Table Of ContentThe Societal Codification
of Korean English
Bloomsbury Advances in World Englishes
Series Editor:
Alexander Onysko, University of Klagenfurt, Austria
Advisory Board:
Umberto Ansaldo (Curtin University, Australia) C. Suzanne Hilgendorf (Simon
Fraser University, Canada)
Allan James (University of Klagenfurt, Austria)
Andrew Kirkpatrick (Griffith University, Australia)
Lisa Lim (Curtin University, Australia)
Christiane Meierkord (University of Bochum, Germany)
Salikoko Mufwene (University of Chicago, USA)
Alastair Pennycook (University of Technology Sydney, Australia)
Mario Saraceni (University of Portsmouth, UK)
Philip Seargeant (The Open University, UK)
Peter Siemund (University of Hamburg, Germany)
Bertus van Rooy (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Lionel Wee (National University of Singapore, Singapore)
Capturing the intense interest in research on Englishes worldwide, Bloomsbury
Advances in World Englishes promotes approaches to the complexities of
world Englishes from a multitude of linguistic perspectives. Responding to
recent trends in socio-cognitive, critical sociolinguistic, contact linguistic and
communication-based research, books in this series investigate the interactions
of Englishes with other languages and add new theoretical, methodological and
applied perspectives to the field.
Bloomsbury Advances in World Englishes adopts an inclusive understanding of
world Englishes and their interactions, which considers all dialects of English,
Englishes in multilingual constellations, English-based pidgins and creoles,
learner Englishes and the global spread of English as significant manifestations of
Englishes in the world. Encouraging methodological and theoretical pluralism,
encompassing sociolinguistics, cognitive and psycholinguistics, anthropological
linguistics, historical linguistics, pragmatics, literary-linguistics and discourse
analysis, this series offers an innovative insight into the manifold instantiations
and usages of Englishes in the world.
Titles in the Series:
Research Developments in World Englishes (inaugural volume)
Edited by Alexander Onysko
Metaphor in Language and Culture Across World Englishes
Edited by Marcus Callies and Marta Degani
The Societal Codification of Korean English
Alex Baratta
The Societal Codification
of Korean English
Alex Baratta
BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK
1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA
29 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2, Ireland
BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks
of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published in Great Britain 2022
Copyright © Alex Baratta, 2022
Alex Baratta has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.
For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. vii constitute an extension
of this copyright page.
Series design by Rebecca Heselton
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior
permission in writing from the publishers.
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any
third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this
book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any
inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist,
but can accept no responsibility for any such changes.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: HB: 978-1-3501-8855-6
ePDF: 978-1-3501-8856-3
eBook: 978-1-3501-8857-0
Series: Bloomsbury Advances in World Englishes
Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India
To find out more about our authors and books visit www .bloomsbury .com and
sign up for our newsletters.
Contents
List of Illustrations vi
1 Introduction 1
2 A discussion of four key topics 23
3 Societal codification 55
4 The lexical and grammatical aspects of Korean English 83
5 Media English in Korea 155
6 Korean English in the EFL classroom 177
Conclusion 191
References 195
Index 215
Illustrations
Figures
1 A previous model being applied here to the discussion of societal
codification 70
2 Poster as part of societal codification of Korean English 71
3 Societal codification via a mass-produced soft drink 74
4 Societal codification via a public sign at an amusement park 103
Tables
1 Choi’s Table of Konglish 131
2 Choi’s List of Common Konglish Expressions 132
3 Priz Website on Konglish 144
4 Priz Examples of Fabricated Phrases 145
5 Priz Examples of Abbreviated Expressions 145
6 Priz Samples of Vocabulary 146
7 Sydney to Seoul: Examples of Vocabulary 149
8 How to Study Korean Samples of Vocabulary 152
1
Introduction
Type the word ‘Englishes’ into a Word document, as I have just done, and it is
still, stubbornly, coming up as an error. For many reading this book, we already
know that this word is anything but an error. Rather, it is a wholly appropriate
term that captures the diversity of the English language in all its forms around
the world. This is something that a singular reference alone can never do. In fact,
such a reference might even suggest a one-size-fits-all approach to a language
that will never be one size for all. Indeed, English as we know it has expanded its
influence to the point that its international spread – from Hollywood movies to
CNN to bilingual road signs in Tokyo – is largely taken for granted. Perhaps we
expect to see and/or hear English in some form, whether on holiday in Spain or
at a business conference in Nairobi. I do not seek to present a detailed picture
regarding the influence and spread of the English language, however, as this has
been well documented already (Kachru, 1982; Crystal, 2008; Mesthrie and Bhatt,
2008). Instead, I use this linguistic spread as the springboard from which to then
delve into a full discussion of the variety of English as used in Korea. This allows
for a spotlight on one particular variety of English, while also functioning as a
stand-in for other varieties of English which do not always get the respect and
recognition they deserve. This chapter thus presents an overview of the relevant
topics in Chapters 2 and 3, which serve to set the scene for the later discussion
of Korean English in Chapter 4.
Specifically, Chapter 2 discusses the following topics: the terms used to refer
to Englishes within the expanding circle, often involving blended nomenclatures
such as Chinglish; errors versus innovations; and the distinctions made in terms
of native versus non-native speakers of English. Chapter 3 discusses a way to
conceptualize linguistic codification beyond more ‘traditional’ means, such
as government-backed grammar books and dictionaries, thus providing an
in-depth focus centred on this important topic, and how it ultimately relates
to the discussions in Chapters 4 and 5, concerning the ways in which Korean
2 The Societal Codification of Korean English
English needs to be understood as established and ultimately reinforced by its
speakers.
The purpose of covering these topics that are understood already to an
audience who are knowledgeable regarding World Englishes, such as educators
and linguists, is as follows. First, the audience is not assumed to be exclusively
made up of those with a background knowledge of the relevant topics, such as
World Englishes, let alone having research backgrounds in this area. Therefore,
some broad background on the relevant topics which pertain to the overall focus
on Korean English is necessary, and is presented systematically in Chapter 2.
Ideally, it is hoped that some of the audience may well include those with an
interest in Korean culture, or even English teachers in Korea who may be familiar
with Koreans’ use of English, but are otherwise unaware of the theoretical
discussion behind this.
Second, the topics covered in Chapter 2 combine to provide a thorough
grounding to help inform and locate the overall purpose for this book’s content: to
argue that Korean English, not only like other expanding circle Englishes but also
as with language overall, is legitimate, established and in everyday use, but largely
without the need for such establishment to be provided by more ‘traditional’ means.
That is, the people who use this variety of English are responsible for perpetuating
its use within society, and in turn establishing it as a recognized variety of English.
As I will explain, expanding circle Englishes, which Korean English clearly is, do
not necessarily receive their due recognition, despite their use in society. As such,
it is time to address this, both as a gap in knowledge regarding these varieties’ role
in society and to address what for some is a perceived lack of legitimacy (Kachru,
2006; Ahn, 2014; Galloway and Rose, 2015; Rüdiger, 2019).
What’s in a name? Korean English versus Konglish
Chapter 2 will take up the discussion in more detail than the summaries presented
here, but it is very important to begin with an unpacking of the most relevant
term of all for this book: Korean English. Some may disagree with this term in
fact, being more familiar with the term Konglish instead, which, I concede, is
indeed commonly used to describe the variety of English associated with Korea
(Kent, 1999; Song, 2016; Rüdiger, 2018). However, I object to the latter term for
two reasons.
First, blended nomenclatures arguably do not lead to language varieties
being taken particularly seriously. Pinkham’s (2000) use of the term Chinglish,
Introduction 3
used to describe translation errors from Mandarin to English on public signs
in China, has now become somewhat synonymous with errors in general.
From my experience of teaching large numbers of Chinese graduate students,
their conceptualization of the term goes far beyond English mistranslations
on Chinese public signs and extends to their own English, notably errors
made within their academic writing in English. While anecdotal, the negative
perceptions of the term Chinglish are not merely based on my own assertions.
He and Li (2009: 71) refer to the term as reflecting a ‘social stigma’ and argue
instead for an established variety of English in China – China English – which
serves as the counterpart for Korean English. Given the stigma attached to the
term Chinglish, I believe that the terms used to refer to English varieties should
avoid blended nomenclatures which incorporate -ish. This is not a suffix as
such, but instead forms part of the word English, of course. Nonetheless, it is
conceivable that blended terms might suggest the use of -ish as a suffix per se,
with the semantic implications for this informal suffix essentially reflecting ‘to
some extent’ (He’s tallish, let’s meet at 3ish, and so on). Thus, Konglish, for some,
refers to a variety of English which is not quite one or the other perhaps, not
somehow ‘fully formed’. But such an assertion would fly in the face of a variety
of English which is otherwise used by Koreans – and non-Koreans – with a fully
functioning use of vocabulary and grammar – Korean English. To thus demote
it to a blended term is not accurate, given the connotations of such terms. This is
not about political correctness but linguistic correctness.
Second, the term Korean English connotes a more established variety of
English. This is agreed with by Ahn (2014), who in fact refers to Konglish as
reflecting changes in Korean due to contact with English, and Korean English
as instead reflecting a nativization of the English language (Shim, 1999; Seong
and Lee, 2008). I do not suggest, of course, that those who use the term Konglish
do so scornfully, regarding it as a variety of English which is ‘defective’ in some
way. I do in fact acknowledge that the term can be used by those who otherwise
regard this variety with complete respect, seeing Konglish as an appropriate
term for a legitimate variety of English. Korean English, however, goes further
in terms of acknowledging linguistic legitimacy and as such, it will be the term
used throughout this book, with references to Konglish only made based on
reflecting other individuals’ use of this word.
Another concession concerns the work of Song (2016), who argues against
the label of ‘X English’ unless a variety is indeed a New English. Song argues
that Korean English, as a Learner English, is thus not qualified to be given this
title and, instead, should be referred to as ‘English in Korea’. Schneider (2007)
