Globalization and language teaching

This week’s readings included Kubota’s The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan and World Englishes and the Teaching of Writing by Matsuda and Matsuda.

Kubota’s article recognizes the effects globalization has on Japan today. Kubota points out two growing trends in Japan. First he discusses Americanization, how today many American values and customs can be found in Japan. He also discusses an increase in nationalism.  So how does globalization, the influence of cultures outside of Japan affect language learning and language teaching? 

Kubota looks at three dimensions of language learning and teaching in Japan related to globalization first, ethnic linguistic and cultural diversity in local communities and second the prevalence of English. Both of these dimensions threaten national identity and lead to Kubota’s third dimension- nationalism endorsed by linguistic and cultural essentialism, a resistances to Anglicization. Can what Kubota talks about in these three dimension be applied to the U.S.?? What affects could this have on language policy?

Japan is actually a very ethnically and linguistically diverse country and continues to grow.  I thought the term “Koskusaika” was very interesting. Kokusaika means understanding people and culture in international communities via social cultural and educational opportunities. Kokusaika embraces globalization, transforms social and institutional conventions and adapts from the effects globalization has. While this idea embraces globalization it does not embrace total assimilation into the western culture, instead it seeks to maintain Japanese identity and share it with the world. I think there is very important for countries and communities affected by globalization. How can groups of individuals embrace globalization without costing them their own identity? How can you promote the assimilation into a different culture while retaining your own values and identity? While kokusaika attempts to claim power in globalization Kubota points out that it also tends to neglect the diversity within Japan in language education policies and practices.

The article discusses a few reforms in recent years and their effects on the learning English in Japan. The educational reform from the 1980s pushed by Rinji Kyoiku Shingikai believed that students needed to learn English to think in a “linear” English logic. Reforms like this one can have a profound effect on Japanese culture and the perception of English.  The article went into detail about English as a foreign language, how the model for English is seen as being standard North American or British varieties , how learning English leads to an international, intercultural understanding and how national identity is fostered through English that while moving towards English a national identity can still be maintained.  Kubota discusses some perceptions of English in Japan today. A he discusses how there is a strong feeling that being a bilingual speaker of Japanese and English is a good thing while being a bilingual speaker of Japanese and another language is not as appreciated. This ideal English/Japanese bilingual child is promoted within the school system.

 Another point that stuck out to me is an idea that English language teachers must be white and American to teach the “correct” form for English. Kubota mentions the problems some teachers face by not “fitting” this idea. One Australian woman was asked to lose her accent and speak Standard English. This results in racist practices in hiring English teachers within the country. Do we do this with languages other than English here in the U.S? How about our perceptions of non-native English speaking English professors? For those of you who plan on teaching English as a foreign language, how do you feel about this?

Kubota also discuss how learning English increases international and intercultural understanding, stating that it builds bridge across multiple cultures. However, he believes learning English with an emphasis on inner circle white middle class varieties does not. Instead this promotes a narrow view of the world’s cultures and essentialized images.

The Matsuda &Matsuda article, discusses the dominance of English around the world. English is not a one size fits all but World English is much more complex. Some argue that we need to teach a variety appropriate for different local contexts.  The use of English vary depending on where and function.  The traditional model of teaching one single target variety is not appropriate. This does not only apply for spoken English but writing as well.  I liked how the article stated teachers are not left with no choice but to impose dominant varieties. It suggested that while you teach dominant codes and conventions, you can help your students understand the different varieties. That some deviations are more marked than others and some are important to social meaning. Your job does not have to be imposing this one single “World English” but to teach your students to better understand the English as language and evolves.

This suggestion is followed with a few others to incorporate in your future classrooms. “Teaching the boundary between what works and what does not”- helping students understand the boundary, variations and the errors in contexts. “Teaching principles and strategies of discourse negotiation”- teaching whats acceptable and unacceptable in a given concept.  “Teaching the risks involved in using deviation features”- discussing the issue of power. Students should be encouraged to understand how language is complex in writing and speaking. It is our job as language teachers, when working with non-native English speakers to help our students understand the language, embrace the complexity of English and prepare them for globalization, and various language-contact situations.