World Englishes and ELF Education in South Korea - A Study of University Students'

Attitudes

Jake BreauxCoordinator - BEPP ILC Research GroupDepartment of International Languages & Culture jacob-b@kanda.kuis.ac.jp

Background

Korean attitudes and varieties of

English‘British’ v ‘American’

varietiesGibb (1997, 1999)Jung (2005)

Other varietiesYook (2005)Shim (2002)Kim (2007)

Research Questions

1.Are Korean university students aware of, and able to identify, different varieties of English?

2.Do Korean university students have a preference for particular varieties?

Methodology

Kachru’s (1985) concentric circles of

English usageInE & PhEAmE &

BrE

KrE & ChE

GMU Speech Accent Archive

http://accent.gmu.edu/• Please call Stella.  Ask her

to bring these things with her from the store:  Six spoons of fresh snow peas, five thick slabs of blue cheese, and maybe a snack for her brother Bob.  We also need a small plastic snake and a big toy frog for the kids.  She can scoop these things into three red bags, and we will go meet her Wednesday at the train station.

The Semantic Differential Scale

Speaker 1: Intelligent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not intelligent ( 지적인 ) ( 지적이지 않은 ) pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not pleasant ( 유쾌한 ) ( 유쾌하지 않은 ) not confident 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 confident ( 자신감 없는 ) ( 자신감 있는 ) fluent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not fluent ( 유창한 ) ( 유창하지 않은 ) gentle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not gentle ( 부드러운 ) ( 부드럽지 않은 ) not familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 familiar ( 낯선 ) ( 낯익은 ) not clear 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 clear ( 명확하지 않은 ) ( 명확한 ) friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not friendly ( 친근한 ) ( 친근하지 않은 ) not trustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 trustworthy ( 신뢰할 수 없는 ) ( 신뢰할 수 있는 ) good model of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 bad model of English English ( 영어 모델로 삼기 좋은 ) ( 영어 모델로 삼기 안 좋은 )

* Guess the home country of the speaker. Choose one: ( 화자는 어느 나라 사람인 것 같습니까 ? 하나만 고르세요 .) China ( 중국 ) ( ) India ( 인도 ) ( ) Korea ( 한국 ) ( ) Philippines ( 필리핀 ) ( ) UK ( 영국 ) ( ) USA ( 미국 ) ( )

Identification of Speakers

Speaker Guesses (%)

China India Korea Philippines Britain AmericaChE 16.7% 23.3% 20% 28.3% 3.3% 8.3%

InE 13.3% 40% 5% 25% 15% 1.7%

KrE 20% 10% 61.7% 6.7% 1.7% 0%

PhE 26.7% 15% 15% 18.3% 13.3% 11.7%

BrE 5% 1.7% 5% 6.7% 68.3% 13.3%

AmE 1.7% 1.7% 3.3% 1.7% 1.7% 90%

Means and (standard deviations) of semantic differential scale

ratingsSpeaker Traits

IntelligencePleasantness

Confidence

FluencyGentleness

Familiarity Clarity Friendliness Trustworthiness

ChE 4.12(1.26)

3.05(1.55)

3.57(1.52)

4.23(1.33)

4.03(1.58)

3.68(1.44)

3.88(1.35)

3.72(1.43)

3.87(1.24)

InE 3.98(1.27)

3.52(1.24)

4.20(1.15)

4.20(1.12)

4.05(1.41)

3.83(1.22)

3.98(1.40)

3.80(1.33)

4.20(1.16)

KrE 3.43(1.32)

2.67(1.37)

2.95(1.66)

3.65(1.42)

3.83(1.50)

4.45(1.57)

3.65(1.35)

3.88(1.45)

3.80(1.38)

PhE 3.90(1.39)

2.65(1.27)

3.03(1.69)

3.53(1.47)

3.32(1.41)

3.73(1.53)

3.62(1.43)

3.30(1.42)

3.77(1.28)

BrE 5.12(1.40)

3.67(1.37)

4.95(1.53)

5.28(1.80)

4.10(1.50)

4.87(1.28)

5.23(1.13)

4.18(1.56)

5.38(1.12)

AmE 5.47(1.44)

5.47(1.50)

6.05(1.02)

4.70(2.34)

4.80(2.00)

5.93(1.29)

6.02(1.19)

4.83(1.96)

5.87(1.19)

Means and (standard deviations) of semantic

differential scale ratings for each model of English

(Good/Bad)Speaker TraitGood/Bad Model of English

ChE 3.00(1.54)

InE 3.08(1.38)

KrE 3.13(1.56)

PhE 3.20(1.57)

BrE 4.28(1.95)

AmE 4.35(2.48)

Means and (standard deviations) of all ten traits for each variety

Descriptive StatisticsVariety Mean Std. Deviation N

ChE 3.72 0.71 60

InE 3.89 0.7 60

KrE 3.55 0.8 60

PhE 3.41 0.95 60

BrE 4.71 0.8 60

AmE 5.35 1.04 60

ANOVA andPairwise

Comparisons for

Varieties of English

One way, repeated measures ANOVA:F(3.60, 212.58) =

56.18, p < .001

Table 5: Post hoc pairwise comparisons for varieties of English

(I) lang (J) lang Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std. Error Sig.a 95% Confidence Interval for

Differencea

Lower Bound Upper Bound

ChE InE -.170 .110 1.000 -.507 .167

KrE .170 .136 1.000 -.245 .585

PhE .310 .129 .298 -.086 .706

BrE -.992* .138 .000 -1.414 -.569

AmE -1.633* .167 .000 -2.146 -1.121

InE ChE .170 .110 1.000 -.167 .507

KrE .340 .118 .084 -.022 .702

PhE .480* .122 .003 .107 .853

BrE -.822* .134 .000 -1.232 -.411

AmE -1.463* .166 .000 -1.971 -.955

KrE ChE -.170 .136 1.000 -.585 .245

InE -.340 .118 .084 -.702 .022

PhE .140 .110 1.000 -.198 .478

BrE -1.162* .143 .000 -1.599 -.725

AmE -1.803* .187 .000 -2.376 -1.230

PhE ChE -.310 .129 .298 -.706 .086

InE -.480* .122 .003 -.853 -.107

KrE -.140 .110 1.000 -.478 .198

BrE -1.302* .148 .000 -1.753 -.850

AmE -1.943* .185 .000 -2.510 -1.377

BrE ChE .992* .138 .000 .569 1.414

InE .822* .134 .000 .411 1.232

KrE 1.162* .143 .000 .725 1.599

PhE 1.302* .148 .000 .850 1.753

AmE -.642* .136 .000 -1.058 -.226

AmE ChE 1.633* .167 .000 1.121 2.146

InE 1.463* .166 .000 .955 1.971

KrE 1.803* .187 .000 1.230 2.376

PhE 1.943* .185 .000 1.377 2.510

BrE .642* .136 .000 .226 1.058

Based on estimated marginal means

a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

Inner vs Outer & Expanding Circle

VarietiesResults indicate significant differences between

inner and outer & expanding circle varieties with a very large effect size (Cohen, 1988)

AmE + BrE (M=5.02, SD=0.76); and

ChE + InE + KrE + PhE (M=3.64, SD=0.55);

t(59) = 11.21, p < .001, d = 2.08

‘Connectedness’

Conclusion•Some success in identifying AmE and

BrE•KrE identified 61.7% of the time, but

far from preferred•Strong preference for AmE & BrE

(inner circle) over other varieties•Contradicts recent claims of a shift in

attitudes

What’s the point?