Beyond bilingualism in Japan: Examining the translingual trends of a “monolingual” nation

Abstract

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions:

Japan has traditionally been thought of as a linguistically homogenous and therefore monolingual society. Consequently, very few Japanese people consider themselves bilingual, let alone translingual; however, the reality of Japanese society would suggest otherwise. This paper’s objective was to shed light on the largely unrecognized translanguaging practices prevalent throughout Japanese society. It also attempts to address the question of why Japanese people largely fail to recognize their own translingual status despite their ability to live and act in an increasingly translingual society with few communicative issues.

Design/Methodology/Approach:

This paper takes a visual ethnography approach to examine an assortment of concrete photographic materials collected by the researcher. A descriptive qualitative framework was employed whereby written explanations and interpretation consolidate visual photographic representations to provide an insight into the translingual practices of Japanese society.

Data and Analysis:

Based on a descriptive qualitative framework, in which emphasis was placed on understanding the identified phenomena in their own right through analysis of emergent descriptions rather than predetermined options, 10 instances of translanguaging practices were analyzed in depth throughout this paper under six different themes: simple translation, intersentential practices, intrasentential, practices interlexical practices, intralexical practices, and semiotic-reliant practices.

Findings/Conclusions:

The findings provide concrete evidence of intersentential, intrasentential, interlexical, intralexical, and semiotic-reliant translingual practices working together to create a linguistically rich Japanese society that is undeniably deserving of a translingual accreditation.

Originality:

This is the first study that has looked at the translanguaging practices of Japanese society and identified it as being deserving of a translingual accreditation.

Significance/Implications:

This paper contributes toward an epistemological shift away from the erroneous notion that Japan is a monolingual nation, and brings about awareness to celebrate the underlying translingualism that runs prevalent throughout modern Japanese society.

Keywords

Bilingualism translanguaging translingual practices Japanese society

Introduction

Japan has traditionally been thought of as a homogenous and therefore monolingual society. Leading Japanologists, both in the West and Japan, have strongly voiced their opinions on the matter in the past. Edwin Reischauer (1988), for example, suggested that “the Japanese today are the most thoroughly unified and culturally homogeneous large bloc of people in the world” (p. 33). Similar views were held by Japanese sociologist Fumie Kumagai (1996), who claimed that “Japan is more racially and ethnically homogeneous than almost any other modern nation” (p. 9). In 1986, the Japanese Prime Minister, Nakasone Yasuhiro, famously proclaimed that Japan has “one ethnicity, one state, and one language” (see Lie, 2001), and in 2005, the Japanese Internal Affairs and Communications Minister, Aso Taro, expressed a similar controversial view, alleging Japan to have just “one nation, one civilization, one language, one culture and one race” (Japan Times, 2005, para. 2).

Although some scholars have questioned the view of Japan as a linguistically and culturally homogenous society (e.g. Heinrich, 2012; Htun, 2012; Kibe, 2006; Lie, 2001; Maher, 1997; Siddle, 2003; Weiner, 1997), arguing for the existence of ethnic minority groups and calling for the recognition of multilingual and multicultural diversity, Maher (1997) states that “the notion of contemporary Japan as somehow ‘multilingual’ still remains radically controversial and contested” (p. 115). Various groups of bi-/multilinguals exist in Japan, the status of whom few people could challenge (e.g. ethnic minorities, Japanese returnees who have grown up abroad and moved back to Japan, expatriates who have developed high proficiencies in Japanese, children of international couples, children studying at international schools, etc.); however, very few Japanese people consider themselves to be bi- or multilingual (Yamamoto, 2003) despite undergoing years of compulsory English education.

This may be due to the Japanese government’s continued position that Japan is a monoracial, and therefore monolingual and monocultural nation, whereby Japanese has been regarded as the only language employed in Japan, and language diversity remains unacknowledged (see Maher, 1997). Indeed, some scholars have even suggested that language homogeneity is a central element in the psyche of Japan’s national image (see Heinrich, 2012), which is one possible reason as to why Japanese people rarely consider themselves bilingual. This ideology is based in the traditional (and yet, often criticized) nihonjinron discourse: an ethnocentrist collection of theories asserting the uniqueness of Japan as a monolingual and monocultural society (Sugimoto, 2003). The discourse argues for the distinct cultural and national identity of the Japanese people, central to which is the Japanese language (Liddicoat, 2007). In viewing Japan as a linguistically homogenous society, the nihonjinron discourse strongly emphasizes the uniqueness of the Japanese language, particularly in relation to English and the West (Kubota, 1998; McKenzie, 2010). It considers the Japanese language to be too difficult for non-Japanese to learn and, in contrast, English to be too difficult for Japanese to acquire (Miller, 1982), which may have led some Japanese to view reaching a bilingual status in English an impossible task.

Another possible motivation for why so many Japanese consider themselves monolingual could be due to their own personality characteristics as a people who are reluctant to self-praise (see Brown, 2006) their second language abilities and promote themselves as being “proficient.” A Rakuten Research (2016) survey investigating the attitudes of 1000 Japanese men and women aged 20–69 toward English found that around 70% felt they had “poor” or “very poor” English abilities overall. Only 8.7% suggested they were “good” or “very good.” Nearly three quarters (74.2%) thought that, in general, Japanese people had “low” or “very low” English proficiencies, with only 3.6% believing it to be “high” or “very high.” Thus, it is likely that such perspectives have contributed toward Japanese people’s belief they are not deserving of a bi-/multilingual status.

One further reason behind Japanese people’s assertion of their own monolingualism could be based on a maximalist position of what it means to be bi-/multilingual. This perspective comes from Bloomfield’s (1985) understanding of bilingualism as “a native-like control of two languages” (p. 56): an assumption that has since been refuted by numerous scholars in the field of bi-/multilingualism for being too inclusive and unrealistic. Dewaele, Housen, and Wei (2003) suggest that the “perfect” bilingual is unlikely to exist, and even the “balanced” bilingual is uncommon. They refer to various forms of “‘imperfect’ and ‘unstable’ forms of bilingualism in which one language takes over from the other(s) on at least some occasions and for some instances of language use” (p. 1). Dovchin and Lee (2019) suggest that, in recent years, debate has risen concerning the constructs of bilingualism and multilingualism, the traditional paradigms of which involve code-switching between two autonomous linguistic systems (see García, 2009), promoting static language boundaries in the communication of people with diverse linguistic repertoires.

Whereas some scholars in the field of sociolinguistics have called for the blurring of these boundaries (e.g. Williams’ (1994) original translanguaging concept), others have disputed their existence altogether, arguing them to be mere social constructs (e.g. García & Wei, 2014), and suggesting instead that speakers possess a single, expanded linguistic repertoire to which all elements of the named languages in which they hold multicompetence belong. Accordingly, scholars have looked beyond the concept of linguistic diversity, as understood through the basic constructs of bi-/multilingualism, arguing that such notions fall short of contemporary linguistic repertoires, particularly of modern youth (Dovchin, 2018; Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015). They argue instead for the use of translingual practices (see Canagarajah, 2013), or the unique way in which modern speakers adopt “creative strategies to engage with each other and represent their voices” (p. 2). This, in turn, places focus on “the communicative practices of people interacting across different linguistic and communicative codes, borrowing, bending and blending languages into new modes of expression” (Pennycook, 2007, p. 47). Such practices have become increasingly more prominent in Japanese society, and thus it is here, in the emergent paradigm of translingualism, where the true status of the Japanese people is revealed.

The linguistic landscape of Japan is much more complex than the mere switching of codes, and is thus deserving of something beyond that of a bilingual status. To critically capture the complex language practices evident in Japanese society, a translingual title is warranted. Japanese society is rich with the integrated use of multiple languages and multi-modal semiotics that work to convey intended meaning to a specifically Japanese audience. This notion is grounded in what Cook (1992) first termed as “multicompetence”, and later refined as “the knowledge of more than one language in the same mind or the same community” (Cook, 2012, p. 3768). He explains this to be “everything a single person or a single community knows about the languages they use.” In other words, it is the complex mental functions of the bi-/multilingual, and indeed, translingual speakers in their own right, unrelated to the standards of monolingual native speakers, and the milliard of ways in which these speakers engage their unique semiotic linguistic systems to make meaning, to express themselves, and to act as whole people. I believe this reflects the true state of Japanese society and the status of the Japanese people.

Researchers in the field of language ideology in Japan have recognized Japan’s past as a factor having resulted in today’s perceived monolingual society. Prior to Japan’s annexation of surrounding island territories, the nation was rife with minority cultures and languages, such as the Ryūkyūans and Ainu languages, quite unlike that of Japanese at the time. However, these minority languages were forced to assimilate as “the default solution addressing the ‘disorder’ represented by ethnolinguistic communities” (Heinrich, 2012, p. 123) in an attempt to create a single, centralized Japanese language in the late 19th century. As a result of this continued ideology that Japan is a monocultural and linguistically homogenous nation, little attention is offered in Japanese national government policies to save these minority languages, despite local efforts of preservation in affected areas¹ (see Dubinsky & Davies, 2013). However, in reality, the translingual nature of Japanese society lies far beyond the existence of local minority languages. Torikai (2005) states that “even though not many people are aware of it, or ready to admit it, Japan is not the homogeneous country that is sometimes projected” (p. 255). Ever-growing cultural diversification as a result of globalization and an ageing population in Japan have resulted in increased numbers of foreign residents and government efforts to address labor shortages with workers from abroad. With over two million foreigners currently living in Japan, it is difficult to disregard the increasing multicultural and multilingual facets of Japanese society.

To be translingual is a fluid and dynamic practice. Being exposed to, having knowledge of, and flexibly using multiple linguistic resources in one’s everyday life, both actively and receptively, to mesh linguistic forms, challenge static language boundaries, and create new identities results in a translingual society. Thus, while the majority of Japanese may not consider themselves to be translingual, the reality of Japanese society would suggest otherwise. The vast majority of people living in cities throughout the country are unknowingly, and yet deliberately, subjected to an array of translingual practices on a regular basis, and function in said contexts with few comprehension difficulties. Such translingual activity does not refer to simple sign translations aimed at tourists; rather, it refers to translingual practices that are targeted at a specifically Japanese audience. Although it is largely unrecognized in most cases, translingual practices run rife in marketing campaigns, product branding, and common advertising all throughout the country, suggesting Japan to be a much more linguistically rich environment than was traditionally thought. This paper examines an assortment of concrete photographic evidence collected by the researcher of the largely unnoticed translingual practices observable in various facets of Japanese society to provide an argument against the idea of Japan as a linguistically homogeneous nation. It also attempts to address the question of why Japanese people largely fail to recognize their own translingual status despite their ability to live and act in an increasingly translingual society with few communicative issues.

The translanguaging concept

The term “translanguaging” was originally coined by the Welsh educationalist Cen Williams (1994) as a pedagogy employed in Welsh bilingual education programs involving the “planned and systematic use of two languages for teaching and learning inside the same lesson” (Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012, p. 643). The term has since been expanded by numerous scholars (see, for example, Canagarajah, 2011; Creese & Blackledge, 2010; García, 2009; García & Wei, 2014; Hornberger & Link, 2012) to include social functions, broadly referring to the complex language and pedagogical practices of bi/multilingual individuals and communities. Baker (2011) defines translanguaging as “the process of making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of two languages” (p. 288). Thus, from a sociolinguistic perspective, it describes the fluid language practices of individuals and communities who transcend between and beyond the socially constructed barriers of named languages to make meaning, to express themselves, and to learn in their worlds.

A brief analysis of the term itself helps to shed light on the intricate concept of translanguaging. The trans- prefix not only connotes meanings related to “across,” “beyond,” and “through” (e.g. language transformation, transcending, and transgression), but also of “acquisition,” “adaptation,” and “change.” Wei and Zhu (2013) refer to three uses of the trans- prefix that highlight dynamic and flexible practices of bi/multilingual speakers: (a) trans-system/structure/space, that is, “going between and beyond (linguistic) systems and structures, including different modalities (e.g. speaking, writing, signing), and communicative contexts or spaces”; (b) transformative, that is, it “develops and transforms the speakers’ skills, knowledge, experience, attitudes, and beliefs; thus creating a new identity for the multilingual speaker”; and (c) transdisciplinary, that is, it views “multilingual practices as a window to human sociality, human cognition, social relations, and social structures” (pp. 4–5). Similarly, the -languaging suffix refers to “the process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language” (Swain, 2006, p. 98). It is the continuous becoming of oneself through the use of language and interaction with one’s surrounding world, reflected largely in the socially and culturally grounded activities in which individuals and communities engage in daily life.

Translanguaging is thus a practice through which speakers both possess and engage with their integrated repertoires of linguistic and semiotic resources to convey intended meaning to a particular audience (Canagarajah, 2013; Vogel, & Garcia, 2017). Translingual speakers transcend through and beyond the socially constructed language boundaries in their linguistic repertoires to construct extralinguistic identities (Canagarajah, 2015), to express themselves as whole individuals, and to make meaning of their worlds. In Japan, it may be that translanguaging is employed to allow speakers to transcend the culturally defined, sociopolitical language boundaries for the purposes of effective communication (Wei, 2017) and for audience contextualization (Borrero, 2011) in marketing and advertising regimes. Signs found throughout Japanese society do not simply switch codes in the conveying of their message; rather, they adopt a translingual orientation to intricately mesh Japanese with other diverse languages and semiotic symbols. It is, in effect, an appropriation of (predominantly) English linguistic resources in relation to Japanese in an effort to “Japanize” said languages and linguistic elements (see Canagarajah & Dovchin, 2019).

As Pennycook (2007) states: “Languages will flow and change around us, new combinations of languages and cultures will be put together, texts will be sampled and mixed in ever new juxtapositions” (p. 158). This idea is reflected in the concept of linguascapes, which Dovchin (2018) defines as “the transnational flows of linguistic resources circulating across the current world of flows,² making meanings in contact with other various spatiotemporal scapes interacting with one another, and affecting the particular speakers’ linguistic practices in varied ways” (p. 35). In other words, it is the complex meshing of linguistic forms and content that move across transnational boundaries, unrelated to the original forms of discrete language systems. Leppänen et al. (2009) explain this movement of linguistic resources to demonstrate “the coexistence, combination, alternation, and juxtaposition of ways of using the communicative and expressive resources language/s offer us” (p. 1082).

Such translingual changes can be observed in various landscapes of Japanese society, despite continued calls that Japan is a “monolingual” nation. Maher (2005) claims that Japan has begun to reject traditional ascriptions of cultural identity, and is instead exploring options of metroethnicity, or “a reconstruction of ethnicity” (p. 83). He suggests that Japan’s metroethnicity is like “a hybridised ‘street’ ethnicity deployed by a cross-section of people with ethnic or mainstream backgrounds who are oriented toward cultural hybridity, cultural/ethnic tolerance and a multicultural lifestyle in friendships, music, the arts, eating and dress” (p. 83). The emerging translingual activities that (particularly) youth engage in as they orient themselves toward more culturally and linguistically hybrid lifestyles involve the integrated meshing of various linguistic and semiotic codes, and are evidence in favor of the translingual nature of modern Japanese society (also see Canagarajah & Dovchin (2019) for a discussion of online-based youth code-meshing in Japan).

I categorize such translanguaging practices as being either intersentential (i.e. the fluid exchanging of linguistic and/or semiotic features between sentences), or intrasentential (i.e. the fluid exchanging of linguistic and/or semiotic features within the same sentence). Intrasentential translanguaging practices can further be classified as being either interlexical (i.e. translanguaging between words within a single sentence) or intralexical (i.e. translanguaging within a single word in a single sentence). Importantly, as understood from Wei and Zhu’s (2013) trans-system/structure/space explanation, engaging one’s complete linguistic repertoire through translanguaging is not only restricted to the use of multiple named languages to create meaning; it also allows for bi-/multilingual speakers to employ multi-modalities and social semiotics to communicate and negotiate meaning (see García & Wei, 2014).

Multi-modalities refer to communicative means besides that of words (e.g. gestures, visual cues, sounds, etc.), and social semiotics to an array of signs and modes (e.g. pictures, emojis/emoticons, symbols, etc.) that are available to bi-/multilingual speakers to negotiate, create, and convey meaning in communicative contexts, and the social contexts in which they are produced and understood. Thus, translanguaging is not the simple act of code-switching between defined linguistic systems, but rather, it is a “trans-semiotic system with many meaning-making signs, primarily linguistics ones that combine to make up a person’s semiotic repertoire” (García & Wei, 2014, p. 42). In other words, it is the complex, multi-modal practices with which bi-/multilingual speakers interact in various social and communicative contexts to negotiate, interpret, and create meaning. Despite its lack of recognition, however, it is a system employed extensively throughout various facets of Japanese society, examples of which are examined throughout this paper.

Methodology

This paper provides a visual analysis of the translingual landscape in Japan. The use of photographs in academia has received increased attention in recent years as a valid means of data collection (e.g. Close, 2007; Holm, 2014; Langmann & Pick, 2018; Norman, 1991), although it is acknowledged that photographic evidence in older research does exist, often under different terminology such as visual ethnography (Schwartz, 1989), visual anthropology (e.g. Collier & Collier, 1986), and visual sociology (e.g. Harper, 1988). The use of photographs in research provides an important epistemic look at given phenomena that other modes of representation cannot. Abell (2010) identifies richness of detail and proof of existence as the main epistemic roles that photographs afford in research. She suggests that photographs “provide compelling evidence that the things they depict existed at the time they were taken,” and play “a unique investigative role, enabling us to identify features of their objects that are easily overlooked” (p. 81).

Under this view, photographic representation is considered to be a reliable source of data collection because one cannot take a photo of something that is not there. However, the use of photographs in research extends beyond mere “truth-value,” or the simple presentation of facts about a subject in an informational manner. Bateson and Mead’s (1942) visual ethnography solidified photography as a valid means of data collection by juxtaposing images alongside written annotations and accounts. By combining these descriptions and analyses with their photographic evidence, Bateson and Mead were able to validate their photographs to provide explanation, interpretation, and contextualization for their data set. A similar approach was selected for use in the present study, whereby written explanations and interpretation consolidate visual photographic representations to provide an insight into the translingual practices of Japanese society.

In the present study, the researcher fortuitously collected photographic evidence of various translingual trends in two Japanese cities during a walk through each township in a single sitting per location. Photographs were taken of all instances in which translingual activity was found. It is important to note that in no instances were these photographs sought out with specific keyword searches online to prove solid evidence in support of the commonality of translingual practices in the streets of Japan. Furthermore, examples from Western-based international corporations, such as McDonalds™ and Starbucks™, for example, were avoided to focus more specifically on the translingual practices found in an exclusively Japanese context, although it is acknowledged that such corporations do also employ translanguaging in the promotion of their businesses in Japan.

Although only 10 photographs are examined in detail throughout this paper, many more were taken as evidence and were discussed by the researcher in a conference presentation (see Turnbull, 2019). These particular 10 pictures were selected for use in this paper as they were the most representative of the photos taken, portraying a wide yet accurate range of translingual practices and provide an overarching look at the various types of translanguaging that can be found in Japan. The selected photographs were analyzed within a descriptive qualitative framework, in which emphasis was placed on understanding the identified phenomena in their own right through analysis of emergent descriptions rather than predetermined options. In examining the photographs, six emerging themes were found regarding translingual practices in Japan: simple translation, intersentential practices, intrasentential practices, interlexical practices, intralexical practices, and semiotic-reliant practices, which formed the basis for analysis and description of this data set.

Translanguaging in Japan

While translanguaging is common practice in “super-diverse” societies (see Wei, 2018) widely recognized as being bi-/multilingual, the employment of translingual practices in Japan is rarely acknowledged, despite its hidden prevalence. It is not uncommon to find direct translations of signs and/or information in Japan, especially in areas densely populated by tourists; however, these are not necessarily designed as a translingual message aimed at a specifically Japanese target audience. Take, for example, Figures 1 (a fire hydrant sign) and 2 (a no smoking sign), both of which exhibit “bi-/multilingual” translations that employ more than one language.

Figure 1.

A bilingual fire hydrant sign.

In both of these examples, the use of English (and Chinese and Korean, in Figure 2) is not targeted at a Japanese audience, but rather, at the foreign tourists who rely on these translations to travel and understand their time in Japan. Because these signs are not designed to convey a complex linguistic message to a specific Japanese target audience, they fall within a “translation” categorization rather than a translanguaging framework. There are, however, an assortment of translingual examples in Japan, seen through the fluid meshing of linguistic resources, language practices, and multi-modal/semiotic-based messages that are targeted specifically at the Japanese people. Intersentential, intrasentential, interlexical, intralexical, and semiotic-reliant examples of translingual practices found throughout Japan are examined below.

Figure 2.

A multilingual no smoking sign.

Intersentential translanguaging in Japan

It is important to first clarify that intersentential translanguaging (i.e. translanguaging between sentences) is not the dual translation of a sentence from one language to another. Rather, it is the alternation of linguistic and/or semiotic forms and resources between sentences where different information is shared in each that consolidate to make an overall cohesive statement. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the mere translation of information from one sentence to the next and is more targeted at foreign nationals/tourists as opposed to Japanese nationals themselves. However, Figures 3 (ticket discount sign) and 4 (New Year’s street sign) exhibit examples of intersentential translanguaging where the complete message is only conveyed through an understanding of the linguistic and semiotic resources in both sentences.

Figure 3.

A ticket discount sign.

Figure 3 shows a sign found inside an airplane offering discount tickets for other modes of transport in Japan. The first sentence in Japanese (機内限定, kinai gentei) means “limited to in-flight,” and the second sentence, in English, explains that discounts are available. These two sentences combine to form the overall meaning, “discounts available in-flight only”; however, without an understanding of both sentences, this meaning cannot be interpreted in its entirety. Similarly, in Figure 4, the English “Happy New Year” is followed by the Japanese 今年もよろしくね (kotoshi mo yoroshiku ne): a phrase often translated literally to mean please treat me well this year too. The reality is, however, that 今年もよろしくね is very difficult to translate into English, and perhaps best resembles phrases such as best wishes for this year or even I look forward to working with you this year. The combination of English and Japanese linguistic resources in this sign may thus be a result of the difficulty involved in writing both sentences in English. The message is also accompanied with a semiotic drawing of a character removing their hat in a polite greeting sense, adding another layer of meaning to the overall message.

Figure 4.

A New Year street sign.

In both of these examples, Japanese and English linguistic elements combine to convey the entire intended message, supported with semiotic picture resources, whereby an understanding of both language constructs is required in order to interpret the meaning in its entirety. The meshing of these resources requires the reader to draw on various elements within their expanded linguistic repertoires, crossing language boundaries to create the meaning of a single message. The final message that the reader produces is thus, in a sense, “language-less” in that it is purely the construction of meaning that results in an understanding of the message, not a meta-analysis of the linguistic resources themselves. It is for this reason that these examples fall within an intersentential translanguaging framework, and provide evidence of such translingual practices in Japanese society.

Intrasentential translanguaging in Japan

Next, to examine intrasentential translanguaging examples in Japan, we must look at both interlexical and intralexical subdivisions and the different ways in which translingual practices are exhibited within these contexts. Firstly, Figures 5 (a sale sign) and 6 (an advertisement sign) provide evidence of interlexical translanguaging practices, that is, translanguaging between words within a single sentence.

Figure 5.

A sale sign.

In Figure 5, a combination of the Japanese 最大 (saidai, meaning maximum) and English (off) combine with internationally standard Arabic numerals and the percentage symbol (%) to produce the message “up to 50% off.” The English “new arrival” is also provided, with a direct translation in Japanese (新作続々入荷中, shinsaku zokuzoku nyūkachū) beneath. Similarly, in Figure 6, the English word “new” appears alongside the single letter “L,” used as a symbol in this context to mean large; チキ (chiki), an abbreviated form of the word チキン (chikin) or chicken in Japanese; and the Japanese word 登場 (tōjyō), meaning appearance. These features combine to produce the meaning new large size chicken has arrived.

Figure 6.

A product advertisement sign.

The unique combination of linguistic and semiotic resources in these examples shows the way in which languages and semiotics mesh within a single sentence to produce the desired message. Despite the complex combinations, the message is targeted specifically at Japanese speakers, encouraging them to draw on their complete semiotic repertoire to interpret and negotiate the desired meaning. If Japan was as monolingual as it is so often claimed to be, there would be no reason why Japanese people living in such a society should have to, or indeed would be able to, understand the English-based linguistic features and semiotics included in these signs. The fact that such messages are understood, and are therefore used in such advertising and marketing campaigns, is evidence that Japanese people are able to transcend between and beyond socially constructed language barriers to mesh linguistic and semiotic resources and create meaning that is understood as a whole message, providing evidence of the translingual status that Japan so rightfully deserves.

Figures 7 (a street sign) and 8 (a product label) exhibit intralexical translanguaging practices, that is, translanguaging within a single word.

Figure 7.

A street sign.

In Figure 7, the word alohaisai can be read above a hand symbol known as shaka, and the location, Okinawa. The word “alohasai” is, in fact, a translingual meshing of greetings from two languages: aloha, in Hawaiian, and a romanization of ハイサイ(haisai), which also means hello in the local Okinawan dialect of Japanese (an island nation comparable to that of Hawaii in some sense). Both of these words are used as similar greetings in their respective languages, and mesh flexibly in this message, co-employing the “ha”, to create a new, translingual greeting of the same meaning. The shaka hand symbol, which the Oxford English dictionary defines as a symbol “used to express approval, solidarity, etc., often when greeting or parting from someone” (much like the individual greetings themselves), is a semiotic reinforcement of the meaning expressed by the newly created translingual alohaisai. The fact that this act of translanguaging involves a word from the Hawaiian language, not English as is more commonly the case, is further evidence of the rich linguistic landscape within Japanese society, and evidence of the depth and extensiveness of the Japanese people’s expanded linguistic repertoires.

In Figure 8, the translingual word “香Ring” exhibits both a Japanese kanji character and English text acting as a single word, advertising an aromatic band that repels insects. Ordinarily, the Japanese word 香り (kaori), meaning fragrance or scent, must be accompanied with the hiragana character り (ri) to be complete; however, in the translingual word 香Ring, the Ri of the English term ring has taken its place, and is able to do so because of their identical pronunciation. Both words are incomplete without the “ri” sound, and thus mesh to convey the intended meaning of a “fragrant ring” as a single word. This intricate meshing of sound, orthographic projection, and linguistic resources across languages works to create a unique translingual term that could only be understood by a target audience who possess not only an understanding of the basic linguistic and semiotic features employed, but also of the cultural and social flows attached to said resources. The fact that these translinguistic meaning-making tools are purposively employed in the marketing of a product targeted specifically at Japanese people suggests further that the Japanese people possess appropriate multicompetence to effectively engage with said practices, and are therefore deserving not only of a bilingual status, but also of a translingual one.

Figure 8.

A product label.

Semiotic-reliant translanguaging in Japan

Finally, Figures 9 (a street sticker) and 10 (a sign for a T-shirt printing business) exhibit examples of semiotic-reliant translanguaging, combining both linguistic and semiotic features to convey an intended meaning. As has been shown throughout this paper, many intersentential, intrasentential, interlexical, and intralexical practices also employ semiotics to reinforce their desired meaning. However, as we will examine, semiotic-reliant translanguaging examples rely exclusively on semiotic symbol(s) to convey their message. As García and Wei (2014) suggest, “understanding the meaning of signs like these require the understanding of not only the linguistic structure but also all the other indexical cues that together make up the signs” (p. 34). Therefore, without an understanding of the semiotic resources included in these messages, the overall meaning cannot be understood, and they are therefore deserving of their own categorization.

Figure 9.

A street sign.

In Figure 9, the message “I ♡ 栄町” is shown, bearing the meaning I love Sakaemachi (a district in a Japanese city). In this example, the English word “I” is used over the Japanese “私は” (watashi wa), or over no subject at all (as is often the case in Japanese). This is followed by the semiotic “♡” sign, a common unicode character widely used and thus understood worldwide (also see Nicholas & Starks, 2014), representing the concepts of “love” or like.” The heart is used in a place usually occupied by a verb, transcending language boundaries to convey meaning without the use of written words. At the end of the message, the location 栄町 (sakaemachi) is provided in Japanese. As a whole, this message could be read by its Japanese target audience as I love Sakaemachi, I heart Sakaemachi, or perhaps also with Japanese sentence structure as sakaemachi ga suki, which requires a complete re-work of the composition all together. The fact that any one of these interpretations results in the same negotiated outcome suggests once again that the reader is creating a “language-less” meaning understood purely as a set of meaning-making resources. The ability to shuttle across the boundaries of different named languages, flexibly meshing meanings, character readings, and orthographic projections with semiotic resources to produce an intended message that is understood without the need to establish a unified verbal pronunciation is evidence that one can effectively engage with translingual practices. The fact that such messages can be found in Japanese society is further proof that Japan is indeed a translingual nation, not merely a bilingual one, and certainly not a monolingual one.

The semiotic-reliant translanguaging in Figure 10 is a little more subtle than in Figure 9. Here, the main message わんミニッツ (wan minitsu) is displayed in Japanese on either side of the image of a dog. Although all of the linguistic resources are based on Japanese elements, the translingual practice here draws on multi-modalities, in particular, phonetic sounds across language boundaries, to convey and emphasize the intended meaning. The Japanese word わん (wan, pronounced [wʌn]) used here refers to both the English word one and also to an onomatopoeic word for the sound that a dog makes in Japanese (like woof in English). ミニッツ (minitsu, pronounced [miɲits]), is an appropriated Japanization of the English word for minute, which, when meshed with わん [wʌn], conveys “one minute.” The semiotic resource of a dog is used to help focus the reader’s attention toward the わん [wʌn], thus emphasizing the “one minute” it takes to print a T-shirt. More semiotic image resources, such as the T-shirt the dog is wearing, which states the company can “print it immediately,” also calls attention to the product itself, as the word “T-shirt” is not mentioned until the final line at the bottom of the sign. The fact that an integrated meshing of English lexicon, semiotic emoticons, multi-modalities, and Japanese orthographic projection can be understood by the Japanese target audience reinforces their creativity as translingual speakers who cross traditional language boundaries to flexibly draw on multiple linguistic and semiotic resources as they negotiate, interpret, and produce meaning to understand the intended message.

Figure 10.

A T-shirt printing business sign.

Conclusion

Japan has traditionally been thought of as a linguistically homogenous society, likely due to issues associated with the traditional nihonjinron discourse, historical-based cultural and linguistic assimilation of local minority languages, and the personality characteristic of Japanese as a people reluctant to praise themselves. However, the reality is that translingual activity occurs regularly in Japanese society. Marketing campaigns, product branding, and common advertisements across the country frequently employ an array of multi-modal linguistic- and/or semiotic-based translingual practices to convey intended meaning to a specifically Japanese target audience. The reason such marketing techniques can exist is simple: the Japanese people understand them, and it is therefore unjust and illogical to deny them a translingual status beyond that of simple bilingualism.

Throughout this paper, I have attempted to bring awareness to the largely unnoticed translingual practices in Japan to promote the reality of Japan as a linguistically rich nation. This paper has focused solely on translingual practices in written contexts in Japanese society, overlooking the way in which English and other languages have slowly permeated their way into spoken Japanese as adopted and transformed words (gairaigo) and as Japanese-created English terms (wasei eigo) (also see Stanlaw, 1992), particularly amongst youth. It is beyond the scope of this paper to address translanguaging in Japan from this perspective, although the existence of spoken translingual practices in Japan is also acknowledged.

Based on the researcher’s experience regarding the frequency at which they can be found, the most common translingual practices in Japan appear to be intrasentential → interlexical (i.e. the meshing of linguistic/semiotic resources between words within a single sentence), and the least common, albeit still observable, to be intersentential translingual practices (i.e. the meshing of linguistic/semiotic features between sentences). Based on the examples provided in this paper, it may be the case that Japanese engage in translanguaging practices in marketing and advertising as a result of increasing globalization and internationalization (see Blommaert, 2010), for stylistic emphasis and aesthetic purposes (see Maher’s (2005) principle of “Cool”), and/or to avoid untranslatable words and phrases (see Baynham & Lee, 2019). Regardless of the reason, however, the undeniable reality of Japanese society is that a unique combination of intersentential, intrasentential, interlexical, intralexical, and semiotic-reliant translingual practices can be found in street signs, transport, posters, billboards, shop signs, menus, product branding and labeling, pamphlets, brochures, and more, working together to discredit the idea of Japan as a monolingual, or even bilingual, society.

It is likely, however, that the Japanese people who read and understand these signs are unaware of that fact that it requires a translingual understanding of the linguistic, semiotic, pragmatic, and contextual resources provided to fully comprehend the intended meanings. However, an assortment of intersentential, intrasentential, interlexical, intralexical, and semiotic-reliant translingual practices work together to create a linguistically rich linguascape in Japanese society that is undeniably deserving of a translingual accreditation. It is hoped that the ideas presented in this paper will contribute toward a shift away from the erroneous notion that Japan is a monolingual, or even bilingual, nation, and bring about awareness to celebrate the underlying translingualism that runs prevalent throughout the modern Japanese society.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Blake Turnbull

Notes

Author biography

Blake Turnbull is an english instructor at Ritsumeikan University and Kyoto University of Foreign Studies. He received his PhD from the Department of Foreign Language Acquisition and Education at Kyoto University, Japan. His research interests include language education, bi-/multilingualism, and translanguaging.

References

Abell

(2010). The epistemic value of photographs. In Abell

Bantinaki

(Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on depiction (pp. 81–103). Oxford, UK: Oxford University.

Baker

(2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Bateson

Mead

(1942). Balinese character: A photographic analysis (Vol. 2). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences.

Baynham

Lee

T. K.

(2019). Translation and translanguaging. New York, NY: Routledge.

Blommaert

(2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bloomfield

(1985). Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Borrero

(2011). Nurturing students’ strengths: The impact of a school-based student interpreter program on Latino/a students’ reading comprehension and English language development. Urban Education, 46(4), 663–688.

Brown

(2006). Self-esteem, modest responding, sandbagging, fear of negative evaluation, and self-concept clarity in Japan. Information & Communication Studies, 33, 15–21.

Canagarajah

(2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2(1), 1–28. doi:10.1515/9783110239331.1

10.

Canagarajah

(2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York, NY: Routledge.

11.

Canagarajah

(2015). Clarifying the relationship between translingual practice and L2 writing: Addressing learner identities. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(4), 415–440.

12.

Canagarajah

Dovchin

(2019). The everyday politics of translingualism as a resistant practice. International Journal of Multilingualism. Advanced Online Publication. doi:10.1080/14790718.2019.1575833

13.

(2007). The use of photography as a qualitative research tool. Nurse Researcher, 15(1), 27–36. doi:10.7748/nr2007.10.15.1.27.c6052

14.

Collier

(1986). Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.

15.

Cook

(1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 576–591. doi:10.1111/j.1467–1770.1992.tb01044.x

16.

Cook

(2012). Multi-competence. In Chapelle

C. A.

(Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 3768–3774). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

17.

Creese

Blackledge

(2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x

18.

Dewaele

Housen

Wei

(2003). Introduction and overview. In Dewaele

Housen

Wei

(Eds.), Bilingualism: Beyond basic principles (pp. 1–9). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

19.

Dovchin

(2018) Language, media and globalization in the periphery: The linguascapes of popular music in Mongolia. New York, NY: Routledge.

20.

Dovchin

Lee

J. W.

(2019). Introduction to special issue: ‘The ordinariness of translinguistics’. International Journal of Multilingualism. Advanced Online Publication. doi:10.1080/14790718.2019.1575831

21.

Dubinsky

Davies

W. D.

(2013). Language conflict and language rights: The Ainu, Ryūkyūans, and Koreans in Japan. Japan Studies Review, 17, 3–27.

22.

García

(2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley & Blackwell.

23.

García

Wei

(2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

24.

Harper

(1988). Visual sociology: Expanding sociological vision. American Sociologists, 19(1), 54–70. doi:10.1007/BF0269237

25.

Heinrich

(2012). The making of monolingual Japan: Language ideology and Japanese modernity. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

26.

Holm

(2014). Photography as a research method. In Leavy

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 380–402). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

27.

Hornberger

N. H.

Link

(2012). Translanguaging and transnational literacies in multilingual classrooms: A biliteracy lens. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 261–278. doi:10.1080/13670050.2012.658016

28.

Htun

(2012). Social identities of minority others in Japan: Listening to the narratives of Ainu, Buraku and Zainichi Koreans. Japan Forum, 24(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/09555803.2011.637635

29.

Japan Times. (2005, October 18). Aso says Japan is nation of ‘one race’. Retrieved February 11, 2019 from https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2005/10/18/national/aso-says-japan-is-nation-of-one-race/#.XGD2ai2Q3BJ

30.

Kibe

(2006). Differentiated citizenship and ethnocultural groups: A Japanese case. Citizenship Studies, 10(4), 413–430. doi:10.1080/13621020600858187

31.

Kubota

(1998). Ideologies of English in Japan. World Englishes, 17(3), 295–306. doi:10.1111/1467–971X.00105

32.

Kumagai

(1996). Unmasking Japan today: The impact of traditional values on modern Japanese society. Wesport, CT: Praeger.

33.

Langmann

Pick

(2018). Photography as a social research method. Singapore: Springer.

34.

Leppänen

Pitkänen-Huhta

Piirainen-Marsh

Nikula

Peuronen

(2009). Young people’s translocal new media uses: A multiperspective analysis of language choice and heteroglossia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 1080–1107. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01482.x

35.

Lewis

Jones

Baker

(2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–654. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.718488

36.

Liddicoat

A. J.

(2007). Internationalising Japan: Nihonjinron and the intercultural in Japanese language-in-education policy. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2(1), 32–46. doi:10.2167/md043.0

37.

Lie

(2001). Multiethnic Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

38.

Maher

(1997). Linguistic minorities and education in Japan. Educational Review, 49(2), 115–128. doi:10.1080/0013191970490203

39.

Maher

(2005). Metroethnicity, language, and the principle of Cool. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 11, 83–102.

40.

McKenzie

R. M.

(2010). The social psychology of English as a global language: Attitudes, awareness and identity in the Japanese context. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

41.

Miller

(1982). Japan’s modern myth: The language and beyond. New York, NY: Weatherhill.

42.

Nicholas

Starks

(2014). Language education and applied linguistics: Multiplicity as a framework for bridging the two fields. New York, NY: Routledge.

43.

Norman

(1991). Photography as a research tool. Visual Anthropology, 4(2), 193–216. doi:10.1080/08949468.1991.9966560

44.

Pennycook

(2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London, UK: Routledge.

45.

Pennycook

Otsuji

(2015). Metrolingualism: Language in the city. London, UK: Routledge.

46.

Rakuten Research. (2016). Eigo ni kansusu chousa [Survey on attitudes towards English]. Retrieved February 8, 2019 from https://insight.rakuten.co.jp/report/20160826/

47.

Reischauer

E. O.

(1988) The Japanese today: Change and continuity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

48.

Schwartz

(1989). Visual ethnography: Using photography in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 12(2), 119–154. doi:10.1007/BF00988995

49.

Siddle

(2003). The limits to citizenship in Japan: Multiculturalism, indigenous rights and the Ainu. Citizenship Studies, 7(4), 447–462. doi: 10.1080/1362102032000134976

50.

Stanlaw

(1992). English in Japanese communicative strategies. In Kachru

(Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed., pp. 178–208). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

51.

Sugimoto

(2003). An introduction to Japanese Society (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

52.

Swain

(2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In Byrnes

(Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum.

53.

Torikai

(2005). The challenge of language and communication in twenty-first century Japan. Japanese Studies, 25(3), 249–256. doi:10.1080/10371390500342733

54.

Turnbull

(2019). Hidden bilingual trends in Japanese society. Paper presented at the 18th PanSIG Conference, 18–19 May, Nishinomiya, Japan.

55.

Vogel

Garcia

(2017). Translanguaging. Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

56.

Wei

(2017). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30.

57.

Wei

(2018). Linguistic (super)diversity, post-multilingualism and translanguaging moments. In Creese

Blackledge

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and superdiversity (pp. 62–75). London, UK: Routledge.

58.

Wei

Zhu

(2013). Translanguaging identities and ideologies: Creating transnational space through flexible multilingual practices amongst Chinese university students in the UK. Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 1–21. doi:10.1093/applin/amt022

59.

Weiner

(1997). Japan’s minorities: The illusion of homogeneity. London, UK: Routledge.

60.

Williams

(1994). Arfarniad o ddulliau dysgu ac addysgu yng nghyd-destun addysg uwchradd ddwyieithog [An evaluation of teaching and learning methods in the context of bilingual secondary education] (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Wales, Bangor, UK.

61.

Yamamoto

(2003). Self-portrayed mono-ethnic, mono-lingual state: The invisibilization of ethnic groups and linguistic assimilation. Journal of Business Administration Kwansei Gakuin University, 50(4), 63–76.