Stephen van Vlack
Sookmyung Women`s University
Graduate School of TESOL
Developing Bilingualism
Fall 2007
Week 11 - Answers
Hamers and Blanc (2000), Chapter 10
Herdina and Jessner (2003), Chapter 4
1. Describe, in as much detail as you can, the contact relationship between English and Korea?
The context situation which exists between Korea and English is of a nature which is simply not described in Hamers Blanc. It should first be clear that by using the word English I mean to indicate the sum force of all English-speaking countries, the most powerful of which is obviously the United States. In this sense we can`t forget about globalization. While it is not he only country or society involved in this globalization movement (even Korea is involved both economically and culturally). Globalization wears and American face. What is interesting about the relationship or contact situation between Korea and English is that it would seem to be a very one-way relationship. In this way it is very different than the contact situations described in Hamers and Blanc (2000) and elsewhere. Up until now basically English has been inflicting quite large changes on Korea and Korean, where the reverse does not necessarily apply. Certainly there are large numbers of Koreans who have settled outside Korea and to a large extent if not primarily in English-speaking countries, in fact we may even be able to talk of some sort of Korean diaspora, but the effect these Koreans in the places they have choosing to go to have been minimal to nonexistent (they assimilate fast). We can, therefore, speak of a one-way type of contact. Likewise, this contact is not caused or aided by any kind of proximity relationship. So there is no border between Korea and any English-speaking country, nor is there any kind of close proximity. What we find then here is a different kind of contact and one which is not unique to Korea but seems to be quite rampant in the world today under the forces of globalization. This is a context situation which is not brought on by direct force from the dominant partner but rather is controlled almost exclusively by the recipient or lesser partner. This is an important point to remember. Although it is obvious that the United States, for example, benefits from this relationship and certainly does everything it can to increase its global power, ultimately it is Korea which allows us English into Korea. Koreans themselves determine how English is going to be learned, how much English is going to be learned, and what, ultimately, will happen with the language. Koreans tailor their own uses and even forms of English, largely without realizing it. Interesting!!! So again the situation is very different than situation we have faced in the world before.
2. Do you think it is possible to create a model of interlingual contact on a global scale? If so, briefly describe such a model.
The answer to this question is obviously yes. It is a yes-no question and I simply wouldn't have asked it if the answer was no. So, answering the first part of the question is easy. It the second part which might have caused people some difficulty. Basically this question was asked in response to the 1st question. The relationship that exists between Korea and English is unlike any one that has been described in Hamers and Blanc. This means we need to create a new model, and a model which allows for technology to enhance the spread of language and not raw physical force or forced political dominance. The simple sway of doing this is to simply take well-established contact models which are based on geographical regions, like Southern Europe, or specific nations, like Canada, and we extend them all the way to the entire planet. Thus, in this model what we end up having is the entire world as one global contact region.
This seems simple enough but once we have the region settled we need to find the dominant language and culture group in that region, the world. It should be clear that at this moment in time and from your summer reading (Crystal, 2002) not only that English is currently the dominant language in the world but that English is more dominant than any other language in the previous history of the world. Much of what actually happens in the world occurs as a direct response to either the English language or the political power or economic power underlying that language and the mainstreams of that society. Korea is obviously no exception to this general situation.
So we can simply form a model where English is the dominant language as well as being the dominant culture in the world and all other languages and cultures are going to be seen as somewhat subordinate. They're all going to be seen as being somewhat in danger. If we think globally then maybe it might become clear that Korea is quite possibly in more danger that in lots of other language/culture groups. This is certainly due to the high level of technology here, for the current power of English rests quite squarely in its control of technology and information on a global scale. The effective use Korea has made of technology in its society has exposed also Korea. Think about it this way, the fact that a Korean is getting English and school, has access to English through the Internet, through media and entertainment, as well as through print, and all these other different technologies means that Koreans at exposed potentially to much more English then somebody for example living in the bush in the middle of Africa. English has been very successful in portraying an image of money success and power which people the world over crave and feel that English is the way to get this. In this process their own societies lose vitality fast. And this is happening all of the world, not just to communities inside English-speaking countries.
3. Which of the modes of acculturation, proposed by Berry (1980) do you think Korea (in relation to English) is currently engaged in? (pp. 277-278)
This is an interesting question to which the really is no simple answer. It is interesting because what is happening is not being forced directly from the top down. Much of what is happening is occurring as a result of Korea's own cultural decision-making processes. What we find is that Korea is certainly in a process of acculturation wherein there is a shift towards global (English language) culture modes. Korea is (desperately) integrating into the world but is really trying to do it on its own terms. Of course in Korea and most of the world this is simply called modernization, but it should be clear that modernization means becoming like or more like English-speaking countries because they are seen as being the most modern. Just think of the very strange housing communities that sit up in some of the satellite cities, where they had little tiny copies of American-style mansions were big fancy houses. So there is certainly a degree of acculturation, but I think there is also assimilation and obviously acculturation often leads to assimilation. It's obvious that the Korean government wants Korea to assimilate to global norms and English-speaking countries in particular. This is clear it is stated over and over and over again that Korea needs to become more like these countries. At the same time, however, Korea is an interesting case in that Korea feels that it can and does control this process. In doing so I think that the Korean government is playing a kind of dangerous game, but up until now they've been relatively successful in controlling this so we'll see. The economic crisis of the late 1990s was a huge turning point where Koreans lost a lot of their own pride and power in regulating this process and this has expediated dramatically the entire process of assimilation. Since that time assimilation has become a way of trying to move ahead much faster and overcome the disaster by courting money from the global community. And certainly we don't need to get into the whole political debate that is clear that South Korea basically tows the line.
The ethnolinguistic vitality of Korea seems to be on the rise of late, but again things are less than simple. Certainly within this region, East/Southeast Asia, Korea has achieved the new highs in its ethnolinguistic vitality mostly through cultural exports. On a global scale Koreas ethnolinguistic vitality is certainly not quite as high, for these cultural exports are not universal, but it is rising quite a bit. At the same time Korean companies are making inroads into new markets and providing new products and thus are gaining recognition and respect. So on the outside front Korea is actually doing fairly well. On the inside front, which is also a determiner ethnolinguistic vitality, Korea is also doing well but maybe not quite as well. Here I am talking about what actually happens inside Korea. There are few foreigners in Korea in relation to the overall population, which may be an indication that few people are interested in coming to Korea, a poor sign for ethnolinguistic vitality. In addition the foreigners that are here are not assimilated or integrated at all, and are neither expected nor wanted by Koreans, an extremely poor demonstration of a very low ethnolinguistic vitality. So, it seems that again in Korea is in a transformational type of situation, but with more foreigners coming here as regular laborers (as laws are reluctantly changed) the situation will change more.
This example is a poignant one because it shows very clearly the difference between how people perceive things and what is real. Particularly when people are insiders is very hard to see what's going in general. Because things are happening to you over a long period of time you simply don't perceive the changes. This is certainly what was happening to the Inuit in Quebec, and it maybe happening here. Disturbing are some similarities in that I see very little current focus on developing Korean in Koreans. Children, students, adults in Korea do not seem to focus it all on developing their Korean skills. Students don't go to Korean tutors. They go to math tutors, piano tutors, and most of all English tutors. Some parents now send their children to English kindergarten before they go to any kind of Korean school. Universities no longer require demonstrations of Korean ability for graduation, as these have been systematically replaced by English proficiency exams. Looking at just a few these examples become too simple conclusion that despite the fact that people believe Korean is important and everybody wants to retain it, the idea of losing Korean seems to be an impossibility, very little is actually done to do this. This lack of demonstration or interest in Korean in tandem with the tremendous over evaluation of English creates a fairly disturbing scenario. At the moment we are all sending a very singular message to our students and society in general: English is more important than Korean. It's the same trap. Certainly not everyone is going to lose Korean in a generation, you'd be shocked at how fast things can turn around. Languages die quickly in the new technological age. And certainly Korean is not going to die anytime in the near future but the society will change dramatically.
4. Has there been a language shift of Korean in relation to English? If so describe the shift both on the social and linguistic levels. (pp. 296-301)
Certainly there has been a language shift in Korea. Up until now this language shift has been for the most part lexical. Korea has imported or borrowed many words from English, there may often the ultimately be a little morphological change, and certainly pragmatic differences. So, the language shift has actually been fairly deep particularly start to look at certain pragmatic aspects, but is there a creolization, maybe not yet. To certain extent any kind of creolization might have actually been averted by the fact that people actually don't learn English very well here. Focuses on structural elements of the language are going to really limit how well and what people can learn.
One of the main differences between language shift and language attrition is simply the degree in which the subordinate language becomes more like the dominant language. Certainly Korean has borrowed a lot of words from English of late as was mentioned above, but is Korean becoming more like English? Maybe a little bit, but certainly not enough to say that Korean is undergoing attrition. The reasons for this lack of attrition are probably twofold. The first of these is simply the contact situation. There isn't much direct contact between English and Korean. As the contact is the result of technology, and therefore controlled by the recipient, as opposed to proximity then we would not expect so much change. The other reason is as I mentioned above that most Koreans have not attained a very high level of English, and certainly few people indeed would refer to themselves as English speakers. There is an effect on their first language but there are few global effects. So, for the moment the Korean language is safe from attrition, but this may change as the level of proficiency goes up and as more people become both bicultural and bilingual or if a larger number of foreigners come to Korea to live..
This is an interesting question not in relation to standard Korean so much as what has become known as Konglish. I don't think that the Korean language itself is undergoing creolization, but Konglish itself is creolization. It is something in between English and Korean, being neither. It is basically a necessary step and that is created by Koreans to deal in minimal ways and highly ritualized ways with nonKoreans, who are assumed to speak English. Again, we'll see if there any long-term effects from this but for the moment Korean is not undergoing creolization.
5. If you were given the position of language planner for South Korea, what would you do? Why?
(pp. 310-315)
It should be obvious that somebody should be planning all this. Language is a weapon, clear and simple. Language is identity. In this modern age it is something that must be considered carefully, because it can change dramatically in a very short time. So, we need language planning in Korea. The first thing I would do would be to try to ensure the dominance of Korean over English. Develop programs that work in tandem but give preference to Korean. At the same time a more realistic view of English is necessary. What is going on today in Korea is simply insane. There is simply way too much pressure put on people to learn English, but reality due to the assessment tools which are used and teaching methods which are created to a large extent based on these assessment tools very little English is actually being learned. English must be dealt with a much more natural way. People need to understand the repercussions of language learning as a way of restructuring and reformulating cognition. So, there is a lot which needs to be done.
DMM, Chapter 4
1. What were the implications of Chomsky`s conception on the theory of competence (assumed never explicitly stated)? (pp. 31)
Although it had never been explicitly stated, it had been always assumed that Chomsky based his theory on the premises that native speakers and their innate faculties are necessarily monolingual. Chomsky`s theory of competence failed to address the communication skills requirements for the native speakers of multiple languages. He never addressed the issue of multi-competence. This is a serious drawback for the theory because as we now well know multi-competence is actually the norm in the world and monolingualism is relatively rare.
2. What are the fundamental change of attitude concerning the applicability of UG to SLA? (pp. 33)
UG led to the reorientation of linguistics towards the speaker. The idea of speaker-oriented linguistic theory rather than systems-oriented linguistics provides a new theoretical framework in which the problems of language acquisition can be viewed from a new and theoretically consistent angle. This ultimately lead to more models (such as latter-day cognitive models) focusing on how the speakers actually go about not only learn the language but processing the language.
3. What does the critical age hypothesis suggest about language acquisition? (pp. 38)
The critical age hypothesis suggests that language acquisition has to take place prior to a certain age (age 7 to 12) and that acquisition after this critical period would result in only partial success in acquiring a language and not achieve native like competence. We know that this is still a very controversial idea with people fighting on either side of the issue. There seems to be intuitively certain validation is all this view, but there are so many counter arguments in such a huge body of counter evidence that the very hypothesis itself has been called into question and is supported by most researchers these days it a much weaker watered-down form than was first proposed back in the 60s. There does not seem to be physical reasons underlying the critical age hypothesis. The reasons are much more complex and for the most part social and cognitive rather than actually being physical.
4. What does the approximative systems theory (Nemser) acknowledge about learners systems which corresponds to the learner pidginisation hypothesis (Schumann)? (pp. 46)
Approximation systems theory acknowledges that the learner`s system are approximations of standardized conceptions of native-speaker systems. This indicates that native speakers themselves also only have at their disposal a partial or approximate system of language system of the first language. This is interesting because it tells us that really made his speakers also are involved in a high degree of variability. We can no longer count on the idea that there are native speaker norms from which we can evaluate everybody else.
5. What are the two concepts that can distinguish within the interlanguage discussion? (pp. 47)
In the stricter sense we can distinguish between two concepts: Selinker`s (1972-1992) model of interlanguage and the attempts of UG to use the concept of interlanguage to develop a new approach to the problem.