The Attraction and Repulsion of Empire: Education and The

Linguistic Landscape in Post-Liberation South Korea, 1945 – 1950

Daniel Pieper

Abstract

One of the most crucial, influential periods in modern Korean history—and paradoxically one of the

least-researched—is the five-year period between the defeat of Japan in August of 1945 and the

beginning of the Korean War in June of 1950. However, this five year span witnessed epochal events

that changed the face of the Korean peninsula, most notably in the areas of education and language. In

the linguistic sphere, the geopolitical forces at work on the Korean peninsula were writ large in the

public sphere, manifested in the language policies relating to the publishing industry, government

functions, the education system, and the ideologies that undergirded these policies. By focusing on

language policy and ideology and its manifestations in the field of education, I intend to demonstrate

the role of language in mediating the dissemination of legitimized knowledge through education, and

language’s own positioning within a contested ideological field which in turn affected the form and

content of that knowledge dissemination. I hope this research will shed some light on the origins of

contemporary Korean education and language policy and contribute to a better understanding of the

hybridity of Korean—indeed any—language and culture. In the process I intend to interrogate the

territorialized narrative of Korean post-colonialism, namely the locating of decolonization discourse in

the realm of national sovereignty alone, thus privileging physical ‘liberation’ from Japan as the origin

of Korea’s postcolonial condition and obscuring more subtle, enduring forms of domination, including

a ‘colonization of consciousness.’

1
Key Words: language policy, education, colonization, hybridity, pedagogy

Introduction

One of the most crucial, influential periods in modern Korean history—and paradoxically one of the

least-researched—is the five-year period between the defeat of Japan in August of 1945 and the

beginning of the Korean War in June of 1950. Much of the research that has been conducted on this

period tends to approach the problem with the sense of perspective that hindsight affords—the

knowledge of the impending tragedy—and consequently tangential events are woven into the narrative

of explaining the origins of the Korean War. The occurrences during this period are not viewed as

discreet, but rather considered as a string of events leading inexorably to war, a war so devastating and

all-encompassing that inquiry on contemporary Korea could once again resume in 1953, the slate

having been wiped clean, while the tragic intervening chapter could be left to the war historians.

However, this five year span witnessed epochal events that changed the face of the Korean peninsula,

not only precipitating the Korean War but also influencing the modern trajectories of the DPRK and

the ROK.

The post-liberation period was above all a time of transition, between war and peace, fascism

and democracy, subjugation and freedom, and the Japanese, Soviet and American empires. With the

surrender of Japan and the beginning of the U.S. occupation in August of 1945, Korea once again

found itself at a crossroads positioned between great powers. Much like it had a half century before in

breaking away from China and entering the orbit of Japan, Korea now severed its ties with Japan and

moved hesitantly forward into the American and Soviet spheres of influence, this time as a divided

nation. But also like this transition away from China, the severance with Japan was not absolute or

immediate. The colonial period had left an indelible legacy on nearly every aspect of Korean life,

economically, culturally, socially and linguistically. Despite the direct Soviet and American influence

2
in North and South Korea and the reservoir of good will that these occupiers initially enjoyed as

liberators, colonial traces remained when empire withdrew. That is not to say, however, that the

occupation did not leave its mark. The American cultural legacy which had been maintained through

missionary education through most of the colonial period was revived in 1945 and has only grown with

subsequent American global ascendancy, while the broad-based support enjoyed by Soviet reforms

ensured relatively smooth implementation and implantation in North Korean society, despite the

eventual removal of Soviet contributions from the national narrative that accompanied the rise of the

Kim Dynasty.1 Therefore, this period can be characterized as one of pronounced complexity as the

interaction between competing ideologies created multiple layers of colonial influence, causing

repulsion and attraction between imperial poles and resulting in what Homi Bhabha has termed

mimicry and hybridity.2

Perhaps the most important locus of interaction between these forces was in the sphere of

education and language. In the case of education, North and South Korea had to accommodate the

sudden outpouring of pent-up demand following decades of restricted access under Japanese authority,

a difficult task for each of the cash-strapped, fledgling governments. Although colonial remnants in

education seemed like easy targets for reform, a number of factors mitigated against complete de-

Japanization and wholesale adoption of the American and Soviet models. Much of the research on

post-1945 education revolves around the efforts in North and South Korea to democratize education,

increase access among previously excluded portions of society, eliminate colonial vestiges, and

1
Although here North Korea will be considered briefly in tandem with South Korea, spatial
restrictions preclude a detailed consideration of language policy, ideology, and education in North
Korea throughout this current work.
2
Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London and New York: Routledge, 1994).

3
promote mass literacy.3 Some of these works additionally examine the influence of the Soviet and

American occupations on the formation of the education system. In the linguistic sphere, the

geopolitical forces at work on the Korean peninsula were writ large in the public sphere, manifested in

the language policies relating to the publishing industry, government functions, the education system,

and the ideologies that undergirded these policies. The linguistic landscape4 that characterized North

and South Korea at the time—Korean, Japanese, sinographs, English, Russian—and more revealingly

the discourse on these languages, represented a microcosm of the political and cultural forces

competing for hegemony. By focusing on language policy and ideology and its manifestations in the

field of education, I intend to demonstrate the role of language in mediating the dissemination of

3
See for example Han’guk kyoyuk paengnyŏnsa, [A 100-Year History of Korean Education] (Seoul:
Kyoyuk sinmunsa, 1999); Son Insu, Han’guk kyoyuksa yŏn’gu 2 [Research on the History of Korean
Education] (Seoul: Munŭmsa, 1998); An Kwidŏk, Han’guk kŭnhyŏndae kyoyuksa [A History of
Korean Modern Education] (Sŏngnam: Han’guk ch’ongsin munhwa yŏn’guwŏn, 1995); Kim Yŏngu,
Han’guk ch’odŭng kyoyuksa: Han’guk kŭn/hyŏndae ch’odŭng kyoyuk paengnyŏnsa [A History of
Korean Primary Education] (Seoul: Han’guk kyoyuksa hakhoe, 1999); Sin Hyosuk, Soryŏn kunjŏng-
gi Pukhan ŭi kyoyuk [North Korean Education During the Soviet Occupation] (Seoul: Kyoyuk
kwahaksa, 2003). For works in English, see Kim Dong koo, “American Influence on Korean
Educational Thought During the Period of U.S. Military Government, 1945-1948,” (PhD diss.,
University of Connecticut, 1984); Michael J. Seth, Education Fever: Society, Politics and the Pursuit
of Schooling in South Korea, (Honolulu: University of HAWAII Center for Korean Studies, 2002);
Charles K. Armstrong, The North Korean Revolution, 1945-1950, (Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press, 2005); Kim Cheon Gie, “Changes in Korean Elementary and Secondary Education in
United States-Occupied South Korea, 1945-1948: A Revisionist Analysis of the Effects on Policy of
Progressive Education,” (PhD diss., Georgia State University, 1991).
4
By linguistic landscape, I mean the specific configuration of languages—both spoken and written—
that populate both the discourses and the physical environment of a country at a specific time. Inspired
by Yasuda Toshiaki’s notion of ‘language configuration’ or gengo hensei (言語編制) and its military
connotations, this linguistic landscape or ‘configuration’ implies the arraying of languages in
competition with each other on a contested ‘terrain.’ The geophysical metaphor also implies the
relative significance of certain languages (mountains) in relation to others (valleys), and the gradual
transformation of this ‘landscape’ over time (i.e. ‘erosion’ of a language). Therefore, this conception of
the linguistic landscape shares not only the general meaning of “the social context in which more than
one language is present” implying “the use in speech or writing of more than one language and thus
multilingualism” employed by Sciriha and Vassallo and Kreslins, the language in its written form in
the public sphere, but also the military connotation of Yasuda’s gengo hensei terminology. See Yasuda
Toshiaki, Teikoku Nihon no gengo hensei [The Language Configuration of Imperial Japan] (Tōkyō:
Seori Shōbō, 1997); Durk Gorter, Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism
(Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2006), 1-3.
4
legitimized knowledge through education, and language’s own positioning within a contested

ideological field which in turn affected the form and content of that knowledge dissemination. I hope

this research will shed some light on the origins of contemporary Korean education and language

policy and contribute to a better understanding of the hybridity of Korean—indeed any—language and

culture. In the process I intend to interrogate the territorialized narrative of Korean post-colonialism,

namely the locating of decolonization discourse in the realm of national sovereignty alone, thus

privileging physical ‘liberation’ from Japan as the origin of Korea’s postcolonial condition and

obscuring more subtle, enduring forms of domination, including a ‘colonization of consciousness.’5

Language Ideology and the Linguistic Landscape of 1945

As I have mentioned above, 1945 was a watershed moment in the linguistic landscape of South

Korea, and the catalyst for such transformation was language ideology, or rather, the confluence of

language ideology, political will and geopolitical realities. First, the term language ideology deserves

explication, a term foundational to linguistic anthropology and anthropological linguistics. Language

ideologies have been defined variably as “sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a

rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use,” 6 as “self-evident ideas and

objectives a group holds concerning roles of language in the social experiences of members as they

contribute to the expression of the group,”7 and “the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic

5
This notion of the colonization of consciousness will be explored in more detail below. For a
thorough explication of this theory in relation to ethnography in colonial South Africa, see John and
Jean Comaroff, Ethnography and the Historical Imagination (Boulder and Oxford: Westview Press,
1992), 235 – 263.
6
Michael Silverstein, “Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology,” in The Elements: A Parasession
on Linguistic Units and Levels, ed. Paul Clyne et al (Chicago: Chicago Linguist Society, 1979), 193-
247.
7
Shirley Brice Heath, “Social History,” in Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives. Vol. 1: Social
Science (Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1977), 53 – 72.
5
relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests.”8 Based on a composite of the

above definitions, language ideologies may be articulated by those who hold them or may be merely

self-evident, and these ideologies may exist among groups as well as at the individual level. What all

scholarly conceptualizations of language ideology have in common is an acknowledgement of the

indispensability of the social component to linguistic inquiry. As we consider the linguistic landscape

in 1945, it is crucial to take into account the linguistic ideologies that shaped language policy in the

two Koreas and molded the subsequent educational systems that developed.

Within the relatively freer discursive spaces in post-liberation Korea, there was no shortage of

individuals and organizations articulating “rationalizations and justifications of perceived language

structure and use,” often reflecting their various “moral and political interests.” The repressive nature

of colonial-era language policies—especially those in recent memory during Japan’s so-called total

war mobilization—created an outpouring of patriotic sentiment and public discourse, especially

surrounding the previously banned Korean language and native script, han’gŭl.9 In South Korea, the

most important and influential organization involved with language planning and other linguistic

matters was the Korean Language Society (Han’gŭl hakhoe, henceforth KLS).10 As the history and

8
Judith T. Irvine, “When Talk Isn’t Cheap: Language and Political Economy.” American Ethnologist
16, 2 (1989): 248-67.
9
Note that the term han’gŭl is not used in North Korea, where the terms Chosŏnkŭl or uri kŭl are
preferred due to the cultural and historical connotations associated with the term ‘han’ (韓).
10
The Korean Language Society has undergone a number of name changes throughout its 90-plus year
history. The precursor of the Society, Chosŏnŏ Yŏn’guhoe was founded on December 3, 1921, and in
January of 1931 the name was changed to Chosŏnŏ Hakhoe. Finally, in September of 1949 its name
was changed to the current Han’gŭl Hakhoe, and this utilization of the vernacular neologism ‘han’gŭl’
as opposed to Chosŏn (朝鮮) kŭl was perhaps a reflection of nationalistic language ideologies
surrounding the vernacular script, as well as likely a conscious disassociation with North Korean
terminology and therefore ideology.

6
activities of this organization have been well documented elsewhere11, it is not my intention here to

treat the linguistic activities of the KLS in detail. However, it is my contention that the events of 1942

during the so-called Korean Language Society Incident (Chosŏnŏ hakhoe sakŏn) strengthened the

nationalist credentials of the organization and enhanced their stature in post-liberation South Korea,

which is relevant to our current discussion. Whereas colonial authority checked the influence and may

have actually co-opted certain functions of the KLS,12 the perceived combative relationship between

the Governor General of Korea (GGK) and the KLS in the late colonial period resulted in a larger than

life presence in post-1945 South Korea. Furthermore, as Michael Robinson points out in his work on

Korean nationalism,13 although most areas of reform tended to drive a wedge between cultural and

radical nationalists during the colonial period, language planning and reform was one of the few issues

that could unite disparate factions, and in the ideologically charged atmosphere of 1945 when politics

could now respond to public sentiment, strong support seemed to coalesce behind a concerted, unified

language policy directed by the leadership of the KLS.

The KLS set to work immediately on language-related issues in August of 1945. In the words

of the KLS in its 50 year anniversary publication, “Liberation did not mean the end of all our efforts,

11
Han’gŭl Hakhoe, Han’gŭl Hakhoe osip nyŏnsa [The Korean Language Society: A Fifty-Year
History] (Seoul, Han’gŭl Hakhoe); Yi Hyeryŏng, “Han’gŭl Undongkwa kŭndae midiŏ,” in Han’guk
kŭndae munhak ŭi hyŏngsŏng kwa munhakchang ŭi chaebalgyŏn: chedo rosŏ ŭi Han’guk
kŭndaemunhak kwa t’alsingminsŏng [A Reconsideration of the Modern Literary Field: Modern
Korean Literature as a System and the Post-Colonial Condition] (Seoul: Minjok munhaksa yŏn’guso,
2004); Ch’oe Kyŏngbong, Ilje kangjŏmgi Chosŏnŏ Hakhoe hwaldong ŭi yŏksajŏk ŭimi [The Historical
Meaning of Korean Language Society Activities Under Japanese Rule], Tongbuga munhwa yŏn’gu 15
(2008).
12
For evidence of KLS and GGK cooperation and collaboration, see Takahashi Mitsui, “Singminji
Chosŏnesŏ ŭi Han’gŭl Undong e kwanhan yŏn’gu tonghyang kwa kŭ pip’anjŏk kŏmt’o” [A Survey of
Studies on the Han’gŭl Movement under Colonial Korea] Paper presented at the Third Annual Yonsei
University Center for Modern Korean Studies, “Issues in Modern Korean and Japanese Literary
Studies,” Seoul, South Korea, February 28, 2008.
13
Michael E. Robinson, Cultural Nationalism in Colonial Korea, 1920-1925 (Seattle: University of
Washington Press, 1988).
7
but rather, it meant that our efforts would have to begin.”14 The most urgent work in 1945, according

to the KLS, was “national language education” in schools, as well as the “training of educators in the

national language.”15 Just ten days after the end of Japanese rule on August 25, 1945, before the United

States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) had even been established, the KLS

convened an emergency session to deal with, among other issues, the lack of national language

textbooks for the elementary and middle schools that were soon set to open. Due to the atrophied state

of Korean language education that Japanese policies had rendered, the KLS took a comprehensive

approach, focusing not only on language education in elementary and middle schools but also nation-

wide literacy programs. This approach was reflected in the first two national language textbooks

produced in South Korea, First Steps in Han’gŭl (Han’gŭl ch’ŏt kŏrŭm) and the Elementary National

Language Textbook (Ch’odŭng kugŏ kyobon). As the following note of caution (chuŭi) from the

textbook makes clear, and as the title suggests, First Steps in Han’gŭl was designed for teaching the

Korean script to all those ignorant of it, regardless of age: “This text is designed to be taught before

Volume 2 and 3 of the Elementary National Language Textbook (Ch’odŭng kugŏ chung/ha) and

Volume 1 and Volume 3 of the Intermediate National Language Textbook (Chungdŭng kugŏ sang/ha)

in order to form a foundation in the national language.”16 Much like in North Korea, the South had to

contend with a massive illiterate population in 1945 which shaped the character of textbook

publication and language policy in education, an issue that I shall revisit later.

Whereas the pedagogical aims of First Steps in Han’gŭl seemed to be more universally

oriented, the focus of another KLS-produced text, Han’gŭl Teacher’s Guide for the Elementary

14
Han’gŭl Hakhoe, Han’gŭl Hakhoe osip nyŏnsa, 97.
15
Ibid.
16
Chosŏnŏ Hakhoe, Han’gŭl chŏt kŏrŭm [First Steps in Han’gŭl] (Seoul: Kunjŏngch’ŏng hangmuguk,
1945), quoted in Yi Hŭiho, “Migunjŏng-gi Han’gŭl Chŏtkŏrŭm kyojae e taehan maengnak yŏn’gu,”
K’yŏreŏ Munhak 48 (2012), 517 – 547.
8
National Language Textbook (Ch’odŭng kugŏ kyobon han’gŭl kyosu chich’im, henceforth Han’gŭl

Teacher’s Guide) was more specific, reflecting the KLS goal of teacher training as well as children’s

education. A look at the preface to this textbook will reveal the sense of urgency surrounding language

education at the time, as well as the ideological nature of Korean and han’gŭl education:

After suffering every kind of persecution, for our language and writing (malkwa kŭl) to
be preserved and narrowly escape a terrible fate, today, 500 years after the proclamation
of Hunmin chŏngŭm by King Sejong the Great, for it once again to walk freely in the
bright realm of freedom, the blood of our people (minjok) boiling from passionate love
for our language and writing, who could help but be glad? As we let the bells of
independence ring out and as the people’s zeal for learning han’gŭl spreads to every
corner of the country, who can help but be moved?17

Reading this passage, one is struck by the sense of mission which permeates national language

education, almost to the extent of religious duty. The learning of Korean and han’gŭl now becomes a

hallowed nationalist obligation so that never again will the identity of the Korean minjok be threatened.

Nationalistic consciousness is further stimulated through historical allusion by linking King Sejong’s

propagation of Hunmin chŏngŭm with present patriotism and nationhood. Although the socio-linguistic

environment in which Hunmin chŏngŭm was invented bore little resemblance to the modern nation

state with its conceptions of language and education, this allusion to Korean history and deference to

the Confucian virtue of filial piety to the king had been a common trope employed by authors since the

Korean Enlightenment period and earlier in their attempts to enhance the prestige of han’gŭl and

encourage its usage.18 Furthermore, while not explicitly mentioned in this passage, the reference to

extreme Japanese persecution of Korean in the final days (chanmyŏng) of the colonial period is only

17
Chosŏnŏ Hakhoe, Ch’odŭng kugŏ kyobon han’gŭl kyosu chich’im [Han’gŭl Teacher’s Guide for the
Elementary National Language Textbook] (Seoul: Kunjŏngch’ŏng hangmuguk, 1945), 1, quoted in Yi,
“Migunjŏng-gi Han’gŭl Chŏtkŏrŭm yŏn’gu,” 529-530.
18
See Ross King, “Nationalism and Language Reform in Korea: The Questione della Lingua in
Precolonial Korea,” in Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity, ed. Hyung Il Pai and
Timothy R. Tangherlini (Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, 1998).
9
thinly veiled. Given this strong current of anti-Japanese sentiment coupled with newly-found political

prerogative, what aspects of Korean language teaching were affected, and how?

A cursory glance at Korean language policy changes post-1945 suggests that the Korean

language was subject to some extent of reactionary ideology against Japanese-era language policy and

pedagogy. For example, Korean now came to be written horizontally in all KLS language textbooks in

contrast to centuries of precedent throughout East Asia and notably in the Japanese language, although

reformers like Chu Sigyŏng had been calling for this change since at least the early twentieth century

based on a number of justifications unrelated to Japan19, and it is doubtful whether Japan’s continued

use of vertical writing had more than a nominal impact on Korea’s shift. Another shift away from the

Japanese model evident in this new generation of textbooks was pedagogical—the switch from a

syllabic style (ŭmjŏl-sik) to an analytical consonant-vowel style (chamo-sik) of teaching han’gŭl—and

there is evidence to suggest that this shift was at least partially motivated by ideological reaction to

Japanese pedagogical practices. In the following passage, han’gŭl education methods are linked to

Korean identity vis-à-vis Japanese:

In the past the Governor General of Korea repeatedly compiled The Korean Language
Reader (Chōsengo Tokuhon), using the syllabic method of its time, but how can the
method of teaching Japanese writing, with its kana syllabary (ŭmjŏl munja) that was
sufficient as it only needed to produce a sound system of seventy or eighty sounds, ever be
compared to the method of teaching Korean writing, a complicated language in which 24
consonants and vowels produce from 8,000 to 10,000 syllables? We believe that, as a
matter of course, every nation’s language education (munja kyoyuk) must be cognizant of the
particularities of that nation’s writing and speech (munja wa ŏnŏ) and establish appropriate
[teaching] methods based on this. The reason that we mimic the syllabic teaching style of the
Japanese is due to the “가갸거겨” han’gŭl syllabary chart (panjŏlpy’o, 反 切 表 ) which
resembles the Japanese syllabary chart (gojūonzu, 五十音 圖). This han’gŭl syllabary chart on
the one hand is convenient, but the damage that is caused by this method may be double the
benefit brought by its expedience.20

19
Ibid.
20
Chosŏnŏ Hakhoe, Ch’odŭng kugŏ kyobon han’gŭl kyosu chich’im, 1-2, quoted in Yi, “Migunchŏng-
gi Han’gŭl Chŏtkŏrŭm yŏn’gu,” 531.
10
Here, the justification for shifting pedagogical practices in teaching han’gŭl is based on ideological

reaction to the perceived Japanese pedagogical legacy. Writing in the KLS-affiliated periodical

Han’gŭl in 1945, another author infers that the pedagogical practices of Korean language teachers have

been influenced and perhaps distorted by Korea’s recent history, stating that “For those who have no

knowledge of han’gŭl and know nothing of teaching practices, the ‘가갸’-style would of course be the

method of choice, for we cannot expect anything of them, anyway. However, once one gains the

slightest knowledge of han’gŭl or teaching practices, all this knowledge would point naturally to the

adoption of the chamo (CV)-style [of teaching]. This is natural, as it is the true essence of our

script…” 21 Putting aside the dismissive tone in describing those ignorant of han’gŭl, 22 the author

suggests that the only reason that one would choose the syllabic method for teaching han’gŭl, a method

which monopolized colonial-era han’gŭl teaching in Japanese schools, was due to ignorance of the

“true essence” of the Korean script. Free of distorted views on han’gŭl, the author is confident that an

informed individual would see the “natural” logic of chamo pedagogy.

Although these arguments seem to be grounded in sober, ideology-free reasoning—the

adoption of appropriate teaching techniques to suit the particularities of a nation’s language—the

arguments fail to consider two important historical aspects of han’gŭl. First, this syllabic method of

presenting and teaching han’gŭl was extant from the earliest days of Hunmin chŏng’ŭm propagation,

its first manifestation in the syllable chart of Hunmin chŏngŭm haeryebon and later more directly in

Ch’oe Sejin’s 1527 Hunmong chahoe, a version that formed the theoretical basis of the charts

21
Yi Hosŏng, “Yŏrŏ munje wa kyoyukcha ŭi kajil t’aedo,” in Han’gŭl 94 (Chosŏnŏ Hakhoe, 1945), 4,
quoted in Yi, “Migunchŏng-gi Han’gŭl Chŏtkŏrŭm yŏn’gu,” 533.
22
It is interesting that the author uses the honorific particle –시 in referring to those who have
knowledge of han’gŭl (한글에 소양이 있고 교수ㅅ법을 아시는이라면) yet omits this particle when
referring to those ignorant of han’gŭl (교수ㅅ법을 모르는이는).
11
appearing in textbooks three and a half centuries later during the Korean Enlightenment period. 23

Furthermore, these panjŏlp’yo configurations were used in colonial-era han’gŭl propagation materials

by groups not affiliated with the GGK, and were employed by several Korean-language newspapers,

which would help to explain their widespread currency in 1945 at least as much as their utilization in

Japanese schools, and undercut the contention that the syllabic method was a Japanese-inspired

pedagogical practice.24 The second aspect is related to the ŭmjŏl-sik/chamo-sik debate, and that is the

flexible nature of han’gŭl orthography. The Hunmin chŏngŭm haeryebon clearly indicates the hybrid

nature of chŏng’ŭm in describing it as an alphabet with the characteristics of a syllabary, and the

various pedagogical methods employed to teach han’gŭl since its propagation attest to its hybrid nature,

that is, as a writing system that can be written according to both moassŭgi (i.e. ‘한글’) and

karop’urŏssŭgi (i.e. ‘ㅎㅏㄴㄱㅡㄹ’) orthographic conventions. However, the above justification for

chamo-sik han’gŭl teaching fails to recognize both the historical context of han’gŭl pedagogy and the

hybrid character of han’gŭl as a possible asset, instead calling for a reversion to the chamo-sik method

on ideological grounds, an example of reactionary tendencies that affected language policies during

this time.

While the above changes took place with little fanfare, the most significant transformation and

subsequently the most intractable language debate concerned the movement away from

kukhanmunch’e (Sino-Korean mixed script style) toward pure han’gŭl usage (han’gŭl chŏnyong). This

was the most ideologically-driven language debate of the post-1945 period, and although the historical

trend in South Korea has been one of increasing han’gŭl use in proportion to sinographs, it is a debate

that is far from conclusion. Much research has been conducted on language policy in North and South

23
See Kim Sŭlong, “Han’gŭl ŭmjŏlp’yo ŭmi wa kyoyungyong yuhyŏng sŏljŏng,” [Composition for
Han’gŭl Education and Significance of Han’gŭl Syllable Table] (paper presented at The Second IKL
‘Hangeul’ 2008 International Conference on Korean Linguistics, Korea University, August 16-18,
2008) 113-115.
24
Yi, “Migunjŏng-gi Han’gŭl Chŏtkŏrŭm yŏn’gu.”
12
Korea related to the regulation and legislation of sinographs in education, the publishing industry, and

other areas, as well as the divergences which have come about as a result of these policies.25 While

these studies reveal excellent insights into contemporary language ideologies and their effects on

education and society, it is not my intention in this current work to chart a history of language policy

and planning in contemporary North and South Korea in relation to sinographs. Rather, I am concerned

with the political production of language ideologies in post-1945 Korea and their immediate

manifestations in education. I attempt to answer the following questions: Where did these language

ideologies originate and how were they manifested? Were they shaped by colonial history and popular

memory? How? In what ways did these ideologies evolve and change due to geopolitical developments

up to 1950 and how might these transformations explain the current state of language in education in

North and South Korea?

In addition to dextro-horizontal writing and the chamo pedagogical method mentioned above,

post-1945 South Korea also witnessed a renewed push for Koreanization (especially against Japanese

terms), spelling reform, Korean language dictionaries and textbooks publication, and a widespread

literacy campaign. However, according to Yi Ŭng-ho, an integral member of the KLS, one of the

biggest language movements at the time was the campaign for the exclusive use of han’gŭl (han’gŭl

25
For works in Korean, see Ko Yŏnggŭn, Pukhan ŭi mal kwa kŭl [The Language and Writing of North
Korea] (Seoul: Ŭlyu munhwasa, 1989); Kim Minsu, “Nam-Pukhan ŭi hyŏnhaeng match’umbŏp,
p’yojunŏ munje,” [Current Issues on Orthography and Standard Language in North and South Korea]
(paper presented at Han’guk kugŏ kyoyuk hakhoe, Seoul, South Korea, September 9, 1989); Yi
Ŭngbaek, “Nam-Pukhan ŭi kugŏ tongjilsŏng hoebok ŭl wihan taean,” [A Plan for Recovering
Homogeneity between the National Languages of North and South Korea] in Han’guk kugŏ kyoyuk
hakhoe, Sae kugŏ kyoyuk 45 (1989); Kim Minsu, “Nam-Puk ŭi ŏnŏ chŏngch’aek kwa kugŏ kyoyuk,”
[North and South Korean Language Policy and National Language Education] in Omun yŏn’gu
t’onggwŏn 85 (1995) 140-146; Chin T’aeha, “Nam-Pukhan ŭi kugŏ chŏngch’aek pigyowa t’ongil
pang’an,” in Han’guk kugŏ kyoyuk hakhoe, Sae kugŏ kyoyuk 45 (1989). For works in English, see
Lenore Kim Blank, “Language Policies in South Korea Since 1945 and their Probable Impact on
Education,” (PhD Diss., University of San Francisco, 1981; Akiyasu Kumatani, “Language Policies in
North Korea,” in Ŏnŏwa ŏnŏhak 15 (1989) 81-105; Jae Jung Song, “South Korea: Language Policy
and Planning in the Making,” in Current Issues in Language Planning 13 (February 2012) 1-68; Park
Youngsoon, “Language Policy and Language Education in North Korea,” in Korea Journal (Spring
1991) 28 – 40.
13
chŏnyong undong).26 Yi also points out that this campaign was nothing new, and in fact could be

traced back to the Korean Enlightenment period and the language ideologies expounded by Chu Si-

gyŏng.27 Chu was a member of the so-called first generation of Korean language reformers, and one of

the catalysts for this first period of reform activity was the November 21, 1894 “Edict on Public

Writing” (公文式) which stipulated the use of the ‘national script’ in government documents. 28

Though the law has been referenced countless times in previous research, I reproduce it here due to its

relevance to the post-1945 language situation:

法律勅令 總以國文爲本 漢文附譯 或混用國漢

All laws and edicts shall have kungmun as their base; one may attach a translation in hanmun or mix

kungmun and hanmun together.29

The actual impact of this law on writing practices and implementation in the education system, while a

legitimate and possibly fruitful area of inquiry in its own right, does not concern us here.30 What is

26
Yi Ŭng-ho, “Kwangbok ihu ŭi Han’gŭl Undong,” [The Han’gŭl Movement Since Liberation] in
Nara sarang 26 (1977) 47.
27
Ibid.
28
This edict was part of the broader Kabo Reforms, named after the year the reforms were initiated
based on the sexagenary cycle which originated during the Shang Dynasty in ancient China.
Continuing until 1896, the Kabo Reforms were a sweeping set of edicts enacted by the Reform Council
of the Chosŏn government addressing issues as varied and seemingly unrelated as adoption policy,
dress, the status of slaves, and calendrical policy. Scholars have debated the actual impact of the
reforms on Korean society and the degree of Japanese influence on developing and enacting the
reforms.
29
Quoted in King, “Nationalism and Language Reform,” 37.
30
In fact, pure kungmun (han’gŭl) was never used in government documents or publications until after
1945 (and then initially only within the Ministry of Education), and the edict basically sanctioned the
ascendancy of kukhanmunch’e, which eventually became the default inscriptional practice for most
official writing, which incidentally eased the transition to Japanese writing during the colonial era.
14
relevant to our current discussion is the transitional character of this law and the way in which it

legislated mediation between writing systems, as well as its striking resemblance to a very similar law

passed some fifty years later which had a similar function. The edict clearly reflects the shifting

linguistic landscape of the time and the attendant language ideologies that shaped them, that is, the

gradual ascendancy of han’gŭl and the vernacular language based on script nationalism coupled with

an acknowledgement of the dominant feature of the linguistic landscape, the Literary Sinitic tradition

influenced by tradition and conservatism. In a way, the former portion of the edict predicted the future

course of language policy, while the latter made a nod to the current reality of linguistic conditions. In

1948 han’gŭl was once again accorded official recognition with the preparation of the Republic of

Korea constitution exclusively in han’gŭl, and by the July 24th passing of National Assembly

Resolution No.6, “The Exclusive Use of Han’gŭl as the Official Writing System of Government.”
31
(“Han’gŭl chŏnyongbŏp,” henceforth Han’gŭl Legislation). However, echoing the nod to

conservatism in the 1894 edict which allowed for the continuation of hanmun and kukhanmun usage,

an amendment to the resolution was proposed and passed, leaving the door open to decades of debate

on the role and extent of Sinographs in South Korean society. The Han’gŭl Legislation read as follows:

The official documents of the Republic of Korea shall be written in han’gŭl, the Korean
alphabetic script. For the time being, however, Chinese characters may be used together
with the Korean script when it is necessary. This law becomes effective on the day of its
promulgation.

Much like the 1894 edict, the Han’gŭl Legislation reflected the language ideologies of the era in which

it was created. This law represented acquiescence to patriotic sentiment within government and beyond

which equated han’gŭl usage with independence from both Chinese toadyism and Japanese

imperialism. Among the criteria cited by supporters of the Han’gŭl Legislation, for example, was the

31
Blank, “Language Policies in South Korea Since 1945,” 148, 149.
15
promotion of “national identity and pride and an independent spirit of self-reliance,” and these

supporters further claimed that “the time-and-energy-consuming hanja education and the lack of

science and technology in the Japanese curriculum may be blamed for Japan’s defeat in World War

II.” 32 On the other hand, the amendment to the original Han’gŭl Legislation, much as in 1894,

represented the acknowledgement of socio-historical linguistic realities and a nod to tradition. Those

opposing the abolition of sinographs and the exclusive use of han’gŭl proposed a gradual transition,

claiming that hasty implementation of such a measure would create confusion and unnecessarily sever

Korea’s historical, cultural and linguistic traditions with one fell swoop. Though separated by a half

century of dramatic change punctuated by 35 years of colonial influence, the remarkable similarities

between the legislative goals (de-Sinification) as well as the ideological atmosphere which produced

the legislation suggests the intractability of the language question in Korea and the resistance of

language to policy and planning.

Despite all the similarities between the above two pieces of legislation, some important

differences must be noted. First, while certain ideologies such as script nationalism, anti-imperialism,

and conservatism formed the basis of discourses out of which legislation emerged, the relative forces

of these ideologies in 1894 and 1948 were vastly different. The granting of official status to kungmun

in 1894 represented a radical departure from tradition, the product more of an enlightened (read

Japanese-inspired) reform-minded intellectual elite in Korea rather than a response to popular opinion

or the natural fruition of years of linguistic evolution and transition. This edict was basically ignored in

the public sector; the most significant effect of the edict was symbolic in that it stimulated debate on

the language question, but it may have actually reinforced the ascendance of kukhanmun writing as the

32
Ibid, 149.

16
default inscriptional practice.33 On the other hand, the 1948 Han’gŭl Legislation much more closely

reflected public opinion—both intellectual and popular—and the actual linguistic landscape in which it

was developed. There were periods in which government agencies actually implemented han’gŭl-only

publication policy—most notably the Ministry of Education—and although many detractors

complained of semantic ambiguity in the absence of sinographs, there was little doubt that exclusive

han’gŭl use was at least feasible. While reformers of the Enlightenment era sometimes argued for

exclusive use of han’gŭl, few of them actually employed such writing in their discourse as the

parameters of such an inscriptional practice had not even been established yet. Whereas first-

generation han’gŭl proponents discussed more the theory of exclusive han’gŭl use, their post-1945

counterparts were finally positioned to debate the actual practice.

Second, as each language policy was positioned between different inscriptional practices, the

languages mediated by each policy differed as well. While theoretically the 1894 edict was positioned

between Literary Sinitic and pure han’gŭl (kungmun), the absence of an established han’gŭl

orthography, grammar, canon, etc. meant that the default meaning of kungmun for the educated Korean

of the time designated kukhanmun. The edict therefore mediated between hanmun and kukhanmun,

establishing a communication between the writing practices which allowed interpenetration:

Sinification of the vernacular and vernacularization of the Sinitic. 34 On the other hand, the 1948

33
Due to centuries of neglect in Chosŏn Dynasty scholarly circles, neither han’gŭl nor the vernacular
language were ever the objects of serious linguistic study until the early 20th century. Therefore, the
Korean vernacular and han’gŭl at the time of the Edict on Public Writing were in a chaotic state,
lacking basic orthographical and grammatical rules. This lack of structure contributed to the informal
designation of kukhanmunch’e as the default inscriptional practice.
34
I draw this concept of mediation between languages from Hwang Hodŏk’s notion of the Sinograph
as a sort of ‘mediational technology’ between Literary Sinitic (hanmun) and the vernacular. Hwang
expands this concept and designates the Sinograph as a tool of mediation for not only Korea but the
entire ‘Sinographic Cosmopolis.’ See Hwang Hodŏk, Kŭndae neishŏn kwa kŭ p’yosangdŭl: T’aja,
kyot’ong, pŏnyŏk, ek’ŭrit’wirŭ [The Modern Nation and Its Representations: National Language
Discourse in the Formative Period of Modernization in Korea] (Seoul: Somyŏng Ch’ulp’an, 2005);
“Geopolitics of Vernacularity and Sinographs: The Making of Bilingual Dictionaries in Modern Korea:
17
Han’gŭl Legislation no longer mediated the now defunct Literary Sinitic but now lay positioned

between the now established kukhanmun and the ascendant pure han’gŭl. This change in the mediated

writing practices was significant in that it both signaled and precipitated a transformation in the overall

linguistic landscape that would last for decades to come. These language policies in effect legislated

the boundaries of acceptable discourses on inscriptional practices; by defining acceptable modes of

writing and institutionalizing their usage, these policies created a disconnect between the education

system and society at large by legislating ambiguity.

The above differences can be explained not only by a decades-long shift in the written

representation of the Korean language (that is the gradual de-Sinification and concomitant

vernacularization of Korean inscriptional practices) but also the colonial legacy and the post-1945

ideological atmosphere which it engendered. Yi Ŭngho describes the colonial influence on post-1945

Korean language and ideology in the following way:

The post-liberation Han’gŭl Movement was a continuation of the movement carried out
under Japanese imperialism. The KLS-centered campaign for the unification and propagation
of han’gŭl was suppressed by imperial Japan because it was actually a campaign for the
autonomy and freedom of the Korean nation, and it caught on like a prairie fire…However, in
1945 with the restoration of national authority the Han’gŭl Movement which had been
interrupted by Japanese suppression once again resumed. Because this was a movement
which had faced annihilation at the hands of Japan’s minjok obliteration policy (minjok
malsal chŏngch’aek), and because the Korean people had regained their voice and
language (uri mal kwa uri kŭl) along with their freedom, men and women, young and old from
all walks of life participated in the Han’gŭl Movement with a united sentiment of ‘love for the
national language.’ In the two to three years after liberation, the Han’gŭl Movement surged
like the unbridled winds of a furious tempest.35

From Sinographic Cosmopolis to ‘Sinographic Mediopolis,” (paper presented at the Annual UBC
Asian Studies Department Conference “Thinking about ‘Cosmopolitan and Vernacular’ in the
Sinographic Cosmopolis: What Can We Learn from Sheldon Pollock?” University of British Columbia,
July 2-4, 2012, Translated by Daniel Pieper (In press).
35
Yi, “Kwangbok ihu ŭi Han’gŭl Undong,” 46. Translation mine.
18
According to Yi’s characterization, reaction to Japanese colonial policy did not merely influence post-

1945 vernacular language education but formed its ideological core. Not only did reactionary

tendencies drive language movements and policies in 1945, but this ideological zeal is actually applied

retroactively to a colonial-era movement which was of limited scope and influence, effectively

christening the post-liberation Han’gŭl Movement as the rightful successor in a “campaign for the

autonomy and freedom of the Korean nation” while in the process imbuing the movement with

renewed ideological vigor and a sense of patriotic duty. The campaign took many forms. U.S. army

trucks were even converted to KLS propaganda vehicles and plastered with placards urging “With a

united mind and a united will, let us use only han’gŭl!” drawing attention to the patriotic nature of

han’gŭl in a now liberated Korea.36 Proponents also emphasized the importance of han’gŭl in fostering

democratic education and literacy, an argument that resonated in a country accustomed to high rates of

illiteracy and severely restricted access to education. The KLS cited a study which found that, although

comparable intelligence was demonstrated in Japanese and British students, during the six years of

elementary school, while British students learned 39,000 words, their Japanese counterparts learned a

mere 8,900, and the learning of 100 vocabulary items took an average of 36 minutes for the former and

268 minutes for the latter.37 In its Rationale for Hanja Elimination in 1948, the Ministry of Education

echoed a common sentiment of the time, stating that “Dextro-horizontal writing and the exclusive use

of han’gŭl have proved to be the more effective medium for democratic education.”38 Regardless of the

scientific credibility of these claims, they were widely held and ideologically influential, shaping the

36
Han’gŭl Hakhoe, Han’gŭl Hakhoe osip nyŏnsa, photograph appendix, xi.
37
Han’gŭl Hakhoe, Han’gŭl Hakhoe osip nyŏnsa, 442-443.
38
Quoted in Blank, “Language Policies in South Korea Since 1945,” 145. Many researchers as well
have emphasized the democratic nature of post-1945 language and education policies. See for example
Sin, Soryŏn kunjŏnggi Pukhanŭi kyoyuk; Seth, Education Fever; Son In-su, “Han’guk kyoyuk osip
nyŏn sosa,” [A Brief 50-year History of Korean Education] in Han’guk sasangkwa munhwa 2 (1998),
319-341.
19
way in which vernacular language education came to be understood and implemented in post-1945

South Korea.

Mimicry Despite Revulsion: The Japanese Legacy in Post-Liberation Language Education

As I have demonstrated above, Korean popular memory of the colonial period affected the production

of language ideologies in post-1945 Korea, as evidenced in the discourses on language, education and

pedagogy. A direct reaction against ŭmjŏl-sik han’gŭl pedagogy was evident in the earliest Korean

language textbook by a reversion to chamo-sik pedagogy throughout this textbook, and this ‘Japanese’

legacy was even explicitly confronted in the preface. Purification of elements in the Korean language

perceived to be foreign proceeded apace after 1945, and the primary target for such purification was

predictably Japanese terms.39 In the case of inscriptional practices, the Han’gŭl Movement was infused

with renewed ideological vigor, buttressed by enhanced nationalistic credentials due to its antagonistic

relationship with GGK authority and its promotion of a perceived symbol of national autonomy and

independence. The promotion of exclusive han’gŭl orthography and sinograph abolition was often

based on ideologically neutral notions of democratic education and mass literacy, but these

justifications as well were inspired by ideological reactions against restricted colonial education and

literacy, or ‘bourgeois, feudalistic and toadyistic’ education in North Korean terms. While the 1948

Han’gŭl Legislation which grew out of this discursive space resembled in many ways the 1894 Edict

on Public Writing, the laws differed in terms of the specific socio-linguistic conditions within which

they emerged, and the languages and inscriptional practices which they mediated. While both laws

represented progressive reactions against contemporary socio-linguistic conditions, the 1948

39
However, the Japanese linguistic legacy in Korea runs much deeper than the lexographic level,
which has been the most frequent and obvious target of purification campaigns. See Kim Kwang hae,
“Chomang—kugŏ e taehan ilbonŏ ŭi kansŏp” [Japanese Interference in the National Language: An
Overview] in Haebang yuksip nyŏn, Han’gugŏmun kwa Ilbon [Sixty Years After Liberation, Korean
Language and Japan] (Seoul: Pogosa, 2006).
20
legislation was ideologically galvanized with a mandate for action forged in a furnace of nationalism

and independence. Post-1945 language ideology was not merely the vague reaction against centuries of

diffuse cultural and linguistic Sinification as in 1894, but now a more concentrated discourse directed

against a concretized adversary—imperial Japan—and its post-liberation cultural manifestations.

This concentration of anti-imperial, post-colonial discourses concerning language and

education suggests that this period witnessed a clean break with colonial education practices, or at least

the impetus for future decolonization. However, as Gilbert and Tompkins make clear in Post-Colonial

Drama, a temporal understanding of the post-colonial condition can be problematic:

The term post-colonialism—according to a too-rigid etymology—is frequently

misunderstood as a temporal concept, meaning the time after colonialism has ceased, or the
time following the politically determined Independence Day on which a country breaks away
from its governance by another state. Not a naïve teleological sequence, which supersedes
colonialism, post-colonialism is, rather, an engagement with, and contestation of, colonialism’s
discourses, power structures, and social hierarchies….A theory of post-colonialism must, then,
respond to more than the merely chronological construction of post-independence, and to more
than just the discursive experience of imperialism.40

Based on this theorization of the post-colonial condition, formal independence in 1945 represented not

the end of colonization, but the beginning of a new phase of engagement with and contestation of it.

Once the territorialized conception of independence is problematized, the continuities and hybridities

in the post-colonial condition are brought into relief. In the realm of education, cultural critics have

noted myriad similarities between current Korean and Japanese systems, similarities that did not exist

or were minimal prior to the colonial period. A cursory comparison between the two systems reveals

the following commonalities: pronounced centralization and regimentation, extensive dependence on

entrance examinations for post-secondary education, a private school sector (excluding hagwŏns) of

negligible significance, and the widespread use of uniforms and segregation based on sex. In the post-

40
Helen Gilbert and Joanne Tompkins, Post-Colonial Drama: Theory, Practice, Politics (London:
Routledge, 1996).
21
liberation era, despite the anti-Japanese popular sentiment described above, Michael Seth points out

that, in 1947, the South Korean National Assembly adopted a draft proposal on the education system

virtually identical to the Japanese system—with its early sorting of students into specialized tracks—in

contrast to the Ministry of Education version, which retained more American-recommended features

perceived to be more democratic and progressive.41

Another striking colonial continuity in post-1945 South Korean language education can be

found in an examination of the Elementary National Language Textbook (Ch’odŭng kugŏ kyobon,

henceforth ENLT). In his work on national language textbooks and post-colonialism, Kang Chinho has

noted that, not only were there striking similarities between the colonial-era Korean Language Reader

(Chosŏnŏ tokpon, KLR) and the ENLT, but there was actually a marked continuity in content between

the metropole’s Common School Reader (Jinjyō shōgaku tokuhon), the colonial-era textbook, and the

post-1945 textbook.42 According to Son Insu, much of the content of the Korean language textbooks

was nothing more than direct translations of the Japanese-language material.43 Looking specifically at

Volume 6 of the KLR and Volume 3 of the 1945 ENLT, as well as Volume 8 of the Japanese-language

National Language Reader (Kokugo tokuhon, henceforth NLR), close to 60 units share nearly identical

titles. 44 Furthermore, of 97 units in all versions of the ENLT, over 60% of them were reprinted

verbatim from the colonial-era KLR textbook.45

These textbooks, nonetheless, exhibit many divergences and discrepancies that reveal a

conscious effort to extirpate colonial vestiges, a certain textual post-colonial cathartic performativity.

41
Seth, Education Fever, 61. The MOE version which removed early tracking of students was not
introduced until 1951, in the midst of the Korean War.
42
Kang Chin-ho, “Haebang-gi ‘kugŏ kyogwasŏ’ wa t’alsingminchuŭi.
43
Quoted in Kang, “Haebang-gi ‘kugŏ kyogwasŏ wa t’alsingminjuŭi,” 100.
44
Kang, “Haebang-gi ‘kugŏ kyogwasŏ wa t’alsingminjuŭi,” 104.
45
Ibid.
22
The most intriguing divergences relate to nationalism and the contested historical narrative. For

example, The Tale of Sŏk Tal-hae (Sŏk Talhae sinhwa, 昔脫解神話), an origin myth that tells the

story of a child born from an egg in Japan who is abandoned in the sea only to drift to the Korean

peninsula and become a Silla King, is conspicuously absent from the ENLT, having appeared in the

colonial-era NLR.46 Origin myths such as these supported the historical narrative that Japan and Korea

were of the same race and origin (tongjo tonggŭn) while simultaneously emphasizing the inferiority of

Koreanness in this relationship, a discourse which justified and subsequently reinforced colonial

domination.47 Predictably, in place of this tale we find the resurrected Tan’gun origin myth, which

alternately traces the roots of the Korean minjok to the ancient origins of Kochosŏn. Other material on

historical figures underwent reinterpretation rather than outright removal and substitution, such as the

unit entitled Solgŏ, a story about a renowned Korean painter of the same name during the Silla

period.48 Although Solgŏ appears in the 1923 edition of the KLR, it is absent from the 1931 revised

46
The version of this tale appearing in the NLR is as follows: “One day long ago in ancient Japan, the
wife of the leader of a certain place gave birth to a child. But, what she gave birth to was a gigantic egg.
Believing this to be a bad omen, she put the egg in a pretty box and abandoned it to the sea. The box
eventually washed up on the coast of Chosŏn, where no one would pick it up. Finally, an elderly
woman found the box and, opening the lid, found a beautiful child inside. The old woman was very
glad and raised the child as her own. The child grew to be much larger than all others. His countenance
was dignified and his intelligence was far superior to everyone else. He eventually became King of all
Silla.” Chosŏn Ch’ongdokpu, Pot’ong hakkyo kugŏ tokpon (Chosŏn Ch’ongdokpu, 1914) quoted in
Kang, “Haebang-gi ‘kugŏ kyogwasŏ wa t’alsingminjuŭi, 113 – 114. The racial and historiographical
implications of this myth are quite clear, and damaging: The Japanese and Korean races share the same
origin, but early on the Korean race diverged into an inferior tangent, signified by the sub-human
symbol of the egg. Even the sub-human creature born from an egg, however, was far superior in
appearance and intelligence than any Korean, owing to its Japanese provenance, and therefore
rightfully came to be King of Silla. Thus, racial and political justification for colonial rule could have
been found in the same origin myth, and the fact that such a tale was included in school textbooks
would have made its content all the more compelling.
47
Stefan Tanaka, Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts into History (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1993).
48
The story of Solgŏ as it appeared in the KLR was as follows: Solgŏ was a renowned painter during
the Silla period. One day he painted a picture of an old pine tree on the side of Yellow Dragon Temple
(Hwangyongsa). The picture looked so realistic that crows would try to light on the tree, only to collide
23
addition, only to reappear in the post-1945 ENLT, this time infused with an air of nationalism.49 While

the colonial-era versions of Solgŏ tell us nothing of the origins of the title character’s artistic talents,

the ENLT version describes Tan’gun visiting in a dream and bestowing supernatural powers upon

Solgŏ, allowing him to draw thousands of scrolls.50 The revisions and reinterpretations evident in post-

1945 Korean language textbooks seem to represent a post-colonial negotiation with knowledge

formation and dissemination, an example of what John and Jean Comaroff term a ‘consciousness of

colonization’ within a colonized consciousness.51

Comaroff and Comaroff describe colonization of consciousness as “the effort of others to

impose…a particular way of seeing and being, to colonize…consciousness with the signs and practices,

the axioms and aesthetics, of an alien culture.” 52 The crucial point to consider here is that this

colonization occurs on two planes, one of them ideological and overt, one of them more hegemonic

and covert. The initial thrust is the conversion of the colonized through direct ideological

transformation: in the case of Korea, discourses on the common origins of Japan and Korea, the

superior position of the Yamato race and its language and culture in that relationship, etc. While this

kind of frontal assault was easily recognized and most often repelled by counter-discourses in South

Korea after 1945, the second plane of colonization of consciousness entailed a reformation of Korean

society, an “inculcation of the hegemonic forms, the taken for granted signs and practices, of the

with the wall of the temple and fall to the ground. As the picture aged restoration became necessary,
but following this restoration birds no longer came to the tree, and so Solgŏ’s fame and the story of his
‘Old Tree Painting’ (Nosongdo) spread far and wide. Kang, “Haebang-gi ‘kugŏ kyogwasŏ wa
t’alsingminjuŭi,” 112.
49
Kang, “Haebang-gi ‘kugŏ kyogwasŏ wa t’alsingminjuŭi,” 112 – 113.
50
Ibid.
51
Comaroff, Ethnography and the Historical Imagination.
52
Ibid, 235. Based on this definition, colonization of consciousness is similar to Bourdieu’s notion of
habitus, although the latter has much more far-reaching implications, being applicable to every human
interaction and not merely the colonial encounter.
24
colonizing culture.”53 The results of this second plane are deeper, more subtle, and enduring, and often

more effective than coercive state power. The incorporation of Korea into a colonial and later post-

colonial state, when understood as occurring on two planes of historicity, shows the function of, but

also the limits to, state authority alone. As Comaroff and Comaroff point out, “this is a ‘state’ in both

senses of the term; an institutional order of political regulation and a condition of being, a structure and

a predicament. Consequently, the effort of the colonizer to impose it upon them has been as much a

matter of the politics of experience as a matter of constitutional (and coercive) authority.”54

The relative strength and effectiveness of second-plane colonization in contrast to direct

‘conversion’ through state power holds true for the Korean colonial experience, and may shed some

light on South Korea’s post-colonial hybridity in language and education.55 The Japanese “institutional

order of political regulation” and its attendant ideological onslaught was rejected while counter-

ideologies of nationalistic and democratic education were mobilized. The belief in the Japanese

language as the repository of the superior Japanese spirit (Yamato kotodama) and the embodiment of

moral personhood and ideal citizenry was replaced by the discourse on han’gŭl vernacular education as

the key to democratic education, the foundation of a strong, independent state, and the symbol of

nationalism and legitimacy. While this first plane of colonization became a contested ideological

battleground, the “inculcation of hegemonic forms, the taken for granted signs and practices” persisted

within the second plane, manifested in what is known as colonial legacy or vestiges. Although the

shifting ideological terrain after 1945 helped to define the acceptable parameters of discourse on

53
Comaroff, Ethnography and the Historical Imagination, 258 – 259.
54
Comaroff p. 235 – 236.
55
In fact the more coercive nature of GGK policies during the 1940’s most likely had the opposite
effect to what was intended, contributing to a galvanizing of both Korean solidarity and animosity
toward state authority. Incidentally, the draconian policies of the 1940’s remain the most vivid in the
collective memory and may have caused a more radical pendulum swing away from Japanese
ideologies. Despite this, many practices persist.
25
nationalism and the nation, with an increasingly conditioned avoidance of potentially pro-Japanese or

pro-communist ideas or statements by South Korean leaders, many of the top positions in the Republic

of Korea government were quietly filled by former Japanese collaborators (ch’inilp’a) or at least those

of dubious allegiance, resulting in a certain continuity in Japanese practices in governance.56 In other

words, while the content of education shifted, the form in many ways persisted. Japanese policies and

pedagogies were retained, but based on Korean patriotic and nationalistic justifications.

We have seen several examples of post-1945 language policies and practices which seem to

have emerged in reaction to Japanese colonial policies and ideologies, such as the reversion to chamo-

sik han’gŭl pedagogy, the Korean purification campaign, and the Han’gŭl Movement. Despite this

reaction against the superficial ideological trappings of empire, a colonized consciousness with a

certain way of seeing and being persisted. While education was made accessible to a much larger

swath of the Korean population, the fundamental structure of the education system saw few significant

changes. Education remained highly centralized, and regimented ideological indoctrination was not so

much dismantled as reconfigured into a rabidly anti-communist perversion of nationalism.

Conservative elements in government—those inculcated in the Japanese education system—pushed for

the retention of sinographs in the face of pronounced script-nationalism, and the deep-seated linguistic

practices bestowed by Japan lived within a kukhanmunch’e inscriptional framework. Textbooks bore

the marks of this ideological shift as overtly pro-Japanese material was replaced with nationalistic

narratives, but the majority of textbook content along with the pedagogy and practices contained in

them remained intact. The fact that textbook units could be translated and used so interchangeably was

testament to the level of influence that Japanese had come to exert on Korean, to the extent that, by the

end of the colonial period, government documents were routinely prepared simultaneously in Korean

56
One reason for this retaining of pro-Japanese or those who had benefited to some degree under the
colonial system was due to a lack of competent personnel. See Bruce Cumings, The Origins of the
Korean War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981); Sin, Soryŏn kunchŏng-gi Pukhan ŭi kyoyuk.
26
(kukhanmunch’e) and Japanese, and one had only to replace han’gŭl particles and conjunctions with

kana equivalents for adequate comprehension.57 The Han’gŭl Legislation of 1948 reflected both this

linguistic convergence and the overall inculcation of Japanese educational practices and habitus.

Finally, the constitution of the independent Republic of Korea itself symbolized the contradictory

nature of Korean post-colonial identity, the effect of dual-plane colonization of consciousness: the

constitution was prepared in both pure han’gŭl and kukhanmunch’e. As for which version is the

original, the answer may depend on one’s own language ideology.

From Colonial Coercion to Post-Colonial Hegemony: The American Influence

So far I have discussed the state of language in education during the post-liberation era mainly from an

indigenous perspective. Largely absent from this discussion has been a consideration of the American

impact on language and education. While a detailed analysis of the American influence is beyond the

scope of this current work, warranting a separate study altogether, I shall consider here briefly the role

of the United States Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK) in language and education ideology

formation. Although I have so far characterized post-1945 language ideologies as products of repulsion

to colonial-era ideologies, forces of attraction were also at work; attraction to the perceived ideological

positioning of the Unites States in the world order. The United States presence in South Korea

represented a model for reform and strength in the minds of many Korean progressive leaders. In

contrast to the ambiguous nature of Japanese colonialism—repulsion to the ideological conversion on

plane one coupled with inculcation of practices, norms, and ways of seeing the world on plane two—

perceived American ideologies of democracy, liberty, and pragmatism in education (plane 1) were

more readily accepted due to their perception as offered, not imposed, with even more far-reaching

implications for long-term acceptance of norms and practices (plane 2). In terms of language,

57
Ross King personal communication, based on a presentation by Yano Ken’ichi, 2012.
27
unfavorable comparisons between the unwieldy writing systems of East Asian countries and Western

nations and their detriment to democratic education and knowledge dissemination had been a common

trope employed since the earliest days of the Korean language reform movement, and such discourse

revived after 1945.58 The shift toward an analytical vowel-consonant theorization of han’gŭl pedagogy

may also have been influenced at least indirectly by increased direct exposure to English, as well.59

The direct relationship between the United States and the post-1945 generation of education

reformers is even more apparent: many of these reformers were educated in the United States and

maintained allegiance to American pedagogy and educational philosophies.60 Interestingly, language

ability played a crucial role in distributing power among the would-be leaders of the Republic of Korea

by establishing a connection between USAMGIK and Korean leadership. William R. Langdon, an

advisor to the USAMGIK occupation commander Lieutenant General John R. Hodge, put the issue in

frank terms when he claimed, “As for favoring plutocracy in, and excluding popular left-wingers from

Military Government, it is quite probable that at the beginning we may have picked out a

disproportionate number of rich and conservative persons….For practical purposes we had to hire

persons who spoke English, and it so happened that these persons and their friends came largely from

moneyed classes because English had been a luxury among Koreans.” 61 English was suddenly

accorded so much currency that the USAMGIK was actually referred to as ‘government by

58
Interestingly, however, these same comparisons were employed as evidence against language
purification. Those critical of reckless purification claimed that Japanese or any foreign language was
analogous to Greek and Latin in Indo-European languages, and could have a comparable enriching
effect on the Korean language. See Blank, “Language Policies in South Korea Since 1945,” 143-145.
59
This is an area of research that deserves further attention.
60
Seth, Education Fever.
61
Department of State, United States. Foreign Relations of the United States (IV): Diplomatic Papers.
(The British Commonwealth, The Far East, 1945) 1134-1136, quoted in Kim Eun Gyong, “English
Educational Policies of the U.S. Military Government in Korea from 1945 to 1948 and their Effects on
the Development of English Language Teaching in Korea,” Language Policy 10 (2011) 197.
28
interpreters,’ referring to the practice of heavy reliance on interpreters due to the absence of Korean

expertise among American personnel.62 This period also saw the reinstating of English education in the

school curricula and as a required subject in entrance examinations for secondary and tertiary

education. Therefore, not only was there the expected movement away from Japanese ideologies and

the coercive model of state power in general, but a concomitant shift toward perceived American

ideologies and the foundations of American hegemony in South Korea, embodied initially in the

ascendance of English to the level of legitimate language in government and education. This is not to

suggest, however, that USAMGIK policies were not at times coercive in character. While USAMGIK

enjoyed a degree of soft power in its ability to attract influential Koreans to its education and

governance model without force, coercion also played a role in shaping the ideological direction and

content of the Korean educational system. This balance between coercive state power and soft power,

although tilted toward the latter under American rule, was itself a legacy of Japanese colonialism, a

form of inter-imperial mimicry, if you will. However, the extra-territorial nature of American

hegemony, as opposed to territorial Japanese colonialism, has complicated South Korean negotiation

and confrontation with its post-colonial state in the American order, with ongoing ramifications in

language and education in contemporary South Korean society.

62
Kim Eun Gyong, “English Education Under US Military Government IV,” The Korea Times,
August 12, 2009.
29
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

An, Kwidŏk. Han’guk kŭnhyŏndae kyoyuksa. [A History of Korean Modern Education]. Sŏngnam:

Han’guk ch’ongsin munhwa yŏn’guwŏn, 1995.

Armstrong, Charles K. The North Korean Revolution, 1945-1950. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,

2005.

Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994.

Chin, T’aeha. “Nam-Pukhan ŭi kugŏ chŏngch’aek pigyo wa t’ongil pang’an.” [A Comparison between

North and South Korean Language Policies, and a Plan for Unification]. In Han’guk kugŏ

kyoyuk hakhoe, Sae kugŏ kyoyuk 45 (1989).

Ch’oi, Kyŏngbong. “Ilje kangjŏm-gi Chosŏnŏ Hakhoe hwaldong ŭi yŏksajŏk ŭimi.” [The Historical

Meaning of Korean Language Society Activities Under Japanese Rule]. In Tongbuka munhwa

yŏn’gu 15 (2008).

Chŏng, Wŏnsik and Sech’e Sin et al. Han’guk kyoyuk paengnyŏnsa: 1880-1999. [A 100-Year History

of Korean Education]. Seoul: Kyoyuk sinmunsa, 1999.

Chosŏn Ch’ongdokpu, Pot’ong hakkyo kugŏ tokpon [Elementary School National Language Reader].

(Chosŏn Ch’ongdokpu, 1914).

Chosŏnŏ Hakhoe. Han’gŭl ch’ŏt kŏrŭm. [First Steps in Han’gŭl]. Seoul: Kunjŏngch’ŏng hangmuguk,

1945.

------ Ch’odŭng kugŏ kyobon han’gŭl kyosu chich’im. [Han’gŭl Teacher’s Guide for the Elementary

Textbook]. Seoul: Kunchŏngch’ŏng hangmuguk, 1945.

Comaroff, John and Jean. Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Boulder: Westview Press,1992.

Cumings, Bruce. The Origins of the Korean War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.

30
Department of State, United States. Foreign Relations of the United States (IV): Diplomatic Papers.

The British Commonwealth, The Far East, 1945.

Gilbert, Helen and Joanne Tompkins. Post-Colonial Drama: Theory, Practice, Politics. London:

Routledge, 1996.

Gorter, Durk. Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters, 2006.

Han’gŭl Hakhoe. Han’gŭl Hakhoe osip nyŏnsa. [The Korean Language Society: Fifty Years of

History]. Seoul: Han’gŭl Hakhoe, 1971.

Heath, Shirley Brice. “Social History.” In Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives. Vol. 1: Social

Science. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1977, 53-72.

Irvine, Judith T. “When Talk Isn’t Cheap: Language and Political Economy.” In American Ethnologist

16, 2, 1989.

Hwang, Hodŏk. “Geopolitics of Vernacularity and Sinographs: The Making of Bilingual Dictionaries

in Modern Korea: From Sinographic Cosmopolis to ‘Sinographic Mediopolis.” A paper

presented at the Annual UBC Asian Studies Department Conference “Thinking about

‘Cosmopolitan and Vernacular’ in the Sinographic Cosmopolis: What can We Learn from

Sheldon Pollock?” University of British Columbia, July 2-4, 2012, Translated by Daniel Pieper,

in print.

------ Kŭndae neishŏnkwa kŭ p’yosangtŭl: T’aja, kyot’ong, pŏnyŏk, ek’ŭrit’wirŭ [The Modern Nation

and Its Representations: National Language Discourse in the Formative Period of

Modernization in Korea]. Seoul: Somyŏng Ch’ulp’an, 2008.

Kang, Chinho, “Haebang-gi ‘kugŏ kyogwasŏ wa t’alsingminjuŭi: ‘Ch’odŭng kugŏkyobon ŭl chungsim

ŭro.” [Liberation Period ‘National Language’ Textbooks and Post-Colonialism, with a Focus

on ‘Elementary Korean Textbook’]. In Munhak kyoyukhak 30 (2009), 97-126.

31
Kim Blank, Lenore. “Language Policies in South Korea Since 1945 and their Probable Impact on

Education.” PhD Diss., University of San Francisco, 1981.

Kim, Cheon Gie. “Changes in Korean Elementary and Secondary Education in United States-Occupied

South Korea, 1945-1948: A Revisionist Analysis of the Effects on Policy of Progressive

Education.” PhD diss., Georgia State University, 1991.

Kim, Dong koo. “American Influence on Korean Educational Thought During the Period of U.S.

Military Government, 1945-1948.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut, 1984. ProQuest

(8416098).

Kim, Eun Gyong. “English Educational Policies of the U.S. Military Government in Korea from 1945

to 1948 and their Effects on the Development of English Language Teaching in Korea.”

Language Policy 10 (2011).

------ “English Education under US Military Government IV.” The Korea Times, August 12, 2009.

Kim, Kwanghae. “Chomang—kugŏ e taehan ilbonŏ ŭi kansŏp” [The Japanese Interference on the

National Language: An Overview] In Haebang yuksip nyŏn, Han’gukŏmun kwa Ilbon [Sixty

Years After Liberation, Korean Language and Japan]. Seoul: Pogosa, 2006.

Kim, Minsu. “Nam-Puk ŭi ŏnŏ chŏngch’aek kwa kugŏ kyoyuk.” [North and South Korean Language

Policy and National Language Education]. In Ŏmun yŏn’gu t’ongkwŏn 85 (1995) 140-146.

------ “Nam-Pukhan ŭi hyŏnhaeng match’umpŏb, p’yojunŏ munje.” [Current Issues on Orthography

and Standard Language in North and South Korea]. Paper presented at Han’guk kugŏ kyoyuk

hakhoe, Seoul, South Korea, September 9, 1989.

Kim, Sŭlong. “Han’gŭl ŭmjŏlp’yo ŭmi wa kyoyungyong yuhyŏng sŏljŏng.” [Composition for Han’gŭl

Education and Significance of Hang’ŭl Syllable Table]. Paper presented at the Second IKL

‘Hangeul’ 2008 International Conference on Korean Linguistics, Korea University, August 16-

18, 2008.

32
Kim, Yŏngu. Han’guk ch’odŭng kyoyuksa: Han’guk kŭn/hyŏndae ch’odŭng kyoyuk paengnyŏnsa. [A

History of Korean Primary Education]. Seoul: Han’guk kyoyuksa hakhoe, 1999.

King, Ross. “Nationalism and Language Reform in Korea: The Questione della Lingua in Precolonial

Korea.” In Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity. Edited by Hyung Il Pai and

Timothy R. Tangherlini. Berkeley: Institute of East Asian Studies, 1998.

Ko, Yŏnggŭn. Pukhanŭi malkwa kŭl. [The Language and Writing of North Korea]. Seoul: Ŭlyu

munhwasa, 1989.

Kumatani, Akiyasu. “Language Policies in North Korea,” in Ŏnŏ wa ŏnŏhak 15 (1989) 81-105.

Mitsui, Takashi. “Singminji Chosŏnesŏ ŭi Han’gŭl Undong e kwanhan yŏn’gu tonghyang kwa kŭ

pip’anjŏk kŏmt’o.” [A Survey of Studies on the Han’gŭl Movement during Colonial Korea].

Paper presented at the Third Annual Yonsei University Center for Modern Korean Studies,

“Issues in Modern Korean and Japanese Literary Studies,” Seoul, South Korea, February 28,

2008.

Park, Youngsoon. “Language Policy and Language Education in North Korea.” In Korea Journal

(Spring 1991) 28 – 40.

Robinson, Michael E. Cultural Nationalism in Colonial Korea, 1920-1925. Seattle: University of

Washington Press, 1988.

Seth, Michael J. Education Fever: Society, Politics and the Pursuit of Schooling in South Korea.

Honolulu: University of Hawaii Center for Korean Studies, 2002.

Silverstein, Michael.“Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology,” In The Elements: A Parasession

on Linguistic Units and Levels, edited by Paul Clyne et al., 193-247. Chicago: Chicago Linguist

Society, 1979.

Sin, Hyosuk. Soryŏn kunjŏnggi Pukhanŭi kyoyuk. [North Korean Education during the Soviet

Occupation]. Seoul: Kyoyuk kwahaksa, 2003.

33
Song, Jae jung. “South Korea: Language Policy and Planning in the Making.” In Current Issues in

Language Planning 13 (February 2012) 1-68.

Son, Insu. Han’guk kyoyuksa yŏn’gu 2. [Research on the History of Korean Education]. Seoul:

Munŭmsa, 1998.

------ “Han’guk kyoyuk osip nyŏn sosa.” [A Brief 50-year History of Korean Education]. In Han’guk

sasang kwa munhwa 2 (1998), 319-341.

Tanaka, Stefan. Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts into History (Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1993).

Taylor, Insup and M. Martin Taylor. Writing and Literacy in Chinese, Korean and Japanese. Studies

in Written Language and Literacy, Volume 3, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing

Company, 1995.

Yasuda, Toshiaki. Teikoku Nihon no gengo hensei [The Language Configuration of Imperial Japan].

Tōkyō: Seori Shōbō, 1997.

Yi, Hosŏng. “Yŏrŏ munje wa kyoyukcha ŭi kajil t’aedo.” [Several Issues, and the Attitude of an

Educator]. In Han’gŭl 94, Chosŏnŏ hakhoe, 1945.

Yi, Hŭiho.“Migunjŏng-gi Han’gŭl Ch’ŏtkŏrŭm kyojae e taehan maengnak yŏn’gu” [Contextual

Research on the USAMGIK-era First Steps in Han’gŭl Textbook]. K’yŏreŏ Munhak 48, 2012.

Yi, Hyeryŏng. “Han’gŭl Undong kwa kŭndae midiŏ.” In Han’guk kŭndae munhak ŭi hyŏngsŏng kwa

munhakchang ŭi chaebalgyŏn: chedo rosŏ ŭi Han’guk kŭndaemunhak kwa t’al singminsŏng [A

Reconsideration of the Modern Literary Field: Modern Korean Literature as a System and the

Post-Colonial Condition]. Seoul: Minjok munhaksa yŏn’guso, 2004.

Yi, Ŭngbaek. “Nam-Pukhan ŭi kugŏ tongjilsŏng hoebok ŭl wihan taean.” [A Plan for Recovering

Homogeneity between the National Languages of North and South Korea]. In Han’guk kugŏ

kyoyuk hakhoe, Sae kugŏ kyoyuk 45 (1989).

34
Yi, Ŭngho. “Kwangbok ihu ŭi Han’gŭl Undong.” [The Han’gŭl Movement since Liberation]. In Nara

sarang 26 (1977) 47.

35