The Idea of English in Japan

The idea of English in Japan is the first book-length treatment of globalization and ideology of English in Japan. Seargeant critically analyzes English both as a language to be communicated in and as a concept to be symbolized and reflected in non-linguistic practices in the society. The book is a must-read not only for scholars of English in Japan but also for anyone who is interested in theorizing English as a global language from linguistic and ideological perspectives.

-- Aya Matsuda, Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education, Arizona State University, USA

This is a book that is highly relevant to the global study of applied linguistics. Seargeant’s review of the monocentric/polycentric debate is both clear and succinct and at the same time subtle and well-informed. This well-written book draws on a wide-ranging body of literature, which is always germane to the central argument and never a distraction. The Idea of English in Japan is a thoughtful and thought-provoking work that deserves space on the bookshelves of anyone interested in the concept of global English.

* Alison Stewart, Gakushuin University, Japan, System (2010) *

By recourse to rich, empirical examples, The Idea of English in Japan effectively engages with postmodern conceptions of global Englishes without succumbing to postmodenlism's more nihilistic excesses. Traditionalists in applied linguistics may chunter that Seargeant's methodologies are unclear; his data too limited for quantitative generalisation or even thick qualitative description; that the book is messy, cluttered, and does not offer anything approaching a linear nalTative or neat conclusion. But this is precisely the point. Seargeant's subject-a globalised language in particular local contexts-is all of these things: fractured, sprawling, circular, self-reflexive, versatile, thought-provoking. His book not only reflects these qualities of English as a global language, but actively embodies them as well.

* Gareth Price, Duke University in Language Policy (2011) 10:265-2