This article scrutinizes the controversy surrounding the resumption of Japanese Antarctic whaling from 1946, focusing on the negotiations and concessions that underline the nature of the Allied Occupation as an international undertaking. Britain, Norway, Australia, and New Zealand objected to Japanese pelagic whaling, chiefly on the grounds of its past record of wasteful and inefficient operations. Their opposition forced the Natural Resources Section of General Headquarters, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, to increase the number of Allied inspectors on board the two Japanese whaling factories from one to two, and to respond carefully to the criticisms they made of the conduct of Japanese whaling. U.S. sensitivity to international censure caused the Occupation to encourage the factory vessels to prioritize oil yields over meat and blubber for domestic consumption. Moreover, General Douglas MacArthur, the U.S. Occupation commander, summarily rejected a proposal to increase the number of Japanese fleets from two to three in 1947. With its preponderance of power, the United States successfully promoted Japanese Antarctic whaling, but a tendency to focus only on outcomes obscures the lengthy and difficult processes that enabled Japanese whaling expeditions to take place on an annual basis from late 1946.
The role of English as a medium of communication especially in the academic domain has been accelerated. This is reflected in the growing number of English language academic journals in non-English dominant countries such as: China, India and Spain (Ren and Rousseau 2004; Xian 2006). Similar to other peripheral countries, Thailand is no exception. This situation results in competition between the national language and English. This present study compares the language choice of academic papers published in Thai national journals in two major fields: science, and its counterpart, humanities and social science. The data collection includes a corpus of 663 articles published in 2005 and in 2015, specifically 346 from Science and 317 from Humanities and Social science. We have hypothesized that English plays a more significant role in scientific journals compared to those in Humanities and Social science. In addition to the language choice in Thai academic journals, a questionnaire was also distributed to 73 respondents to investigate the language ideology of Thai scholars in choosing a language for their manuscripts. The result reveals that many Thai scholars choose English in writing manuscripts due to the lack of technical terms in their field in Thai whereas some of them prefer Thai due to the publication process and the Thai readership orientation.
This paper discusses the ways Thai teacher trainees of English conceptualize their language choices inside the classroom, the affordances and constraints this creates for their learning and how it affects their identifications as teacher trainees. Drawing on data from a longitudinal ethnographic study in central Thailand, this paper describes how language choice functions as a ‘technology of talk’ (Jones 2016) that creates both affordances and constraints for our social interaction and the ways our identity is negotiated in social interaction in the classroom. It demonstrates that language choice, in societies in which our literacy practices are increasingly mediated by digital technology, is not only conceptualized through discourses on the situated appropriateness of literacy practices in the classroom, but also influenced by an extended network of digital literacy practices students engage outside the classroom. These digital literacy practices afford new ways of expressing, doing and saying in languages that are otherwise scarcely accessible outside the classroom. Engaging in these practices constructs networks of widely dispersed literacy practices forming intricate nodes between both online and offline sites and gradually permeate traditionally bounded spaces such as the classroom.