# Korean as a Heritage Language (Khl) vs. Korean as a Foreign Language (Kfl)

Ross King

Ross King


Professor of the University of British Columbia


Vancouver, Canada


Korean as a Heritage Language (KHL) vs. Korean as a Foreign Language (KFL)


in North America and the Former USSR:


Ambiguous Priorities and Insufficient Resources


0. Introduction


In this paper, I shall base my remarks primarily on my own experiences with the business of teaching Korean language in both North America and the former USSR. In North America, I have observed Korean language programs in action at Harvard and the University of California-Berkeley, and have taught for the past three years at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. In the former USSR, I have visited many Korean cultural centers and interviewed numerous `Kory| saram' (the self-designation of `Soviet' Koreans outside of Sakhalin) on eight different field trips to Russia, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan as part of my ongoing research into the dialects of the Koreans in Russia and the former Soviet Union.

Both my research in the CIS and my own experiences teaching Korean, first to European students at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and more recently to primarily Korean-Canadian students at the University of British Columbia, have sparked in me an interest in the role of language in ethnic identity, and in the problem of `language maintenance'. My experiences have also led me to wonder how `Korean Studies' at the university level might better contribute to Korean language maintenance for ethnic Koreans.

Let me attempt to define now what I mean by `language maintenance, KHL and KFL. The term `language maintenance', at least as it is used in the academic literature on the sociology and sociolinguistics of ethnic and linguistic minorities, covers a broad range of activities related to a heritage language in a minority setting: casual, restricted use at home, informal instruction in church or other ethnic community settings, more formal instruction, but outside an official school system, bilingual education programs within the official school system, university courses of instruction, etc. In this paper, I use KHL as a blanket term for any Korean language education activity pursued by ethnic Koreans still `in earshot' of Korean (i.e. 1.5- and second-generation Koreans for whom Korean was a language heard and/or spoken at home). Furthermore, KHL is pursued under the presumption that Korean is part of these Koreans' ethnic heritage and identity, and should be cultivated and improved as such.

By KFL I mean any Korean language education activity targeted at a group with no prior exposure to Korean language and/or culture -- Korean language education for non-heritage learners. Obviously, there is potential for overlap or a gray area between what I am calling KHL and KFL.

But to begin with a summary conclusion, it is my belief that the `Korean Studies' communities (broadly defined) in both the CIS and North America are confusing two overlapping, but nonetheless different concepts: Korean as a Heritage Language (KHL) and Korean as a Foreign Language (KFL). In both cases, this conceptual muddle threatens the quality and ultimate results of both types of activity.


1. KFL vs. KHL: North American Universities


In the spring of 1995, I had the privilege of attending an astonishing lecture by Yonsei professor Cho Hyej|ng entitled "Korean Studies in America in the 1990s: A New Turning Point?" Professor Cho's thesis was that Korean Studies in the USA, by virtue of its short history and as-yet-smallish professorial presence at American universities (in comparison to Japanese and Chinese Studies) was at a crossroads -- the time is ripe for young (Korean-American) scholars to ride the tide of increased support for Korean Studies, to `seize the discourse' and to create a new Korean Studies, "by, for and about Korean Americans". Few Korean Americans ever attend Berkeley's Korean Studies Colloquia, so it was difficult to gauge the response from this group, but Professor Cho's presentation was greeted enthusiastically by one Professor Elaine Kim of Berkeley's Ethnic Studies department.

As part of her presentation, Professor Cho had tried to summarize the state of the art in Korean Studies in the USA, and characterized the field as (`perceived by many to be') dominated by Caucasians with rather weak abilities in Korean language. In the ensuing discussion, Professor Elaine Kim returned to the `language' issue, and pronounced that it was "time we [i.e. Korean Americans] all get away from the question of `how good is your Korean?'" Presumably, in Professor Kim's vision of Korean American identity, the Korean language has little or no role to play.

My point in recounting this episode is this: there appear to be conflicting views as to what, precisely, Korean Studies is or should be, as to just who should do it for whom, and as to how important Korean language is to both Korean Studies and Korean Americans' sense of ethnic identity.

Clearly, this debate cuts to the core of American identity politics in the 1990s, the politics of American academe (the rise of `post-modernism'), the problem of Area Studies vs. Ethnic Studies, etc., but I will simply state my own views: Korean Studies is for everyone, can be by anyone, and is primarily about Korea and the Koreans who live or have lived there. Secondarily, it can and should be about, and to a certain extent for, Koreans living outside of Korea. After all, in North America, at least, it is the ethnic Korean students who provide nearly all the demand for Korean Studies courses.

As to the role of Korean language studies, if for some Korean Americans the Korean language is not a salient part of their identity, and if they do not wish to maintain or cultivate Korean language as a part of their identity (however defined), then so be it. However, I believe that Korean language study should be the bedrock of any and all Korean Studies programs, and it seems clear that a great many Korean Americans do see, or wish to see, the Korean language as part of their identity, and therefore have an interest in Korean language maintenance and KHL instruction. For them, the question is not so much `How good is your Korean?", but "How can I maintain (or re-establish) a modicum of contact with my heritage through Korean?" And so they enroll in Korean 100 at university.

There are at present some sixty colleges and universities in North America teaching Korean language, and the number continues to grow. Typically, these Korean language programs exist alongside, and in the shadow of, better-funded, more diversified and more experienced Japanese and/or Chinese language programs within Asian Studies departments. At virtually every single one of these institutions, 1.5- or second-generation Koreans make up the overwhelming majority of the student body -- typically from 80% to 95% of the students enrolled. This, too, is in contrast with Japanese and Chinese language programs, where (with some exceptions), heritage learners make up only a small minority of learners.

Anybody who has ever taught Korean language in North America will readily testify that the single greatest problem is that of teaching 'Heritage' learners vs. `Non-heritage learners'. Quite simply, heritage learners and non-heritage learners have different pedagogical needs, particularly at the novice level. Heritage learners (Korean Americans and Korean Canadians in this case) start off from linguistic and cultural bases radically different from non-heritage learners. They are neither Korean nor mainstream American (whatever that is) and thus bring an entirely different repertoire of needs, weaknesses and strengths to the Korean language classroom. In the words of Ramsey (forthcoming), a colleague with twenty years' experience teaching Korean to Korean American college students, these students are not `bilingual', but `semi-lingual': they are students without a native language.

Thus, to place heritage learners and non-heritage learners in the same Korean 100 and Korean 200 classes is tantamount to ignoring the needs of both types of student. For example, in my Korean 102 course at UBC, I have five non-heritage students, and twenty-one heritage students. The non-heritage students are struggling to keep their noses above water in a course that is racing along too quickly for them, and the heritage learners are bored to tears, wondering when we will ever reach a point in the course when they learn something new. The non-heritage learners are intimidated by the Korean Canadians, and complain that the others `already know Korean' (not true, but certainly they are pseudo-learners compared to the non-heritage students), and are getting an easy ride (also not necessarily true). In many cases, non-heritage learners drop the course out of frustration. The heritage learners complain that there are not more sections or even separate courses designed to fit their background and needs. Meanwhile, the teacher is caught in the middle trying to juggle the demands -- equally legitimate -- of both groups.

My point here is this: North American universities have always claimed or pretended to be doing KFL within Korean Studies, just as Japanese and Chinese Studies do JFL and CFL within Japanese and Chinese Studies. For example, virtually all the Korean textbooks used at the university level were written with the assumption that the target audience were native speakers of English with no prior exposure to Korean language or culture -- they are KFL textbooks. In other words, all the textbooks currently in use are inappropriate for 90% of the students taking Korean at university. In reality, these programs are trying to do two different things in one and the same classroom with one and the same set of teaching materials: KFL and KHL. In my view, they are doing neither very well.

This problem is above all a resource problem. Most Korean language programs are lowest priority in an East Asian Studies program, and tend to rely on outside, "soft" funding to exist. They need more money.

To the best of my knowledge, the only programs capable of even beginning to address the `heritage learner' vs. `non-heritage learner' problem are those that are so huge that student numbers readily permit the creation of entire non-heritage learner sections. But such programs are rare, and only UCLA comes to mind1. In any case, merely creating separate sections within the same course does not solve the problem. What is needed is separate tracks running through at least three years of undergraduate curriculum. This is the only way to fully meet the needs of the majority heritage learners while at the same time respecting the very different needs of the non-heritage minority.

In my view, we all need additional resources for extra TAs and extra sections at the minimum, but ideally for extra instructors, extra courses and innovative new teaching materials meant to target the specific needs of these two different types of student. For example, it would be nice, for starters, to offer an "Accelerated Korean" for heritage learners which allowed them to complete the equivalent of Korean 100 and Korean 200 in one year, thus qualifying them for a third-year content course at the end. But insofar as the difference between the two types of student transcends that of `beginner' vs. `advanced' (in other words, simply placing the heritage learners in a higher course is not a solution), this is still only a band-aid measure. We need special tracks and special teaching materials for heritage learners.

With the right sort of courses and new materials targeted at heritage learners, one could offer more interesting content-oriented language courses at higher (300- and 400-) levels. Wouldn't it be nice to develop special materials targeted at heritage learners? Wouldn't it be nice to have dedicated courses for the heritage learners so that one could use more `authentic' rather than `pedagogical' content for them (it takes much longer to bring non-heritage learners to the stage where they can benefit from `authentic' content)? Etc. But most of us are strapped just offering a bare-bones basic skills Korean 100-200-300 sequence with one section each, and the ideas mentioned here are luxury items beyond our reach.

Who should develop these special new teaching materials targeted at heritage learners? Korean American (or Korean Canadian) teachers and scholars. I have suggested elsewhere (King 1994b) that the unsatisfactory quality of the majority of KFL textbooks currently on the market is due in no small part to the fact that authors are typically Koreans trained in Korea, and rarely include non-Korean specialists from the target student group. In similar fashion, it is only Korean Americans who understand the needs of Korean American students, and any attempt at producing new materials aimed at heritage learners must include Korean American specialists in Korean language among the authors.

Unfortunately, there is a paradox here. It is rare enough for Korean Americans to major in Asian Studies at university, let alone in Korean Studies. But I am not aware of a single lecturer or professor of Korean language at a North American university who is a `1.5-' or second-generation Korean. Perhaps resources are needed to attract a few such individuals to our profession.

In short, the best thing that could happen to Korean Studies and to our Korean language programs at this juncture would be to redirect some of the lavish funding currently going into new professorships, new KFL textbook projects, expensive conferences and Centers of Korean Studies into a radically re-thought support for the language programs. All of us are underresourced even for the ultimately easier, basic KFL mission, let alone for meeting the needs of our primary customer, the heritage learner. The six-year, million-dollar Korea Foundation-sponsored collaborative KFL textbooks project organized recently through the University of Hawaii is a noble idea, but remains at heart a KFL project producing materials aimed at the non-heritage learner. Thus, it is really just a well-funded continuation of what could be called `the KFL charade' in North America.

And since the Korea Foundation has made it a matter of policy not to use its considerable resources to fund Korean language teaching positions, while the Korea Research Foundation's role in such support has shrunk in the shadow of the Korea Foundation, Korean language programs everywhere have been left exposed and underresourced. Somebody needs to step in and fill this resource gap.

Before concluding the North America section, I would like to make some remarks about Korean language programs at the primary and secondary levels.

At the pre-university level, much of the work of Korean language maintenance is handled by Korean churches and `Han'g║l Schools'. In a few places, bilingual Korean-English education has established a foothold in junior and high schools. One important recent development is the planned establishment of a Korean Achievement test for the SAT college admissions exams.

While my experience with such church language programs and `Han'g║l Schools' is limited, my impression is that these, too, are strapped for resources. In most cases, they seem to be using materials originally developed for use in Korea, when ideally they should be using materials developed specially for the target group. I have even seen textbooks developed by Korean government agencies specifically targeted for `overseas Koreans', but is there such a thing as a `generic' overseas Korean? Target-specific materials are needed, and members of the target community should be involved in the textbook authoring process.

As these sorts of developments continue, and as more and more (primarily Korean) students enter university with not just informal, but also formal background in Korean language study, the resource problem for university Korean language programs becomes all the more acute: how will we accomodate this bewildering variety of different levels and backgrounds in one section each of Korean 100 and Korean 200?

Finally, a word about language attitudes and the family. My reading of the academic literature on language maintenance suggests that ethnic minorities often place too much hope in and too much responsibility on, schools for ethnic language maintenance (see Edwards 1977, 1984). The single most important indicator for language maintenance is family usage; if the language is not used and encouraged at home, it will disappear sooner rather than later. Comparatively speaking, Korean communities abroad (at least in Japan and the CIS; I have no data for the USA at hand) seem to have lost (abandoned?) the Korean language at a rate considerably faster than many other minorities. Are Koreans in the US and elsewhere making an unreasonable demand of school (and university) Korean language programs when they should be looking closer to home for a solution to the language maintenance problem?


2. KFL vs. KHL: the Former USSR


Since approximately 1989 and perestroika, there has been a remarkable renewal of interest and pride in things `ethnic' or `national' (to use the Russian term) in the former USSR. The `Kory| saram', too, have rushed to reclaim their rights as a persecuted ethnic minority, and have shown a vigorous interest in `reviving' their Korean culture.

During the first years of perestroika', this interest gelled in newly formed cultural centers in any city or town where a sizeable Korean population was to be found. In more recent years after the breakup of the USSR, churches have also moved in, usually sponsored by missionary groups from either South Korea or Korean-American church organizations in the USA.

In the Korean language `circles' (kruzhki), clubs and classes which have sprung up in this way, the target language is always Seoul Standard Korean, the teaching materials (if there are any) are invariably imported from Korea and originally designed for either ROK children (or Korean-Americans or `generic' overseas Koreans), and the teachers are rank amateurs: missionaries from Los Angeles or Seoul, or enthusiasts from among the Sakhalin Koreans (whose Korean is considered `better than ours' by the `Kory| saram'2). Quite often, it is these language courses which serve as the bait to entice Kory| saram to the churches in the first place. Both the teachers and the students themselves firmly believe that they are `reviving' something which the Soviet Koreans lost, and that what they are doing is a sort of Korean language maintenance, as opposed to KFL.

But let us examine the `students' for a moment. Unlike the North American case, there are no 1.5- or second-generation Koreans here. The students are more likely to be third-, fourth or even fifth-generation, depending on when, between the 1870s and 1937, their ancestors arrived in the Russian Far East. Their mother tongue is almost always Russian, which they command natively -- they are not `semilingual'. They are unlikely to have much knowledge of Korean, but if they do, it is of `Kory| mar', the Russified variety of Northern Hamgy|ng dialects which had already developed as a sort of Soviet Korean koine! by the 1930s3. In any case, the linguistic and cultural distance separating a `Kory| saram' from Seoul Standard Korean is vastly greater than that separating the Korean-American or Korean-Canadian from the same target.

So, if a `Kory| saram' starts learning Seoul Standard Korean, is he or she engaged in language maintenance? Is he or she `reviving' a language previously used by the Kory| saram? I think not. If the mother tongue is Russian, there is no question, but even if the student has considerable ability in `Kory| mar', Seoul Standard might as well be a third, foreign language -- firstly because of the inherent distance and difference (both linguistic and cultural), and secondly because of the `standard language' factor. That is, as late as the 1930s, by which time the core of the Soviet Korean/Kory| saram population had already formed, colonial Korea did not even have a `standard Korean'. `Standard Korean' is an ideological construct created largely after Korean emigration to Russia had already ceased. Indeed, for a brief period in the 1930s before their forced relocation to Central Asia, the Soviet Koreans were in the process of defining their own standard grammar and orthography (King 1991, 1996).

Let us return to the missionaries and other Korean language teachers operating in the former USSR. They are largely ignorant of the Soviet Koreans' cultural heritage, do not appreciate or make any attempt to learn `Kory| mar', and often do not even speak Russian. The dominant attitude toward `Kory| mar' is that is a `mere' dialect, unworthy of respect, a sort of deformed or corrupt form of `proper' Korean. Indeed, this seems to be the attitude of many South Koreans in the former USSR to all of Soviet Korean culture. Unfortunately, the `Kory| saram' themselves seem to have bought into this view of their own language and culture. Thus, it is rarely that one finds a `Kory| saram' who is proud of `Kory| mar', and who finds in it a source of pleasure or ethnic identity4. On the whole the `Kory| saram' seem frankly embarrassed by their language, but especially in the presence of Korean speakers from Korea.

The current situation with Korean among the Soviet Koreans is highly reminiscent of that of German in America a century ago. Schiffman (1987, 1993) has described how German-Americans, by focussing on High German in both the church and schools, and by denigrating their own rather different regional German dialects, quickly lost the battle for German-English bilingualism. In other words, by failing to recognize their situation as tri-lingual (German dialect - High German - English) and pretending rather that the situation was bi-lingual (High German - English), they lost the home language (German dialect), which was in fact the most sensible bridge to High German in the first place. Similar cases can be found for any number of immigrant languages in the USA and elsewhere, and we might, following Priestley (1990), dub this the `Our-dialect-sounds-stupid' phenomenon.

Thus, the situation in the former USSR is just the opposite of that in North America. Korean language programs and ethnic Koreans think, or pretend to be doing KHL, but in actual fact, they ought to be doing KFL with appropriately targeted KFL materials. For the `Kory| saram', I believe the solution lies first in the encouragement of a Soviet Korean ethnic pride, the cultivation of a certain pleasure or delight in `Kory| mar' (perhaps akin to the role of Yiddish for American Jews now?), and the preparation of Korean language teaching materials based on contrastive analyses with both Russian and `Kory| mar'. Both tasks would require a significant investment of time and money, resources desperately scarce in the former USSR today.

Unlike the Koreans in North America, the `Kory| saram' have already, at their disposal, more than a century of distinctive cultural and linguistic development which could easily serve as a positive basis for a Soviet Korean identity from which to approach South Korean (or North Korean) language and culture. Unfortunately, the contours of this century of development are visible to only a handful of scholars and enthusiasts. The materials necessary to document and display this heritage are locked away in libraries and archives scattered around Russia and the former Soviet republics. Other equally important, but intangible materials disappear daily with the death of yet another Soviet Korean a~mae or aba~i- (grandmother or grandfather) -- their reminiscences, stories, autobiographies and experiences, their language, go unrecorded, and are lost forever.

My recommendation would be this: to provide generous resources to Soviet Korean scholars to enable them to go into the archives and out to the oldest generation of `Kory| saram', so as to retrieve, interpret, reinterpret, document and publicize the proud cultural heritage represented by more than a century of Koreans on Russian soil. South Korean scholars, too, are eager to get their hands on these materials, but have a rather different research and ideological agenda, and in any case, are often unqualified to use them - Russian is a sine qua non for this type of project, but is not the strong suit of Korean scholars.


3. Conclusions


Before summarizing my conclusions below, I would like to return to Professors Cho and Kim and the astonishing lecture at Berkeley. It seems to me that the bigger, overriding issue which unites the problems of Korean language education, Korean Studies, and overseas Koreans' ethnic identity discussed in this paper is this: the politics of Korean cultural hegemony. I daresay that what rankles Professor Elaine Kim is the presumption (often explicit) on the part of South Korean citizens and scholars, that Korean Americans need to and ought to know Korean if they are to be `Korean' in any sense. Presumably it is her contention that is for Korean Americans and Korean Americans alone to articulate just how, precisely, the emerging Korean American ethnic identity will be defined. And I agree.

There is more than a hint of cultural imperialism in the notion of South Korean intellectuals and community leaders presuming to take onto their shoulders the burden of solving the `minjok kyoyuk' (ethnic education) problems of their poor overseas cousins, whether these be the Kory| saram, now some several generations removed, or the Korean Americans and Korean Canadians, only one or two generations removed. And perhaps, to a certain extent, `Korean Studies' in North America is merely an unwitting collaborator in this cultural imperialism. But we should not comfort ourselves with the thought that certain influential members of the overseas Korean community, often from political or academic life, are pushing for the same sorts of cultural importations. Edwards (1977: 273) cautions against the `pitfalls of bilingual education implemented without grounding in the community', and asks, `Who, then, wants bilingual education?' He notes that: "Apart from leaders whose status derives from pre-immigration days, more contemporary figures may also be unrepresentative of the ethnic group in general." (op. cit., p. 272). All of this suggests to me that we need to proceed with great caution.

Rather than rushing to export an ideologically charged version of `Korean culture' and `Korean language' (i.e. the South Korean, as opposed to the North Korean varieties), perhaps funding sources in the Republic of Korea should provide resources to overseas Koreans so as to empower them to get on with things as they themselves see fit. Let them define their own `overseas Korean identity', let them decide what role, if any, Korean language will play in this identity, and let us wait and see what they come up with.

My own reading of the literature on language maintenance and language shift suggests that whatever efforts are made on behalf of the heritage language, functional bilingualism is rarely retained beyond the first generation, after which language shift is more or less inevitable. Language maintenance, then, becomes a concern for maintaining the symbolic, rather than the communicative aspects of the heritage language (Edwards 1977, Fishman 1966). Nonetheless, this does not let Korean language educators off the hook, and as Nancy Dorian (1987) has shown, there is still great value to be derived from `language maintenance efforts which are unlikely to succeed'.

Here, then, is a summary of the some of the points I have raised:

1) Korean language programs within `Korean Studies' programs in North American universities are trying to do two different things at once: KFL and KHL. They are not doing very well at either. KFL remains a responsibility of university `Korean Studies' programs, but these nonetheless have a responsibility to their main clientele, 90% of whom are ethnically Korean. In order to do both better (or at all well), more resources are desperately needed for a two-track university Korean language curriculum.


2) Overseas Koreans should not rely too much on universities, or on schools in general, to help with Korean language maintenance, as experience shows that such reliance usually leads to disappointment. Ultimately, Korean language maintenance will depend on the home/family and speaker attitudes.


3) In the former USSR, South Korean government and private groups, churches, clubs, etc. are engaging actively in what they think is KHL for the `Kory| saram', but really what they should be doing is KFL. In other words, they are ignoring the dialect situation in what is actually a trilingual, not a bilingual situation (if it is not already monolingual, in which case pretending it is KHL is even worse).


4) The `Kory| saram' should not delude themselves either. The "Our-dialect-sounds- stupid-syndrome" will only promote swift death of the mother tongue (for those few who still have it) in the face of the onslought of Seoul Standard Korean. Ultimately, they will lose the dialect, and simultaneously be cut off from an easier route to Seoul Standard Korean. Compare the case of Germans in America.


5) Efforts to change attitudes are needed. Without pride in and understanding of the Soviet Korean linguistic experience, Soviet Korean language, modes of expression and their intrinsic value, how can one expect the `Kory| saram' to learn effectively the essentially foreign language and culture of the `Seoul saram'?


6) By extension, a lack of pride in all things `Soviet' Korean, in the history and culture of the `Kory| saram', can only accelerate the loss of their own genuine indigenous heritage, and result in a consequent increase in the distance from Seoul/South Korean culture. Resources are needed to encourage the study of, the uncovering and rediscovery of, and the reexamination and appreciation of the cultural heritage of the Koreans in Russia.


7) Thus far, ethnic Koreans in North America and the former USSR have used Korean language teaching materials that were either 1) KFL-oriented, or 2) written in Korea by Koreans for fellow Koreans in Korea. Koreans in North America and `Kory| saram' in the former USSR both need innovative new Korean language teaching materials targeted specifically at their needs.


Notes:


1 See Sohn (1995) for a discussion of the UCLA program and the problem of designing currciculum for KHL (Korean as a Heritage Language). Sohn echoes the need for separate tracks or curricula, but does not describe precisely how the curricula should be differentiated. The most urgent task facing North American Korean language educators today is the articulation and elaboration of a four-year, undergraduate KHL curriculum distinct from the (also as-yet-underdeveloped) KFL curriculum.

2 The linguistic and immigration background of the Sakhalin Koreans is different from that of the Kory| saram. The Koreans on Sakhalin were forcibly sent there by the Japanese in the 1940s, and were primarily from the southern half of Korea. My remarks in this paper concern the Kory| saram, and not the Sakhalin Koreans.

3 Tamis (1990) uses the term `ethnolect', and sees the evolutionary process which creates such a language variety as leading to language death. Indeed, Kory| mar, the language of the Kory| saram, is currently approaching language death.

4 One noteworthy exception is Dr. Nelli Sergeevna Pak of Almaty, Kazakhstan. See Pak (1991: 619), where she writes: "The recent `renaissance' of national cultures and languages in the USSR has raised the question of Soviet Koreans learning the Korean literary language. Thus, a number of clubs and circles have sprung up with the teaching of Korean as their goal.

However, in this process, we should not ignore the possibilities offered by the dialect... [her emphasis - JRPK] The usage of literary Korean and the functioning of Soviet Korean dialect are not mutually exclusive phenomena."


References


Bilingual Education Office, California Department of Education (ed.). 1992. Handbook

for Teaching Korean-American Students. Sacramento: California Department of

Education.

Dorian, Nancy. 1987. The value of language-maintenance efforts which are unlikely to

succeed. In: International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 68, pp. 57-67.

Edwards, John. 1977. Ethnic Identity and Bilingual Education. In: Howard Giles (ed.),

Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, pp. 253-282.

_____________. 1984. Language, Diversity and Identity. In: John Edwards (ed.),

Linguistic Minorities, Policies and Pluralism, pp. 277-310. New York: Academic

Press.

_____________ . 1992. Sociopolitical Aspects of Language Maintenance and Loss:

Towards a Typology of Minority Language Situations. In: Willem Fase, Koen

Jaspaert and Sjaak Kroon (eds.), Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages,

pp. 37-54. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Fishman, Joshua. (ed.) 1966. Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton.

______________ . 1977. Language and Ethnicity. In: Howard Giles (ed.), Language,

Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, pp. 15-58.

______________. 1989. Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective.

Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Lrd.

_______________ . 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical

Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon -- Philadelphia

-- Adelaide: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.

______________ . 1992. Conference Summary. In: Willem Fase, Koen Jaspaert and Sjaak

Kroon (eds.), Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages, pp. 395-403.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Han, Marina. 1995. Language and Ethnic Self-Consciousness among Koreans in

Kazakhstan. In: Korea Journal, Vol. 35, no. 2 (Summer), pp. 89-106.

Hasselmo, Nils. 1980. The Linguistic Norm and the Language Shift in Swedish America.

In: Paul Schach (ed.), Languages in Conflict, pp. 48-57. Lincoln, Nebraska:

University of Nebraska Press.

Iazyk moi, drug moi [My language, my friend]. 1992. Anonymous article in KorК Saram,

vol. 2, pp. 6-9. St. Petersburg.

Karttunen, Frances. 1977. Finnish in America: A Case Study in Monogenerational

Language Change. In: Ben Blount and Mary Sanches (eds.), Sociocultural

dimensions of language change, pp. 173-184. New York: Academic Press.

Kho, Songmoo. 1987. Koreans in Soviet Central Asia. Helsinki: The Finnish Oriental

Society (Studia Orientalia vol. 61).

King, J. Ross P. 1987. An Introduction to Soviet Korean. Language Research, vol 23, no. 2,

pp. 233-274. Seoul: Language Research Institute.

___________ . 1991. A Soviet Korean Grammar from 1930. Korean Language Education

(Han'gungmal Kyoyuk) vol. 3, pp. 153-178. Seoul: International Association for

Korean Language Education.

___________ . 1994a. Dialect Elements in Soviet Korean Publications from the 1920s. In:

Howard I. Aronson (ed.), NSL 7: Linguistic studies in the non-Slavic languages of the

Commonwealth of Independent States and the Baltic Republics, published by the

Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Illinois, 1994, pp. 151-183.

___________ . 1994b. Some Questions to ask when Designing a Textbook, and the Case

of Korean: An Intensive University Course. In: Ho-min Sohn (ed.), A New

Frontier in Korean as a Foreign Language. Honolulu: KLEAR.

___________ . 1996?. Experimentation with Han'gul in Russia and the USSR. In:

Young-Key Kim-Renaud (ed.), The Korean Alphabet: History and Structure.

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

___________ and Jae-hoon Yeon. 1992. The Koreans in Central Asia and their

Language -- Kory| mar (in Korean). Hangeul 217, pp. 83-134. Seoul: Hangeul

Hakhoe.

___________ and German N. Kim. 1993. Kul'tura, Istoriia i Iazyk Sovetskikh Koreitsev:

Istoriografiia i bibliografiia [Culture, History and Language of the Soviet Koreans:

Historiography and Bibliography]. Kazakhstan: Alma-Ata. 128 pp.

Kloss, Heinz. 1929. Nebensprachen: Eine sprachpolitische Studie Эber die Beziehungen

eng verwandter Sprachgemeinschaften. Wien -- Leipzig: Wilhelm BraumЭller.

Lee, Changsoo and George de Vos. 1981. Koreans in Japan: Ethnic Conflict and

Accomodation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pak, Nelli Sergeevna. 1991. On Korean Dialects in the USSR. In: Ijung|n|hakhoeji 8, pp.

617-619. Seoul: Korean Society of Bilingualism. Also published in Russian as: My

govorim po-koreiskii? [Do we speak Korean?] in KorК Saram, vol. 1, October 1991.

St. Petersburg.

Priestley, Tom. 1990. `Our Dialect Sounds Stupid': The Importance of Attitudes to

So-Called Sub-Standard Language Codes as a Factor in the (Non)-Retention of

Slovene in Carinthia, Austria. In: Durk Gorter (ed.), International Conference on

Minority Languages (4th, 1989, Leeuwarden, Netherlands) (Multilingual Matters:

71), Vol. 2: Western & Eastern European papers, pp. 135-148. Clevedon,

Avon/Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Ramsey, S. Robert. (forthcoming). Children without a Native Language. Korean

Language Education (Han'gungmal Kyoyuk). Seoul: IAKLE.

Schiffman, Harold. 1987. Losing the Battle for Balanced Bilingualism: The German-

American Case. In: Language Problems and Language Planning, vol. 11, no. 1

(Spring), pp. 66-81.

_______________. 1993. The Balance of Power in Multiglossic Languages: Implications

for Language Shift. In: International Journal of the Sociology of Language 103, pp.

115-148.

Sohn, Sung-Ock. 1995. The Design of Curriculum for Teaching Korean as a Heritage

Language. In: Ho-min Sohn (ed.), The Korean Language in America, vol. 1, pp.

19-35. Honolulu, Hawaii: American Association of Teachers of Korean.

Tamis, Anastasios M. 1990. Language Change, Language Maintenance and Ethnic

Identity: The Case of Greek in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 481-500.

__________________ . 1991. Modern Greek in Australia. In: Suzanne Romaine (ed.),

Language in Australia, pp. 249-262. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vincent, Mark. 1994. The language of the Soviet Koreans: An introductory overview. In:

Korean Linguistics vol. 8, pp. 129-152.

Winter, Werner. 1993. Some conditions for the survival of small languages. In: Ernst

Hakon Jahr (ed.), Language Conflict and Language Planning, pp. 299-314.

Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.


111