An overview of English in South Korea (2024)

Language, Culture, and Pedagogy: An Overview of English inSouth Korea

Brendan Flattery

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Many discussions of the role of English in a particular country where itis not an official language or the first language to most of the populationbegin with a discussion of the language’s global status as a lingua francain our increasingly global society. To fully realize this, however, it isimportant to examine how English is used in such countries, and what attitudesexist towards such uses. In South Korea, an “Expanding Circle” countryaccording to Kachru’s model of concentric circles, English is not an officiallanguage nor is it a second language that has become important forinstitutional purposes of government even though English instruction in Koreahas become a vast industry and all children currently receive a minimum of sixyears of English instruction. There are many different and conflicted associationswith English in South Korea, and there are different varieties and registers ofEnglish for different kinds of situations, spoken by people of differentoccupations, classes, age groups, etc.

This paper serves as an analysis of different attitudes towards theEnglish language in South Korea and how they have changed, or not changed,historically. As well, given how large the English language instructionindustry has become in South Korea, this paper is an examination of teachingpractices and approaches that are currently employed in the public schoolsystem, the site of mandatory English instruction. The review of the literatureon this subject reveals that a major goal of the Ministry of Education is thefostering of native-speaker proficiency, or as close to this as possible, via amethod known as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). However, since there hasbeen difficulty with implementing this approach for a variety of reasons, thispaper examines alternative suggestions for improving or moving beyond CLTmethods for a particularly South Korean English as a Foreign Language (EFL)context, such as the teaching of cultural knowledge, the fostering of morecritical awareness of the place that English holds in South Korea, and theconsideration of Korean English or Konglish as a means to provide a greaterunderstanding of Standard English (SE). A consideration of attitudes towardsEnglish in Korea is necessary to begin this overview, as they inform the goalsand motivations for learning English and illustrate the ambivalence that existstowards it in South Korea society.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

English has had a variety of functionsin Korean society over the last century, and its development since the KoreanWar has been mainly the result of international trade, particularly with theUS. Therefore, SE norms have been given special emphasis due to the function ofEnglish used as a foreign or international language. However, the actual use ofEnglish by the majority of Koreans reveals clear and regular deviations fromSE. There are many who learn English for specific purposes, such as forbusiness, trade, academics etc., but very few interact with native speakers,and amongst themselves they prefer to use a uniquely South Korean variety ofEnglish that is reinforced by the local media. This illustrates a discrepancybetween the goals of EFL teaching and the complex functions of English inmodern-day South Korean society. These complex functions are broadly divisiblealong the lines of nationalist vs. internationalist, for throughout the historyof English use in Korea there have been conflicted associations with thelanguage revolving around this dichotomy.

Samuel Gerald Collins’s essay, “‘Who’sThis Tong-il?’: English, Culture, and Ambivalence in South Korea” is ahistorical overview of attitudes towards English in South Korea, andillustrates the interplay between nationalist and internationalist ideas thathave surrounded the use of English in South Korea over the last century. Fromthe beginning, the Koreans were wary of the English language. This had to dowith the fact that because Korea was the last East Asian country to havecontact with the West it was able to witness the impact of western colonialismon its neighbours (419). The imperial court in Korea during this periodactively persecuted those with western learning, a sign that they wereinitially wary of the West. Initially, then anything associated with the Westwas met with nationalist and isolationist resistance. By 1882, however, theKoreans had signed a treaty with the United States (US), fostering the arrivalof missionaries, advisors, traders, and teachers who brought the Englishlanguage with them and who soon began teaching it to Korean children via Englishonly classes (419-20). In the face of increased Japanese expansion, Englishbecame a site of resistance for Korean intellectuals hoping to furtherassociate themselves with the Americans, and in 1896 a group calling themselvesthe Independence Club founded the first English language newspaper (420).During the period of Japanese rule in Korea, which began in 1910, English wasstill taught as a mandatory subject, and the Japanese colonizers publishedannual reports in English on the ways they contributed to “Korean life” (420).In this period, then, English was simultaneously a means of disseminatingpropaganda and a cite of resistance to imperialism, and though the Englishlanguage put Korea onto the map, so to speak, in an international setting,nationalists who opposed Japanese imperialism found a means to do so throughthe English language.

Following the Korean War, English use developed in South Korea becauseof international trade, especially trade with the US. Collins notes that afterthe Korean War, English was used to communicate with the US military governmentand the soldiers, as the military government had need of people that couldcommunicate in both languages (421). Thus the value of English was highlypractical, but also opportunistic, and almost immediately had associations withprestige. As trade flourished so did English instruction, and in the 1960’s,South Korean teachers were being trained to teach English. By the 1970’s and80’s the language was already associated with middle class and cosmopolitanvalues (423). After the 1988 Olympics, the government consciously associatedEnglish with globalization, both cultural and economic, and began activelypromoting English language education to foster international competitiveness.The Kim Young Sam administration sponsored this by initiating a program knownas Segyehwa, a major component of which was the development of English instruction(Yoo 6). English as a tool for international trade developed quickly over thelast fifty years, and this is still the major impulse behind Englishinstruction in South Korea.

Within South Korea, English is viewed as means togain social prestige and economic success even though very few companies demandtheir employees pass English language tests (Collins 424). English is alsoassociated with progressive or liberal ideas, especially among the youth, butthere is also a reaction to the spread of English in Korea that is closelyrelated to nationalist sentiments. Thus, even at home there is ambivalencetowards whether English is an entirely positive or negative force in SouthKorean society.

JamieShinhee Lee, in 2 essays, tracks the use of English in pop-culture formats,such as television commercials and popular music, and she argues that Englishlanguage use is associated with representations of youthful people, with youthculture in general and with values that reject traditional Korean ones. Lee’sfirst article on “K-Pop” or Korean popular music addresses kinds of Englishused by young artists in an expression of group identity and a resistance of“mainstream norms and values” (“Hybridizations” 430). Lee notes a heterogeneityof both code-mixing and -switching between English and Korean, and a range ofuse from a single English word, to entire songs in English. As well, artistschange the varieties of English they use, from Korean English to standardAmerican, and even incorporate elements of African American Vernacular English(AAVE) (430). In more elaborate uses of English, especially when it appearsalongside Korean, there is a marked difference in content between the twolanguages, perhaps relating to censorship.

One general trend is how direct expressions ofsexual desire are found exclusively in English, and Lee argues that suchlanguage would be unheard of in Korean love songs where romantic or sexual loveis traditionally downplayed (436). The examples that Lee provides show moretrends of antagonism towards traditional conservative values, with a definite contrastbetween the kinds of material found in English and Korean, particularly in acategory Lee calls “Assertion of struggle with unsettled identities” (438). Forexample, in a song entitled “Everything” by Fly to the Sky, the artistexpresses animosity towards his girlfriend because of her promiscuity, withlines such as “Should’ve known you was a hoe” but in Korean hearticulates a sense of patience and a desire for her to come back to him(438-9). This song is one of the examples that contain AAVE features, and manyothers contain specifically Korean features as well. One singer mentions hisuse of Korean English directly, saying, “You don’t like my yenge palum”before repeating the title which directs the addressed person to “suck [his]dxxx” (443). Yenge palum means “English pronunciation,” but the artistuses Korean to locate himself in a particular kind of Korean English, which heuses throughout his song (443). This is a clear example of a sense of groupidentity positioned in contrast to traditional values, and given the violentcontrast between English and Korean language choices in these songs, it iscertain that English is a means of associating oneself with a youth culture inopposition to a conservative or traditional norm.

The second article,“Linguistic Constructions of Modernity: English Mixing in Korean TelevisionCommercials,” is a comparison of 720 advertisem*nts in prime time weekendspots, ostensibly when the largest number of people would be watching, shown onthe three major networks (“Constructions 68). Of these 720 commercials, 603 hadsome mixed English and only 117 were in Korean only. The vast majority of theEnglish- mixed commercials (abbrev. EM), contain both spoken and writtenEnglish (71). The most striking feature of this analysis is the differences inidentity association in the two types of commercials. In Korean-only ads(abbrev. KO), one finds character types such as “old grandmothers, middle-aged salarymen,* well-established older businessmen, and agroup of Koreans depicted with a distinct Korean national identity (e.g. withthe national flag)” (73). Importantly, whenever the nation is mentioned as awhole, for instance in public service announcements by the government, thesecommercials are strictly KO (73). By contrast, EM commercials containspokespeople or characters such as “rebellious teenagers, college students withan unconventional mindset, young, stylish career women, Misico*k,F self-reliant elementary school children,fun-loving, young male office workers, and looks-conscious young‘metrosexuals’” (74). The rest of the article deals with specific situationsand products associated with these character types, adding to the associationbetween English code-mixing and a youth culture related to ideas of what itmeans to be “modern” in Korea (70). Lee is not alone in drawing connectionsbetween English and modernity, but she provides good examples of how thatconnection is made in popular media.

There are many who are against the spread of Englishin South Korea who believe that the Korean language and national identity areat risk, and thus reject proposals that English should gain official status inKorea. One memorable example that sparked a great deal of response occurredwhen a popular music star, known as J, asked “Who’s this Tong-il?” ontelevision, completely unaware that Tong-il refers to the reunification ofNorth and South Korea (Collins 426). Needless to say, there was a negativereaction to this, and many began to fear that the youth in Korea are losingtheir cultural heritage. Since then, there has been an increase in situationson television shows that criticize characters who use two much English, forexample a character on one show that excessively drops the names of Americanstars into conversations (426). Therefore, English is accepted and valued as ameans of establishing South Korea on a global market, but there is a reactionagainst using too much English as though doing so would corrupt Korean values.Yoo’s essay concerns the debate over English as an Official Language in SouthKorea, and illustrates that the issue is hotly contested and is centered on thenationalism vs. globalization argument (8-9). Therefore, English in South Koreais a complicated notion, surrounded by conflict and debate at the least eventhough few would likely argue against its necessity for South Korea’s rapidlyexpanding economy.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

English in the South KoreanClassroom

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

English is taught andstudied in a variety of ways in South Korea, in public and private schools, orthrough take-home work sheets and private tutoring, and the motivations forlearning it have mostly to do with the above ideas of modernization andglobalization. Jun-Kang Kim did astudy for a dissertation entitled Globalizationand English Language Education in Korea: Socialization and IdentityConstruction of Korean Youth and found that themajority of high school and university level English students that were interviewedbelieved they felt an impact from globalization and thus believed English to benecessary for finishing their educations and achieving success afterwards. Kimargues that, “[t]he students seemed to conceive [of] English not just anecessary tool, but and end, which will make their dreams come true” (74). Theinsistence on the use of English for international purposes indicates perhapswhy SE norms would be privileged in classroom settings, and by the speakersthemselves and, and the South Korean Ministry of Education has been doing theirbest to foster native speaker proficiency among EFL students. Seon-hwa Eun, in a dissertation entitled Contextual autonomy in EFL classrooms: Acritical review of English teaching methods in South Korea (2001), showsthat the education curriculum announced in 1992 clearly states that CLT shouldreplace the earlier audio-lingual method used in middle schools, and thegrammar translation method used in high schools (54). With the 1997 curriculumprimary school students began EFL instruction based on CLT models as well (54).Therefore, it is necessary to discussCLT methods and their implementation of them in EFL classrooms.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

CLT in Theory: the PublicSchool Curriculum in South Korea

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Hyun Jung Kim in herdissertation entitled A Case Study of Curriculum and Material Evaluation: Elementary Englishas a Foreign Language in South Korea defines CLT as consisting of thefollowing characteristics. There is a focus on meaning over form, content and function over grammaticalcomplexity, fluency over accuracy (though there is still a place for accuracy),student-centered learning that emphasizes active participation and interactionrather than teacher-centered directive learning, communicative competence,authenticity of speech, and the teaching of cultural knowledge (4). Kim cites Larsen-Freeman who qualifies “authentic speech” as“language used in real life situations by native speakers,” thus containing realistic or “genuine” communicative situations(4). Communicative competence, according to Hymes is“what a learner needs to know in order to be communicatively competent in aspeech community” and according to Canale and Swain consists of grammaticalcompetence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence (ctd. in H.Kim 6). Thus CLT uses methods that encourage active participation andinteraction with the main goal being native speaker proficiency.

Hyun Jung Kim studied thesixth and seventh curricula of South Korea (1997 and 2001), with specificattention to Primary School EFL instruction (3^rd to 6^thgrades, ages 9-12), and found that while the curricula clearly state goals ofimplementing specific CLT practices, they fall short of providing examples andtextbook materials on how to encourage communicative competence. In the sixthcurriculum, H. J. Kim found objectives such as the encouragement of interestand confidence with English, an understanding of basic English used in everydaylife, and the ability to express basic ideas in English (26). A secondary goalin the curriculum is the learning of culture, as it recognizes that languageand culture are inseparable. This is strongly emphasized in the sixthcurriculum of 1997 (26). The idea is that if students are taught customs of nativeEnglish speakers they will become more aware of their cultures, “develop morepositive attitudes towards English speakers, and recognize the differences inlanguage and culture between Korea and English speaking countries” (26).

The seventh curriculum of2001 is similar in essence to the sixth for third and fourth grade students,though slightly less intensive for grade six. The main goals of the seventhcurriculum are to provide communicative competence, “to accept foreign culturewith a positive attitude” and to compare English and Korean culture, toreinforce Korean values in contrast to foreign ones (31-2). This last pointespecially illustrates fears in the government of Korean culture suffering fromthe expansion of English instruction. Generally, both curricula place emphasison communicative activities, and though this is more emphasized in the seventh,there are no new examples of what activities to use or suggestions for puttingsuch activities into practice (35). One key difference of the seventhcurriculum is that the teaching of culture is a main goal, not a secondary goalas it was in the sixth (36). Therefore, the South Korean Ministry of Educationstates what specific CLT methods they want implemented in classrooms, but asthe next section will show, there have been issues with these goals.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

There are quite a fewstudies concerning CLT methodologies in South Korea and the problems withimplementation of these methods among South Korean teachers. Broadly, manyagree with using CLT in their classrooms in principle, but either disagree withcertain practices such as learner-centered approaches, or do not have theresources, such as authentic materials, to implement them. Seon-hwa Eun found by interviewing teachers, thatmost had trouble understanding the nature of CLT (129). They also had troubleimplementing it in their classrooms and thought that CLT was not entirelyappropriate for their classroom settings (170).

Generally speaking, the main problems with implementing a CLT approachare as follows. First of all, there is a lack of implementation of all CLTconcepts, such as a focus on listening and reading skills over speaking. AsSeonghee Choi notes in a dissertation entitled Teaching English as a Foreign Language inKorean Middle Schools: Exploration of Communicative Language Teaching throughTeacher’s Beliefs and Self-Reported Classroom Teaching Practices (1999), teachers report that they focus on reading,listening skills, and grammar more than speaking, strategies for communication,socio-cultural knowledge and writing skills (64). H. J. Kim analyzed approvedtextbooks and finds that in both curricula there is material encouraginginterest and confidence with learning and using expressions commonly found inevery day life, yet listening is more emphasized than speaking and the speakingactivities are not designed for real communication or interaction, requiringstudents instead to repeat phrases verbatim rather than think critically aboutwhat they hear (43). Eun also notes that tests emphasize reading and listeningfirst, and speaking and cultural knowledge last (85). As well, they reportedlittle use of authentic materials, videos, computers, overhead projectors, andlearner-centered activities (Eun 85). Eunalso notes many problems with implementing CLT in South Korea, due to teachers’lack of proficiency in spoken English, large class sizes, a resistance amonglearners to active participation, and a lack of CLT training for teachers (32).Other main sources of difficulty include a lack of understanding and anuncritical adoption of CLT (Li, Gethin, and Thompson ctd. in Eun 32-3).

Also, there is a lack of student interactionand student-oriented activities, with a continued emphasis on teacher-orientedand directive methods, and as Seon-hwa Eun notes in her study, teacher’s andstudents alike seem to resist student-centered approaches (32). Seonghee Choinotes that teachers are far more likely to use drill activities, and otherteacher-centered methods are primarily used compared to student-oriented ones,such as more interaction between students (65). H. J. Kim also finds that inthe Ministry approved textbooks there is no material designed for small groupactivities and that in the seventh curriculum textbooks there are even lessopportunities for students to communicate with each other (43-44). Anotherpoint that Choi mentions is that a major consideration for students isuniversity entrance exams, which still place an emphasis on reading and grammartranslation, rather than on communicative competence (64), therefore this“wash-back” effect may be affecting how English is learned and taught.

Finally, many studies find the continuedprivileging of native speaker norms combined with a lack of cultural orsituational contexts that would reveal how and when students should usedifferent varieties or registers of English. According to H. J. Kim, in theMinistry approved textbooks there are no topics on culture whatsoever (43), andChoi notes that many teachers do not teach cultural knowledge in classrooms,despite the fact that it is a major goal of the curriculum (85). As well,Hagens found that South Korean teachers find that Konglish, or Korean English,to be inappropriate for the classroom, and teach that it is incorrect eventhough, as I will discuss further down, many are beginning to believe thatteaching Konglish might help students learn standard forms of English. Thesubjects of culture and Konglish need further discussion and investigation, sothose will be the focus of the remaining sections of this study.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Beyond CLT: Suggestions forImproving Communicative Competence in a South Korean Context

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Most of the objectionsabout CLT in South Korea surround its applicability to a specifically SouthKorean EFL context. Some would argue that CLT is grounded in Western ideologyand needs to be reevaluated for non-Western settings, while others believe it isunsuitable because it was originally designed for ESL learning rather than EFL.Still others take issue with the privileging of native speaker norms andsuggest the use of local varieties of English in classrooms to foster a greaterunderstanding of different varieties of English in different contexts.

Yuko Goto Butler in anessay entitled “Comparative Perspectives towards Communicative Activities amongElementary School Teachers in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan” questions whatconstitutes ‘teaching for communicative purposes’ in an EFL context (435).Butler argues that a cultural context is necessary before “more authentic”communication can even take place. Other salient problems that Butler raisesinvolve the nature of authenticity in a place where English is not spoken as afirst language by more than a very small percentage of the population, and whatconstitutes authentic international use of English. Butler also argues that“‘teaching for communicative purposes’ remains ambiguous” in international EFLcontexts (442), and concludes by arguing that CLT must be reevaluated. It is then valuable to examine theoriesregarding the teaching of cultural knowledge and the examination of CLT fordifferent socio-cultural contexts.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

The Teaching of Culture and theConsideration of Specific Cultural Contexts

Most of these theorists and the Ministry of Education recognize thatlanguage and culture are inseparable, and Hyun Jung Kim also shows how teachingcultural awareness in a comparative sense is a major if neglected feature ofthe most recent curriculum. Perhaps the lack of cultural teaching in Korea is amajor problem in the inability to fully realize communicative methodologies.Jean Kim, in “TeachingCulture in the English as Foreign Language Classroom” argues that cultureshould be a major focus of language teaching and lays out problems as well assuggestions for teaching culture effectively, though she does so in generalterms not specific to any country in particular. Jean Kim notes specifically aneed for teachers to be aware of their own beliefs about culture to avoidmaking generalizations or stereotypes (29), and she promotes a criticaldiscussion of culture in classrooms to allow students and teachers to discusstheir preconceptions and to think more critically about both their own cultureand that of the target language they are studying (30-1). Kim has looked atmany theories discussing culture, and possible ways to do so in a critical way,such as directly illustrating instances of cultural misunderstanding inrelation to miscommunication via handouts, videos, discussions and tests thatwill allow both students and teachers to compare their culture with the targetculture (33-4). This kind of method would encourage learning about an Englishspeaking culture, but also learning about one’s native culture as well and foran EFL classroom could be tailored to include the cultural attitudes towardsthe use of English.

Seon-hwa Eun proposes that CLT methods are the product of westernideologies towards language teaching, and need to be re-evaluated innon-western countries, particularly in EFL situations. Eun agrees with Butlerthat CLT methods need to consider the local contexts in which language learningtakes place, because language and language learning are inseparable fromcontext (31). Eun also suggests a new kind of methodology that is embeddedwithin a particular local context, or socio-cultural framework. The main way todo this, according to Eun, is to empower teachers to adopt and adapt methodologiesthat work in classroom settings, by practicing different methods to see whatpromotes effective teaching and learning (57-8). In particular Eun concludes bysuggesting a need for critical cultural awareness on the part of teachers whensuggesting methodologies for teaching. Ok Kyoon Yoo also mentions a similarargument in her essay stating that if the students are also more aware of thelanguage policies that govern their educations it might have positive results.Yoo writes:

Here, a big challenge is presentedto English education in relation to a language policy: a pedagogical need tohelp students take up their subject positions among competing discourses onEnglish-related language policies that will affect them, while improvingEnglish proficiency at the same time (29).

TheQuestion of Konglish

An important issue relatedto culture is the issue of Korean English, or Konglish as it is pejorativelyknown. Konglish is the local variety of English in Korea with its own regularset of phonological, syntactic, lexical and semantic features. It is used agreat deal in the media, as indicated by Lee’s articles above oncode-switching/mixing, but also in newspapers and printed advertisem*nts. Thereare articles that define salient features of Konglish, such as Kent’s “Speakingin Tongues: Chinglish, Japlish and Konglish” but there is little research doneon the official status of Konglish. Despite the fact that it may be used on alarge scale in the media and in everyday life, and that there is even evidenceof some acceptance towards Konglish, there is still resistance towards the useof it in classrooms. However, some would argue that it is already beingcodified and that it could have direct pedagogical value in an EFL classroom.

One problem is that SouthKorean EFL teachers and students still have negative opinions about the varietyof English they speak. Hagens’sdissertation, entitled Attitudes toward Konglish of South Korean teachers ofEnglish in the Province of Jeollanamdo is a study of South Korean EFLteachers perspectives on Konglish, and while most of them agree that Konlgishis a legitimate variety of English they would not use it in classroom settingand they still teach that it is incorrect. Hagens, a Canadian with experience teaching inSouth Korea, notes that English is rarely spoken in the classroom, and if thereis any mention of Konglish among students or South Korean teachers, it isfollowed by general laughter and in some cases a sense of embarrassment (3).Kirkpatrick writes that a standard native speaker variety is impossible forstudents to learn without immersion and that teachers, presumably indigenousones, “will inevitably feel their own variety is inferior to the superimposedmodel” (74). Also, in South Korea, Hagens feels that native speakers areregarded as superior, and that South Korean teachers will defer tonative-speakers, even though they are more likely to have better training asteachers (5). This is another major feature of Kirkpatrick’s summary of theeffects of native-speaker models of English teaching, specifically in how the“insistence on a native-speaker norm diminishes local teachers of English andundermines their self-confidence and self-respect” and how this can lead to theignorance of the advantages these people can “bring as teachers” (75). First,when asked to define Konglish, they hesitated and had to think about it,suggesting to Hagens that there is no “standard definition that they perceivedto be universally accepted” (40). Generally, they all believed it was uniquefrom SE, and the majority of them even thought it was a legitimate varietyrather than a corruption. Only 26% of the teachers Hagens interviewed thoughtit was “bad English,” but 83% thought that they should teach that Konglish isincorrect. Only 37% of them thought it should be taught in schools (44). There are many reasons why Standard AmericanEnglish would be preferred in South Korea, according to Kirkpatrick’s summary,but a major factor is the attitudes of students and teachers, whethernative-speakers or South Korean.

Despite the attitudes towards it, thereis evidence that a Korean form of English is already being taught in EFLclassrooms and that codification has taken place even before any recognition oflegitimacy. Rosa Jinyoung Shim, in her essay, “Codified Korean English:Process, Characteristics, and Consequence” shows that forms of Korean Englishexist in textbooks already, contrary to the opinions or expectations of manySouth Koreans. Shim notes that it is significant that “people all over theworld believe that American English is being taught in [Korean] schools” (250),suggesting that there is little to no external legitimacy given to KoreanEnglish. Additionally, Shim notes that within Korea, “most educated Koreans”wrongly believe that certain features of Korean English are, in fact,“identical to American English” (248), which illustrates a possibleunwillingness to even recognize any legitimacy of Korean English among theeducated classes. Shim also comments on the freedom given to English teachersin public schools over which varieties they can teach, but mostly in referenceto British or American standards (Choe ctd. in Shim 247). The fact that “educationalcodification of Korean English has occurred and codified Korean English hasfirmly taken root” (Shim 249), means that teachers have recognized a practicalneed to teach Korean English, likely because the children in schools arespeaking it and using it, though without any recognition of legitimacy by themore educated speakers of English due to the fact that there is littleattention given to this codification; however, given the negative attitudes ofteachers towards Konglish in studies such as Hagens’s, this statement of Shim’scould be mistaken.

There is more evidence tosupport the fact that Konglish has received some limited codification withoutsuch official or pedagogical recognition. Kent has shown that Konglish is awritten vernacular and that a “significant amount of Konglish lexis is used inthe Korean language” (Kent ctd. in Hagens 28). As well, many English words areborrowed into Korean and listed in dictionaries, but these are treated as newloanwords, not code-switching (Robertson ctd in Hagens 11). This fits with anattitude that is willing to admit and recognize the influence of English onKorean, but not on an interference variety of English that combines the twolanguages. Hagens also notes that there is confusion and difficulty among SouthKorean English teachers about distinguishing between Konglish and SE, and thatthis is a source of self-consciousness for them (43). This correlates withShim’s findings that even educated Korean speakers of English believe thatconstructions unique to Korean English are thought of as Standard constructions(248). As Kirkpatrick notes, a major reason that Standard native-speakersmodels are used is because they are codified and have a history (72, 75), anddespite the limited form of codification of Korean English in textbooks thatShim notes, there are no dictionaries or grammars that recognize the legitimacyof it.

Despite this lack ofrecognition, many believe that using Konglish would be highly beneficial in anEFL classroom. In his article “Speaking in Tongues: Chinglish, Japlish, and Konglish” Kent suggests that using Konglish in a classroom settingwould help students understand the differences between Konglish and SE, thoughhe still tends to regard SE as “correct” and Konglish as “incorrect” (203-4).Kent describes the major kinds of loanwords, hybrids or truncations commonlyfound in Konglish and suggests ways of illustrating the differences betweenthem and the SE forms from which they derive (204). Specific advantages of thisapproach include the fact that the students do not need to relearn the lexis oftheir local variety, and can use the linguistic set they already know as abasis for learning SE as well (204). This could help students develop moreunderstanding of both their local variety and SE, and could even intersect withthe teaching of cultural knowledge as mentioned above. Konglish could be ameans of helping students become critically aware of how English is used inSouth Korea, what attitudes towards it exist, or when it is acceptable to usedifferent varieties or registers of English. Therefore, the teaching ofKonglish in a metalinguistic framework could promote a greater understanding ofthe role of English in Korea and in each student’s life more generally.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Inconclusion, many people regard English as valuable if not necessary for theirfinancial/economic survival in South Korea, though many are worried about thenegative impacts it is having on their national identity. Additionally, manysee CLT methods for teaching communicative competence as overly western andinappropriate for a South Korean socio-cultural context. These critics believethat this is a major reason why CLT methods have failed to take hold in EFLclassrooms, and thus argue that they need to be adapted. Others argue thatthere needs to be more cultural knowledge taught in classrooms, as the Ministryof Education states in the curriculum. As Kent argues, Konglish should alsoconsidered as means of teaching SE forms to students or of illustrating tostudents what kinds of English use are appropriate in different socialsettings. A major factor that has received little focus is the opinions ofSouth Korean EFL teachers, for many reject certain aspects of CLT and othersbelieve that Konglish has no place in a classroom. Therefore, many of the abovetheories need require testing and examination to see how applicable they are inparticular situations. This area of study is fascinating and has a great dealof potential for further research, mostly due to the fact that very little publishedmaterial is available at this point, and hopefully this report provides anoverview of what kinds of material exists about the functions of, attitudestowards and teaching approaches of English in South Korea.

Works Consulted

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Butler, Yuko Goto. “Comparative Perspectivestowards Communicative Activities among Elementary School Teachers in SouthKorea, Japan and Taiwan.” Language Teaching Research 9 (2004): 423-446.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Choi, Seonghee. Teaching English as aForeign Language in Korean Middle Schools: Exploration of CommunicativeLanguage Teaching through Teacher’s Beliefs and Self-Reported ClassroomTeaching Practices. Diss. Ohio State U, 1999. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1999. AAT9941302.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Collins, Samuel Gerald. “‘Who’s This Tong-il?’:English, Culture, and Ambivalence in South Korea.” Changing English 12(2005): 417-29.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Eun, Seon-hwa. Contextual autonomy in EFL classrooms: A critical review ofEnglish teaching methods in South Korea. Diss. Ohio State U, 2001.Ann Arbor: UMI, 2001. AAT 3031198.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Hagens, Sheilagh A. Attitudestoward Konglish of South Korean teachers of English in the Province ofJeollanamdo. Diss. Brock U, Can., 2005. Ann Arbor: UMI, 2005. AATMR10725.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Kent, D. B. “Speaking in Tongues: Chinglish, Japlish, and Konglish.”KOTESOL. 1999 Conference Proceedings. 28 Jan. 2005. 30 Oct. 2006. <http://www.kotesol.org/publications/proceedings/1999/abs_197kent.shtml>.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Kim, Hyun Jung. A Case Study ofCurriculum and Material Evaluation: Elementary English as a Foreign Language inSouth Korea. Diss. McGill U, Can., 2001. Ann Arbor: UMI, 2001. AAT MQ75236.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Kim, Jean. “Teaching Culture in the English asForeign Language Classroom.” Korea TESOL Journal. 5.1 (2002): 28-40.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Kim, Jung-Kang. Globalization and English Language Education in Korea:Socialization and Identity Construction of Korean Youth. Diss. New MexicoState U, 2002. Ann Arbor: UMI, 2002. AAT 3053643.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Kirpatrick, Andy. “Which Model of English:Native-Speaker, Nativized, or Lingua Franca?” English in the World: GlobalRules, Global Roles. Ed. Rani Rudby and Mario Saraceni. New York:Continuum, 2006. 71-83.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Lee, Jamie Shinhee. “Linguistic Constructionsof Modernity: English Mixing in Korean Television Commercials.” Language inSociety 35.1 (2006): 59-91.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

---.“Linguistic Hybridizations in K-Pop:Discourse of Self-Assertion and Resistance.” World Englishes 23 (2004):429-50.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Park, So Jin and Nancy Abelmann. “Class andCosmopolitan Striving: Mother’s Management of English Education in SouthKorea.” Anthropological Quarterly 77 (2004): 645-72.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Shim, Rosa Jinyoung, “Codified Korean English:Process, Characteristics, and Consequence.” World Englishes 18 (1999):247-58.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>

Yoo, Ok Kyoon. “Discourses of English as anOfficial Language in a Monolingual Society: the Case of South Korea.” GoogleScholar. Simwo Middle School. 10 Nov. 2006. <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:brUY1wxNROYJ:www.hawaii.edu/sls/uhwpesl/23(2)/5%2520Yoo,%2520Ok%2520Kyoon.doc+ok+kyoon+yoo>.

<![if !supportEmptyParas]><![endif]>