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%= $N 3Y%Pa CCYMP@]9 OJf]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@&.P 9D',#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 multilingual socialization trajectories? Specifically, how do participants respond to the discourse circulated through the government policy in interviews? In Chapter 5, I discuss the candidate roles that are advocated for damunhwa wives across their four life stages. In this chapter, which specifically focuses on damunhwa wives’ early settlement period, I pay attention to Stages 1 and 2. Figure 6.1 Focus of Chapter 6 Stage 1 International Marriage Preparation Period Stage 2 Family Formation Period Stage 3 Child Rearing and Settlement Period Stage 4 Capacity-Building Period 126 In Stage 1, viewing the languages of damunhwa wives as a problem, since 2014, the South Korean government has mandated that the wives learn basic Korean prior to their settlement. Yet, the variety of KSL programs outside of South Korea indicates that damunhwa wives’ L2 development is required with insufficient KSL provisions. While the government has required that damunhwa wives prove their basic Korean language proficiency prior to their entry to South Korea, Korean husbands are not required to learn their wives’ language and culture. In relation to these different requirements between couples, which could exacerbate linguistic challenges in the family, the Ministry of Justice assumes that foreign wives’ acquiring basic level of Korean will solve various problems (e.g., domestic violence, fake marriages, KSL burden) that the government views as the fault of the damunhwa wives. Departing from the apathetic position demonstrated in Stage 1, in Stage 2, many national ministries present a benevolent nationalistic discourse—damunhwa wives learning Korean as a precondition for becoming members of South Korean society—and has designed various KSL programs for them. Through the government KSL programs, foreign women are recommended to become part of the patriarchal familial system by learning how to become a Korean daughter-in-law, wife, and mother. With this goal, KSL programs implicitly suggest that damunhwa wives exclusively use Korean with their family and neighbors, while giving them very little room to negotiate their L1 background. KSL programs also highlight various gender roles (i.e., mother, wife, and daughter-in-law) that accommodate other family members (i.e., husband, children, and mother-in-law), envisioning the socialization of new immigrants into domestic Korean women. On the other hand, when the government developed various KSL programs to teach Korean to damunhwa wives, there was no recommendation that Korean husbands learn their wives’ L1s 127 and no roles expected from them, even though they could be a major source for damunhwa wives during their integration into South Korean society. In this chapter, I examine the stories that the focal damunhwa mothers narrated about their L2 development experiences in their early marriage periods. Specifically, I traced interview accounts in which Korean language and the foreign wives’ L1s are talked about as resources in their process of becoming Korean wives. The themes of the stories are related to (1) the focal participants’ presentation of their L2 learning experiences in sink-or-swim circumstances and (2) their demonstration of how they learned to become Korean wives through their L2 socialization. 6.2 Damunhwa Mothers Becoming Korean Wives through Learning Korean As mentioned, the central focus of the stories is damunhwa wives’ L2 development experiences in their early marriage period. Through these interview accounts, I demonstrate the ways in which particular identities (e.g., married women) are associated with their stated L2 practices. To briefly restate the background of the focal participants, Bosam Hwang is a Korean-Chinese from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and came to South Korea in 2001. Bosam told me her whole family (i.e., parents and brother) had moved to South Korea and lived there since then. I do not discuss Bosam’s story in this chapter since she reported, “I do not speak Mandarin often, because everyday conversation is Korean, even in my home country” (ű1­ ŗ Đ ćĶ. ĸ§. ?1ģëp ōç jNJŊ Ŋ ťí­Ŋ: „¾ģ; Sep. 07, 2012, School A), presenting that her L1 is Korean. Michiko Watanabe is from Japan and came to South Korea in 2000 via a religious mass international marriage. Sumi Won is from Vietnam and came to South Korea in 2004 when international marriages started to boom. Ava Asnov is from Kyrgyzstan and migrated to South Korea after separating from her first husband. She worked as a temporary 128 labor worker and subsequently married a Korean man. She brought Ella, her daughter from her first marriage, in 2011. In the South Korean immigration categorization, Ella is classified as a mid-way immigration child, which is a subgroup of damunhwa children. 6.2.1 Lack of Societal Support in Socializing Damunhwa Wives The damunhwa wives who came before 2006 all indicated that there was a lack of familial and societal support when they were adapting to the new culture and language. Michiko, for instance, said she did not learn any Korean before she emigrated and took no formal classes once she was in South Korea. Instead, she said she learned the language through a church outreach program and studying on her own: “So for the first four months while living at the church I learned the language a bit. Well [most people did] self-learning but I didn’t do much” (40ľ /Ǐģë êǍƹ·ë ĝěp ƀDĎ Íĸ? Č, À üü  *Úƹ_o Ô  ĐƿŬ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Although Michiko deprecated her L2 Korean learning during the interview, she shifted the locus of its ostensible cause from herself to the lack of societal support for integrating damunhwa wives: “Back then, there were no multicultural [programs], no Korean language classes like [nowadays]” (4„_ 4 e¾NJ 4 ƻ7/ă Ņ2 4•2 ƹFp ġĢěĶ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). In fact, the initial formulation of multicultural policy began in 2006 and was not substantively developed until 2010. Therefore, when Michiko entered South Korea in 2000, she could have been placed in ‘sink-or-swim’ bilingual circumstances and learned Korean by herself. Sumi stated that she faced similar challenges when she arrived in South Korea in 2004. The following extract is from an interview with Sumi and her husband. Interview with Sumi Won and her husband (SW & H) [Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home] BS: 4: ÀŶ? ƋŇģ 4”·Ņ ƻ1ě¦ Ŋš ÓƬJģë ũ Íĸó_Ķ? ě,ˆěĶ? Um, so? In the beginning, well, had you learned Korean a bit (when you were) in Vietnam? How was it? SW: 2: ƍģ 4P: ť8 ÍĿě. Ōä. Well, in the beginning, I just learned a bit. like greeting. 129 H: :×Ņ ¤Ɛ ŭ?. (They) taught the basic stuff SW: , , 4« Íĸ?. e¥  »‹Ķ I only learned (Korean alphabet) like kiyek niun. (I) don’t know the rest BS: \ ¤Ɲ ŭóěĶ? Who taught (you) Korean? SW: 2:: ś džǏ #ljƹ_ ‘ŖďĶ. #ljƹ_ äŽ. 2: Ǐäģë. ƩĦ, ƻ1­ ŗ ƹ_ íêd. ŗ ƹ_ íêdņ ܔıë ĸ§ ĵ1 ś Āź _ äŽ ¤Ɛ Ůe? 4‘ë 4‘ë ť8 ÍĿě (There is) a place like the (international) marriage association. (The international marriage brokerage for) those who are going to marry. In that company, (there is) an interpreter, (I mean) a teacher who speaks good Korean. (The company) called the interpreter and said that (“this person) is going to teach (Korean”) for us, those who are going to marry in a foreign country. so, so (I) learned a little bit BS: ěě. 4”·Ņ Ŋš ĭóņ „ Ŋš, #lj ƹóņ „ ƀD ­Ŋ ť8Ņ ƩƹóěĶ? I see. Then when (you) came to Korea, when you got married, did (you) get through to him via (using the) language? SW: ģǃǃǃ ƩƹŶ ĒĕF?[ ǃǃǃ ehehehehe Did we communicate? hehehe H: [42_ ↓Ŕ:↑ē 4‘p that is very (well) somewhat SW: ƍģ ­Ŋ ŔA ǒ[ǒǒǒǒǒ At first, the language was often huhuhuhuhuhu BS: [ǃǃǃ[ǃ hehehehe H: [ďŊė À, 2 ƹŶ À Oh well, it is somewhat (awkward) like that Sumi described how international marriage brokers used their Korean–Vietnamese interpreter to teach basic Korean to Vietnamese women prior to their international marriages. Sumi also explained that she learned some basic Korean through the Korean–Vietnamese interpreter. Yet, by all the interlocutors in this particular conversation, her L2 development was indicated to be insufficient for allowing smooth communication between Sumi and her husband. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the questions that I asked Sumi and her husband and answers given by Sumi and her husband exclusively focused on Sumi’s Korean language learning. By not mentioning Sumi’s husband learning Vietnamese but continuously asking Sumi about learning Korean, the interview questions and answers not only facilitate Sumi’s deprecation of her L2 development but also occasion Korean language as the basis of Sumi’s family communication, echoing the Korean monolingualism and linguistic hierarchies between 130 Korean and Sumi’s L1. Later on, I identified that I had been socialized to be complicit in the gender discourse and used it for generating the interview narratives exemplified above, which advocate that damunhwa wives should learn Korean but not that Korean husbands should learn about their wives’ culture and language. 6.2.2 Lack of Korean Husbands’ Support in Socializing Damunhwa Wives In addition to the lack of societal support in damunhwa mothers’ early marriage periods, the participants told stories of how their husbands did not attempt to scaffold their wives’ L2 development or to learn their wives’ L1. For example, Michiko described how her husband did not help her learn Korean when she first arrived (Sep. 17, 2012, School A). When they did not have any shared language, Michiko reported that in addition to their use of basic English, she looked up words in a Korean dictionary to communicate with her husband. When I asked whether these were mutual language exchanges, she disagreed: “We both [use] Korean [most of the time]. In terms of [using] Korean, it’s not mutual [communication]. I [used] Korean by looking at the [Korean] dictionary and showing [the words to him]” (ë ë  ƻ7­. ƻ7­ģ jƾë_ ë  ë  ďbīĶ. š 4P, ǒǒ, ƻ7  ě äŝņ Õ? Õĥŭ? 4• ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). This account presents how Michiko strived to communicate with her husband in Korean without much help from him. Then, she said that her husband only knew the primary written form of Japanese (Hiragana) and used it to indicate that her husband made very little effort to have mutual language learning exchanges: “he can only read Hiragana. That’s all (he) knows and he knows nothing about Japanese” (Ǖ‹F« Ŏņ ÷ ‘ěĶ. 4 ãŊ? ō×ě_ ŝDŽ »‹Ķ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). 131 This was not an uncommon story. Similar accounts about Korean husbands not helping their wives to adjust in South Korea were discussed with various people whom I met. For example, in the midst of the interview with Sumi and her husband, the husband said: Interview with Sumi Won and her husband (SW & H) [Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home] H: ƹF_ ‰, IJ_ ď ‘_o, ‰ Ŋ Āě²b‹_ äŽŊ, ĭŔ©Ŕ ĥ ď, @ƕ¦ Ą Ą_2¦ 4Ŋ ď, öŊ © Ĩ 0 e ƧŤě . . . JƲÕ? IJ_o, Ŋ JƲŊ ÕæƱ Ųė ƹ_o, JƲR‹? ù밲ģ ěĠ And one came from (Vietnam), and her mother-in-law asked her to plant chilis42 as soon as she came, and all ten of her fingers got cracked (because of the chili farming). . . . (She) came to South Korea for her husband, and this husband should take care of (her), but her husband only drinks This story was used as one of his accounts for why there were many separations in international marriages between Korean men and foreign women. Earlier in the conversation preceding the extract above, the husband said, “10 of us [got] married [together in Vietnam]; eight of them are all separated” (4‘ Ŋš ĸ§ 10 ¸Ŋ #ljƿ_op ƻ, ď-8 ¸? 8 ¸Ņ ?© e ǃěţΟe; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Although Sumi’s husband account echoed the need for Korean husbands to help their foreign wives to integrate into South Korea, the following extract details what Sumi and her husband said about his attitude toward learning Vietnamese. Interview with Sumi Won and her husband (SW & H) [Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home] BS: 42 Ŋ™ Ŕŭ ¤Ɛ ŭĀ_, ě…ðĶ? So do (you) often teach (Vietnamese)? how is it? SW: ((Indicating a wall)) ś ś_ ś ĬIģ: ś ś_ gœ Ɵ 2 ŖďĶ, ÓƬJ[ ­ I, in the past, used a big calendar (right over) th-there. (I wrote) Vietnamese H: [gœ ĥ e [ĉ? (She) wrote everything on this calendar SW: [ś_ [ƻ1­ ÏĦƾë Ýĩ_o I translated (Vietnamese) to Korean and attached (to the calendar) BS: [↑ĭĭ: Wow H: °ƹƹƹƹ° Hahahaha SW: ƀ:D Íļë, ‰ zģ e ’ěΧ?= 42 Chili farming is known for its labor-intensive work. 132 (he) learned a tiny bit and forgot everything later on. H: =C: ġěë (inaudible) (I) don’t have patience (inaudible) When I asked whether Sumi often taught Vietnamese to her family, Sumi implied that she might no longer pursue the family practice that she had mentioned in the interview (“in the past,” ĬIģ). Nonetheless, Sumi and her husband both described Sumi’s transliteration practice for teaching her husband Vietnamese, and it was acknowledged as a very particular practice in this family by me. Yet, Sumi criticized her husband’s lack of effort to learn Vietnamese. In response to Sumi’s criticism, her husband described his impatience as the reason for his lack of commitment. This worked as a way of getting away from Sumi’s criticism, making it difficult to problematize his attitude toward learning Vietnamese. Next, Sumi elaborated how she approached teaching him the basic Vietnamese that she considered necessary for him to learn (e.g., greetings) on a piece of their calendar hanging on the wall (“Things that are needed I used in Vietnamese, and then translated into Korean. If it’s xin chào,43 [I] wrote and wrote , and [on the calendar]” À ƸĶƻ Ņ ś_ ÓƬJ ­ ƹ?, ‰ ƻ1 ­ ÏĦƹŖďĶ. À 4 À ĂŻĸ (xin chào) 4P ƻ1­ Ŕ ĉ? ‰ ,  ĉ?; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). In response to Sumi’s account, the husband reported that while he could not write Vietnamese, he was able to read Vietnamese that was phonemically written in Korean. Through these accounts, Sumi’s husband demonstrated how he acquired basic Vietnamese by virtue of Sumi’s efforts despite his indifference toward learning Vietnamese. Overall, in this section, I present how some Korean husbands early in their marriage either do not know how to scaffold their wives’ integration into South Korea or become indifferent toward learning their wives’ L1s. On the other hand, their foreign wives strive to learn Korean by themselves and conform to their Korean family. This situation may create 43 In Vietnamese, xin chào is the way to say “hello” to an elder. 133 linguistic isolation and marginalization in the family. As discussed in Chapter 5, many of the government policies offer little training for Korean husbands (and their side of family) to learn how to mutually establish a relationship with their wives. With very little familial and societal support, damunhwa wives are solely asked to assimilate. All of these accounts provide understandings of how the emphasis on Korean language has resulted in damunhwa mothers encountering challenges in their process of integration in their early marriages. 6.2.3 Learning Korean and Becoming a Korean Mother Several interview accounts illustrated how the mothers used their mother and wife identities as a way to learn Korean informally with the Koreans who surrounded them under these sink-or-swim circumstances. For example, Michiko said, Interview with Michiko Watanabe (MW) [Sep. 17, 2012, School A] MW: Ɲ Ů äŽ ġěĶ. ĥ: ıë, Ŋ• nj% õģë, 4P R, ŪŪ Ě~Ŋ M?, Ě~Ŋ Ŋ ƻ7 *Úƹ?, . . . R, íêdp Ŕħü˜ sR 4, ďŰ©~p 4™? À Ō,&‹|2 4• p ƹ·ë, . . . R, ½ý ō ‘ń· sä½ôģ 2F, Āř 2F 4™ No one taught me. (Through) my coming here, and (living) in this environment, I just (learned) when I could, (I) gave birth (to my) children and studied Korean with (my) children. . . . Yeah, (I) naturally (met my children’s) teachers (and), (I met) aunties. In a neighbourhood building and developed interpersonal relationships with (them). That’s how I learned (Korean). . . . Yes, if there is something to be dealt with, (I) go to village offices and go to markets, that's how (I learned Korean). Michiko thus reported how she learned to communicate in Korean through particular groups of people (e.g., her children, her children’s teachers, and married Korean women in her neighborhood) and places (the village office and market). This could indicate how Michiko worked on developing her L2 expertise by performing tasks commonly associated with a wife or mother, such as interacting with her children’s teachers, retailers, neighbors, and government office workers. Sumi provided a slightly different account of how her mother identity played a role in her L2 development. While Sumi listed the names of KSL programs that she attempted to attend 134 (e.g., programs at the Women’s Community Center and the Multicultural Family Support Center), she recounted how she could only take three Korean classes when she first arrived: Interview with Sumi Won and her husband (SW & H) [Nov. 28 2012, Sumi’s Home] SW: 4P ƍģ ƍģ ś: 0ªŖďĶ. ƍģ őƺ 4©_, őƺ ƍģ ~ě ƻ1­. 4 Ǝ F- Ǝ Iģ ↑?, ‰ zģ ‰ ë ōƹ↑? ō 4«ƹ? 2:ë xÏ Šp 2 ëp Íĸ?, 4P źģë Ě: ƠĿě Ah, no. At first (a program) opened, (for registration). Then (I) registered (for the class), on the first day, (I) went (there) and, after (that, I) went out for work, and then (I) stopped (working), and I went (to the center) and took two (more Korean classes), (then I) just raised my child at home. According to Sumi’s interview, the activities that Sumi said she conducted are generally related to her caregiver and home economic provider identities, which she said kept her from developing L2 expertise in a formal institution when she arrived. 6.2.4 Learning Korean to Become a Good Korean Citizen? Unlike Sumi’s and Michiko’s stories, Ava showed an attitude and experiences that diverged from the other participants’ L2 development. I present Ava’s stories in which she focused on temporary migrant worker and permanent resident statuses, which represent how she came to advocate assimilation and behavioral changes in her L2 development. In the beginning of the second interview with Ava (Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home), she presented a statement that was radically different from how I perceived her through her publication in the teacher-training booklet. One of her written statements is shown in Figure 6.2: Figure 6.2 Screenshot of Ava Asnov’s Script (Nabi Office of Education, 2011, p. 41) 135 “among multicultural families, there are married women who are good at English and Tagalog; I know a Vietnamese wife who is good at English, Malay, Indonesian, and Mandarin. There is also a very pretty married woman from Indonesia who is excellent at belly dancing. We are just not good at Korean and have different colors and looks” (my translation). I was moved by Ava’s written narrative, interpreting the text as positively describing the international marriage migrant women, highlighting their linguistic and cultural differences not as deficits but as resources that could equally contribute to South Korean society, and pushing against racial and linguistic stereotypes that are widely dispersed in South Korea. During the interview, I stated my positive impression about her promotion of bilingualism in South Korea: Interview with Ava Asanov (AA) [Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home] BS: ďŊ 4: ĴO·Ņ (2.2), ŝ ě²b êŊ u ū2|Ķ. 4; j 1š:: #lj ƹĂ Û~ űģë jÚÛŊ Ŋš ƻ1ě¦ ¬Ŋ ƾė ƻe. ƻ1ě. À 6o ĸ§ (.) ×ŌŅ º1ě¦ ũ l l ¬Ŋ ƾėu?, ĸ§ l ŗ ƻ- ĸ§p ŗ Ƽ ÷ ‘_  ‘e‹_ ­ċņ ƹĀ_ ÛŊ h Š­ ġ_ 2īĶ. ńŇ. 4‘ë j ũ: š 0ŌŜń  u ă®:ü”[Ŀm ÚÛŊĢ2|Ķ. Ah um, it is because I really like your thoughts. So in general, the majority of people (who came through) the international marriage, most of them (said they) need to use Korean a lot. But you said that it is important to use (your) own language (in South Korea), and there are a lot of things that foreign mothers are good at, (but) there are very few people who say like this. um. so (most foreign mother’s not promoting their L1) has been personally somewhat disappointing. AA: [ƹƹƹšƻ1ģæ”IJńb;Ř<qДIJ_2ďbŖďĶĀźį2Ƴêæ”IJńb;šiħǕ4™ƻ1­pƻ1¾NJpÍĸ?JƲŊ¯Ɨëĥ:ƻ1ŊF‹äb;ũ¯ƗëæďėŶNĥ:ıŶ?NÑń ś2ƹ_ōŊďbŖďĶhahahaha. I came to South Korea to live. I’m not here to earn money temporarily. (I) came (here) for marriage. (I came) to live (here) permanently. I, of course, need to learn Korean and Korean culture, (I need to) adapt (myself) with (my) husband. (I’m) living in South Korea, so (I) need to adapt (myself). I came here, and doing the things my own way is not right. Through this, I contrasted Ava with other damunhwa mothers based on her different attitude toward multilingualism; whereas the majority adopts assimilative monolingual practices, a few damunhwa mothers advocate multilingualism in South Korea. Yet, Ava disagreed on how I 136 envisioned her and introduced different categorical identities of immigrants based on the duration and purpose of their stay: temporary workers and permanent residents. Through distinguishing immigrant categories (i.e., temporary migrant worker vs. damunhwa wife), Ava provided a powerful statement on damunhwa mothers’ potential assimilation: as a permanent citizen in South Korea—a damunhwa wife—she must learn and adapt to Korean language and culture and should not question South Korea’s practices and male-oriented family structure. Her account can be understood in relation to other stories that Ava presented. She informed me about her experience during her first entry to South Korea as a temporary migrant worker: Interview with Ava Asanov (AA) [Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home] AA: ś_ ƋŇģ: . . . ƻ1ģ qД ıŶ?, ś 4„_ #ljƹ? ĥ: åe? ê Đ ƿěĶ. . . . 4P Ř< q Ðěë ĸ§F‹ģë ź äŶ? ĸ§F‹ģ ë åe? . . . ďŊ ‘ńb; g‘ Ŋ æďėŶ At first . . . (I) came to South Korea to earn money, I did not think of getting married and living here at that time. . . . (I) just earned money for a short period of time, and (I thought) I would buy a house in my country and live in my country. . . . Since I have a child, (I) need to live with my daughter Therefore, Ava did not attempt to learn Korean but earned money temporarily as a means to live with her daughter in Kyrgyzstan. Before Ava came to South Korea as a short-term migrant worker, she said she learned basic Korean for a month in Kyrgyzstan, including basic conversation skills like saying “hello” and “have you eaten?”44 and the Korean alphabet (Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home), furthering her non-commitment to her L2 development at that time and indicating that her Korean language learning and marriage were not a priority when she was a labor worker. Nonetheless, Ava presented various stories (e.g., 57min 40sec-1hr 02sec, Oct. 23, 2012, 16min 47sec-21min 58sec, Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home) that described her difficulty staying and 44 Though not common in English, asking whether the interlocutor has had a meal is a commonly used greeting in Korean. 137 working in South Korea when she could not secure her social and economic conditions. As an alternative, she said, “I should marry [a Korean man], who can look after my child like his own child, if [I] were to take my child here. I did not think of myself but my child” (#ljŊ‹p ƾėƻe?, N ďŊ¦ ĥ: o§? ıë Ŕ: ŔāƋ— ŗ Ùŭ_ äŽŅ ‘ń· #ljƹ- N êŅ Đ ƹ? N ďŊ ê; Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home). Ava described what happened after she brought Ella from Kyrgyzstan a year after her marriage: “[I] went to that multicultural [family support center] with Ella, the both of us. Then a teacher came [to our house], and at home I also learned [Korean with Ella] and helped [Ella] a bit” (ś: e¾NJģ ë Ĥ‹ Ŋ, 4 yŊ Ŋ, íêd ĭĀ_o źģë Fp Ŋ ś: ũ pıŭ? Íĸ? Ŋ“ěĶ; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). Unlike her previous status as a temporary migrant worker, this account indicates how her becoming a Korean mother allowed her to maximize her use of government-funded KSL programs (including the on-site KSL program and home-visit KSL). When I acknowledged that Ava learned Korean with Ella (“You learned together [with Ella] like that” ě²d?ë Ŋ Ŋ™ ƹó0F; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home), Ava explained why she needed to learn Korean: “I have to know a bit so that I can give help to Ella in the future. In order for me to live here continuously [I need to learn Korean]” (š ũ ēďė Ĥ‹ƻƨ Fűģ pĻŊ ů ÷ ‘- š ĥ: &õ æ: ŀƾë). In other words, Ava described her L2 development (1) as a precondition for her, as a mother, to educate her child in South Korea and (2) as a requisite for her integration into Korean society as a permanent resident. Drawing on these two identities, a mother and a citizen, Ava presented her desire to master Korean as much as she could, including all Korean linguistic features: “[I] need to know Korean well, [and] I will learn all the grammar. While thinking this, I learned [Korean]” (ƻ1­ņ ŗ ēďėŶ, ¾Ñp e ÍļėŶ Ŋ• 138 êń  ÍĿěĶ; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). Tracing these statements allows us to understand why Ava promoted an assimilative discourse in her L2 development process: Her choice of life trajectory is based on securing social and economic conditions for her daughter. Nonetheless, Ava said she had to stop learning Korean due to her economic constraints at the time of the interview. “Even now, [I] want to go [to the center] and learn. Well, [I] need to make some money, it’s somewhat a bit difficult nowadays” (Ŷ8p ë Íĸ? ąŅo, ś: qņ Ðěė u_ őřģë, ĶŴ ť8 ǖ~ěŶ?; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). This presents how Ava’s L2 development competes with other domains of her social life. In other words, her desire to learn Korean can be seen as one of multiple pathways for her to become a mother and a citizen in South Korea. Similar to Sumi’s account, the conditions that enabled Ava to learn Korean were mobilized through various spatiotemporal conditions that Ava was involved in and her management of multiple roles as a mother. 6.3 Summary In this chapter, I discuss the stories that the damunhwa mothers told in their interviews related to their L2 learning experiences in Stages 1 and 2. When the South Korean government recommended that damunhwa wives study Korean language and culture to integrate into their South Korean families, it made few provisions for doing so. In addition, there is no training offered for Korean husbands to learn how to support their wives’ learning of Korean and little indication of any expectation that the Korean husbands will offer support. This chapter provided accounts of how the damunhwa mothers learned Korean in these sink-or-swim circumstances in their early arrival period. In particular, Michiko located the cause of her not learning Korean not in herself, but in the lack of provision of language learning services by the government at the time, as well as 139 limited services provided by her church. Sumi’s interview demonstrated how her experience of learning basic Korean prior to her marriage was not sufficient to communicate with her husband. In addition to what Sumi reported, her interview is an exemplar of how the interactional interview context becomes a site for perpetuating linguistic hierarchies between Korean and a foreign wife’s L1 through steadily asking damunhwa wives about their L2 learning experiences while preventing their husbands from discussing any experiences of learning their wives’ L1s. The interview context not only indicates how I, the interviewer, was socialized to conserve the gender discourse—damunhwa wives to learn Korean but not Korean husbands to learn about their wives’ culture and language—but also uncritically exacerbate the message to the participants in the course of interviewing. Furthermore, Michiko and Sumi’s husbands mentioned Korean husbands’ lack of contribution to their wives’ integration into South Korea, which causes family challenges in their early marriages. Their stories also indicate how the government’s lack of acknowledgment of the significant role that Korean husbands could play facilitates unfavorable outcomes in damunhwa families. In addition, as demonstrated in Sumi’s account, even when damunhwa wives endeavored to teach their L1s to their husbands, the lack of societal discourse calling for Korean husbands to learn their wives’ L1 could prevent the husbands from taking their wives’ L1 seriously and discourage their wives’ efforts to do so. Under these circumstances, each participant drew on various temporal and spatial conditions that were available to them to learn Korean. Their stories also echo how they understood the identity of a good Korean mother and wife. Michiko noted that she learned Korean by herself through conducting the roles that are generally associated with a Korean wife and mother. Sumi narrated how her roles as a caregiver and income producer hindered her from 140 developing Korean expertise in formal KSL institutions. Both of these stories indicate polycentric power where the mothers oriented themselves to various geographical and ideological spaces in a synchronic manner (Blommaert, 2010), which made particular gendered sociolinguistic practices available to them (i.e., Korean wife, mother, and daughter-in-law). Through their presentation of how they negotiated various roles and responsibilities, the mothers demonstrated how they strived to become Korean mothers. Similarly, departing from the identity of a temporary migrant worker, Ava combined a Korean wife with a permanent citizen and presented this as her main motivation to develop L2 expertise. Through her articulation of her identity transformation to a permanent resident and a Korean wife, Ava presented how she promoted damunhwa wives’ assimilation into the dominant culture and language, exacerbating the gendered linguistic nationalism that is widely circulated in the government policy. Nonetheless, like Sumi, as she started to settle down into South Korean society, she mentioned how other roles (e.g., breadwinner) kept her from fulfilling her desire to advance her L2 development. Through Ava’s and Sumi’s articulations of their early settlement experiences, it is demonstrated how damunhwa wives are tied up with multiple gender roles which may result in additional challenges to their full development of various L2 repertoires, even when they have aspirations to learn Korean, signifying complex circumstances of L2 socialization that are inseparable from other social conditions. In the next chapter, I discuss the themes that are related to Stage 3 with a particular focus on how damunhwa wives become Korean mothers and their language use in the family. 141 Chapter 7: MONOLINGUAL SOCIALIZATION AND BECOMING KOREAN MOTHERS 7.1 Introduction In this chapter, using the interviews from Bosam Hwang, Michiko Watanabe, Sumi Won, and Ava Asnov, I demonstrate the representational practices that are topicalized from the interviews that adhere to damunhwa mothers’ gendered roles as mothers in Stage 3 and their Korean language use. Under this larger theme, I pay specific attention to the reported stories on the mothers’ Korean language socialization and tensions between them and their children. Figure 7.1 Focus of Chapter 7 In Stage 3, I found that there are two roles that the government has envisioned for damunhwa mothers: teachers of Korean to their children, and teachers of their L1 to all children in South Korea. In this chapter, I pay attention to the first issue with a specific focus on damunhwa mothers’ Korean language socialization. The second issue will be discussed in Chapters 8, 9, and 10. The first role that is suggested by the South Korean government is derived from problematization of damunhwa mothers’ way of raising their children due to their putative linguistic and cultural deficiencies. In Chapter 5, I addressed the ways in which the South Korean government views damunhwa mothers as the only people who will raise their children speaking Korean, despite the lack of expectation that Korean fathers will do so. Rather, it is other Stage 1 International Marriage Preparation Period Stage 2 Family Formation Period Stage 3 Child Rearing and Settlement Period Stage 4 Capacity-Building Period 142 Koreans who come into their houses based on their children’s bio-trajectory (i.e., infancy, early childhood, school age) and check in with the damunhwa mothers for a short period of time. When damunhwa children enter school, there is a lack of systematic provisions for KSL programs in the K-12 system as part of the standard national curriculum that would assist their Korean academic literacy and KSL development. Under these circumstances, it is the damunhwa mothers who need to educate their children in Korean, of which their knowledge and understanding is not as strong as that of their L1. While keeping these policy issues in mind, I discuss stories that the four damunhwa mothers told of raising their children to become Korean. Specifically, I address how mothers respond to the role envisioned by the government that they are the main people to socialize their children in Korean. Then, I move on to discuss interview accounts in which the roles and identities of Korean husbands and fathers are discussed by the damunhwa mothers and one damunhwa child (Ava’s daughter). 7.2 Damunhwa Mothers Becoming Wise Mothers Through Using Korean? In this section, under the topic of damunhwa mothers becoming teachers of Korean to their children, I address the damunhwa mothers’ narratives of challenges with raising their children in Korean. Then, using stories from Sumi, I move on to discuss how societal support for damunhwa families is integrated into the socialization of damunhwa families and substantiates the monolingual socialization process. 7.2.1 Challenging Familial Relationships Through Exclusive Use of Korean Many damunhwa mothers presented their obligation to use Korean with their children as suggested by South Korean society through various means (e.g., KSL textbooks, home-visit programs). For example, Michiko described how she learned to use baby talk with her child in 143 Korean through overhearing her husband’s family interacting with her first child (Sep. 17, 2012, School A). She added, “if [I] couldn’t [speak] Korean, then [I] just used Japanese” (ƻ1ě , 4 ¼ƹ·Ņ 4P ō×ě ), reporting the bilingual communication between her and her child. When I initiated my problematization on her communicating with her child in Japanese (Then [did they] understand-? 4— ēď~ņ), Michiko overlapped, raised her voice, and said “[I] couldn’t! [I] couldn’t speak a word. [I] should not speak anything” (¼ƹb;! ­ņ Ƽ ÷ ġŖď. ď½ ­p ¼ƹŅ Đub;; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). This iteration highlights how promoting exclusive use of Korean between mother and child is problematic, which made it difficult for Michiko to parent. She recounted that instead of conforming into the monolingual practice that is suggested in the policy, she drew on her L1 repertoire to carry out her child caregiver roles. Rather than problematizing the normative ideological configuration as presented in Michiko’s account, damunhwa mothers’ being demoralized if they did not provide native-like Korean to their children was also deliberately discussed in different participants’ narratives. For example, in the midst of the first interview with Bosam, she introduced a story of her Korean-Chinese friend (Sep. 07, 2012, School A) who “attended Chinese school [where medium of instruction is Mandarin] so that her [Korean] pronunciation and some other Korean [linguistic] aspects are somewhat clumsy” (Ƃ ű1 ƺ/¦ eSŶ? Ƃ Ę ÊŇŊF ũ Ę ë ëƫěĶ). Bosam described her friend’s mother–child relationship in which “[the child] tends to look down on his mother” (𩦠Ƃ Ę ½Āƹ_ %ǁŊ ‘ěĶ; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Bosam continued: “[her] son is very smart. because [he] is so smart, when [he] is practicing a spelling test and his mom reads [Korean for him], [he] calls [his mom] “mom, [your Korean pronunciation] is not right” [He] says like that!” (6o ď~Ņ ‰ĮŠ ƾĶ. Q½ ŠŠƾŶ? Éďĉ: ƹŖď, ğ© ܔŭŖď, 4— ‘ğ© Ŋ• Ŋ ďbŖď!’ Ŋ• 2 ‘Ŭ! ; Sep. 144 07, 2012, School A). As demonstrated in Bosam’s story of her Korean-Chinese friend, damunhwa children may start to recognize that there is only one way to use Korean and that their mothers are not legitimate speakers of Korean. This provides challenges in the mother–child relationship when damunhwa mothers are expected to become Korean language experts to socialize their children, complexifying the normative monolingual practice in South Korea. The expectation that damunhwa mothers will be calm experts in teaching Korean to their children was also discussed in the interview with Sumi, her husband, and myself. Sumi told me stories about her Vietnamese friend who married a Korean man who participates very little in raising their children. She said, “[my friend’s] husband goes to work during the daytime, and when [he] returns home, [he] rarely has time to play with [his] child, so [the husband] rarely teaches Korean to the child” (ś JƲŅ Lģ ō ë źģ ıë_, Ě:_ ŊŔŭ Y-, Ŋ Y Yď Ā ġ? 4‘ë, Ě:_ ƻ1­ ŗ Đ ¤Ɛŭ? 4‘ ‘ě; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). In other words, Sumi presented that the breadwinner-related activities are not associated with caregiver activities. This reported status of the husband as a breadwinner and his not becoming the main linguistic source for socializing his child in Korean language formulates a distribution of gender labor in the family in which child language socialization is seen as the caregiver’s role but not that of the breadwinner. Such different gender roles in the family put responsibility on the damunhwa wife, who is expected to socialize her child into Korean, when she “does not know Korean very well” (ƛ0 śě ė ƻ1­ ďŭ ŗ »_o; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Sumi said this raises numerous concerns in the family when the child enters school. Although Sumi’s Vietnamese friend asked her husband to participate in their child’s Korean language development, it seems that he rejected the mother’s requests, creating tension in the family: “[the child] enters school 145 next year, and [my friend says to her husband] “what if you’re not teaching [Korean to our child],” so when [they] meet, [they] fight a bit” (Ŷ8 Ě: NU ƺ/ ~ě_o, 4 Đ ¤Ɛ ŭ· ě‡ƾ ƹ?, 4‘ë Ŋ «FÁ ũ, ť8, śě Ćĸ?; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Through these accounts, it was presented as a challenge for the foreign wife to become the main source for teaching her child Korean, and the cause of damunhwa children’s linguistic and cultural difficulty is not the fault of the mother but the Korean father’s lack of participation and societal neglect heightening the gender hierarchy. In the same iteration, Sumi tried to shift the blame on the nature of working outside rather than on her friend’s husband: “but the husband is tired when he [finishes his] work” (4‘ë JƲŅ ō -eıë ƶ(ƹŖďĶ; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Sharing the child caregiving role (i.e., teaching Korean), therefore, would not be possible for him. At the same time, Sumi addressed her friend’s commitment to fulfill the homemaker roles: “The wife does everything by [herself for household-related things]” (śě ıŊƵ e ēďë ƾŭ_o; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Through these accounts, Sumi presented that both parents were doing their best in their gendered roles. Nonetheless, this does not alleviate the tensions arising from the family when damunhwa mothers are suggested to be the only source for teaching Korean to their children (“but [the mother] does not know Korean well, so [the family] have a bit of difficulties” ė ƻ1­ ŗ º¤?, 4‘ë ũ ǖ~? 4‘; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). This calls for societal recognition and systemic development where Korean husbands’ participation in educating their children can be realized, particularly in the areas where they have more expertise than their wives. The problems that arise when damunhwa mothers become Korean teachers for their children were further explicated in Sumi’s story about the same friend: 146 Interview with Sumi Won and her husband (SW & H) [Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home] SW: ė ũ ÚB˜? . . . Çģ Fë e¥ äŽ «F·Ņ ÚB”ļƾĶ. . . . 4‘ë Ŋ jNJ ŗ Đ ƹ? . . . Ŕ: ƻ1­ ŗ »‹-„¾ģ. . . . ė ƛ0 . . .ě€ ŗ Đ Ķ. 4P źģ ‘ě?, . . .Q ũ Ě~ o§? ě€ ũ ‹ 0%p Õ? ‰ ¤Ɛ?, ƾ‹. 6o, ė ŗ Đ . . . .ƹ£Ūō źģ ‘?. . . . 4‘ë Ě~p Đ ĐÕNŭ? 4P, My friend is a bit shy . . . when meeting people outside, she is shy. . . . So she rarely talks with (other Koreans). . . . (She said) “I don’t know Korean well-” so . . . (My) friend . . . rarely goes outside. [she] stays home all day long . . . (I) told her “you should take your children, go outside, see stuff, and teach stuff” like that. But she does not go outside. . . . [she] stays home all day long . . . and does not take her children outside but just [stays home] Sumi’s description of her friend represents her as a discouraged mother: She is unable to use Korean well but needs to teach Korean to her children. The mother has developed emotional insecurities due to this responsibility, avoids meeting Koreans, and isolates herself and her children from others, all of which may contribute to substantial challenges in Sumi’s friend’s family language socialization. These accounts further call for redistribution of gender roles between the foreign mother and the Korean father and rethinking of societal expectations and support for damunhwa mothers to teach standard Korean to their children. 7.2.2 “Other Koreans Helped Me to Learn Korean Culture”: Becoming a Wise Korean Mother? Relating to the earlier discussion about how the particular gender role that the government has envisioned—damunhwa mothers as teachers of Korean to their children—results in family struggles, in this section, I draw on stories of how damunhwa mothers present their views and practices on the kinds of societal support provided by the government, including the home-visit program. In Chapter 5, it was described that (1) the home-visit parenting service is exclusively designed for damunhwa mothers, but not for Korean fathers, (2) the home-visit KSL programs are temporarily available to damunhwa children only when requested, and finally, (3) there are no comprehensible KSL provisions for damunhwa children on the national level in the standard national curriculum. 147 With regard to the problems arising from this policy, Sumi described her experiences using Korean home-visit instructors to learn and teach Korean to her child. Sumi reported that there was a home-visit teacher who came to her house to teach Korean but Sumi yielded her Korean learning to her son: “From that time on, the home-visit teacher came [to our] home and I learned [Korean from her] once and Hyunmin learned after [me]. But Hyunmin learned more from her [later]” (eŇÚƧ śě ̾íêd źģ ıë, ƍģ ś_ ƻ Ï Íĸ?, zģ DžÃŊp Íļ. 6o DžÃŊ_ ¬Ŋ Íļ, Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). By demonstrating Sumi’s arrangement to make her son learn Korean from the home-visit teacher but not her, Sumi presented a mother who would sacrifice herself for her child’s education. Alternatively, Sumi described how she sought ways to substitute what a mother-in-law might do for her. She said, Interview with Sumi Won and her husband (SW & H) [Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home] SW: ś_ Ŋ jNJƾë ƻ1êǍp ŗ »‹ŖďĶ. ś_ ĀÚºp Đ &Ā?, ;Ĺ äŽ ď½p ġěĶ. 4‘ë íêd Ŋ Ě: ƾ Õ?. ě‡ ƾĶ ě‡ ƾĶ ¿ěÕ?, 4‘ë íêdp ¤ƚ? I communicated (with the teacher) because (I) also didn’t know the lifestyle of South Korea. I don’t have parents-in-law and there was no one who was close to me. So I asked the teacher’s (advice). (I) asked (her), “what should (I) do (with this), what should (I) do (with that)?” So the teacher also taught (me) What could be further discussed in this interview is how Sumi’s home-visit teacher fulfilled dual roles as a Korean language teacher to Sumi’s child (Hyunmin) and as a Korean mother-in-law for Sumi. On the other hand, Sumi became a novice as a mother and wife when the home-visit teacher was present. Nonetheless, through forfeiting her KSL development for her child, Sumi displayed an identity of a dedicated (and wise) mother who would sacrifice her time and resources for her child to be educated. Furthermore, these categorical differences are based on the premises that there is one way of living in South Korea and that it is Koreans who are experts in socializing damunhwa families, both in terms of Sumi and her child. Although the 148 home-visit programs are provided with goodwill, the reported story presents how hierarchical relations between Korean and damunhwa families are produced, which harnesses the (re)production of monolingualism and monoculturalism in South Korea. Additionally, Sumi’s story demonstrates the need for more sensitive and sustained home-visit programs for educating their children. Addressing how her first child (Hyunmin, Grade 1) became more proficient in Korean than her as he entered school, Sumi narrated tensions arising between her and her child: “And I have one more concern. Our Hyunmin, the child has now entered school and he speaks better Korean [than me]. haha” (4§? Ŋ2 Š ƹF l ‘ěĶ. ĸ§ DžÃŊ, ė Ŷ8 ƺ/ ~ěë, ƻ1­ l ŗƹŖď ǒǒ; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). She continued: Interview with Sumi Won and her husband (SW & H) [Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home] SW: źģ ıë ś2 ğ©Õ? Ŋ2Ŋ2 ƻe?, Ŋ jNJƹ_o ė l ŗ ƹ?. ­ ũ ŗ ƹ_o, ƹ£Ūō ė ğ© ¿ě ×o. ǒǒ ė 2A  ƾë. 4‘ë Ŋ2 ě‡ ƹ· ū8W. 42p ǖ~ě. ďŊ0, Ŕā /ł 4•2 ŸŻ ǖ~ě. When returning home, well, talking to me, (he said he does) this and that (at school, we) talk (about his school) together, but (my) kid speaks better (Korean than I do). He somewhat speaks better, and he says mom asks him every day (instead of him asking mom). haha (He says) that it is a reverse (role). So (in) this (case), what should I do? This is also difficult. ahha, Stuff like child education is really difficult. Such stated family attributes were reported to be destabilizing mother–child relations, in which the mother should be the cultural and linguistic expert to socialize the novice, her children. Yet, through reporting her child’s evaluation of their mother–child interaction as problematic, Sumi stated that maintaining the mother–child hierarchical relation through Korean language and culture like other Korean families was becoming a tremendous challenge for her. As presented, there was little indication in her interview that Sumi drew on her L1 cultural knowledge to raise her children. Bearing Korean language socialization as the norm, Sumi demonstrated how she strived to become a competent Korean mother through making her Vietnamese practices invisible but learning as much as possible about Korean language and 149 culture from the Korean home-visit instructor and her children. Nonetheless, Sumi stated that both she and her child identified familial settings where she would not be able to fully accomplish Korean-only parenting of her child, which was complicating their mother–child relationship. Sumi’s story raises various questions about how home-visit programs should be handled. As Sumi stated, although the home-visit instructors may be a benevolent attempt to support damunhwa mothers, one should not assume that simply having home-visit instructors will solve all the problems in damunhwa families. This also raises the question of whether asking solely damunhwa mothers to master Korean cultural practices in raising children is ideal for the family. As discussed, damunhwa mothers’ socialization of their children into Korean language, culture, and lifestyle is not as simple as it sounds. Instead, the emphasis on Korean language socialization raises concerns in mother–child relationships that are exclusively managed in Korean. Therefore, when home-visit instructors enter these multilingual households, there must at least be a recognition that family multilingual socialization is a complex process that requires sensitive understandings and careful approaches. 7.3 Divisions of Gendered Labor at Home: Construction of Fatherhood in the Family In this section, I discuss how damunhwa mothers and children presented their views on their Korean husbands and fathers. Through this, I address how in certain respects Korean fathers become gatekeepers in addition to having opportunities for mutually educating their children. 7.3.1 Korean Fathers not Getting Involved in the Family As I mentioned elsewhere, Korean husbands’ lack of participation in their children’s education was an additional topic of discussion. For example, Bosam explained how different gendered roles and activities between her and her husband created challenges for Bosam and 150 how she made sense of her difficulties. She told me that “when the dad returns home, [he] doesn’t do anything” (Ě~ ďà_ źģ ĭ·Ņ, ĐƾĶ. ď½p ĐƾĶ) and stated that she hoped her husband would “help with the children’s homework” (Ě~ øš ũ Ù ŭ? ũ 4”· ūŅo; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Because of his lack of participation, Bosam said she would take the entire responsibility for their children’s education and described the division of gender roles in her family (i.e., the father works outside and the mother takes care of their children at home). She said she is burdened by being the main person who takes care of their children’s schoolwork. Yet, Bosam complexified the division of gender roles in educating their children, drawing on different family categories and related attributes. Bosam proposed a new characteristic of her husband, “anyway, my husband is from the old generation and [because of this, he] was not fully educated. But I am, well, somewhat a new generation” (6o, ěƅƶ ĸ§ Ðp ĬI äŽŊ‹ ¼ Íĸ:_ ¼ ÍĿěĶ. 6o, F_ Þ¡ À 4‘p ĂðjŖďĶ; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Raising the issue of educational quality, Bosam differentiated between the new and old generations and stated that the new generation—in her family’s case, Bosam—would be more qualified to educate their children. Nonetheless, Bosam brought up other categories and attributes that disqualified her from educating her children; for example, because of her foreigner identity, she stated she did not have any socially or culturally specific knowledge of South Korea (i.e., social studies): “Like social studies [in South Korea], I do not have any basic knowledge from here. I am also [having] so much difficulty” (Ŋ‘Õ·Ņ äǏŅ 2_, N :×Ŝ ĥ:ģ ǔ ǔ÷v  ď½p ġ: „¾ģ Fp Q½ ě›Ĺ 2īĶ; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). This rationalizes her construction of herself as a novice who is in the process of learning about South Korean society and culture: “Because I am also in the learning stage right now. Therefore, it is so difficult. It is so difficult” (Fp Ŷ8 151 Íĸ_ f&Ŗď Ŷ8. 4™: „¾ģ Q½ ě›ļĶ. 4 Q½ ěž?; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Through articulating her foreigner-novice characteristics, Bosam implicitly portrayed her husband as more qualified to help out with their children. However, Bosam reported that her husband had never been involved in their children’s education, which troubled her. The details of categorical attributes that Bosam described are shown in Figure 7.2. Figure 7.2 Bosam’s Description of Parental Roles Father Mother Breadwinner Old Generation | Do not need to educate their children Homemaker New Generation | Need to educate their children Korean – Expert Qualified to Educate children Foreigner – Novice Not qualified Bosam’s narrative shows how she discussed father/mother, new/old generation, and Korean/foreigner categories that complexify Bosam to become the major source for educating their children. As seen in Figure 7.2, the identities of breadwinner/homemaker and old/new generation distinguished the Korean father as someone who did not need to get involved in their children’s education, while Bosam had to be. Nonetheless, Bosam brought up the foreigner category and linked it with expert/novice relations to describe her difficulty in educating their children in several school curriculums. Based on this categorical distinction, the mother said she was not fully qualified to educate her children on specific curriculum matters. On the other hand, the father, who might be an expert in Korean-related matters, was not involved in educating their children. 152 Similarly, Ava also addressed her husband’s lack of participation in Ella’s schoolwork, yet she provided a different account of fatherhood. She said: Interview with Ava Asanov (AA) [Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home] AA: ďà_ Ĥ‹ *Ú, ²§ Đ rďe? ĐƾĶ. ďà_ 1Ãƺ/ 6ƺU« ŨĠƿěĶ. ŗ »‹Ķ. ď, F »‹Ķ, 2ƆďĶ >4‘ë< ďà_ >»‹Ķ.< (Her) dad, (for) Ella’s study, (he) does not get involved (because he) said he’s pooped. He only graduated elementary school, Grade 6. (He said) “(I) do not know well. Ah, I don’t know. (I’m) tired” So (Ella’s) dad doesn’t know. BS: ě‡ Õ· ğ©: ě²b(.)?ë ģÆ č jƺ(.);Ŷ Fĭòë, 4• *Ú Ņ 2_ ũ l l ŗ: °ƾ ŭă ÷(.) ‘ńĀ8RĶ?° Since, you are a university graduate, (you) might likely be better at dealing with (Ella’s) studies? AA: ĉ, Ň, ě::: ś_: Ĥ‹_ Ŷ8: ƺÿŶ ‘ŖďĶ? 42 ţıë ƹ_o, š ÷ƺ Ŋ• 2_ pıŭ? ÷ƺ š ŗƹŖďĶ? pıŭ_o, þ: Ĺ êǍ Ŋ• 2_ Ň ś ƻ1­ ŗ ¼ ēď ~ěŶ? ŗ »‹Ķ 4 tsk, um, uh, I, Ella is now doing home-school material. Bring and doing the worksheet, I help with stuff like math. I’m good at math. (I do) help (Ella), but subjects like “wise life” um I don’t understand Korean quite well, so I don’t know it Overall, the mother and father identities in Ava’s family that were discussed in the extract above can be represented by Figure 7.3. Figure 7.3 Ava’s Description of Parental Roles Father Mother Uneducated | Tired | ?? | Not qualified to educate Ella Educated | Not tired | Does not have specific knowledge of South Korean culture | Partially qualified to educate Ella Through presenting educational attributes and her husband’s stated physical condition, Ava demonstrated that her husband could not participate in their daughter’s education. On the other hand, by contrasting her level of education with that of her husband, Ava became the major source of Ella’s education, particularly in math. Nonetheless, instead of orienting to the cultural 153 specifics of the curriculum content of wise life (i.e., combination of social studies and science taught in Grades 1 and 2) that could be difficult to understand as someone who is not Korean educated, locating her lack of language expertise as the problem, Ava deprecated herself as someone who could not fully educate Ella. Constructing the highly educated foreign mother as a partially capable mother complexifies their parental relations and attributes of damunhwa families in educating their children. 7.3.2 A Korean Father in a Damunhwa Family: A Breadwinner? An Older Generation? Though Ava and I constructed her husband as an incompetent father for educating Ella, the following interview with Ella provided a different understanding of fatherhood in their family. When I asked Ella about her father’s involvement in her schoolwork, Ella reported examples of her father explaining things to her, specifically with regard to language that embeds historic and cultural knowledge (e.g., use of honorific language for greeting elders, language that presents social relations): Interview with Ella Kim (EK) [Nov. 24, 2012, Ava’s Home] EK: ĬI = ‘ŽďĶ. . . . ĸ§F‹ 4•2 ĐVƹðĶ Ŋ•2. . . . s(.)R(.) ‘ŖďĶ? . . . sR ƛ0ŖďĶ. . . . s½Ō? . . . 4•2 »‹Ŷ? ďàƻƨ ¿ěØ „p ‘ěĶ. (He explains) things in the past. (For example) in our country, (there is) something like hello-honorific (expression), (he explains) this kind of thing (to me). (And is there a word) like town? (Is there a word) like a friend from same town? Is it (called) buddy? Because I don’t know these kinds, I sometimes ask (them) to my dad. When I asked about her mother’s role, Ella formulated her mother as “a math genius” (ğ©_ ÷ƺ ƌŚb<Ķ; Nov. 24, 2012, Ava’s Home), which characterizes Ava’s qualification to educate Ella in a particular academic subject. Followed by Ella’s description on her mother, I asked whether Ella thought her “dad is a Korean genius?” (ďà_ ƻ1ě ƌŚ?). In response to my question, Ella characterized her father’s age as a source of cultural and historical knowledge: “[b]ecause [my] dad lived in the old times. He knows everything, [he knows] how [things] 154 became the way they are” (ďà_Ķ ĬIģ, ĬIģ æďıëĶ. À ě‡ u_Ŷ e ďb;Ķ; Nov. 24, 2012, Ava’s Home). Figure 7.4 Ella’s Description of Parental Roles Father Mother Korean language and cultural knowledge provider | Qualified to educate Ella Math genius | Qualified to educate Ella As detailed in Figure 7.4, the roles of the mother and the father based on their competencies are constructed in the following way: The mother, who majored in accounting, could educate Ella in math, while the father, who has long lived in South Korea, could pass on his knowledge and wisdom about South Korean culture and society to Ella. Although Korean fathers are viewed as not interested in childcare and hugely silenced in policy and the mothers’ discourses, as exemplified in Ella’s response in her interview, their roles and identities can be constructed in various ways, such as serving as a resource that allows damunhwa children and mothers to understand social hierarchies, behaviors, customs, and history that could guide them to learn socially and culturally appropriate ways of living and being in South Korea. 7.4 Summary In this chapter, I discussed two interrelated themes that contribute to an understanding of monolingual socialization and struggles in damunhwa families. Instead of yielding to the dominant view that damunhwa mothers should be raising their children exclusively in Korean, Michiko maintained that the practice of monolingualism may disallow communication between mothers and children. On the other hand, Bosam’s stories of her Korean-Chinese friend present a difficult mother–child relationship in which the son challenged his mother’s Korean linguistic 155 skills and undermined her legitimacy and competence as a mother. The stories that Sumi provided about her Vietnamese friend indicate how an emphasis on exclusive use of Korean contributes to family isolation and a lack of meaningful linguistic exchanges in damunhwa families. Thus, the emphasis on damunhwa mothers as teachers of Korean to their children is discussed as an obstacle of socialization for the entire family, leading the mother and father to fight with each other and the children to have difficulties in school. These accounts indicate that the government’s effort to help damunhwa mothers become fluent only in Korean may not be the best way to support them. Despite the linguistic challenges brought on by the (1) emphasis on damunhwa mothers’ mastery of Korean language and culture, (2) neglect of the importance of mothers’ L1 in educating their children, and (3) overshadowing of Korean fathers’ involvement in educating their children, there has been a continuous assumption that damunhwa families’ linguistic challenges are the fault of damunhwa mothers. With such misidentification, the number of KSL programs for damunhwa mothers has increased with the involvement of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Education, and National Institute of Korean Language. Yet, Sumi presented complex issues that arise from these benevolent but monolingualism-emphasizing interventions. Sumi said she treated the home-visit KSL teacher as someone whom she should emulate in order to raise her children adequately, using her as a replacement for a mother-in-law or other Korean relatives. In addition, Sumi indicated how her elder child identified her as a nonexpert in Korean language and culture as he grew up, which gradually challenged her to become a competent mother. Thus, Sumi presented the effects of monolingual socialization through government policy that requires mothers to know the 156 normative language, culture, and practices of South Korea without giving them much support, while hugely silencing their available linguistic and cultural knowledge. Other themes that are raised in relation to monolingual socialization are the division of gender roles at home and the roles of Korean fathers in not educating their children to become competent members of South Korean society. Although Korean fathers are likely to be a major available resource for their children’s learning of Korean, there is no expectation presented that Korean fathers will offer support to their wives and their children. When there was little discussion of how to negotiate gender roles in the family, Bosam destabilized the normative gender roles (i.e., father as breadwinner versus mother as homemaker) through raising different parental categorical attributes (e.g., old/new generations, educated/less educated, Korean/foreigner) that could allow her husband to participate in educating their children. Ava also discussed a similar issue of having difficulties educating her daughter into school content that is culturally and socially specific and obtaining help from her husband. Yet, Ella reported an occasion how her father’s life experiences were a resource that allowed her to have access to social hierarchies, behaviors, customs, and history. Ella also mentioned that her father guided her to learn socially and culturally appropriate ways of living in South Korea. This story opens a possibility for Korean fathers’ roles and identities to be positively reshaped in various ways, such as to serve as a source of historical and cultural knowledge. To conclude, the mothers presented their struggle to meet the expectations imposed on them and expressed their inability to conform to the monolingual socialization ideology: damunhwa mothers as teachers of Korean to their children. Their stories also call for reinterpretation of the distribution of gender roles so that Korean fathers have a presence in supporting their partners and educating their children. The emphasis on the caregiver role and 157 Korean-only practices among damunhwa mothers, without negotiation of the strengths of each parent, could result in detrimental socialization of damunhwa families and creation of incompetent mothers in South Korea. In an equal sense, the widely reported claims made by the South Korean government and scholars (e.g., Choe, 2008; H.-W. Choi & B.-M. Hwang, 2009; S.-S. Hwang, 2011; S.-S. Hwang & Jeong, 2008; Jeon et al., 2013; Jeong, 2004; Haesuk Jung et al., 2016; S. K. Kim et al., 2010; S. J. Lee, Shin, Kim, & Kim, 2008; H. S. Park et al., 2012; Myeongsun Park & Jaegu Park, 2011; Seol et al., 2005) blaming damunhwa mothers for their children’s Korean deficiency could be understood as inadequate and calls for a paradigm shift, from a decontextualized and cognitive approaches to L2 acquisition to socially and culturally situated L2 learning, which illuminates experiences and perspectives on damunhwa families’ multilingual socialization. In the next chapter, I discuss the effects of the language policy practice by which the South Korean government recommends that damunhwa mothers become bilingual teachers for all Koreans in South Korea, instead of their own children. 158 Chapter 8: DAMUNHWA MOTHERS BECOMING BILINGUAL WORKERS IN GLOBALIZED SOUTH KOREA 8.1 Introduction In this chapter, I present stories of the four focal damunhwa mothers’ views on and experiences of becoming bilingual instructors in a specific life stage designed by the South Korean government, Stage 4. First, I describe the ways in which the focal participants present their views towards the South Korean government’s promotion of bilingual education through damunhwa mothers. Followed by their interview accounts, I organize the stories of how the damunhwa mothers became bilingual instructors in a chronological manner, from recruitment and vocational training to teaching and working experiences. Through their narratives, I present the underlying logics that socialize damunhwa mothers into bilingual instructors and how the bilingual education they provide is different from what the national government has been promoting. Figure 8.1 Focus of Chapter 8 In Stage 4, the South Korean government recruits Korean-fluent damunhwa mothers and trains them to become bilingual workers. The types of bilingual work in which they are recommended to participate are (1) bilingual translators, interpreters, and counselors for the novice damunhwa mothers who are undergoing Stage 2, (2) bilingual teachers for damunhwa and Korean children in Stage 3, and (3) bilingual spokespersons representing all life stages to South Stage 1 International Marriage Preparation Period Stage 2 Family Formation Period Stage 3 Child Rearing and Settlement Period Stage 4 Capacity-Building Period 159 Koreans. Under these three categories of bilingual workers, each role is specifically designed to intervene in the life trajectories of other people (e.g., novice damunhwa wives, damunhwa and Korean children, and South Koreans). Conversely, through transforming the selected damunhwa mothers into national bilingual agents, the South Korean government presents its expectation that damunhwa mothers will become legitimate participants in South Korean society. In other words, through designing experienced damunhwa mothers into bilingual workers, the government presents its hope that (1) Koreans will gain multilingual and multicultural sensitivity via damunhwa mothers’ bilingual and bicultural resources, (2) damunhwa mothers will produce good images of immigrants and foreigners in South Korea, and (3) damunhwa families will gain a sense of pride and economic sustainability. Nonetheless, the government proposal for building the social and economic capacities of damunhwa families is based on very little systemic national provisions or bilingual guidelines for damunhwa mothers to follow. In addition, several government documents indicate that these bilingual positions are contract-based, part-time working arrangement, raising concerns over sustainable income for their families. With these issues in mind, I present interview accounts that demonstrate that the underlying rationale differs from the government’s logics of promoting bilingualism and representational practices that will provide sustainable working conditions for damunhwa mothers. 8.2 “We Contribute to the Development of South Korea”: Echoing the Linguistic Nationalism of Damunhwa Families to South Koreans In this section, I first discuss how damunhwa mothers made sense of the particular ideological configuration of bilingualism circulating in South Korea. Through this, I demonstrate the ways in which damunhwa mothers’ L1 is used to reshape linguistic nationalism in 160 preparation to compete in the globalized economy. For example, when I asked Ava how she came to speak out on the importance of damunhwa mothers’ L1s to South Koreans, she described two contrasting identities: a negative identity that South Koreans might perceive versus a positive identity damunhwa mothers could offer to Koreans (Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). Drawing on the attributes of countries that damunhwa mothers came from, Ava formulated a collective identity of damunhwa mothers as poor, needy, outcasts, which leads to the creation of a problematic and inferior transnational identity of people who need generous support from South Koreans (“there are too many people who came from countries that are in real poverty and starving [conditions]” %š Q½ Đ ūŅ ŸŻ Š­ ¼³? k:_ F‹ģë ĭ_ Û~p Q½ ¬ŖďĶ; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). Under this identity formulation, Ava said Koreans would belittle damunhwa mothers (“[Koreans] tend to be snobs toward [damunhwa] people” 4‘ë 4 äŽņ ũ ½Āƹ?; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). She continued: Interview with Ava Asanov [Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home] AA: 4‘ë ĸ§p ŠŅ äŽŌo, ĸ§p ŗ Ƽ ÷ ‘_2, ĸ§_ ½ť ĥ:ë ƻ1 Ë« ³?, ƻ1 ƒģ e µj  ƹ_2 ďb?, ĸ§ ĥ:ë pĺ ÷ ‘_2. Ĵ4O· ĥ”Ï äŽ~Ņ Ƹ§Ʒ ”Āď ě e ƹ? ‘ń· ƻ1p ÊŝŊ u_ 2. ĸ§p *Úƹ?, pıů ÷ ‘_2. ĸ§p ŔāM?, ĸ§ Ŕāp ƻ1 äŽ Fűģ u_2īĶ. 4‘ë 4 êń  ½ť ĸ§_ Ë ƾë ³_2 ďb? ĸ§_ ƻ1ģë pĻp u? So we are all equal beings, (there are) things that we are good at, we don’t just eat meals in South Korea, and (we) don’t act out the way (we would) like to do in South Korea, we (have something) to offer here. Because when there are many people (and when) the Philippines and Russians are used here, South Korea will be developed. We also study, and (we) can help. We have children, and our offspring will become Korean in the future. So with this thought, we just don’t eat meals, we also become a helper in South Korea. Ava identified with damunhwa mothers as “we” and introduced several activities and attributes that justify them as equal human beings to South Koreans. Ava rejected damunhwa categories that are negatively distributed to South Koreans and introduced positive damunhwa identities that would make equal contributions to Korean society. Under this identity work, Ava 161 described how damunhwa mothers’ L1s could be used to contribute to the economic development of South Korea and continued to report that “we” are workers and Korean mothers that could benefit South Korea. Through these articulations, Ava could depart from the negative image of unhelpful, unruly immigrants to frame damunhwa women’s contributions as mothers, workers, and bilingual resources for South Korean society. Nonetheless, not all damunhwa mothers’ L1s are equally celebrated and learned under the stated linguistic nationalism; they are selectively promoted based on various international and intranational politics of language and economy. Despite Ava’s stated promotion of damunhwa mothers’ L1s to South Koreans, Ava told me that her language would not be very useful in Nabi city: Interview with Ava Asanov [Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home] AA: ĥ: . . . ”Āď äķƹ_ äŽ~ Ô  ġńb;_ ĸ§_ 4P 4Ɓń  ƩĦƼ ōp ġ?. . . . %:pģ ”Āďë Íĸ_ äŽ~ ¬? . . . #lj ŊÃŔ~p ¬ŖďĶ over here (in Nabi city) . . . there are very few (damunhwa wives) who use Russian so we (Russian background damunhwa mothers), don’t translate (any Russian here) . . . (i)n Kyunggi Province, there are many people who learn Russian . . . and (there are) many damunhwa wives (whose L1 is Russian). In the second interview, Ava additionally recounted, “[I] would teach Russian if there was anyone who was interested” (”Āďě ,ĄŊ ‘_ 䎑ń· ¤Ɛŭ8_o; Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home). All these address linguistic marginalization due to low need for her language where she lives. Similarly, Bosam, who had been working as a Korean-Mandarin instructor in several community centers in Nabi city, reported that not all damunhwa mothers’ L1s are equally taught, in addition to their difficulty finding professional jobs. She introduced how differently imagined international relations based on the mother’s country of origin that are shared by South Koreans in Nabi city provided different orders of employment for damunhwa mothers; for example, as shown in the extract below, Bosam stated that Filipina, Japanese, and Chinese (or Korean- 162 Chinese) mothers are recruited to teach English, Japanese, and Mandarin respectively. Interview with Bosam Hwang [Sep. 07, 2012, School A] BH: 4F© 4‘p Ƹ§Ʒ ğ©~ Ņ %ĸģ . . . Īě.ä  ¬Ŋ ćĶ . . . À ű1p ‰ À Ŋš ĬIģ ÞƾëĶ, ĶŴģ_ ‰ Ę ‰ ƕðŖďĶ . . . ‰ ě‡ ō×ěp À ‰ ě‡ .äLJń  Despite these (limited employment circumstances), in the Filipina mothers’ case . . . (m)any of them are hired as English language instructors . . . Mandarin is, compared to the past, it is a bit of a trend . . . and Japanese is also taught (through bilingual) instructors. Bosam continue to articulate, “nowadays China is so big. Their economic size is so [big] that they have so much potential for development, foreseeing far into the future. So [Koreans] tend to learn [Mandarin]” (Ŋš ű1p ļG ƞeÕb; Ŋš À Ŋš ‰ Ŋš %š À %š 3ºŅ Ŋ ‘ěë j ÊŝŊ ‘ěë Ŋš ´ ‘¦ Ùë_ Íĸ_ ś2 ‘?; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). On the other hand, Bosam mentioned that only a few people in South Korea want to learn Vietnamese, which creates uncertainty in the bilingual job market for Vietnamese mothers (“There are very few people who would like to learn Vietnamese” ÓƬJ ě Íĸ? ąŅ äŽ~, ŸŻ 5ô÷ŖďĶ; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Indicating bilingual instruction positions in Nabi city have different perceived demands (e.g., English is learned widely, Japanese is learned to some extent, and Mandarin learning is growing, but not Vietnamese), Bosam brought up how language becomes a resource that promotes economic and social benefits for damunhwa mothers, but differently. Based on how people in Nabi city imagine discrete international relations between South Korea and damunhwa mothers’ countries of origin, damunhwa mothers might be able to envision their bilingual conditions in divergent ways. Bosam’s articulation in her interview may have allowed her to imagine how she would be socialized to become a Mandarin-Korean bilingual instructor in Nabi city. This was further realized through an afterschool program that the Office of Nabi City led 163 called the Rainbow Teacher Project, where Michiko reported that she would soon start working when I interviewed her. Michiko reported how the Office of Nabi City planned to make several damunhwa mothers into bilingual teachers: Interview with Michiko Watanabe (MW) [Sep. 17, 2012, School A] MW: Āģë Rainbow Teacher‹? ƾë Ā Ľěà .ä¦ «~Ŕ‹? ƾë . . . ¹ ¸ Ǔ âďŶ?, ű1, Ƹ§Ʒ ō× ¹ ¸ âďŶ? /łÉĕěĶ. 4 zģ Ì+ǐģ ũ ÕNŭ_ 2īĶ The city (opened a program) called Rainbow Teacher. The city decided to use native speakers for language instruction so (the city) trained (the mothers). um, (The city) selected a few (mothers from) China, the Philippines, and Japan and (we) received education. After this, (the city) sent (the instructors) to the afterschool program. Though neither Michiko nor I highlighted what the Rainbow Teacher Project was leading to, attending to Michiko’s listing of the damunhwa mothers’ countries of origin displayed the linguistic priority of the program. Juxtaposing countries of origin, we discussed how locally situated linguistic demands are constructed through the Rainbow Teacher Project, which implicitly states that English, Japanese, and Mandarin are sanctioned languages for teaching in public schools. Others whose first language is other than these languages are seen as not valuable for teaching and learning in public school contexts. Nonetheless, given the situation that many damunhwa mothers in Nabi city are Vietnamese (280 people), Chinese from the PRC (133 people), Korean-Chinese (94 people), Taiwanese (6 people), Japanese (31 people), Filipina (52 people), Cambodian (11 people), Thai (8 people), Indonesian (3 people), Mongolian (3 people), or from Uzbekistan or other neighboring countries (7 people; Ministry of the Interior, 2013), the language is taught through the Rainbow Teacher Project do not coincide with the demographics of the damunhwa population. Thus, very few damunhwa women are selected to be hired as bilingual teachers in public schools based on the ethnolinguistic order in which some languages are perceived as more valuable than other heritage/minority languages. 164 8.3 A Systematic and Sustainable Process for Training Bilingual/Foreign Instructors? In this section, I focus on interview accounts in which the participants narrated their pre-teaching activities, such as the recruitment process and teacher-training experiences. One of the first issues that Bosam and Michiko raised was the unsystematic vocational training that they received. For example, Michiko said that she had received too much educational training that endowed various certificates (e.g., multicultural instructor, tour guide, multicultural facilitator, and bilingual instructor). Michiko reported that she even went to another city that was a 2-hour bus ride away to receive multicultural instructor education, and she learned how to make PowerPoint slides and do academic presentations (Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Nonetheless, she said she remained unemployed after these job trainings, indicating there was no employment linked to the education she received. Contrary to the previous training experiences, Michiko told me that the Rainbow Teacher Project was the very first government-led program where education and employment were connected. After contrasting the Rainbow Teacher Project and other vocational trainings for damunhwa mothers, Michiko presented her views on the mechanism of government investment and how the government failed to manage its system for funding the various programs it had designed. Michiko said, “the money for training comes from the [South Korean] government’s investment. [The government] spends a lot of money” (42 4p F‹p ƪŔƾė ƹ_ 2ŖďĶ. qp ¬Ŋ ĉ?; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Nonetheless, Michiko stated that the majority of the free education for the damunhwa mothers ended up without actual program implementation, although it could potentially enrich the lives of those who receive the education. She said: “Before this, [Koreans] only did the education. And said like “[we] don’t know what will 165 follow” . . . [t]hey even provide [free] lunch” (4 ŝģ;Ŷ_ /ł« ƿ?. ě†Ŷ º º¤8e . . . ŞĄ;Ŷ ŭ?; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Therefore, although the government programs may have been designed to benevolently support the socially, culturally, and linguistically marginalized damunhwa families, in Michiko’s terms, they did not provide any substantial benefits. Michiko recommended—“[Similar to] the rainbow teacher [program], um, [I hope there are programs that] make the damunhwa people as useful, [and] send them to the society. uh [I] wish there were programs like that” ŸŻ  Ŋ™ šŌÕĸ ƯƋƋ—ńŇ 4 e¾NJ äŽ~ņ ũ Ċ ÷ ‘_ äŽń  «~ě Ŷ? äǏ  ũ ÕNŭ_ 2. ě 4•~Ŋ ‘ń· ū8ěĶ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A)—echoing the need for the government creating programs that would link training and employment and guiding the damunhwa mothers to become useful members of South Korean society. In a similar vein, I heard many damunhwa mothers express concern about their employment after their trainings. Yet, I was told by one of the damunhwa program coordinators in Wooju Province stating that the program had little capacity to actively engage in damunhwa mothers’ employment (May. 23, 2011, personal communication). Combining Michiko’s interview narratives and my previous encounters may indicate that there is little infrastructure to facilitate damunhwa mothers’ employment after their vocational trainings (For more details, see O. H. Bae, 2015), whereas the managers and instructors who participate in educating damunhwa mothers may receive social and economic benefits that may not be equally provided in their other academic and professional settings. Apart from my earlier critiques (i.e., hierarchically structured linguistic orders based on educational demands), what was discussed in Michiko’s narrative was how the Rainbow Teacher project was taken as a better vocational training model compared to other education programs 166 that were sponsored by the South Korean government. Michiko’s interview demonstrated that the government’s provision of various free education programs for damunhwa mothers may have done very little for changing their lives. Michiko’s account of the Rainbow Teaching Project (“[they] promised to send [us] to schools to work after completing the course . . . everyone studied really hard”, 4 /ł Éń·Ņ ƺ/ģÕNŮe Ęõņ ƾŭ? /łÉŅ 2b;, ěě. e ĨĄǕ 42 *ÚƿŬ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A) may have implications for other programs that do not facilitate any employment, which may lead damunhwa mothers not to take seriously the kinds of education that they receive.45 Such conditions may benefit mainstream Koreans through allowing them to get involved in the management of multicultural programs and training. Though it is unknown how vocational education for damunhwa mothers is currently implemented, over the periods of my interviewing (2012-2013), I had similar encounters where these concerns were discussed. When participating in a bilingual teacher training at a local university as a bilingual specialist, I received CAD $150 per hour for teaching. One of the professors in the program told me that the program paid instructors quite well (Mar. 15, 2011, personal communication). Given the average income for part-time instructors in South Korea (CAD $30-80/hr), getting involved in the government’s 45 Bosam also raised this issue in the second interview (Oct. 27, 2012, Bosam’s Home). She reported a story about vocational trainings that one of her Korean-Chinese friend attended. Bosam said there were a lot of damunhwa mothers chatting loudly and not paying attention to the classes. She added the professor who taught the course blamed damunhwa mothers’ classroom behaviors associated with their human quality (“Yeah right. This is your level” b~Ŋ 7ƚÀ. ÷ŮŊ Ŋ2 Çģ Đ u_o). However, Bosam said the course contents are inconsistent and superficial that cannot be immediately implemented in their lives (“This time this topic, next time that topic” ĶÏģ_ Ŋ ŭš, eŇģ_ Ŋ ŭš). Through these accounts, it is presented that the structure of the vocational programs designed for damunhwa mothers may not be well designed to help them change their lives but facilitated damunhwa mothers’ lack of classroom participation. 167 multicultural/multilingual project would not be a bad additional income for university-level professionals. In addition, the enormous emphasis on the government’s offer of exclusive training does not always apply to all bilingual instructor programs. Bosam told me stories about how she became a Mandarin instructor at the regional childcare support centers (Sep. 07, 2012, School A). She reported that she heard by chance that the Nabi regional childcare support centers were hiring a Korean-Mandarin teacher, submitted an application for teaching, received the job offer, and immediately started teaching Mandarin at the childcare support centers that were spread throughout Nabi city. Thus, she did not have to go through the teacher training but was hired due to the criteria required by the South Korean government: She was a damunhwa mother who was fluent in Korean and had a college education (Ministry of Education, 2010), and her L1 was what the South Koreans were looking for, Mandarin. This again indicates that bilingual training is not always the aim in the creation of high-quality bilingual classes for damunhwa mothers, but in fact these programs benefit those who are training the mothers because they can continuously receive government funding. 8.4 Becoming Competent Bilingual Workers? In the previous section, I discussed damunhwa mothers’ reports of their vocational training processes that led them to become bilingual teachers. In this section, I discuss accounts of how Bosam, Michiko, and Sumi faced challenges in their professional settings as bilingual teachers, interpreters/translators, and counselors. 8.4.1 Lack of Teaching Materials Similar to what was discussed in Chapter 5, the interview accounts that Bosam and Michiko provided indicate the government’s lack of involvement in designing the curriculum 168 and content of bilingual programs. Under such unsystematic support, Bosam told me that she needed to develop all the teaching materials by herself. Interview with Bosam Hwang [Sep. 07, 2012, School A] BH: 4b;ªũ:×/Śpªġ?쇤ƝėƹFÀŔ¢Ņď½pġŶŶĦģëŶĽƾŭ_2_ď½pġ2|ĶNüü Ŕ¢¦ƈ?Ě~¤Ơ_ś•2īĶThere is no basic textbook and there are no teaching approaches and material sources (that I can use). There is nothing that (Nabi) center assists. I have to look for materials by myself and teach the children.Instead, Bosam said she reached out to her own network and drew on her previous teaching experience:46 Interview with Bosam Hwang [Sep. 07, 2012, School A] BH: 6o/š_4š‰ÖŶ,ģď_ĝbű1ě.ä¦ƹ?‘ŖďĶĝbƻƨŔ¢¦ũߧ?ī ŝģš . . . Ŋšũ/š¦ũå2¦ũ‘ěĶsRĚ~ņ¤ơe?In terms of textbooks, one of my friends works as Mandarin instructor at the welfare center. (I) borrow some materials from her, and there are some textbooks that (I bought) a long long time ago . . . to teach children in (my) neighborhood.Likewise, Michiko drew on her previous teaching experiences and materials that she had in order to teach in the Rainbow Teacher Project when she was newly hired. When I asked whether Michiko had taught Japanese elsewhere, she reported that she had taught Japanese in various afterschool programs and community centers in Nabi city and had done private tutoring a number of times (Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Through her accounts, Michiko demonstrated not only that she is an experienced Japanese language teacher but also that she is skilled in teaching Japanese as a foreign language in South Korea. This is further explicated by her account in which she reported that the content of her course “is similar to other [foreign language classes]. 46 The second extract was mentioned earlier than the first extract. I extracted and ordered them reversely in an attempt to highlight Bosam’s account. While keeping in line with my orientation to social constructionism, as exemplified above, I explicitly acknowledge and demonstrate my recontextualization of the interviews for the purpose of the study. 169 Like English [teaching], [I] teach the language according to a textbook” (÷ĠŅ e¥ 2 ŠŬ. ǒǒ ĪěƋ— Ɖģ ‹ë 4P ĝě¦ ¤ƚ_ 2; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Therefore, the bilingual programs that hired Bosam and Michiko, first, operate with a ‘do-it-yourself’ discourse. Second, although the curriculum classification needs be further investigated in terms of whether it is a foreign language instruction or heritage curriculum, the accounts that Michiko and Bosam provided signal that the bilingual classes that they provide constitute foreign language instruction. Bosam told me that, in her class, majority of students are with parents who are Korean-born and Korean-proficient and there are a few damunhwa children whose mother are from Vietnam (Sep. 07, 2012, School A). If the curriculum aims at foreign language education with a focus on decontextualized form and structure of the target language, which is mainly designed for Korean students and damunhwa children whose mothers are from different countries of origin, it will have a significant impact on damunhwa children’s building of their linguistic and cultural identity. I discuss this issue in Chapter 10 in relation to damunhwa mothers’ rejection of their L1 as belonging to their children. 8.4.2 Temporarily Employed: Becoming a Competent Bilingual Instructor? As explained in Chapter 5, the bilingual instructor program sponsored by either the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family does not have any long-term commitment. This issue was also raised in the interviews with Michiko and Bosam. For example, when I asked for details on Michiko’s contract period for the Rainbow Teacher Project, Michiko displayed her uncertainty: “[I] teach [this] winter term. um If [the city] wants, probably [I might] also teach in the winter break or new [upcoming spring] term” (!ĺģ 2ƺ: ƾ Õ?, ě, ‰ Ľƻe·Ņ À !ĺÌƺŊF, eŇģ ‰ èƺ: ‰; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). This statement implies that the program was temporary, and she could only project her employment for the short 170 term. This could imply that the bilingual instructor position for the afterschool program would remain temporary based on the city’s available funding, and the position could disappear at any time. Nonetheless, rather than problematizing the structural issues that facilitate insecure contract-based working conditions, Michiko focused on how the quality of her teaching might affect her contract: “When [I] teach well, huhu, there will be many schools that want [me]” (ŗ ¤Ɛ Ųė, ǒǒ Ľƹ_ ƺ/ ¬ďŶŬ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Yet, in other parts of her interview, Michiko indicated that she was searching for a long-term commitment where she could be economically secure and participate as a “Korean woman who was born in Japan” (ō×ģë ƥěH ƻ1 ďŰ©, Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Despite teaching Japanese and being aware of other government-funded jobs (i.e., home-visit bilingual counselor for newly arrived damunhwa wives), Michiko expressed her “hope to have a job that can be done safely and continually in the future” (Ėń  Đŝƹ AŮǕ Ƽ ÷ ‘_ ōŔ§ ‘Ģń· ū8ěĶ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). This conversely indicates that there are not many secure positions where experienced damunhwa mothers can feel a sense of pride and participation as a contributing member in South Korean society as the government aims for. In the same manner, Bosam presented various concerns related to the insecurity of her position and her teaching practices (Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Describing multiple layers of hierarchical relations that differently share various forces of power, Bosam highlighted the flexibility of the labor market in government-funded bilingual positions. She stated that all the teachers who work in the various community centers and welfare centers in Nabi city are contract-based workers whose employment is renewed either by term or on a yearly basis. She added: “After working for a year, there is a [teaching] evaluation. If [people] complain [about your work, for example] “this person is this and that” in the evaluation, then the contract will end 171 from this point” (ōU ‚ uë Ƴ¦ ƾĶ. Ƴ¦ ƾë ě, äŽŊ À ě‡e ě‡e ƹ·Ņ Ŋš 2ë &ĘŊ EF_ 2 2īĶ; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). She continued that depending on the needs of the educational market (e.g., students’ teaching evaluation) and government funding availability, the center will increase, decrease, or eliminate programs and instructors. By presenting her views on the welfare center’s employment system, Bosam highlighted the ways in which bilingual teaching in a government institution may create professional insecurities for bilingual instructors like her. In addition, the flexibility of the market is structured based on evaluations consisting of numeric descriptions (e.g., teaching evaluation and funding availability) that create rationality in the system, making the decision of the institution impenetrable so that it is difficult for anyone to rebut against displacement. Therefore, even if one strives to work hard, the logic of educational accountability could hinder one’s professional development. In the midst of the system operation, the underlying view of individual resources is seen as a commodity that could easily be used, obtained, and transferred to another resource based on the market logic that is realized through its accounted rationality. 8.4.3 Reported Bilingual Classroom Practice After explaining how the bilingual instructor system that is funded by the government has failed to create economically sustainable conditions for damunhwa mothers and facilitated insecurity among employees, Bosam shared that a further difficulty in her teaching as a bilingual instructor is the classroom practices of her students: “I give a class but [students] are playing under [the desk] and [I think] haa! What is this?” (F_ .ʼnƹŶ«Ņ Åģë öřH ƹ? ª 4”·Ņ ƹď. Ŋ ÀŶ?; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Bosam explained that clashes between the rationality of the liberal welfare system and the neoliberal education market logic result in challenges to her classroom practices. 172 Interview with Bosam Hwang (BH) [Sep. 07, 2012, School A] BH: 6o 0Rp Õb; ōf ÷Ġ¢¦ Đ NŖďĶ. But (reflecting) from their point of view, kids do not provide any fees for the class. BS: ňň Yeah yeah BH: ōf ÷Ġģ jƾë ©ŇŊ Ô ÚhŊ ġ_  ďĶ. ƾp 4«. Đ ƾp 4«. 6o ƺÚº őřģë ÷Ġ ÷.¢¦ N? ÷Ġņ ÍĹe·Ņ Ě~ ƥpp g‹Ź 2Ŷ«Ņ ũ Éď~Ŋ_ p Ʈ›Ķ Above all (they) don't seem to have any pressure for the class. (It) doesn’t matter whether they take the class or not. But if the parents have to pay for fees for the classes, their children’s attitude would be different. The way that (students) receive (their class contents) are somewhat different. BS: ńŇ: hum BH: 6o ĸ§_ ŶĦ ďsñƧ .äŊe Õb; ŶĽfģë ĸ§ƻƨ Ŋš 9ĥ¦ ŭ? R~ ń· ½¢  ÷Lj¦ É_2ŖďĶ. But we are the instructors from the regional childcare center. The (governmental) support group provides a wage to us and the children receive benefits for free. ((Omitted: Bosam talked about how several children showed positive learning in her classes, despite the disruptive classroom environment)) BH: &Ę ‚ EKņ„ Ě~Ŋ 4F© ē·Ņ ūŬ. 6o -Ǖ 8ľg ÚƧ 12ľ g ;Ŷ À ÍĿě? ďbĶ :Ĝ Đ FĶ. 4”·Ņ ŸŻ ĸ§: Ņ %ĸģ_ ōŔ§ ŏņ çǎp w ÷ ‘_ 2īĶ When the contract ends, it would be desirable for students to know something (that I taught). But (when the administrators ask to the children) “what did you learned between August and December?” (and they said) “no, we don’t remember.” then our (bilingual instructor’s) situation, (we) could have lost our jobs. BS: 4Ɣ right BH: ď 4”e Õb; ƸĶġR Ŋ• çǎp w 2 ģĶ. N êģ_ There (will be) a situation (that the administrator would say) “ah if so, (we) don’t need it.” In my opinion. Bosam introduced how the learning of socially and economically marginalized children under the liberal welfare framework is treated differently by its users under a different educational rationality: (1) Education is free or low cost for low-income students, particularly those who live in rural areas, so that students who are from low socioeconomic status will receive quality education despite their social and economic conditions, whereas (2) her students and their parents consider free classes as low-stakes learning compared to fee-paying classes, which results in students not being under pressure to take the classes seriously. Based on the classroom challenges she described, Bosam hypothesized that when the administrators in the 173 welfare center identified students’ learning outcomes as limited based on student reports, they could easily close the programs, and the bilingual instructors would lose their jobs. Though it is unknown whether Bosam’s stated claim (e.g., the administrators can easily close the bilingual classes based on what students say) is true, Bosam’s narrative indicates how she made sense of her classes with multiple centers of power where the public education model and educational accountability intersect. Bosam described that when the education consumers (e.g., students) do not take the well-intended free education seriously and this results in few learning outcomes, the failure of the program is blamed on the bilingual teachers. Therefore, Bosam’s narrative displayed how her process of becoming a bilingual instructor may have undermined her identity as a user of multiple languages where the marketization of education and the liberal welfare system are intricately exchanged and negotiated. 8.4.4 Becoming a Bilingual Translator and Counselor for Newcomers? As indicated, to my knowledge, Vietnamese has not been taught in Nabi city to this date. Instead of becoming a bilingual teacher, like Bosam or Michiko, Sumi shared stories of how she had worked in two bilingual positions, as a bilingual translator and as a counselor in Nabi city. Combining her role of bilingual counselor with maternity assistant, Sumi said she used to work as a Vietnamese-Korean counselor for those in Stage 2, emotionally supporting newly arrived pregnant Vietnamese wives through sharing their challenges living in South Korea and liaising cultural and linguistic differences so that the newcomers could be integrated. The role is defined as “providing support for newly arrived damunhwa wives for their integration into South Korea through giving regular visits to their households, particularly to those who are planning to give birth or have given birth. Through this, [the program aims] to lessen damunhwa wives’ emotional burden of getting pregnant and giving childbirth in a foreign country (meaning South 174 Korea)” (Danuri Portal Site, n.d., par. 6, my translation). Therefore, the goal of the program is for experienced damunhwa wives to support the new damunhwa wives integrating into South Korean society and family cultural practices. When Sumi visited a pregnant Vietnamese woman’s house to provide counseling before she gave birth to a child, Sumi told me that the wife’s mother-in-law asked Sumi to do their household chores on behalf of the Vietnamese wife Interview with Sumi Won and her husband (SW & H) [Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home] SW: Ě:«ƹ?F²ŶƹŶ­? . . . 6o . . . Āě²b ś Õ?. . . Ŋ2Ŋ2x=ļ4Ɵ2ĥ. . . R¸~ěŶ42śÕ?á‘ƾg‹?NJřăëá‘ƾg‹?4źģÌ,N›ëũōněg‹?I (was told) just to talk (to my friend) and not do the rest of the household chores . . . but . . . (my friend’s) mother-in-law asked me to do laundry, this very thick (cotton blanket used) for four people . . . (she) asked (me) to (hand)wash it in their bathroom. (Then, she asked me to) go down to their mill to help (their) work. Sumi described how her role as a bilingual counselor was misunderstood as someone who could perform housework on behalf of the pregnant Vietnamese wife. As exemplified in Chapter 5, it is equally important to acknowledge that the South Korean government, particularly in Stage 2, highly recommends that foreign wives accommodate all of their Korean families’ needs. Possibly drawing on the image of damunhwa wives performing the household chores, the Korean mother-in-law that Sumi described could have asked Sumi to do their housework not because she was evil, but because foreign wives were expected to do the housework in that society. As a result, the mother-in-law could have perceived Sumi as a housekeeper who would do the work on behalf of her pregnant daughter-in-law. Yet, Sumi did not take it for granted or as a pleasant experience. Sumi said that she reported this circumstance to the Multicultural Family Support Center and quit the job soon after. Sumi also stated that the following year the center called her to fill the same position, and she told them she would not do it anymore. Through her presentation of a particular encounter as one 175 of her bilingual counseling experiences, it is demonstrated how other Koreans who expected her to do the housework instead of their daughters-in-law discouraged Sumi from developing her identity as a competent bilingual worker who could have guided the newcomers to become legitimate members of South Korean society. In addition to the process of how Sumi quit her bilingual counseling position, Sumi also reported a negative experience as a Korean-Vietnamese translator for an international marriage broker. Though her role could have been critical for damunhwa couples in Stage 1 and 2, Sumi and her husband explained how it was labor-intensive, morally defeating, and underpaid and that she was no longer encouraged to participate in any bilingual interpreter and counselor positions. Sumi narrated that maintaining her dual roles—keeping up with her second pregnancy and continuing her Korean-Vietnamese translation responsibilities (i.e., traveling among cities in Wooju province)—had been so physically demanding that she quit the full-time bilingual translation (Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). She said while she was pregnant, she had worked from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., traveling between various rural neighborhood towns in Wooju Province by car to meet Korean-Vietnamese couples to provide bilingual translation, giving advice to Vietnamese women about South Korean lifestyle and culture, and reconciling conflict between Vietnamese-Korean couples. In what follows, Sumi described the activities that she performed for the international marriage broker: When Sumi decided to quit her translation job, she stated, the broker offered her a part-time bilingual translating call center position for pocket money (“[The marriage association] said you stay home and when there is a phone call then interpret [the conversation] then [they] said [they] will provide not paychecks but some money that could be used as pocket money” Q_ 4P źģë ŝNJıë ƩĦƾ g‹· ķq? À ľ9 ďb? ķq Ğ©Šp Ůe? ‘ěĶ; 176 Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Sumi said that she received phone calls for several months at home, but then quit and no longer did translation work. Sumi’s husband mentioned the mother as the children’s main caregiver and raised the issue that Sumi’s bilingual translation work overrode her responsibilities as a homemaker (“ah! I said, “[you] need to save [our] children, and the children’s education is most important” ď N . . . À, ď‹p æ›[?, ď /łŊ ¾šŶ 4·ë, N 4 4“Ŷ; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Additionally, he reported that the international marriage broker had deceived the potential international marriage couples in order to make money (“That one, that [international marriage] association, that kind of place somewhat lies, and from this they intend to earn money” 42_ N N džǏ Ŋ• )Ņ ũ, 4 ũ ĈŊŶ?, 4‘ q ś4~Ŋ q Éď³ń›?; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Formulating Sumi as insufficiently performing her caregiver’s roles and the international marriage brokers as deceitful, he evaluated Sumi’s bilingual translation as undesirable, which allowed his justification at the time of the interview for telling Sumi not to do Korean-Vietnamese translation. According to Sumi and her husband’s accounts, while being a part-time bilingual translator and counselor was physically demanding, it led to participating in morally and socially inappropriate actions with other Koreans, getting insufficient regular income in the family, doing insufficient caregiving, and unjustly doing other people’s housework, all of which could have led her to discontinue all the bilingual jobs that she had. Though the ability to converse in Korean and Vietnamese could be useful for various people—including newly arrived Vietnamese marriage migrant women, damunhwa families, international marriage brokers, government officials, Sumi, and Sumi’s family—her interview accounts allow us to understand how Sumi’s gendered attributes (i.e., mother, housewife) and Vietnamese–Korean bilingual identity 177 negatively intersect with other social domains within and across her family. Therefore, the stated accounts demonstrate how different forces of power and discourse in Sumi’s life may have prevented her from being positively socialized as a highly competent bilingual translator and counselor in South Korea, which not only raises a concern but also points out a direction in which policy could be positively revised. 8.5 Summary In this chapter about how the damunhwa mothers were socialized to become bilingual workers for Koreans, I first discuss how Ava and Bosam made sense of the newly created linguistic nationalism that promotes bilingualism in South Korea. Presenting the interrelationship between newcomers and locals (poor immigrants and unwelcoming Koreans), Ava indicated how different international economic status transferred into fabricating ethnic hierarchies and unequal social exchanges between damunhwa mothers and South Koreans. Providing counter activities that highlight damunhwa women’s (re)production roles, Ava’s promotion of damunhwa mothers’ L1 can not only be understood as a transformative resource for damunhwa individuals but also expanded into a nationalistic resource that contributes to South Korea’s development (McClintock, 1993). This could be tied with the recent discussion on the scale formation of language, which moves “from the local and situated to the translocal and general, invoking practices that have validity beyond the here-and-now” (Blommaert, 2007, p. 6). Through connecting transnational space and identity, Ava’s upscaling formation (Blommaert, 2007) spoke for transforming negative representations of immigrants into resourceful immigrants, ultimately working in favor of Ava’s ability to gain legitimate membership in South Korea as a permanent resident. While echoing linguistic nationalism could have helped Ava to gain membership as a 178 Korean mother and wife, this needs to be carefully understood since not all languages are equally celebrated but rather undergo multiple negotiations with respect to the international and intranational politics of language. Bosam’s account addressed how promotion of bilingualism maintains various local and global politics where local policy makers envision which linguistic resources count as more valuable than others to South Koreans. Under this negotiation process, only a few languages are viewed as useful means for the nation, such as English, Japanese, and Mandarin, and treated as resources that should be promoted to Koreans in the local linguistic market. Through presenting different linguistic exchanges between Korean and damunhwa mothers’ L1s, Bosam was able to articulate how Mandarin has potential to be transformed into a commodifiable resource in South Korea, which may have enabled her to become a Korean-Mandarin bilingual teacher in Nabi city. Although Japanese and Mandarin were positioned above other heritage language, the accounts of Bosam and Michiko allow us to understand how becoming bilingual teachers did not lead to fully positive socialization for them at the time of the interview. Michiko’s and Bosam’s stories presented an unsystematic training process in which they were not treated as highly qualified bilingual professionals in South Korea. The system instead has the potential to benefit a few Korean professionals who develop the training infrastructures through government funding. Michiko argued that training and employment need to go hand in hand with each other so that both benefit the society and damunhwa mothers. In addition to the issues of training damunhwa mothers, Bosam and Michiko mentioned other problems that arose in their classroom practices. Bosam narrated how she was socialized as an insecure bilingual teacher in her program based on flexible employment and educational accountability. Michiko and Bosam both reported that their bilingual education was ‘do it 179 yourself,’ lacking systemic provisions for having highly enriched bilingual education for damunhwa or Korean children. Under these circumstances, both damunhwa mothers drew on foreign language materials that are available in South Korea, either from a bookstore, a friend who taught their L1 as a foreign language, or their previous foreign language teaching experiences. These reactions not only echoed the flexibility of neoliberal bilingual workplaces but also could facilitate modification of what heritage/bilingual education might mean to damunhwa children and mothers. While both Michiko and Bosam participated as bilingual teachers in the government’s aim to strengthen the life stage of Korean children in Stage 3, the roles in which Sumi participated indicate the contribution of damunhwa wives who are in Stage 2 as bilingual translators and counselors. Although Sumi’s bilingual work helping other Vietnamese women to integrate into Korean society could have been positive for herself and others, she recalled that the job did not create positive outcomes for her or those who received services from her (e.g., it was physically challenging, underpaid, and unethical). Furthermore, Sumi said she was treated like a housekeeper who would do the work on behalf of another Korean-Vietnamese daughter-in-law. Though it is easy to blame the Korean mother-in-law who asked Sumi to do her household chores, this is not simply confined to the individual decision but tied with cultural politics of patriarchal families in which the Korean government actively participates, enhancing the unequal distribution of power and families, which I exemplified in Chapter 4 using KSL textbook samples. Each interview highlighted different aspects of damunhwa mothers’ linguistic resources, and none of them presented experiences of positive socialization to become bilingual workers in South Korea. Instead, the damunhwa mothers who participated in this study illustrated how their 180 linguistic resources were treated as easily disposable, usable, and available when the linguistic markets were in need. These stories also demonstrate how government-led bilingual positions only seek possibilities for benefitting Koreans but do very little good for damunhwa families. The stated narratives echoed the shortcomings of the bilingual programs that socialize damunhwa mothers into undervalued insecure bilingual workers through the government’s instrumental nationalistic approach to establishing bilingual education. In the next two chapters, I discuss what the South Korean government neglects in Stage 3, damunhwa mothers’ representational multilingual practices in their family as teachers of their L1 to their children. 181 Chapter 9: EXPLICIT USE OF ONE-PARENT ONE-LANGUAGE POLICY AT HOME 9.1 Introduction Using the same analytic framework and research question that are used in Chapters 6 to 8, the following two chapters focus on the accounts of the four focal damunhwa mothers’ representation of their families’ bi-/multilingual socialization practices. They specifically address issues related to Stage 3, the representation of damunhwa family’s multilingual socialization. Analyzing the participants’ stories in sets of two, this chapter attends to the family narratives of Michiko and Ava, who reported exclusive L1 use with their children, using a one-parent one-language policy at home. The next chapter focuses on the stories of the other participants, Bosam and Sumi, addressing the transitional and subtractive bilingual conditions in which the L1 of the damunhwa mothers was reported as not widely used in the family. In all of their stories, I draw specific attention to two overarching themes—first, representation of family multilingual policy and practice at home, and second, furthering the findings from the first theme, the discourse that participants presented regarding how certain sociologically situated linguistic conditions promoted or hindered their multilingual socialization of their children. Figure 9.1 Focus of Chapter 9 In Stage 3, other than the emphasis on Korean-only language socialization that was discussed in Chapter 7, the South Korean government also recommends promoting a bilingual Stage 1 International Marriage Preparation Period Stage 2 Family Formation Period Stage 3 Child Rearing and Settlement Period Stage 4 Capacity-Building Period 182 environment to all children. Under the government’s linguistic nationalism, the L1s of damunhwa mothers are viewed as a national resource that can be promoted for both damunhwa and Korean children. Although bilingual education is facilitated by two national ministries, the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, there is very little indication whether the government draws on a specific body of bilingual literature that guides its bilingual policy at the national level. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence whether the two national ministries have examined damunhwa family language practices that could be used as a reference to support their policy implementation. Based on the limited investigation and examination of heritage/bilingual practices in damunhwa families, both the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family and Ministry of Education have promoted implementation of bilingual education to both Korean and damunhwa children. Under the untheoretically founded bilingual education plan, the government has recruited a number of Korean-fluent, university-educated damunhwa mothers to train them as bilingual teachers in either K-12 institutions or Multicultural Family Support Centers. Yet, not all heritage languages are taught. Mandarin is one of the languages that is most widely taught nationwide in the Multicultural Family Support Centers (constituting 103 programs in 217 centers), while other heritage languages, such as Thai, Russian, Tagalog, Cambodian, Mongolian, and Nepali, are scarcely represented. The K-12 bilingual program is less systemized than the Multicultural Family Support Centers’ offerings. Afterschool bilingual programs are voluntarily offered at each school’s discretion, yet there are no universal provisions developed as part of the national curriculum. Aside from the lack of heritage/minority bilingual education, as explained in Chapters 2 and 5, a foreign language curriculum has been offered in schools as a regular academic subject. English was the first foreign language that was officially 183 introduced into the curriculum, and it was taught from Grade 3, and other selected languages are later introduced from Grade 10 as a second foreign language. The goals of these national curricula are many; for example, English should be learned “[t]o respond to changes in the globalized information age and to play a leading role in the international community” (Ministry of Education, 2015a, p. 2, my translation). Via the second foreign language curriculum, “[l]earners . . . can develop the basic skills needed to live as Koreans in the world” (Ministry of Education, 2015b, p. 3). All of these curriculum goals signify the South Korean government’s attempt to implement its nationalistic goals (e.g., achieve competitiveness in the international arena) through the foreign language curriculum. This means that the government has little desire to nurture bilingual environments in families but does so with regard to foreign languages by selecting languages to serve a nationalistic purposes and creating multiple levels of linguistic hierarchies: first, between Korean and other languages, second between English and other foreign languages, and finally, among damunhwa mothers’ L1s. Rather than viewing the L1s of damunhwa mothers as emerging heritage languages that tie them to the community and create a sense of belonging, a few languages are treated as national commodities that South Korea can use as a means for excelling as a nation-state in the globalized world. Under the government’s strategic language commodification process, there is no discussion of how the mothers may nurture their children with their L1. Instead, several L1s of damunhwa mothers (e.g., Mandarin, Japanese, English) are taken outside of the home context to be taught in institutionalized foreign language classrooms. This effort does not do much good for either Korean students or damunhwa families, but is under-structured and under-guided, which I exemplified in Chapter 8 using Bosam’s and Michiko’s accounts. The systemization of bilingual education, therefore, indicates the 184 government’s lack of interest in nurturing bilingual education for damunhwa families or fostering multilingual socialization that revolves around damunhwa families. In this chapter, I address the family language practices and policies that are represented in the interviews with Michiko and Ava, who told me that they used a one-parent one-language policy with their children. Though it has been reported that there is a lower degree of language transmission in exogamous marriages compared to endogamous marriages (Alba, Logan, Lutz, & Stults, 2002; Houle, 2011), a number of family language policies and strategies have been documented within exogamous marriage families when parents wanted to socialize their children bilingually. One way of doing so is for the parents to adopt a one-parent one-language policy in the family (Gyogi, 2014; Shiho, 2013). According to Gyogi (2014), one-parent one-language policy often accompanies monolingual practice, with one parent exclusively using the dominant language with his/her children, while the other parent solely uses the other language (e.g., heritage/minority language). Furthering such research findings, I address the kinds of family dynamics that were discussed in the interviews with Michiko and Ava, highlighting the ways in which each participant stated their negotiation of the one-parent one-language policy with their children. 9.2 Ava’s Family Language Practice Using the three interviews that took place at different times between August 2012 and December 2012, I analyze Ava and Ella’s representations concerning the negotiation of multiple languages (i.e., Kyrgyz, Russian, Korean, English) with each other. After presenting how Ava said she implemented a one-parent one-language policy with Ella, I move on to discuss how their stated family language policy shifted during the time I was interviewing them. 185 As I briefly mentioned in Chapter 4, Ella was born to Ava and her first husband (who was Kyrgyz) and spent her early childhood in Kyrgyzstan with her grandmother before coming to South Korea. According to what Ava and Ella told me, Ella attended an elementary school in Kyrgyzstan midway through Grade 2, where instruction was in Russian and Kyrgyz. She had been in South Korea for about a year at the time of the interview. Ava told me that after Ella entered South Korea, instead of immediately entering a school, Ella learned Korean for a few months with her mother at the Multicultural Family Support Center (discussed in Chapter 6) and then registered at an elementary school nearby. In the various parts of the interview with Ava and Ella, they indicated that Ella had been academically competent and did not have much difficulty integrating into her Korean school. They said this was because school was easier in Korea than Kyrgyzstan. For example, Ava said, “Studying in our country is challenging from [one’s] entry [to school] . . . because it was a communist country in the past . . . [the school practice] is [intense] like that” (ĸ§F‹_ ƋŇÚƧ ǖ~ *ÚƾĶ. . . . ĬIģ *å1ģë . . . 4• üƢōŊīĶ; Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home). In addition, Ella demonstrated a well-behaved attitude (e.g., proficient use of Korean honorifics to her elders) and openly presented her multilingual and multicultural characteristics, even to the people whom she was first meeting, like me. While I was making frequent contact with Ava and Ella, I heard that they attracted media attention. All of these behaviors demonstrate her successful adaptation to South Korea and positive multilingual identity in South Korea. 9.2.1 One-Parent Multiple-Language Policy at Home In the very first interview with Ava, she described how she negotiates a one-parent multiple-language policy (e.g., Kyrgyz, Russian, Korean, and English) at home. Interview with Ava Asanov [Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home] AA: Ŋ Ŋ™ ­ņ ũ Ŋ™ ƾĶ, ĸ§_. ĭ`Ņ ĸ§_ ”Āď ­« ƹ_ IŊb;. 186 ƻ1­ Đ ì?, ď½p Đ ì?, ƹ£ Ūō ”Āď ě« äķƾĶ. NōŅ ƻ1ě« äķƾĶ. º‘_ Ơ¤:¤üƣě, 4 eŇģ Īě Ŋ™ 4™ ƻ0Ď Ŋ™ ǒǒǒǒ With (Ella) some days we only speak one language. Since today is the day we speak only Russian. (we) do not mix (it) with Korean, (we) do not mix with any (language), all day long (we) only use Russian. Tomorrow (we) will only use Korean. The day after tomorrow, (we’ll only use) Kyrgyz, the next (day) is English, (we) do like this, one language per day huhuhuhu Ava stated that without using any code-switching or code-mixing with other languages, they attempt to maintain a one-language-only policy each day. If they violated their discrete use of four languages, Ava said they would penalize each other: “when someone mixes Korean on the Russian-only day, we have fines” (4•o \ ”Āďě ƹ_ Iģ \ ƻ1­  ƾΧ· Ð8, 4•p ‘ěĶ; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). This indicates how a fluid translingual use, which is commonly identified in many multilingual practices, could be viewed as a hindrance to their becoming speakers of four languages. Ava’s accounts of the one-parent multiple-language policy were presented as a highly desirable pathway for Ella to become an exceptionally competent multilingual user who could skillfully converse in four different languages. Although there is some debate about the merits of the one-parent one-language approach (Barron-Hauwaert, 2004; Guardado, 2002; Gyogi, 2014), their efforts and pride in multilingualism are notable. Through Ava’s account, she presented that she has thought about benefits of Ella’s becoming multilingual, planned a one-parent multiple-language policy, and took steps to ensure Ella would become multilingual in four languages. 9.2.2 “We Need to Make Ella a Human Being”: Mobilizing Parental Resources for One’s Child In addition to understanding the ways in which the one-parent multiple-language policy is described between Ella and Ava, it is equally important to acknowledge family linguistic ecologies in which one-parent multiple-language policies at home could cause linguistic marginalization for Ava’s Korean husband. When I asked about Ava’s husband’s potential 187 isolation in their one-parent multiple-language family practice, Ava told me how this practice had evolved over the course of their first year as a family: “at first, very often, [he told Ella to] speak [only] Korean. But nowadays since Ella is good at Korean, when [we] speak Russian with each other, [he] is fine with it” (ƻ1­ƾŊ“ ¬ŊƿěĶ4„ƋŇģ_4•oŶ8ŅĤ‹ƻ1­ŗƹb;Ĥ‹yŊđďŶ?”Āď­ƾp-ƆďĶ; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). Through this account, Ava displayed how her Korean husband’s attitude shifted from urging Ella to use Korean to accepting Ella’s communication in Russian with her mother as Ella became more conversant in Korean. In addition, Ava reported how her Korean husband asks Ella to become a language mediator between him and his wife: “[he] asks “what [did you guys] say? what [did you guys] say? what [did] your mom say right now?” hahaha. Ella explains, “Mommy said this.” And my husband is accustomed to this, our speaking [Russian]” (À‹?4“ěÀ‹4“ěŶ8ğ©À‹4“ěǒǒǒŊ‘Ķğ©4PŊ“ěĶƹ?Ĥ‹î¸ƾŲĶďśčŶ8ŊšŊ™ÿ,těĶĸ§ěƅƶ­ņƹ_2; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). Through Ava’s account, she illustrated how Ella’s father facilitated Ella’s development of a different dimension of her linguistic repertoire, being a multilingual mediator when she and Ava participated in the one-parent multiple-language policy at home. Ava reported how she persuaded her husband to allow them to use Russian at home, stating “what if we only speak Korean with Ella; Ella will forget Russian” («ĘģĤ‹yŊƻ1­«ƹ·Ĥ‹_”Āď­’ě³ěĶ; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). In other parts of the interview on the same day, Ava explained how he recommended that Ella use Russian with her mother. Ava stated, “[her] dad likes Ella to learn lots of things and [he] likes [it] more when [she] does well” (ďśč_ Ĥ‹ Íĸ_2 ¬? ŗƹ· l ūďĶ; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). This indicates that Ella’s L2 development was seen as part of her education and presented as 188 highly desirable in the family, even though it isolated Ava’s Korean husband. Despite his familial linguistic marginalization, Ava continued, “[He says] like [we] need to make Ella a [successful] human being. [We] need to make Ella a doctor” (Ĥ‹¦ Ō «~ěė uĶ. Ĥ‹¦ ʼnäíêd «~ěė uĶ, Ŋ™; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). This suggests that they mobilize parental support and the one-parent multiple-language policy for their child’s educational success, facilitating her acquisition of social status, power, and prestige. In addition to Ava’s promotion of Russian use in the family, it is important to understand how Ava made sense of the multiple languages that surround Ella. Facilitated by my questions, Ava provided different language orders for her daughter’s multilingual socialization. Ava listed several activities that Ella would be in engaged in, associating with here-now and here-future sociolinguistic conditions. First, Ava mentioned Ella’s acquisition of Korean as the most critical among the languages she knew. Emphasizing Ella’s here-future conditions, Ava discussed, “For Ella, since [she] lives in South Korea now, she wants to attend university here, in South Korea. So the most important one is the one that [she] must know most perfectly” (Ĥ‹ƻƨ_, Ŷ8 DžŚ ƻ1ģ æ ub; ĥ:ë jƺ/ ? ąěƾĶ. ƻ1ģ. 4‘ë šō űĶƻ2_, šō Njăƹ ŗ ē? ‘ěė u_2; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). In addition to her daughter’s long-term residency and aspiration for higher education in South Korea, Ava addressed the here-now conditions for both herself and Ella. She said: Interview with Ava Asanov [Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home] AA: Fűģ ĸ§ 1Ŝp ?, ěƅƶ ĸ§, 4, ƻ1ģ ĸ§ JƲŅ ƻ1äŽŊb;. ƻ1ƒģ æ? ‘ńb; ĸ§ Ŋ•  ũ ƿńb;. ƻ1­Ņ Njăƹ ŗ ē?, Ĥ‹ jƺ/ _o ƻ1­ņ ½ť ŗ ēďėŶ We [will] obtain [Korean] nationality later, and we, uh, South Korea, because my husband is a South Korean. [We] live in South Korean land. We did all these. So [she] must know Korean perfectly. In order for Ella to attend university, she must know Korean very well. 189 Through listing the activities above, Ava endorsed a territory-bounded monolingualism in South Korea, where Ella’s mastery of Korean grammar and literacy are highly critical (“So uh Korean is the most important [language], [including] Korean grammar and writing literacy, everything” (ƻ1 ¾Ñ 7Ŕ ĉ_2 e. 4‘ë 4 ƻ1­Ŋ šō űĶƻ 2; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). Following Ella’s Korean language development, Ava mentioned that Kyrgyz is the second most important language for Ella. Coupling Kyrgyz with the national language of Kyrgyzstan, Ava highlighted how Ella’s proficiency in Kyrgyz would be concurrent with her preservation of her national identity as Kyrgyz, thus its importance (“[She] shouldn’t forget her own country’s language, so the second priority would be being able to use Kyrgyz well” 4 eŇģ xÏ ƃń Ŕ: F‹­p ’ě³Ŷ ­?, Ơ¤:¤üƣěp ŗ äķƼ ÷ ‘?; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). Finally, Ava reported that both “English and Russian [are] basic [necessity]” (eŇģ_ Īěƹ? ”Āďě_ :×. À Ŋ™; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). For example, indicating the linguistic phenomenon in South Korea, where English has become inescapable (e.g., all Koreans use English, English is a gatekeeper to higher education in South Korea), Ava rationalized that it is necessary for Ella to learn English: “Now in South Korea, all South Koreans use English. When going to university, isn’t it impossible without English?” (Ŷ8 ƻ1ģ, ƻ1 äŽ~ e Īě äķƾĶ. ? jƺ/ _op Īě ġń· ĐuŖďĶ? ; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). In addition, Ava pointed out the international status of English as a primary means for communication around the world (“In the entire world, English is used by default. Thinking of the future [Ella] should know English well” ŝ ð&ģ, :× Īě¦ äķƹb;, 4 Ėń  êƹ· Īě_ ŗ ēďė u?; Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). Such ideological work of formulating English as a necessity both in South Korea and in the world naturalized Ava’s 190 promotion of English in Ella’s multilingual socialization process. Finally, Ava reported that Ella’s learning of Russian was also necessary. When one of the languages is valued more than the other, the degree of family language transmission to their children will be different (Canagarajah, 2008; He, 2008; Li, 2006). Ava’s stated attributes of each language provide different dimensions of Ella’s multilingual socialization and how these aspects could be linked with Ava’s implementation of the one-parent multiple-language policy in the family language socialization. Based on Ava’s list of various spatial-temporal conditions, Ella’s study of Korean, Kyrgyz, English, and Russian was not only instrumental (e.g., in attending a university) but would also gain her social memberships in multiple contexts, including South Korea, the globalized world, and Kyrgyzstan. In Ava’s account, South Korea was presented as a context for Ella to be nurtured, grow, and become part of her present and early adult life period. Then, Kyrgyzstan was displayed as the country of Ella’s origin, identity, and roots. Finally, both English and Russian were claimed as necessities that would help Ella become a cosmopolitan global citizen. In addition, Ava’s emphasis on Ella’s mastery of Russian rather than Kyrgyz was identified in various parts of her interviews. For example, Ava brought up a particular time-space calibration, the post-Soviet Union state, where the linguistic orders between Russian and Kyrgyz were dynamic, contingent, and thus brought into unforeseen multilingual circumstances. Ava told me that before the former Soviet Union dismantled, Russian was the medium of instruction and not Kyrgyz. Yet, she reported that this linguistic order shifted soon after the former Soviet Union released its 15 unions, including Kyrgyzstan. After its independence, Ava stated that Kyrgyz became the dominant language, while Russian was placed in second priority in the country. Nonetheless, she told me that people in Kyrgyzstan treated Kyrgyz and Russian equally 191 and were expected to learn and use both languages. Ava further discussed how Russian had been the medium of higher education for her, particularly in her university years, and that Ella’s schooling had been conducted in Russian, which she attributed to how Russian had become the language of higher education, opportunity, and advancement in Kyrgyzstan. Ava told me she brought the Russian textbook that Ella used in Kyrgyzstan. With this material, Ava said she taught Ella Russian and made dictation tests (Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home). These accounts in her interview can be linked with recent studies that have provided linguistic profiles of multilingualism in Kyrgyzstan (Huskey, 1995; Korth, 2005; Orusbaev, Mustajoki, & Protassova, 2008). According to Orusbaev et al. (2008) and Korth (2005), it is widely acknowledged that Russian is viewed as a means for better education, employment, information, and economic advancement, and this leads to many Kyrgyz parents’ promotion of Russian as the medium of instruction for their children. Therefore, Ava’s promotion of four languages for Ella’s multilingual socialization, particularly her emphasis on Ella’s Russian literacy, which I further address in the following section, can be traced to Ava’s multilingual experience in Kyrgyzstan. Additionally, Ava’s stories illustrate different aspects of the linguistic hierarchies from those of Michiko, Sumi, and Bosam, which may have implications for understanding how multilingual socialization is divergently imagined and practiced within damunhwa families. Next, I discuss how Ava’s family language policy and practice changed over the course of the interview. 9.2.3 Ella’s Language Shift and Subsequent Family Language Policy Changes: Multiple Languages in One Person? A month later, at the second interview, Ava presented that they were having difficulty sticking with their stated family language policy. Ella reported that her strongest language was 192 Korean and elaborated her response by mentioning her everyday activities: “Since [I] live in South Korea, when [I] go to school [I use] Korean, when [I] return from the school [I use] Korean, I only use Korean and I tend to forget Kyrgyz a bit” (ƻ1ģ äb;, ƺ/  „p ƻ1­, ƺ/ İ 떄p ƻ1­-°ō°ō ƻ1­« ćŶ? Ơ¤:¤üƣ ­ ť8 ’ěΧ:p ƾĶ; Nov. 24, 2012, Ava’s Home). Ella’s here-now linguistic description signifies a language shift in her multilingual development where South Korea as a monolingual state is actualized in her life as a school-aged child in South Korea. Ella also said she had been learning English for six months at the time of the interview: “[I] can use English a bit [and I] use Russian, Kyrgyz, and Korean” (Īě ť8 Ƽ÷ ‘? ”Āď Ơ¤:¤üƣ ­Ŋ ƻ1­ ƾĶ; Nov. 24, 2012, Ava’s Home). Although Ella had been in South Korea about a year and had attended a formal school for approximately nine months at the time of the interview, her accounts indicated a shift in her multilingual practices from being a bilingual Kyrgyz-Russian child to being a Korean-English elementary school student. Ava told me, “Everyday, at school, [she] uses Korean. After school, [she] learns English. At home, only Korean is used on TV” (±I ƺ/ģ, ƹ£Ūō ƻ1ě ƾĶ. ƺ/ ©ƚ? Īě_ ũ ÍļĶ. źģ ıë ƨšÞ &õ ƻ1ě FıĶ, Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home). As Ella continued to adapt to South Korea, where Korean is the main medium of communication and English is learned from an early age, Ava identified that the two dominant languages were influencing Ella’s L2 development. Explicitly raising the fact that Ella’s language shift from Russian to Korean was a problem in the second interview, Ava addressed how she reaffirmed the one-parent multiple-language policy to Ella at home. Ava reported to me what she said to Ella: 193 Interview with Ava Asanov [Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home] AA: ƹŶ«”Āďě’ď³_2ė4‘ë źģ ı-ıë, Fƻƨp ƻ1­ ƾĶ ĶŴ. ƻ1­ ƾŶ©. ƻ1­Ņ ďàƾ. ƻ1äŽŊ ƾ. F ”Āď ě  ’ď³Ŷ ­? But [Ella], are you forgetting Russian? At home, [she] speaks Korean to me these days. [I said to Ella] don’t use Korean [to me]. Use Korean with [your] dad, [Use Korean] with Koreans. With me [use] Russian so that [you] don’t forget [the language]” Ava thus demonstrated how she resists her daughter’s loss of one of her L1s, Russian, even though it is a minority language in South Korea. Nonetheless, Ava reported how this was not easy. She mentioned her lack of time to fully socialize Ella into multiple languages, particularly into Kyrgyz and Russian. Interview with Ava Asanov [Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home] AA: š ĀŊ ¬Ŋ ġŖďĶ. . . . śTıë Ë ² ƾėƾĶ. ďƜ ďśč 6 Ā ōěFŶ? Ë ƾŭ?, ś: pĀŒ Ć Ųė ƾĶ. śp pĀŒ Ŷ? ė ƾĶ. źģ Əôƾė ƾĶ. ďśč ś: ĥ: À ‘ń·Ņ ‘ģŊ źģ Əôp Đ ƹ?! I do not have much time. . . . I need to make dinner, [when I] return [from work] . . . [I] need to get up in the morning at 6 o’clock and make breakfast for my husband, and [I] need to pack [his] lunch. . . . I also have to make my lunch. [I] need to clean the house. When there is some [dirt in the house, my husband says,] ‘Jeez, [you] don’t clean the house! As described in section 9.2.1, Ava presented herself as the critical source for Ella’s multilingual development at home. Without Ava, Ella might not be able to develop her multilingual expertise, which might not often be available in rural South Korea. Yet, at the same time, Ava’s report illustrates that she has different roles in her family, such as a housewife and breadwinner. Under her negotiation of multiple roles and responsibilities, Ava explained how mother- and wife-related work could have kept her away from teaching her L1 to Ella. Ava explained how she drew on the local linguistic sources to resolve the tensions arising from serving as the only linguistic source for Ella (Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home). She said that Ella attended a private English institute during after school, and the wife of the institution’s owner was also from Kyrgyzstan and fluent in Russian since “she studied [academic subject] in Russian at her university for a year” (ƺ/ģë jƺ/ģë ōU sĐ ”Āď ě  *Úƹb;; 194 Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home). Ava continued to report that she requested that Ella write a diary in Russian and asked the wife to look after Ella’s Russian literacy. Ava continued: “Well, Ella writes all about her South Korean life. And [the wife] reads the diary and teaches all the grammar that is wrong” (À Ŋ™ ƻ1êǍ Ŋ•2 e ćĶ Ĥ‹. 6o, Ŕ:_ Õ? e Ŏ?, ¾Ñģ ƮŸ_ 2 e eĀ ¤Ơ? 4‘Ķ. 4‘ë; Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home). This diary writing practice was discussed in various parts of the interview, allowing me to understand how it would shape Ella into a certain multilingual self. When I met Ella, I asked her whether she could show me some of her Russian writing next time I met her. I thought she would be very proud to show her multilingual texts. Unexpectedly, Ella said “[my] Russian has so many mistakes so don’t get surprised” (”Āď ­ ¬Ŋ ƮŸńb; ¬Ŋ Y§Ŷ ©ðĶ; Nov. 24, 2012, Ava’s Home). Ella provided a similar account when I interviewed her. She said, “[it] has so many mistakes . . . when [you] see [it, you] will be surprised” (6o Q½ Ʈ›Ŷ0Ķ. . . . Õ· Y‘ă>Ķ?; Nov. 24, 2012, Ava’s Home). Figure 9.2 shows what Ella wrote, which was checked by Ava’s friend, and presented to me.47 47 The content of the story in this diary is as follows: “mom left and said that if I keep drawing beautifully, she would let me make an album. So I drew and drew and made an album. And I told my mom and she said that I drew beautifully, she was happy.” 195 Figure 9.2 A Picture of Ella’s Diary Having received so many corrections, Ella might have been hesitant to show me her writing. Although Ava presented her numerous efforts to leverage Ella’s multilingual development, such representational practice, as exemplified in Figure 9.2, may be perceived differently by Ella. Attending to how Ava drew on her linguistic resources and network to help Ella become multilingual, in the first interview, Ava said: Interview with Ava Asanov [Oct. 23, 2012, Ava’s Home] AA: š”Āďě”ĀďěěƉpţIJŖďĶĤ‹Ɖ ƺU42p¤ƝĶ Éďĉ:pƹ?. . . . 4•o”Āďě_¾ÑQ ½ě›ļëÍĸ:Q ½ǖ~ěĶ4‘ëŔAŊ™ħÿƹ_2īĶI brought a Russian book [from Kyrgyzstan], Ella’s Grade 2 [textbook]. I taught [her Russian] with the textbook and had dictation tests. . . . The Russian grammar is very difficult and it is very hard to learn . . . so [we are] practicing like this. In the second interview (Nov. 20, 2012), grammatical accuracy in writing was additionally discussed. Ava said, “Now Ella writes a diary in Russian. [She] forgot too much of 196 her [Russian] grammar rules. So [she] started doing that recently” (Ŷ8 ō: ”Āďě  ćĶ, Ĥ‹. ō: ”Āď ě . ũ, ¾ÑŅ Q½ ¬Ŋ ’ĢěĶ. 4‘ë ũ è  ĀŕƿěĶ; Nov. 20, 2012, Ava’s Home). Similar to what was discussed regarding Figure 9.2, Ava’s accounts presented an image of Russian as difficult to learn, particularly the grammar rules. Possibly, Ava might have thought that the grammar-focused approach was the best way that could boost Ella’s Russian literacy development. In addition, such teaching practice could the available resource that she could reach out at that time. 9.3 Michiko’s Family Language Practice Unlike Ava’s family, Michiko had her children with her Korean husband through her international marriage. Yet, Michiko demonstrated how her life experience through her marriage had influenced her to conduct a one-parent one-language policy with her children and how she made sense of their multilingual socialization trajectories between two transnational contexts, South Korea and Japan. I first present how Michiko described her family language policy and practice at home and what facilitated and hindered her from implementing the family language policy. 9.3.1 “I Need to Give Opportunities to My Children”: Heritage Language as a Resource for Children’s Upward Mobility When I asked Michiko about her children’s Japanese linguistic proficiency, Michiko told me that “Japanese ability? It is basic. [They] can understand daily [conversation]”(ō×ě ăœŅ? :ƑŬ. ōçêǍŅ ēď}?; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). She added that “and at home [I] use Japanese at home. I rarely [use] Korean” (źģë_ ō×ě¦ ƾĶ, š e. ƻ7 2ʼn; Sep. 17, 2012, School A), and presented herself as the main Japanese provider to her children. Despite adopting a one-parent one-language policy at home, Michiko reported her challenges with socializing her 197 children into more advanced Japanese linguistic repertoires. She stated: “[I’m] not supposed to use difficult [Japanese] words, [Japanese only at home] is not going smoothly because [we] use Korean. [I] only [use] easy words [in Japanese] haha” (ě›-4‘p ě›Ĺ fě~Ŋ ĉŶ ­ďė u_o, ƻ7  ĉb; ŗ Đ uŬ. úĹ ­« ƹƹ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). In other words, due to the dominant linguistic resource in the family—Korean—Michiko said she and her children tended to switch to Korean, which resulted in challenges maintaining their Japanese-only policy at home and she tended to resort to simple conversation in Japanese with her children. Through Michiko’s discussion of mother–child bilingual socialization in her family, it was apparent that Michiko’s husband could be excluded from mother–child conversation. Addressing this issue, I asked Michiko whether her husband minded her and her children conducting a Japanese-only policy in the family. Michiko presented her indifference toward potential linguistic exclusion that her husband might have encountered in the family (“he might not know what we’re saying”, ě, JƲŅ ½ý­ŌŶ º¦ ÷p ‘?; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Yet, she also addressed his indifference (“well, he doesn’t say anything uhuhuhuhu” À 4‘p, Ĕ, Ĕ­p Đ ƾĶ ěǂǂǂǂ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Michiko may have experienced freedom to focus on using Japanese with her children, as demonstrated by the absence of her husband’s intervention in the family language policy. Additionally, Michiko’s exclusive emphasis on teaching Japanese to her children presents her as a dedicated, wise mother but not a good wife in the interview. Finally, through demonstrating different attitudes toward L2 development in Michiko’s family, it is presented how each family member could be socialized into different linguistic communities in divergent ways: Michiko as a fully competent Japanese-Korean bilingual, her children as Korean dominant and novices in Japanese, and Michiko’s husband as a Korean monolingual. 198 After asking about the Japanese proficiency of Jungwoo and Jungmin, I asked Michiko what motivated her to use only Japanese at home and teach Japanese to her children. Michiko first responded, “even if [a mother] is Japanese, [her] children would know only Korean if Japanese is not taught. . . . It is wasteful [not teaching the language]” (ď½§ ō×äŽŊ‹ ƾp, ō×ě¦ Đ ¤ƚ·Ņ ƻ7 Çģ »‹Ķ. . . . 42 ď;ļë; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Michiko’s account emphasized the role of the mother as a language provider: if a mother was not teaching her children Japanese, they would become monolingual Koreans, not Korean-Japanese bilinguals. Michiko evaluated her children’s process of becoming monolingual and losing their heritage language as a waste, and she restated that her children needed to learn Japanese. Though her accounts presented how a mother becomes a linguistic resource for promoting bilingualism in her children, I did not take it as the answer to the question I had asked (e.g., her purpose for teaching Japanese). I again asked why, and Michiko introduced her and her children’s here-future and there-future sociolinguistic conditions that could be coupled with her children’s higher education and upward mobility either in South Korea or Japan (Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Introducing how her maintenance of her Japanese nationality allowed her children to obtain flexible dual citizenship, Michiko told me teaching Japanese to her children “is because of their higher education. [When they apply for an] university, [they] have the benefit of entering Japanese university as a foreigner or as a Japanese person in South Korea. So I intentionally teach Japanese” (4, jƺ/ „¾ģĶ. jƺ/ģ 4, ō× jƺ/ģ ĵ1Ōń  ~ě2F, ƻ1ģë ō×äŽń  ~ě2F. 4• LjƦ ‘ńb;, ōڔ ō×ěp ¤ƚ?; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). In addition, Michiko reported that even if her children had poor academic performance in their school and were not eligible to access the possibilities she described, there would still be a way for her children to use Japanese. She mentioned that Japanese could allow them to have access to 199 higher education or work: “Even if [they are] bad at school, [they] can go [to a university] via [their] Japanese language. If they like Japan, they can go to Japan. This is a big benefit [and they] must take full advantage [of this opportunity]” (*Ú ¼ ƹl‹p. ō×ě   ÷ ‘?, ě À ō× ūe‹? ƹ· ō×ģ p u?. R, Ŋ• ūņ Şņ Ɠj Ŋķƾė ub;; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). The details of transnational attributes that Michiko described for her children can be seen as Figure 9.3. Figure 9.3 Michiko’s Stated Vision of her Children Becoming Fluent Korean-Japanese Bilinguals Here – Future There – Future South Korea | Japanese or bilingual identity | Access to higher education through Japanese identity Japan | International Student | Access to higher education through Japanese In the following, Michiko presented how transmitting her embodied attributes (e.g., nationality and language) to her children might enable her to achieve self-realization on her behalf. She related her hardships as a result of her marriage and residence in South Korea. She said: “Through my enduring hardship by coming to South Korea . . . As a return [I] want to maximize the benefit [for my children], Yes. That’s why I’m doing it (š ƻ1ģ ıë ?êƹ_ . . . jĂń  ūŅ Şņ Ɠj Ŋķƹ? ąěë, Ň. 4™ ƹ_ 2īĶ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). By describing these future possibilities presented by the transnational contexts between South Korea and Japan, Michiko emphasized that her children’s L2 development and her role as an L2 provider were critical for her children’s access to their future social and economic mobility. Thus, Michiko’s Japanese identities—as a citizen and as a Japanese language user—are valuable for her and her children. 200 In addition, Michiko told me stories of how she maneuvered her cultural, social, and linguistic resources to send their children to Japanese public school in Japan for a short-term early study abroad where she grew up (Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Indicating the systemic discrepancies between South Korean and Japanese schools,48 she described how she had enabled her children to study in Japan for three months, from December 2011 to February 2012, without jeopardizing their schooling in South Korea. Following Michiko’s report on her strategic appropriation of the different academic calendars, Michiko explicated how she drew on her transnational networks and knowledge to socialize her children into Japanese. Michiko told me that before her children attended elementary school in Japan, she visited both public and private elementary schools in her hometown to see what the schools looked like. She said she chose public schools where mainstream Japanese students attended rather than the private international school where foreign children attended for their JSL development. She mentioned “the homeroom teachers told [me] that they had been waiting [for my children] and treated [them] well” (hŐíêd~Ņ :eŸe? ŗƾųĢěĶ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Through these accounts, Michiko presented not only the public school welcomed her children but also what she could do best for her children using her transnational networks. In Michiko’s narrative, not only did the mother become the language provider for the multilingual socialization of their children, but also her linguistic attributes and related conditions (e.g., nationality, social networks) could further enhance the transformation of her children’s material and ideological circumstances. Through this demonstration, Michiko 48 The South Korean K-12 system adopts two seasonal vacations (summer and winter) and one short-term spring break (about 1-2 weeks). The summer vacation usually takes place for 30-32 days, and the winter vacation is normally 40 days. The winter vacation begins around December 23rd and lasts until the end of January or early February. Spring break begins in the third week of February and ends on March 1st. The new grade starts on March 2nd. 201 presented how becoming a language provider has much to do with acting the wise mother. Furthermore, Michiko expressed that her efforts to advance her children’s L2 development had much to do with expanding their future possibilities and leveraging their upward mobility. These accounts could be tied to what heritage language means in the context of the globalized and transnational context of South Korea, which exclusively validates instrumental and economic aspects of language. 9.3.2 Negotiation of Multiple Communities During the interview, I listed the languages that Michiko’s two children, Jungwoo and Jungmin, were being surrounded by due to their social and familial context. While framing them as living in a multilingual world, I asked Michiko which languages—such as Korean, Japanese, and English—were the most important for them. Interview with Michiko Watanabe (MW) [Sep. 17, 2012, School A] BS: ď: 4: Ĵ(.) 4•Ķ? Umm, why do (you think) so? MW: ƻ7Ņ ƻ1ģ æ? ‘ńb;. ǂ. ǂ. Ň: űĶƹe 4•2 Õb; Ƹ÷Ŋ?, x Ïž_ Īě. Korean, because (they) are living in Korea. hehe. Um, it is important, and necessary. The second is English. BS: RR Yes yes MW: Īě_ ð& *ě? English is the common language in the world? BS: *ķě. Lingua franca. MW: *ķě. ěě 4”b; Īě_ ēďė ƹ? ((inaudible)) ©Ŷªģ ō×ě= Lingua franca. Uhuh So (they) need to know English ((inaudible)) The last one is Japanese. BS: =6o ěǂǂ, ť8 Ɗ¨Ŷ ƹ_  ďcŶ º¤8_oĶ, 4: ě‡ Õ· .řǕ ō×ěģ ¬Ŋ ƪŔ¦ ƹĀ? &ĀŖďĶ. 6o Ĵ h. ō×ě Ėģ Đ ?, Īě l Ėģ _ Ķ? ģǃǃ (I) don’t know whether (I’m) challenging (you) a bit, um, but (you) are doing a lot of investment into (your children’s) Japanese (learning). But why is Japanese not more important than English? Ehehe MW: *ķěb; Because (English) is the most commonly used language in the world. As displayed in the extract above, Michiko described the two countries bounded with certain linguistic features while presenting English as a borderless entity, and she explained how 202 she might imagine each language differently for her children. First, considering her children residents of South Korea, the here-now condition, she affirmed their need to be socialized into Korean. Then, she presented English as a lingua franca, a language that traverses various social contexts and is used without any territorial limitation. Coupling English with acquiring cosmopolitan affiliation, she justified the importance of her children’s English learning. Even when I questioned her preference for English over Japanese, Michiko repeated the discourse about English, which implicitly contrasted the differences between Japanese as territory-bounded language and English as a widely shared global language, thus justifying her linguistic preference for her children. Understanding her stated promotion of Japanese to her children is largely based what she could do best for her children (i.e., L2 development for upward mobility), her advocacy of English over Japanese could be tied to different degrees of future material potential for her children. In other words, Michiko aspired to the best future for her children whether it is English or Japanese, and her demonstration of promoting Japanese may have had very little to do with other aspect, such as her children having an ideological bond with their heritage culture and community. 9.3.3 “There is Little Time to Do Japanese”: Polycentric Accounts of the Here-Now Condition Michiko raised a similar concern to Ava’s regarding the mother’s role as the major source for her children’s L2 development through a one-parent one-language policy. Although Michiko reported her numerous efforts to develop her children’s Japanese, she addressed the kinds of forces that had hindered her pursuit of teaching Japanese to her children (Sep. 17, 2012, School A). Describing the family’s here-now sociolinguistic condition, Michiko claimed that there was 203 little spare time for her children to learn Japanese. She said: “when [the children] return from school, it’s evening. As soon as [they] get home from school, [I] can’t make [them] start studying [immediately]. And there is homework. Well, there is no time.” (ƺ/-e ıë ĭ·Ņ, À śTŊŖďĶ. źń  ĭŔ©Ŕ *Ú ĀƠŶp ¼ƹŬ. øšp ‘Ŭ. 2 ĀŊ ġěĶ; Sep. 17, 2012, School A). By listing the kinds of school-related activities that her children do after they return home from school, Michiko suggested that her children’s school-related activities overrode their learning of Japanese. Michiko said her children’s school-related activities are “the biggest problem” (4 Ţ ¾š?; Sep. 17, 2012, School A) that inhibits her from teaching Japanese to her children. This representation enables us to understand how the mundane activities of school-aged Korean children circumvent the family’s furthering of the one-parent one-language policy at Michiko’s home. 9.4 Summary In this chapter, I present stories from Michiko and Ava with particular attention to how they described their use of the one-parent one-language policy in the family. Ava presented how she combined a one-parent multiple-language policy and only-one-language-per-day policy to help Ella become a competent multilingual. Although Ava’s husband is marginalized in their family dynamics, Ava’s stated family language policy was presented as a way of supporting Ella’s education and a pathway for her upward mobility. In return, Ava represented herself and her husband as cooperative parents who would provide various material and social conditions for their daughter’s future prosperity. In order to carry out this family language policy, Ava said she used a language purification practice in which code-switching was not allowed. By repressing the mixing of the four different linguistic resources available in the family language use, Ava 204 could have idealized the idea of one person with multiple native languages in Ella’s L2 development. A month after the first interview, Ava discussed Ella’s language shift and explained her modification of the one-parent multiple-language policy at home. Ava told me that as Ella was socialized to become a school-aged Korean child, Ella would shift into Korean as her dominant medium of communication while losing Russian. Intervening in Ella’s multilingual development, Ava reaffirmed her decision to segregate Ella’s language use between her parents and Koreans, while emphasizing exclusive use of Russian with Ava. In addition to the family language policy adjustment, Ava asked a Kyrgyz friend of hers to correct grammar errors in the diary that Ella wrote in Russian. Ava’s demonstration of her writing feedback sheds light on how a particular ideological pedagogy could be conceived of as not only the best practice for developing Ella’s Russian literacy but also an exemplar of how Ava strived to do best for Ella with the limited resources and material conditions that were available to her family. The representational pedagogical practice and Ella’s identity formation in the course of her multilingual development could be discussed later as a way of developing heritage language programs for less-commonly-taught languages in South Korea. Although Michiko reported a similar family language policy and practice at home—a one-parent one-language policy—her accounts differ from Ava’s. Despite Michiko’s exclusive use of Japanese between mother and children, Michiko mentioned that her children’s development of a higher degree of Korean proficiency had discouraged them from developing to more advanced use of their L2, and how she and her children tended to resort to simple conversation in Japanese. In addition to presenting a different account from Ava’s implementation of a one-parent multiple-language policy, Michiko’s story represents the identity 205 of a dedicated damunhwa mother who chose to become the main source of her children’s L2 development. For example, Michiko described how intergenerational cultural attributes could become a means for her children’s advancement into higher education, either in South Korea or Japan. Coupled with dual nationality, which they can keep until the age of 20, achieving an advanced level of Japanese proficiency was communicated as a vehicle for her children to gain access to higher education. Her narrative encounters demonstrated that the learning of the mother’s first language had much to do with transforming children’s material and ideological conditions and leveraging their upward mobility between the two transnational boundaries. Based on this reasoning, Michiko presented how she had been attempting to mobilize her social, cultural, linguistic, and economic resources and make them available to her children. Thus, it is understandable how a mother becomes the language provider for her children and how Michiko presented herself as a wise mother to them. Overall, in Ava’s and Michiko’s accounts, their promotion of their children’s L2 development was presented as, to some extent, instrumental—an opportunity and potential—enabling social mobility and transnational identities for their children’s future. Regarding their future-here or future-there conditions, both of them highlighted the role of the mother as the main source of their children’s bilingual development. On the other hand, Ava and Michiko presented their indifference on the role of the Korean father in their families. Nonetheless, Ava’s account of her family multilingual exchanges sheds light on the potential for an ecological multilingual family in which the child becomes the multilingual mediator between parents who do not share the same L1. 206 In the next chapter, I attend to the stories that Bosam and Sumi told in their interviews to advocate transitional multilingual family socialization. 207 Chapter 10: TRANSITIONAL AND SUBTRACTIVE FAMILY MULTILINGUAL SOCIALIZATION 10.1 Introduction Continuing from the previous chapter, this chapter presents stories from Bosam and Sumi with a focus on the damunhwa mothers’ accounts of the transitional and consequently subtractive bilingualism in their family. This chapter also discusses Stage 3 in the life cycle. Unlike Michiko and Ava, who reported exclusive use of their L1s with their children following a one-parent one-language policy at home, this chapter attends to the family narratives in which the L1s of the damunhwa mothers were uncommonly promoted and used in their family. Similar to the previous chapter, I draw specific attention to two issues. The first section focuses on the representation of family language policy and practice at home, addressing the ways in which the two families did not incorporate the mothers’ L1s in their family language socialization. The second section focuses on two issues that the participants presented regarding how certain sociolinguistic conditions partially promoted their multilingual socialization of their children, yet still resulted in a language shift in their family. Figure 10.1 Focus of Chapter 10 Briefly summarizing the government’s language policy for Stage 3, based on the instrumental nationalistic purposes, creating heritage/bilingual education was not the major concern of the government’s language policy planning. Under this condition, a few languages are Stage 1 International Marriage Preparation Period Stage 2 Family Formation Period Stage 3 Child Rearing and Settlement Period Stage 4 Capacity Building Period 208 considered valuable commodities that could enhance South Korea’s development on a global scale and are selectively promoted as a form of foreign language education. Damunhwa children can participate in these programs even when their L1s are not provided (e.g., Korean-Vietnamese children attend Mandarin class). In the context of the government’s lack of understanding of the situated nature of family language socialization, in this chapter, I demonstrate how Mandarin and Vietnamese are taught but result in various family struggles as expressed in Bosam’s and Sumi’s interview narratives. 10.2 Bosam’s Family Language Practice Focusing on what Bosam said in her interview, I first present how Bosam described her Korean-Chinese identity in South Korea and related it with her family language use. Then, I discuss how Bosam resisted becoming the main linguistic source for her children's and husband’s multilingual development. Through the accounts that are narrated in the interview, I discuss the ways in which Bosam exhibited family language practices that demonstrate transitional bilingualism in the family. 10.2.1 “My L1 is Korean”: Resistance to Becoming a Mandarin Teacher to Her Family When I asked about Bosam’s language use at home, she provided a number of accounts that reflect her and her parents’ side of the family as Korean-Mandarin bilinguals whose Korean was stronger both in PRC and South Korea (Sep. 07, 2012, School A). For example, Bosam reported: “The everyday conversations in our country are in Chosun language [in PRC], I rarely use Mandarin” (?1ģëp ōç jNJŊ Ŋ ťí­Ŋ: „¾ģ ű1­ ŗ Đ ćĶ; Sep. 07, 2012, School A), and that she attended Korean-medium school49 in PRC. Bosam also told me that 49 Bosam told me that in her hometown, there were two different types of schools. The first one is made exclusive for Korean-Chinese where both students and teachers were Korean-Chinese and the medium of instruction were Korean (Chosun language). The other is mainly for Han 209 Mandarin was used outside of her town in the urban areas. Bosam mentioned, “out there, there were many [situations] that [people] communicated in Mandarin. . . . In our town [we] use [Korean] freely [in a] perfect [manner], when [I] suddenly leave the downtown. Then [everyone] must use Mandarin” (2:ëp±jNJƹ_ű1즬Ŋĉ:„¾ģ . . . ĀNƒģë‚ĸ§sRģëªŊė:ƹeĀN‚ÒěFŖďĶ4”·Ņ½ťű1ě jNJ¦ƾėƾ; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Through her descriptions, Bosam illustrated occasions when she and other Korean-Chinese who share a similar linguistic background negotiated various linguistic communities where boundaries were based upon spatial differences—urban versus rural and Korean-Chinese community versus Mandarin-speaking community. The different physical spaces that Bosam brought up in the interview represent her as a competent bilingual Korean-Mandarin speaker who could travel and move across various boundaries where Korean and Mandarin were used. She also told me that she learned Mandarin as a school subject, taught by Korean-Chinese teachers in her schools. Through her accounts, Bosam explained why she used Korean rather than Mandarin as the dominant language for communication when she was in PRC. In other parts of the interview, Bosam mentioned that after her marriage she did not use Mandarin with her children and husband “because there is no one who understands [Mandarin]” (ŗ Đ ćĶ. ēď~ņ äŽ ġěŶ?; Sep. 07, 2012, School A), describing her family as monolingual speakers of Korean. As Bosam reflected on her parents’ language use after they moved to South Korea, she said “when I think about how my mother’s side of the family talks, we still speak in Korean” (ƛŠā0~Ŋ . . . Ě:ƹ_ 2 Õ· ± ƻ1ě Fĭ?; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Despite her dominant use of Korean, Bosam also mentioned that she did code- ethnicity (the dominant ethnic group in PRC) where Mandarin is the medium of education. Bosam reported that Korean-Chinese could either choose to go to Korean-Chinese school or Han ethnicity school (for more details about Korean-Chinese schooling in PRC, see Ehlert, 2008). 210 switching describing “time to time, [we] use a couple of [Mandarin] words in the midst of [Korean] conversation” (Ŋš À DĎ fě ¹0 Ŋ™ ‚‚ ~ě_ Šp; Sep. 07, 2012, School A), demonstrating how she used Korean and Mandarin to her parents and brothers. 10.2.2 “They Belong Here”: Adhering to Here-Now and Here-Future Conditions During the first interview (Sep. 07, 2012, School A), Bosam mentioned that some of her Korean-Chinese friends discussed the possibility of sending their children to their hometown so they could become bilingual like their mothers. Bosam presented a different attitude toward her friends’ promotion of their children’s study abroad in PRC. Drawing on what Bosam said, I locate two different attitudes toward intergenerational language transmission and transnational identities. First, Bosam stated that her Korean-Chinese friends advocated transmitting their Korean-Mandarin bilingual experience by making their children live in a similar educational environment to what her friends had experienced in PRC: Interview with Bosam Hwang [Sep. 07, 2012, School A] BH: ĸ§_ 4Ɓģë /ł Éĕ: „¾ģ 4Ɓģ · Ŋš À Ŋűĝě ƹŖďĶ. ƻ1ě ű1ě Íĺ$ Ŋ™ · ve 4•āń  ¬Ŋ ƹ_o, Ŋ™ ƹ? ąěƹ_ ğ©~ ‘ěĶ Since we [Korean-Chinese] were educated there [in China], when we go there, we use two languages. There are [Korean-Chinese] moms saying [“it is possible for our children] to go [to China] to learn Korean and Mandarin” [like them], and they want to [send their children to their hometown in PRC]”. Disagreeing with her Korean-Chinese friends’ discussion on developing early study abroad strategies for their children, Bosam suggested that her children are bound to monolingual social lives and identities in South Korea. Bosam stated, “Because basically [they] need to know Korean history. If [they] are not planning to live there [PRC] permanently, [they] need to know more about history over here” (ĴOƹ·Ņ :×Ŝń  ƻ1Ō Ħäp ēďė u?, À: ěƅƶ 2:ë ª ]” đ? À æ ś2 ďb·Ņ, ĥ: Ħä¦ l ŗ ēďė ƹb;Ķ; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). 211 Figure 10.2 Bosam’s Transnational Identity Categorization between Korean-Chinese Mothers and their Children There – Past Here – Present We Korean-Chinese | Korean-Mandarin bilingual | Lived in PRC Our Children Korean | Need to know Korean language & culture | Living in South Korea Through presenting different transnational contexts, Bosam formulated divergent generational identities as can be seen in Figure 10.2. Indicating the characteristics of here (South Korea) and there (PRC), Bosam presented how different chronotopic conditions would allow for different transnational experiences and identities for their children. She stated that she and her friends are Korean-Chinese, lived in PRC, and used Korean and Mandarin. On the other hand, her children are Korean, living in South Korea, and using Korean and its cultural knowledge to become part of the South Korean community. She continued that if the children were likely to live in China as permanent citizens, they should be learning both Korean and Mandarin. However, if they were to live in South Korea, she stated that learning Korean culture and practices should take precedence over the children becoming bilingual.50 As in the interviews with Ava and Michiko, I asked Bosam to rank the languages surrounding her children, Korean, English, and Mandarin. Using directive markers, such as here 50 J. W. Kang (2012) detailed Korean-Chinese returnees in the northeast part of PRC, Yanbian, who actively navigated their ethnic identity through a complex nexus of migration, ethnicity, nationality, and class. Through economic surplus that the Korean-Chinese labor migrant returnees obtained from South Korea, they positively redefined their ethnic identity in PRC. However, the Korean-Chinese women who return to PRC permanently while maintaining their marital status are undocumented. H. M. Kim (2012b) reported harsh conditions wherein divorced damunhwa wives were often deported without explanation or remained in South Korea as undocumented foreigners, which in turn favored legal jurisdiction of their Korean husbands. 212 and there, Bosam provided a hierarchical structure of languages based on social, economic, and political relations and how such particular time-space conditions might have different implications for her children’s multilingual socialization. First, indicating territory-bounded language and identity relations, Bosam stated that, “ if [they] are planning to live here, basically what [they] need to know is Korean” (À ĥ:ë 曷 Ŋš :×Ŝń  ēďė ƹ_  ƻ1ě?; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Then, she addressed English as a transnational language that can be used without territorial restriction. Finally, Bosam contrasted Mandarin with English and stated that, “China hasn’t yet gone this far. But in the future when China gets developed, and since there is so much possibility for [China’s] development, [I] think it will be necessary to learn Mandarin” (ű1Ņ ďŷ=Ŷ_ 42_ Đ uŖďĶ. 6o Ėń  Êŝƹ·Ņ ű1, Ėń  Êŝ aïŊ ‘: „¾ģ ű1ěp Íļė ƻe? ê; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Therefore, the formulation of a particular linguistic chronotope—Korean-here-now, English-worldwide-now, and Mandarin-not-yet-but-future—allowed Bosam to envision a particular L2 learning trajectory for her children. The stated here-now sociolinguistic condition contributed to the reification of South Korea as a monolingual society and justified Bosam’s children’s monolingual socialization. Then, Bosam’s reporting of English being used in transnational contexts might have implications for her promotion of English to her children. Finally, Bosam’s statement that PRC has not yet reached global power but has potential to do so could provide a certain degree of promise to teach Mandarin to her children. 10.2.3 Mandarin as a Less Intensive Subject: “I Tell my Kids to Learn Mandarin in the Center” Although Bosam did not present herself as the main L2 provider for her direct family’s 213 L2 development, in other parts of the interview, she told me stories of how her younger child, Minsu, was learning Mandarin at the Nabi city Multicultural Family Support Center near her house. For example, when I asked whether Bosam had ever attempted to teach Mandarin to both of her children (Sep. 07, 2012, School A), Bosam discussed how she pursued L2 learning for Minjung and Minsu differently based on their grade levels. Bosam described Minsu as a younger student who had not entered the academically intensive grades, whereas Minjung, “In the case of the elder one, since she is in a higher grade, she needs to focus on academic stuff” (ƟĚŅ %ĸģ_ Ŷ8 ?ƺUŊe Õb; ƺĠņ űĶǕ êƾė Ƽ  ďë; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Bosam formulated Minsu as a child who was able to do extracurricular activities, and she described Minsu’s Mandarin learning as not too remote from her or her children whereas other activities might be. Then, Bosam listed Minsu’s conditions: “And the little one is just in Grade 1, it is the period for playing, [his school] finishes early enough and there is a Mandarin class right after school (6o żŅ Ě~Ņ Ŷ8 ª 1ƺUŊ? ƹb;, W_ Ā:?, 4‘ë ĥŁ‘ EF? Æ  ƢŐģ ű1ě ‘ěĶ. ÷ĠŊ; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Bosam said that she had taken Minsu to attend Mandarin classes since he entered Grade 1. Figure 10.3 Different Bilingual Trajectories of Bosam’s Children Minjung – Older Minsu – Younger Academic-literacy-centered literacy practice | Little bilingual program available here-past | Korean dominant Mandarin as an extracurricular activity | Government bilingual program available here-now | Beginner Mandarin 214 Through her articulation, Bosam did not present herself as the main Mandarin-Korean language provider but rather as an educational manager of her children. As presented in Figure 10.3, attending to various characteristics of her children, Mandarin, and the Multicultural Family Support Center, Bosam demonstrated how she organized different activities for each child, providing different potential L2 life trajectories for Minsu and Minjung. Fashioning Mandarin as less important than the school curriculum, Bosam said Minsu could spend his afterschool leisure time learning Mandarin, while Minjung’s school-related activities prevented her from doing so. Bosam also presented the particular chronotopic conditions of Minsu and the welfare center that enabled Minsu to learn Mandarin. Therefore, not only was Mandarin class presented as one of the younger child’s extracurricular activities, but also her narrative highlights that the program was available to Minsu after school. When I asked about Minjung’s and Minsu’s degrees of Mandarin proficiency, Bosam told me “Minsu knows more [than Minjung] things like greetings. Since he learned it in his class. . . . If the elder one asks, [I] sometimes teach [her], [but I] sometimes say “Ah! I don’t know” (Ōä À 4•2 Ã÷_ ũ l ēďĶ ĴO· ÍĿ: „¾ģ. . . . ƟĚ_ À ÀėÀė ƹ·Ņ ¤Ɛ ů „p ‘?. . . . Àė ƹ· ‘ď »‹’ 4–„p ‘?; Sep. 07, 2012, School A). Combining the findings from the earlier extracts, these accounts indicate how Bosam’s children may have different multilingual socialization outcomes. Although Bosam continued to not fully embrace herself as the main linguistic expert for her children and trivialized Mandarin in relation to her children’s academic development, the affordance of the language program available to Minsu highlights the importance of government intervention in damunhwa families’ process of figuring out what heritage language might mean to them. 215 10.3 Sumi’s Family Language Practice Whereas Bosam presented her rejection from becoming the language provider for her children’s L2 development, Sumi provided a different account of her family’s engagement in transitional bilingual practices. In section 6.2.2, I indicated how Sumi’s creation of a transliteral pedagogy to teach Vietnamese to her husband, and possibly to her children, could have positively socialized their family into a Korean-Vietnamese family. Despite this possibility, in this chapter I present an account of how her husband and children explicitly rejected her efforts to guide them to become Korean-Vietnamese bilinguals. 10.3.1 South Korea as Multilingual State? Negotiating Multilingual Socialization with Their Children When I met Sumi and her husband in their home, I asked them whether they would be interested in advancing Hyunmin’s education in Vietnam. Similar to what Michiko and Ava said, they attended to their children’s future possibilities rather than the present and partially advocated their children becoming fluent Korean-Vietnamese bilinguals. Interview with Sumi Won and her husband (SW & H) [Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home] BS: DžÃŊ :Ǐ uë ÓƬJģ:ë ƺ/¦ eb?, À jƺŊF, À ōņ Ƽ ÷ ‘e·Ņ, 4™ ƾŭĀ_-Ŝ5Ŝń  ƾ ŭă ê ‘ńðĶ? ě† ê Ŷ? &ðĶ? If Hyunmin has an opportunity that (he could) attend school in Vietnam, like a university, or (he) could work (there), Would you make- Do you have a thought that you will actively support (him)? What kinds of thoughts do (you) have? SW: 4 ‘ń· ūŬ. ė ÓƬJ À ¹ U sĐ ÀÀ ŁƺÕN· 22 ū?= It would be nice if these (opportunities) existed. (If my) child could go study abroad for several years, it would be nice H: =4ƚ. °À ĥë° Ƅ Right. Well, right here (what can he do?) tsk SW: «Ę 10U 20U ǐ ś ƻ1ģ ś, ÓƬJ ­p ¬:Ŋ äķ· 42p ŷřp À ¬Ŋ ũ 4‘Ķ. ś: /÷d 42 ¬Ŋ ƾĶ. 4, ė ¬:Ŋ ƻ1-ÓƬJ ­ ¬Ŋ ¤Ɲ Ų‹? 4‘ë. After 10 or 20 years, if Vietnamese is widely used in South Korea, (there) would be more job (opportunities) like that. Well, the professor (that I know) says this a lot. (He) said teach my child, Vietnamese a lot 216 The details of the here-future and there-future discourse conditions based on which Sumi’s children could become Korean-Vietnamese bilinguals can be seen in Figure 10.4. Using these conditions, Sumi demonstrated that learning Vietnamese would be beneficial for her children’s future. Figure 10.4 Sumi’s Vision of her Children Becoming Fluent Korean-Vietnamese Bilinguals There – Future Here – Future Vietnam | Studying abroad Attending a university Working in Vietnam | Better future & possibilities South Korea | Korean-Vietnamese Multilingual Society | Possibilities for work & upward mobility First, when addressing the there-future condition, Sumi and I adhered to the notion that her teaching Vietnamese to her children would lead to their social mobility in Vietnam. Sumi’s husband articulated the here-now condition, which supported our account. Then, introducing the future multilingual landscape of South Korea, Sumi mentioned that her children’s gaining a high level of Vietnamese would accelerate their future upward mobility in South Korea. Therefore, her children’s acquisition of Vietnamese was articulated as valuable means for their future both in South Korea and in Vietnam. Finally, reporting an authoritative person’s (professor’s) account, Sumi emphasized her role as the main source for teaching Vietnamese to her children. In addition to constructing various time-space configurations that were reported as crucial elements for their children’s L2 development and potential upward mobility, identities that were generated and discussed in the extract above are worthy of examination. My initial question suggested that the mother could become the main source of Vietnamese, Sumi’s husband agreed, 217 and Sumi said the Korean professor had told her to do so. In addition, the kinds of social, cultural, and economic resources for their children that were discussed in the interview were derived from Sumi’s country of origin and her heritage. Through these articulations, the mother’s heritage was tied to her children’s change of material conditions and upward mobility. Sumi’s effort to socialize her family into Vietnamese was also presented and discussed in other interviews. I heard a story from a Grade 2 teacher in Hyunmin’s school who attended the same church with the family. The teacher described how Sumi taught Vietnamese to her husband when she visited her house, using the calendar that was displayed in her bedroom (Nov. 28, 2012, School B). Sumi also told me that she taught her child a few Vietnamese words, such as greetings (Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). In the midst of my interview with Sumi and her husband, their elder child, Hyunmin, came home and stated, “xin chào (hello)” and Sumi responded “xin chào,” an instance of how Sumi’s effort to teach basic Vietnamese to her children might be taken as everyday practice in their family. This occurrence may indicate that Sumi was making efforts to promote her family’s L2 development. 10.3.2 “There is Lots of Stuff that [My] Child Learns”: Children’s Learning Mother’s L1 versus Children Becoming Korean Children During my interview data collection, because of my interest in heritage language promotion at home, I asked questions such as “have you thought of teaching your L1 to your children?” As I discussed earlier, I have come to understand the kind of language ideology embedded in the heritage language transmission that I unconsciously promoted—the mothers as the main source of socializing their children into multiple languages. There were several occasions when the mothers contested being the main source of their L1 to their children (e.g., Bosam’s story). Sumi challenged me when I suggested she was the main source of her children’s 218 L2 development. She said: “I really do think it a lot, but it requires much effort. huhuhuhu” (42 ¬Ŋ ê{_o, {_ ǖp ¬Ŋ ~ěĶ ǒǒǒǒ; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Following her disagreement with my promotion of mothers’ responsibility for their children’s L2 development, we discussed the need for an afterschool Vietnamese class in South Korea so “that [the children] would go and learn and [it] wouldn’t cost a lot of money [to learn]” (Ɵ q Đ ~Ŋ?‹p À Ƶ 4’ Ì+ǐģ . . . ë ƹ_; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home), which did not exist at the time of the interview. This highlights that the lack of societal support in leveraging heritage/minority language, in turn, places tremendous responsibilities on families, particularly damunhwa mothers whose L1s do not seem to be valuable to South Koreans. In addition to the lack of societal support for less-commonly-taught heritage languages in South Korea, Sumi pointed out similar challenges that other damunhwa mothers raised as their children enter school. Sumi indicated that Hyunmin was involved in different here-now circumstances (e.g., Hyunmin learned piano and English. He studied with his dad after school every day and studied the Bible every weekend at his church). Displaying a number of Hyunmin’s afterschool school-related activities, Sumi claimed “there is lots of stuff that [my] child learns. So the children are having a hard time” (ė À, Íĸ_ , ¬ďĶ . . . Ě~Ņ 4‘4‘ ǖ~Îě; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Then, she indicated that Hyunmin was acting out because of his school anxiety. Therefore, a new activity, learning Vietnamese with the mother, was presented as an additional trouble that would intensify her child’s already required here-now language practices and hinder Sumi’s attempt to teach her child Vietnamese. 10.3.3 Rejection of Vietnamese in Sumi’s Family In addition to the previous section, which discussed how formulation of particular here-now linguistic conditions prevented Hyunmin’s L2 development, Sumi and her husband 219 mentioned other issues that prevented her from socializing her children in Vietnamese. When I asked whether Sumi’s children could converse in Vietnamese, the husband quickly stated “[They] can’t speak it. . . . “[We/she]51 don’t teach it” (¼ƹŶ À. . . . Đ ¤ƚŶ À; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). On the other hand, Sumi said “I . . . only [taught] the greetings . . . a bit but I didn’t do anything further” (ś_ . . . Ŕ, ē, Ōä« . . . ť8 Ɛŭ? e¥  ¤Ŷ ĒƿěĶ; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home) and reported in a quiet voice that her children were not literate in Vietnamese. When I mentioned, “Vietnamese is really difficult [to learn]. I also-” (ÓƬJ ě ŸŻ ěžl‹?Ķ. śp-; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home), Sumi’s husband interrupted and said that Vietnamese was too fast. He immediately presented a phonetic utterance with tonal sounds mimicking what Vietnamese sounded like to him. Through presenting Vietnamese as too fast, foreign, and unfamiliar, the interview accounts with Sumi’s family demonstrated that Vietnamese is a difficult language to learn, thereby justifying the decision not to learn Vietnamese. Next, mentioning that Sumi’s children had been in Korean, English, and Vietnamese contexts, I asked about the linguistic order that the parents encouraged for their children’s multilingual socialization (Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Both parents presented a language-territory-bounded response (e.g., everyone uses Korean in South Korea). Because they drew on a territory-bounded language ideology that is widely circulated in South Korea, other aspects of linguistic diversity in South Korea became invisible and irrelevant, a sociolinguistic phenomenon called linguistic erasure (Irvine & Gal, 2000). Reflecting the monolingual ideology in South Korea, Sumi’s husband responded that “The most important one is Korean because [we] live in Korea” (űĶƻ 2_ ƻ1ģ äb; ƻ1­ŊŶ À; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Yet, Sumi stated, 51 The subject of a sentence is often implied in Korean. 220 “But [I] want [my child] to do more with English and Vietnamese” (4•o Īě ÓƬJ­ lƿń· ū8ě; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). When I asked Sumi and her husband about the second most important language for their children, the status of English as a lingua franca was highlighted (Sumi’s husband: “[English is] common” xÏž_ ± ſ Īě ďb‹? À *sŊb;, Sumi: “English is used everywhere, every country” Īě_ ě€ ě^ F‹ Á e äķƹś; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Then, Sumi indicated “But my kids’ mother’s side of the family is in Vietnam. So [they would] only learn Vietnamese” (2:, ė ś ĵ_ ÓƬJŖďĶ. 4b; ÓƬJě« ÍļŶ; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home), highlighting the importance of Vietnamese for maintaining connections to Sumi’s family in Vietnam. Yet, Sumi’s husband overrode the end of Sumi’s iteration to illustrate his experience in a town called Dongtap. Describing the sociolinguistic encounter of a tourist-oriented city in Vietnam where English is used widely (e.g., in restaurants in Dongtap), both Sumi and her husband reported that English was even used in a social context in what is conceived as a monolingual society, highlighting the borderless state of English. These formulations diminished the importance of family ties and affiliations and worked to reemphasize the importance of Hyunmin’s learning English; all of which could provide a diminishing effect of socializing their children into Vietnamese. In addition, although the husband’s accounts were quite similar to Sumi’s, there were numerous initiative responses and overlaps from Sumi’s husband. These indicate the domination of his utterances in the interview when his opinion became the principle for the reported language socialization of their children. Ultimately, it could be linked to the formation of particular linguistic hierarchies based on which Korean and English socialization was explicitly promoted for his children, whereas Vietnamese socialization was not. 221 This could also be drawn from Hyunmin’s interview. When I asked Hyunmin which language he was best at, he immediately said he was best at speaking English. When I requested his affirmation (Īě¦ Ţ ŗƾ?, “English is [your] most [fluent] one?), Hyunmin reported “(I) can do English pretty well [but I’m] best in Korean” (Īě, ě, È Šp ŗƹ?, ƻ1­ņ ↓š:↑ō ŗƾĶ; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). In the midst of this conversation (Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home), his father interrupted to demonstrate a father–child Korean-English bilingual exchange in my presence. The father explicitly requested that Hyunmin co-perform as an English speaker with him: “Ok, [in] English [how do you say] ‘I’m hungry’” (Ŕ, Īě Í ?ưĶ). After his second request in Korean, “[Say] I’m hungry?” (Í ?ưĶ?), Hyunmin responded in English (“Are you hungry?”). Treating Hyunmin’s iteration as an authentic question, the husband responded and praised him in English, “I’m hungry ah yes yes yes”. By demonstrating Hyunmin’s Korean-English bilingual communicability to the researcher, Sumi’s husband presented the child as a fluent bilingual speaker of English and established a favorable family representation where the father was involved in the child’s L2 development with a language (English) that is desired in South Korea. When I asked which language is important for Hyunmin, Hyunmin immediately responded that English was the most important language for him, describing “Uh [it’s] interesting and because [I] want to go to the States” (ě ŚÂ ‘? Â1ģ ? ą, ńb; ;Ķ; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). He also added that he would like to meet President Obama when he visits the United States. When I asked Hyunmin which language was most important for him after English, he stated it was Korean. Requesting his reason for valuing Korean (Hangeul), Hyunmin introduced King Sejong, a powerful male figure who is known for inventing Korean script (Hangeul) and is highly respected in South Korea (“Uh (it’s) because King Sejong made 222 [Hangul]- I want to meet King Sejong” ě ðŪjijŊ «~-ðŪjijŊ Õ? ąěë; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Finally, I asked Hyunmin what would be the final language that was important to him, and Hyunmin said that there was no other language that would be important to him. When I explicitly asked Hyunmin whether Vietnamese was important to him (Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home), Hyunmin immediately stated that it was not. I asked why he rejected Vietnamese and he refused to answer. When I tried to associate Vietnamese with his mother’s L1 (“Um, mom?” Ň ğ©), he interrupted and stated that “[I] don’t know mom’s language in detail” (ğ© ­ ŔðǕ »‹Ķ). When I made another attempt to relate his background to Vietnamese using familial categories (“It’s mom’s language. [You don’t like Vietnamese even though] it’s the language your mom speaks the best?” ğ© ­Ōo? ğ© šō ŗ ƹ_ ­Ōo?), he refused and alienated himself from Vietnamese (“(inaudible) so I don’t know [it]” (inaudible)ƾë »‹Ķ; Nov. 28, 2012, Sumi’s Home). Thus, Hyunmin’s reported attitude toward his parents’ languages could have implications for his language socialization. While Hyunmin made a linguistic order through coupling languages with powerful male figures in the United States and South Korea, there were few resources that the interlocutors (i.e., I and Sumi) could draw on to highlight the importance of his learning Vietnamese. Additionally, associating Vietnamese with his mother did not succeed in provoking Hyunmin to discuss his multilingual socialization but drew his explicit rejection. In Hyunmin’s interview, Vietnamese was not associated with any powerful male figure that Hyunmin could affiliate himself with. Losing the attributes that are similar to those of English and Korean, Vietnamese became a language that was not relevant to the child’s world but exclusively to that of his mother. Although Sumi stated that she would like to teach Vietnamese to her children in many parts of previous extracts, her husband and Hyunmin did not demonstrate 223 an interest in Vietnamese. Through alienating Vietnamese as the language of the mother, it was presented as foreign, distant, and even irrelevant to the family’s here-now linguistic conditions. Such explicit rejection could have implications for the practice of Vietnamese at home where Korean and English are the only languages emphasized. 10.4 Summary Although both Sumi and Bosam presented transitional family multilingual socialization practices, these hold different stories. Bosam rejected the idea of the mother as the language provider and highlighted ability to communicate between family members, which she linked with her family language use. Her emphasis on attributes of communicative action (being able to communicate or not) became a key rationale for her reported language choice within her family. Depending on who she was speaking to, Bosam mentioned that she took actions as a mother, wife, daughter, or sister through use of language that was available to her family members: she would use Korean for her direct family (e.g., husband and children) and mix Korean and Mandarin for her father’s side of the family (e.g., Korean-Chinese who use both Korean and Mandarin). These accounts made her Korean-Chinese bilingual identity irrelevant to her direct family (e.g., husband and children), distinguishing them as Korean monolinguals. Instead of presenting herself as a bilingual language provider to her children, Bosam stated that she became an educational manager who organizes different educational activities for each child. Juxtaposing her children’s age level with what was available from the government, Bosam mentioned that she enabled different socialization trajectories between her children, as the younger child learned Mandarin after school but not the older one. With regard to this practice, she said Mandarin was seen as a less valuable subject than the children’s mainstream school curriculum. Apart from what Bosam said she did for her children, her stories highlight 224 how institutionalized governmental support allows damunhwa children to learn their mothers’ first languages without extensive involvement of their mothers. This could open other possibilities for reinterpreting what heritage language might mean to the family. Unlike Bosam, Sumi presented herself as the source of her children’s Korean-Vietnamese development. Sumi’s reported list of family activities demonstrates her dedicated effort to teach Vietnamese to her husband and her children, opening possibilities for interpreting what their heritage means in the family. However, the responses of her husband and elder child did not present the degree of interest that Sumi might have wanted. Their narratives demonstrate how in the children’s here-now sociolinguistic conditions, Korean, English, and school literacy were seen as important subjects while heritage language and identity were not valued. Furthermore, though it is unknown whether Hyunmin’s father gets involved in Hyunmin’s English learning on an everyday basis, as the father’s presentation of teaching English to his son in my presence needs to be taken into consideration. Through presenting English exchanges between the father and the son, Sumi’s husband was showing me a good father who was involved in educating his children as well as presenting his family as a good family who advocate teaching their children Korean and English, which are valued in South Korea. Furthering the family’s creation of the linguistic hierarchy demonstrated by Sumi’s husband and Hyunmin, Sumi presented difficulty accepting the role of the major source for teaching Vietnamese for her children. This highlights the importance of societal support so that damunhwa mothers can move away from becoming the sole linguistic providers for their families. In addition, it also re-indicates the South Korean government’s lack of support for a multilingual environment in damunhwa families, which should be supported by a more ecological and critical view of bilingual education (e.g., Kubota, 2004, 2010, 2016). Instead, the 225 government’s promotion of selective language(s) inscribes a linguistic hierarchy based on what is viewed as profitable and valuable for advancing South Korean society in the globalized world. In addition, it is important to note that Korean was not presented as the language of the father but rather associated with the family’s here-now linguistic condition. On the other hand, Vietnamese was presented as the language of mother that is exclusively shared by the mother’s side of the family in Vietnam. As a result, Vietnamese was not associated with Sumi’s child’s here-now sociolinguistic conditions, but exclusively shared with the there-now situation that did not impact the family’s immediate life. These divergently presented attitudes and identities toward Vietnamese may cause Vietnamese to be marginalized in the family. Overall, in this chapter, three issues were discussed that did not facilitate multilingual socialization of the two families. First, the mother was discussed as the source of children’s L2 development: Emphasizing language as a medium for everyday communication, Bosam’s account called for a changing perception of L2 development from decontextualized L2 acquisition to context-sensitive L2 socialization. Sumi presented challenging circumstances in which damunhwa mothers become the only source for their children’s L2 development and called for societal support rather than stratification of languages based on the government’s economic and ideological interests. Second, the interviews raised the importance of understanding chronotopic conditions: Although heritage language was presented as an opportunity for their children’s potential social mobility in the future, the reports of Bosam and Sumi contribute to the formulation of heritage language as unimportant for their children’s current here-now linguistic circumstances. Finally, there arose an instrumental view of heritage language: Both Sumi’s and Bosam’s accounts provide an understanding of the ways in which damunhwa mothers attempt to mobilize their linguistic, cultural, and social attributes in order to 226 socialize their children into flexible and transnational communities. Their heritage attributes are often presented in interviews as commodifiable resources for their children’s future. This upward-mobility-oriented discourse could minimize the understanding of what heritage language means for the families’ various time-space sociolinguistic conditions, including their immediate here-now situations. Reconceptualizing what heritage language promises in South Korea could open possibilities to explore what bilingual identity and L2 development mean for damunhwa families. Next, I summarize the key findings from Chapters 5 to 10 and discuss the implications for research, policy, and practice. 227 Chapter 11: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 11.1 Introduction In the final chapter of the dissertation, I readdress the principal findings of the study, guided by the two primary 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 part of this chapter presents a summary of the research procedures and recapitulation of the principle findings of this study. Next, the theoretical and methodological contributions of the study are discussed as well as the implications of the language policy toward damunhwa families in South Korea. Finally, I evaluate and discuss the possibilities and implications of the study, outlining potential studies that could further explore the findings of this study. I conclude with a call for critical as well as reflexive engagement around family language policy, gendered identities, and policy implications. 11.2 Summary of Key Findings Despite the presence of various multicultural, multilingual, and foreign populations in South Korea, the government has selectively supported one type of family—the damunhwa family category consisting of Korean man, a foreign woman, and their children in South Korea. The South Korean government sees this type of damunhwa family as a target for intervention to transform the foreign wives into ideal contemporary monolingual Korean mothers and wives to 228 their families as well as bilingual workers for South Koreans in the globalized, multilingual world. I identified four life stages that delineate such gendered language socialization for damunhwa wives and mothers. The government’s suggested identities are as follows: In Stages 1 and 2, damunhwa wives become good Korean wives through learning Korean; in Stage 3, damunhwa mothers become good mothers through teaching Korean language and their L1 to their children; and finally, in Stage 4, damunhwa mothers become bilingual workers for all Koreans. What can be understood from this finding is that government’s design for the lives of foreign women is not only a linear life trajectory but also reciprocal, ultimately transforming them into Korean mothers and bilingual agents who will work for all Korean families in South Korea. This explains how damunhwa mothers have become the heart of linguistic nationalism in the globalized world, even while the government has failed to recognize the fundamental importance of situated nature of family language learning and use. In Stages 1 and 2, the South Korean government identifies damunhwa wives’ lack of Korean as the cause of various social and familial problems. Conceiving the foreign women’s KSL development as a prerequisite for their participation and inclusion in society, the three national ministries provide various KSL programs for damunhwa wives. Despite the government’s benevolent approach, the KSL programs emphasize the roles and identities of the Korean wife, mother, and daughter-in-law who conform to the patriarchal family structure by giving birth, raising children, and supporting the family. In addition, the foreign women’s home language and culture are put behind, and their exclusive use of Korean is emphasized in these processes. Thus, the national KSL programs promote assimilative bilingualism. 229 On the other hand, there is little requirement from the government for Korean husbands to learn and understand their wives’ language and culture. This could be seen as privileging Korean language and culture and fostering amalgamation into South Korean society, where language plays a crucial role in restructuring linguistic hierarchies between Korean and the foreign wives. Additionally, although Korean husbands could be a major available resource as their wives learn Korean, there is no training offered for Korean husbands to learn how to support their wives’ L2 development, an indication that the government has no expectation that Korean husbands will offer such support. Michiko, Sumi, and Ava described various examples of how damunhwa wives survive under ‘sink-or-swim’ conditions, particularly when their Korean husbands do not play a role in their wives’ transition. Michiko located the locus of the problem in lack of social and family support and explained how she learned Korean as her L2 through performing tasks commonly associated with a wife or mother. The interview with Sumi demonstrated that she had difficulty learning Korean, whereas her husband did not present his effort to learn her L1. Ava presented differences between temporary migrants and permanent residents and explained how giving up her prior expectations and learning Korean language and culture were both means and ends for her legitimate participation in South Korean society. Yet, both Sumi’s and Ava’s follow-up narratives demonstrated polycentric sociolinguistic conditions (Blommaert, 2010) in which each had to orient to multiple centers of gender roles, earning money to support her family, having children and raising them, and learning Korean at the same time. In addition, assimilation into Korean society does not always work in favor of damunhwa wives. Furthering Michiko’s description of her struggle with her husband’s assimilative and indifferent attitude in her early settlement period, Sumi’s husband described the 230 ways in which Korean husbands he knew did not support their wives’ integration into South Korea. In Stage 3, the ways damunhwa mothers raise their children continue to be problematized based on their putative linguistic and cultural deficiencies. Damunhwa mothers are expected to learn Korean language and culture and undermine their existing linguistic and cultural knowledge. Although the government has partially advocated for damunhwa mothers to teach their L1 to their children, there has been a lack of systematic provisions for doing so. Instead, a particular gendered language ideology—damunhwa mothers as the teachers of Korean to their children—has continued to be emphasized by many Koreans, which in turn has led to blame and burdening for damunhwa mothers. In addition, the role of the Korean father, who could contribute to educate his children in Korean, has been largely silenced in government documents. This language policy creates a hierarchy of experts and novices in which damunhwa mothers are explicitly considered incompetent caregivers for their children due to their putative Korean language deficiencies. The emphasis on Korean may also seriously interfere with damunhwa mothers’ ability to socialize their children in their L1 and the cultural knowledge they are familiar with. Rather than considering what the mothers can do, the government continues to position damunhwa mothers as insufficiently achieving the idealized image of a monolingual Korean mother who serves the family and raises her children. Instead of finding ways to strengthen what damunhwa mothers can do with their existing knowledge and promote the father’s participation in the family, both the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family draw on external sources for educating damunhwa children and mothers, yet in a temporary manner. The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family offers home-visit parenting services and KSL programs for damunhwa children, 231 assuming that the home-visit instructors will teach the damunhwa mothers how to raise their children adequately and that this will help the damunhwa mothers to solve their putative linguistic and cultural challenges. Nonetheless, if the home-visit instructors follow up on the Korean mother roles and identities and look for conformity to them, this goes considerably beyond informing the mothers. It could mean that there is a danger of overriding the mothers’ preferences and becoming rather coercive and intrusive. Furthermore, when damunhwa children grow up and enter school, there are no systematic or universal provisions for KSL programming in the K-12 system as part of the standard national curriculum. This will inevitably result in damunhwa mothers as the teachers of Korean language and culture to their children. While Michiko challenged the design of monolingual socialization by speaking Japanese and Korean with her child, Sumi and Bosam described various situations in which damunhwa mothers might not enrich the family bilingual environment. The stories that Sumi and Bosam told demonstrate how an emphasis on damunhwa mothers as teachers of Korean language and culture might result in challenging the relationships between mothers and their children. Sumi told me that her friend had isolated herself and her children because of her perceived deficiency in Korean, and she had fights with her husband about his nonparticipation in their children’s Korean language development. Furthermore, the Korean-Chinese mother, Bosam, who presented herself as proficient in Korean yet still found herself new to the cultural knowledge and practices of South Korea, indicated that her husband was absent from educating their children. Bosam said that although she was trying to destabilize the traditional division of gender labor, it was challenging to do so. Ava also presented a similar story: Even as a mother who was highly educated and who strived to learn Korean culture and language, she still presented her difficulty to socialize her child in a way that was culturally and socially responsive. Nonetheless, Ella’s 232 story shed light on how the roles and identities of her Korean father could be negotiated. Rather than Korean fathers being indifferent, ignorant, old, or uneducated, Ella related how they could become a source of historical and cultural knowledge for their children, which could be further elaborated and discussed in the future. Addressing the topics of language socialization in Stage 4—when damunhwa mothers become bilingual workers—both the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family have announced that they have created bilingual jobs for damunhwa families to have economic stability and enjoy a sustainable living. Such jobs include bilingual teachers, bilingual interpreters and translators, bilingual counselors, and multicultural spokespersons. Each role is specifically designed to intervene in the life trajectories of other people (e.g., novice damunhwa wives, damunhwa and Korean children, and South Koreans), transforming the identity of damunhwa mothers from language learners to language providers. Instead of critically reflecting on their design of changing damunhwa mothers into government agents and the consequences arisen from the policy implementation, the government has stated its expectations that the mothers will have pride in becoming contributing members of the South Korean community, that the jobs will reduce tension between children and their mothers, and that families will have economic sustainability through becoming bilingual workers. Conversely, the government has also stated its anticipation that these roles will foster multilingual and multicultural sensitivity among all Koreans, change the perception of Koreans toward damunhwa families, and finally nurture damunhwa women into human resources for the competitive globalized economy and international politics. Yet, the government’s creation of bilingual work that mobilizes language into a symbolic and ideological enterprise that is exchangeable with other material and ideological conditions 233 raises several issues. First, some damunhwa mothers might experience discouragement from using their L1 with their children at home, as noted earlier. Instead of learning from their mothers, damunhwa children are sent to government-organized programs taught by other damunhwa mothers on an irregular basis, where they receive bilingual language education as a form of foreign language education. Second, not all languages are offered, which could exacerbate the positioning of damunhwa mothers’ L1s within linguistic hierarchies. Some L1s that are viewed as beneficial for South Korea’s advancement in global politics (e.g., Mandarin, Japanese, English) are promoted for both Korean and damunhwa children. This could result in damunhwa children attending bilingual classes to learn languages that are not the L1 of their mothers, and thus participating in a form of foreign language education through which the government aims to foster global human resources for South Korea. Furthermore, the government offers bilingual positions on a temporary contract basis and for minimal wages. Thus, the bilingual education programs designed by both ministries promote nationalistic purposes, which may generate tensions and problems in classroom and learning outcomes. Signaling the unwelcoming conditions for immigrants in South Korea, Ava indicated the pressure on damunhwa mothers not only to adapt to Korean society but also to articulate that their L1s are transformative resources that would ultimately benefit South Koreans. While Ava’s account echoed the linguistic nationalism that is largely supported by South Koreans, the stories that Bosam, Michiko, and Sumi presented illuminate the un-systematically structured bilingual teacher training programs and bilingual workplaces. In terms of bilingual teacher training, Michiko and Bosam indicated that it works in favor of those who provide the programs rather than the program recipients, damunhwa mothers themselves. Michiko and Bosam also reported that although their teaching positions do not always guarantee a long-term commitment and can 234 fluctuate based on annual jurisdictional funding, they had to assemble linguistic and cultural knowledge to teach their L1 without any curriculum guidelines or provisions. In terms of teaching practice, Bosam described that learning Mandarin in a government institution was not highly favored by the children she taught, and she had difficulty in this position. Sumi presented that when she offered bilingual counseling services, she was misunderstood to be a supplier of labor for a Korean family on behalf of their pregnant Vietnamese family member. Given that one of the main roles the government projects for damunhwa mothers in Stage 2 is housekeeping, exploitation of gender labor could be taken for granted by South Korean families. Furthermore, Sumi said her bilingual translation work paid little and was difficult, dishonest, and unlikely to allow the family to make a sustainable living. Although the government said that bilingual jobs would provide a positive impact to both damunhwa families and South Koreans, the stories that Bosam, Michiko, and Sumi told demonstrate how multicultural and bilingual people are used as cheap, flexible labor, which exacerbates gender and ethnolinguistic hierarchies in everyday life between Koreans and Others (Said, 1978) and among damunhwa mothers themselves. In relation to the second aspect of Stage 3—damunhwa mothers as bilingual teachers of their children—the policy promoted that mothers should teach their L1s to their children, which contradicts other policies’ emphasis on damunhwa families’ exclusive use of Korean at home. Under the unsystematic and institutionalized conditions in which damunhwa children are not encouraged to learn their mothers’ language through their mothers but from someone else, and in some cases do not even study the L1 of their mothers (e.g., a child whose mother is Vietnamese attends Mandarin class), in a contradictory way, the government has stated that damunhwa children will become the global bridge that will connect South Korea with their mothers’ 235 countries of origin. Based on the lack of societal support and understanding of multilingualism in the family, the government has indicated the main assumption that damunhwa mothers will become the main source of socializing their children into bilingual subjects so that they can become future global human resources for South Korea. In relation to these discourses and material conditions, the four damunhwa mothers presented divergent views and practices in socializing their children in their L1s. Reporting their exclusive use of the target language (e.g., the mother’s L1) at home with their children, Michiko and Ava presented their use of a one-parent one-language policy. Ava demonstrated more strict segregation between languages, presenting her aspiration that Ella would become one person with multiple native languages. Yet, Ava’s stated multilingual pedagogy at home might have generated an unexpected outcome. Michiko stated that Korean was a barrier to further development of her children’s Japanese and mother–children conversation, indicating that her children’s here-now linguistic condition hindered them from developing L2 expertise. In the course of conducting a one-parent one-language policy at home, both Ava and Michiko described the exclusion of their children’s Korean fathers from mother–child L2 interactions. When both Ava and Michiko presented their neglect of their Korean husbands’ involvement, Ava provided a different insight on her family’s multilingual dynamics that she saw. She told me that Ella’s father asked Ella to become the language broker between him and her mother, depicting an incident in which family multilingual socialization may happen in an ecological manner. Unlike Michiko and Ava, Bosam and Sumi presented descriptions of transitional family bilingual socialization in their interviews, but showed different practices. In the course of interviewing, Bosam did not present herself as someone who replicated what the government had 236 envisioned for her, teaching Mandarin to her children. Emphasizing the role of language—achieving meaningful linguistic exchanges—Bosam described how all her direct family members were to be socialized into Korean. Bosam’s story was attuned to the here-now immediate family sociolinguistic condition and the consequences it might have. Demonstrating the ways in which different linguistic resources are available to different family members (i.e., Bosam’s direct Korean family versus her Korean-Chinese family on father’s side), she told me that she engaged in different family language dynamics and different ethnolinguistic identities (i.e., South Koreans versus Korean-Chinese). Contrary to Bosam’s narrative, Sumi said she had made an effort to socialize her family, both her husband and her children, into Vietnamese. Sumi reported an incident when she was encouraged to teach her L1 to her children and envisioned a new linguistic landscape for South Korea that could potentially emerge in the future. Although both Sumi and her husband considered her course of bilingual teaching as positive for their children’s here-future or there-future situations, they addressed how difficult it is for the mother to be the sole source for family bilingual education. They both mentioned the lack of social infrastructure for socializing their children into Vietnamese in their city. In addition to recognizing this systemic marginalization, her husband and elder child presented their refusal to learn Vietnamese in the interview. Although Sumi’s husband may have aspired to provide the best education for his children, the interview that I had with them potentially worked to marginalize Sumi’s possible contributions to her family. Nonetheless, the language ideology about Vietnamese that was discussed in the interview (e.g., ideology of externalization, ideology of trivia) could be explored and elaborated on in the future to create new understandings of heritage language education in South Korea. 237 The mother’s L1 and its being learned and taught at home were often coupled with ideologies of of opportunity, mobility, and potential. Bosam’s and Michiko’s stories highlighted how multilingual socialization into a specific target language and culture was fabricated differently based on how the mothers hoped their children’s life trajectories would unfold. Bosam reported that her Korean-Chinese friend desired to send her children to her hometown in PRC so that her children would become fluent Korean-Chinese bilinguals. Yet, emphasizing the here-now condition, Bosam explicitly rejected socializing her children into Mandarin speakers. On the other hand, Michiko’s stories highlighted how she drew on various social and material conditions that facilitated short-term study abroad in her hometown in Japan for her children. Other than Ava, early study abroad was presented as one of the pathways for mobilizing children’s identities into more flexible transnational identities that would ultimately facilitate more opportunities for their upward mobility either in South Korea or in their mother’s country. The discussions about early study abroad in interviews with Michiko, Sumi, and Bosam explicated how mothers appropriated South Korean families’ early study abroad strategy (e.g., a mother accompanies her children to a target community so that the children learn the target culture and language, while the father stays in South Korea making money for remittance for his children’s education). By seeking possibilities to educate their children into bilinguals in their hometowns, the mothers articulated their aspirations for their children to achieve new cosmopolitan, translingual, and elite identities on behalf of their sacrifice. This in return connects to a possibility of the mothers envisioning themselves as global mothers who can educate their children wisely in the context of globalized, transnational times. Despite these mothers’ stated hopes and aspirations, various stories in their interviews indicated different degrees of material affordances and ideological conditions among the 238 languages of the mothers, ultimately creating multiple levels of linguistic hierarchies between Korean, English, and their heritage language(s). While corresponding to one culture and one language as the norm, Michiko, Sumi, Bosam, and Ava associated their children as members of South Korean society, where Korean is dominant. This led them to claim Korean as the inexorable medium for them and their children in South Korea. Following the justification of the importance of socializing children through and into Korean language, English was seen as a transnational language, a language that traverses various social contexts and is used without any territorial boundaries, enabling their children to be part of such cosmopolitan transnational lives and communities. English was therefore presented as a fundamental as well as primary medium of communication that would provide a global lifestyle and further opportunities for their children. This language ideology enabled Bosam, Sumi, and Michiko to legitimize English as the second priority for language socialization of their children. The order of heritage languages was associated with linguistic nationalism, by which people make sense of the local, translocal, and global power of a language and the political economy that language is associated with. Compared to English, Mandarin was reported as a language that has not yet gained economic and political power and value, but has potential to do so. On the other hand, Japanese and Vietnamese were presented as territory-bounded languages that are used and spoken in a particular nation-state. Using this logic, Michiko did not state the importance of her children’s learning to form their identities with Japanese and their families in Japan, which may create potential for furthering transnational possibilities for the children. Rather, the learning of Japanese language and culture were presented as confined to instrumental purposes that could be adopted from what the government has promoted to damunhwa families. Furthering the understanding of heritage language as a tool, the narratives of Sumi’s family 239 demonstrated how Vietnamese was seen as the language of the mother but not of the family, thus marginalizing the importance of learning heritage (i.e., Vietnamese) language, culture, views, and ideologies that that the mother brought to the family. 11.3 Contributions to Theory, Literature, and Methodology The findings of this dissertation illustrate how the language of foreign women in South Korea becomes a discursive resource for linguistic nationalism in globalized South Korea, where monolingual and multilingual practices are strategically promoted and forged. It is argued that the presence of nationalism in discourses concerning globalization is hardly surprising since globalization tends to accompany nationalism, and language policies developed in relation to globalization in many countries actually promote nationalism (I. Lee, 2009; Tsui & Tollefson, 2007). Nonetheless, to this date, little has been done to critically examine the kinds of language ideologies that facilitate particular language socialization policies—and vice versa. The combination of language socialization and language ideology has been a useful theoretical as well as methodological lens to shed light on the ways in which the government envisions particular types of socialization in damunhwa families for nationalistic purposes. It also allows us to understand what family language socialization means in a social context that values highly discrete monolingualism. Numerous studies of language socialization have illuminated that language learning is not just a matter of learning the linguistic forms and structure of the target language but also of learning values, ideologies, identities, and worldviews in the course of learning language from and interacting with members of a society, particularly caregivers. Nonetheless, the findings of this study suggest that the policies created by the South Korean government do not take into account the context-sensitive nature of language learning and use, particularly between damunhwa mothers and their children. Despite the limited 240 investigation of how damunhwa families use language(s) in the family, the government has provided explicit guidelines what the mothers should follow in terms of their family language socialization. In addition, although studies on L2 language learning acknowledge how a father who is a speaker of an L2 could support his children’s L2 development (e.g., Guardado, 2013; Guardado & Becker, 2014), the findings in this dissertation indicate that the government has not considered the role of the father who is a native speaker of Korean. Instead, it implicitly emphasizes the mother’s exclusive use of Korean to raise their children, which may not be the strongest language for her. Furthermore, having no mandatory KSL or bilingual policy for K-12 schools but implementing a KSL policy for damunhwa families implies that the government believes damunhwa mothers should bear the main responsibility for educating their children in Korean. Such findings could be extended to the (im)migration and language policy literature that examines the ways in which host countries expect immigrants to learn the national language(s) and in which they marginalize the immigrant’s L1 in contrast to the dominant language. Complexifying the power dynamics of migrants’ L2 socialization, I discussed how gender has become the key constituent for (re)producing linguistic nationalism in South Korea, which favors patriarchal, monolingual, and selective bilingual socialization. However, such findings are not confined to South Korea. With the decline of government welfare systems, and the ease of travel and access to information, more and more people are searching for better lives by actively navigating various transnational and transcultural possibilities (Beck-Gernsheim, 2011; Palriwala & Uberoi, 2008). Among these, intercultural and interethnic marriages are viewed as one of the favored migration pathways (W.-S. Yang & Lu, 2010; Wray, 2011). In response to the unprecedented growth of marriage migration on a global scale (Kofman & Raghuram, 2015), this 241 dissertation contributes to the language and migration studies of how the language requirements of a host country instill everyday linguistic marginalization of immigrant families and gender hierarchies. Methodologically, using the LS-as-topic approach (Bronson & Watson-Gegeo, 2008; Duff & Talmy, 2011), I found evidence of the textual construction of archetypal damunhwa families’ four life stages and the gendered language socialization for damunhwa families that are designed by the government. Then, I used four damunhwa mothers’ interview accounts to explore their representational family language socialization trajectories and discussed the language ideologies and family language practices that may have been overlooked in the policy. Although LS-as-topic is not discussed as thoroughly as other LS methodological approaches, through accounts of interview and governmental narratives with ground-up reflexive analytical processes (Briggs, 2002, 2007; Holstein & Gubrium, 2008, 2011; Silverstein & Urban, 1996, Talmy, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011), the study of LS topics has extended the knowledge of gendered multilingual socialization of immigrants (Gordon, 2004, 2008; Menard-Warwick, 2004, 2008, 2009; Norton, 2000; Norton & Pavlenko, 2004) in a social context that is traditionally perceived as a homogeneous society. In particular, by contrasting the narratives about the government policy with the damunhwa mothers’ interview stories, this dissertation illustrates the dangers of the language policy that the South Korean government has established. Furthermore, although multilingual family practices have been overlooked in the policy, the stories the mothers presented represent a variety of types of multilingual engagement (e.g., one-parent one-language policy) that could be additionally explored and elaborated in the future. Though there have been various discussions of what heritage language and bilingual education mean for linguistic minorities and immigrant populations (e.g., Fillmore, 2000; Valdés, 242 2001), the importance of heritage languages needs to be further examined in the current climate of globalization (Block, Gray, & Holborow, 2012; Duchêne & Heller, 2012; Harvey, 2005; Holborow, 2012). Despite the expectation of positive and mutually beneficial outcomes for minority and dominant populations when a language-as-resource view on bilingual education is implemented (e.g., Ruiz, 1984, 2010), the present condition of language education and language learning raises different challenges (García, 2009). In particular, the promotion of languages of ethnolinguistic minorities has been unprecedentedly celebrated by many nation-states (e.g., da Silva & Heller, 2009), and language has become reconceptualized as a portable resource that consists of skills detached from other sociolinguistic domains and transported to other sites to create capital (Heller, 2003, 2005, 2010). Petrovic (2005) and many others (e.g., Bale, 2011, 2014; Kramsch, 2005; McGroarty, 2006; Ricento, 2005; Wiley, 1996) have argued that when language is treated as a resource, it may serve as an important and competitive commodity, and the value of heritage language may shift from protecting ethnolinguistic minorities’ rights to learn to benefitting the dominant group’s ideological stance. Coinciding with the neoliberal notion of “‘sell[ing] language diversity and bilingual education” (Petrovic, 2005, p. 395), the findings in this study also demonstrate that heritage/bilingual education is often conceived of in favor of Korean students rather than damunhwa children themselves. Linguistic hierarchies that are structured through various government institutions can be understood as a result of the government’s desire to advance its society beyond its geographical borders. Yet, the findings also show how linguistic hierarchies are not static but negotiated, reformulated, recreated, and facilitated by polycentric centers of power and negotiation of language users, particularly in relation to various time-space configurations. In particular, as the mothers have multiple communicative means to interact with their children, the findings in this 243 dissertation demonstrate the ways in which damunhwa mothers made metalinguistic choices (i.e., what kinds of language(s) they should use) for various social conditions, particularly for their children. With the facilitation of globalization and development of technologies, more and more people are becoming aware of various multimodal and multilingual means that they can use in order to communicate with others (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Kress, 2000; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2006). The finding in this study is another example that demonstrates how people make explicit decisions on the linguistic varieties that are available to them while constantly negotiating choices that are socially and culturally meaningful. In addition, addressing what the government has neglected, this dissertation suggests that language(s) should be understood not from subscribing one’s linguistic choices to either one or the other but paying attention to how people use various semiotic means to achieve social interaction and activities. Furthermore, it has been noted that language teaching has become a family project in South Korea (Abelmann, Choi, & Park, 2014; Abelmann, Newendorp, & Lee-Chung, 2014; K. J. Ahn, 2009; S. H. Bae, 2012; J. Kang & Abelmann, 2011; Y. Kang, 2012; J.-Y. Lee, 2013; Lo, Abelmann, S. A. Kwon, & Okazaki, 2015; Park & Bae, 2009). As the competition-oriented ideology derived from neoliberalism and globalization becomes more prevalent, it has been discussed that the government welfare system is being weakened (Jesook Song, 2011). Consequently, the role of the family is becoming more important in incubation of individuals’ competitiveness (K.-S. Chang, 2011). Under such circumstances, family is considered the most crucial foundation of South Korea’s economic, social, and political life (S. S. Kim, 2000), and mothers play an essential role in educating their children (H. Choi, 2009; Y. Hong, 2000; Y. Kang, 2012; Soojin Kim, 2008; Hakyoon Lee, 2010). In particular, not only foreign mothers but also their language, culture, and extended transnational network are key in nurturing global 244 subjectivities, both in their children and in South Koreans. Such bilingual education is producing a new infrastructure as well as a structural metamorphosis of familial lives in South Korea (Abelmann, Choi, & Park, 2013), supporting the constitution of the state condition through domesticated women’s linguistic labor. Although damunhwa mothers’ multilingual practices are largely neglected by Koreans, the stories of the four focal participants demonstrate how they maximized their space of agency and autonomy within the restrictive sociocultural and sociopolitical expectations that they become transnational bilingual Korean mothers for the national interest. While the findings shed light on the gendered and ethnicized state of double monolingualism (C. Baker 2006; Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Cummins, 2005; Heller, 1999), the dimension of feminization of heritage language development reflects the current state of Korea’s neoliberal multilingualism. Yet, through a language socialization lens, the study illuminates the complex process of representational multilingual socialization, for example Ava’s and Sumi’s family, which does not conform in a linear way but is multidirectional, contingent, and dynamic (Duff, 2003, 2007, 2012; Garrett & Baquedano-López, 2002; Ochs & Schieffelin, 2008, 2012; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986; Talmy, 2008, 2013). Understanding the development of South Korean language policy geared toward uncritically gendered paradigms, and yet how damunhwa mothers have found ways to deploy certain degrees of agency, could provide a new understanding of multilingualism and transnational life trajectories that could ultimately assist in reshaping of the current multilingual policy in South Korea. 11.4 Implications and Possibilities: For Policy, Practice, and Research In this dissertation, I demonstrate how governmental policy does not necessarily reflect the complex family language socialization when parents do not share the same L1 in the highly 245 monolingual state of South Korea. I believe this study is one of the very first to examine damunhwa families’ language socialization as a topic of inquiry in order to broadly sketch how language learning and language in general are reconfigured and fabricated through the nexus of family, migration, and state policy. It is my hope that this study will contribute to extending our understanding of the monolingual and multilingual socialization of damunhwa families in South Korea, and specifically that it will indicate how language socialization can be theoretically, methodologically, and practically implicated in multilingual policy and education. Since the current study broadly studies the topic of LS in damunhwa families, there are many areas that need to be empirically examined. Topics of inquiry that could stem from this study include more ethnographically attuned investigations of various bilingual programs that the government offers, such as home-visit KSL programs, heritage/foreign language classrooms, bilingual workplaces, and bilingual counseling via home visits or phone conversations. A classroom ethnography where the mother’s language is taught should be considered in addition. Children’s bilingual practices in multiple sites with different age groups (e.g., Butler, 2008; Butler & Weatherall, 2006; Duff, 2002; Rampton, 1995, 2006; Talmy, 2015) could be other areas for future study. The present study calls for further investigation of the juxtaposition between heterosexual masculinity, femininity, and language socialization that is taking place within these families. Finally, the in-depth examination of ethnolinguistic diversity, such as in labor migrant families, other intercultural families (e.g., Korean women with foreign husbands), and North Korean refugees in various social settings, not only limited to family but also in other locations, could provide further understanding of the emerging state of multilingualism in South Korea and elsewhere (e.g., S. Lin, 2015). 246 Though the focus of the dissertation is on providing an understanding of how multilingual socialization operates in various participants and contexts within South Korea, implications for policy and practice are rather more open-ended and call for active involvement from readers. For example, the findings of this study pose questions regarding the roles of mothers and fathers in South Korea and elsewhere. While the damunhwa mothers in the study demonstrated how they have experienced incredibly gendered and even sexist identity development when they have been subjugated as a (re)productive source for sustaining the patriarchal order of South Korean society, they managed to maneuver different pathways, creating new meanings and identities in the course of integrating into South Korean society. Nonetheless, it seems that the South Korean government is moving toward an uncritically gendered paradigm in establishing language policy for damunhwa families. Recently, for example, the South Korean government mandated that damunhwa wives learn Korean prior to their entry to the country. Subsequently, a few Korean language institutions were established in some of these women’s countries of origin (e.g., Vietnam, Cambodia) to teach Korean to female marriage candidates who aspire to engage in international marriages with Korean men. On the other hand, by law, a Korean husband is not required to learn the mother’s L1 as a prerequisite to their marriage. As discussed in Chapter 6, the Korean husband’s learning of his partner’s language and culture is hardly discussed, nor is his involvement in supporting his foreign wife’s integration into South Korea. Rather, as Sumi’s husband and elder child demonstrated, the mother’s language was confined as the language of the Other, presented as foreign, difficult, and unnecessary. This contributes to monolingual production that regiments the patriarchal power relations between languages. 247 Additionally, the findings may inform teachers how damunhwa mothers are engaged in family language socialization at home, providing reflexive as well as reflective understanding of how they could and should be interacting with damunhwa children and their parents in school. Educational administrators could gain knowledge of the ways in which educational mechanisms are structured, organized, and changed, learning how they could plan and implement educational programs, particularly bilingual education in K-12, and reinterpret the roles of mothers and fathers at various levels in order to develop more socially sustainable and ethnolinguistically equitable bilingual contexts in the future. A widely discussed issue in heritage language education is the importance of communal support for children’s heritage languages (Houle, 2011; Li, 2006; Spolsky, 2012). As highly advocated by many bilingual educators (e.g., Fillmore, 2000; Guardado, 2002; Li, 2006), the findings in this dissertation also call for active government support and community engagement for heritage language maintenance and development. Similar to stories in the literature, Bosam’s younger child, Minsu, was reported to attend a Mandarin bilingual class through the Multicultural Family Support Center, and he was given opportunities to further explore his multilingual identity beyond mother–child socialization. Though bilingual education for minority groups has been operating since 2010, it is still very new, with possibilities for change and room for systemizing children’s bilingual socialization processes in conjunction with various participants around the program and families. Often, heritage language learning is related to economic purposes and little has been associated with either building translingual identities or connecting children to diverse linguistic communities through language learning. Through such programs, the notion of heritage language could be further discussed and explored to generate different meanings and new interpretations (e.g., Fillmore, 2000; Lo, 2004, 248 2009). Often, the stories the four mothers presented indicate how language learning and teaching are seen as autonomous, decontextualized styles of learning that are organized with specific skills and grammatical structures and separable from their daily routines and everyday practices. Through active and critical engagement of various people, including but not limited to damunhwa mothers and fathers, their children, policy makers, teachers, and educational administrators, various dialogues and voices could produce alternative discourses that would ultimately engage in social transformation and the creation of new identities. 11.5 Coda After my interview data collection period, I maintained contact with the four damunhwa mothers. For personal reasons, I have not visited South Korea since then, and this kept me from meeting them face to face or having in-depth discussion about the findings of the study. Through interactive online messaging and multimodal media that are widely used by South Koreans, I was able to make more frequent contact with the focal participants, particularly with Bosam. When I first interviewed her, Bosam was quite vocal about finding ways to develop her professional identity and told me stories about the kinds of jobs and skills that she would aspire to learn and develop, including becoming a bilingual/multicultural instructor in Nabi city. Although she demonstrated opposition to conforming to the government’s efforts to make her into a wise bilingual mother and good bilingual worker, Bosam later presented different ways of socializing herself and her children using different modes of communication, as shown in Figure 11.1. 249 Figure 11.1 Pictures from Bosam In her online messenger, which enables people to post pictures, brief messages, and comments (similar to Facebook), at the beginning of 2014, Bosam started to provide pictures of the products that she had made using balloons as a school stage designer. The picture on the left was presented on February 13, 2015, when she beautifully decorated a stage using various balloons. The purpose of the stage was for a school ceremony to welcome new students. Bosam posted similar pictures of displays she made at daycares and schools in Nabi city and other neighboring towns. Many of her online friends, presumably Korean-Chinese, highly complimented what she had accomplished. The picture on the right shows dishes Bosam and her daughter made. Through this, Bosam also bragged about her daughter’s artistic work and was admired by her friends. Although Bosam decided not to teach Mandarin to her children, the pictures that she posted demonstrate that there are multimodal ways that the family interacts, creating new (artistic) identities in the family. In the midst of writing the dissertation, I found out that Michiko, who presented her aspiration of having a long-term commitment as a bilingual worker in South Korea, had been 250 hired as a bilingual coach in the Multicultural Family Support Center in Nabi city. Though the conditions of her work are unknown, it has been delightful to see how Michiko has strived to develop her bilingual identity in South Korea and attempted to share her knowledge and experience that might inspire other damunhwa families and Koreans to understand the importance of using a damunhwa mother’s L1 in the family. When I phoned Ava in January of 2017, she proudly told me that Ella has been doing very well in school and has become very proficient in English. Ava did not mention Ella’s Russian or Kyrgyz development. Although the stories in this dissertation addressed the challenges and difficulties of damunhwa mothers in South Korea, the representation of these mothers’ stories enables one to understand how new ideas of multilingualism may develop that facilitate creation of plurilingual identities and different life trajectories that the government could support in the future. 251 References Abelmann, N., Choi, J.-a., & Park, S. J. (Eds.). (2013). No alternative? Experiments in South Korean education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Abelmann, N., Newendorp, N., & Lee-Chung, S. (2014). East Asia’s astronaut and geese families: Hong Kong and South Korean Cosmopolitanisms. Critical Asian Studies, 46(2), 259–286. doi:10.1080/14672715.2014.898454 Agha, A. (2003). The social life of cultural value. Language & Communication, 23(3–4), 231–273. doi:10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00012-0 Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ahn, J.-H. (2013). Global migration and the racial project in transition: Institutionalizing racial difference through the discourse of multiculturalism in South Korea. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 8(1), 29–47. doi:10.1080/17447143.2012.753894 Ahn, K. J. (2009). South Korean transnational mothers: Familism, cultural criticism and education project (Doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY. Alba, R., Logan, J., Lutz, A., & Stults, B. (2002). Only English by the third generation? Loss and preservation of the mother tongue among the grandchildren of contemporary immigrants. Demography, 39(3), 467–484. doi:10.1353/dem.2002.0023 Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism (3 ed.). London: Verso. Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identity as an achievement and as a tool. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 1–14). London: Sage. Arnaut, K. (2005). ‘Our Baka brothers obviously do not speak French’: Siting and scaling physical/discursive ‘movements’ in post-colonial Belgium. Language & Communication, 25(3), 217–235. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2005.03.003 Atkinson, P., & Silverman, D. (1997). Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the invention of the self. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(3), 304–325. doi:10.1177/107780049700300304 Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 9–32. Bae, J., Rowley, C., & Sohn, T.-W. (2012). Managing Korean business: Organization, culture, human resources and change. New York: Routledge. Bae, O. H. (2015). Gyeongsangbugdo yeoseong-gyeolhon-iminjaui chwieobsiltaewa yeoglyang-ganghwa [Employment status and plan for Gyeongsangbuk-do immigrant women’s empowerment]. Multicultural Studies, 4(1), 53–86. Bae, S. H. (2012). The pursuit of multilingualism in transnational educational migration: strategies of linguistic investment among Korean jogi yuhak families in Singapore. Language and Education, 1–17. doi:10.1080/09500782.2012.709863 Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (4 ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. D. (2000). Locating culture in action: Membership categorization in texts and talk. In A. Lee & C. Poynton (Eds.), Culture & text: Discourse and methodology in social research and cultural studies. (pp. 99–113). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Baker, C. D., & Freebody, P. (1987). Constituting the child in beginning school reading books. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 8(1), 55–76. doi:10.1080/0142569870080104 252 Baker, C. D., & Freebody, P. (1989). Children’s first school books: Introductions to the culture of literacy. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bale, J. (2011). Tongue-tied: Imperialism and second language education in the United States. Critical Education, 2(8). Retrieved July 12, 2015, from http://bit.ly/2gfLzWy Bale, J. (2014). Heritage language education and the “national interest”. Review of Research in Education, 38(1), 166–188. doi:10.3102/0091732x13507547 Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 271–451. doi:10.1515/text.2008.018 Baquedano-López, P., & Kattan, S. (2008a). Growing up in a multilingual community: Insights from language socialization. In L. Wei & P. Auer (Eds.), Handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (Vol. 5, pp. 69–100). New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Baquedano-López, P., & Kattan, S. (2008b). Language socialization in schools. In P. A. Duff & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 8. Language socialization (2 ed., pp. 161–173). New York: Springer. Baquedano-López, P., & Mangual Figueroa, A. (2011). Language socialization and immigration. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 536–563). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Barron-Hauwaert, S. (2004). Language strategies for bilingual families: The one-parent-one-language approach. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bauman, R. (2005). Commentary: Indirect indexicality, identity, performance. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 145–150. doi:10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.145 Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performances as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19(1), 59–88. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.000423 Bayley, R., & Langman, J. (2011). Language socialization in multilingual and second language contexts. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 291–302). New York: Routledge. Bayley, R., & Schecter, S. R. (Eds.). (2003a). Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bayley, R., & Schecter, S. R. (2003b). Introduction: Toward a dynamic model of language socialization. In R. Bayley & S. R. Schecter (Eds.), Language socialization in bilingual and multilingual societies (pp. 1–6). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2011). The marriage route to migration: Of border artistes, transnational matchmaking and imported spouses. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 1(2), 60-68. doi:10.2478/v10202-011-0008-y Bélanger, D., Lee, H.-K., & Wang, H.-Z. (2010). Ethnic diversity and statistics in East Asia: ‘Foreign brides’ surveys in Taiwan and South Korea. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(6), 1108–1130. doi:10.1080/01419870903427507 Bélanger, D., & Wang, H.-z. (2013). Becoming a migrant: Vietnamese emigration to East Asia. Pacific Affairs, 86(1), 31–50. doi:10.5509/2013861031 Benería, L., Diana Deere, C., & Kabeer, N. (2012). Gender and international migration: Globalization, development, and governance. Feminist Economics, 18(2), 1–33. doi:10.1080/13545701.2012.688998 253 Blackledge, A. (2008). Language ecology and language ideology. In A. Creese, P. Martin, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 9. Ecology of language (2 ed., pp. 27–40). New York: Springer. Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. New York: Continuum. Block, D., & Cameron, D. (Eds.). (2002). Globalization and language teaching. New York: Routledge. Block, D., Gray, J., & Holborow, M. (Eds.). (2012). Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. London: Routledge. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J. (2006). Language ideology. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2 ed., Vol. 6, pp. 510–522). Oxford: Elsevier. Blommaert, J. (2007a). Sociolinguistics and discourse analysis: Orders of indexicality and polycentricity. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2(2), 115–130. Blommaert, J. (2007b). Sociolinguistic scales. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 1–19. doi:10.1515/ip.2007.001 Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication, 25(3), 197–216. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2005.05.002 Blommaert, J., & De Fina, A. (2017). Chronotopic identities: On the timespace organization of who we are. In A. De Fina, J. Wegner, & D. Ikizoglu (Eds.), Diversity and super-diversity: Sociocultural linguistic perspectives (pp. 1–15). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), 1–21. Blum-Kulka, S. (2008). Language socialization and family dinnertime discourse. In P. Duff & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 8: Language socialization, pp. 87–99). New York: Springer. Bolden, G. B. (2015). Transcribing as research: “Manual” transcription and conversation analysis. Research on language and social interaction, 48(3), 276–280. doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.1058603 Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research: Cambridge University Press. Briggs, C. L. (2002). Interviewing, power/knowledge and social inequality. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of Interview Research (pp. 910–922). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Briggs, C. L. (2007). Anthropology, interviewing, and communicability in contemporary society. Current Anthropology, 48(4), 551–580. doi:10.1086/518300 Briggs, C. L., & Bauman, R. (1992). Genre, intertextuality, and social power. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 2(2), 131–172. doi:10.1525/jlin.1992.2.2.131 254 Bronson, M. C., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2008). The critical moment: Language socialization and the (re)visioning of first and second language learning. In P. A. Duff & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 8. Language socialization (2 ed., pp. 43–55). New York: Springer. Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1439–1465. doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00094-6 Bucholtz, M. (2007). Variation in transcription. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 784–808. doi:10.1177/1461445607082580 Butler, C. W. (2008). Talk and social interaction in the playground. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing. Butler, C. W., & Weatherall, A. (2006). “No, we’re not playing families”: Membership categorization in children’s play. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 39(4), 441–470. Canagarajah, A. S. (2008). Language shift and the family: Questions from the Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(2), 143–176. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00361.x Carr, S., & Lempert, M. (Eds.). (2016). Scale: Discourse and dimensions of social Life. California, CA: University of California Press. Cha, Y. J. (2015). Hanguk saenghwarui gyeongheomgwa gyeolhonijuyeoseongui eoneo uisik byeonhwa [Life experience and change of language awareness of marriage migrant women in Korea]. Cogito, 77, 223–251. Chang, K.-S. (2011). Gaebalgugga, bogjigugga, wiheomgajog: Hangugui gaebaljayujuuiwa sahoejaesaengsan wigi [Developmental state, welfare state, risk family: Developmental liberalism and social reproduction crisis in South Korea]. Korea Social Policy Review, 18(3), 63–90. Cho, H. (2008). Damunhwa sahoeeseo hangugeo gyoyuk bangan [Korean language education in a multicultural society]. Saegugeosaenghwal, 18(1), 23–42. Cho, H. (2012). Sahoythonghapphulokulaym hankwuke kyoyukuy hwaktay silsi pangan yenkwu [A study on extending the implementation of Korean language education in KIIP (Korea Immigration Integration Program)]. Bilingual Research, 50, 235–267. Cho, H. (2013). Damunhwasahoeeseoui hangugeo gyoyuk siljewa gaeseon bangan: Juyo gyoyuk silsi chegyereul jungsimeuro [The reality and issues of Korean language education for immigrants: Focused on implementing Korean language education]. Korean Language Education Research, 24(1), 237–268. Cho, H. S. (2010). Damunhwa gajeong-ui munhwajeog-eung seuteuleseue gwanhan yeongu [A study on acculturation stress of multicultural families]. The Korean Association For Public Administration, 645-673. Cho, J.-Y., & Seo, J. (2013). Nuga damunhwa sahoereul noraehaneunga? Sinjayujuuijeog tongchisulrosseoui hangug damunhwa damrongwa geu hyogwa [Who sings the multicultural society? An analysis on the discourse of multiculturalism in Korea as a neoliberal art of governmentality and its effects]. Korean Journal of Sociology, 47(5), 101–137. Cho, S.-k., Lee, S.-w., & Chon, J.-h. (2008). Damunhwagajeong jiwon beobjeui hyeonhwanggwa gwaje [Research trends and tasks of the protection law for multi-cultural families]. Journal of Democracy and Human Rights, 8(1), 147–174. 255 Choe, J. S. (2008). Damunhwa sidae hangugeogyoyugui naesilhwareul wihan gwaje [Tasks for substantialization of teaching Korean in the multicultural era]. Bilingual Research, 37, 287–316. Choi, D. J. (2015). Damunhwasidaeui hangug-eogyoyug. [Korean language education in the multiculural era]. Multicultural Studies, 4(2), 35–52. Choi, G. J., & Chae, Y. M. (2010). Damunhwagajeong janyeo daesang hangugeo gyoyugui hyeonhwanggwa gyojae bunseog [The current situation and textbook analysis for teaching Korean to the children of multicultural families]. The Research on Korean Language and Literature, 54, 431–462. Choi, H. (2009). “Wise mother, good wife”: A transcultural discursive construct in modern Korea. Journal of Korean Studies, 14(1), 1–33. doi:10.1353/jks.2009.0004 Choi, H.-W., & Hwang, B.-M. (2009). Damunhwagajeong ijuyeoseongui hangugeoneungnyeogi janyeoui hangugeoneungnyeok baldare michineun nyeonghyang [Effects of mothers’ Korean abilities on their children’s Korean abilities in multicultural families]. Journal of Special Education: Theory and Practice, 10(4), 315–329. Choi, J. (2010). Bigyo gwanjeomeseo bon hangugui damunhwajuuijeongchaeg [Multiculturalism policies in South Korea: A comparative perspective]. Social Theory, 37, 229–271. Choi, Y.-g. (2006). Ilje gangjeomgiui gugeo jeongchaek [Korean language policy in the period of Japan’s colonial rule of Korea]. The Research on Korean Language and Literature, 46, 9–32. Chul-ibguggwanlibeob sihaeng-gyuchig [Enforcement Decree of Immigration Control Act], Ministry of Justice Ordinance 803 C.F.R. (2014). Clarke, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2004). Lesbian and gay parents on talk shows: Resistance or collusion in heterosexism? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1(3), 195–217. doi:10.1191/1478088704qp014oa Collins, J. (2012). Migration, sociolinguistic scale, and educational reproduction. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43(2), 192–213. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2012.01169.x Constable, N. (Ed.) (2005). Cross-border marriages: Gender and mobility in transnational Asia. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Coulmas, F. (1999). The far east. In J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity (pp. 399–413). New York: Oxford University Press. Cummins, J. (1992). Bilingualism and second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 50–70. doi:10.1017/S0267190500002397 Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 585–592. da Silva, E., & Heller, M. (2009). From protector to producer: The role of the State in the discursive shift from minority rights to economic development. Language Policy, 8(2), 95–116. doi:10.1007/s10993-009-9127-x Damunhwagajogjiwonbeob [Multicultural Families Support Act], 8937 C.F.R. (2008). Damunhwagajogjiwonbeob [Multicultural Families Support Act], 9932 C.F.R. (2010). Damunhwagajogjiwonbeob [Multicultural Families Support Act], 10534 C.F.R. (2011). Damunhwagajogjiwonbeob [Multicultural Families Support Act], 11675 C.F.R. (2013). Danuri Portal Site (n.d.). Danuli jiyeogjiwonsenteo: jeonchesa-eob-annae. [Danuri regional support center: Comprehensible introduction to center’s welfare programs. Retrieved August 12, 2016, from https://www.liveinkorea.kr/center/intro/overview.do 256 De Fina, A. (2009). Narratives in interview—The case of accounts: For an interactional approach to narrative genres. Narrative Inquiry, 19(2), 233–258. doi:10.1075/ni.19.2.03def De Fina, A. (2011). Researcher and informant roles in narrative interactions: Constructions of belonging and foreign-ness. Language in Society, 40(1), 27–38. doi:10.1017/S0047404510000862 De Fina, A., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Analysing narratives as practices. Qualitative Research, 8(3), 379–387. doi:10.1177/1468794106093634 De Fina, A., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2012). Analyzing narrative: Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Fina, A., & Perrino, S. (2011). Introduction: Interviews vs. ‘natural’ contexts: A false dilemma. Language in Society, 40(1), 1–11. doi:10.1017/S0047404510000849 De Fina, A., & Perrino, S. (2013). Transnational identities. Applied Linguistics, 34(5), 509–515. doi:10.1093/applin/amt024 Denzin, N. K. (2001). The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qualitative Research, 1(1), 23–46. doi:10.1177/146879410100100102 Deschambault, R. (2015). Economizing education: Fee-paying ESL students in a public high school (Doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Donato, K. M., Gabaccia, D., Holdaway, J., Manalansan, M., & Pessar, P. R. (2006). A glass half full? Gender in migration studies. International Migration Review, 40(1), 3–26. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00001.x Drew, P. (2006). When documents “speak”: Documents, language, and interaction. In P. Drew, G. Raymond, & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Talk and interaction in social research methods (pp. 63–80). London: Sage. Duchêne, A., & Heller, M. (Eds.). (2012). Language in late capitalism: Pride and profit. New York: Routledge. Duchêne, A., Moyer, M., & Roberts, C. (Eds.). (2013). Language, migration and social (in) equalities: A critical sociolinguistic perspective on institutions and work. New York: Multilingual Matters. Duff, P. A. (1995). An ethnography of communication in immersion classrooms in Hungary. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 505–537. Duff, P. A. (2002). The discursive co-construction of knowledge, identity, and difference: An ethnography of communication in the high school mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23(3), 289–322. Duff, P. A. (2003). New directions in second language socialization research. Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 3(3), 309–339. Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language Teaching, 40(4), 309–319. doi:10.1017/S0261444807004508 Duff, P. A. (2012). Second language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 564–586). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Duff, P. A. (2015). Transnationalism, multilingualism, and identity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 57–80. doi:10.1017/S026719051400018X Duff, P. A., & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.). (2008). Language socialization. Encyclopedia of langauge and education (Vol. 8). New York: Springer. Duff, P. A. & May, S. (Eds.). (2017). Language socialization. Encyclopedia of language and education (3rd ed.). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. 257 Duff, P. A., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95–116). New York: Routledge. Duranti, A., Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.). (2012). The handbook of language socialization. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ehlert, M. P. (2008). Multilingualism and language practice of minority language background youths: A case study of the ethnic Korean youths in China (MA thesis). Simon Fraser University, Vancouver. Ehrenreich, B., & Hochschild, A. R. (2002). Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy. New York: Owl Books. Esin, C., Fathi, M., Squire, C., & Flick, U. (2013). Narrative analysis: The constructionist approach. The sage handbook of qualitative data analysis, 203–216. Fader, A. (2009). Mitzvah girls: Bringing up the next generation of Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Fairclough, N. (2001). The discourse of new labour: Critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 229–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: The Open University/Sage Publications. Fillmore, L. W. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice, 39(4), 203–210. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3904_3 Fogle, L. W. (2012). Second language socialization and learner agency: Adoptive family talk. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: The use of pleasure (Vol. 1). London: Penguin. Foucault, M. (1991). Questions of method: Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Springer. Gal, S. (1998). Multiplicity and contention among language ideologies: A commentary. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 317–332). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gal, S. (2005). Language ideologies compared: Metaphors of public/private. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 23–37. doi:10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.23 García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell. García, O., & Torres-Guevara, R. (2009). Monoglossic ideologies and language policies in the education of US Latinas/os. In E. G. J. Murillo, S. A. Villenas, R. T. Galván, J. S. Muñoz, C. Martínez, & M. Machado-Casas (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos and education: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 182–193). New York: Routledge. Garrett, P. B., & Baquedano-López, P. (2002). Language socialization: Reproduction and continuity, transformation and change. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 339–361. Georgakopoulou, A. (2006a). Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 122–130. doi:10.1075/ni.16.1.16geo Georgakopoulou, A. (2006b). The other side of the story: Towards a narrative analysis of narratives-in-interaction. Discourse Studies, 8(2), 235–257. doi:10.1177/1461445606061795 258 Go, G. (1995). Uli sidaeui eon-eogeim [Language games of our age]. Seoul, South Korea: Todam. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X Gordon, D. (2004). “I’m tired. You clean and cook.” Shifting gender identities and second language socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 437–457. Gordon, D. (2008). Gendered second language socialization. In P. A. Duff & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 8. Language socialization (2 ed., pp. 231–242). New York: Springer. Green, J., Franquiz, M., & Dixon, C. (1997). The myth of the objective transcript: Transcribing as a situated act. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 172–176. doi:10.2307/3587984 Guardado, M. (2002). Loss and maintenance of first language skills: Case studies of Hispanic families in Vancouver. Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 58(3), 341–363. doi:10.3138/cmlr.58.3.341 Guardado, M. (2013). The metapragmatic regimentation of heritage language use in Hispanic Canadian caregiver–child interactions. International Multilingual Research Journal, 7(3), 230–247. doi:10.1080/19313152.2013.770339 Guardado, M., & Becker, A. (2014). ‘Glued to the family’: The role of familism in heritage language development strategies. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27(2), 163–181. doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.912658 Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2008). The constructionist mosaic. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 3–10). New York: Guilford Press. Gyogi, E. (2014). Children’s agency in language choice: A case study of two Japanese-English bilingual children in London. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(6), 749–764. doi:10.1080/13670050.2014.956043 Han, G.-S., & Seol, D.-H. (2006). Gyeolhonjunggaeeobche siltaejosa mich gwanlibangan yeongu [Matchmaking agencies in Korea and their regulation policies]. Seoul, Korea: Ministry for Health and Welfare. Han, S. (April 20, 2015). Gyeolhonhago habbangkkaji haessneunde, hangug-eo moshandago ibgug geobu? [Married and spent the first night together, but I am refused entry to Korea because of my limited Korean?]. Hansujin-ui sisa jeonmangdae [Han Seojin’s current affairs observatory]. Retrieved April 20, 2015, from http://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1002937097&plink=SEARCH&cooper=SBSNEWSSEARCH&plink=COPYPASTE&cooper=SBSNEWSEND Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. He, A. W. (2004). Identity construction in Chinese heritage language classes. Pragmatics, 14(2/3), 199–216. He, A. W. (2006). Toward an identity theory of the development of Chinese as a heritage language. Heritage Language Journal, 4(1). He, A. W. (2008). Heritage language learning and socialization. In P. A. Duff & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 8. Language socialization (pp. 201–213). New York: Springer. He, A. W. (2012). Heritage language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 587–609). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 259 Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. B. (1989). Language ideology. In E. Barnouw (Ed.), International encyclopedia of communications (Vol. 2, pp. 393–395). New York: Oxford University Press. Heller, M. (1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography. London: Longman. Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 473–492. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2003.00238.x Heller, M. (2005). Language, skill and authenticity in the globalized new economy. Revista de Sociolingüística, 2, 1–7. Heller, M. (Ed.) (2007). Bilingualism: A social approach. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Heller, M. (2010). Language as resource in the globalized new economy. In N. Coupland (Ed.), The handbook of language and globalization (pp. 347–365). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hill, J. H. (1999). Language, race, and white public space. American Anthropologist, 100(3), 680–689. doi:10.1525/aa.1998.100.3.680 Hoang, L. A., Lam, T., Yeoh, B. S. A., & Graham, E. (2014). Transnational migration, changing care arrangements and left-behind children’s responses in South-east Asia. Children’s Geographies, 13(3), 263–277. doi:10.1080/14733285.2015.972653 Hochschild, A. R. (2000). Global care chains and emotional surplus value. In G. Anthony & H. Will (Eds.), On the edge: Living with global capitalism (pp. 130–146). London: Jonathan Cape. Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberalism, human capital and the skills agenda in higher education: The Irish case. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(1), 93–111. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2004). The active interview. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 140–161). London: Sage. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of constructionist research. New York: Guilford Press. Hong, C.-S. (2000). Ijungeoneo gyoyukgwa hangugui oegugeogyoyuk gwaje [Bilingual education and the problem of foreign language education in Korea]. English Language Education, 21, 79–100. Hong, J., & Kim, H. [Hunsun]. (2010). Dainjong gajeong jaehyeoneul tonghae bon hanguksahoeui damunhwa damnon: TVdakyumenteori ‘ingangeukjang’eul jungsimeuro [The representation of multicultural discourse in Korean society: Analysis of TV documentary human theater]. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 24(5), 544–583. Hong, J. M. (2012). Damunhwa ijungeoneo gyoyugeul wihan tamsaegjeog yeongu: Gyeolhoniminja mogugeo sayong yangsangeul jungsimeulo [Exploratory research on multi-cultural bilingual education: Examination of marriage migrant women’s mother tongue use]. International Area Studies Review, 16(3), 279–302. Hong, Y. (2000). Hangug: Hyeonmoyangcheolongwa sigminji ‘gugmin’ mandeulgi [Korea: Ideology of wise mother and good wife and making colonial citizenhood]. Critical Review of History, 364–374. Houle, R. (2011). Recent evolution of immigrant-language transmission in Canada. Canadian Social Trends, 92, 3–12. 260 Howard, K. M. (2012). Language socialization and hierarchy. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 341–364). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hsia, H.-C. (2004). Internationalization of capital and the trade in Asian women: The case of ‘foreign brides’ in Taiwan. In D. D. Aguilar & A. E. Lacsamana (Eds.), Women and globalization (pp. 181–229). Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. Hult, F. M. (2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time. International journal of the sociology of language, 2010(202), 7–24. doi:10.1515/ijsl.2010.011 Huskey, E. (1995). The politics of language in Kyrgyzstan. Nationalities Papers, 23(3), 549–572. doi:10.1080/00905999508408402 Hwang, J.-M. (2009). ‘Ijuui yeoseonghwat’ hyeonsanggwa hangug nae gyeolhonijue daehan ilonjeog gochal [‘Feminization of migration’ and marriage migration in Korea: A theoretical inquiry]. Issues in Feminism, 9(2), 1–37. Hwang, J.-M. (2012). Damunhwa sahoewa ‘iju eomeoni (migrant mother)’ [Positioning migrant mothers in a multicultural society: Realities, discourse, and new perspectives in Korea]. The Journal of Asian Women, 51(2), 103–142. Hwang, S.-S. (2011). Damunhwaadongui eoneobaldal teugseong [Characteristics of multicultural children’s linguistic development]. Paju, Kyunggido, Korea: Idam Books. Hwang, S.-S., & Jeong, O.-R. (2008). Nongchonjiyeog damunhwa gajeong adongdeului eoneoteugseong gwanlyeon sanggwan yeongu [A study on language characteristics correlation of children in culturally diverse family environments]. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 17(1), 81–102. Hwang, S.-S. (2017). Ijung-eon-eoadong-ui gyoyug seobiseu jiwon-eul wihan eon-eobaldaljidosaui yogu tamsaeg [The needs of language developmental supporters to serve children with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in Korea]. Journal of speech & hearing disorders, 26(1), 145–160. Hwang, Y. (2014). Hangugeseoui migugyeongeo gyoyugui byeoncheongwajeong jomang [The history of American English education in Korea: Reflection and new direction]. The Korean Journal of American History, 40, 201–238. Hyun, Y. (June 10, 2013). Chelyu oegugin 150manmyeong cheos dolpatss . . . damunhwatbsdainjonghwa gasog [Foreigners exceeded 1.5 million people for the first time . . . multiculturalism, multiracialism will be accelerated]. Yonhap News. Retrieved September 12, 2016, from http://bit.ly/2mkhmaM Immigration Policy Commission. (2012). Je2cha oegugin jeongchaeg gibongyehoeg (2013–2017) [The 2nd basic plan for immigration policy (2013–2017)]. Seoul: Korea Immigration Service, Ministry of Justice. Inoue, M. (2006). Vicarious language: Gender and linguistic modernity in Japan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Irvine, J. T. (1989). When talk isn’t cheap: language and political economy. American Ethnologist, 16(2), 248–267. doi:10.1525/ae.1989.16.2.02a00040 Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 35–81). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2009). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 402–434). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 261 Iwabuchi, K., & Kim, H. M. (Eds.). (2016). Multiculturalism in East Asia: A transnational exploration of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Jaffe, A. (1999). Ideologies in action: Language politics on Corsica. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Jaffe, A. (2008). Discourses of endangerment: Contexts and consequences of essentializing discourses. In A. Duchêne & M. Heller (Eds.), Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and interest in the defence of languages (pp. 57–75). London: Continuum. Jaffe, A. (2016). Multiplicity, complexity, circulation and mediatization. Revista da Anpoll, 1(40), 70–76. doi:10.18309/anp.v1i40.1016 Jang, I. C. (2012). Munmyong kaehwa and English education: Emerging nationalism and English ideologies in Late 19th Century Korea. Foreign Language Education Research, 15, 43–62. Jang, N. H. (2012). Ijuro hyeongseongdoen ijungmunhwa hwangyeongeul jawonhwahaneun bangan yeongu [A study on utilizing the bicultural atmosphere formed by international migration: Focusing on the multicultural families formed between Koreans and Filipinos]. Mission and Theology, 29, 93–123. Jefferson, G. (2004). A note on laughter in ‘male-female’ interaction. Discourse Studies, 6(1), 117–133. doi:10.1177/1461445604039445 Jeon, G., Haesuk, J., Kim, I., Kim, Y., Joo, J., Kim, H., . . . Dong, J. (2013). 2012nyeon jeongug damunhwagajog siltaejosa yeongu [A national survey on the status of multicultural families in South Korea in 2012]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of the Gender Equality and Family. Jeong, E.-H. (2004). Nongchonjiyeok gukjegyeolhon gajeong adongui eoneo baldalgwa eoneo hwangyeong [A study on the language development and environment of children from internationally married couples living in an agricultural village]. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 13(3), 33–52. Joe, H. S. (2013). Gukgaui “damunhwagajong mandeulgi”e gwanhan bipanjeong gochal: Je2cha damunhwagajokjeongchaekgibongyehoek (2013–2018) bunseok [A study on the making of multicultural families by the nation: Analyzing the 2nd multicultural family policy basic plan (2013–2018)]. Journal of Community Welfare, 44, 127–152. Jones, G., & Shen, H.-h. (2008). International marriage in East and Southeast Asia: Trends and research emphases. Citizenship Studies, 12(1), 9–25. doi:10.1080/13621020701794091 Jørgensen, N. J. (2008). Polylingual languaging around and among children and adolescents. International Journal of Mutilingualism, 5(3), 161–176. Jung, E., & Lee, C. (2007). Heunhyeorine daehan midieo bodo bunseok: Hainseu wodeuui seonggong jeonhureul jungsimeuro [Analysis of media coverage of racially mixed people: Before and after Hines Ward’s success story]. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 51(6), 84–110. Jung, H. [Haeshil]. (2007). Pakiseutan ijunodongjawa gyeolhonhan hangungnyeoseongdeul: Pakiseutan keopeul moimeul jungsimeuro [Korean females married to Pakistani migrant workers: Focus on the Pakistani couple meeting]. Journal of feminist theories and practices, 16, 78–98. Jung, H. [Heewon]. (2013). Hangugui Damunhwa sahoehwawa eoneo gyoyug jeongchaeg [South Korea’s multicultural socialization and language education policy]. Saegugeosaenghwal, 23(4), 73–98. 262 Jung, H. [Haesuk], Kim, I., Lee, T., Ma, G., Choi, Y., Park, G., . . . Lee, E. (2016). 2015 nyeon jeongug Damunhwagajog siltaejosa yeongu [A national survey on the status of multicultural families in South Korea in 2015]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of the Gender Equality and Family. Jung, S. K., & Norton, B. (2002). Language planning in Korea: The new elementary English program. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 245–265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jung, Y. (2011). Damunhwagajogui hwangyeongjeok yoini adongui eoneojiche mit gajokbokjie michineun yeonghyang [Impact of family ecology on children with developmental delay of language and family welfare]. Contemparary Society and Multiculture, 1(2), 140–159. Kang, H. S. (2014). Segye juyo eoneoui gukjejeok wisang byeonhwa yangsanggwa gungnae oegugeo gyoyuk jeongchaege daehan hamchuk [The changing patterns of prestige observed in the world`s major languages and their implications for domestic foreign language education policy]. The Journal of Linguistics Science, 69, 1–22. Kang, J., & Abelmann, N. (2011). The domestication of South Korean pre-college study abroad in the first decade of the millennium. Journal of Korean Studies, 16(1), 89–118. doi:10.1353/jks.2011.0001 Kang, J. W. (2012). Diaseupolawa hyeondae yeonbyeonjoseonjog-ui sangsangdoen gongdongche: jongjog-ui sahoejeog guseong-gwa jaeyeongtohwa [Diaspora and contemporary Yanbian Korean Chineseʼs imagined community: The social construction and reterritorialization of the ethnic community]. Korean Journal of Sociology, 46(4), 96-136. Kang, M. O. (2014). Multicultural education in South Korea: Language, ideology, and culture in Korean language arts education. New York: Routledge. Kang, N. (2005). Singminjisidae yeongeogyoyukgwa yeongeoui sahoejeok wisang [English education and its social import in colonial Korea]. In/Outside: English Studies in Korea(18), 262–291. Kang, Y. (2012). Transnational motherhood in the making of global kids: South Korean educational migrants in Singapore. In C. Plüss & K.-b. Chan (Eds.), Living Intersections: Transnational Migrant Identifications in Asia (pp. 149–166). Dordrecht: Springer. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (2003). Language and language-in-education planning in the Pacific Basin. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Kim, A. E. (2010). Korean multiculturalism: The genealogy of the concept, shifting meanings, issues and implications. The Journal of Asiatic Studies, 53(2), 102–129. Kim, C.-S. (2009). Pillipin gukjegyeolhonnyeoseongui ijuheureum [Cross-border marriage migration streams of Filipinas]. Korea Journal of Population Studies, 32(3), 127–144. Kim, D., Shin, Y., Lee, J. H., & Choi, H. T. (2010). Gukjegyeolhonjunggaeeop geonjeonhwa bangan [International marriage brokerage restoration plan]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Kim, E. G. (2011). English educational policies of the U.S. Army military government in Korea from 1945 to 1948 and their effects on the development of English language teaching in Korea. Language Policy, 10(3), 193–220. doi:10.1007/s10993-011-9204-9 Kim, E. M. (1989). The industrial organization and growth of the Korean Chaebol: Integrating development and organizational theories. In G. G. Hamilton (Ed.), Korean managerial dynamics (pp. 231–250). New York: Praeger. 263 Kim, G. (2016). Suneung je2oegug-eo, 69%ga ‘alab-eo’ seontaeg [69% of students selected Arabic for second foreign language subject on the SAT test]. Kyunghyang. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://bit.ly/2mk3zAa Kim, H. [Hayeong]. (2006). Hainseu wodeu yeolpunggwa kosian [Hines Ward and Kosian]. Saegajeong, 53(578), 106–107. Kim, H.-K. (2012). Marriage migration between South Korea and Vietnam: A gender perspective. Asian Perspective, 36(3), 531–563. doi:10.1111/j.1468 -2435.2009.00582.x. Kim, H. J. [Hee Jung]. (2007). Hangugui gwanjudohyeong damunhwajuui: Damunhwajuui ilongwa hangugjeog jeogyong [Government-led multiculturalism: Multicultural theories and their applications in Korean ways]. In K. S. Oh (Ed.), Hangugeseoui damunhwajuui: Hyeonsilgwa jaengjeom [Multiculturalism in South Korea: A critical review] (pp. 57–79). Seoul, Korea: Hanul Academy. Kim, H. J. [Hyeon Jin], & Lee, E. J. (2012). Multicultural society, and the current state of the language policy: About Korean education. Journal of the Humanities, 39, 161–193. Kim, H. M. (2006). Gugjegyeolhonui jeon jigujeog jendeo jeongchihag [Global gender politics of cross-border marriage: With a focus on marriages between Korean men and Vietnamese women]. Economics and Society, 70, 10–37. Kim, H. M. (2012a). The emergence of the ‘multicultural family’ and genderized citizenship in South Korea. In K.-S. Chang & B. Turner (Eds.), Contested citizenship in East Asia: Developmental politics, national unity, and globalization (pp. 203–217). New York: Routledge. Kim, H. M. (2012b). Gyeolhon-ijuyeoseongdeul-ui gwihwangyeoljeong-gwa gwihwangyeongheom [The social conditions and experiences of returned marriage migrants]. Gender and Culture, 5(2), 113-145. Kim, H.-S. (2014). Gyeolhoniminyeoseoui ihongwa damunhwajeochaegt: Gwanlyojeog hwagjae ttaleun gajogjeochaeggwa yeoseojeochaegui moliminjeogtbsmolseojeog gyeolhab [Female marriage immigrants’ divorce and ‘Damunhwa policy’: Immigration- and gender-blind union of family and women policies]. Korean Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 299–344. Kim, J. [Jinho]. (2012). Hangugeogyoyuk jeongchaege daehan yeongu: Jeongbu bucheoui hangugeogyoyuk hyeonhwang mit gaeseonchaegeul jungsimeuro [A study on Korean language education policy: With a focus on the roles of Korean language-education-related government departments]. Asia Cultural Studies, 25, 259–281. Kim, J. [Jinsik], & Ahn, G. (2012). Damunhwagajok jiwonjeongchaek gibongyehoege gwanhan bipanjeok gochal [A critical review of the basic plan of multicultural family support policy]. The Journal of Korean Policy Studies, 12(4), 127–150. Kim, J. [Jiyoun], Kang, C., & Lee, U. (2014). Dadhin daehanmingug: Hanguginui Damunhwa insiggwa jeongchaeg [Closed Republic of Korea: Korean multicultural awareness and policy]. Issue Brief, 4, 1–14. Kim, J. [Junmo], Yang, S.-B., & Torneo, A. (2014). Marriage immigration and multicultural families: Public policies and their implications for the Philippines and South Korea. Asian Politics & Policy, 6(1), 97–119. doi:10.1111/aspp.12091 Kim, J.-m. (2001). Phonetic extension of the official Korean romanization. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 26(4), 668–694. Kim, J.-R. (2008). Gugjegyeolhoneul tonghan ijuyeoseongui jiwi [The status of intermarriage women in Korea]. Research of Family Law, 22(1), 92–122. 264 Kim, J. S. (2012). Damunhwagajokjiwonbeopsang Damunhwagyoyukjeongchaege gwanhan insigui munjejeomgwa gaeseonbangan [Consciousness problem and remedies of multicultural education and policy in Multicultural Families Support Act]. Law Review, 48, 27–48. Kim, M. (2007). Hangug gajogui byeonhwawa jibang sahoeui pillipin anae [The changing face of families in Korean society and Filipina wives in rural areas]. Issues in Feminism, 7(2), 213–248. Kim, M. (2010). Gender and international marriage migration. Sociology Compass, 4(9), 718–731. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00314.x Kim, M. (2012). Pillipin yeoseongui jendeohwadoen iju: Hangugui salye [Filipinas in S. Korea and gendered migration: Focusing on undocumented workers, entertainment visa holders, and marriage migrants]. Journal of Korean Women’s Studies, 28(2), 33–74. Kim, M. (2014). South Korean rural husbands, compensatory masculinity, and international marriage. Journal of Korean Studies, 19(2), 291–325. doi:10.1353/jks.2014.0030 Kim, M. J. (2013). Damunhwagajogui taryeongtohwawa chogukgajeok neteuwokeu teukseong [Deterritorialization and transnational networks of multicultural families]. Korean Journal of Human Ecology, 22(3), 421–436. Kim, N. H.-J. (2015). The retreat of multiculturalism? Explaining the South Korean exception. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(6), 727–746. doi:10.1177/0002764214566497 Kim, S. [Seokjun]. (1996). Migunjeong sidaeui guggawa haengjeong: Bundanguggaui hyeongseonggwa haengjeongchejeui jeongbi [The state and governance in the era of US military government: Formation of a segmented nation-state and organization of administrative systems]. Seoul, South Korea: Ewha Womans University Press. Kim, S. [Seongyun]. (2006). Hainseu wodeu: Injongui jeongchiga sijakdwaetda [Hines Ward: Race politics has begun]. Munhwa/Gwahag, 47, 315–333. Kim, S. [Soojin]. (2008). Jeontongui changangwa yeoseongui gugminhwa: Sinsaimdangeul jungsimeulo [The invention of tradition and the nationalization of women in postcolonial Korea: Making Shin Saimdang an illustration of good mother/good wife]. Society and History, 80, 215–255. Kim, S. [Seungman]. (2010). G20 seonjejeog daeeungeul bilmilo han yamanjeog mideunglogijunodongja gangje dansog [Brutal forced crackdown on undocumented migrants with the excuse of G20 preemptive response]. Direction and Labor, 61, 34–41. Kim, S. [Seonhan]. (Oct 14, 2010). Hanguk-beteunam, gukjegyeolhon geonjeonhwa MOU chegyeol [Korea/Vietnam signed MOU for international marriage restoration]. Yonhap News. Retrieved August 10, 2016, from http://bit.ly/2mk6nxY Kim, S. K., Kim, Y. K., Cho, A. J., Kim, H., Lee, H.-k., Seol, D.-H., . . . Shim, I. (2010). 2009nyeon jeonguk damunhwagajoksiltaejosa yeongu [A national survey on the status of multicultural families in South Korea in 2009]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Gender Equality, and Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs. Kim, S. M. (2011). ‘Hangugjeog’ damunhwajeongchaeggwa damunhwagyoyugui seongchalgwa jeeon [Retrospective consideration of ‘Korean’ multicultural policy and practice]. Social Studies Education, 50(4), 173–190. Kim, S. S. (Ed.) (2000). Korea’s globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 265 Kim, W., & Deschambault, R. (2014). “Won, Amy is thinking now!”: An exploration of ‘tape-affected speech’ in classroom interaction data. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) Annual Conference, Portland, OR, USA. Kim, Y.-C. (2006). Ijunodongja midieoui munhwajeongchijeog hamui [Mapping the cultural politics of migrant workers’ media]. Studies of Broadcasting Culture, 18(1), 37–59. Kim, Y.-M. (2013). Hangugui damunhwa damlone daehan bipanjeog gochal [Critical considerations for multicultural discourses and policies in Korea]. Journal of Korean Political And Diplomatic History, 35(1), 141–174. Kim, Y. R. (2011). Eoneogyoyug ilone bichueo bon hangugeogyoyug gyojaewa yeongu [Korean language education textbook and research]. Seoul, Korea: Sotong. Kim, Y. J. (2010). Gyeolhon-ijuyeoseong-ui janyeo chulsan, yang-yug jeongchaeg-e daehan bipanjeog gochal: Jendeogwanjeomgwa damunhwagwanjeom-eul jungsim-eulo [Childbirth and childcare policies for marriage migrant women and their characteristics]. Korea Journal of Population Studies, 33(1), 51–73. Kim, Y. K. (2009). Damunhwagajogui siltaewa jeongchaekbangan [Current status of multicultural families in a multicultural era and policy implications]. Health and Welfare Policy Forum, 151(5), 29–52. Kim, Y. O., & Kim, H. M. (2013). ‘Geullobeol gagu’ guseongui gwanjeomeulo bon hangug-beteunam gugjegyeolhon gajog [What it means to form ‘Global households’: A case study of Korean-Vietnamese families in South Korea]. Gender and Culture, 6(2), 177–213. King, R. (1997). Language, politics and ideology in the post-war Koreas. In D. R. McCann (Ed.), Korea briefing: Toward reunification (pp. 109–144). New York: Asia Society. King, R. (1998). Nationalism and language reform in Korea: The questione della lingua in precolonial Korea. In T. Tangherlini & H.-i. Pai (Eds.), Nationalism and the construction of Korean identity (pp. 33–72). Berkeley, CA: University of California. King, R. (2007a). Globalization and the future of the Korean language: Preliminary thoughts. In S. O. Lee, C.-Y. Park, & J. H. Yoon (Eds.), Onohak sanchaek [Promenades in linguistics] (pp. 317–347). Seoul, Korea: Hanguk Mnhwasa. King, R. (2007b). North and South Korea. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language and national identity in Asia (pp. 200–234). Oxford: Oxford University Press. King Sejong Institute Foundation. (n.d.). Business. Retrieved April 11, 2017, from http://www.ksif.or.kr/business/locSejong.do Kofman, E., & Raghuram, P. (2006). Gender and global labour migrations: Incorporating skilled workers. Antipode, 38(2), 282–303. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2006.00580.x Kofman, E., & Raghuram, P. (2015). Gendered migrations and global social reproduction (2 ed.). New York: Routledge. Kong, S., & Yang, S. (2015). Gyeolhon-ijuyeoseong-eul wihan ijung-eon-eogangsa gyoyugpeulogeulaem gaebal [A study on the bilingual teacher training program for married immigrant women]. Korean Journal of Human Ecology, 24(2), 171–184. Korea Institute for Healthy Family. (n.d.). Damunhwagajog bangmungyoyug seobiseu. [Home-visit educational service for multicultural family]. Retrieved August 13, 2016, from http://www.kihf.or.kr/lay1/S1T354C364/contents.do Korea Immigration Service. (2009). 2008nyeondo chulibgug tonggyeyeonbo [2008 yearbook for immigration statistics]. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Immigration Service, Ministry of Justice. 266 Korea Immigration Service. (2010). 2009nyeondo chulibgug tonggyeyeonbo [2009 yearbook for immigration statistics]. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Immigration Service, Ministry of Justice. Korea Immigration Service. (2011). 2010nyeondo chulibgug tonggyeyeonbo [2010 yearbook of immigration statistics]. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Immigration Service, Ministry of Justice. Korea Immigration Service. (2012). 2011nyeondo chulibgug tonggyeyeonbo [2011 yearbook of immigration statistics]. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Immigration Service, Ministry of Justice. Korea Immigration Service. (2013). 2012nyeondo chulibgug tonggyeyeonbo [2012 yearbook of immigration statistics]. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Immigration Service, Ministry of Justice. Korea Immigration Service. (2014). 2013nyeondo chulibgug tonggyeyeonbo [2013 yearbook of immigration statistics]. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Immigration Service, Ministry of Justice. Korea Immigration Service. (2015). 2014nyeondo chulibgug tonggyeyeonbo [2014 yearbook of immigration statistics]. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Immigration Service, Ministry of Justice. Korea Immigration Service. (2016). 2015nyeondo chulibgug tonggyeyeonbo [2015 yearbook of immigration statistics]. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Immigration Service, Ministry of Justice. Korea Immigration Service. (2017). 2016nyeondo chulibgug tonggyeyeonbo [2016 yearbook of immigration statistics]. Seoul, South Korea: Korea Immigration Service, Ministry of Justice. Korth, B. (2005). Language attitudes towards Kyrgyz and Russian: Discourse, education and policy in post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan. New York: Peter Lang. Kramsch, C. (Ed.) (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum. Kramsch, C. (2005). Post 9/11: Foreign languages between knowledge and power. Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 545–567. doi:10.1093/applin/ami026 Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge. Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva reader (T. Moi Ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Kroskrity, P. V. (Ed.) (2000). Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Kroskrity, P. V. (2004). Language ideologies. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 496–517). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kubota, R. (2004). Critical multiculturalism and second language education. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 30–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kubota, R. (2010). Critical multicultural education and second/foreign language teaching. In S. May & C. E. Sleeter (Eds.), Critical Multiculturalism: Theory and Praxis (pp. 99–112). New York: Routledge. Kubota, R. (2011). Questioning linguistic instrumentalism: English, neoliberalism, and language tests in Japan. Linguistics and Education, 22(3), 248–260. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2011.02.002 267 Kubota, R. (2013). ‘Language is only a tool’: Japanese expatriates working in China and implications for language teaching. Multilingual Education, 3(1), 4. doi:10.1186/2191-5059-3-4 Kubota, R. (2015). Ajia ni okeru nikkei kigyo chuzai-in no gengo sentaku: Eigo noryoku shijo shugi e no gimon [Language selection of representatives of Japanese-affiliated companies in Asia: Questions about supremacy of English ability]. In Kotoba to shakai (Ed.), Kotoba to shakai 17-go: Ajia no ringafuranka [Language and Society No. 17: Lingua Franca of Asia] (pp. 81–106). Tokyo: Mitsumotosha. Kubota, R. (2016). The multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism: Complicities and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics. doi:10.1093/applin/amu045 Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (Eds.). (2009). Race, culture, and identities in second language education. New York: Routledge. Kubota, R., & Miller, E. R. (2017). Re-examining and re-envisioning criticality in language studies: Theories and praxis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 1–29. doi:10.1080/15427587.2017.1290500 Kulick, D. (1997). Language shift and cultural reproduction: Socialization, self, and syncretism in a Papua New Guinean village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kulick, D., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2004). Language socialization. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 349–368). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kuo, S.-H., & Nakamura, M. (2005). Translation or transformation? A case study of language and ideology in the Taiwanese press. Discourse & Society, 16(3), 393–417. doi:10.1177/0957926505051172 Kwon, S. H. (2009). Damunhwa sahoewa gugeogyoyuk: Ijungeoneogyoyugui piryoseonggwa jeongchaek jean [Necessity of bilingual education and a policy suggestion]. Korean Language Education Research, 34, 57–115. Kyunggido Office of Education. (2009). Damunhwagajeong janyeoleul wihan ijung-eon-eo gyosuyowon yangseong-gwajeong. [Bilingual teacher training for children of multicultural families]. Retrieved on August 20, 2015, from http://multiculture.dibrary.net/posts/list/204/20/24209/ko_KR.do Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and local considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 44–65. Lan, P.-C. (2008). Migrant women’s bodies as boundary markers: Reproductive crisis and sexual control in the ethnic frontiers of Taiwan. Signs, 33(4), 833–861. doi:10.1086/528876 Lee, E. K., & Kim, W. S. (2011). Damunhwagajeong yeongyuaui eoneobaldal yangsang [A study on language development characteristics of children in multicultural families]. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation Science, 50(1), 183–201. Lee, H. [Hakyoon]. (2010). “I am a kirogi mother”: Education exodus and life transformation among Korean transnational women. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 9(4), 250–264. doi:10.1080/15348458.2010.503915 Lee, H.-K. (2005). Honinijuwa honiniju gajeongui munjewa daeeung [Marriage migration to South Korea: Issues, problems, and responses]. Korea Journal of Population Studies, 28(1), 73–106. Lee, H.-K. (2010). Hangug iminjeongchaegsa [History of South Korea immigration policy]. IOM Migration Research and Training Centre Working Paper, (2010–7). Goyangsi, Gyeonggido, South Korea. 268 Lee, H.-K., Chung, K., Yoo, M., & Kim, M. (2006). Ijuui yeoseonghwawa chogukgajeok gajok: Joseonjok saryereul jungsimeuro [Feminization of migration and transnational families of Korean-Chinese migrants in South Korea]. Korean Journal of Sociology, 40(5), 258–298. Lee, H.-Y. (2012). At the crossroads of migrant workers, class, and media: a case study of a migrant workers’ television project. Media, Culture & Society, 34(3), 312–327. doi:10.1177/0163443711433666 Lee, H. j., & Choi, H. j. (2012). A critical study of training multicultural: Society professional policy. Journal of Multi-Cultural Contents Studies, 13, 123–158. Lee, I. (2009). Situated globalization and racism: An analysis of Korean high school EFL textbooks. Language and Literacy, 11(1), 1–14. Lee, J. [Jeonghui]. (2012). Ilbonin yeoseonggyeolhon iminjaui saengaesa yeongu [A study of life history on Japanese immigrant wives in Korea]. Ilbongeundaehagyeongu, 35, 233–253. Lee, J. [JiYoung]. (2012). Ilbonui ijujajeongchaegi yeoseongijue michineun yeonghyang: Chulibguggwanlijeongchaeg, ijunodongjajeongchaeg, tonghabjeongchaegeul jungsimeulo [The impact of migrant policies on women’s migration in Japan]. The Korean Journal of International Studies, 52(5), 257–287. Lee, J. [Jaebun], Kang, S., Kim, H. [Haewon], Lee, H. [Haeyoung], & Seo, Y. (2008). Damunhwagajeong janyeo gyoyuksiltae yeongu: Gukjegyeolhongajeongeul jungsimeuro [Educational status of children of multicultural families: Focusing on international marriage]. (RR 2008–12). Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute. Lee, J.-Y. (2013). South Korean “new wild geese” mothers studying in the US: Balancing between studenthood and motherhood (MA thesis). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. Lee, J. S. [Jung Soo]. (2004). Han-ilhabbang jigjeongwa iljesidae cho, jung-giui chodeunghaggyo gyoyug-yong ilbon-eogyogwaseoui bunseog [Analysis of Japanese textbooks for elementary school education in the early and mid-term of Japanese colonial rule]. Japanese Language Studies of Korea, 10, 168–183. Lee, J. S. [Jae Sung], & Kim, H. J. [Hee Jae]. (2016). Damunhwasahoewa eon-eogyoyugjeongchaeg [Multicultural society and language education policy: A sociolinguistic perspective]. Journal of Education & Culture, 22(4), 191–211. Lee, K. H. (2010). Damunhwagajogjiwonbeobui munjejeomgwa gaeseonbanghyang: Damunhwagajogui jeongui mich beomwileul jungsimeulo [Issues and revision of support for the Multicultural Families Act: On the definition and extent of multicultural families]. Kyungpook National University Law Journal, 32, 509–536. Lee, N.-Y. (2015). Minjokjuuiwa jendeo: Dojeongwa byeonhyeongeul wihan ironjeok jihyeongdo geurigi [Nationalism and gender: Critical mapping on theoretical debates and feminist challenges]. Journal of Korean Women’s Studies, 31(2), 213–256. Lee, S. [Suja]. (2004). Ijuyeoseong diaseupola: Gugjeseongbyeolbuneob, munhwahonseongseong, tajahwawa segsyueolliti [Female migrant diaspora: International gendered division of labor, cultural hybridity, otherness, and sexuality]. Korean Journal of Sociology, 38(2), 189–219. Lee, S. [Seonok]. (2005). Hangug ijunodongjaundongui hyeongseonggwa seonggyeogbyeonhwa: Goyongheogaje doibsigi myeongdongseongdang nongseongdan salyeleul jungsimeulo [A study on the start and progress of migrant workers’ movement in Korea: Focusing on the case of the sit-in struggle team at Myungdong Church around the time of the introduction of employment permit system (EPS)] (MA thesis). Sungkonghoe University, Seoul. 269 Lee, S. [Sohyun]. (2014). TV sogui damunhwagajeong 2se: Isanjeok jeongcheseongui poseopgwa baeje [Multicultural family children on TV: The inclusion and exclusion of diasporic identities]. Media, Gender & Culture (29), 5–36. Lee, S. J., Shin, J. C., Kim, H. H., & Kim, W. S. (2008). Damunhwagajeong adongui pyohyeoneohwineungnyeok yeongu: K-BNT-Creul jungsimeuro [A study on expressive vocabulary ability in multicultural family children: Based on K-BNT-C]. Journal of Speech-Language & Hearing Disorders, 17(3), 95–115. Lee, Y. [Youngjea]. (2010). Damunhwajeongchaegeseoui saeloun baeje: Je3segye namseonggwa gyeolhonhan hangugyeoseonge daehan baejeui moseubeul jungsimeulo [The new exclusion type in the multicultural policy: On the exclusion type of Korean women who married men from the 3rd world]. Gender and Culture, 3(1), 131–173. Lee, Y. [YoungHee]. (2011). Damunhwa gajeongeul wihan hangugeogyoyugui hyeonhwanggwa gwaje [The present state and challenges of Korean language education for multicultural families]. International Society of Korean Language and Literature, 5, 91–132. Lee, Y.-J. (2008). Damunhwagajokjiwonbeobe gwanhan gochal [A study on the Multicultural Families Support Act]. Law Review, 31, 209–236. Lemke, J. L. (1992). Intertextuality and educational research. Linguistics and Education, 4(3–4), 257–267. doi:10.1016/0898-5898(92)90003-F Lemke, J. L. (2000). Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(4), 273–290. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca0704_03 Lemke, J. L. (2002). Becoming the village: Education across lives. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 34–45). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Lepper, G. (2000). Categories in text and talk: A practical introduction to categorization analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Li, G. (2006). Biliteracy and trilingual practices in the home context: Case studies of Chinese-Canadian children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6(3), 355–381. doi:10.1177/1468798406069797 Lim, L. L., & Oishi, N. (1996). International labor migration of Asian women: Distinctive characteristics and policy concerns. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 5(1), 85–116. Lin, R. J.-P. (2017). Wiggle room for teaching English as a global language?: Western-educated Taiwanese English teachers' identities and teaching of English writing. (PhD doctoral dissertation), University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Lin, S. (2015). Circulating discourses of minority education: The linguistic construction of modernity in globalizing Taiwan. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 46(1), 71–87. doi:10.1111/aeq.12088 Lo, A. (2004). Evidentiality and morality in a Korean heritage language school. Pragmatics, 14(2/3), 235–256. Lo, A. (2009). Lessons about respect and affect in a Korean heritage language school. Linguistics and Education, 20(3), 217–234. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.07.002 Lo, A., Abelmann, N., Kwon, S. A., & Okazaki, S. (Eds.). (2015). South Korea’s educational exodus: The life and challenges of study abroad. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Lucy, J. A. (Ed.) (1993). Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 270 Marston, S. A. (2000). The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography, 24(2), 219–242. doi:10.1191/030913200674086272 Martin, S. E. (1992). A reference grammar of Korean: A complete guide to the grammar and history of the Korean language. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing. Menard-Warwick, J. (2004). “I always had the desire to progress a little”: Gendered narratives of immigrant language learners. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 3(4), 295–311. doi:10.1207/s15327701jlie0304_5 Menard-Warwick, J. (2008). “Because she made beds. Every day”: Social positioning, classroom discourse, and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 267–289. doi:10.1093/applin/amm053 Menard-Warwick, J. (2009). Gendered identities and immigrant language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. McClintock, A. (1993). Family feuds: Gender, nationalism and the family. Feminist Review, 44(2), 61–80. doi:10.2307/1395196 McElhinny, B. (2010). The audacity of affect: Gender, race, and history in linguistic accounts of legitimacy and belonging. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39(1), 309–328. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164358 McGroarty, M. (2006). Neoliberal collusion or strategic simultaneity? On multiple rationales for language-in-education policies. Language Policy, 5(1), 3–13. doi:10.1007/s10993-005-5915-0 McNamara, T., Khan, K., & Frost, K. (2014). Language tests for residency and citizenship and the conferring of individuality. In S. Bernard, T. Michal, & I.-L. Ofra (Eds.), Challenges for language education and policy: Making space for people (pp. 11–22). New York: Routledge. Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530–555. doi:10.1111/1467-9481.00163 Min, G. (2011). Gyeolhonijuyeoseoui damunhwajeochaeg suyogwajeogwa geu hyogwae gwanhan yeongu [A study of married immigrant women’s experiences of multicultural policy]. Journal of Social Science, 22(1), 83–104. Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs. (2008a). Damumhwa gajok saengae jugibyul matchumhyung ganghwa daechaek [The support plans for multicultural families according to their life stages]. Seoul, Korea: Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs. Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs. (2008b). 2009nyeon damunhwagajog bangmungyoyug sa-eob annae [2009 guideline for home-visit services for Damunhwa families]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family Affairs. Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs. (2009). 2009nyeon damunhwagajogjiwon sa-eob-annae. [2009 multicultural family support plan]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry for Health Welfare and Family Affairs. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (2005). 2004nonglibtonggyeyeonbo [2004 Agricultural & forestry statistcal yearbook]. Sejong-si, Republic of Korea Ministry of Culture Sports and Tourism. (2013). Damunhwa baegyeong hagsaeng-eul wihan pyojun hangug-eo gyojae cheos balgan [The very first Korean textbook developed for multicultural students] [Press release]. Retrieved October 03, 2016, from http://www.korean.go.kr/front/board/boardStandardView.do?board_id=6&mn_id=19&b_seq=441 271 Ministry of Education. (2006). Damunhwagajeong janyeogyoyug jiwongyehoeg [Support plan for children of multicultural families’ education]. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2008). Damunhwagajeong janyeogyoyug jiwongyehoeg [Support plan for children of multicultural families’ education]. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2009). 2009 Damunhwagajeong haksaeng matchumhyeong gyoyuk jiwon gyehoek [2009 customized educational support plan for multicultural students]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2010). 2010 damunhwa gajeong haksaeng gyoyuk jiwon gyehoek [2010 education support plan for multicultural students]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2011a). 2011 damunhwa gajeong haksaeng gyoyuk jiwon gyehoek [2011 education support plan for multicultural students]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2011b). Daehagsaeng-i cham-yeohaneun damunhwagajeong hagsaeng 1:1mentoling junghagsaeng mich nong-eochonjiyeogkkaji daepog hwagdae [1:1 mentoring for multicultural students with college students, extending it to middle school students and rural areas] [Press release]. Retrieved October 01, 2014, from http://bit.ly/2ioV8Yl Ministry of Education. (2011c). Chodeunghakgyo gyoyukgwajeong [Elementary school curriculum]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2012). Damunhwahaksaeng gyoyuk seonjinhwa bangan balpyo [Announcement of advancement plan for multicultural student education]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2014a). 2014nyeon damunhwa gyoyug 215eog-won jiwon [Supporting 21.5 billion won for multicultural education in 2014] [Press release]. Retrieved August 11, 2015, from http://bit.ly/2fAfUxJ Ministry of Education. (2014b). Je34hoe hangug-eoneunglyeogsiheom(TOPIK)eun yeogdae choeda jiwon [The 34th Korean Language Proficiency Test (TOPIK) was taken by the largest number in history] [Press release]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2015a). 2015nyeon yeong-eogwa gyoyuggwajeong gaejeong. [2015 English curriculum revision]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2015b). 2015nyeon je2oegug-eogwa gyoyuggwajeong gaejeong. [2015 second foreign language curriculum revision]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. (2016a). 2016nyeondo je3cha hangug-eoneunglyeogsiheom(TOPIK) yeogdae choeda jiwon [The third TOPIK (Korean Language Proficiency Test) for 2016] [Press release]. Retrieved January 11, 2017, from http://bit.ly/2zl2Wxd Ministry of Education. (2016b). 2016nyeon damunhwagyoyug jiwon gyehoeg balpyo [Announcing 2016 multicultural education support plans] [Press release]. Retrieved January 20, 2017 http://bit.ly/2xQoGjt Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2010). Damunhwa gajong jeongchaekgibongyehoek (2010–2012) [Basic plan for multicultural family policies (2010–2012)]. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2011a). Damunhwagajogjiwonjeongchaeg gibongyehoeg (2010–2012): 2011nyeondo sihaenggyehoeg [The first basic plan for 272 multicultural family support policy (2010–2012): The 2011 action plan]. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2011b). “Damunhwagajok” beomwi hwakdaedoenda: 10wol 5il, gaejeong damunhwagajokjiwonbeop sihaeng, gwihwajaro irueojin gajokdo damunhwagajok seobiseu badeul su itge dwae [The scope of multicultural families will be enlarged: With enactment of the revised Multicultural Families Support Act from October 5, families who are composed of naturalized citizens can receive multicultural families support services]. [Press release]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2012a). 2012nyeon damunhwagajogjiwon sa-eob-annae [2012 Multicultural Family Support Plan]. (11–1383000–000250–10). Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2012b). Damunhwagajogjiwonjeongchaeg gibongyehoeg (2010–2012): 2012nyeondo sihaenggyehoeg [The first basic plan for multicultural family support policy (2010–2012): The 2012 action plan]. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2012c). Je2cha damunhwagajok jeongchaekgibongyehoek (2013–2017) [The second basic plan for multicultural family policies (2013–2017)]. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2013a). 2013nyeon damunhwagajogjiwon sa-eob-annae [2013 multicultural family support plan]. (11-1383000-000250-10). Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2013b). Damunhwagajogjiwonsenteo tongbeon-yeogjeondam-inlyeog mich ijung-eon-eogangsa baechihyeonhwang [A report on bilingual translation, interpretation staff, and bilingual instructors in the Multicultural Family Support Centers] [Excel file]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2014a). 2014nyeon damunhwagajogjiwon sa-eob-annae [2014 multicultural family support plan]. (11-1383000-000250-10). Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2014b). Gugmin daetonghab-eul wihan damunhwagajogjeongchaeg gaeseonbang-an balpyo: Damunhwasa-eob jungbog·bihyoyul eobs-aenda [Announcing improvement of the multicultural families plan: Eliminating duplication and inefficiency of the multicultural project]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2016a). 2016nyeon damunhwagajogjiwon sa-eob-annae [2016 multicultural family support plan]. (11–1383000–000250–10). Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2016b). Damunhwa gajog jiwon senteo hyeonhwang [The present condition of Multicultural Families Support Centers] [Excel file]. Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2017). 2017nyeon damunhwagajogjiwon sa-eob-annae [2017 Multicultural family support plan]. (11–1383000–000250–10). Seoul, South Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. 273 Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (n.d.-a). History of Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://www.mogef.go.kr/korea/view/intro/intro01_03.jsp Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (n.d.-b). Damunhwagajok jiwon: Saengaejugibyeolmatchumhyeong seobiseu [Support plan for multicultural families: Personalized service for each life stages]. Retrieved January 31, 2016, from http://www.mogef.go.kr/korea/view/policyGuide/policyGuide06_04_01.jsp Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (n.d.-c). Support for multicultural family [English website]. Retrieved April 11, 2017, from http://www.mogef.go.kr/eng/pc/eng_pc_f006.do Ministry of Gender Equality and Family Blog. (2016). Dajaedaneung: Damunhwagajok janyeodeurui seongjang, yeoseonggajokbuwa 4gae gigwani hamkkehamnida [Versatility: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family and four institutions will go along with the growth of children of multicultural families]. Retrieved January 11, 2017, from http://blog.daum.net/moge-family/10372 Ministry of Gender Equality and Family Blog. (2017). Danulikolsenteo ‘1577–1366’ tonghab ihu yeongan sangdamsiljeog 38% jeung-ga [Daunuri call center ‘1577–1366’ Annual consultation results in 38% increase after system integration]. Retrieved from http://blog.naver.com/mogefkorea/220974721820 Ministry of Health and Welfare. (n.d.). History of Ministry of Health and Welfare. Retrieved June 19, 2016, from http://www.mohw.go.kr/front_new/sg/ssg0102mn.jsp?PAR_MENU_ID=05&MENU_ID=051106 Ministry of Justice. (2007). Oegugin jeongchaeg, ijebuteo sijagida [Foreign policy is starting now] [Press release]. Retrieved July 12, 2016, from http://bit.ly/2mT7RSY Ministry of Justice. (2014). Beommubu, bijeongsangjeok gukjegyeolhonui jeongsanghwareul wihan gyeolhonbija balgeupsimsa ganghwa: 14nyeon 4wol 1ilbuteo sihaeng yejeong [Ministry of Justice strengthens marriage visa issuance for normalization of abnormal international marriage: Effective from April 1, 2014]. [Press release]. Retrieved August 10, 2015, from http://bit.ly/2mjJH0e Ministry of Justice. (2016). 2016nyeondo sahoetonghabpeulogeulaem(KIIP) cham-yeo annae [Announcement of 2016 Korea immigration and integration program (KIIP)]. Gwacheon, Kyeonggi Province, South Korea: Ministry of Justice. Ministry of Justice. (n.d.). Korea immigration and integration program. Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://www.socinet.go.kr/soci/contents/PgmIntrPurp.jsp?q_global_menu_id =S_SIP_SUB01 Ministry of the Interior. (2013). 2013 jibangjachidanche oegug-injumin hyeonhwang [2013 Status of foreign residents in local governments]. Retrieved August 22, 2016, from http://bit.ly/2mk2j0F Møller, J. S. (2008). Polylingual performance among Turkish-Danes in late-modern Copenhagen. International Journal of Multilingualism, 5(3), 217–236. doi:10.1080/14790710802390178 Moon, G. (2006). Gugjegyeolhon ijuyeoseong-eul gyegilo salpyeoboneun Damunhwajuuiwa hangug-ui Damunhwahyeonsang [Making multicultural Korea: Can multicultural policies help foreign brides to fully integrate into Korean society?]. 21st Century Political Science Review, 16(3), 67–93. 274 Multicultural Family Support Center. (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved January 28, 2017, from http://liveinkorea.kr National Archives of Korea. (2014a). Damunhwa gajok jeongchaek gibon gyehoek [Basic policy plan for multicultural families]. Retrieved May 07, 2015, from http://bit.ly/2nmxFVn National Archives of Korea. (2014b). The social integration committee office. Retrieved July 12, 2015, from http://bit.ly/2mjZa08 National Curriculum Information Center. (n.d.). National curriculum of Korea. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from http://ncic.kice.re.kr/mobile.kri.org4.inventoryList.do National Institute for International Education. (n.d.). About the TOPIK examination. Retrieved April 10, 2017, from http://www.topik.go.kr/usr/cmm/subLocation.do?menuSeq=2210101#none National Institute of Korean Language. (2009). Yeoseonggyeolhoniminjawa hamkkehaneun hangugeo [Koreans married to immigrant women]. Seoul, South Korea: National Institute of Korean Language. National Institute of Korean Language. (n.d.-a). Hangugeogyosuhakseupsaemteo: hangugeo gyojae ijumineul wihan gyojae [Korean teaching and learning textbooks: Textbooks for Korean migrants]. Retrieved August 08, 2016, from http://www.korean.go.kr/front/page/pageView.do?page_id=P000152&mn_id=38 National Institute of Korean Language. (n.d.-b). Copyright policy. Retrived on Oct 20, 2016 from http://www.korean.go.kr/front/page/pageView.do?page_id=P000189&mn_id=105 The National Library of Korea. (2010). Gyeolhon-iminja bangmungyoyug seobiseu [Visiting education services for international marriage immigrant]. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/2lTVMxR Nationality Act, 8435 C.F.R. (2008). Naver. (n.d.). Ethnic Koreans living in China. Retrieved September 3, 2012, from http://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=1176421&cid=40942&categoryId=39994 Nikander, P. (2008). Working with transcripts and translated data. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(3), 225–231. doi:10.1080/14780880802314346 Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, England: Longman. Norton, B., & Pavlenko, A. (2004). Addressing gender in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 38(3), 504–514. doi:10.2307/3588351 Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. Developmental pragmatics, 43–72. Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2008). Language socialization: An historical overview. In P. A. Duff & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 8. Language socialization (2 ed., pp. 3–15). New York: Springer. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. (2012). Theory of language socialization. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 1–21). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 275 Oh, K. H. (2014). Tjungguk joseonjokt iju damnone natanan diaseuporaui samgwa jeongcheseong. [Life and identity of diaspora appeared in discourses of Korean Chinese (Joseonjok)’s immigration]. The Journal of Multicultural Society, 7(1), 35–61. Oh, K.-M. (2007). Hangeul lomaja pyogie daehan gugje gigwanui gyujeonggwa pyogiui siljee gwanhan yeongu. [A study on romanization rules and practices of the international institutions for Korean language materials]. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 24(4), 33–51. Oh, K. S. (Ed.) (2007). Hangugeseoui damunhwajuui: Hyeonsilgwa jaengjeom. [Multiculturalism in South Korea: Reality and issues]. Seoul, Korea: Hanul Academy. Oh, K. S. (2009). Hangugjeok damunhwajuui, tto hanaui saemaeul undong. [Korean multiculturalism, another New Village Movement]. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from http://www.ilemonde.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=590 Orusbaev, A., Mustajoki, A., & Protassova, E. (2008). Multilingualism, Russian language and education in Kyrgyzstan. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(3–4), 476–500. doi:10.1080/13670050802148806 Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2009). Metrolingualism: fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3), 240–254. doi:10.1080/14790710903414331 Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2011). Social inclusion and metrolingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(4), 413–426. doi:10.1080/13670050.2011.573065 Paik, Y.-G. (2011). “Not quite Korean” children in “almost Korean” families: The fear of decreasing population and state multiculturalism. In J. Song (Ed.), New millennium South Korea: Neoliberal capitalism and transnational movements (pp. 130–141). New York: Routledge. Palriwala, R., & Uberoi, P. (Eds.). (2008). Marriage, migration and gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Park, B. D. (2012). Damunhwagajeong-ui eon-eosaenghwal-e gwanhan gochal: Gang-wondo nae yeoseong-gyeolhon-iminjaleul jungsim-eulo. [A study on the language life of multicultural families: Focusing on female married immigrants in Gangwon Province]. Japanese Studies, 32, 89–109. Park, H. S., Rhee, C. W., Rho, Y. H., & Lee, S. G. (2012). Damunhwa gajeongui ijungeoneo, ijungmunhwajeok gyangyuk hwangyeongi janyeo baldare michineun nyeonghyang: Eomeoni yangyukchamnyeoui maegae hyogwareul jungsimeuro [Impact of bilingual, bicultural home environment on mothers’ parenting and children’s outcomes]. Korean Journal of Social Welfare Studies, 43(1), 365–388. Park, J [Jinwook]., & Jang, E. (2008). Damunhwa gajeong janyeoui gyogwajeogeungeul wihan gyosil damhwa bigyo bunseok [Comparative analysis of classroom discourse for students from multicultural families’ adaptation to school subjects]. Paper presented at the The Discourse and Cognitive Linguistics Society of Korea, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, Korea. Park, J. A. (2012). Damunhwa sidaeui hangugeo gyoyug jeongchaeg banghyanggwa chujin hyeonhwang [Direction and current state of Korean language education policy in the multicultural period]. Saegugeosaenghwal, 22(3), 5–19. Park, J. S.-Y. (2008). Two processes of reproducing monolingualism in South Korea. Sociolinguistic Studies, 2(3), 331–346. 276 Park, J. S.-Y. (2009). The local construction of a global language: Ideologies of English in South Korea. New York: Mourton de Gruyter. Park, J. S.-Y. (2010a). Language games on Korean television: Between globalization, nationalism and authority. In S. Johnson & T. M. Milani (Eds.), Language ideologies and media discourse: Texts, practices, politics (pp. 61–80). London, UK: Continuum. Park, J. S.-Y. (2010b). Images of “good English” in the Korean conservative press: Three processes of interdiscursivity. Pragmatics and Society, 1(2), 189–208. doi:10.1075/ps.1.2.01par Park, J. S.-Y. (2011). The promise of English: Linguistic capital and the neoliberal worker in the South Korean job market. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(4), 443–455. doi:10.1080/13670050.2011.573067 Park, J. S.-Y. (2014). Cartographies of language: Making sense of mobility among Korean transmigrants in Singapore. Language & Communication, 39, 83–91. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2014.09.001 Park, J. S.-Y., & Bae, S. (2009). Language ideologies in educational migration: Korean jogi yuhak families in Singapore. Linguistics and Education, 20(4), 366–377. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2009.09.001 Park, J. S.-Y., & Lo, A. (2012). Transnational South Korea as a site for a sociolinguistics of globalization: Markets, timescales, neoliberalism. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(2), 147–164. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00524.x Park, K.-T. (2005). Ijunodongjaleul boneun sigaggwa ijunodongja undongui seonggyeog [Characteristics of migrant workers’ movement in Korea]. Economy and Society, 67, 88–112. Park, M. [Myeongsun], & Park, J [Jaegu]. (2011). Gyeolhon-ijuyeoseong-ui hangug-eo sayongneunglyeog-i gajogsaenghwal-e michineun yeonghyang-e gwanhan yeongu [A study on the effects of Korean spoken capability on the family lives of international marriage migration women]. Multicultural Education Studies, 6(4), 19–41. Park, M. Y. (2017). Resisting linguistic and ethnic marginalization: Voices of Southeast Asian marriage-migrant women in Korea. Language and Intercultural Communication, 17(2), 118–134. doi:10.1080/14708477.2016.1165240 Park, N.-S. (1989). Language purism in Korea today. In B. H. Jernudd & M. J. Shapiro (Eds.), The politics of language purism (pp. 113–140). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Park, S. [Soyoung]. (2015). Oegugin damlon geugboghagi: Sigmowa joseonjog ibju gasanodongjaui gyegeubjeog wichiseonggwa ijungjeog jeongcheseonge gwanhan yeongu [Overcoming the discourse of foreignness: A study on class positionality and dual identities of Korean housemaids and Korean-Chinese domestic workers]. Journal of the Korean Geographical Society, 50(2), 185–201. Park, S. [Sunghee]. (2015). Soetoehan je2oegug-eo gyoyug, geu haedab-eun [For declining second language education, the answer is...]. KNUE Press. Retrieved February 02, 2017, from http://news.knue.ac.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=475 Park, W. (2007). Oegug-eo gyoyugjeongchaeg eodilo gaya hana? [Foreign language education policy: Where should it go?]. Korean French Language & Literature Education Conference, 6, 9–21. Park, Y. K., & Park, J. E. (2010). Damunhwa sahoewa saemaeulundong: Gyeolhonijuyeoseonge daehan jeongchaeggaeseon banganeul jungsimeulo. [Multicultural society and Saemaul 277 Undong: Focusing on the improvement of policy for female marriage immigrants]. The Journal of Multicultural Society, 3(1), 65–99. Paugh, A. L. (2005). Learning about work at dinnertime: Language socialization in dual-earner American families. Discourse & Society, 16(1), 55–78. doi:10.1177/0957926505048230 Paugh, A. L. (2012). Playing with languages: Children and change in a Caribbean village. New York: Berghahn Books. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pennycook, A., & Otsuji, E. (2014). Market lingos and metrolingua francas. International Multilingual Research Journal, 8(4), 255–270. doi:10.1080/19313152.2014.951907 Petrovic, J. E. (2005). The conservative restoration and neoliberal defenses of bilingual education. Language Policy, 4(4), 395–416. doi:10.1007/s10993-005-2888-y Piller, I. (2001). Naturalization language testing and its basis in ideologies of national identity and citizenship. International Journal of Bilingualism, 5(3), 259–277. doi:10.1177/13670069010050030201 Piller, I. (2016). Language and migration. New York: Routledge. Piper, N. (2003). Wife or worker? Worker or wife? Marriage and cross-border migration in contemporary Japan. International Journal of Population Geography, 9(6), 457–469. Piper, N. (2004). Rights of foreign workers and the politics of migration in South-East and East Asia. International Migration, 42(5), 71–97. doi:10.1111/j.0020-7985.2004.00302.x Piper, N. (2006). Gendering the politics of migration. International Migration Review, 40(1), 133–164. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00006.x Piper, N., & Roces, M. (Eds.). (2003). Wife or worker? Asian women and migration. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman. Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ricento, T. (2005). Problems with the ‘language-as-resource’ discourse in the promotion of heritage languages in the U.S.A. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 348–368. doi:10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00296.x Ricento, T. (2012). Critiques of language policy and planning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–6). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Riley, K. C. (2012). Language socialization and language ideologies. In A. Duranti, E. Ochs, & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), The handbook of language socialization (pp. 493–514). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rodriguez, R. M. (2002). Migrant heroes: Nationalism, citizenship and the politics of Filipino migrant labor. Citizenship Studies, 6(3), 341–356. doi:10.1080/1362102022000011658 Rodriguez, R. M. (2010). Migrants for export: How the Philippine state brokers labor to the world. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34. doi:10.1080/08855072.1984.10668464 Ruiz, R. (2010). Reorienting language-as-resource. In J. E. Petrovic (Ed.), International perspectives on bilingual education: Policy, practice, and controversy (pp. 155–172). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 278 Safri, M., & Graham, J. (2010). The global household: Toward a feminist postcapitalist international political economy. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 36(1), 99–125. doi:10.1086/652913 Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Random House. Sarangi, S. (2003). Institutional, professional, and lifeworld frames in interview talk. In H. v. d. Berg, M. Wetherell, & H. Houtkoop-Steenstra (Eds.), Analyzing race talk: Multidisciplinary approaches to the interview (pp. 64–84). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163–191. Schieffelin, B. B., Woolard, K. A., & Kroskrity, P. V. (Eds.). (1998). Language ideologies: Practice and theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schroepfer, P. M. (2000). Lomaja pyogibeobui sigminseonggwa talsigminseong [Coloniality and postcoloniality of Romanization]. Creation & Criticism, 28, 300–310. Seo, H., & Lee, S.-e. (2007). A study on the difficulties of children from international marriage families in agricultural regions. The Journal of Korea Open Association for Early Childhood Education, 12(4), 25–47. Seo, M., Seol, D.-H., Choi, Y., Kim, E., & Cho, H. (2010). Damunhwagajok janyeo yangyukjiwon bangan: yeongyua, chodeunghaksaeng, jungdoipgukjanyeoreul jungsimeuro [Multicultural family child support policy: Focusing on infants, elementary school students, and midway entry children]. (11–1383000–000117–01). Seoul: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Seol, D.-H. (1992). Hangugui nodongsijanggwa oegugin nodongja [Korea’s labor market and foreign workers]. Economy and Society, 15, 113–144. Seol, D.-H., Kim, Y.-T., Kim, H. M., Yoon, H. S., Lee, H.-k., Yim, H. T., . . . Han, G.-S. (2005). Gugjegyeolhon ijuyeoseong siltaejosa mich bogeon, bogji jiwon jeongchaegbang-an [Foreign wives’ life in Korea: Focusing on the policy of welfare and health] (11–1460000–002610–01). Gwacheon, Gyonggi Province, South Korea: Ministry of Health and Welfare. Seol, D.-H., Lee, H.-k., & Cho, S.-N. (2006). Gyeolhon-iminja gajogsiltaejosa mich jungjang-gi jiwonjeongchaegbang-an yeongu [Marriage-based immigrants and their families in Korea: Current status and policy measures]. (2006–55). Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Seoul Office of Education. (2014). 2014hagnyeondo damunhwahagsaeng gyoyug jiwon gyehoeg. [2014 Damunhwa student education support plan]. Seoul, South Korea: Seoul Office of Education. Shiho, M. (2013). Voices within the Canadian mosaic: Japanese immigrant women and their children’s heritage language socialization (MA thesis), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Shin, H. (2006). Rethinking TESOL from a SOL’s perspective: Indigenous epistemology and decolonizing praxis in TESOL. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 3(2), 147–167. doi:10.1080/15427587.2006.9650844 Shin, J. J. (2012). The transnationality of culture: Policy implications for the integration of migrants in South Korea. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 21(2), 173–192. 279 Shin, S.-S. (2011). Sinjayujuui sidaeui jendeo-geobeoneonseu: Guggagiguui jedojeog seontaegseonggwa yeoseongundong [Gender and governance in the neoliberal era: The institutional selectivity of the state and women’s movement]. 11(2), 153–197. Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. New York: Routledge. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge. Shohamy, E. (2013). The discourse of language testing as a tool for shaping national, global, and transnational identities. Language and Intercultural Communication, 13(2), 225–236. doi:10.1080/14708477.2013.770868 Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. R. Clyne, W. F. Hanks, & C. L. Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J. A. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive language: Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 33–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Silverstein, M. (2005). Axes of evals: Token versus type interdiscursivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 6–22. doi:10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.6 Silverstein, M., & Urban, G. (Eds.). (1996). Natural histories of discourse. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Silvey, R. (2004). Power, difference and mobility: Feminist advances in migration studies. Progress in Human Geography, 28(4), 490–506. doi:10.1191/0309132504ph490oa Silvey, R. (2006). Geographies of gender and migration: Spatializing social difference. International Migration Review, 40(1), 64–81. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00003.x Slembrouck, S. (2011). Intertextuality. In J. Zienkowski, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Discursive pragmatics (pp. 156–175). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sohn, B. D. (2014). Damunhwagajog oegug-in baeujaui damunhwagajogjiwonsenteo inji mich iyong gyeoljeong-yoin. [Factors associated with cognition and utilization of multicultural family support centers among foreign spouses of multicultural families]. Health and Social Welfare Review, 34(4), 354–384. Sohn, B.-G. (2009). “Probably you don’t have enough information about me and my teaching”: Challenges of narrative inquiry. Paper presented at the 7th Language & Literacy Education Graduate Student Conference, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Sohn, B.-G. (2016). Cross-linguistic data transcribing/translating and its representation, In M. Wernicke (Discussant/Chair), “Living Constructionism in Methods and Methodology: Locating the Researcher in Research” Symposium conducted at the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) conference, “Applied Linguistics Applied,” Orlando, FL. Sohn, H.-M. (1982). Romanization of Korean: A Cross-Phonemic Approach. Korea Journal, 22(8), 49–60. Sohn, H.-M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Song, C.-e. (2004). Hanguk geundae chogiui eomunundonggwa eomunjeongchaek [Korea’s early modern literary movements and literary policy]. [Language movement and language policy in early modern Korea]. Hanguk Munhwa: Korean Culture, 33, 1–36. 280 Song, J. [Juyoung]. (2012a). The struggle over class, identity, and language: A case study of South Korean transnational families. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(2), 201–217. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00525.x Song, J. [Juyoung]. (2012b). Imagined communities and language socialization practices in transnational space: A case study of two Korean “study abroad” families in the United States. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 507–524. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01395.x Song, J. [Jesook]. (Ed.) (2011). New millennium South Korea: Neoliberal capitalism and transnational movements. New York: Routledge. Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. (2012). Family language policy: The critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3–11. doi:10.1080/01434632.2011.638072 Statistics Korea. (2008). Gugjegyeolhon tonggye 1991–2007 [International marriage statistics 1991–2007]. Daejeon, South Korea: Korea National Statistical Office. Statistics Korea. (2016a). Guggabyeol gugjegyeolhon geonsu 2000–2015 [The number of international marriages per country 2000–2015]. Retrieved August 12, 2016, from Korea National Statistical Office http://bit.ly/2gfIHsP Statistic Korea. (2016b). Ulijib wolpyeong-gyun sodeug-i 455man-won?, pyeong-gyun-ui hamjeong」gisa gwanlyeon seolmyeongjalyo (nokeosnyuseu, ‘16.6.1). [The average monthly income of my home is 4.55 million won? The average trap? (Nocut News, June 16, 2006)] [Press release]. Retrieved from http://kostat.go.kr/portal/korea/kor_nw/4/1/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=354301 Talmy, S. (2008). The cultural productions of the ESL student at Tradewinds high: Contingency, multidirectionality, and identity in L2 socialization. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 619–644. doi:10.1093/applin/amn011 Talmy, S. (2009). Resisting ESL: Categories and sequence in a critically “motivated” analysis of classroom interaction. In H. t. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 181–214). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Talmy, S. (2009). “A very important lesson”: Respect and the socialization of order(s) in high school ESL. Linguistics and Education, 20(3), 235–253. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2008.10.002 Talmy, S. (2010a). Critical research in applied linguistics In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 127–142). London: Continuum. Talmy, S. (2010b). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 128–148. doi:10.1017/S0267190510000085 Talmy, S. (2011). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity, and ideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 25–42. doi:10.1093/applin/amq027 Talmy, S. (2013). Second language socialization. In P. J. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 571–575). New York: Routledge. Talmy, S. (2015). A language socialization perspective on identity work of ESL youth in a superdiverse high school classroom. In N. Markee (Ed.), The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction (pp. 353–368). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 281 The National Library of Korea. (2010). Gyeolhon-iminja bangmungyoyug seobiseu [Visiting education services for international marriage immigrants]. Retrieved August 12, 2016, from http://bit.ly/2lTVMxR The Rules of Standard Language, 88–2 C.F.R. (1988). Uitermark, J. (2002). Re-scaling, ‘scale fragmentation’ and the regulation of antagonistic relationships. Progress in Human Geography, 26(6), 743–765. doi:10.1191/0309132502ph401oa Urciuoli, B. (2010). Entextualizing diversity: Semiotic incoherence in institutional discourse. Language & Communication, 30(1), 48–57. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2009.10.005 Valdés, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard, & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage languages in America: Preserving a national resource (pp. 37–77). McHenry, IL: Delta Systems. Valdés, G., Poza, L., & Brooks, M. D. (2015). Language acquisition in bilingual education. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. García (Eds.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 56–74). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Verschueren, J. (2011). Ideology in language use: Pragmatic guidelines for empirical research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vigouroux, C. B. (2009). The making of a scription: A case study on authority and authorship. Text & Talk, 29(5), 615–637. Wallerstein, I. (1998). The time of space and the space of time: the future of social science. Political Geography, 17(1), 71–82. doi:10.1016/S0962-6298(96)00097-2 Wang, H.-z., & Chang, S.-m. (2002). The commodification of international marriages: Cross-border marriage business in Taiwan and Vietnam. International Migration, 40(6), 93–116. doi:10.1111/1468-2435.00224 Wang, L.-F. (2013). The interactional achievement of familyhood in Vietnamese-Taiwanese international families (Doctoral dissertation). Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK. Warriner, D. S. (2012). When the macro facilitates the micro: A study of regimentation and emergence in spoken interaction. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43(2), 173–191. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1492.2012.01168.x Watson, I. (2011). Global Korea: Foreign aid and national interests in an age of globalization. Contemporary Politics, 17(1), 53–69. doi:10.1080/13569775.2011.552688 Watson, R. (1997). Ethnomethodology and textual analysis. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 80–98). London: Sage. Watson, R. (2009). Analysing practical and professional texts: A naturalistic approach. New York: Routledge. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1992). Thick explanation in the ethnographic study of child socialization: A longitudinal study of the problem of schooling for Kwara'ae (Solomon Islands) children. In W. A. Corsaro & P. J. Miller (Eds.), Interpretive approaches to children's socialization (pp. 51–66). San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass. Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (2004). Mind, language, and epistemology: Toward a language socialization paradigm for SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 331–350. Watson-Gegeo, K. A., & Bronson, M. C. (2013). The intersection of language socialization and sociolinguistics. In R. Bayley, C. Cameron, & C. Lucas (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics (pp. 111–131). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wee, L. (2010). Neutrality in language policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(4), 421–434. doi:10.1080/01434632.2010.489951 282 Werbner, P. (2002). The place which is diaspora: Citizenship, religion and gender in the making of chaordic transnationalism. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(1), 119–133. doi:10.1080/13691830120103967 Wiley, T. G. (1996). Language planning and policy. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 103–147). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Won, J. (2009). Chodeunghakgyo damunhwa gajeong haksaengeul wihan eoneo gyoyuk peurogeuraem [Language education program for the elementary school children in multicultural families]. Journal of Elementary Korean Education(40), 158–187. Won, J. (2014). Tamwunhwa sitay wuli sahoyuy ene soswuca canyelul wihan ene kyoyuk cengchayk [Exploring language education policies for our society`s language-minority children in the multicultural era]. Wulimalyenkwu, 39, 25–57. Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wortham, S. E. F. (2005). Socialization beyond the speech event. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15(1), 95–112. doi:10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.95 Wortham, S. E. F. (2008). The objectification of identity across events. Linguistics and Education, 19(3), 294–311. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2008.05.010 Wortham, S. E. F., Mortimer, K., Lee, K., Allard, E., & White, K. D. (2011). Interviews as interactional data. Language in Society, 40(1), 39–50. doi:10.1017/S0047404510000874 Wortham, S. E. F., & Reyes, A. (2015). Discourse analysis beyond the speech event. New York: Routledge. Yang, H. (2013). Gajok aneuro deureoon hangugui tdamunhwajuui tsilheom. [Experiment of “the multiculturalism” in Korea taking place in the family]. The Justice, 2, 298–335. Yang, W.-S., & Lu, M. C.-W. (2010). Asian cross-border marriage migration: Demographic patterns and social issues. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Yeum, M. G. (2013). Damunhwagajogui hangugsaenghwal jeogeunggwa jiyeogsahoe damunhwagyoyugui banghyang. [Adjustment of multicultural families to Korean life and directions for community multicultural education]. Journal of Education Science, 15(2), 23–47. Yi, H. [Hongshik]. (2011). Romaja pyogibeobe daehayeo. [On Korean romanization]. The Society for Korean Language & Literary Research, 39(4), 113–137. Yi, H. [Hwasook], & Lee, Y. [Yongseung]. (2013). Damunhwasidaeui jeongchaeg myeongching yeongu: Oeguginjeongchaegeul jungsimeulo [Study on the appellation of policy in the multicultural age: Focusing on ‘Oegugin Jeongchaek’]. The Korean Language and Literature, 122, 209–233. Yim, S. (2007). Globalization and language policy in South Korea. In A. B. M. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 37–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Yoo, H. (2014). Jung-gug-eo gyoyug sijang tteugeobda: Je2oegug-eo ilbon-eo malgo “jjaosang hao” baeullaeyo [The Chinese education market is hot: I’ll learn “Zǎoshang hǎo”(good morning) instead of Japanese as a second foreign language]. etoday. Retrieved August 12, 2016, from http://bit.ly/2nxp55C Yoo, O. K. (2005). Discourse of English as an official language in a monolingual society: The case of South Korea. Second Language Studies, 23(2), 1–44. 283 Yoon, H. (2000). Hanguk minjogjuuiui geundaeseong bipan [Critique of modernity process in Korean nationalism]. Critical Studies on Modern Korean History, 4(2), 41–78. Yoon, H.-s. (2005). Oegugin chulsin nongchonjubudeului galdeunggwa jeogeung:pillipin yeoseongeul jungsimeulo [Conflicts and adjustments of foreign wives married to Korean men: Filipina wives in rural Korea]. Journal of Local History and Culture, 8(2), 299–339. Yoon, H.-w. (2009). Damunhwa sahoewa gugeogyoyug: Damunhwa gajeongui hangugeo gyoyugeul jungsimeulo. [Multicultural society and Korean language education]. Korean Language Education Research, 34, 1–25. Yoon, I. (2008). Hangugjeog damunhwajuuiui jeongaewa teugseong: Guggawa siminsahoeui gwangyeleul jungsimeulo [The development and characteristics of multiculturalism in South Korea: With a focus on the relationship of the state and civil society]. Korean Journal of Sociology, 42(2), 72–103. Yoon, I. (2008). Damunhwa sahoeui dojeongwa uriui gwaje [The challenges of a multicultural society and our task]. Retrieved August 26, 2015, from Sidaejeongsin http://bit.ly/2mCX3qe Yoon, N. (April 10, 2014). Gugjegyeolhon haessneunde . . . hangug-eo mos haeseo ibgug bulheo [Had international marriage . . . but entry to South Korea was denied due to insufficient Korean language proficiency]. SBS. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from http://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1002923699&plink=SEARCH&cooper=SBSNEWSSEARCH Yun, J. (2001). Yeong-eo, nae ma-eum-ui sigminjuui [English, colonialism of my heart]. Sahoebipyeong, 28, 110–126. Yuval-Davis, N., & Anthias, F. (Eds.). (1989). Woman, nation, state. London: Macmillan. Wray, H. (2011). Regulating marriage migration into the UK: A stranger in the home. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing. Zuengler, J., & Cole, K. (2005). Language socialization and second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 301–316). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 284 Appendix A: Chronological Development of Multicultural-Family-Related Policy Plans in South Korea Period Government’s Key Policy Planning Other Activities 2005 Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family conducts a nationwide survey (Seol et al., 2005) to understand international marriage migrant females’ conditions 2006 Immigration government officials, NGOs, academics, and relevant ministry establish ‘basic orientation and propulsion system for foreign policy’ The government establishes Measures of Social Integration and Support for Families of International Marriage Migrant Women and Measures of Support for Multiracial Population and Immigrants They establish 21 Support Centers for international marriage migrant families nationally The Ministry of Education establishes a support plan for children of multicultural families 2007 The Ministry of Justice establishes a ‘Framework Act on Treatment of Foreigners Residing in the Republic of Korea’ The Immigration Bureau section under the Ministry of Justice is expanded and renamed the Korea Immigration Service 2008 Ministry of Justice initiated the First Basic Plan for Immigration Policy (2008–2012) The Multicultural Families Support Act is enacted The Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family establishes the Support Plans for Multicultural Families according to their Life Stages 2009 The Ministry for Health, Welfare, and Family establishes a project promoting Korean and bilingual development for children of multicultural families The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family conducts and distributes the nationwide survey result (S. K. Kim et al., 2010) analyzing damunhwa family conditions 285 Period Government’s Key Policy Planning Other Activities 2010 The Prime Minister’s Office and related ministries (e.g., Ministry of Gender Equality and Family) announce the First Basic Plan for Multicultural Family Support (2010–2012) The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family is assigned as the main department for supporting international marriage migrant families 2012 The Multicultural Family Policy Council announces the Second Basic Plan for Multicultural Families (2013–2017) The Immigration Policy Commission initiates the Second Basic Plan for Immigration Policy (2013–2017)’ 286 Appendix B: Interview Protocols for the International Marriage Migrants, their Children, and Teachers of the Children Interview Protocols: For Damunhwa Mothers Interview Session 1: Background information of mothers: Background information (e.g., a mother from Vietnam) 1. How long have you lived here (Korea)? 2. What is the language that you grew up with? 3. What was your school experience like in Vietnam? 4. Did you know Korean before you came? 5. What is most challenging for you about living in Korea? What are the good experiences in Korea? 6. How did you learn oral and written Korean? And how long have you been learning oral and written Korean? 7. If you evaluate your Korean proficiency, how fluent do you think you are, in terms of speaking, listening, reading, and writing? 8. If you evaluate your Vietnamese proficiency, how fluent do you think you are, in terms of speaking, listening, reading, and writing? 9. If you evaluate your English proficiency, how fluent do you think you are, in terms of speaking, listening, reading, and writing? 10. Are there any books, magazines, or any texts that you enjoy reading? When you read, are you able to understand them? If you don’t read, is it because you do not understand them well? Are there any other things that you read or write? Are there any other things that you read in other language(s), such as Vietnamese, Chinese, English, or Japanese? When do you read them? 11. What other languages can you speak? Could you describe your level of proficiency? 12. Which languages do you use most often; Korean, Vietnamese, English or other languages? Topics related to the child’s language learning 1. Are there any places that your child goes to learn after school? What does your child learn from that place? 2. What made you decide to send your child to that program? What was good about the program? Interview Session 2: Topics related to children’s English language learning and use: Mother teaching English to her child 1. Do you help your child learn English? If you do, how do you teach your child English? Can you show me how you teach English to your child? 2. Do you have any books or DVDs in English, in addition to textbooks? How do you use them to teach your child? Can you demonstrate to me? Focal child’s English language use 1. Have you ever seen your child using English? On what occasion was it? How did you 287 feel about it? Do you want your child to continue learning English? 2. Have you spoken English with your child? If not, why? Focal child’s English language proficiency 1. If you evaluate your child’s English proficiency, how fluent do you think she/he is, in terms of speaking, listening, reading, and writing? Mother’s views and perspectives toward her child’s English language learning 1. Do you think English should be widely spread and learned in Korea? Why? 2. Do people in Vietnam think learning English is important? 3. What level of English language proficiency do you think your child needs to obtain? 4. Do you want your child to learn and speak English? And with whom, for what purposes? Will it be for informal conversational purposes, formal occasions, for instance, educational purposes or occupational reasons? Interview Session 3: Topics related to children’s Korean language learning and use: Mothers teaching Korean to their children 1. When did the child start learning Korean? 2. How did the child learn to read and write in Korean? Who taught the child? 3. Did you help your child learn Korean? If you did, how did you teach your child Korean? Can you show me how you taught your child? 4. Do you have any books or DVDs in Korean, in addition to textbooks? How did you use them to teach your child? Focal child’s Korean language proficiency 1. Do you think your child’s Korean is fluent enough to cope with school? 2. How proficient is your child in Korean, in terms of listening, speaking, reading, and writing? Focal child’s Korean language use 1. Do you think your child’s learning Korean well is important? Why? Mother’s views and perspectives toward her child’s Korean language learning 1. Do you think the child should speak only Korean? What about Vietnamese? Is it unnecessary for the child to learn Vietnamese? What about English? 2. What is the most important language for the child: Korean, English, or Vietnamese? 3. What is the most important language for you: Korean, English, or Vietnamese? 4. Do you think it is necessary to learn Korean in the afterschool programs, in addition to regular Korean language art class? What kinds of things should be taught in the afterschool programs in order for children to become more fluent in Korean? What do you think of your child learning other languages, such as Vietnamese, in afterschool programs? Interview Session 4: Views and practices related to children’s heritage language learning and use: Mothers teaching their language to their children (e.g., Vietnamese) 288 1. Do you help the child learn Vietnamese? If you do, how do you teach your child Vietnamese? Can you show me how you teach Vietnamese to your child? 2. Do you have any books or DVDs in Vietnamese, in addition to textbooks? How do you use them to teach your child? Can you demonstrate to me? Focal child’s heritage language use (e.g., Vietnamese) 1. When do you use Vietnamese and with whom? On what occasions do you speak? 2. Have you spoken Vietnamese with your child? 3. When does your child use Vietnamese? 4. Do you read (children’s) books written in Vietnamese with your child? Focal child’s heritage language proficiency 1. How proficient is your child in Vietnamese, in terms of listening, speaking, reading, and writing? 2. When did you stop speaking Vietnamese to your child? 3. What languages are spoken at home? At home, do other family members (e.g., husband, siblings, and grandparents) speak languages other than Korean? 4. Does your child’s school encourage children to speak Vietnamese? Do they teach the language? What languages does your child use at school? Mother’s views and perspectives toward her child’s heritage language learning 1. Do you want your child to speak Vietnamese? And with whom, for what purposes? Will it be for informal conversational purposes, formal occasions, for instance, educational purposes or occupational reasons? 2. Have you heard your child speaking languages other than Korean? If you do, with whom did the child speak? On what occasion was it? How did you feel about it? Did you like it? Do you want your child to continue learning these? 3. Do you want your child to meet your parents and speak Vietnamese with them? 4. Do you want your child to work in Vietnam, speaking Vietnamese? What kinds of jobs would there be? 5. Do you think people should also speak Vietnamese in Korea? Do you think it is good to hear Vietnamese spoken on the street and have store labels written in Vietnamese in Korea? 6. What do you think of other cultures and languages that are different from Korean? Do you like to learn and know about them? 7. Do you want your child to learn these as well? 8. Where do you want your child to learn various languages and cultures: from you, at school, or from other foreign mothers? 9. What kinds of languages do you want your child to speak? Why? 10. What do you think of Vietnamese culture and language? Do you think it should be widely spread and used in Korea? Interview Session 5: Follow-up questions In this session, I will ask questions that have not been asked in the previous sessions or questions that need more elaboration from their previous responses. If necessary, I will also use the time of this session for collecting samples of the mother’s reading and writing texts. 289 Interview Protocols: For Damunhwa Children Interview Session 1: Background Information of children: Background information 1. What’s your name? 2. What grade are you in? 3. Do you have brothers or sisters? How old are they? 4. What do you do after school? 5. What language did you grow up with? Was it Korean, Vietnamese, or English? (question about first language) 6. What language(s) have you learned? Can you show me the materials that you learned with? And where did you learn the language, was it from your mom, afterschool programs, private language institute, or a community center? 7. What kinds of books, DVDs, or readings are available in English, Korean, Vietnamese, and other foreign languages, in addition to textbooks? And where are these, in school or at home? With whom do you read or write? How often do you read/watch them? Interview Session 2: Topics related to children’s English language learning and use: Focal child’s learning English 1. How long have you learned English? 2. With whom did you learn English? (=Who taught you English?) 3. Do you study English outside of school? 4. Have you learned English in intensive English summer camp or afterschool? Do you want to learn English in an afterschool program? 5. Can you give me some examples of how you learned English? 6. How did you learn to read or write in English? Who taught you this? Focal child’s English language use 1. Where do you speak English? With whom do you speak English? What are the reasons for you to use English? Focal child’s English proficiency 1. Do you speak English well? Can you tell me how proficient you are in speaking, listening, reading, and writing? Focal child’s views and perspectives toward English 1. Do you think learning English is useful? Why? Will it be used for informal conversational purposes, formal occasions, for instance, educational purposes or occupational reasons? 2. Have you ever gone to any English-speaking country and studied English there? How did you like it there? 3. Do you know any friends who went abroad to study? What do you think about them? 4. When you grow up, do you want to travel? 5. What do you want to be in the future? What do you want to do? You seem to be interested in (something), can you tell me why? 6. If you want to be (something) in your future, what kinds of studying (e.g., language 290 learning, some specific skills related to a job) do you think are necessary? Interview Session 3: Topics related to children’s Korean language learning and use: Focal child’s learning Korean 1. Who taught you Korean? Can you give me some examples of how you learned it? 2. How did you learn to read and write in Korean? Can you give me some examples of how you did it? Focal child’s Korean language use 1. Do you think you communicate better than other students in Korean? Do you express your feelings and mind with ease? 2. How do you think about your Korean ability? Do you think you understand the class better than others? What about reading and writing in class? Focal child’s Korean language proficiency 1. Are there any times that you have trouble saying what you want to say? 2. Do you think you read faster than your friends? 3. Do you think you write faster than your friends? 4. What do you think about Korean language? Is it more difficult than other languages such as English or Vietnamese? Or easier? 5. Among these three languages, Korean, English and Vietnamese, which do you feel most comfortable in speaking, listening, reading, and writing? Focal child’s views and perspectives toward Korean 1. Do you think people should speak only Korean? 2. Among these three languages, Korean, English and Vietnamese, which language do you want to learn most? For what reasons? 3. Do you think it is necessary to learn Korean in afterschool programs, in addition to regular Korean language art class? Interview Session 4: Views and practices related to children’s heritage language learning and use: Focal child’s learning heritage language (e.g., Vietnamese) 1. Who taught you Vietnamese? 2. Have you ever learned how to read or write in Vietnamese? With whom do you learn? How do you learn? And how long have you learned it? Focal child’s heritage language use (e.g., Vietnamese) 1. Do you speak Vietnamese? If you do, with whom do you speak? On what occasion? How often do you speak it? 2. Do you read and write in Vietnamese? 3. Do you read (children’s) books written in Vietnamese? 4. Do you speak only Korean at home? What language do you speak at home? Are there other languages that you use at home? 5. Have you heard other languages at home? Who is using the language and with whom? 6. What about school? Have you heard other languages at school? 291 Focal child’s heritage language proficiency 1. Do you speak Vietnamese well? Can you let me know how proficient you are in speaking, listening, reading, and writing? Focal child’s views and perspectives toward his/her heritage language and culture 1. Do you like listening/speaking/reading/writing in Vietnamese? Why or why not? 2. Do you want to learn more? Why or why not? 3. Do you think learning Vietnamese is useful? Why? 4. Are you proud that your mom is Vietnamese? 5. Do you want to use Vietnamese with your friends, families, teachers, or cousins from Vietnam? What are the things that you would like to talk with them about? 6. How do you feel about knowing various cultures, including Vietnamese? From whom do you want to learn from? 7. Does your school have a multicultural event in school? What do you think about the event? 8. What do your friends say about the multicultural event? 9. What do your friends say about other languages and cultures? Do they say they like them? Do you talk about these to your friends often? 10. When you grow up, would you use Vietnamese for your future job? Interview Session 5: Follow-up questions In this session, I will ask questions that have not been asked in the previous sessions or questions that need more elaboration from their previous responses. If necessary, I will also use the time of this session for collecting samples of the children’s reading and writing texts. 292 Interview Protocols: For Teachers Who Have Taught Damunhwa Children Interview Session 1: Background Information of teachers: Teacher’s teaching background and resources available in school 1. How long have you been teaching? What is your major area of teaching? 2. Have you taught other languages? 3. Are there any resources (i.e., books or DVDs) that are available for multicultural students at the classroom or the school library? How do they use them? 4. Are there any programs for children to learn Korean, English, heritage language, or other foreign languages? Teacher’s language learning experience 5. How did you learn English before? 6. Have you learned other languages before? What language was it? What were the reasons for you to learn the language? 7. Have you lived abroad or traveled to other countries? Interview Session 2: Topics related to children’s English language learning and use: Teachers teaching English to students 1. What kinds of programs are available for the child to learn English in school? 2. Can you give me some examples of how you teach English to the children in the classroom? 3. Is there any specific instruction that you provide to the child (research participant) to learn English? Focal student’s English language use 1. Have you ever seen the child using English? On what occasion was it? How did you feel about it? 2. Have you spoken English with your student in class or outside of the classroom? If yes, could you describe the situation? Focal student’s English language proficiency 1. How proficient is your student in English, in terms of listening, speaking, reading, and writing? 2. What are the student’s strengths and weaknesses in learning English? Does she/he perform better than other students in class? Teacher’s views and perspectives toward his/her focal student’s English language learning 1. Do you think your student’s learning of English is important? Why? 2. Where do you think the child should learn English? Will it be in his/her home, at school, or in afterschool programs? 3. What languages are most important for the child to learn and use: English, Korean, or the mother’s first language? And for what purposes? For instance, will it be for informal conversational purposes, formal occasions, educational purposes or occupational reasons? 293 Interview Session 3: Topics related to children’s Korean language learning and use: Teachers teaching Korean to students 1. What kinds of programs are available for the child to learn Korean in school? Are there any Korean language classes that are designed specifically for these culturally and ethnolinguistically diverse children? If not, why? Was it unnecessary, given the level of their Korean academic language proficiency? 2. Is there any specific instruction that you provide to the child (research participant) to learn Korean? Can you give me some examples of how you did it? Focal student’s Korean language use 1. Is there any time that the child has difficulty understanding the class? If so, how does the child react? Does he/she ask you for help or his/her peers? In those situations, what do others do? Focal student’s Korean language proficiency 1. How fluent do you think the child’s Korean is in terms of speaking, listening, reading, and writing? 2. How do you compare the student’s Korean proficiency compared to other monolingual students? Are they less fluent than other students? Teacher’s views and perspectives toward his/her focal student’s Korean language learning 1. How fluent should the child be in Korean, in terms of speaking, listening, reading and writing? 2. What is the most important language for the child: Korean, English, or Vietnamese? Why is it so? Will it be for informal conversational purposes, formal occasions, for instance, educational purposes or occupational reasons? 3. What is the most important language for you: Korean, English, or Vietnamese? Interview Session 4: Views and practices related to children’s heritage language learning and use: Teachers teaching children’s heritage language to students (e.g., Vietnamese) 1. What kinds of programs are available for the child to learn Vietnamese? (heritage language?) 2. Are there any programs for ethnolinguistically diverse children to learn their culture and language provided by the school or Ministry of Education? 3. What other programs are available in general that deal with multilingualism and multiculturalism in school? 4. Is there any specific instruction that you provide to the child (research participant) to learn Vietnamese? How did you help the child learn Vietnamese? Can you briefly explain how you did? Focal student’s heritage language use (e.g., Vietnamese) 1. Have you ever used Vietnamese with your student? If not, could you tell me why? 2. Have you heard children using Vietnamese? If you do, with whom did the child speak with? On what occasion was it? Does the child speak Vietnamese well? What impression did you have? How did you feel about it? 294 3. What do you think of the child’s learning Vietnamese? Do you want your student to continue learning these? Focal student’s heritage language proficiency 1. How proficient do you think your student is in their heritage language, in terms of their listening, speaking, reading, and writing? Teacher’s views and perspectives toward his/her focal student’s heritage language learning 1. Have you met the child’s mother? 2. Have you visited their home? Have you heard the family speaking Vietnamese? 3. Did you notice any cultural and/or linguistic differences compared to other Korean households? 4. Do you think people should speak only Korean in Korea? 5. What do you think of other cultures and languages that are different from Korean? Do you like to listen to them, and know about them? 6. Do you think the school has to teach Vietnamese? Why or why not? 7. Can you give a brief description or definition of multicultural children? 8. Do you think the child’s learning or using Vietnamese at home is important? Why or why not? 9. Where do you want your students to learn various languages and cultures: from you, at school, or from foreign mothers? 10. Do you want your other students to learn these as well? 11. Is it important for the child to preserve Vietnamese culture at home? What is the role of the mother in that regard? If it is important, what kind of culture ought students to learn: cultural values, traditions, food, holidays, or language? 12. Should multiculturalism and multilingualism be taught separately according to different ethnicity and linguistic groups (e.g., Korean students and multicultural students)? 13. How should multiculturalism and multilingualism be taught to Korean students and multicultural students? 14. What do you think multiculturalism means in Korea? Interview Session 5: Follow-up questions In this session, I will ask questions that have not been asked in the previous sessions or questions that need more elaboration from their previous responses. If necessary, I will also use the time of this session for collecting the samples of teacher’s and classroom’s reading and writing texts. 295 Appendix C: Details of All Interviewees Anyoung Elementary School Baro Elementary School Chunji Elementary School Daik Elementary School Other Total Nabi District school commissioner 1 1 Multicultural program designing teacher 1 1 1 3 Homeroom teacher 5 2 3 3 13 English teacher 3 3 6 Mother 3 1 1 1 5 11 Mother’s friends 1 6 7 Father 1 1 2 Child 5 2 1 1 9 Marriage Broker 1 1 Script Writer 1 1 Total 18 7 5 15 9 54 296 Appendix D: Transcription Conventions [xxx [yyy word= =word (1.0) (.) : word. word, word? word! wor- ↑word ↓word wor:d word word ºwordº >word< ((description/note)) (word) . . . overlapping talk latched utterances; no interval timed silence in seconds micropause (less than 0.3 sec) prolongation of the immediately prior sound; the longer the colon row, the longer the prolongation falling intonation continuing intonation rising or questioning intonation exclamation like prosody abrupt cutoff higher pitch lower pitch stretched sound emphasis louder talk quitter talk faster talk slower talk transcriber’s note and comment transcriber’s uncertain understanding omission of a few words or more (Modified from Jefferson, 2004) 297 Appendix E: Policy Tasks for Multicultural Families According to Their Life Stages Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (n.d., my translation), Retrieved on June 19, 2016 Life Cycle Policy Tasks Detail Policy Tasks Stage 1: International marriage preparation period before entry to South Korea - Protect human rights in the international marriage process - Implement the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act - Enhance international marriage brokers’ ethical awareness and professional expertise- Provide head-start education for the migrants’ adaptation - Sustainable operation of the local training centers for international marriage migrant candidates (e.g., provide Korean language and culture trainings) Stage 2: Family relation formation period during the early immigration - Provide support for early adaptation and sustainable living for the damunhwa wives - Provide comprehensive services relating to Korean language education, education for multicultural family integration, information about employment, and individual and family counselling- Provide Korean education through various educational sources - Provide Korean language education at the Multicultural Family Support Centers - Provide home-visit Korean language education services - Provide intervention for family crisis - Strengthen the links between institutions, such as call centers for international marriage migrant women (provide 13 different languages), women’s shelter for international marriage migrant women, legal aid institutions, etc.; for domestic violence from multicultural families - From June 2011, run call centers for family counselling and providing life information - Counsel individuals and members of multicultural families - Promote inclusive education for multicultural families to improve their understanding of the family culture and roles within the family 298 Life Cycle Policy Tasks Detail Policy Tasks Stage 3: Child custody and settlement period - Provide support to the multicultural families for rearing their children and educating them - Provide support for building parents’ capacity for rearing their children - Provide practical education to children from multicultural families who have low academic achievement and have difficulties in emotional, social and identity development - Provide support for the children’s language development - Provide support for creating bilingual family environment Stage 4: Capacity-building period - Provide support for multicultural families’ economic and social independence - Link employment to multicultural families and provide basic education for employment - Develop suitable occupations for international marriage migrants (e.g., interpreter, translator) and implement vocational education trainings - Provide operational support for self-reliance groups that are made by each country and volunteer groups that are composed with other Korean families Entire Cycle: Enhancing multicultural competency - Change the public awareness toward multiculturalism and promote positive awareness of multicultural families - Run the web monitors multicultural families - Provide operational assistance for a portal site to support multicultural families - Develop and distribute content for improving public awareness toward multicultural families - Conduct a national-scale survey to understand the conditions of multicultural families (based on Multicultural Families Support Act, Article 4) - Investigate and analyze the reality of multicultural families on a national scale to obtain basic statistical data analysis and formulate customized policy planning and services 299 Appendix F: Table of Contents of KSL Textbook for Damunhwa Mothers KSL Textbook Level 1: Table of Contents 1. Hello. 2. I am a Filipino. 3. It’s in the bag. 4. What does your husband do? 5. Who is this person? 6. It’s [my] husband’s birthday. 7. I wake up at seven every morning. 8. How much is [this] cabbage? 9. I went to the park for a walk. 10. Kimchi stew is a little spicy. 11. I’m going to go to [my children’s] school sports day on the weekend. 12. How do I get to the Cultural Center? 13. Hello, is [this] Mr. Kim Kiho’s house? 14. Now I can make [some] Korean food. 15. I’ll have jajangmyeon. 16. Summer is hot and winter is cold. 17. The movie was sad and [I] wept a lot. 18. I want to buy a red sweater. 19. I’m going to send a package to the Philippines. 20. Try some fruit and watch [TV]. 300 KSL Textbook Level 2: Table of Contents 1. My hometown is an island and it is a famous tourist attraction. 2. If you go all the way, [you’ll] see an intersection. 3. I do not know how to make radish kimchi. 4. I want to book tickets to Jeju Island. 5. Children are more likely to love the sea than the mountains. 6. Please fill out an application form to open a bank account. 7. How about a hat for the father-in-law’s gift? 8. I do not think green matches [with you]. 9. Which products are most popular? 10. I’ll leave it to the repair center. 11. I learned while doing housework. 12. I’m boiling a fish stew. 13. Please do [my hair] like this woman. 14. I have a sore throat so I cannot talk. 15. The blue dress is really pretty! 16. Can you remove this stain? 17. Do not scrub the frying pan hard. 18. We eat rice cake soup on New Year’s Day. 19. Mom, can [you] bring [it] to school? 20. Have you ever been to Jeju Island? 301 Appendix G: List of Policy Documents from Wooju Province and Nabi City Jung, J., Kang, Y., Kim, H., Huh, J., Lee, C., & Moon, T. (2010). Nabi city synoptic history. Nabi city: South Korea, Sungshim. Lee, Y., Park, S., Bae, S., Chang, H., & Cha, S. (2013). 2013nyeon Woojudo damunhwagajog siltaejosa yeongu [2013 Wooju-do multicultural family survey]. Jina City, Wooju Province, South Korea: Wooju Provincial Women’s Policy Development Institute. Nabi city. (2012). 2013 primary task plan for 2013. Nabi city: South Korea. Nabi City Office. Wooju Province Office of Education (2013). 2013 damunhwa gyoyug jiwon gyehoeg. [2013 multicultural education support plan], Wooju Ministry of Education, Wooju Province: Mimi City. Wooju Province Office of Education (2014). 2014 damunhwa gyoyug jiwon gyehoeg. [2014 multicultural education plan], Wooju Ministry of Education, Wooju Province: Mimi City. Wooju Province Office of Education (2015). 2015 damunhwa gyoyug jiwon gyehoeg. [2015 multicultural education plan], Wooju Ministry of Education, Wooju Province: Mimi City. Wooju Province Office of Education. (2015). 2015 gyoyugtong-gye juyojipyo [Key figures from the 2015 education statistics], Wooju Ministry of Education, Wooju Province: Mimi City. Wooju Province Office of Education (2016). 2016 damunhwa gyoyug jiwon gyehoeg. [2016 multicultural education plan], Wooju Ministry of Education, Wooju Province: Mimi City. 302 Appendix H: Policy Quotes p. 87: Ŕ:ô0ƹ:¿ä:Ňāŭ¾ƹ:êŧģƸĶƻ:ƑŜŌĝě:aņ÷ǀƼ÷‘ń¶ Ŕ:ŔĂŦƘÂIč°ĸäŜŊ?ƛøƻNJšģ,vNķņŊƾƹ?ƴDžƼ÷‘eĘ 0ʼn:ƑěǑı:×¾ÑģjƻŊƾ¦ÆƤń fƻ¾řņêïƼ÷‘efƻêǍ¾+ăķ¾ņŊƾƹ?0ïƼ÷‘e p. 92: ŊÃŔĸ§­+ĸ§¾NJ¦á§ŋǕp¡ƽģ‹1Ã+ʼnĽǍƻʼnäôƩń ŶĦäǏģûŃNJw÷‘p¡ŶĽp. 101: °Uŵƹ_#ljŊÃŔ~ŅĝěôƩÄďsęłģ‘ěëě›Ļņ"?‘eƭǕZƒŶĦģ2ŭƼ%ĸ/ł,ŠÕ¦şƹ:ě›ĹăŠŊeŊ”ƻ¾šŞņƾ#ƹ:ŀƾĥïŦÚģë_#ljŊÃŔÄ4Ŧņjçń ƻ1ě/łÄďsęłëÞü¦š*ƹ_ #ljŊÃŔ̾/łëÞü¦ĂîĹĪƹ?‘e p. 115: Ŋŭĥïű?9ŌœņǍķƹĥXéōŔ§¦ƇƖƹ?e¾NJŦʼnŔŧǁçÄZƒŶĦƺêʼnƳêƺÿǍïNJ¦Ʃƻ/łôĵ&ƙƾô