South Korean Language
Policy
- a letter to Mr Roh Moo-hyun
February 15, 2003
by Thor
May
Dear Mr Roh Moo-hyun,
You appear to be entering office on a genuine
wave of goodwill, a surge of expectation especially amongst
younger South Koreans that the unfolding of a new Korean
identity will continue apace. This kind of optimism is
a fairly rare bonus for a democratic political leader,
and we all hope that at least some of the expectations
will come to fruition.
As an outsider, a foreigner, I sense that
letters of 'advice' are apt to be presumptuous. Koreans
know their own priorities and interests better than anyone
else. One of the few areas in which I feel that non-Korean
residents can make a valid comment is the South Korean
environment as it bears on their own interests. I teach
English in a Korean university, so this is a matter on
which I have some competence to comment; (I have been
teaching English and Linguistics in various countries
since 1976).
A Korean colleague assures me that middle
class Koreans are spending up to 30% of their disposable
income on language study. If true, this is an extraordinary
figure with unusual political implications. It seems to
say loudly and clearly that South Korea needs to formulate
a National Language Policy with a clear pragmatic
base (not simply a forum for competing ideologies). This
is no place to explore such a policy in any detail, but
some important preliminary questions might be :
a) What are the real levels of foreign language
competence in different sectors of the Korean economy,
and in different age groups?
b) What are realistic targets for foreign
language competence?
c) What are the true factors driving attempts
to achieve foreign language competence by different groups
in Korean society?
d) How useful is government intervention
in the 'language marketplace' ?
e) How effective are the staff in public
schools, colleges and universities in promoting foreign
language competence?
f) Given the huge number of private institutions
of every size involved in foreign language teaching, how
can their practices be made most beneficial, and their
(notorious) malpractices be curbed?
g) What component of foreign language study
in South Korea is actually a preparation for overseas
study?
h) What is the real profile of foreign language
teachers in South Korea. What are their qualifications,
their teaching skills (a different question from formal
qualifications), their origins, and their motivations?
i) If the government feels it desirable
to modify the profile of foreign language teachers in
South Korea, what changes in their conditions of employment
and residence might be desirable? For example, would the
'green card' system for foreign teachers (now used in
Japan) reduce the current high level of workplace discontent,
and perhaps attract a more stable foreign teaching component?
j) Given that Korean is learned by very
few foreigners, resident or international, in spite of
South Korea being a major world economy and an ancient
culture, how can Korea assume its proper dimension in
the minds of the peoples of the world?
I will insert a brief comment here on points
i) and j) because they are interconnected. Before coming
to South Korea in 1990 I worked for two years in China.
There is a relatively large international community of
interest in China, not only because of its size, but because
of a rich and varied literature in many languages on Chinese
culture (in spite of the stifling effect of Communist
Party manipulation), as well as a very active Chinese
diaspora. Most of the foreign teachers in China are certainly
not there for the money. Some are crypto-missionaries,
but most are simply fascinated by the place. In many the
fascination goes beyond the merely superficial, and this
is of major political importance. Where China interfaces
with international interests, many informed voices can
be brought to the debate across every subject from ecology
to art to high finance. Such a depth of foreign understanding
makes it more difficult for cavalier administrations in
Washington or elsewhere to act foolishly.
By comparison, I am afraid that South Korea
is still the Hermit Kingdom for most people in the international
community. The underlying interest is not there because
the background knowledge is not there. Even from my own
website (http://thormay.net)
I know that an article on China will attract many more
readers than one on Korea. Similarly, most of the foreign
teachers in South Korea are here unambiguously for the
money, and many remain largely ignorant of the society.
This has implications for the success of their mission.
The South Korean government in recent years
has made various attempts to render South Korea accessible
to the world by sponsoring some literature translations,
and making available some English language websites etc.
My own feeling is that this is a process which needs to
be expanded on many fronts, official and unofficial. For
example, I am the Writings Editor for Pusanweb (www.pusanweb.com),
which is the main electronic community center for English
speakers in Busan. Our current contributors and readers
are overwhelmingly expatriates, but both the manager,
Jeff Lebow, and I can see that there is potential for
unofficial sites such as Pusanweb to be a valuable bridge
between English speaking Koreans and the world community
at large.
Best wishes for your new administration.
Regards, Thor May
15 February 2003
"South Korean Language Policy
- a letter to Mr Roh Moo-hyun"... copyrighted to Thor May 2003;
all rights reserved
We want to hear what you think of our
advertisers. For Information about our advertising policies and rates
or to offer feedback about one of our sponsors, please visit our Sponsorship
Page