Advertisement

Revising the Language Map of Korea

  • Changyong Yang
  • William O’GradyEmail author
  • Sejung Yang
  • Nanna Haug Hilton
  • Sang-Gu Kang
  • So-Young Kim
Reference work entry

Abstract

As linguists develop a deeper understanding of the properties of individual varieties of speech, they often find it necessary to reclassify dialects as independent languages, based on the criterion of intelligibility. This criterion is applied here to Jejueo, the traditional variety of speech used on Jeju Island, a province of the Republic of Korea. Although Jejueo has long been classified as a nonstandard dialect of Korean, evidence from an intelligibility experiment shows that it is not comprehensible to monolingual speakers of Korean and therefore should be treated as a separate language, in accordance with the usual practice within linguistics. This finding calls for a revision to the standard language map of Korea.

Keywords

Jejueo Korean Language Dialect Intelligibility 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Core University Program for Korean Studies through the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the Korean Studies Promotion Service of the Academy of Korean Studies (AKS-2015-OLU-2250005).

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Anderson, S. (2004). How many languages are there in the world? Pamphlet prepared for the linguistic Society of America. http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/faq-how-many-languages-are-there-world
  2. Austin, P., & Sallabank, J. (2011). Introduction. In P. Austin & J. Sallabank (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernard, R. (1996). Language preservation and publishing. In N. Hornberger (Ed.), Indigenous literacies in the Americas: Language planning from the bottom up (pp. 139–156). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Bouwer, L. (2007). Intercomprehension and mutual intelligibility among southern Malagasy languages. Language Matters: Studies in the Languages of Africa, 38(2), 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casad, E. (1974). Mutual intelligibility testing. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  6. Chafe, W. (Ed.). (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  7. Fishman, J. (1972). Language and nationalism: Two integrative essays. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  8. Gooskens, C. (2013). Experimental methods for measuring intelligibility of closely related language varieties. In R. Bayley, R. Cameron, & C. Lucas (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 195–213). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Grenoble, L. (2011). Language ecology and endangerment. In P. Austin & J. Sallabank (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of endangered languages (pp. 27–44). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Anthropologist, 68, 922–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hockett, C. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan. http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NationalMap.html
  12. King, R. (2006). Dialect variation in Korea. In H. Sohn (Ed.), Language in Korean culture and society (pp. 264–280). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  13. King, R. (2007). North and South Korea. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language and national identity in Asia (pp. 200–234). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kosheleva, O., & Kreivnovich, V. (2014). Dialect or a new language: A possible explanation of the 70% mutual intelligibility threshold. International Mathematical Forum, 9, 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maffi, A. (2011). Linguistic diversity: What’s the fuss all about? Terralingua Langscape, 2(8), 3–12.Google Scholar
  16. Okura, E. (2015). Language versus dialect in language cataloguing: The vexed case of Otomanguean dialect continua (Vol. 46, pp. 1–19). University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  17. Sohn, H.-M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages. (2003). Language vitality and endangerment. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/Language_vitality_and_endangerment_EN.pdf
  19. Vovin, A. (2009). Koreo-Japonic: A re-evaluation of a common genetic origin. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weinreich, M. (1945). The YIVO faces the post-war world. YIVO Bleter: Journal of the Yiddish Scientific Institute, 5, 3–18.Google Scholar
  21. Yeon, J. (2012). Korean dialects: A general survey. In N. Tranter (Ed.), The languages of Japan and Korea (pp. 168–185). New York: Routledge. Alekano Culture. Ukarumpa, Papua New Guinea: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Changyong Yang
    • 1
  • William O’Grady
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sejung Yang
    • 2
  • Nanna Haug Hilton
    • 3
  • Sang-Gu Kang
    • 4
  • So-Young Kim
    • 5
  1. 1.College of EducationJeju National UniversityJejuSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Hawaii – ManoaHonoluluUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of ArtsUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of English Language and LiteratureCheongju UniversityCheongjuSouth Korea
  5. 5.Department of British and American CulturesTongmyong UniversityBusanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations