Adopting English as second official language may not be the

Adopting English as second official language may not be the best solution

Since the recommendation of an advisory committee to Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi last January that Japan adopt English as an official second language, the same debate has been in vogue in neighboring Korea.


Some people who have long lamented the country's sorry state of language proficiency are seizing the moment to push their case, while staunch conservatives reject any compromise that may "pollute" the Korean language. The debate of whether to use English as an official language along with Korean doesn't seem likely to end any time soon, not because the two sides are relentless but because it is not clear what the critical point of the debate is.


Even if the government implemented a measure to mandate that people use English in everyday conversation, what difference would that make? This dilemma is well illustrated by a recent policy recommendation that secondary schools teach English class using only English for at least one hour each week. The announcement has been met by grumbling response from teachers that there are few (if any) who are competent to do the job of communicating with students fluently in English. When there is no resource to support the policy, it is pointless to discuss a national solution for the problem at hand.


Think small


Rather than talking about a single sweeping solution, it would be more productive to devise small ways to improve the nation's feeble language infrastructure. For example, colleges may open as many courses taught in English as possible, forcing students to learn the language while studying the course. For that to happen, however, the higher education market has to be truly open to everyone, including to foreign scholars as well as to Korean nationals raised and educated in English-speaking countries. If those expatriates are paid what they deserve, there is no reason to believe the idea to increase radically the number of English-taught courses would be unworkable.


Another plausible solution could be setting up consulting shops to help people in English speaking and writing for free or at low cost. This could be done either by non-profit or by for-profit initiatives. Such "English help shops" consisting of volunteers well equipped with the language can correct wrong English expressions used on sign boards in museums, parks and other public places. They can also help small businesses in their community to set up English-language Web sites, many of which now are strewn with errors and absurd expressions.


Private companies can contribute to the cause as well because they have a huge stake in raising the national English infrastructure. In addition to spending a large sum on training their employees to be proficient in English, for example, these corporations can use the same resource to teach the language to people in the community to which they belong. Or these companies' employees who are good at the language can become mentors of children at local schools to complement their English learning. If possible, they can use the new technology of email and chatting tools to communicate in English with the school children.


Reform in how English is taught


The most important of all steps to improve the people's language skills is a fundamental reform in how the language is taught. Until now, as we all know, students from grade 7 to 12 and to college graduation are required to learn the language the hard way. The bulk of English class consists of monotonous lectures on grammar and multiple choice exam preparations. The first step toward the reform would be throwing all English learning books written in Korean in the trash can and starting afresh with new tools, such as most recent text and multimedia files pulled out of the Internet, newspapers, magazines, and quality television programming all written and spoken in English. That way, people can learn the living language better, free from fear of making grammatical mistakes and the pressure of irrelevant exams.


One further important thing to note here is that the job of reforming the English teaching method should not be entrusted to the government, which has for decades achieved nothing in that department. It is time for the private sector, along with grassroot volunteers, to lead the initiative. There is no point arguing whether to adopt English as an official language unless small real steps are first taken to change the environment under which the wholesale adoption is possible.