Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the English Language Education Society of Japan
日本英語教育学会第 41 回年次研究集会論文集

Language Attitudes of Japanese University Students Toward Japanese English－A Proposal for English Education－
Mariko TAKAHASHI
Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University
Nihonmatsu-cho, Yoshida, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto-shi, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan
E-mail: takahashi.mariko.76z@st.kyoto-u.ac.jp
Abstract The purpose of this study is to investigate the language attitudes of Japanese university students toward JapaneseEnglish in comparison to their attitudes toward Chinese English and American English. Voiced Guise Technique andquestionnaires were used as methodology, having 80 students as participants. The study found that their evaluation ofJapanese English was intermediate in terms of solidarity, yet negative in terms of status. In addition, motivations for learning
English and preference for English teachers showed some correlation with language attitudes. Based on the findings, thispaper suggests that a pluralistic view of Englishes should be promoted in English education in Japan.
Keywords Language attitude, Japanese English, Voiced Guise Technique, English education
概要 本研究の目的は、日本人の話す英語(日本英語)に対する日本人大学生の言語態度を、中国英語とアメリカ
英語に対する言語態度と比較して検討することである。日本人大学生 80 名を対象に、ヴォイストガイズ・テクニ
ックと質問紙を用いて検証を行った。因子分析の結果、言語態度は、親近感や一体感を示すソリダリティと、社会における地位に関する認識を示すステータスの 2 つの側面に分けられた。日本人大学生は日本英語に対して、ソ
リダリティ面では中間的な態度を抱き、ステータス面では否定的な態度を抱いていることが分かった。さらに、英語学習への動機や英語教師に対する志向と言語態度の間には、ある程度の相関がみられた。これらの結果から、日本での英語教育において、英語の多様性を伝えることの必要性が示唆された。
キーワード 言語態度、日本英語、ヴォイストガイズ・テクニック、英語教育
1.

Introduction
The English language, which started as a language
spoken by several million people in England, has now
become an international language. According to Crystal(2003), the number of people who have adequate level ofEnglish skill for communication has reached around 25% of
the population of the world (p. 69). There are more people
who speak English as their second or foreign language thanthose who speak it as their first language (Jenkins, 2009, p.
4). With its spread worldwide, “nativization andacculturation” (Kachru & Smith, 2009, p. 3) of English
have been occurring. Distinct characteristics have developed,
and English has become “Englishes” as a consequence.
Reflecting and reinforcing its spread, English has
been taught as an important subject worldwide, especiallyin higher education. Japan is no exception to this trend. Inclasses, target models have been either American English or
British English (Yoshikawa, 2005, p. 351; Matsuda, 2009, p.
173), and Japanese students have a tendency to hope to use
English like British or American speakers (Matsuda, 2003,
p. 489). Despite these target models and preferences,
English used by Japanese people tends to havecharacteristic features concerning pronunciation inparticular. For one thing, their native language, Japanese, islikely to influence their performance in English. Moreover,many English teachers in Japan are native speakers ofJapanese, who are speakers of English influenced by theJapanese language. As a result, as Honna (2006) argues, themost likely outcome of current English education in Japan
could be users of “Japanese English” (pp. 161-164).
In addition, with the acceleration of globalization,
Japanese people have increasing opportunities to heardifferent Englishes including non-native Englishes such as
Chinese English. As such occasions emerge, a question
arises as to what attitudes Japanese students hold towardvarious Englishes. Language attitude is an importantsociolinguistic concept (see Cargile, Giles, Ryan, & Bradac,
1994; Holmes, 2008). As Garrett (2010) observes, people’s
language attitude is directed at every element of language (p.
2). Language attitudes of students are closely related tolanguage learning (Lai, 2005), and their attitudes toward
Englishes could potentially affect their learning of English.
If Japanese English is the most likely outcome of today’s
English education in Japan, as Honna claims (2006, pp.
161-164), then Japanese students’ attitudes to JapaneseEnglish need to be studied. Accordingly, it is imperative toMariko Takahashi, "Language Attitudes of Japanese University Students toward Japanese English,"日本英語教育学会第 41 回年次研究集会論文集, pp. 27-34, 日本英語教育学会編集委員会編集, 早稲田大学情報教育研究所発行, 2012 年 3 月 31 日.
This proceedings compilation published by the Institute for Digital Enhancement of Cognitive Development, Waseda University.
Copyright © 2011-12 by Mariko Takahashi.
All rights reserved.

increase of interaction between Japan and China.

investigate attitudes of Japanese learners of English towarddifferent Englishes, including Japanese English.
However, there have only been a limited number ofstudies on Japanese students’ attitudes toward JapaneseEnglish. Chiba, Matsuura, and Yamamoto (1995), which
was based on Matsuura, Chiba, and Yamamoto (1994) was
one of the earliest studies in the field. They comparedJapanese university students’ attitudes toward English
accents of the UK, the USA, Japan, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka,
and Malaysia. A questionnaire about language learning was
also conducted to investigate the relationship between
language attitudes and language learning. However, in the
study, attitude was treated as a single-dimensional concept.
Moreover, Japanese university students’ attitudes towarddifferent Englishes could have shifted in the 15 years since
this study. In addition, Chinese English, which has shown
rapid development recently, was not involved in Chiba et al.
(1995).
McKenzie (2008 a, b) are two of the recent studies on
Japanese students’ language attitudes. The studies
investigated Japanese university students’ attitudes toward
American, British, and Japanese English along the twodimensions of status and solidarity. This research provided
quantitative as well as qualitative information on Japanese
students’ attitudes toward English varieties. However, thisstudy used materials which were not controlled except for
the topic, and too many variables might have been involved
as a consequence. In addition, unlike Chiba et al. (1995),
other non-native varieties were not included.
Accordingly, it is necessary to conduct an up-to-datestudy which compares Japanese students’ attitudes toward
Japanese English with their attitudes toward native andother non-native Englishes, focusing on a certain linguistic
aspect. In addition, multiple dimensions of attitudes need tobe considered. The present study attempts to fill the gap in
the previous studies by investigating Japanese university
students’ language attitudes toward Japanese English,
American English, and Chinese English. As phonology is
one of the most conspicuous differences among varieties ofEnglish (Kirkpatrick, 2007, p. 17), the focus of this study ison phonological aspects of the Englishes. American English
was chosen as it is the main target model used in the current
Japanese educational system (Matsuda, 2002; Yoshikawa,
2005; Matsuda, 2009). Chinese English was chosen as it isanother variety of English used as a foreign language by
non-native speakers. It is a rapidly growing variety ofEnglish (see, for example, Hu, 2004; Yang, 2006; You,2008; He & Li, 2009), and is also a variety Japanese
university students could encounter in society, with the2.

Research questions
The main purpose of this study is to investigate
Japanese university students’ language attitudes toward
Japanese English. In order to highlight this, American
English (native variety) and Chinese English (non-native,
foreign variety) are used for comparison. The relationshipbetween language attitudes and factors of learning English
are also studied. In addition, participants’ social variables
such as gender and exposure to Japanese English and theirrelationships to language attitudes are investigated. This
study thus addresses the following research questions.
1. What language attitudes do Japanese university students
hold toward Japanese English in comparison with theirattitudes toward American English and Chinese English?
2. Are motivation for learning English, preference for
language teachers, and awareness of world Englishes
related to language attitudes?
3. What social variables of participants are related toattitudes toward different Englishes?
3.

Methodology
In order to investigate the research questions, data
was collected by using voiced guise technique (VGT) and asurvey. VGT is an indirect technique for assessing language
attitudes, based on the matched guise technique developedby Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner, and Fillenbaum (1960). It
asks participants to listen to unlabeled recorded language
samples, and then to evaluate the personality andimpression of the speakers in order to indirectly assess
attitudes participants hold toward the language samples.
The studies which have utilized VGT include Chiba et al.
(1995), Dailey, Giles, and Jansma (2005), Hiraga (2005),
and McKenzie (2008 a, b).
3.1 Materials
In order to conduct VGT and a subsequent survey,
three pieces of materials were prepared: speech samples ofEnglishes, Questionnaire A, and Questionnaire B. The
speech samples and Questionnaire A were for VGT, andQuestionnaire B was for the survey.
Speech samples
For this study, sound files were selected from the
Speech Accent Archive (http://accent.gmu.edu/), an on-line
corpus administered by the Department of English at
George Mason University (Weinberger, 2010). The databaseconsists of sound files of the same English passage read byspeakers of different language backgrounds in order to28

3.3 Procedure
The procedure for each session was standardized. The
instructions and the speech samples were organized into theform of one recording with necessary intervals in between.
There were 6 patterns of recordings in order to randomize
the order of the speech samples. The participants wereasked to follow the recording to fill in the two questionnaires.
For Questionnaire A, the participants listened to the three
Englishes and indicated their impression of the speaker
along the 7-point SD scales. Thirty seconds were given tolook at the English passage and the SD scales before thestart of the first sound file. Each English was played twice,
and there was a 30 second interval between the twodifferent English samples. All questionnaire forms werecollected after the participants completed Questionnaire B.

demonstrate different native and non-native English accents.
From the archive, sound files of Japanese English,
American English, and Chinese English were obtained.
From these files, one sample for each English was selected
as materials for the VGT due to typicality of the accents andsimilarity of the voice quality. Speaker 1 was a native
speaker of Japanese. Speaker 2 was a native speaker ofEnglish from Ohio, USA. Speaker 3 was a native speaker ofPutonghua. All speakers were female of age between 29 and
34. Speaker 1 and Speaker 3 had started to learn English as
a foreign language in junior high school. The voices ofthese speakers were similar in pitch. However, as Speaker
2’s reading speed was faster, it was slowed down digitally
without affecting the voice quality. The length of the speechsamples after the editing was between 26 and 30 seconds.
Questionnaire A
Questionnaire A was in the form of 7-point
semantic-differential (SD) scales, which asked participants
to express their impression of speakers by listening to therecordings. In the present study, the SD scales used in
McKenzie (2008 a, p. 69) were utilized, as they weredeveloped specifically for language attitude studies in a
Japanese context. The SD scales consisted of 8 bipolar
adjectives. As the participants were Japanese university
students who could vary in English proficiency, it was
decided to use a Japanese translated version of these SD
scales on the questionnaire. At the beginning of thequestionnaire, instructions were written in Japanese, and theEnglish passage used in the database was also provided.

4.

Results and analysis
Data were analyzed by using SPSS version 18.0.2.
4.1 Dimensions underlying language attitudes: solidarity
and status
First of all, factor analysis of responses to the SD
scales (Questionnaire A) used in the VGT was conducted inorder to identify the underlying dimensions of language
attitudes. The adjectives were: I1) pleasant, I2) confident,I3) clear, I4) modest, I5) funny, I6) intelligent, I7) gentle,
and I8) fluent. These items were divided into two groups asa result of factor analysis. However, as there were items
loaded on both factors, I3 and I5 were eliminated fromfurther analysis. This result could be due to the Japanesetranslation of these adjectives.
Accordingly, factor analysis of the items I1, I2, I4, I6,
I7, and I8 was conducted. The result as in Table 1 indicatedthat the adjectives could be divided into two groups: I7, I4,
I1 and I8, I6, I2. The extraction method was Principal Axis
Factoring, and the rotation method was Promax with Kaiser
Normalization. Factor 1 is related to the solidarity
dimension. Factor 2 is related to the status dimension.
Therefore, in the following, investigation will be conductedalong these two dimensions: solidarity and status.

Questionnaire B
Questionnaire B asked participants’ general beliefs
about learning English and about world Englishes (seeAppendix). All question items in the actual survey were in
Japanese, and were in the form of 7-point rating scales.
Three groups of questions were mixed and presented:
motivation for English learning, preference for language
teachers, and awareness of world Englishes.
3.2 Participants
Data were collected at two universities in Japan.
Eighty-two students in total participated in the study.
Among them, 70 students from 7 classes participated asgroups, and 12 students participated individually. Two
incomplete questionnaires were eliminated from theanalysis. Therefore, the total number of questionnaires
which were analyzed was 80.

Table 1: Factor analysis of the adjectives
FactorI7 (gentle)
I4 (modest)
I1 (pleasant)I8 (fluent)
I6 (intelligent)
I2 (confident)

29

1

2

.765
.656
.527
-.008
.124
-.162

.013
-.147
.131
.822
.490
.300

Therefore, American English was evaluated significantly
higher than the other Englishes.

4.2 Comparison of attitudes toward Japanese, American,
and Chinese Englishes
The second stage of analysis was to compare theparticipants’ language attitudes toward Japanese English,
American English, and Chinese English along the twodimensions of solidarity and status. The mean and SD ofeach English along the solidarity dimension is given in
Table 2.1, and those along the status dimension is given in
Table 2.2. The score on each dimension could range from 1
to 7, with 4 as the middle point.

Table 3.2: t-test of the status dimension
J2,J6,J8 and A2, A6, A8
J2, J6, J8 and C2, C6, C8
A2, A6, A8 and C2, C6, C8

4.3 Factor analysis of Questionnaire B
The third stage of analysis was to determine theunderlying dimensions of the question items on
Questionnaire B (see Appendix). As three different types ofquestions were randomized and presented, factor analysis
was conducted on each category. The extraction method
was Maximum Likelihood, and the rotation method was
Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
The first group of the questions asked about
motivation for learning English. As the result of factor
analysis indicates (Table 4.1), three factors were elicited.
The following labels were given to each factor: Factor 1:
integrative motivation, Factor 2: instrumental motivation,
Factor 3: societal motivation.

Table 2.1: The solidarity dimension
J1, J4, J7 av.
A1, A4, A7 av.
C1, C4, C7 av.

Mean
3.96
3.28
4.96

SD
1.04
.96
.82

Table 2.2: The status dimension
J2, J6, J8 av.
A2, A6, A8 av.
C2, C6, C8 av.

Mean
3.51
5.46
3.47

SD
.94
.84
.87

Solidarity
To see if difference in the mean value along thesolidarity dimension was significant, a t-test between the
Englishes was conducted. The result is shown in Table 3.1.
As Table 3.1 indicates, significant differences (p<0.01)
were found in all three pairs. Therefore, the ranking given
by Japanese university students along the solidarity
dimension was as follows: 1. Chinese English, 2. JapaneseEnglish, and 3. American English.

Table 4.1: Factor analysis of motivation
Factor
1
Q8
Q1
Q19
Q10
Q3
Q15
Q12

Table 3.1: t-test of the solidarity dimension
J1, J4, J7 and A1, A4, A7
J1, J4, J7 and C1, C4, C7
A1, A4, A7 and C1, C4,C7

t-12.742**.276
15.931****p<0.01t
3.912**-7.484**-10.704**** p<0.01

.785
.761
.481
.085
-.231
.120
-.113

2
-.262
.034
.410
.890
.501
.096
.091

3
.136
.009
-.226
.113
.131
.623
.555

The second group of the questions asked about
language teacher preference, that is, preference for Japaneseteachers or native teachers in learning English. Only one
factor was extracted. However, as Q6 and Q17 showednegative values, this category was divided into two groups:
Q4, Q13 and Q6, Q17. The former group was named
preference for native English teachers, and the latter wasnamed preference for Japanese teachers of English.
The third group of the questions asked participants
whether they believed different Englishes should be given
equality with native varieties. This category was labeled asawareness of world Englishes. Factor analysis was
attempted, yet as there was suspicion of multicollinearity on

StatusTo see if difference in the mean value along the status
dimension was significant, a t-test was conducted. Table 3.2
shows the result. As it indicates, significant differences(p<0.01) were found between Japanese English andAmerican English and between Chinese English andAmerican English. However, a significant difference was
not found between Japanese English and Chinese English.

30

American English is related to their preference for native
English teachers.
Second, the relationship between factors of learning
English and their attitudinal difference toward JapaneseEnglish and Chinese English was analyzed along thesolidarity dimension. There was a slight tendency ofcorrelation between belief in equality of diverse Englishes
and attitudinal difference. This means that the smaller
attitudinal difference toward the two Englishes could be
related to belief in equality of diverse Englishes. However,this result was not clear enough.

Q18 and Q20 respectively, these items were eliminated.
Factor analysis on the remaining items then elicited threefactors (Table 4.2). However, as Factor 3 had only one item,the following analysis was conducted without it. Factor 1
was labeled as belief in equality of diverse Englishes, andFactor 2 was named recognition of English use between
non-native speakers.
Table 4.2: Factor analysis of awareness of world Englishes
Factor
1
Q16
Q2
Q5
Q11
Q14
Q9
Q7

.736
.540
.505
-.026
-.060
.288
-.059

2
-.097
.115
-.084
.590
.387
.386
-.070

3
.099
-.200
.070
-.156
.238
.306
.643

4.5 Relationship between attitudes and participants’social variables
As the fifth stage of analysis, the relationshipbetween participants’ social factors and their evaluation
toward each English was investigated to see if social factors
could be related to differences in assessment. However, as
the number of participants in each sub-group was relatively
small, this stage of analysis should be regarded as
supplementary to the previous stages of analysis.
The method of analysis was a t-test. Gender and year
did not have a significant effect on the evaluation both interms of solidarity and status. However, differences in
exposure to English at university turned out to have asignificant influence on evaluations of Japanese English.
Participants who had taken longer hours of English courses
and had had more exposure to Japanese English (N=29)
tended to show a higher evaluation of Japanese English interms of solidarity (t=2.817, p<0.01), yet a lower evaluation
toward it in terms of status (t=-3.288, p<0.01) than thosewith less exposure to Japanese English.

4.4 Relationship between language attitudes andmotivation, teacher preference, and awareness of world
Englishes
The fourth stage of analysis was to investigate
whether there was any relationship between language
attitudes toward the three Englishes and the factors oflearning English. The method of analysis was Pearson’s
Correlation analysis. As this study focused on language
attitudes toward Japanese English in comparison with
American English and Chinese English, analysis was
conducted between Japanese English and the other two
Englishes respectively along the two dimensions ofsolidarity and status. As there was no statistically significant
difference between Japanese English and Chinese English
in terms of status, this comparison was eliminated from thefollowing analysis.
First, factors of learning English and their attitudinaldifference toward Japanese English and American English
were analyzed. The analysis showed that there was no
significant correlation in terms of solidarity. In terms ofstatus, there was some correlation, although not very strong,
between integrative motivation of learning English andattitudinal difference between Japanese English andAmerican English (r=0.225, p<0.05). This means that theparticipants’ higher evaluation toward American English
compared to Japanese English is related to their higher
integrative motivation of learning English. Likewise, there
was also a correlation with preference for native teachers,
although again not very strong (r=0.278, p<0.05). Thismeans that the participants’ higher assessment toward

5. Discussion
5.1 Language attitudes of Japanese university students
toward Japanese English
For the solidarity dimension, Japanese English was
ranked between Chinese English and American English (seeTable 3.1). The score given to Japanese English wasintermediate (M=3.96, SD=1.04). First of all, JapaneseEnglish and Chinese English received significantly higher
evaluations than American English. This means that theparticipants distinguished non-native Englishes from native
English and expressed more emotional attachment to them.
A possible account for this is that the Japanese university
students identified themselves more with the speakers of
non-native Englishes. They might distance their English
psychologically from native Englishes, regarding native
Englishes as different varieties from their own English.

31

the current English education in Japan (pp. 161-164), yetattitudes of Japanese students toward it are ambivalent andnot necessarily very positive.

However, a clear distinction was also made between
the two non-native Englishes in terms of solidarity, that is,
the evaluation toward Chinese English was significantly
higher than the evaluation toward Japanese English.
Considering that the participants were Japanese university
students, it was expected that Japanese English would beassessed higher. However, this was not the case in this study.
A possible reason behind this is that the Japaneseparticipants’ ambivalent attitudes toward Japanese English
are reflected in the intermediate score of Japanese English
through the solidarity dimension. Although Japanese
university students psychologically identify their English
with non-native Englishes, as the higher evaluation of
non-native Englishes implies, they might not want toconsider themselves too strongly as speakers of JapaneseEnglish at the same time. On the other hand, ChineseEnglish is not their “own” English, and participants might
have treated it as a different non-native English, without
associating it with their English.
For the status dimension, Japanese English was
ranked significantly lower than American English. There
was no significant difference between Japanese English andChinese English (see Table 3.2). This result first of allshows that the Japanese university students clearly
distinguished native English from non-native Englishes.
Not only did native English receive a significantly higher
evaluation, the score itself was very high (M=5.46). This
could be due to the selection of native Englishes as target
models in the Japanese educational system. Moreover, thepersistent belief among Japanese people that native
speakers are the best users of English (Honna, 2006, p.155)
is likely to be another reason.
However, the participants did not give significantly
higher or lower evaluation toward Japanese English
compared to Chinese English. This indicates that non-native
Englishes were perceived and grouped together in clear
contrast with American English, which is a native English,
no matter whether a specific variety is prevalent in Japan ornot. This could be due to the belief among Japanese people,
which was described above, that English belongs to native
speakers and that native English is the “real” English.
To summarize the two dimensions, non-native
Englishes received higher score in terms of solidarity, andlower score in terms of status. Within non-native Englishes,
evaluation differed in terms of solidarity. Accordingly,
concerning the first research question, the present study has
shown that Japanese university students hold complex
attitudes toward Japanese English. Japanese English ispointed out by Honna (2006) as the most likely outcome of

5.2 Language attitudes and their relationships withfactors of learning English
For motivation to learn English, integrative
motivation had a tendency to correlate with the status
dimension of attitudinal difference toward Japanese English
and American English. Higher integrative motivation means
to hold incentives for studying English in order to learn
cultures of inner circle countries (countries where native
Englishes are spoken), trying to identify themselves withthose cultures. Therefore, higher integrative motivation is
likely to be related to a higher evaluation of native
Englishes, in this case, American English. There was also
some correlation between higher preference for native
English teachers and attitudinal differences toward JapaneseEnglish and American English. This tendency seems to beunderstandable, as participants with a higher preference fornative teachers are likely to hold positive attitudes toward
the English those teachers use.
5.3 Social variables of participants and language
attitudes
In this study, social variables such as gender and year
did not have a statistically significant effect. However, thegroup of participants who received longer hours of English
classes and had more exposure to Japanese English gave asignificantly higher evaluation of Japanese English in termsof solidarity, yet a lower evaluation of it in terms of status.
More exposure to Japanese English through classroom
activities such as group discussions means increased
familiarity with Japanese English. This is likely to have led
to higher solidarity, yet this cannot explain the reason thestatus evaluation of it became lower. A possible reason isthat the participants with longer hours of English classes arealso likely to have been exposed more to native Englishes
through textbooks or through having native teachers. Thismight have led them to evaluate their own English lower interms of status despite the familiarity with it.
6. Implications, limitations, and suggestions
6.1 Implications
This study has shown that Japanese university
students hold complex and ambivalent language attitudes
toward Japanese English. The results imply that they do notregard various Englishes of the world as equal varieties.
There seems to be a persistent belief among them that the32

if there is any causal relationship. Third, effective ways toreflect today’s reality of world Englishes in English
education in Japan should be investigated.

ownership of English belongs to native speakers, although
they have expressed certain solidarity toward non-native
Englishes. However, as was stated at the beginning, there
are more people who speak English as a second or foreign
language, and English has developed characteristic featuresin each area. Various Englishes are used across the world
for the purpose of both international and intranational
communication. Considering this present situation of world
Englishes, it is necessary to improve Japanese students’ambivalent attitudes toward non-native Englishes,
especially toward Japanese English.
To this end, it will be essential to introduce various
Englishes in order to have students learn how people areusing Englishes across the world. In introducing different
Englishes, McKay (2002) points out that “educators[should] emphasize the fact that an international language
belongs to all of its users and not exclusively to speakers of
the Inner Circle” (p.127). Therefore, promotion of thepluralistic view of Englishes will be a step forward tonourish more positive attitudes toward Japanese English.
Concrete and effective methods to introduce world
Englishes should await for future researches, yet a possible
method will be to use computer networking in classes togather and share information on the different Englishes of
the world.

7.

Conclusion
This paper investigated Japanese university students’language attitudes toward Japanese English in comparison
with their attitudes toward American English and ChineseEnglish. By using VGT and questionnaires as methodology,
this study showed that Japanese university students holdcomplex attitudes toward different Englishes. For thesolidarity dimension, they evaluated “not own” non-native
English highest, then “own” non-native English, and thennative English. For the status dimension, they evaluatednative English higher than both non-native Englishes.
Therefore, it became clear that their attitudes toward
Japanese English are quite ambivalent.
This study showed that some factors of learning
English and participants’ social variables were related tolanguage attitudes toward Englishes. Motivation forlearning English and language teacher preference showedsome correlation with attitudinal differences toward
Englishes. The amount of exposure to Japanese English also
showed relevance to differences in evaluation.
The English language has now become world
Englishes. They are used as an integral language in various
areas of the world for the purpose of international andintranational communication. As Englishes across the world
become autonomous varieties, it is essential to nourish morepositive attitudes toward Japanese English among Japanese
students of English. As a first step to improve ambivalent
attitudes toward Japanese English, English education in
Japan should integrate a pluralistic view of Englishes.

6.2 Limitations
There are mainly three limitations in this study. First,
more speech samples and more varieties of English could
have been added to enhance generalizability. In addition,
more adjectives should have been added to the SD scales toensure the representativeness of each dimension. Second,the correlation coefficients were not very high, and what
this study pointed out concerning such relationships should
be interpreted carefully. Third, follow-up interviews shouldhave been conducted with some participants in order togather more qualitative data so that it could have been
analyzed along with the statistical data used in this study.

Acknowledgment
This article is based on the author’s senior thesis at
International Christian University in 2011. Revisions are
made based on comments received at the 41st JELES
conference at Waseda University. I would like to express
my gratitude to Dr.Mizuta for support and encouragement
throughout the research. I would also like to thank membersof the audience at the conference and two reviewers of thispaper for their insightful comments and suggestions.

6.3 Suggestions
As English continues to spread across the world,
language attitudes toward different Englishes will continue
to be an essential topic. Here are some topics that await
further investigation. First, this study focused on thephonological aspects of Englishes, yet studies that focus on
different linguistic aspects such as grammatical aspects
could be conducted to see if they yield different evaluations.
Second, the relationship between factors of learning English
and language attitudes should be investigated further to see

REFERENCES
Cargile, A. C., Giles, H., Ryan, E. B., & Bradac, J. J. (1994).
Language attitudes as a social process: A conceptual modeland new directions. Language & Communication, 14 (3),211-236.

33

Chiba, R., Matsuura, H. & Yamamoto, A. (1995). Japanese
attitudes toward English accents. World Englishes, 14 (1),77-86.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language (2nd ed.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dailey, R. M., Giles, H., & Jansma, L.L. (2005). Language
attitudes in an Anglo-Hispanic context: The role of thelinguistic landscape. Language & Communication, 25,
27-38.
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
He, D. & Li, D. C. S. (2009). Language attitudes and linguisticfeatures in the ‘China English’ debate. World Englishes, 28(1), 70-89.
Hiraga, Y. (2005). British attitudes towards six varieties of English
in the USA and Britain. World Englishes, 24 (3), 289-308.
Holmes, J. (2008). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (3rd ed.).
Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Honna, N. (2006). Eigo wa Asia o Musubu [English unites Asia].
Tokyo: Tamagawa Daigaku Shuppanbu.
Hu, X. (2004). Why China English should stand alongside British,
American, and the other ‘world Englishes.’ English Today,
20 (2), 26-33.
Jenkins, J. (2009). World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students(2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Kachru, Y. & Smith, L. E. (2009). The Karmic cycle of world
Englishes: some futuristic constructs. World Englishes, 28(1), 1-14.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications forInternational Communication and English Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lai, M. (2005). Language attitudes of the first postcolonial
generation in Hong Kong secondary schools. Language in
Society, 34, 363-388.
Lambert, W.E., Hodgson, R.C., Gardner, R.C., & Fillenbaum, S.
(1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60 (1), 44-51.
Matsuda, A. (2002). “International understanding” throughteaching world Englishes. World Englishes, 21 (3), 436-440.
Matsuda, A. (2003). The ownership of English in Japanese
secondary schools. World Englishes, 22 (4), 483-96.
Matsuda, A. (2009). Desirable but not necessary? The place ofworld Englishes and English as an international language inEnglish teacher preparation programs in Japan. In F.
Sharifian (Ed.), English as an international language:
Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 169-189). Bristol:Multilingual Matters.
Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., & Yamamoto, A. (1994). Japanesecollege students’ attitudes towards non-native varieties ofEnglish. In D. Graddol & J. Swann (Eds.), Evaluating
Language (pp. 52-61). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Mckay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McKenzie, R. (2008a). Social factors and non-native attitudes
towards varieties of spoken English: A Japanese case study.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18 (1), 63-88.
McKenzie, R (2008b). The role of variety recognition in Japanese
university students’ attitudes towards English speechvarieties. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 29 (2), 139-153.
Weinberger, S. (2010). The Speech Accent Archive.
Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://accent.gmu.edu/
Yang, J. (2006). Learners and users of English in China.
English Today, 22 (2), 3-10.
Yoshikawa, H. (2005). Recognition of world Englishes: changes in
Chukyo University students’ attitudes. World Englishes, 24(3), 351-360.
You, X. (2008). Rhetorical strategies, electronic media, and China
English. World Englishes, 27 (2), 233-249.
Appendix
Questionnaire B (English version)
1. I learn English because I like English.
2. English spoken by Japanese people is intelligible in places
where people from different countries gather.
3. I learn English because it is a required course at university.
4. I want to learn English from native teachers of English.
5. It is agreeable for Chinese people to speak English as typical of
Chinese speakers of English.
6. I want to use English as Japanese teachers of English do.
7. English is used across the world with characteristic features ineach area.
8. It is fun to use English.
9. English spoken with Japanese accent should be acknowledged
as equal.
10. I learn English because it becomes an advantage in getting jobs.
11. English spoken by Chinese people is intelligible in places
where people from different countries gather.
12. English is an integral education in today’s society.
13. I want to use English as native teachers of English do.
14. I use English when I talk with Chinese people.
15. Learning English will lead to social success.
16. English spoken by non-native speakers should be recognizedas equal with English spoken by native speakers.
17. I want to learn English from Japanese teachers.
18. English spoken with Chinese accent should be acknowledged
as equal.
19. I learn English because I want to learn cultures of native
English speaking countries.
20. It is agreeable for Japanese people to speak English as typicalof Japanese speakers of English.

34