Globalization of English and Conversational Interaction: Self-Deprecative

Language Ideology in Talk Among Koreans

 

Joseph Sung-Yul Park

University of California, Santa Barbara

 

Critical studies of English as a global language often rely on issues of language policy (Tollefson 1991, Ricento 2000) or the historical process of the global spread of English (Pennycook, 1994, 1998, Philipson 1992) in making their case. However, in order to study how this change influences non-native speakers of English in their language use and social understanding, our analysis must also be grounded on the linguistic practices and interactional order through which participants in interaction come to find large-scale concepts such as globalization relevant for their conduct at hand (Schegloff 1997, Woolard 1998). How, then, can we find implications for globalization of English in conversational interaction? This paper addresses this question by using the framework of language ideology (Silverstein 1979, Schieffelin et al 1998) and discussing some conversational practices used among South Koreans (henceforth Koreans). I argue that these practices can be seen as instantiations of an ideology of English which both acknowledges the global hegemony of English and subordinates the Korean speaker to that hegemony. These practices are thus important foundations for discovering how speakers find the global significance of English to be relevant to their everyday interaction.

The data consist of video recordings of naturally-occurring interaction among Koreans that include talk about English. The segments come from various sources, including TV entertainment shows, groups of students studying English, and casual conversations, and their length totals about 2 hours. Example (1) below is one such example; it is a segment from a TV quiz show, where the question happens to involve a text in English. In order to identify language ideological practices, I analyzed the data in terms of the way speakers present English and their own ability in English through their talk. In particular, the interactional import of such presentations was studied by focusing on the sequential environment of the emerging talk.

The data show that Korean speakers engage in a range of conversational practices that presuppose the use of English as a challenging task and frame their own ability in English negatively. This, for instance, can be seen in the actions of the host in example (1). First, while the host in this show always reads out the question text (the text upon which the question is based) immediately after producing the question itself, in this particular example, after the question is produced (lines 15-19), the reading of the question text (lines 29-37) is delayed by the production of an A-or-B question (lines 19-20); only after the contestant produces a response that also serves as a request (line 22) does the host progress to reading the question text. Second, the host further delays his reading of the text by the embarrassed interjection aha (line 23) and the comment you’re testing me now, aren’t you (line 26), presenting the task at hand as a dilemma. Finally, after successfully producing the English text (lines 29 through 37), the host makes a comment at line 55, which by its exaggerated nature makes light of his own performance of reading the text.

Also important in example (1) is the fact that the contestant and the audience jointly participate in this kind of framing as well. For example, the contestant’s line 22 is produced with slight laughter, suggesting she acknowledges her request may be putting the host in a difficult situation. Likewise, through the expression of amazement (line 38), the audience frames the host’s successful performance as an unexpected one, thus undermining the successful nature of the reading of the text; while the tongue-in-cheek nature of line 38 and the immediately following laughter in line 39 marks this amazement as a non-serious one, it is nonetheless observable that the audience see the host’s performance of English as a relevant opportunity for bringing up critical commentary about English ability.

The fact that these practices can be observed across various sorts of talk about English in a systematic way suggests that this is not simply due to face considerations of avoiding positive self-presentation (Brown and Levinson 1987) which are common to other types of talk about abilities. I argue that these practices can be seen as instantiations of a self-deprecative language ideology in which Koreans view themselves as lacking the necessary competence to use English; while English is seen as a necessity in the Korean society due to its importance as an international language, Koreans view themselves as incompetent in English and treat opportunities to use English as situations which can potentially lead to embarrassing results. This is especially apparent in the context of example (1); here, the host is seen as embodying the knowledge under question (including the knowledge of English) due to his status as a host, yet the participants still engage in practices of downplaying the host’s competence. Then, these particular conversational practices can be seen as loci where we can observe at least one way through which Korean speakers find the relevance of the hegemony of English to conversational interaction; they engage in practices that frame Koreans as “bad speakers of English” because they find their marginal status in relation to the global hegemony of English to be relevant to talk about English.

The results of this study, then, suggest that research on the global hegemony of English has much to gain from the analysis of everyday interaction, for as a site where ideologies of language are shaped and spread, interaction becomes a place where the meaning of globalization of English finds a real-world basis in speakers’ everyday lives, and for the same reason, a place where the hegemony of English can potentially be contested and problematized.

 

References

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook, Alastair. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman.

Pennycook, Alastair. 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge.

Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ricento, Thomas (ed.). 2000. Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. “Whose text? Whose context?” Discourse and Society 8.2: 165-187.

Schieffelin, Bambi, Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds.). 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Silverstein, Michael. 1979. “Language structure and linguistic ideology”. In Paul R. Clyne, William F. Hanks, and Carol L. Hofbauer (ed.), The Elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (CLS 15.) Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Tollefson, James W. 1991. Planning Language, Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the Community. London: Longman.

Woolard, Kathryn A. 1998. “Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry”. In Bambi Schieffelin, Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, pp. 3-47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Example (1)

H: host, C: contestant, A: audience

Words produced in English in the original are underlined. For other symbols and abbreviations, see key below.

 

12         H:         chil-dangye,

                        seven-level

                        Level seven,

13                     boyeo-ju-si-j-yo.

                        show-give-HON-JI-POL

                        Please show (us).

14                     ((English text appears on bottom of screen, and also on the monitor in front of the contestant.))

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15         H:         daeum-eun,

                        next-TOP

                        The following is,

16                     uli-nala jeonlae donghwa-leul,

                        our-country traditional tale-OBJ

17                     .. yeongeo-lo olmgi-n geos-i-bni-da.

                        English-to move-ATTR thing-COP-HON-DECL

                        A translation of a Korean folk tale into English.

18                     i binkan-e deuleo-ga-l dongmul-eun mueos-i-lkka-yo.

                        this blank-LOC enter-go-ATTR animal-TOP what-COP-IR-POL

                        What is the (name of the) animal that should go in this blank.

19                     … ilg-eulkka-yo geunyang,

                        read-IR-POL just

                        Should I read it to you, or just,

20                     nun-eulo po-si-gess-seubni-kka.

                        eye-by see-HON-PRESUM-HON-IR

                        would you read it with your eyes (i.e. read yourself).

21         C:         @@@

22                     <@ilg-eo-ju-si-gess-seubni-kka.@>

                        read-CONN-give-HON-PRESUM-HON-IR

                        Would you please read it for me.

23         H:         <@aha@>

                        aha

24         A:         [@@@]

25         C:         [@@@]

26         H:         jeo jigeum teseuteu-ha-si-neun geo-ji-yo.

                        I now test-do-HON-ATTR thing-COMM-POL

                        You’re testing me now, aren’t you?

27         A:         @@@

28         C:         @@@

29         H:         If you don’t stop crying,

30                     I’ll throw you to the,

31                     … gwalho.

                        parentheses

32                     said the mother.

33                     Wow,

34                     I’m going to eat now,

35                     thought the,

36                     .. gwalho.

                        parentheses

37                     The baby kept on crying.

38         A:         .. eo=.

                        wow

39                     [((laughs))]

40         C:         [((smiles, chuckles))]

41         H:         ja,

                        alright

                        Alright.

42                     i,

                        this

43                     gwalho an-e,

                        parentheses inside-LOC

44                     … deul-eo-ga-l,

                        enter-CONN-go-ATTR

45                     .. dongmul-eun mueos-i-bni-kka.

                        animal-TOP what-COP-HON-IR

                        What is the animal that should go in the parentheses.

46         C:         .. dab-eun holangi ha-gess-seubni-da.

                        answer-TOP tiger do-PRESUM-HON-DECL

                        I’ll take “tiger” for the answer.

47         H:         holangi,

                        tiger

                        Tiger,

48                     ja maj-neunji bo-gess-seubni-da.

                        alright correct-DISJ see-PRESUM--HON-DECL

                        OK, we’ll see if it is correct.

49                     chil-dangye jeongdab,

                        seven-level answer

                        The answer for level seven,

50                     ((Answer appears on bottom of screen))

51                     holangi,

                        tiger

                        Tiger,

52                     [maj-seubni-da.]

                        correct-HON-DECL

                        That is correct.

53         A:         [((clapping, applause))]

54         H:         ne,

                        yes

                        Yes.

55                     yeogsi je-ga jal ilg-eo-deulyeo-seo majchwo-ss-ji-yo,

            indeed I-SUB well read-CONN-give.HON-PRECED figure.out-PST-COMM-POL

                        Of course, you got it right because I read it well, right?

56                     [ne.]

                        yes

                        Yes.

57         A, C:    [@]@@

 

Transcription symbols

[carriage return]	intonation unit	..	short pause
@	laughter	…	medium pause
<@ @>	laughing quality	(( ))	transcriber comment
[ ]	overlap	.	final intonation
=	lengthening	,	continuing intonation

 

Abbreviations

ATTR	attributive	POL	polite ending	DISJ	disjunctive
COMM	committal	PRECED	precedence	HON	honorific
CONN	connective	PRESUM	presumptive	IR	interrogative
COP	copula	PST	past	LOC	locative
DECL	declarative	TOP	topic	OBJ	object