the problem of register identification in junior high

Open University E854-EMA September 2003

The Problem of Register Identification in

Junior High School Textbooks

David LaHeist

Abstract: For most Japanese students, Junior High School English courses represent the foundation of their

language learning. Textbooks include many situations where fixed expressions are often used, but the Ministry

of Education does not specify which expressions are to be included, so Systemic Functional Analysis was

performed on these passages, focusing on uncovering register information included therein. The results

showed that in some cases different registers were included between years, so through review and dialogue

comparison students could derive register information, however for many situations no register information was

included. This study also demonstrates simple solutions, through editing existing passages or composing

new ones, in which the problem could be solved, and based on these solutions, offers recommendations for

changes to textbook guidelines to ensure future editions include necessary register information.

1. Introduction

Japanese students are sometimes prone to unintentional humor through using the correct language in the wrong

context. Consider this anecdote from the author:

While hiking the Japanese countryside, we happened upon some

junior high school students who were eager to practice their

English. After a brief “Hello!” they asked suddenly, “What is the

purpose of your visit?” The question seemed out of place while

hiking in the forest. My travelling companion, an Assistant

Language Teacher (ALT) explained to me that the phrase

appeared in the model conversation of a recent lesson, a

conversation between an immigration agent and a traveler in an airport.

On the one hand, the incident had demonstrated a resounding success in the students’ language learning: the

students were motivated to communicate and said the words perfectly, just as they had been taught. The problem

was simply that the register, “the systematic relationship between language and context of situation” (Open

University, 2009, p. 128) was inappropriate for students addressing strangers in a forest.

In Junior High Schools in Japan, teachers rely upon publishers to provide nearly all of the materials for classes: the

textbooks, worksheets, even tests. The publishers provide nearly all of the English that students are exposed in the

classroom. The reliance on the publisher is well documented in Browne and Wada (1998):

When one considers that the vast majority of English teachers in Japan

receive no formal teacher training... and that every Mombusho-approved

textbook comes with a teacher’s manual that has detailed lesson plans

emphasizing translation and drill-focused teaching techniques, it is not

surprising that a wide gap exists between the communicative goals

of the guidelines and actual classroom practice (p. 105).

The publishers also provide an exact schedule, relieving the teachers’ pressure to complete the material on time,

and in some cases it is reported that principals or boards of education have stipulated that the textbook be used

exclusively. Sergeant (2008) feels that culture is to blame for the ineffectiveness of Japanese English education:

“Over the last 30 years a burgeoning literature has devoted itself to the

task of researching and directing English language education in Japan,

but has, by its own admission, had little success in effecting much

change in what it perceives as a system incompatible with effective

language learning.” (p.121)

The inadequacies of English textbooks in Japan has long been documented. Nishiyama (1976) observed nearly four

decades ago that poorly designed English textbooks contained language that was antiquated and full of irrelevant

examples, as well as a limited knowledge of other possible dialogues. He writes, “The kind of spoken English taught

in Japan seems to be of an unnatural species, different from what is used by native speakers abroad.” (p.105)

This study analyzes whether students in the present day are still in the situation that Nishiyama (1976) describes. It

assesses the textbooks presentation possible dialogues, and whether those dialogues have clearly indicated the

register of the language presented, such that they do not contribute to the spread of this “unnatural species” of

Japanese English.

2. Choosing the textbooks to be analyzed

Public school textbooks are first scrutinized by MEXT for compliance with government standards, including the

Course of Study and Outline of Textbook Policy (MEXT 2003) and when approved they may be selected by the

respective Boards of Education. In 2008, (for which such numbers are available) there were six publishers from

which boards of educations could choose. (Collaborative Reference Database, 2008). Of these six publishers, I

have personal experience with two namely, New Crown and Sunshine. The two textbooks represented a combined

36% of market share (Collaborative Reference Database, 2008). The volume of data from these two would have

been beyond the scope of this study, therefore I narrowed the scope to only the Sunshine series as it is the more

recent of the two.

3: Choosing the passages for analysis

Widdowson (2004) in Open University (2009), states that researchers who perform CDA in an inconsistent manner

are may be vulnerable to accusations that “they ‘cherry-pick’ aspects of text to focus on, and thus their analyses are

arbitrary.” (p. 203) As it would be overly ambitious to analyze all 471 pages of the textbook series, this study

analyzes the items listed in the Course of Study for “Situations where fixed expressions are often used” (MEXT

2011) as these fixed expressions also carry register. The following situations are specified:

“・Greetings・Self-introductions・Talking on the phone・Shopping

・Asking and giving directions・Traveling・Having meals”

(MEXT 2011, page 3)

Most of the topics have clear social goals, and a number of discourse practices. Many of these situations appear in

both the second and third-year textbooks, allowing a comparative register analysis within the same series. (The first

year textbook assumes no prior knowledge of English, and therefore focuses on very basic vocabulary, grammar

and how to read and write the Roman alphabet. It contains units on greetings and self introductions, which are not

reviewed in the Year 2 and Year 3 books.)

4: Register analysis

Register analysis was performed following the format in Open University (2009) for each lesson containing a

conversation in one of the situations listed above. In the cases where the situation is listed in two textbooks, one

register analysis was performed to compare the aspects of the two passages.

Language lessons in Japan have traditionally favored more formal phrases: for example, in the 1997 edition of

Sunshine and the 1999 version of New Crown, introductions are made with “How do you do?” where current

versions of both books use “Nice to meet you.” Recent editions of textbooks have included more casual speech

and some teachers have complained that the speech is too informal. The consequences of being too formal are

much less severe than being too informal, therefore, when performing the register analysis, particular focus has

been placed on words and phrases that may be too casual for the situation.

When analyzing the register information, it was taken into account that the textbooks teach English as an

International Language context, to “prepare English learners to become competent users of English in international

contexts” (Matsuda and Friedrich, 2011, p.334) and that the “fixed expressions” may vary across cultures. For

example, in the Year 2 Sunshine book, “What’s up?” (p. 26) is used in a telephone conversation. Although frequently

used by North Americans, its meaning is not as clear to L2 speakers as the more easily understood “What’s new?”

which does not appear in the Sunshine textbooks.

Widdowson (1994) states that different communities of English users will develop their own conventions, and that

standardization of English on the basis of preservation or intelligibility may not be merely impossible, but undesirable.

He also argues that “authentic” language will not be authentic outside of the context in which it is to be consumed.

Therefore, this study did not judge whether the language was “authentic” or “standard.”

MEXT (2011) stipulates that the textbooks make a special effort to include language and themes from many

different countries to help children to expand their global awareness through their English lessons. Hardy (2007)

states that in the writing process for the New Crown series, an effort was made to ensure even distribution between

the inner, outer, and expanding circles of English. Yamada (2010) measured the distribution of countries

represented in the textbooks according to the circles of Kachru and Nelson (2001). Yamada (2010) showed that

Junior High School English textbooks for the last decade cover 48.2% inner circle, 1.1% and 50.5% outer circle

countries (half of which is Japan.)

5. Arranging and composing comparative conversations.

Following register analysis of the conversations presented in the textbooks, sample conversations were composed

to demonstrate an alternative unit in which students are invited to notice register differences in different

conversations. Waring (2009) states that students learn new vocabulary best through first deriving the meaning from

context in order to better notice semantics such as register and collocations

For some situations, a simple comparison between the Year 2 and Year 3 textbook suffice, for example for the

situation of “having a meal”, the textbooks present a fast-food restaurant (Year 2) and a formal restaurant (Year 3)

where the waiter is portrayed wearing a vest and a black bow tie. The conversations are relatively analogous:

Year 2: Fast food restaurant Year 3: Formal restaurant

A: May I help you? A: Hello. May I take your order?

B: Yes, I’ll have a hamburger, French B: Yes, please. I’ll have the New York Steak

fries, and a cola, please. with a green salad and a baked potato.

A: Which size cola would you like: A: How would you like your steak?

small, medium or large?

B: Medium, please. B: Medium, please.

A: OK. What kind of dressing would

you like on your salad?

B: Thousand Island, please.

A: For here or to go?

B: Here, please.

A: Would you like anything else? A: All right. Anything else?

B: No, that’s all. Thanks. B: No, that’s all. Thank you.

(Matsuhata 2012)

By placing the conversations side-by-side with the accompanying illustrations, students can be invited to notice

differences and identify and interpret how language changes according to the situation, and from this learn about

register.

In the cases where a situation was only represented once in the textbooks, a sample dialogue was composed to

allow students to compare and discover the differences in register and then practice them readily. In one case, the

“Speaking on the Telephone” conversation, the register analysis revealed so many problems with register that both

conversations were rewritten to demonstrate an exercise in meaningful practice.

When analyzing the textbooks, one must consider the issue of choice: what the characters could have said and why

they said what they did. For this reason, Systemic Functional Analysis is well suited to analyzing the dialogue with a

special focus on alternatives. (Martin, 2010)

6: Systemic Functional Analysis: Having Meals

Both the Year 2 and Year 3 textbooks have a unit on ordering food (Appendix 2) and a register analysis was

performed on each of them as a pair:

Field Linguistic Evidence

The social activity taking place and the topic

being discussed: A model conversation for the purpose of language

teaching and learning on the topic of “buying food”

The degree of specialization

of lexis:

All terms are basic, as the intended audience is

composed of language learners.

Lexical groups:

Food and drink

Topic is written at the top of the page in Japanese.

“食事” (pronounced /ʃoʊkudʒi/) means “eating time”

Personal deixis indicate focus on the interpersonal

metafunction.

Contains lexis relating to food and drink:

(Year 2) hamburger, French fries, cola

(Year 3) steak, green salad, baked potato,

dressing, Thousand Island

The participants are the customer and the staff

Nominal groups are unmodified.

No nominalization.

Includes material processes (help, have, take)

relational processes (e.g. here’s your change,

that’s all) and mental processes (like) but no verbal

processes.

Includes circumstances of location (on your steak,

on your salad) however no circumstances of

accompaniment, extent, or cause.

The passage is entirely active voice.

Tenor Linguistic Evidence

Social roles and status:

Customer and food service staff

Social relationship / Social

connectedness/distance Unequal.

The social distance between the sales staff and

customer varies depending on a variety of

variables including the location of the restaurant

and its policies, as well as the age, gender, and

economic circumstances of the customer. In

Japan, this social distance is typically greater than

in most Western countries.

In the Year 2 passage, the politeness marker

please is used by both interlocutors. The staff uses

thank you, however the customer uses the less

formal form thanks.

In the Year 3 passage, the staff uses no politeness

markers, however the customer uses please and

thank you in each utterance.

There are no evaluative adjectives.

All verbs are in present tense with the exception of

I’ll have, which is grammatical metaphor- a

declarative sentence with imperative meaning.

Nearly all verbs are in present tense however

temporal adjuncts (i.e. Last week, next Saturday,

later) give clear indication that this is due to the

writer’s limited ability to conjugate verbs.

Contractions have been used at every possible

point (e.g. I’ll, that’ll, here’s, that’s)

Mode Linguistic Evidence

Channel: written as a simulation of speech.

Spontaneity The textbook lists 32 authors, implying that the

script was composed by multiple authors and

screened through multiple editors.

Interactivity

Immediate feedback impossible

Communicative distance (language as action

or reflection)

Action

Cohesion (linking)

Low lexical density and unmodified nominal groups

are typical of spontaneous spoken speech.

There are no instances of anaphoric or cataphoric

referencing.

The generic stages are: “Greeting ^ Order ^ (Offer selection of choices) ^ (Make selection) ^ express gratitude.”

The Year 2 passage also includes exchanging the packaged product for money.

The passages contain discourse practices that may not be appropriate outside the context of ordering food. For

example, the use of future tense “I’ll have a hamburger, please” may be appropriate in a restaurant setting, however

to ask one’s boss, “I'll have the day off tomorrow, please” Would be a faux pas. It should be specified in the texbook

that future tense as a request can only be used when one is making a selection from a list of items offered (for

example, if the boss were offering a choice of tomorrow or the next day, the former example would be acceptable.)

Alternatively, should the customer use “May I have” in a formal setting and “Can I have” in an informal setting,

students would gain better understanding of the register of “can” and “may” while reducing the risk of social faux pas,

and also make themselves more clearly understood to L2 learners.

Besides these three ways of making requests the Year 3 textbook also has a variety of other examples of making

requests, realized as interrogative, imperative, and declarative sentences.

Page Text

9 Why don't you study the history of your school chime?

11 Could you check my English first?

14 Please enjoy your flight

23 I'd like to have the tomato soup.

23 I want my tea after the meal.

27 Look at the mountain of garbage!

34 Take the Kuko line.

59 Would you hold on a second?

78 How about sending her a card?

84 You must try some.

90 Quick, Beth!

117 Just watch me!

With such a wide variety of methods with which to make requests, without written guidance, the students may not

comprehend the register of each, having met the grammar only once or twice.

One interesting coincidence is that two meanings of the polysemiotic word “medium” are used in the passages

(Appendix 1) In the Year 2 passage, it describes the size of the drink, in Year 3, it describes how to cook the steak.

Many young learners might benefit if the interlocutors spoke in complete sentences, for example, “I would like a

medium cola, please” or “I would like the steak cooked medium, please.”

The passage contains one specific social practice, namely “For here or to go?” which if used in any other context, i.e.

“Shall we have our homework for here or to go?” would cause some embarrassment to the speaker. A section

dedicated to lexicogrammars specific to the sociocultural context is also recommended.

It is noteworthy in the textbook that contractions have been used whenever possible. While it may be useful for

students to have exposure to contractions, they should be omitted from formal speech and writing.

7: Systemic Functional Analysis: Talking on the Phone

The following is a register analysis of Sunshine Telephone English lesson sample conversations (Appendix 3)


The social activity taking place and the topic being discussed:

A model conversation for the purpose of language

teaching and learning on the topic of “telephone

communication”

The degree of specialization of lexis:



Lexical groups:

Phone


“電話” (pronounced /deɪnwɒ/) means “phone”


metafunction.

Contains lexis relating to telephone

communication:

(Year 2) phone, message, call

(Year 3) moshi moshi, call

The participants include the interlocutors and other

persons not present:

Year 2: Becky, Maki (interlocutors)

Year 3: John Brown, Mr. Suzuki, girl


No nominalization.

Includes material processes (Year 2: go, come,

meet, see, leave, call- Year 3: Speak, leave,

change, ask) relational processes (e.g. is Becky,

are free, is not home) however no mental

processes or verbal processes.

Includes circumstances of location (e.g. at the

station, to the phone, home) however no

circumstances of accompaniment, extent, or

cause.




Year 2: friends (teenagers)

Year 3: Mr Suzuki’s daughter

to Mr. Suzuki’s colleague.


connectedness/distance

Year 2: ostensibly equal (social status among

teenage girls can be complex)

Year 3: Very unequal, assuming that John Brown

is of equal status to Mr. Suzuki.

The politeness marker Please is only in the phone

message between the teenage girls.

In the Year 3 conversation, John Brown uses polite

speech with please, thank you, and may. The

daughter, however, uses no politeness markers

and short sentences. One sentence is a fragment

composed of solely a temporal adjunct: After 2

p.m.

There are no interpersonal grammatical metaphors

or evaluative adjectives.

All verbs are in present tense with the following

exceptions:

Year 2: In response to Maki’s going to go

comment, Maki uses will we meet.

Year 3: When John Brown says we’ve changed

plans the teenager repeats back with the simple

past: you changed the plan.


point



Spontaneity The textbook lists 32 authors, implying that the



Interactivity

Immediate feedback impossible


or reflection)

Action

Cohesion (linking)

High lexical density (82) due to simple sentences.

Unmodified nominal groups.

With the exception of one complex sentence joined

with and, all sentences are simple sentences.

Many consist of short clauses that could be joined

together by either a coordinating conjunction,

comma, colon, or semicolon.

There is only one instance of anaphoric

referencing, I’ll see you then.

Telephone English is laden with fixed expressions. The topic is covered in both the Year 2 and Year 3 textbooks, in

situations demanding very different registers. The Year 2 textbook involves a teenager speaking with her friend, the

Year 3 textbook has a teenager speaking with her father’s acquaintance (perhaps a friend or a colleague).

Unfortunately, both the conversations are laden with problems with register.

The most egregious case is the girl in the Year 3 textbook who speaks in with short, choppy, incomplete sentences

that appear rude. The following is a possible modification to the conversation (with changes underlined)

John Brown Girl

Moshi moshi.

This is John Brown. May I

speak to Mr. Suzuki, please?

I’m sorry, but my father is not

home right now.

All right. May I leave a

message then?

Sure. What’s the message?

Tell him we’ve changed plans

for our club activities tennis practice.

Okay, I’ll tell him that you have

changed the plans.

Please ask him to call me

back after 2 p.m.

OK. I’ll tell him to call you after

2 p.m. Is that all?

Yes, that’s all. Thank you.

Goodbye.

Goodbye.

It is clear that from the corrections that the daughter has omitted many essential elements. “My father is not home”

requires the politeness marker “I’m sorry but” as she is unable to complete a request from someone on a higher

social order. Furthermore, the girl does not offer to take a message, as is customary. Her simple reply “sure” to his

“May I leave a message” also may be interpreted as disinterested without the right tone of voice. She then truncates

his messages as she relexicalizes them rather than summarizing or repeating them verbatim.

The Japanese moshi moshi is written in eye-dialect for the benefit of Assistant Language Teachers who cannot read

Japanese, and it places the socioculturalcontext of the conversation in Japan, however it fails to instruct students

about how to properly answer the telephone in English.

The term “club activities” should also be changed to something more specific such as “Tennis practice.” Adults

speaking in very general terms to teenagers has a connotation that they are speaking in euphemism.

For students to compare analogous telephone conversations in two different registers, both must be rewritten. One

possible rewrite may be as follows:

Informal Telephone Formal Telephone A: Hello. A: Hello.

B: This is Bob. Can I speak to Tom? B: This is Robert. May I speak to Mr. Smith?

A: I’m sorry, he’s not here. A: I’m sorry, he is out at the moment.

B: Can I take a message? B: May I take a message?

A: Sure. Tell him to call A: Yes, thank you. Would you tell him to

me, please. give me a call back, please?

B: Yeah, I’ll tell him when B: Yes, I will give him the message when

he comes back. he returns.

A: Thanks! Bye! A: Thank you very much. Goodbye!

These corrected conversations also include register differences for making requests, such as May and Can,

imperatives, will, would, and contractions.

It should be noted, however, that many telephone-specific fixed expressions will change with technological

advances, for example on mobile phones, the identity of the caller is usually known, and it is no longer necessary to

take messages for others.

8: Systemic Functional Analysis: Shopping

The following is a register analysis for passages related to shopping (Appendix 4)




teaching and learning on the topic of “shopping”


of lexis: All terms are basic, as the intended audience is


Lexical groups:

Clothing

The angle of representation:


“買い物” (pronounced /kaɪmoʊnəә/) means

“shopping”


metafunction.

Contains lexis relating to clothing:

(Year 2) pair of shoes

(Year 3) shirt

The chief participants in the conversation are the

sales staff and the customer, defined by script

labeling. The agents are addressed via personal

pronouns I and you.


No nominalization.

Includes many material processes (e.g. come,

help, look for, try on, look, have, go, check, show)

and a few relational processes (e.g. am afraid, are

a little too large, are nice, is a very popular color)

and one mental processes (like) and no verbal

processes

Includes one circumstance of location (e.g. this

way) and many circumstances of extent (e.g. very,

a little, a bit, very much) however no circumstances

of accompaniment or cause.

Some cause circumstances are implied, however,

in explanations for why the product is not

satisfactory without directly saying so.




Customer and staff

Social relationship / Social connectedness/distance

Generally unequal.

The social distance between the sales staff and

customer varies depending on a variety of

variables including the location of the shop and its

policies, as well as the age, gender, and economic

circumstances of the customer. In Japan, this

social distance is typically greater than in most

Western countries.

In the Year 3 passage, the politeness marker

please is used by both interlocutors. The staff uses

thank you very much, however the customer uses

the less formal form thanks. Indicating some social

distance. Throughout both passages, the modal

can is used rather than the more polite modal

could. No grammatical metaphors are used to

indicate social roles.

The two imperative sentences Come this way

(Year 2) and Take your time (Year 3) uttered by

the staff do not have the same directive modality

that the imperative Show me a blue one, please

(Year 3) has.

One-word responses OK, Sure, Great are typical

of less formal speech.

Although typical customers and staff may use

epistemic modality, in the script the agents speak

with strong stance.

Evaluative adjectives (i.e. nice, beautiful, popular)

are used exclusively as attributes to existential

processes.

All verbs are in the present tense and the agents

use no temporal adjuncts.


point.



Spontaneity

The textbook lists 32 authors, implying that the



Interactivity Immediate feedback impossible


or reflection) Action



All sentences consist of short clauses that could be

joined together by either a coordinating

conjunction, comma, colon, or semicolon. The

coordinating conjunctions but is sometimes used

at the beginning of sentences.

The interlocutors use anaphoric referencing (i.e.

They look very nice, they’re a little too large, How

Cohesion (linking)

about these?)

With respect to register, the conversations are mostly acceptable, except that the situations are too similar; in both

passages the character is shopping for clothes from a casual clothing shop. In both passages, the customer finds a

product that they like, however they must ask the staff for a similar one in a different size or color. In both cases the

staff is able to find the acceptable product which the customer agrees to buy.

An interpersonal grammatical metaphor in the passage that frequently requires explanation in class is “Here you

are.” with the meaning, “this is what you have asked for.” Many students have responded to “here you are” with

“yes, I am here.” Another point of confusion is “I’m afraid they’re a little to large” as students feel that the speaker

has been suddenly struck with fear. To address these issues, it is necessary to either replace them with a simpler

expression (which would build confidence) or give the students the opportunity to see how the expression is used.

With respect to generic staging, neither of the passages continue to the natural terminus of the conversation, which

would be the exchange of money for a bagged product with a receipt.

The following sample conversation pair was composed to address these concerns:

A Cheap Clothing Shop An Expensive Clothing Shop

A: Can I help you? A: May I help you, sir?

B: Well, I like this shirt. But it looks B: I am interested in this shirt, however

a bit small for me. Do you have it seems somewhat small on me. Is

a bigger one? there a larger one available?

A: Just a minute, please. I’ll go and check. A: One moment please. I will check.

B: How about this? Try it on. B: This one is larger; would you try it on?

A: It’s perfect! I’ll get it. A: It is perfect. I would like to buy it.

B: That’ll be $20, please. B: The total is $20

A: Here you are. A: Here you are.

B: Here’s your change. Come again! B: This is your change. Thank you.

9: Systemic Functional Analysis: Greetings (appendix 5) In Japanese culture, the greeting, aisatsu, is the foundation for maintaining good relations, and its importance

cannot be overstated. The speakers in this passage speak with the correct register, however, as the topic of

greetings is not revisited or expanded upon after the Year 1 textbook, students have no comparison for other

phrases for greeting and their comparative registers.




teaching and learning greetings.


“先生にあいさつ” (pronounced /sɛnse ni ajsɒtu/)

means “greet the teacher”



of lexis:



The angle of representation:

metafunction.

The chief participants in the conversation are the

teacher and the students. The agents are

addressed via personal pronoun everyone.


No nominalization.

Includes only relational processes (e.g.how are

you, I’m okay)

Includes no circumstances.



Social roles and status: Teacher and students


connectedness/distance Unequal, teacher in a position of authority over

students.

The greeting Hello, is used rather than the less

formal form Hi. Indicating some social distance. No

grammatical metaphors are used to indicate social

roles.

The incomplete sentence Fine, thank you, is

typical of less formal speech.


point.



Spontaneity





Communicative distance (language as action or reflection)

Action

Cohesion (linking)



Speech is simplified for beginning learners of

English

For instance, “How are you?” has common variants such as “How are things?” and “How’s it going?” which create

confusion for students when they go abroad. Each greeting carries with it a register which is also influential in

shaping the first impression of the speaker. Additionally, the meaning and proper response to “What’s new” (and its

variants, “what’s up,” “what’s going on,” etc.) is never taught, therefore it can be said that the textbook information is

incomplete not only in register but also in scope.

The following conversation pairs has been composed to address these issues: Greeting a Teacher Greeting a Friend

A: Hello, Tom A: Hi. Tom.

B: Hello, Ms. Wood. B: Hi, Bob.

A: How are you? A: How’s it going?

B: Fine, thank you. B: Good, thanks.

[Not bad / I’m okay / So-so] [Fine/ Not bad / I’m okay / So-so]

A: What’s new? A: What’s up?

B: I have a test today. I studied hard. B: We won the baseball game yesterday.

A: Good luck! Goodbye! A: See you, bye!

10: Systemic Functional Analysis: Traveling (Appendix 6)

Finally, on the topic of “traveling,” the register analysis was performed on the passage from the book that students

may have studied to produce the anecdote at the opening of this paper. In New Crown, 1993 edition, to analyze

how the students’ understanding may have been different had they been exposed to another register of an

analogous conversation.


The social activity taking place and the topic

being discussed: A model conversation for the purpose of language

teaching and learning on the topic of “inquiring

about a traveler’s plans”


of lexis: All terms are basic, as the intended audience is


Lexical groups:

Travel


metafunction.

Contains lexis relating to food and travel:

Visit, sightseeing, immigration, stay

The participants are the immigration officer and the

traveler

Includes material processes (stay) relational

processes (e.g. is the purpose) however no mental

processes nor verbal processes.

Includes circumstances of extent (of your stay, two

weeks) however no circumstances of

accompaniment, location, or cause.



Social roles and status: Immigration officer, traveler

Social relationship / Social connectedness/distance

Unequal.

The immigration officer is in a position of authority

over the traveler.

The immigration officer uses no politeness

markers, such as please.

There are no evaluative adjectives.

All verbs are in present or future tense. What is is

ellipted from What is your name?

Two weeks is a temporal adjuncts without a verb

due to ellipsis.

Contractions are not used.



Spontaneity





Communicative distance (language as action or reflection)

Action

Cohesion (linking)

Direct questions are followed by brief answers

using incomplete sentences.

No reaction to answers indicate that this is an

interview situation.

While the variety of circumstances one may encounter while traveling are broad, it would be prudent for the

textbooks at this level to demonstrate the differences between the conversation between an immigration officer and

another with less social distance. A sample conversation was composed that would have corrected the issue

experienced in the anecdote in the introduction:

At Immigration In the forest

A: Your name, please? A: Hi, what’s your name?

B: Tamura Kyoko B: Hi, I’m Kyoko. What’s yours?

A: What is the purpose of your visit? A: I’m Tom. So, why are in Japan?

B: Sightseeing. B: I’m just sightseeing.

A: How long are you going to stay? A: Really? Nice. So, how long will you be here?

B: Two weeks. B: Oh, about two weeks.

A: Where are you going to stay? A: That’s good. Where are you going to stay?

B: Los Angeles. B: Los Angeles.

A: That’s nice!

Besides basic lexicogrammatical changes, (such as the use of discourse markers so and oh) the new conversation

differs in that both interlocutors react to what the other has said. Notably, the responses of the traveler in the new

conversation may be used in either register, however the responses in the original conversation contains short

sentence fragments, which may not aid in language learning, and may be interpreted as laconic and rude by

immigration officials.

11:Evaluation

The goal of this study was to evaluate the register of passages within Japanese Junior High School textbooks, to

assess whether the textbooks contained a variety of registers and whether the words and phrases specific to a

register were clearly indicated as such. The analyses indicated that while some units were well-designed to

compare and contrast with previously learned material, the teaching materials do not invite the readers to do so. In

these instances, including a footnote to compare the conversations would be a simple step that may have an impact

upon students’ comprehension of the relative registers of at least two conversations. This study also revealed a

number of situations for which the students are only exposed to one register, and that this knowledge should be

expanded upon to ensure competence.

There are some other alternatives to teaching students about register. In some cases, a simple translation could

give learners some sense of the register of the English as the Japanese words used carry with them registers as

well, however in most cases translation fails to give students any information beyond simple meaning. Another

alternative is extensive reading programs, the benefits of which are outlined in Waring (2009).

To really know a word well, learners need to know not only meanings

and spellings, but the nuances of its meanings, its register, whether it

is more commonly used for speaking or writing, which discourse categories

it is usually found in, as well as its collocations and colligations,

among many other things. (p.1)

The majority of schools, however, are unwilling to bear neither the cost nor the effort of maintaining an extensive

reading program, so for most students this is inaccessible.

Bowles (2001) suggests that rather than appealing to the textbook publishers to change, appealing to MEXT to

change the guidelines could be a more effective route. Hardy (2007) outlines the arduous procedure undertaken by

the authors of the New Crown series of Junior High School English textbooks, and the difficulties that the authors

have in negotiating competing claims from numerous teachers and members of MEXT.

The guidelines as currently written only list “Situations where fixed expressions are often used” (MEXT 2011) but

more specific guidelines could include generic stages, and even specify contrasts in register to be included, for

example:

Having a Meal:

Setting: fast-food restaurant, expensive restaurant

Speakers: Cashier, waiter, teenager

Generic Stages: ordering ^ asking about choices ^ choosing from selection ^

commenting on food ^ making payment

Contrasts: can / may, want / would like

12: The potential for change

Japan’s language teaching is often slow to change. Following the 1964 Tokyo Olympics: MEXT changed its policy

from “grammatical translation of written English in Japanese; students have few chances to vocalize English”

(Nishino & Watanabe, 2008) to the current “teaching four skills separately to a more integrated communicative

ability to comprehend the foreign language” (Yoshida, 2003). Following the 2020 Olympics, MEXT may again find

itself dramatically shifting standards for English instruction in response to a population finding itself wholly

unprepared for communicating with athletes, staff, foreign press and spectators from around the world, as they did

in 1964. Tokyo will be in the spotlight in a few years, and it is my hope that future guidelines ensure students and

teachers cover register information as well.

References:

Amaki, Y. (2008) ‘Perspectives on English Education in the Japanese Public School System: The Views of Foreign

Assistant Language Teachers (ALTs)’ Educational Studies in Japan: International Yearbook, No.3, p. 53-63

Bowles, M. (2001). Problems in treatment of vocabulary in approved junior high school Textbooks: Informing

teachers. ETJ Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 18-20.

Browne, C. M., & Wada, M. (1998). Current Issues in high school English teaching in Japan: An exploratory survey.

Language, Culture and Curriculum, 11(1), 97–112.

Coffin, C., Donohue, J. & North, S. (2009) Exploring English grammar from formal to functional, Abingdon:

Routledge.

Collaborative Reference Database (2008) ‘Refarensu Jirei Shousai (Detail of reference example)’ Retrieved 8 April,

2014 from http://crd.ndl.go.jp/reference/modules/d3ndlcrdentry/index.php?page=ref_view&id=1000046326

Hardy, T. (2007) ‘MEXT-authorized English textbooks: Designing a junior high school text series’ Second Language

Acquisition - Theory and Pedagogy: Proceedings of the 6th Annual JALT Pan-SIG Conference. Tohoku Bunka

Gakuen University. p. 12 - 20

Kachru, B.B. and Nelson, C. (2001) ‘World Englishes’ in A. Burns and C. Coffin (eds) Analysing English in a Global

Context: A Reader, London, Routledge, pp. 9–25.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Langham, C. (2007) ‘MEXT-authorized English textbooks: The writing and screening of a Japanese high school text

series’ Second Language Acquisition - Theory and Pedagogy: Proceedings of the 6th Annual JALT Pan-SIG

Conference. Tohoku Bunka Gakuen University. p. 7 - 11

Martin, J. (2008) ‘Language, register, and genre’ in Coffin et al, (eds) (2010) in C. Coffin, T. Lillis, and K. O’Halloran

(eds) Applied Linguistics Methods: A Reader, London, Routledge, p. 12–32.

Matsuda, A. and Friedrich, P. (2011) ‘English as an international language: A curriculum blueprint’ World Englishes,

Vol. 30, No. 3, p. 332–344

Matsuhata K. (2012). Sunshine English Course

Kairyudo Publishing: Tokyo

MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology). (2003) Kyokasho seido no gaiyou (The

outline of textbook policy). Retrieved 8 April 2014 from

http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/kyoukasho/gaiyou/04060901.htm

MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology). (2011). The course of study for foreign

languages. Retrieved 8 April, 2014 from

http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/04/11/1298356_10.pdf

Nishino, T., & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication-oriented policies versus classroom realities in Japan. TESOL

Quarterly, 42(1), 133-138.

The Open University (2009) E854 Investigating Language in Action, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Nishiyama, K (1976) 'Inadequacies Of English Textbooks For Teaching English To Japanese Students', Speech

Education, Vol. 4, p. 99-116

Sergeant, P. (2008) ‘Ideologies of English in Japan: the perspective of policy and pedagogy’ Language Policy, Vol. 7,

p. 121–142

Tahira, M. (2012). Behind MEXT’s New Course of Study Guidelines, The Language Teacher, Vol. 36 No.3, p. 3-8

Thornbury, S. and Slade, D. (2006) Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Waring, R. (2009) The Inescapable Case for Extensive Reading

[online] http://www.robwaring.org/er/what_and_why/er_is_vital.htm [accessed 6 Sept 2013]

Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H.G. (1994) ‘Language, register, and genre’ in Coffin et al, (eds) (2010) in C. Coffin, T. Lillis, and K.

O’Halloran (eds) Applied Linguistics Methods: A Reader, London, Routledge, p. 67–76.

Yamada, M. (2010) ‘English as a multicultural language: implications from a study of Japan's junior high schools'

English language textbooks’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Vol. 31, No. 5, p 491-506

Yoshida, K. (2003). Language education policy in Japan—the problem of espoused objectives versus practice. The

Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 290-292.

Appendix 1: Comparison of 2008 and 1997 editions of Sunshine

Appendix 2: Comparison of Year 2 and Year 3 “Having a Meal”

Appendix 3: Comparison of Year 2 and Year 3 “Talking on the Phone”

Appendix 4: Comparison of Year 2 and Year 3 “Shopping”

Appendix 5: Year 1 “Indroductions”

Appendix 6: New Crown 1993 edition, “Traveling” (red translations added)

the problem of register identification in junior high

Documents