‘ 1+ .
wig ;
fiawu .

{$444.

. mg

, Rig-'53; .

. r I
~.i.n_..y...,.

%

 

_1_.. ..u

 

‘I’Hbcie

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Language Practice and Identity of Korean-Chinese Bilinguals
in Yanji

presented by

Chunhua Ma

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD degree in Linguistics

 

 

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature
b/t/ov
/ I

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

- _o—--o—a-Q-g-o—n-n-n-o--—--.-.-O-O-.--n-.-.--O-I-.--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-O-O-O-O-O-0-O-0-0-.-.-I-O-I-.-.-I-.-O-I-0-.-.-.-

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDuo.p65—p. 15

 

LANGUAGE PRACTICE AND IDENTITY OF KOREAN-CHINESE
BILINGUALS IN YANJI

By

Chunhua Ma

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages

2004

ABSTRACT

LANGUAGE PRACTICE AND IDENTITY OF KOREAN -CHINESE
BILINGUALS IN YANJI

By
Chunhua Ma

This dissertation investigates three main aspects of language contact phenomena:
morphosyntactic constraints on codeswitching, motivations for code choice, and the issue
of bilingual identity formation. First, I approach Korean-Chinese intrasentential
codeswitching from a morphosyntactic perspective to test one of the most influential
frameworks in the field -——- the Matrix Language Framework Model (Meyers-Scotton,
1993). Naturally occurring Korean-Chinese data were analyzed to test the universal
applicability of the MLF model. The findings of this chapter show that the morpheme-
based MLF model is inadequate for these Korean-Chinese codeswitching data, primarily
due to the inadequacy of the system in identifying which language is the matrix and
which is the embedded language, a finding that is not so surprising in the face of the very
limited morphology of Chinese.

Second, I examine Korean-Chinese bilingual code choice, focusing on the role of
honorifics — obligatory linguistic forms that encode the social status of and relationships
between participants. By examining language internal factors, this chapter argues that the
status of one of the codes as an honorific language — one in which honorific
characteristics are embedded in language structure — also contributes to code choice.
The data reveals that when a person of inferior status addresses a superior, Korean is

preferred, while interaction between equals shows no such pattern. It also shows that in

the interaction between non-equals, the more intimate the relationship is, the more
Chinese is used; conversely, a less solidary relationship triggers a preference for Korean.
This result suggests that a structural property (i.e., honorific forms) makes for what might
be considered an unusual language choice, namely the use of the ‘non-home” language
(in this case, Chinese) to signal more solidary relationships. It also encourages
researchers in the field to examine linguistic properties embedded in contact languages
for a better understanding of bilingual language practice.

Third, I explore the issue of the ethnic identity of Korean-Chinese bilinguals in this
community to provide both further background and a richer interpretive framework for
the more detailed bilingual practices already outlined in previous chapters. Drawing
together the socio-political and historical facts of the community with ethnographic
reflections on both personal and group identity and the relationship of identity to
language practices themselves, I propose a three-stage model to account for ethnic
identity formation: unexamined Korean-Chinese identity, ethnic identity searching, and
achieved Korean-Chinese identity. I present this complex and multilayered Korean-
Chinese identity by examining multiple historical, social, and ideological factors as well
as subjective feelings, beliefs and practices, and argue for an established Korean-Chinese
identity by showing two sets of inseparable ingredients embedded in this dual identity,
which give rise to this unique group: their Koreanness resulted from their efforts to
preserve ethnic purity as well as linguistic and cultural practice, and their Chineseness is
embedded in their national pride and ideological training. I also show that their positive
attitudes toward bilingualism have made a significant contribution to this highly

integrated bicultural identity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My utmost gratitude goes to my academic advisor—Dr. Dennis Preston, who has
been teaching me over the years what it means to be a scholar, professor and mentor. His
guidance and encouragement helped me through my entire graduate student life here at
MSU, without which I would never have been able to complete this dissertation. His
enthusiasm for the subject matter always inspired me to explore more and learn more. His
insight, his timely and constructive feedback, as well as his patience with my slow
progress made this dissertation into today’s shape. I would also like to thank Dr. Barbara
Abbott for her critical comments on every chapter of my early draft; I am especially
thankful for her help on Chapter 3, which made this dissertation more like a “real
dissertation.” I am also grateful for Dr. David Dwyer and Dr. Deogratias Ngonyani for
their time and help throughout the course of writing this dissertation. Robin at the
Writing Center deserves a special acknowledgement; she has graciously offered first-
class professional help on my writing and patiently corrected my broken English over and
over again.

I am also indebted to my former professors and mentors at Yanbian University of
Science and Technology, whose undying love and prayer support have accompanied
every single step of my journey in pursuing higher education here in the States. My
lovely family back in China and my dear brothers and sisters from Lansing Chinese
Christian Fellowship have been great encouragement and blessings to me, and I know for

sure that I have never been alone—God’s loving and caring hands were always with me.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................... Viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2
THE KOREAN -CHIN ESE COMMUNITY—YAN J I ................................. 6
Yanji ......................................................................................... 6
Korean-Chinese people .................................................................. 10
Immigration history ............................................................. 10
Their Ancestral Homeland - Korea ............................................ 13
Connections with the Ancestral Land ......................................... l4
Passion for Education and High Achievement ............................... 18
Marriage ........................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 3
KOREAN -CHINESE INTRASENTENTIAL CODESWITCHING .................. 22
Bilingual codeswitching ................................................................... 24
The Matrix Language Framework Model ............................................... 26
Matrix Language vs. Embedded Language .................................... 26
Content Morphemes vs. System Morphemes. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ..' ................. 28
Principles of the MLF Model .................................................... 31
Morphosyntactic features of Chinese & Korean ....................................... 35
Data analysis ................................................................................ 37
Problems .................................................................................... 46
Summary .................................................................................... 59
CHAPTER 4
BILINGUAL CODE CHOICE ............................................................. 61
Honorification .............................................................................. 62
Power & Solidarity ......................................................................... 64
Data .......................................................................................... 68
Results & Discussion ..................................................................... 71
Overall Code Choice ............................................................... 71
Second Person Direct Address .................................................. 73
Different Behaviors of Each Speaker ........................................... 81
Summary .................................................................................... 84

CHAPTER 5

IDENTITY AND LAN GAUGE ATTITUDE & PRACTICE ......................... 86
Korean-Chinese Identity Formation .................................................... 88
Theoretical Framework ......................................................... 88
Three-stage model ............................................................... 91
Components of Korean-Chinese identity ....................................... 99
Korean Language & Culture Preservation and Ethnic Purity ........ 100
Chinese Ideology & National Pride ..................................... 103
Self-Identification of Korean-Chinese ......................................... 105
Language Attitude & Linguistic Practices ............................................. 113
Language Attitude and Ethnic Identity ......................................... 113
Language Practices ............................................................... l 18
Summary ................................................................................... 123
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 125
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................. 129

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1.

Table 3.1.

Table 3.2.

Table 4.1.

Table 4.2.

Table 4.3.

Table 4.4.

Table 4.5.

Table 4.6.

Table 4.7.

Table 4.8.

Table 5.1.

Distribution of Korean Schools and Chinese Schools in Yanji .................. 9
Morphosyntactic Features of Korean and Chinese .............................. 37
Morphosyntactic Featurs of English and Japanese ............................... 54
Sample Coding of the Data .......................................................... 70
Speaker X’s Code Choice by Addressee ........................................... 71
Speaker C’s Code Choice ........................................................... 72
Frequency of Second Person Direct Address Usage ............................. 74
Speaker X’s Second Person Direct Address Usage .............................. 75
Speaker C’s Second Person Direct Address Usage ............................. 76
Comparison of X & C Addressing J ................................................ 81
C & X’s Different Pronominal Usage Addressing J ............................. 82
Phinney’s Three-Stage Model ....................................................... 90

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. The Location of Yanji ............................................................... 6
Figure 2.2. Bilingual signs in Yanji .............................................................. 7
Figure 2.3. Bilingual Website ..................................................................... 8
Figure 4.1. Brown & Gilman’s Power and Solidarity Use .................................... 65

Figure 4.2. Power/Solidarity Relations in an Honorific/non-Honorific Language Choice
Situation ................................................................................ 66
Figure 4.3. Power & Solidarity Relationship in This Study .................................. 67

Figure 4.4. Power & Solidarity Relationship Among the Interlocutors in This Study. . .. 69

Figure 4.5. Speaker X’s Code Choice by Addressee ........................................... 72
Figure 4.6. Speaker C’s Code Choice by Addressee ........................................... 73
Figure 4.7. Speaker X’s Second Person Direct Address Usage ............................... 75
Figure 4.8. Speaker C’s Second Person Direct Address Usage ............................... 76
Figure 4.9. X & C’s Language Choice When Addressing J .................................. 81
Figure 4.10. X & C’s Second Person Direct Address Usage ................................. 82
Figure 5.1. Korean-Chinese Identity Formation ................................................ 91

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction

The field of language contact research has witnessed an unprecedented growth in
depth and breadth over the past decade or so, which has greatly enhanced our
understanding of language contact phenomena. Approaching language contact from a
wide range of theoretical perspectives, scholars in the field have conducted extensive
research on its various aspects as well as on ever increasing language pairs and groups
that had drawn little, if any, attention before. The main goal of this research is to
investigate the language practice of Korean-Chinese bilinguals and its relationship to
their dual identity formation.

Yanji, a bilingual community located in Northeast China, is home to 173,400 of
the country’s 2 million Korean minorities. With its uniquely hyphenated Korean-Chinese
presence, the community tells the story of how an immigrant group has made
considerable effort to preserve its ethnic language and culture while managing to thrive in
a foreign land. In sharp contrast with so-called rebellious Tibetans, Korean-Chinese are
referred to as “models” (Zhou 2000) and are often pointed to as the most prominent
examples of the success of China’s minority policy in general and bilingual education
policy in particular. On the one hand, their outstanding achievement in education and
socio-economic areas has significantly outstripped other minority groups in China; on the
other hand, they distinguish themselves from other Korean diaspora communities by their
well-preserved ethnic culture and language after a century of living in a foreign land.

Furthermore, the language contact situation in Yanji presents its uniqueness in
many ways. Unlike much previous research, in this community the linguistic relationship

between Korean and Chinese is not the case described as diglossia, that is, the existence

of two languages (or varieties of language) within the same speech community, one of
which is accorded high prestige, the other low prestige (Ferguson, 1959). Both Korean
and Chinese enjoy the status of official language: Korean along with Chinese has
penetrated every dimension of the people’s social life, both public and private.
Bilingualism is an inseparable part of people’s day-to—day life, and freely switching from
Korean to Chinese or vice versa is their way of signaling their identity: one that is similar
to but different from Koreans from Korean Peninsula and other Han-Chinese. The highly
developed bilinguality manifested in this community certainly deserves a closer look
from several perspectives.

The typological distinction of the two languages involved in this community is
also striking. It is well known that Chinese is a SVO language with very little inflection,
while Korean is a typical agglutinating SOV language with a rather rich morphology.
Therefore, with regard to syntactic structure, Korean and Chinese have quite different
surface word order; while in terms of morphological features, undeniably there is a huge
difference in morphological complexity between Chinese and Korean, which occupy two
extremes respectively in a continuum of degrees of inflectional richness. In addition,
Korean has a complicated honorific system, and its speakers have to be sensitive to such
variables as status, age, sex, level of intimacy, and situational formality, and are required
to adjust their grammars as these variables change. On the contrary, Chinese is a typical
non-honorific language, and the same utterance can be addressed to almost anyone —
friends, spouse, children, boss, and strangers. The complicated interplay of social and
linguistic factors involved in this community provides an ideal case to study how

members of an ethnic group in a language contact situation employ language varieties in

their daily linguistic practice to present and construct their bilingual/bicultural identity
and how the formation of this dual identity facilitates their cultural and linguistic
preservation.

However, research on Korean-Chinese language contact practiced by 2 million
Korean-Chinese bilinguals in China is still largely neglected, and language practices and
their relationship to identity in this community remain completely unknown to the field,
especially Western scholarship. Previous research on bilingualism in the field has heavily
focused on the language contact situations in the United States, in Central America, in
Europe, and in Africa. Among the few studies that introduced this community to US
academia (e.g. Lee 1986; Olivier 1993), none has approached it from a linguistic
perspective. Furthermore, ethnographies of this community were mostly conducted by
scholars in China or Korea and rarely were there any studies written in English.
Therefore, compared to other diaspora Koreans such as Koreans in Japan and in the USA,
the largest oversea Korean community has received very little attention in the field.
Adding this community will certainly shed new light on our understanding of language
contact phenomena.

The language data on which this dissertation is based has all been collected in
Yanji — the largest ethnic Korean community in China. As an ethnic researcher with
community membership, I had the privilege of observing people talking and acting freely
the way they would interact with any other bilingual in the community. Membership in
the ethnic group that is being studied is a cultural asset that “should enable the researcher
to dispense with interpreters, to be sensitive to cultural norms, and to have easier access

to and more profound relationship with a larger number of community members”

(Zentella 1997: 7). My status as community member has minimized the negative effect
of an obtrusive participant observation, which is crucial for an ethnographic study of
community bilingualism. I was able to collect unselfconscious speech, which reflects the
least attention to form, and, therefore, is supposed to be the most regular and systematic,
and most interesting for the analysis of linguistic structure (Labov 19722208). My native
knowledge in both Chinese and Korean has given me crucial advantages in analyzing the
data, because “many important aspects of the structure of a given language are essentially
beyond the reach of the scholar who is not a native speaker of it” (Hale 19692386).
Furthermore, my absence fi'om the community for an extended period and my training in
the field of sociolinguistics have helped me to overcome the potential danger that a native
ethnographer may have, which is to be blind about the significance of everyday acts that
group members take for granted.

However, over the course of writing this dissertation, I had to constantly resist the
temptation to “be all encompassing, to include every sub-group within the community,
and to record a wealth of linguistic and cultural details accurately” (Zentella 1997; 7). I
hoped to give an accurate and comprehensive account of this community; meanwhile, I
realized the limitation of myself as a cultural interpreter mainly because “cultures do not
hold still for their portraits” (Clifford 1986: 10). My hope with this dissertation is to
present preliminary findings about this community, focusing on language practices and
identity.

Following a common understanding of language not only as a resource but also as
“an expression of multiple identity and a response to multiple identity” (Clyne 2003; 2),

this study addresses issues of how bilingual speakers tactically (but tactfully) manipulate

two different linguistic systems in their daily conversation to fulfill the two key functions
of language: the most effective way of human interaction and “a means by which people
can identify themselves and others” (Clyne 1991; 3-4).

In this introductory chapter, I have explained the significance of the study. The
rest of the dissertation will be organized as follows. Chapter Two of this study will
survey work on societal and individual bilingualism and introduce the Yanji bilingual
community by providing historical, international, political and socio-economic
background information and by describing the linguistic situation in the area where the
data was collected. Chapter Three will investigate a most common practice of bilingual
speakers — codeswitching, focusing on morphosyntactic aspects of intrasentential
codeswitching through the framework of Myers-Scotton’s (1993) Matrix Language
Frame approach. Chapter Four will make use of the Power-Solidarity contrast in
discussing how a typological difference — the grammatical encoding of honorification
— affects Korean-Chinese bilingual speakers’ code choices. Chapter Five will explore
issues of identity with regard to language and cultural preservation in the community
based on conversational data and try to relate the practices observed in the earlier
chapters to more ethnographically oriented folk-linguistic data drawn from speakers
themselves. Finally, in Chapter Six, I will summarize the results of my study and point

out some future directions for the study of language practices in this community.

Chapter 2: The Korean-Chinese Community —Yanji

Walking through the streets of Yanji — a small Korean-Chinese bilingual
community in Northeast China — one would momentarily forget where he/she actually is,
in China or in Korea. Kevin Platt, a staff writer of Waits};
describes Yanji as “a world within a world”:

Yanji is in many ways a clone of a South Korean metropolis: Korean blues

wafting out of neon-lit karaoke parlors mix with the singsong chatter of ethnic

Koreans strolling past clubs restaurants and saunas at the pulsating heart of the

city. . .. Yet Yanji, which resembles Seoul more than it does Beijing, is actually a

world within a world, the capital of a 2-million-strong ethnic Korean community
in the northeastern Chinese province of Jilin. (Platt, 1997)

2.1. Yanji—a Bilingual Community

    

Figure 2.1. The location of Yanji
(Dave Herring -The Christian Science Monitor International, Oct 9. 1997)

Yanji is the capital city of Yanbian—a Korean Autonomous Region in China. The

total population of Yanji is 289,600 (2000 Census), 58.64% of which are ethnic Koreans.

As a designated minority region, ethnic Korean’s right of using their ethnic language has

been protected constitutionally, and both Korean and Chinese enjoy equal status as the
official languages of the region. The Korean language and writing system are widely used
alongside the Chinese, and both are used in documents and announcements of
government meetings, in business and commerce, and in writing authorizations to
technicians and workers. The signs and seals of government, business, and commercial
agencies uniformly appear in Chinese and Korean as well as all matters pertaining to

court and police affairs. Signposts and billboards appear in both Chinese and Korean as

shown in Figure 2.2.

      

MinSokChon (Korean village in Yanji) Yanji Airport

Figure 2.2. Bilingual Signs in Yanji. (http://yanbi@yemoognetl)

Likewise, newspapers, radio, television, and other media are also available in both
languages. Out of five Korean publishers in China, there are two located in Yanji.
Yanbian Remin Publishing Co. publishes more than two hundred different titles every
year and various journals in Korean, such as Zhongxuesheng Journal, F anxing, and
Qingm'an Shenghuo. Major newspapers, such as Yanbian Daily, Yanji WanBao, and
GaJung Shinmun, are available in both Korean and Chinese. Out of 21 different journals

and newspapers published in Yanbian, 12 are in the Korean language. Two radio stations

have both Korean and Chinese broadcasts and people also have access to TV programs in
Korean from two major TV stations. Yanbian TVStation and Yanji TV Station show
South Korean dramas and news daily, and selected Chinese programs are dubbed into
Korean and shown on these channels. With the installation of Satellite TV, people also
have access to many South Korean TV programs, such as KBS (Korean Broadcasting
System) and MBC (Munhwa Broadcasting Corp). Similarly most official websites have
two different versions: a Korean one and a Chinese one. Some recently emerged online
sites are bilingual; Figure 2.3. is a snapshot from the homepage of the Korean—Chinese
Students’ Center. Here we see both Korean and Chinese on the same page, and, similarly,
if we take a look at online discussion, we will see messages posted in Chinese being

responded to in Korean or vice versa.

7

fifiwh.'~m~mwrwmr UnmwmhmwuH-www

I "MnMMwucmmav

 

 

 

 

 

. . fllflnt
,‘nulhm-frwrl‘v* . nn-nn-a‘urJEL
«K "I’ 530 We mam
lag: lees: l$al°d5i laser lxscuiai n I use use-2| warm Innate llfi.
gamma: “W, -gmaam ma:
managed
gun .ae 3513mm genesis sure
«so fir?! E5! erasing '31s oral! eaiaiuieue'- if “flag!
at»: 2'! 938 “9 Jena °.'i >_
uei 2:521:54 n :@3°Jnl seen site: [11' ,
ugggA gas 5&0 3R5 ”2221“" “a .— 9.15 Wage} “lggfirgl IbJ:1[l ....
any SNAIOIS we smu 312': :mm awn are u
:12: 6:3 use:
aalnlfii zam-)
Iraaaltouumsan
was:
asesmawis invasion 2:1 are same.
anamrm
. my mum me" am am mm
anew.“ * teatime use: :Emyieomaaer Q5 i' D“ My 9131 -»
5435 2L H: as 2a a: was Xl‘d $alxl‘ll xi 9‘5 9 MM “MW .. .- 9
than as Ainsic are: are areucr '
nae .mimua é
LlBl-‘P—‘Hximm ~Isnmaax: ‘
file-Inna!)
bung»
MD human 38 was:
Intimates: Out—M23337 7 1(9) _. , ._ j
I est-imam: smanirmsza I wannmnmasm mg l
__ #:3191963” _,. _ , ., 7,5,5 ,, Orlatrameaoiwaixinweu ,7, ,, jg]

 

Figure 2.3. The Korean-Chinese Students’ Center (http:[/www,ksc,cgm,gn)

In the schools, students are given options to be educated and tested in their own
language. China’s minority policy has continued to emphasize the use of ethnic
languages in teaching from Kindergarten to high school. There are two types of schools
in Yanji: one is Korean and the other is Chinese. In Korean schools, Korean is the
medium of instruction and Chinese is taught as a subject. The following table shows the

distribution of Korean and Chinese schools in the area.

Table 2.1. Distribution of Korean Schools and Chinese Schools in Yanji

2i"-'?'~' “:1?! fis%?Wfii?ffefl!‘M'nfim.M§l .- , ’quxfi.mfixjfihfiedfli”33‘?me Wmcflnhfifl'fifirfnw1";s’lm Ta )1/‘1‘1'4- _, {firi'x :‘t‘ fifty}? '3‘)” '92:;
Korean ' 1 4 mese 0E1 '
' " ' ”-2122 ' W ' , - . .1"; -j-‘ Haj“): H.321. .. “ . ‘ 1. -. 5‘." :j, S : -8". -‘ ' 1'.’ "1 ’.: " ' "‘

I? . ‘- '3 1":. 1"~‘-?'. ‘ .1". ~.;.;:~, 5:10 .. . ..
Elementary Schools 15 27 42
114340..“«31:-'.-.H:x:<".*.x:»:-‘37—:033-‘3:'r (>242. ' ' ~ ‘ 1.? ' . ,' . ' - v 1 1‘74 'I -. . ' - - '
High Schools 2 3 5

(Yanji Statistical Yearbook, 2001)

All higher education, however, has to be finished in Chinese. Except for Yanbian
University of Science & Technology, all other major higher education institutions use
Chinese as the medium of instruction.

Apparently, bilingualism has penetrated every dimension of Korean-Chinese
people’s daily life. Yanji, with its hyphenated bilingual/bicultural presence, is gradually
making itself known to the outside world through its people—Korean-Chinese people. In
what follows, I will walk you through the past and the present of this distinct cultural
group that manifests a “remarkably harmonious blend of Chinese and Korean societies”

(Platt 1997).

2.2. People

The term “Korean-Chinese” refers to ethnic Koreans who are currently residing in
China as Chinese citizens. The entire group has a population of 1,923,842 (according to
the 2000 census), mainly living in the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Region in Jilin
Province. Others are widely distributed over the Jilin, Heilongjian, and Liaoning

provinces and the inner Mongolian Autonomous Region.

2.2.1. Immigration History

Unlike most other minority groups in China, who are either indigenous or have
lived in the territory of today’s China for a long period of time, ethnic Koreans are a
relatively recent immigrant group. The history of Korean immigration to China can be
traced back to the latter part of the seventeenth century, but it did not occur on a large
scale until the mid-ninteenth century (Lee 1986; Mackerras 1994). The first major wave
of Korean immigration to China took place in 1869, when a severe famine ravaged the
land and left nothing for the people to live on. Like many other immigrants, the ancestors
of today’s Korean-Chinese sought better living conditions, and they crossed over the
Tumen River and settled down in Northeastern China. The second major wave of
immigration started in 1910, when Japan launched an attack on Korea and defeated and
colonized the country. Determined to fightback and regain the freedom and
independence of their homeland, many patriotic Koreans moved to China. The nature of
immigration at this stage was not only to seek better economic living conditions, but also
to preserve Korean institutions, ways of life, and culture outside the dominance of

Japanese influence. In 1931, as Japan took complete control over Manchuria, Koreans

10

allied with the local Han majority in their efforts to fight for their homeland. After Korea
regained its independence in 1945, some people returned, while others stayed in the
Chinese territory, and, since then, they have shared the same experiences with all other
Chinese people. Since the People’s Republic of China announced its formation in 1949
and the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Region was founded in 1952, Koreans in China
officially became part of the family of Chinese nations along with 54 other minority
groups.

Compared to their fellows who emmigrated to Japan and the USA, ethnic
Koreans’ settlement in China was relatively easy, which can mainly be attributed to
China’s minority policy. China is a multinational state with 55 minority nationalities in
addition to the majority, Han Chinese. The Chinese word zhonghua carries a symbolic
connotation of China as a civilization as opposed to pure geopolitical boundaries;
zhonghua minzu “Chinese nation” refers to both Han Chinese and non-Han ethnic groups.
During five thousand years of disintegration and reunification, the political dominance
was not always held by the Han ethnic group; many other groups, such as Qidan (the
Liao Dynasty), Niizhen (the J in Dynasty), Mongol (the Yuan Dynasty) and Manchu (the
Qing Dynsaty), also actively took part in the history of zhonghua minzu with significant
contributions. Nonetheless, for most of its history, the majority Han culture has been the
primary determinant of Chinese culture.

Facing this huge ethnic diversity and potential threat from these minority groups,
which are mainly scattered around the borders, to the central government, the newly-
founded communist government adopted a regional autonomy model to consolidate the

new regime (Olivier 1993). Article 3 of the first constitution, which was adopted by the

11

First National People’s Congress in 1954, states the basic policy of the PRC towards its
minority nationalities:
The People’s Republic of China is a unitary multinational state.
All the nationalities are equal. Discrimination against or oppression of any
nationality, and acts which undermine the unity of the nationalities, are

prohibited.

All the nationalities have the freedom to use and develop their own spoken and
written languages, and to preserve or reform their own customs and ways.

Regional autonomy applies in areas where a minority nationality lives in a
compact community.

All the national autonomous areas are inseparable parts of the People’s Republic

of China. (Constitution of the People’s Republic of China: 9; from Mackerras

1994)
Two key principles are emphasized here: the equal rights of all the nationalities and their
right to autonomy'. The term ronghe “fusion” was used instead of tonghua
“assimilation,” with the meaning of the former being “the process whereby two or more
cultures combine to produce another, that is significantly different from the parent
cultures” (Minority and human rights law, 1987: 4). Whether ronghe is just a skillful
expression of tonghua in expressing a unilateral influence from the majority Han Chinese
rather than a bilateral or mutual influence, the autonomy model undoubtedly made a
significant contribution in preserving ethnic culture, language, and religion. Except

during the decade-long Cultural Revolution, when communist leaders attempted to

eliminate ethnic language and culture by imposing a monolithic Chinese communist

 

' However, as pointed out by Mackerras, “even the slightest hint of secession or independence, of breaking
up the ‘unity’ of the PRC, must be prevented at all cost” (1994: 145). Provided that the minority groups
posed no potential threats to the central government, the PRC authorities implemented the strategy of the
“Salad Bowl” for the short-terrn, but “Melting Pot” for the long run.

12

culture, China’s minority policy by and large facilitated the cultivation of ethnic

individuality; this is especially true in the case of Korean-Chinese.

2. 2. 2. Their Ancestral Homeland—Korea

Korea has used several different names over the years to refer to itself : Koryo,
Chosun, Daehan Ceykuk, Daehan Minkuk, and Chosun. The name “Korea” comes from
the Koryo dynasty, which ruled the Korean peninsula from 918 to 1392. Chosun means
“the Land of the Morning Calm,” and was the name of the earliest of the ancient
kingdoms (emerging during the fourth century BC.) as well as the last kingdom (Yi
dynasty, 1392-1910). From 1910 to 1948, Daehan Ceykuk (The Han Empire) was used
through Japan’s colonial rule. In 1948, the Korean peninsula was divided into two
separate states, and nowadays, the Republic of Korean (South Korea) is called Hankuk
( 1948-present), while the People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) is known as Chosun
(l948-present). Therefore, South Koreans call themselves Hankuk-Saram2 (South
Korean) and North Koreans are called Chosun-Saram (North Korean).

Over the past fifty-some years of separation, due to its self-imposed isolation,
North Korea was barely known to the world until the recent nuclear issues. South Korea,
however, along with its growing economic development, sent many people to study
abroad or even emmi grate to other countries. Therefore, the most recent Korean
immigrants, such as Korean-Americans, Korean-Brazilians, etc., have emigrated from
South Korea and refer to themselves as Hankuk-Saram (South Korean). However, the

three oldest Korean immigrant groups, which emigrated from the unified Korea prior to

 

2 Saram means “people.”

13

1948, have adopted different names. For example, Koreans in Russia still call themselves
as Koryo-in, the term which can be traced back to the old Koryo Kingdom. Koreans in
Japan, based on their political affiliation, refer to themselves as Chosun-jin (North
Korean) or Hankoku-jin (South Korean). Ethnic Koreans in China have followed the
Chinese way of naming ethnic groups in China, which is to attach z_tr_/jok to their ethnic
name to indicate their ethnicity, and call themselves Chosun-jok in Korean or Chagxian-
_z_u_ in Chinese. For most Korean-Chinese people, the term Hankuk-saram (South
Korean) only refers to the people who are currently living in South Korea with South
Korean citizenship. The country of South Korea is still a foreign country for ethnic
Koreans living in China; they would need a visa to enter the country, and many of them

have never visited there.

2. 2. 3. Connections with the Ancestral Land

Over the long history of settlement in China, ethnic Koreans have maintained a
close tie with their ancestral land. Due to political and ideological reasons, prior to the
late 19805, ethnic Koreans in China had little contact with their brothers and sisters in the
South; however, they maintained a relatively strong tie with North Koreans by having
rather intense contact both at the academic and cultural level. The overall friendly
relationship between North Korea and China also cultivated a rather fertile ground for the
communication between the two peoples. Koreans in Yanbian did not even need a visa to
visit their relatives in North Korea; a simple travel permit issued by local governments
was sufficient to legally cross the border at that time. In the late 1940s when the China-

Korea border was still loosely controlled, it was quite common for Korean schools in

14

Yanbian to adopt North Korean textbooks. Quite a few North Korean scholars (e.g., Kim
Su-Gyong, Yu Y01, and Chong Yul-mo) had a great impact on enriching Korean
language and literature by their periodic visits to and teaching in Yanbian, and Yanbian
also sent its teachers and scholars to study at the major universities in North Korea.
Yanbian University and many North Korean Institutions, including Kim Il-song
University, the National Library, the Central Science Library, the People’s Economic
College, and the Great Hall of People’s Study, established official agreements in
exchanging books as well as other resources (Lee 1986).

Cultural exchange programs between North Korea and Yanbian were also quite
active. Up until the early 19808, North Korean delegations such as youth musical troupes
and exchange groups from Hoeryoung frequently had performances on the stages of
Yanbian. This enriched the life of Korean-Chinese in Yanbian a great deal with live
music, folk songs, and dances and strengthened the emotional attachment between North
Koreans and the Korean-Chinese by reinforcing their common heritage. North Korean
radio and television were accessible to Korean-Chinese people in Yanbian, and North
Korean movies were once the best-loved favorites in Yanbian. Not surprisingly, the
Korean language used in Yanbian during this period clearly reflected enormous
influences from North Korea, both in terminology and pronunciation.

However, the situation started to reverse itself in the late 19808, due to political
and socioeconomic changes taking place in all three countries: the Chinese government
launched market-oriented reforms and started the process of integration with the global
economy; South Korea prospered under capitalism and democracy and stepped into the

circle of developed countries; extremely isolated politics in North Korea along with years

15

of natural disasters brought about a deserted land, shadowed with starvation and a
collapsed economy. Due to the severe situation in North Korea, its government restricted
its connections with the outside world, and the contact between Korean-Chinese and their
fellows in North Korea was reduced drastically.

The late 19805 was a period of transition, when the old influences of North Korea
were fading away, and the influences from South Korea were in the process of becoming
dominant. In 1992, China established official diplomatic relations with South Korea,
which highlighted this change considerably. The influx of South Korean investors and
tourists transformed the Korean-Chinese communities in China dramatically. Korean-
Chinese people were able to visit their families in South Korea and seek better-paid job
opportunities as well as higher education. Prior to 1992, however, exchange programs
between South Korea and the Korean-Chinese were mostly privately organized. South
Korean newspapers (such as Donga Ilbo) and magazines (such as Sin Donga and
Chongyong Munhwa) were accessible to only a limited number of Korean-Chinese
intellectuals. Many universities, libraries, publishers, and cultural organizations in South
Korea made efforts to send a variety of newspapers, magazines, and books to Koreans in
China. In 1985 Wu-Chung Kim (Chairman of the Daewoo Industrial Group), who
secretly visited China himself, donated 3,000 Korean books to Yanbian University (Lee
1986: 148-149).

Since 1992, the exchange between South Koreans and Korean-Chinese has
elevated to a large-scale, official level. South Korean investors and tourists have brought
contemporary customs and culture into Korean-Chinese communities; meanwhile, the

great potential of China as the world’s biggest business partner has attracted numerous

16

South Korean students to come to China to study Chinese language and culture. Many
Korean-Chinese people who studied or worked in South Korea have also brought more
“Korean-ness” to Korean-Chinese communities as they returned to China. They invested
the money they made in South Korea into their own small businesses in China, mainly in
the service industry, for example, restaurants, saunas, hair salons, and karaoke bars,
which in every way resemble their counterparts in South Korea. Korean dramas and pop
songs replaced the former popularity of those from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan, and
people can now watch South Korean TV programs if they purchase satellite antennas.
South Korea’s influence has penetrated not only into Yanbian but also into other major
cities in China and fostered a renaissance of Korean culture and language among Korean-
Chinese people.

The Korean language — once only a primary carrier of emotional value for
Korean-Chinese people — now has functional value as well; it provides advantages in the
job market, better opportunity for higher education, easier access to more resources, and
the like. In 1992, a privately funded international university — Yanbian University of
Science and Technology (YUST) —— was founded in Yanj in, dedicated to the education of
Korean descendants in China. Under the generous support of Koreans worldwide, mainly
South Koreans and Korean-Americans, YUST prides itself in its state-of- the-art facilities
and curricula, with great emphases on foreign language education and computer skills.
Being the only institution in China that uses Korean as the main medium of education’,
YUST has rehabilitated the awareness of and pride in Korean culture among Korean-

Chinese people and enhanced the interaction between Korean-Chinese people and South

 

3 In most of the nationality universities that are dedicated to training minority intellectuals, Chinese is the
medium of instruction due to the fact that Han Chinese students outnumber the students from the
designated minority groups.

17

Koreans at an intellectual as well as popular culture level through its various exchange

programs with universities in South Korea.

2. 2. 4. Passion for Education and High Achievement
A well-known, old Korean saying says “parents sell their land, house and ox to
support their children for schooling,” which reveals the zeal of Korean parents for the
education of the next generation. This passion for education originated from traditional
Chinese Confucian teaching that emphasizes the significance of learning in attaining the
wisdom and virtue needed by the ruling class. Hurh, in his writing about Korean-
Americans notes, “[The] historical legacy of attaining social mobility through education
is deeply rooted in the Korean consciousness. Whether in Korea or in the United States,
Korean parents’ primary concern is to provide their children with the best education
available” (1998; 94). Koreans in China are no exceptions in this regard, and such efforts
started as early as their first settlement in Northeast China. Wherever they went, they
always put a high priority on setting up Korean schools. Tsurushima, in his study on the
effects of the Cultural Revolution upon Korean-Chinese people, states:
Koreans have traditionally placed great emphasis on education, and Koreans
living in Yenpien4 are no exception. Even at the beginning of the century when
Koreans were much poorer than the Han people in the area, Koreans had more
schools. More schools were founded in Yenpien as a result of the “patriotic
cultural enlightenment movement,” a movement that reached its peak after 1905
and tried to stimulate Korean nationalism by concentrating on culture and
enlightenment. . .. It was because of this traditional background that the Korean
population was generally better educated than the Han. (1979: 104)

As early as 1932, there were 137 private schools run by Koreans in Yanbian, along with

38 schools established by the Japanese colonizers (Michihiro, 1935). In 1951, the

 

’ Yenpien reflects the Korean pronunciation of Yanbian.

18

Minister of Education, Xunlun Ma, in his report on nationality policy, acknowledged
ethnic Koreans as an outstanding model for minority education (195 8). Today’s Korean-
Chinese people take great pride in their high educational status and low illiteracy levels.
According to the 2000 Census, ethnic Koreans have the lowest illiteracy rate (3.04%) in
the nation, much lower than Han-Chinese (15.47%).5 The number of Korean-Chinese
students who finish their college education is 43 out of every thousand (4.3%), which is
twice the national average.6

The bilingual program in Yanbian is often highly commended as the most
successful example of China’s bilingual education. Guan, in her analysis of the bilingual
phenomenon of Korean-Chinese, points out that the majority of Korean-Chinese are
‘literate bilinguals” (2001 :66), meaning that their bilinguality is achieved through
education, which is in sharp contrast with other minority groups in China. Thanks to this
passion for education, there are now large numbers of ethnic Koreans at all levels of
leadership in many areas, such as science and technology, education, politics, music, arts,
sports. To name just a few, Wei-Hua Xing,7 a Korean-Chinese inventor, has taken out
national patents on seventy-three inventions and is responsible for more than one hundred
thirty inventions. He was called the “King of Invention Geeks” by Beijing Daily.8 J ian
Cui,9 the Father of Chinese Rock and Roll, is also Korean-Chinese. And ChengBi An, a

famous Korean-Chinese musician, was invited by the organizing committee to compose

 

5 Source: Minjok Tongshin Sept. 27'“, 2003.

6 Source: www.yanbian.gov.cn

7 His personal website is: www.xingweihua.com
8 Source: http://www.yufufei.com/csjg—102.htm
9 Source: http://www.cuijian.com

l9

an anthem for the opening ceremony of the 2002 FIFA World Cup that was jointly hosted
by Korea and Japan.10

It is not uncommon to find success stories of Korean-Chinese students in Chinese
newspapers. For example, many Korean-Chinese students have achieved the year’s
highest scores at the college entrance exam in the LiaoNing province (Myungil Oh in
1994, SunKyung Kim in 1995, Yeon Choi in 2000, HaeRyong Lee in 2001 and Young
Park in 2002). HeiRongJiang Province has also had Korean-Chinese students to be at the
top in their college entrance exam (MoonRan Park in 1998, Ryun Chung in 2002). In
2000, Jung Kwon, another Korean-Chinese student, brought much pride to Korean-
Chinese people by her highest score in Beijing City. All these students were admitted to

Peking University—the best university in China.11

2.2.5. Marriage

Koreans take pride in their single-nation blood heritage. After nearly a century’s
immigration into China, there has been only a minimal change in their attitude towards
intermarriage, and Koreans in China are still considered most conservative in this regard.
Nationality is the last thing that parents would compromise in their approval of a
marriage. Insisting on intra-marriage, however, was by no means an easy path, and this is
especially true among younger generations in major cities with a scattered Korean
population. Reluctantly admitting this reality, most Korean parents outside highly
concentrated Korean communities have become more willing for their daughters to marry

a non-Korean, while firmly adhering to their principle of intra-marriage for their sons,

 

'0 Source: People’s Daily (oversea version)
http://www.snweb.com/gb/people_daily_os/2003/02/08/g0208003.htm
" Source: http://www.kcw21 .com

20

following the traditional belief in the male role in carrying on the family line. The
potential threat to Korean identity that comes from intermarriage has become less
prominent as the contact between Korean-Chinese and South Koreans becomes more
frequent. Despite the difference in various outlooks, mainly resulting from differences in
their ideological belief systems, Koreans in China put South Koreans on their list of
possible future spouses above Han Chinese or other minority groups in China.

Today’s global world presents a great challenge to most immigrants in that they
have to face the dilemma of trying to move into the mainstream society while preserving
their culture and language. Purely internal efforts will turn out to be futile without
institutional support from the mainstream society. The story of the Korean-Chinese
people in Yanji certainly presents an interesting case as we attempt to gain a better
understanding of the formation and preservation of bilingualism in general. The
influence of external factors (e.g. social, political and economic) and internal forces (6. g.
education and ethnic in-marriage) have both come into play and eventually led to the
formation of a unique group — the Korean-Chinese. In the following three chapters, I will
explore the language practices of this group, focusing first on the grammatical restrictions
on intrasentential code-switching, then on the influence of honorifics in code-switching,
and finally on discoursal evidence from the speech community itself on the role and
functions of the two languages with particular reference to the way language is important

to social and personal identity.

21

Chapter 3:

A Morpho-Syntactic Approach to Korean-Chinese Intrasentential Codeswitching

3.1. Introduction

One of the main lines of research on bilingual language practice has focused on a
commonly observed phenomenon—code-switching (hereafter CS), which is roughly
defined as the alternate use of two or more languages within an interaction. CS may be
either intersentential or intrasentential. Intersentential CS involves switches from one
language to the other between sentences, while intrasentential switches occur within the
same sentence or sentence fragment. Theoretical linguists are especially interested in the
development of constraints on intrasentential code-switching, based on a general
agreement that intrasentential code-switching is not a random mixture of two languages,
but is rule-govemed, systematic linguistic behavior (Di Sciullo et al., 1986; Poplack
1980; Joshi 1985; Myers-Scotton 1993; Belazi et al. 1994, etc.). Among the various
analyses that have been proposed to account for structural constraints on intrasentential
codeswitching (Timm,1975; Gumperz & Hemandez-Chavez 1975; Lipski 1978; Pfaff
1979; Poplack 1980; Sridhar and Sridhar 1980; Sankoff & Poplack 1981; Bentahila and
Davies 1983; Woolford 1983; Joshi 1985; Di Sciullo et al. 1986; Pandit 1990; Myers-
Scotton 1993a; Belazi et a1. 1994; Mahootian 1996, etc.), Myers-Scotton’s Matrix
Language Frame (hereafter MLF) model has been considered “the most comprehensive
and influential current framework in the field” (Clyne 2003; 81). In this chapter, I will

adopt the MLF model to investigate intrasentential code-switching in Korean-Chinese, a

22

language pair that has clearly distinct features from those pairs that have been
investigated in the field so far.

The motivation for studying this particular aspect of Korean-Chinese bilingual
language practices primarily comes from a concern with typological differences,
particularly with respect to the morphosyntactic features of the language pairs studied by
Myers-Scotton and the ones being examined in this chapter. It is well known that
Chinese is a SVO language with almost zero inflection, while Korean is a typical
agglutinative SOV language with a rather rich morphology. Therefore, with regard to
syntactic features, Korean and Chinese have quite a different surface word order; in terms
of morphological features, there is an undeniably huge difference in complexity between
Chinese and Korean. In all the language pairs examined by Myers-Scotton, both
languages have at least minimal inflection; she examines no language pairs in which
morphosyntactic features drastically differ from each other as do Korean and Chinese.
Therefore, examining such intrasentential code-switching within the MLF framework

may shed some new light on our understanding of this particular linguistic behavior.

In what follows, I will first introduce some terminological conventions, then a
sketch of the MLF model proposed by Myers-Scotton, along with a comparison of the
major morphosyntactic features of Korean and Chinese relevant to the current study.
Then I will present naturally occurring Korean-Chinese codeswitching data to see to what
extent the MLF model can be accounted for by the data, and to what extent the data might

be potentially problematic for such a model to be postulated as universal.

23

3.2. Theoretical Framework

3213'1' ”:1 'II'

The definition of CS proposed by researchers varies in its wording (Haugen 1956;
Diebold 1963; Macnamara 1967; Hymes 1974; Scotton and Ury 1975; Valdes Fallis
1976; Di Pietro 1977; Baetens Beardsmore 1982; Grosjean 1982; Appel and Muysken
1987; Lehiste 1988; Poplack 1993); however, they all roughly agree on the nature of CS
as the alternation of two or more languages in a conversation. In this chapter, I will
follow Myers-Scotton’s definition and define CS as "the selection by bilinguals or
multilinguals of forms from an embedded variety (or varieties) in utterances of a matrix
variety during the same conversation” (1993, 3). The basic assumption in this definition
is that there exists an asymmetry regarding the languages involved. The one that is more
activated and functions as the principal language in CS is the matrix language; while the
term embedded language refers to other participating language(s) inserted into the matrix
frame with less important roles. The distinction of matrix language and embedded
language will become clear as I introduce the MLF model in detail below.

One major background issue relevant to bilingual CS is what constitutes a true
bilingual in terms of language proficiency. Bloomfield (1933) and others insist that only
native-like mastery of a second language other than one’s mother tongue can be
considered true bilingualism; others claim that minimal competency in at least one
language skill (speaking, writing, listening, or reading) should be sufficient to be
regarded as bilingual (MacNamara, 1967). These two criteria are perceptibly of limited
merit in that the former one is too restrictive, for only a very few would be eligible; the

latter definition, however, is over inclusive in that it applies to everyone who has ever

24

come in contact with another language. For the purpose of this paper, I will adopt the
view that bilingualism has the characteristics that may exist in a continuum from minimal
competency to complete mastery of more than one language (Homby, 1977). However,
the subjects to be considered here are individuals at the upper end of the continuum. In
other words, although they are not necessarily native like in all their linguistic
competences in both languages, they are able to communicate fluently in both (Loebell,
1989)

Another controversy surrounds the issue of what embedded language (EL)
material actually constitutes true CS, specifically with regards to single-lexeme items.
Many scholars in the 19708 and far into the 19808 exclude singly occurring lexemes from
CS by claiming that only the sentences with EL phrases or constituents should be
considered CS (Ryes, 1976). Later some researchers tried to resolve the problem by
labeling sentences with single lexeme items as code-mixing (CM) (Kachru 1978; Swigart
1992). Since one of the participating languages in this study is an extremely isolated
language (here Chinese), excluding single-lexeme items will inevitably single out many
utterances that are actually CSed sentences. Taking into consideration this concern, I will
adopt Myers-Scotton’s view and claim that not only can a phrase, a clause or a sentence
constitute CS, but also a single word.

Including single lexeme items into CS, however, demands researchers make
sound distinctions between CS and borrowing, since they appear to be indistinguishable
on the surface. The traditional criterion for distinguishing borrowing and CS is the
degree of morphological, syntactic and phonological integration into the base language

(e.g., Weinreich 1953; Haugen 1956; Mackey 1970; Lance 1975; Grosjean 1982; Lehiste

25

1988; Poplack 1993). Borrowed items are integrated morphologically, syntactically and
phonologically into the base language; while CS forms show minimum of such
integration. Other researchers propose to make the distinction based on the frequency of
occurrence. For example, Myers-Scotton observes the unpredictability and lower
frequency of the CS forms, versus the predictability and higher frequency of the
borrowed forms. She specifies the frequency by adopting a three-occurrence rule, which
is that a borrowed form is one that occurs in a relatively large corpus at least three times
(1993). However, the definition of “relatively large corpus” is rather vague and arbitrary,
which diminishes the reliability of this mechanism. In this study, because of the
familiarity of the researcher with the community where the data were collected, the
distinction of borrowed forms and CS forms will be mainly based on her own judgment.
Roughly speaking, regardless of the frequency of the occurrence, if a word is an
expression commonly used by monolingual speakers in the community, then it will be
considered as a borrowed instead of CS form. This criterion is not at odds with the one
which suggests such forms are integrated into the host language. Borrowed forms as well
as proper nouns, such as names of persons, places, and objects, are excluded as code

switches in this research.

3.2.2. The Matrix Language Frame Model
3.2.2.1. Matrix language vs. embedded language

The MLF model differentiates participating languages in CS by identifying one as
the matrix language (hereafter ML) and the other(s) as the embedded language(s)

(hereafter EL). The ML is so labeled because it plays the predominant role in language

26

production and its grammar sets the morphosyntactic frame for the sentences, while the
EL refers to other languages that have less important roles. Assignment of the
participating languages as either ML or EL allows one to categorize intrasentential CS8
into three different kinds of constituents:

1) ML islands — constituents consisting of only ML morphemes; must be well-
forrned according to the ML grammar.

2) EL islands — constituents consisting of only EL morphemes; must be well-
formed according to the EL grammar.

3) ML+EL constituents—constituents consisting of morphemes from both the
ML and EL; must be well-formed according to the ML grammar.

The following example of Swahili/English CS illustrates these three types:

[1] Setting: several form 4 leavers (who have completed the equivalent of high
school) are talking about job opportunities in the government.

Ah si-vyo, kawaida hu-wa kwa gazeti. Kama last year
ah NEG-MANN usually HABIT-COP in paper8[8] as

i-li-ku-w-a gazeti under public service commission.
CL 9—PAST—INFIN-COP-INDIC paper[s]

Ma—jina i-li-to-lew-a tu hapo na mahali
CL 6-name CL 9-PAST—PLACE-PASS-INDIC just there and place

p-a ku-fanya interview
CL 16-of to-do

“Ah, no, usually it’s published in the papers. For example, last year it was in the
papers under Public Service Commission. The names are just released [of

persons to be interviewed] and the place of doing [the] interview.”

(Swahili/English; Myers-Scotton 1993a: 81)

There are two EL islands (last year and under Public Service Commission) and many ML

islands. Mahali pa kufanya interview ‘placc of to do interview’ is an ML+EL constituent.

27

3.2.2.2 System morphemes vs. content morphemes

The MLF also distinguishes content morphemes and system morphemes because
patterns of occurrence of morphemes in bilingual codeswitched speech are constrained by
the status of morphemes in this model. The primary feature for differentiating these two
types is the feature [+/- thematic-role receiver/assigner]. Content morphemes are either
thematic-role receivers or assigners, and most nouns are prototypical thematic-role
receivers, while most verbs and propositions are prototypical thematic-role assigners. In
contrast, system morphemes lack the ability to either assign or receive thematic-role, and
most morphemes belonging to functional categories, such as inflectional morphemes, are
system morphemes.

A second feature that differentiates these two types is the feature [+/-
quantification]. The feature [quantification] is defined by its property of picking out
individuals across variables, for example, determiners specify particular individuals;
tense morphemes choose one specific time-frame. Quantifiers (e. g. all, any, no),
determiners (e. g. the, a ), possessive adjectives (e.g. my, your, his, her), tense (tense
markers), aspect (aspect markers), and any other category that can appear at the specifier
position of NP or quantificationally have the feature of [+quantification] are all system
morphemes. Content morphemes, on the other hand, show a minus feature for
quantification. Perhaps only one of these features is sufficient to distinguish the two
types, but that possibility is not pursued here.

Myers-Scotton and Jake (2000) offer further morpheme classifications. First,
morphemes are [+/- conceptually activated]; all content morphemes are so activated but

only what they call “early” system morphemes are. All other system morphemes (“late”)

28

are not. Among “late” system morphemes, however, there is a distinction [+/-referring to
grammatical information outside of its XM“]. Those which do not are called “bridge”
morphemes. A major premise is that different morpheme types are activated at three
different levels of production: at the conceptualizer, at the lemma level, and at the

forrnulator. These classes of morphemes will be discussed separately below:

Content morphemes

Content morphemes are thematic role assigners or receivers and are present at the
conceptual level to convey speakers’ intentions. The lemmas supporting content
morphemes are directly-elected by the bundles of abstract semantic and pragmatic

features.

Early flstem morghemes

Indirectly elected by the speaker’s intentions, early system morphemes are also
activated at the conceptual level. They “group with content morphemes as expressing the
bundles of semantic and pragmatic features satisfying the speaker’s intentions” (Myers-
Scotton & Jake 2000, 1962). Early system morphemes crucially contrast with content
morphemes in that they lack the feature of [+/- thematic role assignment]. Examples of

early system morphemes are the definite article the in [2] and up in [3].

[2] I found th_e book that you lost yesterday.

[3] Bora chewed yp_the new toy.

29

In [2], book indirectly elects the to complete the semantic/pragmatic feature bundle
activated by the speaker’s intentions, adding definiteness to book. In [3], chew indirectly

elects up to convey a different idea than a singly occurring chew does.

Late system morghemes

Instead of being activated conceptually, late system morphemes are structurally
assigned when a larger constituent is constructed; therefore, their access in the production
process is later than that of early system morphemes. They function as indicators of the
grammatical relations between elements. Two types of late system morphemes will be

discussed separately below:

Bridge system morphemes.

Bridge system morphemes are activated when the structure of their maximal
projection requires them. Bridge system morphemes share a common property with early
system morphemes in their dependence on maximal projections for their form. However,
their relationship with their heads is quite different: bridge system morphemes depend on
the grammatical configurations instead of on the content morpheme that is the head of the
maximal projection. The preposition of and the possessive — ‘s in English are typical

bridge system morphemes, as shown in the following examples:

[4] a fiiend of Bora

[5] Bora ’s friend

30

Here, both of and -—‘s have no semantic-pragmatic relationship with their heads; the
existence of these two elements is a purely grammatical requirement of well-formed

English structural configurations.

_0_utsider svstem mothemes.

Outsider system morphemes, as implied in the wording, depend on an interaction
with many grammatical and pragmatic features OUTSIDE the immediate maximal
projection. For example, English third person singular —s is under AGR in INFL, but the
morpheme’s form depends on coindexing with the subject NP, showing no relationship

with its immediate projection (here verb).

3.2.3.3. Principles of the MLF model

Based on such definitions as those given above, Myers-Scotton proposes a set of
interrelated hypotheses in the MLF model. The first and the most firndamental
hypothesis in this model is the ML Hypothesis, which states that the morphosyntactic
frame (i.e., the surface structure of the ML+EL constituents) is based on ML grammar.
Several principles fitrther expand this hypothesis. The Morpheme-order Principle claims
that the morpheme order must follow the ML morpheme order; no violations should
occur. For instance, an NP involving Swahili/English CS is shown as in the following
example from Myers-Scotton:

[6] ma-mbo m-engi new

CL6-things CL6-many

“many new things”

(Myers-Scotton: Swahili/English No.19)

31

Since Swahili is the ML, the English lexeme new follows its head mambo mengi (things-

many) according to Swahili syntactic restrictions.

The System Morpheme Principle states that all system morphemes will come
from the ML. Based on Myers-Scotton's criteria for categorizing system morphemes,
quantifiers, possessives, tense/aspect, determiners, copula, do-verbs, possessive of;
complementizers, structurally-assigned agreement and dummy pronominals all fall into
the category of system morpheme. Therefore, according to this principle, all these items

should come from the ML. Consider the following example:

[7] Second group-ul ceyil cwohahay.
second group-Ace. most like-DCL
“[I] like the second group best.”

(Korean/English; Park, Troike, and Mun, 1989: 9)

Note here that an accusative case-marker, —ul, fiom the ML Korean appears with the

English content morpheme.

The Blocking Hypothesis proposes that the ML blocks any EL content
morphemes that do not meet certain congruency conditions with ML content morphemes.
According to Myers-Scotton, two entities (linguistic categories in this case) are congruent
if they correspond with respect to relevant qualities. For example, the ML will block the
occurrence of an EL content morpheme if it is realized as a system morpheme in the ML.
One specific example concerns prepositions. Prepositions can be either content
morphemes or system morphemes cross-linguistically. In the case of English
prepositional phrases of the form of for + NP, for is a content morpheme since it assigns

a thematic role to its complement NP. However, it does not have congruent status with

32

the corresponding Swahili morpheme, which is realized as a postpositional suffix;
therefore, for occurs when it heads an EL island, but may not occur in place of a Swahili

counterpart in an ML+EL constituent, as shown in the following example:

[8] Nikarn wambia anipe ruhusa niende ni- ka- check for you
ls-CONSEC- check for you

“And I told him he should give me permission so that I can go and check for

,9

you.

but not:

[9] * Nikarn wambia anipe ruhusa niende ni- ka- check for wewe
ls-CONSEC-check for you

“And I told him he should give me permission so that I go and check for you.”
(Swahili/English; Myers-Scotton: 1993: 124)

The EL Island Trigger Hypothesis claims that the accidental accessing of any EL
morpheme that violates either the ML hypothesis or the Blocking hypothesis will keep
the ML from being activated; therefore, an obligatory EL island will occur. Consider the

following example:

[10] Wache mimi nielekeee tauni, tukutane this evening at the usual place.
let us meet
“Let me go so that I may reach town, let's meet this evening at the usual place.”
(Swahili/English; Myers-Scotton, 1993: 140)
Demonstratives have the feature [+ quantification] and therefore are system morphemes.

The unexpected activation of the system morpheme this from the EL forces an EL island

to be constructed: this evening at the usual place.

33

The final hypothesis of the model is the EL Implicational Hierarchy Hypothesis.

The following implicational hierarchy of BL islands is proposed by Myers-Scotton:

1.

9‘99?!"

F orrnulaic expressions and idioms (especially as time and manner PPs, but
also as VP complements);

Other time and manner expressions (N P/PP adjuncts used adverbially);
Quantifier expressions (APs and NPs especially as VP complements);

Non-quantifier, non-time NPs as VP complements (N P8, APs, CPs);
Agent NPs

Thematic role- and case assigners. (1993, p.144)

Two sub-hypotheses state the EL implicational hierarchy hypothesis:

1. The more peripheral a constituent is to the theta-grid of the sentence, the

freer it is to appear as an EL island.

2. The more formulaic in structure a constituent is, the more likely it is to

appear as an EL island.

Most time adverbials, especially two-word expressions or brief prepositional phrases (PP)

(e. g. next Saturday, every morning, on Saturdays), set expressions such as old habits die

hard, in fact, for personal purposes, and intensifier + adjective (very fast, very late, very

surprised) are functionally peripheral; therefore, EL islandhood will definitely favor

these elements as supported by Myers-Scotton's Nairobi corpus:

[l l] Wana some problems.

“They have some problems.”

[12] Ulikuwas ukiongea a lot of nonsense.

“You were talking a lot of nonsense.”
(Swahili/English; 1993 : 146-147)

To recapitulate, the MLF model identifies two crucial oppositions in intrasentential

CS: ML vs. EL and content morphemes vs. system morphemes. The model also proposes

34

two central principles — the Morpheme-order principle and the System-morpheme
principle—along with a set of interrelated hypotheses. Given this account of the
theoretical framework, in what follows, I will examine the morphosyntactic features of

Korean and Chinese in CS data.

3.3. Morphosyntactic Features of Chinese

Roughly speaking, Chinese mainly has the features of an SVO language: head
verbs precede NPs, auxiliaries precede VPs, and there are prepositions, etc. However,
Chinese also has postpositions, relative clauses and genitive phrases always precede the
head noun, and aspect markers always follow the verb. Morphologically, Chinese is well
known for its impoverished properties (Chao 1968; Chen, Tzeng, & Bates 1990; Li
1989). Some features that are quite common in many Indo-European languages, such as
verb conjugations and noun declension, are completely absent in Chinese. Nor does
Chinese have case markers to signal the grammatical function a noun has in a sentence,
such as subject, direct object, indirect object, and so on. In the inflectional hierarchy of
natural languages, Chinese probably is one of the least inflected languages. The only
markers it has are three aspect morphemes:

-le “perfective”

-guo “experienced action”
-zhe “durative”

3.4. Morphosyntactic Features of Korean
Korean, however, is canonically an SOV language. Sentences normally follow
subject-object order with a verb or adjective always showing up at the end of a sentence

or a clause. Modifiers, such as determiners, adverbs, possessive constructions, and

35

relative clauses, precede the modified elements, a characteristic of left-branching
languages. In terms of morphology, Korean is an agglutinating language and it has a
rather rich system of particles that are all postpositional (Sohn 1994). As shown in the
following example, Korean noun inflection is realized through such postpositional
particles to represent case relationships (subject marker -- -ka/i; object marker -- ul/lu)
and discourse function (topic marker-- un/nun), as well as functions that are carried out in
other languages by prepositions.
[l3] Nae-ka tosesil -yese Yonghee-lul mannassta.

I -Nom. library-at name-Acc. Meet

“1 met Yonghee in the library.”
Verb inflection in Korean is also complex. A Korean verb consists of a stem, and a
sequence of inflectional suffixes. Roughly, there are two types of verb inflections: pre-
wordfinal and word-final (Chang 1996). Pre-wordfinal suffixes have various social and
grammatical functions, including honorifics (-[ u ]si), tense markers (-n[n], -[e/a]ss, -ess),
and mood indicators (-keyss for Volition, -t[e/i/u] for Retrospective ). Word-final suffixes
consist of six different realizations based on their syntactic functions: sentence ending
(-ta), nominalizing (-ki, -m), adnominalizing (-un, -n, -l), adverbializing (-nikka, -myen,
ciman), conjoining (-ko, -na), and auxiliary connecting (-ko, -ci). All the positions are
optional except the word-final one. The adjective inflection has almost the same
sequence position, except certain features, such as no present tense, no imperative ending

and an inability to form the progressive/perfective aspect with <-k0/e + issta>, etc.

36

In sum, with regard to morphsyntactic features, the dissimilarity between Korean

and Chinese is quite significant. The following comparison chart provides a summary of

 

 

the two languages:
Table 3.1.
Korean Chinese
SOV SVO
N + case marker No case marker
N + existential V Existential V + N
Complement + copula Copula + complement
N + postposition Preposition + N
Obligatory sentence- Non-obligatory sentence-
ending particle ending particle
Neg. + V or V + Neg. Neg. + V
Modifier + N/Adj. Same

 

Although the above illustration is not exhaustive, it suffices to suggest that an

investigation of Korean and Chinese bilingual CS may reveal some new insights on the

syntactic constraints on intrasentential CS since the morphological status of the two

languages, the key element of Myers-Scotton’s model, is so different.

3.5. The Yanji Korean-Chinese Data

3. 5. I . Background Information for the Data

My data come from free conversations audio-recorded in Yanji — the

Korean/Chinese bilingual community being examined in this dissertation. Taking into

consideration the fundamental purpose of this section, which is to examine the syntactic

37

constraints on CS instead of social motivations, data were collected mainly from a
homogeneous group with similar educational background, language proficiency, age
group, social status, etc. All speakers in these conversations were educated in Chinese
schools from elementary school through high school. Chinese is the most frequently used
language at their workplaces, although they speak Korean at home to their children,
spouses, and older generation family members. There is little room for questioning their
status as balanced bilingual speakers.

Data collection was undertaken in rather relaxed and natural situations since the
subjects are close acquaintances of the researcher. Prior to recording, the subjects were
told that the purpose of the recording was to analyze the ways language is spoken in this
area, and the speakers' permission to use the recorded material was obtained. The
conversations vary in length from about thirty minutes to over an hour, and the number of
participants in each conversation varies as well from two to four people. The data used in
this study represent approximately fifteen hours of naturally occurring free conversation.

The Yale transcription system was adopted to transcribe the Korean data, and the
pinyin romanization system was used for Chinese data. Borrowed forms and

intersentential codeswitching data were excluded from consideration.

3. 5.2. Examples Supporting the MLF Model

In the remainder of section, I will first examine the data that can be nicely
accounted for by the principles hypothesized in the MLF model, and in the next section
(3.6), I will focus on the problematic data. For the purposes of this section I need to make

assumptions about which language is the ML and which is the EL. It appears from my

38

data that which is the ML and which is the EL can change sentence by sentence. For the
examples in this section, I will tentatively identify the ML on the basis of word order,
although I will eventually adopt, at least in part, the criterion of the presence of system
morphemes. In section 3.6, I will look specifically at the problem of determining ML and
EL. According to Myers-Scotton's distinction of content and system morphemes, the
most prototypical content morphemes, ones highly likely to show up in ML + EL
constituents, are nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, and some prepositions. Numerous
examples from my Korean-Chinese corpus confirm that these content morphemes are
inserted into ML + EL constituents with high frequency as predicted by the Morpheme
Order Principle.
3.5.2.1. EL Nouns in ML + EL Constituents

As has been observed from various language pairs in the CS literature, the relative
frequency of nouns to appear as EL morphemes is remarkably high. Data from my
Korean-Chinese also supports this claim and also confirms the predictions of the
Morpheme-order and System Morpheme Principles. Some examples are shown below

(Korean text is italicized; Chinese is hold):

[14] Two young women are talking about issues related to condominium deeds:

...... ku saram-tul -un fayuan ka -se ku dizhang chaca-se
those people-PL-Top court go to-and that backup file found-and

“Those people went to the court and found those backup files. . . ..”
[15] A young woman is giving her friend a Chinese recipe:

Jianjiao kkaci neh-myen te mas-iss-ta.
pepper also put-if more tasty-Exit.-DCL

“It tastes even better if you put in hot pepper too.”

39

[16] Two young women are talking about a fiiend of theirs:

...ku saram-un cikum fendian hana kyesok hon-ta.
that guy —Top now chain store one continually running-DCL

“That guy is still running a chain store now. . ...”
[17] Three women are talking about a co-worker.

.....na-nun gongchengbu -eyse wass-nun-ka haess-ta.
I —Top Dept. of Construction-from come thought-DCL

“I thought he was fi'om the Dept. of Construction. . . .”

Notice here that the NPs ku dizhang “those backup files,” fayuan “the court” and
jianjiao “hot pepper” are VP complements and clearly follow the structural order of
Korean, in which the complement always precedes the VP. Also, in example [16], the
NP fendian hana “a chain store” is a typical ML + EL constituent that consists of a head
noun plus numerals. Again, the order is that of Korean instead of Chinese, in which the
order is numeral + head noun. Example [17] with a Preposition + NP constituent
gongchengbu-ey-se “from the Department of Construction” again shows the Korean
order in which the noun precedes the postpositional particles. It is obvious that Chinese

content morphemes are inserted into Korean-based sentence in these examples.

3.5.2.2. EL Verbs in ML + EL Constituents

Verbs are the second largest category that appears as embedded items in the
Korean-Chinese bilingual corpus, especially in the CS forms with Korean as the ML.
Because Korean is an agglutinating language, the embedded Chinese verbs have to occur

with —ha support, which is similar to do-support in English. Altogether there are more

40

than seventy verb forms with a Chinese verb stem and the Korean suffix —ha. Below are
some of the examples of BL verbs in CS constructions:
[1 8] A casual conversation between mother and son at the dinner table.

onul yanjitai -eyse hankwuk yenghwa-lul fangying —ha-tu-la.
today YanJi channel-on Korean movie -ACC. show -do support-DCL.

“There was a Korean movie showing on the Yanji Channel.”

[19] Two young female friends are talking about the complicated legal procedure
for interracial marriage.

caki cikcep miandui -ha-ni-kkan pappun-kes-kathae....
self directly face -do support-because hard -8eem

“It seems hard since I am currently facing it ...”

[20] A college student is telling her friend how they take notes in her school.

sensayngnim—i jiangke —ha-nun-ke chem -pwuthe kkuth-kac motwu
teacher -Nom teaching —do support-thing beginning from end- to all
chao-han-ta.

copy—do-DCL

“. . . .we copy down all that the teacher teaches, from the beginning to the end.”

The ML, Korean, obviously sets the morpheme order of the sentence, and the Chinese
verbs are inserted into the Korean sentences almost exclusively with ha-support.

One interesting observation about this Korean-Chinese corpus is that Korean, in
most cases, functions as the ML, setting the structural flame of the CS sentences, and in
those few cases of Chinese as the ML, no Korean verbs appear in a CS sentence. Similar
asymmetry has also been noted in other bilingual data (Stolt 1964; Park 1990). Since

Myers-Scotton's MLF model does not block the appearance of verbs in any way, a further

41

explanation is needed for this asymmetry, and I will come back to this point later in

Section 3.6., while dealing with the problems of the MLF model.

3.5.2.3. EL Adjectives in ML+EL Constituents

Based on the criterion for content morphemes under Myers-Scotton’s MLF
model, most descriptive adjectives are potentially thematic-role assigners; therefore, they
are also content morphemes, which predicts their occurrence as EL items in CS. The
Korean-Chinese corpus supports this prediction, as shown in the following examples:

(A conversation among three friends)

[21] na mankhum pusu —han saram-to tumwul-ta.
I like frugal-ha-support person -also rare-DCL

“. . ...Someone as fi'ugal as me is also very rare.”

[22] .....ku cip sikkwu-tuI-un cinay reqing -han cengto-nun ani-tu-la.
That family —PL-Top very warmhearted-ha Sup. Degree-Top not DCL.

“That family is not that warmhearted.”

[23] umsik-un yeki hwelssin te xinxian —hay-yo.
Food —Top here much more fresh - ha Supp. -DCL

“A8 for food, here (i.e., in Yanji) it’s much fresher.”

The insertion of BL Chinese adjectives pusu “frugal,” reqing “warrnhearted,” and xinxian
“fresh” is realized with ha —8upport, a very common inflectional marker for Korean
adjectives. In other words, when Chinese EL adjectives enter into CS sentences, they
only substitute for the stem of the words; suffixes remain as usual. However, there is one

exception, which is labeled by Myers-Scotton as a bare form:

42

[24] ne-nye pwumonim-un cengmal xingfu.
Your parents -Top really happy

,9

“Your parents are really happy ......

Here, the EL Chinese adjective xingfu “happy” appears as a bare form without the
Korean inflectional marker ha-ta. Korean is the ML of this sentence: there are Korean
system morphemes —un (Topical marker) and cengmal “really,” but the fact that the
Korean adjective suffix fails to show up is problematic. However, since this form is also
perfectly fine in monolingual Chinese speech, the appearance of this bare form can be
treated as an EL island.

Possessive determiners such as my, your, his and her are system morphemes;
therefore, the occurrence of such adjectives as EL items should be blocked. My data also
confirm this prediction as no EL possessives occur in CS sentences.

[25] xiang ni o ppa name aide hua zenmebana!
Like your brother that short —if what to do
“What would we do if (he) is as short as your brother?”
A possible counterexample would be something like this:

[26] * xiang ne-nye gege name aide hua zenmebana!
Your brother

But my data contains no such examples. The only occasion of such possessive adjectives
appearing as EL material is along with noun phrases (NP) to form an EL island, which
supports the hypothesis of the MLF model, which states that the accidental use of system
morphemes of the EL will result in an obligatory EL island. Consider the following

examples:

43

[27] ta jiejie —ka sicengtu-ay-se il-han-ta.
Her sister-Nom City Hall-at working-DCL

“Her sister is working at City hall.”

[28] ne enni duo xiwang wo he shui ya!
Your sister how hope I drink water-DCL

“Your sister must have hoped I just drink water!”

The accidental EL system morphemes to “her” and ne “your” force both phrase to be
completed in that language; [27] has a Chinese EL island and [28] a Korean EL island.
These data conform to the EL Island Hypothesis of the MLF model. However, due to the
absence of the topical/nominative case marker for the subject ne enni ‘your sister”, which
can be dropped in the spoken language, sentence [28] can also be argued to have Korean
as ML, with the strings of words duo xiwang wo he shui ya representing an EL island.
Such dual classification possibilities constitute one of the criticisms of the MLF model,

which I will come back to later.

3.5.2.4. _EL_i8_lan_gs_

The EL Island Trigger Hypothesis and the EL Implicational Hierarchy Hypothesis
of the MLF model are also well-supported in the Korean-Chinese corpus. Consider the
following examples:

[29] selnal nokum-ha-myen tai za le.
New year’s day recording —do sup. —if too noisy DCL

“If (you) record on New Year’s Day, then it’s too noisy.”

44

Adverbs are neither thematic-assigners nor receivers; therefore, they are categorized as
system morphemes. Example [29] shows that the EL adverb tai “too” enters into the
sentence, triggers the island, and forces the rest of the sentence to be completed in

Chinese.
[30] nay ku-ke mospon-kye weida de shiwu a!
I that-thing not see- fact great pos. mistake DCL
“The fact I didn’t get to see that scene is really a great mistake!”

[31] ku cwung -ye to xiangduilaishuo coh-un saram-to iss-ta.
Those among-Post. also relatively speaking good person-also have-DCL

“Relatively speaking, there are also some good guys among them.”

In [30] the Chinese two-word expression weida de shiwu “great mistake” is commonly
used as a fixed expression with sarcastic rather than literal meaning; therefore, it again
results in an EL island, indicated by the Chinese sentence final ending particle a, an
exclamation marker. In [31] the formulaic constituent xiangduilaishuo “relatively
speaking” also forms an island as predicted by the EL Implicational Hierarchy
Hypothesis.
[32] ka-nye mwusun cengsin-ye yizhengtian kongtwu-ha-kyess-ni?

They what mind -Post. all day study— ha —8upp-.Q

“How can they study all day long?”
[33] wenming cemsim-ye dou chaocai zuotang.

Wenming at noon always stir frying making soup

“At noon, Wenming is always stir frying and making soups.”

45

The time adverb yizhengtian “all day long” in [32] and brief PP cemsim-ye “at noon” in
[3 3] are all functionally peripheral; therefore, the EL island is favored.

To summarize, as also shown in the data from many other language pairs, the
majority of my Korean-Chinese bilingual data can be accounted for under the central
principles proposed by Myers-Scotton’s MLF model. However, some problematic data
also exist and require firrther consideration. In what follows, I will provide a detailed

analysis of just such data that suggest the inadequacy of the MLF model.

3.6. Problems

First of all, because the MLF model argues that one of the participating languages
is dominant over the other and sets the morphosyntactic framework, identifying the ML
independently is apparently crucial. In other words, identifying one of the participating
languages as the ML just because all the system morphemes in that mixed utterances are
from that language would be circular. To avoid such circularity, Myers-Scotton turns to
sociolinguistic criteria, which she believes have a clearer and more objective basis. She
proposes the following a frequency-based criterion:

The ML is the language of more morphemes in interaction types including
intrasentential CS.

Myers-Scotton (1995, 237) further stressed the importance of this ML criterion by saying
that it should be preferred over any structural considerations, because the triggering facts
of codeswitching are more sociolinguistic than structural, and the ML is the
sociolinguistically unmarked language across the community as well as in a given

conversational unit. ‘Unmarked’ here is synonymous with ‘expected’ in given situations.

46

A8 to the basis for frequency counts, she points out that it must be based on a discourse
sample instead of a single sentence.

This approach to ML assignment turns out to be quite problematic. One major
criticism is the vagueness of the notion of discourse sample based frequency counts.
Beyond noting that at least more than one sentence should be taken into consideration
when determining the ML, the definition as to how large a discourse sample constitutes a
large enough context is rather unclear. The general assumption that intrasentential
codeswitching is rule-govemed, obeying the syntactic constraints of one of the
participating languages, suggests more of a clause or sentence based analysis; bilingual
speakers’ capacity of freely switching between two different linguistic systems makes it
possible to utter a grammatical sentence independent of the linguistic system of the
preceding or following utterances. Morimoto’s study (1999) further supports this: she
observed that bilingual speakers’ intuitions with regards to the language assignment of an
individual utterance seem to be independent of neighboring utterances. In other words,
bilingual speakers can rather accurately pinpoint the base language between two
participating language pairs regardless of whichever language is dominating within the
whole conversation. This observation is quite deviant from the claims of the MLF model,
which predicts that the speakers’ judgment of language assignment should depend on the
whole discourse unit. What’s more disturbing is that despite Myers-Scotton’s proposal of
this ML criterion, in actual practice, she largely adopts a sentence—by-sentence approach.

The following example is from her Swahili/English data:

Interviewer (English): Now tell me how do you find Nairobi? Do you think of going to
work in your own home area—say Kisumu?

47

Interviewee: I seem to like Nairobi very much. Hii ni kwa sababu mama watoto ana
This is because mother children she has

business y-ake hapa and our children go to school here. Miaka mingi siendi Nyanza.
CL 9-her here

Even my parents stay here.
‘I seem to like Nairobi very much. This is because my wife has her business here and my
children go to school here. Many years I don’t go to Nyanza [his home area]. Even my
parents stay here.’ (1993a; 71)
In this conversational unit, we see that the interviewer has raised the question in English
and the interviewee started answering the question in English also. Then he switched to a
mixed utterance with slightly more Swahili morphemes than English ones (9 in Swahili
and 8 in English). Then he switched to a monolingual Swahili utterance, then switched
back to English again. If we consider that this conversational unit is indeed large enough
to be a discourse sample, then assigning English as the ML seems rather natural.
However, when Myers-Scotton analyzes the intrasentential CSed sentence in this set of
data, surprisingly, she assigns Swahili as the ML in the first independent clause of the
sentence hii ni kwa sababu mama watoto ana business yake hapa and our children go to
school here, based on the evidence that the occurrence of Swahili morpheme order in the
NP business yake ‘business her’, Swahili system morphemes (e.g. yoke ‘her’), and the
Swahili construction mama watoto, literally ‘mother children.’ This suggests that she
does use a circular criterion to analyze her data, and the frequency based ML criterion
seems to be an empty device.

Secondly, a close observation of my Korean-Chinese corpus reveals a clear
asymmetry — the occurrence of ML + EL constituents with Korean as ML and Chinese

EL far outnumbers those of Chinese as ML and Korean EL. In particular, as briefly

4s

mentioned previously, the Chinese NP + Korean Verb construction is abundant in my
Korean-Chinese corpus, while the Chinese Verb + Korean NP construction occurs with
much less frequency. The appearance of Chinese verbs normally triggers EL islands,

forcing the rest of the sentence to be completed in Chinese. Consider the following

examples:

[34] xuexiao-ye ka-ta. V8. [35] qu hakkyo
School-Post. go-DCL go school
“go to school” “go to school”

[36] yifu -lul sa-ta. V8. [37] mai 0s
clothes-Ace. Buy-DCL buy clothes
“buy new clothes” “buy clothes”

In examples [35] and [37], Korean NPs hakkyo ‘school’ and 0s ‘clothes’ are inserted into
VPs as the complements of Chinese head verbs qu ‘go to’ and mai ‘buy’, while in
examples [34] and [36], Chinese NPs xuexiao ‘school’ and yifu ‘clothes’ are embedded
into VPs as the complements of Korean head verbs kata ‘go to’ and sata ‘buy’. The
structures in [34] and [36] frequently occur in Korean-Chinese bilingual speech
compared to those in [35] and [37].

Furthermore, the insertion of Korean verbs in Chinese-based sentences is
completely absent from my data. For example: sentence [3 8] is a well-formed

monolingual Chinese sentence.

49

[3 8] W0 zuotian maile yijian xin yifu.

I yesterday buy-pst one-cl new jacket.
“I bought a new jacket yesterday.”

*[3VV9]O zuotian sassta y'riian xin yifu.

Sentence [39] is a code-switched sentence with a Korean verb inserted. According to the
MLF model, this sentence should be fine. However, it is a clearly unacceptable sentence,
and my data shows no such switches. Because Korean is an agglutinating language,
Korean verbs cannot appear in sentences by themselves; obligatory sentence ending
particles will also be attached to the verb stems. When Korean verbs are inserted into
Chinese-based sentences, then, due to the fact that system morphemes are involved (i.e.,
sentence ending particle), the MLF model would regard it as an EL island.

Because the MLF model is based on the nature of morphemes, with no
typological consideration of the two participating languages, it predicts no such
asymmetries as those seen above in [34] - [39]. For prototypical content morphemes
such as verbs and nouns, nothing should block the appearance of Korean NPs as the
complements of Chinese verbs, nor should the occurrence of Korean VPs in Chinese-
based sentences be outlawed. The MLF model fails to recognize the fact that, in some
languages, content morphemes cannot stand alone without the support of system
morphemes. Similar asymmetry has been observed in other studies as well. In a study of
Korean/English bilingual codeswitching, Park (1990) observes that only in Korean-based
sentences is code-switching acceptable, while switching from English to Korean is quite
limited. This observation is also supported by the interview data he conducted among

bilingual graduate students at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The above

50

observations encourage us to take into consideration the morphological elaborateness of
the languages involved in determining ML/EL distribution. In other words, all other
things being equal, the morphologically rich languages will have a greater chance to be
the ML winner. This is especially important in accounting for the Korean/Chinese code-
switching data being studied here since the speakers are fourth generation Korean
descendants in China with a Chinese school background, which may indicate their slight
dominance of Chinese over Korean.

Finally, the double morphology data from my Korean-Chinese corpus also raises
challenges for the MLF model. Double morphology is referred to by Myers-Scotton as a
single head that “has affixes from both the ML and the EL marking a feature” (1993, 61).
The double morphology phenomenon has been widely observed in the bilingual
codeswitching literature (Lingala/Chiluba/French, Kamwangarnalu 1990; Shona/English,
Crawhall 1990; Turkish/Dutch, Backus 1990; Maori/English, Eliasson 1991;
Lingala/French, Bokamba 1988, etc.). Across the language pairs studied so far, the
double morphology phenomenon is mainly exemplified in double-plural affixes (Myers-
Sctton 1993). The following example is from Myers—Scotton’s Shona/English corpus:
[40] ....dzimwe dzenguva tinenge tichiita ma-game-s panze. . ..

“. ...sometime we will be doing games outside. ...”

(Shona/English, Myers-Scotton 1993)

Here, the noun “game” shows the affixes of both the ML and the EL, one is the Shona

Class 6 pluralizing prefix ma-, the other one is the English pluralizing suffix —s.

51

In my Korean-Chinese data, similar but not identical cases of double morphology
also occur. In all of the following examples, double expressions from both languages are
uttered to refer to the same thing (The doubled parts are underlined):

[41]. bu xiang naoxueshuan, Cherem.
Not Like cerebral hemorrhage 1ij
“Not like cerebral hemorrhage desease. . . ..”
[42]. ta hagxiangshi ca-nun kes katlge.
He seems like sleep-ing fact As if
“It seems like he was sleeping.”
[43]. In shi tebie peiyang cheng zhuanye anh-ul leymyun. . ..
Not be particularly train become expert not want to

“If you don’t want to train (him/her) to be a specialist (in the field).

[44].1Qn_kengng nacwung-ye diao -hal kanungsgng iss-nun-dey....
Have possible later on fall off do-sup. Possibility be-although

,9

“(pure filling in) will possibly fall off later on, but ......
[45]. saram-i pinwei shi mug hey -r_0_. ..
men -Nom taste is using tongue - by (using)
“Men are using their tongue to taste things. . ..”
[46]. m dabufen dangci di - ha-ci-M
although majority level low —do sup.- although
“Although most of them are pretty shaky. ...”

[47]. ye shi pok—i-ci
also be blessing-be-DCL

“(that) is also a blessing.”

52

[48]. tamen mai naxie pis-sa-n-ke sa-n-ke yok-hal—kye mwueya?
They buy those expensive-stuff buy-Pst-thing Blame why

 

“Why would (she) blame them for buying that expensive stuff?”

Just as in traditional double morphology, this set of data shows two words/phrases with
the same meaning from both languages appearing in one sentence. But they differ from
Myers-Scotton’s data in that the doubled parts are not just system morphemes, but also
content morphemes or even larger multi-morphemic constituents, such as the preposition
xiang “like” and the postposition cherem “like” in [41]; the adverb haoxiang “as if” and
kath-hae “as if” in [42]; negative adverb bu “no” and anh-i “no” in [43]; the adverbial
phrase you keneng “possibly” and kanungseng “possibility” in [44]; the preposition yong
“with” and the postposition -—ro “with” in [45]; the conjoining adverbial phrase suiran
“although” and adverbializer particle ci—man “although” in [46]; the copula shi “be” and
the existential copula i “be” in [47]; and the main verb mai “to buy” and sa-ta “to buy” as
shown in [48].

It is worth mentioning here that such phenomena are apparently not idiosyncratic
to the Korean-Chinese bilingual data; some previous literature has observed similar
examples. Nishimura (1985, 1986), in her study of Japanese/English intrasentential code-
switching, notices that two expressions with identical meaning occur in some CS forms.
She labeled it ‘mirror image correspondence.’ Upon careful examination, she observes
that the typological nature of the participating languages motivates this kind of doubling.
The following table shows examples of mirror image correspondences between English

and Japanese:

53

Table 3.2.

 

 

English Japanese
VO 0V
V complement Complement V
There V NP NP V
P NP NP P
Comp S S particle

 

In her data, she observed, “each of the above English constituent orderings is combined
with its Japanese equivalent with a shared element” (N ishimura 1985, 83). Below are
some examples given by her:

[49] We bought about two pounds gurai kattekita no.
about bought DCL

[50] T here ’3 children iru yo.
EXT DISC

 

[51] Let ’s become kechi ni naroo.
tight let’s become

 

Based on Nishimura’s analysis, the underlined parts are shared by the two languages. In
[49], two semantically identical verbs show up in the utterance to share the common
object two munds as their complement. With the same pattern, in [50], the NP children

is shared by two copulas from both languages. In [51], the complement kechi is the

 

shared element of an English V + complement and a Japanese complement + V

construction.

54

Similar data has also been observed in Park, Troike, and Park’s (1989) research
on Korean/English CS, further supported in Park’s (1990) dissertation on Korean/English
CS. Consider the following examples:

[52] My parents didn’t helak—haci anasseyo.
Allow-do Neg.
“My parents did not allow (it).”
[53] When I was 8 years old ttay, I became a Christian.

When
“When I was 8 years old, I became a Christian.”

[54] enni-nun @ an elderly care social worker — lose il-hayyo
sister-Top a8

 

“My sister is working as an elderly care social officer.”
[55] wuli-nun kyohoy-ey went to church on Sundays.
We- Top church-to

“we went to church on Sundays.”

(Korean/English, Park 1990)

Again, in all these examples, two semantically identical items occur in one utterance,
such as didn ’t and anasseyo “did not” in [52], when and ttay “when” in [53], as and lose
“as” in [54], and kyohoy-ey “to church” and to church in [55].

Auer (1999) also mentions the significance of such phenomena, which he labeled
‘double marking,’ and states that such double marking is “a well-known exception from

the generalization that grammatical elements should always be taken from the matrix

55

language”(328). The following example is from a case investigated by Boeschoeten
(1983):
[56] t1 sinp-i sas m

Until grade six terminative (until)

“until grade six”

(Tajik/Turkic, Boeschoten and Backus 1997)
Here, a Turkic suffix gaca “until” and a Tajik preposition ta “until” appear
simultaneously in one utterance. Auer further points out that such phenomena commonly
occur in a pre-/post-modifying language pair (p. 329), which is supported by my
Korean/Chinese data, together with that of Park (1990), Nishimura (1985), and Park,
Troike and Park (1983).

The double morphology phenomenon remains one of the unsolved cases for the

MLF model. Recognizing this inadequacy, Myers-Scotton and Jake (2000) extended the
MLF model to the 4-M model, mainly to refine the content versus system morpheme
distinction of the MLF model. The efficacy of the 4-M model in explaining diverse data
has been tested by various studies (Schmitt 2000, Wei 2000, Fuller 2000, Bolonyai 2000,
etc.). One of the major contributions of the 4-M model, as claimed by Myers-Scotton and
Jake, is that it “provides more precise analyses of such phenomena as ‘double

’9’

morphology (i.e., an early system morpheme from the EL duplicating one from the
ML)(5).
Adopting the new classification of system morphemes, Myers-Scotton & Jake

show how the long-existing problems with double morphology data, plural doubling

56

examples in particular, can be explained under the modified Double Morphology
Hypothesis:

In mixed constituents in classic code switching, only embedded-language early

system morphemes double system morphemes from the matrix language. (2000,

1 07 3)
By further categorizing system morphemes into early and late system morphemes,
Myers—Scotton and Jake argue that early system morphemes are activated at the
conceptual level, just as content morphemes; therefore, early system morphemes may
come fiom the ML. In other words, if the doubled system morphemes of the EL are early
system morphemes, then their occurrence does not invalidate the ML principle.

However, a comparison of the double morphology data in Myers-Scotton’s corpus
and those in my Korean/Chinese corpus as well as others will show that this hypothesis
fails to apply in this case.

First of all, Myers-Scotton assumes that the assignment of the ML is rather
obvious in the mixed constituents involving the double morphology phenomenon.

However, it is not always the case. A few are repeated here for convenience:

[57]. 8mm dabufen dangci di - ha-ci-_m_an
although majority level low —do sup.- although

“Although most of them are pretty shaky. . . .”

[58]. ye shi pok-i-ci
also be blessing-be-DCL

“(that) is also a blessing.”
[59]. tamen mi naxie pis-sa-n-ke sa-n-ke yok-hal-key mwueya?
They buy those expensive-stuff buy-Pst-thing blame why

“Why would (she) blame them for buying that expensive stuff?”

57

Apparently, it is very difficult to accurately distinguish the ML and the EL in these data,
even for native bilingual speakers. The first halves of the sentences are well-formed
monolingual Chinese sentences, while the second halves of the sentences are also
grammatical monolingual Korean sentences. Due to the relatively equal distribution, the
frequency based criterion also fails in identifying either one as the ML. Since Myers-
Scotton’s double morphology hypothesis can only be tested under the assumption that
they can be identified, the position will be even harder to hold.
In addition, according to Myers-Scotton, the double morphology phenomenon

refers only to two affixes from both the ML and the EL attached to a single head (1993,
61). However, numerous examples from various language pairs provide us with enough
evidence to reject this definition of double morphology; this version is too narrow as
evidenced from not only my Korean/Chinese, but also Japanese/English, and
Korean/English data. In these data, the doubled items cover a wide range of categories,
from a singly occurring head to a longer constituent—phrase, or even small clause. The
doubled verbs in [60] & [61], repeated below, are apparently content morphemes.
[60]. tamen mai naxie pis-sa-n-ke m yok-hal-key mwueya?

They buy those expensive-stuff buy-Pst—thing blame why

“Why would (she) blame them for buying those expensive stuff?”

[61]. We bought about two pounds gl_lrai kattekita no.
about bought DCL

 

(Japanese/English, Nishimura 1985)

Furthermore, some doubled constituents are multiword phrases, also repeated here as in

[62] (a PP), or even longer, as in [63]. Consider the following examples:

58

[62] wuli-nun kmhmy went to church on Sundays.
We- Top church-to

“we went to church on Sundays.”
[63] Let’s become kechi ni naroo.
tight let’s become

(Japanese/English, Nishimura 1985)
(Korean/English, Park 1990)

The above examples have shown that Myers-Scotton’s MLF model, along with its

extended 4-M model, is inadequate in explaining double morphology phenomenon.

3.7. Conclusion

This chapter has attempted to test the validity of Myers-Scotton’s MLF model by
examining Korean-Chinese intrasentential CS, a language pair that are
morphosyntactically more highly disparate from each other than the ones considered in
her studies, such as English/Swahili, Shona/English, etc.. It has been found that, although
the MLF model provides a convincing account for most commonly occurring CS data in
Korean-Chinese CS, it is still insufficient in providing a satisfactory explanation for some
of the phenomena that have been revealed in language pairs with divergent syntactic and
morphological features.

First, the central principles of the MLF model are in conflict with Myers-
Scotton’s frequency-based ML criterion. Since ML assignment functions as a
cornerstone of the MLF model, a more objective criterion of ML designation that is fully

compatible with major claims of the MLF model is required. Second, the MLF model

59

fails to predict an asymmetry in terms of occurrence of switchable content morphemes, a
phenomenon abundantly exemplified in many bilingual CS speeches. Finally, double
morphology data challenges the MLF model’s key assumption that one language is
dominant over the other in terms of activation level.

In conclusion, this study suggests that the MLF model cannot be postulated as
universal in its present form. Further development and modification are needed.
Additional studies need to be carried out on other syntactically and morphologically
contrasting language pairs to determine whether what have been shown here to be
weaknesses in the current formulation of the MLF model are born out for other language
pairs as well. As for Korean-Chinese bilingual CS, 3 language pair that has hardly ever
received any study, this is just an initial step for a descriptive study; the data presented
here are by no means exhaustive. However, the findings from my Korean-Chinese corpus
certainly open a new avenue for investigation and expands the scope of research on
intrasentential CS, especially studies among language pairs that have significant

morphosyntactic dissimilarity.

60

Chapter 4: A language Centered Approach to Korean-Chinese Code Choice

4.1. Introduction

An area that has sparked much research in bilingualism concerns what motivates
bilingual speakers’ code choice. Previous studies of bilingual and bidialectal language
practices (e.g. Blom and Gumperz, 1972; Di Pietro, 1977; Auer, 1984; Poplack, 1987;
Heller, 1988; Scotton, 1988; Nishimura, 1992; Yoon, 1996) have shown that many
different factors (e.g., setting, topic, community norms, interlocutors’ language
proficiency) motivate code choices and that such factors may differ to quite a significant
extent from one cultural group or language community to another. In this chapter, I
examine Korean—Chinese bilinguals with respect to language choice in an interactional
setting and argue that, when an honorific language (here Korean) and a non-honorific
language (here Chinese) come into contact, interpersonal relationships which are overtly
signaled in the grammatical system of the honorific language and not in the other play an
important role in accounting for language choice.

In this chapter, I will first show how Korean and Chinese are organized with
respect to deferential forms, the relationship of such forms to the concepts of power and
solidarity, and how formal features, particularly those which emerge from the fact that
Korean is an honorific language, provide an impetus for language choice. I will also show
how this structural embedding of honorific forms in Korean makes for what might be
considered unusual language choice — the use of the “non-home” language (in this case,

Chinese) to signal more solidary relationships.

61

4.2. Background
The primary concern in this study is a typological difference between Korean and
Chinese — obligatory linguistic forms that encode the social status of and relations

between participants.

4.2.1. What is an “honorific ” language?

An honorific language is one in which the relative social status of speaker and
addressee are grammaticalized (Chang, 1996: 190). In such a language, “the relative
interpersonal relationships are elaborately encoded in linguistic forms to the extent that
speech acts are not perforrnable without taking the notion of honorifics into account”
(Hijirida & Sohn 1986: 369). Korean is such a language; its speakers are sensitive to
such variables as status, age, sex, level of intimacy, and situational formality, and are
required to adjust their grammars as these variables change. For example, the English
sentence ‘Have you eaten?’ can be addressed to practically anyone, regardless of the
situation or the status, age, or sex of the bearer, while Koreans have to construct several
different sentences to convey the same message.

(1) halapeci cinci tusi -esss-supnikka_? to a grandfather

Grandpa meal HON eat HON -PST-FO/INT

(2) dangsin . siksaha-si -ess -ey0? to a husband
You (intimate-polite) eat -HON-PST-PO/INT

(3) ne pap mek-ess-ni? to a child

You (intimate) meal eat -PST-IN/INTl

Honorifics in Korean are manifested not only at the sentence level (the form of the

62

sentence ending differs structurally) but also at the level of subject and object. Subject
honorifics are indicated by certain lexical items (e.g., halapeci and dangsin in the above
examples), as well as by the honorific suffix -si. Object honorifics mainly consist of a
few lexical items (e.g., cinci “meal” in examples (1)). “Honorification is an integral part
of Korean grammar, imbued in the cognitive system of the language user” (Chang 1996:
191).

In Hijirida and Sohn (1986)’s study of cross-cultural patterns of the deference
systems of English, Japanese, and Korean, it was found that age is the most sensitive
variable in Korean and that even three or four years difference gives rise to asymmetrical
forms of address. A common practice in Korean society is to use kinship terms to
address someone who is older but close (e. g. onni ‘older sister’, hyeng ‘older brother’).
Directly addressing such persons by their first name is considered impolite unless, in
some exceptional cases, the addressee insists on it, and for those who are not intimate, an
honorific suffix (—si) has to be attached to first names when they are used.

One significant characteristic of Korean relevant in this study is that it does not
have a second person deferential pronoun like the well-known V forms of many
European languages (e.g., Spanish M, French Eggs, Russian w. The neutral second
person pronoun is rather restricted in its usage — typically either by adults to children or
between very intimate friends in informal contexts. In other cases, nominal substitutes
(e.g. first name + si, onni ‘older sister’, sacang-nim ‘company president’) are employed
extensively as the second person direct address polite or deferential forms. Therefore,
when someone asks their boss whether he or she has eaten, they have to construct the

following sentence, with no pronominal:

63

Sacang-nim siksaha-si -ess -supnikka?
President eat -HON -PST -FO/INT

Contrary to this complex Korean honorific system, Chinese is a typical non-honorific
language. The same utterance can be addressed to almost anyone — friends, spouse,
children, boss, and strangers. There are, however, two second person pronominal forms:
ni (plain) and um (polite). The use of gin indicates interpersonal distance between
speaker and addressee and is restricted to addressing someone who has much higher
status in terms of social class or age or who is met for the first time. Using gin only adds
politeness, however; impoliteness or inappropriateness is not signaled by avoiding it. Ni
is almost the default choice for second person direct address in Chinese.

Given these contrastive features of Korean and Chinese, I hypothesize that, in a
language contact situation such as the Korean-Chinese bilingual community being
studied here, bilingual speakers will strategically manipulate their two different systems
as they implement the deference norms of the culture. Therefore, they may show
different patterns of language choice based in part on second person pronominal usage
options as the interpersonal relationships of interlocutors vary. To test this hypothesis, I
will examine two Korean-Chinese bilingual speakers’ different code choice behaviors

when they talk to a superior and a peer.

4.2.2. Power and solidarity

In their study of diachronic and synchronic variation in second person pronominal
usage in European languages, Brown and Gilman provide an account of pronoun
selection on the basis of solidarity and power. Many European languages, such as

German, French, and Spanish, have two forms of the second person pronoun: a V form

and a Tform. V forms are ‘forrnal’or ‘polite’ (Sig, vo_u_s, $91,) and Tfonns are
‘familiar’ (d_u, gigs, t_u_). At least historically, interlocutors’ practice in pronominal
selection was primarily power generated. In other words, the interlocutor with greater
power used the T form to address others of less power and received the V form from
them. When the interlocutors were in an equal power relationship, solidarity was
considered. A solidary relationship between power equals gave rise to the use of the T
form, but a less solidary relationship required selection of the V form. Figure 4.1. shows
this system. Although solidarity played an important role, it was secondary to power, but,
as Brown and Gilman show, a shift to more reliance on solidarity has taken place over the
years in many European languages. I believe the system I will describe is still primarily

power-based and that age is the primary indicator of the power hierarchy.

 

Superiors 9 Inferiors: T form

 

Equal and solidary Equal and not solidary
(- T 9 (- V9

 

 

Inferiors 9 Superiors: V form

 

 

 

Figure 4.1. Power and solidarity use based on a T-V pronoun system
(Brown and Gilman 1960: 259)

If we transfer the notion of a ‘formal’ V form and a ‘familiar’ T form to a language
contact situation in which speakers have access to one system with and one without
honorifics, a parallel pattern emerges. I represent this parallelism in Figure 4.2. and
assume, as in the older European system, that “power” is the dominating concern and

66—99

that “solidarity” is secondary. In this figure indicates that there is an equal probability

65

for either code to be used (at least with regard to the variables under consideration here);
a “>” or “<” indicates that there is a greater or lesser chance, respectively, that one code
will be chosen, and combinations of the two symbols (e.g., “>=” or “<=”) indicate a

somewhat greater or lesser chance, respectively.

 

,, | - |
anerior to Superior (+Power) I Equal (- Power) I

I +Solidary I I -Solidary I I +Solidary I I -So|idary I

I Honorilic=Non-llonorific

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Honorifir>=Non~llonorific I Honorific >Non-Honorifrc IHonorifrc F Hon-Honorifrc I

 

Figure 4.2. Power/solidarity relations in an honorific—non-honorific language
choice situation

Hypothetically, then, when inferiors address superiors, following the left side of Figure
4.2., deference or formality should be observed; therefore, the language with the
honorific system is preferred. If the conversation takes place between speakers who are
solidary (second level, left), however, there is a greater likelihood for honorific code
choice (third level), but, if the speakers are in a non-solidary relationship (second level,
right), the language with the honorific system will be the code most frequently chosen by
the speakers (third, right). On the other hand, turning to the right side of Figure 4.2., if
the conversation is carried out between equals, interlocutors have more freedom to
choose either code, and a more solidary relationship (second level, left) continues to

allow more evenly distributed language choice (third level, left). Non-solidary

66

interactions between equals, however, show a slight preference for the honorific system
(third level, right).

In this study of Korean-Chinese bilingual’s language practice, I adopt the finding
of Hijirida and Sohn (1986), which emphasizes age difference as the primary variable in
the Korean deferential system. I equate it with ‘power,’ as in the older European systems,
and examine the correlation between age and code choice. I also discuss the role of
solidarity when the power relationship remains fixed, although I will not investigate
equal power relationships between non-solidary persons. I will carry out this

investigation focusing on the three relationships shown in Figure 4.3.

 

 

 

 

Inferiors 9 Superiors Inferiors 9 Superiors
+ Power (age) + Power (age)
- Solidarity + Solidarity
Equals
- Power (age)
+ Solidarity

 

 

Figure 4.3. Power and solidarity relationships among the interlocutors in this study

4.2.3. The speech community

The data for this study come from informal conversations audio-recorded in a
Korean/Chinese bilingual community, YanJi. As shown in Chapter 2, codeswitching
is the “unmarked choice” (Myers-Scotton; 1993b) in this community. However,
codeswitchin g between Korean and Chinese is only common in casual interactions
between bilingual speakers but not in such public settings as TV shows, job interviews,

and formal speech. Among Koreans, the Korean language is perceived as more polite

67

than the Chinese language, and bilingual speakers must adjust their speech to reflect
different relationships between the speaker and addressee. One well-known strategy
worth mentioning in relation to this study is that people try to minimize their use of
Korean, if possible, to avoid the complex honorific system. However, this can be
practiced only in such one-time encounters as asking a stranger for directions or
bargaining at a store; if both interlocutors are fully competent in both languages and both
are aware of this fact, then insistence on speaking only Chinese will give rise to
discomfort or outright unpleasantness. This is especially true if the conversation is
between an inferior and a superior, because the superior generally perceives the other
party’s language choice of Chinese as an act of deliberate avoidance of using honorific
expressions and may label such behavior as perus epta ‘rude’ (Korean) or meflimag

‘rude’(Chinese).

4.3. Data

Data for this study was collected in the winter of 2000. A three-hour conversation
was recorded at the apartment of the researcher’s sister, with three people: the researcher
(C), her best friend (X), and C’s sister (J). This data set offers an example of a three-way
interpersonal relationship between interlocutors, while keeping other variables
constant—ingroup membership, degree of formality, social status, sex, and Chinese
school background, and this last factor implies the same language proficiency level for all
three. The relationship of the interlocutors is shown in Figure 4.4. Their balanced
bilinguality is further supported by the data as shown in their overall language

distribution during the conversation: speaker X uses Chinese for 47.49% of her talk and

68

Korean for 52.51%, while speaker C uses Chinese for 57.47% of her talk, and Korean for

 

 

 

42.53%.
X9J C9J
+ Power (age) + Power (age)
- Solidarity + solidarity
X(- 9C
- Power (age)
+ solidarity

 

 

 

Figure 4.4. Power and solidarity relationships among the interlocutors in this study

The Yale transcription system was adopted to transcribe the Korean data, and the
romanization pinyin system for the Chinese data. In the discourse samples, Korean is
always given in italics, Chinese in plain type. For the purpose of this study, I transcribed
only the utterances of speakers C and X to study the relationships shown in Figure 4.4.
J’s data was excluded from analysis because this study focuses only on the performance
of an inferior addressing a superior or equals addressing one another.

All transcribed utterances were broken into utterance units (“U—UNIT”). Such a
unit is a stretch of uninterrupted talk by one speaker, which has grammatical and/or
intonational limits; that is, a U-UNIT is a clausal, phrasal, or even lexical unit bounded
by some sort of intonational indication of its completeness. Monolingual U-UNITS were
identified as Korean (K) or Chinese (C). For intrasentential codeswitches (i.e., switching
within U-UNITS), material in one language is coded as a sub-unit (“L-UNIT) and
identified as the first (e.g., “A”) or second (e.g., “B”) such sub-unit within a U-UNIT,

regardless of its grammatical status, and also coded for language.

69

For each unit and subunit, overt second person direct address references were
indicated. If such direct address occurred, it was coded “P,” if not “N.” Speakers and

addressees were also identified in the coding. An example of the actual coding is shown

below:
X: onni-to nyeil sikan isso? Bumangde hua,
Sister-also tomorrow time have? not busy if

Wuli kath-i guchi yanggouchuanba!
we together go eat mutton kabob

‘Do you (sister) have time tomorrow? If you’re not too busy, let’s go eat mutton
kabob together! ’

Table 4.1. Sample Coding of the Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U-Unit L-Unit Language Speaker Addressee 2nd Person
Address
1 l K X J P
2 A C X J N
B K X J N
C C X J N

 

 

 

 

The first U-UNIT (‘Do you have time tomorrow?’) is a monolingual Korean utterance
spoken by X to J; it contains the second person direct address form gn_nr_'. The next U-
UNIT begins in Chinese (‘If you are not too busy. . . ’), with no change of speaker and
addressee and contains no second person direct address form. This Chinese part is the
first sub-unit (L-UNIT “A”) of this U-UNIT, which will have two intrasentential code-
switches — first from Chinese to Korean, then back to Chinese. Subunit “B” indicates the
first intrasentential codeswitch to Korean (‘We together’), itself followed by another
intrasentential switch back to Chinese, coded “C” (‘ . . .. go eat mutton kebob’). When a
U-UNIT is not broken in L-UNITS it is nevertheless counted as one L-UNIT, and

statistical treatments in the following analyses are based exclusively on L-UNITS.

70

When one speaker spoke to both addressees, it was coded as B under “Addressee,” and
these data were excluded since this analysis seeks to examine the different behaviors of X
and C when they spoke to a superior or a peer. Incomplete or inaudible sentences and

direct quotations as well as indistinct backchannels were excluded from coding.

4.4. Results and Discussion
The total number of L-UNITS extracted from speaker X was 1453, out of which
410 were addressed to J and 1014 to C; the L-UNITS from speaker C totaled 1446, 412 to

J and 981 to X, as shown in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.

4.4.]. Code choice

Table 4.2 and Figure 4.5 show the different language choices of speaker X as
addressee identity changes. Speaker X uses significantly more Korean L-UNITS when
she is talking to J, a superior, but more Chinese when the addressee is C, her friend of
equal status. A similar pattern is shown for Speaker C’s language choice in Table 4.3 and
Figure 4.6. Korean is preferred when the addressee is a superior, and Chinese for
conversation between peers. Both speakers’ code choices are statistically significant
when the addressee is used as the independent variable.

Table 4.2. Speaker X’s code choice by addressee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Korean Total
Addressee C 549 465 1014
Addressee J 117 293 410

 

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I80
; cm .46%
‘70 E V W” -____J —————
l... - __
i I54.14%
l5° “ I45.86%
I IAddressee C
‘4 0 “E _ DAddreeeee J
[328.54%
.30
lzo ._ _e wee—##4## am“-..
.10 « — — — — —M—_
i 0
Chinese Korean
I Language c. Addressee
Figure 4.5. Speaker X’s code choice by addressee.
Chi-Square=0.75, df=1, p=0.000
Table 4.3. Speaker C’s code choice
Chinese Korean Total
Addressee X 595 386 981
Addressee J 196 216 412

 

 

 

 

 

 

72

 

 

 

70

 

 

1:1 52.43%

 

 

 

 

I 39.35%

 

 

I addressee X}
lEl addressee JJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Chinese ‘ Korean
I Language 81 Addressee

 

Figure 4.6. Speaker C’s code choice by addressee.
Chi-Square=0. 19, df=1, p=0.000

As mentioned in section 2.3., Chinese is preferred in conversations conducted
between casual acquaintances, but this strategy is in danger of being condemned as
impolite once it is known that the interlocutors are fully competent bilinguals, especially
if their power relationship is asymmetrical. This general language choice finding
suggests that Korean-Chinese bilinguals get around this situation by conducting their
conversation with their superiors more in Korean than in Chinese. When no such social
restrictions need to be observed, their speech pattern is more or less equally distributed

between Korean and Chinese.

4.4.2. Second Person Direct Address
So far I have examined how the overall code choice among Korean-Chinese

bilingual speakers is affected by the type of relationship between interlocutors at a

73

macro-level. Next I will do a micro-level analysis of the behavior of second person direct
address, since that is the linguistic factor which is most similar to European T-V
alternation discussed in Brown and Gilman and the specific feature of the honorific —
non-honorific contrast I am investigating. Here I include under the general cover term
“second person direct address usage” both second person pronouns (Chinese only) and
such direct address nominals as m (Korean ‘older sister’). The frequency of second
person direct address usage by language as well as by each individual speaker is shown in
table 4.4.

Table 4.4. Frequency of second person direct address usage in all L-UNITS by
speakers X and C

 

 

Chinese Korean
Speaker X 10.43% 6.03%

72/61 8 46/717
Speaker C 13.72% 6.34%

1 14/7 17 39/576

 

This table indicates that in both Korean and Chinese, second person direct address usage
is quite minimal. For Speaker X, only 72 out of 618 Chinese L-UNITS contain second
person direct address usage; 46 out of 717 in Korean. For Speaker C, 114 out of 717
Chinese L—UNITS contain second person direct address usage; 39 out of 576 in Korean.
This low ratio can be explained by the fact that both Korean and Chinese are pro-drop
languages, and therefore subject-less sentences are quite common, in fact, the norm.
Unfortunately, this gives us a very limited number of second person direct address

forms to work with; however, since I will focus on the proportional behavior of such

74

usage based on the different speakers and addresses, this may not be problematic. In what
follows, I will examine how second person direct address usage correlates with the type

of relationship between interlocutors.

Table 4.5. Speaker X’s second person direct address usage
Chinese Korean Total
Addressee C 63 23 86
Addressee J 6 23 29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90'

 

[179.31%

 

so +—

I73.26%

70

 

 

60

 

 

 

 

50 ~ I Addressee C

4 DAddressee J

 

 

 

4o -«

 

 

I 26.74%

 

30

 

 

 

20

 

 

 

1o--

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

l o

I Chinese Korean
F

 

 

 

 

 

 

igure 4.7 . Speaker X’s second person direct address usage,
Chi-Square = 0.228, df=1, p=0.000

75

Table 4.6. Speaker C’s second person direct address usa e

 

 

 

 

Chinese Korean Total
Addressee X 92 19 111
Addressee J 20 20 40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

 

I82.88%

 

 

 

 

 

lAdd'esseeX
FIAddresseeJ

 

 

 

 

I17.12%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Korean

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.8. Speaker C’s Second Person Direct Address Usage,

Chi-Square = 0.149, df=l , p=0.000
Figure 4.7 shows that Speaker X uses strikingly more Korean second person direct
address forms (79.31%) when she addresses J and many fewer (26.74%) with C. Figure
4.8 indicates these proportions for Speaker C’s speech — 50% with J and only 17.12%
with X. The result is quite similar to that shown in Figures 4.5 and 4.6. The two speakers’
second person direct address usage shows a parallel pattern to their overall code choice:

Korean forms are preferred when the interaction is between an inferior and a superior —

XtoJorCtoJ.

76

In peer interaction between X and C, more Chinese second person direct address
forms are used. Chinese second person direct address forms are used more than twice as
often as Korean ones. Apparently, Korean-Chinese bilingual speakers minimize their
usage of Chinese second person pronouns when they talk to someone who is older (i.e.,
more “powerful”), while no such restriction limits them when the conversation is
between two equals.

Recall that in Korean speech there is no such a thing as an honorific second
person pronoun; a nominal substitute is adopted to address someone who is superior,
while in Chinese, a simple second person pronoun can be used to address almost anyone.
Therefore, having two quite different systems available simultaneously, Korean-Chinese
bilinguals use Chinese ni quite reservedly, although its usage by no means suggests blunt
or rude behavior in monolingual Chinese speech. In what follows, I will present some
actual examples to show that patterns of code choice are based in part on these second
personal direct address usages at quite specific levels of the grammar.

First, in Korean, as in Chinese, nominal substitutes may occur not only as
dislocated topic address markers (e.g., ‘Sister, are you ready?’) but also as actual subject
forms in second person direct address (e.g., ‘Sister are ready?’), a strategy not easily
translated into English. Although this option exists in both languages, out of 31 tokens of
such actual subject direct address nominals spoken by either X to J or C to J, none is in
Chinese. In other words, only the Korean direct address m (‘older sister’) was used in
this particular direct address construction during this conversation. As mentioned above,
age is perhaps the most sensitive variable in Korean culture, and kinship terms are

commonly adopted to address someone who is older. Here, speaker X, who is C’s best

77

friend, addresses J as ‘older sister’ in Korean. In fact, Korean onni is the only
appropriate form for her to show her respect for J and, at the same time, maintain some
closeness, since older sister in Chinese (ji_eji_e) can be used to address only someone’s
biological sister. A more common way of addressing a close friend of one’s older sister
in Chinese would be her first name + ji_e_, but, for Korean-Chinese bilingual speakers, this
fails to show a close relationship. Therefore, when it comes to the point that X and C
have to directly address J, the code always switches to Korean mm, as shown in the
following example:

(Afier dinner, C and X were chatting in the living room while J was mopping the floor.
X felt thirsty after they talked for a while. Then she asked J for a cup of drinking water.
The previous interaction between C and X switched back and forth a lot between Chinese

and Korean, but the previous utterance was in Chinese. Korean is italicized.)

[1] X: onni mul-i epso? _'I_‘s_r dou hele
Sister water-Nomdo not exist She all drink-Pst

 

wo iiu hele yibei
I only drink-Pst onecup

‘Hos sister got some water? She drank all the water; I just had one cup.’

X uses Korean to ask for a cup of water; then she explains in Chinese that ‘Your sister C
drank most of the water you gave us early on, so please don’t blame me for drinking too
much.’

Second, when uttering sentences with obligatory second person pronouns, the
speakers always chose Korean. It is well-known that Chinese and Korean, as pro-drop
languages, can freely drop the subject; however, there are some cases in which the
subject pronoun has to be present to host such particles as genitive markers or such

lexical items as ‘also’. For example, the subject of the sentence Do you also go to MSU?

78

in both Korean and Chinese is obligatory because also has to be attached to the subject
noun. My data shows that Korean-Chinese bilinguals prefer Korean in such cases. This is
perhaps the result of their both wanting to avoid the usage of Chinese r_ri ‘you,’ which is
perceived as an improper way to address someone who is older, and the more natural
attachment of Korean particles to Korean forms. The following exchange shows this

overt use of a Korean form when a particle is attached.

(X and J are engaging in a conversation and the topic is mainly centered around their
kids)

[2] X: onni -to ya-nye pan-ye kase chengso haecu?
Sister also his (refer to J’s son) class-Post go clean do

‘Do you also go to his school to help with cleaning?’

It is common for parents to help their kids with their assigned cleaning duty at
elementary school when they first enroll. With this background information in mind,
speaker X wants to find out if speaker I also follows this common practice. In this case,
the second person subject cannot be omitted because of the presence of the lexical item
‘also,’ which triggers her construction of the sentence in Korean presumably to avoid
Chinese _r_u_',. Similar examples can be seen in other cases. For example, Korean onni-nye
Qip_‘ sister’s house’ is preferred over Chinese @111 ‘your house.’

Third, even the quite limited use of the Chinese second person direct address
forms to a superior is, in many cases, accompanied by the Korean direct address
nominals, here gnarl ‘older sister.’ The following example illustrates this softening

strategy:

79

(X was speaking to J after she got a casual dinner invitation to J’s house from C.)

X: (talking to C) 91 .lLai xiang rang ni jie yong mahua
You again want to let your sister with food name

duifuwo? (switch to J) Onni, _nj shuohaole pg; shenme dafawo?
deal with me sister, you say with what treat me

‘Do you still want to invite me over just by serving mahua? Sister, you tell me

what you will serve tonight?’
C asked X to have dinner together at J’s apartment. X was joking about her previous visit
at J’s, when a very simple meal was served. Then she turns to J, addressing her in
Korean, then switching back to Chinese to complete the sentence. With this initial use of
deferential ‘sister’ in Korean, the Chinese second person g doesn’t sound so
disrespectful or rude. It is also C’s usual practice. C uses relatively more Chinese second
person pronouns in general. For example:

(C was explaining to X how she felt sad and almost shed tears when her sister J got
married. Then she turned to J and said the following sentences)

 

[4] C: onni, 91 his _k_a_r; g9 xianzai zheyang....
sister you don’t look at me now this way

‘Sister, don’t think I have been like this always (once upon a time I was a nice sister)’

This utterance is not really serious talk. J frequently teases C, and in this interaction,
right after C was telling X how sad she was that her sister was marrying out of the family,
she switched to address I in Korean and then switched back to her previous code. Here
she used the Chinese second person pronoun, but preceded it by the Korean direct
address nominal m; It will be hard to explain such switches unless one takes into

account the structure of Korean, “in which finely defined human relationships are

80

linguistically coded” (Yoon 1996: 402). Of course, my claim by no means denies the
other factors that motivate bilingual codeswitches; what is being stressed here is that,
other things being equal, the politeness phenomenon that is linguistically ingrained in
honorific language also motivates bilinguals to codeswitch.
4. 4. 3. Difi’erent behavior of X and C

Although the individual speakers’ code choice shows rather a consistent pattern of
using more Korean when talking to a superior and more Chinese with an equal, a
comparison between the two speakers’ behavior when they talk to J shows that the

difference between them is also statistically significant.

Table 4.7. Comparison of X and C addressng J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Korean Total
Speaker X 117 293 410
Speaker C 196 216 412
so
a 71 .46%
70 «~-
60 ~-— ' *9
a 52.43%

 

_ iI-.f‘.,".t..
3.. l

 

I Speaker C
I: Speaker X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Korean
Speaker a: Language

 

 

 

Figure 4.9. X and C’s language choice when addressing J,
Chi-Square=0.307, df= l , p=0.000

81

Table 4.8. C and X’s different pronominal usage addressingJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Korean Total
S aker X 6 23 29
Sgaker C 20 20 40
so — _ _fl — T
a 79.31%
so -———-—— —— .
70 4e — ————— — — ————— I a —-———— — —— L _q

 

 

 

 

>—— __.—_\___4

I Speaker C—
a- .__.__ CI Speaker X

 

 

 

D 20.69%

Chinese Korean

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4.10. X and C’s second person direct address usage when addressing J ,T
Chi-Square=4.965, df=1, p=0.025
Table 4.7 and Figure 4.9 indicate that, when addressing J, Speaker X produces
considerably more Korean utterances than Speaker C. A similar pattern is shown in their
second person direct address usage (Table 4.8 and Figure 4.10). Apparently, as in the
European usage uncovered in Brown and Gilman’s study, Korean-Chinese bilinguals’
language selection is power generated (by age), but when the power variable remains
constant, then the dimension of solidarity emerges. The interpersonal relationship of the
interlocutors in this study is shown below:
X9J relationship: [+power, -solidarity]

C9J relationship: [+power, +solidarity]

82

As biological sisters, C & J share much more intimacy than X & J; therefore, when C is
talking to her sister, she will be more inclined to make sure that her choices reflect that
greater solidarity; X, in addressing J, is more likely to deviate from the forms which one
might expect for expression of solidarity.

This result is somewhat parallel to the findings of Yoon’s (1996) case study of
group membership and code choices among Korean-English bilingual speakers.
Linguistically coded human relationships in Korean serve better as an outgroup code
because “the relationship between outgroup members is mobile, and therefore constant
awareness of one’s place in relation to the other is needed to maintain the appropriate
social relationship” (402). English is a better ingroup code since there is no need to
reinforce the difference between interlocutors. Here one might denote outgroup as [-
solidarity] and ingroup [+solidarity]. However, the relationship between X and J in this
study is clearly not that of outgroup members, because, as the best friend of C, X has
known J for a long time, and they have been in quite close contact before and during the
period when this recording was made. By [+l-solidarity], therefore, I mean relative
relationships — C and J share a relatively closer relationship than X and J, and this is
reflected by the use of more Chinese by C— a language that minimizes, or at least does
not highlight, the differences between interlocutors.

Both Yoon’s and my study suggest that we should not assume that the home
language is always or perhaps even the usual ingroup or solidary code among bilingual
speakers, for, in some cases, structural properties (i.e. honorific forms) of the languages
involved give rise to a rather unusual language choice — a non-home language is

preferred to signal more solidary relationships.

83

4.5. Conclusion

This chapter has attempted to explore a linguistic factor which influences
bilingual code choice when honorific and non-honorific languages are involved. By
examining Korean-Chinese bilingual speakers’ code choice in light of their second
person direct address usage, I have shown that status differences, here the age difference
in particular, plays an important role. Addressing a superior promotes Korean language
use, while interaction between equals shows no such preference. Furthermore, the study
reveals how the solidarity factor correlates with individual speakers’ code choices. While
the power relationship remains constant, the more intimate the relationship is, the more
freedom speakers have to use either language—honorific or non-honorific. Conversely, a
less solidary relationship triggers the use of Korean — a language with overt
grammaticalization to reinforce subtle changes in human relationships and thereby
express deference.

I conclude that, in addition to the many factors that have been proposed in the
bilingual language choice literature, the identity of the language itself is also one of the
motivating elements for codeswitches. An honorific language, even if it is the home
language of the interlocutors, may be more suited to unequal power relationships,
however they are calculated in a given language. In that context, a non-honorific
language may take on the role of solidarity. This study encourages researchers in
bilingual codeswitching to investigate the linguistic characteristics ingrained in the
contact languages for a complete understanding of bilingual language practice. Future

studies involving honorific/non-honorific language pairs, such as Korean-English,

84

J apanese-English, Japanese-Chinese, etc., may shed more light on our understanding of

bilingual speaker’s language practices in such linguistic environments.

85

Chapter 5. Korean-Chinese Identity and Language Attitude & Practices

5.1. Introduction

In this penultimate chapter, I turn to another interesting avenue of research in
language contact — the formation of ethnic identity, but I make use of it not only for its
own sake but also to provide both further background and a richer interpretive framework
for the more detailed bilingual practices already outlined.

Ethnic identity refers to “an individual’s membership in a social group that shares
a common ancestral heritage” (Padilla 1999; 115), and it is defined by both objective
criteria, such as biological, geographical, linguistic, cultural, or religious characteristics,
and subjective criteria, such as self-identification (Liebkind 1999). The construction of
an ethnic identity is essentially a dialectical process, largely determined by an interplay
between the host culture and the ethnic culture. Complex historical, linguistic, political
and cultural background facts which are embedded in this community lead to a series of
interesting questions to be explored regarding this group of people: Are they Korean? Or
are they Chinese? How do they label themselves and what connotations do those labels
carry? What are their beliefs about and attitudes toward both cultures and languages, and
how do such beliefs and attitudes shed light on an understanding of their language
practices? In this chapter, I will address these issues to see how representative people in
this community identify themselves and to what extent the formation of Korean-Chinese
identity is interwoven into their daily language practice, both consciously and
subconsciously.

I will first deal with the formation of Korean-Chinese identity by introducing

some background information as well as various theoretical frameworks to argue for an

86

established bicultural dual identity; then I will present actual interview data collected
from this community to support this hyphenated identity and examine how local beliefs

and attitudes toward both cultures and languages relate to the language practices shown

in Chapters 3 and 4.

5.2. Research Design and Method

Acknowledging the great extent to which variation exists even within individuals
from the same community, this chapter only attempts to give a preliminary study of
Korean-Chinese identity, focusing on the majority group with a Yanbian background — a
bilingual community that is the home for most of the Korean-Chinese population. There
are two sources of data used in this chapter: the main source is the interview data I
collected in winter 2003. Attempting to give an accurate and comprehensive account of
Korean-Chinese identity formation as much as possible, I interviewed a wide range of
respondents, including people in different age groups, with different educational
backgrounds and social status. Centering on the issues of how they identify themselves,
the subjects were asked their feelings, their attitudes, their hopes for the future, their
concerns for future generations, their beliefs about ethnic in-marriage, etc. I also did
extensive online research by surfing the various Korean-Chinese websites that have
emerged over the years and paid specific attention to the online forums that deal with the
issue of Korean-Chinese identity. The messages posted on these online forums were
mainly composed in Korean, although that may be due to the relative ease of the Korean

input system as compared to Chinese rather than any evidence of linguistic preference.

87

I will examine the data from these discourses as they shed light on the formation
of these Korean-Chinese people’s identity and show how the opinions expressed about

this identity can be related to the language practices shown in Chapters 3 and 4.

5.3. Korean-Chinese Identity Formation
5. 3. 1. Theoretical Framework

Three major theoretical frameworks have emerged over the years in the study of
ethnic identity: a) social identity theory, b) acculturation, and c) ethnic identity formation
(see Phinney 1990 for a detailed review). In what follows, I will briefly discuss each
approach and propose a modified model to explain the formation of Korean-Chinese

identity being investigated in this chapter.

Social Identig Theogg

Social Identity Theory originated from Lewin (1948)’s idea that emphasizes the
necessity of having a strong sense of group identification to one’s well-being. The theory
was further developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979), to a great extent in their studies of
ethnic identity. According to the theory, people have the tendency to categorize their
social world into groups and constantly position themselves in such groups. By so doing,
individuals gain a sense of belonging that contributes to a positive self-concept. This
theory considers the individual’s self-concept as well as the external social context and
attempts to uncover how, being part of two cultures and two linguistic systems, ethnic
groups in a pluralistic society construct a subcultural identity within the identity of a

larger society (Cross 1978; Rosenthal and Cichello 1986).

88

Acculturation as a framework for studying ethnic identity

The concept of acculturation is mainly adopted to study changes in cultural
attitudes, values, and behaviors that result from contact between two distinct cultures
(Berry, Trimble, & Olmedo 1986; Phinny 1990). There have been two distinct models: a
linear model and a two-dimensional model. The linear model suggests a continuum from
strong ethnic ties at one extreme to strong mainstream ties at the other (Andujo 1988;
Makabe 1979; Sirnic 1987; Ullah 1985); its underlying assumption that a strong ethnic
identity is bound to weaken one’s identification with mainstream culture is inadequate in
explaining many cross-cultural cases. The two-dimensional model, however, takes into
consideration both the relationship with the traditional or ethnic culture and the
relationship with the new or dominant culture and argues that these two relationships are
not necessarily interdependent (Phinney 1990). This model suggests that there are four
possible ways of identifying ethnic membership in a cross-cultural setting (Berry et a1.
1986). Strong identification with both groups indicates integration or biculturalism;
detachment from both groups suggests marginality. An exclusive identification with the
majority culture indicates assimilation, while identification with only the ethnic group is
indicative of separation. The Korean-Chinese group being studied here turns out, as I will
show later, to be a case of integration; their established biculturalism comes from equally
strong influences from both Korean and Chinese cultures, and Korean-Chinese people’s
dual attachment to both cultures leads to a unique hyphenated identity.
Ethnic Identig Formation

This approach takes a developmental perspective by stressing ethnic identity as a

complex of processes by which people construct their ethnicity (Weinreich 1988).

89

Largely based on Erikson’s (1968) ego identity formation theory, Phinny (l989)’s three-
stage model proposes a progression from an unexamined ethnic identity through a period

of exploration to an achieved ethnic identity as shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Phinney’s Three-Stage Model

 

Unexamined ethnic identig Ethnic identity search Achieved ethnic identig

Lack of exploration of ethnicity Involvement in exploring Clear, confident sense of
and seeking to understand own ethnicity
meaning of ethnicity for
oneself

 

According to this model, early adolescents and perhaps adults who have not been
exposed to ethnic identity issues are in this first stage —unexamined ethnic identity. The
ethnic identity is unexamined in the sense that identity issues simply didn’t surface as a
significant influence on individuals’ day-to-day lives, and they are not motivated to
ponder them. Some studies show that one characteristic of this stage is the minorities’
preference for the dominant culture (Cross 1978; Atkinson et a1. 1983; Kim 1981). The
second stage is an exploratory one. This may be triggered by some kind of significant
experience that makes individuals aware of their ethnicity (an “encounter,” according to
Cross 1978, or “awakening,” according to Kim 1981.) This stage is characterized by the
reevaluation of one’s ethnic culture and heritage, intensive searching for ethnic roots,
learning one’s ethnic language, etc. This process may eventually lead people to the stage
of internalized ethnicity; they will have a deeper understanding and appreciation of their

ethnicity.

90

In this chapter, I will apply Phinny’s basic notion of a three-stage model and
propose a modified model to examine Korean-Chinese identity formation. Figure 5.1

shows this modified model.

‘ Encounter with Encounter with
South Korean Non-Yanbian
‘ Culture . Chinese Culture ;

 

     
   
      
     
  
  
   

Korean-
Chinese
Identity
Search

 

Purity 1
, I Language
&Culture

   
  
 

   
  
 

Unexamined Achieved
Embracing Korean- Korean-
Minority Policy Chinese Chinese
_ . _, .. Identity Identity

I. National
" ' , ‘ Pride ,
Conflict 7 . ideology

Figure 5.1: Korean-Chinese Identity Formation

Similar to Phinny’s model, I also propose a three stage model: Unexamined
Korean-Chinese Identity — Korean-Chinese Identity Search — Achieved Korean-Chinese
Identity. The major wave of Korean immigration to China ceased decades ago, and this
post—immigration period has been long enough for ethnic Koreans to internalize their
ethnic identity. However, for a long time, this internalized Korean-Chinese identity has
more or less remained unexamined, until about a decade ago when China opened its door
to the outside world, which inevitably put Korean-Chinese people in various contact
situations, therefore forcing them to reexamine their ethnic identity.

The three stages I propose are not necessarily in linear order, nor do they imply a

path for identity formation at the individual level. The model suggests that Korean-

91

Chinese people as a collective entity have gone through these three different stages.
Individuals, as I will show later, may remain at certain stage for their entire lives,
depending on their social contact and changing settings. In what follows, based on what I
outlined in the model, I will examine each stage to uncover the attributes that Korean-

Chinese identity is made up of.

5. 3. 2. Stage One: Unexamined Korean-Chinese Identity

Giles & Johnson (l987)’s ethnolinguistic identity theory proposes that
ethnolinguistic vitality —- a concept that refers to a subordinate group’s ability to survive
as a distinctive collective entity in an intergroup setting — is dependent on the following
factors: 1) demographic strength (e.g. absolute numbers, migration, concentration, etc.),
2) institutional support and control factors (e.g. representation of one’s own language in
media, government, education, etc.), and 3) status (e.g. social, political, economic, and
linguistic prestige). All these factors combine to make up the vitality of ethnolinguistic
groups.

Ethnic Koreans’ settlement in China more or less resembles the case of many
European immigrants to the US, in that there was no major conflict rooted in racial
differences between the dominant group and the minority group. However, over a long
period, most European ethnic groups assimilated, and their ethnic language and traditions
are only a remote part of their ancestry. For these early immigrant groups, ethnicity
manifests itself as a symbolic identification with their past, and they may not necessarily
make any commitment to traditional customs or membership in ethnic organizations

(Waters 1990). In dramatic contrast , Koreans in China have strongly preserved their

92

traditions, and their culture and language still stand out as a distinctive entity in the larger
Chinese society. What, then, has kept ethnic Koreans in China from being assimilated
into the greater Chinese culture completely? In what follows, I will show that, among
many other factors, the historical connections between the two cultures as well as the
embracing attitudes from the host society have contributed to the high vitality of ethnic
Koreans’ ethnolinguistic identity.

The land of early settlement of Koreans in China was never a strange place,
neither was Chinese culture completely alien for early Korean immigrants. Historical
connections between two countries lefi a trace of great influence from ancient China in
various cultural aspects: the Korean language adopted the Chinese writing system and
was heavily influenced by Chinese vocabulary; the traditional Korean costume hanbok is
a modified one from the Tang Dynasty of ancient China, and the still-dominating
Confucian ethics originated from teachings of the Chinese Sage —Kong Fu Zi (Hurh
1998). In addition, prior to Korean immigration, the northeast part of China was largely
uncultivated land, and Korean-Chinese’s efforts to develop it strengthened their
attachment to it; to resist the Japanese invasion, they allied with the Chinese people to
fight for their cultural heritage as well as national sovereignty. Many Korean people shed
their precious blood in this land, and as the descendents of these national heroes, today’s
younger generations of Korean-Chinese, have a special attachment to the land and are
proud of it.

The accepting minority policy of the Chinese government further strengthened
Korean-Chinese’ sense of belonging and security, a condition that is more or less absent

in many other immigration histories. As outlined in Chapter Two, Chinese minority

93

policy has made a significant contribution in preserving ethnic culture, language, and
religion; ethnic Koreans enjoyed the choices given to them both in terms of getting an
education and holding on to their cultural practices, etc. Rose (1976), in explaining a
“third-generation return” phenomenon of minority groups in the US, says:
The explanation of this return is found in the threat to individual identity
prevailing in American society. While second-generation persons felt the need to
strive for 100 per cent Americanism for themselves by rejecting the ethnicity of
their parents, third-generation persons, secure in their Americanism, find it no
longer satisfying just to be an American. (27)
Apparently, the dominant-society-ascribed marginality due to immigrant groups’
linguistic, social and economic disadvantage leads to an identification crisis; in striving
for a secure, prosperous future in the host society, most immigrants sacrifice their ethnic
identity by being culturally and linguistically assimilated to the dominant culture.
However, as their identity as Americans was secured with the increase of economic
stability as well as linguistic competence, they search for their ethnic roots nostalgically.
The key point relevant here is that a non-hostile environment secures ethnic groups’
sense of belonging, and thus weakens the need to prove that their status is equal to the
dominant group. In the case of the Korean-Chinese, the Chineseness of their identity was
never threatened by any overt discrimination at a collective level, and they were widely
accepted as part of the greater Chinese family. Furthermore, the facilitating Chinese
minority policy also ensured these Koreans’ ethnic individuality, and they felt no
pressure to be completely assimilated, which led to the high vitality of this group. Due to
this specific setting, the issue of identity at this stage largely remained unexamined. Just

as Waters commented, once ethnic groups enjoy a great deal of choice and numerous

options when it comes to ethnic identification, “this population can increasingly choose

94

how much and which parts of their ethnicity to make a part of their lives. Yet for the most
part these options or choices are not recognized as such by the people who enjoy them”
(1990; 17). Korean-Chinese people have lived in China for generations and they have
kept their ethnic culture and language; therefore, they don’t really question what it means
to be Choson jok “Korean-Chinese” and how that contributes to the way they define
themselves. Some of the older generation people I interviewed as well as some younger
generations who haven’t had intensive contact outside the community and whose social

networks were primarily confined to fellow Korean-Chinese, are still in this stage.

5.3.3. Stage Two: Ethnic Identity Search

A8 briefly mentioned in Chapter 2, as the Chinese government launched market-
oriented reforms and started the process of integration with the global economy, Chinese
society experienced unprecedented changes, and these changes inevitably extended to the
Korean community in Yanbian. On the one hand, younger generations were attracted by
the jobs in major cities that promised a brighter future; they stepped out of the
community and started intensive contact with Han-Chinese people from all over the
country. Their regional, linguistic and cultural practices magnified the difference
between Korean-Chinese from Yanbian and Non-Yanbian Chinese. Seeing that they
were so much different from Han-Chinese, these Korean-Chinese people retained their
social networks within fellow Korean-Chinese: they were more inclined to socialize with
fellow Korean-Chinese friends, continuing to eat Korean food at home, attending

Korean-Chinese churches, and by all means trying to send their children to kindergartens

95

run by Korean-Chinese. They realized that they were Chinese, but they were also
Korean.

One the other hand, Korean-Chinese from Yanbian also started to have intensive
contact with South Koreans. Enormous business opportunities in China attracted a flood
of foreign investments from all over the world, including South Korea. The affordable
labor and huge market in China attracted South Korean businessmen to establish
businesses there, and the local Korean-Chinese, due to ethnic and linguistic ties, played
the role of middle-men. Meanwhile, having realized how impoverished they were in
comparison to South Koreans, Korean-Chinese sought every opportunity to go abroad to
study or work. Again, due to cultural familiarity and linguistic advantages, most went to
South Korea; even among those who went to Japan or America, they built up their social
networks among South Koreans.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, the year 1992 — when China and South Korea
established an official diplomatic relationship — terminated a fifty-year-long separation
and was a highlight for the newly developed relationship between Korean-Chinese and
South Koreans. This termination, however, initiated another painful struggle between the
two peoples. Without realizing how much they had changed over the years under two
different systems, the communication between Korean-Chinese and South Koreans
started with the assumption that they shared the same ‘Korean culture,’ however it was
defined in the given context. Apparently, in the minds of South Koreans, so called
“Korean culture” is coded as the one that originated from the traditional Korean culture
but with great influence from the contemporary democratic ideology that has come into

being after South Korea became an independent country. Korean-Chinese, on the other

96

hand, understood “Korean culture” as the way it has developed in a communist country
— China. Seeing how well Korean-Chinese have preserved the Korean language and
Korean traditions, South Koreans na‘r'vely concluded that they were the same as “us.” In
reality, this resulted in inevitable confusion, which eventually even led to mistrust and
resentment.

In searching for an answer to the question “what on earth went wrong?,” people
started to turn their focus from the “sameness” they shared to the “differences” and were
shocked at the huge gap. Up until now, having lived among Han Chinese for decades,
ethnic Koreans constantly focused on their differences from the Chinese and tried , as
much as they could, to preserve their cultural and linguistic legacy. However, the contact
with South Koreans highlighted the “Chineseness” in them that was somewhat invisible
before, and that’s another focal point in the formation of this unique hyphenated Korean-
Chinese identity.

At the same time, through intensive contact with South Koreans, they also saw the
disparity in their ethnic education and realized how little they really knew about their
ancestral history and traditions. They started asking themselves “who am I?” in their
searching for their “true” identity. Numerous Korean-Chinese online sites that have

emerged since the 19908 reflect this trend well”. Some of these sites are predominantly

 

'2 Here is a list of Korean-Chinese online communities:
http://www.kcw21.com (initiated by Korean-Chinese in Japan; predominantly Korean)
http://www.ksc.com.cn (run by Korean-Chinese in China; bilingual site)
http://www.ybsalang.com (run by Korean-Chinese in China; primarily Korean)
http://wwwmovizanet (run by Korean-Chinese in China; primarily Korean)
http://www.s_himto.net (run by Korean-Chinese in Japan; primarily Korean)
http;//www.yanbianren.com (run by Korean-Chinese in China; primarily Chinese)
http://www.kcgl].com (run by Korean-Chinese in China; primarily Korean)
http://cner-ynet (run by Korean-Chinese in Korea; primarily Korean)

97

Korean language sites, some are primarily Chinese language sites, and some are bilingual
ones. Each site has its unique focus, but all of them are devoted to building up solidarity
and unity among Korean-Chinese all over the world, and these sites became windows for
the outside world to get acquainted with Korean-Chinese people and culture. Several
communities, both domestic and foreign, also established non-profit foundations to help
Korean-Chinese children financially. By freely expressing their feelings as Korean-
Chinese and by sharing their experiences as well as their concerns, fears, and hopes for
the future of Korean-Chinese, they gradually built up a strong sense of belonging.

In the process of this searching, they come to realize that both their “Koreanness”
and their “Chineseness” are real, and these dual cultural traits interchangeably define who
they are contextually. People who are in this stage are mainly those who study or work
abroad, or those who left their Korean community to study or work in other parts of
China. This stage is certainly an awakening stage. The following citation is from a
Korean-Chinese student C, who is currently studying in Japan (original text in Korean):

I remember it was when I was in college, At that time, I didn ’t give much thought
to ethnicity and identity. At the Olympic games, watching the Chinese flag rising
up along with the announcer ’s exciting report of another gold medal, I couldn ’t
hold back the tears. I guess my education and the environment of my upbringing
have taught me that way.

One day, when I was chatting with my friends in my room, my father and some of
his fiiends were watching a table-tennis game in the living room. It was ofinal
game between China and South Korea. Drawn by their loud cheering, we went
out of the room and watched the game with them; the game ended with the
Chinese team ’s victory over the South Korean team, and as the announcer
reported the good news, we all shouted “Yeah! China won! Cheers! ” All of a
sudden, my father and his fi'iends scolded us: “Get out of here! What are you
cheering for? Only if the South Korean team wins and our nation gets stronger in
the world can we be strong too! ”

98

Then we noticed that they all looked so discouraged; they had been cheering for
the South Korean team, clapping their hands of...

Without knowing all this, we were rejoicing over the victory of the Chinese team.
We went back to the room, without fidly understanding why they reacted that

way ......

Now I can somehow understand maybe not entirely, what was deep inside in my
father ’3 generations’ heart.

(http://www.kcw21.com: my translation)

After living in a foreign country, Japan, for a while, the issue of identity that had never
surfaced before started emerging and by reflecting upon an old episode that was beyond
her comprehension when she was in China, the author started to reevaluate her identity
that she had taken for granted for so long. Her experience is quite typical among Korean-
Chinese. After a certain period of searching and struggling with rootlessness, they
reexamine their own identity and come to the final stage, which is achieved dual identity.
In the next section, I will mainly examine the makeup of this dual identity and show how

both cultures have equally influenced the identity formation of Korean-Chinese people.

5. 3. 4. Stage Three: Achieved Korean-Chinese Identity

One key characteristic of achieved ethnic identity is that people have a clear and
confident sense of their own identity and come to a deeper understanding and
appreciation of both cultures and languages (Phinney 1990). In the case of the Korean-
Chinese being studied here, they take great pride not only in their ethnic culture, but also

in the country where they were born and grew up.

99

5.3.4.1. Korean Language & Culture Preservation and Ethnic Purity
As shown in Chapter 2, ethnic cultural and linguistic practices penetrate all
dimensions of Korean-Chinese’ daily life. They eat Korean food, speak Korean, get an
education in Korean, and establish close social networks among fellow Koreans. The
extent to which Korean language and culture are well preserved ofien amazes most
Koreans from South Korea as well as from other countries, such as the USA, Japan, etc.
JaeHan Lee, head of the Gangyuen branch of the South Korean Performance Art
Association, once commented,
I have been to the old Soviet Union, Japan and many other countries and found
that ethnic Koreans living in these countries have more or less lost their ethnic
culture; contrary to that, ethnic Koreans in China, who had lived for a century
among people with a huge population majority, under the favorable minority
policy of the Chinese government, have their own ethnic newspapers, radio
stations, schools, etc., and continually develop their ethnic cultural legacy in a
foreign land. It was completely beyond my imagination and I was utterly
impressed. On my first visit to Shen Yang, when I heard the familiar Korean
language in schools, Korean music in Kora-0k, and saw huge commercial signs

in Korean, 1 couldn ’t help wondering if I was really in Chino.

(LiaoNing Chosen Newspaper: Jan. 9‘“, 2004; my translation).

Well preserved cultural practice and language, however, only tell part of the story of the
Koreanness of Korean-Chinese; the ethnic purity they have preserved also significantly
contributed to their identity formation. The importance of ethnic in-marriage in keeping
the blood line pure, thus increasing ethnolinguistic vitality, seems rather obvious. Just as
Lieberson and Waters noted, “a homogeneous nuclear family, along with a homogeneous
extended family, is more able and likely to pass on to offspring the ethnic feelings,
identification, culture, and values that will help perpetuate the group.” (1988, 165).

Research shows that intermarriage lessens the ethnic behavior of both husband and wife

100

since the network connections to their ethnic communities are inevitably reduced
(Johnson 1985; Abramson 1971).

As briefly described in Chapter 2, exogamous marriage was never common or
encouraged among Korean-Chinese people, neither in highly concentrated areas such as
the community under discussion here nor in dispersed regions such as Beijing, Shanghai,
and many other areas. Individuals who date non-Koreans have to endure great pressure
from their parents and relatives, and those who finally managed to marry non-Koreans
also have to suffer from guilt for being a disobedient child against his/her parents’ will.
Gil-Nam, one of my interviewees, told me how furious his parents were when his sister
decided to marry a Chinese man, even to the point of refusing to attend their daughter’s
wedding. Later on, when their daughter had a baby, they again insisted on putting
“Korean” as her ethnicity on her birth certificate.13

In another case, Mrs. Choy—a respondent in her SOs—had three daughters, and,
despite her objection, her oldest daughter married a Hui-Chinese man. At the time of the
interview, her second daughter was also dating a Chinese man. She was upset that her
daughters wouldn’t listen to her and she even said, “ ..... no to jam elgul tulgu
tanyeyaji...,” which literally means “1 want to live with my chin up.” In other words, she
felt so ashamed among her colleagues, friends and relatives because both of her daughters
were interested in non-Koreans. For her it was a big loss of face, and since she took the
responsibility of bringing up these two daughters after her husband passed away, she felt
any behavior of her daughters that was deviant from social norms would be criticized by

her social network. She considered it her failure as a Korean mother in educating her

 

'3 In China, when parents come from different ethnic groups, they can choose either one as their child’s
ethnicity. And this will remain throughout his/her life.

101

daughters. Even though she admitted that both son-in-laws are good men, she just
couldn’t get over the fact that they were not Korean. The following year, when I went
back to collect more data, I called her and asked how her daughters were doing; she
sounded very angry and said “don’t even mention their names; I kicked both of them
out.”

Ms. Pae also told me the story of her parents. Her Korean father married her Chinese
mother while he was away from home for college, despite the objection from his parents.
However, as he got older, Ms. Pae said, the guilt that he disobeyed his parents by
marrying a Chinese woman grew stronger, and when it came to his daughters’ marriage,
he insisted on them marrying Korean men, and, indeed Ms. Pae married a Korean fellow
from Yanbian.

The respondents I have interviewed all expressed their preference for marrying
fellow Korean-Chinese. When I asked them whom they would choose between Han-
Chinese and South Koreans, without hesitation, they put South Koreans on top of Han-
Chinese, giving the reason “we have the same ethnic heritage.” Young-hwa, a retired
local elementary school teacher in her 608, answered as follows, when I asked her who
she would prefer for her future son/daughter-in-laws, Han-Chinese or South Korean

(original in Korean):

1 still prefer South Korean, since we have the same ethnicity. We share the some
language, culture and traditions.

Needless to say, this too is a generational phenomenon. Especially with rapid

changes taking place in this community, more and more Koreans will be dispersed in

102

other parts of China, and social and geographical mobility would make it harder for them
to insist on ethnic in-marriage. However, at least in the current stage, ethnic in-marriage
is still commonly practiced and in some cases is imposed, and this preference for ethnic
purity certainly enhances Korean-Chinese ethnic pride.

The picture I have presented above may lead to an impression that these ethnic
Koreans living in China are 100% Korean, and indeed many South Koreans have drawn
this rash conclusion until they actually come into deeper contact with Korean-Chinese
individually. The difficulty in understanding Korean-Chinese lies exactly in these
superficial manifestations of their ethnic cultural practice. However, this is just one side
of the coin; to see a comprehensive picture of who they really are, we should by no
means neglect another important ingredient of their identity — their Chinese birth and

upbringing.

5. 4.2. ' es & Nat'o P ' e

As mentioned in Chapter 2, the Chinese government encourages minority groups
to be educated in their own languages. However, this turns out to be purely at the
linguistic level. That is, the Korean language merely functions as a medium of
instruction, and the education system gives rise to a group of individuals with fluency in
Korean but a one-hundred-percent Chinese mindset rooted in years of Chinese
ideological education. The curriculum in Korean schools is almost exclusively the
translated version of the Chinese. In other words, students in Korean schools are learning
Chinese history, Chinese geography, Chinese literature, and Chinese politics in Korean.

In the first year elementary Korean language textbook, there are quite a few stories about

103

early Chinese leaders. A typical story is one about Chairman Mao, who, when he was
little, gave his lunch to his classmate who was too poor to afford one. After his mother
found out, she generously prepared two sets of lunch boxes every day: one for him and
one for his classmate. The moral is to teach students to follow Mao’s example of sharing
with the poor. From the first day of class, students were taught that they are the hope of
xin zhongguo (new China) and the inheritors of the great Communist enterprise. Under
such teaching, for these Korean-Chinese students, their “national heroes” are Chinese
heroes, their joguk (motherland or fatherland) i8 China, and their government is the
Chinese government. They grew up with the pride of living in what they call a beautiful
and great country with five thousand years of history and diligent and brave people. In
the process of forming their identity, the history and ideology of their ancestral land —
Korea — is completely absent, and unfortunately Korean-Chinese parents often fail to fill
in the gap with family education. Therefore, the ideological input they received over the
years has been internalized by the Korean-Chinese people, and they grow up with a firm
and strong national pride. Ethnic Koreans are encouraged to preserve their language and
cultural traditions, while at the same time the idea of the Chinese national character and
the ideal of patriotism are stressed. Waters, in her study of the ethnicity of European

Americans, points out,

Individuals conceive of themselves as American, and within that as also Irish or
German or Polish. In fact, the common names people use to describe their
ethnicity reflect this conception of it. People say they are German-American or
Irish-American. In most cases, the two identities are complementary — you are
American but also of German descent (1990; 54).

104

The case of Korean-Chinese is quite similar to that of European Americans, except that
their well-preserved cultural and linguistic practice overtly overrides their ideological
makeup, which quite ofien won’t surface until after intensive contact. Therefore, the way
Korean-Chinese identify themselves is always zhongguo ren (Chinese), but Chaoxianzu
(ethnic Korean), a distinction which is firrther supported by the actual interview data in

the next section.

5.3.5. Self-Identification of Korean-Chinese

Self-identification refers to the ethnic label that one uses for oneself. Individuals’
identification with certain ethnic groups overtly manifests its identity through self-
ascribed and other-ascribed ethnic labels (Padilla 1999), of which the former seems to be
more essential. Since ethnicity is only meaningful when two or more groups come into
contact, the ethnic label that an individual chooses may largely depend on which aspect
of identity one wishes to highlight and with whom one is associating within each social
context. In the case of the Korean-Chinese group being studied here, the matter gets
further complicated due to a divided ancestral land with drastically different political
systems, and two separate names used by the two Koreas, as described in Chapter 2. The
political and emotional connotation embedded in each label is quite significant for this
group of people. A couple of years ago, Korean scholars from North Korea, South Korea
and China had a conference on the Korean language. Ironically, the agreement upon
which term to use for the title of the conference was debated hotly. South Korean
scholars wanted to use hankuk-e “Korean Language,” while North Korean scholars and

Korean-Chinese scholars insisted on Chosun-e “Korean Language.” Since none of them

105

were willing to compromise, they ended up with the transliteration of the English term
Korean, which originated from the pre-division period of North and South and was
considered to carry the most neutral connotation. It seems rather puzzling and sounded
like a tiny matter, since regardless of the label honkuk-e or chosen-e, they are essentially
the same language. However, the degree to which they were unwilling to compromise
tells us that the political connotation this distinction carries is significant. A8 a matter of
fact, the term Korea is getting more and more common. Most newly started Korea Towns
in major cities of China have adopted the term Korea Town instead of Honkook Town or
Chosen Town.

In addition, the different constructs of nationalism in China and Korea inevitably
create further confusion. China is a multinational state within one political boundary;
before the new China even formed a nation-state, there were already many different
ethnic groups, even though the Han-Chinese have been more or less dominant in terms of
both numbers and power. Therefore, a unified national identity coexists with ethnic
identity for Chinese minority groups. On the contrary, Korea remained one of the
“extremely rare examples of historic states composed of a population that is ethnically
almost or entirely homogeneous” (Hobsbawm 1990, 66). In other words, Korean political
and ethnic identity merge into one single identity, and for most Koreans, identity is
basically based on blood heritage, meaning that as long as someone has Korean ancestry,
he/she is Korean. Equally influenced by both nation-state-based and peoplehood-based
approaches, it is not surprising to often hear some conflicting labels used for Korean-
Chinese. The following comments, which seem rather confusing, are not uncommon in

the language contact situation in Yanji. Mee-Sun is a fourth generation Korean-Chinese,

106

and she finished all her schooling in local Chinese schools. She married a Korean-
Chinese man from the same community and has a son who goes to a Korean junior high
school. She is highly proficient in both Korean and Chinese and fi'eely switches between
the two languages as she converses with the interviewer. When she was asked how she
responds to questions such as “Are you hangook saram “South Korean” or junggook
saram “Chinese?,” a question most likely to be asked by South Koreans, she answered as
follows: (The original Korean is italicized):
Of course Chinese (Zhongguo ren). Korean-Chinese (Chaoxianzu) living in
China. If someone asks whether I am Hon-Chinese (hanjok saram) or
Korean (Chosen saram), I will say I am Korean (Chosen saram); but, if
someone asks whether I am Chinese (Zhongguo ren) or Korean (Chaoxian
gr), I would say I am Chinese (Zhongguo rem.
Notice here, when the question was asked in reference to Hangr_ro Ren (South Korean),
the respondent clearly identifies herself as Chinese (Zhongguo ran), and then she uses the
term Chaoxian Zn. The subsequent comment is rather interesting, and she offers two
different identities: one is Chosen Saram” and the other one is Zhonguo ren. If the
identity being questioned was in reference to ethnicity, here Hanjok saram (Han-
Chinese), she identifies herself as Chosen Saram (Korean); while in reference to
nationality, here Chaoxian ren (Korean), she identifies herself as Zhonguoren (Chinese).
This practice, however, is not unusual in cross-cultural settings, just like a third
generation Mexican-American, depending on context, might identify him/herself with

any of the following ethnic labels—Mexican American, Chicano/Chicana, Hispanic,

Latino/Latina, and American (Padilla, 1991). In exactly the same vein, one single label is

 

14 Here she is apparently using Choson-saram to refer to Koreans in a sense of peoplehood. As mentioned
in Chapter 2, ethnic Koreans in China as well as most Han-Chinese use the term choson to refer to the
Korean Peninsula, while using hanguk for only the political territory of South Korea.

107

certainly not sufficient to express these Korean—Chinese people’s dual attachment to both
cultures and pride in both nations. The key message is that both Korean-ness and
Chinese-ness define who they are; leaving any part out is bound to fail in representing
their identity. YongJin Sun, a Korean-Chinese scholar who is studying Chinese

literature, describes this ambivalent feeling in his essay on identity ( original in
Chinese):

About a month ago, when I was having dinner with a fiend of mine, we got into
the topic of the Korean Peninsula and my friend carelessly threw out a sentence:
“why don’t we just make Korea one of our provinces?” My heart sank and I
remained silent for a while. He must have forgotten that I am Korean. (Chaoxian
zu) ......

No matter what, however, I am Chinese. My great grandfather left Korea and
emigrated to China, and joined the anti-Japanese movement and was killed by
Japanese soldiers; my ancestors shed their precious blood in this land.

I am not Han-Chinese, but I am Chinese. I get excited or am concerned about its
history, its culture, its today and its future, its politics and its economy. . ..I was so
happy when I heard one of my Korean (honguk) students saying that China will
be a great nation in the near future, because China is my country. Even though
this Korean student and I share the same ethnicity, we are fiom two different
countries; it’s just that simple.

But I am also different from other Chinese (more accurately speaking Han-
Chinese); there is something inside me that they would never have felt.

Sometimes I really wanted to look for “my roots” and was really curious about the
life and the stories about old days in that land — my ancestor’s land.

When I read that Japanese people were accusing Chaoxian (Korea) as being a
savage nation in the newspaper, I almost couldn’t control my anger, and my heart
filled with hatred towards the Japanese accusation. . ..

When I read the report on how the North Koreans and South Koreans got together
after fifty-some years’ separation, tears welled up in my eyes, and I was as
emotional as those who reunited with their loved ones afier seemingly hopeless
longing. I was praying in my heart for a strong unified nation in the Korean
Peninsula. 1 was overjoyed to see a country after centuries of painful history
finally making headway toward a new chapter of peace and unification by
opening a dialogue between the two Koreas.. .

108

I am Chinese, but I am also Korean — (Chaoxian zu). It’s just that simple.

(http://www.l_<cw21.com: my translation)
In this text, first we see that the author expresses his dual identity by presenting his
attachment to both cultures. On the one hand, as a Chinese literature scholar who was
born and educated in China, he is enthusiastic about the Chinese cultural legacy, its
history as well as its firture destiny; on the other hand, with the undeniable Korean blood
running inside him, his is nostalgically fixed on the remote land that tells the ancient
story of his ancestor’s past. Second, his duality is also manifested in his positioning of
himself in contrast to other Chinese and Koreans. When he was with students fi'om South
Korea, “us” only refers to his Chinese fellows. That’s why a Korean student’s
compliment on the promising future of the new China brings so much pride to him;
meanwhile, when a Han-Chinese fiiend, with a great nation-state pride, tlroughtlessly
expressed his disrespectful attitude towards North Korea, the Chinese fiiend became no
longer an “us”; he suddenly becomes a “them.” “1am Chinese (Zhonggyo Ren), but I
am Korean (Chaoxian zu) ” summarizes the ambivalent feelings of this group of ethnic
Koreans who were born and will continue to live in China. For them, there is only one
country that is their country, which is China; but they are also Korean, in the sense that
their ancestors came from that land, and many traditional and linguistic practices
originated from that culture.

However, due to the subtlety of such connotations embedded in this hyphenated
identity, making others understand their identity turns out to be a difficult task. For most
people who lack such cross-cultural experience, their tendency to categorize their fellow

Korean-Chinese dichotomously often leads to frustration, and sometimes, even mistrust.

109

Lina is a third generation Korean-Chinese, who had the privilege of pursuing her master’s
degree in the USA. By the time I interviewed her, she had already finished her studies
and had gone to Yanji and started teaching at a local private college. She frankly shared

her frustration based on her experience in the States:

But people always mistook you as Korean. Because when you speak a language
very well, others would forget about your Chinese background. If you

speakly fluent Honkook mol (Korean)... for example, when I attended the Korean
Church, they treated me as if I am Honkook saram (South Korean), but I know I
am not Korean (1 am not from South Korea). Then their expections, when they
treat me as South Korean, will be the same as they do to South Koreans.
Therefore, in terms of dress-up, they would expect me to wear skirts, not pants,
because South Koreans will be completely dressed up for formal occasions, but
Chinese seem not to care too much what to wear. If you go to a Chinese church,
you won’t care too much about what to wear. ? (But if you go to a Korean
church), I can feel the pressure; I think I am not South Korean. First of all I don’t
have much money to buy fancy clothes, and second, I feel a lot more comfortable
wearing pants. A lot of expectations. If they treat you as South Korean, then I
will become part of them, and I have to meet their expectations.

Lina lived through her early childhood in an exclusively Chinese community; therefore,
even though later on all her education was done in Korean schools, both Korean and
Chinese are her native language. Her command of both languages frequently rrrisleads
people, here South Koreans, to ignore the “Chinese” part of her being and only see the
“Korean” part. Her uneasiness in accepting such a single identity exactly reveals the
Korean-Chinese ambiguous feelings of self-identification; leaving out either part will
only partially represent who she is. Lina’s comments on Koreans’ expectations similarly
reveal this complication. Burdened by high expectations from South Koreans about
appropriate dress, Lina, by emphasizing her “Chineseness” detached herself fi'om them.
What’s significant here is that, as a Korean-Chinese, Lina has the luxury of choosing one

identity over the other in any given context.

110

I have presented above the multi-layered nature of the formation of Korean-
Chinese identity; I would like to conclude this section by quoting Jae-guk Kim’s remarks
on his own search for his identity (original in Korean)15 :

Even though I am a third generation Korean living abroad, I am still more
comfortable with the Korean language. However, I am Chinese (Joongkuk-sorom)
instead of Korean (Honkuk Saram). When I am in China, I introduce myself as
Korean-Chinese (Chosen-jok); if I introduce myself to South Koreans, I say I am
a third generation Korean-Chinese living in China.

The reason I introduce myself actually a Korean-Chinese (Chosen-jok), as
Chinese is because my nationality is China, not South Korea. Even though my
language, culture, even appearance are more Korean, not Chinese, I don ’t belong
to South Korea, and I am just temporarily residing in South Korea. However, just
because Korea, the country I am currently in, is my ancestor ’3 land deep inside
my heart I do feel the desire to settle down permanently in this land.

People in South Korea often ask me, “don ’t you wont to live in South Korea? ”
Yes, 1 do sometimes feel tempted to wrap up my life as a minority in China and
live in South Korea, like any other Korean who calls South Korea his/her
motherland.

However, no matter what, that ’3 just my wish. My desire to live in South Korea by
no means entails my reluctance to live in China. I have spent thirty-six years of
my life in China and how can I just simply say I can forget about China. My life
so for has been closely tied to this huge country; leaving China out of my life is
like denying the past thirty—six years of my life .....

My life has been set on the stage of China not South Korea. The first lesson I
learned as an elementary school student was not “Long live, Kim Il-Sung! ” or
“Long live, President Lee Seung-mon! ” but “Long live, Moo Ze-Dong! ” Instead
of Honkuk (South Korea) or Chosen Worth Korea), China helped me finish all my
schooling.

1 am more familiar with the Tai-mountain in Chino than the Sol-ak Mountain or
the Hon-rah mountain in Korea. The world I had seen since I was born was all in
China. Before I come to Korea, the stories I was told about my ancestors’ land
sounded so far away to me.

During my stay in South Korea, I was constantly asked by South Koreans, “Do
you love South Korea more, or China more? ” I don ’t know what they expect a
third generation overseas Korean to say, “I love Korea more ? ! ”

 

'5 The book was published in South Korea; but the excerpt cited here is from a cyber newspaper
coIumn—http://yanbian.yemoon.net

lll

”Who am I? ” I have asked myself millions of times since I come to Korea. Am I
Joe-guk Kim who loves China more, or am I Joe-kuk Kim who is more fond of
Korea? Recently, I have come up with a brilliant answer that reflects my true
feeling — I love both China and South Korea equally. If Korea is the mother who
gave birth to me, then China is the mother who nurtured me and brought me up
all these years. The old saying of “blood is thicker than water ” certainly is true,
but “love by nurture is greater than that by nature” has also some truth in it.
Undeniably, these two truths are at odds. As a matter of fact, I myself am the odd
being born in this odd situation. No matter what, both nurture and nature are
important to me. As much as I am indebted to Korea, the mother who gave me life
but was forced to give up its precious son due to the loss of its national
sovereignty, I am also grotefitl to China, the mother who adopted a homeless
orphan and gave her best care to bring him up, with no complaining or hesitation.
I am the son of Korea, but I am also the son of China.

(Kim 1996; my translation)

In this passage, we see a young Korean-Chinese man’s journey on finding out who he is
and how it feels to live simultaneously in two different worlds. As we follow his
footsteps, we can clearly identify all three stages of Korean-Chinese identity formation:
just like any other Korean-Chinese, Kim J ae-guk never questioned who he really was
until he went to South Korea to pursue his graduate study. After a certain period of
struggling between his “Chineseness” and “Koreanness” during his stay in South Korea,
he reached his established dual identity — Korean and Chinese.

This recurring theme of this dual identity is not only reflected in Korean-Chinese’
self-identification of who they are, but also manifested in their beliefs and linguistic
practices. In what follows, I will explore how this unique identity is interwoven into such

beliefs and practices.

112

5.4. Language Attitude & Linguistic Practices

The dynamic and contextually-based nature of ethnic identity leads to a widely
accepted belief that ethnic identity is constructed through an active process of decision
making and self-evaluation (Caltabiano, 1984; Hogg et a1, 1987; Sirnic, 1987). Rather
than passively being assigned a category, individuals act as agents in this ethnic identity
construction to reflect their true identity. In what follows, I will explore the role of
language in the process of the identity construction of Korean-Chinese by focusing on
their self-reports of language attitudes and language practices and examine how the dual
identity presented above was influenced by their language attitudes and how that is

reflected in their linguistic practices.

5.4 n a t' t ° 11 't

Ethnic language is one of the most important symbols of an ethnic group’s
identity (Bourhis 1983; Collier & Thomas 1988; Giles & Johnson 1981; Kouzrnin 1988),
and language attitudes are closely tied to language maintenance. “Attitudes towards one’s
own ethnic group or a different one are believed to be strong predictors in success or
failure in learning the language of each group” (Pefialosa 1975, 167). In this section I
will explore how Korean-Chinese’ dual identity is related to their beliefs about the
importance of languages, and the social significance they attach to their identities.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, ethnic Koreans in China, by and large, have a rather
facilitating environment for the preservation of an ethnic language and culture. However,
this external force alone wouldn’t suffice in a community with such a long immigration

history to maintain their ethnic legacy. The findings from this study show that Korean-

113

Chinese people take great pride in their ethnic language and consider ethnic language
preservation as one of the most important elements in maintaining an ethnic heritage.
Young-hwa, the retired school teacher I mentioned earlier, answered as follows when she
was asked what she would do if her children didn’t speak Korean. (Original in Korean.)
I would teach them Korean. 1 think we must teach them Korean. It is utterly
important to know one ’s ethnic language ..... The ethnic language is very
important because it is the language that preserves an ethnic group’s vitality.
Young-hwa is a second generation Korean who was born in China; however, her Chinese
proficiency is rather passive, which is largely due to the fact that she grew up in a
Korean-dominated neighborhood and she taught and was educated in Korean schools.
Her social network ties her closely to other Korean-Chinese, rather than to Han-Chinese.
She married a Korean-Chinese man, and both of her children also married Korean-
Chinese. Her answer about the importance of speaking and learning one’s ethnic
language is rather clear, and she even makes the point of identifying language as the key

for preserving ethnicity. The next example is from Mi-Sun’s comments on ethnic

language. (The original was a mixture of Korean and Chinese; Korean is italicized and

Chinese is in plain typeface.)
Of course knowing one’s ethnic language is absolutely necessary. Because we are
Chaoxian zu (Korean-Chinese) ...... We should never give up our own ethnic
language.

Here again, the respondent gives a rather simple reason for the absolute necessity of
keeping one’s own ethnic language by tying ethnicity and language together. She further
comments on this issue by recollecting an old memory from her previous experience with
Korean-Russians. (Language switching indicated as above.)

How do I say this... In Russia, someone of my mother’s age would say “do you
have longer shoes? ” instead of “bigger. ” Look at us, at my generation, we still

114

speak perfect Korean; they do not, let alone their children. We met someone then,
and her son was in his twenties; he didn’t speak a word of Korean. And his
mother was the one who said “longer shoes.” We don ’t talk about shoe-size that
way. T hot ’s not how the Korean language works. Her son could not speak Korean
at all. So, at that time I felt them to be more Russian, not Korean, even though
they have a Chosen (Korean) face.
Mi-Sun’s identification of Korean-Russians as non-Korean is purely based on the fact
that they don’t speak their ethnic language. Interestingly, the pride of speaking good
Korean as an overseas Korean national gives her a sharp contrast between Korean-
Russians and Korean-Chinese, and, based on this lack of ethnic language alone, she
disputes their Korean ethnicity.

However, as much as Korean-Chinese value their cultural heritage and language,
they are also perfectly aware of the increasing demands of Chinese as a national language
to ensure their upward mobility. This is becoming more evident in their attitudes toward
sending their children to Chinese schools.

Ji-Woo is in her early 408 and works at a local advertising company. Although
she is more than fluent in Chinese, her interactions with her husband and her son are
more or less in Korean. She has a son who is attending a local Korean school at the time I
interviewed her, and when I asked her what led her to make that decision, she answered:

I originally wanted to send him to a Chinese school. But I was pressed by his

grandma (J i-Woo’s mother). ..... When my son was in the third grade, I even

intended to transfer him to a Chinese school; but it didn’t work out ...... For my
grandchildren, I will definitely send them to Chinese schools.
It is commonly believed that if Koreans are educated in Chinese schools, they will not be

able to learn Korean traditional values and mannerisms, which are very important for

most older generation Koreans. In Ji-Woo’s case, her original intention of having her son

115

educated in the Chinese school system failed due to the objection from her mother;
however, she is determined to send her grandchildren to Chinese schools in the future.
After living in China for several generations, the hope of returning to their homeland
someday, which was relatively strong among first generation immigrants, is disappearing;
it may take place at the individual level, but it is becoming clear to most Korean-Chinese
nowadays that a large scale migration back to their ancestral land is not likely to happen,
and surely they will continue to live in China as ethnic Koreans. Therefore, they realize
that fluency in the national language brings the only assurance of their prosperity. This
belief is becoming more and more common among Korean-Chinese. Chang-Hyun is a
third generation Korean-Chinese in his 60s, and his comments on this issue more or less
echo this new trend (Original in Korean):

Surely Koreans should know their ethnic language, because it ’s their ethnic

language. They must know how to speak their own ethnic language. However,

they don’t have to be literate in Korean. As long as you can speak, that ’s

suflicient. Therefore, we should learn Chinese better. Literacy in Korean is only

useful when you go to Hankuk (South Korea). You see nowadays many Korean-

Chinese kids were sent to Chinese schools.

Chang-Hyun’s view that having only oral proficiency in Korean is sufficient
reflects the reality every Korean-Chinese is facing. Compared to the vast market place of
China, the limited usage of the Korean language (in this community and in Korea)
motivates Korean-Chinese to emphasize the mastery of the Chinese language to ensure
their upward mobility. Like many others, Chang-Hyun sent all his children to Chinese
schools, despite the objection from his parents. The relationship between Korean and

Chinese in this community in some way encourages this practice. It is not the case

described as diglossia, that is, the existence of two languages (or varieties of language)

116

within the same speech community, one of which is accorded high prestige, the other,
low prestige (Ferguson, 1959; Pride, 1971). Both Korean and Chinese enjoy high status.
In addition, bilingualism itself is valued rather positively in this community. The
following comments of Ae-Hwa illustrate this point. (Korean is italicized.)
.....Nowadays, see how many Korean-Chinese can speak Chinese perfectly! For
example, the singer who was on TV this morning, sang the first verse of the song
in chosen mal (Korean), and second verse in Chinese. Very fluent Chinese. How
nice! I felt so proud of him at that moment— he can speak Korean natively, at the
same time, using fluent Chinese to communicate with others.
Ae-Hwa is also a fourth generation Korean-Chinese, who is highly proficient in both
languages. As she freely switches back and forth within her linguistic repertoire to make
this comment, Ae-Hwa, in a way, expresses her own pride as Korean-Chinese in her
ability to tactically manipulate two linguistic systems to represent her dual identity.
Community-based bilingual practice and a positive attitude toward bilingualism are
closely tied together in this community.
A new bilingual system in Korean elementary schools also reflects this change.
From the year 2002, some of the Korean schools in Yanji started a new program. Under
this new system, students in Korean elementary schools are taught in Korean two subjects
only: Korean language and mathematics; all other subjects are taught in Chinese. In the
old system, the Korean textbooks used in Korean schools were designed for second
language learners, and they were relatively easier than the ones used in Chinese schools.
However, the new program has started to use the regular Chinese school textbook in
Chinese class. The students’ Chinese proficiency and literacy are supposed to be equal to

that of any students in Chinese schools. The whole point is to educate balanced bilingual

and bi-literate students.

117

The new system is still in its experimental stage and only limited to elementary
levels. Whether the change will also take place in the junior high or senior high level will
depend on how many Korean parents decide to send their children to such schools as
opposed to having their children educated in Chinese schools.

Zhou, in his comparative study of the language attitudes of Koreans and Tibetans,
attributes the high achievement of Koreans to the dialectal influence of cultural,
socioeconomic, and political factors and their positive language attitude toward
“Putonghua ” standard Chinese (2000: 14). Hurh warns of the potential danger of an
ethnic community, such as Koreatowns in the United States, to function as ‘mobility
traps’ or to degenerate into ‘ethnic ghettos’ (452) in the long run. The Korean-Chinese’s
positive attitude toward the Chinese language and their efforts to master it have assured
their equal participation in the social structure of the dominant society and a steady

escalation in upward mobility.

5. 4. 2. Language Practices:

In this section, I will explore what Zentalla calls “in the hea ” knowledge—
The shared knowledge of how to manage conversations, how to achieve intentions
in verbal interaction, and how to show respect for the social values of the
community, the status of the interactants, and the symbolic value of the languages
(1997;83)

As shown in Chapter 4, the linguistic repertoire Korean-Chinese bilinguals have bridges a

vast gap between an honorific system and a non-honorific system. Native speakers’

knowledge of how to appropriately express themselves in various speech situations

intuitively accords with the community’s “ways of speaking” (Hymes 1974). Speakers in

bilingual speech communities have a communicative competence “which prescribe[s] not

118

only when and where each language may be used, but also whether and how the two
languages may be woven together in a single utterance” (Zentella 97, 80), and such
competence accurately reflects the shared rules for the structure of their linguistic codes
and for the socially appropriate way of speaking them (Hymes 1974). Bourdieu in his
Habitusm and bilingualism wrote:

A well-constituted speaker, since he has acquired his linguistic competence and

the practical knowledge of the conditions for optimal use of this competence at

the same time, anticipates the occasion in which he can place one or other of his
languages with the maximum profit. The same speaker changes his or her
expressions, moving from one language to another, without even realizing the
fact, by virtue of practical mastery of the laws of functioning of the field (which
functions as a market) in which he or she will place his or her linguistic products.

Thus, for as long as habitus and field are in agreement, the habitus “comes at just

the right moment” and, without the need for any calculation, its anticipations

forestall the logic of the objective world. (1990a, 91).

The above quotation applies well to the case of the Korean-Chinese being studied here;
they are able to speak properly in appropriate settings, and they know when to use which
language.

Generally speaking, in most bilingual communities, speakers attach emotional
values to their ethnic language and use it for the sake of enhancing solidarity among
ethnic group members. Therefore, the domain of their ethnic language and the national
language is more or less dichotomized into unofficial and official settings, home and
work place, and close and distant relationships, etc. However, in this bilingual

community that involves two languages with drastically contrastive features — one is an

honorific language and one is a non-honorific language, speakers have to be more

 

‘6 Habitus, according to Bourdieu, is a “durably installed generative principle of regulated improvisations”
that is the product of collective history, “to be reproduced in the form of the durable, adjusted dispositions
that are the condition of their functioning” (1990b, 57).

119

sensitive to the underlying rules shared in the community and “pick and choose” the right
language at the right moment. In other words, the tactful manipulation of two languages
requires more careful calculation for the interlocutors in observing age difference,
relationships, community norms, etc. Again, the way Korean-Chinese speakers position
themselves constantly shifts as the addressees alter. In a larger societal setting that
involves both Korean-Chinese and Han-Chinese, Korean is still the language that carries
symbolic meanings of solidarity and is their favored language. Below is a quote fi'om
one of my respondents (Korean is italicized):
If we didn ’t have that Chinese girl at work... well, actually even if she was there,
we all speak Korean. Sometimes we have dinner together, even though both
Korean-Chinese and Han-Chinese are present, we (Korean-Chinese) will chat in
Korean, then Han-Chinese will not be able to participate at all ...... We won’t
speak Chinese just because Chinese are there. I didn’t want to speak Chinese just
because Chinese are there. The ethnic pride is still there.
Having the privilege of speaking two languages, it seems quite natural for Korean-
Chinese speakers to accommodate monolingual Chinese speakers; however, the above
example shows that they are not willing to sacrifice Korean as the “we” code while they
chat, the setting that always carries richer cultural significance. Their Korean identity
becomes salient while they are placed in a mainstream society, and even though they are
absolutely competent in Chinese, they establish their “Koreanness” by deliberately
choosing one linguistic code over the other.
From Chapter 4, we have already seen that the very nature of Korean as an
honorific language and Chinese as non-honorific language plays a significant role in their

code choice. In this community, people tie Korean language and politeness together, and

using Korean signals more respect to the interactants. I remember once I called my friend

120

at home and her younger sister picked up the phone. Since she answered the phone in
Chinese, we started our conversation in Chinese. She told me that her sister was not
home; then I told her my name and asked her to tell her sister to call me back.
Interestingly, at the moment she heard my name — a name she recognized as one of her
sister’s friends, she immediately switched to Korean with honorification. Apparently, she
considers speaking Chinese to her sister’s friend is inappropriate, if not rude.
Furthermore, as shown in Chapter 4, this perception is not simply based on the
fact that it’s their ethnic language, but on the characteristics of the Korean language itself
which requires keen sensitivity to the changing situation as well as interlocutor identities.
Look at the following comment from one of my interviews (Korean is italicized):
The Korean language is a little bit complicated, you know, especially the
seniority. Sometimes I go out with LiJingl 7 and on the road, if she stops to talk to
someone, I just have no idea who that person is, whether he/she is her fi’iend, or
her sister’s friend, or her relatives. With Korean, we can tell the difference, you
know. ”
The complication being “complained” about is exactly the feature that they like about the
Korean language, because the language itself makes evident the seniority of the
addressees, relationships between interlocutors, etc., which would otherwise be
completely unknown to an outside observer. For a monolingual Korean speaker, this
complicated nature of their native language leaves little room to maneuver. For a
bilingual speaker, however, who has the luxury of possessing two linguistic systems, the
flexibility seems to be greater, and Korean-Chinese speakers strategically manipulate

language choice to maximize their linguistic capital while observing the appropriateness

of “ways of speaking.”

 

'7 Lijing is Chinese.

121

I have shown above that, while in a larger Chinese mainstream context, the
Koreanness of Korean-Chinese becomes more prominent, in an in-group context, (contact
among fellow Korean-Chinese), their language practice displays a multifaceted nature.
As briefly introduced in Chapter 4, a common practice in this community is to use
Chinese for one-time encounters such as asking for directions, talking to a store clerk,
etc. This is indeed borne out by my interview data, and practically all the respondents
indicated that they would use Chinese first. However, as the conversation goes on, one
party’ 3 switching to Korean will normally shift the whole conversation into Korean. The
following example is about one of my respondents’ experiences in renting out her old
apartment. In response to what language she normally uses for one-time encounters, she
answered (Korean is italicized):

I would say Chinese first; it ’3 just convenient. For example, when I was renting

out my old apartment earlier this year, one guy called, and he had no idea whether

I was Korean-Chinese or Han-Chinese. And then, as we talked along, his Chinese

was pretty good, he didn ’t have a really noticeable Korean accent, but you still

can tell that he is Korean. So I carefully asked him “do you happen to be

Korean?” “Yes, I am. Oh, and we have been speaking Chinese to each other? I...
Then we started speaking Korean.

))

Notice here the reason she gave for using Chinese first is the convenience. As introduced
in Chapter 4, contrary to Korean, Chinese is a non-honorific language and just like
English the same sentence can be addressed to practically anyone, a spouse, a son, a boss,
etc. Therefore, when age cannot be reasonably determined based on outward appearance,
Chinese is preferred. Then, as the conversation goes on, when the speaker received cues
that the addressee was Korean, she approached him (with care) in Korean, and then the
conversation shifted to Korean from that point. What is interesting here is that Chinese is

initially preferred due to its blindness to seniority. However, once it’s confirmed that both

122

interlocutors are competent bilingual speakers, the ethnic language once again takes over.
Korean-Chinese speakers are very sensitive to seniority; therefore, an interlocutors’ age
fimctions as a main determinant of their language choice. Lina’s comments on her own
linguistic choice illustrates this point (Korean is italicized):
If he/she is also Korean-Chinese, but it’s hard to tell their age, I probably will
speak in Chinese. If he/she is obviously senior or junior, I will speak in Korean.
If much younger, I will speak in Korean.
Here again, it is shown that age is an important indicator in choosing which code to use.
Easily discriminated seniority or juniority makes choice a lot easier; however, when it is
hard to make any reasonable guess, speakers switch to Chinese so that they won’t
overuse the honorifics with someone who is actually younger, or accidentally “dishonor”
someone who is actually older. This is certainly a luxury that only Korean-Chinese
bilinguals enjoy; they strategically manipulate their linguistic system to highlight the

different aspects of their dual identity for maximal outcome with minimal efforts.

5.5. Conclusion

Ethnic identity is not a fixed entity or a category that is unilaterally assigned by
the society; it is a variable and ongoing process, with a wide range of meanings attached
to it. Given this protean nature of identity, any attempt to study the processes of ethnic
identity formation will fail to capture the true meaning of an ethnic group’s identity in its
entirety. In this chapter, I have attempted to present the complicated and multi-layered
Korean-Chinese identity by examining multiple historic, social, and ideological factors as
well as subjective feelings, beliefs and practices. And I argued for an established Korean-
Chinese identity by showing two sets of inseparable ingredients embedded in this dual

identity, which give rise to this unique people group. I’ve also shown that their positive

123

attitudes toward bilingualism have made a significant contribution to this highly
integrated bicultural identity. Undoubtedly, many internal or hidden variables are
missing from the current study. Instead of belonging to one of the stages I have
proposed, many people may in fact belong to some position along a continuum of the two
stages in Figure 5.1. Many more questions remain unanswered: how do their fellow
Chinese and South Koreans perceive them, respectively? And how do others’ perception
of them interfere in the process of this ongoing identity formation? To what extent and
how long will Korean-Chinese remain a distinct entity, neither becoming completely
assimilated into Chinese society nor resisting it to be completely South Korean? These

are the pressing questions yet to be answered.

124

Chapter 6: Conclusion

As an initial attempt to introduce a Korean-Chinese bilingual community that has
drawn little or no attention in the field of sociolinguistics, this dissertation has
investigated three main aspects of language contact phenomena: morphosyntactic
constraints on codeswitching, motivations for code choice, and the issue of bilingual
identity formation. After a brief introductory chapter that laid out the significance of the
study, in Chapter 2, I introduced the Yanji bilingual community by providing historical,
international, political and socio-economic background information and by describing the
linguistic situation in the area where the data was collected.

In Chapter 3, I approached Korean-Chinese intrasentential codeswitching from a
morphosyntactic perspective to test one of the most influential frameworks in the field ——
the Matrix Language Framework Model (Meyers-Scotton, 1993). The extent to which the
two participating languages differ from each other typologically—Chinese is a SVO
language with almost zero inflection, while Korean is a typical agglutinating SOV
language with a rather rich morphology—is in far greater contrast than any of the
language pairs studied by Meyers-Scotton and many others, and thus provides a valuable
test case for the universal applicability of the MLF model. The findings of this chapter
show that the morpheme-based MLF model is inadequate for these Korean-Chinese
codeswitching data, primarily due to the inadequacy of the system in identifying which
language is the matrix and which is the embedded language, a finding that is not so
surprising in the face of the very limited morphology of Chinese. This finding encourages
researchers in the field to take into consideration morphological elaborateness when

postulating universal constraints on intrasentential codeswitching.

125

In Chapter 4, I examined Korean-Chinese bilingual code choice, focusing on the
role of honorifics — obligatory linguistic forms that encode the social status of and
relationships between participants. Previous studies of code choice have mainly focused
on external factors (e.g., setting, topic, community norms, interlocutors’ language
proficiency) that are independent of the grammatical systems of the participating
languages. This chapter examines language internal factors to argue that the status of one
of the codes as an honorific language — one in which honorific characteristics are
embedded in language structure — also contributes to code choice. A close examination
of the deference systems of Korean and Chinese as well as their second person direct
address usage leads to a conclusion that, when an honorific language —— here Korean —
and a non-honorific language —- here Chinese — come into contact, the linguistic coding
of interpersonal relationships play an important role in accounting for code choice. The
data reveals that when a person of inferior status addresses a superior, Korean is
preferred, while interaction between equals shows no such pattern. It also shows that in
the interaction between non-equals, the more intimate the relationship is, the more
Chinese is used; conversely, a less solidary relationship triggers a preference for Korean.

Adopting Brown & Gilman’s (1960) distinction of power and solidarity, this
chapter argues that Korean-Chinese bilinguals’ power-based code choice (i.e., that an age
difference gives rise to the more frequent use of Korean) is primarily determined by the
fact that Korean is a language that uses overt grammatical elements to reinforce the
difference between interlocutors. Since there is no need for interactions among peers to
highlight such differences, code choice tends to be more evenly distributed between the

two languages. This argues for characteristics of language itself as a motivating force for

126

code choice: solidarity reduces the difference between interlocutors; therefore, they have
more freedom to choose either code. In less solidary relationships, speakers have to be
more sensitive to interpersonal relationships. This result suggests that a structural
property (i.e., honorific forms) makes for what might be considered an unusual language
choice, namely the use of the ‘non-home” language (in this case, Chinese) to signal more
solidary relationships. It also encourages researchers in the field to examine linguistic
properties embedded in contact languages for a better understanding of bilingual
language practice.

In Chapter 5, I have explored the issue of the ethnic identity of Korean-Chinese
bilinguals in this community to provide both further background and a richer interpretive
framework for the more detailed bilingual practices already outlined in previous chapters.
Drawing together the socio-political and historical facts of the community with
ethnographic reflections on both personal and group identity and the relationship of
identity to language practices themselves, I have proposed a three-stage model to account
for ethnic identity formation: unexamined Korean-Chinese identity, ethnic identity
searching, and achieved Korean-Chinese identity. I have attempted to present this
complex and multilayered Korean-Chinese identity by examining multiple historical,
social, and ideological factors as well as subjective feelings, beliefs and practices. I have
argued for an established Korean-Chinese identity by showing two sets of inseparable
ingredients embedded in this dual identity, which give rise to this unique group: their
Koreanness resulted from their efforts to preserve ethnic purity as well as linguistic and

cultural practice, and their Chineseness is embedded in their national pride and

127

ideological training. I’ve also shown that their positive attitudes toward bilingualism have
made a significant contribution to this highly integrated bicultural identity.

In sum, I hope that the findings of the current study, which emerge from the
complicated interplay of social and linguistic factors involved in this community, will
shed new light on our understanding of language contact phenomena in general. More
specifically, I hope it will illustrate on how members of an ethnic group in a language
contact situation may employ language varieties to construct and negotiate their
bilingual/bicultural identity and how the formation of such a dual identity can facilitate

their cultural and linguistic preservation.

128

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramson, H. J. 1971. Inter-Ethnic marriage among Catholic Americans and Changes in
religious behavior. Sociological Analysis, 32, 1, 31-44.

Andujo, E. 1988. Ethnic identity of trans-ethnically adopted Hispanic adolescents. Social
Work, 33, 531-535.

Appel, R. & Muysken, P. 1987. Some aspects of code-switching in New York Puerto
Rican English. Bilingual Review II.

Atkinson, D., G. Morten, & D. Sue. 1983. Counseling American minorities. Dubuque,
IA: Wm. C. Brown.

Auer, P. 1984. Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing
Company.

1999. From Codeswitching via language mixing to fused lects: Towards a
dynamic typology of bilingual speech. The International Journal of Bilingualism.
3, 4, Dec., 309-332.

Backus, A. 1990. ‘Turkish-Dutch Codeswitching and the Frame Process Model’, paper
presented at the lntemational Workshop on Ethnic Minority Languages in Europe,
Tilburg, Netherlands, Dec.

Baetens Beardsmore, H. 1982. Bilingualism: basic principles. Clevedon: Tieton, 1-27.

Belazi, H.M., EJ. Rubin, & A. J. Toribio. 1994. Codeswitching and X-bar theory: The
functional head constraint. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 221-237.

Bentahila, A., & E. E. Davies. 1983. The Syntax of Arabic-French code-switching.
Lingua 59, 301-330.

Berry, J ., J. Trimble & E. Olmedo. 1986. Assessment of acculturation. In W. Lonner & J.
Berry (eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research, 291-324. Newbury, Park,
CA: Sage.

Blom, J. P. & John J. Gumperz. 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structure:
Codeswitching in Norway. In John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in
sociolinguistics 407-434. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Boeschoten, H. & Backus, A. 1997. Code-switching and ongoing linguistic change.
Turkic Languages 1, 41-62.

129

Bokamba, E. 1988. ‘Are there syntactic constraints on code-mixing?’, in K. Denning
(ed.) Variation in Language, 35-51. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bolonyai, A. 2000. “Elective Afi'mities”: Language contact in the abstract lexicon and its
structural consequences. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 81-106.

Bourdieu, P. 1990a. In other words: Essays toward a reflexive sociology. Cambridge
University Press.

. 1990b. The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

 

Bourhis, R. Y., 1983. Language attitudes and self-reports of F rench-English language
usage in Quebec. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 4, 163-
179.

Brown, R. & A. Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok (ed.),
Style in language 253-276. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Caltabiano, N. 1984. Perceived differences in ethnic behavior: A pilot study of Italo-
Australian Canberra residents. Psychological Reports, 55, 867-873.

Chang, S. J. 1996. Korean. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Chao, Y. R. 1968. Language and symbolic systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University
press.

Chen, S., O. Tzeng, & E. Bates. 1990. Sentence interpretation in Chinese aphasia.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California; University of
Calilfomia, riverside; University of California, San Diego.

Clifford, J. 1986. Introduction: Partial truths. In J. Clifford and G. Marcus (eds.), Writing
Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, 1-26. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

Crawhall, N. 1990. Shona/English data. Unpublished.

Clyne, M. 2003. Dynamics of language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Collier, M. J. & M. Thomas, 1988. Cultural identity: An interpretive perspective. In Y. Y.
Kim and W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.). Theories in intercultural communication, 99-
120. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Cross, W. 1978. The Thomas and Cross Models of psychological nigrescence: A
literature review. Journal of Black Psychology, 4, 13-31.

130

Diebold, A. R. 1963. Code-switching in Greek-English bilingual speech. Report of the
Thirteenth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics an Language Studies.
Washington: Georgetown.

Di Pietro, R. 1977. Code-vaitching as a verbal strategy among bilinguals. In F. Eckman
(ed.), Current Themes in Linguistics: Bilingualism, Experimental Linguistics and
Language Typologies. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing.

Di Sciullo, A. M., P. Muysken, & R. Singh. 1986. Government and code-switching.
Journal of Linguistics, 22, 1-24.

Di Pietro, R. 1977. Code-switching as a verbal strategy among bilinguals. In Fred
R.Eckman (ed.), Current themes in linguistics: bilingualism, experimental
linguistics, and language typologies, 3-13. Washington, DC: Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation.

Eliasson, S. 1989. English-Maori language contact: code-switching and the free-
morpheme Constraint. Reports from Uppsala University department of linguistics,
18: 1-28.

Erikson, E. 1968. Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Ferguson, C. F. 1959. Diglossia. Word, 15, 325-340.

Fuller, J. 2000. Morpheme types in a matrix language turnover: The introduction of
system morphemes from English into German. International Journal of
Bilingualism, 4, 45-58.

Giles, H. & P. Johnson. 1981. The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J. C.
Turner and H. Giles (Eds.). Interpersonal Behavior, 199-243. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

1987. Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychological
approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 68, 69-99.

 

Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism.
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 55-99.

Guan, X. Q. 2001. Chaoxianzu shuangyu xianxiang chengyinlun. Beijing: Minzu
chubanshe.

Gumperz, J. J. & E. Hemandez-Chavez. 1975. Cognitive aspects of bilingual

communication. In E. Hernandez-Chavez et al. (eds.), El Lenguaje De Los
Chicanos, Arlington, 54-64.

131

Hale, K. 1969. Some questions about anthropological linguistics: The role of native
knowledge. In D. H. Hymes (ed.). Essays in the history of linguistic anthropology,
382 — 397. Amsterdam /Philadelphia : John Benjamins.

Halmari, H. 1997. Government and codeswitching: Explaining American Finnish.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hasselmo, N. 1970. Code-switching and modes of Speech. In Glenn G. Gilbert (ed.),
Taxes Studies in Bilingualism, 179-210. Berline: Mouton de Gruyter.

Haugen, E. 1956. Bilingualism in the Americas: A bibliography and research guide.
Alabama: University of Alabama Press.

Heller, M. 1988. Introduction. In Monica Heller (Ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological
and sociolinguistic perspectives, 1-24. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hijirida, K. & H. M. Sohn. 1986. Cross-cultural patterns of honorifics and
sociolinguistic sensitivity to honorific variables: Evidence from English,
Japanese, and Korean. Papers in Linguistics 19(3): 365-401.

Hobsbawm, E. 1990. Nations and nationalism since 1 780. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Hogg, M., D. Abrams, & Y. Patel. 1987. Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and occupational
aspirations of Indian and Anglo-Saxon British adolescents. Genetic, Social, and
General Psychology Monographs, l 13, 487-508.

Homby, P. (Ed.) 1977. Bilingualism: Psychological, social, and educational
implications. New York: Academic Press.

Hurh, W. M. 1987. Korea immigrants in Chicago area: A sociological study of migration
and mental health. Interim Report Submitted to the National Institute of Mental
Health (MH 40312). Macomb, 111: Western Illinois University.

1998. The Korean Americans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

 

Hymes, D. 1974. Foundation in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Joshi, AK. 1985. Processing of sentences with intrasentential code-switching. In D.
Dowty, L.Kartunnen, & A. Zwicky (Eds.), Minority Language today, 40-51.
Edinburgh: State Mutual Book.

Johnson, C. L. 1985. Growing up and growing older in Italian-American Families. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

132

Kachru, B. B. 197 8. ‘Code-mixing as a communicative strategy in India’, in J .E. Alatis
(ed.), International Dimensions of Bilingual Education, 107-24. Washington, DC:
Georgetown Univ. Press.

Kamwangamalu, N. M. 1990. ‘Bilingual code-mixing: Syntax and constraints’, rev.
version of paper given at African Linguistics Conference, Univ. of Georgia,
Athens, Apr. Lance, D. M. 1975. Spanish-English Code-switching. In E.
Hemandez-Chavez (eds.) El Lenguaje de Los Chicanos: Regional and Social
Characteristics Used by Mexican Americans, 138-153. Arlington, Virginia: The
Center for Applied Linguistics.

Kim, J. 1981. The process of Asian-American identity development: A study of Japanese
American women ’s perceptions of their struggle to achieve positive identities.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Kim, J. G. 1996. Hankuk-un Epta. Seoul, Korea: Minyetang.

Kouzmin, L., 1988. Language use and language maintenance in two Russian
communities in Australia. International Journal of Social Language, 72, 51-65.

Labov, W. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.

Lee, C. J. 1986. China ’s Korean Minority: The Politics of Ethnic Education. Boulder, CO
and London: West view.

Lehiste, I. 1988. Lectures on Language Contact. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press, l-27, 99, 123.

Lewin, K. 1948. Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper.
Li, P. I989. What cues can Chinese speakers use in sentence processing? Paper presented
at the workshop on cross-linguistic studies of sentence processing, Department of

Psychology, Carnegie-Mellon University.

Li, C. & S. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar.
Berkeley & Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Lieberson, S. & M. C. Waters. 1988. From many strands : ethnic and racial groups in
contemporary America. New York : Russell Sage Foundation.

Liebkind, K. 1999. Social psychology. In J. Fishman (Ed.). Handbook of Language &
Ethnic Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

133

Lipski, J.M. 1978. Code-switching and the problem of bilingual competence. In M.
Paradis (Ed.), Aspects of bilingualism, 250-264. Columbia, SC: Hombeam.

Loebell, H. 1989. Syntactic aspects of bilingual language production. Unpublished MA
Thesis. Michigan State Unviersity.

Ma, X. L. 1958. Report on nationality policy. In Minzu zhengce wenxian huipian:
Collected documents on Nationality Policy, vol. 1 , 69-74. Beijing: Renmin
chubanshe. Sept, 21.

Mackerras, C. 1994. China ’s minorities: Integration and modernization in the twentieth
century. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Macnamara, J. 1967. The Bilingual’s linguistic performance: A psychological overview.
Journal of Social Issues, 23, 59-77.

MacSwan, J. 1999. A minimalist approach to intrasentential code switching. New York:
Garland.

Mahootian, 8.1996. A competence model of codeswitching. In J .Amold, R. Blake, B.
Davidson, S. schwenter, & J. Solomon (Eds), Sociolinguistic Variation: data,
theory and analysis, 387-399. Selected Papers from NWAV 23 at Stanford,
Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Makabe, T. 1979. Ethnic identity scale and social mobility: The case of nisei in Toronto.
The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 16, 136-145.

Michihiro, S. 1935. Manshu kyoikushi: A history of education in Manchuria.

Morimoto, Y. 1999. Making words in two languages: a prosodic account of Japanese-
English language mixing. The International Journal of Bilingualism. 3,1, Jan.,
23-44.

Muysken, P. 2000. Bilingual speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Dueling languages: grammatical structure in codeswitching.
Oxford: Clarendon.

. 1995. A lexically based model of codeswitching. In L. Milroy & P.
Muysken (Eds.), One Speaker two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on
codeswitching. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

 

& Jake, J. 2000. Four types of morpheme: evidence from aphasia, code
switching, and second-language acquisition. Linguistics, 38-6, 1053-1100.

 

Nishimura, M. 1985. Intrasentential code-switching in Japanese and English.

134

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.

1992. Language choice and in-group identity among Canadian niseis.
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 3(1): 97-113.

 

Olivier, B. V. 1993. The Implementation of China ’s nationalin policy in the
northeastern provinces. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press.

Padilla, A. M. 1999. Psychology. In J. Fishman (ed.). Handbook of language & ethnic
Identity, 109-121.0xford: Oxford University Press.

Pandit, I. 1990. ‘Grammaticality in code-switching’, in R. Jacobson (ed.), Codeswitching
as worldwide phenomenon, 33-69. New York: Peter Lang.

Park, J ., R. C. Troike, & M. Park. 1989. ‘Constraints in Korean/English code-switching:
A preliminary study. Paper presented at the 9'” Second Language Research
Forum, University of California, Los Angeles.

Park, J.E. 1990. Korean/English intrasentential code-switching: Matrix language
assignment and linguistic constraints. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.

Pfaff, C. 1979. Constraints on language mixing: Intrasentential code-switching and
borrowing in Spanish/English. Language, 55, 291-318.

Phinney, J. 1989. Stages of ethnic identity in minority group adolescents. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 9, 34-49.

1990. Ethnic Identity in Adolescents and Adults: Review of Research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.

Platt, K. 1997. For millions Korean Chinese, A pied piper beckons: S. Korea. Christian

science monitor international, Oct. 9, Col. 1 [database online]; available from
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/l997/10/09/intl.3.htrnl

Poplack, S. 1980. Sometimes I will start a sentence in Spanish Y TERMINO EN
ESPANOL: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18, 581-618.

1993. Variation theory and language contact: concepts, methods and data. In
D. R. Preston (ed.), American Dialect Research, 1-32, 251-286.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

1987. Contrasting patterns of code-switching in two communities. In Erling
Wande et al. (eds.), Aspects of multilingualism : Proceedings fi'om the fourth
Nordic symposium on bilingualism 51-77. Sweden: Uppsala.

135

Rose, J. D. 1976. Peoples: The ethnic dimension in human relations. Chicago: McNally.

Rosenthal, D., & A. Cichello. 1986. The meeting of two cultures: Ethnic identity and
psychosocial adjustment of Italian-Australian adolescents. International Journal
of Psychology, 21, 487-501.

Ryes, R. 1976. ‘Language mixing in Chicano bilingual speech’, in J .D. Bowen and J.
Omstein (eds.), Studies in Southwest Spanish, 182-8. Rowley, Mass: Newbury
House.

Sankoff, D., & S. Poplack. 1981. Formal grammar of code-switching (Working Papar no.
8). New York: City University of New York, Centro de Estudios Puertorriquenos.

Schmitt, E. 2000. Overt and covert codeswitching in immigrant Russian children.
International Journal of Bilingualism, 4, 9-28.

Scotton, C. M. & W. Ury. 1975. Bilingual strategies: The social functions of code-
switching. International Journal of the Sociology of Language.

Scotton, C. 1988. Code switching as indexical of social negotiation. In Monica Heller
(ed.), Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives 1-24.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Simic, A. 1987. Ethnicity as a career for the elderly: The Serbian-American case. Journal
of Applied Gerontology, 6, 113-126.

Sohn, H. M. 1994. Korean. New York: Routledge.

Sridhar , S., & K. Sridhar. 1980. The syntax and psycholinguistics of bilingual code-
mixing. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologies, 34,
407-416.

Stolt, B. 1964. Die Sprachmischung in Luthers Tischreden; Studien zum Problem der
Zweisprachigkeit. Stockholm, Alrnquist & Wiksell Swigart, L. 1992. ‘Practice
and Perception: Language Use and attitudes in Dakar’, Ph.D. Seattle: University
of Washington.

Tajfel, H., & J. Turner. 1979. An integrative Theory of Inter-group Conflict. In W. Austin
& S. Worchel (eds.). The Social Psychologl of Intergroup Relations. 33-47.
Monterey, CA: Brookes/Cole.

Timm, L. A. 1975. Spanish-English Codeswitching: El Porque Y How-Not-To. Romance
Philology 28, 473-82.

Ullah, P. 1987. Second generation Irish youth: identity and ethnicity. New Community,
12, 310-320.

136

 

Valdesat Fallis, G. 1976. Social interaction and code-switching patterns: A case study of
Spanish/English alternation. In G. Keller (ed.), Bilingualism in the bicentennial
and beyond. New York: Bilingual Press/Editorial Bilingue.

Waters, M. C. 1990. Ethnic options : choosing identities in America. Berkeley :
University of California Press.

Wei, L. 2000. Types of morphemes and their implications for second language
acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism 4, 29-43.

Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouto; repr. 1967.

Weinreich, P. 1988. The operationalization of ethnic identity. In J. Berry & R. Annis
(Eds.), Ethnic psychology: Research and practice with immigrants, refilgees,
native peoples, ethnic groups and sojoumer, 149-168. Amsterdam: Swets &
Zeitlinger.

Woolford, E. 1983. Bilingual code-switching and syntactic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14,
520-536.

Yoon, K. K. 1996. A case study of fluent Korean-English bilingual speakers: Group
membership and code choices. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 395-407.

Zentella, A. C. 1997. Growing up bilingual. Malden, MA: Blackwell publishers Inc.

Zhou, M. L. 2000. Language attitudes of two contrasting ethnic minority nationalities in
China: the ‘Model’ Koreans and the ‘Rebellious’ Tibetans. International Journal
of the sociology of Language, 146, 1-20.

Zhang, T. L. & R. Q. Huang. 1996. Zhongguo shaoshu minzu renkou diaocha yanjiu.
Beijing: Gaodeng jiaoyu chubanshe.

137

 

   

uliltiljjinjljjiWu