26.3009, Review: Language Documentation; Ling & Literature: Kiaer (2014)

Tue Jun 23 19:54:54 UTC 2015

LINGUIST List: Vol-26-3009. Tue Jun 23 2015. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 26.3009, Review: Language Documentation; Ling & Literature: Kiaer (2014)

Moderators: linguist at linguistlist.org (Damir Cavar, Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Anthony Aristar, Helen Aristar-Dry, Sara Couture)
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
              http://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Sara  Couture <sara at linguistlist.org>
================================================================

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:47:24
From: Soung-U Kim [582503 at soas.ac.uk]
Subject: Jeju Language and Tales from the Edge of the Korean Peninsula

Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=35974537

Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/25/25-2011.html

AUTHOR: Jieun  Kiaer
TITLE: Jeju Language and Tales from the Edge of the Korean Peninsula
SERIES TITLE: LINCOM Studies in Asian Linguistics 83
PUBLISHER: Lincom GmbH
YEAR: 2014

REVIEWER: Soung-U S. Kim, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Review's Editor: Helen Aristar-Dry

SUMMARY

‘Jeju Language and Tales from the Edge of the Korean Peninsula’ by Jieun Kiaer
is a monograph on the local idiom of Jeju Province, South Korea. Containing
folk tales and narratives in Jeju language (henceforth Jejuan) taken from Kim
et al. (1985), this book may provide an opportunity for interested students to
have a glimpse at how Jejuan was used 30 years ago.  Although this book may
indeed be “the first book to be written in English about the Jeju language” as
praised on the cover, it contains so many problematic issues and errors that I
cannot wholeheartedly vouch for the relevance of this publication for research
on this language. (The romanisation used will be the McCune-Reischauer system
as applied by Kiaer, using a version with initial consonant forms except for 
ㄹ <r/l>, and with the additional usage of ᆞ <ò> for a back, mid-low rounded
vowel [ɒ] peculiar to Jejuan. Also note that because of missing Unicode
representation, the syllables containing this vowels will be broken up
linearly, instead of their typical encoding in blocks. The above practice does
not apply to proper names such as ‘Jeju’. Transliterated Jejuan and Korean
words will be put in angled brackets to facilitate identification. Thanks to
Yŏng-Pong Kang, Sun-Cha Kim, Min-Ji Kim, Chi-Yŏn Hong and Hyŏng-Sŏk Pu,
Jaehoon Yeon and Oliver Mayeux for their invaluable support and comments.)

In her preface (page vi), Kiaer promises to provide an “English-language
introduction to the Jeju language” that includes “morphological analysis and
essential vocabulary provided together with modern Korean and English
translations”, further elaborating that the “inclusion of linguistic analysis
alongside modern translations makes this book accessible and of interest to
those who wish to study Jeju language from the perspective of either
linguistics or literature”. Curiously, one and the same preface announces 41
and, later on, 50 stories in total, although my counting of the titles in the
table of contents resulted in a total of 42 stories printed in this book. It
is also claimed that there is a “CD accompanying the book” (p. vi), although a
look at the editorial catalogue or the blurb indicates no such CD.

The subsequent introductory part seems to be sort of a second preface, where
Kiaer states that “[t]his book examines the unique features of the Jeju
dialect [sic] with reference to standard Korean. Yet, rather than doing so in
isolation, the approach this book adopts is to provide an extensive range of
folklore tales [sic] relating to or from Jeju in order to exemplify Jeju
dialect in use” (page vii), stating more clearly later on that “this book
adopts a usage-focused examination of the Jeju dialect” (p. viii). 

Chapter 1 (p. 1-6) consists of a further introduction into the sociohistorical
and geographical context of Jeju Island with an exclusive focus on times
before the twentieth century. As a very rough sketch, it contains a couple of
problems that will be discussed in detail later.

Chapter 2 (p. 7-18) is a small sketch grammar of Jejuan that presents the
language’s “phonology” (p. 7-8), “morphology” (p. 8-15) and “syntax” (p.
15-18). In the evaluation section, the structure of this chapter will be
revealed to closely follow that of an unmentioned source, Kang (2007).

Chapter 3 (p. 19-310) is the central element of this publication, containing
myths and folktales taken from Kim et al. (1985). Each Jejuan narrative is
accompanied by Korean summaries and translations provided by the original
source, as well as their translations into English. As I will discuss later,
the Korean and English ‘translations’ are something between translations and
summaries, and suffer from partial information loss.

Chapter 4 (p. 311-317) is a list of words selected from Kang and Hyŏn (2009)
with lexemes that all contain the back, mid-low rounded vowel [ɒ] peculiar to
Jejuan (called <arae a>  ‘bottom a’) somewhere in a word. With a lot of typos
and errors, its connection with other parts is dubious. 

This part is followed by the bibliography which is a list of twenty-two
recommended readings (p. 318-319). The last section of the book (p. 320-329)
is a list of Jejuan words which is sorted by semantic domains. 

The coherence of the book’s sections is limited. For example, there is no
obvious connection between the bibliography and the previous sections, other
than that it contains a handful of seemingly random references to research on
Jejuan. For example, it is not explained for what reason Ch’angmyŏng O’s
(1997) source on ‘The comprehensive study of toponyms of Jeju villages and
mountains’ has been included in the bibliography, alongside Ki-Mwun Yi’s
(1980) study on ‘the Peculiarities of the dialect of Gapa Island’. Although
mentioned on page 311, Kang and Hyun’s (2009) ‘Dictionary of Jeju Language’
did not find its way into the bibliography. Additionally, it would have been
nice to see a general list of vocabulary items found in the texts in order to
be able to find them again later. 

EVALUATION

To begin with an orthographic issue, it is unclear to me why the low, back,
rounded vowel [ɒ] of Jejuan, (the <ò> mentioned above, written as <ᆞ> in
Jejuan orthography) has been consistently transliterated as <a>, which makes
it impossible to distinguish this vowel grapheme from that of the vowel [a],
for which the same grapheme is used. As a result, one constantly has to refer
to the Korean script examples of Jejuan, reducing accessibility to those who
are acquainted with neither of those languages. Furthermore, transliteration
is sometimes inconsistent and provides ground for confusion: For example,
place names such as Aeweol district in Jeju City have been translated as
“Ye-Wol city” (e.g., p. 54) or “Aewŏrŭp Ilbu” (p. vi), with the element ‘-ŭp’
being the name of an administrative division that is lower in rank than a
‘city’ (‘-si’ in Korean), and ‘Ilbu’ probably needing translation as it just
means ‘a part of’.

Strangely, there is no discussion of the Jejuan linguistic ecology. Speaker
numbers and their geographic distribution, language attitudes (see Long and
Yim 2002, Kim 2013 or Yi 1981) and language policies (cf. Song 2012 as a
general account) and the language’s relationship to Korean are not discussed.
After all, it is important to mention that Jeju is spoken not only on Jeju
Island, but on surrounding islands as well as among emigrants in Osaka.
Sociohistorical explanations do not go beyond the Chosŏn period that ended in
1910, although there are crucial events and contextualisations, such as the
devastating sociopolitical effects of the so-called April-Third massacres in
the 1940s and 1950s (cf. Park 2010), which have greatly contributed to the
language’s marginalisation. With only about 5,000 to 10,000 elderly speakers
left, UNESCO classifies Jejuan as ‘critically endangered’ in 2010 (see Moseley
2010; note that Kiaer indicates the year 2011 for this (p. vi), which is not
correct, cf. UNESCO 2010). 

Furthermore, it is mentioned that “Jeju is a volcanic island” (p. 1), yet
detailed information on the geography of the Island Province - Jeju Island
lies at roughly 150km southwest of the Korean peninsula and not at the “Edge”
(cf. title) of it - is not provided. For example, the omnipresent Hallaksan
(Hallasan in Korean), an extinct volcano of about 2,000m in height with its
immense importance for Jeju topography, dialectology, agriculture and
mythology, is not mentioned anywhere. 

The section on “Environment and Folklore” (page 2 to 4) abounds with
inadequately exoticising statements, suggesting that “[t]he islanders still
maintain a traditional way of life that follows the environmental and historic
conditions of the island” (page 3), and that “Jeju people view typhoons as the
anger of gods and thus put a lot of effort into pleasing the gods” (page 3),
accompanied by cloudy formulations that mention that “[t]he folk customs that
exist also trace their roots back to historical conditions” (page 3). To
everyone who visits Jeju Island with an interest in current affairs however,
it will be clearly visible that the above “traditional way of life” is
transforming towards patterns and values that approximate Western cultures,
and together with its disappearing language, the way of life is an object of
manifold cultural conservation efforts (cf. UNESCO 2009).

In Korean linguistics, Jejuan is classified as one of the major dialect groups
of the Korean language (Pangŏnyŏnguhoe 2001, King 2006, Yeon 2012) and
generally called “<chechwu(to) pangŏn>, ‘Jeju dialect’” (cf. Yi 1978),
although recent years have seen a change in naming by some to “<chechwuŏ>,
‘Jeju language’” (see Kang 2007, Kang et al. 2009, Yang and Kim 2013; cf. Cho
2013 for a discussion of naming policies). Therefore, elucidating the
re-classification of Korean and Jejuan in the form of examining linguistic
differences between these two idioms (as is ongoing in the case of Japonic,
cf. Heinrich 2012 or Pellard 2009; 2011) and making people aware of language
endangerment in so-called “monolingual” South Korea (cf. Sohn 1999: 12 or Song
2012: 10) could have been a good way to promote linguistic diversity (cf.
Bobalijk et al. 1996) across the Korean-speaking realm. Instead of
contributing to this very important language-ideological debate (cf. Duchêne
and Heller 2007, Irvine and Gal 2000, Kroskrity 2000, Rumsey 1990, Silverstein
1979), the sole remark on this behalf is such that “[t]he Jeju language can be
compared with the Korean language in a similar way to Jeju Island and the
Korean peninsula: distinct, isolated and differentiated. A sizeable proportion
of Korean speakers have difficulty in understanding spoken Jeju language. What
makes the language so special? There are three aspects: the phonology, syntax
and culture of Jeju itself” (p. 6). Curiously enough, these words seem to have
been copied from page vii earlier on, where ‘Jeju language’ is consistently
labeled as ‘Jeju dialect’. As a matter of fact, the issue of language vs.
dialect in the Jejuan context is not considered here. 

Apart from this, the book is full of typos and errors in all of its parts,
both in English (“sweatinga lot”, p.13 or “Where are going?”, p. 14, “dear”
instead of ‘near’, p. 91), as well as in Korean and Jeju words (“Yŏngdŏng
deity” instead of “Yŏngdŭng deity” (cf. UNESCO 2009) on p. 3; “ㄱᆞ없이
 <kadŏpsi>” [sic], p. 15,  instead of “ㄱᆞㅂ엇이 <kòpŏsi>”, ‘without
differentiation/endlessly’  in Kang (2007: 79, also in Kang et al. 2009: 131);
“<kakki>” instead of “<kaksi>”, ‘bride’ and “<pungpu>” instead of “<p’ungpu>”,
‘wealth’; “<tulsŭisssik>” instead of “<tulsŭisssŏk>”, ‘two or three each’ in
Kim et al. (10985: 111), all of which are from p. 40; and ” <kukkarŭl>”,
nation.ACC, p. 41, instead of “<kukkaŭi>”, nation.GEN in Kim et al. (1985:
112)). 

Translation errors either from Jejuan into Korean, or into English greatly
reduce the reliability of this book’s contents as an information source. For
example, <gobŭl> on p. 168, was translated into <sumŭl> in Korean and ‘breath’
in English on p. 182, although it is an adnominalised form meaning ‘where one
will hide’; and “<hòyŏ nekkita>” (p. 316/317) has been translated into English
as “A collocation conveying the meaning of the phrase “if you’re going to do
it, do it right”, or the phrase “make sure you finish”, although the Korean
equivalent given on p. 316 states that this Jejuan word simply means ‘do
something and throw it away’ or ‘finish/get rid of sth.’ (p. 316).

In-text referencing is generally not applied, and books mentioned as sources
for certain parts are not listed in the bibliography. Thus although it is
explicitly stated in the preface (p. vi) that the narratives and folktales
have been taken from the “Compendium of Jeju Folk Tales” (Kim et al. 1985),
the source itself is cited nowhere in this book. 

Similarly, a look at Kang (2007: 83ff.) reveals that this publication must
have been a source for Kiaer’s Jejuan grammar sketch: Kiaer’s ‘syntax’ section
(p. 15-18) covers “tense” (p. 16), “aspect” (p. 16), “causative and passive”
(p. 17), as well as (almost exclusively verbal) “negation” (p. 17) and
“honorific” [sic] (p. 18). For an English-language linguistics publication, it
is odd to see all these sections subsumed under ‘syntax’, since these cover a
range of linguistic domains at the intersection of semantics,
socio-pragmatics, syntax and morphology. In fact, this sub-structure of the
syntax section arises from the structure of its source, Kang (2007), where one
finds a section called  <t’ongsa> in Korean linguistic terminology, where one
will find a section on the expression of tense (Kang 2007: 85f.), aspect and
Aktionsart (Kang 2007: 88f.), causative and passive (Kang 2007: 90ff.),
negation (Kang 2007: 92f.), prohibition (Kang 2007: 94), politeness and verbal
honorifics (Kang 2007: 95), and a discussion of the complex system of
sentence-final markers that denote a range of modal, evidential and
illocutionary force meanings (Kang 2007: 98-102). As mentioned above, these
sections can be found in Kiaer’s book (p. 15-18) in the same order, with the
content being an extremely dense and shortened translation of the original.
For example, the section on Jejuan phonology is only a rough summary of Kang
(2007: 23-29), leaving out most of the original examples. Kang is explicitly
acknowledged at the beginning of the book, yet a citation of Kang (2007) is
given nowhere.

Kiaer’s grammar section occasionally attempts to comment on Kang’s findings
and to interpret Jejuan data, although it does so in quite an inaccurate way.
For example, with respect to recent vowel changes that have occurred among
Jeju inhabitants due to the sudden twentieth-century shift from Jejuan to the
development of a local variant of Korean, Kiaer concludes that “the vowel
change from /ㅐ/ to /ㅔ/ has been driven by a similar change from /ᆞ/ to /ㅗ/(o)
[sic] in back vowels so that they constitute a systematic vowel system” (p.
7). Such a comment seems a bit odd, given that every language possesses a
systematic phonology of some sort. More gravely, the grammar section contains
some strange comments on Jeju data, where for example, Kiaer states that
“Interestingly, in the Jeju writing system, ‘ㅆ’ (ss) in the coda position is
written as ‘ㅅ’ (s). (e.g. ‘poatsuda(보앗수다, saw), mŏgŏtkona(먹엇고나, ate)’, not
보았수다, 먹었구나’)“ (p. 7), without explaining  why these orthographical matters
regarding Jeju language should be relevant for phonological analysis - in
fact, in this context, writing <s> or <ss> would not have an effect on
pronunciation. 

For all those people who do not know Korean, this book’s content is hardly
accessible, for many reasons. First of all, transliterations of Jejuan
utterances can be found only in the grammar section, but not in the main story
part of the book and subsequent parts. Moreover, there is no interlinear
glossing given for examples, and knowledge of Korean seems to be presupposed
when presenting morphological analyses. For example, the analysis of the
Jejuan demonstrative “야의/야이 < yaŭi/yai>, ‘this child, this person’ ” is given
as “yaŭi, yai(야의, 야이, 이+아이; this kid)” on p. 10, which is based on Kang (2007:
47). For somebody who does not know Korean, an explanation such as ‘이+아이’ is
not of much use, which is why a more adequate presentation would have been
such that “야의/야이 <yaŭi/yai>, ‘this child, this person’ ” could be analysed as
이-아의/이-아이 <i-aŭi/i-ai>, DEM.PROX-child, ‘this child/person’, which is
different from Korean in a way that the demonstrative <i> and the noun <ai>,
‘child’ are fused to one word, in a tighter morphological bond than in Korean.

As another issue, a lot of content from the Jejuan original is lost through
the translation from Jejuan into Korean and finally into English: A closer
look at a story such as “Kang Kam Ch’an’s Magic” (p. 38f., Kim et al. 1985: 
108f.) reveals that the Korean ‘translations’ following the Jejuan versions
are partially copied from the summary, with large bits of the Jejuan original
either shortened radically, or simply left out. To illustrate, the first two
sentences of the Korean ‘translation’ are minimally modified sentences taken
from the summary. What makes this so problematic is the fact that neither the
Korean nor the English translation actually follows the original in structure
and wording, for example leaving out questions that the speaker is asking the
recording person (e.g., “<kŏ dŭrŏbaschii?>”, ‘You’ve heard of that, right?’ on
page 39 does not appear in the Korean version), or shortening the description
of a ghost the speaker gives (p. 39) to the Sino-Korean word “역신(疫神) <yŏksin>”
(p. 46). This might be a practice understandable in a summary, but not in a
translation. On top of that, the Korean version often contains additions that
the Jejuan version does not. For example, on p. 46 one will find the sentence
“<kŭ sasildo morŭko ch’ŏkaschipesŏ hŭnk’waehi kyŏlhonŭl sŭngnakhaessta>” in
the Korean version of the above story, with the English translation stating
“Ignorant of this fact, Kang Kam Ch’an’s in-laws welcomed the marriage” (p.
49), although this sentence does not appear in the Jejuan version on p. 40.
Similarly, portions of the Jejuan original are radically shortened in the
Korean version. For example, the first eleven lines in Jejuan on page 40
contain descriptions and quotations, although all these get shortened into two
short Korean sentences on page 46, with the English translation only
translating these two sentences on page 49. 

As mentioned, the book also has a section on Jejuan vocabulary that is sorted
by semantic domains, with translations given into Korean and English. Its
contents can be confusing, as for example, the section on ‘Wild animals and
winged animals’ (p. 327) does not list any winged animals. Moreover, the
content in the Jejuan column matches the Korean and English translations in a
confusing many-to-many correspondence. So for example, whereas the Korean and
English columns in the “Side dishes and special dishes” section on page 321
contain the items “<twoenchang>” and “soybean sauce”, the Jejuan column
contains a sequence of clauses that says “<tenchange tchikŏng mŏkŏra,
twenchange tchikŏng mŏkŭra>” which are examples for ‘eat it dipping it in
soybean paste’. A consultation with experts at Jeju National University
revealed that these vocabulary items probably stem from a language survey
issued by the National Institute of the Korean Language, of which an example
citation has been given in the references section (cf. Kang et al. 2008;
Soon-Ja Kim at JNU, p.c.). It seems that the utterances surrounding the
equivalent of the Korean vocabulary items have been cut out from the
transcriptions of the elicitation sessions and put into the present list
format, without carefully sorting out which item is the wanted Jejuan item. On
top of that, one will frequently find that the Jejuan counterpart is simply
missing (examples on all pages of this section, except for p. 321). 

To sum up this review, the lack of accuracy in the presentation of
sociocultural, historical and geographical facts, the low accountability of
statements made in the book, various inconsistencies of its content, a
multiplicity of errors and typos, uncritical representation of linguistic
analyses and issues of inaccurate Korean-Jejuan, or Korean-English
translations, as well as the lack of proper referencing practice, are all
issues that make reading this book a frustrating, rather than joyful
experience. As it turns out that this book would only be accessible to very
proficient speakers of Korean, I would really recommend consulting the
excellent sources this book has been based on (cf. Kim et al. 1985 for folk
tales, Kang 2007 for a grammatical discussion, and Kang and Hyŏn 2009 as a
comprehensive dictionary; with Yi 1978 as an additional, morphological
description), as well as other quite recent publications such as Kim (2008) as
a collection of narratives, and Kang and Hyŏn (2011), which is a fairly
exhaustive bound-morpheme dictionary of Jejuan.

REFERENCES

Bobalijk , Jonathan David, Rob Pensalfini and Luciana Storto (eds). 1996.
Papers on  Language Endangerment and the Maintenance of Linguistic Diversity.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Vol. 28.

Cho, T’aerin. 2013. Chechwuŏwa chechwupangŏn, irŭmŭi chŏngch’iŏnŏhak [Jeju
language, Jeju dialect and the linguopolitics of naming]. Paper based on a
presentation given on 2014-08-12 as apart of the 3rd anniversary seminar for
the Centre of Jeju Studies at the Jeju Development Research Centre, “The tasks
and trends of studying Jeju dialect, as well as the elucidation of its
orthography”. Accessible at http://m.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/3554450
[retrieved 2015-06-22].

Duchêne, Alexandre and Monica Heller (eds.). 2007. Discourses of
endangerment: ideology and interest in the defence of languages. London /New
York: Continuum.

Heinrich, Patrick. 2012. The making of Monolingual Japan : language ideology
and Japanese modernity /. (Multilingual Matters;). Multilingual Matters.

Irvine, Judith T. and Susan Gal. 2000. Language Ideology and Linguistic
Differentiation. In Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed.), Regimes of language: ideologies,
polities and identities. Santa Fe: Oxford: School of American Research Press.
35-84.

Kang, Yŏng-Pong. 2007. Chechuŏ [Jeju language]. Seoul: National Folk Museum,
Jeju Special Self-Governing Province. Volume 1.

Kang, Yŏng-Pong and P‘yŏng-Ho Hyŏn (eds). 2009. Chechuŏsachŏn [The dictionary
of Jeju language]. Jeju City: Jeju Special Self-Governing Province.

Kang, Yŏng-Pong and P‘yŏng-Hyo Hyŏn. 2011. Chechuŏ chosa . ŏmi sachŏn [Jeju
affix and
particle dictionary]. Jeju City: Chechutaehakkyo Kukŏmunhwawŏn [Jeju
University Centre for National Language and Culture].

King, Ross. 2006. Dialectal Variation in Korean. In Sohn, Ho-Min (ed.), Korean
Language
in Culture and Society, 264-280. Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i Press.

Kang, Yŏng-Pong, Sun-Cha Kim and Sŏng-Yong Kim. 2008. 2008 nyŏnto chechu
chiyŏkŏ chosa pogosŏ: chechut’ŭkbyŏlchach’ito chechusi guchwaŭp tongbokri
[2008’s Jeju Regiolect Study Report: Jeju Special Self-Governing Province,
Jeju City, Gujwa-eup, Dongbok-ri]. The  National Institute of the Korean
Language. Reference available under http://bit.ly/1F3QPjl [retrieved
2015-06-21]

Kim, Yŏng-Don, Yong-Chun Hyŏn and Kil-Ŏn Hyun. 1985. 濟州說話集成
[Chechusŏlhwachipsŏng, Compendium of Jeju folktales]. Jeju City:
Chechutaehakkyot’amramunhwayŏnguso [Tamra Culture Research Institute of Jeju
University]. 

Kim, Sun-Cha. 2008. Na, yuksipyuknyŏn mulchilhŏmŏng ichetorok salan [I, I have
been living until now diving for seafood]. Jeju City: Chechutaehakkyo
Kukŏsangdamso [The National Language Advisory Centre of Jeju University].

Kim, Soung-U. 2013. Language Attitudes on Jeju Island – an analysis of
attitudes towards
language choice from an ethnographic perspective. SOAS, London: MA
dissertation.

Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed.). 2000. Regimes of language: Ideologies, Polities and
Identities. Santa Fe/Oxford: School of American Research Press.

Long, Daniel and Young-Cheol Kim. 2002. Regional Differences in the Perception
of Korean
Dialects. In Long, Daniel and Dennis R. Preston (eds.): Handbook of Perceptual
Dialectology,
vol. 2, 249-275. New York: John Benjamins Publishing.

Moseley, Christopher (ed.). 2010. Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger,
3rd edn. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. Online version:
http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/en/atlasmap.html [accessed on
2015-06-21] 

Pangŏnyŏnguhoe. 2001. Pangŏnhaksachŏn [A Dictionary of Dialectology]. Seoul:
Taehaksa.

Park, Soul. 2010. The unnecessary uprising: Jeju Island and South Korean
counterinsurgency experience 1947-48. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 21(2),
359-381.

Pellard, Thomas. 2009. Why it is important to study the Ryukyuan languages:
The example of Ōgami Ryukyuan. Presentation given at Oxford University on
January 19th, 2009. Available under
http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/sites/jap-ling/files/files/pellard.eals_.pdf
[accessed 2015-06-21]

Pellard, Thomas. 2011. Ōgami (Miyako Ryukyuan). In Shimoji, Michinori and
Thomas Pellard (eds.), An Introduction to Ryukyuan Languages. 113-166.

Rumsey, Alan. 1990. Wording, Meaning and Linguistic Ideology. American
Anthropologist 92. 421-434.

Silverstein, Michael. 1979. Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In
Clyne, Paul R., William F. Hanks and Carol L. Hofbauer (eds.), The Element: A
Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels, 193-247.

Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Sohn, Ho-Min (ed). 2006. Korean Language in Culture and Society. Hawai'i:
University of Hawai'i Press.

Song, Jae Jung. 2012. South Korea: language policy and planning in the making.
Current Issues in Language Planning 13(1). 1-68. 

UNESCO 2009. Jeju Chilmeoridang Yeongdeunggut. Website of Representative List
of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Available at:
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/RL/00187 [accessed 2015-06-21]

UNESCO Press 2010. New interactive atlas adds two more endangered languages.
On the addition of Jeju as an endangered language. Available at:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/new_interactive_a
tlas_adds_two_more_endangered_languages/ [Accessed 2015-06-21]

UNESCO 2012. Concerned efforts for the revitalisation of Jeju language.
Available at:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/endangered-languages/news/dynamic-
content-single-view-news/news/concerted_efforts_for_the_revitalization_of_jeju
_language/ 
[Accessed 2015-06-21]

Yang, Changyong and Wonbo Kim. A study on the discourse functions of ‘key’ in
the Jeju language. Language and Linguistics 59, 143-164.

Yeon, Jaehoon. 2012. Korean dialects: a general survey.' In: Tranter,
Nicholas, (ed.), The Languages of Japan and Korea, 168-185. Abingdon and New
York: Routledge (Routledge Language Family Series)

Yi, Jŏng-Min. 1981. Hankukŏŭi p’yochunŏ mich’ pangŏntŭl saiŭi
sanghochŏpch’okkwa t’aeto [The mutual contact and attitudes regarding Standard
Korean and its dialects]. Hangŭl, vol. 172/174, 559-584.

Yi, Sung-Ryŏng. 1978. 濟州道方言의 形態論的 硏究 [Chechutopangŏnŭi hyŏngt’aeronchŏk yŏngu,
 Morphological study of Jeju dialect]. Seoul: Thap.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Soung-U Kim is currently working on his PhD thesis on the morphosyntax of
multiverb constructions in Jeju at SOAS London. His research interests include
morphosyntactic typology, prosody-morphosyntax interface, language
documentation, language revitalisation, language ideology, Korean
sociolinguistics, the sociolinguistics-grammar-writing interface as well as
the study of lesser-known European languages. His favourite languages as
objects of linguistic enquiry include a wide range from Catalan via Bernese
Alemannic (Swiss German) to Ordos Mongolian, Ayacucho Chanka Quechua, Persian,
Miyako, and of course, Jeju.

----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-26-3009	
----------------------------------------------------------
Visit LL's Multitree project for over 1000 trees dynamically generated
from scholarly hypotheses about language relationships:
          http://multitree.org/