메인메뉴 바로가기본문으로 바로가기
네이버 공유 카카오 공유 트위터 공유 페이스북 공유

Korean Language Education: What’s in Korea’s Best Interests?

Recent postings on hanja (Chinese character) education on the AKSE Korean Studies listserve prompted a number of questions for me, all of which revolve around the current status of Korean as a Foreign Language (KFL) education in North America. I am currently on leave in Seoul, and this extended stay－my first in 16 years－has given me much food for thought about the current state of KFL education in the USA and Canada.

First, what institutions in North America actually engage seriously in hanja education as part of their KFL programs? I doubt there are many. When I ask KFL colleagues in Seoul how they handle hanja education, the answer is typically “We don’t feel the need for it－most our students already know hanja.” In other words, a huge proportion of the foreign students studying KFL here at the higher levels are speakers of Japanese or Chinese. The number of North American students is so low as to make it impractical to develop materials for them.

In North American KFL programs, the sensible tactic would be to offer hanja instruction in 3rd- and 4th-year courses, but how many of the colleges teaching KFL actually teach it beyond the second year? Even in the handful of North American university KFL programs with four years of Korean instruction, how much time and resources are devoted to hanja?

One reason that students in Japanese and Chinese programs manage to make more headway in those languages is that they often have the luxury of taking those languages ‘intensively’ in the first two years (10 hours per week of classroom instruction instead of 5). The arguments for teaching Chinese and Japanese intensively all apply more or less equally to Korean, but how many KFL programs offer Korean intensively in the first two years? Even if intensive instruction and/or a major in Korean were available, how many takers would there be? In any case, there are precious few university programs offering a major in Korean language, just as there are pathetically few universities with more than one permanent Korean language instructor position (let alone a professorship).

The point is simple: isn’t there a woefully inadequate level of investment in KFL education in North America? This desperate lack of investment can be found in three quarters: 1) North American institutions themselves; 2) North American Korean immigrant communities, 3) the Republic of Korea KFL funding community.

More on the Situation in North America
To the best of my knowledge, there are fewer than 10 universities in all of Canada and the USA with tenured professorial appointments in Korean language and linguistics or Korean language pedagogy. I do not know the statistics for Japanese and Chinese, but am confident there is no comparison. Add to this:a) widespread North American ignorance about Korea, even on university campuses; b) the general reluctance on the part of East Asian departments to appoint professorial positions in Korean language, linguistics or language pedagogy; and c) the average American’s general ignorance of and lack of interest in foreign countries and languages.

The result: there is little hope that American civilian institutions will suddenly feel the urge to devote more resources to Korean language education; if KFL in North America is left to develop naturally (‘according to market forces’), we will all have to wait another century or so before it gets anywhere.

Attitude in Korean Immigrant Communities
One encounters much patriotic hyperbole and frequent lamentations on the part of 1st-generation Korean immigrants about their children’s weak Korean skills, and equally impassioned declarations about how important it is for their children to learn Korean. And there are over 1,000 Korean community schools across Canada and the USA struggling to do their own small bit in postponing the inevitable shift to English in the second generation.

But how much are Korean Americans willing to invest in Korean language education for their own community? (Or beyond their community? Korean language education in Korean communities is mostly “uri mal, uri kkiri”). Look at how massively the Korean American immigrant community invests in education in general, and then look closely at how much they are willing to invest in Korean language education for their children. The typical Korean Saturday school charges around $150 for 30 weeks of instruction. Ask the parents to pay more, and they balk－too expensive!

One encouraging recent sign is the increased talk in recent years about ‘heritage languages as a national resource’, but it remains to be seen how much the Korean immigrant community will be willing to invest in this concept. The North American Korean Studies/KFL community and Korean immigrant communities have a shared interest in promoting Korean language education, but these two different communities have yet to find ways to cooperate or strategize on this issue.

Current Attitude in Korea about KFL in North America
I have noticed this year in Korea a distinct loss of interest in KFL in North America, especially when compared to the frenzy of support over the decade starting in the mid- to late '80s. Among many of my colleagues in Korea, the attitude seems to be: ‘been there, done that－let’s move on. After all, KFL in the USA is thriving－isn’t it true that there is now an SAT II Korean test, and that KFL is taught in dozens of American universities?’

Moreover, KFL specialists in Seoul have confided to me that, after a decade of (what they perceive to have been) concentrated support for KFL and Korean Studies in North America at (what they consider to be) expensive levels, at the end of the day little of lasting value has been achieved. Unfortunately for all parties－learners and funding agencies－the bottom line is that quality Korean language education is very expensive, especially in North America. Few seem to appreciate this (few Koreans, in particular－whether MPs, policy makers, foundation board members, immigrant parents, or members of the taxpaying ROK public).

Another shocker for me this year has been the shockingly low student numbers from North America in the highest levels (5 & 6) of the growing number of KFL programs in Seoul. Moreover, the KFL teachers and administrators here privately complain that the most disappointing, least motivated learners are North Americans (some single out Korean American students, in particular). In short, there appears to be little concern about the low numbers of North Americans learning Korean.

I also sense a certain amount of ‘donor fatigue’ with respect to North American universities, as well as a widespread (and almost certainly justified) disappointment with North American institutions. ‘Why are they always begging for money, when they’re so rich (and we’re so poor)? If they’re really interested in Korea and KFL, let them pay for it themselves.’ But are American institutions so rich? And is Korea still too poor to afford major investments in KFL? Can it afford not to make these investments, especially in the USA?

All this is to be contrasted with the mix of pride, exhilaration, and sometimes smugness on the part of Korea-based KFL professionals that comes with the realization that poorer countries from Eastern Europe and the former USSR, and especially from the Asian and southeast Asian region?, are so eager to learn Korean recently. “Look－these people are actually genuinely eager to learn our language! And for once, these are countries worse off than we are!” Along with this, the shocking realization that (e.g., according to a January 2003 MBC special ary on Korean Studies abroad) $1000 is enough to support an entire Center for Korean Studies for one year at a university in Indonesia, when $15,000 barely buys a graduate student Teaching Assistant for 2 semesters at a North American university. “To hell with spending money on the USA, let’s spend it in places where everybody loves us, treats us nice, is eager to learn our language, and where we’re the ‘big man on campus.’ Besides, it’s cheap!”

There lurks here an extremely great danger for Korea. Can Korea afford for America and Americans to be ignorant about Korea? Is it not in Korea’s long-range interest to promote (invest in, pay for, underwrite) education about Korea in North America in every possible form it can? Isn? making an aggressive and long-term investment in Korean language education the best way to ensure the existence of pro-Korean elements and/or ‘Korea experts’ in North America?

Unfortunately, all I see here in Korea is a small coterie of younger KFL teachers led by an even smaller group of older grammarians-turned-globalizers of Korean basking in their newfound importance and popularity in areas of the world other than North America, and seemingly blind to the long-term risk of neglecting the USA. There is still no comprehension of the magnitude of the investment required－only complacency about the current feeble levels of funding for KFL. “We don’t have that much money, and aren’t willing to spend more or lobby for more, so let’s get more bang for our buck in other parts of the world.”

I applaud the efforts of the Korea Foundation and other funding bodies in recent years to dedicate more resources to countries outside North America－this is long overdue, and equally vital for Korea’s long-term interests. But surely the wisest move now would be to increase support overall for Korean Studies and KFL overseas, in order thus to make the sort of major and sustained investment in North American KFL that is surely in Korea’s best interests.

SEARCH

통합검색

통합검색버튼
통합검색닫기

전체메뉴

전체메뉴 닫기