I am an English speaker, too

By Ahn Hye-jeong

In this era of globalization, English plays a central role in linking people who do not have a common language and enabling them to share their ideas and cultures.

There is little doubt that English proficiency will enable Koreans to participate proactively in global activities.

The Lee Myung-bak administration strongly believes that English language competency is a factor that contributes to the success of a nation. It is also key for Korea to remain competitive in the global arena.

As an educator and a speaker of English, I clearly see the important roles English plays worldwide. I am sincerely appreciative of President Lee’s dedication and initiatives aimed at improving citizens’ practical English skills.

The Lee administration’s education policy strongly emphasizes the importance of equipping Koreans with practical English skills, to enable them to communicate comfortably with foreigners. The policy further supports a number of government-affiliated English language programs such as EPIK (English Program in Korea), and TALK (Teach and Learn in Korea).

The two agencies employ native English-speaking teachers from seven English-speaking countries: America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the U.K, Ireland and South Africa.

In addition, English-immersion villages or English-only towns were consecutively built with these native English teachers as occupants. All of these programs aim to improve the English-speaking abilities of English learners and teachers in Korea and to impart knowledge and values necessary for today’s era.

The problematic aspects of these plans come from a lack of consideration for the way English is currently used as a language for intercultural communication. The government’s restriction on hiring the citizens from only these seven selected countries as English teachers offers Koreans a distorted idea of English use. It suggests that English speakers speak like native English speakers or that English is a medium used to communicate with native English speakers. However, according to the British Council’s statistics in 2007, nearly 80 percent of today’s communication in English takes place between billions of proficient bi- and multilingual speakers of the language.

It is evident that Seoul's policy to draw upon English language use in a communication is from what we could call a ``native speaker-ism” mindset. This promotes the hegemony of only English-speaking countries. It assumes that knowledge of the forms and functions of English must be oriented to the usage in these countries.

It also reinforces the perception that all second-language speakers are incomplete or deficient in their communicative competence while striving for the target competence of idealized ``native speakers.” Consequently, billions of bilingual speakers of English, including Korean-English speakers, are always measured against the standard of a native English speaker and found to be ``incomplete” and ``deficient.”

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon does not speak like a native English speaker. However, his intercultural communicative competency in English is greatly appreciated and recognized worldwide.

Seoul's promotion of only native speaker-like English will confuse Korean-English speakers when they talk with people from the nations other than the seven English-speaking countries.

It is misleading to view other, nonnative speakers as deficient rather than different and show disrespect to such varieties and users. In addition, the imposition of an impossible target ― speaking like a native English speaker ― often leads to resentment and frustration in learners, instead of significantly improving their English proficiency.

Many forms of English languages collectively called ``World Englishes,” which have naturally arisen from the different linguistic and cultural needs of diverse groups of speakers, are used for international communication around the world. Korean English learners also need to be exposed to a variety of English speakers in order to get the real sense of English speaking situations. If the goal is to help them convey their ideas and culture in English comfortably and effectively, it is vital for the government to promote nationwide intercultural communicative competence in English. The government should stop insisting on monolingual and chauvinistic views which idealize ‘native speakers.’

The writer is a Ph.D. candidate and instructor of English in the School of Languages, Cultures, and Linguistics department at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. She can be reached at hyejeong.ahn@monash.edu.