Philip Seargent (2009). Multilingual Matters: Bristol
I ran across this at the end of my digging
around for the sociolinguistics module. I didn’t have time to read it then, but
it’s clearly relevant to my interests so I read it anyway when a window opened
up. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it’s in large part an extended
exercise in discourse analysis, so that ties in very nicely.
The Idea…
holds as its core thesis that English in Japan is essentially a cultural
commodity, and in this role as a commodity performs a completely different
function to what may more usually be expected of it as, y’know, a real-world
language. It’s more important for what it signifies than for what it does. I’m
not sure you would find many native English speakers who’ve been in Japan for
any length of time who’d disagree, but it’s always nice to see it backed up
with a bit of research.
The trouble with reviewing anything that
you tend to agree with is that it’s very easy just to suspend your critical
facilities completely. Confirmation bias is a bastard at the best of times, but
it’s especially bad if it’s something you feel strongly about. You can end up
just to sitting there nodding along, occasionally punching the air or thrusting
the book under the nose of your significant other whilst shouting, “See? SEE? I
TOLD YOU!”
I’d imagine.
It’s a trap I think I largely managed to
avoid this time thanks to two things. The first is, of course, the language.
Academic texts are written for very specific audiences and, if we want to get
all high-falutin’ about it (and believe me we do), the choice of language is
directly reflective of the speech community the author is seeking entry into or
acceptance by. Which here means long words and complex grammar, basically.
I’m not denying the utility of subject
specific terminology, but there’s a fine line between improving specificity and
thus comprehension, and being actively exclusionary. Which is arguably the
point, perhaps. For example –
“…paradoxically, by seeing these features
[of non-standard usage] as errors (as the output of someone from outside the
speech community), the interlocutors may well orientate themselves towards the
interaction by seeing it as a lingua franca exchange and adapting their own
usage accordingly, thus facilitating a productive act of communication.”
(p162-3)
People speak more simply when they realize
others aren’t fluent, in other words.
But this is the price you pay when dealing
with academia, and I’m not going to get into that too much here. I mention it
only to set the scene, so you understand better the – in context –
breathtakingly snobbish sarcasm of the following –
“The first case study is that of Yuka
Oishi… a young woman who now works in a PR firm in Tokyo dealing with corporate
clients in the beauty and fashion industries. Within the genre of women’s
lifestyle magazines this is considered to be an enviable career.” (p117)
Well then, Mr Middle-Aged Academic, it’s a
bit rich to (rightfully) bang on at length about the rigid social and gender
stratification in Japanese society only to then drop in this incredible snide
‘within the genre’ and ‘enviable career’ when talking about young women’s life
aspirations. I guess the generous interpretation is that he’s concerned that
his audience will be such ivory-tower hermits that they’ll be unaware of the
appeal of working in PR for many people. In which case they really need to get
out more. More likely it’s a pretty unsubtle wink to camera, “Thank god the rest
of us know better, eh?”
This did, at least, have the effect of
knocking me out of my ‘Yeah, you tell ‘em, Phil,” cheerleading. Because while
he’s chosen to clarify the relative covetability of fashion PR work there’s
quite a bit of other stuff that doesn’t feel quite so well backed-up. It’s not
a deal breaker, and I certainly wouldn’t disagree with the overall conclusions
he presents, but I did come to wonder exactly how much I was taking as read
simply because I’d been here a while and was predisposed to his overall
argument. Not, of course, that I’m about to go through it all again just yet
merely in order to confirm or refute that. The references list looks far too
interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment