This article was downloaded by: [Yuri Kumagai]On: 21 January 2014, At: 16:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Writing Systems ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pwsr20

Power of language ideologies:Challenging the notion of foreignloanwords in Japanese-as-a-foreign-language classroomNeriko Musha Doerra & Yuri Kumagaiba American and International Studies, Ramapo College,Mahwah, NJ, USAb Department of East Asian Languages & Literatures, SmithCollege, Northampton, MA, USAPublished online: 16 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Neriko Musha Doerr & Yuri Kumagai , Writing Systems Research (2014): Powerof language ideologies: Challenging the notion of foreign loanwords in Japanese-as-a-foreign-language classroom, Writing Systems Research, DOI: 10.1080/17586801.2013.869190

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2013.869190

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 tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand 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 Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Power of language ideologies: Challenging the notion offoreign loanwords in Japanese-as-a-foreign-language

classroom

Neriko Musha Doerr1 and Yuri Kumagai2

1American and International Studies, Ramapo College, Mahwah, NJ, USA2Department of East Asian Languages & Literatures, Smith College, Northampton,MA, USA

In foreign language (FL) classrooms, students are rarely alerted to the politics behind aparticular use of words. The recent introduction of critical literacy in some FL classrooms haspushed students to understand the ways texts influence how we perceive and act in society.Nonetheless, some of the basic linguistic notions have yet to be challenged in FL classrooms,preventing critical literacy from achieving its full potential. We examined Kumagai’s criticalliteracy project in an intermediate Japanese-as-a-foreign-language classroom at a college in thenorth-eastern US. The project encouraged students to question the textbook’s prescriptiveexplanation regarding the use of katakana (a Japanese syllabary system that the textbookexplains to be for foreign loanwords). Analysis of classroom interactions and students’reflection papers revealed that the notion of foreign loanword stifled the students’ criticalthinking. We argue that it is because the notion supports an absolute and static foreign/Japanese distinction, the idea of language as a homogeneous and bounded unit, and marking ofonly certain ‘foreignness’. We call for FL education to include critiques of taken-for-grantedlinguistic notions in order to make students become aware of the role that language plays inmaintaining or transforming social orders.

Keywords: Katakana orthography; Foreign language learning; Linguistic ideology; Criticalliteracy; Japanese.

This article analyses how the ideological underpinnings of a particular concept—‘foreignloanword’1—can stifle learners’ critical and analytical thinking even as they engage incritical literacy practice. It is based on a case from an intermediate Japanese-as-a-Foreign-Language (JFL) college class in the United States. The Japanese language has three writingsystems: kanji, hiragana and katakana. A writer’s choice of script often involves meaning-creating processes, but each system of writing also has some normative rules: kanji is used

Correspondence should be addressed to Neriko Musha Doerr, American and International Studies, RamapoCollege, 505 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430, USA. E-mail: ndoerr@ramapo.edu

We are grateful to Shinji Sato and Miyuki Fukai for their comments on the earlier drafts. We also thank theeditor and anonymous reviewers of the journal, Writing Systems Research, for their constructive comments on ourearlier draft and Christopher Doerr for copyediting the draft. The text’s deficiencies are our responsibility.

1The notion of foreign loanword is a constructed one, as the quotation marks here indicate. However, we forgotheir use elsewhere in this article for the sake of readability.

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

WRITING SYSTEMS RESEARCH, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2013.869190

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

for content words and hiragana primarily for function words. The use of katakana is morecomplex, as this article will show. Overwhelmingly, however, JFL textbooks explain thatkatakana is used for foreign loanwords (e.g., Banno, Ohno, Sakane, & Shinagawa, 1999;Nagara, 1990). Kumagai carried out a katakana project designed to question the textbookexplanation and promote students’ awareness of katakana’s contextual use2 by having themcollect samples of katakana words from real-life texts. By extension, the project aimed tonurture students’ critical attitude towards any authoritative writing, including that intextbooks (Kumagai, 2007a, 2007b, 2008). This article analyses one of the unexpectedresults this project revealed (also, see Doerr, 2011).

Participants in the project were told to find various uses of katakana. They recognisedthat katakana script does not automatically mean that words written in it are foreignloanwords. What caught our attention, however, was that they perceived the anomalous useof katakana for words that are not foreign loans differently from such use for foreignloanwords. For the former, students viewed the anomalous use as deriving from the writer’sintention to evoke a certain impression in a particular context. For the latter, in contrast,they discussed its anomalous use in terms of the static quality of the words, whether theywere of foreign origin or not. By examining the students’ oral and written discussions, weanalyse what made students notice the contextual use of the word and what prevented themfrom noticing it. Viewing this as a case in which ideological underpinnings of the notionof foreign loanword—that is, the static binary opposition of foreign versus Japanese—influenced students’ thinking, we call on foreign language (FL) education to critique thisand other taken-for-granted linguistic notions and to alert students to the politics behindcertain language uses (for similar calls, see Doerr, 2009; Kumagai, 2007a, 2007b, 2008,2009; Kumagai & Fukai, 2009; Kumagai & Iwasaki, 2011; Kubota & Austin, 2007;Wallace, 2003). In the JFL classroom, such critiques would urge students to be mindful ofthe locally specific construction of what is foreign, its continued (re)production throughorthographic choices, and the effects of highlighting foreign/domestic difference over othertypes of difference.

We do not suggest doing away with the entire textbook explanation of katakana uses.Rather, we encourage students to deconstruct taken-for-granted notions and become awareof ideologies behind them (Hall, 1996). That way, students still gain a generalunderstanding of how it is commonly used, but can use it more creatively or subvert thenormative uses and the ideologies behind them if they desire.

In what follows, we will briefly overview existing literature on critical literacy andlanguage ideologies and describe the katakana writing system and how it has been taughtin JFL classrooms. Then we will introduce the katakana project and our method ofanalysis, describe and analyse the data, and discuss what these data say about the foreignloanwords. We conclude by discussing some pedagogical implications and suggestingways to raise students’ awareness of the effects of concepts like foreign loanword.

CRITICAL LITERACYAND LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES

One dominant view of the role of texts in FL reading instruction regards written texts assources of ‘language data’ used for ‘language exercises’ (Alderson & Urquhart, 1984;Bernhardt, 1991; Devitt, 1997; Elley, 1984) like examining grammar and vocabulary andpractising oral decoding (Grabe, 1991). From this viewpoint, language consists of stable,

2Here, “contextual use” means the use that shows the writer’s intention to evoke a certain impression in readersin the given context.

2 DOERR AND KUMAGAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

static, apolitical codes divorced from political, historical and sociocultural context. Thegoal of reading instruction in FL teaching is often literal comprehension (Wallace, 2003).Students’ task is to decipher linguistic codes and uncover writers’ encoded meanings, asinterpreted by the teacher.

In contrast, critical literacy focuses on the power relations that writers create through theuse of language in texts. It uses linguistic analyses of texts to help readers learn howwriters shape messages for particular readers to accomplish certain goals (Pennycook,2001). It requires self-reflection, which leads to problematising or interrogating taken-for-granted concepts (e.g., Kubota, 1996; Pennycook, 2001; Wallace, 2003). It also encourageslearners to consider ways to innovate and appropriate language uses for their ownpurposes. It aims to make learners conscious that all texts—textbooks included—implicatetheir writers’ values and worldviews, and that texts’ presentations of reality, includinglinguistic rules, are always partial and interested, and thus always open to contestation(Brodkey, 1996).

Some argue that critical literacy should be reserved for advanced-level FL education(for critique, see Hammond & Macken-Horarik, 1999; Luke, 1995), or that it is not a partof FL education (for a review of this discussion, see Comber & Simpson, 2001; Wallace,2003). However, we believe developing critical literacy early in FL learning is importantbecause learners tend to take an ‘overly deferential stance’ (Wallace, 2003) towards FLtexts due to their status as ‘learners’ (Iwasaki & Kumagai, 2008; Kumagai &Iwasaki, 2011).

Although FL classrooms have begun to incorporate critical literacy in recent years(Iwasaki & Kumagai, 2008; Kumagai, 2007a, 2007b, 2009, 2011; Kumagai & Fukai,2009; Kumagai & Iwasaki, 2011; Ramos, 2001; Wallace, 2003), seldom have studentsbeen urged to critique basic linguistic concepts and the language ideologies behind them.Language ideologies represent the perception of language constructed in the interest of aspecific group, mediating between social structures and language uses (Kroskrity, 2000;Woolard, 1998).

This article pinpoints ideological assumptions behind the notion of foreign loanwordand their effects by describing how an attempt to develop critical literacy was stifled whensuch ideological assumptions were not problematised. It also suggests practical solutionsFL teachers can use to urge students to recognise and challenge these ideologies.

KATAKANA: WAYS IT HAS BEEN USED, VIEWED AND TAUGHT

The Japanese language’s three writing systems, mentioned earlier, can be more preciselydescribed as consisting of two orthographic systems: kana and kanji. Kana is a sound-based script (syllabary). There are two kinds of syllabaries, hiragana and katakana,which represent the same sounds (e.g., for the sound ‘a’, the writer can use hiragana,あ, orkatakana, ア). Kanji, which means Chinese character, is a meaning-based script(logography) where one character represents the meaning of a morpheme. These systemsare used simultaneously in typical Japanese sentences.3 A writer has some freedom to playwith the choice of script. For example, isu ‘chair’ can be written in hiragana <いす>,katakana <イス> or kanji <椅子>, respectively, evoking different images such as a simplewooden chair, a modern elegant chair and an old-fashioned chair (Ukita et al., 1996; citedin Iwahara, Hatta, & Maehara, 2003, p. 393).

3Roomaji (the Roman alphabet) is also used, though less frequently.

POWER OF LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Historically, the use of katakana reflected genres of writing (e.g., dictionaries, warstories and folklore from the thirteenth century) and the people associated with them (e.g.,from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, scholars and priests used a mix of kanji andkatakana for documents translated from Chinese, academic writings and drafts of officialdocuments; women and “commoners” used kanji mixed with hiragana) (Tsugami, 2001).

Also, katakana indicated a word’s foreign origin in complex ways, reflecting Japan’shistorically changing relationships to other countries. Until the eighteenth century, exceptfor a handful of Portuguese and Dutch words, ‘foreign’ influence in Japanese had comefrom China, differentiating Chinese-origin words (kango) and Japanese-origin words(wago). In the nineteenth century, ‘Western’ countries became the main source of foreigninfluence, marking Western-origin words as gairaigo, which literally means ‘words thatcame from outside’. That is, there are three categories of vocabulary differentiated by theirperceived origins (Jin-nouchi, 2007).

However, to complicate the matter, not all Western-origin words are marked as gairaigowith katakana. Of the many words introduced from Western countries in the Meiji period(1868–1912), only some came to be written in katakana. The newly introduced words fromWestern/European languages were written in Japanese in six ways: (1) using equivalentChinese words derived from ancient Chinese writings or Buddhist writings translated intoChinese (e.g., ‘国会’ read as kokkai ‘national assembly, Diet’); (2) borrowing contempor-ary Chinese words that are translations of the Western words (e.g., ‘電気’ read as denki‘electricity’); (3) inventing new words by putting two or more words together (e.g., theterm ‘aesthetics’ was invented from the kanji characters ‘美’ bi and ‘学’ gaku, which mean‘beauty’ and ‘study’, respectively); (4) transliterating the Western pronunciation withkatakana accompanied by its Japanese translation in parentheses (e.g., ‘フリートレード(自由商売)’ read as furii toreedo, transliteration of the English ‘free trade’); (5)transliterating the sound of Western words using kanji (e.g., ‘倶楽部’ read as kurabu‘club’); and (6) translating words’ meanings and writing them in kanji with the spelling inthe original alphabet above the kanji (e.g., ‘ ’) (Seeley, 2000). Only the fourth, butwithout Japanese translation, led to the current use of katakana. That is, among manywords derived from Western words, only some came to be written down with katakana andrecognised as gairaigo.4

On the other hand, in general, kango (Chinese-origin words) are considered Japanese,not foreign loanwords.5 Kango are codified in Japanese national-language dictionaries(Kokugo-jiten) rather than foreign loanword dictionaries (gairaigo-jiten) (Loveday, 1996).Also, kango are called ‘Sino-Japanese words’ in English as opposed to gairaigo, translatedas ‘foreign loanword’.

Distinguishing between Western- and Chinese-origin words rather than lumping themtogether as ‘foreign’ reflected not only the different time of their incorporation into Japanesebut also Japan’s differential view of them. The tripartite distinction between wago, kango andgairaigo was drawn in a context that valorised Westernisation, equated with modernisation

4Debates problematising the difficulty of kanji caused some words conventionally written in kanji to be writtenin katakana or hiragana in this period. Also, some words whose kanji were not included in the Tooyoo kanji (kanjidesignated for general use) list published in 1946 came to be written in katakana as others continued to be used ininformal settings (Tsugami, 2001).

5The 2nd-grade textbook for native speaker students explains that katakana is used for (1) sounds animalsmake (e.g., chirping), (2) sounds of various things (e.g., the sound of a bell), (3) names of countries, places, andpeople in foreign countries (e.g., India), and (4) words that came from foreign countries (e.g., cheese) (Miyachi,2010). The Course of Study for native speakers developed by the Japanese government does not specificallyexplain katakana use. This article’s focus is FL textbooks, but it is the discourses in education for native speakersthat allow us to understand the government’s position on Japanese language use (Kubota, 2002).

4 DOERR AND KUMAGAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

and development, over ‘backward’ Asian ways. Japan sought to join ‘advanced’ Westernpowers as an imperialist country that had colonised parts of China, Taiwan, Korea and otherAsian countries, regarding them as in need of ‘development’ (Sakai, 1996).

The gap between the tripartite categorisation of Japanese words and the Japan–foreignloanword binary has received little mention in (socio)linguistics and language policyresearch in Japan. There, discussion often concerns instead why foreign loanwords areincreasing, how they are Japanised, how the general public perceives them, and theirfunctions (Daulton, 2008; Haarmann, 1984, 1986; Honna, 1995; Kay, 1995; Loveday,1996; Miller, 1998). The functions of un-Japanised foreign words are also analysed fortheir effects (Daulton, 2008; Haarmann, 1984, 1986) or modal attitude towards Japanese asa language for interethnic communication (Moody, 2006).

Linguists and policy makers focus on gairaigo, assuming that either katakana or theRoman alphabet is always used for Western-origin words. For example, Kay (1995) arguesthat katakana allows Western influence to be compartmentalised and Japanese culture tostay intact, ignoring contextual use of katakana for some foreign-origin words. Otherworks focus on how katakana words are increasingly replacing kanji words, thus deprivingJapanese of a tool for nuanced expression in kango (Honna, 1995).

Other research based on the static view of word-writing system focuses on which typeof word—wago, kango or gairaigo—is used to convey the same meaning, rather than onhow to write a word (i.e., with hiragana, katakana or kanji). For example, to mean a ‘need’for something, researchers discuss whether people should use ‘ニーズ’ (niizu; gairaigowritten in katakana), ‘必要’ (histuyoo; kango written in kanji) or ‘要る’ (iru; wago writtenin kanji and hiragana) (Stanlaw, 2004). Daulton (2008) claims that the choice of gairaigoover a kango or wago equivalent expresses particular connotations, such as an affectationor a euphemism (see also Loveday, 1996). Such discussion assumes that gairaigo is alwayswritten in katakana.

As for the general Japanese public’s reception of the increase in katakana/foreignloanwords in media, advertising and so on, a 2003 opinion poll6 by the National Institute forJapanese Language and Linguistics reported that the majority viewed it negatively becauseit “is hard to communicate”, “causes misunderstanding”, “destroys Japanese traditions”and “is difficult to pronounce and remember the meaning”. In line with proposals by theNational Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, the government seeks to restrictthe use of katakana/foreign loanwords, a stance observable in the publication of dictionariesfor rewording katakana/foreign loanwords into wago/kango alternatives.

Students in the JFL classroom usually learn hiragana first, then katakana (each has46 letters). Kanji are learned over several years following mastery of hiragana andkatakana, as the list of kanji for daily activities ( jooyoo kanji, commonly used kanji)includes 2136 kanji7 and some thousand additional kanji are used for proper nouns,literature and science (Taylor, 1998).

Conventionally, as mentioned, beginner-level JFL textbooks teach that katakana is usedmainly for foreign loanwords. For example, Genki, a textbook used at the college whereKumagai teaches, states, “Katakana is normally used for writing loanwords and foreignnames” (Banno et al., 1999, p. 28). Japanese for Everyone explains: “Katakana isgenerally reserved for words and names borrowed from other languages, exceptingChinese” (Nagara, 1990, p. 14). Not all textbooks limit katakana use to foreign loanwords,but this use is usually listed first. For example, Nakama explains: “Katakana is used mainly

6http://www.ninjal.ac.jp/products-k/katsudo/seika/genzai/ishiki/index.html (retrieved July 8, 2011).7The number of jooyoo kanji was adjusted from 1985 to 2136 in 2010.

POWER OF LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

for words from other languages, such as keeki (cakes), and words for sounds, such aswanwan (the Japanese word for bow-wow)” (Makino, Hatasa, & Hatasa, 1998, p. 2);Yookoso states: “Generally speaking, the use of katakana is restricted to loanwords,onomatopoeic (sound effect) words, and words the writer wishes to emphasize. Plant andanimal names are also often written in katakana” (Tohsaku, 2006, p. 56); andCommunicating in Japanese explains: “The use of katakana is limited to writing loanwordsfrom the West and to serving as ‘italics’ in Japanese” (Noto, 1993, p. 4).

While three of the above textbooks (Genki, Nakama and Yookoso) use the binary ofJapanese words and foreign loanwords, the other two (Japanese for Everyone andCommunicating in Japanese) exclude Chinese and non-Western languages from thecategory of foreign loanwords. The former reveals a problematic equation of the notions‘foreign’ and ‘the West’ in Japan, ignoring the distinction between kango (written in kanji)and gairaigo (see Kubota, 2002).

In short, studies on loanwords in Japanese language or JFL textbooks rarely discuss themanagement of expression through the choice of script or the discrepancy between thenotions of foreign loanword and gairaigo. Whereas Kumagai’s katakana project addressedthe former little-discussed issue, as we explain below, this article encourages further criticalinvestigation of the latter and of the notion of foreign loanwords in general (also, seeDoerr, 2011).

THE KATAKANA PROJECT

In the autumn of 2007, in their fifth semester of Japanese courses at a private women’scollege in the north-eastern United States, 11 students in an intermediate Japanese languageclass engaged in a katakana project. They had used the textbook Genki (Vols. 1 and 2) intheir beginner-level Japanese classes. At the time of the project, they had completedstudies with the intermediate-level textbook New approach: Japanese intermediate course(Oyanagi, 2002) and begun to read authentic texts such as short stories and news magazinearticles.

After a student asked about an anomalous use of katakana in a text, Kumagai decided tobring in critical literacy practice by assigning the katakana project, in which students foundout when and for what purposes katakana is used (Kumagai, 2007a, 2009, 2011). By theproject’s end, the students had generally met the instructional goals listed below, althoughto encourage their own inquiry these had not been explicit:

(1) To critically examine the textbook rule ‘katakana is used for foreign loanwords’ byinvestigating real-life uses of katakana.

(2) To develop an inquisitive attitude by asking, ‘Why is a particular orthography usedto write a given word?’

(3) To understand that orthographic changes can cause the same word to evokedifferent images and nuances.

(4) To become aware that the seemingly simple choice of orthography is madeintentionally to construct a particular meaning for particular purpose.

(5) To learn to make their own choices when creating texts to communicate variousmeanings.

Having students critique the ideological underpinning of the notion of foreign loanworddiscussed in this article was not part of the original instructional goals.

6 DOERR AND KUMAGAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Procedure

To prepare for the project and get an idea of students’ prior understanding,8 the studentswere asked (1) how the use of katakana had been explained to them before, (2) whetherthey had seen katakana uses differing from the teacher/textbook explanation (and if so,where) and (3) how different orthography created different impressions about the sameword (e.g., <マンガ>, <まんが>, <漫画> and <manga>: manga ‘Japanese comic books’written in hiragana, katakana, kanji and romaji, respectively) (Day 1: 20 minutes).

To Question 1, students said they had learned that katakana was for foreign loanwords,onomatopoeia and sound effects in manga. One said it was for emphasis. These answersresonate with the textbook explanations. To Question 2, they answered yes; they had seenother usages in manga, children’s stories, magazines, advertisements, snack package text,lyrics and movie titles. To Question 3, they said romaji was for those who cannot readJapanese, kanji imparted more seriousness and adult-like impressions, hiragana gavechildish impressions, and katakana looked more modern and ‘cool’.

Next, the students spent two weeks collecting examples of katakana words from varioussources. In the thirteenth week, they devoted group discussion to possible reasons forkatakana use and impressions the script choice evoked, which they summarised in anewsprint for presentation in class (see Appendix for examples), followed by a whole-classdiscussion (Day 2: 60 minutes). They wrote a reflection paper in Japanese for homework.

STUDENTS’ VIEWS OF KATAKANA USE

To understand the ways students categorised and interpreted katakana uses that fell outsidethe textbook explanations, we separately examined transcripts of class discussions andstudents’ reflection papers inductively and recursively and coded the emergent themes andpatterns. Then we compared and contrasted our individual findings and developed the finalargument.

Below, we introduce and analyse the class discussion and reflection papers. Studentnames are pseudonyms for reasons of privacy.

Class discussion

On 26 November 2007, Kumagai led a class discussion9 (30 minutes), encouragingstudents to think about how katakana was used and for what purposes in various contexts.We chose the segments below (out of 161 turns) because they particularly illuminated howthe students rationalised katakana uses that fell outside textbook descriptions by puttingthem in context and making personal meanings. The words in bold indicate such instances.

Excerpt 1. The class was discussing katakana use in scribing wasee-eigo ‘Japanese-made-English’ and proper nouns in magazines (see Appendix, Categories B and D).

63 Kumagai: (reading from the list on the newsprint) “It [katakana] sounds cooler.”64 Meg: Really. Even in songs.65 Kumagai: Cooler than what? Cooler than hiragana or kanji?66 Sandra: It seems… it’s not first language.67 Kumagai: Oh, it gives an impression that it is not first language. So, if it is written inkatakana, it’s cool?

8Comparison of viewpoints before and after the project is not within this article’s scope.9Discussion was in Japanese and was translated into English by the authors.

POWER OF LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

68 Heidi: Gives out foreign atmosphere more.69 Kumagai: If you write it not in English but in katakana?70 Heidi: Yes (laugh). But, um, [by using katakana] you don’t have to understand English.

Here, the students maintained that katakana use evokes a sense of ‘coolness’—that is,‘foreign atmosphere’—because it depicted words that were not in the first language(i.e., Japanese) but did not require readers to have knowledge of the foreign language(i.e., English).

Excerpt 2. The class then discussed the reasons why personal pronouns that could berendered in kanji are often written in katakana in manga or stories (see Appendix,Category I).

97 Yi: … And many places, “ore (‘オレ’),” “boku (‘ボク’),” and “atashi (‘アタシ’)” (all ‘I’)[katakana is] used.98 Kumagai: They are the same [words], right? Why do you think?…101 Paula: To show one’s personality.102 Kumagai: What kind of personality?103 Paula: Like someone who uses dialect or uses very masculine words.104 Kumagai: Yes, that may be right. “ore [in katakana] ga yaru (オレがやる ‘I’ll do it’ in amasculine way)” or “oomono [in katakana] ga tsureta ze [in katakana] (オオモノがつれたゼ‘Got a big one’ in a masculine way)” (Reading from the newsprint) … masculine?105 Paula: And, conversation of women, like “nee”.10 When you want to make it sound cute,say “ne” [in katakana].

This exchange highlights how katakana use evokes certain impressions about thepersonality of the person uttering the words (‘masculine’ or ‘cute’).

Excerpt 3. The class discussed Japanese spoken by non-Japanese persons (seeAppendix, Category H).

111 Katy: Um… foreigners and people who cannot speak Japanese well spoke in katakana.112 Kumagai: Spoke in katakana!? (students laugh) Why do you think?113 Yi: Wrong pronunciation.114 Kumagai: Wrong pronunciation. Any other reasons? Is that it? Just pronunciation?

This exchange suggests katakana not only gives an impression of foreignness (Excerpt 1),but also visually marks the foreignness of utterances (i.e., ‘wrong pronunciation’) spokenby non-Japanese. Katakana use thus created an impression about the pronunciation of theutterances described.

Excerpt 4. In this excerpt, the students gave reasons why some Japanese words (e.g.,tasukete ‘Help!’, boku ‘I’ in a masculine way, and baka ‘You idiot!’) that could be renderedin kanji are written in katakana (see Appendix, Categories J, K and L).

133 Paula: … when it is written [in katakana], it is easier to read. For example, “boku” is adifficult kanji. If it is written in katakana, anybody can read it easily.134 Kumagai: How about hiragana?135 Paula: um… well… But, because it [katakana] has squarish shapes, it seems cooler.

10Ne or nee, and ze (line 104) are interactional particles used at the end of statements. Ne/nee solicitsagreement or seeks emotional involvement from listeners; women and children use it more often than men. Ze,used to assert one’s opinion, is often used by young men (e.g., Maynard, 1997).

8 DOERR AND KUMAGAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Hiragana seems childish, child-like.136 Kumagai: Okay. That’s good. …Well, then, does everyone understand when to use katakana? Yi-san?137 Yi: When? When you want to express your feelings, it makes it stronger.138 Kumagai: Feelings? Expression of the feelings?139 Yi: Yes.

Whereas Paula’s first comment points to the writer’s expectations of the reader, her secondcomment suggests katakana use creates a certain impression (line 135: ‘cooler’) of the text.Katakana use also indexes the writer’s feelings (line 137: strong feelings).

As shown above, class discussion focused on the katakana use for words that are notforeign loanwords. Students suggested that katakana indexes particular delivery of words,produces certain impressions, and connotes particular contexts. The reflection papers heldsimilar understandings, but not for foreign loanwords, as we show next.

Reflection papers11

All the students’ reflection papers demonstrated their understanding that katakana can beused for various purposes, in different genres, by evoking different impressions andatmospheres. We chose three students’ reflections to present below because of the in-depthdiscussion they offered on certain topics.

SandraSandra, a senior majoring in East Asian Studies, began learning Japanese in her first yearof college and was an intern at the American embassy in Japan one summer. She describeda use of katakana that contradicted the textbook explanation and sought to understand it interms of its contextual use, asking when the word should be written in katakana and whenit should not:

The use of katakana seems mysterious. It is true that gairaigo, onomatopoeia, and so on arewritten in katakana. However, they are sometimes written in hiragana. Moreover, words thatare usually written in hiragana are sometimes written in katakana. After learning that, I hadsome questions. For example, if gairaigo, onomatopoeia, and so on are not necessarily writtenin katakana, when do we use katakana? When is it better to use hiragana? When and why aresome regular Japanese words written in katakana?

Continuing, however, she explained that the word, not the context, determines whetherkatakana should be used. She discussed how the word tabako ‘tobacco, cigarette’ iswritten:

Most gairaigo are written in katakana except for the word tobacco. However, the case oftobacco is really difficult to understand. On the one hand, because tobacco has been in Japanfor a long time, it became almost like a Japanese word [thus, written in hiragana].However, other things that came to Japan a long time ago are still written in katakana. Isit that tobacco was taken into Japanese culture because people liked it so much? I don’tknow much about the history of tobacco, but was it originally harvested in Japan? However,in English, many foreign loanwords from a long time ago became like English. Tobacco mustbe similar to such English.

11The authors translated the reflection papers, originally written in Japanese, into English for this article.

POWER OF LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Her argument points to the role of katakana in distinguishing between ‘Japanese’ wordsand ‘gairaigo’, reflecting the normative discourse that links katakana use to gairaigo. Thatis, Sandra’s discussion shows that the choice of script reveals the cultural connections ofthe item in question, not vice versa—to the extent that she wondered if tobacco wasoriginally harvested in Japan (it was not).

Here, what caught our attention was her lack of awareness that the use of katakanaworks to create an impression, despite class discussion of the topic. The mantra ‘katakanais for foreign loanwords’ seems to be in force here as a linguistic ideology preventing herfrom considering the possibility of strategic script choice for impression management. Thiscontrasts with the way she discussed non-loanwords, for which katakana use is a matter ofimpression management:

Mimetic words and onomatopoeic words are often written in katakana, also. However, they aresometimes written in hiragana too. Then, which writing system is relevant in what kind ofcontext? In fact, when I am reading manga, the mimetic words written in hiragana expressquietness. In comparison, the mimetic words written in katakana give an impression ofclarity and noisiness.

Because katakana makes things appear clear, it is often used in advertisement. Becausekatakana gives out the impression of clarity, advertisements in katakana not only attractpeople’s attention but also give fresh nuance to regular Japanese words. Names of animalsand plants are also sometimes written in katakana. There are ways to write animals’ andplants’ names in kanji, but people use katakana in the scientific context.

In sum, Sandra explained the anomalous use (or non-use, in this case) of katakana fortobacco in terms of the quality of the word, that is, whether or not it was a foreignloanword. This is a static understanding of katakana use. In contrast, for cases notinvolving foreign loanwords, she discussed such anomalies as a matter of writers’ attemptsto lend impressions of clarity and noisiness, or a scientific setting.

AlisonA senior majoring in East Asian Language, Alison had learned Japanese for three years inhigh school and continued in college. Alison wrote that katakana is used contextually tomake a certain impression on the reader with onomatopoeia:

I learned a lot by doing this katakana project. Before doing the project, I thought katakana wasused only for onomatopoeia. Now, I know many other ways of using katakana. Onomatopoeiais written in either katakana or hiragana. However, there are differences between the oneswritten in hiragana and the ones written in katakana. Onomatopoeia written in katakanaindicates the sound is horrible. It is because the shape of katakana is like a box.

However, like Sandra, Alison explained katakana use for foreign loanwords in terms of thestatic quality of the words’ being foreign loanwords. Interestingly, the explanation abovespilled over to apply to the speech of ‘foreigners’:

How to sound out kanji is written in hiragana. However, katakana is also used. The reading ofproper names and place names in Chinese are written in katakana [referring to the word

‘ ’ (mhaeng eosa, a manga title)].12 The Chinese language uses the same kanji, butthe characters are read differently from Japanese. That is why the way to sound out kanji in

12‘暗行御史’ is a Korean word, but Alison thought it was a Chinese word.

10 DOERR AND KUMAGAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Chinese is written in katakana. Also, because China is a foreign country, how to read kanjiin a Chinese way is written in katakana. Other foreign words are written in katakana. Whenforeigners speak in manga, katakana is used. This is because Japanese spoken by aJapanese person and Japanese spoken by a foreigner sound different. Sometimes, when arobot talks, what the robot says is written in katakana. This is because Japanese spoken by arobot is different from Japanese spoken by a Japanese person.

Alison’s explanation is intriguing because, like Sandra, she determined whether the word/speaker was foreign or not according to whether katakana was used: she saw katakana asdetermining one’s ‘foreignness’, rather viewing it as thewriter’s creating the impression that oneis foreign. In the case of a robot, this foreignness extended to ‘artificialness/non-humanness’.

Alison also observed that katakana differentiates Japanese and foreign pronunciationwhen she discussed katakana use in providing a Chinese reading of kanji. She acknowl-edged that Chinese words are not written in katakana but rather in kanji, and that katakanaprovides the Chinese pronunciation of the kanji. Here, China is considered ‘foreign’,although Chinese words are not usually regarded as gairaigo or foreign loanwords and theirpronunciation is often written in hiragana, not katakana. Alison’s astute discussion hereprovides a potential starting point for students’ awareness of the complex relationshipsbetween Japan and China in relation to ‘the West’—represented by the tripartite distinctionbetween wago, kango and gairaigo—which might never develop from the existingtextbook explanation that uses the binary of Japanese versus foreign.

PaulaPaula was a first-year student who was planning to major in Japanese. In high school, shehad studied Japanese for two years and lived in Japan for a year. In college, she started atthe third-level Japanese.

Her reflection paper began with a context-conscious analysis of the katakana use:

When we write in Japanese, we can use various kinds of letters. The context determines whatkind of letter to use. When we write, we have to be thinking about all of style, tone of voice,the reader, and the origin of the words. Writers asks themselves “What impression does thisscript create if I use it?” and “How can I make this pronunciation/way of talking standout?” in order to decide which syllabary to use. How is katakana used in regular life? If welook at websites, magazines, and manga, we can find out more when people use katakana.

But whereas the above paragraph shows clear awareness of contextual use and how the useof katakana is determined by the impression that writer seeks to make, her next paragraph,when she discussed foreign loanwords, abruptly departs from this awareness:

The most common use of katakana is for foreign words and onomatopoeia. As to the foreignloanwords, because the word has pronunciation from that foreign language, when used inJapanese, it is written in katakana. Also, sometimes, although place names and names inChinese or Korean are written in kanji and appear Japanese, the furigana [sounding outof the kanji] is in katakana because they are really foreign words. As to onomatopoeia, if itis written in katakana in a text, the reader can understand the word as not a word but sound. Inmanga, words can be written in hiragana or katakana in the picture. In manga, mimetic wordsare sometimes written in hiragana because they are not actually the sound. Onomatopoeicwords are usually written in katakana, especially when the word indicates loud soundbecause katakana appears a little harsher.

Another way we use katakana is when we want the atmosphere to be cool or cute. Highschool girls sometimes write ‘ne’ in katakana. And names are written in katakana in letters to

POWER OF LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

friends or in magazines. In manga, words that only men can use are written in katakanasometimes, such as ‘omae.’ This kind of use is usually for informal occasions. When we writeserious things, katakana is used only for foreign words and onomatopoeia.

Lastly, we can write any words in katakana. If you want a word to stand out, we can write itin katakana. The decision should be based on one’s own style and what tone one wants tocreate.

A clear distinction is evident in the way Paula discussed katakana use. For foreignloanwords, the only thing determining whether to use katakana was the origin of the word(static quality of the word). But for everything else, it was a matter of creating ‘one’s ownstyle, tones and impression’.

DISCUSSION AND PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS

In class discussion, Kumagai elicited students’ thoughts on contextual uses of katakana thatcreate impressions. However, in the reflection papers, students discussed contextual use ofkatakana only when the words in question were not foreign loanwords. When the wordswere foreign loanwords, discussion centred on their static quality as such.

What accounts for this difference? Although some textbooks explain that onomatopoeia iswritten in katakana, some students, such as Sandra and Alison, recognised the contextual useof onomatopoeia; for example, katakana is used (as opposed to hiragana) in a context wherethe writer wants to characterise a sound as ‘harsh’, ‘noisy’, and ‘clear’. So why are foreignloanwords thought of only in terms of the static quality of the word rather than context?

We argue that the difference derives from the very notion of foreign loanword. Thestudents’ handling of foreign loanwords points to qualities of this notion that lead tothree problematic effects: (1) it ignores the locally specific construction of the notion ofthe foreign loanword by creating an absolute, static foreign–domestic binary; (2) it erases thefluid construction of the foreign word for impression management; and (3) it masks that theforeign–domestic binary is emphasised over many other possible differentiations. Below,we discuss these and suggest some possible ways for JFL teachers to overcome them.

Locally specific construction of the foreign

By dividing all words according to foreign or domestic origin in an absolute, static way, thenotion of foreign loanword ignores the locally specific construction of such a distinction, asin Japan’s tripartite categorisation of vocabulary—wago, kango and gairaigo—developedhistorically in relation to China and ‘the West’. For example, Alison and Paula regardedChinese words as ‘foreign’ without considering the notion of Chinese-origin kango.

We argue that it is important that JFL teachers encourage students to be conscious andcritically analytic of the locally specific construction of the foreign in light of historicaland/or current social relations with other countries and immigrants from them. It is alsoimportant that students challenge the hierarchy in such relationships.

To this end, teachers can explain the tripartite categories and their historical backgroundto students. Alternatively, teachers can have students investigate how each orthographywas developed, how and for what purposes it was used historically, how its use haschanged and whether the changes involved Japan’s relations with other countries. Thestudents can then share and discuss their findings in class. Understanding that the notion of‘foreign’ is ideologically constructed helps students dismantle the absolute, static view of aforeign–Japanese binary and its apparent ‘objectivity’ as implied in JFL textbookdiscourses.

12 DOERR AND KUMAGAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Fluid construction of the foreign for impression management

Thompson and Hunston (2001) argue that a writer can manipulate readers’ impressions onissues because a sentence can not only convey the opinion of the writer but also imply andreinforce the society’s value system, in discourse (see also Biber & Finegan, 1989).Referring to Irvine (2001), Johnstone (2008) further argues that repetition of a particularpattern of language use links it ideologically with locally relevant meanings because“forms that regularly occur in a certain context can come to call up and construct thatcontext” (p. 138).

In a similar vein, the notion of foreign loanword suggests what readers should consider‘foreign’ and implies that language is a bounded unit with an absolute line demarcating theforeign. Readers thus overlook not only how the foreign–domestic line is constructed, butalso how the writer can purposely give the impression of foreignness by using katakana.This oversight was evident in the students’ reflection papers, where students’ reflections onthe use of katakana for foreign loanwords focused on the words’ static nature as eitherJapanese or foreign, not the writers’ attempts to create the impression that the word is offoreign origin. Sandra’s discussion of tobacco, Alison’s and Paula’s descriptions of Chineseand Korean words and Alison’s take on the utterances of foreigners and robots areexamples of this focus. In these cases, the effect of the notion of foreign loanword isdetrimental because it interferes with students’ critical thinking about language use.

By contrast, in discussions of katakana uses that did not involve foreign loanwords,students noticed various cases of differentiated contexts that created particular impressionsof words (e.g., quiet vs. loud, feminine vs. masculine personalities, traditional vs. ‘modern’atmospheres) and genres of writing (e.g., advertising, ‘serious’ news reports, children’sbooks, manga or scientific texts).

To encourage students to think beyond the ideology behind the notion of foreignloanword, teachers can urge students to understand the distinction ‘foreign versusJapanese’ as contextually and arbitrarily created by the writer, reflecting existingideologies. For example, in response to the discussion Sandra developed about the originof tabako, the teacher can ask Sandra to focus on how the choice of script gives animpression of where the item originated and what that impression reveals about the countryof origin’s position in Japan’s imagined (hierarchical) order of countries. In this way theteacher would be encouraging students to understand how the choice of script designatingan item lends insight into the writer’s views of its perceived origins, the relations betweenthe item’s country of origin and Japan and the position of the item in present-day Japan.

Also, Alison pointed out that some Chinese-origin words are written in katakana. Ateacher could continue this line of thought by noting that some Chinese-origin words areoften written in either kanji or katakana, reflecting the arbitrariness of katakana usage aswell as the line between foreign and Japanese. By comparing this arbitrariness to otherarbitrary uses of katakana that students noticed regarding non-loanwords, the teacher cancultivate an understanding that katakana works to differentiate various words in a particularcontext rather than designate the static nature of a word, and subsequently push students tothink critically about katakana use for foreign loanwords as well as the notion offoreignness.

The students noticed that use of katakana created certain impressions. In manga orstories, katakana indicated masculinity or femininity depending on who was speaking(Paula; class discussion, Excerpt 2), and in writing it added clarity to advertisements,whereas in the scientific context it merely indicated that certain names were animal/plantnames (Sandra’s reflection paper). Students can be reminded of these uses when theydiscuss foreign loanwords. For example, the teacher can remark that Japanese-origin words

POWER OF LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

that came to be known abroad—such as ninja, samurai, geisha and even Nippon—aresometimes written in katakana to create the impression of their global spread. The teachercan also show some examples of gairaigo written in hiragana to create particular effects—cuteness, softness and so forth. This focuses students’ attention on the construction offoreignness through katakana use and its reversal, as well as how they may shiftcontextually.

Awareness of this construction of foreignness is important because such distinctions canbe used to discriminate against certain groups of people. For example, in the context ofJapan’s emerging multiculturalism, which encourages teaching immigrant children bothJapanese and their mother tongues (Okubo, 2008; Takato, 2008), writing an utterance by a‘non-Japanese’ in katakana, as Alison reflected, simultaneously emphasises the immigrants’need to assimilate (by using Japanese) and the immigrants’ difference (by marking their‘accents’). This is similar to the structure in homi bhabha’s (1994) analysis that derived froma colonialist structure of oppression. In this context, it is important to urge students tocritically examine and challenge the use of katakana, thus equipping them to raise others’awareness by discussing the politics of katakana use. Meanwhile, as JFL learners, they caninvestigate their own subject positions by asking how their relations with others might beexpressed and negotiated through subtle, nuanced use of katakana with the understandingthat such use creates an impression of what is foreign and what is not. Further, they couldexplore ways to position themselves ethnically or culturally in relation to Japanese by notusing katakana and thus subverting and innovating markers of foreignness.

We argue that the project of thinking about the constructed nature of foreign loanwordsopens a space where learners can become sensitive to the choices writers make to createparticular impressions, and where they can recognise that linguistic rules are not set instone but fluid, diverse, intermingling and changeable through dynamic processes of use.They subsequently benefit from this understanding by using language creatively rather thanbeing constricted by seemingly static rules.13

Emphasis on foreign–domestic difference

The notion of foreign loanwords ignores the foreign–Japan distinction as a selective focuson a particular ‘difference’. That is, such an explanation fixes the arbitrariness ofkatakana’s differentiating function on various axes into one: foreign versus Japanese.Disregarding the various ways katakana marks diverse kinds of difference, textbooks sodefinitively explain that katakana is for foreign loanwords that some students did not evenask why there were other cases. One student wrote in her reflection paper: “I noticed thatthere are many cases where katakana was used besides for gairaigo… . But before theproject, I did not think about the reasons for such cases. Now, when I see katakana words,I want to know: Why is this word written in katakana?”

McDermott and Varenne (1995) urge readers to ask what, out of the many types ofdifference among individuals (concerning, e.g., hobbies, political opinions, religions),draws attention to a certain difference as something meaningful. In the case of deaf people,for instance, it is not the physical condition of the ear but the social condition in which mostcommunication is oral/aural that makes deafness stand out as a disability. After all, ifeveryone regularly conversed in sign language, the ability to hear would be less importantand deafness might not constitute a ‘disability’. In this framework, it is clear that by

13See, e.g., the katakana project conducted at the beginner level to encourage learners’ creative use of katakana(Sato, Loetscher Matsui, & Kumagai, forthcoming).

14 DOERR AND KUMAGAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

emphasising katakana’s use for foreign loanwords over the many other uses of katakana,JFL textbooks are emphasising the distinction between foreign and Japanese as meaningful.

It may seem harmless to categorise words by whether they are foreign or Japanese. Butemphasising only this quality—and thereby making it noticeable—in fact discouraged JFLstudents from questioning and noticing other reasons for using katakana as a tool to encodeparticular meanings. Consequently, the JFL students restricted their repertoire of katakanause by not regarding it as useful in their creative meaning-making practice.

To encourage students to take a critical view of the textbook explanation of katakanause in the JFL context, teachers can ask about the conditions, processes and effects ofemphasising the foreign–Japanese distinction in contemporary Japan. For example, ateacher can launch a critical discussion of Nihonjinron (theories of the Japanesepeople), which emphasises the difference and uniqueness of Japanese as opposed to‘the West’. In light of the current critique of Nihonjinron as an ideology created togenerate national pride in opposition to a dominant country like the United States(Befu, 1997; Sakai, 1996) and support the nationalist ideology that a nation is ahomogeneous, bounded unit (Lie, 2001; Mashiko, 2003), the textbooks’ emphasis onthe Japanese–foreign distinction appears to have a similar thrust. Incorporation ofdiscussions geared to social and cultural critique would deepen students’ understandingof the role language plays in perpetuating or transforming the social order (e.g.,Kubota, 1996; Osborn, 2000; Pennycook, 2001).

CONCLUSION

Researchers and practitioners must shift their attention beyond apolitical appreciation andcelebration of foreign culture, to critically explore issues of diversity and sociopolitical aspectsof human communication, and to make foreign language education instrumental in creatinggreater equality. (Kubota, Austin, & Saito-Abbott, 2003, p. 22)

In this article, we sought to deconstruct the apolitical, value-free façade of certaineducational practices. As Kubota et al. (2003) argue, the educational goal in any field,including FL, is to encourage students to think critically in order to transform society bymaking it more equitable. To that end, we suggest involving students at all stages in criticalliteracy as it pertains to the most basic linguistic concepts. Awakening them to theproblems implicit in both the notion of foreign loanwords and textbook explanations wouldbe a positive step towards critical thinking in FL classrooms.

Currently, the katakana project introduced in this article is practiced at various levels ofJFL courses at different universities and colleges (Loetscher Matsui, Eguchi, & Park, 2013;Sato & Loetscher Matsui, 2011; Sato, Loetscher-Matsui, & Kumagai, forthcoming).Students’ proficiency, the curriculum goal and each instructor’s belief may influence howproblematic notions like foreign loanwords are critically examined and discussed, but thiscritical outlook should nevertheless be incorporated at all levels of JFL instruction. Suchdiscussion does not impede students’ mastery of basic rules and norms—rather, it sparksintellectual curiosity.

We have discussed one case of a particular language, Japanese, in which the choice ofscripts—a trivial matter in many other languages—has significant ideological effects.However, many languages besides Japanese are subject to processes that attach meaning toslight differences in linguistic forms based on ideologically problematic linguisticconcepts. We hope the investigation in this article encourages understanding of, andchallenges to, the ideological underpinnings of various linguistic notions that are taken forgranted in any language. Meanwhile, this study of the notion of foreign loanwords can

POWER OF LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

prove useful not only to FL learners in general but also to ‘native speakers’ of anylanguage. More generally, as a space to ponder and discuss language use, languageeducation classrooms have the potential to inspire thought and subvert linguisticconventions.

Manuscript received 17 November 2012Revised manuscript accepted 15 November 2013

First published online 16 January 2014

REFERENCES

Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H. (Eds.). (1984). Reading in a foreign language. New York, NY: Longman.Banno, E., Ohno, Y., Sakane, Y., & Shinagawa, C. (1999). Genki: An integrated course in elementary Japanese.

Tokyo, JP: The Japan Times.Befu, H. (1997). Ideologii to shite no Nihon bunkaron [Japan culture studies as an ideology]. Tokyo, JP: Shiso no

kagaku sha.Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Development in second language literacy research: Retrospective and prospective views for

the classroom. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 221–251).Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

bhabha, h. (1994). The location of culture. New York, NY: Routledge.Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and

affect. Text, 9, 93–124.Brodkey, L. (1996). Writing permitted in designated areas only. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Comber, B., & Simpson, A. (Eds.). (2001). Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.Daulton, F. E. (2008). Japan’s built-in lexicon of Engish-based loanwords. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Devitt, S. (1997). Interacting with authentic texts: Multilayered processes. The Modern Language Journal, 81,

457–469. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05512.xDoerr, N. M. (Ed.). (2009). The native speaker concept: Ethnographic investigations of “native speaker effects”.

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110220957Doerr, N. M. (2011). Saika no doogu toshite no katakana: “Katakana wa gaikokugo no shakuyoogo wo kakutoki ni

tsukau” to oshienai koto no imi [Katakana as a tool of differentiation: Implementation of not teaching “katakana isfor foreign loanwords”]. In S. Sato & Y. Kumagai (Eds.), Shakai sanka o mezasu nihongo kyooiku: shakai nikakawaru, tsunagaru, hatarakikakeru (pp. 19–42). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo.

Elley, W. B. (1984). Exploring the reading difficulties of second-language learners in Fiji. In J. C. Alderson & A. H.Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 281–301). New York, NY: Longman.

Grabe, W. (1991). Current development in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375–406.doi:10.2307/3586977

Haarmann, H. (1984). The role of ethnocultural stereotypes and foreign languages in Japanese commercials.International Journal of Sociology of Language, 50, 101–121.

Haarmann, H. (1986). Language in ethnicity: A view of basic ecological relations. Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter.doi:10.1515/9783110862805

Hall, S. (1996). Introduction: Who needs ‘identity’? In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity(pp. 1–17). London: Sage.

Hammond, J., & Macken-Horarik, M. (1999). Critical literacy: Challenges and questions for ESL classrooms. TESOLQuarterly, 33, 528–544. doi:10.2307/3587678

Honna, N. (1995). English in Japanese society: Language within language. Journal of Multilingual & MulticulturalDevelopment, 16(1–2), 45–62. doi:10.1080/01434632.1995.9994592

Irvine, J. T. (2001). “Style” as distinctiveness: The culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In P. Eckert &J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (pp. 21–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iwahara, K., Hatta, K., & Maehara, A. (2003). The effects of a sense of compatibility between type of script andword in written Japanese. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 377–397. doi:10.1023/A:1023668804595

Iwasaki, N., & Kumagai, Y. (2008). Towards critical approaches in an advanced level Japanese course: Theory andpractice through reflection and dialogues. Japanese Language and Literature, 42, 123–156.

Jin-nouchi, M. (2007). Gairaigo no shakai gengogaku: Nihongo no gurokaru na kangaekata [Sociolinguistics offoreign loanwords: A glocal way of thinking about Japanese language]. Kyoto, JP: Sekai Shisosha.

Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

16 DOERR AND KUMAGAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Kay, G. (1995). English loanwords in Japanese. World Englishes, 14(1), 67–76. doi:10.1111/j.1467-971X.1995.tb00340.x

Kroskrity, P. V. (2000). Regimenting languages: Language ideological perspective. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimesof language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 1–34). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Kubota, R. (1996). Nihongo kyooku ni okeru hihan kyooiku, hihanteki yomikaki kyooiku [Critical pedagogy andcritical literacy in teaching Japanese]. Sekai no Nihongo, 6, 35–48.

Kubota, R. (2002). The impact of globalization on language teaching in Japan. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.),Globalization and language teaching (pp. 13–28). London: Routledge.

Kubota, R., & Austin, T. (2007). Critical approaches to world language education in the United States: Anintroduction. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 4(2–3), 73–83. doi:10.1080/15427580701389367

Kubota, R., Austin, T., & Saito-Abbott, Y. (2003). Diversity and inclusion of sociopolitical issues in foreign languageclassrooms: An exploratory survey. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 12–24. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb01928.x

Kumagai, Y. (2007a). Nihongo kyooshitsu deno kuritikaru riterashii no jissen e mukete [Towards incorporatingcritical literacy practices in a Japanese classroom]. Web-ban riterashiizu [Web-version Literacies], 4(2), 1–9.Retrieved from http://literacies.9640.jp/web01.html

Kumagai, Y. (2007b). Tension in a Japanese language classroom: An opportunity for critical literacy? In R. Kubota &T. Austin (Eds.), Critical perspectives on world language education in the US. Critical Inquiry in LanguageStudies [Special Issue], 4(2–3), 85–116.

Kumagai, Y. (2008). Nihongo o manabu to iu koto: Nihongo no kyookasho wo hihan-teki ni yomu [On learningJapanese: Reading textbook critically]. In S. Sato & N. Doerr (Eds.), Bunka, kotoba, kyooiku: nihongo/nihon nokyooiku no “hyoojun” o koete (pp. 130–150). Tokyo: Akashi Shoten.

Kumagai, Y. (2009). Nihongo kyooshitsu deno kuritikaru riterashii no jissen e mukete [Towards incorporating criticalliteracy practices in a Japanese classroom]. In R. Kenkyuukai (Ed.), Riterashiizu 4: Kobota, bunka, shakai nonihongo kyooiku e (pp. 71–85). Tokyo: Kuroshio shoten.

Kumagai, Y. (2011). Kuritikaru riterashii no ikusee e mukete: Katakana purojekuto [Developing critical literacy:Katakana project]. In S. Sato & Y. Kumagai (Eds.), Shakai sanka o mezasu nihongo kyooiku: shakai ni kakawaru,tsunagaru hatarakikakeru (pp. 3–18). Tokyo: Hitsuji Shoboo.

Kumagai, Y., & Fukai, M. (2009). Cultivating critical thinking and creativity in Japanese language learning:“Revising textbook” project. Japanese Education Around the Globe, 19, 181–202.

Kumagai, Y., & Iwasaki, N. (2011). What it means to read “critically” in a Japanese Language classroom: Students’perspective. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 8(2), 125–152. doi:10.1080/15427587.2011.571277

Lie, J. (2001). Multiethnic Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Loetscher Matsui, K., Eguchi, S., & Park, J. (2013). Innovative ways of raising awareness for Japanese orthographic

usage in beginning language class. Paper presented at AATJ 2013 Annual Spring Conference. San Diego, CA.Loveday, L. J. (1996). Language contact in Japan: A socio-linguistic history. Oxford: Clarendon.Luke, A. (1995). When basic skills and information processing just aren’t enough: Rethinking reading in new times.

Teachers College Record, 97(1), 94–115.Makino, S., Hatasa, K., & Hatasa, Y. A. (1998). Nakama: Japanese communication, culture, and context. Boston,

MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Mashiko, H. (2003). Ideologii to shiteno “Nihon” [“Japan” as an ideology]. Tokyo, JP: Sangensha.Maynard, S. (1997). Japanese communication: Language and thought in context. Honolulu: University of Hawaii

Press.McDermott, R., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 26, 324–348.

doi:10.1525/aeq.1995.26.3.05x0936zMiller, L. (1998). Wasei eigo: English “loanwords” coined in Japan. In J. H. Hill, P. J. Mistry, & L. Campbell (Eds.),

The life of language: Papers in linguistics in honor of William Bright (pp. 123–139). Berlin, DE: Mouton deGruyter.

Miyachi, H. (2010). Kokugo 2: Akatonbo [Kokugo: Vol 2. Red dragonfly]. Tokyo, JP: Mitsumura Tosho.Moody, A. J. (2006). English in Japanese popular culture and J-pop music. World Englishes, 25, 209–222.

doi:10.1111/j.0083-2919.2006.00460.xNagara, S. (1990). Japanese for everyone: A functional approach to daily communication. Tokyo, JP: Gakken.Noto, H. (1993). Communicating in Japanese. Tokyo, JP: Sotokusha.Okubo, Y. (2008). Nihongo kyouiku ni okeru bogoshido ni kansuru gensetsu ni tsuite no ichi-kousatsu: Chugoku

kikokusha to zainichi betonamujin wo taisho toshita nihongo kyousitu no jissenn wo jireito shite [Discussion ondiscourse about mother tongue education in Japanese language: Case study of Japanese language classroom forreturnees from China and Vietnamese in Japan]. In S. Sato & N. Doerr (Eds.), Bunka, kotoba, kyooiku: Nihongo/nihon no kyooiku no “hyoojun” o koete (pp. 239–266). Tokyo, JP: Akashi Shoten.

Osborn, T. A. (2000). Critical reflection and the foreign language classroom. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Oyanagi, N. (2002). New approach: Japanese intermediate course. Tokyo, JP: Nihongo Kenkyuusha.

POWER OF LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Ramos, R. P. (2001). ‘Why do they hit the headlines?’: Critical media literacy in the foreign language class. Journal

of Intercultural Studies, 22(1), 33–49. doi:10.1080/07256860120037409Sakai, N. (1996). Joron: Nashonariti to bo(koku)go no seiji [Introduction: Nationality and the politics of mother

(state) language]. In N. Sakai, B. Barry, & T. Iyotani (Eds.), Nashonariti no datsu kouchiku [Deconstruction ofnationality] (pp. 9–53). Tokyo, JP: Kashiwa Shobo.

Sato, S., & Loetscher Matsui, K. (2011). Critical content-based language instruction: Japanese orthography project. In18th Princeton Japanese Pedagogy Forum Proceedings (pp. 37–52). Princeton, NJ. http://www.princeton.edu/pjpf/past/18thpjpf/04_PJPFSatoMatsuiMojiProject.pdf

Sato, S., Loetscher Matsui, K., &Kumagai, Y. (forthcoming). Naiyoo-juushi no hihanteki gengo kyooiku no riron tojissen [Critical content-based language instruction: Japanese orthography project]. In S. Sato, T. Takami, U.Kamiyoshi, & Y. Kumagai (Eds.), Naiyojushi no hihanteki gengo kyoiku: Riron to sono jissen [Critical content-based language instruction: Theories and practice]. Tokyo: Koko Shuppan.

Seeley, C. (2000). A history of writing in Japan. New York, NY: E.J. Brill.Stanlaw, J. (2004). Japanese English: Language and culture contact. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Takato, M. (2008). Okinwa nikkei daiasupora, kokugo, gakkoo: Kotoba no ishu kontonsei to tan’itsuka no

minzokusiteki koosatsu [Okinawan nikkei diasporas, national language, school: Ethnographic analysis onheteroglossia and unification of language]. In S. Sato & N. Doerr (Eds.), Bunka, kotoba, kyooiku: nihongo/nihon no kyooiku no “hyoojun” o koete (pp. 130–150). Tokyo, JP: Akashi Shoten.

Taylor, I. (1998). Learning to read in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. In A. Y. Durgunoglu & L. Verhoenen (Eds.),Literacy development in a multilingual Context: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 225–248). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2001). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluationin text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 2–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tohsaku, Y. (2006). Yookoso! An invitation to contemporary Japanese (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Tsugami, A. (2001). Mixed use of the three Japanese writing systems: From the 17th century to the present

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.Wallace, C. (2003). Critical reading in language education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/

9780230514447Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, &

P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–47). New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.

18 DOERR AND KUMAGAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14

APPENDIX

Examples of katakana words collected by students

Categories/types of words Some example words Reasons/impression

A Gairaigo クラシック (classical music);ラーメン (ramen noodles);アーティスト(artist)

Items/ideas imported fromother countries/ languages;foreign words

B Japanese-made English モノクロ (monochronism);ロック・フェス (Rock Festival);ゴスロリ (Gothic-Lolita)

New words; ‘modern’, ‘cool’feeling

C Foreign names andlanguages

アメリカ (America);バレンタイン (St. Valentine);アルバイト (part-time job)

Words from foreignlanguages

D Proper nouns (place/person/name ofcompany, etc.)

ベイブリッジ (Bay Bridge);ユイ(a Japanese singer’s name);ホンダ(Honda)

‘Modern’, ‘cool’ feeling,‘standing out’

E Names of animals andplants

サル (monkey);シラミ (lice);バラ(rose)

Scientific; easier to read(kanji knowledgeunnecessary)

F Mathematical units キロメーター (km) ScientificG Onomatopoeia/sound

effectsギュッ(sounds for ‘squeeze’);ドン(sounds for ‘thump’);エーッ (What!?);アア〜ッ (Ahhh!)

Emphasis; as if hearing thesounds

H Japanese spoken by non-Japanese (includinganimals, robots)

サヨナラ (sayonara) ナニイッテル！オマエフタリのセイ!! (What are you saying!? It’s allyou two’s fault!!)

Foreign sounds;‘discrimination’

I Personal pronouns ボク, アタシ, オレ (all ‘I’);オマエ, アンタ (you)

Emphasis; showing speaker’spersonality

J Words spoken by youngpeople

マジ (Really?);タスケテー (Help!)

Emphasis

K Words on advertisements/billboards, etc.

ヤスイ(cheap);サクラ (sakura, cherry blossom);フツーの (ordinary);ボク(I)

Easier to read (kanjiknowledge unnecessary);‘standing out’

L Others ケータイ(cell phone);サムライ(samurai)

Looks/feels like English (butis Japanese); ‘cool’

カッコイイ(good-looking);キレイ(beautiful);バーカっ(You idiot!)

Emphasis; strong feeling

POWER OF LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yur

i Kum

agai

] at

16:

37 2

1 Ja

nuar

y 20

14