The Societal Codification of Korean English

Alex Baratta

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781350188570
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Filología
• Subtopic: Lingüística histórica y comparativa

From K-pop to kimchi, Korean culture is becoming increasingly popular on the world stage. This cultural internationalisation is also mirrored linguistically, in the emergence and development of Korean English. Often referred to as 'Konglish', this book describes how the two terms in fact refer to different things and explains how Koreans have made the English language their own. Arguing that languages are no longer codified and legitimised by dictionaries and textbooks but by everyday usage and media, Alex Baratta explores how to reconceptualise the idea of 'codification.' Providing illustrative examples of how Koreans have taken commonly used English expressions and adjusted them, such as doing 'Dutch pay', wearing a 'Burberry' and using 'hand phones', this book explores the implications and opportunities social codification presents to EFL students and teachers. In so doing, The Societal Codification of Korean English offers wider perspectives on English change across the world, seeking to dispel the myth that English only belongs to 'native speakers'.

1

Introduction

Type the word ‘Englishes’ into a Word document, as I have just done, and it is still, stubbornly, coming up as an error. For many reading this book, we already know that this word is anything but an error. Rather, it is a wholly appropriate term that captures the diversity of the English language in all its forms around the world. This is something that a singular reference alone can never do. In fact, such a reference might even suggest a one-size-fits-all approach to a language that will never be one size for all. Indeed, English as we know it has expanded its influence to the point that its international spread – from Hollywood movies to CNN to bilingual road signs in Tokyo – is largely taken for granted. Perhaps we expect to see and/or hear English in some form, whether on holiday in Spain or at a business conference in Nairobi. I do not seek to present a detailed picture regarding the influence and spread of the English language, however, as this has been well documented already (Kachru, 1982; Crystal, 2008; Mesthrie and Bhatt, 2008). Instead, I use this linguistic spread as the springboard from which to then delve into a full discussion of the variety of English as used in Korea. This allows for a spotlight on one particular variety of English, while also functioning as a stand-in for other varieties of English which do not always get the respect and recognition they deserve. This chapter thus presents an overview of the relevant topics in Chapters 2 and 3, which serve to set the scene for the later discussion of Korean English in Chapter 4.

Specifically, Chapter 2 discusses the following topics: the terms used to refer to Englishes within the expanding circle, often involving blended nomenclatures such as Chinglish; errors versus innovations; and the distinctions made in terms of native versus non-native speakers of English. Chapter 3 discusses a way to conceptualize linguistic codification beyond more ‘traditional’ means, such as government-backed grammar books and dictionaries, thus providing an in-depth focus centred on this important topic, and how it ultimately relates to the discussions in Chapters 4 and 5, concerning the ways in which Korean English needs to be understood as established and ultimately reinforced by its speakers.

The purpose of covering these topics that are understood already to an audience who are knowledgeable regarding World Englishes, such as educators and linguists, is as follows. First, the audience is not assumed to be exclusively made up of those with a background knowledge of the relevant topics, such as World Englishes, let alone having research backgrounds in this area. Therefore, some broad background on the relevant topics which pertain to the overall focus on Korean English is necessary, and is presented systematically in Chapter 2. Ideally, it is hoped that some of the audience may well include those with an interest in Korean culture, or even English teachers in Korea who may be familiar with Koreans’ use of English, but are otherwise unaware of the theoretical discussion behind this.

Second, the topics covered in Chapter 2 combine to provide a thorough grounding to help inform and locate the overall purpose for this book’s content: to argue that Korean English, not only like other expanding circle Englishes but also as with language overall, is legitimate, established and in everyday use, but largely without the need for such establishment to be provided by more ‘traditional’ means. That is, the people who use this variety of English are responsible for perpetuating its use within society, and in turn establishing it as a recognized variety of English. As I will explain, expanding circle Englishes, which Korean English clearly is, do not necessarily receive their due recognition, despite their use in society. As such, it is time to address this, both as a gap in knowledge regarding these varieties’ role in society and to address what for some is a perceived lack of legitimacy (Kachru, 2006; Ahn, 2014; Galloway and Rose, 2015; Rüdiger, 2019).

What’s in a name? Korean English versus Konglish

Chapter 2 will take up the discussion in more detail than the summaries presented here, but it is very important to begin with an unpacking of the most relevant term of all for this book: Korean English. Some may disagree with this term in fact, being more familiar with the term Konglish instead, which, I concede, is indeed commonly used to describe the variety of English associated with Korea (Kent, 1999; Song, 2016; Rüdiger, 2018). However, I object to the latter term for two reasons.

First, blended nomenclatures arguably do not lead to language varieties being taken particularly seriously. Pinkham’s (2000) use of the term Chinglish, used to describe translation errors from Mandarin to English on public signs in China, has now become somewhat synonymous with errors in general. From my experience of teaching large numbers of Chinese graduate students, their conceptualization of the term goes far beyond English mistranslations on Chinese public signs and extends to their own English, notably errors made within their academic writing in English. While anecdotal, the negative perceptions of the term Chinglish are not merely based on my own assertions. He and Li (2009: 71) refer to the term as reflecting a ‘social stigma’ and argue instead for an established variety of English in China – China English – which serves as the counterpart for Korean English. Given the stigma attached to the term Chinglish, I believe that the terms used to refer to English varieties should avoid blended nomenclatures which incorporate -ish. This is not a suffix as such, but instead forms part of the word English, of course. Nonetheless, it is conceivable that blended terms might suggest the use of -ish as a suffix per se, with the semantic implications for this informal suffix essentially reflecting ‘to some extent’ (He’s tallish, let’s meet at 3ish, and so on). Thus, Konglish, for some, refers to a variety of English which is not quite one or the other perhaps, not somehow ‘fully formed’. But such an assertion would fly in the face of a variety of English which is otherwise used by Koreans – and non-Koreans – with a fully functioning use of vocabulary and gramm ar – Korean English. To thus demote it to a blended term is not accurate, given the connotations of such terms. This is not about political correctness but linguistic correctness.

Second, the term Korean English connotes a more established variety of English. This is agreed with by Ahn (2014), who in fact refers to Konglish as reflecting changes in Korean due to contact with English, and Korean English as instead reflecting a nativization of the English language (Shim, 1999; Seong and Lee, 2008). I do not suggest, of course, that those who use the term Konglish do so scornfully, regarding it as a variety of English which is ‘defective’ in some way. I do in fact acknowledge that the term can be used by those who otherwise regard this variety with complete respect, seeing Konglish as an appropriate term for a legitimate variety of English. Korean English, however, goes further in terms of acknowledging linguistic legitimacy and as such, it will be the term used throughout this book, with references to Konglish only made based on reflecting other individuals’ use of this word.

Another concession concerns the work of Song (2016), who argues against the label of ‘X English’ unless a variety is indeed a New English. Song argues that Korean English, as a Learner English, is thus not qualified to be given this title and, instead, should be referred to as ‘English in Korea’. Schneider (2007) concurs, arguing for a need to distinguish between the two types of English. Song takes on the evidence that has been presented for the existence of Korean English, the same evidence that will be presented in this book. For example, evidence of Korean English in terms of grammatical constructions codified in Korean high school EFL textbooks (Shim, 1999) is claimed to be an insufficient benchmark for the existence of Korean English. Bruthiaux (2003: 171) agrees, arguing against declaring a variety of English to be a new variety simply on the basis of it being ‘taught extensively as a foreign language but spoken by a small minority and rarely or never for purposes of internal communication’.

A corpus-based study by Hadikin (2014) is also held up as insufficient evidence for Korean English, in that his sample of seventy Korean-English bilinguals, largely university students perhaps, is not deemed to be sufficient in reflecting a broader societal use of English in Korea. Song’s response overall to these studies, and perhaps others, is that a more representative sample is needed of speakers from all walks of life – and education levels – in order to truly appreciate the ways in which Koreans use English, and also how it is used in different contexts of communication.

In response to what is clearly a robust argument against the existence of Korean English, I make the following points. First, within the expanding circle in particular, there is evidence of disagreement as to the establishment, or not, of English varieties. Thus, while authors agree that China English is indeed a New English (He and Li, 2009), there are those who do not (Fang, 2020). Other authors indeed argue that English has become nativized within Eastern cultures, such as Japan (McKenzie, 2008) and Korea (Ahn, 2014). Song (2016), however, rejects the work of Ahn regarding Korean English as a New English, largely on the basis of her use of the term without, once again, it having been established as a new variety; indeed, most of her participants only know of the term Konglish. As Rüdiger (2019) makes clear, however, Song’s view excludes the outer-circle countries from ownership of the English language. Moreover, we might also consider current movements, notably the ways in which ‘the world Englishes paradigm has pushed to decolonize the academic study of the English language’ (Westphal, 2021: 1). This does not mean that we should automatically assign the label of ‘Korean English’ to the variety used by Koreans. Instead, we need to address perceptions of expanding circle Englishes as somehow not fully fledged varieties, and recognize them as varieties in their own right based on evidence for their widespread use and codification of such within society. The book will indeed present evidence for both.

However, amid such disagreement, perhaps largely reflective of the criteria Song (2016) puts forward, it is important to address two points. First, even outside of a large-scale study on a country’s use of a foreign language, valuable though that would be, we cannot ignore the ways in which a language – here, English – has developed into a distinct form. To put it another way, are there features of English as used by Koreans that are predictable, in terms of grammar and vocabulary? There clearly are, and much will be said of this in Chapter 4. This might not be sufficient for some to characterize a variety of English as a New English; however, it also means that the language has developed to a point that it is distinctive enough to no longer be a carbon copy of an inner-circle variety; it is used by sufficient numbers of people in society that its distinctions are predictable; its features are not random; and overall, and as I will discuss in Chapter 3, we need to consider linguistic codification as ultimately being in the hands of the people, and not necessarily governments and publishing houses. While Song (2016) therefore feels that it is simply too premature to label English in Korea as Korean English, we should also consider Schneider’s (2014: 227) comment, that it is ideal to ‘detect and trace . . . structural innovations as early as possible’, and not do so retrospectively once codification has taken place. On the other hand, and as I will argue, codification of Korean English has taken place, and continues to do so, via the people who use it and the extensive use of various media in Korea – Chapter 3 will develop this argument in detail.

I therefore argue that the English language has developed in Korea to the extent that we can reveal solid examples as to how Koreans do indeed use this variety and, as such, using the nomenclature of Korean English is not felt to be a premature judgement. While the use of a large-scale sociolinguistic study as Song (2016) argues for would indeed generate much useful data and insights, we should not ignore the fact that Koreans use English and have made it their own. Though this does not apply to Korea as a whole perhaps, and the older generation more so might be less proficient in English (Baratta, 2019a), English is indeed used in Korea on a wider scale than the small sample within Hadikin’s study would suggest.

The thrust of my argument is that we need to reconceptualize codification from a more societal perspective. First, people’s use of a language is the first step towards codification (see Chapter 3 for a further discussion). This would include not merely conversations using the English language in Korea, but also uses of English beyond this. In Chapter 5, for example, I discuss the use of English within Korean media, such as TV and print ads. Song (1998) argues against this use of English, however, as evidence of a New English per se, in that media use of English is, as with previous examples, insufficient; instead, we need evidence of English use in home, school and work. Haarmann (1986) refers to such media use as an example of ‘impersonal bilingualism’, referring to the use of English ‘for appealing to the public’s positive feelings, not for practical communication’ (Song, 2016: 60).

Nonetheless, Lee (2020: 600) points out that given the spread of English in Korea, there is in fact evidence for more everyday use of this language, notably in school settings. Lee references prestigious high schools in particular, ‘which are supposed to produce the “cream of the crop” in Korea’. One such example is the Korean Minjok Leadership Academy (KMLA), which adopts an ‘English-Only’ policy. KMLA requires students to speak only English from the beginning to the end of each school day from Monday to Saturday, with teachers also following this directive. While standard inner-circle English is perhaps the variety focused on, it is likely that students will not always default to this variety within all their communication, perhaps – unintentional though it might be – following patterns associated with Korean English instead. Korean English is perhaps more likely to be used for the casual conversations that students engage in at this school, for which English is once again the expected language, not Korean.

This...