In case this article in the KT left you totally bewildered, what they are talking about is a change to the Korean spelling of English loan words, such as changing “오렌지(orange)” to “오린지.”
“It is difficult for Koreans to pronounce English words like native speakers as long as the Romanization remains unchanged,” Chairwoman Lee Kyung-sook of the transition committee said Wednesday.
Lee was referring to the need for revising the system during a public hearing on the project to improve public English education.
She said that foreigners sometimes don’t understand the pronunciation of Koreans because of what she believes is the current “inaccurate” Romanization, pointing out many Koreans’ confusion between the sound of “l” and “r” or between “f” and “p.”
OK, the transition team’s obsession with English has now reached the point of the surreal.
I’ve actually started to miss hearing about the Busan—Seoul canal.
35 Comments
Wait until they introduce mandatory tongue-lengthening surgery for 1st graders!
Overzealous our newly appointed president, is he? Chonchoni juseyo!
I’d like to see some words changed. For example, the English word “robot” sounds like “row boat” in Korean. And since that word is used so often in everyday speech, it is imperative that it is corrected.
shouldn’t it be 오런즈 instead of 오런지?
Yes. They might need to get a native speaker in on the fun.
Ahhh, yes. Of course. Oranjee, not orenjee! Why didn’t you say so? I almost gave you a glass of orenjee juice!
I always want to go to this “Face Ship” that I always hear the song for on TV. It’s a ship from outer-face.
At first it sounded like the “Face Chef”, but I know they can’t say f, period. And who would want to eat cooked face, anyway.
In case you didn’t know, I’m talking about the “Face Shop” commercial.
I agree that some transliteration is cumbersome in Korean, but changing the writing like that raises a multitude of issues. First - and I don’t know how anyone in the article and on this board didn’t pick up on it - but there is not 지 or 즈 in English for the word ‘orange’ for example. We all know this - we all laugh about this issue in Koreans’ English. Second, which pronunciation should be followed - American? And which accent in the US? I myself would pronounce the word closer to 어륹 (if and only if you give full value to all the letters I put there). Third, who is to know 100% if the words are actually from English - ‘orange’ also occurs in French, for example, with a different pronunciation of course. Fourth, English has stress where Korean doesn’t, so the value of the vowels in particular is troublesome for most Koreans to notice if they’re transliterating. Fifth, a good number of sounds just don’t exist in Korean…so why write ones they won’t actively be used naturally, and would require actual learning. Lastly - I wish (having been a teacher of English and full-time student of Korean here, for the last six years) peope would stop coming up with reasons for their English being so poor…this way, at least, does not seem to be a solution.
Da Pace Shap? I lub it. However, honestly speaking, in my case, I like Skin Pood than Da Pace Shap.
How absurd this debate must sound to linguists up north…
This may look like a bizzare thing. But if you think about it, Korean language has thousands of Chinese loan words, changed and altered to suit Korean pronunciation. Even names.. it’s the latest trend now for Koreans to take on English names instead of traditional Chinese derived names. Names like “Eric” and “Ryan” for instance. (they’re pop stars).
I think they should modify Hangul so Korean children from an early age can learn how to pronounce certain sounds such as “L”, “R”, “Z”, “TH”, etc. And some vowel sounds that I still cant pronounce correctly when speaking French. Maybe have a hiragana/katakana system like the Japanese?
Modify Hangul??? Yea, I know, I know… but at the same time, isnt it a fact that modern Hangul is a lot different from the original? So traditionalists can shut the F up when they say keep it the same. Language and culture is constantly evolving.
If we kept the same customs and language from even 300 years ago, we’d all be talking differently, women would still be kept indoors, and we’d all be running around in hanbok.
Modification isn’t so odd. I recall that the language authorities here introduced a tense (present progressive?) in the 1950s or 60s.
It also doesn’t help things for so many brands, slogans, etc. here using vowels that can’t be correctly pronounced. Just tends to reinforce the inaccuracy.
Brabo yuh libe.
Now if westerners could only figure out the pronunciation of karaoke. “Karioki”?
I’m a linguist, so I’m really getting a kick out of these replies.
Mr Linguist, Don’t gloat on the sidelines, give us the skinny on what mistakes the posteurs here are making.
PS: What does it mean when you say you are a linguist? (Strictly curious)
I agree. Forget about the story, some of these comments had me rolling on the floor.
I don’t think that playing around with Hangeulization as it pertains to loan words is the way to go. You could argue that these words have already become part of the Korean language, not unlike how countless words of French origin are now English words with different pronunciations. Furthermore, do you think Koreans are going to accept the idea - real or not - of foreigners messing with Hangeul?
If one wants to work on improving pronunciation, the focus - from the outset - should be on how English words are pronounced according to our alphabet, not the Korean one. There will be minor differences from among teachers speaking different national or regional varieties of English in terms of pronunciation of certain English words, but continued exposure to accurate pronunciation models should result in Koreans gradually being more intelligible (at least to non-Koreans) when they speak English.
Which is why I make it a point to use people’s original Korean name because it is the name their parents gave them. A Korean name is just fine; the only problem is my poor memory in attempting to remember *which* Kim I am talking to.
Frankly, the Romanization of Hangul is often confusing to me because it is easier to read the original Hangul than someone’s attempt to transliterate one language (poorly) into Roman characters.
Have to agree with R. Elgin on this one. I know I sure didn’t change my English name to a Korean one when I came here, so why would a Korean change their name to an English one– especially when all the Korean English teachers still use the students Korean names?
When discussing the evaluation of a students progress with my partner Korean teachers, there has been a lot of confusion about which student we’ve been talking about because they have two names, each of which is unknown by the other teacher. My solution has been to throw out the school-provided attendance lists and use my own, with the students’ names written in Hangul, as well as a transliteration. It’s also much more effective to address the students’ with their given names when it comes to disciplinary problems. If they don’t respond to their English names, they sure pay attention quickly when you yell at them with their Korean names.
It takes a little longer to remember the names, but in the end it’s worth it. The students also appreciate it a lot more that I’ve gone through the trouble of learning their real names.
I caught a little bit of this on the news last night. Seems to me that she wants to solve a problem by creating more problems. I can’t see how ‘friendly’ being written as “프렌들리” is any worse than “후렌들리” (which was one of her suggestions”.
There are already two systems in place. Wasn’t the last one only implemented about 6 years ago?
I’ll bite. I’m a linguist, too - PhD, with a specialization in second language acquisition.
Koreans difficulties in pronouncing English have to do overwhelmingly with the fact that the phonological systems of Korean and English are very different. The whole writing system/transliteration issue is a red herring, as anyone with a serious linguistics background would know, and which is probably why Mr. Kim is getting a chuckle, not just from the posts here, but from the transition team as well. I am, too. I’m just not so gloating about it.
In how many ways do the two languages differ?
First, basic phonemic inventory. English and Korean do not share the same sets of meaningful sounds, and even where they do, the relationship of those sounds to other sounds in the system are not the same. For example, English and Korean both have stop series that share the same places of articulation (biliabial, alveolar, and velar). However, English has two stops at each position, which are distinguished from each other in voicing (e.g., voiceless /p/, voiced /b/ at the bilabial posittion). Korean has three stops at each position, all of which are voiceless, but differ in aspiration and strength (e.g., aspirated /ph/, weak unaspirated /p/, strong unaspirated /p’/. (I’m not using IPA here; the symbol distinctions are mine).
Second, the languages differ in the variations of these base phonemes in different positions in production. Koreans do actually produce voiced stops, but only as predictable allophonic variants of weak unaspirated stops. Similarly, English speakers produce aspirated stops in predictable environments as variants of the voiceless stop phonemes. Because these variants are predictable, the users, in a sense, don’t hear them, which makes transfer of them to another language (and their use in non-predictable environments) a learning problem.
Korean and English differ in permissible syllable structure. Korean allows only CCVC syllables (C = consonant, V = vowel), while English permits CCCVCCC. Within each of these syllable structures, there are further phonotactic constraints on what sounds can occur in what positions. For example, the second consonant in a syllable onset in Korean can only be a glide (/y/ or /w/). In utterance final position, if the coda consonant is an obstruent (stop, affricate, or fricative), it must be unreleased in Korean. In English, if there is a three consonant onset, the first consonant must be /s/. I could go on.
When Korean speakers insert epenthetic vowels in borrowed English words (either medially or finally), they are doing it to either meet Korean constraints on syllable structure by breaking up impermissible clusters or preserving sound representation. If the epenthetic /i/ at the end of weren’t there, then Koreans would have to pronounce the consonant as an unreleased /t/ (affricate /ch/ is released), producing (and the Korean unreleased /t/ in this position would sound funny to English ears). Believing that if we just changed the spelling, Koreans would somehow start to violate phonological constraints in pronunciation that they are not consciously aware of really is laughable. This is a learning problem again, and dealing with is going to require direct instruction and raising to consciousness what is involved.
One more. Korean and English vary in their suprasegmental systems (stress, rhythm, intonation, and prominence). The claim that Korean doesn’t have stress is false, but Korean stress is very different from English stress. It is tied more closely to variations in pitch across the intonational melody, while English stress in more indicated by changes in volume and vowel quality. I still don’t fully get the details, but my talks with Korean phonologists have led me to the conclusion that what they are talking about for Korean is some kind of pitch-accent system. (Other pitch-accent languages include Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, and, some would say, Estonian).
(Tech tip for learners of Korean - variation in pitch on the following vowel is also the best indicator of the difference between strong and weak consonants in Korean. The consonants themselves do not differ significantly. So, when you see those double letters, don’t aspirate and raise the pitch on the vowel after them. You’ll be better understood.)
Changing hangul won’t really affect these issues. It really represents a huge amount of ignorance.
The real solutions to problems of Koreans’ difficulties with English pronunciation are pedagogical, social, and political:
Pedagogically, teachers need to be better trained in applied phonology in order to prepare adequate lessons to students. I do this as part of my job. The problem is that many teachers, even with training, are resistant to dealing with the issue because they feel their own pronunciation is inadequate. This brings us to more important social issues.
An important step forward would be the end of the cult of the native speaker. Koreans are not going to become native speakers of English, particularly in pronunciation. The goal should be intelligibility (and accentedness is a different value from intelligibility). I stress this point over and over to my teacher trainees: their pronunciation is intelligible, and therefore, a good model for students.
More broadly, an end to the English madness would be good. A common sense realization that not everyone needs to know English, and not all those that do to the most proficient levels, would be a breath of fresh air. This would require ending the use of English as a stand in for other social measures of status, so I’m not holding my breath.
But if it did happen, it would mean that we could also start to think sensibly in terms of pedagogy about what needs to be taught where. School could be seen as a place which provided everyone an opportunity to acquire basic knowledge and skill in the language (a modicum of grammar and vocabulary, a limited amount of communication skills; in short, a foundation, not native-speaker status). Further development could take place, as needed, at higher levels.
I studied Spanish and French in high school and did well. Looking back, I realize that when I left, my skills were vary limited. Certainly, I remember taking Spanish Pronunciation in university, in my sixth year of studying the language, and the surprise I got as my professor, a non-native speaker, helped my become aware of the ways in which my Spanish wasn’t quite what it could be. It was the right time to work on it. I had enough of the language that I could focus on what was being taught. Similarly with Russian, it wasn’t until after six years of study of the basics that I got detailed work on pronunciation to make me more intelligible.
A similar set of expectations for English education, for what gets taught where and when, a reasonable curriculum, would be good for English education here and a boon for Korean learners.
Oh, yeah, I forgot to add. The real key for learners in terms of better pronunciation, if they are given better instruction and have reasonable goals, is practice. It just takes work. My Russian pronunciation is really good, and it’s because I worked, worked, worked at it. But you know what? I could have worked less, been intelligible (rather than good enough to fool people at one point), and that would have been okay, too.
Thanks for that Woland. It was very helpful, both as a student and a teacher.
I think adding a few “Hanguel” consonants for foreign words is a good idea. For example, the /th/ sound could be represented with with a /ㄷㅎ/ combination, and an /f/ could be represented with a /ㅂㅎ/ combination. It does not have to be complicated, just enough to get them in the ballpark. And these sounds could be easily taught to Korean children when they learn their alphabet.
I hate reading those long, drawn-out Koreanized English words, and they look ugly in a sentence. Making a few new consonants would sound and look much better. I say, “Do it.”
I see that one of my paragraphs got a little weird because I used angle brackets (standard in linguistics for marking orthographic representations) and the page read them as tags. I’m copying the paragraph below and using curly brackets to enclose the words in question so they’ll show up.
When Korean speakers insert epenthetic vowels in borrowed English words (either medially or finally), they are doing it to either meet Korean constraints on syllable structure by breaking up impermissible clusters or preserving sound representation. If the epenthetic /i/ at the end of {oraenji} weren’t there, then Koreans would have to pronounce the consonant as an unreleased /t/ (affricate /ch/ is released), producing {oraent} (and the Korean unreleased /t/ in this position would sound funny to English ears). Believing that if we just changed the spelling, Koreans would somehow start to violate phonological constraints in pronunciation that they are not consciously aware of really is laughable. This is a learning problem again, and dealing with is going to require direct instruction and raising to consciousness what is involved.
Don’t forget folks that Koreans have regional dialects just like English. My wife has friends from Kyonggi, Kangwon, Chunchong, Kyongsan and Cholla provinces and they all speak Korean different.
My fav…..Korea Pieting!
…or hwaiting.
doesn’t start with an O sound…blah blah blah
Hear hear Woland. You’ve succinctly expressed what I’ve long inwardly suspected.
I’m actually very curious about the whole English craze thing, particularly its relationship to what’s referred to as Konglish. Students often have a negative attitude towards it, even though it is so pervasive and one would have thought desirable as a part of the whole craze thing.
I’m actually about to embark on a dissertation about attitudes to Konglish in the classroom . If anyone is interested and/or could point out any interesting materials I’d be much obliged.
For the amount of money Koreans spend on trying to learn English, it is kind of embarrasing to see such poor results. People in Singapore must be laughing at the peninsula right now.
Woland,
ever thought about guest authoring on my blog? Should have mentioned that when we had coffee on Wednesday…
#22 “bilabial”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
(Sorry, couldn’t help myself!)
What an unadulterated crock of shit.What’s so hard about putting your lower lip against your upper teeth and blowing air through them? Instant ‘F’ sound.And vice versa for learning difficult Korean sounds.Pay fucking attention and try a little.