1. INTRODUCTION 

The late Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964), the first Prime Minister of Independent India, once stated, “Everything changes continually.  What is history, indeed, but a record of change.  And if there had been very few changes in the past, there would have been little history to write” (Radcliffe, 1997, p.36).  Furthermore, the German philosopher-linguist Wilhelm von Humbolt noted in 1836, “There can never be a moment of true standstill in language, just as little as in the ceaseless flaming thought of men.  By nature it is a continuous process of development” (Lehman, 1967:63).   Change is inevitable, for better or worse.  This includes change in any human language–an entity with a destiny of its own.  It has no masters, yet controls the lives of those who manipulate it in daily discourse.  Since homo sapiens were given this gift to manifest and articulate their thoughts through this tool we call language, language, itself, has gone through innumerable changes throughout time, immemorial.  Change in language occurs either quickly or slowly; the rate of change is unpredictable a priori.            

However, in no other time in history (that is, recorded history) has one language influenced or threatened other languages and cultures (at a global level) as the English language has been doing in a relatively short span of time.  Armed with the technological, political, economic and cultural machines, the English language has made, and is making, a profound influence and impact on the enrichment or demise of the world languages.  Perhaps, this is inevitable, as Edward Sapir (1921) remarked that “whatever the degree or nature of contact between neighboring peoples, it is generally sufficient to lead to some kind of linguistic interinfluencing” (p.192).  What is interesting to note is that the fine line of what constitutes as being neighbors is blurring, as there are more means for people to come into contact with one another at a global level through the Internet, fast planes, and more international travel.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the amount of impact and effect the English language (especially American) has had on the Post-1945 South Korean language (that is, the Korean language after the Second World War).  I will, briefly, cover the historical aspects of the Korean language and the influence other languages (e.g., Chinese, and Japanized English) had had on Korean.  I will look at the effects that the English language (and culture), through direct contact or via indirect sources, have had on the Post-1945 South Korean language (through the “borrowing” of words).  In doing this, I will look at whether English is promoting linguistic innovation and enrichment, or instigating, inadvertently, the demise of Korean.  I will examine how the English language has changed through contact with other languages throughout history and compare its effects with the change that has, and is, taking place in the South Korean language through contact with the English language.  Additionally, I will address, briefly, the South Korean government, media and industries’ involvement in the promotion of linguistic change.  In examining the effects on language, I will describe the effects English (and American culture) is having on the South Korean psyche and society. 

2. CHINESE INFLUENCE           

Korea, its people and language, has a long and rich history filled with accomplishments as well as atrocities.  Scholars are not certain when the peninsula was first inhabited but there have been artifacts that date back to the Paleolithic Period (Encyclopedia Britannica(a) ).  Most scholars seem to support the view that the Korean peninsula was first settled by people who migrated from Siberia and Manchuria who spoke Tungusic.  Although there is no general consensus on the origin of the Korean language, the most likely relationship is to the languages of the Altaic group, which includes Turkic, Mongolian, and most related to Tungus (Encyclopedia Britannica(b) ).  The language throughout its long history has gone through many transformations through contact—colonization and diplomatic relations—with its neighbors.  Particularly, the Chinese language has been most influential in “donating” lexical items to the Pre-1945 Korean language.  In Asia, as in ancient Europe, there was a central empire that impacted the lives, culture and language of its neighboring countries, and her name was China.  According to Song (1994), 52.1% of the total entries in the Comprehensive Dictionary of Korean are of loanwords of Chinese origin.  The reason for this vast amount of “borrowing” is that the language of the people that is viewed as the center of culture is more influential on the languages of its neighbors (Sapir, 1921), and to Korea, over several millennia, this culture was Chinese.  Moreover, Sapir (1921) noted that the simplest influence is the “borrowing” of words.  In fact, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, Korean borrowed extensively from Classical Chinese, including most technical terms and about 10 percent of basic nouns.  Of course, these words which were borrowed may not resemble that of the donor language because there are modifications in the phonology, perhaps due to the lack of these foreign sounds in the native language (Sapir, 1921).  These words that were borrowed from Chinese are called Sino-Korean words which are spelled, both, in the Chinese logographs as well as hangul (Korean alphabet), although pronounced in the sounds of Korean.  The incorporation of these loanwords into the Korean language enriched the lives of those who used it by empowering them with the necessary linguistic tools to manipulate their ever changing world.           

This linguistic influence that China had on Korea runs deeper than mere borrowing of words.  It had influenced the sociocultural aspects because words are parts of a language, and language influences the thoughts of those who use it.  As in the “weak” version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, our language influences how we perceive the world around us (Mesthrie, 2000).  One illustration of the sociocultural influence would be the induction of the civil service exam, which allowed people (even commoners) the opportunity to gain access to more powerful and influential positions in society.  That is, one’s social position was not, ultimately, determined by the social group one was born into; that even if one was born into a peasant family, one had the opportunity for mobility, although limited.  By being able to use the elaborated code, which was the ability to use Korean effectively as well as the Sino-Korean words, members of all social positions were able to climb the proverbial “social ladder”.       

3. WHY BORROW?  A BRIEF LOOK AT WHY ENGLISH HAS BORROWED 

The borrowing of words from donor languages is not unique to only the Korean languages.  All languages, unless isolated from any outside contact, borrow and lend, at least, words from and to other languages.  English (the benefactor or culprit of the question at hand), originally a Germanic language, has borrowed countless times from many other languages over its linguistic history.  The borrowing of words and expressions from donor languages has enriched and enhanced the language tremendously.  English has borrowed extensively from French, Latin and Greek, and, and less commonly from other Romance languages such as Spanish and Italian (Hock & Joseph, 1996).  In fact, Hock and Joseph (1996) approximate that “between sixty-five and seventy-five percent of present-day English vocabulary is of foreign origin” (p. 285).  Why the excess in borrowing?  What purpose would there be to borrowing foreign words?  According to Hock and Joseph (1996), in many cases, the most compelling motivation may be “need”.  That is, when there are new innovations to the world we live in, and your linguistic system does not possess the terms necessary to explain these innovations, why invent new terms when you can easily borrow them (of course, there are no intentions of returning them).  The need for humans to be able to decode and encode the ever-changing world around us (through language) may be the ultimate motivation for languages to borrow from one another.             

“Prestige” may be another essential motivation for borrowing.  Hock and Joseph (1996) contend that prestige plays an influential role in the types of words that are borrowed and the degree of borrowing from the donor languages.  This is quite evident in the number of words borrowed from French which, at one point in history, was the language of prestige.  Especially after the Norman invasion and conquest of England, there was a language shift among the rulers of England.  No longer were the English-speaking lords, bishops, and other important figures in power; French-speaking figures became the new ruling class.  English was disassociated with power in society because the ruling echelon of society spoke French (Janson, 2002).  Although, the French-speaking rulers were eventually replaced by English-speaking lords, the French language had a lasting impression on the language.  The prestige-value that words of French origin has in the English language can be seen in words associated with power (e.g. coup d’état and coup de grâce), culture (e.g. genre and encore) and food (e.g. gourmet and filet mignon).   

4. PENETRATION OF AMERICAN ENGLISH           

In this modern age, the language that is taking center stage as the language of prestige and necessity is the English language (particularly American).  Before the Second World War, English (that is, British) was already a well-established language in Europe, Africa, North America, Oceania and Asia, through the efforts of its mighty empire (Janson, 2002).  This establishment of the English language by the British empire was a rather important foundation stone for the new type of English and dominance–the American kind–after Post-1945.  According to Janson (2002), the United States assumed the leading role in the new world after 1945 as a consequence of its military strength as well its economic might; that the development and progression of industry and technology were deciding factors.  He further states that English has become the leading language for international communication due to three important factors.  Janson (2002) suggested the following: 

“English was well-established due to the efforts of the British empire.  Secondly, the U.S. gained a leading role in technology, economy, and politics in the first part of the twentieth century and still remains that status.  Thirdly, the development of industry, communication, and international relations in the twentieth century needed a common language, and English was there to fill the need.” (p. 260-261)      

Some people make an analogy comparing the United States with the Roman Empire not only in its military and economic influence, but the influence of its language and culture which, in my view, makes a more lasting impression, as Latin (although not spoken by anyone) and the Roman culture had greatly influenced most of the European cultures and languages.  Therefore, in this modern era of globalization (rather Americanization) any individual who learns English, either ESL or EFL, is inadvertently adopting or assimilating many of the cultural aspects and may be, inevitably, influenced by it.  The learners may gravitate and prefer contacts with English-speaking countries, and in doing so, unwittingly, further receive and assimilate cultural elements of the English (particularly American) culture (Janson, 2002). 

Although, adoption or assimilation of the cultural aspects of the American culture into the borrowing cultures may be relatively subtle, what is most transparent of influence is the large number of loanwords from English, which are adapted to the sound system of the “borrowing” languages (Janson, 2002).  This “borrowing” of English words into most of the world languages is perpetuated by the influence U.S. on the stability of the world’s politics and economies.  Moreover, America transmits its language through various channels of communication which include: telecommunication, aviation, film, popular music, media (especially e-mail and Internet), science (published works), and finance (Janson, 2002).  Additionally, it is transmitted through the educational systems throughout the members of the ESL and EFL communities, which is estimated between 200 million to 1,000 million people.  One particular culture and language that will be discussed in the paper will be that of South Korean, which is being heavily influenced by English–the American kind.           

After the Second World War, Korea was liberated from the shackles of Japanese colonialism.  In fact, the landscape of the world went under a considerable reshaping, divided into two political ideals–democratic (lead by the U.S.) and communist (lead by the former U.S.S.R.).  This division set forth by the superpowers divided the Korean peninsula even further, establishing a communist regime in the north and pseudo-democratic government in the south.  After the outbreak of the Korean War (1950-1953), the once unified nation would be no more, taking separate courses in political ideals till today.  The division would eventually set in motion the division of tongues–language.  Over fifty years of separation has steered the language to diverge so drastically that, today, North and South Korean variations are mutually unintelligible; the North driven by the notion of avoiding linguistic pollution and self-reliance, and the South driven by the influence of American capitalism and globalization.           

After Japan had ceased to hold its control of South Korea, the English (especially American) language had began its penetration and, today, maintain a relatively high degree of influence on the ever-changing linguistic system of the South Korean vernacular (Kent, 1999a).  This is not to imply that English words were not introduced before 1945, rather the influence English has on the South Korean language has taken a much more significant and important role post-1945.  In fact, during the Japanese colonization (1910-1945) of Korea, many English loanwords were introduced into the Korean vernacular which may be referred to as Korean renditions of Japanized English loanwords (Song, 1999) such as ppansü (<pantsu <pants) for ‘underpants’ and ssöngülasü (<sangurasu <sunglasses) for ‘sunglasses’.  There are no actual studies illustrating the quantity of Japanized English loanwords in the Korean language, but it is not as significant as the direct loans from the original source–English–that is influencing the vocabulary of the modern South Korean language.  What is important is that English has penetrated the Korean language before 1945 indirectly via Japanese at a relative minor scale, but, today, it is infiltrating directly and maintaining its status as the most important source of loanwords used in the South Korean vernacular.           

In fact, Tranter (1997) suggested that approximately ninety percent of all loanwords in South Korea today are derived from English, either direct loans or some from Japanized English loans.  If that figure is accurate, it is astonishing considering the relatively short period of direct contact between South Korea and the U.S.  Other scholars support Tranter’s suggestion, such as Taylor (1995) who stated, “What proportion of the present-day Korean vocabulary is European in origin?  I have not found any data on this question, but in the Dictionary of Terms for Current Affair (Dong-Ah, 1987) 28% are European, mostly English, loanwords” (Taylor & Taylor, 1995: 197).  There are even further arguments that suggest that the once most influential language to the Korean language–Chinese–is being substituted by the new center of culture and power–America–whose language is English.  Baik and Shim (1998) contended that “original English words are becoming increasingly more common than Chinese-character loanwords and that there is a preference for English loanwords over native Korean words” (p. 275).  Furthermore, Baik and Shim (1998) suggested that those English loanwords that penetrated the language via an indirect source (namely Japan) are being replaced by Korean renditions of the original English words (e.g., .  The reason may be the result of more direct contact between Korean and English.  Additionally, the replacement of even native Korean words for English loanwords may be the result of the prestige-value that Koreans hold for English.  According to Kent (1999a), Koreans associate English or romanized letters to objects of high quality due to the affects of the Korean War.  He claimed that aid that the U.S. provided for South Korea during the Korean war were of higher quality than those found in Korea at the time, and that those aid packages had English or some type of script with romanized letters affixed to them.  This left a lasting impression on the psyche of the Korean people where people associate high-quality goods with English or romanized script, thus there are prestige-value associated with English.  This association with English and prestige will be discussed further, later in this paper.           

Through borrowing of words the Korean language has gone through a great deal of transformation, but as stated above, that it is quite natural because languages are in a constant state of flux.  If the foci of language is in the minds of human beings, that system is due to change due to the dynamic nature of what constitutes being human–adaptation.  Moreover, if humans are part of nature, we constantly change and adapt as nature evolves and undergoes change in order to survive.  According to Aitchison (1991), one of the possibilities about language change is that “languages might be slowly evolving to a more efficient state.  We might be witnessing the survival of the fittest, with existing languages adapting to the needs of the times” (p.6).  And Korean is undergoing linguistic change; to a more “efficient state” as Aitchison stated is inconclusive.           

There are many changes the Korean language has undergone since 1945 with more and more direct contact with English, especially vocabulary.  As stated above and as Hock and Joseph (1996) stated, “the most common development in contact situations is a process called BORROWING, the adoption or adaptation of words from one language to another” (p.14).  The extent to which English loanwords have penetrated the language is not known, however it is substantial where Korean language purists posited that English is “a serious threat to the purity of not just the language, but also of the Korean psyche” (Park, 1989:129).  There are those like Shim (1994) who suggested that in Korean, the Englishization process can be found not only in the borrowing of lexical items, but also in phonological and morphosyntactic changes, as well as semantic shifts.  This should not be surprising, because as languages borrow lexical items from other language, they undergo nativization.  As Hock and Joseph stated, “Lexical innovations of this type should not be surprising.  All languages have to adjust to the needs of those who use them, whether they are native languages or link languages largely used by non-native speakers” (p.375).  Furthermore, in the process of nativization, “loanwords can go through phonological, morphological, and semantic transformation that can sometimes prove unrecognizable to the English ear” (Kent, 1999b:199) due to the large contrast between Korean and English.           

There are various ways English loanwords are incorporated and assimilated into the modern South Korean language.  There are five principal ways that Kent (1999b) has identified which includes direct loanwords, hybrid terms, truncated terminology, substitution, and pseudo-loanwords.  The first types he identified are direct loanwords which are words that stem from the English language directly.  These words are semantically the same and phonologically the same, approximate, or modified slightly, such as: pen pronounced in Korean as pen, orchestra as or-ke-sü-tü-ra, and coffee as ku-pi.  Hybrid terms are also incorporated which is a blending of Korean and English, such as: cherry tomato as bang-ül-tomato and plastic bag as bin-il-bong-tu, or literally vinyl envelope.  Truncated terms are also used by clipping and/or blending to form words that are of English origin but may not be identifiable by native speakers of English such as: remocon for REMOte CONtrol and apatü for apartment.  Substitution of native Korean words with English words (especially by younger people) such as: la-i-tah (‘lighter’) for pul and pa-king (‘parking’) for ju-cha.  The final way of English loanwords being incorporated by Koreans is by the use of pseudo-loanwords which are “ideologically restructured terms, possessing semantically modified meaning” (Kent, 1999b: 202) such as: o-ba-i-tü for overeat, meaning vomit, and meeting meaning to have a blind date.             

Furthermore, Kent (1999b) has provided a summary of the assimilation of loanwords in six points: 

1. The majority of recent loanwords in China, Japan, and South Korea appear to stem from the English language, and to a lesser degree from other European languages.        

2. Shortening, limiting, combining and extending English terms result in the fact that, on most occasions, they are incomprehensible to a native speaker of English.

            3. Some loanwords tend only to be used as compound words.

4. Loanwords tend to be nouns in the original language, but are incorporated into the languages of China, Japan, and South Korea as any cognate form.

5. Loanwords are blended with other loanwords of the native language to coin new terms or pseudo-loanwords.

            6. Brand names take on semantic meanings. (p.203)  

These loanwords are integral aspects of daily discourse in the lives of Koreans, which arm them with the necessary linguistic tools to make sense of the world around them.  Furthermore, these words have become institutionalized into the language itself (Miller, 2003) where individuals might have difficulties operating in their daily lives without.             

To what extent have the incorporation and assimilation of loanwords have had on the language itself.  There are those who argue that the use of these loanwords is causing a language shift in the language.  Shim (1994) claims that numerous native or Sino-Korean words have been replaced by English words due to the Englishization of Korean such as, ötüpaisü (<advice) for chung-ko and laekkVüliaeisyon (<recreation) for o-lak.  She further states that Korean has acquired new phonemes (from English) and phonological rules, especially among the younger generation.  For example, in the Korean phonology the phonemes [f] and [v] are not present.  Therefore, most Koreans would pronounce the word fashion as pVaesyön, and video as pitio, however, according to Shim (1994), most younger people are pronouncing these sounds phonemes [f] and [v] like its original English sounds, which is evidence to her that Koreans are adopting or acquiring new phonemes into their phonology.  And lastly, she claims that from her observations, there is an extensive use of Korean-English code-mixing and code-switching in both formal and informal discourse and in the mass media.  Her evidence for code-mixing in informal and formal discourse was of observations of the use of borrowed words, where the speakers in discourse used the words in their original pronunciation (e.g. speakers in discourse pronounced radio as rewdio� instead of the usual pronunciation in Korean which is latio).  Further evidence, she claims, is the use of English words in the Korean mass-media as relevant evidence for code-mixing in Korea.  The last argument that was made is the idea that a viable Korean-English bilingual community is emerging in Korea (Shim, 1994) with more and more Koreans learning English in Korea and abroad.  Shim goes on further to claim at least fifty percent of the younger generation (between the ages 15-45) are bilinguals (Korean-English), since all children in Korea learn several years of English instruction and more than sixty percent of middle school students also go on to finish high school.           

Shim’s claims about language shift that is taking place is interesting and enticing, but Song (1998) counters that Shim’s argument about language shift in Korean is “premature or even misleading” (p.263).  Song further argues that the change or “shift” in the Korean language that Shim claims is highly dubious due to the fact that “English has never been institutionalized, nor has it been a(n intra)national or official language” (p.263).  In regards to the replacing of native or Sino-Korean words with English words as Shim (1994) argued, Song (1998) questioned the validity of that argument.  The idea that those native or Sino-Korea words have become disused is misleading.  However, Song posited that it is correct to say that they are used alongside the English loanwords.  In response to Shim’s (1994) notion that the Korean phonology has adopted new phonemes, such as above ( [f] and [v] ), Song (1998) warned that one needs to be cautious of overgeneralizations.  Furthermore, Song questioned whether those young people who might be using the approximate pronunciation of the original English sounds will retain and continue to use them in their adult speech patterns.  In respects to the contention that there was evidence of  code-mixing and code-switching in the mass-media observed by Shim (1994), Song (1998) stated that they are “not uncommon in other countries where English is not a(n intra)national or official language” (p.267).  To add support to Song’s position, the use of English words in the Korean mass media “is primarily meant for appealing to the public’s [positive] feelings [toward modernity, internationalization, etc.] and not for practical communication” (Haarman, 1984: 110).  However, as Hock and Joseph (1996) pointed out, “it is difficult to distinguish this process [code-mixing] from lexical borrowing” (p.381).  On the issue of a viable Korean-English bilinguals in Korea, Song (1998) strongly argued that most Koreans cannot even communicate the simplest of communicative function; thus, rather than referring to them as a viable bilingual speech community or societal bilingualism, it should be considered “impersonal bilingualism” (p.263).  One position that Song (1998) agrees with is that English has had more impact and influence on the South Korean language than any other language, after the Second World War, and that “linguistic changes are taking place in Korean owing to the influence of English” (p.269).            

It is unclear to what extent that English is influencing the South Korean language, since there has yet to be substantial or conclusive empirical investigations into this matter.  However, what is clear is that English is making an enormous impact and influence on the South Korean language.  In a study conducted by Woo (2001), he had discovered that among the textbooks used by South Korean elementary school students (1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th grades), 78.35% of all loanwords (except Sino-Korean words) in those textbooks were from English.  This may be an indication that English is influencing the Korean language beyond the lexical level.  The increasing number of loanwords that are assimilated into Korean is doing more than affecting the linguistic system, they are affecting the psyche, culture and society of those Koreans.           

Kent (1999b) stated that “in the modern era changing linguistic use by the populace of Northeast Asia has come to affect the cultural, political, and social structure of the region” (p.197).  Language is the tool to which people manifest their thoughts, cultural norms, and society in general.  When a language comes into contact with another language, not only are words transmitted unilaterally or bilaterally, cultures as well are transmitted.  In this “Brave American World”, America is not only influencing other languages, it is, inadvertently, influences the world cultures and societies.  This is, perhaps, due to the nature of the people and the language.  As mentioned above, America is the modern-era “Roman Empire” which is considered to some, as the center of culture, education, industry and politics of the modern world.  As a result, the American language, which is English, is considered as the language of prestige, as once the French language was viewed in Europe.  Those who are able to employ and manipulate it are given access to a wide range of opportunities.  This is evident in the madness that has hit the world in trying, desperately, to learn this language called English.  Haarman (1984) commented that the prestige value added to the foreign language makes the individual feel like a part of the modern, cosmopolitan society.  Thus, the prestige that the English language has is further perpetuating the use of English loanwords.  Additionally, as Shim (1999) pointed out, English has become not only the most important source of loanwords and foreign language, it has become “an essential tool for education, power, and success” (p.225); thus “the ability to speak [it] well is often associated with higher (and therefore desired) social status” (p.238).  The perpetuation of this image of prestige of English in Korea is exacerbated by a collaboration of internal forces including the South Korean government, media and industries.    

5. KOREAN GOVERNMENT’S ROLE 

The South Korean government may, perhaps, be the biggest catalyst to the expanding incorporation and absorption of English loanwords, as well as the image of prestige of the English language.  In the Korea Herald (2003, October 26), Mayor Myung-bak Lee, of Seoul, said, “More importance should be given to English education.”  He went on further, “English is becoming a second mother tongue” in Korea.  These statements were given as part of his and other members of the Seoul Metropolitan Government’s effort to make English an official language, like Hong Kong and Singapore.  Mayor Lee was also recorded as saying, “The world is changing and South Korea is in the middle of the change.  English competency is vital weapon for survival.”  In another issue of the Korea Herald (2003, November 11), the article stated that the Seoul Metropolitan Government was in the process of setting up English-Only villages by 2005 in designated zone in Seoul where only English will be used.  This is part of their ultimate goal which is to adopt English as an official language.  Furthermore, while in Singapore, President Roh Moo-hyun (of South Korea), supported the initiative to make English South Korea’s second official language (The Korea Herald, 2003, October 23).  Roh also stated, while in Singapore, that once those designated areas where English is used as an official language has been established, that his administration’s goal would expand them to the whole nation (The Korea Herald, 2003, October 23).  The intentions of these bold initiatives are the government’s efforts to develop the citizens’ communicative competence in English. 

6. EDUCATION’S ROLE 

In education, English plays an enormous role in modern Korea.  As Kent (1999b) noted that English competence will continue to play an important role in education and economics.  Currently, in South Korea, students begin formal English education in the third grade in elementary school.  They continue to be taught English in public schools to the last year of high school.  All in all, a student that goes through the public education system from grade one to twelve, will receive ten years of formal English education, not to mention the additional years in university, if that road is pursued.  However, the communicative competence of most Korean learners of English is less than mediocre at best.  The amount of effort and money Korea puts into English education is astronomical.  Besides, the education that students receive at school, they spend enormous amounts of time and money in private English education.  In the Korean Herald (2002, December 18), they estimated the worth of the English language market between four to five trillion won (roughly three to four billion dollars) and is expected to grow by double digits in the years to come; this is not including the amount of students who study abroad.  The amount of English education that an average Korean student receives today, is an indication at the value Koreans put on English.  The importance of English in Korea’s education is playing an even more significant role in the universities as well.  Universities throughout Korea have now implemented new policies in presenting diplomas only to those individuals who have received certain scores on one the following English competence exams, such as TOEFL, TOEIC, TEPS and G-TELP (The Korea Herald, 2003, November 24).    

7. INDUSTRIES’ ROLE 

In the current Korean environment, English is crucial in determining one’s social position as well as career.  In an article in the Korea Herald (2003, September 28), it was noted that Samsung Electronics (one of the biggest electronics corporations in the world) has included an English interview section in their hiring procedures in attempts to hire individuals who are able to work as global players, due to the importance of English in the global economic environment.  Since, the amount and time spent on learning English, as well as the career opportunities that one can obtain with certain degree of competence in English is further perpetuating the prestige-value of English, which, in turn, may be promoting more and more use of English in every day Korean vernacular.     

8. MEDIA’S ROLE 

The media is another important element in the promotion and perpetuation of English loanwords in the South Korean vernacular.  As observed by Kent (1999b), newspapers print these English loanwords throughout their stories, and even in title captions.  Television advertisements and programming also disperse these loanwords and “ensure its continued entrenchment and use within the culture and vernacular” (Kent, 1999b: 201).  Additionally, signs, ads and billboards are blasted with English, and restaurants and shops are tagged with English.  All of these further propagate the infiltration of English loanwords into the psyche of Koreans, and reinforce its use in Korean vernacular. 

9. CONCLUSION 

With all that has been presented above, can it be concluded that English is promoting innovations to the South Korean language or instigating linguistic demise?  According to Sapir (1921), “Language is probably the most self-contained, the most massively resistant of all social phenomena.  It is easier to kill it off than to disintegrate its individual form” (p.206).  Additionally, unless the Korean race somehow goes extinct in the near future, I think that the language will still be utilized by the millions of its speakers.  However, the South Korean language over its long history has adopted and adapted lexical items and culture into its system from other donor languages, which enhanced it and enriched it, rather than debilitated it.  Language as stated above is constantly going through change, usually positively.  As the English language over its history has adopted and adapted thousands upon thousands of loanwords to facilitate the needs of its speakers, so is Korean going through another transition in its history where loanwords are adopted and adapted to facilitate the needs of its users.  Furthermore, in order for languages to become more enriched and flavorful, it is beneficial to go through linguistic change, usually with the assistance of external forces.  Baik and Shim (1998) advised, “One must not forget that language change is the result of dynamic interaction between internal linguistic development and the external socio-psycho-econo-political factors in language contact situations” (p.276).  Perhaps, the increase in the use of loanwords are the results of these factors Baik and Shim referred to; or, perhaps, as Kent (1999b) states, “this is to facilitate convenience, speed, or style in conversation” (p.202).  The important point of all this is that language change is taking place in the Korean language and that, that external influence, today, is English which most likely adds to the language rather than subtract from it; it enhances the vocabulary of the Korean vernacular as well as enriching the linguistic system of its users.            

The long-term effects of the Korean language, psyche, culture and society can only be speculated.  It is unclear whether the linguistic influence will only be at the lexical level; or the Korean language will adopt English at the sentential level (that is, code-switching); or witness stable bilingualism and diglossia; or the Korean language being abandoned all together in favor of English.  What is clear is that the Korean language will continue to change.  Perhaps, when North and South Korea reunify, there will be again changes that take place as the two variations come into more intimate contact, and clash.  However, the change of the Korean language, in our lifetime, will not be so dramatic that it will not be unrecognizable, nor will there be a complete shift to another language.  Janson (2002) in his prediction about language change stated that “except in the case of such large catastrophes, 200 years will hardly be enough for large groups to shift completely to another language under conditions that are similar to the present ones” (p.270). 

REFERENCES 

Aitchison, Jean.  (1991).  Language change: progress or decay? Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baik, Martin J., & Shim, Rosa J.  (1998).  Martin Jonghak Baik* and Rosa Jinyoung Shim**: reply.  World Englishes, 17(2), 273-279.

Haarman, Harald.  (1984).  The role of ethnocultural stereotypes and foreign languages in Japanese commercials.  International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 50, 101-121.

---------------.  (1986).  Language in ethnicity: A view of basic ecological relations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hock, Hans H., & Joseph, Brian D.  (1996).  Language history, language change, and language relationship.  Berlin; New York:  Mouton de Gruyter.

Janson, Tore.  (2002).  Speak: A short history of languages.  Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Korea, History of.  Encyclopedia Britannica(a).  Retrieved December 5, 2003, from Encyclopedia Britannica Premium Service.  <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=114849>

Korean language.  Encyclopedia Britannica(b).  Retrieved December 5, 2003, from Encyclopedia Britannica Premium Service.  <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=118147>  

Kent, David B.  (1999a).  The discourse of Konglish: A socio-historic analysis of English as a native part of the South Korean vernacular.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Knightsbridge University.  Torquay, UK.  Retrieved introduction December 4, 2003, from the World Wide Web: <http://www.geocities. com/Tokyo/Towers/5067/intro.htm>

---------------.  (1999b).  Speaking in tongues: Chinglish, Japlish and Konglish.  KOTESOL  proceedings of PAC2 (The Second Pan Asian Conference, 1999, Seoul).  Retrieved December 6, 2003, from the World Wide Web:       <http://www.kotesol.org/pubs/proceedings/1999/pacpro197.pdf>  

Lehman, Winfred P. (Ed).  (1967).  A reader in 19^th century historical Indo-European linguistics.  Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Mesthrie, Rajend.  (2000).  Clearing the ground: basic issues, concepts and approaches.  In Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A., & Leap, W. L. (Ed.), Introducing Sociolinguistics (pp. 1-43).  Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Miller, Jeffrey.  (2003, March).  A word by any other meaning: Konglish.  MED Magazine.  pp.1-3.  Retrieved November 24, 2003 from the World Wide Web: <http://www.macmillandictionary.com/MED-Magazine/March2003/05-Korean-English.htm>

Na, Jeong-ju.  (2003, October 26).  Seoul to use Korean, English in official documents: mayor.  The Korea Times.  Retrieved November 9, 2003, from the World Wide Web:  <http://www.hankooki.com/times.htm> 

---------------.  (2003, November 4).  English-only village to be set up in Seoul by 2005.  The Korea Times.  Retrieved November 8, 2003, from the World Wide Web:  <http://www.hankooki.com/times.htm>

---------------.  (2003, November 11).  English required for graduation.  The Korea Times.  Retrieved December 1, 2003, from the World Wide Web:  <http://www.hankooki.com/times.htm>

Park, Nahm-Sheik.  (1989).  Language purism in Korea today.  In The politics of language purism.  Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Radcliffe, J. (Ed.)  (1997).  The international Webster’s pocket quotation dictionary of the English language.  Australia: Trident Press International

Rhee, M. J.  (1992).  Language planning in Korea under the Japanese colonial administration, 1910-1945.  Language Culture and Curriculum, 5, 87-97.

Sapir, Edward.  (1921).  Language: An introduction to the study of speech.  New York:  Harcourt, Brace & World.

Seo, Jee-yeon.  (2002, December 18).  English study market soars.  The Korea Times.  Retrieved December 1, 2003, from the World Wide Web:  <http://www.hankooki.com/times.htm>

---------------.  (2003, September 28).  English proficiency given more weight in recruitment.  The Korea Times.  Retrieved November 9, 2003, from the World Wide Web:  <http://www.hankooki.com/times.htm>

Shim, Jae-yun.  (2003, October 23).  Roh backs English as second official language.  The Korea Times.  Retrieved November 9, 2003, from the World Wide Web:   <http://www.hankooki.com/times.htm>     

Shim, Rosa J.  (1994).  Englishized Korean: structure, status, and attitudes.  World Englishes, 13(2), 225-244.

Song, Jae Jung.  (1994).  Language policies in North and South Korea: divergence and convergence.  Language Quarterly, 32, 205-212.

---------------.  (1998).  English in South Korea via Martin Jonghak Baik (1992, 1994), and Rosa Jinyoung Shim.  World Englishes, 17(2), 263-271. 

Taylor, I. S., & Taylor, M. M.  (1995).  Writing and Literacy in Chinese, Korean and Japanese.  Philadelphia:  John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Tranter, Nicholas.  (1997).  Hybrid Anglo-Japanese loans in Korean.  Linguistics, 35, 133-166.

Woo, Jung-Min.  (2001).  Analysis of loanwords in Korean elementary school textbooks (Korean reading) of 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th grades.  Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Pusan National University of Education.  Pusan, South Korea.  Retrieved December, 12, 2003, from the World Wide Web:  <http://www.pusanedu.or.kr/pds/research/data/2002.       .hwp[1]>