The Spread of the Korean Language: Through the Korean Diaspora and Beyond 1557291780, 9781557291783

Citation preview

Notes to this edition This is an electronic edition of the printed book. Minor corrections may have been made within the text; new information and any errata appear on the current page only. Transnational Korea 2 The Spread of the Korean Language: Through the Korean Diaspora and Beyond Clare You and Yangwon Ha ISBN-13: 978-1-55729-179-0 (electronic) ISBN-13: 978-1-55729-178-3 (print) ISBN-10: 1-55729-178-0 (print)

Please visit the IEAS Publications website at http://ieas.berkeley.edu/publications/ for more information and to see our catalogue. Send correspondence and manuscripts to Katherine Lawn Chouta, Managing Editor Institute of East Asian Studies 1995 University Avenue, Suite 510H Berkeley, CA 94704-2318 USA [email protected]

March 2018

The Spread of the Korean Language

TRANSNATIONAL KOREA 2

The Spread of the Korean Language

Through the Korean Diaspora and Beyond

Edited by Clare You and Yangwon Ha

A publication of the Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Although the institute is responsible for the selection and acceptance of manuscripts in this series, responsibility for the opinions expressed and for the accuracy of statements rests with their authors. The Transnational Korea series is one of several publication series sponsored by the Institute of East Asian Studies in conjunction with its constituent units. This work was supported by the Academy of Korean Studies (KSPS) Grant funded by the Korean Government (MOE) (AKS-2012-BAA-2102). The other series include the China Research Monograph series, the Japan Research Monograph series, the Korea Research Monograph series, and the Research Papers and Policy Studies series. Send correspondence and manuscripts to Katherine Lawn Chouta, Managing Editor Institute of East Asian Studies 1995 University Avenue, Suite 510H Berkeley, CA 94720 [email protected] Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: You, Clare editor. | Ha, Yangwon editor. Title: The spread of the Korean language : through the Korean diaspora and beyond / Clare You and Yangwon Ha, editors. Description: Berkeley : Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley, [2018] | Series: Transnational Korea ; 2 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018004479 (print) | LCCN 2018000288 (ebook) | ISBN 9781557291790 (ebook) | ISBN 1557291799 (ebook) | ISBN 9781557291783 (alk. paper) | ISBN 1557291780 (alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Korean language—Foreign countries. | Korean language— Study and teaching—Foreign countries. | Korean language—Social aspects. | Language policy—Korea (South) | Language spread—History. Classification: LCC PL907 (print) | LCC PL907 .S67 2018 (ebook) | DDC 495.7—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018004479 Copyright © 2018 by the Regents of the University of California. Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. The cover image of a globe is an adaptation of an image published by user Addicted04 on Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons AttributionShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. The image was modified by the removal of red fill color and the addition of flag images; the resulting work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA. Cover design by Mindy Chen.

Contents

Acknowledgments vii Contributors ix Introduction Clare You

1

1. The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China 9 Kim Kuang-su 2. How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China 31 Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling 3. The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong 53 Hyewon Kang Kim 4. From a Diaspora Language to a Language Diaspora: The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan 85 Nam Sun Song 5. The Perishing Language of Diaspora: The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan 122 German Kim 6. Korean Language Spread and Korean Language Education in New Zealand, with Comparative Notes on Australia 151 Inshil Choe Yoon 7. On the Korean Language in Diaspora—Focusing on the Western United States 193 Clare You

8. The Korean Language Diaspora, with a Special Focus on the Eastern United States Hye-Sook Wang 9. Language Spread Policy in Korea Yangwon Ha

234 258

Acknowledgments

When a project takes nearly a decade to complete, it owes much to the help of numerous people. First, I am indebted to John Lie, professor of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, whose focus on diaspora studies gave me the impetus to study the Korean language in the diaspora community. As chair of the Center for Korean Studies, Lie was supportive of this project from its beginning. Laura Nelson, who succeeded him as chair, gave continued support through the project’s completion. Dylan Davis, program director of CKS, and Stephanie Kim, who succeeded him, handled the project’s administrative details with efficiency. Martin Backstrom, IEAS associate director, was always ready to help. Katherine Lawn Chouta, managing editor of IEAS publications, advised me on various editing matters along the way and also performed the final copyedit of this book. Beyond UC Berkeley, Soojin Jang, a former UCB student, deserves special thanks for her tireless translations into English of the chapters written in Chinese Korean and for her editing assistance. Editor Emily Park did heroic work standardizing the form and style of the chapters, which originated in several different languages. Throughout the project I consulted Martin Backstrom, Jung W. Bang, Chul-soon Choi, Yangwon Ha, Mark Kaiser, Rick Kern, Kijoo Ko, Hyosang Lee, Byung Joon Lim, Hei Sook Wang, and Mark Peterson; their expertise has been invaluable. My profound gratitude goes to everyone mentioned here for their sub rosa contributions to this volume. I gratefully acknowledge the Academy of Korean Studies, the Quan Duwhan Fund, and the Center for Korean Studies for their financial support. Clare You Berkeley, December 2017

Contributors

Yangwon HA is a researcher affiliated with the University of Washington, Seattle. She studied the sociology of education for her Ph.D. at the School of Education, University of California, Berkeley. Her major area of research is the expansion of education and Korean educational policy. She is also interested in the education of Korean American immigrants in the United States, and she coedited Traces of Early Korean Immigrants’ Education (Seoul: Sunin Press, 2011). She is currently working on a manuscript on the hierarchization of higher education in Korea since the liberation in 1945. Ha has served as a reporter specializing in education for ­Joong­ang Daily in Seoul and as program director of the Center for Korean Studies, University of California, Berkeley. JIN Jiaoling has an M.A. in Korean literature and is a lecturer of Korean language at Harbin Institute of Technology. Her research focuses on modern Korean literature and the comparative study of Chinese and Korean literature. She coauthored with Jin Zhe an article titled “Discussion on Korean Female Characters of Modern Chinese Writers’ Works” in Dangdai Hanguo (Contemporary Korea, 2015), which illustrates the value of North Korean women’s images in modern Chinese literature based on the sociocultural background between 1910 and 1945. JIN Zhe is a professor and Ph.D. supervisor of Korean literature at Shandong University. Currently director of the China Korean Language Society and a board member of several other national and international academic organizations of Korean studies, his research interests cover Korean literature and Korean language teaching. He has published several books including Pak Che-Ga’s Poetry and Chinese Literature (Shandong University Press, 2007) and Modern China-Korea Literary Relations in the Early Twentieth Century (Beijing: Minzu chubanshe, 2013), as well as over thirty articles, among them “The Past, Present, and Future of Korean Language Education in China,” in Zhong-Han renlei yanjiu ­(Korean-Chinese humanities research) 24 (2008), and “The Past, Current,

x

Contributors

and Future Tasks of Korean Cultural Education in China,” in Hanguoyu wenhua yanjiu (Korean language culture research) 1 (2013). Hyewon KANG KIM is the director of the Cultural Studies Centre of East Asia in Hong Kong and the founder of the Korean studies programs at the University of Hong Kong and at the Community College of City University of Hong Kong. She is the author of Zhong Han wenhua tan 中韩文化谈 (Peking University Press, 2013), which was selected as a Phoenix New Media’s Great Book (Fenghuang hao shu bang), and Dim Sum euro jeomsim meokki 딤섬으로점심먹기 (Korea University Press, 2013), which was selected for the Sejong doseo prize in the social science category by the Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism. She also authored Busy Koreans (Korea University Press, 2014), which is the first English publication on contemporary Korean culture and society written from an East Asian perspective. Her most recent book, Hankuk munhwaui tal Jungkukhwa 한국문화의탈중국화 (Somyung Publishing, forthcoming in 2018), discusses the linguistic culture and the ways of thinking of Koreans compared to Chinese. She has published numerous articles on cultural phenomena and films, as well as academic studies on Korean language and culture. As an invited scholar, she has regularly written articles on liberal arts for the Maeil Business Newspaper. She holds a Ph.D. in Korean studies from Kyung Hee University, and master’s and bachelor’s degrees from Yonsei University. German KIM is director of the International Center of Korean Studies, Kazakh National al-Farabi University, and professor in the Department of History, Konguk University. He has written and edited many books and papers, originally in his native Russian, but translated into Kazakh, English, Korean, German, and Japanese. His most significant books are The History of Korean Immigration, vol. 1, Second Half of the 19th c.–1945 (Almaty: Daik-Press, 1999); The History of Korean Immigration, vol. 2, parts 1 and 2, 1945–2000 (Almaty: Daik-Press, 2006); The Koryo Saram: Historiography and Bibliography (Kore saram: Istoriographiya i bibliographiya; Almaty: Kazakh University, 2000), and Ethnic Entrepreneurship of Koreans in the USSR and Post-Soviet Central Asia (Institute of Developing Economics Visiting Research Scholars Monograph Series, Chiba-si, no. 446, 2008). Kim has received research and fieldwork grants from the Korea Research Foundation, Korea Foundation, British Academy, Japan Museum of Anthropology (Osaka), International Research and Exchanges Board, Academy of Korean Studies, POSCO Foundation (Pohang Iron and Steel Company), Institute for Developing Economics (Japan), and the North East Asia History Foundation. As a visiting professor, he has taught in the Institute of Humanities at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, the Center for Slavic Studies at Hokkaido University (Sapporo),

Contributors

xi

Sungshin University (Seoul), and Konguk University (Seoul). For his academic, educational, and social efforts, Kim has received numerous Kazakh and Korean awards, including the Korean Compatriots Award of KBS for 2014 in the humanities and social sciences. KIM Kuang-su has been a professor in the Department of Korean Language and Literature at Yanbian University (China) since 2006. He taught as an associate professor in the Korean Department at Qingdao’s Haiyang University during 2005 and 2006. After completing his doctoral degree in Korean Language and Literature at Yanbian University, he conducted postdoctoral research in KAIST (Korea). His major research interests are the historical study of the Korean language in China and the study of terminology. His books include A Study of Hunminjeongeum (Yekluk Press, 2017), A Historical Study of the Korean Language in China (Yanbian University Press, 2015), and A Comparative Study of Terminology in the People’s Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Yekluk Press, 2004). His papers include “A Study of Hunminjeongeum in China” (Korean Language in China, 2017) and “A Historical Change of Korean Vocabulary in China” (Korean Language in China, 2015). Nam Sun SONG is professor of linguistics in the Faculty of International Studies at the Osaka University of Economics and Law. Song received his Ph.D. in linguistics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He is the author of Thematic Relations and Transitivity in English, Japanese, and Korean (University of Hawai‘i Press, 1993), “Metaphor and Metonymy” in Robyn Carston and Seiji Uchida, eds., Relevance Theory: Applications and Implications (John Benjamins Publishing, 1998), and “Passives” in Jaehoon Yeon, ed., Studies in Korean MorphoSyntax: A Functional-Typological Perspective (Saffron Korean Linguistics Series, 2003). He has published numerous articles on Korean and Japanese grammar and linguistics. His recent research focuses on the history of Korean language education in Japan and linguistic nationalism in Japan and Korea. Hye-Sook WANG is an associate professor of East Asian studies at Brown University. Her primary research interest is in sociolinguistics and crosscultural communication. In recent years her publication has been on curriculum development, the integration of language and culture, and the pragmatic/sociolinguistic aspects (e.g., gender and politeness) of learning Korean as a foreign language. She most recently edited Rise of Korean Language Programs in U.S. Institute of Higher Education (Korea University Press, 2015). She served as the editor-in-chief of Korean Language in America, the journal of the American Association of Teachers of Korean, from 2005 to 2012.

xii

Contributors

Inshil Choe YOON is a senior lecturer in the School of Cultures, Languages, and Linguistics at the University of Auckland. She wrote on the bibliographical background of T’aengniji manuscripts and translated T’aengniji into English. A Place to Live: A New Translation of Yi Chunghwan’s T’aengniji, the Korean Classic for Choosing Settlements, is forthcoming from the University of Hawai‘i Press. She has also studied children’s learning the Korean language in an English-speaking environment. Time for Korean (Hollym, 2009), a revised version of Nami annyong, is one of the outcomes of this research. Clare YOU studied linguistics and information science at the University of California, Berkeley. She taught and coordinated the Korean program as well as served as chair of the Center for Korean Studies. You coauthored College Korean and Intermediate College Korean (University of California Press, 1992 and 2002). She has cotranslated modern Korean poetry and fiction into English, including The Three Way Tavern (University of California Press, 2006) and I Must Be the Wind (White Pine Press, 2014), and English works into Korean, such as Things Fall Apart (Seoul: Eastern Press, 1994). She is a recipient of the Order of Cultural Merit (Silver Medal) from the Government of Korea. More recently, she was awarded the Manhae Grand Prize in Korea (2017).

Introduction

CLARE YOU Prelude Ten years ago, I flew to Jilin City, Yanbian, China, for a forum. As I stepped into Changchun Longjia Airport in Jilin, I felt a strange feeling of familiarity permeating the airport, immigrations, and customs entry procedures as the memories of Yeouido Airport in Seoul I left behind some forty years ago rushed over me. It was not the outdated counters, old conveyers, and scattered baggage everywhere that were reminiscent of the old Yeouido but the familiar sounds of talk exchanged among the immigration and customs officers and baggage handlers. They spoke with a Chinese accent akin, I thought, to a North Korean accent; nevertheless, the ease of their communication caused me to let down my guard in the unfamiliar territory. As I drove to the hotel, I noticed that signs were often displayed in Hanja (Chinese characters) and Hangul (the Korean alphabet) side by side, sometimes with a third script in English: for example, “卡拉OK, 노래방,” and “karaoke,” respectively. Here was a living example of “linguistic diversity in space and time,”1 which we will trace and record in this volume—the current state of the spread and change of the Korean language. Introduction From ancient times, geographic borders have not always signaled the limits of the language spoken in each state or by each ethnicity. In the current age of global migration, fluidity of language is prevalent in many parts of the world. Language as a manifestation of cultural identity often goes along with people induced voluntarily or forcibly to migrate from their homeland 1  This phrase is borrowed from J. Nichols’s original book Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (1992). Nichols maps prehistoric human movement in space and time through the linguistically inherent features of the world’s language groups such as word order and morphology. In this volume, we trace the spread of Korean language through human movement—migration, either forced or voluntary.

2

Clare You

to a foreign soil, contributing to the linguascape (i.e., language landscape) of the new land. The Korean language is an example. Notwithstanding the fact that each region that received Korean emigrants has a unique history, they share the Korean language in common, transplanted and propagated with different goals and means by the various peoples of Korea. In a collaborative study of the Korean language diaspora, encompassing the significant Korean population settlements, namely, China, Japan, the United States, New Zealand, Kazakhstan/Russia, and Hong Kong, the contributors to this volume examine each region into which the Korean language has spread, looking at the historical background and present state of affairs with reference to the effects of economy, politics, education, and society, and considering what the future might hold. Furthermore, we examine the Korean government’s role in the spread of the language and its policy in recent decades. The nine chapters herein on the Korean language diaspora highlight not only the Korean people’s history of migration but also the way Koreans have taken root in foreign soil, seen through the spread of the Korean language and Korean-language education in each country or region. Language education signifies self-awareness of the people who want to learn and teach the language for numerous reasons—historical, cultural, economic, political, pride of identity, or simply for convenience. This study is one of the few focusing on the Korean language diaspora and serves as a stepping-stone on the path to a global scope. Needless to say, this study represents only a small portion of the worldwide phenomenon, since learning and teaching Korean has been mushrooming in numerous countries in recent years.2 The significance of this study rests with the data gathered on the current state of affairs in Korean language and education at the beginning of the twenty-first century as Korean globalization proceeds in all walks of life, especially in culture, art, entertainment, education, and intellectual pursuit. The chapters in this volume frequently cite Internet sources. Once viewed askance by scholars, modern resources, including Wikipedia, newspapers, periodicals about TV shows and movies, e-books, and even YouTube, are here to stay as a part of academic research. These tools have 2 

The Korean diaspora consists of roughly seven million people, both descendants of early emigrants from the  Korean Peninsula, and more recent émigrés from  Korea. Nearly fourfifths of expatriate Koreans live in just three countries: China, the United States, and Japan. Other countries with greater than 0.5% Korean minorities include Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. All these figures include both permanent migrants and sojourners. If one focuses on long-term residents, there were about 5.3 million Korean emigrants as of 2010 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_diaspora, accessed January 20, 2015).

Introduction

3

become indispensible, especially for researching very current data and events as well as archived materials. In fact, these tools were indispensible for updating the chapters in this volume right up to publication time, as some were originally written eight years ago and there have been many changes in the spread of the Korean language across the globe since then. All the chapters but two on China (Yanbian and Shandong) were written in English; the two written in Korean were translated into English for this volume. A word on Romanization is in order. Most chapters follow the Revised Romanization of Korean (Gugeoui Romaja Phyogibeop), proclaimed as the official system by the Korean government in 2000. However, personal names, proper nouns, and widely accepted words were exempted from the official Romanization system, for example, Mr. Kim, not Gim; Yonsei University, not Yeonse University; Ewha University, not Ehwa University. Sometimes both spellings have been allowed, such as Pusan or Busan, Taegu or Daegu, Hangul or Hangeul, and so on. The Japanese chapter uses the Hepburn system for Japanese, the Pinyin system for Chinese, and the Kazakhstan BGN/PCGN.3 The chapters herein cover a wide range of topics, but they are bound by the topic of the Korean language spread in diaspora with a historical backdrop. Taking Korea as the epicenter, the chapters are organized by their regions’ geographical proximity to Korea: China, Japan, Kazakhstan (former USSR), New Zealand, the United States, and back to Korea. China needs three chapters for good reason—the Korean diaspora has the longest and closest ties with China, and the large territory offers many areas to cover linguistically and otherwise. The chapters on China are dissimilar yet complementary since each focuses on a different premise and each region has a unique relationship to Korea. The Yanbian region has the closest geographic proximity to and historical ties with Korea, and it has the largest Korean Chinese population; it is not surprising, then, that the history of Korean migration and settlement over the northern border is ancient. This closest neighbor of northeastern China shares a long history with the region formerly known as Manchuria, and its historical accounts even become blurry as to where Korea and Manchuria are divided. In modern history, however, Yanbian has been a fertile ground for Korean patriots, literary writers, and businesspeople, serving as a conduit between China proper and North and South Korea. With this background, the Yanbian region has a unique position in its Korean language diversification, even in dialectal studies, as the Korean 3  BGN/PCGN stands for the Romanizing conventions adopted by the United States Board on Geographic Names  (BGN) and the  Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use (PCGN).

4

Clare You

Chinese language constitutes not just “one” Korean language but many branches of Korean dialect. Kim Kuang-su shows us this linguistic change, including diversification and borrowing from Japanese and Western words into Korean Chinese. Unlike other chapters, this one uses Hangul for sample sentences or words used to demonstrate certain points, which are difficult to express in a foreign script. Another region with long historical ties to the Korean Peninsula is Shandong Province; one half of the province jutting out into the Yellow Sea is within a little over 100 miles of the Korean Peninsula. Not only its proximity but also its philosophical and religious heritage made Shandong a magnet for Koreans. The province was an ancient hub of Confucianism, Taoism, and Chinese Buddhism, and from at least the Silla period (ninth century), Korean students, scholars, Buddhist monks, and even ordinary people were already numerous in Shandong. For this study, however, Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling focus on the modern era in which Korean language education is foreign language education, not an immigrant community’s Korean education; the last sixty years is reviewed. After over a half century of tribulations amid China’s political turmoil, Korean language education has progressed positively and rapidly. Jin and Jin examine the contributing factors for the rapid expansion of Korean programs in China. Moving farther south from Korea, we come to Hong Kong, the hub of maritime trade in Asia and Southeast Asia, which has been known in Korea for centuries as the “Fragrant Port.” In spite of the current strong economic relations between the regions, Hong Kong has a relatively short history of Korean studies and Korean language teaching. To examine the development of Korean language education and Korean studies in Hong Kong, Hyewon Kang Kim presents a series of surveys conducted with people who studied Korean. Her findings from the surveys present yet another side of Chinese interest in Korean culture and language. Japan is another close neighbor of Korea in proximity and in historical interactions. Nam Sun Song provides a comprehensive illustration of Korean language use in Japan with his complex sociocultural analysis of Korean residents and Korean language education undertaken by the residents. The Japanese Koreans in their former suzerain state were constantly subject to the direct influence of power politics from the Korean Peninsula as well as the Japanese government. These geopolitical environments gave Korean residents in Japan, pulled by the north and the south within the constraints of Japanese laws, certain inherent characteristics that are most probably attributable to the process of making a Korean community in Japan. The ups and downs in Korean language interests among the resident Koreans as well as the Japanese have correlated with the Korea-Japan relationship and Japanese sentiment on Korea. Song has detailed these

Introduction

5

intricate phenomena through historical, social, and linguistic observations with supporting examples and data. German Kim’s personal experience as a third-generation member of the Koryo saram (Korean people in the former Soviet Union), first as a Korean Soviet and now a Korean Kazakhstani, gives him a uniquely discerning perspective of the Koryo saram’s history and their education in the Korean language. Koreans in Kazakhstan have yet other diaspora challenges owing to their forced move from the far eastern part of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union’s erratic policies on minority language education almost eradicated Korean among the Korean immigrants. Then came the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Korean Soviets’ becoming Korean Kazakhstani, while at the same time South Korea had booming economic effects on Kazakhstan leading to increased interest in Korean language learning, opening up an interesting landscape of Korean language popularity. However, G. Kim’s long-term view on Koyromal as a diasporic language in Kazakhstan points in a pessimistic direction based on a number of social factors. He goes further to say that the main trend of Koryomal is toward an eventual extinction. Unlike the regions mentioned previously, New Zealand was not even on the radar of Korea until recently. It was truly a phenomenon of modern globalization that brought Koreans with their language to New Zealand. Inshil Choe Yoon’s account of Koreans’ history in New Zealand tells of a sudden exponential population growth from less than 100 residents in the early 1980s to over 30,000 in 2013, as a result of New Zealand’s immigration policy change that allowed business immigration. Consequently, unlike the earlier Korean immigrants settled on other foreign soils, these immigrants were well educated, and with their entrepreneurial goals they chose to settle in cities rather than rural areas. Auckland is the most preferred city by Korean immigrants currently, which explains why Korean is mostly spoken in Auckland, although Wellington was most favored previously. Yoon’s main focus is on Korean language programs in New Zealand schools, examining the government’s policy on foreign language education. From 2008, foreign languages gained more importance as subjects of study, but Korean language teaching is far from being securely rooted in schools as of today. Korean teachers who have been teaching in the public school programs have given so much for the establishment of Korean language teaching that Yoon hopes their efforts will not be fruitless and Korean instruction will be continued. This chapter also examines the demographic changes in Korean language learners based on gender, ethnicity, and motivation. As one of the four major Korean diaspora countries of the world (along with China, Japan, and Russia), the United States has a history of Korean

6

Clare You

language that goes back over a century, and much of its course has been riding on world politics. With the first boatful of Koreans that arrived in Hawai‘i, the seeds were sown for Korean language spread in the United States, although it took a long and arduous road. Clare You has traced the journey of the Korean language, mostly on the West Coast, until it was firmly established in the United States as a foreign language course. Korean language education started with the sheer will of the Hawai‘i plantation immigrants in the 1920s (Korea under Japanese rule), continued through the 1940s (liberation), 1950s (Korean War), 1960s–1970s (recovery), 1980s (rapid economic growth), and now in the twenty-first century at eleventh in the world GDP rank, with demand for it still robust in the United States. Hye-Sook Wang’s chapter on the East Coast of the United States reveals that this region had quite different Korean settlers from those on the West Coast, not the plantation or farm labor immigrants but education-focused students, Christian clergymen, and government representatives or political refugees. However, the motivation and objective for starting Korean language education on the East Coast were akin to those of the West Coast. As a corollary, Wang points out that the prominent advocates for Korean independence who lead postliberation South Korea were mostly the East Coast–educated or those who had hands-on experience through residing in the region. The differences between the East Coast and the West Coast producing the early leaders of South Korea go beyond the make-up of the settlers. It has much to do with the fact that the private institutions “revered” by Koreans—Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and the like—are all on the East Coast, while the West Coast’s prestigious institutions were latecomers. Set apart from the other chapters is that of Yangwon Ha. Her examination of the Korean government’s cultural policy with respect to the recent globalization of Korean culture and language leads us to the inner workings of the Korean government’s language policy abroad and what effects it has had on Korean education and language spread worldwide. Exploring from the emergent era of the 1970s through the present, her study underscores the changes in Korea’s cultural policies with an important shift from its passive stance on negative images of Korea to a proactive one that assertively presents Korea’s cultural heritage and other assets positively. The role of the government in the initiation and implementation of the cultural movement is clearly evident, as is the way that the Korean government came to perceive globalization as a means to spread Korean language and culture abroad. These nine chapters cover a small portion of the Korean language diaspora in the twenty-first century. Not only do the major powers of the world have large Korean-speaking populations (i.e., China, the United States,

Introduction

7

Japan), but also a number of lesser nations offer Korean as a foreign language course even if an insignificant number of speakers are found in these countries. The Korean government is actively promoting and supporting such programs. Mongolia has been teaching Korean for over twenty-five years;4 Australia, which has a substantial number of Korean immigrants, has been active in establishing Korean programs; most European countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Poland, and Spain, offer Korean, as well as many of the Central and South American countries, including Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. The recent reestablishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba opened access to Cuban Koreans.5 Even in Cuba, where only about eight hundred Korean descendants reside, there is a history of their initiating Korean language schools in El Boro village near Matanzas soon after they arrived in Cuba in 1921 from the Yucatan Peninsula to work on henequen (hemp) and sugar plantations.6 There is still more to be explored about their attempt for early Korean language education and about the direction the current political state will take them in the future.7 The studies herein, largely descriptive, only dent the surface of the rapidly expanding area for investigation. Needless to say, it will take years of research by interested scholars and government or community agencies to trace and document the spread of the Korean language throughout the world. We hope that our work can assist in furthering research in linguistic, social, economic, political, cultural, and anthropological realms affecting the spread of the Korean language.

4 

Hangul saesoshik [Hangul news], February 2015, p. 510. Sang-mok Kim, “History of Korean Cuban Community,” The Korea Times, September 10, 2015, retrieved on January 15, 2016 from http://www.koreatimesus.com/history​-of​-korean​ -cuban​-community/. 6  R. Raul Ruiz and Martha Lim Kim, Coreanos en Cuba [Koreans in Cuba] (Havana: Fundación Ortiz, 2000). 7  Sung-eun Lee, “As Cuba, U.S. Ties Improve, Seoul Opens up to Havana,” Korea Joong­Ang Daily (Seoul), April 13, 2015, accessed March 1, 2016 from http://koreajoongangdaily.joins​ .com/​news/​article/article.aspx?aid=3003008. 5 

ONE

The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China

KIM KUANG-SU Introduction Koreans began to immigrate to China starting in the mid-nineteenth century. Initially, they constructed the grounds of their new life in Northeast China, mingling with minorities such as Manchus, Hans, Huis, and Mongolians. When Japan invaded China in 1937, the Korean immigrants were at the forefront of the war. With the ending of the war upon Japan’s defeat in 1945, China carried out land reform for all peoples of northeastern China, including Korean Chinese. Korean Chinese have lived in Northeast China for a century and a half. Consequently, they have created their own unique culture, which is distinct from the Han culture (of the majority of the Chinese population) and from the culture of the Koreans on the Korean Peninsula. The immigrants have had to adapt to political, economic, social, and cultural changes in addition to geographical and climate differences. All these factors of the new environment are reflected in the language of the immigrants, and the immigrants’ Korean carries a set of linguistic characteristics different from the original Korean language. A language conveys its speakers’ history, culture, customs, and collective consciousness. By studying the language used and developed by Korean Chinese, we can understand their community structure and collective mental framework and make comparisons to other groups of people. Researchers used to study language as an independent subject, taking a “siloed” approach, but in modern linguistics, comprehensive research is conducted in conjunction with several other disciplines. When a holistic approach is taken, when a language is studied along with history, literature, social science, and education, a better understanding of the substance can be gained.

10

Kim Kuang-su

This chapter will review the changes in the Korean Chinese language in consideration of the historical, social, geographical, and psychological context of Koreans in northeastern China. The focus will be on the distribution of the dialects and the proliferation of new Korean Chinese words because of foreign influence. This study will show the current state of the Korean language in China, and bring more interest on the subject in the future. Immigration of Koreans to China All Korean dialects in modern China, and the Korean writing system, Hangul, came from the Korean Peninsula. Any dialects of Korean spoken in China are the result of massive migrations of Korean people into Northeast China, starting in the mid-nineteenth century (Beijing University Institute of Korean Culture 1995, 641). In the early days of the immigration, Koreans took three main routes to Northeast China. The first, which the majority of immigrants took, was through the Yalu River and the Tumen River; the second was from the west coast of Korea to the southwest of Liaoning Province; and the third was from the east coast of Korea through Primorsky krai (Russia’s Maritime Province) to Yanbian Prefecture and the Heukryong River (Heilongjiang in Chinese, or Black Dragon River). Korean people moved into China across the Yalu River fifteen to twenty years earlier than they did through the Tumen River. In 1831, two Koreans moved in near the north of Moer Mountain near Lin River, and since then, some southern Manchurian regions have been given Korean names, such as Goryo-mun (Koryo gate) and Goryo-seong (Koryo province). The first settlers built twenty-three neighborhoods on the left bank of the Tumen River, which composed 92 percent of all Korean towns in China at the time. These Koreans chose to settle in the mountain valley region, fertile and flat land close to Korea, to avoid the border patrol and Manchung (Manchuria government) officers. In 1875, however, when the Manchung office abolished the bong-geumryeong (border restriction decree) to develop Northeast China, there was a mass migration of Korean farmers into China to the north of the Yalu and Tumen Rivers. From the mid-nineteenth century through 1910, approximately 200,000 Koreans immigrated to Northeast China. During this time, Koreans who immigrated to Helong, Yanji, and north of the Tumen River were mostly from Hamgyong Province of Korea; many Korean immigrants to the north of Yalu River were from Pyongan Province; and many of those who settled in Changbai came from Hyesan in Hamgyong Province. In general, Koreans who originally came from south of the Yalu and Tumen Rivers moved north of the rivers.

The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China 

11

According to statistics published in Overview of Koreans in Manchuria in 1933 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (Koh 1986, 155), prior to 1910, most Korean immigrants to the north of the Yalu and Tumen Rivers were from North Pyongan and North Hamgyong Provinces. In August 1910, Japan forcefully occupied Korea and signed the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty. Consequently, Korea lost its sovereignty. Many Korean farmers and patriots turned their backs on Japanese colonialism and crossed the Yalu and Tumen Rivers to live in Northeast China. The Japan-Korea annexation in 1910 and the March First Movement in 1919 caused an exodus of Koreans into Northeast China. Some immigrants crossed the Yalu and Tumen Rivers and settled nearby, while others moved further inland by train. The railways forked in many directions, which helped Korean immigrants to settle further into the Northeast. Also, the railroad system brought people from the southern region of Korea. Korean immigrants in China represent all regions of Korea except Jeju Island (Jeon 1996, 125). Korean Chinese Dialect Distributions Based on statistics between 1910 and 1926 from the Beijing University Institute of Korean Culture (1995, 664) on Korean immigrants, we can construe the migration specifics and distributions of the dialects. First, those from Hamgyong, Pyongan, and Gyeongsang Provinces accounted for the largest number of the immigrants, of which more immigrants were from the northern region of their respective province than from the southern region. As for the mid and southern peninsula, immigrants from Gangwon and Hwanghae Provinces were more numerous than were those from Gyeonggi, Chungcheong, and Jeolla Provinces. Second, 80 percent of Korean immigrants settled in the north and west of Jiandao. Third, immigrants from Hamgyong Province settled in the north of Jiandao, and those from Pyongan and Gyeongsang Provinces in the west of Jiandao. In the later period of immigration, more Koreans opted to live in regions other than the north or west of Jiandao. Data of 1926 confirm that the majority of Korean immigrants in the Northeast were originally from Hamgyong, Pyongan, and Gyeongsang Provinces, and had moved to the north of Jiandao rather than to the west of the region. The data also show that relatively fewer immigrants were from Jeolla and Chungcheong Provinces. Most people who moved from Gangwon, Hwanghae, and Gyeonggi Provinces settled in the north of Jiandao (Yang 1987, 314). Based on my analysis of Korean dialect distribution (Kim 1995, 677), a greater variety of Korean dialects appeared around the time of mass immigration in 1937 compared with the 1910 Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty era. It is hard to categorize Korean dialects spoken in China by region because

12

Kim Kuang-su

Korean dialects other than those of Hamgyong, Pyongan, and Gyeongsang are uncommon, and their speakers are scattered. These three dialects are the most common in Yanbian, Dandong, Fushun District, Changchun, and Jilin District. Starting in July 1937, Japan coercively moved Koreans from the Korean Peninsula to Northeast China and planned on building 4,230 Korean villages in 92 districts there by 1938. By December 1939, 24,468 households containing 103,361 Korean people had been forced to move to Northeast China by Japanese invaders. Reportedly, there were 931,620 Koreans living in Northeast China in 1937, which increased to 1,511,570 by 1942 and 2,163,155 by 1945. Japanese invaders then considered Korean immigrants in small towns of mountainous districts to be members of an anti-Japanese guerrilla army and mercilessly murdered them. In order to break the connection between the anti-Japanese, independence-seeking Koreans and the less-enlightened masses, Japanese colonizers set up a “Collective Village Policy,” wherein Koreans thought to be anti-Japanese were segregated in camps. In these camps, Korean dialects, especially the Hamgyeong and Gyeongsang dialects, began to mix. Right around the late 1930s, when Japan occupied Northeast Asia, the Korean language began to settle in China. The Institute of Ethnicity Studies of the Chinese Sciences Academy and the Office of Korean Literacy in Northeast China conducted surveys of Korean dialects in Jilin, Heilong­ jiang, and Liaoning Provinces in 1982. Surveys in “Joseoneo ganji” (Korean language section) of Junguk sosu minjok eoneo ganji chongseo (Compendium of Chinese ethnic minority languages) state that Korean dialects spoken in China are basically the same as those spoken on the Korean Peninsula, and the commonalities among dialects are more dominant than are the differences. The divisions are northwest (Pyeongan Province), northeast (Hamgeyong Province), midland (Gyeonggi, Hwanghae, Gangwon, and Chungcheong Provinces), southwest (Jeolla Province), southeast (Gyeongsang Province), and Jeju. All five dialects except Jeju dialect are present in Jilin, Liaoning, and Heilongjiang Provinces. The northeast dialect is divided into the Yukjin and Hamgyeong dialects. The Korean dialects are distributed in the three provinces of Northeast China; the northwest dialect dominates the east of Liaoning, the midland dialect in Jilin and Heilong­ jiang Provinces, the northeast dialect east of the Tumen River, the southeast dialect west of Heilongjiang Province, and the southwest dialect dispersed throughout Northeast China. According to “Joseoneo ganji,” studies on the phonetics, grammar, and vocabulary of Korean spoken in China indicate that there were no new dialects developed in China. Thus, Korean dialects spoken in China are

The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China 

13

similar to those spoken in Korea, and this is the case now as much as it was after Korean independence. A survey regarding the distribution of Korean dialects in Northeast China in 1984 (Beijing University Institute of Korean Culture 1995, 643) indicates that the relationship between dialects and speakers’ residence is rather complicated. Therefore, the distribution of Korean dialects in China needs to be discussed along with the history of the speakers’ immigration to China. There are two main reasons why Korean dialects have been kept intact in China: the relatively short history of Korean immigration to China and frequent interaction among Korean immigrants. As the Chinese Communist Party shifted its values from a politically driven society to an open economy in 1978, so did Korean immigrants in China. The priority of Korean Chinese became the pursuit of a higher standard of living. This transformation in values affected Chinese and Korean Chinese alike—tens of thousands of people were moving to Europe (Heo M. 2004, 93) for economic opportunities, and some Korean immigrants gave up on speaking Korean, whereas others retain their bilingual ability. Due to the dynamics of this added complexity, the distribution and use of the Korean language now requires greater depth of study. The Development of the Korean Language in China Korean Language Use in the Early Period (1950s)

Languages convey information and serve as a vehicle to pass traditional culture to new generations; therefore, they reflect several unique characteristics of their speakers. The Korean language spoken in China has special characteristics developed in the social environment of China, as shown by the following example. The magazine Yeonbyeon munye (Yanbian arts and literature) was launched in 1954, during a major transitional period in Chinese history (Bae 1954)— socialist industrialization, privatization of agriculture, and handcrafting businesses and commercialization were all part of the country’s reconstruction. The first issue of Yanbian Arts and Literature contains an editorial by Bae Geuk, deputy director of publicity of the Chinese Communist Party; four poems, including “Praising Chairman Mao”; two short stories, one memoir, one tale, and one short play. The following sentence from the issue shows the distinctive vocabulary used by Korean immigrants in the early 1950s in the Yanbian region. The two words underlined in the following passage— wajakjak (onomatopoetic word of commotion like “splattering”) from the Pyeong-buk word wadadak, and demi (a pile of wood, earth, etc.) from deomi (standard form)—were different from the standard Yanbian dialectal form.

14

Kim Kuang-su

Seongcheol-eun Mansu-wa hamkke jeomsim-eul kkeunnaego, baeguhaneun dongmudeul-ui wajakjak tteodeuneun sori-reul dwiro, madang-e inneun namudemi wi-e geolteo anjatta. 성철은 만수와 함께 점심을 끝내고, 배구하는 동무들의 와작작 떠드는 소 리를 뒤로, 마당에 있는 나무 데미 위에 걸터 앉았다. Seongcheol finished lunch with Mansu, walked past friends playing volleyball loudly, and sat on a pile of wood in the yard. (Choe 1954, 18; translation and emphasis mine)

A language is a complex structure and is, linguistically speaking, made up of phonemes, morphemes, words, and phrases. New words develop along with the emergence of new objects and phenomena, and old words become obsolete as some traditions and objects become outdated. Among elements of a language, words have the strongest sociocultural characteristics. Thus, both new and old words reflect sociocultural aspects of the people speaking them. Korean immigrants in China experienced several socialist reform movements since Korea achieved independence. In addition to running autonomous municipalities as of September 3, 1952, Korean Chinese have embraced fundamental changes and development in politics, economics, and culture. Their language kept up with their achievements in the 1950s. The most frequently used words in magazines at the time reflect the social environment of the Joseonjok (Korean Chinese in Yanbian), such as gaejo (renovation), gaeche (individual), gaehyeok (reform), gongeophwa (industrialization), and geomtohoe (review committee). Being that many Korean immigrants of the Yanbian region were from Hamgyong Province (having crossed over the Tuman River), Yanbian Arts and Literature (written mostly in the standard language) included many dialect words from Hamgyong Province. For example, such colloquial expressions as dirimilda 디리밀다 (to push in); bangmeigatda 방메이같다 (it’s like a club); baettungttigatda 뱃뚱띠같다 (he’s a fat-belly); byeollaseuregulda 별라스레굴다 (acting strange); saettokada 샛독하다 (looking sullen); seolleongseolleon 설넝설넝 (not meticulously); yeomchijjak 염치짝 (shameless); waneuru 완으루 (absolutely); itjaeimu 있재이무 (as you know); and jeondida 전디다 (put up with) were used not only in conversations but also in writing. Additionally, there were synonyms such as dongmu/dongji 동무/동지 (friend/comrade); antonyms such as ajeumeongi/ajeubangi 아즈멍이/아즈 방이 (elder brother’s wife/elder sister’s husband); and compound words like yeonbyeon-munye 연변문예 (Yanbian arts and literature), munye-ganmul 문예간물 (arts and literature publications), munye-gongjak문예공작 (arts, literature, and craft), munye-gongjakja 문예공작자 (arts and craft man), and

The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China 

15

munye-danche 문예단체 (society of arts and literature). These words, reflecting their regional characteristics, enriched the vocabulary of the Korean Chinese language. In the early era of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, during the 1950s, many nonstandard words were frequently used and, when necessary, new words were created by making composites of words already in existence. The Korean language in China around this time was being adopted and adapted to meet the needs of the Korean Chinese community. Chinese Korean Language Expansion in the 1960s

In September 1963, the Yanbian Ethnic Literary and History Research Committee and Yanbian Korean Vocabulary Survey Committee published Joseoneo sinsa suleo josa daegang (New Vocabulary Research Outline of the Korean Language). The materials were collected from Yanbian newspapers (Yanbian People’s Daily, Jilin Daily, and Northeast Korean Daily) from November 1945 through July 1963, and also from Halbin minju ilbo (Harbin democratic daily) from 1948 through January 1949. The book contains six thousand words, with two types of vocabulary divisions—the first type containing new words, dialect words, foreign words, and synonyms, and the second with general words of everyday life. Regarding which words are classified as “new,” there are different opinions and interpretations. In general, however, if a given word had not appeared in the Joseoneo sajeon (Korean language dictionary) by Mun Seyoung in 1938,1 it was regarded as a new word. Even if the word was used colloquially and did not appear in the dictionary, it was not considered a new word and so not included in Joseoneo sinsa suleo josa daegang. New words were sorted into the following categories: political (encompassing politics, legislation, military), manufacturing (industry, agriculture, livestock, fisheries), finance (finance, commerce, economics), cultureeducation-health (culture, arts, education, sanitation, science, sports), and transportation. The following are examples of words in each category: Political words: jido-sasang 지도사상 (guiding ideology), seonjinsasang 선진사상 (progressivism), ugyeong-sasang 우경사상 (conservativism), chago-sasang 착오사상 (falsity), uiroe-sasang 의뢰사상 (dependency), motaekdong-sasang 모택동사상 (Maoism), bimusangyegeup-sasang 비무산계급사상 (proletarianism) 1 

The first Korean dictionary with 100,000 words annotated in Korean was published in July 1938.

16

Kim Kuang-su

Forestry-related words: imup-jeongchaek 임업정책 (forestry policy), wonrimhwa 원림화 (forestation), bongsanyungnim 봉산육림 (closing a forest for preservation), horim-banghwa 호림방화 (forest-fire prevention) Words relating to culture, education, or health: gukje-gyosa-hoeui 국제교사회의 (international teachers’ conference), gyoyungmang 교육망 (educational network), munhwahyeongmyong 문화혁 명 (cultural revolution), iron-hakseup 이론학습 (theory study), mungyo-gongjak 문교공작 (cultural and educational work), jisikbunja-nodonghwa 지식분자노동화 (laborizing of intelligent­ sia), gongnong-jisikhwa 공농지식화 (workers’ and farmers’ intellectualization), munmu-ssangjeon 문무쌍전 (excellence in both literature and military), jeonmyeon-baljeon-yoyukbangchim 전면발 전교육방침 (comprehensive education policy), bogeonwon 보건원 (institute of health), bogeon-gongjak 보건공작 (health service), suyeokye-bang 수역예방 (flood prevention), bangyeogwon 방역원 (epidemic prevention office) Transportation-related words: anjeonhaengcha 안전행차 (safe driving), unhaengsiheom 운행시험 (driving test), jodowon 조도원 (guide), geompyowon 검표원 (ticket conductor), mojacha 모자차 (bike for a parent and a child), yeonghyangwon 영항원 (navigator) Administration-related words: juimwiwon 주임위원 (chief commissioner), munseo 문서 (document), jeonjikganbu 전직간부 (full-time officers), jaejikganbu 재직간부 (incumbent officers), saengsan-­talliganbu 생산탈리간부 (out-of-production officer), bisaengsaninwon 비생산인원 (nonproductive personnel), gwasil-inwon 과실인원 (negligent personnel), gwanchalwon 관찰원 (observer); nobaekseong 노백성 (people), inmin-jeopdaewon 인민접대원 (hosting personnel) The People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949, at a time when the society and economy were severely underdeveloped. The chaos that the Cultural Revolution brought on in the 1960s did not eliminate economic deficiency. Even the necessary supplies of daily life were rare and rationed. This was also the period when the Korean language began to spread far into China. China’s Economic Reform and Its Effect on the Korean Language in China In 1978, at the Eleventh Central Committee Meeting of the Communist Party, China under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping declared economic reform and an open market policy. In 1992, the open market policy was

The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China 

17

initiated. The economic reform brought about not only drastic economic changes but also social and political changes in Chinese society. As society changes and evolves new phenomena appear, and they call for new words in order to express them. During the first meeting of the Twelfth National People’s Congress held in Beijing in 2013, Wen Jiabao from the State Council reported on the progress of government business. The Government Business Report (Jeongbu saeob bogo), included 3,407 translated Korean phrases. They reflect special features of Korean Chinese word usage relating to the new national policies of China. Furthermore, within the two decades since Chinese economic reform, the soaring economic status of the Korean community in China and resulting changes in Korean lives added many new words to the Korean Chinese vocabulary. The following are examples: Vocabulary Related to the Economy

As the Chinese government transitioned from a planned economy to a market economy, its focus turned to economic growth. Therefore, many new words relating to the economy appeared: gyeongje-baljeon 경제발전 (economic development), gyeongje-baljeon-bangsik 경제발전방식 (economic development mode), gaebanghyeong-gyeongje 개방형경제 (open economy), gaebanghyeong-gyeongjesujun 개방형경제수준 (open economic level), sinheung-gyeongjeguk 신흥경제국 (newly developing countries). Vocabulary Related to Reform

Economic reform is an essential part of the advancement of Chinese society. In the Government Business Report, the following words appear: ­gagyeok-­gaehyeok 가격개혁 (price reform), gaehyeok-gaebang 개혁개방 (open reform), gaehyeok-baljeon-gyehoek-yogang 개혁발전계획요강 (reform and development plan guidelines), gaehyeok-chujin 개혁추진 (reform implementation), gongnip-byeongwon-gaehyeok-siheom 공립병원개혁시험 (public hospital reform experimentation), gwahak-gisul-chegye-gaehyeok 과학기술 체계개혁 (science and technology system reform), gugyu-gieop-gaehyeok 국유기업개혁 (state-owned industries reform), naebu-mekeonijeum-gaehyeok 내부메커니즘개혁 (internal mechanism reform), gaebang-gongyu-mekanijeum 개방공유메카니즘 (open and sharing mechanism), gaebang-jeollyak 개방전략 (open strategy), gaebanghyeong 개방형 (open type), gaebang­ hyeong-gyeongje 개방형경제 (open economy), guyeok-gaebang-gudo 구역개 방구도 (open landscape plan), daeoe-gaebang 대외개방 (open door to the outside world). Along with economic development, China started paying attention to cultural contents and environmental issues. New words on these topics include gonggong-munhwa-seobiseu-chegye 공공문화서비스체계 (public

18

Kim Kuang-su

cultural service system), gonggong-munhwa-siseol-neteuweokeu-siseutem 공공문화시설네트워크시스템 (public cultural facility network system), gongikseung-munhwasaeop-danwi 공익성문화사업단위 (public cultural institute unit), gugyu-gyeongyeongseong-munhwa-danwi-cheje 국유경영성문 화단위체제 (state business cultural unit system), daeoe-munhwa-gyoryu 대외문화교류 (foreign cultural exchanges), munhwajae 문화재 (cultural heritage), munhwasaeop-baljeon-hwangyeong 문화사업발전환경 (cultural business development environment), saengtae-hwangyeong-bojeon 생태환 경보전 (ecologic environment preservation), jedojeok-hwangyeong 제도적환 경 (institutional environment), chejejeok-hwangyeong 체제적환경 (systemic environment), hyeoksin-hwangyeong 혁신환경 (innovation environment), hwangyeong-gijun 환경기준 (environmental standards), hwangyeongbojeon 환경보전 (environmental preservation), hwangyeong-oyeom-munje 환경오 염문제 (environmental contamination issues). Vocabulary Related to Agriculture

The Chinese government has developed a number of policies regarding development of the rural regions since the economic reform. As a result of the government’s new rural construction efforts, agricultural economies developed, and vocabulary reflecting the social situation became more frequently used. Some examples follow: nongchon-gyowon-daeo-geonseol 농촌 교원대오건설 (construction of rural teaching teams), nongchon-geumyungseobiseu 농촌금융서비스 (rural banking service), nongchon-doro 농촌도로 (rural roads), nongchon-minsaeng-peurojekteu 농촌민생프로젝트 (rural life improvement project), nongchon-baljeon 농촌발전 (rural development), nong­chon-busil-wiheom-gaok 농촌부실위험가옥 (unsafe rural houses), nong­ chon-bingon-guje-gaebal 농촌빈곤구제개발 (rural poverty relief development), nongchonsahoe-yangno-boheomjedo 농촌사회양로보험제도 (social insurance system for senior farmers). Characteristics of the Korean Language in China’s Northeastern Region Because Korean Chinese are living in different regions of China, they use locally derived words, not only those from South or North Korea. Such Korean words can be found in Yeonbyeon ilbo (Yanbian daily): geomjeonggwi-beoseot 검정귀버섯 (black-ear mushrooms, which are abundant in the region), hogubu 호구부 (household register), pochi 포치 (starting a project), gyehoek-saengyuk 계획생육 (one-child policy), damotori 다모토리 (drinking an alcoholic beverage in a big glass), naebu-toejik 내부퇴직 (early retirement), yanggogi-kkochi 양고기꼬치 (lamb kebab), hyeobui-ihon 협의이 혼 (consensual divorce), wangbasin 왕바신 (thick cotton padded shoes),

The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China 

19

geonjosil 건조실 (drying room for tobacco leaves), and jeongrisireop 정리 실업 (unemployed). Realizing the need for a unified system of translation in the Yanbian region, where Korean had been long used, the Yanbian Korean Language Standards Committee (established in September 1987), the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture People’s Government, and the China Korean Language Assessment Committee (established in December 1986) collaborated to develop a standardized translation between the Korean and Chinese languages. After going through thirty-nine reviews, the committee selected 3,400 words for standardized translation, and published Joseonmal sae­myeongsa suleo (New Words in the Korean Language) in 2006. This standardized translation was widely distributed. Even after the standardization efforts, some Korean vocabulary used in China remains unique. Above all, the Korean Chinese language exhibits various forms of syllables and words. Of five hundred randomly chosen words from New Words in the Korean Language, four-syllable words and three-syllable words make up close to 50 percent (27.8 percent and 20.4 percent, respectively), and other syllable words make up the rest (Kim K. 2008, 21). Examples are paek 팩 (pack), haggeupjang 학급장 (head of the class), sakkeon-danseo 사건단서 (case evidence), usuhaksaeng-mojip-choejeo-hapgyeokseon 우수학생모집최저 합격선 (outline for selecting honor students). Most Korean nouns used in China are compound words, but there are also derived words. Examples of compound words include chaltteok-twigi 찰떡튀기 (fried sweet rice cake), jeunggwon-georaesang 증권거래상 (stock brokerage), chimdae-keobeo 침대커버 (bedsheet), and mareun-guksu 마른국수 (dried noodles). Derived words are go-gwahak-gisul 고과학기술 (high technology), pi-sumae-yeoseong 피수매여성 (secretly sold women), chong-uryang 총우량 (total rainfall), and goljeungsik-jeung 골증식증 (bone hyperplasia). Words that reflect Korean Chinese life and culture have appeared in many areas. For cooking and cuisine, we have pyeon-yuk-gaji-bokkeum 편육가지볶음 (beef and mushroom stir-fry), pajijim 파지짐 (green onion pancake), and mujujeong-eumnyo 무주정음료 (nonalcoholic beverage). For sports, jungang bangeosu 중앙방어수 (center defensive player) and hapeutaim 하프타임 (halftime). For medicine, inteoperon 인터페론 (interferon), uinanbyeong 의난병 (intractable disease), and birus-hwaksanjoe 비루스확산죄 (crime of spreading viruses). For computers and communication, inteonetgaip 인터넷가입 (Internet registration), wepsaiteu웹사이트 (website), and limokon 리모콘 (remote control). Many synonyms were created as well, mostly through loanwords. Examples are gosingisul or haitekeu 고신기술 = 하이테크 (high-tech), amnyeoksot or ammyeokgama 압력솥 = 압력가마 (pressure cooker), geun-golgeon or balkkumchi-himjul 근골건 = 발꿈치힘줄 (heel tendon), bujeomchak-nambi or

20

Kim Kuang-su

peuraipaen 부점착남비 = 프라이팬 (nonstick frying pan), and jaemu-jeungbing or jaemu-jeunggeo 재무증빙 = 재무증거 (financial proof). In sum, Korean Chinese vocabulary is made up of Chinese-derived words (58 percent), Korean words (24 percent), foreign words (5 percent), such as chijeu 치즈 (cheese), kochi 코치 (coach), and taicheu 타이츠 (tights), and mixed words with foreign words (14 percent) as in inteonet-gaip (internet registration). Influence of Contact with Foreign Cultures and Foreign Words Often, we come in contact with people from socially, politically, economically, or culturally different backgrounds from us. When this happens and we find no expressions for the ideas we want to communicate with them, then borrowing occurs. If a new expression is socially acceptable, then it gains currency as a loanword or a foreign word. Such borrowing is a linguistic occurrence that exists universally across all languages. When Koreans first immigrated to China, the majority of residents in the Northeast were Manchurians and Han people. Korean immigrants came into contact with Manchurians and, as a result, many loanwords from Manchurian are used even today. In particular, Koreans in Yanbian frequently use Manchurian loanwords. Manchurian loanwords in the Korean Chinese language came about through direct contact between the two peoples—Koreans and Manchurians—although direct contact with speakers is not necessarily a precondition for borrowing from another language. Furthermore, we can speculate that there were more Manchurian loanwords used during the late Qing dynasty (late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) than there are now. Some regional names considered to have been borrowed from Manchurian are Haerangang 해란강2 (Hailanjiang), Wangcheong 왕 청 (Wangqing), Hunchun 훈춘 (Hunchun), Domun 도문 (Tumen), Hwa­ ryong 화룡 (Helong), Yeongil 연길 (Yanji), Milgang 밀강 (Mijiang), Uiran 의란 (Yilan), Bureuhatongha 부르하통하 (Buerhatonghe), and Gayaha 가 야하 (Gayahe). Toward the end of the Qing dynasty, many Manchurians moved to the south of Shanhai Pass, to places such as Beijing, and they turned to using the Chinese language because it was a prestigious language, thus an important social means. Those who remained in the Northeast, however, especially in less developed areas, did not. Due to the prevalence of the Manchurian language in the Northeast, many people in the region were bilingual, and today we can trace the influence on some geographical names, as shown previously. 2 

Hairan originally means “elm tree” in Manchurian; it is written in Korean as it is pronounced in Manchurian.

The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China 

21

In 1653, the tenth year of the Shunzhi Emperor, the Qing dynasty promulgated the Ryodongchomin-gaeganjorye (Liaodong People Betterment Ordinance) and welcomed Han Chinese to the Northeast District. The ordinance was later repealed, in 1668, which meant that Han Chinese were no longer officially allowed to move to the Northeast (Cho and Park 1997, chap. 1, pt. 1). The Boxer Rebellion of 1900 caused Qing armies in Yanbian to move further inland. Therefore, the number of Manchurians in Yanbian decreased. At the end of the nineteenth century, Han people started moving to the riverbanks of the Tumen and Yalu. All of these events resulted in mixed communities of Koreans, Manchurians, and Han people in the Northeast. After the Xinhai Revolution of 1911, the Qing dynasty collapsed and warlords began ruling various areas of China. In the Northeast, the Chinese language gradually became the shared and official language among Manchurians and Han people. This social environment prompted Koreans to become fluent in both the Korean and Chinese languages. Consequently, large amounts of Chinese vocabulary came into the Korean Chinese language, spoken by the immigrants. This Chinese vocabulary came with Chinese pronunciations rather than with Korean Chinese pronunciations. Examples include yujakwae 유자꽤 (deep-fried dough stick), jjobing쪼빙 (early morning cake), majang 마장 (sparrow), hwogwojeunaegipang 훠궈즈내기팡 (assorted ingredients cooked in a hot pot), jipang 지팡 (local place), kulli 쿨리 (coolie), tyungjeon 튱전 (copper coin), hogaejipang 호개지팡 (Ho family’s village), amun 아문 (yamen), and ppaeju 빼주 (liquor). Among Koreans in the east of Manchuria, there were various political groups—pro-China, pro-Japan, pro-Communism, and pro-independence. Each group had a different attitude toward the Korean language and other ethnic languages. Pro-China and pro-Japan groups emphasized the importance of the Chinese and Japanese languages, respectively. For proCommunist and pro-independence group, however, the Korean language was the most important. Japan colonized Korea in 1910 and started to influence Koreans living in China, too. Under the pretext of protecting Koreans, Japanese imperialists stationed their army in the north of Jiandao and oppressed the anti-Japan patriots while forcefully drafting young Korean men to the Japanese army. They spent huge sums of money building Japanese schools to indoctrinate Koreans, but conscientious Koreans did not send their children to those schools. In order to entice Korean students, these Japanese schools offered a monthly stipend and free tuition, room, and board. Japanese also took over Korean schools and required the Japanese language for graduation.

22

Kim Kuang-su

After the 9.18 Manchurian Incident,3 the Japanese colonizers officially made Japanese “the national language” and Japanese history “the national history” in schools. The Japanese also opened language institutions and coercively taught young Korean adults who had already graduated. Koreans were forced to assimilate in ways unprecedented in Korean history. Some Japanese words came into the colloquial vernacular used by Koreans at the time, such as guruma 구루마 (wheel), jikkadabi 지까다비 (thong), and a-i-de 아이데 or 상대 (peer). In addition to the loanwords from Chinese, Japanese, and Manchurian, the Korean language was enhanced with even more foreign words at the end of nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century due to the influence of Western culture in Asia. Developments in science and publications on capitalism of the West since the 1920s were influential, and foreign words originating from English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish began to appear in the Korean language. Soon after Japan occupied China, Japanese hindered the independent and sovereign use of the Korean language and promoted the use of foreign words. During this period, many foreign words were used in daily life by the public (Heo, Heo, and Chae 2006). The following words of English or European origin were transmitted by way of Japan with Japanese pronunciations, therefore they were often mistaken as Japanese words. For example, ppopura-gaji (from poplar+branch) 뽀푸라가지 (branch of white poplar), mising 미싱 (from machine; sewing machine), nahudaring 나후다링 (naphthalene), daoru 다오루 (towel), guruma구루마 (wagon), niyaka 니야카 (two-wheeled wagon), and mirukku 미루꾸 (milk). We also find Japanese loanwords such as ajinomoto 아지노모도 (MSG, or the essence of flavor) and gakkeasi 가께아시 (running) in use. Again, many English words were filtered through Korean, Japanese, or Chinese, changing the pronunciations along the way: haikala 하이칼라 (from high+color; stylish), kkeurup 끄룹 (group), chureongkeu 추렁크 (from trunk; luggage), passeu 파쓰 (pass), maendoring 맨도링 (mandolin), and taeksi 택시 (taxi). Examples of Chinese borrowed words are ppaeju 빼주 (liquor), ppae­ myeon 빼면 (wheat flour), buyeok 부역 (serving in the army), kang 캉 (heatable brick bed), and seongnyang 석냥 (match). Some Russian borrowed words are Roseo-a 로서아 (Russia), ppira 삐라 (paper flyer), and seupai 스파이 (spy). 3  The Manchurian, or Mukden, Incident was orchestrated by the Japanese military as a pretext for their invasion of Manchuria in 1931. Later, it became known as the 9.18 Incident, referring to the railroad explosion in Mukden on September 18, 1931.

The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China 

23

First, of all the imported words, from English, Chinese, Russian, and Japanese, the Japanese words were the most frequently and broadly used. These Japanese words penetrated into the daily language to describe transportation, food, and clothing. Additionally, some Japanese expressions used Chinese characters in combination with their syllabary. Second, there were many variant forms of foreign words. Incoming foreign words need to be regularized and standardized based on pronunciation and the structure of the original language’s vocabulary. However, foreign words penetrated into the Korean language before rules and standards were established, which gave rise to variant forms. Examples are taeksi/taksi 택시/탁시 (taxi), ppingi/ppaenkki/bengkki 삥기/뼁끼/벵끼 (oil), poket/pukaet 포켓트/푸캣트 (pocket), and ppaeju/heuinsul 빼주/흰술 (liquor). These lexical varieties were gradually standardized and corrected by the Joseoneo hakoe (Korean Language Association), which published its Oeraeeo Pyogibeop (Foreign words spelling rules) in June 1940. Third, new foreign compound words were created different ways—putting together a foreign word with another foreign word (including Chinese) and/or with a Korean word. Examples are baeni+chil 배니+칠 (oil paint), modeon+kkeol 모던+껄 (modern girl), modeon+ppoi 모던+뽀이 (modern boy), semen+kongkeuriteu 세멘+콩크리트 (cement+concrete), and lampo+bul 람포 +불 (lamp+light). During the colonial era, more foreign words were used in Korea, which in turn influenced the formation of a distinct class of vocabulary in the Korean language spoken in China. Foreign words accepted into Korean Chinese dialogues are found in the literature of the early days of independence in the 1950s. In certain fields, many of these foreign words were conveniently used closely following the native pronunciation as they were received through political, economic, technical, and cultural encounters with other countries. Here is an example of the borrowed pronunciations of “ttungjjeonhu jyangwikkwi,” as Chinese would say in a magazine. Jyangwikkwi: ttungjjeonhu jyangwikkwideureun modu jungnong chulsineuro hapjaksaui ireul jagiui ilo yeogigo sonhaereul ibeumyeonseodo gotgoseseo yeoreosaramdeureul wihae ilhayeotda. 쟝위뀌: 뚱쬔후 쟝위뀌들은 모두 중농 출신으로 합작사의 일을 자기의 일 로 여기고 손해를 입으면서도 곳곳에서 여러사람들을 위해 일 하였다. (Hyeon 1954, 26) Jiangyugui and Dongjianhu, both Chinese farmers, worked everywhere—where there were needed—taking the cooperative work as their own in spite of loss to themselves.

24

Kim Kuang-su

As shown in this excerpt, in past times, foreign words were less frequently used. We can see for the Chinese personal names or place-names, efforts were made to follow the original (Chinese) pronunciation as closely as possible. Other examples of personal names are Margseu맑스 (Marx), Reninjuui 레닌주의 (Leninism), Ssttarin 쓰딸린 (Stalin), and Uyochun 우요 춘 (Wu Yaochun). Interestingly, some personal names like Mojuseok 모주석 (Chairman Mao) and Motaekdong 모택동 (Mao Zedong) are pronounced in Sino-Korean, rather than in Chinese. Borrowing foreign words and adapting them into another language is an inevitable linguistic process. The Chinese economic reform resulted in an unprecedented fast and broad acceptance of foreign words. Korean Chinese were not an exception to this occurrence, and they currently employ many foreign words. Such foreign words configured in the Korean Chinese vocabulary. Foreign words are often made into fewer syllables than they have in their original tongue, this efficiency preferred by the users based on the principle of least effort,4 in linguistic theory. Examples are “supermarket” becomes “shupeo,” “apartment” becomes “apat,” “course” becomes “cose,” and “partner” becomes “patneo.” I examined the texts of the political, business, and social sections of the Yanbian Daily from May 3 to 9, 2010. There were 2,987 words total, of which 61 (0.02 percent) were foreign words, such as “leisure,” “site,” “super,” “supermarket,” and “system,” and 131 (0.44%) were foreign words combined with native words imported into Korean Chinese, showing the process of cultural infusion into Korean Chinese language. Combined-word examples are appateudanji 아빠트단지 (apartment complex), enereugi-jeollyakoyeommulbaechul 에네르기절약오염물배출 (pollution output from energy savings),5 yeongu-senteo 연구쎈터 (research center), yeonbyeon-gwangwangkoseu 연변관광코스 (Yanbian tour course), Yeonbyeon imeop gwahakgisul bongsasenteo 연변임업과학기술봉사쎈터 (Service Center for Yanbian Forestry—Farm, Science, and Technology. Foreign words, alone or combined, were not only used in daily life (as in the newspaper examples); I also found many foreign words in the magazine Yeonbyeon yeoseong (Yanbian women) in the July and August issues of 2013. Examples are peulluteu 플루트 (flute), kamera 카메라 (camera), mopikoteu 모피코트 (fur coat), bijiniseu 비지니스 (business), bijiniseuseok 비 지니스석 (business seat), keopi 커피 (coffee), alluminyum 알루미늄 (aluminum), haendeupon 핸드폰 (cellphone), siteu 시트 (sheet), pama 파마 (perm), 4 

The principle that in all actions humans try to exert the least effort to accomplish the task, including verbal actions. For example, we contract words, phrases, and sentences: “What is your name?” becomes “What’s yah name?” and “air conditioner” becomes “aircon.” 5  The Japanese pronuciation enereugi is for “energy.”

The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China 

25

hauseu 하우스 (house), teomineol 터미널 (terminal), keopisyop 커피숍 (coffee shop), dijiteolhwa 디지털화 (digitalization), Inteonet 인터넷 (Internet), tepeu 테프 (tape), baendeu 밴드 (band), nokeu 노크 (knock), seuteureseu 스트레스 (stress), chwalyeongkongkeureu 촬영콩크르 (photo competition), semina 세 미나 (seminar), paentijumeoni 팬티주머니 (pants pocket), beranda 베란다 (veranda), wedingchwalyeong 웨딩촬영 (wedding photography), massaji 마 사지 (massage), noteubuk 노트북 (laptop), elliteu 엘리트 (elite), meseji 메세 지 (message), kaempeu 캠프 (camp), boteu 보트 (boat), telebijeon-peuro 텔 레비전프로 (television programs), hwaiteu-kala 화이트칼라 (white collar), sajingirenjeu 사진기렌즈 (camera lens), piano 피아노 (piano), haendeubaek 핸드백 (handbag), daieoteu 다이어트 (diet), and wiseuki 위스키 (whiskey). The history of the use of Western foreign words is not long, yet they have become an indispensable category in the everyday vocabulary of Korean immigrants in China. Closing Remarks About 1.83 million Koreans live in China; they account for 0.14 percent of the whole population, ranking thirteenth among the fifty-six ethnicities represented there. Among them, 1.04 million are in Jilin, 320,000 are in Heilongjiang, 230,000 are in Liaoning Province, and 240,000 are south of Shanhai Pass, in Beijing, Shanghai, Shandong, and Guangdong. This means that the northeastern region, the Yanbian area, is the hub of Korean Chinese speakers in China, and their influence on the rest of Korean Chinese is immense. Ever since Korean immigrants settled in China, the Korean language has been diligently studied and taught to the younger generations. Even before the nationalistic modern school Seo jeon seo suk was founded by Yi Sang-Seol in Yongjeung, Manchuria, in 1906, Korean immigrants had already engaged in over a century of institutionalized education. History displays the weight Korean immigrants place on education. In particular, during the first sixty years after the People’s Republic of China was founded, the party’s respect toward different ethnicities made it possible for Koreans to continue to speak Korean, establish nine-year mandatory education programs, and systemize institutions into elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, and colleges. The Minority Population Culture and Research Forum was held in 1993 in Kunming for the first time. Of the fifty-six ethnicities that participated in this forum, Koreans were evaluated as having the highest cultural sophistication, approaching that of developed countries. The fourth article of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (1982) stipulates: “Each ethnic group has the freedom to use and develop

26

Kim Kuang-su

their own language as well as to preserve or reform their customs” (The Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China 2005). This policy and legal safety net helped Koreans create Korean language rules, organize curricula, compile textbooks, and teach in Korean. All these activities resulted in maintaining and advancing the Korean language within China. Moreover, Korean immigrants inaugurated a research institute and academic organizations to uphold the proper usage of the language and transmit it to the next generation. Entering the twenty-first century, the high-speed development of the economy, easy access to information, and globalization all contributed to reshape the mentality of Korean immigrants. Especially as their attachment to hometown or community weakened, the Korean population became fluid and moved more often. Thus, what used to be known as “Korean regions” saw large outflows of Koreans, and this brought a crisis to Korean elementary and middle schools. Consequently, many of those schools have since closed down. However, this did not entirely discourage the learning, teaching, and speaking of the language. There remain 130 Korean primary schools in Jilin Province, which is considered one of the major Korean communities. There are also forty-eight in Heilongjiang Province, thirty-eight in Liaoning Province, and three in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. These institutions and mass media follow the independently published Jungguk Joseoneo gyubeom (Korean Chinese language rules), whereas prior to 1970 they had used the old Joseon grammar and rules that were strictly adopted from North Korea in 1933. The Yanbian Chairman Mao Copyright Translation Publication Office released “Joseonmal ddeuieosseugi, choan” (Korean Language spacing rules, first draft), and its rules have been used in all periodicals and books. In August 1977, the first Meeting on Korean Language and Literature was held in the city of Hailin in Heilongjiang Province. At this meeting, standard pronunciation, spelling, spacing, and punctuation rules were adopted. Joseonmal gyubeomjip (Korean language rules: Opinions, draft, and examples) was published in November 1977 by the Yanbian People’s Publishing House. In August 1983, during the sixth conference held by the Three Northeastern Provinces Korean Literary Association in Harbin, Korean Language Rules: Opinions, Draft, and Examples was announced and formally adopted throughout China. In January 1985, the Korean Language Rules book was published by the Three Northeastern Provinces Korean Language Rules Publication House. The following dictionaries published in the 1980s played a major role in establishing the norms of the language: The Mini Dictionary of the Korean Language (1980); The Modern Korean Language Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1981); and the Korean Language Spelling Dictionary (1981). In addition, during the second conference of the Three Northeastern Provinces Korean Literary Cooperative

The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China 

27

Council on December 10, 1986, the Korean Language Literary Assessment Committee was launched in the city of Yanji in Jilin Province, through a collaboration of stakeholders in Jilin, Heilongjiang, Liaoning, and Beijing. Also launched during the meeting was a Specialized Vocabulary Division, which was to be comanaged by the State Ethnic Affairs Commission and the Three Northeastern Provinces Korean Literary Cooperative Council. Case studies were reviewed, and regulations were passed during the meeting as well. During a seventh meeting, in 1990, the Korean Language Literary Assessment Committee adopted Foreign Words Notation Bylaws; in 1996, together with the Three Northeastern Provinces Korean Literary Cooperative Council, it published the Korean Language Rule Book (Modified and Supplemented). The rules and standards of the Korean language were heavily modified five times; the newest version of the rule book was published by Yanbian People’s Publishing House in 2007, under the management of the Korean Language Assessment Committee. This publication was built on the modified and supplemented edition of 1996. Since the entire contents of the newest rule book were reviewed by the Korean Language Assessment Committee, this rule book is the standard to follow when using the Korean language. For Korean immigrants in China, the Korean language is a social tool used to connect with other Koreans while living under different political, economic, and cultural environments. Korean was mostly spoken in the three northeastern provinces (Jilin, Heilongjiang, and Liaoning) as immigrants moved to the east, south, and north of Manchuria. Since the Chinese economic reform, the Korean language can often be heard in the regions south of Shanhai pass, such as Liaodong Peninsula, Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangdong. In China, the fastest and widest changes and developments in the Korean language are those related to vocabulary. Throughout history, from China’s liberation and economic reform to the present, we find different use of vocabulary and the distribution of new vocabulary due to changes in material culture, new policies, and regional differences. Korean Chinese have used foreign words in their language for a long time. The most foreign words in the Korean language during the Japanese occupation came from Japanese, but currently most of them are drawn from English. Cultural exchanges between China and Korea and between China and other foreign countries are on the rise. Although the use of foreign or hybrid words is unavoidable as a result of cultural exposure, these words need to be standardized once they are accepted by speakers. In the process of using, teaching, and disseminating the Korean language, the immigrants regulated and standardized it under the supervision of the Korean Language Assessment Committee. The variety of new vocabulary

28

Kim Kuang-su

is influencing several sectors of the Korean Chinese language—academia, politics, art, technology, business, and so on. The Korean language in China is a century and a half old. Although its origin is the Korean Peninsula, the Korean Chinese language came to exist in the social and historical environment of China and experienced unique changes and development. The Korean Chinese language signifies its role as a tool in the social lives of the Korean Chinese and for the transmission of Korean culture. Koreans make up less than 0.14 percent of the entire population of China, but with the presence of educational systems and legitimate mass media employing the Korean language, the mother tongue is not forgotten in spite of the strong influence of the Chinese language among people of Korean origin in China. The Korean language symbolizes the people and it has been well maintained through the efforts of the immigrant families and the community including various social organizations such as mass media, schools, and art and cultural organizations. We can say Korean is currently alive and well in the Yanbian region.6 References Bae Geuk. 1954. “Yeonbyeon munye changgan-e daehayeo” [Launching Yanbian literary magazine]. Editorial. Yeonbyeon munye [Yanbian literature and art] 1: 53. Beijing University Institute of Korean Culture. 1995. Eoneosa [History of language]. Beijing: Ethnic Publishing. Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China, The. 2005. “Laws and Regulations: Article 4 of the First Chapter of the General Outline.” June 14. Available at the Central Government Portal: http://www.gov.cn/ziliao/flfg/2005-06/14/content_6310_3.htm, accessed November 20, 2016. Cho Ryong-ho and Park Mun-il. 1997. Isipilsegireul hyanghan jungguk joseonjok baljeon jeollyak yeongu [Korean immigrants development strategy for the twenty-first century]. Shenyang: Liaoning People’s Publishing House. Choe Hyeon-suk. 1954. “Cheot seungni” [The first victory]. Yanbian Arts and Literature 1: 18. 6 

Following are some of the organizations that continue to use the Korean language: twenty-four-hour broadcasting stations, including the Central People’s Broadcasting Station, Korean Division; seven publishers, including Yanbian Education Publishing House; fourteen art organizations, including the Yanbian Dance Company; fifteen newspapers, including Yanbian Daily; thirty magazines, including Korean Literature; and 567 schools, ranging from elementary schools to universities.

The Establishment and Development of the Korean Language in China 

29

Choi Wan-ho. 2005. Joseoneo eowhiron [Korean lexical theory]. Pyongyang: Korean Social Science Press. Choi Yun-gab. 1992. Junggukeseoui joseoneoui baljeongwa yeongu [Development and study of Korean language in China]. Yanji: Yanbian University. Heo Kyung-jin, Heo Hui-hoon, and Chae Mi-hwa. 2006. Jungguk joseonminjok munhakdaegye [Collection of Korean immigrants’ ethnic literature], vols. 8, 10, 11. Seoul: Bogosa Books. Heo Myung-cheol. 2004. Jungguk joseon munwhaeui gachieuisik, jungguk teuksaekui joseonjok munwha [Value appreciation in Korean immigrants’ culture and Korean culture traits in China]. Yanji: Yanbian People’s Publishing House. Hyeon Me. 1954. Trans. Ju Su. “Nongchon saenghwal cheheomgi” [The farming-life experience]. Yeonbyeon munye [Yanbian literature and art]. Jeon Hak-suk. 1996. Joseoneo bangeonhak [Korean language dialectology]. Yanji: Yanbian University Press. Kim Kuang-su. 1995. Eoneosa [History of language]. Beijing: Korean Language and Culture Research Center of Peking University, Nationalities Publishing House. ———. 2008. “Jungguk joseoneo sae myeongsa suleo bunseok” [An analysis of new words in the Korean language]. Donggan hakgan [Dongjiang journal] 3: 21–26. ———. 2009. Haebangjeon junggukeseoeui joseoneoeui byeonhwabaljeon yeongu [Study on the development on Korean language pre-Liberation in China]. Seoul: Doseochulpan yeokrak. Kim Yeong-su. 2012. Jungguk joseoneo gyubeom wonchikgwa gyubeomsechik yeongu [Principles and rules of Korean language regulation]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House. Kim Young-hwang. 2006. Minjok munwhawa eoneo [Ethnic culture and language]. Pyongyang: Encyclopedia of Science Publishing House. Koh Young-il. 1986. Jungguk joseonjok ryeoksa yeongu [Research on Korean immigrants’ history]. Yanji: Yanbian Education Publisher, p. 155 (quoting Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Overview of Koreans in Manchuria, 1933). Korean Language Plan Committee in Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture (Translation Bureau). 2006. Joseonmal saemyeongsa suleo gyubeomjip [New Korean vocabulary standardization]. Yanji: Yanbian People’s Publishing House. Language Department of Korean Social Science Research Institute. 1981. The Modern Korean Language Dictionary, 2nd ed. Lee Deuk-chun. 1987. Joseoneo eohwisa [Korean lexical history]. Yanji: Yanbian University Press.

30

Kim Kuang-su

Lyu Eun-jong. 1991. Joseoneohwiron [Korean lexical theory]. Yanji: Yanbian University Press. Moon Chang-duk, Ryu Eun-jong, and Park Sang-il. 1985. Joseonmalmachumbeob-sajeon [The Korean language spelling dictionary]. Shenyang: Liaoning People’s Press. People’s Republic of China. 1982. Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. Article 4. Available at http://www.gov.cn/ziliao/flfg/200506/14/content 6310 3.htm. Shim Jae-ki. 1990. Gugeo eohwiron [Korean lexical theory]. Seoul: Jipmundang. Soen Deok-o, Kim Sang-won, and Jo Seub. 1985. Joeseoneo ganji [Collection of Korean language research]. Beijing: Minjok chulpansa. Wen Jiabao. 2013. Jeongbu saeop bogo (Government Projects Report by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao). At the First Meeting of the 12th National People’s Congress, March 5, 2013. Yanji. Yanbian Ethnic Literary and History Research Committee—Yanbian Korean Vocabulary Survey Committee. 1963. Joseoneo sinsasuleo josadaegang [New vocabulary research outline of Korean]. Yanji, September. Yanbian Language Assessment Committee. 2007. Joseonmal gyubeomjip [Korean language rules]. Yanji: Yanbian People’s Publishing House. Yanbian Language Institute. 1980. The Mini Dictionary of the Korean Language. Yang So-jeon. 1987. Jung-Jo gwangyesa nonmunjip [Dissertation on KoreaChina history of affiliation]. Beijing: World Knowledge. Yeonbyeon ilbo [Yanbian daily]. 2010. Social, economic, political columns. May 3–9, 2010. Yanji. Yeonbyeon nyeoseong [Yanbian women]. 2013. [Bi-monthly branding magazine of Koreans in China]. Nos. 7–8. Yanji.

TWO

How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China

JIN ZHE AND JIN JIAOLING Introduction This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between South Korea and China. The development of the relationship between the two countries is quite impressive given the complex international circumstances of the time period. It is expected that the two countries will continue to collaborate in the future, based on the frequent and fruitful interactions in politics, economics, and culture that they have exhibited over the last two decades. In this friendly atmosphere, Korean language education has flourished in China to an unprecedented degree. The beginning of systemized Korean language education in China is rooted in Korean classes offered by the Department of Foreign Languages of Peking University in the 1940s.1 This Korean program helped establish the status of Korean (Chosun/Joseon) people in China. The curriculum was very different from today’s because it was designed to teach North Korean idioms and expressions. However, this early Korean language education in China, prior to diplomatic relations with South Korea, secured resources for the better programs teachers would eventually create.2 In August 1992, the two countries broke out of their forty-year-old ideological conflicts of the Cold War. As they initiated diplomatic relations, 1  The Korean language education in China started in Nanjing in 1946. The National Tongbang Language School moved to Chongqing via Kunming in 1945 and then president Yao Nan founded the Korean language program. In the following year, 1946, the school moved to Nanjing and first enrolled Korean language students, which marks the start of formal Korean language education in China. 2  Before the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and South Korea, the universities that had Korean language programs were Beijing University, the University of International Business and Economics, Minzu University of China, Luoyang PLA Foreign Languages Institute, Beijing International Studies University, and Yanbian University.

32

Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling

Korean language education in China boomed. The trend continued into the twenty-first century, with the number of colleges offering Korean study programs increasing from 26 in the 1990s to 110 in 2010. Through the diligent efforts of many scholars, Korean programs in China improved in quality as well as in quantity. Korean education in China followed the diplomatic efforts started in many regions, such as Jilin, Beijing, Liaoning, Shanghai, and Shandong. The most successful one has been in Shandong, since Shandong was the first region in China to open to South Korea politically, economically, and culturally. Even today, Shandong remains one of the best regions in China to study the Korean language. This chapter focuses on the spread of Korean language education in Shandong, including its background and development and an analysis of the issues facing it today. We believe this examination will help improve Korean language education not only in Shandong but throughout China. Background Geopolitical Characteristics and Historical Background

Among the provinces of China, Shandong is located closest to South Korea (107 miles to the west). It is believed since ancient times, the people in Shandong and on the Korean Peninsula have interacted. In more recent history, Qingdao and Yantai in Shandong were the focal regions for maritime trade with the Korean Peninsula. However, with the beginning of the Cold War and the foundation of the People’s Republic of China in the middle of the twentieth century, trading activities between Korea and China came to a halt. More than forty years later, the world broke out of the Cold War and the two counties returned to friendly terms. Following Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, China opened to the outside world and focused on developing special economic zones (SEZs).3 The first round of SEZ development was in coastal cities, including Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Shantou, and Xiamen; the second round was in Hainan in 1988; the third round took place in fourteen additional cities in 1992. Among the most recent cities to become SEZs were Shanghai, Tianjin, and Qingdao in Shandong Province. As China moved into the market economy, foreign trade became significant, and Shandong’s geographical advantage propelled it into a center for import and export, especially with South Korea. 3  The fifth session of the Standing Committee of the Fifth National People’s Congress on August 26, 1980, passed a bill to set up Special Economic Zones in Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Shantou, and Xiamen.

How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China

33

In retrospect, Sino-Korean diplomatic relations stemmed from various events starting in March 1988. Since then, there have been informal, nongovernmental trading activities, which eventually led the two countries to sign an agreement to set up trade representative offices in October 1990. This agreement laid the foundation for the development of bilateral trading. The Korean Trade Promotion Agency and the Chinese International Trade Chamber of Commerce met in Seoul in 1991 and agreed to open offices in Beijing and Seoul, respectively. On February 7 of the same year, the two countries signed the Korea and China Trade Agreement and the Korea and China Investment Protection Agreement, which paved the way for further development of trading once diplomatic relations were established (Lin 2014). Meanwhile, Chinese foreign minister Qian Qichen attended the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministerial Meeting in Seoul in 1991. During this visit to Korea, Qian met with South Korean president Roh Tae-woo, and a half-year later Qian met with Korean foreign minister Lee Sang-ok during the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) meeting in Beijing. Following the guidelines of the central government, Shandong undertook diverse diplomatic campaigns to attract Korean businesses to the province. Prior to 1992, when Chinese citizens could not travel directly to South Korea, delegations visited Korean companies via Hong Kong or Japan in order to lobby for foreign investment. As a result of the layered effort—governmental as well as civilian—the investment of Korean businesses in Shandong started off smoothly. Coastal cities along the Shandong Peninsula, such as Qingdao, Weihai, Yantai, and Rizhao, put forward various economic policies and regulations favorable to Korean companies that invested in the region. For secure and optimal business operations of these companies, the cities improved their infrastructure as well. As early as 1989, Qingdao was successful in attracting Korean businesses, and Yantai and Weihai followed suit (Lee 2006). The Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 caused many Korean companies to retreat from China. The crisis had a greatly negative impact on Shandong; bankrupt or failed Korean businesses damaged the reputation of surviving Korean companies. Although this unpleasant phenomenon adversely affected Korean language education, the Korean economy quickly recovered from the crisis, and the demand for Korean speakers in business returned. Overall, Korean language education in Shandong can be attributed to the province’s geographic location close to the Korean Peninsula and the history of governmental and civilian efforts to form ties between the regions.

34

Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling

Political and Economic Background

Shandong is one of the most populous provinces in China, with 96 million inhabitants. In 2014, it was also ranked as the seventh most productive province in China. Because Shandong is close to South Korea, people in Shandong share cultural similarities with Koreans. The Shandong Peninsula is where Confucius was born and Confucianism originated. Confucianism was well received by the Korean people, and it later became the medium through which the two peninsulas developed political and economic understandings. This special tie dates back a thousand years to the dynasties of Tang, Song, and Yuan, when Shilla and Goryeo people from the Korean Peninsula either moved to Shandong to settle or traveled to the capitals via Shandong. Many Korean figures left cultural traces in Shandong—the Emperor of the Sea, General Jang Bogo, built the Chishan Fahuayuan temple, and Choi Chiwon and Jung Mongju left a literary legacy. It is noteworthy that frequent civilian interaction started in ancient times, lasted throughout recent history, and resulted in fervent interest among Chinese people in learning the Korean language. Some Korean companies operated in Shandong even before diplomatic treaties were signed. Most of these business owners were Chinese Koreans whose parents had moved to Korea, and thus they were born in Korea. These Hwagyo were usually fluent in both languages and most had extended families in Shandong. Of 27,000 Hwagyo living in Korea, 95 percent were originally from Shandong (Yang and Shengqi 2005, 6). Hwagyo acted as the main force steering Korean capital into the Shandong region through investment in businesses. The first Korean company to invest in China was Topton Electrical Machinery Co., Ltd., and it was followed by many others. Before the diplomatic treaties between Korea and China, there were already seventy-one Korean companies operating in Shandong. The trade volume in the region was worth US$170 million, of which US$60 million was from export and US$110 million was from import (Kong 2002, 284). In the early 1990s, other Korean companies arrived in Weihai.4 The cargo ship Golden Bridge commenced operations between Weihai and Incheon on September 16, 1990. This was the beginning of a new era of large-scale trade between the two countries. After the diplomatic treaties were signed, the New Golden Bridge replaced the old cargo ship. According to data provided by the Bank of Korea, by July 1992, Korean investment in China amounted to 293 cases, totaling US$250 million, 4 

The original name of Weihai was Weihaiwei. It was the navy base of the Northern Fleet of the Qing dynasty.

How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China

35

which grew from 179 cases and US$109 million, respectively. The trade volume also increased from US$4.2 million, prior to the diplomatic treaties, to US$720 million afterward. Most of the Korean investments in China at the time took place in Shandong. Transportation has played a significant role in the trading activities of Korea and China. A ferry line opened between Incheon and Weihai in 1992; another line of ferries started operating between Incheon and Qingdao in 1993; then, in 2000, ferries sailed between Incheon and Yantai three times per week, helping 31,400 people that year to travel between Korea and China. In air traffic, Beijing and Qingdao were the first cities to fly to and from Incheon, in 1994. Airlines got in the business of connecting even more cities of the two countries: there have been four flights per day between Yantai and Incheon since 2001 and three flights per day between Weihai and Incheon since 2005. In addition, cargo flights have operated between Yantai and Incheon since 2005, and Korean destinations available from China via airline now include Busan and Jeju Island. At present, there are eighty-four flights offered between the two countries each day. After the signing of the treaties, the number of ocean liners increased to twelve, half of which belong to Shandong (Lin 2014). Following the first route, Weihai-Incheon, which began in 1990, the Shidao-Gunsan, LongyanIncheon, and Longyan-Pyeongtaek routes were launched in 2005, 2005, and 2009, respectively. Later, Qingdao-Incheon, Qingdao-Gunsan, YantaiIncheon, and Rizhao-Pyeongtaek were connected as well; today, twentyone ferries leave China for South Korea each week. Shandong is where Korean business investment is the most prevalent—30 percent of the total investment amount and 39 percent of the Korean companies in China are centered in Shandong. Today, approximately eight thousand Korean enterprises are in coastal cities in China, including Qingdao, Yantai, Weihai, and Rizhao. Some of these are globally recognized companies like Hyundai, Samsung, LG, Doosan Heavy Industry, Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering, Daewoo Electronics, Korea Electric Power, GS, Lotte, Hanjin, and Pohang Iron and Steel Company (POSCO). The collaborative and strategic investment made by Samsung, Hyundai, GS, Lotte, and Daewoo in 2014 was worth US$3.3 billion (Dai and Xueying 2014). As Shandong and Korea finalize negotiations regarding a free trade agreement and free trade zone, Shandong is preparing for a new era of economic development. Going forward, Korean investment in China will likely be heavy on the service sector, which will increase the demand for bilingual speakers. Korean investment in Shandong is shifting from labor-intensive industry to technology, environment, and capital industries. Additionally, the Korean businesses currently present in China have already laid a good

36

Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling

foundation for survival through crisis management skills and high technologies. Among these businesses, many are hiring locally. These companies have earned the respect of the Chinese people by not only contributing to the Chinese economy with good ethics but also providing employment opportunities. The growing demand for Korean-speaking employees by these companies is related to the development of Korean education in Shandong. Social and Cultural Background

The histories of Korea and Shandong have been interwoven in many ways. Korean independence movement leaders, including Shin Jung, Shin Chaeho, and Kim Gu, left their footprints in Shandong, and some Koreans moved there to study. Today, the number of Koreans who travel to Shandong for various purposes is increasing year over year. During 2014 alone, the number of Chinese people visiting Korea (including travelers to Jeju Island, which does not require a visa) reached six million, and the number of Korean people visiting China was four million (Ma 2014). This unprecedented number of travelers between the two countries will likely increase once visa requirements are removed. Various arts festivals and cultural events held in Shandong year round, including the Qufu International Confucius Festival, the Weifang International Kite Festival, Mao’s Garden Folk Custom Tourism Festival, the Haiyang International Sand Sculpture Festival, and the Zhu Geliang Cultural Tourism Festival, also attract Korean visitors. Approximately 88,000 Koreans and 200,000 Korean Chinese reside in Shandong, the majority in Qingdao, Yantai, and Weihai.5 There are chapters of the Chamber of Commerce for Korean Enterprises in Qingdao, Yantai, Weihai, Weifang, Jinan, Dezhou, Rizhao, and Zhibo. Also, governmental cooperation is underway between the two countries for the efficient supply of a qualified labor force to Korean businesses. Korean companies in Shandong had sent 10,001 Chinese apprentices to Korea as of the end of 2007. In 2013 alone, 1,788 Chinese workers moved to Korea from Shandong and, in the same year, a total of 4,889 people working in Korea had originally come from Shandong. This number will likely increase annually, especially since the Korean government as of March 2007 allows the employment of Chinese people on tourist visas. Shandong has been a sister province with Gyeongsangnam-do in Korea since September 1993 and with Gyeonggi-do since December 2009. There 5 

According to the data from the Qingdao South Korean Consulate, native Korean residents in Shandong were 88,800 (April 2011), in Qingdao 48,200, in Weihai 23,100, in Yantai 14,600, in other places together 2,900; Korean Chinese residents were 200,000 (April 2011), in Qingdao 134,400, in Weihai 33,000, in Yantai 22,000, and in other places together 10,600.

How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China

37

are twenty-seven sister cities between Korea and China, such as Suwon and Jinan, and this number increases to fifty-seven if sister provinces are included.6 Among the sister cities and provinces, deputation groups have been exchanged to promote collaboration in the development of the economy, culture, sports, and education. For example, Rizhao in China and Dangjin City in Korea’s Chungcheongnam-do Province signed an agreement to let government officials enroll in exchange programs to work in their counterpart’s office. The two cities also co-organize Korean-speaking contests. The Korean community in Shandong has established an exceptional educational and cultural infrastructure, which is uncommon in other regions. This infrastructure is an important medium for Koreans to assimilate to the mainstream. The Yantai Korean School and Qingdao Wochengwun Korean School are accredited by both countries. They offer classes ranging from elementary to high school levels to fifteen hundred students. There are three accredited Korean schools in Qingdao and one in Weihai, and all courses in these schools are taught in Korean. There are also sixteen schools that offer Korean classes on weekends in cities such as Qingdao, Weihai, Qiaonan, Huangdao, Pingdu, Rushan, Jinan, Wendeng, and Rizhao.7 As China becomes more and more influential both economically and culturally, professionals fluent in the Chinese language and familiar with the culture will be in great demand. Growing up, Korean students are exposed to Chinese characters to some degree. For Korean students who decide to study in China, this familiarity helps them to acquire the new language and culture. Close proximity and low expenses are additional draws for those Korean students. As of April 30, 2014, 2,438 Korean students were studying at universities in Shandong to obtain undergraduate or graduate degrees. The count increases to 8,000 if students in language programs are included.8 The largest number of Korean students is registered at Shandong University campuses: 575 at Weihai and 412 at Jinan. Most of these students are in undergraduate programs, majoring in liberal arts.9 Most colleges in Shandong have cooperative programs with at least one college abroad. Shandong University has student and scholar exchange 6  “Status on the Sister-City Relations between the Local Governments in Shandong and South Korea,” issued by the Qingdao South Korean Consulate on April 22, 2014. 7  “Contact Information for Korean Language Schools in Shandong,” issued by the Qingdao South Korean Consulate on September 9, 2014. 8  According to the Qingdao South Korean Consulate, the total number of native Korean students studying in Shandong was 8,000 in April 2011 (male: 4,480, female: 3,520), in Qingdao 4,500, in Weihai 1,500, in Yantai 1,000, and in other places together 1,000. 9  “Survey on the Present Situation of Native Korean Students in Shandong,” issued by the Qingdao South Korean Consulate on April 30, 2014.

38

Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling

programs and collaborates on research projects and academic information sharing with more than forty colleges, including Seoul National University, Yonsei University, Sungkyunkwan University, and Kyung Hee University. Sejong hakdang is a Korean language learning program sponsored by the Korean government, open to any foreigner interested in Korean language and culture. As of 2014, there were 130 Sejong hakdang programs in operation in fifty-five countries, of which nineteen are in China, including four in Shandong cities—Yantai, Qingdao, Jinan, and Weihai. In December 2007, the Center for Korean Research at the Haiyang University of China collaborated with the National Institute of Korean Language and instituted a Sejong hakdang. Shandong University at Weihai started the second Sejong hakdang in 2008, and Shandong Normal University cooperated with Inha University in Korea for the third Sejong hakdang in 2011. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Korea, Nambu University in Korea, and Rudong University in Yantai jointly established the fourth Sejong hakdang. The Sejong hakdang in Weihai employs ten full-time instructors and operates in five lecture rooms, one administrative office, and one principal’s office. In addition to Korean language and culture courses, the institution runs events such as a Korean-speaking contest, a talent show for singing in Korean, and a Korean folk dancing performance. The Weihai Sejong hakdang has taught 3,900 students since 2008. Korean media such as newspapers and radio stations not only provide essential services to Korean immigrants and Korean Chinese but also help establish Korean language education programs in China by sharing information and popularizing the language. Korean newspapers include the Korean Business Times (People’s daily Shandong edition), Journal of Northeastern China, Heilongjiang Daily, Weihai Daily, Finance and Economy Times, and Yantai Daily. One of the most comprehensive and authoritative Korean magazines is Golden Bridge, which was first published in 2002 by the Shandong provincial government at the request of the Office of State Council in order to celebrate the tenth year of diplomatic treaties with Korea. In 2012, the twentieth year of the treaties, Golden Bridge opened a branch office in Seoul and affiliated with a subsidiary of the Korea Joong­ Ang Daily for broadened as well as in-depth delivery of Korean news and cultural contents. Another Korean periodical, the Heilongjiang Daily, started publishing in Qingdao and circulated The Coast News in 1997 and later the Weekly Heilongjiang News, both of which have developed a large readership. Heilongjiang Daily also collaborates with China Central Television to run CNTV Korean (http://kr.cntv.cn), which helps Korean immigrants assimilate to Chinese culture (Han 2013). Shandong University publishes a Korean edition of News of Weihai Campus.

How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China

39

The “Korean Wave”10 plays an important role in what Chinese people learn about Korea and its language. The contribution that the Korean Wave has made to Korean language education is as significant as economic motivation is for employment. The Korean Wave phenomenon originated in the Korean duo Clon’s performance in China in 1999. The newspaper Beijing Youth Daily analogized the popularity of Clon in China to an “East Wind.” When the Korean boy band H.O.T. experienced explosive popularity in China, the phrase “Korean Wave” was coined, and it is now used commonly. In Qingdao, Weihai, and Rongcheng, some Korean TV shows are aired. The first Korean soap opera to become popular in China was What Is Love. It attracted a large young Chinese viewership, up to 4.2% nationally, one of the highest viewerships among foreign TV shows. Since then, the shows Goodbye My Love, Star in My Heart, Autumn Tale, and Be Strong, Keumsun have been introduced to Chinese viewers, and the Korean Wave has only grown. The Korean Wave extended its reach into China with Winter Sonata in 2003, Miss Mermaid in 2004, Dae Jang Geum in 2005, and Full House Romance in 2007. Of all these shows, Dae Jang Geum was the most popular in China; it impressed Chinese viewers with its excellent presentations of authentic Korean cuisine. Some scholars today call the twenty-first century a cultural century (Choi 2013, 3). Using “soft power,” Korea spread the Korean Wave all over the world, especially into China. Starting at the end of the twentieth century, Chinese people became interested in Korean pop music, TV shows, and fashion. Around 2006, interest in Korean culture waned as a result of historical disputes between the two countries. The controversies caused anti-Koreanism among some Chinese people. The Chinese government also restricted the number of foreign TV shows aired so as to protect the domestic entertainment industry. The Korean Wave hit its lowest point in China in 2008 through 2009 due to misunderstandings by Chinese people regarding fictional content on Korean TV shows (Liu 2014). Some Chinese people felt that Korean people exhibited derogatory attitudes toward Chinese, and other Chinese disliked the one-sided import of cultural content such as Korean pop music or Korean movies. When the Korean Wave returned to China in 2010, it was better received and understood. Some Chinese artists now participate in producing Korean movies and TV shows. A new era of the Korean Wave has started, spearheaded by world-class cultural content and globally well-known music, including songs like “Gangnam Style” (Liu 2014). 10 

The “Korean Wave” (Hallyu) in China includes Korean dramas, music, films, and games.

40

Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling

In the beginning, the Korean way of life, including Korean cuisine and heated stone floors, was approached by Shandong residents purely out of curiosity. Now, Shandong residents have embraced Korean culture, eating Korean foods and enjoying heated stone floors in their own homes. The Confucian elements found in Korean culture came as a pleasant surprise to Chinese people. While Confucianism was on the verge of being forgotten and had been criticized in China, it is well preserved in the roots of Korean culture and way of thinking. As Chinese people become more exposed to Korean culture, objective and rational opinions about it are shaped in Chinese society. Korean Education among Korean Chinese The History of the Korean Chinese Community

Korean Chinese people settled in the Shandong region of China in the 1960s. These early settlers were scientists or government administrators dispatched to work in coastal cities such as Qingdao and Yantai, or army veterans from Jinan, Qingdao, and Weihai who had completed their service and decided to remain in the region. In the 1970s, more Korean Chinese oceanographers and scholars sent by the Chinese government moved to the area. With the rise of the open-door policy in the 1980s, entrepreneurial Korean Chinese people moved to cities including Qingdao, Yantai, and Weihai to engage in the restaurant and food manufacturing businesses. When a ferry line was introduced between Weihai and Incheon in the 1990s, a large number of Korean Chinese traveled to Korea via Weihai to visit their relatives, and they became familiar with the coastal cities in Shandong. Qingdao Topton Electric Company was the first Korean enterprise in the Chengyang District of Qingdao, and it started hiring Korean Chinese in 1989. Within the next few years, many more Korean companies and ­Korean Chinese people flocked to the region (Nan 2009). The second-­largest Korean Chinese community is now found in Shandong. There are Koreatowns in the cities of Qingdao, Weihai, Yantai, Jinan, and Jiaozhou. The Korean-Chinese population reached 200,000 in 2013: 134,400 in Qingdao, 33,000 in Weihai, 22,000 in Yantai, and 10,600 in other cities in Shandong. There are 88,800 native Koreans in the region as well. Of Qingdao’s twelve districts, Lichang and Chengyang were the first to build Koreatowns. Chengyang, located close to Qingdao Luiting International Airport, is where the earliest Korean business operations were established. Today, the largest number of Korean-Chinese and Korean people in Shandong lives in Chengyang.11 11 

“The Boom of Korean Towns in Shandong,” on Yoonsek Ahn’s blog of September 25,

How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China

41

Weihai is famous for Beophwawon, a Buddhist temple built by General Jang Bogo in 823 for the Silla Koreans there. Now it is also known for the Habitat Scroll of Honor awarded by the United Nations. Many Korean Chinese people live in the Huancui District, the Economy and Technology Development District, and the High-Tech Development District. In Yantai, about three hundred Korean households purchased apartments in the Laishan District and Huanghai City Garden. About forty retail businesses in the Yantai Economic Development Zone are owned by Korean Chinese (Nan 2009). Most of the Korean Chinese in Shandong work for Korean companies, but some are also self-employed as importers, exporters, school teachers, and government employees. At colleges that offer Korean language classes, the instructors are almost always Korean Chinese. Local governments look for talent with bilingual capability. The deputy mayor of Qingdao recruited a hundred Korean Chinese from the Yanbian region. In Qingdao, Weihai, and Yantai, a large number of government employees are Korean Chinese. What started as social clubs organized around hobbies such as golf, soccer, fishing, and the baduk game (Korean chess) developed into the Korean Chamber of Commerce, Korean Entrepreneurs Association, and Korean Seniors Association. These organizations are establishing a community in which the Korean language is written and spoken on a regular basis and creating a new form of Korean Chinese culture.12 Korean Education for Korean Chinese Youth

As the Korean Chinese community became organized, the desire for better education for the younger generation emerged. As a result of China’s open-door policy and diplomatic treaties with South Korea, many Korean Chinese people moved out of the three Northeastern Provinces.13 These Korean Chinese found new homes in big cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Tianjin, as well as in Shandong, where Korean companies were clustered. The demand for Korean language education in these regions increased, as there was no institutionalized supply. Korean schools called sebyul in Tianjin and jangbaek in Beijing were established in the 1990s but did not last longer than a decade. Outside the three Northeastern Provinces, Zhengyang Elementary School in the Lichang District of Qingdao is the only Korean school still in 2005: http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=ysan777&logNo=60017771333. 12  “The Boom of Korean Towns in Shandong.” 13  Over 90 percent of Korean schools were closed due to the sharp decrease in the number of students enrolled in Jilin, Heilongjiang, and Liaoning.

42

Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling

operation. When the school was built in 2000, it was originally named the Qiangdao Bishan Korean Elementary School, but it was renamed in 2009. There are preschool, elementary, and junior high divisions, with a total of three hundred students and sixty-eight teachers. There are sixteen weekend Korean schools in Qingdao, Weihai, Jiao­ zhou, Jiaonian, Huangdao, Pingdu, Rushan, Jinan, Wendeng, and Rizhao. Most students attending these weekend schools are children of temporary expatriates working for Korean companies in China. Teaching Korean to the younger generations of Korean Chinese is vital in preserving the traditions and values of the people. Amid risks that Korean Chinese youths will lose their sense of identity when growing up in China, a sound system for Korean language education is essential. The Present Status of Korean Language Education in Shandong The System and Faculty of Korean Language Education

There are two hundred universities in China with Korean language departments, and sixty-nine of them are in Shandong: thirty four-year colleges and thirty-nine three-year colleges. Except for Jinan (which has sixteen colleges with Korean language departments—five four-year colleges and eleven three-year colleges), the fifty-nine colleges are all in the coastal cities of Shandong. Sixty percent of colleges in the Shandong Peninsula founded Korean language departments or Korean studies committees. The detailed distribution of college-level Korean programs in the region is as follows: 19 in Qingdao (8 four-year colleges and 11 three-year colleges), 10 in Yantai (6 four-year colleges and 4 three-year colleges), 9 in Weihai (3 four-year colleges and 6 three-year colleges), and 3 in Rizhao (1 four-year college and 2 three-year colleges). In inland cities, 7 colleges in Zhibo run Korean programs (1 four-year college and 6 three-year colleges), 2 in Weifang (both four-year colleges), 2 in Liaocheng (both four-year colleges), 1 in Qufu (four-year college), and 1 in Linyi (four-year college). Of these, all but eight colleges started Korean programs after the year 2000. Among those that started earlier are Shandong University (in 1992), Haiyang University of China (in 1992), and Yantai University (in 1993). There are currently master’s degree programs in Korean literature and culture at Shandong University (Jinan and Weihai campuses), Haiyang University of China, Qingdao University, and Yantai University. In 2012, Shandong University’s Weihai campus started a doctoral degree program in Korean literature. Shandong University was the first college to offer Korean language courses, starting in 1989 at its Jinan campus. In 1994, Shandong University enrolled students for a Korean major, and in 2008, the program became one of the government’s recommended programs. In addition, the School

How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China

43

of Korean Studies was founded in 2003 at Shandong University’s Weihai campus. Both campuses are carrying out the important role of teaching Korean language and culture to cultivate the next generation. Korean education is also offered by private colleges and vocational schools in Shandong. Because these classes are funded by the private sector, if the economy is in recession or graduates cannot find jobs easily, they risk being canceled. Private school operation is strongly affected by economic efficiency. These programs used to be popular because most Korean companies were manufacturers and did not require sophisticated communication abilities in Korean, so graduates found jobs easily. However, as Koreanowned business enterprises transitioned from labor-intensive industries to technology- or capital-intensive industries, the demand for highly educated, bilingual employees increased. The need for private or vocational school graduates evaporated, and these schools eventually eliminated their Korean classes. Korean language educators include a small number of Korean instructors and a large number of Chinese or Korean-Chinese instructors. The proportion of Chinese and Korean-Chinese instructors is about equal in the Shandong region. The recent trend is for native Chinese people to receive doctoral degrees in Korea and move back to Shandong for faculty positions. From the university perspective, there are pros and cons to hiring Chinese or Korean-Chinese instructors. Korean-Chinese instructors know the Korean language and understand the culture so well that they are able to offer instruction at the level of native Korean instructors; however, they often speak a Chinese dialect, not the standard Mandarin, which can result in limited communication with students. They also tend to follow North Korean grammar and have North Korean accents (Wang 2012). Younger Chinese instructors who acquired advanced degrees in Korea have strengths stemming from their formal and systemized training. However, although students admire these instructors for having lived and studied in Korea, these instructors’ Korean proficiency is generally inferior to that of Korean-Chinese instructors. Native Korean instructors are valuable in Korean education in Shandong. They not only transfer their knowledge of the language but also provide students opportunities to experience Korean culture secondhand. All colleges that offer Korean classes in Shandong currently employ Korean instructors, and they teach courses in speaking, listening, and culture. Most of their expertise lies in literature, linguistics, and education, but recently the number of instructors with degrees in economics, history, and political science has been increasing. The educational background of Korean instructors varies. Such instructors used to be able to obtain teaching positions at colleges simply by virtue

44

Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling

of being native Korean speakers. However, as students and the job market now expect a higher quality of Korean education, colleges tend to prefer candidates with advanced degrees. Increasingly, these instructors hold degrees outside of linguistics and Korean literature. The older generation of Korean instructors was less familiar with Chinese language and culture. These days, colleges offer in-depth training for native Korean instructors to mitigate their culture shock and enable them to adapt better. As a result, retention rates of native Korean instructors are improving over time. In China, public universities are regarded as superior to private universities, and this is reflected by the education level of Korean language instructors at the two types of institutions. More than half of the Korean instructors at public universities hold doctoral degrees, and the ratio is even greater if Ph.D. student instructors are counted. In private universities, by contrast, the majority of Korean instructors hold only master’s degrees. Most instructors have studied linguistics or Korean literature. Due to the complex nature of today’s job market for students, however, instructors with interdisciplinary backgrounds are preferred. The curriculum for Korean majors is similar throughout China. Regardless of the school, the courses taught in the freshman and sophomore years are roughly the same, although textbooks or hours of instruction per week may vary. In the junior and senior years, some courses in Korean studies are offered but with a small number of credits and hours of instruction. Therefore, students coming out of undergraduate programs with only a Korean major are at a disadvantage in job markets that require sophisticated knowledge of Korea. Often, students with a Korean major end up in career paths where the Korean language is irrelevant, or in Chinese companies where Korean is not used at all. This underemployment phenomenon may be overcome through individual effort, but the lack of an enriched curriculum in Korean studies definitely limits students’ future careers. Many Chinese colleges run one- or two-year exchange programs with their sister colleges in Korea. The Harbin Institute of Technology sends all of its Korean majors to the University of Seoul, Hanyang University, or Ewha Women’s University in the beginning of their sophomore year. The exchange students spend a year in these schools and then return to China for their junior year. This extensive exchange program has been carried out since the foundation of Harbin’s Korean language department. The program not only brought a breakthrough improvement in students’ language skills, but it also helped them decide whether they would pursue advanced degrees in Korea. The program is very popular and helps the

How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China

45

school recruit students into its Korean major. Exchange programs in other language programs, such as English, are not as successful. There are four major paths students take upon graduation: private sector employment, public sector employment, pursuit of an advanced degree abroad, or pursuit of an advanced degree in China. The majority of graduates (60 percent) choose to work for Korean companies, and the rest decide to study abroad, enroll in graduate schools in China, or start working for the Chinese government, in order of preference. For graduates from the Shandong University Weihai campus with degrees in Korean studies, more than 50 percent landed jobs in the private sector, more than 10 percent continued their education in graduate schools in China, 10 percent went abroad for graduate school, 5 percent found jobs in the public sector, and another 5 percent took short-term contract positions, based on data from 2009 through 2014. The remaining 10 percent were in the process of applying for jobs or preparing for entrance exams for graduate schools. From 2009 through 2012, the employment rate for Shandong University graduates in the Korean program reached 96 percent on average, but it dropped to 74 percent in 2013, then improved slightly to 86 percent in 2014. The proportion of students who continue their education in graduate school, both abroad and in China, is on the rise. As for employment, more graduates tend to work for Chinese companies. In 2014, 40 percent of graduates applied for positions at Chinese companies. This trend from employment at Korean companies to Chinese companies is universal within China. For students who choose to pursue advanced degrees in Korea, their academic specialization varies, from Korean literature, business management, and psychology to political science. Korean studies graduates from the Harbin Institute of Technology tend to go on to advanced degrees in business management rather than in Korean literature. This is likely because there are limited employment opportunities for those with degrees in Korean, whether in academia or industry. As many Chinese students complete their Ph.D.s in Korea and return to China, job candidates with master’s degrees are not as competitive. So, many people who do not go into a doctoral degree program opt for an MBA program. Also, more and more undergraduate students double major in economics, finance, or accounting, in addition to Korean. Institutions for Korean Studies

Research in Korean studies is very active in China and is supported by the Korean government, academic institutions, and scholarly organizations. The institutions of Korean studies in China have two primary objectives:

46

Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling

to collaborate with Korea in researching East Asian civilizations and to promote friendly relations between the two countries (Son 2011). The institutions of Korean studies in Shandong grew in quality and quantity with the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries and also under the influence of the Korean Wave. Shandong University, Haiyang University, Yantai University, and Qingdao ­University founded centers for Korean studies. Among these, Shandong University and Haiyang University were selected by the Korean Study Corporation for focused support. This close relationship between Korea and China resulted in an immense improvement in academic research. The School of Korean at Shandong University founded its Center for Korean Studies in 1992 to enhance the quality of research related to Korea. Furthermore, the university founded a Korean Studies Institute (KSI), where twenty-eight faculty members from the School of Korean and thirty professors from other departments collaborate. Some of these professors are members of the university’s Institute of Asia Pacific Studies. Most of the fifty-eight scholars hold doctoral degrees from Korean universities, so their understanding of the Korean language, their research capabilities, and their academic connections are all superb. In China, they are pioneers in Korean studies and authorities in their field. The KSI of Shandong University has made remarkable achievements in research on Sino-Korean relations and Korean politics, diplomacy, economy, culture, and literature. Its publications include “Report on the Development of South Korea: The Korean Blue Book,” “Series of Korean Studies,” “Series of Doctoral Korean Studies,” “Series of Translation of Korean Studies,” “Sino-Korean Liberal Arts and Social Science Studies,” and “Korean Studies.” Also, there is the five-volume Report on the Development of South Korea: The Korean Blue Book, published from 2007 to 2010, presenting research results on current affairs of the Korean Peninsula and reflecting on different aspects of the recent advancement of Korean society. In May 2009, the KSI launched its Korean Peninsula research website: http://www.kryj. wh.sdu.edu.cn. This is the first website with a Korean studies theme, and it ranks highly in major web portals, such as Baidu (Kim 2012). In November 2014, Shandong University also launched the Center for Sino-Korean Relations Studies. Korean studies is viewed as an extension of Korean language education and has continuously progressed. Shandong University maintains good relations with the Korean embassy in China, the Qingdao South Korea Consulate General, and the Beijing Academy of Korean Culture, and it has received support and cooperation in running the KSI. Shandong University also collaborates with other colleges in China, thirty colleges in Korea

How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China

47

(including Seoul National University, Yonsei University, and Korea University), four colleges in Japan, the Korea International Exchange Foundation, the Korea Research Foundation, and the Northeast Asian History Research Institution, in order to deliver high-quality Korean language education. Shandong University has hosted about twenty international conferences on Korean studies to date. Well-known Koreans such as ambassadors Hajoong Kim and Wooik Ryu have been invited to give keynote addresses. The conferences have helped raise the maturity level of Korean studies in China and offer networking opportunities for scholars in the field from all over the world (Kim 2012). Shift in Education Patterns

Although universities in Shandong employ faculty members whose educational achievements are impressive, their background is mostly in linguistics or literature. As a result, it has been a challenge to teach students advanced Korean language involving terms for business, science, or technology. As this limitation has become apparent, colleges have begun to compete for instructors whose academic expertise lies outside Korean literature. However, the opportunities for tenure positions are not abundant. Since there is no way of publishing academic papers in Korean and most colleges do not acknowledge scholarly journals published in Korea, instructors have a hard time being promoted into professorship. Chinese or Korean-Chinese instructors teach comprehensive reading, the history of literature, linguistics, and Korean-Chinese translation, while native Korean instructors teach speaking and listening. The qualification and professional requirements have become stringent, and as the educational focus has broadened from the language itself to Korean studies, colleges have come to prefer instructors who can teach Korean history, politics, and other subjects in addition to Korean language and literature. Although many Korean teaching textbooks have been published since 2000, few receive general approval from instructors. Many instructors have noted that there is not a proper and comprehensive textbook on the market, and some of them end up developing their own texts to use in their classes. This is because there is no standardized syllabus, and terminologies lack universally accepted definitions. Some textbooks contain errors in practice sections. Currently, the textbooks in use are written by individual universities, multiple universities in collaboration, or Korean universities for foreign students. Some textbooks are simply translated versions of Korean books. The textbooks written in China are customized for the courses in which the books will be used—the number of hours for instruction and other

48

Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling

special circumstances are considered. The textbooks from South Korea are usually for foreign students who are taking short-term courses at colleges in Korea. In courses for beginners, textbooks written in China are used for reading comprehension. In speaking and listening courses, which are mostly taught by native Korean instructors, textbooks published in Korea or Korean textbooks translated into Chinese are used. Based on 2014 data, about forty Korean textbooks have been translated into Chinese. Most of these texts are geared toward basic courses for beginners. It is difficult to find teaching material for intermediate, advanced, and Korean studies courses. Students’ proficiency in Korean is evaluated by their teachers based on participation in class and performance on midterm and final exams. For comprehensive and standardized evaluation, students may take the TOPIK (Test of Proficiency in Korean), which has been administered by a South Korean organization since 1997. Students also may opt to take the Chinese Korean Test (CKT), which is administered by the Foreign Language Teaching Guidance Committee of the Chinese Ministry of Education. There are two levels of CKT tests; one up to band four and the other up to band eight. The former launched in June 2012 and the latter in May 2014. These two levels of CKT are similar to the Chinese English Test for bands four and eight, which measure the English language ability of Chinese students. A year after the TOPIK was introduced, the test was offered in Beijing, and now there are TOPIK test centers in thirty-four cities in China. The TOPIK used to be offered only twice a year, but, as of 2014, students may take it as often as four times a year. Anybody may voluntarily take the TOPIK. Most college students in Shandong take it starting in their junior year until they get a satisfactory score. It is an important test for students trying to get a job at a Korean company or to go to graduate school in Korea. The test score is one of the factors considered for scholarships, and most schools require level 5 or 6. In public universities, 100 percent of students achieve level 5 and 30 percent of them go on to level 6. The distribution of the CKT results has not been published yet. The CKT is less popular or influential than the TOPIK, and some students are not even aware of its availability. In order to give students more options and to keep the evaluation system objective, the CKT administrators, test specialists, Korean language educators, and researchers need to work together to increase recognition of the CKT (see Wang 2014). It is hard to precisely measure one’s language skills using results from tests such as TOPIK or CKT. Test systems with longer histories, like those for English or Japanese, should be referenced. Researchers should undertake studies in metrics for measuring Korean language proficiency. In classrooms, in addition to midterm and final results, portfolio evaluation, peer

How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China

49

evaluation, participation measurement, and protocol analysis ought to be considered as part of the overall grade (see Wang 2014). Due to the increasing cost of labor in China, some Korean companies are relocating to Vietnam and Mongolia in search of cost savings. Therefore, the demand for Korean speakers in job markets has decreased. As a result, fewer students are enrolling to study Korean each year: in 2010, applicants decreased by 740,000 compared to 2009, and in 2011 by 240,000 compared to 2010. The popularity of the Korean Wave remains intact: the Korean artist Psy and the Korean TV show My Love from the Star were sensational all over China. However, the number of Korean majors in colleges has consistently fallen year over year. The ratio of Korean language instructors to students is out of balance, as the teaching positions are saturated but classes are underenrolled. China’s economic development has been unprecedented since its entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. With that shift, the market now requires expertise in addition to Korean language skills. Korean language education in China needs to move away from quantitative, shortsighted expansion toward rational and strategic planning to produce adequate talent for the new market. For example, establishing advanced-degree programs in Korean studies will help close the gap of supply and demand for sophisticated Korean speakers in the job market. It is also necessary to reform the curricula of Korean language education. The universities in Shandong all run similar programs. Diversity and unique expertise should be encouraged in each program, in addition to Korean communication skills. The new curricula should include internships and externships in the industry for practical purposes. In order to build unique programs “customized” to local markets, each university will have to conduct up-to-date market research as well as collaborate with local enterprises. Conclusion Korean language education in Shandong has progressed significantly in the twenty-three years since diplomatic treaties between Korea and China were signed. This has been possible due to many factors: timely changes in Chinese foreign policies, the exemplary economic advancement of Korea, and support from the Korean government and other organizations. Most Korean language departments in colleges in China were founded between 2000 and 2008, during which time learning Korean was very popular. Without strategic budgeting and detailed planning, the departments expanded in size and numbers only to meet the demands of job markets

50

Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling

for Korean speakers. Additionally, the curriculum was heavily weighted toward developing conversational skills rather than toward the academic values of the Korean language. Since 2010, the launch of new Korean language departments has decreased because the inflated bubble finally burst. Due to a decrease in the number of applicants or the subpar quality of the programs, some schools now enroll students only every other year or have completely discontinued their Korean language programs. The expansion of programs in earlier years without proper evaluation also resulted in laying off some faculty members or transferring them to other departments. Korean language education in Shandong has driven the region’s economic development and provided a model for other regions of China establishing programs for Korean language education. As Korean studies in Shandong has matured and stabilized, it is now time to review its growth and to retrospectively evaluate its course. In this global era, in which world patterns change rapidly and information and data are abundant, Korean language education should meet current needs by producing an interdisciplinary curriculum. Former South Korean president Park Geun-hye’s visit to China in 2014 and the establishment of a Free Trade Agreement between China and South Korea offered additional economic growth opportunities for both countries. Overall, favorable changes in the economic environment and increased investment by Korean companies in Shandong will continue to build a bright future for Korean education in China. References Choi Yengu. 2013. Munwha kontencheuneun mueosinga? [What are cultural contents?]. Paju, South Korea: Salim Press. Dai Lingling and Yang Xueying. 2014. ZhongHan zimao quxie yitan panyuanman jieshu Hanguo daqiye fenfen touzi Shandong [The SinoKorean FTA is on the way to Shandong]. Dazhong Daily, November 11. Jang Geum. 2012. “Jungguk-Hanguk munwha Soft Power gyoryu hyeonhwang: ‘Hanpoong,’‘Hallyu’ hyeonsangeul jungsimeuro” [The current status of the exchange of soft power between China and Korea: Focusing on “Hanpoong” (the Chinese wind and “Hallyu”)]. Master’s thesis, Graduate School of Hanseo University. Han Donghyun. 2013. “Shandong zhishe CNTV Hanguoyu guangbo zhengshi qidou” [CNTV Korean Broadcasting Corporation Shandong branch held a groundbreaking ceremony]. Heilongjiang Daily, November 16. Kim Chul. 2012. “Sandong daehakgyoeui Hangugeo gyoyukgwa Hangukhak yeongu” [A study of Korean language education and

How Korean Language Education Spread in Shandong, China

51

Korean studies at Shandong University]. In Korean Studies in the World: A Collection of Papers Published at the Twentieth Conference of Asian Cultural Studies. Seongnam, South Korea: Institute of Asian Cultural Studies, Gacheon University. Kong Qingdong. 2002. Shuangxin huli gongying [Mutual trust, mutual benefit, and win-win]. Qingdaoshi shehuikexueyuan ZhongHan hezuo yanjiu congshu [Research cooperation between Qingdao Academy of Social Science and South Korea series]. Qingdao: Qingdao University Press. Lee Gwangbeom and Lee Chunho. 2002. JungHan geongyo sipjunyeon: Hoegowa jeonmang. International Observation series 6 (n.p.). Lee Yonghae. 2006. “Hwanghaegwon Jung-Han gyoryueui yeoksa, hyeonhwanggwa mirae” [History, current status, and future of SinoKorean exchanges in the Huanhai region]. In A Collection of Papers at the International Conference on Status Quo and the Future of Sino-Korean Exchanges in the Huanhai Region. Beijing: Minjok Press. Lin Mingxian. 2014. “ZhongHan jiaoliu xiankuang yu jinhou keti”[Status quo and issues of Sino-Korean exchanges]. In A Collection of Papers at the Second Shansui Forum: Neighborhood, Cooperation, and Win-win, 263–271.Weihai: Shandong University. Liu Baoquan. 2014. “Hallyueui gyeongjaengnyeokgwa hangye bunseok” [On competitiveness and limitations of the Korean Wave]. Studies of Korean and Chinese Humanities 43 (June): 334–340. Ma Li. 2014. Hanshiguan: 2014nianzhong Hanrenyuan wanglai youwang tupo yiqianwan renci [Personnel exchanges between China and South Korea expected to exceed ten million]. Xinhuawang, available at http://www​ .xinhuanet.com, accessed on December 9, 2015. Nan Longhai. 2009. Shandong diqu chaoxian zuju jidi xiankuang yu zhanwang [Status quo and vision of the Korean Chinese community in Shandong]. Available at http://blog.naver.com/rozq/140095199212, accessed on November 16, 2015. Shan Guangyong. 2014. “Jiaqiang renwen jiaoliu, cujin ZhongHan gongtong fazhan”[Win-win development of relations between China and Korea through cultural exchanges]. In A Collection of Papers at the Second Shansui Forum: Neighborhood, Cooperation, and Win-win, 272–280. Weihai: Shandong University. Son Hyunho. 2011. “Junguk daeman jiyeokeseoeui Hangukhak yeongu hyeonwhang”[Status quo of Korean studies in Taiwan]. In A Collection of Papers at the Twenty-Seventh International Conference on Korean and Chinese Humanities. Guangdong: Twenty-Seventh International Conference on Korean and Chinese Humanities.

52

Jin Zhe and Jin Jiaoling

Wang Dan. 2012. “Junggukeso Hanggukeo gyoyukeui gwajewa baljeon banghyang” [Issues and directions of Korean language education in China]. In The Fifth International Conference of Asian Korean Language Education Studies Association. Weihai: Shandong University. ———. 2014. “Junggukeseoui oegukeo pyeongga yeongueui hyeonwhanggwa munjejeom—Yeongeo, Ileo, Hangukeoreul jungsimeuro” [Status quo and issues of foreign language proficiency assessment in China—Focused on English, Japanese, and Korean]. In A Collection of Papers at the Twenty-Fourth International Conference of the International Association for Korean Language Education, 470–471. Seoul: International Association for Korean Language Education. Yang Yingmian and Yang Shengqi. 2005. “Hanguo Huaqiao Huaren shehui de teshuxing”[The particularity of the overseas Chinese society in South Korea]. Overseas World (Overseas version), vol. 6 (n.p.). Zhan Dewu. 2009. “Hanguo yingshi juwei hepinjian bihua?” [Why do Korean TV dramas often depict China with disdain?]. Huanqiu 15 (August): 82–83.

THREE

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

HYEWON KANG KIM Introduction Hong Kong is a free port that thrives on free trade and is also one of the four major financial centers in the world, together with New York, London, and Singapore. Hong Kong was a British colony for over 150 years, from 1841 to 1997. Although British sovereignty over Hong Kong was transferred to China in 1997, Hong Kong society still largely relies on British systems, including the British educational system. English remains one of Hong Kong’s official languages, along with Chinese. For this reason, Hong Kong is often seen as the gateway to East Asia by people from other parts of the world, particularly Westerners, and is considered the most Westernized territory in the region by East Asians. Hong Kong and South Korea have maintained strong economic relations for more than half a century, with ties dating back to the early 1960s, when Korea experienced rapid economic growth through export-oriented industrialization. Since then, Hong Kong has become a strategic bridge for Korea for banking, trade, and shipping to the rest of the world. According to the Korea International Trade Association, in 2015 Hong Kong was one of Korea’s four largest export partners, together with the United States, Japan, and mainland China, while Korea is Hong Kong’s sixth largest trading partner, after China, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and the United States. The annual bilateral trade volume between Hong Kong and Korea has reached up to US$30 billion since 2011 (Korea Trade Association 2015; Korean Consulate 2015). The recent increase in tourism also indicates active interaction between Hong Kong and Korea. Hong Kong is one of the most popular destinations for Korean tourists. Around 1.25 million Koreans visited Hong Kong in 2014, a 15.5% increase over the previous year. More than half a million

54

Hyewon Kang Kim

Hong Kong residents visited Korea in 2014, a 40% increase over 2012 (Korea Tourism Organization 2015; Korean Consulate 2015). This is a significant figure considering that the total population of Hong Kong is just over seven million. Due to increased travel between Hong Kong and Korea, the number of flights increased by 13% between 2012 and 2014.1 Despite strong economic relations and the recent increase in tourism, the Korean community in Hong Kong has never been large enough to influence the spread of the Korean language there. However, in the last two decades, the number of local people learning Korean has substantially increased. The number of Korean language learners in Hong Kong grew from approximately five thousand in 2008 to thirty thousand in 2013 (Kang Kim 2009a; Korean Consulate 2014b). Among institutions of higher education, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology was the first university to offer non-credit-bearing Korean courses, starting in 1998, with an enrollment of less than one hundred per year. As of 2015, all eight major universities, including a teacher education institute, and affiliated colleges in Hong Kong offer Korean language courses. There are also over twenty private language centers currently offering Korean. The aim of this chapter is to provide a comprehensive examination of how Korean language education has developed in Hong Kong while elucidating the language’s spread in the region. The first part offers a review of the historical development of the Korean community and Korean schools in Hong Kong, a subject that has received little attention in academia. Second, the chapter illustrates how Hallyu, or the “Korean Wave,” has influenced the spread of Korean language education in Hong Kong. Third, it examines the perspectives of various groups of Korean language learners in Hong Kong based on surveys conducted from 1998 to 2015 in respect to their motivations for learning Korean as well as their perceptions of Korea. Historical Development of the Korean Community in Hong Kong The Formation of the Korean Community

Koreans make up less than 0.2% of the total population of Hong Kong, which is 7.26 million as of 2014 (Hong Kong Government 2014, 2011b). The majority of the population, 93.6%, is ethnically Chinese, and the rest are non-Chinese minorities. The latter group has increased from 5% in 2001 to 6.4% in 2014.2 1 

In 2012, 170 flights operated per week (Korea Tourism Organization 2015). The total population of Hong Kong was 6.7 million in 2001. Among the 6.4% non-Chinese minorities of 0.45 million people, Indonesians and Filipinos made up 59.1%, Caucasians 12.2%, mixed 6.4%, Indians 6.3%, Japanese 2.8%, Koreans 1.2%, and others 12%. Here, “others” consists of Thais, Pakistanis, Nepalese, and others. Among the non-Chinese minorities, 2 

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

55

Although Hong Kong is a predominantly Chinese society, entrepreneurs and workers from other parts of the world have contributed significantly to the development of its multiethnic society, from its economy to its cultural and political features. To date, research on the Korean community in Hong Kong has been scant. The first group of Koreans were those conscripted into the Japanese armed forces and deployed in Hong Kong during the Japanese occupation of Korea.3 They served as camp guards and as grooms for military horses. When Japan surrendered in 1945, the returning British colonial authorities of Hong Kong had to deal not only with Japanese military personnel and civilians but also with the deployed Koreans. A total of 287 Korean soldiers were repatriated from Hong Kong after 1945, and only three Korean civilians in Hong Kong, who had been interned at the end of the war, were allowed to remain there by British colonial authorities. In 1947, around ten Korean ginseng traders formed a Korean community in Hong Kong (Korean Residents 1999, 142). As civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party intensified in mainland China, Korean businessmen and their families living in Shanghai and Guangdong Province escaped to Hong Kong. During this time, around forty Korean families formed a Korean community in Hong Kong and started businesses. Mr. Lee NakSan, a Korean former officer of Hong Kong Customs, was known to have established a legitimate company in Hong Kong. In 1948, he started a Korean red ginseng trade through a sales commitment with Korea’s Office of Monopoly. A number of Koreans working with Lee’s company settled in the territory.4 On March 1, 1949, Hong Kong’s Korean residents’ association, the Hongkong Hanguk gyominhoe (Hong Kong Korean Community Association), held its inaugural general meeting and officially registered the association with Hong Kong authorities. At that time, 137 Koreans in the association were registered by Hong Kong Immigration and obtained the first Korean resident permissions (Korean Residents 1999, 45). In May, the newly established Korean government opened a consulate in Hong Kong, which was raised to the level of Consulate General in November of the same year. It was among the first Korean overseas missions to be established, along with the Korean Embassy in Washington, DC, and the Consulate General the majorities of Indonesians, Filipinos, Thais, Pakistanis, and Nepalese were immigrants who worked as domestic helpers (Hong Kong Government 2012b). 3  The official permission was granted in February 1946. See the United States Army Center of Military History 1994; file on internees in Hong Kong Public Records Office (Kang Kim, Bridges, and Chung 2013). 4  After World War II, Korean ginseng began to be sold to Southeast Asian countries through Hong Kong, which was the largest trading market of ginseng in the world.

56

Hyewon Kang Kim

in Los Angeles. Even amid the Korean War in 1952, Hong Kong authorities permitted the Bank of Korea to open a branch in the territory.5 Since then, the bank has played an important role in supporting trade and financing between Hong Kong and Korea. Since the late 1940s, a huge influx of refugees has arrived in Hong Kong from mainland China (Chan and Leung 2003, 24). Owing to the abundance of cheap labor, capital, and skills provided by the refugees, Hong Kong industrialized rapidly in the following decades. Hong Kong’s textile manufacturing industry led Asia through the 1950s and 1960s and was subsequently supplanted by the electronics industry, starting in the early 1960s (He 2009, 23, 70–71). In the midst of such economic prosperity in the territory, the Korean community purchased an office for the association with financial support from the Korean government (Korean Residents 1999, 45, 48, 164–165). In 1962, the Korean association finally opened its office in a central area of Hong Kong. There, it also operated the first Korean restaurant, the Korean Club (Hanguk hoegwan). Starting in the early 1960s, Korea began to rapidly industrialize as a result of the government’s export-oriented economic strategy, and Hong Kong became a strategically important partner as a bridge to South Asia and mainland China. This was especially significant as China had no diplomatic relationship with Korea at the time. Accordingly, the first Hong Kong branches of Korean firms were established during the 1960s. There were only five Korean branches operating in Hong Kong in the early 1960s. This number grew to a total of nineteen Korean branches and firms during the early 1970s. As part of the Korean government’s strategic plan for the international trade port, the Korea International Trade Association established a “Korea Centre” in Hong Kong. As the number of Korean firms increased, the Korean community grew, from around 200 in 1961 to around 1,400 in the late 1970s. In addition, Koreans moved from primary industries into manufacturing industries such as textiles and electric appliances in the 1960s, and into the hospitality industry in the late 1970s. In 1976, the Korean Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong was established, with fiftythree members (Korean Residents 2006, 40). The Hong Kong branch of the Korea Exchange Bank was established in 1967 after the first Bank of Korea’s Hong Kong branch closed, and major Korean banks began to operate branches in Hong Kong during the late 1970s, when Hong Kong was becoming an international financial hub. During this time, after the Cultural Revolution, China initiated an open-door policy, and a large number of Korean firms entered Hong Kong to operate branches and offices through which to trade with China, which had 5 

Hong Kong Public Records Office, HKRS 163-1-1502, file 3/2201/52 (Kang Kim, Bridges, and Chung 2013).

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

57

not yet established diplomatic relations with Korea. As a result, the number of branches and offices of Korean financial companies in Hong Kong increased from seven in the 1970s to eighty-three by early 1997 (Korean Residents 1999, 87–88). In addition, from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, there was another influx of Koreans to Hong Kong, when the Hong Kong government was constructing a new international airport, in which major Korean construction companies participated.6 As a result, the number of Korean residents in Hong Kong increased significantly, from around 1,400 in 1978 to around 7,000 in early 1997. In the meantime, the Hongkong Hanguk gyominhoe changed its name to the Hongkong Haninhoe (Korean Residents Association of Hong Kong) in 1985 and extended its membership to include short-term Korean residents of Hong Kong. With the growing Korean community in Hong Kong during this period, a monthly Korean newsletter called Gyomin sosik began circulation in May 1978, with five hundred copies printed by the Korean Residents Association for its members. The Hong Kong branch of the Korea International Trade Association also published a weekly Korean newsletter, Jugan muyeok donghyang, from 1980 to 1996, to provide economic information on China, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asian countries as well as related Korean government policies to Korean companies and traders in Hong Kong. Beginning in 1997, it began to co-publish the bimonthly newsletter Sanggong sosik with the Korean Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong for the same purpose. Meanwhile, a private Korean trade company started to publish a free weekly Korean newspaper, Hongkong Sooyo Journal (Wednesday journal), for the Korean community in 1995. The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis hit Korea hard and greatly affected the Korean community in Hong Kong. Many Korean firms were forced to scale back their overseas operations, including Hong Kong branches and offices, and around 1,500 Korean residents left Hong Kong that year. Consequently, the number of Korean residents in Hong Kong suddenly declined, from around 7,000 in early 1997 to around 5,500 in 1998. The growing size of the Korean community in Hong Kong over the last seven decades, from 1945 to 2014, is summarized in table 1. According to the Immigration Department of Hong Kong, there were around 13,000 Korean nationals in Hong Kong in 2011,7 of which 30 percent had permanent residence. They belonged mostly to the upper middle class of Hong Kong 6  After the large Korean influx during the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions started to offer Korean language classes to its members in 1994 at the Spare Time Study Centre. The total number of Korean language learners there has been the largest in Hong Kong, especially since the popularity of Korean popular culture in the territory around the turn of the twenty-first century. 7  The data provided from the Hong Kong Immigration Department included nonresident Koreans who stay in Hong Kong for a short period of time.

58

Hyewon Kang Kim

Table 1. Growth of the Korean Population in Hong Kong

Year

Number of Korean Firms

Number of Korean Residents

1945

n/a

3

1947

n/a

~10

1948a

1

28

1949b

1

137

1961

n/a

~200

1963c

5

~300

1965

5

~400

1976d

19

~500

>19

~1,400

1978 1997

n/a

~7,000

1998e

n/a

5,602

2004

n/a

~5,800

2009

~520

~11,000

2014

~1,700

~13,000

Sources: The Consulate General of the Republic of Korea in Hong Kong 2014a; The Korean Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong 2006; The Korean Residents Association of Hong Kong 1999. a The Korean Residents Association of Hong Kong 1999, 45. b The sudden increase from 28 in 1948 to 137 in 1949 was mainly due to sailors from Taiwan and elsewhere who arrived in Hong Kong via a small shipping company to stay temporarily. Later, some of them settled in Hong Kong, but most of them returned to Korea in the following years (The Korean Residents Association of Hong Kong 1999, 45, 143). c The Korean Residents Association of Hong Kong 1999, 162. d For more than ten years from 1965 to 1976, the number of Korean residents increased in Hong Kong by only around one hundred. This was due to the disarray from China’s Cultural Revolution during the period, which also seriously affected Hong Kong, particularly in the late 1960s, when there were large-scale violent demonstrations in the territory. At that time, many Hong Kong residents, including Koreans, left Hong Kong (The Korean Residents Association of Hong Kong 1999, 149). e In late 1997, Korea was severely hit by the Asian Financial Crisis. Many Korean firms were forced to scale back their overseas operations (The Korean Residents Association of Hong Kong 1999, 189).

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

59

society (Moon 2005, 268). The majority of Koreans without permanent resident status were expatriates working in Hong Kong on a temporary basis. Based on a 2006 survey by the Korean Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, textiles and fashion, electronics, tourism, and food service were the top three sectors in which Korean residents were engaged. To a lesser extent, they also participated in other sectors, such as the chemical industry, transportation, construction, media, and education. In recent years, Korean students have formed a considerable portion of the Korean residents in Hong Kong. The total number of Korean students increased from 114 in 2010 to 652 in 2013 (JoongAng Daily 2014) and again to 820 in 2014.8 As of early 2015, the University of Hong Kong has 317 Korean students, whereas Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has 171 Korean students. In addition, there are 130 Korean students studying at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and around 100 Korean students each at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and City University of Hong Kong. Two of these students’ main reasons for studying in Hong Kong is that Hong Kong’s major universities are ranked high globally and instruction is in English. Most of the Korean students at universities in Hong Kong are majoring in business and economics, because Hong Kong is one of the world’s major financial centers. Korean Schools in Hong Kong The First Korean School: Hongkong Hanguk hagwon (Toyo hakgyo)

Most schools in Hong Kong provide a modern, Western-style education with English or bili­ngual (English and Chinese) instruction (Sweeting 1990). The majority of Korean parents in Hong Kong send their children to English-speaking schools from primary to secondary school. In order to provide a Korean language education for children of the Korean community, the first Korean school in Hong Kong, the Hongkong Hanguk hagwon (Hong Kong Korean School), opened in March 1960 through a collaboration between the Korean association and the Consulate General of the Republic of Korea in Hong Kong (Korean Residents 1999, 47, 68, 175). In the beginning, the school had only six students and two volunteer Korean teachers. The school opened every Saturday afternoon and was called Toyo hakgyo (Saturday school). In 1965, as the Korean community increased to around four hundred people, the Hongkong Hanguk hagwon rented a preschool to use every Saturday for the Toyo hakgyo, moving from the association’s 8 

These numbers were collected from the Communications and Public Affairs Office of each university from June 15 to July 10, 2015.

60

Hyewon Kang Kim

office, and actively advertised among the Korean community. A total of thirty students enrolled, and three volunteer Korean teachers taught them that year. In the early 1970s, as the Korea Centre was established for Korean trading firms by the Korea International Trade Association of the Korean government, the Hongkong Hanguk gyominhoe and the Hongkong Hanguk hagwon also moved into the building. The school accommodated seventy-three primary students in four levels with six teachers. By the end of 1970, the school had a total of 250 students, including a number enrolled in newly offered middle-school classes. In 1975, there were ninety-five students in the primary school and thirty students in the middle school. There were ten students in the first graduating class of 1980 from the Korean middle school. In 1986, the school graduated thirty primary-school students and twenty middle-school students, while the total number of students reached around four hundred. With a new influx of Koreans throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, the Hongkong Hanguk hagwon developed into its next phase. The Korean International School

As a large number of Korean firms began to operate in Hong Kong during the 1980s, the number of Korean residents increased significantly, with Korean employees assigned abroad. The education of their children became an urgent issue. While most children from the existing Korean community in Hong Kong received an English-language education through the English Schools Foundation9 or other international schools, children of Korean expatriates had difficulty attending such English schools due to the temporary nature of their families’ residence in Hong Kong. By the request and efforts of the new Korean residents and the Korean association, the Hong­ kong Hanguk hakgyo (Korean School of Hong Kong) was established in 1988 with the official approval of the Korean government’s Ministry of Education. The Korean School was run by the Korean Residents Association of Hong Kong and welcomed Korean residents staying in Hong Kong even for a relatively short period of time. The school had nine teachers and forty-nine students in the beginning and increased to sixteen teachers and over one hundred students by 1990. The Korean School greatly developed during the 1990s. As the economies of Korea and Hong Kong both prospered, the Korean community increased in Hong Kong and demand for a 9 

The English Schools Foundation was established by Hong Kong government ordinance in 1967 for expatriates in Hong Kong. It has been the largest provider of English medium international education in Hong Kong and has run a total of twenty-one schools, from preschools to secondary schools. It used to offer the British curriculum but has offered the international curriculum since 2007 (English Schools Foundation, “An Introduction to ESF,” retrieved from http://www.esf.edu.hk/sites/esf/files/ESF_brochure_2015.pdf).

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

61

formal Korean school offering primary and secondary education grew. In response, the Consulate General of the Republic of Korea and the Korean Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong collaborated and obtained land from the Hong Kong government for a new Korean International School on the condition that the school be open to all residents of Hong Kong. Meanwhile, the Korean Residents Association and the Korean community acquired financial support, largely from the Korean government’s Ministry of Education and Korean National Assembly, as well as from Korean firms in Hong Kong. Finally, the Korean International School was established in 1994 with the approval of the Hong Kong government, and the Saturday School also moved onto the campus. In its first year, the school offered a Korean preschool and primary school curriculum to 150 Korean students, and an English primary school curriculum to 180 students, of whom 38 percent included fourteen different nationalities (Korean Residents 1999, 72). In the next year, the school started to offer Korean middle school classes with the approval of the Korean government’s Ministry of Education; at the same time, an English middle school curriculum also began to be offered. The Korean International School was the first among overseas Korean schools to provide both an English curriculum and a Korean curriculum. The school reached its peak enrollment in early 1997. In that year, the student body reached 460 students and the Saturday School also grew, to over 700 students (Korean Residents 1999, 47, 68, 71, 72). However, the school was seriously affected by Korea’s financial crisis in late 1997, as many Korean families left Hong Kong for Korea, and the student body decreased to 360 in 1998. The number of students in the Saturday School also decreased, to 450. Around 2005, the Korean community in Hong Kong began to gradually grow again as the economy recovered and trade between Korea and Hong Kong increased. Consequently, the number of Korean residents in Hong Kong expanded from around 5,800 in 2004 to 13,000 in 2014 (Korean Consulate 2014a; Korean Chamber of Commerce 2006). In response to demand from the growing Korean community in Hong Kong, the Saturday School started to offer preschool Korean education in 2011. In early 2015, the total number of students was close to six hundred, including around one hundred preschool students. In early 2015, the Korean International School has a total of 552 students: 186 in the Korean Section and 376 in the English Section.10 Seventy percent of the English Section is made up of non-Korean students, which has significantly changed over the last two decades, as the portion was only 38 percent in 1994. The increase in the number of non-Korean students 10 

These numbers were collected from the Korean International School on July 10, 2015.

62

Hyewon Kang Kim

in the school can be explained by two facts. First, the Hong Kong government’s language education policy has changed since Hong Kong went under China’s sovereignty in 1997. Since that time, Putonghua (Standard Chinese, or Mandarin) has become a mandatory subject at local schools in Hong Kong. Due to this requirement, a growing number of Hong Kong students prefer studying at nonlocal schools, such as English Foundation Schools or international schools. Second, the image of Korea has significantly improved in recent years, particularly as a result of the Korean Wave. In addition to the Korean International School, a small number of local primary schools and secondary schools began offering Korean language courses or Korean electives. However, the Korean International School is the only international school to offer Korean language electives at both the primary and secondary levels, for both local and Korean students. Language Policy in Hong Kong

As of 2011, Hong Kong’s population totaled 7.26 million people, of whom 93.6% were ethnic Chinese (Hong Kong Government 2011b, 25). Cantonese, a Chinese dialect, was the dominant language in Hong Kong, spoken by 89.5% of the population (Hong Kong Government 2011b, 44; Central Intelligence Agency 2014). As a legacy of British colonial rule, English is also common in Hong Kong. During the British colonial period, English was the single official language of Hong Kong until 1974. After the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong in 1984 by the People’s Republic of China and British governments, and the decision of Hong Kong to be placed under China’s sovereignty from July 1, 1997, the Bilingual Laws Advisory Committee of the Hong Kong government was established and the Official Language Ordinance was amended to require all new legislation to be enacted in both English and Chinese (Hong Kong Government 1997). After the transfer of Hong Kong’s sovereignty to China in 1997—also known as the Handover—Cantonese, English, and Putonghua became the three official languages of Hong Kong. Since the 1997 Handover, a new language policy called “teaching the mother tongue” has been implemented by the Education Bureau of the Hong Kong government. The new policy encourages local secondary schools to use Chinese as the medium of instruction and discourages mixed use of Chinese and English in schools (Hong Kong Government 1997 and 2011a). In the meantime, Putonghua has become more important than ever due to Hong Kong’s increased political and economic dependence on mainland China. Consequently, proficiency in Putonghua has increased among Hong Kong people, from 40.2% in 2006 to 47.8% in 2011. Nevertheless, 46.1% of Hong Kong people still speak English as their first (3.5%) or other language (42.6%) (Hong Kong Government 2011a and 2011b, 43).

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

63

After the 1997 Handover, in addition to the mother tongue teaching policy, the Education Bureau of the Hong Kong government started to promote trilingualism in Cantonese, English, and Putonghua, and biliteracy in Chinese and English. Hence, Hong Kong primary school students currently learn Putonghua along with Cantonese and English in school. The Hong Kong government has been promoting foreign language learning for adults through an incentive policy called the Continuing Education Fund reimbursement scheme. In addition to Putonghua and English, the scheme also covers French, German, Japanese, and Spanish, and Korean has been included since September 2007.11 In addition, the Hong Kong government has allowed local schools to offer French, German, Japanese, Spanish, Hindi, and Urdu as electives since 2012. The Korean language has not been included in the plan so far. It must be a heavy task for Hong Kong students to learn another foreign language, since they are already burdened by having to master the two official languages, Putonghua and English, in addition to their mother tongue, Cantonese. As a result, there are only a few local schools that provide additional foreign languages for their students. The Korean Wave and Its Impact on Korean Language Education in Hong Kong Korean residents in Hong Kong represent less than 0.2% of the total population. Hence, it is rare for local people to encounter native Korean speakers on a regular basis unless they are in a tourism-related business. Instead, since the turn of the twenty-first century, exposure to the Korean language can largely be attributed to the Korean Wave, through Korean television shows, dramas, and popular songs broadcast by local television and radio stations. As a result, it is now common for local people to be familiar with simple Korean greetings. In 2006, just after the first peak of the Korean Wave in the territory and the introduction of a Korean major in the Community College of City University of Hong Kong, a leading local financial newspaper said that it would be useful for Hong Kong students to learn the Korean language in consideration of the close relationship between Hong Kong and Korea in the areas of economy, tourism, and pop culture (Hong Kong Economic Times 2006). Now, learning the Korean language has become more popular than ever in Hong Kong. In 2008, around 5,000 local people were studying Korean in various institutions, such as universities and language centers. This number rose to nearly 30,000 in 2013, a 350 percent increase over the previous year (Korean Consulate 2014b). 11  The establishment of the major in Korean in 2005 by the Community College of City University of Hong Kong was the key factor for the inclusion of the Korean language in the Continuing Education Fund scheme.

64

Hyewon Kang Kim

Naturally, the number of Hong Kong students visiting Korea has increased significantly in recent years as well. However, most students have visited on a short-term basis on exchanges arranged by their home universities rather than enrolling as full-time undergraduate or postgraduate students. Korean Language Learning in the 1990s

It is worth mentioning that the Korean Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong has sponsored a regular weekly program called Korean Hour on Asia Television, one of the two local free-to-air television stations, since 1992. The English-subtitled Korean programs it has aired are mostly TV dramas, such as Sarang-i mwogilae (What love is), from 1992 to 1993; Jeolmeuniui yangji (Youth in the sun), from 1996 to 1997; and Sunpung sanbuingwa (Sunpung Gynecology Clinic), from 1999 to 2001. Although such dramas did not attract much attention from Hong Kong audiences, it was a meaningful initiative for the Korean community to interact with mainstream Hong Kong society prior to the Korean Wave. Before Korean popular culture gained popularity in Hong Kong, there was a surge of interest in Japanese culture in the territory.12 For three decades beginning in the 1980s, almost everything Japanese was hugely popular and highly praised in Hong Kong, from food to cosmetics, not to mention Japanese popular culture and language. Hence, much research and many materials have been published about Japan, the Japanese community, and the Japanese language in Hong Kong. For the Korean side, there have been only a few materials produced related to the Korean Peninsula’s North Korean political matters, and only since 2009 have research and materials on the Korean language and literature, the Korean Wave, and Korean culture begun to be published, as a result of the devoted work of the Cultural Studies Centre of East Asia, the first and only nongovernment research institute on Korean studies in Hong Kong. The center’s leading research and publications raised sincere interest in Korean culture and became greatly influential in the development of Korean studies in Hong Kong’s tertiary institutions.13 There are eight major universities in Hong Kong, including a teacher education institute, all of which are government-funded institutions. The Center for Language Education, formerly the Language Center, of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology offered a Korean language 12 

Japan is the second largest trading partner to Hong Kong after mainland China. Since the establishment of the institute in 2009, over forty articles and books have been published on the Korean language and literature, Hallyu, and Korean culture through the work of the Cultural Studies Center of East Asia in Hong Kong; for example, Kang Kim 2009b; 2010a; 2013a; 2013b; and others. 13 

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

65

course in 1998. Initiated by the center’s director, who believed that learning various foreign languages would be useful for students, it was the first Korean course introduced at the tertiary level in the territory. In addition to the Korean course, the center also offered Japanese, German, and French courses. The new Korean language program was noncredit and conducted at three levels: basic, intermediate, and advanced. At that time, Korea as a whole was not well known to Hong Kong, and the number of students taking Korean amounted to fewer than a hundred a year. Regarding Korean language courses for the public, in 1994 the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions started to offer Korean to its members at the Spare Time Study Centre. It was just after the large Korean influx to Hong Kong during the late 1980s and the early 1990s, when major Korean construction companies participated in building Hong Kong’s new international airport. However, the number of Korean language learners in the union was quite small. The Korean Wave and Korean Language Learning since 2000

Starting in the late 1990s, Korean popular culture products, such as movies and popular songs, began to be exported to neighboring countries. This propagation of Korean popular culture abroad has been described as the Korean Wave (Kang Kim 2013b, 133–136; 2014, 29–31). From around the turn of the twenty-first century, Korean popular culture gradually spread in Hong Kong, particularly among the younger generation. Around that time, a television series called Autumn Tales (Gaeul donghwa) and a film called My Sassy Girl (Yeopgijeogin geunyeo) gained huge popularity among Hong Kong audiences. My Sassy Girl was nominated as the Best Asian Film at the 2003 Hong Kong Film Awards. Recognizing the need for Korean language studies, the Division of ­Languages and Communication at the Community College of City University of Hong Kong (then the Division of Language Studies of City University of Hong Kong) officially recruited two full-time Korean lecturers to establish a Korean program in 2000. In early 2001, the division started to offer Korean language courses as electives on a university-wide basis. These were the first for-credit Korean courses offered at a tertiary educational institution in Hong Kong. In addition to the courses General Korean I, II, and III, which progress from elementary to advanced levels, specialized language courses such as “Korean for Tourism” and “Korean for Business” were developed. The design of these courses reflects Hong Kong’s leanings toward international business and tourism. With the growing popularity of Korean popular culture in Hong Kong, the number of students taking Korean courses offered by the City University’s Community College significantly increased, from around one hundred

66

Hyewon Kang Kim

in 2001 to around six hundred in 2006.14 As will be further discussed later, this increase was mainly due to the Korean Wave. However, in addition to the Korean Wave, a well-designed curriculum and the Korean Scholarship Study Tour also drew attention and attracted students (Sing Pao Daily News 2002; Ta Kung Pao 2003; Hong Kong Cable TV 2005). The Korean Scholarship Study Tour, which was initiated by the City University’s Community College’s Korean program leader in 2001, was sponsored by various universities in Korea and Korean corporations in Hong Kong. Since then, the college’s Korean Scholarship Study Tour and the Korean program’s curriculum have become the benchmark for other institutes’ newly established Korean programs in the territory. The Community College of City University, encouraged by the success and recognition of its Korean program, launched a Korean major in 2005, which was offered as an associate’s degree in Bilingual Communication Studies of Korean and Chinese, and Korean and English. It was the first Korean major program at the tertiary level in Hong Kong. Daily newspapers, television broadcasters, and magazines all covered this news.15 The launch of the new Korean major program encouraged other institutions to start offering Korean courses. In order to promote Korean to the public, Radio Television Hong Kong, a major radio broadcaster in the territory, agreed to collaborate with the university to make a Korean language learning program. As a result, a radio program called Let’s Go Korea was broadcast from late 2005 to early 2006 and sponsored by the Korean Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. Having observed the college’s success with its Korean courses, the Department of Chinese, Translation, and Linguistics recruited a full-time Korean instructor and began to offer Korean courses in late 2003. HKUSPACE (Hong Kong University School of Professional and Continuing Education) Community College and the Chinese University’s Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics also started to offer Korean language courses as electives in 2004 and 2007, respectively. After the Korean Wave arrived in the early part of the twenty-first century, various Korea-related events were held at several institutions and organizations in the territory. City University held an event called Korea 14 

Sourced from the Division of Language Studies of Community College of City University of Hong Kong 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006; course registration of City University of Hong Kong 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 (Kang Kim 2006). 15  See South China Morning Post 2005a; The Standard 2005; Hong Kong Economic Times 2005; Ming pao 2005; Sing Pao Daily News 2005; Sing Tao Daily 2005; Ta kung pao 2005; Wen wei po 2005; Prime 2005; Phoenix Television 2005; etc. In addition to the media in Hong Kong, the media in neighboring countries, such as Lianhe zaobao (2005), the largest Singapore-based Chinese newspaper, also covered the news.

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

67

Week, and its community college organized a Korea Conference, which consisted of various cultural workshops, presentations, and seminars on Korean studies. A Korean Language Speech Contest was held jointly by several language institutes, including the School of Continuing and Professional Studies of Chinese University, in order to encourage their students’ Korean learning. A Korean Food Festival was also organized by private language centers and organizations to enhance student and public interest in Korean culture. Since 2003, the Centre for Asian Pacific Studies of Lingnan University has held an annual international conference on Korea as part of its Asian Pacific Studies program. Although the center focuses its research mainly on governance, politics, and economy, the conference on Korea has included various topics, such as Korean society, cinema, popular culture, and language. In the early years of the twenty-first century, several private language centers started offering Korean language classes to the public. In 2003, the Korean Chamber of Commerce began to offer complimentary Korean classes to employees of its members with the sponsorship of the Consulate General of the Republic of Korea in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions started to offer Korean language courses to its members in 1994. In the early 2000s, the organization managed to attract a large number of Korean language learners to its Spare Time Study Centre. The number of learners exceeded 2,000 in 2005 and further increased to around 3,500 in 2008. The number of students taking Korean courses at the Community College of City University of Hong Kong continually increased, from around five hundred in 2005 to six hundred in 2006. This is the largest number of students in a Korean program among Hong Kong’s tertiary institutes during the last two decades. The number of students in Korean courses offered by the Department of Chinese, Translation, and Linguistics of the City University also increased from slightly over one hundred to nearly three hundred during the same period. In 2007, the University of Hong Kong finally launched its first Korean program as a set of electives and certificate courses in its School of Modern Languages and Cultures. Prior to the Korean program, the university offered nine other foreign languages, including Arabic, French, and German. In 2008, the university added a minor in Korean Studies as a degree program. Korean was the first and only program among the ten language programs to develop and offer a minor degree program within a year of launching, an accomplishment made possible by the expertise of the program leader and the positive response from students. In its first year, 2007–2008, the Korean program had around ninety students, increasing to more than two hundred in the 2008–2009 academic year. The number of

68

Hyewon Kang Kim

students enrolled in the newly offered Korean culture course was the largest among other cultural courses offered at the school during that period.16 This indicates that the students of the university showed strong interest in the issues of contemporary Korean culture and society. After the first peak of the Korean Wave around 2005, there were four Korean degree programs at institutes in Hong Kong’s tertiary education sector: the Community College of City University’s major in Korean of Bilingual Studies, starting in 2005; City University’s Korean Specialization of Language Studies, starting in 2007; the University of Hong Kong’s minor in Korean Studies, starting in 2008; and HKUSPACE Community College’s major in Korean of Bilingual Studies as an associate’s degree program, starting in 2008. In addition, most tertiary institutes in Hong Kong offered Korean elective courses, and Korean classes for the public were offered in many continuing education sectors in Hong Kong. Therefore, it can be said that the First Korean Wave, from 2001 to 2005, strongly encouraged Hong Kong’s education institutes to introduce Korean courses. Following the first peak of the Korean Wave after the broadcast of the massively popular Korean television drama Dae jang geum in 2005, there was a relatively quiet period for a couple of years. This was a period of stabilization, which was likely caused by an attrition of novel and sensational qualities that propelled the initial wave of Korean popular culture. In 2009, a nongovernment cultural studies institute, the Cultural Studies Centre of East Asia, was established and started to publish articles and books on Korean language and literature, the Korean Wave, and Korean culture. The center’s leading research and contribution to Korean studies was covered extensively by major media, both in Hong Kong and mainland China.17 Around 2010, the Korean Wave started to become influential in Hong Kong once again. This phenomenon can be called the Second Korean Wave. The enhanced status of Korea on the world stage is one of the factors that contributed to the Korean Wave regaining strength in the territory. Thanks to the Second Korean Wave, existing Korean programs have been further enhanced, from a minor program into a major program, or from elective courses into a degree or diploma program. As a result, most of Hong Kong’s tertiary institutions now offer Korean minor or major programs. For instance, since 2012, Hong Kong Polytechnic University has offered a minor in bilingual studies of Korean and Chinese. Since 2013, the University of 16 

The number of students in the Korean culture course titled “Korean Culture and Society” was around seventy, which was far over the quota per course at the time. 17  See the cover page of Sing Pao Daily News (2013) and the global Chinese media Feng Huang Wang 2013; Beijing chenbao 2013; China Publishing and Media Journal 2013; Hua shang bao 2013; Sing Pao Daily News 2013; Wen wei po 2013; Wen yi bao 2013; Xinxi shibao 2013; Zhongguo zuojia wang 2013; etc.

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

69

Hong Kong has offered a major in Korean studies, and Chinese University has offered a minor in Korean. In addition, the School of Continuing Studies of Chinese University and Hong Kong College of Technology each offer a certificate in Korean. The total number of Korean language learners in Hong Kong has increased significantly during the Second Korean Wave, from around 5,000 in 2008 to over 8,000 in 2012, and up to nearly 30,000 in 2013 (Kang Kim 2009a; Korean Consulate 2014b). The total number of Hong Kong people who visited Korea also increased after the Second Korean Wave, from 0.35 million in 2012, to 0.4 million in 2013, and to 0.56 million in 2014 (Korea Tourism Organization 2015). The Impact of the Korean Wave on Korean Language Spread in Hong Kong Prior to the Korean Wave, Korea was little known to most people of Hong Kong. Interest in Korea has significantly increased since the Korean Wave landed in the territory around the turn of the twenty-first century. A growing number of Hong Kong people have begun visiting Korea to eat Korean food, shop, and visit sites featured in television dramas, as well as to enjoy winter sports (Kim et al. 2008, 163–183). Korean culture, including food and fashion, has become a part of Hong Kong people’s lifestyle (South China Morning Post 2013; 2014a; and 2014b). The number of Korean food shops and restaurants has gradually increased in the territory. In 2010, the Association of Korean Restaurants in Hong Kong was established, mainly thanks to the rising interest in Korean food and also partially thanks to the Korean government’s initiative to promote Korean cuisine around the world. Also, Korean products such as mobile phones and electric appliances have gained popularity in Hong Kong. As a result, the number of Korean firms operating in Hong Kong has also increased, from around five hundred in 2009 to seventeen hundred in 2014 (Korean Consulate 2014a). Members of the Korean community living in Hong Kong observe that ripple effects of the rising interest in Korea and its culture have become more prominent (Kang Kim, Bridges, and Chung 2013). Over the last fifteen years, from 2001 to 2015, I conducted a series of surveys with 685 students taking Korean language courses at Hong Kong’s tertiary institutions.18 These surveys confirm that the image of Korea and its people has significantly improved after the Korean Wave, as I discuss next. 18  In the surveys I conducted from 2001 to 2008, a total of 610 students of the Korean courses offered by the Division of Language Studies of City University of Hong Kong (560 students from the Community College and the Faculty) and the University of Hong Kong (50 students) participated (Kang Kim 2009a): 200 students in 2001–2002, 160 students in 2003– 2004, 200 students in 2005–2006, and 50 students of the University of Hong Kong in 2007–

70

Hyewon Kang Kim

Surveys of the Impact of the First Korean Wave (Prior to 2010) on the Image of Korea and Koreans

In order to understand what students taking Korean courses at tertiary institutions in Hong Kong thought about Korea and its people, I conducted a series of surveys at the first lesson of each Korean course. In the surveys, students were asked to describe Korea and its people in a few words. In the survey conducted during the 2001–2002 academic year, most of the students’ remarks were negative. They commented that Korea was a discriminatory, male-oriented society. Korean men were described as aggressive, rude, violent, and macho, while Korean women were described as passive. This image of Korea and its people resembles that which emerged from a previous survey, conducted in 1998–1999 by the Faculty of Social Science of the University of Hong Kong and Chinese University.19 The comments regarding Korea and its people were significantly different in the survey I conducted in 2005–2006 with university students who were taking Korean courses. This was during the peak of the First Korean Wave in Hong Kong, and most of the students’ comments were positive. The respondents commented that Korea was traditional, clean, well-­organized, unique, and beautiful. They associated Korea with Samsung, high technology, and cosmetic products. Most of their comments about Korean people were also positive. They described Koreans as handsome and pretty, warmhearted, friendly, polite, creative, and respectful of elders. According to the respondents, these impressions were derived mainly from Korean television dramas, movies, and popular music. On the contrary, negative comments encompassed topics such as gender discrimination in Korea and the popularity of plastic surgery among Korean people. From this survey result, I found that local people overall had a positive image and strong interest in Korea and its people after the Korean Wave. It should be noted that there were other factors that helped improve the image of Korea and Koreans. For example, from the 2002 FIFA World Cup Games cohosted by Korea and Japan, Hong Kong people received a positive impression of a united and well-organized Korean people. It was also evident that leading consumer goods companies like Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics gave local people the impression of Korea as a developed and high-tech country. 2008. The surveys in 2015 were conducted with a total of 75 students from the Community College of City University (53 students) and Hong Kong College of Technology (22 students). For those surveys, the students were asked to describe Korea and its people in a few words. 19  The survey was conducted with local people about their preference and ranking of the twelve Asian countries and their peoples. Korean men were ranked the lowest, as they were perceived as being aggressive and rude.

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

71

In a survey conducted in 2008, comments from students were almost the same as those from the one conducted in 2005–2006, including the same negative comments about gender discrimination and plastic surgery. After the introduction of Dae jang geum to Hong Kong, however, new comments about Korean food, including kimchi, were also related to the image of Korea, and respondents commented that Korean food had become quite popular among Hong Kong people. Surveys of the Impact of the Second Korean Wave (after 2010) on the Image of Korea and Koreans

Starting around 2010, Korean popular culture, including various entertainment television programs, regained popularity in the territory. Korean rapper Psy’s “Gangnam Style” was massively popular around the world in 2012. Since then, Hong Kong locals have begun to pay more attention to Korean popular culture than ever before, extending its popularity beyond Asia to the world.20 The Korean television drama My Love from the Star (Byeoleseo on geudae) hit Hong Kong in 2014, reviving the popularity of Korean dramas and greatly influencing the lifestyle of Hong Kong people, who embraced Korean food, cosmetics, fashion, and appliances. Since then, the relevant Korean products and businesses such as Korean restaurants and Korean cosmetics and fashion shops have become more popular than ever in the territory.21 I conducted another survey in 2015 among students in tertiary institutions taking Korean courses about the image of Korea and its people, with an intent to uncover any further changes in comments and attitudes since the Second Korean Wave. As expected, comments about Korea were very positive. Respondents used key terms including “the Korean Wave,” “popular culture,” “beautiful place,” “kimchi,” “diverse,” “interesting,” “cultural,” “modern,” and “fashion.” Comments about Korean people were also positive. For example, they described Koreans with terms such as “polite,” “nice,” “passionate,” “fun,” “handsome,” “healthy,” and “optimistic.” This survey result was not much different from the previous ones conducted from 2005 to 2008, when the Korean Wave reached its first peak in Hong Kong. In this survey, however, no negative comments, including 20 

“‘Gangnam Style’ Star Psy is grabbing the headlines worldwide, but South Korea’s blossoming cultural sector offers deeper soft power benefits” (South China Morning Post 2012b). 21  A senior director of an international retail service in Hong Kong said, “Korean retailers ride [the] wave of K-pop and TV dramas into Hong Kong.... TV dramas and K-pop are the catalysts boosting demand for Korean cosmetics, gadgets and food in Hong Kong and the Asian market in general. . . . South Korean retailers opening shops in prime shopping streets last year in 2013 took up 4.17 percent of Hong Kong’s new leases.... The demand for Korean goods is huge” (South China Morning Post 2014a).

72

Hyewon Kang Kim

mentions of plastic surgery or gender discrimination, appeared. Another new finding from the survey was that 95 percent of respondents associated the image of Korea with the Korean Wave, driven by Korean popular culture. This had not been so explicitly stated in the previous surveys. Therefore, the results suggest that the Second Korean Wave has further improved the image of Korea and its people. The results of the series of surveys conducted from 2001 to 2015 with students of Korean at tertiary institutions in Hong Kong indicate that the Korean Wave was the key factor that improved the image of Korea and its people among Hong Kong locals. Surveys on Motivations for Korean Language Learning of Local People in Hong Kong

In order to understand the motivations of Korean language learners in Hong Kong, I conducted another series of surveys with local people learning Korean. These surveys provide a clue as to who was learning Korean in Hong Kong and what motivated them to study the language. According to the surveys I conducted in 2007 with around six hundred local people learning Korean at a private language center or in public Korean classes,22 most Korean language learners in Hong Kong at that time were females aged nineteen to forty. Many of the learners were company employees or students. Their main motivations for learning Korean were interest in Korean television dramas, movies, and popular songs.23 The survey results showed that many Korean language learners in Hong Kong were studying Korean not for career development, even though they thought that it might be useful for their career in the future, but because of their strong interest in Korean popular culture. Surveys on Motivations for Korean Language Learners of Tertiary Education

I conducted another set of surveys with students in tertiary institutions taking Korean courses as electives or for university or college degrees. Ninety students taking Korean courses (not for credit) at the Language 22  I conducted these surveys in 2007 with around three hundred Korean language students at a private language center, the Korean Language Education Center, and another three hundred students in the public Korean courses of HKUSPACE (Kang Kim 2010b). 23  In the survey of the learners at the private language center, about 70 percent were working people, 25 percent were students, and 5 percent were others. Among them, 10 percent were male and 90 percent were female, and their ages ranged from seven to sixty. In another survey with the learners from public Korean classes, 55 percent were working people, 35 percent were students, and 10 percent were others. Among them, 15 percent were male and 85 percent were female, with their ages ranging from seventeen to fifty.

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

73

Center of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology during the 1998–1999 academic year participated in the first survey. The other four surveys involved 685 students from various institutions—the University of Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong, Community College of City University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong College of Technology. These students were taking Korean elective courses or were enrolled in degree programs from 2001 to 2015. For all five surveys, the students were asked to name the top one or two reasons why they were taking Korean courses. The results of the first survey, conducted in 1998–1999, showed that most students did not have a specific reason for taking a Korean course. Their reasons included travel (25 percent), interest in Korean culture (15 percent), interest in the language itself (12 percent), improving their employment prospects (1 percent), and various other reasons (47 percent).24 Prior to the Korean Wave, university students’ knowledge of Korea was very limited; many of them did not even know there were two Koreas or that Seoul was the capital city of South Korea. At that time, Korea was just a neighboring country, and mostly viewed as a “hermit kingdom” by them (City University of Hong Kong 2001). Hence, interest in the Korean language and Korean culture was not the main reason for taking Korean courses. At that time, because Hong Kong society was generally uninterested in Korea and its culture, few students were motivated to study Korean. Thus, students took Korean courses mainly out of curiosity, and only a very small number of students went on to take higher-level Korean courses (Kang Kim 2006). The results of the 2001 survey showed that the most popular reason for taking Korean courses was for travel. However, a significant number of students still chose “nonspecific reason” for taking a Korean course. The survey results of 2001 were not much different from those of 1998–1999, suggesting that the Korean Wave was not yet influential enough to attract students to Korean courses. The results of the survey conducted in 2004 showed a significant change in students’ reasons for taking Korean courses. The two most popular reasons were “for travel” and “interest in Korean culture” (41 percent and 25 percent, respectively). However, “interest in Korean language” and “for employment” were still low on the list of reasons. The survey results clearly show that interest in Korean culture had greatly increased. This is explained

24 

I conducted surveys in the first Korean lesson of each semester in the 1998–1999 academic year with students of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Kang Kim 2006). A total of ninety students were surveyed. Seventy percent were male and 30 percent female students, aged seventeen through thirty-two.

74

Hyewon Kang Kim

by the influence of the Korean Wave, which was well accepted among the younger generation in Hong Kong during the given period of time. This trend was confirmed in the results of the surveys from 2006 to 2008, as the Korean Wave grew in Hong Kong. The most popular reason for students to take Korean courses or to enter Korean degree programs became “interest in Korean culture,” which significantly increased as a factor over the previous years. For the first time, in the survey of 2007–2008, many students chose “interest in Korean language,” while “for employment” remained low on the list of reasons. A similar pattern was present in the results of the 2015 survey: the most popular reason for students to enroll in Korean programs was, once again, “interest in Korean culture,” followed by “interest in Korean language.” For the first time, “for employment” became the third most popular reason. This suggests that, in recent years, Hong Kong students have become more serious about learning Korean than ever before. The survey results on the main reasons for taking Korean courses are summarized in table 2. Surveys on Motivations of Korean Majors for Learning Korean in Hong Kong, 2005–2015

We may expect that students majoring in Korean would have different motivations for learning the language than those who study the language as an elective. In order to understand the motivations of the former group, I conducted a pair of surveys with a total of ninety students at the Community College of City University of Hong Kong, in the 2005–2006 academic year and in 2015.25 Since the first Korean major program in Hong Kong launched in 2005 at the college, the 2005–2006 students were the first batch of Korean majors in the territory. The results of the earlier survey showed that 80 percent of first-year students chose to major in Korean mainly as a result of their interest in Korean culture, including Korean popular culture. Only 16 percent of the students said that their main reason for majoring in Korean was their interest in Korean language. None of them gave employment as their main reason for choosing a Korean major. Among sophomores, interest in Korean culture was also the most popular reason for majoring in Korean, at 69 percent. However, sophomores named employment as their second highest reason, at 27 percent. This can be explained by the fact that the first graduating class of Korean majors had relatively high expectations about their employment. 25 

The survey of the 2005–2006 academic year was conducted with thirty-seven Koreanmajor students from the Community College of City University (Kang Kim 2009a). The survey of 2015 was conducted with fifty-three Korean-major students also from the Community College of City University.

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

75

Table 2. Students’ Reasons for Taking Korean Courses (%) 1998–1999

2001

2004

2006

2007–2008

2015

Interest in Korean Language

12

12

14

18

30

28

Korean Culture

15

17

25

40

60

17

Korean Pop Culture Employment

32 1

1

4

7

3

12

Travel to Korea

25

36

41

32

5

8

Other Reasons

47

34

16

3

2

3

Sources: Kang Kim 2006 and 2009a; surveys conducted by Kang Kim in 2015.

The results from the 2015 survey were slightly different from those of the first survey. Strong interest in Korean culture was still the number one reason why this group chose to major in Korean. Similarly, their interest in Korean language was the second most popular reason. However, the firstyears of 2014–2015 had higher expectations for employment than those of 2005–2006, while the sophomores of 2014–2015 had lower expectations for employment than those of 2005–2006. Across the board, however, employment was still not one of the main reasons for Hong Kong students to major in Korean, even though a decade had passed since the launch of the first Korean major program. Furthermore, their expectations for employment opportunities were not much higher than those of casual learners. This result is consistent with other surveys conducted with students majoring in Japanese or French. The main reason students majored in Japanese or French was their interest in the culture, followed by interest in the language, while only 15 percent of Japanese majors and 10 percent of French majors said that their primary reason was for employment opportunities (Kang Kim 2009a).26 26 

I conducted these surveys with a total of 75 students who were majoring in Japanese (60 students) and French (15 students) at the Community College of City University in 2006 (Kang Kim 2009a). In the surveys, students’ most popular reason for taking Japanese or French for their major was their interest in the culture, by 44 percent for Japanese and 50 percent for French. Their interest in the language was their second most popular reason, by 36 percent and 40 percent, respectively.

76

Hyewon Kang Kim

Therefore, we can infer that cultural attractions are more important motivators than employment opportunities for Hong Kong students to choose the Korean language as their major. This can be explained by the fact that Hong Kong students are required to be trilingual in Cantonese, English, and Putonghua in order to find decent employment in the region. Few employers in Hong Kong expect local university graduates to be able to speak another foreign language, such as Korean, Japanese, or French, in addition to the three official languages. The survey results on the motivations of Korean majors are summarized in table 3. Table 3. Students’ Reasons for Majoring in Korean (%) 2005–2006 Year 1

2014–2015

Year 2

Year 1

Year 2

Interest in Korean Language

16

4

15

36

Korean Culture

80

69

69

41

General Korean Culture

37

56

31

13

Korean Pop Culture

43

13

38

28

Employment

0

27

8

14

Travel to Korea

2

0

8

5

Other Reasons/Nonspecified Reasons

2

0

0

4

Sources: Kang Kim 2006 and 2009a; surveys conducted by Kang Kim in 2015.

Korean Language vs. Japanese Language

As a corollary to motivating factors for learning Korean in Hong Kong, we can take the example of Japanese, which is the most popular foreign language to study in Hong Kong apart from the three official languages. Likewise, Japanese studies is the most popular area studies after Chinese studies and English studies. The Korean and Japanese languages share many grammatical features. For local people in Hong Kong, however, Japanese is easier to learn than Korean, mainly because Japanese relies heavily on Chinese characters, or kanji. In general, however, the level of difficulty for learning the two languages may not be the main issue when choosing between them. Besides the linguistic similarities, the two languages have

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

77

many things in common as foreign languages in Hong Kong—Korea and Japan share many cultural traits (honorifics, classifications, kinship terms, etc.), and both, unlike mainland China, have comparable economic and political relations to Hong Kong, which is the main financial center and free trade port in East Asia.27 Thus, the main motivations for Hong Kong people to learn Korean are not much different from those for Japanese. In this sense, it could be helpful to understand how the Japanese language has spread in the region in order to foresee how the Korean language might spread in Hong Kong in the future. The Japanese language started to acquire influence in the territory during the 1980s and 1990s, when Japan distinguished itself as the world’s second-largest economy. The presence of Japanese firms in Hong Kong is much stronger than that of Korean firms, with around 1,400 Japanese regional and local offices, whereas there were only 141 Korean regional and local offices in Hong Kong as of 2013 (Republic of Korea 2013a). Many consumer groups in Hong Kong still prefer Japanese brands, and there has been a great deal of demand for Japanese proficiency in the region. Furthermore, Japanese culture, including popular culture such as Japanese anime and movies, has been well accepted by the local people for many years. The large numbers of Japanese majors and Japanese language learners is explained by the combined effects of good employment opportunities and strong interest in Japanese culture on the part of Hong Kong people. The growth of language programs, including area studies, is largely determined by the current economic strength or national power of the target country if there is no specific geopolitical issue with the host country. For instance, the number of students majoring in Japanese has declined in tandem with Japan’s economic recession during the recent decade. The number of students majoring in Korean at the Community College of City University of Hong Kong, on the contrary, is increasing. The ratio of fulltime teaching staff for Japanese versus Korean at the University of Hong Kong was nine to one in 2007 and is seven to five as of 2015. The trend among Korean language programs and learners both at tertiary institutions and among the public in Hong Kong has been more clearly shown since 2010, as discussed earlier, with the Second Korean Wave in the region. Whether Korean language education will continue to spread throughout East Asia largely depends on the future prospects of the Korean economy.

27 

Unlike in mainland China, the anti-Japanese sentiment has not been serious in Hong Kong in recent decades.

78

Hyewon Kang Kim

Summary and Conclusion As I have shown, the influence of the small Korean community in Hong Kong on the spread of the Korean language in the region has been limited. Instead, the spread has been driven mainly by local people who wished to learn the language. The explosive growth in Korean courses and programs coincided with the rise of Korean popular culture in Hong Kong. The influence of the Korean Wave on the development of Korean programs in the region during the last two decades has been confirmed by the surveys I conducted from 1998 to 2015 with various Korean language learners in Hong Kong. The Korean Wave reached its first peak in 2005 in Hong Kong, and the first Korean major was launched in the same year at the Community College of City University of Hong Kong. The Second Korean Wave began around 2010. In recent years, the number of Korean language learners in Hong Kong has continued to increase, from 5,000 in 2008 to nearly 30,000 in 2013. Similarly, the number of students majoring in Korean at the Community College of City University of Hong Kong greatly increased, from 45 in 2008 to 150 in 2014. The main motivation of Hong Kong students in tertiary institutions to learn Korean was a strong interest in Korean culture, particularly its popular culture. The surveys conducted with local people learning Korean also confirmed that the Korean Wave influenced students to take Korean courses. Indeed, the Korean Wave has been the key factor for improving the image of Korea and its people among those learning Korean in Hong Kong. The improved image of Korea as a whole is critical for sustaining the long-term growth of Korean studies programs in the region. I note again that only a very small portion of local people have taken Korean language courses for better employment prospects. Many students remain unconvinced that they would find better employment opportunities after majoring in Korean. In this sense, the Korean Wave alone will not be sufficient to fuel further interest in Korean language learning for people in Hong Kong. The future prospects of the Korean economy will be critical for the further spread of the Korean language in the region. We must be aware that the Korean Wave includes not only Korean popular culture and Korean entertainers but also quality Korean products with smart design and high technology that have gradually gained inroads to recognition and popularity in Hong Kong. The cultural and economic strength of Korea, including its popular culture, its professional and polished entertainers, sophisticated citizens, and high-quality products, have all contributed to a positive image of Korea. As long as Korea is perceived as “cool” and retains a positive image among Hong Kong people, the Korean language will have a fair chance of continuing to spread in the region.

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

79

References Beijing chenbao. 2013. “Ha Han ‘youwenhua’” [“Highly cultured” Hallyu]. April 28. Bolton, Kingsley. 2003. Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Central Intelligence Agency. 2014. The World Factbook: East and Southeast Asia: Hong Kong. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publi​ cations/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html on August 9. Chan, Shun-hing, and Beatrice Leung. 2003. Changing Church and State Relations in Hong Kong, 1950–2000s. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. China Publishing and Media Journal (Zhongguo tushushang bao). 2013. “Zhong Han wenhua tan: Tanchu bienzhi yu xiaosa.” March 12. Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong. 1999. Survey on Feeling about Asian Countries. Hong Kong: Center of Asian Studies. City University of Hong Kong. 2001. “Discovering the Hermit Kingdom.” Staff Newsletter Linkage 202 (May): 4–5. Consulate General of the Republic of Korea in Hong Kong, The. 2014a. Bilateral Relations. Previously available at http://hkg.mofa.go.kr/ korean/as/hkg/policy/hongcondition/index.jsp, accessed January 5, 2015. ———. 2014b. “Hongkongnae Hangugeo kyoyuk yeolgi tteugeopda” [Boom of Korean language learning in Hong Kong]. In Kyoyuk [Education]. Retrieved from http://hkg.mofa.go.kr/korean/as/hkg/ information/edu/edu01/index.jsp, released May 5, 2014 and accessed December 12, 2014. ———. 2015. Han-Hongkong gwangye [Relations of Korea and Hong Kong]. Previously available at http://hkg.mofa.go.kr/korean/as/hkg/ policy/hongcondition/index.jsp, accessed April 2, 2015. Dickson, P., and A. Cumming. 1996. Hong Kong Language Policy: National Profiles of Language Education in Twenty-five Countries. Berkshire, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research. Economic Freedom Network. 2013; 2014. Economic Freedom of the World, Annual Report. Previously available at http://www.freetheworld.com/ release.html, accessed January 2, 2014; January 9, 2015. English Schools Foundation. 2015. An Introduction to ESF. Previously available at http://www.esf.edu.hk/sites/esf/files/ESF_brochure_2015. pdf, accessed October 12, 2015. Feng, A., ed. 2011. English Language Education across Greater China. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

80

Hyewon Kang Kim

Feng Huang Wang. 2013. “Fenghuang hao shu bang shi dahao shu Zhong Han wenhua tan” [Phoenix Ten Great Books Zhong Han wenhua tan]. April 8. Global Financial Centres Index. 2014. Global Financial Centres Index 15. Previously available at http://www.longfinance.net/programs/ financial-centre-futures/fcf-gfci.html, accessed August 20, 2014. He Yaosheng. 2009. Xianggang zhizao Zhizao Xianggang—Xianggang gongye guoqu, xianzai, weilai [Made in Hong Kong, making Hong Kong— Hong Kong industry past, present, and future]. Hong Kong: Mingbao chubanshe youxiang gongsi. Hong Kong Cable TV. 2005. “City U’s Community College’s Launching of Korean Associate Degree and Its Scholarship.” Feature, News-Finance. March 10. Hong Kong Economic Times. 2005. “Dae jang geum Fever and City U’s Community College’s Korean Associate Degree Program Launching.” February 23. ———. 2006. “No Worry of Unemployment for the Local Korean Proficiency Personnel” (World Affairs column). November 6. Hong Kong Government. 1997. Chapter 5 Official Language Ordinance. Previously available at http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/67 99165D2FEE3FA94825755E0033E532/3D26A2C71CB81FE4482575EE002 B23B6/$FILE/CAP_5_e_b5.pdf, accessed October 2, 2015. ———. 2001. Population by Census and Statistics. Retrieved from http:// www.censtatd.gov.hk/major_projects/2001_population_census/ main_tables/hong_kong_population_and_average_annual_growth_ rat/index.jsp on August 12, 2014. ———. 2006. Population Census Main Report. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Census and Statistics Department. Vol. 1, pp. 43–44. ———. 2011a. Why Should We Teach in the Mother Tongue? Retrieved from http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/ applicable-to-secondary/moi/key-events-moi-fine-tuning-bg/ moi-guidance-for-sec-sch/sep-1997/mother-tongue/index.html on December 2, 2011. ———. 2011b. Population Census Main Report. Hong Kong Government Census and Statistics Department. Vol. 1, pp. 25, 43. ———. 2012a. Education for Non-Chinese Speaking Children. Chaps. 6–8. Previously available at http://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/ student-parents/placement-assistance/about-placement-assistance/ information percent20notes_ncs_oct percent202012 percent20version. pdf, accessed September 2, 2014.

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

81

———. 2012b. 2011 Population Census: Thematic Report: Ethnic Minorities. Retrieved from http://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B11200622012​ XXXXB0100.pdf on September 2, 2014. ———. 2014. Population by Census and Statistics. Retrieved from http:// www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/so20.jsp on October 23, 2014. Hong Kong Public Records Office. HKRS 170-1-289. File on internees. Hua shang bao. 2013. “Jin Huiyuan linbang wenhua jiaoliu ying zunzhong duifang de zizunxin” [Kim Hyewon says cultural exchanges require mutual respect]. March 27. JoongAng Daily. 2014. “Study Abroad Preferences Slowly Shifting.” January 17. Kang Kim, Hyewon. 2006. “Hallyu and Korean Studies Education in Hong Kong.” In Cultural Interaction with Korea, Proceedings of the World Congress of Korean Studies, I/III, 177–182. Seoul: Academy of Korean Studies. ———. 2009a. “The Change in the Image of Korea in Hong Kong through the Development of Korean Studies.” Journal of Study on Language and Culture of Korea and China 21: 395–410. ———. 2009b. “Hanyu he Hanguoyu” [Chinese language and Korean language]. Xianggang wenxue [Hong Kong literature] 300: 73­–75. ———. 2010a. “Taishu bunka” [Popular culture]. Xianggang wenxue [Hong Kong literature] 308: 80–82. ———. 2010b. “Korean Language and Korean Studies in Hong Kong, 1998–2009.” Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 7, suppl. 1: 141–153. ———. 2013a. “Wushu bei yiqi linghun de shiren, Gao Yin” [Korean poet Ko-Un special: Poet for abandoned souls]. Hong Kong Literature Bimonthly (Chengshi wenyi) 62: 77–82. ———. 2013b. Zhong Han wenhua tan [Talk about cultures of China and Korea]. Beijing: Peking University Press. ———. 2014. Busy Koreans: Essays on Contemporary Culture and Society of South Korea in East Asian Context. Seoul: Korea University Press. Kang Kim, Hyewon, B. Bridges, and S. Chung. 2013. “History of Koreans in Hong Kong.” Unpublished document from research meeting at the Cultural Studies Center of East Asia, Hong Kong. October 6. Kim, S. S., J. Agrusa, K. Chon, and Y. Cho. 2008. “The Effects of Korean Pop Culture on Hong Kong Residents’ Perceptions of Korea as a Potential Tourist Destination.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 24: 164. Korean Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, The (Xianggang Hanren shanggonghui). 2006. Hongkong Hanin sanggonghoe 30 nyeonsa [Thirty

82

Hyewon Kang Kim

years of the Korean Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong]. Hong Kong: The Korean Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong. Korea International Trade Association. 2013. Hanguk muyeok 40 nyeon baljachuiwa bijeon [Forty years of Korean trade and its vision]. Report of November 2013. Seoul: Korea International Trade Association. ———. 2015. Suchurip chongkwal [Summary of export and import]. Retrieved from http://stat.kita.net/main.screen on October 2, 2015. Korean Residents Association of Hong Kong, The (Xianggang Hanrenhui). 1999. Hongkong gyomin 50 nyeonsa [Fifty years of history of Koreans in Hong Kong]. Hong Kong: Korean Residents Association H.K. Korea Tourism Organization. 2015. Yeondobyeol Hongkongin gwangwang­ gaeksu byeonhwa chui [Annual trend of tourists from Hong Kong]. Retrieved from http://kto.visitkorea.or.kr/ on August 10, 2015. KOTRA Global Window. 2012. “Hongkong jusobicheung sobipaeteon bunseok” [Analysis of Hong Kong consumers’ consumption patterns]. July 18. ———. 2015. “Hongkong gyeongje jeonmang” [The prospects of the Hong Kong economy]. March 12. Lianhe zaobao. 2005. “Gangren juanjin ‘Hanliu’” [Hong Kong people drawn into the “Korean Wave”]. March 3. Ming pao. 2005. “Chengda shou bian Hanyu fuxueshi” [City U’s Community College’s first Korean associate degree program]. February 23. Moon Il Jae. 2005. Hongkong gukje geumyungsenteo baljeon gwajeonggwa geungyung gyeongje jeongchaek [The Development of the Hong Kong Centre for International Finance and the Finance-Economy Policy]. Hong Kong: The Consulate General of the Republic of Korea in Hong Kong. Phoenix Television. 2005. “City U’s Community College’s First Korean Major Program in Hong Kong.” Newsroom. February 23. Prime. 2005. “Hanliu gungun” [Hallyu is rushing up]. April. Pp. 86–91. Republic of Korea. 2013a. Status of Foreign Affiliates in Hong Kong. June. Retrieved from http://www.mofa.go.kr/webmodule/htsboard/ template/read/korboardread_tab.jsp?typeID=24&boardid=11661&seq no=7706&tableName=TYPE_KORBOARD on January 2, 2015. ———. 2013b. “Miguge ieo Hongkongkkaji!” [Now Hong Kong has followed after the United States!]. Press release. December 10. Sing Pao Daily News. 2002. “Chengda Hanyuke chengfeng er lai jishou huanying” [City U’s Korean program has become very popular and brought a wind]. 19 June.

The Spread of Korean Language Education in Hong Kong

83

———. 2005. “Korean Fever and City U’s Community College’s Korean Associate Degree Program Launching.” February 23. ———. 2013. “Hanyi gang xuezhe hua ‘Hanliu’” [Korean scholar talks about the “Korean Wave”]. November 3. Sing Tao Daily. 2005. “City U’s Community College’s Korean Associate Degree Program.” February 23. South China Morning Post. 2005a. “Korean Course Goes Beyond Pop.” February 23. ———. 2005b. “Finale Puts Biggest Jewel in Broadcaster’s Crown.” May 4. ———. 2012a. “HK Drops in Global Survey of English Proficiency.” October 26. ———. 2012b. “Kicking up a Cultural Storm.” November 30. ———. 2013. “We Still Heart Seoul.” (“Young Post” section.) July 8. ———. 2014a. “South Korea Rides Cultural Wave into HK Stores.” May 20. ———. 2014b. “Hongkongers Hungrier than Ever for Korean Cuisine Thanks to TV Show.” November 22. The Standard. 2005. “CityU’s Community College Gains a First with Korean Program.” February 23. Sweeting, Anthony E. 1990. Education in Hong Kong, Pre-1841 to 1941: Fact and Opinion. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Ta kung pao. 2003. “Chengda ban Hanyu jiangxuejin” [City U awards Korean scholarships]. May 27. ———. 2005. “City U’s Community College established Korean Associate’s Degree.” February 23. United States Army Center of Military History. 1994. “MacArthur in Japan: The Occupation: Military Phase.” In Reports of General MacArthur, vol. 1, suppl., chap. 6, n. 39. University of Hong Kong, The. 2015. Staff, School of Modern Languages and Cultures. Retrieved from http://www.smlc.hku.hk/about/staff.php on September 5, 2015. Wen wei po. 2005. “City U’s Community College Has Launched Korean Associate Degree Program.” February 23. ———. 2013. “Dushuren shujie Zhong Han wenhua tan” [Reader’s book Talk about cultures of China and Korea]. May 27. Wen yi bao. 2013. “Zhong Han wenhua tan de Hallyu” [The Korean Wave of Talk about cultures of China and Korea]. April 26. World Bank Group. 2014. Doing Business. Retrieved from http://www​ .doingbusiness.org/rankings on December 29, 2014. Xinhua. 2005. “ROK TV Series Grip Chinese Viewers.” October 17. Xinxi shibao. 2013. “Hanguoren yanzhong de Zhong Han wenhua duibi” [Korean view on the cultures of China and Korea]. March 24.

84

Hyewon Kang Kim

Zhongguo zuojia wang [Chinese Writers Association journal]. 2013. “Zhong Han wenhua tan de Hallyu” [The Korean Wave of Talk about Cultures of China and Korea]. April 26. Zuji. 2014. ZUJI Travel Index 2013 Unveils Hong Kong’s HIS and HER Travel Styles. Retrieved from http://www.zuji.com.hk/en-hk/about-us/press​ -releases/zuji-travel-index-2013 on March 2, 2014.

FOUR

From a Diaspora Language to a Language Diaspora: The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

NAM SUN SONG

Introduction This chapter provides a comprehensive illustration of language use among Korean residents in Japan, as well as the Korean language education system there. Koreans residing in their former suzerain state have constantly been subject to the direct influence of politics on the Korean Peninsula, in Japan, and between these two nations. These geopolitical conditions have given Koreans living in Japan certain inherent characteristics that are most apparent through observing the process of Korean community formation in Japan. The majority of resident Koreans in Japan continued living in Japan as resident aliens by their own resolve or simply because there was no other choice. Koreans in Japan have devoted themselves to promoting Korean ethnic education and maintaining the Korean language even while facing the suppressive policies of the post–Pacific War period and the discriminatory ignorance toward them as a social group. Korean language education for and by resident Koreans in Japan has been characterized by linguistic nationalism on the part of both Japan and Korea. The Composition and Population of Koreans in Japan In Japan, there is a community of people who are referred to as Zainichi, meaning “being in Japan,” or Zainichi Chosenjin/Kankokujin, meaning “Koreans in Japan.” By 2004 there were approximately 610,000 Koreans in Japan, including 460,000 Koreans with “special permanent resident status,”

86

Nam Sun Song

which is the legal status granted by the Japanese government only to those residents from the former colonies and their descendants (Yamawaki 2005, 43). The number of Koreans living in Japan makes up 31 percent of the total number of registered foreign residents in Japan. The term Zainichi, in its narrowest sense, is used to denote those who reside in Japan with either Chosen (“Korean,” in Japanese) nationality or the nationality of the Republic of Korea. Those who obtained Japanese nationality are regarded simply as Japanese. It is estimated that more than 250,000 Koreans have acquired Japanese nationality. They are usually not categorized as Zainichi and are automatically excluded from the Zainichi community. This is what differentiates Zainichi from the Korean diaspora communities in other countries, where obtaining the nationality of the host country does not disallow one’s membership in a minority group, and those with the nationality of the host country play an important or even leading role in the minority community. Korean residents in Japan fall into two main groups: old-timers and newcomers. The old-timers and their descendants are those who immigrated or were forcibly brought to Japan before 1945 or immediately thereafter. There are approximately 450,000 of them, and they make up the majority of Korean residents in Japan. The majority of old-timers are from the southern areas of the Korean Peninsula. According to Nishinarita, 92.2% of Koreans who moved to Japan during the period from 1910 to 1945 were from southern Korea, while the remaining 7.8% were from northern provinces such as Hwang-hae, Southern and Northern Pyeong-an, Gang-won, and Southern and Northern Ham-geong (1997, 43–44). Those who were from the Southern and Northern Gyong-sang Provinces and Southern Jeolla Province, including those from Jaeju Island, constituted approximately 80 percent of the total. The population of the first generation has been decreasing and now accounts for less than 5 percent. The second generation has taken a leading position in Korean communities. The third and fourth generations have now become more influential in their communities, and the fifth generation is growing. In 1988 the restriction on travel abroad for South Koreans relaxed. This resulted in a rapid increase in the number of so-called newcomers to Japan. Many of these visitors work in family businesses run by resident Koreans or marry into resident Korean or Japanese families. There are an estimated 150,000 newcomers as well as some 50,000 illegal immigrants. The number of Koreans naturalized as Japanese annually has increased. In the 1950s, fewer than 2,500 a year became naturalized. The number increased to 3,600 per year from 1960 to 1966. The number was stable at around 5,000 through the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1990s, the number increased again to approximately 10,000 per year. The deficit resulting from

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

87

the decrease in the number of long-term Korean residents, or Zainichi, is being filled by the increasing number of new immigrants. The History of the Korean Community in Japan The Colonial Period

In 1905 Japan deprived Korea of its diplomatic authority and made Korea its protectorate. After laying the groundwork for colonization in the following years, Japan formally annexed Korea in 1910, and Korean citizens became Japanese imperial subjects. Although a small number of Korean students and seasonal workers resided in Japan even before annexation (Fujii 2005, 179), labor migration increased after 1910. As World War I broke out, the demand for industrial labor in Japan increased dramatically, and Japanese industry started recruiting Koreans aggressively (Inokuchi 2000, 142). The national census of 1920 recorded approximately 40,000 Koreans in Japan, and that number increased to 420,000 in 1930 and approximately 1.24 million in 1940 (Morita 1968, 66). The severe poverty faced by peasants in Korea, farmers in particular, influenced many to move to Japan. An investigation by the Japanese government in 1932 pointed out that 68.3% of Koreans who arrived at Osaka Port had no money with them, 17.4% had less than 10 yen, and only 14.3% had more than 10 yen (Nishinarita 1997, 48). This demonstrates how impoverished Koreans had become in their homeland under Japanese colonial rule. Koreans who immigrated to Japan were concentrated in urban, industrial areas. They found jobs only in the lowest stratum of the labor market. Since Japanese landlords generally did not want to rent property to Koreans, Koreans were forced to live in overcrowded and unsanitary housing, forming their own segregated ghettos (Inokuchi 2000, 141). Japan faced an even more severe labor shortage with the outbreak of the Pacific War in 1941. From 1939 to December 1944, a total of 634,093 male Koreans were brought to Japan to supplement the labor force in various sectors: 320,148 worked in coal mining, 61,409 in metal mining, 129,664 in construction and civil engineering, and 122,872 in manufacturing and machining industries (Ryang 2000, 3). In spite of the slogan naisenittai, meaning that Korea and Japan must form one body sharing “blood and flesh,” Korean workers were forced to work as slaves. The poverty and discrimination they faced caused them to develop strong anti-Japanese and nationalist sentiments. By 1945, when the Japanese empire collapsed, the population of Koreans in Japan had swelled to approximately 2.1 million (Fujii 2005, 179). Many of them returned to their homeland right after the war ended. Under pressure

88

Nam Sun Song

from General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), who wanted to keep all of Japan’s financial resources in Japan, the Japanese government restricted the amount of financial wealth non-Japanese could take with them when leaving Japan (Inokuchi 2000, 145). Koreans were allowed to take only 1,000 yen in cash and luggage weighing less than 250 pounds (Kwon 2006, 116–117). This was the equivalent of the average living cost to maintain a household for a week. The Soviet and U.S. occupation left many Koreans in Japan skeptical about the future of their home country. They hesitated to go home, and about 600,000 Koreans remained in Japan. The Postwar Period

The status of Koreans in Japan immediately after Japan’s defeat resulted from a combination of policies enacted by SCAP and those of the Japanese government. The attitude of the Allied powers toward Koreans in Japan was ambiguous. They treated Koreans in Japan as “liberated people” who should be protected. At the same time, in terms of maintaining social security, they identified Koreans as nationals of the enemy state—that is, as Japanese nationals or “disturbing elements” that had to be segregated. Their priority shifted toward the latter as leftist activities became prominent both in Korea and Japan. From 1948 onward, SCAP associated the political activities of Koreans with communism (Kashiwazaki 2000, 21). The Japanese government took advantage of the ambiguous status of Koreans. They continued to treat Koreans as Japanese nationals in order to retain social control over them, while they restricted Koreans’ citizenship rights. The policies of SCAP, in combination with the policies of the Japanese government, left Koreans living in Japan technically Japanese but effectively stateless. The Alien Registration Law of 1947 saw that Koreans in Japan would be regarded as aliens. The revised Nationality Law of 1950 took the principle of patrilineal jus sanguinis and stipulated that aliens’ descendants born in Japan would be considered aliens. This enabled Japan to keep Koreans, generation after generation, under immigration control and to withhold any benefits they might have obtained from the Japanese nationality they were once forced to have. When Koreans were first registered as aliens, their nationality was recorded as Chosen, denoting that the person originated from the Korean Peninsula. Since the South Korean government later demanded that the Japanese government acknowledge Kankoku (Republic of Korea) nationality for Koreans in Japan, the Chosen nationality became associated with North Korea. The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 guaranteed Korean independence from Japan. The Japanese government stipulated the uniform loss of

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

89

Japanese nationality by Koreans and Taiwanese living in Japan as a result of the treaty. The loss of Japanese citizenship drove Koreans into an extremely insecure, stateless status due to the lack of diplomatic relations between North and South Korea and Japan. It also meant that Koreans lost all the sociopolitical rights they had had as colonial subjects. National health insurance was one of the rights Koreans lost in 1952, and it would take until the 1970s before the majority of Koreans in Japan were allowed to apply for national health insurance. The national pension scheme was not extended to Koreans in Japan until 1982, thirty years after the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The Japanese government had to modify its policy for Koreans in Japan to ratify International Covenants on Human Rights and the UN Refugee Convention. Before Liberation, Koreans were discriminated against and put under surveillance although they were defined as subjects of the empire. The peace treaty made things more straightforward. Koreans were discriminated against because they were aliens. The Japanese government continued monitoring Koreans through strict immigration control laws, by now treating them simply as aliens. Immediately after Liberation, Koreans in Japan formed the Cayil cosenin yenmayng (League of Koreans in Japan; hereafter, League). The major purpose of the organization was to repatriate all Koreans living in Japan at the time. The League’s activities at first included demanding compensation for Korean workers forcibly taken to Japan as well as the fair distribution of food rations to Japanese and Koreans by occupation forces. The leadership of the League was controlled by communists and leftists, and they formed close ties with the Japanese Communist Party. (Anti-communists organized Mindan, the Association of Koreans in Japan.) The League brought together the overwhelming majority of Koreans living in Japan. Ōnuma points out that the League received support from 60 to 90 percent of Koreans living in Japan (1980, 241n87). As the peak of repatriation passed, the League’s main concern shifted to improving the lives and education of Koreans remaining in Japan. The League integrated Korean schools that had been built by individual efforts and constructed new schools throughout Japan, upholding the slogan “with money you can afford, with strength you are strong, and with knowledge you are educated.” By October 1946, the League had built 525 primary schools catering to 42,000 students, four junior high schools servicing 1,180 students, and ten young adult schools with 714 students total (Lee 2006, 219–220). These Korean ethnic schools were welcomed and supported with enthusiasm by the majority of Korean communities in Japan. By October 1947, more than five hundred elementary schools, seven junior high schools, eight high schools, and twenty-two adolescent schools had been established (Inokuchi 2000, 149). The educational orientation of the

90

Nam Sun Song

League was nationalist rather than communist. The primary purpose of these schools was to restore Korean culture and history education and to improve the Korean language skills that had been suppressed under imperial rule. The Allied occupational forces were against the establishment of Korean schools. They regarded the existence of the Korean ethnic community as a source of social conflict (Inokuchi 2000, 149). They claimed that Korean children must be included in Japanese compulsory education. The official reason was that SCAP regarded Koreans in Japan as Japanese nationals. However, the real reason was that they perceived Korean schools as being “hostile educational institutions” run by a communist organization (Shin 2005, 275). At first, the Japanese government intended to approve the establishment of Korean schools as “miscellaneous schools” (Lee 2006, 220– 221), a category for schools whose educational credentials did not fulfill the entry requirements into higher educational institutions. The Japanese government, however, changed its policy in accordance with the policies of the Allied occupational forces, and on January 24, 1948, issued the order that all Korean children must attend schools accredited by the Japanese government. The order was followed by a series of school closure orders issued by several prefectures. This resulted in intense anger from Koreans and their Japanese supporters. Large protests and demonstrations spread all over Japan and culminated in the Kobe and Osaka Education Struggles, or Incidents. In Kobe, the U.S. military commander proclaimed a state of emergency. This was the only proclamation of an emergency state issued during the Allied occupation of Japan (Nishimura 2004, 22). In Osaka, thirty thousand outraged Koreans gathered. They were confronted by a police force, and consequently a sixteen-year-old boy was shot to death. In September 1949, the Japanese government, backed by SCAP, applied the order to regulate the activities of “anti-democratic” and “terrorist” organizations to the League and, in the process, the League dissolved. Korean schools were simultaneously ordered to close. It should be noted that the majority of Korean schools built and supported by Mindan were closed by the same order. This indicates that what bothered the Japanese government and the occupation authorities was not only the threat of communism but the very existence of undesirable ethnic minority groups. North Korea versus South Korea in Japan

Cold War tensions culminated during the Korean War (1950–1953). The division of the Korean homeland and the conflict between the regimes of North and South Korea were reflected in Korean communities in Japan.

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

91

Following the League’s dissolution, left-wing Koreans formed Minzun (Democratic Unified Front of Koreans in Japan) in 1951 and eventually organized Chongryun (General Association of Koreans in Japan) in 1955. Whereas the League was not a North Korean organization since the North Korean state did not exist when it was formed, Chongryun unequivocally upheld safeguarding the honor of North Korea as one of its tenets by defining Koreans in Japan as its overseas nationals. Mindan, the anti-communist organization, strengthened its ties with South Korea as much as the leftists became more closely affiliated to North Korea. Chongryun enjoyed broad support from Koreans in Japan despite the fact that more than 90 percent of Koreans in Japan were originally from the area that became South Korea. Ryang (2000, 35) observes that to the eyes of the majority of Koreans in Japan, who were enthusiastic supporters of postcolonial nationalism, the North Korean regime looked more legitimate than the US-backed South Korean regime. The commitments made by the two regimes to the Korean expatriate communities in the 1950s and early 1960s were contrastive. In 1957, the North Korean government started sending money to fund Korean schools in Japan. In 1957, North Korean premier Kim Il Sung officially stated that North Korea would welcome the repatriation of Koreans living in Japan, whereas the policies taken by the South Korean government for Korean expatriates living in Japan were underpinned by indifference and abandonment (Kim Kwang Yul 2005, 251). The South Korean government maintained until 1965 that matters concerning Koreans living in Japan should be the responsibility of the Japanese government. While the South Korean government did little to repatriate Koreans living in Japan, both the North Korean government and the Japanese Red Cross agreed to repatriate Koreans from Japan to North Korea. Chongryun launched a campaign to repatriate as many of their compatriots as possible, with the slogan “Our glorious homeland calls compatriots” (Ryang 2000). The first ship left Niigata port in August 1959. The repatriation wave peaked from 1960 to 1961, when it was still strongly believed by many Koreans in Japan that Korea would be reunified in the near future by the North Korean regime. They left Niigata port assuring their family, relatives, and friends in Japan that they would be reunited in a reunified homeland. Their assurances have never come to fruition. By 1984, when the repatriation to North Korea had finished, 93,286 Koreans had made “a great exodus from capitalism to socialism, many finding their new life an agony in the paradise on earth.” The relatives of those who were repatriated to North Korea made up the core supporters of the Chongryun organization. Chongryun rebuilt Korean schools in Japan with the unanimous support of resident Koreans. By 1988, it had built one university, twelve high

92

Nam Sun Song

schools, fifty-six junior high schools, and eighty-three elementary schools. Chongryun Korean schools have been supported consistently by North Korea. Ryang reports that the cumulative total of North Korean educational aid amounted to about 42 billion yen as of January 1, 1995 (1997, 24). The 1965 restoration of diplomatic relations between South Korea and Japan brought about a significant change between the two organizations representing Koreans in Japan. The Korea-Japan Treaty enabled Koreans in Japan to obtain permanent residence on the condition that they apply for South Korean nationality. South Korean nationality included a bundle of civil rights as well as a passport that allowed citizens to travel abroad. The applicants included many Chongryun supporters. The treaty and permanent resident status gave birth to the concept of Zainichi (resident aliens). In the 1980s and 1990s, Korean communities in Japan underwent profound changes. Koreans in Japan enjoyed partial benefits from the longterm economic growth that had occurred in Japan during the latter half of the twentieth century. The economic development and democratization of South Korea in combination with the increasing availability of firsthand information on the economic disasters and deplorable human rights situation in North Korea gradually made Chongryun-affiliated Koreans a minority among Koreans in Japan. Ratification of the International Covenant on Human Rights (1979) and the United Nations Refugee Convention (1981) compelled the Japanese government to improve the level of protection of Koreans in Japan and to extend the range of their citizenship rights. In 1981, the Japanese government created a new permanent resident status to cover Chosen (Korean) nationality holders. In 1991, all permanent residents, former colonial subjects, and their descendants were unified under the title “special permanent residents.” These changes mark the transition of Koreans living in Japan from sojourners to permanent settlers. By the 1990s, more than 90 percent of resident Koreans were Japan-born. The majority did not speak Korean. They had been fully assimilated, with Japanese lifestyles and values. More than 90 percent of the Korean children went to Japanese schools, and around 70 percent of their marriages were with Japanese partners. They had little interest in joining either North or South Korean political or social interest groups. The homeland-oriented politics of Korean-born immigrants had lost its appeal. The social movements by resident Koreans could no longer be captured adequately in terms of Chongryun versus Mindan. Tacit Collaboration

When the first alien registration was implemented in Japan in 1947, Koreans numbered 598,507 out of the total of 639,368 resident aliens—that

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

93

is, Koreans composed 94 percent of the total resident aliens registered in Japan (Yamawaki 2005, 41). Koreans were the foreign majority in Japan until the 1970s. This means that Japanese policies for resident aliens were practically equivalent to the policies for resident Koreans. The policies for resident aliens of a state usually consist of immigration control and social integration. In terms of social order and security, the presence of a large group of foreign residents is always a concern to the host state. Aliens coming in and out have to be properly controlled. Decisions must be made as to whether to encourage aliens to return to their home countries, as the Japanese government did by encouraging resident Koreans to repatriate to North Korea, or to seek some way to incorporate them into society through the extension of citizenship rights so that their marginalization does not pose a problem. Yamawaki concludes that the postwar Japanese policies for resident Koreans were synonymous with immigration control (2005, 45). Their policies lacked the notion of social incorporation. The Japanese authorities did not develop or regulate their resident alien policies on the assumption of Koreans’ permanent settlement and their integration into Japanese society. In the colonial period, Japan attempted to incorporate Koreans into society by defining them as the emperor’s subjects and acknowledged the multiethnic composition of the empire’s population to some extent. Kashiwazaki says that after Japan’s defeat, in contrast, academics and popular writers portrayed Japan as an island nation inhabited by a homogeneous people (2000, 27). The fact that Japanese postwar economic growth was achieved through dependence not on foreign labor but on the massive population flow from rural communities to urban areas reinforced the postwar discourse of Japan as a homogeneous, single-ethnic nation-state (Nishinarita 1997, 349). The prevailing postwar conception of homogeneous Japan shared by the Japanese government “attached symbolic, cultural, and ethnic meanings to nationality” (Kashiwazaki 2000, 27); in other words, nationality was national essence. Harajiri claims plausibly that Japan’s postwar policies for Koreans living in Japan are best illustrated in terms of exclusion and assimilation (1998, 77). Koreans were excluded from Japanese society by strict immigration controls or by being repatriated to North Korea. The channel for naturalization was tightly maintained in a restricted manner. The political orientations of individuals applying for naturalization were thoroughly inspected. Such individuals were expected to adjust to Japanese culture and convention to a considerable extent. They were also expected to adopt names that sounded Japanese. Naturalization was allowed only in the case of those who were assimilated to the extent that they would not undermine the existing homogeneity of Japanese society.

94

Nam Sun Song

In Western contexts, it is now taken for granted that nationhood does not presuppose ethnicity. However, in East Asia there is a strong illusion that the nations and its members are not defined and delimited by law but lie in ethnic substance. In these societies, nationality tends to have a close association with authenticity. Hayao portrayed how the notion of authenticity is employed by colonizers to control the colonized (2007). The colonized are required to make every effort to become authentic nationals. However, since authenticity is considered to be a set of attributes that can be acquired only by authentic nationals, it is impossible for the colonized to gain this requirement by imitation. Consequently, they are subject to an endless assimilation process. The aforementioned uniqueness of Koreans in Japan is that they have remained resident aliens for more than half a century, since the end of World War II. However, this cannot be attributed only to the exclusive and naive nature of the policies enacted by Japanese authorities. Kashiwazaki shows how the equivalence between nationality and national essence assumed by the Japanese authorities was rather ironically shared by the majority of resident Koreans (2000). She points out that both rightist and leftist organizations had a common ground: they were adamantly anti-Japanese and anti-colonial, nationalists and “repatriationists.” Neither of them, therefore, had any agenda covering the eventual settlement of Koreans in Japan. Both groups believed, or at least advocated, that Korea should be reunified and Koreans in Japan should all return home. When the loss of Japanese nationality was stipulated by Japanese authorities in 1952, both organizations were willing to accept it and to reject the idea of Koreans retaining Japanese nationality. It took several decades for Koreans in Japan to realize what they had really given up. Instead, the two organizations engaged in a “loyalty competition” in which they tried to persuade Koreans to take the nationality of the state they believed to be legitimate. They both made little demand for dual nationality and were consistently opposed to the activities demanding facilitation of naturalization procedures, insisting that it would further assimilation. Neither the South Korean government nor the North Korean government made active commitments to extend citizenship rights to Koreans in Japan. The activists in these two organizations regarded the Korean language and Korean nationality to be the major representations of Korean national essence, or Korean-ness. As Koreans living in Japan became increasingly monolingual, both organizations became more dependent on the symbolic value of nationality. All ethnic communities have norms for evaluating who is and is not a member (Fought 2006, 7). One can be denied membership in the community because of actions that signal a lack of loyalty or some other lack of adherence to the norms considered appropriate to the group.

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

95

In Korean communities, obtaining Japanese nationality has been seen as an infringement of the norm and deserving of exclusion from the community. The majority of naturalized Koreans in Japan have remained silent about their ethnic heritage, and thus the size of the population of Koreans in Japan recorded by both the Korean community and the Japanese authorities is smaller than in actuality. The considerably low rate of naturalization of Koreans in Japan, thus, is a consequence of the interaction between Japanese authorities and the Korean community in Japan, both of whom have a nationalistic discourse. The Languages of Koreans in Japan

Imperial Japan imposed the Japanese language on Koreans as it was the national language. The use of Japanese was encouraged and enforced in every situation at schools. Japan’s attempts to diffuse the Japanese language among Koreans were not entirely successful during the first several decades of the twentieth century. Kumatani states that in 1942 the number of Japanese speakers did not exceed 15 percent of the total population of Koreans (1997, 169). This ratio was far from sufficient to ensure conscription of all Korean males as imperial soldiers. In 1942, in preparation for the full conscription, the Government-General of Korea built 2,699 “Special Training Stations for Adolescents” to compel young Korean men to take a one-year intensive Japanese language course. Due to the desperate efforts to make Koreans use Japanese by the Japanese authorities, Koreans formed a bilingual society of Korean and Japanese in which the latter was given the superior rank. In this process, the Korean language was influenced by the Japanese language. By the time of Korea’s liberation from Japan, the code mixing of the two languages had become so usual and frequent that many Koreans used Japanese even when they intended to speak or write in their mother tongue. The first generation of Korean immigrants in Japan continued their bilingual life after 1945 without giving the Japanese language a superior status. Since the majority of Koreans who came or were brought to Japan had already been bilingual in Korean and Japanese, their linguistic transition to Japanese was rather fast and smooth, even if it had some indigenous features that were a result of interference from their first language. For instance, they were apt to replace the initial unrounded middle-high vowel with a rounded back vowel, as in wuru for uru, meaning “to sell.” The initial voiced consonants were devocalized, as in komu for gomu (rubber), and voiceless consonants in a word were vocalized, as in wadashi for watashi (I). Initial alveolar voiced fricatives that do not exist in Korean were frequently replaced by alveolar voiceless fricatives, as in subon for zubon (pants). It may be interesting to know that Korean newcomers employ

96

Nam Sun Song

a different strategy for the last case. They allocate alveolar affricates for alveolar fricatives not found in the Korean language, as in cubon for zubon (pants). The use of the Korean language by the first generation of immigrants tends to be confined to communication among them. They employ mixed codes that have been developed on the basis of the mixed codes used on the peninsula. The following examples are from Kim Misun’s 2003 article (48–49). The underlined is Japanese. 1. Honde yekwuan tomari-hamen pang hana pilese haypangtoetorok kekeyse saltaka de tayphan naylyewuacwugey.

“Then I rented a room in a hotel and stayed until Liberation, and went down to Osaka.”

2. Chikaitoko yakara, tamaniwa asobini oidena key?

“Since it’s near, come to see us from time to time, right?”

In the first example, Japanese elements are embedded in a Korean syntactic structure, while in the second example, a Korean sentential ending particle, -key, is attached to a Japanese sentence. One frequently used mixed form is the addition of the Korean verb ha (to do) to the continuative form of a Japanese verb or an adjective verb, as in tomari-hata (to stay over a night), aimai-hata (to be ambiguous), or kime-hata (to decide). These forms were widely used in the Korean homeland, and Koreans living in Japan simply continued using them. This word formation strategy is so grammaticalized that they replaced the Korean ha with the Japanese su (to do), creating such words as kime-suru (to decide), odori-suru (to dance), kangae-suru (to think), and so on, despite the availability of the existing Japanese words kimeru, odoru, kangaeru, and the like. Three reasons might be cited for the use of these mixed codes. First, these mixed codes had already been acquired by Koreans in their homeland. The second possible reason is their lack of knowledge and skills in both the Korean and Japanese languages. The third and most important reason might be that they employed the mixed codes as part of their inner-community language to express fellowship and closeness. For members of the second generation and beyond, the first language is Japanese, and the majority of them are monolingual in Japanese except for those who studied at Korean schools or had a chance to study in Korea. Second-generation Koreans living in Japan might learn some Korean through contact with first-generation Koreans. However, their knowledge is confined to greetings and basic vocabulary for family members, relatives, daily necessities, foods, and so on.

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

97

Korean Language Education in Ethnic Schools As mentioned earlier, the majority of Japan-born Korean speakers were educated in Korean ethnic schools. Fujii (1999, 1:140) and Ueda Koji (2001, 122) estimate that Korean speakers in Japan number approximately 160,000 to 170,000, although there is no way to confirm the reliability of that number. Pak Sam Suk writes that there had been an estimated 100,000 Korean school graduates as of October 1996 (1997, 72). These graduates have a decent command of the Korean language and constitute the mainstream Korean speakers in Japan. This section describes language education in Korean ethnic schools, focusing on the education provided by the schools run by the Chongryun, which has played the primary role in maintaining Korean language use in Japan. The League’s Korean Schools

Until the suppression of Korean schools by the Japanese government and occupation authorities in 1948, the League of Koreans in Japan played the largest role in promoting Korean language education. The purpose of the schools run by the League was primarily to provide an understanding of Korean culture and history, as well as to develop Korean language proficiency to ensure that young Koreans in Japan were prepared for repatriation. According to Kim Dong-Ryong, the mission of the schools was “to train Korean children in Japan to be Korean nationals who are able to contribute to the construction of a new democratic country” (2002, 32). The basic content of the education, which appears nationalist with a strong socialist flavor, was stated as follows: 1. To teach true democracy, under which the entire nation can have a better life. 2. To foster love of Korea based on a scientific view of history. 3. To develop a unique sense of admiration for the fine arts and creative activities based on everyday life experience. 4. To develop a respect for labor through everyday experience and learning. 5. To make every effort for research in science and the improvement of skills. 6. To encourage the investigation of social relations among science, labor, and economic activities. 7. To thoroughly conduct the coeducation of both genders. (See Kim Dong-Ryong 2002, 33.)

98

Nam Sun Song

The League, immediately after its formation, began to actively work on recruiting editors for Korean language and history textbooks and manuals for teacher training. It should be noted that the first Korean language textbook, Hangul kyopem, edited by Lee Jin Gyu, was published one month after the League’s foundation, and it was followed by a series of independent textbooks (see Kim Dong-Ryong 2002, 35–53). The first teacher training institute was founded in Osaka in September 1946. The institute offered a seven-month to one-year course to train elementary school teachers. In December 1947, the League founded the Central Teachers Training College in Tokyo to train and provide recurrent education for Korean school teachers. These colleges continued to produce teachers for Korean schools until the schools were closed in 1949. The total number of students who attended these schools, according to the statistics cited by Kim Dong-Ryong (2002, 65), was 43,344 in October 1946, 49,688 in October 1947, 57,204 in April 1948, and 36,890 in July 1949. After the closure of Korean schools and the dissolution of the League of Koreans in Japan in 1949, ethnic education continued in a much more informal manner. Chongryun’s Korean Schools

Chongryun was founded in May 1955 as an organization for overseas nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Its goals were to unify all Koreans living in Japan and to direct them toward the cause for the prosperity of North Korea. Minjun and the League of Koreans in Japan, the former leftist organizations, committed themselves heavily to the democratization of Japan and the revolution in Japan. Chongryun, unlike the League and Minjun, did not involve itself in Japanese politics but strived to raise the consciousness of its members and affiliates to devote themselves to North Korea. From its self-definition as an organization for North Korean overseas nationals, Chongryun seems to have devoted little attention toward directing Koreans in Japan to demand social and political rights, such as those that would be conferred by citizenship. In fact, Chongryun, unlike the South Korean–supported Mindan, has consistently opposed Koreans’ demand for suffrage in Japan. It was also indifferent to Koreans’ movement to refuse fingerprints on alien registration certificates in the 1980s. Chongryun established a nationwide organizational network. It built more than 150 Korean schools, including nursery, elementary, junior high, and high schools, and one university. The educational policy put forth by Chongryun was “to conduct democratic ethnic education for the children of Koreans in Japan by means of instruction in the language of our homeland, to overcome colonial slavery concepts and feudalistic conventions, to eliminate illiteracy, and to work for the development of national culture”

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

99

(Shin 2005, 277). Democratic ethnic education, according to Chongryun’s definition, is education that is ethnic in its form and democratic in its content. The policy was underpinned by a clear principle: to raise the new generation to be loyal to North Korea. Ryang writes that in the 1959–1960 academic year, a total of 30,484 students enrolled in Chongryun schools (1997, 24). By April 1961, the number had increased to 40,542, excluding about 10,000 students who had been repatriated to North Korea. The number decreased thereafter. The number of schools also decreased to 66 in 2016. The total number of students was 6,185, according to Asashi shinbun newspaper (July 16, 2016). Chongryun has provided Japan-born Korean children with a highly effective bilingual education. Without the commitments of Chongryun, the maintenance of the Korean language among resident Koreans would not have been possible. Korean schools run by Chongryun are acknowledged by the Japanese education authorities, who call them kakushu gakko, or “miscellaneous schools.” This is the status generally granted to nonacademic, skill-­oriented schools, such as driving schools, language schools, and so on, whose educational credentials do not fulfill the requirements for entry into higher educational institutions. As miscellaneous schools, Chongryun schools are not eligible for the benefits enjoyed by Japanese schools, including financial assistance from the Japanese government. In turn, Chongryun’s Korean schools are exempt from regular inspection and other forms of intervention by Japanese education authorities. Therefore, they have a certain degree of autonomy in stipulating the curriculum content. Textbooks are written and edited by Chongryun’s schoolteachers and printed by Chongryun’s publishing company. The editorial committees in Chongryun’s educational department are in charge of the editing process. The curriculum of Chongryun schools largely overlaps with that of Japanese schools (see Ryang 1997, 25). It includes Japanese, mathematics, English, science, history, geography, and physical education. The main difference is that Chongryun schools teach “ideological education subjects” or “loyalty education subjects,” such as the “childhood of Father Marshal Kim Il Sung” and the “revolutionary activities of the Great Leader Kim Il Sung.” All subjects except for English and Japanese are taught in Korean. Students are encouraged and required to use Korean, not only in class but during breaks, lunchtime, and while engaged in extracurricular activities. Korean language education is carried out in accordance with the belief that the language is the nation, which is based on the teachings of the former North Korean leader Kim Il Sung. Chongryun and the resident Koreans affiliated with it have formed a rather closed community in Japan. Korean is Chongryun’s “official” language and is used at all meetings, conferences, seminars, art performances, and events. As Irina Kim points out, Korean

100

Nam Sun Song

language education in Chongryun’s schools is, therefore, indispensable for continuity of the community organization of Chongryun (1994, 187). The majority of students at Chongryun’s schools are now third- and fourth-generation Koreans whose first language is Japanese. They speak Japanese at home with their parents. Most teachers at the schools graduated from Chongryun’s Korea University. They are Japan-born, second- and third-generation Koreans. This poses a problem for the Chongryun Korean language education program. The use of the Korean language is limited in schools where students are rarely exposed to native-spoken Korean. Since the children enrolled in Chongryun’s elementary schools are monolingual in Japanese, lessons are taught in a mixture of Korean and Japanese for the first several months. The ratio of hours devoted to Korean in the curriculum is high. Korean language instruction occupies 26.6% of the total class hours in elementary and junior high education (Kim DongRyong 1991, 128). The ratio is particularly high in the initial years of elementary education, occupying 43.8% of class hours in the first year and 37.5% in the second year. Strong glamorization of the language of the motherland is seen in Chong­ryun’s Korean community. The Korean language is always described as something Koreans living in Japan were deprived of and that they must reclaim or restore at any cost, while Japanese is something imposed on them that they must overcome. In the schools, Korean is “good” while Japanese is “bad.” Learning the Korean language is constantly associated with the restoration of Koreans’ ethnic pride and nationhood, while speaking Japanese is associated with the continuation of colonial slavery. Thus, having to use both Korean and Japanese has been described in terms of victimization and shame. In these contexts, Korean children’s mastery of the Japanese language as their first language, which is an inevitable result of their having been born in Japan, is taken in Chongryun to be abnormal. Prior to the editing of new textbooks in 1983, Korean language education had been carried out according to the principle that Korean is the mother tongue and Japanese is a second language of students of Chongryun schools. Until 1983, textbooks for Chongryun’s schools were modeled on North Korean textbooks and teaching manuals. The Japanese language was taught in Korean in class. This means that until the 1980s, ethnic education as well as Korean language education had been implemented by Chong­ ryun with a fictitious presupposition that residency of Koreans in Japan was temporary and that all Koreans would sooner or later be repatriated to their reunified homeland. Since the late 1970s, partial reforms of the curriculum have been made on several occasions, shifting from repatriation-oriented education to settlement-oriented education. In 1993, Chongryun made an extensive reform of

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

101

its school curriculum (see Ryang 1997, 51–61). Under the new curriculum, ideological education subjects, such as the childhood of Father Marshal Kim Il Sung and revolutionary history of the Great Leader Kim Il Sung, disappeared. The new curriculum covered the broader issues that were missing from the former textbooks. The subjects of history and geography that had previously dealt only with North Korea, Eastern Europe, and African countries now covered Japan and Western countries, including the United States. The new textbooks referred to Christianity and other major religions. Social study subjects now covered Japanese politics and the economy. Japanese and English textbooks included modern American literature, Greek myths, and Japanese folklore and classics. These reforms should not be perceived as an indication that Chongryun gave up its educational policy to raise Korean children in Japan as the new generations of North Korean overseas nationals who are loyal to their homeland and its leader. The major shift included in the ten-year reform program launched by Chongryun in 1993 emphasized teaching the spoken version of Korean. The old Korean language textbooks taught the formal written language with dominant ending forms, such as ita (to be) and hanta (to do). This hindered students from acquiring colloquial Korean with a variety of sentential endings. According to Ryang (1997, 57), in the new textbook for the second year of elementary school, fourteen out of twenty-eight lessons are dedicated to informal, spoken forms, while none of the thirty-five lessons in the old edition dealt with these. The lessons concentrate on colloquial Korean with ending forms appropriate for children to use among peers, such as iyeyye or ya (to be) and hayye or hay (to do). This shift seems to have two implications. First, it took nearly forty years for Korean nationalists in Japan to acknowledge the simple fact that the mother tongue of Japan-born Koreans is Japanese, and that this is perfectly “normal.” In 1983 Chongryun officially defined the Korean language as the second language for the students of its schools. However, their practical approach to Korean language education did not change very much. In content as well as teaching methods, Korean language education continued to be carried out as kwuke (national language) education, as was done in Korea, where children did not have to learn colloquial Korean in school. The target of national language education is obviously mastery of the written language. Since the discourse of Korean as the mother tongue of Koreans in Japan has been so predominant, Chongryun-affiliated intellectuals seemed reluctant to accept the apparent reality. Their reservation can be seen in the following statements: “Most [children] start learning Korean, which should have been their mother tongue, in ethnic educational institutions. . . . [I]n an ethnic education school you can see children learning Korean as if it were a

102

Nam Sun Song

foreign language for them. . . . [T]hey learn Korean as their second language after having mastered Japanese, which should have been a foreign language for them” (Kim Dong-Ryong 1991, 127–128). For these Chongryun-affiliated intellectuals, acquisition of Japanese as the first language by Japan-born Korean children demonstrates a lack of ethnic authenticity and an unacceptable state of affairs. The second implication of the 1993 reform should be evaluated more carefully. As mentioned earlier, the Korean language functions as an inner language to maintain Chongryun’s isolated community. Irina Kim (1994) and Sonia Ryang (1997) provide detailed illustrations of the Korean language used by Chongryun-affiliated Koreans and the students of Chong­ ryun schools. First, the Korean language of Chongryun is limited to the settings in which it is used. It is mainly used within the schools and offices of the organization. Outside of class, students switch to Japanese. They speak Japanese at home even if their parents are graduates of Korean schools. The second characteristic is that the Korean language is limited in the scope of its application. Korean is reserved for matters related to the organization and North Korea. For Chongryun affiliates, Korean is the language used in Chongryun’s public life, while Japanese is the language used for private life. Korean vocabulary related to organizational life and North Korea thus survive, while words irrelevant to the organization do not take hold and are replaced by corresponding Japanese words. The Chongryun Korean vocabulary is a closed set of words concentrating on political expressions, while Japanese vocabulary is open ended. The Korean language used by schoolchildren is heavily influenced by Japanese. The Tokyo- and Osaka-born Korean heritage children speak Korean with Tokyo and Osaka Japanese accents, respectively. Outside school, they mix Korean and Japanese, inventing a sort of pidginized Korean, as exemplified by the following, with Japanese underlined: Korewa wulitul-uy honno kimochi ipnita. “This is just a token of our gratitude.” The speech of the Korean language by Chongryun affiliates and the students of Chongryun schools is also marked by a dependency on written and formal forms. It does not have the variety of Korean colloquial styles spoken in the homeland. As previously mentioned, only a few forms are available for sentence endings. The Korean language spoken by Chongryun schoolchildren is an application of the formal written language to speech. They have also developed highly situation-dependent mixed versions of Japanese and Korean. For the purpose of inner organizational communications, these pidginized forms

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

103

are sufficient and even effective. An optimistic interpretation of the reform in 1993 is that Chongryun decided to reformulate its Korean language education from an education for communication in its closed community to teaching Korean to communicate with the broader Korean-speaking community, including the people on the Korean Peninsula. South Korea–Affiliated Korean Schools

Four Korean schools in Japan were founded more or less with support from the South Korean government and Mindan: the Tokyo kankoku gakko (Tokyo Korean School), a junior high and high school that was founded in 1954; the Kenkoku School, an elementary, junior high, and high school that was founded in Osaka in 1946; the Kongo gakuen school, a nursery, elementary, junior high, and high school that was founded in Osaka in 1946; and the Kyoto kokusai gakuen (Kyoto International School), a junior high and high school that was founded in 1947. Although these schools maintain some association with the South Korean government and Mindan, the closeness of their relations varies. The Tokyo Korean School was established within the building of the central headquarters of Mindan. It served as a Korean ethnic school for Mindan-supported Korean residents in Japan. It was acknowledged by the Japanese government in 1955 as a “miscellaneous school,” the same status awarded to Chongryun’s schools. In 1962, it was fully accredited by the South Korean government. As the South Korean economy grew, more children of South Koreans working in Japan were temporarily enrolled, ultimately surpassing the number of resident Korean students. Currently, resident Korean students make up less than 10 percent of the student body. Most subjects are taught in Korean, and they are aligned closely with the curriculum specified by the South Korean government. Thus, the school’s purpose, at present, is to provide sojourning Koreans with the same education that they would receive in South Korea, rather than implementing ethnic education for resident Koreans. The other three schools are ethnic schools that survived the 1949 suppression of Korean schools by SCAP and the Japanese government. They are all fully accredited by the Japanese government and have a status equivalent to Japanese schools. The history and current situation of the Kenkoku School reflect a typical pursuit of Korean ethnic education through being integrated into the Japanese education system. The Kenkoku School was founded in the year following Korea’s liberation to “train personnel useful for the democratic fatherland.” It survived the 1949 suppression by applying for full accreditation by Japanese education authorities right after the suppression, although the application was not approved until 1951. Being accredited by the Japanese government

104

Nam Sun Song

meant that the school curriculum had to be oriented and conducted in accordance with the curriculum taught in Japanese schools. The lessons had to be taught in Japanese, except in the Korean language class. The founders of the school decided to pursue ethnic education to the extent that was allowed in Japanese private schools. In other words, the school forfeited full-scale ethnic education, like that in Chongryun schools, in exchange for a more legally secure status. The number of students continued to increase and peaked in 1967, with 1,234 in total. Then, it decreased by one-fourth by 1977. The reason for the decrease might be that, to the eyes of those who were keen on maintaining ethnic identity, as well as the language, the Kenkoku School looked incomplete and partial, while to the eyes of those who wanted their children to be assimilated into Japanese society, it looked too ethnic. The Kenkoku School, since its foundation, maintained neutrality, rejecting a one-sided tie to either Korea. However, when the student number hit bottom in 1977, it declared an official affiliation with South Korea and began receiving financial support from the government. It also accepted Korean language teachers dispatched by the South Korean government to improve the Korean language program. The formal affiliation with South Korea had a positive effect on improving the school’s reputation among Koreans in Japan. The student number has gradually recovered since 1979. Students whose parents are newcomers to Japan or sojourning Koreans are increasing, making up about 50 percent of the nursery school, 40 percent of the elementary school, and 30 percent of the junior high school (Maeda Tadahiko 2005, 236–240). Twin Linguistic Nationalisms To address the issues of Korean language education and Korean language use in Japan in proper historical and sociological contexts, we should consider the matter of Japanese linguistic nationalism during the prewar and postwar periods, and its relation to Korean linguistic nationalism. It is often the case that what is believed to have been passed down from the remote past is actually a product of modernity acceding to certain political or economic requests. The notion of nation, nationhood, nationality, and a national language are good examples. The power of those modern notions lies in that they betray their birth by looking primordial. There is a prevailing discourse in postwar Japan that Japan is a homogeneous, single-ethnic nation-state. Japan has a highly congruent speech community, with less than 2 percent of the population ethnic minorities. The Japanese identify their ethnicity with their language. According to Coulmas, “There is a strong general interest in the language, which is often

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

105

portrayed as incorporating the true spirit of the Japanese people. Such ideas are of modern origin and can be traced to European linguistic nationalism” (1999, 404). After the 1868 restoration of imperial order, modern nation-building became the agenda of Japan. A national language was considered urgently needed to integrate the Japanese people into a congruent political and national unit—that is, to render them Japanese nationals. The notion of a national language of Japan was outlined and formulated by the prominent linguist Ueda Kazutoshi (1986–1937), who played a crucial role in shaping the linguistic policy adopted by the Japanese Ministry of Education in the imperial period (Yasuda 2000). After his education in Germany, Ueda called for a unified language of Japan. He called the Japanese language the “spiritual blood of the nation,” from which the Japanese people could obtain a sense of oneness. He concluded that the national spirit could be fostered only through the diffusion of a standardized national language. It is apparent that his theory was based on German romanticism, in which two common concepts of blood and Volksgeist (the “spirit” inherent in a people) are supposed to be the root of nationality. These two concepts are related to language in the sense that a common national consciousness and a common way of looking at reality can be shared by people who share hereditary bloodlines and language (Safran 1999, 79). Ueda’s theory formed the basis of modern Japanese linguistic policies. Japan’s defeat in the war did not weaken the nationalistic tone. On the contrary, the experience of failed colonial expansion reinforced the idea that Japanese was the proper language of only the Japanese. Little room was left for fostering alternative visions of an ethnically and linguistically diverse society. Japanese attempts at modern nation-building coincided with its empire building. Thus, the notion of a national language, forged by Ueda, was simultaneously applied to Japan’s colonies. Japan claimed that colonial subjects could become the authentic subjects of the emperor through education and adoption of the national language. As Chen points out, Japanese colonizers came up with a self-contradicting norm for equality, insisting that the colonized would be granted equal status when they became as civilized as the colonizers (2005, 43–44). However, since the use of the term civilization was synonymous with assimilation of the Japanese language, fulfillment of the promise of equality would be postponed indefinitely. A colonial subject, however adept at the Japanese language he or she might become, could never obtain genuine mastery of the language, which had been reserved only for authentic Japanese nationals. This was the brutality and naïveté of imperial Japan’s assimilation policy, which was based on the belief that a nation should share one national language.

106

Nam Sun Song

Kim Hasoo (2005) illustrates the effects that Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s thoughts on language had in Korea. Fichte gave a series of well-known patriotic lectures titled “Reden an die deutsche Nation” (1807–1808) on fourteen occasions in Berlin, while it was occupied by Napoleon’s forces, to infuse the German people with fighting spirit. He stated that language and nation are inseparable and that language is the very essence of national spirit. He emphasized the age and purity of the German nation and attributed them to the purity of German language. The German people, because they had maintained their own primordial language, were held to be superior to the French, who had a Latinized language. The views of the language and the nation clarified by Fichte were not merely his own but were shared by German romanticists, who defined the language as “what generates” rather than “what is generated,” as seen in Humboldt (1910, 152). Fichte’s ideas of the language and the nation, along with the basic tones of German romanticist theories of the German language, contributed to the formation of German nationalism and later laid the theoretical grounds for Nazi Fascism. It was “an irony of history” (Kim Hasoo 2005, 489) that Fichte’s thoughts, as soon as they were translated and introduced to Korea in 1932, attracted Korean intellectuals involved with Korean independence movements and were overwhelmingly accepted. This acceptance produced a strong counterdiscourse to the Japanese linguistic assimilation policy formulated by Ueda. The German philosophy that provided German fascists and Japanese imperialists with their theoretical bases was employed by the colonized intellectuals in order to forge a counterdiscourse to colonial rule. Korean nationalists, including Choe Hyeon Bae, attempted to mold a Korean national identity through the diffusion of standardized Korean and regarded the Korean language and Korean national identity as being indisputably related to each other. The linguistic nationalism of Japan and that of Korea shared a single origin. Kumatani holds that linguistic nationalism in South Korea is still in a classic paradigm, in which love of the national language symbolizes love of the nation and the state on the basis of the firm belief that Korea is a homogeneous, single-ethnic nation-state (1997, 192). He claims that it is an undeniable historical fact of modern Korean that its lexicon, in particular, was formed using the Japanese language as a model, whether one likes it or not. He says that the Korean language incorporated Japanese vocabulary in bulk during Kayhwaki (the enlightenment period between 1876 and 1910). The Japanese language has two types of vocabulary: Japanese native words and Chinese-character words. The latter includes direct loanwords from the Chinese language and Japan-made Chinese-character words, and they were created to cope with the modernization of Japan. In the process

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

107

of modernizing Japan, the Japanese people had to translate numerous European notions and categories into Japanese. For this purpose, they invented new combinations of Chinese characters, taking advantage of the high productive power of Chinese characters instead of inventing new native Japanese words. The extensive adoption of Japan-made Chinese-character words was an attempt to modernize Korea using the Japanese language as a model. Kumatani picked up examples from the Tonglip sinmwun (Independent newspaper), which began printing in 1896. The Korean words cited next are only a few examples originating from Japan-made Chinese-character words that had also been assimilated into the Chinese language. These words were borrowed and written using the corresponding Korean sounds. kyengjayhak (economics), kongdong (cooperation), kwankyey (relation), kwenli (a right), kwukcang (a theater), kihoy (a chance), tayphyo (a representative), mokcyek (a purpose), mullihak (physics), miswul (fine art), putongsan (real estate), punsek (analysis), sangep (commerce), swuhak (mathematics), sinyong (credence), yensel (a speech), uyhoy (parliament), cenpo (a telegram), cengtang (a political party), cengpu (a government), cyongkyo (religion), cyunki (steam), chelhak (philosophy), chwulphan (publication), chioypepkwen (extraterritoriality), twuphyo (vote), hakki (a school term), hanguy (protest), haypang (liberation), hyengpep (criminal law)

Some Japanese native words are written in semantically corresponding Chinese characters. They includes teate (a special allowance), kozutsumi (a parcel), yogasa (an umbrella), amagasa (an umbrella), and kaiki (a desire to buy something). These Japanese words also came into use in Korean with the corresponding Korean sounds for the Chinese characters, resulting in the words swutang, sopo, yangsan, wusan, and mayki, respectively. Kumatani states that the basic framework for the lexicon of modern Korean had come into being through the adoption of a mass of Japanese vocabulary before Korea was colonized by Japan (1997, 167). The incorporation was so extensive that, according to Kim Kwang Hae, “Our linguistic life would become impossible instantly if the use of these words should be banned” (1995, 23). Under Japanese colonial rule, most Koreans were forced to become more or less bilingual in Korean and Japanese, as previously mentioned. Many intellectuals were better at writing in Japanese than writing in Korean. This furthered the act of borrowing from the Japanese language and gave rise to direct loanwords with Japanese sounds, such as kancyo (counting), tettai (assistance), panto (a head clerk), tapi (split-toe socks), momohikki (underpants), aimai (ambiguous), cimi (plain), wakamama (selfish), saki (fraud), and hwumikkiri (a railroad crossing). Korean loanwords from Japanese included

108

Nam Sun Song

those that had been borrowed from Western languages for use in Japanese, such as ppenkki (house paint), seymeyntto (cement), ppokeytto (pocket), syaswuu (shirt), and kkoppu (glass), as well as the words allocated Korean sounds like hyengcang (jobsite), ankyeng (pair of glasses), sikey (watch), yepse (postcard), milkam (tangerine), kapong (basting), and chaip (giving things to a prisoner), among others. The lexicon of words borrowed from Japanese was so extensive as to include collocations and syntactic structures that had taken hold in Japanese through translations of Western languages, such as ul uymihata (mean that ~), hacyamacya (as soon as ~), and ey thulimi epta (must be ~, there is no doubt that ~). The Korean Language Purification Movement, which had been suppressed by imperial rulers, thrived immediately after Korea’s liberation from Japan. The movement aimed to completely remove the Japanese elements penetrating the Korean language. These elements were regarded as the dregs of the linguistic assimilation policy. The naïveté of the movement, as asserted by Kumatani (1997, 183), was that it targeted mainly direct loanwords with Japanese sounds because these words were most conspicuous. These loanwords were an easy target of the campaign appealing to the general public. The Japan-made Chinese-character words, which were widely adopted into the Korean language, were never targeted by the movement. The leaders of the movement did not face up to the reality that the Japanese elements adopted into their national language were too widespread and ubiquitous to discern and had already become too deeply rooted to remove. The shallowness and chauvinism of the movement were an inevitable outcome of Korean linguistic nationalism’s axiom that national spirit, or Koreanness, is generated and underpinned by pure Korean language. For Korean nationalists, acknowledging that the Korean national language could never be purified meant that Koreans would never be free from yamato tamashii (the soul of Japan). This was totally unacceptable to Korean nationalists. North Korean linguistic policies presuppose that Korean nationhood is inextricably associated with descent and language. The equation of nationhood and language can be seen in the remarks referring to the Korean language made by the North Korean leader Kim Il Sung, whose teachings were absolutely binding in North Korea. In his remarks on January 3, 1964, Kim Il Sung defined language as one of the most important commonalities that characterize a nation. He stated that even those who share the same descent and territory cannot be regarded as being of the same nation if they speak different languages. He also emphasized that Koreans ought to be proud of having one single language, a language that is beautiful and superior.

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

109

North Korean authorities have emphasized that the reason Koreans in Japan belong to the Korean nation, even if they live in Japan, is because they share the same descent and the same language as Koreans on the peninsula. An overall consideration of the leader’s views of the language and nationhood and the North Korean language policies springing from the former shows that they are underpinned by a strong adherence to the idea that Korea is a homogeneous, monoethnic nation-state and that nationhood or national essence presupposes a national language. Linguistic Nationalism and Korean Language Education In Western contexts, the assertion that nationality is based on descent and language does not enjoy broad support, as is seen in a typical discussion by Kohn (1945, 13): “Nationalism comes into existence only when objective bonds delimit a social group. A nationality generally has several potentially unifying elements; very few have all of them. The most usual of them are common descent, language, territory, political entity, customs and tradition, (but) none of them is essential to the existence of nationality.” If only language were considered the primary ingredient of nationalism (defined as a politically mobilizing and state-seeking ideology), there would be several thousand sovereign states, rather than the existing two hundred (Safran 1999, 78). It is not the consciousness of having a common language that makes for nationalism but the growth of nationalist sentiment, which endows language with political importance. Alfred Cobban says that the common consciousness of being a nation was derived far more from living together and sharing common ideals than from any racial, linguistic, or cultural inheritance (1970, 121–122). It should be noted that Korean language education in Japan has been conducted under pressure from three parties—Japan, South Korea, and North Korea—where language, descent, and nationhood are equal. The three parties have more or less conceived of the Korean community in Japan as a black-white dichotomy, promoting the idea that you are “one of us” or you are “one of them.” Nationality (North Korean, South Korean, or Japanese) and language have been seen as key indicators of an individual’s positioning with respect to this dichotomy. The identities of human beings in modern societies are complex. People live their lives by constantly changing their roles and expectations, and by constructing complex identities in which ethnicity is but one component, and not always the dominant one. However, the black-white dichotomy imposed by surrounding powers has pushed to the side the numerous variations and options that should have been available to Korean residents in Japan.

110

Nam Sun Song

Japanese authorities and leaders, who place faith in the discourse of Japan being a homogeneous single nation-state where one’s mother tongue is automatically one’s national language, have not been imaginative enough to realize that a considerable number of people in their territory have an incompatible mother tongue. Their attitudes toward Korean ethnic education have been either repressive or indifferent. They suppressed Korean ethnic schools, closing them by force in the late 1940s. They treated Korean schools run by Chongryun as though they did not exist. The Japanese government has not funded Chongryun schools, which are run by Korean heritage taxpayers. Recently, the situation has changed slightly, as some local governments have decided to aid Korean schools in some ways. In Kanagawa Prefecture, for instance, the allowances from the local government for Chongryun school students are only one-quarter of those for Japanese private school students (Ryang 1997, 24). Up to now, not a single yen has come from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology’s central funds. The ethnic identity of “self” is constructed in contrast to the ethnic identity of “other.” Many Japan-born Koreans visit South Korea to learn the Korean language. Because of the language barrier, they have had the common experience of feeling more alienated in their homeland than in Japan, while in Japan they feel they have a Korean ethnic identity. Japan-born Koreans are viewed in South Korea either as deplorable people who lost their language and identity or as laudable ones who continue to strive to restore their identity. In either case, resident Koreans are portrayed as victims. The following remarks made by a Japan-born traditional Korean dance performer paint a good picture: Taking a taxi and exchanging a few words with the driver, he often asks, “Have you been abroad for long?” or “Are you from Japan?” The taxi drivers carrying various customers instantly tell correctly where their customer is from and how old he/she is. I reply, “I am cayil kyopho [Korean Japanese].” Then he says, “You are good at our language.” However, in this country [Korea], “You are good at our language” instantly switches to “Aren’t you Korean? How can you be so bad at Korean?” depending on the occasion. It is a well-worn phrase for picking on Korean-Japanese. They don’t hesitate even to say “Go back to Japan.” (Chung 2001, 127)

Congruency of the South Korean speech community and South Koreans’ faith in the discourse that their nationhood lies in their language hinder them from understanding the time and money that Japan-born Koreans spend to learn Korean as a second language. Korean language education by Chongryun has been carried out under the heavy influence of linguistic nationalism in North Korea. It has

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

111

been conducted in compliance with North Korean leaders’ nationalistic views of the Korean language and the Korean nation. The discourse that Korean is beautiful, rich, and superior to other languages prevails in Chongryun schools. Students are often taught, without theoretical or practical grounds, that the sound system of Korean is so wide-ranging and abundant that Korean speakers can correctly produce any sound of any language in the world. Since nationhood is supposed to lie in an individual’s descent and language, someone lacking in either could, therefore, not be Korean. Equating the national language with nationhood entails that the majority of resident Koreans who are monolingual in Japanese are not full-fledged Koreans. Chongryun asserts that they can “become” Korean only through endeavoring to learn the Korean language. In other words, learning Korean in Chongryun schools is considered a sacred ordeal whereby one can restore one’s ethnic identity and become a genuine Korean. In Chongryun Korean schools, Korean children who attend Japanese schools are often described as pitiable young people possessed by ethnic nihilism. They are often called “half Koreans” or even “fake Koreans.” This indicates the process in which the nationalism of the host country and that of the home country is used by a minority group to reproduce discrimination within the community. The patriotic ethnic consciousness of Koreans in Japan has often been measured by their competence in the language of the motherland. It is generally acknowledged that pressure to use the heritage language may be strong where languages are tied to ethnic identities and are perceived as threatened. In such cases, not knowing the language can be a source of shame, embarrassment, or criticism. Maeda Tatsuro (2005) interviewed a group of Japan-born Koreans who managed to acquire a considerable command of the Korean language without attending Korean schools in Japan. Some went to South Korea to learn the language, while others managed to learn Korean in Japan. Maeda’s analysis shows that these Japan-born Koreans felt that they could not be genuine Koreans without a good command of the language. The ideology that equates nationhood with language acquisition provided the main motivation for their learning Korean. Furthermore, his interviews with those who do not have any knowledge of Korean shows that Koreans in Japan share the belief that ethnic identity is represented by language, and many of them feel ashamed at not being able to speak Korean. The discourse that nationhood is language prevails among Korean residents in Japan regardless of their Korean language competence. This ideology has been a strong motivator for those learning Korean and, at the same time, has generated not only a constant pressure on Japan-born Koreans but also a sentiment of shame.

112

Nam Sun Song

New Trends: Love and Hatred In the 1990s and the early years of the twenty-first century, the impression of South Korea held among the Japanese underwent a significant change. The Seoul Olympics in 1988 erased the image of South Korea as a military dictatorship. Joint sponsorship of the 2002 World Cup generated a sense of consensus between the younger generations of Korean and Japanese heritage. Korean pop culture became popular throughout Japan. Together, these events converged to change how South Korea is viewed in Japan. South Korea used to be discussed in relation to civil war, military conflicts, and demonstrations against the government. It is now mentioned alongside the names of famous pop singers and soccer players, new fashion trends and food from the Kangnam area of Seoul, and even the location where the main characters of TV dramas first met. The new trends have inspired many Japanese, as well as resident Koreans, to learn the Korean language. Forty-two Japanese high schools taught the Korean language in 1993, increasing to 159 in 1999, and 219 in 2003. In 2012, 318 high schools taught the Korean language. In 2003, 334 out of a total of 702 Japanese universities had Korean language courses. The number increased to 450 in 2010. There are two major Korean language proficiency tests in Japan. The first, the Korean Language Proficiency Test, is administered by the Korean Language Proficiency Association, a nongovernmental organization established by resident Koreans. It was first administered in 1993, with 2,010 candidates taking the exam. The number of test takers grew over the subsequent two decades to reach 25,189 in 2011. The other major test is the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK), sponsored by the South Korean government. The first TOPIK in Japan was taken by 298 people in 1997. The number has continued to increase, reaching 18,143 in 2012. While the Korean Wave (Hallyu) attracted many Japanese, antipathy to Korea silently grew. In the 1990s and early years of the twenty-first century, there was a rise of nationalism in Japan. Sasada points out that external threats, including the nuclear threat from North Korea and the ever-growing claims of military and economic prowess by China, enabled Japan to shift from its traditional postwar pacifism to nationalism (2006, 109). The government’s policies for a more assertive national defense capability and an uncompromising stance toward its hostile neighbors enjoyed increasing support among the Japanese public. The North Korean kidnapping of Japanese citizens and the territorial disputes with China and South Korea were the driving factors for this shift. This political climate led to a fundamental change in public opinion and nurtured negative views toward neighboring countries, especially China and Korea.

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

113

Territorial disputes, campaigns to create a new history textbook initiated by Japanese conservative intellectuals in the mid-1990s, and the visit by the prime minister of Japan to Yasukuni Shrine, which commemorates “class-A war criminals” (according to the occupation authorities after World War II), all conspired to fuel anti-Japan sentiments in South Korea and China. As the antagonism toward Japan grew in China and Korea, the Japanese in turn countered with a renewed vigor for nationalism. Numerous nationalistic messages started to appear on websites referring to the anti-Japanese demonstrations in China and South Korea. Many of these messages were xenophobic toward Koreans. The World Cup soccer tournament, jointly sponsored by South Korea and Japan, showed the bright and dark sides of Japanese sentiments toward Korea. The Japanese mainstream media conveyed only a positive picture in which the people of both nations worked together to ensure the success of the event and even provided support for each sponsor’s team. Meanwhile, Internet forums were full of anonymous messages condemning the “unfair” play of the South Korean team and unbridled bias of its supporters. Love of and hatred toward Korea coexisted, but the pendulum was swinging toward the latter. It did not take long before Japanese antagonism toward Korea was directed to resident Koreans. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the vitriol on the Internet spilled onto the streets. Demonstrations by ­ultra-right-wing activists using hate speech and intimidation were repeated in the central Tokyo neighborhood of Shin-Okubo, which had become a symbol of Korean pop culture in Japan. The demonstrators waved Japanese flags and carried signs that read “Roaches” and “Go back to Korea.” They shouted in unison, “Let’s kill Koreans.” The hate speech rallies in Shin-Okubo were followed by a series of rallies in Tsuruhashi, where the largest Korean community in Osaka is located, and the rallies spread to small municipalities around the country. One of the main organizers of the campaigns is a group called Zainichi tokken o yurusanai shimin no kai (Group of citizens who do not tolerate privileges for ethnic Korean residents in Japan), which was formed in 2007. It should be noted that the group held its first anti-Korean rally in 2009, attacking the Kyoto Chosen Dai-ichi Primary School, one of the Korean primary schools sponsored by Chongryun. In 2010, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination urged Japan to adopt a law to ban hate speech. The government of Japan responded only by citing a possible conflict with the freedom of expression guaranteed by its constitution. Surveys conducted by the Japanese Cabinet Office clearly indicate that Japanese sentiments toward Korea changed during the second decade of the twenty-first century. From 1999, when the first survey was conducted, through 2004, the percentage of Japanese saying that they feel friendship

114

Nam Sun Song

toward South Korea was less than those who said they do not. The percentage of those holding a positive or a negative perspective reversed in 2005. The percentage of those with a favorable attitude toward South Korea continued to rise until 2010, when it hit 61.8%. However, the percentage of people holding a positive or negative attitude reversed again in the following year, and in 2012 only 39.2% held a positive perspective while 59% held a negative perspective. The number of people who took the Korean Language Proficiency Test, which had only increased from 2006 to 2011, showed a decline over two consecutive years: from 25,189 in 2011 to 25,025 in 2012, and then to 22,776 in 2013. The number of candidates taking the Test of Proficiency in Korean had consistently increased over the years and achieved the largest number of candidates in 2012, but this exam suffered a similar decline in numbers, dropping to 17,905 in 2013 and then 16,546 in 2014. Korean communities in Japan have also experienced important changes. Third- and fourth-generation Koreans are less interested in the power politics in their homelands and within their local Korean communities. Instead, they focus on improving their status in Japan by attempting to obtain citizenship rights. More Koreans, including those affiliated with Chongryun, take their ethnic identity as only one part of their own individual identity. They do not want to delimit their communities in terms of the language anymore. They seem to be more interested in learning how to integrate their complex identities, including their ethnic background, rather than deciding where they belong. For more than half a century, Korean residents in Japan have been pressured by the strong nationalism that exists in Japan, South Korea, and North Korea. Their loyalty to a state has been tested by means of nationality. They have also been tested as to their entitlement to membership in a community by means of language acquisition. This paradigm remains unchanged. However, Koreans in Japan seem to have become more flexible and have been coping carefully with the black-white dichotomy imposed by the surrounding nations. As mentioned earlier, the Korean language in Japan has functioned mainly as a language used within the community, a tool to express solidarity, to confirm one’s identity and belonging, and to demonstrate one’s adherence to the Korean community and the homeland. Koreans in Japan learned the Korean language to preserve their ethnic identity. As Korean newcomers to Japan increase, resident Koreans have more contact with native Koreans, and they become more exposed to the popular culture of South Korea. This changes the function of the Korean language used by Koreans residing in Japan. More resident Koreans are learning Korean for their jobs, for a better education, and for fulfilling their own cultural interests,

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

115

which goes well beyond using the Korean language as a community language. It would be most desirable if these new trends converged to make the Korean language a language for the future of Koreans living in Japan. References Aoki, Eriko. 2000. “Korean Children, Textbooks and Educational Practices in Japanese Primary School.” In Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, ed. Sonia Ryang, 157–174. London: Routledge. Chen Pei Feng. 2005. “Taiwan ni okeru hutatsuno kokugo doka seisaku: Kindaika · minzokuka · Taiwanka” [Two policies for national language assimilation in Taiwan: Modernization, nationalization, Taiwanization]. In Datsu teikoku to tagengo shakai no yukue · Ajia · Afurika no gengo mondai o kangaeru— [The future of de-imperialism—A study of language issues in Africa and Asia], ed. Hara Kiyoshi, 41–64. Tokyo: Sangensha. Chung Daekyun. 2001. Zainichi kankokujin no syuen [The end of Koreans in Japan]. Tokyo: Bungeishunju. Cobban, Alfred. 1970. The Nation-State and National Self Determination. New York: Crowell. Coulmas, Florian. 1999. “The Far East.” In Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, ed. Joshua A. Fishman, 399–412. New York: Oxford University Press. Endo Masataka. 2013. Koseki to kokuseki no kingendaishi—Minzoku ketto Nihonjin [Modern history of the family register and nationality— Nation, lineage, Japanese nationals]. Tokyo: Akashi shoten. Erikson, Erik H. 1968. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton. Fishman, Joshua A., ed. 1999. Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. New York: Oxford University Press. Fought, Carmen. 2006. Language and Ethnicity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fujii Konosuke. 1999. “Tagengo shakai Nippon, Chosengo” [Japan, a multilingual society]. In Kotoba to shakai [Language and societies], vol. 1, pp. 136–142. Tokyo: Sangensha. ———. 2005. “Kankoku · Chosenjin” [Hangugin · Cyosenin]. In Jiten: Nihon no tagengo shakai [Dictionary: Multilingual societies in Japan], ed. Sanada Shinji and Hiroshi Shoji, 178–182. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Fukuoka Yasunori. 1993. Zainichi kankoku · Chosenjin: Wakai sedai no aidenteitei [Hangugin and Cyosenin: The identities of new generations]. Tokyo: Chyuo koron shinsha. Harajiri Hideki. 1998. “Zainichi” toshiteno Korian [Koreans called Zainichi]. Tokyo: Kodansha.

116

Nam Sun Song

Hasegawa Yukiko. 2013. “Nihon no chuto kyoiku kikan ni okeru eigoigai no gaikokugo kyoiku no jitsujo—‘Eigo igaino gaikokugo kyoiku no jitsujo chosa’ kekka bunseki” [Situations of foreign language teaching except English at secondary education: A survey of situations of foreign language teaching except English and the analysis of its results]. In Kyusyusangyo daigaku kokusai bunka gakubu kiyo [Bulletin of the Department of International Culture of Kyushu Industrial University], vol. 55, pp. 113–139. Hayao Takanori. 2007. “Nise Nihonjin to nise Yudayajin, soshite honraiteki kokumin” [False Japanese, false Jews, and authentic nationals]. Gendai shiso [Modern thought] (June): 196–210. Hayes, Carol. 2000. “Cultural Identity in the Work of Yi Yang-ji.” In Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, ed. Sonia Ryang, 119–139. London: Routledge. Helbig, Gerhard. 1970. Geschichte der neueren Sprachwissenschaft— Unterer neueren Sprachwissenschaft—Unter dem besonderen Aspekt der Grammatiktheortie [History of modern linguistics]. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut. Hester, Jeffry T. 2000. “Kids between Nations: Ethnic Classes in the Construction of Korean Identities in Japanese Public Schools.” In Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, ed. Sonia Ryang, 175–196. London: Routledge. Higuchi Naoto. 2014. Nihongata haigaishugi—Zaitokukai, gaikokujin sanseiken, higashi Ajia chiseigaku [Japanese-style antiforeignism— Zaitokukai, the rights of foreigners to vote, and East Asian geopolitics]. Nagoya: Nagoya daigaku shuppankai. Humbolt, Wilhelm v. 1910. Über das vergleichende Sprachstrudium in Beziehung auf die verschiedenen Epochen der Sprachentwicklung [Comparative language studies in relation to the different epochs of language development]. Leipzig: Meiner. Inokuchi Hiromitsu. 2000. “Korean Ethnic Schools in Occupied Japan, 1945–52.” In Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, ed. Sonia Ryang, 140–156. London: Routledge. Iwabuchi, Kouichi. 2000. “Political Correctness, Postcoloniality, and the Self-Representation of ‘Koreanness’ in Japan.” In Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, ed. Sonia Ryang, 55–73. London: Routledge. Kashiwazaki, Chikako. 2000. “The Politics of Legal Status: The Equation of Nationality with Ethnonational Identity.” In Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, ed. Sonia Ryang, 13–31. London: Routledge.

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

117

Kim Dong Hak. 2006. “Zainichi Chosenjin no hoteki ichi · shakaiteki shomondai” [The legal status of Cosenin in Japan and the related social issues]. In Zainichi Chosenjin no rekishi to bunka [The history and culture of Cosenin in Japan], ed. Pak Chung Myung, 139–209. Tokyo: Akahi shoten. Kim Dong-Ryong. 1991. “Zainichi Chosenjin shijo no bairingarizum” [Bilingualism of children of Cosenin in Japan]. In Nihon no bairingarizumu [Bilingualism in Japan], ed. John C. Maha and Yashiro Kyoko, 125–148. Tokyo: Kenkyushya shuppan. ———. 2002. Chosen gakko no sengoshi, 1945–1972 [The postwar history of Korean schools, 1945–1972]. Tokyo: Shakai hyoronsha. Kim Hasoo. 2005. “Ceykwukcwuuy wa hankwuke mwuncey— Ceykwukcwuuy ka hankwuk enehak ey michin yenghyang ul cwungsim ulo” [Imperialism and Korean language issues—Focusing on the influence of imperialism on Korean linguistics]. In Ene Ceykwukcwuuy lan muesinka? [What is linguistic imperialism?], ed. Kasuya Keisuke and Miura Nobutaka, 479–511. Seoul: Tolpeyki. Kim Il Sung. 1982. “Cosene lul palcen sikhiki wihan myetkaci mwuncey” [Some issues on developing the Joseon language]. Kim Il Sung cecakcip [Kim Il Sung collection] 20. Pyongyang: Cosennotongtang chulphansa. Kim Irina. 1994. “Chosen soren no Chosengo kyoiku—Komyunitei saiseisan no tekunorojii” [Korean language education by the General Association of Koreans in Japan—Technology for community reproduction]. In Atarashii nihonkan · sekaikan ni mukatte [Towards a new view of Japan and the world], ed. John C. Maha and Nobuyuki Honna, 182–199. Tokyo: Kokusai shoin. Kim Jong Il. 1994. “Cosene uy Cwucheycek palcen uy kilul palkhin kangryengcek cichim” [Lecture guide showing the way to independent development of the Joseon language]. In Cosen emun [Joseon language and literature], vol. 1. Pyongyang: Kwahak paekhwuasajen conghap chwulphansa. Kim Kwang Hae. 1995. “Comang—Kwuke ey taehan ilpene uy kansep” [View-interference of the Japanese language on the Korean language]. In Say kwuke saynghwual [National Korean language life], vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 3–26. Seoul: Kwuklip kwuke yenkwuwen. Kim Kwang Yul. 2005. “Kankoku shakai ni okeru Zainichi Korian zo” [Images of Koreans in Japan in South Korean society]. In Rekishi no nakano [Zainichi] [Zainichi in history], ed. Fujiwara shoten henshyubu, 246–263. Tokyo: Fujiwara shoten. Kim Misun. 2003. “Majiriau kotoba—Zainichi Korian issei no kyoyu kodo ni tsuite” [Mixing languages—Shared code of the first

118

Nam Sun Song

generation of Koreans in Japan]. Gekkan gengo [Monthly journal of language] 32 (6): 46–52. ———. 2005a. “Gengo keikan ni mieru Zainichi Korian no gengo shiyo—Shinraisha no tojyo ga motarashita mono” [Language use of Koreans in Japan manifest in linguistic landscapes—What newcomers brought in]. In Zainichi Korian no gengoso [Linguistic aspects of Koreans in Japan], ed. Sanada Shinji, Ogoshi Naoki, and Yim Yeong Cheol, 195–224. Tokyo: Izumi shoin. ———. 2005b. “Zainichi kankoku · Chosenjin no gengo shiyo” [The language use by Hangugin and Cyosenin in Japan]. In Jiten: Nihon no tagengo shakai [Dictionary: Multilingual societies in Japan], ed. Sanada Shinji and Shoji Hiroshi, 213–218. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Kimura Motohiko, Sono Shion, and Yasuda Koichi. 2013. Nashonarizumu no yuwaku [Temptation of nationalism]. Tokyo: Korokara. Kohn, Hans. 1945. The Idea of Nationalism. New York: Macmillan. Kumatani Akiyasu. 1997. “Chosengo nashonarizumu to Nihongo” [Nationalism of the Korean and Japanese languages]. In Gengo · kokka · soshite kenryoku [Languages, states, and power], ed. Tanaka Katuhiko, Yamawaki Naoshi, and Kasuya Keisuke, 164–193. Tokyo: Sinseisha. Kwon Yin Sup. 2006. “Zainichi Chosenjin shakai no keisei” [The making of Cosenin communities in Japan]. In Zainichi Chosenjin no rekishi to bunka [The history and culture of Cosenin in Japan], ed. Pak Chung Myung, 89–121. Tokyo: Akashi shoten. Lee Wul Soon. 2006. “Zainichi Chosenjin no minzoku kyoiku to Zainichi Chosenjin kyoiku” [Ethnic education for Cosenin in Japan and education for Cosenin in Japan]. In Zainichi Chosenjin no rekishi to bunka [The history and culture of Cosenin in Japan], ed. Pak Chung Myung, 211–249. Tokyo: Akashi shoten. Maeda Tadahiko. 2005. “Kankokukei minzoku gako no jirei—Hakuto gakuin kenkoku you · shyo · chyu · koto gakko no baai—” [A case study of a pro–South Korean ethnic school—Its kindergarten, primary, junior high, and high school]. In Zainichi Korian no gengosō [The linguistic aspect of Koreans in Japan], ed. Sanada Sinji, Ogoshi Noaki, and Yim Yeong Cheol, 227–269. Tokyo: Izumi shoin. Maeda Tatsuro. 2005. “Zainichi no gengo ishiki—Esunishitei to gengo” [Linguistic consciousness of Koreans in Japan—Their ethnicity and languages]. In Zainichi Korian no gengosō [The linguistic aspect of Koreans in Japan], ed. Sanada Sinji, Ogoshi Naoki, and Yim Yeong Cheol, 87–114. Tokyo: Izumi shoin. Maha, John C., and Yumiko Kawanishi. 1994. “Nihon ni okeru Korian iji jyokyo” [The maintenance of Korean language use in Japan]. In

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

119

Atarashii Nihonkan · sekaikan ni mukatte [Toward a new view of Japan and the world], ed. John C. Maha and Honda Nobuyuki, 165–181. Tokyo: Kokusai shoin. Miura Nobutaka. 2000. “Shokuminchi jidai to posuto shokuminchi jidai no gengo shihai—Gengo teikokushugi o hakken genri toshite” [Language controls in the colonial period and the postcolonial period—Linguistic imperialism as a principle for hegemony]. In Gengo teikokushugi towa nanika? [What is linguistic imperialism?], ed. Miura Nobutaka and Kasuya Keisuke, 6–24. Tokyo: Fujiwara shoten. Miyawaki Hiroyuki. 2005. “Gaikokujin gakko” [Schools for foreigners]. In Jiten: Nihon no tagengo shakai [Dictionary: Multilingual societies in Japan], ed. Sanada Shinji and Shoji Hiroshi, 128–131. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Morita Yasuo. 1968. “Senzen ni okeru Zainichi Chosenjin no jinkotokei” [Prewar population statistics of Koreans in Japan]. Chosen gakuho [Korean gazette] 48: 63–77. Nishikawa Nagao. 1995. Chikyu jidai no minzoku bunka riron: Datsu kokumin bunka no tameni [Nations in the global era—Seeking cultural theories, de-nationalized cultures]. Tokyo: Shinyosha. Nishimura Hideki. 2004. “Hanshin kyoiku toso to Suita jiken—Dainiji taisen go no Zainichi Chosenjin” [Hanshin educational struggles and the Suita case—Cosenin after World War II]. In Zainichi Chosenjin wa naze kikoku shitanoka: Zainichi to kita Chosen 50 nen [Why did Koreans in Japan repatriate? Fifty years for Koreans in Japan and North Korea], ed. Tohoku ajia mondai kenkyusho, 18–48. Tokyo: Gendaijin bunsha. Nishinarita Yutaka. 1997. Zainichi Chosenjin no sekai to teikoku kokka [The Cosenin community in Japan and an imperialist state]. Tokyo: Tokyo daigaku shuppankai. Ogoshi Naoki. 2005. “Zainichi Korian no gengo shiyo ishiki to sono henka—Aru minzoku gako deno ankēto chosa kekka kara” [Consciousness of language use by Koreans in Japan and the changes—Based on a survey at an ethnic school]. In Zainichi Korian no gengosō [The linguistic aspect of Koreans in Japan], ed. Sanada Sinji, Ogoshi Naoki, and Yim Yeong Cheol, 11–52. Tokyo: Izumi shoin. Ōnuma Yasuaki. 1980. “Zainichi Chosenjin no hoteki chii ni kansuru ichi kousatsu” [A study of the legal status of Cosenin in Japan]. Hōgaku kyōkai zasshi [Journal of the Jurisprudence Society] 4 (February): 192–269. Ōnuma Yasuaki and So Yungdal, eds. 1986. Zainichi kankoku · Chōsenjin to jinken [Hangugin and Cosenin in Japan and their human rights]. Tokyo: Yuhikaku.

120

Nam Sun Song

Pak Sam Suk. 1997. Nihon no nakano Chosen gakko—21 seiki ni habataku—. [Korean schools in Japan—Flying toward the twenty-first century]. Tokyo: Chosen seinensha. Ryang, Sonia. 1997. North Koreans in Japan: Language, Ideology, and Identity. Boulder, CO: Westview. ———. 2000. “Introduction” and “The North Korean Homeland of Koreans in Japan.” In Koreans in Japan: Critical Voices from the Margin, ed. Sonia Ryang, 1–12 and 32–54. London: Routledge. Safran, William. 1999. “Nationalism.” In Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, ed. Joshua A. Fishman, 77–93. New York: Oxford University Press. Sasada, Hironori. 2006. “Youth and Nationalism in Japan.” SAIS Review 26 (2): 109–122. Shin Chang Soo. 2005. “Minzoku kyoiku no rekishi to chosen gakko ni okeru chosengo kyoiku” [The history of ethnic education and Korean language education at Korean schools]. In Zainichi Korian no gengosō [Linguistic aspects of Koreans in Japan], ed. Sanada Sinji, Ogoshi Naoki, and Yim Yeong Cheol, 271–297. Tokyo: Izumi shoin. Song Nam Sun. 2012. “Minzokcywuuy wua cayil kyopho” [Nationalism and Koreans in Japan]. Kwukcey koryehak [International journal of Korean studies] 14: 11–30. Song Yungja. 2005. “Gaikokujin minzoku kyoiku” [Ethnic education for foreigners]. In Jiten: Nihon no tagengo shakai [Dictionary: Multilingual societies in Japan], ed. Shinji Sanada and Hiroshi Shyouji, 131–134. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Takeguchi Tomoyuki. 2009. “Keisho gakushu o sokusinsuru yoin ha nanika” [What are the factors that promote heritage language learning?]. Japan Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 15 (1): 53–79. Ueda Kazutoshi. 1895. “Kokugo to kokka to” [The national language and the state]. Toyo tetsugaku [Oriental philosophy] 1:11–12. Ueda Koji. 2001. “[Chosen sorengo] no kisoteki kenkyu” [A basic study of the General Association of Koreans in Japan]. In Tadashisa heno toi: Hihanteki shakai gengogaku no kokoromi [A question of righteousness— An exploration for critical sociolinguistics], ed. Noro Kayoko and Yamashita Hitoshi, 111–147. Tokyo: Sangensha. Yamawaki Keizo. 2005. “Nihon no gaikokujin” [Aliens in Japan]. In Jiten: Nihon no tagengo shakai [Dictionary: Multilingual societies in Japan], ed. Sanada Shinji and Shyoji Hiroshi, 41–44. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten. Yasuda Koichi, Iwata Atsushi, Furuya Tsunehira, and Mori Takahisa. 2013. Heito supiichi to netto uyoku—Seneikasuru zaitokukai [Hate speech

The Social Implications of Korean Language Education in Japan

121

and the right wing on the Internet—Radicalized Zaitokukai). Tokyo: Okura shuppan. Yasuda Toshiaki. 2000. “Teikoku Nihon no gengo hensei—Shokumin­ chiki Chyosen · Manshykoku · Daitowakyoeiken” [Linguistic formation of Imperial Japan—Colonial Korea, Manchukuo, and the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere]. In Gengo teikokushugi towa nanika? [What is linguistic imperialism? ], ed. Miura Nobutaka and Kasuya Keisuke, 66–83. Tokyo: Fujiwara shoten. Yim Yeong Cheol. 2005. “Zaigai Kankokujin no gengo seikatsu” [Language life of overseas Koreans]. In Zainichi Korian no gengoso [Linguistic aspects of Koreans in Japan], ed. Sanada Shinji, Ogoshi Noaki, and Yim Yeong Cheol, 53–86. Tokyo: Izumi shoin.

FIVE

The Perishing Language of Diaspora: The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

GERMAN KIM Foreword The language of the Korean diaspora in Kazakhstan is radically different from the literary languages of South and North Korea. During the more than 140-year-long residence of Koreans in the predominantly Russian-­ language environment there appeared Koryomal—the language of the ­Korean diaspora based on two patois of the North Hamgyong Province dialect. Korean settlers moved to the Russian Primor’ye (Maritime region) mostly from Hamgyong Province, which borders Russia’s Yuzno-­ Yssuriiskiy krai; therefore, the language they spoke was a dialect used in everyday life. At the same time, from the prerevolutionary period until the collapse of the Soviet Union, a version of the Korean language close to the North Korean standard language was taught in schools and universities. After the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Republic of ­Korea and post-Soviet states, and the development of economic and cultural trade along with educational ties, the North Korean variant gave place to the South Korean literary language. Today, in all schools and universities of K ­ azakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Russia, the Seoul standard language is taught; textbooks and dictionaries compiled in South Korea are used, and teachers are native speakers delegated from the Republic of Korea. Koryomal has attracted the attention of a number of linguists in the Soviet Union, post-Soviet states, and abroad; however, it has not been studied properly or comprehensively so far. Certain aspects of Koryomal are described in the works of O. M. Kim, R. P. King, Kho Song Moo, Kwak Chung Gu, and N. S. Pak, who used in their research written sources published in Korean and Russian at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, as well as recordings of Yukchin and Myenchon-Kilchu dialect speakers (O. M. Kim 1962, 87–93; Kho 1987, 262; King 1987, 223–277; N. S. Pak 2005, 303).

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

123

For a number of years, Ross King researched Korean dialects, especially those of the northern provinces from which most of the ancestors of Soviet Koreans had come. In King’s opinion, the archaic and dialectal elements of phonology, morphology, and lexis of the Korean language are most clearly observed and widely preserved in the speech of Koryo saram.1 This is a legacy of the long isolation of the inhabitants of the northern Korean provinces and the subsequent isolation of the Korean settlers in Russia from the influences of the standard literary Korean language under development. King’s research is based on a wealth of oral materials collected over the course of several periods of fieldwork among Koryo saram and extensive knowledge of prerevolutionary Russian sources on the Korean language. The ethno- and sociolinguistic processes among Soviet Koreans have become the subject of a special body of studies. H. Haarmann, a wellknown sociolinguist and the author of more than a dozen books on bilingual problems in multiethnic nations, subjected data from a 1970 census to computer analysis and observed aspects of Korean-Russian bilingualism. Haarmann’s book has three chapters, which address in turn the general conditions for polyglotism among the Koreans in the Soviet Union, the bilingual and polyglot communicative structures of the Koreans, and the typical features of the language behavior of the Korean settlers. Unfortunately, Haarmann did not use census data from 1959 or 1979, which denied him the opportunity to observe bilingual processes of Soviet Koreans and dynamics for that twenty-year period (1981). The functioning of minority languages, Russian-Korean bilingualism, and the problems of linguistic assimilation of Soviet Koreans are of great interest to South Korean Slavicist Hur Seung-chul, I. Yugay from Tashkent, and G. Kim and S. Son in Almaty (Yugai 1979; Hur 1988b; Son 1999; G. N. Kim 2003, 110–146). Based primarily on the data of the Soviet National Census of Population (1970, 1979, 1989), changes in the Russian-Korean language ability of Koreans in the USSR were described by age group, sex, and geographical distribution in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Statistically and by results of surveys among Soviet Koreans, the acceleration of native language shift from Korean to Russian in the period from the early 1970s to the late 1980s was clearly demonstrated. Practical issues related to teaching the Korean language—curriculum development, textbook and dictionary writing, and teacher training, among others—have been covered in numerous academic papers, articles in journals and newspapers, and collections of presentations at scientific conferences, as well as in books and dissertations. The authors of these studies 1 

In the past, the term “Soviet Koreans” was used to refer to all Koreans living in the USSR, but today the term and self-appellation Koryo saram has become preferred.

124

German Kim

are mostly Korean language teachers, linguists, journalists, and leaders of the Korean diasporas in post-Soviet states, including Kazakhstan. The aim of this chapter is to analyze the issues related to Korean language teaching and preservation of the diasporic language Koryomal among the Koreans of Kazakhstan. I will examine the main stages of the history of Korean language teaching, its basic content, how the Korean language functioned after its deportation from the Far East to Central Asia, and prospects for the preservation and development of the native language among members of the Korean diaspora in present-day Kazakhstan. Outlines of Korean Diasporic History in Russia and the Soviet Union During the decline of the Choson dynasty (1392–1910), Korea was unprepared to enter the era of capitalism. For nearly a century, Western and Japanese colonial claims aggravated its protracted political, social, and economic crises. In 1905, Japan, after its victory over Russia in the RussoJapanese War, declared the Korean Peninsula its protectorate, annexing the country five years later. Subsequently, mass impoverishment and starvation among Korean peasants compelled many to flee the peninsula (G. N. Kim 2003–2004, 14–19). The first Korean immigrants appeared in the Russian Far East during the late 1850s and early 1860s. The Russian administration used these Koreans to populate and develop this territory. In the 1880s and 1890s, the Koreans received the right to register as citizens of the Russian empire under the terms of a Russo-Korean treaty determining their status. The number of Korean immigrants to the area grew by the thousands, with many taking the sea route from Pusan to Vladivostok and others the overland route across the Tumen River. Koreans initially lived in separate villages, and their daily life, social relations, ethnic culture, and language were almost the same as in Korea. The October Revolution of 1917 united workers of all ethnic groups with its slogans of justice, freedom, and equal rights. Koreans largely supported the Soviet cause, with hundreds sacrificing their lives in World War II, believing this would help lead to the liberation of Korea. By the 1930s, the Koreans of the Soviet Far East had established their own identity, culture, and traditions. There were hundreds of Korean agricultural and fishing kolkhozes (collective farms); Koreans were actively involved in government and social organizations; traditional culture was maintained and developed; the Korean intelligentsia grew numerically and qualitatively; and Korean theaters and other educational and cultural institutions were established. In the Soviet Far East there were hundreds of Korean schools and other educational establishments that used the Korean language for instruction. Newspapers and magazines were published in

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

125

Korean, and there was a Korean theater and numerous amateurs’ groups. The Korean language functioned in many spheres of life: it was used by the community, families, and in the everyday communication of the compactly residing Koreans. Koreans were Sovietized and integrated into the new political and socioeconomic system. The Koreans were one of the first Soviet ethnic minorities to be deported. Top secret order no. 1428–326cc of the Soviet government and Communist Party, “On the Deportation of the Korean Population of the Far East,” dated August 21, 1937, and signed by Molotov and Stalin, was a logical continuation of earlier Tsarist and Soviet policies relating to national minority populations. Following deportation, the Koreans from the Russian Far East settled in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, establishing new lives and contributing to the development of agriculture in these places. Shortly after the arrival of the deported Koreans in Kazakhstan, the Central Committee of the Communist Party (CCCP) released the resolution “On the Reorganization of Ethnic Minority Schools” (24.01.1938), which was duplicated by the resolution of the CCCP of Kazakhstan under the same title on April 8, 1938. It read: The Central Committee of the Communist Party considers it to be well established that some bourgeois nationalists have actively operated in the organs of people’s education of Kazakhstan and created special national schools (German, Bulgarian, Korean, Uyghur, and others) and transformed them into sources of bourgeois-nationalistic, anti-Soviet influence on the children. It was extremely harmful for the cause of proper training and education, it separated our children from the Soviet life, and deprived them of the possibility to get closer to the Soviet culture and science, and put obstacles in their way to further education in colleges and higher educational establishments.

The directives of the party were to be realized, and on April 13, 1938, the government of Kazakhstan adopted resolution no. 353, “On the Reorganization of Ethnic Minority Schools,” which became the guidelines for the Narkompros.2 The so-called “reorganization” consisted of an actual liquidation of the whole system of education in the languages of minorities built during the years of Soviet power and, above all, the school system of education (TSGA, f. 1692, op. 1, d. 137, pp. 5–7). A total of 377 minority schools at all levels were reorganized, including 118 Korean schools (TSGA, f. 1692, op. 1, d. 128, pp. 29–30). In the rural areas where mostly or exclusively 2  The Narkompros, the People’s Commissariat of Education, was the Soviet agency charged with the administration of public education and other issues related to culture. In 1946, it was transformed into the Ministry of Education.

126

German Kim

Koreans lived, the native language became just one of the subjects taught at schools (GAKO, f. 283, op. 1, d. 5, p. 3). Because of the reorganization of Korean schools into ordinary schools, the Korean Pedagogical College in Kazalinsk started to work on the basis of the curricula for ordinary Soviet pedagogical colleges, using the Russian or Kazakh languages for instruction (TSGA, f. 1692, op. 1, d. 128, pp. 32–33). Korean Language Education, 1930s–1950s Among the many burning problems that faced educational institutions from the 1930s to the 1950s, the most complicated issue was the lack of teachers. Research into the certification of teachers at schools with Korean students revealed that a considerable number of the teachers lacked adequate qualification. This resulted from the lack of qualified teachers. In accordance with a resolution of the CCCP and Sovnarkom,3 the Narkompros of the Republic and the government of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR), based on the report “On Cultural and Everyday Service of the Korean Population of the Republic,” began the admission of Korean students to the pedagogical colleges and higher educational establishments. In the 1938–1939 academic year, there were 2,580 students of different nationalities in eleven higher educational institutions in the Kazakh SSR, including 385 Koreans (14.9%; TSGA, f. 1692, op. 1, d. 1166, pp. 14, 16). On May 4, 1938, the Sovnarkom of the Kazakh SSR adopted resolution no. 4–23, which approved the plan to construct a Korean Pedagogical Institute in Kzyl-Orda. However, the Korean Pedagogical Institute shared the fate of the Korean schools and the pedagogical college, which began using the Russian language for instruction. Besides, in the autumn of 1937, when Koreans arrived in Kazakhstan, the number of students at the institute was cut due to lack of financing from 830 to 500 (AP RK, f. 708, op. 1, d. 45, p. 10). In the 1938–1939 academic year, the Korean Pedagogical Institute started to use Russian as the language of instruction, though during the next ten years the majority of students and teachers were Koreans. A separate issue that remained acute throughout the history of Korean education was the lack or poor quality of school textbooks and literature in the Korean language. Shortly before the deportation, several dozen basic school textbooks were translated into Korean. Large numbers of sociopolitical books, brochures, and works of classic literature were published in Korean (Sim and Kim 1998, 335–355).

3  Sovnarkom, the Council of People’s Commissars, was a government institution formed after the October Revolution in 1917. It evolved to become the highest government authority of executive power under the Soviet system.

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

127

Although the deported Koreans left behind many necessary and valuable things, some brought textbooks and other books to Kazakhstan with the hope that their children would be able to use them in the future. On December 27, 1939, the Bureau of the CCCP adopted a special resolution “On Korean Literature” that stated: “To allow all book-selling organizations to write off for recycling all textbooks in Korean and the literature, the content of which is not fit for the conditions of Kazakhstan and is outof-date.” According to the resolution, the Glavlit4 of the Kazakh SSR—the main organ of censorship for all published materials—was to “withdraw from the bookselling network and libraries the books in Korean which are politically incorrect and the authors of which are enemies of the people” (AP RK, f. 708, op. 31, d. 147, pp. 255–256). Thus, all educational literature in Korean was slated to be recycled and liquidated, including 120,052 copies of textbooks of 134 titles on all subjects, of which 17,325 were Korean language textbooks for different levels of learning. A large number of Korean books, including rare historical books, were destroyed in the libraries of the Kzyl-Orda Pedagogical Institute (Pak 1951, 42–44). Many Koreans who had been repressed before and during the bitter time of deportation destroyed Korean books in their home libraries themselves, as even the mere act of keeping such books at home was grounds for imprisonment. During the 1937–1938 academic year, the first after deportation, the Korean settlement schools in Kazakhstan operated on the basis of the curriculum for national schools approved by the Narkompros of the Russian Soviet Federation of Socialist Republics. However, taking into account some specific features of the academic work, cultural and everyday peculiarities, and ethnic culture of the Korean population, the Narkompros of the Kazakh SSR introduced partial changes to the curriculum. The essence of the changes was to begin teaching the Russian language to Korean students from the second grade through the tenth grade. There were more Russian classes there than in other minority schools: six classes per week for the second through sixth grades; four classes per week for the seventh grade, and two classes per week for the eighth through tenth grades. Correspondingly, the number of classes teaching the native language was reduced. In the 1930s and 1940s, Korean as a subject called “the native language” was taught at nearly all schools with a considerable number of Korean students. During that period, the teaching of Korean was possible due to such favorable conditions as the compact settlement of the rural Korean population and the availability of teachers, textbooks, and other literature 4 

Glavlit, the General Directorate for the Protection of State Secrets in the Press of the USSR, was the official censorship and state-secret protection organ in the Soviet Union.

128

German Kim

in Korean (Kim and Men 1995, 212–213). However, the situation was aggravated in the mid-1950s when Korean language classes gradually started to disappear from the schools of Kazakhstan. This was the result of many different factors. First, the Soviet policy in the sphere of education, national relations, and functioning of languages was aimed at further standardization and unification. It concerned not only the socialist content but also the national form of Soviet literature, art, and people’s education. The dominance of the Russian language in all aspects of life in the Soviet Union was evident; therefore, the policy of “Russification” in education was of a voluntary-obligatory nature. It revealed itself as follows. According to the school curriculum, classes of a native language were not considered leading subjects and often were optional; there were no final exams. A good command of one’s native tongue to the detriment of the Russian language could worsen one’s prospects for obtaining further education and a professional career. Thus, neither the children nor the parents were motivated to learn the Korean language. However, some members of the Korean intelligentsia were worried about the fate of the national culture and language, and they wrote letters to Moscow and the Republican Party leadership about the necessity of making decisions on many urgent issues related to the activity of Korean kolkhozes, the newspaper Lenin kichi,5 Korean theater, and the education of Korean children. The CCCP of Kazakhstan ordered the Ministry of Education to examine the situation. The ministry admitted that children of the Korean nationality should acquire knowledge and skills in their native language and literature. However, the ministry considered introduction of the Korean language and literature in the school curriculum in addition to the existing subjects impossible because children would be overloaded with classes. Therefore, a proposal was made: to introduce Korean language classes, instead of Kazakh language classes, at schools with Korean students. On December, 26, 1953, the Secretariat of the CCCP of Kazakhstan adopted a resolution titled “On Teaching the Korean Language and Literature at Some Schools with Korean Students.” It satisfied the request of the Ministry of Education of the Kazakh SSR and enabled the introduction of Korean language and literature classes at some schools with students of Korean nationality (Sim and Kim 1998, 293–294). 5 

The newspaper Lenin kichi is one of the oldest overseas Korean newspapers. The first issue, under the name Senbong, was published in 1923 in Vladivostok. After the deportation the name of the newspaper was changed to Lenin kichi. The name was changed again in 1991, and now it is called Koryo ilbo.

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

129

One of the reasons for such voluntary-forced extinction of the native language was that from the second half of the 1940s to the mid-1950s in Kazakhstan there was a considerable decline in the number of Korean language teachers and specialists in other branches of industry, culture, health services, and elsewhere who had a good command of the language. This was partly a result of sending the most educated, professional, experienced, and loyal Korean nationals on special missions to the Sakhalin, Maritime, and Khabarovsk provinces, and to North Korea, to render assistance in constructing the new Soviet model (G. N. Kim 2000a, 215–227). Thus, the period from the end of the 1930s through the beginning of the 1950s in Kazakhstan was characterized by both great achievements and big losses. Educational development among the Korean settlers was taking place amid economic adaptation in a new land where the leading factor was the command-administrative system of management of all the processes in the Soviet state. The war against fascist Germany and the victory in it, pressing tasks of restoration of the destroyed economy, liberation of the southern Sakhalin region and Korea from the Japanese colonial regime, the death of Stalin, the revelation of his personality cult, and many other events directly influenced all aspects of the education of Koreans in Kazakhstan. School Education and Korean Language in the 1950 and 1960s Both at schools with a Korean contingent of students and at other Republican schools, universal secondary education was realized in accordance with the law of 1959 and had two stages: the first was an eight-year labor polytechnic school and the second was a full secondary education (ten grades). The formerly existing network of seven-year schools and secondary schools with Korean students and their territorial distribution made it possible for all children to study for seven years. Therefore, in order to realize the plan of transferring to the universal eight-year educational system, it was necessary to transform all seven-year schools into eight-year schools. From 1959 to 1963, seventy eight-year schools catering to Korean students were formed, enabling 85 percent of all seventh-grade graduates to continue their studies through the eighth grade by 1960, and 93 percent by the 1961–1962 academic year. By 1961 all seven-year schools had been transformed into eight-year schools. In the republic, there were thirty elementary schools, seventy eight-year schools, and twenty-five secondary schools—for a total of 125 schools with 17,544 students. By 1964–1965 the total number of students at all kinds of schools had reached 18,249 (O. M. Kim 1962, 90; Han 1981, 15).

130

German Kim

One of the most important and complicated issues in the sphere of education is choosing the language of instruction. Starting in the second half of the 1950s, the fate of the Korean language in the Soviet Union became extremely acute. It was then that in Kazakhstan an accelerated loss of the native language occurred, determined by a number of objective as well as subjective factors. One of the objective reasons was the lessening of the level of compact residence of Koreans in the rural areas. In such rural areas in the schools and classes with the predominant share of Korean pupils, the so-called “native language” was taught as an academic subject. The paradox is that if we approach the issue of compact living from a geographical or space-­ territorial point of view, then the level of concentration of the Korean population had not been reduced; on the contrary, it increased. The rural population used to live in numerous regions and villages located dozens or hundreds of kilometers from one another, and the urban diaspora settled within the limits of a single town. The most significant factor was a subjective one, which was reflected in the policy pursued by the party and government and aimed at “socialist nations getting closer,” that is, strengthening the role of the Russian language as the language of interethnic communication. After the death of “the Father of Nations” (Stalin) and the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party, which condemned the personality cult, came a short period of “Khrushchev’s Thaw,” when the first attempts to become free from the totalitarian regime were made. The rights of the deported peoples unfoundedly accused of foreign espionage and treachery were partially restored. Peoples of the Caucasus were allowed to return to their native lands. Creative and scientific intelligentsia—including writers, poets, actors, artists, journalists, and humanitarian scholars—took advantage of the short-term, relative freedom and created new works free from orthodox, ideologically correct content. Some representatives of the Korean intelligentsia began to realize their responsibility and found the courage to address a request to the central government to rehabilitate the Koreans politically and legally in order to improve social and cultural conditions of the Korean diaspora. The editorial board of the newspaper Lenin kichi and the Korean theater wrote the first requests to the CCCP and ministries for materials, financial assistance, or both. The active position of the representatives of the Korean intelligentsia could not fail to attract the attention of the party-government leadership in Moscow and the republic. On May 20, 1958, the Bureau of the CCCP of Kazakhstan adopted the resolution “On Strengthening Mass-Political and Cultural-Educational Work among the Korean Population of the Republic”

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

131

(Kim and Men 1995, 304, 313–314, 321). The resolution concerned the KzylOrda, Taldy-Kurgan, South Kazakhstan, Dzhambul, and Alma-Ata oblasts’ party committees, which in May and June 1958 held party meetings to discuss the plan for realization of the May 20 resolution (Kim and Men 1995, 304, 313–314, 321). In the previously mentioned oblasts, the party organizations were to organize and strengthen the mass-political and cultural-educational work among the Korean population in their native language. In the places of high concentration of the Korean population, they also envisaged introducing Korean language for the children of the Korean nationality at schools from the 1958–1959 academic year. Thus, from the end of the 1950s through the middle of the 1960s, there was a campaign directed at strengthening the culture and language of the Soviet Koreans. However, the most important demands in the letters and appeals of the Korean intelligentsia—formation of a national-cultural or territorial autonomy and creation of Korean cultural centers—were not satisfied. The events held were of a temporary character and mainly concerned insignificant, secondary aspects of the sociocultural development of the Korean population. One of the most considerable outcomes of the initiatives undertaken by some representatives of the Korean diaspora was drawing attention to the problems of teaching the native language. At schools in rural areas, where Koreans lived compactly and there were a considerable number of Korean students, the Korean language and literature were reintroduced into the curriculum as separate subjects. However, the whole process looked like a short-term campaign characterized by lack of responsibility by the officials in the sphere of education; lack of qualified teachers with a good command of Russian and Korean and of the methods of teaching languages; and poor quality of curricula, textbooks, and dictionaries. Thus, it was not possible to radically improve the situation with teaching Korean at schools. However, certain changes had taken place. During 1959–1966 in the Kzyl-Orda Oblast, 142 Korean language groups were reopened in the second through eighth grades, for 2,389 students. At schools of Alma-Ata Oblast in the first half of 1960, there were 109 Korean language groups with 2,284 students. The Korean language was also taught at several schools of the Chimkent and Dzhambul oblasts. At the schools of Kzyl-Orda Oblast there were enough qualified teachers of the Korean language. Of fourteen total teachers, three had degrees in higher education, two had some higher education, and nine had secondary specialized pedagogical education (GAAO, f. 127, op. 1, d. 408, p. 78). Originally, the second through fourth grades used the ABC book compiled by Kim Pen Hwa and the grammar of the Korean language for the third grade written by Kim Pen Hwa and Hwan Yun Din. In the higher

132

German Kim

grades, textbooks and readers published at the beginning of the 1950s were used. At the end of the 1950s, several new books for reading in Korean were published, as was a school Russian-Korean dictionary. In the early 1960s in the Uzbek SSR, a new ABC book and a Korean language textbook for third and fourth graders was published, the latter consisting of 130 lessons: 65 lessons for the third grade and 65 for the fourth. The textbook included an alphabetical dictionary with 595 entries: 274 for the third grade and 321 for the fourth grade. Though the textbook was criticized by many Korean language teachers, and not without reason, it helped in teaching and learning the Korean language (GAAO, f. 127, op. 1, d. 402, p. 79). Unfortunately, textbooks were published in small quantities, and there was a deficit of them. The Ministry of Education of the Kazakh SSR made serious mistakes in organizing the teaching of the Korean language. For instance, the Korean language curriculum was nonexistent, which meant that each teacher had to devise a plan from scratch (GAAO, f. 127, op. 2, d. 1321, SV. 158, pp. 43, 75). In addition, two classes per week was insufficient for students to acquire a deep knowledge of the Korean language. If a student got a poor mark in Korean, he or she could still advance to the next grade. All this led to low motivation for learning the Korean language. In Kazakhstan, there were no specialized institutes, departments, or pedagogical colleges for training teachers of Korean. The Ministry of Education should have organized training courses for teachers of the Korean language, and methodological groups and societies for studying the Korean language. The national and oblast institutes for improvement of the qualification of the teachers completely ignored methodological issues of teaching Korean as a native language at the national schools. The problems and difficulties accumulated, and finally the Ministry of Education issued an order on teaching of the native language for the children of the Korean nationality in Kzyl-Orda Oblast. It outlined a largescale measure. However, even the full and strict implementation of the resolution could not stop the process of alienation and the loss of the native language of the Koreans in Kazakhstan. The situations of the Korean population in the other Central Asian republics were very much the same (O. M. Kim 1962, 91–92). The administrative-command system ignored the national demands, including the development of education. A number of forced actions aimed against minority peoples were undertaken; these were incompatible with the announced principles of internationalism and respect for equal rights for all peoples and national minorities. On a large scale the people were forced to actively use the Russian language and culture, so the rights of numerous ethnic groups and nationalities were limited. At the same time, education in the Russian language at schools made it easier for young

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

133

people to obtain higher education. In 1938, all Korean students, a total of 250 who studied Korean at the Kzyl-Orda Pedagogical Institute, had to graduate as though they had completed their education, although some were in only their second or third year. In the second half of the 1950s, when restrictions on traveling and choosing a place of residence were removed, Korean youths began to go to different towns in Kazakhstan and even far away to the leading universities of Moscow, Leningrad, and Novosibirsk to study. The Decline of Korean Language Education, 1960s–1980s Over the course of the following twenty years—from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s—the Korean language sank into oblivion once again. The only exceptions were several dozen students and postgraduate students who were studying the Korean language at the universities of Moscow, Leningrad, and Vladivostok. The Korean schools that had functioned during the postwar period in Sakhalin had ceased to exist by this time. In Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan the process of losing the native language was irreversible, which was evident not only in the sphere of education but also in the everyday and family lives of Korean in those nations. Younger Koreans started to communicate among themselves mostly in Russian. In the 1970s and 1980s, the school education of the Koryo saram in Kazakhstan finally lost its organizational specificity, and the earlier term “schools with contingents of Korean students” disappeared from the lexicon of the republican, regional, and district organs of education. During this period, there was a final integration of urban Korean children in “Russian schools” at which they constituted the minority. Only in two or three kolkhozes and sovkhozes (Soviet farms) of the Karatal region of Taldy-Kurgan Oblast did some schools with a large number of Korean students remain. Common misconceptions at that time were that the disappearance of Korean settlements in the rural regions and the multinational composition of secondary school students had led to the impossibility or lack of necessity for Korean language instruction in schools. The issue of education is closely connected with that of the development and functioning of a language as a whole. Changes in the ethnolanguage behavior of the Koreans in Kazakhstan were characterized by two interrelated tendencies: intensive proliferation of the Russian language and loss of the native language. The number of persons who considered Russian their native language was increasing steadily during 1940s to 1960s. The 1970 census contains statistics of the people of the Soviet Union fluent in a second language. More than 80 percent of those who had claimed Korean was their native tongue could speak only Russian. There were also

134

German Kim

qualitative changes in the level of knowledge of the native language among Kazakhstani Koreans. The census data does not provide any information regarding the age or professional differentiation of the language behavior of different nationalities in the USSR. However, it is evident that, by the early 1970s, written Korean was familiar to only an insignificant number of older Koreans. Meanwhile, Koreans of all ages—from schoolchildren to pensioners—knew the Russian language in both its oral and written forms (B. I. Kim 2004, 985–986). According to the 1989 census, only 51 Koreans (7 percent of the participants) of Kazakhstan considered Korean their native language. Although they said that Korean was their native language, it did not necessarily mean that they could speak or write Korean. The Alma-Ata census data on the distribution of various nationalities based on age, ethnicity, and second language use, including Korean, in the USSR, confirms that about 40 percent of Korean children up to fourteen years of age could neither read nor write in Korean but still considered it their “native” language (Naseleniye SSSR, 38). The Revival of the Korean Language since Perestroika Gorbachev’s perestroika gave a new impetus for renewed interest in the historical past and national culture and language, similar to Khrushchev’s Thaw, and made it possible to discuss openly these sore points. The “ethnic renaissance” embraced all peoples of the country without exception, including Koreans. One of the priorities of the national-cultural revival was language. The office of the newspaper Lenin kichi was flooded with letters from readers with requests to start publishing Korean lessons, to help with textbooks and dictionaries, and to organize language courses. The active interest of the Korean population caused I. P. Khan, the editor-in-chief of Lenin kichi, to send a letter to the CCCP of Kazakhstan. The letter described the critical situation in the teaching and functioning of the Korean language in the republic and his vision for solving this problem (Khan 2004). The Central Committee ordered the Ministry of Education to calculate the number of Korean children at schools in Kzyl-Orda, Chimkent, Dzhambul, Alma-Ata, and Taldy-Kurgan oblasts in order to determine how many teachers of Korean were needed. The plan for 1988 envisaged training of Korean language teachers in one of the pedagogical institutes. On May 25, 1987, the Ministry of Education made a report to the Central Committee titled “On Teaching Korean as the Native Language at Schools of the Republic.” It reported that at that moment there were 112,000 Koreans in Kazakhstan, concentrated mainly in Kzyl-Orda Oblast (16,900), Taldy-Kurgan Oblast (15,800), Chimkent Oblast (15,100), Dzhambul Oblast (14,900), and Karaganda Oblast (13,900). According to the report, the

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

135

Korean language was taught in seven schools of Kzyl-Orda Oblast, where there were 770 children, and in one school in Taldy-Kurgan Oblast, where there were  100. However, the data proved to be incorrect. In July 1987 it became clear that in Kzyl-Orda Oblast there were three schools where Korean was taught. According to the more precise data reported later, the Korean language was taught in only two schools in Kzyl-Orda Oblast (162 children) and one school in Taldy-Kurgan Oblast (29), though the total number of Korean schoolchildren in only four oblasts—Dzhambul, KzylOrda, Taldy-Kurgan, and Chimkent—was at least four thousand (AP RK, f. 708, op. 135, d. 6, pp. 20–22). The authors of the report came to the following conclusions: first, “as a result of lack of due attention, teachers, and the poor quality of textbooks,” the Korean language situation was catastrophic; second, it was necessary to improve the situation, but there were no qualified specialists who were able to solve the problems in the republic; and third, all attempts to get assistance from the Ministry of Education of the USSR and Uzbekistan had failed (and the situation with the Korean language in other republics was similar; P. G. Kim 1993, 197). Thus, the republic could rely only on its own forces. In many oblasts, Korean cultural centers were opened in the late 1980s and early 1990s; they had as a priority the revival of the ethnic culture and the national language. A New Demand on Korean Language in the Independent Kazakhstan Perestroika and glasnost caused an explosion of interest in the history, ethnic culture, and national language of all Soviet peoples. At the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, there was a native language boom— numerous Korean language classes and circles were organized by Korean cultural centers (“Otkrytiye v Almaty” 1991)6 and Korean Christian missionary churches. For example, in Kzyl-Orda Oblast, thirty-four groups devoted to learning the Korean language were formed in three high schools. There were also five language circles in three kolkhozes and one in a garment factory. A Korean Language Sunday School was established in the Kzyl-Orda Pedagogical Institute, where the future students of the Department of Korean Language, which opened in 1991, studied. In Ushtobe, the Kwangju Korean Language School was opened, with the costs of the building, furniture, and equipment covered by South Korean businessmen from Kwangju. The school had a children’s library with a collection of fiction and learning literature, reference books, dictionaries, 6 

The Korean cultural centers are local Korean diaspora associations in Kazakhstan.

136

German Kim

and journals received from the Republic of Korea. There was a language laboratory, granted by the head of the oblast’s administration. Ways of solving the problem in different places varied according to region and available resources. The most favorable conditions regarding availability of teachers existed in southern oblasts. In western and northern oblasts, the lack of Korean language teachers was one of the main hindrances to the organization of student groups. For instance, in Karaganda Oblast, of an estimated 11,500 Koreans, only 75 of them studied Korean. In Eastern Kazakhstan Oblast there was only one group for adults (which contained some thirty persons) and an elective course in the university; in Pavlodar Oblast there were two Korean language groups (G. B. Khan 1997, 87–88). On the whole, in 1992, the Korean language was taught to about three thousand people; in 1994, that number was over five thousand. In the 1995–1996 academic year, the Korean language was offered as an elective course in seventeen schools in Kazakhstan, with 95 groups encompassing a total of 1,450 students. The establishment of Korean language departments in a number of universities and colleges of Kazakhstan was of great importance. At present, Korean language specialists are trained at the Department of Oriental Studies of the KazNU (Kazakh National University), philological departments of AGU (Abai, Kzyl-Orda, and Ust-Kamenogorsk) universities, the Kazakh State University of International Relations and World Languages, the University of World Journalism, the Academy of the National Security Committee, and others. In a number of universities and in some departments, the Korean language is taught as a “foreign language” or “second Oriental language.” The total number of students in Korean language departments of Kazakh universities is about two hundred. In 1991 in Almaty, the Korean Education Center was established by the Republic of Korea.7 It began to play an important role in teaching the Korean language to the Koreans of Kazakhstan and in training Korean language teachers (“Otkrytiye v Almaty” 1991, 5). A sharp increase in the number of students has maintained the quality of the Korean language teaching and the training specialists with a high level of language competence. Previously, many teachers did not know the language well enough to teach it; they lacked practical experience and methods of language teaching.

7  The Korean Education Center in Almaty (KECA) is an organization established by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea to support Korean language education among Koreans in Kazakhstan. Currently, however, the majority of the people attending KECA are Kazakhs. The center is responsible for educational exchange and cooperation between Korea and Kazakhstan.

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

137

Training of Korean language specialists was done not only in Kazakhstan but also in the Republic of Korea. About two dozen young Kazakhstani Koreans were trained there, attending six- or nine-month language courses. More than a dozen scholars were able to attend long-term study courses in the country’s leading universities. Many students of Korean departments went on short-term trips to Seoul. Special mention should be made of the purposeful work done by the branches of the Association of Koreans of Kazakhstan and Korean cultural centers in Taldy-Korgan, South Kazakhstan, and Dzhambyl oblasts (“The Sixth Congress” 1999). Despite some early success, a number of issues remain. First, there has been a sharp decline in interest in learning the Korean language. If in the past there were too many students willing to attend the language courses, five or six years later, many students are less interested. Strange as it might seem, it is Korean parents who think that there is no point in their children spending time learning the language, as it is not in demand today. The lack of highly qualified teachers also remains a pressing problem. Korean pastors and Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) volunteers are offering assistance, as native speakers of the Korean language, but there is a need for local teachers and graduates of Korean departments who know well both the language itself and the methods of its teaching. Another problem is that the brightest Korean language students often go on to work as interpreters instead of university teachers because university teachers are underpaid. It also should be added that though there are good textbooks, self-instruction manuals, and computer programs, there are no frequency dictionaries, phrase books, or the like. Though in sovereign Kazakhstan, Korean language teaching finally resumed after a half-century break, the initial period was marked by both achievements and problems that still demand attention. Despite some success in organizing mass Korean language learning, the result is still far from the desired outcome. An explosion of enthusiasm and interest has faded. A great deal of time, effort, and purpose-oriented everyday work will be needed to make up for the losses in Korean language competence caused by the long period of forced oblivion. Status of the Rodnoy yasyk (Native Language) Before the deportation of Koreans to Kazakhstan and the closing of the system of education in their native language, Korean had been considered one of the languages of the peoples of the USSR. For a long time after the deportation, the Korean language existed primarily in its oral, colloquial form and had no official status. The Soviet statistics referred to Korean in the group “languages of the peoples of foreign countries.” To a certain

138

German Kim

extent, this reflected the reality, as books were translated and published in the North Korean standard language mainly covering sociopolitical, classical Russian, and Soviet literature (G. N. Kim 2000b, 324). As the Korean language was not taught at Soviet schools and is not taught now at schools in Kazakhstan as a separate academic subject, its status as a language of a national minority is radically different from the status of the German language, which has always been classified as a “foreign” language. The German language is taught as an academic subject at many schools and universities in Kazakhstan. The Korean language has the status of the “native” language of the Koreans of Kazakhstan and its functions are quite limited—one weekly newspaper, one twenty-minute radio program three times a week, and one thirty-minute weekly TV program. There is a Korean theater, one or two books of short novels or poems are published yearly, and there are Korean departments in some universities and colleges. What is the nature of the “native” language of the Korean diaspora of Kazakhstan? The language of their ancestors and people of the oldest generation is a unique dialect with roots that go back to the fifteenth century. In everyday life and in linguistics, this dialect is called Koryomal, and its present state is very close to a dead language. Koryomal in Kazakhstan and in other countries of the post-Soviet space is doomed to disappearance, and it is not possible to reanimate it today. Using H. Kloss’s sociolinguistic terminology, we can speak about Koryomal as a specific form of a “roofless dialect” (from the German obdachlos, “homeless”). As opposed to the dialects of the Korean Peninsula, which have “a roof,” the dialect of the Koreans of Kazakhstan, separated as it is from the language nucleus, is deprived of such protection.8 The alien ethnic environment and laws of language contact have led to the appearance in the lexicon of Koryomal many loanwords from Russian and other languages. Koryomal has no written form; it is not present in radio programs or in the theater; it is not used in mass media or taught at schools—in other words, it is dying. In another fifteen to twenty years, there will be no more speakers of this unique linguistic phenomenon. Thus, the “native” language refers to the Seoul standard of the modern literary language, which (for Korean children in Kazakhstan) is no less “foreign” than is English or Arabic. We can speak about modern literary 8  The differences between various provincial dialects are not very strong in modern Korean, although the dialects are still more or less existent. The official colloquial language standard of the North Korean state was basically formed by the Pyongyang-area pronunciation. The South Korean colloquial language standard was formed by the so-called “Seoul dialect.” The use of dialect-specific words is strictly restricted to everyday speech.

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

139

Korean as a “genetically native language” or, if we translate it from English precisely, a “heritage language.” Thus, we will speak not about the revival but about learning of the “national,” “genetically native,” “heritage,” etc., language—in other words, a different language, which only ten years ago was not known in Kazakhstan. Sociolinguistic Features of the Korean Diaspora Here, I will consider generally the existing ethnolinguistic situation of the Koreans of Kazakhstan and specifically the following: language competence, language behavior, and language orientation. Language competence becomes evident in the level of command of this or that language. If we compare the level of command of Korean, Kazakh, and Russian, it is clear that for the absolute majority of Koryo saram, Russian is the primary language. Among Koreans, 90 to 95 percent can use it freely. In fact, Koryo saram, either children or adults, can speak Russian. Approximately 3–5 percent of Koreans have mastered the Kazakh language as well. Less than 10 percent of the Korean population can understand and speak survival Korean and less than 2 percent can read Hangeul, the Korean national writing system (G. N. Kim 2017, 43–44). The lack of competence in Korean among Koryo saram is, to a large extent, the product of the attitude of the Soviet Koreans themselves, who were not at all eager to preserve and develop their language and cultural heritage. The Koreans demonstrated a stable interest in learning Russian because it could pave the way to a career. The acceleration of this shift to the dominant language is characteristic of Korean diasporas on the whole, which typically present a high level of acculturation and language assimilation. In the language behavior of the Soviet Koreans, the Russian language began to dominate by the 1950s and the process was ongoing for the next twenty years. The functionality of the Korean language became more limited, and today it is used mainly in the family and for communication with the elderly generation. The census data reveal a decrease in the percentage of Kazakhstani Koreans whose native language is Korean: from 68.6% in 1959, to 64% in 1970, to 56.1% in 1979, to 51.7% in 1989. However, it should be noted again that having Korean as one’s native language does not mean being able to use it in everyday life. Language is not only a means of communication, transfer of information, and such but is part and parcel of ethnic consciousness. That is why recognizing the Korean language as one’s native language is the result of ethnopsychological factors, an ethnic identity revealed according to the formula “I am Korean—the Korean language is my native language.” The sociolinguistic research carried out more recently among members of the

140

German Kim

Korean diaspora confirms the a priori conclusion that objective language competence does not necessarily conform with subjective recognition of a language as the native language. Among the Korean diaspora of Kazakhstan, language competence and the character of language behavior vary with age and social group, as shown by the data of questionnaires and censuses. Among Koreans up to twenty-five years of age, the overwhelming majority cannot speak Korean at all. The age group from twenty-five to forty is characterized by a passive command of the language; they can understand simple, everyday topics. Only the oldest age group, those sixty to eighty years old, who lived in the ethnically compact rural environment and learned the basics of the written national language can, to a certain extent, speak and write in Korean. For generations of Koreans who were born and socialized in Kazakhstan, the native language is Russian, and for the majority of the deported generation, who can be referred to as bilinguals in a certain sense, Russian has become the primary and Korean the secondary language. Regarding language competence according to social status, those who could be characterized as “intellectual laborers” are, without a doubt, behind physical laborers in terms of the level of their Korean language competence. Physical labor is characteristic of Koreans in the agrarian sector, who tend to live in villages that are ethnohomogeneous reservoirs where the ethnic culture and language are better preserved as compared to an ethnically mixed urban “melting pot.” Among intellectuals, language competence was preserved and developed only by those who worked either in the Korean language mass media (newspaper, radio, TV) or in the Korean theater. When considering the level of competence in the Korean language, one should bear in mind that a part of the modern Korean diaspora of Kazakhstan is composed of Sakhalin Koreans and some former North Koreans. Their knowledge of the Korean language is different from that of the majority of Koreans. Due to their knowledge of literary Korean, representatives of this group used to hold the leading positions in Korean institutions of culture, art, and literature. The results of some pilot questionnaires published and rotated among Koryo saram by Korean diaspora associations in Kazakhstan show their desire to regenerate their heritage language as the basis of the ethnicity. A large number of respondents have taken advantage of the recent opportunity to study the heritage language. An even larger number would like to study the Korean language themselves and consider it necessary for their children to know the language. The significance of the revival of the Korean language is reflected in the fact that the majority of respondents (over 80 percent) consider it a priority to develop the Korean educational

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

141

system in Korean, and to publish literature and broadcast radio and TV programs in Korean. Educational and Management Issues in Teaching the Korean Language In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was a kind of boom in studying the Korean language. Korean cultural centers, missionary churches, and societies organized numerous Korean language courses. The Korean language was taught at all levels, from higher educational establishments to kindergartens. Despite considerable success in teaching the Korean language, a number of issues remain. First, the boom in studying Korean has come to an end. In the beginning, the Korean language courses could not admit all those who wanted to study. Now many people doubt whether there is any need to study it at all. It is the parents who think that it is not worth the time and effort of their children to study Korean, as today it is not in demand. Originally, textbooks for those wishing to study the Korean language came to Kazakhstan from South and North Korea. Pyongyang soon stopped sending textbooks due to economic difficulties. However, South Korea increased the number of textbooks, language courses, and audio cassettes it sent with every passing year (Khan 1999, 79). In the process of teaching any language, one of the most important issues is training professional teachers. The Central Institute held the first seminars for the teachers of Korean to improve their qualifications in the 1990–1991 academic year. In 1993–1994, the first summer school for Korean children was organized. The summer school lasted for twenty days, during which the children studied Korean for sixty hours. Korean Departments in Universities

Greatly important to Korean language education was the establishment of Korean studies departments and Korean language programs in a number of universities and colleges. At present, Korean language majors are trained at the Oriental Studies Department of the KazNU named after alFarabi, the Department of Oriental Languages of the University of World Languages and International Relations, the philological department of the Kazakh National Pedagogical University named after Abai, both KzylOrda and Ust-Kamenogorsk universities, the Academy of the Kazakhstan Intelligence Service, the Kazakh University of Economics, and the Kazakh Institute of Management and Business. In some departments in a number of higher educational establishments, Korean is taught as a foreign or second Oriental language. The total number of students in Korean departments in Kazakhstan is about 250. The best-known Kazakh Korean departments are

142

German Kim

the KazNU and the Department of Oriental Languages of the University of World Languages and International Relations. Student Issues

In the Abai AGU, Almaty Koreans constitute 70 to 80 percent. In the alFarabi KazNU, because of a policy of supporting Kazakh students, Koreans constitute only one-third. The gender ratio of the students of Korean departments is practically the same in all universities: about 80 to 90 percent of students are female and 10 to 20 percent are male. The average age of the students is eighteen to twenty-two years. The students enter Korean departments without any idea about Korea and with no knowledge of the language. Gradually, there are appearing students who have made their choice consciously and who have attended courses either in churches or in the Center of Education of the Republic of Korea. For instance, for the non-Korean students at the Kirgiz State University, entering the Korean department can be considered a good choice because of the opportunity to work in a South Korean company after graduation. The reasons why young people enter the Korean departments include their ethnic origin, their parents’ wishes, an opportunity to travel to Korea, and good job prospects after graduation in many South Korean companies doing business in Kazakhstan. It should be noted that interest in learning the Korean language had waned by the end of the 1990s, primarily because of the outflow of South Korean business from Kazakhstan during the Asian Financial Crisis. At that time, demand for Korean-speaking interpreters and managers was very low. Over the last five years the economy of Kazakhstan has been stable and dynamic. All big cities—especially the new capital, Astana, and the former capital, Almaty—are going through a boom in construction and in the services, which has attracted a lot of South Korean businesspeople engaged in small and medium businesses. The intensive inflow of the South Korean businesspeople caused an increase in the demand for interpreters and other staff speaking Korean for South Korean companies in Kazakhstan. At present the demand for Korean language interpreters is extremely high, and many graduates from the universities of Tashkent and Bishkek are working in South Korean companies in Almaty. The number of those wishing to study Korean is increasing with every passing year; however, not all of them can enter Korean departments because of the limited admittance. For instance, in 2007 fifteen persons were turned away by the Korean studies department at KazNU as there were not enough Korean teachers there. In the near future, the demand for Korean graduates in Kazakhstan is likely to remain stable and perhaps will continue to grow. This means that new

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

143

programs for training Korean language interpreters should be launched apart from those offered by universities. A two-year school for interpreters sponsored by the National Institute of the Korean Language is being set up at the KazNU in 2007. Teaching Staff

The lack of qualified Korean language teachers has been and remains acute. Earlier, either elderly Koryo saram or Koreans from Sakhalin or former North Koreans taught the language. Nearly all of them had higher philological education and experience in teaching. The sharp increase in the number of Korean departments and students has had a negative influence on the quality of teaching. Most of the teachers do not know the Korean language properly; they also have little practical experience in teaching and insufficient methodological training. The main reason for the permanent shortage of qualified Korean language teachers lies in the low salaries of teachers. Interpreters and South Korean company workers who graduate from Korean departments earn two or three times more than do Korean language teachers at universities. Low salary is only one of the reasons why the best graduates of the Korean departments are not motivated to study further, to get a master’s degree and then teach at a university. The pedagogical load is incredibly large, with the number of classes taught per week two or three times higher than it is in U.S. or Korean universities. In addition, all teachers have to carry out different kinds of work and extracurricular activities that consume nearly as much time as classes do. Such activities as being a so-called curator of a student group are not known at foreign universities except for those in the Commonwealth on Independent States (CIS). Bureaucratic work in the form of writing and rewriting all kinds of reports and documents (plans, curricula, etc.) produces discontent among teachers. These circumstances cause many young Korean language teachers to leave universities after two or three years and go to work at a South Korean company or somewhere else. Thus, the problem is not only the shortage of Korean language teachers but also the high staff turnover, which does not allow the formation of a stable and qualified staff of teachers. The department of Korean studies of the KazNU, for instance, has to employ 50 percent new teachers every three years. The department has been functioning for twenty years, but the average length of service of teachers is about three years. Correspondingly, among the department’s teachers there are none with Ph.D.s, as there are no conditions or motivation for carrying out research. During the last five years, at least ten Kazakhstani students received master’s degrees from leading Korean universities, such as Seoul National University, Yonsei University, and others, but none of them went to work at Kazakhstani

144

German Kim

universities or defended a Ph.D. dissertation. The lack of highly qualified university lecturers and teachers is typical of practically all universities in the post-Soviet space, and it will take a long time before this problem is solved and the role of university professor or lecturer becomes prestigious again. The contribution of Korean language teachers—native speakers who are delegated by the government of the Republic of Korea—cannot be underestimated. At present there are two programs supporting Korean studies in Kazakhstan. The first was the delegation by the Korea Research Foundation of a Russian-speaking professor with a Ph.D. for one or two years to the department of Korean studies of the KazNU. Five professors have already worked in the department, and each of them has contributed greatly to improving the quality of Korean language teaching and training Korean studies majors. The second one was dispatched by KOICA Korean language teaching volunteers. From 1990 to the beginning of the twentyfirst century, young South Koreans went to Kazakhstan for one or two years and, as native speakers of the Korean language, have made a contribution to Korean language studies. Academic Plans

An academic plan of a university describes all the subjects being taught, divided by semester, including number of lectures and seminars and forms of evaluation, such as an exam or zachet (credit test). After Kazakhstan obtained sovereignty, the academic process was freed from the former ideology and the system of education was reformed. University education underwent a transition period. At that time, the Soviet academic plans and curricula were used; later, they were substituted by new ones, and in 2007 the system of university education became three-stage, corresponding to universal standards: four years for a bachelor’s degree, four years for a master’s degree, and three years for a Ph.D. program. In Kazakhstan, students are educated in one of two languages—Russian or Kazakh. Correspondingly, all academic plans are made in two languages. Each academic plan is meant for a definite major and is obligatory, leaving no choice of subjects for the students themselves. Major issues of the academic plans of Korean departments over the last decade include instability, with constant changes in the Korean program, too many humanity disciplines not directly related to Korean studies, and that the plans are often based on the available teachers. Textbooks and Teaching Materials

The problems in quality with Korean language textbooks has been mostly solved with the support of the Korean government. However, the issue

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

145

of high-quality textbooks and teaching materials remains acute, because there are no good textbooks or computer programs designed especially for ­Russian- or Kazakh-speaking students. There are still no bilingual or trilingual dictionaries, word books, or the like. For Kazakh, Uzbek, and Kirgiz students, textbooks and dictionaries appropriate for each group are needed. The six-volume Korean language textbook published by Yonsei University is broadly used, and two or three years ago there was no alternative to it. Today, the books in practical grammar published by Seoul National University and Ewha Women’s University, as well as Korean language textbooks compiled by Russian professors, are also in use. There are even fewer textbooks on the history, culture, and socioeconomic system of Korea. Academic publications about Korea available in the Kazakhstani libraries are outdated, and the new Russian monographs, books, and academic journals on Korea do not reach Central Asia. Sources written in Korean or English are difficult for students to read and understand. Modern technologies in teaching and studying Korean—such as CD programs, the Internet, videos, and audio—are seldom used. One of the most popular activities in Korean language classes is viewing and discussing Korean movies or TV dramas. To improve the material-technical base of the Korean language programs, great help was rendered by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea, Korean governmental foundations, the Embassy of the Republic of Korea, Centers of Education, KOICA, and other institutions. Everywhere there are computers, audiovisual aids, office equipment, and teaching materials presented by the sponsors. Korean language programs in the universities of Kazakhstan have at their disposal all the necessary textbooks, teaching materials, and equipment thanks to the help of the governmental institutions of Korea and sponsorship of South Korean companies. Cooperation with Korean Universities

On the whole, relations between the Korean language programs at Kazakhstani universities and those at South Korean universities can be characterized as weak, underdeveloped, and unstable. The universities in Almaty are in a better position because teachers from Korean universities visit there more often. Many universities have formal agreements of cooperation with Korean universities that actually do not work. For example, the KazNU signed agreements with dozens of Korean universities, but it has annual exchange programs running with only half of them. The main problem is that the agreements between Kazakhstani and South Korean universities envisage student exchange programs. The South Korean universities can offer not only free instruction but also cheap accommodations in university dormitories and a monthly stipend. Very few

146

German Kim

Kazakhstani universities can offer the same. The KazNU is the only university in Kazakhstan that has its own campus with relatively tolerable conditions for the study and accommodation of foreign students. Conclusions Koryo saram, or Koreans of Kazakhstan, are aware that their future is tied to their country of residence, unlike other ethnic communities in the postSoviet space who are uncertain whether they will adapt to their host countries. The factors shaping the diaspora community of Koryo saram and their identity are • their long residence in their host country • initial compactness and later dispersal of residence in the host country • gender, age, family, and social and occupational identity • linguistic and cultural similarities or differences with the dominant ethnic • communities • national and cultural policy of the host country • relations with South Korea • the presence of a strong network of diasporic organizations • a high percentage of interracial and interethnic marriages The emergence of Koryomal was the result of a koine9—a common language of the compact group of Korea immigrants in the Russian Far East during the long period of isolation and geographic distance from the standard language and original dialect in the homeland and neighboring Manchuria. After being deported to Central Asia, Koreans were dispersed in the vast area of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and intensively urbanized in the 1960s and 1970s under the Soviet Union. Closing of the minority language education for ethnic minorities, especially that of deported “unreliable peoples,” led to the inevitable death of Koryomal and the Korean literary language. Due to the Soviet language policy and by the Soviet Koreans’ own choice, they very quickly adapted to Russian. For Koryomal, as a Soviet minority language, there were typical restrictions on form and function, for example, the oral form was used mainly in informal communication. 9 

The word koine is Greek for “common” and is here understood as referring to “the common dialect.”

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

147

For Koreans in Kazakhstan, as well as in neighboring countries, the death of Koryomal meant partial assimilation to the host country. Language is an important feature of the diaspora, but with its death, the diaspora remains until it identifies itself in the antithesis, “we and they,” in which “they” are surrounding ethnic groups and compatriots in the country of origin. The main trend of Koryomal as a diaspora language is extinction. References AP RK (Arkhiv Presidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan, Archive of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan). n.d. F. 708, op. 1, d. 45; op. 31, d. 75; op. 31, d. 147; op. 135, d. 6. GAAO (Gosudarsvennyi Arkhiv Almatitskoy Oblasti, State Archive of the Alma-Aty Oblast). n.d. F. 127, op. 1, d. 408; op. 1, d. 402; op. 2, d. 1321, SV. 158. GAKO (Gosudarstvennyi Archiv Kzyl-Ordinskoy Oblasti, State Archive of the Kzyl-Orda Oblast). n.d. F. 283, op. 1, d. 5, p. 3. Haarmann, Harald. 1981. Aspekte der Koreanisch-Russischen Zweisprachigkeit, Studien zur Gruppenmehrsprachigkeit der Koreaner in der Sowjet Union [Aspects of Korean-Russian bilingualism, Studies of multilingualism of the Koreans in the USSR]. Hamburg: H. Buske. Han, B. I. 1981. “Pedagogichesiye problemy obuchenniya Koreiskogo naseleniya (na materialakh KazSSR).” [Pedagogical problems in the teaching of the Korean population (in the case of the Kazakh SSR)]. Ph.D. diss., Kazakh Pedagogical Institute, Alma-Ata. Pp.1–15. Han, Dyk Pon, Pen Hwa Kim, and Yun Din Hwan. 1958. Kniga dlya chteniya (2-oy klass) [Reading book in Korean for the second grade of elementary school]. Moscow: Uchpedgiz. Hur, Seung Chul. 1988a. “Aspects of the Linguistic Assimilation of Soviet Koreans.” Journal of Slavic Studies 3: 123–139. ———. 1988b. “Language Shift and Bilingualism among Soviet Nationality Groups.” Ph.D. diss., Brown University. East View Publications. 1996. Itogi Vsesoyusnoi perepisi naseleiya 1989 [Data of the Soviet Census of Population in 1989]. CD-ROM. Khan, G. B. 1997. Proshloe i nastoyashchee Koreizev Kazakhstana [Past and present of Koreans in Kazakhstan]. Alma-Ata: AKK. Khan, I. P. 2004. “Vyzhevet li Koreiskiy yazyk?” [Will the Korea language survive?]. Koryo ilbo, part 1, February 20, part 2, February 27. Khegai, M. A. 1958. Russko-Koreiskiy slovar’ schkolnika dlya uchashchikhsya 3–10 klassov schkol s koreiskim kontingentom uchaschchikhsya [RussianKorean dictionary for schoolchildren of the third through tenth grades at elementary and middle schools]. Tashkent: Uchpedgiz.

148

German Kim

Kho, Songmoo. 1987. Koreans in Soviet Central Asia. Studia Orientalia 61. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society. Kim, B. I. 2004. “Izuchayem rodnoi yazyk” [We are learning Korean]. Koryo ilbo, January 9. Kim, G. N. 2000a. “Stereotypes of Soviet Historiography and Topical Problems in the Study of the Korean War, 1950–1953.” In Korea between Tradition and Modernity: Selected Papers from the Fourth Pacific and Asian Conference on Korean Studies, 215–227. Vancouver: Institute for Asian Research, University of British Columbia. ———. 2000b. Koryo saram: Istoriografiya i Bibliografiya [Koryo saram: Historiography and bibliography]. Almaty: Kazakh University. ———. 2003. “Ob istorii prinuditelno-dobrovolnogo zabveniya ‘rodnogo yazyka’ postsovetskimi Koreitsami na primere Kazakhstana” [On the history of the forced and voluntary oblivion of the “mother tongue” by Soviet Koreans: The case of Kazakhstan]. Diaspora 1: 110–146. ———. 2003–2004. “Koryo Saram or Koreans of the Former Soviet Union in the Past and Present.” Amerasia Journal 29  (3): 14–19. ———. 2004. “Koryo Saram in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Russia.” In Encyclopedia of World Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures around the World, vol. 2, Diaspora Communities, ed. Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember, and Ian Skoggard, 983–992. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers. ———. 2005. Hanin imin yeksa [The history of Korean immigration]. Seoul: Pakyengsa. ———. 2017. Koreitsy Kazakhstana [Koreans in Kazakhstan]. Astana: InDisign Studio. Kim, G. N., and D. V. Men. 1995. Istoriya i kultura Koreitsev Kazakhstana [History and culture of Koreans in Kazakhstan]. Almaty: Gylym. Kim, G. N., and Yeong Seob Sim. 2000. Istoriya prosveshcheniya Koreitsev Kazakhstana i Rossii [The history of the education of Koreans in Kazakhstan and Russia]. Almaty: Kazak University. Kim, Nam Sek, and M. A. Khegai. 1964. Bukvar [ABC book of Korean language]. Tashkent: Uchpedgiz. ———. 1965. Uchebnik Koreiskogo yazyka dlya 3-uego i 4-ogo klassov [Textbook of Korean language for the third and fourth grades of elementary schools]. Tashkent: Uchpedgiz. Kim, O. M. 1962. “O yazyke Koreitsev SSSR” [About the language of the Koreans in the USSR]. Utchenye zapiski Taschkentskogo Sredne-Asiatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Newsletter of Tashkent Central Asian State University]. Vol. 202, c. 87–93. Kim, Pen Hwa. 1959. Bukvar [ABC book of Korean language]. Moscow: Uchpedgiz.

The Case of Koryomal in Kazakhstan

149

Kim, Pen Hwa, and Yun Din Hwan. 1959. Grammatika Koreiskogo yazyka dlya 3-yego klassa [Textbook of Korean language grammar for the third grade of elementary school]. Moscow: Uchpedgiz. Kim, Syn Hva. 1965. Ocherki po istorii sovetskikh Koreitsev [Essays on the history of the Soviet Koreans]. Alma-Ata: Nauka. Kim, P. G. 1993. Koreitsy Respubliki Uzbekistan [Koreans of the Republic of Uzbekistan]. Tashkent: Uzbekiston. King, Ross J. P. 1987. “ An Introduction to Soviet Korean.” Language Research 23 (2): 233–277. ———. 1991. “Russian Sources on Korean Dialects.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University. Naseleniye SSSR. Po dannym Vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya 1989 goda [The population of USSR according the data of the National Census of Population of 1989]. Moscow: Finance and Statistics, 1990. “Otkrytiye v Almaty Koreiskogo tsentra prosveshcheniya” [The opening of the Korean Center for Education]. 1991. Koryo ilbo, August 31. “Otchet pravlenia na VI s’ezde Assoziazii koreizev Kazakhstana o prodelannoi rabote za period s oktyabrya 1995 po oktyabr,’ 16.10. 1999” [Report of the Board of the Association of Koreans in Kazakhstan for the period from October 1995 to October 16, 1999]. In Assotsiatsii koreitsev Kazakhstana—10 let [Association of Koreans in Kazakhstan—Ten years], 78–83. Almaty: Daik-Press, 2000. Pak, B. D. 2004a. “Koreitsy v sovetskoy Rossii” [Koreans in Soviet Russia]. Moscow: RAS (Russian Academy of Sciences). ———. 2004b. “Ocherk istorii Rossiyskikh Koreitsev” [The study of the history of the Russian Koreans]. Moscow: RAS (Russian Academy of Sciences). Pak, Ir. 1951. “Koreiskiy fond Almatinskoi biblioteki im. A. Pushkina” [Korean book collection in the Almaty library named after A. Pushkin]. Kratkiye soobscheniya Instituta vostokovedeniya [Short newsletters of the Institute for Oriental Studies] 1: 42–44. Pak, N. S. 2005. Koreiskiy yazyk v Kazakhstane: Problemy I perspektivy [The Korean language in Kazakhstan: Problems and perspectives]. Almaty: Kazgumomya. Sim, Yeong Seob, and G. N. Kim, eds. 1998. Isroriya Koreitsev Kazakhstana sbornik arkhivnykh dokumentov [The history of Koreans of Kazakhstan: Collection of archival documents). Vol. 1. Almaty-Seoul: Kazak universiteti. “The Sixth Congress of the Association of Koreans in Kazakhstan.” 1999. Koryo ilbo, October 17. Pp. 3–4. Son, S. Yu. 1999. “Sotsiolingvisticheskiy analiz funktsionorovaniya Koryomal i Russkogo yazyka v Koreiskoy diaspore Kazakhstana”

150

German Kim

[Sociolinguistic analysis of the functioning of Koryomal and Russian in the Korean diaspora of Kazakhstan]. Ph.D. diss., Kazakh State University of International Relations and World Languages (Almaty). TSGA (Tsentralnyi Gosudarstvennyi Archiv Respubliki Kazakhstan, Central State Archive of the Republic of Kazakhstan). n.d. F. 1692, op. 1, d. 128; d. 137; d. 1166. Yugai, I. G. 1979. “Etnosotsiologicheskoye izucheniye yazykovykh protsessov sredi Koreitsev Uzbekskoi SSR” [Ethnosociological studies of the linguistic processes among Koreans of the Uzbek SSR]. In Polevye issledovaniya Institute Etnografii, 1977 [Fieldwork of the Institute for Ethnography, 1977], 168–174. Moscow: AH CCCP (Academy of Sciences, USSR). ———. 1982. “Razvitiye etnoyazykovykh protsessov v inonatsionalnoy srede” [Ethnolinguistic processes in the foreign ethnic environment]. Ph.D. diss., Academy of Sciences, USSR.

SIX

Korean Language Spread and Korean Language Education in New Zealand, with Comparative Notes on Australia

INSHIL CHOE YOON

Korean language education in the New Zealand education system is undergoing significant rejuvenation. Among several recent positive developments, initiatives by the New Zealand government are remarkable in that they affect primary, secondary, and tertiary levels. Prior to this unprecedented momentum for growth at all levels, there existed generous and tireless efforts by Korean individuals and institutions to create and maintain Korean language classes. Before the exponential growth of Korean immigration around the turn of the third millennium, there was a considerably long period of time when there was only a tiny Korean presence in this faraway country. Koreans in New Zealand: An Overview Korean migration to New Zealand is commonly recognized as a phenomenon that started in the late twentieth century. Most Koreans living in New Zealand are migrants who arrived in the 1990s or later. However, contact with Korea was initiated long before this: the earliest record of people born in Korea living in New Zealand dates to 1945, when there were four males who had been born in Korea residing in New Zealand (Kim Young-Sung 1994, 19). A 1961 record indicates that three people born in Korea resided in New Zealand prior to 1931 and one entered New Zealand before 1911. Of the fifty-two people born in Korea in the 1961 record, forty-two were presumed to have been Korean sailors (Kim Young-Sung 1994, 19). Sailors were the single most numerous group of Koreans to visit New Zealand regularly until 1989, with their number reaching as high as 480 in 1979 and 491 in 1988, as seen in table 1. This

152

Inshil Choe Yoon Table 1. Number of Koreans in New Zealand Year

Residents

Sojourners

Sailors

Total

1977

54

67

n/a

121

1978

24

24

n/a

48

1979

60

45

480

585

1980

50

54

n/a

104

1981

55

41

n/a

96

1982

38

45

n/a

83

1983

40

38

n/a

78

1984

51

53

356

460

1985

66

56

315

437

1986

63

91

142

296

1987

111

90

341

542

1988

98

101

491

690

1989

141

101

212

454

1990

593

61

294

948

1991

722

226

293

1,241

1992

1,762

978

309

3,049

Source: Kim Young-Sung 1994, 20, quoting Overseas Koreans, 1977–1992, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea.

indicates that the Korean language was spoken, even if intermittently, in New Zealand by the early 1960s. Major contact between Korea and New Zealand was made during the Korean War (1950–1953), when New Zealand troops fought in Korea as part of United Nations forces. The year before the war started, New Zealand officially recognized Korea as an independent country. Korea and New Zealand established formal diplomatic relations in 1962 and sought mutual benefit by engaging in trade and cooperation in technology. A Korean embassy was established in Wellington in 1971.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

153

Until the end of the 1980s, however, there were very few Korean residents in New Zealand. More common were short-term sojourners, such as sailors, students on the Colombo Plan,1 teachers studying the English language, and Korean company employees. The extremely slow increase in the number of Korean residents in New Zealand was due primarily to New Zealand’s immigration policy of granting residency only to those whose employment was guaranteed in New Zealand or to those who had relatives who were New Zealand residents who could trace back a British ancestry (Choe 1997, 173). In November 1987, New Zealand immigration policy changes—in particular, the introduction of business migration—marked the end of the long-standing traditional source system favoring those with preferred occupations or European ancestry, especially from the United Kingdom or Ireland. This opened the door for Koreans and other Asian immigrants to enter New Zealand. Subsequent changes introducing the point system in 1991 allowed a large number of Koreans to settle in New Zealand: while in 1986 only 20 Koreans received permanent resident permits, the number increased to 3,792 in 1996.2 From the early to middle part of the 1990s, the Korean community in New Zealand experienced sudden exponential growth: the number of Koreans reached 12,657 in the 1996 census. It reached around 19,000 in 2001, or 0.5% of the total population, and 31,000 in 2006, or 0.76% of the total population of just over four million.3 The growth of the Korean population in New Zealand has gone through several phases, mainly as a result of newly adjusted immigration policies. In 1995, when passing an English language test became a condition for immigration, the number of applicants sharply dropped, and Koreans were no exception. As the number of immigrants declined, the government introduced a new long-term business immigration scheme. Through this scheme, the most recent large wave of Korean immigration occurred in the early twenty-first century, resulting in the highest Korean population in New Zealand’s history. For the past decade, the Korean population in New Zealand has remained stable: it was 0.71% in 2013 (see table 2).4 1 

The Colombo Plan is a regional organization to strengthen economic and social development of member countries in the Asia-Pacific region. 2  The point system is a skilled migration assessment of professionals who wish to immigrate.  3  The population of New Zealand according to the 2006 census was 4,027,947. See “QuickStats about New Zealand’s Population and Dwellings,” available at http://www.stats.govt. nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/nzs-population-and-dwellings/population-counts.aspx, accessed November 20, 2017. 4  The 2013 census reveals that the total population of New Zealand was 4,242,048. The major ethnic groups in New Zealand were as follows: European, 74.0%; Maori, 14.9%; Pacific

154

Inshil Choe Yoon Table 2. The Korean Population in New Zealand Year

Population

1976

147*

1991

930

1996

12,657

2001

19,026

2006

30,792

2013

30,171

Source: Statistics New Zealand, available at http:// www.stats.govt.nz/, accessed October 30, 2015. * This was the number of residents born in Korea, as indicated by the 1976 New Zealand census. The remaining figures represent the number of people who identified themselves as Korean.

Shifts in the Regional Center Where Korean Is Spoken Until the mid-1980s, there were fewer than 150 Korean residents and sojourners in New Zealand (as shown in table 1). They were scattered around cities such as Wellington, Christchurch, and Auckland. Wellington had played an important role as the first center of Korean life even before the Korean Embassy was established there in 1971. Being the capital of New Zealand, it attracted Korean diplomats and agencies dealing with commerce and fisheries. It was visited by Korean students on the Colombo Plan and others. Korean sailors also stayed in the harbor for a limited time. Even if the total number of Korean residents was small, Wellington was the hub for Koreans. It was in Wellington that the Korean Association in New Zealand was established in 1974 with the support of the first Korean ambassador.

peoples, 7.4%; Asian, 11.8%; Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African, 1.2%; and New Zealander, 1.6%. The figures are made up of the number of ethnicities identified by each individual. When a person reported more than one ethnic group, they were counted in each applicable group. As a result, percentages do not add up to 100. See “2013 QuickStats about a Place: New Zealand,” available at http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profileand-summary-reports/quickstats-about-a-place.aspx?request_value=13067&tabname=Cult uraldiversity, accessed October 30, 2015.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

155

However, Auckland opened the first Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA) in 1973.5 Growth of the Korean population in Auckland was not significant until the end of 1980s. As Koreans began to immigrate in record numbers in the early 1990s, the majority of them decided to reside in Auckland. Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, had a lot to offer to new Korean immigrants. In addition to being the commercial center of New Zealand, it has a mild climate and the country’s greatest ethnic diversity.6 The 2013 census shows that 72.8% of Koreans in New Zealand lived in Auckland. The main motivation professed by Koreans moving to New Zealand at this time was not so much to establish themselves financially as to gain a better quality of life and educational opportunities for their children (Choe 2005, 540). The majority of Korean immigrants were middle-class people who were economically comfortable in Korea. Upon their arrival in New Zealand, most had sufficient funds to buy reasonably nice houses in middle-class Auckland suburbs such as the North Shore. In 2001, almost 70 percent of Koreans lived in the Auckland area. The second-highest concentration was in Christchurch, with 16 percent of the Korean population, and the rest were scattered throughout New Zealand, mainly in urbanized areas.7 By this time, Koreans had already made an impact on New Zealand’s linguistic diversity. Because the majority of Korean immigrants settled in Auckland, especially in the North Shore, Korean was the second most popular language spoken at home in North Shore City in 2001. The Korean community in New Zealand reflects the characteristics of an early immigrant community. A higher percentage of Koreans who arrived before 1991 have full-time jobs than those who arrived after 1991. The full-time employment rate for Koreans is estimated to be low. Finding a suitable job is perhaps the greatest challenge for Korean immigrants. Facing difficulty in acquiring suitable jobs that utilize the professional skills they gained in Korea, new immigrants often establish small businesses with their own funds. These businesses are operated by and for Koreans and relate to Koreans’ cultural or daily necessities. In this sense, they are typical ethnic businesses. Popular types of Korean ethnic businesses are Korean grocery stores, Korean restaurants, souvenir shops for Korean tourists, and 5 

KOTRA in Auckland remains the only agency in New Zealand. In the 2006 census, again Auckland was the most ethnically diverse region in New Zealand: 18.9% of its population identified with the Asian group, 14.4% with the Pacific peoples, and 11.1% with the Maori ethnic group. 7  After the 2011 earthquake in February, the Korean population in Christchurch declined. A considerable number of Koreans who left Christchurch after the earthquake resettled in Auckland. 6 

156

Inshil Choe Yoon

Korean travel agencies. There are also a considerable number of Korean real estate agents and some lawyers and bank employees who cater mainly to Koreans. In this sense, even these professional jobs are ethnic businesses. However, there has recently been an increase in nonethnic occupation by Koreans. There are a number of small farms around Auckland that are owned and operated by Koreans who supply vegetables to the city. A growing number of Koreans also operate laundries and dairies.8 Finally, younger Koreans are now moving into more professional jobs. Among the factors influencing Korean communities in New Zealand, the following four may be the most significant. First, New Zealand immigration policies control the number of new Korean immigrants. Second, the state of the New Zealand economy and society influences Koreans settling in New Zealand. The availability of employment opportunities in New Zealand determines whether Koreans remain, return to Korea, or go to a third country, while social attitudes of the host society, namely the presence of hostility or racism, affect the Koreans’ settling process. The third factor is the state of the Korean economy and society. The degree of political stability and economic prosperity in Korea influences whether Koreans will return to Korea or settle in New Zealand permanently. The last factor, but not the least, is the availability of education and career opportunities for their children. If Koreans do not find that the host society provides their children with a suitable education, they are quite ready to move on to other countries. New Zealand society is relatively safe, its economy is stable, and its academic standards are high. Considering that the economic activities of many first-generation Korean residents are closely related to the influx of Koreans, New Zealand immigration policies seem to be the key factor in determining the size of Korean communities in New Zealand. Ethnic Composition of New Zealand and Language Policy New Zealand is a young country, with a total population of just over 4.7 million.9 English and Maori are its official languages. The country was initially established as a British colony through the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 by representatives of Queen Victoria and more than five hundred Maori chiefs. Starting in 1852, New Zealand began to be granted

8 

In earlier times, only dairies were open on weekends and were selling mainly fresh bread and dairy products. Nowadays, they function as small convenience stores. 9  Statistics New Zealand, Population Clock, available at http://www.stats.govt.nz/ tools_and_services/population_clock.aspx, accessed September 15, 2016.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

157

self-governance on a limited scale. In 1907, New Zealand became an independent dominion and, in 1947, a fully independent country.10 The presence of Asian people on New Zealand soil began in 1865, when businessmen in Dunedin invited twelve Chinese to work in gold mines deserted by European miners. From that point on, New Zealand’s immigration policy for non-British people was devised and altered to suit the economic needs of New Zealand. An attempt to solve the labor shortage by opening doors to Pacific peoples in the 1960s was one of these initiatives. The influx of people with Pacific ethnicity had high visibility in the 1970s, and “overstaying” became a social issue.11 Until the 1990s, they were the third largest ethnic group, after Europeans and Maori. However, in 2001, the Asian ethnic group, numbering around 240,000, became New Zealand’s third largest ethnic group, overtaking the Pacific peoples. In the 2006 census, Asians were found to be the fastest-growing ethnic group. New Zealand has become a more multicultural nation, with a continued increase in the number and proportion of people born overseas: 17.5% in 1996, 19.5% in 2001, and 22.9% in 2006. The number of people born in the Republic of Korea increased most significantly, from 87 in 1981 to 28,806 in 2006, and Korea went from the eighty-ninth to the ninth most common overseas birthplace (see table 3). In the late twentieth century, the Maori language underwent a revival and was spoken by one in four Maori (StatsNZ 2001). According to the 2006 Census, English was spoken by 95.9% of people and Maori by 4.1% (157,110 people). Owing to the recent change of ethnic composition in the country, the census noted that Hindi, Mandarin, Korean, and Afrikaans were also spoken in daily conversation, though by a smaller percentage than English and Maori. New Zealand has long lacked a clear national language policy. Although Aoteareo: Speaking for Ourselves (Waite 1992) has been recognized as the most comprehensive discussion document on the development of a New Zealand language policy, this book does not identify a national policy (Harvey 2013). This unsatisfactory state still persists. Recently, the Royal Society of New Zealand pointed out “the fragmented nature of language policy 10  By the 1300s, Polynesian people are thought to have discovered Aotearoa (the Maori name for New Zealand) and started to settle it. After Abel Tasman’s discovery of the land in 1642, a Dutch cartographer named it “New Zealand,” and it came to be known to Europeans. However, it was not until Captain Cook’s landing in 1769 that Maori, the indigenous people of the land, began to have interactions with Europeans, mainly through trading. Many Europeans, especially the British, arrived afterward, and the main ethnic groups of New Zealand grew to be European and Maori. 11  “Overstaying” meant remaining illegally in New Zealand after residence permits had expired.

158

Inshil Choe Yoon

Table 3. Most Common Overseas Birthplaces in New Zealand 2006

2001

1981

Birthplace

Count

Rank

Count

Rank

Count

England

202,401

1

178,203

1

173,181

People’s Republic of China

78,117

2

38,949

4

Australia**

62,742

3

56,259

2

43,809

2

Samoa

50,649

4

47,118

3

24,141

12

India

43,344

5

20,892

9

6,018

8

South Africa

41,676

6

26,061

6

3,996

17

Fiji

37,746

7

25,725

7

6,372

9

Scotland

29,016

8

28,680

5

39,138

3

Republic of Korea

28,806

9

17,931

11

87

89

4,269*

Rank 1 16

Source: StatsNZ 2006. * Taiwanese are included in the count. ** Includes Australian External Territories.

within New Zealand society and the opportunities for a national, unified approach” as one of the major issues that face language practices of the country (Royal Society of New Zealand 2013). Aoteareo sets priorities in only six areas: the revitalization of the Maori language, second-chance adult literacy, children’s ESL and first-language maintenance, adult ESL, national capabilities in international languages, and the provision of services in languages other than English. The document confirms that “Maori has been an official language of New Zealand de jure since 1987 (Maori Language Act), and English is an official language de facto” (Waite 1992). Languages other than English and Maori are categorized as either community languages or international languages. Community languages include New Zealand Sign Language for the deaf community. Samoan, Dutch, Cook Islands Maori, Cantonese, Gujarati, Tongan, Niuean, and Tokelauan are categorized as ethnic community languages. International languages are grouped into two “tiers.” Standard Chinese, French, German, Japanese, and Spanish are in tier 1, and Korean is included in tier 2, together with Arabic, Indonesian, Italian, and Russian. These

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

159

groupings are based on a consideration of their importance in New Zealand in the five areas of international relations, trade, tourism, translation, and interpreting services and education. At the time when the document was commissioned, the New Zealand government noticed the growing importance of Korea. With a 3 percent share of New Zealand trade, Korea was New Zealand’s sixth most important trade partner by language group in 1990, after English, Japanese, Chinese, German, and Arabic (Waite 1992, 63). The Ministry of External Relations and Trade provided its employees with training in Japanese, Chinese, Russian, and other European and Pacific languages to strengthen New Zealand’s influence in the international arena. It planned to introduce a Korean language program in 1992 (Waite 1992, 62). However, Korean tourists to New Zealand numbered 3,800 in 1989 and 4,200 in 1990, which was only 0.32% and 0.43%, respectively, of the total visitors to New Zealand.12 Therefore, Korean was not registered as one of the languages of principal short-term visitors to New Zealand. The last criterion in weighing important international languages was education. Among the international languages taught in years nine through thirteen in 1990, French, Japanese, German, and Latin, the top four languages, showed much higher enrollment than Spanish, Russian, Indonesian, Italian/Greek, and Chinese (Waite 1992, 68). In the statistics of university degrees completed with an international language as the main subject (1970–1990), French, German, and Japanese were at the top as individual languages (Waite 1992, 71). Apart from levels of trade, levels of tourism, and traditional teaching resources, cultural impact and international spread were also considered in deciding tier 1 and tier 2 international languages. Although the Korean degree program was being established at the University of Auckland in 1990 and the Korean major was established in 1991, this was not mentioned in the education section. The fact that the document was prepared before the massive influx of Koreans as residents or tourists in the 1990s could have been one of the reasons why the Korean language was not recognized as a community language but only as an international language of less importance. Under these circumstances, those who could promote the teaching of the Korean language had to be Koreans themselves, and they have been actively promoting the Korean language, especially by introducing Korean into the education sector.

12 

The number of Koreans entering New Zealand as tourists increased steadily to reach over 104,400 in 1995 and 127,400 in 1996. See Kim Young-Sung 1997.

160

Inshil Choe Yoon

Precursors to Korean Language Education The Korean language is presently being taught in New Zealand primary, secondary, and tertiary educational institutions, as well as within the Korean community and in the wider community. Korean Community Language Education

From the mid to late 1980s, the number of Korean residents and shortterm sojourners in New Zealand very slowly increased (see table 1). The first initiative that Koreans took for their language was a Korean language maintenance class for their children. As in other parts of the world, church buildings served as the opening venue in New Zealand. For Korean children living in Wellington, the first Korean language class was held in a church where Koreans met for their Sunday gatherings in the 1980s.13 The fact that the first Korean association in New Zealand was established in the capital city as early as 1974 and the existence of the Korean Embassy in the same city must have made it easier to initiate the Korean language class. New Zealand Educational Institutions

In the late 1980s, a much more concerted effort was made to introduce Korean studies into the New Zealand education sector. The first attempt was made by the YonKang Foundation, the educational arm of the Doosan Group.14 As a result, the Korean language started to be taught as a part of the Korean studies program at the University of Auckland in 1989. The program ran on an experimental basis for two years on financial support from the foundation. This was an opportune moment, as the trade relationship between Korea and New Zealand had developed remarkably and Korea became New Zealand’s fifth largest export market in 1989. Besides, at the time there was no foundation like the present Korea Foundation, which is officially administered by the Korean government to promote Korean studies overseas. The Korean studies program at the university started to offer a full set of courses for a major in Korean in the bachelor’s degree program in 1991.15 As a result of the growing enrollment in the program and the commitment from the Korea Foundation to support the hiring of tutors and invitations 13  The Korean class is reported to have started in Wellington in November 1986. See table 2 in Kim Young-Sung (1994, 23). In another source, however, it was reported to have been opened in October 1986 by the Korean Association in New Zealand (Han 1995, 270). 14  Doosan, the oldest conglomerate in Korea, was also seeking closer commercial cooperation with New Zealand. 15  In New Zealand and Australian universities, students are expected to complete their B.A. degrees in three years.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

161

to overseas Korean scholars from 1992 to 1995, the university decided to accept Korean as an established program. The YonKang Foundation’s financial support was crucial in establishing Korean studies in the New Zealand education sector. The foundation not only carried out its initial financial commitment but also extended it for another year. In addition, the foundation initially provided scholarships for five students, for several years starting in 1990. The YonKang scholarship was the most prestigious scholarship in Korean studies available to the university; it provided students majoring in Korean the opportunity to take a ten-week intensive course at the Korean Language Institute at Yonsei University, covering airfares, accommodation, and meals.16 Graduates who received the scholarship now work in diplomacy, broadcasting, public services, education, business, and tourism. Other initiatives have been made possible with financial support from the Academy of Korean Studies or Korea Foundation in establishing Korean courses in other universities in New Zealand. But unfortunately, none of them have been sustainable, as will be discussed later. Attempts were also made to expand Korean language education at the primary and secondary school level. The first was the “Korea Study Programme,” which enabled Korean language education to be introduced to four schools in 1995; the second was the “Korean Language Project” during the period from 1997 to 1999. In 1993 the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs planned to introduce Korean to New Zealand schools under the Korea Study Programme, with the financial support of the Korea Foundation and the Ministry of Education. Coordinated by Jim Madden, the program publicized Korea in schools and tried to find ways to introduce the Korean language and Korean culture. In 1994 teachers from four schools underwent an intensive Korean language program at Yonsei University for four weeks. In the following year, the Korean language was finally introduced to one primary and three secondary schools in Auckland.17 Around one hundred

16 

The YonKang scholarship continued to be available until 2003. Around fifty students benefited from this generous arrangement. 17  Most children in New Zealand start primary school on their fifth birthday or soon after that. After six years there, they move to the two-year intermediate school program (year seven and year eight). Intermediate schools are considered part of the primary school system, therefore some primary schools extend their program to an intermediate level. A few junior high schools cater to students from years seven to ten. Secondary schools, mostly called either college or high school, usually offer five years of education, from years nine to thirteen. Some of the colleges start their teaching at the intermediate level. A few schools offer a senior high program from years eleven to thirteen.

162

Inshil Choe Yoon

students each year learned the Korean language through the program for two years, until 1996. The Development of Korean Language Education After the first Korean language classes in the Korean community church in Wellington in the mid-1970s, Korean language education held in the classroom did not spread much but was confined to the capital until the end of 1980s. Since the first offering of Korean language classes at the University of Auckland in 1989, however, Korean language education in New Zealand has sprung up in various forms in all education sectors in the country. Community Schools

As in Wellington, Korean language maintenance classes in Auckland also started in churches. They include weekend Korean schools established by a Korean Presbyterian church in December 1989 and the Korean Catholic community in May 1993. In 1995 the Korean Society of New Zealand in Auckland invited all the schools run by churches in Auckland to establish the Auckland Korean School. In 1997, the Presbyterian church, which had joined the school a couple of years earlier, reestablished its own churchbased school. In the same year, the New Zealand School of Korea was formed in Auckland. Korean community schools usually start classes a week after public schools begin and finish a week before school holidays start.18 Most of the community schools offer classes of mainly Korean language on Saturday mornings over three or four teaching periods. Some schools offer special lessons such as taekwondo after the regular classes and also offer Korean language and culture classes for non-Korean adults. All of the schools use textbooks that are currently used in schools in Korea, and Korean language textbooks for Korean heritage speakers published by the National Institute for International Education Development in Korea. However, there is no textbook developed by Korean community schools in New Zealand. To enhance cooperation, principals of the eleven schools formed the New Zealand Association of Korean Schools in 2006. The association holds a nationwide Korean speech contest each year and is organizing a conference for teachers of the Korean community schools in New Zealand. Children in Korean community schools in New Zealand have a higher Korean language proficiency than those in other English-speaking countries because Korean immigration in New Zealand is recent and, therefore, 18 

Primary, intermediate, and secondary schools have four school terms in a year, with the first term starting around the beginning of February.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

163

the majority of Korean children in New Zealand had already received some formal education in Korea. In the lower-level classes of the Korean schools, however, the majority of the students were born in New Zealand. Some of them grew up speaking both Korean and English fluently. Moreover, in the Korean language speech contest held in the United States in 2007 and organized by the National Association of Korean Schools, the first prize went to a Korean speaker born and raised in New Zealand. In 2006, a New Zealand–born Korean student won the first prize in the primary school division of the Korean language speech contest organized by the Auckland Primary Principals Association (APPA). There are several reasons for this successful language learning and maintenance among Korean children. The children tend to spend more time with their parents; interact with teachers in the Korean community schools; have easy access to Korean language media such as a satellite TV channel; and have frequent contact with family in Korea. However, these can all be grouped into one factor: the commitment to children’s education by the Korean community in New Zealand. The positive results of Korean language education in Korean community schools epitomizes the dedication of Korean communities in preserving their language in New Zealand. For the last two decades, Korean communities have been active in promoting Korean language education. As of 2014, there are twenty community schools in total: eleven schools with a total of 253 teachers and 1,173 students are placed under the care of the New Zealand Korean Education Centre, which is in Auckland, and nine schools, including one in Tonga, with a total of 56 teachers and 355 students, are placed in charge of the Korean Embassy in Wellington. There are five schools in Auckland, two schools in Whangarei, and one school each in Hamilton (Waikato), Rotorua, Tauranga, Palmerston North, New Plymouth, Wellington, Christchurch, Dunedin, Blenheim, Nelson, and Queenstown. The two largest schools in Auckland have enrollments of approximately 590 and 260 students. The enrollment in other cities is fewer than one hundred per school, except for the one in Christchurch, which has an enrollment of two hundred (New Zealand Korean Education Centre 2014, 9). The number of schools registered to either the New Zealand Korean Education Centre or the Korean Embassy in New Zealand has increased since 2007.19 This includes four church-based schools in the North Island, newly e­ stablished schools in different cities, mostly in the South Island, and one school in Tonga. The church-based schools are also under the care of the New Zealand Korean Education Centre, and the students in areas such as Tonga, where Koreans

19 

In 2007, only eleven non-church-based schools were registered.

164

Inshil Choe Yoon

are newly settled, are now taken care of by the Korean Embassy in New Zealand. The Korean language has also been promoted by local New Zealand communities and institutes. A number of community centers and high schools in Auckland and other cities have offered Korean language classes for adults when there were enough interested students. Other New Zealand institutions, such as museums, have also promoted Korean language and culture. “Learn Korean” sessions were offered for several years around the turn of the twenty-first century to adults and children on Korean Cultural Day at the Auckland Museum. This was one of several such promotions by museums in New Zealand. Secondary and Primary Schools

In 1997, the “Korean Language Project” joined the “Second Language Learning Project,” which was initiated by the Ministry of Education in New Zealand and started in 1996. The three-year-long Korean Language Project was coordinated by Lynn Williams, who had taught Korean for two years under the Korea Study Programme. Before the start of the project, she trained native Korean teachers so that they could be familiar with New Zealand language teaching methodology. These teachers had already had teaching qualifications in Korean and were expected to work initially as teacher’s aides. Students were taught Korean twice weekly, receiving on average 1.5 hours per week of teaching. In 1997, eleven schools (eight intermediate and three secondary schools) offered Korean language lessons, and there were 980 students in the Korean classes. That number increased to 2,390 at fourteen schools in 1998 and 2,790 at thirteen schools in 1999 (see appendix 1). These are much higher than the numbers of students who had participated in the earlier Korea Study Programme. The reason for the remarkable increase is that the majority of the schools in the project were intermediate schools, where form teachers usually choose a language to teach in their classes.20 After the three-year Second Language Learning Project ended, schools had to fund their own Korean language teaching. The number of schools offering Korean language classes was reduced to eight, and the students in Korean classes dwindled to nine hundred. To sustain Korean language education in schools, the Association of Korean Language Teachers in New Zealand made an appeal to raise funds among the Korean community in Auckland.

20 

The teacher who is assigned to a particular class, not a subject, is called the form teacher of the class.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

165

Apart from this initiative, other ways to improve Korean language teaching and learning in schools have been examined (Yoon 2001). A successful grant application to the Korea Research Foundation made it possible to initiate research for and develop a series of Korean language teaching materials for intermediate school children. In 2002 the first volume of the textbook was published and distributed to the schools. It was received with great enthusiasm from both students and teachers of Korean language classes.21 A noteworthy initiative was also made in Korean language education in secondary schools. In 2002, the first level of the national examination called NCEA (National Certificate of Educational Achievement) was implemented in New Zealand for year-eleven students. In this new national examination, Korean came to be included as a subject after community-wide support was shown and financial aid was given by the Korean Embassy. In the following years, level-two and level-three examinations were held. The fact that Korean language is part of the national-level examinations is a great achievement. Prior to the introduction of NCEA, Korean was excluded from national examinations. Since 2000, when the three-year Second Language Learning Project ended, uncertainty of financial support has been the prime hindrance, especially in Korean language teaching in primary and intermediate schools. The situation became worse in 2005. The Korean Embassy, which had been supporting the development mentioned previously and other events related to Korean language teaching such as a Korean speech contest, ended its sponsorship. The schools have been left to support themselves or to receive small amounts of financial aid from the Korean community in Auckland. As a result, the number of schools and students in Korean language programs sharply declined (see appendix 1). In the late 2000s, the teaching of the Korean language in schools underwent its most difficult period. The primary challenges facing establishment of Korean language classes in schools were long-term financial support and teacher training. First, the Korea Study Programme (1995–1996) and the Korean Language Project (1997–1999) were the short-term projects funded by the Korea Foundation and the New Zealand government. There was a great need for a long-term plan with financial commitment. Second, in the long run, teachers with a New Zealand qualification are most needed for the maintenance and expansion of Korean language classes in schools. It is often reported that there are students in high schools where 21 

The first textbook, Nami annyŏng, was produced with support from the Korean Embassy in New Zealand. The second volume of the textbook series was published in the following year. Having received many inquiries about purchasing the series outside New Zealand, they were published under a new title, Time for Korean, in 2009.

166

Inshil Choe Yoon

Korean is not taught who would like to learn Korean. However, it is impossible to offer Korean as a subject in schools, mainly because there are very few qualified teachers who can teach Korean. Even after years of observing and participating in Korean language classes in intermediate and primary schools, New Zealand teachers find the Korean language difficult to teach independently. The most desirable solution would be to produce qualified teachers who are Korean heritage speakers. There have been only a few Korean native-speaker full-time teachers in New Zealand schools. Once more Korean native-speaker teachers acquire the teaching qualification, Korean language classes, especially in the intermediate schools, would be ready to open. At the same time, using already trained Korean native-speaker teachers for part-time positions remains essential. Establishing scholarships to encourage Korean native-speaker university students to undertake teacher training in New Zealand institutes would be worthwhile. Kelston Boys High School is the only secondary school that has taught the Korean language continuously since 1995. In 1997 the first Korean ethnic teacher with a New Zealand qualification took over and actively expanded the program. The teacher initiated an exchange relationship with Wonkwang High School in Iksan, Korea.22 Since its inception, the program expanded steadily until around 2005. In recent years, however, the school has been hesitant to maintain classes in subjects with small numbers of students (see appendix 2). At the beginning of 2007, fifteen students applied for the year-nine Korean language class and seven for the year-ten class. The school has, however, decided to cancel year-nine classes with fewer than twenty-four applicants and year-ten classes with fewer than sixteen applicants. Consequently, most of the year-nine and year-ten applicants ended up taking Japanese: only six students in the whole of years eleven, twelve, and thirteen studied Korean. This most likely led to Korean not being offered in the high school since 2008.23 After the Korean Language Project came to an end, the continuation of Korean classes was left to each school. However, some schools in the project found it difficult to continue Korean classes. In addition, some schools in 22 

Kelston Boys High School and Wonkwang High School have actively maintained close relationships: students accompanied by teachers of each school have alternated their visits to the other school since 1998 to acquire the host county’s language and culture. In 2005 a graduate from Kelston Boys High School received a scholarship from Wonkwang University, which supported his Korean language study for a year. 23  A meeting was held in July 2007 at the University of Auckland in which the Korean teachers explained to a secretary from the Korean Embassy in Wellington the dire situation of Korean language education in New Zealand’s primary and secondary schools. Teachers’ optimism was boosted by the meeting; however, no news of support from the embassy followed.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

167

the projects were reluctant to continue Korean classes on their own budgets. The Korean language program in the secondary and primary schools did not have access to funding agencies in Korea as the Korean community schools did. Being aware of the situation, Korean native teachers who had been involved in the project committed themselves to finding ways to keep the Korean language classes alive. They raised funds, appealing not only to organizations such as the Korean Embassy and Overseas Korean Trade Associations in New Zealand but also to the Korean community in Auckland. They were able to fund some New Zealand teachers’ trips to Korea. Previously, teachers had found their trips to Korea very helpful in learning how to teach the Korean culture and language (Choe 2005, 552–560). However, financial support for such trips had ended by 2009. In 2007, the Confucius Institute was established at the University of Auckland. The most important aim of the institute was to help introduce Chinese (Mandarin) instruction into schools. Some schools that participated in the Korean Language Project took offers of free teaching in Chinese and ended up putting Korean aside. Only a couple of schools had Korean classes in 2009. The Association of Korean Language Teachers in New Zealand had been pleading for even minimal financial support for the following year in reports to the Korean Embassy and the Consulate of the Republic of Korea in Auckland. With an uncertainty of funding, the association could not offer schools favorable conditions for starting or maintaining Korean classes. This is in stark contrast to the situation in Australia, where Korean language education in most education sectors has greatly benefited from federal governmental support with strategic language policies.24 In promoting 24 

Although Australia is New Zealand’s closest neighbor, it is a much bigger country in many respects: land size, population, volume of trade, and so on. Its population, projected at 24,347,823, is more than five times that of New Zealand, which is 4,754,770 (figures from the websites of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Statistics New Zealand, both accessed February 1, 2017). Apart from the difference in scale, the two countries are comparable, especially in terms of the proportions of Koreans and the trends of the changes in their population. With the abolishment of the White Australia Policy in 1973, annual Korean immigration from a few people in 1962 grew to eighty-six in 1974, to several hundred in the latter half of the 1970s. The number of Koreans started to rise sharply in the late 1980s with the introduction of investment immigration in 1986. In 1992, the total number of Koreans was close to forty thousand, with the number of Korean residents over thirty-five thousand. See the Yearbooks of Statistics of Overseas Koreans, 1969–1992 and 1995–2007, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The number of Korean migrants rose again around the turn of the twentyfirst century, and the total number of Koreans in Australia reached over one hundred thousand by 2007. The preliminary estimated resident population of the country in December 2007 was 21,181,000 persons. The Korean population in Australia was about 0.47%, which

168

Inshil Choe Yoon

Asian languages, Australia has shown strong support on a large scale. In 1994 the Australian Commonwealth put forward the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Strategy with the view of second languages as a national resource and Asia as the key region with which Australia has to work closely for mutual economic enhancement. This was based on a report titled Asian Languages and Australia’s Economic Future (1994), which prioritized four Asian languages—Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, and Korean—as second languages in schools. Korean is one of the language priorities of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. With a total budget of $1.442 billion for the period from 1995 to 2006, it was the first attempt to introduce and establish the study of Asian languages and cultures in the education system at the national level.25 In 2002, after the second quadrennial, the Commonwealth funding was cut and the program was given over “to the States and Territories” (Henderson 2007, 16). It is reported that, according to a survey of one thousand schools, “73.5% of schools taught an Asian language; 25.2% taught Chinese; 31% taught Indonesian; 31.1% taught Japanese; and 2% taught Korean” (Henderson 2007, 16). This was a positive evaluation of the implementation of the NALSAS strategy. Another nationwide program in Australia, called the National Asian Languages and Studies in School Program (NALSSP), was launched with a budget of $62.4 million dollars over the four fiscal years of 2008–2009 to 2011–2012. The aim of the program was to “increase opportunities for students to become familiar with the culture and languages of four of our key, regional neighbours, namely China, Indonesia, Japan and Korea.” The program’s goal was that, “by 2020, at least 12% of students will exit Year 12 with a fluency in one of the target languages sufficient for engaging in trade and commerce in Asia and/or university study” (National Asian Languages and Studies in School Programme 2010). The outcome of the program is still to be determined. In the Australia in the Asian Century White Paper, published in 2012,26 however, Mandarin, Indonesian, Hindi, and Japanese were listed as the four national-priority Asian languages. With Korean omitted from the list, was a smaller portion than that of Koreans in New Zealand (0.76%) in 2006. Recent statistics reveal that the numbers of Korean residents in both countries are not increasing. Among the total population of Koreans, 72% resided in Sydney in 1986, 73.1% in 1991, and 69.2% in 2001 (Kim Young-Sung 2006). The decline in the twenty-first century was partly due to the Australian government policy of diverting immigrants to other areas. 25  In the report, it was recommended that these language priorities be reviewed periodically against regional development. 26  The white paper was prepared with a vision that the twenty-first century will be the Asian century and Asia will become the center of global economic activity by 2025. Australia,

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

169

Koreans in Australia immediately worked together to protest the sudden policy change. In August 2013, the government announced that Korean would be reinstated as one of the national priority Asian languages, along with the four languages mentioned previously (Australian Labour 2013). With this, Korean language education in the Australian education system, especially in the primary and secondary sectors, seems to be assured continued government financial support in the future. In New Zealand, 2012 brought about a new era in the dissemination of the Korean language in schools and society: that year, both the New Zealand Korean Education Centre and King Sejong Institute were established in Auckland. These represent the first long-term commitment by the Korean government nearly two decades after its first involvement in 1993, getting the Korean Studies Programme through the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs.27 The New Zealand Korean Education Centre began work to restart Korean language education in schools. Classes in six new schools began in July, August, or September, and two schools that already had Korean classes continued offering them (see appendix 1). By 2013, nine schools offered Korean, with a total of 942 students, and by 2014, over fourteen schools offered it (see appendix 2). This progress in schools is strengthened further by a commitment from the New Zealand government. In August 2014, it pledged to invest a total of ten million dollars over five years in the Asian Language Learning in Schools program (ALLiS) to increase the provision of Mandarin, Japanese, or Korean in schools.28 This has enabled schools to establish new language programs, or expand and enhance existing programs. For a successful implementation of the Korean language education in schools, the Korean Language Mentor position was created in 2016.29 The teaching and learning of the languages are implemented in both traditional classroom teaching and online, through the Virtual Learning Network (VLN) and netNZ.30 given its location in the Asian region, will therefore have further opportunities and will have to be prepared for them. See Australian Government 2012. 27  The New Zealand Korean Education Centre belongs to the Ministry of Education in Korea and focuses on supporting Korean community schools and schools at the primary and secondary levels. The King Sejong Institute, which is affiliated with the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, mainly focuses on the promotion of Korean language and culture among adults in New Zealand. 28  For detailed information, see http://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/ specific-initiatives/asian-language-learning-in-schools-programme/. 29  As for French, Spanish, German, Japanese, and Chinese language education in schools, language advisers have been working with the support of the New Zealand Ministry of Education for some time. A Korean language mentor is the latest addition. See http://www. ilep.ac.nz/national-language-advisers. 30  The Virtual Learning Network is an “interactive resource provided by the Ministry of

170

Inshil Choe Yoon

In round one of the ALLiS program, four groups were funded: Hobsonville Point (school) group, Takapuna (school) group, VLN Primary group, and the netNZ group. Both of the Hobsonville Point group schools and two of the four Takapuna group schools teach Korean.31 This boosted the number of schools holding traditional Korean language classes to twentynine in 2016 and the number of the students learning Korean to 2,106 (see appendix 3). Students from five schools learn Korean in the VLN Primary group and around one hundred students from nine schools learn Korean through netNZ.32 This encouraging development has come about more than a decade after the importance of the Korean language for New Zealand was publicly acknowledged by a prime minister.33 In round two, which starts at the beginning of the school year in 2017, the Carmel College group will join in teaching Korean.34 Having covered the Korean curriculum for years nine to thirteen, from 2017 netNZ will add years seven and eight to cover the entire intermediate and high school curricula. The Korean Education Centre’s goal is that, by 2020, 10 percent of the total intermediate and high schools in Auckland, which amounts to around forty-five schools, will have Korean language classes. In 2018 Korean will be included in the Teacher Professional Development Languages program.35 Aspiring Korean language teachers from all New Zealand schools are encouraged to volunteer and train through a year-long program of study and classroom practice. This latest development in Korean teacher training will help fulfill the Korean Education Centre’s projected goal. Education” for New Zealand teachers (http://www.vln.school.nz/). NetNZ, “a community of secondary and area schools from the Otago, Canterbury, Southland and West Coast regions” works “to provide learning based on New Zealand Curriculum” (http://netnz.org/). 31  Schools are grouped primarily based on regional proximity, with the number of schools in each group ranging from two to ten or more. While both Hobsonville Point Secondary School and Hobsonville Point Primary School teach Korean in the Hobsonville Point group, Westlake Boys’ High School and Takapuna Normal Intermediate are the only schools that taught Korean in the Takapuna group in 2016. 32  Correspondence with Hyun Joo Kim, a Korean language mentor, and Sue Kim, the Korean teacher at netNZ in December 2016. 33  When former prime minister (1999–2008) Helen Clark acknowledged the suggestion in the review of the New Zealand curriculum that foreign language education should be introduced in years seven through ten in all schools, she emphasized the importance of Korean, Chinese, and Indonesian in New Zealand. See Tunnah and Dye 2003. 34  Carmel College, the lead school in the group, will start teaching Korean in 2017. If the class is successful, the four remaining schools in the group may offer Korean. This also applies to the remaining two schools in the Takapuna group that did not offer Korean classes in 2016 (correspondence with Hyun Joo Kim in December 2016). 35  Presently, the ten languages Chinese, French, Japanese, German, Spanish, Samoan, ­Niuean, Cook Islands Maori, Tongan, and Tokelauan are included in this program. For details on the program, see http://www.tpdl.ac.nz/.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

171

Tertiary Institutes

Several tertiary institutions have attempted to introduce and maintain Korean language courses in the 1990s and beyond. A few years after being introduced to the University of Auckland, Korean was introduced to other tertiary institutes, mainly in Auckland. It was offered at the Auckland Institute of Technology (now, Auckland University of Technology), the UNITEC Institute of Technology, the Manukau Institute of Technology, and the Auckland Institute of Studies. Some of these were planned to be degreeconferring programs. The programs, however, did not continue smoothly: most of them had to cease in 1998 because of low enrollment. The sudden drop in student numbers, especially in international student numbers, was thought to have been caused by the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The crisis also affected the Korean studies program at the University of Waikato, which is in Hamilton. The program was introduced in the late 1990s with support from the Asia 2000 Foundation in New Zealand and the Academy of Korean Studies.36 After three years of running the program, the university closed it because of low enrollment. Victoria University of Wellington had been offering stage-one Korean language courses from 2005 to 2008 with financial support from the Korea Foundation. The enrollment in stage one in the first semester was around twenty to twenty-five. However, a stage-two course has not been established owing to the small number of students wishing to continue to that level. In the end, the program was terminated. At the end of 2006, the Auckland Institute of Studies, a private tertiary institute, decided to shut down its Korean program, together with the Chinese and Japanese programs, in order to concentrate on other subjects. Other tertiary institutes started offering Korean language courses at the turn of the 2000s. One of them was the University of Canterbury, which offered a Korean language acquisition class in its summer school in 2006. However, no continued Korean language course offerings were seen in the last decade other than those from the University of Auckland. In the previous description student numbers, not funding, was found to be the key to the maintenance of Korean courses in tertiary institutes. It is therefore important to find ways to increase and maintain student enrollment if Korean language teaching is to survive in tertiary institutes in New Zealand. Since the establishment of the Korean studies program in the then Department of Asian Languages and Literatures in the University of Auckland, where Chinese, Japanese, and Indonesian were already taught, it also 36 

Established in 1995, the Asia 2000 Foundation was later renamed the Asia New Zealand Foundation.

172

Inshil Choe Yoon

went through difficult times. The program started in 1989 with twentysix students enrolled in two Korean language courses each and twenty in the Korean culture course.37 The department was enthusiastic about its introduction: it cleared from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m., the prime lecture hour, for Korean language classes and did not schedule any other Asian language courses at the same time. Starting in 1990, however, the advantage of time scheduling for Korean language classes was lifted and the Korean program had to enter into full competition with other programs offered in the department. An annual Korean speech contest was initiated by the coordinator in 1990.38 In the following year, the program started to offer a full set of courses for a major in Korean in the bachelor’s degree. Until now, a degree program in Korean has been offered only at the University of Auckland. It is worth noting the generous financial support of the YonKang Foundation. In addition to supporting the establishment and maintenance of Auckland’s Korean studies program for three years until 1991, it started to offer the YonKang scholarship from 1990. Reviewing the growing enrollment in the program and the commitment from the Korea Foundation to support the hiring of tutors and invitations to overseas Korean scholars from 1992 to 1995, the university decided to accept Korean as an established program. Challenges and Changes

Challenges for the Korean language program at the University of Auckland in the last twenty-eight years have been the fluctuation in enrollment, the discontinuation of the YonKang scholarship, restructuring of the department, reduction of class contact hours, and others. Student enrollment rose steadily until 1996, when sixty-nine students enrolled in the stage-one beginning Korean language course. In the following years, numbers in the course decreased gradually. The decline in enrollment numbers since 1997 was also felt in other tertiary institutes. In some institutes, this resulted in the termination of Korean language teaching classes or programs. From 2000 to 2003, student enrollment at stage one remained stagnant while that of stages two and three declined: the numbers in the core firstsemester courses range from 33 to 36 in stage one, from 13 to 26 in stage two, and from 12 to 15 in stage 3. This situation is considered to be the result of changes in the university that affected the Korean language program. 37 

I coordinated the Korean language courses, and Hong-key Yoon coordinated the Korean culture course. 38  From 1990 to 2003, twelve Korean speech contests were held. Students from high schools also participated in the contests held in later years.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

173

The Department of Asian Languages and Literatures, in which the Korean program had been offered, was restructured into the School of Asian Studies in 2000. With new staff specializing in Asian history transferred from the history department, the school tried to establish an Asian studies major by creating new courses in history and cultural studies. Korean staff created more such courses under Asian study course names, and increased the Korean content in the Asian studies courses. Consequently, the number of Korean language courses decreased. The program also stopped offering undergraduate-level translation courses. Since then, the number of courses offering Korean as a foreign language has been at a minimum; that is, one course is offered per semester.39 Changes occurred also in the number of class contact hours. From the beginning of the program until 1995, Korean language courses at all three stages had seven hours of classes per week. In the following year, they were reduced to six hours, and another reduction was made in 2002. Further reduction of class hours was due to the degree structure change brought about in 2006. Full-time students were previously expected to take seven courses per year. The new degree structure required them to take eight courses. To maintain the students’ workload at the same level, class hours and the amount of content covered in courses were reduced. Korean language classes were no exception. Since 2006, stage-one and stage-two courses have had four hours of classes per week while stage-three courses have three hours. Starting in 2006, stage-one enrollment in the first semester increased to over sixty. This is because a stage-one Korean course was included in the faculty-initiated introduction of general education. Students are expected to take two general education courses from other faculties. More than onethird of the enrollment is made up of students taking beginning Korean 1 as a general education course. These students, however, do not contribute to the enrollment increase on a long-term basis, because the general education courses offered in the Faculty of Arts are taken by those who are not majoring in arts.40 Students who took the first stage-one Korean as a general education course but were keen to carry on studying Korean had to change it into a non-general-education course and continued studying Korean in the second semester.41 39 

The Korean language courses, which used to be year-long, like other courses, became semester-long courses in 2004. 40  “Faculty of Arts” in New Zealand is equivalent to College of Liberal Arts in the United States. 41  A recent change in the regulation allows them to keep the first Korean language course as their general education course.

174

Inshil Choe Yoon

The introduction of general education courses increased enrollment in Chinese and Japanese stage-one courses to an even greater degree, as indicated in table 4. It is noteworthy that, after the general education courses were introduced, both stage-two and stage-three enrollments in the three languages remained quite stable. Table 4. Enrollment in semester-one Korean-, Chinese-, and Japanese-as-aforeign-language courses at the University of Auckland

Korean

Chinese

Japanese

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Stage 1

36

48

50

68*

63*

2

13

16

15

15

15

3

12

9

8

8

12

Stage 1

137

153

145

228*

221*

2

87

73

63

66

76

3

43

54

33

40

35

Stage 1

201

210

191

256*

309*

2

169

172

187

171

139

3

89

91

85

103

85

Source: University of Auckland 2008. * Includes students enrolled as part of a general education course.

New Initiatives

As the coordinator of most Korean language courses at the University of Auckland, I considered and experimented with ways to overcome the obstacles just described. The first way was to create online exercises for students’ self-study. This was enabled by funding provided by the Faculty of Arts. Another initiative was to organize a Korea tour, in order to compensate for the reduction of course content and class hours. The first tour was organized in 2006. A tailored four-week intensive Korean language acquisition program was created for ten stage-one and stage-two students at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul. Five of the students received scholarships: four from the Asia New Zealand Foundation and one from the Arts Faculty at the University of Auckland. The School of Asian

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

175

Studies also provided financial assistance to all the students except the one who received the scholarship from the Faculty of Arts. The tour required a considerable commitment from the coordinating staff. However, it was worthwhile not only because the students had the experience of learning Korean while living in Korea, but also because their interest in furthering their Korean language learning was encouraged by financial support, especially when the YonKang scholarship was no longer available. Another initiative was creating a Korean language course for heritage speakers. As large-scale Korean immigration commenced fifteen years before, it was time that Korean language courses were introduced for heritage speakers at a tertiary level. Under the new “school” environment, where creating a new language course was not a priority, needs for the course had to be proved. A survey was conducted in 2004 to find out whether there would be sufficient enrollment if the course was offered. The result was positive. Finally, a Korean language course focusing on the enhancement of written skills for Korean heritage speakers was established, and in 2006 the course was offered and had an enrollment of thirty-eight students. At the time, the Chinese language program had been offering Chinese language courses for heritage speakers for several years. The enrollment in each stage one and stage two Chinese course from 2003 to 2006 was, in most cases, less than the enrollment in the Korean heritage speaker course in 2006. Comparing the much smaller number of Korean heritage speakers in New Zealand with that of Chinese heritage speakers, it was regarded to be realistic to offer the Korean heritage course every three or four years. Another attempt was initiating a workshop, titled “Learn to Read the Korean Alphabet in Ten Minutes” on Courses and Careers Day, the university open day, to promote Korean language learning to high school students and to the public. Since the first session in 2005, it has attracted 60 to 140 participants each year.42 Increase in Enrollment

After a period of stagnation in the early 2000s, the enrollment in the stageone, semester-one Korean language course jumped to one hundred in 2008 and has been increasing remarkably since 2013 to over two hundred since 2015. The figures include the number of students who are taking the beginners’ course as a general education (GE) course. If the enrollment in the Korean language course (GE) in summer school is counted, it becomes over three hundred in 2015, 357 in 2016, and 376 in 2017. 42  Participants receive small prizes after an assessment of their performance. The prizes have been donated by the Consulate of the Republic of Korea in Auckland, KOTRA in Auckland, and the University of Auckland.

176

Inshil Choe Yoon

This rapid increase is comparable with those of the first beginner’s courses at Australian universities in the cities of high population. Korean language courses are offered at six universities in Australia. Enrollment numbers for the stage-one, semester-one Korean language courses from 2009 are shown in table 5. Among the six universities, Monash University, the University of Sydney, the University of New South Wales, and the University of Western Australia are presently accepting students not only from the faculty affiliated with the Korean language program but also from other faculties.43 At the University of New South Wales, the stage-one Korean language course can also be taken as part of general education courses. With the much increased number of new students at the beginners’ level, the continuing task for the staff at the University of Auckland in recent years has been progressively higher maintenance ratios as students advance to higher stages. The Korean language program during the period from 2007 to 2013 had a shortage of permanent staff who could organize the study abroad courses as in 2006.44 Plans to continue tailored study abroad courses had to be abandoned notwithstanding the awareness of their extremely positive effect on students in the Korean language program as a whole. Instead, students were encouraged to choose their preferred institutes in Korea for their intensive Korean language learning program. The full-time staff shortage in the Korean language program was resolved when the University of Auckland was selected for the Core University Program for Korean Studies. With the addition of a new full-time staff member to the Korean language program in 2014, the effort of coordinating students’ study abroad was resumed.45 During the period from December to February, students took part in the intensive ten-week Korean language program at Korea University. They received two course credits from the University of Auckland for their achievement in Korea. Overall, there was a healthy growth in the enrollment in the stage two and stage three courses (see table 6). A comparison of these figures with those in appendix 4 indicates that the enrollments in a considerable number of Korean language courses are 43  In most universities, Korean language courses are offered in the Faculty of Arts, and students majoring in arts subjects take the courses. Students from the Faculties of Commerce, Engineering, or Science can take the first beginner’s Korean language course in some universities. 44  Dr. Young-Hee Lee coordinated and taught some Korean language courses for about ten years from 1997. Dr. Changzoo Song, who joined the Korean studies program in the early 2000s, also taught and coordinated Korean language courses. 45  Dr. Mi Yung Park joined the Korean language program in the first semester in 2014 and has been in charge of the study abroad program.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

177

Table 5. Enrollment in stage-one, semester-one Korean language courses at Australian universities 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Australia National University

31

43

47

52

63

64

65

73

Monash University

78

145

172

261

251

248

218

233

University of New South Wales

44

93

159

202

220

163

214

234

University of Sydney

51

68

89

111

135

156

179

270

University of Queensland

34

66

106

110

132

166

123

167

152

196

280

**

**

University of Western Australia

87*

Source: Korean Education Centre in Sydney 2016. * The class was offered in the second semester. ** Number unavailable.

comparable to or higher than that of equivalent Chinese or Japanese language courses. In fact, total enrollment in the Korean language courses in recent years came to surpass that of Chinese language courses. The phenomenon of more students’ studying Korean than Chinese in the University of Auckland has never happened before. The biggest contribution to this is the opening of the Korean language course for very beginners in summer school in 2015 and the increased intake of the stage one true beginners’ course. So, where do these students come from and why they would want to learn Korean over Chinese? To answer this question, we have to find the historical, social, and cultural elements that have been working together toward this. Historical, Social, and Cultural Background

At the beginning of the Korean program, students in the classes were mostly European New Zealanders. In 1989, twenty-one out of twenty-six Korean language students and nineteen out of twenty Korean culture students were Europeans. However, starting in the early 1990s, the enrollment of Asian students increased markedly, and by the mid-1990s they had become the majority in Korean language classes.

178

Inshil Choe Yoon Table 6. Recent enrollment in the Korean language program at the University of Auckland Korean language courses

2015

2016

78*

98*

Stage 1 Sem 1

226**

259***

Stage 1 Sem 2

58

64

Stage 2 Sem 1

22

39

Stage 2 Sem 2

23

34

Stage 2 Study Abroad A

6

12

Stage 2 Study Abroad B

6

12

Stage 3 Sem 1

20

22

Stage 3 Sem 2

12

21

Stage 3 Study Abroad A

0

2

Stage 3 Study Abroad B

0

2

451

565

Stage 1 Summer

Total

Source: University of Auckland 2016. * GE enrollment only; ** GE enrollment of 143 included; *** GE enrollment of 152 included.

The ratios of gender and ethnic backgrounds of the Korean language classes in 2007 are similar to those of student enrollment in Korean in 2002.46 Among ninety students enrolled in the first semester courses of stage one to stage three, fifty-four were female and thirty-six were male. The ratio of females has increased to 60 percent from 51 percent in 2002. It is difficult to measure the differences in students’ ethnic backgrounds because a considerable number of students (17.5 percent) did not state their ethnicity in 2002. What is certain is that Asian students were the majority and European students the largest minority to take Korean courses in both years. In 2007, 46 

The figures in 2002 are shown in the table of student enrollment in Korean, Chinese, Japanese, and English courses in Yoon and Yoon 2003, 53.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

179

these two groups constituted almost all of the student enrollment in Korean courses in the University of Auckland: seventy-one students were Asian and sixteen were Europeans. European and Asian students differ in their motives for studying Korean. This was revealed by a brief survey conducted in 2004. While European students tended to study Korean as a means of securing a job, Asian students wished more generally to understand Korean culture and to enjoy Korean drama, movies, and pop songs. In the interviews during the period from 2013 to 2016 with applicants for beginning Korean language classes, most European students expressed the desire to teach English in Korea. They had learned about opportunities in Korea through advertisements by the TaLK and EPIK programs and from those who had been teaching English in Korea.47 Almost all of the Asian female students, which is the most numerous group, said they came to be interested in learning Korean because of Korean drama and K-pop, which are part of Hallyu, or the “Korean Wave.” They enrolled in Korean language courses primarily to understand the conversation in Korean dramas and the lyrics of Korean pop songs. They are not satisfied with relying on subtitles in their own languages. In response to the question of why they were specifically interested in understanding Korean drama, and not dramas of other countries, such as the United States or Taiwan, they said that the plots of Korean dramas are much more interesting: they are fresh and different from the dramas that they used to watch. They also said that the dramas are well acted and that the actors and actresses in the dramas are beautiful. Some mentioned that the settings are beautiful, too. What was most impressive during the interviews was the students’ enthusiasm for talking about the Korean Wave and their frank admission that not only they but also their friends and their families enjoy watching Korean dramas tremendously. They often emphasized this by saying “my mum and my sister also enjoy Korean dramas,” or “everybody likes to watch Korean dramas.” After learning the Korean language, they said, they would like to travel to Korea and communicate with Koreans. They would also like to learn about Korean culture and eat Korean food. It is interesting to note that

47  Both TaLK (Teach and Learn in Korea) and EPIK (English Program in Korea) are Korean government programs that provided a teaching English experience in Korea to overseas students or graduates. While the TaLK program enabled students in the undergraduate program in a tertiary institute to teach English in public primary schools in Korea, EPIK employed graduates with a tertiary degree.

180

Inshil Choe Yoon

these students consider learning the Korean language to be the first step in appreciating Korean culture and cultural products appropriately. The presence of eager students studying Korean in Auckland is a key to the remarkable increase since 2013, whether they are already residing in Auckland or going to Auckland to study. This increase found in the University of Auckland during the 2006–2016 period resembles the national trend of net permanent and long-term migration over the same period.48 The presence of the New Zealand Korean Education Centre and King Sejong Institute in Auckland since 2012 have made communities in Auckland much more aware of the opportunities to learn Korean language. The Korean language environment boosted by the Korean government sponsors was further lifted by a series on the New Zealand government’s commitments to Asian language education, which started to be published in 2013. Among the new initiatives directly affecting students in tertiary institutions is the establishment of Prime Minister’s Scholarships for Asia (PMSA) in 2013. These scholarships are to support those who are planning to study, carry out an internship, or take part in research in undergraduate or postgraduate programs in Asia. The scholarship supports students studying in universities, institutes of technology, and private training establishments. Seven students in the University of Auckland received the scholarship as a group in the September round in 2014. The scholarship covered their tuition fee for the regular ten-week program at Korea University from December 2014 to mid-February 2015.49 In 2015, among the individual applicants, three students received PMSA and completed the intensive program in Korea. As for the 2016–2017 period for intensive Korean language training in Korea, three students of the Korean language program in the university received the PMSA.50 This unprecedented government-led initiative targeting tertiary students learning Asian languages and other related subjects is reassuring for a growing number of students in Korean language programs, not only in the University of Auckland but also other tertiary institutes in New Zealand. Encouraged by the recent increase in the interest in Korean language learning and the recent commitment initiated by both the Korean and New Zealand governments, universities that had previously offered Korean 48 

See the monthly net permanent and long-term migration in New Zealand (August 2006–2016) at http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/Migration/IntTravelAndMigration_HOTPAug16.aspx. 49  Two of the students also were awarded scholarships from the Faculty of Arts at the University of Auckland. 50  It is reported that a total of 907 students have received a PMSA scholarship since its inception in 2013. See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1612/S00338/prime-ministersscholarship-for-asia-announced.htm.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

181

language courses started to reintroduce them, in a slightly different manner from the way they offered the classes before. In January 2016, the Auckland University of Technology opened a Korean language and culture course for beginners.51 With an enrollment of around seventy, it is promising that the newly created course will be offered every year. Victoria University of Wellington reintroduced a “Korean Language and Culture for Beginners” course, this time as a short course in the continuing education program 2016.52 After a successful start in June, the course was offered again in late 2016. Together with this course, “Korean for Post-Beginners” will also be offered in 2017. Prospects Until 1990 less than one thousand Koreans, including short-term residents such as sailors, were living in New Zealand. For around two decades thereafter, however, the Korean community in New Zealand was transformed by rapid growth. In the early 1990s in Auckland, the Korean language started to influence local communities: in the North Shore of Auckland, Korean was recognized as the second highest spoken language at home, after English. Korean immigration to New Zealand has slowed down recently. Korean community schools have been keeping a close watch on the stagnant, if not falling enrollments in the 2010s. In this environment, close communications through the network formed among them in 2006 and with the Korean Embassy and Korean Education Centre are even more vital.53 With the support of the Korean government through the Korean Embassy in New Zealand, however, the Korean language education in Korean community schools is financially secure, compared to that in the New Zealand education system at all levels. The first Korean language education in the New Zealand education system began at the University of Auckland in 1989, before the sudden influx of Korean immigration started in the early 1990s. Sponsorship by a longsighted Korean company, Doosan, was crucial for establishing a Korean studies program in a tertiary education institution in New Zealand at the time. In recent years, the Korean language study in New Zealand’s tertiary and adult education sectors has received great interest in the country. This 51 

The course entails thirty-six hours of class contact hours in total over a period of six weeks. 52  The course is a two-hour weekly class that runs for eight weeks. 53  The Korean Embassy in New Zealand, which is based in Wellington, is in charge of Korean community schools around Wellington, the South Island, and Tonga. The New Zealand Korean Education Centre, which is in Auckland, is in charge of most schools on the North Island.

182

Inshil Choe Yoon

results in high enrollment in the Korean language courses in the Auckland University of Technology, Victoria University of Wellington, the University of Auckland, and institutes such as the Korean Education Centre and King Sejong Institute.54 The annual events administered by the Korean Embassy in New Zealand have been attracting many young people around Wellington, the capital of New Zealand. The quiz on Korea, the K-pop festival, and the video contest about Korea are highly publicized events that draw numerous participants. As part of the Korean Festival in Auckland in 2016, organized by the Korean Consulate in Auckland, the King Sejong Institute, Korean Education Centre, and the University of Auckland joined forces to give students opportunities to enhance their speaking skills in Korean.55 It is hoped that the successful 2016 Korean speech contest in Auckland is the first of regularly held competitions, leading eventually to a national competition. Opportunities for learning Korean language for a shorter period are not limited to the previously mentioned institutes. Korean community schools, the Korean Society of Auckland, Inc., and private education institutes also offer Korean language classes. The latest announced addition in this sector is the Korean Language and Culture Center of Wonkwang Digital University, which opened in September 2016 in Auckland.56 Judging from the packed Korean language beginner classes at both the New Zealand Korean Education Centre and King Sejong Institute, the new center will provide another opportunity for aspiring learners of Korean language and culture in New Zealand. Once unclear prospect of Korean language teaching in secondary and primary schools is now positive. Flanked by longer-term planning and 54 

Since 2015, the demand for Korean classes at the New Zealand Korean Education Centre has risen sharply. With forty students in the very beginners’ classes, the enrollment of July-September term in 2016 totaled one hundred twenty. This is the maximum capacity the premise allows. As there are four terms in a year and forty new students start the beginners’ course each term, one hundred sixty new entrants embark on their study at the center yearly. After a relocation in 2016, the King Sejong Institute reopened classes and had forty enrollments in September 2016. 55  Apart from the speech contest, the Korean Festival featured a Gala Concert, Korean Art Exhibition, K-Pop Contest, K-Food Cooking Class, Korean Film Festival, and the like. These events were sponsored by the Korean Consulate in Auckland and other Korean and New Zealand institutions. 56  This center, created after the one in Iksan and another in Seoul, is the first to be established outside Korea. However, Wonkwang educational institution’s engagement in the Korean language and culture education in Auckland is not new: Kelston Boys High School and Wonkwang High School have maintained a close relationship by alternating students’ visits since 1998.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

183

implementation by both the New Zealand and Korean governments, Korean language education in New Zealand schools now seems to be on solid footing. Although Korean immigration to New Zealand has slowed down, New Zealand and Korea are expected to maintain close ties in terms of trade, education, and tourism. Korea has remained New Zealand’s sixth largest export destination. As the free trade agreement between the two countries came into effect in December 2015, the ties between them are growing stronger. Korean language instructors and taekwondo instructors, who will be working in New Zealand for limited periods, will certainly affect the spread of Korean language.57 Three thousand Korean youths on their working holidays will also provide people in New Zealand with wider opportunities for connecting with Koreans and the Korean language.58 These recent developments, together with the Korean Wave, will make the further spread of Korean language in New Zealand possible. References Asia Education Foundation. 2010. The Current State of Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, and Korean Language Education in Australian Schools. Available at http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/mcjle/files/2012/07/current_state_ asian_langugae_overarching_report.pdf, accessed November 12, 2014. Australian Government. 2012. Australia in the Asian Century White Paper. Available at http://www.murdoch.edu.au/ALTC-Fellowship/_ document/Resources/australia-in-the-asian-century-white-paper.pdf, accessed August 4, 2015. Australian Labour. 2013. “Asian Century: Inclusion of Korean as a Priority Language.” Available at http://www.alp.org.au/asian_ century, accessed November 22, 2014. Choe Inshil. 1997. “Nyujillaendeu gyoposahoeui baljeon-gwa 21segi jeonmang” [The development of the Korean ethnic community in Auckland and the outlook of the twenty-first century]. In Proceedings of the Fourth World Ethnic Korean Conference, 171–189. Seoul: Academy of Korean Studies. ———. 2003. “Daeyangju jiyeok hangugeo gyojae gaebarui hyeonhwanggwa mirae gaebal banghyang” [The present and future 57  A total of two hundred skilled workers, such as multimedia designers, food scientists, veterinarians, and software engineers, will be allowed to work for up to three years in New Zealand. 58  Eighteen-hundred Koreans aged eighteen to thirty were permitted to enter New Zealand on working holidays. However, the number was raised to 3,000 in 2016.

184

Inshil Choe Yoon

development of Korean language teaching material in Australasia]. In Present Trends and Future Prospects of the Development of Korean as a Foreign Language Educational Resources, by the Fourth International Conference of Korean Language Promoting Council, 61–66. Seoul: Kyung Hee University. ———. 2005. “Nyujillaendeuui Hangugeo gyoyuk” [Korean language education in New Zealand]. In Hangugeo gyoyugnon [On Korean language education], ed. Pak Yŏng-mok et al., vol. 3, pp. 539–562. Seoul: Hanguk munhwasa. Ha Eunhee. 2006. “Nyujillaendeu junggodeunghakgyoeseoui Hangugeo gyoyuk hyeonhwang” [The present state of Korean language education in the intermediate and high schools of New Zealand]. Unpublished document by the Association of Korean Teachers in New Zealand. Han Kyong-gu. 1995. Segye ui Hanminjok, Asia, Taepyeongyang [Koreans in the world, Asia, Oceania]. Seoul: Tongirwon. Harvey, Sharon. 2013. “Revisiting the Idea of a National Languages Policy for New Zealand: How Relevant Are the Issues Today?” The TESOLANZ Journal 21: 1–13. Henderson, Deborah. 2007. “A Strategy Cut-Short: The NALSAS Strategy for Asian Languages in Australia.” Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 4 (suppl. 1): 4–22. Keating, Pauline, with David Keen. 2004. Knowing Asia: The Challenge for New Zealand’s Tertiary Education Sector. Wellington: New Zealand Asian Studies Society. Kim, Rosa. 2006. “The Current State of Korean Language Education (Auckland), 2006.” Unpublished paper. ———. 2009. “The Current State of the Korean Language Education (Auckland), 2009.” Unpublished paper. Kim Sun Hee. 2003. “Nyujillaendeu junggodeunghakgyoeseoui Hangugeo gyoyuk hyeonhwang mit baegyeong seolmyeong” [Explanation of the present state and the background of Korean language education in the intermediate and high schools of New Zealand]. Unpublished document by the Association of Korean Teachers in New Zealand. Kim, Young-Sook. 2006. “The Development of Teaching Korean in the Kelston Boys High School.” Unpublished paper. Kim Young-Sung. 1994. “Nyujillandeu ui Hangugin” [Koreans in New Zealand]. Weolgan haeoe tongpo [Overseas Koreans monthly] 64 (May): 18–25. ———. 1997. “Korean Tourists in New Zealand.” Jirihak yeongu [Geographical studies] 31: 41–58.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

185

Korean Education Centre in Sydney. 2014. “2014 hoju daehak Hangugeo mit Hangukak hyeonhwang” [Current state of Korean language and Korean studies in the universities in Australia, 2014]. Available at http://www.auskec.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=prog3&wr_id=5, accessed November 26, 2014. ———. 2016. “2016 hoju daehak Hangugeo mit Hangukak hyeonhwang” [Current state of Korean language and Korean studies in the universities in Australia, 2016]. Available at http://www.auskec.kr/ bbs/board.php?bo_table=prog3&wr_id=7&auto_login=on, accessed September 24, 2016. May, Stephen. 2010. “Where to from Here? Charting a Way Forward for Language and Education Policy in Aoteraroa/New Zealand.” The TESOLANZ Journal 10: 22–35. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Overseas Koreans Division). 1969–1992 and 1995–2007. Yearbook on Statistics of Overseas Koreans. Seoul: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. National Asian Languages and Cultures Working Group (Queensland). 1994. Asian Languages and Australia’s Economic Future. Available at http://apo.org.au/system/files/34111/apo-nid34111-34546.pdf, accessed November 21, 2017. National Asian Languages and Studies in School Programme. 2010. The Current State of Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean Language Education in Australian Schools. Available at https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/the_current_state_ of_chinese_indonesian_japanese_and_korean_language_education_ in_australian_schools.pdf accessed November 20, 2017. New Zealand Korean Education Centre. 2014. “2014 Plan of Main Tasks of New Zealand Korean Education Centre.” Unpublished document. Peddie, R., C. Gunn, and M. Lewis. 1999. Starting Younger: The Second Language Learning Project Evaluation. Auckland: Auckland UniServices. Royal Society of New Zealand. 2013. “Languages in Aotearoa New Zealand.” Available at http://royalsociety.org.nz/media/Languages​ -in-Aotearoa-New-Zealand.pdf, accessed November 22, 2014. Rudd, K. 2005. “Asian Languages and Australian’s Economic Future: A Decade of Lost Opportunity.” Address to the Australian Institute of International Affairs, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, May 17. Shackleford, Nick. 1996. “Language Policy and International Languages of Trade and Tourism: Rhetoric and Reality.” M. Ed. thesis, University of Auckland.

186

Inshil Choe Yoon

StatsNZ. 2001. Census: Snapshot 4—Maori. Available at http://www​ .stats.govt.nz/Census/2001-census-data/2001-census-snapshot-down​ loadable-pdf-files.aspx, accessed November 20, 2017. ———. 2006. “Birthplaces and People Born Overseas.” Available at http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/ quickstats-about-a-subject/culture-and-identity/birthplace-and​ -people​-born-overseas.aspx, accessed November 20, 2017. Tunnah, Helen, and Stuart Dye. 2003. “‘Schoolchildren Need to Learn Second Language,’ Says Study.” New Zealand Herald, June 17. University of Auckland. 2001–2017. Class rosters. Waite, Jeffrey. 1992. Aoteareo, Speaking for Ourselves, part B, The Issues. Wellington: Learning Media, Ministry of Education. Yoon, Hong-key, and Inshil Choe Yoon. 2003.  “The Development of Korean Studies in New Zealand.” In Co-ownership and Strategic Cooperation, Proceedings, Symposium on Korean Studies in Southeast Asia and Australasia, 49–58. Seoul: Seoul National University. Yoon, Hong-key, and Inshil Choe Yoon. 2006. “Koreans.” In Settler and Migrant Peoples of New Zealand, ed. New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 196–198. Auckland: David Bateman; Wellington: Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Yoon, Inshil Choe. 2001. “Korean Language Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools and Material Development in New Zealand.” In Korean Studies in Oceania and Southeast Asia: Strategic Cooperation in Research and Education, ed. Gregory Nicholas Evon and Chung-Sok Suh, 64–72. Sydney: Korea-Australasia Research Centre, University of New South Wales. Yoon, Inshil Choe, and Hong-key Yoon. 2015. “Koreans: TwentiethCentury Immigration.” In Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Available at http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/koreans/, accessed September 1, 2016.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

187

Appendix 1. Korean Language Classes in Primary and Secondary Schools, Auckland, New Zealand

Number of schools per sector

Total Number number of Number of Korean schools of students teachers

Number of New Zealand teachers

Funding agency

1995

High School Primary

3 1

4

42 56

0

4

Korea Foundation

1996

High School Primary

3 1

4

47* 45*

5**

4

Korea Foundation

1997

High School 3 Intermediate 8 Primary 1

12

1998

High School 3 Intermediate 11 Primary 1

15

1999

High School 3 Intermediate 11 Primary 2

16

2000

High School 3 Intermediate 6 Primary 1

10

2001

High School 1 Intermediate 6 Primary 1

8

2002

High School 1 Intermediate 6 Primary 1

8

2003

High School 1 Intermediate 7 Primary 1

9

980 (+40)

2390 (+28)

2790 (+23)

980

770

840

2006

7

23

Korea Foundation/ Ministry of Education NZ

9

81

Korea Foundation/ Ministry of Education NZ

8

77

Korea Foundation/ Ministry of Education NZ

6

23

Each school

6

20

Each school/ Korean community

6

23

Each school/ Korean community

7

52

Each school/ Korean community continued

188

Inshil Choe Yoon

Appendix 1. (continued)

Number of schools per sector

Total Number number of Number of Korean schools of students teachers

2004

High School 1 Intermediate 7 Primary 1

9

2005

High School 1 Intermediate 6 Primary 1

8

2006

High School 1 Intermediate 4

5

2007

High School 1 Intermediate 2

2008

2009

Number of New Zealand teachers

Funding agency

6

57

Each school/ Korean community

6

31

Each school/ Korean community

551

4

5

Each school/ Korean community

3

102

2

1

Each school/ Korean community

Intermediate 1

1

180

1

1

Each school/ Korean community

Intermediate 2

2

77

2

1

Each school/ Korean community

2004

995

Source: Kim S. 2003, Kim R. 2006, 2009. Note: The figures in parentheses, after +, indicate the numbers of students learning Korean at Kelston Boys High School, which are not included in the figures shown before the parentheses. * These were the numbers that were expected to enroll that year. ** Number of teacher’s aides.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

189

Appendix 2. Enrollment in Korean Classes at Kelston Boys High School Year 9

Year 10

Year 11

Years 12 and 13

Total

1995

17

17

1996

26

8

1997

25

10

5

40

1998

14

9

5

28

1999

17

6

0

23

2000

24

9

6

39

2001

27

8

5

40

2002

35

7

7

8 (Year 12 only)

57

2003

30

9

13

5

57

2004

27

8

7

11 (7 + 4)

53

2005

33

7

6

8 (4 + 4)

54

2006

17

10

5 (Years 11 and 12)

5 (Year 13 only)

37

Source: Kim Young-Sook 2006.

34

190

Inshil Choe Yoon Appendix 3. Korean Language Teaching in Primary and Secondary Schools Schools offering Korean language classes 2012

1 primary school 6 intermediate schools 1 high school

Total number of schools

Number of students

8* n/a

2013

1 primary school 7 intermediate schools† 2 high schools

10

942

2014

12 intermediate schools 4 high schools

16

1,319

2015

primary to high school

23

1,200

2016

10 primary schools** intermediate school high school

29††

2,106††

Source: New Zealand Korean Education Centre 2014 and subsequent correspondence with the staff of the Korean Education Centre in Auckland. * The number includes two schools that have been offering Korean classes since 2010 and six new schools that opened Korean classes in July, August, or September 2012. ** Four primary schools extend their curriculum to year 8. Classes in years 7 and 8 are normally taught in the intermediate schools. † The intermediate school that is a part of the primary school entered in the row above is not included. †† The numbers of schools and students engaged in distance learning through Virtual Learning Networks are not included here.

Korean Language Spread and Education in New Zealand

191

Appendix 4. Recent Enrollment in Chinese and Japanese Language Programs at the University of Auckland Chinese language courses

2015

2016

49*

46*

Stage 1 sem1

167**

177**

Stage 1 sem2

61

64

Stage 2 sem1

36

50

Stage 2 sem2

34

39

Stage 2 Study abroad A

2

1

Stage 2 Study abroad B

0

0

Stage 3 sem1

24

23

Stage 3 sem2

26

19

Stage 3 Study abroad A

8

11

Stage 3 Study abroad B

0

1

407

431

Stage 1 Summer

Total

Note: Only Chinese as a foreign language courses are listed here. Courses for native or semi-native speakers, which have been offered under various titles, are not included.

Japanese language courses

2015

2016

Stage 1 Summer

108*

99*

Stage 1 sem1

192**

207**

Stage 1 sem2

72

69

Stage 2 sem1

60

65

Stage 2 sem2

58

57

Stage 2 Study abroad A

4

7

Stage 2 Study abroad B

0

0 continued

192

Inshil Choe Yoon Appendix 4. (continued) Japanese language courses

2015

2016

Stage 3 sem1

39

48

Stage 3 sem2

40

36

Stage 3 Study abroad A

2

1

Stage 3 Study abroad B

0

0

575

589

Total Source: University of Auckland 2016. * General education enrollment only. ** General education enrollment included.

SEVEN

On the Korean Language in Diaspora— Focusing on the Western United States

CLARE YOU

Introduction Early on, Korea lay in the shadow of China’s cultural dominance in East Asia and lacked its own writing system; instead, the government and literati used Chinese characters exclusively. Although Korea gained a unique writing system, Hangul, in 1446, people did not accept Hangul as the national script for another few hundred years—not until the early 1900s, when Korea became a colony of Japan. At the turn of the twentieth century, the soul of the Korean people was awakened by such elite men as Ju Si-gyeong, Choe Hyun-bae, and Park Seung-bin. Ju and Choe, revered promoters of the Korean language, contributed to systematizing the grammar of Korean and educating the Korean people in their own language, followed by Park, who advocated the full use of Hangul, which he described as nothing less than “the nation and the people.”1 In the same vein, over a century of Koreans in America resulted in a diverse and strong Korean-language teaching and learning environment. Starting in Hawai‘i and moving on to the West Coast, I will show how the Korean language became a thread, albeit a minor one, of the multicultural fabric of the United States. This chapter also looks into the funding sources 1  Ju Si-gyeong (1876–1914), born in Hwang-hae Province, was the most important proponent of the modern Korean language; he standardized Korean and strove to educate the people in their own language. Choe Hyun-bae (1894–1970), also known as Oe Sol, was an educator and a linguist who published Uri mal bon, a comprehensive book on Korean grammar and phonology, in 1937. Park Seung-bin (1880–1943), a lawyer trained in a Japanese university, strove to regain his country. His independence movement was based on the belief that his goals could be achieved through a language that equates nation and people, according to Mitsui Takashi (2012). Park’s belief in the trinity of nation, people, and language appeared as early in 1907.

194

Clare You

and social factors that affect and drive Korean language programs in the United States as well as observable socioeconomic elements that contribute to the popularity of the Korean language, especially in California and elsewhere on the West Coast.2 It goes without saying that the history of the Korean language in the United States is the history of the Korean people who immigrated there, as is the case for many other minority languages. The recent high enrollments in Korean courses in colleges and other schools, along with studies on current Korean language education in the United States, have produced a nontrivial amount of statistical data. Various surveys by the American Association of Teachers of Korean (AATK Newsletters), the Korea Foundation (2007, 584–588, 984–1266), and other public organizations, as well as by individual scholars (e.g., Lee 2000; Ko et al. 2015) give us a general picture of the programs’ scope and the trends in their popularity, but the explanations of why and how these developments came about are few. Trying to address these questions, I will look into the language policies, funding, and social factors that have affected Korean language programs and their popularity in the United States. Focusing on the West Coast, I will narrate chronologically the events relating to the Korean language spread from the arrival of the Korean language in the United States to the present, over a century in “the land of strangers.” The first section will trace how the language of “sojourners” transmuted to that of “acquiescent settlers” from 1903 to the mid-1940s; the second section will describe and rationalize the turbulent course of the Korean language “spread” through the 1980s; the third section will discuss the current state of the Korean language in the United States; and, finally, the fourth section will look toward the future. A cautionary note on the term “spread” is in order, for “Korean language spread” and “Korean language spread policy” have been frequently used in essays and articles without standard definition. As Robert Cooper writes, language spread may be defined as “an increase, over time, in the proposition of a communication network that adopts a given language or language variety for a given communicative function” (Cooper 1982). Using Cooper’s classic definition, language “spread” was studied and defined in various, though not mutually exclusive, ways in the early 1980s, in terms of behavior, usage pattern or form, and function (see Cooper 1982, Fishman 1982), often drawing on the language spread of the European colonial powers. We have gained many insights into language spread through the

2  The number of students in Korean classes nationwide in 2015, 12,230, is well below the numbers for the most-studied languages, including Japanese, Chinese, and Arabic. Currently, only 154 colleges offer Korean, but that is 70 percent more than a decade ago (Gordon 2015).

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

195

last four decades of studies,3 hence the current phenomenon of Korean language “spread” requires further elaboration. I apply to my definition Ofelia Garcia’s insight that “the shrinking of geographical space coupled with the dynamism of the concept of time will certainly accentuate language spread in the twenty-first century as it shifts the traditional understandings of language spread” (2011, 411). As characterized by Garcia, “awareness,” one of Cooper’s four aspects of human behavior toward language, means “being positively inclined toward a language” and that it has “psychological import” (2011, 461; emphasis mine). When a language becomes popular, thus having “psychological import” and being used in a different culture or society regardless of its users’ motives, ethnicity, or fluency, the seeds of language spread have been sown. Simply put, when people love to sing in or listen to a specific language, or to enroll in courses in that language, or to try to communicate in that language, the language’s spread has begun. This is the context in which I use the term “Korean language spread,” augmented by some empirical data and life experiences. Sowing the Seeds of Korean Language Spread The Early Years: 1903–1945

The history of the Korean language in the United States entails a history of immigration to the United States. By an accident of history that eliminated the immigration of Chinese laborers,4 Korean immigration to the United States began with a boat carrying 101 Koreans (originally 121 but 20 did not continue from Japan for health reasons) who arrived at Honolulu on January 13, 1903. Hawai‘i’s need for sugar plantation workers led to recruitment in Korea at the turn of the twentieth century (Ch’oe 2007.) Koreans signed up to work on this foreign soil with hopes of earning enough money to return home and live happily thereafter. But the sojourners’ dreams were not to be. Within seven years after the first boat, the RMS Gaelic, left Korea, the homeland that the immigrants had left behind was annexed by Japan (1910). Although the immigrants performed backbreaking labor in the sugar cane fields and were often mistreated under deplorable working conditions by the owners and the foremen alike, they flourished in numbers as their working and living conditions improved. In the five years from 1901 3  See an excellent summary of language spread studies in the twenty-first century by ­Ofelia Garcia (2011). 4  After the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and subsequent laws that effectively eliminated the cheap labor from China by 1900, and Japanese laborers’ demands for their rights, the Hawai‘i recruiters turned to Korea (Patterson 1994; Yu 2001, 34).

196

Clare You

to 1905, sixty-five ships brought 7,226 people, consisting of 6,048 men, 637 women, and 541 children. By 1910, nearly a thousand Koreans—964 men and 19 women—had returned to Korea, and over 2,000 had moved on to the mainland, mainly to California, the majority for better economic opportunities and some for education; the remaining Koreans in Hawai‘i numbered only 4,187, but that was a significant beginning.5 They were able to move around from job to job with their families; they adjusted to the sugar plantation life with Christian faith; they brought babies into the world, saved what they could, and built homes—and a few even ventured into urban businesses. As their children grew, the immigrant parents discouraged them from the life of farm laboring. Owing to the cultural traditions they brought with them, they wanted to give their children the best education possible; in addition to the subjects taught at public schools, they taught the children their mother tongue and instilled in them old Korean values. Someday, they believed, their children would return home; they would live and prosper in Korea once it became free and independent again. The imbalance between men and women was acute; only those lucky enough to have mates were able to start a family. The cost of traveling back to Korea to find a wife was prohibitive for these immigrant men earning a half dollar a day (Patterson 2000, 17), and the anti-miscegenation law did not help the establishment of families. Following what had already been practiced by Japanese immigrant workers in Hawai‘i, Korean picture brides began to arrive—all told, over one thousand women—and they eventually formed the core of the first generation of Korean immigrant families who produced and educated their children (W. Kim 1959, 27).6 However, the majority of the Korean men remained and died as bachelors in Hawai‘i or California (Committee on San Francisco Centennial Immigration History 2004).7 Once settled, most parents wanted to educate their children by whatever means they could afford—in settings ranging from one-room schoolhouses to churches.8 Eventually, as the immigrants’ incomes and savings grew,

5 

There were 1,549 plantation workers remaining in 1910 (Chang and Patterson 2003). From 1910 until 1924, when Asian immigration was closed, 951 picture brides went to Hawaii and 115 to the mainland; from these families, there were about 7,000 descendants after forty years (1950). In all, 964 men and 19 women returned home (W. Kim 1959, 8). 7  Many Korean men moved to California to work on the railroad and at farms. Among the 189 men buried in central California (the cities of Dinuba and Reedley), two-thirds were single, never married. 8  “The Methodist Episcopal mission built the first large Korean plantation church in Ewa in 1905 and the first day school” (Chang and Patterson 2003, 38). 6 

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

197

even if by a snail’s pace, they pooled their resources to establish a Korean school in the Hilo Methodist church in 1907 (more on this later). Much of the driving force in the family education and stability of the home can be attributed to the Korean picture brides, who were better educated than their husbands, and who “brought life and hope to the predominantly bachelor community. They led their husbands to farms in Honolulu and California, and actively took part in church activities and independence movements to free their homeland from Japanese colonial rule” (Yu 2001). The brides’ incredible success with promoting Korean language education was such that, “ten years after immigrating [to Hawai‘i], by 1915 almost every man could read Korean newspapers” (W. Kim 1959, 242). This statement evinces the fervor for learning of the first-wave immigrants, whose illiteracy rate hovered around 60 percent. During the twenty years from 1905 to 1925, Korean was taught daily for a few hours in every church in Honolulu. Not only in churches but also where there were Koreans, they set up a school to teach Korean to children and adults alike, with the support of the Korean National Association.9 On September 2, 1906, only three and a half years after the first immigrants arrived, the Korean Methodist Church of Hawai‘i established its first Korean boarding school to educate Korean children who did not reside in Honolulu or could not commute to the city. They opened the first primary school in Hilo in April 1907 to teach Korean. Syngman Rhee (1875–1965), who later became the first president of South Korea, actively engaged in Korean education in 1913 through the Hanin jungang academy (Korean Central Academy), once a church school. By 1929 on the islands of Hawai‘i, there were eighteen Korean schools with Korean language education as their primary goal (W. Kim 1959, 244– 248).10 The educators also wrote textbooks for the purpose of “promoting exclusively the Fatherland’s spirit and the teaching of Korean; the textbook contents were made to facilitate these objectives.” Underlying the “objectives” was their patriotic fervor to regain the homeland from Japan by educating and enlightening fellow Koreans displaced here, through Korean language education. By 1922 they had produced three sets of Korean textbooks—elementary, intermediate, and advanced—in the United 9  The first unified Korean National Association (Daehanin gungminhoe), set up in 1909 with its central office in San Francisco, was empowered with a special provision from the U.S. government to sponsor Korean students entering the United States without a passport. This association lasted for twelve years, helping various causes for Korean independence and education overseas (W. Kim 1959, 100). 10  Patterson’s account is less rosy than Kim’s: “the golden age” of Korean education gives the total number of schools as 10, far less than Kim’s 18. Patterson notes, “Korean language schools never really flourished, especially compared to the Japanese language schools” (2000, 118).

198

Clare You

States (Kang and You 2011, 31–38).11 Another notable mention to be made here was Daedo, a San Francisco–based monthly evangelical magazine that started publication in December 1908. Although a church magazine, as the first magazine in the United States written in Korean, Daedo’s contribution to Korean speakers’ educational, social, and intellectual uplift at the time was immense. As noted by Daedo’s editor, Lee Dae-wi,12 this publication was not only intended to impart morals and virtues to his compatriots but also to enrich their cultural sphere by recommending good novels (Committee on San Francisco Centennial Immigration History 2004). As the boats carrying Korean immigrants ceased to arrive at the end of 1905, due to the U.S.–Japan agreement,13 the earlier Korean immigrants to Hawai‘i started to move to the mainland, mainly to California. On the West Coast, including Los Angeles, Stockton, Reedley, Sacramento, and San Francisco, and even as far away as Mexico and Cuba, over a dozen Korean schools were set up to facilitate the teaching of Korean from 1916 through the 1930s. This was the sowing of the seeds—the starting point of language education in the Korean diaspora in North America. In the ensuing years, however, Korean language education in the United States began to head downhill due to American xenophobia, which was rampant in the 1920s and 1930s—the most significant factor being the Immigration Act of 1924.14 And the economic turmoil—the Great Depression in the 1930s—and World War II in the 1940s did not help. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, the government’s ban on foreign language schools effectively closed all Korean schools. After 1944, a small number of schools in Hawai‘i, Los Angeles, and other cities on the West Coast reopened to offer a few hours of Korean language instruction on weekends or during summer vacation, thus sustaining a marginalized existence until the liberation of Korea in 1945. As W. Kim 11  In 1909, a replica of Yunyeon pildok by Hyeon Chae in Korea (1907) was published with a new cover titled Gungmin dokbon by Jaemi Hanin sonyeon seohoe as the first Korean textbook in 1909 and distributed through San Francisco Shinhan minbo (a newspaper). In 1911, Chodeung Gungmin dokseup (Elementary Korean textbook): High, Mid, Low, was published in three volumes by Daehanin Gungminhoe chonghoe in 1922. 12  Lee Dae-wi (1878–1928), a Methodist minister and Renaissance man, started the first newspaper in Korean, invented a Korean typewriter, collaborated in the first Korean textbook, and was the first Korean graduate of UC Berkeley, in 1913 (Committee on San Francisco Centennial Immigration History 2004, 279). 13  The Taft-Katsura Agreement of July 1905 effectively blocked Koreans. See also Committee on San Francisco Centennial Immigration History 2004, 312. 14  According to the Parker Bill (1921), foreign language schools had to be licensed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Immigration Act of 1924 effectively barred Asians; related were the Chinese Exclusion Act in Canada (1923) and the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (Virginia).

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

199

reminisced wistfully in his book, acknowledging that the waning trend in Korean language education was caused not only by events of the times but also by the process of the inevitable “language shift” (to use the sociolinguists’ term) among second- and third-generation Korean immigrants in the United States: As Korean residents in the US lived a Korean life, they spoke Korean at home and devoted themselves to the children’s education. This period of 20 years between 1905–1925 was the golden age for Korean children’s [Korean] education. . . . However, the Korean language education started to decline after the golden age, because this American-born second generation, unlike the first generation, preferred American life style and spoke in English at home though they were not against Korean education. (W. Kim 1959, 250)

Children seem to learn language by osmosis, and the syntactic similarity of Korean and Japanese helped shortcut the long road to comprehending the strange language in occupied Korea. Yet the forced environment and reprimands worked successfully to cause the native tongue to be lost in a short time on the homeland.15 By the end of World War II, the younger generation was mostly illiterate in Korean and left with only enough proficiency for basic daily chats. Keenly aware of what was happening in the motherland, the immigrants on U.S. soil were eager to teach their children in order to preserve their native language. The Ensuing Years: 1945–1980s

With the end of World War II, Korean language education shifted its fertile ground from Hawai‘i to the West Coast, where a large population of Korean immigrants settled and started to see light in its future while the Cold War stood on the horizon and the Korean War was not far behind. The Army Language School, later renamed the Defense Language Institute (DLI), was created in 1947 to train military and civilian linguists needed to perform government work; although it was an army language school, it contributed to strengthening foreign language programs throughout the United States. During the Korean War, from 1950 to 1953, the DLI trained soldiers and civilians in Korean for intelligence and other sensitive government work. The Korean program had been the third largest behind the Russian and Chinese programs in 2007, and was still the third after the Arabic and Chinese

15  In 1945, at my elementary school in Korea, my little friend blurted out in confusion, “My tooth just fell out,” in Korean. She had to stay all day in front of the class as a punishment for speaking Korean.

200

Clare You

programs in 2015.16 I should note that one of several positive outcomes of the military language schools was that they trained a number of future prominent scholars of East Asian studies who contributed to the field in the post–Korean War era,17 just as the Peace Corps has done more recently. Ironically, thanks to the Korean War, the language lab–based audiolingual or army method, once a required pedagogical tool of language teaching, was developed at DLI and was used nationwide until the “behavioristic pedagogy” was replaced by a broader means of teaching language based on the “natural approach” (Krashen and Terrell 1983) and “communicative competence” (Savignon 1991, 1998) during the 1970s and 1980s. Eventually, the traditional audiolingual language labs with tape recordings were largely transformed into labs with modern Internet technology, equipped with such devices as video, YouTube, e-mail, and social media. Half a century after the first wave of Korean immigrants (1905), the second wave, after the Korean War (1950–1953), brought Koreans to the United States in numbers growing exponentially every decade until the 1990s (Yu 2001, 4).18 First, students, war brides, and war orphan adoptees arrived. Unlike the other two groups, the student groups went to study and return; however, many stayed on for jobs and because of political reasons. For these highly educated men and women, returning to war-torn Korea with little hope of finding a good job was not an attractive option, especially when they could find stable positions in the United States. These educated elites eventually became the leaders of Korean American society in the United States. In the 1980s, during the Korean economy’s exuberant boom, immigration started to decline gradually after reaching its peak in 1987, and many immigrants returned to Korea in search of better opportunities, contributing to the rapid development of education and the economy in Korea. Despite what seemed to be a slow increase of Korean immigration to the United States, the 2010 census showed the Korean American popula16 

At the Presidio of Monterey, the renamed Army Language School expanded rapidly in 1947 to meet the requirements of U.S. global commitments during the Cold War. Instructors, including native speakers of more than thirty languages and dialects, were recruited from all over the world. Russian became the largest language program, followed by Chinese, Korean, and German. After the Korean War (1950–1953), the school developed a national reputation for excellence in foreign language education. The Army Language School led the way with the audio-lingual method and the application of educational technology such as the language laboratory (personal communication with Byung-joon Lim, of DLI, June 29, 2007, and October 2015). 17  Such scholars include the late professors emeriti of UC Berkeley Robert Scalapino and Michael Rogers, and Professor John Jamieson, to name a few. 18  See also figures from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean Americans, accessed November 10, 2015: 1970 (69,130, +3940.3%), 1980 (354,593, +412.9%), 1990 (798,849, +125.3%), 2000 (1,076,872, +34.8%), and 2010 (1,423,784, +32.2%).

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

201

tion to be close to 1.5 million (1,423,784), an increase of about 4,000 percent from the 1965 population (about 35,000) (Yu 2001, 5, 22).19 Korean language education and language spread went hand in hand with the increase, although it was more “transplant” spread than “implant”’ spread.20 One can question whether this is a true spread or just a move from one place to another. Regardless of the “spread” definition, when a transplanted speaker stays on foreign soil and uses the language, we can call it an “effective language spread,” just as English was spread by the English-speaking immigrants who moved around the world, and French, German, Spanish, and other colonizers spread their languages. The growth of Korean language education from the 1950s through the 1980s was slow but steady, as evinced by the number of Korean colleges and community schools. The number of colleges and universities in the United States offering Korean increased from just a few schools during the pre–Korean War period to about thirty colleges and five hundred community schools in 1989 (Park 1989). By 2008, there were over a hundred colleges (AATK Newsletter 2008) and twelve hundred community schools nationwide (You 2011). As the immigrants’ children came of age, college enrollments in Korean classes started to explode, as was the case at the University of California, Berkeley.21 We will see in the next section how Korean education expanded in the following years in colleges and community schools, and the factors that induced positive changes for Korean language popularity and education. Since the 1990s

Moving forward to the present, a robust picture of current Korean language programs in U.S. colleges is evident in the student enrollment statistics,22 frequent searches for well-qualified instructors, diverse course offerings 19 

See also “The Asian Population: 2010,” available at https://www.census.gov/prod/ cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf : “1940’s (107), 1950’s (6,231), 1960’s (34,526), 1970’s (267,638), 1980’s (333,746), 1990’s (136,651) and 2010 (1,077,000).” 20  Chin-Woo Kim (1996) differentiated the Korean language spread into two types, transplant vs. implant, the former being the immigrant or heritage speakers’ increase and the latter the foreigners’ learning Korean increase. He considers that the transplants should not be counted in the spread. 21  Only a handful of students took Korean each year from 1943 through 1980, with the exception of about twenty enrollments annually during the Korean War years. In the fall semester of 1980, Professor M. Rogers and I went to the first class, expecting the usual five to seven students, but there were more than forty students enrolled, and there was a waitlist. 22  According to a Los Angeles Times article, “Korean-language classes are growing in popularity at U.S. colleges” (Gordon 2015). Further, Korean had the highest percentage increase among the ten foreign languages in 2013: Spanish, Japanese, Russian, German, French,

202

Clare You

and curricula, and a growing number of instructional materials. As these data have been well documented elsewhere in recent years,23 my study examines the current status of the Korean language and its popularity in the United States in sociological, educational, political, and economic terms, relying on U.S. media. Since the social, political, economic, and geographical issues often overlap, making it difficult to demarcate them in the sphere of language education, they will be discussed together here. There are various underlying causes for the rise of popularity of the Korean language in the United States, including the economy, immigration, politics, world security, changing views on Asia, foreign cultural infusion, and globalization fever,24 to name a few. As noted earlier, the phenomenal increase of Korean language interest in colleges and universities coincided with Korean immigrant children’s coming of college age, the Korean economic boom in the early 1970s and 1980s, and the Hallyu phenomena. Hallyu (the Korean Wave)25 and K-pop (South Korean popular music) contributed strikingly to the language’s popularity; however, we must recognize that even before the Korean Wave there was a long prelude in popular acceptance. Taekwondo (a Korean martial art) was hugely popular at UC Berkeley,26 drawing non–Korean American students toward the Korean language and culture for over thirty years. Taekwondo students salute, bow, and kick while speaking Korean words, and many of them crossed over to take Korean language classes after being introduced to the language through this martial art. We must also remember those who were interested ­ rabic, Italian, Latin, Chinese, and Korean. With the exception of Chinese, all other lanA guages had decreased in enrollment in 2013. 23  The number of colleges and universities with Korean or Korean studies programs multiplied from 152 in 32 countries in 1991 to 1,143 in 152 countries in 2014 (Korea Foundation 2014, 6). According to an MLA report on language enrollments, 12,229 students were enrolled in Korean in 2013 (Flaherty 2015). The number of colleges and universities with Korean or Korean studies programs multiplied from 25 in 1990 to 140 in 2005 (Korea Foundation 2007, 34–35). By 1999, there were over 5,000 students taking Korean in 110 colleges in the United States (Hyosang Lee 2000, 1–4). 24  Here, I mean Hyun Ok Park’s definition of “globalization,” or segyehwa: “in the U.S. [globalization] denotes internationalization of economic relations; this phrase in Korea evokes strong nationalist sentiment, calling for national unity in order to survive and gain leadership in the international community.” 25  The term Hallyu (Korean wave) was coined in 1999 in China; it refers to all aspects of South Korean culture, most significantly K-pop (Korean popular music), drama, film, and food. 26  Dr. Ken Kyung-ho Min started the martial arts program in 1969 at UC Berkeley, which now draws some five hundred contestants to the annual UC Open Taekwondo Championship, down from seven hundred in 2007 due to increasing local tournaments. Min also contributed to making the sport a part of the Olympic Games in 1994. Personal communication with author from Dr. Russell Ahn, October 30, 2015.

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

203

in Korean religions, including Unification Church members, once made up the nonheritage enrollees in Korean classes in the 1980s and 1990s at UC Berkeley, in addition to Mormon students who returned from Korea from their missionary work,27 and Buddhist students who enrolled to study Korean Buddhism. Mormons’ significant involvement in the sphere of Korean language education in the United States is evidenced by the fact that Brigham Young University once (in the 1970s and 1980s) had the largest Korean program in the United States. Society

Korean immigrants began to arrive in numbers starting with the second wave after the Korean War in 1953, and the population of Koreans in the United States began to increase steadily, especially after U.S. immigration law enforcement repealed the national-origin quota system in 1964 (with the Civil Rights Act) and 1965 (with the Immigration and Nationality, or Hart-Celler, Act). Other Asians besides Chinese started to cross the Pacific Ocean; Vietnamese and Cambodians came in large numbers after the collapse of their governments during the mid-1970s. The United States was no longer a land of people who spoke only English (or a few European languages). As the number of Less English Proficient (LEP) children of Korean, Latino, Vietnamese, and Cambodian immigrants increased, the government recognized the need to provide ways to integrate the new immigrants, especially the children, into American society, ultimately for the welfare of the country. Title VII—the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, an outgrowth of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—was passed to do just that, integrating these children into their new world by teaching them to speak English in a bilingual way. In today’s society, however, speaking only English has become much less of a norm on the West Coast. A recent survey on the changing demographics of the United States shows that one in five people (20%) speak a language other than English.28 According to the Census Bureau,29 in California, the most populous state in the United States, minorities make up the majority of the population, with white alone at 38.5% and Hispanic alone 27  Brigham Young University is in a unique position of having upper-level students who return from their missionary work in Korea. “Their objective is to gain a professional level of Korea proficiency to go forward with their careers—business, diplomacy, government, law, medicine, engineering—everything” (e-mail to author from Professor Mark Peterson, February 8, 2016). 28   Karen Zeigler and Steven A. Camarota (2015) note that since 1990 the number of foreign language speakers has roughly doubled; the number has almost tripled since 1980. Korean ranked the sixth most spoken at home in 2014. 29  See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html (retrieved January 2016).

204

Clare You

at 38.6%; 44% speak a language other than English at home, indicating that a large segment of California’s population consists of first-generation immigrants. Californians often want their children’s nannies to be bilingual, and blingual nannies are much in demand.30 These immigrants contribute to the multicultural and multilingual society. People are not surprised to see sushi, bulgogi, kimchi, tofu, and quesadillas on the same restaurant menu, and “fusion” restaurants—featuring innovative cuisines combining the flavors of two or more countries—have cropped up everywhere and have become very popular. Compared to the well-established presences of Chinese and Japanese cultures in the United States, “Koreanizing” the country, in foods and in other daily items, has a long way to go. However, some will dispute this by pointing to the Korea­ towns of Los Angeles and New York City, where the linguascape is dominated by Korean writing, symbols, and posters. Multilingual pamphlets containing Asian languages, including Korean, are common on the West Coast, from telephone and utility bills to drivers’ tests, voter booklets, and various automated answering services. Many public and private agencies even provide Korean-speaking service representatives to Koreans who cannot communicate well in English. The Wall Street Journal (June 2, 2007) highlighted the irony of Latino employees having to learn and speak Korean to work at a large Korean supermarket. Korean, not English, is the “second language of choice” for some immigrants in the United States. What is interesting about this article is that there is a symbiotic relationship between Korean and Spanish through economic necessity, with each community propagating and reinforcing the other’s language use. Many Korean business owners study Spanish at Korean churches, community centers, and independent language schools, while Latino workers pick up Korean on the job. Though Korean is considered “difficult” for foreigners to master,31 “Latino workers here have come to see the benefits of tackling the language.” The article offers as evidence an anecdote of an elderly woman assisted by a Mr. Hernandez who helped her in Korean. Full of satisfaction, she said, “I like him. He helps me with everything. He gives me good service” (Wall Street Journal 2017). Here is another path to spreading the Korean language.

30 

Reports broadcast on the 11 p.m. KPIX (Channel 5) news in San Francisco, November 6–9, 2015. 31  The U.S. State Department ranks Korean one of the most difficult languages to master, along with Arabic, Chinese, and Japanese (Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. Department of State, available at http://www.effectivelanguagelearning.com/language-guide/ language-difficulty, accessed January 3, 2018).

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

205

Media and Korean Images

There are about twenty TV or radio stations in California plus three times that number in other major cities in the United States that regularly air Korean dramas.32 The New York Times published 78 articles in 2006 and 109 articles in 2008 on Korean culture, indicating the growing attention paid to Korea by the U.S. media—perhaps the most since the Korean War. Korean media in the United States such as the Korea Times, JoongAng Daily, and KSME often report on the rise of Korean language interest in various sectors, crediting this rise to K-Pop and the Korean Wave.33 No doubt the Korean Wave has been a significant factor in the increase of a favorable image of Korea and has given Korea much-wanted exposure to the outside world. K-pop has reached the status where it matters not only to journalists and young fans but also to serious academics (Youna Kim 2013; Choi and Maliangkay 2014; Lie 2015). The rise in Korean language popularity, however, did not happen overnight as a result of K-pop and the Korean Wave, as the Korean media imply, nor is the recent popularity of the Korean language due to the availability of the SAT II and TOPIK (Test of Korean Proficiency) standardized tests.34 A steady growth of well-known Korean fashion designers, singers, athletes, musicians, entertainers, educators, and politicians, as well as brandname merchandise, have also contributed to the rise of the Korean image and interest in the Korean language. The Ministry of Education reported a worldwide increase in the number of students taking Korean from 57,000 to 93,000 in the last four years; and students learning Korean in primary and secondary schools in foreign countries increased 62 percent, a phenomenon due in part to Korean brands’ high-quality reputation along with the cultural popularity of, for example, K-pop.35 32 

“TV Stations Showing Korean TV Dramas,” Koreanwiz.org, available at http://www. koreanwiz.org/special-stations.html, retrieved October 27, 2015. 33  JoongAng ilbo, Seattle edition, “Jijon; desk column [Desk column: Korean language desk], February 2, 2007, reports: “Korean language study rides on the popularity of the Korean Wave” (my translation). The Los Angeles Times also reports, on April 1, 2015: “Koreanlanguage classes are growing in popularity at U.S. colleges” fueled by K-Pop (Gordon 2015). Wang 2015 corroborates the newspaper articles. 34  TOPIK was designed and administered by the Korean Ministry of Education starting in September 1997. The test is given worldwide through the Education Center usually attached to the local consulates. The certificate based on the test result is used for job applications and other placement purposes in Korea. Starting out with 4 countries with 14 locations for 2,274 test-takers in 1997, it expanded into 28 countries with 73 locations; 23,401 people took the test in 2005. In northern California alone, about 150 people signed up for the April 16, 2016 test (Personal communication with Chul-soon Choi, Director, Korean Education Center, SF Consulate General, March 2, 2016). 35  KBS World radio (March 22, 2015) reported on the number of students taking Korean:

206

Clare You

More importantly, the Korean Americans who joined the U.S. mainstream in all walks of life—academia, the arts, science, sports, and business (they are not yet prominent in government and politics)—inspire the next generations to learn about Korean culture and language. Government Policies

One of the most powerful factors affecting the well-being of a minority language is government policy. Stalin’s policy effectively eliminated the Korean language from Soviet Koreans, and Japan nearly succeeded in doing so during its occupation of Korea. Often it is by the stroke of a pen that the life of a cultural minority or subjugated language can live or die; similarly, the indifference or fear of the government of a people can lead to the withering away of a language, as was the case with German in early American history (Crawford 2000).36 The California government’s budget crunch of 2008 to 2009 could have seriously harmed the long history of Korean programs in the California state universities. UC Berkeley’s Korean language program budget was slated to be cut in half in 2008 but fortunately California’s economy improved in 2013, and the program was restored to its 2006–2007 level. The Bilingual Act of 1968 had an important effect on the Korean language (as well as on many other immigrant languages, such as Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Filipino, etc.); it was established to help immigrant children learn English while they progressed in other subject areas in their native language. The government also foresaw the changing world that was “increasingly interdependent and as international communication becomes a daily occurrence in government, business, commerce, and family life, multilingual skills constitute an important national resource which deserves protection and development.”37 Although the Bilingual Act was a concerted attempt to enhance minority language education in the United States, there were too many drawbacks to justify its rewards. As James Crawford (2000b), although a strong proponent of bilingualism, points out in an article,38 the U.S. government did Thailand, 24,000; Japan, 17,000; and the United States, 12,000; due to the popularity of K-pop and K-drama. 36  See “Anatomy of the English-Only Movement” in Crawford 2000, which chronicles how the English-Only Movement affected various minority languages in the United States. 37  Title VII—Bilingual Education, Language Enhancement, and Language Acquisition Programs: Part A—Bilingual Education, Sec. 7102: Findings, Policy, and Purpose (Short title: Bilingual Education Act). 38  Crawford theorizes: “Ultimately language politics are determined by material ­interests—struggles for social and economic supremacy—which normally lurk beneath the surface of the public debate” (2000a, 10). In his “Anatomy of the English-Only Movement”

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

207

not have a well-planned language policy, but rather an ad hoc policy that responded to needs or political pressures at a given time, yet the government spent billions on language education each year. Many opponents of bilingual education considered it a waste of money that yielded few results (Porter 1998), and in 1998 California passed an anti–bilingual education initiative. This, however, did not mean Americans were ignorant of the importance of their citizens’ versatility in foreign languages. With the Internet pulling all countries together into a giant global society, most major languages become partners politically, economically, and educationally. The salient power of government’s policies on the historical survival or demise of minority languages is well documented by Crawford in At War with Diversity (2000). In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush set forth a comprehensive foreign language plan. The U.S. government enacted the National Security Language Initiative (NSLI) to strengthen Americans’ learning of “critical need foreign languages,” including Korean, “through new and expanded programs from kindergarten through university and into the workforce.”39 This became a massive collaborative effort among four government agencies: the U.S. Departments of Education, State, and Defense, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Already implemented were the National Flagship Programs through the Department of Defense, which offered advanced-level language instruction, tapping the natural linguistic resources of minority communities of the critical languages; it originally dealt with four languages (Arabic, Chinese, Korean, and Russian) and later expanded to nine.40 Still to come were various programs to be launched by the Department of Education focusing on educating students, teachers, and government employees. The Language Teacher Corps arose through the Department of State to train one thousand new foreign language teachers in elementary and secondary schools before 2010; the E-Learning Language Clearinghouse—a central repository for schools, teachers, and the public—was implemented to deliver foreign language materials. Korean was included along with Chinese, Russian, and the Persian languages in the intensive language training through section, he presents case examples to validate his theory that language politics arise from struggles for social and economic supremacy. 39  See the summary of the NSLI programs at https://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/Down​ loadAsset.aspx?id=2156, accessed June 15, 2015. 40  Hindi-Urdu, Portuguese, Persian, Swahili, and Turkish are also included now. The Flagship programs aim to include elementary all the way through undergraduates as well as graduate schools. See http://www.thelanguageflagship.org/content/flagship-history (updated), accessed February 19, 2016. The first Flagship grants in Korean were awarded to UCLA and University of Hawai‘i in 2002.

208

Clare You

the U.S. Fulbright Student Program, as well as in scholarship awards for intensive overseas summer language institutes in 2007. These were some of the consequences of the enormous power of government policies to benefit the spread of minority languages. Economy and Job Considerations Is Language a Commodity?

Visitors to Seoul will see the ubiquitous signs of Yeong-eo hagwon (English Institute, or English Academy), along with countless private tutoring and group lessons offered around the country, for English in Korean society “is valorized as the ultimate commodified skill” (Park and Weed 2012, 137). The industry is estimated to be worth over $4 billion a year (Cho 2014). Likewise, Korean teaching is an industry just as English teaching is, though far smaller than the English-teaching industry in Korea. When we look around to see how many jobs were created for this purpose, “to integrate ourselves in the global economy,” according to David Chu, undersecretary for personnel and readiness at the U.S. Department of Defense,41 it is a nonnegligible industry. In the United States, knowing Korean can generate significant income for an individual—in business, politics, and diplomacy, not to mention in education. With the exponential increase in enrollment in Korean classes at UC Berkeley, the number of faculty has gradually increased, from two part-time lecturers in 2000, to four, six, and eight full-time lecturers as of 2015. This phenomenon is not limited to UC Berkeley. As the Los Angeles Times pointed out, while studies of all other language declined from 2009 to 2013 except for Chinese, with a 2 percent increase, only Korean enrollment rose, by 45 percent during the same period in the United States. At present, 154 colleges offer Korean, which is not a huge number, but is 70 percent more than a decade ago (Gordon 2015). Consequently, the American Association of Teachers of Korean counted 247 members in 2015, compared with 88 when the association was formed in 1995.42 In recent years, as the visibility of the Korean economy in the world market has expanded, the demands for Korean-speaking employees in business, law, and government and educational institutions went up, backed by the U.S. motivation to remain at the forefront of the globalizing world. Speaking Korean has become a valuable asset both here and overseas. The 41 

See http://www.lep.gov/resources/nsli-preliminary-results.pdf, accessed September 5, 2015. 42  Jay Byung-joon Lim, based on the recent count for the 2015 AATK conference (e-mail to author, October 15, 2015).

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

209

increase in Korean enrollment in schools has paralleled the growing number of immigrants, as well as the rapid expansion of the Korean economy. While the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 was a boon for the propagation of Korean, as well as for other minority languages, the influx of funds in the education and training of bilingual teachers opened a new horizon in the job market toward which Korean-educated people could aim their attention;43 it also allowed for bilingual teaching, research, and public services. Finally, it meant that the various government and public agencies— hospitals, courts, and social welfare sectors—were required to provide interpreters.44 The U.S. government, complacent about Korean speakers since the Korean War, has now become keenly interested because of North Korea. At Monterey’s DLI, the number of Korean instructors has more than doubled since the 1990s.45 Testimony by Susan S. Westin, managing director, International Affairs and Trade, of the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2002 to the Senate Subcommittee on the current and projected foreign language shortages in four federal agencies explains the doubling of Korean instructors at the DLI, and how the NSLI came to be.46 The second government influx of funds for language education came with the NSLI. As over $100 million was poured into the foreign language industry,47 the economic impact on these language speakers was not 43  Title VII makes funding available for the purposes of increasing the capacity of Local Education Agencies and State Education Agencies to meet the educational needs of linguistically and culturally diverse students (Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs by Director Delia Pompa and Deputy Director Dang T. Pham U.S. Department of Education; Title VII, Sec. 7101–7150). 44  Bilingual programs in the United States—in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and elsewhere—were busy recruiting Korean-speaking teachers in 1980s and 1990s. At UC San Francisco Medical School, for the first time in 2000, a Korean class providing medical terms and simple conversation was requested and provided by UCB’s Korean instructors to interested doctors, interns, and residents. 45  Byung-joon Lim, personal communication, October 4, 2015: “The number of instructors was about 50 to 60 in 1990s and it reached 100 in 2001. Currently about 120 faculty members are teaching Korean at DLI which is in the process of hiring more faculty in addition to the four newly hired instructors.”   46  Susan S. Westin, managing director, International Affairs and Trade, testified to a Senate subcommittee on the current and projected foreign language shortages in four federal agencies. Of the six critical languages (Arabic, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Persian-Farsi, Russian, and Spanish), five (except for Spanish) suffer dire shortages in all walks of government operations, thus contributing to the inability to conduct human and signal intelligence missions in the Army, to pursue health care fraud cases, to carry out diplomatic missions effectively, and to combat terrorism. Susan S. Westin, Testimony, “Foreign Languages: Workforce Planning Could Help Address Staffing and Proficiency Shortfalls,” GAO, March 12, 2002, available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02514t.pdf. The four agencies are the U.S. Army, Department of State, U.S. Foreign Commercial Service, and the FBI. 47  The Bush government proposed $114 million in 2007 and $26.6 million in 2008 for ­critical

210

Clare You

i­ nsignificant, as we can see from this question and response, taken from the website of the National Security Language Initiative (“Frequently Asked Questions,” September 2006): Q: What kind of employment can I get using a critical language? A: Many government agencies have a high demand for employees with these

important languages skills. They are called critical for that very reason. But it is not only the public sector that needs these language speakers; the private sector also looks for employees with language skills. As more and more multinational companies expand around the globe they need people who can speak the local language and understand the culture. It is an irony that national security interests stirred up the education of citizens in foreign languages only after the magnitude of the tragic events of 9/11. This kind of massive government initiative aimed at the employer enhances the spread of foreign languages, albeit sporadically. Returning to more immediate uses for Korean, we find them first in the business sector. Korean markets, restaurants, dry cleaners, shoe-repair shops, and high-tech companies need not only Korean speakers but also interpreters and translators. Korean media, still a comparatively small industry in the United States, is growing quickly. The major U.S. cities from New York to San Francisco offer Korean television. KBS and KEMS (Korean TV stations), Hanmi Radio, and Korea Times and JoongAng Daily dominate the West Coast of the United States.48 The lifeline of Korean media businesses consists of Korean speakers in the United States; without readers and viewers, there would be few reasons for the media to exist. Educational Considerations

As noted earlier, the 1968 Bilingual Education Act was a turning point for minority languages in the United States in spite of resistance from the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the English-Only Movement (Crawford 2000). The act not only required schools to offer bilingual classes but also to train and evaluate bilingual teachers. Some colleges initiated classes to train Korean bilingual teachers.49 The California Bilingual Education Office produced the Bilingual, Crosscultural, Language, languages. See the U.S. Department of State archives at http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ prs/ps/2006/58733.htm, accessed September 25, 2015. 48  The Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay, and Seattle-Tacoma areas offer at least two radio and TV stations each. There are various Internet sites offering Korean dramas, movies, videos, news, podcasts, etc. 49  San Francisco State University jointly with the International Institute of California and California State University in Northridge, CA.

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

211

and Academic Development (BCLAD) tests for their teachers to qualify for teaching the BCLAD segment that “incorporates all the requirements for CLAD plus additional training in methodology for primary language instruction, culture of emphasis, and language of emphasis of the teacher” (Carlson and Walton 1994). Because a BCLAD certificate generated more income,50 it was sought after by California language teachers, including Korean teachers. In California, workshops were held to train Korean and bilingual teachers by the newly formed associations among the teachers and trainee graduate students to obtain the BCLAD certificate in addition to the teaching certificate.51 Although bilingual education in California was voted out of public schools in 1998, teaching Korean has not diminished in community schools or at the college level. But we soon saw that foreign language education initiatives at the federal level such as the Critical Language Scholarship Program52 and the National Security Language Initiative for Youth53 helped people, albeit a small number, to learn Korean as well as other minority languages, especially when concerned people were actively involved in tapping the federal government’s financial support.54 It is not surprising, then, to see high demand for Korean language classes and Korean teachers; consequently, there has not been a sufficient supply of well-qualified Korean instructors, especially in the 2000s.55 As the number of job opportunities in the instruction of Korean increases, so too does the 50  The BCLAD exam was transitioned into the CSET (California Subject Examination for Teachers), which includes Korean as a foreign language since 2014. 51  BCLAD examinations leaflet, “California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Bilingual, Crosscultural, Language and Academic Development (BCLAD) Certificate,” available at http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/cl628b.html. 52  The Critical Language Scholarship Program was sponsored by the U.S. State Department to train in fourteen languages, including Korean. Six hundred scholarships are awarded yearly. 53  The National Security Language Initiative for Youth, sponsored by the U.S. State Department, is an exchange program with a scholarship for those aged fifteen to eighteen to learn Korean in Korea (one of the seven sponsored languages: Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi, Persian, Russian, and Turkish). See http://exchanges.state.gov/us/program/national-security​ -language​-initiative-youth-nsli-y, retrieved November 6, 2015. 54  See more foreign language grants from the Department of Education at http://www2​ .ed.gov/programs/iegpsflasf/index.html, and http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/ more​-633-million-awarded-colleges-and-universities-strengthen-global-competitive, both accessed January 5, 2016. 55  As Hyosang Lee (2000), correctly pointed out at the first conference on “Globalization of Korean” in 2000, there was a lack of qualified Korean instructors. The majority of the instructors had Ph.D.s in linguistics or related fields, and some even just by chance got into the position without the appropriate language-teaching professional training. Still, the linguistics degree holders dominate the Korean field, as the AATK list of the North America members indicates; see http://www.aatk.org/web/schools, accessed January 5, 2016.

212

Clare You

interest in educating and training Korean instructors with language proficiency and familiarity with Korean culture. Although some sectors seem to have an ample supply of qualified Korean instructors,56 others still feel the lack of competent teachers for nonheritage learners (Pastreich 2012). The fact that Korean speakers are in demand reinforces confidence in the value of knowing the Korean language, and this has had a snowball effect in the Korean American community. At one point, Korean Americans were eager to let their children integrate into American society as fast and as seamlessly as possible, even at the expense of losing their first language skills. However, the early days of enthusiasm in Korean seems to be dissipating, according to the number of SAT Korean test takers. The number of test takers increased from 2,447, when the test began, in 1997, to a peak of 4,626 in 2009, almost a 100 percent increase. It started to decline in 2010, and only 2,458 students took the test in 2014 (Bang 2015), 2,110 in 2014, and 1,935 in 2015 (Ko at al. 2015). What could be the reason for this decline? According to a National Association of Korean Schools (NAKS) officer,57 there are three possible reasons: first, a rumor that good colleges disfavored applicants who had taken the Korean SAT II; second, the fact that many colleges do not offer credit for SAT Korean; and third, the practice of private tutor organizations discouraging the taking of Korean to entice students to their own core subject programs for college preparation. The most recent probable cause for the decrease is attributed to the SAT no longer being required by many colleges and a growing number of students opting to take the ACT over the SAT. This may help to explain the puzzling small decrease in foreign-language SAT test takers in other foreign languages as well. It is important to note here that, since the 1990s, the interest in Korean language instruction has gradually extended from the higher institutions to the lower levels of the public educational system. The teaching and learning of Korean started at the university level,58 moving down to high schools and then to middle and elementary schools. On the other hand, the community and heritage schools have progressed from the lower level to the higher. Children of the earliest Korean Americans to immigrate after the Korean War (post-1950) were mostly foreign students studying abroad. Many got married, had children, and settled down in the United States. These new 56   As the growing number of applicants for UCB Korean instructor positions in recent years suggests—2003 (25), 2006 (33), 2014 (59), 2015 (78), a 300% increase—there are more instructors than positions available (Kijoo Ko, coordinator of the UCB Korean program, personal communication, October 12, 2015). 57  E-mail correspondence with author, October 16, 2015. 58  One hundred fourteen colleges and universities in North America offer Korean (AATK Newsletters 1996–2014).

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

213

immigrants wanted their children to Americanize and assimilate to mainstream American society; learning Korean was not a primary or even a secondary priority for them. By the early 1980s, the children of former students and immigrants went on to colleges and universities. That is precisely when UC Berkeley (and other universities) started to see a rise in Korean enrollment. The enrollment in the United States reached an unprecedented number over the course of twenty years, growing from fewer than 1,000 in 1986 to over 7,000 in 2006, and exceeding 12,000 in 2013. From 2009 to 2013, Korean experienced the largest increase in enrollment (31 percent) among all foreign languages in the United States.59 Another major factor contributing to this rapid increase in enrollment was a product of the 1980s, when the Korean economy started to take off and parents became more confident and desirous for their children to become aware of their roots. At UC Berkeley, too, the Korean language program was the fastest growing among all foreign languages—there was a 500 percent increase in enrollment between 1980 and 1990, while enrollment in many of the European language classes were dwindling. From 2000 through 2013, the number of those enrolled in Korean classes steadily grew another 50 percent, from 404 to 600, while enrollment in Chinese peaked in 2008–2009 and in Japanese peaked in 2006–2007 (Ko et al. 2015; see also appendix 1). The incentives for taking Korean in the 1990s were often listed as, for Korean Americans students: to learn about their native heritage, parents’ urging, and to communicate with grandparents and relatives in the United States and in Korea. Nonheritage students often cited an interest in their boyfriend or girlfriend’s heritage. Graduate students enrolled to fulfill their Asian studies course requirement. And finally, others enrolled for religious or personal reasons.60 As the majority of students were heritage students until the late 2000s, one unspoken or veiled motivation for them was to get easy credit. These motivational factors as well as the ethnicity breakdown of student enrollment were soon to change.

59 

MLA survey report of 2013, p. 26: 2013/12,229; 2009/8,449; 1995/3,343; 1990/2,375; 1986/875; 1983/660; 1980/365; 1977/163; 1974/87, available at  http://www.mla.org/ pdf/2013_enrollment_survey.pdf, accessed January 15, 2016. According to the Korea Foundation data, there were 135 colleges world over offering Korean classes in 2009, of which 104 colleges were in North America; see AATK Newsletter 2009. The exact numbers vary among the surveys because of the survey method and the pool of the participants, but all surveys show an upward trend. 60  In the 1990s, Korean classes were filled by some non-Korean American Unification Church member students and many Korean American Christian students with a missionary goal in mind.

214

Clare You

From 2008 to 2010 at UC Berkeley, a sudden increase in nonheritage enrollment came as a kind of shock to the lecturers, and the trend continues to this day. As of fall 2015 at UC Berkeley, over 37 percent of the enrollment (150 of 400 students) were nonheritage students.61 UC Berkeley’s lecturers attribute the recent popularity of Korean among nonheritage students to the Korean Wave and employment, corresponding to Brown University’s recent survey, which indicates similar reasons for taking Korean, especially for nonheritage students (Wang 2015).62 Support from the Korea Foundation since its inception in 1991 gave a shot in the arm to prominent universities, encouraging them to enhance their Korean studies programs lest they fall behind other institutions with such programs. As of now, there is a significant number of Korean studies professors who were hired under the auspices of the Korea Foundation, 63 strengthening further Korean language and Korean studies (Wang 2015). More recently, the Academy of Korean Studies has been supporting research on Korean culture not only in Korea but also in the United States. Furthermore, realizing the growing demand for the Korean language around the world, the Korean government established the Overseas Koreans Foundation in 1997 to provide language and cultural training for Koreans abroad,64 and set up Sejong hakdang, or the King Sejong Institute, in 2005 to deliver Korean language training to those non-Koreans interested in Korean throughout the world. Teaching Materials

The current Korean teaching materials are a far cry from the Chodeung gungmin dokbon, the earliest Korean textbook, published in 1922. As a corollary to the demand for Korean, Korean language textbooks for English speakers in the United States and in Korea has been on the rise. In the early years, we owe much to the pioneering Korean textbooks published by reputable 61 

Kijoo Ko, personal correspondence with the author, November 10, 2015. Heisook Wang cites the Korean Wave, Brown’s internship opportunity in Korea, and the surge of Asian American or Chinese students’ interest in Korean (personal communication, September 2015). 63  The Korea Foundation funded eighty-two professorships in Korean studies and Korean language education in the United States and Canada since 1991 (https://en.kf.or.kr/​ ?menuno=3788). The Korea Foundation (2007) also noted that the Academy of Korean Studies provides $1 million grants for five years to major universities including the University of Washington, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Harvard, and the like. 64  According to the monthly magazine Shin-Dong-A (October 2015), the Overseas Koreans Foundation supported 1,875 Korean community schools serving 100,000 students throughout the world during 2014; the schools operated mainly on Saturdays for eight hours. The foundation also provides scholarships to Koreans abroad for studying in Korea and has supported 649 meetings and conferences. 62 

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

215

U.S. university presses. For example, the first U.S. Korean textbook, Korean Reader: A Textbook for Beginners, by B. Y. Choy, was published by the University of California Press in 1943 after the author began to offer elementary Korean in 1942 at UC Berkeley, which was the first university Korean course in the United States.65 Twenty years later, in 1963, Written Korean and Intermediate Written Korean by E. Wagner and C. Kim were published by the Harvard-Yenching Institute, followed by Beginning Korean by S. Martin and Y. S. Lee, published by Yale University Press in 1969.66 The University of California Press published the first modern Korean textbook, College Korean, in 1996 and Intermediate College Korean in 2002, and these publications were followed by the KLEAR series put out by the University of Hawai‘i Press in 2000.67 Other excellent textbooks have been published in recent years, including Elementary Korean (2000) and Continuing Korean (2002), not to mention numerous textbooks published in Korea, an indication of the increasing demand for Korean language learning. There were seventy-eight Korean textbooks published in the United States, Canada, and Korea by 2014, according to surveys;68 only a few textbooks are regularly used in courses at U.S. colleges presently.69 Nonetheless, as society with all its values, knowledge, and information progresses, the language textbooks, teaching materials, and teaching strategy/pedagogy require constant updating. Just as student needs vary with different 65  In the introduction of Korean Reader, Choy states that “because in the past no Korean language courses have been given in any American college or university, until now there has been no Korean textbook for university students. Since 1942 the Department of Oriental Languages of the University of California has been offering an elementary Korean language course.” Cho (2005) stated that Columbia University was the first to offer Korean. 66  Although published in 1969, Martin and Lee stated in the preface that the core of the book was written in 1952 and “the material was originally created for use of missionaries who were studying Korean at Yale University.” 67  Prior to the Korea Foundation’s grant for producing Korean textbooks, UC Berkeley (represented by Clare You and Kyungnyun Kay Richards) initiated a meeting to discuss collaborative work for producing and sharing teaching materials among the participating members. At the Center for Korean Studies, all six major universities offering Korean at the time—UC Berkeley, UCLA, the University of Toronto, the University of Hawai‘i, the University of Illinois, and the University of Southern California—were represented and agreed on collaboration. In 1994, a grant was made to the University of Hawai‘i by the Korea Foundation, and a series of KLEAR Korean textbooks were produced from 2000 to 2012. 68  Two books were omitted from the surveys: College Korean (UC Press, 1996), and Intermediate College Korean (UC Press, 2002); see Language Materials Project, UCLA International Institute, 2014, retrieved from http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/ on December 11, 2015. 69  Fifteen out of thirty colleges surveyed in 2000 were using Integrated Korean, and Yonsei, Korea University, and UC Berkeley publications shared the rest of the thirteen schools in 2007 (Hyosang Lee 2000, 5). In 2014, the majority of schools used Integrated Korean at the first- and second-year levels, according to AATK Newsletter 2014.

216

Clare You

interests and specialties, so do the needs for a range of appropriate teaching materials. One textbook and one teaching method for “all the English speaking world” is no longer a tenable educational strategy. The innovations in teaching tools cannot omit current technologies, such as the Internet, computer, and film- or video-based teaching materials and pedagogies. UC Berkeley has spearheaded a serious language learningteaching support program integrating technology through the Berkeley Language Center’s Berkeley World Language Project.70 It is generally accepted, nonetheless, that human instructors are not entirely replaceable. As Richard Kern points out, there are undoubtedly great benefits and advantages in using technology; while the Internet “can provide contact with people around the world, it does nothing to ensure successful communication with them, and some of its particular mediational qualities may in fact work against intercultural understanding.” And, he concludes, “The problem with the Internet is not only that it filters and transforms information, but also that it makes it difficult to fully contextualize meanings—and this is particularly relevant in the case of foreign language learning” (Kern 2014, 354). Support Organizations

As a natural outgrowth of the expanding Korean program, Korean language educators, teachers, researchers, and students have formed professional affiliations. Among the major Korean language support organizations, funded privately or publicly in the United States, we find the American Association of Teachers of Korean. Best known in U.S. academia, it was started in 1994 “in response to the rapidly increasing educational and strategic significance of the Korean languages in the United States.”71 In 1995, its first-year membership counted only 88 people, and in 2015 it had 247—an increase of 240 percent in twenty years.72 The majority of its mem70 

The project includes professional development for instructors and learning tools for students (online language lessons, foreign language film clips, etc.); see http://blc.berkeley. edu/berkeley_world_language_project/#, accessed November 14, 2015. 71  According to the first AATK Newsletter (1995), the objective is “to collectively pursue the never-ending course of enhancing the quality of Korean language education in America.” Since then, AATK has played a pivotal role in assembling Korean teachers within and outside the United States during its annual conferences. Although this association aims to include any and all Korean language teachers from public schools, community schools, kindergartens, and universities, as well as phonetic linguists and literature professors, it largely caters to the instructors of higher institutions, leaving a majority of public schools and community schools to the National Association of Korean Schools. 72  AATK Newsletter 1994–2007, including the membership directory of 1994; 2015 membership number given by Jay Byong-Joon Lim in personal correspondence with author, October 12, 2015.

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

217

bers are affiliated with U.S. universities and colleges (see http://aatk.org). The International Association for Korean Language Education (IAKLE), founded in 1985 by Korean educators in Korea, promotes and supports Korean education abroad. It hosts biannual conferences whose participants include Korean and international scholars involved in Korean language education and research, publishes IAKLE journals tri-annually, and offers an annual workshop for foreign resident Korean instructors as well as an annual workshop abroad. The fervor for teaching Korean to foreigners is well reflected in the large number of participants in recent years—in 2005, eight hundred participants took part in the international conference and three hundred attended the domestic conference. The NAKS, established in 1981 with support from schoolchildren’s parents, consists of fourteen regional chapters throughout the United States. Its objective is to educate the second and third generation of Korean children in Korean language, history, and culture. NAKS reaches out to a thousand Korean member schools, including various community-based Korean language schools, with over ten thousand part-time instructors. It holds an annual conference with invited guest speakers to discuss education issues.73 There is also the Korean School Association in America (KSAA), founded in 1982 with its headquarters in Los Angeles, which supports Korean education focusing on the western United States: Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and southern California. It provides annual teacher training, mock SAT II tests, Korean language contests, an annual seminar, support of educational materials, and an advisory function to bilingual policy in the United States and Korea. The Korean Schools Association of Northern California, as one of fourteen chapters of NAKS, was established in 1991 to serve the northern California Korean community, including San Francisco, the South Bay, the East Bay, Monterey, Stockton, Sacramento, and Sonoma County. Again, its main objective is to strengthen Korean language and culture education at community schools in the United States. There are five thousand students from kindergarten through twelfth grade and five hundred teachers in fifty schools.74 The Foundation for Korean Language and Culture in the USA (KLACUS, formerly the Foundation for SAT II Korean) was established in 1994 to help raise funds for creating the Korean language SAT II exam. The development of the Korean SAT II required a half million dollars, which was met with donations from the Korean American community, the Korean government, and various businesses. In 1995, the Korean SAT II was 73 

Personal communication with NAKS Director Dong Chang and SATII evaluator Jung W. Bang, October 21, 2015; see also www.naks.org/jml/. 74  See http://www.koreanschoolca.org/aboutus.php?lang=ENJUNE, retrieved June 27, 2015.

218

Clare You

finally recognized as one of the nine foreign language SAT IIs, and its first test was administered in 1997. The Korean SAT II has been offered annually ever since, reaching its peak at its ten-year mark in 2006 with a total of 3,888 test takers.75 The King Sejong Institute Foundation (KSIF), based in Seoul, is a Korean government–supported organization that was founded in 2005 to support the King Sejong Institute (KSI) and has been fully operational since 2007. According to KSI’s “Introduction of King Sejong Institute Foundation” booklet, KSI “manages and oversees the Korean government’s task of spreading the Korean language and culture.” KSI is supported by the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism and the Korean Language Globalization Foundation. The initial opening of 12 institutes worldwide reached 90 institutes in 43 countries in 2012, exceeding its original plan to establish 60 institutes,76 and more than doubled to 130 institutes in 54 countries by 2014.77 Although the majority (79) are in Asian countries and only 7 are in the United States, the role of KSIF is significant because of its global objective of spreading Korean. In addition to the King Sejong Institute, there are other Korea-based support organizations actively promoting Korean language programs, such as the Overseas Koreans Foundation and the Korean Society of Bilingualism. Korean Community Schools

As we have seen in Hawai‘i, Korean education had its beginning at the community level as early as 1906. After a period in the doldrums, the Korean American community once again began to busy itself with establishing Korean schools, a trend that mushroomed in the late 1970s, with every Korean church offering Korean classes, reminiscent of the early Korean settlement in Hawai‘i. Numbers reached 244 schools in southern California in 2003 (Michael Kim 2003)78 and over sixty schools in northern California 75 

The Foundation for Korean Language and Culture, formerly the Foundation for SAT II Korean: www.KLACUSA.ORG. The foundation’s mission is “to promote Korean language and cultural education in American elementary, middle and high schools throughout the United States.” With the belief that the integration of the Korean language and culture into the curriculum would greatly contribute to enriching students’ understanding of the nature and development of a multicultural American society, the foundation is also embarking on producing Korean language textbooks for secondary and high schools in the United States. 76  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Sejong_Institute and http://www.korea.net/ NewsFocus/Policies/view?articleId=101544, both retrieved July 5, 2015. 77  See http://www.ksif.or.kr/business/down/201408_KSIF_(English).pdf, retrieved July 5, 2015. For the latest development of the King Sejong Institute, which has now 147 locations in 57 countries, see http://www.worldkorean.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=22527, retrieved July 14, 2016. 78  Kim’s presentation, “Some Problems of Korean Language Education in Southern Cali-

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

219

and the surrounding areas in 2007.79 According to NAKS, in 2015 there were over a thousand schools nationwide. When a formal education solidified and was introduced at the college level, the community schools continued as part-time language schools, mostly for elementary- and secondary-level students. Numerous schools were set up as a part of the church program and expanded exponentially through the 1980s and 1990s. The community language schools (or heritage schools) grew from their modest beginnings into 1,200 schools with 60,000 students by 2008 (B.-K. You 2011). Nonetheless, an overwhelming 77 percent of the second-generation Korean Americans in P. G. Min’s 2000 study report were found to speak only or mostly English to their parents after the age of five (Lee and Shin 2008). The role of community schools in the early days often served to relieve working parents from the responsibilities of childcare on the weekends (Sohn 2000), but this function is long gone, and the schools have taken up the serious role of nurturing students in language, culture, and even supplementing the public school work.80 Like most heritage schools in the United States (Moore and Ingersoll 2011), Korean schools rely for their operational funding on tuition paid by families and on private donations. NAKS and the King Sejong Institute play the most active role for the precollege (primary and secondary school) students; NAKS, as a parent support–based operation, has the largest base for the community schools. The Sejong Institute, as a government-supported institute, focuses on all educational levels, from children to adults.81 These heritage/community schools’ contribution is to motivate, encourage, and provide Korean language spread from a young age. A few foundations inside and outside the United States also contribute, while the Korean government has been a major supporter of Korean community language schools.82 Occasionally, the federal and state governments support bilingual or heritage language instructors to assist the non–English fornia,” in 2003 had up-to-date information on the southern California region. There were two sets of counts for the community schools and students, one by KSAA, which includes Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico with 244 schools and 14,659 students, and another by KISC, around the Los Angeles area with 12 schools and 5,048 students. 79  Noh Hee-bang, education director, SF Consulate General of Korea, personal communication with the author, June 25, 2007. 80  For example, the TG Learning Center in Albany, CA, as a community school, provides after-school programs ranging from the Korean language to taekwondo while overseeing the students’ daily homework. 81  Sejong hakdang jichim-seo [Sejong hakdang guidelines], 2012, distributed by KSI. 82  Various Korean government agencies support Sejong Institute programs: the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism; the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Ministry of Health and Welfare; the Ministry of Justice; the National Institute of the Korean Language; the National Institute for ­International

220

Clare You

speakers who settle in the United States through programs such as the “citizenship class” and various social service agencies.83 Prospects for the Future Thus far, I have painted a rather rosy picture of Korean language spread in education and in communities in the United States, but what does the future hold for the Korean language in the country? Three prominent Korean linguistic professors in the United States, H. M. Sohn (1991), Ross King (2007), and Chin-Woo Kim (2014), have made their views known on this very question. Sohn’s optimistic assessment over twenty-five years ago regarding Korean language spread in the United States was based, rightly or wrongly, on his observation of the deepening Korea-US interdependence, the visible success of Koreans and Korean Americans in the U.S., realization of the importance of bilingualism and national homogeneity of Korean Americans, Korea’s economic development, the US government’s and society’s encouragement of minority cultures and languages, the Korean government’s strong support, Korean and American colleges’ enthusiastic support for Korean education, [and] various academic conferences and activities. So far, his optimism seems to be borne out, regardless of some debatable causes that he gives. King’s (2007) critical view on the Korean government’s Language Spread Policy (LSP), though based on European LSP examples, points out cogently what the immediate needs are to join the competitive group of ambitious countries’ LSP strategies. King urges the Korean government to exploit the Korean Wave’s popularity and Korea’s economic resources to the fullest for Korea’s LSP and points out the Korean government’s unwise or inept language support policy, which leans on Southeast Asian countries, leaving out North America and Europe. He also suggests a reorientation of “the policy away from Korean-as-ethno-national-language education to Korean-as-world-language education,” along with funding for travel or studies grants for youths during their “critical commitment time,” not leaving out those from North America and Europe. Second, rather than pouring money into Korean heritage language programs in North America, the government should support programs for Korean as a foreign language, and he questions whether the money spent on overseas Koreans’ language maintenance is well spent. Does it contribute meaningfully to slowing a Education, the Overseas Koreans Foundation; and the International Korean Language Foundation, with the Presidential Council on Nation Branding as the main contributor. 83  Bilingual funding Title VII, Foreign Service Institute (FSI), Critical Language Scholarship Program, and more.

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

221

language shift among Korean emigrant populations? So long as there is no clear answer, he concludes that the Korean government should make those changes and other necessary investments to improve the strategy for Korean language spread. Chin-Woo Kim (2014) presents a lucid view of why Korean would be difficult to make “a world or an international” language linguistically, numerically, politically, or culturally. Lately, Korean has gained some momentum in “implant” (or, a true Korean spread) through the Korean Wave, largely in China and Southeast Asian countries; its durability, though, is uncertain. Kim believes that the globalization of Korean is not realized through “transplant” but through “implant.” This keen objective analysis will check the overheated aspiration of those who believe Korean can be an international or world language without much consideration of the reality of the world scene. According to sociolinguistic and historical evidence in the United States, as observed early by J. Fishman (1966), an immigrant’s native tongue tends to be lost by the third generation in the United States. Languages die when nobody is left to speak the language; languages thrive when a large portion of the population uses it consistently, like Spanish in the United States. No matter what people try to do, language has its own life, and we have examined previously here the elements influencing the survival and strength of a language. Interesting studies on language assimilation in the United States of minority ethnic groups by R. Alba (2005) and D. Suarez (2007) indicate that the classic theory of language extinction by the third generation—a theory based on European immigrants—is “breaking down,” particularly with Latinos.84 Yet, it is a far cry from breaking down the predominance of English or from the United States becoming a truly multilingual society in the near future. Another interesting fact based on Alba’s study is that Korean and Japanese third-generation children (ages six through fifteen) had the highest rate of English monolingualism at home in 2005. Can we infer from the study that Korean would be extinct in the third generation by way of the European model? Various surveys on Korean language courses in colleges, secondary schools, and community schools and on proficiency tests all seem to indicate otherwise—Korean language learning is growing in the United States,85 especially among Korean Americans. According to the 84  In some minority language groups, it takes only two generations “to undergo a complete language shift” (Lee and Shin 2008). Although the heritage language is lost in the long term, the expected third-generation native-language shift or loss, with English becoming the dominant language, does not follow in the current demographics (Suarez 2007, 29). 85  See http://arcmap.mla.org/mla/default.aspx, accessed November 27, 2017.

222

Clare You

2002 survey on foreign language enrollments in U.S. institutions of higher education, Korean ranked fourteenth among four-year colleges, with an enrollment increase of 16.3% between 1998 and 2002 (Welles 2004). Another survey to note here is the 2004–2005 MLA Guide to Doctoral Programs in English and Other Modern Languages (Steward 2006). According to the guide, there were one-third as many Korean doctoral programs (5 departments) as Japanese (15) and Chinese (15) programs. What is perhaps more significant, however, is that Korean is one of the twelve most common foreign language departments in the United States. However, by 2013, “Among the top fifteen languages, only enrollments in Korean rose at every institutional level between 2009 and 2013: 27.6 percent in two-year institutions, 45.3 percent in four-year institutions, and 86.6 percent in graduate programs.”86 A 2017 survey on Chinese, Korean, and Japanese enrollment at UC Berkeley reflects this trend (see appendix 1). The numbers are still quite small in the context of the speakers of Chinese, Spanish, and Vietnamese, and even smaller than the speakers of Hmong, Khmer, and Tagalog.87 This fact begs the question of how we can increase the spread of Korean in this environment, in which the larger minority languages are competing with one another. It was unbridled energy that brought Korea’s economy from the desolate ruins of the Korean War to having the twelfth-largest gross domestic product in the world in less than fifty years in 2007,88 having passed the trillion-dollar mark in the world economy in 2004. Although Korea succumbs to periodic economic upturns and downturns, Koreans certainly can achieve much more.89 We know, however, that preserving and spreading language is not GDP. For the business of spreading language, there is no immediate economic gain, few private industries are willing to invest big money, and it takes years to make a fluent speaker of Korean, in addition to the lack of necessary requirements listed by Ross King and Chin-Woo Kim. Korean will go on and prosper to its limit, but the status of an important 86 

See http://www.mla.org/pdf/2013_enrollment_survey_hig.pdf. See https://www.academia.edu/594442/Minority_languages_in_the_United_States_ with_a_focus_on_Spanish in_California (table 4, p. 341) for K–12 in 1999. 88  Korea’s GDP for 2006 fell one notch to thirteenth in the world, overtaken by Russia. However, it took the twelfth place back, when Korea’s GDP reached US$1,411.25 billion in 2016 (https://tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp; accessed December 3, 2017). 89  According to QUARTZ, the digital native news outlet on the global economy, “By 2020, South Koreans will have a better standard of living than French.” It also notes that South Korean GDP per capita was $35,277 in 2014 and “in a recent analysis, analysts at Moody’s forecast that South Korea’s GDP per capita is set to rise to $46,980 in PPP terms by 2020, putting it above France’s forecasted GDP per capita of $45,887” (retrieved from http://qz.com/387292 on October 23, 2015). 87 

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

223

global or international language will take a long time, if the language is to get there at all. Closing We have seen the tumultuous history of the process of Korean language seeding, rooting, and spreading in the United States. The language has certainly experienced its ups and downs over the course of the last century; it started as a language confined to the lives of the early sojourners and immigrants, but today it has found its place as a well-accepted foreign language program in the higher education institutions of the United States. The programs are thriving and becoming more significant each day. As for the community use of Korean, it is still largely limited to the pockets of the Korean community and businesses—restaurants, markets, general stores, electronic stores, mom-and-pop stores, and so on—and churches, with their children’s language schools. So, it would be an overstatement to say that Korean is “spreading” in the sense of a fire or a virus. Yet, we can say that Korean is spreading when the number of people who want to learn it are increasing regardless of its use or popularity among the people. A number of complex issues contributed to the gradual upward trajectory of the Korean language as a legitimate foreign language to learn. There is more to it than the effects of the Korean Wave and employment, as classroom surveys often indicate. The Korean language’s ups and downs and its popularity can easily be correlated to Fishman’s reward factors of “social, fiscal (jobs, promotions, raises and bonuses), political (awards, contracts, government policy), and religious, etc.” (1985, 369). On the educational side, in spite of having paltry funding compared to some European countries’ programs, the U.S. Korean language programs owe much to the Korean government and private foundations for their growth, especially in higher institutions. The foundations supported the programs in the early stages to initiate, encourage, and strengthen the teaching of Korean in U.S. academia for the last two decades. Thanks to the financial support of these organizations, no other academic professional group can claim such rapid growth as can Korean studies’ educators. In 2013, northern California had 34.8% (2,297,000) of the 7 million Korean residents in the United States, including both U.S. citizens and non-citizen residents,90 and the West Coast Korean programs (UC Berkeley, UCLA, University of Washington) and the University of British Columbia of Vancouver have been fortunate beneficiaries of support from the Korea Foundation and Academy of Korean Studies. 90 

“Guidelines for Korean and Korean-American Residents for Korean Government Employment,” issued by SF Korean Consulate General in 2015.

224

Clare You

As for U.S. government support, with the NSLI proposed by President Bush in 2006, the government invested over $100 million in critically needed foreign languages;91 Korean was and is one of these critical languages. NSLI and NSLI-Y programs will serve to train the non-Korean and heritage students that King and Kim so strongly feel need support in order for Korean to have a meaningful spread in North America. There is much more to be done to strengthen Korean as both a foreign language and a heritage language in the United States, especially when we look around at Korea’s neighboring countries. Because of their population, economic power, and history, China and Japan claim most of the East Asian language enrollments in U.S. schools (see appendix 2). There are very few U.S. universities and colleges today that do not offer Chinese and/or Japanese. Korea will be unable to match China’s population or be on par with Japan’s economic power in the near future. Korean needs to find its own niche in the United States and the rest of the world. The Korean language’s niche could be in the IT industry, business, film, or K-pop, but, above all, Korean could and should find a home in the cultural and academic sphere. Koreans tend to be extremely motivated to excel in the arts, music, sports, and cinema as well as in science; they could provide a long-lasting niche for the Korean language diaspora. Also, politically, Korea is an indispensable small peninsula where the world’s geopolitical interest lies. For these reasons, the Korean language may flourish for the foreseeable future. As I was about to conclude this chapter, an intriguing article in the Wall Street Journal (January 2, 2015), titled “What the World Will Speak in 2115,”92 caught my eye. Linguistics professor J. H. McWhorter is the author of the essay, subtitled “A Century from Now Expect Fewer but Simpler Languages on Every Continent.” He foretold that English will remain the global lingua franca even if Chinese surpasses the United States in both population and economic power. To the delight of English speakers, his reasoning is based on plausible evidence. His premise is that the factors maintaining the supremacy of a language—Ammon’s classical categories of number of speakers, economic strength, political power, and cultural assets—will not override the hegemony of a language already rooted as the world’s language, because English is “so deeply entrenched in print, education and media that switching to anything else would entail an enormous effort.” What, then, is the likelihood of Korean or any other language becoming a “global” language? Not strong. It may have a chance of becoming 91 

In 2007 $114 million was invested, and $26.6 million in 2008; retrieved from https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Language_Initiative on November 6, 2015. 92  Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-the-world-will-speak-in-2115​-142​ 0234648 on October 15, 2015.

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

225

an “international” language.93 Yes, French did it at one time as the diplomatic language; German did it with science; Latin with religion; and even Esperanto with a group of language idealists. None of them has reached a global status. This leads us to ask ourselves, why or for what purpose should Korea strive to globalize or even internationalize its language? Why should Koreans and their government make such an investment and effort to globalize Korean? I would like to close this narrative by paraphrasing Shakespeare—“We know what we have, but know not what we may have in the future”94—and by relating that to the popularity of the Korean language and its future status and ability to spread in the United States. References AATK (American Association of Teachers of Korean). 1995–2007. Language in America. Vols. 1–12. AATK Newsletter. 1994–2007, 2009, 2014, 2015. Newsletters 1–15, 22, 23. Available at http://www.aatk.org/web/newsletters. Alba, Richard. 2005. “Bilingualism Persists, but English Still Dominates.” Migration Policy Institute. February 1. Retrieved on May 15, 2007, from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/bilingualism​-persists​ -english-still-dominates. Ammon, Ulrich. 1997. “Language-Spread Policy.” Language Problems and Language Planning 21 (1): 51–57. Bang, Jung W. 2015. “An Analysis of the Nineteenth Korean SAT II Field Test and Study Application.” Paper presented at the Thirtythird Annual Conference, National Association of Korean Schools, Washington, DC. Carlson, Robert, and Priscilla H. Walton. 1994. “CLAD/BCLAD: California Reforms in the Preparation and Credentialing of Teachers for a Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Student Population.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Bilingual Education’s International Bilingual/Multicultural Education Conference, Los Angeles, CA, February. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED374670).

93 

In the financial world, “global” means encompassing the world as in “the global market,” whereas “international market” has a smaller scope, involving individual one or more countries. We can say English is now a global language, whereas French was once an international language of the diplomatic circle. 94  In Hamlet, Ophelia responds to Claudius: “Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be.”

226

Clare You

Chang, Roberta, with Wayne Patterson. 2003. The Koreans in Hawai’i: A Pictorial History, 1903–2003. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Cho Hang-Rok. 2005. “Gugoe Hangugeo gyoyugui baldal gwajeonggwa teukjing” [A study of the process and characteristics of Korean language education development abroad: The beginning and leap]. Journal of Korean Language Education 16 (1): 249–275. Cho, Jaekun. 2014. “Understanding the Importance of English Education in South Korea and Exploring the Reasons Why South Korean Students Come to a University in the Midwest.” M.A. thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Retrieved January 2015 from http:// digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsedaddiss/170. Ch’oe, Yong-ho, ed. 2007. From the Land of Hibiscus: Koreans in Hawaii, 1903–1950. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Choi, B. J., and R. Maliangkay. 2014. K-pop: The International Rise of the Korean Music Industry. London: Routledge. Committee on San Francisco Centennial Immigration History. 2004. San Francisco jiyeok-gwa Hanindeul: San Francisco imin 100-nyeonsa [The San Francisco region and Koreans: San Francisco centennial immigration history]. San Francisco: Committee on San Francisco Centennial Immigration History. Cooper, Robert. 1982. “A Framework for the Study of Language Spread.” In Language Spread: Studies in Diffusion and Social Change, ed. Robert Cooper, 5­–36. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Crawford, James. 2000a. At War with Diversity: US Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. ———. 2000b. “Language Policy.” Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http:// www.languagepolicy.net/archives/langpol.htm. Ferguson, Charles F. 1959. “Diglossia.” WORD 15 (2): 325–340. Reprinted in Dell Hymes. 1964. Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row. Pp. 429–439. Fernandez, Mauro. 1993. Diglossia: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 1960– 1990, and Supplements. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fishman, Joshua. 1966. Language Loyalty in the United States: The Maintenance and Perpetuation of Non-English Mother Tongues by American Ethnic and Religious Groups. The Hague: Mouton and Co. ———. 1967. “Bilingualism with and without Diglossia; Diglossia with and without Bilingualism.” Journal of Social Issues 23 (2): 29–38. Revised and reprinted as “Societal Bilingualism: Stable and Transitional.” In Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction, 78–89. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1970. Flaherty, Colleen. 2015. “Not a Small World After All.” Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved December 5, 2017, from https://www​.inside​highered​.com/​

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

227

news/​2015/​02/​11/mla​-report​-shows​-declines​-enroll​ment​-most​-foreign​ -languages. ———. 1982. “Attracting a Following to High-Culture Functions for a Language of Everyday Life.” In Language Spread: Studies in Diffusion and Social Change, ed. Robert Cooper, 291–320. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Garcia, Ofelia. 2011. “Language Spread and Its Study in the Twenty-First Century.” In Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics, rev. 2nd ed., ed. Robert Kaplan, 398–411. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gordon, Larry. 2015. “Korean-Language Classes Are Growing in Popularity at U.S. Colleges.” Los Angeles Times. April 1. Available at http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-korean-language​ -20150401​-story.html, accessed April 1, 2015. Kang, Yangwon, and Clare You, eds. 2011. Hanguk imin chogi gyoyugui baljachwi [Traces of early Korean immigrants’ education]. Seoul: Seonin Press. Kern, Richard. 2006. “Perspectives on Technology in Learning and Teaching Languages.” Tesol Quarterly 40 (1): 183–210. ———. 2014. “Technology as Pharmakon: The Promise and Perils of the Internet for Foreign Language Education.” The Modern Language Journal 98 (1): 340–357. Kim, Chin-Woo. 1996. “Globalization of Korean: Transplant or Implant?” In Korea in the Global Community: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Eui Hang Shin, 191–205. Columbia, SC: Center for Asian Studies, Richard L. Walker Institute of International Studies, University of South Carolina. ———. 2014. Segyesogui Hangeulgwa Hangugeo [Korean script and Korean language in the world]. Retrieved from Professor Lee Bok-kyu’s Cyber Lecture Site, http://m.cafe.daum.net/bky5587/NG6g/177?listURI=%2 Fbky5587%2F), on December 10, 2015. Kim, Michael Namkil. 2003. “Some Problems of Korean Language Education in Southern California.” Presentation. Retrieved from http://www.iic.edu/IICArchive/MinSok2003/Min​Sok​2003​Nam​Kil​ Kim​.html on December 28, 2014. Kim, Warren Y. 1959. Jaemi Hanin osimnyeonsa [Korean Americans’ fifty years of history]. Reedley, CA: Charles Ho Kim. Kim, Youna. 2013. The Korean Wave: Korean Media Go Global. London: Routledge. King, Ross. 2007. “Globalization and the Future of the Korean Language, Preliminary Thoughts.” In Korea in the Global Community: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Eui Hang Shin, 317–347. Columbia, SC: Center for Asian Studies, Richard L. Walker Institute of International, 2007. Available

228

Clare You

at http://asia.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2012/07/RKing_07__Globalization_ and_the_Future_of_K_Lang.pdf, retrieved December 16, 2014. Ko, Kijoo, et al. 2015. “Incorporating Project-Based Language Learning to College-Level KFL Curriculum.” Paper presented at the Twentieth AATK Annual Conference and Professional Development Workshop, June 26, 2015, Monterey, CA. Korea Foundation. 2007. Heaoe Hangukak baekseo [Overseas Korean studies white paper]. Seoul: Uryu munhwasa. ———. 2014. Annual Report. Available at http://en.kf.or.kr/?menuno=3726 &type=view&archv_no=31982&path=0/537/542/563&tab=2&eqindex= 0&lang=1, accessed December 5, 2017. Korean Cultural Service New York. 2007. The Korean Wave: As Viewed through the Pages of the New York Times in 2006. New York: Korean Cultural Service New York. ———. 2008. The Korean Wave: As Viewed through the Pages of the New York Times in 2007. New York: Korean Cultural Service New York. ———. 2009. The Korean Wave: As Viewed through the Pages of the New York Times in 2008. New York: Korean Cultural Service New York. ———. 2012. The Korean Wave: As Viewed through the Pages of the New York Times in 2010–2011. New York: Korean Cultural Service New York. Krashen, S., and T. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. New York: Pergamon Press. Available at http://www.oseacite.org/class/SELT_materials/SELT_Reading_ Krashen_.pdf. Lee, Hyosang. 2000. “Survey of Korean Language Programs.” Paper presented at the First International Conference on Korean Language Education, Seoul. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.indiana​ .edu/~korean/hyoslee2000/hyoslee2000.html. Lee, Jin Sook. 2014. “Community Support for Korean as a Heritage Language in the United States.” In Handbook of Heritage, Community, and Native American Languages in the United States, ed. T. G. Wiley et al., 253–262. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Lee, J. S., and S. Shin. 2008. “Korean Heritage Language Education in the United States: The Current State, Opportunities, and Possibilities.” Heritage Language Journal 6 (2): 153–172. Lie, John. 2015. K-Pop: Popular Music, Cultural Amnesia, and Economic Innovation in South Korea. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Lieberson, Stanley. 1982. “Forces Effecting Language Spread: Some Basic Propositions.” In Language Spread: Studies in Diffusion and Social Change, ed. R. Cooper, 27–62. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

229

McWhorter, J. H. 2015. “What the World Will Speak in 2115:  A Century from Now, Expect Fewer but Simpler Languages on Every Continent.” The Wall Street Journal, January 2. M. G. S. 2011. Review of At War on Diversity: U.S. Language Policy in an Age of Anxiety, by James Crawford. Harvard Educational Review. Fall. Retrieved October 26, 2015, from http://hepg.org/her-home/ issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-71-issue-3/herbooknote/ at-war-with-diversity_113. Min, P. G. 2000. “Korean Americans’ Language Use.” New Immigrants in the United States, ed. S. L. McKay and S.-l. C. Wong, 306–332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitsui, Takashi. 2012. “Park Seung-bin ui eoneo undonggwa geu seonggyeok” [An essay on Pak Seung-bin’s language movement and its nature]. Hankukak yeongu [Journal of Korean studies] (Inha University) 26: 261–306. Moore, Sarah, and Genesis Ingersoll. 2011. “Where Do Community-Based Heritage Language Programs Find Funding?” Briefs. Retrieved from http://www​.cal.org/heritage/pdfs/briefs/where-do-community-based​ -heritage-language-programs-find-funding.pdf on October 16, 2015. Park, Hyun Ok. 1996. “Segyehwa: Globalization and Nationalism in Korea.” Journal of the International Institute 4 (1). Retrieved February 20, 2016, from http://hdl.handle.net: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo​ .4750978.0004.105. Park, Joseph Sung-Yul, and Lionel Wee. 2012. Markets of English: Linguistic Capital and Language Policy in a Globalizing World. New York: Routledge. Park, Young Soon. 1989. “Institutions of Korean Education in US.” Ijung eoneohakoeji [Journal of the Korean society of bilingualism] 5: 5–27. Seoul: The Korean Society of Bilingualism. Pastreich, Emmanuel. 2012. “Red Alert: Korean Language Instruction in the United States.” Korea IT Times, January 5. Retrieved October 26, 2015, from http://koreaittimes.com/story/19287/red​-alert​-korean​ -language-instruction-united-states. Patterson, Wayne. 1994. The Korean Frontier in America: Immigration to Hawaii, 1896–1910. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1994. ———. 2000. The Ilse: First-Generation Korean Immigrants in Hawai’i, 1903–1973. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Porter, Rosalie Pedalino. 1998. “The Case against Bilingual Education.” The Atlantic online, May. Available at https://www.theatlantic.com/​ magazine/archive/1998/05/the-case-against-bilingual-education/​ 305426/, retrieved July 2015. Rabin, Chaim. 1973. A Short History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: The Publishing Department of the Jewish Agency, Hebrew University.

230

Clare You

Rhee Ja Kyong. 1998. Meksiko Iminsa [Mexico immigration history]. Seoul: Ji-sik-san-up Publications. Savignon, S. J. 1991. “Communicative Language Teaching: State of the Art.” TESOL Quarterly 25 (2): 261–277. ———. 1998. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shi Chung-Kon. 2015. Hunminjungeum-eul saranghan byeonhosa Pak/Park, Seung-bin [The lawyer who loved Hunminjungeum]. Seoul: Bakijeong Press. Sohn, H. M. 1991. “Oeguginui Hangugeo hakseup/oegugeseoui Hangugeo gyoyuk migugeseoui Hangugeo gyoyuk jeonmang” [Foreigners’ Korean studies/Korean education abroad: The prospect of Korean education in the United States], special ed. of Hangugeo saenghwal [The Korean language life] 1 (2): 52–60. ———. 2000. “Studies on Korean in Community Schools.” In Migugeseoui Hangugeo gyoyuk [Korean language education in the United States], ed. D. J. Lee et al., 3–24. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Steward, Doug. 2006. “Report on Data from the 2004–05 MLA Guide to Doctoral Programs in English and Other Modern Languages.” ADE Bulletin 140. Fall. Suarez, Debra. 2007. “Second and Third Generation Heritage Language Speakers: HL Scholarship’s Relevant to the Research Needs and Future Directions of TESOL.” Heritage Language Journal 5 (1): 27–49. Tollefson, James W., ed. 2002. Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wall Street Journal. 2007. “In Los Angeles, You Say, ‘Hola!’ I Say, ‘Ahnnyung.’” June 2. Wang, Hyesook. 2015. “Significance of Hallyu’s Influence on Enrollment Increase.” Paper presented at AATK Conference, June 25–27, Monterey, CA. Welles, Elizabeth B. 2004. “Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2002.” ADFL Bulletin 34: 2–3. You, Byeon-Keun. 2011. “Korean Heritage Language Schools in the United States.” Heritage Briefs. Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages, Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL), Washington, DC. Retrieved December 11, 2015, from http://www.cal​ .org/​heritage/​pdfs/briefs/korean-language-schools-in-the-us.pdf. You, C. 2001. “Heritage vs. Non-Heritage Issues Revisited.” In Korean Language in America, vol. 6 (2001 AATK conference proceedings), ed. J. J. Ree, 275–284. Honolulu: American Association of Teachers of Korean.

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States

231

Yu, Eui-young. 2001. “Korean Population in the United States as Reflected in the Year 2000 U.S. Census.” Paper presented at the Population Association of Korea Annual Meeting, Seoul. Yu, Eui-young, and Earl H. Phillips, ed. 1987. Korean Women in Transition: At Home and Abroad. Los Angeles: Center for Korean American and Korean Studies, California State University, Los Angeles. Zeigler, Karen, and Steven A. Camarota. 2015.  “One in Five U.S. Residents Speaks Foreign Language at Home.” Center for Immigration Studies, retrieved January 15, 2016, from http://cis.org/ One​-in​-Five-US-Residents-Speaks-Foreign-Language-at-Home.

232

Clare You

Appendix 1. Number of Students Studying Korean, Japanese, or Chinese at UC Berkeley, 2003–2017 1600 Korean 1400

Japanese Chinese

1200 1000 800 600 400 200

7 01

20

16

–2

5

01 6

01

–2 15

–2

Source: Kijoo Ko, personal communication, November 16, 2017.

20

20

14

01 4

3 20

13

–2

01

2

–2

20

12

01

1 20

11

–2

0

01

20

10

–2

9

01

00 20

09

–2

8 20

08

–2

7

00 –2

20

07

00

6 20

06

–2

5

00

00

–2 05

20

–2

–2 03

20

20

04

00

4

0

On the Korean Language in Diaspora, Western United States Appendix 2. Number of Students Enrolled in Language Study in the United States, 2013 I. Total enrollment in the United States Year

Korean

Chinese

Japanese

2013

12,229

61,055

66,740

2009

8,446

59,876

72,359

2006

7,146

51,381

65,403

2001

6,211

34,153

52,238

II. Total Enrollment on the Pacific Coast at Four-Year Colleges and Universities, 2013 Korean (colleges/unis) Alaska

Japanese

69 (2)

310 (2)

2,209 (21)

5,916 (51)

7,073 (48)

HI

538 (3)

486 (4)

1,334 (5)

OR

239 (2)

839 (8)

1,503 (7)

WA

252 (2) 3,238 (28)

1,158 (17) 12,627 (82)

2,182 (19) 22,912 (81)

CA

0

Chinese

Source: MLA survey data, available at https://apps.mla.org/ flsurvey_search, retrieved February 11, 2016.

233

EIGHT

The Korean Language Diaspora, with a Special Focus on the Eastern United States

HYE-SOOK WANG

Introduction The United States is second only to China in the size of its Korean diaspora. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, over two million overseas Koreans (called dongpo) lived in the United States as of 2009, accounting for approximately 30 percent of the worldwide Korean diaspora.1 Since the first cohort of Korean immigrants landed in Hawai‘i over a century ago, in 1903, the Korean diasporic community has expanded considerably.2 Among the places Korean immigrants made their new home, the metropolitan area of New York remains the center of the Korean community on the East Coast, as does the metropolitan area of Los Angeles on the West Coast. In fact, New York and surrounding states, which include New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania, are the second largest in terms of Korean population in the United States, following the southern California metropolitan areas, which include Los Angeles and Orange County. New York City, in particular, is the center for business, education, culture, and finance in the United States, as is Washington, DC, for politics. The 2010 U.S. Census reveals that approximately 150,000 Koreans lived in New York, another 100,000 in New Jersey, 120,000 in Virginia and Maryland, and over 60,000 Note on romanization: The National System of the Republic of Korea (2000) was used for the romanization of Korean throughout this chapter. Personal names have been romanized according to individual preference except when unknown. 1  According to 2009 statistics from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2,102,283 Koreans lived in the United States, second to China, where 2,336,771 Koreans lived. 2  For more details about the historical background of the immigration, see Clare You’s chapter herein.

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

235

in Washington, DC, although actual numbers could be higher, because not everyone participates in the census. One of the major differences between the Korean diaspora in the eastern and western United States is that the Korean community on the West Coast was initially formed by immigrants who arrived as sugar plantation workers in Hawai‘i, some of whom later moved to California to work in orange orchards, mines, and railroad construction sites. This community was known to be composed mostly of permanent and temporary immigrants (some were planning to go back to Korea) whose journey to a foreign land was greatly motivated by economic reasons (e.g., drought, flood, and famine in Korea) from the beginning. On the contrary, the Korean community on the East Coast, especially in the greater New York area, was formed mainly by Korean students (yuhaksaeng), political refugees, and clergymen. There were a mere seventy or so Koreans in New York before the National Origins Act (also known as Oriental Exclusion Act) was passed in 1924 (Ilsoo Kim 1981). Among them were prominent figures such as Cho Byungok, who received his B.A. and M.A. from Columbia University; Helen Kim (Kim Hwal-ran), who received her Ph.D. from Columbia; and Paik Nakchung, who received his M.A. from Princeton University and his Ph.D. from Yale University in the 1920s (Ilpyoung Kim 2004). All three later returned to Korea after Liberation and held leadership positions in areas such as government. Many of these students chose to stay in the United States, however, even after they had completed their education, due to a bleak job situation in their homeland. Moreover, the number of Korean students in the United States increased dramatically between 1924 and 1952, during which time general immigration by Asians was banned. The McCarranWalter Act eventually lifted the ban against Asian immigration in 1952. There were considerably more students during this time period (approximately 900) compared with the approximately 150 students between 1910 and 1919. The Korean student population in the United States continued to grow between 1945 and 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was enacted, reaching approximately six thousand by the end of this period (Hurh 1998). As a matter of fact, students made up the third largest group of Korean immigrants, especially during the period between 1950 and 1964, following war brides who married American servicemen and war orphans who were adopted into American families. Although statistics are not readily available concerning how many of the students who had entered the United States between 1950 and 1964 chose to go to the East Coast, it is reasonable to assume, based on other data, that the student group played a central role in forming the Korean community in the New York area. One source (Ilsoo Kim 1981) reveals that there was an influx of Korean students at the end of the Korean War into

236

Hye-Sook Wang

major eastern cities, such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston, totaling almost three hundred in 1955. These early Korean immigrants centered their community around Columbia University, which is perhaps why Columbia is one of the pioneers of Korean language education among U.S. colleges and universities. The fact that the Korean community on the East Coast was formed much later and thus has a shorter history than does the one on the West Coast is another difference between the two communities. Although the record (Sung 2005, 335) shows that the first New York Korean church was founded in 1921, which implies the existence of a small Korean community in an early phase of Korean immigration into the eastern United States, it was not until the early 1960s that the first Korean language school opened in New York. The establishment of Korean language schools assumes an expansion of the Korean community because it reflects a sufficient need for the children of the Korean community to learn Korean. Language is an integral part of ethnic and cultural identity and plays a crucial role in forming the diasporic community by which members identify themselves, share common interests, and practice their culture. In the case of first-generation Korean immigrants, their ethnic and cultural identity was maintained through speaking Korean and teaching it to the next generation of Koreans once they settled in the United States. In so doing, Korean immigrants established Korean schools (Hangeul hakgyo) for their children’s heritage language education (dongpo gyoyuk). Although Korean language education was offered mostly through these community schools, regular schools—though fewer in number and smaller in scale—were part of this endeavor as well. Colleges and universities have been taking a leading role in Korean language education among regular schools, partly benefiting from the U.S. government’s support for foreign language education. It is worth noting that while state universities such as the University of Hawai‘i, University of California, Berkeley, and University of California, Los Angeles have been leaders of Korean language education on the West Coast, private universities such as Columbia and Harvard have played the same role on the East Coast. This might not have been intended, but it shows an interesting contrast, perhaps because UH, UCB, and UCLA were all major schools located in the cities where large Korean communities were present, whereas Columbia was the largest school located in New York City. Harvard was seemingly the first school to appoint a professor to teach Korean language. There are a few book-length studies on the history of Korean immigration to the United States and various aspects of Korean immigrant

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

237

communities.3 Scholarly interest in the subject has grown partly due to the recent surge in diaspora studies. A great deal of attention has been paid to the various aspects of Korean as a heritage language and its teaching. However, most previous studies on Korean Americans in the United States either neglected the language-related issues in connection with diasporic community or addressed them in only general terms (see, e.g., Min 2000), thus failing to closely link the two. The goal of this chapter is to examine the history and current state of Korean language education in the context of Korean diasporic community formation in the eastern United States, focusing mainly on the greater New York area (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) because of the size of its population and the important role it plays. In addition, the history of immigration to New York is more extensively researched and better known than are the histories of other cities. I will also examine how the seeds of the Korean language were sowed and spread, and how it has evolved from the beginning to the present. I will then discuss the support of the Korean government and related organizations in Korea for the promotion of Korean language and cultural education in the United States, as well as the foreign language policy of the U.S. government, with respect to its impact on Korean language education. This will be followed by a discussion of the “Korean Wave” and how and to what extent it affected the Korean language diaspora. The Korean Language Diaspora and Education in the Eastern United States: Historical Background, Evolution, and Current State The Korean immigrant population in the Northeast makes up approximately 20 percent of the entire Korean American population of the United States (20.1% in 1970, 19.2% in 1980, 22.8% in 1990, 21.6% in 2000, and 20.5% in 2010), according to Min (2013, 19). Of this group, those in the New York–New Jersey area have made up around 15 percent since 1990, when the Korean population in this area nearly doubled, from 8 percent in 1980 to 15 percent in 1990 (it remained around 15 percent in 2000 and dropped to 13 percent in 2010). The Washington, DC, and Philadelphia metropolitan areas are two other major areas of the Northeast where Korean immigrant enclaves can be found. Being that the New York–New Jersey metropolitan area has the second largest Korean American population after the Los 3  These books include groundbreaking work by Wayne Patterson (1988), and works by Won Moo Hur (1998), Kwang Chung Kim (1984), Bong Youn Choy (1979), Ilsoo Kim (1981), Pyong Gap Min (2000, 2013), and Kyeyoung Park (1997).

238

Hye-Sook Wang

Angeles metropolitan area, this discussion of Korean language diaspora and education on the East Coast will focus on this area. It is believed that the first modern Korean language school in New York opened in 1962 in the Manhattan Korean church founded by Hyung-Rin Kim, who was a central figure in the early days of the Korean community in New York. Around this time, the second wave of Korean immigration (1950–1964) was coming to an end and the 1965 Immigration Act was paving the way for a new wave of Korean immigration. Four years later, in 1966, the Korean language school of the New York Korean Church (New York Hanin gyohoe) was founded (Sung 2005, 335). This school grew steadily as a result of monetary and material support from the Korean Consulate of New York and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Korean government. Whereas the 1960s marked the beginning of Korean language education in community schools in the New York area, it was not until a decade later, in 1973, that Korean language education in New York came to an important turning point: the opening of the New York Korean School (New York Hanguk hakgyo). The opening of this school, founded by a group of people including Byung-Ryul Huh, who served as the principal for the ensuing decades, bears historical significance because it reflects the increased needs of, and attention to, Korean language education among Korean immigrant families. The 1970s was a time when the children of immigrants who came to the United States after the passage of the 1965 immigration law were reaching school age and needed a place to obtain a Korean language education.4 The immigrant population also increased sharply as a result of subsequent immigration when those who had already obtained U.S. citizenship invited their family members to join them in the United States. In Korea during the early 1970s, the military regime suppressed political freedom under the Yushin Constitution, and the First Oil Crisis caused economic hardship that motivated many Koreans to leave their homeland and move to the United States. The foundation of the New York Hanguk hakgyo had more meaning than simply the addition of a Korean language school. It was notable not only because it was a Korean school independent of religious organizations, unlike most earlier Korean schools, but also because it used the name Hanguk hakgyo (Korean school), instead of Hangeul hakgyo (Korean language school). By calling the school a Hanguk hakgyo, the founders demonstrated their goal of not just teaching and maintaining their native tongue, the Korean language, but also transmitting Korean culture to the next generations of Korean Americans, which was an important advancement. 4 

The law ended long-standing U.S. immigration policies that discriminated against Asians.

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

239

Following the opening of the New York Korean School, many more Korean schools were founded in the states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, totaling eleven schools by the end of the 1970s. Again, the overwhelming majority of these schools (approximately 90 percent) were established by people associated with religious organizations who used church facilities for Korean language classes. The multiple roles of the church in many immigration communities, especially in the Korean community, as a “grassroots community,” “pseudo extended family,” and “broker” that “connects church members with the bureaucratic institutions of the larger society” (Ilsoo Kim 1981, chap. 6), explain why Korean schools were founded by, affiliated with, and supported by churches, especially the Protestant Church. Approximately three-fourths of Korean immigrants are affiliated with Korean churches in the United States (Min 2000). It seems only natural that Korean schools were a part of the church, and the church an essential part of Korean life. Another sharp increase in the number of Korean schools in the New York area came in 1985, four years after the foundation of the Northeast chapter of the National Association of Korean Schools (NAKS) in Washington, DC, in 1981. NAKS is one of two national organizations for Korean community schools, along with the Korean School Association in America (KSAA), founded in 1982, which represents Korean schools in the western United States. The Northeast chapter is currently the largest among the thirteen member chapters of the NAKS. It includes New York, northern New Jersey, and Connecticut. The establishment of this organization also brought considerable improvement to the quality of Korean language education in Korean community schools, as collaborative efforts were made on many levels, including textbook development, teacher training, securing of funds, and so on. As of 2007, there were over one thousand Korean schools (both Hangeul hakgyo and Hanguk hakgyo) in the United States. According to The Current State of the Educational Institutions for Overseas Koreans (Korean Educational Development Institute 2015), a report issued by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology of South Korea, Korean schools on the East Coast, located mainly in the Washington, DC, area (Washington, DC, Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia) and the New York area (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Delaware), totaled 240. A recorded 14,357 students were being taught by 2,464 teachers as of April 2010. These numbers were roughly the same as those on the West Coast, where 17,500 students were being taught by 2,500 teachers in 238 schools in the areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco. Schools on the East Coast vary in size and in the number of students they serve, ranging from fewer than forty to more than one hundred in each school. The Korean School of New Jersey

240

Hye-Sook Wang

(Seongdaegeon Hanguk hakgyo), thought to be the largest in the United States, has an enrollment of over six hundred students. This is not surprising, as the state of New Jersey was already becoming a location with a heavy concentration of Koreans in the eastern United States between 1980 and 1990, exhibiting its highest growth rate, of 200 percent, during this time (Min 2000, 314). Although Korean schools’ main goal is to teach the Korean language to the children of immigrant families, they offer diverse curricula that include Korean history, culture, music, and dance, to help students maintain their Korean identities. As these statistics show, Korean language schools in the Korean diasporic community have made enormous developments, both in quantity and presumably in quality, since their early days. Behind such growth were countless people who devoted their lives to the education of Korean children with enthusiasm and drive. As will be discussed in the next section, the Korean government began to provide support much later, toward the end of the 1970s, with more substantially “organized” support after 1997. The dedication and efforts of a group of individuals, including Hyung-rin Kim and Byung-ryul Huh, mentioned earlier, made Korean language education for the diasporic community possible, and their legacy continues. It is to these pioneers’ credit that the Korean language is still alive in the next generations of Koreans on foreign soil. More “formal” Korean language education for the children of the Korean diasporic community has begun at regular U.S. schools, mostly at public schools. Ailee Moon (2010) reports that a total of seventy-one regular schools (sixteen elementary schools, nine middle schools, and forty-six high schools) in the United States were offering Korean classes as of November 2009, with 5,578 students enrolled in 240 classes. This is a slight increase over the sixty-five schools reported in 2006, but a large increase over the twenty-three schools reported in 1997. The number of schools tripled in a little over ten years, and student enrollment quadrupled, from 1,405 in 1997. Among the forty-six high schools that offered Korean classes in 2009, ten were located in the New York area, three in Washington, DC, and one each in Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, and Connecticut. The number of students enrolled in these classes makes up only 20 percent of the entire enrollment of Korean children in middle and high schools throughout the nation, and less than one-third of the enrollments in California alone, which make up approximately 75 percent of the total in the United States.5 The East Coast also lags behind the West Coast in the number of Korean language education programs in secondary schools, which is to be expected considering the shorter history of Korean immigration into the 5 

The preceding section is based on Kwang-kyu Lee (2008).

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

241

East. This situation might have prompted the current effort to organize the Korean Language Middle and High School Curriculum Selection Committee (Hangugeo jung-go gyogwamok chaetaek wiwonhoe), which lobbies for the adoption of Korean as a foreign language in the secondary schools of Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. The Korean language began to be taught in New York public schools about three decades ago, as part of the “Native Language Arts” program, targeting Korean students who immigrated to the United States when they were young, those who are often referred to as the “1.5 generation.” These students were learning Korean at the same time that they were learning English in ESL classes. Korean language classes for the so-called heritage learners, who were born in the United States to Korean parents, were added to the curriculum later, as second-generation Korean Americans had grown in number. Similar to the birth of Korean community schools, the inclusion of Korean language classes in New York public schools is attributed to a number of Korean language teachers, including Hyun-joo Kwon and Jung­ hye Lee. Recognizing the importance of Korean language education for the children of Korean families at regular schools, these teachers employed various strategies to persuade school principals to include Korean, enlisting parents and former graduates to request such classes and convincing school administrators of the necessity of including the Korean language in their curricula. There are only three elementary schools and three middle schools in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut that currently teach Korean, which is only half the number of high schools. The target group of students is changing, as the Korean language is coming to be taught not only as a heritage language but also as a foreign language, due to an increased interest in Asia and a globalizing world. Again, the Korean government’s support, through the Korean Education Center in New York, although small in scale, has been crucial in maintaining the existing programs and adding new programs to public schools. Being that the stability of the program is not guaranteed because of insecure funding, programs can disappear if they are not proven to be successful after a few years of trial. This is why the Korean government’s continued support, especially its financial support, is critical for maintaining and expanding Korean classes in public schools.6 Korean language education in colleges and universities has grown more rapidly than it has in secondary schools, not only in terms of the number of schools offering Korean classes, but also in the number of faculty teaching 6  The information provided in the section on secondary schools is based on the author’s interview with Junghye Lee, who was president of the Korean Teachers’ Association in New York at the time of the interview.

242

Hye-Sook Wang

Korean, which partly go hand in hand. On the American Association of Teachers of Korean (AATK) website, over sixty jobs were posted from November 2009 through January 2012. Twenty jobs were announced during the 2013–2014 academic year. Although almost all of these were lecturer positions, with only a few tenure-track positions, the number of openings is significant not only in and of itself but also compared with the number of openings in previous years. The support of the Korean government through the Korea Foundation, which strategically focused on funding to establish new Korean programs and to add new faculty positions in Korean studies departments, was the main contributing factor to this growth. Among the colleges and universities on the East Coast, Columbia and Harvard are the two institutions of higher education that are known to have offered Korean language classes before the 1960s. According to Harvard’s archive, the first Korean class at Harvard was offered in 1952 by one Korean teacher and enrolled one student. This one student, Edward Wagner, later was hired as an assistant professor of Korean history in 1958, and also was supposed to teach Korean language as part of the terms of his employment.7 The instruction of Korean studies, including the Korean language, must have become standard with the employment of Edward Wagner. The program was succeeded by his wife, Namhi Kim Wagner, who ran the Korean language program at Harvard until she retired in 1995 after thirty-five years of service. The details of the establishment of the Columbia Korean program are less known and more controversial. There are conflicting reports on who started the program and when, but according to the Center for Korean Research at Columbia’s website and my personal communication with Dr. Theodore Hughes, the director of the center, the first Korean language instruction began in 1934 with a class taught by Dr. Eungpal Yun, minister of the Korean Methodist Church in New York. A half century later, the number of colleges and universities with Korean programs increased to almost 130 (Byon 2008).8 As of November 2014, 99 schools were listed on the AATK webpage. Student enrollment also increased, from 365 in 1980, to 2,286 in 1990, to 5,211 in 2002, and to 8,511 in 2009, according to an enrollment survey released by the Modern Language Association in 2010. Of particular note is that the increase between 2002 and 2006 was 37.1%, which made Korean the third fastest-growing language following Arabic (126.5%) and Chinese (51%); and 19.1% between 2006 7  This information was obtained through Sang-Suk Oh, the Korean language program director at Harvard in early 2012. 8  There are conflicting reports on the actual number of schools with Korean programs. The website of the American Association of Teachers of Korean lists about 80 schools; the National Research Foundation reports 95; Integrated Korean reports 110.

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

243

and 2009, which ranked Korean second in growth only to Arabic (46.3%). In the most recent report, released in February 2015, Korean topped all the languages surveyed, with a 44.5% increase between 2009 and 2012. Roughly 30% of these students were learning Korean in a college located in California, and 13% of them in a college located in New York or New Jersey. Whereas the Universities of California, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and San Diego each serve between 250 and 350 students on average annually, the state universities of New York at Albany, Binghamton, Stony Brook, and Buffalo each serve between 100 and 150 students. Rutgers University in New Jersey has the largest enrollment on the East Coast, serving on average 200 to 250 students. These numbers show only part of the picture, however, as to how Korean language education has evolved to its current state since it began to be taught many decades ago. Behind such a growth, a myriad of issues existed and had to be addressed: developing diverse and high-quality teaching materials, training teachers, securing financial support, ensuring quality instruction, and running dual-track programs for heritage and nonheritage learners, to name a few. Student interest manifested in enrollment numbers must have been a powerful tool to convince school administrators to hire more teachers and to offer more courses. Whereas already established major programs were flourishing at some schools, beginning and small-scale programs in other schools were struggling simply to maintain the status quo, let alone to expand their programs. Many private schools are hesitant to support low-enrollment courses due to funding shortages, whereas many state schools are directly affected by state budget cuts. What it takes to create any faculty position, even when there is enough interest in the program and the enrollment would justify it, is the understanding of the school administration of the differences among China, Japan, and Korea, and a strong will and vision for the future of Korean studies. School administrators must be willing to reallocate shrinking resources to Korean programs.9 The Role of the Korean Government and the U.S. Government in the Emergence of Korean Language Education When discussing immigrant communities, “push factors” and “pull factors” merit inclusion (Ilsoo Kim 1981, 9). In the context of Korean language education, push factors include the Korean government’s promotion and support of heritage language education (dongpo gyoyuk), while pull factors include U.S. government policy and support for foreign language 9 

This section is based on Sung (2005, chap. 11).

244

Hye-Sook Wang

education.10 The U.S. government and individual state governments’ foreign language policies have a direct impact on the development of Korean language programs in U.S. schools, but the role and support of the Korean government in promoting overseas Korean language education and language maintenance is a crucial aspect in this discussion. The Role of the Korean Government in the Korean Language Spread Abroad

Two major laws or regulations are critical to the history of the Korean government’s policies on the education of overseas Koreans. One is a law on the education of overseas Koreans (Jaeoegungminui gyoyuge gwanhan gyujeong, daetongnyeongnyeong je 8461ho), enacted in 1977, which became the basis for establishing and operating educational institutions such as Korean schools and Korean education centers abroad. The other is the Overseas Koreans Foundation Law (Jaeoe dongpo jaedanbeop), which led to the subsequent establishment of the Foundation for Overseas Koreans (Jaeoe dongpo jaedan) in February 1997, a tangible result of the work of the Overseas Koreans Policy Committee (Jaeoe dongpo jeongchaek wiwonhoe). From the mid-1990s onward, the Korean government has made a strong effort to spread the Korean language through various policies and programs. These include (1) administration of the Korean Language Placement Test (known as KLPT), (2) support for the Korean Language Globalization Advancement Committee (Hangugeo segyehwa chujin wiwonhoe), and (3) development and dissemination of Korean language educational materials. Three government branches—the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (MoEST); the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (MoCST); and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MoFAT)—are charged with carrying out these tasks. They house various organizations, including the National Institute for International Education Development (NIIED), the Korean Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE), the Overseas Koreans Foundation (OKF), the National Institute of the Korean Language (NIKL), and the Foundation for Globalizing Korean Language (FGKL). All of the previously mentioned organizations are involved in Korean language education for overseas Koreans, either directly (through actual teaching) or indirectly (through setting policy and providing support). The NIIED (under MoEST) actually provides Korean language education. The OKF also runs several programs through its Education and Culture Team for (a) developing and running online Korean language courses for Korean language teachers and learners (www.studykorean.net), (b) organizing 10 

The policy of the U.S. government is discussed in Clare You’s chapter herein, so the focus of my discussion is the Korean government’s policy and support.

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

245

visits to Korea for Korean adolescents throughout the world, (c) supporting overseas Korean schools financially (after taking them over from the MoEST in 1997), and (4) holding workshops for Korean school teachers and supporting them in other ways. In addition, the Korea Foundation, the National Research Foundation (formerly the Korea Research Foundation), and the Academy of Korean Studies also run various programs to support institutions and scholarly activities in Korean studies, including the teaching of the Korean language. Support by the Korean government for the purpose of promoting Korean language overseas in practical terms is provided by the U-Sejong Project, which is similar to the Confucius Institute that the Chinese government launched some years ago. Since the establishment of the Sejong Academy (Sejong hakdang) project, following the announcement in January 2007 by the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, 130 Sejong Academies in 54 countries were in operation as of 2014, of which 79 were located in Asia and 24 in the Americas. This shows a dramatic increase from 13 Sejong Academies in three countries in 2007, and 14 in four countries in 2008. The total enrollment also grew from 240 in 2007 to 37,177 in 2013.11 The Sejong Academy project is a relatively recent endeavor by the Korean government, and it is probably too soon to assess its effects, although quantitative growth is remarkable. The Korean government’s policy specifies two main goals for Korean language education for overseas Koreans: “assimilation in the host country” and “connection with the motherland.” Accordingly, the government aims to help overseas Koreans to settle stably in the host country and to preserve their national identity as Korean. These goals, the same ones that the National Association of Korean Schools earlier tried to accomplish, can be achieved by providing two types of education: education to help Koreans understand their motherland, and education to help them adapt more easily to the host society.12 The Role of the U.S. Government in Promoting Foreign Language Education in the United States in Relation to Korean Language Education

“There are two disadvantages in global language arrangements: one of them is not knowing English; and the other one of them is knowing only English” (Jo Lo Bianco, Chair of Language and Literary Education, University of Melbourne, Australia). This sentence is cited in the article “Born 11 

This information is based on the report “2014 sutjaro salpyeoboneun urimal” by the Academy of the Korean Language, retrieved from http://www.urimal365.kr/?p=20996 in November 2014. 12  This section is based on Cho (2004) and Park (2008).

246

Hye-Sook Wang

Global,” prepared for the Born Global Symposium and published by the British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences in 2014, and it captures the current linguistic landscape of many English-speaking countries, including the United States. Although English is the national language, the United States, as one of the most multilingual and multicultural countries in terms of the background of its citizens, has displayed interest in and support for a series of foreign language education policies since the 1950s. One of the earliest efforts by the U.S. government to emphasize the teaching of foreign languages to the public was the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958, Title VI (Foreign Studies and Language Development), which was prompted by the Russian scientific breakthrough of the Sputnik satellite. Subsequently, Congress enacted the Higher Education Act (HEA) in 1965. Title VI of the HEA was reauthorized in 1986 to include language resource centers in the nation for the purpose of improving the effectiveness of the teaching and learning of foreign languages in the United States. This was followed in 1988 by the enactment of the Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) in Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. A few years later, in 1991, the National Security Education Program (NSEP) was established, based on the National Security Education Act. As its name suggests, the purpose of this program was “to develop national capacity to enhance U.S. citizens’ understanding of foreign cultures, strengthen U.S. economic competitiveness, and enhance international cooperation and security.” In 2001, the U.S. Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which recognized foreign language as a core subject area. Another major proposal, called the National Flagship Language Initiative (NFLI), was submitted by Senator Richard Durbin in the same year. Of particular pertinence for Korean language education is that this initiative was born out of the Homeland Security Education Act (HSEA) introduced by Senator Durbin in response to the 9/11 incident that occurred earlier that year. Congress authorized NSEP’s effort to implement the NFLI, which is “the nation’s first major partnership between the federal government and higher education to implement a national system of programs designed to produce advanced language competency in critical languages.” It was on this foundation that the Korean language flagship programs were established at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa and the University of California, Los Angeles, in 2005, although the UCLA program has since been discontinued. The U.S. Senate designated the year 2005 as the Year of Foreign Language Study, and the U.S. Congress recognized it as the Year of Languages. Subsequently, the Senate passed a resolution designating 2006 as the Year of Study Abroad, which was followed by President George W. Bush’s announcement of the National Security Language Initiative in 2006. The

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

247

U.S. government demonstrated its continued interest in helping American students achieve advanced-level proficiency, especially in languages it deemed “critical,” by encouraging early study of foreign languages beginning in elementary school. For this purpose, it also established a critical language scholarship program under the auspices of the Department of the State for students learning such languages as Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, and Korean, which were considered “critical” to U.S. economic, political, and strategic interests. Foreign language and culture education for the general public is provided in a K–16 setting for the purpose of training American citizens to gain foreign language proficiency as well as cross-cultural understanding in an increasingly globalized world. In order to maintain a leadership role in world affairs, the U.S. government also trains selected individuals through specialized programs in government-funded schools. The Defense Language Institute (DLI), under the order of the Department of Defense, and the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), under the order of the Department of State, are two such entities. Due to long-standing ties between the two countries and the long-lasting strategic interest of the United States in Korea, the Korean school in DLI is one of the largest in the nation, serving several hundred students in any given year. Moreover, it is the school that trains the highest number of nonheritage learners of Korean language, along with Brigham Young University and the University of Minnesota. It appears that the U.S. government’s foreign language education policy has been strongly motivated and greatly affected by U.S. interest in national security and the nation’s roles as world peacekeeper and economic leader. The U.S. government’s selection of foreign languages to emphasize, other than traditionally important languages such as Spanish, French, and German, was made on the grounds of perceived needs, and the Korean language was one of the beneficiaries of such a perception. On the one hand, the Korean language has been taught as a vehicle for Korean Americans to remain connected to their motherland and culture. On the other hand, Korean has been taught for reasons of strategic importance, mostly in DLI and FSI until the 1980s, when it started to be taught more widely in U.S. colleges and universities as one of the increasingly popular foreign languages. Although it is hard to make an informed judgment on the current linguistic landscape of the Korean language in the United States based on how it is perceived by the general public, some notable changes are beginning to take place partly due to the phenomenon called the Korean Wave (Hallyu), which is discussed in the following section.13

13 

The information provided in the preceding section is based mainly on Committee on

248

Hye-Sook Wang

The Korean Wave and Its Effect on Korean Language Education and Diaspora One of the most visible and powerful signs of Korea’s increasing prominence on the world stage in recent years is the spread of the Korean Wave, known as Hallyu. This section looks at whether or not, and to what extent, this phenomenon changed the general perceptions of the American public toward Korea and Korean culture, and consequently how such changes may have promoted Korean language studies in U.S. schools, especially in the eastern region. When the Korean Wave first captured people’s attention as a small wave, few expected to see what we are seeing today, expressing doubts regarding its continuity and sustainability. It could easily have been a short-term whirlwind that swept Asia and then disappeared. Winter Sonata and the socalled Yon Sama syndrome are alive only among overenthusiastic middleaged Japanese women fans. Korean pop music represented by a number of idol groups (e.g., Big Bang, BoA, EXO, SHINEE, and Super Junior) excites only younger fans in Japan or elsewhere in Asia. Wang (2007) suggests that the Korean Wave has yet to be substantiated, especially in the United States, based on the results of a survey that she conducted among college students. A survey I conducted more recently, in 2014, among middle and high school teachers in Massachusetts does not show much difference in results. The majority of the respondents answered that they either had not heard of Hallyu or the Korean Wave or did not know what it was. While this could represent the isolated reactions of ordinary people in a small local area, a similar assessment was offered by C. Armstrong in his article “The Korean Wave and American Views of Korea, Yesterday and Today,” which examines the impact of this phenomenon in the United States in general and in the New York area in particular. Armstrong situates this phenomenon in a historical context, saying that “the Korean Wave in the U.S. and other non–East Asia regions is a more recent and less well-known phenomenon.” He goes on to state that “the most important consumers of Korean popular culture are Americans of Korean descent, and outside of that demographic group the ‘wave’ is mostly confined to the large cities.” This was probably true at that time (Armstrong 2008, 10). However, it did not take long from the debut of “Gangnam Style” in the early summer of 2012 until this wave was revived and even intensified. The song itself, as well as its iconic horse-riding dance, by Korean artist Economic Development, “Education for Global Leadership,” 2006, available at http://eric​ .ed​.gov/?id=ED502294, accessed November 2014.

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

249

Psy, has become a pop-culture phenomenon even in the United States. It not only made news by setting a new record for number of YouTube hits, but it also stirred a lively discussion as to what brought this success to a singer from a small country in Asia who was relatively unknown until then. While the Korean Wave made its way around the world, including to the United States, in the early twenty-first century, “Gangnam Style” undoubtedly cemented the already growing popularity of Korean songs (K-Pop), films, and dramas. This swift spread of the Korean Wave is indeed statistically supported. The Korea Foundation, one of two major government-sponsored entities that supports overseas Korean studies, along with the Academy of Korean Studies, published an interesting and encouraging report on this phenomenon in January 2014. According to its Global Hallyu Data 2013, the popularity of Korean popular culture is clearly manifested in these numbers (see table 1). Table 1. Current State of Global Hallyu Fans Asia/ Oceania Number of Hallyu Fans

The Americas

6.8 million 1.25 million

Number of Hallyu Fan Clubs

234

464

Africa/ Middle East

Europe

0.6 million 1.17 million 76

213

Source: The Korea Foundation 2014.

Compared to the previous year’s data, there is a remarkable increase of 6.7 million in the number of fans and 783 in the number of fan clubs. Although the United States was second in terms of number of fans, with 1.25 million—a distant second compared with the 6.8 million fans in Asia and Oceania—it topped the number for fan clubs, with 464. The impact of the Korean Wave is also evident in the attention paid to it by mainstream U.S. media. Korean Cultural Services New York has begun to compile all the articles written about Korean culture that appeared in the New York Times starting in 2007 and has been publishing a booklet titled The Korean Wave: As Viewed through the Pages of the New York Times annually. As table 2 demonstrates, the number of articles on Korean popular culture appearing in the New York Times increased dramatically from 2007 to 2008, after which point it remained steady. Considering that the New York Times is indisputably one of the most influential U.S. media sources, this degree of attention is indeed telling.

250

Hye-Sook Wang Table 2. Number of Articles on Hallyu Appearing in the New York Times by Year Publication Date

Year Covered

Number of Articles

2007

2006

78

2008

2007

104

2009

2008

108

2010

2009

116

2012

2010–2011

115

2013

2012–2013

110

Source: The Korean Wave: As Viewed through the Pages of the New York Times, published by the Korean Cultural Service New York since 2007.

Testimonials from scholars in the field of Korean studies speak to the impact of the Korean Wave reflected in college course enrollments as well. Carter Eckert, a professor of Korean history and former director of the Korea Institute at Harvard University, states that Hallyu aroused interest in Korea by various people, who otherwise did not know about Korea and did not care about Korea. It is clear when we look at the modern Korean history course that I teach. Approximately one hundred students of diverse backgrounds and nationalities took my course in the spring of 2014 for various reasons. One of the reasons was their interest in Korean popular culture, especially film or music.” (Donga Daily, May 24, 2014; my translation)

David McCann, a Korean literature professor now retired from Harvard, echoes Eckert. He connects the question, “Why has the New York Times been publishing so many articles about Korea, Korean culture, and its global incarnations?,” to the enrollment increase in his courses. While acknowledging the increasing number of Korean and Korean heritage students who have direct ties with Korea as a contributing factor, he also attests to the role Korean popular culture plays in this increase, noting that “an increasing number . . . have such indirect ties as listening to a performance at the Met or the Philharmonic, [or] tasting the food at one of the restaurants on 33rd St” (McCann 2008, 15).

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

251

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

Heritage Nonheritage

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 1st year

3rd year

5th year

Figure 1: Student Composition (Heritage vs. Nonheritage) by Class Level

The results of the two surveys that I conducted on student composition of college Korean language classes in 2008 and 2014 both confirm this trend: the number of students of non-Korean backgrounds are on the rise. Wang (2009) notes that students of Korean descent are no longer the majority in many Korean programs, in which roughly 80 percent in the lower levels and 90 to 100 percent at the higher levels used to be filled by Korean Americans, with the exception of a few institutions (e.g., Brigham Young University, DLI, and the University of Minnesota).14 Figure 1 displays the change. Eleven major colleges and universities on the East Coast, both private and state-funded, were contacted in 2014 as a follow-up to the previous survey that was conducted in 2008. Among these, seven schools participated in the survey. A few interesting findings were revealed. First, overall enrollment at the beginner level has dramatically increased in almost all of the participating schools. Second, nonheritage learners far outnumber heritage learners in the lower levels in several schools. Third, the ethnic and linguistic backgrounds of the nonheritage students have become far more diverse than ever before. Fourth, the largest group among the nonheritage learners is Asian Americans and international students from China or other 14 

BYU, DLI, and Minnesota are exceptions: many students enrolled in Korean classes at BYU learn Korean for religious purposes; DLI trains U.S. military personnel; and the vast majority of students enrolled in Korean classes at the University of Minnesota are Korean adoptees who usually lack prior exposure to Korean language and culture.

252

Hye-Sook Wang

parts of Asia. Whereas the first two findings were expected, as the changes had already taken place when the previous survey was conducted, the latter points emerge as something new, the last point in particular. These changes apparently reflect the impact of the Korean Wave, and the number of nonheritage learners is most likely to continue to rise in the years to come. Many still cast doubtful eyes on the Korean Wave. A debate is ongoing as to whether there ever was a Korean Wave, or whether the Korean Wave is already dead, if there was such a thing, or whether the unprecedented spread of Korean popular culture to the various regions of the world is indebted to its unique “Koreanness” or its “transnational hybridity,” as argued by Jung (2009). However, as demonstrated in this section, the Korean Wave’s positive impacts on Americans’ perception of Korea and Korean culture are clear, although in varying degrees and in different regions for different group of people. Closing Remarks The seeds of the Korean language were planted in North America when immigrants from Korea landed in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century. Although Korean has been the immigrants’ language, spoken and taught as a heritage language for many decades both at their homes and in schools where the classes are offered, it has been gradually evolving into a language not only of U.S. strategic importance but also of cultural popularity. The Korean government as well as the U.S. government played a pivotal role in preserving and promoting the Korean language, but in a different context, for a different reason, and with a different focus; for the education of overseas Koreans, for the former, and for the education of American public, for the latter. A recent phenomenon called the Korean Wave bolstered Korean language learning among Koreans and non-Koreans alike. It brings many non-Koreans into the Korean language classroom and boosts many Korean Americans’ identity as Koreans. The Korean community on the East Coast, mainly in the New York and New Jersey area, has developed distinctive features that differ from those that characterize the West Coast Korean community. Although there are fewer Koreans residing on the East Coast and it has a shorter immigration history (even the minor influx did not occur until after the Korean War), it serves as the hub of many Korean Americans who speak the Korean language at home, in their business, and in their ethnic community. Being one of the largest cities in the world, and having hundreds of Korean stores concentrated along many blocks of Manhattan in addition to other wellestablished Koreatowns (e.g., Flushing, Bayside, etc.), New York and its

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

253

metropolitan area offer optimal conditions for the retention of the Korean language for Korean immigrant communities. Korean Americans are the largest consumer group of Korean language and culture in the United States because of their ethnicity and cultural identity, and they will remain that way. At the same time, they are also the largest group who can transmit Korean culture to non-Koreans, making their role extremely important in a multicultural society like the United States. Therefore, it is crucial that children of Korean diasporic families have a clear sense of who they are and how they can maintain their national, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic identity by studying the Korean language. It is also crucial that parents of Korean diasporic families become more knowledgeable about language acquisition issues, realize the importance of heritage, and take a proactive approach to their children’s Korean language education. Above all, it should be a collaborative and concerted effort by all parties involved—parents, community, schools, government, and private organizations—as it has been along the way. A student’s linguistic autobiography, written for my class, is illuminating: My interest in Korean language and culture grew when I reached middle school, when there was a tremendous influx of Korean immigrants in my area. I began hanging out with students from Korea because I believed we had much more in common culturally. . . . They introduced me to more modern music and I also began to enjoy Korean dramas. It was after these experiences that I began to appreciate Korea. I grew proud of Korea’s culture and enjoyed speaking Korean to my family and friends.

As Yoon (2006) puts forth, although “the Korean Diaspora was an unintended consequence of the unfortunate events of modern Korean history . . . due to this Diaspora, Korea now has an invaluable pool of worldwide human capital and thus a competitive edge over other countries with respect to globalization.” Linguists cite a number of factors—political, social, demographic, cultural, and linguistic—that affect the retention or loss of the language of immigrant communities. The Korean language is spoken by 71 million people in the Korean Peninsula,15 and 7.2 million Koreans living overseas,16 as their native tongue, ranking as the thirteenth most spoken language, not including people studying the Korean language. Korea’s standing in the world 15  Vistawide World Languages and Cultures, “Top 30 Languages of the World,” available at http://www.vistawide.com/languages/top_30_languages.htm, accessed December 4, 2014. 16  “World’s Widest Diaspora Born over 100 Years Ago,” Korea Joongang Daily, October 2, 2013.

254

Hye-Sook Wang

in terms of economic power remains strong, consistently holding twelfth or thirteenth place. Support by the Korean government through various organizations for the education of overseas Koreans, as well as those who are interested in learning the Korean language and culture, has also been strong. What fueled the growing interest in Korean language and culture further is the Korean Wave, which only seems to be spreading more widely. It is almost common knowledge that the Korean alphabet, called Hangeul, is one of the most scientific writing systems in the world, one advantage that makes learning the language easy. The future prospect of the spread of the Korean language is positive, considering all of these factors. The Korean language has attained the status of a top fifteen language in terms of overall college enrollment (Goldberg et al. 2015). Moreover, not only is the Korean language recognized by the U.S. government for its critical importance (mainly due to North Korean nuclear issues and unpredictability), but it has also been included since 1997 as one of the nine languages offered in SAT II tests, whose takers in Korean have been steadily on the rise. The Korean language is also designated as one of the six languages recommended for middle school and high school students to learn under the 2004 Bush grant. These trends demonstrate the popularity and importance of the Korean language in the United States. As Korean is becoming a more recognized foreign language in the United States, its status seems to be changing from one of the less commonly taught languages to a less less commonly taught language. The number of nonheritage learners in Korean classes, especially in higher education, has never been higher, and this change is also taking place in secondary schools as well. It is a critical time to reflect on and reassess this changing reality, from both a historical perspective and a realistic perspective. While Korean language education continues to carry out the old mission of educating Korean American immigrants, with an emphasis on national education (minjok gyoyuk), it should also blend a newly found mission of educating those “other” Americans into the old mission. The seeds of the Korean language are spreading beyond the Korean community. References Armstrong, C. 2008. “The Korean Wave and American Views of Korea, Yesterday and Today.” In The Korean Wave: As Viewed through the Pages of the New York Times in 2007, ed. Korean Cultural Service New York, 8–11. New York: Karis Graphic. British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences. 2014. Born Global: Summary of Interim Findings. Prepared for Born Global

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

255

Symposium, October 17, 2014. Available at www.britishacademy.ac​.uk. accessed November 2016. Byon, A. 2008. “Korean as a Foreign Language in the U.S.A.: The Instructional Settings.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 21 (3): 244–255. Cho Hang-rok. 2004. “Jaeoe dongpo-reul daesangeuro haneun Hangugeo gyoyuk-ui siljewa gwaje” [Current state and issues of Korean language education policy for overseas Koreans]. Journal of Korean Language Education 15 (2): 199–232. ———. 2011. “Sejonghakdang, Sejonggyosil-gwa jeoedongpo Hangugeo gyoyuk” [Sejong Institute, Sejong classes, and Korean language education for overseas Koreans]. Overseas Koreans Newspaper, May 30. Choe, Yong-Ho, et al. n.d. “Annotated Chronology of the Korean Immigration to the United States: 1882 to 1952.” Previously available at http://www.duke.edu/~myhan/kaf0501.html, accessed January 18, 2012. Choy, Bong Youn. 1979. Koreans in America. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Goldberg, David, et al. 2015. “Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education.” New York: Modern Language Association. Hurh, Won Moo. 1998. The Korean Americans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Jung, Eun-Young. 2009. “Transnational Korea: A Critical Assessment of the Korean Wave in Asia and the United States.” Southeast Review of Asian Studies 31: 69–80. Kim Bong-sup. 2012. “Hanguk jaeoe dongpo jeongchaek 10 nyeon-ui hoego-wa jeonmang: Yeongusa jeongae-reul jungsim-euro” [Retrospective and future views of the last ten years of the policy on the Korean foreign residents]. Available at http://www.okf.or.kr, accessed November 2012. Kim, Ilsoo. 1981. New Urban Immigrants: The Korean Community in New York. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kim, Ilpyong. 2004. “A Century of Korean Immigration to the United States: 1903–2003.” In Korean-Americans: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Ilpyong Kim, 13–37. Elizabeth, NJ: Hollym International. Kim, Kwang Chung. 1984. The Formation and Maintenance of Korean Small Business in the Chicago Minority Area. Macomb: Western Illinois University. Korea Foundation, The. 2014. Global Hallyu Data 2013. Seoul: The Korea Foundation.

256

Hye-Sook Wang

Korean Educational Development Institute, Korean Educational Statistical Services. 2015. Available at http://kess.kedi.re.kr, accessed November 2015. Kramsch, Claire. 2003. “What Can the Study of Heritage Language Learners Bring to Second Language Acquisition Research?” Talk delivered at the annual conference of the American Association of Teachers of Korean, University of California, Berkeley, June. Lee Kwang-kyu. 2008. “Minju dongpo wa Hangugeo gyoyuk” [Korean Americans and Korean language education]. Eoneo wa munhwa [Language and culture] 4 (2): 1–30. Lee Sun-geun. 2005. “Migukeseo-ui Hangugeo gyoyukgwa SAT II” [Korean language education in America and the SAT II]. In Dae NewYork Haninbaengnyeonsa [One-hundred-year history of Korean immigration to the United States], ed. Ilpyong Kim, 355–372. New York: Korean Centennial Committee in New York. McCann, D. 2008. “The Korean Wave: Last Year, Twenty-Five Years Ago.” In The Korean Wave: As Viewed through the Pages of the New York Times in 2007, ed. Korean Cultural Service New York, 12–15. New York: Karis Graphic. Min, Pyong Gap. 2000. “Korean Americans’ Language Use.” In New Immigrants in the U.S.: Readings for Second Language Educators, ed. S. McKay and S. Wong, 306–331. New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2013. “The Korean Community in the United States: Changes in the Twenty-First Century.” Paper presented at the International Conference on Korean Diaspora Studies, Korea University, September. Moon, Ailee. 2010. “AP Korean chujin-eul wihan hyeonhwang bunseok mit gwaje” [Analysis of the current state and tasks for implementing AP Korean]. Available at www.klacusa.org, accessed November 2012. Park, Gap-soo. 2008. “Hangeulhakgyo-reul tonghan jaeoedongpo Hangugeo gyoyuk-ui hyeonhwang-gwa daechaek” [The current state and measures for Korean language education for overseas Koreans through Korean schools]. Previously available at http://mirror.puzzlet​ .org/Korean.go.kr/nkview/nklife/2008_3/18_2.html, accessed November 2012. Park, Kyeyoung. 1997. The Korean American Dream: Immigrants and Small Business in New York City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Patterson, Wayne. 1988. The Korean Frontier in America: Immigration to Hawaii, 1896–1910. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. ———. 2000. The Ilse: First-Generation Korean Immigrants in Hawaii, 1903–1973. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

The Korean Language Diaspora, Eastern United States

257

Peyton, J., et al. 2001. Heritage Language in America: Preserving a National Resource. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Sung Jung-sook. 2005. “Hanguk hakgyo deung gyoyuk danche hwaldongsa-wa geu yeokal” [Activity history and role of Korean schools and other educational organizations]. In Dae NewYork Haninbaengnyeonsa [Hundred-year history of Korean immigration to the United States], ed. Ilpyong Kim, 334–343. New York: Korean Centennial Committee in New York. Wang, Hye-Sook. 2007. “‘Korean Wave’ and Korean Language and Culture Education in America.” Journal of the International Network for Korean Language and Culture 4 (1): 145–162. ———. 2009. “Left in the Shade: ‘Other’ Koreans and Non-Koreans in Korean Language Education.” Paper presented at the Sixth International Convention of Asia Scholars, Daejeon, South Korea, August. Yoon, In-Jin. 2005. “Korean Diaspora.” In Encyclopedia of Diasporas: Immigrant and Refugee Cultures around the World, ed. M. Ember, C. Ember, and I. Skoggard, 201–213. New York: Springer. ———. 2006. “Understanding the Korean Diaspora from Comparative Perspectives.” Paper presented at the 2006 Asia Culture Forum, Kwangju, South Korea, October. You, Byeong-Keun, et al. n.d. “Koreans in the U.S. and Their Heritage Language.” Previously available at www.globo-portal.com, accessed February 2013.

NINE

Language Spread Policy in Korea

YANGWON HA Introduction The Korean language has spread, gaining unprecedented international recognition and popularity since the early 1990s. Such expansion poses a compelling research question about how Korean has become so popular over only two decades. Rather than explicating the phenomenon of language spread itself, I examine the Korean government’s development and implementation of external language spread policy, key components for understanding the expansion of the Korean language abroad. Whereas numerous research reports have been published for the purpose of policy planning, a comprehensive study of language spread policy itself within Korea’s social and historical context is lacking. This chapter will provide a background for approaching the phenomenon of the expansion of Korean. The Current State of Korean Language Spread

Multiple records suggest that the Korean language and Korean language education are gaining heightened international recognition and interest. For one, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 1990 established the King Sejong Prize,1 which is awarded to individuals or groups that have successfully promoted literacy worldwide. Hunminjeongeum (The correct [or proper] sounds for the instruction of the people), a historical book describing Hangeul, the native script of the Korean language, was subsequently listed in the UNESCO Memory of the World Register in 1997 (Korea Tourism Organization n.d.). Furthermore, in 2007, the World Intellectual Property Organization unanimously approved the inclusion of Korean in the Patent Cooperation Treaty (National Digital Science Library 2007).2 1  King Sejong was the fourth king of the Yi dynasty. He is said to have created Hangeul, the Korean alphabet, in 1446. 2  The decision to adopt Korean was based on Korea’s positive position in international

Language Spread Policy in Korea

259

Quantitative records perhaps best illustrate the extent of Korean language spread. According to the Overseas Koreans Foundation, there were approximately 77.2 million Korean language users around the world as of 2015.3 This figure includes the 7 million members of the Korean diaspora as well as 25 million North Koreans. There is also a significant number of non-Koreans learning or using the Korean language. The number of foreigners residing in Korea—including workers, businesspeople, spouses, and students—has increased by 2,670 percent, from 65,000 to 1.8 million between 1992 and 2015 (Statistics Korea 2015).4 As of 2014, about 300,000 foreigners were enrolled in Korean language programs in 4,000 educational facilities in 120 countries, up from an enrollment of 70,000 in 2001 (National Institute of Korean Language 2014). Correspondingly, Korean language education programs and facilities have rapidly expanded abroad (Sejong hakdang 2015),5 with the largest expansion occurring among Hangeul hakgyo, a type of Korean language school operated by the Korean diaspora primarily for the children of Korean immigrants. As of 2014, there were 1,918 schools serving 106,397 students in 170 countries. As of 2016, there were also thirty-two Korean government–­ run schools known as Hanguk hakgyo in fifteen countries, which served 13,761 children of Korean expatriates (Ministry of Education 2016).6 In addition, thirty-nine Korean Education Centers (Hanguk gyoyugwon) in seventeen countries have been offering language education programs to 2,500 people, including both diasporic Koreans and non-Koreans (Ministry of Education 2016). The number of people taking the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) grew from 2,692 in 4 countries to 167,853 in 61 countries patents: Korea had been ranking fourth in terms of number of application of international patents in the Patent Cooperation Treaty between 2005 and 2008 (National Digital Science Library 2009). More information is available at http://www.ndsl.kr/ndsl/search/detail/ trend/​trendSearchResultDetail.do?cn=IS200900005. 3  Korean ranks twelfth in the world by number of speakers, surpassing such languages as French, Vietnamese, and Tamil, all of which previously had a larger user base than Korean (Lewis, Simons, and Fennig 2016). 4  The number of foreigners residing in Korea increased by 9.7% annually from 2006 to 2014, and foreigners made up over 3% of the total population of Korea as of 2015. The breakdown of the 1.8 million people is as follows: foreign workers (36%), children of foreigners (13.2%), Korean diaspora (13%), marriage immigration (10.2%), naturalized citizens (9.2%), and foreign students (5.8%). In terms of nationality, the largest group is Chinese (30%). 5  For more detailed and comprehensive information, see Sejong hakdang jaedan, “2015 Final Report on Survey of Korean Language Education Facilities Abroad,” available at http://​ www​.ksif.or.kr/information/allDataDtl.do?idx=91&boardCd=02, accessed May 6, 2016. 6  The name of the Ministry of Education (2013–present) was changed as its duties changed; it was previously the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2008–2013), Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (2001–2008), and Ministry of Education (1990­–2001).

260

Yangwon Ha

between 1997 and 2013, indicating growth in the number of committed Korean language learners (National Institute of Korean Language 2014). In addition, the number of people holding certificates for teaching Korean increased from 868 in 2006, the first year of issuing the certificates, to 2,157 in 2010, then to 5,734 in 2015, an increase of 166 percent within the last five years (National Institute of Korean Language n.d.). The global expansion of Korean language education at the tertiary educational level is impressive and also noteworthy (Sejong hakdang 2015). According to the Korea Foundation, there were 1,143 universities in ninetyseven countries with a total enrollment of 57,440 as of 2014, up from 152 universities in thirty-two countries in early 1991 (2014, 9). In the United States alone, 154 universities and colleges offered Korean language programs, with a total enrollment of 12,229 as of 2014, representing a 70 percent increase over the previous ten years (Goldberg, Looney, and Lusin 2015).7 Growth has also been rapid in Europe. As of 2013, 106 universities in twenty-three countries in Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS regions) as well as 78 universities in sixteen countries in Western Europe offered Korean studies and language courses. This is compared to 90 universities in twenty-six countries in all of Europe in 2006. In Asia and Oceania, there were 597 universities in twenty countries in 2013, an increase from 423 colleges in sixteen countries as of 2011. In Africa and the Middle East, there were 32 universities in eighteen countries. In South America, there were 39 universities in fifteen countries. As of 2014, around 880 secondary schools in twenty-four countries—including the United States, Japan, China, and Australia—offered Korean as a foreign language option to 82,886 students (Suh S. J. 2014). Furthermore, Korean has been included as a subject in college admission tests in both the United States and Australia since the late 1990s. Such expansion is not to be taken lightly, especially considering that it has occurred within a span of just two decades. What can explain this remarkable dispersion of Korean? Language spread is certainly a dynamic and complex phenomenon. It spans social, political, economic, and cultural factors within the historical contexts of the language’s country of origin as well as the countries to which the language has spread. In this light, language spread policy can be a key component to understanding the spread of a language. Depending on whether its scope is domestic or international, language spread policy can be categorized as either internal or external (Ammon 1992). Korea’s internal language spread policy, while intertwined 7  Furthermore, enrollment rates for foreign languages as a whole decreased by 6.7% while Korean language enrollment grew by 44.7% between 2009 and 2013 (Goldberg, Looney, and Lusin 2015).

Language Spread Policy in Korea

261

to a large extent with external language spread policy, will not be covered here. Rather, this chapter focuses only on the Korean government’s external language spread policy. External LSP: Concept and Terms

While the term “language spread policy” (hereafter referred to as LSP) has yet to become well established in academe, it is becoming a valid “common sociolinguistic term” to describe the efforts of a state to disseminate its language (Ammon 1992, 6; see also Ammon 1997). Though Korean government documents do not explicitly use the term LSP, phrases such as “dissemination of Korean language” and “globalization of Korean language” have been used interchangeably to mean LSP. External LSP can be defined as “all endeavors, directed or supported by institutions of a state, which aim either at spreading a language beyond its present area and domains or at preventing the retraction of a language from its present area and domains” (Ammon 1992, 7). LSP is often regarded as a national investment, viewed as part of foreign policy, and developed under cultural diplomacy, encompassing areas including education, culture, and development aid. External LSP is also an instrument for the pursuit of national interests and the projection of national image and power (Ammon 1997, 55). The motives are diverse: increasing native-language advantages in international communication; creating channels to spread values and ideology; creating conditions to develop economic ties; profiting economically from language teaching; and preserving national identity and pride (Ammon 1997, 54–55). One prevalent viewpoint establishes LSP as the basis for garnering imperialistic influence through language spread. It holds that LSP is a mechanism for enforcing political and cultural dominance of colonizing nations. In this vein, a conspiracy of political domination—often in reference to the English language8—is considered to be the disguised motive of LSP, and may also include an embedded economic motive (Ammon 1997, 54–55). Recently, an emphasis on the economic perspective toward LSP prevails, for English in particular.9 Proponents point out that individuals and c­ ommunities often 8  Anglo-American conspiracy theory posits that even after the removal of imperial control, the English language has been disseminated through systematic and semisecret language-planning policies engineered by England and the United States, potentially resulting in damaging effects upon local languages, individual self-esteem, and collective cultural identity (Phillipson 1992). 9  “English should be reconceptualized, from being an imperial tool to being a multinational tool. . . . In this sense, English may well be the lingua franca of capitalist exploitation without being the vehicle of imperialism or even neo-imperialism per se” (Fishman, Conrad, and Rubal-Lopez 1996, 8). Ager, based on his empirical investigation on the use of English

262

Yangwon Ha

have economic and pragmatic motives in choosing to adopt a foreign language, citing the case of the English language. They argue that the widespread use of English is due to language policy employed by international organizations as well as its status as the standard language for international business. At an individual level, one may opt to learn a foreign language for different reasons. For example, speaking English may connote power and prestige or be perceived as a means for social mobility.10 Language Spread Policy

Korea’s LSP may share similar motives and strategies with that of other countries with an earlier history of LSP, such as Germany.11 But the context in which Korea, as a latecomer, has developed LSP is quite different. Korea has a relatively recent colonial history and attained successful late economic development in the latter half of the twentieth century. Further setting the stage for LSP were unprecedented technological advances and significant changes in global economics and politics following the end of the Cold War in 1991. Also, globalization accelerated the international mobility of people and culture, and Korean popular culture (through Hallyu, or the “Korean Wave”) became immensely popular. This chapter examines the ways in which these contextual factors have influenced the development of Korea’s external LSP. Here, I also discuss the motives behind Korea’s external LSP. The chapter is divided into four parts. The first discusses the historical background prior to the mid-1980s, when a formal LSP was absent and Korea’s main priority was erasing its negative national image. The second part explores the historical, social, political, and economic factors that prompted the development of Korea’s LSP between the late 1980s and mid-1990s. The third part deals with initial LSP implementation amid globalization and the success of the Korean Wave from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. The fourth part covers the evolution toward a comprehensive LSP through the synergistic interplay among economy, the Korean Wave, and the Korean language from the mid-2000s to the mid-2010s, marked by the launch of the King Sejong Institute (Sejong hakdang) project. Finally, the conclusion discusses the future prospects for Korea’s LSP. in twenty different countries, argued that “language spread policies are not necessarily the product of a state’s imperialistic conspiracy” (2001). 10  The use of English connotes power and prestige in many societies, including those of Singapore and South Africa (Pakir 1998). 11  Citing the case of Germany’s LSP, Ammon discusses long-lived motives for spreading German. Spreading German facilitates intensive contact of German people with other people, enables knowledge exchange, fosters economic relations, improves Germany’s national image, and helps reduce prejudice. These benefit Germany and enable economic competitiveness (Ammon and Kleineidam 1992, 34–35).

Language Spread Policy in Korea

263

Historical Background of Korean LSP from the 1960s to the Mid-1980s Korean Language and Early Korean Language Education Abroad Prior to the Mid-1980s

Government attention to Korean language policy was meager prior to the mid-1980s. However, the Korean alphabet, Hangeul, has garnered recognition by renowned foreign linguists and scholars for its advantages and creativity since the 1960s.12 Nevertheless, interest in Korean from foreigners was insignificant, and Korean language education programs for foreigners living in Korea grew very slowly. During the 1960s, there were just two small-scale Korean language education programs in Korea for foreigners, catering primarily to diplomats and missionaries: one at Yonsei University, which started in 1959, and the other at Seoul National University, beginning in 1962. Demand for Korean language abroad was insubstantial other than from the Korean diaspora community. Since the early twentieth century, the Korean diaspora has operated Hangeul hakgyo, or community-based Korean language schools, and these have received partial support from the Korean government since the 1950s. Since 1961, the Korean government has operated Hanguk hakgyo,13 formal primary and secondary schools for children of Korean expatriates. In addition, Korean Educational Centers (Hanguk gyoyugwon) and Korean cultural centers (Hanguk munhwawon), housed under the Korean embassy as well as the consul general’s offices, served the purpose of introducing Korean culture to host countries. Nevertheless, Korean language education abroad has over a hundred years of history. Although Korean was relatively unknown to the outside world, several foreign universities offered Korean language education programs starting around the turn of the twentieth century.14 In Russia, 12  For example, E. O. Reischauer and J. K. Fairbank introduced Korea in their coauthored book East Asia, The Great Tradition in 1960 and praised Hangeul’s scientific alphabet structure. Frits Vos in the Netherlands commended Hangeul as one of the best alphabets in the world in his 1966 thesis, “Korean Characters: Idu and Hangeul.” 13  As of 2017, thirty-two such schools were founded in fifteen countries with a Korean business presence, including China, Japan, Taiwan, Paraguay, Argentina, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt. The first two schools were Hanguk kakgyo in Tokyo and Geumgang kakgyo in Osaka (Ministry of Education 2016). For a complete list, visit the website of the MOE at http://okeis.moe.go.kr/OKMS/pot/svc/OkmsOrganStateProc.do​?menu​_no​ =11200​&url_menu_no=11200. 14  In France, Korean language was taught to prepare diplomats and interpreters in 1959. In Germany, Korean language classes were offered in Berlin-Humboldt Universities since the 1950s. In England, Korean studies and a Korean language program were offered in the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London from the 1940s. For more information, see Suh S. G. (2005).

264

Yangwon Ha

St. Petersburg University (since 1897) and the Oriental Institute (1899)15 provided Korean studies and language programs prior to the early 1900s. Korean language courses could be found in the Osaka Foreign Language School (1921) in Japan, and at Namkyung Junior College (1943) and Peking University (1946) in China. In the United States, there were a few government-run Korean language programs for military and security purposes, such as one at the Defense Language Institute (DLI), which started in the early 1940s. The University of California, Berkeley also started to offer a Korean language class in 1943. Columbia University, the University of Hawai‘i and Harvard University began offering Korean courses starting in the 1950s. The Sorbonne, London University, Uppsala University, Leiden University, and Warsaw University in Europe have also offered Korean language courses since the 1950s. These early language education programs abroad shared a few characteristics: all were very small in scale; initiated by the governments of foreign countries; politically motivated during the Cold War era; and represented an individualistic interest in Korea or the Korean language (Cho 2005, 256–257). Export-Oriented Economic Growth and Shedding Negative Images of the Past

Starting in the early 1960s, Korea was preoccupied with rapid economic development through exports. Culture was considered subsidiary to the economy. Despite unprecedented success through a series of five-year economic development plans, Korea’s newfound status as a developing country was marred by a negative national image created during Japanese colonial rule. In Japanese textbooks, Korea was depicted as inferior, and its cultural traditions and identity were labeled as mere offshoots of Chinese and Japanese cultures (Chosun Ilbo 1973). Furthermore, Japan’s influence and diplomatic position in the international community sustained negative perceptions of Korea. The Korean War, a dictatorial government, and political unrest perpetuated negative images even after liberation from the Japanese. To promote export-oriented economic development, improving the national image became an urgent task. It is against this backdrop that the Korean government devised a national policy project in 1975 called “Correcting Views on Korea” (Hangukgwan sijeong saeop), which aimed to shed negative perceptions, reassert Korean identity and pride, and facilitate the export of Korean products. Its core objective was to rectify school textbooks used in other countries that contained inaccurate views and information about Korea. The Academy of Korean Studies, a government-subsidized research agency founded in 1978 under the Ministry of Education, carried out the task of revising over two 15 

The institute has become a part of Far Eastern Federal University.

Language Spread Policy in Korea

265

thousand textbooks in fifty countries over a period of five years (Chosun Ilbo 1981). This project continues today (Center for International Affairs n.d.), as improving the national image continues to be a major concern with important implications for Korean LSP. Contextual Factors in the Late 1980s to the Mid-1990s Prompting LSP The Summer Olympics

In 1988, Seoul hosted the twenty-fourth Summer Olympics. This event provided a turning point for Korea’s outlook toward the world and generated the momentum necessary to elevate the Korean language to a significant national cultural asset. Korean was introduced during the games. For example, the Korean Broadcasting System produced forty thousand copies of a booklet titled “Let’s Learn Korean!” in ten languages and distributed them to Olympic participants (Chosun Ilbo 1988). The successful hosting of the Olympics garnered positive international attention for Korea, and interest in learning Korean grew noticeably thereafter. Changes in the International and Domestic Environment in the 1990s

Entering the 1990s, domestic and international change provided a key impetus for Korea to develop formal internal and external LSPs. This period coincided with the opening up of China in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, setting the stage for increased diplomatic, economic, and cultural interaction between Korea and these countries. While the Korean economy was expanding, a shortage of unskilled labor necessitated importation of foreign labor in the early 1990s. An unprecedented influx of foreigners from developing countries resulted in social and demographic changes within Korea. The 1992 “Agreement for Training Students for Industrial Skills,”16 as well as diplomatic agreements with Mongolia in 1990 and with China and Vietnam in 1992, resulted in many migrants arriving from these regions to work or obtain education and training in Korea.17 Simultaneously, the number of international marriages more than doubled, spurred in part by a policy launched by Korean local governments to assist Korean men in rural areas with difficulties in finding a spouse.18 In addition to migrant workers, the number of foreign spouses, 16  The Agreement for Training Students for Industrial Skills (Saneop gisul yeonsusaengjedo) was discontinued in 2007, as the Employment Permit System was adopted in 2004. 17  The first group of twenty thousand workers entered Korea in 1994, and the number of workers has rapidly increased since then (Yu 2006). 18  As many Korean men living in the countryside could not afford to get married, in 1995 local governments initiated a movement known as “Helping Countryside Bachelors Get Married” (Nongchon chonggak jangga bonegi undong; Korea Immigration Service 2014).

266

Yangwon Ha

students, and businesspeople staying in Korea increased throughout the 1990s. By 1994, the number of foreigners in Korea totaled 100,000 (Korea Immigration Service 2008). The growing presence of foreigners prompted domestic Korean language education, teacher training, and retraining educational institutions, establishing the foundation for LSP. Government Organizational Restructuring for External LSP

In light of rapid international political changes, President Rho Tae-Woo’s regime (1989–1993) prepared a “Ten-Year Culture Development Plan” (­Munhwa baljeon sipgaenyeon gyehoek), slated for implementation between 1990 and 1999. The plan included revitalizing international cultural exchange, introducing Korean culture, heightening national pride and cultural status, and proactively participating in Asian cultural regionalization. A restructuring of government organizations immediately followed. One of the first measures was establishing the Ministry of Culture (MOC)19 in 1990. Tasks pertaining to language policy formerly under the charge of the Ministry of Education (MOE) were transferred to the MOC. Two key organizations under the MOC were founded in 1991 to spearhead the spread of Korean language: the National Research Institute of Korean Language (NRIKL, known in Korean as Gungnip gugeo yeonguwon),20 and the Korean Language Policy Division under the Cultural Policy Bureau. The NRIKL was charged with research, collection, and preservation of materials related to the Korean language, as well as coordinating the dispatch of Korean language instructors abroad. The Cultural Policy Bureau assumed policy-making roles related to Korean language dissemination abroad. Such government restructuring broadly reflects a perceptual shift toward LSP, placing it within the realm of culture rather than education. As a result, LSP matters fell under the collaborative jurisdiction of three ministries: MOCS, MOE, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT).21 While the MOE focused primarily on national language education, it continued to support Korean language education for expatriates, 19  The Ministry of Culture (MOC) has been renamed a few times with changes to its main duties since 1991. It was renamed the Ministry of Culture and Sports (MOCS) in 1993 and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MOCT) in 1998, and it has been the Ministry of Sports and Tourism (MOST) since 2008. 20  The NRIKL was the Research Center of National Language (Gugeo yeonguso) in the National Academy of Sciences (Gungnip haksulwon) under the Ministry of Education until 1984. In 1990, it changed to the National Research Institute of National Language (Gungnip gugeoyonguwon) under the Ministry of Culture. In 2004, the name changed to the National Institute of Korean Language (Gungnip gugeowon). 21  In 1998, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) was renamed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT).

Language Spread Policy in Korea

267

the Korean diaspora, and foreigners in Korea. At the same time, the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) and Korea Foundation (KF) were founded in 1991 under the MFAT. Working primarily with developing countries, KOICA was responsible for dispatching voluntary Korean language instructors and assisting foreign trainees going to Korea to work. KF, the leading organization for Korea’s international exchange and public diplomacy initiatives, assumed the roles of promoting Korean studies abroad at select higher educational institutions and supporting Korean language and cultural programs to foster the next generation of experts on Korea. While such governmental reorganization prepared Korea to adopt cultural diplomacy in order to cope with an international political environment, support for LSP was far from ready. Globalization and LSP Implementation from the Mid-1990s to the Mid-2000s Contextual Background and Emphasis on Cultural Economy

In the midst of achieving $10,000 GNI per capita—a milestone that Korea had long targeted as an indicator of national prosperity—Korea faced an unprecedented surge of globalization in the mid-1990s. Such globalization was characterized by heightened international competition and the weakening of traditional national borders via an increasingly flexible flow of commodities and human resources. Cultural power would also become ever more important in light of the emergence of so-called cultural industries, including communications, information technology, and cultural contents. A nation’s “soft power,” encompassing factors such as national dignity and cultural influence, began to assume greater weight in the assessment of a nation’s competitiveness. In order to cope with the forces of globalization, President Kim Young-sam (1994–1998) initiated a national project known as “Building a Great Nation of Culture” (Munhwa daejeguk geonseol), which aimed to strengthen Korea’s cultural industries. While limited in scope, LSP began to be regarded as a key part of Korea’s globalization strategy. The issue of language and culture spread was first addressed in 1995 (Seong 1996) with the revision of Presidential Decree No. 14727, the Enforcement of Decree of the Culture and Art Promotion Act (Hanguk munhwa yesul jinheungbeop sihaengnyeong). Section 3 of the Act defined the rules regarding the dissemination of Korean language to foreigners as well as to the Korean diaspora, and the necessary tasks and roles of the related organizations (Korea Legislation Research Institute 2014). The law not only provided the policy and legal bases for LSP, but also affirmed that the MOC was the primary organization for implementing LSP.

268

Yangwon Ha

Though LSP was still nascent, small-scale Korean language education began as a joint initiative between Seoul National University and the Ministry of Culture and Sports aiming to develop teaching materials for speakers of English, Japanese, and Chinese. The National Institute of Development of International Education (Gukje gyoyuk jinheungwon)22 also initiated programs, including student exchange programs, teacher training programs, and programs dispatching Korean language educators to Korean diasporic communities. Offices within the Ministry of Culture and Tourism that were involved in planning language policy as well as supporting language education programs received annual budget increases. For example, the Korean Language Policy Division under the Cultural Policy Bureau, which assumed the responsibility for policy planning, received a budgetary increase totaling about $870,000 in 1994 and approximately $1.28 million by 1996.23 The budget of the National Institute of Korean Language (NIKL, Gungnip gugeowon) also more than doubled, from $2.76 million in 1994 to $7.63 million in 1996, indicating heightened emphasis on LSP (Seong 1996, 169–170). The Korean diaspora in particular received special attention as an important international resource. The Regulation on Education of Koreans Abroad (Presidential Ordinance No. 8461) enacted in 1977 provided a basis for systematic language education for the diaspora communities. In 1997, the Overseas Koreans Foundation Act was prepared, and the Overseas Koreans Foundation (OKF) was established accordingly under the MFAT. The law intended to foster: a strong Korean ethnic identity among overseas Koreans, communication networks among Koreans abroad, and ethnic pride among the next generations of Korean immigrants (Korea Legislation Research Institute 2013). The main task of the OKF was to support Hangeul hakgyo, scholarships, and Korean cyber-courses. It was a proactive approach by the Korean government to reinforce Korean ethnic unity and to establish networks by promoting Korean language education through the “rediscovery of common Korean culture.” LSP in the Context of Economic Changes and the Appearance of Hallyu in the Late-1990s

Following economic recovery after the IMF financial crisis in 1997, Korea was in dire need of bolstering its primarily manufacturing-based economy 22 

The National Institute of Development of International Education was renamed the National Institute for International Education (NIIED, Gungnip gukje gyoyugwon) in 2008. 23  U.S. dollar amounts were calculated using the respective exchange rates of 1994 and 1996 based on data on a KRW basis (Seong 1996, 169).

Language Spread Policy in Korea

269

with the increasingly significant “creative economy” and cultural industries. To cope with this reality, President Kim Dae-jung (1998–2003) designated cultural industries to be one of the strategic pillars of the Korean national economy in the twenty-first century.24 To lay the groundwork that would enhance the competitiveness of cultural industries, the Framework Act on the Promotion of Cultural Industries (Munhwa saneop jinheung gibonbeop) followed in 1999 (Korea Legislation Research Institute 2014). A total of $50 million was allocated in 1999 to the Fund for Promoting Cultural Industries (Munhwa saneop jinheung jageum),25 of which the majority went to cultural content sectors such as television, movies, animation, cartoons, games, music, and publishing (Lee Y. J. 2005). Furthermore, restrictions on movies and performances were lifted with the revision of existing laws. All of these measures had significant implications for the development of Korea’s cultural content industries in coming years. In addition, as a result of the spread of the Internet and proliferation of mobile devices, Korea’s cultural content industry grew more quickly relative to other industries. According to an MOC report, the cultural content industry grew by 21.2% between 1998 and 2002, compared to a 5.5% growth of the entire national economy, and continued to grow in subsequent years (B. M. Suh 2004, 66–67). The cultural industry boom was largely attributed to the export of Korean cultural content, including products of Korean popular culture. The Success and Effects of Hallyu

Hallyu, a neologism referring to the global popularity of Korean pop culture such as music, TV dramas, and movies,26 unexpectedly emerged in the late 1990s and continued to be enormously successful in Asia, particularly in China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Japan.27 Despite uncertainties about Hallyu’s long-term potential, the government, media, and culture industries quickly embraced the phenomenon and began to actively promote it. The government established the Korea Culture and Content Agency (Hanguk munhwa kontencheu jinheungwon, 2001–2009) under MOCS in 2001 and promoted “cultural technology” as one of the key technologies for the twenty-first century economy. With the rebounding success of Hallyu dramas throughout Asia in 2004, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism vowed 24  Several important mid- and long-term development plans were drawn up to develop cultural industries. These include the “Development of the Cultural Industry Five-Year Plan” (1999) and “Promotion on the Development of the Cultural Industry” (1998). 25  The cultural sector budget formed 1 percent of the total government budget for the first time (Jeong H. S. 2006, 7). 26  This definition is borrowed from the Korean Culture and Information Service (2015). 27  In Hallyu studies, this is considered to be the first period of Hallyu.

270

Yangwon Ha

to support and promote culture industries such as television production and Hallyu-related online databases. Through the mid-2000s, Hallyu fervor spread to the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and parts of South America, reaching North America and Western Europe after 2008. Hallyu owed its rapid success to technological advancements, particu­ larly benefitting in content distribution. The Internet (e.g., YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter) enabled greater international exposure and a wider audience. In addition, broadcasting companies such as KBS World (the international family entertainment channel of the Korean Broadcasting System) also made major contributions to distributing Hallyu abroad. ­Established in 2003, KBS World made Korean content available to 23 million households in 88 countries in 2005, growing to 50.6 million households in 100 countries as of 2015 (KBS World 2015). Hallyu has received abundant media coverage and academic attention. Its economic contributions have been evaluated in three main ways. First, exports of Korean cultural content products—such as movies, concerts and performances, dramas, and games—have increased. To give a few examples, movie exports totaled $3 million in 1998, exceeded $10 million in 2001, and totaled $30 million by early 2004 (Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2004). Exports of broadcast footage nearly tripled from $13 million in 2000 to $42 million in 2003. Sales of music tapes, DVDs, and audio CDs totaled $3 billion in 2002. In a single year, between 2004 and 2005, the export of Korean television dramas increased by 72.2% from $72 million to $124 million (Lee Y. J. 2005). Second, Hallyu provides a mechanism of celebrity endorsement and product placement. It influences consumer aspirations and generates a halo effect for Korean consumer goods, such as fashion and cosmetics, which are shown in dramas and movies. According to research by the Korean International Trade Association (KITA), products and services benefiting from the promotional effects of Hallyu generated larger profits than the export of the Hallyu content itself (Korean International Trade Association 2005). Electronics, home appliances, beverages, cosmetics, and fashion goods tended to be the most profitable. Third, Hallyu encourages Korean tourism. According to the Korea Tourism Organization, Korean tourism revenue attributable to Hallyu totaled $850 million in 2004. Over 27 percent (700,000) of tourists from Japan, China, and Taiwan who visited Korea were influenced by Hallyu marketing or content, such as drama, movies, or celebrities. Aside from the economic effects, findings from the “2005 Survey of National Image” conducted by the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA) suggest that Hallyu strengthened Korea’s cultural diplomacy and improved its national image starting from the early 2000s. Administered

Language Spread Policy in Korea

271

to 5,287 consumers residing in 100 cities in 70 countries, this survey found that Korea’s image was positively enhanced, especially attributable to high scores from China and Japan (KOTRA 2005). Furthermore, interest in aspects of Korean culture such as cuisine, fashion, and language has greatly increased worldwide. The interest in language due to Hallyu is particularly significant. In fact, the growing number of people wanting to learn Korean in order to enjoy Korean music, movies, and television played a large role in necessitating the development of an external LSP. Beginning of LSP: The Movement to Globalize the Korean Language in the Early 2000s

Quickly embracing the momentum of Hallyu’s success, in 2001 the Korean government declared a major cultural policy project known as the “Globalization Movement of the Korean Language.” To execute this project, the MOC established the Foundation for the Globalization of the Korean Language (Hangugeo segyehwa jaedan).28 These moves mark the beginning of a proactive effort to develop an external LSP by the Korean government. By the early 2000s, demand for Korean language education spanned multiple fields (economic, academic, cultural, political), target populations (foreigners inside and outside of Korea, Koreans abroad), and geographical regions (North America, Western and Eastern Europe, greater Asia, etc.). However, the Korean government’s budget for language spread projects was limited to just around $536,000 in 2002 and approximately $850,000 in 2005, creating budgetary constraints that limited the ability to support language education abroad and bolster interest in the Korean language (Lee G. E. 2005). For example, the Korea Research Foundation (KRF, Haksul jinheung jaedan) under the MOE, which was in charge of supporting Korean studies abroad at the time,29 reported receiving requests to support Korean language education from over seventy institutions worldwide in 2004 alone (Kim H. G. 2004). Likewise, the ASEAN University Network, the joint organization of seventeen universities in Southeast Asia, also requested help from the Korean government in recruiting Korean language instructors. However, the KRF was unable to sufficiently respond to those demands due to budget constraints (Kim H. G. 2004). 28 

The Foundation for the Globalization of the Korean Language initially engaged in internal LSP with modest funding of a few hundred thousand dollars by supporting Korean language education for foreign spouses and labor workers in the early 2000s. 29  The task for supporting Korean studies and Korean language education at the tertiary educational level abroad was transferred from the KRF to the Academy of Korean Studies in 2005.

272

Yangwon Ha

Government Organizations Involved in External LSP

In 2002, eleven governmental entities consisting of three ministries and eight organizations were set up to execute LSP as a collaborative endeavor, and they have continued to carry out the project ever since. Appendix 1 summarizes the organizations. The NIKL under the MOCS assumes the roles of language research and materials and curriculum development for language education both abroad and in Korea. It also administered the Test of Teaching Korean as a Foreign Language (TTKFL) until 200930 and provides teacher training. Within the MFAT, the OKF supports the Hangeul hakgyo, trains teachers, and develops Korean cyber-classes for Korean diaspora communities. The KF supports language fellowship and Korean studies by establishing Korean faculty positions and programs related to promulgating Korean language and culture. The KOICA primarily helps developing countries with teacher training and dispatching voluntary Korean language teachers. Within the Ministry of Education and Human Resources (MEHR), several organizations perform tasks related to LSP. The Educational Foundation for Koreans Abroad (EFKA, Jaeoe dongpo gyoyuk jinheung jaedan), established in 2002, supports language education for members of the Korean diaspora, expatriates, and foreigners in Korea through Korean education centers. It also supports partial expenses for elementary and secondary schools to adopt the Korean language. The Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE, Gungnip gyoyuk gwajeong pyeonggawon) conducts foreign teacher training, dispatches Korean teachers to foreign countries, and develops educational curricula and materials. It was in charge of administering the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) until 2011. The National Institute for International Education Development (NIIED, Gukje gyoyuk jinheungwon) operates KOSNET (Studying Korean through the Internet), administers TOPIK, supports Korean language education in secondary schools in the United States, develops teaching materials, and conducts teacher training in the CIS region. Development and Evolution of LSP from the Mid-2000s to the Present By the mid-2000s, Korea had elevated its standing in the global community through economic success and widespread acceptance of its language and culture. The Korean economy was ranked eleventh in the world by GDP in 2004. In that year, Korean GDP per capita leaped from $13,451 in 2003 to $20,659 (NationMaster 2016). The popularity of Hallyu reached its peak 30  Consigned by MOCST, the Human Resources Development Service of Korea (Saneop illyeok gongdan) under the Ministry of Employment and Labor took over the administration of TTKFL from 2009.

Language Spread Policy in Korea

273

by garnering more fans in new markets beyond Asia. At the same time, interest in Korean language and culture, as well as demand for Korean language education, were growing faster in more countries. For example, the number of test takers of the TOPIK spiked worldwide by 139 percent between 2006 and 2007. The Korean economy, Hallyu, and the spread of the Korean language grew synergistically. Understanding their intertwined relationships is necessary to comprehend the development of LSP. Synergic Relationships among the Korean Economy, Korean Language Spread, and Hallyu

A positive national image is extremely important for the Korean economy; international trade makes up about 80 percent of Korea’s GDP. Hallyu and the Korean language are considered means for maintaining a positive image, particularly in countries with which Korea maintains economic relations through trade and aid. According to KITA, as of 2006 Korea had 227 partner countries with which it was actively trading. The stakes are high, considering the magnitude of trade volume. Between 2004 and 2008, total exports more than doubled, from $194 billion to $422 billion (NationMaster 2016). Korea has also completed Free Trade Agreements with forty-seven countries since 1996, with 90 percent of agreements being established in the mid-2000s. In addition, Korea’s status in the international community has heightened as it joined the Development Assistance Committee under the OECD (Organization for Economic and Co-operation and Development). Korea also became an Official Development Aid donor country in 2010, contributing $900.63 million in 2010 to aid education, administration, and various other projects (Office for Government Policy Coordination n.d.).31 Overseas direct investment of Korean firms also greatly expanded since the mid-2000s. Total direct investment was $7 billion in 2005, $12 billion in 2006, and nearly doubled to $23 billion in 2007 (The Export-Import Bank of Korea n.d.). This was an unprecedented expansion compared with the average annual direct investment of $4.6 billion per year between 1995 and 2005.32 In 2009, over 93,000 business units, including branches, overseas subsidiaries, and overseas offices of Korean firms, were established in 123 countries, almost more than half being located in Asia. Since Korean firms also hire local employees, interest in learning Korean arises organically. 31  Korea began aiding developing countries as an “emerging donor country” in 1991 starting with a modest amount of $110 million, which has since expanded to $539.22 million as of 2008, and then doubled to $1183.17 million in 2012 (Office for Government Policy Coordination n.d.); available from the website of the Official Development Assistance at http://www. odakorea​.go​.kr/ODAPage_2012/T02/L03_S01_05.jsp, accessed November 12, 2017. 32  This figure was calculated using data from the e-national index (The Export-Import Bank of Korea 2016).

274

Yangwon Ha

Within this context, the Korean language became an indispensible business communication tool. The mid-2000s also marked a change in migrant worker laws in which the Industrial Trainee System was replaced with the Employment Permit System in 2004. As a result, migrant workers were required to demonstrate Korean language proficiency by taking the TOPIK prior to entering Korean industry.33 This necessitated Korean language training for prospective workers in their home countries. There are fifteen countries with which Korea has signed a memorandum of understanding to “secure transparency in recruitment of foreign workers,” including China, Thailand, Mongolia, and Myanmar (Ministry of Employment and Labor 2015). However, the spread of Korean language transcends economic implications, and is a strategic asset with halo effects on Korea’s national brand. It also plays an important role in the practice of soft diplomacy by heightening the national status of Korea, which in turn strengthens national competitiveness. Figure 1 illustrates the synergic effects shared among economy, Hallyu, and the Korean language. 1. The Relationship between Hallyu and the Korean Language

From the mid-2000s to the present, Hallyu has brought considerable synergic effects to the spread of the Korean language. For one, the number of Hallyu fans worldwide has been increasing. According to the KF, about 783 fan clubs and 7 million members were identified in 2012, growing to 1,000 fan clubs and 9.3 million members in 2013 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2013). Interest in the Korean language on the part of Hallyu fans stems not necessarily from a utilitarian need, but rather from a desire to learn Korean simply out of interest in Korean culture (Park S. E. 2012, 11). Learning Korean also facilitates understanding of content such as song lyrics, enables Hallyu fans to write letters to celebrities, encourages Korean tourism, and allows communication with other fans in different countries. 2. The Relationship between Hallyu and the Korean Economy

Hallyu has continued in recent years to significantly affect the expansion of international trade as well as foreign direct investment in Korea. Exports of broadcasting, publications, music, animation, and characters from toys and cartoons have continued to grow since 2005, reaching $1.97 billion in 2012. Exports of music alone increased from $0.2 million to $200 million 33  For more information, visit the Employment Permit System website at https://www​ .eps​.go.kr/in/index.html or the website of the Human Resources Development Services of Korea (Saneop illyeok gongdan) at http://eps.hrdkorea.or.kr/epstopik/epsHomeIndex.jsp.

Language Spread Policy in Korea

•  National image heightened •  Cultural industries fostered •  Global trade invigorated

Economic Aspect: Trade, Employment Permit System, Foreign Investment in Korean Firms

Cultural Aspect: Hallyu

275

Worker productivity in Korean firms improved, facilitating commerce

Korean Language Spread Greater interest in Korean language and culture

Figure 1: Synergic Effects of the Interplay of the Economy, Hallyu, and Korean Language Spread

during the same period. The proportion of tourists from other parts of Asia also increased, from 70% in 2003 to 73.7% in 2005, and then to 80.9% in 2013, out of a total of 1.2 million tourists in 2013. Tourism revenue tripled between 2007 and 2012. An analysis of the economic effects of Hallyu by the Hyundai Economic Research Institute suggests that Hallyu was a driver of demand for Korean goods and tourism as well as foreign indirect investment. The analysis, based on annual panel data of 196 countries between 1995 and 2012, shows a chain of events attributable to Hallyu. Consumer goods exports were found to induce tourism the following year, which in turn promoted foreign investment in service industries the year thereafter. For example, Chinese direct investment in the Korean service industry increased from $200 million in 2001 to $2.4 billion in 2013. Hallyu also created 180,000 jobs in the Korean cultural contents industry (Baek 2014). The report concludes that these increases in turn reinforced Hallyu fervor, demonstrating the symbiotic relationship between Hallyu and the Korean economy. 3. The Relationship between the Korean Language and Economy

The spread of the Korean language generates several economic effects. For one, it produces language educators both within and outside Korea. There is also profit in teaching and selling educational material. Productivity at foreign offices of Korean firms also increases; studies suggest that foreign workers in Korea who have received language training can enhance productivity at their workplace (Kim J. H. 2008). Language spread also facilitates international trade and encourages the export of Korean goods.

276

Yangwon Ha

Elaboration of LSP: The King Sejong Institute Project since 2007

LSP is a component of Korean language spread that has developed in conjunction with the expansion of the Korean economy and Hallyu. Realizing the synergic effects among economy, language, and culture, the Korean government began to recognize the need to develop national policies that could effectively encompass these three factors. In 2007, the Korean government elaborated a five-year development plan for promoting Korean (Han 韓) style, in which Hangeul was considered one of the six representative items of Korean culture, along with Hallyu and others. When President Lee Myung-Bak took office in 2008, he reiterated the globalization of Korean language as a priority that would bolster economic competitiveness. Though the movement of Korean language globalization had already proceeded for several years, Korea’s external LSP was still in a nascent stage. Due to its scattered beginnings, there lacked a comprehensive approach to disseminating the Korean language and providing the necessary education to prospective students (Wu 2006). Especially alarming was the lack of coordination among the governmental and semigovernmental organizations involved. As a result, the boundaries of tasks and responsibilities were unclear, and budgetary waste was rampant due to bureaucratic barriers and ineffective coordination. Redundancy existed among multiple government organizations. For example, the NIKL, OKF, KF, and KOICA all ran similar programs, including “inviting foreign language instructors to Korea for training,” “cyber lectures,” “dispatching Korean language professors,” and “developing and supplying educational materials” (Wu 2006). Remedies, including a new policy guideline, were necessary. The Framework Act on Korean Language (Gugeo gibon beop) was enacted in 2005 to provide the legal foundation for LSP. Article 19 of Chapter 3 of the law “Dissemination of Korean Language” specifies the duty of the state “to implement projects necessary for disseminating the Korean language, such as developing curriculum and teaching materials, and training language experts for foreigners as well as overseas Koreans who intend to learn Korean language” (National Institute of the Korean Language 2005, 229). The law also stipulates the establishment of Korean language education institutes. These provisions set the foundation for a major project to establish a “cultural school of Korean language” (Hangugeo munhwa hakgyo), named the King Sejong Institute (KSI, Sejong hakdang). Modeled after the language education centers of other countries, KSI is comparable to the concept and programs of the U.S. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, British Council of England, Germany’s Goethe Institute, and France’s Alliance Française (Cho 2013).

Language Spread Policy in Korea

277

This project was conceived in order to integrate scattered educational institutions worldwide and provide comprehensive and systematic Korean language support abroad. To staff the institutions, in 2006 NIKL produced the first class of 868 graduates with certificates for teaching the Korean language. The KSI project was launched in 2007 with the opening of twelve centers in nine countries, the first one being in Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia. Five more KSIs opened in 2009, bringing the total to seventeen centers, and there were plans to increase the number of facilities to two hundred by 2015. KSI facilities could perhaps best be described as a network of affiliated educational institutes and agencies operating under the common vision of the KSI Project. Establishing a new KSI was not a standardized process, nor was a new KSI necessarily a brand-new facility. Restructuring and converting existing educational facilities and pertinent entities into KSIs played a large role in the expansion of the KSI network, evidenced by the diverse facility types. There are in fact various types of Sejong Institutes: government-operated Korean Educational Centers and Korean Cultural Centers (twenty-seven centers in twenty-four countries); governmentcertified facilities in connection with local universities and/or Korean universities; and nonprofit organizations (Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism 2013). However, problems arose in terms of governance, funding, and education quality among the institute branches. Also, a chronic lack of coordination in division of administrative tasks and roles among the ministries persisted in relation to the KSI Project. In 2012, the Framework Act on Korean Language was revised to include the establishment of the KSI Foundation, which would carry out the KSI Project in foreign countries in a more integrated manner. The revisions emphasized specific principles for Korean language education: shifting the target group from the elite to the general public, and promoting cultural exchange and mutual cooperation between Korea and other countries. With these goals, the KSI Project was redesigned to teach Korean to foreigners in a way that is relevant to and congruent with their needs. For example, KSIs work with local educational institutions to increase accessibility to local learners. By 2013, the KSI Project had expanded to 117 facilities in fifty-one countries, serving about 28,000 students, with more than half of the facilities concentrated in Northeast, Central, Southeast, and Southwest Asia. To further widen accessibility, an Internet-based distance learning system known as Nuri-Sejonghakdang was established in 2012 and has since been providing multilingual information services related to Korean language study for Korean learners, teachers, and administrators. As of 2016, there were 143 facilities in fifty-seven countries with about 44,146 students

278

Yangwon Ha

learning Korean language and culture through the KSI network (Kong Sejong Institute Foundation n.d.). Conceptual Motives Underlying Korean LSP

Like most states that employ language spread policy, Korea has motives and calculated intentions along political, economic, and sociocultural dimensions. The conceptual underpinnings of Korea’s motives to implement its external LSP are cultural mutualism, cultural economism, and global ethnic nationalism. One of the main principles of Korea’s LSP is cultural mutualism. The ideal was stated explicitly as one of the guiding principles for Korea’s LSP, particularly when the Korean government promoted the KSI Project. It has been emphasized in policy statements of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, repeatedly mentioned by policy makers, politicians, and project leaders, and referenced in the media. Warning against the potential tendency of LSP to connote colonial or imperialistic motives, Park KapSu, professor and a former director of the Foundation for Globalization of Korean Language, stressed cultural mutualism as LSP’s ultimate goal, through which amicable diplomatic relationships were to be developed (Park K. S. 2012). Lee Sang-Gyu, former director of the NIKL, defines the term as “cultural interaction based on understanding and respecting languages, cultures, and histories of foreign countries” (Lee S. G. 2011). The idea involves the facilitation of cultural exchange, cooperation, and mutual acceptance to enhance understanding between cultures. It is considered to be the foundation of human relationships and peaceful relations among people of different cultures and an essential condition for eliminating ignorance, intolerance, and prejudice. Cultural economism is another motive that is frequently expressed in developing LSP. Proponents of cultural economism regard culture as a commodity. Arguably one of the most pervasive motivations favored by government and business, the concept emphasizes securing economic competitiveness through cultural enterprises in the global economy. As such, the Korean language is approached as an important instrument for facilitating capital accumulation and foreign market expansion. For example, Chung Soon-Hoon, former chairman of the Foundation for the Globalization of the Korean Language (2007–2009), mentioned in his inauguration interview that “until now economy and culture had been the basis for spreading Korean language, but in the future Korean should lead them,” stressing the need to industrialize and commercialize the Korean language (Ji 2007). Thus, proponents of cultural economism suggest that the spread of Korean should be prioritized for its potential to contribute to generating economic consumption in other countries. Broadly, the discourse on

Language Spread Policy in Korea

279

Korea’s economic survival strategy converges with a proactive Korean language spread campaign. The “Comprehensive Plan to Develop the ‘Han Style’” branding project by the Korea Foundation of International Cultural Exchanges (KOFICE) could be considered an example of cultural and economic motives at work. Cultural items such as Hansik (Korean food), Hanbok (Korean clothing), Hanok (Korean architecture), Hanji (Korean paper), Kugak (Korean music), and Hangeul (Korean language) were selected as symbols of the Korean national brand to be commercialized into profitable goods and services (Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2007). The Korean language has also been perceived as one of the most important elements of cultural economism alongside Hallyu, which poses the greatest promise. Music, drama, film, and even games use Korean language; thus, Hallyu and Korean language are considered complementary to each other, going hand in hand. Global ethnic nationalism describes another motive underlying Korean LSP. The concept is grounded in the fact that the Korean government acknowledges the strategic value of Koreans living abroad. As such, the Korean diaspora community receives various types of support. This includes longtime and continually increasing assistance toward Korean language education for children of the diaspora community. In addition, one of the first measures under President Kim Dae-jung’s regime provided privileges such as allowing work permits and facilitating financial transactions for Koreans living abroad. Creating a global network of Koreans overseas has also been a driver of ethnic solidarity. Since 2001, the OKF has been operating Korean.net, an online network to support Korean businesses and connect Korean diaspora communities all over the world. The proactive interest in Koreans abroad as strategic assets reinforces Korean ethnic solidarity and networks and invigorates Korean ethnic nationalism globally. In this regard, the spread of the Korean language may well contain aspects of a new Korean ethnic nationalist movement. Conclusion This chapter describes the development of LSP in Korea. The review of the process reveals a few characteristics. First, no policy amounting to an LSP had existed in Korea until the early 2000s. The recent spread of the language was not the effects of a formal LSP initiated by the Korean government, but of a spontaneous demand that evolved in foreign countries in the global context of political, economic, and sociocultural changes. Second, multiple historical contextual factors accelerated the development of LSP: in the economic aspect, Korea’s active trade economy, including its foreign trade, investments, and mentoring relationship with developing

280

Yangwon Ha

countries; changes in the international political environment in regard to the political aspect; globalization and large-scale migration and the need for nationalistic integration of the Korean diaspora for the social aspect, and the emergence of Hallyu for the cultural aspect. Third, there are three distinctive motives expressed in the external LSP: cultural mutualism, cultural economism, and global ethnic nationalism. While it is still too early to assess the effects of Korea’s external LSP, the role of LSP has become increasingly important, as sustaining foreign interest in Korean language is a critical and challenging task. There is certainly the possibility that demand for Korean could contract substantially, and fluctuations have in fact been observed in Japan, France, China, and Australia. There are key issues that need to be addressed in regard to the current status of Korea’s LSP, and its future is contingent on a number of factors, namely, the global economic outlook and the propagation of Hallyu. Potential Challenges Facing the Progress of LSP

Given Korea’s economic and political circumstances, sustaining amicable international relations has been and will continue to be very important.34 LSP can provide the means for successful cultural diplomacy, particularly through conveying Korean culture and creating a positive image of Korea. As mentioned earlier, Korea currently trades with over two hundred partner countries and has made free trade agreements with fifty-two countries (Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy 2017).35 Direct investment is another aspect that may affect Korean language spread—Korean has become an indispensible business communication tool spurred by the hiring of local employees by Korean firms abroad. Based on statistics of TOPIK takers, over 200,000 workers were estimated to have come to Korea through the Employment Permit System (Cho 2013, 39). Issues surrounding foreign direct investment and international business should be approached delicately as they could affect the relationship between Korea and other countries and thus negatively influence LSP strategy. 34  For example, the relationship with China is critical. China is Korea’s largest trading partner by exports as of 2015. Trade with China makes up 26% of total exports and 20.75% of total imports (Korea International Trade Association 2016). China is also one of the largest Hallyu markets by sales and number of fans (Korea Foundation 2015). Chinese makes up the largest proportion of migrants to Korea. 35  The current list includes 10 ASEAN countries, 28 EU countries, 4 EFTA (European Free Trade Association: the intergovernmental organization of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland), the United States, India, and eight other countries. When 10 more countries in the process of negotiation are included, the number increases to about 62 countries (Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy 2016), available on the FTA webpage, http://www​ .fta​.go.kr/main/situation/fta/world/, accessed November 23, 2017.

Language Spread Policy in Korea

281

A symbol of cultural diplomacy, Hallyu also holds the key to Korea’s economic future, Korean language spread, and LSP. Hallyu, despite its merits and contributions, faces several challenges that could negatively affect the spread of Korean (KOFICE 2014). First, Hallyu relies primarily on foreign trade. With only a 2.4% share of total trade volume of global cultural industries as of 2012, Hallyu lacks the scale to compete with cultural industries of countries with a larger share.36 Second, critical perceptions and attitudes toward Hallyu could pose the risk of hindering the spread of Korean. In fact, incidents of “anti-Hallyu” or “Hallyu hate” have been observed in Japan, China, and Vietnam to the extent that tourism and the Hallyu economy saw suppression in 2005.37 A survey by KOFICE (2014, 20) on the “Status of Hallyu,” based on a sample size of 5,600 people across fourteen countries in six continents, reflects the importance of perceptions of Hallyu. While anti-Hallyu sentiment may not be significant (17.1%), compared to pro-Hallyu attitudes (30.7%) and attitudes with no opinion (52.2%), the KOFICE survey findings project concerns for the future of both Hallyu and the Korean language. In the survey, 60% of the sample responded that they believe the Hallyu fervor may end within four years. The reasons behind the spectrum of anti-Hallyu attitudes are particularly revealing. More than half of the subjects responded that “Koreans tend to have an arrogant attitude toward other countries (58.8%).” About the same number of subjects replied that “Hallyu is too commercialized (57.2%),” and that “Koreans have bad national character (51.0%).” In addition, more than half of the subjects responded that the reasons behind anti-Hallyu feelings were “to protect our own cultural industries (59.4%),” “because of a conflict of interest in historical and political relationships with Korea (57.3%),” or “because of innate resistance toward other cultures (53.8%)” (KOFICE 2014). These responses have serious implications. As culture is directly connected to national identity, the influence of Hallyu could understandably put other countries in a defensive position, leading to the perception that Hallyu is an intrusion on their own culture. Hallyu has even been criticized as being a form of “cultural and economic imperialism.” The term imperialism refers to the cycle of profit 36  In comparison, between 2008 and 2012 the United States had a 40.7% share, Japan had 7.8%, England had 6.7%, and China had 3.7%, according to a 2013 report of the Korea Creative Content Agency (KOCCA), 2011nyeon saegye kontencheu sijang 2nyeon yeonsok seongjang [Continual growth of the world’s contents market in 2011]. For more information, visit http://koreancontent.kr/1314. 37  According to the Korea Tourism Organization (n.d.), the anti-Hallyu attitude has been the primary cause for the fluctuating number of tourists in the late-2000s. In 2005, after antiHallyu outbursts in Japan and China, the number of tourists and revenue per tourist both declined.

282

Yangwon Ha

repatriation to Korea and the “injection” of Hallyu into neighboring countries through media outlets with the intent to influence viewer behavior (Huang 2009). Such negative perceptions of Hallyu can adversely affect the spread of Korean language and culture, regardless of Korea’s efforts in LSP. Furthermore, skeptics remark that Hallyu bears little resemblance to traditional Korean culture, sharing more similarities with Western popular culture. Others note that Hallyu is too commercialized and receives excessive government intervention. Third, while cultural content such as movies and music are popular in China, profits are capped due to illegal circulation. There are serious issues concerning intellectual property and Hallyu, and there is no simple solution despite a need for correction (Go and Ahn 2014). Finally, interest in the Korean language arising from the popularity of Hallyu may be short lived if Hallyu fails to sustain traction as a form of entertainment. What is certain is that language spread, the Korean economy, and popular Korean culture—whether in the form of Hallyu or ­otherwise— have been and will continue to be intertwined. Reexamining the Motives Guiding LSP

Whether Korean LSP has imperialistic implications or not is another issue. Imperialistic motives may manifest in power imbalances between countries that occur not necessarily through coercion, but also through patronization or corruption. Does Korea’s LSP imply imperialistic motives disguised by cultural mutualism? Korea’s LSP is still in its nascent stage and has not yet fully proven its commitment to the ideals of cultural mutualism, which has been frequently referred to as the guiding principle for Korean LSP. Critics of Korea’s LSP continue to emphasize the importance of staying on track with cultural mutualism. The actions of a few private organizations involved in language spread demonstrate how the intent of cultural mutualism can be jeopardized. Among a few such cases,38 one particular example is the Ccia-Ccia tribe on Buton Island, Indonesia. This example illustrates how Korean LSP can be at odds with the national language policy of a country in which Korean is being spread—in this case, Indonesia. The Society of Hunminjeongeum (Hunminjeongeum hakoe), led by linguist and professor Lee Ho-Young, had the mission of reducing global illiteracy 38  In 2011, another organization, the headquarters of Hangeulsarang narasarang (Hannabon), made an agreement with the representative of the Bazau of Mindanao in the Philippines to help them adopt the Korean script. In 2012, the Center for Humanities of Seoul National University and the UN Global Compact, Korea branch, jointly helped two states in the Solomon Islands of the South Pacific adopt Hangeul as their written language.

Language Spread Policy in Korea

283

rates by exporting Hangeul to ethnic minority groups that have a spoken language but no written language. In 2009, the Ccia-Ccia tribe of Indonesia agreed to adopt the Korean language for its writing system as a collaborative effort between Kyongbuk University of Korea and Universitas Muhammadia Buton of Indonesia. A KSI facility later opened in the city of Bau Bau with partial funding from the Korean government, only to shutter after seven months due to funding difficulties and conflicting policy interests between the Korean and Indonesian governments. The tribe’s decision to adopt Hangeul could not be made official and conflicted with the national language policy of Indonesia, which uses the Latin alphabet system for written language (Chang 2012). The Indonesian government expressed its concern over risks to Indonesian unity as a result of the adoption of a foreign language by an Indonesian minority group (Park and Yang 2012). This concern echoes that of linguist Kim Chin-Woo (2014): since spoken and written language symbolize culture and identity, exporting Korean could actually conflict with a prospective recipient nation’s language policy. The case became the subject of serious concern among Korean language experts.39 Choe Gyeong-Bong presents his most trenchant criticism in the chapter “Hangeul indojuuiwa Hangeul jegukjuui” (Korean language humanism and Korean language imperialism) in his book Hangeul Democracy (2012, 300–312). He remarks that a patronizing attitude toward the export of Korean language is imperialistic. Underlying such an attitude lies “nationalistic obsession” over Hangeul supremacy or “linguistic nationalism” originating from an emotional reaction to Korea’s colonial experience.40 Choe suggests that disseminating Korean should be freed of such fanatic preoccupation. It is not ascertainable whether imperialistic intentions indeed underlie the spread of Korean. But there may be a strong sense of pride among Koreans regarding Hangeul, a desire for international recognition of Korea’s unusually swift economic progress, and a compensatory orientation aimed at overcoming a negative national image. There is also concern regarding the overtly deliberate attempt to disseminate Korean in the name of globalization. Lee Sang-Gyu expressed concern about the term “globalization of the Korean language” in representing Korea’s LSP. He perceives the term 39 

Ultimately, the KSI Project in Bau Bau fell though completely in 2014, and currently the Seoul City government and private organizations such as Won Am Cultural Foundation and the Korean Association of Cultural Exchanges with Ccia-Ccia are supporting the project (Park and Yang 2012; Jeong B. G. 2015). 40  Choe (2012) points out the misconception originating from colonial experiences in which yearning for independence or Korean spirit was associated with Hangeul and erroneously regards its nature as a symbolic “spirit” or “value,” not as something pertaining to living.

284

Yangwon Ha

to inadvertently imply traces of cultural imperialism and overzealous nationalism (Lee S. G. 2008). Language Competition

Countries often respond to globalization by attempting to protect their own languages and by trying to establish them as a global cultural tool. The Korean government has been prompted to increase awareness of other countries’ LSP efforts.41 There is a sense of urgency to catch up with countries with a longer history of LSP, in terms of budget and number of facilities. To put things in perspective, France’s Alliance Française has a 120-year history of LSP, with 1,110 centers. The British Council of England has 70 years of history, 238 centers, and a budget of close to $1 billion. The Goethe Institute of Germany has practiced external LSP for 50 years and currently has 133 centers with a budget of $300 million. These countries and others such as Japan and China are endeavoring to expand their territories of linguistic influence around the world.42 Thus, language competition is often proposed as a key factor to strengthen LSP. Experts largely doubt Korean’s potential to become a major international or global language for various reasons. As analyzed through Ulich Ammon’s “four basic indicators” (1995), which measure language dominance, Kim Chin-Woo (2014) observes that with the exception of economic strength, Korea lacks the scale, cultural strength, and political might that are necessary for Korean to become a dominant language. Lee Sang-Gyu (2007) believes that Korean has limited prospects for becoming a business language like English or a cultural language like French. In addition, Korean is generally considered to be difficult to master for prospective learners.43 Nevertheless, some think that Korean may have a chance of becoming an international language in the Asian region if it manages to take root in East Asian countries (Jeon 2008, 173–174). Concluding Remarks

As a late-developing nation emerging from colonial rule, Korea established its global standing through a reactive policy of correcting its negative national image in order to grow its export-oriented economy. An awareness of a concerted LSP effort emerged in the early 1990s in response to 41  Compared to the LSP of some countries that are more aggressive and have larger budgets, Korea’s LSP lacks a comprehensive approach and budget (King 2007). 42  For the language education programs of several major countries, see Cho, Lee, and Ju (2013, 111–­112). 43  According to the Report of Performance Evaluation of Foreign Language published by the U.S. State Department, Korean is classified as a “super hard language,” defined as being difficult and taking a long time to learn (for Americans); see Cho, Lee, and Ju (2013).

Language Spread Policy in Korea

285

environmental changes brought about by the end of the Cold War, globalization, technological advancements, and the unexpected success of Hallyu in the following years. Despite declarations of cultural mutualism, economic motives appear to be the strongest drivers of Korea’s LSP. Korea’s language spread has entered a new stage. Interest in the Korean language has already been kindled on a global scale. Korea’s LSP has matured into a fully equipped legal, organizational, and administrative system that allow it to be proactive. However, there are caveats. Korea’s relationships with other countries have become much more complex as a result of trade, direct investment, the migration of labor forces, and international marriages. The potential impact of anti-Korean sentiment stemming from such political, economic, and social relationships cannot be underestimated in implementing external LSP. Given such delicate circumstances, it is important for the Korean government to strive for a balance between cultural economism and cultural mutualism in their future LSP. References Ager, D. E. 2001. Motivation in Language Planning and Language Policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ammon, U. 1992. Editor’s Preface. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 95: 5–9. ———. 1995. “To What Extent Is German an International Language?” In The German Language and the Real World: Sociolinguistic, Cultural, and Pragmatic Perspectives on Contemporary German, by P. Stevenson, 25–53. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 1997. “Language-Spread Policy.” Language Problems and Language Planning 21 (1): 51–57. Ammon, U. and H. Kleineidam. 1992. “Language-Spread Policy,” vol. 1, Languages of Former Colonial Powers (special issue), International Journal of the Sociology of Language 95: 33–50. Baek D. M. 2014. “Hallyuui gyongjejeok pageup hyogwa bunseokgwa sisajeom” [Analysis of the economic effects of Hallyu and its implications]. Gyeongje jupyeong [Weekly economic review]. 14–33. Available at http://www.hri.co.kr, accessed January 18, 2016. Center for International Affairs. n.d. Hanguk baro aligi [Understanding Korea]. Available at http://www.ikorea.ac.kr/korean/, accessed January 26, 2016. Chang H. C. 2012. “Ccia-Ccia jok eun Hangeul eul gongshik munjaro chaetaek haji anatta” [The Ccia-Ccia tribe did not select Hangeul as its official written language]. Ohmy News. Retrieved from http:// www.​ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/View/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=​ A0001793047 on February 12, 2016.

286

Yangwon Ha

Cho H. R. 2005. “Gukoe Hangugeo gyoyugeui baldal gwajeonggwa teukjing” [Development and characteristics of Korean language education abroad—The beginning and leap]. Hangugeo gyoyuk [Journal of Korean language education] 16 (1): 249–275. Cho H. R., Lee M. H., and Ju S. I. 2013. Hangugeo gyoyuk hyeonhwang Jeomgeommit jiwon jeollyak yeongu [Research on support for Korean language education and strategy]. Available at http://www.prism​.go​ .kr/homepage/main/retrieveMain.do, accessed November 30, 2016. Choe G. B. 2012. Hangeul minjujueui [Hangeul democracy]. Seoul: Chekgwa hamkke. Chosun Ilbo. 1973. “Hanguk baro aligi” [Let the world know correctly about Korea]. June 8. ———. 1981. “‘Oneului hanguk’ baro alinda” [Let the world know correctly about ‘today’s Korea.’” January 28, p. 5. ———. 1988. “Hangungmareul baewupsida” [Let’s learn Korean]. September 8, p. 8. Export-Import Bank of Korea, The. 2016. Statistics on Foreign Investment of Korea. Available at https://stats.koreaexim.go.kr/odisas.html, accessed January 5, 2016. Fishman, J. A., A. W. Conrad, and A. Rubal-Lopez. 1996. Introduction. In Post-Imperial English: Status Change in Former British and American Colonies, 1940–1990, ed. J. A. Fishman, A. W. Conrad, and A. RubalLopez, 8. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Go J. M. and Ahn S. A. 2014. “Hanguk munhwa kontencheu saneop suchuruiui yuhyeongbyeol jeollyak banghyang [Strategic direction of Korea’s cultural contents industry exports by types]. Munhwa gyeongje yeongu [Cultural economy research] 17 (3): 139–159. Goldberg, D., D. Looney, and N. Lusin. 2015. Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2013. New York: Modern Language Association. Huang, X. 2009. “‘Korean Wave’—The Popular Culture, Comes as Both Cultural and Economic Imperialism in East Asia. Asian Social Science 5 (8): 124–130. Jeon S. U. 2008. “Hangugeo segyehwa ui silsanggwa lingwa frangka ui ganeungseong” [The status of globalization of Korean and its possibility for lingua franca]. Atae yeongu [Journal of Asia-Pacific studies], 15 (2): 163–178. Jeong B. G. 2015. “Indonesia Ccia-Ccia jok Hangeul suchul haettadeoni!” [They said Hangeul was going to the Ccia-Ccia tribe!]. Wolgan JungAng 10, September 17. Available at https://jmagazine.joins.com/monthly/ view/308260, accessed January 10, 2016.

Language Spread Policy in Korea

287

Jeong H. S. 2006. “Chamyeo jeongbu munhwa jeongchek ui pyeongga” [The evaluation of cultural policy of participation government]. Hanguk haengjeonghakoe haksulbalpyo nonmunjip [Journal of the winter conference of the Korean Association for Public Administration]. Vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1–18. Jeong J. S. 2008. Munhwa bunya gongjeok gaebal wonjo (ODA) saeop gaebal yeongu [Study on Official Development Aid (ODA) in the cultural sector]. Korea Culture and Tourism Institute. Available at Korean National Commission for UNESCO website, www.unesco.or.kr/ upload/links/정정숙_문화분야공적개발원조사업개발연구.pdf, accessed January 7, 2016. Ji M. H. 2007. “Chung Soon-hoon Baejaedae chongjang ‘ijen urimareul sanuphwa halttae’” [Chung, president of Pai Chai University, says “now is the time to commercialize Korean”]. Donga News, 19 May. Available at http://news.donga.com/3/all/20070519/8443764/1, accessed May 18, 2015. Kim C. W. 2014. Segyesogui Hangeulgwa Hangugeo [Korean script and Korean language in the world]. Professor Lee Bok-kyu’s cyber lecture website at http://m.cafe.daum.net/bky5587/NG6g/​177​?list​URI​=%2​ Fbky5587%2F_rec, accessed January 8, 2016. Kim H. G. 2004. “Segyeneun Hangugeo gongbujung” [The world is studying Korean]. JoongAng Daily News. October 8, p. 8. Available at http://blog.joins.com/media/folderlistslide.asp?uid=khk93&list_ id=3681095, accessed January 28, 2016. Kim J. H. 2008. Sejonghakdang seolipgwa gyeongjejeok hyogwa [Establishment of Sejong hakdang and its economic effects]. Available at National Institute of Korean Language website, http://www. korean.go.kr/nkview/nklife/2008_3/2008_0305.pdf, accessed January 24, 2016. King, R. 2007. “Globalization and the Future of the Korean Language: Some Preliminary Thoughts.” In Eoneohak sanchaek [Promenades in linguistics], ed. Lee S. O. and Park C. Y., 317–347. Seoul: Hanguk munhwasa. Available at http://www.academia.edu/3358628/ Globalization_and_the_future_of_the_Korean_language_some_ preliminary_thoughts, accessed January 26, 2016. King Sejong Institute Foundation. n.d. King Sejong Institute Foundation. Available at http://www.ksif.or.kr/business/locSejong.do, accessed August 10, 2016. Korea Foundation for International Culture (KOFICE). 2014. Je sam-cha haeoe Hallyu siltae josa bogoseo [The third report on the status of Hallyu abroad]. Seoul: KOFICE. Available at http://www.kofice.or.kr/b20​

288

Yangwon Ha

industry/b20_industry_01_view.asp?seq=126&tblID=gongji&clsID=0, accessed October 27, 2015. Korea Foundation. 2014. Annual Report. Available at http://kf.or.kr, accessed January 28, 2016. Korea Immigration Service. 2008. Tongye yeonbo [Annual statistics]. Korea Immigration Service. Available at http://www.immigration. go.kr/HP/COM/bbs_003/ListShowData.do?strNbodCd=noti0096&st rWrtNo=98&strAnsNo=A&strOrgGbnCd=104000&strRtnURL=IMM_ 6050&strAllOrgYn=N&strThisPage=3&strFilePath=, accessed October 29, 2915. ———. 2014. Tongye yeonbo [Annual statistics]. Korea Immigration Service. Available at http://www.immigration.go.kr/HP/COM/bbs​ _003/BoardList.do?strNbodCd=noti0096&strOrgGbnCd=104000&strFi lePath=imm/&strRtnURL=IMM_6050&strNbodCdGbn=&strType=&s trAllOrgYn=N, accessed October 28, 2015. Korea International Trade Association. 2016. K-Stat. Available at http:// stat.kita.net/, accessed February 4, 2016. Korea Legislation Research Institute. 2013. Statutes of the Republic of Korea: Overseas Koreans Foundation Act. Korea Legislation Research Institute. Available at http://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView. do?hseq=29289&lang=ENG, accessed January 12, 2017. ———. 2014. Statutes of the Republic of Korea: Enforcement Decree of the Culture and Arts Promotion Act. Korea Legislation Research Institute. Available at http://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do​?hseq​ =32999&lang=ENG, accessed January 22, 2016. Korea Tourism Organization. n.d. Hunminjeongeum. Available at http:// english.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/CU/CU_EN_8_5_8_3.jsp, accessed December 2, 2015. Korean Broadcasting System. 2015. “KBS World 24.” KBS Annual Report. Available at http://www.kbs.co.kr/openkbs/report/download/2015/ eng_full.pdf, accessed February 26, 2016. Korean Culture and Information Service. 2015. Government: Current Affairs: K-Culture. Available at http://www.korea.net/Government/ Current-Affairs/Korean-Wave?affairId=471, accessed February 23, 2016. Korean International Trade Association. 2005. Hallyu ui gyeongjejeok hyogwa bunseok [Report on economic effects of Hallyu]. Seoul: Korean International Trade Association. Available at http://www.kita.net, accessed February 20, 2016. KOTRA. 2005. Gukga imiji hyeonhwang mit sisajeom [The current national image and its implication]. KOTRA. Available at http://125.131.31.47/ Solars7DMME/004/76169.PDF, accessed February 23, 2016.

Language Spread Policy in Korea

289

Lee C. 2014. “Haeoe jinchul gungnae gieop ui sahoejeok chegim ganghwareul wihan nomu gwalli jiwon banghyang” [Strategy on employee management for enhancing social responsibility of Korean investment businesses to foreign countries]. Hanguk gukje gyeongyeong hakoe [Korean Academy of International Business]. Available at http:// www.ndsl.kr/ndsl/commons/util/ndslOriginalView.do?dbt=TRKO& cn=TRKO201600016789&rn=&url=&pageCode=PG18, accessed March 28, 2017. Lee G. E. 2005. “‘Hangugeo haeoebogeup’ mulgeopeum wigi” [The dissemination of the Korean language is on the verge of dissipating]. Segye Daily News. July 15, p. 6. Lee S. G. 2008. Hangugeo segyehwa eodikkaji wanna [The current progress of Korean language globalization]. Saegugeosaenghwal [National Korean language life] 18 (13): 5–21. Available at http:// www​.korean​.go.kr/nkview/nklife/2008_3/2008_0301.pdf, accessed February 24, 2016. ———. 2011. Shinjisik jabon, eoneowa munja [New knowledge capital, language and letters]. November 16. Taegeuk Hangeul [Taegeuk Korean]. Available at http://m.cafe.daum.net/dnflakf1234/N7xK/19?l istURI=%2Fdnflakf1234%2F_rec%3Fpage%3D6, accessed February 24, 2016. Lee Y. J. 2005. Munhwa saneop jeongchek simnyeon: Pyeonggawa jeonmang [Ten years of cultural industry policy: Evaluation and prospect]. Seoul: Korean Culture and Tourism Institute. Available at http://www​ .kcti.re.kr/index.dmw, accessed January 28, 2016. Lewis, M. P., G. F. Simons, and C. D. Fennig. 2016. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 19th ed. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Available at https:// www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size, accessed February 25, 2016. Ministry of Culture. 2006. Hangugeo bogeup saeop hyeobuihoe [Council of Dissemination of Korean Language]. Available at http://www.mcst​ .go.kr/main.jsp, accessed March 2, 2016. Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. 2005. Yeongsang jeongchek jaryo [Materials for media policy]. Available at https://www.mcst.go.kr/ web/s_data/assembly/assemblyView.jsp?pSearchMenuCD=040309000 0&pSeq=303, accessed January 6, 2016. ———. 2007. Press Releases: Comprehensive Plan for Growing Han (Korean) Style (2007–2011). February 15. Retrieved from http://www.mcst. go.kr/web/s_notice/press/pressView.jsp?pSeq=8462 on January 12, 2016. ———. 2013. Department Data: Saejong hakdang seolchi hyeonhwang deung gwallyeon juyo tongye, 2015 [Key statistics and current status of King Sejong Institute, December 2015]. November 21. Retrieved from http://

290

Yangwon Ha

www.mcst.go.kr/web/s_data/deptData/deptDataView.jsp?pSeq=175 on January 2, 2016. Ministry of Education. 2016. Education for Overseas Koreans. Available at http://moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?boardID=336&boardSeq=63508 &lev=0&searchType=null&statusYN=W&page=1&s=moe&m=030211& opType=N, accessed January 16, 2017. Ministry of Employment and Labor. 2015. Glossary. Employment Permit System. Retrieved from https://www.eps.go.kr/eo/VocaDicLstR.eo​ ?natNm=ph on October 3, 2016. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2013. Summary of Public Diplomacy Activities. Available at http://www.publicdiplomacy.go.kr/summary/summary​ _personal01.jsp, accessed March 3, 2016. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy. 2016. Jeonsegye FTA chegyeol hyeonhwang: FTA gangguk, KOREA [Current status of Korea’s FTAs around the world]. Available at http://www.fta.go.kr/main/situation/ fta/world/, accessed October 14, 2016. National Digital Science Library. 2007. Teukheocheong, Hangugeo, jisik jaesangwon bunyaui gukjejeok gongyongeoro injeongdoeda [Korean Intellectual Property Office, Korean language is accepted as an official language in the Patent Cooperation Treaty]. October 2. Available at http://www.ndsl.kr/ndsl/search/detail/trend/trend​Search​Result​ Detail​.do?cn=DT200701036, accessed October 20, 2016. ———. 2009. PCT gukjeteukheo chulwondonghyang 2008 [Trend of PCT international patents 2008). February 27. Available at http://www​ .ndsl​.kr/ndsl/search/detail/trend/trendSearchResultDetail​.do​?cn​ =IS200900005, accessed October 20, 2016. National Institute of the Korean Language. 2005. “Gugeo gwallyeon beomnyul jejeong sosik” [News on the enactment of the Frame Act of Korean Language]. Saegugeosaenghwal [National Korean language life] 15 (1 [Spring]): 224–231. Available at http://www.korean.go.kr/ nkview/nklife/2005_1/2005_0117.pdf, accessed November 20, 2016. ———. 2014. 2014 sutjaro salpyeoboneun urimal [2014 Korean language in numbers]. Available at http://www.urimal365.kr/?p=20508, accessed October 16, 2016. ———. n.d. Hangugeo gyowon jagyeokjeung chuideuk hyeonhwang [Current statistics of Korean Language Teaching Certificate holders]. Available at https://kteacher.korean.go.kr/index.do, accessed July 17, 2017. NationMaster. 2016. South Korea Economy Stats. Available at http://www​ .nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/South-Korea/Economy, accessed January 26, 2016. Office for Government Policy Coordination. n.d. Jiwon siljeok [Record of official development assistance]. Available at http://www.odakorea.

Language Spread Policy in Korea

291

go.kr/ODAPage_2012/T02/L03_S01_03.jsp, accessed November 16, 2016. Pakir, A. 1998. Language, Society and Education in Singapore: Issues and Trends. 2nd ed. New York: Cavendish Square Publishing. Park D. G. and Yang S. S. 2012. “Hangeul suchul il-ho Ccia Ccia jok Hangugeo gyoyukdo jungdan” [The first recipient of the export of Korean language, the Ccia Ccia tribe, stopped Korean language education]. Chosun Ilbo [Chosun daily news], October 9. Available at http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/​2012/​10/​09/​2012​ 100900078.html?brief_special, accessed December 16, 2015. Park K. S. 2012. “Hangugeo segyehwa ui silsanggwa seroun chujin banghyang” [Globalization of Korean language: Facts and new future direction]. Kookhak yeongu nonchong [Journal of Koreanology] 10: 201–231. Park S. E. 2012. “Hallyu global pandeom hyeonsangeul tonghaebon munhwasotong mit gyoryuui jeonmang” [Prospects on cultural communication and cultural exchange through the phenomenon of Hallyu’s global fandom]. Munhwa yesul gyeongyeong [Journal of art and cultural management] 2 (2): 23–37. Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sejong hakdang. 2015. Gugoe Hangugeo gyoyuk gigwan hyeonhwang josa [Report on the survey of the current status of Korean language education facilities]. Available at http://www.ksif.or.kr/information/ allDataDtl.do?idx=91&boardCd=02, accessed May 6, 2016. Seong G. S. 1996. “Hangugeoui segyejeok bogeubeul wihan eoneo jeongchek geomto” [Examination of language policy for the globalization of the Korean language]. Hangugeo segyehwaui jemunje [Problems in globalization of the Korean language], vol. 13, pp. 159–180. Seoul: Ijung eoneo hakhoe. Shin H. S. 2009. “Hangugeo gyoyukui eojewa oneul” [The past and present of Korean language education]. Hangugeo munhak yeongu [Research on Korean language and literature] 53 (0): 5–70. Statistics Korea. 2015. Cheryu oegugin [Foreigners in Korea]. Available at http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_ cd=2756, accessed October 18, 2016. ———. 2016. Haeoe jikjeop tuja [Foreign direct investment]. Retrieved from http://www.index.go.kr/potal/stts/idxMain/selectPoSttsIdxSearch​ .do?idx_cd=1065&clas_div=&idx_sys_cd=534&idx_clas_cd=1 on October 12, 2016. Suh B. M. 2004. “Munhwa kontencheu saneobeun mirae gyeong­ jaengnyeogida” [The cultural contents business is the competitive edge of our future economic power]. Sa sang [Thought] 60 (3): 62–84.

292

Yangwon Ha

Suh S. G. 2005. “Haewoe Hangugeo mit Hangukak gwangye pero­ geuram hyeonhhanggwa gaeseon e gwanan yeongu--yurop, teukhi prangseu reul jungsimeuro-” [Study on Korean language and Korean studies abroad for improvement—with focus on Europe and France in particular]. Prangshak yeongu [Research in French studies] 34: 423–443. Suh S. J. 2014. Gugeo yeongam [Annual book of Korean language]. Seoul: National Institute of Korean Language. Retrieved from http://www​ .korean.go.kr/nkview/kyear/nk2014.pdf on October 7, 2016. Wu C. H. 2006. “Gukga gigwan ui Hangugeo gugoe bogeup siltae” [Current status of language dissemination by the government]. Gugeoyeongam [Annual book of Korean language], by the National Institute of Korean Language. Available at http://www.korean.go.kr/ nkview/​kyear/2006/2006_15.html, accessed October 15, 2016. Yu S. J. 2006. Oegugin sanup yeonsusaeng jaedo [Foreign industry trainee system]. National Archives of Korea. Retrieved from http://www​ .archives.go.kr/next/search/listSubjectDescription.do?id=000275 on February 6, 2017.

Language Spread Policy in Korea

293

Appendix 1. Government Organizations Related to External LSP (2017) Ministry in Charge Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism

Ministry of Education

Organizations Concerning LSP

Major Tasks

The National Institute of ­Korean Language (NIKL), http://www.korean.go.kr/

Teacher training in Korea and abroad; Developing Korean educational curricula, models, programs, and materials; Local teacher training; Korean language education for foreign workers in Korea.

King Sejong Institute Foundation (KSIFF: formerly the Foundation for the Globalization of the Korean Language), http://www.ksif.or.kr/

Promotion and dissemination of Korean through King Sejong Institute (KSI) Programs; Developing curriculum and teacher training; Dispatching Korean educators abroad.

Overseas Korean Education (OKE), http://www.moe.go​ .​kr/

Supporting Korean schools and visiting student programs for overseas Koreans.

International Education Cooperation (IEC), http://www​ .moe.go.kr/

Planning and recruiting foreign students; Teacher exchange program; Educational cooperation with countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

National Institute for Interna- KOSNET program management tional Education Development (http://www.kosnet.go.kr); (NIIED), www.niied.go.kr Developing and administering TOPIK (Test of Proficiency in Korean); Local teacher training; Supporting secondary schools abroad to include Korean language education; Language educational materials for Koreans abroad. Center for International Affairs CEFIA) in the Academy of Korean Studies (AKS), http:// intl.aks.ac.kr/english/portal​ .php

Textbook project for improving the image of Korea; Academic support for Korean studies abroad. continued

294

Yangwon Ha

Appendix 1. Government Organizations Related to External LSP (2017) (continued) Ministry in Charge

Organizations Concerning LSP

Major Tasks

Korea Institute of Curriculum Developing and distributing and Evaluation (KICE), http:// Korean educational curricula www.kice.re.kr and textbooks. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Korea Foundation (KF), www​ .kf.or.kr/

Academic support for Korean studies and language.

Overseas Koreans Foundation (OKF), http://www.okf.or.kr

Funding and supporting Korean schools for overseas Koreans with materials; Teacher training and cultural programs; Online Korean courses (http://study​ .korean.net, http://www.teen​ korean.net).

Korean International Coopera- Supporting developing countion Agency (KOICA), www​ tries in education and economic .koica.go.kr aid; Dispatching Korean language educators. Ministry of Employment and Labor

Administering Test of teaching Human Resources Development Service of Korea (Saneop Korean as a Foreign Language illyeok gongdan), www.q-net​ (TOTKA). .or.kr/site/koreanedu

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES The Institute of East Asian Studies was established at the University of California, Berkeley, in the fall of 1978 to promote research and teaching on the cultures and societies of China, Japan, and Korea. The institute unites several research centers and programs, including the Center for Buddhist Studies, the Center for Chinese Studies, the Center for Japanese Studies, the Center for Korean Studies, and the Group in Asian Studies. Director: Associate Director:

Kevin O’Brien Martin Backstrom

CENTER FOR BUDDHIST STUDIES Chair: Robert Sharf CENTER FOR CHINESE STUDIES Chair: You-tien Hsing CENTER FOR JAPANESE STUDIES Chair: Dana Buntrock CENTER FOR KOREAN STUDIES Chair: Laura C. Nelson GROUP IN ASIAN STUDIES Chair: Aihwa Ong

INSTITUTE OF EAST ASIAN STUDIES ȱȱȱȣȱ