Comment 5

Abstract

Martin Schell's paper rightly argues that the Japanese have no intention of developing an independent variety of English, while Kachru (2005: ch. 4) favorably overestimates the Japanese potentiality of developing a Japanese English variety. In Japan, English is not used by the majority, nor is it used often enough for it to be established as Japanese English. Rather, the Japanese will stay norm-dependent, with a strong desire to learn native-speaker English. Their adoration and inferiority complex toward Westerners have not changed in the 120 years since Fukuzawa Yukichi argued that Japan should emulate the advanced nations of the West and dissociate itself from the backward Asian countries to avoid being exploited by the Western imperialists, using the slogan datsu-a nyuu-oh (‘Leave Asia and enter the West’). This adoration of Western culture, and indeed of that which is seen as racially Caucasian, is reflected in comic books and animated cartoons, in which the Japanese characters are depicted with big blue eyes, blond hair, and Caucasian features. Japanese couples go to Europe or the United States and marry in church even though they are not Christians and have never gone to church or read the Bible. Kachru (2005: 90) refers to the “native speaker” syndrome: they want to speak like native speakers and learn English from native English speakers. To them, native speakers are middle-class Caucasians. They spend vast amount of time, energy, and billions of dollars at English language schools, TV and radio programs, and so on but without much success. The author's coinage, “colingual”, is interesting but its raison d'être is not clear. It would have been kinder to the reader if he had explained more specifically what it is and why the term is better than “near-native” or “almost L1.” Certainly, advertising slogans in English are abundant in Japan, but they are basically borrowings, most of which are words and phrases incorporated into the linguistic framework of the Japanese language. The majority of Japanese who are exposed to these English-originated loanwords and loan-phrases do not feel they are using English as bilinguals. Even if they read and speak slogans such as “For Beautiful Human Life,”“My Life, My Gas,”“Let's Communicate” (Kachru, 2005: 79), they nevertheless are, and feel themselves to be, Japanese monolinguals. The author cites Singaporeans as “L2 colinguals,” but “L2” is rapidly shifting to “L1” there. Singaporeans are educated in English from Grade 1 onward, use English in school, at the workplace, on the street, and even at home. Their exposure to English is massive and they communicate in English daily. Chinese Singaporeans, for example, use English not only with Malaysian and Tamilian Singaporeans but with fellow Chinese Singaporeans. Their L1 used to be Hokkien, but now they use “learned” Mandarin at home and among themselves. Nevertheless, for the younger generation, English has become the common language in both their public and private life. Schell's conclusion that “new national varieties will not be created in Northern Europe despite the abundance of communication in English there” may be met with the counter-argument that a wider regional variety, Euro-English (Yano, 2001: 126; 2006: 42), may be formed as the de facto lingua franca of multicultural Europe. This could turn out to be a distinct and yet pan-European variety, neither national nor Anglo-American. In Asia too, Asian English, the pan-Asian lingua franca, is being established. The official language of ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) is English. In RELC (the Regional Language Centre) in Singapore, Asian ELT professionals, not native English speakers, train and retrain English-language teachers of ASEAN member nations, thus Asianizing English toward the establishment of Asian English, a variety foreign to Western cultural patterns such as the Judeo-Christian cultural tradition. English learners, especially young learners, are on the rapid increase as countries introduce English into the primary school curriculum on the global scale. Graddol (2006: 122) predicts that in the foreseeable future English will become a basic skill, not a special talent. If he is right, the geography-based model of English use such as the Kachruvian Three Circles model will be replaced by the individual person-based model of proficiency. Therefore, Schell's conclusion that the Kachruvian model should be retained is arguable, in that it is based only on the observation of the Japanese, Singaporean, and Northern European cases.