I’ve got a fair bit of training to deliver
over the next few weeks and I need to get some ducks in a row, so here are some
thoughts on the above (which is basically just a glorified way of describing
the inevitable ‘Can we use Japanese in class?’ question). Imagine it’s
addressed to an audience of new or minimally experienced ALTs, and also bear in
mind that I might cut and/or tone down a fair bit of it – writing this is part
of the process of whittling it back to the core message (still need to provide enough
explanation to avoid training by diktat, however).
“It probably won’t surprise many of you if
I say that there are a number of problems with Japan’s relationship with the
English language. However, if you dig beneath the superficialities you’ll find
that almost all of these problems stem from how foreign languages in general,
and English in specific, are conceived of over here. English in Japan is
conceived of as an object, not a process. It’s a commodity to be sold,
an academic subject to be studied, and not a living language, an ongoing method
of negotiating meaning among a community of users (which is what all languages
are, really).
“This is why you see all the ‘hilarious’ Engrish
on t-shits and adverts. This is English as a commodity; it basically exists
here as an element of graphic design and is intended to convey some
sociocultural and ideational meaning, but no linguistic meaning whatsoever. Object, not process. It’s also a
conception which is manifested in and promoted by the way English is generally
taught in Japanese schools.
“Now, in fairness, every large-scale, bureaucratized
education system will tend to objectify understanding, to treat knowledge as a
collection of discrete ‘things’ which can be standardized, organized, examined,
and –crucially– the ‘ownership’ of which can be evaluated (tests, I’m talking
about test here). But, as is so often the case, the situation is Japan is one
where a globally common phenomenon has been pushed to such a point where it can
initially appear to be completely different or unique.
“Because the situation in Japan, and
Japanese schools specifically, is an almost perfect storm of objectification.
Take the ‘Grammar Translation’ method: in and of itself it’s as valid a method
of tuition – as useful a tool – as any other; the main complaint most people
have with it is that it’s usually the only
method which is used, regardless of suitability, and that can sometime be like
using a hammer to drive in a screw.
“The issue I have with it here is more
specific. The issue here is that, perhaps more than any other method, it
promotes this idea of language as object
– the ‘slot and filler’ conception of language as a succession of discrete
units with clearly and unambiguously delineated boundaries: subject, verb,
object; noun phrase, verb phrase, complement; box, box, box; tick, tick, tick.
And this is further exacerbated by the way it’s taught by most JTEs – slap the
target English structure on the board, and then explain what it ‘really’ means
in Japanese: ‘This is the artifact we shall study at a remove, and to explain
it to you I’ll now have to use a ‘real’ language, because English is
demonstrably insufficient to adequately convey what I need to say.’
“Again, to a certain degree this is a
universal weakness with basic foreign language instruction in any country, and
so teachers and planners adopt strategies to compensate for this weakness. In
Japan, the principal strategy that’s been chosen is you. We’ve been hired based almost solely on our ability to use the English language. We’ve been
hired specifically to compensate for those weaknesses in the system by
providing a model of English in use, by being a tangible embodiment of English
as a living, viable process of communication. You’ve not been hired to explain
grammar in Japanese; they’ve already got people who can do that, and they can
all do it better than you.
“So this is why it’s especially damaging
when you, when we, use Japanese in the classroom. Believe me I understand the temptation
to explain an activity quickly using Japanese so the students can spend more
time on the production phase. We want to get them using the language as much as
possible, right? But the trouble is, by switching to Japanese because it’s more
immediately convenient than English you’re actively denying them the chance to
really use it. Language in use is not an abstract, it’s not a gap fill exercise
conducted because your teacher told
you to do so, language in use is the telling
itself. Language in use is the negotiation of real, purposeful meaning
between users, with real, observable outcomes.
“So, every time you use Japanese in class because
it’s more immediately convenient than English, the message you’re sending to
you students is the same as the JTE’s: English is an artifact to be studied,
not a real language to be used. What are your students going to take from that?
You’re a native speaker! If you can’t make English work as a real
method of communication, how the hell are they meant to? ‘Well, if even
Trevor-Sensei needs to use Japanese then what hope do we have?’
“Every time you use Japanese in class
because it’s more immediately convenient than English you subtly reinforce your
students’ conceptions of English as ‘merely’ an academic subject and incrementally
undermine your own claims that
English is a viable, living, real language for communication. Every time you
use Japanese in class because it’s more immediately convenient than English you
give your students tacit license to do the same. Every time you use Japanese in
class because it’s more immediately convenient than English you defeat the
entire point of you even being there in the first place.
“So no Japanese in the classroom. Make it
work in English, because that, that’s
your job now.”
No comments:
Post a Comment