The discourse on bilingualism in postcolonial
Korea : Focusing on the language revitalization
movement
メタデータ

言語: English
出版者:
大阪公立大学科学専攻

現代システム科学研究科

言語文化学分野

公開日: 2024-04-26
キーワード (Ja):
キーワード (En):作成者: Yang, Jinsuk
メールアドレス:所属:
URL

https://doi.org/10.24729/0002000677

現代システムThe discourse on bilingualism in postcolonial Korea:Focusing on the language revitalization movement

1

The discourse on bilingualism in postcolonial Korea:
Focusing on the language revitalization movement1
Jinsuk YANG

Introduction
In the field of Korean historiography, an ongoing debate revolves aroundendogenous development and colonial modernization over Korea's
modernization. Within the nationalist framework, the endogenousdevelopmental perspective is often synonymous with patriotism, whilecolonial modernization theory is dismissed as collaborationist. Similarly, thedevelopment of Korean as “the national language” is portrayed as an emblemof anti-colonial resistance, persisting despite the systematic suppression of
the Japanese colonial government. The postcolonial period has focused onunderstanding national history as overcoming adversity, emphasizing efforts
to preserve the Korean language. This heroic narrative is often reinforced
through national holidays (e.g., Han'gŭl Day), architectural initiatives (e.g.,
Han'gŭl Museum), media representation (e.g., the movie Malmoi orcollecting words), and active public participation (e.g., the 2019 boycott ofJapanese products).
Nevertheless, a growing number of scholars advocate for a criticalreevaluation of the heroic narrative, emphasizing the following points: First,
it is fair to understand Japan's colonial language policy as a bilingual
language policy, given that “Japanese were more interested in constructing aThis is an expanded version of a paper that was presented at the annual conferenceof the Korean Society of Bilingualism on November 2, 2023, in Seoul, South Korea. This
work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 22K13150.

1

2

Jinsuk YANG

distinct identity for Koreans as a subaltern ethnic group within a multi-ethnic
empire” (Yu, 2010, p. 123). Yi (2018) also explored the dual nature of thenational language ideology, where Koreans are imagined as “same but
different”: The state maintained a hierarchical order between Japanese andKoreans by differentiating opportunities for social and economic fulfillment
based on language. The active promotion of Japanese took effect during thelast phase of the colonial administration. Second, the colonial government
was deeply involved in the orthographic development of Han'gŭl. The
Korean Language Association (KLA), Chosŏnŏ Hakhoe, actively participatedin assessing and disseminating the standard language under an ambivalent
yet cooperative relationship with the colonial government (Mitsui, 2008).
Third, after its invention by King Sejong the Great, the use of Han'gŭl had
been limited to books on ruling ideology and vernacular novels. Although its
use expanded in everyday life around the 18th century, recognition of thenational language was slow (Heo, 2015; Yang, 2017). It was only during
Japanese colonization that Han'gŭl was rediscovered as the national script.
Since the end of the colonial era in 1945, both North and South Korea havesought to assert their legitimacy and identity as nation-states, each claiming
to be the sole legitimate government on the Korean Peninsula. One method
employed for this purpose is the establishment of a national language and thepromotion of monolingualism. Monolingualism, coupled with nationalism,
delineates regions and countries based on language. In modern Korea, social
concerns regarding multilingualism are widespread, and metalinguistic
debates on the 'pollution' of the Korean language often feature in public
discourse. Shin et al. (2015) viewed attempts to solidify linguistic boundaries
based on the standard language as a 'monolingually oriented mindset that
does not accept language mixing and otherness discourse' (p. 144), urging a
critical examination of monolingualism in a Korea that has transitioned into a
multilingual society.
Extending this perspective, this article focuses on the language revitalization

The discourse on bilingualism in postcolonial Korea:Focusing on the language revitalization movement

3

movement, or Urimal Doroch'ajgi, to examine the social discourse on
bilingualism and bilingual speakers in postwar Korea from a sociolinguistic
perspective. This movement, the first language standardization effort after thedivision of Korea, commenced with the national language purity movement
aimed at expelling Japanese influence. It sought to unify the Korean language
by addressing both spoken and written language. While acknowledged as anationalistic movement that spontaneously emerged in postwar Koreansociety (Jung, 2012), this paper concentrates on questions such as how theboundaries of 'our language' as a national identity were delineated and who isrecognized as legitimate participants. Throughout the paper, I address thesocial and political debates over the language revitalization movement, witha focus on 1) the boundary-making process of Japanese versus Korean, and 2)
the power and struggle over making 'standard' Korean.
The language revitalization movement: Urimal Dorochakki Undong
Urimal Doroch'ajgi emerged as a crucial component of the language
purification drive that unfolded post-Korean liberation, aiming to delineate
the distinctions between Korean and Japanese. Originating as a means to'drive out the Japanese,' the movement expanded to encompass various
language campaigns, including the removal of Japanese signage and words.
Eventually, it led to discussions about abolishing Chinese characters in
Korean writing.
Immediately after liberation, members of the KLA assumed a leadership rolein Korean language studies, striving to restore and teach the Korean
language. Their initiatives included conducting Han'gŭl classes, teacher
trainings, and compiling textbooks. The KLA members had previously
organized language-related campaigns through their ambivalent collaboration
with the Government General of Korea (GGK) (Matsui, 2013). Despite
facing imprisonment in the later stage of the colonial period for attempting to4Jinsuk YANG

compile a Korean dictionary, their status as nationalists who had resisted
Japanese colonial rule elevated their credibility, positioning them tolegitimately claim the role as language experts in the post-liberation period.
Leveraging their heightened public stature, the KLA members exercised
significant influence in formulating policies and initiatives pivotal to thelanguage revitalization process.
Another noteworthy aspect is the educational background of the committee
members, commonly referred to as language 'experts.' Many of thesecommittee members, hailed as authorities on the Korean language, wereeducated in the colonial education system and later in the metropole, thus
possessing proficiency in Japanese. This underscores that their primaryconcern in the language revitalization movement was not so much the mere
presence of foreign languages as the public's mixed use of language, which
was jarring to intellectuals capable of performing parallel monolingualisms(Heller, 2006). Specifically, the Japanese language acquired as a contact
language by women, working-class individuals, and rural speakers without
access to formal education was dismissed as the 'debris of the Japanese era.'In this context, it appears that the language revitalization movement
contributed to a new form of inequality and variation, ostensibly in its pursuitof equality and standards in the nation building process.
The data for this research comes from the larger research project that I
carried out to understand the language situations of postcolonial Korea. To
conduct the analysis, I accessed newspapers, Asahi and Mainichi (Japan) and
Chosun, Dong-A, and Kyunghyang (Korea), which represented diverse
journalistic perspectives in their respective country. My database search was
guided by selected keywords in both Japanese and Korean, including, but notlimited to, language standardization (purification, revitalization, andplanning), linguists, and KLA members, the language planning debates, etc.

The discourse on bilingualism in postcolonial Korea:Focusing on the language revitalization movement

5

The speaking practice: In pursuit of linguistic modernity in postcolonial
Korea
After gaining independence from Japan, South Korea embarked on various
decolonization initiatives, one of which focused on the restoration andreclamation of its languages. Despite their political differences and conflicts
for political legitimacy, conservative, liberal, and revolutionary politicalgroups recognized the crucial role of language in fostering national unity.
This recognition led to the emergence of the language restoration movement,
also known as Urimal Dorochakki (1946-1948). It was a government-led
initiative aimed at establishing a monolingual nation-state. The primaryobjective was to replace Japanese words with Korean equivalents,
particularly in educational and everyday language contexts. This project
involved creating and spreading standardized terminologies for use in
textbooks and everyday situations. It also led to changes in street signs andnames, as well as the development of alternatives for loan words. Below, I
take a look at the sites of school and everyday conversation, where diverging
linguistic practices came to sharp relief under the ideological pursuit of'standard' and 'correct' Korean use.
At school, the foremost goal was to create new terminologies used in
textbooks. Their insistence on the development of new terminologies
represented a deep-rooted desire for linguistic modernity, wherein the school
served as a monolingual institution to regulate students’ linguistic practices.
Under the auspices of the US military government, Korean officials held thereal power in making and directing language policy in schools. Media outlets,
such as newspapers and radio stations, actively encouraged their readers andlisteners to replace Japanese terms with Korean alternatives. Recognizing the
Korean-only movement as a vital aspect of the decolonization process,academic societies—from education and architecture to the fashion industry
and theater studies—actively supported the government's initiative by6

Jinsuk YANG

voluntarily proposing alternative Korean vocabularies. For instance, with thehelp of the Korean Language Society, the Sports Federation revised
gymnastics terminology and regulations into Korean. Fields such asarchitecture, fashion, biology, and theater, to name a few, followed in thesocial movement to replace Japanese terms with Korean.
At the everyday speech level, the use of Japanese words or mixed use ofJapanese became the target for change. Laying the groundwork to enforce a
Korean-only policy in everyday contexts, the Ministry of Education instituted
a 'Committee on National Language Purification.' Through this committee,
the members published a booklet listing 862 Japanese words frequently usedin daily conversation along with their Korean alternatives (see Table 1) withthe following four principles:
Table 1. Examples of the language standardization movement and its guiding principles

Japanese

Suggestions

English meaning（1） 惜シイ아깝다what a shame/waste/pity（2） アイマイ모호 , 모호하다

ambivalent/ambiguous（3） 案内인도 ( 하다 ), 전도 , Introduce（4） 運

수 , 운수

Fortune（5） 階段층대 , 층층대

Stairs（6） 事故연고 , 사고

Accident

1）If there is a replacement in Our Language, dismiss Japanese andchoose Our Language.
2）If a replacement in Our Language does not exist, look for old
Korean to develop a new word.
3）If the replacement in old Korean does not exist, look for similarwords to develop a new word.

The discourse on bilingualism in postcolonial Korea:Focusing on the language revitalization movement

74）Make use of Korean-Chinese characters in place of JapaneseChinese characters.
As shown above, the Korean language reclamation movement was based on
the principle of exclusion, meaning that Japanese words should be discarded
and their Korean counterparts must be used instead. While the campaign
assumed clear boundaries between Japanese and Korean, the distinction
between the two was far from simple. In his study of Korean and Japaneseetymologies, Martin (1966) highlighted that 'Japanese and Korean have three
to five times more similarities with each other than with Chinese' (p. 179).
He also noted that although both languages shared Chinese cognates, thenumber of basic common vocabularies exclusive to Korean and Japanese far
exceeded the Chinese-based counterparts. As such, while there were cases
where Japanese words were claimed to be replaced with newly created
Korean equivalents, these terms were derived from Japanese words andrendered in Korean. For example, the adjective 'ambivalent' (曖昧；アイマ
イ; 애매 [aemae]) shares the same Chinese characters but has distinct
renderings in each language. Furthermore, the heavy influence of Japan on
national modernity in the colonial context introduced new terms almost
exclusively in Japanese—from technological inventions such as cars, trains,
and airplanes to modern notions such as democracy, communism, andconstitution. These new notions and terms were first introduced to Japan
from the West and then imported to Korea with the same Chinese charactersbut, again, with different renderings. Thus, despite the general agreement toprioritize the use of the Korean language over Japanese, the fundamental
question of what precisely constitutes the Japanese language that should be
removed remained largely unaddressed. Consequently, controversies
regarding the distinction between Korean and Japanese persisted throughout
the period, and the language debates gradually shifted towards determining
who has the authority to define what counts as the Korean language. The

8Jinsuk YANG

KLA's pursuit of 'pure' Korean language faced criticism, mainly for failing toaddress the sociality of language, including stylistic and lexical nuances, andthe agency of language users, into account.
Finally, although the revitalization movement was organized with the goal of'reclaiming' purity, it is essential to scrutinize the backgrounds in the firstplace. Scholars such as Sakai (2003) and Lee (1999) have shown that thehomogeneous and unified linguistic system of 'Japanese' is a social construct,a social condition for completing the imagined community of Japan.
Similarly, the idea of 'revitalization' assumes that the perfect Korean language
and a homogeneous Korean-speaking community have been lost and forcibly
taken away by the imperial power. As such, the language revitalization
movement gave rise to an obsession with restoring the 'pure' Korean
language, which may never have existed in the first place (Suh, 2014). It
required the concomitant invention of a standardized grammar andorthography to regulate diverse linguistic practices. In that sense, the Korean
standardization movement is not only about establishing national identity andcultural homogenization but is more deeply implicated in local struggles forpolitical power and academic hegemony. The social pursuit of one, boundedlanguage brought about a new controversy among intellectuals over who had
authority over what counted as 'correct' language, which played out mostclearly in struggles over orthography.
The writing practice: Power and struggle over Korean orthography
The history of Korean orthography reveals that Han'gŭl was not a subject ofwidespread debate for much of its history, as the script remained largely
neglected and mainly utilized for vernacular fiction texts in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries. It was only during the early colonial period that theissue of orthographic unification gained prominence. In 1912, the firststandardized orthography was introduced under the direction of the GGK to

The discourse on bilingualism in postcolonial Korea:Focusing on the language revitalization movement

9

facilitate colonial education. Subsequently, committees comprising academic
experts, educators, and publishers were formed by the colonial state toaddress the standardization of Korean orthography.
During the postcolonial period, while the general direction of the language
revitalization movement to replace Japanese vocabulary with Koreanalternatives gained full-fledged support from the public as well as politicalparties, a cacophony of voices emerged regarding who got to decide whatcounted as correct Korean. There was also disagreement over how, and how
much, the language should be reformed. In this sense, the widely held social
belief that Koreans achieved linguistic unity through the rediscovery of their“scientific” script is part of a larger semiotic process of what Irvine and Gal(2000) termed “erasure,” through which alternative voices and perspectives
are silenced by the hegemonic power. As Kim (2017) observed, the primaryconcern is not determining which side of the linguistic debate was moreaccurate but rather understanding who wielded the power to control the
language revitalization process.
Two major camps led the development of Korean linguistics at that time:
KLA members, who had led various language campaigns and programs as
language activists, and a dissenting group of academic linguists trained at
Keizo imperial university. The former became a representative culturalorganization that had been suppressed by Japanese imperialism, as shown in
the arrest of its members in 1942 for publishing a Korean-language
dictionary. Insofar as Japan acknowledged a bilingual reality while pursuing
gradual assimilation strategies, the earlier collaboration between the GGK
and the KLA is noteworthy. The joint effort of the GGK and the KLA tocreate the Unified Orthography in 1932 has largely remained unaddressed(for a comprehensive discussion, refer to Mitsui, 2013). Although the GGK
was aware that the KLA had monopolized the standardization process andthat other linguistic scholars (e.g., Seungbin Park) continued to demand therevision of the spelling system, the ambivalent collaboration between the

10Jinsuk YANGGGK and the KLA continued until the official banning of Korean educationin the late 1930s.
The KLA persisted in its efforts to influence state power even during theAmerican military government phase, as key members assumed various
government positions after the liberation in 1945, including the textbookcompilation committees at the Ministry of Education. Acknowledging theimportance of state power in language campaigns, the KLA worked tomaintain ties with the subsequent governments as well. Nevertheless, thispolitical association later faced criticism, with some suggesting that lobbying
and institutional connections, rather than intellectual debate, played adecisive role in resolving the spelling issue. During the postliberation period,
KLA members put a strong emphasis on the purity of the Korean language indrafting policies and programs for the standardization process. The following
excerpts are from 1954 writings by Hyunbai Choi (cited by Lee, 2014), whotook the lead in the movement.
During the period of Japanese aggression spanning four decades, weendured unprecedented humiliation and exploitation. However, wehave now liberated ourselves from those chains and find ourselves on
the path towards becoming free citizens, striving to establish our own
vibrant and independent culture. At the core of all-encompassing
efforts is the elimination of Chinese characters from our language andthe creation of a linguistic environment solely based on Han'gŭl.
In general, words are undoubtedly established as a collective meansof expressing thoughts and ideas based on social consensus. However,
it is not entirely accurate to say that they are formed only by
consensus. Rather, they invariably originate from individuals who
deeply perceive the social demands within their respective fields, thus
creating new words. When these words gain acceptance in society,

The discourse on bilingualism in postcolonial Korea:Focusing on the language revitalization movement

11

they become established as appropriate expressions.
Both excerpts highlight the principles upheld by the KLA: Firstly, a clear
differentiation between Japan and Korea necessitated distinct differences between
their respective languages. Secondly, KLA members, including Choi himself,
should oversee and guide the movement as the authority possessing a deep
understanding of social needs and linguistic practices in postcolonial Korea.
The other group of scholars were mainly trained as linguists at Keijo imperial
university; they understood language as a scientific object that should beresearched through scientific methods. Their academic lineage can be traced
back to Ueda Kazutoshi, who is considered to have pioneered modern
Korean linguistics and linguistics in Japan. His philosophy was delivered to
the Korean scholars through Ogura Sinpei, who studied under Ueda andtaught linguistics. Ueda’s view that “linguistic change is governed by rationalrules, not by human intentions” influenced his students’ views on language,
leading them to argue for the decoupling of language from society. This
perspective was in stark contrast to the views of the members of the KLA,
whose goal was to create new language practices, both written and spoken,
via active intervention in society.
Through Ogura Sinpei, Ueda’s ideas were transmitted to Lee Hee-seung, whoargued for a “scientific” method of researching Korean linguistics. As astudent of Ogura Shinpei, Lee Hee-seung primarily studied comparative
historical linguistics and was critical of nationalist linguistics. He also playeda leading role in the establishment in 1949 of the National Institute of the
Korean Language, similar to Japan’s National Institute for Japanese
Language. Through this institute, he advocated a policy supporting the usageof Chinese characters in the Korean orthography. Lee Sung-Nyeong, anotherstudent of Ogura, studied Korean linguistics based on structural linguistics.
After 1945, the establishment of Seoul National University, which succeeded

12

Jinsuk YANG

Keijo Imperial University, played a pivotal role in generating and solidifying
these scholars’ aura of authoritative knowledge, allowing them to attain adominant position in the field of linguistics. Over the years, graduates fromthis academic tradition have formed a significant force opposing the linguistic
nationalism–based viewpoint, spreading across universities and secondary
schools nationwide.
While the two camps occasionally collaborated to promote a morphemebased orthography over a phoneme-based approach to standardizing writing,their conflicts intensified in other areas. These included debates over writing
direction (horizontal versus vertical), the preference for grammar terms in
textbooks (Korean versus Chinese), and the utilization of Chinese charactersin writing. In particular, Choi’s argument for abolishing Chinese characters
became a focal point of contention, as he proposed the avoidance of both
Chinese characters and Sino-Korean words written in Han'gŭl. Viewing
Chinese characters as foreign, the committee implemented a language policythat eliminated their use in the Korean language. This stance led toconfrontations not only among linguists, but among literary figures, shaping
the main battlefield of the debate. From the onset of the debate, newspapers
like Chosun Ilbo editorialized against the Korean-only policy:
The decision on the abolition of Chinese characters and the full
adoption of Han'gŭl should be made by comprehensively assessing
the opinions of numerous experts and the public, not be based on
impulsive actions or ideologies. However, the educational authorities
are forcing the use of Han'gŭl in the field of education solely based on
the opinions of a few individuals or organizations, without suchcareful consideration and planning.
The criticism expressed by the editors of the Chosun Ilbo aligned with theThe discourse on bilingualism in postcolonial Korea:Focusing on the language revitalization movement

13

arguments put forth by the academic scholars, asserting that language should
remain in the realm of science. However, considering the limited avenues
available for the public’s diverse linguistic practices to influence official
language policies, the true motivation behind this article may have been tochallenge the linguistic activism of the KLA members and their supporters.
Final thoughts
In this study, I have looked at the process and the effects of the language
revitalization movement in postcolonial Korea. Contrary to the perceptionthat the language movement garnered fervent nationwide support, the reality
was more nuanced. I pointed out that it was a highly top-down campaign
planned and executed by a group of language activists under the auspices of
the US government, resulting in various levels of engagement across theentire nation. Considering the movement’s goals for both spoken and written
language, I examined how the movement unfurled for each of these modes,
with what political and social agendas, and the social and politicalconsequences.
In regard to speaking practices, the committee was actively engaged indeveloping vocabulary and promoting the replacement of Japanese words
with Korean equivalents. This endeavor can be considered partiallysuccessful, if not entirely, due to the ideology and pructice of linguistic
nationalism Whether voluntary or coerced, this consensus played a significant
role in establishing a sense of the necessity of using Korean instead ofJapanese. It helped create a shared understanding among the populace
regarding the importance of linguistic nationalism as a key condition for amodern nation state. On the other hand, conflicts over writing practices weremore pronounced, as they directly revolved around the medium of knowledge
production and, consequently, authority. These conflicts extended beyond the

14

Jinsuk YANG

realm of linguistic activists and involved various stakeholders. Each group
had a vested interest in shaping the discourse and exerting influence overwhat was considered legitimate orthography. These conflicting interests andperspectives heightened the tensions and debates surrounding the language
movement, as they pertained to the fundamental question of who held theauthority to define and regulate the written language.
As language gradually gained recognition as a subject of study within theinstitutionalization of modern knowledge through universities, a group ofscholars emerged as key players in the orthography debate. Their expertiseand academic standing positioned them as authoritative figures in mattersrelated to language, allowing them to maintain a dominant role in theongoing linguistic debates. By conducting research, publishing scholarly
works, and teaching linguistics, they were able to shape and define linguistic
norms and standards. Their influence extended not only to orthography but
also to broader linguistic issues, such as grammar, syntax, and vocabulary.
Accordingly, alternative viewpoints and voices were silenced under the
influence of the “scientific” production of linguistic knowledge.
The findings suggest that the language revitalization movement was so mucha "natural" expression of national consciousness, as a social movement fromabove to create a homogeneous linguistic community. Social movements
based on the myth of ethnic purity internalize the logic of exclusion. An elitecentered view of history that sought to erase Japanese remnants labeled
Japanese-speaking speakers as pro-Japanese or targets for change. This may
have served to further emphasize the otherness of the Korean diaspora inJapan, including bilingual writers like Kim Soo-young, who were born in the
1920s and 1930s and lived in a bilingual situation of Japanese and Korean(Kwon, 2015). Further, the lives of Koreans whose first language is otherthan Korean did not gain recognition as legitimate participants. The critical

The discourse on bilingualism in postcolonial Korea:Focusing on the language revitalization movement

15

recognition of the language revitalization movement is an important step inchallenging the nationalistic discourse on language as a process and productof decolonization. It helps refine our understanding of the interplay between
power and social order brought about by language.
Bibliographies김철. (2014). "오늘의 적도 내일의 적으로 생각하면 되고": '일제 청산'과 김수영의 저항. 		
일본비평, 10, 254-269.
미쓰이 다카시. (2008). 식민지기 조선에서의 한글운동에 관한 연구 동향과 그 비판적 검토.
언어 문화, 11(1), 55-83.
사카이 나오키. (2003). 사산되는 일본어 일본인. 서울: 문화과학사
서석배. (2005). 단일 언어 사회를 향해. 한국문학연구, 29 184-218.
신동일. (2015). 국내 단일언어주의 정책 변화의 필요성 탐색 : 링구아 프랑카, 트랜스링구
얼논점을 기반으로. 다문화와 평화, 9(3), 143-162.
유선영. (2017). 식민지 트라우마. 한국 사회 집단 불안의 기원을 찾아서. 서울: 푸른역사.
이연숙. (1999;2006). 국어라는 사상. 서울: 소명출판.
이재은. (2014). 해방 후 한글전용론의 주체, 방법, 범위의 문제 - 조선어학회의 ‘우리말 도로 찾기 운동’ 과 김기림의 우리말 논의를 중심으로. 상허학보, 41, 283-327.
이준식. (2013). 해방 후 국어학계의 분열과 대립. 한국근현대사연구, 67, 88-118.
장지영. (1946). 나랏말을 깨끗이 하자(1). 한글, 11(5), 328-333.
정종현. (2012). 제국의 기억과 전유: 1940년대 한국문학의 연속과 비연속. 서울: 어문학 사.
정태진. (1946). 재건 도상의 우리 국어. 한글, 11(2), 101-106.
허재영. (2015). 국어 순화 자료집의 문제점과 순화어 정비의 방향. 국어교육연구, 57, 251274.
홍성희. (2015). 이중언어 상황에서의 언어 수행: 김수영의 언어에 관하여. 민족문학사연구,57, 325-358.
Kwon, N. A. (2015). Intimate empire: Collaboration and Colonial Modernity in Korea andJapan. Durham: Duke University Press.
Inoue, M. (2004). Vicarious language: Gender and linguistic modernity in Japan.
California: California University Press.
Yi, C. (2018). Colonizing language: Cultural production and language politics in modern
Japan and Korea. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
Yang, J.-S. (2017). A historical analysis of language policy and language ideology in theearly twentieth Asia: a case of Joseon, 1910–1945. Language Policy, 16(1), 59-78.

(Associate Professor at Osaka Metropolitan University)