Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

From language learners to bilingual providers : second language socialization of bilingual mothers in… Sohn, Bong-gi 2018

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2018_may_sohn_bonggi.pdf [ 21.35MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0365543.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0365543-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0365543-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0365543-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0365543-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0365543-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0365543-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0365543-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0365543.ris

Full Text

FROM LANGUAGE LEARNERS TO BILINGUAL PROVIDERS: SECOND LANGUAGE SOCIALIZATION OF BILINGUAL MOTHERS IN SOUTH KOREA  by Bong-gi Sohn B.Ed., Daegu National University of Education, 2004 M.A., University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, 2006  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Teaching English as a Second Language)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2018 © Bong-gi Sohn, 2018    ii ABSTRACT In the context of unprecedented globalization and migration flows, South Korea, known for promoting the modern nation-state’s ‘one-nation, one-language’ ideology, has undergone recalibration of its national identity and language ideologies. Since the mid-2000s, the South Korean government has developed a dual contradictory bilingual framework—assimilative Korean as a Second Language and celebratory multilingual development—particularly for damunhwa (multicultural) families consisting of international marriages between Korean men and foreign women and their children. Despite the government’s enthusiastic development of language policy, little is known of the grounds on which this bilingual initiative was established and how it is practiced in families. Adopting an approach that Bronson and Watson-Gegeo (2008) have called “language socialization as topic,” this qualitative study employed a document analysis and interviews to investigate the representational practices of foreign mothers across their lifespan in South Korea. I first address how the national-level language policy guides the regulation of foreign mothers’ four linear life trajectories: marriage, migration, childbirth and education, and home economics. Findings from the policy analysis represent the government’s (1) emphasis on damunhwa mothers’ exclusive use of Korean, (2) selective recommendation of heritage/foreign language for nationalistic purposes, and (3) discouragement of heritage language use in damunhwa families. They also demonstrate the government’s lack of concern with the roles of Korean fathers in family language socialization. The four damunhwa mothers in this study—from Japan, China, Vietnam, and Kyrgyzstan—presented their survival stories on learning to become dedicated mothers who are expected to use Korean with their children. Their narratives also demonstrate how the linguistic hierarchy is exacerbated and how they are demoralized in their bilingual workplaces. The mothers’ stated promotion of heritage languages  iii often serves instrumental purposes rather than fostering bilingual and bicultural identities. These findings explain how damunhwa mothers have become the heart of linguistic nationalism in globalized times for South Korea, where the government has failed to recognize the fundamental importance of the situated nature of multilingual socialization of families. Through illuminating what has been neglected by policy makers, this dissertation calls for more equitable and gender-sensitive approaches to bilingual education in transnational and translingual times.     iv LAY SUMMARY Through a language socialization lens, this dissertation examines South Korea's multilingual policy that focuses on interethnic/intercultural families in South Korea: families consisting of a Korean father, a non-Korean mother, and their children. Under the government-initiated bilingual planning, the government stipulates that foreign mothers become Korean wives, mothers, and bilingual workers, but not that Korean husbands learn about their wives. The findings demonstrate mothers are expected to use only Korean with their family, and some mothers are encouraged to become bilingual workers for the globalized South Korea. Paralleling what the government has envisioned for foreign mothers, I present four mothers’ interview accounts discussing these kinds of assumptions and expectations that do not take into consideration what multilingual practices families will be engaged in. Shedding light on what has been neglected by policy makers, this dissertation calls for more equitable and gender-sensitive approaches to bilingual education.    v PREFACE This dissertation is an original, unpublished, independent work by the author, B.-G. Sohn. This study has undergone an ethical review process which was approved on August 20, 2012, by the University of British Columbia Behavioral Research Ethics Board. The Human Ethics Certificate is # H12-01427 and expired on May 13, 2015.     vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ii LAY SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... iv PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ vi LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ x LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................. xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... xiii DEDICATION .......................................................................................................................... xvii Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .............................................................. 1 1.2 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 6 1.3 Structure of the Dissertation ........................................................................................ 11 Chapter 2: MONOLINGUALISM, MULTILINGUALISM, NATIONALISM, AND DAMUNHWA FAMILIES ..................................................................................................... 14 2.1 South Korea as a Multicultural and Multilingual Society ........................................... 14 2.1.1 Social and Historical Formation of South Korea as a Monolingual Nation-State 14 2.1.2 Foreign/Second Language Education in South Korea ........................................... 17 2.1.3 Recent Multicultural and Multilingual Development in South Korea .................. 20 2.1.4 Government-Led Multicultural Policy Planning: Damunhwa Families as a National Project ................................................................................................................ 29 2.1.5 Development of KSL Programs for Damunhwa Families .................................... 34 Chapter 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................... 42 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 42 3.2 Second/Multilingual Language Socialization ............................................................. 42 3.3 Language Ideology ...................................................................................................... 46 3.4 Socialization Shaped by Language Ideologies ............................................................ 49 Chapter 4: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 53 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 53 4.2 Methodological Understandings and Analytic Approaches ........................................ 54 4.3 Research Site: Nabi city in Wooju Province ............................................................... 57 4.4 Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 61 4.5 Focal Participants ........................................................................................................ 64 4.5.1 Bosam Hwang ....................................................................................................... 64 4.5.2 Michiko Watanabe ................................................................................................. 66 4.5.3 Sumi Won .............................................................................................................. 67  vii 4.5.4 Ava Asnov ............................................................................................................. 68 4.6 Types of Data and Data Analysis ................................................................................ 69 4.6.1 Government Policy Documents and Written Texts ............................................... 70 4.6.2 Interviews .............................................................................................................. 74 4.6.3 Photos and Artifacts .............................................................................................. 79 4.7 Research Rigor, Reflexivity, and Researcher’s Positionality ...................................... 80 Chapter 5: REPRESENTATION OF THE MULTILINGUAL SOCIALIZATION TRAJECTORY DESIGNED BY THE SOUTH KOREAN GOVERNMENT ................. 83 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 83 5.2 Multicultural Families Support Plans According to Their Life Stages ....................... 83 5.2.1 Stage 1: International Marriage Preparation Period .............................................. 85 5.2.2 Stage 2: Family Formation Period ......................................................................... 90 5.2.3 Stage 3: Child Rearing and Settlement Period ...................................................... 99 5.2.4 Stage 4: Capacity-Building Period ...................................................................... 113 5.3 Summary: Socializing Damunhwa Women into Korean Wives and Mothers in Globalized Times ................................................................................................................ 119 Chapter 6: SINK-OR-SWIM BILINGUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND BECOMING KOREAN WIVES ................................................................................................................. 125 6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 125 6.2 Damunhwa Mothers Becoming Korean Wives through Learning Korean ............... 127 6.2.1 Lack of Societal Support in Socializing Damunhwa Wives ............................... 128 6.2.2 Lack of Korean Husbands’ Support in Socializing Damunhwa Wives .............. 130 6.2.3 Learning Korean and Becoming a Korean Mother ............................................. 133 6.2.4 Learning Korean to Become a Good Korean Citizen? ........................................ 134 6.3 Summary ................................................................................................................... 138 Chapter 7: MONOLINGUAL SOCIALIZATION AND BECOMING KOREAN MOTHERS ............................................................................................................................ 141 7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 141 7.2 Damunhwa Mothers Becoming Wise Mothers Through Using Korean? ................. 142 7.2.1 Challenging Familial Relationships Through Exclusive Use of Korean ............. 142 7.2.2 “Other Koreans Helped Me to Learn Korean Culture”: Becoming a Wise Korean Mother? ........................................................................................................................... 146 7.3 Divisions of Gendered Labor at Home: Construction of Fatherhood in the Family . 149 7.3.1 Korean Fathers not Getting Involved in the Family ............................................ 149 7.3.2 A Korean Father in a Damunhwa Family: A Breadwinner? An Older Generation? .    ............................................................................................................................. 153 7.4 Summary ................................................................................................................... 154 Chapter 8: DAMUNHWA MOTHERS BECOMING BILINGUAL WORKERS IN GLOBALIZED SOUTH KOREA ....................................................................................... 158 8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 158  viii 8.2 “We Contribute to the Development of South Korea”: Echoing the Linguistic Nationalism of Damunhwa Families to South Koreans ...................................................... 159 8.3 A Systematic and Sustainable Process for Training Bilingual/Foreign Instructors? 164 8.4 Becoming Competent Bilingual Workers? ................................................................ 167 8.4.1 Lack of Teaching Materials ................................................................................. 167 8.4.2 Temporarily Employed: Becoming a Competent Bilingual Instructor? .............. 169 8.4.3 Reported Bilingual Classroom Practice ............................................................... 171 8.4.4 Becoming a Bilingual Translator and Counselor for Newcomers? ..................... 173 8.5 Summary ................................................................................................................... 177 Chapter 9: EXPLICIT USE OF ONE-PARENT ONE-LANGUAGE POLICY AT HOME .................................................................................................................................... 181 9.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 181 9.2 Ava’s Family Language Practice .............................................................................. 184 9.2.1 One-Parent Multiple-Language Policy at Home ................................................. 185 9.2.2 “We Need to Make Ella a Human Being”: Mobilizing Parental Resources for One’s Child ..................................................................................................................... 186 9.2.3 Ella’s Language Shift and Subsequent Family Language Policy Changes: Multiple Languages in One Person? .............................................................................................. 191 9.3 Michiko’s Family Language Practice ........................................................................ 196 9.3.1 “I Need to Give Opportunities to My Children”: Heritage Language as a Resource for Children’s Upward Mobility ..................................................................................... 196 9.3.2 Negotiation of Multiple Communities ................................................................. 201 9.3.3 “There is Little Time to Do Japanese”: Polycentric Accounts of the Here-Now Condition ........................................................................................................................ 202 9.4 Summary ................................................................................................................... 203 Chapter 10: TRANSITIONAL AND SUBTRACTIVE FAMILY MULTILINGUAL SOCIALIZATION ................................................................................................................ 207 10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 207 10.2 Bosam’s Family Language Practice .......................................................................... 208 10.2.1 “My L1 is Korean”: Resistance to Becoming a Mandarin Teacher to Her Family ...     ........................................................................................................................... 208 10.2.2 “They Belong Here”: Adhering to Here-Now and Here-Future Conditions ....... 210 10.2.3 Mandarin as a Less Intensive Subject: “I Tell my Kids to Learn Mandarin in the Center”  ........................................................................................................................... 212 10.3 Sumi’s Family Language Practice ............................................................................. 215 10.3.1 South Korea as Multilingual State? Negotiating Multilingual Socialization with Their Children ................................................................................................................. 215 10.3.2 “There is Lots of Stuff that [My] Child Learns”: Children’s Learning Mother’s L1 versus Children Becoming Korean Children .................................................................. 217 10.3.3 Rejection of Vietnamese in Sumi’s Family ......................................................... 218  ix 10.4 Summary ................................................................................................................... 223 Chapter 11: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ....................................................... 227 11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 227 11.2 Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................................ 227 11.3 Contributions to Theory, Literature, and Methodology ............................................ 239 11.4 Implications and Possibilities: For Policy, Practice, and Research ........................... 244 11.5 Coda .......................................................................................................................... 248 References .................................................................................................................................. 251 Appendix A: Chronological Development of Multicultural-Family-Related Policy Plans in South Korea ............................................................................................................................... 284 Appendix B: Interview Protocols for the International Marriage Migrants, their Children, and Teachers of the Children................................................................................................... 286 Appendix C: Details of All Interviewees ................................................................................. 295 Appendix D: Transcription Conventions ............................................................................... 296 Appendix E: Policy Tasks for Multicultural Families According to Their Life Stages ..... 297 Appendix F: Table of Contents of KSL Textbook for Damunhwa Mothers ....................... 299 Appendix G: List of Policy Documents from Wooju Province and Nabi City .................... 301 Appendix H: Policy Quotes ...................................................................................................... 302    x LIST OF TABLES  Table 2.1 Comparison between Total Population and the Ratio of Foreign Residents in South Korea (Korea Immigration Service, 2011, 2016) ......................................................... 23!Table 4.1 Details of Research Participants ................................................................................... 64!    xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 International Marriage Trends in South Korea Between 2000 and 2015 (Korea Immigration Service, 2011, 2016) ................................................................................ 26!Figure 4.1 Methodological Figure ................................................................................................ 56!Figure 4.2 Growth of Damunhwa Students Per Year (Wooju Province Office of Education, 2016, p. 3) ............................................................................................................................... 59!Figure 5.1 Imagined Life Trajectories for Damunhwa Mothers ................................................... 84!Figure 5.2 Screenshot of the Goals of KSL Education (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2014a) ........................................................................................................................... 91!Figure 5.3 Screenshot of Lesson 20, Textbook 1: Try some fruit and watch [TV] (NIKL, 2009, p. 153) ............................................................................................................................... 95!Figure 5.4 Screenshot of Lesson 10, Textbook 1: Kimchi Stew is a Bit Spicy (NIKL, 2009, p. 73) ...................................................................................................................................... 97!Figure 5.5 Details of Education-in-Language Policies for Damuhwa Families According to Their Life Stages .................................................................................................................. 117!Figure 6.1 Focus of Chapter 6 ..................................................................................................... 125!Figure 6.2 Screenshot of Ava Asnov’s Script (Nabi Office of Education, 2011, p. 41) ............ 134!Figure 7.1 Focus of Chapter 7 ..................................................................................................... 141!Figure 7.2 Bosam’s Description of Parental Roles ..................................................................... 151!Figure 7.3 Ava’s Description of Parental Roles ......................................................................... 152!Figure 7.4 Ella’s Description of Parental Roles .......................................................................... 154!Figure 8.1 Focus of Chapter 8 ..................................................................................................... 158!Figure 9.1 Focus of Chapter 9 ..................................................................................................... 181!Figure 9.2 A Picture of Ella’s Diary ........................................................................................... 195!Figure 9.3 Michiko’s Stated Vision of her Children Becoming Fluent Korean-Japanese Bilinguals .................................................................................................................... 199!Figure 10.1 Focus of Chapter 10 ................................................................................................. 207!Figure 10.2 Bosam’s Transnational Identity Categorization between Korean-Chinese Mothers and their Children ....................................................................................................... 211!Figure 10.3 Different Bilingual Trajectories of Bosam’s Children ............................................ 213!Figure 10.4 Sumi’s Vision of her Children Becoming Fluent Korean-Vietnamese Bilinguals .. 216!Figure 11.1 Pictures from Bosam ............................................................................................... 249!   xii LIST OF ACRONYMS JSL  Japanese as a Second Language  KIIP   Korea Immigration Integration Program  KSL   Korean as a Second Language L1   First Language L2  Second Language  LS  Language Socialization  MOCST Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism  MFSA  Multicultural Families Support Act MFSC  Multicultural Family Support Center MOGEF Ministry of Gender Equality and Family MHW  Ministry for Health and Welfare MHWF Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs MOE  Ministry of Education  MOJ  Ministry of Justice  NIKL  National Institute of Korean Language PRC  People’s Republic of China TOPIK Test of Proficiency in Korean     xiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout my journey of being a doctoral student and writing a dissertation, I have understood how I have been supported. I am feeling extremely humble and grateful for the good will, generosity, and support that I received from so many people.  First and foremost, I would like to show my deepest gratitude to all my interviewees, especially Bosam, Michiko, Sumi, and Ava, for their generosity in giving their time and effort to share their life stories with me. Together, the perspectives and insights of these focal and non-focal participants helped me to explore a newly emerging sociolinguistic phenomenon that equally emphasizes monolingualism and multilingualism, to be understood in the context of globalized South Korea and beyond. I am grateful for these amazing individuals letting me actively listen and inquire about how they maneuvered through their various struggles. At times they carried sadness, but they always shed light on possibilities and change.  I want to express my sincere gratitude to my wonderful co-supervisors, Dr. Steven Talmy and Dr. Ryuko Kubota, who have been exceptionally outstanding mentors in my development as a scholar and educator with unfailing guidance and inspiration. Steven, I thank you for your friendship, attentiveness, and enthusiasm from day one of my academic journey. I am also grateful for your leading me into an entirely different way of understanding the world through language, for your patience in my learning about discourse analysis, and for directing me to explore further methodological potentials. Ryuko 先生 , I am extremely appreciative for your thoughtful words of wisdom and scholarly guidance, which you gave with tremendous passion and patience. Thank you for teaching me to learn the discourse and expectations of academic genres and how to deliver in a way that could succinctly and persuasively convey the critical issues in L2 learning and use. I am very thankful to Dr. Patsy Duff for taking part in my  xiv academic journey to a PhD and being on my committee. Patsy, your enthusiasm, commitment, and scholarly openness have indeed inspired me to learn about the field more deeply. I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to my university examiners, Drs. Donald Baker and Marlene Assline, as well as my external examiner, Dr. Mihyon Jeon, for their interest in my study and thoughtful, empathetic comments and questions, which highlighted the significance and potentials for wider audiences and contexts.  I am also deeply indebted to many people in the LLED community whose support, collegiality, and professionalism have played highly influential roles in my development and growth thus far. I thank Drs. Victoria Purcell-Gates, Maureen Kendrick, Geoff Williams, Margaret Early, Jim Anderson, Ling Shi, Anthony Paré, Lee Gunderson, and Meghan Corella for their teaching, mentoring, and advising over the years. In particular, I thank Dr. Victoria Purcell-Gates for being one of my academic advisors in the earlier years of my PhD, offering her support and insight into research and practices. My heartfelt gratitude also goes to Dr. Anne Phelan for letting me explore various educational theories beyond LLED. I would like to thank the amazing staff in the department, including Christopher Fernandez, Lia Cosco, Angela McDonald, Laurie Reynolds, Alya Zhukova, Ana Susnjara, Brittany Bella, Lisa Altan, Effiam Yung, Anne Eastham, Teresa O’Shea, Laura Selander, and Anne White, for creating LLED as a supportive and humane community. Particularly, I must thank Christopher Fernandez, Alya Zhukova, and Anne Eastham for their unfailing life-saving support and words of encouragement in those critical moments for completion of this degree.  The students, staff, administration, and teachers at the UBC-Ritsumeikan Academic Exchange Program have genuinely provided caring support and leadership and created an enduring academic and professional community. Thank you to Drs. Reginald D’Sliva and Sandra  xv Zappa-Hollman and Ms. Sheri Wenman for being extremely supportive while I learned to grow as a more mature educator, colleague, and person and for giving me freedom to navigate various hopes and possibilities. Together with their support, I have met so many inspiring and hard-working teachers in the program.  Despite my relatively short stay at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, I want to thank Dr. Margaret Hawkins, who continues to be keen on my development and provides me insights into teaching and researching in K–12 settings. I also want to say thank you to people at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa: Drs. Lourdes Ortega, Christina Higgins, Gabriel Kasper, Graham Crooks, and Kathryn Davis, and Mr. Kenton Harsch, all of whom guided me with meticulous care and support, encouraging me to explore various topics and ideas in applied linguistics and carve out my research interest in critical sociolinguistics. In particular, Lourdes, my dear MA advisor, I still remember your many words of encouragement, which helped me to move forward, getting away from self-doubt to pursuing further dreams, and allowed me to learn how to become an inspiring teacher, researcher, and person.  A very special thank you goes to Drs. Bernard Mohan and Anja Brandenburger, and Jacob Brandenburger Mohan, who allowed me to enter into their lives and became my second family in Vancouver. Sharing numerous hours of discussion, note taking, e-mail exchanges, and informal conversation indeed deepened critical points of my dissertation. Over the course of my dissertation writing, Bernie was remarkably supportive and willing to share his wisdom and be an open ear for me to refine my dissertation, and he guided me to better understand its depth, impact, and potential.  I also want to thank Drs. Adrienne Lo, Joseph Sung-Yul Park, and Mi Ok Kang for helping me to navigate important aspects in the early stages in my dissertation writing. Adrienne  xvi shared her enthusiasm, insights, and knowledge that I did not identify at first but became essential in my dissertation. I want to thank Dr. Joseph Sung-Yul Park for showing interest in my study and pointing out critical issues, enabling me to further elaborate multilingualism in South Korea. My special thank you goes to Dr. Mi Ok Kang for introducing me to South Korea’s language policy, being my A. and long-lasting friend, and showing me her courage to move from a periphery to a more central position in her scholarship over the years.  I am very fortunate to be with remarkable peers, past and present. I am extremely proud and humble to be friends and colleagues with (now all Drs!) Ryan Deschambault, Won Kim, Rae Jui-Ping Lin, and Meike Wernike, fellow members of the Discourse Analysis Working/Writing Group (DAWG). Thank you for your incredible generosity and kindness, countless stimulating conversations, and thoughtful comments and constructive feedback, and for journeying with me all along my PhD! Thank you, Jieun Kim and Mi-Young Kim, for being so warm and supportive A. and for wiping my tears and sharing happiness and struggles together. I thank Laura Nimmon for being my first close Canadian female friend, telling me to not do the things that are not right for me. ! To the TESL writing group, Rae Jui-Ping Lin, Nasrin Kowkabi, Tomoyo Okuda, Ismaeil Fazel, Joel Heng Hartse, Junghyun Hwang, and Natalia Balyasnikova, I am grateful that I was part of this group, and thank you for your open arms and welcoming minds. My sincere thanks go to Ai Mizuta, Amanda Wager, Ava Becker-Zayas, Alfredo Ferreira, Debbi Kim, Klara Abdi, Liz Chiang, Jun Ma, Maryam Moayeri, Michael Trottier, Roma Ilnyckyj, and Victoria Surtees. I also thank Drs. Martin Guardado and Diane Potts for being great listeners and providing laughter and for teaching me how to navigate various aspects in the PhD program.  I want to show my deep appreciation for the amazing people outside LLED and UBC, particularly to Seonok Lee, Robert Prey, SzuYun Hsu, Owen Lo, Paul Tepre, Stephen Hedley,  xvii Farah Leplat, Jiwon Min, Hakyoon Lee, Benton Kealii Pang, Leejin Choi, Kara Shin, Joo Yung Lee, Younsung Park, Junghee Lee, Suyeon Choi, Young Hyun Kim, Jiyoung Koo, Hyunjung Gee, and Drs. Youngyae Park, Mihyang Hwang, Sangshik Bae and Mariko Udo, for their words of support, which carry warmth and encouragement. Thank you, Seonok Lee A., for thought-provoking ideas and giggles about life, relationships, and society. Thank you, Paul Tepre, for starting as an unknown and becoming a study/library friend and buddy! I thank those in the Korean studies program, including Drs. Ross King, Dafna Zur, Hyunkchan Kwon, Jeonghye Son, and Sinae Park, for your stimulating conversation and words of insight and ideas. Thank you so much, Nina Conrad, Roma Ilnyckyj, Gerda Wever, and Aurora van Roon for taking an interest in the study and meticulously reading and helping me refine the dissertation. I am also very grateful to Yangmi Rosey Kim for being another ear for my dissertation.  It is also necessary for me to note that this study was partially supported by UBC-based grants and fellowships for graduate students. Among those at UBC, I wish to especially acknowledge the Faculty of Education’s Graduate Student Award and the Faculty of Education’s Wendy K. Sutton Graduate Scholarship as timely and meaningful sources of funding. Most importantly, though, I am deeply appreciative for a number of opportunities made possible to me through the UBC-Ritsumeikan program.  Words cannot express how grateful I am to my parents and sister, Jangik Sohn, Youngok Choi, and Mingi Sohn. Together with them, my dreams grow, evolve, and move forward. B$</#)>`E _%LRP%=$N3Y%Pa	CCYMP@]9OJf]64$IG	 #0fG! Last but not least, thank you Aaron Macdonald, for bridging me to the other side of the social world beyond academia, allowing me to laugh and cry openly, and dream and dream more.    xviii        To my dear parents and sister 	,        1 Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions  Using a language socialization (LS) as topic approach (Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008; Duff & Talmy, 2011), this dissertation explored representational multilingual socialization of a subgroup of families in South Korea,1 called damunhwa families. Throughout this dissertation, the term damunhwa family refers to families that are the result of international marriages between a Korean man, a non-Korean woman, and the children born of their union.  The foreign mothers in this study are from Japan, People’s Republic of China (PRC), Vietnam, and Kyrgyzstan, respectively, and each is married to a Korean man and has children. Using a series of government policy documents for damunhwa families and four damunhwa mothers’ interview narratives as the key analytic focus for the investigation, I concentrate on examining the topics that are represented in these two social contexts. Particularly, viewing language policy as a discursive cultural resource that not only represents particular social practices but also facilitates certain behaviors and actions that socialize target groups into particular identities, I trace a national language policy that organizes a foreign mother’s life into four stages: marriage, migration, childbirth and education, and home economics. Then, I move on to discuss how the government’s recommended gender roles (e.g., Korean wife/mother, bilingual mother, bilingual worker) are implicated in the foreign mothers’ life trajectories, particularly through a second language (L2) socialization lens. Problematizing the four life stages the government has envisioned, I demonstrate how L2 socialization of four damunhwa mothers is represented in their interview accounts.                                                  1 Throughout the dissertation, I will use the term South Korea in order to distinguish it from North Korea.  2 Before I discuss the key issues of the dissertation, I hope to foreshadow the term damunhwa (multicultural) family, which is widely used in South Korea to indicate a particular type of family. The term damunhwa was coined at a meeting of a 2003 Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) organized by 30 civic groups in South Korea (J. A. Park, 2012) and was proposed to be used in public rather than other terms, such as Kosian (a compound word for Korean and Asian) which became controversial for its racial connotation and bias. The South Korean government has taken up the term damunhwa, which is viewed as more politically neutral, and has used it in official documents and disseminated it to the public. The term is now used widely, although it is argued to re-segregate ethnolinguistic profiles of Koreans from those of non-Koreans in South Korea (K. H. Lee, 2010). Despite its controversy, I use the term damunhwa family in this dissertation.  Although South Korea has been known for maintaining homogeneous ideologies such as one nation, one language, one state, and one culture (Coulmas, 1999; Kaplan & Baldauf, 2003), due to the decreasing population and aging society, the government has strategically promoted international marriages between Korean men and foreign women (Paik, 2011). The women are mostly from East Asian countries and are encouraged to live and have children in South Korea. With the recent rise of demographic changes and public and academic calls for establishing a policy for immigrants, since the mid-2000s, the South Korean government has intensified a development of a series of new multicultural policies. Under a government-led initiative (H. J. Kim, 2007; S. M. Kim, 2011), various societal infrastructures have been developed for integrating newcomers. This has resulted in the development of a new academic discipline called Korean as a Second Language (KSL) for damunhwa families and other subsequent fields (Y. R. Kim, 2011). Some evaluate the emphasis on KSL for damunhwa families as a form of  3 assimilation and privileging of monolingualism (Y. Cha, 2015; M. Y. Park, 2017; I. Yoon, 2008a). Yet, the policy centered on systematic development of KSL programs has continued to thrive and is supported by many Korean scholars (e.g., H. Cho, 2008; D. J. Choi, 2015; Heewon Jung, 2013; Hyeon Jin Kim & E. J. Lee, 2012; J. Won, 2009, 2014).2 In addition, over the course of the government’s implementation of language policy for newly emerging immigrants, there has been a sudden growing interest in fostering bilingual environments in these families (e.g., S.-S. Hwang, 2017; N. H. Jang, 2012; S. Kong & S. Yang, 2015; Jae Sung Lee & Hee Jae Kim, 2016; J. Won, 2014).  Given the widely accepted view that South Korea has been known for developing and maintaining homogeneous ideological views on language, ethnicity, and the nation-state, it is unknown on what grounds the government has encouraged the contradictory linguistic profile of these families, emphasizing both monolingualism and multilingualism. Although these two views on language may not seem to coincide with each other, both of them are equally supported by the government. Yet, not only is it obscure how the South Korean government established its multilingual framework for the newly emerging population, but little is known about how the government’s development of this particular ideology is accepted, appropriated, or resisted by damunhwa families.  When I was interviewing and familiarizing myself with several participants’ daily lives in Nabi city,3 I often heard similar contradictory statements that reflected the coexistence of monolingualism and multilingualism in family language learning and use. Drawing on a one-                                                2 APA style guides writers to indicate the full name of authors in in-text citations if there are multiple authors with the same last name and first initials. If there are authors with the same last name and different first initials, the last name and first name initials are to be indicated in in-text citations.  3 I use pseudonyms for all participants and proper nouns referred to in this dissertation, including the name of the province, the city, the school, and the interviewees.    4 language, one-territory perspective (e.g., Korean as the dominant medium of communication in South Korea), some people have advocated monolingual socialization of damunhwa children. For example, in an interview with a teacher at Daik Elementary School, he said, “The place that these children basically live is South Korea. [I] view the most important language [for damunhwa children] to be Korean” (?P -VK! 1 L cPU<. [ ^Gc L c@ .G; Oct. 08, 2012). Others stated that damunhwa children’s learning of two languages needs to be encouraged and emphasized. A Grade 3 homeroom teacher at one of the schools that I visited said, “It is good to learn [Mandarin]. Being able to speak two languages [is great] . . . In fact, language is a resource” (,H(\_	 P^A@"c	. . . 0;A@TJPU<; Sep. 14, 2012). These interview accounts seem to suggest two competing discourse practices to damunhwa families: first, the promotion of monolingualism, and second, the promotion of bilingualism. Yet, not only is it uncommon for a nation-state to promote bilingualism for minorities, but it is also unknown how these two seemingly contradictory views could be co-practiced in a social context that tends to highly value discrete monolingualism and monoculturalism.  As a Korean-born and Korean-proficient person, I was raised in a rural area of South Korea, moved between various urban areas for education, and thus could converse in a variety of standard and regional dialects. In the past decade, I have witnessed growing diversity within South Korea. In addition, with my background in L2 research and understanding of the challenges and benefits of being multilingual, migrant, and a woman in her mid-30s, I have been sympathetic as well as concerned with foreign migrant women’s bilingual development and their adaptation to South Korea. With such personal, professional, and academic background, I have  5 striven to conduct a study that is carefully designed, reflexively analyzed, and ethically represented (B.-G. Sohn, 2009, 2016). To understand the discursive operation and management of these seemingly contradictory ideologies—monolingualism and multilingualism—I drew on theories of language socialization and language ideology to understand the newly emerging sociolinguistic phenomenon (i.e., co-promotion of monolingualism and multilingualism) in South Korea. In particular, by combining language socialization and language ideology as a theoretical lens, this dissertation sheds light on the ways in which a particular multilingual framework is instilled as a national language policy for damunhwa families and illustrates the representational multilingual practices of four damunhwa families for whom the government language policy has become a discursive resource for their family language learning and use. These issues were investigated by the following research questions:  1. What language-in-education policies exist for damunhwa families? In particular, what kinds of roles and identities does the South Korean government design for damunhwa families?  2. How do damunhwa mothers report their multilingual socialization trajectories? Specifically, how do participants respond to the discourse circulated through the government policy in interviews? The first research question enables understanding of how the government has structured a particular language policy for damunhwa families—which has implications for their family multilingual socialization. In particular, I trace the ways in which government policy is organized to implement the contradictory framework that embeds monolingual and multilingual ideologies for damunhwa families. Advancing the findings from the first research question, the  6 second research question leads to an examination of how damunhwa families, particularly the four focal damunhwa mothers, state their representational language socialization trajectories, which has implications for the government’s language policy planning and practices.  1.2 Significance of the Study Drawing on recent sociolinguistic and applied linguistic work on migration, language, and identity, I explore topics of multilingual socialization of damunhwa families in South Korea. To do so, I layer four bodies of literature—on migration and gender, migration and language, critical multilingualism, and the sociolinguistics of globalization—that shed light on the multilingual socialization of damunhwa families in South Korea.  Feminist and migration studies have brought forward critical themes that advanced studies of migration, including the politics of scale, mobility as political processes, subjectivity/identity, and changing notions of space and place (Silvey, 2004, 2006). This includes the feminization of migration (Benería, Deere, & Kabeer, 2012; Donato, Gabaccia, Holdaway, Manalansan, & Pessar, 2006; Ehrenreich & Hochschild, 2002; H.-K. Kim, 2012; J.-R. Kim, 2008; Kofman & Raghuram, 2006; Piper, 2006), a theory that explains how women’s bodies and labor maneuver into various transnational spaces in the global capitalist economy. Women from so-called developing countries often move across borders between the home and host countries for light industrial work in domestic services such as nannying, housekeeping, cashiering, and other low-skilled job sectors (Ehrenreich & Hochschild, 2002; Suja Lee, 2004; Piper, 2003; Piper & Roces, 2003; Rodriguez, 2002, 2010). These investigations have reflected on and expanded understandings of the roles of women in transnational spaces and migration, highlighting the commodification of care work on a global scale and the changing structure of families (Benería et al., 2012; Hoang, Lam, Yeoh, & Graham, 2014).   7 One subcategory that was identified through a recent discussion on the feminization of migration is international marriage migration. In the past few decades, international marriages have been documented as increasing across East Asia, Australia, and North America (Constable, 2005; Lim & Oishi, 1996). The majority of these marriages are between men of wealthier countries and/or regions and women from economically less developed areas (H.-K. Kim, 2012; W.-S. Yang & Lu, 2010), a context that is exacerbated by increasing global economic disparities between the developed/developing, core/semi-peripheral/peripheral, and rich/poor. Within East Asian countries, such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, the majority of foreign female spouses come from China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia (Jones & Shen, 2008; W.-S. Yang & Lu, 2010).  The common perception of international marriages is that they are facilitated by a dynamic interplay between local transformations and the global political economy, the patriarchal and heteronormative underpinnings of marriage, and women’s and men’s agency (Hsia, 2004; M. Kim, 2010; L.-F. Wang, 2013). In patriarchal societies, males often enjoy higher socioeconomic status than females, and this often plays an important role in the domestic marriage market. Yet, the unemployment and minimal wages that are exacerbated by the global economic disparity between rich and poor countries often make working-class men in developing countries poorer, thus, less desirable for their domestic marriage competition. More and more females in peripheral, developing nation-states are looking for foreign partners in more developed countries out of the desire for hypergamy—marrying a person of higher social class or status—and a lifestyle that local males cannot provide. On the other hand, men in the host society with low socioeconomic status may also encounter difficulties in their marital choices  8 and thus choose partners from the third world (H.-z. Wang & S.-m. Chang, 2002), which then becomes a new context for constructing gendered identities (M. Kim, 2014).  Referred to broadly as foreign wives, migrant wives, or immigrant wives of international marriages, damunhwa wives represent a distinct category in the statistics on foreigners in major host countries (e.g., South Korea and Taiwan) and are considered to be a priority in policy (Bélanger, H.-K. Lee, & H.-z. Wang, 2010; Lan, 2008), particularly in South Korea. Not only have they become the subject of policy implementation, but more recently, several studies referring to this population have paid specific attention to family and the roles of the mother/wife in transnational spaces (e.g., J.-M. Hwang, 2009; H. M. Kim, 2012a; J. J. Shin, 2012;  H. Yang, 2013). It has been argued that a family created through international marriage is not only a damunhwa (multicultural) family, which is a subgroup of Korean families, but also has the character of global kinship (Y. O. Kim & Kim, 2013; Safri & Graham, 2010). Global households (re)produce through the sharing of income and labor in a broader sense in more than two countries (Y. O. Kim & Kim, 2013; H.-K. Lee, 2006). The connectivity between two or more households continues through the generations; apart from a focus on the settlement of multicultural families in the host country, one could also examine the effects of transnationalism on the modernization of communities in the home society (Bélanger & H.-Z. Wang, 2013). Nonetheless, despite this discussion, which provides insights on understanding families in a transnational and globalized context and their relation to gender, space, and migration, there has been little attention to the roles of language.  Language is not only a vehicle for the expression of thoughts, perceptions, sentiments, and values characteristic of a community or an individual; it also plays an important social function in the establishment of a nation-state (Anderson, 1983). Language of immigrants is  9 particularly crucial in terms of a government’s focusing on the programing of particular language ideologies to maintain its systems as a collective and coherent nation-state (Piller, 2001, 2016; Spolsky, 2009). In this sense, language is not only a medium of communication, but also “a key in selection, social mobility, and gate-keeping processes as well as being the object of organizational responses to . . . wider institutional processes” (Duchêne, Moyer & Roberts, 2013, p. 1). Duchêne, Moyer, and Roberts (2013) continued that through language, the complex relationship between the material and symbolic capital of migrants is exercised on a local scale as institutions (e.g., nation-states) and individuals interact with the transnational but hierarchically imagined global politics. Therefore, in the current globalized and transnational context, control over global households’ family language policy and practices is indeed critical for the government to maintain and develop its boundaries as a nation-state.  To date, for damunhwa families in South Korea, there has been ample discussion centered on methods of language policy implementation, such as what kinds of bilingual programs should be implemented, for whom, for how long, in what way, and so forth. Nonetheless, despite the government’s strategic and prescriptive programming of language policy for damunhwa families, little has been done to examine their representational practices regarding multilingual socialization (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998). Critical and sociocultural perspectives on multilingualism (Cummins, 1992; 2005; Heller, 2007; Kubota, 2004, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2016; Pennycook, 2001) indicate the need for critically interrogating the operation and management of the system in order to move forward toward socially and culturally responsive language praxis (e.g., reflexivity and social change; Kubota & Miller, 2017). This is particularly pivotal when acknowledging the host governments’ enormous interest in systemizing language  10 policy for damunhwa families, yet many have overlooked the importance of critical examination of the bilingual framework that the government has established. In response to the urgent need to examine the ideological interests that are expressed through the government’s family language policy planning for new immigrants, this dissertation sheds light on the language ideologies that are represented in government policy as well as among damunhwa families themselves. In particular, from a language socialization (LS) perspective, I underscore how macro discourses transcend into various timespace-specific conditions (Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Block & Cameron, 2002; Blommaert, 2010; Blommaert & Rampton, 2011; De Fina & Perrino, 2013) and provide additional knowledge on how language operates in a particular globalized bilingual family context, families in which parents do not share the same first language (L1) with each other. In an attempt to underscore the complex language socialization shaped by language ideologies, I first examine the ways in which the South Korean government is encountering multilingual challenges in the current globalized era in light of the changing demographics that are facilitated by recent migration. Following an examination of the government’s multilingual framework for damunhwa families, I explore four damunhwa mothers’ accounts of their language socialization trajectories and discuss their first and second language learning and use as topics of inquiry.  Through these examinations, this study makes two significant contributions. Nested in the work on language and migration, it provides understanding of how the language ideology that is envisioned by the South Korean government operates on damunhwa families through an LS lens, highlighting the situated nature of language learning and use. Second, by employing an LS-as-topic approach, I highlight the ways in which non-conventional LS studies could be productively used. Using a constructionist orientation (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004, 2008; Talmy,  11 2010) to documents and interviews, this qualitative study provides rich accounts of how multilingual socialization is represented in damunhwa families. Through this process, I illuminate the research potential of LS-as-topic as a thorough methodology that provides understanding of the multilingual framework envisioned by the Korean government and indicates multifaceted, dynamic, and unexpected language socialization in the course of foreign women’s integration into South Korea. In this way, the study depicts the identities of damunhwa mothers and the ideological language practices that contribute to the understanding of multilingualism in South Korea, a context that has been traditionally conceived of as discretely monolingual and monocultural.  1.3 Structure of the Dissertation In accordance with the research questions in Section 1.1, Chapter 2 describes the genealogical development of language ideologies in South Korea and discusses the literature that provides an understanding of the construction of multiculturalism, as well as the recent development of KSL education and multilingualism in South Korea. In Chapter 3, I present a theoretical understanding of second/multilingual language socialization and language ideology to map out the theoretical framework of this dissertation. In Chapter 4, I lay out the methodological approaches that guided this qualitative study and provide a conceptual map to explain how I foregrounded the government’s multicultural policy documents and the interview narratives reported by the four damunhwa women from PRC, Japan, Vietnam, and Kyrgyzstan.  Next, the findings of this dissertation are presented in a dual structure: First, I examine the national language policy that has been designed by the South Korean government, and second, I discuss the representative language socialization of the four focal damunhwa mothers who have married Korean men and had children in South Korea. In Chapter 5, I discuss the  12 language ideologies that are circulated in the South Korean government language policy documents and discuss how these ideologies facilitate creation of particular language practices and roles in damunhwa families. Focusing on LS topics, I find that the national language policy organizes foreign mothers’ lives into four stages—marriage, migration, childbirth and education, and home economics—and recommends that they take on particular gendered identities (i.e., Korean wife and mother, bilingual mother, bilingual worker).  In the following chapters (from 6 to 10), I organize interview themes that respond to the four encompassing life stages that are delineated by the government’s multilingual policy: first, damunhwa wives as learners of Korean (Chapter 6); second, damunhwa mothers as teachers of Korean to their children (Chapter 7); third, damunhwa mothers as bilingual workers for South Koreans (Chapter 8); and finally, damunhwa mothers as teachers of their L1 to their children (Chapter 9 and 10). Through this dual examination of the South Korean government’s representational language policy and damunhwa mothers’ interview accounts, I examine aspects of family language socialization and how particular monolingual and multilingual ideologies operate in damunhwa families. Chapter 6 and 7 discuss the ways in which the emphasis on Korean only in damunhwa families creates challenges and tensions in families. These chapters also address the neglected roles of Korean husbands,4 who are in turn described as jeopardizing damunhwa mothers’ and their children’s L2 development and familial relationship. Chapter 8 presents how damunhwa                                                 4 It is documented that Korean mothers-in-law exert tremendous pressure on damunhwa wives’ family language socialization by minimizing their use of their L1 (M. Y. Park, 2017) and downplaying their use of nonstandard Korean (H. S. Cho, 2010). I also acknowledge the powerful influence that Korean mothers-in-law play in Chapter 7 and 8. However, as I demonstrate in Chapter 6, the South Korean government has been focusing on the archetypal nuclear damunhwa families. My focal participants reported that they did not live with their extended family members either. For these reasons, I focus on archetypal nuclear damunhwa families in this dissertation.   13 mothers’ bilingual workplaces do not nurture heritage language development, but rather their L1 is presented as a disposable commodity that South Koreans could easily use. Chapter 9 and 10 deal with the issues that arise from the last theme, heritage language education, which has been largely neglected in the government language policy. Chapter 9 presents two mothers’ stories that describe their use of a one-parent, one-language policy at home. Chapter 10 explains the other two mothers’ narratives of undergoing transitional family bilingual circumstances. Through these narratives, I demonstrate how the foreign mothers are appropriating various ideological and material conditions that are available to them in order to teach their L1 to their children, which gives a new understanding of what is meant by heritage and bilingual language education in globalized South Korea. Finally, in the conclusion chapter, I encapsulate the key findings, discuss the theoretical and methodological contributions and implications of the study, and raise future possibilities that could be derived from the study.   14 Chapter 2: MONOLINGUALISM, MULTILINGUALISM, NATIONALISM, AND DAMUNHWA FAMILIES 2.1 South Korea as a Multicultural and Multilingual Society  This chapter provides an overview of the context of South Korea, which tends to be perceived as a homogeneous society. To gain a better understanding of South Korea’s linguistic nationalism, I first trace the literature that identifies the kinds of social and historical events that have facilitated the ideological construction of South Korea as a monolingual society. In what follows, I examine the second and foreign language education that is being undertaken while South Korea continues to maintain and reinterpret linguistic purification and standardization practices. I highlight how certain linguistic forms are selected as valuable while others are not, which consequently has become grounds for the creation of linguistic, social, and regional hierarchies in South Korea. In the next section, I illustrate the demographic shift that has been facilitated by the international and intranational politics of South Korea and its neighboring countries, and explain how this globalized migration phenomenon has created a different population increase compared to earlier times. Finally, I pay specific attention to how the government, academics, and the public have responded to the newly emerging diversity and the development of the government-led Korean as a Second Language (KSL) program as well as modification of language policy at the national level.  2.1.1 Social and Historical Formation of South Korea as a Monolingual Nation-State  Many Korean linguists (e.g., Coulmas, 1999; Kaplan & Baldauf, 2003; King, 1997, 1998, 2007a, 2007b; N.-S. Park, 1989; C.-e. Song, 2004) have explained how Korean language came to be linked with Korean ethnic groups, particularly Koreans who supposedly share common cultural practices through the so-called Korean-as-ethno-national-language ideology. One widely  15 accepted understanding is how the colonial period (1910-1945) triggered a reconfiguration of the Korean nationalist reformation of linguistic nationalism. The use of Korean, especially the use of the Korean written script, Hangeul, became a symbol of resistance against the Japanese linguistic assimilation policy (Coulmas, 1999; Kaplan & Baldauf, 2003; King, 2007b). These two processes—rationalizing the uniqueness of the Korean language system and highlighting the superiority of the Korean ethnic group through Korean language use (King, 1998; N.-S. Park, 1989; C.-e. Song, 2004)—triggered further Korean language refinements and purification, providing the foundations for the modern, standardized Korean language (King, 2007b; H.-M. Sohn, 1999).  After the Korean War (1950-1953), in the midst of ideological tensions between the former Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (known as the Cold War, 1947-1991), the Korean peninsula was divided into North and South Korea. The two governments established divergent government systems and policies to distinguish themselves from each other, and language purification and standardization were one of the principles. North Korea established a deliberate large-scale national language planning policy aimed toward a purer native form of Korean, which embedded anti-capitalism and anti-U.S. sentiments, and isolated itself from most of the world, including China (King, 2007b). This was promoted by former North Korean leaders and North Korean linguists with statements such as “[o]ur Korean language is a superior language with the strongest originality and stoicism” (as cited by King, 2007b, p. 220), which gives rise to ideological linguistic legitimacy and pride to North Koreans.  On the other hand, South Korea’s language incorporated foreign loanwords, sparked by its pursuit of a capitalist form of development with close business with the United States and Japan. In 1962, the Park Junghee regime (1961-1979) announced the exclusive use of Hangeul,  16 which became the mainstream form of literacy in South Korea over Chinese characters. In 1984, the Research Institute of Korean Studies was founded, and the Korean language purification process was expedited. For example, in 1988, standard Korean was announced to be the “modern Seoul linguistic variety that is widely used by the educated” (Ministry of Education, 1988, p. 1). The classification of standard Korean based on time (modern), space (Seoul), ubiquitous use, and class-oriented scale (the educated) indicates that standard Korean is an ideological construct that privileges a particular linguistic form shared by particular groups of Koreans. This has triggered exclusion of regional dialects and marginalization of cultural, social, and ethnic minorities in South Korea (for more details about Korean language history, see Go, 1995). Nonetheless, the erasure of linguistic diversity is not a major concern for the government. Redefining itself as separate from North Korea and purifying the Korean linguistic system, which is different from those of Japanese and Chinese yet incorporates English loanwords, were ways to highlight South Korea’s spiritual and intellectual superiority, social and cultural advancement, and independency as a nation-state (N.-S. Park, 1989). In 2004, the Research Institute of Korean Studies was elevated to become the National Institute of Korean Language not only to restrict its role in establishing standardization of Korean language use but also to establish Korean as a Second Language (KSL) as an academic discipline and disseminate Korean language worldwide, which I discuss in section 2.1.5 and Chapter 5.  Overall, these variable standardization and purification processes are indications of nationalist building of language ideology as a means to construct a national identity to distribute to Koreans. The belief systems that highlight their uniqueness and superiority over other national and ethnic identities have been distributed and widely circulated through various ideological works (e.g., J. S.-Y. Park, 2010a, 2011). This boundary between Koreans and others, including  17 North Koreans, became a central focus in developing state-driven language ideology and became a baseline for national identity and pride for South Koreans.  2.1.2 Foreign/Second Language Education in South Korea While Korean linguistic nationalism is closely tied to formation of ethnic identity and the construction of a modernized nation-state, a number of foreign languages have been introduced to South Korea. In opposition to the imperial powers surrounding the Korean peninsula (e.g., Chung Dynasty, Japan, Russia) in the late Chosun Dynasty (1392-1897), English was introduced as one of the first official forms of foreign language when the government established an English language school to train interpreters (N. Kang, 2005). Several private schools were subsequently established by Western missionaries, mostly from the United States (Y. Hwang, 2014). Though there was some opposition to the spread of English (N. Kang, 2005), English was popularized as the language of God, reason, logic, and human rights (Y. Hwang, 2014) and perceived as a means to learn Western modernized systems (I. C. Jang, 2012). When the Chosun Dynasty collapsed and the colonial rule of Japan became stronger (1910-1945), English education was limited in favor of Japanese (C.-S. Hong, 2000; Y. Hwang, 2014; E. G. Kim, 2011). During this period, Japanese was used as the medium of instruction in public schools (Y.-g. Choi, 2006; Jung Soo Lee, 2004), and many intellectuals moved to Japan for higher education, facilitating an increase of fluent Korean-Japanese bilinguals (Y. Hwang, 2014; E. G. Kim, 2011).  After South Korea gained political sovereignty from Japanese colonial power and then came to be occupied under trusteeship management by two powerful nation-states, the United States5 and the USSR, English education continued to be seen as a way to modernize South                                                 5 It is called the U.S. Army Military Government (1945-1948).   18 Korea and a means for fighting against communist countries. Unlike in other postcolonial countries, in South Korea the medium of education was Korean language (Hangeul), and English held foreign language status in secondary and post-secondary education (E. G. Kim, 2011). Soon after, English, as the first foreign language in the education system (Seikjun Kim, 1996), gained symbolic power due to strong South Korea-U.S. political, economic, and capitalistic relations (H. Shin, 2006; Yun, 2001). At the same time, one of the widely learned foreign languages other than English was Japanese, which demonstrates the economic interest of the business sector of Korea since the 1960s (Kubota, 2015).  Since the development of the first national curriculum in 1954, the number of foreign languages other than English offered in secondary schools increased from two languages to eight.6 Although the number of foreign languages other than English taught in schools has increased and the quality of the curriculum has been evaluated as improved, concerns over the different degrees of emphasis in the curriculum on subject English and on other foreign languages have been raised (Heewon Jung, 2013; H. S. Kang, 2014; Sunghee Park, 2015; W. Park, 2007). One commonly discussed concern with the second foreign language curriculum is that it is not delivered until the second year of high school (Grade 11) and is taught only for 1-2 hours per week depending on the curriculum design, challenging the quality of learning outcomes (Heewon Jung, 2013). On the other hand, English continues to be emphasized, which has elevated access to higher education (e.g., university entrance exams) and promises of social mobility (J. S.-Y. Park, 2011). English is extensively taught from elementary school under the government-initiative globalization project (since the 6th national curriculum; S. K. Jung &                                                 6 Two languages—German and Chinese—were introduced in the first curriculum (1954-1963). French was added in the second curriculum (1963-1973). This increased to eight languages (German, French, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Vietnamese) in the 2011 revised curriculum.  19 Norton, 2002). This curriculum structure may heighten hierarchical boundaries between English and other languages, indicating that English may be valued more than other languages by South Koreans.  While it is possible to depict linguistic orders in a fixed hierarchical manner as discussed, it is important to acknowledge that such hierarchies are not static. Although it has been argued that foreign languages (other than English) receive less attention, particularly within K-12 education, Japanese, French, and German are widely taught as foreign languages (H. Yoo, 2014). Recently, there has been rapid growth in the number of Mandarin learners in South Korea in response to economic ties with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In 2016, Arabic became one of the most preferred foreign languages for the university entrance exam due to its reputation for easier questions than the other foreign language exams (G. Kim, 2016).7 All of these changes are indicators of the fluidity of linguistic hierarchies that amalgamate with international and intranational politics.  Furthermore, until very recently, the patterns of multilingualism in South Korea were considered highly discrete because Korean was viewed as the sole dominant medium for communication, whereas other linguistic forms were treated as distinctively separate entities and as foreign (J. S.-Y. Park, 2009). Learning languages is encouraged for Korean students, who already speak Korean, under the geopolitical logics of nationalism (Yim, 2007; O. K. Yoo, 2005). On the other hand, the ethnolinguistic diversity within South Korea is rarely considered, which indicates assimilation of non-Koreans into Korean society. Therefore, it is possible to understand how linguistic minorities were underrecognized when KSL and heritage language education were new and foreign to the South Korean public, which I point out in the following sections. I                                                 7 It was estimated that 69% of the test takers (605,988 students) had applied for Arabic for the university entrance exam in 2016.  20 first sketch the recent rise in the new population that was facilitated by globalization and migration and then discuss the changes in conceptualizing bilingualism and KSL in South Korea.  2.1.3 Recent Multicultural and Multilingual Development in South Korea  Since 2006, government-initiated multicultural policies have been expedited (H.-S. Kim, 2014; Hee Jung Kim, 2007; N. H.-J. Kim, 2015; S. M. Kim, 2011; Min, 2011) through collaboration between public officials and labor, migration, and other discipline specialists who include academics, lawyers, civil activists, and religious groups (H.-K. Lee, 2010; I. Yoon, 2008b). A number of nationwide surveys and reports led by the government and media have widely discussed issues of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity in South Korea. Multicultural programs for people from culturally and ethnolinguistically diverse backgrounds have been developed and implemented in various sectors of the country. Given the common belief that South Korea is an ethnically, linguistically, and culturally homogeneous nation-state and the uptake of homogeneous ideology as a form of national pride (H. Yoon, 2000), it is important to understand the broader social, political, and economic context of South Korea and how it has been forwarded through the establishment of government-led multicultural policies (S.-S. Shin, 2011).  In the 1960s and 1970s, South Korea used to export Korean workers to other countries to gain economic benefit, but it changed to a labor importing country with the rise of economic development in the 1980s (K.-T. Park, 2005). When the South Korean economy started to bubble in the mid-1980s to compete in the global market, the South Korean government and many conglomerates (called chaebol; J. Bae, Rowley, & T.-W. Sohn, 2012; E. M. Kim, 1989) attempted to seek ways to lower the cost of manufacturing production. At the same time, South Korea hosted the Asian Games in 1986 and the Seoul Olympics in 1988, which created positive  21 images of South Korea for neighboring countries and attracted people to move to Korea for a better life. Together with these political, economic, and ideological movements, many people from neighboring countries (e.g., PRC, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Nepal, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Mongolia) became migrant workers (K.-T. Park, 2005). Since the 1980s, when South Korea started to accept migrant workers who would accept cheaper wages and less ideal working conditions, there have been few policies on securing migrant workers’ residency status (Seol, 1992). The government, academia, and the public have had a series of debates on whether they need to legally accept migrant workers (H.-K. Lee, 2010). Under these circumstances, many illegal migrant labor workers work in South Korea, and many of them have been exposed to human rights violations in the workplace, insecure residency status, overdue or unpaid wages, human trafficking of illegal and undocumented foreign residents, and other injustices (Haeshil Jung, 2007; Jiyoun Kim, Kang, & U. Lee, 2014; Seungman Kim, 2010; Seonok Lee, 2005).  In response to the ill treatment toward temporary labor migrant workers’ situations, migrant workers, social workers, and labor activists have worked in tandem with other labor-based social movements (JiYoung Lee, 2012; Seonok Lee, 2005; K.-T. Park, 2005; Seol, 1992) to attract government as well as public responses. The media has also focused on these issues, causing the South Korean government and the public to begin to acknowledge the unfavorable situations of migrant workers (Y.-C. Kim, 2006; H.-Y. Lee, 2012; Seonok Lee, 2005). Subsequently, migrant workers have been partially accepted as equal labor workers and human beings (K.-T. Park, 2005), and there have been some modifications8 to temporary unskilled-                                                8 These were industrial trainee policies developed in 1993 (Jiyoun Kim et al., 2014; Seonok Lee, 2005), which were changed into the Employment Permit System (EPS) in 1995, and revised in 2004 and 2007 (H.-K. Lee, 2010). As a result of these changes, large numbers of migrant  22 workers’ legal status while they reside and work in South Korea. Yet, these modifications have been criticized for restricting the duration of residency in South Korea and favoring employers’ hiring decisions, resulting in insecurity of migrant workers’ working conditions and contract processes (J.-M. Hwang, 2012; M. Kim, 2012; Seungman Kim, 2010; S. Park, 2015). This has led to chains of difficult living and working situations, and ultimately to these workers being unable to become full members of South Korean society (Heewon Jung, 2013).  Despite the harsh environment for migrant labor workers, the establishment and subsequent modification of immigration policies have facilitated an increase of foreign residents in South Korea. There were one million foreign residents in 2007, which increased to 1.5 million in 2013 and 1.9 million in 2015, constituting 2.16-3.69% of the total population (See Table 2.1). This figure is expected to increase to 3 million in 2020 (Korea Immigration Service, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016). While drawing attention to the rapidly growing numbers of foreign residents, collectively, both the government and the media (e.g., Hyun, 2013) have promoted South Korea as a multicultural and multilingual society and provided a sense of urgency for establishing multicultural policies.                                                                                                                                                           workers from PRC moved to South Korea after China and South Korea established diplomatic ties in 1992. In a similar time period, people from 14-15 countries including the Philippines, Bangladesh, Nepal, Indonesia, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Thailand, Kazakhstan, Burma, Sri Lanka, and Iran moved to South Korea as industrial trainees who were legally able to stay and work in South Korea under temporary trainee status (G. Kim, 2016).  23 Table 2.1 Comparison between Total Population and the Ratio of Foreign Residents in South Korea (Korea Immigration Service, 2011, 2016)  2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Foreign residents (million) 1.066 1.159 1.168 1.261 1.395 1.445 1.576 1.798 1.900 Total population (million) 49.269 49.540 49.773 50.516 50.734 50.948 51.141 51.328 51.529 Ratio of foreign population 2.16% 2.34% 2.35% 2.50% 2.75% 2.84% 3.08% 3.50% 3.69%  Among legal foreign residents, the majority of the population is Chinese, including Korean-Chinese, one of the ethnic minorities in PRC. In 2015 (Korea Immigration Service, 2016), Chinese made up 50.3% (955,871); Americans, 7.3% (138,660); Vietnamese, 7.2% (136,758); Thai, 4.9% (93,348); Filipino, 2.9% (54,977); and Japanese, 2.5% (47,909). Employed residents make up one of the largest populations, at approximately 549,000-620,000 people, constituting 33-35% of total foreign residents (Korea Immigration Service, 2014, 2015, 2016). Among them, 90-92% are unskilled workers (Korea Immigration Service, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016). The third-largest population is the international marriage migrant category, which constitutes 6-9% of foreign residents in South Korea (Korea Immigration Service, 2014, 2015, 2016). One of the reasons for the number of international marriage migrants in South Korea is the residential conditions of labor migrants (H.-K. Lee, Chung, M. Yoo, & M. Kim, 2006). As it becomes difficult for them to enter, stay, and earn money in South Korea, a large number of foreign women are seeking easier ways to enter, earn money, and send it to their countries. International marriages have become a favorable means of migration because they provide a  24 permanent visa or long-term residential status, which secures women’s living conditions and allows them to escape economic and social hardships in their country (M. Kim, 2012; Suja Lee, 2004). The initial attempts to immigrate in this way were made by Korean-Chinese9 (H.-K. Lee et al., 2006), who constitute the largest proportion of migrant women coming to South Korea through international marriage (26.8%-31.5% of total international marriage migrants between 2008 and 2016; Korea Immigration Service, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017). Another earlier form of international marriage was instantiated via a religious group (the Unification Church) between South Korea and Japan in the mid-1990s (H.-K. Lee, 2005; H.-s. Yoon, 2005). In addition, about one third of Filipina international marriage migrants who came to South Korea in the early 2000s came through religious marriages (Jeonghui Lee, 2012). While the early international marriage migration started mostly from China, Japan, and the Philippines, either though religious or labor pathways, this has been expanded to other Southeast Asian countries, mostly from Vietnam since 2004, as well as Cambodia, Mongolia, Thailand, and some other countries (M. Kim, 2007).  This surge of international marriages was made possible by South Korea’s domestic politics and economic conditions. In the early 1990s, South Korea experienced a shortage of                                                 9 At the end of Chosun dynasty, around 1890, there was a Korean diaspora to northern China, near the Korea-China border. This mass exodus continued during the Japanese colonial period as people sought to escape colonial oppression or through the forced migration that provided laborers for Japanese factories. After Korea restored its sovereignty from Japanese colonial power, many Koreans living in PRC could not return to Korea. Some no longer had familial connections in Korea, some lacked the economic resources to travel, and many found that their repatriation was complicated by rapid domestic political changes that derived from the Cold War. After Korea achieved independence from Japan, Korea was divided into two independent governments—North and South Korea—due to different political views. Because of North Korea’s communist ideological structure, it became a close ally to PRC. Consequently, many Koreans living in PRC could not return to South Korea and instead confronted difficult and economically harsh conditions as they settled in PRC and assimilated into their new home (Naver, n.d.).  25 women for marriage in rural areas. Due to the expediting of industrialization and urbanization since the 1960s, the population of rural areas in South Korea had become low, gendered, and aged (M. Kim, 2007). For example, in 2004, residents over 65 years old constituted more than 29% of the population in rural areas (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2005), and there were more single men than single women in these areas (S. K. Kim et al., 2010). Many local governments have acknowledged this phenomenon as well as a gender imbalance that is caused by a preference for male babies instead of female ones (M. Kim, 2007).  One attempt to solve these issues was to encourage a higher birthrate through international and interethnic marriages. In the late 1980s to early 1990s, several farming leaders and local women’s organizations began to arrange marriages between Korean men and Korean-Chinese women (J. Choi, 2010; H.-K. Lee, 2005). Marrying Korean-Chinese women was welcomed by Koreans since they were seen as overseas Koreans who shared the same culture, language, and ethnic background (H.-s. Yoon, 2005). These arranged marriages initiated by local ministries were referred to as the ‘marrying off single farmers project,’ and they provided Korean men who brought in immigrant wives with significant amounts of money that would cover most of their marriage costs, approximately CAD $2,000-8,000 per person (M. Kim, 2007).  Not only did local governments prefer female international marriage migration for reviving rural areas, but there were also changes in the national policy that accelerated arranged international marriages (H.-K. Lee et al., 2006). In August 1999, the South Korean government allowed the commercial marriage brokerage operation to change from a licensing system to a reporting system (G.-S. Han & Seol, 2006; D. Kim, Y. Shin, J. H. Lee, & H. T. Choi, 2010; H.-K.  26 Lee, 2005). The ease of opening a marriage business10 resulted in an explosion of international marriages between Korean men and foreign women in the mid-2000s (H.-K. Lee, 2005, 2010), particularly in the areas of Southeast Asia and PRC.  Figure 2.1 International Marriage Trends in South Korea Between 2000 and 2015 (Korea Immigration Service, 2011, 2016)  As can be seen in Figure 2.1, in 2000, international marriages constituted 3.7% of the total marriages that occurred in South Korea (12,319 cases). In 2004, this increased to 11.4% (34,640 cases), and in 2005, one out of seven marriages in South Korea was international (13.6%, total 42,356 cases; Statistics Korea, 2008), which is the highest recorded level of international marriages between 2000 and 2015.11 Among this international marriage population, marriages                                                 10 In a 2005 nationwide survey, there were 2,210 matchmaking institutions identified in South Korea, 892 of which were part of businesses that mediated commercialized international marriages (G.-S. Han & Seol, 2006). 11 Since 2007, there has been fluctuation because of the international relations between South Korea and the home countries that send women for marriages. For example, the Cambodian government temporarily inhibited international marriages between Cambodian women and Korean men due to human trafficking and human rights violations that were raised in 2008 and 2010. This resulted in a decrease in Cambodian women’s migration to South Korea via international marriages. In 2012, the Vietnamese government prohibited Vietnamese women from marrying South Korean men who were older than 50 years old (Seonhan Kim, 2010). As the home countries that send out females for international marriage have strengthened their 0.0000!!0.5000!!1.0000!!1.5000!!2.0000!!2.5000!!3.0000!!2000!2001!2002!2003!2004!2005!2006!2007!2008!2009!2010!2011!2012!2013!2014!2015!Foreign!Wife! Foreign!Husband! 27 between Korean men and foreign women outnumbered marriages between Korean women and foreign men by 88% and 84.3% in 2008 and 2016, respectively (Korea Immigration Service, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017).  The documented damunhwa women’s countries of origins include PRC, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Cambodia, Thailand, Russia, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan (Korea Immigration Service, 2012; H.-K. Lee, 2005; Seol, H.-K. Lee, & S.-N. Cho, 2006; Statistics Korea, 2016a). The largest population of international marriage migrants is from PRC (49-57%), the number of Korean-Chinese constituting 27-32% and Chinese, 22-27% between 2009 and 2015 (Jeon et al., 2013; S. K. Kim et al., 2010). There are also international marriage migrants from Vietnam (22-27%), Japan (4-9%), and the Philippines (5-8%; Korea Immigration Service, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2016). A total of 193 countries have sent international marriage migrants to South Korea (Korea Immigration Service, 2016).  According to a series of national surveys funded by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, the main jobs of Korean spouses are in either the primary- or secondary-industrial sectors; they include device assemblers and machine operators (26.1%), unskilled labor workers and craft workers (18.4%), and agricultural workers (9.0%). In addition, 53.6% of the spouses earn less than 2 million Won (equivalent to $2,000 CAD) per month (Jeon et al., 2013). These indicators acknowledge that the majority of international marriage families are part of low-income households. Under these circumstances, many foreign wives also contribute to their home economies. In the 2015 national survey (Haesuk Jung et al., 2016), 63.9% of damunhwa                                                                                                                                                        regulations, there has been a decrease in women from Southeast Asian countries marrying Korean men. In addition, there has been a decrease in the number of bachelors in South Korea who aspire to pursue international marriages compared to the early to mid-2000s (C.-S. Kim, 2009; M. Kim, 2007; H.-s. Yoon, 2005). All of these factors have resulted in a decrease in international marriages in South Korea since 2011, as shown in Figure 2.1.  28 women reported that they were employed, yet 80.5% of them earned less than $2,000 CAD per month.  Although international marriages are seen as a possibility for upward mobility that will allow women from developing countries to escape from economic, social, or political hardships in their countries (J.-M. Hwang, 2009; H.-K. Kim, 2012; M. Kim, 2012; Lim & Oishi, 1996; W.-S. Yang & Lu, 2010), the national survey indicates that many households may suffer from husbands’ low income, resulting in many foreign spouses12 seeking employment for additional earnings (S. K. Kim et al., 2010; Jeon et al., 2013; Haesuk Jung et al., 2016). In addition, although international marriage migration is often identified as a separate phenomenon from labor migration and has variables within its scope (e.g., marriage between a Japanese woman and a Korean man), in the case of South Korea, dual-income families may be seen as an index of furthering international marriage migration to labor migration (S. K. Kim et al., 2010; Jeon et al., 2013; Haesuk Jung et al., 2016). Nonetheless, international marriage migrants’ earnings are also identified as under or on par with minimal wages, and so their economic contribution does not profoundly enhance the total household economy. Therefore, not only are foreign wives subsidizing the increase of the South Korean population through their migration and biological reproduction, but they are also workers who facilitate the domestic industry for low incomes in South Korea.                                                  12 However, international marriages between Korean women and foreign spouses are different from those between Korean men and foreign women in terms of the foreign spouses’ countries of origin and income (S. K. Kim et al., 2010).  29 2.1.4 Government-Led Multicultural Policy Planning: Damunhwa Families as a National Project  In the previous section, I briefly mentioned that South Korea’s multicultural policy is predominantly led by the government (M. O. Kang, 2014; A. E. Kim, 2010; Hee Jung Kim, 2007; K. S. Oh, 2009), which works in tandem with various academics and specialists who have expertise in labor, migration, law, and other academic disciplines. In this section, I present the chronological development of multicultural policies that have been developed toward damunhwa families.  The term multiculturalism was introduced to South Korea in the mid-1990s as a Western concept; prior to that, it was an unfamiliar term in South Korea (J.-H. Ahn, 2013). In the mid-2000s, a series of events occurred both inside and outside of South Korea that heightened public awareness of ethnic diversity and the growing number of foreigners and immigrants in South Korea. For example, there were two international events that raised public awareness toward immigrants and multiracial children. In 2005, a series of riots occurred in various cities in France associated with the marginalization of immigrant youth in suburban areas, raising questions regarding the social and economic integration of immigrants in South Korea (J. Choi, 2010) and calls for South Korea to critically reflect on its immigration policy as well as the absence of multicultural policies in South Korea (Hwasook Yi & Lee, 2013; J. J. Shin, 2012; I. Watson, 2011).  In the same year, the term multiculturalism began to be used more widely, which was related to a sense of national crisis caused by the rapidly aging society and the country’s low fertility rate, described in the previous section. The population decrease and aging society raised concerns for both the state and the public regarding national sustainability (Paik, 2011). In the  30 same time period, American football player Hines Edward Ward Jr., who was the child of a soldier of the U.S. Armed Forces in South Korea and a Korean woman, led his team to a win in the 2005 Super Bowl XL and was nominated for MVP. This was widely broadcasted and publicized (E. Jung & C. Lee, 2007), and it heightened the public awareness of multiracial children and multicultural families in South Korea (Hayeong Kim, 2006; Seongyun Kim, 2006). Under these social circumstances, the rise of international marriages was reported in the media. Around 2005, the major national daily newspaper in South Korea featured a 65-article series called ‘Multiculturalism: The Era of One Family’ and a 44-article series titled ‘Global Korea, Multicultural is Power’ during 2008-2009 (J.-H. Ahn, 2013). The international issues relating to immigrants and multiracial children, statistics released by the government, and the media’s subsequent effort ignited the public and the government to eradicate the privileging of pure-blood, homogeneous culture and ethnicity, and to create a nondiscriminatory society based on diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds (Ministry of Justice, 2007). This led to a ‘multicultural explosion’ (J.-H. Ahn, 2013; N. H.-J. Kim, 2015) in the following years (for a detailed chronological development of national-level policy, see Appendix A). Needing to respond to the rise of the cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity with a sense of urgency, the government and ministries have worked in collaboration to build multicultural policy (Jiyoun Kim et al., 2014). In 2005, the Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Family conducted a national-scale survey with other national ministries (e.g., Ministry of Gender Equality), specialists, and academics in order to identify, understand, and document the conditions and difficulties of international marriage migrants and their families living in South Korea (Seol et al., 2005). In May 2006, President Roh Moo-Hyun (who served as president between 2003 and 2008) stated, “it is irreversible for South Korea to transition to a multiracial population and  31 multicultural society. . . and there must be an effort to integrate immigrants through multicultural policies” (I. Yoon, 2008a, par. 17). Since then, various levels of government, including local government and departments, have jumped on the multicultural bandwagon despite criticisms of multicultural policy becoming excessive and drifting (K. S. Oh, 2009).  In 2008, the Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family announced the Multicultural Families Support Plans according to their Life Stages due to the “lack of the policy for all multicultural families, including spouse and children, and weak synergies between health, welfare, and family areas, resulting in little policy impact” (Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs, 2008a, p. 2). In the same year, with the Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family as the leading ministry, the South Korean government wrote the Multicultural Families Support Act (Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs, 2008b), implementing a basic direction for supporting multicultural families (Y.-J. Lee, 2008). Two five-year plans have been designed and published based on this law: the first Basic Plan for Multicultural Families Support for 2010-2012 and the second Basic Plan for Multicultural Families13 for 2013-2017 (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012b, 2012c). These government documents are the foundational guidelines for supporting and integrating multicultural families in South Korea (S.-k. Cho, S.-w. Lee, & Chon, 2008; Hwasook Yi & Lee, 2013). Yet, it is important to note that all these policy planning activities highlight multicultural families as the center of governmental policy while excluding other foreign residents in South Korea.  As part of government-led multicultural policy planning, the budget for multicultural families between 2011 and 2012 was 3278 billion Won (equivalent to $327.8 million CAD), and                                                 13 The title ‘Support’ was dropped in the second basic plan. This can be understood as a change in the view toward damunhwa families from beneficiaries of the policy to multicultural resource providers for South Korea. I discuss this further in Chapter 5.   32 this has steadily increased (National Archives of Korea, 2014a). The 10 levels of the national administrative government14 have all been involved in establishing and conducting multicultural policy (Hyeon Jin Kim & E. J. Lee, 2012). The duplication of policy planning and unequal distribution of multicultural policies to various foreign populations has been widely condemned (Joe, 2013; Hyeon Jin Kim & E. J. Lee, 2012; Junsik Kim & G. Ahn, 2012; Y. K. Kim, 2009; H. j. Lee & H. j. Choi, 2012; Y. K. Park & J. E. Park, 2010). Similar to the criticism from academics, the South Korean government has acknowledged that multicultural policies designed in each ministry are overlapping and causing inefficient policy practices (Immigration Policy Commission, 2012; Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs, 2008a; Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2014b).  Based on this reflection, starting from 2010, the Ministry of Gender Equality took the main responsibility for supporting multicultural families, and this remains one of the representative duties of the ministry (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, n.d.-b). Since 2010, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family has established major laws and policies related to multicultural families while handing orders to other administrative ministries (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2010, 2011a, 2014b). Consequently, most of the multicultural-family-related plans that the Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family (2008-2010) created (e.g., Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs, 2009) were transferred to the Ministry of Gender Equality (2008-2009). In the same year (2010), the name of the ministry was changed to the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, while the Ministry of Health and Welfare removed the word family from its title in the same year (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, n.d.-a;                                                 14 This includes the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Strategy and Finance, Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, Ministry for Health and Welfare, Ministry of Culture Sports and Tourism, Ministry of Employment and Labor, Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs, Ministry of Science ICT, and Future Planning.  33 Ministry of Health and Welfare, n.d.). The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family also created two new departments in July 2012 for establishing multicultural family policy and providing integration and support services.15 These developments demonstrate not only the power struggles between ministries, academics, and the public but also show how multicultural policy has become a gendered national project. Several researchers in South Korea have raised the criticism that granting full responsibility of multicultural policy planning to the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family was a retreat from accepting socially, culturally, and ethnolinguistically diverse groups (e.g., K. S. Oh, 2007), and that this discursive transformation signals a broader shift in the immigration policy framework from the perspective of labor to that of family (J.-H. Ahn, 2013; Y. J. Kim, 2020; Youngjea Lee, 2010). Taking a similar perspective, Junmo Kim, S.-B. Yang, and Torneo (2014) and Paik (2011) also have anticipated that the migrant women in international marriages will have an important role in policymaking and implementation, yet the notion of multiculturalism has been scaled down to international marriage migrants and their children.  The government’s topicalization of migrant women in international marriages began to disappear around 2010. Instead, the term ‘multicultural family’ replaced it in policy documents (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2011b; J. A. Park, 2012). These changes have created much confusion surrounding Korean scholars’ interpretations of the policy and raised discussions on the defining characteristics of multicultural policy in South Korea (J. S. Kim, 2012). Some have argued that multicultural family policy is a gender-oriented policy that focuses on foreign women’s rights (H.-S. Kim, 2014), while others claim that it exclusively emphasizes                                                 15 The two departments are called the Department of Policy Development for Multicultural Families and Department for Multicultural Family Support. Under the new establishment of the departments, there are 229 numbers of staff that were hired to work in multicultural family related issues (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, n.d.).  34 on assimilating foreign women into South Korean society (J. Choi, 2010). Other studies have suggested that the multicultural policy plan is a family-oriented plan by which the nation-state is attempting to design a particular multicultural family (J. Hong & Hunsun Kim, 1010; Sohyun Lee, 2014; Yougjea Lee, 2010; Min, 2011). On the other hand, some scholars have adamantly argued that the multicultural policy is a discriminatory action toward South Korean citizens (Y.-M. Kim, 2013), while several others have stated that it is getting closer to the implementation of liberal multiculturalism (Joe, 2013; I. Moon, 2006; Yoon, 2008a), which acknowledges cultural and ethnic diversity.  To date, the multicultural family support policy has generally been discussed on the grounds that it confines the scope of the family to Korean men, foreign women, and their children (J.-Y. Cho & J. Seo, 2013; Iwabuchi & H. M. Kim, 2016; K. H. Lee, 2010). Under such limited boundaries of the damunhwa family, it has been noted that the South Korean government has been focusing on the gender roles of foreign women, which I discuss in Chapter 5. Yet, before addressing these issues, in the following section, I illustrate the specifics of national language policy that is designed for damunhwa families by the South Korean government and the kinds of discussion that are raised by Korean scholars.  2.1.5 Development of KSL Programs for Damunhwa Families In the previous section, I discussed the uniqueness of the government-led multicultural policy being established in such a compressed period of time (2006-2017). I also discussed how the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family has been the main ministry to establish multicultural policies, indicating a shift in policy that is confined to gender and particular family types while neglecting other immigrant categories (e.g., labor migrant workers). This could be exemplified in  35 the case of the government’s launch of KSL programs (Jinho Kim, 2012; H. S. Park, Rhee, Rho, & Lee, 2012; J. A. Park, 2012).  In the very first nationwide survey that was conducted in 2005 to understand the situations of migrant women in international marriages and their families and prepare multicultural policies for this population (Seol et al., 2006), 40% of damunhwa families living in rural areas reported that difficulty communicating in Korean between family members was an urgent problem. Similar results were also reported in the nationwide survey conducted in 2009, in which 22.5% of female international marriage migrants responded that a major challenge they had faced migrating to South Korea was lack of Korean proficiency, with 62.7% of respondents reporting that their need for support in their Korean language learning was “critical” (S. K. Kim et al., 2010, p. 612). In addition, several reports indicated that the damunhwa mothers’ not having sufficient Korean language skills was causing difficulty in the family, which could extend to domestic violence and divorce issues (Jeon et al., 2013; S. K. Kim et al., 2010), assuming the damunhwa wives’ lack of second language (L2) development was one of the main reasons for family struggles.  Furthermore, it has been argued that damunhwa mothers are the cause of their children’s linguistic deficiencies, as they are considered major caregivers (Jeon et al., 2013; Haesuk Jung et al., 2016; S. K. Kim et al., 2010; Seol et al., 2005). Results from a national survey called for urgent government intervention to prevent a delay in children’s Korean language development. Similar arguments also consistently appeared in research articles that were published in the same period. The majority of studies examining Korean language development of children from damunhwa families found that damunhwa mothers’ lack of Korean language development was strongly correlated with the low Korean language scores of their children (Choe, 2008; H.-W.  36 Choi & B.-M. Hwang, 2009; S.-S. Hwang, 2011; S.-S. Hwang & Jeong, 2008; Jeong, 2004; S. J. Lee, Shin, Kim, & Kim, 2008; H. S. Park et al., 2012; Myeongsun Park & Jaegu Park, 2011).  Follow-up studies have also argued that these children’s low proficiency in Korean language and literacy delays their social and cognitive development, at least compared to the children of Korean parents who are Korean-language proficient (H. Cho, 2008; E. K. Lee & W. S. Kim, 2011). In addition, since the medium of instruction in South Korean public schools is Korean, children who do not have sufficient Korean language skills may struggle academically and socially as they move up to higher grade levels (H. Cho, 2008; G. J. Choi & Y. M. Chae, 2010). These situations may impact damunhwa children’s identity formation, retention or dropout rates, engagement in crime, and other outcomes (J. Lee, S. Kang, H. Kim, H. Lee, & Y. Seo, 2008; Jinwook Park & E. Jang, 2008; H. Seo & S.-e. Lee, 2007; M. Seo, Seol, Y. Choi, E. Kim, & H. Cho, 2010; H.-w. Yoon, 2009). Many Korean academics are not only calling for the South Korean government to establish KSL programs for damunhwa wives but also demanding KSL programs for damunhwa children (G. J. Choi & Y. M. Chae, 2010; Y. Jung, 2011; J. Won, 2009).  Such findings from the national surveys and subsequent research legitimize the need for KSL programs for damunhwa mothers and their children. Since 2006, eight administrative ministries16 have developed KSL programs and plans (H. Cho, 2008; YoungHee Lee, 2011; J. A. Park, 2012). Yet, this has been seen as government duplication of similar policies, which has led to calls for developing a unified and comprehensive KSL program for damunhwa mothers and children that could be systematically drawn from the specializations of each ministry (Heewon                                                 16 It includes the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry for Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of the Interior, and the Ministry of Labor.   37 Jung, 2013; Jinho Kim, 2012). In 2010, four ministries—the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism, and the Ministry of Education—signed a co-operation agreement (MOU) to consent on avoiding overlaps and duplicating policy tasks. With this agreement, the four ministries became the leading segment of government for developing national-level KSL programs for damunhwa families in South Korea (H. Cho, 2013; Heewon Jung, 2013; Hyeon Jin Kim & E. J. Lee, 2012; J. A. Park, 2012).  For example, to support damunhwa mothers, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family established 21 International Marriage Migrant Family Support Centers around various parts of the country in 2006. These centers are called comprehensive support agencies (H. Cho, 2013), and they provide a variety of services that are integral for international marriage migrant women’s adaptation, including their learning of the Korean language, Korean culture, family counseling and employment assistance, childcare support, and translation and interpretation services (Heewon Jung, 2013). In 2008, the name was changed from the International Marriage Migrant Family Support Center to the Multicultural Family Support Center (n.d.), which may indicate that the center’s focus has been shifted from exclusive support of damunhwa women to support of their families. Subsequently, the KSL program has expanded damunhwa children’s Korean language learning services, children’s living services, and other family-related matters (Hyeon Jin Kim & E. J. Lee, 2012). Under the Multicultural Families Support Act (MFSA, 2011) the Multicultural Family Support Centers are seen as the prime institute for settlement and integration of damunhwa mothers and their children. With the legal authority through the MFSA as well as financial support from the government, the number of these centers has increased considerably, from 171 in 2010 to 217 in 2016 (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2016b).   38 The National Institute of Korean Language (NIKL) develops teaching materials for a variety of KSL programs and disseminates various KSL textbooks for government-sponsored KSL programs (Jinho Kim, 2012). For example, through consultation with the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, the National Institute of Korean Language publishes a textbook series for damunhwa wives, called Korean Language Learning with International Marriage Migrant Women. By 2011, six volumes had been developed, distributed, and used in the Multicultural Family Support Centers for international marriage migrant women (NIKL, n.d.-a). As KSL programs for international marriage migrant women became systematized, from 2009, the National Institute of Korean Language started to develop a textbook series called Korean Learning for Preschool Children from Multicultural Families (Ministry of Culture Sports and Tourism, 2013). This indicates that the government has started to shift from focusing on developing KSL programs for damunhwa mothers to developing KSL programs for damunhwa children. The Ministry of Education later participated in systemizing KSL programs under the K-12 system (Hyeon Jin Kim & E. J. Lee, 2012) and dealing with Korean language education for school-aged children (Ministry of Education, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011a, 2012).  In addition to the KSL curriculum for damunhwa mothers and children provided by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family through the Multicultural Family Support centers (H. Cho, 2013; Jinho Kim, 2012; J. A. Park, 2012), in 2009, the Ministry of Justice launched the Korea Immigration Integration Program (KIIP) for those who aim to become naturalized and obtain citizenship in South Korea (H. Cho, 2012). By improving adult immigrants’ Korean linguistic abilities and their Korean cultural understanding, the goal of the program is to enable permanent and long-term foreign residents to fully integrate and function as legitimate citizens (Heewon Jung, 2013). The program is structured based on commissioned education (H. Cho,  39 2012), where the ministry selects and assigns universities to provide social-integration-related programs such as KSL education and multicultural education.  Although the goal and the recipient of the KSL programs seem to be different, it has been suggested that the KSL programs offered in the Multicultural Family Support Centers and the KIIP offered by the Ministry of Justice are duplicates (Hyeon Jin Kim & E. J. Lee, 2012). This is because the main recipients of both KSL programs are damunhwa women in the same region, and the KSL curriculums of the two programs are identical (H. Cho, 2013). This has created confusion among international marriage migrant KSL learners, who question which KSL program to take (Hyeon Jin Kim & E. J. Lee, 2012) and the programs have been criticized as a waste of social and financial resources. Additionally, the KIIP is not as well known as the KSL programs that are offered in the Multicultural Family Support Centers. To enhance immigrant participation, the Ministry of Justice offered the benefit of acquiring naturalization upon completion of the program (Jinho Kim, 2012) and later integrated the program (H. Cho, 2013; YoungHee Lee, 2011) with the KSL programs provided in the Multicultural Family Support Centers.  Shifting from its emphasis on systemizing KSL programs for damunhwa mothers and children, around 2012, the government started to propose bilingual education to damunhwa families (Heewon Jung, 2013). However, there is little evidence of how the government understands L2 acquisition or socialization at the national level. In terms of theoretical views on language policy, it is unknown whether the government prefers either bilingual education as part of the school curriculum, heritage language programs after school, or community programs. This can be identified in the changing attitude presented in Ministry of Education documents. In 2006, the Ministry of Education called for “emphasizing the necessity to raise children from the  40 international marriages as a multilingually competent resource through getting natural linguistic exposure at home” (Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 18, my translation). This was also supported by several studies highlighting the importance of intergenerational language transmission in families (J. M. Hong, 2012; N. H. Jang, 2012; Kwon, 2009). Nonetheless, the discussion emphasizing L2 socialization of the damunhwa family has been extended to fostering bilingual instruction for children from both damunhwa and Korean-language-proficient families by using the damunhwa mother’s L1 (Kong & Yang, 2015). This model has been taken up by other national ministries, such as the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family and Ministry of Education, which I discuss in detail in Chapter 5.  Given the government’s massive emphasis on the development of KSL programs at the national level from 2006, the recent movement that promotes bilingualism does not seem to parallel its KSL focus, thus requiring further exploration.17 In particular, the incongruent discussion described previously leads into uncertainties surrounding multilingual policy and practice for damunhwa families. This raises the question of what kinds of bilingual frameworks are created for damunhwa families and what kinds of multilingual discourses take place under specific governmental logics. These questions lead into the first research questions: What language-in-education policies exist for damunhwa families? And in particular, what kinds of roles and identities does the South Korean government design for damunhwa families? In the following chapters, I first present key theoretical and methodological approaches to the government policy and interviews. In Chapter 5, I demonstrate that language education policies                                                 17 A handful of studies have examined damunhwa mothers’ views on their children’s bilingual development (e.g., Cha, 2015; J.-Y. Cho & J. Seo, 2013; J. M. Hong, 2012; Hyeon Jin Kim & E. J. Lee, 2012; B. D. Park, 2012). However, the findings from these studies do not fully address the relationship between government promotion of KSL and bilingual education at the national level and how this could be linked with L2 acquisition or socialization theories.  41 are designed to socialize damunhwa families in a particular way. After foregrounding the kinds of bilingual education that exist for damunhwa families through a policy analysis, in Chapters 6 to 10, I present several kinds of representational accounts that I identified in the four focal damunhwa mothers’ narratives in response to the discourses that are circulated in the government’s language policy.   42 Chapter 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 Introduction In this chapter, I present the theoretical lens that is used to understand the issue of multilingualism that has been briefly discussed as it is presented in South Korea. In particular, I highlight the situated nature of language learning and use through second/multilingual socialization and language ideology, both of which emphasize the linkage between language, culture, social practices, and identities (Duff, 1995, 2002; Duranti, Ochs, & Schieffelin, 2012; Irvine, 1989; Kroskrity, 2000, 2004; Kulick, 1997; Ochs, 1992; J. S.-Y. Park, 2008, 2009; Schiefflin & Ochs, 1986; Silverstein, 1979). I first present what second/multilingual language socialization would bring to an understanding of context-sensitive language learning and use. Then, I discuss the literature that provides an understanding of L2 socialization and recent concerns of globalization and multilingualism that depict transnational migrants’ complex and dynamic socialization. Next, I present key concerns raised by considering language ideology from a language socialization approach. Lastly, I open a discussion of the ways in which an LS methodological typology, LS-as-topic, could be a fruitful approach for examining the socialization of language ideologies that are embedded in a particular social context, damunhwa families’ language learning and use in South Korea.  3.2 Second/Multilingual Language Socialization  Rooted in anthropology, linguistics, sociology, psychology, and education (Duranti, Ochs, & Schiefflin, 2012; Garrett, 2008; Ochs & Schiefflin, 2008; Schiefflin & Ochs, 1986), LS theory takes on a holistic sociocultural approach in which the learner is perceived to be socialized into and through language (Schiefflin & Ochs, 1986), not only in the immediate and local discourse context but also in the context of historically and culturally grounded social beliefs, values, and  43 expectations. Broadly defined, LS seeks to understand the processes through which newcomers negotiate membership and competency in communication through extended participation in the language-mediated activities of target communities.  Early works on LS mainly examined the socialization processes through which young children acquired their L1. The first generation of LS researchers produced pioneering studies on children’s L1 socialization in various contexts, including the United States, Western Samoa, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands (Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1988; Schieffelin, 1985; Watson-Gegeo, 1992). By combining methods essential to anthropological studies, these research studies employed longitudinal, ethnographic approaches to examine the mundane, everyday activities involving caregivers and their children. They illustrated how in the process of engaging in everyday interactions with their caregivers (i.e., experts), children acquired the different types of language that were socially, culturally, and pragmatically appropriate for varying contexts, thereby becoming socioculturally competent members of their target community. Through empirically and ethnographically grounded explorations, these early scholars demonstrated how language learning is far more than the mere acquisition of linguistic structures, and this innovative scholarship continues to inspire LS-related studies.  Over the years, the focus of LS research has broadened from its original examination of first-language acquisition among young children to include a wider population (e.g., adolescents, adults) in bilingual and/or multilingual settings where language learners are situated in a context of two or more languages and cultures (Duff & Hornberger, 2008; Duff & May, 2017). Departing from traditional approaches that tend to emphasize individual cognitive processes in language acquisition (Duff & Hornberger, 2008; Duff, 2003, 2007, 2012; Zuengler & Cole, 2005), L2 socialization studies have highlighted that L2 learning involves nonlinear, dynamic,  44 complex, and multidirectional processes in which individuals and groups (e.g., families) socialize others “into new domains of knowledge and cultural practice” (Bayley & Schecter, 2003b, p. 2). With an expanded research scope, an array of LS studies have shed light on bi-/multilingual socialization (Bayley & Schecter, 2003a; Duff, 2003, 2007, 2012; Duff & Talmy, 2011; Duranti, Ochs, & Schieffelin, 2012; Talmy, 2008, 2013; Watson-Gegeo, 2004; Zuengler & Cole, 2005), including heritage language learning and practices (He, 2004, 2006, 2012; Lo, 2004), family language socialization (Blum-Kulka, 2008; Fogle, 2012; Guardado & Becker, 2014; Juyoung Song, 2012a), language socialization and im/migration (Baquedano-López & Mangual Figueroa, 2011; Deschambault, 2015; Gordon, 2004; Lam, 2004; Juyoung Song, 2012b), language shift and revitalization (Fillmore, 2000; Guardado, 2002; Kulick, 1997), and so forth. Viewing language and its use as socially dynamic and contingent, and therefore never neutral, mechanical, or uninterested, L2 socialization research has helped to understand the messiness and complexity that arise when individuals work simultaneously with divergent and often competing discourse practices and the identities affiliated with them. As novice L2 learners enter a new discourse community, they are not only socialized into its social and cultural practices, but also introduced to specific dispositions and identities (Duff, 2002; Talmy 2009; Wortham, 2005). The ‘messiness’ of the L2 learning process often arises because learners will not always passively enact the roles and identities assigned to them. In addition, the target community will not always welcome them into the group in the same way that a child might be welcomed into a family. What results is a conceptualization of language learning as a complex negotiation in which learners and their interlocutors make decisions about how they will choose to adopt, adapt, or resist various social practices and the way these position them. Therefore,  45 socialization trajectories are far from straightforward or easily predictable and may not even match with the explicitly stated goals of the educational institutions where learning takes place (Duff, 2002, 2003; Talmy, 2008).  In the context of globalization and facilitation of various cross-border activities, it is critical to examine sociolinguistically and culturally heterogeneous settings. Connected with globalization and transnationalism, Duff (2012) argued L2 socialization “raises new theoretical considerations and potentially a wider range of linguistic and nonlinguistic learning outcomes” (p. 567). In a similar vein, Garrett and Baquedano-López (2002) called for reconceptualizing notions of community and suggested critical consideration of which criteria might be central for conceptualizing a particular space and those in proximity to it, as learners engage in single or multiple overlapping or intersecting communities with different socializing agents and practices that are constantly moving between various multilayered times and spaces.  Rather than focusing on the practices of collective groups, recent LS and other relevant studies have paid more attention to the ways in which individuals draw on language and other semiotic resources to index and construct their multiple, multifaceted, and shifting identities (Fader, 2009; Lam, 2004; Paugh, 2005, 2012). Such scholarship has contributed to bifurcating the traditional boundaries of ethnicity, race, class, gender, region, nation-states, and so forth. With this in mind, there have been new ways of dealing with the challenges presented, such as in-between border communities and transnational development (Deschambault, 2015; Talmy, 2009; Talmy, 2010a, 2015; Wortham, 2005, 2008).  One of the notions that complements this challenge is the trajectory of socialization (Wortham, 2005, 2008). According to Wortham (2005, 2008), trajectories of socialization—a lens to understand “how connections across events emerge contingently” (Wortham, 2005 p.  46 95)—allow for understanding language socialization beyond micro interactions of everyday talk and by examining the ways in which individuals present how they are socialized to develop their multilingual identities across various time and spaces. Wortham (2005, 2008) stated that language socialization research in globalization tries to move beyond recurrent events (e.g., family dinner-table talk) and beyond the creation of culture in isolated events, by using trajectories of participation as an empirical site for examining socialization. By involving a series of events that are interdiscursively linked across time and space as an individual transitions from a novice to a more established community member, it has been supported that this type of investigation allows for an understanding of language socialization in a much broader sense (Arnaut, 2005; Collins, 2012; Lemke, 2000, 2002; Warriner, 2012). In particular, it provides a theoretical and methodological guideline for examining language socialization across one’s life span, which has been one of the key components of the LS framework but has rarely been incorporated into empirically evidenced studies (Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002). Using the trajectory of socialization (Wortham, 2005, 2008; Wortham & Reyes, 2015), it has become possible to understand the multifaceted, dynamic engagement and practices of one’s multilingual trajectory as it maneuvers across various sites, time, and spaces.  3.3 Language Ideology  Used primarily in anthropology, sociolinguistics, and other related cultural and linguistic fields, language ideology encompasses the connections between the beliefs speakers have about language and the larger social and cultural systems they are a part of, illustrating how these beliefs are mutually informed by and rooted in such systems. In so doing, language ideologies link the implicit and explicit assumptions people have about a specific language or language in general to their social experience as well as political and economic interests.   47 Though there has been much discussion aimed at defining the dimensions, meaning, and applications of language ideology (Blommaert, 2005, 2006; Gal, 1998, 2005; Irvine & Gal, 2000, 2009; Kroskrity, 2004, 2000; Schieffelin, Woolard, & Kroskrity, 1998; Silverstein, 1979), one of the most widely used definitions of language ideology is that of Silverstein (1979), who argued for the generative and situated nature of language ideology. He defined it as “sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (p. 193). This definition highlights the organization of language ideology, which mediates linguistic form and social structure, wherein human reflections on linguistic forms and their use are mutually constitutive and inform each other. Such organization not only highlights “the consideration of social forces on speakers’ beliefs and practices regarding language” (Kroskrity, 2016, p. 95), but also presents how language ideology ties to identity, esthetics, morality, epistemology, and other organisms within and across one’s society (Kulick, 1997; Schieffelin et al., 1998).  As language ideology begins to productively demonstrate the relationships between language and social structure and to associate them with particular linguistic communities and practices (Inoue, 2006; Irvine & Gal, 2000; McElhinny, 2010), this ties into the consideration of the material world, including the role of economic value and prevalence of social inequality (e.g., schooling, gender relations, religious rituals, laws, nation-states; Heath, 1983, 1989; Inoue, 2006; Irvine & Gal, 2000; McElhinny, 2010; Woolard, 1998). Furthering what Silverstein (1979) suggested, Irvine (1989) highlighted the importance of understanding the distribution of economic resources and political power in the material world of language users. Bringing attention to a more socially oriented definition of language ideology, Irvine (1989) specified language ideology as “the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships,  48 together with their loading of moral and political interests” (p. 255). According to Irvine (1989), language users experience social relations of power through their use of their group’s language and culture, and this influences the group’s social identities as well as the individuals’ ideas about the roles of the language that are used by the group.  In studies of language ideologies, many have argued that language ideology plays a crucial role in demarcating the identity of a nation-state and inevitably plays an important role in establishing a nation-state’s language policy and planning, and its process of legitimation (e.g., Milroy, 2001). Anderson (1983) explained that language is closely tied to the rise of a nation-state that adopts a homogenizing strategy for nation building. He stated that nations are imagined communities, yet through the printing press and modern media, people feel deep emotional attachments to others in their nation even when they do not know them. One implication of Anderson’s argument is that multilingualism could be viewed as a threat to national unity and social cohesion by the mainstream, where adherence to another language can be read as a lack of loyalty to the national identity (Blackledge, 2008). Often coupled with the domains of language policy and planning, studies on language ideologies have largely been interested in how those ideologies work to facilitate the creation of community, and how they legitimatize a nation-state through language standardization processes (Milroy, 2001; Wee, 2010). In this way, language is viewed as an ideological construct that is formatted through particular social processes where conceptualizations of language are historically selected, constructed, and forged; then they undergo contestation and transformation, which give rise to new definitions and meanings. These formative procedures are situated within the cultural and historical context, which in turn is associated with other ideological domains such as race, ethnicity, gender, class, and language (Kroskrity, 2004; Woolard, 1998).   49 Language ideologies are highly applicable to understanding the behaviors and practices of language users, particularly in the context of South Korea. Along with other sociolinguists, J. S.-Y. Park (2008) claimed that “Korean monolingualism is not simply a ‘fact’ borne out by sociolinguistic patterns, but an outcome of considerable ideological work that erases diversity” (p. 334). J. S.-Y. Park (2008, 2009, 2010b) also demonstrated the ways in which the English frenzy therefore is not an unconscious practice but rather a process as well as a product of considerable ideological work by various participants in South Korea, including the media and elites. J. S.-Y. Park (2008, 2009) argued that ideological constructions—known as language as necessity, the ideology of self-deprecation, and the ideology of externalization—have enabled many South Koreans (e.g., bilingual elites, comedians, TV shows) to (re)produce the need to learn English by reinforcing it as an inevitable task for all South Koreans. By demonstrating the ways in which language ideology shapes the particular behavior of language users as well as use of particular linguistic codes and forms, J. S.-Y. Park (2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2016) has echoed the importance of tracing language ideologies in South Korea as a critical topic for investigation. 3.4 Socialization Shaped by Language Ideologies Riley (2012) captured the interrelationship between language ideology and language socialization, stating that “language ideologies influence the sociocultural contexts that shape language socialization, and language ideologies are also among the many cultural values socialized through language use” (p. 493). As shared by many language ideology and language socialization scholars (Agha, 2003, 2007; Heath, 1983; Jaffe, 1999, 2008; Urciuoli, 2010), language ideology and language socialization reciprocally shape and produce each other by creating a relationship between linguistic forms and meanings that bear the political, social, moral, and aesthetic views of speakers.   50 For example, Jaffe (1999) examined language policy and socialization on the French island of Corsica, which deals with a historical diglossic relationship between the two dominant languages (Italian and French). Discussing the ways in which tensions arose as French became the dominant language over a minority language, Jaffe (1999, 2016) illustrated how different language ideologies are intricately inscribed into everyday practices of the Corsican community and how they have contributed to the development of strategies of language policy makers attempting to revitalize the Corsican language. In a similar vein, situating the sociopolitical transformation of Hungary in the late 1980s as it distanced itself from Soviet-oriented policies and authoritarianism, Duff (1995) illustrated the impact of changing language policies on an English-medium history class in a progressive Hungarian secondary school. Focusing on classroom recitation felelés, the traditional oral assessment, and the changing attitude of the classroom practice as the site of investigation, she depicted how a macro discourse (e.g., the sociocultural knowledge structure) transcended and became integral to everyday classroom practices and the school system and vice versa.  Ideologies of language learning and teaching also influence how experts use socialization routines to engage novices in social interactions that index and construct age-, gender-, ethnicity, and class-based social inequities (e.g., Heath, 1983; Howard, 2012; Ochs, 1992; Paugh, 2005). Research on language socialization, particularly L2 socialization, has paid specific attention to the ways in which expert-novice relations are constructed. Often, those who are more knowledgeable about the target language culture assist learners to become more proficient in both the linguistic forms and the values, identities, and practices associated with the language (Duff, 2012). In particular, examining how people talk about language, their views toward particular linguistic forms, and their discussion of how to use particular codes in socially and  51 culturally appropriate manners (Silverstein, 1993) helps people understand what kinds of socialization occur, how such socialization takes place, and ultimately what kinds of outcomes and identity production could occur (Bayley & Langman, 2011). Thus, understanding the relationship between language ideology and language socialization is a key aspect of understanding the linguistic attitudes and behaviors that generate and reflect the particular language socialization conduct of a language’s users.  Though some earlier LS scholars have argued that the “gold standard” (Garrett, 2004) for LS must be fully “ethnographic in design, longitudinal in perspective, and . . . demonstrate the acquisition of particular linguistic and cultural practices over time and across contexts” (Kulick and Shieffelin, 2004, p. 350), recent development in language socialization has provided a variety of methodological approaches that attempt to diversify methodological as well as theoretical understandings (Baquedano-López & Kattan, 2008a, 2008b; Bayley & Schecter, 2003a; Duff & Talmy, 2011; Talmy, 2008). These taxonomies can be implicated in the methodological development of LS studies, ranging from LS as topic, approach, method, and intervention (Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008; Duff & Talmy, 2011; Watson-Gegeo & Bronson, 2013). LS-as-method embraces an original theoretical and methodological paradigm (cf., Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986) that takes ethnographic and longitudinal approaches to designing research and endeavors to understand how micro practices are (re)producing and constituting larger societal structures and vice versa. LS-as-approach considers the experiences of participants and the social conditions in which their socialization occurs; however, this does not necessarily pursue longitudinal design. In contrast, studies that focus on LS-as-topic are neither longitudinal nor ethnographic but are often based on relatively thin data sets, perhaps interviews and a few examples without  52 intensive analysis of discourse data in a longitudinal frame (Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008; Duff & Talmy, 2011; Watson-Gegeo & Bronson, 2013). This approach has been evaluated to lack “studies that are longitudinal, genuinely ethnographic, and that are both ‘thickly’ documented and explained” (Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008, p. 48), thus requiring more perspectives and richer data sets rather than relying on a single incident. Yet, studies from an LS-as-topic approach can contribute to a wider understanding of language and culture in more complex, dynamic, multifaceted ways (Bayley & Schecter, 2003b; Kramsch, 2002), despite using a research approach that deviates from what is considered the norm (Garrett, 2004). Following Duff and Talmy’s (2011) calls for refocusing the locus of socialization, this study adopts language socialization as topic that traces the design of damunhwa families’ life trajectory presented through a series of government language policy documents. As indicated in the next chapter, I used interviews to represent how the themes of language socialization that the government envisioned have taken place by drawing on four damunhwa mothers’ interview narratives. In the following chapter, I address in detail how I used LS-as-topic as a methodological underpinning.     53 Chapter 4: METHODOLOGY 4.1 Introduction Using an LS methodological typology, LS-as-topic (Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008; Duff & Talmy, 2011), I demonstrate the representational dynamics of damunhwa families’ socialization of multilingualism in South Korea. Although LS-as-topic is not discussed as rigorously as other LS methodological approaches and is known for having relatively ‘thin’ data sets (Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008; Garrett, 2004), through careful use of constructionist orientations toward textual documents and interviews, this qualitative study highlights the ways in which LS-as-topic could be as fruitful as other longitudinal and ethnographic LS studies. To complete my study, I conducted 10 interviews with four focal damunhwa mothers who are from PRC, Japan, Vietnam, and Kyrgyzstan and their families over a 6-month period in Nabi city, located in Wooju Province, South Korea and gathered and analyzed 853 government policy documents that were published between 2006 and 2017.  For the data analysis, I first foreground South Korean government multicultural policy documents that present the multilingual trajectories envisioned by the government for damunhwa mothers: marriage, migration, childbirth and education, and home economics (Chapter 5). Contrasting the thematic findings from the policy document analysis, in the following chapters (Chapters 6–10), I discuss the four focal damunhwa mothers’ stories of their life trajectories, expressing how their multilingual socialization occurred in relation to the circulating discourses and material resources available to them in South Korea. Through these examinations, I explore how foreign women’s cultural and linguistic resources are mobilized in various social settings and how particular identities are codified, managed, promoted, and marginalized under a particular multilingual framework.   54 For this reason, I have generated two research questions:  1. What language-in-education policies exist for damunhwa families? In particular, what kinds of roles and identities does the South Korean government design for damunhwa families?  2. How do the damunhwa mothers report their multilingual socialization trajectories? Specifically, how do participants respond to the discourse circulated through the government policy in interviews? The first research question is addressed through the policy document analysis in Chapter 5, and the second question is answered based on the interview stories told by my focal participants. These are addressed from Chapters 6 to 10. In the following, I sketch the broad methodological orientations and analytic approaches that guide my dissertation (4.2), discuss the demographics of the research sites (4.3) and the research process (4.4), introduce the four focal damunhwa mothers (4.5), describes the types of data used for the dissertation (4.6), and finally provide a reflexive account of how I generated and represented the two sets of cross-linguistic data with attention to research rigor and credibility (4.7). 4.2 Methodological Understandings and Analytic Approaches For the data analysis, I conducted semantic content analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Clarke & Kitzinger, 2004), deriving from a constructionist methodological orientation (Briggs, 2002; Holstein & Gubrium, 2008; Silverstein & Urban, 1996). According to Braun and Clarke (2006), semantic themes are identified as socially produced, yet there is little commitment toward discursive or interactional analysis. Nonetheless, by incorporating a constructionist epistemology of interview and document analysis (Briggs, 2002, 2007; Drew, 2006; Lucy, 1993; Silverstein & Urban, 1996), semantic analysis allowed me to trace the content, processes, and  55 outcomes of the discourse grounded in the government’s multilingual policy written by various policy makers and interview stories that were co-generated by the participants and me.  I also incorporated critical discourse analysis (CDA), a tradition related to current debates and problems in society. According to Fairclough (2001), CDA engages in linguistic and semiotic analysis and is “concerned with theorizing and researching social processes and social change” (p. 230). In particular, CDA attempts to “discern connections between language and other elements in social life which are often unclear” (p. 230). With a commitment to understanding systems of discourses that are amenable to change and have different historical connections to globalized domains and languages (Fairclough, 2001), this description-oriented semantic analysis (Clarke & Kitzinger, 2004) is organized to demonstrate how systems of multilingual patterns are assembled and mobilized for the multilingual socialization of damunhwa families. Particularly, following A. Lin and Martin’s (2005) call for an epistemological shift “from a critical deconstruction to a critical construction paradigm” (p. 2) in language policy studies, I addressed the language-in-education policy by explaining the mechanisms and practices that are facilitated by various (language) ideologies in South Korea.  To do so, I adapted Verschueren’s (2011) pragmatic approach to analyzing discourse and ideology. He stated, “language- or discourse-based empirical ideology research is fundamentally concerned with meaning and the way in which it is generated” (p. 21). By applying this approach to the government’s multilingual policy, I understood text not only to represent certain meanings and ideologies circulating in society but also to continuously generate new understandings. This view also complements constructionist epistemology (Gubrium & Holstein, 2008; Holstein & Gubrium, 2008, 2011), which highlights “both the dynamic contours of social reality and the processes by which social reality is put together and assigned meaning”  56 (Gubrium & Holstein 2008, p. 3). This means that the world that people live in is not simply “out there” for them; they actively construct the world of everyday life.  Through a social constructionist lens (Holstein & Gubrium, 2008), I view the two interrelated social contexts that are central foci of investigation—government policy document and damunhwa mothers’ interview—as two contingently processing axes influencing each other. The relation between policy and interview could be understood as shown in Figure 4.1:  Figure 4.1 Methodological Figure  I first focused on the roles and identities that the government structures in its multilingual policy for damunhwa families. Following this analysis, I used the interviews with the four focal participants to draw a contrast to the recommendations in the government’s policy planning. Through this dual process, I detailed the representation of multilingual socialization of damunhwa families in South Korea. I also demonstrated the ways in which each participant’s story makes language socialization more complex in a variety of ways, providing new meanings and understandings in response to the government’s national language policy and implementation processes.   57 4.3 Research Site: Nabi city in Wooju Province Located in Wooju Province, Nabi city has distinctive social and demographic characteristics that embody the international marriage migration trend in semi-agricultural regions in South Korea. The international marriage migration began in agricultural areas nationwide in the 1990s and has expanded to urban and metropolitan cities (Seol et al., 2005). Even though international marriage is statistically more common in metropolitan areas such as Seoul, Incheon, and Kyunggido than in agricultural regions,18 the agricultural areas were the first regions to facilitate early international marriage migration under the government initiative called the ‘marrying off single farmers project’ (nongchon chongkak cangka ponayki) (G. Han, 2007). Therefore, these rural areas have a relatively longer history of international marriage migration. The number of international marriage migrants in Wooju Province totaled 11,856, which is 4.2% of the 281,296 marriage migrants nationwide, and 94.1% of the international marriages in Wooju Province consist of marriages between foreign women and Korean men (Y. Lee et al., 2013).19 Among the international marriage migrants in Wooju Province, the highest numbers were from Vietnam (43.9%), followed by PRC (23.4%) and the Philippines (15.5%; Y. Lee et al., 2013).  When reviewing the literature, in research reports and media broadcasts on international marriage migrants and damunhwa families, the representational images of the damunhwa families have often been negative. They are frequently portrayed as bad mothers who cannot                                                 18 In the earlier international marriage migration, it was reported that 7 out of 10 men in rural areas were married through international marriages (Seol, Lee, & Cho, 2006). Nonetheless, as international marriages have spread widely, they have expanded to men living in urban areas (Seol et al., 2005). Currently, the largest numbers of international marriage migrants residing in South Korea are from the Kyunggi province (27.6%), Seoul (18.8%), and Inchun (6.1%), which are parts of the capital of South Korea. The rest of the provinces, mostly considered rural, have 2.2–6.6% of all international marriage migrants (Korea Immigration Service, 2016).  19 The source of the data that inform the demographic of the married population is not included in the reference list due to confidentiality issues but is listed in the resource section in Appendix G.   58 speak Korean, which is detrimental to their children’s linguistic, social, and emotional development (G. Jeon et al., 2013; Haesuk Jung et al., 2016; S. K. Kim et al., 2010; Sohyun Lee, 2014) and which can cause domestic violence, divorce, and in extreme cases, even murder at the hand of their husbands (H.-S. Kim, 2014). Despite the reported struggles of foreign wives/mothers, the father- and mother-in-law are portrayed as people who hold traditional views supporting patriarchal family structure. For example, Korean husbands are brought up to believe that the male is dominant in the household and does not get involved in childrearing or other household chores, which causes conflict with their foreign wives (I. Kim, Park, & Lee, 2009). Additionally, damunhwa families are viewed as socioeconomically deprived (Yeum, 2013), and it has often been reported that the families were living in poverty even when both parents were striving to make money (G. Jeon et al., 2013; Haesuk Jung et al., 2016; S. K. Kim et al., 2010).  With the growth of the damunhwa population, Wooju Province announced that it would take an active stance toward investing in multicultural and multilingual policies and programs. According to the Korean Educational Development Institute (2009), Wooju Province’s budget for multicultural family support was approximately 4.1 billion won (equivalent to CAD $4 million) in 2008. When comparing Wooju Province’s multicultural and multilingual budget with the budgets of the other 16 provincial and metropolitan cities, Wooju Province’s expenditures rank second nationwide, and the number of programs related to multicultural/multilingual education is one of the highest in the country (Korean Educational Development Institute, 2009).  According to the key indicators for education statistics published by the Wooju Province Office of Education in 2015, only 1.6% of the student population in Wooju Province is from  59 damunhwa families.20 This indicates that the number of damunhwa students is significantly lower than that of Koreans. Nonetheless, emphasizing the growth of damunhwa students, the Wooju Province Office of Education has highlighted the necessity of providing multicultural education in the province. In the 2015 Multicultural Education Support Plan, the Wooju Province Office of Education (2015) stated “as multicultural families and their children are rapidly increasing, establishing a multicultural education support policy and carrying out this preemptive policy are urgent” (p. 1, my translation).  Figure 4.2 Growth of Damunhwa Students Per Year (Wooju Province Office of Education, 2016, p. 3)  Figure 4.2 is an extract from the 2016 multicultural education plan published by the Wooju Province Office of Education, which emphasizes the increase in multicultural students in the province. In particular, the purple bars in the background indicate the total number of multicultural students attending Grades K-12 in Wooju Province between 2010 and 2016. The overall image highlighting the significant growth in the number of damunhwa students could justify the provincial government’s urgent call for establishing multicultural education in the district. In addition, it is also important to note that similar patterns of increase have been                                                 20 There were 339,709 students in total from elementary to high school in 2015 in Wooju Province, including 5,441 students who were considered multicultural students (Wooju Province Office of Education, 2015).  0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Elementary Middle School High School  60 presented not only in the 2016 yearly Multicultural Education Support Plan policy document, but also in the 2013 (p. 2), 2014 (p. 3), and 2015 (p. 3) provincial policy documents (Wooju Province Office of Education, 2013, 2014, 2015).  Nabi city, located in Wooju Province, was selected because of its representative characteristics of demographics, size, multicultural population ratio, and industry of rural areas in South Korea. It was also selected based on my higher degree of accessibility to the research sites and participants due to my prior connections in Nabi city. Nabi is a mid-sized semi-agricultural city that has a mixture of urban and agricultural areas. About 24% of the total population in Nabi city works in the agricultural industry (3,821 people), and 70% of the population work in areas such as education, tourism business, food service, and construction. As a result of the government-led economic development plan to foster manufacturing industries (implemented in the 1960s), Nabi city, which has been traditionally concentrated on agriculture, has become known for social and economic marginalization (J. Jung et al., 2010).  The population of Nabi city constitutes approximately 200,000 people, and it has gradually decreased since 1970 (Nabi city, n.d.). In particular, the number of people below 20 years old has continuously decreased over the past decades. Furthermore, the manufacturing industry constitutes less than 3% of the total population in Nabi city (Nabi city, n.d.). Large parts of the population are concentrated in the central area, where approximately 123,000 people live. The majority of the population who live in the central area are a part of the service industry sectors associated with the city. The township areas are spatially larger than the central area, and a majority of the population is involved in agricultural industries. The population density in the townships is very thin compared to the central area, and the average age of the residents is more than 60 years old (Nabi city, n.d.).   61 4.4 Data Collection Data were collected through research interviews (Briggs, 2007; Holstein & Gubrium, 1995; Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009; Roulston, 2010) and supplemented with collection of artifacts and photos from focal damunhwa families. Four damunhwa mothers from Vietnam, Japan, PRC, and Kyrgyzstan, respectively, were interviewed as the focal ground for the analysis. From August 2012 to January 2013, I conducted a series of interviews in Nabi city at four different elementary schools and classrooms, at the Nabi Multicultural Family Support Center, at the homes of research participants, and at community gatherings. The majority of interviews were conducted in Korean, though at times, English and Japanese were used. The main topics of the interviews were the language learning and practices of the damunhwa families. This included biographical information of the research participants, topics related to the children’s English language learning and use, topics related to the children’s Korean language learning and use, and views and practices related to the children’s heritage language learning and use (Appendix B).  The process of gaining informed consent included applying to the UBC Behavioral Research Ethics Board (BREB) after first acquiring permission from the superintendent of the Nabi Office of Education and the principals at Anyoung Elementary School and Daik Elementary School. When I initiated the study, I revisited the principals from Anyoung Elementary School and Daik Elementary School to ask whether they would permit my entry to their schools. The principals introduced me to homeroom teachers as well as teachers who were in charge of the multicultural programs in their schools. Prior to conducting the interviews with teachers, I explained my research purpose, process, and possible outcomes of the dissertation. After the introduction, I met several homeroom teachers individually in their classrooms, reiterated the goal and procedures of the research, and interviewed those who agreed to  62 participate. Following this, several interview participants introduced their acquaintances who might be relevant to my research.21  In this process, I made frequent visits to four elementary schools (Anyoung Elementary School, Baro Elementary School, Chunji Elementary School, and the affiliated branch of Daik Elementary School (pseudonyms); all of which are located in vastly different landscapes with different student populations.22 I also made four visits to the Nabi City Multicultural Family Support Center, which has become known as one of the key sites for integrating the international marriage migrant women and their children (B. D. Sohn, 2014). The initial goal of the research was to capture the diversity and multiplicity that could be derived from the interview participants’ ethnolinguistic, regional, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Through snowball sampling, I interviewed a total of 54 people, including one supervisor, three multicultural program designing teachers, six English teachers, 13 homeroom teachers, 18 damunhwa mothers, two Korean fathers, nine damunhwa children, one international marriage broker, and one broadcasting writer close to Ava’s family (for more details, see Appendix C). However, I ended up focusing on 10 interviews with Bosam, Michiko, Sumi and her family members (i.e., husband and elder child),                                                 21 While interviewing, one the homeroom teachers who I interviewed told me that there were North Korean refugees who came to South Korea, got married to South Korean men, and settled down at Nabi city. Though this family is also considered as a multicultural family category in South Korea and fell into my data selection criteria, I decided to narrow the scope of the family for the purpose of dissertation.   22 The first three schools are located in the central area of the city and each of them has approximately 600 students. On the other hand, the affiliated branch of Daik Elementary School had 10 students (including kindergarteners) with 3 homeroom teachers. The location of the school was surrounded by rice paddies, dry fields, chicken coops, cow pens, and a few houses that were sporadically spread across the area. While conducting interviews, I had been teaching in the affiliated branch of Daik Elementary School for two terms, visited the school once per week, and participated in their lunch period with students and teachers. I received rides to the town from the teachers and had coffee breaks with them. Through my teaching and spending time with several participants both in their schools and homes, I became familiar with the school everyday practices.  63 and Ava and her daughter Ella, due to the salience of what they shared in the interviews; however, theirs were not the only perspectives on what the government has envisioned for damunhwa mothers.  In my interviews and interactions with damunhwa mothers and children for a number of different social occasions, many stated that they advocated monolingualism for damunhwa families. At the same time, damunhwa mothers, teachers of damunhwa children, and many Koreans also promoted damunhwa mothers’ teaching their L1 to their children. While a number of damunhwa mothers in Nabi city that I met presented their aspiration of their children becoming competent multilinguals through their teaching of their L1, I saw many instances of the damunhwa families’ everyday language use conducted in Korean. In addition, I did not see and rarely heard of these mothers using their L1 with their children on a daily basis.  Running into these seemingly contradictory statements and daily contacts with the damunhwa families in Nabi city, I found that the multilingual practices of damunhwa families needed to be further addressed. In order to make sense of these accounts, after completion of the interviews in 2013, I looked into a series of government policy documents published by various national, provincial, and municipal ministries. I was able to identify the intertextual links that shape the gendered and ethnicized double monolingualism (C. Baker 2006; Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Cummins, 2005; Heller, 1999) designed by the South Korean government. Based on a corpus of 853 documents published between 2006 and 2017, I first examined the multilingual framework generated by the South Korean government through its planning of damunhwa family language policies. Despite the temporal gap between policy document (2006-2017) and interview data (2012-2013), I treated the policy as a way to foreground how particular social roles and identities are designed and recommended by the government. Then, using the thematic findings  64 that resulted from the government policy analysis, I organized the interviews topics in the ways that are organized in the government policy and examined the accounts of four damunhwa mothers’ language socialization represented in their interviews.  4.5 Focal Participants The four focal damunhwa mothers whom I interviewed and examined closely were chosen based on their countries of origin: Japan, China, Vietnam, and Kyrgyzstan, respectively. Though not explicitly asked, the focal participants’ age ranged from the early to late 30s at the time of the interview. All the names are pseudonyms generated by the researcher. Table 4.1 provides details about the focal participants.  Table 4.1 Details of Research Participants Participants (Bolded) Children’s School Parents Children   Anyoung Elementary School (School A) Bosam Hwang  (PRC, Korean-Chinese) Minjung Kang (3rd grade, girl) Minsu Kang (1st grade, boy) Michiko Watanabe  (Japan) Jungwoo Bae (4th grade, boy)  Jungmin Bae (3rd grade, boy) Sumi Won (Vietnam) Husband of Sumi (Korean)23 Hyunmin Oh (1st grade, boy)  Hyunsoo Oh (kindergarten, boy) Baro Elementary School (School B) Ava Asanov (Kyrgyzstan) Ella Kim (2nd grade, girl) Chunji Elementary School (School C)  4.5.1 Bosam Hwang  During the first interview, Bosam said she came to South Korea via international marriage migration in 2001 and married a Korean man in Nabi city. Her eldest child, Minjung Kang, was in third grade, and Minsu Kang was in first grade at the time of the interview. They both attended Anyoung Elementary School, which is near where they live. Through a network                                                 23 When recruiting participants for interviews, I selected damunhwa mothers, their children, and teachers of the damunhwa children as the key participants. Although I was not actively pursuing Korean husbands for the interviews, Sumi’s husband volunteered to participate in my study.  65 from Anyoung Elementary School, I was able to meet Bosam in the counseling room at the school. Subsequently, I was able to visit Bosam’s home on a Sunday morning and met Minjung and Minsu to also interview them. Bosam told me that she grew up in the northwest part of PRC, and her dominant language was Korean. She said she used Korean at home, and the medium of instruction in her school, which many Korean-Chinese attended, was Korean. Yet, she said she used Mandarin in the busier parts of her town, and it was an everyday practice for her. In addition to Bosam’s L1 background, her stories illustrated the mass migration of Korean-Chinese who first marry Korean men and then bring their families to South Korea, who are now becoming one of the biggest minority groups in South Korea.24 In her interview, Bosam stated she could no longer visit PRC on a regular basis, since most of her family members and friends were residing in South Korea. She indicated that the image of Korean-Chinese was not good in either her hometown or South Korea and she tended not to overstate her bilingual and bicultural identity in South Korea. Bosam’s description of her identification of Korean-Chinese language use in PRC, the Korean-Chinese mass migration, and the negative views on Korean-Chinese from the South Korean and                                                 24 After Korea and China formed diplomatic relations in 1992, the South Korean government successively received migration entry to PRC. Under the humanitarian framework, the Korean government first allowed entry for Korean-Chinese migrating to South Korea to unite families between Korea and PRC. This was seen as an opportunity to earn money and have a better life in South Korea, known as the Korean dream (K. H. Oh, 2014). Because there was massive entry to South Korea by Korean-Chinese people, the government reformed the immigration policy to regulate the large immigration flow. In response to the regulation, Korean-Chinese women used the international marriage migration to cross the border between China and South Korea. Then, they would invite their families from PRC so that they could legally reside in South Korea for better economic and social conditions. Therefore, Korean-Chinese women who incorporate their identity as marriageable women and get married to Korean men are seen to be making a strategic migration choice (H.-K. Lee, 2005) rather than as victims of human trafficking. In so doing, international and interethnic marriage has become a new pathway for feminized (labor) migration (Soyoung Park, 2015) and creation of transnational families in South Korea (H.-K. Lee et al., 2006).  66 Han ethnic group in PRC helped me to understand how all of these dimensions could be implicated in Bosam’s transnational experiences and her direct family language use.  4.5.2 Michiko Watanabe  After interviewing Bosam, I met Michiko Watanabe, from Japan, in the Anyoung Elementary School counseling room. Following this, I met her children, Jungwoo, in Grade 4, and Jungmin, in Grade 3 (at the time of the interview), both of whom attended Anyoung Elementary School. During the interview, Michiko stated that she came from Japan in 2000 via a marriage that was initiated by the Unification Church.25 The Unification Church played a key role in creating international marriages for South Korean men in rural areas in the mid-1990s to early 2000s. During this time, a large number of Japanese women came to South Korea, and many of them resided in rural areas involved in farming (for more details, see Han & Seol, 2006; M. Kim, 2012; Jeonghui Lee, 2012).  Michiko mentioned that the image of South Koreans was not positive to the Japanese when she married (at the beginning of 2000). For example, Michiko said that she was accused by her parents of marring Chosenjin,26 a derogatory racial term for Korean in Japanese. She said she could not reveal her marriage to anyone in Japan when she got married. Additionally, Michiko                                                 25 Detailed information on the Unification Church is not fully disclosed to the public or found in the literature. What is known is that the person who established it is a Korean who appropriated Christian missions and disseminated sermons in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and elsewhere. One of their main projects is to encourage believers to form interethnic and international marriages across the world. An initiative in South Korea in 1995 led to mass marriages between South Korean men and Japanese women (H.-K. Lee, 2005). Before their marriage, most of the female believers lived in the church for a few months, receiving religious sermons and waiting to meet their husbands (Jeonghui Lee, 2012).  26 The term Chosenjin (Chosun-Dynasty-people) was created by the Japanese during the colonial period and was used to indicate Koreans. This term refers to people from the premodern period who were not educated, not modernized, and unsophisticated. This racialized term is therefore used as a way to legitimize colonization governed by a more advanced society and group of people.   67 told me about hardships she had gone through living in rural South Korea with her indifferent Korean husband. Through these stories, Michiko portrayed her life in South Korea as quite demanding, and she later discussed how her difficult transnational experiences influenced her transmission of Japanese language to her children.  4.5.3 Sumi Won Sumi Won is from Vietnam, and her husband said she came to South Korea in 2004. Sumi has two children. Hyunmin Oh was in Grade 1 and his younger brother, Hyunsoo Oh, was attending kindergarten at the time of the interview. When I visited Sumi’s house, Both Sumi and her husband were present, and they helped me to interview their children.  Sumi’s husband informed me that he chose Sumi from an expedited matchmaking process arranged between Korean men and Vietnamese women in Vietnam.27 Later in the interview (Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home), Sumi reported that her marriage was based on false information about her husband (e.g., she was told her husband was a highly skilled engineer, made a good income, and held a high position in his company). Despite the fact that the marriage brokers manufactured Sumi’s husband’s circumstances, Sumi said if she were to break her marriage, her actions would be highly scrutinized by her neighbors in Vietnam. While displaying that she had very little room to leave her marriage, Sumi told me stories of her life trajectory, integrating into South Korea as a wife and mother who tried to learn and engage in what is expected in South Korea.                                                  27 This type of international marriage was common in the 2000s, though it has been criticized for reinforcing the ideological oppression of a foreign wife on the basis of her assumed inferiority as a young, submissive, and bought woman (H. M. Kim, 2009). As these voices gained wider acceptance internationally, the South Korean government started to regulate international marriage brokerage by laws with other countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, and the Philippines.  68 In addition to interviewing Sumi’s family, I was able to meet two teachers at Baro Elementary School. Particularly, as a dedicated member of the church that Sumi’s family attends, one of the teachers informed me that she had mentored Sumi and her husband to help them become a better husband and wife, such as by teaching them how to save money and explaining the roles and expectations of a father and a mother to raise their children and have a happy family (Nov. 28, 2012, School B).  4.5.4 Ava Asnov  Ava Asnov is a university-educated woman from Kyrgyzstan who was in her late 30s at the time of the interview. During the first interview, Ava told me that in Kyrgyzstan, the Kyrgyz use both Kyrgyz and Russian, and she used Kyrgyz at home and Russian in school. Ava reported that she was educated under the former Soviet Union. She said she majored in accounting at a university in Kyrgyzstan where the medium of instruction was Russian. She also told me that she learned basic conversational English when she enrolled at a university in Kyrgyzstan. Ava told me stories about how people in the country suffered from the political, social, and economic insecurities after its independence from the former Soviet Union. In contrast, she said that the image of South Korea was more developed, richer, and socially, politically, and economically more stable than Kyrgyz.  With this image, she said she migrated to South Korea as a temporary labor worker, who travelled between Kyrgyzstan and South Korea for a number of years, and then permanently moved to South Korea through her marriage to a Korean man in Nabi city in 2010. She told me that her first husband, whom she married in Kyrgyzstan, left her, and this divorce caused economic instability, making it too difficult to maintain her family and raise her child, Ella. Due to this, Ava said she decided to migrate to South Korea in order to earn money for a short period  69 of time, which did not stabilize her social and economic conditions. Ava said she had to seek a marriage to a Korean man to secure her residency and have her daughter with her. In the course of the interview, Ava told numerous accounts of how she adjusted to being a Korean wife and mother to maintain her marriage for her daughter with her Korean husband, who was not easy to get along with. At the time of interview, Ava had been quite busy getting involved in Ella’s schoolwork, and Ella had been busy attending various school programs.  Ava said that her daughter was from her first marriage, and she came to South Korea in 2011. Ella was attending Chunji Elementary School in Grade 2 at the time of the interview. Before meeting Ava and Ella, I had obtained two booklets that were published by the Nabi Office of Education. These booklets were distributed at the multicultural education teacher training for in-service teachers, and Ava had contributed her settlement story to one of these booklets, telling teachers how she became a Korean wife in South Korea and sharing the struggles that damunhwa mothers face in Nabi city. I found that her story profoundly shed light on other accounts of damunhwa mothers. For this reason, I was able to meet Ava. I interviewed Ava twice at her home and heard Ava’s stories of settling in South Korea through her international marriage. I also met Ella when Ava was present and explained the research goals and purposes. Once I received Ella’s and Ava’s consent for interviewing Ella, I interviewed Ella once.  4.6 Types of Data and Data Analysis There are two sets of data for the current study. One is a series of policy documents and artifacts from various government ministries that foreground the politics of multilingualism with damunhwa families in South Korea. The other is a series of interview data and a few artifacts from the four focal damunhwa women and some of their children. They are thematically  70 organized in relation to the government’s designed time- and space-sensitive multilingual trajectories presented in the policy documents.   4.6.1 Government Policy Documents and Written Texts  The policy documents examined are multilayered. The choice of materials is situated in relation to government-produced texts—(1) whether national, provincial, or municipal—that were (2) publicly available between 2006 and 2017, (3) designed for damunhwa families, and (4) specifically for language policy planning and that had functions of (5) introducing the general policy, (6) identifying specific changes and modifications from the previous policy plan, and (7) informing the public of the outcomes of the policy implementation.  Most policy documents were collected directly from the central administrative ministries’ websites between 2006 and 2017, including the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs, Ministry of Education, National Institute of Korean Language, Ministry of Justice, Korea Immigration Service, National Law Information Center, Statistics Korea, and Ministry of Interior and Safety. The local levels of administrative policy documents, such as documents from the Seoul Office of Education, Wooju Provincial Office of Education, Nabi Office of Education, and Nabi City Hall, were also collected directly from their websites. The total number of documents collected between 2013 and 2017 from the government was 853.  The core list of policy documents is as follows: at the national level were the Multicultural Families Support Act, initially created and published in 2008 and modified in 2010, 2011, and 2013; the Multicultural Families Support Plan According to Their Life Stage, which was originally written by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and later handed over to the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family; the First Basic Plan for Multicultural Family Support  71 Policy (2010–2012) and the Second Basic Plan for Multicultural Family Policy (2013–2017), written by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family; and the 1st Basic Plan for Immigration Policy (2008–2012) and the 2nd Basic Plan for Immigration Policy (2013–2017), which were guided by the Ministry of Justice. I also used documents that were linked with these central documents for my analysis, such as publicly available annual plan documents, press releases, and texts from the ministry websites that described their language policy and introduced changes in their policy for damunhwa families.  There are a few follow-up policy documents that were written and distributed by local ministries. Most of them are related to curriculum planning materials and education training booklets for in-service teachers. When I was interviewing teachers, they told me that they had not seen any guidelines for multicultural and bilingual education as a part of the national or provincial curriculum. This may be because development of multicultural education was in the initial stages, and substantial provisions for the national curriculum had not been made and circulated.  4.6.1.1 Analytic Approaches and Procedures for Government Policy Documents  Silverstein and Urban (1996b) suggested that documents are not only textual data but also circulate and enactment of situated linguistic activities that are generated, legitimized, contested, and reframed by various social actors. This view also highlights intertextual and interdiscursive relations of the policy texts that are interconnected through various spatial (e.g., national, provincial, and municipal levels, homes, community, school) and temporal conditions. Appropriated from Bakhtin’s (1986) dialogic approach to voice and Kristeva’s (1986) politicization of literary production and reception, intertextuality depicts texts as fundamentally sociopolitical, emphasizing the meaning-making process as language users engage in semiotic  72 exercises that are instantiated from various social contexts (Lemke, 1992; Silverstein & Urban, 1996; Slembrouck, 2011). In other words, “structure, form, function, and meaning are seen not as immanent features of discourse but as products of an ongoing process of producing and receiving discourse” (Briggs & Bauman, 1992, p. 146).  Furthering the notion of intertextuality, interdiscursivity provides a lens to examine interpretive processes not just by referring to how discourses are linked together through circulated linguistic forms and how members of a community recognize structures, but by examining how such publicized discourses are interconnected and are extended with temporal relations (e.g., history; Silverstein, 2005). It emphasizes the “relationship of event to event [that] is projected from the position of the personnel—authorial and/or animating sender, responsible receivers, non-responsible monitors, and so on—of some particular event in respect of one or more others” (Silverstein, 2005, p. 7). In this way, interdiscursivity provides a way to connect micro and macro aspects of language, society, and power, allowing people to reflect on how an immediate and locally bounded speech event may have implications in historical contexts, ultimately connecting with questions of identity, legitimacy, and power (Bauman, 2005; J. S.-Y. Park, 2010a).  Departing from an instrumentalist treatment of text, which views “the contents of documents . . . as containing objective, factual information” (Drew, 2006, p. 79), I also considered documents to be interpretative and interactive resources (C. D. Baker, 2000; C. D. Baker & Freebody, 1987, 1989; Lepper, 2000; R. Watson, 1997, 2009). Based on a view of “documents as topics of inquiry . . . which represent the perspectives, definitions and versions of reality” (Drew, 2006, p. 65), I conducted the document analysis by focusing on how archetypal damunhwa family is built textually, viewing the category of family used as a fundamental “topic”  73 of investigation rather than a “resource” for policy implementation (Antaki & Widdicombe, 1998, p. 2). With this analytical lens, the analysis of the South Korean government language policy document demonstrates the system of social activities that were generated by the government authorities to its target population. It also represents how government orderliness allocates roles and functions to languages and their users through laws and regulation.  From the assembled government documents from national, provincial, and municipal ministries, I first identified the central document, which became the analytic focus for examining the discourse of multilingualism designed by the government. Through the examination of textual effects that were produced from the central texts, I traced the intertextual and interdiscursive links that connect one text to another as well as texts within a single document that work to represent, generate, and (re)produce themes of multilingual socialization to damunhwa families. In this process, I checked and rechecked the source of information from original publication and traced the subsequent development that was most recently published. For example, I obtained the 2012 annual Multicultural Family Support Center plan, traced its annual changes up to 2017, and double-checked the relevant information through a governmental website such as that of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. I searched the Ministry of Education and Wooju Office of Education on a yearly basis to identify whether any curriculum development plans related to damunhwa families had been published. Based on these investigations, I collate the links between the roles allocated to each damunhwa family member and discuss the kinds of expected familial identities that were envisioned by the government.  4.6.1.2 Representation of Policy Documents In the government policy documents, there are several documents that are published in both Korean and English, such as the Multicultural Families Support Act, Nationality Act,  74 First/Second Basic Plan for Immigration Policy, Framework Act on Treatment of Foreigners Residing in the Republic of Korea, and the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act. On the other hand, there are a number of documents that are circulated in South Korea that are solely written in Korean, including the Support Plans for Multicultural Families according to their Life Stage (Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs, 2008a).  Focusing on the scope, action, and processes that generate particular roles and identities for damunhwa family members, I traced various types of familial actions and roles of damunhwa family members that the government texts represent in Korean and English. While I used Korean texts as the default for the analysis, when there were English translated texts that were available from the original source, I used them to represent the findings, while checking whether there were any gaps in the translations and meaning between Korean and English. When there were documents that were exclusively written in Korean, I provided my own English translation and acknowledge that it is translated by me. I often did not provide the original text in Korean as I did for the interviews, because it is available in the public domain (e.g., websites). When representing my translated English text, I attempted to double-check its meaning with those who use English as a first language in order to identify whether the meanings written in the Korean and English translations were understandable to readers who did not understand Korean.  4.6.2 Interviews I met Bosam, Michiko, Sumi, Ava, and their children once or twice for interviews that ran between 30 minutes and 3 hours. In total, 10 audiotaped interviews were conducted between 2012 August and 2013 January at the participants’ homes or empty classrooms at their children’s school. I first met Bosam in an empty classroom at the Anyoung Elementary School which both of her children attended. Follow by the first interview, I visited Bosam’s house and interviewed  75 her and her children. I met Michiko in the same classroom where I met Bosam and interviewed her. I met Sumi and her family (i.e., her husband and two children) at her house. I met Ava twice in her house and interviewed her there. At the end of second interview with Ava, I met Ella and interviewed her separately once in her house. Based on the shift in the research purpose, I organized the four damunhwa mothers’ narratives to raise topics of how their language socialization corresponds with what the government has envisioned for them.  4.6.2.1 Interview as Social Practice: Interactional and Representational Perspectives The active interview (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004) is derived from a social constructionist tradition that focuses on intersubjectivity and the joint construction of reality (P. Atkinson & Silverman, 1997; Briggs, 1986; Denzin, 2001). Theorizing the research interview as collaboratively constructed, it argues that “language is not seen [simply] as a transparent channel or conduit to reality . . . [that is used] for transmitting knowledge, attitudes, opinions, etc.” (Sarangi, 2003, p. 66). In other words, interviewees not only construct narratives that are articulated in context-specific accounts in a responsive manner, but they also (re)create social worlds (P. Atkinson & Silverman, 1997; Briggs, 1986). Sarangi (2003) explained that “interviewees may be inclined to repackage their lived experiences so as to make them credible to the interviewer who is the co-present addressee and audience” (Sarangi, 2003, p. 67). Acknowledgement of the co-generated nature of the stories in interviews implies an understanding of stories as a way of not only showing the participants’ understanding of social realities but also generating social reality (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008; De Fina, 2009, 2011; De Fina & Perrino, 2011; Georgakopoulou, 2006a, 2006b; Goodwin, 2000; Wortham, Mortimer, Lee, Allard, & White, 2011).   76 For the analysis, I was mainly concerned with the context of reference (Clarke & Kitzinger, 2004), meaning that the central focus of the analysis would be on what the interviewees told me about their L2 learning experiences and family language use. In this way, I demonstrate how the interviewees constructed their sense of who they are and what they do through discursive resources at a certain time and in a certain social context. In particular, inspired by trajectories of socialization (Wortham, 2005, 2008) and time- and space-sensitive approaches to language use (Blommaert, 2007a; Blommaert, Collins, Slembrouck, 2005; Carr & Lempert, 2016; Hult, 2010; Lemke, 2000, 2002; Marston, 2000; J. S.-Y. Park, 2014; J. S.-Y. Park & Lo, 2012; Uitermark, 2002; Wallerstein, 1998; Werbner, 2002), I organized LS themes that centered on what the four damunhwa mothers said. 4.6.2.2 Transcribing and Translating Korean Verbal Interview Data into English  Ochs (1979), Esin, Fathi, Squire, and Flick (2013) and many others (e.g., Bolden, 2015) have argued that researchers play active roles and are not limited to their knowledge of languages but their view of the spoken context of the languages. Often, how researchers translate interactional settings and transform text is ideologically motivated (Esin et al., 2013; Ochs, 1979), reflecting as well as constructing the underlying epistemological views of the researchers. Due to this, it is argued that the discursive process of entextualization of cross-linguistic data needs to be articulated.  There are a number of ways to represent Korean data and translate it into English. This requires multiple entextualization, a process that extracts discourse from its interactional setting and transforms it into recordable text (Bauman & Briggs, 1990; Briggs & Bauman, 1992; Silverstein & Urban, 1996). The common argument on the bilingual transcription and treatment of the data is “actual analysis on any translated data should be always done on the original”  77 (Nikander, 2008, p. 229). However, transcription varies based on the kinds of underlying ideological assumptions and perspectives (Green, Franquiz, & Dixon, 1997; Kuo & Nakamura, 2005) of the researchers and transcribers. Given this consideration, the translation of the data cannot be merely limited to reproduction of the text but is a transformative process. As I shifted the research focus, combining policy and interview analysis, I recontextualized the cross-linguistic interviews and changed the method of data representation from a more full-fledged interactional transcription to a single, word-for-word quote. I first transcribed the recorded interviews, which were conducted in Korean, into Hangeul. Once the focal stories for the analysis were identified, I made detailed transcripts (For transcription conventions, see Appendix D). I carried out at least four crosschecks between the recorded verbal data and each transcription. Similar to the procedure I conducted with the Korean documents, I made English translations from the written Korean transcripts that I extracted for the data analysis. Then, I discussed and verified my English translation with others who use English as a first language in order to identify whether the meanings written in the Korean and English translations were close enough to each other. As I modified the research focus that combines policy and interview analysis, I have simplified the transcription to the extent the themes of the Korean script were (1) close enough to what I heard and (2) detailed enough to meet the goal of my research, which focused on the content of the interviews.  4.6.2.3 Representing Korean Verbal Data in Texts: Issues in Romanization For the interview data representation, I provide English translations and Korean transcripts (Hangeul) to represent my cross-linguistic data. Instead of Yale romanization, which is designed to reflect one-to-one correspondence with Hangeul spelling and was highly popularized by Korean linguists (H.-M. Sohn, 1982), for practical reasons as well as ideological  78 intent, I decided to not use romanization and attempt to use the Korean system as much as possible.  Including other romanization systems,28 Yale romanization was developed during WWII by Samuel E. Martin with his colleagues at Yale University to aid American soldiers (S. E. Martin, 1992). It was originally developed to enable people to read Korean script phonetically, which is helpful to those who do not have any knowledge of Hangeul and allows North American and European readers to have access to Korean (Schroepfer, 2000). During the U.S. military government (1945–1948), the government’s official documents were supposed to be written in both English and Korean (Seokjun Kim, 1996), and this indicates that the historical development of Yale romanization was meant to aid in the colonial and militant invasion of the country. Later, it was widely used by linguists to change the Korean written script, Hangeul, into a Latin script. Although the use of romanization could raise ideological and political controversy by many Korean scholars, there has been little discussion as to why and when romanization is needed (except for Schroepfer, 2000), but it is unproblematically used by the Korean linguists and the public.29  Critically raising issues why to use Hangeul over romanization, I would like to highlight that the main writer and reader in this dissertation process is me, a person who has familiarity with Korean writing script and analyzed the data along with the language and culture that were                                                 28 Other than Yale romanization, there are Revised romanization of Korean (RR) and the McCune-Reischauer method. These two emphasize the pronunciation of an entire word when accounting for the pronunciation of each morphophonemic element that cannot be retrieved. For this reason, Yale romanization is widely used in linguistics whereas other romanization rules are used in public and literary usage. 29 Recently, there have been heated discussions among Korean linguists debating which romanized system (for example, revised romanization of Korean, McCune-Reischauer, Yale) is a better representation of Korean script and which can better serve people who do not read Korean (J.-m. Kim, 2001; K.-M. Oh, 2007; Hongshik Yi, 2011). However, to date, it has not developed into critical and reflexive discussion as to why and when romanization is needed.   79 embedded in the data. When using romanization, I have found it challenging to capture meanings and particular linguistic registers that Korean as second language users employ and particular dialects that may be unique to the people in Nabi city, including myself, in the interviews. Through presenting both English translation and Hangeul, it elevates the comprehensibility of what was told in interviews to both Korean and English readers. In addition, representing different Korean verbal linguistic repertoires in Hangeul would contribute understanding not only to myself but also to other Korean readers that diverse forms of Korean are present in engagement with various Korean language users. I found representing in Hangeul is unique in this sense in that it heightens the acknowledgement of the multiplicity of Korean forms and use of which questions the superiority of the standard Korean (i.e., Seoul dialect) and idealized Korean native speakers that influences language practices of damunhwa families. I elaborate on this concern particularly in Chapter 5 and 7.  4.6.3 Photos and Artifacts During my interview collection period, I took pictures of various sites, including the general landscape of Nabi city, the surrounding neighborhoods that my participants lived in, the four elementary schools that my focal participants’ children attended, the Nabi city Multicultural Families Support Centre, and the participants’ texts (with their permission). Most public signs that are displayed in central areas of Nabi city are written in Korean, English loan words, or some English. When visiting the participants’ homes, I gathered texts from the mothers and the children when it was permitted. Corresponding to the constructionist orientation toward the interviews and documents, I conceived of artifact collection as being “color[ed in] the ways [as I] go about observing and note taking” (Richard, 2003, p. 115). In other words, my observation and  80 artifact collection speaks from the researcher’s lens rather than revealing the true reality of what has been collected and observed (W. Kim & Deschambault, 2014; R. J.-P. Lin, 2017).  4.7 Research Rigor, Reflexivity, and Researcher’s Positionality A number of theories that constitute a constructionist orientation to methodology informed the reflexive procedure of designing, conducting, entextualizing, analyzing, and recontextualizing various cross-linguistic data in this study (Briggs, 1986, 2002, 2007; Bucholtz, 2000, 2007; Esin, Fathi, Squire, and Flick, 2013; Holstein & Gubrium, 2004; Ochs, 1979; Vigouroux, 2009). For example, the notion of the interview as a social practice (Talmy, 2010a, 2010b, 2011) opened my mind to understanding the dynamic nature of the interview configuration where data was generated. The acknowledgement of the researcher’s co-presence in the interview leads to the claim that “the researcher is always-already potentially, and hence fundamentally, a co-participant in the context and hence in data generation” (Deschambault, 2015, p. 66, see also W. Kim & Deschambault, 2014). This calls for a reflexive shift of focus from the term ‘research participant’ to “‘study-participants-in-context’ as well as researcher as the co-participant” (Deschambault, 2015, p. 66).  Acknowledging the presence of the researcher throughout the research process (e.g., the data production, analysis, and research reporting stages) allowed me to understand that research conduct is never a neutral or unmotivated process but is shaped through considerable ideological work done by the researcher. In terms of interview production, for example, Briggs (2002) argued,  The power of researchers thus lies not only in their control over what takes place in the interview itself but particularly in their ability to use that setting as a site that is geared toward creating a broad field for the circulation of discourse. (p. 916)  81 Briggs (2002) continued, “this discursive mediation [of extextualization and recontextualization] should not be viewed as a source of contamination but rather as a crucial source of insights” (p. 912) both for data generation as well as the social worlds that I aim to document.  Acknowledging multiple layers of data generation as sites of negotiation, authority, and authenticities (Vigouroux, 2009), I intended to be as transparent and as reflexive as possible in the course of understanding how my subjectivity, research goals, and purposes were coordinated with my epistemological understanding of social constructionism (e.g., Holstein & Gubrium, 2004; Talmy, 2010a). Taking transparency as well as reflexivity to maintain research rigor, I detailed the production of research claims made through textual documents and artifacts that were not only circulated in South Korea but also collected under my research motivation. I also explained the process of the interview entextualization and recontextualization that was spoken between the four focal participants and myself in Korean and discussed how it was reshaped based on the research goals. Finally, I articulated the affordances and limitations that may have driven the choices made through the data generation, analysis, and representation processes. By doing so, I have made claims sufficiently demonstrable as well as traceable in reference to the data that I collected. By articulating my decision-making processes and reflexively discussing my research intentions and the process of data representation, this dissertation will become not a complete representation of what all damunhwa families encounter but one version of various stories presented in South Korea. With open transparency about both the presence of the researcher and how I came to produce and report the findings—to the extent that could ethically and practically produce a readable text with the given space constraints and genre conventions that I am subscribed into—I intend to articulate the generative process throughout the designing,  82 conducting, analyzing, and reporting stages. This, in return, could augment the reflexivity of data generation and its findings, move forward toward a higher degree of transparency, and elevate the credibility and applicability of my study (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004; Talmy, 2010a).   83 Chapter 5: REPRESENTATION OF THE MULTILINGUAL SOCIALIZATION TRAJECTORY DESIGNED BY THE SOUTH KOREAN GOVERNMENT  5.1 Introduction  In this chapter, I answer the first research question proposed for this study: What language-in-education policies exist for damunhwa families? In particular, what kinds of roles and identities does the South Korean government design for damunhwa families? Based on the multicultural framework, known as ‘the Multicultural Families Support Plans According to Their Life Stages,’ that was created to support multicultural families in South Korea, I discuss types of language education that adhere to each life stage designed for the damunhwa family. To understand how the government envisions the private life of damunhwa families, I first locate the kinds of practices that are carried out by various government ministries within the multicultural framework largely based on the four life stages. I then group the government activities that specify particular roles and identities of each damunhwa family member (e.g., mother, father, children, parents-in-law). Through this examination, I trace how the discourse of multilingualism is designed in the various ministries and how it is recommended to damunhwa families.  5.2 Multicultural Families Support Plans According to Their Life Stages One of the central documents that are used to establish the policies for multicultural family support is the Multicultural Families Support Plans According to Their Life Stages. As explained in Chapter 2, this policy was originally published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2008 in response to the government’s recognizing  [T]he lack of policy for all members within multicultural families, such as spouses and children of the family . . . and need to establish secure familial and social structure as well as rearing global human resources that could be seen as establishing aggressive  84 future developmental strategy (Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs, 2008a, p. 1, my translation). Since multicultural-family-related tasks were transferred to the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, the overall framework of the Multicultural Families Support Plans According to Their Life Stages has been relocated and become one of the baselines for subsequent policy planning. Modifying it from the earlier framework, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family developed five life stages: (1) the international marriage preparation period before entry to South Korea, (2) the family relation formation period during the early immigration, (3) the child custody and settlement period, (4) the capacity-building period, and finally (5) the enhancing cultural competency period. Specifying the language education in the policy, I merge the last stage and address it in the fourth stage. (For more information about the policy, see Appendix E) This is because the Stage 5 (Enhancing Cultural Competency Period) can be discussed with Stage 4 (damunhwa mothers’ capacity-building period) as it is a part of the activities that are mentioned in Stage 4. The life stages discussed in this dissertation trace the four stages as outlined in Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1 Imagined Life Trajectories for Damunhwa Mothers  In particular, the division of life stages and the government’s act of familial life intervention could be understood as an example of Foucault’s (1990, 1991, 2008) biopower, a form of power that “exerts a[n] . . . influence on life, that endeavors to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations” (1990, p. 137). In Stage 1 International Marriage Preparation Period  Stage 2 Family Formation Period  Stage 3 Child Rearing and Settlement Period  Stage 4 Capacity-Building Period  85 the following, I present types of bilingual education that adhere to each life stage, addressing specific themes and roles that refer to particular characteristics and recipients of KSL and bilingual education.  5.2.1 Stage 1: International Marriage Preparation Period  In Stage 1, there are four issues identified that constitute transitional bilingualism, requiring the damunhwa wives to learn Korean: First, language is viewed as a problem that promotes subtractive and transitional bilingual education. Second, sink-or-swim bilingual education provides little support for those who come to South Korea through international marriage. Third, KSL is generic and context-free, assuming that decontextualized second language learning will apply to all contexts. And finally, damunhwa wives are asked to learn Korean language and culture but their Korean husbands are not asked to learn about them, which ultimately promotes Korean monolingual practice in damunhwa families.  5.2.1.1 Viewing Damunhwa Wives from a Language-As-Problem Perspective  Prior to entering South Korea for family unification, a candidate for international marriage needs to demonstrate basic knowledge of Korean language and culture. In February 2014, the minister of the Ministry of Justice announced modification of the Enforcement Decree of the Immigration Control Act (2014), which affects newly arriving international marriage migrants’ entry to South Korea. The Ministry of Justice (2014) stated, “couples who cannot communicate with each other marrying in a very short time period of time (4-5 days) is an abnormal cultural practice” (p. 3, my translation). Under the new policy, the Korea Immigration Service examined whether international marriage migrants and Korean spouses were able to have basic communication with each other when a visa was being issued. It was examined whether the foreign wives had obtained the beginning-level Korean language proficiency test (Test of  86 Proficiency in Korean, TOPIK) or taken 120-150 hours of an elementary-level Korean language course conducted by an educational institution approved by the Ministry of Justice (Ministry of Justice, 2014).  From a critical language testing perspective (Shohamy, 2001, 2006, 2013), the Ministry of Justice’s requirement that international marriage migrants submit their TOPIK result or other means of proving their Korean language proficiency could be viewed as “mechanisms of wider ideologies that restrict entrance for migrants and influence particular learner behaviors toward a dominant language” (McNamara, Khan & Frost, 2014, p. 11). In fact, when the international marriage migrants did not meet the requirement, Korea Immigration Service denied them entry even when they were legally married to Koreans (N. Yoon, 2014; S. Han, 2015). Therefore, the modification in language policy for immigrants through language testing played a gatekeeping role and resulted in changes in behavior toward immigrants (Piller, 2001). Migrants are only exempt from the Korean language requirement when “(1) the married immigrant has a university degree in Korean, (2) is an overseas Korean, (3) has been living in Korea for more than one year, or (4) has already had children during their marriage”30 (Ministry of Justice, 2014, pp. 1-2, my translation), highlighting Korean-ness in the immigration criteria. The ministry stated, “all of [these criteria] ascertain the possibility for couples to communicate in Korean” (Ministry of Justice, 2014, pp. 1-2, my translation). The language requirement and exemption measure stated above, therefore, highlight the importance of Korean language acquisition over other languages, closing the possibility for couples to communicate in a language other than Korean, which in Shohamy’s (2013) terms, “deliver[s] messages of superiority and priority of the national                                                 30 The Ministry of Justice (2014) also allows exemption to those able to communicate in a foreign language with each other other than Korean language.  87 language and cultures . . . along with negation of any other languages and cultures which the immigrants bring with them from their home countries” (p. 230).  Korean Language Learning Will Solve All the Problems  The linguistic proficiency of TOPIK basic level 1, which is a prerequisite for entry to South Korea, is defined as  able to carry out basic conversation related to daily surviv[al] skills such as self-introduction, purchasing, [and] ordering food, etc., and understand the contents related to very personal and familiar subjects such as himself/herself, family, hobby, weather and the like. [The person also] able to create simple sentences based on about 800 basic vocabulary [words] and possess understanding of basic grammar. [The person] able to understand and compose simple and useful sentences related to everyday life (National Institute for International Education (NIIED), n.d., par. 6, translation original, see Appendix H for Korean original).   Through raising the requirement for learning Korean language before foreign women’s entry to South Korea, the Ministry of Justice stated that it was “expecting to normalize the social problems . . . such as domestic violence, burdens for providing KSL programs, and foreigners conducting fake international marriages to enter South Korea” (Ministry of Justice, 2014, p. 4, my translation). The following assumptions underlie this statement: International marriage migrants who do not have basic communication skills can become victims of domestic violence in the family, create a burden for Korean society to educate them, and are sometimes involved in false marriages. Therefore, the government expected that obligating basic communication skills for foreign spouses would ease the communication challenges between couples and solve social, economic, and legal problems relating to international marriages.   88 However, it is questionable whether the acquisition of basic Korean fully covers the miscommunication problems in these families since only the development of a limited Korean linguistic repertoire is required. Second, the government’s rationale for ‘reducing the burden’ means cutting down on Korean society’s economic burden through putting pressure on individuals prior to their entry to South Korea without any societal support. In addition, with little explanation, the government drew a connection between acquisition of basic Korean language skills and familial and societal problems, assuming that L2 acquisition would solve all the stated problems. This view represents L2 learning and use as generic and context-free, suggesting that it can unproblematically be applicable to all social circumstances. This justification also indicates that domestic violence and fake marriages are caused by foreign spouses’ linguistic problems, erasing systematic issues that are caused by others (e.g., international marriage brokers) and defining misarranged marriages as an individually oriented problem.  Sink-or-Swim Bilingual Circumstance  While the importance of TOPIK for international marriage migrants was raised, the South Korean government’s KSL system showed limited infrastructure, indicating a sink-or-swim condition. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (n.d.-a, n.d.-b) announced that by 2016, it would establish six KSL centers in four different countries—Vietnam, Mongolia, the Philippines, and Cambodia—and provide Korean language and culture education to foreign wives who were planning to move to South Korea “to assist earlier adaptation to Korean life” (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, n.d.-c, par. 9, original). Nonetheless, given the fact that there are international marriage migrants from 193 countries in international marriages, there is not enough infrastructure to assist newcomers.  89 In addition, a public agency called the King Sejong Institute Foundation was established in 2012, and the Ministry of Justice (2014) encouraged international marriage migrants to take KSL classes there prior to their entry to South Korea. The foundation is designed for spreading Korean as a second/foreign language to other countries in the world, and it has established 89 KSL schools in 23 Asian countries (King Sejong Institute Foundation, n.d.). This means that there are four on-site institutions per country. Not only is this a low number of KSL programs, but it is reported that most of them are in the center of big cities, making it difficult for international marriage migrant candidates living in rural areas to attend the schools on a regular basis to study Korean (S. Han, 2015).  Asking Damunhwa Wives to Learn Korean but Not Korean Husbands to Learn about their Wives’ L1 Given that 84-88% of international marriage migration in 2000-2015 was between foreign women marrying Korean men, the language requirement is directly placed on foreign women rather than their Korean spouses. Compared to the Korean language requirement that foreign wives need to demonstrate, there is little indication that the government encourages Korean husbands to learn the first language and culture of their wives. The Ministry of Justice (2014) announced that prior to a Korean husband’s marriage invitation for his foreign wife, the Korean spouse is required to take a 3-hour training to learn about his wife’s cultural differences. Upon completing this training, the Korean husband can send a marriage invitation to his prospective wife. Other than this, there is no further requirement for Korean husbands to demonstrate understanding of their partners’ language or culture. In addition to the limited trainings and requirements, it is questionable whether (1) the training would sufficiently resolve miscommunication between the couple and (2) a Korean husband would be fully informed about  90 his wife’s cultural and linguistic background. This unequal requirement facilitates a power differential between Korean husbands and their foreign wives because the majority of foreign wives needed to adapt to the new regulations for their entry to South Korea whereas their Korean husbands did not need to change. These different requirements, furthermore, could have the effect of inscribing Korean as the basic medium of communication in the family, ultimately reinforcing Korean-only practice as well as gendered linguistic nationalism, which I discuss in the following section.  5.2.2 Stage 2: Family Formation Period In Stage 2 (the period of family relation formation during the early immigration), there are two main characteristics of transitional KSL for damunhwa wives. Departing from the sink-or-swim bilingual structure, at this stage, national-level ministries developed various bilingual programs for the newly arrived damunhwa wives’ early adaptation to South Korea. The characteristics of these KSL programs involve a benevolent approach based on a nationalistic discourse and gendered linguistic nationalism that erases the linguistic and cultural diversity of damunhwa wives. Instead, various KSL programs that are designed by the national ministries recommend that foreign women become Korean wives, mothers, and daughters-in-law through learning Korean. In the following, I present a description of the bilingual programs designed for damunhwa wives who are in Stage 2.  5.2.2.1 Benevolent KSL Programs for Damunhwa Wives  Subsequent to the Multicultural Families Support Act published in 2008, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2010a) designed KSL programs at the Multicultural Family Support Centers that include on-site collective education and one-on-one home-visit programs. Through these programs, the registered damunhwa wives can take Korean language classes with  91 a Korean language teacher twice a week for two hours. The goal of KSL programs offered through the Multicultural Family Support Centers is detailed in the 2014 guidelines for the multicultural families support project (See Figure 5.2).  Figure 5.2 Screenshot of the Goals of KSL Education (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2014a)  1. Overview of Korean language education I. Purpose of the business  Through learning Korean language and Korean culture, [KSL education] aims for the international marriage migrants and damunhwa children31 to adapt to everyday lives of South Koreans and have smooth communication with members of South Korean society. (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2014a, p. 129, my translation).  This quote presents Korean language and culture as the integral tool that mediates between members of South Korean society and damunhwa wives and children. In other words, learning Korean language and culture is both the means and the ends for damunhwa wives to become legitimate members of South Korean society.  As mentioned in Chapter 2, the Ministry of Justice has also provided social integration education called the Korean Immigrant Integration Program (KIIP) since 2009. One of the main goals of the program is “supporting immigrants to learn our language and our culture as quickly as possible. [T]hrough easing the communication with [Korean] citizens, [we expect the                                                 31 The children referred to here are a subgroup of damunhwa children. It has been documented that there are some damunhwa wives who have married before and had children in their first marriages in their home country. In their second marriage with Korean men, these damunhwa wives bring their children to South Korea. Since 2014, the South Korean government has acknowledged this group of damunhwa children and decided to provide KSL programs via Multicultural Family Support Centers as specified above (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2014a).   92 immigrants] to be easily integrated into local community” (Ministry of Justice, n.d., par 2, italics added, my translation, see Appendix H for Korean original). Similar to the KSL programs that Multicultural Family Support Centers provide, the assumption underlying this message is that all people in South Korea use Korean as the medium of communication, and gaining “basic literacy” becomes an indicator as well as a means for “becoming independent members of our society” (Ministry of Justice, 2016, p. 1, my translation), which may echo the collective national identity of Koreans and emphasize the importance of Korean language socialization to immigrants.32  The National Institute of Korean Language, nested in the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, develops KSL textbooks for damunhwa wives, which the Multicultural Family Support Centers all across the country use to teach them. Therefore, examination of the KSL textbook contents is important for understanding the kinds of language ideologies that are designed to facilitate particular behaviors and roles among damunhwa wives.33  Our Wives, Our Mothers, and Our Daughters-in-Law  The following quote is a part of the introduction from a textbook written by the president of the National Institute of Korean Language (NIKL):  . . . 7D4PZE5gP)TFQP<.cQK!4X*<>e.	 LP2P+QP<.<P(4@&.P9D',#WM	 Q:dbGS8.	                                                 32 KIIP has four levels of KSL program, consisting of 415 hours of KSL and Korean culture and a 50-hour Korean society comprehension course. Upon completion of the program, the Ministry of Justice provides benefits such as expediting the citizenship application procedure. 33 Son (2012) discussed that the textbooks present essentialized views toward foreign wives and covertly normalize an unequal power relation between them and Koreans. For example, foreign individuals are portrayed as (1) coming from less-developed countries, (2) having less professional and successful roles in South Korea, and (3) being culturally less competent and independent than their Korean interlocutors. On the other hand, Koreans are depicted as more competent and knowledgeable members of the Korean cultural and social system, while possessing more significant and powerful roles in the local communities. Elaborating Son’s (2012) claims, I discuss how KSL for damunhwa wives is tied with linguistic nationalism in this textbook series.    93 . . . [t]he international marriage migrant women should not be treated as foreigners but as Koreans. They are no longer strangers, but we need to recognize that they are our wives, mothers, and daughters-in-law at the same time (National Institute of Korean Language, 2009, p. i, my translation).  This quote is included in all four textbooks in the series that is used to teach damunhwa women Korean. The introduction of the textbooks states that foreign wives are no longer seen as foreigners, but as Koreans. The types of Koreans that the text indicates are wives, mothers, and daughters-in-law, indexing particular gender identities associated with the patriarchally arranged family unit. These gender categories also mark the target learners: foreign women who are married to Korean men, but not foreign men who are married to Korean women.  In addition to the focus on female identities, the usage of plural pronouns (i.e., we, our) needs further attention. The plural pronouns imply that the damunhwa women are not included in the family unit but are ‘ours,’ signifying the collective identity of Koreans. This indicates the locality of the foreign women in South Korea who will become the mothers, wives, and daughters-in-law of all Koreans. The goal of the KSL textbook, therefore, is to persuade two groups of people to take collective action: (1) It encourages Koreans to teach Korean to foreign women so that they will become our wives, mothers, and daughters-in-law, and (2) it recommends that foreign women become a part of our Korean family through learning Korean. Emphasizing collective action to both Koreans and foreign women, the KSL programs that are taught through the textbook could be characterized as benevolent and nationalistic.  Furthermore, given the fact that the three national ministries are eagerly providing various KSL programs for damunhwa wives’ adaptation to South Korea, it is quite odd that there is no training offered for Korean husbands to learn how to adequately support their wives’  94 learning Korean. Although the husband is likely to be a major available resource for his wife who is learning Korean, there is no expectation presented that they will offer support. Rather, it is other Koreans outside of the family who will socialize the damunhwa wives to South Korea.  5.2.2.2 Gendered Linguistic Nationalism in KSL Textbooks for Damunhwa Wives  By highlighting gendered identities, such as wives of Koreans, mothers of Koreans, and daughters-in-law of Koreans, the KSL textbook amplifies the development of patriarchally ordered Korean linguistic nationalism. Due to the scope of the dissertation, I do not attempt to provide a full-fledged analysis of the textbook but demonstrate a couple of representative summaries and examples that the National Institute of Korean Language has published and that Multicultural Family Support Centers use.  Damunhwa Wives as Accommodating Korean Family Members More than a half of the content in the very first Korean textbooks to which many newly arrived damunhwa wives are exposed suggests images of damunhwa wives performing household chores such as cooking, shopping, and managing the home economics and daily routine (For a comprehensive list of textbook lessons, see Appendix F). Examples of housewife-related lessons include “How much is [this] cabbage?” (Lesson 8, Level 1), “I want to buy a red sweater” (Lesson 18, Level 1), “I want to book tickets to Jeju Island” (Lesson 4, Level 2), and “please fill out the application to open a bank account” (Lesson 6, Level 2). In addition to the emphasis on housewife-related activities, other commonly appearing content includes damunhwa wives accommodating other Korean family members, including the husband, children, and mother-in-law. Examples include “it’s [my] husband’s birthday” (Lesson 6, Level 1), “I’m going to go [to my children’s] school sports day this weekend” (Lesson 11, Level 1), and “children are more likely to love the sea than mountains” (Lesson 5, Level 2), highlighting the interpersonal  95 communication of a wife and mother speaking about how she accommodates her husband and children to a Korean language user.  Lesson 20, titled “try some fruit and watch [TV],” presents a dialogue between a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law. The visual representation (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006) of lesson 20 (Figure 5.3)34 presents the mother-in-law in the center of the image sitting comfortably on the sofa while the daughter-in-law is in the margin bending over her and serving her fruit. This could exemplify the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law relations that are to be learned by KSL learners, presenting the mother-in-law as the more powerful figure who receives services and the daughter-in-law as the service provider on the margin of the family.  Figure 5.3 Screenshot of Lesson 20, Textbook 1: Try some fruit and watch [TV] (NIKL, 2009, p. 153)  Similar to Figure 5.3, through presenting how damunhwa wives take care of their family members by working as a housewife, wife, mother, and daughter-in-law, the KSL textbook becomes a site where the damunhwa wives are recommended to emulate the role of a traditional Korean mother and wife, who will sacrifice her voice but become a supplier of labor in her family.                                                   34 The material is used with the permission of the NIKL (for more details, see NIKL, n.d.-b).   96 Exclusive Use of Korean in South Korea It is important to note that all the exemplary conversation exchanges in the textbooks are made exclusively in Korean. The growing ethnolinguistic diversity in South Korea—such as damunhwa wives using their L1 with each other, temporary migrant workers and short-term English teachers talking to damunhwa wives either in their L1 or English with each other, and husbands and wives using various linguistic resources with each other—is never acknowledged in the textbook. Elimination of linguistic diversity and frequent presentation of damunhwa wives’ exclusive use of Korean to all interlocutors—whether Korean or non-Korean—are not questioned. Instead, through the exclusive use of Korean by husbands, children, other damunhwa wives, teachers, retailers, doctors, people on the street, and anonymous others, the characters in the textbook lessons produce idealized monolingual conditions where Korean becomes the only medium of communication for damunhwa wives in both their families and their communities.  Peaceful State of Women in South Korea There are few other topics related to gender in the textbooks other than being a wife and mother. For example, Lesson 15 in the Level 2 textbook, “the blue dress is really pretty!” is a conversation between two damunhwa wives and one Korean wife. A damunhwa wife wears a blue dress, others compliment her appearance, and she brags about how her husband bought the dress for their wedding anniversary. Through presenting appearance-related language use outside the home, the lesson suggests an image of a damunhwa woman who will take care of her outfits and have a comfortable life when she completes the work of being a mother and wife in her family.  By presenting the economic source (i.e., the husband) that allows a damunhwa wife to dress up, this scene also implies that a woman is under economically stable conditions because  97 her husband brings material support to the family. This also suggests that the husband will secure familial life, portraying an image of traditional gender distribution in the family (e.g., the father works and earns money, and the mother takes care of the household and their children at home). In this way, the lesson depicts an image of a damunhwa wife who is economically dependent and focuses on her appearance, which could be a virtue of the traditional image of a good wife who always looks charming for her husband and takes care of house-related chores. Nonetheless, considering numerous governmental reports that present damunhwa families under economic hardship (e.g., Jeon et al., 2013), it is questionable whether the suggested linguistic repertoire in these lessons would adequately enable damunhwa women to confront their economic hardships.  From Damunhwa Wives to Naturalized Korean Women  The second-largest theme in the KSL textbooks focuses on damunhwa wives becoming Korean women through their engagement with Korean cultural practices. In particular, there are many lessons that show how a naturalized damunhwa wife guides newcomers to socialize them into Korean domestic cultural practices. One of the examples is Lesson 10 in the Level 1 textbook, titled “Kimchi stew is a little spicy,” shown in Figure 5.5. Figure 5.4 Screenshot of Lesson 10, Textbook 1: Kimchi Stew is a Bit Spicy (NIKL, 2009, p. 73)   98 The person on the left is presented as someone who is well acculturated into Korean society, enjoying hot and spicy Korean food for her meals. She suggests that the new damunhwa wife (right) participate in the Korean way of living. The novice is willing to participate in Korean practices through eating less spicy Korean food.  In addition to the example discussed above, the notion of experienced damunhwa mothers leading novice damunhwa mothers is also suggested elsewhere in the government policy. Starting in 2009, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family initiated bilingual translation and interpretation services for newly arrived damunhwa wives who know little Korean (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, 2013a, 2014a). These bilingual translators are “damunhwa mothers who are fluent with Korean language,” and they “provide translation services for damunhwa wives and their [Korean] families” (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, p. 6). With this program planning, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family provides on-site bilingual workers35 in the Multicultural Family Support Centers and sends home-visit bilingual counselors for the newly married damunhwa wives. Their roles are to:  (1) provide consultation about family lifestyles and cultural differences; (2) provide support with marriage immigrants’ settlement, including gaining South Korean nationality and legal residency in South Korea; (3) provide information such as about pregnancy, childbirth, and child raising; (4) translate consultation and educational information provided by Koreans to the newly arrived wives; (5) mediate family communication through bilingual translation; (6) provide interpretation for administrative, judicial, hospital, and school-related tasks; and (7) provide telephone and email                                                 35 The number and country of origin of the on-site bilingual translators to this date are 141 Vietnamese, 75 Chinese, 25 Filipinos, 9 Mongolian, 6 Cambodian, 4 Japanese, 4 Thai, and 4 Nepalese (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2015). This means that there are two bilingual operators in every Multicultural Family Support Centers.   99 translation in urgent crises (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, p. 120, my translation).  Through the use of experienced damunhwa mothers’ first language and cultural resources, the government attempts to guide newly arrived damunhwa wives to become Korean wives and mothers. This is additionally promoted through 24-hour bilingual emergency call centers. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family Blog (2017) noted that call centers were being expanded from protecting domestic violence victims to providing comprehensive information for multicultural families in 2014. Thirteen languages are offered: Vietnamese, Chinese, Tagalog, Mongolian, Russian, Thai, Khmer, Japanese, Uzbek, Laotian, Nepali, English, and Korean (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family Blog, 2017). With this change, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2017) announced, “[a]nnual consultation increased 38% after the system integration” (par. 1, my translation), indicating that the call center has become an extensive agency that provides Korean cultural information and counseling services for newly arrived damunhwa wives. The change in the role of the bilingual call center indicates a shift from benevolently protecting domestic violence victims to proactively socializing novice participants into legitimate members of South Korean society. The L1 of damunhwa wives is used more proactively to integrate the newcomers into the patriarchal Korean family described in the KSL textbook. In Stage 4, I readdress the systemized process of how the government created experienced damunhwa mothers into bilingual teachers.  5.2.3 Stage 3: Child Rearing and Settlement Period In Stage 3, there are two main perspectives on damunhwa mothers and their children. The first is a continuum of the benevolent, gendered linguistic nationalism that guides the damunhwa wives to become good Korean wives; in this stage, the South Korean government provides  100 various KSL programs for damunhwa mothers and their children. Aside from the emphasis on KSL for damunhwa families, the government contradictorily promotes bilingual education for all children in South Korea. 5.2.3.1 Problematizing Damunhwa Mothers Raising Their Children  As discussed in the literature review, many academic reports and governmental documents published in South Korea describe mothers from multicultural families as incapable of raising their children due to their lack of linguistic and cultural knowledge. Because of the deficiencies of the mother, it is argued that the children have low academic achievement and difficulties with the Korean language along with emotional and psychological struggles. Under the mother-as-problem perspective, the government states that it will support damunhwa mothers to build their capacity for adequately raising their children and provide various KSL programs in the K-12 system. The kinds of roles that the government has designed and suggested to damunhwa mothers and children are (1) damunhwa mothers as learners of Korean childcare practices, (2) damunhwa mothers as teachers of Korean language to their children, and (3) damunhwa children as learners of Korean language.  Damunhwa Mothers as Learners of Korean Child-Raising Practices  Since 2007, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family has provided home-visit programs titled ‘good parenting education’ (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2011), which are developed under the following rationale:  [t]he increasing number of marriage immigrants is experiencing difficulties in language communication and child rearing. . . . To solve these problems, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family establishes and operates a ‘home-visit education service for international marriage migrants,’ which provides Korean language education and  101 childcare services to married immigrants and their families (The National Library of Korea, 2010, par. 1, my translation, Appendix H).  The program is specifically targeted to “damunhwa mothers who are having difficulty in raising their children due to language and cultural differences” (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, p. 34, my translation). The parenting program provides services based on damunhwa children’s stages of early childhood that the government has identified: (1) the period from pregnancy to infancy (pregnancy-12 months after birth), (2) infancy period (12 months old to 48 months old), and (3) childhood period (from 48 months to 12 years old). The ministry states that in each life stage, a family life instructor visits homes twice per week for two hours, and this may last for 5 months.  The program is exclusively for mothers but not Korean fathers, which inevitably emphasizes mothers’ role in cultural and social reproduction by teaching them how to raise their children adequately in Korean ways. In addition, the kinds of services that are provided are “(1) parenting education, such as parent growth program, parent-child relationship formation, nutrition and health management, school and family life guidance, (2) family counseling and emotional support services, and (3) information necessary for living in Korea” (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, p. 34, my translation). Through these services, the government “expects to guide the mothers adequately to raise [their children] and resolve conflict between the mothers and their children” (Korea Institute for Healthy Family,36 n.d., par 3, my translation). Through the home-visit parenting program, the South Korean government can                                                 36 The Korea Institute for Healthy Family is defined as “a central government organization that develops various programs and manuals for the projects implemented by the Multicultural Family Support Centers, trains related human resources, and administers and evaluates the multicultural families projects” (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, p. 4, my translation).   102 intervene in the private life of families, particularly women’s biopolitics such as pregnancy, childbirth, and childcare, which are recommended to be carried out through exclusive use of Korean language and cultural knowledge.  Damunhwa Children as KSL Learners  As KSL became systematized for damunhwa wives, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2012a, 2013a, 2014a, 2016a, 2017) and the Ministry of Education (2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011a, 2012) stated the need for developing KSL programs for damunhwa children. Subsequent to both ministries’ proposals, in 2013, the National Institute of Korean Language developed a textbook series called Korean Learning for Preschool, Elementary, Junior, and High School Children from Multicultural Families. These actions indicate that the South Korean government was starting to establish KSL programs for damunhwa children.  Since 2009, Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2012a, 2013a, 2014a, 2016a, 2017) has provided Korean language development support services to damunhwa children under age 12, where a Korean language instructor assesses the Korean language proficiency of the children and provides one-on-one KSL lessons either in their homes or in Multicultural Family Support Centers. The ministry states, “by evaluating the language development of damunhwa children and providing appropriate language instruction to those with communication difficulties, it aims to ensure the damunhwa children’s [Korean] language development” (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, p. 94, my translation). The ministry also provides home-visit counselor services for damunhwa children “who have low academic achievement and struggle with identity, emotional and social development” (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, p. 34, my translation), specifying that both of the programs will solve the problems that arise in these families.   103 As damunhwa children enter school, the KSL programs that the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family conducts are transferred to the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education (2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011a, 2012) stated that it would provide practical education for damunhwa children’s school adaptation and help them with Korean language development. As a result, growing numbers of preparatory schools37 have been established “to provide Korean and Korean cultural education programs so that it could support damunhwa children’s entry and adaptation to the mainstream public education system” (Ministry of Education, 2016b, p. 2, my translation). Other than these preparatory schools, the Ministry of Education (2009, 2016b) has called for existing mainstream schools to participate in designing various KSL programs, such as damunhwa kindergarten and afterschool KSL programs in K-12 schools. The Ministry of Education (2011b) additionally stated that it would offer one-on-one home-visit mentoring services. The program run by the Ministry of Education recruits a number of university students to visit damunhwa children’s homes on average once or twice per week over a 2- to 6-month period. They are expected to provide counseling services and help with children’s academic literacy development.  Although the two national ministries have presented their efforts to provide various KSL programs for damunhwa children, there is very little mention of the role of mothers’ L1 in raising and educating their children. In addition, if the children are expected to be socialized into Korean, it is not ideal to ask damunhwa mothers whose L1 is not Korean; instead, it would be better to involve Korean family members (e.g., father) whom the children encounter on a daily basis. Instead of finding ways to promote the roles of fathers in their families, both ministries draw on external sources for educating damunhwa children and mothers.                                                 37 The number of preparatory schools nationwide has expanded from three schools in 2011 to 110 schools in 2016 (Ministry of Education, 2016b).   104 Furthermore, to this date, there are no systematic and universal provisions for KSL programs in the K-12 system as part of the standard national curriculum. The provision explained above is often out of school time and offered on a temporary basis. In addition, all of the K-12 KSL programs are stated to be conducted in a voluntary manner, largely based on the school principal’s decision (Ministry of Education, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011a, 2012, 2014a, 2016b). Having no mandatory provision at the national level but emphasizing the role of damunhwa mothers who may have little encouragement to educate their children in their L1 raises considerable apprehension over whether the children will be sufficiently socialized either through Korean or their mother’s L1.  Damunhwa Mothers as Teachers of Korean to their Children As discussed briefly, the home-visit services are maintained for a minimum of 2 to 6 months (Ministry of Education, 2011b; Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2016a). For example, the KSL programs offered by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family are only available in damunhwa mothers’ early settlement period. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family does not get involved in offering extended KSL programs to damunhwa children either, but they are limited to the children’s early childhood. Furthermore, it is stated that these programs (e.g., parenting services, child services) are available only to those who request the programs (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, 2013a, 2014a). This could result in damunhwa families having considerable difficulty accessing these support systems. The information could be obtained either in the Multicultural Family Support Centers or various Internet websites that are written in Korean. Therefore, those who do not frequently visit the center or have limited Korean literacy would have difficulty accessing various services that the government provides. When the children enter school, there is no mandatory KSL provision in  105 the K-12 national curriculum but KSL is sporadically offered, often out of regular school periods. Furthermore, who will offer KSL instruction remains unspecified, leaving it to each school principal to decide. This creates sink-or-swim bilingual circumstances in which damunhwa children and mothers have to learn Korean with irregular social support.  In addition to the shortage of KSL programs, much of the emphasis on raising children to speak Korean is on damunhwa mothers whose L1 is not Korean. By not recognizing the mothers’ L1 as a source for raising their children, many KSL programs imply that Korean language and culture are the default for family language socialization. Furthermore, there is little mention of the role of Korean fathers, who could support the mothers and children to gain knowledge and understanding about South Korean culture and language. Rather than adequately providing sufficient bilingual and bicultural support, the three processes—viewing the mother as the main caregiver, asking family to use Korean only, and not promoting the father as a caregiver—generate an image of damunhwa mothers as a problem and possibly blame them for socializing their children differently from how mainstream Korean parents would.  5.2.3.2 Guiding All Koreans to Become Bilingual But Not Damunhwa Children  Contradicting its exclusive focus on Korean language development, the government proclaims to emphasize bilingual family environments as positive and states that they need to be fostered and promoted in Stage 3. In particular, signifying language as an economic resource for South Korea, the South Korean government has stated its promotion of damunhwa mothers as bilingual instructors for all children.      106 Highly Educated Bilingual Damunhwa Mothers as Bilingual Teachers  In 2009, the very first bilingual education program for Korean and damunhwa students38 started in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and Seoul Office of Education. Seventy-two damunhwa mothers were trained as bilingual instructors, followed by an additional 40 people later on in 2010, and they were distributed among various elementary schools in Seoul and Kyunggi province (Ministry of Education, 2009, 2010). The Ministry of Education (2010) stated that damunhwa mothers are a “human resource that has bilingual capability in Korean and their L1” (p. 14, my translation). This program model was spread in other provincial and municipal educational districts (e.g., Nabi Office of Education, 2012). Many educational offices (e.g., Kyunggido Office of Education, 2009; Seoul Office of Education, 2014) continue to require that those who apply to become a bilingual instructor hold a university degree and demonstrate high Korean language proficiency. In addition, the Ministry of Education (2012) announced the language(s) that will be provided are “based on the linguistic background of damunhwa children as well as educational demands from Korean and damunhwa students” (p. 11, my translation), which signifies bilingual education is systemized based on the market needs and available linguistic resources of each educational district.  Similarly, in 2008, the Ministry for Health Welfare and Family (2008a) stated the benefits that South Korea could gain from the damunhwa mothers. The Ministry for Health Welfare and Family (2008a) announced, “the international marriage migrants will be able to provide competent global human resources in the labor market since they have good command of two languages and multicultural sensitivity” (p. 8, my translation), indicating that damunhwa mother’s bicultural and bilingual knowledge would become a global resource for South Korea.                                                 38 It is undocumented which language(s) were taught in the bilingual program.  107 Later on, when damunhwa family-related affairs were transferred to the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2011), the bilingual afterschool program started to expand and L1s of damunhwa mothers were taught in the various Multicultural Family Support Centers (e.g., Nabi Multicultural Family Support Center, n.d.). In its bilingual education program, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2012a) stated, “languages of damunhwa mothers excluding English, such as Mandarin, Vietnamese, Japanese, Russian, Mongolian, Cambodian, etc. [will be offered]” (p. 141, my translation). Similar to what the Ministry of Education has conducted, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2012a, 2013a) stated that the bilingual program would focus on training damunhwa mothers into bilingual instructors and sending them to teach their L1 in the centers.  Through the selection criteria and rationale of these programs designed by both ministries, the South Korean government presented university-educated damunhwa mothers who are fluent in Korean as a human resource whose linguistic and cultural knowledge can be transferred to the people in South Korea. These selection criteria and rationale for promoting bilingualism echo how bilingual policy serves nationalistic purposes while falling into danger of marginalizing other foreign populations who are less skilled and less favored by South Koreans.  From Nurturing Bilingual Family Environments to Educating All Children  Despite the government’s statement about promoting bilingual family environments, there is little evidence presented in the policy that encourages bilingual practices in families. As noted earlier, damunhwa mothers are implicitly discouraged from using their L1 with their children at home. Instead of discussing how damunhwa children can learn from their mothers, the policy promotes damunhwa children being sent to a government-sponsored program taught by other damunhwa mothers on an irregular basis to learn with Korean children (i.e., four hours  108 per week), resulting in bilingual education being framed as a form of foreign language education. Yet, having Korean and damunhwa children together is presented as an action of educational equality. For example, the Ministry of Education (2012) stated that “[a]ll students will be given a chance to learn a second language and discover diverse cultures . . . and second language programs during school vacation seasons and weekends will be provided” (p. 12, my translation). Conversely, the Ministry of Education (2012) expressed that “the bilingual program will reinforce the strength of damunhwa children” (p. 12, my translation). The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2012a, 2013a) also mandated that 60% of children in bilingual classes must be damunhwa children, which indicates the government’s interest on expansion of bilingual education from damunhwa children to all children in South Korea.  Although the afterschool bilingual program that Multicultural Family Support Centers offer focuses on the “language and culture of damunhwa mothers” (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, p. 140), not all damunhwa mothers’ L1s are offered. In each center, one of the damunhwa mothers’ L1s (i.e., Mandarin) is introduced for a total of four hours per week for Korean and damunhwa children (aged between 3 and 12) for 8 months per year (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, 2013a). This is radically different from stronger forms of bilingual education (C. Baker, 2006), such as two-way immersion, which uses two languages as a medium of instruction for learning academic subjects. In the K-12 system, damunhwa mothers were expected to work approximately 20-23 hours per week during afterschool,39 weekends, or                                                 39 In South Korea, the public schools offer several afterschool programs once its everyday the compulsory regular classes are completed. The structure of the program is quite flexible. The kinds of the programs that are offered by school are based on needs of each school and the school principal’s decision. There are several programs that are offered at the same time and students are able to choose the kinds of the programs that they would like to take. These classes are not mandatory. The hired teachers in the afterschool are not full-time in-service public school teachers but other skilled professionals working as a part-time who would be able to provide the  109 summer/winter breaks (Ministry of Education, 2010). Yet, there is little guidance that specifies the level of instruction and details of the bilingual program. In 2012, the Ministry of Education announced, “the mainstream schools will provide beginner-level foreign language education (Ministry of Education, 2012, p. 12, my translation)” indicating the afterschool bilingual programs will be offered as foreign language classes rather than a stronger form of bilingual education (e.g., two-way immersion) that uses L1 of damunhwa mothers as a medium of school instruction. Furthermore, “the afterschool bilingual programs are exclusively available to the elementary and middle schools that request bilingual instructors” (Wooju Province Office of Education, 2014, p. 7, my translation), which means that afterschool bilingual programs are conducted in a voluntary manner and thus have no universal provisions as part of the standard national curriculum. This unequivocally indicates that the ministry is not fully eager to nurture bilingual environments for damunhwa families.  Despite the problems raised by the ministry’s two bilingual education plans, both ministries have presented their expectations of positive outcomes. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2012a) stated “[the children] will grow into a global resource with multicultural sensitivity” (p. 140, my translation). The Wooju Province Office of Education (2013) also added, “Korean children are encouraged to learn foreign languages so that they cultivate abilities that are appropriate for the global era” (p. 8, my translation). Both of these statements can be seen as nationalistic rationales for bilingual education, in which damunhwa mothers’ L1s are viewed as a national resource that can be intergenerationally transferred to children from Korean and damunhwa families so that they can become human resources for future South Koreans.                                                                                                                                                         specific expertise beyond the national curriculum. Within the education system, the afterschool bilingual teaching could be one of the programs in the various afterschool programs in a school.   110 Construction of Linguistic Hierarchy in the Bilingual Programs As briefly mentioned in the previous section, not all Multicultural Family Support Centers provide all of damunhwa mothers’ L1s, but only one language per center. The Multicultural Family Support Centers offer 103 programs in Mandarin, 32 in Vietnamese, 25 in Japanese, three in Mongolian, and two in Russian (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2013b). It is possible to identify that Mandarin is most commonly taught in the centers and not all centers provide bilingual classes (165 language programs out of 211 centers; Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2013), indicating unequal distribution of minority languages. Given the 2016 demographics of damunhwa wives married to Korean spouses residing in South Korea (29.7% Chinese [45,301 people], 26.5% Vietnamese [40.479], 7.8% Japanese [11,892], 7.3% Filipino [11,272], 2.8% Cambodian [4,412], 2.0%, Thai [3,105], 1.5% Mongolian [2,264], 1.4% Uzbekistan [2,215], 0.7% Russian [1,098], and 0.5% Nepali [879]; Korea Immigration Service, 2017), the bilingual program in the centers does not fully reflect the heritage languages of the population.  In addition to the lack of bilingual programs in the K-12 system, the Ministry of Education provides little indication of which languages are taught in schools. As discussed previously, the afterschool bilingual program that the Ministry of Education claims to provide does not have any mandatory provisions (e.g., Wooju Province Office of Education, 2013, 2014) or detailed bilingual education guidelines. Under the national curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2011c), English is the very first foreign language that is introduced to all students in elementary schools in South Korea. Only when children enter high school are they able to receive second foreign language instruction, where the majority study French, German, Japanese, or Mandarin (Park, S, 2015). Only in 2011 was Vietnamese introduced as a second foreign language in high  111 school (Ministry of Education, 2009). Yet, this does not mean that schools are mandated to offer less commonly taught languages (e.g., Vietnamese, Thai, or Russian). In addition to the lack of curriculum design made by national ministries, the provincial and municipal ministries provide selective language to damunhwa and Korean children. For example, in 2012 and 2013, Nabi city offered an afterschool bilingual program in several elementary schools called the Rainbow Teacher program, wherein damunhwa mothers were recruited to teach their L1 (Nabi Office of Education, 2012, 2013). In 2013, there were five English teachers from the Philippines, six Mandarin teachers from China, and three Japanese teachers from Japan (Nabi Office of Education, 2013).  The structure of the national curriculum and bilingual afterschool programs provided by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family and Ministry of Education indicate a hierarchy of languages, wherein languages such as English, Japanese, and Chinese are considered valuable and worthy of learning whereas other languages such as Vietnamese, Russian, and Tagalog are not.  The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2014b) noted, “the bilingual programs offer a preponderance of languages such as Mandarin” (p. 10, my translation). Nonetheless, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family has not taken any follow-up actions (e.g., The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family Blog, 2016), nor has the Ministry of Education. Even when the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family said it was striving to nurture less commonly taught minority language, this did not continue in the system of the Ministry of Education. When children enter K-12 education, heritage language education in less-commonly-taught-languages is largely neglected. This construction of a linguistic hierarchy in the education system, therefore, can be understood as a re-articulation of viewing heritage language as a national commodity rather than  112 a source of cultivating multilingual and heritage language and identity development of damunhwa families.  Damunhwa Mothers as the Agents of Bilingual Programs In 2015, when the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family and the Ministry of Education identified that their bilingual programs were overlapping with each other, they negotiated roles to systemize the bilingual education at the national level (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2014a). In accordance with the changes, the Ministry of Education named its afterschool bilingual program Harmonizing Multicultural Education (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2014a, 2014b), which continues to focus on “targeting both damunhwa children and Korean children and providing bilingual and multicultural education through teaching of the language and culture of the bilingual instructor’s country of origin” (p. 10, my translation). Nonetheless, to this date, there is little indication whether the Ministry of Education has changed its bilingual programs from how they were originally structured. This raises considerable questions of whether there will be any development in the bilingual programs that could indeed foster damunhwa families’ bilingual and bicultural environment.  With the policy adjustment, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2014b) removed the bilingual afterschool programs from several Multicultural Family Support Centers. Instead, under a policy titled Fostering Bilingual Family Environment Project, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2016a, 2017) created a new position called a ‘bilingual coach.’ In affiliation with the Multicultural Family Support Centers, a damunhwa mother becomes a bilingual coach and is expected to “plan a project that facilitates bilingual environment of multicultural families . . . and run the bilingual project for damunhwa families” (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2016a, p. 108, my translation). In a departure from viewing  113 damunhwa mothers as policy recipients, bilingual coaching is a more refined articulation of how the government attempts to transform damunhwa mothers to become policy producers who operate, manage, and evaluate the projects they create (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2016a, 2017), which I elaborate in the following (section 5.2.4.1). In addition to recommending that damunhwa mothers fix their problem by themselves, there has been scarce evidence of how the government and Korean society could collectively support bilingual coaches to encourage damunhwa families to create bilingual family environments.  This intergenerational production of bilingual identities from damunhwa mothers to all children in South Korea can be seen as a renewable nationalistic policy through which South Korea is preparing for and advancing into the competitive global market. It first highlights damunhwa mothers as the agent of establishing bilingual education for Koreans. Then, their classrooms can be seen as a form of foreign language education where Korean and damunhwa children learn languages that are viewed as internationally powerful, diverging from the proposition of bilingual education for immigrants that attempts to promote languages and identities of minority and immigrant populations. 5.2.4 Stage 4: Capacity-Building Period For Stage 4 (the capacity-building period), the government proposed “social and economic independence of damunhwa families” (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, n.d., par. 4, my translation). Under this policy aim, damunhwa mothers are to obtain basic trainings and be linked with the employment system. Their bilingual and multicultural capacities are viewed as a particularly important source of employment. These jobs include interpreter, translator, multicultural family guide, and bilingual instructor. In the following, I discuss how the  114 fluent bilingual mothers’ linguistic and cultural resources are transformed into three different roles and how these may or may not contribute to their social and economic independence.  5.2.4.1 Experienced Damunhwa Mothers Becoming Bilingual Workers for Koreans  As I explained in Stage 2, the government has established a system under which newly arrived damunhwa women receive bilingual services (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2011a, 2012b).40 In 2009, the Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family (2009) first recruited damunhwa wives and mothers who were “fluent in Korean and their L1” and defined the purpose of bilingual instructors: “[t]hrough supporting the communication of early immigrants from the same country, [the government expects] the newcomers to strengthen the emotional bond and early integration process [in South Korea]” (p. 17, my translation). The ministry continued, “by cultivating the immigrants from welfare recipients to bilingual interpreter agents, [the government expects them] to strengthen their capacity as members of [South Korean] society” (p. 17, my translation).  This contributes to understanding how the South Korean government mobilizes the acculturated damunhwa mothers who are fluent in two languages to help other women like them in its efforts to socialize this population into mainstream Korean society. Conversely, it also indicates how the government facilitates the transformation of bilingual damunhwa mothers into national service workers, ultimately appropriating them into good citizens who will assist with newcomers’ integration into South Korea and Korean families. Under this rationale, the Ministry                                                 40 The amended Multicultural Families Support Act Article 12 (2011) states the Multicultural Family Support Centers are supposed to “provide supportive services, such as interpretation and translation for multicultural families” (Multicultural Families Support Act, 2011, p. 8, original). This includes “…interpretation of languages, legal counselling, and administrative assistance, in making statements and finding facts when they terminate a marital relationship due to domestic violence” (Article 8 Subparagraph 4, p. 6, original) and “interpretation services when they receive medical services” (Article 9 subparagraph 2, p. 6, original).  115 of Gender Equality and Family (2012a) has refined its system where “[the government] recruits, trains, and manages personnel for translating services in order to support the communication necessary for the familial and social lives of damunhwa families” (p. 120, my translation).  A similar line of argument that facilitates designing the experienced mother into a good citizen can be understood from other proposed roles: (1) bilingual spokesperson and (2) bilingual instructor. As discussed in Stage 3, the Ministry of Education (2010) announced that “through educating competent damunhwa parents, [the Ministry of Education will] utilize them as bilingual instructors” (p. 3, my translation). For example, the Nabi Office of Education (2012) recruited fluent bilingual damunhwa mothers in an afterschool bilingual program called the Rainbow Program, the purposes of which were:  [U]sing high-quality human resources from the international marriage migrants, creating sustainable job markets [for the damunhwa women], improving the self-esteem of damunhwa families, and fostering lifelong learning to the students in the rural area to reduce the educational gap (Nabi Office of Education, 2012, par. 1, my translation, Appendix H).  As indicated, damunhwa mothers’ linguistic abilities can be viewed as flexible and transferable resources that create a sustainable job market, improve their families’ self-esteem, and contribute to the development of marginalized communities in South Korea. Within their designed role as bilingual instructors, damunhwa mothers not only become employees who acquire skills, distribute them to Koreans, and manage their families’ economic and social conditions through their linguistic activities, but they also become helpers, facilitators, and supporters of South Koreans’ becoming bilingual, ultimately contributing to damunhwa mothers’ creating a sense of pride as members of their families and South Korean citizens.   116 Another way of suggesting that damunhwa mothers become useful agents is that they become bilingual spokespersons for South Koreans. As with the growing negative representation of damunhwa families, shifting the public awareness of multiculturalism and promoting positive attitudes toward multicultural families has become an important mission for the South Korean government (e.g., Ministry of Education, 2010, 2011a, 2012; Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, n.d.). The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (2012a) proposed a multicultural worker who is involved in “multicultural awareness improvement projects [and] sends multicultural lecturers to schools and kindergartens to promote multicultural awareness education and conduct multicultural campaigns and media interviews” (p. 39, my translation).  Therefore, as stated by the government, damunhwa mothers’ L1s are transformed into national subjects that are exchangeable with other economic and social resources (e.g., earning money and participating in Korean society). This also transforms damunhwa mothers into government workers who are designed to guide newcomers (Stage 2), Korean children (Stage 3), and all Koreans (all life stages) (See Figure 5.5).   117 Figure 5.5 Details of Education-in-Language Policies for Damuhwa Families According to Their Life Stages KSL for International Marriage Migrant Candidates - On-site KSL (e.g., King Sejong Institute)  - On-site Korean cultural education (e.g., Korean Embassy/Council)  - Require Korean language test (TOPIK Level 1) KSL for damunhwa wives Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF) - On-site and home-visit KSL at the Multicultural Family Support Center   Ministry of Justice (MOJ) - Korean Immigrant Integration Program (KIIP): KSL & Korean culture   Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism (MOCST) - Develop & provide KSL textbooks for damunhwa wives  Bilingual translator/interpreter for damunhwa Wives - On-call interpreters - On-call counselors - On-site interpreters  KSL for damunhwa children - Home-visit: KSL to children & parenting service (MOGEF) - K-12: KSL from Ministry of Education (MOE) - KSL textbook provided from MOCST   Bilingual program for damunhwa & Korean children - Multicultural Family Support Center from MOGEF - Afterschool program from MOE Bilingual translator/interpreter for new immigrants [for Stage 2] - On-call interpreters - On-call counselors - On-site interpreters  Bilingual instructor for Korean & damunhwa children [for Stage 3] - For damunhwa & Korean children in Multicultural Family Support Center & K-12 afterschool programs   Multicultural instructor for the Korean public [for all life stages]  - Spokesperson for damunhwa families  - damunhwa-related Web monitors   Stage 1  Damunhwa wives as learners of Korean Stage 2  Damunhwa wives as learners of Korean Stage 3  Damunhwa mothers as teachers of Korean & their L1 to their children Stage 4  Damunhwa mothers as bilingual workers for all    118 These roles constitute a reciprocal process that can influence both damunhwa families and South Koreans. First, damunhwa mothers can become active agents who may produce a particular image of their culture and portray positive images of damunhwa families to South Koreans. Conversely, South Koreans can be equipped with multicultural and multilingual sensitivity and become tolerant bilingual citizens in the globalized world. Furthermore, this process can also affect the everyday lives of damunhwa mothers and families. In order to portray positive images of South Koreans as multicultural/bilingual instructors, they have to continuously engage in monitoring how particular behaviors are perceived as acceptable and desirable in South Korea. Though these roles, it is possible to understand how the locus of power is not just contained in the policy text alone, or perpetuated solely by the will of the state, but may be performed at the micro level of practices within one’s everyday life, crafting the art of governance (Foucault, 1990, 1991), which refers not merely to the governing of a state apparatus but to the directing of everyday actions and behaviors of Koreans and damunhwa families.  5.2.4.2 Sustainable and Healthy Employment? Although the South Korean government stated that damunhwa mothers’ participation as bilingual spokespersons, instructors, and interpreters will enable them to secure the social and economic conditions of their families and heighten their self-esteem, it is questionable whether their working conditions are sustainable. All the jobs discussed in Stage 4 are temporary employment conditions for which the job contracts range from 3 months to a year (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, 2013a, 2014a, 2016a, 2017; Ministry of Education, 2009, 2010; Nabi Office of Education, 2012, 2013). It is noted that their income is between CAD $600  119 to 1,500 per month, which is lower than the average income of South Koreans (Statistics Korea, 2016b).41 In addition, their roles as bilingual and multicultural instructors are not always clear-cut. The Ministry of Education (2010) stated that bilingual instructors would be involved in “Korean and foreign language instruction, interpretation and counseling, and raising multicultural sensitivity” (Ministry of Education, 2010, p. 3, my translation). Similarly, the Wooju Provincial Office of Education (2013) stated that a bilingual instructor can be employed as “a mentor for children from damunhwa families, a bilingual teacher to damunhwa children during the afterschool program, a foreign language teacher to Korean students, an instructor for providing multicultural education, a counselor and an interpreter for damunhwa parents and children, and a KSL instructor for damunhwa parents” (p. 9). Although these roles serve different purposes (e.g., KSL, heritage language education, foreign language education) and different populations (e.g., Korean students, damunhwa children, damunhwa parents), little detail is provided in terms of level of instruction and guidelines on the roles and goals of bilingual instructors. This raises questions of the effectiveness and sustainability of multilingual education in which damunhwa mothers are involved.  5.3 Summary: Socializing Damunhwa Women into Korean Wives and Mothers in Globalized Times  In this chapter, I examined the Multicultural Families Support Plans According to Their Life Stages and related language policies and plans that were published and distributed between 2006 and 2017. In particular, I discussed how the government shapes particular gender roles through its language policy that juxtaposes the intersection between language, nationalism,                                                 41 Statistics Korea (2016b) announced that the average income for one-person households was CAD $3,720 per month and for two or more people was CAD $4,370 per month in 2015.   120 globalization, neoliberalism, and gender identity. I exemplified the specifics and practices of language policy in the four life stages that the government has designed, demonstrating how the government intends to socialize foreign women migrants into particular gender roles and identities.  The roles of the majority of the life cycle largely point toward international marriage migrant women who move to South Korea, adapt to Korean language and culture, give birth to a child, take on the major role in the child’s care and education, and get employed through using their first language and cultural resources. This design of identity also works to persuade Koreans to help foreign women to learn Korean language and culture to become wives, mothers, and daughters-in-law. This also may mean that for damunhwa wives, acquiring Korean language is a pathway to fully integrate and function as legitimate South Korean citizens. Yet, there is no consideration of the role of damunhwa wives’ L1s or their Korean husbands in the course of their integration into South Korea’s monolingual policy, which can be characterized as a form of assimilation.  To briefly summarize the themes of each stage, in Stage 1, the South Korean government provides little support for damunhwa wives’ learning of Korean language and culture but recently mandated that they acquire language in order to enter South Korea. On the other hand, the government does not recommend Korean husbands to learn about their wives, potentially exacerbating the linguistic hierarchy and tensions between foreign wives and their Korean husbands. In Stage 2, the number of transitional KSL programs indicates how language-as-problem is largely supported by the three main ministries that organize KSL programs for damunhwa wives. Putting emphasis on the learning of the second language while problematizing their existing linguistic resources and cultural knowledge reinforces a monolingual ideology  121 emphasizing what individuals lack rather than the proficiencies they possess. Another aspect that was identified was how the KSL programs unquestioningly recommend damunhwa mothers and wives to socialize into their extended patriarchal South Korean families. The housewife-related activity lessons in the KSL textbook in which the wives have to take charge of the household chores and accommodate the other family members—including the parents-in-law, husband, and children—are designed to socialize KSL learners as competent Korean wives and mothers who can converse in Korean, perform Korean household-related cultural practices, and domestically support their family members.  In Stage 3, KSL programs for damunhwa mothers and children (e.g., home-visit parenting education services, KSL for damunhwa children) are developed through viewing the damunhwa mothers as having deficiencies in Korean language and culture as the main caregivers for their children. They also reinscribe damunhwa mothers’ learning of Korean as a precondition of communicating with their children, providing little room to socialize their children through the use of their L1. On the other hand, there is no training offered for Korean husbands to learn how to best support their wives’ learning of Korean, an indication that the government has paid little attention to the what Korean fathers whose L1 is Korean can do and that there is little expectation that they will offer support. Instead, it is other Koreans and more experienced damunhwa mothers who will teach the damunhwa mothers to become Korean wives and mothers, potentially putting them in danger of coercive engagement. Furthermore, there is no evidence of national mandatory KSL provisions requiring schools to offer systematic KSL programs for damunhwa children. As a result, it appears the government suggests that damunhwa mothers socialize their children in Korean with little support and that their Korean fathers are not  122 involved, facilitating linguistic marginalization and hierarchy and the division of gender roles in damunhwa families.  In another part of Stage 3, it is oddly stated that the government will be involved in encouraging bilingualism in damunhwa families (e.g., Ministry of Education, 2006, 2010, 2012; Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2012a, 2013a, 2014b, 2016a, 2017). Yet, the examples that the South Korean government has emphasized raise questions of the actual implications of fostering bilingual environments through its policy planning. The underlying assumptions in the design for bilingual education from both ministries are that (1) the combination of foreign language education and heritage language education is not problematic for nurturing bilingual family environments, (2) damunhwa families can successfully create bilingual family environments without sufficient governmental or societal support, (3) the implementation of selected damunhwa mothers’ L1s in this bilingual education structure will be celebrated for nurturing all Koreans into bilinguals and enhancing educational equality, and (4) without any specific guidelines or provision of a national curriculum, this bilingual education model will be successfully delivered to all.  To this date, little is known about the degree of impact that damunhwa families may have in nurturing bilingual environments through such institutionalized but unsystematic L2 language programs. What also needs to be noted is that bilingual afterschool programs offer an unequal distribution of minority languages. Instead, they focus on that could be conceived as more powerful on the global scale. Some languages may be selected to mobilize the ministries’ allocation of budget and create cultural and linguistic markets (e.g., Rainbow program, national foreign language education) designed for Korean children rather than damunhwa children.  123 Therefore, it can be seen that the South Korean government has overlooked the importance of fostering heritage language and identities in families.  In Stage 4, language is viewed as a national resource for benefitting both Korean and damunhwa families, and damunhwa mothers’ L1s are morphed into highly transferrable capital (Bourdieu, 1991). Damunhwa mothers become bilingual instructors, multicultural workers, and spokespersons are highly desired by the South Korean government. Not only are these roles expected to secure the social and familial conditions of South Korea, but they could also influence the South Korean public’s views on damunhwa families. When the South Korean government sends damunhwa mothers to public education, it may desire to construct a more sophisticated understanding of multilingualism and multiculturalism on a global scale and advance its society beyond its geographical borders, allowing people to imagine different ethnolinguistically oriented hierarchies. When damunhwa mothers are introduced as a means for nation-state system development, their linguistic and cultural resource are seen as opening a door for a new global connection and allowing the public to imagine South Korea’s superiority and advancement in the new, globalizing world (Ricento, 2005, 2012). Therefore, incorporating the mothers as bilingual agents could not only contribute to maintaining the micro unit of South Korean society—the family—but also ultimately facilitate South Korea’s continuous evolution and preparation for its competitive global future. Despite the multiple incidents in which systemization of bilingual support policy has been continuously heightened, it is of great concern which kinds of work (e.g., bilingual instructor) are presented as underpaid and part-time work with ambiguous responsibilities and tasks.  In the next chapter, using the accounts of interviews from the four focal damunhwa mothers from Vietnam, Japan, PRC, and Kyrgyzstan, I provide discussions that demonstrate how  124 the government’s particular design of multilingual socialization may have failed to acknowledge the complexities and diversity of damunhwa families’ multilingual socialization.   125 Chapter 6: SINK-OR-SWIM BILINGUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND BECOMING KOREAN WIVES  6.1 Introduction From this chapter onward, I look at the themes of language socialization that the four focal participants presented in their interviews. Combining trajectories of socialization (Wortham, 2005, 2008) and the interview as a co-constructed narrative (De Fina & Georgakopoulou, 2008, 2012; Talmy, 2010), I examine the ways in which individuals report on how they are socialized to develop their multilingual identities across time and space. Despite the temporal gap between interview data (2012-2013) and policy documents (2006-2017), I view policy findings as both a cultural representation of South Korean multilingualism as well as a discursive resource where the mothers articulate, appropriate, utilize, and/or resist what the government has envisioned for them. In particular, I examine how the four focal participants respond to the roles designed by the South Korean government, particularly the themes that correspond to each life stage. The research question that guided the rest of the chapters is the second research question: How do the damunhwa mothers report their mult