Role Shock and First Year University
English Classes in Japan

Allan GOODWININTRODUCTION
For students, beginning university studies involves entering a new educational culture, and new ‘ways of being’ (Jackson, 2008, p. 36). Most
students will use their accumulated experience as a guide for what is
expected. For university language teachers new to Japan or unfamiliar withthe educational culture, especially at the secondary level from which most
newly arrived university students have come, this paper may perhaps help
teachers to understand their students’ past experiences in a general way, andhave a positive influence on syllabi development and classroom practice.
The purpose of this article is to answer the question, “What are ways
in which role shock and otherness may impact Japanese students entering
university?” It is concerned with the dominant educational culture at thesecondary level and why it seems that when beginning English studies at
the tertiary level, some students have problems adjusting to the expectationsof language teaching at the university level, particularly by foreign-trainedteachers. It is in part a discussion of the dominant culture in Japan, inparticular the way in which secondary schools commonly treat people
who stand out in some way. It begins with defining ‘otherness’ and ‘role
shock’ before moving on to the phenomenon of describing Japanese culture― 85 ―

as a whole from within Japan for a Japanese audience, as well as brief
descriptions of specific aspects of Japanese culture for an outside audience,
including elements of its education system and work culture. This article willthen describe Japan’s traditional method of language teaching with whichmost students entering universities in Japan are familiar. It will conclude
with issues faced by groups of people who are ethnically Japanese but
may not be considered part of the norm, and they are othered in Japan.
Student worry about being othered in their new educational setting is amajor challenge for language teachers trained in English speaking countries.
Otherness and Role ShockAll cultures include ingrouping and outgrouping. Ting Toomey and Chung(as cited in Jackson, 2014) define the former as “people with whom you
feel connected to or owe a sense of loyalty and allegiance” (Jackson, 2014,p. 159) and Ting Toomey and Chung (as cited in Jackson, 2014) define
the latter as “those with whom one feels emotionally and psychologicallydetached” (Jackson, 2014, p. 159). Entering a new educational culturenecessitates that students evaluate what is important not only for themselves,
but for the culture in which they study. This constitutes role shock, which
Brynes (as cited in Jackson 2014) describe as being “characterized bylack of knowledge and confusion about the norms of behaviour in a new
culture (e.g. the social ‘rules’ of politeness, business etiquette)” (Jackson,
2014, p. 190). Jackson clarifies this by stating, “When you enter a new,unfamiliar situation you are apt to be exposed to roles and responsibilities
that diverge from what you are used to in your home environment” (Jackson,
2014, pp. 190-191). Foreign language teachers at universities in Japan may
be surprised at hesitance on the part of some students to become actively
involved in class, if these teachers have no experience with the secondary― 86 ―

education system in Japan.
In Japan, otherness is considered important and problematic becauseof the “theme of the homogeneity of Japan’s people” (Yamagami andTollefson, p. 28). Interculturalists describe cultures as falling somewhere
along a continuum between high-context cultures, in which “most of theinformation is communicated through indirect and nonverbal means witha reliance on mutually shared knowledge” (Jackson, 2014, p. 94), andlow-context cultures, which Hall (as cited by Jackson, 2014) describes ascultures in which “[m]ost of the information must be in the transmitted
message in order to make up for what is missing in the context” (Jackson,
2014, p. 95), meaning that “explicit verbal messages are the norm” (Jackson,
2014 p. 94). Japan is commonly referred to as having a high-context culture,
while the US, Anglo Canada and the UK have low-context cultures. In
high-context cultures such as Japan, people are not accustomed to asking
questions about expectations because members of high-context cultures are
assumed to have knowledge of that culture. Not having this knowledge
would mark someone as an outsider, or ‘other’. In Introducing Language
and Intercultural Communication, Jane Jackson uses other writers to help
describe the phenomenon of otherization or othering. It is described by
Abdallah-Pretceille (as cited in Jackson, 2014) as “the objectification ofanother person or group” (Jackson, 2014, p. 158). According to Holliday,
Dervin and Virkama (as cited in Jackson, 2014), “culture is used to account for all of the views and behaviours of ‘the other’, largely ignoring
the complexity and diversity of individual characteristics (e.g. thoughts,
emotions, actions)” (Jackson, 2014, pp. 158-159). Abdallah-Pretceille (ascited in Jackson, 2014) writes that “This leads to reductionalism or essentialism, that is ‘pretending that knowing the other takes place thoughknowing her culture as a static object” (Jackson, 2014, p. 159). Jackson― 87 ―

sums up this information with
Instead of seeing people from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds as individuals, in the eyes of an ethnocentric person, they
are merely representatives of a particular culture, and tied to a rigid
set of characteristics and behaviours. (Jackson, 2014, p. 159)
There is a great deal of difference in the roles and expectations of bothstudents and teachers when the secondary education system is comparedwith tertiary systems, at least as far as English education is concerned,
and an aspect of Japanese culture is to be aware of fitting in, of neverbeing different. In English education, the secondary school system and theuniversity systems are often not highly compatible and this, along with a
low-context culture, may increase the duration of role shock that students
experience.
The next section will explore attempts to define what it means to be
Japanese. All education systems attempt to instil the values of a culture,
though the individual family may play a greater role in doing this. Japaneseculture seems to be particularly interested in defining Japanese-ness.
DESCRIPTIONS OF JAPANESE CULTURE
Nihonjinron- Description of Japanese culture for a Japaneseaudience
The body of work written by Japanese people about what it means to be
Japanese is called nihonjinron. ‘Nihon’ means ‘Japan’, ‘jin” when attached
to a country name means ‘person from that country’ and ‘ron’ means‘1. theory; 2. opinion, argument’ (Naoko, 1995, p. 185). Nihonjinron is
described in Anthony J. Liddicoat’s, The ideology of interculturality inJapanese language-in-education policy as
A key dimension of Japanese ideologies of identity is ... Nihonjinron,― 88 ―

literally ‘the question of the Japanese people ... [it] can be seen
as an attempt to construct the parameters of a distinctive Japanesecultural and national identity. (Liddicoat, 2007, p. 4)
Japan is not the only country to try to define what it means to be partof the culture of the country. For example, degrees in Canadian Studies
offered by Canadian universities have a similar goal, although these degrees
tend to be interdisciplinary majors, which look at literature, art and history
among other things to enable learners to come to their own understanding.
Nihonjinron, which Liddicoat translates as “the question of the Japanesepeople” (Liddicoat, 2007, p. 4) is popularly thought of as a set of rules and[a] core element in Nihonjinron is that Japan is linguistically andculturally homogenous; that is, the Japanese are a homogenous people
who constitute a racially unified nation ... [t]his claim to singularity is
manifested through comparative generalization between ‘Westerners’
and the ‘Japanese’, with special properties being attributed to theJapanese brain, social customs and language. (Liddicoat, 2007, p. 4)
This greatly lowers the possibility of people risking embarrassment throughexpressing ideas that have not already been approved by someone seen to
be an authority figure. However, that risk taking is what communicative
language teaching demands, and that is the approach emphasized in graduate
qualifications in English Language Teaching in English speaking countries.
It is therefore the approach most familiar to the majority of foreign English
language teachers at the tertiary level.
In Language, Identity and Study Abroad, Jane Jackson writes
social identity accounts for ‘how different groups perceive theirown and others’ group membership identity issues. It is also aboutmarking ingroup/outgroup boundaries as well as majority/minority
group relations issues. (Jackson, 2008, p. 8)― 89 ―

Part of the issue with ‘otherness’ among Japanese people in Japan seems
to be a fear of tainting Japanese-ness with an outside culture, resulting notin an additional culture, but a loss of the Japanese culture because being
Japanese means being mono-cultural.
Attempts have been made to portray nihonjinron less negatively. Chizu
Sato translates nihonjinron as “Discussion of the Japanese” (Sato, 2004,
p. 212) and defines it as “the study or discussion of the nature of Japaneseculture, society and national character” (Sato, 2004, p. 212). She goes on to
explain that nihonjinron is a category under which “an enormous volume ofbooks and articles” falls under, that the sheer size of it indicates the extent
to which the Japanese population appreciates that nihonjinron is “not only
an area of study but also a social phenomenon” and that nihonjinron “arecertainly diverse in content and argument” (Sato, 2004, p. 212). Similar
to Liddicoat, she writes, “The message of most nihonjinron has been thatJapanese people, culture and society are unique in the world” (Sato, 2002,
p. 212). She goes on to review writers about nihonjnron who have looked
at it as an evolving story, akin to a historiography of it. This is an interesting way to approach the term because it shows changes occurring in theJapanese national identity through time.
While both Liddicoat and Sato refer to the importance or interest innihonjinron, Masamichi Sasaki (2004), concludes that Japan does not havea strong national identity. Sasaki concludes from surveys that importantcriteria to make a person Japanese are “having Japanese citizenship” andto “regard oneself as Japanese”. The writer comments, “these responses
reflect more civic-type attitudes than ethnic-type attitudes” (Sasaki, 2004,
p. 83). A basic problem with this survey is that Japanese citizenship isbased on ethnic rather than civic qualities, as shown in the introduction to
Blood Relatives: Language, Immigration and Education of Ethnic Returnees― 90 ―

in Germany and Japan by Debora Hinterliter Ortloff and Christopher J.
Frey with,
These countries’ immigration and citizenship policies have traditionally been based on jus sanguinis, the principle that one’s nationality at birth is the same as that of one’s biological parents. Theseboundaries of nationality and citizenship close the door to many
long-term non-national residents ... but create openings for “ethnic”
immigrants whose ancestors may have left hundreds of years ago ...
[such as] the return of large numbers of Aussiedler and Nikkeijin toGermany and Japan, respectively. (Ortloff & Frey, 2007, pp. 447-448)
Although identification with a nationality and citizenship seem to naturally
go together, and this would make Sato’s survey innocuous, the Ortloff andFrey article shows that this is not necessarily the case.
Descriptions of the work culture and education of Japan foran outside audience
International trade and competition created a need to understand Japan. A
business journal that publishes articles in business areas such as marketing,sums up the particular interest in Japan in the article, Japanese National
Culture as a Basis for Understanding Japanese Business Practices:
To understand Japanese competitors, Western managers must closely
examine the basic national culture of Japan. When this is accomplished, actions of Japanese competitors become clearer, and theappropriate responses to these actions become more evident. (Ford& Honeycutt, 1992, p. 33)
As a business article aimed at American managers, it concludes with recommendations for working with Japanese people which come from “four basic
cultural elements” (Ford & Honeycutt, 1992, p. 33). The first of these is― 91 ―

“Process is often more important to the Japanese than end results.” (Ford& Honeycutt, 1992, p. 33). The second is, “The Japanese organization
is more important than the individual. Don’t push” (Ford & Honeycutt,
1992, p. 33). The third is, “Structure, status and harmony are all extremely
important. In Japan, there is a well-defined chain of command” (Ford &Honeycutt, 1992, p. 33). Finally, the fourth is “Japanese firms are committed
for the long term” (Ford & Honeycutt, 1992, p. 33). The dominant cultureof any country informs its business culture. This article is by non-Japanesepeople and targeted at a non-Japanese audience with the goal of helping
the readership understand, and possibly work with, Japanese companies.
Ford and Honeycutt’s “four basic cultural elements” do not seem todiverge from descriptions of the Japanese education system. In an article
describing Japan and its education system in business terms, Yoshiaki Obara,
Vice-President of Tamagawa University in Tokyo describes the education
system in Japan as being based on three elements. The first is, “Schools are
known for producing uniform and norm-conforming adults” (Desjardins andObara, 1993, p. 69). The second is “Schools teach the value of competition,or the fear of losing to ones’ rivals” (Desjardins and Obara, 1993, p. 69).
The third is “Japan is a society based on seniority or authoritarianism; so isschool operation” (Desjardins and Obara, 1993, p. 69). Education systems
instill values that individuals bring with them out into the world. In thecase of secondary school graduates, that world may be the workforce or
it may be the tertiary education system. Obara’s elements of the Japanese
education system can be viewed as the training people receive to enable
them succeed in the work culture and environment described by Ford andHoneycutt’s four basic cultural elements.
It is obvious that being different would be problematic in such a system,
one that actively maintains a hierarchal system and in which the creation of― 92 ―

individual ideas may not be emphasized. This system can lead to difficulties
in university classrooms for teachers not familiar with the Japanese education system. Students would be expected to function in English language
classes in a manner expected of language teaching methodology textbooks,
which seem to assume that each learner is highly autonomous. However,both Obara and Ford and Honeycutts’ elements seem to be opposed to thisand as will be seen in the next section, the majority of Japanese students
in high schools are accustomed to a teacher-centered class.
JAPAN’S TRADITIONAL METHOD OF LANGUAGE TEACHING
The traditional method of language instruction in Japan is called yakudoku.
Yaku means ‘translation’ and doku means ‘reading’ (Norris, 1994, p. 25).
Norris cites Hino (1988) in defining yakudoku asa technique or a mental process for reading a foreign language inwhich the target language sentence is first translated word by word,
and the resulting translation reordered to match Japanese word orderas part of the process of reading comprehension. (Norris, 1994, p. 25)
This is usually what foreigners see when they are in Japanese secondaryclassrooms. In Japanese EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Communicative,
Audiolingual and Yakudoku Activities: the Plan Versus the Reality, Greta
Gorsuch explains that in post-war Japan of the late 1940’s and early 1950’s,
there were very few English language teachers in Japan:
As a result of post-war teacher education policies designed to quickly
increase the number of certified teachers in all fields, large numbersof college graduates who were not proficient in spoken English
were made English teachers at secondary schools as a ‘stop gap’measure. (Gorsuch, 2001, p. 4)
Japan’s education system is marked by a training method where new― 93 ―

teachers do what the more experienced teachers tell them to, which is
the method they themselves learned when they were new teachers. So it
could be said that language teaching in Japan is reliant on a behaviorism
in language teaching philosophy that is implemented through yakudoku andaudiolingualism. It is structuralist as opposed to functionalist in its viewof language. It is a system that is highly resistant to change from withinand seems highly consistent with the elements described by both Ford andHoneycutt, and Desjardins and Obara.
Japan, as well as other Asian countries, has a Confucian tradition in
education that makes it very different in fundamental approach than thatof western countries. As with teacher training itself, the emphasis is on
repeating what those higher up in the hierarchy (such as a teacher or awork superior) have said as opposed to developing an individual thinking
style and argumentation. In Confucian and Socratic discourse in the tertiary
classroom, Scollon (1999) points out that in Confucian education systems,“Students most often expect a teacher to answer her own questions, and it
may feel like pulling teeth to get a student to answer a question unless hereally believes it is an open question” (Scollon, 1999, p. 19). This is an
accurate description of teaching in a Japanese high school. Scollon continues,
Rather than a midwife who helps give birth to a truth that lies
within, he [Confucius] is a messenger who transmits the wisdom of
the ancients. Instead of invoking an internal authority, he has been
seen as providing his students with an external authority, though hefrequently tells them to think for themselves. (Scollon, 1999, p. 20)
In describing the role of the teacher, Scollon paraphrases Chen (1990)
writing,
The role of the teacher is to serve as a role model, to perfect virtue
and assist in the development of talent, to answer questions, and to― 94 ―

cultivate his own virtue and learning while encouraging students todo the same. (Scollon, 1990, p. 20)
In this kind of situation, the teacher can never be unsure, and therefore
must always be in complete control of the class so as to never stray into
unfamiliar territory. The view of language and learning is very traditional
and it is teacher-led because student-led classes are much more likely tostray into unfamiliar territory.
By contrast, language-teaching professionals trained in inner circle English
speaking countries (defined as “the traditional basis of English – the regions
where it is the primary language – The USA ... the UK ... Canada ... Australia... and New Zealand” (Kachru, 2006, p. 242)) are taught to teach in a largely
communicative manner, which can be quite different than traditional views
on language and learning. In a section titled ‘Communicative Language
Teaching’, Nunan and Lamb (2001) point out the “difference [between‘traditional’ and ‘communicative’ classrooms] lies not in the rigid adherence to one particular approach or the other, but in the basic orientation”(Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 32). These authors juxtapose ‘traditionalism’and ‘communicative language’ approaches to teaching in eight different
categories: i) theory of language; ii) theory of learning; iii) objectives;iv) syllabus; v) activities; vi) role of learner; vii) role of teacher, and viii)
role of materials. In the first of these, theory of language, the traditionalview is of language as “a system of rule-governed structures hierarchicallyarranged” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31) whereas communicative language
teaching views language as “a system for the expression of meaning [its]primary function [is] interaction” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31). In thesecond category, theory of learning, the traditional view is of learning
as “habit formation” whereas in communicative language teaching uses
“activities [that] involve real communication” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001,― 95 ―

p. 31). In the third category, objectives, the traditional view is that thelearners attempt to gain “control of the structures of sound, form and order[as well as] mastery over symbols of the language” (Nunan and Lamb,
2001, p. 31) so as to eventually gain “native speaker mastery” (Nunan andLamb, 2001, p. 31), whereas the objectives of communicative language
teaching “will reflect the needs of the learner” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001,
p. 31) and “will include functional skills as well as linguistic objectives”(Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31). In the fourth category, syllabus, the traditional approach is to have a “graded syllabus of phonology, morphology,
and syntax” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31) whereas the approach from
communicative language teachers is to have “some or all of the following:
structures, functions, notions, themes and tasks” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001,
p. 31). The writers go on to say that the ordering of the syllabus “willbe guided by learner needs” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31). In the fifth
category, activities, traditionalists use “dialogues and drills” (Nunan andLamb, 2001, p. 31), emphasizing “repetition and memorization [as wellas] pattern practice” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31), whereas activities
by communicative language teachers “engage learners in communication”(Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31), and “involve processes such as information
sharing, negotiation of meaning and interaction” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001,
p. 31). In the sixth category, role of learner, the traditional view is one of
the leaner as an “organism that can be directed by skilled training techniques
to produce correct responses” whereas for communicative language teachers,
the learner is seen as a “negotiator [and] interactor [who] giv[es] as well
as tak[es]” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31). In the seventh category, roleof teacher, the traditional view is that the teacher is “central and active[with a] teacher dominated method” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31). The
teacher “provides [the] model [and] controls direction and pace” (Nunan― 96 ―

and Lamb, 2001, p. 31) whereas in communicative language teaching, theteacher’s role is one of “facilitator of the communication process, needs
analyst, counselor [and] process manager” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31).
In the final category, role of materials, the traditional view is that materials
are “primarily teacher oriented” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31) while incommunicative language teaching, “[the] primary role [of materials is in]promoting communicative language use” (Nunan and Lamb, 2001, p. 31).
From this, it can be seen that there is a difference in the fundamental approach to education in western countries when compared to places wheretraditional teaching methods are still common, such as in Japanese highschools. This difference contributes greatly to the experience of role shockthat freshmen English majors encounter when they begin university studies,
especially since for many Japanese students, it may be the first time they
have had courses taught entirely by foreign teachers.
Students first entering university in Japan are often expected to freely
express their opinions about many different subjects in English classes,
especially those conducted by foreign trained language teaching professionals. This can be problematic for many students in part because expressing
an opinion that is different than what is expected could mark them asother. They do not know what the expected answer is because they are in
an entirely new situation. Hiding opinions, or even culture, that does notmatch that of seemingly everybody else is a concept known as honne andtatemae (private versus public stance),
For many people, one’s words and actual intentions do not always
agree; in these situations in Japan, one’s superficial words and calledtatemae while one’s actual intentions are called honne ... the Japanesepeople make use of it extensively, taking honne and tatemae for
granted because it is considered a virtue not to directly express one’s― 97 ―

real feelings and intentions. (Davies & Ikeno, 2002, pp. 115-116)
One of the themes of communicative language teaching is for students
to talk about their opinions and feeling because content material may bedifficult for students and it is assumed that discussing themselves is easierthan content for students. The idea is that teachers are therefore able toconcentrate on language instead of content teaching. Honne and tatamaeshows that discussing their own opinions is not necessarily easy for students
new to university studies in Japan because their own opinion may be different from that of others and that could be a threat to their ability to fit
in. As this article has shown, being different and therefore not fitting in isparticularly problematic in Japanese culture.
As examples of difference in Japan, the next section will show people
who are ethnically Japanese, but who have significant experience outsideof Japan, ranging from a protracted stay while children to having beenborn outside of Japan to parents who were also born outside of Japan.
These people may or may not be “uniform and norm-conforming” (Desjardin & Obara, 1993, p. 69) when compared with Japanese people without
extensive experience overseas. Reactions to these groups, unfortunately,show a tendency towards making assumptions, which was noted earlier
in describing otherization and othering as a situation in which “[people]
are merely representatives of a particular culture, and tied to a rigid set ofcharacteristics and behaviours” (Jackson, 2014, p. 159). On the other hand,
Japan was also seen to have a high-context culture, in which “most of theinformation is communicated through indirect and nonverbal means witha reliance on mutually-shared knowledge” (Jackson, 2014, p. 94). Japan
was also seen to value “structure, status and harmony” (Ford & Honeycutt,
1992, p. 33) and to have “a society based on seniority or authoritarianism”(Desjardins & Obara, 1993, p. 69). Japan was shown to educate people in― 98 ―

a Confucian system in which teachers “serve as ... role model[s]” (Scollon,
1990, p. 20) and so it is a situation in which authority figures are reluctant
to stray into unknown territory. Avoidance of dealing with the unfamiliar,
in this case the ‘other’, is a face-saving tactic.
The following section attempts to show through example why Japanese
freshmen university students worry about not integrating with the scholastic
culture of university English classes, particularly those by foreign instructors.
It exemplifies a problem that language instructors face: although there is ahigh level of anxiety about difference in Japanese culture, the tertiary studyof English- and particularly in classes taught by professionals trained in
inner-circle English speaking countries- pays particular attention to difference and learning “new ways of being” (Jackson, 2008, p. 36).
JAPANESE RETURNEES
Nikkeijin
Nikkeijin means “Japanese descendant born and raised outside of Japan”(Tsuda, 2003, p. 289). Tsuda notes that “the Japanese media exoticize thenikkeijin as ethnic curiosities who do not fit the Japanese notion that thoseof Japanese descent should be culturally Japanese as well” (Tsuda, 2003,
p. 289). As mentioned earlier, “boundaries of nationality and citizenship... create openings for “ethnic” immigrants whose ancestors may have left
hundreds of years ago ... [such as] the return of large numbers of ... Nikkeijin
to ... Japan” (Ortloff & Frey, 2007, p. 448). Tsuda points out, however,
Most of the Japanese Brazilian return migrants are second and third
generation (nisei and sansei) and no longer culturally Japanese. Therefore, despite their Japanese descent, they are treated as foreigners
in Japan because of the narrow definition of what constitutes being
Japanese. (p. 289)
― 99 ―

Tsuda later writes, “[b]ecause many nikkeijin are unable to meet Japanese
ethnic expectation ... they are stigmatized as ‘inadequate Japanese’” (Tsuda,
2003, p. 293). Asakura, Gee, Nakayama and Niwa (2008) describe media
portrayals of Japanese Brazilians in Japan as follows:[t]hey are often stereotyped as ignorant, dirty, and culturally inferiorand seen as failures for emigrating from Japan. Many are evenseen as double failures (regardless of whether they were first- or
later-generation emigrants) for migrating back to Japan as laborers.
(Asakura, Gee, Nakayama & Niwa, 2008, p. 743)
A partial explanation for this stigmatization may be the “narrow definitionof what constitutes being Japanese” (Tsuda, 2003, p. 289), the high-context
culture based on a rigid hierarchy, andIn Japan, racial descent is of primary importance in the definitionof Japanese ethnic and national identity ... and takes precedence
over culture as the foremost criterion determining who is Japanese
because those who “look Japanese” are assumed to be culturally
Japanese as well ... Japanese culture is assumed to be transmitted
through family socialization to those of Japanese descent regardlessof national boundaries. (Tsuda, 2003, p. 292)
Just as the educational culture and work culture were shown to be resistant
to change, the assumption of Japanese culture being “transmitted throughfamily socialization” is an assumption that peoples’ individual and familial
cultures do not change. It seems related to the Confucian education systemdescribed earlier. Language teachers trained in sociolinguistics are usuallywell aware of the connection between language and culture. However,returnees’ inability to speak their ancestral language is consistently
offered as the primary reason for their lack of integration ... thisnarrow focus on language emerges as the premiere means of distanc― 100 ―ing the ethnic returnees from the “real” natives. (Ortloff and Frey,
2007, p. 448)
With no language policy specifically for nikkeijin (Ortloff & Frey, 2007,
p. 448) despite Latin American nikkeijin having “become the second largest
group of foreigners in Japan after the Korean Japanese” (Tsuda, 2003,
p. 289), it is difficult not to view the focus on linguistics as merely an
excuse.
All of this relates to the earlier discussion of nihonjinron. It is relevant
to role shock in Japanese university freshmen because of the public interestin ‘others’. In pluralistic societies such as those in the inner circle English
speaking countries, difference is taken for granted and the Socratic systems ofeducation emphasize individual expression and argumentation. Expectationsof new students and teachers who are new to Japan will differ enormously.
This article will conclude with kikokushijo, students in the k-12 sector
who spent a significant amount of time outside of Japan because of thework requirements of their parents, and issues that they face. For many
language teachers, the goal of communicative language teaching is forlearners to be able to go overseas and thrive in another language andculture. It is a goal of helping instil internationalism. Although younger
than freshmen university students, kikokushijo have achieved that, to varying levels, albeit from outside of Japan through a total immersion style oflearning. While they were in secondary school, some university freshmen
may have personally observed issues that kikokushijo face, or they may
have simply heard through others.
Kikokushijo
The issues that kikokushijo (boys and girls returning to Japan) face issummed up in a magazine article from The Economist,― 101 ―

Internationalisation, or ‘kokusaika,’ as the Japanese call it, is claimingsome innocent victims: Japanese children who live abroad because
their parents work there, and who then become too gaijin, too foreign,
to be accepted back home ... [teachers and employers] tend to shunthem as potential troublemakers, outspoken individuals just like thegenuine gaijin. (The Economist, 1992, p. 33)
The article concludes with a common approach to remedying the issue ofthe kikokushijo,
The Hinoki company, which runs juku [cram schools] in New York,Singapore, Hong Kong and London, tries to instil properly Japanese
virtue, advising the pupil who returns to Japan to be “quiet and calm,
eating rice cakes with his family and not going to noisy parties withdrinks and music”. (The Economist, 1992, p. 33)
Being outspoken, or at least willing to share one’s opinion, is often thoughtof as an important aspect in successful language learning. Given the source,
a popular magazine about Economics, part of the reason for the interestin this subject, at least from non-Japanese sources, is apparent- when thisarticle was published, Japan was seen as a powerful economy.
The kikokushijo are perceived as being too direct. It seems that concern
about the kikokushijo is related to a loss of honne and tatamae, hiding
their true opinions. Their ability to integrate with the mainstream societyis the greatest concern because of the strict hierarchal structures in Japan.
It is not their ability in Japanese language, but the manner in which they
use the language. It is about their appropriate use of register in a sociallyconservative and hierarchal country.
The kikokushijo issue can be viewed as an anxiety over their ability
to adapt to the environment. They may even be discouraged from using
English at all. In a section called ‘Interpersonal Styles’ in Louise H. ­Kidder’s― 102 ―

Requirements for being Japanese, she notes thatJapanese students who live abroad learn to speak directly of theirown feelings and opinions and this creates problems at home.
Returnees discover either by example or through explicit instruction
how unacceptable their directness is. Some describe how they learned
to restrain themselves, but they retain the memory of what it was
like to say what they felt. (Kidder, 1992, p. 386)
And goes on to show some of the returnees’ voices:
In New Jersey they speak out what you really think, what you like,dislike. But in Japan what I said, “I like’ or “I dislike,” when I spoke
really clearly, they thought that is rude. They said, “you can thinkthat in your mind, but shouldn’t say that. It’s rude.”...
When I was in first year of high school, I was not as nice as theordinary Japanese level ... [t]hey always say things around ... lookat the other person’s face and be as polite as they can ... go around.
Here you have to hold down a little bit what you want to say.
(Kidder, 1992, p. 387)
All of these support the notion that the kikokushijo have difficulties when
they return to Japan. With “they retain the memory of what it was like to
say what they felt”, Kidder touches on an important issue- these students
no longer see Japan the way other Japanese people do because of theirexperience. It is not just a matter of readjusting to a stricter society.
A study about criticism styles, Adjustment of criticism styles in Japanese
returnees to Japan, agrees with returnees’ voices,Japanese returnees follow Japanese cultural norms and even interacted
in a more indirect manner than did Japanese, contradicting previous
notions ... We interpret this over-adjustment as Japanese returnees’― 103 ―

attempt at self-protection from rejection ... Though they need toreduce the gap between their style and that of other Japanese, thesefindings indicate that Japanese returnees gain bicultural communication skills and may even overcompensate when engaging in theirhome culture. (Takeuchi, Imahori & Matsumoto, 2001, p. 325)
This seems to support Yasuko Kanno’s idea put forth in Kikokushijo as
Bicultural that society’s emphasis on their shortcomings contributes to the
kikokushijo’s alienation (Kanno, 2000, p. 362). It seems probable that they
are studied more closely than other Japanese students because their different
experiences mark them as the ‘other’.
If the students have been gone for several years they may find that Japan
itself is not the same. These returnees face an issue explained by Yasuko
Kanno with,As the saying goes, “the nail that sticks out gets hammered down”;
kikokushijo’s different behaviours and ways of thinking have led tonumerous incidents of ostracism and bullying in Japanese schools.
(Kanno, 2000, p. 362)
Students feel pressured to fit in with the rest of the students, and theassimilation requires that they hide their differences. These students face
problems because they are perceived as being different from other Japanese
students. Rather than recognizing them as now having a slightly different
culture and that difference as positive rather than negative, as expected ina multicultural country like Canada, the assumption is that they need to‘fit in’ once again. This relates back to Obara’s elements of the Japanese
education system in that these people do not conform to the norm. For
university English language teachers, the types of things being shown asproblematic are the very traits desired in communicative language classes.
This must have an effect on the affective barrier of students entering uni― 104 ―versity English studies and therefore it is a challenge for foreign language
teachers in Japan who were trained to use the communicative approachin language teaching.
CONCLUSION
This article tried to answer the question “What are ways in which otherness may impact students experiencing role shock while entering English
language studies at the tertiary level in Japan?” The answer is that otherness
may have a huge impact on the lives of students in Japan prior, during andafter arriving at the university level. Accepting difference is not seen as
being necessary in Japan, although it is often emphasized in communicative
language classrooms. In explaining this, this article looked first at the conceptof identity within the Japanese context, and a core concept of Nihonjinron
being that Japan is different than other nations. It then described Japan’s
education system and traditional language teaching method in relation to
those of inner-circle English speaking nations. It finally used nikkeijin andkikokushijo to illustrate reactions by those in authority to difference. Allof this impacts the affective barrier of students entering English studies
at the tertiary level and how comfortable they may be in communicative
language classrooms. As ELT professionals, we know that each of ourstudents is different and unique. In the Japanese context, it may take a
bit more patience and coaxing before students open up. The informationin this article is also useful for foreign teachers interested in the risingawareness of bullying in Japan in schools and in the workplace. Those
who are bullied are being othered because they stand out or are different
in some way from the majority.

― 105 ―

References
Asakura, Takashi, Gee, Gilbert C, Nakayama, Kazuhiro & Niwa, Sayuri (2008).
Returning to the “Homeland”: Work-Related Ethnic Discrimination and the Healthof Japanese Brazilians In Japan. American Journal of Public Health, 28(4), 743-750.
Cultural Divide. The Economist (1992, Feb. 8), 332(7745), 33-34.
Davies, R. & Ikeno O. (2002). The Japanese Mind. Boston: Tuttle Publishing.
Desjardins, Claude & Obara, Yoshiaki (1993) ‘From Quebec to Tokyo: Perspectives
on TQM’ Educational Leadership Vol. 51 Issue 1, pp 68-69.
Ford, J. & Honeycutt, Jr., E. (1992). Japanese National Culture as a Basis for Understanding Japanese Business Practices. Business Horizons, 35(6), 27-34.
Gorsuch, G. (2001). Japanese Teachers’ Perceptions of Communicative, Audiolingual
and Yakudoku Activities: The Plan versus the Reality. Educational Policy Analysis
Archives, 9(10). http://epaa.asa.edu/epaa/v9n10.html.
Harkins, L. (2001). Understanding the Acculturation Process for Kaigaishijo. The
Educational Forum, 65(4), 335-343.
Jackson, J. (2008). Language, Identity and Study Abroad. London: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
Jackson, J. (2014). Introducing Language and Intercultural Communication. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Kachru, B. (2006). Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism The English
language in the outer circle. In K/ Bottom and B. B. Kachru (Eds.) World Englishes
Critical Concepts in Linguistics Volume III, 241-269.
Kanno, Y. (2000). Kikokushijo as bicultural. International Journal of International
Relations, 24, 361-382.
Kanno, Y. (1997). Researcher-Participant Relationship in Narrative Enquiry. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED408355.pdf.
Kidder, L. (1992). Requirements for being “Japanese”. International Journal of International Relations, 16, 383-393.
Liddicoat, A. (2007). The Ideology of Interculturality In Japanese language-in- education policy. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(2), 20-36.
Norris, R. (1994). Getting Students More Personally Involved: An Alternative to theYakudoku and Lecture-Dominated methods of Teaching Literature and Reading.
Fukuoka Women’s Junior College Studies, 48, 25-38.

― 106 ―

Nunan, D. & Lamb, C. (2001) Managing the Learning Process. In D. R. Hall &A. Hewings (Eds.), Innovation in English language teaching: A reader, 27-45.
London: Routledge.
Ortloff, D.H. & Frey, C. J. (2007) Blood Relatives: Language, Immigration and
Education of Ethnic Returnees in Germany and Japan. Comparative Education
Review, 51(4) 447-470.
Sasaki, M. (2004). Globalization and National Identity in Japan, International Journalof Japanese Sociology, 13(1), 69-87.
Sato, C. (2004). Education for international understanding in Japan: Japanese selfidentification and the discourse of internationalization after the Second World War,Intercultural Education, 15(2), 209-219.
Scollon, S. (1999). Not to waste words or students: Confucian and Socratic discoursein the tertiary classroom. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teachingand Learning 13-27. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sussman, N. (1986). Re-entry research and training: Methods and Implications, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 235-254.
Takeuchi, S., Imahori, T. & Matsumoto, D. (2001). Adjustment of criticism styles
in Japanese returnees to Japan. International Journal of International Relations,25, 315-327.
Tsuda, T. (2003). Domesticating the Immigrant Other: Japanese Media Images of
Nikkeijin Return Migrants. Ethnology: An International Journal of Cultural andSocial Anthropology, 24(4), 289-305.
Yamagami, M. and Tollefson, J. (2011). Elite Discourses of Globalization in Japan: theRole of English. In Seargeant, P. (Ed.) English in Japan in the Era of Globalization.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

― 107 ―