Purpose of This Page

This page is NOT intended to ridicule nor deride.  It is a report based upon a 10-year ethnographic, unbiased, and scientific study of Korean-English Interlanguage.  This page is intended to elucidate the common errors that Koreans make when attempting to acquire English as a second or foreign language, and thus, help my beloved Koreans more efficiently and effectively acquire English.  It is specifically hoped that Korean English Teachers view this page and stop perpetuating the errors.

F.Y.I.
What is "Interlanguage"?

Interlanguage is a language created by learners of a second language which is between the target language and the learner's first language (L1).

        There are three parts to interlanguage:

1.  The correct part:  (i.e., the part that is composed of lexis and grammar which is in the target language)

2.  'L1 interference' part:  (i.e., the part that is composed of lexis and/or grammar which is translated directly & incorrectly from the mother tongue (called 'L1 interference')

3.  The fabricated part:  (i.e., the part that is composed of items or "chunks" of language which are neither in the target language nor from L1 interference.

There may be several reasons for fabricated second language:

          a.  Incorrect hypotheses (틀린가설)

          (hypothesis = a guess about how the target language works)

          b.  Incorrect reference materials  (틀린 참고서)

          (Example:  incorrect bilingual lexicons)

           c.  Perpetuation of the misconception about the L2

          (I mean: Incorrect teaching of the Target Language, which has been happening for decades)

Focus of This Page:

This page contains Korean-English-Interlanguage that cannot be explained by incorrect reference materials (3b above).   Based solely upon my ten years of observations regarding the frequency of the error in collective utterances of English by Korean people, I present the following list, which MUST be accounted for by either L1 interference or incorrect hypotheses about English, and/or the perpetuation of the misconceptions about English.

I have a special page for incorrect reference materials:

Bilingual Dictionary Errors

2.  have a disease (병이 있다)

It is 선배 (seon-bae).

It is a Sino-Korean word composed of two morphemes: 선 (first) & 배 (fellow, mate)

The Korean word seon-bae can be used in place of any of the words to the right

senior (generally (but not always) used in a business company setting)

superior (generally used in a business setting)

predecessor (generally used for one who is dead, or no longer practicing a particular profession)

upper classmate (used for a mate who is in the same university as you, but has more years of study under his belt)

It is 후배 (hu-bae).

It is a Sino-Korea word composed of two morphemes: 후 (after) & 배 (fellow, mate).

junior (generally used (but not always) in a business company setting)

inferior (not commonly used in any situation)

lower classmate (used for a mate in the same university, who has less years of study under his belt)

*Well, it is possible to contract auxiliary verbs with the negative adverb "not", (like: didn't, couldn't, wouldn't, etc.)

subj. + don't/doesn't have to + infinitive verb

means:  안 해 도 된다

But the following structure:

subj. + have to not + infinitive verb

means:  하면 안 된다

NOTE:  the following structure:

subj. + must not + infinitive verb

If you wish to collocate with a verb, you need "come" [come to + infinitive verb].

Examples:

I became angry.

I became a Korean (in heart).

I came to hate Western food.

"some"

"something to the n^th degree"

Several and Few mean a specified number (ie, from 3 to 5)

The difference between the two words in NOT in the number, but in the "feeling"; "few" carries a negative connotation and "several" has neither a negative nor a positive connotation.

Hence it is usually said,

"I have only a few ((sth))",

meaning I should have more, or would like to have more.

While, when one says,

"I have several ((sth))",

Koreans have a compound verb:
"know-hear", which means to hear and know what is being communicated.  They often think that "listen" has the same meaning.  Unfortunately, English has no compound verbs, so we have to say, "Listen and comprehend".

The only difference between US and Canada is the grammar:

US:  first grade, second grade, etc.

"CC:  The Korean Capability & the English Can"

by Leon (an applied linguistic and philanthropist)

I love you Korea!

If you are an English teacher in the Republic of Korea, how many times have you heard, "I can't English" or "I can English a little."  I have heard those two expressions too many times for it to be an individual error.  I have come to discover that it is a form of interlanguage which is caused by collective faulty teaching in Korea, which has been happening for so long that we cannot know whom to blame.  Let me show you what has happened and is happening.

Koreans love to use their L1 (mother tongue) to explain English grammar.  That's not the problem, necessarily.  The problem is how they use their L1 to explain various English grammar points.

You see, they will translate certain phrases with what's called "free translation" and tell their students that it is what's called a "literal translation".  At this time, I have to stop and explain these terms.

There are 3 kinds of translations:

1.  word-for-word translation

2.  literal translation

3.  free translation

Let me give you some examples:

Let's use the following Korean sentence:

          "나는 수영할 수가 있다."

I'll transliterate that for you expats that cannot read it:

          "Naneun  suyeonghal  suga   itda."

1.  A word-for-word translation would look like this:

          "Myself,  swimming  capability  exists."

2.  A literal translation would look like this:

          "With regard to myself, a swimming capability exists."

or equally:  "In my case, there is a swimming capability."

3.  A free translation would look like this:

          "I can swim."

As you can plainly see, the word-for-word translation doesn't make a lot of sense.  The literal translation makes sense, but we don't use that particular structure in English.  In the free translation, surface structure is completely disregarded and only meaning is translated.

So, as aforementioned above, Korean English teachers collectively and grossly erroneously teach their students that "naneun" is the subject of the sentence above.  Then, they grossly erroneously teach that the phrase "~hal suga eopda." means can't.  But, they shouldn't, because the Korean language does not have any modal verbs; There is no 'can't' in Korean.  That is to say that the Korean language does not contain modal verbs, like 'can'.

So, why do Koreans say, "I can't English"?

Well, it is not so easy to explain... but I'll try.  Let's begin with a linguistic sample of the Korean language:

          "나는  엉어 할  수가  없다."  (naneun yeongeoreul hal suga oepda.)

1. word-for-word translation:

          naneun = myself +neun (the emphatic particle)
          yeongeo-hal = English-doing
          suga = capability +ga (the subject particle)
          eopda = doesn't exist.

2.  literal translation:

          In my case, English-speaking capability doesn't exist.

3.  free translation:

          I can't speak English.

So, what's the problem?  The problem is two-fold:

1. Koreans are taught that "naneun" is the subject = "I"

2. Koreans are taught that  "~hal suga eopda" means "can't"

So by default, the subject of the sentence [the true subject] becomes the object.  And you get:  "I can't English."

If you are confused out of you gourd, I understand.  You have to pretty much be bilingual in English and Korean to see my point.

I put neun in italics (above), because it is what's called a particle.  A particle has no meaning by itself.  It must be attached to something.  It is also a kind of suffix, which means it can only be attached to the end of a word.  Many Koreans think that it is a subject particle, but it isn't!  According to a Dr. of Linguistics (Dr. C.J. Ramstedt), it is called the emphatic particle.

I put ga in italics (above), because is the subject particle.

I put reul in italics (above), because that is the object particle.

Dr. C.J. Ramstedt, who has written a book, entitled:  A Korean Grammar, originally published in 1939, explains what I just explained about all the particles.  [I have the 1997 English edition, published by The Finno-Ugrian Society, in Helsinki.]

So, what I'm suggesting is that if a teacher of English wishes to use translation in order to convey meaning, he/she really ought to teach in a progression from...

word-for-word translation literal translation free translation.

The reason I suggest this, is because it is imperative that Students SEE and COMPREHEND the capacities of a language in all its variableness.  It is not wrong to say, for instance,

"In my case, there is a swimming capability."

And if I were to hear that sentence, I would praise the student for making a grammatically correct sentence.  Then, I would explain that there is another, more-common way to express that thought: "I can swim."

"Why Koreans are hard to English"

by Leon

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard a Korean say, "I am hard to English."  While I understood what was trying to be conveyed, I have wondered why Koreans make this error when speaking English.  After years of research, I traced the cause back to a small particle that does not exist in English.  However, although it does not exist in English, It is not untranslatable.  The particle that I refer to is the ~neun / ~eun particle.  (After a vowel, ~neun is used; and after a consonant, ~eun is used).

The ~는 / ~은 (~neun / ~eun) particle is linguistically classified as the 'emphatic particle' (C.J. Ramstedt, 1939).  In English class, Koreans are taught (much to the chagrin of the Korean Grammar teachers, I'm sure) that it is the 'subject particle'.

(I don't even think it can even be attached to a subject). [See erratum below].

Before I go any further, it would expedient for me to explain that Korean is a Subject-Object-Verb (or 'SOV') language and English is a SVO language.

Let me begin with a linguistic example.

In Korean, it is said:

correct WORD-FOR-WORD translation:

"Myself, English is difficult."　

correct LITERAL translation:

"Regarding myself, the English language is difficult."

correct FREE translation:

"English is hard for me."

You see, the place where Koreans go wrong, is that they think that the ~neun particle functions as a subject in English (which it doesn't), then by default the true subject becomes the object of the sentence.  Now is that f-ed up or what?

This what goes through the Korean's mind when they translate from Korean to English:

Korean's WORD-FOR-WORD translation:

     Na-neun = I (subject)
     yeong-eo-ga = English (orig. subject, but becomes object by default)
     eoryeoweoyo = am hard ("am" chosen for subject-verb agreement)

Then, Korean's LITERAL translation:

     I am hard to English.  (because they know English is a SVO language.)

Forget about FREE translation.  The concept of a "free translation" does not exist in the Korean collective mind.

[Interpolatively, I'd like to clarify something.  It might sound like I'm railing on the Koreans.  I am NOT.  I love the Korean people with all my heart.  I'm just explaining in a purely objective manner why they make the errors that they do.  The screwed up part of it all is that nobody in fifty bloody years has analyzed these egregious collective errors in the Collective Korean Interlanguage System.]

Hopefully, you can see what a disservice it is to teach ONLY a FREE translation, without first teaching a LITERAL translation (and I mean a CORRECT literal translation).

More often than not, the literal translation is fine (if it is a CORRECT one).  Often, it need not be (and sometimes verily cannot be) reduced into a free translation.

Erratum

I must apologize and correct an error above.  I wrote:  "I don't even think it [-eun/-neun particle] can even be attached to a subject."  Well, there is ONE case where it IS attached to a subject.  That is the case with the copula (the "coupling").  The copula couples two nouns and equates them.  In case you haven't figured out which word I'm referring to, it's the "be" verb (or in Korean: "ida").

Now, please remember that Korean is a SVO language.

So, the sentence: "I am a student." would roughly look like this in Korean:

     I+neun (emphatic particle) student+i (subject marker) am (copula).

In such a case where the copula is used, the subject of the sentence uses the emphatic particle and the subject compliment (predicate nominative) uses the subject marker.

This is the ONLY exception that I can find (after eight years of searching) to my aforementioned declaration: "I don't even think it can be attached to a subject".