Replies to This Discussion | 이 토론에 대한 답글들

Permalink Reply by Igor Kurilin on January 30, 2012 at 2:25pm

I think in Korean adjectives have more features of verb than English adjectives. Korean adjectives usually translated to English as "to be something": 바쁘다 = to be busy. At the same time Korean and English adjectives have quite similar usage:

1. Mark is busy: 마크가 바빠요

2. Busy Mark: 바쁜 마크 

Permalink Reply by Philipp Grunwald on January 30, 2012 at 3:30pm

Great topic! I am a bit sad though that you feel that way, because you have to consider:

It is (or seems to be) very hard for natives to explain their language and view it from a foreigners point! And even if they have a linguistic education (which they probably or hopefully need for writing a book about Korean) then they still might lack the English skills (as those guys are working for the big corporations) or simply a system in their mind or the capacity to take the Korean language structure and integrate it into a "usable", well-comprehensible and logical educational system, all while Korean has so many exceptions from the rule. Especially as you have to imagine a text-book writer building this system for the very first (and probably only!) time in his life, something that no one has taught this person how to do it! Basically you'd need a bilingual Korean-American with a lifelong background in linguistics and education who is incredibly bright and reflective, to build such a system or write a book. But then after all, you can't get around doing your own cramming of all the rules and vocabulary! But if we look at the (imho) better books out there, we see exactly what I described above: Two Korean-Hawaiian linguistic professors  = "Using Korean - A Guide to Contemporary Usage", Chad Meyer + Moonjung Kim = Easy Korean, instant feedback from bilinguals = Harukorean, fun lessons from young & smart people, who are mostly fluent in English = TTMIK

I recommend you to learn with the above materials to make it easier for you!

Another problem indeed is: Many books prefer to use "levels" and "classes", but every language institute and book (or even TTMIK) puts grammatical points in a different order! (Which is why I am so grateful that TTMIK lessons are digital, full-text searchable and free - so I don't have to spend a fortune or guess just to understand some grammar points!!) And classes go after the "quick wins", i.e. speaking something, without actually having a full grasp! (Which is, if you ask "language hackers" like the "fluentin3months" guy, a good thing.) The same is true for us as learners, we want (and sometimes need!) those quick wins too! But yes, I am regularly confused because Koreans simply express something with grammatical terms I haven't encountered yet, so then I'm confused or unsure if I understood them correctly.

Comparison to other language: You have to give people a break, even though I understand you and I too get similar aggravated about this situation at times! But it happened to me too, in French !! (Or even math. ;)) Every new course / semester, after a while I started to buy a new grammar book or similar materials out of pure desperation, because my classroom textbooks (or maybe the offers on the internet back then) were so lacking and I had a hard time retaining rules. After all I lived next to France and all the materials were there, but it didn't make it all easy. Thus today I'd take a different, more aggressive approach! Meaning I simply need to put in more hours and leverage the modern internet- and Leitner-based flashcard tools with gamification elements, which are the most efficient way to go. In comparison to French language speakers (115 - 265 mio, wikipedia) and Japanese (130 mio), Korean language with it's 88 million native speakers in total has a much smaller market share so to speak! Thus there are probably also less materials, less developed materials and so on. Thus of course the materials will lack much of what a learner needs, but I can tell you German materials about Korean aren't better either. (The big PONS publishing house has this book, which meanwhile makes me scratch my head, as it includes only the very basic grammar rules and even the "level 1" course here at a Korean language institute covered much more than is in the PONS...)

About the other points, I won't say much as I don't want to go into the specifics, but as said I noticed that just putting in the self-study hours and using a proper textbook and materials simply washed away the old misconceptions that, yes, came from bad or insufficient language classes, but my conclusion is anyways: Formal education in language institutes just doesn't do it !!! It's rather depressing, like a lot of formal education... But self-study can do it! It's just a matter of belief, self-confidence and persistence! After all you have Korean friends to practise with, don't you? So don't limit yourself through formal education and bla, just keep pushing forward! ;)

And finally, I still think that even us (linguistically) distant foreigners could (like Chad Meyer) write materials about the Korean language! Of course it would need a lot of checks and balances (esp. as two Koreans have three opinions sometimes ;)), but it is possible. But I think in this case you should already be fluent, probably? I still think with experience also comes the ability to teach well, but honestly only after putting in more hours and years into Koreans can we really say if the books were that bad, or if we're just too lazy and not used to cramming? ;p Malcolm Gladwell says you can only be excellent after putting in 10.000 hours of work into a topic - I mentioned this before in regards to Korean - so where do you stand? I have only a few hundred hours of classroom study and a similary number of self-study hours behind me, thus I still have 9.500 hours to go! ;)

Permalink Reply by Valentin JANIAUT on January 30, 2012 at 3:54pm

First of all Phillip thank you for your (very) long answer I greatly appreciate it :) I want just to clarify one point before I am going further, I am not going to stop my Korean learning process either that I think we should throw away all the book and the professor. I just wanted to be a bit incisive to catch the attention !

It is (or seems to be) very hard for natives to explain their language and view it from a foreigners point! And even if they have a linguistic education (which they probably or hopefully need for writing a book about Korean) then they still might lack the English skills (as those guys are working for the big corporations) or simply a system in their mind or the capacity to take the Korean language structure and integrate it into a "usable", well-comprehensible and logical educational system

My point was more that I really feel that I learn another language that Korean in the university. A language that only professor could be able to speak ... Or people who spent a lot of time with foreigner practicing Korean. Obviously I have much less problem to have basic conversation with close friends or gf than with co-worker, letting me quite curious about how such of thing can happen! So I felt a bit disappointed since I am thinking a bit that I put a lot of effort in learning something a bit different from my real need.

But then after all, you can't get around doing your own cramming of all the rules and vocabulary! But if we look at the (imho) better books out there, we see exactly what I described above: Two Korean-Hawaiian linguistic professors  = "Using Korean - A Guide to Contemporary Usage", Chad Meyer + Moonjung Kim = Easy Korean, instant feedback from bilinguals = Harukorean, fun lessons from young & smart people, who are mostly fluent in English = TTMIK

I recommend you to learn with the above materials to make it easier for you!

Useful resources, definitely. I am using some of them already although for some reason I cannot identify I have hard time to learn Korean outside of the classical Yonsei/Sogang resources (which is a bit weird I have been disappointed by those books ...). What would be a good study plan with such of resources?

You have to give people a break, even though I understand you and I too get similar aggravated about this situation at times! But it happened to me too, in French !! (Or even math. ;)) Every new course / semester, after a while I started to buy a new grammar book or similar materials, because my classroom textbooks (or maybe the offers on the internet back then) were insufficient and I had a hard time retaining rules.

My point was that the current Korean pedagogy try to explain the Korean grammar using the English grammar. I feel like it is kind of wrong since it is too much different and trying to say it is "like this..." is good to understand quickly but after all gave me a lot of confusion ...

 In comparison to French language speakers (115 - 265 mio, wikipedia) and Japanese (130 mio), Korean language with it's 88 million native speakers in total has a much smaller market share so to speak! Thus there are probably also less materials, less developed materials and so on. Thus of course the materials will lack much of what a learner needs, but I can tell you German materials about Korean aren't better either. (The big PONS publishing house has this book, which meanwhile makes me scratch my head, as it includes only the very basic grammar rules and even the "level 1" course here at a Korean language institute covered much more than is in the PONS...)

Obviously :) And actually I think there is quite a lot of resources for Korean language compare to the size of this community. Although I am really lacking of books to learn Korean directly from French since my English is not that great, I think that make my Korean weaker.

About the other points, I won't say much as I don't want to go into the specifics, but as said I noticed that just putting in the self-study hours and using a proper textbook and materials simply washed away the old misconceptions that, yes, came from bad or insufficient language classes, but my conclusion is anyways:Formal education in language institutes just doesn't do it !!! It's rather depressing, like a lot of formal education... But self-study can do it! It's just a matter of belief, self-confidence and persistence! After all you have Korean friends to practise with, don't you? So don't limit yourself through formal education and bla, just keep pushing forward! ;)

Again, I agree and I am taking this path. I am just curious about if other people went through the same direction of feeling quite disappointed by the "institutional learning" and succeed to move away from the misconception we can get from there?

 And finally, I still think that even us (linguistically) distant foreigners could (like Chad Meyer) write materials about the Korean language! Of course it would need a lot of checks and balances (esp. as two Koreans have three opinions sometimes ;)), but it is possible. But I think in this case you should already be fluent, probably? I still think with experience also comes the ability to teach well, but honestly only after putting in more hours and years into Koreans can we really say if the books were that bad, or if we're just too lazy and not used to cramming? ;p I mean Malcolm Gladwell says you can only be excellent after putting in 10.000 hours of work into a topic - I mentioned this before in regards to Korean - so where do you stand? I have only a few hundred hours of classroom study and a similary number of self-study hours behind me, thus I still have 9.500 hours to go! ;)

Indeed ... I am roughly in a similar position, but in this long journey it is good to hear from other about their direction and path to know if we are also going into the good direction.

Cheers :)

Permalink Reply by Mike Park on January 30, 2012 at 10:48pm

Valentin,

Despite what you may read about Korea, the education system in Korea is very poor. What I mean by this is that you're encouraged to "memorize" everything without really thinking. Hence, and as a foreigner trying to learn Korean, the process may get very frustrating.

To (initially) overcome this obstacle, I would recommend that you meet and speak to a Korean in Korean 3 times more (in terms of hours) than you study via book or learning aids.

Here's one key to remember about Korean which is very different from western languages; and what educators probably did not teach you in class. When you're speaking Korean in a group or to someone, it is an absolute "must" that know the relative position of whom you are speaking to/with. In other words, is your counterpart older than you, younger than you, is he (she) you boss, or is he (she) someone that reports to you.

If don't get these coordinates right, it is very easy to get lost (or what you call a nightmare). This is why so many Korean will ask you what is your title...or your age when they begin a discussion. In terms of the selection of my or mine (나의/내) versus our (우리), it will become apparent in dialog that commonalities are found by both speakers, then the word becomes 우리...which promotes a Korean concept group/community versus western society's individualism.

Permalink Reply by Valentin JANIAUT on January 31, 2012 at 1:37pm

Hello Mike,

Thank you for you reply, there is many interesting things inside.

Despite what you may read about Korea, the education system in Korea is very poor. What I mean by this is that you're encouraged to "memorize" everything without really thinking. Hence, and as a foreigner trying to learn Korean, the process may get very frustrating.

That's definitely true, I never realized that could impact the way Korean is taught. However I would not say the education system is poor, it is good from my point of view, it just requires too big sacrifice for the kid. But it is not poor in terms of quality.

To (initially) overcome this obstacle, I would recommend that you meet and speak to a Korean in Korean 3 times more (in terms of hours) than you study via book or learning aids.

Somehow that's something not easy because it is extremely frustrating to be limited when I talk and all the Korean people I know are always speaking English and will have hard time to be enough patient to talk to me in Korean only. But I should probably try to enforce this "Korean only policy" at some time of the day. I will let you know if I feel any progress from this side.

Here's one key to remember about Korean which is very different from western languages; and what educators probably did not teach you in class. When you're speaking Korean in a group or to someone, it is an absolute "must" that know the relative position of whom you are speaking to/with. In other words, is your counterpart older than you, younger than you, is he (she) you boss, or is he (she) someone that reports to you.

Indeed, that's a fact (among other) which is rarely taught in the book and I do not know why. It is also a big pain for foreigner since calling someone is the most basic things you need to do in a language, making hard to move further. For instance I feel comfortable in basic task, like talking to the taxi driver, ordering food and so on, because I am 100% sure about the right way to call people and talk to them. But with people I know more, it is hard to be sure about this, and hard to get conversation in Korean.

then the word becomes 우리...which promotes a Korean concept group/community versus western society's individualism.

Once again, I do disagree with this explain (which the most common I found). Obviously the concept of "group" is much more important in Korea, but I do not see why Korean say 우리 남편 for instance, as far as I know, you do not share spouse here ?! Probably we can say that the root of 우리 comes from this concept of group in Korean, but nowadays, does people think 우리 as something plural ?

Once again, thank you for your feedback which help to understand and explain more my feeling.

Permalink Reply by Steven S. Bammel on February 1, 2012 at 12:30am

Mike - You bring up an interesting point... Even in academic papers written in Korean, Korean authors write 우리 나라 in place of 한국. In this case, it's not even possible in theory for an outsider to write Korean like a Korean since I can't write 우리 나라... 

Permalink Reply by Steven S. Bammel on January 31, 2012 at 12:21am

Valentin - Answering your questions in full would result in a book!  I absolutely agree with you about "Calling someone in Korean is a nightmare"...  

I think it's helpful to remember that there just aren't any perfect one-for-one relationships in vocabulary and grammar between Korean and Western languages. Even as we try to talk about certain things in Korean meaning this or that in our own languages, it's never a perfect match and there are always additional nuances that have to be learned. You're going to pick those up through a comprehensive learning approach over many years... 

Permalink Reply by Valentin JANIAUT on January 31, 2012 at 1:41pm

Thank you Steven for your answer. I need indeed time to grasp better and better understanding of the Korean language. While moving forward in the learning process, I just feel frustrating to see that what I have been taught (or at least what I understood from this teaching) is kind of wrong/fuzzy... 

Usually while learning a foreign language, you climb hill and discover a bigger hill after, but at least you can keep the same equipment to continue your journey. But with Korean I feel like at each new hill I should change my equipment because otherwise I cannot continue!

I am curious if other people felt similar feeling?

Permalink Reply by Steven S. Bammel on February 1, 2012 at 12:26am

What you have been taught isn't "wrong", but it is "fuzzy"... While my Korean learning journey continues even after nearly 20 years, I've never felt that I needed to change equipment after climbing each hill. Just keep hauling along everything you've learned and with time and perseverance, you'll find that past learning is very helpful in making sense of new stuff.

Permalink Reply by Philipp Grunwald on February 15, 2012 at 2:07am

Right now, I actually noticed what is lacking for me: Not only is it often the lack of Koreans being able to express themselves precisely in English - which I can't blame them for in most cases - but more so a general lack of explanation. I still puzzle together nuggets of information about single or multiple grammar terms from several friends, language exchange partners and online materials. This is not necessary for the most time, but still noticeably often I learn so many new things from my friends!

A lot of Korean grammar is not at all taught in a structured way. And this is totally beyond me! Even though it is often said that the grammar is taught in order of frequency in daily usage, that indeed is not the case! When I look at the Sogang and Seoul National University books at least... What annoys me the most here: We learn e.g. a past tense grammatical structure. Then a future tense. Then maybe a present tense or sth. and then again a past and a future and a past tense structure...and so on.

This would be useful for grammatical expressions that are valid (yet different) in all three times (과거, 현재, 미래). But then again those were also not taught together, but structures get split in two lessons, even though there is the same underlying meaning and sure wouldn't overwhelm anyone to learn those minor nuances. But rather help the student retain the differences in the three forms! But this doesn't happen and together with the lack of explanation  it takes a lot of processing to even know there is a future tense form of the aforementioned expression, because it is simply not mentioned in class! Because [the] "teacher" won't and often can't speak English, assuming that - contrary to e.g. any other university class at any university worldwide! - you'll learn more of a subject when it is taught in the foreign language, while you imho actually learn slower, not more! Why is it that Engineering or Chemistry don't get taught in a foreign language (except at KAIST), but when learning a structure or system (like in Chemistry or economics) in a language it suddenly should improve the students learning results? Vocabulary need to be crammed bilingual (or later with definitions or synonyms, like I do in English) and grammar always needs a certain degree of explanation, which is usually in the students mother language (why else exist Japanese and Chinese 한국어 textbooks?), so why then even start the sillyness of refusing to talk in English at the times when it is necessary or useful? (Then and only then!) So of course we need and should all speak more in our new language, but then at least the lessons need to be built around that like at Sogang University! The memorization marathon we had in our class weekly sure didn't contribute to my speaking skills, only my need to order Vegetarian food and talk to strangers in the real world did.

This is why I meanwhile don't pay for any time-intensive language classes anymore (only speaking events), at least as long as I don't precisely know what we'll talk about in the next lesson. Without the pre- and post-study for class based on e.g. the TalkToMeInKorean materials (which mostly explains stuff in detail), class simply delivers very limited results. So that is what I indeed did do last year, I simply pre-studied and did the homework in advance, so as to actually already have had acquired on my own the lesson material in question. This is almost like the recent "swap classes" idea, for me classes were only there for repetition. Without doing my homework in advance, my stress levels rose and my understanding plummeted and all my time was wasted on doing the homework and not on active learning in my opinion. As this is the basic system in school and university, I think it is flawed. If there is no opportunity given to pre-study the subject (= self-study in advance), the poor student is dependent on his understanding of the teacher, which highly likely might lack the skills to transfer his knowledge of the subject matter. (University professors e.g. get paid and promoted by their research output, not their teaching performance!) So the one person who figures out the explanation the best (and I saw that in class and sure was able to figure my teachers out, but still...) has an advantage - if the people who have a lack of understanding don't take more self-initiative.

But back to the topic:

Instead of presenting and comparing several (most, not all!) past or future tense structures together! Especially if the express similar things! So similar that some Korean friends say "it is like that, it is the same", while when I read up on it, it actually is, it is just hard to differentiate. But that is what teachers should be there for! Thus even for the simple future tenses esp. in comparison to e.g. 겠, only because and when I specifically asked in class this was explained to us. Otherwise the teacher wouldn't have mentioned the different levels of determination or certainty, which even change when the same grammar structure (not 겠, but others) is used in question form! This is what clearly shows to me that "there is a lot of air" above in terms of actual teaching quality.

The second annoyance to me recently is - even though I always knew the forms - 반말 and that it is always ignored in explanations. Similar to the example above we basically never talked about 반말 (even though it is not a big deal!) and 존댓말 in conjunction. Instead of always displaying the three forms for each new structure students learn - or rather: mention the few (there are as far as I understand) exceptions where certain 존댓말 or 반말 can not be "conjugated" through vice-versa - 반말 and 존댓말 get talked about in common, in separate chapters! As if it would be so complicated. These formality levels are so important and should simply be mentioned and explained in detail in the very first Korean lessons, only to then make examples that ideally show their application in all three formality levels.

Because how often did I have (and you probably?) had that "aha!" moment because expressions only previously known from (my bad) listening suddenly make sense in writing, as they fall apart in their two to three parts of dictionary form, (honorific indicator,) time indicator and formality level. Basic, popular example: 알겠습니다. 알다 (+시) + 겠 + -습니다.

The same is true for the previously mentioned adjectives. These days I try to use as many formality levels and adjectives and adverbs as possible in the same short time frame while writing or speaking, so as to assure myself that that there indeed is a system which I can trust and memorize its structural basics. And that it was just the single-minded teaching and my previously single-minded, follow-the-textbook/teacher learning approach that often made me insecure about stuff where I didn't need to be.