-contrast/ cause-effect lens may miss the forest for the trees. Applying an ethnographic lens, we must provide space for communities to build, reach out, and regroup, as a base camp for multilingual subjects to freely utilize their translingual and transcultural competence without having to worry about which batch they will be counted as. Given that freedom, such multilingual multicultural communities more often than not will find a modus operandi that fits their strengths and purposes. Besides her daily living and teaching experience, Claudia has examined these contexts in her research (Kunschak, 2015; Kunschak & Girón, 2013) and continues to explore this area from a comparative education perspective. Her findings indicate that communities of practice do not necessarily develop along the lines of shared home language, place of origin or level of seniority but take factors such as age, gender, and life trajectory into account. Nariyo’s work, on the other hand, focuses on bridging the gap between academia and community by making research a collaborative process that engages the community as a stakeholder with full co-participatory rights and language ownership. She also shares her experience as a community-based researcher in the USA with Japanese participants, again bridging two communities that she is intimately familiar with. Both Nariyo and Claudia subscribe to community-based research and integration of research methods: Claudia with a heavy emphasis on qualitative meaning making based on action research principles and focus-group methods, whereas Nariyo emphasizes on community needs concerning ethical aspects of the research process with a fair amount of flexible research methods. The following table summarizes some common aspects and also some different or additional approaches between Claudia and Nariyo in terms of ideologies and positionalities towards pedagogy, language policy, and research through our continuous data analysis discussions and reflections (Table 10.1).

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

229

Table 10.1 Summary of findings Background

Claudia Originally from Austria, Germans as her first language, currently professor in Japan, from international to immigrant equivalent status through working visa Multicultural, multilingual settings

Nariyo Originally from Japan, Japanese as her first language, currently adjunct professor in the USA, from international to immigrant status through marriage Critical pedagogy, language planning and policy

Graduate school exposures (1996–2002) Critical events Critical events that Job opportunities in China (admin Job opportunities in the USA have changed position); in Japan (international including the tribes positionalities community) (2002–2012) Key concepts that Global social movements; interna- Communities; immigration; social have influenced tional relations movements positionalities (2002–2012) Current positionalities on pedagogy, policy and research Pedagogy: Common Adapting critical perspective and pedagogy in the classroom by adding theme social issues as part of class content Pedagogy: Additional Building international communiDeeping on critical pedagogy; focus ties: Focus on diversity focus on community partnership/ relationship development Policy: Common Improving local policies based on community engagement theme Policy: Additional Gaining perspective as an admin Focusing on indigenous lanfocus and working on multilingual/mul- guages and teachers; indigenous ticultural organizations; studies on cultures; involvement of process language policy issues of local language policy creation Research: Common Community-based approach, integration of methodology theme Research: Additional Focus-group method within the Community-based approach and focus community focus; research ethics focusing on its process Languages Heritage languages German Japanese Languages as means English and Japanese English and Japanese of communication Targeted languages English and German Indigenous languages revitalization

10.4.2.5

Building a Multilingual and Intercultural Network

Multilingual subjects are not born, and intercultural relationships do not develop overnight. Even in our modern fast-paced life, certain aspects of life take time and dedication. Thus, one of the key concepts that emerged from the discussions between

230

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

the two researchers was the issue of establishing trust within a community. This is also borne out in the literature on intercultural training (e.g. Camerer, 2018) and multicultural psychology (Asnaani & Hofman, 2012). Shared experiences of otherness and precariousness due to immigrant status, limited-contract employment conditions and lack of residency have led to a focus on relationship-building among both researchers as well as reaching out and supporting other individuals and groups that fall into those categories. At the same time, as permanence and security is not granted to new arrivals and sojourners until a sometimes extensive “probation” period, the researchers also found themselves in the situation of having to repeatedly prove their qualifications, dedication, and adaptability with institutions and their representatives with the power to decide on their work and residency status. At the same time, as transnationals, both researchers have family, friends, and professional relationships in their countries of origin that they feel committed to and dedicate considerable effort to maintaining. Based on our discussions, we would thus like to suggest that both out of necessity and preference, these two multilingual intercultural professionals have learned to place considerable emphasis on establishing trust and building relationships, an experience that can be draining but also develops interpersonal intercultural skills. Besides our professional lives as teachers and researchers and our private lives as members of families, groups of friends and communities based on shared interests, we also see ourselves as political, economic, and social subjects under the umbrella of multilingual intercultural citizenship. Considering the notions of citizenship as being member of a group and sharing civic responsibility (Brewer, 2010), building capacity for intercultural citizenship via third cultures and intercultural ethicality (Castiglioni & Bennett, 2018) and foreign-language education for intercultural citizenship (Byram, 2008) that engages students not only with foreign but diverse cultures in their midst, we would like to emphasize the notions of identification and responsibility put forth by Castiglione & Bennett. In our discussions, we found ourselves gravitating towards intercultural citizenship through our exposure to multilingual multicultural communities both inside and outside the university setting during our graduate school days, a linguistically and culturally heterogeneous group of classmates, professors and friends that was both existing and emerging, and our involvement in the local diverse communities, Claudia with Literacy Volunteers of Tucson and the Refugee Education Project, Nariyo with heritage learners and Native American tribes. As we continued in our professional lives and assumed more responsibilities, Claudia took on an administrative position in China and thus responsibilities for mediating and representing the interests of a very heterogeneous group of instructors (by language, national background, domestic variation) while Nariyo assumed the role of mediating and advocacy between a Native American community, an established institution of higher education including all its diverse stakeholders, and funding agencies. Returning to our roles as multilingual multicultural educators and researchers, we both found our condition reflected in the cohort we are working with. Multilingualism as the new normal (Holmes, 2016) is thus central to our professional identity. Claudia teaches both Japanese groups, which include students who have traveled

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

231

widely as well as those who have never left the country, and international groups, whose members include a large number of bilingual bicultural students who have grown up in various parts of the world, in an EMI program. In the latter case, the lone monolingual/monocultural students are more often than not the ones that require intercultural capability building as they have not had that experience previously. Nariyo, on the other hand, emphasizes her positionality as a teacher-collaborator through dialogic-based critical pedagogy learning from her communities. As researchers, we share an emic perspective with many of the participants we include in our studies and pay close attention to communicative intersectionality and intercultural ethicality (Castiglioni & Bennett, 2018). By communicative intersectionality as researchers, we recognize and honor the diversity and heterogeneity of our co-participants in interacting and expressing themselves and by intercultural ethicality, we invite and support the communities’ co-determination of the research agenda and its implementation. In Claudia’s case, this includes reexaming her own privileged European background when engaging in research with diverse communities across the globe and concentrating on giving voice to the various individuals and sub-groups that participate and emerge in her research. As for Nariyo, bridging the institutional expectations and community-based needs has been central to her work over the years. Drawing on her critical pedagogy stance and her focus on research ethics (Kono, 2013, 2019), she both translates community requirements into institutional deliverables and embodies and facilitates culturally relevant research processes in her teaching, research, and outreach activities.

10.5

Discussion

In the discussion section, we aim to step back from the personal stories that have illustrated our experience as multilingual multicultural educators and researchers to tackle more general questions of how to contribute to the discussion about language, culture, and identity, about language policy, discrimination and empowerment, about pedagogical issues and issues that relate to the community that surrounds us, especially concerning native-speakerism, its essentializing and thus limiting effects and ways to create alternative pathways to reading and relating to the world. Here, we are going to use dichotomized concepts (native vs non-native in the nativespeakerism paradigm, for example) as a tool to critically examine nuanced situations and perspectives. As Kramsch claims in her multilingual subject book (2009), even the “third-place” metaphor is too static, and we are encouraged to rethink basic assumptions towards a multilingual matter. Similar to the previous section, we are inviting readers to consider what their experiences and positions are and what they might wish to add to their repertoire.

232

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

10.5.1 Opportunities and Challenges for Multilinguals in Our Current Native-Non-Native Schema The world of language teaching, especially in Asia and the Middle East, is still divided into native vs. non-native teachers of the language. Similar to companies rejecting applicants based on their perceived country of origin, ethnicity or gender (Mahboob & Golden, 2013), professionals who are non-native speakers of the language they are teaching face additional hurdles, more so if they do not belong to the local population either but are so-called third culture individuals. While some researchers have challenged the “native/non-native” dichotomy (Davies, 2003; Holliday, 2006; Houghton & Rivers, 2013), and job ads have begun to include qualifications such as “native or native-like,” equality of opportunity is not a given yet, especially at the gate-keeping level. This is problematic not least because students are becoming more and more diverse in terms of linguistic and cultural background (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011). It also focuses on the deficit perspective regarding “non-natives,” rather than the additive perspective towards multilingual or plurilingual individuals. Yet multilinguals, as Nariyo mentions, can be a bridge because they do not belong to either camp in a binary situation. Furthermore, multilinguals are not only increasingly representative of the student population, but also of the teacher side, where they can serve as models of who the students will need to interact with in their future career. On the other hand, language and identity needs have a role to play just as much as languages for global communication have; that is, students’ and teachers’ biographies, sets of experiences, and expectations need to be viewed from both an integrative and an instrumental perspective, an emic and an etic stance. By foregrounding multilingualism instead of a specific language of wider communication, students and teachers from diverse backgrounds can be co-participants in shaping a community of learners and practitioners. Awareness-raising among policy makers, networking among practitioners, referring to the literature on multilingualism from a psycholinguistic, demographic, and socio-political perspective and sharing best practices identified through research and community involvement all can work together to create an inclusive, diversity-oriented institution, and/or community.

10.5.2 How Research Informs Our Practice and Experience Informs Our Research Research and practice can be very closely linked as in action research or communitybased research. However, for any scholar educator, their research findings will inform their further practice. Most important, though, a researcher’s life experiences, particularly in the social sciences, will significantly impact their further trajectory as their personal beliefs and professional positionalities are continually reflected,

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

233

challenged or reworked by their “non-academic” community; that is, unlike in the hard sciences, society is both their object of study and their daily lived experience. By openly addressing this feedback loop, biases may emerge whereas a more robust construct can be built as well. To return to the two co-authors, Nariyo became familiar with research on language planning (Ruiz, 1984) and critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970) in her graduate studies, which prompted her interest to move from purely TESOL-oriented language teaching to community-oriented language services. Kono (2001, 2009) examined students’ language orientation in a Japanese program at a higher education institution in the Northwest in the USA by using cardsorting and multidimensional analysis as research tools. Based on the results, she argues that the heritage language students in the foreign language classroom have a different language orientation compared with the students who are learning the language as a foreign language. In the foreign language setting, heritage learners’ motivation in connecting with their identity might not be focused and the targeted language model can be a native speaker of the standard language. However, the heritage language speakers’ or their family’s heritage language can be local languages which might not be the focus in the foreign language classroom. She recommends that language teachers use a different pedagogy for a heritage or mixed language classroom where both foreign and heritage language learners are represented. At the same time, her contact with scholars engaged in language revitalization work prompted her to apply and further explore her professional path. Based on her experience working with Indigenous communities, she gained insight for community-based pedagogy (Kono, 2017) with a specific focus on research ethics (Kono, 2013). This became a critical moment for Nariyo to explore more social connections in her professional life regardless of her academic position or status. Due to her upbringing and initial training as a translator and interpreter, Claudia started out with a very instrumental approach towards language learning and teaching. Based on her experiences described in the narrative, and exposure to research in her graduate studies on pluricentric languages (Clyne, 1992), additive bilingualism (Cummins, 1994), as well as language planning (e.g., Ruiz, 1984) and critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970), she initially focused on the role of languages and varieties in language teaching (Kunschak, 2000, 2004a). After moving into ESL and administration in China, Claudia came across research in the areas of World Englishes (Kachru, 1986) and English Lingua Franca (Jenkins, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2001), which influenced her teaching, research on codeswitching in the classroom and blogging as a pedagogical tool (Kunschak, 2013; Lee & Kunschak, 2016) and administrative decisions. Her experience in the multilingual multicultural campus community prompted further research (Kunschak, 2015; Kunschak & Girón, 2013) on language, culture, and identity among students and teachers. Japan and her current position in international relations triggered an interest in social issues, multilingual students as well as the question of nativeness (Kunschak, 2018).

234

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

10.5.3 Creating Space for Students from Diverse Backgrounds and Multiple Identities as Learned Members of an Open Global Society Diversity can now be found on numerous policies for hiring, and educational institutions, notably in the USA, have championed diversity among students and faculty. However, as a recent lawsuit against Harvard demonstrates (Students for Fair Admissions, 2014), not everyone defines diversity and inclusiveness the same way. In this particular case, a group of Asian American students sued the university for unfairly disadvantaging Asian students with its affirmative action policy, whereas Harvard supporters contend that a range of factors lead to racial inequities in acquiring college relevant credentials that need to be addressed. The added issue of the founder of the student group not being Asian himself and the claim that outlawing race-based admissions criteria would also affect certain groups among Asian-Americans demonstrates the political contentiousness of this case (Benner, 2018). In addition, diversity policies may not address intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) or superdiversity (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011). From a linguistic standpoint, translanguaging (Parmegiani, 2014; Williams, 1994) can help to draw on resources students from a multilingual background have and empower them as members of the classroom community. From an outreach standpoint, community-based learning (Kono, 2017) can connect students to educational experiences that naturally expose them to the diversity of lived reality in their surrounding environment. From a pedagogical standpoint, multilingual multicultural educators need to assume their role and responsibility as representatives of the increasingly complex make-up of society rather than trying to “pass” for a member of the dominant language/culture group. Combining rather than separating the ideas of intellectual debate and safe spaces (Chan, 2015), using Reflective Structured Dialogue (Supiano, 2018) or playing an intercultural simulation game such as “Barnga” (Thiagarajan & Steinwachs, 1990) as a warm-up can help sensitize students to hidden differences, illustrate the need for constructive dialogue, and create a diverse yet respectful community of practice.

10.5.4 The Role Played by Advocacy/Activism Critical scholars such as Chomsky (1967, 2017), Freire (1970), and Hall (1966, 2011) have demonstrated the roles and responsibilities of scholars as advocates for social and political change. Along the same lines of thought, Perna (2018) recounts her own changing approach to this question over the span of her career. Starting out focusing on policy issues instead of politics during her undergraduate years, she shifted her focus to data-driven solutions for real-life problems in her dissertation phase and expanded her influence as a tenured professor and member on several boards to guide and effect change. Multilingual multicultural scholar educators need

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

235

to ask themselves the questions of who their constituents are, where they themselves fall on the advocacy continuum (Stewart & MacIntyre, 2013) and what their educational philosophy is. The two co-authors have developed their understanding of advocacy over time, influenced by the theories they were exposed to, the practical life experiences they underwent, as well as the changing professional positions and responsibilities they took on over the years. Both came to advocacy from different directions, at different times, and to different degrees. Neither of them could conceive of the work of educators without the branch of advocacy.

10.6

Conclusion

As Palmer (2007) has suggested, Claudia and Nariyo are “exploring the inner landscape of [this] teacher’s life, hoping to clarify the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual dynamics that form or deform our work from the inside out (p. ix)” by collaboratively reflecting on our professional lives. One of the critical pieces we both recognize in the process of collaborative reflection is critical pedagogy and a praxis-driven, theory-building approach (Freire, 1970; Freire & Macedo, 1987; Howard, 1999; Wink, 1997). What do we mean when we say a praxis-driven, theory-building approach to the issue of language ownership and community of practice? Praxis-driven refers to Freire’s notion of actionreflection-transformation (1970). It is not enough to discuss issues like nativespeakerism or language ownership; we as multilingual practitioners need to draw on our full repertoire of language tools and cultural hats, encourage our students to do the same and link them up with the diverse communities in our midst or on the margins. Theory-building means contributing to the scholarship on multilingualism (Kramsch, 2009; Kramsch & Zhang, 2018), superdiversity (Blommaert & Rampton, 2011), and intercultural citizenship (Byram, 2008, 2014) by putting the multilingual subject as the point of reference (Kramsch, 2009) and focusing on how we can support both heritage languages and the development of translingual transcultural competence based on local needs of globally integrated communities, be they students, teachers, professional groups or citizens. Just like in community-based learning, we need to focus on the actual professed needs of our co-participants, identify their resources and guide them through policy change and practical implementation with our expertise. Language ownership is contested both by indigenous groups (Speas, 2013) and non-native language users (Norton, 1997). Languages as part of identity and as tools for communication cannot be funneled into a learner’s brain or extracted from a speaker’s memory but need to be nurtured with care. Everybody who uses a language for whatever purposes is a co-owner in the enterprise. A small share can sometimes bring huge benefits as in the example Canagarajah (2013) gives of the translanguaging vendor at a local market. Ownership is not only a certified product as in a bill of sales, it is a process of becoming and state of being. Also, we need to be mindful that language ownership can be the central issue to some communities and

236

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

the ethical issues need to be carefully integrated into research, policy, and classroom pedagogy. For example, due to the historical trauma, in the Indigenous communities, language ownership tends to be considered to be unique to the community regardless of the stage of the language (Kono, 2019). There are stronger connections between their heritage language and culture, as well as the language and their identity. Understanding the historical trauma and associated ethical considerations, while we are working alongside with the community, is key to successful partnerships with communities (Kono, 2013, 2019). By engaging in community-based projects and research, we are gradually developing intercultural abilities as Cress et al. (2013) claim that “community-based learning is an intercultural context” (p. 78). Similarly, communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) should not be considered concentric as Kachru’s (1986) circles of World Englishes but flexible sites of engagement of a variety of stakeholders in the process of pooling, exchanging and transforming ideas and practices (Kunschak, 2015). Newcomers in the periphery may create new loci of expertise (e.g. digital natives); junior members may contribute innovative ideas to an established project (e.g. student collaborators). In sum, this chapter is a call for reconceptualizing our academic, educational, and scholarly practices and embed them within a partnership where all stakeholders have a say, feel supported, and benefit from the endeavor. Acknowledgment This publication was partially supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) No. 18K00805 (Claudia Kunschak).

References American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2016). Multilingualism. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.humanitiesindicators.org/content/indicatordoc.aspx?i¼94 American Academy of Arts & Sciences. (2017). The future of undergraduate education: The future of America. Final report and recommendations from the Commission on the Future of Undergraduate Education, Cambridge, MA. Asnaani, A., & Hofman, S. G. (2012). Collaboration in culturally responsive therapy: Establishing a strong therapeutic alliance across cultural lines. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68(2), 187–197. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (E. M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Benner, K. (2018, August 30). Justice Dept. backs suit accusing Harvard of discriminating against Asian-American applicants. The New York Times. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https:// www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/us/politics/asian-students-affirmative-action-harvard.html Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 1–22. Brewer, J. (2010). Microhistory and the histories of everyday life. Cultural and Social History, 7(1), 87–109. Brock, C. H., Borti, A., Frahm, T., Howe, L., Khasilovaa, D., & Ventura-Kalen, K. (2017). Employing autoethnography to examine our diverse identities: Striving towards equitable and socially just stances in literacy teaching and research. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 19(1), 105–124.

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

237

Byram, M. (2014). Twenty-five years on—From cultural studies to intercultural citizenship. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27(3), 209–225. Byram, M. S. (2008). From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship: Essays and reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Camerer, R. (2018, April 12). Language-culture-identity: A paradigm for teaching English as a lingua franca. Paper presented at IATEFL Conference, Brighton. Canagarajah, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London: Routledge. Castiglioni, I., & Bennett, M. (2018). Building capacity for intercultural citizenship. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 229–241. Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., & Gee, J. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. Chan, A. (2015, April 9). Safe spaces, safe classrooms. Harvard Political Review. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from http://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/safe-spaces-safe-classrooms/ Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage. Chomsky, N. (1967, February 23). The responsibility of intellectuals. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://chomsky.info/19670223/ Chomsky, N. (2017). The responsibility of intellectuals. NY: The New Press. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clark, N. (2011, January 21). The modern left has much to learn from Austria’s golden age. The Guardian. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ 2011/jan/21/modern-left-austria-bruno-kreisky Clyne, M. G. (Ed.). (1992). Pluricentric languages: Differing norms in different nations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. (2018a). CEFR companion volume with new descriptors. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/ 1680787989 Council of Europe. (2018b). Launching conference for the CEFR companion volume with new descriptors. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/education/-/launching-conference-ofthe-cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors Council of Ministers. (1987). Council Decision of 15 June 1987 adopting the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (Erasmus). Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/1987/327/oj Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. (Women of Color at the Center: Selections from the Third National Conference on Women of Color and the Law). Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241. Cress, M. C., Collier, P. J., & Reitenauer, V. L. (Eds.). (2013). Learning through serving: A student guidebook for service-learning and civic engagement across academic disciplines and cultural communities (2nd ed.). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Cummins, J. (1994). The acquisition of English as a second language. In K. Spangenberg-Urbschat & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Reading instruction for ESL students. International Reading Association: Newark, DE. Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Department of Labor. (2012). What do I need to know about . . . English-only rules. Retrieved December 2, from https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/crc/20120321-FINALEnglish-OnlyRules-Factsheet.pdf Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (1994). The need for story. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Eckert, P. (2015). Ethics in linguistic research. In R. Podesva & D. Sharma (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 11–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

238

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

Ellis, E. M. (2013). The ESL teacher as plurilingual: An Australian perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 446–471. European Council. (2002). Barcelona European Council 15–16 March 2002. Presidency conclusions. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_ en/barcelona_european_council.pdf Fairclough, N. (1992a). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and Education, 4 (3), 269–293. Fairclough, N. (1992b). Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 3(2), 193–217. Fitzmaurice, C., & Kono, N. (in press). In K. Shiraishi, M. Nishishiba, & K. Murata (Eds.), Learning from PSU’s community-based learning: New role of higher education. Tokyo: Hitsuji. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder. Trans. By Myra Bergman Ramos. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Gehler, M. (2005). From non-alignment to neutrality: Austria’s transformation during the first eastwest detente, 1953–1958. Journal of Cold War Studies, 7(4), 104–136. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company. Hall, S. (1966). Political commitment. In L. Bright & S. Clements (Eds.), The committed church (pp. 3–25). London: Darton, Longman and Todd. Hall, S. (2011). The neo-liberal revolution. Cultural Studies, 25(6), 705–728. Hernandez, K. C., Ngunjiri, F. W., & Chang, H. (2015). Exploiting the margins in higher education: A collaborative autoethnography of three foreign-born female faculty of color. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(5), 533–551. Hinton, L., Huss, L., & Roche, G. (2018). The Routledge handbook of language revitalization. London: Routledge. Holkup, P. A., Tripp-Reimer, T., Salois, E. M., & Weinert, C. (2009). Community-based participatory research: An approach to intervention research with a Native American community. ANS. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(3), 162. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. Holmes, B. (2016). The age of the monolingual has passed: Multilingualism is the new normal. In E. Corradini, K. Borthwick, & A. Gallagher-Brett (Eds.), Employability for languages: A handbook (pp. 181–187). Retrieved from https://research-publishing.net/publication/978-1908416-38-4.pdf Houghton, S. A. (2012). Intercultural dialogue in practice: Managing value judgment through foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Howard, G. (1999). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Hymes, D. (1992). Inequality in language: Taken for granted. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 8(1), 1–30. Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–182. Jenkins, J. (2017). ELF and WE: Competing or complementing paradigms? In E. L. Low & A. Pakir (Eds.), World Englishes: Re-thinking paradigms. London: Routledge.

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

239

Kachru, B. B. (1986). The power and politics of English. World Englishes, 5(2–3), 121–140. Khromeychuk, O. (2012). Lost in translation. Ukrainian Dialogue, 3, 26–27. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN a multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kono, N. (2001). Language orientations: Japanese-as-a-foreign-language classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Kono, N. (2009). Conference proceeding: “Theory development process towards language planning and policy: Examining students’ beliefs (language orientations) in the JFL classroom” In International Congress of Linguistics, Korea, July, 2008. Kono, N. (2013). Research ethics. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. (Online edition). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431. wbeal0395 Kono, N. (2017). Over the sea, service learning to connect people, society and community: A trial of Portland State University towards community-based pedagogy. Fukushi to Kyoiku 23. Tokyo: Daikakutosho Shuppan. Kono, N. (2019). Linguistics: Community-based language revitalization. In R. Iphofen (Ed.), Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity. Singapore: Springer. (Online edition). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76040-7_45-1 Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C., & Zhang, L. (2018). The multilingual instructor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader (pp. 34–59). Oxford: Blackwell. Kunschak, C. (2000). Complaint strategies in Viennese German. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 38, 143–158. Kunschak, C. (2004a). Language variation in foreign language teaching. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Kunschak, C. (2004b). Die Anderen. [The others]. In Actas del Congreso de Filología Alemana, 15–17 diciembre. Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla. Kunschak, C. (2004c). Übersetzungskritik und Sprachaufmerksamkeit. [Translation criticism and language awareness]. In Actas del V Congreso de la FAGE. Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid. Kunschak, C. (2009a). Assessment made easy. In B. Beaven (Ed.), IATEFL 2009 Cardiff Conference Selections. IATEFL: Canterbury. Kunschak, C. (2009b). Glocalizing foreign language teaching materials with multimedia. In H. Lee (Ed.), Asia-Pacific Association of Multimedia-Assisted Foreign Language Learning: 7th APAMALL Conference. Seoul: Bookorea. Kunschak, C. (2009c). Forms of feedback. In M. Carroll, D. Castillo, L. Cooker, & K. Irie (Eds.), Proceedings of the Independent Learning Association 2007 Japan Conference (online): Exploring theory, enhancing practice: Autonomy across the disciplines, Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, October 2007. Kunschak, C. (2010). EMI and ESP. In T. Pattison (Ed.), IATEFL 2010 Harrogate Conference Selections. IATEFL: Canterbury. Kunschak, C. (2011). Team-teaching. In T. Pattison (Ed.), IATEFL 2011 Brighton Conference Selections. IATEFL: Canterbury. Kunschak, C. (2013). Codeswitching in two Chinese universities. Commentary. In R. Barnard & J. McLellan (Eds.), Codeswitching in university English-medium classes: Asian perspectives (pp. 54–64). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kunschak, C. (2015). Transnational, transcultural, translingual communities of practice in flux. In D. A. Koike & C. S. Blyth (Eds.), Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal communities (pp. 287–305). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kunschak, C. (2018). Going beyond native-speakerism: Theory and practice from an international perspective. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 163–182). Singapore: Springer.

240

C. Kunschak and N. Kono

Kunschak, C., & Fang, F. (2008). Intelligibility, acceptability, target-likeness. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 39(1), 1–13. Kunschak, C., & Girón, F. (2013). Language, culture and identity: Transcultural practices and theoretical implications. In D. J. Rivers & S. A. Houghton (Eds.), Social identities and multiple selves in foreign language education (pp. 90–101). London: Bloomsbury. Kunschak, C., & Krivanova, B. (2006). The Bologna process. In P. Lee (Ed.), 2nd CLaSIC proceedings. [CD-ROM]. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lee, J., & Kunschak, C. (2016). ELF in independent learning: Lessons from an international blog project. In N. Tsantila, J. Mandalios, & I. Melpomeni (Eds.), ELF: Pedagogical and interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 227–233). Athens: Deree–The American College of Greece. Lin, A. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Linguistics Review, 4(1), 195–218. Lowe, R., & Kiczkowiak, M. (2016). Native-speakerism and the complexity of personal experience: A duoethnographic study. Cogent Education, 3, 1264171. Mahboob, A., & Golden, R. (2013). Looking for native speakers of English: Discrimination in English language teaching job advertisements. Voices in Asia Journal, 1(1), 72–81. McKay, S. L. (2018). English as an international language: What it is and what it means for pedagogy. RELC Journal, 49(1), 9–23. Middleman, R. (2006). History with a small “h”: A conversation with Glenn Ligon. GLQ, 12(3), 465–474. MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Profession, 2007, 234–245. Myers, K., & Grosvenor, I. (2018). Collaborative research: History from below. In K. Facer & K. Dunleavy (Eds.), Connected communities foundation series (pp. 4–47). Bristol: University of Bristol/AHRC Connected Communities Programme. Nganga, C. W., & Beck, M. (2017). The power of dialogue and meaningful connectedness: Conversations between two female scholars. Urban Review, 49, 551–567. Norris, J. (2008). Duoethnography. In L. M. Given (Ed.), Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 1, pp. 233–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429. Palmer, P. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Parmegiani, A. (2014). Bridging literacy practices through storytelling, translanguaging, and an ethnographic partnership: A case study of Dominican students at Bronx Community College. Journal of Basic Writing, 33(1), 23–51. Perna, L. W. (2018). Taking it to the streets: The role of scholarship in advocacy and advocacy in scholarship. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pinar, W. (1975). Currere: Toward reconceptualization. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists (pp. 396–414). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation. Porto, M., Houghton, S. A., & Byram, M. (2018). Intercultural citizenship in the (foreign) language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 22(5), 484–498. Quirk, R. (1990). Language varieties and standard language. English Today, 6(1), 3–10. Reed, J. (2015, March 13). The battle to keep French pure is doomed. The Guardian. Retrieved December 2, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/13/the-battle-tokeep-french-pure-is-doomed Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8, 15–34. Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K., & Kroskrity, P. (1998). Language ideologies: Practice and theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133–158.

10

Post-Native-Speakerism and the Multilingual Subject: Language Policy, Practice,. . .

241

Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 28(2), 236–245. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books. Speas, M. (2013). Language ownership and language ideologies. In L. La Follette (Ed.), Negotiating culture: Heritage, ownership and intellectual property (pp. 101–121). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Stewart, A., & MacIntyre, G. (2013, April 23). Advocacy: Models and effectiveness. In Insight 20. Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services (IRISS). Retrieved December 2, from https://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/insights/advocacy-models-and-effectiveness Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). (2014). SFFA v. Harvard complaint. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/diverse-education/files/complaint_against_har vard.pdf?m¼1446553054 Supiano, B. (2018, July 19). Running class discussions on divisive topics is tricky. Here’s one promising approach. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Running-Class-Discussions-on/243967 Tedlock, D., & Mannheim, B. (Eds.). (1995). The dialogic emergence of culture. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. The National Standards Collaborative Board. (2015). World-readiness standards for learning languages. Alexandria, VA: Author. Thiagarajan, S., & Steinwachs, B. (1990). Barnga: A simulation game on cultural clashes. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. UKRINFORM. (2018, February 28). Constitutional court declares unconstitutional language law of Kivalov-Kolesnichenko. UKRINFORM. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www. ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/2412584-constitutional-court-declares-unconstitutional-lan guage-law-of-kivalovkolesnichenko.html UNIAN. (2019, May 15). Poroshenko enacts Ukraine’s language law. UNIAN Information Agency. Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://www.unian.info/politics/10550289-poroshenkoenacts-ukraine-s-language-law.html Williams, C. (1994). Arfarniad o Ddulliau Dysgu ac Addysgu yng Nghyd-destun Addysg Uwchradd Ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Wales, Bangor. Wink, J. (1997). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman Publishers. Woolard, K. A. (1989). Double talk: Bilingualism and the politics of ethnicity in Catalonia. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 55–82.

Chapter 11

Fostering Students’ Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity to Undo Native-Speakerism: A Case Study of a Transnational Education Platform Involving Universities in Hawai‘i and Japan Chisato Nonaka, Nezia Azmi, and Aaron Levine

Abstract Building upon previous research on native-speakerism (e.g., Houghton and Hashimoto, Towards post-native-speakerism: dynamics and shifts. Springer, Singapore, 2018; Houghton and Rivers, Native-speakerism in Japan: intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Multilingual Matters, Bristol, 2013; Swan et al., (En)countering native-speakerism: global perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, 2015), this chapter explores interactions between “native” and “non-native” English-speaking students across borders. Specifically, utilizing case study method, we examine our professional experience over the years as coordinators and instructors of a transnational education platform involving universities in Hawai‘i and Japan. Based on reflections of our experiences, coupled with the analysis of planning documents, course syllabi, student feedback, and field notes, we find that the transnational education platform has the potential to foster students’ empathy and cultural sensitivity. Most importantly, while interacting with the so-called “others” (e.g., in-/out-group identities in Stets and Burke, Soc Psychol Q 63(3):224–237, 2000), many students seem to naturally shift their focus from obvious differences between themselves toward less apparent similarities. We offer methodological and pedagogical approaches through which we as educators aim to ensure meaningful exchanges between the students across different cultures and languages. Although this study is situated in Hawai‘i and Japan, we propose that some of the findings serve as a touchstone for gauging international experience in other contexts as well.

C. Nonaka (*) Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan e-mail: [email protected] N. Azmi · A. Levine University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_11

243

244

11.1

C. Nonaka et al.

Introduction

Since the early 2000s, the College of Education of a university in Hawai‘i (UiH hereafter) has hosted annual and intermittent study tour groups from overseas, many of which come from Japan. Starting in 2013, we as program coordinators and instructors have purposefully staggered some of the activities so that the Japanese university students who visit Hawai‘i on a study tour in the spring are able to collaborate on projects with some of the UiH students who plan to visit Japan in the following summer (see Fig. 11.1 for the detailed timeline). This is what we call the transnational education platform, which we continually fine-tune to better expand the personal and professional network of students, faculty, and other community members across borders. Centering around this platform, we reflect on our professional experience over the years. Coupled with the analysis of planning documents, course syllabi, student feedback, and field notes, we find that the transnational education platform has the potential to foster students’ empathy and cultural sensitivity. We subsequently offer methodological and pedagogical approaches through which we as educators aim to ensure meaningful exchanges between the students across different cultures and languages. Although this study is situated in Hawai‘i and Japan, we propose that some of the findings serve as a touchstone for gauging international experience in other contexts as well.

11.2

Literature Review

11.2.1 Previous Work on Native-Speakerism As this chapter is part of the volume that aims to resist and undo native-speakerism, we review some of the seminal work on native-speakerism that have inspired our study. Through the process, we attempt to present our understanding of nativespeakerism for the purpose of this study. Originally coined by Holliday (2005, 2006), native-speakerism by and large alludes to the issue of language-based inclusions and exclusions. As languages are deeply rooted in cultures, politics, economics, and histories (Canagarajah, 1999; Pennycook, 1998; Phillipson, 1992, 2009), previous work on native-speakerism has understandably focused on theorizing its complex domain where the above elements intersect. In fact, even before Holliday coined the term native-speakerism, the overall complexity of “native” and “non-native” speakers had long been studied. Most commonly, through colonial narratives, the political implications of the English language has been debated by scholars of diverse backgrounds (e.g., in Sri Lanka: Canagarajah, 1999; in Hong Kong: Pennycook, 1998; worldwide: Phillipson, 1992, 2009). Empirical studies on the native/non-native dichotomy in the Japanese TESOL contexts began to appear in the late 2000s, and soon enough, a compilation of works

11

Fostering Students’ Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity to Undo Native-Speakerism:. . .

245

under the theme of native-speakerism was published (see Houghton & Rivers, 2013). Their co-edited volume showcases detailed examples and experiences of TESOL professionals in order to challenge the long-held assumptions of native English speakers as victors and non-native English speakers as victims. Following the retheorization of native-speakerism in the above volume, Holliday along with a few others published a collection of anecdotes situated in the global English education context. Specifically, scholars from countries including South Korea, Mexico, and Kuwait have foregrounded the complex identity formation of teachers and students in TESOL contexts (see Swan, Aboshiha, & Holliday, 2015). Most recent volumes on native-speakerism (Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018; Houghton, Rivers, & Hashimoto, 2018) delve even further. By presenting a range of professional and personal experiences within and outside of Japan, the co-edited volume by Houghton and Hashimoto (2018) problematizes the otherwise underplayed notions of “native” and “non-native.” Based on several findings reported in the volume (Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018), in Japanese language education contexts, “native” Japanese-speaking teachers seem to have more authority than “non-native” teachers. Moreover, in English language education contexts of Japan, Japanese teachers of English and Japanese administrators (who are not even teaching) may enjoy more leverage over “native” English-speaking teachers in terms of curricular and recruitment decisions. As such, being “native” may need to be understood beyond the mere linguistic realms because, in the above example, being “native to Japan” seems to privilege those administrators over the “native” Englishspeaking teachers. Houghton et al.’s (2018) volume further investigates such complexities. Although native-speakerism has long been treated as a campaign to raise awareness of the native-speaker norms that dictate the TESOL practices, the authors point to deeper issues. That is, “native” is often conveniently and indeed ambiguously used to confine native English-speaking teachers to the role of victor, somewhat alluding to the colonial memory. However, the reality is much more complex that there are native-speaking teachers of other languages who emulate the dominant and privileged positioning in their teaching and other professional capacities. In fact, research around the theme of native-speakerism is becoming more politically charged than ever. Parallel to developments in feminist literature and critical social research in general, some TESOL scholars have argued that the binary system of “native” and “non-native” is not only outdated but also counterproductive as it implicitly continues to stigmatize one over the other. As such, some call for a careful re-examination of these loaded terms (e.g., Rivers, 2017) while others suggest that native-speakerism is matter-of-factly accepted by English language learners themselves who aspire to speak like “natives” which, in turn, further complicates the politics of English as a world language (cf. Hashimoto, 2013; Kubota, 2019). There is also a nascent research within the field of international education that looks at translanguaging and how different approaches to encouraging multilingualism, for example, one that prioritizes English versus one that places equal importance on all the languages, would negatively impact students’ adaptability to an

246

C. Nonaka et al.

increasingly diverse global society (Repo, 2017). For example, one finding of a sociolinguistic study of teenagers in two different school settings reveals that students in English-medium international schools tend to orient themselves towards an “international Anglophone future” as opposed to students in European schools with two languages of instruction who tend to engage in dynamic multilingual practice that pulls more equally from the individual’s multiple linguistic resources (Rydenvald, 2015). To build upon these arguments, we would like to also note that the binary division between “native” and “non-native” is itself discursive and contingent on how the individual sees the self, the other, and what is around them. Put differently, although we may subscribe to a similar “conceptual map” (Hall, 1997) as our linguistic, cultural, experiential, and professional backgrounds somewhat overlap, it is difficult (if not impossible) for us to confirm that we are using the terms in the same exact manner. That being said, it is perhaps not the binary division between “native” and “non-native” itself that has to be barred in order to resist or undo native-speakerism, but rather, the users of such terms need to become aware of and indeed tread carefully around the sociocultural and occasionally political embroideries implicated in these terms. This of course is no easy task. For the scope of this study, therefore, we as educators reflect on our own practice that aims to help maximize the learning opportunities of students of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, which we argue will ultimately lead to resisting and undoing native-speakerism. In the process, we also intend to start a dialogue among educators like ourselves who are involved in transnational education projects. We hope that other educators in similar circumstances will find a meaningful and constructive connection to our professional experience and practice, and in turn, we look forward to engaging in a further dialogue with our fellow educators. And finally, we offer some methodological and pedagogical approaches to illuminate how and why we may need to overcome the simple binary division between “native” and “non-native,” particularly in transnational education contexts.

11.2.2 Theoretical Understanding of Identity(ies) Before we delve into the study, we elaborate on the theoretical foundation for our case study. As discussed above, the discursiveness and contingency of the native/ non-native binary relies heavily on the individual who reifies it. To be specific, we emphasize that the identity(ies) of the interlocutor profoundly informs the way in which one understands and internalizes such a binary. Likewise, their understanding and internalization of the binary feeds back to the (re)shaping of their identity. For this reason, we locate “identity” as a central concept of this study and, therefore, in what follows we unpack what we mean by “identity.” Although self and identity studies are wide-ranging, for our study, we mainly focus on the social identity theories to build upon the foundation provided by other TESOL scholars. For instance, in the recent research of language learning and

11

Fostering Students’ Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity to Undo Native-Speakerism:. . .

247

teaching, there has been an increasing number and variety of studies that have treated “identity” as the essence of one’s learning and teaching experience. Specifically, the negotiation of teacher and student identities in TESOL contexts has been explored and in fact theorized by scholars like Norton (1997, 2000, 2013), Canagarajah (2006), and Kubota and Lin (2009). The bottom line is, being a teacher or student involves more than the act of teaching or learning itself because, at the same time, they are negotiating other identities including but not limited to their gender, class, ethnicity, nationality, and multiple others. This strand of TESOL studies has, therefore, helped to foreground the importance of identity as an avenue to better understand and support pedagogically sound practices. To build upon the above and synthesize the classic discussions of social identity by Tajfel, Turner, and their colleagues (cf. Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1999), for this study, we treat identity as how someone sees oneself in a given social context as they also negotiate with how others see them. Further, we also give weight to the process of identity construction. As Stets and Burke (2000) indicate, based on one’s perception of differences and similarities between oneself and those around them, the individual constantly categorizes some as “in-group” and others as “out-group.” This process is certainly complex as each individual is part of multiple and occasionally overlapping as well as competing groups. In general, those identified as “in-group” are positively viewed, while those in “out-group” are not only othered but also often deemed negatively (Stets & Burke, 2000). For our study, we will discuss some examples of how those considered as “out-group” at first may later be perceived positively or even as “in-group” members after all. As discussed later, some of our students seem to shift their focus from the obvious differences between themselves and their counterparts to their less apparent similarities during the first contact and subsequent communication. By directing more attention to their similarities than differences, the students may be re-categorizing the identity of their international peers while also rethinking/working their own identity(ies). This indeed comes from the notion that the self is in constant negotiation with the other while the process of such negotiation is multilayered and contextual (cf. Blommaert & De Fina, 2017; Houghton, 2010, 2012; Stets & Burke, 2000). This also subscribes to the view that identity development can be a deliberate process in which we imagine that moment when identity is deconstructed, rendered shapeless, then re-formed all at the same time with a new understanding of our figured world(s)—the moment of a pivot—one of the many “pivots of our lived worlds” (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, & Cain, 2001, p. 287). On the pragmatic level, in our teaching, we encourage students to constantly reflect upon questions such as: who am I (the self)?, who are you (the other)?, and who am I again (given their renewed understanding of the self and the other)? Since most of our students are preservice teachers in teacher education programs, we place an emphasis on such self-reflection processes. While there is no magic formula for good teaching, we believe that it is the recursive nature of ongoing practice and selfreflection that leads to the development of good practices and professional integrity (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). In this sense, we aim to bolster our students’ self-reflective

248

C. Nonaka et al.

capacity by challenging them with the above three questions: who am I (the self)?, who are you (the other)?, and who am I again (given their renewed understanding of the self and the other)?

11.3

The Study

11.3.1 Background Having reviewed previous work and laid out the theoretical underpinnings of this study, we would like to discuss how our study has been designed and conducted. As we adopt critical reflection as a chief method of analysis, it is necessary for us to provide the background information of the context as well as the roles of the Authors in the said context. For the past several years, Author 1 (Chisato) has been involved in designing and operating under the transnational education platform (see Fig. 11.1). Since 2013, she has also been collecting data for her own research on themes including native-speakerism. For this study, the other two Authors (Nezia and Aaron) were invited in 2017 to collectively reflect upon our professional experience as well as to review relevant data from the past several years to accompany our reflections. See Appendix for more details on the site of focus where data was collected and retroactively examined for this study. In the appendix, we also clarify who we are and what our roles are in the target context.

11.3.2 Methodology As mentioned above, we engage in critical reflection as a method of analysis in this study. While we as scholars and educators practice critical reflection on a daily basis, both knowingly and unknowingly, for this study, we made a conscious effort to regularly reflect on and discuss our professional experience and practice in the form of emails and informal meetings. The use of critical reflection has become popular across diverse fields of professions as it stems from the underlying principles of learning from experience to improve future practice (White, Fook, & Gardner, 2008). For research, scholars have discussed the use of critical reflection as a legitimate means of analysis (Fook, 2011; White et al., 2008). As critical reflection helps direct our attention to the process of reflecting on and better understanding professional experiences from multiple points of view, it complements this study with its focus on self-reflexivity of our students as well as ourselves. In this study, the transnational education platform (see Fig. 11.1) is treated as a case. Because case studies generally attempt to explore and better understand individual, institutional, and/or other structural experiences (Creswell, 2012; Plano Clark & Creswell, 2014), we also hope with the analysis of our data to initiate a dialogue among educators like ourselves who are involved in transnational

11

Fostering Students’ Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity to Undo Native-Speakerism:. . .

249

education projects. To contextualize the case for this study, over 2 GB of planning documents, course syllabi, student feedback, and field notes from 2013 to 2017 are reviewed. Specifically, these documents had been continuously collected, stored, and shared over the years among the Authors via Google Drive (encrypted) as we developed and revised the curriculum used for the transnational education platform. Field notes and other supplementary materials such as brochures of schools we visited as part of the field study had been kept for Author 1’s own research interest. As for the student feedback, select data will be discussed due to the IRB approvals.

11.3.3 The Research Question For the scope of this study, the Authors will reflect upon our own experiences and analyze relevant data, aiming to address the central question: What are some of the components of the transnational education platform which may help to resist and undo native-speakerism? In what follows, we will discuss two large components of the platform that have been identified as potential avenues for maximizing the learning opportunities of students of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, which by extension, will lead to resisting and undoing native-speakerism.

11.3.3.1

Constant Self-Reflection of the Students and Instructors

By virtue of our profession, we are always curious to know what our students are experiencing. Even though we acknowledge the importance of the standard ex-post evaluation, to encourage and maximize the benefit of constant feedback, we have structured our in-class activities to rely on dialogues/discussions. Below is a sample agenda of a class session to demonstrate how a preliminary class (to help prepare the UiH students for their forthcoming field study trip to Japan) was structured around dialogues/discussions (Table 11.1). As shown in the sample agenda above, most of the activities revolve around dialogues/discussions. We constantly have opportunities to listen to individual and collective voices shared in class and treat them as spontaneous evaluations of the class sessions. These voices in fact become the anchors when tweaking the subsequent sessions and related activities. We occasionally administer an exit survey at the end of a class session to “check the temperature” and solicit feedback from those who may prefer to share in post-session writing instead of/in addition to sharing their thoughts in class. This is to honor the diverse communication and learning styles of the students (cf. Phan & Li, 2012). While we strive to create and maintain a safe sharing space for all by diversifying in-class activities (e.g., class-wide v. group/pairshare, in-person v. via technology, etc.), we also respect that some students may still feel most comfortable communicating post-class and using their own time to process their thoughts in the form of writing. Just to provide examples of student feedback,

250

C. Nonaka et al.

Table 11.1 Sample agenda (Class session 1) May xx, 2016 1 2

Activity Welcome, introductions, overview of today’s session Language lesson

3

Artifact sharing

4 5

Prepare for the online session Online session with University B

6

Break/potluck

7

Research project— brainstorming

8

Lesson/activity planning

9

Travel planning

10

Syllabus and grading guidelines Homework for next session Q&A

11 12

Notes

• Basic Japanese language lesson to prepare UiH students for their field study trip to Japan • Students are instructed to bring a few artifacts (e.g., photos, mementos) that are personally and professionally significant to them • Artifacts are used to build a sense of community among the students as well as to invite to a deeper conversation on their cultural/societal/historical/political affects • See below. • Online sessions between Hawai‘i and Japan are arranged to jump start the student interactions between the two places before they finally meet in person • Each class session lasts about three hours; a short break and potluck are inserted to help sustain students’ focus and engagement • Each student is expected to conduct a mini research project which includes data collection during field observations in Japan. • As part of international exchanges, UiH students prepare and teach a lesson while visiting schools in Japan. • In general, these lesson activities consist of culture and language components. • UiH students are encouraged to network among themselves and plan their flights (over and back from Japan) together—often extending their stay beyond the field study period

below are some of the most commonly shared students’ voices, collected via different channels of communication as discussed above: • • • •

The artifact sharing activity allowed us to learn about classmates and rediscover ourselves. Meeting virtually with Japanese students prior to our visit to Japan helped to keep us motivated and excited. Top three challenges when using technology (e.g., Skype and LINE) to communicate with Japanese partners were time difference, network bandwidth, and language barrier. We’d have liked more guidance on developing our individual research project.

Fostering Students’ Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity to Undo Native-Speakerism:. . .

11 •

251

We wish the class was longer as it felt rushed with too many items to cover in each session.

[Student feedback reconstructed based on the field notes and the authors’ reflections of the multiple class sessions over 5 years.]

In order to further examine students’ voices as well as our own reflections, in the next section, we shift focus to the side and ripple effects of our transnational education platform.

11.3.3.2

Cultivating Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity

Interestingly, empathy and cultural sensitivity as keywords continued to (re-) emerge in student feedback as well as in our own reflections until they became recognized as the underlying philosophy of the transnational education platform. At the beginning of course development, we simply intended to reciprocate the annual visits from the Japanese partner universities by “provid[ing the UiH students] with an opportunity to examine aspects of Japanese education” (syllabus). However, soon enough, we began to realize the magnitude of the educational and professional opportunities beyond the simple two-way visits. As noted earlier, creating discomfort through learning experience such as the UiH students’ being “dropped into the [Japanese] classroom. . .where [they felt] lost and confused” (student feedback) is often unanticipated yet quite beneficial. On this note, some UiH students expressed as follows: Living in Hawai‘i and working [part-time] in the service industry, I take care of a large amount of visitors from Japan. . .it often can be very frustrating. . .because of the [cultural and language] differences, but after spending several weeks in Japan as a non-native speaker [of Japanese], I can really see how hard it is to adapt to. . .different culture[s]. Having spent [some time] in a Japanese classroom with minimal understanding of the Japanese language, I could really understand how this can be such a struggle for these people trying to be taught in a language you don’t fully comprehend. I’ve always been open-minded to other cultures, but this [entire experience] definitely opened my mind up to the extent in which a language barrier can be overcome and you can still make connections with people. [Student feedback reconstructed based on the field notes and the authors’ reflections of the multiple class sessions over 5 years.]

For most students traveling to Japan as part of the transnational education platform, it is their first time to enter into and fully experience the Japanese school settings where their standards and worldviews are “disrupted” (to be elaborated on later with: Gruenewald, 2003; Shoffner, 2018). Most importantly, the UiH students who have given little thought about their “native” English speaker status are suddenly confronted by the realities that they are now “non-native” speakers of the Japanese language. As they watch their much younger counterparts (i.e., Japanese elementary schoolchildren) engaged in activities and occasionally getting excited about something in the classroom, the UiH students experience firsthand the very fact that language plays a critical role in teaching as well as learning. What is more, the importance of language in teaching and learning must have had been drilled into

252

C. Nonaka et al.

the UiH students as many were preservice teachers and have had completed basic teacher education courses beforehand. For many, the reality of experience has triggered to extend their experience and reflection to look ahead to the future, that is, when they begin working as a schoolteacher: I realized I need to work harder to understand [my future students] especially when there is a cultural and/or language barrier. When I become a schoolteacher, I’ll keep in mind to value their home language (s) besides the language of instruction. I would like to use the student’s mother tongue as a tool not only to communicate with the specific student, but also as part of the lesson involving all students in class. [Student feedback reconstructed based on the field notes and the authors’ reflections of the multiple class sessions over 5 years.]

As indicated in the transnational education platform, the visits between the two countries are staggered throughout the year. This arrangement provides students opportunities to be both visitors and hosts, allowing them to experience, reflect upon, and apply their experience to personal and professional development. For example, as noted above, the first student’s experience of cultural and language barriers has prompted him to identify his mission to “work harder” and this realization will surely inform the way in which he engages with Japanese visitors in the coming months. Another realization commonly experienced by the UiH students is “They are just like Us”—which blurs the otherwise clear “in-group” and “out-group” boundaries. Many students have their own perceptions about Japan and Japanese schools, whether positive or negative. As they undergo a series of experiences and realization, the students begin to see a bigger picture. That is, for them, Japan is no longer the Japan that they once perceived and similarly, its people do not reflect preconceived ideas and stereotypes any more. As discussed in one of the author’s previous work (Nonaka, 2018), the university students connected with their international counterparts on personal levels and that is when they began to dismiss the differences and instead focus more on the similarities. Their nationality or mother tongue holds less significance in overall interactions with their newly-met friends. At this point, figuratively speaking, they seem able to let go of the templates they once needed to view and examine the world around them. In this light, a few students stated as follows: I think I went into the course thinking that Japanese culture and education was just great and I had rose-colored glasses on. . .[however, once we were in Japan, I] realize[d] that we all kind of have the same issues but they show themselves in different ways or they’re maybe hidden because of the culture and so that was eye-opening for me. My takeaway is that all cultures are like that and I shouldn’t assume anything. Just like us [people in Hawai‘i], some Japanese are very approachable and some of them are shy. That’s what I’ve realized by interacting with them. [Student feedback reconstructed based on the field notes and the authors’ reflections of the multiple class sessions over 5 years.]

While quite powerful and meaningful, this type of realization is not easily replicated or premeditated even if we carefully and thoughtfully design the activities. It depends on the very dynamics between the students, instructors, schoolteachers,

11

Fostering Students’ Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity to Undo Native-Speakerism:. . .

253

schoolchildren, and many other factors involved in the exchanges. What we can suggest, however, are the following approaches that aim to maximize the learning opportunities for all involved.

11.4

Proposing New Approaches

Based on the above reflections of our experiences, coupled with the analysis of planning documents, course syllabi, student feedback, and field notes, we have argued that the transnational education platform has the potential to foster students’ empathy and cultural sensitivity. On a more practical note, in what follows, we offer methodological and pedagogical approaches through which we as educators aim to ensure meaningful exchanges between the students across different cultures and languages.

11.4.1 Guided Disruption As discussed above, though powerful and meaningful, students’ border-transcending experience and related realization depend on the very dynamics of the students, instructors, schoolteachers, schoolchildren, and many others involved in the exchanges. The most meaningful learning occurs when least expected, yet, as educators, we must set the stage for such learning to organically take place. For example, we intentionally guide students to undergo a moment of disruption which hopefully leads to students’ epiphany. During the visit to schools in Japan, we “drop. . .the [UiH] students into the [Japanese] classroom” (student feedback) where the university students have limited insight about what is being said in the Japanese language. Through such experiences, the students begin to extend their experience and reflection ahead to their future career as schoolteachers. Consequently, the transnational education platform allows the students to experience, reflect upon, and apply their experience as both visitors and hosts, which helps foster a sense of empathy and cultural sensitivity among the students.

11.4.2 Culturally Responsive Practice Another strategy we find useful in ensuring an environment conducive to learning is to establish an open and friendly relationship with the students as a group. This is particularly important for the transnational education platform involving students across borders of multiple nations, languages, cultures, and pedagogical practices. It is critical that we set the tone upfront especially for younger or less-experienced

254

C. Nonaka et al.

students who may feel overwhelmed otherwise. For example, we emphasize the following expectations for the UiH students during the pre-field study trip sessions: As we enter new and unfamiliar settings, we may feel scared or uncomfortable but this is completely normal. If you have any questions or need assistance, do not hesitate to reach out. There will be many opportunities to experience/try something completely new and foreign, enjoy and embrace them as much as you can; and It is okay to make mistakes when using the Japanese language or trying something Japanese, what matters is your passion to communicate and learn. [Sample statement of guidance and support given during class sessions.]

These are some of the expectations that we also model through our practice as educators. Also, because the authors all have extensive overseas experiences, sharing our own experience of being an expatriate in different countries—especially embarrassing experiences regarding language or culture and how we have overcome it—seems to help alleviate the pre-trip anxieties among students and prepare them mentally for what is to come.

11.4.3 Leveling the Playing Field for Intercultural Communication While far from full realization and still a work-in-progress, the transnational education platform also attempts to do away with the usual unspoken presumption that proficiency in a foreign language is the ultimate benchmark for successful intercultural communication. Instead, a multilingual partnership is taken to be the aspiration. For example, even as so much of our correspondence and co-planning with our partner institutions favor the English language (because of our own lack of Japanese language ability), as an institution and a program, we actively seek out course assistants and other volunteers who are bilingual and/or bicultural (Japan/ USA, Japanese/English) to facilitate active engagement during discussion-based activities. One of the co-authors, Chisato, is one such individual. We also genuinely see mutual benefit in looking at English language pedagogy as a topic with our Japanese partners (it was something they introduced into the partnership). While their invitation was for us to assist in helping their teacher candidates become competent English teachers to Japanese schoolchildren, we see this as an opportunity for us to further explore concepts of learner identity in our own multilingual classrooms (the majority of classrooms here in Hawai‘i).

11.5

Conclusion

People and institutions around the world are rapidly becoming increasingly interdependent. A sustainable globalized society requires a population that is more culturally and linguistically sensitive and similarly requires educators with the

11

Fostering Students’ Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity to Undo Native-Speakerism:. . .

255

dispositions and skills to (1) help students be more culturally responsive and (2) work with an ever-increasing culturally and linguistically diverse population. This chapter, therefore, examined how guided international exchanges via the transnational education platform may be a particularly powerful tool towards helping students to engage in meaningful interactions with their international counterparts beyond mere cultural and linguistic differences. In lieu of seeking specific measures to resist and undo native-speakerism, through this chapter, we demonstrated how our students were both knowingly and unknowingly able to move beyond mere cultural and linguistic differences via their genuine desire to communicate across borders. Based on the findings, we hypothesize that international exchanges and field experiences disrupt, what Gruenewald (2003) refers to as, sense of “place,” and creates spaces for more democratic and culturally responsive practice to emerge. Moreover, Shoffner (2018) argues this disruption means “Abroad. Away. Elsewhere...teachers need to experience more than their slice of the world before entering a whole new world of diverse learners. They need to leave the comfort of familiarity and meet new people, try new things, explore new places” (p. 5). Ultimately, we propose that the greater the guided disruption, the greater opportunities for developing empathy and cultural sensitivity, culturally responsive practice, and for renewing one’s sense of place. On this note, we plan to follow up with a study to further examine the opportunities as well as challenges presented by the transnational education platform.

Appendix The Development of the Transnational Education Platform Since the early 2000s, the College of Education at UiH has hosted annual and intermittent study tour groups from overseas, many of which come from Japan. Such groups generally consist of 15–20 Education major students and faculty escorts. While the College currently has about two dozen international partners all over the world, for the purpose of this study, we focused on two particular partners, both of which are four-year universities in Japan. First, University A is located in a historical city in Japan. It is a private university that houses seven Undergraduate Schools and four Graduate Schools. Their School of Education is known for its rigorous academic programs as well as for its wellestablished correspondence programs. The other partner, University B is a national university located in Northern Japan. It specializes in teacher training and professional development. The university has three Undergraduate and two Graduate programs. Both Universities A and B have been actively involved in developing and organizing study tours in Hawai‘i for their (Japanese) students as well as study away courses in Japan for our (Hawai‘i) students. While these study tours and study away courses are not identical, starting in 2013, they have been designed to

256

C. Nonaka et al.

purposefully overlap some of the activities where the Japanese university students who visit Hawai‘i on a study tour in the spring collaborate on projects with some of the UiH students who then visit Japan in the following summer (see Fig. 11.1 for the detailed timeline). As such, we continually fine-tune this platform to better expand the personal and professional network of students, faculty, and other community members across borders. And this strategically designed, multi-layered, transnational education platform is addressed as a case for our study.

The Authors’ Roles in the Transnational Education Platform Chisato Nonaka Born and raised in Japan, Chisato has spent over 10 years in Hawai‘i as a student and an educator. She was involved in the inception of the transnational education platform when she was a graduate student at UiH. Chisato has served as an interpreter/translator (Japanese$English), a teaching associate, and a coordinator for the said transnational education platform.

Nezia Azmi Herself a multilingual and formerly ESL individual, Nezia grew up in Malaysia and Indonesia, but spent much of her academic and professional life in the United States. She is the International Programs Coordinator for the College of Education and has been actively involved in some of the logistics and protocol support for the study tours that utilize the transnational educational platform discussed here. More recently she has also taken on a more active role in evaluating the design of these experiences as part of a program improvement effort.

Aaron J. Levine Aaron is an Assistant Specialist in the Institute for Teacher Education and serves as the Partnership and Placement Coordinator for the department. His work focuses on creating rich clinical experiences for preservice teacher candidates through building strong institutional partnerships both domestically and internationally. He was the main architect of our original transnational education platform.

• Hawaii students continue to communicate and collaborate on mini projects with Japanese students, some of whom have recently visited Hawaii (in February). • Some of the Hawaii students visit Japan in June/July and reunite with the Japanese students who had visited Hawaii.

March to July

Fig. 11.1 Timeline of how our international exchanges unfold over the course of a year

January to February

• Japanese and Hawaii students begin communicating in January as part of coursework. • Japanese students visit Hawaii in late February and meet Hawaii students in person.

August to December

• Students from both places continue to collaborate on projects either through coursework or on an individual basis. • Inspired by the experience of international collaborations, some of the students decide to pursue further study/work abroad exeprience (e.g. JET prgramme and JICA)

11 Fostering Students’ Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity to Undo Native-Speakerism:. . . 257

258

C. Nonaka et al.

References Blommaert, J., & De Fina, A. (2017). Chronotopic identities: On the timespace organization of who we are. In A. De Fina, D. Ikizoglu, & J. Wegner (Eds.), Diversity and super-diversity: Sociocultural linguistic perspectives (pp. 1–16). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, S. (2006). Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190506000109 Creswell, J. W. (2012). Ethnographic designs. In J. W. Creswell (Ed.), Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (pp. 461–500). Boston: Pearson. Fook, J. (2011). Developing critical reflection as a research method. In J. Higgs, A. Titchen, D. Horsfall, & D. Bridges (Eds.), Creative spaces for qualitative researching: Living research (pp. 55–64). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-761-5_6 Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15430421tip4203_3 Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004003 Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage Publications & Open University. Hashimoto, K. (2013). The construction of the “native speaker” in Japan’s educational policies for TEFL. In S. A. Houghton & D. J. Rivers (Eds.), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (pp. 159–168). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W. S., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (2001). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ ccl030 Houghton, S. A. (2010). Savoir se transformer: Knowing how to become. In Y. Tsai & S. A. Houghton (Eds.), Becoming intercultural: Inside and outside the classroom (pp. 194–228). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Houghton, S. A. (2012). Intercultural dialogue in practice: Managing value judgment through foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A., & Hashimoto, K. (Eds.). (2018). Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts. Singapore: Springer. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (Eds.). (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A., Rivers, D. J., & Hashimoto, K. (2018). Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions. London: Routledge. Kubota, R. (2019). A critical examination of common beliefs about language teaching: From research insights to professional engagement. In F. Fang & H. P. Widodo (Eds.), Critical perspectives on global Englishes in Asia: Language policy, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 10–26). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (Eds.). (2009). Race, culture, and identities in second language education: Exploring critically engaged practice. New York: Routledge. Nonaka, C. (2018). “They were American but shy!”: The Japanese university students’ encounter with local students in Hawai’i. In S. A. Houghton & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Towards post-nativespeakerism: Dynamics and shifts (pp. 41–58). Singapore: Springer.

11

Fostering Students’ Empathy and Cultural Sensitivity to Undo Native-Speakerism:. . .

259

Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587831 Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, UK: Longman. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge. Phan, L. H., & Li, B. (2012). Silence as right, choice, resistance and strategy among Chinese ‘Me Generation’ students: Implications for pedagogy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(2), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.745733 Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. New York: Routledge. Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative research designs: Recognizing the overall plan for a study. In V. L. Plano Clark & J. W. Creswell (Eds.), Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (pp. 285–328). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Repo, L. (2017). Here’s Rode the laiskimus laiskimus: Heteroglossic resources and translanguaging in the communication of third culture kids (M.A., University of Oulu). Retrieved online on 2 December from http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-201711303230 Rivers, D. J. (2017). Native-speakerism and the betrayal of the native speaker teaching professional. In D. J. Rivers & K. Zotzmann (Eds.), Isms in language education: Oppression, intersectionality and emancipation (pp. 74–97). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rydenvald, M. (2015). Elite bilingualism?: Language use among multilingual teenagers of Swedish background in European Schools and international schools in Europe. Journal of Research in International Education, 14(3), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240915614935 Shoffner, M. (2018). Disrupting the world as we know it: Addressing racism in ELA teacher education. Journal of Language & Literacy Education, 1–12. http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-con tent/uploads/2018/01/SSO-Jan-2018_Shoffner_Final.pdf Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3), 224–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695870 Swan, A., Aboshiha, P., & Holliday, A. (Eds.). (2015). (En)countering native-speakerism: Global perspectives. Houndmills; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Oxford: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(3), 149–178. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34). Oxford: Blackwell. White, S., Fook, J., & Gardner, F. (2008). Critical reflection: A reiew of contemporary literature and understandings. In S. White, J. Fook, & F. Gardner (Eds.), Critical reflection in health and social care (pp. 3–20). Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.

Chapter 12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview Process Matthew W. Turner, Matthew Y. Schaefer, Robert J. Lowe, and Stephanie Ann Houghton

Abstract This chapter explores the use of a dialogic format as a possible means of “undoing” native-speakerism. While much has been written about native-speakerism in the scholarly literature, relatively little has changed in the everyday practices of the profession. Through preparing for, participating in, and reflecting on a live interview in which the topic of native-speakerism was examined from one researcher’s point of view, this chapter demonstrates some of the possibilities that dialogue in a public space can have towards the rethinking, recontextualizing, and the emergence of ideas related to native-speakerism. It further suggests some ways in which this kind of public event can help to raise awareness of these issues among an extended group of practitioners. The chapter first introduces the context of the event, and the broader project (The TEFLology Podcast) of which it forms a part. Following this, an introduction to the interview and an edited version of the interview are provided. The chapter concludes with an extensive reflection on the process by the interviewee. The chapter demonstrates some of the potential that public dialogue has for creating spaces in which native-speakerism may be challenged, disrupted, and undone.

M. W. Turner (*) Toyo University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] M. Y. Schaefer Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] R. J. Lowe Tokyo Kasei University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] S. A. Houghton Faculty of Art and Regional Design, Saga University, Saga, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 S. A. Houghton, J. Bouchard (eds.), Native-Speakerism, Intercultural Communication and Language Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5671-5_12

261

262

12.1

M. W. Turner et al.

Introduction

The issue of native-speakerism has been discussed extensively in academic literature (see Holliday, 2005; Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Swan, Aboshiha, & Holliday, 2015; Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018; Houghton, Rivers, & Hashimoto, 2018), designated by the ELT journal as a key topic in the field (Holliday, 2006), and has been the subject of an IATEFL plenary talk by Silvana Richardson (Richardson, 2016). However, despite this growing awareness and interest in native-speakerism, evidenced by the over 350 academic publications on the topic (Kamhi-Stein, 2016), little has changed “on the ground” (see Kiczkowiak & Lowe, 2018), and thus new avenues for deconstructing, undoing, and opening up native-speakerism need to be explored. In this chapter, we describe and show how public dialogue can be put to such a use. We aim to demonstrate that the innovative dialogic format described here represents a “disruptive space” in which native-speakerism can be undone on two different levels: firstly, by helping theorists to rethink and recontextualize their ideas, and secondly by spreading these ideas to the broader public. This chapter is co-written by the presenters of the TEFLology Podcast and Stephanie Ann Houghton and divided into three distinct parts. Part 1, written by Turner, Schaefer, and Lowe, provides a background to the podcasting project and a closer look at how the type of dialogue engendered by such a podcast can bring about disruption and development of known concepts. Part 2 is an edited transcription of a live interview conducted by one of the TEFLology Podcast presenters with Houghton. Part 3 contains Houghton’s personal reflections of the interview. Overall, this chapter explores how the kind of public dialogue herein described helped the interviewee to reflect on and reconceptualize professional and personal orientations to native-speakerism and its implications.

12.2

The TEFLology Podcast, Dialogic Format, and Interview Preparation

12.2.1 Background This chapter forms part of a larger podcasting project involving the use of accessible public dialogue for awareness-raising and fostering sub-disciplinary understanding and communication in ELT. Some background to the podcasting project will be provided here and in the following section. The TEFLology Podcast started life in 2014, and it has since acted as a tool for reflective continuing professional development (CPD) both for the presenters and for the listeners, helping them to explore and develop understandings of issues related to ELT and applied linguistics. Episodes of the podcast focus on discussions among the presenters, and additionally feature interviews with both well-known and emerging figures in the fields of applied linguistics and ELT (see Lowe, Schaefer, & Turner,

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 263

2017). Since the inception of the podcast, critical issues have been a recurrent theme, and episodes have centered on topics such as gender balance in conference line-ups, special educational needs in ELT, the dominance of “standard” models of English, and, of particular interest to this chapter, native-speakerism. Interview episodes have also regularly focused on critical areas of inquiry such as feminist pedagogy (discussed with Reiko Yoshihara), appropriate methodology and social context (discussed with Adrian Holliday), and World Englishes (discussed with Mario Saraceni). In fact, on a recent anniversary episode in which the presenters took stock of their podcasting activities, critical issues were identified as an area in which their knowledge had greatly enhanced as a result of reflecting on these themes. Issues related to native-speakerism were first discussed in the second interview episode in 2014 (Turner, Lowe, & Schaefer, 2014), which featured interviews with Stephanie Ann Houghton and Enric Llurda recorded at the second native-speakerism symposium held in Saga, Japan. Subsequent episodes have included a guest-hosted episode in which Marek Kiczkowiak (founder of the independent TEFL Equity Advocates organization) discussed strategies for challenging native-speakerism, an audio performance of a duoethnographic paper deconstructing native-speakerism (Lowe & Kiczkowiak, 2016), and an interview with Ryuko Kubota focused on racism in TESOL. Since 2016, the podcast hosts have organized a series of experimental dialogic forums at conferences, resulting in a number of live interview sessions aimed at facilitating discussion and mutual understanding between researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds (Schaefer, Turner, & Lowe, 2018; Turner et al., 2019). The success of these forums led to an invitation to conduct what have been termed “plenary interviews” at the 2019 PanSIG Conference, a conference organized by the Japan Association of Language Teaching (JALT) focused on the interests of its various special interest groups, where the interview featured in this chapter occurred.

12.2.2 Podcast Facilitated Dialogic Formats as Disruptive and Developmental Spaces There are various reasons as to why critical issues such as native-speakerism fail to gain traction “on the ground” in ELT, and why academic theory fails to make a significant impact on the practices, policies, and discourses associated with these issues. Some of these reasons are systemic, and they are related to the so-called theory/practice gap in the field. There are numerous causes of this gap, including the challenges facing language teachers in being able to participate in academic activities such as conferences (Nassaji, 2012; Borg, 2014), disparities in the way that scholarly work is written and engaged with (Bartels, 2003; Borg, 2009; Clarke, 1994), questions on the relevance of scholarly work for practitioners (Paran, 2017), and a general sense of prevailing hierarchy and division between the “ivory tower” academics and those toiling at the chalkface (Maley, 2016; Prabhu, 1990). As well as

264

M. W. Turner et al.

discussions about the interface between research and practice, there are additional concerns about the need for more sub-disciplinary interaction within the field in order to increase awareness of different areas of inquiry (Medgyes, 2017), and a greater fostering of interdisciplinarity in general (Choi & Richards, 2017). However, the mechanisms that are currently in place for open and direct exchange between different members and subdisciplines of the ELT community often fall short of facilitating effective interaction, in which theories, beliefs, and implications can be collaboratively negotiated, developed, and explored. This highlights the need for more experimentation regarding the ways the field goes about sharing and disseminating knowledge. Our interest in public dialogue stems from our work in podcasting. Podcasts have been acknowledged as facilitating progressive and accessible dialogue between different groups of people, in a way that more conventional academic and scholarly channels may not. Podcasts are independent and disruptive form of media (Llinares, Fox, & Berry, 2018; Spinelli & Dann, 2019), and have been described as an “intimate bridging medium” (Swiatek, 2018) in the way that they help individuals and groups forge links and cross disciplinary boundaries, while “giving listeners the impression of directness and closeness” with the content and speakers (p. 176). In science communication, podcasts have been viewed as catalysts for stimulating public discourse (see Birch & Weitkamp, 2010; Kinkaid, Emard, & Senanayake, 2020). Building on our experience of podcasting, we began experimenting with live public dialogue at conferences starting in 2016 (see Schaefer, Turner, Lowe, 2018; Turner et al., 2019). In terms of modality, our experimentations with interactive formats take inspiration from “dialogue events” (see Lehr et al., 2007); face-to-face gatherings of members of the public and scientists, devised to support the dialogic exploration of science. In response to the need to address critical issues, and to generate real-time movements in thinking “on the ground,” we take lead from the work of Carducci, Kuntz, Gildersleeve, and Pasque (2011) who use physical dialogue as a way to “disrupt dominant paradigms of research and ‘truth’” in their academic setting (p. 15). We have found these public dialogues to have a substantial impact on the researchers involved, who have described the public questioning as helping them to rethink and recontextualize their ideas. We have also found that interaction from the audience is of great interest, and this can be seen through comments made on the released podcast recordings of the interviews, as well as in the questions raised at the live events. On a practical and technological level, podcasts offer the ability to share interactions that take place during interactive forums with a wider and more diverse audience, bypassing physical boundaries. On another level, the podcasting medium has allowed for a more relaxed and informal approach to conversing about subjects that may not be open to some groups of people.

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 265

12.2.3 Preparing for the Plenary Interview Preparation for this particular “plenary interview” session at JALT’s PanSIG conference, held in May 2019 near the city of Kobe, started approximately 2 months prior. The interview format for the plenary session at this conference replaced the conventional presentation approach. Although interviews themselves are inherently interactive, throughout this period leading up to the session, Matthew, the interviewer, and Stephanie, the interviewee, entered into a heightened collaborative process with one another, which took on a more thorough and involved approach to previous interviews that have been devised. Having previously conducted an interview with Stephanie about the topic of native-speakerism in 2014, the inaugural year of the podcasting project began, Stephanie was keen to use this plenary interview session to talk about some personal and professional developments that had taken place in the time since then, and how her thoughts and activities around native-speakerism had evolved. The process began with Stephanie providing by email correspondence an initial outline, detailing recent research interests of hers, as well as information about professional changes in her career. Having considered Stephanie’s descriptions, a first set of questions were composed, and arranged into five thematic sections. Upon reading Matthew’s questions, Stephanie made some clarifications, adjustments, and rearrangements, so as to reflect her developing beliefs and career directions. Aside from the conventional introductory and concluding questions that typically bookend interviews, Stephanie noticed that the questions could be suitably restructured to reflect “present-oriented views,” “future-oriented views,” as well as “part-oriented views” as a trajectory for navigating ideas. On the day of the session, Stephanie and Matthew spent some time together going over the co-constructed set of questions, with one aim being to plan for when particular slides on the overhead projector would be displayed to correspond with individual questions and responses. While it was commonly understood that the interview would be largely semi-structured, with room for flexibility and spontaneity, this preparatory exchange also gave the pair a chance to preview some of the areas of the interview, which helped to further enhance the subsequent live interaction that followed. The audience of the plenary session was asked to write down any questions they had for Stephanie as they listened to her interview; these would be asked after Matthew had finished asking his prepared questions. The session was audio recorded and subsequently edited for time and clarity and released as an episode of The TEFLology Podcast (Turner, Lowe, & Schaefer, 2019) and on a JALT YouTube channel. This audio recording was transcribed and further edited, which consisted chiefly of turning spoken language into a more readable form (e.g., removing pauses and repetitions, and rewording sections that relied on intonation and stress for their comprehension) and removing content that relied on being able to see the PowerPoint slides, although selected images were selected for inclusion. Longer speaking turns were divided into paragraphs for readability.

266

12.3

M. W. Turner et al.

The Plenary Interview

Matthew: First of all, I’d like you to briefly introduce yourself and your history. Stephanie: OK, so, when I was thinking about this interview today, I thought I could present myself as an academic, which I could still do. But I don’t want to start with that. I want to start with the fact that, in the year 2000, after I had been teaching on the JET programme for 3 years, from 1993 to 1996, I found myself working at Kitakyushu University, again on a term-limited contract, where I couldn’t stay because there was a limited number of renewals. As I was getting more settled in Japan, I was becoming increasingly frustrated at the fact that I was always being expected to prepare for the next person to replace me, and I’d had enough. I was suffering, and struggling, and I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t want to accuse the university of racial discrimination, but that was the only word that I had to use as a conceptual reference point for what I thought was happening to me. I couldn’t read Japanese and I could hardly speak Japanese at that time, so I was really, really floundering. Basically, the story of my life in Japan, as an active person in society, begins with my personal response to discrimination. But at that time, there was no word in the English language to describe the kind of prejudice and discrimination against people based upon whether they’re considered to be a native speaker of a language or not. That was the problem that we were faced with, and it became a group issue at my university among the gaikokujin kyoshi, the foreign lecturers. We started to unite to tackle this problem. But the university line was, as it was in many universities, that Japanese people could be foreign lecturers if they were native speakers of English, which didn’t make sense at all at the time. So, the university in-house labor union gave us a nice opportunity to write an article. They helped us to collect accurate information about our situation, and to write it in English. So, the first time I wrote anything was a paper in that journal titled “All The Foreign Lecturers Are Foreign. Where Are The Non-Foreign, Foreign Lecturers?” (Houghton, 2002). That’s how it started, and that is when I became a writer. It had nothing to do with academia—it was workplace struggle. And it was very personal, and eventually it became academic, but that’s how it started. So, there you see, there was the gaikokujin koshi experience and discrimination. I explored what teachers should do about prejudice in their language classes through a PhD at Durham University with Mike Byram. The PhD activity was running parallel to the labor union activity I was engaged in. I think I was the first foreign labor union president in Japan. I was told that at that time. I became increasingly active, and actually reported the Japanese government to the United Nations when the Special UN Rapporteur, DouDou Diene, came. So, I really went as far as I could down that line to complain, at great risk to myself, I felt, in the beginning. But as you can see, I’m still here. Native speakerism is a word that Adrian Holliday coined, apparently in 2003 not in 2005, but the discovery of that word really changed everything and turned it into an academic issue.

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 267

I moved into the Faculty of Art and Regional Design more recently, and that brought in dance as non-verbal communication. And that has led to a focus on Alzheimer’s disease prevention, so health issues and brain issues in relation to language learning. And more recently to local mask dance, Menburyu, which is suffering in Japan’s aging society. Matthew: We are going to come onto some of those points later on, but one of your areas of interest is intercultural communication. I wonder if you could just briefly talk about your developments in this field. Stephanie: In the 4 years after finishing my PhD, I published eight books. I focused on issues connected to stereotypes, intercultural competence, identities, critical cultural awareness, and intercultural dialogue, with a strong focus ultimately on native speakerism and post-native speakerism. The book series that I established in 2015 with Melina Porto through Springer has resulted in the publication of three books and we have four more in the pipeline, with very similar key terms emerging in those as well. Matthew: Could you tell us about how language teaching may be used to manage and mitigate things such as stereotyping and value judging? Stephanie: I think an important point to clarify is that I don’t think I’ve ever read anything that suggests that stereotypes can be overcome. Stereotypes are a natural part of the brain’s processing of information. The world is very complex, so as we look at the world and we take in information, the brain has to categorize the information into groups, and that includes information about the self and one’s own group memberships, and also of other groups. The brain also has a wide range of cognitive biases, which are kind of built into the system, shortcuts if you like, to try and make sense of the world quickly. This could be good in some ways, but one of those biases seems to be, quite universally, that people tend to evaluate their in-group more favorably than the out-group and to apply pre-existing information about a particular group to a person when they realize that person is a member of that group because of, for example, skin color. You might think, “Oh, they’re a white person and therefore blah, blah, blah.” And you kind of stamp them in your mind. I don’t think language teaching, or anything else, can overcome stereotypes, but we can do something to a certain extent. We can raise awareness of what happens in the mind when we’re engaging in intercultural experience, and we can increase understanding of what stereotypes and other forms of prejudice are, and we can develop critical faculties, including critical cultural awareness and critical thinking. The word “critical” comes from the ancient Greek word kriticos, which means “judgement.” So we can aim to develop better quality judgment than we might otherwise do without critical reflection, or the ability to reflect on ourselves and monitor and try to control, to some extent, what we’re doing, how we’re thinking, and the impact we’re having on the world and people around us. Matthew: I guess that all teaching is intercultural. When you’re interacting with your students and the students are interacting with you, I suppose there’s always going to be an intercultural element. In terms of identity, in terms of a teacher’s

268

M. W. Turner et al.

identity, how can we address this interculturality? How can we address that about ourselves as teachers? Stephanie: The teacher is a cultural agent. A teacher is a person, and a teacher is a carrier of culture. Teachers have their own personal identities and their own social identities. So, teachers themselves need certain levels of self-awareness in order to be able to guide students and to prepare them for the world ahead, in general terms. Matthew: Earlier, you touched upon one of those identities that is often given to us, which is this idea of the native speaker. But “native speaker” is a very fuzzy term. Could you summarize the kind of the tensions around this term? Stephanie: Damian Rivers, who I’ve collaborated with a lot over the years, tracks the origin of the word back to about 1858. It was used in the United States as a point of discussion around British English and American English. So, it was within English itself. The way that we see it used here in Japan these days, in terms of its problematic aspects, is that teachers are employed based upon whether they’re considered a native speaker or not. How to decide whether somebody is a native speaker is not an easy thing. Why? Because there’s no real definition that can be applied, in any case, as far as I can see. People have a wide range of language repertoires, and a wide range of cultural experience. So, it really is a question of being ascribed a certain status based upon other factors, which can bring into consideration of factors such as race, gender, or national origin. There are all sorts of stereotypes and assumptions which come into play. And in terms of employment, if you’re being categorized as a non-native speaker, this might make it very difficult to gain employment in the first place, which is discrimination at the pre-employment stage. But if you’re characterized as a native speaker, you may have an advantage in getting the job, but then once you’re in, you might be discriminated against at the postemployment stage. So, the types of discrimination, and the points in time at which they occur, might vary. It’s also very trapping. I think one of the issues in human rights law is to protect people from being punished for factors that they themselves cannot change. So, you can’t easily change whether you’re a man or a lady, although with technology these things themselves are changing. But we shouldn’t be treated unfairly for things we can’t change about ourselves. One point is, do I categorize myself as a native speaker or not? But also, do you categorize other people as native speakers or not? This brings into play interpersonal and intercultural dynamics. When institutions are using this term as a way of sifting through job applications, as a way of judging people during interviews, or as a way of deciding who gets a job and who doesn’t, it becomes more problematic if it’s institutionalized as a system within one institution. But the problem in Japan is that it has been institutionalized on a national level for a very long time. There is a very long history rooted in the gaikokujin kyoshi system itself, which goes back around 100 years, if not more. And it really was a matter of national policy which was connected to citizenship as well in the past. The law has changed

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 269

considerably over the last 10–20 years, but the citizenship requirement for public servants, the civil servants, in the past was something that we were struggling with from the year 2000–2005, because only Japanese citizens in those days could be public servants. There was a special category of gaikokujin kyoin to allow for the employment of some foreigners and that was based on, I think, nationality. But then the gaikokujin kyoshi system was latched on to that system, in order to employ more foreigners. However, racial discrimination, or discrimination based on nationality is and was against the law, and so the native speaker criterion was used as a mechanism for getting around discrimination based on nationality. That’s my personal view. Matthew: And to what extent are we now in a post-native-speakerist kind of era? We last spoke 5 years ago, so has anything changed in that time in terms of the professional realm, or the theoretical and research side of things? Stephanie: I think the coining of the word native speakerism itself has had a massive impact. That’s one thing. But also, the field of intercultural communicative competence, which is connected to the Common European Framework, has also been very influential. Intercultural communicative competence was originally intended to replace the native speaker model as a socio-cultural criterion, rather than as a linguistic one. But none the less, there was a rejection of the native speaker involved in promoting this idea of intercultural communicative competence. In addition, English as a lingua franca is picking up speed independently and has been absolutely massive worldwide. That taps into the frustration of so many people who are categorised as non-native speakers of English. They were frustrated at the discrimination. It’s the same thing. We do not want to be discriminated against unfairly. Nobody wants that. And then the other thing is World Englishes, which also rejects the native speaker. So, there are a lot of important developments in different fields within English language education in particular, which have been dovetailing, and continue to dovetail until today. And then this word post-native-speakerism attempts to try to capture that, to really push the problems related to native speakerism out completely. But that hasn’t happened yet. Matthew: I see. Stephanie: I got some research funding from the Japanese government for a KAKENHI project, which finished in 2013, and I interviewed many experts at the doctoral and post-doctoral level, and some very famous people in the ELT field, about their views on what should be used to replace the native speaker concept. I interviewed people specifically from those three fields that I just mentioned: intercultural communicative competence, English as a lingua franca, and World Englishes. I tried to collate their ideas, and I came up with some conclusions. Shifts are needed in the activities of English language teachers. First, we need to shift away from the native speaker model towards more diverse models: plurilingualism, acceptance of language variety, and non-nativeness. Second, we should stop seeing language as a fixed good in itself, with pre-defined norms that can’t be changed and attached to particular countries, and we should

270

M. W. Turner et al.

start viewing it instead as a vehicle, with emergent language, emergent grammar, and prioritizing non-native speaker interaction because that’s far more common these days, assuming that you accept the idea of a non-native speaker. This means dropping the insistence on accuracy and error correction, dropping the focus on target culture as content, dropping teacher centeredness to some extent, dropping the reliance on published materials, and moving towards more learner-centered, teacher-generated materials that present a range of different types of Englishes that can be used in the world. Translanguaging, being able to move flexibly from one type of accent to another to another, depending on who you might meet, which could be someone from Brazil in one second and somebody from the Philippines in the next. It’s flexibility that’s needed in actual intercultural interaction in today’s world, which requires a lot of these kinds of shifts in activities to be inspired. I also identified the desirable characteristics of the foreign language teacher, in terms of the kind of skills and competences, knowledge base, background, and cognitive tendencies and attitudes of the teachers themselves. Matthew: This phenomenon is also kind of manifest outside of teaching as well. So, as everyone knows, Japan’s society is rapidly aging and the prevalence of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease is increasing. Along with that, we’re also seeing a rise in robotic caregivers and automatization in the caregiving industry. What is the link between native speakerism and that side of things? Because I believe that there is one. Stephanie: These issues reflect a really big shift in my research interests and that happened because I changed faculties. I was in the Faculty of Culture and Education, which closed down, so after that I moved to the Faculty of Art and Regional Design to teach intercultural communication, so I was wondering how to link my research to art and regional design. And actually, after publishing those eight books, I’d put on a lot of weight. I was unhealthy in my early 40s. I was about 74 kilos, whereas now I’m about 60 kilos. So, health was becoming an issue, but I lost weight within 6 months, doing Zumba. So, suddenly Zumba took over my life. This is personal. I started wearing wigs to make myself look younger, and I liked the look of it. And I was dealing with identity; how to connect art and identity and self-presentation. It was interesting me a lot. Zumba is a combination of dance and fitness, and the dance is basically Latin dance. And basically, you can track many cultural roots of Latin dance right back to Africa, to the times when African people were taken forcibly to the Americas by the slavers. So, I became familiar in those early stages of looking at the cultural background of dance, which brought me back into intercultural communication. Dance is a form of non-verbal communication, which is not emphasized so much within intercultural communication. And the fitness side fitted in nicely with the regional design, community development, and health issues. So that’s why there was suddenly this massive shift in my research interests as I started exploring these new areas. Matthew: I see. Stephanie: I did lots of events. And at one point the students complained, “Why do we have to dance?” “Why we do have to move our bodies?” They just like to sit

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 271

quietly, right? With their mobile phones. . . And they didn’t want to pay for events. Art is expensive, and I was asking them to pay a few thousand yen for an event. There were formal complaints to the university about my dance program, by some students, not all, but there were quite a lot. I was forced to justify my educational program, so I was looking around for reasons why dance was important. I knew instinctively that it was. And I found that dance appears to play some role in the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease. I saw that, and I thought, “Oh wow, that’s important.” I realized my own brain was changing in my early 40s, and I wasn’t sure why. But brain change from the early 40s is a normal thing, I have learned now. Also, at that time my husband was pushing me to take a future-oriented view of everything. He0 s very interested in robotics, the impact of AI on society and aging society. There’s a very good book called The 100-Year Life by Gratton and Scott, and something like half of the babies born in Japan today are expected to live until 107. But the brain can’t necessarily keep up with a healthy body, so we have to really make a big effort to promote healthy aging, brain health so that people who do survive to 107 years old, or who are living a long life, are living a healthy life, and not living with the brain switched off, in a body where the heart is still pumping. This is very important, I think. So, I realised the importance of aging society, and of taking a future oriented view. As soon as I realized this, I noticed that not one of the experts that I interviewed in my kakenhi project about replacing the native speaker was taking a futureoriented view. And by that I mean, none of them were looking across a wide range of disciplines to see what people from other disciplines were saying about the way that the human race is developing, and where we’re going, based upon current social trends. So, what I’d like to encourage you to do is to become a futurologist, to try to anticipate where it is we’re going to be. If you look in terms of health, the United Nations World Population Aging Highlights 2017 shows that in 1980, Japan was not even in the top five of countries with the largest share of persons aged 60 years or over. In 2017, there were 33.4% of Japanese people aged 60 and above, and Japan was then the top country. And then in 2050, 42.4% of people in Japan are expected to be over the age of 60. So, Japan is the fastest aging country in the world and really needs to take this on board. So, if dance and language learning and other things can help to protect brain health, then that’s what we do. And that’s what teachers need to be doing. And to do that, we have to know about it first. And the governments are dropping the ball on this, so we have to do it. The World Health Organization just released a set of dementia prevention guidelines, which is good but it’s a bit late, because this information’s been coming through from the researchers who are ahead of the game; they are publishing on TED Talks and YouTube and individual papers. But of course, the World Health Organization and these big research centers such as the Wicking

272

M. W. Turner et al.

Centre in Tasmania University,1 they take a meta-analysis of a wide range of studies, very advanced analysis, before governments can even think of making sets of recommendations. But if you look for them, you can find so many recommendations. If you follow them, they’re not going to harm you, but they might help you. And if they might help you then do them, think about doing them. It’s not rocket science, the kinds of recommendations they’re coming through with. Matthew: You previously mentioned the idea of the in-group and the out-group, and the idea of an alien. Could you briefly talk about how that might be good for the brain? Stephanie: So, the question is with foreign language learning. There’s research suggesting that learning a foreign language, and bilingualism, might not necessarily prevent, but delay, the onset of Alzheimer’s disease for 4 or 5 years. Check the idea of the healthy linguistic diet. There are two researchers, Thomas Bak, who is based in Edinburgh, and Dina Mehmedbegovic-Smith, who is based in London. They are recommending bilingualism as a way of promoting brain health. They’re promoting plurilingualism, and they’re actively standing against the native speaker as a role model in foreign language education. They’re also against monolingualism. This is my understanding of what they’re saying. And so, to link that back to native speakerism, if you like, this means that we need to take on board otherness more broadly. This can start in childhood with bilingual children. You learn a new language, then you develop an awareness that there is another language out there, and develop a theory of mind. One important thing, if I understand correctly, is that language learning strengthens the parts of the brain which tend to deteriorate first if Alzheimer’s disease sets in; the frontal parts of the brain and the hippocampus, most notably. So, if you strengthen those parts of the brain through foreign language learning, then you’re helping to protect your brain against Alzheimer’s disease. Secondly, foreign language learning can help to develop new and complex neural pathways. Alzheimer’s disease develops in the synapses where two neurons are communicating. If they get blocked up, it seems that the synapse or the neurons can die off. But the more synapses and neural pathways that you have, the more your brain can compensate for that naturally as you get older. It is possible, according to the Nun’s Study. On this, I recommend Lisa Genova’s TED Talk. She’s a neuroscientist, and she wrote Still Alice which is a famous film exploring this issue, starring Julianne Moore. But her TED Talk is what really drew my attention to this issue of being able to possibly prevent Alzheimer’s disease in 30% of the cases. So, it seems that many things, not only dance and not only foreign language education, can help to develop these neural pathways that can protect the brain.

1

The Wicking Dementia Research and Education Centre at the University of Tasmania in Australia offers free online MOOCs to promote public awareness about understanding and preventing dementia: https://www.utas.edu.au/wicking/understanding-dementia

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 273

Even if you develop fully fledged Alzheimer’s disease, as long as you’ve got enough back-up pathways, you might live a long healthy life without showing any symptoms. Matthew: So, you’re based in Saga prefecture, and I think there’s a belief in Japan that Saga prefecture is not so well known, and this is one of the things that you’re currently working to change. Could you tell us about this? Stephanie: One of my graduate students told me in one of the classes where I was doing the dance program that Saga has its own original dance. My jaw hit the floor. Saga? There are dances in Saga? Especially after my students had been complaining about dancing. And she said, “Yes, it’s called Menburyu.” I said, “Menburyu? What does that mean?” Well, the word men comes from oni no men, which is a demon mask. And furyu is a beautiful word, it basically means drifting in the breeze. That feeling of flying when you’re dancing, which I really love in Zumba and aerobics as well. So Menburyu means drifting in the breeze wearing a demon mask. The dancers dance through the rice fields wearing their wigs. I liked wigs anyway, so I was really drawn to this dance. And the ladies wear these wonderful flower hats, and I like flowers; I teach ikebana and I love flowers. So, two things: Wigs and flowers, I’m in. And it’s really wonderful. But I was like, “What is it?” So, I started looking into this. Saga is on the island of Kyushu and it lies between the prefectures of Fukuoka and Nagasaki. In fact, there used to be a province called Hizen, but it was divided into two and became Saga and Nagasaki. Kyushu is the closest point to South Korea, and also not so far from China. In Fig. 12.1, you can see a picture of a gold seal apparently with a snake image (that I circled in red). It’s called the kin-in and it was apparently delivered from China around AD58 by the Chinese emperor to the kingdom of Na country of Wa, or something like that, in recognition of the fact that there was a country here that was worth political recognition. This seal was found on the island of Shikanoshima, which is attached to the coast of Fukuoka. But look at the shape. One of my students pointed out that the kin-in image looked very similar to other images I had shown them of old female Menburyu masks found in Kashima in Saga. The male mask (on the left) has tusks, and the female mask (on the right, circled in red) has an open mouth. According to the Kashima City Hall website, Menburyu is a protected mask dance. Initially, they thought the masks on the left were old Menburyu masks, but they think they were tsuina masks. Setsubun comes from tsuina, which I think is from China, from Nuo, which is a very old Chinese folk religion. The two masks in Fig. 12.2 seem to date back to the 1500s. The two masks in Fig. 12.3 are Menburyu masks, and you can see the one on the right that I’ve circled is a female mask. These are Otonashi Menburyu masks. Otonashi Menburyu is one of the mask dances of Kashima that is registered as prefectural cultural property. It is very old. There’s a long history there. Matthew: This history is largely unwritten and therefore mainly orally transmitted. And that’s something you’re trying to document as well.

274

M. W. Turner et al.

Fig. 12.1 King of Na gold seal knob. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_of_Na_ gold_seal_knob_top.png

Fig. 12.2 Masks from Kashima, Saga, Japan. https://www.city.saga-kashima.lg.jp/main/4040.html

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 275

Fig. 12.3 Otonashi Menburyu masks. Photographs taken by Stephanie Ann Houghton

Stephanie: Japan’s densho geino culture, orally transmitted culture, is dying out. So, when the people who are carrying their culture die off, and most of them are old, it’s gone. There’s masses of it countrywide, so the law changed last year to move the cultural management power from Tokyo out to the prefectures. And only now are Saga and other prefectures trying to use questionnaire-based research to try to find out what they have because they don’t even know what they have themselves. Matthew: Linking it to everyone in the room today, what could our role be in using this in our classrooms? Stephanie: Now this part I want to link back to native speakerism, to some extent, because it’s dealing with issues of national identity. And one argument is connected to otherness. We, foreigners, are from one angle being used as a point of contrast through which to define and essentialize and rarify Japanese national identity. But, people from other cultures can come in and see these really precious aspects. So, for example, I was in the Yomiuri Shimbun (national newspaper) for making a dance-fitness program inspired by this mask dance.2 And one thing that they like is the fact that I’m a gaijin, coming in, and doing my best to preserve Japanese traditional culture. But I think we can really help. And I think the Japanese government needs our help in trying to protect this old culture,

Menburyu-Inspired Dance-Fitness was developed through collaboration with professional fitness instructor Kazuki Miyata.

2

276

M. W. Turner et al.

which as far as I can see from my research with students goes back to the Silk Road, so I don’t see this as just being part of Japanese culture. I want to highlight the fact that Japan was a terminus. In fact, Nara I think was the terminus of the Silk Road, which ran all the way through China and Tibet all the way up to Genoa and Venice in Italy. Japan benefited enormously from the Silk Road, from all the cultures, over thousands of years, that fed into those trade routes. Kyoto was based on Xi’An, old Chang’An, where the Silk Road started. Masses of culture came through China. I don’t see this Japanese traditional densho geino culture as being only Japanese local culture. I see it as being international world heritage. And I think that we have to try to protect that, especially as we enter the age of robotics. The robots are going to start asking, “What does it mean to be human?” and we have to be able to answer. So, we have time, before robots get too much hold of our society, to actually think who we are as human beings and where we have come from. The oldest homo sapiens fossils, I think, were found in Morocco dating back 300,000 years. We’re quite recent in the timeline of life on this earth. We’re not immortal as a species, and so it’s really time for us to look thematically at where we have come from, the processes through which we have developed, and where we go from now on. As language teachers we can do that. And one aspect of that is protecting this traditional culture. And I hope to see the JET programme activated in this regard because teachers from so many countries are already there, in schools, being underused in the JET programme. Through community endeavours with students and teachers of various subjects, researching the local traditional culture in its local, national, and international aspects, is something that the Japanese government can do really quickly at no extra cost, because ALTs on the JET Program getting paid anyway, and it would be really good fun. So that’s what I’d like to see happen. Matthew: Okay, thank you very much. So now I have some questions here from the audience. A couple of people are asking about the JALT association itself, and should we be using these terms “native speaker” and “non-native speaker” as categorizations to investigate and address inequalities caused by it. Stephanie: That’s a very important question. We discussed that at the AILA World Congress in Rio in 2017. There’s definitely quite a legitimate point of view, I think, that suggests that the use of the term “native speakerism,” in itself, is in a sense problematic because we are perpetuating, propagating, and spreading this ideology through the use of the word. In all these books that I’ve published, it’s spreading. And so that’s one thing to be aware of, and I think we need to be very careful about that. But on the other hand, “zombie category” is a term I like very much. It can be used to talk about the idea of a [concept such as] “native speaker” as something that is both alive and dead at the same time. In a sense, the “native speaker” does not exist. That’s what more people are arguing these days. It’s a fallacy. But on the other hand, you can’t interrogate the problems presented by the existence of this fallacious concept, and the negative consequences upon society, without language to describe it, so I think you have to really treat the term very carefully. And notably, Adrian Holliday’s definition is very different from the one that

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 277

Damian and I developed based on his definition, and we don’t agree. So, there’s no actual agreed fixed definition of native speakerism. It’s not in a dictionary. It’s a battleground. And so, people have to really engage and negotiate using this concept, for justifiable social purposes, I think. Matthew: One of the points that came up when we spoke earlier was how maybe this idea of the “native speaker” is actually reinforcing Japanese nationalism. To what extent is that the case, do you think? Stephanie: I think it’s connected to otherness, in-group out-group dynamics, etc. Culture is largely unconscious, so we can’t see our own culture easily, unless we see something that’s different. We think, “Oh gosh, that’s different and therefore, it’s not me.” So, by being presented with something that’s different, then you see what you are, or what your national culture is. Like foreigners coming in and saying, “Oh, Japanese people are this, this, that.” But to overcome that requires the critical ability to deconstruct language and culture, and to see how language itself, words and concepts, can shift. “If all the foreign teachers are foreign, where are the non-foreign foreign lecturers?” That’s playing with language, but I was trying to underline the concept itself. That’s what I was trying to do in that title. You have to really be able to see through language. So, criticality, I think, is the cure. Matthew: So, in some respects, being othered, or being the other, could maybe help towards something? Stephanie: Yes, I think, certainly for me, because I was really struggling when I first started my PhD. But developing a strong academic framework for understanding the basic concepts of cognitive psychology and social psychology and seeing how they were functioning in my everyday life in these difficult employment situations that I was experiencing myself, and seeing other people experience, definitely gave me a strong foundation for living and staying and thriving in Japan. I wouldn’t be here without that, I don’t think. So, yes, I would recommend it to anybody. Matthew: So, on one hand, it takes the other, or the alien, to maybe talk about these narratives, these stories of ancient Japan, but on the other hand, there’s also implied discrimination. Stephanie: Yeah, it’s not easy. You’d have to develop some skill at managing these things. If you have an in-group and an out-group, and if the out-group members are human, that means you’re going have some kind of discrimination going on between the two groups. As I recount in one of my books, we had a discussion at Durham University about what would it take to get the human race to see themselves as being one unified group. You need aliens. That’s the only thing that’s going to make a difference. In the absence of aliens, what I suggest is that Alzheimer’s disease can serve that role for us. Nobody wants Alzheimer’s disease, and I don’t think anybody wants anybody else to have Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s disease does not discriminate. It doesn’t matter where you’re from, how much money you have or anything, except women tend to suffer more than men. There is an issue there, which isn’t understood fully yet. And robots, too. When robots come along and then they get strong, and then eventually they say “We’re human robots,” what then? And what about “digital

278

M. W. Turner et al.

natives?” That’s a concept that was talked about earlier. There are many questions. Matthew: Somebody’s asked a question about Alzheimer’s disease. Can you speak about how Alzheimer’s disease relates to dance and language acquisition? I have a question on this myself: As language teachers, how can we make our classes focus on these brain-based issues? Stephanie: Okay, so I think if you look up Thomas Bak’s work, he reports a project called “Lingo Flamingo,” where you’ll see that they have a project of teaching foreign languages to older people with a view to dementia prevention. It’s a research project, I think. And they summarize briefly the approach they take. It includes intercultural issues and memory stimulation; it’s communication-based and multi-sensory, trying to activate all of the senses through different kinds of activities, in a fun way. And then dance and physical movement. I think the hippocampus is an important part. That is two little seahorse-like structures behind the eyes and between the ears. That’s where new neurons pop-up, and you want a big hippocampus to protect yourself from Alzheimer’s. The hippocampus is involved in memory formation, but also in spatial navigation. Taxi drivers in London, apparently, have a very big hippocampus because of navigating around all the time. So, having a big hippocampus and strong frontal brain, which seem to be able to be developed through dance and language and cognitive training. Although the jury is out, these are general recommendations put forward by certain researchers and certain studies that I’m picking up on. So, what I want to encourage you to research it independently as far as you can. Matthew: Okay, so my final question relates to that. Do you think that the at-risk culture that’s dying out is an authentic material that we, as teachers, should be engaged with more ourselves? And do you think that, in terms of Alzheimer’s disease and maybe older language learners, we should be using this by-gone culture to stimulate learning? Stephanie: One point is that because this culture is orally transmitted, it really depends on the brain health of the people carrying the cultures. If the people who are carrying the cultures forget it, it’s gone. So, my recommendation to the Board of Education in Saga is to implement an Alzheimer’s disease prevention program as part of the preservation of this orally transmitted culture, in order to protect the memories that are there right now. But also, it suggests that intergenerational communication is important. I don’t want to force young people to take an interest or to take part, but I think that they should know about it. And I’d like to see schools involved in their local communities investigating what these traditional Asian forms of culture are, within a healthy program that takes a global view, a national view, and a regional view, with a view to undermining nationalism as one of its aims, as well as Alzheimer’s prevention. So, it needs to be multi-disciplinary. Because with Alzheimer’s disease, the brain changes start in the early 40s with a build-up of amyloid beta, people in their early 40s need to be accessed. I think they can be accessed through the kids in the schools. If children at different levels

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 279

have education on Alzheimer’s disease prevention, they can access their parents. If you look at something like My Brain Robbie, you’ll find dementia prevention guidelines for kids, because reliance on computers and iPads, sitting down and being on the computer the whole time, is not good for the brain. Exercise, fitness, getting blood into the brain to clean the brain of all of the accumulation of amyloid beta and harmful proteins which cause Alzheimer’s disease is really important. And in relation to ancient culture and modern culture, and robotics and future culture, we need to find a balance between the past, the present, and the future. Matthew: Okay. So, you’ve talked about your personal life story, and I can see how that all links to your professional work and your research too. Thank you very much!

12.4

Reflections

12.4.1 Reflecting on the Process Upon the completion of the first stages of this dialogic process that involved Matthew and Stephanie collaboratively planning and preparing for an interview together, as well as performing the plenary interview at JALT’s PanSIG conference, the interaction continued in a different mode. Through email correspondence, a further set of questions were shared with Stephanie for response. These questions were as follows: • To what extent did the session format help to influence and develop your thinking about issues regarding native-speakerism? • What role do you think this dialogic approach has in disseminating or challenging taken-for-granted ideas among listeners/audience members? These questions were devised so as to consider both the formalities of the process, and the resultant ideas that arose through and after it. To accompany these questions, Stephanie was also asked to review the carefully adapted version of the interview, as well as encouraged to use these questions loosely to guide an open-ended reflection on the entire collaborative exercise. The following section contains Stephanie’s review of the plenary interview process, her evolving beliefs around native-speakerism and other areas that she identifies as being interconnected and of emerging relevance, and the taking stock of this volume in relation to dialogue; a central theme of this chapter. Following Stephanie’s reflection, Turner, Schaefer, and Lowe return briefly with our own concluding notes on the chapter.

280

M. W. Turner et al.

12.4.2 Stephanie Ann Houghton’s Reflection The purpose of this chapter is to describe and show how public dialogue can open up new avenues for deconstructing, undoing, and opening up native-speakerism using dialogic format as a “disruptive space.” It is hoped that in this process, by helping theorists to rethink and recontextualize their ideas, and by spreading these ideas to the broader public, native-speakerism can be undone. The dialogic process is not new. Dialogue has characterized human development since early times. While dialogue tends to be conceptualized as taking place between identifiable communicating individuals, the recording and ultimate transmission of dialogue may be conducted by others somewhat external to that dialogue, so engagement in dialogue can involve active third-party mediators engaged in the transmission and circulation of the ideas of others who are not readily identifiable on the surface. The TEFLology Podcast team can be said to perform this role to some extent, and unnoticed dialogues may unfold within other dialogues in this process. The transcription of the plenary interview in this chapter not only clarified and enhanced the messages transmitted during the plenary interview but also transported that interview into this book around 6 months later, creating new space within which ideas could be further developed, by reflecting on the time that had elapsed between, and connected to other dialogues unfolding through this volume. A notable unfolding dialogue taking place behind the scenes is with Damian Rivers, whose historical exploration of Japan’s relationship with the native speaker was discussed in Chap. 6 (this volume). Challenging the assumption that the historical roots of native-speakerism in Japan lie in the introduction of English, Rivers (2018) suggested instead that we should look to the relative roles played by other languages and their associated cultures, notably Portuguese, Dutch, and Chinese in the evolution of native-speakerism. Japan’s relation with China was considered in Chap. 6 (this volume), but study of the Silk Road ultimately highlighted the importance of Japan’s relationship with India, notably Buddhism, which flowed into Japan via the Silk Road, transforming it in the process. Japan’s relationship with India is ripe for investigation, even in relation to the introduction of Indian curry into Japan (Aiyar, 2018), although that topic is beyond the scope of this chapter. Exploring Japan’s relationship with Buddhism, which originated in India, may however illuminate both the historical backdrop to native-speakerism in Japan, and the nature of dialogue itself insofar as the Silk Road functioned through intercultural dialogue. To place ourselves within our historical context before reflecting on the plenary interview presented earlier in this chapter, it is, therefore, worth reviewing the timeline of human history presented in Appendix 4 of Chap. 6 (this volume) to review the nature of dialogue through the story of the introduction of Buddhism into Japan (also see Buddhanet and Japan Buddhist Federation, n.d.), its ultimate rejection in the early Meiji period, and continuance to the present day. This may illuminate some of the problematic cultural foundations underpinning

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 281

native-speakerism, and the roles of dialogic processes within them, in ways relevant to this chapter. Although it probably took place much earlier, public dialogue as a social force for change was harnessed to great effect around 2400 years ago by Socrates (470–399 BC) in ancient Greece, and still influences social development in modern times. See, for example, Hughes (2010). Socratic dialogue is a keystone of the critical thinking movement (The Foundation for Critical Thinking, n.d.). It is an important driver of intercultural dialogue, notably through its focus on the identification of contradiction in argument as a stimulus of change (Houghton, 2012). The purpose of this chapter is to explore links between public dialogue, disruptive spaces, and the undoing of native-speakerism. From the reflections on the historical context outlined in Appendix 4 of Chap. 6 (this volume), various points can be made about the nature of dialogue relevant to this theme. Originating around 2400 years ago, a Socratic approach to dialogue remains widely respected today. First and foremost, the critical thinking movement rooted in Socratic dialogue aims to overcome the inherent cognitive biases of the human brain, but the structure and functioning of the human brain seems to have changed little since early times, although our capacity to understand it may be augmented by technology by locating, for example, where stereotypes function in the brain and how (Delplanque, Heleven, & Van Overwalle, 2019). Similarly, if Alzheimer’s disease can be delayed by foreign language learning as suggested by proponents of the Healthy Linguistic Diet, language teachers need to understand brain processes by taking neuroscience itself on board to some extent. To this end, interdisciplinary dialogue should aim to illuminate functional links between the brain and technology in ways that can also promote personal and social health and well-being in general. The Wicking Dementia Research and Education Centre at the University of Tasmania in Australia offers free online MOOCs to promote public awareness about understanding and preventing dementia.3 If one watches the The Silk Road documentary series from start to finish, and if one considers the flow of Buddhism into Japan from India since it first emerged there around 2500 years ago, it quickly becomes apparent that intercultural dialogue has the capacity to flow through various media and mechanisms in language and image, through stone, cave paintings, scrolls, and paper, for example, potentially reverberating through millennia. If recorded successfully, in whatever form, dialogue can thus be passed down through the generations as the torch is passed, which highlights not only the importance of the message but also of the transmission mechanism, and the willingness of people not only to transmit but also receive information from dialogues gone by. This basic but important point was brought home to me at the turn of the millennium by Tony Laszlo, author of Darling wa Gaikokujin (My Darling is a Foreigner) (see Schilling, 2010). When I was struggling with discrimination in the early days, he advised me that the key to social change was to learn from people who

3

https://www.utas.edu.au/wicking/understanding-dementia

282

M. W. Turner et al.

know more than you, and to teach people who know less than you. When I first came to Japan in 1993, I did not possess a computer or have an email account. Dialogue in those days about issues affecting foreigners in Japan was primarily face-to-face and local in orientation, steeped in tension that was often only released by drinking alcohol in bars. While this remained true when I started working in Japanese universities at the turn of the millennium, accessing the internet changed everything. Tony Laszlo ran an NGO called issho.org at that time, and within that forum, we communicated about problems facing foreigners in Japan in a closed yahoo group. Such dialogue was never recorded or made public, but it had transformative potential by empowering me to ultimately start to tackle problematic issues that came later to be known as “native-speakerism.” Considering the ancient public dialogue between the Greek King Menander and the Buddhist sage Nagasena (see Appendix 4 of Chap. 6, this volume), we can see that the recording and ultimate transmission of dialogue may be conducted by others external to the spoken dialogue itself, so engagement in dialogue can involve active third-party mediators engaged in the transmission and circulation of ideas. As noted above, the TEFLology Podcast and its team can be said to perform this channelling role, which is a complex and somewhat unpredictable process. As messages are transmitted, recorded, transcribed, and perhaps mediated by others as they are passed down, associated language and image may change as ideas flow through other cultures and contexts, fusing and separating in the process. Certain individuals may play particularly strong roles in perpetuating or reviving what they consider to be important messages from times gone by. Ideas accepted into any given culture in one generation may be rejected by later generations, and vice-versa. Thus, dialogue needs to be seen as an ongoing process during which perceived gains may be hard fought for, yet quickly be lost. It seems futile, then, to hope for permanent change on the ground in the field of native-speakerism, or in any other field. Life cannot be fixed in that way. Rather, learning to reflect on and rethink one’s professional and personal orientations to life’s problems, and transforming one’s life from within, often through one’s own internal dialogue, seems key to me. My own personal journey is documented in Houghton (2012). How did the kind of public dialogue described in the plenary interview described in this chapter helped me, as the interviewee, to reflect on and rethink my professional and personal orientations to native-speakerism? It gave me pause for thought; time and space to reflect upon my own personal journey through the fields of nativespeakerism over the last two decades. Considering the amount of intercultural dialogue involved in the introduction and ultimate rejection of Buddhism in Japan over millennia, the life span of any single individual, including mine, seems short. Our potential to generate and engage in meaningful dialogue within our own lifetime seems limited. Even if we live a 100-year life, we can only hope to gather people from four generations around the dinner table. However, even within the short span of my own life, I would never have imagined when I first started tackling discrimination against foreigners in Japan in 2002, when I had my first paper published (Houghton, 2002), that the issue of

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 283

native-speakerism I was later to contend with over the coming decades would be, as reported at the start of this chapter: discussed extensively in academic literature (see Holliday, 2005; Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Swan et al., 2015; Houghton & Hashimoto, 2018; Houghton et al., 2018), designated by the ELT journal as a key topic in the field (Holliday, 2006), be the subject of an IATEFL plenary talk by Silvana Richardson (Richardson, 2016) and discussed in over 350 academic publications on the topic (Kamhi-Stein, 2016).

And further, I would never have imagined that this process would all have been accompanied by the various legal changes in Japanese labour law reviewed in the preface to this volume. In addition, I am impressed with the progress made by The TEFLology Podcast team. During the five-year gap between my two interviews with The TEFLology Podcast in 2014 and 2019, they have created something new in the world by creating a new forum in which issues can be aired and shared, as they engage in their own development both personally and professionally. The capacity to stimulate, capture, and transmit dialogue effectively is important, and may transform lives from the inside if the dialogue becomes intra-individual dialogue, or internal dialogue within individuals who are isolated and suffering from discrimination in ways that can have a negative impact upon their health and well-being. In this sense, dialogue in relation to native-speakerism can play a therapeutic role. The establishment of academic communities on or off-line can also play a role here, as can the development of group-based edited books and special issues of journals, that gather people together around a common theme. This may lead to, or result from, participation in academic conferences, but participation in such events may only be an option for universitybased educators. Through the recruitment of teachers for primary and secondary education in Japan, the JET Program, in particular, provides a rich source of potential employees for universities in Japan, including those that discriminate against foreigners, so the information gap about native-speakerism in Japan needs to be bridged. The TEFLology Podcast seems to have the capacity to do this by placing material online, although whether or not this recording and transmission system is vulnerable to the internet remains to be seen. In terms of modality, The TEFLology Podcast experiments with interactive formats through physical dialogue events to address critical issues such as nativespeakerism to generate real-time movements in thinking “on the ground.” Such public dialogues, it is claimed, can have a substantial impact on the researchers involved as the public questioning helps them to rethink and recontextualize their ideas. However, in my case, the public questioning that followed the plenary interview had less of an impact on my thinking than the pre-interview discussion with Matthew Turner in the 2 months leading up to the interview because the questions asked by the audience were limited by comparison. And indeed, the public plenary interview itself was not completely spontaneous, as much planning and preparation went on beforehand. Thus, the bulk of the actual dialogue itself cannot be said to have taken place in public, although there were some spontaneous points of development within it.

284

M. W. Turner et al.

As noted earlier, Matthew, the interviewer, and I, the interviewee, entered into a heightened collaborative process by email, reviewing development since the first interview that had taken place in 2014. After I had sent Matthew an initial outline, detailing my recent research interests with information about professional changes in my career, Matthew sent me the first set of questions arranged into five thematic sections that also reflected understanding of the published work. In this process, I remember new connections coming to light between my published and emerging work that was becoming increasingly interdisciplinary as I was broaching new fields, having transferred from the Faculty of Culture and Education to the Faculty of Art and Regional Design at my university. An initial focus on dance as both a performing art and a form of non-verbal communication had surprisingly led to a focus on Alzheimer’s disease prevention as links between health issues and brain issues in relation to language learning emerged (see Chap. 5, this volume). This line of enquiry also opened up links with heritage management in relation to local mask dance, Menburyu, which is suffering in Japan’s aging society. As suggested in Chap. 6 (this volume), the nationalism underpinning native-speakerism may to some extent be overcome by unpicking nationalism itself by revealing the international roots of perceived national culture. While the facts may be lost in the mist of time, curiosity can be piqued by reviewing, for example, —Figs. 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3 presented in the plenary transcription. There seems to be no historical evidence to suggest that the design of the female Menburyu mask depicted in Fig. 12.3 was rooted in the King of Na gold seal knob from China presented in Fig. 12.1. Indeed, the origins of Menburyu tend to be attributed locally the Battle of Tadenawate (1530), harvest ritual, and/or legends about demons and gods. However, the similarity of the images (to my untrained eye) is undeniable, and this observation was made not by me, the teacher, but by a student, which highlights the potential role that students can play in bringing established local/regional/national history into question within a broader international social and historical context. As I mentioned in the plenary interview, Japan’s orally transmitted densho geino culture seems to be dying out, potentially allowing old historical links between Japan and other countries through the Silk Road to atrophy and be extinguished. If so, this extinction process may in turn serve to shore up the nationalist myth that Japan has unique culture by further closing down the psychological borders to otherness. To avoid this, and to help to place Japanese culture within its proper historical context, I am in favor of promoting the exploration of Japan’s ancient historical international roots, recognizing Japan’s world heritage where appropriate. I think people from outside Japan have an important role to play in this regard. Participation in the plenary interview helped me to come to this conclusion by helping me to connect my disparate parts of my various projects straddling two university faculties and I transitioned from one to the other engaging in interdisciplinary research in new fields. This process represents an ongoing, evolving dialogue within myself, an intraindividual dialogue, often catalyzed by and conducted with others. Through this process, I strive for both personal and social change, which involves learning from people who know more than me, and teaching people who know less than me,

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 285

generally following the guidelines of the intercultural dialogue model I developed during my doctoral studies (Houghton, 2012), which serves as my rule of thumb. Intellectualizing problematic social issues through academia helped me greatly in the long term in this regard, so highly recommend serious academic study of any serious problems one faces in life. Overall, then, participation in this plenary interview has helped me to clarify my views by enabling me to make important connections between various aspects of my work, developing disparate ideas into a more coherent whole as a new and bouncy springboard for the future.

12.5

Conclusion

The three parts of this chapter aimed to provide the reader with an example of how dialogue can lead to the disruption and development of ideas at a number of levels. Part 1 presented the perspective of the producers of the TEFLology Podcast, who see one of their roles as providing both a space for dialogue to take place and the questions to help that dialogue to breathe and speak for itself. As described, the preparation for the interview proved crucial, which also illustrates how each dialogue, and the way processes unfold, are unique. In this case, the interviewer/ interviewee’s history, the particular points that the interviewee wanted to cover, and the understanding that the dialogue was to take place in a public space, i.e. in the live presence of a broad group of language teaching practitioners, were all important factors. Part 2 was the interview itself, and while it is basically a record of what was said, its position in the center of the paper reflects its status as the artifact that this chapter itself is discussing, or that Turner, Schaefer, and Lowe, on the one hand, and Houghton, on the other, are entering into dialogue about. Indeed, Part 3 is Houghton’s response to the interview, but also an open reflection that takes in the many of the other concepts discussed in other chapters in this volume, the TEFLology Podcast as a format for sharing ideas, and what the whole process represents to those who took part in it. Dialogue, by its nature, features differences of opinion, which is one reason that interaction of the type described in this chapter is crucial for developing the ideas that affect our field.

References Aiyar, P. (2018). Bose of Nakamuraya. The Hindu. Retrieved December 7, 2019, from https://www. thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/bose-ofnakamuraya/article22661567.ece?fbclid=IwAR0Nhwy Bji7vphueim_SQI0AqtbeRxkR_f06oDLDhEswexrIh_QGPsUFeqA Bartels, N. (2003). How teachers and researchers read academic articles. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(7), 737–753. Birch, H., & Weitkamp, E. (2010). Podologues: Conversations created by science podcasts. New Media & Society, 12(6), 889–909.

286

M. W. Turner et al.

Borg, S. (2009). English language teachers’ conceptions of research. Applied Linguistics, 30, 358–388. Borg, S. (2014). The benefits of attending ELT conferences. ELT Journal, 69(1), 35–46. Buddhanet and Japan Buddhist Federation. (n.d.). Japanese Buddhism. Retrieved December 7, 2019, from http://www.buddhanet.net/nippon/nippon_partI.html? fbclid¼IwAR1vFCV7gN4Aq-Q1DxHq4TQq2IRAikd38fMAVM1KPM4LEwhOg0_XWJP8Z2M Carducci, R., Kuntz, A. M., Gildersleeve, R., & Pasque, P. A. (2011). The disruptive dialogue project: Crafting critical space in higher education. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 7(2), 1–20. Choi, S., & Richards, K. (2017). Interdisciplinary discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Clarke, M. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 9–26. Delplanque, J., Heleven, E., & Van Overwalle, F. (2019). Neural representations of groups and stereotypes using fMRI repetition suppression. Scientific Reports, 9, Article number: 3190. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39859-y Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ ccl030 Houghton, S. (2002). Gaikokujindewanai Gaikokujinkyoshi? All current foreign lecturers are foreign. Where are the non-foreign foreign lecturers? Forum: Journal of the University of Kitakyushu Union, Issue 23. Houghton, S. A. (2012). Intercultural dialogue in practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A., & Hashimoto, K. (2018). Towards post-native-speakerism: Dynamics and shifts. Singapore: Springer. Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (Eds.). (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Houghton, S. A., Rivers, D. J., & Hashimoto, K. (2018). Beyond native-speakerism: Current explorations and future visions. London: Routledge. Hughes, B. (2010). Socrates – A man for our times. The Guardian. Retrieved December 5, 2019, from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/oct/17/socrates-philosopher-man-for-our-times Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2016). The non-native English speaker teachers in TESOL movement. ELT Journal, 70(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv076 Kiczkowiak, M., & Lowe, R. J. (2018). Teaching English as a lingua franca: The journey from EFL to ELF. Stuttgart: DELTA Publishing. Kinkaid, E., Emard, K., & Senanayake, N. (2020). The podcast-as-method: Critical reflections on using podcasts to produce geographic knowledge. Geographical Review, 110, 78–91. Lehr, J. L., McCallie, E., Davies, S. R., Caron, B. R., Gammon, B., & Duensing, S. (2007). The value of “dialogue events” as sites of learning: An exploration of research and evaluation frameworks. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1467–1487. Llinares, D., Fox, N., & Berry, R. (2018). Introduction: Podcasting and podcasts. Parameters of a new aural culture. In D. Llinares, N. Fox, & R. Berry (Eds.), Podcasting: New aural cultures and digital media (pp. 1–13). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Lowe, R. J., & Kiczkowiak, M. (2016). Native-speakerism and the complexity of personal experience: A duoethnographic study. Cogent Education, 3(1), Article 1264171. Lowe, R. J., Schaefer, MY, & Turner, M. W. (2017). Podcasting and professional development: A guide for English language teachers. theround.com: the round. Maley, A. (2016). ‘More research is needed’ – A mantra too far? Humanizing Language Teaching, 18(3), 1755–9715. Medgyes, P. (2017). The (ir)relevance of academic research for the language teacher. ELT Journal, 71(4), 491–498. Nassaji, H. (2012). The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy: Teachers’ perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 337–365.

12

Towards the Undoing of Native-Speakerism through Dialogue: A Plenary Interview. . . 287

Paran, A. (2017). ‘Only connect’: Researchers and teachers in dialogue. ELT Journal, 71(4), 499–508. Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method—Why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161–176. Richardson, S. (2016, April). The ‘native factor’, the haves and the have-nots. Plenary presented at the IATEFL 2016 conference, Birmingham, UK. Rivers, D. J. (2018). The native-speaker criterion: Past traditions, current perspectives and future possibilities. In S. A. Houghton, D. J. Rivers, & K. Hashimoto (Eds.), Beyond nativespeakerism: Current explorations and future visions (pp. 13–98). London: Routledge. Schaefer, M. Y., Turner, M. W., & Lowe, R. J. (2018). Global educators, local connections. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & P. Bennett (Eds.), Language teaching in a global age: Shaping the classroom, shaping the world (pp. 15–22). Tokyo: JALT. http://jalt-publications.org/sites/ default/files/pdf-article/jalt2017-pcp-003.pdf Schilling, M. (2010). Darling wa gaikokijin. My darling is a foreigner. The Japan Times. Retrieved December 6, 2019, from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2010/04/16/films/film-reviews/ darling-wa-gaikokujin-my-darling-is-a-foreigner/#.Xen3c-gzbIU Spinelli, M., & Dann, L. (2019). Podcasting: The audio media revolution. New York: Bloomsbury. Swan, A., Aboshiha, P., & Holliday, A. (2015). (En)countering native-speakerism: Global perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Swiatek, L. (2018). The podcast as an intimate bridging medium. In D. Llinares, N. Fox, & R. Berry (Eds.), Podcasting: New aural cultures and digital media (pp. 173–187). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. The Foundation for Critical Thinking. (n.d.). Critical thinking: Where to begin. Retreived July 27, 2020, from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/criticalthinking-where-to-begin/796 Turner, M. W., Lowe, R. J., & Schaefer, M. Y., (Producers). (2014, November 26). TEFL Interviews 2: Stephanie Ann Houghton and Enric Llurda on native-speakerism [Audio podcast]. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://teflology-podcast.com/2014/10/08/tefl-interviews2-stephanie-ann-houghton-and-enric-llurda-on-native-speakerism/?fbclid¼IwAR2AfsgahLMQfpj9H4Ne2LHbRPVk_N5n9n_ssDJaBXTCO3k-q0ZS-hjy2k Turner, M. W., Lowe, R. J. & Schaefer M. Y., (Producers). (2019, September 11). TEFL Interviews 58: Stephanie Ann Houghton (PanSIG 2019) [Audio podcast]. Retrieved November 25, 2019, from https://teflology-podcast.com/2019/09/11/tefl-interviews-58-stephanie-ann-houghtonpansig-2019/ Turner, M. W., Schaefer, M. Y., Lowe, R. J., Alizadeh, M., Bao, D., & O’Loughlin, J. B. (2019). Diversity through interaction: An interview forum. In P. Clements, A. Krause, & P. Bennett (Eds.), Diversity and inclusion. JALT: Tokyo.