Korean Adults' Attitudes Towards Varieties of English

8/19/2019 Korean Adults' Attitudes Towards Varieties of English

1/66

Korean Adults’ Attitudes towards

Varieties of English

Young Soo Kim

MSc in Applied Linguistics

The Universit of Edin!urgh

August "##$


2/66

Word count (excluding appendix): 14,729

I have read and understood The Universit o! "din#urgh guidelines on $lagiaris% anddeclare that this &ritten dissertation is all % o&n &or' except &here I indicateother&ise # proper use o! uotes and re!erences

*oung +oo i% "xa% -o ./0940 21st ugust 2007

ii


3/66

Ac%nowledgements

3irst o! all, I &ould li'e to than' % supervisor, r "ri' +chlee!, in the epart%ent

o! 5inguistics and "nglish 5anguage at the Universit o! "din#urgh !or his expertadvice and guidance I a% also grate!ul to the students at the Universit o! "din#urgh,&ho &illingl recorded their voices !or the ver#al guise test, and to the o!!ice &or'ersin the 6ail +hin%un co%pan in aegu, orea, &ho spent their ti%e to co%plete theuestionnaire 3inall, I a% extre%el grate!ul to all % !a%il and !riends !or their encourage%ent and support

iii


4/66

&ontents

List of figures…………………………………………………………...ⅴ

List of tables…………………………………………………………....ⅴAbbreviations…………………………………………………………..ⅵ

Abstract………………………………………………………………...ⅶ

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………..1

2. Background…………………………………………………………...4 21 "nglish education in the orean context4 22 $revious studies7

3. Method……………………………………………………………….11 1 $articipants11 2 6aterials12 $rocedure1/ 4 ata analsis1.

4. Results………………………………………………………………..1 41 $art : The ver#al guise test18

411 $articipants evaluation o! six spea'ers on personalit traits and as %odelso! "nglish18

412 uessing &here spea'ers &ere !ro%2. 42 $art ;:


5/66

List of figures

3igure 41 $articipants agree%ent &ith +tate%ent 129

3igure 42 $articipants agree%ent &ith +tate%ent 203igure 4 $articipants agree%ent &ith +tate%ent 13igure 44 $articipants agree%ent &ith +tate%ent 423igure 4/ $articipants agree%ent &ith +tate%ent /43igure 4. $articipants agree%ent &ith +tate%ent ./3igure 47 $articipants agree%ent &ith +tate%ent 7.3igure 48 $articipants agree%ent &ith +tate%ent 873igure 49 $articipants !irst pre!erence !or a variet o! "nglish93igure 410 $articipants second pre!erence !or a variet o! "nglish403igure 411 $articipants third pre!erence !or a variet o! "nglish41

List of ta!les

Ta#le 1 Text o! reading passage1Ta#le 2 ;ac'ground in!or%ation o! selected spea'ers1Ta#le The se%antic di!!erential scale !or the ver#al guise test14Ta#le 4 +tate%ents &ith a seven=point 5i'ert scale1/

Ta#le 41 6ean ratings (and standard deviations) o! six spea'ers on ninetraits (-A4)18

Ta#le 42 6ean ratings o! all nine traits19Ta#le 4 Tests o! &ithin=su#Bects e!!ects19Ta#le 44 Post hoc test: $air&ise co%parisons !or personalit traits20Ta#le 4/ 6ean ratings o! six spea'ers as %odels o! "nglish21Ta#le 4. Post hoc t est: $air&ise co%parisons !or a %odel o! "nglish22Ta#le 47 The nu%#er o! participants in the six orders o! spea'ers (-A4)2Ta#le 48 Post hoc test: 6ultiple co%parisons !or order e!!ects on ;r"24Ta#le 49 Post hoc test: 6ultiple co%parisons !or order e!!ects on o"2/Ta#le 410 uesses &here the spea'ers &ere !ro% (-A4)2.Ta#le 411 istinguishing native and non=native spea'ers (-A4)27Ta#le 412 6ean ratings !or +tate%ents on the goal o! learning "nglish (-A4)28Ta#le 41 6ean ratings !or +tate%ents on the -+ %odel o! "nglish (-A4)Ta#le 414 6ean ratings !or +tate%ents on the --+ %odel o! "nglish (-A4)Ta#le 41/ $aired sa%ples t =test !or +tate%ents on the -+ and --+ %odels o!

"nglish

v


6/66

A!!reviations

%": %erican "nglish

;r": ;ritish "nglish"I5: "nglish as an international language"35: "nglish as a !oreign language"53: "nglish as a lingua !ranca"5T: "nglish language teaching"-5: "nglish as a native language"+5: "nglish as a second languageCo": Cong ong "nglisho": orean=accented "nglish

-+: -ative spea'er --+: -on=native spea'er

?$: ?eceived $ronunciationTa": Tai&anese=accented "nglish52: 3oreign or second languageT"+D5: Teaching "nglish to spea'ers o! other languagesU: United ingdo%U+: United +tates o! %erica

vi


7/66

A!stract

This stud investigates 4 orean adults attitudes to&ards native and non=native

varieties o! "nglish in relation to the perspective o! "I5 ("nglish as an internationallanguage) This stud addresses three research uestions: 1) do orean adults pre!er certain varieties o! "nglish@ 2) do orean adults at least accept non=native varieties o! "nglish@, and ) are orean adults a&are o! di!!erent varieties o! "nglish@ In order toexa%ine participants language attitudes, this stud e%ploed #oth a ver#al guise testas an indirect approach and a ualitative uestionnaire as a direct approach 3or thever#al guise test, six varieties o! "nglish &ere selected to %easure participants

perceptions o! native and non=native varieties o! "nglish #ased on achrus (198/)circles o! "nglish use: %erican and ;ritish "nglish in the inner circle, Cong ongand Indian "nglish in the outer circle, and orean and Tai&anese=accented "nglish inthe expanding circle The %ain !indings present i%portant insights into orean adults

perspectives on "I5: 1) the pre!erred %erican "nglish as a %odel !or guidance anddid not discri%inate native and non=native varieties o! "nglish, 2) the regarded"nglish as an international language to co%%unicate not onl &ith native spea'ers

#ut also &ith non=native spea'ers o! "nglish, and sho&ed positive attitudes to non=native varieties o! "nglish, and ) the &ere not &ell a&are o! varieties o! "nglishThis !inding i%plies that "nglish language teaching in orea should e%phasiEelearners a&areness o! varieties o! "nglish in order that the can co%%and "I5&ithout di!!icult This stud suggests that !urther co%prehensive investigations intochanges in oreans language attitudes and their needs as 52 learners #e %ade

#ecause the should #e re!lected in "nglish language teaching &hich has e%phasiEed"35 rather than "I5

vii


8/66

'( )ntroduction

F P’illip’in sŏnsaengnimdŭlŭn suŏp chunbirŭl ch’ŏlchŏhi hago choŭn pundŭlisyŏtta.

Kajang choattŏn chŏmŭn hyŏnjiindŭlgwa chayŏnsŭrŏpge yŏngŏro malhalsu innŭn

nŭngnyŏki saenggyŏttanŭn kŏsidaG1 orean %iddle school students i%pression o!

"nglish ca%p in the $hilippines, reported in a orean dail ne&spaper, The Maeil

Shinmun (. 3e#ruar 2007), %ight #e strange to not a !e& oreans &ho thin' the

should learn "nglish &ith a native spea'er (-+) in the inner circle countries 2 6an

oreans have #een o#sessed &ith a native=li'e "nglish pronunciation, especiall

%erican "nglish ?eports on orean childrens tongue surger in 2002 sho& ho&

!renEied orean parents tr to i%prove their childrens "nglish pronunciations The

"35 context in orea has #een !ull o! %erican as the "nglish nor% and culture (eg

>hoi 200.H i% 200H &on 2000H ?oh 200.) The U+ is the countr that attracts

the highest nu%#er o! oreans &ho see' to learn "nglish in a !oreign environ%ent

>hang (200/: 22) indicates Fit is al%ost a stereotpe that "nglish %eans %erican

"nglishG a%ong oreans i## (1999: 2) states that this strong pre!erence !or

%erican "nglish is Fin!luenced # political andor historical !a%iliaritG greater &ith

the U+ than &ith other "nglish=spea'ing countries

Co&ever, the situation has #een changing 6ore and %ore orean students have #een

going to the $hilippines to learn "nglish ccording to statistics o! the I%%igration

;ureau in orea, the nu%#er o! oreans &ho have gone to the $hilippines to stud

"nglish has rapidl increased in the past !ive ears 4 (Jang 200.) +outheast sian

1 “$hilippine teachers &ere thorough in preparing classes and 'ind The #est thing &as to get a#ilities to

spea' "nglish naturall &ith $hilippinesG (% o&n translation)2 achru (198/: 12=17) proposed three=concentric circle %odel o! World "nglishes The inner circle,

such as the U+, the U, >anada, ustralia, and -e& Kealand, contains "nglish as a native language("-5) spea'ers and has provided nor%s !or non=native spea'ers o! "nglish The outer circle, such asIndia, the $hilippines, +ingapore, Cong ong, and 6alasia, consists o! "nglish as a second language("+5) spea'ers and has developed institutionaliEed varieties o! "nglish The expanding circle, such asorea, >hina, Tai&an, Japan, and ?ussia, contains "nglish as a !oreign language ("35) spea'ers andhas relied on nor%s o! the inner circle This %odel has #een criticiEed # the reason that Fthe centre=

peripher dichoto%G ("rling 2004: 224) rein!orces superiorit o! native spea'ers !ro% the inner circleand cannot explain increasing #ilingual spea'ers &ho acuire #oth a native language and "nglishsi%ultaneousl (eg Jen'ins 2000H 6ca 2002H 6cenEie 200.) In spite o! the criticis%, the %odelis use!ul as a general taxono% and &ill #e applied in this stud3 The Korea erald (1. pril 2002) at Lhttp:ne&snaverco%ne&sreadphp@

%odeA5+Mo!!iceNidA044MarticleNidA00000290/MsectionNidA108M%enuNidA108O Pccessed 14ugust 2007Q4 In 200/, the !irst countr &here oreans &ent to learn "nglish &as the U+ (21,947 persons),

1

http://news.naver.com/news/read.php?mode=LSD&office_id=044&article_id=0000029305&section_id=108&menu_id=108http://news.naver.com/news/read.php?mode=LSD&office_id=044&article_id=0000029305&section_id=108&menu_id=108http://news.naver.com/news/read.php?mode=LSD&office_id=044&article_id=0000029305&section_id=108&menu_id=108http://news.naver.com/news/read.php?mode=LSD&office_id=044&article_id=0000029305&section_id=108&menu_id=108


9/66

countries, not onl the $hilippines #ut also +ingapore and 6alasia, are pleased &ith

oreans co%ing to learn "nglish/ In addition, $hilippine teachers started to teach

"nglish in a!ter=school progra%s in ele%entar schools in rural areas such as

>heong&on, Jangsu, and a%ang, and even in the second largest cit, ;usan, in

orea last ear. The are %ainl &o%en living &ith orean hus#ands n increase in

international %arriages and !oreign &or'ers !ro% other countries has #een giving

%ore opportunities !or oreans to experience di!!erent varieties o! "nglish

3urther%ore, the 6inistr o! "ducation and Cu%an ?esources evelop%ent

announced an "nglish education re!or% plan, last -ove%#er, to strengthen training o!

orean teachers o! "nglish in order that the can teach not onl &ritten "nglish #ut

also spo'en "nglish &ithout help !ro% -+ teachers !ro% 2010 (i% 200.H i%, J=

200.) orea, one o! the expanding circle countries, see%s to #e in the process o!

shi!ting !ro% an "35 to an "I5 ("nglish as an international language) context 7

I! the shi!t is going on, it %ust #e re!lected in oreans attitudes to&ards varieties o!

"nglish ;a'er (1992: 9) states that attitudes are Fsocial indicators o! changing

#elie!sG With exposure to "I5, oreans stereotpical attitudes, ie strong pre!erence

!or %erican "nglish, %a change into the direction to accepting other native and

non=native varieties o! "nglish Co&ever, it is hard to !ind studies to investigate

changes in oreans attitudes to&ards varieties o! "nglish 6ost results o! previous

studies (i## 1997, 1999H Jung 200/H +hi% 2002H *oo' 200/) conducted in orea

con!ir% oreans pre!erence !or %erican "nglish While one o! +hi%s (2002)

surves sho&s changed attitudes o! oreans accepting non=native varieties o!

!ollo&ed # ustralia (1,.8/), >anada (12,928), the $hilippines (10,077), the U (8,800), and -e&Kealand (4,/92) The nu%#er to the $hilippines had increased a#out three ti%es during the ear !ro%

2000 (,477) to 200/ (10,077)5 1,9.1 students !ro% pri%ar school to high school in orea &ent to +outheast sian countries to

attend "nglish language training progra%s during su%%er vacation in 200. The outnu%#ered thoseto the U+ (1,.48) and >anada (1,091) (*ang 200.)6 K!S ne&s at Lhttp:ne&s'#sco'rne&sphp@idA1191220M'indAcO and

L http:ne&s'#sco'rne&sphp@idA12181M'indAcO Pccessed 8 ugust 2007Q7 In the "35 context, a native=li'e co%petence is a goal o! "nglish language teaching #ased on the -+

%odel and culture (eg Jen'ins 2000H +trevens 1992) oreans strong pre!erence !or %erican "nglishcan #e understood # the orean "35 context In contrast, in the "I5 context &here "nglish is used asa glo#al lingua !ranca, the -+ %odel and culture need not #e internaliEed # non=native spea'ers &hocan assert o&nership o! "nglish language (eg achru 1992H 6c'a 200H +%ith and -elson 200.)orean social pheno%ena such as the increase o! students studing "nglish in +outheast siancountries re!lect the "I5 perspective that recogniEes non=native spea'er (--+) teachers o! "nglish

cade%ics &ho recogniEe "nglish is used as a lingua !ranca !or international co%%unication %a'e useo! various ter%s such as "I5, "53 ("nglish as a lingua !ranca), World "nglishes, etc I &ill use theter% "I5 3or !urther explanations, see "rling 2004, 200/

2

http://news.kbs.co.kr/news.php?id=1191220&kind=chttp://news.kbs.co.kr/news.php?id=1321381&kind=chttp://news.kbs.co.kr/news.php?id=1321381&kind=chttp://news.kbs.co.kr/news.php?id=1191220&kind=chttp://news.kbs.co.kr/news.php?id=1321381&kind=c


10/66

"nglish, it cannot #e interpreted as pu#lic attitudes #ecause the respondents &ere

T"+D58 graduate students &ho &ere a&are o! varieties o! "nglish

In this stud, I atte%pt to discover changes in oreans attitudes to&ards varieties o!

"nglish I a% pri%aril concerned &ith oreans attitudes to&ards native and non=

native varieties o! "nglish in relation to the "I5 perspective In the era o! "I5, "nglish

is needed to co%%unicate not onl &ith native spea'ers #ut also &ith non=native

spea'ers o! "nglish !or a variet o! purposes >onsidering rapid increase o! non=

native spea'ers &ho outnu%#er native spea'ers, a&areness o! non=native varieties o!

"nglish cannot #e neglected i! one is to co%%and "I5 success!ull (eg 3raser 200.H

Jen'ins 2000H achru 1992H 6c'a 200H +trevens 1992) To investigate oreans

attitudes to&ards native and non=native varieties o! "nglish is i%perative to get the

picture o! ho& oreans perceive "I5 and &hat the need as 52 learners

!ter loo'ing at "nglish education in the orean context and previous studies (section

2), I exa%ine oreans attitudes to&ards native and non=native varieties o! "nglish #

conducting #oth a ver#al guise test and a ualitative uestionnaire on 4 orean

adults &ith the !ollo&ing research uestions: 1) do orean adults pre!er certain

varieties o! "nglish@ 2) do orean adults at least accept non=native varieties o!

"nglish@, and ) are orean adults a&are o! di!!erent varieties o! "nglish@ (section )

The results sho& changed attitudes o! oreans &ho do not discri%inate native and

non=native varieties o! "nglish (section 4) iscussions on research uestions (section

/) place e%phasis on conclusions and suggestions !or !uture studies (section .)

8 Teaching "nglish to spea'ers o! other languages

3


11/66

"( *ac%ground

"(' English education in the Korean conte+t

"nglish has #eco%e the %ost po&er!ul !oreign language in orea since "35

education #egan in 188 capacit !or "nglish is needed to enter a good school, to

get a #etter Bo#, and to #e pro%oted to a higher position in the &or'place although

"nglish is rarel used in dail li!e >hang (200/: 2) states that Foreans have to learn

"nglish !ro% their ele%entar school ears and continue !or the rest o! their lives i!

the &ant to have a #etter li!e, such as #etter econo%ic status, %ore prestigious Bo#s,

or higher educational opportunitiesG "nglish in orea, as +hi% (1994: 28) points

out, is not onl Fa s%#ol o! educationG #ut also Fa s%#ol o! success and !ortuneG

>hoi (200.:) indicates that "nglish education has #een Fhighl interlin'ed to the

political and econo%ical conditions o! oreaG >hoi (200.: /) de!ines six %aBor

periods in "nglish education in ter%s o! the i%pact o! politico=econo%ic conditions o!

orea:

= the end o! Joseon nast (188 R 1910): the #eginning and expansion o!

"nglish education

= the Japanese colonial ti%e (1910 R 194/): the declination, revival, and

oppression o! "nglish education

= a!ter li#eration !ro% Japan till 19// including the U+ %ilitar govern%ent

(194/ R 19//): the reesta#lish%ent o! "nglish education

= !ro% the 3irst ?epu#lic to the %ilitar rule (+upre%e >ouncil !or -ational

?econstruction) (19// R 19.): the develop%ent o! "nglish education(the 3irst -ational >urriculu% in 19//)

= !ro% the Third to the 3i!th ?epu#lic (19. R 1992): the sta#iliEation and

stagnation o! "nglish education (the +econd (19.), the Third (197,

1974),

the 3ourth (1981), the 3i!th (1987, 1988) -ational >urriculu%)

= !ro% the >itiEens overn%ent till the $articipator overn%ent (1992 R

the present): the re!or% o! "nglish education (the +ixth (1992) and the

+eventh (1997) -ational >urriculu%)

4


12/66

The #eginning o! "nglish education &as in!luenced # the F%oderniEation and

enlighten%ent %ove%entG initiated # ing oBong and govern%ent o!!icials, and #

the Fpropagandis% o! >hristianitG o! %erican %issionaries (>hoi 200.: .) The !irst

o!!icial "nglish teachers &ere T " Cali!ax (a ;ritish telegraph technician) and t&o

>hinese &ho had attended universities in the U+ 6ost students &ho had alread

learned >hinese characters in order to #e govern%ent o!!icials learned "nglish at the

!irst govern%ent "nglish school, Tong%unha', o#eing the order o! ing oBong

&ho needed o!!icial interpreters !or diplo%atic relations and trade &ith !oreign

countries (6oon 197. cited in &on 2000)

The Japanese colonial ti%e (1910 R 194/) &as a dar' period o! "nglish education

The Japanese colonial govern%ent suppressed "nglish education lthough there &as

a period o! revival o! "nglish education (1922 R 198) as a cultural polic to redirect

oreans energies !ro% the independence %ove%ent, it &as replaced # the Japanese=

onl polic Japanese #eca%e %ore prestigious than "nglish (>hoi 200.) uring the

ti%e, the ra%%ar=Translation 6ethod and the Japanese ter%inolog !or gra%%ar in

"nglish education &ere used (&on 2000)

!ter li#eration !ro% Japan in 194/, the U+ %ilitar ad%inistration in!luenced

orean societ and reesta#lished "nglish education In 194., the %iddle school

"nglish curriculu%, &hich &as the !irst step to teach "nglish sste%aticall, &as

pu#lished It encouraged students to gain 'no&ledge o! "nglish rather than to use

"nglish practicall (>hoi 200.) aniel Jones The Pronouncing "ictionary &as

adopted and ;ritish "nglish rather than %erican "nglish &as the standard o!

pronunciation #ecause %ericanis% &as avoided (6oon 200/) Co&ever, a!ter the

orean War (19/0), the 3irst ?epu#lic &hich &as %ostl dependent on the U+

govern%ent pu#lished the 3irst -ational >urriculu% adopting %erican "nglish as

the standard in 19// (>hoi 200.) The prevalence o! %erican in!luence on orean

societ and "nglish education has not di%inished until no&

&on (2000: /1) states that there &ere Finnovative even revolutionarG changes in

"nglish education in the 1990s The "nglish language #egan to #e taught as a regular

su#Bect !ro% rd grade in ele%entar school in order to i%prove students

5


13/66

co%%unicative co%petence in 1997 Dne o! the e!!orts to i%prove students

co%%unicative co%petence &as the introduction o! "$I ("nglish $rogra% in orea)

to i%port and assign native spea'er (-+) teachers to ele%entar and secondar

schools ..0 -+ teachers &ere e%ploed !ro% the U+, the U, >anada, ustralia,

-e& Kealand, and +outh !rica in 199. (&on 2000) lthough there have #een -+

teachers o! "nglish since the #eginning o! "nglish education in orea, it &as the !irst

trial !or the orean govern%ent to hire a large nu%#er o! -+ teachers -+ teachers

have #een %ainl recruited !ro% the inner circle countries ever since In pril 2007,

a#out 90S out o! 2,924 -+ teachers &or'ing in ele%entar and secondar schools in

orea &ere %erican, >anadian, and ustralian9

The +eventh -ational >urriculu% (1997) %ani!ested its characteristics as Fdeveloping

cultural understanding and positive attitudes to&ards other cultures, there# !ostering

international a&areness, cooperative attitudes and 'no&ledge as &orld citiEensG

3urther%ore, its o#Bectives &ere de!ined as F!or%ing a #asis !or developing our o&n

culture and introducing it to other countries through a proper understanding o! !oreign

culturesG (i% 200: 10) These state%ents sho& the perspective o! "I5: that

"nglish is not si%pl one o! %an !oreign languages #ut an international language !or

glo#al cross=cultural co%%unication -evertheless, as i% (200: 10/) points out, Fit

has #een the traditional practice in oreas "nglish education to !ocus on %erican

cultureG although a speci!ic %odel o! culture is not indicated in the >urriculu%

5ast -ove%#er, the 6inistr o! "ducation and Cu%an ?esources evelop%ent

announced "nglish education re!or% plans to i%prove students practical "nglish

a#ilities The %ain plan is to increase the nu%#er o! uali!ied orean teachers o!

"nglish &ho can teach not onl &ritten "nglish #ut also spo'en "nglish The 6inistr

ai%s at the training o! pre=service and in=service orean teachers o! "nglish so that

the can teach "nglish &ithout the help o! -+ teachers !ro% 2010 ;e!ore achieving

this goal, it plans to i%port not onl -+ teachers #ut also --+ teachers such as

orean #ilinguals a#road, $hilippines, Indians, etc in order to assign the% to

secondar schools (i% 200.H i%, J= 200.)

9 $ersonal co%%unication &ith an o!!icial in the 6inistr o! "ducation and Cu%an ?esources

evelop%ent on . ugust 2007

6


14/66

In short, the orean "35 context since 188 has #een slo&l %oving to&ards the "I5

context in &hich orean culture and teachers o! "nglish can pla an i%portant role in

"nglish education although it has not #een !ull realiEed

"(" ,revious studies

There are not %an studies to investigate oreans attitudes to&ards varieties o!

"nglish in the orean context descri#ed a#ove Dnl !our researchers (i## 1997,

1999H Jung 200/H +hi% 2002H *oo' 200/) studies are availa#le at present *oo'

(200/:7) indicated that Fstudies on oreans attitudes to&ard varieties o! "nglish are

rareG *oo' (200/) re!erred to i##s (1997, 1999) studies &hile other three

researchers (i## 1997, 1999H Jung 200/H +hi% 2002) did not %ention related studies

conducted in orea

These studies %ainl exa%ined oreans attitudes to&ards native varieties o! "nglish

Jung (200/) considered t&o %aBor native varieties, %erican and ;ritish "nglish

i## (1997, 1999) loo'ed at three native varieties, %erican, ;ritish, and ustralian

"nglish, although he additionall gave respondents options such as other(s) and no

pre!erence in uestionnaires *oo' (200/) investigated !ive varieties, !rican

%erican ernacular, "uropean %erican, ustralian, ;ritish, and orean=accented

"nglish +hi% (2002) used !ive varieties, %erican, ustralian, >anadian, $a'istani,

and orean=accented "nglish "ven though the non=native variet such as $a'istani

and orean=accented "nglish &as exa%ined in t&o studies (+hi% 2002H *oo' 200/),

native varieties &ere the %ain !ocus o! these studies

The research instru%ents in i##s (1997, 1999) consecutive studies and +hi%s

(2002) t&o surves &ere %ainl uestionnaires i## (1997, 1999) used

uestionnaires containing closed and open=ended uestions 3or exa%ple, a closed

uestion, The ;ritish accent is harder to learn than the %erican or ustralian

accent, &as presented &ith a !ive=point 5i'ert scale o! 1 (disagree ver %uch) to /

(agree ver %uch) points Dne o! the open=ended uestions &as Which accent do ou

&ant to learn@ a) %erican #) ;ritish c) ustralian d) Dther(s)NN e) -$ +hi% (2002)

conducted t&o surves &ith the sa%e uestions such as Is there a need to understand

7


15/66

the non=native varieties o! "nglish@ in 1997 and 1998 separatel These

uestionnaires have li%itations Fsince the allo&ed respondents to disguise their true

!eelings, either to proBect a di!!erent sel!=i%age andor to give responses the thought

the intervie&er %ight %ost approve o!G ($reston 2002: 41)

Cence, Jung (200/), *oo' (200/), and one surve o! +hi% (2002) e%ploed a ver#al

guise techniue It is a %odi!ied version o! %atched guise techniue The %atched

guise techniue developed # 5a%#ert et al (19.0) is Fa rigorous and elegant %ethod

!or eliciting apparentl private attitudesG o! respondents &ho evaluate di!!erent

language varieties, such as "nglish and 3rench, &ithout noticing that voices &ere

recorded # the sa%e #ilingual spea'er (iles and ;illings 200/: 190) The ver#al

guise is used Fout o! necessit, since it is not al&as possi#le to !ind a single person

&ho can co%pletel produce the varieties reuired !or the studG (arrett et al 200:

/) *oo's (200/) stud, !or instance, e%ploed the ver#al guise rather than the

%atched guise # using !ive di!!erent spea'ers !or the !ive di!!erent accents o!

"nglish s l!ord and +trother (1990: 48.) indicate, the ver#al guise is good to

overco%e Fa !eigned accentG o! the %atched guise To elicit respondents evaluations

o! di!!erent spea'ers, Jung (200/) and *oo' (200/) used a se%antic di!!erential scale

&hich &as re!ined # Dsgood (19.4) Jung (200/: 24/) e%ploed #i=polar se%antic

di!!erential scales !or nine pairs o! adBectives such as Fstig%atiEed vs prestigiousG

*oo' (200/: 1) used eleven personalit traits such as Fcon!ident, gentle, good=

loo'ing,G etc It should #e noted that the ver#al guise techniue has also draac's

s ;er'=+eligson (1984: 417) points out, it is not eas to control Fparalinguistic

di!!erencesG o! spea'ers such as voice ualit, speech stle, etc

"d&ards (1982: 20) states Fthe %ost use!ul assess%ent o! language attitudes &ould #e

one #ased upon so%e eclectic approachG #ecause each research instru%ent has %erits

and de%erits +o i## (1997, 1999) and +hi% (2002) added a !ollo&=up intervie&,

and Jung (200/) and *oo' (200/) additionall used a ualitative uestionnaire to

elicit su#Bects detailed responses

6ost su#Bects o! the previous studies &ere orean universit students "ven though

i## (1999) investigated orean universit students attitudes to&ards varieties o!

"nglish, he co%pared the% &ith attitudes o! pro!essionals studing at a language

8


16/66

institute There &as no di!!erence #et&een these t&o groups Jung (200/) co%pared

attitudes o! pre=universit students &ith those o! universit students #ut did not !ind a

di!!erence

The over&hel%ing result o! previous studies has #een strong pre!erence !or %erican

"nglish ccording to i##s (1999) stud, orean universit students and

pro!essionals pre!erred to learn %erican "nglish i## (1999: 9) analEed this

attitude # oreans !a%iliarit &ith %erican culture and Fperception o! %erica as

an econo%ic po&er, &ith its advanced technolog and !acilities !or educationG Jungs

(200/) stud sho&ed that orean pre=universit and universit students !avored

%erican "nglish predo%inantl over ;ritish "nglish as the target and that this

pre!erence &as correlated &ith !a%iliarit

+hi%s (2002) ver#al guise stud in 199/ also presented orean universit students

over&hel%ing pre!erence !or %erican "nglish In this surve, all students &anted to

learn %erican "nglish and correctl identi!ied a !e%ale %ericans accent

Co&ever, the did not regard $a'istani and orean=accented "nglish as good %odels

#ecause o! F#ad accentG (+hi% 2002: 148) In addition, so%e students ans&ered that

the did not need to understand Indian, +ingaporean, or 3ilipino "nglish and that the

could not distinguish these varieties The result o! her surve in 1997 &as not

di!!erent In contrast, her surve in 1998 sho&ed uite di!!erent results: 2 o! 27

respondents thought internationall accepta#le "nglish should #e used as the

teaching %odelH all responded the need to understand non=native varieties o! "nglish

"ven though +hi% (2002) presented the results as evidence o! changes in oreans

attitudes to&ards varieties o! "nglish, it is di!!icult to treat the% as pu#lic attitudes

#ecause the respondents &ere T"+D5 graduate students &ho &ere alread a&are o!

varieties o! "nglish

ccording to *oo's (200/) stud, orean universit students evaluated ;ritish

"nglish %ore !avora#l than %erican "nglish at least on statusco%petence=related

traits in the ver#al guise test ;ut she presented the spea'ers ver#al guises in the sa%e

order so there &as a possi#ilit o! order e!!ect on the results although she %entioned

the order e!!ect &as not signi!icant In her stud, students changed their evaluation o!

an %erican "nglish spea'er to a %ore positive one as a !riend, teacher, and a

9


17/66

+tandard "nglish user rather than a ;ritish "nglish spea'er a!ter getting in!or%ation

on ethnicit The also responded that oreans should learn and teach %erican

"nglish *oo' (200/: =4) concluded Fit see%s that, at least !or the orean students

o! this stud, there are t&o FrespectedG varieties o! "nglish: ;ritish "nglish as FtheG

"nglish and "10 as an international language &hich is essential in the age o!

glo#aliEationG +he suggested that there exists a !urther need to investigate this

dichoto% o! oreans attitudes

To su% up, the previous studies %ainl exa%ined orean universit students

attitudes to&ards native varieties o! "nglish # using uestionnaires and the ver#al

guise techniue These studies did not !ull investigate attitudes and perspectives o!

oreans to&ards varieties o! "nglish 3irst, the studies did not give enough attention

to oreans attitudes to&ards non=native varieties o! "nglish While discussions o!

non=native varieties o! "nglish in relation to the "I5 perspective have #een

!lourishing a%ong acade%ics (eg Jen'ins 2000H achru 1992H 6c'a 2002), there is

not %uch in!or%ation on ho& oreans loo' at "I5 and perceive non=native varieties

o! "nglish +econd, it is not enough to investigate language attitudes o! orean

universit students &ithout considering ordinar orean adults In general, educated

orean adults have %ore experience o! studing "nglish in order to enter a good

universit and to get a #etter Bo# 3urther%ore, F%ost orean parents are enthusiastic

a#out providing a good "nglish education !or their children,G as >hang (200/: 2)

indicates Their language attitudes can in!luence their childrens attitudes as &ell It is

necessar to investigate orean adults language attitudes to !ind out oreans

attitudes to&ards varieties o! "nglish co%prehensivel

With an atte%pt to overco%e the li%itations o! previous studies, this stud !ocuses on

orean adults attitudes to&ards native and non=native varieties o! "nglish in relation

to the "I5 perspective The research %ethod e%ploed !or this purpose &ill #e

descri#ed #elo&

10 %erican "nglish

10


18/66

-( Method

-(' ,articipants

4/ orean adults living in aegu, the third largest cit in orea, participated in this

stud The &ere educated o!!ice &or'ers in a %ediu%=siEed ne&spaper co%pan !or

&hich I had &or'ed With the per%ission o! the president o! the co%pan, the surve

&as conducted in June 2007 It &as di!!icult to collect all participants at once so t&o

to !our availa#le participants attended the surve separatel in the sa%e %eeting

roo% The nu%#er o! participants totaled 4/ The &ere paid !or their participation

;ut 2 o! 4/ participants did not state their #ac'ground in!or%ation so the &ere

excluded !ro% data analsis total o! 4 participants (29 %en, 14 &o%en) 11 could #e

considered educated %iddle=class orean adults &ho &or' in an o!!ice a!ter

graduating !ro% universit Their age ranged !ro% 27 to 47 ears and averaged /9

ears 4 (9S) participants &ere in their t&enties, 27 (.28S) in their thirties, and 12

(279S) in their !orties The had learned "nglish !or 10. ears on average The

rated their "nglish pro!icienc as #eginning (21 participants, 488S), inter%ediate

(20, 4./S), and advanced (2, 47S)

17 (9/S) o! the 4 participants had never #een to "nglish=spea'ing countries, &hile

2. (.0/S) had #een to those countries %ong 2. participants &ho had #een to

"nglish=spea'ing countries, 14 (/8S) had staed there !or less than one %onth, 4

(1/4S) !or t&o to !our %onths, and 8 (08S) !or . %onths to one ear "nglish=

spea'ing countries &here the participants had spent ti%e &ere the U+ (.1S),

ustralia (194S), >anada (19S), -e& Kealand (111S), the U (8S), the

$hilippines (8S), and +ingapore (28S) 7 (8.0S) o! the 4 participants had

experiences o! spea'ing "nglish to !oreigners, &hereas . (140S) did not The

nationalities o! !oreigners to &ho% 7 participants had spo'en &ere %erican

(22/S), ;ritish (8.S), Japanese (8.S), >anadian (79S), ustralian (7S),

$hilippine (40S), +ingaporean (40S), 3rench (40S) and so on These !oreigners

can #e grouped into native spea'ers o! "nglish (497S) and non=native spea'ers o!

"nglish (/0S)

11 ender #alance o! participants &as not considered #ecause this stud &as not !ocused on gender

di!!erences in language attitudes

11


19/66

-(" Materials

This stud addresses the !ollo&ing research uestions: 1) do orean adults pre!er certain varieties o! "nglish@ 2) do orean adults at least accept non=native varieties o!

"nglish@, and ) are orean adults a&are o! di!!erent varieties o! "nglish@ To ans&er

the%, I adopted #oth a ver#al guise techniue and a ualitative uestionnaire The

ver#al guise techniue as an Findirect approachG (arrett, >oupland and Willia%s

200: 1.) &as e%ploed to %easure ho& participants perceive di!!erent accents o!

native and non=native varieties o! "nglish The ualitative uestionnaire as a Fdirect

approachG (arrett, >oupland and Willia%s 200: 1.) &as to as' participants ho&

the consider native and non=native varieties%odels o! "nglish, and "nglish language

learning These indirect and direct %easures o! language attitudes &ere to #e analEed

separatel and then co%pared &ith each other so as to understand participants

perspectives on varieties o! "nglish

$art o! the uestionnaire &as constructed !or the ver#al guise test +ix varieties o!

"nglish &ere selected to investigate participants attitudes to&ards native and non=

native varieties o! "nglish #ased on achrus (198/, 1992#) circles o! "nglish use:

%erican "nglish (%") and ;ritish "nglish (;r") in the inner circle, Cong ong

"nglish (Co") and Indian "nglish (In") in the outer circle, and orean=accented

"nglish (o") and Tai&anese=accented "nglish (Ta") in the expanding circle

The text !or recording o! the ver#al guise &as chosen !ro% those used in previous

studies The selected text, as sho&n in Ta#le 1 #elo&, had #een used !or a stud #

;aard et al (2001) in -e& Kealand, ustralia, and the U+ 12 The text, containing a

97=&ord passage as a !or% o! letter to parents, had #een designed to distinguish

tpical phonological !eatures o! accents such as +tandard -orth %erican

(postvocalic =r, intervocalic =t= !lapping, etc) and ?$=tpe "nglish "nglish (!inal

=t= glottaliEation, ou centraliEation, etc) (;aard et al 2001: 2.=0)

12 The text had also #een used in various countries such as the U, er%an, Japan, >hina, etc !or a

proBect "valuation "nglish accents &orld&ide # ;aard et al to investigate attitudes to&ards !ourstandard accents o! "nglish such as -orth %erican, ?$=tpe "nglish, ustralian, and -e& Kealand

"nglish The proBect is availa#le atLhttp:&&&otagoacnEanthropolog5inguistic?esults?esultsht%lO Pccessed 28 Jul 2007Q

12

http://www.otago.ac.nz/anthropology/Linguistic/Results/Results.htmlhttp://www.otago.ac.nz/anthropology/Linguistic/Results/Results.html


20/66

Table 3.1 Text of reading passage

ear %u% and dad, CiV Co& are ou@ Well, here I a% in the #ig cit lthough the &eather isnice at the %o%ent, the !orecast is !or hail, #ut that should soon clear I #ought a ne& coatesterda #ecause the sa it gets reall cold I have to sta at aunt de#s house !or no&, #utI% hoping to get a !lat soon The trip up &as great, even though it too' ten hours Well, I%ust go *ou 'no& ho& rarel I &rite, #ut I &ill tr to do #etter this ear 5ove >lare >lar'

Using this text, thirteen %ale spea'ers !ro% the U, the U+, Cong ong, India,

orea, and Tai&an recorded their voices on the sa%e 6$ plaer The &ere students

!ro% 2/ to . ears o! age at the Universit o! "din#urgh To exclude other varia#les

(eg voice ualit) except accent, recordings o! si%ilar voice ualit, speech rate,

#ac'ground noise, etc &ere chosen The selected spea'ers are detailed in Ta#le 2 #elo& Their age range (2.=) &as narro& and averaged 287 ears The reading

speed, ranging !ro% 24 seconds (;r") to 1 seconds (Ta") &ithout hesitation, &as

si%ilar and its average &as 2.8 seconds The ualit o! the recording &as uni!or%l

good The selection &as dou#le=chec'ed # a second evaluator (% supervisor)

These speech sa%ples &ere also chec'ed # %ore than t&o native spea'ers o! each

variet o! "nglish and evaluated to #e the tpical accent that its native spea'ers can #e

a&are o! %" and ;r" &ere recogniEed as tpical spea'ers o! standard %erican

and "nglish "nglish pronunciations respectivel 3our non=native accents (Co", In",

o", and Ta") &ere regarded as those o! !luent spea'ers o! "nglish &ith non=native

pronunciations The &ere considered suita#le accents to %easure participants

perceptions o! the non=native spea'er (--+) %odel o! "nglish indirectl

Table 3.2 Background information of selected speakers

+pea'er ge -ationalit Co%eto&n $rogra% at "din#urghUniversit

%" 28 %erican ?oc' +prings, Wo%ing 6;

;r" 28 ;ritish Ce%el Ce%pstead,Cert!ordshire, "ngland

6;

Co" 2. Cong ong>hinese

Cong ong 5inguistics and "nglish5anguage

In" Indian ;o%#a 6;

o" 29 orean +eoul 3ire +a!et "ngineering

Ta" 28 Tai&anese Taipei 5anguage Teaching

In order to construct a se%antic di!!erential scale !or the ver#al guise test, t&o

oreans in "din#urgh &ere as'ed to descri#e their i%pressions o! each accent &ith

13


21/66

appropriate adBectives Their descriptions corresponded to personalit traits that had

#een used in previous ver#al guise studies (eg ;aard et al 2001H >hi#a et al 199/H

Jung 200/H 6c'enEie 200.H *oo' 200/H Kahn and Copper 198/) The Fstereotpical

traitsG (iles and ;illings 200/: 188) !or %easuring oreans language attitudes

to&ards six accents &ere o#tained: intelligent, con!ident, !luent, clear, pleasant,

!a%iliar, gentle, trust&orth, and !riendl The &ere rando%l arranged &ith their

opposite adBectives and the positions o! positive and negative adBectives in a #i=polar

rating scale &ere #alanced These adBectives &ere translated into orean and chec'ed

# t&o oreans in aegu, orea ccording to their !eed#ac', so%e translations &ere

slightl changed to #e understood &ithout con!usion The !inal seven=point se%antic

di!!erential scale in "nglish and orean is given in Ta#le #elo&

Table 3.3 The semantic differential scale for the verbal guise test

intelligent 1 2 4 / . 7 not intelligent(지적인) (지적이지 않은)

pleasant 1 2 4 / . 7 not pleasant(유쾌한) (유쾌하지 않은)

not con!ident 1 2 4 / . 7 con!ident(자신감 없는) (자신감 있는)

!luent 1 2 4 / . 7 not !luent(유창한) (유창하지 않은)

gentle 1 2 4 / . 7 not gentle(부드러운) (부드럽지 않은)

not !a%iliar 1 2 4 / . 7 !a%iliar (낯선) (낯익은)

not clear 1 2 4 / . 7 clear (명확하지 않은) (명확한)

!riendl 1 2 4 / . 7 not !riendl(친근한) (친근하지 않은)

not trust&orth 1 2 4 / . 7 trust&orth(신뢰 ! 없는) (신뢰 ! 있는)

In addition, an ite% good %odel o! "nglish &as added to the end o! nine traits in

order to investigate ho& participants perceive each accent as a %odel o! "nglish The

last uestion o! guessing the spea'ers nationalit &as presented at the end o!

evaluation o! each accent list o! six possi#le options (Cong ong, India, orea,

Tai&an, the U, and the U+) &as given in the evaluation sheet on the assu%ption

that participants &ould not #e &ell a&are o! varieties o! "nglish (+ee ppendix)

$art ; o! the uestionnaire contained eight uestions !or ualitative analses o! attitudes to the goal o! learning "nglish, the native spea'er (-+) %odel, and the non=

14


22/66

native spea'er (--+) %odel "ach uestion &as presented as a state%ent &ith a

seven=point 5i'ert scale (Ta#le 4)

Table 3.4 Statements with a sevenpoint !ikert scale

+tate%ent

The goal o! learning "nglish

1 "nglish is i%portant to enter a good school and to get a #etter Bo#2 It is i%portant to learn "nglish as an international language

"nglish is needed to co%%unicate &ith native spea'ers o! "nglish4 "nglish is needed to co%%unicate &ith non=native spea'ers o! "nglish

ttitudes to the -+ %odel

/ It is i%portant to have a native=li'e pronunciation. "nglish should #e learned !ro% native spea'ers o! "nglish

ttitudes to the --+ %odel

7 orean teachers o! "nglish can e!!ectivel teach not onl gra%%ar #utalso spea'ing "nglish

8 I a% (or % children are) interested in studing "nglish in sian countriessuch as the $hilippines, +ingapore, and India

$art > o! the uestionnaire consisted o! t&o %ultiple=choice uestions: 1) &hich

variet o! "nglish do ou &ant to learn and use@ and 2) to &hich countr do ou thin'

orea is %ost connected@ 3or the !irst uestion, participants &ere as'ed to indicate

three varieties o! "nglish in order o! pre!erence This direct uestion &as to co%pare

&ith their responses on the ite% good %odel o! "nglish in $art dditionall,

participants &ere as'ed to state their experiences o! staing in "nglish=spea'ingcountries and spea'ing "nglish &ith !oreigners as &ell as their #ac'ground

in!or%ation such as age, sex, "nglish pro!icienc, length o! ti%e spent studing

"nglish, etc

The !inal uestionnaire &ritten in #oth "nglish and orean &as piloted # t&o native

oreans #e!ore the surve

-(- ,rocedure

ll three parts o! the uestionnaire &ere presented to the participants at once 3or the

ver#al guise test ($art o! the uestionnaire), participants &ere given instructions on

ho& to co%plete the evaluation sheet and &ere told the i%portance o! evaluating six

accents as the perceive the% #ecause there is not a right or &rong ans&er The

purpose o! the ver#al guise test &as given right a!ter the surve, since this in!or%ation

%ight in!luence participants responses This 'ind o! FdeceptiveG (arrett, >oupland

15


23/66

and Willia%s 200: 1.) techniue &as understood # the participants

The listened to six accents through the sa%e laptop co%puter # one o! six di!!erent

orders o! accents ;e!ore the test, six accents had #een rando%l arranged # the

order o! In", o", ;r", Co", %", and Ta" This order &as presented di!!erentl to

each group (t&o to !our persons) that participated in the surve respectivel 3or

exa%ple, the !irst group heard In" !irst and then o", ;r", Co", %", and Ta"H the

second group heard o" !irst and then ;r", Co", %", Ta", and In"H the third group

heard ;r" !irst and then Co", %", Ta", In", and o"H li'e&ise, the !ourth group

heard Co" !irst, the !i!th group heard %" !irst, and the sixth group heard Ta" !irst 1

The total nu%#er o! participants &ho listened to each accent !irst &as si%ilar: 8 (In"),

. (o"), 7 (;r"), 8 (Co"), 7 (%"), and 7 (Ta") !ter !inishing evaluation o! one

accent and guessing &here the spea'er &as !ro%, participants listened to another

accent

!ter the ver#al guise test, participants &ere given instructions on ho& to co%plete

$art ; and > o! the uestionnaire $articipants &ere per%itted to as' uestions i! the

did not understand instructions in the uestionnaire It too' a#out 2/ %inutes to !inish

the surve

-(. /ata analsis

3or the data analsis, participants positive and negative evaluations on the nine

personalit traits in the ver#al guise test &ere arranged # the sa%e criteria: 1 is the

%ost un!avora#le evaluation, &hile 7 is the %ost !avora#le evaluation The total

nu%#er o! participants in the &hole uestionnaire &as 4H Co&ever, 4 participants did

not indicate three varieties o! "nglish in order o! pre!erence !or

o! the uestionnaire so the total nu%#er o! participants in this part &as exceptionall

9

The data &ere analEed # using +$++ (version 140) $revious studies (;aard et al

2001H >hi#a, 6atsuura and *a%a%oto 199/H Jung 200/H 6c'enEie 200.H *oo' 200/)

13 The order e!!ects !ound in the ver#al guise test &ill #e detailed in section 411

16


24/66

and #oo's on statistics (3ield 200/H ?u 200.) &ere consulted !or data analsis

escriptive statistics &ere conducted in ter%s o! !reuencies in order to calculate

%ean ratings, standard deviations, percentages, etc one=&a repeated=%easures

analsis o! variance (-D) &as run to co%pare several %eans such as

participants overall evaluations o! six accents o! "nglish paired=sa%ples t =test &as

conducted to co%pare t&o %eans such as participants evaluations o! native and non=

native accents o! "nglish 6ultivariate analsis o! variance (6-D) &as run to

deter%ine order e!!ects on the participants evaluations o! the six accents in the ver#al

guise test

17


25/66

.( 0esults

.(' ,art A1 The ver!al guise test

.('(' ,articipants’ evaluation of si+ spea%ers on personalit traits and as

models of English

t !irst, descriptive statistics conducted in ter%s o! !reuencies sho& the result o!

%ean ratings and standard deviations o! six spea'ers on nine traits, as given in Ta#le

41 #elo&

Table 4.1 "ean ratings #and standard deviations$ of six speakers on ninetraits #%&43$

+pea'er Trait

intelligent pleasant con!ident !luent gentle !a%iliar clear !riendl trust&orth

%" 444 (1/8)

02(142)

4(1.7)

472(179)

40(171)

49/(14)

41.(17)

77(1/9)

449(1.2)

;r" 4 (1.1)

2.(127)

428(1)

/2(1/1)

488(140)

440(1.1)

77(1..)

412(1/)

4(12/)

Co" 477

(18)

472

(1/0)

49/

(140)

4/.

(1//)

88

(1/0)

4/

(148)

498

(124)

412

(147)

472

(12)In" 274

(10)421

(14.)477

(181) 42(1./)

22(11)

14(1.0)

.7(1/8)

07(144)

81(147)

o" 4./ (1/)

7(1.)

4(1/7)

421(1.8)

40/(1/4)

484(1.2)

4/.(1//)

41.(1/9)

474(1/1)

Ta" 440 (18)

79(19)

4/.(1/)

8.(144)

409(1/)

4/(1/8)

40(14.)

4(144)

444(1)

(score 700Athe %ost !avora#le evaluation)

To loo' at &hether statisticall signi!icant di!!erences existed in participants

evaluations o! six spea'ers, the %ean ratings o! all nine traits o! the individualspea'ers &ere calculated and a one=&a repeated=%easures -D &as conducted

Ta#le 42 #elo& sho&s the %ean ratings and standard deviations o! all nine traits !or

six spea'ers 6auchls test sho&ed that the assu%ption o! sphericit &as not

violated ( 2 (14) = 1827, # O 0/) The %ain result o! -D (Ta#le 4) indicates

that there &ere signi!icant di!!erences #et&een the spea'ers, $ (/, 210) A 89, # L

001

18


26/66

Table 4.2 "ean ratings of all nine traits

6ean +td eviation -

%" 42429 8.8/7 4;r" 428.8 894/7 4

Co" 4/.07 8/.20 4

In" 4/22 .90.. 4

o" 420 8171/ 4

Ta" 42//8 .20/ 4

Table 4.3 Tests of withinsub'ects effects

+ource

Tpe III+u% o! +uares d!

6ean+uare 3 +ig

spea'er +phericit ssu%ed 078/ / .1/7 8929 000 reenhouse=eisser 078/ 41./ 792 8929 000

Cunh=3eldt 078/ 4.80 ./78 8929 000

5o&er=#ound 078/ 1000 078/ 8929 00/

"rror(spea'er) +phericit ssu%ed 144800 210 .90

reenhouse=eisser 144800 17491 828

Cunh=3eldt 144800 19./.9 77

5o&er=#ound 144800 42000 448

To !ind &hich di!!erences la #et&een the spea'ers, a post hoc test &as run $air&ise

co%parisons (Ta#le 44) state that there &ere signi!icant di!!erences #et&een In" and

the other !ive (%", ;r", Co", o", and Ta") spea'ers Co&ever, there &as no

signi!icant di!!erence #et&een %", ;r", Co", o", and Ta" In other &ords,

participants evaluated In" %ore negativel than other spea'ers #ut the did not

di!!erentiate %", ;r", Co", o", and Ta" This result violated an assu%ption that

participants &ould evaluate %" %ore !avora#l, since oreans strong pre!erence

!or %erican "nglish has #een reported in the literature (eg >hoi 200.H i% 200H

&on 2000H ?oh 200.)

19


27/66

Table 4.4 Post hoc test( )airwise comparisons for personalit* traits

(I) spea'er (J) spea'er

6eani!!erence(I=J)

+td"rror +ig(a)

9/S >on!idenceInterval !or

i!!erence(a)

5o&er ;ound

Upper ;ound

%" ;r" =044 1.7 1000 =/./ 477Co" =18 219 1000 =1001 ./

In" 791(X) 18. 002 212 1.9

o" =080 19 1000 =.79 /19

Ta" =01 170 1000 =/42 /1.

;r" %" 044 1.7 1000 =477 /./

Co" =274 208 1000 =921 7

In" 8/(X) 197 002 22 144.o" =0. 17 1000 =/7. /0

Ta" 01 1.7 1000 =488 //0

Co" %" 18 219 1000 =./ 1001

;r" 274 208 1000 =7 921

In" 1109(X) 1// 000 .27 1/90

o" 28 19. 1000 =74 849

Ta" 0/ 1.1 9.8 =19/ 80/In" %" =791(X) 18. 002 =1.9 =212

;r" =8/(X) 197 002 =144. =22

Co" =1109(X) 1// 000 =1/90 =.27

o" =871(X) 172 000 =1407 =/

Ta" =804(X) 14. 000 =12/9 =48o" %" 080 19 1000 =/19 .79

;r" 0. 17 1000 =/0 /7.Co" =28 19. 1000 =849 74

In" 871(X) 172 000 / 1407

Ta" 0.7 1/9 1000 =428 /.2

Ta" %" 01 170 1000 =/1. /42

;r" =01 1.7 1000 =//0 488

Co" =0/ 1.1 9.8 =80/ 19/

In" 804(X) 14. 000 48 12/9o" =0.7 1/9 1000 =/.2 428

;ased on esti%ated %arginal %eansX The %ean di!!erence is signi!icant at the 0/ levela dBust%ent !or %ultiple co%parisons: ;on!erroni

To co%pare participants evaluations o! native (%" and ;r") and non=native (Co",

In", o", and Ta") spea'ers, a paired=sa%ples t =test &as conducted The result

sho&ed that there &as no signi!icant di!!erence in evaluations o! native ( M A 42., S%

A 11) and non=native ( M A 41/, S% A 0/, t (42) A 8/, p A 98) spea'ers

Then, ho& did the participants evaluate the six spea'ers on the ite% good %odel o!

20


28/66

"nglish &hich &as given at the end o! nine traits in the uestionnaire@ one=&a

repeated=%easures -D &as conducted to co%pare their evaluations o! six

spea'ers as %odels o! "nglish The %ean ratings and standard deviations o! six

spea'ers as %odels o! "nglish are presented in Ta#le 4/ #elo& 6auchls test

indicated that the assu%ption o! sphericit &as %et ( 2 (14) A 2229, p O 0/) The

result o! -D sho&ed a signi!icant di!!erence #et&een the spea'ers, $ (/, 210) A

7//, p L 001

Table 4.+ "ean ratings of six speakers as models of ,nglish14

6ean +td eviation -

%"0 1884 4

;r"402 19 4

Co"70 1/0/ 4

In"212 981 4

o"72 1709 4

Ta"40 14 4

post hoc (Ta#le 4.) test %ani!ests a signi!icant di!!erence #et&een In" and the

other !ive (%", ;r", Co", o", and Ta") spea'ers Co&ever, there &as not an

signi!icant di!!erence #et&een %", ;r", Co", o", and Ta" This result is

consistent &ith that o! personalit traits descri#ed a#ove

14 I &ill discuss this in the discussion section

21


29/66

Table 4.- Post hoc t est( )airwise comparisons for a model of ,nglish

(I) spea'er (J) spea'er

6ean

i!!erence(I=J)

+td"rror +ig(a)

9/S >on!idenceInterval !or

i!!erence(a)

5o&er ;ound

Upper ;ound

%" ;r" =721 419 1000 =2024 /82Co" =9/ 80 1000 =1/77 78.

In" 118.(X) 00 004 2/2 2120

o" =419 90 1000 =1.2 79/

Ta" =09 /0 1000 =118 997

;r" %" 721 419 1000 =/82 2024

Co" 2. 92 1000 =894 1/4/

In" 1907(X) 2. 000 89 2921o" 02 9/ 1000 =92. 1/0

Ta" .28 /4 1000 =47 1729Co" %" 9/ 80 1000 =78. 1/77

;r" =2. 92 1000 =1/4/ 894

In" 1/81(X) 2.7 000 7/1 2412

o" =02 /1 1000 =1117 1070

Ta" 02 40 1000 =7/7 1.1In" %" =118.(X) 00 004 =2120 =2/2

;r" =1907(X) 2. 000 =2921 =89

Co" =1/81(X) 2.7 000 =2412 =7/1

o" =1.0/(X) 0 000 =2/49 =..0

Ta" =1279(X) 24 000 =20/ =/2

o" %" 419 90 1000 =79/ 1.2;r" =02 9/ 1000 =1/0 92.Co" 02 /1 1000 =1070 1117

In" 1.0/(X) 0 000 ..0 2/49

Ta" 2. 01 1000 =.11 12.2

Ta" %" 09 /0 1000 =997 118

;r" =.28 /4 1000 =1729 47

Co" =02 40 1000 =1.1 7/7

In" 1279(X) 24 000 /2 20/o" =2. 01 1000 =12.2 .11

;ased on esti%ated %arginal %eans

X The %ean di!!erence is signi!icant at the 0/ levela dBust%ent !or %ultiple co%parisons: ;on!erroni

paired=sa%ples t =test &as run to chec' ho& participants perceive native (%" and

;r") and non=native (Co", In", o", and Ta") spea'ers as %odels o! "nglish The

result indicated that there &as no statistical di!!erence in evaluations o! native ( M A

.., S% A 20) and non=native ( M A 2, S% A 11, t (42) A 187, p A 0.8) spea'ers

as %odels

3inall, 6-D &as conducted to exa%ine &hether the order o! spea'ers a!!ected

22


30/66

participants evaluations o! six spea'ers on all nine personalit traits Ta#le 47 sho&s

the six orders o! spea'ers &ith the nu%#er o! participants

Table 4. The number of participants in the six orders of speakers #%&43$

Drder o! spea'ers

a#cde! #cde!a cde!a# de!a#c e!a#cd !a#cde

$articipants 8 . 7 8 7 7

(aAIn", #Ao", cA;r", dACo", eA%", !ATa")

s the result, ;oxs test o! eualit o! covariance %atrices indicated the assu%ption

o! ho%ogeneit is %et ( p O 0/) 6ultivariate tests stated that the order o! spea'ers

a!!ected participants evaluations: $illais trace ( p A 01.), Wil's la%#da ( p A 00.),

Cotellings trace ( p A 002), and ?os largest root ( p A 000)

To !ind out the di!!erence o! order e!!ects on participants evaluations o! six spea'ers,

univariate tests &ere conducted 5evenes test o! eualit o! error variances !or six

spea'ers &as not signi!icant so the assu%ption o! ho%ogeneit o! variance &as not

violated Tests o! #et&een=su#Bects e!!ects indicated that there &ere signi!icant

di!!erences in the evaluation o! ;r" ( p & 01), o" ( p & 002), and Ta" ( p & 04)

due to the di!!erent order o! spea'ers

post hoc test on the order e!!ect &as conducted to con!ir% the di!!erences a#riels

procedure &as used #ecause the nu%#er o! participants in each order o! spea'ers &as

slightl di!!erent 6ultiple co%parisons sho&ed that there &ere order e!!ects in the

evaluations o! ;r" and o" ;ut %ultiple co%parisons indicated there &as no

signi!icant order e!!ect on Ta" It is interesting to !ind that participants evaluated ;r"

and o" %ore negativel &hen the listened to the% !irst in the order o! six spea'ers

Ta#le 48 and 49 present the results o! order e!!ect on ;r" and o"

23


31/66

Table 4./ Post hoc test( "ultiple comparisons for order effects on Br,

a#riel

ependentaria#le

(I)order

(J)order

6ean

i!!erence(I=J)

+td"rror

+ig

9/S >on!idenceInterval

5o&er ;ound

Upper ;ound

;r" a#cde! #cde!a =4444 42.19 992 =17.8 8794 cde!a# 9.8 4084 27/ =00 229/

de!a#c =48.1 94/8 9.7 =171/0 7427

e!a#cd =017 4084 1000 =100 129/

!a#cde =9.8 4084 99. =1..81 8744

#cde!a a#cde! 4444 42.19 992 =8794 17.8 cde!a# 14127(X) 490/ 08 04.4 27790 de!a#c =0417 42.19 1000 =1./. 12822

e!a#cd 4127 490/ 997 =9/. 17790

!a#cde 047. 490/ 1000 =1187 1419

cde!a# a#cde! =9.8 4084 27/ =229/ 00

#cde!a =14127(X) 490/ 08 =27790 =04.4

de!a#c =14/44(X) 4084 01/ =272/. =181

e!a#cd =10000 42182 27. =217 17 !a#cde =1./1(X) 42182 0. =2.788 =0/14

de!a#c a#cde! 48.1 94/8 9.7 =7427 171/0

#cde!a 0417 42.19 1000 =12822 1./.

cde!a# 14/44(X) 4084 01/ 181 272/.

e!a#cd 4/44 4084 98. =81.9 172/.

!a#cde 089 4084 1000 =11820 1.0/

e!a#cd a#cde! 017 4084 1000 =129/ 100 #cde!a =4127 490/ 997 =17790 9/.

cde!a# 10000 42182 27. =17 217

de!a#c =4/44 4084 98. =172/. 81.9

!a#cde =./1 42182 999 =1.788 948.

!a#cde a#cde! 9.8 4084 99. =8744 1..81

#cde!a =047. 490/ 1000 =1419 1187

cde!a# 1./1(X) 42182 0. 0/14 2.788 de!a#c =089 4084 1000 =1.0/ 11820

e!a#cd ./1 42182 999 =948. 1.788

;ased on o#served %eansX The %ean di!!erence is signi!icant at the 0/ level(aAIn", #Ao", cA;r", dACo", eA%", !ATa")

24


32/66

Table 4.0 Post hoc test( "ultiple comparisons for order effects on o,

a#riel

ependentaria#le

(I)order

(J)order

6ean

i!!erence(I=J)

+td"rror

+ig

9/S >on!idenceInterval

5o&er ;ound

Upper ;ound

o" a#cde! #cde!a 1/70(X) .71. 002 9./ 2.77. cde!a# .429 /18. ./2 =4/2 1780

de!a#c 7.9 99 48 =2947 1822/ e!a#cd 0714 /18. 1000 =1028 11...

!a#cde 202 /18. 1000 =8./0 12/

#cde!a a#cde! =1/70(X) .71. 002 =2.77. =9./

cde!a# =8942 782 278 =20712 2829

de!a#c =771 .71. 49 =1917 .74

e!a#cd =14./.(X) 782 00. =2.427 =288/

!a#cde =10.9(X) 782 020 =2489 =1298 cde!a# a#cde! =.429 /18. ./2 =1780 4/2

#cde!a 8942 782 278 =2829 20712

de!a#c 1210 /18. 1000 =9741 121.2

e!a#cd =/714 .40 829 =1702 /.0

!a#cde =4127 .40 98 =1/444 7190

de!a#c a#cde! =7.9 99 48 =1822/ 2947

#cde!a 771 .71. 49 =.74 1917 cde!a# =1210 /18. 1000 =121.2 9741

e!a#cd =.92/ /18. /44 =1787. 4027

!a#cde =/7 /18. 8.0 =1.289 /.14

e!a#cd a#cde! =0714 /18. 1000 =11... 1028

#cde!a 14./.(X) 782 00. 288/ 2.427

cde!a# /714 .40 829 =/.0 1702

de!a#c .92/ /18. /44 =4027 1787. !a#cde 1/87 .40 1000 =970 1290/ !a#cde a#cde! =202 /18. 1000 =12/ 8./0

#cde!a 10.9(X) 782 020 1298 2489

cde!a# 4127 .40 98 =7190 1/444

de!a#c /7 /18. 8.0 =/.14 1.289

e!a#cd =1/87 .40 1000 =1290/ 970

;ased on o#served %eansX The %ean di!!erence is signi!icant at the 0/ level(aAIn", #Ao", cA;r", dACo", eA%", !ATa")

-ot&ithstanding the order e!!ect, overall %ean ratings o! ;r" and o" on nine

personalit traits &ere not statisticall di!!erent In other &ords, the overall result o!

personalit traits !or the six spea'ers can #e relia#le With regard to participants

evaluations o! six spea'ers !or the ite% good %odel o! "nglish, no order e!!ect &as

!ound

25


33/66

To su% up, participants evaluated In" less !avora#l on the personalit traits and as a

%odel o! "nglish in the ver#al guise test Co&ever, the did not discri%inate %",

;r", Co", o", and Ta" irrespective o! &hether the &ere native spea'ers o! "nglish

or not I! the data are analEed in ter%s o! the native (%" and ;r") and non=native

(Co", In", o", and Ta") spea'ers, there is no statistical di!!erence #et&een these

t&o groups These results are uite di!!erent !ro% general attitudes o! oreans, ie

strong pre!erence !or %erican "nglish, reported in the literature (eg >hoi 200.H

i% 200H &on 2000H ?oh 200.) 6ore discussion &ill #e presented in section /

.('(" 2uessing where spea%ers were from

The participants &ere as'ed to guess &here the spea'ers &ere !ro%, !ollo&ing the

evaluation o! each spea'er in the ver#al guise test In order to exa%ine &hether the

participants &ere a&are o! varieties o! "nglish, their guesses o! spea'ers nationalities

&ere analEed in percentages The results are detailed in Ta#le 410 #elo&

Table 4.1 uesses where the speakers were from #%&43$

+pea'er uesses (S)

the U+ the U Cong ong India orea Tai&an

%" !3.! 47 1. 1. 2 70

;r" 279 41.& 18. 47 0 70

Co" 2 2/. 32.# 11. 47 2

In" 2 2 2 !3.! 1. 2

o" 11. 70 11. 47 !!. 9

Ta" 47 18. 2/. 47 209 2!.#

(>orrect guess !or each spea'er in bold)

In general, the percentages o! correct identi!ication o! nationalities &ere not high The

participants identi!ied their o&n accent, o" (//8S), %ost correctl !ollo&ed #

%" (//S), In" (//S), ;r" (419S), Co" (2.S), and Ta" (2/.S) These

results sho& that participants have di!!icult in identi!ing spea'ers accents +o%e

participants could not distinguish native accents: 279S con!used ;r" &ith %erican

There &ere also con!usions #et&een non=native accents: the %ost unidenti!ia#le

accent, Ta", &as %isidenti!ied as Cong ongese (2/.S) and orean (209S)H In"

&as &rongl guessed as Tai&anese (2S)

26


34/66

I! participants responses are analEed # the identi!ication o! native and non=native

accents, correct percentages #eco%e %uch higher s given in Ta#le 411 #elo&, the

%aBorit o! participants correctl distinguished native and non=native accents The

identi!ied non=native accents %ore clearl: In" (9/S) O o" (814S) O Ta"

(7.7S) O Co" (721S) ;ut the percentages o! correct identi!ication o! native

accents &ere relativel lo&er: ;r" (.97S) and %" (/81S)

In addition, there &ere participants &ho could not %a'e a distinction #et&een native

and non=native accents: so%e participants con!used %" &ith Cong ongese

(1.S) and Indian (1.S)H ;r" &as %isidenti!ied as Cong ongese (18.S)H Co"

&as incorrectl regarded as ;ritish (2/.S), etc It see%s that participants &ere less

a&are o! native and non=native varieties o! "nglish

Table 4.11 istinguishing native and nonnative speakers #%&43$

+pea'er uesses (S)

-ative accent -on=native accent

%" !.1 419

;r" #&.% 02

Co" 279 %2.1

In" 47 &!.3o" 18. 1.4

Ta" 2 %#.%

(>orrect guess !or each spea'er in bold)

.(" ,art *1 3uestions with a seven4point Li%ert scale

.("(' 3uestion '4.1 2oal of learning English

$art ; o! the uestionnaire &as to analEe participants language attitudes

ualitativel It &as not #ased on the ver#al guises The !irst !our uestions in $art ;

&ere concerned &ith the goal o! learning "nglish "ach uestion &as presented as a

state%ent on a seven=point 5i'ert scale The %ean ratings and standard deviations !or

the !our +tate%ents are given in Ta#le 412 #elo&

27


35/66

Table 4.12 "ean ratings for Statements on the goal of learning ,nglish #%&43$

+tate%ent 6ean+tdeviation

1 "nglish is i%portant to enter a good school and to get a #etter Bo# //4 17.

2 It is i%portant to learn "nglish as an international language //. 182 "nglish is needed to co%%unicate &ith native spea'ers o! "nglish /07 1.2

4 "nglish is needed to co%%unicate &ith non=native spea'ers o! "nglish

48. 171

(score 1Aco%pletel disagree, 7Aco%pletel agree)

The results generall sho&ed participants positive perspectives on "nglish language

learning The %ean ratings !or all !our state%ents &ere higher than 400 &hich

indicate neither agree nor disagree &ith the state%ent $articipants regarded "nglish

as i%portant to enter a good school and to get a #etter Bo# (6A//4) This response

can #e explained in the orean cultural context: the good co%%and o! "nglish is

needed to pass exa%inations to enter universit and the &or'place

3urther%ore, participants thought it is i%portant to learn "nglish as an international

language (6A//.) In other &ords, the considered "nglish not Bust one o! %an

!oreign languages #ut an international language !or glo#al co%%unication The

si%ilar %ean ratings !or +tate%ent (/07) and 4 (48.) sho& participants vie&pointthat "nglish is needed to co%%unicate not onl &ith native spea'ers #ut also &ith

non=native spea'ers o! "nglish This un#iased attitude to native and non=native

spea'ers o! "nglish &as con!ir%ed # a paired=sa%ples t'test: there &as no signi!icant

di!!erence #et&een the %ean ratings o! +tate%ents and 4 (t (42) A 80, p A 427)

It can #e %eaning!ul to loo' at participants perspectives on the goal o! learning

"nglish %ore closel in order to understand their attitudes to&ards varieties o!

"nglish ccordingl, percentages !or each +tate%ent &ere calculated 3irst, %ost

participants (791S) agreed on the i%portance o! "nglish to enter a good school and

to get a #etter Bo# -ot %an participants (209S) disagreed &ith this practical

purpose o! learning "nglish in orea 6ore detailed percentages o! participants

responses are given in 3igure 41 #elo&

28


36/66

5igure 4.1 )articipants6 agreement with Statement 1

completel*agree

agreesomewhatagree

somewhatdisagree

disagreecompletel*disagree

-

+

4

3

2

1

, e r c e n t

2+.-7

+1.27

2.37.7

11.-7

2.37

English is important to enter a good school and to get a !etter 5o!(

29


37/66

>oncerning +tate%ent 2, it is i%portant to !ind that the %aBorit o! participants

sho&ed the "I5 perspective 6ost participants (791S) expressed that it is i%portant

to learn "I5 There &ere %ore participants &ho strongl agreed (72S) or agreed

(72S) &ith this point o! vie&, as detailed in 3igure 42 #elo& 187S disagreed &ith

the%


completel*agree

agreesomewhatagree

neitheragree nordisagree

somewhatdisagree


4

3

2

1

, e r c e n t

3.273.27

4.72.37

.7.74.7

)t is important to learn English as an international language(

30


38/66

With regard to +tate%ent , %ost participants (721S) thought "nglish is needed to

co%%unicate &ith native spea'ers o! "nglish, as sho&n in 3igure 4 #elo& In

contrast, 209S indicated the opposite opinion There &ere slightl %ore participants

(70S) &ho did not express their exact position than those in the result o! +tate%ent 1

and 2 a#ove


completel*agree

agreesomewhatagree


somewhatdisagree


3

2

1

, e r c e n t

1/.-7

3.27

23.37

.711.-7

.7

2.37

English is needed to communicate with native spea%ers of English(

31


39/66

3or +tate%ent 4, the %aBorit o! participants (.74S) indicated "nglish is needed to

co%%unicate &ith non=native spea'ers o! "nglish, as presented in 3igure 44 #elo&

Dn the other hand, 2S disagreed &ith the% There &ere also slightl %ore

participants (70S) &ho did not state an agree%ent or disagree%ent


.("(" 3uestion 6471 Attitudes towards native and non4native models of

English


40/66

Table 4.13 "ean ratings for Statements on the %S model of ,nglish #%&43$

+tate%ent 6ean +td eviation

/ It is i%portant to have a native=li'e pronunciation 81 189

. "nglish should #e learned !ro% native spea'ers o!

"nglish

414 1922


Table 4.14 "ean ratings for Statements on the %%S model of ,nglish #%&43$

+tate%ent 6ean +td eviation

7 orean teachers o! "nglish can e!!ectivel teach not onlgra%%ar #ut also spea'ing "nglish

42. 18..

8 I a% (or % children are) interested in studing "nglish insian countries such as the $hilippines, +ingapore, and India

81 1842


To exa%ine &hether there &ere statistical di!!erences in participants attitudes to&ards

the -+ and --+ %odels o! "nglish, paired=sa%ples t =tests &ere conducted The

results sho& that there &as no signi!icant di!!erence #et&een the responses to the -+

and those to the --+ %odel o! "nglish, as given in Ta#le 41/ #elo& In other &ords,

participants did not di!!erentiate the -+ and --+ %odels o! "nglish

Table 4.1+ )aired samples t test for Statements on the %S and %%S modelsof ,nglish

$aired i!!erences

t d! +ig (2=tailed)6ean

+tdeviation

+td"rror 6ean

9/S >on!idenceInterval o! the

i!!erence

5o&er Upper

$air

1

+tate%ent / =

+tate%ent 7 =442 224 492 =144 //0

=89

9 42 74$air 2

+tate%ent / =+tate%ent 8

000 2498 81 =7.9 7.9 000 42 1000

$air

+tate%ent . =+tate%ent 7

=11. 171 484 =1092 8.0=24

042 811

$air 4

+tate%ent . =+tate%ent 8

2. 28.0 4. =//4 120. 747 42 4/9

This un#iased attitude to the -+ and --+ %odels o! "nglish is consistent &ith the

result o! the ver#al guise test detailed in section 411 In the ver#al guise test, there

&as no statistical di!!erence in participants evaluations o! native (%" and ;r") and

33


41/66

non=native (Co", In", o", and Ta") spea'ers as the %odel o! "nglish These results

are di!!erent !ro% oreans general language attitudes reported in the literature, ie

strong pre!erence !or %erican "nglish There!ore, it is necessar to exa%ine ho&

participants di!!erentl loo'ed at the -+ and --+ %odels o! "nglish in ter%s o! their

responses to +tate%ents / to 8

>oncerning +tate%ent /, 418S thought it is i%portant to have a native=li'e

pronunciation Co&ever, %ore participants (//S) indicated that a native=li'e

pronunciation is not i%portant !or the% 3igure 4/ #elo& sho&s participants

di!!erent perspectives

5igure 4.+ )articipants6 agreement with Statement +

completel*agree

agreesomewhatagree


somewhatdisagree


2+

2

1+

1

+

, e r c e n t

11.-70.37

2.07

4.7

23.372.07

0.37

)t is important to have a native4li%e pronunciation(

34


42/66

$articipants opinions !or +tate%ent . ("nglish should #e learned !ro% native

spea'ers o! "nglish) &ere divided The total percentage o! agree%ent and

disagree%ent &as 442S respectivel 11.S (neither agree nor disagree) suspended

their Budge%ent This percentage &as relativel higher than those !or other +tate%ents

(3igure 4.)

5igure 4.- )articipants6 agreement with Statement -

completel*agree

agreesomewhatagree


somewhatdisagree


2+

2

1+

1

+

, e r c e n t

1-.37

11.-7

1-.37

11.-7

23.37

11.-7

0.37

English should !e learned from native spea%ers of English(

35


43/66

In relation to orean teachers o! "nglish (+tate%ent 7), participants attitudes &ere

relativel %ore positive /82S thought that orean teachers o! "nglish can

e!!ectivel teach not onl gra%%ar #ut also spea'ing "nglish In contrast, 420S

sho&ed an opposite point o! vie&, as given in 3igure 47 #elo&

5igure 4. )articipants6 agreement with Statement

completel*agree

agreesomewhatagree

somewhatdisagree


3

2+

2

1+

1

+

, e r c e n t

.7

2.07

23.37

14.7

23.37

4.7

Korean teachers of English can effectivel teach not onl grammar

!ut also spea%ing English(

36


44/66

3or state%ent 8 (I a% (or % children are) interested in studing "nglish in sian

countries such as the $hilippines, +ingapore, and India), 489S expressed an opposite

opinion Co&ever, not a !e& participants (442S) stated that the have interest in

studing "nglish in those countries, as sho&n in 3igure 48 #elo& This positive

response can #e explained # the recent increase o! oreans learning "nglish in the

outer circle countries such as the $hilippines, +ingapore, 6alasia, etc (*ang 200.)

5igure 4./ )articipants6 agreement with Statement /

.(- ,art &1 Multiple4choice 8uestions

$art > o! the uestionnaire contained t&o %ultiple=choice uestions These uestions

&ere not #ased on the ver#al guises The !irst uestion &as to as' participants directl

&hich variet o! "nglish the &ant to learn and use $articipants &ere as'ed to state

three varieties o! "nglish in order o! pre!erence in a list o! t&elve options (%erican

"nglish, ustralian "nglish, ;ritish "nglish, >anadian "nglish, Cong ong "nglish,

Indian "nglish, orean=accented "nglish, -e& Kealand "nglish, $hilippine "nglish,+ingapore "nglish, +outh !rican "nglish, -o pre!erence) Co&ever, !our participants

agreeagreesomewhat

agreeneither

agree nordisagree

somewhatdisagree


2+

2

1+

1

+

, e r c e n t

2.37

23.37

1/.-7

.7

2.07

14.714.7

) am 9or m children are: interested in studing English in Asian

countries such as the ,hilippines; Singapore; and )ndia(

completel*

37


45/66

did not indicate the order o! pre!erence so their responses &ere excluded in the data

analsis There!ore, the total nu%#er o! participants !or this uestion &as 9

s their !irst pre!erence (3igure 49), participants &anted to learn and use %erican

"nglish (.92S) the %ost !avora#l, !ollo&ed # ;ritish "nglish (282S), and

>anadian "nglish (2.S) The stated onl three varieties o! the inner circle as their

!irst pre!erence Interestingl, their pre!erence !or %erican "nglish and then ;ritish

"nglish &as si%ilar to those o! previous studies ccording to *oo's (200/) stud,

orean universit students thought oreans should learn %erican "nglish (70S)

and ;ritish "nglish (27S) In i##s (1999) stud, orean pro!essionals responded

that the &ant to learn %erican "nglish (//9S) and ;ritish "nglish (20.S)

This pre!erence !or %erican "nglish &as con!ir%ed # the second uestion, To

&hich countr do ou thin' orea is %ost connected@ ll participants selected the

U+ $articipants see% to thin' that the &ant to learn and use %erican "nglish

#ecause orea is %ost connected to the U+ socio=econo%icall and culturall, as

descri#ed in section 21

38


46/66

5igure 4.0 )articipants6 first preference for a variet* of ,nglish

8anadian ,nglishBritish ,nglish 9merican ,nglish

-

4

2

, e r c e n t

2.-7

2/.27

-0.27

The first preference

39


47/66

-onetheless, participants did not disregard ;ritish "nglish "ven though ;ritish

"nglish &as ran'ed second !or the !irst pre!erence, it &as %ost pre!erred as the

second choice The result sho&ed that participants selected ;ritish "nglish (/9S),

%erican "nglish (08S), >anadian "nglish (2/.S), etc !or the second pre!erence

(3igure 410)

5igure 4.1 )articipants6 second preference for a variet* of ,nglish

Singapore,nglish

oreanaccented

,nglish

8anadian,nglish

British ,nglish 9ustralian,nglish

9merican,nglish

4

3

2

1

, e r c e n t

2.-72.-7

2+.-7

3+.07

2.-7

3./7

The second preference

40


48/66

$articipants stated %ore varieties o! "nglish as the third pre!erence (3igure 411)

>anadian "nglish (S) &as selected !irst, !ollo&ed # ustralian "nglish (20/S)

Interestingl, Cong ong "nglish (10S) &as ran'ed !ourth 77S selected orean=

accented "nglish as the !i!th pre!erence There &ere participants &ho selected Indian

"nglish (2.S) and +ingapore "nglish (2.S) even though the percentages &ere ver

lo&

5igure 4.11 )articipants6 third preference for a variet* of ,nglish

%opreference

Singapore,nglish

oreanaccented

,nglish

:ndian,nglish

;ong ong,nglish

8anadian,nglish

British,nglish

9ustralian,nglish

4

3

2

1

, e r c e n t

+.172.-7

.7

2.-7

1.37

33.37

1.072.+7

The third preference

41


49/66

6( /iscussion'6

6('( 0esearch 8uestion '1 /o Korean adults prefer certain

varieties of English<

To !ind an ans&er to research uestion 1 (o orean adults pre!er certain varieties o!

"nglish@), participants &ere as'ed to respond to uestions in $arts , ;, and > o! the

uestionnaire $art &as constructed to exa%ine participants perceptions o!

varieties%odels o! "nglish indirectl # using the ver#al guises $arts ; and > &ere

to as' participants directl ho& the loo' at varieties%odels o! "nglish # using the

ualitative uestionnaire The overall results indicate that orean adults language

attitudes in the present stud re!lect the "I5 perspective on varieties%odels o!

"nglish That is to sa, orean adults in this stud regarded "nglish as an

international language and did not discri%inate native and non=native varieties%odels

o! "nglish This result &as con!ir%ed # their responses to #oth the indirect ($art )

and direct ($art ;) uestions in the uestionnaire

In $art ; o! the uestionnaire, the %aBorit o! participants (791S) indicated that it is

i%portant to learn "I5 in order to co%%unicate not onl &ith native spea'ers (721S)

#ut also &ith non=native spea'ers (.74S) There &as no statistical di!!erence

#et&een each response to the necessit o! co%%unication &ith native and non=native

spea'ers o! "nglish The "I5 perspective &as also re!lected in their perceptions o! six

accents o! "nglish (%", ;r", Co", In", o", and Ta") in the ver#al guise test ($art

) The participants did not di!!erentiate !ive accents (%", ;r", Co", o", and

Ta") in relation to the personalit traits The exception &as In" &hich &as evaluated

less !avora#l Co&ever, i! the data are analEed in ter%s o! the native (%" and

;r") and non=native (Co", In", o", and Ta") accents, there is no di!!erence These

results &ere con!ir%ed # the statistical analses

>oncerning a %odel o! "nglish, participants evaluations o! six accents in the ver#al

guise test &ere the sa%e as those o! the personalit traits a#ove There &as no

di!!erence in the evaluation o! !ive accents (%", ;r", Co", o", and Ta") as a15 The i%portant results descri#ed in section 4 &ill #e reiterated &ith discussion

42

Korean Adults' Attitudes Towards Varieties of English

Documents

Transcript of Korean Adults' Attitudes Towards Varieties of English