Korean L2 learners' perceptions of the language cue: Konglish vs. English

Hyunjeong Nam

Current study

Konglish-English Equivalence Hypothesis

Implications

Activation mechanism

Language Tag

1

2

3

4

5

Activation Mechanism in Bilingual Mental Lexicon

Language

Tag

Korean L2 learner's perception of the language cue

English Korean

Konglish

MOONKYCONTENTS IN HERE !!CONTENTS IN HERE !!CONTENTS IN HERE !!

MOONKYCONTENTS IN HERE !!CONTENTS IN HERE !!CONTENTS IN HERE !!

MOONKYCONTENTS IN HERE !!CONTENTS IN HERE !!CONTENTS IN HERE !!

Korean L2 learners’ mental lexicon

Loanwords

Code-switching

Source

Status in L1/L2

MOONKY’S DIAGRAMS

Subjects Results

TEXTTEXT

Procedures

TEXT

Current study

L1 access in L2

Items

Group A Group B Group C Total

Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

원룸 one-room (“studio apartment”) 0.40 6 0.25 3 0.10 3 0.28 6

기브스 gips (“plaster-cast”) 0.55 3 0.18 4 0.05 5 0.30 4

샾 sharp (“pound/hash key”) 0.85 1 0.65 1 0.10 3 0.62 1

탤런트 talent (“actor/actress”) 0.15 8 0.03 8 0.00 6 0.07 8

원피스 one-piece (“dress”) 0.55 3 0.18 4 0.00 6 0.29 5

사이다 cider (“clear soda pop”) 0.50 5 0.45 2 0.20 1 0.42 2

미팅 meeting (“blind date”) 0.40 6 0.08 7 0.15 2 0.22 7

밴드 band (“band-aid”) 0.73 2 0.13 6 0.00 6 0.34 3

Konglish Production and Konglish Awareness

ItemsKonglish production Konglish awareness

Rank Rank

샾 sharp (“pound/hash key”) 1 8

사이다 cider (“clear soda pop”) 2 4

밴드 band (“band-aid”) 3 6

기브스 gibs (“plaster-cast”) 4 6

원피스 one-piece (“dress”) 5 5

원룸 one-room (“studio apartment”) 6 3

미팅 meeting (“blind date”) 7 1

탤런트 talent (“actor/actress”) 8 2

Spearman correlation coefficient

Total-.826*

(.011)

Spearman Correlation Coefficient

Note Planned comparisons: *p , .05.

샵 재능

탤런트L1

Actor sh

arp Ta

lent

L2

A c t i v a t i o n t h r e s h o l d

competitor

competitorcompetitor

competitor

competitor

competitor

Lexical association

Konglish

Language Mean

Korean 83

Depends on the individual word 15

English 02

The Language Mediating in Accessing English Words

Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart,1994)

Implications

L2 learner’s perception of the language cue affects the L2 se-lection process

“Real” and “perceived” distance between languages may de-termine the extent of the activation of the non-target lan-guage

Korean L2 learners’ Konglish-English equivalence hypothesis

The extent of word association and concept mediation may be affected by participants’ learning history

Thank you