Special Section
Japanese Language and Literature(Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese)
Volume 54, No. 2, October 2020

Exploring Who We Are and Who We
Aspire to Be
Diversity, Inclusion, and Professionalism inJapanese Language Education

Guest edited by

Junko Mori and Atsushi Hasegawa

CONTENTS
Diversity, Inclusion, and Professionalism in Japanese
Language Education: Introduction to the Special Section .......................
..................................................... Junko Mori and Atsushi Hasegawa
On Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:
Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators inNorth America ........................................................................................
….…. Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki
Language Ideology and Its Manifestations:
Exploring Implications for Japanese Language
Teaching ............................................................ Mahua Bhattacharya
Diversity, Inclusivity, and the Importance of L2 Speaker
Legitimacy ........................................................ Jae DiBello Takeuchi
Finding a Balance between Diversity and Target Language:
A Case of a Japanese Language Program in a Private
University ............................................................... Shinsuke Tsuchiya
Pedagogical Linguistics Training for Graduate
Students .......................................................................... Etsuyo Yuasa
Fostering Antiracist Engagement in Japanese Language
Teaching ...................................................................... .Ryuko Kubota
Toward More Inclusive Japanese Language Education:
Incorporating an Awareness of Gender and Sexual Diversity
among Students ........................................................... Jotaro Arimori
Toward Exhilarating Classrooms: Representation vs.
Inclusion in Japanese Language Education ............Arthur M. Mitchell
The Generalist’s Dilemma: How Accidental Language
Teachers Are at the Center of Japanese Pedagogy....................................................................................Brian C. Dowdle“Can-Do” Statements for a Diverse Japanese Teacher
Pipeline: Let’s Widen the Funnel! ........................ Jessica Lee Haxhi
Increasing Diversity of Japanese Language Teachers:
Approaches to Teaching-Related Professional Development
for College Students in North America ................... Amy Snyder Ohta
Leveraging Diversity and Inclusivity in Japanese Teacher
Community in an American High School District .............. Yo Azama
AATJ’s Role in Diversity and Inclusion: An
Opportunity to Transform into a Well-Integrated
Organization .......................................................... Suwako WatanabeContributors

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

Diversity, Inclusion, and Professionalism in Japanese
Language Education: Introduction to the Special Section
Junko Mori and Atsushi Hasegawa
1. Introduction
Diversity and inclusion have become a major concern in academic andprofessional institutions in recent years. As educators, we are responsible
for creating environments where a diverse population of students cancommunicate beyond differences and learn from each other. The sense ofurgency to address this concern has been intensified by a series of recent
events that brought the issue of systemic social and racial injustice to thefore. As we finalize this special section in the early summer of 2020, dailynews is filled with reports on the disproportionate impact of Covid-19
upon racial and ethnic minorities, the rise of anti-Asian xenophobia
symbolized by the repulsive use of the expressions such as “Chinese virus”
or “kung flu,” as well as the global reach of antiracism demonstrations,fueled by the police killing of George Floyd. As a community of educators,
advocacy for justice should be the core of our values. Language education
should play a pivotal role in underscoring the importance of embracing
differences and take responsibility for developing a younger generation’s
perspectives and dispositions to fight against injustice. Diversity andinclusion, as we envision here, is integral to such a mission of language
education and as such cannot be emphasized enough in the current moment.
While this educational mission is widely recognized, in our opinion,
we have not sufficiently examined the extent to which a culture ofdiversity and inclusion has been fostered and actually practiced within our
professional community. For instance, according to the Japan Foundation
survey conducted in 2015, 77.3% of Japanese-language instructors inNorth America were “native speakers” of Japanese (Japan Foundation
2017a).1 This is the largest percentage of all the world regions. What kindsof factors might have contributed to this disproportional representation of
New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

254 | Japanese Language and Literature“native speakers”? And what kinds of consequences might result fromsuch a demographic composition? Are we creating an inclusive
professional community where educators from diverse backgrounds can
support each other and grow together? Are we demonstrating the kinds ofdispositions and practices that we aim to instill in our students in our own
everyday conduct? The exploration of these questions is needed as we
consider ways to enhance diversity and inclusion in our classrooms.
As an initial step forward, we—along with Kimiko Suzuki (Haverford
College) and Jisuk Park (Columbia University until December 2019)—
organized a roundtable discussion at the 2019 annual meeting of the
Association for Asian Studies (AAS) with the sponsorship of theAmerican Association of Teachers of Japanese (AATJ). Prior to thisroundtable, we had conducted an online survey in the fall of 2018 to bettergrasp Japanese-language teachers’ perspectives on diversity, inclusion,and professionalism, and asked a panel of four Japanese-language
educators with diverse academic and ethnic backgrounds to comment on
the survey results and to share their views on the current state of Japanese
language education in North America.2 The roundtable generated numerous proposals and suggestions for future courses of action, including thedevelopment of this special section, which aims to further our discussion
on this topic. Overarching questions posed throughout this special section
are as follows:••••

What are the goals of language education in today’s globalized world?
And what kinds of qualifications are required for language educators inorder to attain these goals?
What kinds of unconscious biases may be observed in our profession,
and what are the challenges and obstacles that may arise in overcoming
such biases?
How can we foster diversity and inclusion among peers and prospective
peers?
How can we, as a group of Japanese-language users and educators,present a model of global citizenship to our students?

This introductory article provides a brief overview of the backgrounds andmotivations for this special section and outlines its organization.
2. Why This Now?
Owing to increased mobility and technological advancements, our world
is more connected than ever. This current trend, however, has also
generated an adverse reaction from those in fear of losing traditional

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

Junko Mori and Atsushi Hasegawa | 255

structures and of diminishing borders. As a result, we are witnessing
instances of xenophobia towards minorities and immigrants, as well as
divisive policies that may inflame chauvinism. In such a polarized climate,diversity is often at the center of public discourse, along with other related
topics such as equality, equity, access, and inclusion. Many educational
associations have responded to this momentum and articulated theirstances on this issue. For example, as the leading organization of world
language education in America, ACTFL released a position statement in
May 2019, in which diversity and inclusion are emphasized as the core of
the organizational mission:
ACTFL believes strongly in equal access to world language study
and equitable opportunities for all individuals to develop linguistic
and cultural competence and pedagogical knowledge. No
individual should experience marginalization of their contributions
or talents because of their unique attributes. Among others, these
attributes include age, belief system, disability status, ethnicity,
gender, gender identity, gender expression, language identity,
national origin, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, andany other visible or non-visible attributes. At the heart of thiscommitment is the recognition that the richness of diversity within
ACTFL’s membership and the language education community atlarge is beneficial to both the individual and the global community.
(ACTFL 2019)

Diversity is discussed here not only in terms of racial and gender mattersbut is extended to encompass any attributes that people possess. This
statement also highlights that diversity in all its forms contributes to richand dynamic experiences of people involved in teaching and learning.
While diversity is often upheld as a corrective measure to counter
imbalance and discrimination (cf., Modern Language Association 2005),
its educational merits and impacts are also recognized and celebrated.
The organizational commitment to diversity and inclusion is also
matched by recent discussions among applied linguists who espouse thetransformative and cross-bordering nature of language and language use(e. g., Canagarajah 2013, Hawkins and Mori 2018, Li 2018, Pennycook
and Otsuji 2018). Translingualism, metrolingualism, and other similar
concepts have been explored enthusiastically in recent journal publications
and academic conferences. As Kramsch (2019) recently wrote, these trans/multi- perspectives evoke a renewed goal of language education:

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

256 | Japanese Language and Literature

Our ecological times call for a greater attention given not tocitizens or consumers, but to denizens of a language ecologythat demands sensitization to the workings of language as
symbolic power and an ability to respond to its abuses. (13)Kramsch’s concern about the future directions of language education
acutely reflects recent political and cultural divides among the American
public, which is ironically boosted by the very nature of globalization. The
metaphor of “denizen” is proposed here to denote plasticity andmultiplicity of membership subsumed in the globalized world. With theworld becoming smaller and smaller, boundaries will cease and blending
and symbiosis will accelerate. Clearly, the rise of attention to diversity andinclusion in public and academic discourse is a direct consequence of thesociocultural and political climate surrounding us.
Meanwhile, as a super-aged society, Japan is currently facing
imminent social changes. In an effort to circumvent the ever-growing
workforce shortages, the Japanese government decided to increase thevolume of incoming foreign workers in Japan (Ministry of Foreign Affairs2019). The increase of foreign-born immigrants in Japan may graduallytransform the monoethnic and monolingual ideology, which appears to be
still prevalent in Japanese society (Moody 2014, Tsurutani 2012). It is also
expected that this policy will have direct impacts on Japanese language
education. Most prominently, in June 2019, the Diet passed the Japanese
Language Education Promotion Bill, which aims to secure opportunities
for foreign immigrants to receive adequate training in Japanese language.
Various aspects of Japanese language education, including teacher
certification, proficiency assessments, and instructional guidelines, will
likely be reexamined and reformed under this new law (Agency for
Cultural Affairs 2019).
These recent developments in Japan inevitably alter the broader
context in which Japanese language education is delivered in North
America as well. In fact, it is well documented that our students’populations and their interests have changed over time, reflecting
sociocultural, economic, and political dynamics of the relationshipbetween Japan and North America and other nations (e. g., JapanFoundation 2017b, Miura 1990, Noda 2014). After World War II,
Japanese Studies programs began to be established at major universities
and the language was taught in the context of the area studies tradition.
While the population of Japanese-language learners grew steadily in theJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

Junko Mori and Atsushi Hasegawa | 257

1950s–1970s, the first boom in Japanese language study occurred in the
1980s through the early 1990s, the era of the Japanese bubble economy.
During that time, students motivated to learn Japanese for its perceived
instrumental value for their career paths in business, technology, andbeyond started to populate the classroom, and Japanese language began to
be more commonly offered in K–12 settings as well. While a decline inenrollment was observed in the late 1990s upon the burst of the bubble
economy, with the rise of global circulation and consumption of Japanese
popular culture, the 2000s and on have seen a surge of students with newsets of interest and affinity with Japan. The rapid increase of international
students from Asia (China, in particular) to North America observed in the2010s has also changed the context of Japanese language education,
especially in higher education. The ongoing transformation of Japan today
will surely impact how we envision the world for which we are training
our students, as well as ourselves.
The historical development briefly summarized above also appears tohave some implications for the current and future make-up of our
professional community. Miura (1990), for instance, discusses how theJapanese language study boom in the 1980s triggered a shortage of
qualified instructors. Likewise, Samuel (1987) introduces the following
quote of one of the respondents to a survey on Japanese language
education in North America she conducted with her colleague in the mid
1980s: “If we had any near-native non-Japanese with training and/or
experience, we would hire them as first priority. But there are no such
instructors here” (135). To meet the demand of the rapid enrollment
growth during the period, it appears that a number of Japanese, who werealso interested in studying and working abroad in North America, werebrought into the newly created positions, especially those in higher
education. Three decades later, we again face a teacher shortage.
According to the survey conducted by the Japan Foundation in 2015, forexample, the number of Japanese-language teachers in North America—
U. S. A. and Canada combined—has decreased by 8.2% from that in 2012,
despite the steady enrollments in our classrooms (Japan Foundation
2017a). How can we overcome the challenge this time, given the current
sociocultural, economic and political dynamics?
It is indeed eye-opening to read Samuel (1987), who reports theoutcomes of a panel entitled “Issues confronting non-native teachers ofJapanese and their colleagues” held at the 1985 Association of Teachersof Japanese conference.3 Many of the issues raised in the article, including

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

258 | Japanese Language and Literature“instances of prejudice and discrimination against non-native instructors,”“hiring policies and practices,” “status of TJFL as an academic discipline,”and “distribution of teaching responsibilities,” continue to persist today,
according to the results of our 2018 survey. The percentage of “native
speakers” in the profession today (77.3% according to the 2015 JapanFoundation survey) is in fact higher than what Samuel reports as the resultsof their mid-1980 survey, i. e., 64.4%, although we must acknowledge thedifference in how these numbers were generated by the two surveys. Of
course, the perceived lack of diversity among teachers is also recognizablein other personal attributes such as gender, sexual orientation, race, and soforth, and the intersectionality of these attributes also complexifies ourunderstanding of the power dynamics. Needless to say, the situation ismultidimensional and cannot be attributed to a single cause.
Given all these issues, why this now? This special section resulted
from a collaborative endeavor among those concerned about the future of
our profession. We believe that keeping a thriving and healthy professional
community is not a matter of luxury. It is a necessity for the profession tosurvive and continue providing service to our society. Despite the surge of
public interests in diversity and inclusion, to the best of our knowledge,
there have been no concerted efforts in our professional community, up
until now, to reflect on our practice and beliefs concerning this very issue.
Probing our community and our professionalism is not a straightforwardtask, for it may potentially expose our negligence and oversight.
Nonetheless, it is important to be reminded that critical self-reflection isthe very first step toward systematic changes that are needed to move
forward (Bhattacharya, Jiang, and Canagarajah 2019; Kubota and Miller2017). Such changes may take various forms, including re-specification of
instructional goals and curricular targets, education of future teachers,
professional development of in-service teachers, revisions to teachingmaterials, structural/institutional reforms, scholarly research, andclarification of the vision, mission and governance of a professional
association such as AATJ. In the end, the issues at hand are consequential
not only to the quality of teaching and learning but also to the lives of ourteachers and our students.
3. The Organization
This special section consists of an article that summarizes the results of
the online survey and twelve commentaries authored by individuals who

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

Junko Mori and Atsushi Hasegawa | 259

have engaged in Japanese language education in North America indifferent capacities and contexts.
The anchor article reports the quantitative and qualitative results of theonline survey to which more than 350 Japanese-language educators from
North America submitted their responses (approximately 79% of them arefemale; 73 % first language speakers of Japanese; 63% M. A. holders; 50%
with teaching experience of more than sixteen years; 60% working inhigher education). The results illuminate converging and diverging
perspectives on instructional goals, contradictions or dilemmas between
aspirational ideals and mundane practices, as well as fundamental societal
and institutional conditions that impact the professional lives of language
educators. The majority of the survey participants shared theirunderstanding that the field is lacking in diversity, especially in regard toethnic/cultural backgrounds, gender/sexuality, and age/generation. The
report also introduces several open-ended comments submitted by thesurvey participants in order to illustrate how the lack of diversity manifests
itself in day-to-day professional experiences. The episodes shared by theseparticipants invite the readers to consider how our unconscious biases, or
reluctance to take an action on an issue that one is aware of, may lead tothe perpetuation of reduced inclusivity and diversity in the Japanese
language educator community.
To initiate open dialogs, we asked the twelve commentary authors,
who represent diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, areas ofexpertise, institutional affiliations, and stages of their careers, to review
the survey results, critically reflect on the current state of Japanese
language education in North America, and discuss future actionable items
from their various viewpoints. The contributors consist of the original
members of the AAS roundtable, the audience of the AATJ keynote
session or the AAS roundtable session who shared their responses to ourpresentations, and others who were recommended to us because of theirresearch on a related topic, or the leadership roles they have assumed in
the field. We are grateful for these contributors who accepted ourinvitations. The twelve commentaries indeed complement each other andoffer many opportunities for us to reflect on our own thinking and actions.
The commentaries are clustered together based on the common themes
identified among them. The first four address the central issue of our
profession—how we should conceptualize the object of instruction andwhat kinds of qualifications are necessary to deliver the instruction. The
survey results indeed reveal that while the participants share theJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

260 | Japanese Language and Literature

understanding that we must facilitate students’ development of flexibility
and sensitivity towards diverse cultures, they vary in their emphasis on
standard Japanese and native-like accuracy as targets of language
instruction. In response to the native-speakerism expressed by some of thesurvey participants, Mahua Bhattacharya reviews how language
ideologies established through Japan’s modernization process continues to
impact our teaching materials and practices today. To change the course,
she explores possibilities for altering our approaches in the classroom todeemphasize idealized native-speaker models and to showcase successful
second language (L2) speakers of Japanese instead. Drawing on thefindings of her own research, Jae Takeuchi also discusses how theideology that associates Japanese language competence with Japanese
ethnicity or nationality is still pervasive in everyday interaction and how
it affects even highly proficient L2 speakers of Japanese and makes themfeel unconfident about using Japanese in its full complexities. Based onthese findings, she advocates for the importance of language pedagogy thatfacilitates the development of our students as legitimate and “fearless”
speakers of Japanese. Shinsuke Tsuchiya, on the other hand, sheds lighton the challenge of establishing a balance between celebrating diversity
and identifying a so-called target language. Tokyo-based standard
Japanese has been introduced as the model to aspire to because of its
symbolic power and linguistic capital, but in practice the strict
enforcement of “correctness” can induce anxiety for students and in effectendorse the standard language ideology. He shares his conundrums andapproaches to this issue as a teacher and teacher-trainer who faces anincreasingly diverse group of graduate teaching assistants. Similarly,
Etsuyo Yuasa shares her experiences and perspectives as a faculty member
who is responsible for training future Japanese-language instructors.
Beyond the ability to use Japanese language, language-teachingprofessionals must be equipped with the understanding of how the system
of Japanese language works and the ability to incorporate such knowledge
while weighing in the consequences of favoring particular variants overothers.
The next four commentaries remind us that although the native versus
non-native dichotomy tends to attract attention in the field of language
education, that is not the only critical factor when discussing the issue of
diversity and inclusion in our professional community. In fact, thelanguage-based categories also often intersect with various other social
categories in forming oppression and discrimination in different contexts.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

Junko Mori and Atsushi Hasegawa | 261

Ryuko Kubota, for instance, directs our attention to issues of race that are
manifested in some of the open-ended comments submitted by the survey
participants. They include cases of self-identified white teachers ofJapanese facing students’ disbelief that they can speak and teach Japanese,
as well as native Japanese-speaking K–12 teachers of Japanesemarginalized in their school districts due to their limited English
proficiency and non-citizen status. Describing different layers and formsof racism observed in such incidents, Kubota encourages Japaneselanguage educators to engage in antiracism as a step towards theadvancement of diversity and inclusion in the field. Jotaro Arimori, on theother hand, discusses the issue of diversity and inclusion by focusing on
sexual orientation and gender identity. While this special section is
primarily concerned with the diversity of Japanese-language educators,
Arimori cautions that the promotion of the visibility of sexual/gender
diversity in the profession should not be the end goal of this project, giventhat it is up to an individual how one identifies and represents themselvesin workplace. Instead, as educators, we should strive for creating an
inclusive learning environment where LGBTQ+ students will feel
comfortable studying Japanese, and critically examine how ourinstructional materials and practices are contributing to the reinforcementof heteronormativity. Like Arimori, Arthur Mitchell also emphasizes thatthe alteration of representation currently seen in the field should not be
considered a solution for the creation of an inclusive classroom. For
instance, curtailing the presence of female L1 speaking Japanese teachers
and introducing more white male L2 speaking teachers can actually end
up contributing to the perpetuation of larger structures of oppression.
Instead, he proposes our attention should be directed to the promotion ofa teaching culture that fosters the critical evaluation of patriarchy, national
chauvinism, and racial/gender hierarchy dictating the current conditions.
Brian Dowdle also considers the intersectionality of various social
categories by highlighting how academic identity shaped by ourdisciplinary training adds another dimension to this discussion. By sharing
his experience as an “accidental language teacher” who was originallytrained in Japanese literature but has been teaching Japanese language
courses in addition to English-medium content courses, he calls attention
to the possible distance, alienation, or marginalization sensed by“generalists” in “language educator” communities, which are dominatedby those trained in Japanese language pedagogy. A transdisciplinary, rather

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

262 | Japanese Language and Literaturethan an insular, mindset is called for in order to achieve a successful
reevaluation of goals and curricula.
Finally, the last four commentaries explore ideas for the cultivation of
the next generation of Japanese-language educators and the maintenanceof a thriving and healthy professional community. Jessica Haxhi begins
her discussion by aptly introducing the metaphor of a “funnel”—as
opposed to a “pipeline”—to describe how only a small fraction of students
can find a pathway for and sustain interest in becoming a Japaneselanguage educator. She then introduces a series of can-do statements toillustrate possible obstacles for diverse populations of students to consider
Japanese language teaching as a career option and encourages each reader
to consider how a “can’t do” be changed into a “can do.” In fact, Amy
Ohta’s piece can be seen as a direct response to Haxhi’s call—it showcases
what she and her colleagues are doing at their university to increase thestudents’ awareness of and enthusiasm for language teaching as a possible
career path. Concrete ideas shared by Ohta include enhanced careeradvising, guest lectures by local Japanese-language teachers, a teachinginternship program, and development and incorporation of instructional
units or courses on language teaching and learning. Yo Azama, on theother hand, addresses how professional development can be sustained
throughout the career of educators. He reports how eight Japaneselanguage teachers in his school district with diverse backgrounds practiceinclusivity by forming a professional learning community where members
are encouraged to exercise deep listening skills by withholding their own
beliefs and creating space for other perspectives. The key elements of theirpractice shared in this commentary are deemed transferrable for thecreation of synergetic collaborations among Japanese-language educators
at local, state, and national levels. In the final piece, Suwako Watanabeshares her perspectives based on her experience of serving the Associationof Teachers of Japanese (ATJ) and the National Council of Japanese
Language Teachers (NCJLT), as well as AATJ, which was formed in 2012as a result of the merger of ATJ and NCJLT. She critically evaluates thehistorical development of these associations and proposes several possible
actions for AATJ to consider in order to address diversity and inclusion
issues and to help enhance professional excellence for its membership.
4. What is Next?
Through this special section, we hope to encourage each reader to engage
in critical reflection on their beliefs and professional practices. We also

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

Junko Mori and Atsushi Hasegawa | 263

hope that this forum will continue into the future, taking different formats
and involving a growing number of people. There are numerous actions
that can be taken at different levels and by different entities. At theorganization level, for example, we hope to see concrete action plans
discussed at national and international associations, such as AATJ and theCanadian Association for Japanese Language Education (CAJLE), as well
as at regional organizations. Such plans may include a revision or creationof a position statement that clearly lays out organizational resolutions withregard to diversity and inclusion. They may also involve offering spaces
and opportunities for continuing dialogs and professional development
through conferences and symposia. At the institution level, each program
through K–16 may reflect on and rectify their potentially undue practices
in hiring, staffing, program coordination, curriculum development, andother mundane practices. Each program may have particular institutional
cultures and structures, which may hinder systematic changes, or some
programs may not have a sufficient number of Japanese-language
specialists to work together for this cause. Rather than being discouraged,
however, we should continue working on this reflection process andexploring possible changes by incorporating many of the important ideas
discussed in the commentaries. For instance, the sharing of challenges andbest practices with other programs on campus or within a district, as well
as at regional and national meetings of the field mentioned above could
yield some breakthroughs. Programs that offer teacher-training education
may review their curricula and other training components that may be
impactful to the preparation of future Japanese-language instructors.
Finally, as individuals, we all can continue this conversation with ourcolleagues and students. It is from everyday practice that transformations
begin in our classrooms and beyond. We sincerely hope that this forum
serves a step toward this end.

NOTES
1

In order to clarify the term “Japanese-language instructors,” not to be confusedwith “language instructors who are Japanese,” we used hyphenation. We usedhyphenation for other similar terms, as well, such as “Japanese-language
specialists” and “Japanese-language learners” in this essay. Contributors to thisspecial section were also encouraged to follow this style as deemed appropriate.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

264 | Japanese Language and Literature

2

A brief summary of the survey results was also shared at the conclusion of AATJ
2019 spring conference.

3

We thank Brian Dowdle for calling our attention to this article.

REFERENCES

ACTFL. 2019. Diversity and Inclusion in World Language Teaching &Learning. https://www.actfl.org/news/position-statements/diversityand-inclusion-world-language-teaching-learning. Accessed December
16, 2019.
Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan. 2019. Nihongo kyōiku
no suishin ni kan-suru hōritsu ni tuite (On the Japanese language
education promotion bill). https://www.bunka.go.jp/seisaku/
bunka_gyosei/shokan_horei/other/suishin_houritsu/index.html. Accessed January 18, 2020.
Bhattacharya, Usree, Lei Jiang, Suresh Canagarajah. 2019. Race,
Representation, and Diversity in the American Association forApplied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics, amz003, https://academic.
oup.com/ applij/advance-article/doi/10.1093/applin/amz003/5321124.
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2013. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes andCosmopolitan Relations. New York: Routledge.
Hawkins, Margaret R. and Junko Mori. 2018. Considering ‘Trans-’
Perspectives in Language Theories and Practices. Applied Linguistics
39(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx056.
Japan Foundation. 2017a. Survey Report on Japanese-language Education
Abroad 2015. https://www.jpf.go.jp/j/project/japanese/survey/result/dl/survey_2015/Report_all_e.pdf. Accessed July 13, 2019.
Japan Foundation. 2017b. Survey on Japanese-Language Education
Abroad. https://www.jpf.go.jp/j/project/japanese/survey/area/ country/2017/usa.html. Accessed January 14, 2020.
Kramsch, Claire. 2019. Educating the Global Citizen or the Global
Consumer? Language Teaching, 1–15. https://www.cambridge.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

Junko Mori and Atsushi Hasegawa | 265

org/core/journals/language-teaching/article/educating-the-global-citizen-or-the-global-consumer/2542284E19ABC71A18C704AAFE55969F.
Kubota, Ryuko and Elizabeth R. Miller. 2017. Re-Examining and ReEnvisioning Criticality in Language Studies: Theories and Praxis.
Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 14: 129–157.
Li, Wei. 2018. Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language.
Applied Linguistics 39(1): 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/
amx039.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). 2019. Japan Welcomes Foreign
Human Resources. https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000459527.pdf.
Accessed January 14, 2020.
Miura, Akira. 1990. America shakai ni okeru nihongo kyōiku no tenkai(Development of Japanese language education in American society).
Nihongo kyōiku 70: 21–33.
Modern Language Association. 2005. Final Report MLA Ad Hoc
Committee on Diversity and Tolerance. https://www.mla.org/
content/download/2970/80234/comm_diversitytolerance.pdf. Accessed January 14, 2020.
Moody, Stephen. 2014. ‘‘Well, I’m a Gaijin’’: Constructing Identity
through English and Humor in the International Workplace. Journalof Pragmatics 60: 75–88.
Noda, Mari. 2014. Amerika no kōtō kyōiku kikan ni okeru nihongo kyōiku(Japanese language instruction in American higher education).
https://www.aatj.org/resources/publications/book/HigherEd_Noda.pdf.
Accessed January 14, 2020.
Pennycook, Alastair and Emi Otsuji. 2018. The Translingual Advantage:
Metrolingual Student Repertoires. Plurilingualism in Teaching and
Learning: Complexities Across Contexts, ed. Julie Choi and Sue
Ollerhead, 71–88. New York: Routledge.
Tsurutani, Chiharu. 2012. Evaluation of Speakers with Foreign-Accented
Speech in Japan: The Effect of Accent Produced by English Native
Speakers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
33(6): 589–603.
Samuel, Yoshiko Y. 1987. A Survey of the Status of Native and NonNative Instructors of Japanese in Higher Education in North America.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

266 | Japanese Language and Literature

The Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 21(2): 133–
147.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.125

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

On Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:
Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators inNorth America
Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki

1. Introduction
The current article reports the results of an online survey on Japaneselanguage educators’ beliefs and experiences concerning their profession.
This survey was developed as part of the preparation for a roundtablediscussion on diversity, inclusion, and professionalism in Japanese
language education, proposed by the authors of this article, sponsored by
the American Association of Teachers of Japanese (AATJ), and held at theannual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies (AAS) in March 2019.
The aim of the roundtable was to foster candid and constructive discussion
on the topic involving four invited panelists with diverse academic andethnic backgrounds (Mahua Bhattacharya, Kimberly Jones, Ryuko Kubota,
and Suwako Watanabe), as well as the audience participants. In order tofacilitate this discussion, we considered it essential to present someconcrete information relevant to the topic as a point of departure. Thus,
the purpose of the survey was to solicit Japanese-language educators’
perspectives on the Japanese language and culture and its teaching, as well
as issues concerning diversity and inclusion seen in our professional
community. We also thought that the survey could provide space forinterested members and potential members, who might not be able toattend the roundtable session, to share their views and concerns.
As mentioned in the introduction to this special section, several recent
developments point to the significance of the topic and the timeliness ofconducting this sort of survey. Diversity and inclusion have become amajor concern in academic and professional institutions in recent years. It
is believed that creative solutions to challenging problems are better
engendered by groups of people with diverse backgrounds and views
New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

268 | Japanese Language and Literature(Page 2007), and as educators, we are responsible for creating
environments where a diverse population of students can communicate
beyond differences and learn from each other. In addition, world language
educators are uniquely positioned to make important contributions for theenhancement of students’ competence “to communicate effectively andinteract with cultural understanding” (ACTFL 2015) and ability to grasp
and mediate “differences in meaning, mentality, and worldview as
expressed in American English and in the target language” (MLA 2007:
238). While these educational missions appear to be widely recognized, in
our opinion, we, as a professional community of Japanese-language
educators, have not sufficiently examined how we are modeling thesegoals set for our students, or whether a culture of diversity and inclusion
has been fostered and practiced within our professional community. In themeantime, the results of the 2015 Japan Foundation survey on Japanese
language education abroad (Japan Foundation 2017a) indicated adisproportionately high percentage of “native-speaking” Japaneselanguage teachers as well as a recent decline and shortage of Japaneselanguage teachers in North America. These results also add a sense ofurgency for critical self-assessment.
While language proficiency has long been considered an essential
component of subject knowledge required of world language teachers,
globalization and information technology have drastically changed how
languages are used in contemporary society, and accordingly conventional
approaches to classroom instruction have been reevaluated in recent years(Douglas Fir Group 2016, Kramsch 2014). Kramsch (2014), for instance,states, “In the last decades, [that] world has changed to such an extent that
language teachers are no longer sure of what they are supposed to teachnor what real world situations they are supposed to prepare their studentsfor” (296). The knowledge, skills, and qualifications expected of language
educators must also be reconsidered under the circumstance. While thissearch of elements that define the profession continues, a growing number
of applied linguistic studies have also examined how language teacher
identities interact with macro-level ideologies, such as native-speakerism
or heteronormativity, as well as how teacher identities constitute a crucialcomponent in shaping sociocultural and sociopolitical dynamics in thelanguage classroom (e. g., Braine 2010; De Costa and Norton 2017;
Kubota and Lin 2009; Nelson 1993, 2009; Varghese et al. 2005; Varghese
et al. 2016).

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 269

Although the number is still small, some studies have examined how
non-native speaking Japanese-language teachers have worked throughtheir identities as second language learners, users, and teachers of Japanesein Australia (Armour 2004), or in Hong Kong (Nomura and Mochizuki2018). The increasing diversity of student populations observed in theJapanese language classroom has also been a topic of several recent studies(e. g., Moore 2019; Mori and Takeuchi 2016). As far as we know, however,there has not been any extensive investigation comparable to the current
one that looks directly into Japanese-language educators’ beliefs andexperiences regarding diversity, inclusion, and professionalism. As
detailed below, we received more than 350 responses from the target
population in North America. The number of responses, we believe, also
indicates the level of interest in this topic.
In the following, we will first discuss the survey design, the methodsof distribution and recruitment, and the demographics of survey
respondents (Section 2). Subsequently, the results of quantitative andqualitative analysis of the responses will be introduced (Section 3). We
conducted the analyses with the following questions in mind:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Do the survey participants share common views on the Japanese
language and culture and its teaching? Are there any significant
differences among subgroups defined by their demographic profile?
Do the survey participants consider that the Japanese language educator
community in North America is a diverse one? If not, in what respects
do they think it is lacking in diversity?
What do the survey participants consider to be contributing factors forthe limited diversity of the Japanese language educator community?
How does the lack of diversity manifest itself in the field of Japanese
language education? What kinds of discrimination or bias have thesurvey participants experienced or observed?

Finally, Section 4 offers our concluding remarks, including the limitationsof the current survey and future activities that we hope will be promptedby this article.
2. The Survey
2.1. Survey Design

In order to investigate the perspectives of Japanese-language educators inNorth America, we developed an online survey comprising the following
four parts:

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

270 | Japanese Language and Literature

I. Demographic information
II. Beliefs about Japanese language and culture
III. Beliefs about teacher qualifications
IV. Perspectives/experiences about teacher diversity

Part I asked respondents’ personal attributes, such as gender and first
language (L1), as well as their educational and professional backgrounds,
including the highest degree earned, type of affiliated institution, and yearsof teaching experience. We included these items as independent variables
for subsequent statistical analysis.
Part II delved into teachers’ attitudes toward language and culture,
which presumably underlie their day-to-day teaching practice. With these
items, we hoped to identify the goals and values that teachers hold forJapanese language education. When designing this section, we referred tothe trial version of The Global Englishes Orientation Questionnaire(GEO-Q), developed by Rose, Funada, and Briggs (2018), whichcontained fifty-seven statements on English language learners’ attitudes
toward global Englishes. As shown below, the themes covered in the
GEO-Q are pertinent to the discussion of diversity and inclusion. GEOQ’s emphasis on these issues is the primary reason for our decision to baseour questionnaire on it. We changed the wording of the originalquestionnaire to suit our context (i. e., Japanese-language teachers) andserve the current purpose (i. e., diversity, inclusion, and professionalism).
We also decided to cut down the number of items in order to make thesurvey manageable for respondents. To this end, we first identified sevenbroad themes covered in the GEO-Q. Then, we selected (or created) two
statements to fall into each category, which led us to have a total of
fourteen statements. The themes and the statements are listed below.
a.

Attitudes toward Japanese varieties#1. A good Japanese teacher provides opportunities for learners to learn
about different varieties of Japanese (dialects, etc.).
#2. Awareness of different varieties of Japanese (dialects, etc.) will
enable students to learn about a greater range of Japanese speakers.

b. Attitudes toward standard Japanese#3. Standard Japanese is more correct than other varieties of Japanese,
including regional dialects.
#4. Good Japanese language instruction focuses on preparing students
to use standard Japanese.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 271

c.

Attitudes toward native speakers of Japanese#5. The true owners of Japanese are anyone who uses Japanese.
#6. When I think of a Japanese speaker, I imagine a speaker from Japan.

d. Attitudes toward accuracy (grammar, intonation, etc.)#7. Only grammatically correct Japanese should be taught in Japanese
language classes.
#8. One of the goals of learning the Japanese language is to speak witha native-like accent.
e.

Attitudes toward Japanese culture#9. Good Japanese teachers help students appreciate unique aspects ofJapanese culture in their teaching.
#10. In order to be accepted by Japanese society, students have tounderstand the language and culture.

f.

Attitudes toward goals of Japanese learning#11. I would like my students to use Japanese in a multilingual
community.
#12. Learning Japanese will help my students develop flexibility andsensitivity towards cultures / societies with which they are notfamiliar.

g.

Attitudes toward Japanese-language teachers#13. Being a native speaker is not an important characteristic of a goodJapanese teacher.
#14. The role of the teacher is to help students develop native-likeproficiency.

As a project aiming to bring the issues of diversity and inclusion into
focus, we fully acknowledge the controversial nature of expressions usedin the survey, such as “native speakers,” “native-like proficiency,” and“the true owners of Japanese.” We nonetheless decided to include thembecause these terms and statements are something that can be observed inmundane discourse in our profession and we hoped to evoke the survey
participants’ reactions to such ideas. Respondents were instructed toindicate their beliefs with each statement with a 6-point sliding scale.1
With the statistical analysis, we aimed to elucidate the overall patterns ofbeliefs held by Japanese-language educators in North America.
Part III gathered information about the survey participants’perspectives on teacher qualifications, which relate to professionalism as
espoused in our community. We asked respondents to select the five mostimportant criteria that they would consider when hiring a new teacher intheir programs. We initially planned to run statistical tests and examine

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

272 | Japanese Language and Literaturepatterns of teacher beliefs according to their demographic backgrounds.
However, after consulting the statisticians, we learned that there was no
valid analysis available because of the relatively small number of response
counts that fall into each rank, and therefore, we did not include the resultsof this section in this report.2
Part IV, on the other hand, is devoted to open-ended comments,
through which we hoped to get at teachers’ perceptions on diversity andinclusion, as well as specific episodes that bring to light particularities ofindividual situations and experiences. The following were posed:
1.
2.
3.

Do you believe the Japanese language educator community in North
America is a diverse one? If not, in what respects is it lacking indiversity?
What factors do you think contribute to limit the diversity of theJapanese language teaching community?
What are the consequences of a lack of diversity? Please describe any
episode(s) you have observed or experienced below, including any
attitudes, utterances, or actions that may point to bias.

The survey participants were instructed to write their answers either inJapanese or English for this part of the survey.
By gathering both quantitative and qualitative information, we hoped
to understand general tendencies concerning the survey participants’views on the Japanese language, culture, and its teaching and possible gaps
among subgroups, as well as more nuanced narratives and specificinstances experienced by the participants. As shown below, the statisticalinformation generated by Part II was used to address the first question
posited in the introduction, whereas narrative responses to Part IV werequalitatively analyzed to respond to the remaining three questions. Finally,it should be kept in mind that this questionnaire was intended to gather
real and unheard voices of our community in order to facilitate aconstructive discussion. We did not conduct any pilot study to refine theinstruments used in this survey, a typical protocol for conducting a surveybased research study. Thus, the results below should be read as a summary
report of the membership survey rather than the findings of a researchstudy.
2.2. Distribution and Recruitment

The survey was administered in the fall of 2018, using the Qualtrics survey
software. We sent invitations to participate in the survey to the email

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 273

listservs of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese (AATJ), theCanadian Association for Japanese Language Education (CAJLE), andSenseiOnline (an online community for those interested in Japanese
language/culture education). Although AATJ and CAJLE are the major
professional organizations that serve Japanese-language educators inNorth America, and SenseiOnline is an extensive online community withmany subscribers, we realize that the members that can be reached throughthese channels might not necessarily exhaust individuals who are engaged
in Japanese language education in various ways.
2.3. Demographics of Survey Respondents

A total of 392 respondents were recorded in the Qualtrics survey database.
Out of these responses, we excluded from our count those who did not go
beyond Part I (demographic information) and those living outside of North
America. As a result, 355 remained as valid respondents. Table 1 shows
the breakdown of the respondents by gender. As shown here, nearly 80%of the respondents were female whereas only 17% were male respondents.
One may see this imbalance as a skewed representation of population, but
this disproportionate gender balance indeed corresponds with the survey
participants’ perceptions concerning the gender imbalance in the field,
which will be discussed in Section 3.2.
Table 1. Respondents by Gender
GenderFemaleMale
Prefer not to say

n = 355
281
59
15

100%
79.2%
16.6%
4.2%

Table 2 shows the breakdown of the respondents by their first
languages (L1). Out of the 355 respondents, 261 (73.5%) indicated their
L1 as Japanese. The number roughly corresponds to the one reported by
the Japan Foundation (2017a) and also parallels the survey participants’
perception concerning the predominance of L1 Japanese teachers in thecommunity, to be discussed in Section 3.2. Approximately 24% of the
respondents were L1 speakers of English. Other languages mentioned
include German, Polish, Spanish, and Korean, while some people wrotethat they speak multiple L1s.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

274 | Japanese Language and Literature

Table 2. Respondents by L1
L1 language
Japanese
EnglishOthern = 355
261
84
10

100%
73.5%
23.7%
2.8%

Table 3 shows the respondents’ highest degrees earned. Master’s
degree holders make up the majority (63.4%), followed by doctorate
degree (25.1%) and bachelor’s degree (9.8%). Others—although only 10
people—wrote associate degree, post-bachelor (including certificate), or
post-master.

Table 3. Respondents by Highest Degree Earned
Highest degree earned
Master’s
Doctorate
Bachelor’s
Othern = 355
225
89
35
6

100%
63.4%
25.1%
9.8%
1.7%

Table 4 below presents the breakdown of the respondents by types of
institution at which they were teaching. We divided the institution type as
4-year higher education institutions (e. g., university, liberal arts college),2-year higher education institutions (e. g., community college, vocational
college), K–12 institutions (e. g., kindergarten, elementary school, middle
school, high school), and others. 54.1% of the respondents were teachingat 4-year higher education institutions, constituting the majority, followedby K–12 institutions (34.1%) and 2-year higher education institutions(5.6%). Others included weekend school, adult education, and so forth.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 275

Table 4. Respondents by Institution TypeInstitution type
Four year
K–12
Two yearOthern = 355
192
121
20
22

100%
54.1%
34.1%
5.6%
6.2%

Table 5 shows the respondents’ teaching experience, divided into 1–5
years, 6–10 years, 11–15 years, 16–20 years, and more than 20 years. The
group with the longest experience (i. e., more than 20 years) was found tobe the majority, making up almost one third of our respondents. The midrange career groups (i. e., 6–10 years, 11–15 years, 16–20 years) eachcomprise similar proportions (i. e., 16.6–20.0%). Teachers with 1–5 yearsof experience constitute the smallest group. As will be discussed in Section
3.2, this distribution also corresponds with some of the survey participants’
perception that the field is dominated by the older generation of teachers.
Table 5. Respondents by Teaching Experience
Experience
More than 20
10–15 years
6–10 years
16–20 years
1–5 years
No answern = 355
113
71
64
59
42
6

100%
31.8%
20.0%
18.0%
16.6%
11.8%
1.7%

These demographic profiles were set as independent variables for thestatistical analysis to be discussed in Section 3.1. Not all of the 355 survey
participants, however, answered the open-ended questions in Part IV, aswill be discussed in the later sections.
3. The Analysis and Results
3.1. Teacher Beliefs on Goals of Japanese Language Education

This section addresses the first questions presented in the introduction bysummarizing the results of Part II of the questionnaire in which we asked

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

276 | Japanese Language and Literature

about teachers’ attitudes toward Japanese language and culture as they
relate to day-to-day teaching practice. In addition to the examination of
overall response patterns, we ran a series of statistical tests to identify ifthere are any differences in perception according to respondents’demographic profiles. As explained above, the following five variables
were included as independent variables.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Gender (2 levels: male, female)
L13 (2 levels: L1 Japanese, L2 Japanese)
Institution type (2 levels: K–12, college)
Degree (3 levels: bachelor’s, master’s, doctorate)
Teaching experience (3 levels: 1–10 years, 11–20 years, more than 20
years)For the two-level variables (i. e., gender, L1, institution type), we used the
Wilcoxon signed-rank test, which allows for comparing two related
samples with non-parametric data. For the three-level variables (i. e.,
degree, teaching experience), we ran the Kruskal-Wallis test, which candeal with more than two groups. The p value was set at 0.01 for all thestatistical tests.
In order to give an overview of response patterns, agreement rates foreach of the fourteen statements—calculated as the sum of the percentageof respondents who chose “strongly agree,” “agree,” or “somewhat
agree”—are presented in Table 6. The number denoted by # correspondswith the statement number introduced in Section 2.1, but the statements
are reorganized in descending order from the highest agreement rate to thelowest. The asterisks on the leftmost column indicate the items that yielded
statistical significance with certain variables.
A cursory examination of the items ranked high in the table brings up
an interesting observation. For example, the most-agreed statement (#12)
and the item ranked third (#11) were both statements included in the
category of Goals of Japanese Learning. Presumably, these statements arealigned with the recent debate on the goals of language education, such as
global competence (ACTFL 2015) and translingual/transculturalcompetence (MLA 2007). Judging from the close-to-unanimous
agreement rates (with 99.7% and 94.9%, respectively) and the absence ofstatistical difference for these statements, we can confidently assume thatthese goals are widely shared and accepted among Japanese-language
educators.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 277

Table 6. Agreement Rate for Part II
SignificanceStatement Item

Agreement
Rate#12. Learning Japanese will help my students develop
flexibility and sensitivity towards cultures/societies
with which they are not familiar.
#2. Awareness of different varieties of Japanese(dialects, etc.) will enable students to learn about agreater range of Japanese speakers.

99.7%#11. I would like my students to use Japanese in a
multilingual community.

94.9%

*

#9. Good Japanese teachers help students appreciateunique aspects of Japanese culture in their teaching.

94.3%

*

#13. Being a native speaker is not an importantcharacteristic of a good Japanese teacher.

90.7%#10. In order to be accepted by Japanese society,students have to understand the language and culture.
#1. A good Japanese teacher provides opportunities
for learners to learn about different varieties ofJapanese (dialects, etc.).

89.2%#5. The true owners of Japanese are anyone who uses
Japanese.
#4. Good Japanese language instruction focuses on
preparing students to use standard Japanese.

81.0%#6. When I think of a Japanese speaker, I imagine a
speaker from Japan.

72.6%#14. The role of the teacher is to help students develop
native-like proficiency.
#8. One of the goals of learning the Japanese language
is to speak with a native-like accent.

62.7%#7. Only grammatically correct Japanese should betaught in Japanese language classes.

50.8%#3. Standard Japanese is more correct than othervarieties of Japanese, including regional dialects.

29.3%

*

*

*

*

96.2%

88.8%

75.7%

59.1%

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

278 | Japanese Language and Literature

In contrast, other items that are ranked high in the table (i. e., over 90%
agreement rate) yielded statistically significant differences among
subgroups of respondents. For example, #2 (96.2%), which was concernedwith Japanese Varieties, #9 (94.3%) with Japanese Culture., #13 (90.7%)
with Japanese-Language Teacher, were all found to be statisticallysignificant. This means that there was a systematic interaction between
certain demographic variables of the respondents and the ways they
responded to these items. Given that these statements achieved highagreement rates (more than 90%), it is particularly significant to see how
certain subgroups of teachers responded differently. This issue will befurther explained with the results of the statistical analysis.
Correspondingly, the items ranked low in the table also show an
intriguing pattern. The four least-agreed items (#14, #8, #7, #3) all concern
the correctness of language to be taught in class. More precisely, thesestatements point to the profound value attached to standard Japanese,
correct grammar, and native-like proficiency as the legitimate goal ofJapanese language instruction. Considering that the respondents agreed
less (which also means they disagreed) with these items overall, we caninfer some awareness of the controversial nature of monolingual, nativespeakerism ideology embedded in these statements (Lowe and Pinner2016). However, given that these statements were not unanimously
declined, either, there might be some discrepancies among the teachers on
this issue.
In order to examine where such discrepancies exist, we present below
the results of the statistical tests we ran for these items. Of the fourteenstatements asked in Part II, six generated statistically significant differencewith one or more of the independent variables measured. Table 7
summarizes the distribution of statistical significance (p ≤ 0.01) foundacross different independent variables (i. e., demographic backgrounds)
and the theme categories.
As evident, only certain theme categories and demographic
backgrounds were responsible for the statistically significant differences.
With regard to the independent variables, for example, L1, institution type,and highest degree affected the response patterns, but the other variables,
namely, gender and teaching experience, did not. Likewise, only certain
themes—namely, Japanese Varieties, Standard Japanese, Accuracy,
Japanese Culture, and Japanese-Language Teachers—were affected bythese independent variables. In what follows below, we discuss theinstances that are particularly noteworthy in relation to our current

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 279

discussion on Japanese-language educators’ beliefs on the goals ofJapanese language education.
Table 7. Distribution of Statistical Significance for Part II
ThemesJapanese Varieties
Standard Japanese
Native Speakers ofJapanese
Accuracy
Japanese Culture
Goals of Japanese
Learning
Japanese-Language
Teachers

Gender

L1

Institution
type

Highestdegree#4#2#3, #4#3, #4

#8
#9

#8
#9

#8
#9

Experience#13

Attitudes toward Standard Japanese

The two statements included in this category are both concerned with thelegitimacy of setting standard Japanese as the primary target of Japanese
language instruction and yielded significant difference with similarvariables, including L1, institution type, and highest degree. Tables 8–10
show the distribution of responses for #4 (Good Japanese language
instruction focuses on preparing students to use standard Japanese) withthese variables. In order to highlight the differences between the groups,
the cells with top three highest percentages in each group are shaded.
Table 8. Distribution of Responses for Statement #4 by L1
Response
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
DisagreeStrongly disagree

L2 Japanese
13 (15.5%)
36 (42.9%)
28 (33.3%)
4 (4.8%)2 (2.4%)
1 (1.2%)L1 Japanese
14 (6.2%)
50 (22.2%)
93 (41.3%)
33 (14.7%)
24 (10.7%)
11 (4.9%)

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

280 | Japanese Language and Literature

Table 9. Distribution of Responses for Statement #4 by Institution Type
Response
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
DisagreeStrongly disagree

K–12
18 (16.7%)
31 (28.7%)
39 (36.1%)
10 (9.3%)
8 (7.4%)2 (1.9%)College
6 (3.3%)48 (26.2%)
79 (43.2%)
24 (13.1%)
17 (9.3%)
9 (4.9%)

Table 10. Distribution of Responses for Statement #4 by Highest Degree Earned
Response
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
SomewhatdisagreeDisagreeStrongly disagree

Bachelor’s
9 (29.0%)
10 (32.3%)
8 (25.8%)
2 (6.5%)Master’s
15 (7.5%)
55 (27.5%)
84 (42.0%)
25 (12.5%)

Doctorate
3 (4.1%)20 (27.0%)
28 (37.8%)
8 (10.8%)

1 (3.2%)
1 (3.2%)13 (6.5%)
8 (4.0%)12 (16.2%)

3 (4.1%)The overall trend observable here is that L2 Japanese teachers, K–12
teachers, and teachers with a bachelor’s degree are more inclined to agreewith the idea of emphasizing standard Japanese in class. Noticeably fewer
teachers in these groups indicated disagreement, as compared with theteachers in the other groups (i. e., Japanese, college, master’s, doctorate).
As for the highest degree variable, the higher the degree, the more
inclination for disagreement is observed. In fact, a similar pattern isobserved with the other statement in this category (#3).4 K–12 teachers
and teachers with a bachelor’s degree have a stronger tendency to agreewith the idea that standard Japanese is more correct while theircounterparts are prone to show disagreement with this item. The
discrepancy is generated particularly by those who hold a doctoral degree
as they tend to disagree with this statement more than the other groups.
Over 90% of them disagreed with the statement. Given that this item (#3)
received a low agreement rate (29.3%), as compared with #4 (75.7%), theJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 281

teachers are generally aware of the controversial nature of this statement.
As discussed above, an emphasis on standard Japanese is suggestive of theideology on the legitimacy and illegitimacy of particular language
variations to be considered as the goal of language education (Kramsch2012). Such an ideology is also observed in the attitudes toward accuracy,
which we explain below.
Attitudes toward Accuracy

Tables 11–13 show the results for statement #8. The same set ofindependent variables (i. e., L1, institution type, and highest degree) arefound to be affecting the response patterns in similar ways as discussed
above. More precisely, L2 Japanese teachers, K–12 teachers, and teacherswith a bachelor’s degree tend to agree with the emphasis on a native-likeaccent as the goal of Japanese language instruction—more so than theircounterparts with different characteristics. In the case of highest degree,
the higher the degree one holds, the less inclined respondents are to agree.
Table 11. Distribution of Responses for Statement #8 by L1
Response
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
DisagreeStrongly disagree

L2 Japanese

L1 Japanese

11 (13.1%)
28 (33.3%)
29 (34.5%)
7 (8.3%)6 (7.1%)3 (3.6%)9 (3.9%)33 (14.4%)
75 (32.8%)
41 (17.9%)
45 (19.7%)
26 (11.4%)

Table 12. Distribution of Responses for Statement #8 by Tnstitution Type
Response
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
DisagreeStrongly disagree

K–12
8 (7.4%)33 (30.6%)30 (27.8%)
16 (14.8%)
10 (9.3%)
11 (10.2%)

College
9 (4.8%)23 (12.3%)
69 (36.9%)
29 (15.5%)40 (21.4%)
17 (9.1%)

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

282 | Japanese Language and Literature

Table 13. Distribution of Responses for Statement #8 by Highest Degree Earned
Response
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
SomewhatdisagreeDisagreeStrongly disagree

Bachelor’s
7 (21.9%)9 (28.1%)
6 (18.8%)
4 (12.5%)

Master’s
8 (3.9%)45 (22.2%)
72 (35.5%)
29 (14.3%)

Doctorate
5 (6.8%)6 (8.1%)24 (32.4%)
15 (20.3%)

5 (15.6%)
1 (3.1%)31 (15.3%)
18 (8.9%)15 (20.3%)
9 (12.2%)

59.1% of the respondents agreed with Statement #8 overall, which, byitself, shows a weak consensus among the Japanese-language educators on
this item. The other statement in this category (#7) also shows a similar
degree of disparity in teacher response (50.8%). Therefore, the teachers
have varied perspectives on the importance of accuracy—be it accent orgrammar—to be underscored in instruction. It is, then, remarkable to findthe statistically significant gaps in the perspectives on native-like accent
according to different subgroups of L1, institution type, and highest degree
backgrounds. It should be emphasized that both items in the Accuracy
category are explicitly indexing a reference with the native-speakeryardstick. This kind of belief is closely tied into how “native speaker” isconceptualized and venerated in language education, whether consciouslyor unconsciously, which we will discuss below.
Attitudes toward Japanese-Language Teachers

Statement #13 in this category generated a statistically significant
difference. Again, although the majority agreed with this statement thatemphasizes the insignificance of the native-speaker status as aqualification for Japanese-language teachers (90.7%), the extent to which
it is agreed or disagreed with by each subgroup yielded a statisticallysignificant difference as shown in Table 14. 61.9% of the L2 Japaneseteachers strongly agreed with this statement, whereas only 34.1% of the
L1 Japanese group did so. Correspondingly, more L1 Japanese teachers
indicated disagreement overall (10.9%) than L2 Japanese teachers (4.8%).

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 283

Table 14. Distribution of Responses for Statement #13 by L1
Response
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
DisagreeStrongly disagree

L2 Japanese
52 (61.9%)
20 (23.8%)8 (9.5%)2 (2.4%)0 (0%)
2 (2.4%)

L1 Japanese
78 (34.1%)
80 (34.9%)
46 (20.1%)
17 (7.4%)
6 (2.6%)2 (0.9%)The fact that L2 Japanese teachers are inclined to agree with thisstatement more strongly than L1 Japanese teachers, and that the difference
was statistically significant, is worthy of note. As we have examined above,the majority of L2 Japanese teachers support standard Japanese and nativelike accent as an instructional target. However, when it comes to teacher
qualifications, they clearly depreciate native-speakerism. In contrast, L1
Japanese teachers showed a less clear stance on these issues. That is, theyneither strongly support nor reject the statements that point to nativespeakerism, as compared with L2 Japanese teachers. It seems of great
importance to understand how the gaps between these groups come to be
and what they mean in terms of diversity and inclusion.
Attitudes toward Japanese CultureStatement #9, which asked whether unique aspects of Japanese culture
should be emphasized in instruction, generated an interesting result.
Clearly, most teachers agreed with the idea depicted by this statement(94.3% agreement rate). The overall importance of culture learning incurrent pedagogy is apparently discernible from the strong leaning toward
agreement here. However, the degrees to which agreement was expressed
differ significantly across subgroups. While a majority of L2 Japaneseteachers chose “strongly agree” (72.4%), less than a half of L1 Japaneseteachers did so (46.5%). On the other hand, some L1 teachers indicateddisagreement (7.5%), but few L2 teachers disagreed with this statement(1.1%). Similar discrepancies were also observed for the subgroups ofinstitution type and highest degree with a higher percentage of college
teachers and doctorate holders showing disagreement with this statement
than their counterparts. This statement may evoke a static and monolithic

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

284 | Japanese Language and Literature

view of Japanese culture, which counters the widely acknowledged goalsof language education discussed earlier, including the global orientationand the sensitivity and flexibility towards other cultures. Thus, as it
appears, the overstated uniqueness of Japanese culture probably resulted
in some discord among the teachers.
Summary of 3.1

Overall, the general goals of Japanese language teaching, which lead tothe education of world-ready multilingual individuals with flexibility andsensitivity towards diverse cultures/societies, are shared by the majority ofthe survey participants. Considering that we did not find the same level ofconsensus with the other items (either agreement or disagreement), thehigh agreement rate on these goals is particularly remarkable. Moreover,a clear pattern emerged out of the discrepancies among different
subgroups. L2 Japanese teachers, K–12 teachers, and teachers with abachelor’s degree tend to support standard Japanese and native-likeaccuracy as legitimate targets of language instruction more actively thantheir counterparts. At the same time, L2 Japanese teachers tended todepreciate the native-speaker attribute as a characteristic important forgood Japanese-language educators more than L1 Japanese teachers. The
contrasting results on native-speakerism as instructional targets as
opposed to teacher qualifications adds further complexity to the situation.
As stated earlier, these findings should be read as general tendencies
according to different demographic backgrounds and be complemented bynarrative responses that provide specific details. In the sections that follow,
we present the narrative responses.
3.2. Perceived Diversity in the Japanese Language Educator
Community

This section reviews the results of 248 responses submitted to the first setof the open-ended questions: “Do you believe the Japanese language
educator community in North America is a diverse one?” “If not, in what
respects is it lacking in diversity?” Nearly 60% of the survey respondents(144 out of 248) indicated that they believe the Japanese language educator
community in North America is not diverse, whereas approximately 20%(49 out of 248) believe it is. The remaining respondents indicated “neither”
or provided no direct response. A higher percentage of K–12 teachers(approximately 30%, or 31 out of 105) provided an affirmative responseto this question than college teachers (a little over 12%, 18 out of 143).

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 285

Open-ended responses to the second question covered a wide range of
topics and themes. In order to identify salient and repeated ideas andpresent them in a logical and consistent manner, we employed a thematic
analysis approach (Braun and Clarke 2006; Maguire and Delahunt 2017).
In the coding process, key ideas (nouns) that capture the topics discussed
in each response were extracted and grouped into categories to form
distinct themes, which were then used to find patterns, including frequency
and interrelationship (Saldaña 2014). Coding was done by all four authors,
divided into two teams, with one team responsible for initial coding andthe other checking and verifying it. The most frequently discussed themes
were ethnic/cultural background, gender/sexuality, and age/generation.
We will explicate each of these themes below.
Ethnic/Cultural Background

Most respondents who believe that the Japanese language educator
community in North America is lacking in diversity discussed theimbalance of ethnic/cultural background. This theme subsumes a numberof ideas expressed by the respondents. For example, many referred to theskewed representation of L1 and L2 Japanese speaking teachers (e. g.,“They are mostly native speakers”). These comments appear to reflect thereality mentioned at the beginning of this essay that North America has
the highest percentage (77.3%) of L1 Japanese teachers of all the world
regions (Japan Foundation 2017a). The terms “native” and “non-native,”
however, were not always used to refer to teachers’ L1 in the respondents’open-ended responses. They were also used to express the ideas ofethnicity or cultural upbringing.
Besides the “native” versus “non-native” divide, some respondents
explicitly referred to a particular nationality, ethnicity, race, or color,either as dominating, or being underrepresented in the field. For instance,
the scarcity of African American, Black, Brown, Caucasian, Latino,
Zainichi Koreans, or mixed heritage was mentioned. Yet others describedteachers’ limited experience or exposure to other cultures without using
any particular label (e. g., “Those I know are often people who grew up in
Japan”). A few even noted the limited range of cultural backgrounds
represented among Japanese-language teachers in North America (i. e.,
Japanese, American, Korean, Chinese) in comparison to the current
diversity of our student population.
Gender/Sexuality

Approximately 70 percent of the respondents noted that the community islacking in diversity in gender/sexuality. Many of them discussed that thisJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

286 | Japanese Language and Literaturefield is dominated by female teachers. Indeed, this is also implied by thegender imbalance of the current survey participants (see Table 1). Somepeople also commented on the underrepresentation of various sexual
orientations and gender identities (e. g., gay, transgender, LGBTQ, etc.).
With regard to this, some comments discussed that the community is
primarily dominated by heterosexual teachers.
Age/Generation
Compared with the first two themes, age and generation were discussed
less frequently. Still, many of those who mentioned age/generation(approximately 14 percent of the respondents) agreed that the field—
dominated by older generations—is short of younger teachers. Although“old” and “young” are relative and equivocal concepts, this issue isparticularly crucial because it concerns the sustainability of the field. In
fact, 31.8% of the current survey participants have more than 20 years ofteaching experience and 16.6% of respondents have 16-20 years ofteaching experience (Table 5). Combined with the fact that the teacher
shortage in North America was noted by the Japan Foundation (2017a)survey, cultivating new generations of teachers is a matter of urgent
concern.
Other Themes

Besides the three main themes above, there were other concerns in regard
to diversity and inclusion expressed by the respondents. For example, withregard to diversity among Japanese, some people pointed out the skewed
representation of different regional accents and dialects. Similarly, somediscussed that many teachers seem to be from the Kanto region or urban
areas of Japan, or from the middle to upper-middle class. These comments
appear to correspond to the critical reflection on the traditional emphasison the idealized native speaker of standard Japanese as a model, discussed
in Section 3.1. Other comments touched on the lack of diversity inacademic/professional training, as well as the lack of communication
among subgroups of teachers formed based on the sense of comradeship( 仲間意識) or common teaching philosophy or methodology. Even theterm “faction (派閥)” was used to describe the phenomenon.
Summary of 3.2

As we discussed in this section, the majority of the respondents believethat the field is lacking in diversity. Ethnic/cultural backgrounds,
gender/sexuality, and age/generation were the three most notable areas inJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 287

which the lack of diversity was recognized by the respondents. Theseobservations, by and large, appear to reflect the reality of the situation.
That is, L1 Japanese, female, and teachers with long-term experience makeup the preponderance of community members while other groups arepresumably underrepresented. In the next section, we will delve into thecauses of such an imbalance as perceived by the survey participants.
3.3. Contributing Factors for the Limited Diversity

This section addresses the third question explained in the introduction,
which was concerned with the perceived causes of the limited diversity.
We analyzed the responses using the same procedure described above andextracted the most recurrently discussed factors: unappealing working
conditions, lack of teacher training programs and a decline in the numberof Japanese language learners, native-speakerism, and heteronormativity.
Interestingly, some of these factors are relevant across different themes
concerning the lack of diversity identified above.
Unappealing Working Conditions

One of the most recurrent factors mentioned by the respondents concerned
the precarious working conditions of this profession as perceived bycurrent and future Japanese-language educators: these may include
excessive teaching loads, instability of employment (often part-time), andinadequate compensation. The issues of job stability and security werebrought up constantly in relation to all the three areas where diversity wasconsidered lacking. For example, quite a few respondents talked about thegender imbalance in the field resulting from non-competitive salaries thatare unattractive to men, who are often considered to be the primary earnersof the household. The lack of competitive compensation is also perceived
as resulting in a significant strain in recruiting and retaining younger
generations, as well as competent L2 Japanese speaking professionals.
Additionally, the hurdle of obtaining a teaching license for K–12 teachers,
which requires a tremendous amount of time and financial resources,
keeps people from considering teaching as their career.
In addition to the financial instability and job insecurity, the perceived
low status of language teaching positions, especially at the college level,is also believed to keep prospective teachers with a minority background(male, L2 Japanese speaking, young) away from the field. In researchoriented institutions, language courses are primarily taught by non-tenure
track (and often part-time) instructors, whereas so-called “content courses”
are covered by tenure-track/tenured faculty members. The “bifurcation”

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

288 | Japanese Language and Literature

inherent in area studies/language-literature programs across U.S.
institutions has been recognized and critically discussed (e. g., MLA 2007).
This structural issue, pointed out more than a decade ago, has not seenmuch improvement. In fact, the financial pressures felt by universities andcolleges in recent years appear to have worsened the situation in somecontexts (Chronicle of Higher Education 2019).
While the financial insecurity and the low-status perception often
associated with language teaching positions are largely the results ofsocietal and institutional functions, it is also teachers themselves who may
contribute to the creation of the “unappealing” image of the occupation
through their working style, especially for their students who may
otherwise be aspired to be future teachers. One respondent particularly
discussed how current learners of Japanese may not find Japanese teachingjobs appealing as their future career because they see their teachers
working tirelessly under seemingly difficult work conditions, having
meetings on weekends and working long hours, etc. This comment, while
derived primarily from personal contacts, points to an ironic circle inwhich teachers’ “hard” work ethic, translated to their students, ends up
discouraging future teachers. This circumstance, along with the low salary,
may lead competent language learners to turn to other occupations.
Overall, the disadvantages of the Japanese teaching profession areperceived as limiting the pool of potential teachers to individuals withcertain profiles (e. g., female L1 Japanese speakers). Although thesecomments appear to make intuitive sense, we need to interpret them withcaution. The situations surrounding diversity differ considerably acrossdifferent languages despite presumably similar “working conditions” tothose depicted above. The predominance of L1 speaking teachers in theJapanese language educator community is particularly remarkable, as it is
not seen in other commonly-taught languages, such as Spanish, French,and German. Therefore, as much as these factors are surely contributing
to the dynamics of diversity, they are not solely responsible for theparticular situation of Japanese language education.
Lack of Teacher Training Programs and Decline in Enrollments

The lack of teacher training programs is perhaps one factor that may varydepending on the particular situation of different languages. Some
respondents pointed out the scarcity of graduate programs or teacher
licensure programs in Japanese as the cause for diminishing younger
generations of teachers. According to the Japan Foundation (2017b), as ofJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 289

2015, only sixty-five institutions in the United States offered some kind ofteacher training programs. The same survey also reports that the numberof teachers and institutions in North America have decreased from 2012
to 2015 and attributes the decline to the diminishing federal support forforeign language education and the shortage of candidates for Japanese
language teacher positions, especially in K–12 institutions. The financialpressure tends to motivate institutions to discontinue existing positions
upon the retirement or departure of current teachers, or to downgrade themfrom tenure-track to non-tenure track, or from full-time to part-time. Thissituation continues to pose a challenge for younger generations to enter
this field.
Further, some people also discussed low and declining numbers ofJapanese language learners as a possible cause for the situation, especiallythe generational imbalance. As a matter of fact, the survey results by theModern Language Association (2019) and the Japan Foundation (2017a)
both report a slight increase in Japanese language enrollments in North
America. However, these reports only show the aggregated data without
separate numbers by institution types or regions. Therefore, it isnoteworthy that some respondents, who presumably have experienced adecline in enrollments, brought up this issue as a possible factor for thegeneration imbalance. In reality, the lack of teacher training programs,
available positions, and available teacher candidates (e. g., learners ofJapanese) are likely be intertwined, and most of the issues are financiallydetermined both at the federal/national and state/local levels.
Native-Speakerism

While the two factors discussed above are more or less pragmatic matters,
there are also ideological aspects that are less delineable but surely
prevalent and ubiquitous. Native-speakerism has been defined—originallyin the context of English language teaching—as a “belief that ‘nativespeaker’ teachers represent a ‘Western culture’ from which spring theideals both of the English language and of English language teaching
methodology” (Holliday 2006: 385). It is a stereotype that favors or values
the native speaker. In the survey, for example, some respondents
commented on the perceived language superiority of native speakers as acontributing factor that characterizes the current state of community
membership imbalance. Examples of bias and prejudice discussed by the
respondents include:

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

290 | Japanese Language and Literature●●●

Japanese language is too difficult for L2 speakers to reach an advanced
level.
L1 Japanese speakers are better language teachers.
Correct or native-like Japanese should be taught in class.

These comments give context to how native-speakerism is prevailingas a form of validation for teacher qualifications, which can also betranslated into the preference of L1 Japanese teachers in hiring. It should
be reminded that, as we discussed in Section 3.1, there were statisticallysignificant gaps between L1 and L2 teachers in their views on instructionaltargets and teacher qualifications. That is, whereas L2 teachers underscorethe importance of native-like accent yet depreciate the native-speaker
attributes in teaching, L1 teachers maintain a less clear stance in bothrespects. Therefore, biases toward native speakers are held differently by
L1 and L2 speaking teachers.
Heteronormativity

Another ideological element brought up in the survey was related to thelimited representation of diverse sexual orientations in the teacher
community. As described by some respondents, due to the pervasive ideathat heterosexuality is the norm in society, LGBTQ teachers may feel
vulnerable or alienated, which hinders them from being open about theirsexuality. There are some people who even feel insecure about theiremployment opportunities. In fact, one respondent particularly describedthe difficulty of revealing their sexual orientation because they heard ofincidents in which employment might be rejected due to sexuality. Whilethese are presumably extreme and possibly illegal cases, these comments
clearly reflect the heteronormativity prevalent in the community.
It should be noted that heteronormativity is not limited to Japanese
language education or academic communities, but it exposes the problem
omnipresent in society at large. For example, some respondents pointed
out that the heteronormative ideology is widely retained without criticalapprehension in Japanese society, where the Japanese government has
only recently begun discussing the possibility of proposing a bill thatallows same-sex marriage. While the number of respondents who
discussed this theme was smaller than the other three themes discussed
above, their voices remind us of an important aspect of diversity beyond
native versus non-native, gender, and age/generation, especially given thenumber of LGBTQ students studying Japanese. We will further discuss
some comments on this topic in the next section.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 291

Summary of 3.3

This section discussed the factors that led to the limited diversity of theJapanese language educator community, as perceived and experienced by
the respondents. These factors are personally, institutionally, andsocietally constructed and intricately related. Hence, it is hardly possible
to explicate them as discrete elements. In essence, we can summarize thesecauses as pragmatic constraints, on the one hand, and ideological issues,on the other. In our eyes, neither are easily resolvable. Nonetheless, therecognition of these issues at least leads to a step forward. In the next
section, we will present concrete episodes in which the lack of diversity is
manifested in mundane experience.
3.4. Biases and Discrimination Experienced or Observed by theSurvey ParticipantsThis section introduces specific episodes that exemplify varied issues
concerning diversity (or rather lack thereof), inclusion, andprofessionalism experienced or observed by the survey participants. In thissection, we decided to share some actual excerpts of the survey
respondents’ open-ended responses rather than presenting the results of athematic analysis as we did in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. This is because webelieve that by introducing the respondents’ actual voices, we can sharesome of the nuances that may be otherwise lost and also offer readers an
opportunity to develop their own interpretation. To reiterate, the purposeof this survey was to gather beliefs and experiences of Japanese language
educators from diverse backgrounds and to use the information as astarting point of our dialogs.
Among various topics discussed in the 195 responses to the third openended question, we selected examples that seem to best illustrate recurrent
themes found in episodes shared by the respondents. We also tried toinclude perspectives of respondents from diverse backgrounds, especiallyof those who are deemed the minority in this particular community vis-avis the results of this survey. By no means was the selection an easy
process, but we ultimately decided to highlight the following issues:
native/non-native divide, professional qualifications and candidates’
lingua-cultural backgrounds, an idealized monolithic image of theJapanese, and heteronormativity observed in the profession. All the
responses are original, but apparent grammatical mistakes or typos arecorrected in brackets. Comments written in Japanese were translated by
the authors. The respondents’ backgrounds are noted in parentheses.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

292 | Japanese Language and Literature

Native/Non-Native Divide

In the previous section, we discussed how pervasively native-speakerism
can be observed in mundane discourse, in some cases taking the form ofbias against L2 teachers. In this ideology, Japanese people are portrayed
as “legitimate users” of the language. The following excerpt illustrates
how such biases are manifested in everyday interaction.
Excerpt 1
I have worked with Japanese teaching professionals who have expressed
disbelief that non-native speakers can ever really gain a high level ofproficiency in Japanese, and who doubt competency of Japanese teachingcolleagues who are not native speakers. (College, Female, L2, Doctorate,
11–15 years)

From this statement, it is not clear to whom the Japanese teachingprofessionals mentioned in this excerpt addressed this disbelief, but it isapparent that this respondent, who is herself an L2 Japanese speaker, waspresent at the scene when such an explicit comment that discriminates
against L2 speaking teachers was made. In Section 3.1, we discussed how
L1 Japanese teachers maintain more or less an equivocal stance toward
native-speakerism, as compared with their L2 teacher counterparts.
However, this does not preclude the fact that certain individuals overtly
present discriminatory remarks and attitudes. The next excerpt offers
another example that depicts the bias against non-native speakers.
Excerpt 2
Another thing that I have heard teachers discuss is whether non-native
speaking teachers should teach pronunciation or not, and an often-expressedidea is that it would be bad for students to imitate the accent of a non-native
speaker. When I hear these kinds of comments, it seems to me that people
have an overly narrow idea of what “counts” as acceptable Japanese
pronunciation. (College, Female, L2, Doctorate, 6–10 years)

The comment described in this excerpt reflects the assumption that only
L1 speakers can present the model pronunciation. It should be remindedthat the statistical analysis in Section 3.1 presented the mixed responses
on Statement #8 concerning whether a native-like accent should be set asa pedagogical goal (59.1% agreement rate). This incident precisely points
to the presence of individuals who believe in the native-speakersupremacist ideology (Kadoya 2012; Kubota 2008), which gives L1
teachers the authority and excludes L2 teachers as legitimate language

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 293

owners. In fact, this respondent later expressed, “the comments imply that
my Japanese ability is subject to, or vulnerable to, the judgments of others”
and “the comments single me out as different, and this feels othering.”
Unlike the instances introduced above, some people highlighted somepositive aspects of having L2 teachers.
Excerpt 3
I remember a student I taught in 102 at the university. He had taken 101
from a native speaker. He was spell bound by the fact that I could speak
Japanese and his comment was, “I now know I can learn Japanese.” My
response was, “Why?” “Because you aren’t Japanese and I have only every[ever] seen Japanese speak Japanese and my previous teacher told me I
would never be able to learn it.” (College, Female, L2, Bachelor’s, morethan 20 years)

Not only does this example suggest that L2 teachers can serve as rolemodels for students, but also it alerts that having exclusively L1 teachers
may negatively impact their motivation. While a few respondents,
including the author of the excerpt above, mentioned some positive
influences of L2 teachers, the overwhelming number of responses
discussed negative treatment experienced by L2 teachers that points to theprevailing native-speakerism ideology. In addition, such an ideology isadhered to not only by teachers but also students. In fact, the same
respondent added another episode, in which she recounted her somewhat
negative experience with students’ reaction to her: “When I walked intoanother class on [one] evening the students started to leave. I wrote myname on the board and turned around and started speaking Japanese. The
students couldn’t believe a white person was the teacher or so they told melater.” The episode above supports the notion that native-speakerism
ideology is widely held by students as well.
The perceived linguistic hierarchy between L1 and L2 teachers canalso be manifested in their professional encounters more covertly, or
perhaps even innocently, as shown in the following example.
Excerpt 4
I left a working group which had met for multiple months in which I was
the only non-native instructor, and for which the meetings were conductedentirely in Japanese.… The other members of this working group repeatedly
expressed astonishment at the fact that I can communicate in Japanese, andevery time that there was a linguistic or other specialized term used inJapanese in the meetings which I admitted to not understanding, it was

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

294 | Japanese Language and Literature

another leap backwards to explaining words like (literally! with gestures!)unten suru (‘to drive’) to me. My master’s degree in education is from XX[name of a well-known university in the United States]. I know a fair bit
about educational theory and second language acquisition terminology in
English. (K–12, Female, L2, Master’s, 11–15 years)

The respondent’s frustration is derived from the ways in which her L1
Japanese colleagues treated her by constantly questioning her Japanesecompetence (at least so it seemed from her point of view) and not giving
credit to her other academic competence. It seems that the L1 Japanesecolleagues may not realize how their way of accommodating the L2colleague can be received by the addressee.
Excerpt 5, written by an L1 college teacher, also presents an episodeof innocent action that resulted in the exclusion of a minority member. She
recalls an instance in which an L2 speaking teacher left a group because
Japanese was used as an exclusive medium of communication.
Excerpt 5, translated by the authors
It is efficient and convenient to communicate via emails and so forth inJapanese when the majority of a group are Japanese people. However,having one person who is not accustomed to written Japanese impedes theflow of communication. At one time, a group of about ten people were
exchanging emails on a conference for Japanese language education. One
person there was American. The formal Japanese writing style was difficultfor her, and she never replied to any of the emails. In the end, she didn’t
participate in the online conference. I assume she may have considered us
exclusivist. It would be possible for Americans to teach at high schools, but
I think it would be fairly difficult for them to communicate in writing withJapanese about education or conferences. I understand how she feels since I
myself am still struggling to communicate in English. (College, Female, L1,
Master’s, 11–15 years)

This American teacher left the group because of the language barrier, asassumed by the respondent. She acknowledges that using the L1 of the
majority in the group, Japanese in this case, would be efficient andconvenient. Although she expresses some empathy for the L2 teacher who
left the group by acknowledging her own limited proficiency in English,
what is not explicitly recognized and reflected upon in this comment is theconsequence of selecting Japanese as the only medium innocently anduncritically without considering the risk of alienating L2 speakers. Somemay interpret this episode as a covert form of bias against L2 speakers,

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 295

while others may wonder if the L2 teacher should have acted differently
to remain engaged to be part of the community. As discussed in Section
3.1, the majority of the current survey participants appear to share thegoals of language education that emphasize the development of worldready multilingual individuals with flexibility and sensitivity, but these
episodes do not paint a favorable picture of who we are as models for ourstudents.
A dilemma between efficiency/convenience and inclusion, as impliedin this episode, may be a common concern experienced by many membersof the Japanese language educator community. Presently, the fields ofeducation and applied linguistics have begun to embrace the idea oftranslanguaging—“the development of a speaker’s full linguistic
repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially andpolitically defined boundaries of named (and usually national and state)languages” (Otheguy, Garcia, and Reid 2015: 281)—to support thelearning of multilingual youth, or translingual practices (Canagarajah2013) to acknowledge multilingual professionals’ resourceful use ofmultilingual and multimodal resources. Given these developments, thepractice of uncritically selecting one particular language as a default
language of communication should be reevaluated, especially if it deepens
a division between “native” and “non-native” speakers in the community.
Professional Qualifications
Backgrounds

andCandidates’

Lingua-Cultural

As mentioned in Section 3.2, the terms “native/non-native” are concerned
not only with linguistic competence but also with sociocultural knowledge.
Some respondents shared their experiences in which their professional
qualifications were questioned because of their lingua-cultural
backgrounds. Excerpt 6 is one such example from the context of higher
education.
Excerpt 6
One specific example was a job interview where I was asked how I would
handle correspondence with a Japan-based grant funding agency. The
question was clearly aimed at the perception that I would not have thecultural and linguistic skills necessary to successfully navigate professional
relationships with funding agencies. I do not know if native-speakercandidates were also asked this question, but I very much doubt that they
were. (College, Female, L2, Doctorate, 11–15 years)

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

296 | Japanese Language and LiteratureThis respondent explains that the question from the hiring committee
implies their doubt in L2 Japanese candidates’ cultural and linguisticcompetence to adequately perform expected duties. Needless to say, notevery L1 Japanese speaker would have the ability to succeed in negotiation
with Japan-based grant funding agencies. If such an understanding existed
among the hiring committee members, they might have asked all
candidates—regardless of their native/non-native status—the samequestion, contrary to this respondent’s assumption. The kind of doubt felt
by this respondent, which likely stems from the predominance of L1
Japanese teachers in the field, is interconnected with the prevailingtendency to make an immediate association between one’s native
language/culture and ability to perform everything well in thelanguage/culture.
While the excerpt above, as well as other results reported in theprevious sections, suggests that positions in higher education tend toemphasize high proficiency in Japanese (indeed expressions such as “nearnative” or “superior-level” were often included in position announcements), K–12 settings present different kinds of dynamics and demands.
In Excerpt 7, for instance, an L1 teacher shared her observations as to how
the lack of English competence and shared educational background canpresent a challenge for L1 Japanese teachers who moved to the UnitedStates after receiving a bachelor’s degree from a Japanese university.
Excerpt 7, translated by the authors
Japanese native speakers teaching in America seem to lack the ability topersuade and advocate on their own behalf. Especially in K–12 programs,
they will face difficulties when they appeal to taxpayers, local politicians,
and boards of education because 1) they cannot vote, 2) they do not haveenough English linguistic competence to promote proposals, and 3) they
will be considered ethnocentric. Comparing teachers from Japan who wereeducated in Japan up to secondary education and in the United States forpost-secondary (along with American teachers) with teachers from Japan
who went to school in Japan up to college, it appears that the former groupof people are accepted by their colleagues and administration and areassigned jobs that require responsibility. (K–12, Female, L1, Master’s, 16–
20 years)This excerpt demonstrates how much K–12 teachers are expected tofunction as part of the local community. The lack of adequate English
competence or of sufficient knowledge of the U.S. education system
similarly affects college Japanese-language teachers’ work performance.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 297

However, the work of college instructors, especially in larger programs,
tends to be more specialized or compartmentalized, and, moreover,international faculty can be valued as contributors to theinternationalization of campuses in higher education institutions that arefacing global competition. On the other hand, many programs at K–12
institutions are run by one teacher, which adds additional responsibilities
in their daily administrative work and outreach activities that involve
surrounding communities.5 Thus, the qualifications expected of Japaneselanguage teachers at these levels and the issues concerning diversity andinclusion experienced by L1 and L2 teachers in the respective contexts arelikely quite different from each other.
Idealized Monolithic Image of the JapaneseWhile the issues discussed above concern how the “native” versus “nonnative” statuses affect communication and hiring practices, the idealized
monolithic image of the Japanese, which has often served as a model toemulate, poses a divide among native speakers as well. As discussed in
Section 3.1, many respondents indicated their understanding of standard
Japanese as legitimate and accurate Japanese. In the following excerpts,
respondents shared similar instances of speakers of regional dialects being
devalued in the community.
Excerpt 8
I have heard Japanese language teachers make negative comments about theaccents of teachers who are not from Tokyo, and I have heard teachers saythat if someone usually speaks with a non-Tokyo accent (e. g., Kansai,
Tohoku etc.), then that person should “hide” their accent and adopt a Tokyo
accent when teaching. (College, Female, L2, Doctorate, 6–10 years)
Excerpt 9, translated by the authors
I have heard that one of the teachers, who used non-standard Japanese, wastold his/her Japanese is inaccurate. (College, Female, L1, Master’s, morethan 20 years)

These examples add another layer of prejudice in addition to the“native/non-native” hierarchy. Further, the following excerpt points outthat the emphasis on standard Japanese is not simply a matter of personal
preference but it is also the consequence of pedagogical training.
Excerpt 10
When going through teacher training, we were told to use the Tokyo
standardized accent, forcing people with dialect to adjust to the Tokyo
accent. (K–12, Female, L1, Bachelor’s, 6–10 years)

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

298 | Japanese Language and Literature

In this fashion, the superiority of standard Japanese is reinforced in theprocess of professional development. As discussed in Section 3.1, manyof the current survey participants agreed with the appreciation of varietiesof Japanese language (#2) and disagreed with the idea that standard
Japanese is more correct (#3). However, the comment above makes us
wonder whether and how such beliefs actually translate into their language
teaching and teacher-training practices.
In addition to the practices that elevate standard Japanese as the target
language, some respondents noted how the idealized normative behaviors
of Japanese are discursively constructed and reaffirmed.
Excerpt 11, translated by the authors
A good number of Japanese language teachers in the older generation
maintain a purist image of Japanese language and culture with a sense of
pride and try to teach it. This ideology is exemplified in such utterances as“Japanese people wouldn’t say such things,” “Japanese people don’t behavethat way,” and “we don’t say or behave in such a way in Japanese culture.”(College, Male, L1, Master’s, 6–10 years)

The “purist image of Japanese language and culture” (日本語・日本文化に 関 す る 純 粋 主 義 ) in this comment represents the essentialized andethnocentric view of Japanese or so-called nihonjinron. In Section 3.1, we
discussed the gaps in emphasizing the uniqueness of Japanese culture
according to the profiles of institution type and the highest degree. This
comment also alludes to the possibility that such a belief is held differently
across different generations.
Heteronormativity Observed in the Profession

In the remaining part of this section, comments concerning LGBTQ
teachers will be presented in the hope of adding another dimension to theissue of diversity and inclusion in the field.
Excerpt 12, translated by the authors
Personally, I think the proportion of gay teachers in the field is large. In thatsense, we can say there is diversity. Many of them are open about theirsexual orientation in their personal space, but not at work. After all,heterosexual perspective and logic are considered the norm, and thehomosexual ones are not reflected in educational settings. For instance, I
remember seeing a vocabulary quiz like this: “Last week () gotmarried to an American man” and the correct choice was “sister” (because

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 299

this person married to a man) (I don’t remember the exact detail, butsomething of this nature.) (College, Male, L1, Master’s, 6–10 years)

As discussed in this comment, the presence of LGBTQ teachers is
probably recognized by many but has not been openly discussed in theprofessional context. The heteronormativity is pervasive and often
reinforced in daily practice. As pointed out by this respondent and someother respondents, materials used for language teaching often contributeto the reinforcement of heteronormativity as well. Some teachers may bereluctant to address these issues, assuming that the question of sexuality
has nothing to do with language learning and LGBTQ issues should be
dealt with by LGBTQ teachers themselves (Nelson 1993). Nonetheless,some comments emphasize the significance of diversity as a benefit tostudents in various respects.
Excerpt 13
The lack of diversity means that students miss out on the diverse
perspectives that teachers could bring to the classroom. Also, students may
be more motivated when they have teachers who are more like themselves –so an LBGT teacher may be a source of encouragement for an LGBT
student; a non-native speaker may be a source of encouragement for alearner; an African-American teacher may be a source of encouragement fora student of color…. (College, Female, L2, Doctor, 6-10 years)

As suggested in this excerpt, having diverse representations of people ofdifferent backgrounds is certainly a significant step forward. However,appreciating the difference alone will not likely change the fundamental
ideological structure that obstructs the development of a truly inclusive
community. What is equally important is to engage with the reality of
discourse that creates biases and evaluate the values and ideologies
attached to the differences.
Summary of 3.4

This section introduced selected excerpts that illustrate four salient issues
and demonstrated how the lack of diversity manifests itself in day-to-day
professional lives and what kinds of discrimination and bias the survey
respondents have experienced or witnessed. The voices that we shared
here reveal how our unconscious biases, or reluctance to take action on anissue that one is aware of, may lead to the perpetuation of reduced
inclusivity and diversity in the Japanese language educator community. Of
course, the excerpts introduced here describe particular incidents only

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

300 | Japanese Language and Literaturefrom the respondent’s perspective. Given the anonymity of the submission,
we have no way of knowing exact details of the situations, or how the same
incidents were experienced by others involved. However, the fact that the
respondents were compelled to share their stories in this particular form,
we believe, has some significance in its own right and gives us a chance
to reflect on our own conduct.
4. Conclusion
This report presented the quantitative and qualitative results of the fall2018 survey on Japanese-language educators’ beliefs and experiences
concerning the goals of language education and teacher diversity.
Together, the results illuminate converging and diverging perspectives ofthe survey participants, contradictions or dilemmas between aspirational
ideals and mundane practices, and fundamental societal and institutional
conditions for language educators that are considered to be a cause of thecurrent lack of teacher diversity.
As mentioned earlier, we originally developed this survey as a prompt
for the AATJ-sponsored AAS roundtable discussion and not as a researchstudy. We are aware of the limitations in our method of data collection andsurvey design. For instance, although we received a large number of
responses, our method of recruitment may not have effectively reached all
educators who teach Japanese language along with literature, culture, andhistory, given the nature of AATJ and CAJLE, and the SenseiOnline
listserv. The inclusion of a broader set of voices might have changed theresults. In this sense, the term “the community of Japanese-language
educators” used in the survey and the current article is worth questioning.
Further, this survey only solicited the participants’ perceptions on limited
topics within this complex subject. The selection of the statements in Part
II, for example, might have directed the survey participants to focus on thenative versus non-native dichotomy. The wordings of the open-ended
questions might have also encouraged the participants to share episodes of
their negative experiences more than self-reflection of their own
unconscious biases or possible solutions to the current situation.
Despite these limitations, however, we believe that the current survey
created an important opportunity to learn more about the perspectives andexperiences of Japanese-language educators in North America. We hopethat this report will stimulate further discussion among all who contributeto Japanese language education and motivate future quantitative andqualitative research on the issues identified here.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 301

In closing, we would like to underscore that the diversity in attitudes
and beliefs observed in the survey results itself should not be viewed
negatively. Imposing one’s own views upon others without
acknowledging different perspectives goes against the spirit of inclusion.
In our opinion, what is critical is to embrace the idea that there are, andshould be, peers who have diverse backgrounds, experiences, andviewpoints, and continue to engage in dialogue with an open mind to
explore common ground. As an educator, it is also important to engage incritical reflection on how our words and actions in the classroom and otherprofessional contexts serve either to challenge or to reinforce the types ofideologies that go against the spirit of diversity and inclusion. In addition
to such efforts at an individual level, the expansion of advocacy activities
by associations such as AATJ is also necessary to promote our profession
to prospective future educators with different backgrounds and to improve
the overall conditions of our profession that support diversity andinclusion.

NOTES
1

The scale consists of “Strongly agree,” “Agree,” “Somewhat agree,” “Somewhat
disagree,” “Disagree,” and “Strongly disagree.”2

We consulted with Statistics Lab at the University of Kentucky for all statisticalanalysis conducted for this project.

3

In this article, we use “L1 Japanese” and “L2 Japanese” to refer to the teachers
who speak Japanese as their L1 and those who speak Japanese as their L2,
respectively.

4

Due to space limitations, tables with the actual counts and percentages are not
reproduced in this article.

566% of the K–12 respondents indicated that their program is run by one teacher,whereas only 13% of the college respondents did so.

REFERENCES

ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). 2015.
World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. https://www.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

302 | Japanese Language and Literature

actfl.org/publications/all/world-readiness-standards-learning-languages.
Accessed July 13, 2019.
Armour, William S. 2004. Becoming a Japanese Language Learner, User,
and Teacher: Revelations from Life History Research. Journal of
Language, Identity & Education 3(2): 101–125.
Braine, George. 2010. Nonnative Speaker English Teachers: Research,
Pedagogy, and Professional Growth. New York: Routledge.
Braun, Virginia and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in
Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.
Chronicle of Higher Education. 2019. Colleges Lose a ‘Stunning’ 651
Foreign-Language Programs in 3 Years. https://www.chronicle.
com/article/Colleges-Lose-a-Stunning-/245526. Accessed January 14,
2020.
De Costa, Peter I. and Bonny Norton. 2017. Introduction: Identity,
Transdisciplinarity, and the Good Language Teacher. Modern
Language Journal 101 (Supplement 2017): 3–14.
Douglas Fir Group. 2016. A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a
Multilingual World. Modern Language Journal 100 (Supplement
2016): 19–47.
Holliday, Adrian. 2006. Native-Speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4): 385–387.
Japan Foundation. 2017a. Survey Report on Japanese-language Education
Abroad 2015. https://www.jpf.go.jp/j/project/japanese/survey/result/dl/survey_2015/Report_all_e.pdf. Accessed July 13, 2019.
———. 2017b. The Japan Foundation Survey on Japanese-language
Education Institutions 2015: U. S. Data. https://www.jflalc.org/
ckfinder/userfiles/files/jle/JF_Survey_Report_2015.pdf.
Accessed
August 5, 2019.
Kadoya, Hidenori. 2012. Gengoken kara keikaku gengo e. Kotoba,
kenryoku, sabetsu, ed. by Hidenori Mashiko, 107–130. Tokyo:
Sangensha.
Kramsch, Claire. 2014. Teaching Foreign Languages in an Era of
Globalization: Introduction. Modern Language Journal 98: 296–311.
Kubota, Ryuko. 2008. Critical Approaches to Teaching Japanese andCulture. Japanese Applied Linguistics: Discourse and Social

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Junko Mori, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki | 303

Perspectives, ed. by Junko Mori and Amy Snyder Ohta, 327–352.
London: Continuum.
Kubota, Ryuko and Angel Lin, eds. 2009. Race, Culture and Identities inSecond Language Education: Exploring Critically Engaged Practices.
New York: Routledge.
Lowe, Robert J. and Richard Pinner. 2016. Finding the Connections
between Native-Speakerism and Authenticity. Applied Linguistics
Review 7(1): 27–52.
Maguire, Moira and Brid Delahunt. 2017. Doing a Thematic Analysis: A
Practical, Step-by-Step Guide for Learning and Teaching Scholars.
The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education 9(3): 3351–3364.
Modern Language Association. 2019. Enrollments in Languages Other
Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education,
Summer 2016 and Fall 2016: Final Report https://www.mla.org/content/download/110154/2406932/2016-Enrollments-Final-Report.
pdf Accessed August 5, 2019.
MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. 2007. Foreign
Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed
World,’ Profession, 2007/1: 234–45.
Moore, Ashley R. 2019. Interpersonal Factors Affecting Queer Second or
Foreign Language Learners’ Identity Management in Class. Modern
Language Journal 103(2): 428–442.
Mori, Junko and Jae Dibello Takeuchi. 2016. Campus Diversity andGlobal Education: A Case Study of a Japanese Program. Foreign
Language Annals 49(1): 146–161.
Nelson, Cynthia. 1993. Heterosexism in ESL: Examining our attitudes.
TESOL Quarterly 27(1): 143–150.
———. 2009. Sexual Identities in English Language Education:
Classroom Conversations. New York and London: Routledge.
Nomura, Kazuyuki and Takako Mochizuki. 2018. Native-Speakerism
Perceived by “Non-native-speaking” Teachers of Japanese in HongKong. Towards Post-Native-Speakerism: Dynamics and Shifts, ed. by
Stephanie Ann Houghton and Kayoko Hashimoto, 79–95. Singapore:
Springer.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

304 | Japanese Language and Literature

Otheguy, Ricardo, Ofelia García and Wallis Reid. 2015. Clarifying
Translanguaging and Deconstructing Named Languages: A
Perspective from Linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6(3): 281–
307.
Page, Scott E. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates
Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, N. J.:
Princeton University Press.
Rose, Heath, Natsuno Funada and Jessica Briggs. 2018. The Global
Englishes Orientation Questionnaire (GEO-Q): A Report on the
Validation of a New Measure of Language Attitudes towards
Variation in English. Paper Presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium
22, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Saldaña, Johnny. 2014. Coding and Analysis Strategies. The Oxford
Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. by Patricia Leavy, 581–605.
Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Varghese, Manka, Brian Morgan, Bill Johnston and Kimberly A. Johnson.
2005. Theorizing Language Teacher Identity: Three Perspectives andBeyond. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 4: 21–44.
Varghese, Manka. M., Suhanthie Motha, Gloria Park, Jenelle Reeves andJohn Trent, eds. 2016. Special Issue: Language Teacher Identity in(Multi)lingual Educational Contexts. TESOL Quarterly 50(3): 545–
734.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.131

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

Language Ideology and Its Manifestations:
Implications for Japanese Language Teaching

Exploring

Mahua Bhattacharya

1. Introduction
A recent roundtable discussion sponsored by the American Association ofTeachers of Japanese took as its starting point the results of an online
survey of over 350 Japanese-language educators regarding theirperspectives on Japanese language and its culture and teaching (Mori,
Hasegawa, Park, and Suzuki, this volume). The survey elicited statements
about language use, including some that express overt bias towards nativespeakerism, that reflect what is called, in linguistic anthropology,
language ideology. Language ideology refers to a set of beliefs or feelings
held by people in a particular culture, whether explicit or implicit, about
language. This commentary will examine how a particular language
ideology has affected the quality of foreign language education in generaland Japanese language education in particular.
Contemporary Japanese language pedagogy is steeped in theideological construct of nation building that Japan has been engaged insince the Meiji period. The effects of this ideology can still be felt today.
This ideology can be discerned in essentialist images of Japan that are
replete in the nihonjinron literature and in Japanese language textbooks
that promote a monolithic, static view of the language. Postmodern
perspectives have been critical of such texts and stress the need to present
a more dynamic view of culture that takes diversity within a culture to be
the norm. We might benefit from a paradigm shift in foreign language
pedagogy that makes the learner the center of the process. It should be thelearner who ultimately determines what or how the skill that they possessshould be used in whatever shape they manage to acquire it.
Research on language ideology entails several areas of inquiry. These
include language use and its basic structure—i. e., what constitutes “theJapanese language”; the ethnography of language use, which is connected
New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

306 | Japanese Language and Literature

with how Japanese is spoken; and language contact and multilingualism,
which relate to the variety of Japanese language that is used. Each of theseareas is relevant to the results of the abovementioned survey. In thefollowing, I would like to explore these issues by focusing on the impact
of standard language ideology upon Japanese language teaching.
2. Language Ideology and Japanese
Governmental policies often negotiate between two different types oflanguage ideology: ideologies that see language as a commodity, problem,
or right, and ideologies that see languages as intrinsically diverse. The
language-related policies that eventually emerge often reflect thecompromise reached between these two types of ideology, as seen in many
European societies that pick a language to equate with their nation-state,often connecting it with the name of their country. This is called“homogenism.” This term refers to the belief that a nation-state shouldhave a uniform language, with little or no internal variation.
This homogenistic line of thinking has also resulted in the discourse
connected with linguistic purism, where languages purge themselves ofinfluences seen as “threatening” to the ideology that supports the structureof a particular language. The idea that there is a standard language is based
not on the realities of language use, but on ideas about what language
should be. Standard language ideologies often negatively affect the abilityof minority language speakers to succeed in educational settings, becausea teacher's perception of what constitutes proper language could be biased
against the language or dialect spoken by the student. Similarly, the ideas
behind language “development” and identifying what a “standard”
language should be, also involve the inclusion of certain components thatare ideologically motivated by a certain group’s ideas of “identity,
aesthetics, morality and epistemology,” and processes of exclusion that“erase” deviations from the “norm” (Woolard 1998:3).
These linguistic ideological issues affect Japanese language in generaland Japanese language pedagogy in particular. Let us first begin bydefining “the Japanese language.” The Japanese government uses two
terms for it: kokugo and nihongo. Kokugo literally means “language of ourcountry,” a term used by Japanese people to refer to the language they
speak, which is different from nihongo, the variety of Japanese that
foreigners speak. Gottlieb (2005:15) indicates how the Japan Foundation,in its promotion of Japanese around the world, used the term nihongo

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

Mahua Bhattacharya | 307

instead of kokugo, although it was the latter that was taught in the pre-war
colonies of Taiwan and Korea.
However, many scholars have tried to promote the internationalizationof kokugo/nihongo and have argued for doing away with this false
dichotomy, stating that many varieties of Japanese should be considered“legitimate,” just as Japanese English should be “recognized” as a variantof the international English language. Kato (2000), who is cited by
Gottlieb, for instance, argues that since Japanese is no longer a minority
language spoken only by those born and raised in Japan, the time has cometo re-evaluate earlier attitudes towards it: to “liberate” it from the preserveof a small, select group of scholars. This means that the ownership of theJapanese language should be spread to all those who learn it, and not justthe native speaker. This also means that the onus of communication should
rest with the native speaker, who should decipher what is meant by thenonnative speaker in the context of the communication event without
being judgemental about it, just as native speakers of English are generally
expected to do with nonnative speakers.
This then brings us to another site of language ideology, which is thenotion of speakers of the Japanese language. Identifying who is a “typicalJapanese” person is rife with ideological problems. Sugimoto (2003:185–188), in his influential analysis of the nihonjinron discourse, concludes
that a typical Japanese is “a female, non-unionized and non-permanent
employee in a small business without a university education” (emphasismine) and not the “white collar male with a university degree.” While thisdefinition goes against the grain of a popular image of a typical Japaneseperson, it excludes at least seven other categories of people who live inJapan and use Japanese regularly but are not considered Japanese.
Fukuoka (2000:xxix–xxxiv) lists them as “first-generation Japanesemigrants”; Japanese raised abroad; “naturalized Japanese”; “thirdgeneration Japanese emigrants and war orphans abroad”; “zainichi
Koreans with Japanese upbringing but who have not taken Japanesecitizenship for which fluency in Japanese is mandatory”; “the Ainu”; andthe gaijin or the “pure non-Japanese.” This then makes it clear that theideology that promotes the idea of a native speaker of Japanese, or any
other language for that matter, privileges a certain variety of the language
and rests on a foundation of inclusionary and exclusionary policies.
Gottlieb also argues that not only do these “non-Japanese” people use
Japanese on a daily basis in Japan, but that the in-group that is consideredJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

308 | Japanese Language and Literature“typical Japanese” “speak and write Japanese different from the standard
language, depending on age, gender and education” (Gottlieb 2005:3).
The concept of a “native speaker” also involves the Japanese language
ideology regarding what these speakers are expected to speak. The erasureof language varieties, and consequently, of the peoples who speak them,has enabled a long evolutionary process towards a standard Japanese
language. This happened in four stages in Japan’s history according to
Doerr (2015). The encounter with the Western countries in the Meiji
period led to the first wave of the suppression of language varieties thatJapan felt were incompatible with its goals of modernization and thepromotion of a unified Japanese state. These attempts at standardization
led to the imposition of the Tokyo dialect on the rest of the country throughstrict government educational policies that included measures such as
hōgen kyōsei (correct the dialects) and hōgen bokumetsu (eradicate thedialects) (Ramsey 2004). In the post-war period, where attempts weremade to “democratize” Japan, these repressive measures disappeared, but
the desire to maintain national unity manifesting in the standardized
linguistic structure continued to stay strong, especially after thedevastating psychological blow that Japan experienced after its loss. It was
only in the 1970s, when rural revitalization processes seemed to emerge
as one of the national goals, that linguistic varieties and their acceptancebecame mainstream. This continues till the present day, where dialects are
no longer seen as being “backward” and are even promoted in the media
and the internet as marks of one’s heritage and not as something to beashamed of. However, the power dynamics of the standard language anddialects hasn’t been erased, which has resulted in many Japanese being
speakers of “dual languages”—standard in public and dialect in private(Doerr 2015, Heinrich 2012, Okumura 2016, Twine 1988). It is thisTokyo-based standard Japanese that forms the basis of Japanese language
teaching materials used in Japan and overseas. This very practice has also
reaffirmed the linguistic capital associated with the standard language.
3. Language Ideology and Pedagogy
Japanese language pedagogy is also replete with ideological issues. Oneof the areas in which these issues manifest is the educational context inwhich this pedagogy is carried out, both in the United States and Japan.
In U. S. foreign language departments, we see a privileging ofmonolingualism, as argued persuasively by Valdés and others (Valdés etal. 2003). Foreign language instruction is carried out in an all-pervasive

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

Mahua Bhattacharya | 309

ideological atmosphere that emphasizes the study of English and an
ambivalence Americans have felt towards the study and teaching of
foreign languages (Lambert 1986; Tucker 1990, 1991, cited in Valdés etal. 2003). Foreign language learning and teaching is carried out in thecontext where citizens have imagined themselves to constitute a nationthat is Christian and monolingual, and immigrants are expected to give up
their old identities and assimilate (Anderson 1991). Valdés et al. (2003:7)
describe the context as follows:
Popular and scholarly beliefs about monolingualism andbilingualism in the US context are part of a multilayered linguistic
culture that brings together ideologies of nationalism (one state,
one language), standardness (a commitment to linguistic purity andcorrectness), and monolingualism (assumptions aboutmonolingualism as the normal human condition).

This discourse directly condemns the public support of non-English
languages and supports the view that the bilingualism of indigenous andimmigrant groups is problematic. This is also institutionally reflected instructures of foreign language teaching, where inadequate time is spent inteaching the language (4–5 hours per week, compared to the hours thatstudents spend in science, music, theatre, etc.), the relatively low linguisticcompetencies of foreign language teachers, and a lack of agreement about
effective pedagogies (Valdés et al. 2003). As a result, students typicallydo not become proficient in foreign languages.
The dominant monolingual ideology has also been evident in how
foreign languages are taught in the United States by setting idealized
native speakers of the standard language as models to follow (Kramsch1997, Valdés et al. 2003). In the context of Japanese language education,
it is important to note that since the “native speaker of Japanese”’ isdefined by the discourse of nihonjinron discussed above, only those who
conform to the concept of a native speaker defined by this ideologicalnorm are hired by departments promoting the study of Japanese. Japanese
language pedagogy is still surrounded by the aura of the ideology of thetheories of nihonjinron that privilege the knowledge and intuition of native
speakers of Japanese. Gottlieb (2005) and Heinrich (2005) along with
Kubota (2003) and Matsumoto and Okamoto (2003) give an excellent
description of what this nihonjinron ideology entails in discourses that
explain what Japanese language is and how Japanese people use it. Suchideological orientations bleed over to the Japanese language textbooks thatJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

310 | Japanese Language and Literaturethen make essentialist claims about the Japanese people. According toGottlieb (2005:4):[T]he ethnocentrist Nihonjinron literature … has portrayed thelanguage as being static and as somehow uniquely different inimportant functions from all other languages. Within the
Nihonjinron framework, Japan is portrayed as linguisticallyhomogenous (i.e., Japanese is the only language spoken there) andthe Japanese language itself as a uniquely difficult barrier even forJapanese themselves, let alone others.

Gottlieb debunks this image by giving examples of people like Dhugal
Lindsay, who won the prestigious Japanese language haiku prize, or the
Swiss born author David Zopetti, who won Japan’s Subaru literary award
for a novel written in Japanese.
The diversity in how Japanese is used in Japan and elsewhere and bywhom has not been highlighted in the context of language education.
Therefore, learners of Japanese also privilege the native speaker modeland often discredit the competencies of nonnative speakers of the language.
According to Valdés et al. (2003:8), learners tend to feel that they havebeen “deprived” of something valuable that they are owed if they are“relegated” to being taught by nonnative speakers, even if the latter may
have spent a considerable amount of time mastering and teaching thelanguage. This observation seems applicable to the case of Japanese aswell.
4. Language Ideology and Japanese Language Textbooks
Another area in which the language ideology manifests itself is the content
of the pedagogy itself. Japanese language textbooks meant to promote thestudy of this seemingly “impenetrable” language also perpetuate thisessentialist mythology. Heinrich (2005), who analyzes various textbooks
used widely in Japanese language teaching institutions, argues
persuasively that ideological orientations toward the Japanese language
create barriers that make it difficult for foreign learners. His analysis looks
at the content of some popular textbooks in use at that time and show how
they promote the essentialist idea of a Japanese speaker who manifest
qualities that are hard to understand and emulate. While the textbooks that
Heinrich analyzes might be considered slightly dated, newer texts also
abound in stereotypes that create a picture of the Japanese people typicalof the nihonjinron discourse.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

Mahua Bhattacharya | 311

For instance, in the latest edition of Genki (Banno et al. 2011a, 2011b)
or The First Japanese Textbook for Foreigners in English (Miyazaki,
Kurita, and Sakamoto 2009), or in Japanese for Young People (AJALT2012) and Kyō kara hanaseru! Nihongo daijōbu (Sun Academy Nihongo
Center 2015), we see statements that perpetuate a distorted image of theJapanese people. To begin with, all these texts have a very singular
depiction of the Japanese people that does not indicate any variation. Even
when they are talking about family, it is usually a heterosexual family or
an idealized family with grandparents, parents, and children all living
together. While it is necessary to know the terms for different family
members, it is important to depict varieties in Japanese family structure,such as single parent families, same-sex families, or even families thathave no children, etc., to avoid misconceptions of what a traditional
Japanese family is and that they do not vary all that much from theAmerican norm.
Similarly, Kubota (2003) discusses the National Standards of 1999
along with Peterson’s Adventures in Japanese (1998, 1999, 2000), andMatsumoto and Okamoto (2003) analyze Jorden and Noda’s Japanese:
The Spoken Language (1987), Miura and McGloin’s An Integrated
Approach to Intermediate Japanese (1994), Mizutani and Mizutani’s An
Introduction to Modern Japanese (1977), Tohsaku’s Yookoso (1994), andTsukuba Language Group’s Situational Functional Japanese (1991), allof which promote stereotypical depictions of the Japanese people.
We also observe that these texts abound in stereotypicalpronouncements about how Japanese people use their language. Heinrich(2005:218) gives some great examples of these nihonjinron statements,
such as Nihongo Journal that states “Japanese often avoid directness inmaking requests” or discusses how the Japanese people are more prone tousing the passive voice.
Matsumoto and Okamoto’s 2003 article, through similar examples,shows that Japanese textbooks abound in statements that essentialize andexoticize the Japanese. They also include counter examples to show that
there is variety in the way Japanese use their language and stress the needto include these alternatives as well.
5. Towards Critical Pedagogy
As we can see, Japanese language pedagogy is steeped in an ideology thatconceives of Japan as a monolithic culture: an ideology that does notreflect the realities of life in Japan. In order to move away from such

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

312 | Japanese Language and Literatureessentialist images of Japan, texts which incorporate postmodern
perspectives critical of essentialism, and which take diversity within aculture to be the norm, might enable a paradigm shift in foreign language
pedagogy (Kramsch 1997:1). This shift, as mentioned earlier, makes thelearner the center of the language-learning process. This would mean
developing a critical approach by both native and nonnative pedagogues
to concepts such as target language, native and nonnative speaker,
Standard Japanese, accent and error (Tollefson 2007:32) and adopting
sensitivity to what the learner manages to accomplish within the limited
time that she has in the classroom and outside of it.
By way of solution, we might consider, for instance, a pointer for the
English language classroom suggested by Cook (1999:199–200). Cook
proposes that one could reverse the roles of the ignorant L2 learner andomniscient native speaker frequently seen in the textbooks by making thenative speaker the ignorant one being educated in the sights and customsof the home country by L2 learners. In this way, L2 learners do not feeldenigrated by their portrayal in the textbooks. This approach can beapplicable to Japanese language pedagogy as well.
For instance, in chapter 9 of Genki 1 (Banno et al. 2011a), we mightwant to replace the dialogues of Takeshi with those of Mary, who would
be telling Takeshi all about kabuki, since it is she who is majoring inJapanese (208). This might be closer to what the reality is in Japan, where
foreigners are the ones who throng to sites of traditional arts and sports
even more than the Japanese themselves. Similarly, in chapter 14 of theFirst Japanese Textbook for Foreigners in English (Miyazaki et al. 2009),
we can have Sean take Nikolas to Akihabara and show him the sights,
since Japanese pop culture has become increasingly popular amongst
foreigners (162).
In textbooks and in class one could present famous L2 speakers who
have overcome difficulties learning the language and have been respected
as bilinguals in their own right, rather than actors and movie stars of thetarget culture who are not known for their linguistic skills. For instance, in
chapter 24 of Kyō kara hanaseru! Nihongo daijōbu (Sun Academy
Nihongo Center 2015) we can depict a nonnative speaker, who mirrors thecomposition of the L2 learner, making the presentation in Japanese rather
than a non-human character with the appearance of a penguin (177). Or,
in chapter 19 in Genki 2 (Banno et al. 2011b), we can replace the “Boss”
with a wide variety of characters who reflect L2 learners of diverse
backgrounds, who are meeting their Japanese junior employee (164). This

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

Mahua Bhattacharya | 313

would allow L2 learners feel that they do not have to be in a subordinate
position in a Japanese learning environment.
Finally, one could treat nonnative speaker teachers as equals in foreign
language classrooms. Nonnative speaker teachers can be deployed in allof the various levels of the language learning process in the classroom sostudents will not feel that mastering the language is out of their reach, afeeling fostered by the prioritization of the native speaker as instructor. It
might help if nonnative speakers’ input were more widely used in thedesign and structure of textbooks rather than relying heavily on native
speaker authors’ judgments. The nonnative speakers’ perspectives on what
language structures might be easier for learners and in what order thesestructures should be introduced, as well as how nonnative speakers should
be represented in the textbooks, I believe, will help improve the outcomes.
6. Conclusion
The dominance of the native speaker discourse has been so pervasive that
it is hard to imagine a paradigm change in which we move from a teachercentered perspective to a learner-centered one. The illusive target of trying
to reach what a native speaker is able to do in a limited period is a daunting
one. Not only is the math difficult, the absence of a political will makes it
harder. However, if the abovementioned recommendations were to beincorporated in Japanese language pedagogy, it would be a modest step
toward making the Japanese language classroom a more inclusive space
for all involved.

REFERENCES

AJALT. 2012. Japanese for Young People. New York: Kodansha.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on theOrigins and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso.
Banno, Eri, Yoko Ikeda, Yutaka Ohno, Chikako Shinagawa, and Kyoko
Tokashiki. 2011a. Genki 1: An Integrated Course in Elementary
Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Times.
———. 2011b. Genki 2: An Integrated Course in Eliementary Japanese.
Tokyo: Japan Times.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

314 | Japanese Language and Literature

Cook, Vivian. 1999. Going beyond the Native Speaker in Language
Teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2): 185–209.
Doerr, Neriko M. 2015. Standardization and Paradoxical Highlighting ofLinguistic Diversity in Japan. Japanese Language and Literature 49:
389–403.
Fukuoka, Yasunori. 2000. Lives of Young Koreans in Japan. Trans. Tom
Gill. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.
Gottlieb, Nanette. 2005. Language and Society in Japan. Cambridge, U.
K.: Cambridge University Press.
Heinrich, Patrick. 2005. Language Ideology in JFL Textbooks.
International Journal of Sociology of Language 175/176: 213–232.
———. 2012. The Making of Monolingual Japan: Language Ideology
and Japanese Modernity. Bristol, U. K. and Buffalo, N. Y.: Multilingual Matters.
Jorden, Eleanor H., and Mari Noda. 1987. Japanese: The Spoken
Language. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Kato, Hidetoshi. 2000. Nihongo no kaikoku (The globalization ofJapanese). Tokyo: TBS Brittanica.
Kramsch, Claire. 1997. The Privilege of the Nonnative Speaker.
Publications of the Modern Language Association 112(3): 359–369.
Kubota, Ryuko. 2003. Critical Teaching of Japanese Language. Japanese
Language and Literature 37(1): 67–87.
Lambert, Richard. D. 1986. Points of Leverage: An Agenda for a National
Foundation for International Studies. New York: Social Science
Research Council.
Miyazaki, Michiko, Nami Kurita, and Mai Sakamoto. 2009. FirstJapanese Textbook for Foreigners in English. Tokyo: Natsumesha.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko, and Shigeko Okamoto. 2003. The Construction of
the Japanese Language in Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language.
Japanese Language and Literature 37(1): 27–48.
Miura, Akira, and Naomi McGloin. 1994. An Integrated Approach toIntermediate Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Times.
Mizutani, Osamu, and Nobuko Mizutani. 1977. An Introduction toModern Japanese. Tokyo: Japan Times.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

Mahua Bhattacharya | 315

Mori, Junko, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki. (Thisvolume.) On Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:
Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators in North
America. Japanese Language and Literature 54(2): 267–304.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. 1999.
Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century.
Lawrence, Kansas: Allen.
Okumura, Nao. 2016. Japanese Dialect Ideology from Meiji to the Present.
Unpublished master’s thesis. Portland State University.
Peterson, Hiromi. 1998. Adventures in Japanese I: Textbook. Boston:Cheng & Tsui Company.
———. 1999. Adventures in Japanese II: Textbook. Boston: Cheng &Tsui Company.
———. 2000. Adventures in Japanese III: Textbook. Boston: Cheng &Tsui Company.
Ramsey, Robert S. 2004. The Japanese Language and the Making ofTradition. Japanese Language and Literature 38: 81–110.
Sugimoto, Yoshio. 2003. Introduction to Japanese Society. Boston:Cambridge University Press.
Sun Academy Nihongo Center. 2015. Kyō kara hanaseru! Nihongodaijōbu. Tokyo: Japan Times.
Tohsaku, Yasu-Hiko. 1994. Yookoso. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tollefson, James W. 2007. Ideology, Language Varieties, and ELT.
International Handbook of English Language Teaching, ed. Jim
Cummins and Chris Davison, 25–36. Boston, Mass.: Springer.
Tsukuba Language Group. 1991. Situational Functional Japanese. Tokyo:
Bonjinsha.
Tucker, Richard G. 1990. Second-Language Education: Issues andPerspectives. Foreign Langauge Education: Issues and Strategies, ed.
Amado M. Padilla, Halford H. Fairchild, and Concepción M. Valdez,
13–21. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
———. 1991. Developing a Language-Competent American Society: The
Role of Language Planning. Bilingualism, Multiculturalism, andJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

316 | Japanese Language and Literature

Second Language Learning, ed. Allan G. Reynolds, 65–79. Hillsdale,
N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Twine, Nanette. 1988. Standardizing Written Japanese. A Factor inModernization. Monumenta Nipponica 43: 429–454.
Valdés, Guadalupe, Sonia V. González, Dania López Garcia, and Patricio
Márquez. 2003. Language Ideology: The Case of Spanish in
Departments of Foreign Languages. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly 34(1): 3–26.
Woolard, Kathryn A. 1998. Introduction: Language Ideology as a Field of
Inquiry. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, ed. Bambi B.
Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity, 3–47. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.137

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.127

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

Diversity, Inclusivity, and the Importance of L2 Speaker
Legitimacy
Jae DiBello Takeuchi

1. Introduction
Findings from the Japanese-language educators’ diversity survey (Mori,
Hasegawa, Park, and Suzuki, this volume) confirm that our profession has
work to do to improve diversity of Japanese-language educators andbecome more inclusive. In particular, they indicate that native speaker bias,
something extensively studied and criticized in other foreign languages,
clearly exists in Japanese-language education and must be addressed. As
a profession, we must make a commitment to overcoming native speakerbias with regard to our colleagues, and especially with regard to ourstudents. Creating a professional climate which recognizes the legitimacyof teachers of all backgrounds, irrespective of “native speaker” status, is anecessary and important step. At the same time, it is important to note that
this may be insufficient to ensure speaker legitimacy for our students as
speakers of Japanese.
In this commentary, I consider the questions raised by the diversity
survey in light of what I have learned through my research on native
speaker bias, language ownership, and speaker legitimacy. I argue that
understanding the role that native speaker bias plays in delegitimizing the
speakerhood of second language (L2) speakers is of crucial importance forwhat should always be our central focus: the students we teach, theclassroom experiences we create for them, and how well we prepare themfor future Japanese language encounters beyond our classrooms. I strongly
believe that our goal as Japanese-language educators should not be merely
to improve the Japanese language competence of our students, but rather,to facilitate the development of our students as legitimate speakers ofJapanese. We will not succeed in this endeavor if we do not recognize andaddress native speaker bias in the profession and in ourselves. An
New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

318 | Japanese Language and Literatureimportant extension of that, which this survey and special issue makepossible, is to consider how we can become models for our students. We
must be mindful of the power of ideological notions such as native speakerbias. If our students are to avoid the trap of thinking of themselves as“second-class” speakers, we in the profession must afford each other thesame courtesy in recognizing the speaker legitimacy in each of us,
regardless of national, racial, ethnic, or linguistic background—and wemust extend that recognition to our students as well.
2. Speaker Legitimacy and Linguistic Ideologies
Linguistic ideologies often emerge as “commonsense” or taken-forgranted notions (e. g., Rumsey 1990, Woolard 1992), and are created andreinforced “in discourse at micro and macro levels, and in institutional aswell as everyday practices” (Blackledge and Pavlenko 2002:122). Twoideological concepts that play a significant role in “othering” certain
speakers are native speaker bias and language ownership, which function
as barriers to legitimate speakerhood. Legitimate speakerhood (Bourdieu
1991) refers to beliefs about who has the right to speak and the right tohave the content of their utterances heard, and, conversely, who has theright to evaluate, critique, or censure the linguistic production of others(e. g., Liddicoat 2016; Takeuchi 2018, 2019c). One result of theideological privileging of native speakers is that legitimate speakerhood is
not derived from some neutral linguistic competence or linguisticknowledge, but instead is based on the speaker’s identity and such features
as racial, ethnic, or national background (e. g., Kubota 2009, Smith 2015).
While legitimate speakerhood is desirable for all speakers, in practice it isrestricted to native speakers and denied to non-native speakers, who arecontinually compared to a native speaker model.
There is an extensive body of work that criticizes the practice ofmeasuring L2 competence according to biased and idealized notions of“native speaker” competence and numerous researchers argue against
viewing non-native speakers as “deficient communicators” (e. g., Cook
1999, 2016; Davies 2003; Doerr 2009; Firth and Wagner 1997, 2007;
Holliday 2006, 2014; Rampton 1990). Although the vast majority of thisresearch focuses on English as a second language (ESL), with a particularemphasis on L2-speaker teachers of ESL, there is growing attention to therole native speaker bias plays in languages other than English and beyond
the experience of teachers (e. g., Doerr 2009, Takeuchi 2018). Findings
tend to be fairly consistent across studies and linguistic contexts: First,

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 |DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.127

Jae DiBello Takeuchi | 319

native speaker bias is not based on actual differences between native andnon-native speakers but is instead based on assumptions about speakers
and languages that do not hold up to close inspection (e. g., Cook 1999;
Firth and Wagner 1997, 2007). Second, and crucial for this commentary,
researchers have found ideological linkage of citizenship and native
speaker status (e. g., Doerr 2009, Pennycook 1994/2017) as well as thelinkage of ethnicity and native speaker status (e. g., Okubo 2009).
A related concept is language ownership, described by Wee(2002:283) as “a metaphor for reflecting the legitimate control thatspeakers may have over the development of a language.” Native speakers
are the de facto owners of a language, and questions of who counts as an“authentic” or legitimate speaker can lead to struggles over language
ownership (O’Rourke and Walsh 2015). These researchers demonstrate
ways that non-native speakers seek out ownership of their L2. Conversely,
Parmegiani (2010, 2014) describes self-imposed limitations by L2
speakers who adhere to the belief that “speakers can only be consideredlegitimate owners of only one language that is established once and for all
at birth” (2014:686, emphasis in original). Parmegiani’s solution is to
advocate for “a notion of language ownership that is much more open,
fluid and decentered” (2014:686) and she argues that an “inclusive
understanding of language ownership” is most appropriate for multilingual
speakers. In Parmegiani’s view, language ownership should be based on“a linguistic repertoire that can always be expanded” (2010:376). The
take-away here is clear: multilingual speakers can and should be ownersof each and all of the languages they speak.
3. L2 Speakers of Japanese
My research focuses on L2 speakers of Japanese and how they describe
their beliefs about Japanese speech styles. My research participants
include L2 speakers of Japanese who live and work in Japan (generally
long-term) and L1 speakers of Japanese who are the coworkers, friends,
significant others or family members of L2 speakers (Takeuchi 2015, 2018,2019a, 2019c). 1 More recently, I have examined the beliefs andperceptions that Japanese-language teachers hold about keigo, the system
of Japanese polite language (2019b). A primary motivation in each of myprojects is to develop a better understanding of linguistic ideologies about
Japanese language and how those ideologies impact L2 speakers. The L2
participants in my research are no longer involved in educational contexts,
but any of our students could follow similar paths after they graduate andJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 |DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.127

320 | Japanese Language and Literature

leave our classrooms. Thus, I have come to believe that findings fromthese participants have important implications that can be incorporated
into Japanese-language classroom practice. To that end, I introduce some
findings from my work that are particularly relevant to the question of
speaker legitimacy.
A common theme in my findings has been L2 speakers’ lack ofconfidence in their Japanese language abilities and in their right to makeuse of the various speech styles Japanese offers. Their concerns are
particularly notable because most of them speak Japanese at a high level
and have been using Japanese daily in their professional and private lives
for ten or even twenty years. Nevertheless, they report uncertainty about
their speech style choices, their ability to implement those choices, andalso about their accents when speaking Japanese. In addition, several L1
participants are similarly critical of L2 accents, and I have come to believethat this hyper-critical attention to accent adds to L2 speakers’ uncertainty
and acts as a deterrent to their language use, with negative impacts on their
Japanese language interactions.
I also see a tendency (in both L1 and L2 participants) to associate
language competence with nationality, similar to that found in the research
described above. One way language competence is connected tonationality is revealed in the view of some L2 participants that they do nothave the “right” to use certain speech styles, including regional dialects,
slang, highly casual speech and highly honorific expressions. It might beeasy to think of this as a learning issue (e. g., to conclude they just needmore practice), or to assume that these more complex features are notimportant if the speaker is still able to communicate the intended message.
However, it is in the use of just these kinds of speech styles that speakers
begin to express their identities and to use Japanese in ways that go beyond
transactional message-exchange. In short, these complex features andvarieties are crucial to speakers being and becoming themselves inJapanese. Perhaps this is why many of my L2 participants report that theywant to be able to use Japanese in all of its complexities and varieties. For
many L2 speakers, it is that very complexity that drew them to Japanesein the first place. However, the persistence of ideas that “Japanese isspoken by Japanese people” acts as a barrier to acquiring and using fluent
Japanese: When L2 speakers who do present a measure of fluency are told,
as many of my participants are, 日本語が日本人より上手 (you speak
Japanese better than a Japanese person) or 日本人より日本人らしい (youare more Japanese than the Japanese), it sends the message that one cannot

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 |DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.127

Jae DiBello Takeuchi | 321

be a fluent speaker of Japanese while also being (visibly) non-Japanese.
Such comments are almost surely intended to be complimentary.
Notwithstanding good intentions, negative consequences arise from suchcomments because they focus on the form of the utterance and callattention to perceived gaps between the linguistic form and the speaker’s
identity. Such attention comes at the expense of the speaker’s
communicative and interactional intent. The L2 speaker is thereby
positioned as someone whose speech is vulnerable to comment andassessment, while the L1 speaker is positioned as someone with the “rights
and privileges” to comment on and evaluate the speech of L2 speakers.
The experience can be deeply othering.
The act of commenting on someone else’s speech is something we inthe profession do as a matter of course in our roles as Japanese-language
educators. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize the power imbalancethat is brought to the forefront when one speaker corrects or otherwisecomments on the speech of another. There is an inherent tension between
the aims of language instruction and the goals of advocating for speaker
legitimacy. Language educators evaluate and correct the language
production of our students, and learners naturally rely on that important
feedback to improve their language skills. However, our goal should not
be only to correct or evaluate learners’ linguistic output, but also to affirm
their speaker legitimacy. Moreover, students begin learning Japanese
because of their interests in the language and cultures of Japan and they
persist in learning when they see the possibilities for their own Japaneselanguage selves. Our job as language educators is to foster their efforts,
not to “put them in their place” as non-native speakers.
4. Conclusion: Imagining the Absence of Native Speaker Bias

We may not expect students to master all aspects of Japanese right away,or perhaps ever, but we need to ensure that students get the message thatthey can speak Japanese and have every right to do so. The Japaneselanguage teacher is often the first Japanese-speaking interlocutor that a
student has. We set the expectations that learners have for themselves andtheir Japanese development and, crucially, for how they see themselves as
speakers of Japanese. We must see in each of our students a legitimate
speaker of Japanese. If we do not, students are less likely to see themselvesthat way. Essential to the goal of speaker legitimacy for our students is for
L1 Japanese-language teachers to recognize L2 colleagues as legitimate
speakers. At the same time, L2 Japanese-language teachers must see

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 |DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.127

322 | Japanese Language and Literature

ourselves as legitimate speakers. In short, all Japanese-language teachers
can act as models for our students, demonstrating the legitimation of
speakers regardless of linguistic background. In doing so, we will also
begin to address another concern raised in the diversity survey, namely theshortage of Japanese-language teachers – when students see themselves as
speakers of Japanese and are ratified as such, they are more likely to wantto make Japanese language a part of their professional lives as well.
We must also consider how we can best encourage the positioning of
L2 speakers as legitimate speakers of Japanese without tying legitimacy
to linguistic competence based on an idealized native speaker. One way to
do this is to ensure that we represent the diversity of Japanese language
varieties and speakers in the linguistic examples we include in our teachingmaterials; this will help counter the tendency to measure correctness
against that idealized native speaker model. Similarly, it is important to
ratify students’ communicative attempts and to be careful about how
correction and feedback are handled. For example, we should always
approach students with kindness and treat linguistic mistakes as somethingthat occurs as a matter-of-course, rather than as a language failure. We canalso lessen native speaker bias by avoiding correction that is based on
assessing the degree to which students’ output is “native-like.” Suchadjustments to correction and feedback practices will facilitate anothergoal I have for my own teaching, namely, to help our students become“fearless” so that their Japanese language use will not be inhibited by lackof confidence or uncertainty. L2 Japanese-language teachers can andshould strive for fearlessness with our Japanese in all kinds of contexts,
including some mentioned in the diversity survey such as emails withcolleagues, academic presentations and so on. If L2 teachers can embody
this fearlessness and L1 teachers can affirm it, together we can model
legitimacy for our students.
In thinking about my goals for my own research and teaching, I often
wonder: what would it look like for L2 speakers to be legitimate speakers
of Japanese? What would the absence of native speaker bias look like? In
imaging the answers to these questions, we can begin to see a way forward,
for the profession, for ourselves, and for our students.
NOTE
1

L2 speaker participants were L1 speakers of English. More than half were fromthe U.S. while the rest were from other English-speaking countries. Most wereJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 |DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.127

Jae DiBello Takeuchi | 323

white, with a smaller number of African-American and Asian-American
participants. Participants’ ages ranged from twenties to fifties, and their Japaneseabilities ranged from lower intermediate to advanced. Almost all L2 participants
were long-term residents of Japan and many had been living in Japan for ten
years or more.

REFERENCES

Blackledge, Adrien and Aneta Pavlenko. 2002. Ideologies of Language in
Multilingual Contexts. Multilingua 21(2/3): 121–326.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA.:
Harvard University Press.
Cook, Vivian. 1999. Going Beyond the Native Speaker in Language
Teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2): 185–209. doi:10.2307/3587717.
———. 2016. Where is the Native Speaker Now? TESOL Quarterly 50(1),186–189. doi:10.1002/tesq.286.
Davies, Alan. 2003. The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. (Vol. 38).
Clevedon, U. K.: Multilingual Matters.
Doerr, Neriko Musha, ed. 2009. The Native Speaker Concept:
Ethnographic Investigations of Native Speaker Effects. Berlin: Walterde Gruyter.
Firth, Alan, and Johannes Wagner. 1997. On Discourse, Communication,and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research. The Modern
Language Journal 88 (3):285–300.
———. 2007. Second/Foreign Language Learning as a Social
Accomplishment: Elaborations on a Reconceptualized SLA. The
Modern Language Journal 91: 800–819.
Holliday, Adrian. 2006. Native-Speakerism. ELT Journal 60(4): 385–387.
doi: 10.1093/elt/ccl030.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 |DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.127

324 | Japanese Language and Literature———. 2014. Native Speakerism. Retrieved April 10, 2018, fromhttp://adrianholliday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/nismencyc16plain-submitted.pdf.
Kubota, Ryuko. 2009. Rethinking the Superiority of the Native Speaker:
Toward a Relational Understanding of Power. The Native Speaker
Concept: Ethnographic Investigations of Native Speaker Effects (Vol.
26), ed. Neriko Musha Doerr, 233–248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2016. Native and Non-Native Speaker Identities inInteraction: Trajectories of Power. Applied Linguistics Review 7(4):409–429.
Mori, Junko, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki. (Thisvolume.) On the Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:
Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators in North
America. Japanese Language and Literature 54: 267–304.
Okubo, Yuko. 2009. The Localization of Multicultural Education and the
Reproduction of Native Speaker Concept in Japan. The Native
Speaker Concept: Ethnographic Investigations of Native Speaker
Effects (Vol. 26), ed. Neriko Musha Doerr, 101–131. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
O’Rourke, Bernadette, and John Walsh. 2015. New Speakers of Irish:
Shifting Boundaries Across Time and Space. International Journal of
the Sociology of Language 231: 63–83.
Parmegiani, Andrea. 2010. Reconceptualizing Language Ownership: A
Case Study of Language Practices and Attitudes Among Students at
the University of KwaZulu-Natal. The Language Learning Journal
38(3): 359–378.
———. 2014. The (Dis)ownership of English: Language and Identity
Construction Among Zulu Students at the University of KwaZuluNatal. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
17(6): 683–694.
Pennycook, Alastair. 1994/2017. The Cultural Politics of English as an
International Language. London and New York: Routledge.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 |DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.127

Jae DiBello Takeuchi | 325

Rampton, Ben. 1990. Displacing the ‘Native Speaker’: Expertise,
Affiliation, and Inheritance. ELT Journal 44(2): 97–101.
Rumsey, Alan. 1990. Wording, Meaning, and Linguistic Ideology.
American Anthropologist 92(2): 346–361.
Smith, Maya Angela. 2015. Who is a Legitimate French Speaker? The
Senegalese in Paris and the Crossing of Linguistic and Social Borders.
French Cultural Studies 26(3): 317–329.
Takeuchi, Jae DiBello. 2015. Dialect Matters: L2 Speakers’ Beliefs andPerceptions About Japanese Dialect. Ph.D. diss. University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
———. 2018. “His Japanese Makes No Sense”—Native Speaker Bias and
Depictions of L2 Japanese Competence. Paper presented at the 27thCentral Association of Teachers of Japanese Conference, Madison,
Wisconsin.
———. 2019a. A “Girly Girl” or a “Man’s Man”? Ideologies of Gendered
Language and Perceptions of L2 Spoken Japanese. Paper presented atthe 34th Southeast Association of Teachers of Japanese Conference,
Wake Forest University.
———. 2019b. Keigo Ideologies Revisited: JFL Teachers’ Beliefs and L2
Speaker Legitimacy. Paper presented at the 25th Princeton Japanese
Pedagogy Forum, Princeton New Jersey.
———. 2019c. L2 Speakers and keigo: Problematizing What It Means to
be a Speaker of Japanese. Paper presented at the Annual Spring
American Association of Teachers of Japanese Conference, Denver,
Colorado.
Wee, Lionel. 2002. When English is Not a Mother Tongue: Linguistic
Ownership and the Eurasian Community in Singapore. Journal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Development 23(4): 282–295.
Woolard, Kathryn A. 1992. Language Ideology: Issues and Approaches.
Pragmatics 2(3): 235–249.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 |DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.127

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.130

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

Finding a Balance between Diversity and Target Language: A
Case of a Japanese Language Program in a Private University
Shinsuke Tsuchiya

1. Introduction
One of the challenges that language professionals face in our increasingly
diverse communities is establishing a balance between diversity andidentifying a so-called target language. While Standard Japanese can beused as a common language to interact with most Japanese speakers who
may not be accustomed to non-native speech (ACTFL 2012), the strict
enforcement of Standard Japanese may disregard the validity ofmultilingual speakers, including non-Tokyo dialect speakers. An
increasing number of researchers suggest that it is critical for language
professionals to rethink or even resist the practices that reinforce theideologies of standard language that may be entirely disregarding diversity(Sato and Doerr 2008, Tanaka 2013).
Yet a 2019 survey conducted by Mori, Hasegawa, Park, and Suzuki(the results of which appear in Mori, Hasegawa, Park, and Suzuki, thisvolume) indicated that the primary target for instruction, and policies that
support the sole use of Standard Japanese are still commonly implemented.
While such ideology and practice help ensure the quality of language
instruction suited for imagined monolingual settings, the imposition ofStandard Japanese as the primary target may also discourage variations
among speakers. This is important to consider for language programs likethat of Brigham Young University where more than half of the populationof teaching assistants (TAs) are hāfu “a person with one Japanese and one
non-Japanese parent” or L2 Japanese speakers who did not grow up in a
Japanese community. The changing dynamics in teacher population
requires that we address diversity and inclusion in the language programs’
objectives to validate the unique identities of multilingual speakers on
personal and professional levels.
New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

328 | Japanese Language and Literature

In the following sections, I will first discuss the issues of upholding“native speakers” as the goal of language programs by presenting thefindings of my own studies (Tsuchiya 2016, 2018). Then, I will delve into
the complexity of setting instructional targets in light of diversity. Lastly,
I will briefly share what I do to acknowledge and ensure diversity while
keeping certain expectations of linguistic competence as I hire, train, andsupervise TAs at BYU.
2. The Native Speaker Fallacy
The language of native speakers is often treated as the target to emulate inmany language programs, partly because of the native speaker fallacy, thefaulty assumption that native speakers are more effective
and more qualified as language teachers than nonnative speakers(Phillipson 1992). This fallacy may be especially common when most of
the teacher population is composed of native speakers, such as inJapanese-language programs in Japan and the United States. However,what constitutes the idea of “native” is rather complex. Further, not all“native speakers” may be perceived as equal. In addition to linguistic
background, the perception of the legitimacy of native speakers as
language teachers is influenced by other factors such as ethnic and racial
background, social class, gender, and age (Creese, Blackledge, and Takhi
2014; Flores and Rosa 2019; Tsuchiya 2018; Vélez-Rendón 2010). As aresult, the native speaker status of individuals with unique backgrounds,
such as speakers of dialects other than the Tokyo dialect, nikkeijin “peopleof Japanese descent raised outside of Japan,” and hāfu, has beenquestioned because they do not fit the “typical” category of native speakers
of Japanese (Doerr 2009, Sato and Doerr 2008).
My research on manifestations of the native speaker fallacy in theJapanese and Chinese language programs at a large public U.S. university(Tsuchiya 2016) is one of the few studies that provides a glimpse of thecurrent state of the native speaker fallacy outside the context of Teaching
English to Speakers of Other Languages (Braine 2010). In the following,
I will share relevant findings from the quantitative and qualitative data I
collected from 2014 to 2016 through surveys (n = 594), interviews, andmore than eighty hours of observation sessions that included teacher
training and teaching experiences of the program’s Japanese and Chinese
language teachers.
The quantitative analysis of the survey data collected from language
students and teachers of Japanese and Chinese showed a strong preference

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.130

Shinsuke Tsuchiya | 329

for native speakers as language teachers and their idealizing
characterizations of native speaker. For example, many participants
associated native speaker status with that person’s competency in a variety
of subjects and situations (77%), reading and writing ability (73%),
pronunciation without foreign accent (60%), and ability to use
grammatical patterns without mistakes (55%). Moreover, some
respondents also associated native speaker status with the ability to teachtheir native language to second language learners (30%), with reception of
education in the target culture (26%), as well as with socioeconomic status(21%).
Interestingly, the survey also revealed that Japanese-language students,
in comparison to Chinese-language students, showed more preference fornative speakers and less preference for non-native speakers. The
difference is small yet statistically significant. There are a number ofpossible factors that might have affected the result at a macro level suchas how Japanese and Chinese people are perceived in general in the U.S.
as well as the perception of the standard dialect in Japan and China.
However, the following potential sources of influence particularly fromthe language program should be noted: (1) the seemingly stricter
enforcement of the standard dialect pronunciation in the Japanese program,(2) the fact that more non-native-speaking faculty are involved in teacher
training in the Chinese program, and (3) the type of teaching assignments
given to native speakers of Japanese and Chinese. The attention to thestandard variety pronunciation and pitch accent patterns seemed to be
more emphasized in the Japanese department, perhaps because nativespeaking faculty outnumbered the lone non-native in the Japanese
department among those who engaged in language teacher training at thetime of this study. The emphasis on pronunciation made some Japaneselanguage teachers, especially those who were L2 speakers of Japanese,
feel insecure about their pronunciation in terms of modeling the pitchaccent in Standard Japanese. On the other hand, non-native teacher
training faculty in the Chinese department outnumbered native speakers,
and interestingly, none of the L2 Chinese teachers reported feeling guilty
about their pronunciation. For the most part, native speakers of Japanese
were assigned to exclusively teach speaking and listening classes taught
in Japanese. On the other hand, native speakers of Chinese wereoccasionally assigned to teach grammatical and cultural concepts in
English. Many of these native speakers of Chinese found this task
challenging and language learners saw them struggle. These differing

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.130

330 | Japanese Language and Literature

distributions of teaching assignments might have influenced the formationof the Japanese-language students’ preference for native speakers aspresenters of models to follow, and Chinese-language students’ relatively
lower appreciation of native speakers of Chinese as instructors.
The qualitative analysis of the survey response further revealed that
language students frequently made use of factors such as name,appearance, and citizenship, along with linguistic ability, to determine thenative speaker status of their teachers (Tsuchiya 2018). In interview
sessions, teachers and selected students were asked whether and why they
thought of themselves or their teachers as a native or non-native speakerof the target language. Teacher participants were further asked to talkabout how they prepared lessons, corrected errors, graded, and interactedwith students in and outside of class. Interestingly, the qualitative analysis
showed that participants had a mixed response regarding those who did
not fit the typical dichotomy of native and non-native speakers. For
instance, a few students decided to judge their L1-speaking teachers ofJapanese as non-native for lacking confidence and for being too“Americanized” or fluent in English. In contrast, based on their Asian
appearance and behavior, L1 Chinese-speaking teachers of Japanese in theJapanese program were sometimes regarded as native speakers of Japanese,
especially by beginning-level learners. Many language students could not
decide whether two biracial hāfu Asian and white teachers of Japanese
were native or non-native. Some decided to label them as native whileothers labeled them as non-native. Though both teachers grew up speaking
Japanese with one of their parents, one of them identified herself as anative speaker of Japanese and tried to communicate with her students
exclusively in Japanese, while the other identified himself as a non-native
speaker of Japanese to align himself with students.
The qualitative analysis of teacher training showed how teacher
trainers encouraged new language teachers to use the standard variety as
described in the textbook and to follow the “No English” rule during
speaking/listening classes. The emphasis on pronunciation made someJapanese teachers feel insecure about modeling the pitch accent pattern inStandard Japanese. One of the non-native-speaking Japanese teachers
shared that while she thought the emphasis on pronunciation was good andhelpful, it also made her feel guilty. She said that certain aspects of theteacher training were incredibly stressful, especially when one of hercolleagues, an L1 Japanese speaker, overly criticized her pitch accent inJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.130

Shinsuke Tsuchiya | 331

front of other trainees. She also shared that one of her male students had
openly expressed doubts in class about her ability to teach the language.
Some language teachers spent a good amount of time striving to
improve their Japanese, especially in the area of modeling the pitch accent,whereas others did not care as much. In one case, a non-Tokyo dialect
speaker of Japanese struggled to model certain pitch accent patterns as
described in the textbook. To remedy this problem, during her lesson
planning she paid close attention to the models in media resources andtranscriptions provided in the textbook. While this is usually considered agood habit of language teaching, there was an interesting incident
regarding the word chika “underground” in one of her observed teachingsessions. Intuitively, she pronounced the word as CHIka (with the highpitch assigned to the capital letters), which is listed as the pitch accentpattern in a relatively recent pitch accent dictionary along with the othervariation, chiKA (NHK 2000). However, remembering that the word was
only transcribed as chiKA in the textbook, she tried to guide her students
to pronounce the word in the “correct” way as chiKA.
Language is always changing, and some information presented in
textbooks could be wrong or outdated such as the pitch accent pattern of
the word chika in this case. It is important for language teachers to notblindly accept such information, but instead develop the ability to criticallyanalyze the language by using multiple resources (e. g., dictionaries, otherspeakers of Japanese with varying backgrounds, etc.) as part of their lesson
planning. Native speaker fallacy is a prevalent problem in language
programs, and on top of it, the perception of what counts as “native
speakers” makes the situation even more complex. In the next section, I
will expand on this issue in relation with the linguistic targets of language
education.
3. Pros and Cons of Setting Idealized Target Linguistic Models
Many language teachers and students would agree that certain target
linguistic models are essential in language programs to ensure the qualityof language instruction. Target models are found in the type of dialect usedin the textbook and in the language program’s instruction, the rubrics used
to assess language proficiencies, the perception and treatment of errors in
the language program (i. e., error corrections), and the classroom rules
such as the “No English” rule.
Though what is perceived as target models varies depending on
different factors such as speakers’ background characteristics (e. g., age
and gender), upbringing and experiences, and the formality of the setting,Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.130

332 | Japanese Language and Literature

to my knowledge, Standard Japanese, which is often associated with thelanguage spoken in Tokyo, is set as the primary target language of modern
Japanese-language programs and found in most textbooks used for those
programs. This is probably because the cultural capital of the Tokyo
dialect is well established and well maintained by the Japanese education
system. However, endorsement of Standard Japanese as the sole
instructional goal may cause local dialects to decrease their legitimacy in
L2 Japanese-language instruction. Indeed, an increasing number of
researchers suggest that we should rethink or even resist the roles
Japanese-language educators play towards the perpetual promotion ofStandard Japanese (Doerr 2009, Sato and Doerr 2008, Tanaka 2013).
Error corrections are often provided to help learners effectively
communicate with native speakers who are unaccustomed to non-native
speech (ACTFL 2012). Many language teachers and students would agree
that having good pronunciation is an important aspect of language learning,but the practice of teaching “correct” pronunciation can be regarded as away to counter the promotion of nonstandard language varieties as it
effectively endorses the power of the standard variety (Creese et al. 2014).
In fact, the task of modeling in Standard Japanese, especially in the areasof pronunciation and pitch accent patterns, poses a challenge for nonTokyo dialect speakers and L2 Japanese speakers, as mentioned in theprevious section. Indeed, the strict enforcement of adherence to the models
can become a common source of foreign language anxiety among “highachiever(s) who both recognize and magnify small imperfections in target
language productions” (Horwitz 1996:367).
Moreover, a strict enforcement of one variety of a language (e. g.,Standard Japanese) reproduces and promotes the monolingual ideology,
which appears to be prevalent in various aspects of our language programs.
One such manifestation can be found in the “No English” rule in thelanguage classroom, the intended purpose of which is to provide
opportunities for learners to practice speaking in L2 by encouraging themto communicate exclusively in their L2. If done effectively, this can help
boost language learners’ confidence in L2 as they learn to deal with
confusion without relying on their L1. However, prohibiting the use of L1
or non-Tokyo dialects in class can contribute to the recreation of themonolingual ideology and the supremacy of Standard Japanese, which
seems to counterpart the trends of globalization and multilingualism.
While not all possible variations are equally as acceptable as language
models, a strict imposition of the “No English” rule or requirement toJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.130

Shinsuke Tsuchiya | 333

communicate in Standard Japanese in and outside of class may disregard
the unique linguistic identities of multilingual speakers. It discourages
multilingual practices such as translanguaging or the ability ofmultilingual speakers to shuttle between languages, treating the diverse
languages that form their repertories as an integrated system (Canagarajah
2011:401). The target-language-only policy can also cause difficulties forlanguage teachers to provide emotional support for and build rapport withstudents.
Determining target linguistic models is an important aspect of foreign
language education. However, there is a danger of having consequencesof unintentionally endorsing the monolingual ideology and the supremacyof Standard Japanese, which may be contrary to the intended aim offoreign language education or the promotion of globalization andmultilingualism.
4. Diversity and Target Language at BYUAs mentioned, more than half of the TAs in the Japanese program at BYU
are L2 speakers or hāfu or simultaneous bilinguals who spoke Japaneseand English growing up. Translanguaging (Canagarajah 2006) is second
nature to them and their upbringing experience with the language isdifferent from those who grew up speaking only Japanese. L2 speakers ofJapanese are different from L1 Japanese teachers in that theirinterlanguage often shows some influence from their L1 (i. e., English),but they can act as successful models of learners who can use their learning
experience to relate to students. Simultaneous bilinguals’ Japanese also
shows some influence from English in many cases, and unlike the L2
speakers of Japanese, they may lack the experience of formally learning
Japanese. However, they can take advantage of their fluency in Japaneseand English as language teachers, and critically bring in diverse
perspectives into the language program with their unique upbringing
experiences and relation with Japanese culture.
Despite having TAs with various backgrounds, TAs are currently only
assigned to teach speaking/listening classes with the expectation that they
will use Standard Japanese and follow the “No English” rule in class in
BYU’s Japanese program. While it may take some time to revise alanguage program’s objectives to integrate diversity and inclusion toaddress both monolingual and multilingual situations, here are five ideasthat I incorporate to set a balance between diversity and target language at
BYU. Please note that these suggestions are not meant to provide a onesize-fits-all solution.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.130334 | Japanese Language and Literature

1. Assigning TAs. I hire TAs with different language varieties. When assigning
TAs to classes, I rotate them to expose students to different types ofcompetent speech styles.
2. Setting different expectations for TAs. As professionals in every field needto continue to improve, I encourage my TAs to take advantage of theprevalence of Standard Japanese and use it as a model to improve theirlanguage ability. However, I do not require non-Tokyo dialect speakers andnon-native-speaking TAs to strictly model their pronunciation and pitchaccent patterns in Standard Japanese. This is to prevent them from becoming
too cautious about their language use and spending undue time preparing forclass in an attempt to eliminate any perceived imperfections (Horwitz 1996).
It is also to prevent some of the L1 Japanese TAs from becoming too criticalof others.
3. Assigning teaching tasks that do not come easy. I often assign my prospective
TAs to practice explaining in English difficult concepts of the Japanese
language such as the difference between Japanese particles wa and ga, andthe concept of uchi and soto, etc. This often helps L1 Japanese TAs
understand the difficulties and complexities associated with various aspects
of instruction.
4. Setting goals. I help my TAs and prospective TAs set achievable goals thatare appropriate for their respective levels to improve their Japanese andpedagogical skills. As necessary, I share my own shortcomings as a language
teacher (e. g., lack of experience in business settings, difficulty explaining
challenging grammatical concepts, etc.) and the learning strategies I use toimprove my proficiency (e. g., listening to news, using multiple resources tofigure out certain linguistic phenomena, etc.).
5. Holding debriefing sessions. Finally, as part of language class, I make timeto have “debriefing sessions” in which students can share their concerns inEnglish. These sessions provide emotional support for those who may be
experiencing foreign language anxiety in their speaking/listening classes. I
also use this time to explain when it is appropriate to translanguage, toprovide guidance on study habits, and to offer deeper analysis of the language(e. g., discussing difficult grammatical concepts, the shifting nature oflanguage, etc.). As needed, I also hold debriefing sessions with TAs to havean open discussion on sensitive topics such as the native speaker fallacy,
racism, and power harassment.

5. Closing
In this commentary, I have shared relevant findings from my research
about the native speaker fallacy and discussed the complexity of setting
the target linguistic models. I also provided pedagogical suggestions to set
a balance between diversity and target language. It is my hope that theJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.130

Shinsuke Tsuchiya | 335

perspective I have shared can be a springboard for discussing and refining
language instructors’ approach to diversity, inclusion, and professionalism
in Japanese-language education in the coming years.

REFERENCES

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language. 2012.
Proficiency Guidelines 2012. https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012/english/
speaking. Accessed September 17, 2019.
Braine, George. 2010. Nonnative Speaker English Teachers: Research,
Pedagogy, and Professional Growth. New York: Routledge.
Canagarajah, Suresh 2006. Codemeshing in Academic Writing:Identifying Teachable Strategies of Translanguaging. The Modern
Language Journal 95(3): 401–417.
Creese, Angela., Adrian Blackledge, and Jaspreet K. Takhi. 2014. The
Ideal “Native Speaker” Teacher: Negotiating Authenticity andLegitimacy in the Language Classroom. Modern Language Journal
98(4): 937–951.
Doerr, Neriko M. 2009. Investigating “Native Speaker Effects”: Toward a
New Model of Analyzing “Native Speaker” Ideologies. The Native
Speaker Concept: Ethnographic Investigations of Native Speaker
Effects, ed. Neriko M. Doerr, 15–46. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Flores, Nelson, and Jonathan Rosa. 2019. Bringing Race into Second
Language Acquisition. Modern Language Journal 103 (Supplement):
145–151.
Horwitz, Elaine K. 1996. Even Teachers Get the B: Recognizing andAlleviating Language Teachers’ Feelings of Foreign Language
Anxiety. Foreign Language Annals 29(3): 365–372.
Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford, U. K.: Oxford
University Press.
Mori, Junko, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki. (Thisvolume.) On Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.130

336 | Japanese Language and Literature

Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators in North
America. Japanese Language and Literature 54: 267–304.
NHK. 2000. NHK Nihongo hatsuon akusento jisho (Dictionary ofJapanese accent). Tokyo: Nihon Hōsō shuppan kyōkai.
Sato, Shinji, and Neriko M. Doerr. 2008. Bunka, kotoba, kyōiku:Nihongo/Nihon no kyōiku no “hyōjun” o koete (Culture, language, andeducation: Beyond “Standard” in Japanese/Japan’s education). Tokyo:
Akashi shoten.
Tanaka, Rina. 2013. The Concepts of “Native”/“Nonnative” in Japanese
Language Education: From the Reviews of Related Articles in
Linguistics Research and Language Education. Gengo bunka kyōiku
kenkyū 11: 95–111.
Tsuchiya, Shinsuke. 2016. Perceptions of Native and Nonnative Speakers
and Observational Analysis of “Divergent” Japanese Language
Teachers in Context. Ph. D. diss. The Ohio State University.
———. 2018. Characterizations of Native Speaker by Language Teachers
and Students of Japanese and Chinese in the U.S. Journal of National
Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages 23(1): 97–130.
Vélez-Rendón, Gloria. 2010. From Social Identity to Professional
Identity: Issues of Language and Gender. Foreign Language Annals
43(4): 635–649.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.130

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.126

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

Pedagogical Linguistics Training for Graduate Students
Etsuyo Yuasa

1. Introduction
How can we foster diversity and inclusion among peers and potential peers
in Japanese language education? This commentary tries to address thisquestion based on my experience with providing pedagogical linguistics
training to graduate students at The Ohio State University. Pedagogicallinguistics training aims to instill future Japanese-language instructors
with the knowledge of how the Japanese language works and to foster theirability to incorporate such knowledge into teaching. The training covers
wide-ranging topics, such as Japanese pronunciation, predicates andpredicate-related expressions, particles, politeness, and discourse
structures. It closely examines the difficulties Japanese-language learners
could encounter due to the inherent complexity of the Japanese language
and the differences between Japanese and learners’ base languages. It
draws findings and insight from linguistics, but the main focus of the
training is to have future instructors develop analytical skills to provide
effective instruction based on a sound knowledge of Japanese (andlearners’ base languages), not to teach theoretical linguistics. The trainingof graduate students is an enormous topic. I can only scratch the surface
in this short commentary as I attempt to tie such training to the theme ofthis special section; namely, diversity, inclusion, and professionalism.
However, I would like to propose that pedagogical linguistics training can
be a powerful tool to help individual teachers achieve their potential
regardless of their prior experiences and backgrounds.1
The rest of this commentary is organized as follows: In section 2, I
will discuss the importance of pedagogical linguistics training and how it
empowers future Japanese-language instructors. In section 3, I will discuss
issues in pedagogical linguistics training. To train future Japaneselanguage instructors, we use linguistic rules and analyses in pedagogical
New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

338 | Japanese Language and Literature

linguistics training. However, if such rules and analyses are not treatedsensibly in pedagogical linguistics training, it can interfere with our efforts
to promote diversity and inclusion. Therefore, I will examineconsiderations that pedagogical linguistics training needs to take. In
section 4, I will summarize the main message and conclude thiscommentary.
2. Importance of Pedagogical Linguistics Training
My department has M. A. and Ph. D. programs in Japanese language
pedagogy, linguistics, and literature. Between 2000 and 2019, sixty-three
M. A. students (excluding those who moved on to our Ph. D. program) andthirty-four Ph. D. students completed their degrees. Of the sixty-three M.
A. graduates, 43% (27) were native speakers of Japanese, and 57% (36)were non-native speakers. Of the thirty-four Ph. D. graduates, 38% (13)were native speakers of Japanese, and 62% (21) were non-native
speakers. 2 In my experience of teaching both native and non-native
speakers of Japanese in our graduate program, pedagogical linguistics
training empowers all future Japanese-language instructors regardless of
their prior experiences or backgrounds. Different teachers bring different
strengths to the table, but neither native speakers nor non-native speakers
have all the skills they need to teach Japanese effectively without
additional training. In this section, I would like to illustrate howpedagogical linguistics training helps future instructors of all backgrounds
effectively utilize what they already know and equips them with enoughknowledge to succeed as Japanese-language teachers.
First, although native speakers of Japanese have a lot to offer, we allknow that just being a native speaker of Japanese is not enough to be agood Japanese-language teacher. This is because native speakers ofJapanese may know how to use Japanese, but they do not necessarily know
consciously how the Japanese language works. Schools in Japan do notprovide adequate instruction on colloquial Japanese grammar (Yamada2009). Therefore, without proper training, native speakers often cannot
explain how the Japanese language works (Fujita 2000). For example, I
see that while native speakers of Japanese can catch English-speaking
learners of Japanese placing high pitch on the penultimate mora, as in
yamaMOto or waTAshi, they do not always know why English-speaking
learners pronounce these words this way. If the role of Japanese-language
teachers is to help learners of the Japanese language master instructionaltargets (whatever they may be) and apply those skills to a wide variety ofJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.126

Etsuyo Yuasa | 339

contexts, Japanese-language teachers need to go beyond merely noticing
what learners are doing.
In her investigation of how to teach pronunciation to Japaneselanguage learners, Katagiri (2002) points out that what English-speaking
learners of Japanese do is often systematic and is influenced by English
phonology.3 In English, a group of Latin origin words has stress on the
penultimate syllable:(1) clus-ter

de-ter-mine

de-ve-lopin-her-it

In yamaMOto, high pitch is placed on a penultimate mora. Therefore, it ispossible that English-speaking learners of Japanese are unconsciouslytransferring their knowledge of the English penultimate stress rule andwaiting to place high pitch toward the end of the word. In contrast, inJapanese (Tokyo dialect), the pitch of the first and second morae is always
different, as in I-ku-ra (HLL), wa-TA-SHI (LHH), ko-RE DE-su (LHHL)(Tanaka and Kubozono 1999).
Another rule of English that is useful to be aware of when teaching
English-speaking learners of Japanese is that words or phrases in English
normally have only one primary stress on a single syllable (Katagiri 2002).
However, in many Japanese words and phrases, high pitch continues
across multiple morae (e. g., waTASHI, oMOSHIROkatta). This difference
between English and Japanese can affect the pronunciation of Englishspeaking learners of Japanese, such as with waTAshi, and makes it harderfor English-speaking learners to retain high pitch across multiple morae.
Each word has a distinct accent pattern. Not everything will be
predicated or explained by rules. However, even in pronunciation thatappears to be highly random, there are patterns that can be incorporated
into Japanese language instruction. If we understand how the Japanese
language works and which aspects of it may pose difficulties to learners(whether they concern pronunciation, grammar, or pragmatics), thenlanguage teachers can zero in on what is going on with learners’
performances. In sports, top athletes do not necessarily become greatcoaches. Effective coaches are the ones who see what each player needsin order to be better and stronger and know how to guide players throughthe process. In Japanese language pedagogy, if teachers are analytical andcaring and pay attention to details with the knowledge of how the Japanese
language works and how to teach it, they will become effective coaches oflearning Japanese. With strong knowledge and expertise, native teachers

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.126

340 | Japanese Language and Literature

will be able to go beyond simply noticing and correcting what learners are
doing. With enough training, non-native teachers will know exactly what
they should look for and where they should direct learners’ attention.
Furthermore, non-native teachers who know the sources of learners’
challenges clearly will understand not only why learners struggle but also
how hard it is to not be influenced by the patterns of a base language. Suchan understanding attitude will make them sympathetic teachers who can
support Japanese-language learners both academically and emotionally.
Pedagogical linguistics training not only fosters sound knowledge of
how Japanese language works, but also creates a learning space in which
individuals with different experiences and backgrounds can think about
how to help students learn Japanese better together. For example, agraduate student whose native language is Chinese and who conducted
brief research on this topic shared with us that Chinese-speaking learnersof Japanese tend to have the particle no between an adjective and a noun,
as in *ōkii no kyōsitsu “large classroom,” because in Chinese, de (的)needs to be used between an adjective and noun.4 In another case, afterreflecting on his own experience, an English-speaking graduate student
studied several linguistics papers on Japanese conjugation mistakes andreported why some conjugations, such as the past tense of ōkii “is big,” areparticularly difficult for English-speaking beginning learners of Japanese,
who tend to produce a wrong form, *ōkii deshita, instead of ōkikatta desu“(it) was big”: (a) English adjectives do not conjugate (i. e., it is the copulathat conjugates) but Japanese adjectives do (e. g., ōkii “is big” vs. ōkikatta“was big”); and (b) desu in ōkii desu “is big” is a politeness marker,
whereas desu in Tanaka-san desu “(it) is Ms. Tanaka” is the copula in the
non-past affirmative polite form, which alternates with past tense deshita.5
Non-native speakers have recent memories of encountering problems inlearning the Japanese language themselves. If non-native speakers aretrained to utilize their experiences and analyze them, they will bring tolight the aspects of the Japanese language that may pose difficulty tolearners of Japanese. Likewise, if native speakers are trained to articulate
their linguistic intuitions and analyze the Japanese language in relation toother languages, they will be able to develop observations and insights thatthey can share with others to understand where problems may lie forJapanese-language learners and how to help learners overcome these
problems. Therefore, pedagogical linguistics training prepares both nonnative and native speakers to contribute and exchange ideas. Above all,Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.126

Etsuyo Yuasa | 341

such a collaborative learning space will enrich the entire field of Japanese
language pedagogy.
3. Issues in Pedagogical Linguistics Training
I believe in providing pedagogical linguistics training to the future
generations of Japanese-language educators. However, this idea can be adouble-edged sword in dealing with diversity and inclusion in Japanese
language education: Such training empowers teachers with different
backgrounds, but if we uncritically identify linguistic rules and analyses
in pedagogical linguistics training and apply them to Japanese instruction,
we can reinforce “the traditional emphasis on the idealized native speakerof standard Japanese as a model” (Mori, Hasegawa, Park, and Suzuki, thisvolume, 286) and hinder our efforts to promote diversity and inclusion.
Therefore, in this section, I will briefly discuss how we should treat
linguistic rules and analyses in pedagogical linguistics training, in thecontext of the theme of this special section.
First, we should be aware that the rules discussed in pedagogicallinguistics training may have hidden biases. For example, the accent ruleon the first and second morae discussed earlier (e. g., I-ku-ra [HLL], waTA-SHI [LHH], ko-RE DE-su [LHHL]) is a rule of the Tokyo dialect.
There are many Japanese dialects that do not follow that pattern (e. g., iku-ra [LLL], wa-ta-shi [LLL], ko-re de-su [LLLL] in the Fukushima
dialect) (Shibatani 1990). To teach pronunciation, the first and second
morae accent rule will be useful, but future teachers should be informed
clearly that the rule is specific to the Tokyo dialect.
Second, as the survey respondents in Mori et al. (this volume) point
out, we need to train future teachers not to blindly adhere to the rules andanalyses of standard Japanese.6 Because learning and teaching a dialect (e.
g., the Tokyo dialect) alone can already be taxing for Japanese-language
learners and teachers, especially at the beginning level, it may still benecessary to delay introducing other dialectal variations until after
standard Japanese is introduced. However, to treat the rules and analysesof standard Japanese in a sensible manner, it will be important to train
future teachers to understand the social context that surrounds standard
Japanese and what the rules and analyses used in pedagogical linguistics
training enable learners to accomplish. For example, Takeuchi (2015)
examines what benefit (i. e., linguistic capital) standard Japanese anddialects bring to native and non-native speakers. The incorporation of suchstudies into pedagogical linguistics training will allow future teachers toevaluate and treat linguistic rules and analyses more critically and fairly.7

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.126

342 | Japanese Language and Literature

Third, to expose Japanese learners to dialectal variations beyond
standard Japanese (perhaps at the intermediate or advanced level),pedagogical linguistics training may provide opportunities for futureteachers to examine how dialects are understood so that they can explore
ways to introduce dialects into Japanese instruction. For example, in the
Kyūshū dialect, the sentence-final particle ne behaves like no in standard
Japanese:(2) Konomae-no
before-GENITIVE

kanpōyaku,
tameshitemita ne?
herbal.medicine try
NE“Did you try the herbal medicine (that I gave to you) before?” (Yoshida2009:151)

Proficient readers of Japanese will recognize that the use of ne in (2) isdifferent from that of standard Japanese in this context by picking up on avariety of cues: (a) This dialogue takes place in Kyūshū; (b) the
participants in this conversation use vocabulary unique to the Kyūshū
dialect (e. g., ken “so”) in other utterances, as shown below; and (c) this isa context in which the speaker is merely asking a question, not requesting
a confirmation.
(3) Ashitani demo Yūichi-ni
ikaseru ken.
tomorrow at or so Yuichi-DATIVE make go so“I will make Yuichi go tomorrow or so, so.…” (Yoshida 2009:151)

Just as we analyze the linguistic rules of standard Japanese, we can
examine what information enables Japanese-language learners tounderstand dialects, such as the ne in the Kyūshū dialect. If done properly,
the analytical skills that future teachers develop in pedagogical linguistics
training will be useful to guide learners to comprehend dialects that appear
in novels, dramas, manga, or anime that they have not learned in their
textbooks or classrooms, as well as to appreciate the features unique todifferent regional dialects.
Finally, for us to cherish diversity and inclusion and move forward,
there is a lot that we can do when we train future teachers. At the sametime, we do not always know how we should train graduate students apriori. Therefore, merely providing the knowledge of establishedlinguistic rules and analyses will not be enough. In fact, the reality is thatthe limited time available for pedagogical linguistics training does not

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.126

Etsuyo Yuasa | 343

allow us to teach everything that future teachers need to know. Mizutani(2005) says that teachers need to acquire the ability to analyze theconditions of Japanese on their own. Thus, if we do not have time to teacheverything, and if the linguistic rules and analyses that we should addressin pedagogical linguistics training change as our expectations for Japanese
instruction change, what we need to do for future teachers in pedagogicallinguistics training is introduce elements of basic knowledge of Japanese
as building blocks, train future teachers to become able to find more
information about the Japanese language on their own, and equip themwith the ability to identify and evaluate appropriate linguistic rules andanalyses. Importantly, it is crucial to make them aware of the power
dynamics associated with standard Japanese and the roles that language
teachers play in re-creating that ideology.
4. Conclusion
In this commentary, I discussed how pedagogical linguistics training could
empower graduate students regardless of their prior experiences andbackgrounds. To provide this training to graduate students, however, weneed to properly identify the linguistic rules and analyses that we areconveying. As discussed in section 3, such rules and analyses can havehidden biases and interfere with our efforts to promote diversity andinclusion. Therefore, we need to start paying attention to such biases anddevelop ways to treat the linguistic rules and analyses in a sensible manner.
Finally, how we train future Japanese-language teachers intricatelyintertwines with the expectations of the Japanese-speaking community.
Toki (1994) claims that to truly promote diversity and inclusion, Japanesesociety needs to change its attitude toward linguistic variations, andJapanese-language teachers can help promote such a change:
Some people say that foreigners only need to be able to convey basic
meaning and other things do not matter. This statement would be fine only
if such ways of communication are widely accepted. However, in reality, I
do not think many people are that forgiving in the Japanese society. … To
support learners of Japanese, we must promote a better understanding of theJapanese language with a foreign accent among ordinary Japanese people.
… Ultimately, the goal is to realize a society where people listen to avariety of Japanese in an equitable manner. (80; my translation)

Well-trained Japanese-language teachers know the difficulties that nonnative speakers encounter in acquiring and communicating in Japanese. If

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.126

344 | Japanese Language and Literature

we want to make our field diverse and inclusive, we will need to share ourexpertise not only with learners but also with members of the Japanese
speaking community, so that everyone who is involved in Japanesecommunication can make the community more diverse and inclusive
together.
NOTES
1

Although I focus on pedagogical linguistics training in this commentary, it
constitutes only part of the training that language teachers need. For discussionsof comprehensive teacher training, see Christensen and Noda (2002).
2

The division into “native” and “non-native” is a false dichotomy. While I
acknowledge the problematic nature of the terms, for the sake of simplification,in this paper I will tentatively use native speakers to refer to those who received
secondary education primarily in Japan and non-native speakers to refer to those
who did not.
3

Although the current discussion focuses as an illustration of what Englishspeaking learners do, the same ideas and methodology can be applied to learners
from other base-language backgrounds.
4

See Hara (1986) and Mizuno (1993) for discussions of the typical mistakes that
Chinese-speaking learners of Japanese make with Japanese structure.
5

For a good summary of typical mistakes in the conjugations of Japanese
adjectives, see Ichikawa (2005) and Trevor (2012).
6

The survey by Mori et al. (this volume) reports that 88.8% agree with thestatement that “a good Japanese teacher provides opportunities for learners tolearn about different varieties of Japanese.” Most respondents (96.2%) agree that“awareness of different varieties of Japanese (dialects, etc.) will enable students
to learn about a greater range of Japanese speakers.”
7

While it is important not to be dogmatic about standard Japanese, this does notmean that knowledge of standard Japanese is not necessary. For example, Iori(2013) claims that when Japanese learners desire to acquire the standard Japanese
pronunciation, Japanese teachers should be able to respond to their needs. Iori
quotes the following words of Satoshi Toki, who promoted the diversity of theJapanese language (and who is a speaker of the Tōhoku dialect himself): “Accent
is not something that everybody must master. However, if a learner wants toacquire the correct accent of Japanese, Japanese teachers must have enoughknowledge and skills to accommodate such a request” (40; my translation)

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.126

REFERENCES

Christensen, Matthew B. and Mari Noda. 2002. A Performance-Based
Pedagogy for Communicating in Cultures: Training Teachers for
East Asian Languages. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University
National East Asian Languages Resource Center.
Fujita, Naoya. 2000. Nihongo-bunpō: Gakushūsha ni yoku wakaru
oshiekata. Tokyo: ALC.
Hara, Yukiko. 1986. De—Chūgokugo to no hikaku kara. Nihongogaku
5(3): 73–80.
Ichikawa, Yasuko. 2005. Shokyū nihongo-bunpō to oshiekata no pointo.
Tokyo: 3A Corporation.
Iori, Isao. 2013. Nihongo-kyōiku·nihongogaku no tsugi no itte. Tokyo:
Kurosio.
Katagiri, Satoko. 2002. Acquisition and Teaching of Japanese Mora andPitch Accent as a Second Language by Native Speakers of English.
Manuscript.
Mizuno, Yoshimichi. 1993. Nihongo ‘no’ to chūgokugo ‘de.’
Nihongogaku 12(11): 72–79.
Mizutani, Osamu. 2005. Kyōshi no nihongo-nōryoku. Nihongo-kyōiku
jiten, ed. Nihongo kyoiku gakkai, 806–808. Tokyo: Taishūkan.
Mori, Junko, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki. (Thisvolume.) On Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:
Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators inNorth America. Japanese Language and Literature 54: 267–304.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The Languages of Japan. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
Takeuchi, Jae DiBello. 2015. Dialect Matters: L2 Speakers’ Beliefs andPerceptions about Japanese Dialect. Ph. D. diss., University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Tanaka, Shin’ichi and Haruo Kubozono. 1999. Nihongo no hatsuonkyōshitsu. Tokyo: Kurosio.
Toki, Satoshi. 1994. Kikite no kokusaika. Nihongogaku 13(13): 74–80.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.126

346 | Japanese Language and Literature

Trevor, Ben. 2012. When and How to Use da and desu: The Role of the
Copula in Japanese and Some Suggestions for Teaching.
Manuscript.
Yamada, Toshihiro. 2009. Nihongo-kyōiku ni mo kokugo-kyōiku ni moikaseru nihongo-bunpō to wa. Nihongo-kyōiku no kako, genzai,
mirai: Bunpō, ed. Mina Kobayashi and Junko Hibiya, 179–199.
Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Yoshida, Shuichi. 2009. Akunin. Tokyo: Asahi bunko.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.126

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.133

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

Fostering Antiracist Engagement in Japanese Language
Teaching
Ryuko Kubota

1. Introduction
Japanese language teaching (JLT) is currently situated in a globalizedsociety with an increased amount of diversity of various kinds. Althoughdiversity has always existed historically in human society, the postmodern
trend of scholarly work in various disciplines has problematized theassumption that all speakers of a certain language share the samebackground in terms of race, nationality, culture, sexuality, and otherattributes. This also applies to the characteristics of Japanese language
speakers. Nonetheless, as demonstrated in the survey results presented by
Mori, Hasegawa, Park, and Suzuki (this volume), these forms of diversity
are not always reflected in JLT.
One facet of diversity is racial difference. While linguistic difference,as represented by regional dialects or native/non-native speakerness tends
to be noticeable in language teaching, issues of race are often swept under
the rug. However, the idea of race is closely linked to language teachers’
and learners’ beliefs and experiences. To pursue the current project’s goalof identifying unconscious biases and exploring how to foster diversity
and inclusion in JLT, this paper will focus on issues of race. It will provide
some observations of the survey data presented by Mori et al. (this volume),
introduce some key concepts regarding issues of race, apply these concepts
to the understanding of the data, and address possibilities for antiracist
engagement in JLT.
2. Observations
In language education, issues of language—linguistic forms, practices,
and acquisition—tend to attract teachers’ and scholars’ attention. While
New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

348 | Japanese Language and Literature

this focus seems natural, communication in a new language requires not
only skills to manipulate the target language but also cultural awareness,intercultural communicative competence, and attitudes to negotiating
difference. Clearly, language education is concerned with not only
language but also diversity of language users. Just as forms of language
are multiple, language users come from diverse backgrounds and shapecomplex realities of human communication. These facets of diversity are
manifested in the open-ended comments written by some respondents ofthe survey.
The fact that many of these survey respondents did not disclose their
racial background requires us to only speculate about the link between raceand their professional experiences or views. Nonetheless, the following
two comments clearly demonstrate problematic instances related to race,
language, and nationality.
The first example comes from a self-identified white non-Japanese
non-native Japanese-speaking teacher, perhaps teaching in an American
university, who recounted own experience of receiving a flabbergasted
reaction from a student who could not believe that this teacher was a
Japanese speaker (Excerpt 3 in Mori et al., this volume). Another reaction
came from an entire class on the first day of the semester, when students
failed to recognize that the person who entered the classroom was actually
their teacher. These comments illustrate how students held a fixed idea of
who is a legitimate Japanese person or Japanese speaker.
The second example is what might be seen as an opposite case, where
non-native English-speaking and native Japanese-speaking K–12 teachersof Japanese educated in Japan are marginalized presumably in the UnitedStates (Excerpt 7). The commentator points out that they are
disadvantaged when advocating their Japanese program since they areperceived as non-American citizens and thus non-voters, lacking English
proficiency, and self-promoting the program with ethnocentric motivation.
Compared to the first case of a white non-native Japanese-speaking
teacher, the problems described here appear to be opposite, but theunderlying ideology of language and race is regarded as similar.
3. Issues of Race in Language Education
In contemporary society, race is a topic typically avoided in everyday
discourse due to its negative association with racism—an act of immoral
disgrace. However, the field of language education, especially teaching
English to speakers of other languages, has begun to explicitly explore

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.133

Ryuko Kubota |349

issues of race since the 2000s (e.g., Flores and Rosa 2015; Jenks 2017;
Kubota 2002, 2015, 2019; Kubota and Lin 2009; Motha 2014). In
understanding how issues related to the idea of race affect language
education, several concepts need to be clarified. Below, the following
topics will be discussed: (1) the concept of race and ethnicity, (2) theconcept of racism, (3) intersectionality, and (4) new racism. The
understanding of these topics provides us with a conceptual foundation for
promoting diversity in JLT.
3.1. Race and Ethnicity

Scientists agree that almost no racial difference exists among people inbiological terms since most human genes are shared in common (seeKubota and Lin 2009). However, perceived racial differences based on
bodily appearances and associated characteristics of groups of people havea social reality (Bonilla-Silva 2018). In this sense, race is a sociallyconstructed category that not only constructs everyday beliefs anddiscourses but also deeply affects social structures in which people live,
work, and study. A notion that often overlaps with race is ethnicity.
Whereas the socially constructed idea of race evokes phenotypicaldifference, ethnicity, typically understood as a sociological construct,distinguishes groups of people based on cultural characteristics, including
ancestry, language, religion, lifestyles, and customs (Kubota and Lin2009).
While the identification of socially constructed racial or ethnic groups
appears to be simple according to the above explanation, it is much more
complex in reality. One’s racial background is sometimes a matter ofindividual identity, especially in the cases of multiracial people or crossracial adoptees. The same complexity applies to ethnicity. To take theexample of nikkei as an ethnicity, nikkei Americans may view Mexican orSouth American nikkeijin living in the United States as culturally different,
even though they may share the same nikkei ethnic heritage (Tsuda 2012).
Racially identifying people based only on physical appearance isproblematic. Similarly, ethnically categorizing people merely in terms ofperceived cultural heritage is problematic as well.
3.2. Racism

Racism can be understood as “discourse, knowledge, and social practices
that, by means of inferiorization, denigration, marginalization, andexclusion, construct and perpetuate unequal relations of power between

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.133

350 | Japanese Language and Literaturegroups of people defined by perceived racial difference” (Kubota 2019:1–
2). In everyday experience, racism typically evokes individual
denigration, which can be called individual racism. This is often observedin racial microaggressions, defined as intentional or unintentional verbal
or behavioral indignities that communicate hostility and insults to a
racialized individual or group (Sue 2010). For instance, a comment
intended as a compliment—“You speak Japanese very well”—can betaken as condescending or offending by a fluent non-native speaker ofJapanese from non-Japanese background. This resonates with Excerpt 4 inMori et al. (this volume), in which a non-native Japanese-speaking teacher
was offended by her peer teacher’s (well-intended) explanation of untensuru with gestures.
Racism is also observed in systemic inequalities at an institutional
level. Examples include underrepresentation of people of color among
elected officials or overrepresentation of children of color in special
education classes. The underrepresentation of racially and ethnically nonJapanese teachers in Japanese language programs exemplifies institutional
racism. The field of JLT in North America obviously needs to overcome
this problem.
Yet another form of racism is epistemological racism—biases deeply
ingrained in our knowledge system, influencing which perspectives are
considered to be more legitimate than others in history, literature, art, andother academic knowledge (Kubota 2019). The mainstream knowledge
and perspectives taught in North American schools and universities are
typically dominated by the Eurocentric perspective, reflecting settler
colonial hegemony. Epistemological racism in the JLT context isrepresented by the perceived superiority of Japaneseness as seen innihonjinron, a discourse underscoring the uniqueness of Japanese culture(Mouer and Sugimoto 2009).
These three forms of racism are interrelated with each other,
reproducing systems of injustice, including hierarchies among racializedgroups, unequal relations of power, and mechanisms of domination andsubordination.
3.3. Intersectionality

Racism negatively affects groups of people who are viewed as raciallyinferior, while it perpetuates the privilege of the racial majority group.
However, social injustices are not produced only by racism; rather, sexism,
heterosexism, classism, ableism, and other prejudices intersect with each

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.133

Ryuko Kubota |351

other to produce complex patterns of discrimination, significantly
influencing individual experience, public discourse, and social structures.
In conceptualizing intersectionality, Hancock (2011) argues that social
categories such as race, gender, language, class, sexuality, and nationality
do not compete with each other to form oppression but they intersect. Yet,
the way in which they intersect is not like physically fixed streets but rather
like rivers that flow through a canyon, representing the dynamic
interactions between the social statuses of different groups.
To apply intersectionality to JLT, non-native Japanese speakerness inNorth American Japanese classrooms, for instance, typically signifies
inferiority. However, non-native speakers do not always experienceexclusion, discrimination, and marginality; rather other social statuses—
gender, institutional position, and race—may offer privilege. This also
implies that a certain category, such as whiteness or Japaneseness, does
not have a fixed universal status of power. Its power may or may not berecognized in a particular relation of power. For instance, a white nonnative Japanese-speaking American citizen may be a more preferredcandidate for a Japanese teaching position at an American high school due
to her English proficiency, teaching credentials (ability to teach anothersubject), and citizenship (Kubota 2009). In JLT, Japaneseness orwhiteness as a racial category intersects with other categories, such as
native speakerness and nationality, and exercises its power differently in
specific contexts.
3.4. New Racism and Cultural Racism

In everyday discourse, people tend to avoid being constructed as racist by
denying that they are or that their intentions are racist. This is seen recently
in the U. S. President Donald Trump’s public denial of being racist
regarding his tweets, in which he demanded four progressive
congresswomen of color go back to their own country if they did not likethe United States. 1 This denial is a rhetorical strategy to shield one’s
prejudice while allowing its expression (Bonilla-Silva 2018; van Dijk
1992). Not only is the contemporary discourse of racism characterized bysuch denial of racism, it also justifies racial inequalities by avoiding racial
explanations altogether, which in effect becomes color-blindness. For
example, claiming that everyone is equal in our society and thus theinability to access higher education is due to one’s lack of effort, without
recognizing enduring systemic inequality among different racial groups,
signifies a color-blind view. Bonilla-Silva (2018) considers this to be newJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.133

352 | Japanese Language and Literature

racism as opposed to old-fashioned overt expressions of racism. The
avoidance of labeling racial injustices as racism is performed by replacing
the racial explanation of human difference with cultural difference,leading to cultural racism (Bonilla-Silva 2018; van Dijk 1992).
Cultural racism is observed in the past-present continuity in the caseof Japan. In short, from the late nineteenth century to the mid-twentiethcentury under Imperial Japan, the discourse of Japanese superiority overthe colonized Asian subjects exploited the notion of ethnicity with acultural undertone. Specifically, describing the Japanese in terms of pure
“Japanese race” was not tenable due to the historical mixed-blood heritageof the Japanese people (Oguma 1995; Sasaki 2013). Thus, the claimed
superiority of Japanese ethnicity functioned to maintain the racist order bylegitimating the assimilation of the colonized, while restricting thecolonized people’s legal rights to be naturalized as Japanese. Today’s
racism, as seen in hate speech against people of Korean heritage, and eventhe discourse of nihonjinron, seems to carry a legacy of this cultural
racism.
It is important to note that the flip side of Japanese racism against
Asian people is a higher recognition granted to white people and culture
from Euro-American heritage. This is observed, for instance, in thepreference for white native speakers of English for teaching English in
Japan. The critique of teaching eikaiwa (English conversation) as a racist
practice, offered by Lummis (1976) more than 40 years ago, still applies
to many institutional practices today (Kubota 2011; Rivers and Ross 2013;
Yamada 2015).
4. Race in JLTJLT is typically founded on an essentialist understanding of Japanese
language and culture (Kubota 2003, 2009, 2014). The kind of Japanese
language to learn is usually considered to be the standardized variety basedon Tokyo dialect, while the Japanese culture to learn tends to be
stereotypical and superficial cultural products, practices, andcommunication styles, which are to be explained through cultural values
and perspectives, such as uchi/soto, a group orientation, and strict
adherence to social hierarchy. Also essentialized is who the “owners” ofthe language and culture are. The following formula represents a generalbelief: Japanese people (race and nationality) = Japanese language =Japanese culture. Underlying the essentialist concept of Japanese language
and culture is racial difference.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.133

Ryuko Kubota |353

Clearly, this formula excludes non-native Japanese speakers fromother racial or ethnic backgrounds, as exemplified in the case of the white
American teacher of Japanese in Excerpt 3. The American student’s
misrecognition of the legitimacy of this teacher as a Japanese language
professional also implies their denial of their own legitimacy as L2
speakers of Japanese, causing symbolic violence—a form of power that
normalizes oppression to the extent that it becomes an unchallenged reality
for the oppressed (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). Their reaction—
perhaps unintentional and thus so ingrained—also reflects institutional
racism as observed in the underrepresentation of non-native Japanesespeaking teachers from diverse racial backgrounds, as well as the
epistemological racism that excludes Japanese learners’ linguistic andcultural practices and perspectives as equally legitimate to Japanese native
speakers’.
Conversely, deep-rooted racism in North America positions Asians,
including people of Japanese heritage, as the racialized Other. Especiallyin K–12 schools, where the majority of teachers are white native speakers
of English, Japanese-language teachers from Japan are often
institutionally disadvantaged not only in racial and linguistic terms but
also with regard to credentials (Kubota 2009). To borrow Bourdieu’sconcepts of cultural capital and field (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992), thecultural capital (one’s socially and culturally valued knowledge, skills, anddispositions) held by a native Japanese-speaking teacher is recognized ina certain field (e.g., an institution of higher education with an establishedJapanese program) but not in another field (e.g., white dominant American
K–12 schools). The examples from the survey mentioned earlier appear toshow contradictory experiences for Japanese and non-Japanese teachers inNorth America. However, they share an underlying ideology of linguistic
and cultural essentialism which intersects with racist assumptions about
legitimate language users and cultural bearers.
5. Toward Antiracist Engagement in JLTIn globalized society, where not only linguacultural diversity but also
human diversity (e.g., race) has become the norm, foreign language
education can no longer cling to the traditional approach that assumes thehomogeneity of language, culture, and language users. Promoting
diversity in JLT means critical engagement in not merely language andculture but also antiracism, which acknowledges different forms of racism
and the intersectionality of race with other human attributes that form

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.133

354 | Japanese Language and Literature

context-dependent relations of power. Below, I offer suggestions for
antiracist engagement.
First, JLT professionals should recognize that institutional andepistemological forms of racism exist and make efforts to eradicate them.
Institutionally, the racial diversity of instructors, along with the diversityof other categories such as language, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality,
should be affirmed and promoted. To achieve this goal, preconceived ideas
about the legitimacy of a teacher—the aforementioned ideological formulaequating race/nationality with language and culture—need to bechallenged. The requirement for employment should prioritize
professional qualifications and integrity, as well as linguistic competence,not measured by native speakerness which indexes Japanese
race/ethnicity/nationality, but rather professional competence.
Epistemologically, instructional contents and materials must be diversified
to foster students’ broader understanding of Japanese language, culture,and language users. Focusing only on mainstream Japanese people, culture,and perspectives silences the histories of oppression, resistance, andresilience shared by Ainu, Okinawans, zainichi Koreans, and otherminoritized groups in Japan, as well as those belonging to the Japanesediaspora overseas. JLT for fostering intercultural competence in the
globalized world should raise learners’ critical awareness of how power
dynamics reproduce a taken-for-granted national narrative about Japanand how it can be challenged.
Second, teachers should exercise hyper self-reflexivity (Kubota andMiller 2017), a genuine and sustained form of critical reflexivity toconstantly question their own shifting status of marginality and privilege
within such power dynamics. This is especially important with thegrowing racial and linguistic diversity of students in North Americanclassrooms. The teacher’s dispositions and approaches to diverse groupsof students either perpetuate or challenge dominant ideologies and power
hierarchies. For instance, as a native Japanese-speaking professional
originally from a Japanese mainstream background, I ponder my varied
contextual status in relation to diverse groups of students and colleagues
from different racial and linguistic backgrounds within a historicallyshaped power hierarchy. Moreover, the status of JLT as a profession in thesettler colonial society of North America requires us to criticallyunderstand the ideological construction of Japanese people in North
America as “immigrants,” instead of “settlers” who, together with othersettlers, have exploited native people’s land and resources to socially andJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.133

Ryuko Kubota |355

economically thrive (Kosaka 2008). Just like Koreans under Japaneseimperialism were deprived of their rights to choose citizenship, Native
people under North American colonialism were not given a choice for theircitizenship. Antiracism in North American JLT must naturally question
the power relation between native speakers and non-native speakers,
which indexes Japanese versus non-Japanese. However, it should also
challenge the broader issue of settler colonialism and scrutinize thecomplicit role of Japanese language, culture, and people.
To conclude, JLT as part of a broader educational project to promoteknowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for engaging various kindsof difference must invite students and teachers to explore the notion ofdifference critically. This includes recognizing the complexity of race andracism and critically engaging in antiracism. Such engagement would
contribute to the advancement of equity, diversity, and inclusion in JLT.
NOTE
1https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/us/politics/trump-tweet-house-vote.html.

REFERENCES

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2018. Racism without Racists: Color-Blind
Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America (5thedition). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc J. D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive
Sociology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Flores, Nelson, and Jonathan Rosa. 2015. Undoing Appropriateness:
Raciolinguistic Ideologies and Language Diversity in Education.
Harvard Educational Review 85: 149–171.
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2016. Intersectionality: An Intellectual History.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Jenks, Christopher. 2017. Race and Ethnicity in English Language
Teaching: Korea in Focus. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Kosaka, Eiko. 2008. Ideological Images: U. S. Nationalism in Japanese
Settler Photographs. Asian Settler Colonialism: From Local

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.133

356 | Japanese Language and Literature

Governance to the Habits of Everyday Life in Hawaii, ed. by Candace
Fujikane and Jonathan Y. Okamura, 209–232. Honolulu: Universityof Hawai‘i Press.
Kubota, Ryuko. 2002. The Author Responds: (Un)Raveling Racism in a
Nice Field like TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 36: 84–92.
———. 2003. Critical Teaching of Japanese Culture. Japanese Language
and Literature 37: 67–87.
––––––. 2009. Rethinking the Superiority of the Native Speaker: Towarda Relational Understanding of Power. The Native Speaker Concept:
Ethnographic Investigations of Native Speaker, ed. by Neriko Musha
Doerr, 233–247. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
––––––. 2011. Learning a Foreign Language as Leisure and Consumption:
Enjoyment, Desire, and the Business of Eikaiwa. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 14: 473–488.
––––––. 2014. Standardization of Language and Culture. Rethinking
Language and Culture in Japanese Education: Beyond the Standard,ed. by Shinji Sato and Neriko Musha Doerr, 19–34. Bristol, England:
Multilingual Matters.
––––––. 2015. Race and Language Learning in Multicultural Canada:
Toward Critical Antiracism. Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural Development 36: 3–12.
––––––. 2019. Confronting Epistemological Racism, Decolonizing
Scholarly Knowledge; Race and Gender in Applied Linguistics.
Applied Linguistics: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz033
Kubota, Ryuko and Angel Lin. 2009. Race, Culture, and Identities inSecond Language Education: Introduction to Research and Practice.
Race, Culture, and Identities in Second Language Education:
Exploring Critically Engaged Practice, ed. by R. Kubota and A. Lin,
1–23. New York: Routledge.
Kubota, Ryuko and Elizabeth R. Miller. 2017. Re-Examining and ReEnvisioning Criticality in Language Studies: Theories and Praxis.
Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 14: 129–157.
Lummis, Douglas. 1976. Ideorogī to shite no eikaiwa (English
conversation as ideology). Tokyo, Japan: Shōbunsha.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.133

Ryuko Kubota |357

Mori, Junko, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki. (Thisvolume.) On the Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:
Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators in North
America. Japanese Language and Literature 54: 267–304.
Motha, Suhanthie. 2014. Race, Empire, and English Language Teaching:
Creating Responsible and Ethical Anti-Racist Practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Mouer, Ross, and Yoshio Sugimoto. 2009. Images of Japanese Society: A
Study on the Structure of Social Reality. Abingdon, U. K.: Routledge.
Oguma, Eiji. 1995. Tan’itsu minzoklu shinwa no kigen; “Nihonjin” nojigazō no keifu (The myth of the homogeneous nation: A genealogy of
the “Japanese” self-portrait). Tokyo: Shin’yōsha.
Rivers, Damian, and Andrew S. Ross. 2013. Idealized English Teachers:
The Implicit Influence of Race in Japan. Journal of Language, Identity& Education 12: 321–339.
Tsuda, Takeyuki (Gaku). 2012. Disconnected from the “Diaspora”:
Japanese Americans and the Lack of Transnational Ethnic Networks.
Journal of Anthropological Research 68(1): 95–116.
Sasaki, Teru. 2013. Kindai nihon no jinshu sabetsu to shokuminchi seisaku(Racial discrimination and colonial policies of modern Japan).
Reishizumu to gaikokujin ken’o (Racism and xenophobia), ed. by H.
Komai and M. Kobayashi, 103–117. Tokyo: Akashi shoten.
Sue, Derald Wing. 2010. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race,
Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken, N. J.: John Wiley & Sons.
van Dijk, Taun A. 1992. Discourse and the Denial of Racism. Discourse& Society 3(1): 87–118.
Yamada, Mieko. 2015. The Role of English Teaching in Modern Japan:
Diversity and Multiculturalism through English Language Educationin Globalized Era. New York, New York and London: Routledge.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.133

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

Toward More Inclusive Japanese Language Education:
Incorporating an Awareness of Gender and Sexual Diversity
among Students
Jotaro Arimori

1. Background
Many educational institutions in North America have declared acommitment to enhancing the diversity of their students and employees,
and to providing a learning and working environment free of
discrimination. Almost universally, this diversity includes sexual
orientation as well as gender identity and expression, and we teachers arenaturally expected to play a role in fulfilling this commitment by working
effectively with students and coworkers of diverse gender and sexual
identities. Mori, Hasegawa, Park, and Suzuki (this volume) present thevoices of Japanese-language teachers concerned about the limited
representation of gender and sexual diversity within this community ofeducators, as well as the reinforcement of heteronormativity and cissexism
in teaching materials. Although I agree that the presence of visible
LGBTQ teachers may have a positive impact on learners, as one
respondent to the survey suggested, it is important to understand that manyteachers are concerned that coming out in class/at work could potentiallyarouse negative reactions from students, colleagues, and/or administrators,
putting their job at risk (Gray 2013; Jaspal 2015; Nelson 2009; Wadell,Frei, and Martin 2011). Furthermore, whether or not to come out isthoroughly up to each individual, not something that LGBTQ people
should be pressured to do. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is not topromote the visibility of sexual/gender diversity within the Japaneseteaching community per se, but rather to promote an inclusive learning
environment in which all students feel comfortable studying Japanese—regardless of their gender and sexuality. Thus, while the theme of thisNew articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

360| Japanese Language and Literature

special section is “teacher diversity,” this paper primarily addresses issues
concerning learners of diverse genders and sexualities.
Although scholars such as Maree (2011) have previously drawn
attention to this issue, research on gender and sexual minorities inJapanese language education has begun only recently (Arimori 2017;
Moore 2019; Sall Vesselényi 2019a, 2019b). In the field of English
language education, however, a number of informative studies have been
published. For example, it has been pointed out that both teachers andstudents tend to believe that the entire class is heterosexual (Jaspal 2015,
Nelson 2009), and many LGBTQ students hide their gender/sexual
identities for fear of homophobia (Kappra and Vandrick 2006, Nelson2009) or transphobia. Further, Norton (2013) argues even highly motivatedlearners may have little investment in language study if a given learning
environment is homophobic. Also, it has been argued that the absence of
LGBTQ representation in teaching materials can create an environment inwhich LGBTQ learners feel underrepresented and unsafe, preventing themfrom learning English effectively (Gray 2013, Snelbecker and Meyer
1999). Thus, hetero- and cisnormativity in a classroom can clearly have anegative impact on gender/sexual minority learners. Although thesestudies focus on English language education, these issues need to beaddressed in Japanese language education as well in order to create an
inclusive learning environment. To this end, I will address issues that may
create challenges for LGBTQ learners, paying special attention toheteronormativity in Japanese teaching materials and linguistic norms andideology regarding gendered expression in Japanese, and suggest ways
teachers might deal with these issues.
2. Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment
Based on interviews with ESL students who identify as LGBTQ, Kappra
and Vandrick (2006) argue that teachers have a strong ability to influence
the establishment of a classroom atmosphere in which students feel
accepted, safe, supported, and empowered, but many teachers fail to do so.
As a member of a sexual minority group myself, I have encountered
uncomfortable moments in and outside the classroom regarding diverse
gender and sexual identities. Most of these moments originated in theteaching materials themselves and in the mishandling of problematic
content by teachers, including myself. In order to improve the situation, I
analysed five popular Japanese textbooks for beginners used in Canada—
textbooks which are also widely used in the U. S.—by applying the notion

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

Jotaro Arimori | 361

of queer pedagogy to identify potentially problematic contents for learners
who are gender or sexual minorities (Arimori 2017).1 Queer pedagogy is
an approach to educational praxis and curricula which emerged from queer
theory and critical pedagogy. It seeks to both uncover and disrupt hidden
curricula of heteronormativity and cissexism, as well as to develop
classroom landscapes and experiences that create safety for queer
participants (Thomas-Reid 2018). In that paper, these five textbooks were
examined regarding the absence within the textbooks of LGBTQ
representation, the presence of exercises premised on heteronormativity,
and the textbooks’ explanation of gendered expression. This section
summarizes and expands upon my findings, as well as providing
suggestions to teachers about how—even when saddled with imperfectteaching materials—to create an inclusive learning environment for all
students regardless of their gender and sexuality.
2.1. LGBTQ Representation in Japanese Language Teaching
Materials

Japanese textbooks for the beginner’s level typically have dialogues byregularly-appearing characters through which target expressions are
introduced. While these characters appearing in the textbooks analysed in
Arimori (2017) were diverse in terms of nationality and ethnicity, there
was no diversity in terms of gender and sexual identity. To the best of myknowledge, no mainstream Japanese textbooks include LGBTQ charactersor address LGBTQ-related issues. This sort of LGBTQ invisibility inteaching materials has also been an issue in English-language education.
Previous studies report that the lack of LGBTQ representation in teachingmaterials often makes LGBTQ students feel silenced orun(der)represented, resulting in negative consequences for their learning(Gray 2013, Snelbecker and Meyer 1999). Thus, LGBTQ representationneeds to be given consideration in both the development and the selectionof Japanese teaching materials. In so doing, however, we need to be careful
not to induce homo- and transphobic reactions rooted in the diverse
backgrounds and beliefs of students as well as, potentially, teachers.
With this in mind, I would like to offer a lesson within Marugoto
Japanese Language & Culture Intermediate 2 (Japan Foundation 2017a)
as an example of how teaching materials can offer teachers openings inwhich to judiciously introduce LGBTQ issues. In a dialogue aboutmarriage, Yosuke, a male speaker, refers his partner as his aikata. Aikata
is a gender-neutral term meaning a partner, originally used to describe
someone with whom the speaker has a professional relationship. In recent

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

362| Japanese Language and Literature

years, it has also been used for romantic relationships, and its use is quite
common among same-sex couples. Although no explanation of the word’s
usage is provided in the textbook, it is noted in the teacher’s manual that,since aikata can be used for same-sex partners, the gender of Yusuke’s
partner is “intentionally blurred” (Japan Foundation 2017b:4). Suchinclusion of (potential) LGBTQ content allows teachers to control the
degree of details they want to provide, from simply stating that the wordis gender neutral to utilizing it as an opportunity for respectful discussionof issues related to gender and sexual identities, depending on theclassroom climate.
By contrast, in Genki II (Banno et al. 2011) there is a pair work activity
to practice the evidential modal mitai (look/seem like) in which thestudents look at an illustration of an androgynous person and one isprompted to state, Watashi no tomodachi desu. Otoko desu. (This is myfriend. This is a man.) The other is prompted to respond, Onna mitai desune. (He looks like a woman.) In Nakama 2 (Hatasa et al 2017), anotherevidential modal, yōda is introduced with the sentences Onna no yōnaotoko (a man who acts/looks like a woman) and Otoko no yōna onna (awoman who acts/looks like a man). Because of norms regarding
masculinity and femininity, phrases such as onna mitai and otoko no yōna
are inherently negative. There is also the possibility that some students
might laugh at the gender nonnormativity presented in the illustration or
direct these expressions at others in the classroom in a mocking way. Thus,
depending on how these materials are handled by teachers, such activities
may make LGBTQ students feel unsafe. I have seen teachers using thesematerials despite their awareness of such problems, simply because thesecontents are in the textbooks. But, of course, we do not teach textbooks,
we use them to teach. We can choose not to use such materials by skipping
or replacing them. Alternatively, we may use them as an opportunity for a
discussion of how such expressions can be discriminatory as an approachto creating a more inclusive classroom.
2.2. Heteronormative Textbook Exercises

Moore explains that “heteronormative assumptions…can have a
profoundly debilitating effect on LGBT[Q] students in class” (2016:99)
and presents cases wherein a heteronormative learning environment was afactor in LGBTQ learners quitting their English classes. The Genki andNakama series have exercises in which students ask their partners about
their daily lives and opinions. Such exercises enable learners to engage inJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

Jotaro Arimori | 363

authentic or semi-authentic interaction, thereby helping them develop
communicative skills. At the same time, however, those questions requirepotentially burdensome disclosure of some aspects of learners’ private
lives. As most textbooks assume everyone is heterosexual, it can beparticularly trying for LGBTQ learners to engage in certain activities using
those materials. For example, in Genki II, there is an exercise that leads
students to ask their partners, Kare/kanojo to ii tomodachi to dochira ga
hoshii desu ka (Which do you want, a boyfriend/girlfriend or a goodfriend?), using the cues provided. If their partner is a female, most students
are likely to choose the pronoun kare (boyfriend) over kanojo (girlfriend)
without thinking about the sexual orientation of their interlocutor. If thequestioner’s partner is a lesbian or asexual/aromantic, for example, thequestion may put her in a situation in which she is forced to either lie or tocome out. Similarly, in Nakama 2, there is an exercise that leads students
to ask their partners what they want to do before getting married. Whilesame-sex marriage is now legal in Canada and the United States, that does
not mean everyone supports it. Perhaps partly as a result of potential
opposition LGBTQ learners may anticipate from their interlocutors, some
may feel discomfort in talking about marriage at all. Some teachers might
think it is just an exercise and learners can just make up a story. While
there is no need for learners to tell the truth all the time, especially talking
about their private lives, feeling forced to lie about one’s identity can be
distressful, particularly given that identity itself is constructed in partthrough language.
To circumvent such problems, teachers can modify questions at theirdiscretion. In the case of the question in Genki II, teachers can introduce
words and phrases such as koibito (boyfriend/girlfriend) and sukina hito
(a/the person I like/love) as gender neutral expressions, for example. If
there are multiple questions in an activity, teachers can instruct students tochoose only half, for instance, or tell them they may skip up to a certain
number of questions, thus enabling students themselves to avoid
potentially problematic ones if they so choose.
2.3. Gendered Expression in Japanese Language Education
2.3.1. Gender norms and linguistic ideology

Japanese is considered a gendered language in the sense that there are
distinctive speech styles used according to speakers’ gender. Typically,
these differences are said to be observed in the usage of personal pronouns,
sentence endings, word choice, and so on. These differences are
introduced in teaching materials, which generally explain in a gender

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

364| Japanese Language and Literaturebinarist fashion that certain language is used by either men or women(Arimori 2017, Kinoshita-Thomson and Iida 2007, Siegal and Okamoto
2003, Suzuki 2007). Analyses of naturally occurring conversation,
however, have revealed that gendered expression is not necessarily used
in a manner fixed to a speaker’s gender, but, rather, is used to express andnegotiate one’s gender(ed) identity in a given context (Abe 2004,
Miyazaki 2004, Sturtz Sreetharan 2004). 2 Nevertheless, deviation fromnormative usage for both men and women often becomes the target ofcriticism, reflecting pervasive sexism, gender binarism, andheteronormativity. This gender normative linguistic ideology can also befound in Japanese pedagogical materials. In their grammar reference bookfor Japanese-language teachers, Iori et al. remark that “it is especially
unnatural for men to use the female-only form, so we need to call learners’
attention to it” (2000:329). Similarly, Tobira: Gateway to Advanced
Japanese through Content and Multimedia, aimed at intermediate
Japanese learners, explains gendered speech as follows:
Especially in informal speech, there are differences in the way men andwomen speak…. The intonation is also very different. When talking tofriends, romantic partners, or family, men call themselves “boku” or “ore,”
and women usually use “atashi.” In recent times, the gap between men andwomen has narrowed, and the number of women who use “wa” or “wayo”
at the end of sentences and men who use “ze” or “zo” at the end ofsentences as in the example above have decreased. However, if women say“ore mo hara hetta” [a masculine expression of “I’m hungry too”], or men
say “iyayo” [a feminine expression of “No!”], their interlocutors will be
surprised. Please be aware that there are some expressions that you
shouldn’t use, even though the difference in speech styles [between womenand men] has decreased. (Oka et al. 2009:28–29)

Thus, both authors assert that nonnormative usage of gendered
expression should be avoided. Some may argue that such statements areboth reasonable and useful for learners since they might otherwise facesituations wherein their usage of gender nonnormative speech would
provoke negative reactions from others. I myself have felt this way
sometimes. Nevertheless, let us consider the impact of this attitude on
learners. Hosokawa believes this “paternalistic sense” is rooted in teachers’
egocentric sense of being the expert—the one with “the right answer”—
with the right to control the learning space and “to impose their own sense

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

Jotaro Arimori | 365

of correctness, norms, and impressions” of how the language should be
used (2016:23).
Further, since gendered expression is utilized to express one’s gender
identity, imposing a certain speech style on learners based on their genderis clearly problematic especially for those who identify as gender/sexual
minorities. Sall Vesselényi maintains that if a teacher brings such aheteronormative attitude into the classroom, it becomes a training groundfor self-concealment and preparation for participation in a cisgendercentred society (2019a:36–37). Given that language learning is notpreparation for life but, rather, a part of life (Benson 2012) through whichlearners’ identities are negotiated and established, I believe it is teachers’role to support this process rather than impose hetero- and cisnormativity
on them.
2.3.2. Teaching gendered expression

The discussion in the previous section leads us to how gendered expression
might best be taught. As noted above, gendered expression is not
exclusively used by one gender or the other but utilized to express andnegotiate each individual’s gender identity. Suzuki (2007) maintains that,in order for learners to become able to express their gender identity
through language, it is necessary for them to understand the linguistic
ideology shared in society. When doing so, as Kinoshita-Thomson and
Iida (2007) suggest, rather than a grammatical/discourse rule, gendered
expression can be presented as an “abstract norm” which can be utilized
as a tool to send a variety of messages by adhering to or opposing it.
Further, when discussing gendered expression and identity, the concept ofgengo-shigen (Nakamura 2007), or language resource, is useful. This
language resource is an aggregate of various speech styles from which anindividual chooses a certain way to speak depending on the identity theywant to express in a given situation. For example, in everyday practice thesame individual speaks differently as a parent, a friend, a customer, aprofessional, and so forth. Nakamura extends this concept of language
resource to gendered expression and regards male language and female
language as elements of gengo-shigen to which everybody, regardless ofgender, has equal access. While the essentialist view of language assumes
men and women speak differently because of their sex/gender, this social
constructivist concept enables us to detach language from gender and toutilize the resource to express our diverse identities. By introducing theconcept of gengo-shigen into the classroom, we can provide space forJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

366| Japanese Language and Literaturelearners to explore, negotiate, and establish their gender and sexual
identities in Japanese.
Introducing the concept of gengo-shigen can take various forms
according to students’ proficiency level. Similar to Siegal and Okamoto’s(2003) suggestions for teaching gendered expression at lower levels, forexample, we can first draw learners’ attention to diverse speech styles byreflecting on their own language use, and have them observe how the same
person speaks differently in relation to their interlocutor or situation
through, for instance, TV dramas, and discuss what kind of impression
they get from different speech styles. By changing the focus to difference
by factors such as age, gender, and regional background, we can help
learners strengthen their own ability to access to this language resource.
As their proficiency increases, we can have students put this ability into
use through creating skits, dramas, short videos, and the like, performing
as a character with any identity learners wish to explore.
3. Conclusion
This article discussed various challenges for LGBTQ learners of Japanese
stemming from pervasive heteronormativity and cissexism—including
specific norms and ideology regarding gendered expression—and madesuggestions to mitigate the lack of training regarding gender/sexual
diversity in Japanese language education. As I explained, teachingmaterials often presuppose everyone in the classroom is heterosexual andcisgender, and some exercises in textbooks create situations in which
LGBTQ students are forced to either lie about their identity or come out.
Further, some textbook exercises can even arouse homophobia ortransphobia. Although not all teachers have the freedom to chooseteaching materials, how they use these materials is often up to the teachers’
discretion. There are many things teachers can do to create an inclusive
learning environment, some of which were suggested. Another issue
discussed was how to teach Japanese as a gendered language without
reinforcing gender norms. Given that language use is a key part ofexpressing one’s gender, it is vital to create space in which learners can
explore their identities as Japanese speakers. To that end, I proposed
introducing the concept of gengo-shigen, which detaches language fromone’s gender and enables learners to use various speech styles as aresource to express their identity. It is my hope that this article will help
teachers make their Japanese language classrooms safe spaces in which all

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

Jotaro Arimori | 367

students are able to learn and express themselves freely regardless of theirgender and sexuality.
NOTES
1

2

The table below shows the textbooks examined in Arimori (2017).
Textbook

PublisherYear ofpublication

Genki I & II, 2nd edition

The Japan Times

2011

Japanese for Busy People I–III, 3rdedition

Kodansha USA

2006, 2007

Minna no Nihongo Beginner I & II,
2nd edition

3A Corporation

2011, 2013

Nakama 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition

Heinle & Heinle

2014, 2017

Situational Functional Japanese 1–3,
2nd edition

Bonjinsha

1991–1996

For example, Miyazaki (2004) revealed that both female and male junior highstudents use various first-person pronouns, including those of the opposite
gender in order to express and establish their identities, create a sense ofsolidarity, and empower relationships among peers within their classroom
community. Further Abe (2004) examined language use at lesbian bars in Tokyoand concluded various personal pronouns and gendered speech styles were usedby speakers to constantly negotiate their identities in relation to others.
Furthermore, Sturtz Sreetharan (2004) analyzed the usage of sentence final
particles by men and found that masculine endings are used infrequently in
actual conversation.

REFERENCES

Abe, Hideko. 2004. Lesbian Bar Talk in Shinjuku, Tokyo. Japanese
Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People,
ed. Shigeko Okamoto and Janet S. Shibamoto Smith, 205–221. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Arimori, Jotaro. 2017. Jendā aidentitī no tayōsei kara kangaeru nihongo
kyōiku (Japanese language education and diverse gender identities).

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

368| Japanese Language and Literature

CAJLE Annual Conference Proceedings 2017: 24–33.
http://www.cajle.info/publications/conference-proceedings/cajle2017-proceedings/. Accessed September 14, 2019.
Banno, Eri, Yoko Ikeda, Yutaka Ohno, Chikako Shinagawa, and Kyoko
Tokashiki. 2011. An Integrated Course in Elementary Japanese Genki
II, 2nd ed. Tokyo: Japan Times.
Benson, Phil. 2012. Autonomy in Language Learning, Learning and Life.
Synergies France 9: 29–39.
Gray, John. 2013. LGBT Invisibility and Heteronormativity in ELTMaterials. Critical Perspectives on Language Teaching Materials, ed.
John Gray, 40–63. London, U. K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hatasa, Yukiko Abe, Kazumi Hatasa, and Seiichi Makino. 2017. Nakama
2: Japanese Communication, Culture, Context, 3rd ed. Boston:
Cengage Learning.
Hosokawa, Hideo. 2011. Kōkyō nihongo kyōiku to iu shisō e—Waseda
nikken no kore made to kore kara (Toward the Idea of Public Japanese
Language Education—The Past and Future of Waseda Graduate
School of Japanese Applied Linguistics). Waseda Studies in Japanese
Language Education 20: 21–31.
Iori Isao, Shino Takanashi, Kumiko Nakanishi, and Toshihiro Yamada.
2000. Shokyū o oshieru hito no tame no nihongo handobukku(Japanese Handbook for Beginner Level Teachers). Tokyo: 3A
Corporation.
Jaspal, Rusi. 2015. ESOL: An Opportunity for Challenging Homophobia.
Language Issues 26(1): 21–28.
Japan Foundation. 2017a. Marugoto Japanese Language & Culture
Intermediate 2. Tokyo: Sanshūsha.
———. 2017b. Marugoto Japanese Language & Culture Intermediate 2
Teaching Guide II: How to Teach Each Topic (Intermediate 2).
https://www.marugoto.org/assets/docs/teacher/resource/intermediate
2/intermediate2_teaching_topic.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2019.
Kappra, Rick, and Stephanie Vandrick. 2006. Silenced Voices Speak:Queer ESL Students Recount Their Experiences. The CATESOLJournal 18(1): 138–150.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

Jotaro Arimori | 369

Kinoshita-Thomson, Chihiro, and Sumiko Iida. 2007. Josei hatsuwa“mada meshi kutte nai” o meguru jendā to nihongo kyōiku no kōsatsu(Gendered Language in Japanese Language Education: An
Examination of Female Utterance of “mada meshi kutte nai” andBeyond). Nihongo kyōiku (Journal of Japanese Language Teaching)134: 120–129.
Maree, Claire. 2011. Watashi wa nani o kataru koto ga dekiru no ka:
Kotoba no manabi ni okeru fukugō aidentitī (Of what can I speak:
Complex identities in language Llearning). Gengo kyōiku to aidentitī:
Kotoba no kyōiku jissen to sono kanōsei (Language education andidentity: Language education praxis and potentialities), ed. Hideo
Hosokawa, 63–74. Yokohama, Japan: Shunpūsha Publishing.
Miyazaki, Ayumi. 2004. Japanese Junior High School Girls’ and Boys’First-Person Pronoun Use and Their Social World. Japanese
Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real People,
ed. Shigeko Okamoto and Janet S. Shibamoto Smith, 256–274. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Moore, Ashley R. 2016. Inclusion and Exclusion: A Case Study of an
English Class for LGBT Learners. TESOL Quarterly 50: 86–108.
———. 2019. Interpersonal Factors Affecting Queer Second or Foreign
Language Learners’ Identity Management in Class. The Modern
Language Journal 103: 428–442.
Mori, Junko, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki. (Thisvolume.) On Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:
Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators in North
America. Japanese Language and Literature 54: 267–304.
Nakamura Momoko. 2007. Sei to nihongo kotoba ga tsukuru onna to otoko(Gender and the Japanese language, women and men created by thelanguage). Tokyo: NHK Books.
Nelson, Cynthia D. 2009. Sexual Identities in English Language
Education: Classroom Conversations. New York and London:
Routledge.
Norton, Bonny. 2013. Identity and Language Learning: Extending theConversation, 2nd ed. Bristol, U. K.: Multilingual Matters.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

370| Japanese Language and Literature

Oka, Mayumi, Junko Kondo, Shoko Emori, Yoshiro Hanai, and Satoru
Ishikawa. 2009. Tobira: Gateway to Advanced Japanese throughContent and Multimedia. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2001. “How Am I to Become a Woman in an American
Vein?”: Transformation of Gender Performance in Second Language
Learning. Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender,
ed. Aneta Pavlenko, Adrian Blackledge, Ingrid Piller, and Marya
Teutsch-Dwyer, 133–174. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sall Vesselényi, Máté. 2019a. Nihongo kyōiku ni okeru shisujendāchūshinshugi: Gakushūsha no keiken o chūshin ni (Cisgendercentrism in Japanese language education: focusing on the learners’
experience). Master’s Thesis, Tokyo Gakugei University.
———. 2019b. Nihongo gakushūsha no jendā keiken: Hinigenrontekijendākan kara (gender experience of Japanese language learners:
From a non-binaristic perspective of gender). Higashi Ajia Nihongo
kyōiku nihon bunka kenkyū (Journal of East Asian Japanese language
education and Japanese culture) 22: 279–297.
Seigal, Meryl, and Shigeko Okamoto. 2003. Toward Reconceptualizing
the Teaching and Learning of Gendered Speech Styles in Japanese asa Foreign Language. Japanese Language and Literature 37: 49–66.
Snelbecker, Karen, and Tom Meyer. 1999. Dealing with Sexual
Orientation in the Classroom. The Change Agent 8: 6.
Sturtz Sreetharan, Cindi. 2004. Japanese Men’s Linguistic Stereotypes andRealities: Conversations from the Kansai and Kanto Regions.
Japanese Language, Gender, and Ideology: Cultural Models and Real
People, ed. Shigeko Okamoto and Janet S. Shibamoto Smith, 205–221.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Suzuki, Mutsumi. 2007. Kotoba no danjosa to nihongo kyōiku (Gender
Language Difference and Japanese Language Teaching). Nihongo
Kyōiku (Journal of Japanese Language Teaching) 134: 48–57.
Thomas-Reid, Matthew. Queer Pedagogy. Oxford Research Encyclopediaof
Education.
https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/
acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-405.
Accessed September 14, 2019.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

Jotaro Arimori | 371

Wadell, Elizabeth, Kathryn Frei, and Sherri Martin. 2011. Professional
Development Trough Inquiry: Addressing Sexual Identity in TESOL.
The CATESOL Journal 23(1): 99–109.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.129

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.141

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

Toward Exhilarating Classrooms: Representation vs. Inclusion
in Japanese Language Education
Arthur M. Mitchell

1. Introduction
Faculty diversity is currently a major avenue through which many teacherscholars are exploring the work of diversity and inclusion within Japanese
language education. Many in the field have begun to look critically at thelarge number of Japanese (L1 Speaker) teachers within the field andconsider its relationship to the native speaker fallacy (Kubota 2008), or theprevalence of biases against non-native speakers. The survey, “On Goals
of Language Education and Teacher Diversity,” by Mori, Hasegawa, Park,and Suzuki (this volume) reports that of 355 Japanese-language teacher
participants, 79% identified as female and 73% understood themselves as
first-language speakers of Japanese (273). This leads to concern that thedominance of this intersectional identity group may lead to discrimination
within the workplace, but, even more importantly, that it fosters a lack ofdiversity and inclusion in the classroom and in the curriculum.
The need to create environments where a diverse population of
students can communicate beyond differences and learn from each otheris urgent. This self-interrogation of group dominance, which moreover has
been driven and supported in large part by the dominant group, is highly
laudable, and there are certainly valid concerns to be addressed.
Nevertheless, pursuing inclusivity by altering representation in this casehas the potential to perpetuate larger structures of oppression and allow us
to shirk the responsibility of doing the truly difficult work that inclusivity
requires of each of us. Focusing too narrowly on representation, moreover,misses the opportunity that the work of inclusivity presents us with of reenvisioning the potential of our classrooms and integrating our values withthe way that we teach. In what follows, I would like to first consider what

New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

374 | Japanese Language and Literature

a truly inclusive language classroom could look like, and then discuss its
implications for the debate on teacher diversity.
2. Inclusivity vs. Representation
In the work of inclusivity that I have undertaken on my own campus thus
far, I have come to differentiate between two types of diversity initiatives:
representation vs. inclusivity. The work of representation is in essence adrive to hire more faculty and staff of color so that the significant
population of students of color on campus are able to “see themselves” inthe people that teach and guide them. It looks to address the problem ofdiversity by bringing a wider array of identities onto campus, and usually
the focus is on race and gender. The work of inclusion is fundamentallydifferent. To begin with, it can be done by anybody. It is rooted by contrast
in self-reflection on the part of the individual faculty/staff members withregard to the privileges they carry – primarily around gender, race, social
class, and nationality, though there are other facets to consider – and how
those privileges perpetuate cultures of exclusion.
The nature of privilege is that those who carry it do not necessarily
know that they do. Exclusion occurs when privilege is unacknowledged
for, in the absence of acknowledgement, that privilege and its assumptions
become understood as natural, i.e., the hidden norm. Take, for example, afirst year Japanese-language student from a working-class family who isunable to afford the trip home over a fall break. On the first day after break,the teacher, seeking to refresh students on recent vocabulary, asks the class
where they traveled over the break and whether they took a train or an
airplane to get there. (I have been guilty of asking these very questions
myself.) A student happily talks about a family vacation in Singapore,
while another references their flight back from Colorado. This seemingly
innocent dialogue contains implicit assumptions about a level of economicmeans that is not available to everyone. And those students who do nottend to feel tacitly excluded, as if they do not really belong there, or are
somehow in the wrong place. This is to say that a multitude of assumptions
about race, gender, and class already exist in our teaching and within ourclassrooms. If we do not address them, they threaten to become theinvisible norm that implicitly and subtly excludes those who do not sharethose contexts. If we are able to address them, however, we disrupt thepower these hierarchies hold within our social spaces and create room fordifferences to exist and co-exist.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.141

Arthur Mitchell | 375

Inclusivity targets the nature of the space of learning and theassumptions that exist there. The teacher, who is the individual with themost power in the room, has the ability to name those assumptions andprevent them from becoming the invisible norm. If I were teaching a firstyear Japanese class, for example, inclusive teaching would involve metalking openly about my race/ethnicity (mixed Japanese and light-skinned
African American), nationality (US, but born in Japan), gender (cis, male),sexuality (heterosexual), class upbringing (upper-middle-class), as well as
my elite education and how all of these social identities impact myrelationship to Japanese, the reasons I teach it, and the way that I teach it.
This transparency would be sustained throughout the semester through an
openness in discussing these aspects of social identity as they come up
within the class content.
This openness could occur in a number of ways. I might share withstudents that my deep familiarity with Japan comes not from my motherper se but from yearly summer trips to Japan throughout my childhood,trips that were made possibly by my father’s economic status. For thatreason, I teach Japanese culture as if it is something I know despite thefact that I was raised in the US. With regard to actual lessons, I might pointout the way certain dialogue scenarios in the textbook assume thateveryone goes to a four-year college, which is a norm for me, but not foreveryone. This openness could involve me explaining ways my social
identities have shaped my own relationship to the Japanese language. For
instance, in introducing the issue of gendered speech, I might share theway, growing up without male Japanese speakers in my vicinity, I had tobe shamed into adopting male speech by outsiders just around the time I
became a teenager. Or I could talk about the way I was absolutely
determined, during college, to learn Japanese because of an acute desire toclaim my Japanese identity, or “become” Japanese. (Depending on thecontext, I might also relate how I would discover, years later, that this wasa fool’s errand, given the very strict definition of national identity inJapanese culture.) Such a story could open up a very interesting
conversation about language ideology and how our racial background caninform the way we approach the language. It must be understood that thepower that privilege has to exclude is mostly dependent upon its
invisibility, or its ability to establish an invisible norm against which
students feel either implicitly validated or disavowed. The willingness tobe transparent about privilege disrupts this power. By making privilege
visible, we reverse the process of exclusion, enabling those students who

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.141

376 | Japanese Language and Literaturelack that privilege to recognize themselves and be recognized by others
within the classroom space. Being willing to share personal experiences,moreover, opens up the possibility of deeper conversations that can more
fully integrate the individuality of the student into the language learning
process.
Inclusivity does not require that we learn to anticipate the needs of the
myriad intersectional identities and experiences in the classroom.
Certainly, more education on difference is desirable, and preparation for
how to teach topics of race when they come up more explicitly in the upper
level language classrooms is also important. But inclusivity asks us to
examine ourselves and the spaces we immediately inhabit, to recognize
the way dynamics of difference and power saturate our teaching materials(of all levels) and the space of our classroom. It demands that we examine
the relationships within that classroom amongst students but also perhaps
most importantly between teacher and student(s). Because of our positionsof power, teachers are uniquely positioned to expose the structures ofprivilege within a classroom. By being able to talk openly about ourselves
and our positions within social hierarchies, an act of vulnerability in itself,
we have an ability to make those invisible hierarchies explicit within theclassroom space. This is not an egotistical gesture. Being explicit about
one’s own context allows students, from all backgrounds, to have and feel
comfortable having their own contexts within that space as well. If implicit
rules and hidden contexts are what breed exclusion, inclusivity seeks topublicly identify those rules and contexts as they occur within the spaces
we currently inhabit, thereby neutralizing their exclusionary power.
Unlike representation-based initiatives, which largely focus on raceand gender, inclusion-based initiatives address a much broader array ofsocial identities and engages them directly through the lens of power anddiscrimination. But unlike representation, the work of inclusivity also
requires more personal courage. It necessitates the willingness and ability
to be strategically vulnerable in the classroom. While both representationand inclusivity are essential and can be pursued in tandem, representation
does not necessarily lead to cultural change. Not all people of color, forinstance, are interested in or are intentional about diversity work
themselves. Inclusivity on the other hand addresses the ills ofracism/classism/sexism/etc. head on and carries the potential for groundup transformation.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.141

Arthur Mitchell | 377

3. Ramifications for the Debate on Teacher Diversity
So, what does this mean for the issue of the predominance of L1 femaleidentifying speakers in the Japanese teaching community? First, one
should be aware that the work of inclusivity is first and foremost aboutfighting the oppressive power dynamics of society at large. This lenspermits us to counterbalance the needs of representation within the smaller
society of Japanese-language teachers with the need to counter forces of
oppression within our broader society. I empathize with the experiencesof discrimination described by many of my white colleagues as I myself
have been in institutional spaces pervaded by the assumption that white or
non-Japanese teachers are at a decided handicap when dealing with issues
of Japanese language pedagogy. I have encountered the vexing prejudicethat we, as non-native speakers, are somehow always and already at a onetier remove from the authentic ability to teach the material. Yet, without
gainsaying the validity of the needs that spring from these situations, there
is nonetheless a rich irony in the call for an affirmative action-type
correction of representational balance for white, and especially white male,faculty.
Perhaps the goal common to all of us is an institutional environment
in which each teacher is understood to have the same potential for
powerful and rich language teaching, whatever their social identity mightbe, Japanese or non-Japanese, male, female, transgender and/or gender
non-conforming, upper-class, middle-class, or working class, etc. But
attempting to achieve this goal by somehow tipping the scales to introduce
more non-L1 speakers of Japanese into our teaching ranks not only fails
to address the problem directly (who is to say that the newly hired whitemale Japanese teacher does not himself faithfully subscribe to native
speaker supremacy), but it also ignores the larger structures of oppressionin which these conditions are created.
Unfortunately, one of the reasons there are so many women in thisfield to begin with is because of its low pay, its instability, and its “lowstatus perception.” As quite a few respondents of the survey pointed out,
the gender imbalance in the field results in part from “non-competitive
salaries that are unattractive to men, who are often considered to be theprimary earner of the household” (Mori et al. this volume: 287). For
Japanese women living in the U. S., Japanese-language teacher may be
one of the very few jobs that are open to, welcoming of, and demandingof them. The link between (Japanese) women and (Japanese) language
teaching is also a product of patriarchal ideology. Under patriarchal

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.141

378 | Japanese Language and Literature

thought, women are understood as caregivers, educators and nurturers of
the young generation. One perception of language teaching is that it is apart and parcel of this child-rearing labor. No doubt this perception is oneof the sources of that discriminatory bifurcation between language course
teachers and content course teachers mentioned in the survey as aworsening divide in colleges and universities (Mori et al., this volume,
287–288). No doubt this is also why the job is so often low-paying andunstable. In Tokyo today, Japanese-language teachers can hardly earn aliving wage teaching Japanese, no matter what their qualifications.
But because Japanese teachers of Japanese language are understood toteach non-Japanese students, that patriarchal thought is further augmented
by national and racial hierarchies. Japanese women are expected to
become embodied ambassadors of the ideals of Japanese culture, mostimmediately manifested in their vocal expression. They perform theJapanese language in order to cultivate the foreign student into a proper,socially acceptable, Japanese speaker/subject. There are some female
Japanese teachers who assimilate this nurturing/rearing role so completelythat they are never able to break out of a mothering tone and diction, evenafter the beginning levels when simple diction is to some extent
appropriate, ultimately infantilizing their non-Japanese students.1 Whenfemale Japanese teachers tell or suggest to their foreign students that they
can never master Japanese (anecdote reported in Mori et al. this volume),
it is possible that they are channeling the cultural ideology that nonJapanese people can never become Japanese. But it is also possible thatthe teachers feel the need to keep their students in a position of childlike
dependence. Alternately, it could be understood as a reaction of displacedresentment toward the servile position in which they are placed. To beclear, these tendencies do not describe all female Japanese teachers;
individual stories are always, of course, varied, unique, and often resistant.
But I describe here the pressures within the teaching culture generated by
the dictates of patriarchy, national chauvinism, and racial/gender hierarchy
that female Japanese teachers in particular confront.
Instead of calling for more “diversity” in the ranks of Japaneseteachers, implicitly suggesting to female Japanese teachers that theirpresence needs to be curbed, it seems far more productive to promote ateaching culture in which the dictates of patriarchy, national chauvinism,
and racial/gender hierarchy are called out and openly defied. Being able
to name these hierarchies would be a way to create an inclusive classroom
and stage a deeper and more authentic engagement with the JapaneseJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.141

Arthur Mitchell | 379

language. What if a given female Japanese teacher were to begin alanguage course by pointing out the ways she fits into expectations thatthe students may have for what their teacher should look like? What if shethen called attention to the way authority regarding the language is given
to her by the students much more readily than it would be to a nonJapanese colleague as way to start a discussion or at least instigate aconsciousness about the deeply rooted link in Japanese culture between
language and national/racial/gender identity. To do so could be very
empowering for the many students who have implicitly received themessage that as non-Japanese they can never really master the language.
Through this self-initiated vulnerability, the teacher would enable thestudents to name the source of that lie. If she were able to call attention to
the racial and gendered paradigm that implicitly undergirds Japanese
language education, she would empower students to be able to identify andseparate themselves from the way this dynamic is reflected back to themwithin the textbooks that they learn from. It would permit the Hispanic girlwho has some Japanese heritage, or the transgender Hmong student to feelrecognized all of a sudden, simply by dint of exposing the lie of racial,sexual, and gendered expectations.
In carrying out their roles as ambassadors of Japanese culture,
Japanese teachers often end up suppressing aspects of their identity (socioeconomic class, region, ethnicity) as well as experiences that run against
the grain of the official image of Japanese culture: uniformly andhomogeneously middle class, cisgendered and heterosexual, highly
educated, technologically literate, polite and deferent, tolerant andapologetic, historically knowledgeable, aesthetically sophisticated, slim
and/or petite with mild to non-existent hand gestures. Native Japaneseteachers are not simply supposed to present this version of Japan, they are
expected to embody it. What if native Japanese teachers made a concerted
effort to identify, emphasize, and explain the various ways in which they
ran aground of these stereotypes, stood out, and/or struggled both
externally and internally because they diverged from this very elaborate
and extremely stringent standard of being Japanese? What if Japaneseteachers were willing to talk about their relationship to the Japanese
language itself, and how that relationship was mediated by gender, socioeconomic class, and all of the different facets of identity we possess? There
are many female L1 speaking teachers who are already doing this type of
courageous work. These teachers need to be supported and looked to as
pioneers of inclusive teaching, not replaced in order to fulfill an abstract

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.141

380 | Japanese Language and Literature

standard of balance.
This change in method and mentality would be the surest path to thecreation of the type of equitable institutional spaces described above,
where L2 speaking teachers are recognized for their potential in the same
way that L1 speaking teachers are. If the goal is to teach Japanese language
in a context that constantly identifies how the ideologies of nationality,
race, gender, class, sexuality, etc. mediate the speaking, teaching, andlearning experience, then teachers of all social identities will be on thesame plane. But this would also have a direct and definitive impact on ourclassrooms and our students. The discussions and consciousness this typeof teaching could foment has potentially very powerful implications forlanguage learning and cultural literacy. Such lessons would be forceful,memorable, and exhilarating not just because they would offer criticalinsights into the culture, insights that create ways for students of various
backgrounds and contexts to imagine they actually have a place within
Japan and Japanese culture. But these stories and lessons would also berooted in the real-life experience of the human being standing in front of
the classroom. Inclusive teaching does not just humanize the students, butalso humanizes the teachers, allowing them to be more themselves andexperience the deep pleasure of alignment between who they are and what
they are teaching. These are the great benefits we stand to gain from doing
the difficult work of creating diverse and inclusive spaces in ourclassrooms.

NOTES

1

Noriaki Furuya has discussed the use of “ano ko (that kid/child)” amongst
Japanese teachers to refer to their foreign students as indicative of a “paternalism”
latent in Japanese language education and how Japanese-language teachers canoften form a sense of identity based on this stance (2012). The article has stirreda lively debate within the field. Yōhei Arakawa has a chapter devoted to what herefers to as “The Mode of Treating [Students] Like Children” in his book on
Japanese people talking to foreigners, especially foreign students (2012).

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.141

Arthur Mitchell | 381
REFERENCES

Arakawa, Yōhei. 2012. Moshimo…anata ga gaikokujin to “nihongo dehanasu” toshitara toriaezu nihongo de. Tokyo: Surī’ē Network.
Furuya, Noriaki. 2012. ‘Ano ko’ mondai. Shūkan “nihongo kyōiku” hihyō
1(1) https://www.mag2.com/m/0001573661.html. Accessed December 10, 2019.
Kubota, Ryuko. 2008. Critical Approaches to Teaching Japanese andCulture. Japanese Applied Linguistics: Discourse and Social
Perspectives, ed. Junko Mori and Amy Snyder Ohta, 327–352.
London: Continuum.
Mori, Junko, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki. (Thisvolume.) On Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:
Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators in North
America. Japanese Language and Literature 54 (2): 267–304.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.141

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.136

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

The Generalist’s Dilemma: How Accidental Language
Teachers Are at the Center of Japanese Pedagogy
Brian C. Dowdle

1. Introduction
In this age of increasing specialization in Japanese language teaching,
being a generalist may feel akin to educational malpractice. Specialists
with advanced training in Japanese language pedagogy often teach atlarge research universities (R1) with a bevy of faculty members, each ofwhom focuses on a single level or year of the Japanese language
program. Generalists, in contrast, teach at smaller schools (regional
universities/liberal arts colleges/community colleges) and must coverlarge swaths of both the Japanese- and English-based curriculum.
Generalists may feel spread thin, trying to balance multiple teaching
responsibilities. They may personally worry their students are getting aless than ideal language instruction compared to that provided by
specialists.
This is not to imply that generalists are incompetent or unable toteach the Japanese language effectively; rather, I wish to argue theopposite—that they are powerful and invaluable. Generalists areimportant to the field and should be incorporated further into thearchetype of Japanese-language educators. Rather than feeling likesecond-class citizens, generalists should feel celebrated. As I show,
however, an examination of the generalist’s dilemma provides a window
into larger problems in Japanese language instruction and its relationshipto Japan studies, more broadly.
2. The Nature of Generalism
2.1. The Academic Job Market and Generalists

As the academic job market continues to evolve, it is increasingly
common to see advertisements for positions seeking generalists whoteach all levels of Japanese from beginning to advanced, offer culture
New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

384 | Japanese Language and Literature

courses on Japan (or even China, Korea, and Asia more broadly), growthe program, provide outreach to the campus and community, andmaintain a progressive research agenda. Needless to say, such positions
are beyond the training capacity of even the longest graduate program.
Yet, these are the highly coveted positions sought after by an evergrowing number of freshly minted Ph. D.s.
Overall, programs with generalists are actually more common thanthose at large institutions (those with six or more faculty members),
although the exact divide is hard to determine. It is safe to anticipate thatat universities offering four-year degrees in Japanese, the smaller the
program, the greater the diversity of courses each faculty member would
be expected to teach. Hence, smaller programs depend more on
generalists who can wear a myriad of hats. It is well known that thebudgets for humanities have stagnated or decreased. This has increased
pressure on departments and individuals to do more with less, which, inturn increases the desirability of and pressure to be a generalist.
2.2. Academic Identity

Many generalists, especially those not initially trained as applied
linguists, however, find themselves working as “accidental” Japaneselanguage teachers. Originally, they were trained in literature, film, or
cultural studies, but due to the nature of the job market, they teachJapanese language courses along with so-called “content” courses. In
their minds, they are first and foremost teachers of literature, film, or
cultural studies. For instance, they might feel more at home atconferences such as AAS or the MLA and not participate in ACTFL or
AATJ. As a result, they may not even have an academic identity of beinga Japanese-language teacher, per se.
For “native-”speaking, L1 generalists, who likewise may have been
trained in a field other than applied linguistics, the role of language
teacher is also often as unexpected as it is unavoidable. The assignmentor expectation to teach language is often the product of essentialist
assumptions that being “native”-speaking alone qualifies one to teachthat language. One would be hard pressed to find “native” Englishspeaking scholars of British literature or American film who are expected
to teach ESL courses merely because they are “native” speakers. Yet,this idea retains currency, even as it is not new. Samuel made a similar
observation in 1987: “Native speakers suffer from the myth, commonly
embraced by students and even by some colleagues and administrators,

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.136

Brian C. Dowdle | 385

that they can teach the language efficiently simply because they arenative speakers” (135).
Apart from finding themselves “accidentally” teaching Japanese, afurther reason why generalists may choose to eschew the label oflanguage teacher may be their experience in graduate school. Most if not
all of the universities that granted their terminal degrees utilized a twotiered system of faculty members. On the first tier were the tenure-trackprofessors with Ph. D.s and on the second, lower tier were the nontenurable language teachers without terminal degrees. Perhaps as
students they picked up on micro-aggressions against “mere” language
teachers by tenure-track faculty who privileged “content” courses as thesign of a successful academic career at a research university.
3. Larger Field Issues and Generalists
The demands faced by generalists point to two interrelated issues: thecontinued rewarding of “content” over language courses in tenure,teaching loads, and salary and the false dichotomy between language
courses and so-called content courses.
3.1. Teaching Loads

The teaching loads of generalists are often skewed higher than theircounterparts in non-language teaching positions, even when they havethe same degrees. Not only is the number of courses taught per year
higher (often 3/2, 3/3, 4/3, or even 4/4) but the total number of credit
hours is normally higher since language courses continue to be four orfive credits at the lower division. Hence, even when the number ofcourses is the same, language-teaching generalists are in the classroom
for more hours than their non-language teaching counterparts inliterature, film, or cultural studies departments. Despite more teaching
responsibilities, salaries are often lower. (Such structural disincentives
against generalists are still less than those faced by specialized language
teachers, who are often on non-tenure track career paths working as
adjuncts or for fixed terms, with far lower salary scales and limited job
security.)
3.2. “Content Courses” vs. Japanese Language Courses

One advantage of embracing the generalist perspective is that it calls into
question the divide between English-language “content courses” andJapanese language courses. Although the language classroom may haveonce been imagined as void of content, filled only with pure “content-

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.136

386 | Japanese Language and Literaturefree” grammar, content-based language instruction (CBLI) is
increasingly the norm after the intermediate level (See Douglas 2017 fora discussion of CBLI). But, the knowledge and facts of other disciplines
have always been woven into language instruction. Generalists recognize
the utility of language instruction to help expand cultural, historical, andliterary studies. Their critical training may also help them avoid thetemptation to teach caricatures of Japanese society and culture, whichwere a staple of nihonjinron heavy textbooks of yesteryear. Unwilling toabandon their fields of expertise, generalists embed literature, media
studies, social science, linguistics, and history into their advanced
language courses.
Being a generalist poses separate problems for so-called “native”(L1) and non-“native” (L2) speakers. I bracket the term “native” tohighlight two things. First, although the term may be used to indicate
proficiency in the language, it also is used to signal nationality as well.
Even in 2019, jobs frequently list “nativeness” as a job requisite.
Compare how much more welcoming verbiage requiring a “a deep
knowledge of Japanese language and culture” is than that requesting“native or near-native proficiency in Japanese and English.” It should be
noted that both phrases are from different job postings at the same
university. This lingering preference for “native”-speaking teachers andprejudice against non-“native” speakers needs to be looked at in a larger
conversation about the broader structure of Japan studies and the role oflanguage instruction.
3.3. Marginalization of Generalists

Non-“native-”speaking generalists may feel doubly marginalized within
the field of Japanese language pedagogy. Not only is their academic
identity often something other than that of language teacher, but also,
they do not match the dominant image of Japanese language educators.
Considering that in North America 77.3% (and in Western Europe
74.6%) of all Japanese language teachers are “native” speakers ofJapanese, this feeling of isolation makes sense (Japan Foundation 2017;see also Mori, Hasegawa, Park, and Suzuki, this volume, for a broader
discussion of these figures within the context of diversity.)
Rather than becoming less marginalized, non-“native” educators in2019 seem to make up a smaller percentage of Japanese language
teachers than they did forty years ago in 1981, when a similar survey was
conducted (Samuel 1987). Then, only approximately sixty-five percent

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.136

Brian C. Dowdle | 387(64.5%) were “native” teachers (133). Today’s numbers appear too high,and one contributing reason may be identity—namely, non-“native”
teachers choose not to identify as language teachers and, thus, may haveavoided answering the survey, causing their numbers to be undercounted. But verifying this would require a more nuanced survey, which
does not rely on self-identification.
Nevertheless, as Samuel pointed out in 1987, even today someschools “give priority to a native speaker of Japanese. A perception
shared by these schools is that it is more beneficial for students to study
the language under native educators. There is also an indication thatsome students share this view and exert pressure on departments to hirenative teachers” (Samuel 1987:134). This pressure can make non“native” generalists feel unwanted by students seeking an “authentic”
teacher. (Unfortunately, anecdotally at least, it remains equally true that
unfair preference is given to “native” English speakers in hiring faculty
for culture courses. “Native” Japanese language ability is valuable for
conducting research, but since teaching, mentoring, and administrative
work is done in English, non-“native” English speaking candidates
appear often discriminated against.)
Each of these two forms of marginalization (non-“nativeness” andlacking an academic identity as being a language teacher) invites a risky
response. Attempting to counter marginalization, non-“native” teachers
may feel pressure to conform to or even act out prescriptive Japanesecultural norms. This may be an attempt to prove their “nativeness.”
However, they should not be expected to perform such idealized“Japanese-ness,” primarily because it does not exist. In contrast, “native”
teachers may feel undue pressure to represent the entirety of Japanesepeople. In both cases, the diversity of acceptable behaviors and speechstyles in Japan defy reduction into a singular stereotypical form ofcorrect behavior and language to be modeled in the classroom.
Moreover, it sets an unreasonably narrow depiction of what it means to
be a Japanese speaker.
Non-“native” teachers potentially show students that they can be“themselves.” Both “native” and non-“native” teachers should be
encouraged to model a range of speech styles to help students discover
who they could be while speaking Japanese (see Gyogi 2016 for a larger
discussion on speech style instruction). Allowing non-“native” educators
to be themselves also models inclusivity and provides hope that theumbrella of Japanese speakers is inclusive enough to accommodate

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.136

388 | Japanese Language and Literature

students as non-“native” speakers. The narrow, overly prescriptivist, andTokyo-centric view of Japanese language presented in many textbooks
already is too limited to expect teachers to further reduce the spectrum of
acceptable options. Instead, the models of generalists can help present
the diversity of Japanese-language speakers. Non-“native” teachers canmodel for students more than just proper grammar; based on their own
learning experiences—success and failures—they can advise students
how and what to study to learn the language. Their encouragement,
based on having “been there,” is often invaluable.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to address briefly the question of what thediversity of generalist teaching models to our students. On the one hand,from a negative perspective, it can create a false image of universal
expertise. Students seeing generalists teach a wide range of courses
might assume it reasonable that any one person could be an authority on
everything from the sociolinguistic nuances of keigo in the workplace, tothe literary depictions of the rise and fall of the Taira clan in the lateHeian period, to the intricacies of the modern tea ceremony as practiced
by housewives of Tokyo in the 1960s. Not only are these levels ofknowledge too specialized for expertise by any one individual, but also
this is not how knowledge is structured and produced in the field.
Although the basics of these areas may be learned through reading a few
articles, expertise is the product of years of specialized training.
On the other hand, from a more positive perspective, diversity of
instruction can also model patterns of learning that we want our students
to learn. Generalists provide models of excellence in language as well as
cross-cultural competencies. They show the values and skills of a liberalarts education with broad exposure to ideas and methodologies fromacross the fields comprising Japan studies. In fact, many of the mostinteresting research is interdisciplinary and generalist teaching fosters themaking of connections in our students and for us as researchers.
Finally, generalists are connected to students across their entire
educational experience, unlike faculty at large universities who may only
meet students in literature or culture classes or at the upper levels in thelanguage classes, if they even teach language. It is a pleasure seeing thefull range of students’ growth as they evolve from struggling first-year
students into more fluent and knowledgeable seniors.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.136

Brian C. Dowdle | 389

Generalists face a dilemma: are they language teachers or are theyteachers of another field? The answer is that they are both. Rather thanfeeling like second-class citizens, generalist should be celebrated andcelebrate themselves. Generalists need to accept that they are a key
contingent of Japanese-language educators. They should be encouraged
to embrace their dilemma because it is part of the future of Japanesepedagogy and Japan studies in North America.
REFERENCES

Douglas, Masako O. 2017. Assessing the Effectiveness of Content-Based
Language Instruction (CBLI) in Japanese at the College Advanced
Level. Japanese Language and Literature 51(2): 199–241.
Gyogi, Eiko. 2016. From Following Norms to Choosing Styles:
Awareness of Indexical Properties of Speech Styles among
Intermediate Japanese Students. Japanese Language and Literature
50(2): 375–403.
Mori, Junko, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki. This
volume. On Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:
Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators in North
America. Japanese Language and Literature 54(2): 267–304.
Samuel, Yoshiko Yokochi. 1987. A Survey of the Status of Native and
Non-Native Instructors of Japanese in Higher Education in North
America. The Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese21(2): 133–147.
The Japan Foundation. 2017. Survey Report on Japanese-Language
Education Abroad 2015. https://www.jpf.go.jp/j/project/japanese/survey/result/dl/survey_2015/Report_all_e.pdf. Accessed November
22, 2019.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.136

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.138

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)“Can-Do” Statements for a Diverse Japanese Teacher
Pipeline: Let’s Widen the Funnel!
Jessica Lee Haxhi

ACTFL’s Position Statement expresses its commitment to “Diversity andInclusion in World Language Learning” through goals such as supporting
access to equitable learning opportunities for all, reflecting diverse
perspectives within and beyond the language field, and developing ateacher workforce that reflects the students in our classrooms today(ACTFL 2019). The survey by Mori, Hasegawa, Park, and Suzuki (thisvolume) and subsequent discussion at the Association for Asian Studies
roundtable begins to connect the Japanese language education field andthe American Association of Teachers of Japanese (AATJ) to theseimportant goals. The survey results and summary provide us with anenlightening look into the beliefs and experiences of 355 current Japaneselanguage educators. Their responses highlight realities, perceptions, andsome misconceptions which we can and should address both individually
and as a field. For this article, I would like to focus on the lack of diversity
among Japanese-language educators and how we might begin to addressit.
In the United States, there are already recognized issues with diversity
in the teaching profession. The U. S. Department of Education (2016:1)
reported that as of 2011–12, 82% of teachers in K-12 education were white,
although only 51% of their students were white. By 2024, 56% of students
are projected to be students of color; however, the American Associationof Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) notes that only 25% of thoseearning undergraduate degrees and certificates from colleges of education
as of 2018 were people of color (2018:4). The ACT, one of the two
common college entrance exams in the United States, published “TheCondition of Future Educators 2015” report. According to ACT (2016:4),of the 1.9 million students taking that college entrance test in 2015, only
New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

392 | Japanese Language and Literature

5% were interested in becoming future educators, 70% of them white; only
783 students in total intended to major in a foreign language (2016:10). In
each of these reports, we see small percentages of students on their way to
educational careers and even fewer pursuing language education. Of those,very few will actually become Japanese teachers. The road to becoming ateacher in the United States is often referred to as a pipeline, ideally one
allowing a constant flow of teachers into the profession. The pipeline for
L2 Japanese teachers, however, more closely resembles a funnel. The large,
diverse population of U. S. students entering our elementary schools eachyear funnels down to a tiny trickle of L2 Japanese teachers by the timethey arrive in the workforce.
As Mori et al. (this volume) note, the issues specifically related to
the lack of diversity among Japanese-language educators include“pragmatic constraints, on the one hand, and ideological issues, on theother” (291); solving either set of issues presents challenges. Moreover, inthe survey, the opinions expressed are from a small portion of the tiny
percentage of the population who have already overcome the hurdles tobecoming Japanese-language educators. It would be a fascinating, albeit
impossible, task to survey every student in the United States as they
progress from kindergarten to college graduation in order to determine
their reasons for not pursuing careers in education, world languages, andJapanese teaching in particular.
There is obviously much work to do, but there is much we can do toimprove the situation. Many factors influence the number of L2 students
who ultimately become Japanese educators. We are not able to address allof these factors, of course, but, as a field, if we identify the factors we areable to influence and begin to target those, we can make a difference. The
teachers surveyed by Mori et al. (this volume) were clearly affected byopportunities presented to them as they pursued teaching positions and by
their perceptions and experiences once they were hired. Similarly,
opportunities, perceptions, and experiences influence our future potential
Japanese teachers in the K–16 funnel right now. We must address each ofthese areas in order to begin to widen the pool of potential Japanese teacher
candidates.
I have attempted to capture those opportunities, perceptions andexperiences in a list of “can-do statements” from the perspective of thestudent, beginning in kindergarten and continuing along the K–16
continuum. The National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign
Languages (NCSSFL) and the American Council on the Teaching ofJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.138

Jessica Lee Haxhi | 393

Foreign Languages (ACTFL) collaborated on the NCSSFL-ACTFL CanDo Statements (2017) in order to illustrate the path to language proficiency
for learners. In that same spirit, the “can-do statements” below illustrate
the path to becoming a Japanese teacher. A negative answer to any one ofthese statements might cause a student to leave the potential L2 Japaneseteacher pipeline. A preponderance of negative answers is the reason for
the tiny trickle of teachers coming out of the current funnel.
This exercise is not meant to be a discouraging one. For each “can-dostatement” below, there are actions that we can take as individual teachers,
as schools, as groups of colleagues, or as the Japanese-language field as awhole to impact a more positive outcome. As you read, consider how eachof us could change a “can’t do” into a “can do” for the students who are
our potential future Japanese L2 teachers.
I can take Japanese.
● I can start Japanese in kindergarten (or very early) in myurban/suburban/rural elementary school.
● If not in elementary school, then I can start taking Japanese in middle
school or at least in my high school.
● I am allowed to take Japanese (or any language), even if mygrades/test scores, etc., are not so good.
● I believe that Japanese would be easy, interesting, and worthwhile
for me to learn, and so do my parents.
● I have heard that Japanese classes are interesting and fun and thatyou really learn to speak Japanese.
I can succeed in learning Japanese.
● I can sense that my teacher believes I can learn Japanese, regardlessof my race, gender, sexual orientation, or native language.
● I can relate to the materials used in the class because people whoshare my background are represented in the clipart, pictures, andexamples my teacher uses.
● I can participate successfully in Japanese class because the teacher
supports Japanese language use with rich visuals, gestures, andcontexts.
● I can get the gist of authentic Japanese texts, videos, etc. even though
I don’t understand every word because my teacher has given me
strategies to do so.
● I can share my interests in Japanese class (music, sports, etc.).

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.138

394 | Japanese Language and Literature● I can use real-world Japanese in lots of different contexts and have
many opportunities to practice in class.
● I can use Japanese with native/heritage speakers and I have had
opportunities to try.
● I can read and write in Japanese because my teacher uses manydifferent methods to help me learn characters.
● I can always improve in Japanese because my teacher gives me
feedback that helps me learn.
● My Japanese teacher has a good relationship with my family; they
support my learning together.
● I have “fallen in love” with Japanese language and culture by thetime I finish the equivalent of high school Level 2 (after this, I’ll
need lots of motivation to stick with it and learn all that kanji!).
I can continue to upper levels, study Japanese in college, and evenbecome a Japanese Teacher.
● My teachers have helped me to believe I can attain high levels of
proficiency.
● There is an AP Japanese class at my school and I believe I can pass
the test.
● I can see a path to studying Japanese in college and my teachers haveshared it with me.
● I can see a path to becoming a Japanese teacher (upper levels at theschool, higher education opportunities) and my teachers have shared
it with me.
● I can see a path to studying abroad in Japan and my teachers haveshared it with me.
I can succeed in college-level Japanese and study abroad.
● I can find a college or university within my budget that offers
Japanese.
● When I arrive in college, I can receive credit for the Japanese that I
have already studied; therefore, I am already on my way to upper
levels.
● I am supported and encouraged to continue my study of Japanese,
including assistance and resources if I am struggling at the upper
levels.
● I can access paths to study abroad in Japan, with timing and costs
that are manageable for me.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.138

Jessica Lee Haxhi | 395● When I study abroad, I have a positive experience that motivates me
to continue studying.
I can become a Japanese teacher.
● My state has a pathway to licensure in Japanese (Mori et al., thisvolume, 287).
● I can be supported in pursuing K–12 licensure through my college oruniversity.
● I can see a path to becoming a Japanese-language professor at theuniversity level.
● I believe that becoming a Japanese-language educator would be afulfilling profession.
● I can support myself at a reasonable level on the salary offered toJapanese teachers (Mori et al., this volume, 287).
I can get a job as a Japanese teacher.
● There are positions available teaching Japanese at the level(s) at
which I am interested.
● My educational experience and licensure (if applicable) have
prepared me for the positions that are offered.
● The administrators and colleagues doing the interviewing and hiring
believe that L2 Japanese teachers can be as effective as L1 Japaneseteachers.
I can keep a job as a Japanese teacher.
● There is support for me as a new L2 Japanese teacher, such as
mentoring, professional development opportunities, etc.
● There is support for me as a new L2 Japanese teacher among theother faculty at the school.
● My L1 colleagues recognize and respect my Japanese ability as an
L2 speaker. (Mori et al., this volume, section 3).
Let’s take a few of these statements and consider how we might effecta more positive outcome for students. For example: I believe that Japanese
would be easy, interesting, and worthwhile for me to learn, and so do myparents. As teachers, we can convince students and parents that Japanese
is not so difficult as they might imagine by inviting them to observe
lessons or participate in a class themselves. We can spark their interest byoffering anime nights, origami clubs, etc. and introducing them to English

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.138

396 | Japanese Language and Literature

speakers who have learned to speak Japanese. As a professionalorganization, we can produce posters, videos, and websites that promote
Japanese language learning as fun, interesting, career-building, andabsolutely do-able.
Let’s practice with another statement: When I arrive in college, I canreceive credit for the Japanese that I have already studied; therefore, I am
already on my way to upper levels. As high school teachers, we can ensurethat the next teacher has accurate information about the students he/she isreceiving, even if it means a personal phone call or letter to the university
Japanese professor. At high schools, we can promote the use of tests such
as AAPPL, STAMP, Advanced Placement (AP) as well as the Seal of
Biliteracy to ensure that colleges and universities are aware of students’abilities. As a professional organization, we can provide conference
sessions and virtual chat spaces to encourage vertical articulation of K-16
and promote recognition of standardized language assessments and theSeal of Biliteracy at higher education institutions.
Each of these statements should be unpacked, as in the examples
above, to determine where we might flip a can’t do to a can do. Teachers
may do this exercise alone or, ideally, with groups of colleagues, local
stakeholders, and local, state, and national Japanese educatororganizations. As these “can-do statements” illustrate, there are multiple
points at which students may fall out of the L2 Japanese teacher pipeline.
Elimination of these obstacles will require time, effort, planning, andcollaboration. We can draw inspiration from the knowledge that
addressing these obstacles will widen the funnel of L2 students who may
become Japanese teachers and have a positive impact on diversity in ourfield. We can do it, and we must.

REFERENCES

ACT. 2016. The Condition of Future Educators 2015.
http://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/FutureEducators-2015.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2019.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. 2018. Collegesof Education: A National Portrait, Executive Summary. https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=4178&ref=rl.
Accessed
January 31, 2020.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.138

Jessica Lee Haxhi | 397

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2019. ACTFL
Position Statement: Diversity and Including in World Language
Teaching&
Learning.
https://www.actfl.org/news/positionstatements/diversity-and-inclusion-world-language-teaching-learning.
Accessed September 20, 2019.
Mori, Junko, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki. (Thisvolume.) On Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:
Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators in North
America. Japanese Language and Literature 54(2): 267–304.
National Council of State Supervisors of Foreign Languages andAmerican Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2017.
NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements 2017. www.actfl.org/
publications/guidelines-and-manuals/ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements.
Accessed January 31, 2020.
U. S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. 2016. The State ofRacial Diversity in the Educator Workforce. https://www2.ed.
gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2019.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.138

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

Increasing Diversity of Japanese Language Teachers:
Approaches to Teaching-Related Professional Development
for College Students in North America
Amy Snyder Ohta

How can we increase the diversity of Japanese language teachers? This is
an important question. While people from Japan provide a substantial
resource in North America for Japanese foreign language teaching, people
who have learned Japanese themselves and developed high proficiency are
an excellent model and resource for language students. Promoting
language teaching, especially Japanese language teaching, as a potential
future career has been something I have worked on since my early days at
the University of Washington. I have partnered in this process withcolleagues in my department, where we offer a Japanese major and minor.
We have a diverse population of students in our Japanese program,including students from Japan whose language skills are such that they
don’t take any of our language courses, foreign language learners, andheritage learners who may take some of our language courses. Many of
our students are already multilingual before embarking on their Japanese
language studies, as immigrants or heritage speakers of languages besides
Japanese. What our students have in common is a love of the Japanese
language and a strong interest in Japanese culture; many also long for a
career where they can use their Japanese. This population of students
provides a natural group among whom to incubate interest in Japanese
language teaching. Some of our graduates have gone on to becometeachers, whether EFL teachers in Japan, JFL teachers in the U. S., or ESL
teachers in the U. S.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of practical waysthat colleges and universities with Japanese programs can help
undergraduate and graduate students to consider Japanese language
New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

400 | Japanese Language and Literatureteaching as a possible career. I will share approaches that I take in my work,
as well as activities conducted by and with colleagues. I will discuss arange of approaches to increasing teacher diversity by promoting language
teaching as a possible career. The University of Washington has
comparatively well-resourced Japanese studies and Japanese language
programming compared to other universities in our area, which may allow
us to implement more strategies than universities with smaller programs.
To be maximally useful to faculty from Japanese programs of various sizes
and with various faculty specializations, I will organize these according to
the nature of resources needed to implement these strategies, beginningwith strategies that are the easiest and cheapest to implement. The
strategies I will present include (1) advisement, (2) guest lectures, (3)instructional units related to foreign teaching and learning, (4) teachingrelated internship programs, and (5) courses on Japanese second language
acquisition and teaching methods, where I will present a new course onteaching JFL in North America and teaching English in Japan.
1. Advisement
Student advisement is a natural place to begin in helping students toconsider teaching as a possible future career. Students welcome
conversations about career possibilities. We cannot direct their career
choices, but we can mention teaching-related careers and provide
information about K–12 and higher education teaching, depending on theirskills and interests. I have found that students and community members
who are exploring teaching as a career often begin with very little
knowledge of what is involved. They need to understand the job
qualifications required for different sorts of teaching positions, including
the language skills that are required, the types of training required for
different sorts of positions, and the level of academic skill needed for
different kinds of teacher-training programs. For example, some students
think that if they get an M. A. in Japanese linguistics they can get a job asa K–12 teacher (not realizing that what they need is to be certified to teacha language, which is not a function of Japanese M. A. programs); that with
an M. A. in Japanese in hand, they will be able to get a full time job
teaching Japanese in their city of preference; or that a Ph. D. is a vocational
degree that, once obtained, assures them a job as a university professor.
Students also need guidance regarding the availability of full-time
openings commensurate with their language skills and planned
educational path.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

Amy Snyder Ohta | 401

I often direct students and community members to two resources: (1)the Japan Foundation Los Angeles’ (JFLA) webpage “Becoming a
Japanese Language Teacher” and (2) the “Jobline” website of theAmerican Associations of Teachers of Japanese (AATJ). While somewhat
oriented toward people from Japan, the JFLA page offers information thatis both helpful and realistic (for example, pointing out that college
teaching positions for those with M. A. degrees are often term-limited
appointments), along with giving an orientation to the process of becoming
a K–12 teacher, which is unfamiliar to many. For students interested incollege/university teaching, the AATJ Jobline is a place to see the kindsof openings that are available as well as the qualifications required for
different types of positions. Looking over these resources is helpful for
those considering teaching in deciding if they want to continue by taking
next steps toward a particular type of career.
2. Guest Lectures
Our connections with local Japanese language teachers are very helpful tostudents. Of course, our in-house university/college teachers can give talks
about their own career paths to becoming college faculty. Local Japaneseteachers, including alumni who have become Japanese teachers and work
nearby, are also excellent resources to invite to give guest lectures. Figure
1 shows a flyer for a recent talk that we sponsored. The speaker is an
example of a home-grown teacher and a University of Washington
graduate who has a heritage language background in Japanese (Figure 1).
Another way of promoting language teaching as a career for U. S.
citizens and permanent residents is to promote the JET Program. Because
we live in a city with a Japanese consulate, each year a JET representative
comes to campus to talk to students. In addition, we invite returnee JET
participants to come and talk about their experiences. The JET Programprovides teaching experience and is a common first step toward a teachingcareer for those learning Japanese in college. JET also provides the student
committed to the work of immersing themselves in Japanese-speaking
communities in Japan with opportunities to develop their Japanese
language and cultural skills, providing them with the strong language skills
necessary to become a Japanese language teacher. Figure 2 depicts a flyer
from an event where we invited three local JET alumni to talk about theirexperiences with students.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

402 | Japanese Language and Literature

Figure 1. Flyer for a recent talk by a local JFL teacher who graduated from ouruniversity. Used with permission.

Figure 2. Flyer for a Recent Talk by JET Program Alumni. Used with Permission.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

Amy Snyder Ohta | 403

3. Instructional Units Related to Japanese Teaching or
Learning
Teaching a unit in a language class or content class about Japan that relates
to second/foreign language development or language teaching andlearning can open conversations about teaching as a possible career. In mycourse on minority languages in Japan, I have a unit on bilingual
development and a unit on English in Japan, for example. In the latter, I
include research on the JET Program. In my Japanese discourse analysis
class, I cover interlanguage pragmatics and discuss research on
pedagogical applications of the findings of discourse analysis. Might aliterature course touch on L2 writers? Might a social sciences course
consider Japanese diaspora and education issues, or touch on language
policy? In language courses we can coach students to be teachers for one
another, have students take turns as “teacher,” or connect with local
schools where Japanese is taught to provide classroom volunteers.
Japanese faculty can also share their own career path stories during
informal moments, which encourages future conversations with students
about their own Japanese-related career paths. Students who are working
to envision their own future careers find stories from role models to be
helpful, and such conversations can lead to more formal advisement
opportunities related to career development to help students who might beinterested in teaching to consider various possibilities.
4. Teaching-Related Internship Program
Since Spring Quarter 2018, we have been offering a teaching internshipcourse that I developed in order to give students an opportunity to explore
language teaching as a possible career. Catalog copy for the course isshown in Figure 3. Our course offers students the possibility of interningin university courses for any of the languages that we teach.

Figure 3. Catalog Copy for Internship in Teaching Asian Languages and Cultures

Both undergraduate and graduate students may intern in language courses.
I developed an explanation of how the course works for students in theform of a “frequently asked questions” page, displayed in Figure 4.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

404 | Japanese Language and Literature

Figure 4. FAQ for Internship in Teaching Asian Languages and Cultures

Students can do a one credit or a two-credit internship, for three or six
hours per week. Interns do not replace the duties of faculty or teachingassistants but work as supplementary helpers. To sign up for an internship,
a student meets with the faculty member who teaches the course where
they would like to intern to discuss possible duties. If the faculty member
agrees to have the student as an intern, they together plan student duties,
which are shown on an agreement form, and the student then enrolls in thecourse (Figure 5). The course also requires students to submit a written
reflection paper describing their experience.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

Amy Snyder Ohta | 405

Figure 5. Proposal and Internship Agreement for Internship in Teaching Asian
Languages and Cultures

As of Winter Quarter 2020, twenty students have enrolled, eleveninterning in Japanese language courses. An article in our newsletterfeatures this course (Asian Languages and Literature 2019). One intern
noted that the internship “really made me question my own baseline

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

406 | Japanese Language and Literature

language skills.… I had forgotten why certain grammar points exist theway they do” (8). She also enjoyed watching students develop andconsiders teaching to be a possible career option. Another intern said that
his experience sparked his interest in applying for the JET program andthat “it was a great experience both in lesson planning and testing the limitsof my own Japanese language capabilities” (8).
Helping in a foreign language classroom, doing tutoring, or materials
development may prompt deeper consideration of language teachingcareers. An internship also provides stronger qualifications for teaching
language in Japan, where students can further develop their linguistic andcultural competence, which is prerequisite to becoming a Japanese
language teacher.
We are at early stages of including a service-learning opportunity forstudents studying Japanese and other Asian languages. Few resources are
required to do an in-house internship such as this, which is supervised,
onsite, by the faculty member in whose course the student interns. I havebeen thinking of how we might expand our course to reach more students
by providing opportunities for teaching-related internships in a broader
range of settings. Fitzgerald (2010) describes including an optional
service-learning component in an undergraduate course, connecting
students with outside agencies. Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) offers
a foreign language teaching internship course that places undergraduates
in local K–12 public school classrooms as tutors or classroom assistants(Polansky 2004, Polansky et al. 2010). CMU’s course goes beyond ours
in including a syllabus of readings, assignments and journaling designed
to promote tutor reflection and development. The faculty supervisor also
does site visits as the main instructor supervising the internship course. I
am exploring possibilities related to expanding service-learning
opportunities for our students.
5. Courses on Japanese Second Language Acquisition andTeaching Methods
Since I am an applied linguist, teaching in my own field provides a natural
avenue for raising issues related to Japanese language development. In thissection I will introduce two undergraduate courses, one on Japanese
second language acquisition (SLA), and a new course in development onteaching/learning foreign language in the Japan context.
5.1. The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second or Foreign Language

This course provides many opportunities for students to think about how
Japanese language skills develop. I also include a unit on language

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

Amy Snyder Ohta | 407

acquisition in JFL classrooms. The catalog description is shown in Figure
6.

Figure 6: Catalog Copy for The Acquisition of Japanese as a Second or Foreign
Language

Because the students are Japanese majors/minors and students who
know Japanese because they are from Japan or grew up using Japanese athome, I teach SLA by connecting to their own language-learning
experience by focusing on topics such as language learning motivation,
classroom interaction, study abroad, and language and emotion. For theirterm paper, students do an interview project; as part of the course, I teachinterview research methodology. Each quarter, some students decide tointerview language teachers, while others interview learners of Japanese.
Seeing the course’s success in nurturing interest in language teachingamong some students, I wondered how to help students to develop further
in this area.
5.2. A Japanese-Focused
Undergraduates

Teaching

Methods

Coursefor

I have recently designed a new course entitled “Foreign Language
Teaching in the Japanese Context: English in Japan and Japanese in North
America.” The catalog description is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Catalog Copy for Foreign Language Teaching in the Japanese Context:
EFL in Japan and JFL in North America

The goal of this course is to provide a practical and hands-on overview offoreign language teaching methodology, to prepare students for careers
teaching Japanese as well as for EFL jobs in Japan. Teaching English in
Japan provides an immediate career option for new college graduates withnative or near-native English skills. Completing a college course on theJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

408 | Japanese Language and Literature

topic of foreign language teaching will distinguish students who havetaken this course as compared to typical college graduates without suchtraining. Meanwhile teaching in Japan can move motivated students
toward the advanced proficiency and cultural competence needed to teachJapanese professionally. In searching for models to inspire course design,
I found examples of Japanese foreign language teaching courses forundergraduates at Portland State University and Australian National
University, for example, where undergraduates and graduate students
enroll in a course that can be taken for either undergraduate or graduate
credit; I did not find any offerings that were only for undergraduates, orthat combined foreign language teaching methods with a focus on JFL and
EFL.1
For the main course text, I have chosen Johnson (2018), An
Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (see Swan 2010
for a review). Johnson covers foreign language teaching methods andconsiders how languages are learned, interactionist SLA theory, learnercharacteristics and individual differences, contexts for language
teaching/learning, syllabus construction, lesson planning, language skills,
and assessment. I plan to supplement Johnson with articles coveringcontent specific to the North American JFL and Japanese EFL contexts, aswell as to introduce sociocultural theory as an approach for understanding
and guiding classroom foreign language development. I will also
supplement Johnson with information on ESL (English as a second
language) teaching in North America, to raise awareness of differences
between foreign and second language instruction and the nature of thesedifferent sorts of careers. Table 1 presents a possible organizationalarrangement of textbook chapters and supplementary readings. Additional
details are given in the Appendix.
Class will be taught in a workshop style, emphasizing practicalapplication and creative development of skills. Students will create
language teaching materials and do teaching demonstrations in small
groups during class sessions. Since the students in the class are language
learners themselves, I also plan to have students try out some innovative
learning activities themselves, such as Koyama’s (2016) dubbing activity,
so they can reflect on the impact of different types of activities andassignments. The course includes a required service-learning componentof teaching/tutoring as language class volunteers on our campus or in thecommunity, or as 1:1 volunteer tutors, with students keeping a journal of
their experiences. There will also be field trips, such as a visit to the
University of Washington Library’s Japanese Tadoku (extensive reading,Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

Amy Snyder Ohta | 409

Week
1

Topic
Brief overview of teaching
methods. What are EFL in
Japan and JFL in N. America?
How languages are learned

Johnson
1–2

ArticlesJapan Foundation 2019j,
Leachtenauer 2015e

3–4

Second language acquisition
theories and understandingsof language learning
Sociocultural
approaches,
pragmatics

5–6

Bialystock2018,
Yoshida 2010j
Chan and Wong 2017j,
Taguchi 2014j

5

The Learner

7–8

6

Methods and contexts

9–10

7

Syllabi and implementation

11–12

8

Skills and lessons

13, 15

9

Assessment

14

10

Professional development for
language teachers2
3
4

Eun and Lim 2009, Ohta
2017j, Chou, Lau, Yang
and Murphey 2007e
Shintaku 2019j, Thomas
2014j
Yamada 2010e, Furuhata
2002j; Koyama 2016j
Okumura 2017e, OgaBaldwin and Nakata
2014ej, Mori 2005j
Tabata-Sandom 2017j,
Nishi 2019e
Pellowe 2015e, Iwashita
2010ejMarchesseau 2014e

Key: e, j, or ej after a date indicates focus on teaching English (e) or Japanese (j) or both(ej).

Table 1. A Tentative Schedule for “Foreign Language Teaching in the JapaneseContext”

see, for example, Tabata-Sandom 2017) collection where they will look at
the collection and prepare to write or co-author a book for the Tadoku
library. And, by offering the class late in the day, the schedule will permit
inviting guest speakers—local JFL teachers, those who have taught EFL
in Japan or are currently teaching ESL, and graduate students whose
research closely relates to teaching JFL or EFL. Finally, to develop astronger understanding of the job market and prepare students for job
applications, students will do online research, collecting resources on
applying for jobs in Japan, creating resumes, and tailoring resumes andcover letters to create an application.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

410 | Japanese Language and Literature

6. Conclusion
College and university faculty who teach Japanese are in a unique position
to promote diversity in our shared field of Japanese language teaching.
This paper has introduced a range of strategies, including student
advisement, guest lectures, internships, instructional units, Japanese SLA
courses and teaching methods courses, that can be harnessed to guidestudents to consider Japanese language teaching careers. These strategies,
individually or in combination, can lay groundwork for interested students
to think about and prepare for future teaching careers. As Japanese faculty,
our fields of specialization, program curricula, and expertise vary, as do
our opportunities to introduce JFL teaching careers to diverse students.
Each of us can think creatively about how we can help to guide students
in their career development. We can choose strategies that fit with thescope of our own positions and teaching responsibilities, each considering
the resources we have and what it is that we, personally and in ouracademic programs, can do to promote JFL teaching as a possible career
path to our diverse student communities.
Will these strategies result in increased diversity among Japanese
language teaching professionals? Only time will tell. Our work is one ofplanting seeds, tilling soil, watching students grow, and cheering for themin their career journeys. Where will they go? I know that we will, as always,
follow their development with interest.

APPENDIX

Topical areas and potential supplementary readings for a course onteaching JFL in North America and EFL in Japan:
•

•
•
•

Teaching positions and qualifications needed to teach Japanese in
the U. S. (Japan Foundation 2019) and English in Japan(Leachtenauer 2015)
Bilingual and immersion education in the U. S. (Bialystock 2018)
Japanese L2 pragmatic development—Taguchi (2014) on
incomplete sentences
K–12 EFL instruction in Japan: “Lesson study” as teacher
development (Rupp 2015), language policy and the JET Program

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

Amy Snyder Ohta | 411

•

•

•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•

(Marchesseau 2014), “English activities” in the elementary school(Okumura 2017), a response card teaching technique for JapanEFL (Pellowe 2015)
Japanese and popular culture in the classroom—teaching Japanesewith anime and popular media (Koyama 2016; Wong and Chan
2017) and video games (Shintaku 2019).
Sociocultural theory (SCT) and concept-based instruction (CBI)—overview of SCT (Eun and Lim 2009), and Japanese conceptbased instruction (Ohta 2017)Classroom corrective feedback—student and teacher perceptions(Yoshida 2009)
Learner-created content (Chou, Lau, Yang and Murphey 2007)
Japanese reading development: Teaching kanji—air-writing(Thomas 2014); Extensive reading (Tabata-Sandom 2017)
English loanwords as a source of vocabulary teaching for EFL in
Japan (Nishi 2019)
JFL teaching methods in the US—survey of US teachers about
preferred Japanese teaching methods (Furuhata 2010) and “newlanguage” and “own language” in teaching children’s EFL and
JFL (Oga-Baldwin and Nakata 2014)
EFL textbooks in Japan—multicultural contexts in English
language textbooks, including the concepts of inner/outer/expanding circles as related to world Englishes (Yamada 2010)
Oral proficiency for EFL and JFL (Iwashita 2010)
Naturalness in language teaching materials—how dooshite is usedin Japanese as compared to how it is presented in textbooks (Mori
2005)

NOTE

1

See, for example, see Australia National University’s course information athttps://programsandcourses.anu.edu.au/2020/course/JPNS3014.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

412 | Japanese Language and Literature
REFERENCES

American Association of Teachers of Japanese, Jobline. https://www.aatj.org/jobs. Accessed June 29, 2020.
Asian Languages and Literature, Exploring Asian Language Learningwith Internships. Asia Notes (2019–2020): 8, Seattle: University ofWashington.
Bialystock, Ellen. 2018. Bilingual Education for Young Children: Reviewof the Effects and Consequences. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism 21(6): 666–679.
Chou, Hsiao-Yi, Sok-Han Lau, Huei-Chia Yang, and Tim Murphey. 2007.
Students as Textbook Authors. English Teaching Forum 3: 18–21.
Eun, Barohny and Hye-Soon Lim. 2009. A Sociocultural View of
Language Learning: The Importance of Meaning-Based Instruction.
TESL Canada Journal 27(1): 13–26.
Fitzgerald, Colleen. 2010. Developing a Service-Learning Curriculum for
Linguistics. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(4): 204–218.
Furuhata, Hamako. 2002. Learning Japanese in America: A Survey ofPreferred Teaching Methods. Language, Culture and Curriculum
15(2):134–142.
Chan, Yee Han, and Ngan Ling Wong. 2017. The Use of Anime in
Teaching Japanese as a Foreign Language. Malaysian Online Journalof Educational Technology 5(26): 68–78.
Iwashita, Noriko. 2010. Features of Oral Proficiency in Task Performanceby EFL and JFL Learners. Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Second
Language Research Forum, ed. by Matthew T. Prior, Yukiko
Watanabe, and Sang-Ki Lee. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla
Proceedings Project, 32–47.
Japan Foundation. Becoming a Language Teacher. https://www.jflalc.
org/jle-teachers-licensure. Accessed January 20, 2020.
Johnson, Keith. 2017. An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning andTeaching, Third edition. New York: Routledge.
Koyama, Nobuko. 2016. Introduction to a Dubbing Activity for a College
First-Year Japanese Language Course. Applied Language Learning
26(2): 69–88.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

Amy Snyder Ohta | 413

Leachtenauer, Jon Eric. 2015. Comparing Different Teaching Positions inJapan. The 2014 PanSIG Conference Proceedings, ed. by Myles
Grogan and Mathew Porter, 84–88. Miyazaki, Japan: JALT.
Marchesseau, Gerard. 2014. Assistant Language Teachers as a Catalyst forCommunicative Competence in Japan: Policy and Outcomes
Regarding the JET Program. Proceedings of CLaSIC 2014:
Knowledge, Skills and Competencies in Foreign Language Education:
300–309.
https://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/cls/CLaSIC/clasic2014/proceeding.htm. Accessed June 29, 2020.
Mori, Junko. 2005. Why Not Why? The Teaching of Grammar, Discourse,
Sociolinguistic, and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Japanese Language
and Literature 39: 255–289.
Nishi, Hironori. 2019. Loanwords within Wapanese: Loanwords fromEnglish in Japanese as a Vocabulary Pool for EFL Education. Journalof Asian Pacific Communication 29(2): 211–229.
Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Quint, and Yoshiyuki Nakata. 2014. Optimizing New
Language Use by Employing Young Learners’ Own Language. ELT
Journal 68(4):410–421.
Ohta, Amy Snyder. 2017. From SCOBA Development to Implementationin Concept-Based Instruction: Conceptualizing and Teaching
Japanese Addressee Honorifics as Expressing Modes of Self.
Language and Sociocultural Theory 4(2): 187–218.
Okumura, Shinji. 2017. Homeroom Teachers or Specialist Teachers?
Considerations for the Workforce for Teaching English as a Subject at
Elementary Schools in Japan. Asian Journal of Education andTraining 3(1): 1–5.
Polansky, Susan. 2004. Tutoring for Community Outreach: A Course
Model for Language Learning and Bridge Building between
Universities and Public Schools. Foreign Language Annals 37(3):367–373.
Polansky, Susan, Timothy Andrianoff, Jaclyn B. Bernard, Ana Flores,
Isabel A. Gardocki, Ryan J. Handerhan, Jihea Park, and Lisa Young.
2010. Tales of Tutors: The Role of Narrative in Language Learning
and Service-Learning. Foreign Language Annals 43(2): 304–323.
Pellowe, William R., Stephen M. Paton, and Paul Shimizu. 2015.
Encouraging Active Participation with Response Cards. The 2014

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

414 | Japanese Language and Literature

PanSIG Conference Proceedings, ed. by Myles Grogan and Mathew
Porter, 172–177. Miyazaki, Japan: JALT.
Rupp, Michael James. 2015. Meeting Teacher Goals throughCollaborative Lesson Study: Improvements in Classroom English
usage. The 2014 PanSIG Conference Proceedings, ed. by Myles
Grogan and Mathew Porter, 210–216. Miyazaki, Japan: JALT.
Shintaku, Kayo. 2019. Game-Mediated Activities in JFL Classrooms:
Considerations and Issues in Learning, Teaching, and Implementation.
Technology-supported Learning in and out of the Japanese Language
Classroom: Advances in Pedagogy, Teaching and Research, ed by
Erica Zimmerman and Abigail McMeekin, 342–379. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Swan, Michael. 2010. Review of An Introduction to Foreign Language
Learning and Teaching, first edition, by Keith Johnson. ELT Journal
64(1): 98–100.
Tabata-Sandom, Mitsue. 2017. L2 Reading Perceptions of Learners ofJapanese: The Influence of Reading Instruction. Reading Matrix: An
International Online Journal 15(1): 274–289.
Taguchi, Naoko. 2014. Development of Interactional Competence inJapanese as a Second Language: Use of Incomplete Sentences as
Interactional Resources. The Modern Language Journal 98(2): 518–
535.
Thomas, Margaret. 2014. A Role for ‘Air Writing’ in Second-Language
Learners’ Acquisition of Japanese in the Age of the Word Processor.
Journal of Japanese Linguistics 30:1–20.
Yamada, Mieko. 2010. English as a Multicultural Language: Implications
from a Study of Japan’s Junior High Schools’ English Language
Textbooks. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development
31(5): 491–506.
Yoshida, Reiko. 2010. How do Teachers and Learners Perceive Corrective
Feedback in the Japanese Language Classroom? The Modern
Language Journal 94(2): 293–314.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.139

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.135

ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

Leveraging Diversity and Inclusivity in Japanese Teacher
Community in an American High School District
Yo Azama

1. We Teach Who We Are
In Courage to Teach, renowned educator and author, Parker Palmer (1998)
states: “Teaching, like any truly human activity, emerges from one’s
inwardness, for better or worse. As I teach, I project the condition of mysoul onto my students, my subject, and our way of being together.” For ateacher as a technician, teaching requires subject knowledge andtechniques to teach the content and skills. In addition, good teachingcommands us to show up fully as who we are; our authentic selves.
Finding our authentic selves depends on our will and courage to lookinwardly. The condition of the community in which such a treacherous
journey takes place matters to the development of a teacher. It is
understood that in order for us to show up fully first we must create acommunity where each member feels safe to express, attends to listening
to truly understand others, and seeks common ground. How is ourJapanese language teaching community practicing inclusivity? How can
we move forward not in spite of but because of diversity? In this section,
I am going to share my perspectives on diversity and inclusion from theviewpoint of a secondary school Japanese-language teacher, address theneed for building an inclusive professional teacher-learner community,and finally offer elements to consider when establishing such a group. First,
in order to establish the context, I will describe the Japanese Language
Professional Learning Community (PLC) in Salinas. Then, I will share thekey elements for building a successful PLC with diversity. Lastly, I willend this section with how such a practice impacted teachers’ beliefs andattitudes.

New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

416 | Japanese Language and Literature

1.1. A Case Study of Japanese Programs at Salinas Union HighSchool District
1.1.1. Brief background

Salinas Union High School District is located in Salinas, California, an
agriculture-rich area just one-hour drive South from Silicon Valley. The
district includes five comprehensive high schools, three alternative highschools, one vocational school, and three middle schools. All fivecomprehensive high schools offer thriving Japanese programs with eightfull time teachers catering to over 1000 students yearly in a predominantly
Hispanic and low-income community. Japanese language instruction in
the district has grown from one program to five programs between 1999
and 2019. The Japanese teachers organize numerous cultural events
together throughout the year as an extension of students’ learning and theevents are well attended by community members. It is seen as a model
program in the district.
Demographics of the teachers are the following:● Total number of Japanese teachers in Salinas Union High School District: 8● Female: 5; Male: 3● Non-native Japanese speaking teachers: 4; native Japanese speaking
teachers: 4

Among eight teachers, seven teachers speak with Standard Japanese,and one teacher speaks with a Kansai dialect.
Experiences and professional development of the teachers are thefollowing:● Teaching experience: less than 5 years: 4; between 6–10 years: 2; more than
20 years: 2● Two teachers currently serve as department chairs at their schools.
● All teachers spent more than 50 hours in professional development in 2019–2020.
● Five teachers have presented at state and national conferences and are also
leaders of state organizations such as the California Language Teachers
Association and the California Association of Japanese Language Teachers(CAJLT).
● Three teachers are team leaders of Monterey Bay World Language Project,a local professional organization that provides professional development
opportunities for world language teachers in Monterey County.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.135

Yo Azama | 417

In summary, while the eight teachers come from diverse backgrounds,
they share the common understanding and value of proficiency andperformance-based instruction. The development of such “common
language” in the diverse group grounded in a strong foundation whileadvancing teaching practices with new instructional foci. As a result, thegroup is recognized as a strong cohesive team that is constantly adapting
and evolving.
1.1.2. Instructional foci as common ground

One of the important reasons for a strong PLC is the district’s provision
for weekly collaboration time. All teachers are provided time tocollaborate once a week on a topic the PLC selects as a focus throughout
a semester or year. This teacher-driven approach encourages teacher
autonomy and sets the tone of the meetings. In our case, we Japaneseteachers first analyze various data points to identify our strengths and areas
for improvement in our instruction as our focus areas for the year. The key
element here is that the team makes the link between their actions andoutcomes explicitly. Setting goals that are evidence-driven, instructionallysound, relevant to our community, and attainable is a crucial first step inestablishing a culture of teacher learners. As this process of establishinglearning foci by the teachers begins by merely “noticing” strengths of thecurrent instructional practices and areas for growth, we were able to seeelements more objectively rather than emotionally or with the potential for
personal bias. This had an effect of promoting the team’s curiosity. As aresult, the desire to explore possible remedies emerged. For example, in2017 the Salinas Japanese Teachers PLC decided on exploring a Social
Justice theme in the curriculum in an effort to address the current social
environment and meet our students’ needs closely. As these are not areas
traditional textbooks cover, the team’s desire to bring learning
opportunities for students to explore the topics on equity, fairness, anddiversity through the lens of Japanese society prompted the group to revise
the existing curriculum. This illustrates that in order for us to bringinclusion in our lessons, we must practice inclusion in our professional
learning communities.
1.2. Professional Learning Community: Beyond the Safe Zone—
Establishing an Active PLC

How we run a PLC becomes very crucial in its effectiveness andproductivity. How can we ensure members’ voices are accurately heard?
What are some of the possible obstacles faced by our team members as weJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.135

418 | Japanese Language and Literature

ask them to “show up as who they are”? What can we do to promote equityof voice during the meetings? Mindful facilitation is essential for creating
not only a safe zone but also a “brave zone” where all participants can
express their diverse opinions in a respectful manner. Our team adapted
the Collaborative Norms known as the “Seven P’s” in addition to afacilitation format developed by Adaptive Schools (see Thinking
Collaborative website).
Seven Norms of Collaboration(1) Pausing
Pausing before responding or asking a question allows time for thinking andenhances dialogue, discussion, and decision-making.
(2) Paraphrasing
Using a paraphrase starter that is comfortable for you—“So…,” “As you
are…,” or “You’re thinking….”—and following the starter with an efficientparaphrase assists members of the group in hearing and understanding one
another as they converse and make decisions.
(3) Posing Questions
Two intentions of posing questions are to explore and to specify thinking.
Questions may be posed to explore perceptions, assumptions, andinterpretations, and to invite others to inquire into their thinking. For
example, “What might be some conjectures you are exploring?” Usefocusing questions such as, “Which students, specifically?” or “What might
be an example of that?” to increase the clarity and precision of groupmembers’ thinking. Inquire into others’ ideas before advocating one’s own.
(4) Putting Ideas on the Table
Ideas are the heart of meaningful dialogue and discussion. Label theintention of your comments. For example, “Here is one idea…,” “Onethought I have is…,” “Here is a possible approach…,” or “Anotherconsideration might be….”(5) Providing Data
Providing data, both qualitative and quantitative, in a variety of forms
supports group members in constructing shared understanding from theirwork. Data have no meaning beyond that which we make of them; shared
meaning develops from collaboratively exploring, analyzing, andinterpreting data.
(6) Paying Attention to Self and Others
Meaningful dialogue and discussion are facilitated when each groupmember is conscious of self and of others and is aware of what (s)he issaying and how it is said as well as how others are responding. This

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.135

Yo Azama | 419

includes paying attention to learning styles when planning, facilitating, andparticipating in group meetings and conversations.
(7) Presuming Positive Intentions
Assuming that others’ intentions are positive promotes and facilitates
meaningful dialogue and discussion and prevents unintentional put-downs.
Using positive intentions in speech is one manifestation of this norm.

The norms help all members to pay attention to their own feelings as wellas to others. In addition, they become more metacognitive about their own
way of being as they engage in group dialogues. Without all members
developing the same understanding and value of such norms andcommitting to their practice in group discussions, we are not able topractice true inclusion—resulting in a high chance of failure in seeking
diverse ideas. For this reason, a Japanese teacher community at any levelmust establish a PLC that promotes inclusivity and diverse ideas byestablishing clear common goals and providing opportunities and tools tocommunicate with one another. A high functioning PLC builds efficacy
among all team members; collective efficacy.
2. Self and Collective Efficacy
What contributes to a group’s effectiveness and confidence to improve? A
renowned psychologist on human motivation, Albert Bandura defines
collective efficacy as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capability toorganize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levelsof attainment” (1997:477). In a strong PLC, each member demonstrates
deep listening skills, the ability to suspend his or her own belief to create
space for other perspectives and presume positive intentions in others. Asa teacher with high self-efficacy is a valuable asset in the classroom,collective efficacy in a PLC yields more results and creates a synergetic
collaborative environment. John Hattie and Klaus Zierer’s Visible
Learning research on more than 1,500 meta-analyses further confirms
collective teacher efficacy as the most predictable indicator of student
achievement by far (2017:26). As we may not have control over certain
conditions such as creating more diverse or less diverse communities or
equal representations of various types of cultures, we do have control over
how we can bring diverse perspectives and experiences together in acommunity with common goals with mindful facilitation. The example
used in this section is a small one at a given school district. However, thismodel suggests important key elements as we build Japanese language

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.135

420 | Japanese Language and Literatureteacher communities that leverage our diversity at local, state, and national
levels.
3. From Who We Are to Who We Aspire to Be
I’m certain that our vision for “who we aspire to be” in the future can only
emerge from PLCs whose aims are to promote deep dialogues andexperiences which lead to collective efficacy of the community. Teacher
leadership trainings must address the needs for developing skills tofacilitate effective meetings, promote equity in voice, welcome diverse
viewpoints, suspend our own disbeliefs to allow possibility, communicate
meaningful realistic outcomes, reflect on our own thinking and ways tointeract in groups, and seek common ground among the team.
Establishment of effective PLCs is the foundation for creative solutions
we desperately need to address the challenges faced by our complex
learning and teaching environments in the modern world. Aside fromdeveloping as more skillful teachers, the most valuable outcome from the
PLC has been development of the disposition to approach our learning,
ways to relate to others, and finally the ability to build self and collective
efficacy among individuals with diverse views. The German philosopher
and poet, Goethe famously wrote, “What you can do or dream you can,begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it” (1867:14). In thisfast-paced world, it becomes challenging to carve out time forcollaboration. However, if we are to elevate ourselves to the next level, we
must remind ourselves of the power and magic of effective collaboration.
REFERENCES

Bandura, Albert. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. London:
Worth Publishers.
Garmston, Robert J., and Bruce M. Wellman. 1999. The Adaptive School:
A Sourcebook for Developing Collaborative Groups. Norwood,
Mass.: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. 1867. Faust. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz.
Hattie, John, and Zierer, Klaus. 2017. 10 Mindframes for Visible Learning:
Teaching for Success. London: Taylor & Francis.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.135

Yo Azama | 421

Japan Foundation. 2015. Survey on Japanese Language Education
Institutions.
https://www.jflalc.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/jle/JF_
Survey_Report_2015.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2019.
Palmer, Parker J. 1998. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner
Landscape of a Teacher’s Life. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
Thinking Collaborative. https://www.thinkingcollaborative.com/ Accessed July 26, 2020.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.135

Japanese Language and Literature
Journal of the American Association of Teachers of Japanese
jll.pitt.edu | Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134
ISSN 1536-7827 (print) 2326-4586 (online)

AATJ’s Role in Diversity and Inclusion: An Opportunity toTransform into a Well-Integrated Organization
Suwako Watanabe

1. Introduction
According to the survey results, 57% of the survey respondents said no to
the question, “Is the Japanese language educator community in North
America diverse one?” (Mori, Hasegawa, Park, and Suzuki, this volume).
This result suggests that the American Association of Teachers ofJapanese (AATJ) as a professional organization needs to improve diversity
within the field. What is a more important question is whether or not ourorganization and its membership as a whole embrace the value of diversity
and put it into practice in every aspect of their profession on a daily basis.
The survey results make it clear there is disparity and division among ourmembers according to varying language background and instructional
levels. Now that we have the results and can see the kinds of issues being
raised, we need to reflect on these issues and try to understand how theyarose. Based on my experience of having served three nationalorganizations (ATJ, NCJLT, and AATJ) as an officer and on the boards of
directors, I will first elaborate on these issues and point out that AATJ has
missed the opportunity to integrate the two organizations, the Associationof Teacher of Japanese (ATJ) and the National Council of Japanese
Language Teachers (NCJLT) after they merged. In order to improve thecurrent situation, I suggest that AATJ transform into a full organization ofwell-integrated members by (1) reevaluating the current mission andbylaws in order to have a common goal or vision adopting the spirit ofdiversity and inclusion as a core value, (2) strengthening its commitment
to fostering a climate conducive to open and respectful exchange of ideas,and (3) articulating what it aims to instill in students.

New articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 United States License.
This journal is published by the University Library System, University ofPittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is
cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

424 | Japanese Language and Literature

2. Issues of Disparity and Divisions in Japanese Language
Education
2.1 History and Context: Consolidation without Integration

Before their merger in 2012, the Association of Teachers of Japanese(ATJ) and the National Council of Japanese Language Teachers (NCJLT)
had been in existence with separate systems of governance. According to
the AATJ’s website (www.aatj.org), ATJ was founded in 1963, and themembership was mainly comprised of college level scholars andinstructors from academic units such as “Far Eastern Languages” and“[Department] of Chinese and Japanese” (Association of Teachers ofJapanese 1963). In the editorial notes in the ATJ’s inaugural publicationof its journal, Viglielmo (1963:2) states, “the publication stimulates …
discussion of the many problems concerning Japanese language teaching,”
thus it is inferred that initially the ATJ’s primary concerns were
specifically related to Japanese language teaching. Two decades later, inthe wake of Japan’s economic success in the 1970s, many K-12 schools
started to offer Japanese, which resulted in a rapid increase in numbers ofboth learners and instructors of Japanese at the K-12 level in the UnitedStates (Miura 1990:29). According to the Modern Language Association’s(MLA) census data, there were 2,718 learners of Japanese in 1963, which
increased to 11,516 in 1980 (MLA census data). Remembering how
NCJLT was formed, Kazuo Tsuda, one of the founding directors, recounts
that the National Foreign Language Center in Washington D.C., ATJ, andthe Japan Foundation language center “organized the first conference forJapanese secondary teacher” where Hiroshi Miyaji, then president of ATJ
asked Tsuda to create an organization for secondary teachers in 1991
(National Council of Japanese Language Teachers 2011). In the following
year, 1992, K-12 Japanese instructors founded the National Council of
Secondary Teachers of Japanese (NCSTJ), which later changed its nameto National Council of Japanese Language Teachers (NCJLT).
Subsequently, the burst of Japan’s economic bubble resulted in diminishedfunding resources to support non-profit organizations. In 1999, in order toarticulate the two national organizations as well as streamline
administrative work especially for financial transaction, a thirdorganization, the Alliance of Associations of Teachers of Japanese, wasformed. This three-some infrastructure was maintained for a while
although there were some challenges such as scheduling a date for a joint
board meeting for approximately twenty officers and directors. In 2008,
concerned members of our profession and other stakeholders proposed toJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134

Suwako Watanabe | 425

ATJ and NCJLT the idea of merging both organizations with the statedreasons that decreasing resources could be utilized in more effective ways
such as cutting back costs for board meetings from two organizations toone, and also trying to simplify office administration.1 With a little over a
year of research on feasibility by a task force, the governing bodies of ATJ
and NCJLT voted on the merger. A transition team was formed to solve
many issues such as different membership fees, governance structures,
integration of the NCJLT’s local affiliate associations, and viable ways tohost two conferences annually, one with the American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) and the other with the
Association for Asian Studies (AAS). After many discussions anddeliberations by the task force, ATJ and NCJLT merged to become thecurrent AATJ in 2012.
Although the issues related to organizational structure and governancewere solved, AATJ as an organization has not quite acted in unity, instead
working like a patchwork of different subgroups usually divided by factors
like instructional level (K-12 and college), language background (L1 andL2), and disciplinary training. Since the merger in 2012, AATJ has offereda variety of programs and activities to serve the needs of both K-12 andcollege levels, expanding the Nengajo Contest and JNHS (Japanese
National Honor Society) programs to the college level. However, it has
fallen behind when it comes to nurturing a climate where various
subgroups are encouraged to openly exchange ideas. We need morecollaborative work across borders of instructional levels, language
backgrounds, and disciplinary fields under a common vision in order toadvance the field of Japanese studies.
2.2 Divisions Between Levels and Language Backgrounds

The division between K-12 and college levels within the field of Japanese
language education seems to have remained unsolved since the merger in2012. Some of the comments by K-12 instructors in the survey (Mori etal., this volume) mention lack of articulation because of the divide between
K-12 and college levels. The division is clearly reflected in theparticipation groups of AATJ’s two conferences: many K-12 instructors
attend the fall conference affiliated with ACTFL while most of theattendees at the spring conference affiliated with AAS are college level
instructors.
While articulation across the levels (including between programs) areusually concerned with issues of pedagogical approach andJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134

426 | Japanese Language and Literatureadministrative/operational structure, the predominance of L1 instructors at
the college level may have contributed to distorted nature of thearticulation issue in the Japanese language education field. According to
the survey (Mori et al., this volume), whereas the percentages of L1 andL2 Japanese teachers at K-12 levels are 57.9% and 41.3% respectively, thepercentages at the college level are 83% and 13.2%. The predominance of
L1 Japanese teachers at the college level is striking. And the highest
number of respondents (39.2%) chose “ethnic/cultural background” as the
aspect lacking diversity, which is followed by the answer of “gender andsexuality” (24.2%). One respondent commented, “The divide between thesecondary and tertiary education contributes to a damaging tacit belief that
non-native speakers will never be able to achieve a particularly high levelof proficiency.” This comment indicates a perception that the college levelis equated to the L1 group.
The predominance of Japanese native-speaking teachers at one level
poses two issues that L1 Japanese teachers must acknowledge andcritically examine. One is a deeply held belief that Japanese is a difficult
language, so a non-native speaker cannot master it fully. And the other isthe danger of becoming insensitive to multiculturalism. In describing
issues in a K-16 articulation project in Colorado in late 1990s, Saegusa(1999:34–35) makes the following point, “Many native-speaking teachersand other native speakers of Japanese are stuck on the notion that a teacher
must speak Japanese perfectly in order to teach it. As a consequence, some
do not believe that a non-native speaker can be trained to become aJapanese teacher.” The same point is indirectly reflected in the survey
results on native-speakerism. A high percentage (61.9%) of L2 Japaneseteachers strongly agreed with the statement: “Being a native speaker is not
an important characteristic of a good Japanese teacher,” while L1 Japaneseteachers’ agreement was split between “Strongly Agree” and “Agree,”with 34.1% and 34.9% respectively (Mori et al., this volume). The
question of why many of the L1 respondents did not choose “Strongly
Agree” remains unknown; however, as pointed out by Saegusa (1999), it
is possible that many L1 Japanese teachers hold on to the belief that nativespeakerhood is an essential element of a good Japanese teacher.
The second issue is that working in a circle predominated by L1
Japanese teachers runs the risk of getting too dependent on their own
language and culture out of convenience, and thereby losing sight of how
L2 Japanese teachers feel marginalized. According to the episodeintroduced as Excerpt 5 in Mori et al., (this volume), an L2 JapaneseJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134

Suwako Watanabe | 427

teacher participated in an email correspondence group among L1 Japaneseteachers in Japanese but gradually withdrew from the group, with thedifficulty of the formal Japanese writing style being mentioned as apossible cause for the L2 instructor’s withdrawal. The episode prompts us
to examine the degree of multicultural sensitivity that L1 Japaneseteachers exercise. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, L1 Japaneseteachers’ group may create invisible barriers that are difficult to break for
L2 Japanese teachers who then, as a result, may feel marginalized.
Furthermore, what is decisively damaging is that L1 Japanese teachers
subconsciously impart a notion of superiority of native-speakerhood tostudents. Currently, there seems to be the lack of a climate that promotes
an honest, respectful, and constructive exchange of different views andperspectives between the L1 and L2 groups and the K-12 and college
levels.2 Regardless of the language and cultural background, any
professional is expected to know how to build a working environment thatis multiculturally sensitive and inclusive.
2.3 Division Between Language and Content at College Level

Although division between language and content at the college level may
not be within the scope of the survey, this issue is relevant to AATJ as its
mission and bylaws include Japanese language, literature, linguistics, andpedagogy as disciplinary fields it serves. The language-content divide isclosely related to the bifurcated structure in a program pointed out in the
MLA report (2007). The bifurcation issue may not be as profound inliberal arts colleges and small programs headed by a few faculty members,
but it seems to be an on-going challenge for the field of foreign/second
language education in general. Lomicka and Lord (2018:119), delving into
the impact of the MLA’s 2007 report after ten years, concluded “We still
face the need to transform both the structure of our departments and theofferings of our programs.” At institutions where the language-content
structure is in place, positions for language instructors tend to be nontenure line and are more vulnerable in a budget crisis, while those for othercontent areas such as literature, linguistics, history, anthropology, andreligion tend to be more secure with a tenure-line status. Sometimes alanguage instructor needs to teach more hours or accept more students thanthey could reasonably manage and may be pressured to compromise theintegrity of their instruction. These inequal conditions for language
instructors can be construed as a reflection of the undervaluing of language
teaching and reinforces a hierarchical relationship between language andcontent areas.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134

428 | Japanese Language and Literature

The language-content divide in our field can also be detected in the
fragmented ways of participation in the AATJ’s activities and governance.
At the AATJ spring conference, there are not many opportunities during
the conference where members from different disciplinary fields areencouraged to network and engage in intellectually stimulating discussionthat lead to collaborative scholarship. Such an opportunity does take place
as an AATJ sponsored session during the AAS conference after the
AATJ’s spring conference is over, but most members in the language
education field are gone by then. Moreover, there seems to be apreconception that AAS is for content areas such as political science,
history, literature, anthropology, and religion, and there is little space for
language education. In terms of the representation in the AATJ’s
governance, a disproportionate representation can be observed. According
to the list of Officers and Directors of AATJ between 2012 and 2019obtained from the AATJ Office, only two out of twenty-six individuals arefrom the literature field. I am not criticizing any particular field here, but
the seemingly disproportionate representation calls for examination to see
if the current representation serves the members’ needs properly or it isindicative of problems, such as an unhealthy divide among disciplinary
fields.
3. Suggestions for Future Actions: What Should AATJ Do?
As mentioned in 2.1, when the merger of the two organizations took place,
we missed the opportunity to develop a common goal that enables
members with different backgrounds to work together as a cohesive
organization. In order to close the gaps between subgroups of level,
language background, and discipline, and to become a well-integratedorganization, AATJ needs to reevaluate the current mission and bylaws,
find a common ground among subgroups, and set up a vision under which
members can collaborate to advance the field toward the shared vision.
According to Mcmillan’s dictionary, vision is “someone’s idea or hope of
how something should be done, or how it will be in the future” (Mcmillan).
A review of the AATJ’s current mission (quoted below) and its bylaws
reveals that they lack a vision in terms of (1) what impact the organization
wishes to have on society (local, national, and global communities), and(2) what it envisions its students to attain through the study of Japanese.
In addition, it lacks a core value that requires the organization to foster a
climate for open exchanges and productive collaboration among members
throughout the field.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134

Suwako Watanabe | 429

3.1 A Vision, a Common Ground

The following is the mission statement from the AATJ’s website.
The American Association of Teachers of Japanese is a non-profit, nonpolitical organization of individuals and institutions seeking to promote thestudy of Japanese language, linguistics, literature, culture, and pedagogy, at
all levels of instruction. AATJ fosters professional development, thepromotion of Japanese and foreign language education, and the exchange of
research, and seeks to coordinate its activities with related organizations topromote Japanese studies, including a network of state and regional affiliateorganizations. … (American Association of Teachers of Japanese Mission
Statement)

The purposes of the organization, excerpted from its bylaws, are as
follows:
a. To promote and encourage cooperation and exchange among scholars,teachers, and students of Japanese language, linguistics, and literature, andothers engaged in those activities, and to promote academic work and foster
research and study in those fields and to broaden and deepen knowledge ofJapan and its culture.
b. To promote the exchange of ideas, information, and experience relevantto the concerns of its members through meetings, educational seminars,
publications, correspondence, and other such activities.
c. To encourage the development and dissemination of superior methods ofteaching Japanese language, linguistics, and literature, and to aid in theattainment of increased teaching expertise, broad competence, intellectual
depth, and overall professional excellent.
d. To be engaged with regional, national, and international developments inthe fields mentioned above and related areas. (American Association ofTeachers of Japanese Bylaws)

As for the purpose statement (a), the scope of Japanese studies isinward-looking, and it does not include how Japanese studies areconcerned with the world outside of Japanese studies. In other words, itdoes not articulate what significance Japanese studies should bring about
to members of the surrounding communities. Other professionalorganizations articulate how they hope to impact the surrounding world.
For example, ACTFL views its role as being “uniquely positioned to help
bridge the ideological gaps that divide our nation,” and describes its visionof the world to be a place where “diversity and intercultural competence

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134

430 | Japanese Language and Literatureare qualities that must be embraced” (American Council on the Teachingof Foreign Languages 2016). The American Association of Applied
Linguistics’ (AAAL) vision can be identified in its mission statement,
which says that the “mission of AAAL is to facilitate the advancement anddissemination of knowledge and understanding regarding languagerelated issues in order to improve the lives of individuals and conditions
in society” (American Association of Applied Linguistics, emphasis by
the author). As members of AATJ, we should ask ourselves what impact
our scholarly and educational endeavors should have on the United States
as well as the global society. We need to find a common ground toconstruct a new vision.
One driving force for AATJ to become more cohesive under a sharedvision might be the current tendency toward weakening of humanities
studies. AATJ should encourage members from various disciplinary fields
as well as different levels to work together to make Japanese studies
sustainable in US education while keeping its wide accessibility. Recently
liberal arts studies are getting weaker due to the strong emphasis on STEM,
and it is necessary to reaffirm the value of the humanities disciplines aswell as that of language study. Language study prepares undergraduate
students to become scholars in other area studies in future or professionals
who utilize their linguistic and cultural competence in various sectors.
3.2 Diversity and Inclusion as a Core Value to Foster a Collegial
ClimateThe purpose statement (a) above states that AATJ encourages cooperation
among scholars, teachers, and students, but it does not mention
cooperation between levels, institutions, nor among various subgroups. As
the survey results show more cases of division than collaboration,systematic collaboration has not been happening across levels, disciplines,
and linguistic backgrounds except for some activities such as AP Japanese.
AATJ should create a culture where diverse professional backgrounds ofmembers are viewed as strengths that will enable Japanese studies to besustainable for a long time with no individual member feelingmarginalized or inferior because of their attributes such as rank, discipline,or language background.
To promote collaboration within the AATJ, the organization needs tofacilitate fora where members of diverse backgrounds are able to exchange
information and ideas openly and respectfully on an equal footing. Such a
climate can be realized by adopting diversity and inclusion as a core value.
Other professional organizations such as AAS and AAAL, recognize theJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134

Suwako Watanabe | 431

value of diversity. AAAL views diversity as “an asset within ourcommunity and a source of learning and opportunity” (American
Association of Applied Linguistics 2013). AAS recognizes diversity as
something that “strengthens the community by harnessing a variety ofskills, perspectives, talents, and resources to meet new challenges”(Association for Asian Studies).
In the purpose statement (b), AATJ is to promote exchange of
information relevant to “the concerns of its members.” The concerns
should include not only scholarly concerns within individual member’s
disciplinary field (such as second language acquisition, grammar, andmedieval literature) but also issues covering various aspects ofprofessionalism, such as inequity in a work setting and hiring practice aswell as an overall climate within the professional field. It is also important
to ensure equitable representation in the organizational governance.
Currently AATJ provides various activities and programs such asprofessional development, the Nengajo Contest, the Japanese NationalExam, advocacy, conferences, JNHS, and Special Interest Groups (SIG).
The executive officers and each director should examine each activity to
see if there are any aspects where diversity is neglected. They should also
be proactive in finding ways to promote diversity and inclusion. For
example, a workshop on how to incorporate the value of diversity andinclusion in existing curriculum may be offered as an AATJ professional
development program. Directors should critically evaluate if any programs
inadvertently exclude any students or teachers. When advocating forJapanese studies, we often highlight uniqueness about Japanese language
and culture, but we need to make sure that the appeal of uniqueness does
not promote exclusiveness and elitism.
3.3 Students

Lastly, we need to include students in our vision, i.e., what we wish to
instill in our students and want them to achieve through the study ofJapanese. Both ACTFL (2016) and MLA (2007) reiterate that multilingualand multicultural competence is critical for our students to be successful
in the increasingly diversified global society. ACTFL issued a clear
statement as to what students are expected to attain by saying that it“ensure[s] that language learners become linguistically and culturallycompetent to succeed in the global economy and develop the ability tointeract respectfully with others both here in the U.S. and around theworld.” The American Association of Teachers of French (AATF) and theJapanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134

432 | Japanese Language and Literature

American Association of Teachers of German (AATG) also explicitly
state that they aim at preparing students to attain multilingual ability andmulticultural understanding (American Association of Teachers ofFrench; American Association of Teachers of German website).
When we develop our vision for our students, diversity and inclusion
are vital components. ACTFL links the value of diversity to students in thefollowing statement. ACTFL (2019) will foster “contexts that are inclusiveof diverse backgrounds and perspectives by … drawing on its diversity tobuild teacher capacity, and recruiting and retaining a language teacher
workforce more closely aligned with the ever-changing demographics of
our student bodies” (ACTFL 2019). Our student bodies today are much
more diversified in terms of their ethnic background, learning styles,
motivation, and learning purpose. We have no choice but to view diversity
as a source of strength and draw on it. Furthermore, diversity among
instructors inspires students to become scholars or teachers of Japanesestudies in the future. In order to secure a pool of future professionals aswell as encourage life-long learning, we need to create a synergy among
various disciplinary fields and across levels and schools.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, I encourage professionals who are relatively new to the fieldof Japanese studies to take leadership in overcoming any disparity between
disciplines, language backgrounds, and levels and set a new direction forour professional organization to tackle new challenges in many years tocome. The issue of diversity and inclusion provides us with a welcome
opportunity to generate synergies among various sub-groups within thefield and strengthen the organization so that Japanese studies can thrive by
becoming accessible to the greatest number and the greatest range ofindividuals possible.
NOTES

1. This information was obtained from the minutes of NCJLT board meeting on
October 4, 2008, the joint meeting of NCJLT, ATJ, and AATJ on October 5, 2008,
and NCJLT board meeting on September 25, 2010, owned by this author.
2. AP Japanese is an excellent example of providing a venue where instructors at
the secondary and college levels work together every year. However, it is a
program directed by the College Board.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134

Suwako Watanabe | 433
REFERENCES

American Association of Applied Linguistics. 2013. Resolution
Affirming Commitment to Promoting Diversity in AAAL (March2013). https://www.aaal.org/resolutions. Accessed May 8, 2020.
———. Our Mission. https://www.aaal.org/our-mission. Accessed May 8,
2020.
American Association of Teachers of French. Mission. https://frenchteachers.org/about/mission/. Accessed May 8, 2020.
American Association of Teachers of German. Our Mission.
https://www.aatg.org/. Accessed May 8, 2020.
American Association of Teachers of Japanese. Mission Statement.
https://www.aatj.org/mission-statement. Accessed May 8, 2020.
———. n.d. Bylaws.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2016. Position
Statement on Diversity and Inclusion in World Language Teachingand
Learning.
https://www.actfl.org/news/position-statements/
diversity-and-inclusion-world-language-teaching-learning. Accessed
May 8, 2020.
———. 2019. Statement on Diversity and Inclusion in World Language
Teaching and Learning. https://www.actfl.org/resources/pressreleases/actfl-releases-statement-diversity-and-inclusion. Accessed
July 9, 2020.
Association for Asian Studies. Diversity Requirements. https://www.
asianstudies.org/conference/program/call-for-proposals/diversityrequirements/. Accessed May 8, 2020.
Association of Teachers of Japanese. 1963. Back Matter. The JournalNewsletter of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 1(1):35–37.
Lomicka, Lara. and Gillian Lord. 2018. Ten Years After the MLA Report:
What Has Changed in Foreign Language Departments? ADFL
Bulletin 44(2):116–120.
Mcmillan Dictionary, s.v. “vision.” Accessed May 8, 2020.
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/vision

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134

434 | Japanese Language and Literature

Miura, Akira. 1990. Amerika shakai ni okeru nihongo kyōiku no tenkai.
Nihongo kyōiku 70:21–33.
MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. 2007. Foreign
Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed
World. Modern Language Association, www.mla.org/flreport.
Accessed May 8, 2020.
MLA
Student
Enrollment
Census.
https://apps.mla.org/cgishl/docstudio/docs.pl?flsurvey_results. Accessed July 3, 2020.
Mori, Junko, Atsushi Hasegawa, Jisuk Park, and Kimiko Suzuki. (Thisvolume.) On Goals of Language Education and Teacher Diversity:
Beliefs and Experiences of Japanese-Language Educators in North
America. Japanese Language and Literature 54(2): 267–304.
National Council of Japanese Language Teachers. 2011. Oshirase NCJLT
Newsletter, 18.
Saegusa, Kyoko. 1999. Issues in Articulating Japanese K-16. ADFL
Bulletin 30(3):32–35.
Viglielmo, Valdo. H. 1963. Editorial Notes. The Journal-Newsletter of the
Association of Teachers of Japanese 1:2.

Japanese Language and Literature | jll.pitt.edu
Vol. 54 | Number 2 | October 2020 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2020.134

CONTRIBUTORS
Jotaro Arimori (jotaro.arimori@utoronto.ca) is Associate Professor,
Teaching Stream, in the Department of East Asian Studies at the
University of Toronto. His research interests include language
pedagogy, inclusive language education, and Japanese linguistics.
His current research primarily focuses on the intersection of gender,
sexual diversity and Japanese language education.
Yo Azama (azamasensei@gmail.com) serves as Lead Instructional
Coach for Salinas Union High School District in California. He has
experience of more than twenty-five years of teaching Japanese in
K–12. He also teaches a World Language Teaching Method course
at California State University, Monterey Bay. He was the 2012
ACTFL Language Teacher of the Year.
Mahua Bhattacharya (bhattacharm@etown.edu) is Professor ofJapanese in the School of Arts and Humanities at Elizabethtown
College, Pennsylvania. Her interest in Japanese language ideology
emanates from her doctoral dissertation titled “InterpersonalCommunication in Modern Japan: A Semiotic Analysis of
Sociological Texts,” in which she explored the ideological uses of
keigo. She has taught Japanese and Asian studies courses in several
institutions, both in the U. S. and India, and has participated innational and international conferences on Japanese language
pedagogy, women’s studies, and Japanese literature.
Brian C. Dowdle (brian.dowdle@mso.umt.edu) is Associate
Professor and Co-Chair in the department of World Languages andCultures at the University of Montana. His work focuses on thereception and reproduction of late Edo-period literature (1790–
1868) during the Meiji Period (1868–1912) and the formation ofmodern Japanese literature. He is the author of “Why Saikaku Was
Memorable but Bakin Was Unforgettable,” published in The
Journal of Japanese Studies.
Atsushi Hasegawa (atsushih@hawaii.edu) is Assistant Professor ofJapanese Language and Linguistics at the University of Hawaiʻi at
Mānoa. His research interests include language pedagogy,classroom interaction, and language socialization in various
multilingual contexts. He is the author of The Social Lives of Study
Abroad: Understanding Second Language Learners’ Experiences
through Social Network Analysis and Conversation Analysis(Routledge, 2019).
Jessica Lee Haxhi (jessica.haxhi@new-haven.k12.ct.us) has been
the Supervisor of World Languages in New Haven Public Schools
since 2013. Before that, she taught PreK–5 Japanese for twenty years

in Waterbury, CT. She is Past President of NCJLT, Past Co-Presidentof AATJ, served on the Board of NECTFL, and teaches world
language methods courses at Southern Connecticut State
University. Jessica is President-Elect of ACTFL.
Ryuko
Kubota(ryuko.kubota@ubc.ca) is Professor in the
Department of Language and Literacy Education in Faculty of
Education at University of British Columbia, where she teaches
applied linguistics and teacher education. Her research draws on
critical approaches to second language education, focusing on race,
gender, culture, and language ideologies.
ArthurM. Mitchell(amitche3@macalester.edu) is Associate
Professor at Macalester College, where he teaches courses inJapanese language and literature. His monograph, Disruptions ofDaily Life: Japanese Literary Modernism in the World (Cornell,2020), examines literary modernism in Japan from a transnational
perspective with a specific focus on how modernist fiction critiqued
the social ideologies of 1920s Japan. He has a keen interest in
developing pedagogies of inclusivity and introducing equity into
institutions of higher education.
Junko Mori (jmori@wisc.edu) is Professor of Japanese language andlinguistics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. By using
conversation analysis as a central framework, she has investigated
the relationship between linguistic structures and organizations ofsocial interaction, classroom discourse, and interculturalcommunication. Her recent studies address issues concerning
diversity and inclusion manifested in various professional
communities and workplaces.
Amy Snyder Ohta (aohta@uw.udu) is Associate Professor at the
University of Washington, Seattle, where she teaches Japaneseapplied linguistics. Her work applies sociocultural theory toconsideration of developmental processes in adult learners ofJapanese, with recent work focusing on interventionist studies in thearea of concept-based instruction.
Jisuk Park (parkjisuk3@gmail.com) taught Japanese at Columbia
University (2002–2019). She has been appointed AssistantProfessor of Japanese at the University of Toronto starting in Spring
2021. Her research interests include language pedagogy, projectbased learning, and curriculum design. Her recent studies focus on
exploring ways to apply Social Networking Approach to foreign
language education.
Kimiko Suzuki (ksuzuki@haverford.edu) is Lecturer of Japanese atHaverford College. Her research interests include language
pedagogy and curriculum development.

Jae DiBello Takeuchi (jtakeuc@clemson.edu) is Assistant Professor ofJapanese and Director of the Language and International Business
Program at Clemson University. Dr. Takeuchi’s specialty is
Japanese sociolinguistics and second language acquisition.
Her research focuses on Japanese-as-a-second-language speakers
who are long- term residents of Japan. She is particularly interested
in how they navigate speech styles, such as dialects and keigo. Dr.
Takeuchi teaches Japanese language, Japanese culture, andlinguistics.
Shinsuke Tsuchiya (s.tsuchiya@byu.edu) is Assistant Professor ofJapanese at Brigham Young University. His research interests
include perceptions of native speakers and language pedagogy. He
is one of the authors of the new Japanese textbook series NihonGO
NOW! published by Routledge. His recent publications are found injournals such as Foreign Language Annals and Journal of
American Association for Applied Linguistics.
Suwako Watanabe (suwako@pdx.edu) is Professor of Japanese andAssociate Chair in the Department of World Languages andLiteratures at Portland State University. She also serves as Section
Head of the Japanese language program and Director for theInstitute for Asian Studies. Her research interests include discourse
analysis, interactional sociolinguistics, and language assessment.
Etsuyo Yuasa (yuasa.1@osu.edu) is Associate Professor in the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at The Ohio State University. She has written Modularity in Language (Mouton de Gruyter, 2005)
and numerous papers on Japanese syntax and individualized instruction.
She teaches advanced Japanese, Japanese grammar, Japanese linguistics,
and pedagogical grammar regularly.