Snyder 1

Heaven Snyder

C&T 598

Dr. Cho

9 June 2017

Ahn (2014)

Quote:

It was also inferred that the idealised view of AmE and the perceived lack of

intelligibility of KoE contributed to a negative attitude towards KoE. KoE was often called

Konglish and was defined as not real English, thus, generating a refusal to use it. Inje-ees

remark, for example, [ . . . ] because we are non-native speakers and we created such terms. I

dont think it is correct English. I know we use it but we cant really let them (students) use it as

Americans would not understand it, reflected his belief that only a particular variety

of English should be used and be the standard model for language rules. Furthermore,

Americans, in particular, were seen as the judges of the intelligibility of KoE within the norms of

AmE which was considered to be the yardstick by which the legitimacy of other varieties of

English was measured. Such views are problematic. First, English is being used for international

communication which often takes place without the actual presence of Americans; therefore,

having American English speakers be the sole judges of the legitimacy of KoE is inappropriate.

Second, it stymies KoE speakers rights to claim their ownership of KoE as a legitimate
 Snyder 2

variety of English. It follows that if any deviation from AmE is regarded as an error or a

mistake, then new Englishes will never be perceived as legitimate. Adhering to AmE as the

norm will only serve to make speakers of KoE feel bound by Standard English prejudices. Pg

20/21

Reflection:

I selected this statement because it goes back to so much of what was covered in my

bilingualism class this past semester. We discussed intelligibility a lot and how that concept is so

important because its one of the metrics thats used to group or differentiate languages/ dialects

from each other. For example if two varieties are mutually intelligible this, from the linguistic

perspective, judges them to be dialects of a single language. Another way to measure this is the

socio-political view. From this perspective we divide up dialects and languages based on ethnic

or national concerns; so two populations might speak mutually intelligible varieties but due to

geographical, religious or ethnic differences consider themselves to speak different languages.

The issue with using intelligibility as a measure is that its much more fluid than we give

it credit for. My bilingualism professor brought up the point a lot that communities have a

tendency to decide who they can and cant understand based on factors that have nothing to do

with language. Deciding who is and isnt understandable has a lot more to do with power

structures at play within the two groups and the groups perception of themselves and their own

speech.
 Snyder 3

So from a linguistic perspective KoE/Konglish is definitely an English, as a native

speaker its totally parseable and I think some of the words that are specific to the language are

really useful and I would appreciate their integration into AmE, like skinship. However from a

socio-political perspective this is more difficult to unpack; do some insisting that Konglish is

hard to understand do so from an AmE/BrE or inner circle biased view? Would a speaker of an

outer circle English, like (Singapore English or Indian English) feel differently than an AmE

speaker about Konglish, because they would be less likely to conflate the English thats spoken

in the inner circle with what is correct? I agree with Ahn that the position that Americans

being the judges for right English is untenable because this view doesnt account for language

change and the effects of contact, and I see no reason why Konglish cant be its own English.

Question:

What is intelligibility to you?