[KS] FW: Pro and Con of Restoring Hanja from the Koreanists?.... Mori visited Whitney: Who will the Korean leaders of industry visit?
jblee6952 at hotmail.com
Fri Jan 9 21:35:57 EST 2004
[First, the US branches of the Korean dailies
are not even reporting on the mandatory testing,
suggesting that the bite may not even reach
the many students in the U.S. if their employment
is processed in the states.]
Related to the recent announcement to make
hanja(chinese character) testing mandatory for
new employees, one objection to the dicta from
the management was that they were bypassing
the pro/con debate process through the Parliament
and hijacking what properly belongs to the
jusrisdiction of the government of Korea.
I guess what is being seen as appropriate is some
hearing process with consultation with specialists
and authorities in the area of language policy
And given the very strong feelings about the
Korean language, I would suspect that the
foreign specialists, such as Americans, Russians,
German and French may not be included among the
But is Hanja, Hanja.u, "Chinese" and "Chinese
Characters" really Native-Korean, or the mother-tongue.
How truly is it so native-Korean as to be of concern to
the Koreans only, and such that the views of the
non-Korean specialists would be not of value?
After all, a goodly portion of hanja.u, or the sino-korean
words, are officially japanese-speak, and viewed as
"must be thrown out", and that's a goodly portion of 70%
of the total vocabulary of modern Korean.
( Even worse, they don't seem to have done the
necessary work of creating the replacement vocabulary
for the "must be thrown out")
Question Group 1:
In all honesty, I see the issue at hand as really being
about "Chinese" and "Chinese-characters", and it is
really a stretch to say that hanja-u and hanja
is "Native Korean". And it occurrs to me that
real specialists on this area(Chinese) are and have been
the scholars of the West and the scholars and policy
specialists of China and Japan. Are the scholars
and specialists on Chinese and Chinese characters
being consulted by the Koreans as they have been
consulting on Korean romanization? And they should
certainly not slight the views of the Vietnamese?
Is this indeed the case? Are there Western
scholars who are involved or have participated
in the framing of the language policy of Korea over
the last 60 years? Can anyone provide pointers
in this regard?
Are there any Japanese, Chinese, or Taiwanese
scholars whose views and opinions have been influential
or consulted by the policy body of Korea? What are their
I do have one citation to Professor Omae Kenichi's
advocating that Korea restore hanja. This was
by the representative of the Five Busicness Associations
that announced the hanja testing news.
Is he highly regarded in the Korean academic circles,
and can anyone give me pointers to his works?
Question Group 2:
I recall, from the writings of Professor Unger, a Japanese
specialist, that the American military government
in Japan just after the WWII seriously considered
urging/forcing the adoption of romanization as the
official writing system of Japan. I guess we know what
But, is there also a history of US's involvement in
the language policy of Korea? Can anybody bring light on
this topic? Or has the language policy been a <No Touch>
even for the American military government and later?
I guess there have been innumerable travel junkets by the
educational policy makers of Korea to many governmental
and educational institutions in the US in an effort to
coordinate the curriculums in all areas of humanities and
sciences, with the natural exception of local history and
language, to the standards and curriculums in the US.
One could without exaggeration say that what is being taught
and learned in Korea and the US is now pretty much the
same, except for the language of instruction, and the
details of the curriculum involving local history and
local language education. They are definitely in complete
sync with the US.
And when we look at it from the context of hidden English
in Korean, not so hidden for hanja literates, we can speak
of terminological equivalence, albeit intermediated by
Are there similar travels to China by the Korean education
community to emulate the curriculums and teaching methodologies
of China? So are there also a move now to synchornize the
curriculums of Korean schools with that of China?
I suppose synchronizing history curriculum is definitely out.
I am prompted to ask for the views of the list
by the possible contrast in the approach to the
foreign-language probem demonstrated by the Japanese
vis-a-vis the Korean.
I could not help thinking again about the
"Mori's cockamamie ideas" thread. One list
member noted the official visit to Professor
Whitney at Yale, then and later the powerhouse
of American philological studies, with Prof. Whitney,
one of the superstars of Indo-Germanic philology.
It struck me that it was not at all odd that
M.O.E. Mori should consult Professor Whitney, then
one of the world authorities on western languages,
about western languages, albeit with a humorous twist.
I think he was worthy of the tile Minister of
Education, not the abbreviated MOE, precisely
by his act of consulting world authorities on
the important issue of mastering Western languages.
And thinking about the rather holistic views about
language then current in philology, and not the
current focus on high specialization, I thought
it was a move worthy of a concerned Minister of
Education of a country occupied as he was with
mastering foreign language and concerned about
But it also struck me that many of the world
authorities on Chinese, Japanese, and Korean are
also American, with depth and breath of knowledge
not deniable by even the native scholars.
Indeed, in the areas of Chinese language studies,
I think it not unfair to say that the American,
Russian, French, and German scholars have been far
more innovative and produced remarkable results,
such as in the area of tone studies and area dialectal
and historical studies. And there can be no loss
to Korea in heeding attention to the learned views
of these specialists.
Surely the problem facing the Koreans, of having to
learn many foreign languages, is one shared by every
country that is not a Super Power. And Korea can surely
benefit from the experiences and thoughts of the
scholars and specialists of every non-Super Power
nations, which should be whatever number of nations
there are less one.
So, may I ask for the Koreanist community's considered view
on the pro and con of chinese character education in Korea?
The American editions of Korean dailies have yet made no
reporting on the hanja testing announcements in Korea.
Does anyone know the why of it not being reported in
the states? Are the newspapers/media in general not
a part of the jaebul system and not member of the
One other note is that while the pro-character faction has
started to cite the enlightened policy of N.Korea's
Chinese character education, 3000 characters, more than
the Japanese, the S.Korean academic reports and press clippings
all suggest that to the N.Korean escapees living in S.Korea,
two big hurdles to their adaptation to life in S.Korea is
their difficulty with hangeulized-English and hanja, which
many encounter more than the Seoulites as many escapees are often
provided with housing in the less-expensive provinces and outlying
regions where chinese character use persist to a higher degree.
Two American analysts described the "SAD" results achieved
by N.Korea in their effort to teach Chinese characters as:
MUCH MUCH STUDYING IN SCHOOL--->
OUTSIDE SCHOOL,DO NOT USE, DO NOT SEE, DON'T KNOW WHY RELEVANT--->
FORGET, FORGET, THOUGH THEY KNOW THEY STUDIED.
Does anyone know the details of Chinese character education
in North Korea?
How will it be different in S.Korea where the stated policy of
even the leading Chinese character advocacy group is dual
writing in school only?
Does anhyone know what the pedagogic strategy in the South is?
On my next posting, I will strive for a little rhetoric and
more hard-nosed data analysis of Korean homonym issue, which
I hope will be of interest and utility to the aspring
More information about the Koreanstudies