PERCEPTIONS OF KOREAN DIALECTS BY GYEONGSANG

RESIDENTS

_______________

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

San Diego State University

_______________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Linguistics

_______________

by

Yoo Jin Kang

Summer 2015
 ProQuest Number: 1603608

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 1603608

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 iii

Copyright © 2015
by
Yoo Jin Kang
All Rights Reserved
 iv

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my outrageously loving and supportive parents Kang Suk
Hun and Kim Eun Hee. For their endless love, support and encouragement.
 v

ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Perceptions of Korean Dialects by Gyeongsang Residents

by
Yoo Jin Kang
Master of Arts in Linguistics
San Diego State University, 2015

This research project examines perceptions that Gyeongsang dialect speakers have
about the Korean spoken in Korea and their language attitudes toward Gyeongsang dialect
and Seoul dialect. Informants were asked to draw a boundary around each part of Korea
where they believe people speak differently and label those areas for that way of speaking on
a blank map of Korea. After completing the map-labeling task, each of the informants
responded to a questionnaire concerning language attitudes specifically toward Gyeongsang
dialect and Seoul dialect. A total of 488 informants participated in this study. The age range
was from 20 to 58 years and the number of informants in each age group was quite even. All
of the informants were considered as authentic speakers of Gyeongsang dialect who lived in
Gyeongsang province at least 20 years.
The combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis reveals that in comparison to
Seoul dialect, there is an interplay of dialect inferiority complex and regional pride assigned
to Gyeongsang dialect. Findings from this study provide insight on language attitudes and
perceptions of language variation in Korea.
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................x
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
Statement of Problem ...............................................................................................1
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................2
Background ..............................................................................................................3
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...............................................................................7
Perceptual Dialectology ...........................................................................................7
Perceptual Dialectology Studies in the U.S. ......................................................9
Perceptual Dialectology Studies in Korea .......................................................13
3 METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION.......................................................17
Overview ................................................................................................................17
Participants .............................................................................................................17
Map-Labeling Task ................................................................................................19
Questionnaire .........................................................................................................19
Analysis of the Data ...............................................................................................22
4 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................24
Map Task ...............................................................................................................24
Labeling Task.........................................................................................................24
Personality Labels ............................................................................................24
Lexical Item Labels..........................................................................................28
Accent Labels...................................................................................................29
 vii

Speed Labels ....................................................................................................29

Intonation .........................................................................................................31
Mutual Intelligibility ........................................................................................32
Emotional Reactions ........................................................................................32
Questionnaire .........................................................................................................33
5 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................43
Overview ................................................................................................................43
Conclusion .............................................................................................................45
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................47
APPENDIX
A QUESTIONNAIRE .....................................................................................................50
 viii

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1. The Ratings and Statistical Analyses of Data From Michigan ..................................11
Table 2. Age of Informants ......................................................................................................17
Table 3. Gender of Informants .................................................................................................18
Table 4. Informants by Level of Educational Attainment .......................................................18
Table 5. Birthplace of Informants ............................................................................................18
Table 6. Length of the Residency in Gyeongsang ...................................................................19
Table 7. The Most Frequently Drawn Speech Regions ...........................................................25
Table 8. Types of Labels ..........................................................................................................26
Table 9. Examples of Keywords for Personality Label ...........................................................27
Table 10. The Ratings and Means for Gyeongsang Dialect ....................................................37
Table 11. The Ratings and Means for Seoul Dialect ...............................................................37
Table 12. The Number of Informants on Question #3. ............................................................38
 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1. Map of Korean dialects. .............................................................................................4

Figure 2. Three approaches to language data.............................................................................7
Figure 3. A hand-drawn map showing where a respondent believe dialect boundaries
to exist. ...........................................................................................................................9
Figure 4. A computer-assisted composite map of the hand-drawn maps of dialect
areas by 147 Michigan respondents. ............................................................................10
Figure 5. A composite map of 178 hand-drawn maps created by ArcGIS 10.0. .....................13
Figure 6. Composite maps for non-standard and standard label..............................................15
Figure 7. The map used as a survey instrument. ......................................................................20
Figure 8. The questionnaire used as a survey. .........................................................................21
Figure 9. Example hand-drawn map from a 22-year-old female informant. ...........................23
Figure 10. The results of personality labels. ............................................................................28
Figure 11. The results of strong accent label. ..........................................................................30
Figure 12. The results of soft accent label. ..............................................................................30
Figure 13. The results of odd accent label. ..............................................................................31
Figure 14. The results of fast speech labels. ............................................................................31
Figure 15. The results of slow speech label. ............................................................................32
Figure 16. Factor pattern for Gyeongsang dialect. ..................................................................34
Figure 17. Factor pattern for Seoul dialect. .............................................................................35
Figure 18. Informants’ feeling toward using Gyeongsang dialect and Seoul dialect on
TV or in public or professional speaking. ....................................................................40
Figure 19. Informants’ opinions about using Gyeongsang dialect on the TV or in
public or professional speaking? ..................................................................................40
Figure 20. Informants’ feeling toward family members or close friends who start
speaking Seoul dialect..................................................................................................41
Figure 21. Informants’ feeling toward people who imitate their Gyeongsang dialect. ...........42
 x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my committee chair, Professor

Douglas Bigham, who has the attitude and the substance of a genius and who made me value
education and learning. This journey would not have been possible without his patient
guidance, scholarly inputs and consistent encouragement. I owe a lot to him for this
achievement. I am truly honored to have the opportunity to do my Master’s programme
under his guidance and to learn from his research expertise.
I would also like to thank to my second committee member, Professor Gregory
Keating, whose knowledge and insights greatly enriched my thesis. He was always willing to
help and give his best suggestions. Thank you for encouraging me to pursue this degree. I
also thank my third committee member, Professor Jong Min Choi, who was willing to help
out and serve as my thesis committee member, despite his busy schedules.
I would like to give special thanks to Professor Duk Ho Kim at Kyungpook National
University, who let me experience the research of Korean dialectology and help me develop
my background in Korean linguistics, perceptual dialectology and sociology. Working in his
research laboratory was a great opportunity to learn many valuable things. Thank you for
your valuable suggestions and concise comments on my thesis.
To my friends and colleagues, thank you for offering me advice, encouraging me and
supporting me through this entire process. Special thanks to Min Hyun Choo, Chul Hee Lee,
Duk Ju Jegal, Ji Su Park, Hae Young Kim, Beverly Patrick, Jarret Kurber, Erika Mukoyama
and Hisaka Kin.
Above all, I am very much indebted to my parents, who inspire and support me at
every stage of my life only because they want to see their daughter being happy.
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Every individual belongs to a speech community and all members in the same speech
community share a linguistic variety and social norms that govern the use of that variety. In
the New York City study, Labov (1966) found that the constricted [r] was used more often by
the higher social classes and by all social classes in their formal speech. The consistent
patterns of style-shifting in Labov’s data suggest that people have common evaluations of
which variants are more proper and more prestigious and have more status in the community.
However, variants do not have any inherent property of prestige in themselves, but rather
they acquire prestige based on the social prestige of the speakers who use those variants
because “prestige is attributed by human beings to particular social groups and to inanimate
or abstract objects, such as language varieties, and it depends on the values attributed to such
objects” (Milroy, 2001, p. 532).
One primary goal in language attitude research is to discover what it is that
determines people’s attitudes towards language. Appel and Muysken (1987) stated that “the
fact that languages are not only objective, socially neutral instruments for conveying
meaning, but are linked up with the identities of social or ethnic groups has consequences for
the social evaluation of, and the attitudes towards languages” (p. 16). Social psychology
research has shown that language variation and attitudes towards those variations are closely
associated with social structures and cultural value systems and thus evaluated accordingly.
A large body of research on the relationship between language ideologies and language
attitudes has emphasized the strong connection between language production and speakers’
perceptions. Traditional dialectological and sociolinguistic studies have been focused mainly
on production data, i.e., what people actually produce and how people actually comprehend
language. In this traditional approach, perceptions of language varieties have been neglected.
 2

Folk linguistics is the study of nonlinguists’ perceptions about language varieties. According
to Niedzielski and Preston (2003), folk linguistics has the capacity to discover and analyze
people’s beliefs, attitudes and feelings about language. Preston (1997) claims that “what
linguists believe about standards matters very little; what nonlinguist believes constitutes
precisely that cognitive reality which needs to be described — one which takes speech
community attitudes and perceptions (as well as performance) into account” (p. 312).
In order to better understand people’s views of language, Preston pioneered
perceptual dialectology as a sub-branch of folk linguistics in the early 1980s. Perceptual
dialectology focuses on non-linguists’ commonsense beliefs and subjective mental images
about regional and social variation in language such as where non-linguists think variation in
language exists, where they think it comes from, and how they think it socially functions.
Since Preston’s (1989, 1999a) pioneering research on perceptual dialectology in American
English variation many researchers have contributed to the understanding of perceptions of
language variation in the U.S. (e.g. Bucholtz, Bermudez, Fung, Edwards, & Vargas, 2007;
Cukor-Avila, Jeon, Rector, Tiwari, & Shelton, 2012; Evans, 2011, 2013) and outside of the
U.S., such as France, Japan, the UK and so on (e.g. Kuiper, 1999; Long, 1999b;
Montgomery, 2007).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

There has been little perceptual dialectology research and language attitude research
conducted in Korea. Previous studies in Korea employed only short language attitude surveys
with a small number of participants. Previous studies conducted in Korea have shown that
most participants’ home dialect speech was overwhelmingly rated as “most pleasant” (Jeon,
2013; Kang, 2010; Long & Yim, 2002). This ‘linguistic pride’ in the participants’ home
dialects has also been reported in similar studies conducted in western countries (Kuiper,
1999; Montgomery, 2007; Preston, 1989). However, there has been one exception;
Gyeongsang dialect speakers showed different pattern to this. The majority of the
Gyeongsang dialect speakers do not view their home dialect positively but rather they viewed
the speech of Seoul positively (Jeon, 2013; Long & Yim, 2002). This result suggests that
Gyeongsang dialect speakers have what Japanese sociolinguist Takesi Sibata has termed a
‘dialect inferiority complex’, a feeling that their language is inferior.
 3

The purpose of this present study is to examine Gyeongsang dialect speakers’

perceptions of language variation in Korea and their attitudes towards Gyeongsang dialect
and Seoul dialect. In most of the perceptual dialectology and language attitude research
conducted in Korea, Gyeongsang dialect has been viewed negatively by both Gyeongsang
dialect speakers and other dialect speakers in Korea and Gyeongsang dialect has been
perceived as the most distinctive dialect in Korea (Jeon, 2013; Long & Yim, 2002). Because
of the salience of Gyeongsang dialect and Gyeongsang dialect speakers’ positive attitudes
toward Seoul dialect that have been reported in the previous research, a study of Gyeongsang
dialect speakers’ attitudes toward their own dialect in relation to Seoul dialect is certainly
warranted. Furthermore, to date, there has been no research that only focuses on Gyeongsang
dialect speakers.
A body of research on non-standard dialects has documented the existence of the
dialect inferiority complex. Also, according to Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (1998), “the
speech of a socially subordinate group will be interpreted as linguistically inadequate by
comparison with that of the socially dominant group” (p. 7). Preston has shown that dialect
inferiority complex is usually coupled with regional pride, which assigns greater affection to
the non-standard dialect in certain situations. Thus, the aim of this study is to reveal aspects
about the interplay of linguistic insecurity and regional pride among Gyeongsang dialect
speakers.
The specific research questions asked in the present study are the following: (1)
Where do Gyeongsang dialect speakers perceive differences in the Korean spoken in Korea?
(2) What characteristics do they associate with those differences? (3) How do Gyeongsang
dialect speakers feel about their own dialect compared to the standard, Seoul dialect?

BACKGROUND
Before I investigate Gyeongsang dialect speakers’ perceptions of language variety, I
will overview the differences in linguistic features among Korean dialects. There are lots of
variations among dialects of Korean. To date, most scholars think that there are seven major
dialects zones, which roughly corresponds to the current province boundaries as shown in
Figure 1: (1) The central dialect (including Seoul, Gyonggi and Gangwon provinces),
 4

Figure 1. Map of Korean dialects. Source: Shin, J., Kiaer, J., & Cha,
J. (2013). The sounds of Korean. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.

(2) Gyeongsang dialect, (3) Jeolla dialect, (4) Chungcheong dialect, (5) Jeju dialect, (6)
Pyeongan dialect (7) Hamgyeong dialect.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to review a full discussion of the linguistic
differences among Korean dialects, but there are some noticeable characteristics. Korean
dialects are classified on the basis of certain general characterizations, which can be broadly
 5

divided into three categories: phonological and phonetic features, lexical features, and
grammatical features. Almost every dialect of Korean exhibits considerable variation in
vowel system, but there is limited difference in consonants such as Seoul dialect has a 10-
vowel system, whereas Gyeongsang dialect has just six vowel (King, 2006). Also, two
suprasegmental features, which are vowel length and pitch accent, functioned as a distinctive
feature (Yeon, 2006). There is lexical and grammatical variation, particularly in Gyeongsang
dialect and Jeju dialect (King, 2006). In addition to the regional dialects, there has been a
considerable linguistic divergence between North Korean and South Korean since the Korean
Peninsula was divided into North and South in 1950.
Since Gyeongsang dialect and Seoul dialect are the main focus in this study, I will
briefly review the linguistic differences between Seoul dialect and Gyeongsang dialect.
According to the National Institute of the Korean Language, standard Korean is defined as
“the modern speech of Seoul widely used by the well-cultivated” (“교양있는사람들이두루쓰는
현대서울말”). Thus, in South Korea Seoul dialect is considered standard Korean. In terms of
phonological and phonetic features, Seoul dialect has ten vowels (i, e, ae, y, ø, ɯ, ʌ, ɑ, u, o).
Among these ten vowels, five are front vowels and five are back vowels. For example, /i/

(ㅣ), /e/ (ㅔ), /ae/ (ㅐ), /y/ (ㅟ) and /ø/ (ㅚ) are front vowels and /ɯ/ (ㅡ), /ʌ/ (ㅓ), /ɑ/ (ㅏ),

/u/ (ㅜ) and /o/ (ㅗ) are back vowels. Also, Seoul dialect exhibit distinctive vowel length and

the vowel length can change the meaning of words as shown in (1) (Shin et al., 2013).
(1) a. 밤 /bam/ ‘night’ 밤 /ba:m/ ‘chestnut’
b. 눈 /nun/ ‘eye’ 눈 /nu:n/ ‘snow’
c. 말 /mal/ ‘horse’ 말 /ma:l/ ‘language’
Unlike Seoul dialect, Gyeongsang dialect have just six vowel: /i/, /e/, /ɑ/, /u/, /o/, /ɯ/.
Among five dialects in South Korea, Gyeongsang dialects are the only speech where pitch-
accent display distinctive lexical property. Both North and South Gyeongsang dialects
display distinctive pitch-accent system. South Gyeongsang dialect has High (H), Low (L),
and Mid whereas North Gyeongsang dialect has H, L, and Long low. Some representative
examples of are as follows: [ku.rim] HH ‘cloud’, [ki.rim] HL ‘oil’, [kə.rim] LH ‘fertilizer’,
[mu.ji.ke] HHL ‘rainbow’, [a.ji.me] HLL ‘aunt’, [sa.ta.ri] LHH ‘radder’, [hal.a.pə.ji] HHLL
‘grandfather’, and [a.ju.mə.ni] LHHL ‘aunt’.
 6

The most noticeable features are that Gyeongsang dialects tend not to distinguish

between lax s (ㅅ) and tense ss (ㅆ) and semivowels often disappear after a consonant as

shown in (2) and these features are often ridiculed by Seoul dialect speakers.

(2) a. 사가 /saga/ (instead of 사과 /sagwa/) ‘apple’

b. 문하 /munha/ (instead of 문화 /munhwa/) ‘culture’
c. 간강 /gangang/ (instead of 관광 /gwangwang/) ‘sightseeing’
 7

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

PERCEPTUAL DIALECTOLOGY
Perceptual dialectology has been pioneered and developed by Dennis Preston in the
early 1980s. Preston illustrates how perceptual dialectology fits with other research on
language as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Three approaches to language data. Source: Preston, D. R.

(1999b). Introduction. In D. R. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of perceptual
dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. xxiii-xxxix). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.

According to Preston (1999b), the majority of studies on language sits at the top of
this triangle a, which involves what people actually produce and how people actually
comprehend language. In order to account for the pattern of a, linguists have become
interested in cognitive forces and conditions, which is situated in the triangle at a′. The
 8

rightmost side b represents unconscious reactions to language, which is usually called by

social psychologists social psychology of language or language attitude study, and b′
involves ‘historical relations among groups, psychological associations and a host of other
values, beliefs, and cultural stereotypes’ (Preston, 1999b, p. xxiv). Finally, the left corner of
the triangle c and c′ include what people say about what is said and what lies behind their
reactions and comments on languages, which is the area of folk linguistics.
Before Preston has theorized contemporary perceptual dialectology, similar studies
have been conducted in the Netherlands by Weijnen (1999) and Rensink (1999) and in Japan
by Grootaers (1999), Sibata (1999) and Mase (1999). These studies focused on non-linguists’
views on the similarities of their own speech to and differences from, the speech of other
areas.
According to Preston (1988), perceptual dialectology focuses on (1) the similarities to
their own speech, (2) the differences from the speech of other areas, (3) where they believe
language differences exist geographically, (4) the social characteristics of regional speech. In
order to examine non-linguists’ subjective mental maps of dialect boundaries and their
commonsense beliefs about regional variation in language, Preston (1999b) has developed a
set of five-point methodological technique:
1. Draw-a-map. Respondents draw dialect boundaries on a blank (or minimally
detailed) map around areas where they believe regional speech zones exist.
2. Degree of difference. Respondents rank regions on a scale of one to four (1 =
same, 2= a little different, 3 = different, 4 = unintelligibility different) for the
perceived degree of dialect difference from the home area.
3. ‘Correct’ and ‘pleasant’. Respondents rank regions for ‘correct’ and ‘pleasant’
speech
4. Dialect Identification. Respondents listen to voices on a ‘dialect continuum,’
voices are presented in a scrambled order, and respondents are asked to assign
each voice to an area.
5. Qualitative data. Respondents are asked about the research tasks they have
completed and involved in open-ended conversations about language.
(Preston, 1999b, p. xxxiv)
To come up with these five methodological components, Preston utilized and
translated many of the techniques used in perceptual and cultural geography and language
attitude studies. In his first perceptual dialectology study (Preston, 1981), Preston asked his
respondents to draw maps where they believe people speak differently in Figure 3. Preston
 9

argued that the usefulness of these hand-drawn maps is their ability to generalize the finding
of these individual maps in a single composite map. With this composite map, Preston asked
respondents to rank particular perceptual areas’ dialects for ‘correct’ and ‘pleasant’ speech.
Preston claimed that this approach can contribute to examining language attitudes because
the rated areas are ‘cognitively real’ for respondents; “that is, they have rated areas for which
the notion regional speech has been shown to have folk-linguistic status” (Preston, 1999a, p.
368).

Figure 3. A hand-drawn map showing where a respondent believe dialect boundaries

to exist. Source: Preston, D. R. (1999a). A language attitude approach to the
perception of regional variety. In D. R. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of perceptual
dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. 359-375). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Perceptual Dialectology Studies in the U.S.

Preston (1996) used a draw-a-map task and a ranking task to investigate Michigan
residents’ perception of United States dialects. Figure 4 shows a computer-assisted composite
map for the mental map of U.S. dialect areas derived from the Michigan respondents.
85 young European American southern Michiganders from Michigan State University
were asked to complete a 6-point semantic differential task. In this task, respondents were
presented with a simplified version of the composite map and a list of descriptive words
which were arranged into the pairs, such as slow — fast, smart — dumb, nasal — not nasal,
 10

drawl — no drawl, formal — casual, polite —rude, normal — abnormal, twang — no twang,
educated — uneducated, snobbish — down-to-earth, friendly — unfriendly and bad English
— good English. Respondents were asked to check off how each pair of words describes the
speech of the regions in the map.

Figure 4. A computer-assisted composite map of the hand-drawn maps of dialect areas

by 147 Michigan respondents. Source: Preston, D. R. (1996). Where the worst English is
spoken. In E. W. Schneider (Ed.), Focus on the USA (pp. 297-260). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Bejamins.

The analysis of the data showed that the South and North were the two most salient
regional speech areas in the U.S. and these two areas show a significant difference for the
attribute ratings. Table 1 shows that the mean score of the North was all high ranked for the
“Standard” attributes such as no drawl, no twang, fast, educated, good English, smart and
normal. The mean score of the South, on the other hand, was higher for the “Friendly”
attributes such as casual, friendly, and down-to-earth.
Most perceptual dialectology studies have focused on perceptual variation at a
national level (Hartley, 1999; Inoue, 1999; Montgomery, 2007; Preston, 1996). Preston
argued that perceptual dialectology research of US English needs to be examined with a
nonlocal approach because “US dialects do not (usually) reveal the same finely-tuned
differences one finds in rural Japan and Dutch-speaking areas.” (Preston, 2002, p. 68).
Contrary to Preston’s claim, several studies have examined perceptions of regional language
 11

Table 1. The Ratings and Statistical Analyses of Data From

Michigan

use within a single state in the U.S. (Bucholtz et al., 2007; Cukor-Avila et al., 2012; Evans,
2011; Hartley, 1999).
Bucholtz’s Californian’s perceptual dialectology study is one of the first studies
within a single U.S. state. Bucholtz et al. (2007) explored perceptions of the ethnic, social,
and linguistic diversity within California by analyzing the results of a map-labeling task and
a survey including demographic questions and two open ended questions — “Where in
California do you think people speak best? Why?” and “Where in California do you think
people speak worst? Why?” This study is the first detailed perceptual dialectology study of
California and one of the first studies of perceptual dialectology within a single state. In order
to discover the most salient regions to California residents and how those regions are
 12

categorized, the researchers identified the six regions which would be most salient to the
participants in advance, and then examined which one is the most frequently labeled region
and the most common types of label for each region. Since the researchers were particularly
interested in ethnicity due to the ethnic diversity in California and the negative attitudes
toward the ethnic minority languages, they also examined the correlations between the most
frequent linguistic labels and participant ethnicity.
The quantitative analysis of a map-labeling task showed that the most frequent label
was geographic area and languages and dialects was the second most common type followed
by social groups and slang and lexical items. Regarding geographic labels, Northern
California and Southern California were the two most commonly named geographic labels
(together 56% of the geographic labels) and the most salient region was the Los Angeles area
followed by the Bay Area. With regard to language and dialect labels, English (30.6%) was
the most frequent language label followed by Spanish (30.2%). The label English was
common in Northern California and Spanish in Los Angeles and San Diego. This finding
reflects the strong influence of Spanish in southern regions of California. It is notable that the
dialect label, Ebonics was relatively infrequent (3.2%). Bucholtz et al. (2007) argued that it is
due to the demographic shift from African Americans to Latinos in California. Regarding
slang, hella (47.4%) was used far more than other labels. Participants overwhelmingly
associated hella with a Northern California (78.4%) and hella users received negative
evaluation, especially from Southern Californians. Bucholtz et al. (2007) concluded that the
most salient boundary within California State is between Northern California and Southern
California and this spilt is associated more with languages (English vs Spanish) than
distinctive dialects.
Evans (2011) also drew on Preston’s map-label task to investigate Washingtonian
residents’ language attitudes toward their own state. In order to analyze and compare
respondents’ hand-drawn maps, Evans used Geographical Information System (GIS)
software (ArcGIS10.0), a computational tool for digitizing and aggregating hand-drawn map
data. By using Arc GIS, respondents’ spatial perception of English in Washington State were
identified, aggregated, and mapped as shown in Figure 5. The resulting composited map
suggests that an urban/rural distinction and an east/west distinction were most salient to
Washingtonian respondents.
 13

Figure 5. A composite map of 178 hand-drawn maps created by ArcGIS 10.0. Source:
Evans, B. (2011). “Seattletonian” to “faux hick”: Perceptions of English in
Washington state. American Speech, 86(4), 383-414.

By carrying out a “content analysis” (Garrett, Williams, & Evans, 2005), a total of
336 perceptual labels fit into the twelve categories. The most frequent label was country,
which is associated with notions of rural life. The areas most frequently identified with a
country label were in eastern Washington. Eastern Washington is referenced in every
category, except a canadian label. Evans concludes that the Washington residents clearly
perceive differences in English in eastern Washington.

Perceptual Dialectology Studies in Korea

To date, very few studies have investigated perceptions of language variation in
Korean. The most extensive perceptual dialectology study in Korea was conducted by Long
and Yim (2002). The study focuses on the perceptions of the pleasantness of speech and
compares with the results of similar studies conducted on Japanese and other languages.
Based on the methodology used in previous studies in Japan (Long, 1999a, 1999b),
informants were asked to draw lines on a blank map of Korea around areas where speech
differs, give the names and characteristics of those speech areas, and then rank those areas
 14

according to pleasantness. 471 Korean university students completed a ‘draw-a-map’ task but
only 372 informants completed the pleasantness task. The results show that the
overwhelming majority of the names for perceptual varieties was associated with
administrative provincial boundaries, not cities. However, there was one noteworthy
exception: the speech of Seoul, which is a city, not province, was referenced by 254
informants. This result indicates that Seoul dialect is very salient to Korean speakers. With
471 Korean perceptual dialect map data, the authors found the six main trends: (1) single-
province dialect regions, (2) the strong role of a political border between North and South
Korea (the 38th parallel), (3) the absence of a geographical location for “standard”, (4) Seoul
dialect as “most pleasant”, (5) each home regions’ dialect as “pleasant”, (6) Gyeongsang
informants’ dialect inferiority complex.
Jeon (2013) conducted research largely based on the Long and Yim’s study, but with
some improvements. Jeon’s study differs in the following four ways: (1) including a larger
geographical area and more diverse participant pool, (2) providing a quantitative analysis
using ArcGIS software, (3) providing a qualitative analysis using ‘keyword, (4) exploring
how demographic factors affect participants’ perceptions of language. In total, 436 hand-
drawn maps were collected from the “draw-a-map” task. The majority of participants were
between 18-28 years old (68.1%) and well-educated (78.3%).
The composite maps show that the majority of the names for perceived dialect areas
was associated with either major cities or province names rather than established dialect
region names. The most frequently labeled name was Gyeongsang (18.3% of total) followed
by Jeolla (16.8%), Jeju island (16.6%), Chungchong (14.9%), Seoul or Gyeonggi (14.8%),
Gangwon (13.2%), and North Korea (5.4%). Jeon (2013) suggests that Gyeongsang region is
the most salient to Koreans largely because Gyeongsang dialect shows many distinguishing
linguistic features such as having the smallest number of contrasting vowel phonemes,
existing pitch accent, differing in tense consonants and variation in lexical items and sentence
final endings.
As show in Figure 6, Jeon (2013) also created composite maps for the seven most
salient categories of labels: Standardness (25.2%), Manner/Personality (18 %), Strong
Intonation/Tone (16.3%), Speed (15.7%), Gender Association (8.7%), and Unintelligibility
(5.8%). A Non-standard label corresponded to the Southeast dialect region including
 15

Figure 6. Composite maps for non-standard and standard label. Source: Jeon, L.
(2013). Drawing boundaries and revealing language attitudes: Mapping perceptions of
dialects in Korea (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://digital.library.unt.edu/
ark:/67531/metadc271835/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf

Gyeongsang province and a Standard label was heavily associated with Seoul and Gyeonggi
province. The analysis of the regions labeled as Manner/Personality revealed two important
trends. First, respondents from Seoul are linguistically secure: (1) they view their own dialect
positively, (2) Jeolla and Gyeongsang dialect negatively. Contrary to Seoul respondents,
respondents from Gyeongsang show a high degree of “linguistic insecurity” (Labov, 1972).
They view Seoul and Jeolla dialect positively but their own dialect negatively. Regarding
intonation, Gyeongsang dialect was overwhelmingly associated with strong intonation and
tone, but no respondents viewed Seoul dialect as strong intonation. Respondents also
perceived Gyeongsang dialect as the fastest speech and the central dialect region including
Seoul dialect was viewed as slow speech. With regard to Gender Association label, both
masculine labels and feminine labels were heavily assigned to Gyeongsang dialect but Seoul
dialect was not associated with those two labels at all. Lastly, regarding Unintelligibility
labels, Seoul dialect was the only dialect that is not associated with unintelligibility.
 16

Long and Yim’s study and Jeon’s study are particularly important for the present
study, in that both studies found that Gyeongsang dialect speaker suffer from a dialect
inferiority complex and both studies showed that the speech of Seoul and Gyeongsang are
very salient to Koreans. However, since these studies investigated perceptions of language
variation at a national level and did not only focus on Gyeongsang dialect speakers, it does
not provide a detailed account of perceptions within Gyeongsang province. The present study
focuses on Gyeongsang dialect speakers’ perceptions of language variation in Korea and
language attitudes towards their own dialect in relation to Seoul dialect.
 17

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION

OVERVIEW
In order to examine perceptions of language variation in Korea, the study employed
the ‘draw-a-map’ task from Preston (1989, 1993). After completing the map-labeling task,
each of the informants responded to a questionnaire concerning language attitudes
specifically toward Gyeongsang dialect and Seoul dialect.

PARTICIPANTS
A total of 488 informants participated in the study. The age range was from 20 to 58
years and the number of informants in each age group was quite even as shown in Table 2.
Table 3 shows the number of informants by gender. Female informants are higher than male
informants with composition of 62.7% and 37.3% respectively. The majority of informants
were well educated, with 23.6% attending college and 65.8% holding a degree as shown in
Table 4. Table 5 and Table 6 show informants by birthplace and the length of residency in
Gyeongsang. Since the present study focuses on authentic speakers of Gyeongsang dialect,
birthplace and the length of the residency in Gyeongsang were analyzed in order to exclude
informants who had spent only a brief time in Gyeongsang; thus, out of 521 informants, 33 of
the informants were eliminated from the sample due to a brief residence time (3-16 months)
in Gyeongsang.

Table 2. Age of Informants

Age Number of Informants Percentage of Total
20’s 129 26.5%
30’s 114 23.5%
40’s 121 24.6%
50’s 124 25.4%
Total 488
 18
Table 3. Gender of Informants
Gender Number of Informants Percentage of Total
Female 306 62.7%
Male 182 37.3%

Table 4. Informants by Level of Educational Attainment

Educational level Number of Informants Percentage of Total
Less than high school 9 1.8%
High school graduate 43 8.8%
or equivalent
Some college 115 23.6%
Bachelor’s degree 236 48.4%
Master’s degree 31 6.3%
Doctorate 54 11.1%

Table 5. Birthplace of Informants

Birthplace (City, Province) Number of Informants
Pohang, Gyeongsang 13
Gumi, Gyeongsang 65
Youngju, Gyeongsang 3
GGimcheon, Gyeongsang 10
Gyeongju, Gyeongsang 9
Sangju, Gyeongsang 5
Uiseong, Gyeongsang 1
Yeongdeok, Gyeongsang 7
Bonghwa, Gyeongsang 3
Mungyong, Gyeongsang 4
Chilgok, Gyeongsang 43
Gyeongsan, Gyeongsang 109
Cheongdo, Gyeongsang 4
Jinju, Gyeongsang 13
Changwon, Gyeongsang 19
Milyang, Gyeongsang 1
Masan, Gyeongsang 18
Geochang, Gyeongsang 2
Geoje, Gyeongsang 1
Daegu, Gyeongsang 114
Busan, Gyeongsang 23
Ulsan, Gyeongsang 15
Chuncheon, Gangwon 2
Okcheon, Chungcheong 1
Ansan, Gyonggi 1
Goyang, Gyonggi 1
Seogwipo, Jesu island 1
 19

Table 6. Length of the Residency in Gyeongsang

Length of the Number of Informants Percentage of Total
Residency
20-30 years 137 28.1%
31-40 years 128 26.2%
41-50 years 126 25.8%
51-60 years 97 19.9%

MAP-LABELING TASK
In order to investigate which are the most salient dialect areas to informants and what
types of map labels are assigned, this study used the map-labeling task. Informants were
instructed to draw a boundary around each part of Korea where they think people speak
differently and label those areas on a blank map of Korea. In the study of Jeon (2013), she
used two different types of Korea maps to examine how geospatial reference information
included in the map might affect informants’ answers: a blank (outline) map of the Korean
peninsula and the same map with province boundaries included. In this study, I only used one
type of map that does not show province boundaries as shown in Figure 7.

QUESTIONNAIRE
After completing the map-labeling task, each of the informants responded to a
questionnaire concerning language attitudes specifically toward Gyeongsang dialect and
Seoul dialect as shown in Figure 8. The number of questions in the questionnaire was nine.
Among those nine questions, six of them were closed-ended, and in order to acquire deeper
insights one closed-ended questions (Question #3) was immediately followed by an open-
ended question that asked informants to describe their reason to choose their answer. Two
questions were rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1= Definitely No to 6= Definitely Yes).
On Question #1 and Question #2, informants were asked to evaluate Gyeongsang
dialect and Seoul dialect; 15 adjectives were scored on a 6-point Likert scale, including
affable (상냥한), bad Korean (올바르지못한한국어이다), likable (호감있는), cold (차가운),
educated (지적인), arrogant (거만한), angry (화가난), trustworthy (믿음직스러운), impolite (예의
없는), kind (친절한), taciturn (말수가적은), confident (자신감에찬), energetic (활기찬), classy and
sophisticated (세련된), and not tinny, sonorous and pleasant to hear (귀에거슬리지않고듣기
좋은).
 20

Figure 7. The map used as a survey instrument.

The purpose of Question #3 is to make sure if informants believe that Gyeongsang

dialect has a distinctive accent. Question #5 and Question #7 were to examine informants’
opinions about using Gyeongsang dialect on the TV or in public or professional speaking and
Question #6 was for the case of using Seoul dialect on the TV or in public contexts. Question
#8 was to find out their reactions to the situation that one who used to speak Gyeongsang
dialect switches to speak Seoul dialect when moving to a region where standard Korean is
mainly spoken. Question #9 was about how informants would react to the situation that one
 21

Figure 8. The questionnaire used as a survey.

 22
who speaks Seoul dialect imitates Gyeongsang dialect. Informant 9. s were also asked to fill
out a demographic survey including age, sex, birthplace, the length of the residency in
Gyeongsang province, and education level.

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

In order to qualitatively analyze comments and labels that informants wrote down on
the map, the study performed a content analysis using the keyword technique (Garrett et al.,
2005). Through a process of content analysis, the content of each label from the map task
was grouped in order to put into categories. Keywords reflecting the main theme of each
answer were identified, and words or phrases that are semantically similar are counted as one
answer as shown in Figure 9.
 23

Figure 9. Example hand-drawn map from a 22-year-old female informant.

 24

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

MAP TASK
The vast majority of informants perceived differences in Korean based on provincial
boundaries. In the study by Long and Yim (2002), informants’ perceived speech regions also
followed administrative province boundaries, but the researchers mentioned that it may be
because the map provided to informants included province boundaries. However, in the
present study the map does not show province boundaries; informants were provided with a
blank map, but the data clearly showed that Gyeongsang informants still perceived language
variation according to province boundaries.
As Table 7 indicates, the most salient speech regions was Gyeongsang (91.2%).
Furthermore, a comparatively large number of informants perceived language variation
within Gyeongsang province; seventy-three informants perceived differences in South
Gyeongsang and sixty-eight informants in North Gyeongsang. This result is likely due to the
fact that all of informants were born and raised in Gyeongsang province. The second most
salient region was Seoul (89.6%). This result hints at the possibility that Gyeongsang dialect
speakers may have particular language attitudes towards Seoul dialect.

LABELING TASK
With the results of the content analysis, the study identified the seven most common
types of labels: Personality; Lexical items; Accent; Speed; Tone; Mutual Intelligibility; and
Emotional reactions. Table 8 shows a brief overview of the distribution of these labels.

Personality Labels
The personality label was the most frequent type of label by informants (32%). Table
9 shows examples of keywords for personality label provided by informants according to
 25
Table 7. The Most Frequently Drawn Speech Regions
Speech Region Numbers Percentage
Gyeongsang 445 91.2%
North Gyeongsang 68 14%
South Gyeongsang 73 15%
Busan 62 12.7%
Seoul 438 89.6%
Gyeonggi 21 4.3%
Jeolla 364 74.6%
North Jeolla 1 0.2%
South Jeolla 1 0.2%
Chungchong 351 71.9%
North Chungchong 20 4.1%
South Chungchong 13 2.7%
Gangwon 327 67%
Jeju island 299 61.2%
North Korean 235 48.2%
Hamgyeong 1 0.2%
Total Informants 488

region. A wide variety of comments for the personality labels were sharply divided into two
groups: (1) Positive Personality; (2) Negative Personality. Figure 10 shows the results of the
personality labels provided by Gyeongsang informants. As shown in the chart, the greatest
number of informants (75%) positively commented on Seoul dialect such as affable (상냥한),
soft (부드러운), classy and sophisticated (세련된), smart (똑똑한) and polite (예의바른).
However, the majority of Gyeongsang informants negatively evaluated their own
dialect (66%). The negative personality labels included angry (화가난듯한), aggressive
(공격적인), old-fashioned and boorish (촌스러운), stiff (딱딱한), brisk (무뚝뚝한) and ignorant
(무식한).
In the case of the personality labels for Seoul, a variety of positive and negative
words were provided from the informants and the distribution of those words was even.
However, the vast majority of informants assigned the negative personality keyword boorish
(촌스러운) to Gyeongsang (46 percent of the total negative personality labels for Gyeongsang
dialect). The results of a statistical analysis are consistent with previous research in which
Gyeongsang informants view their own dialect negatively (Jeon, 2013; Long & Yim, 2002),
which indicates that Gyeongsang informants have a dialect inferiority complex. Even though
Gyeongsang informants responded negatively toward their own dialect, there was one
 26
Table 8. Types of Labels
Types of Labels Frequency Examples of Keywords
Personality 781 (32%) “likable” (호감있는)
“trustworthy” (믿음직스러운)
“cocky”(잘난체하는)
“flattering” (아부하는)
“aggressive” (공격적인)
Lexical items 512 (21%) “older brother” (오빠야)
“welcome” (혼저옵서예)
“kimchi”(짠지)
Accent 462 (19%) “speaking in a dispirited monotone”
(의기소침하게들린다)
“high accent” (억양이높다)
“low accent”(억양이낮다)
“severe accent” (억양이거세다)
Speed 317 (13%) “speaking like rapping”
(랩하는것처럼빨리말한다)
“slow” (느린)
Intonation 129 (5.3%) “upward and downward like singing a song”
(타령하듯이올라갔다내려갔다하는)
“flat” (음의높낮이가평평한)
“upward-moving intonation” (끝을올리는)
Mutual 87 (3.5%) “not possible to communicate”
Intelligibility (의사소통이불가능한)
“sounds like a foreign language”
(외국어처럼들린다)
“hard to understand” (이해가잘안되는)
Emotional 83 (3.4%) “I feel vomit.” (토할것같다)
reaction “I am burning with anger.” (화가치밀어오른다)
“I don’t want to even think about their language
because they are just disgusting.” (생각조차 하기
싫다. 그냥역겹다)
Others (Neutral) 68 (2.8%) “indirect” (우회적인)
“heavy” (무거운)
“unique” (독특한)
Total 2,440

exception to this general trend: The speech of Busan Metropolitan City, which is located in
the southeastern of Gyeongsang province and the largest port city in South Korea, received
overwhelmingly positive labels. Strikingly, all of the positive personality labels were
associated with desirable masculinity and that ‘macho’ attributes were viewed positively.
In general, the speech of the central district of Korea, including Chungchong, and
Gangwon was viewed positively by informants. The most frequent positively personality
 27
Table 9. Examples of Keywords for Personality Label
Region Positive Personality Negative Personality
Keywords Keywords
Gyeongsang macho (24%) boorish (46%)
intimate (21%) aggressive (23%)
likable (19%) angry (11%)
others (36%) brisk (8%)
others (12%)
Seoul classy, sophisticated (24%) oily, smarmy (21%)
pleasant (22%) cold (20%)
soft (15%) flattering (16%)
educated (8%) light (6%)
affable (3%) selfish (5%)
others (25%) others (32%)
Jeolla humorous (19%) unpleasant (27%)
cute (10%) rough (16%)
macho (7%) scary (14%)
others (64%) sarcastic (6%)
others (37%)
Gangwon docile (43%) brisk (23%)
naive (32%) blunt (14%)
soft (18%) boorish (7%)
others (12%) others (56%)
Chungchong affable (26%) dull (31%)
pleasant (22%) cheesy (13%)
docile (11%) blunt (4%)
friendly (9%) others (83%)
others (32%)
Jeju island friendly (41%) odd (56%)
humorous (37%) peculiar (32%)
soft (12%) ignorant (10%)
others (19%) others (2%)
North Korea affectionate (82%) aggressive (56%)
others (18%) cold (38%)
others (6%)

labels for the speech of Gangwon were overwhelmingly docile (온순한) and naive (순진한). In
addition, a number of Gyeongsang informants perceived that the speech of Chungchong and
Gangwon were very similar to Seoul dialect, and their positive attitudes toward Seoul dialect
influenced their attitudes toward Chungchong and Gangwon, according to the interviews that
were conducted. Regarding the speech of North Korea, over 90 percent of Gyeongsang
informants assigned the negative personality labels to North Korea dialect, including
 28

Personality Labels
94%

75%
69%
66%
63%
61%

39%
37%
34%
31%
25%

6%

Seoul Gyeongsang Jeolla Chungchong Gangwon North

Korean

Positive Personality Negative Personality

Figure 10. The results of personality labels.

aggressive (공격적인), cold (차가운), stiff (딱딱한), unnatural (부자연스러운) and robotlike
(로봇같은).

Lexical Item Labels

The second most frequent type of label was for lexical items (21%). Labels relating to
lexical items are overwhelmingly attributed to Gyeongsang dialect. This is no doubt because
of the fact that all informants are from Gyeongsang or at least they have lived in Gyeongsang
more than 20 years; thus they are more aware of various lexical items used in Gyeongsang
province than any other provinces. The most frequent lexical item for Gyeongsang dialect
was ‘oppa-ya’ (42% of the lexical labels for Gyeongsang). The word ‘oppa’ literally means
older brother and the suffix ‘ya’ is a vocative case marker. Koreans rarely refer to each other
using the word you like in English, but rather they refer to each other an aunt, uncle, or
brother even though they are actually not. Among these terms, the word ‘oppa-ya’ in a high-
pitched tone has a special positive connotation, especially when the word is used by a young
 29
female who is from Gyeongsang province. The word ‘oppa-ya’ in a high-pitched tone and a
lengthened ending is the typical example of aegyo speech in Korea. Aegyo is a Korean term
that refers to a cute, charming, winsome and innocent behavior, generally in an attempt to
charm men. Aegyo is generally performed by women and consists of a combination of
linguistic and physical behavior. Interestingly, but perhaps predictably, the vast majority of
informants who labeled Gyeongsang dialect as the word ‘oppa ya’ were males who are in
their 20’s and 30’s. Some of the male informants commented that “everytime I hear the word
‘oppa ya’ from my girlfriend, I feel like I want to do everything for her. It is like a magic
word!”

Accent Labels
Accent was the third most frequent type of label (19%). Accent labels were divided
into three groups: (1) Strong accent; (2) Soft accent; (3) Odd accent as shown in Figure 11,
Figure 12 and Figure 13. Strong accent is overwhelmingly associated with the speech of
Gyeongsang (63% of the strong accent labels) followed by Jeolla dialect (21%). Strikingly,
none of informants associated Seoul dialect with strong accent. Instead, almost every
informant indicated that Seoul dialect has a soft accent (94% of the soft accent labels).
Regarding odd accent labels, the vast majority of informants associated North Korean dialect
with odd accent (67% of the odd accent labels) followed by Gangwon dialect (21%).

Speed Labels
The forth most common type of label was for speed (13%) and it is divided into two
groups: (1) Fast speech; (2) Slow speech as shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15. A great
number of fast speed labels were assigned to the speech of Jeolla (73% of the fast speed
labels). Surprisingly, the fast speech labels assigned to Gyeongsang dialect were used by a
much smaller number of informants (19%) and a number of informants commented that they
do not think that Gyeongsang dialect is unusually faster than other dialects in Korea. It is an
unexpected result because Gyeongsang dialect is normally perceived as fast speech in Korea.
With regard to slow speech, the vast majority of informants perceived Seoul dialect as slow
(69% of the slow speed labels) followed by Chungchong (22%).
 30

Strong Accent

63%

21%

10%
5%
1%

Gyeongsang Jeolla North Korean Gangwon Chungchong

Figure 11. The results of strong accent label.

Soft Accent

94%

5%
1%

Seoul Chungchong Gangwon

Figure 12. The results of soft accent label.

 31

Odd Accent

67%

21%
12%

North Korean Gangwon Chungchong

Figure 13. The results of odd accent label.

73%
Fast Speech

19%
6%
2%

Jeolla Gyeongsang North Korean Jeju

Figure 14. The results of fast speech labels.

Intonation
The fifth most common type of label was for intonation (5.3%). The vast majority of
intonation labels were assigned to the speech of Seoul (51% of the tone labels) and the
keywords for Seoul dialect were sharply divided into two groups: (1) a rising tone at the end
of a sentence; (2) flat. It is interesting because these two characteristics are the ones that
Gyeongsang dialect does not have. As discussed above, Gyeongsang dialect is the only
 32
Slow Speech
69%

22%
9%

Seoul Chungchong Gangwon

Figure 15. The results of slow speech label.

region that displays distinctive pitch-accent system and has a low tone at the end of a
sentence, which makes the above two characteristics most salient to the Gyeongsang
informants. The second most frequently labelled speech for tone was Jeolla dialect (24.6%).
A number of informants commented that “Jeolla dialect sounds like singing and it keeps
moving upward and downward.”

Mutual Intelligibility
The fifth most common type of label was for mutual intelligibility (3.5%). Jeju dialect
was most frequently assigned to mutual intelligibility labels (91% of the mutual intelligibility
labels) followed by North Korean dialect (9%). Keywords for Jeju dialect included not
possible to communicate, hard to understand, sounds like a foreign language, and sounds like
an alien language. The result is probably due to the fact that Jeju dialect has numerous unique
vocabulary and idiosyncratic final endings, which are quite different from that of five other
dialects in Korea.

Emotional Reactions
The sixth most common type of label was for emotional reactions (3.4%). Many
informants expressed their personal feelings towards a particular language variety. The
emotional reaction label was largely focused on Jeolla dialect (43% of the emotional
reactions labels) and North Korean dialect (39%). Keywords for the emotional reactions label
included I don’t want to even think about their language because they are disgusting, I feel
vomit, I am burning with anger, and I just don’t like them, no reasons.
 33
Based on the interviews with informants who show hostility and enmity towards
Jeolla dialect, the potential reason for this trend is due to the regional conflict between the
southeastern regions of Korea (Gyeongsang) and the southwestern regions of Korea (Jeolla),
which has emerged since President Park’s economic policies largely benefited his native
region (Gyeongsang) in the 1960’s. This regionalism probably leads to the feeling of hostility
and enmity towards the speech of Jeolla.

QUESTIONNAIRE
After completing the map-labeling task, each of the informants responded to a
questionnaire concerning language attitudes. The questionnaire is different from the map
task, in that the questions are specifically related to Gyeongsang dialect and Seoul dialect.
 Question 1: How do you feel when you hear Gyeongsang dialect?
 Question 2: How do you feel when you hear Seoul dialect?
15 adjectives were scored on a 6-point Likert scale. Since informants were given a
questionnaire written in Korean, there are some terms that have no single equivalent in
English. To solve the limits of translation, a term with no one-word English equivalent is
provided with description of the word. The following 15 variety descriptors were selected for
the Likert scale task: (1) affable (상냥한); (2) arrogant (거만한); (3) kind (친절한); (4) bad
Korean (올바르지못한한국어이다); (5) classy (세련된); (6) taciturn (말수가적은); (7) likable
(호감있게들리는); (8) angry (화가난); (9) confident (자신감에찬); (10) cold (차가운); (11)
trustworthy (믿음직스런); (12) energetic (활기찬); (13) educated (지적인); (14) impolite (예의
없는); (15) not tinny, sonorous, and pleasant to hear (귀에거슬리지않고듣기좋은).
Factor analysis was performed using the statistical software XLSTAT 2008 version
6.03. Factor analysis is a useful tool for describing many variables using a few factors. Factor
analysis is for investigating relationships where variables are maximally correlated with one
another by grouping the variables according to factor loading.
Figure 16 shows that for Gyeongsang dialect, five items loaded onto Factor 1 —
affable (.71), kind (.44), not tinny, sonorous, and pleasant to hear (.43), likable (.26), and
angry (-.51). These five items all relate to how they present themselves, getting along with
others, and agreeableness. This factor was labelled, “Social attractiveness” (Zahn & Hopper,
1985). The three items that load onto Factor 2 were confident (.42), energetic (.56), and
 34

Figure 16. Factor pattern for Gyeongsang dialect.

taciturn (-.74) and were labelled, “Extraversion”. Items for Factor 3 represented intellect and
education and three items were loaded onto this factor — Bad Korean (.51), classy (-.52),
and educated (-.65). This factor was labelled, “Superiority” (Zahn & Hopper, 1985).
Figure 17 shows the factor pattern for Seoul dialect. Factor 1, labelled “Superiority”,
included bad Korean (.71), educated (-.40) and classy (-.50). Items for Factor 2, labelled
 35

Figure 17. Factor pattern for Seoul dialect.

 36
“Extraversion”, were confident (.37), energetic (.38), and taciturn (-.69). Factor 3 was
labelled “Social attractiveness”. Unlike Gyeongsang dialect, on the “Social attractiveness”
label, only two items were loaded — affable (.36) and kind (.54).
Table 10 shows mean scores for ratings of Gyeongsang dialect. As the top of Table
10 shows, Gyeongsang informants rated themselves higher for bad Korean (4.83), angry
(4.53) and likable (4.22) but lower for educated (2.36), affable (2.34), and classy (2.06). The
higher mean score for bad Korean and the lower for educated and classy, which formed
Factor Group #3 — Superiority, suggest that Gyeongsang informants believe that their
dialect is inferior, and thus Gyeongsang dialect speakers have a dialect inferiority complex.
On the other hand, the higher mean scores for likable, trustworthy and the lower for cold
suggest that Gyeongsang informants assigns affection to their own dialect. However, the
higher mean score for angry and the lower for affable seems contradict this pattern. This
contradiction can be explained by the fact that Gyeongsang dialect never has a rising tone at
the end of a sentence and the last syllable is always shortened. Even when Gyeongsang
dialect speakers ask a yes/no question, they use a low falling tone at the end of a sentence.
This makes Gyeongsang dialect sounds angry and not affable. According to the interviews, a
number of informants separated aspects of language and aspects of personality; they think
Gyeongsang dialect sounds angry and not affable but people who speak Gyeongsang dialect
are likable, kind, and warm.
As shown in Table 11, the higher mean score for classy and educated and the lower
for bad Korean suggest that Seoul dialect is significantly better than Gyeongsang dialect in
three key attributes of the superiority factor group (educated, classy, good Korean). On the
other hand, informants rated Seoul dialect higher for cold and lower for likable and
trustworthy than Gyeongsang dialect. This suggests that Gyeongsang informants do not
associate Seoul dialect with affection.
 Question 3: Do you think Gyeongsang dialect has a distinctive accent?
 Question 4: If you chose ‘No’ on Q3, briefly describe your reason to choose it.
Question 3 is to make sure if informants think that Gyeongsang dialect sounds different.
As predicted, the vast majority of informants reported that Gyeongsang dialect has a
distinctive accent: 87 percent of the informants (n=427) answered that Gyeongsang dialect is
different. Perhaps surprisingly, a small yet noticeable number of informants (n=63) indicated
 37
Table 10. The Ratings and Means for Gyeongsang Dialect
Rank Variable Mean
1 bad Korean 4.83
2 angry 4.53
3 likable 4.22
4 taciturn 3.73
5 trustworthy 3.58
6 kind 3.37
7 energetic 3.36
8 confident 3.15
9 impolite 2.92
10 not tinny, sonorous and pleasant to hear 2.78
11 cold 2.55
12 arrogant 2.49
13 educated 2.36
14 affable 2.34
15 classy 2.06

Table 11. The Ratings and Means for Seoul Dialect

Rank Variable Mean
1 classy 4.72
2 affable 4.48
3 educated 4.30
4 cold 4.21
5 confident 3.98
6 not tinny, sonorous and pleasant to hear 3.96
7 energetic 3.60
8 kind 3.15
9 likable 3.17
10 arrogant 3.11
11 taciturn 2.78
12 trustworthy 2.72
13 impolite 2.43
14 angry 1.90
15 bad Korean 1.71

that Gyeongsang dialect does not have a distinctive accent. Interestingly, those sixty-three
informants were either in their 30’s, 40’s or 50’s, except one informant as shown in Table 12.
Among 129 informants who were in their 20’s, only one informant answered that
Gyeongsang dialect does not have a distinctive accent.
 38
Table 12. The Number of Informants on Question #3.
Question #3 20’s 30’s 40’s 50’s Total
(1) Yes 129 97 99 102 427 (87%)
(2) No 1 17 23 22 63 (13%)

Thus, this result indicates that there is a shift in the perception of Gyeongsang dialect;
the number of informants who believe that Gyeongsang dialect has a distinctive accent is
gradually decreasing with age. On question 4, thirty-eight informants commented about their
reasons why Gyeongsang dialect does not sound different to them. Most of the informants
answered that because of the development of media, the difference between varieties in
Korea seems to be disappeared. Some informants commented that “Ever since I was born, I
have spoken Gyeongsang dialect. It is too familiar to me so I have never thought that
Gyeongsang dialect has a distinct accent.”
Some of the informants challenged the question concerning “distinctive” accent. They
commented that “This question is nonsense because Gyeongsang dialect is also same with
other dialects in Korea. They are all same Korean!”, “I don’t like the word distinct.
Gyeongsang dialect doesn’t have any DISTINCT accent. I hate being treated that I speak
differently, especially when we are compared with Seoul dialect” and “Every dialect in
Korea has an accent, which means we are not the only one who has an accent.” All of these
informants challenge the underlying premise that having a distinct accent means that they
cannot speak proper Korean.
 Question 5: How do you feel when you see a person who uses Gyeongsang
dialect on the TV or in public or professional speaking?
 Question 6: How do you feel when you see a person who uses Seoul dialect on
the TV or in public or professional speaking?
 Question 7: What do you think about using Gyeongsang dialect on the TV or
in public or professional speaking?
On the question asking for the informants’ overall action to using Gyeongsang dialect
in broadcasts and public contexts, about 40 percent of informants think that using
Gyeongsang dialect sounds boorish as shown in Figure 18. Also, the two most frequent
answers were words that have a negative connotation: boorish and rude. One of the potential
reasons for this pattern with respect to using Gyeongsang dialect on the TV is due to the fact
that only standard Korean is allowed to use in broadcasts, according to the regulations on
broadcasting hearing by Korea Communications Standards Commission; thus, it is
 39
considered to be inappropriate to use non-standard Korean on the TV. This may lead
informants to have a negative attitude on using Gyeongsang dialect on the TV.
As the chart indicates, almost half of the informants answered that using Seoul dialect
in broadcasts and public speaking sounds classy. Unlike the case of using Gyeongsang
dialect, the three most common answers for question 6 have a positive connotation; classy,
affable and not tinny, sonorous, and pleasant to hear. Interestingly, no informants chose
classy and affable for Gyeongsang dialect and also they did not chose boorish for Seoul
dialect.
Not surprisingly, when informants were asked about their opinions using Gyeongsang
dialect in broadcasts and public speaking, above 60 percent of the informants answered that it
is better to speak Seoul dialect and about 25 percent of them agreed that it is absolutely
necessary to speak Seoul dialect (together accounting for 87.9%) as shown in Figure 19.
However, only about 12 percent of the informants answered that it is not necessary for people
to switch Gyeongsang dialect to Seoul dialect in broadcasts and public speaking.
 Question 8: How would you feel if family members or close friends move to
Seoul and they start speaking Seoul dialect?
When asked about reactions to family members or close friends who move to a region
where people speak more standard Korean starts to speaking Seoul dialect, informants
indicated that changing their speech style toward Seoul dialect sounds not natural. As shown
in Figure 20, a majority of informants (60.9%) reported that it is either “they would look
funny” or “I would feel awkward” if they suddenly start speaking Seoul dialect and even 20
percent of the informants answered that they would have a feeling of betrayal. However, only
small number of informants (12.3%) answered that it is natural to speak Seoul dialect.
Some informants commented that “it is so pathetic that they are eager to become
“real” Seoul people by using Seoul dialect. They should know they cannot become Seoul
people just by using Seoul dialect” and “if they used Seoul dialect in front of me, I would
punch them. They should proudly use Gyeongsang dialect in Seoul!”
 40
Seoul speech Gyeongsang speech

32%
affable
0%
49.2%
classy
0%
2.9%
arrogant
2.4%
4.3%
trustworthy
4.7%
8.6%
likable
5.1%
18.4%
not tinny, sonorous, and pleasant to hear
1.4%
1.6%
rude
29%
0%
boorish
40.4%
0 12.5 25 37.5 50 62.5

Figure 18. Informants’ feeling toward using Gyeongsang dialect and Seoul dialect
on TV or in public or professional speaking.

It is okay to use Gyeongsang dialect 12.1%

It is absolutely necessary to speak Seoul

24.2%
dialect

It is better speak Seoul dialect 63.7%

Figure 19. Informants’ opinions about using Gyeongsang dialect on the TV or in

public or professional speaking?
 41

They would look funny 37.1%

I would feel awkward 23.8%

I would feel betrayed 20%

Since they move to Seoul, I would take it for granted 12.3%

They would look arrogant. 6.9%

0 10 20 30 40

Figure 20. Informants’ feeling toward family members or close friends who start
speaking Seoul dialect.

 Question 9: How would you feel when people speaking Seoul dialect mimic
the Gyeongsang diaelct while you are speaking?
Responses to questions about people who mimic the Gyeongsang dialect, over half of
the informants (52.1%) indicated that they would feel embarrassed and about 25 percent of
informants reported that they are offended to become a mockery as shown in Figure 21.
Many informants commented that “people from Seoul always say that they want to learn
Gyeongsang dialect and they try to mimic my accent and over do it. But I think they have no
intention of learning Gyeongsang dialect. They just enjoy making fun of my accent!” and
“sometimes after I said something, people from Seoul tried to mimic my Gyeongsang dialect,
some in good nature but most of them not good nature. And I think they don’t even realize
that it makes me upset.” On the other hand, about 20 percent of informants reported that it is
humorous and it is not degrading.
 42

I feel embarrased 52%

I feel upset to become a mockery 25%

It is funny 19%

I feel nothing 4%

0.0 15.0 30.0 45.0 60.0

Figure 21. Informants’ feeling toward people who imitate their Gyeongsang
dialect.
 43

CHAPTER 5

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

OVERVIEW
As an aide to the reader, focusing on the results that are related to Gyeongsang dialect
and Seoul dialect, this chapter provides a brief overview of the main findings with regard to
the research questions.
 Research Question 1: Where do Gyeongsang diaelct speakers perceive
differences in the Korean spoken in Korea?
The results from the map task suggest that Gyeongsang dialect speakers clearly
perceive differentiation in the Korean spoken in Korea and their perceived speech regions are
followed administrative provincial boundaries. To Gyeongsang dialect speakers, Gyeongsang
and Seoul are the two most salient regions followed by Jeolla, Chungchong, Gangwon, Jeju
island, North Korean, South Gyeongsang, North Gyeongsang, Busan Metropolitan City,
Gyeonggi, North Chungchong, South Chungchong, North Jeolla, South Jeolla, and
Hamgyeong.
 Research Question 2: What characteristics do they associate with those
differences?
The qualitative labels informants assigned to those different varieties suggest that
Gyeongsang dialect speakers perceive a pattern of noticeable difference in the Korean
spoken. The study identified the seven most frequent types of labels: Personality; Lexical
items; Accent; Speed; Intonation; Mutual intelligibility; and Emotional reactions.
The most salient type of label was personality label, which was clearly divided into
positive personality and negative personality. The noticeable result was that Seoul dialect
was largely assigned to positive personality label, whereas Gyeongsang dialect was largely
associated with negative personality label. The most frequent positive personality label for
Seoul dialect was classy and the most common negative personality label for Gyeongsang
dialect was boorish. These indicate that Gyeongsang dialect speakers have a dialect
inferiority complex. However, there was one noticeable exception: even though Gyeongsang
 44
dialect was generally viewed negatively, the overwhelming majority of informants have
positive attitudes towards Busan dialect. Interestingly, all of the keywords assigned to Busan
dialect were related with desirable masculinity.
The second most frequent type was lexical item labels and these lexical items were
overwhelmingly assigned to Gyeongsang dialect. Among various lexical items for
Gyeongsang dialect, the word ‘oppa ya’ (older brother) was the most frequently remarked-
upon word. For Gyeongsang dialect speakers, the word ‘oppa ya’ in a high-pitched tone and
a lengthened ending is the most salient word to mark the aegyo speech style, and this word
is particularly salient to male informants. One of the potential reasons why the word is most
salient is that according to the accent and the intonation labels given by informants,
Gyeongsang dialect is perceived as the strongest accent and the last syllable is usually not
lengthened, which are the opposite phonological features that the word ‘oppa ya’ carries.
Female Gyeongsang dialect speakers use the word ‘oppa ya’ to index the “charm and child-
like” girl persona.
Regarding accent labels and intonation labels, Seoul dialect is overwhelmingly
perceived as the softesty accent and unvaried intonation with a rising tone at the end of a
sentence, and these findings show the opposite perceived characteristics given by informants
for Gyeongsang dialect. In the national understanding, Gyeongsang dialect is viewed as the
fastest speech (Jeon 2013; Long & Yim, 2002). For Gyeongsang dialect speakers, however,
Jeolla dialect is largely perceived as fast speech and the majority of Gyeongsang informants
reported that Gyeongsang dialect is not fast at all.
 Research Question 3: How do Gyeongsang dialect speakers feel about their
own dialect compared to the standard, Seoul dialect?
Findings from a questionnaire concerning language attitudes towards Gyeongsang
dialect in relation to Seoul dialect indicate that there is an interplay of dialect inferiority
complex and regional pride assigned to Gyeongsang dialect. Means scores for rating
Gyeongsang dialect and Seoul dialect show that Gyeongsang dialect speakers perceive their
own dialect as less good Korean, educated and classy than Seoul dialect and these three
characteristics load into a ‘superiority’ factor (see Zahn & Hopper, 1985). However,
Gyeongsang dialect received higher means scores on a ‘social attractiveness’ factor: likable,
trustworthy, kind, warm and modest.
 45
On the question asking for their opinions about using Gyeongsang dialect on the TV
or in public speaking, Gyeongsang dialect speakers showed negative attitudes on using
Gyeongsang dialect and the vast majority of them reported that it is appropriate to use Seoul
dialect in broadcasts and public or professional contexts. However, when they were asked
how they would feel if family members or close friends who move to Seoul start speaking
Seoul dialect, they showed strong animosity against those who shift their speech style toward
standard Korean. Many Gyeongsang speakers reported that they ridicule their friends who
attempt to speak standard Korean and they even have a feeling of betrayal. This indicates that
there are significant social pressures towards Gyeongsang dialect.
When people speaking standard Korean imitate the Gyeongsang dialect, the vast
majority of Gyeongsang dialect speakers expressed the opinion that they feel embarrassed
and offended. People who imitate the Gyeongsang dialect usually insist that they do not have
any malicious intent. However, the presence or absence of negative intentions does not seem
to matter to Gyeongsang dialect speakers. Most of Gyeongsang dialect speakers in this study
perceive the accent imitation by Seoul dialect speakers as insulting. Furthermore, many
informants reported that when people from Seoul mimic Gyeongsang accent, they often say
that they want to learn Gyeongsang accent. However, when Gyeongsang dialect speakers try
to teach them, Seoul dialect speakers always follow the Gyeongsang dialect with an
exaggerated accent, and they claim that Gyeongsang dialect is impossible to learn, and for
them, learning Gyeongsang dialect is almost same as learning a foreign language. Also, many
informants reported that Seoul dialect speakers make no effort to hide their Seoul accent and
in fact celebrate their (claimed) inability of learning Gyeongsang dialect.

CONCLUSION
Previous perceptual dialectology studies and language attitude studies in Korea
concluded that Gyeongsang dialect speakers are linguistically insecure and they suffer from a
dialect inferiority complex. In the present study, at the first glance it may also seem that
Gyeongsang dialect speakers viewed their own dialect negatively and viewed Seoul dialect
positively. However, it turns out that there is a mixture of dialect inferiority and regional
pride assigned to Gyeongsang dialect; Gyeongsang dialect speakers value highly for
Gyeongsang dialect in solidarity but they have a low regard for Gyeongsang dialect in status.
Preston (1996) claimed that “linguistic insecurity appears to be coupled with regional pride”.
 46
This pride is particularly related with affective features, such as friendly and polite. Thus, as
Preston (1996) notes, the two competing social values, “social status” and “group solidarity”
are along with attitudes toward two contrasting varieties, in this case, Gyeongsang dialect
and Seoul dialect.
Findings from the questionnaire show that there are significant social pressures
towards Gyeongsang dialect. Woolard (1985) claims that the two competing dimensions,
status and solidarity, create strong social pressures toward “illegitimate” language; thus, just
as there is pressure that lead Gyeongsang dialect speakers to use the standard in official and
formal contexts, it is as important as to use Gyeongsang dialect in private contexts.
Responses to accent imitation by Seoul dialect speakers reveal that Gyeongsang
dialect speakers perceive accent imitation by Seoul dialect speakers as insulting. This
indicate that Gyeongsang dialect speakers believe that Seoul dialect speakers mimic the
Gyeongsang dialect to covertly index negative stereotypes of Gyeongsang dialect speakers.
However, Gyeongsang dialect speakers’ responses to accent imitation can also be
seen as the evidence that Gyeongsang dialect speakers do have a dialect inferiority complex.
Even though they do not know if the accent imitation by Seoul dialect speakers results from
malicious intentions, most of the Gyeongsang dialect speakers strongly believe that Seoul
dialect speakers imitate the Gyeongsang dialect in a bad nature. Since the present research
focuses on language attitudes that Gyeongsang dialect speaker have, whether Seoul dialect
speakers do have malicious intention when they mimic Gyeongsang dialect is not dealt with
in this study but needs to be further studied to gain a better understanding of the complexity
of dialect inferiority that Gyeongsang dialect speakers have.
 47

REFERENCES

Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (1987). Language contact and bilingualism. London, England:
Edward Arnold.
Bucholtz, M., Bermudez, N., Fung, V., Edwards, L., & Vargas, R. (2007). Hella Nor Cal or
totally So Cal? The perceptual dialectology of California. Journal of English
Linguistics, 35(4), 325-352.
Cukor-Avila, P., Jeon, L., Rector, P., Tiwari, C., & Shelton, Z. (2012). “Texas – It’s like a
whole nuther country”: Mapping Texans’ perceptions of dialect variation in the lone
star state. Texas Linguistics Forum, 55, 10-19.
Evans, B. (2011). “Seattletonian” to “faux hick”: Perceptions of English in Washington state.
American Speech, 86(4), 383-414.
Evans, B. (2013). Seattle to Spokane: Mapping perceptions of English in Washington state.
Journal of English Linguistics, 41(3), 268-291.
Garrett, P., Williams, A., & Evans, B. (2005). Accessing social meanings: Values of
keywords, values in keywords. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 37(1), 37-54.
Grootaers, W. A. (1999). The discussion surrounding the subjective boundaries of dialects. In
D. R. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. 115-129).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hartley, L. C. (1999). A view from the west: Perceptions of U.S. dialects by Oregon
residents. In D. R. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1, pp.
315-333). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Inoue, F. (1999). Subjective dialect division in Great Britain. In D. R. Preston (Ed.),
Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. 161-176). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Jeon, L. (2013). Drawing boundaries and revealing language attitudes: Mapping perceptions
of dialects in Korea (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc271835/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf
Kang, H. (2010). Chungnam giyeok hwajsduleui bangeon guhyek, bangeon taedo mit injie
daehan yeongu. [Chungnam residents’ consciousness of dialect boundaries, dialect
images and recognition]. The Sociolinguistic Society of Korea, 18(2), 249-286.
King, R. (2006). Dialectal variation in Korean. In H. M. Sohn (Ed.), Korean language in
culture and society (pp. 264-280). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Kuiper, L. (1999). Variation and the norm: Parisian perceptions of regional English. In D. R.
Preston (Ed.), Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. 243-262).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
 48
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC:
Center for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Long, D. (1999a). Geographical perception of Japanese dialect regions. In D. R. Preston
(Ed.), Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. 177-198). Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Long, D. (1999b). Mapping non-linguists’ evaluations of Japanese language variation. In D.
Long & D. R. Preston (Eds.), Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 2, pp. 249-
275). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Long, D., & Yim, Y. (2002). Regional differences in the perception of Korean dialects. In D.
Long & D. R. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. 199-
226). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
Mase, Y. (1999). Dialect consciousness and dialect divisions. In D. R. Preston (Ed.),
Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. 71-99). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Milroy, J. (2001). Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 5(4), 530-555.
Montgomery, C. (2007). Northern English dialects: A perceptual approach (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Sheffield, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
Niedzielski, N. A., & Preston, D. R. (2003). Folk linguistics. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Preston, D. R. (1981). Perceptual dialectology: Mental maps of United States dialects from a
Hawaiian perspective. In H. Warkentyne (Ed.), Methods IV: Papers from the 4th
International Conference on Methods in Dialectology (pp. 192-198). Victoria, BC:
University of Victoria.
Preston D. R. (1988). Change in the perception of language varieties. In J. Frisiak (Ed.),
Historical dialectology: Regional and social. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Preston, D. R. (1989). Perceptual dialectology: Nonlinguists’ views of areal linguistics.
Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.
Preston, D. R. (1993). American dialect research. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Preston, D. R. (1996). Where the worst English is spoken. In E. W. Schneider (Ed.), Focus
on the USA (pp. 297-260). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Preston, D. R. (1997). The south: The touchstone. In C. Bernstein, T. Nunnally, & R. Sabino
(Eds.), Language variety in the south revisited (pp. 311-351). Tuscaloosa, AL:
University of Alabama Press.
Preston, D. R. (1999a). A language attitude approach to the perception of regional variety. In
D. R. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. 359-375).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
 49
Preston, D. R. (1999b). Introduction. In D. R. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of perceptual
dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. xxiii-xxxix). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Preston, D. R. (2002). Perceptual dialectology: Aims, methods, findings. In J. Berns & J. van
Marle (Eds.), Present-day dialectology: Problems and findings (pp. 57-104). Berlin,
Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rensink, W. G. (1999). Informant classification of dialect. In D. R. Preston (Ed.), Handbook
of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. 3-7). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Shin, J., Kiaer, J., & Cha, J. (2013). The sounds of Korean. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Sibata, T. (1999). Consciousness of dialect boundaries. In D. R. Preston (Ed.), Handbook of
perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. 39-63). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
Weijnen, A. A. (1999). On the value of subjective dialect boundaries. In D. R. Preston (Ed.),
Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1, pp. 131-134). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Benjamins.
Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (1998). American English: Dialects and variation.
Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Woolard, A. K. (1985). Language variation and cultural hegemony: Toward an integration of
sociolinguistic and social theory. American Ethnologist, 12(4), 738-748.
Yeon, J. (2006). Korean dialects: A general survey. In T. Nicolas (Ed.), The languages of
Japan and Korea (pp. 168-185). London, England: Routledge.
Zahn, J. C., & Hopper, R. (1985). Measuring language attitudes: The speech evaluation
instrument. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 4(2), 113-123.
 50

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE
 51

MAP TASK (MAP OF KOREA)

 52

QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH)

1. How do you feel when you hear Gyeongsang dialect? 2.How do you feel when you hear Seoul dialect?

1= Definitely No, 6= Definitely 1= Definitely No, 6=

Yes Definitely Yes
affable 1 2 3 4 5 6 affable 1 2 3 4 5 6

bad bad
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Korean Korean

likable 1 2 3 4 5 6 likable 1 2 3 4 5 6

cold 1 2 3 4 5 6 cold 1 2 3 4 5 6
educated 1 2 3 4 5 6 educated 1 2 3 4 5 6
not tinny, not tinny,
sonorous, sonorous,
and 1 2 3 4 5 6 and 1 2 3 4 5 6
pleasant to pleasant to
hear hear
arrogant 1 2 3 4 5 6 arrogant 1 2 3 4 5 6
classy 1 2 3 4 5 6 classy 1 2 3 4 5 6
angry 1 2 3 4 5 6 angry 1 2 3 4 5 6
trustworth trustworth
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
y y
impolite 1 2 3 4 5 6 impolite 1 2 3 4 5 6
kind 1 2 3 4 5 6 kind 1 2 3 4 5 6
taciturn 1 2 3 4 5 6 taciturn 1 2 3 4 5 6
confident 1 2 3 4 5 6 confident 1 2 3 4 5 6
energetic 1 2 3 4 5 6 energetic 1 2 3 4 5 6

3. Do you think Gyeongsang dialect has a distinctive accent?

(1) Yes (2) No
 53

4. If you chose ‘No’ on 1, briefly describe your reason to choose it.

( )
5. How do you feel when you see a person who uses Gyeongsang dialect on the TV news or
in public or professional speaking?
(1) affable (2) trustworthy (3) arrogant (4) classy (5) boorish (6) impolite (7)
likable (8) not tinny, sonorous, and pleasant to hear

6. How do you feel when you see a person who uses Seoul dialect on the TV news or in
public or professional speaking?
(1) affable (2) trustworthy (3) arrogant (4) classy (5) old-fashioned
(6) impolite (7) likable (8) not tinny, sonorous, and pleasant to hear

7. What do you think about using Gyeongsang dialect on the TV news or in public or
professional speaking?
(1) It is okay to use Gyeongsang dialect.
(2) It is better to speak Seoul dialect.
(3) It is absolutely necessary to Seoul dialect.

8. How would you feel if family members or close friends move to a region where they speak
more standard Korean and they start speaking standard Korean?
(1) I would feel awkward.
(2) They would look arrogant.
(3) They would look funny.
(4) I would feel betrayed.
(5) Since they moved to Seoul, I would take it for granted that they speak Seoul dialect.

9. How would you feel when people speaking Seoul speech mimic the Gyeongsang dialect
while you are speaking?
(1) It is funny. (2) I feel embarrassed (3) I feel upset to become a mockery
(4) I feel nothing

Please fill out this form completely and accurately.

(1) Year you were born :

(2) Sex : male female
(3) Birthplace :
(4) How long have you lived in Gyeongsang province?
(5) What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
 54

QUESTIONNAIRE (KOREAN)

1. 경상도말을 들었을 때 어떤 느낌이 듭니까? 2. 서울말을 들었을 때 어떤 느낌이 듭니까

1=전혀 그렇지 않다, 6=매우 그렇다 1=전혀 그렇지 않다, 6=매우 그렇다

상냥한
1 2 3 4 5 6 상냥한
1 2 3 4 5 6
올바르지 올바르지
못한 1 2 3 4 5 6 못한 1 2 3 4 5 6
한국어이다 한국어이다

호감 있게 호감 있게
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
들린다 들린다

차가운 1 2 3 4 5 6 차가운 1 2 3 4 5 6
지적인 1 2 3 4 5 6 지적인 1 2 3 4 5 6
귀에 귀에
거슬리지 거슬리지
않고 듣기
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
않고 듣기
좋은 좋은

거만한 1 2 3 4 5 6 거만한 1 2 3 4 5 6
세련된 1 2 3 4 5 6 세련된 1 2 3 4 5 6
화가 난 1 2 3 4 5 6 화가 난 1 2 3 4 5 6
믿음직스런 1 2 3 4 5 6 믿음직스런 1 2 3 4 5 6
예의 없는 1 2 3 4 5 6 예의 없는 1 2 3 4 5 6
친절한 1 2 3 4 5 6 친절한 1 2 3 4 5 6
말이 없어
보인다 1 2 3 4 5 6 말이 없어
1 2 3 4 5 6
보인다

자신감 있어
보인다 1 2 3 4 5 6 자신감 있어
1 2 3 4 5 6
보인다

활기찬 1 2 3 4 5 6 활기찬 1 2 3 4 5 6

3. 경상도말이 다른 지역의 말과 다르게 들립니까?

 55

(1) 예 (2) 아니오

4. 위의 답이 ‘(2) 아니오’ 라면 이유를 간단히 적어 주십시오.

5. TV뉴스나 공적인 상황 (발표,면접,강의 등)에서 경상도말을 쓰는 사람을 보면 어떤 느낌이 드는지

체크해주세요.
(1) 상냥한 (2) 믿음직스런 (3) 거만한
(4) 세련된 (5) 촌스러운 (6) 예의없어 보이는 (7) 호감있는 (8) 듣기싫은

6. TV뉴스나 공적인 상황 (발표, 면접, 강의 등)에서 서울말을 쓰는 사람을 보면 어떤 느낌이 드는지

체크해주세요.
(1) 상냥한 (2) 믿음직스런 (3) 거만한
(4) 세련된 (5) 촌스러운 (6) 예의없어 보이는 (7) 호감있는 (8) 듣기싫은

7. TV, 라디오 뉴스나 공적인 상황 (발표, 면접, 강의 등) 에서 경상도말 사용에 대해 어떻게

생각하십니까?
(1) 전혀 고칠 필요가 없다
(2) 가능한 서울말과 비슷하게 쓰는 것이 좋다
(3) 방송이나 공적인 상황에서는 무조건 서울말을 사용하여야 한다

8. 만약 표준어를 사용하는 지역 (또는 표준어에 가까운 지역)으로 이주한 자신의 가족이나 친한

지인이 자신이 원래 사용하던 사투리가 아니라 갑자기 표준어를 사용한다고 가정한다면 어떤 느낌이
드는지 체크해주세요.
(1) 어색하다 (2) 거만해 보인다 (3) 웃긴다 (4) 배신감이 느껴진다
(5) 그 지역으로 갔으니 당연하다

9. 서울말을 사용하는 사람이 당신의 경상도말을 비슷하게 흉내내며 말을 한다면 어떤 느낌이 드는지
체크해주세요
(1) 재미있고 웃기다
(2) 어색하고 부끄럽다
(3) 놀림감이 된 것 같아 기분이 나쁘다
(4) 아무런 느낌도 들지 않는다

 하나도 빠짐없이 기입해주시기를 부탁드립니다.

(1) 출생년도 : ( )

(2) 성별 : 남 여

(3) 출생도시 :

(4) 경상도에 거주한 기간 :

(5) 최종 학력 :