tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post1660971340887239376..comments2024-02-23T23:53:54.842+09:00Comments on Gusts Of Popular Feeling: Linguistic imperialism and native speakers in Koreamatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10296009437690229938noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-35575778425189448392012-12-03T21:59:34.895+09:002012-12-03T21:59:34.895+09:00Personally, I do feel they need people who can spe...Personally, I do feel they need people who can speak both Korean and English, but if you discriminate against gyopos because they don't fit the correct "ethnic profile",shouldn't Korea kill the system already? There is nothing wrong with being a homogeneous country. There is nothing wrong with using Korean to interact with tourists. Putting it bluntly, what foreigner visits the country that doesn't work here? What tourist attractions does Korea offer that a foreign tourist couldn't find in China or Japan? Since there won't be that many tourists, and since they are conflicted about what to do with foreigners living in the country who happen to be from predominately English speaking countries, they should admit that the English education system is a failure, terminate contracts, and live in peace. Frankly, I feel the people who should learn the language are business men and women who deal with overseas clients and/or travel overseas themselves and university students who want to teach the language on a public school level or travel as well. What's so irritating is that Korea is afraid of pulling the trigger because of what they fear they will loose (global acknowledgement as powerful country, bigger economy or economic gains, pride, praise,etc)when in reality, they didn't really have any of these to begin with; which makes it really irritating to watch the country fight with itself over its denial/acceptance of the problem only to still stay in denial however clearly seeing that the whole English teaching shtick is a mess. Face it, the country isn't like China; you don't have the historical sites and high rolling cities. And although you are similar to Japan, you are not like Japan and will never pull the amount of industry and the tourism like Japan. You are Korea. You are homogeneous, you are backward, you have your own individual industry all across the board from A to Z. If you wanted to be global, you would have attempted it by now. You would have increased the amount of ethnic faces being shown on print and screen. There wouldn't be public outrage, there wouldn't be an "us" vs "them" problem. There wouldn't be racially suggestive things happening or shown in country. Not saying that becoming globalized wouldn't have growing pains, but it wouldn't be this long term. This has been happening since 1955! It's OK not to want immigrants in your country. It's OK not to do the things that seem weird to you, or doesn't fit with you culturally.It's your country! But please stop trying to seem non-biased,neutral, and open-minded for global economic gain and acceptance when the majority (60% at least) isn't in some degree or another which kills any economic gain or acceptance. Frankly Korea, you need to give up already. I don't think the rest of the world really cares if you succeed or not. You are attached to North Korea, which we ignore,and are surrounded by more important countries.the wandererhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06132835285321793276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-82677624024987402132012-11-30T22:17:18.054+09:002012-11-30T22:17:18.054+09:00"Professor Phillipson cited native speaking t..."Professor Phillipson cited native speaking teachers in Korea as an example of linguistic imperialism. "If I were Korea's Minister of Education, I would employ native speaking teachers who are fluent in Korean and who have a good understanding of Korean culture, its society and economy. People who come to work in Korea who haven't learned Korean after several years here have a rather shocking and arrogant attitude." <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Agree 10,000,000%<br /><br />Sorry "K" but it is true. Your counter-allegations have no bearing upon Phillipson's primary statement. As a teacher, one must know his or her students--where they are, how they got there, where they want to go, and where they need to go within their native cultural context. How can one truly know a culture without knowing the spoken/written language, while also lacking a strong sense of cultural literacy? Why would one choose to live in a place where he or he is illiterate and incapable of communicating beyond a "survival language" capacity? Phillipson raises a very important--though undoubtedly sensitive--issue. <br /><br /><br /><br />Kamizahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10821079570827821359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-48299094473945049342012-11-30T21:49:25.765+09:002012-11-30T21:49:25.765+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.Kamizahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10821079570827821359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-50060057999484904102012-11-30T13:47:36.570+09:002012-11-30T13:47:36.570+09:00Prof. Phillipson definitely made a significant con...Prof. Phillipson definitely made a significant contribution to applied linguistics with his work <i>Linguistic Imperialism</i> -- especially the analysis of the early British Colonial Service and its offshoot the British Council. That said I think he is a bit out of his depth in the Korean context. For instance, while he recognizes the importance of scholars like Joseph Sung-Yul Park, he neglects the emphasis that Park gives to race-based nationalism in Korea and how it relates to the concept of the "native speaker". <br /><br />In discussing so-called "English fever" in Korea, Prof. Park emphasizes that "[t]hroughout the nation’s experiences of colonization and modernization, the construct of <i>danil minjok</i> ('one people,' or racial homogeneity) served as the central ideology [with] [t]he image of the Korean people united through, among other things, <i>a common Korean language</i>." <br /><br />As Park explains, linguistic “competence is commonly assumed to emerge naturally from a speaker’s inner essence [and] thus, ethno-racial heritage is often treated as if it is sufficient explanation for one’s competence in a language”. Therefore, while “it is considered utterly unremarkable for an ethnic Korean to speak fluent Korean [it is considered] highly unusual, or even scandalous, if she cannot”. But this same emphasis on an essential connection between race and linguistic competence means that ethnic Koreans who speak fluent English are often denied acceptance as “native speakers” of English because it is seen as inconsistent with their ethnic identity as Koreans. <br /><br />Thus, as an LA Times article notes, “[m]any English teaching positions posted on the Internet include ‘no gyopo’ clauses.” One Korean-American interviewed for the article explained that Korean employers looking for native-speaking English teachers often “don’t fully understand that speaking and appearance are not really related”. Another Korean-American described a typical English teaching job interview experience: “They say, ‘Oh, we didn’t know you were Korean; we thought you were American,’ and I say, ‘Well, I am an American.’” http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/14/world/la-fg-korea-return14-2010feb14<br /><br />Just two years ago we had the Busan Global Village (an English language academy established by Busan Metropolitan City and the Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education) found guilty by the NHRCK of racially discriminating against a Korean-American for refusing to grant him "native speaker" status and pay just because he was Korean - even though he spoke English as his mother tongue. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/12/117_78915.html<br /><br />Park makes clear that “[t]he linguistic legitimacy (reflected through labels such as ‘native speaker’) accorded to speakers of traditional native varieties of English . . . is a result of treating those varieties of English as having an essential . . . connection with the speakers’ given ethno-national identity.” And that's precisely the case in Korea where the government itself makes an agentive choice to promote that mistaken belief. <br /><br />Thus when Phillipson says "the concept of the native speaker (someone who uses that language as a mother tongue) doesn't exist in Korea . . . because people like blacks, Fillipinos or Indians who use English as their mother tongue are not included as 'native speakers'" -- he's correct in noting that individuals without the prescribed ethno-racial identity aren't accorded "native speaker" status (despite possessing mother tongue linguistic competence). Yet, saying that means the concept of the "native speaker . . . doesn't exist in Korea" misses an important point. It does exist but it’s race-based, discriminatory and clearly detrimental to Korea’s self-declared interest in developing its citizens English language ability.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-55836177410835483612012-11-30T08:22:10.800+09:002012-11-30T08:22:10.800+09:00People who come to work in Korea who haven't l...People who come to work in Korea who haven't learned Korean after several years here have a rather shocking and arrogant attitude. <br /><br />- Not as arrogant as the Korean attitude that keeps such people as foreigners on one-year visas with no right of residence accruing, despite widespread Korean emigration Western countries where they collect additional passports. Not as arrogant as the attitude that says that people with degrees, visas and contracts are, nevertheless, 'unqualified.' Not as arrogant as the attitude that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Westerners are inherently drug-abusing child-molesters.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05477169224986077718noreply@blogger.com