This article was downloaded by: [Florida Institute of Technology]

On: 22 August 2014, At: 10:34

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asian Studies Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/casr20

Cultivating “Japanese Who Can Use

English”: Problems and Contradictions
in Government Policy
a
Kayoko Hashimoto
a
The University of Queensland ,
Published online: 11 Mar 2009.

To cite this article: Kayoko Hashimoto (2009) Cultivating “Japanese Who Can Use English”:
Problems and Contradictions in Government Policy, Asian Studies Review, 33:1, 21-42, DOI:
10.1080/10357820802716166

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357820802716166

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Asian Studies Review
March 2009, Vol. 33, pp. 21–42

Cultivating ‘‘Japanese Who Can Use

English’’: Problems and Contradictions in
Government Policy
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

KAYOKO HASHIMOTO*
The University of Queensland

In 2003 the Japanese government announced a 5-year plan to educate Japanese

youth to be able to use English in the workplace. The idea originated from a
proposal to adopt ‘‘English as an official language’’ in the government’s vision for
the twenty-first century that was formulated in 2000 (Prime Minister’s Commission
on Japan’s Goals in the 21st Century). In July 2002, the Ministry of Education,
Culture, Science, Sports and Technology (MEXT) released a document entitled
‘Developing a Strategic Plan to Cultivate ‘‘Japanese with English Abilities’’’
(hereafter SPJE 2002), followed by another document, ‘Regarding the Establish-
ment of an Action Plan to Cultivate ‘‘Japanese with English Abilities’’’ (hereafter
APJE 2003), which was published in March 2003.1 The expression ‘‘Japanese with
English abilities’’ is used in the official English versions of both the strategic plan
and the action plan. The original Japanese [eigo ga tsukaeru nihonjin], however, is a
rather informal expression that literally means ‘‘Japanese who can use English’’, a
phrase that has been widely used since the release of the strategic plan. The plan to
cultivate ‘‘Japanese who can use English’’ reflects the current situation surrounding
TEFL (Teaching of English as a Foreign Language) in many ways. This article will
examine the policy texts of the plans and other related documents, and argue that
the texts themselves embody problems and contradictions in the government’s
attempt to promote English as a means of boosting the economy. These two policy
texts are products of the necessary compromise between the maintenance of Japan’s
cultural independence and the promotion of English as an indispensable tool for
international market competitiveness. I will also demonstrate that there is rhetorical
continuity between the policy texts and public discourse, which indicates that the
Japanese government’s agenda of maintaining cultural independence in an era of

*Correspondence Address: School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies, The University of
Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia. Email: k.hashimoto@uq.edu.au

ISSN 1035-7823 print/ISSN 1467-8403 online/09/010021-22 Ó 2009 Asian Studies Association of Australia
DOI: 10.1080/10357820802716166
 22 Kayoko Hashimoto

globalisation is not a top-down project but one that is embraced by both private and
public sectors.

Background: English in Japan and Around the World

The spread of English around the world has revealed that the power of language
has been exercised in many aspects of individuals’ lives and in society as a whole.
As Holborow (1999, p. 1) claims, ‘‘English is either the modernising panacea or
the ruthless oppressor, depending on your place in the world’’: the use of English
inevitably involves social changes and impacts on individuals. While in the West
there is a view that globalisation has brought common values and the
standardisation of social practices, some argue that, in Asia, responses to the
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

impact of globalisation on the use of English are specifically local, rather than
universal (Tsui and Tollefson, 2007). Changes to the dominant position of English
have been observed, for example, in the use of the Internet. According to Hafez
(2007), the recent increase in multilingualism on the Internet indicates that the
hegemony of English as a transnational lingua franca is rapidly diminishing. This
does not necessarily mean, however, that the Internet is not accelerating the global
spread of English. The linguistic diversity of Internet users is still considerably
lower than the level of global linguistic diversity (Danet and Herring, 2007).
Japanese is one language that has been identified as being disadvantaged because
of its dependence on special character sets in word processing for online
communication.
Current language use in Japan is integrally related to its history: Japan has never
been colonised and has managed to maintain Japanese, which in reality is the sole
official language, as the national language. In the 1980s, English was identified as a
key element of Japan’s promotion of internationalisation [kokusaika], which actually
amounted to the promotion of ‘‘Japaneseness’’ in the international community
(Hashimoto, 2000). In other words, Japan embraced kokusaika with a focus on the
‘‘exportability’’ of Japanese culture to the world (Yoshino, 1995). At the same time,
TEFL has been constantly subject to conditions and restrictions on the grounds that
it has the potential to damage or threaten Japanese culture and traditions
(Hashimoto, 2007b).2 This has affected the pedagogical aspects of TEFL, with the
result that learners’ competence in English, and their communicative ability in
particular, has been compromised.3
There have been endless and heated debates on the purposes and effectiveness of
TEFL in Japan. One popular view is that TEFL in high schools and universities has
been a failure: this is attributed to the entrance examination system and incompetent
teachers. On the other hand, there has been considerable resistance to and
resentment of the Americanisation of Japanese society and the Anglicisation of the
Japanese language that result from the excessive use of loanwords from English
(Kubota, 2002). Some western scholars have ascribed the approach of the Japanese
bureaucracy and xenophobic attitudes in the community to the slow pace of change
in education curricula (Goodman, 1993; Miller, 1982). There is also an assumption
in the West that Japan should embrace English as the international language in the
same way that other Asian countries have.4 Despite these criticisms from both
within and outside the country, the Japanese government has maintained its
 Cultivating ‘‘Japanese Who Can Use English’’ 23

framework for TEFL, supported by the reassertion of the continuity of Japanese

culture and traditions, which was bolstered by the confidence arising from Japan’s
quick recovery after World War II and the economic successes of the 1980s
(McCormack, 1996).
This approach to the promotion of TEFL changed to some extent after the so-
called ‘‘Lost Decade’’ of the 1990s. Driven by the business sector, who viewed
rigorous English education as indispensable to international competitiveness, the
government proposed two major plans for improving TEFL: to use English as an
official or working language, and to introduce English into primary education as
part of a strategy to ensure that Japanese youth would be able to use English in
the workplace upon completion of their tertiary education. The initial concept of
English as an official language did not materialise, partly because of the sudden
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

death of the then Prime Minister Obuchi during his term in office and the
strident opposition from the public. However, it laid the foundation for
the forthcoming strategic plan ‘‘to cultivate Japanese with English abilities’’
in 2002.

Policy Analysis: The Texts and the Tools

Understanding TEFL in Japan is a complex matter. As any language policy is
political as well as educational, government policies for promoting TEFL in Japan
have been politically inspired. They tend to focus less on the educational needs of
individual learners, and more on how TEFL contributes to the nation’s economic
success and to the formation and maintenance of national identity in an era of
globalisation.
In theoretical terms, this article falls within the field of Critical Applied Linguistics
(CAL). According to Pennycook (2001), CAL aims to expose the power dynamics
between the politics of language, texts, pedagogy and difference, based on the view
that one of the shortcomings of the current practice of Applied Linguistics concerns
‘‘decontextualised contexts’’. Pennycook argues that although it is common to see
Applied Linguistics as concerned with language in context, the conceptualisation of
context is frequently limited to an overlocalised and undertheorised view of social
relations. One of the key challenges for CAL is therefore to find ways of mapping
micro- and macro-relations – ways of understanding the relationship between
concepts of society, ideology, global capitalism, colonialism, education, gender,
racism, sexuality, class and so on. This article follows Pennycook’s argument in a
sense by analysing language policy documents in order to reveal micro- and macro-
relations between the nation and individuals and the function of educational policies
in society.
Among the various tools of CAL, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is relatively
new. Despite some debate about the effectiveness of CDA as a method of discourse
analysis (Blommaert, 2005; Pennycook, 2001), it has clear benefits. One of the
benefits of CDA advocated by van Dijk (2001) concerns the practice of reproducing
inequality in texts. Although issues of inequality are not a primary target of this
article, I believe that exploring the mechanisms that reproduce certain values by
applying CDA is effective in understanding the mechanisms that have shaped and
maintained the framework of TEFL in Japan.
 24 Kayoko Hashimoto

There are many studies of Japanese policy documents in the fields of politics,
economics, education and linguistics (Kawai, 2007; Funabashi, 1994; Beauchamp
and Vardaman, 1994). Their approaches to policy texts predominantly involve
content analysis, partly because Japanese policy documents have been assumed to be
formal and bureaucratic and, therefore, often disconnected from real people and
society. Content analysis assumes an interpretation of a text identical to the one
intended by the producer of the text, while CDA is an approach to language use that
aims to explore and expose the roles that discourse plays in reproducing (or
resisting) social inequalities (Richardson, 2007). Policy discourse analysis in relation
to social practices is an emerging field of research, and CDA has played an
important role in highlighting broader pictures of language use in cross-disciplinary
fields. In this article, I will use CDA as a methodological tool for my argument that
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

problems and contradictions in what the government aims to achieve are implicit in
the policy texts themselves, and that there is rhetorical continuity between the policy
texts and public discourse. The rhetorical continuity indicates that the Japanese
government’s agenda of maintaining cultural independence in an era of globalisation
is not a project imposed from the top down but is embraced by both public and
private sectors.
In this article, I will look at Japanese government policy documents as texts that
reflect the producers’ (that is, the policy writers’) view of society, including the
language used in public. For example, by using vogue-words or neologisms in
policy documents,5 the policy makers demonstrate their awareness of current
societal trends and endorse the opinions or values the words represent. By doing
so they may increase the possibility of delivering the message in the policy text
effectively. This kind of practice indicates the existence of certain types of
communication between policy makers (the government) and the audience (the
public). At the same time, the practice of using popular words without careful
examination or definition in policy texts could be interpreted as a way of
reinforcing assumed societal values.6
For analysis of policy documents published by Japanese government offices in this
article, I have used English versions where available, and have compared them with
the Japanese originals for wording and rhetoric where significant gaps existed. In
some cases, when English versions were not available, I have translated the original
Japanese documents into English with reference to a Japanese-English terminology
list published by the government. As readers will see, the English used in government
publications often appears awkward.7 For native English speakers, it might appear
to be just bad English, but it represents a rather complex cultural phenomenon.
Although translation is not a focus of this article, researchers should be aware that
English versions of Japanese government documents are not necessarily full
translations of the original Japanese texts. For example, full English versions of the
White Paper on education were last available in 1994.8 Similarly, although the
homepages of Japanese government offices have English web sites, the actual
information available in English is limited.9 These examples show the selective and
strategic use of English by a government that has set an agenda of promoting the
broader use of English both at work and in daily life. In the next section, I will
examine the Lost Decade as a backdrop for this new phase in the government’s
promotion of English.
 Cultivating ‘‘Japanese Who Can Use English’’ 25

The Impact of the Lost Decade

The Japanese term for the Lost Decade, ushinawareta jûnen, became a popular way
of describing Japan in the 1990s. The passive voice, ushinawareta, rather than the
mere straight-forward term ushinatta, has its own dramatic impact because it is a
written (and therefore formal) form that has literary and cultural associations.10 Its
association with the pessimistic view of the Great Depression of the 1930s produced
another term, ‘‘the Lost Generation’’, which is used to describe Japanese young
people who entered the job market just after the Lost Decade (AERA, 28 August
2006). Many of these young people have missed the opportunity to secure the full-
time permanent positions in companies that were once the traditional practice.11 The
consequences are still evident in 2008, long after the Lost Decade, as can be seen in
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

the new expression, rosu-jene haken, which refers to part-time workers of that
generation being handled by recruiting companies (AERA, 11 February 2008).
Initially, the Lost Decade was a term that described the Japanese economy after the
economic bubble burst. It was also used when it became obvious that Japan was
lagging behind the rest of the world in the IT revolution (Warabi-shi shichô, 2001),
reflecting the view that the 1990s was a time when the fundamental transformation
of the Internet took place (Bermejo, 2007). Eventually the expression came to be
used to represent the overall feeling of ‘‘being lost’’ during this period. The 1990s
was a disturbing decade, not only because of the financial crisis but also because of a
series of disastrous events. In January 1995, the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake
struck Kobe, and in March of the same year members of Aum Shinrikyô attacked
Tokyo’s subway system by releasing sarin gas. In 1999, the world’s most serious
nuclear accident since Chernobyl occurred on the outskirts of Tokyo. These events,
together with numerous cases of political scandal and corruption, child suicides and
homicides, and the impending collapse of the lifetime employment system, meant
that what was ‘‘lost’’ was not confined to the political and economic arenas:
confidence in society as a whole had also been undermined (Lebra, 2004).
As the economy was slowly recovering, economists produced comprehensive
assessments of the cause and effect of the Lost Decade (Saxonhouse and Stern, 2004;
Yoshikawa, 2002). Some argued that there were productive aspects to the
experiences during this decade because some positive changes had been made.
After all, Japan remains the second largest economy in the world. It is not my
intention, however, to reduce complex phenomena to simplistic economic terms.
Rather, I propose to look at the way in which economic factors influence
educational policies and how they are addressed in policy texts. One of the attempts
to guide the Japanese people during this difficult time was the late Prime Minister
Obuchi’s proposal for the twenty-first century.

The Vision for the 21st Century: English, IT Revolution and Globalisation
In March 1999, the then Prime Minister Obuchi established a cabinet-led advisory
body comprising experts from academic and business sectors. This body released a
six-chapter report, ‘The Prime Minister’s Commission on Japan’s Goals in the 21st
Century’, in January 2000 (hereafter PMC).12 One of the characteristics of this
report was its emphasis on building the self-confidence of the nation and its people.
 26 Kayoko Hashimoto

Although there was a realisation that Japan’s attempt to catch up with and overtake
the West, as evidenced by the slogan ‘‘Japanese spirit and Western knowledge’’
[wakon yôsai] of the late nineteenth century, was no longer relevant, this did not lead
to the search for a new model. Japan looked inward instead. This is reflected in the
subtitle of PMC, ‘The Frontier Within: Individual Empowerment and Better
Governance in the New Millennium’. The expression ‘‘the frontier within’’ (the
literal translation of the original Japanese is ‘‘Japan’s frontier lies within Japan’’)
shows Japan’s strong desire for self-reliance in tackling its difficulties. Therefore, the
negative view of globalisation and the reassuring emphasis on the positive aspects of
the nation and its people need to be taken into account in order to understand the
nature of the controversial proposal for English as an official language. PMC is one
of the first government publications in which the word ‘‘globalisation’’ (actually in
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

the form of a loanword, gurôbarizeˆshon) appears. It was in the 2001 White Paper
that MEXT used the word in a policy statement for the first time.
The negative description of globalisation appears to be contradictory to the
proposal for increasing ‘‘global literacy’’ in PMC. Two slightly different Japanese
words and a loanword are used for ‘‘global literacy’’ in the original Japanese report:
kokusai taiwa nôryoku [literally, ‘‘the ability to have dialogue with the international
community’’] and kokusaiteki gengo nôryoku [literally, ‘‘international language
competence’’]. Given that there is no established Japanese word for ‘‘global’’ or
‘‘globalisation’’, apart from loanwords, these two Japanese words for ‘‘global
literacy’’ can be understood as compromise translations. At the same time, however,
these Japanese definitions express a view of the world in terms of the separate
entities of Japan and the other, and do not contribute to a sense of ‘‘global’’
interaction. Japan needs ‘‘global literacy’’ that encompasses IT and English to
overcome the difficulties the nation faces, but the word has been re-invented as part
of kokusaika, not globalisation.
The connection the document made between English and IT was also new. It had
not been in the agendas of Japan’s internationalisation in the 1980s and 1990s, when
the IT revolution was not yet seen as a threat to Japan. Japan is now convinced that
one of the crucial elements of the power of globalisation is the IT revolution, in
which English plays a dominant role. The only way to adapt to the IT revolution
and globalisation, as PMC suggests, is ‘‘to expand domestic use of the Internet and
of English’’ (PMC, 2000, Chapter 6, IV (3) Toward global literacy). However, the
proposal for English as an official language aroused strong reactions in Japanese
society. Some took it as an opportunity to reassess the status and definition of the
national language.13 Tanaka (2000) argued that the absence of a definition of an
official language reflected a negative aspect of a society that did not acknowledge
any community languages other than Japanese. Therefore, even if English was given
the status of a second official language, in reality, it would remain a language that
was only used when Japanese people communicated with people from other
countries, not among themselves.
Another concern was that the proposal had the potential to divide Japanese
people into two groups: those who were good at English and those who were not
(Inoue, 2000). This push to create different groups of people with different abilities
indicates a departure from the modern Japanese educational system, which worked
in a number of ways to prevent the development of class-consciousness, as Dore
 Cultivating ‘‘Japanese Who Can Use English’’ 27

(1968) described forty years ago. Nor was the proposal pedagogically convincing
from an individual learner’s point of view (Matsuura, Fujieda and Mahoney, 2004):
most teachers of TEFL believed that individual bilingualism was not necessarily the
ultimate goal of TEFL. In fact, the concept of ‘‘bilingualism’’ has been absent from
Japan’s language policies. In terms of benefits to society, Inoue also believes that the
maintenance of Japanese language is vital for political stability in Japan, given the
worldwide phenomenon whereby political conflicts are triggered by the undermining
of local cultures and languages.
Emphasis on the importance of Japanese tradition and culture in TEFL is a
routine practice for educational policy makers. In PMC, it was rephrased so that the
learning of English as a lingua franca to increase ‘‘global literacy’’ should be carried
out within the framework of Japanese culture. The enrichment of Japanese language
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

and culture through interaction with other cultures and languages was seen as the
solution to the problems that Japan was facing in the international community.
Although the proposal to use English as an official language did not eventuate, PMC
served to confirm the nation’s core values, to present challenging issues, and to
attempt to solve them in the new century.

Strategic Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities

In July 2002, MEXT released a document entitled ‘Developing a Strategic Plan to
Cultivate ‘‘Japanese with English Abilities’’ – Plan to Improve English and Japanese
Abilities’. This document sets out objectives, background, and attainment targets,
and is available in both Japanese and English.

The practice of labelling

First of all, the title of the strategic plan stands out for several reasons. The original
Japanese term for ‘‘Japanese with English abilities’’ is ‘‘eigo ga tsukaeru nihonjin’’
[literally, ‘‘Japanese who can use English’’]. This is rather informal wording for a
policy document, but is effective because of its directness and its similarity to an
expression widely used about Japanese people with a good command of English,
‘‘eigo ga dekiru nihonjin’’ [literally, ‘‘Japanese who can do English’’]. The verb dekiru
[can do] is commonly used to express ability or capability but sounds judgmental
when applied to personal performance. In comparison, ‘‘Japanese who can use
English’’ emphasises the instrumental aspect of language learning.
But the most striking feature of the document title relates to labelling. Labelling is
a common practice employed by policy makers and practitioners to formulate
solutions to perceived problems, and such acts are usually considered effective and
indispensable. However, at the same time, labelling can shift or sustain power
relations and compromise core principles of accountability that policy makers or
practitioners claim to endorse (Moncrieffe and Eyben, 2007). In the case of SPJE
2002, the title defines Japanese people in terms of competence in a foreign language.
This labelling classifies Japanese into two types of people: those who can use English
and those who cannot. Although it is less abstract than the expression ‘‘Japanese
who can do English’’, the judgmental aspect and the instrumental view of both the
users of the language and the language itself remain. This suggests that the Ministry
 28 Kayoko Hashimoto

is in charge of creating a group of people who can use English, and individual people
do not seem to have any choice in the matter.

The balance between English and the national language

Another peculiar aspect of the title is the discrepancy between the main title and the
subtitle: the main title relates to English abilities, while the subtitle refers to both
English and Japanese abilities. This seems to indicate that the focus of the plan is the
improvement of the English used by Japanese people, but for some reason the
importance of the national language must also be addressed. As I have already
noted, the conditional commitment to the promotion of TEFL in Japan has been
displayed consistently in government policies and educational curricula. In the
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

objectives of the strategic plan, the relationship between English and Japanese
education is described as follows:

At present, though, the English-speaking abilities of a large percentage of the

population are inadequate, and this imposes restrictions on exchanges with
foreigners and creates occasions when the ideas and opinions of Japanese
people are not appropriately evaluated. However, it is not possible to state that
Japanese people have sufficient ability to express their opinions based on a firm
grasp of their own language.

Accordingly, we have formulated a strategy to cultivate ‘‘Japanese with

English abilities’’ in a concrete action plan with the aim of drastically
improving the English education of Japanese people. In addition, we aim to
make improvements to Japanese-language education (SPJE 2002, English
version, Objectives).

This suggests that Japanese people cannot express their opinions in any language
because they have not mastered their mother tongue, which seems rather odd. In
Japan, there is a well-known view that learners must have something to say in order
to be able to speak in English (Funabashi, 2000; Nakatsu, 1993). The emphasis on
expressing opinions in the mother tongue as an essential element of being fluent in a
foreign language indicates a particular view of TEFL in Japan.

New linguistic practice – the suffix ‘‘ryoku’’

The original Japanese words for ‘‘English and Japanese abilities’’ in the subtitle are
eigo-ryoku [English language competence] and kokugo-ryoku [national language
competence]. Adding ‘‘ryoku, power/ability’’ as a suffix to an existing word to create
a new expression is a linguistic practice that can be seen as a cultural phenomenon. It
reflects people’s desire to empower themselves or to regain the power they thought
they had lost during the Lost Decade.14 Such new expressions have been widely used
in both public and private sectors, but the actual meanings of such words are often
ambiguous, even though they are eye-catching. In SPJE 2002, both English and
Japanese abilities are described using popular but ambiguous words, which involve
assumptions about their definitions without careful examination.15
 Cultivating ‘‘Japanese Who Can Use English’’ 29

It must be noted here that ryoku is combined with English and the national
language, kokugo, but not with ‘‘Japanese language’’, nihongo. In general, ‘‘the
national language’’ means Japanese language for Japanese citizens, and ‘‘Japanese
language’’ means the Japanese language for foreigners.16 In other words, the
document is based on assumptions about Japanese people’s fluency in the national
language and English, and the values of these assumptions appear to be equal.
Nevertheless, the relationship between the national language and English is not that
of first language and second language. A press conference statement by the Minister
of MEXT addressed this point clearly:

There are two characteristic points here. One is that we built the strategic plan
from general perspectives in order to prepare for the future by increasing
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

Japanese people’s abilities in English. Secondly, we had in mind that we cherish

Japanese and make sure that Japanese people can express themselves
appropriately in Japanese . . . We should cherish Japanese as long as we are
Japanese citizens, and based on this assumption it is necessary to cultivate
abilities to use English skilfully as a tool (SPJE Press Conference, 2002, author’s
translation).

This statement confirms the view that the two languages have different functions.
English serves as an instrument, whereas the Japanese language functions as the
national language to maintain Japanese identity. If English remains a tool that
enables Japanese people to exchange ideas with foreigners in order to be understood
properly by them, it is more likely that expansion of the domestic use of English will
be rather limited, and it is therefore questionable whether the targets set out in the
strategic plan are attainable.

The economic factor: a human resources strategy

While tensions exist between the promotion of TEFL and the maintenance of the
national language in the education sector, there is a strong economic motive behind
the push for expanding the use of English:

. . . the ‘‘Basic Policies for Economic and Fiscal Management and Struc-
tural Reform 2002’’ (Cabinet resolution issued on June 25, 2002) also
included a provision stating that MEXT should settle on an action plan
for improving English education during the fiscal year 2002 as part of
a strategy to enhance human potential (SPJE 2002, English version,
Background).

This suggests that this provision is part of a strategy to enhance ‘‘human potential’’.
But what is a strategy to enhance human potential? It is one of six strategies to
stimulate the economy; the other strategies concern technology, management and
administration, new industry, regional development, and globalisation. Although
the need to enhance general academic skills is addressed in the strategy, ability or
literacy in the national language is never mentioned as a means to stimulate the
economy. This is in sharp contrast to SPJE 2002, which maintains the importance of
 30 Kayoko Hashimoto

the national language in relation to TEFL. Apparently, there are different

approaches to TEFL within the government.17
Following the publication of the Cabinet resolution, in August of the same year,
the Minister of MEXT announced its ‘‘strategy to enhance human potential’’:
‘Human Resources Strategy: Cultivating the Spirit of Japanese People to Carve Out
a New Era – From Uniformity to Independence and Creativity’ (hereafter HRS
2002). The original Japanese for ‘‘human potential’’ is ningen-ryoku [power or ability
of human beings], which is often translated as ‘‘human resources’’ in policy
documents.18 This is another example of the new usage of ryoku mentioned above,
and is particularly misleading or deceptive when used in policy documents in the
sense of ‘‘human potential’’ or ‘‘human resources’’. This is because the terms have
totally different meanings: ‘‘human potential’’ tends to focus on individual abilities,
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

while ‘‘human resources’’ is about individual usefulness to a group. What MEXT

has done is to use a word that can be interpreted in either way:

The strategy was based on the spirit of Prime Minister Koizumi’s reference to
the story of the hundred sacks of rice, and was compiled under Minister
Toyama’s initiative to give some concrete substance to the ‘‘Human Resources
Strategy’’ . . .

. . . This ‘‘Human Resources Strategy Vision’’ will be a guideline for future

education administration, which is based on a fundamental concept that
bringing out personal potential through these stages of schooling with a
consistent goal is important to cultivate the spirit of the Japanese people who
will carve out a new century (MEXT: Educational Reform – Human
Resources Strategy, English version).

‘‘Personal potential’’ seems to refer to individual persons, but when it is used in

relation to ‘‘cultivating the spirit of the Japanese people’’, it is actually about
individual usefulness as ‘‘the Japanese people’’, which suggests a mass rather than
individuals. This ambiguity between groups and individuals reflects the so-called
‘‘spirit of the hundred sacks of rice’’ on which the strategy is based. The slogan first
appeared in the inaugural speech of the then Prime Minister Koizumi in 2001
(Shushô Kantei, 2002) and was used widely as a metaphor for an investment in the
future during difficult times, but it later became a symbol of the suffering of the
underprivileged.19 The subtitle of HRS 2002, ‘‘from uniformity to independence and
creativity’’, hints at the shift in focus from groups to individuals that was initiated by
the Koizumi cabinet. ‘‘Independence’’ implies individuals’ responsibility for their
own abilities, and HRS 2002 presents a vision for fostering Japanese people who can
be responsible for improving their own abilities. In this sense, the two different
English words for ningen-ryoku reveal the complex nature of the policy document, in
which the original Japanese is deliberately equivocal.
If we combine the labelling of Japanese people who can use English with the shift
to fostering people who can look after themselves, the strategy to cultivate
‘‘Japanese with English abilities’’ can be interpreted differently. While the
government is willing to create Japanese people with English skills, it is also of
the view that ultimately it is an individual’s own responsibility to acquire those skills.
 Cultivating ‘‘Japanese Who Can Use English’’ 31

This explains the lack of clear description of English proficiency in the strategic plan.
The ambitious objective of improving Japanese people’s skills as human resources
reveals the government’s expectations of individuals:

The vision proposes promoting measures designed to achieve the four

following objectives; (i) vigorous Japanese who think and act on their own
initiative; (ii) cultivate top-level talents who will lead the Century of
Knowledge; (iii) Japanese who will maintain and create a spiritually rich
culture and society, and; (iv) Japanese who are educated through living in the
international community (MEXT: Educational Reform – Human Resources
Strategy, English version).
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

The original Japanese wording of item (iv) reads as ‘‘educated Japanese who live in
the international community’’ [kokusai shakai o ikiru kyôyô aru nihonjin]. This means
that the goal is not to educate people through the experience of living in the
international community as the English version implies, but to create Japanese
people who are educated enough to be able to live in the international community.
In other words, being well educated is a requirement for Japanese people to be able
‘‘to live in the international community’’. This kind of condition or pre-requisite
parallels the emphasis on having opinions in order to communicate with foreigners
in English. The four objectives listed above are, in reality, about ‘‘top-level talents’’,
and are not applicable to everybody. ‘‘To cultivate Japanese with English abilities’’
comes under the sixth major item in the objectives:

6. Japanese Who Will Live in a New Era

. Japan and Japanese the world can rely upon

. Cultivate ‘‘Japanese with English Abilities’’
. Promote cooperation in which ‘‘the hearts of Japanese’’ are visible, and
international student exchange
. Cultivate human resources that will be responsible for an IT society, an
environmental and gender-equal society.

This section is full of subjective and abstract expressions. ‘‘The hearts of Japanese’’
appeals to emotion based on assumed values, while ‘‘human resources’’ will be
created as instrumental for the improvement of IT, the environment, and gender-
equality in society. This is the context in which ‘‘Japanese with English abilities’’ sits.
The original Japanese word for ‘‘human resources’’ in the last dot point above is
actually jinzai, a word commonly used to describe talent for particular tasks, rather
than ningen-ryoku. In the English version of HRS 2002, ‘‘human resources’’ is again
used in the document title, but not in the original Japanese. The use of an eye-
catching word, ningen-ryoku, which implies something profound about individual
human beings, successfully tones down the hidden goal of the strategy, which is
actually to train people hard to be useful for the nation in order to address particular
problem areas. The government expects that the strategy will create highly talented
Japanese who are capable of working independently to solve key issues in
contemporary society and are able to be ambassadors for Japan in the international
 32 Kayoko Hashimoto

community. In reality, as mentioned before, only a limited number of Japanese

belong to this category.20 Therefore, the aim of expanding the domestic use of
English does not mean that everybody will use English in their daily lives. This
further indicates that the actual target is to create an elite class who can use English
to achieve the nation’s ultimate goal – to cope with difficulties in an era of
globalisation.
On the other hand, there is another aspect to the eye-catching title. As noted
above, new expressions using the suffix ryoku are part of a social reaction to the Lost
Decade. The rhetoric used in HRS 2002 can be interpreted as an effort to
demonstrate that the government understands the feeling of being lost and the need
to boost morale. In this sense, both SPJE 2002 and HRS 2002 follow the major view
addressed in PMC 2000:
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

Over a long history in a meager and harsh environment, we cultivated ethical

norms extolling social and organizational harmony. Socioeconomic affluence
and internationalization, however, made it difficult to sustain such ethical
norms unchanged. And in the 1990s, before a national consensus on the ethical
framework appropriate to an affluent society could be reached, Japan
experienced a major setback and slid into the age of globalization (PMC
2000, English version, Chapter 1, Overview, I. Realizing Japan’s Potential).

Once again, globalisation is described in negative terms, and HRS seems to set up ‘‘a
national consensus on the ethical framework’’ in order to restore the ‘‘ethical
norms’’ with an emphasis on ‘‘social and organisational harmony’’. Even if the
government appreciates the sense of loss after the Lost Decade, its focus is on social
and organisational harmony, which is assumed to include individual Japanese. The
practical aspect of SPJE that was promoted by the business sector became evident in
APJE 2003.

Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities

Following SPJE 2002, MEXT announced its ‘Action Plan to Cultivate ‘‘Japanese
with English Abilities’’’ in March 2003. One significant difference from SPJE 2002 is
that the action plan dropped the subtitle, ‘Plan to Improve English and Japanese
Abilities’. The earlier statement by the Minister that ‘‘Japanese people have not
mastered the national language’’ was also modified to ‘‘It is also necessary for
Japanese to develop their ability to clearly express their own opinions in Japanese
first in order to learn English’’ in APJE 2003. Another difference is the emphasis on
economic factors in the later document. The sentences that refer to the economy or
the business sector in ‘Regarding the Establishment of an Action Plan to Cultivate
‘‘Japanese with English Abilities’’’ (statement by the Minister of MEXT) are as
follows:

. Recently, globalization in various fields of the economy and society has

advanced rapidly.
. Globalization extends to various activities of individuals as well as to the
business world.
 Cultivating ‘‘Japanese Who Can Use English’’ 33

. . . . due to progress in the information technology revolution, a wide range of

activities, from daily life to economic activities, are being influenced by the
movement to a knowledge-based society driven by the forces of knowledge
and information.
. . . . in order to realize such improvements, the understanding of the public
and the business world is essential as well as a positive approach by parents
(English version, underlining added).

Although the section on ‘Improvement of Japanese Language Abilities’ is

maintained, it is obvious that economic factors constitute the single most important
reason for implementing the action plan.
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

EFL as an academic subject

The goals that need to be achieved to address the economic issues are set, however,
within the ongoing educational context that MEXT has provided and maintained:

English language abilities required for all Japanese nationals

‘‘On graduating from junior high school and senior high school, graduates can
communicate in English’’

. On graduation from a junior high school, students can conduct basic

communication with regard to areas such as greetings, responses, or topics
relating to daily life. (English-language abilities for graduates should be the
third level of the Society for Testing English Proficiency (STEP) on average.)
. On graduation from a senior high school, students can conduct normal
communication with regard to topics, for example, relating to daily life.
(English-language abilities for graduates should be the second level or the
pre-second level of the Society for Testing English Proficiency (STEP) on
average.)

English language skills required for specialized fields or for those active in
international society
‘‘On graduating from university, graduates can use English in their work’’

. Each university should establish attainment targets from the viewpoint of

fostering personnel who can use English in their work.

The fundamental problem with the above goals is that the English proficiency levels
are described according to levels of formal education and STEP grades. Actually,
STEP does not refer to the test itself but to a non-profit organisation that conducts
the ‘Test in Practical English Proficiency (the original Japanese is abbreviated as
‘‘Eiken’’)’, which was established in 1963 under the supervision of the Japanese
government. The strong influence of MEXT is reflected in the grading system of the
test, which is described according to academic levels.21 This means that the new
goals set in APJE 2003 by MEXT are actually based on the current standard
established by the Courses of Study that MEXT itself has produced to regulate the
 34 Kayoko Hashimoto

school curriculum. This mutual dependence between MEXT and STEP in terms of
the definitions of English proficiency levels indicates that the action plan is most
likely to be carried out within the existing framework of TEFL. It also means that
English remains an academic subject, which presents a different picture from that of
a ‘‘working language’’ advocated in PMC 2000.
As well as its emphasis on English as an academic subject, APJE 2003 also gives
English the status of a de facto compulsory language, without acknowledging that
this also serves to eliminate opportunities to learn other languages at school. In the
current Courses of Study for junior-high and high school education, English is
located in the category of ‘‘foreign languages’’, which means that technically each
school can choose a foreign language to teach. In reality, however, English is a de
facto compulsory subject, and APJE 2003 is based on this assumption. As long as
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

English is taught and learned as a compulsory subject at school, obtaining a certain

level of proficiency in English is not a matter of choice for the individual student, but
a task that must be undertaken. In other words, foreign language education in Japan
is designed to protect and enhance Japanese national interests, rather than to
provide wider opportunities for individual students to expand their knowledge and
experience and to engage with the world. The use of the expression ‘‘on average’’ to
describe the overall level of proficiency in the goals reflects this point: the subject of
the goals is not individual students but students as a whole.
This indifference to individual differences between learners is also obvious in the
government’s expectations of the role of tertiary education in APJE 2003. In
comparison to junior-high school and high school education, tertiary education is
not directly under the control of MEXT in terms of curriculum. This is why MEXT
stipulates, in APJE 2003, that the tertiary sector ‘‘should establish attainment
targets’’. Given that 50 per cent of high school graduates go on to tertiary education,
and not all tertiary institutions provide their students with specialised skills for
future employment, the definition of the skills ‘‘required for specialised fields or for
those active in international society’’ appears to be too general to establish
attainment targets for the tertiary sector.

Instrumental views of learners, teachers and native English speakers

In the section on ‘Action to Improve English Education’, six items are listed as
needing improvement, and each item lists goals to be achieved. The second item
concerns English teachers and the teaching framework:

2. Improving the teaching ability of English teachers and upgrading the

teaching system.
[Goals]

. Almost all English teachers will acquire English skills (STEP pre-first level,
TOEFL 550, TOEIC 730 or over) and the teaching ability to be able to
conduct classes to cultivate communication abilities through the repetition of
activities making using of English [sic].
. Centering on leading teachers at the local community level, the improvement
of English abilities in the community will be enhanced.
 Cultivating ‘‘Japanese Who Can Use English’’ 35

. A native speaker of English will attend English classes at junior and senior
high schools more than once a week.
. People living in the local community proficient in English will be positively
utilized (APJE 2003, English version).

The original Japanese words for ‘‘English skills’’ and ‘‘teaching ability’’ in the first
goal are eigo-ryoku and kyôju-ryoku [kyôju means teaching or instructing]. Kyôju-
ryoku is another new word with the ryoku suffix, which presents a vague but serious
and high-level view of teaching. If teachers do not have teaching skills, they should
not be teachers. Therefore, the new word for describing teaching ability suggests that
the skill to cultivate students’ communicative abilities in English is something special
that does not belong to normal teaching skills.
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

The teacher’s English ability is further described in the section ‘Considerations for
Hiring and Evaluating Teachers’:

. Promotion of improvements in the hiring of teachers

. . . it will be necessary to confirm that teachers have the required levels of
English ability upon selection.
. Promotion of improvements in evaluating teachers.
. . . . it will be required to consider the level of the teacher’s English ability in
the evaluation of the results of training, work assessments and by other
means (Underlining added).

The underlined sections in the above English passage read differently in the original
Japanese. They are described using the same expression, eigo-ryoku no shoji –
literally, ‘‘possession of English ability’’. The significant difference is that ‘‘the level
or required level’’ is missing in the Japanese original. The word shoji is usually used
for ownership of goods and belongings, rather than for ability. In this sense, its
combination with eigo-ryoku appears odd because it presents ‘‘English ability’’ as
something to have or not have.22 This approach to English competence is the same
as that seen in the labelling of ‘‘Japanese who can use English’’.
Under the goal on improving teaching, two additional teaching resources
are identified. They are English native speakers and people from local communities.
English native speakers and local people who speak English are referred
to throughout APJE 2003 as if they are ‘‘resources’’ to be utilised at
the government’s discretion. The above objectives are followed by a further
explanation with an emphasis on the effective use of native speakers to boost the
teaching system:

. . . a native speaker of English provides a valuable opportunity for students to

learn living English and familiarize themselves with foreign languages and
cultures. To have one’s English understood by a native speaker increases the
students’ joy and motivation for English learning. In this way, the use of a
native speaker of English has great meaning. Similarly . . . cooperation from
the members in the community who are proficient in English due to having
lived overseas and other reasons is highly important . . . Therefore, for the
enhancement of the teaching system, the effective use of native speakers of
 36 Kayoko Hashimoto

English and the use of people living in the local communities with advanced
English abilities will be promoted . . . (Underlining added).

The original Japanese word for ‘‘living English’’ is ikita eigo. The adjective ikita is
used in the sense of authenticity and spontaneity, not in the sense of being in current
use as opposed to being obsolete. It is therefore a vague and subjective expression,
which only emphasises the English that is spoken by native speakers.23 To view
native speakers and local people who speak English as useful resources suggests that
these people are seen for their utility, rather than for their individual backgrounds or
experiences.24 In this sense, the view of English as an instrument is extended to the
perception of English speakers. Some of the so-called returnee children from
overseas technically belong to the category of ‘‘people living in the local
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

communities with advanced English abilities’’. However, returnee children and

students are never mentioned in APJE 2003. Given that English is an academic
subject, proficiency is measured in terms of school levels, and authentic English
belongs to foreigners, this denial or ignorance of the existence of returnee students in
the education system is no accident, because their experience and English cannot be
measured in the current system.25 Once they return to Japan from overseas they are
identified as Japanese, and they cannot be treated as ‘‘resources’’ or ‘‘tools’’ as
foreigners are.
If individual experiences of returnee children from overseas do not fit into the
current education system and are therefore ignored in that system, the framework of
‘‘education for international understanding’’ reflects their exclusion. Under the
section on ‘Improving Motivation for Learning English’, the importance of
education is explained in relation to the new Courses of Study:

[Promotion of education for international understanding]

. Realization of the aims of the new Courses of Study

Education for international understanding is not only applicable to English

classes but to every subject . . . Such education aims at instilling a broader pers-
pective and an understanding of different cultures, fostering attitudes of respect for
such ideas, and the ability to live with people of different cultures (Underlining
added).
‘‘Education for international understanding’’ is part of the promotion
of ‘‘internationalisation’’ or kokusaika. As noted earlier, this is different from
‘‘globalisation’’ because it is the promotion of Japaneseness in the international
community. The promotion of English is based on the belief that English is the
language for international understanding, as though English is the language of
communication, rather than one part of it, for all ‘‘different cultures’’. In the
English version, the expression ‘‘different cultures’’ is repeated, but in the original
Japanese, slightly different expressions are used. The first Japanese expression is
ibunka, which is used as the equivalent to ‘‘cross cultural’’ or ‘‘intercultural’’. It is
a noun, while the second Japanese expression is part of a phrase that reads as
‘‘people who have different cultures’’ [kotonaru bunka o motta hitobito]. The noun
contains a strong sense of difference from one’s own culture. In both cases, its
 Cultivating ‘‘Japanese Who Can Use English’’ 37

differences are not internal, but are expressed in terms of the difference from
Japanese culture. In other words, APJE 2003 aims to motivate students to learn
English by emphasising the difference from Japanese culture, but the diversity
among different cultures is not acknowledged. These different cultures are also
simplified into being represented by one language, English. Again, a negative
view of globalisation is reflected in the way education for ‘‘international
understanding’’ is promoted by presenting the international community as the
other, as distinct from Japan.

Conclusion
This article has considered the case of TEFL in Japan as an example of national
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

efforts to maintain cultural independence in an era of globalisation. As Curran and

Seaton (2003, p. 307) point out, globalisation is said to make the nation state
increasingly irrelevant, and there are many aspects of economic management that
the nation has lost the power to control. This economic aspect of the impact of
globalisation is a backdrop to ‘‘the plans to cultivate Japanese with English
abilities’’. By nature, APJE 2003 is an educational language policy, which was
produced out of a need to boost the Japanese economy. Any educational policy is
potentially problematic since ‘‘education is a site of struggle and compromise’’
(Apple, 2002, p. 213) and language is a place where personal and social interests
conflict. SPJE 2002 and APJE 2003 reveal the attempt by MEXT to prevent the
power of English from undermining Japanese culture and traditions, which are seen
as symbolising the consensus of social and cultural values, by situating English as a
mere tool and imposing government regulation over TEFL in the current
educational framework.
The view of English as a tool is not problematic in itself, as long as it functions to
achieve goals. This is not the case with TEFL in Japan, however, because the goals
themselves are contradictory and often hidden. As noted above, the emphasis on
English as an essential skill for Japanese people in coping with the IT revolution and
globalisation is strong among the business sector in particular, but it is played down
by the education sector because of the fear of the potential influence of English on
Japanese culture and society. This reflects a compromise that affords English the
status of a de facto compulsory subject in the school curriculum, which sets
attainment targets by year level rather than proficiency level, preventing a realistic
assessment of the actual needs of individual learners.
The rhetoric that is used to promote English in the policy documents is well
measured and consistent. The view of English as a tool is applied by treating
foreigners as resources, by categorising students as groups rather than as individual
learners, and by presenting English proficiency as something to be ‘‘owned’’ like an
asset that generates further wealth and profit. MEXT wants to create ‘‘Japanese who
can use English’’ and to use them to solve problems caused by the IT revolution.
MEXT also believes that the process of creating these groups of people must be
regulated and controlled, and this is its ultimate agenda. Consequently, individual
Japanese, both learners and teachers, are forced to engage in practices that are far
from effective in creating ‘‘Japanese who can use English’’. In order to make TEFL
serve both the society and individuals more effectively, in my view, the goals,
 38 Kayoko Hashimoto

outcomes and assessment measures need to be revisited. This will require flexibility
to allow goals to be set according to individual needs and choices, and to determine
assessment criteria accordingly.
While regulation and control is the ultimate purpose of MEXT, its educational
policy has another function. After the Lost Decade, people needed to be re-
energised, which is reflected in the new linguistic practice of adding the suffix ryoku
to existing words. The endless variety of words using ryoku shows people’s strong
desire to possess some kind of ‘‘power’’ and regain something they have lost. By
using the same linguistic practice in policy documents, MEXT is communicating to
its audience that it shares their feelings. This allows MEXT to present a positive
attitude to tackling pressing matters in society. The rhetorical continuity between the
policy texts and public discourse also indicates that APJE 2003 is not a top-
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

down project but is embraced by the wider public. This, in turn, indicates that
Japanese language policies are deeply rooted in society and are therefore difficult to
change.
I have used CDA here as a methodological tool in order to provide evidence of
my argument that the problems and contradictions in the government’s
endeavours are implicit in the policy texts themselves. CDA allows us to see
beyond the reading of these documents that was intended by the policy makers. If
we read these documents as they are intended to be read, we would need to wait
until the plan has been implemented to be able to evaluate its effectiveness.
However, by applying CDA to our reading of the texts, we are able to argue issues
on their own terms as used in the texts. Comparing the Japanese originals and the
English versions also provides an opportunity to examine the gap between the
messages for domestic and international audiences. Some rhetoric is used
consistently throughout the texts, and if there is any contradiction or problem
in the policy, it is evident in the text itself. This kind of reading is partly possible
because the texts themselves were carefully crafted, at least in the original
Japanese, from the beginning. The Japanese government evidently understands the
power of discourse, and that power is exercised in policy making even when it
contains banalities.
This article has revealed some of the micro- and macro-relationships between the
nation, individuals and the function of educational policies in Japan. The
government’s plan to create ‘‘Japanese who can use English’’ demonstrates that it
is part of the national effort to maintain cultural independence in an era of
globalisation. At the same time, language learning activities that have the potential
to provide individual learners with personal space have been regulated and
controlled in a covert way by the government.
It has been five years since APJE 2003 was announced. The 5-year plan will be
completed in 2008, and the government is expected to publish a report on its
achievements. An analysis of the Ministry’s self-assessment of the plan will in time
provide material for a further study.

Acknowledgment
I wish to acknowledge the generous support of the Centre for Critical Cultural
Studies at The University of Queensland during my Faculty Fellowship in 2007.
 Cultivating ‘‘Japanese Who Can Use English’’ 39

Notes
1. They were published in both Japanese and English. The Japanese title of SPJE is ‘‘‘Eigo ga
tsukaeru Nihonjin’’ no ikusei no tame no senryaku kôsô’, and the title of APJE is ‘‘‘Eigo ga
tsukaeru Nihonjin’’ no ikusei no tame no kôdô keikaku’.
2. See LoCastro (1992) for her argument that English has been ‘‘dehumanised’’ and
‘‘decontextualised’’ by the Japanese education system.
3. It is well known that Japan’s TOEFL score in 1999 was the lowest among Asian countries
(Torikai, 2002).
4. See Tsui and Tollefson (2007) for the issue of English and national identities in Asian countries.
5. For example, ‘‘kûru bizu’’ [a shortened version of ‘‘cool business’’], which became the vogue
word of the year in 2005, was originally chosen from public nominations by the Ministry of
Environment to promote energy saving. ‘‘IT kakumei’’ [IT revolution] and ‘‘kakusa shakai’’
[society with growing class divisions] were the vogue words of the year in 2000 and 2006
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

respectively, and are now established Japanese words in both public and private sectors.
6. See Billig (1997) for his argument on ‘‘banal nationalism’’ in relation to the unexamined
assumptions of politicians and media when using shared metaphors and idioms with which to
persuade their audience.
7. It is sometimes indicated that English translations are outsourced for the English editions of
government publications. In the translation trade, it is common practice to translate from the
target language to the native language of the translator. However, this is not the case in Japan
because of the chronic shortage of native English translators.
8. Since 1995, only Part I, which contains a feature topic for the year, of the original Japanese
edition has been published in English.
9. Only selected documents are posted on the English sites, and these are often abbreviated versions
of the original Japanese texts.
10. Proust’s A la recherche du temps perdu was translated as Ushinawareta toki o motomete.
11. According to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the highest recorded levels of
unemployment and increase in part-time labour were in 1998. The survey also shows that there
was a change in the attitudes of young people toward employment (Kôsei-Rôdô-shô, 1998).
12. The report was published in both Japanese and English.
13. See Shibuya and Kojima (2007) on the lack of the legal definition of official languages in Japan.
In relation to the assumption that Japanese is the only official language in the society, Shibuya
and Kojima point out that Japanese language is customarily used in courts, and the right to be
provided with an interpreting service is not guaranteed, which is against the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
14. See Hashimoto (2007a) for details of this cultural phenomenon.
15. Capitalising on the new linguistic boom in –ryoku, Yamada (2006) published a book called
‘‘Eigo-ryoku to wa nani ka (What is English ability?), which challenges the definition of the word.
Yamada argues that everybody agrees that eigo-ryoku is about individual ability or competence
in English. However, nothing is clear beyond that, because there has never been adequate
discussion to clarify the definition of the word in TEFL.
16. There have been some adjustments in the academic sector in this respect. The Society of
Japanese Linguistics, established as Kokugo Gakkai in 1944, changed its name to Nihongo
Gakkai in 2004 to accommodate a larger audience (see their homepage – http://www.jpling.gr.jp
[accessed 20 October 2008]).
17. According to Asahi Shinbun (3 October 2007), the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry
pointed out a gap between the education sector and the business sector in terms of the focus
on cultivating talents. (Shakai ga motomeru jinzai to wa: keisanshô to monkashô ga kaigi
secchi: http://www.asahi.com/politics/update/1003/TKY200710030272.html [accessed 3 Octo-
ber 2007]).
18. MEXT Yôgoshû. http://homepage3.nifty.com/TONO/monbu.htm (accessed 25 May 2007).
19. The issue surrounding the slogan needs to be looked at in relation to the impact of widening
class divisions on education and TEFL. However, that is outside the scope of this article.
20. As noted in Note 19, the issues of widening class divisions and individual responsibility for one’s
own abilities are closely related to the promotion of TEFL.
 40 Kayoko Hashimoto

21. http://stepeiken.org/about/eiken-grades.shtml
22. See Wolferen (1990) for his argument about Japanese attitudes to perfection in learning.
23. No definition is given for the term ‘‘native speaker’’ in APJE 2003. The original Japanese is a
loanword, neitibu supıˆkâ.
24. There are other issues that need to be considered in relation to the involvement of local people,
such as age, financial and employment status. The government does not appear to take these into
consideration in policy implementation.
25. See McVeigh (2002). He argues that they are ostracised because of their English abilities.

References
AERA (2008) Shirinugui, tsukaisute, rosu-jene haken no hiai. 11 February.
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

AERA (2006) Hide sedai no yûutsu to shôsô. 28 August.

Apple, Michael W. (2002) Are markets in education democratic? Neoliberal globalism, vouchers, and the
politics of choice, in Michael W. Apple, Jane Kenway and Michael Singh (eds), Globalizing education:
Policies, pedagogies, and politics, pp. 209–30 (New York: Peter Lang).
Beauchamp, Edward R. and James M. Vardaman Jr (1994) Japanese education since 1945: A documentary
study (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe).
Bermejo, Fernando (2007) The Internet audience: Constitution and measurement (New York: Peter
Lang).
Billig, Michael (1997) Banal nationalism (London: Sage Publications).
Blommaert, Jan (2005) Discourse: A critical introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Curran, James and Jean Seaton (2003) Power without responsibility: The press, broadcasting, and new
media in Britain (London: Routledge).
Danet, Brenda and Susan C. Herring (2007) The multilingual internet (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Dore, R.P. (1968) Education: A. Japan, in Robert E. Ward and Dankwart A. Rustow (eds), Political
modernization in Japan and Turkey, pp. 176–204 (New Jersey: Princeton University Press).
Funabashi, Yôichi (2000) Aete eigo kôyôgo-ron (Tokyo: Bungei Shunjû).
Funabashi, Yôichi (1994) Japan’s international agenda (New York: New York University Press).
Goodman, Roger (1993) Japan’s ‘international youth’: The emergence of a new class of schoolchildren
(Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Hafez, Kai (2007) The myth of media globalization, trans. Alex Skinner (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Hashimoto, Kayoko (2007a) Power and illusion: Old words, new expressions and desire for
empowerment. AUMLA, Special Issue, pp. 105–14.
Hashimoto, Kayoko (2007b) Japan’s language policy and the ‘lost decade’, in Amy B. M. Tsui and James
W. Tollefson (eds), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts, pp. 25–36 (Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
Hashimoto, Kayoko (2000) ‘‘Internationalisation’’ is ‘‘Japanisation’’. Journal of Intercultural Studies 21,
pp. 39–51.
Holborow, Marnie (1999) The politics of English: A Marxist view of language (London: Sage
Publications).
Inoue, Fumio (2000) Kôyôgo-ka no hitsuyô keihi. Gengo 29(8), pp. 30–37.
Kawai, Yuko (2007) Japanese nationalism and the global spread of English: An analysis of Japanese
governmental and public discourses on English. Language and Intercultural Communication 7(1),
pp. 37–55.
Kôsei-Rôdô-shô (1998) Heisei 10-nenban rôdô keizai no bunseki. http://kensaku.mhlw.go.jp/app,
accessed 13 May 2007.
Kubota, Ryûko (2002) The impact of globalisation on language teaching in Japan, in David Blocks
and Deborah Cameron (eds), Globalisation and language teaching, pp. 13–28 (London:
Routledge).
Lebra, Takie S. (2004) The Japanese self in cultural logic (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press).
LoCastro, Virginia (1991) The English in Japanese university entrance examinations: A sociocultural
analysis. World Englishes 9(3), pp. 343–54.
 Cultivating ‘‘Japanese Who Can Use English’’ 41

Matsuura, Hiroko, Miho Fujieda and Sean Mahoney (2004) The officialization of English and ELT in
Japan: 2000. World Englishes 23(3), pp. 471–87.
McCormack, Gavan (1996) Kokusaika: Impediments in Japan’s deep structure, in Ronald Denoon and
Mark Hudson et al. (eds), Multicultural Japan: Palaeolithic to postmodern, pp. 265–86 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
McVeigh, Brian J. (2002) Japanese higher education as myth (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe).
Miller, Roy Andres (1982) Japan’s modern myth: The language and beyond (New York: Weather Hill).
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2003) Regarding the
establishment of an action plan to cultivate ‘‘Japanese with English abilities’’. http://www.mext.go.jp/
english/03072801.htm, accessed 2 March 2005.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2002) Developing a strategic
plan to cultivate ‘‘Japanese with English abilities’’. http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/
020901.htm, accessed 3 February 2005.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2002) Educational reform:
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014

Human resources strategy http://www.mext.go.jp/english/org/reform/08.htm, accessed 11 February

2008.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (2001) Japanese government
policies in education, culture, sports, science and technology 2001. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_nemu/
hakusho/html, accessed 21 May 2007.
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (1995) Japanese government policies in education, science and
culture 1994 (Tokyo: Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance).
Monbu-Kagaku-shô (2003) ‘‘Eigo ga tsukaeru Nihonjin’’ no ikusei no tame no kôdô keikaku. http://
www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/15/03/03033102.pdf
Monbu-Kagaku-shô (2002) ‘‘Eigo ga tsukaeru Nihonjin’’ no ikusei no tame no senryaku kôsô. Press
conference 12 July 2002. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/soshiki/daijin/020714.htm, accessed 21 May
2007.
Monbu-Kagaku-shô (2002) Ningen-ryoku senryaku bijon. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/14/
09/020911.htm, accessed 21 May 2007.
Monbu-Kagaku-shô (2002) Monbu kagaku hakusho heisei 14-nendo. http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/
hakusho/html/hpab200201/hpab200201_2_058.htm, accessed 27 May 2007.
Monbu-shô (1994) Heisei 6-nendo waga kuni no bunkyô seisaku (Tokyo: Printing Bureau, Ministry of
Finance).
Moncreiffe, Joy and Rosalind Eyben (2007) The power of labelling: How people are categorized and why it
matters (Sterling: Earthscan).
Naikakufu (2002) Keizai zaisei un’ei to kôzô kaikaku ni kansuru kihon hôshin 2002. http://www.keizai-
shimon.go.jp/cabinet/2002/0625kakugikettei.pdf, accessed 20 May 2007.
Nakatsu, Ryôko (1993) Ibunka shûtoku no kihon wa mazu meiseiki na Nippongo. World Plaza 26,
pp. 12–4.
21seiki Nihon no Kôsô Kondan-kai (2000) 21seiki Nihon no kôsô: Nihon no furontia wa Nihon no naka
ni aru. http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/21century/houkokusyo/index1.html, accessed 16 March 2003.
Pennycook, Alastair (2001) Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction (Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers).
Prime Minister’s Commission on Japan’s Goals in the 21st Century (2000) Japan’s goals in the 21st
century: The frontier within. http://www.kantei.go.jp, accessed 20 February 2005.
Richardson, John E. (2007) Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
Saxonhouse, Gary R. and Robert M. Stern, eds. (2004) Japan’s lost decade: Origins, consequences and
prospects for recovery (Malden: Blackwell Publishing).
Shibuya, Kenjirô and Isamu Kojima, eds. (2007) Gengo-ken no riron to jissen (Tokyo: Sangensha).
Shushô Kantei (2001) Koizumi naikaku sôri daijin shoshin hyômei enzetsu. http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/
koizumispeech/2001/0507syosin.html, accessed 27 May 2007.
Tanaka, Katsuhiko (2000) Gengo towa nani ka. Gengo 29(8), pp. 40–46.
Torikai, Kumiko (2002) TOEFL, TOEIC to Nihonjin no eigo-ryoku (Tokyo: Kôdansha).
Tsui, Amy B.M. and James W. Tollefson (2007) Language policy and the construction of national cultural
identity, in Amy B.M. Tsui and James W. Tollefson (eds), Language policy, culture, and identity in
Asian context, pp. 1–21 (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers).
 42 Kayoko Hashimoto

Van Dijk, Teun A. (2001) Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity, in Ruth Wadak and
Michael Meyer (eds), Method of critical discourse analysis, pp. 95–120 (London: Sage Publications).
Warabi-shi Shichô (2001) Heisei 13nendo shisei hôshin. http://city.warabi.saitama.jp/hisho/sityou/sub1.
htm, accessed 24 February 2005.
Wolferen, Karel van (1990) The enigma of Japanese power (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Yamada, Yûichirô (2006) Eigo-ryoku to wa nani ka (Tokyo: Taishûkan).
Yoshikawa, Hiroshi (2002) Japan’s lost decade, trans. Charles H. Stewart (Tokyo: The International
House of Japan).
Yoshino, Kosaku (1995) Cultural nationalism in contemporary Japan (London and New York:
Routledge).
Downloaded by [Florida Institute of Technology] at 10:34 22 August 2014