In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS105 clearly is to teach Chinese orthography (Hanmun) rather than Korean orthography (Unmun). There are no glossaries of words written in han'gül, nor are there any notes to explain Korean grammar. Also, in the sections where the alternative forms of selected radicals are given, one wonders why a Korean name for the radical was not provided. Finally a separate list ofradicals might have been useful. Put together, these books, ifmastered, should provide a student with a solid foundation on which to build. Texts especially designed to teach the reading of Korean to non-Koreans have long been a need. One hopes that Lukoff will have the opportunity to improve and expand these works into a graduated set of texts to meet this need. Gerard F. Kennedy Kent State University An Introductory Course in Korean, by Fred Lukoff. Seoul: Yonsei University Press, 1982. Distributed in the United States by the University of Washington Press, Seattle, xxx, 488 pp. $14.50. The number of native speakers of Korean in the Korean peninsula and abroad today is said to be slightly in excess of 50 million. It is almost incredible that there is not a single modern Korean grammar available in the English language in the Western market. It was almost half a century ago that A. J. Ramstedt's A Korean Grammar (1939) appeared and it still remains the only Korean grammar in the English language. Thirty years after Ramstedt, the first comprehensive Korean language text was published: Beginning Korean (1969) by Samuel E. Martin and Young-Sook C. Lee. Fred LukofTs new text is a welcome addition to the scanty stock of linguistic works on Korean in the English language. LukofTs introduction was "developed for Korean language programs whose purpose is to prepare students to read material related to their academic pursuits." It sharply contrasts with Martin and Lee's Beginning Korean, which was written in the tradition of the Yale audiolingual approach. LukofTs course uses the Korean orthography from the start, and I believe this is the right approach to take when the orthography is as easy to learn as Korean. One of the attractive features of this book is a fine selection of texts, which unmistakably reveals the author's good taste for a refined style of language as well as his lively sense of humor. Reading materials are interesting and relevant, and some of them lighthearted pieces which should delight readers. The other forte of the book is a comprehensive coverage of grammar, more than adequate for an introductory course. It would be unfair to expect a textbook writer to provide a rigorous and formal description of Korean when the goal is to present the essentials of grammar in plain language in order to give some heuristic aid to beginning students. What is amazing about LukofTs discussion is that after a relentless scrutiny hawk-eyed critics will detect precious few weaknesses. His descriptions in general are accurate, often insightful, and always straightforward. There is a clear indication that he made every effort to incorporate the latest developments in the field of Korean linguistics. Although I will be the last to belittle the importance of grammar in Ian- 106BOOK REVIEWS guage teaching, overemphasis and overabundance, like overeating, bring about indigestion. Take Part III for example, comprising the last eight lessons. Out of 122 pages, texts cover only 10 pages, while 89 pages are devoted to grammar, 15 pages to glossary, and 8 pages to exercises. Martin and Lee's Beginning Korean shows a better balance: out of the 144 pages of the last eight lessons, 49 pages are apportioned to texts, 64 pages to grammar, and the remaining 3 1 pages to supplementary vocabulary and exercises. The strength of LukofTs book may prove to be its own nemesis, and he may soon discover students writing on the blackboard: "Less grammar and more language, please!" Because of the nature of the text, the grammatical descriptions are, for the most part, noncontroversial, but I would like to raise one or two important questions concerning some recalcitrant problems. Lukoff calls the noun which precedes the negative verb anita 'is not' the subject and states that it normally takes the...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 105-107
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.