By Kim Soo-min
Ewha Womans University
By some quirky twist of fate, combined with a strong dose of globalization, the English language has managed to successfully defy Noah Webster's predictions that it would one day become discrete. If anything, the polar opposite seems to be true of what the ``father of American scholarship and education'' expected; in fact, perhaps the best method to explain the condition of the language nowadays is to refer to it as the lingua franca, or world language, of our times.
Unsurprisingly, its status as the most widely used communication tool in the world has sparked heated debates regarding its role in society, and Korea is certainly no exception.
Koreans have long perceived advanced English skills to be a critical component determining one's chances for success, and have acquired a global reputation for investing whatever means necessary to equip oneself, or one's children, with such proficiency. Indeed, Korea's recent rise on the global economic ladder has been matched by equally increased spending patterns where English education is involved. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to conclude that such fervor is not likely to subside anytime soon.
If the most visible reason for this social phenomenon lies with individual and (on a larger scale) national competitiveness, it is worth reflecting how practical these grounds are, and what celebrated merits as well as possible dangers lurk beneath the surface in Korea's quest for such rewards.
Generally, those who are in favor of ``English immersion programs'' point to the obvious: the stronger your command of English, the more doors of opportunity are opened to you. Such a consequence is only natural, these people contend, when one considers the reality of international affairs nowadays. Institutions such as the United Nations employ English as one of its six official languages; as such, English is the language of choice when conducting important events or documents.
Likewise, the same can be said for organizations such as the World Trade Organization. The conclusion for this side of the debate can be summarized thus: In this era of globalization, proficiency in English no longer remains to be a choice; rather, it is an inevitable step one must take in order to survive, and further thrive, amidst all the challenges directed our way.
It is not difficult to recognize the logic behind these sentences. Indeed, owing to its characteristic of being employed most widely, a person who is familiar with English is more likely to face fewer barriers compared to a person who cannot speak a word of the language.
Yet, despite all the resounding advertisements of English cram schools in Korea that portray poor English skills to be the equivalent of the kiss of death, it seems necessary to put forward a proposition that faces less emphasis on the merely communication aspects of English. This is not at all to discard the importance of the language. Rather, it seems that a more balanced perspective on the role of English is to be applied if English and its education is to be of any benefit to Korea.
A staggering majority of cram schools in Korea promise near-native-like fluency and high scores on standardized English tests as a result of their programs. To be sure, such improvements are worthwhile and commendable. On the other hand, from a purely economic perspective, there still remain reasons to doubt whether such promotion of English education will naturally lead to higher competitiveness for the nation.
To specify, Korea is a nation that has undergone its most rapid and impressive economic growth during the years when most of its population was significantly low-achieving in terms of English abilities, compared to the present. Furthermore, if English skills were truly the greatest determining factor in the rise of a nation's competitiveness, it seems logical to expect those countries that use English as one of its official languages to fare better in the global economy. However, such is not the case.
Rather, knowledge and skills across various sectors of the economy seem to have contributed to Korea's past and present growth; unquestionably more so than English abilities.
To paraphrase, having a strong command of English may be helpful; yet, in terms of priority, it falls behind other more important qualities, such as a knowledgeable mind of one's field of major or profession and strategic negotiation skills, among others. After all, what use would a TOEFL-perfect score be without any message to convey in English with?
Of course, this is not to deny the role of English. As the first truly global language, having proficiency in the language promises immeasurable benefits for those who endeavor to earn it. As such, learning English for one's betterment is surely something to promote and encourage, especially among Korean youths. Yet, rather than getting carried away by simply relying on linguistic tools, the Korean government must take special care to train sound-minded and well-educated future leaders who will further carry on the tradition of economic growth and prosperity.