Rakuten Paper tommycap

School of Education

Language, Discourse and Society

Sociolinguistics

Various sociolinguistic perspectives surrounding English-only policy at

Rakuten

Tomomi (Tommy) Cope

University of Leicester

School of Education

MA Applied Linguistics and TESOL

(Published on February 8, 2013.)

1

Various Sociolinguistic Perspectives surrounding English-only Policy at Rakuten Tomomi (Tommy) Cope

Contents

Introduction 3

General expectations of Englishnization 4

Sociolinguistic features in Japanese and Englishnization 5

Major effects on Englishnization 10

Language-based disparity and TOEIC 10

Absence of authenticity and interpretability 11

Hegemony and Cultural Identity (CI) 16

Englishnization from globalisation to glocalisation 17

Conclusion 17

2


Introduction

Although Japan is a monolingual country, the English language is

compulsory in their schools (Sakamoto, 2012). Doyle (2010) asserts that “English is

used in Japan normally for communication with or from people outside Japan. For many

people it is not even a normal event in daily life” (2010, 87). Based on Kachru’s three

‘circles’ of English theory (Crystal, 2003), Japan is involved in the expanding circle,

where they do not have a history of colonization by members of the inner circle, nor

have they given English any special administrative status, but where the importance of

English as an international language is recognised (2003).

However, because “World English exists as a political and cultural reality”

(Crystal, 2003, xii), English education “[is] advocated as a socio-economic imperative

pressured by the forces of globalisation” (Rivers, 2012, 257) in Japan. Unfortunately,

Japanese GDP as a portion of global GDP has been predicted to shrink from 12 % in

2006 to 3 % by 2050 (Goldman Sachs, as cited in Yee, 2012). This, coupled with a

decreasing population, is scaring many Japanese businesses (Yee, 2012). The

aforementioned have propelled Rakuten, Japan’s largest online retailer, to decide to go

global to exploit the overseas market (2012), and a project called ‘Englishnization’ has

been launched (Mikitani, 2012).

3


‘Englishnization’ was created by Mikitani, the chairman and CEO of Rakuten,

as the means of shifting the official corporate language from Japanese to English

(Rowan, 2012) as Mikitani believes that global expansion means speaking English

(BBC, 2012). Mikitani thinks that Englishnization is also a challenge for the English

education in Japan; “3000 hours at school” is “a major waste of time” (Mikitani, as

cited in Matsutani, 2012), and “it is rare to find a Japanese student who, after six years

of English, is able to engage in even a marginal dialogue with a speaker of English”

(Martin, as cited in Gil, 2010, 53). In this paper, this Mikitani’s Englishnization project

is examined from the sociolinguistic views by referring the local issues and the cultural

value in Japan.

General expectations of Englishnization

As a businessman, Mikitani finds cooperative benefits in Englishnization.

One benefit is the creation of a powerful synergy within the whole group via English as

a global communication tool (Mikitani, 2012) which helps mitigate “the ethnocentrism

in Japan” (Akaha, 1999, 173). Another benefit is faster access to worldwide information

which in turn helps Rakuten thrive (Rao, 2001: Lerman, et al., 2012).

Rakuten has acquired many subsidiary internet companies from US, Canada,

France, Germany, UK, Taiwan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and China (Rakuten,

4


2012), and Mikitani believes that the sharing the same official language removes the

segregated ‘glass ceiling’ (WSJ, 2010) perceptions among non-Japanese speaker

employees, creating an “international engagement”(Rivers, 2012, 258) within Rakuten

staff (Mikitani, 2012). Rivers (2012) explains “international engagement” is “the

position of English as a liberator of individual expression as well as a means of

engaging with the world as an imagined entity beyond Japan” (2012, 258). Mikitani

hopes that English will enable his Japanese staff to be more accessible to outsiders as

well as becoming more expressive to the world (Mikitani, cited as in Matsutani, 2012).

Sociolinguistic features in Japanese and Englishnization

As Crystal (2003) notes that “[a] language is the repository of the history of a

people. It is their identity. […] It is their legacy to the rest of humanity” (2003

, 20), Japan possesses unique cultural values deeply associated with the Japanese

language (Haghirian, 2010), and it is a crucial factor for the Westerners to understand

these values when they work with traditional Japanese firms (2010).

Mikitani recognises English as a more suitable business language than

Japanese (Mikitani, 2012). Yee, the head of Englishnization project of Rakuten explains

[Mikitani] wants staff to understand that they can break down all

boundaries and barriers by using English, a language with very few

markers of underlying power relationships. There is a power dynamic

in the Japanese language that is immediately apparent. […] One of the

5


first gambits in a conversation is to ascertain the power relationship at

issue. First you have to clarify imply your age in a conversation;

second, you voice your academic background or your bloodline, and

because of that, the language in Japanese then shifts toward that

relationship. This is very apparent to Japanese people; they are very

conscious of it at all times. Moreover, Japanese business is

characterized by a very, very strong hierarchical structure that is

obvious in the language that is used (Yee, as cited in Neeley, 2011, 4).

As Yee asserts above, there are the varieties of honorific discourse depending on the

societal relationships among people (Moeran, 1988), and the implicit expressions are

distinctive features in Japanese (Haghirian, 2010), and these linguistic features provide

psychological restrictions to discourse (Midooka, 1990).

1. Keigo (honorifics)

Japanese possesses degrees of the linguistic expressions based on societal

relationship between the speaker and listener (Fujiwara, 2004). When people talk to

their superiors, they use Keigo, a language difference from that which they use to

communicate with those in equivalent or lower ranks (Midooka, 1990: De Mente, cited

as Haghilian, 2010). Keigo refers to the distinctive style or speech or writing used to

show respect to persons, and it is further divided into three categories: sonkei-go

(respectful words), kenjo-go (humble words), and teinei-go (polite words) (Haghilian,

2010).

Fukushima (2007) says the correct use of keigo is vital to a reputation of an

6


individual and their organisation (2007). Basically, if someone wishes to start

conversing in Japanese, they need to gauge the societal position of their listener quickly

and utilize the appropriate level of honorific language. Misuse of honorific language can

be fatal in anyone’s relationship, as someone who feels slighted may respond ‘Kuchi-no

kikikata wo shiranai’ ([he] does not know how to talk to other people) (Seward, 1992).

Tameguchi (Okamoto, 2011), an alternative style of discourse which ignores

traditional honorific language in Japanese, is very popular among younger generations.

As Tameguchi ignores the honorific rules of Japanese, it is considered unprofessional

and unacceptable in the business world. Japanese discourse has such a strict restriction

of honorific rules, and in this respect, fair, non-hierarchically biased discourse is hardly

established.

2. Avoidance of the First name

Mikitani also orders all staff to wear a name tag with only their first name

written on it and to call each other by their first names only at work (Mikitani, 2012).

The aim of this is to remove the hierarchical markings of Japanese (2012). The summon

style shifts depending on the power relationships between the speaker and the listener in

Japanese (Midooka, 1990).

At a traditional Japanese workplace, a superior can call a subordinate by his

7


or her surname e.g. Suzuki-san (Mr. Suzuki). However, when someone uses a superior’s

surname, they either attach the superior’s occupational title after it, e.g. Suzuki Kacho

(Suzuki, Section-manager) or the subordinate completely omits the personal name of

the superior, calling them by their occupational title, e.g. Kacho (Section manager)

(Midooka, 1990).

Toyama (1992) notes this omission originates from fear of a superior

existence which possesses some power that is very similar to the ‘fear of god’ (1992,

169). People sense the power of person A over B if person A calls person B’s first name

instead of surname. That is the reason why Japanese people do not use the first names in

business. In Japan, generally calling someone’s first name implies a special, intimate

relationship between the caller and the receiver (1992), or the indication of some

overwhelming power over the receiver’s first name. Thus, people’s first names are not

used at work, a stark contrast with the use of first names in Britain. Therefore,

Mikitani’s ‘first names’ directive had a direct impact on employee relationships

(Mikitani, 2012).

3. Wa and implicitness in Japanese language

Hall and Hall (cited as Haghirian, 2010) defines the indirect expressions of

Japanese language as a high-context communication, which comes from the idea of Wa,

8


meaning “keeping peaceful relations with others” (Midooka, 1990). Midooka explains

Wa is the idea the Japanese give the highest priority comparative with Westerners

(1990). The high-context communication means that Japanese communication is

considered to be highly dependent on contexts: every message is surrounded by some

unspoken information that both communicators are supposed to understand (Hall and

Hall, cited as in Haghirian, 2010). The message can only be correctly understood if both

communicators share a context and know or sense what the other person intends to say

(Kachru, 2008: Haghirian, 2010). A Japanese speaker’s ‘maybe’ comment can be

interpreted as ‘no’, as he expressed his feelings with honorific ‘no’ in a less direct

manner (Kameda, 2001: Haghirian, 2010).

Conversely, Western communication is considered low context as the

content is the exact message and there is no invisible message beyond the words

exchanged (Haghirian, 2010: Stadler, 2013), such as ‘no’ is always ‘no’ to Westerners.

In accordance with a low context style, Rakuten monitors the Japanese employees’

talking strategies by using a checklist (See Appendix 1) during an in-house meeting in

English to eliminate the ambiguous expressions, as this feature can be observed even

when they speak English (Fujiwara, 2004).

9


Major effects on Englishnization

1. Language-based social disparity and TOEIC assessment

Although Japanese hierarchical markings may have been eliminated as

intended, a new hierarchy comes instead: the hierarchy based on English proficiency.

Englishnization means Japanese language ban to many native Japanese speakers in

Rakuten (Matsutani, 2010). Tsuda (as cited in Rivers, 2012, 256) complains that “what

greater anomaly is there than to be unable to communicate in your native tongue in your

own country?” Englishnization surely makes Rakuten a more attractive company to

‘global talents’(Yee, 2012) who have no difficulty speaking English, but, in return,

Englishnization risks putting non-native English employees in more disadvantageous

situations at work just because they are less expressive than before.

However, the new hierarchism is not just based on the inferior feelings

(Rivers, 2012) among people who think they are not very English literate. The disparity

comes from the TOEIC scores (ETS, 2013). Rakuten has introduced the TOEIC testing

system to assess the employees’ English proficiency (Matsutani, 2010: Rakuten, 2012;

See Appendix 2). It is literary the key for the survival at Rakuten, as they need to mark a

certain score for a certain position, and you need higher TOEIC scores to get promoted.

Additionally, you may be demoted if you attain low scores.

10


The use of TOEIC is also controversial as there are arguments that TOEIC is

not comprehensive as a measurement of English proficiency (Chapman and Newfields,

2008). The scores are the result of the entire multiple-choice formatted test, and over

half the questions in this test are focused on the sentence-level comprehension rather

than the discourse-level (2008).

2. Absence of authenticity and interpretability

The environmental difference between Englishnization and a historical

colonization (Crystal, 2003) is a lack of exposures versus constant exposures.

Autonomous correction by noticing which happens during natural interactions between

native speakers (Tudini, 2003) is missing. Additionally, members who share the same

cultural values mainly interact in the same language which therefore does not raise the

awareness of interpretability (Katchru, 2008) at all.

In Rakuten’s case, some sections have native English speakers, but many

sections do not, especially the sections which are dealing with domestic issues

(Matsutani, 2010). They consist mainly of native Japanese only and the absence of

native English speakers creates the output-only situation with lacks authenticity.

Considering the linguistic environment in Rakuten’s case, interaction practices are

limited among non-native Japanese speakers which share the same cultural value, and

11


implementation is carrying on without much exposure of the’ inner-circle’(Crystal,

2003) English speaker. Consequently, the lack of authenticity affects the whole level of

Smith’s definition of ‘Intelligibility’ (Smith, as cited in Kachru, 2008), especially on the

level of interpretability (Kachru, 2008). Under these circumstances, interpretability, the

highest level of ‘Intelligibility’, is difficult to improve as it relates to inter-cultural

communication (2008).

Toyoda and Harrison (as cited in Tudini, 2003) observed the nine categories

of the cause of difficulty in communication between Japanese native speakers (NS) and

non-native speakers (NNS): “recognition of new word, misuse of word, pronunciation

error, grammatical error, inappropriate segmentation, abbreviated sentence, sudden topic

change, slow response, and inter-cultural communication gap” (Toyoda and Harrison, as

cited in Tudini, 2003, 152). Smith (as cited in Kachru, 2008) defines interpretability as

the highest components of ‘Intelligibility’ followed by intelligibility as the lowest level

and comprehensibility as the next higher level (See figure 1).

Kachru (2008) explains three levels of ‘Intelligibility’. The first two,

intelligibility and comprehensibility refer to the level of “sound and parsing of

utterances into recognizable or plausible words, phrases, sentences, etc” (2008, 310).

Level 1, intelligibility, is being able to approximate a representation of sounds heard by

12


writing them down. Level 2, comprehensibility involves assigning meaning to

utterances, and parsing what one hears into words, phrases, sentences, etc. It is also the

level of verbal interaction that leads to difficulties in conversations when someone

suddenly uses a word in an unexpected context. Kachru shows an example of a ‘blue

seal’ as the collocation itself is intelligible, but the sentence ‘His parents disapprove of

his blue seal’ is a case of high intelligibility, low comprehensibility. In this case, ‘blue

seal’ means a foreign friend in Philippine English.

Level 3, Interpretability is the level of “a matter of construction that can be

put upon verbal acts by interlocutors in social interaction” (Kachru, 2008, 311). Kachru

explains the highest level, interpretability as

Beyond recognition of the medium and its elements (intelligibility)

and recognition of meanings that may reasonably be assigned to

words, phrases, and sentences (comprehensibility) within a specific

context, addresses perceive the purpose and intent of an utterance

(Kachru, 2008, 310).

Kachru quotes the phrase “Dinner is ready”, and the child comes in, washes her hands,

and sits down the dinner table as a clear indication she has interpreted “the intent and

purpose of her mother’s utterance correctly” (Kachru, 2008, 311). This is about

interpretability. Culture can be defined as “shared knowledge” (2008, 311), i.e. what

people “must know in order to act as they do, make the things they make, and interpret

their experience in the distinctive way they do” (Quinn and Holland, as cited in Kachru,

13


2008, 311). As figure 1 suggests, the greater the sociocultural difference between two

people is, the lower the Intelligibility level score reaches.

Interpretability is also a degree which indicates a different sociocultural

expectation of what is appropriate behaviour in the situation (Kachru, 2008) between

person A and person B. Interpretability depends on interaction, as less exposure to

different sociocultural expectations reduces the degree of interpretability;

smal

Figure 1: Three levels of “Intelligibility”

(Smith, 1992, as cited in Kach

(Smith, Smith and Nelson, as cited in Kachru, 2008)

Fig.1: The relationship between Socio-cultural differences and Intelligibility

In Rakuten’s case, TOEIC may improve some intelligibility and

comprehensibility to a certain extent, but as the test is not interactive, and the

negotiation skills are not gained by the one-way input and without exposure of the

Level 1: intelligibility

Level 2: comprehensibility

Level 3:

Interpretability

Socio-cultural difference

14


people who possess different sociocultural values, improving the higher level,

interpretability, which is associated with inter-cultural communication, is very difficult

to achieve.

One example observed at the cafeteria of Rakuten is “Rice corner: Sorry,

another serving is not accepted” (WSJ, 2010; See Appendix 3a). The intelligibility and

comprehensibility are high, but the expression resembles the discourse at bank, ‘this

card is not accepted’. Native English speakers could come up with a better expression,

such as ‘One portion per person only’. This discourse proves the case of lack of

authenticity.

Another signboard for milk in Rakuten’s cafeteria demonstrates an instance

where interpretability is low: “Milk: ¥80: What a great calcium-rich milk: Strengthen

bones. Eliminating annoying. How do you like it with bread?? ” ( WSJ, 2010; See

Appendix 3b) Kachru explains that “the discourse sounds like English, so its

intelligibility is high; but some of the information is difficult to recover, and therefore its

comprehensibility is low” (Kachru, 2008, 310). They would like to appeal the nutritious

benefits of milk to recommend that people to drink it, but this discourse is peculiar.

However, if translated back into Japanese, this sentence starts making sense instantly, as

a typical Japanese discourse style: ‘Karushium tappuri no miruku desu.(=This milk

15


contains a lot of calcium.) [If you drink this, it makes] Honebuto.(=[your] bone

strong).[and] Iraira kaisyou.(= it calms you down). Pan to issho ni ikaga desuka.(=

Why you are not trying this milk with bread?)’ This proves that this discourse was

uttered initially in Japanese, as Kachru (2008) notes “in Japanese cultural values and

conventions of polite behaviour that manifest themselves in the verbal exchange” (2008,

316). Very low interpretability like this also proves the lack of authenticity.

Mikitani’s statement “we are not requiring native level, but the courage to

express what they want to say ”(Matsutani, 2012) is questionable, even though he made

this comment to relieve the pressure of Englishnization, as this ‘advice’ does not

contribute to interpretability among his Japanese employees. Additionally, his comment

is not relevant to the actual workplace. Rakuten, as an internet retailer requires “the

language-centered work process with a high degree of complexity” (McAll, 2003, 238).

3. Hegemony and Cultural Identity (CI)

Another issue is the fear of “squandering of human resources” as “they

heighten the likelihood that people who can’t do their jobs, but speak English would be

given higher evaluations than people who can do their jobs but can’t speak English”

(Botting, as cited in Rivers, 2012, 7). Englishnization establishes a new hegemony

(Friedman, 2000: Gotti, 2007) at the workplace and threatens the non-native English

16


speakers’ Cultural Identity (CI) ( Tsuda, as cited in Rivers, 2012).

A diagram which contrasts hegemony versus homogeny as cultural

‘homogeneity’ (Friedman, 2000, 38) in Rakuten’s case is shown in Appendix 4.

Englishnization as the denial of multilingualism risks establishing the monolinguistic

view (Crystal, 2003: Gil, 2010), and places Japanese people in a difficult position as

they struggle to maintain a sense of ‘Japanesness’ and their CI (Kobayashi, as cited in

Rivers, 2012, 265).

Englishnization from globalisation to glocalisation

In the long term, the role of English is expected to play not only within the

‘global’ context, but also the ‘glocal’ context (Rivers, 2012, 263) meaning “English

language skills will be highly valued within the ‘domestic context’” (2012, 263). In

other words, Rakuten’s experiment (Mikitani, 2012) would be a “worthwhile exercise in

increasing awareness of rapidity by which the forces of globalization are influencing

domestic workplace environments”(Rivers, 2012, 263). Rakuten English is developing

in Rakuten’s local context (Stephens, 2011), and “more autonomous or self-focused

identities” (Jensen, et al., 2011, 297) are challenging to Rakuten people.

Conclusion

Rakuten’s Englishnization is conducted according to the need to thrive as an

17


internet business which is a part of ‘going global’ trend. The project also aims to break

the traditional Japanese ethno-central customaries and the hierarchical boundaries which

are deeply associated with Japanese language itself. However, it raises new issues, such

as interpretability issues as a result of the forced implementation of English which

ignores the real circumstances within the workplace. The assessment of TOEIC scores

creates a new hierarchy based on English literacy and the new standard threatens

people’s CI. In the long term, Englishnization will be transformed from globalisation to

glocalisation. The establishment of autonomous and self-focused identity will be

expected by people in the workplace. More empirical research is needed to ascertain the

benefits and deficits.

Word: 3,269.

18


References

Akaha, T. (1999) Three Faces of Japan: Nationalist, Regionalist, Globalist Futures. In

Y. Yamamoto, Globalism, Regionalism and Nationalism, Oxford: Blackwell.

BBC (2012) Japanese online retailer Rakuten to compete globally. In BBC News,

Business, October 24, 2012. Accessed from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20053030.

Chapman, M. & Newfields, T. (2008) The ‘New’ TOEIC. Shiken: JALT Testing &

Evaluation SIG Newsletter, Vol.12/2, Apr. 2008, 32-37. JALT.

Crystal, D. (2003) English as a Global Language. 2nd

Ed., Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Doyle, H. (2010) English as Pidgin or Creole: one guise of English in the world.

Kokusai Shakai Bunka Kenkyu, Vol.11, 71-96, Research reports of Department of

International Studies, Faculty of Humanities and Economics, Kochi University.

Retrieved on January 5, 2013, from

https://ir.kochi-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10126/5058/1/11-4howard.pdf

ETS (2013) TOEIC. Accessed January 10, 2013 from http://www.ets.org/toeic/.

Fujiwara, Y. (2004) An Intercultural Pragmatics Study on Japanese Resistivitiy and

American Acceptability in Refusals. Intercultural Communication Studies, XIII, 2,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20053030

https://ir.kochi-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10126/5058/1/11-4howard.pdf

http://www.ets.org/toeic/

19


75-99.

Friedman, J. (2000) General historical and culturally specific properties of global

systems. In Cultural Identity & Global Process, 15-41. London: Sage Publications

Ltd.

Fukushima, T. (2007) Simulation in JFL: Business writing. Simulation & Gaming.

Gil, J. (2010) The double danger of English as a global language. English Today 101,

Vol.26/1. 51-56. Cambridge University Press.

Gotti, M. (2007) Globalisation and Discursive Changes in Specialised Contexts. In N.

Fairclough, G. Cortese & P. Ardizzone (eds.), Discourse and contemporary social

change, 143- 172, Bern: Peter Lang AG.

Haghirian, P. (2010) Succeeding as a foreign manage in a Japanese firm. In

Understanding Japanese management practices, New York: Business Expert Press,

125-135.

Jensen, L., Arnett, J. & McKenzie, J. (2011) Globalization and Cultural Identity. In

Handbook of Identity theory and Research, S.J. Schwartz et al.(eds). Springer

Science and Business Media. 285-301. Retrieved January 12, 2013 from

http://www. springerlink.com/index/V8K8143J53450X02.pdf.

Kachru, Y. (2008) Cultures, contexts, and interpretablility. World Englishes, Vol.27,

20


No.3/4, 309-318.

Kameda, N. (2001) The implication of language style in business communication: focus

on English versus Japanese, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,

Vol.6/3, 144-149.

Lerman,K, Ghosh, R. & Surachawala, T. (2012) Social contagion: An empirical study

of information spread on Digg and Twitter follower graphs. USC Information

Sciences Institute, Marina Del Rey, CA, USA & Computer Science Dept.,

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, arXiv:1202.3162.

retrieved from

http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3162.

Matsutani, M. (2010) Rakuten forces all workers to speak English by 2012. The

University Times, Vol.3, August, 2010. Retrieved January 10, 2013 from

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/u_times/pdf/vol_03/ut_vol_03.pdf.

Matsutani, M. (2012) Rakuten’s English drive ready to take full effect, chief says. In the

Japan Times on line, June 30, 2012. Accessed January 10, 2013 from

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120630a7.html.

McAll, C. (2003) Language Dynamics in the Bi-and Mutilingual Workplace. In R.

Bayley & S. Schecter (eds.), Language Socialization in Bilingual and Multilingual

Societies, Clevedon : Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3162



http://www.japantimes.co.jp/u_times/pdf/vol_03/ut_vol_03.pdf

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120630a7.html

21


Midooka, K. (1990) Characteristics of Japanese-style communication, Media, Culture &

Society, Vol.12/4, 477-489.

Mikitani, H. (2012) Takaga Eigo (Just English): Englishnization. Tokyo: Kodansya.

Moeran, B. (1988) Japanese language and society: An anthropological approach.

Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.12/4, 427 – 443.

Neeley, T. (2011) Language and Globalization: “Englishnization” at Rakuten. Harvard

Business School, 9-412-002, Rev.: October 11, 2011.

Okamoto, S. (2011) The use of interpretation of addressee honorifics and plain forms in

Japanese: Diversity, multiplicity, and ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.43,

3673-3688.

Rakuten, Inc. (2012) Rakuten Worldwide, Global Services. November 26,2012.

Accessed January 15, 2013 from

http://global.rakuten.com/corp/worldwide/global.html.

Rao, P. (2001) The ICT revolution, internationalization of technological activity, and

the emerging economies: implications for global marketing. International Business

Review, Vol.10/5, 571-596. Seward, J.(1992) Outrageous Japanese: slang, curses &

epithets. Tokyo:C.E.Tuttle.

Rivers, D.J. (2012) Modelling the perceived value of compulsory English language

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy4.lib.le.ac.uk/science/article/pii/0378216688900045

http://global.rakuten.com/corp/worldwide/global.html

22


education in undergraduate non-language majors of Japanese nationality. Journal of

Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Vol.33/3, 251-267.

Rowan, D. (2012) From Pinterest to Kobo, how Japan's Rakuten is building a global

internet giant. Magazine, Wired.co.uk, August 22, 2012. Retrieved on January 5,

2013, from

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/09/features/man-on-a-mission?page

=all&utm_source=buffer&buffer_share=447b2

Sakamoto, M. (2012) Moving towards effective English language teaching in Japan:

issues and challenges. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,

Vol.33/4, 409-420

Saw, M. (2010) Interview. In English 101, Courtesy of Rakuten. August, 6. The Wall

Street Journal, Japan. [video clip.] from 3.15 to 3.29 accessed January 16, 2013

from

tp://bloas.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2010/08/06/english-101-courtesy-of-rakuten/

Seward, J. (1992) Outrageous Japanese: slang, curses & epithets. Tokyo: C.E. Tuttle.

Stadler, S. (2013) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.

Stephens, M. (2011) Response to Gil: The double danger of English as global language.

English Today, Vol.27/1, 35-37.

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/09/features/man-on-a-mission?page=all&utm_source=buffer&buffer_share=447b2

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2012/09/features/man-on-a-mission?page=all&utm_source=buffer&buffer_share=447b2

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2010/08/06/english-101-courtesy-of-rakuten/

23


Toyama, S. (1992) Eigono Hasso, Nihongono Hasso [English ideas; Japanese ideas],

Tokyo: NHK Publishing Co., Ltd.

Tudini, V. (2003) Using Native Speakers in Chat, Language Learning & Technology,

Vol.7/3, 141-159.

Wetzel, P. (1988) Are “powerless” communication strategies the Japanese norm.

Language in Society, Vol.17/4, December, 555-564.

WSJ.com. (2010) English 101, Courtesy of Rakuten. August, 6. The Wall Street Journal,

Japan. [video clip.] accessed January 16, 2013 from

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2010/08/06/english-101-courtesy-of-rakuten/.

Yee, K. (2012) Englishnization and Engineering- How Rakuten Supports Engineers. In

a lecture at Rakuten Technology Conference 2012, October 20, 2012. [Video clip

from Youtube.] Accessed on January 5, 2013 from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1p1StXyx5GQ

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2010/08/06/english-101-courtesy-of-rakuten/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1p1StXyx5GQ

24


Appendix 1 13

Appendix 1. : Englishnization In-house Meeting Audit Template (Neeley, 2011, 13)

25


Appendix 2: TOEIC Score Zone Definition

Employee

Grade

Not Reached

(RED)

Not Reached

(YELLOW)

Not Reached

(ORANGE)

Reached Target

(GREEN)

AAA -550 551-650 651-749 750-

AA -500 501-600 601-699 700-

A -450 451-550 551-649 650-

BBB -400 401-500 501-599 600-

BB -400 401-500 501-599 600-

B -400 401-500 501-599 600-

(Yee, 2012)

Note: Each employee who falls into each employee grade has to reach green target zone for the

TOEIC scores. For example, Grade AAA class-managers have to achieve at least 750 points of TOEIC

score.

Red Zone: More than 200 points away from target

Yellow Zone: Between 100-199 points away from target

Orange Zone: Between 1-99 points away from target

Green Zone: Score meets or exceeds target

26


Appendix 3: Signboard displays in Rakuten cafeteria (WSJ, 2010)

a)

A signboard display on the rice serving counter (WSJ, 2010)

b) At the milk counter (1) - At the milk counter (2)

(WSJ, 2010) (WSJ, 2010)

- At the milk counter (3)

(WSJ, 2010)

27


Appendix. 4. The diagram of contrasting hegemony versus homogeny in Rakuten’s case

based on Friedman’s figure (Friedman, 2000, 39):

Cultural

identity Hegemony

Centralization

“Japanese-ness”

own cultural value

Resistance

*Cultural decline

Modernism

Homogeny

No Japanese

Inferior feelings

Worries, fears

Global integrity <= to overseas: not being alienated feelings: ‘Japan is not special to us’

Sharing the same langue = feeling like sharing same value

Denial of traditional hierarchy backed up Japanese language

- using first names

- no hororific language

- direct mannar = clear statement: Yes/No apparent

- lower context dependant from context dependant

Linguistic effect: switching from Japanese to English

Switchin from Japanese

Language proficiency division /

discrimination: Japanese employees

with poor English are devaluated at

work.

-TOEIC scores affect salary

-linguistic threats

Dominant ideology, Nationalism

Rakuten Paper tommycap

Documents

Transcript of Rakuten Paper tommycap