Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T13:01:57.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 24 - Performing Gender in Korean: Language, Gender, and Social Change

from Part V - Sociolinguistics and Psycholinguistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2022

By
Minju Kim
Edited by
Sungdai Cho  and
John Whitman
Sungdai Cho
Affiliation:
Binghamton University, State University of New York
John Whitman
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

Chapter 24 examines the topic of language and gender in the context of Korean studies. Korean is well-known for its highly sophisticated honorifics and other resources that index hierarchy, formality, personal closeness, etc. Korean speakers “perform” gender using politeness distinctions as a primary resource. Studying how gender is performed requires the examination of language and gender in local contexts as they are indexed and constructed. This chapter also looks at the relative frequency of men’s use of formal language such as caney “you”, yey “yes”, and the supnita style, in comparison to women. The result of this is that women may feel like “interlopers” in prestigious professions where formal language is the norm. On the other hand, as Korea is rapidly moving away from a hierarchical society and toward a more egalitarian one, informal language, including caki “you”, ney “yes”, the eyo style, and other patterns associated with women, is becoming preferred over formal language to some extent across genders. This is especially evident among the younger generation.

Keywords

language and gendersentence enderhonorificsindexicalitysecond person pronounsexualizationgendersocial changeyes
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Korean Linguistics , pp. 689 - 716
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Bergvall, V. L. 1999. Toward a comprehensive theory of language and gender. Language in Society 28(2): 273–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergvall, V., Bing, J., and Freed, A., eds. 1996. Rethinking Language and Gender Research. Harlow: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Brown, L. 2015. Revisiting “polite” –yo and “deferential” –supnita speech style shifting in Korean from the point of view of indexicality. Journal of Pragmatics 79: 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., and Gilman, A.. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, Thoman A., ed., Style in Language. New York: Technology Press, pp. 253–76.Google Scholar
Butler, J. 1988. Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theatre Journal 40(4): 519–31.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. 1990. Introduction: Why is language a feminist issue? In Cameron, D., ed., The Feminist Critique of Language: A Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. 1995. Rethinking language and gender studies: Some issues for the 1990s. In Mills, S. ed., Language and Gender: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. London: Longman, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. 2005. Language, gender, and sexuality: Current issues and new directions. Applied Linguistics 26(4): 482–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, J. 1989. Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In Coates, J. and Cameron, D., eds., Women in their Speech Communities. London: Longman, pp. 94–122.Google Scholar
Coates, J. 1996. Women Talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dubois, S., and Horvath, B.. 1999. When the music changes, you change too: Gender and language change in Cajun English. Language Variation and Change 11(3): 287–313.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 1998. Gender and sociolinguistic variation. In Coates, J., ed., Language and Gender: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 64–75.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2006. Vowels and nail polish: The emergence of linguistic style in the preadolescent heterosexual marketplace. In Warner, N., Ahlers, J., Bilmes, L., Oliver, M., Wertheim, S., and Chen, M., eds., Gender and Belief Systems. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group, pp. 183–90.Google Scholar
Eckert, P., and McConnell-Ginet, S.. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. In Siegel, B. J., Beals, A. R., Tyler, S. A., eds., Annual Reviews of Anthropology. Palo Alto: Annual reviews Inc. 21, pp. 461–90.Google Scholar
Eckert, P., and McConnell-Ginet, S.. 2007. Putting communities of practice in their place. Gender & Language 1(1): 27–37.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge, translated by Smith, A. M. Sheridan. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Fishman, P. 1983. Interaction: The work women do. In Thorne, B., Kramarae, C., and Henley, N., eds., Language, Gender and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 89–102.Google Scholar
Freed, A. 1992. We understand perfectly: A critique of Tannen’s view of cross-sex communication. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M., and Moonwomon, B., eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference, vol. 1. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group, pp. 144–52.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. 1990. He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children, vol. 618. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Discourse Strategies, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hur, S-H. 2017. An analysis on Korean university students’ use by gender in KakaoTalk. Hanminjok Emunhak 76(6): 163–99.Google Scholar
Hwang, M. 2001. I inching taymyengsa caneyuy kiwen [On the origin of the second person pronoun caney]. Kwukehak/Korean Linguistics 37: 197–217.Google Scholar
James, D., and Clarke, S.. 1993. Women, men, and interruptions. In Tannen, D., ed., Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–80.Google Scholar
Jeon, H-Y. 2006. Gender and characteristics of utterances in language users. Korean Linguistics 31: 47–70.Google Scholar
Jung, S. 2015. Discourse functions of and gender variations in the use of Korean sentence endings ~(u)n/nun keya and ~ta. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.Google Scholar
Kang, Hee S. 2002. hochinge sayongey tayhan sahoyenehakcek pwunsek, sepisupul cwungsimulo [A sociolinguistic analysis of the usage of terms of address used in the service industry]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 10(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Kang, H-S. 2011. A quantitative sociolinguistic study of variation between Haeyo and Hapsyo styles with a focus on the gender factor. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 19(2): 1–22.Google Scholar
Kang, H-S., and Kim, M.. 2017. Aspects of variations of “ye” and “ne” observed in the dialogues of the instant messenger KakaoTalk. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 25(3): 1–27.Google Scholar
Kang, H-S., and Kim, M.. 2018. A multivariate analytical study of variation patterns of honorific final endings in KakaoTalk dialogue. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 26(1): 1–30.Google Scholar
Kang, S-Y. 2004. A statistical approach to the rejection strategy of College students. Textlinguistics 17: 355–76.Google Scholar
Kim, D-H. 2014. A study on the dialect attitude shift of Koreans. The Korean Language and Literature 126: 1–36.Google Scholar
Kim, H-S. 1991. Hyentay kwuke-uy sahoyhakcek yenkwu [Sociolinguistic study of present day Korean]. Seoul: Tayhaksa.Google Scholar
Kim, H-S. 2009. Gender differences in the use of ne and ye. The Journal of Studies in Language 25(1): 85–101.Google Scholar
Kim, M. 1999. Cross-adaptation of language between different genders: The case of Korean kinship terms hyeng and enni. In Wertheim, S., Bailey, A., and Corston-Oliver, M., eds., Engendering Communication: Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Women and Language Conference, pp. 271–83. Berkeley Women and Language Group at the University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Kim, M. 2008. On the semantic derogation of terms for women in Korean, with parallel developments in Chinese and Japanese. Korean Studies 32: 148–76.Google Scholar
Kim, M. 2015. Women’s talk, mothers’ work: Korean mothers’ address terms, solidarity, and power. Discourse Studies 17(5): 551–82.Google Scholar
Kim, M. In progress. Gender Differences in Korean Conversations.Google Scholar
Kim, M., and Strauss, Susan. 2018. Emergent multiplicities of self- and other-construction in Korean workplace-based television dramas. Journal of Pragmatics 137: 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. 1991. Yesenge-ey tayhan kochal [Study on women’s language]. Mokwentay nonmwucip 19: 111–27.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Lave, J., and Wenger, E.. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, C-M. 1981. Hankwuke-uy phyocwune mich pangen-tul sai-uy sangho cepchok-kwa thayto [Korean standard language and dialects]. Hangul 173/ 174: 559–84.Google Scholar
Lee, I., and Ramsey, S. R.. 2000. The Korean Language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J-B. 2007. Gender difference of dialect use in internet communication language. The Korean Language and Literature 97: 63–96.Google Scholar
Lee, K. 1978. kwuke-uy inching taymyengsa [Korean personal pronouns]. Kwanak Emwun Yenkwu 3: 325–38.Google Scholar
Lee, Kiri, and Cho, Y.. 2015. Beyond ‘Power and Solidarity’: Indexing intimacy in Korean and Japanese terms of address. Korean Linguistics 15(1): 73–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, O. 1984. Hyenday hankwuk yesenguy namseng chingeko [A study on modern Korean women’s appellations of men]. Journal of Asian Women 23: 313–32.Google Scholar
Lee, S. J. 2014. Tamhwa pwunsek-ul thonghay salpheypon sengpyel ene-ey tayhan yenkwu [Discourse difference between genders in their language use]. Conference Proceedings of the Discourse and Cognitive Linguistics Society of Korea, pp. 107–19.Google Scholar
Lee, S-K., and Kim, S-H. 1992. Namsenge yesenge-ey kwanhan yenkwu [Studies on men’s language and women’s language]. Mokwentayhakkyo emwunhak yenkwu 2(1): 35–74.Google Scholar
Lukoff, F. 1982. An Introductory Course in Korean. Seoul: Yonsei University Press.Google Scholar
Maltz, D. N., and Borker, R. A.. 1982. A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In Gumperz, John, ed., Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–98.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, S. 1980. Linguistics and the feminist challenge. In McConnell-Ginet, S., Borker, R., and Furman, N., eds., Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger, pp. 3–25.Google Scholar
Min, H-S. 1995. Kwuke-uy yesenge yenkwu [Study on Korean women’s language]. Asea yeseng yenkwu 34: 7–64.Google Scholar
Min, H-S. 1997. A study on the sociolinguistic features of men’s and women’s language in Korean [kwuke namnye ene-uy sahoy enehakcek thukseng yenkwu]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 5(2): 529–87.Google Scholar
Morford, J. 1997. Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7(1): 3–37.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. 1992. Indexing gender. In Duranti, Alessandro and Goodwin, Charles, eds., Rethinking Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–58.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., and Taylor, C.. 1992. Mothers’ role in the everyday reconstruction of “father knows best”. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M., and Moonwomon, B., eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group, pp. 447–62.Google Scholar
Park, J. 1992. A recent development of caki, a second-person pronoun in Korean. In Hall, K., Bucholtz, M., and Moonwomon, B., eds., Locating Power: Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group, pp. 489–500.Google Scholar
Park, J. 1997. Hankwuke hochinge cheykyey [Address terms in Korean]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 5(2): 507–27.Google Scholar
Park, J., and Chae, S.. 1999. I inching yeseng taymyengsa caki-uy paltal-kwa sayong [The development and use of second person pronoun caki]. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 7(1): 151–78.Google Scholar
Podesva, R. 2004. On constructing social meaning with stop release bursts. Paper presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 15. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.Google Scholar
Rhee, F. 1993. Vanguards and violence: A comparison of the US and Korean student movements. Korean Studies 17: 17–38.Google Scholar
Schulz, M. 1975. The semantic derogation of women. In Thorne, B. and Henley, N., eds., Language and Sex. Rowley, MA.: Newbury, pp.64–75.Google Scholar
Shin, J. 2003. Politeness and discourse strategies by Korean women in non-traditional authority positions. Acta Koreana 6(2): 25–54.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23: 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohn, H. 1994. Korean. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sohn, H. 1999. The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spender, D. 1985. Man Made Language, 2nd ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Strauss, S., and Eun, J.. 2005. Indexicality and honorific speech level choice in Korean. Linguistics 43(3): 611–51.Google Scholar
Talbot, M. 2010. Language and Gender, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1991. You Just Don’t Understand. London: Virago.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 1993. The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In Tannen, D., ed., Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 208–29.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. 2003. Power maneuvers or connection maneuvers? Ventriloquizing in family interaction. In Tannen, D. and James, A., eds., Linguistics, Language, and the Real World: Discourse and Beyond. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 50–62.Google Scholar
Tannen, D., and Kakava, C.. 1992. Power and solidarity in Modern Greek conversation: Disagreeing to agree. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10(1): 11–34.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1(2): 179–95.Google Scholar
Van Langenhove, L., and Harré, R.. 1999. Introducing positioning theory. In Harré, R. and van Langenhove, L.. Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of International Action. Oxford and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 14–31.Google Scholar
Yoo, H. 2004. Namseng kwa yeseng uy ene sayong senghyang ey tayhan yenkwu [Study on the men’s and women’s language use]. Soonchunhyang Inmwun Kwahak Nonchong 14: 21–34.Google Scholar
Wang, H. S. 1999. Disagreement strategies by Korean men and women. The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 7(2): 21–56.Google Scholar
West, C., and Zimmerman, D. H.. 1983. Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In Thorne, Barry, Kramarae, Cheris, and Henley, Nancy, eds., Language, Gender and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, pp. 102–17.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×