MPN 056

International Conference on Migration, Citizenship and Intercultural Relations 19 - 20 November 2009 Deakin University Australia
Language Policies in South-Korea: Talk Anglo-Korean Epic resistance in the hub of globalization Mr Mico Poonoosamy, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Abbreviations: EPIC: English Program in Korea TaLK: Teach and Learn in Korea NIIED: National Institute for International Education Development Introduction Korean historical linguistic resistance The Korean language is at least 5000 years old and spoken by about 67 million people in both South Korea and North Korea. The Korean language was first used by people of the ancient kingdom of Chosen, but records of the written alphabet can be traced back to 1443 (Lee, I. & Ramsey, 2000; Lee, J, 2005). Korean is still spoken through the entire Korean peninsula today, but it was only in 1945, when South-Korea became independent from Japan, that South-Korea had a national language policy. Hangul was then politically acclaimed as the national writing system used in government documents, literature and textbooks. Since 1945, each year, the 9th October is legally celebrated as the Alphabet Day in Korea and its inventor, King Sejong, is praised and honoured on that day (Kim, C.W, 1988; Lee & Ramsey, 2000; Choi & Chon-sung, 2008). Still, the incessant language/identity challenges for SouthKorea from 1945 till the early 1990s was the expurgation of the number of Chinese characters and Japanese-made character words in the mentioned publications. This political effort towards maintaining the fervour of a patriotic conscience through a language of identity - a language of history and resistance - is presently being transposed to the more complex geo-political and linguistic challenges of globalization of the 21st century. Gbor (1997) writes that the followers of Chinese characters refer to the new slogans of internationalization (kukchehwa) and globalization (segyehwa) to request keeping Chinese characters in elementary schools where their use was abolished by Pak Chung Hi during his
Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation I Faculty of Arts and Education I Deakin University 221 Burwood Highway I Burwood I VIC 3125 I AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 (0)3 9244 6658
modernization campaign in the early 1970s. Chinese characters supporters argue that being a member of the so-called Kulturkreis of Chinese characters (han-cha-mun-hwa-kwon) guarantees the firm place of Korea among the countries of the future Northeast Asian Economic Community (tong-puk-a kyongche-kwon). From the 1990s onwards, cultural resistance and linguistic integrity is envisaged from a socio-political, economic and regional perspective. This perspective is then to be transferred to a more global/ international arena. Regional languages and Regional Corporation Oliver (1993) suggests that for ethnic Koreans living and working in China in the 1990s the mastery of the Chinese language provides better access to higher education. The ethnic Koreans employability and employment opportunities both inside and outside Korean communities would thus be enhanced in the years ahead. Their social status in Chinas mainstream economy is also meant to be improved. Also, the mastery of the Chinese language and culture allows ethnic Koreans to be involved in South Korean investment in China. As stated by Kibria (2002), both China and South Korea are perceived as powerful players in the world economy. Therefore, the Chinese language is still considered by ethnic Koreans as a means to benefit from the economic connections between China and South Korea. China being perceived as the emerging 21st century economic powerhouse, this Chinese-Korean link is important for South-Korea. For Sua rez-Orozco (1991) and Ogbu (1998) the Koreans success in educational attainment (historical and contemporary) is attributed to a rigorous work ethic, to the virtues of hard work and sense of social progress, all of these they affirm to be Confucian-influenced cultural predispositions. Koreans have the highest level of college attendance and lowest level of illiteracy rates through Mandarin and Korean bilingual education (Ma, 2003). Zhou et al. (2000) and Fang (2009) posit that such success is beneficial because it stresses on the nationalistic vision to make the local language and local culture the constant reference points to understand another culture and benefit from knowing its language. Also, for Lee, I. & Ramsey (2000), today still, the Chinese language reflects intellectual achievement and ones level of education in South-Korea.
Koreas dilemma: Corporation and linguistic integrity Kuroda (2006: p. 1-4), President of the Asian Development Bank, reiterating the need for Regional Corporation and stretching in time and space the golden age of Asia, points out: An Asian economic community is not only desirable and feasible - it is already emerging, with great potential for consolidating the gains the region has achieved in recent decades [] It's important to note, however, that developing Asia is not standing still while these international negotiations continue [...] In recent years, Asian governments have begun to make real efforts to work together to deepen the process of economic integration (...) All parties must work hard to reach a resolution on a global trade framework. The success of this regional corporation depends on liberal policies. Hence, on socio-geopolitical grounds, a protectionist framework expressed economically and linguistically is, in that sense, detrimental to South-Korea. Still, Gbor, (1997) affirms that the opponents to mixed writing (han-cha pyongyong) consider that the above interpretation of internationalization through economic regional partnerships may lead to a dreaded Japanization (ilbonhwa). Korea had borrowed too many Japanesemade character-words before 1945, and Regional Corporation could enable the colonial mentality to survive with the help of mixed writing. So, For South-Korea, the challenge is immense: first, the linguistic and political issue for the Koreans from 1945 to the 1990s was a decolonization process through language policies, then, from 1990s onwards, this already complex issue has been transposed to the spiral forces of globalization. To sum up, the 21st century multifaceted challenge for South-Korea is the preservation of its linguistic and cultural heritage while building network with surrounding economic partners, two of which were former colonizers, while also adjusting to the trends of globalization. This is a challenge full of paradoxes and contradictions, yet one that South-Korea must face to survive and thrive economically.
A contemporary challenge: globalization At this stage, it is necessary to define globalisation. Held et al. (1999: p . 16) consider globalisation as a process [or set of processes] which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactionsassessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power. Knight and de Wit (1997: p. 6) further suggest that globalisation affects each country in a different way due to a nations individual history, traditions, culture and priorities. I insist on the dichotomy between globalisation as a recessive relationship between the global and the local and internationalisation which represents, in my view, exchanges, trade and educational partnerships beyond geographical (and ideological) boundaries. Knight (2003: p. 2) maintains that internationalisation is a meaningless term without a conscious effort to integrate an intercultural dimension into the teaching, research and service of the institution. Linguistically, the power referred to by Herd et al. (1999) is expressed through the hegemony of the English language which is the global language. For South-Korea, successfully negotiating the challenge of globalization under the current linguistic geo-political conditions can be achieved through wise educational and language policies; South-Korea needs to equip its population with the relevant skills to integrate a global society of social change and constant cultural metamorphosis brought about by the availability of information, the knowledge economy, international trade, travelling, the internet and internationalized curriculum models in the educational fields. For South-Korea, survival and success rest on a complex equilibrium of resistance, negotiation and assimilation. Resistance is a socio-cultural and historical heritage, even a reality, for South-Korea. It relates to its pride and patriotism. It is translated in its love and sense of sacrifice for the country. At the end of the spectrum, is a completely opposite attitude and set of beliefs: complete and blind surrender to globalization, which Paris (2003: p. 235) defines as an imposition of ideas involving a dominant recessive relationship. That relationship is th e one which the Western world has with the non-Western world. Between the two, as far as educational and linguistic theories are concerned, there does exist a negotiation through the necessary production of a global knowledge in/for an
internationalized curriculum where local knowledge and traditions can be performed together with a global or universal discourse (Gough, 2002: p. 1217). National Pride in the interconnected world But Kim, S. (2000) suggests that, for Korea, there is too much national pride for a universal discourse. Kim posits that despite the rising globalization and globalism chorus, deep down Korea remains mired in the cocoon of exclusive cultural nationalism, [which] acts as a powerful and persistent constraint on the segyehwa [globalization]drive (p. 263, 275). In his view, no fundamental learningno paradigm shifthas occurred in the course of Koreas segyehwa drive, only situation-specific tactical adaptation. (2000: p. 275). I do not think that this is necessarily a bad thing. If there is to be a paradigm shift, it should suit the national interests - the interests of ALL, and not interests that are dictated by the ideologies of globalization. The universal discourse as envisaged by Gough (2002) cited above is meaningless if it is not the multiplied echo of a national discourse. It also depends on what is at stake, on what is to be lost and what is to be gained. In educational and cultural terms, internationalization involves consensual partnerships that meets and suits the needs of the parties involved. It means sharing, understanding and respecting the ideological, cultural and historical subtleties of one and all. Internationalization has the higher ambition of helping people to become citizens of the world, but whilst keeping their identity. I think that the adaptation skills of these people prove a key factor in the way they negotiate the trends of globalization. Globalization without internationalization is subsuming the national interest and sacrificing it to a cause that is not necessarily well understood by all. For Korea, acquiring an international language is a wise tactical way of becoming more international and face globalization. Kim E.Y. (1993, 1996) and Kim, Y.S (1996) suggest that globalization is embraced by the SouthKoreans who perceive themselves as lagging behind after having been a closed country for too long. For Kim, E.M (2000), the former South-Korean president, Kim Young Sam, implemented a globalization policy in 1995 to meet the challenges of an increasingly global and interconnected world. Also, there was the desire and need for South-Korea to have a strong economical presence in international affairs. Followed many reforms in the field of education which, Kim Young Sam suggests being the key to
achieve the desired goal of reaping the benefits of globalization instead of being its victims. This globalization campaign is translated in many ways, for instance, linguistically; test scores in English, such as Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) have become the most important criteria when applying for jobs in Korean companies. English as official language? There is even an increasingly important economic and ideological debate over making English the nations second official language (Kirpatrick, 2006; Lee, J., 2006; Shim, 1999 , Bok, 1998a, 1998b, 2001, 2003). Bok (1998a) expresses liberal ideologies in the book entitled Ethnic Languages in the Age of a Global Language, which contains a proposal for English as an Official Language (EOL) in South Korea. Bok (2001) affirms that English as the dominant global language is an inevitable phenomenon. He puts forward Metcalfes Law, which he explains is the value of a certain network is proportionate to the square of its users (2001: p. 129). Bok argues that every language forms such a network and that once a language successfully targets the largest network of users, its users will keep multiplying until it becomes a global language. Bok (2003: p. 29) further argues that the dominance of English is due to globalization [...] this means that English is relatively independent of the political clout of the US or the UK that speaks it as a national language, and that the future of English is bright. However, Kim , Y.M. (1998) and Yun (2001) view this perspective as naive and blindly assimilationist. They strongly argue that what seems to be natural to Bok is in fact the resul t of power differentials among countries. But Bok (2000, 2001, 2003) goes even further; he recommends that the South-Korean government should adopt English as a co-official language with Korean for the time being and, in the long run, establish English as the one and only official language in South Korea. Boks proposal for English as Official Language (EOL) is based on subtractive bilingualism, that is making a second language attain official status and then make it the one and only first official language, in the place of Korean. This obviously raises questions on linguistic integrity and triggers off intense debates on national identity, local culture and idiosyncratic knowledge. A language is not a mathematical construct and its (statistical) existence or survival cannot be an exclusive political issue.
On July 3, 1998, Boks book was reviewed in The Chosun Ilbo, the Korean newspaper company with the biggest share of the Korean market - 21% in 1998 (Kim, S.W; 2004). The issue of EOL created heated debates among intellectual communities in the media and publications and in the Korean political and educational spheres. Bok (2000) found a niche to articulate such liberal thoughts because in the political arena, the major concern for the Korean Ministry of Education in the 1990s was to find the means to adapt to the fast-changing trends brought about by globalization and Bok and his followers find that making English the official language in Korea is a means to do so. The Ministry, if not acknowledging Boks proposal, yet recognises the importance of English language to adapt to the global trends. Hence English proficiency for Koreans was at the centre of the educational 1990s reform. That said, there is an immense ideological step, even a total shift in identity paradigm to give more (official) status to a language so that it progressively replaces a 5000 years old local language. Smith (2001: p.146) notes that modern national identities are habitually reinterpreted by successive nationalisms competing myths of traditional origins and development and that globalization leads to local and international political conflicts. Bok also (2001: p. 146) asks a provocative question: If you have a new born baby, and if he or she can choose between English and Korean as a mother tongue, which would you recommend? Bok assumes that every Korean will answer English if they are true to themselves without being misguided by romantic nationalism. Since Bok started a debate on EOL in the media in 1998, public opinion polls have been conducted on the issue by the media, the results of which show that agreement with EOL increasingly exceeds disagreement over time (Bok, 2001: p. 22). Boks analysis of this trend is straightforward: more and more people are realizing the importance of English as a global language. That said, Yun (2001) argues that those individual choices are the result of voluntary colonialism through a process of American hegemony. In this interpretation, the laissez faire liberalism (Pennycook, 2001) of the EOL proponents shows instances of colonization of the consciousness (Fanon, 1967) and hegemonic processes (Gramsci, 1971), and reproduce part of colonial discourses without considering any possibilities of articulation of counter discourses (Pennycook, 1995) that potentially helps to reorganize the existing power structure. The danger with
Boks discourses is the perpetuation of Anglo-Saxon hegemony expressed linguistically. It is a cultural colonisation. That said, to succeed economically globally, one has to know an international language. Indeed, English has for the past four decades established its linguistic imperialism as it has now become the language of trade, international communication and the internet. It has a high and consistent exchange value in the global market. As pointed out by Graddol (2001) and Gray (2002), English has become a crucial survival skill in the 21st century. Even being opposed to the overriding presence of English language will not make it less real, less palpable. Whether or not the desire to learn English is the product of hegemonic processes or the outcome of rational choice (Wright, 200 4: p. 170), Han (2000) and. Kim, Y. M (2001) find a flaw in Boks argument, which they think misleads public opinion. Whilst acknowledging the importance and increasingly developing linguistic, political and economic force of English globalization, Han (2000) and. Kim, Y. M (2001) however posit that EOL does not guarantee the improvement of the South-Koreans English proficiency. The Korean government well understood the need for this proficiency and has made relevant changes in its 1990s globalisation campaign. For instance, Korea has compulsory foreign language study at secondary school level, with students at junior levels receiving 2 to 4 hours of instruction per week (combined Asia and English) and students at senior secondary level (grades 1012) receiving 4 hours. Korea instituted compulsory language study in 1997 beginning at Grade 3 (age 8), and since 2000 all learners in Grades 3 to 6 participate in language learning. In Grades 3 and 4 learners receive a 90-minute lesson each week and Grades 5 and 6 receive two 40-minute lessons per week. The current National Curriculum for English includes provisions for primary school language teaching and the Ministry prescribes a set textbook for all schools (Butler, 2005; Jung & Norton, 2002; Kaplan & Baldauf, 2003). LANGUAGE PROGRAMS IN S OUTH-KOREA EPIC TALK NOT TO BE DE-NIIED
We understand that the 1990s reforms implemented by former South-Korean president, Kim Young, were focused on a globalization policy. The idea was/is to enable Koreans understand, adapt and even take an active role in globalization. A major step in 1990 was the creation of the English Program in Korea (EPIK). The program has as mandate the improvement of the English speaking abilities of students and teachers in Korea, the development of cultural exchanges and the reform of the English teaching methodologies in Korea. (National Institute for International Education Development, 2009a). It is an ambitious project whose impacts are felt by Koreans on many levels and whose success is progressively being painted in the Korean linguistic-economic panorama. This educational and linguistic reform is discussed the next paragraphs from a dual policy-pedagogy perspective. Gass & Schachter (1989), educational theorists, suggest that foreign language learning is acquired by clarification/verification of learnt concepts, memorizing, and guessing, inductive and deductive reasoning. These strategies were always in place in the teaching and learning of English as a second language in South-Korea prior to the creation of the EPIK. But to these principles, Naiman (1996) and Hinkel (2005) crucially recommend the accompanying practice opportunities for communication strategies. This was lacking in South-Korea. The same thing can be said for Japan where the study of generative grammar since the 1950s (see Nakajima, 1991) was not backed up by real communication platforms with the English speaking world. As a result, many Japanese are still experiencing difficulties to communicate effectively in English language. This is as acknowledged by both foreigners and the Japanese themselves. For instance, the average score of Japanese candidates sitting for the Test of English as a foreign language (TOEFL) ranks lowest among all Asian nations except North Korea (Kwan, 2002). As for Korea, the only relevant learning platform for foreign language learning prior to the innovative EPIK/TALK English Program was a culture of parrot-learning and a philosophy of translation. This was a major problem. The learning and teaching of English focused on the theoretical competencies. In my view, this approach failed to synthesize the different language components that make a coherent ensemble. That ensemble constructs meaning and makes effective communication possible. Translation is only the superficial learning of a language; it does not allow inferences from and understanding of the cultural and intellectual repertoires intrinsically linked to the language.
Paradoxically, the justification of the existence of many englishes would not be finding that occurrence particularly inconvenient; translation is often considered as the first steps towards customizing a foreign language and then articulating its application within ones cultural repertoire. It also, in some ways, prevent one native language to be subsumed through often radical government policies and extreme pedagogical ideologies and practices like the one proposed by Bok (1998). For instance, in Asia, HongKong, Malaysia, Singapore and China have been customizing the English language during the past ten years to suit political and educational agendas, with different levels of success (see Shepherd 2005; Schiffman 1995; Schneider, 2007). This philosophical stand is taken to acquire an international language whilst keeping ones cultural identity. The effect is a hybrid linguistic identity constructed by a sense of identification with the (more) global community for communication purposes and political and economic connectedness. Unlike South-Korea, the mentioned countries have different historical and contemporary relationships with the English language. In the 1800s, the British East India Companys establishment of a trading settlement in Singapore, Hong-Kong and Malaysia already gave these countries a historical platform for ties with the English language to be further strengthened. For instance, China, because of its emerging gigantic economic potential since the 1990s, is wooed by the Anglo-Saxon countries; building economic partnerships through linguistic networks in the already dominant international language is hence desirable by both China and the Anglo-Saxon world. Learning English by Chinese people is as much desirable as learning Chinese by the English speaking world. Excessive conservatism South-Korea also has as ambition to make it population effective communicators in English but has adopted, before the 1990s, a more careful approach for historical reasons already mentioned above. It is also crucial for South-Koreas intellectuals to resist global flows that impact so much of their identity and guard South-Korea against extreme perspectives like Bok (1998, 2001, 2003). But this approach can be considered too careful. Indeed, before the 1990s in South-Korea, the conditions - hypothetical or practical for effective communication in English were not created. The theoretical aspects of the
language were considered: verbs and vocabulary were learnt once the grammatical structured of English was mastered, but communication was still difficult as sentences could not be constructed spontaneously; learning the syntax for sentence formation is more effective in real or theoretical communication scenarios. A more authentic linguistic immersion is desirable. A supra-nationalist tendency, though perfectly understandable, was an obstacle to the learning of English, just like, as posited by Kwan (2002), the generative grammar, philology or the general study of English without specific communication contexts in the 1950s failed to make Japanese effective English communicators. LANGUAGE PLANNING, PRACTICES AND IDEOLOGY The three essential dimensions of effective language policies are language planning, language ideology, languages practices (see Spolsky, 2008). The South-Korean government with affiliated national educational agencies has been endeavouring, from the 1990s till today, to put in place sustainable language policies that would match Koreas ambition to have an authoritative voice in the global and interconnected world. In the 1990s, the textbooks were changed and new language learning approaches were envisaged, but more importantly, the focus has changed; an integrated curriculum was implemented with the concerted efforts and participation of the ministries of education, technology, arts and foreign affairs. Also, South-Korea literally opened its doors to the world because it wanted to take an active economic role in the Asia Region. Japan and China were already established partners with the US, UK and Australia. Protectionist and overly conservative attitudes did not resist the desire of a country not to be shadowed economically by its neighbours China and Japan in the North-East Asia and Singapore and Hong-Kong in the South-East. Further on state incentives to promote English Language in Korea and annexed to the English Program in Korea is Teach and Learn in Korea (TALK). This is a Korean government scholarship program, aiming to provide opportunities to learn a living English in educationally weak areas and increase understanding of Korea to foreigners. Both EPIC and TALK are managed by the National Institute for International Education Development (NIIED). NIIED is affiliated with the Korean Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology. It is a government organization with the aim to develop and foster human resources in the age of globalization. (NIIEDb, 2009). So, the language culture for speaking and aural competencies was well in place in the 1990s and from 1992 to 2007, a total of 2918 teachers and educators from overseas were involved in the EPIK programme through actual teaching, training and professional development in Korea. For instance, in 2007, EPIK is jointly operated by Korea National University of Education (KNUE) and National Institute for International Education Development (NIIED) to give further coherence to a concerted effort to learn and teach English effectively in Korea. As Mahathir Mohammad (cited in Tsui & Tollefson, 2007: p.101) clearly says: Learning the English language will reinforce the spirit of nationalism when it is used to bring about development and progress for the country () True nationalism means doing everything for the country, even if it means learning the English language. Language, identity and international exchanges For South-Korea, this paradox is particularly true and Korean national pride has been reaffirmed through centuries of colonial resistance, but the contemporary debate is more complex; there is no clear line between nationalist interest and global interest. For instance, Appardurai (1990) underlines their interconnectedness and suggests that one serves the other. Also, as Shin (2003: p. 18) points out: there is no clear sign yet that either national or global forces will disappear in the near future. Instead, they will likely coexist in Korea, in relations both contentious and complementary. In regard to (linguistic) identity, Ailon-Souday & Kunda (2003: p. 1075) write: put differently, national identity does not merely imply the embodiment of a cognitively constraining cultural outlook, as cross-cultural writers suggest, but is itself a flexible cultural creation into which people impute variable and fluctuating meanings. The locals of the global organization and new linguistic order have been shown to resist the global regime of work (Graham 1995), possessing the ability to actively appropriate (Raz 1997) various elements of it, and indicating that they are not passive in relation to [culture] as if they merely receive it, transmit it, express it (Van Maanen 1992: 24). Featherstone (1009, p. 1) also writes: It is misleading to consider a global culture as necessarily entailing a weakening of the sovereignty of the
nation states which [] will necessarily become absorbed into larger units and eventually a world state which produces cultural homogeneity and integration. A language represents a culture, an identity. Discarding it in the name of more global trends expressed linguistically is not wise. I think that English language should be learnt by Koreans without it competing against the national language, Korean. There should not either be a recessive linguistic relationship between English and Korean. Hence, since the 1990s, secondary schools and tertiary intuitions in Korea regularly teleconference with Anglo-Saxon countries for a mutual exchange of ideas and information. The focus is not on the English language for theoretical applications, but on effective communication and learning opportunities that bridge distance, and cultures and foster intercultural awareness and understanding. Putting further emphasis on communication skills, since the 1990s cultural exchanges are regularly organized by the National Institute for International Education Development (NIIEDb) and native English speakers are invited to train and co-teach with Koreans. For instance, in 1992, 30 American teachers were recruited via the Korean-American Educational Commissions Fulbright program and placed in middle and high schools throughout Korea. EPIK also seeks to enhance English communicative skills of Korean students and teachers and increase national competitiveness and cultural exchange in the era of globalization. (NIIED, 2009). In 1994, small numbers of American graduates (minimum 3-year course, mainly Korean-Americans) were placed in certain Provincial Offices of Education (as of 1995, Seoul-50, Gyeongnam-30, Jeonnam-26, Chungnam-15, Gyeongbuk-6). In 2000, the Ministry of Education endorsed the English Program in Korea plan to support 18 overseas Korean Embassies/Consulates, and 16 Provincial Offices of Education. (NIIED, 2009c). All those incentives are clear signs that South-Korea acknowledge the evident signs of globalization and the urgent need to adjust to its accompanied trends. However, South-Korea did not blindly stick to the globalization hub; instead the country initiated a hub on its own within its own borders, weaved by the threads of intrinsic local cultural components by building a network with Anglo-Saxon countries based on economic and cultural exchanges and partnerships. South-Korea is building an English
speaking community and not importing one from overseas. For instance, the Korean teachers coteaching English with native English speakers still remain the leading teachers in the classroom. This is a very important ideological condition that native English teachers need to understand. Ideological niches and exploitation are hence avoided. Participation in the TALK and EPIC programs means for the foreign teachers adjusting the linguistic expertise to the local settings and respecting cultural integrity. It is English language at the service of Korean desire to connect to the rest of the world. Rallying calls and exclusion In South-Korea, there is also a government desire to prevent the exodus of Korean intellectuals who would have a relatively high degree of proficiency in the English language. There is also a political will to remind the ones who would have already gone to English speaking countries, especially the United States, that they are still part of a global Korean community; the stress is always the sense of national pride. Accordingly, in 2000, the DJ Kim government promulgated a law for overseas ethnic Koreans, giving them the same rights as those living in South-Korea, facilitating their Korea- rest of the world transit and professional and academic excursion to further develop their skills and gain precious international experience that would help Korea in the long run. Or give a positive image of South-Korea to the global world. Of course, not quite an expectation, it is a wish that these Koreans return home. This was done by granting visas and further facilitating diplomatic, business and academic relationships with other countries. Shin (2003) notes however, that ethnic Koreans in China and Russia were excluded in the law, because the Korean government feared it might open the door to unskilled ethnic Koreans from these countries (p. 11). But Kim, S. (2003) suggests that Ethnic Koreans are engaged mostly in 3-D- dirty, difficult, and dangerous- jobs in South Korea, which average South Korean people avoid. Although they earn an income almost 10 times higher than they would earn in China, they are often treated by their employers unfairly and delegated to the lower strata of South Korean society as illegal immigrants. South Korean business people expect high levels of performance, such as a high proficiency in the Chinese language and sufficient understanding of Chinese government and laws, which are not met by many ethnic Koreans. (Kim, S. 2003). This argument is also shared by Choi, W.
(2001) who suggests that ChineseKoreans are also a significant source of foreign labour in South Korea resulting from a labour shortage in South Korean industry. Fang (2009) even affirms that Ethnic Koreans from China, who work as manual workers and are discriminated against in South Korea, soon came to understand they are not Korean compatriots abroad, as South Koreans refer to them, but Koreans in China. (p. 122). The Korean compatriots abroad are perceived as messiahs or modern heroes gone overseas for the greater good of their people and the benefits of their travel are expected to be seen when they return home. As for the Koreans in China, they are perceived like a repulsive social/ethnic class that only represent a burden to the Korean government. As for the Ethnic Koreans in the Russia, the situation is painfully and demands a brief historical explanation. On August 21, 1937, the Soviet authorities signed a decree ordering the deportation of the Korean population from the border territories of the Far Eastern district, but in 1993, the Upper Council of Russia issued a special ruling calling the deportation of the Koreans illegal and admitting the fact it was part of the political repressions of Stalins regime after. Then South-Korean representatives visited regularly ethnic Koreans in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan urging them to move back to Primorye. As part of a Korean settlement plan, these ethnic Koreans were to be allotted 2000 hectares of land in the Mikhailovsky County (Lepnistky, 2008). All this must be put in the 1990s South-Korea globalisation policies. By September of 2001, 30 houses were constructed and given to families. This clearly evidences the South-Koreans choice to allow capital outflows from its economy for providing for the mentioned accommodation of Ethnic Koreans in the Russian Far East rather than welcoming them to their homeland. The long-term economic burden to cater locally for them is judged too risky. Moreover, these Ethnic Koreans could be of no help economically or linguistically. At the same time, in 1991/92, the Russian Empire had crumbled leaving the independent states still in a situation of economic recovery. That being said, the plan to construct 100 houses in Primoryes Korean village called Druzhba, or Friendship, never came to realization. In December, the Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that a clause practically barring Chosun Koreans from benefiting from the 1999 Act on Exit, Entry and Living Standards of Overseas Koreans was unconstitutional. The independent court for human rights has also ordered the act revised by the end of 2003. This law had been aimed at making it easier
for ethnic Koreans living overseas to freely enter or exit South Korea by being granted the same legal status as Korean nationals. But, as Mi-young (2002) clearly points out, this was applicable only to those who moved abroad after 1948, when the Republic of South Korea was established - and effectively excluded China's Chosun people, as well as 520,000 more ethnic Koreans in Russia. Globalization and the logic of the West Some Asian countries have resisted the development of international human rights standards; these were perceived as an imposition of Western ideals and doctrines onto non-Western political and social systems, a move which they are keen to resist, partly because of the exposure to external criticism which results from such involvements. And once doors were open to the trends of globalisation and the knowledge economy, since the 1990s, many Asian countries have been criticised for human rights violations (Lawson, 1991; Amnesty International USA, 2009). For instance, the Korean society is being tested in the notion of ethnicity, nationalism, and human rights, but Mi-young (2002) notes that the present government is still eluding the question. For instance, migrant workers in South Korea face discrimination in the work place and abuse by employers and state officials. They are vulnerable to human rights abuses including withholding of payment, confiscation of identity documents, including passports, visa papers and identity cards, verbal and physical abuse and denial of access to health insurance and medical attention. (Amnesty International USA, 2009). Regrettably and admittedly only the linguistic dimension of the violation of human rights in the context of globalisation and internationalisation are explored in this paper. The discrimination suffered by these workers is not necessarily only of a racial nature, but stems certainly from educational and linguistic standards, and, more specifically, from the absence of the linguistic and educational means to be useful to their countries. Just like ethnic Koreans in China are not competent enough in China to be useful cultural and linguistic interpreters for South-Korea in business, diplomatic and educational fields, similarly the ethnic Koreans in Russia are not perceived as not being useful; they know Russian language and Russian dialects, but this specific linguistic proficiency is not useful to South-Korea
because relatively obsolete in global trends. Also, neither ethnic Koreans in China, nor those in Russia have the mastery of English to spark off any interest from modern Korea and its contemporary ambitions. That said, it is hard to understand this decision by the South-Korean government from a non-Korean perspective. Acknowledging the difficulty to understand it is also paradoxically linked to the shortcomings and obscurantism of globalization; respecting cultural subtleties once you accept they exist and humbly trying to understand them from a point of view which is not necessarily Western or neo-liberal, seeks comprehension rather than condemnation. But Shin, G.W (2003) suggests the mentioned government law demonstrates a careful, strategic, and instrumentalist use of globalization for Koreas collective national interests. (p. 11). Neary (2002) writes that in 1998, after the SouthKorean Ministry of Justice produced a draft bill in relation to migrant workers, international criticisms came almost immediately from Amnesty International and the UN Commissioner from Human Rights (p. 89). The opposition remains that of the West ideals against the non-West ideals. Learning from the west while keeping ones identity? Shin, G.W. (2003) suggests that Koreans view of globalization can also be seen in their attitude toward the English language. He suggests that Koreans would support making English their second official language but never making it their official language (replacing Korean). The latter option would threaten their national identity and is thus unacceptable (p. 18). For South-Korea the challenge is English language not to be perceived as competing with the Korean language. For this to happen, the government needs to educate the Koreans on the importance of English language and how it helps towards national interests. Refusing to learn English would be, whether we like it or not, a bold and unwise decision in the 21st century, but learning it for national interest is mostly honourable.
From 1990 onwards, South-Korea formed new reaffirmed former overseas partnerships by diplomatic relationships with economic partners and Anglo-Saxon countries like Australia and the United States. Foreign expertise in English language learning and teaching is hence sought and obtained (NIIED,
2009C). Attractive websites, brochures and magazines in English were created from 1992 to date to explain very clearly the rationale of the English language in Korea. Also, there is always the evident desire from these South-Korea websites to always make sure that a sense of excitement and curiosity and pride are communicated to the people who would come and teach English in Korea. Wise adaptability I think is a form of resistance; it means adapting but not be carried away by trends we do not understand. The wise thing is to learn from the pattern of change and be able afterwards to effect change oneself. Koreans are wise and humble to learn from others but also always eager and passionate about the promotion of their culture and language. They are not blindly ready to accept from others and their essence, identity and local knowledge, though threatened by a dominant recessive relationship that globalization promotes and accentuates in many non-Western countries, has not been forsaken. This is the difference between internationalization of the curriculum, international exchanges and mutual learning and the implacable imposition of values, standards and ideas. EPIKs main focus is to focus on education of 7 million overseas Koreans in more than 150 countries worldwide by seeking establishment of national identity, encouraging successful life in their residing countries and contributing the development of international society. Then, their annexed objectives are: Fostering primary and secondary students communication ability in the age of information and globalization Providing English conversation training to English teachers Developing English textbooks and teaching materials Improving and expanding English teaching methodologies Encouraging cultural awareness Bettering Korea s image abroad
(Note: Retrieved from NIIEK website in June 2009) Also, the exclusive 'TaLK' (Teach & Learn in Korea) program is inviting a select group of four hundred individuals to visit Korea and teach English. Open to citizens from countries where English is the national language, the program also says to enable visitors to gain considerable insight into Korean
culture and many of the country's unique traditions. (NIIED, 2009). The success EPIK and TaLK is helping developing the South-Koreans proficiency and weaving a linguistic hub of its own where English language is to serve the national interests. Conclusion Resistance, negotiation and hope Gazing up at tomorrow's peaks Neck craned, hands raised, I follow today's sunbeams [] Hope, like clouds high up in the sky! North south east west every way My steps move lightly towards tomorrow
(Ch'n Sang-Pyng, 2004) Bok (2001) urges the Korean people not to be guided by romantic patriotism in his desire to see English language replacing Korean as Korean official language. That said, romantic patriotism is a Korean cultural construct, one that helped Koreas resist foreign invasion, keep their pride and dignity and still cherish a language which is 5000 years old a langue of rich cultural and ideological resistance which is still well alive today. Furthermore, Boks view of languages as operating on the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest is clear in the following statement: Ultimately English as a sole international language will be used everywhere in every society in the world. The rise of English will shrink space for ethnic languages, which will make them lose their vitality and be out of daily use. Finally, ethnic languages will disappear ... and remain as a museum language (Bok 2003: p. 30-31). Such radical ideological discourses, supported by the accompanying political will to discriminate the mentioned ethnic languages over English language would indeed create the proper conditions for linguistic
cleansing. Pennycook, (2001: p. 56) insists on linguistic nationalism for a political and ethical vision of change. Though it is difficult to understand the real motivations behind Boks ideological discourses, the South-Korean governments exclusion of Ethnic Koreans in China and Russia because they are linguistically useless is based on the same Darwinian principle of the survival of the (linguistically) fittest. Koreas ambition to be an economic world leader is shaping the life of millions of Koreas living in and outside South-Korea. This ambition comes at a price; through the scaffolding of linguistic competencies and the assessment of their relevance for the national interest, some people are integrated while some are excluded. This is the socio-linguistic and economic equation imposed to South-Korea by the demands of the global world. Globalisation is like a spiral sucking in competencies and expunging redundancies. The integration for the South-Koreans means, if not the mastery of, the ability to communicate in the international language which is English. Yet, for a country which has resisted centuries of invasion and colonisation, there is always hope to carefully acknowledge the challenges and dangers of globalisation to reap the benefits it could bring in its trail. Kim E.Y. (1996) also affirms: Koreans cannot become global citizens without a good understanding of their own culture and tradition [...] Koreans should march out into the world on the strength of their unique culture and traditional values. Only when the national identity is maintained and intrinsic national spirit upheld will Koreans be able to successfully globalize (p. 15) What Korea is presently doing in its language and overall education policies to adapt successfully to globalization is relevant. It is also essential for its economic survival. Surrendering itself completely to English language immersion programs will certainly improve the English proficiency of its population, but the danger will always be English language reiterating the cultural imperialism the Japanese and Chinese imperialism too well known to Korea. That said, Shin, H (2004) still insists on the ongoing reconceptualization of English education in South Korea and the type of English and English education Koreans need. Robertson (1995) also reiterates the need for a critical pedagogy to actively engage in the demands of globalization.
Development in any tongue There are many challenges still to be faced and effective policies that last well in time require regular reviews and updates. That being said, Koreas adaptability to constant geo -political and cultural metamorphoses brought about by globalization since the early 1990s is to be commended. Politics will always shape the life of people and whatever the government in power, it has to care for the welfare, present and future, of its citizens. However, fundamentally, the people, individually and collectively, with a desire to adapt and understand the mechanisms of the world are the ones who can make an effective change. Hope is hence possible thanks to them. But change should not come at any cost and, it is reassuring that a non-Western country is (still) able to shape its own destiny by accepting the benefits of the global economy, whilst preserving what it has as its most precious asset: its identity, its knowledge, its soul. The sense of sacrifice for ones country through the belief or even acknowledgement of ones relative uselessness though mentioned is this paper is a very subtle complex historical and cultural issue that needs a very high and sophisticated knowledge and understanding of Korean traditions and beliefs. This paper does not pretend to have that ambition. That said, the destiny and legal status of the ethnic Koreans in Russia and China is uncertain. Even though international laws proclaim and safeguard ideals which stem from a Western humanism, it is necessary that organisations like Amnesty International constantly exerts pressure on the South-Korean government so that is still caters for and even integrate those not that useful people in Korean globalisation policies. Fishman (1999 : p. 26) writes: The kinds of interactions identified with globalization, from trade to communications, have also encouraged regionalization and with it the spread of regional languages. Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, and a handful of other regional tongues already command a significant reach---and their major growth is still ahead. Finally, the spread of English and these regional languages collectively--not to mention the sweeping forces driving them have created a squeeze effect on small communities, producing pockets of anxious localization and local-language revival resistant to global change.
There will always be resistance to global flows and this resistance is necessary to prevent local or regional cultures from being subsumed by global flows. Paradoxically, because of the dominance of English language, monolingual English native speakers are already losing the advantage in their own language because English language skills are becoming a basic skill around the world. Graddol (2007, p. ii) writes: Monoglot English graduates face a bleak economic future as qualified multilingual youngsters from other countries are proving to have a competitive advantage over their British counterparts in global companies and organisations. Alongside that, many countries are introducing English into the primary curriculum. In that logic, the Boks (1998) argument to make English as the only official language in South-Korea is irrelevant. What is still relevant for South-Korea is to continue to do its best to understand the world (by developing valuable English programs like TALK and EPIK) and also by being further understood by the world. Economically, within the Asia Pacific Region, Korea is encouraged to progress economically to make Seoul and other cities in Korea business capitals in the region first and then in the world. As such, foreigners, for business or educational reasons, will need to have an understanding of the Korean way of life, ways of thinking and culture. All these are expressed through their language. As Fishman (1999 : p. 39) clearly argues: Ultimately, democracy, international trade, and economic development can flourish in any tongue.
References:
Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 295-310. Ailon-Souday, G., & Kunda, G. (2003). The Local Selves of Global Workers: The Social Construction of National Identity in the Face of Organizational Globalization. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1073-1096. Amnesty International USA (2009). Protect Migrant Workers in South-Korea. Retrieved June 19, from: http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&template =x.ascx&action=9104 Bok, G. (1998a). Gugje-eo sidae-ui minjog-eo [Ethnic languages in the age of globalization). Seoul: Munhaggwajiseongsa Bok, G. (1998b, July 7). Nonjaeng: Yeollin minjogju-uileul chaj-aseo [Debate: Searching for open nationalism). The Chosun Ilbo. Retrieved from http://www.chosun.comlw21data/html/news/199807/199807070390.html Bok, G. (2001). Leong-eo munje-ui bonjilgwa daechaeg [The substance of the issue of English, and solutions). Sahoebipyeong, 28. 127- 157. Seoul: Nanam publishing. Bok, G. (2003). Yeong-eoleulgong-yong-eolo samja: boggeo-il-ui Jeong-eo gong-yonglon [Lets take EOL: Boks arguments). Seoul: Samsung Economy Research Institute (SERI). Butler, Y. G. (2005). English in the elementary school: Current English language education policies in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Pleiades Journal of Teaching Young Learners of English, 1, 49 73. Choi, C & Chong-Sung. (2008). Understanding of Korean Language Studies: Introductory Book on Korean Language Studies. Seoul: Thaehaksa Pub. Choi, W. (2001). The Korean minority in China: The change of its identity. Development and Society, 30, 119141. Choi, Y., Chun, K., Lee, C., & Yoo, B. (2000). Labour Law reforms and labour Relations in Korea. Seoul: KLI.
Fang, G. (2009) Challenges of Discourses on Model Minority and South Korean Wind for Ethnic Koreans' Schooling in Northeast China', Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 3:2, 119 - 130. Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. New York: Grove Press. Featherstone, M. (1990). Global culture: An introduction. Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 1-14. Fishman, J. (1999). The new linguistic order Retrieved September 22, 2009, from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/Ning/archive/archive/113/newlinguisticorder.pdf Gbor, O. (1997). Language Policy, Language Planning in Korea; A historical survey . Terebess Asia Online. Retrieved June 11, 2009, from: http://www.terebess.hu/english/korea.html Gass, S.M. & Schachter, J (1989) Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers. Gough, N. (2002). Environmental Education and Science Education. International Journal of Science Education 24(11), 1217-1237. Graddol, D. (2007). Changing English. Abingdon: Routledge. Graddol, D. (2001) English in the future. In A. Burns & C. Coffin Analyzing English in a Global Context (pp. 26-37). London: Routledge. Gray, J (2002) The Global course book in English language teaching . In D. Block & D. Cameron, Globalization and language teaching (pp.151-167) New York: Routlege. Graham, L. (1995). On the line at Subaru-Isuzu. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Han, H. (2000). Yeong-eogong-yong-eohwa, gwa-yeon ganeunghanga? [EOL, is it ever possible?]. Seoul: Chaeksesang. Hinkel, E. (2005) Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Cambridge: Routledge.
Jung, S. K., & Norton, B. (2002). Language planning in Korea: The new elementary English program. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues (pp. 245265). Marwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (2003). Language and Language-in-Education Planning in the Pacific Basin. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kibria, N. (2002). Becoming Asian American: Second-generation Chinese and Korean American identities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kim, C. W. (1988) Origin and Structure of the Korean Script. Seoul, Tower Press. Kim, E.M. (2000) Globalization of the South Korean Chabol. In S. Kim (ed.) Koreas Globalization (p. 102-105). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kim, E.Y. (1996) Cross-cultural references of business practices in a new Korea. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Kim E.Y (1993) Career choice among second generation Korean Americans: reflections of a cultural model of success. Anthropology and Education Quarterly (24) 3, (224-248) Kim, S. (2003). The economic status and role of ethnic Koreans in China. In C. F. Bergsten & I. Choi (Eds.), The Korean diaspora in the world economy (p. 101127). Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics. Kim, S. (2000). Korea's globalization: Cambridge University Press. Kim, S. W. (2004, July 7). Ma-ineo-wa jibangji wigi deo simgag (Minority and regional newspapers in more danger].Mediatoday. Retrieved from http://www.mediatoday.co.kr/newsireadphp?idxno=29465 Kim, Y H. (1998). Yeong-eogong-yonghwaneun sahoebaljeon-ui pihal su eobsneun yogu-ida [EOL is an inevitable call for social development]. Sidaejeongsin, 11(12), 10-22. Kim, Y M (2001). Migug-in-i doegi wihanjeonlyag [Strategies for being American]. Sahoebipyeong, 28, 158-175. Seoul: Nanam Kim, Y. S. (1996) Koreas Reform and Globalization. Seoul: Korean Overseas Information Service.
Kirpatrick, A. (2006) Which Model of English: Native-Speaker, Nativized, or Lingua Franca? English in the World: Global Rules. Ed. Rani Rudby and Mario Saraceni. New York: Continuum, 71-83. Knight J. (2003). Updated Internationalisation Definition. In International Higher Education, Boston, US. Knight J. and de Wit E (eds), 1997. Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific countries. Amsterdam: EAIE. Kuroda, H; Asian Development Bank (2006) Toward an Asian Economic Community in the Jeju Summer Forum. Retrieved June, 17, 2009 from: http://www.adb.org/Documents/Speeches/2006/ms2006055.asp Kwan, C. (2002) How to fix Japan's English language deficit. In Asian times. Retrieved June 18 from: http://www.atimes.com/japan-econ/DF27Dh01.html Lawson, H (1991) Encyclopaedia of Human Rights. London: Taylor & Francis Lee, I. & Ramsey, S. R. (2000) The Korean language, Seoul, Sunny Press. Lee, J.S. (2006) Linguistic Constructions of Modernity: English Mixing in Korean Television Commercials Language in Society 35.1: 59-91. Lee, J. (2005) A brief story of Korea. Seoul: Ewha Womans University Press Lepnitsky, A. (2008) Ethnic Koreans in Russia resettlement for good. In The Vladivostok. Retrieved June 19, 2009 from: http://vn.vladnews.ru/issue605/Special_reports/Ethnic_Koreans_in_Russia_resettlement_for_good Ma, R. (2003) Zhongguo Gezuqunzhijiande Jiegouxingchayi [The Structural Disparities between Chinas Ethnic Groups], Shehui kexue zhanxian 4: 17485. Mi-young, A. (2002) China's ethnic Koreans seek greener pastures in homeland. In Asian Times. Retrieved June 19, 2009 from: http://www.atimes.com/koreas/DA16Dg01.html Naiman, N. (1996) The good language learner. Cambridge: Multilingual Matters. Nakajima, H. (1991) Current English linguistics in Japan. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
NIIED (2009a). EPIK History. Retrieved June 11, 2009 from: http://www.epik.go.kr/sub1/link_url.asp?ma_url=sub_2 NIIED (2009b). EPIK Purpose. Retrieved June 11, 2009 from: 1/link_url.asp?ma_url=sub_3 http://www.epik.go.kr/sub-
NIIE (2009c). Soar and make your dreams come true in EPIK . Retrieved June 11, 2009 from: http://www.epik.go.kr/sub-1/link_url.asp?ma_url=sub_1 Neary, I. (2002) Human Rights in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. London: Routledge Ogbu, J. (1998) Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: a Cultural Ecological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 29(2), 15588. Olivier, B. V. (1993). The implementation of Chinas nationality policy in the Northeastern provinces . San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press. Paris, P. (2003). The International Baccalaureate: A Case Study on why Students choose to do the IB. International Education Journal, 4(3), 232-243. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pennycook, A. (1995). English in the world/The world in English. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Power and inequality in language education (pp. 34-58). Cambridge: Cambridge, University. Raz, A. E. (1997). Riding the black ship: Japan and Tokyo Disneyland. Studies in Symbolic Interaction 21, 219-240. Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogenity. In M. Featherstone, S. Lash, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25-44). London: Sage. Sang-PYNG, C. . (2004) Selected poems. Seoul, Brother Anthony of Taiz Young-Moo Kim.
Schiffman, H. F. (1995) Language shift in the Tamil communities of Malaysia and Singapore: the paradox of egalitarian language policy. In G. Bills (ed.), Southwest Journal of Linguistics, Special Issue on Language Loss and Public Policy, 14, 15165.
Schneider, Edgar W. (2007) Postcolonial English: Varieties Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shepherd, J. (2005) Striking a Balance: The Management of Language in Singapore . Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Shim, R. J. (1999) Codified Korean English: Process, Characteristics, and Consequence World Englishes 18: 247-58. Shin, G.W. (2003). The paradox of Korean Globalization in Asia Pacific business review, Calofornia, Frank Cass Shin, H. (2004). ELT in Korea: Toward Globalization or Glocalization? In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), Handbook of English Language Teaching. Dordrrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Smith, A. (2001) Nationalism; theory, ideology, history, Cambridge, Wiley Blackwell Spolsky, B. (2008) Language policy. LANGUAGE IN SOCIETY, 37, 123-126. Sua rez-Orozco, M. (1991) Immigrant Adaptation to Schooling: A Hispanic Case In Minority Status and Schooling: a Comparative Study of Immigrant and Involuntary Minorities, New York: Garland Press. Tsui, A. & Tollefson, J. W. (2007) Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts. London, Lawrence Erlbaum Eurospan distributor. Van Maanen, J. (1992). Displacing Disney: Some notes on the flow of culture. Qualitative Sociology 15, 5-35. Yun, J. (2001). Yeong-eo, nae ma-eum-ui sigminju-ui [English, colonialism in my mind]. Sahoebipyeong, 28, 110-126. Seoul: Nanam. Wright, S. (2004). Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalisation. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zhou, M., Adefuin, J., Chung, A., & Roach, E. (2000). How community matters for immigrant children: Structural constraints and resources in Chinatown, Koreatown, and Pico-Union, Los Angeles. Berkeley: California: Policy Research Center.

MPN 056

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPN 056

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Conference on Migration, Citizenship and Intercultural Relations 19 - 20 November 2009 Deakin University Australia

You might also like