The question may sound philosophical and may be subject to heated debates, but to understand this question one needs to look at the structure of Korean society in a sociological, anthropological and cultural context.
So what is a Korean. Or more precisely who is Korean?
Legally: a Korean is the holder of a Korean passport regardless of place of birth, descent, heritage, culture, ethnicity etc. Some people are accepted by society as being Korean but are not Korean citizens (naturalized Korean citizens who immigrated to foreign countries, Korean born abroad to Korean parents but who moved to Korea at a very young age, sometimes as young as a few days old - some parents give birth to their children abroad so they can get foreign citizenship). Some are Korean citizens, but Korean society does not accept them as Koreans.
Sociologically: a Korean person is someone who does not deviate from the social non-written norms that Koreans acquired since childhood. Education, written documents or any form of brainwashing can not change this perception that Koreans have of what a Korean is.
A Korean is in sum, someone who has physical features that are accepted as Korean (people with physical features deviating from norms will not be considered Korean no matter how culturally adapted he may be). It is also someone who has perfect knowledge of Korean language, that is, who speaks Korean with an accent, words and grammar that are accepted as being Korean. So far, anyone who looks physically Korean and who speaks Korean is Korean. But there's more to that.
A Korean is someone who has the linguistic competence of a Korean. That is, a Korean should know what is acceptable to say, what is not, when to say what, what to tell a person he meets for the first time, a taxi driver, the President, using accepted norms and rules for such use of the language. Any deviant use of this kind of language and the person is not considered Korean.
In addition to physical features, language and linguistic competence, a Korean is someone who makes accepted use of body language. Koreans have distinctive ways of walking, reacting to shocking news, and use different body language to show anger, fatigue, despair or pride.
Being Korean is also making accepted uses of the social etiquette. Etiquette can not be put on paper, as there are various variations of single norms which are accepted. But any norm that does not correspond to those variations exclude the person from being Korean. Etiquette includes dress code, handling objects, and subtle things like eating food or drinking coffee, and even lighting a cigarette or taking notes in class.
Note that there is not one single norm for language use, physical features, linguistic competence or etiquette. The exact same rules can have various variations (in opposition to law where often one aspect has one single law), but those variations are finite, and anyone who does not belong to one of those variations is considered deviant, and society questions his being "Korean", or belonging to the nation.
Note that all people belonging to that social definition of Korean are Koreans, or "mirrors" of society. Those who have the physical features of Koreans but deviate in some way, whether linguistically or in terms of etiquette in a blatantly obvious manner (someone who looks Korean but as soon as you talk to him you realize that he's not) are called "hidden immigrants" of society. Those who observe all the linguistic and cultural norms of society but have foreign physical features are called "adopted" Koreans. Finally, those who neither look Korean nor act Korean are called "immigrants". Except for "mirrors", others are not accepted as fully being part of Korean society.
The government may take as much action as it wants regarding the promotion of minorities, it will not change societies perception and exclusion of those who society does not accept as Koreans. That is, the government may criminalize some types of behavior towards minorities, promote the image of minorities, but it can not tell society to treat foreigners the same way they treat Koreans. Such behavior is encoded in the brain, ask a neurologist or a psychologist, and they will tell you that neurons, hormones and what not interact and react in uncontrollable ways when human beings see someone "different".
Is hangeul scientific?
The word "scientific" is perhaps the word which is the most associated with "hangeul", but is it really scientific? Well, as a linguist, I have to say no, it's not scientific.
Having myself thought about the word "scientific" a lot and about its definitions, I think that a lot of people use the word "scientific" to mean "good" or "correct" in opposition to "unscientific" meaning "bad" or "flawed". As a linguist, I know two things:
-everyone has his own "mental" dictionary and world visions and different words mean different things to everyone
-In linguistic terms, no writing system has ever been, and will ever be, scientific.
We linguists frown upon the use of the word "scientific" for any writing system. In fact, while most Korean linguists have been told that hangeul was scientific since they were kids and write that in their dissertations and papers, linguist Robert Ramsey, a specialist in Korean language, has avoided the use of the word scientific to describe hangeul.
What linguists say in order to avoid offending Koreans is that hangeul is a great thing because it provided an "easy" alphabet to educate the masses. Well, I wish that were true. Hangeul was invented in the 15th century, and in 1950 only 22% of the Korean population knew how to use hangeul, an alphabet that I, like most foreigners, learned how to use in 2 hours. By this I don't mean that 50 years ago Koreans were stupid, but I mean that while spoken language is vital and acquired by all human beings without having to be taught, writing requires years of training among children to be mastered fully.
So why isn't hangeul scientific? Linguists know that writing is a "bastardized" form of speaking and that writing systems fail to transcribe sounds in an exact way. Different people pronounce sounds differently, sounds evolve, and there is more to than just letters, there's intonation, pitch, length of sounds etc. In fact, the letter ㅅ can be pronounced "s", "sh" or "t" depending on where it stands, ㄱ "k", "g" or "kh" depending on where it is. Not so scientific indeed.
But there's a reason people call it scientific though. In fact, Korean language has something in its sounds that many other languages don't have: words are pronounced differently depending on whether there's a vowel, consonant or nothing preceding the word. 가다 ("to go") will be pronounced "kada" but if you ask someone "where are you going?" you'll say "odi Ga", but it's the same ka as in kada. So the alphabet had to take this relationship into account and therefore drew letters that could represent several sounds at the same time.
Some Koreans are trying to export hangeul, but this would require adding a significant number of letters to make it exportable. Let's say we used hangeul for English. would "cap" and "gap" be spelled the same way? What would be scientific about that?
I would add that there's a difference between knowing an alphabet and actually reading. While foreigners easily memorize hangeul as an alphabet, all sorts of complicated rules make it difficult to read. Of course, those who were trained since they were kids will know the rules, just as those who were trained to memorize Chinese caracters or kanjis since they were kids will learn how to use them properly.
The point is linguists have stopped searching for a scientific way to codify language and have agreed that writing, in any form, is a misrepresentation of speaking. While hangeul may be called scientific for political reasons, may have been voted "scientific", if it were really scientific, no voting would be needed, just as doctors don't vote to determine whether patients have cancer or diabetes.
Having myself thought about the word "scientific" a lot and about its definitions, I think that a lot of people use the word "scientific" to mean "good" or "correct" in opposition to "unscientific" meaning "bad" or "flawed". As a linguist, I know two things:
-everyone has his own "mental" dictionary and world visions and different words mean different things to everyone
-In linguistic terms, no writing system has ever been, and will ever be, scientific.
We linguists frown upon the use of the word "scientific" for any writing system. In fact, while most Korean linguists have been told that hangeul was scientific since they were kids and write that in their dissertations and papers, linguist Robert Ramsey, a specialist in Korean language, has avoided the use of the word scientific to describe hangeul.
What linguists say in order to avoid offending Koreans is that hangeul is a great thing because it provided an "easy" alphabet to educate the masses. Well, I wish that were true. Hangeul was invented in the 15th century, and in 1950 only 22% of the Korean population knew how to use hangeul, an alphabet that I, like most foreigners, learned how to use in 2 hours. By this I don't mean that 50 years ago Koreans were stupid, but I mean that while spoken language is vital and acquired by all human beings without having to be taught, writing requires years of training among children to be mastered fully.
So why isn't hangeul scientific? Linguists know that writing is a "bastardized" form of speaking and that writing systems fail to transcribe sounds in an exact way. Different people pronounce sounds differently, sounds evolve, and there is more to than just letters, there's intonation, pitch, length of sounds etc. In fact, the letter ㅅ can be pronounced "s", "sh" or "t" depending on where it stands, ㄱ "k", "g" or "kh" depending on where it is. Not so scientific indeed.
But there's a reason people call it scientific though. In fact, Korean language has something in its sounds that many other languages don't have: words are pronounced differently depending on whether there's a vowel, consonant or nothing preceding the word. 가다 ("to go") will be pronounced "kada" but if you ask someone "where are you going?" you'll say "odi Ga", but it's the same ka as in kada. So the alphabet had to take this relationship into account and therefore drew letters that could represent several sounds at the same time.
Some Koreans are trying to export hangeul, but this would require adding a significant number of letters to make it exportable. Let's say we used hangeul for English. would "cap" and "gap" be spelled the same way? What would be scientific about that?
I would add that there's a difference between knowing an alphabet and actually reading. While foreigners easily memorize hangeul as an alphabet, all sorts of complicated rules make it difficult to read. Of course, those who were trained since they were kids will know the rules, just as those who were trained to memorize Chinese caracters or kanjis since they were kids will learn how to use them properly.
The point is linguists have stopped searching for a scientific way to codify language and have agreed that writing, in any form, is a misrepresentation of speaking. While hangeul may be called scientific for political reasons, may have been voted "scientific", if it were really scientific, no voting would be needed, just as doctors don't vote to determine whether patients have cancer or diabetes.
Explaining Korean nationalism
Many foreigners argue that promoting Korea through hangeul and kimchi is probably not going to improve the country's image. Before we start criticizing hangeul, kimchi, or the Korean government's attitude towards promoting their country, let's find out why they do so.
If you watch CNN international you will find several emerging countries encouraging viewers to invest or to visit their countries. All of them except Korea are clear when they advertize: it's either "invest in our country" or "have fun in our country". I noticed a peculiarity with the Korean government's advertisement as I noticed that it was very ambiguous. The advertisement showed a mixture of shopping, nightlife and men working, no clear message other than "Dynamic Korea". What is the message that the Korean government is trying to get across.
Well Korea is trying to attract both investors and tourists at the same time. In fact, anyone who has the slightest interest about Korea is welcome. Anything that can be promoted about Korea will be promoted by the government. That could be "starcraft", kimchi, hangeul, dramas, music, anything really.
Why is that? Korea is a small country whose international reputation has suffered from division and because of North Korea. And, believe it or not, during the 1980s, when major Korean companies started exporting products abroad, they did not want to adverise such products as being "Korean". That because in the minds of many, Korea was still a poor developing country which was still technically at war. Still today, Samsung, LG, Hyundai and Kia try to avoid mentioning that they are Korean companies because of that reputation problem, notably in the west.
But now that the Korean economy is fully developped, it can start rebuilding its "image". Korea is perhaps the only country with a television station fully aimed at advertising the country's products, "Arirang TV", and has several institutions which are dedicated to improving the country's image abroad. Korea paid CNN international to show a different image of the country, or else I see no other explanation to so many adverstisements about Korea, two "Eye on South Korea" one week specials in 2009, with several programs giving a positive image about South Korea... the South Korean press is not the only media which seems to be ignoring media ethics.
Within the country, with the risk of war with North Korea, the presence of a US military base in its capital city, and very little agricultural resources, Korea had to shape its national identity among its people. Talking about any country other than South Korea in a positive way would lead to a potential "brain drain", therefore Korea needs to show that the country is performing well. This is why Korean newspapers and the Korean media in general dedicate a signifant portion of their stories to Korea's internal and external successes. You may see entire shows dedicated to Korean singers performing abroad in front of elated foreign crowds, foreigners studying hangeul in crowded classrooms etc. etc.
Note that when Korean people say "uri nara", or "our country", they are not exaggerating their love for their country of viewing their country as a group, as "uri" semantically means both "my" and "our" in Korean, as it does in more than 50% of the world's languages.
Also note that Korea being a small country, it will try everything to appear in international headlines. Claiming sovereignty over Dokdo and renaming the Sea of Japan the "East sea" is one of them. Anything that will make people notice Korea abroad other than riots or war is welcome.
Finally, Koreans define themselves as a group rather than individuals, because in a country where until recently there was not enough food for everyone, defining people individually would lead to conflict. Koreans give special importance to their identity, just like in every country, and view themselves as part of the Korea group first (in opposition to some Americans who view themselves as "white" before they are American and don't identify with African Americans or Hispanics). Therefore, you may be a foreigner and complain about crime rates in the US, because in that American's mind, crime is about African Americans and Hispanics, not Caucasians. However, as it is impossible to criticize Caucasian traditions with American Caucasians without having them be angry at you, Koreans do not want foreigners criticizing Korean traditions.
If you watch CNN international you will find several emerging countries encouraging viewers to invest or to visit their countries. All of them except Korea are clear when they advertize: it's either "invest in our country" or "have fun in our country". I noticed a peculiarity with the Korean government's advertisement as I noticed that it was very ambiguous. The advertisement showed a mixture of shopping, nightlife and men working, no clear message other than "Dynamic Korea". What is the message that the Korean government is trying to get across.
Well Korea is trying to attract both investors and tourists at the same time. In fact, anyone who has the slightest interest about Korea is welcome. Anything that can be promoted about Korea will be promoted by the government. That could be "starcraft", kimchi, hangeul, dramas, music, anything really.
Why is that? Korea is a small country whose international reputation has suffered from division and because of North Korea. And, believe it or not, during the 1980s, when major Korean companies started exporting products abroad, they did not want to adverise such products as being "Korean". That because in the minds of many, Korea was still a poor developing country which was still technically at war. Still today, Samsung, LG, Hyundai and Kia try to avoid mentioning that they are Korean companies because of that reputation problem, notably in the west.
But now that the Korean economy is fully developped, it can start rebuilding its "image". Korea is perhaps the only country with a television station fully aimed at advertising the country's products, "Arirang TV", and has several institutions which are dedicated to improving the country's image abroad. Korea paid CNN international to show a different image of the country, or else I see no other explanation to so many adverstisements about Korea, two "Eye on South Korea" one week specials in 2009, with several programs giving a positive image about South Korea... the South Korean press is not the only media which seems to be ignoring media ethics.
Within the country, with the risk of war with North Korea, the presence of a US military base in its capital city, and very little agricultural resources, Korea had to shape its national identity among its people. Talking about any country other than South Korea in a positive way would lead to a potential "brain drain", therefore Korea needs to show that the country is performing well. This is why Korean newspapers and the Korean media in general dedicate a signifant portion of their stories to Korea's internal and external successes. You may see entire shows dedicated to Korean singers performing abroad in front of elated foreign crowds, foreigners studying hangeul in crowded classrooms etc. etc.
Note that when Korean people say "uri nara", or "our country", they are not exaggerating their love for their country of viewing their country as a group, as "uri" semantically means both "my" and "our" in Korean, as it does in more than 50% of the world's languages.
Also note that Korea being a small country, it will try everything to appear in international headlines. Claiming sovereignty over Dokdo and renaming the Sea of Japan the "East sea" is one of them. Anything that will make people notice Korea abroad other than riots or war is welcome.
Finally, Koreans define themselves as a group rather than individuals, because in a country where until recently there was not enough food for everyone, defining people individually would lead to conflict. Koreans give special importance to their identity, just like in every country, and view themselves as part of the Korea group first (in opposition to some Americans who view themselves as "white" before they are American and don't identify with African Americans or Hispanics). Therefore, you may be a foreigner and complain about crime rates in the US, because in that American's mind, crime is about African Americans and Hispanics, not Caucasians. However, as it is impossible to criticize Caucasian traditions with American Caucasians without having them be angry at you, Koreans do not want foreigners criticizing Korean traditions.
Why is Korea a hierarchical society? The confucian myth
Why is Korea a hierarchical society?
Hierarchical societies are in fact common among societies where agricultural resources are scarce and can not feed an entire population.
Korea used to be an agricultural society until about 40 years ago. Since most of the country is made up of mountains and land that can not be cultivated, very strict rules governing society were needed in order to avoid internal conflict. Within families, since harvest was sometimes scarce and very vulnerable due to climatic conditions, there had to be a leader in families and in societies to decide what would happen in case harvest failed.
Confucianism only partly codified these hierarchical uses, parts of those codes evolved, others were ignored and others were adapted to local circumstances. It was decided that hierarchy would be based on age rather than any form of merit, since Korea is a homogenous land with similar topographic features in most parts of the country, and it was considered that farming was learned through experience rather than ability. Of course, those who failed to be good farmers were outcasted regardless of age, but in order to prevent a race to who would control land and production, older people would teach younger people.
These principles did not evolve when Korea moved from an agricultural to an industrial society. Economic development was so sudden that they could not have changed overnight. Social codes evolve over years and only economic, military and natural needs make those changes evolve (natural disasters, war or economic change) produce such changes.
Since things have worked out for Korea so far, Koreans are convinced that hierarchical systems work. In fact, since Korea is still a relatively homogenous country in economic terms, if there were a merit based system, the competition for who would get to the top would be fierce and conflicts would arise. As for hierarchy, one needs to understand that few Koreans are actually in control of the economy, and they don't want other people telling them what to do.
Regarding respecting teachers, in agricultural soceties where resources are scarce and harvest is not guaranteed, listening to those who will teach you farming is essential. As for parents, since they were often those who taught their children how to farm and provided them with the little food that they had, respecting parents was viewed as important. Religious authorities, shamans or anyone who was believed to communicate with nature was respected because such people could guarantee better harvests.
Western societies either have diversified economies and agricultures or small populations or both, and therefore do not require such strong hierarchical systems to govern society. To each according to their needs...
Hierarchical societies are in fact common among societies where agricultural resources are scarce and can not feed an entire population.
Korea used to be an agricultural society until about 40 years ago. Since most of the country is made up of mountains and land that can not be cultivated, very strict rules governing society were needed in order to avoid internal conflict. Within families, since harvest was sometimes scarce and very vulnerable due to climatic conditions, there had to be a leader in families and in societies to decide what would happen in case harvest failed.
Confucianism only partly codified these hierarchical uses, parts of those codes evolved, others were ignored and others were adapted to local circumstances. It was decided that hierarchy would be based on age rather than any form of merit, since Korea is a homogenous land with similar topographic features in most parts of the country, and it was considered that farming was learned through experience rather than ability. Of course, those who failed to be good farmers were outcasted regardless of age, but in order to prevent a race to who would control land and production, older people would teach younger people.
These principles did not evolve when Korea moved from an agricultural to an industrial society. Economic development was so sudden that they could not have changed overnight. Social codes evolve over years and only economic, military and natural needs make those changes evolve (natural disasters, war or economic change) produce such changes.
Since things have worked out for Korea so far, Koreans are convinced that hierarchical systems work. In fact, since Korea is still a relatively homogenous country in economic terms, if there were a merit based system, the competition for who would get to the top would be fierce and conflicts would arise. As for hierarchy, one needs to understand that few Koreans are actually in control of the economy, and they don't want other people telling them what to do.
Regarding respecting teachers, in agricultural soceties where resources are scarce and harvest is not guaranteed, listening to those who will teach you farming is essential. As for parents, since they were often those who taught their children how to farm and provided them with the little food that they had, respecting parents was viewed as important. Religious authorities, shamans or anyone who was believed to communicate with nature was respected because such people could guarantee better harvests.
Western societies either have diversified economies and agricultures or small populations or both, and therefore do not require such strong hierarchical systems to govern society. To each according to their needs...
The history of English education in Korea
To sum up, the history of English language education can be divided into "two and a half" period. To many, it can be divided into three periods, but my view on this is that we are still in the second period.
The first period: 1950-1970s
Back then, English was taught in Korea essentially for military purposes. South Korea had a US military presence in its territory and therefore had to train its citizens to be competent in communication with the US army and with the US ally in case of war. The United States technically has "wartime operational control" in South Korea meaning that if a war were to break out with North Korea, the United States would be in charge of leading the war. Korean men, considered potential future soldiers, had to be good "followers" of the US army.
How is language taught for military purposes? Focus is put on a comparison between the native language, Korean, and English. No conversation in class, classes are taught in Korean and Koreans were essentially taught aspects of English grammar that they were expected to be able to translate into their language. Exam questions were in Korean, and students had to answer in English.
This method was used worldwide when training spies who were expected to translate confidential documents into their native language, or by Europeans learning Latin and Ancient Greek.
The second period: 1970s-1990s
During the 1970s the South Korean economy grew considerably and the government expected students to have "business" knowledge of English.
In language there are three aspects: Competence, performance and communicative competence.
-Competence is the ability to know what is right or wrong in a language, say knowing that "I did it" is right and that "*I it did" is wrong.
-Performance is the ability to speak a language. Most speakers of a second language, despite knowing what is right or wrong in a language, reproduce what they know in the language. Say they know that "*I it did" is wrong but they still say it.
-Communicative competence is the ability to speak a language and also to know what to say, when to say it, and what is not appropriate to say in the language's culture.
So while the first period focused exclusively on competence, the second period started focusing on performance. That is, students were put under pressure to write and speak English properly, asked tricky grammar and vocabulary questions, and were rebuked when they made mistakes.
The curriculum was essentially grammar based and test based: students were tested and heavily sanctioned if they made mistakes speaking English, thus viewed speaking English as a continuous test and thought that native speakers were actually evaluating them when they were speaking, and Koreans were obsessed with "mistakes"
The third period: 1990s-today
In 1997, the Korean government decided to bring native speakers to help students focus on "communicative competence", that is, to communicate effectively with American businessmen. Soon after, the 1997 financial crisis delayed the project, and once Korea recovered, native speakers were invited to the country.
What happened? Though the government wanted students to focus on their ability to communicate with foreigners making colloquial use of English, students and companies focused on "performance": the less you make mistakes, the better you are, regardless of whether you are actually able to converse with foreigners.
Test scores became primordial, and surprised and disillusioned English teachers ended up torn between teaching "performance" and "communicative competence". While the government keeps reiterating its idea that Koreans should focus on "communicative competence", students return to "performance". A funny example is that when Korean students are asked to hold conversations in English, they write down what they have to say first, proofread grammar mistakes, double check meaning in the dictionary, and then recite their sentence. Typical behavior of people who focus on "performance" rather than "communicative competence".
This is why I argue that Korea is still in its second period. While the Western world is learning English to improve their "communicative competence" through watching English language movies and interaction with native English speakers, Koreans have decided to remain economy oriented and to focus on making less mistakes when they speak English.
The first period: 1950-1970s
Back then, English was taught in Korea essentially for military purposes. South Korea had a US military presence in its territory and therefore had to train its citizens to be competent in communication with the US army and with the US ally in case of war. The United States technically has "wartime operational control" in South Korea meaning that if a war were to break out with North Korea, the United States would be in charge of leading the war. Korean men, considered potential future soldiers, had to be good "followers" of the US army.
How is language taught for military purposes? Focus is put on a comparison between the native language, Korean, and English. No conversation in class, classes are taught in Korean and Koreans were essentially taught aspects of English grammar that they were expected to be able to translate into their language. Exam questions were in Korean, and students had to answer in English.
This method was used worldwide when training spies who were expected to translate confidential documents into their native language, or by Europeans learning Latin and Ancient Greek.
The second period: 1970s-1990s
During the 1970s the South Korean economy grew considerably and the government expected students to have "business" knowledge of English.
In language there are three aspects: Competence, performance and communicative competence.
-Competence is the ability to know what is right or wrong in a language, say knowing that "I did it" is right and that "*I it did" is wrong.
-Performance is the ability to speak a language. Most speakers of a second language, despite knowing what is right or wrong in a language, reproduce what they know in the language. Say they know that "*I it did" is wrong but they still say it.
-Communicative competence is the ability to speak a language and also to know what to say, when to say it, and what is not appropriate to say in the language's culture.
So while the first period focused exclusively on competence, the second period started focusing on performance. That is, students were put under pressure to write and speak English properly, asked tricky grammar and vocabulary questions, and were rebuked when they made mistakes.
The curriculum was essentially grammar based and test based: students were tested and heavily sanctioned if they made mistakes speaking English, thus viewed speaking English as a continuous test and thought that native speakers were actually evaluating them when they were speaking, and Koreans were obsessed with "mistakes"
The third period: 1990s-today
In 1997, the Korean government decided to bring native speakers to help students focus on "communicative competence", that is, to communicate effectively with American businessmen. Soon after, the 1997 financial crisis delayed the project, and once Korea recovered, native speakers were invited to the country.
What happened? Though the government wanted students to focus on their ability to communicate with foreigners making colloquial use of English, students and companies focused on "performance": the less you make mistakes, the better you are, regardless of whether you are actually able to converse with foreigners.
Test scores became primordial, and surprised and disillusioned English teachers ended up torn between teaching "performance" and "communicative competence". While the government keeps reiterating its idea that Koreans should focus on "communicative competence", students return to "performance". A funny example is that when Korean students are asked to hold conversations in English, they write down what they have to say first, proofread grammar mistakes, double check meaning in the dictionary, and then recite their sentence. Typical behavior of people who focus on "performance" rather than "communicative competence".
This is why I argue that Korea is still in its second period. While the Western world is learning English to improve their "communicative competence" through watching English language movies and interaction with native English speakers, Koreans have decided to remain economy oriented and to focus on making less mistakes when they speak English.
Love and marriage in Korea 2 - who Korean people marry
In an agricultural Korean society marriage used to be about having children who would work in farms. Koreans chose healthy women who could bear healthy children, that is, women with fat (because fat helps ovulation, therefore lack of fat causes problems with ovulation, menstrual disorders and eventually infertility) and strong women who could handle everyday chores. But with the advent of modernity things changed.
While in the past families played a critical role on who their children would marry, the role is decreasing. Let's have a look at the criteria Koreans look at when they look for potential spouses:
-Physical features ("beauty"): In Korean society, like in most modern societies, a spouse is a reflection of who a person is and tells more about a person than anything else. Spouses need to be slender or thin - a sign that they control their desires to eat and rest, a sign of being active - and needs to have "western features": "big eyes" (compared to average Koreans), "a bridge at the top of the nose", "double eyelids (the famous ssangkopeul)", an oval face (most Koreans have round faces), a "small face" (Koreans tend to have more voluminous faces than Westerners)... any feature that is common among Western people.
The reason: Koreans view westerners as a symbol of economic wealth, and want those wealthy westerners to have a positive impression of their spouses, therefore any physical feature that westerners don't have may be viewed as "deviant" by westerners, and westerners may therefore have a negative appreciation of their spouse. In Korea, it is out of the question to marry a person with any form of handicap, including Albinos, people with any form of skin disease or any other physical handicap.
-Family background: Family ties are very strong in Korea and families are very interdependent: parents give money to their children as long as they can afford to and regardless of age, and children are expected to give money to their parents. Parents therefore don't want their children to marry people with families that have a significantly lower income as theirs, as they may consider that the person is marrying for the sole purpose of money and inheritance. Families want their children to marry people who will contribute financially in some way to the family.
-Educational background: belonging to a university means belonging to a group. In Korea, alumni associations are very active because of the very strict social rules on networking. Being from a university means having access to numerous connections which will help a person develop economically (in terms of business) and in practical issues, such as when help is needed in case of emergency. Therefore both men and women are expected to have strong connections.
Since historically women from Ewha Women's University have tended to marry men from Seoul National University, both prestigious universities, women from Ewha tend to have strong connections with their alumni who married men from SNU. Ewha is a prestigious university for women for that particular reason, SNU is always a favorite, Korea and Yonsei are acceptable. Note that while graduate school in the United States is always appreciated, people tend to prefer marrying people who attended some form of college in Korea.
Job: Though money is not always important, women tend to prefer marrying men with promising jobs or even men attending promising universities that will lead them to getting a promising job. Though lawyers and doctors tend not to make a lot of money when they start their careers, they tend to have the reputation of making money as they advance in their careers. Businessmen, people who work in the broadcasting industry and professors are also considered prestigious careers.
Note however that men never marry women with careers, or ask them to put an end to their career after marriage. Why? The most common answer to this question is that women are expected to take care of their children, but I would add that there is a social taboo on women working at higher or equal positions than their husbands. In any case, Korean society accepts the fact that no woman should make more money, or even threaten to make more money than her husband, because society accepts the fact that men should provide economic comfort to their wives. The reason I'm saying this is that men who marry secretaries or flight attendants usually don't ask them to quit their jobs, even after they have children. But men who marry singers, actresses or any high income job do ask their wives to quit.
While in the past families played a critical role on who their children would marry, the role is decreasing. Let's have a look at the criteria Koreans look at when they look for potential spouses:
-Physical features ("beauty"): In Korean society, like in most modern societies, a spouse is a reflection of who a person is and tells more about a person than anything else. Spouses need to be slender or thin - a sign that they control their desires to eat and rest, a sign of being active - and needs to have "western features": "big eyes" (compared to average Koreans), "a bridge at the top of the nose", "double eyelids (the famous ssangkopeul)", an oval face (most Koreans have round faces), a "small face" (Koreans tend to have more voluminous faces than Westerners)... any feature that is common among Western people.
The reason: Koreans view westerners as a symbol of economic wealth, and want those wealthy westerners to have a positive impression of their spouses, therefore any physical feature that westerners don't have may be viewed as "deviant" by westerners, and westerners may therefore have a negative appreciation of their spouse. In Korea, it is out of the question to marry a person with any form of handicap, including Albinos, people with any form of skin disease or any other physical handicap.
-Family background: Family ties are very strong in Korea and families are very interdependent: parents give money to their children as long as they can afford to and regardless of age, and children are expected to give money to their parents. Parents therefore don't want their children to marry people with families that have a significantly lower income as theirs, as they may consider that the person is marrying for the sole purpose of money and inheritance. Families want their children to marry people who will contribute financially in some way to the family.
-Educational background: belonging to a university means belonging to a group. In Korea, alumni associations are very active because of the very strict social rules on networking. Being from a university means having access to numerous connections which will help a person develop economically (in terms of business) and in practical issues, such as when help is needed in case of emergency. Therefore both men and women are expected to have strong connections.
Since historically women from Ewha Women's University have tended to marry men from Seoul National University, both prestigious universities, women from Ewha tend to have strong connections with their alumni who married men from SNU. Ewha is a prestigious university for women for that particular reason, SNU is always a favorite, Korea and Yonsei are acceptable. Note that while graduate school in the United States is always appreciated, people tend to prefer marrying people who attended some form of college in Korea.
Job: Though money is not always important, women tend to prefer marrying men with promising jobs or even men attending promising universities that will lead them to getting a promising job. Though lawyers and doctors tend not to make a lot of money when they start their careers, they tend to have the reputation of making money as they advance in their careers. Businessmen, people who work in the broadcasting industry and professors are also considered prestigious careers.
Note however that men never marry women with careers, or ask them to put an end to their career after marriage. Why? The most common answer to this question is that women are expected to take care of their children, but I would add that there is a social taboo on women working at higher or equal positions than their husbands. In any case, Korean society accepts the fact that no woman should make more money, or even threaten to make more money than her husband, because society accepts the fact that men should provide economic comfort to their wives. The reason I'm saying this is that men who marry secretaries or flight attendants usually don't ask them to quit their jobs, even after they have children. But men who marry singers, actresses or any high income job do ask their wives to quit.
Love and marriage in Korea 1 - how Korean people date
"Promise you'll marry a Korean woman and she'll do anything" is a common stereotype among foreign men which is not always true.
Needless to say that no two Korean women or men have the same criteria when they date, or the same principles about dating behavior. As a linguist, I am interested in how Koreans talk when they date, and a common denominator is that compared to many Western societies, a lot of things are left unsaid. If you think that this "indirect" way of talking is a peculiarity among Asian people, I heard that Scandinavian, especially Danish couples also had that "indirect" way of speaking to each other.
Some couples date for years, 4 years, 5 years, 10 years, without ever mentioning to each other that they are in love or that they will one day marry each other in Korea. Korean society has very specific gender roles among young people, and men are still expected to do all the talking related to where the couple is heading.
But dating in Korea, just like everywhere else, is a little more complicated than that. Some men and women want to date exclusively in order to marry, while others want to try experimenting before getting to marriage.
How does it all start? Remember that Koreans never talk to people they are not affiliated to. This means that it is technically out of the question to go to a bar or night club, dance or have a drink with a man or woman we are physically attracted to or exchange phone numbers.
This is why the concept of "소개팅" (seogetting) is so popular. Seogetting is when a friend - "the third party" - introduces a friend -"the potential soulmate"- to a friend "the single friend" - so that they can eventually date. The process involves the third party talking to his single friend about the potential soulmate giving every detail: age, college attended, company attended, parents' job, family situation etc. etc.
Koreans take every detail into account and one small flaw can end up in rejection. Say, if the father died of a genetic illness, the single friend may refuse. Or the single friend may accept to meet the potential soulmate a few times, but may make him or her wait until progress in career is assured. Say, if the man or woman are expecting a promotion, the single friend may wait until the promotion is effective to engage in any form of dating.
Other forms of dating involve people dating people who are from the same organization, but since dating someone from the same school or company often involves a lot of gossip from former classmates or colleagues, the most popular affiliation for couples are churches or temples. The funny thing is a lot of single Koreans attend churches only in order to find soulmates, and then quit attending church as soon as they find their significant other.
There is no conventional definition for dating in Korea. Some couples claim that they date but never actually kissed each other, others engage in sexual relationships but deny to their friends, and to each other, that they are dating. It is not uncommon for foreigners to think they are dating Koreans until they ask them whether they are "boyfriends" or "girlfriends", and to their surprise, find out that they are not.
As I mentioned, gender roles are very important and men guide women in dating. Men usually choose appointment places, pay for meals and do most of the talking. Korean couples tend to avoid topics that they may disagree upon or which demand specialization: politics, society, the economy etc. and tend to discuss lighter topics: entertainers and yellow papers. Note that if they belong to the same organization, gossip may take an important portion of their conversation. If they don't belong to the same organization and one of the people in the couple has no interest in yellow papers, conversation may simply involve planning where to go next, what to eat etc. It is not uncommon for couples in Korea to have very little to tell each other.
Of course, men are expected to plan the future in an almost "unilateral" way: men plan everything, and women either agree or disagree, but never directly offer alternatives. Women may indirectly suggest alternatives for the future, as in saying "We should really go to the Maldives one day" rather than saying "let's spend our honeymoon in the Maldives".
Also note that it is considered "deviant" for a woman to "break up", so women will do everything, including date someone else, rather than tell their boyfriends "let's break up".
Needless to say that no two Korean women or men have the same criteria when they date, or the same principles about dating behavior. As a linguist, I am interested in how Koreans talk when they date, and a common denominator is that compared to many Western societies, a lot of things are left unsaid. If you think that this "indirect" way of talking is a peculiarity among Asian people, I heard that Scandinavian, especially Danish couples also had that "indirect" way of speaking to each other.
Some couples date for years, 4 years, 5 years, 10 years, without ever mentioning to each other that they are in love or that they will one day marry each other in Korea. Korean society has very specific gender roles among young people, and men are still expected to do all the talking related to where the couple is heading.
But dating in Korea, just like everywhere else, is a little more complicated than that. Some men and women want to date exclusively in order to marry, while others want to try experimenting before getting to marriage.
How does it all start? Remember that Koreans never talk to people they are not affiliated to. This means that it is technically out of the question to go to a bar or night club, dance or have a drink with a man or woman we are physically attracted to or exchange phone numbers.
This is why the concept of "소개팅" (seogetting) is so popular. Seogetting is when a friend - "the third party" - introduces a friend -"the potential soulmate"- to a friend "the single friend" - so that they can eventually date. The process involves the third party talking to his single friend about the potential soulmate giving every detail: age, college attended, company attended, parents' job, family situation etc. etc.
Koreans take every detail into account and one small flaw can end up in rejection. Say, if the father died of a genetic illness, the single friend may refuse. Or the single friend may accept to meet the potential soulmate a few times, but may make him or her wait until progress in career is assured. Say, if the man or woman are expecting a promotion, the single friend may wait until the promotion is effective to engage in any form of dating.
Other forms of dating involve people dating people who are from the same organization, but since dating someone from the same school or company often involves a lot of gossip from former classmates or colleagues, the most popular affiliation for couples are churches or temples. The funny thing is a lot of single Koreans attend churches only in order to find soulmates, and then quit attending church as soon as they find their significant other.
There is no conventional definition for dating in Korea. Some couples claim that they date but never actually kissed each other, others engage in sexual relationships but deny to their friends, and to each other, that they are dating. It is not uncommon for foreigners to think they are dating Koreans until they ask them whether they are "boyfriends" or "girlfriends", and to their surprise, find out that they are not.
As I mentioned, gender roles are very important and men guide women in dating. Men usually choose appointment places, pay for meals and do most of the talking. Korean couples tend to avoid topics that they may disagree upon or which demand specialization: politics, society, the economy etc. and tend to discuss lighter topics: entertainers and yellow papers. Note that if they belong to the same organization, gossip may take an important portion of their conversation. If they don't belong to the same organization and one of the people in the couple has no interest in yellow papers, conversation may simply involve planning where to go next, what to eat etc. It is not uncommon for couples in Korea to have very little to tell each other.
Of course, men are expected to plan the future in an almost "unilateral" way: men plan everything, and women either agree or disagree, but never directly offer alternatives. Women may indirectly suggest alternatives for the future, as in saying "We should really go to the Maldives one day" rather than saying "let's spend our honeymoon in the Maldives".
Also note that it is considered "deviant" for a woman to "break up", so women will do everything, including date someone else, rather than tell their boyfriends "let's break up".
When hagwons go out of business - and don't pay you
The hagwon industry is a very competitive one in Korea. Teaching English is a lucrative business which requires little effort and where profits can be high, but still a lot of hagwons fail.
If your hagwon didn't pay you, this is what might have happened:
There are big hagwons in Korea whose reputation is intact and who make record profits every year. Some dream of reaching such a level and open such hagwons.
Reputed hagwons have everything a decent hagwon needs: they are expensive, but their teachers have experience, they are very strict about what should be taught and how, that is, they delineate the curriculum very carefully and train teachers to teach efficiently. For example, they will tell their teachers that if a student asks a question, they provide a simple answer, and if the student is not satisfied with the answer, they just tell him that the question will be studied later.
However, a number of hagwons open without knowing anything about language teaching. All they think about is the money they will make teaching English. So they find a building, hire the first teacher who applies for the job, and don't provide teachers with teaching guidlines, and sometimes don't even give teachers textbooks.
Such hagwons practice low prices to attract as many students as possible. But they don't divide students by language ability or by level, they mix students using arbitrary criteria such as age, or sometimes don't have a policy on how classes should be divided at all. So teachers end up without textbooks, in classrooms where some students speak advanced English while others don't speak a word of English.
Teachers end up being clueless. They don't know what to teach or how to teach, and can not manage a class where students' levels are heterogeneous. Some focus on students with advanced knowledge of English and forget to take care of those who have more difficulties, while other teachers focus on students with difficulties. Also, rather than advancing steadily in curriculums that teachers often designed themselves, they tend to stop at one particular point of English grammar or one particular word, and may spend a whole class teaching that particular point.
A blunder that such hagwon managers make is that they don't take into account the fact that parents and adults in Korea often attend hagowns in order to get better tests at their scores. While experienced hagwons tell their foreign teachers how to focus on such tests and to teach what might come up in such tests, many hagwons do not tell their teachers to focus on students' tests. So angry parents and adults attending such hagwons find out that what is taught there is not related to the tests that they are taking.
Parents notice that their children are not making progress in class, adult students notice that they are not learning much from the class. Test scores do not improve for both students and adults. Such parents or adults often post negative reviews on Internet forums related to the hagwon, and the hagwon has difficulties attracting new students. Such hagwons often end up going out of business.
So, if your hagwon did not pay you or paid you late, it is a better idea to quit, because such hagwons are often in difficult financial situations and their reputation is so damaged that they can not attract new students.
If your hagwon didn't pay you, this is what might have happened:
There are big hagwons in Korea whose reputation is intact and who make record profits every year. Some dream of reaching such a level and open such hagwons.
Reputed hagwons have everything a decent hagwon needs: they are expensive, but their teachers have experience, they are very strict about what should be taught and how, that is, they delineate the curriculum very carefully and train teachers to teach efficiently. For example, they will tell their teachers that if a student asks a question, they provide a simple answer, and if the student is not satisfied with the answer, they just tell him that the question will be studied later.
However, a number of hagwons open without knowing anything about language teaching. All they think about is the money they will make teaching English. So they find a building, hire the first teacher who applies for the job, and don't provide teachers with teaching guidlines, and sometimes don't even give teachers textbooks.
Such hagwons practice low prices to attract as many students as possible. But they don't divide students by language ability or by level, they mix students using arbitrary criteria such as age, or sometimes don't have a policy on how classes should be divided at all. So teachers end up without textbooks, in classrooms where some students speak advanced English while others don't speak a word of English.
Teachers end up being clueless. They don't know what to teach or how to teach, and can not manage a class where students' levels are heterogeneous. Some focus on students with advanced knowledge of English and forget to take care of those who have more difficulties, while other teachers focus on students with difficulties. Also, rather than advancing steadily in curriculums that teachers often designed themselves, they tend to stop at one particular point of English grammar or one particular word, and may spend a whole class teaching that particular point.
A blunder that such hagwon managers make is that they don't take into account the fact that parents and adults in Korea often attend hagowns in order to get better tests at their scores. While experienced hagwons tell their foreign teachers how to focus on such tests and to teach what might come up in such tests, many hagwons do not tell their teachers to focus on students' tests. So angry parents and adults attending such hagwons find out that what is taught there is not related to the tests that they are taking.
Parents notice that their children are not making progress in class, adult students notice that they are not learning much from the class. Test scores do not improve for both students and adults. Such parents or adults often post negative reviews on Internet forums related to the hagwon, and the hagwon has difficulties attracting new students. Such hagwons often end up going out of business.
So, if your hagwon did not pay you or paid you late, it is a better idea to quit, because such hagwons are often in difficult financial situations and their reputation is so damaged that they can not attract new students.
Are Koreans losing their Korean to the expense of English?
Let me reassure you: no person has ever lost its first language. That is, no matter how much time you may happen to spend abroad or how much you may study a foreign language, your ability to speak your native language will be intact.
The Korean taught in schools, just like all other languages taught in school, is the form spoken by the older upper middle class people and does not take into account the evolved form of language that students speak. The form that students speak will then be taught in schools years later, and that generation will again accuse youngsters of not speaking their language properly, or of losing it, and so on.
The point is that language evolves, and most of the evolution takes place among junior high and senior high school students. These students will come up with new grammar patterns, new words and so on which will not be taught in schools.
Korea is a socially stratified society, just like the United States and many other countries. Yes their is a lower class in the US even though Americans tend to claim that they all belong to that middle class. As for Korea, there is an upper class, a middle class and a lower class, and the middle class tends to try everything in order to one day belong to that upper class.
During the 1960s, linguists discovered that upper class people had a distinct dialect, which tended to be the one taught in schools in developed countries, and was therefore referred to as the "official language" or as a "language" in opposition to what other classes spoke which tends to be referred to as a dialect.
So when Koreans are not speaking the dialect of the "upper class", society tends to be worried that they are not speaking the language properly and that they are losing it. Society will find every pretext to blame these kids for not speaking the proper dialect: they will call them "lazy", or blame them for spending too much time studying foreign languages.
While speaking the upper class dialect in Korea is a big plus to enter upper class circles, the ability of children and lower class people to speak Korean should not be questioned: it is intact, as grammatical, logical and advanced as any other dialect spoken in Korea, including the upper class dialect.
The Korean taught in schools, just like all other languages taught in school, is the form spoken by the older upper middle class people and does not take into account the evolved form of language that students speak. The form that students speak will then be taught in schools years later, and that generation will again accuse youngsters of not speaking their language properly, or of losing it, and so on.
The point is that language evolves, and most of the evolution takes place among junior high and senior high school students. These students will come up with new grammar patterns, new words and so on which will not be taught in schools.
Korea is a socially stratified society, just like the United States and many other countries. Yes their is a lower class in the US even though Americans tend to claim that they all belong to that middle class. As for Korea, there is an upper class, a middle class and a lower class, and the middle class tends to try everything in order to one day belong to that upper class.
During the 1960s, linguists discovered that upper class people had a distinct dialect, which tended to be the one taught in schools in developed countries, and was therefore referred to as the "official language" or as a "language" in opposition to what other classes spoke which tends to be referred to as a dialect.
So when Koreans are not speaking the dialect of the "upper class", society tends to be worried that they are not speaking the language properly and that they are losing it. Society will find every pretext to blame these kids for not speaking the proper dialect: they will call them "lazy", or blame them for spending too much time studying foreign languages.
While speaking the upper class dialect in Korea is a big plus to enter upper class circles, the ability of children and lower class people to speak Korean should not be questioned: it is intact, as grammatical, logical and advanced as any other dialect spoken in Korea, including the upper class dialect.
Is English a difficult language to learn for Koreans?
We native English speakers have our prejudices. We see all those Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Scandinavian or Israeli people speak fluent conversational English and feel like English should be an accessible language to everyone.
Let first set things straight. English is from the Germanic family of languages, which includes Yiddish, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, German and many other languages. Those languages have similar grammatical structures and their basic vocabularies have the same roots. As for French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Romanian, they are Romance languages, and English has borrowed many many Latin and French words throughout the years. Note that modern Hebrew has lots of borrowings from Yiddish.
Speakers of these languages are the foreigners Americans are the most likely to meet, as whether they are Latinos, Africans or Europeans, there is a big chance such people speak one of those languages related to English or from which English borrowed significant portions of vocabulary.
And then there are the Asian, who borrowed some vocabulary from English, but not enough to make learning learning English easy. While Dutch and German people can easily infer what an English word means by looking at their native languages, Koreans can't.
Koreans have this disadvantage compared to speakers of other languages. And with the prejudice English speakers have that most foreigners have a language related to English in some way, we think that Koreans are slow at learning English.
While Dutch and German people may still make "cute" grammar mistakes when they speak English, they are not afraid of the "unknown": if they hear a word they never heard before there are high chances that such words will be in their native language. That is not the case for Koreans.
Koreans therefore go through what linguists call "language shock". Just like culture shock, when people experience language shock, they refrain from speaking the language that they are learning from fear of not understanding what the person is saying and being considered "stupid". Native English speakers learning Korean also have their "language shock" phase.
The rest is a question of motivation and need: Koreans who need to learn English to communicate with their husbands will speak English better than those who need to learn it to get a decent score at the TOEFL test which will guarantee them a job.
Let first set things straight. English is from the Germanic family of languages, which includes Yiddish, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, German and many other languages. Those languages have similar grammatical structures and their basic vocabularies have the same roots. As for French, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Romanian, they are Romance languages, and English has borrowed many many Latin and French words throughout the years. Note that modern Hebrew has lots of borrowings from Yiddish.
Speakers of these languages are the foreigners Americans are the most likely to meet, as whether they are Latinos, Africans or Europeans, there is a big chance such people speak one of those languages related to English or from which English borrowed significant portions of vocabulary.
And then there are the Asian, who borrowed some vocabulary from English, but not enough to make learning learning English easy. While Dutch and German people can easily infer what an English word means by looking at their native languages, Koreans can't.
Koreans have this disadvantage compared to speakers of other languages. And with the prejudice English speakers have that most foreigners have a language related to English in some way, we think that Koreans are slow at learning English.
While Dutch and German people may still make "cute" grammar mistakes when they speak English, they are not afraid of the "unknown": if they hear a word they never heard before there are high chances that such words will be in their native language. That is not the case for Koreans.
Koreans therefore go through what linguists call "language shock". Just like culture shock, when people experience language shock, they refrain from speaking the language that they are learning from fear of not understanding what the person is saying and being considered "stupid". Native English speakers learning Korean also have their "language shock" phase.
The rest is a question of motivation and need: Koreans who need to learn English to communicate with their husbands will speak English better than those who need to learn it to get a decent score at the TOEFL test which will guarantee them a job.
Is Korean a difficult language?
A common myth about language is that some languages are more difficult to learn than others because they are more "complex". Let me reassure you that so far, no linguist has managed to prove that any language is more complex than any other.
There is a common misconception among some people, and non-linguists who claim that they are linguists (translators, language teachers and polyglots) who claim that linguist Noam Chomsky classified languages by order of difficulty. While Chomsky did classify languages by grammar typology, his classification was never intended to show that any language was more difficult. Some people do claim that Chomsky classified English as easy, Korean as medium and Russian as difficult, but such people never actually read Chomsky's typology.
Is Korean a difficult language? Every language is equally complex, and past the age of 12 every language is difficult to learn. This for two reasons:
1- the part that processes language in the brain is fully developed around puberty
2- Human beings need to understand 98% of the vocabulary used in a conversation or book in order to understand it.
Yes, if you're reading a book or listening to someone talk and that you don't understand 98 of every 100 words he says, you will not understand his message. This implies that when you read that book or take that class in your native language and that you don't understand what it's trying to say, you may feel stupid because you think you should understand it since it's your native language. But the reason you can't understand a book or a class, even in your native language, is because you're not understanding that 98% words that you should know to understand it.
For speakers of Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese or any language that borrowed a lot of Chinese words, Korean may be an easier language to learn and understand because though they may not know all the words that are being used in the conversation or book, they can infer its meaning because the word in their native language is likely to sound similar. For speakers of languages which did not borrow a lot of words from Chinese, understanding Korean can be a bit of a challenge.
Korean teachers often encourage their students to watch the news, listen to the radio and read the Korean press, but many foreigners will be nowhere near understanding 98% of the words used in such contexts. Experiments on children revealed that children learn how to use a word after hearing it 14 times in different contexts and sentences. So indeed reading or listening to anything in Korean will teach foreigners Korean long term, meaning that if you watch the news everyday you may end up being familiar with the vocabulary which is being used. But that is only related to the understanding part.
Speaking Korean involves two things: the raw language and the "pragmatics" or culture and etiquette surrounding the language. While most foreigners form sentences with minor grammatical mistakes, errors in body language, intonation, and the rules of conversation may not get the message across. These rules are very different from society to society as it is even difficult for Americans of a certain society to adapt with Americans belonging to a different subgroup.
Finally, Korean, just like any other language, is spoken and understood the same way as it is learned. If focus is put on conversation with Koreans, that aspect of the language will be mastered, if focus is put on reading, the foreigner will be fluent in reading but perhaps not in conversation, and people practicing sets of grammar exercises will be good at solving grammar problems but not at actually speaking and understanding the language.
There is a common misconception among some people, and non-linguists who claim that they are linguists (translators, language teachers and polyglots) who claim that linguist Noam Chomsky classified languages by order of difficulty. While Chomsky did classify languages by grammar typology, his classification was never intended to show that any language was more difficult. Some people do claim that Chomsky classified English as easy, Korean as medium and Russian as difficult, but such people never actually read Chomsky's typology.
Is Korean a difficult language? Every language is equally complex, and past the age of 12 every language is difficult to learn. This for two reasons:
1- the part that processes language in the brain is fully developed around puberty
2- Human beings need to understand 98% of the vocabulary used in a conversation or book in order to understand it.
Yes, if you're reading a book or listening to someone talk and that you don't understand 98 of every 100 words he says, you will not understand his message. This implies that when you read that book or take that class in your native language and that you don't understand what it's trying to say, you may feel stupid because you think you should understand it since it's your native language. But the reason you can't understand a book or a class, even in your native language, is because you're not understanding that 98% words that you should know to understand it.
For speakers of Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese or any language that borrowed a lot of Chinese words, Korean may be an easier language to learn and understand because though they may not know all the words that are being used in the conversation or book, they can infer its meaning because the word in their native language is likely to sound similar. For speakers of languages which did not borrow a lot of words from Chinese, understanding Korean can be a bit of a challenge.
Korean teachers often encourage their students to watch the news, listen to the radio and read the Korean press, but many foreigners will be nowhere near understanding 98% of the words used in such contexts. Experiments on children revealed that children learn how to use a word after hearing it 14 times in different contexts and sentences. So indeed reading or listening to anything in Korean will teach foreigners Korean long term, meaning that if you watch the news everyday you may end up being familiar with the vocabulary which is being used. But that is only related to the understanding part.
Speaking Korean involves two things: the raw language and the "pragmatics" or culture and etiquette surrounding the language. While most foreigners form sentences with minor grammatical mistakes, errors in body language, intonation, and the rules of conversation may not get the message across. These rules are very different from society to society as it is even difficult for Americans of a certain society to adapt with Americans belonging to a different subgroup.
Finally, Korean, just like any other language, is spoken and understood the same way as it is learned. If focus is put on conversation with Koreans, that aspect of the language will be mastered, if focus is put on reading, the foreigner will be fluent in reading but perhaps not in conversation, and people practicing sets of grammar exercises will be good at solving grammar problems but not at actually speaking and understanding the language.
Korean language education in Korea - common misunderstandings
Figures show that around 70,000 Koreans attend English hagwons. English in Elementary school from 3rd grade on, and 1 in 5 TOEFL test takers in the world is Korean. The English teaching business is a 10 billion dollar business. Yet few Koreans seem to be proficient in English conversation. Why is that?
First of all, I did not get grants or money to do research, but I am convinced that more than 71,000 Koreans speak fluent or proficient conversational English. As to those school children who seem unable to speak conversational English, I would ask how many of us are able to have conversations in that French, Spanish or Japanese that we studied since Junior High school...
Korean people don't like foreigners moralizing them on how they should learn or not learn a language, as much as Americans don't like French people moralizing them on how they should learn French. Several factors need to be taken into account when judging Korean people's language ability.
First, Koreans learn English to enter a job market which does not require knowledge of conversational English. In fact, if there is any language Koreans should learn, it should be Chinese, because half the 850,000 legal immigrants living in Korea are Chinese. English speakers only represent a small proportion of the foreigners living in Korea, and Korean workers will encounter very few opportunities to meet such people.
When it comes to tourism, a vast majority of tourists entering Korea are Japanese, and they don't seem to complain about communication problems. Most touristic venues have fluent Japanese speakers in Korea, but due to the lack of English speaking tourists in Korea, Koreans don't see the need to employ fluent English speakers in that industry.
Academia is one area where you will be likely to meet English speakers. In a competitive educational system, Koreans highly value degrees from the US and most professors do speak English fluently. However, such professors will refuse to speak English the Korean introduction etiquette was not respected by English speaking foreigners. Korean professors have no reason to act like Americans when dealing with foreign students, as much as American professors have no reason to act French when dealing with French students.
Universities and the job market are highly competitive in Korea. There are only three top ranked universities requiring very difficult examinations -examinations including questions that students may not have come across during their high school years and involving very specialized knowledge - and prestigious jobs require three, four, or five rounds of selection. Koreans are too busy preparing entering such universities and getting such jobs to meet foreigners on regular basis with whom they may practice conversational English.
What matters is the grade, grade to enter college, grade to get that prestigious job. English teachers in Korea can't tell Koreans "listen, forget about entering that prestigious university or getting that prestigious job, try to learn conversational Korean, will you?" As for usefulness, the only people Koreans may actually practice their English with are English teachers or Philippino migrant workers. Might as well learn Chinese or Japanese, which have much more diverse populations living in Korea. Ironically, those Chinese and Japanese people are learning Korean, not asking Koreans to speak to them in English. Finally, if native English speakers are complaining about Koreans speaking to them in English rather than Korean, then why are they putting so much pressure on them to learn English?
First of all, I did not get grants or money to do research, but I am convinced that more than 71,000 Koreans speak fluent or proficient conversational English. As to those school children who seem unable to speak conversational English, I would ask how many of us are able to have conversations in that French, Spanish or Japanese that we studied since Junior High school...
Korean people don't like foreigners moralizing them on how they should learn or not learn a language, as much as Americans don't like French people moralizing them on how they should learn French. Several factors need to be taken into account when judging Korean people's language ability.
First, Koreans learn English to enter a job market which does not require knowledge of conversational English. In fact, if there is any language Koreans should learn, it should be Chinese, because half the 850,000 legal immigrants living in Korea are Chinese. English speakers only represent a small proportion of the foreigners living in Korea, and Korean workers will encounter very few opportunities to meet such people.
When it comes to tourism, a vast majority of tourists entering Korea are Japanese, and they don't seem to complain about communication problems. Most touristic venues have fluent Japanese speakers in Korea, but due to the lack of English speaking tourists in Korea, Koreans don't see the need to employ fluent English speakers in that industry.
Academia is one area where you will be likely to meet English speakers. In a competitive educational system, Koreans highly value degrees from the US and most professors do speak English fluently. However, such professors will refuse to speak English the Korean introduction etiquette was not respected by English speaking foreigners. Korean professors have no reason to act like Americans when dealing with foreign students, as much as American professors have no reason to act French when dealing with French students.
Universities and the job market are highly competitive in Korea. There are only three top ranked universities requiring very difficult examinations -examinations including questions that students may not have come across during their high school years and involving very specialized knowledge - and prestigious jobs require three, four, or five rounds of selection. Koreans are too busy preparing entering such universities and getting such jobs to meet foreigners on regular basis with whom they may practice conversational English.
What matters is the grade, grade to enter college, grade to get that prestigious job. English teachers in Korea can't tell Koreans "listen, forget about entering that prestigious university or getting that prestigious job, try to learn conversational Korean, will you?" As for usefulness, the only people Koreans may actually practice their English with are English teachers or Philippino migrant workers. Might as well learn Chinese or Japanese, which have much more diverse populations living in Korea. Ironically, those Chinese and Japanese people are learning Korean, not asking Koreans to speak to them in English. Finally, if native English speakers are complaining about Koreans speaking to them in English rather than Korean, then why are they putting so much pressure on them to learn English?
Networking in Korea
Since talking to someone in Korea requires that the person be introduced by a third party, Koreans view networking as crucial to meeting people of higher rank, getting a job or even dating.
Meeting people of higher rank in Korea can be helpful for Koreans who own businessmen, work as businessmen or any profession that requires having a large network of acquaintances. In order to meet potential clients or associates, Koreans attend a high number of social gatherings, dinners, and will occasionally spend significant amounts of money to eat in restaurants or join clubs where they have no guarantee of meeting important people, but may still have a small chance of doing so.
Some Koreans will even start attending churches which important people are rumored to attend. Though such Koreans have no religious convictions whatsoever, they "act" religious in order to meet important people. Others will join social clubs which require prohibitively expensive membership fees just to meet such important people. Office workers also join such organizations with the hopes of meeting a businessman looking for an associate, as it is their only way to escape from jobs where they have to fight for promotions and social recognition.
Social gatherings, dinners and conferences are another way to establish connections. Students and young professionals often join such meetings, sometimes volunteer to work in such meetings so that they can meet potential future employers without having to take competitive company entrance examinations. Students often have business cards they give to professors or company executives and try to make the best possible impression. Students will do anything to get that connection with important people, including engage in an extra-marital affair with such executives to enlarge their social network, or accept jobs consisting in working long hours for little or no pay with professors or company executives with hopes of being introduced to important people.
Finally, some people will pay fortunes to go to golf clubs or expensive restaurants where they hope they can meet the owner of such clubs. If they happen to meet the owner, they will cease all activity to engage in conversations with the owner. People going to such places often take foreigners with them: foreigners will often attract the curiosity of the owner hopeful of expanding his clientele to foreigners, while the Korean who brought him there will have the opportunity to establish a connection with the owner.
Some Koreans attend as many social gatherings as they can and may aggressively ask their friends to take them to social gatherings where their friends are invited. Also note that while claiming heritage or connections with very powerful people (the president, ministers or CEOs) was very common in the 1960s and 70s, some people still claim such "fictional" heritage.
Meeting people of higher rank in Korea can be helpful for Koreans who own businessmen, work as businessmen or any profession that requires having a large network of acquaintances. In order to meet potential clients or associates, Koreans attend a high number of social gatherings, dinners, and will occasionally spend significant amounts of money to eat in restaurants or join clubs where they have no guarantee of meeting important people, but may still have a small chance of doing so.
Some Koreans will even start attending churches which important people are rumored to attend. Though such Koreans have no religious convictions whatsoever, they "act" religious in order to meet important people. Others will join social clubs which require prohibitively expensive membership fees just to meet such important people. Office workers also join such organizations with the hopes of meeting a businessman looking for an associate, as it is their only way to escape from jobs where they have to fight for promotions and social recognition.
Social gatherings, dinners and conferences are another way to establish connections. Students and young professionals often join such meetings, sometimes volunteer to work in such meetings so that they can meet potential future employers without having to take competitive company entrance examinations. Students often have business cards they give to professors or company executives and try to make the best possible impression. Students will do anything to get that connection with important people, including engage in an extra-marital affair with such executives to enlarge their social network, or accept jobs consisting in working long hours for little or no pay with professors or company executives with hopes of being introduced to important people.
Finally, some people will pay fortunes to go to golf clubs or expensive restaurants where they hope they can meet the owner of such clubs. If they happen to meet the owner, they will cease all activity to engage in conversations with the owner. People going to such places often take foreigners with them: foreigners will often attract the curiosity of the owner hopeful of expanding his clientele to foreigners, while the Korean who brought him there will have the opportunity to establish a connection with the owner.
Some Koreans attend as many social gatherings as they can and may aggressively ask their friends to take them to social gatherings where their friends are invited. Also note that while claiming heritage or connections with very powerful people (the president, ministers or CEOs) was very common in the 1960s and 70s, some people still claim such "fictional" heritage.
Koreans and friendship
Like many things, the notion of friendship differs from country to country. In many Middle Eastern countries, people consider themselves "friends" the minute they meet, in some European countries, continuous contact is required in order to maintain friendship, in the United States, both distances and caring are necessary for two people to be considered friends.
As I mentioned before, Koreans place high value on trust and do not trust people unless they are affiliated in some way. "Affiliation" differs from person to person in Korea. Some people require that their friends belong to the same big organizations: company, school, church etc. Others consider that smaller organizations like clubs, cafes or housing can be considered as a common affiliation. Others consider that a friend's friend can be a friend, while others reject this idea.
After introducing each other, Koreans tend to be quick to exchange their phone number. However, it usually takes time before they actually call each other, and if they call each other relatively shortly after meeting, the person who receives the call may feel suspicious.
In schools or companies, Koreans will build friendships by having common luncheons or drinking parties. Koreans seldom have lunch face to face at the beginning, as they prefer social gatherings where a group of people is involved, and will select their friends from that group.
Koreans don't feel the need to call their friends continuously to maintain the friendship or to meet everyday, they only call each other or meet when they have very specific purposes. Calling "just to say hello" is not common in Korean culture.
Koreans call their friends when they have specific needs: they may ask their friends to help them find a significant other, for advice regarding jobs, or for information regarding the organization or when they need any other favor. Koreans may be in permanent contact when such issues require long actions. They will call each other every day to see how a situation progresses. It is not considered rude to call several times a day to see whether the person responded to the favor, and to remind the person to take quick action.
Korean friends of the same sex may walk hand in hand (women) or arm in arm (men), touch each other's hair (women) and compliment each other on their beauty (women). Men however do not appreciate compliments on their beauty, but do not mind compliments on specific attributes like their eyes, skin or weight, as long as those compliments are from a person of the opposite sex.
Men and women tend to be highly suspicious of their intentions when they are friends. Men seldom meet women face to face with no specific purpose. Often, women will bring another friend along when meeting a man.
Finally, in big cities, it is not uncommon for friends not to meet for months, if not years, despite living in the same cities. Koreans are often busy with work, family or preparing for competitive exams to get a job and don't view meeting friends as a necessity. Friends are in no way offended by this and will help their friends out when in need.
Note that it is acceptable for friends to ask their friends to pay if they give them a favor requiring long work, such as writing a document, proofreading something, teaching, and in some cases, when the favor involves traveling. In that latter case, friends will give pay for their friend's transportation, and will give them extra money. For other favors, the tradition is that the person who receives the favor buys lunch or dinner to the person who gives the favor.
As I mentioned before, Koreans place high value on trust and do not trust people unless they are affiliated in some way. "Affiliation" differs from person to person in Korea. Some people require that their friends belong to the same big organizations: company, school, church etc. Others consider that smaller organizations like clubs, cafes or housing can be considered as a common affiliation. Others consider that a friend's friend can be a friend, while others reject this idea.
After introducing each other, Koreans tend to be quick to exchange their phone number. However, it usually takes time before they actually call each other, and if they call each other relatively shortly after meeting, the person who receives the call may feel suspicious.
In schools or companies, Koreans will build friendships by having common luncheons or drinking parties. Koreans seldom have lunch face to face at the beginning, as they prefer social gatherings where a group of people is involved, and will select their friends from that group.
Koreans don't feel the need to call their friends continuously to maintain the friendship or to meet everyday, they only call each other or meet when they have very specific purposes. Calling "just to say hello" is not common in Korean culture.
Koreans call their friends when they have specific needs: they may ask their friends to help them find a significant other, for advice regarding jobs, or for information regarding the organization or when they need any other favor. Koreans may be in permanent contact when such issues require long actions. They will call each other every day to see how a situation progresses. It is not considered rude to call several times a day to see whether the person responded to the favor, and to remind the person to take quick action.
Korean friends of the same sex may walk hand in hand (women) or arm in arm (men), touch each other's hair (women) and compliment each other on their beauty (women). Men however do not appreciate compliments on their beauty, but do not mind compliments on specific attributes like their eyes, skin or weight, as long as those compliments are from a person of the opposite sex.
Men and women tend to be highly suspicious of their intentions when they are friends. Men seldom meet women face to face with no specific purpose. Often, women will bring another friend along when meeting a man.
Finally, in big cities, it is not uncommon for friends not to meet for months, if not years, despite living in the same cities. Koreans are often busy with work, family or preparing for competitive exams to get a job and don't view meeting friends as a necessity. Friends are in no way offended by this and will help their friends out when in need.
Note that it is acceptable for friends to ask their friends to pay if they give them a favor requiring long work, such as writing a document, proofreading something, teaching, and in some cases, when the favor involves traveling. In that latter case, friends will give pay for their friend's transportation, and will give them extra money. For other favors, the tradition is that the person who receives the favor buys lunch or dinner to the person who gives the favor.
How "smart" people speak and behave in Korea
Let me start this post with a personal story. I entered graduate school in Korea 4 years ago. It was an international school and the curriculum was in English. I had attended college in France and was accustomed to a certain way of "smart" or let's say "wise" discussion.
As I said in my previous post, in France, the more facts one knows, the smarter he is. So I was sitting there taking my first class, and the professor asks us something about democracy. I raise my hand and start blurting out the raw historical facts I knew about democracy, from Plato's criticism of Greek democracy to a democratically elected Adolf Hitler and so on. Professor stops me and redirects the discussion, and I looked like an idiot.
Anyway, knowledge of historical facts do not make look one smart in Korea and are considered useless. So how should I have answered the question?
In fact, content of the answer is not what makes look someone "smart" in South Korea. Koreans don't care about how much people know about the world, they care about how people say it.
First, diction and pronunciation are key when addressing a Korean public. President Kim Young Sam was called an "idiot" by many including the press, for the mere reason that he could not get rid of his Kyeongsan accent. His catch word was his pronunciation of the word "확실히" (certainly) which he pronounced "학실히". And I'm going to stop there with facts. The point is accent, diction and pronunciation have an enormous impact on how Koreans evaluate each other. People who use standard pronunciation, the kind of pronunciation prescribed by the National Institute of Korean Language, are viewed as "smart" people.
Another determining factor in how Korean people view each other as smart is the choice of words. Exact use of complicated words derived from English or old Chinese (hanja) are an excellent way to give a good impression at a job interview or a social gathering in which academic or economic stakes are high. This is why, by the way, when Korean people speak English they tend to prefer using all those words we only come through while studying for exams like the GRE and no one actually uses.
A third, very important factor on how Koreans consider someone "intelligent" is the proper use of grammar, honorifics in particular. The use of Korean grammar is different when talking to friends and in formal occasions. 이랑 is replaced by 과, 께서 has very precise uses, 요 and 입니다 have "should" be used alternatively and have very precise rules as to when they should be used, rules that no school actually teaches, and many other rules.
Interventions should be concise and informative at the same time, but most importantly, group harmony should be maintained, meaning that it is a taboo to mention facts people might not know during discussions. In a way, Koreans make sure that people have previous knowledge of what is being said. I noticed that when Koreans argue about a subject in particular, they use the 잖아 inflection (meaning "as you know") more than at any other time, to make sure that their "opponent" knows what they are talking about. If new facts are to be taught, they should be done conventionally: through books, lectures, television but not during discussions.
Finally, body language should be reduced to a minimum, Korean people don't value people who move and gesticulate when they are trying to make a point. Korean prefer the tone of the voice to be kept low.
During my class intervention, I committed three social blunders: I was laid back and used rather colloquial English, gesticulating, and giving out information people were not always aware of. Foreign students have a harder time when trying to discuss their thesis content or paper content with their professors: professors will often tell them to write the thesis or paper first before discussing the contents, rather than hear their students telling them things they may not know. Some consider it is a sign of lack of quality in education, but I personally argue that it is purely cultural.
As I said in my previous post, in France, the more facts one knows, the smarter he is. So I was sitting there taking my first class, and the professor asks us something about democracy. I raise my hand and start blurting out the raw historical facts I knew about democracy, from Plato's criticism of Greek democracy to a democratically elected Adolf Hitler and so on. Professor stops me and redirects the discussion, and I looked like an idiot.
Anyway, knowledge of historical facts do not make look one smart in Korea and are considered useless. So how should I have answered the question?
In fact, content of the answer is not what makes look someone "smart" in South Korea. Koreans don't care about how much people know about the world, they care about how people say it.
First, diction and pronunciation are key when addressing a Korean public. President Kim Young Sam was called an "idiot" by many including the press, for the mere reason that he could not get rid of his Kyeongsan accent. His catch word was his pronunciation of the word "확실히" (certainly) which he pronounced "학실히". And I'm going to stop there with facts. The point is accent, diction and pronunciation have an enormous impact on how Koreans evaluate each other. People who use standard pronunciation, the kind of pronunciation prescribed by the National Institute of Korean Language, are viewed as "smart" people.
Another determining factor in how Korean people view each other as smart is the choice of words. Exact use of complicated words derived from English or old Chinese (hanja) are an excellent way to give a good impression at a job interview or a social gathering in which academic or economic stakes are high. This is why, by the way, when Korean people speak English they tend to prefer using all those words we only come through while studying for exams like the GRE and no one actually uses.
A third, very important factor on how Koreans consider someone "intelligent" is the proper use of grammar, honorifics in particular. The use of Korean grammar is different when talking to friends and in formal occasions. 이랑 is replaced by 과, 께서 has very precise uses, 요 and 입니다 have "should" be used alternatively and have very precise rules as to when they should be used, rules that no school actually teaches, and many other rules.
Interventions should be concise and informative at the same time, but most importantly, group harmony should be maintained, meaning that it is a taboo to mention facts people might not know during discussions. In a way, Koreans make sure that people have previous knowledge of what is being said. I noticed that when Koreans argue about a subject in particular, they use the 잖아 inflection (meaning "as you know") more than at any other time, to make sure that their "opponent" knows what they are talking about. If new facts are to be taught, they should be done conventionally: through books, lectures, television but not during discussions.
Finally, body language should be reduced to a minimum, Korean people don't value people who move and gesticulate when they are trying to make a point. Korean prefer the tone of the voice to be kept low.
During my class intervention, I committed three social blunders: I was laid back and used rather colloquial English, gesticulating, and giving out information people were not always aware of. Foreign students have a harder time when trying to discuss their thesis content or paper content with their professors: professors will often tell them to write the thesis or paper first before discussing the contents, rather than hear their students telling them things they may not know. Some consider it is a sign of lack of quality in education, but I personally argue that it is purely cultural.
Who Korean people consider "smart people"
Every society has a different definition for intelligence. There are no universal values for being smart, and no test, even the IQ test, is indicative of what society considers an "intelligent person".
Before I talk about Korea, I'd like to talk about the difference between two societies many think have similar standards when it comes to judging what is an "intelligent person", France and the United States.
In France, a "smart person" is a person with a lot of factual knowledge. French people will think you're smart if you're good at remembering dates, people, events, sayings, or any factual knowledge, and the further you go back in history, the more you will be considered smart. French people say that such people have "encyclopedic knowledge", smart people in France are living encyclopedias who can recite any entry of a decent encyclopedia and who know a little bit about everything. This fact does not suffice to qualify to be regarded by society as intelligent, as, in order to be admired by society, one must attend a "grande ecole", one of those prestigious schools with very competitive entrance examinations.
In America, having factual knowledge and graduating prestigious schools does not automatically mean people will regard you as smart. In fact, most people regarded as "smart" in the United States have limited factual knowledge, and some of them never graduated from college. In the US, being smart means being innovative, any idea, any invention that has the qualities of being new and useful qualifies people to be considered smart.
Unlike France, perfect use of the English language does not automatically make one "smart", it is what one does that counts, and not what one says. In fact, any idea or invention that brought changes to society which are considered positive are attributed to "smart people". While those who popularized Starbucks or McDonalds in the US are considered "smart" by Americans, they are considered "shrewd" rather than "smart" in France.
This has implications as to when French students travel to the US or American students travel to France, think of themselves as "smart" and are surprised not to considered smart. It has implications when one comes to Korea as well.
Who do Koreans consider a "smart" person. Factual knowledge or innovation are not criteria which Koreans consider when they judge someone to find out whether he's smart. In Korea, numbers make all the difference. People are considered smart when they attend prestigious universities, just like in France. But unlike France, Korean people are considered smart when they are good at getting high numbers at tests. While job interviews in both France and America tend to select people depending on how well people performed at the interview and how much experience they have,
Koreans put much more weight on tests results: college GPA scores, standardized test scores and college attended, which is itself often a reflection of college entrance exam scores. Another factor to be considered smart is the job or position one has: lawyers, doctors, professors and to a certain degree journalists and clergymen are considered smart. Finally, in Korean society, a student can never be regarded as smart by the overall society, nor can a young person in general.
To summarize here are the criteria to qualify for what these three societies regard people as "smart" people:
France:
-Lots of factual knowledge, "encyclopedic knowledge"
-Good rhetoric, correct use of the standard spoken and written languages
-Attendance of prestigious schools
-Respectable jobs (writers, journalists, lawyers, doctors, public officials, CEOs but NOT professors, teachers, any businessman who is not a CEO,)
the United States:
-Ability to analyze and take quick decisions
-Innovative ideas and products
-Problem solving ability
-Ability to "sell" products
-Economic wealth and power
-Jobs don't matter as long as you make a lot of money and you like your job
Korea:
-Test scores
-College attended
-Ability to speak foreign languages
-Ability to use standard spoken and written forms of the language, especially pronunciation
-JOB (professors, lawyers, doctors, news anchors, CEOs, managers in major companies, politicians, diplomats, any profession which requires to take competitive examinations, people who work in the broadcasting industry, clergymen (among religious people) and to a certain extent flight attendants (because they can speak languages), researchers, translators, language and math teachers).
Before I talk about Korea, I'd like to talk about the difference between two societies many think have similar standards when it comes to judging what is an "intelligent person", France and the United States.
In France, a "smart person" is a person with a lot of factual knowledge. French people will think you're smart if you're good at remembering dates, people, events, sayings, or any factual knowledge, and the further you go back in history, the more you will be considered smart. French people say that such people have "encyclopedic knowledge", smart people in France are living encyclopedias who can recite any entry of a decent encyclopedia and who know a little bit about everything. This fact does not suffice to qualify to be regarded by society as intelligent, as, in order to be admired by society, one must attend a "grande ecole", one of those prestigious schools with very competitive entrance examinations.
In America, having factual knowledge and graduating prestigious schools does not automatically mean people will regard you as smart. In fact, most people regarded as "smart" in the United States have limited factual knowledge, and some of them never graduated from college. In the US, being smart means being innovative, any idea, any invention that has the qualities of being new and useful qualifies people to be considered smart.
Unlike France, perfect use of the English language does not automatically make one "smart", it is what one does that counts, and not what one says. In fact, any idea or invention that brought changes to society which are considered positive are attributed to "smart people". While those who popularized Starbucks or McDonalds in the US are considered "smart" by Americans, they are considered "shrewd" rather than "smart" in France.
This has implications as to when French students travel to the US or American students travel to France, think of themselves as "smart" and are surprised not to considered smart. It has implications when one comes to Korea as well.
Who do Koreans consider a "smart" person. Factual knowledge or innovation are not criteria which Koreans consider when they judge someone to find out whether he's smart. In Korea, numbers make all the difference. People are considered smart when they attend prestigious universities, just like in France. But unlike France, Korean people are considered smart when they are good at getting high numbers at tests. While job interviews in both France and America tend to select people depending on how well people performed at the interview and how much experience they have,
Koreans put much more weight on tests results: college GPA scores, standardized test scores and college attended, which is itself often a reflection of college entrance exam scores. Another factor to be considered smart is the job or position one has: lawyers, doctors, professors and to a certain degree journalists and clergymen are considered smart. Finally, in Korean society, a student can never be regarded as smart by the overall society, nor can a young person in general.
To summarize here are the criteria to qualify for what these three societies regard people as "smart" people:
France:
-Lots of factual knowledge, "encyclopedic knowledge"
-Good rhetoric, correct use of the standard spoken and written languages
-Attendance of prestigious schools
-Respectable jobs (writers, journalists, lawyers, doctors, public officials, CEOs but NOT professors, teachers, any businessman who is not a CEO,)
the United States:
-Ability to analyze and take quick decisions
-Innovative ideas and products
-Problem solving ability
-Ability to "sell" products
-Economic wealth and power
-Jobs don't matter as long as you make a lot of money and you like your job
Korea:
-Test scores
-College attended
-Ability to speak foreign languages
-Ability to use standard spoken and written forms of the language, especially pronunciation
-JOB (professors, lawyers, doctors, news anchors, CEOs, managers in major companies, politicians, diplomats, any profession which requires to take competitive examinations, people who work in the broadcasting industry, clergymen (among religious people) and to a certain extent flight attendants (because they can speak languages), researchers, translators, language and math teachers).
Defining racism towards African and African-American people in Korea
Anyone who is African or African-American will tell you that they have trouble taking taxis in South Korea, that people refuse to sit next to them when using public transportation and that some stores refuse to sell them anything. Other complaints include Koreans refusing to speak English to them even when they do, or Koreans telling them outright that they dislike "black" people.
Where does this originate from? I will argue that there are two origins.
The first one is an older version, when in the 19th century European scientists attempted to define "black" people as the "inferior race". Let me explain. It was argued that the human being evolved in Africa, thus starting off as black, then moved to Asia, thus becoming Asian, then to Europe, thus evolving to its final, most perfect state-white. Therefore scientists argued that fetuses started off as Black, evolved as Asian and then came out as white. Fetuses that came out black meant that they did not evolve properly, and those who came out Asian only evolved partially. Dr. Down, who discovered the Down syndrome was himself a supporter of this theory and coined the term "Mongolian" to describe his patients who had the down syndrome because he argued that they had stopped evolving at the "Asian" phase. Of course this theory has been completely discredited since World War II.
This means that for a number of years, many people in the world did believe that black people were primitive men who had failed to evolve as "perfect" men. Though few Koreans would directly prove this theory right, you will often hear Koreans say that "Black people are primitive", that they "still marry several wives" and that they "refuse to dress up as westerners" and are not "suitable for an industrialized economy".
Let me stop here for a second. As a linguist, I should argue that one of the first theories to demonstrate scientifically that all men regardless of color or ethnicity were equal was a linguistics theory: Noam Chomsky's Universal Grammar. Chomsky argued that all men had a "grammar component" in their brain that made them acquire any language they were exposed to, and that therefore you could be from a hunter-gatherer tribe in Africa, then be adopted by a family in Cambridge, Massachusetts, grow up in a White middle class environment, speak just like people surrounding you speak, and why not end up attending Harvard or the MIT.
The second theory is a socio-economic theory which encourages racism towards black people in Korea. Koreans are convinced that most countries with majority black popualations are poor countries, and that African-Americans and black minorities around the world tend to be economically deprived. This fact tends to confirm their first intuition according to which black people are inherently inferior. But let's stop here again. Bermuda, a British territory but which is partly independent, is mainly populated by black people. It is by far the richest territory in the world. Its per capita GDP is 91,000 US dollars. It is a territory where you will see black people working as CEOs, chairmen, doctors, lawyers and any fine profession you can think of. The Bahamas, another country with a majority of black people, also ranks higher than South Korea in per capita GDP.
Fear of black people and racism towards black people has the same roots in Korea as it does in other industrialized countries where black people are minorities. Racism has been somewhat appeased through black role models in some countries (African-American singers and actors in the United States, soccer players in the UK and Turkey, tennis players in France) and while Hines Ward's popularity did change Korean people's views on biracial children, it certainly did little to change Korean people's views on Africans and African-Americans.
Where does this originate from? I will argue that there are two origins.
The first one is an older version, when in the 19th century European scientists attempted to define "black" people as the "inferior race". Let me explain. It was argued that the human being evolved in Africa, thus starting off as black, then moved to Asia, thus becoming Asian, then to Europe, thus evolving to its final, most perfect state-white. Therefore scientists argued that fetuses started off as Black, evolved as Asian and then came out as white. Fetuses that came out black meant that they did not evolve properly, and those who came out Asian only evolved partially. Dr. Down, who discovered the Down syndrome was himself a supporter of this theory and coined the term "Mongolian" to describe his patients who had the down syndrome because he argued that they had stopped evolving at the "Asian" phase. Of course this theory has been completely discredited since World War II.
This means that for a number of years, many people in the world did believe that black people were primitive men who had failed to evolve as "perfect" men. Though few Koreans would directly prove this theory right, you will often hear Koreans say that "Black people are primitive", that they "still marry several wives" and that they "refuse to dress up as westerners" and are not "suitable for an industrialized economy".
Let me stop here for a second. As a linguist, I should argue that one of the first theories to demonstrate scientifically that all men regardless of color or ethnicity were equal was a linguistics theory: Noam Chomsky's Universal Grammar. Chomsky argued that all men had a "grammar component" in their brain that made them acquire any language they were exposed to, and that therefore you could be from a hunter-gatherer tribe in Africa, then be adopted by a family in Cambridge, Massachusetts, grow up in a White middle class environment, speak just like people surrounding you speak, and why not end up attending Harvard or the MIT.
The second theory is a socio-economic theory which encourages racism towards black people in Korea. Koreans are convinced that most countries with majority black popualations are poor countries, and that African-Americans and black minorities around the world tend to be economically deprived. This fact tends to confirm their first intuition according to which black people are inherently inferior. But let's stop here again. Bermuda, a British territory but which is partly independent, is mainly populated by black people. It is by far the richest territory in the world. Its per capita GDP is 91,000 US dollars. It is a territory where you will see black people working as CEOs, chairmen, doctors, lawyers and any fine profession you can think of. The Bahamas, another country with a majority of black people, also ranks higher than South Korea in per capita GDP.
Fear of black people and racism towards black people has the same roots in Korea as it does in other industrialized countries where black people are minorities. Racism has been somewhat appeased through black role models in some countries (African-American singers and actors in the United States, soccer players in the UK and Turkey, tennis players in France) and while Hines Ward's popularity did change Korean people's views on biracial children, it certainly did little to change Korean people's views on Africans and African-Americans.
Defining racism in Korea
Foreigners tend to jump to conclusions and are quick to say that whenever something does not please them about Korean people, it's because Korean people are racist.
Before we start asking the question of what is racism in Korea, we should ask ourselves the question of who is racist in Korea: the Korean who refuses to sit next to a foreigner, who openly states that he dislikes foreigners, laws that prohibit foreigners from buying cell phones and limit their right to having health care?
Or the foreigner who calls Koreans "stupid", "insular", "sectarian", who claims that they are incapable of learning English, that they are "weird" people who don't fit in the global community etc. etc.?
Defining racism without judging a person is a hard thing to do. But let's try to do that. Most societies in the world have a story, a legend or a book that claims directly or indirectly that their way of life is the best. With the advent of science and technology, there was even an attempt by white people to define themselves as scientifically superior to all other people. Until as late as the 1950s, many scientists considered valid the theory according the which white men had evolved from black and Asian men and that they represented humanity in its perfect state. Even in recent years, scientists have tried to demonstrate that AIDS was related to race in some way, that black people were predisposed to getting AIDS and that Asians were not. Other theories have suggested that black people were biologically more fit for activities like sports and dancing and that white people were biologically more fit for intellectual activities. These theories still have not been discarded, although there is very strong scientific evidence contradicting these facts.
Geneticists and biologists have demonstrated that in fact black populations and Asian populations had as much variation as their genes as any other people and that genetically there is no such thing as "white people", "black people" or "Asian people". Calling someone a "white" person has social implications in the sense that it does define his identity, but very little genetic implications as he may be genetically very different from any other white person.
What does this mean for Korea? Over the past 4 centuries white people have tried every method to prove that they were superior people. White people stopped using the term superior or explicitly claiming that they were better than other peoples after the Holocaust, but Korea is one of those countries where it can clearly be seen that white people do have this heritage of thinking of itself as a "superior" race.
If not, why is it then that foreigners criticize everything in Korea from food to people ("Koreans lack self-confidence", "Koreans don't want to mix with foreigners", "Koreans are too stupid to learn English"), to the culture ("Koreans have a hierarchical society which is bad", "Korean workers kiss their boss's behinds", "Koreans are hypocrites and will never say the truth to your face"). From what perspective are all the things that I just described "bad"? Certainly not from a Korean perspective... Just like every society on earth, people tend to think that their way of doing things is the "best" way. More so that for centuries now the white race has been trying to prove that it is a superior race, and that therefore its way of life is superior to other people's way of life, and that with globalization some non-white people have actually bought this theory and started questioning themselves.
As for Koreans, there have been some verbal assaults on foreigners reported (marginal ones) and I've never heard about a physical assault on a foreigner. Here's a Q and A session on the reasons Koreans behave in what some call a "racist" way:
Why aren't foreigners allowed to buy cell phones?:
As I have said many times, Koreans place huge importance on trust. They feel that they can not trust someone who will buy a cell phone and who may leave the country without paying his phone bills. Koreans want to identify people who use cell phones through a very strict identification system because of a security law since the country is technically at war. Since foreigners' identification usually expires within a year, and that contracts tend to last for at least a year, they do not allow foreigners to buy cell phones.
Why can't foreign students get health care?:
Koreans consider a wife or a boss at a company to be legal sponsors, but not universities. The health care system requires that foreigners get a sponsor, be affiliated with an organization to get health care. Because universities are large crowded areas where people have relative freedom and no official sponsor, Korean authorities don't consider universities as organizations. Health care is partly covered by the Korean government, partly by companies, but is not covered by universities. And foreign students do not pay taxes and do not have parents who pay taxes in Korea, and it is therefore considered that the government should not pay for things that citizens do not pay taxes for in return.
Why do Koreans refuse to sit next to foreigners in buses or subways?:
There is an etiquette for who to sit next to in buses or subways in Korea. People should choose to sit to the person who resembles them the most. Young men will chose to sit in priority next to young men, then old men, then old women, then young women. Old women will choose to sit next to old women, young women, young men, old women. Foreigners are considered not to fit in the "identity criteria" and are placed last in the list, because they resemble Koreans the least. That is because while Koreans can act in predictable ways, foreigners act in unpredictable ways.
Why do Koreans use 반말 when they speak to foreigners?
Any older person can use 반말 with a person who is visibly younger or the same age, and the same is done with Koreans. Though it is not the "recommended" thing to do, many do not follow the rule.
Other questions, including why Koreans don't hire non-white people for English teaching jobs, why Koreans grab and push foreigners rather than talk to them, etc. have been answered in this blog.
The point is that while some Koreans may claim to dislike foreigners, it may not compare with how much foreigners claim to dislike Koreans.
Before we start asking the question of what is racism in Korea, we should ask ourselves the question of who is racist in Korea: the Korean who refuses to sit next to a foreigner, who openly states that he dislikes foreigners, laws that prohibit foreigners from buying cell phones and limit their right to having health care?
Or the foreigner who calls Koreans "stupid", "insular", "sectarian", who claims that they are incapable of learning English, that they are "weird" people who don't fit in the global community etc. etc.?
Defining racism without judging a person is a hard thing to do. But let's try to do that. Most societies in the world have a story, a legend or a book that claims directly or indirectly that their way of life is the best. With the advent of science and technology, there was even an attempt by white people to define themselves as scientifically superior to all other people. Until as late as the 1950s, many scientists considered valid the theory according the which white men had evolved from black and Asian men and that they represented humanity in its perfect state. Even in recent years, scientists have tried to demonstrate that AIDS was related to race in some way, that black people were predisposed to getting AIDS and that Asians were not. Other theories have suggested that black people were biologically more fit for activities like sports and dancing and that white people were biologically more fit for intellectual activities. These theories still have not been discarded, although there is very strong scientific evidence contradicting these facts.
Geneticists and biologists have demonstrated that in fact black populations and Asian populations had as much variation as their genes as any other people and that genetically there is no such thing as "white people", "black people" or "Asian people". Calling someone a "white" person has social implications in the sense that it does define his identity, but very little genetic implications as he may be genetically very different from any other white person.
What does this mean for Korea? Over the past 4 centuries white people have tried every method to prove that they were superior people. White people stopped using the term superior or explicitly claiming that they were better than other peoples after the Holocaust, but Korea is one of those countries where it can clearly be seen that white people do have this heritage of thinking of itself as a "superior" race.
If not, why is it then that foreigners criticize everything in Korea from food to people ("Koreans lack self-confidence", "Koreans don't want to mix with foreigners", "Koreans are too stupid to learn English"), to the culture ("Koreans have a hierarchical society which is bad", "Korean workers kiss their boss's behinds", "Koreans are hypocrites and will never say the truth to your face"). From what perspective are all the things that I just described "bad"? Certainly not from a Korean perspective... Just like every society on earth, people tend to think that their way of doing things is the "best" way. More so that for centuries now the white race has been trying to prove that it is a superior race, and that therefore its way of life is superior to other people's way of life, and that with globalization some non-white people have actually bought this theory and started questioning themselves.
As for Koreans, there have been some verbal assaults on foreigners reported (marginal ones) and I've never heard about a physical assault on a foreigner. Here's a Q and A session on the reasons Koreans behave in what some call a "racist" way:
Why aren't foreigners allowed to buy cell phones?:
As I have said many times, Koreans place huge importance on trust. They feel that they can not trust someone who will buy a cell phone and who may leave the country without paying his phone bills. Koreans want to identify people who use cell phones through a very strict identification system because of a security law since the country is technically at war. Since foreigners' identification usually expires within a year, and that contracts tend to last for at least a year, they do not allow foreigners to buy cell phones.
Why can't foreign students get health care?:
Koreans consider a wife or a boss at a company to be legal sponsors, but not universities. The health care system requires that foreigners get a sponsor, be affiliated with an organization to get health care. Because universities are large crowded areas where people have relative freedom and no official sponsor, Korean authorities don't consider universities as organizations. Health care is partly covered by the Korean government, partly by companies, but is not covered by universities. And foreign students do not pay taxes and do not have parents who pay taxes in Korea, and it is therefore considered that the government should not pay for things that citizens do not pay taxes for in return.
Why do Koreans refuse to sit next to foreigners in buses or subways?:
There is an etiquette for who to sit next to in buses or subways in Korea. People should choose to sit to the person who resembles them the most. Young men will chose to sit in priority next to young men, then old men, then old women, then young women. Old women will choose to sit next to old women, young women, young men, old women. Foreigners are considered not to fit in the "identity criteria" and are placed last in the list, because they resemble Koreans the least. That is because while Koreans can act in predictable ways, foreigners act in unpredictable ways.
Why do Koreans use 반말 when they speak to foreigners?
Any older person can use 반말 with a person who is visibly younger or the same age, and the same is done with Koreans. Though it is not the "recommended" thing to do, many do not follow the rule.
Other questions, including why Koreans don't hire non-white people for English teaching jobs, why Koreans grab and push foreigners rather than talk to them, etc. have been answered in this blog.
The point is that while some Koreans may claim to dislike foreigners, it may not compare with how much foreigners claim to dislike Koreans.
How the Korean media portrays infidelity
Anyone who has watched Korean movies, dramas or who reads the Korean press will get the impression that there are no happy Korean couples and that they all cheat on each other.
Korean movies and dramas know that they increase their audience by portraying extramarital relationships more than "normal" relationships. Any decent movie or drama needs something "unusual" to happen in the storyline, something that shocks the public and that makes them reflect on the issue. You will thus find way more extramarital relationships in Korean movies and dramas, as it is the easiest way to portray something unusual.
Let's take a look at media figures on infidelity: some newspapers reported that as many as 70-80% Korean men cheated on their wives and 20-30% women cheated on their husbands. How true is this? It is a known fact among sociologists that only frustrated people respond to surveys. Think about it for a second: would you bother to participate in a survey if you had nothing to complain about? My view on this is that figures on infidelity are much lower in Korea.
The other thing is that the Korean media portrays couples as frustrated couples. There are several reality shows on how men cheat on their girlfriends, husbands on their wives, news reports on how actors and singers cheat on their significant others. But think about it... how many people would read articles or watch television shows about couples living happily?
Finally, entire radio shows in Korea are dedicated to callers complaining about their love lives. How many people would call such shows to report that everything is
going fine with their couple? Wouldn't they destroy the atmosphere?
This is not something true only to Korea, it is true of most modern civilizations. Victimization in the media ends up making people feeling victims themselves, as happy couples may suddenly feel deviant for being happy, as the accepted norm for love and relationships in the modern world is that it should be complicated and extramarital relationships should be part of every relationship. My view on this is that most Korean couples live happy lives and have harder times struggling to make a living than to be happy with each other.
Korean movies and dramas know that they increase their audience by portraying extramarital relationships more than "normal" relationships. Any decent movie or drama needs something "unusual" to happen in the storyline, something that shocks the public and that makes them reflect on the issue. You will thus find way more extramarital relationships in Korean movies and dramas, as it is the easiest way to portray something unusual.
Let's take a look at media figures on infidelity: some newspapers reported that as many as 70-80% Korean men cheated on their wives and 20-30% women cheated on their husbands. How true is this? It is a known fact among sociologists that only frustrated people respond to surveys. Think about it for a second: would you bother to participate in a survey if you had nothing to complain about? My view on this is that figures on infidelity are much lower in Korea.
The other thing is that the Korean media portrays couples as frustrated couples. There are several reality shows on how men cheat on their girlfriends, husbands on their wives, news reports on how actors and singers cheat on their significant others. But think about it... how many people would read articles or watch television shows about couples living happily?
Finally, entire radio shows in Korea are dedicated to callers complaining about their love lives. How many people would call such shows to report that everything is
going fine with their couple? Wouldn't they destroy the atmosphere?
This is not something true only to Korea, it is true of most modern civilizations. Victimization in the media ends up making people feeling victims themselves, as happy couples may suddenly feel deviant for being happy, as the accepted norm for love and relationships in the modern world is that it should be complicated and extramarital relationships should be part of every relationship. My view on this is that most Korean couples live happy lives and have harder times struggling to make a living than to be happy with each other.
Explaining "bad Korean English"
When human beings enter a new country, they tend to compare everything they see with what they had previously experienced. They tend to think that what they experienced until then was "right" and that what they see is somewhat "wrong". In a Korean context, Koreans bumping into you and not excusing themselves is "wrong" because the "right" thing to do in your country is to excuse yourself.
The same thing happens when people learn a new language. Foreigners learning Korean tend to think that a lot of the aspects of Korean language are "wrong" and that the way to say things in our language is "right". It is something hidden in the subconscious, but when people learn foreign languages, they tend to use the same grammatical structures, pronunciation, word formation rules and meanings of words as in their native language.
Linguists argue that Korean is a "mirror" language of English. That is, if you put English on a mirror, you will get the Korean word order. Verbs at the end, post-positions instead of prepositions etc.
However, when Koreans speak English, they have their rules, which they think of as best, and when Americans speak Korean they have their rules which they think of as best.
PRONUNCIATION
Korean has different pronunciation rules from English which are as follows:
-There can not be two consonants at the beginning of a word or syllable
Therefore Koreans will add the "eu" (으) sound between consonants at the beginning of a syllable: Christmas becomes "Keurismaseu"
-Some sounds have to be followed by vowels in Korean: ㅎ (h), ㅅ (s), ㅈ (j), ㅊ(ch), ㅌ (t), ㅋ (k) have to be followed by vowels. Therefore, if such sounds are placed at the end of a syllable in English, Koreans will add "eu"(으), and "i"(이) if they are "j" or "ch" sounds at the end of a word: "mask" becomes "maseukeu", "bench" becomes "benchi"
-Some English sounds (mostly consonants)do not exist in Korean. They will therefore either be replaced by Korean consonants or will alter between them.
"f" will tend to become "p", "z" will become "j", "r" will either become "l" or a "flapped r", "th" will become "d" or "s", "v" will become "b". Note however that Koreans alter such consonants and give them "allophonic" values, meaning that they are the same sound but change pronunciation depending whether they are preceded by a consonant, vowel or nothing. "p", "b", "f" and "v" tend to have the same value among Korean speakers as they may say things like "vanana" instead of "banana", "fancake" instead of "pancake" etc. They may also say "Zames" instead of "James" and the like.
WORD FORMATION
Korean is an agglutinative language where parts which have meaning stick together to form words in a regular way. If one combination is word parts is possible in Korean, it is possible for all other words. Explaining this would involve complicated "morphological" analysis so let's just put it this way:
In Korean, 조심-스럽-게, 건강-스럽-게 or 흥미-럽-게 are all possible words (note that 스럽다 becomes 럽다 when preceded by a consonant), as is any adjective with 스럽/럽 and 게. If Koreans know that "care-FUL-LY" is a possible word, they will think it is possible with all adjectives: "health-FUL-LY", "interest-FUL-LY" etc.
GRAMMAR
There are a number of grammar rules that Koreans calque from their native language when they speak English. An example of this would be that Koreans do not need an auxiliary (to be) when an adjective becomes a verb: to be handsome in Korean would be literally "to handsome". In fact Koreans tend to drop the verb "be" all together. Therefore "he's gonna come" becomes "he gonna come" etc.
Koreans also use particles differently, since they are used differently in Korean. For, to, at, from etc. are all used differently from American English. Koreans may say "I gave it for someone" instead of "to someone" etc. because in this case 에게 can sometimes be used in contexts meaning "for" in Korean (ㅇㅇ에게 케익 만들었다= I made cake for someone).
Koreans may add articles to names of people, cities and countries (the Australia, the New York, the James) because in Korean, if you apply a preposition to a noun, it should be applied to all nouns in the context
While Koreans use "the" a lot, the preposition "a" seems to be omitted. Koreans will often say "I am man" or in some cases "I man" (instead of I am a man) or "He works for company" (instead of "he works for a company". That is because in Korean there is no equivalent of the preposition "a".
SEMANTICS AND MEANING
Korean has a lot of loanwords from English which experienced semantic change over the years. Some words were also loaned from British English, from 19th Century American English through Japan or recently from Singapore, and have different meanings in American English today.
Koreans still borrow words from English and use them differently, not because they are stupid, but because they have a different vision of words and life.
Koreans may use "one piece", "hand phone", "overeat" in English sentences to mean "dress", "cell phone" or "throw up". A large number of technical terms were coined in Korean with no equivalent in American English. Americans working in the broadcasting industry in Korea may hear a lot of words they are not familiar with, including "VJ" (video journalist), "announcer" (reporter), "UCC" (video as in youtube video), "NG" (no good, when the scene needs to be shot over again) etc. Koreans use such words when they speak English.
As I argued, they "calque" Korean when they speak English, which is something every human being does when he speaks a second language. Calling Koreans "stupid" for not being able to learn and use English "properly" is equivalent to calling human beings "stupid" for having unsophisticated brains which calque native languages when they speak foreign languages.
The same thing happens when people learn a new language. Foreigners learning Korean tend to think that a lot of the aspects of Korean language are "wrong" and that the way to say things in our language is "right". It is something hidden in the subconscious, but when people learn foreign languages, they tend to use the same grammatical structures, pronunciation, word formation rules and meanings of words as in their native language.
Linguists argue that Korean is a "mirror" language of English. That is, if you put English on a mirror, you will get the Korean word order. Verbs at the end, post-positions instead of prepositions etc.
However, when Koreans speak English, they have their rules, which they think of as best, and when Americans speak Korean they have their rules which they think of as best.
PRONUNCIATION
Korean has different pronunciation rules from English which are as follows:
-There can not be two consonants at the beginning of a word or syllable
Therefore Koreans will add the "eu" (으) sound between consonants at the beginning of a syllable: Christmas becomes "Keurismaseu"
-Some sounds have to be followed by vowels in Korean: ㅎ (h), ㅅ (s), ㅈ (j), ㅊ(ch), ㅌ (t), ㅋ (k) have to be followed by vowels. Therefore, if such sounds are placed at the end of a syllable in English, Koreans will add "eu"(으), and "i"(이) if they are "j" or "ch" sounds at the end of a word: "mask" becomes "maseukeu", "bench" becomes "benchi"
-Some English sounds (mostly consonants)do not exist in Korean. They will therefore either be replaced by Korean consonants or will alter between them.
"f" will tend to become "p", "z" will become "j", "r" will either become "l" or a "flapped r", "th" will become "d" or "s", "v" will become "b". Note however that Koreans alter such consonants and give them "allophonic" values, meaning that they are the same sound but change pronunciation depending whether they are preceded by a consonant, vowel or nothing. "p", "b", "f" and "v" tend to have the same value among Korean speakers as they may say things like "vanana" instead of "banana", "fancake" instead of "pancake" etc. They may also say "Zames" instead of "James" and the like.
WORD FORMATION
Korean is an agglutinative language where parts which have meaning stick together to form words in a regular way. If one combination is word parts is possible in Korean, it is possible for all other words. Explaining this would involve complicated "morphological" analysis so let's just put it this way:
In Korean, 조심-스럽-게, 건강-스럽-게 or 흥미-럽-게 are all possible words (note that 스럽다 becomes 럽다 when preceded by a consonant), as is any adjective with 스럽/럽 and 게. If Koreans know that "care-FUL-LY" is a possible word, they will think it is possible with all adjectives: "health-FUL-LY", "interest-FUL-LY" etc.
GRAMMAR
There are a number of grammar rules that Koreans calque from their native language when they speak English. An example of this would be that Koreans do not need an auxiliary (to be) when an adjective becomes a verb: to be handsome in Korean would be literally "to handsome". In fact Koreans tend to drop the verb "be" all together. Therefore "he's gonna come" becomes "he gonna come" etc.
Koreans also use particles differently, since they are used differently in Korean. For, to, at, from etc. are all used differently from American English. Koreans may say "I gave it for someone" instead of "to someone" etc. because in this case 에게 can sometimes be used in contexts meaning "for" in Korean (ㅇㅇ에게 케익 만들었다= I made cake for someone).
Koreans may add articles to names of people, cities and countries (the Australia, the New York, the James) because in Korean, if you apply a preposition to a noun, it should be applied to all nouns in the context
While Koreans use "the" a lot, the preposition "a" seems to be omitted. Koreans will often say "I am man" or in some cases "I man" (instead of I am a man) or "He works for company" (instead of "he works for a company". That is because in Korean there is no equivalent of the preposition "a".
SEMANTICS AND MEANING
Korean has a lot of loanwords from English which experienced semantic change over the years. Some words were also loaned from British English, from 19th Century American English through Japan or recently from Singapore, and have different meanings in American English today.
Koreans still borrow words from English and use them differently, not because they are stupid, but because they have a different vision of words and life.
Koreans may use "one piece", "hand phone", "overeat" in English sentences to mean "dress", "cell phone" or "throw up". A large number of technical terms were coined in Korean with no equivalent in American English. Americans working in the broadcasting industry in Korea may hear a lot of words they are not familiar with, including "VJ" (video journalist), "announcer" (reporter), "UCC" (video as in youtube video), "NG" (no good, when the scene needs to be shot over again) etc. Koreans use such words when they speak English.
As I argued, they "calque" Korean when they speak English, which is something every human being does when he speaks a second language. Calling Koreans "stupid" for not being able to learn and use English "properly" is equivalent to calling human beings "stupid" for having unsophisticated brains which calque native languages when they speak foreign languages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
