Bilingualism: Social Influences Regulating Dual Language Usage, Acquisition and Development within Biracial Children Living in Japan
Damian Rivers, Japan
Damian Rivers has been teaching in Japan for over 7 years. He has recently been working at Loughborough University in the U.K as an English for Academic Purposes Instructor. He will return to Japan to take up a lectureship at a Japanese university in April 2008. He is also a column editor for ‘The Language Teacher’, a monthly Japan Association of Language Teachers publication and an Academic Editor for the Asian ESP Journal. E-mail: rivers@eapstudy.com
Menu
Abstract
Introduction
Defining bilingualism
Mainstream approaches to childhood bilingualism
Social considerations in childhood bilingualism
Bilingualism & multiculturalism within Japan
The importation and adoption of English loanwords
Japanese biracial children
Foreign born children within Japan
Conclusion
References
Bilingualism and multiculturalism are two concepts that are taking on greater importance in Japan as we progress through the 21st century. The increase in the number of foreign families living in Japan as well as the increase in biracial marriages and biracial children has had a great impact on Japans social infrastructure. Education policies, government attitudes, dual language development, minority language tuition and the adoption of English loanwords are all factors which combine to effect the progression and development of bilingual/biracial and foreign children within Japan. The following paper take a brief look at basic theories of bilingualism whilst emphasizing the complex social factors which can manipulate successful bilingual development within biracial children growing up in Japan.
During the course of the past century our knowledge and awareness of multiple languages as increased due, in part to mass globalization as well as new forms of international communication. Recently, the U.S Bureau of Intelligence and Research, (2006) stated that there are currently 193 independent countries in the world. It is estimated that the number of languages spoken throughout these countries stands at 6,000, Grimes, (1992). With so many languages being spoken in so few countries it is inevitable that languages, and people will overlap and integrate with little or no regard for national boundaries. It is also known that the number of people who live outside of their country of origin has doubled over the past 50 years rising to 191 million (Warttman, 2005).
As our world constantly evolves with fewer obstacles inhibiting global communication and interaction, bilingualism and multilingualism are two concepts that are relevant to researchers now more than ever. Before 1960, bilingualism was viewed as an abnormality, a rare occurrence that was consistently compared to monolingualism, which was considered the preferential normal state of linguistic being. Early research on the effects of bilingualism painted a very bleak picture. Thompson, in 1952 (see Hakuta, 1986) concluded, "There can be no doubt that the child who is exposed and reared deliberately in a bilingual environment is handicapped in his language growth." This view was based on the principle that learning one language is difficult enough, so learning two must be at least twice as difficult, particularly for a young child. This thinking led school administrators to discourage bilingual instruction in schools (Hakuta, 1986). While such beliefs still exist in some communities, it has been documented that today, the bilingual or multilingual speaker is more prevalent than the monolingual speaker. Recent estimates place the number of bilingual speakers at two-thirds of the world’s population (UNESCO, 2000).
Definitions of bilingualism have also evolved as a response to the global explosion of multiple language usage. Early psycholinguistic definitions, such as Bloomfield's, (1933) claimed that only a person who has "native-like control of two or more languages" can be defined as bilingual, such a definition makes the assumption that bilingualism only has one fixed state, that being, balanced bilingualism, in which both languages are used with high levels of proficiency. Although this may be an accurate definition of a "fully" developed adult bilingual, it makes no reference to who assigns the term "native-like ability" to the language speaker. Passing judgment on linguistic proficiency is a problematic and hazardous issue, is it the responsibility of the individual or society to perceive the quality as native-like; within the definition proposed by Bloomfield, this point is unclear.
More recent definitions have steered away from fixations with native like ability. Saunders, (1988) identified bilingualism simply as "the ability to use two languages", although somewhat vague, this definition allows a certain degree of freedom for interpretation and, flexibility to apply the term bilingualism to a broader spectrum of speakers. Indeed, there are very few adults on the planet that cannot claim to know at least one or two words of a foreign language. In many respects, and according to Saunders they can all be considered bilingual speakers. Critics of such vague definitions have drawn attention to the fact that proficiency in a second language requires skills in listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing, although in practice some of those skills are often considerably less developed than others.
Perhaps the most individually demanding, and socially grounded definition of bilingualism was proposed by Thiery, (1976) who stated that bilingualism consisted of "being taken for a native speaker by native speakers of both languages, with perhaps a small allowance for some amount of syntactic, lexical, and phonological interference from their dominant to their non-dominant language". This definition is structured in a way, which centralizes societal perceptions of speech in order to determine the existence of a state of bilingualism. It is also a definition, which is difficult to fulfill in terms of multiple language development, it overlooks instances of dominant bilingualism and can be applied to only a small number of language speakers. It also holds particular relevant to bilingual speakers living in monolingual societies where attitudes toward second languages are deep routed. The existence of deep routed resistance to outside languages can be shown in the fact that only 25% of the worlds 193 countries recognize an official second language.
There are a number of mainstream approaches to raising bilingual children. The majority of which are dependent on the attitude, and willingness of the parents to provide a structured, functional plan in a stable environment for the child to develop. The three most common approaches to bilingual child raising are; the one parent, one language method in which each parent consistently speaks one language, while the other parent speaks another language (usually each speaking his/her native language to the child and possibly the more prevalent language to each other). The second approach consists of both parents speaking the minority language in the home while the majority language is used in the school. The final approach is the method when one language is used in the home and at school and a different language is used in the larger community. Although these approaches do not represent the entire spectrum of available methods, they do provide a basic foundation for the majority of bilingual programs.
Traditionally, bilingual researchers recommended keeping bilingual children’s language experiences separate in the early stages, especially during the first 2 years of a child’s life. This stance is reflected in the one parent one language approach to bilingual child raising. This can happen quite naturally when the parents of a child speak different languages (i.e., Japanese and English). It is not so easy though, when the foreign parent (depending on place of residence) has been living in the foreign environment for a continuous period of time. When both parents are fluent or highly skilled in two languages, they may switch back and forth between the two languages when speaking to each other, this process is known as code switching. Romaine, (1995) highlighted the fact that to do this required a great deal of linguistic skill. In families where code switching is prevalent, the child may consistently speak both languages with both parents, but show no signs of being confused. From the child’s point of view, language mixing helps the message to be communicated and its meaning understood. Such children also tend to produce far more sentences using only one language, which clearly shows that they are able to keep their languages separate despite parental worries.
Lanza, (1992) and later Koppe and Meisel, (1995) showed that in instances of childhood code switching between two languages, children acquire the required social knowledge at a very early stage in their development. By the age of 2-3 years old the child can choose the language according to the addressee and quickly choose a language based upon the social linguistic demands. Parents who do not posses the ability to code-switch and mix languages may be required to keep the child’s language experiences separate. They can facilitate this process of by following some simple guidelines. The most important 'don't' is to avoid criticizing, or constantly pointing out mistakes. This is likely to have a negative effect on a child's language development, making the child inhibited and anxious about practicing his or her new skills. An area where both parents and educators have voiced criticism or concern regarding efforts at bilingualism is in the speed of child development. Bilingual children are often compared to monolingual children in terms of linguistic development and general intelligence related to age. This stems from an old myth that teaching a child to become bilingual will lead to slower language development than that of a monolingual child. De Houwer, (1999) states that there is currently no empirical evidence to support this idea:
"There is no scientific evidence to date that hearing two or more languages leads to delays or disorders in language acquisition. Many children throughout the world grow up with two or more languages from infancy without showing any signs of language delays or disorders".
Saunders, (1988) believed it was vital on a psychological level for bilingual children to understand from a very early age that both their languages can be used effectively for all functions outside of their own family. For a child to develop effectively in both languages they should be exposed to environmental stimuli from both social/cultural contexts in order to see first hand the wide range of uses, which both languages possess. However, in instances when the first hand experience of a particular social context or culture is negative the potential for language rejection increases. The implications here for developing biliteracy in homogeneous and monolingual societies are huge and will be discussed later. As often as possible it is desirable for parents to promote to the child the assumption that, written and spoken proficiency, in both languages will play vital roles in their lives both as children and as adults regardless of the social context. Promoting a balance in assumptions, expectations, and attitudes will serve the long-term interests of bilingual families more efficiently. Of course feedback, attitude formation and expectations are not only presented to children within the family unit, the relatively uncontrollable social context will also play a huge role in the child’s development of both languages as stated by Saunders.
A positive attitude toward the minority language is vital in maintaining a child’s wiliness to express themselves in a bilingual manner. This is especially true around the time of a child entering public school for the first time (around 5 years old), at this time, self-identity is a very tender issue and children predominately try to align themselves within the same context as their peers. Kitaka, (1997) analyzed biracial bilinguals with abilities in two or more languages, it was found that many children resisted the language teachings of the minority parent at this age. This resistance continued until the mid-teen or adult years. This has the potential to ostracize the minority-speaking parent and subsequently disrupt the dynamic of the family unit. This refusal to speak the minority language temporarily is not an unusual occurrence. (Harding and Riley,1986). This pattern of refusing to speak the minority language in many cases reflects the ideas of Rondal, (1980) who looked at the balance in communication between child and mother and child and father. Rondal added that fathers are "the forgotten contributors to child language development". This indicates that the father is usually the one who is the speaker of the minority language. In Japan this is most definitely the case.
Grosjean, (1982) stated that it is not language itself which shapes the attitudes and personalities of bilinguals, but the environment and cultural context in which the language is used that possesses the power to shape an individuals cognitive and emotional development. Grosjean, (1989) further added that bilinguals rarely use both languages in all social environments. Social adaptability is a skill which most bilingual children can deploy in order to protect their self-esteem, identity and social standing. The bilingual child effectively chooses the language that is best suited to the social situation. When approaching the concept of bilingualism from this perspective it can be said that bilinguals operate on a continuum ranging from almost monolingual speech behavior to multilingual, dynamic code-switching behaviors, all dependent on the perceived requirements of the social environment. Grosjean emphasizes the fluidity of bilingual’s language abilities by stating, "the bilingual is not two monolinguals in on person ". The advanced skills that they posses are far more dynamic than two isolated, singular monolinguals.
"Citizenship, nationality, race and ethnicity carry little meaning in Japan because they are perceived to be one and the same. The Japan where I came of age was extolled by politicians as a one-state, one-language, one-race nation".
- Natalie Obiko Pearson
Research into bilingualism within Japan has tended to focus on three core groups, Japanese learners of English, Kikokushijo or returnees who are the children returning to Japan from an extended period of living abroad due, usually to their father’s work commitments, and the biracial children of international marriages (Yamamoto, 2001). The homogeneity of Japan is currently believed to stand at about 98% with ethnic minority groups making up less than 2% of a population in excess of 127 million people. The main cores of the minority groups originate from Korea and China who have a long history of settlement in Japan. More recently as a result of Japan’s economic boom in the 1980’s, and the opening of Japan to Brazilians and Peruvians of Japanese ancestry (known as Nikkei) in the 1990’s, the number of people settling in Japan from South America has steadily increased. The Bureau of Statistics, (2000) estimated that at the end of 2000 there were over 1.3 million foreign residents within Japan. The Hiragana Times quoted Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare data stating that there were 36,039 marriages registered between Japanese and non-Japanese partners as of 2003, if we add to this the various native Japanese ethnic-minority groups such as the Ainu and Ryukyuans it is clear to see that such minority groups play an important role in the cultural, linguistic and ethnical makeup of the Japanese archipelago.
Among the Japanese people the term bilingualism is one that is often misunderstood. Hayashi, (1999) questioned 680 Japanese people in order to ascertain their knowledge and attitude toward bilingualism and bilingual education. From her total sample, 60.3% of respondents had never heard of the term "bilingual education" and that 26.4% had heard the term, but had no idea what it meant. Although Hayashi concluded that "these figures and comments suggest that Japanese people have favorable attitudes toward bilingualism in general" it is questionable just how far the term favorable can be applied when many respondents showed such a clear lack of knowledge and understanding. It was also reported that the term bilingualism is perceived to refer only to Japanese – English speakers and not other language minority groups. Yamamoto, (2001) interviewed a number of parents of bilingual children living in Japan, the feedback suggested that bilingualism was perceived negatively within Japan. One particular mother commented "people perceive being bilingual as a profanity against the pure Japanese atmosphere and hold strong feelings of both repulsion and jealousy".
Until the influx of Nikkei into Japan during the early 1990’s, Japan’s minority language education in public schools was non-existent. The school system assumed that Japanese was the first language of all students, with no exception. Between 1991 and 2000 the number of minority language students within Japanese public schools increased from 5,463 to 18,432. Whilst the Japanese have undoubtedly struggled to deal with, and make allowances for the influx of Nikkei and other Asia communities, these problems represented only the tip of the ice-berg.
During the past 20 years the linguistic superpower, which we know as English, has been driving into Japan at a phenomenal rate. It has affected the lives of many Japanese who are suddenly expected to gain proficiency in this foreign language that serves no function as a tool for intercultural communication. Although the Japanese government is, in many ways still trying to stem the tide of the English revolution in Japan many believe that they are destined to fail. The penetrative power of the English language has had such a dramatic impact on Japan that many English loan words are now accepted within Japan and the list continues to grow. As Kachru, (1997) highlights "Japan has always had a love-hate relationship with the English language". A century of contact between Japan and the western world as resulted in fusion of English loanwords becoming mainstream within Japan, a process which is made easier by the Katakana writing system. By some estimates the number of English loanwords found within the Japanese language is 10% of the Japanese lexicon, Honna, (1995). Although a small number of loan words originate form languages other than English, industries such as engineering, manufacturing and marketing have been quick to accept new terms coined from English. Honna, (1995) and Loveday, (1996) identified a number of patterns, which words such as loanwords follow when being borrowed or absorbed into the Japanese language:
- simple borrowing (e.g. bairingaru ‘bilingual’)
- semantic narrowing (e.g. purojekuto ‘project’- meaning a large scale plan)
- Japanese innovations (e.g. i>sukinshippu ‘skinship’)
- abbreviations (e.g. konbi ‘combination’)
- acronyms (e.g. O.L ‘office lady’)
- hybrids (e.g. gaijin buumu ‘foreigner boom’)
- word play (e.g. go,go,go ‘five, five, five’ – good time to wake up 5:55am)
Based on the growing widespread usage of English loanwords, it could be argued that Japanese society was gradually opening itself up to multicultural and multilingual influences. Whilst this is true to an extent, it is also a trend which acts to strengthen the stance of the Japanese traditionalists / government officials who see multilingualism as the beginning of the end for the Japanese language. In 2002, the minister of education, culture, sports, science and technology, Atsuko Toyama proposed a plan to organize a committee of language experts to identify ways to prevent the Japanese language from being saturated with foreign words. She commented to reporters that:
"The brainless importing of foreign words is damaging the nature and beauty of traditional Japanese language. The importing has sharply increased recently which causes concern,". Ironically, Ms Toyama presents a different message in her UNESCO website profile. Where, as an international representative for Japan she states:
" For the nations to learn to live together in harmony in the era of globalization I believe the pursuit of universally shared values and the encouragement of pluralism, especially the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity, is vital. In education, this goal can be approached by fostering the attitude to understand each other as well as by learning from the entities that lay the foundations for mutual understanding."
In a contradictory world of ancient tradition, strict discipline, state-of-the-art electronics and pornographic cartoons such contradictory standpoints are not uncommon. The most recent Japanese government official who attempted to move toward the "promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity" was the late Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi, who in 2000 proposed, as one of Japan’s goals for the 21st century, to make English the "second official language" of Japan. The idea, which would of obliged governments, local councils and other official bodies to draw up documents in both languages, was heavily criticized as a further move towards western erosion of Japanese culture. It is widely accepted that in countries that recognize two or more official languages, schools tend to support and encourage bilingualism by requiring intensive study of a second language. All aspects of social interaction such as family, school, and community support are crucial in order to maintain a balanced use of the two languages. It is also important to clarify that family, school, and community should cooperate with each other to create environments in which bilingual children can develop their bilingual proficiency
Being "different" in a collective society such as Japan can be hard to handle, especially for children. The Japanese find safety and assurance in being perceived as similar to each other. In a recent interview carried out by the BBC in Tokyo, people were asked about their opinion on Japan’s uniformity. One lady commented:
"Everyone has the same hair color and the same eye color. You feel maybe the guy next to you is feeling the same way, so it's a good feeling to be homogenous,"
The societal burden of being perceived as different is heavy. People who do possess variations from the social norms in linguistic ability and physical appearance are often considered social deviants (Sakamaki, 1996). Japanese biracial children are one such group of "social deviants", on one hand biracial children are Japanese, born in Japan with a Japanese passport, they will likely be able to speak Japanese from a young age as it represents the dominant tool of social interaction, yet their physical appearance is not "standard" Japanese. Biracial children living in Japan quickly learn that they are different.
Cummins, (1984) focused on how families and students perceived the concept of bilingualism. Cummins identified a number of prevalent issues, which were specific to Japanese society and its approach to dealing with differences. Many educators and schools viewed bilingual children and their families as distinctly foreign and not Japanese. The linguistic abilities and patterns of these people was the key identifier in marking them as "different". As previously mentioned the behaviours shown to people who are perceived as different in Japan is very unforgiving. The teachers Cummins identified worked to eradicate the differences between themselves and the bilingual students that made them foreign. This like in many other situations included, prohibiting the minority language within the school environment, encouraging the development of the majority language and promoting those values that reinforced the cultural norms of the majority.
Additional problems that biracial children face in Japan can be highlighted through the comments of Associated Press reporter Natalie Obiko Pearson who was born in Japan to a Japanese mother and Australian father. She commented on her childhood:
"Gaijin da, gaijin da!" my playmates began taunting me one day at the neighborhood park near my home in Kobe, the port city in western Japan where I grew up. It meant "look foreigner!" and although at age 4 I couldn't grasp the full import of what they were saying, I knew what I was and I told them so: "I'm not gaijin. I'm Japanese. I'm also Australian."
Although the connotations surrounding the word "Gaijin" can be endlessly debated, the singling out of a person based on race alone is unacceptable in most democratic countries. If biracial children are targeted for bullying because of the nature of their being, McMahill, (2000) asserts that "the bullying could be an instance of racism, or at least a challenge to the child's right of membership in Japanese society". When interviewed about her biracial daughters experiences in Japan, one parent reported that her half-Japanese daughter felt that, " people were constantly questioning the naturalness of her existence" by pointing out, directly and indirectly, her foreignness. The prevalence of such racism in Japan prompted the United Nations to conduct an investigatory "Mission to Japan" in 2005. The subsequent U.N report stated that racism, discrimination and xenophobia are a reality in Japanese society. This discrimination affects national minorities, including the people of Okinawa, as well as the Korean and Chinese communities, and immigrants from Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Europe. Based on such findings the U.N urged the Japanese government to combat racism, discrimination and xenophobia in the country by promulgating comprehensive anti-racism legislation and building a multicultural society.
Bullying is not uncommon in Japan and characteristics, which differentiate a child from their peers, are often picked up on and exploited for the amusement of the majority group. Biracial children who have deeper issues in searching for heritage, identity and a sense of belonging are often emotionally frail, thereby making them more susceptible to bullying. Many of these biracial children attempt to correct the situation by eliminating the things that alienate themselves from their classmates and peers, Noguchi, (1996). This may manifest itself in the refusal to speak the minority language, aligning ones fashion and behaviour closer to the majority group and reflecting and enforcing the shared, common attitudes towards various subjects. In order to enhance the self-confidence, self-esteem and positive identity formulation in biracial children they need to be exposed to positive role-models who are also biracial, creating real images which can motivate the child’s desires to embrace biracialism is vital in combating racism and discrimination (Wardle, 1987).
Even the task of referring to biracial children is the basis of much debate within Japan. As a socio-cultural population the Japanese place an emphasis on the labeling and categorization of people. Labels and attached names are often important in the self-empowerment of biracial children (Root, 1996). The most common reference to a biracial child is "Haafu" which is coined from the English word "Half", many parents have difficulty in accepting this term for their children, even though the Japanese do point out that it has many positive associations within the Japanese population. Within an English language context it implies that a child is only able to access half of their bi-cultural heritage, usually being the Japanese side and that the other non-Japanese side is ignored (Moriki, 2000). Parents of bilingual children often exhibit a variety of reactions when encountering the word "Haafu", a number of parents have elaborated on the basic idea and coined the term "Daburu" coming from the English word "double", thus changing the perception that their child is half as good to the perception that he/she is twice as good due to the mixed culture and language. This is also problematic in that the pressure to be extra good is increased, Singer, (2000) stated that biracial children in Japan must "tread the fine line between self-confidence and conceit". Other negative terms that are often imposed upon used biracial children include Konketsuji (mixed-blood) and Zasshu (mongrel) both of which are interpreted as derogatory slurs.
Looking elsewhere within the school system and beyond biracial children, it is possible to find others instances where attitudes towards children of non-Japanese origin can act to inhibit their progress and development. Kanno, (2004) identified a number of varying attitudes towards the maintenance and involvement of non-Japanese students (L1) in the public school setting. It was reported that many homeroom teachers did not "see the point in incorporating the students L1 into the school curriculum". Many schools also worked on the ‘division of labor’ principle, this being that the school will support the students (L2) and the home should support the (L1). A principal at one such school stated:
" In a public school I don’t think it is necessary to look after (language minority students) mother tongue, not unless you can afford to. So if the parents think that mother tongue education is necessary, they can teach it at home or make use of classes run by volunteer groups, of which there are many "
Although such options may exist in limited communities they tend to focus on languages such as English and Chinese, which for minority or biracial children from other linguistic backgrounds is worthless. There are also socioeconomic issues to consider in traveling to and from such classes.
Although parents seek to do what is best for their children, on some occasions a parent’s action can be detrimental to the process of producing bilingual children. In the majority of cases of children born to parents who have different languages there is a desire from each of them for the child to adopt "their" native language as the (L1) and the other parents native language as the (L2). In cases where this does not seem to occur many parents will either consciously or sub-consciously give up on raising their children bilingually (Hayashi & Ishikawa, 1997). Hayashi, (1998) specifically focused on the dual language development of children whose mothers spoke Japanese as a first language and whose fathers spoke English as a first language. Her study group of 10 America based families, only one family reported that their children had developed into well-balanced bilinguals, the mother of this family stated that her family spent 2-3 months in Japan every year, in order to foster the children’s bilingualism. It was concluded that it is difficult for children to acquire two languages when the language of one of the parents is the dominant language of the community, and both parents have a moderate degree of competence in the language. This would seem to add support to the issue raised by Saunders that a process of wide socially dual cultural based exposure is key in raising bilingual children in addition to factors such as such as the parents’ attitudes toward both languages. Hayashi also noted that children cannot be balanced-bilinguals unless they are given equal opportunities to use both languages. Within Japan the opportunity for bilingual and non-Japanese children to use a language other than Japanese is limited due to the monolingual nature of Japan.
It is clear that the process of raising bilingual children is a difficult and challenging one. The decisions made the parents are vital in determining the outcome of a child’s early linguistic experiences. The exposure to different cultures, social group and language environments all play key roles in the formulation of a bilingual speaking child. When applying the concept of bilingualism to biracial children in a largely xenophobic, homogenous country such as Japan the problems that can be encountered increase dramatically. The deep routed beliefs and attitudes of the Japanese are difficult to negotiate and require a great deal of sensitivity, patience and support on the part of both the parent and the bilingual child. Only through further understanding, tolerance of individual differences and government backed nationwide education can this situation improve for both parents and children. Only then will Japan be on the road to internationalization.
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Holt: New York.
Bureau of Statistics, (2000). Population of Japan. Retrieved from,
www.stat.go.jp/english/data/kokusei/2000/final/hyodai.htm#20
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
De Houwer, A. (1999). Two or more languages in early childhood: Some general points and practical recommendations. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved March 4, 2005, from
www.cal.org/resources/digest/earlychild.html
Doudou, D. (2006). Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and all forms of Discrimination: Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance "Mission to Japan JAPAN". United Nations Economic and Social Council.
Government protects Japanese language from imported words. (2002). Retrieved June 26, 2002, from
www.zone81.com/arch_news/1025425859923
Grimes, B. F. (1992). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages. An introduction to bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, Beware! The Bilingual is Not Two Monolinguals in One Person. Brain and Language, 36, 3-15.
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. NY: Basic Books.
Harding, E. & Riley, P. (1986).The bilingual family. Cambridge University Press.
Hayashi, A. (1998). Mom, I do not understand your language: An ethnographic study of bilingual acquisition of children whose parents have different native languages. Presented at the Canadian. Association of Japanese Language Education Annual Conference, 1998.
Hayashi, A. (1998). What is bilingual education?: A survey of opinions on bilingual education and bilingualism in Japan. Presented at the Canadian. Association of Japanese Language Education Annual Conference, 1999.
Honna, N. (1995). English in Japanese Society: Language within Language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16(1/2):45-61.
Japanese Immigration Bureau. "On the statistics on foreign and Japanese legal migrants in 2001" (Press Release, March 2002)
Japan-Behind the Scenes - Japanese Society / Politics : Now, One Out of 20 Marriages are Mixed!. Hiragana Times. Retrieved from,
www.hiraganatimes.com/hp/scenes/kiji/kiji222-2e.html
Japan mulls multicultural dawn. (2004, October 5). Retrieved from,http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3708098.stm.
Kachru, B.B. (1997). Past imperfect: The other side of English in Asia. In L.E. Smith and M.L. Foman (eds.), World Englishes 2000, pp.68-69. Honolulu: College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, University of Hawaii, with East-West Center.
Kanno, Y. (2004). Sending Mixed Messages : Lanaguge Minority Education at a Japanese Public Elementary School. In A. Pavlenko and A. Blackledge (eds.), Negociation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. pp. 316-338. Clevedon : Multilingual Matters.
Koppe, R., & Meisel, J. M. (1995). Code-switching in bilingual first language acquisition. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (eds.), One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, (pp. 276-301). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Lanza, E. (1992). Can bilingual two-year-olds code-switch? Journal of Child Language, 19, 633-658.
Loveday, L. (1996). Language contact in Japan: A socio-linguistic history. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McMahill, C. (2000). The construction of social identities in bilingual families: Narratives on white parents in Japan. Unpublished manuscript.
Moriki, K. (2000). Kokusai Kekkon Guidebook: Kokusai Kazoku no Jidai ni Mikete. Tokyo: Meishi Shoten.
Noguchi, M. G. (1996). Adding biliteracy to bilingualism: Teaching your child to read English in Japan. Monographs on Bilingualism no. 4. Osaka: Bilingualism Special Interest Group of the Japan Association for Language Teaching.
Obiko Pearson, N. (2005, September 29). Living as a 'half': What it's like to be of mixed race in Japan. Mainichi Daily News.
Romaine, S., (1995). Bilingualism (2nd ed). London: Blackwell.
Rondal, J. (1980). Language delay and language difference. Special Education in Canada, 54(2), 27-32.
Root, M. P. P. (1996). The multiracial experience. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sakamaki, S. (1996, February). Fates worse than death. Far Eastern Economic Review, 159, 38-40.
Saunders, G. (1988). Bilingual children: From birth to teens. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Singer, J. (2000). Japan's Singular 'Doubles.' Japan Quarterly, 47(2), 76-82.
Thiery, C. (1978). True bilingualism and second language learning. In D. Gerver and H. Sinaiko (eds.) Language interpretation and communication. New Yok, Plenum Press.
UNESCO - European Centre for Higher Education. The Bilingual University - Its Origins, Mission, and Functioning. Bucharest, 15-19 March 2000.
UNESCO - Profile of Atsuko Toyama. Retrieved from,
www.ibe.unesco.org/International/Ice/ministers/Japan.pdf
U.S Bureau of Intelligence and Research. (2006). Independent States in the World: Washington, DC. Retrieved from September 11, 2006,
www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm
Wardle, F. (1987, January). Are you sensitive to interracial children's special needs? Young Children, 42(2), pp. 53-59. (EJ 347 857).
Warttman, S. (2005). Migration and the Millennium Development Goals, p. 16. Migration: September 2005, pp. 16-17. Geneva: IOM.
Yamamoto, Masayo. (2001). Language Use in Interlingual Families: A Japanese-English Sociolinguistic Study. Multilingual Matters, Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 30.
The Methodology and Language for Primary Teachers course can be viewed here
The Skills of Teacher Training course can be viewed here
|
