From “Foreign” Language Education to Plurilingualism – Comprehensive Study Notes

Background and Problem Statement

• Rapid demographic change: foreign‐resident population rose by $41\%$ in the last decade.
  • Japan now hosts > 2{,}000{,}000 non-Japanese residents.
  • ≈ $130{,}000$ are school-age children.
• Official rhetoric of “internationalization/globalization” contrasts with domestic reality of immigration and multilingualism.
• Language education policy still centers on two languages:
  • The “National Language” = Japanese (唯一の公用語, compulsory throughout schooling).
  • English (sole compulsory L2, symbol of “foreignness”).
• Consequences of this two-language focus:
  • Reinforces myths of Japanese cultural/linguistic homogeneity.
  • Ignores needs of Asian/South-American migrants who dominate the foreign population.
  • Encourages stereotypes that “foreigners = Westerners = English speakers”.

Japan’s Multilingual Landscape

• Indigenous / minority languages: Ryukyuan, Ainu, Korean, Japanese Sign Language.
• Migrant languages increasing: Portuguese, Chinese, Spanish, Filipino, etc.
• 2009 Immigration Bureau data (total registered foreigners $= 2{,}186{,}121$):
  • Asian nationals: $1{,}688{,}865$ $(77.2\%)$
  • China: $680{,}518$ (incl. Taiwan $44{,}072$)
  • South & North Korea: $578{,}495$ (“old-comers” $416{,}309$)
  • Philippines: $211{,}716$
  • South America: $340{,}857$ $(15.6\%)$
  • Brazil: $267{,}456$
  • Peru: $57{,}464$
  • North America: $66{,}876$ $(3.0\%)$
  • Europe: $61{,}721$ $(2.8\%)$
  • Oceania: $14{,}179$ $(0.7\%)$
  • Africa: $12{,}226$ $(0.6\%)$

Current Education & Immigration Gaps

• Education is not compulsory for foreign-national children.
  • 2000: of $17{,}000$ Brazilian children, $7{,}000$ were out of school.
  • 2009: ≈ $30{,}000$ public-school children “need Japanese instruction”.
  • L1 profiles: $40\%$ Portuguese, $20\%$ Chinese, $13\%$ Spanish, $12\%$ Filipino.
• No government body for social integration; Immigration Bureau focuses on control.
• “Second foreign language” study postponed until university; overwhelmingly European (German, French), not Asian/minority tongues.
• MEXT directives: other FLs must be handled “according to the guidelines on English” (2009), solidifying English primacy.

Research Design

Survey A (1997)

• 220 Japanese nationals, Kyoto & Osaka; oral + written instruments.
• Age/sex matrix (equal male–female):
  • 16-18: 20 M / 20 F
  • 19-22: 20 M / 20 F
  • 23-40: 30 M / 30 F
  • 41-60: 20 M / 20 F
  • >60: 20 M / 20 F
• Focus: everyday contact with “foreigners”, language choice, attitudes toward Japanese.

Survey B (2006-2010)

• 378 Japanese university students (first–third year) at Kinki & Kwansei Gakuin Universities.
• Same key items as Survey A to enable diachronic comparison.

Key Empirical Findings

Misconceptions about Foreign Population (Survey B)

• Task: list the three most common foreign nationalities in Japan.
  • $258/378$ (≈ 2 in 3) placed USA in top 3 – a severe overestimation.

Preferred Language When Speaking to Foreigners (Survey A)

• Question: “Do you prefer Japanese when talking to a foreigner in Japan?”
  • Yes: $154$
  • $33$ → “can’t speak English”.
  • $31$ → “only speak Japanese”.
  • No: $63$
  • $44$ → view encounters as chances to practice English.

Actual Language Use by Foreigner’s Origin (n = 157)

• With Westerners (North America/Europe/Oceania):
  • English predominantly used.
• With Asians: Japanese predominantly used.

Perceived Japanese Ability of Foreigners

• >$80\%$ reported Western interlocutors had “little or no Japanese”.
• Asians seen as having substantially higher Japanese proficiency.

Image of Japanese Language

• “Japanese is especially difficult”
  • Survey A: $44\%$ agree.
  • Survey B: $67\%$ agree.
  • NHK 1991: $79\%$ believed harder for foreigners than other languages.
• Contrast study (Otani 2007) – 349 Korean learners:
  • “Learning Japanese is easy/very easy” $= 227$ (≈$65\%$).

Desired Mother Tongue (Survey B, n = 191)

• $60\%$ would choose English (“international”, “no need for other languages”).
• $21\%$ would keep Japanese (“unique”, “beautiful”, “difficult”).
• $19\%$ chose other languages.

Discussion & Interpretation

• English fetishization linked to:
  • Post-WWII identity crisis & US occupation → Nihonjinron literature stressing uniqueness vs. the West.
  • Economic motivations: TOEIC commodification (≈ $1.7$ million Japanese test-takers in 2008; $\approx 80\%$ of world market shared with Korea).
  • Policies like JET Programme and MEXT’s 2002 “Action Plan to Cultivate ‘Japanese with English Abilities’ ”.
• Stereotype cycle:
  $\text{Foreigner}=\text{Westerner} \rightarrow \text{Must speak English} \rightarrow \text{Little Japanese exposure} \rightarrow \text{Reinforces belief Japanese is hard for foreigners}$
• Overaccommodation & "foreigner-talk": Japanese speakers switch to simplified English or exaggerated Japanese, inadvertently marginalizing Asians who are expected to speak Japanese flawlessly.
• Neglect of related/neighboring languages (Korean, Chinese, Ryukyuan, Ainu) lowers opportunities to question perceived linguistic distance and difficulty.

Policy Implications & Recommendations

• Broaden compulsory curriculum beyond the binary Japanese–English model.
  • Introduce minority & neighboring Asian languages early (e.g., Korean) to cultivate plurilingual awareness.
• Reframe objectives from “national vs. foreign” to functional categories:
  • “First language”
  • “Heritage / community language”
  • “Language for multilingual communication”
• Recognize Japanese as an emergent language of intercultural communication inside Japan and across Asia.
  • Shift focus of “Kokugo” (National-Language) classes from veneration (“respect for the National Language”) to shareability and intercultural pragmatics.
• Make education compulsory for all resident children, with L1 support and Japanese as L2 programs.
• Decouple English proficiency tests (e.g., TOEIC) from employment & academic gatekeeping unless empirically justified.
• Align with Council of Europe’s plurilingualism concept: competence across languages used in learners’ actual environments.

Ethical, Philosophical & Practical Considerations

• Principle of linguistic equality: “If all humans are equal, so are their languages.”
• Current policies propagate linguistic nationalism, legitimizing racial/linguistic discrimination (e.g., assumption it’s fine for Anglophone monolinguals to stay so, but not for others).
• A more balanced, realistic policy will:
  • Counteract myths of Japanese homogeneity.
  • Reduce “us vs. them” ideology.
  • Enhance social integration and economic effectiveness by matching linguistic supply with real communicative demand.

Connections to Wider Scholarship

• Language imperialism (Phillipson) & testocracy debates illustrate Japan’s TOEIC dependency.
• Self-Orientalism (McVeigh 2002) explains internalization of Western gaze via English.
• Hegemony of Homogeneity (Befu 2001) contextualizes Nihonjinron’s role.
• Plurilingualism discourse (Council of Europe) offers actionable frameworks ignored by Japanese policymakers.

Illustrative Examples & Scenarios

• A 3rd-generation Zainichi Korean monolingual in Japanese but foreign-national legally → illustrates mismatch between language, citizenship, and identity.
• A Brazilian of Japanese descent (Nikkei) with no Japanese language skills → disproves equation of ethnicity and language.
• TV variety shows featuring a fluent-Japanese Westerner billed as novelty → media reinforcement of anomaly narrative.

Reference Snapshot (selected)

• Befu H. (2001) Hegemony of Homogeneity
• Burgess C. (2004) Discourses of homogeneity
• Coulmas F. (2007) Language Regimes in Transformation
• Lee, Murphy-Shigematsu, Befu (2006) Japan’s Diversity Dilemmas
• Long D. (1992) Foreigner talk in Japanese
• McConnell D. (2000) Importing Diversity: JET
• Ostheider T. (2005; 2009) Overaccommodation & Communication with Foreigners
• Otani Y. (2007) What English Means to Japanese