Legitimate bilingual competence in the making: Bilingual performance and investment of Korean-English bilinguals

Multiple ideologies in globalization: The contested images of speaking two or more languages

Globalization has transcended national and cultural boundaries, complicating the traditional notion of identity associated with nation states. As the global linguascape (Pennycook, 2003) has resulted in an ever-increasing number of bilingual and multilingual language users across the world, the issue of authenticity and authentication has become significant. In particular, the issue of what constitutes authentic language and an authentic language speaker has become increasingly important (e.g., Besnier, 2009; Coupland, 2001, 2010; Duchêne & Heller, 2012; [Heller & Duchêne, 2012 changed to Duchêne & Heller, 2012 to match the reference list in all occurrences, please confirm] Kramsch, 2009, 2012; Lo & Choi, 2017; Reyes, 2017).

In her article discussing the feelings of imposture experienced by bilingual and multilingual language users, Kramsch (2012) argues that perceptions or feelings of inauthenticity and imposture have become ever more present due to the global flow and inherent diversity of today’s globalized world:

[T]he more diversity there is, the greater the risk of feeling not authorized to speak with authority based on one’s accent, one’s physical appearance, one’s social class, or the color of one’s skin. (p. 498)

She further claims that the discourse of imposture reflects the paradoxical roles and positionings required for multilingual language users in a seemingly decentered world. In other words, such feelings of imposture can be attributed to the complex tensions between the global and the local, and between tradition and modernity, which have generated contrasting values and paradoxical positionings in the globalized world.

Similarly, Besnier (2011), who has studied Tonga’s engagements with globalization and modernity, shows how the complex tensions between modernity (being global) and tradition (being Tongan) result in the frequent use of English borrowings and code-switching between Tongan and English being viewed as inauthentic linguistic performance among local Tongan people, evoking the typified models of personhood of pretenders and Western-wannabes in contemporary Tongan society. He argues that even though the English language in general indexes modernity and cosmopolitanism in contemporary Tongan society, the excessive usage of English and frequent Tongan-English code-switching frames Tongan-English bilinguals as inauthentic speakers who obliterate their Tonganness and Tongan pride with the intention of pretending or wanting to be seen as a Westerner.

In their analysis of South Korean popular media, Lo and Kim (2012) show how different tensions surrounding modernity and global cosmopolitanism map onto different models of personhood and invite contrasting images of authentic and inauthentic Korean-English bilinguals, whose bilingual competence is recognized as either multilingual flexibility or linguistic incompetence, respectively. They claim that multilingual hybridity used by the Korean Americans is often utilized as a socially recognizable emblem to frame them as “wannabes” with a dubious Korean citizenship, whereas multilingual flexibility presented by elite transnational South Korean is seen as an emblem of authentic cosmopolitanism (Lo & Kim, 2012, pp. 264–269). Similarly, Choi (2017b), who analyzes the historical construction of female Korean-English bilinguals in South Korea, points out that the excessive use of English and the use of hyper-articulated English pronunciation can be seen as inauthentic bilingual performance in contemporary South Korea, evoking figures of fakers, imposters, and national traitors that are closely associated with the discourse of colonialism, and conferring qualities such as “less Korean” and “American wannabes.” These studies all point to the fact that bilingualism and transnationalism are not always seen as cool, modern, global, and cosmopolitan, but are closely associated with contrasting images of being uncool, unmodern, imposturous, and pretentious. In this context, bilingual and multilingual language users, then, need to constantly pay attention to existing tensions and language ideologies in order to successfully position themselves as authentic and legitimate bilinguals, and avoid running the risk of being framed as fakers.

Multiple language ideologies in South Korea: The contested meanings of speaking English

With South Korea’s complicated historical background of colonization by Japan (1910–1945) and extensive political, economic, and military reliance on the USA in the post-war period, the USA has remained the “object of material desire and moral approbation, longing, and disdain” (Abelmann & Lie, 1995, p. 62) in contemporary South Korean society. Many studies have reported the contested existence of anti-American and pro-American sentiment saturating contemporary South Korean society (Chae & Kim, 2008; Jung, 2010; Steinberg, 2015, among many others). The same bifurcated gaze has been cast upon the English language, generating contesting language ideologies. Indeed, English has entailed different social meanings, images, and models of personhood (Agha, 2007, 2011) in contemporary South Korean society; while English in general has been considered the key qualification to be achieved in order to succeed in society, and associated with images of “hard-working,” “diligent,” “modern,” and “cosmopolitan” (Park, 2009, 2011; Park & Lo, 2012; Piller & Cho, 2013), the excessive English usage has been closely associated with damaging images of being “an American wannabe,” “trying too hard,” “pretentious,” and “less Korean” (Choi, 2017a,b; Lo & Choi, 2017; Lo & Kim, 2011, 2012, 2015). These contrasting images of English then invite different models of personhood, such as “a lame and unmodern Korean American bilingual” (Lo & Kim, 2011, 2015; Shin, 2012), “a bad apple returnee who is morally dissolute and an academic failure” (Kang & Abelmman, 2011), and “a female Korean-English bilingual who fails to remain uncontaminated and to preserve the ideal of womanhood” (Choi, 2017b).

The growing number of Korean-English bilinguals and transnational migrants has also contributed to the increasing complexity of the South Korean linguistic market and the rising issue of authenticity. Unlike in the past, when only selected elite students were able to access English and/or overseas education, ¹ the globalization policy and English fever have resulted in various groups of Korean-English bilinguals, including Korean Americans (gyopo), early study-abroad students (jogiyuhagsaeng), ² the 1.5 generation (iljjeomose), study-abroad students (yuhagsaeng), temporary study-abroad students at an English language center (ELC) (eohagyeonsusaeng), returnees who left South Korea for a certain period of time for various reasons and have returned to South Korea (liteoni), working holidaymakers in English-speaking countries, and Koreans who learn English domestically (gugnaepa) (Kang and Lo, 2004; Lo and Kim, 2012, 2015; Park, 2009; Shin, 2012). The emergence of these Korean-English bilinguals and transnational migrants whose educational and linguistic experiences are very different from each other has led to the suspicion among South Koreans that not all of them constitute a truly qualified bilingual and global workforce. In addition, a series of recent scandals involving a number of high-profile professors, politicians, and celebrities who forged or allegedly forged their academic credentials, especially overseas degrees, has raised the suspicion among South Koreans that educational credentials, transnational experience, and bilingual proficiency can be easily manipulated (see Lo & Choi, 2017 for further discussion).

Recent studies have shown how particular linguistic practices, such as “conyo” in the Philippines (Reyes, 2017), “D4” in Irish English (Moore, 2011), and “Model C” in South Africa (Wale, 2010), evoke the typified personhood of a faker or imposter whose linguistic display clearly signifies his/her inauthentic nature. Reyes (2017), for example, shows how the Philippine conyo language, a particular kind of Tagalog-English mixing commonly associated with the elite urban youth, invites two distinct personhoods, one of “real” elites with “gentle” and “soft” conyo language, and another of “fake” elites who are merely imitating the conyo language with an aspiration to be passed as conyo but whose “rough” and “pointed” language only reveals their fakeness (pp. 105–109). Similarly, the display of Korean-English bilingual competence (e.g., the practice of code-switching between Korean and English) can evoke figures of both the real and the fake in contemporary South Korean society. Lo and Choi (2017) argue that South Koreans with experience of overseas education and advanced English language proficiency are often subject to the discerning eyes of “listening subjects” (Inoue, 2006) upon their return, and their bilingual displays in particular are recognized as a tool by which to measure their authenticity and “true” cosmopolitanism:

The successful returnee’s smooth codeswitching between high registers of English and Korean in interactions with foreigners is iconically linked to their cosmopolitan border crossing, while the failed returnee’s linguistic production is heard instead as double voiced—filled with unintentional slips into vernacular forms of English, or with pretentious insertions of American phonology into Korean. (p. 85)

They further claim that the perceived double voicing of the failed bilinguals implies or evokes the figure of fakers and their supposedly deceptive nature through their close ties with locally discredited vernacular English varieties (e.g., Itaewon English) and other models of personhood associated with inauthentic English and bilingualism in South Korea. Similarly, while acquiring native-like English proficiency is often understood as the ultimate goal of English language learning (Jeon & Lee, 2006; Park, 2016; Park & Lo, 2012; Piller, Takahashi, & Watanabe, 2010), displaying too much nativeness (e.g., the use of hyper-exaggerated English pronunciation, the frequent use of English idioms and slang) among Koreans can be viewed as a sign of linguistic incompetency in South Korea, which gets iconically linked to the images of “trying too hard” and being “an American wannabe” (Choi, 2017b).

Such complex linguistic dynamics have certainly complicated what counts as legitimate Korean-English bilingual competence and practice that can be viewed as socially appropriate, authentic, proper, and correct, not evoking or implying any damaging portrayals of being a faker and inauthentic bilingual. It is noteworthy that the display of Korean-English bilingual competence serves as a double-edged sword in contemporary South Korean society: on the one hand, it indexes the speaker’s cosmopolitanism, modernity, authenticity, and global citizenship; on the other hand, it can reveal the speaker’s inauthentic and deceptive nature, and non-cosmopolitan and non-modern persona. It is for this reason that Korean-English bilinguals, including bilinguals with an overseas education and advanced English language proficiency, are in a fragile position where they are under constant pressure to display socially appropriate bilingual competence that successfully indexes their authenticity and legitimacy, and that distinguishes them from the imposters.

Data and methodology

The data presented in this article were collected as part of an ethnographic study of Korean-English bilinguals’ language practice and positionings. The larger purpose of the study is to understand how South Korean Korean-English bilinguals negotiate circulating language ideologies and attempt to stake a claim for their legitimacy in the overcrowded linguistic market of South Korea. The study involves 20 South Korean graduate students who were enrolled as full-time students in Midwest University at the time of data collection.

Research site

Midwest University is one of the largest US public research-oriented universities, located in the twin towns of Springfield and Shelbyville in the Midwest region. Being one of the top 10 universities in terms of the annual number of PhD graduates and the enrollment of international graduate students, it has a large number of South Korean students and alumni. In addition, Midwest University, one of the largest public universities in the Midwest region, has a large population of Korean Americans. Due to the large Korean population, there is a relatively large Korean community within Springfield and Shelbyville, including Korean churches, restaurants, and grocery stores, and Korean student clubs and organizations.

Korean is used as a major medium of communication in both official and unofficial meetings held by ethnic Koreans. The Korean student association for ethnic Korean students, for example, uses Korean as the official language on its website as well as during workshops and other meetings. Within the local Korean community, Korean is generally considered the socially appropriate code among Koreans, and the usage of English among Koreans tends to be discouraged. One Korean sports club, for example, has a regulation on language use: “The Korean Tennis Club is the place where members not only play tennis together but also socialize with each other, and therefore we strongly encourage all members to use Korean only.” Even though the club consists of different groups of ethnic Koreans, including Korean Americans, educational migrants, and temporary study-abroad students, it posits the Korean language as the language necessary for socialization of ethnic Koreans. In this sports club and in many other situations, Korean is generally understood as appropriate, proper, and courteous.

Participants

The study examines 20 South Korean graduate students, including eight focal participants, who are enrolled in Midwest University. All of the participants are from upper middle class families, and come from privileged educational backgrounds—all were enrolled in degree programs at Midwest University in majors ranked between 1 and 30 in national graduate school rankings; all graduated from either elite Korean universities (e.g., Korea University and Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) or well-respected North American universities; half of the participants had an early study-abroad experience in an English-speaking country, and one third graduated from specialized high schools in South Korea (e.g., foreign language high schools and science high schools that are considered elite schools in South Korea, equivalent to prep schools in the USA).

Eight focal participants were chosen based on their willingness to participate in audio-recording data collection and their relationship with the other participants. The focal participants were four female and four male South Korean graduate students who maintained a close relationship with each other. All of the participants worked as graduate assistants at the university, a position that requires them to have fluent English language proficiency. All of them are highly proficient in Korean and English, reporting no difficulties in taking English-medium classes, working as a graduate assistant, or presenting their work in English. None of the participants were required to take English as a second language (ESL) classes upon entering their graduate programs because language requirements were waived based on their English language proficiency test results. All of them are aiming to get jobs in South Korean universities, and would like to settle in South Korea within 5–10 years.

Data

Data collected include qualitative interviews, participant observations, and recordings of oral and written conversations among focal participants. In order to understand Korean-English bilinguals’ language usage and postionings, I first conducted a qualitative interview with 20 participants. I also collected naturally occurring conversation among the eight focal participants. Conversation data were collected through audio-recording of their monthly social gatherings. Approximately 30 hours of qualitative interview data, 100 field note entries from observations and interviews, and 20 hours of naturally occurring conversation among the participants were collected and analyzed for the purpose of this study.

Bogdan and Biklen (2007) define qualitative data analysis as “working with data, organizing it, breaking it into manageable units, synthesizing it, searching for patterns, discovering what is important and what is to be learned, and deciding what you will tell others”(p. 145). In order to effectively work with multi-scaled qualitative data and organize them into manageable units, I used grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1997). Grounded theory methodology and its inductive procedure enabled me to closely work with the data and build a theoretical framework from empirical data rather than analyzing data based on constructed hypotheses. Both qualitative and interaction data presented in this study were chosen because they illustrate the identified themes and provide a rich description.

Throughout the research, I positioned myself as an insider researcher who shares very similar educational and sociocultural backgrounds with the other participants, and who also maintains a close relationship with all of the participants. I am well aware of the fact that working as an insider researcher can present many challenges and raise the potential of biases; however, I believe that my positioning enables the participants to participate competently and to communicate confidently (Adler & Adler, 1987; Kanuha, 2000). My shared understanding and reflexive awareness also allow me to have a more in-depth understanding of the participants’ bilingual practice and positionings.

Investing in displaying legitimate bilingual competence

In both the ethnographic and qualitative interview data, the participants in this study make it clear that legitimate Korean-English bilingual competence involves a “properly balanced” and “well-controlled” display of bilingual competency, pragmatic appropriateness, and linguistic flexibility. While they generally acknowledge the Korean language as a socially appropriate medium of communication among Koreans, they treat the choice or preference of using English over Korean, the excessive use of English in Korean-medium conversation, and the insertion of American phonology into the Korean language as iconic of failed bilingualism, and as marks of one’s inauthentic and pretentious nature. The naturally occurring conversation data among the participants illustrate their careful investment of displaying socially and locally appropriate bilingual skills. In their daily interactions, the Korean language is used as the main medium of communication with occasional code-mixing and code-switching into English. Even though code-switching is a common practice and is generally seen as unmarked among the participants, most code-switching occurs within a single sentence, where utterances include isolated English words or phrases. Examples of inter-sentential code-switching involving a language switch at sentence boundaries are rare, except when code-switching occurs for the purpose of direct quotation, reported speech, or simple everyday expressions such as “bless you” or “thank you.”

It is also noteworthy that the participants generally view Koreanized English pronunciation as an appropriate linguistic choice in Korean-medium conversation while perceiving well-articulated English pronunciation as an appropriate linguistic choice in English-medium conversation. They rarely use hyper-articulated English pronunciations that emphasize some noticeable phonological features associated with American English that depart from the Korean phonological system, such as /f/, /v/, and /r/ sounds. For example, even though the participants are highly competent in English, they mostly use Koreanized English pronunciations when pronouncing commonly used English loanwords that do not have a corresponding Korean word, such as “coffee,” “computer,” “cream,” and “orange”; for example, they almost always pronounce the English word “coffee” as /keopi/ with the Korean /p/ sound, not the English /f/ sound. These commonly used English loanwords in Korean are ideologically loaded and function as shibboleths because they are widely used to evaluate the user’s English language ability and evoke different qualities in South Korea. For example, the word “cream” can be pronounced in four different ways in contemporary South Korea—“gulimu,” “gulim,” “keulim,” and “keurim”—depending on the particular group to which the speaker belongs. The choice of “gulimu” or “gulim,” with the /g/ and /u/ sounds, is generally read as Japanized, uneducated, and old, while the choice of “keulim” with the /k/ and /eu/ sounds is considered standard and modern (cf., Harkness, 2012). The choice of “keurim” with the articulated /r/ sound will likely be seen as hyper-articulation and hence a sign of “trying too hard” or “wanting to be passed as a native English speaker” (Lo & Kim, 2011). Such complex language ideologies then contribute to the participants’ very selective and strategic bilingual display of Korean and English, where they need to flexibly use their bilingual skills in order to be seen as an authentic bilingual, and at the same time, not risk themselves falling into immoral conduct.

Investing in constructing illegitimate bilingual competence

Throughout their daily interactions, the participants often refer to certain typified language registers and practices associated with inauthentic bilinguals, including the excessive use of spoken English forms and slang, the use of hyper-articulated English pronunciation, and the adoption of American names (Choi, 2017a; Lo & Kim, 2012), as authoritative criteria by which to frame other South Korean bilinguals of Korean and English as those who fail to display socially and discursively appropriate bilingual competence, and further to maintain the required delicate balance between Koreanness and cosmopolitanism. In other words, the perceived failed display of Korean-English bilingual competence is seen as an emblem associated with typified qualities of being “deceptive,” “trying too hard,” “not valuing Koreanness,” being an “American wannabe,” and “morally wrong.”

The following excerpt illustrates how the linguistic choice of using English is construed as a socially inappropriate bilingual display, and then serves as a criterion for categorizing four different groups of South Korean bilinguals—second generation Korean Americans, “1.5 generation” Korean Americans, the South Korean undergraduate students enrolled in Midwest University, and temporary study-abroad students at a language institution—into the same group of inauthentic bilinguals. It is noticeable that such evaluations are not based on one’s actual bilingual competence, but rather on the figure of typified personhood and its attributes evoked by this particular linguistic choice. The following excerpt takes place in a local coffee shop, where three female participants, Eunju (E), Mikyung (M), and Yeonji (Y), enjoy their Friday afternoon and talk about their weekdays.

Excerpt 1.

1. E: han yeojaaega hangugaeingeoyaYunhui (.) yunhui (.) mwo geulae

“[In my class], there was one Korean girl. Yoonhee, Yoonhee - something like that.”

2. E: da hangugsalamdeuli gwonyunhui (.) ileoneunde

“All the Korean students [in my class] call her Kwon Yoonhee [Korean name].”

3. M: eo

“Right.”

4. E: wasseo. dochaghaesseo. nae samusile wassdan malya. a (.) hi eojjeogu jeojjeogu ilae

“She came. She arrived. She came to my office. Ah, she said ‘hi’ blah blah.”

5. E: geulaeseo hangugsalamiseyo? geulaessdeoni daedabeul an hago gaman bwa

“So [I said to her] ‘You are Korean, right?’ and she just looked at me without saying anything.”

6. Y: an hae?

“She didn’t say anything?”

7. E: eo

“Nope.”

8. E: geulaeseo a dwaesseoyo

“So, forget about it.”

9. M: never mind

10. E: eo (.) nebeomaindeu geunyang yeongeo hago bonaessgeodeun

“Yes, I thought, ‘Never mind,’ and spoke to [her] in English.”

11. E: gyae gago naseo mwoji ileomyeonseo ((laughing))

“After she left, I was like, what was that?”

12. M: mwoji gyaen? hangugaega aninga? isenga?

“Who is she? She is not Korean? Second generation, maybe?”

13. Y: ise anya?

“[Is she] second generation?”

14. E: mwo geuleomyeoneun a jagi hangugmal mos handa::

“If so, [she could have at least told me] that she couldn’t speak Korean.”

15. E: geosdo anigo doege nal isanghan salam chwigeubhamyeonseo::

“Rather she treated me like a weirdo.”

16. E: eo (.) geu wae migugae (.) migugaehante hangugmal han geolang

“Well…it is like speaking Korean to an American, American.”

17. M: migugaehante ((laughing))

“To an American.”

18. E: mwoyamwoya ileohge chyeodaboneun geoya

“She stared [at me], like, ‘What are you looking at? What is your problem?’”

19. E: aninga mag ileomyeonseo ((laughing))

“[I was like] she is not [Korean]?”

20. M: gyaedo doege singihane

“She is really strange.”

21. E: aninga (.) animyeon malgo

“[I was like] she is not [Korean]? If not, whatever.”

22. M: gyaen doege silheungaboji geuleonge

“She must hate it. That kind of thing.”

23. M: geuleon aedeul issjanha

“You know there are these kinds of kids.”

24. M: mag (.) alilang-gateunde gado yeongeo doege mos haneunde yeongeo geuleohge haneun aedeul issjanha

“When you go to places like Arirang [a local Korean restaurant], there are kids who use English, English, even though their English sucks.”

25. Y: maja

“Right.”

26. M: hangugaedeulkkili

“Among Koreans.”

27. Y: na neomu silheo

“I really hate that.”

28. E: geugeon geuleon geos gata. waenji ielssi aedeuli yeongeo…

“They must be…maybe ELC kids [who are speaking] English…” ³

29. M: hagbusaengdeuliya. waenyamyeon maikeulobaieolleoji mag ileon chaeg deulgo issdan malya. aedeuli

“They are undergraduates. Because they are carrying books like microbiology. They are.”

30. E: a geulae?

“Ah, is that right?”

31. M: eo

“Yes.”

32. Y: geunde geuleon aedeuli isseo. geu (.) geu::

“Well, there are these types of kids. That…”

33. E: yeongeo yeonseub hallyeogo geuleona?

“Are they doing so to practice English?”

34. M: geuleon geos gata. yaggan

“Seems like it. A bit.”

35. Y: piteo jeon lumme (.) gyaega 1.5sende

“Peter’s ex-roommate is 1.5th generation.”

36. Y: yeongeoga jayeonseuleobge naoneunde. baleumi johjineun anha

“She uses English comfortably but her pronunciation is not good.”

37. Y: hangugmali pyeonhan aeinde mujogeon yeongeolo hae

“She is more comfortable with Korean, but she only uses English.”

38. M: geunikka. yaggan geuleon aedeuli isseo

“Right. There are definitely these kinds of kids.”

39. Y: ji chingulangdo

“Even with her [Korean] friends.”

40. M: geunyang aidentitigata

“It is just [the issue of] identity.”

41. M: najungeneun hangugmal jal haneunge aesesi doelsudo issneunde::

“Being fluent in Korean can be an asset in future.”

42. Y: mwo (.) eolil ttaen mwo geuleon ge boina

“Well, when you are young, it is hard to see that.”

Throughout the interaction, the participants construe the act of using English when speaking to one’s Korean peers as a typified sign that indexes one’s failed balancing act and illegitimate bilingual competence. We first have an assumedly second generation undergraduate student who has a Korean name but does not respond to Korean. In this interaction, Yoonhee’s actual bilingual competence is unknown, that is, the participants cannot tell how well she can understand and speak Korean. Nonetheless, she is immediately read as “strange” (line 20) and “pretending to be an American” (lines 16–17). The participants then assign this model of personhood to ELC students (line 28), temporary study-abroad students in their university who try to use English among themselves in order to practice it. The same attributes were given to both undergraduate South Korean students (line 29) and a 1.5 generation Korean American (lines 35–38), whose English is, according to the participants, “not good” or “sucks,” but who insists on using it over Korean. Even though these four groups have different linguistic, educational, and social backgrounds—for example, ELC students are in the USA for English language learning and Korean Americans mostly grew up with English—the fact that they are using English excessively and choosing not to use Korean causes them to be seen as equally linguistically incompetent, morally immature, and inauthentic. By labeling these bilinguals as the incompetent ones, the participants then successfully position themselves as better and matured bilinguals who can display their bilingual skills in socially expected ways, and see the value of the Korean language and Koreanness.

Investing in acquiring and displaying legitimate bilingual competence as a Korean scholar

The participants’ endeavors to display controlled bilingual competency and make pragmatically appropriate linguistic choices are well illustrated by their investment in acquiring and utilizing professional jargon and terms in three different styles: (a) English words; (b) Korean words involving hanja (Chinese characters); and (c) Koreanized English words. Because the participants are enrolled in a graduate program in North America, they mostly acquire their professional and academic knowledge in English, which makes them much more familiar with English jargon and terminology within their fields than Korean ones. All of them are capable of fluently presenting and delivering their academic work in English in various meetings, conferences, and workshops where the medium of communication is English. Most of them, however, have a relatively hard time presenting their academic work or carrying on a conversation related to their major in Korean, with Korean scholars, due to their lack of experience and knowledge of field-specific jargon and terminology in Korean. Such difficulty mostly stems from the fact that the majority of Korean scholarly words—approximately 90% to be exact (Kim, 2015)—are Sino-Korean words that either originated from hanja or were coined in the Korean language using hanja. Currently, the Korean language consists of approximately 60% Sino-Korean words, many of which have been nativized and are considered part of the Korean language by native Korean speakers (Sohn, 2001). Unlike those Sino-Korean words that are commonly used in the Korean language, such as haggyo (學校) “school” and bumo (父母) “parents,” many Sino-Korean words used in scholarly works are not commonly used in the non-academic sphere. In addition, the meanings of these words are difficult to determine without knowledge of hanja due to the large number of homophones that can be only differentiated when written in hanja (Taylor, 1997). For example, the academic term “discourse” is translated as damhwa (談話) in Korean, which has the three different meanings of “talking to each other,” “expressing one’s opinion in public,” and “formal discourse.” The meaning of damhwa in semiotics and linguistics is only used in the academic sphere. The Korean word damhwa, however, can be differently interpreted depending on its hanja: damhwa (淡畫) “a lightly painted drawing”; damhwa (痰火) “a fever caused by congestion”; and damhwa (曇華) “a canna”, a flower. The difficulties of using appropriate Korean scholarly terms also result from the fact that the same English word can be differently translated into Korean depending on the field of study and the contextual meaning of academic words. For instance, the English word “macro” is variously translated as geosi (巨視), geodae (巨大), and maekeulo (a Romanized word) in Korean scholarly works. Thus, participants must invest time and effort into learning and practicing how to successfully translate English academic words into the Korean language using the appropriate academic terms, for example, by reading Korean language journals in their field and becoming familiar with Korean scholarly words and their hanja.

Even though the participants must invest extensive amounts of time and effort to acquire Korean scholarly words, they all point out that this bilingual competence of using appropriate scholarly words in Korean is a key element in becoming a successful Korean scholar who is, according to them, a representative of South Korea (hangugeul daepyohaneun). During the interview, they describe the use of correct Korean academic terms as appropriate and professional when interacting with Korean scholars and presenting their work at Korean conferences, while depicting the excessive use of English terminology in such situations as inappropriate and unprofessional.

In addition, the participants invest in learning and practicing Koreanized English pronunciation in order to successfully deliver their academic works in Korean. While many English scholarly words have a corresponding word in the Korean language, some English words are simply Romanized and used as foreign loanwords. Since foreign loanwords in Korean follow rules on loanword transcription (oelaeeo pyogibeob) established by the South Korean government, some English terms have a Koreanized pronunciation that departs from their pronunciation in English-speaking countries. For example, the word “ideology” is pronounced as “ideollogi” with an initial /i/ sound, the word “albumin” is pronounced as “albumin” with an initial /a/ sound and a final /i/ sound, and the word “see-through” is pronounced as “ssiseulu” without a “/th/” sound. Even though some of the participants express their discomfort with the “awkwardly” Koreanized English pronunciation, all of them agree that they need to know how to pronounce the word “correctly” according to the given discourse community in order to be seen as someone possessing linguistic flexibility.

Conclusion

In problematizing the simplistic approach that views a competent language speaker as an individual fluent in a particular language, recent research has focused on the ways in which linguistic competence is socially and contextually constructed through the interactive processes of reconstructing what constitutes ideal competence and evaluating language use (Blommaert, 2007; Blommaert, Collins, & Slembrouck, 2005; Duchêne & Heller, 2012; Heller, 2007; Jaffe, 2013). The findings of this study expand the discussion by demonstrating the agentive role of individuals who are actively participating in the construction and reconstruction of legitimate bilingual competence, and making a calculative investment in displaying bilingual competence to stake a claim for their authenticity and legitimacy. Similar to any other bilinguals with their precarious futures in a neoliberal globalized world, the participants in this study, with a privileged educational background and highly developed English language proficiency, are also largely governed and confronted by multiple language ideologies, which are constantly contested, reshaped, and negotiated by larger social forces and dynamics (Agha, 2007). Instead of internalizing such discourses and being solely governed by them, the participants, as active agents, strategically utilize the delicate tensions between local and global, between nationalism and cosmopolitanism, and between the “real” and the “faker,” and construct a particular type of bilingual competence as legitimate and socially appropriate bilingual competence, imbuing qualities like “being sufficiently cosmopolitan and sufficiently Korean,” “being socially and discursively correct,” and “being morally right and not deceptive.” In so doing, they can successfully legitimize certain discourses and language ideologies that are favorable to them, and justify their privileges as the elites.

The findings also highlight the very calculative nature of bilingual and multilingual practice and performance. As the case of elite South Korean bilinguals illustrates, bilingual and multilingual users do not simply employ the different linguistic features at their disposal, or freely cross all linguistic boundaries available to them. They rather carefully and closely monitor socio-politically, ideologically, and discursively constructed boundaries and different meanings, qualities, and models of personhood associated with different languages, linguistic features, and practices, and then make a very calculative investment in displaying bilingual competence that is likely to be recognized as ideal and authentic in the given discourse community in an attempt to minimize the risk of being framed as imposters or fakers and successfully claiming their legitimacy over others. These findings thus present a challenge to traditional research in the fields of second language studies, applied linguistics, and bilingualism, and urge researchers to look at the actual language practice of bilingual and multilingual users who actively participate in the process of developing sense-making discourses (Duchêne & Heller, 2012).