Korean English errors

The following is a summary of typical writing errors by Korean learners of English as a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL).

1 Lexical errors

1.1 English-Korean lexemes

Some errors arise from English loanwords into Korean, with altered meanings. For more, see the article on Konglish (vocabulary issues). Examples include:

Korean	English source	Korean meaning
화이팅	"fighting"	a cheer or expression of encouragement
멀티탭	multi + tab	a powerstrip
스킨십	skin + ship	affectionate touch
핸들	handle	steering wheel

1.2 English countable nouns

Some nouns in English differ in countability or their status as singular nouns. The following nouns, for example, have singular collective meanings, and are not used as plurals, at least not with the meaning that Korean students may intend.

English noun	meaning
faculty	a group of teachers / professors at a school / institution	(not 'faculties')
staff	a group of people working in an office	(not 'staffs')
alphabet	a set of characters or letters that form a writing system, e.g., the Latin alphabet	cf. 'letters' = characters of an alphabet
vocabulary	the set of all words in a language, e.g., English vocabulary	cf. 'words' or 'lexical items'
equipment	a set/group of devices	cf. 'a piece of / pieces of equipment'
furniture	a set/group of items	cf. 'a piece of / pieces of furniture'
homework	an activity or a set of assignments	cf. 'an assignment' or 'a piece of homework'
research	a general activity	cf. 'a research study, a study' or 'a piece of research'

Some nouns are more abstract in English and are used as singular nouns, not as plural nouns.

• evidence (not 'evidences')

1.3 Other content words

Some verbs differ in meaning or use between Korean and English, leading to errors in English usage. Examples include:

• Proceed: In English, this is intransitive only (차동사). The transitive (타동사) equivalent in English is conduct.
• Mention: This means to briefly talk about something, without going into detail. It is not the same as discuss, and is in fact quite different, as discuss means to go into a detailed explanation or description.
• Blame vs. Criticize: 'To criticize' is to point out problems or to express a negative evaluation, while 'blame' refers to ascribing guilt or fault to someone.

1.4 Informal expressions

The following are informal, or can be informal if used too often, and can be better expressed with more formal equivalents in academic writing.

• afterwards
• anyway
• besides
• bad
• big, huge
• good
• kind of, sort of; cf. kind(s) of, sort(s) of
• like this
• lots of
• nowadays
• people
• thing
• stuff, thing(s)
• someone, something

2 Conjunctions and connectors

2.1 Variety

Asian students writing in English as a second language tend to overuse common conjunctions like but, so, then. It is not wrong to start a sentence with these words, but overusing them can make your paper sound too colloquial, so using a greater variety of conjunctions is better. It is not good formal style to start a sentence with and.

• But → although/though, yet, however, nevertheless, in contrast, to the contrary …
• So → thus, as a result, hence, therefore
• Then → (1) thus; (2) later, afterward, subsequently; (3) in addition
• And → also, too; (or simply delete “And” at the start of a sentence, since 'And' sounds informal when used at the beginning of a sentence)

It is less common to use first... second ... third to structure the body paragraphs of essays. This is a TOEFL/TOEIC essay style device that Koreans learn for standardized test essays, but in essays or papers it can sound mechanical or formulaic. It is better to omit these, unless the writer is explaining something that would be hard for readers to follow, e.g., a complicated process or abstract ideas.

Using 'etc.' at the end of a list or sentence sounds colloquial. The following conjunctions are known as conjunctive adverbs – originally adverbs, they came to be used like sentence at the start of clauses.

• however, therefore, furthermore, otherwise, moreover

2.2 Commas

Commas are not usually used with coordinating conjunctions like the following. A comma would reflect more intonation (in speaking) for emphasis, and in writing this looks colloquial.

• But
• So
• Then
• And

For example:

1. But statistics show the greatest escape rates from poverty by welfare benefits.
2. So it is necessary to research the effects of cultural factors on English learning, including Korean culture.
3. Then they might have some problems in making various kinds of English sentences, because they tend to make easy, short sentences to avoid making grammar mistakes.

It would be fine in formal writing to use a comma with these, if some other material comes between the conjunction and the sentence subject.

1. But, as a recent report indicates, statistics show the greatest escape rates from poverty by welfare benefits.

The following conjunctions are known as conjunctive adverbs – originally adverbs, they came to be used like sentence at the start of clauses.

• however, therefore, furthermore, otherwise, moreover

These are preceded by a full stop (period or semicolon) and followed by a comma.

1. The result means the preschooler’s capacity for language skills is affected by age. However, at this point they are all preschoolers, so higher scores for older ages may not be meaningful.
2. The result means the preschooler’s capacity for language skills is affected by age; however, at this point they are all preschoolers, so higher scores for older ages may not be meaningful.
3. Participants found specific cues to be helpful for the task. Furthermore, higher proficiency L2 learners may be more aware of visible speech cues and better able to make use of them.

Some connectors can come after the sentence subject or other phrase, i.e., not in sentence-initial position. How do these affect the flow? (Note that thus does not necessarily require commas when non-initial.)

1. As an adult, however, learning a foreign language was his own decision, and so that strong motivation was essential to maintain and achieve his goals.
2. The historical evidence thus does not support the standard hypothesis.
3. Bilingual education at the preschool level is therefore quite effective.

2.3 Dependent clauses

The following are subordinating conjunctions, and in formal writing, they require a main clause in addition to their subordinate (dependent) clause.

• because
• though / although
• even though
• even if

1. [colloquial] The investigator could not get uncover the truth. Because the President did not want to be interviewed.
2. [formal] The investigator could not get uncover the truth. Because the President did not want to be interviewed.

3 Modal verbs

3.1 Must versus should, ought to

‘Must’ is used to express a strong obligation (like a moral or social obligation, or otherwise some kind of obligation that is an external force); ‘should’ and ‘ought to’ express strong advisability or warning. So in the following sentence, ‘must’ would sound odd; ‘should’ or ‘ought to’ would be better here.

• For this reason, online banking must be quick and simple.
• For this reason, online banking should be quick and simple.

Here, it would be better to say that it “should be quick and simple,” as a strong request or advice to someone; it would be hard to view this as some type of social or moral obligation that banks should fulfill (unless, e.g., one is speaking as a banking analyst critiquing the operations of one’s own banking company from a social or ethical perspective).

3.2 Can vs. could

The verb can puts more emphasis on something possible, though perhaps requiring effort or involving difficulty in achieving it. The verb could is more hypothetical in meaning. Note: the meaning of could is not primarily past tense, and its main use is not as a past tense of can. It historically developed in English as a past tense of can, but its main use in modern English is for hypothetical situations or conditional (if-type clauses) clauses. For example, trying to use could as a past tense form of can / be able to in this sentence sounds awkward or ambiguous.

• We could replicate the experiment with subjects from a different country.

This is ambiguous, because native English readers would first interpret this as a hypothetical statement – “hypothetically, we might try to replicated it” or “hypothetically, we might be able to replicate it.” Rather than using could here, it would be better to either use ‘was able to’ to emphasize the idea of ability, or to delete it altogether and use just the main verb, and/or the main verb modified by an appropriate adverb.

• We were able to replicate the experiment with subjects from a different country.
• We replicated the experiment with subjects from a different country.
• We successfully replicated the experiment with subjects from a different country.

However, in the negative, it is less ambiguous, so could not would be more common and clearer. Other cases where could is used as a non-ambiguous past tense form might be with appropriate temporal (time) clauses. Otherwise, could is more commonly used in conditional statements, for hypothetical and speculative statements, or for permission.

The verb can puts more emphasis on something possible, though perhaps requiring effort or involving difficulty in achieving it. The verb could is more hypothetical in meaning. Note: the meaning of could is not primarily past tense, and its main use is not as a past tense of can. It historically developed in English as a past tense of can, but its main use in modern English is for hypothetical situations or conditional (if-type clauses) clauses. For example, trying to use could as a past tense form of can / be able to in this sentence sounds awkward or ambiguous. We could replicate the experiment with subjects from a different country.

This is ambiguous, because native English readers would first interpret this as a hypothetical statement – “hypothetically, we might try to replicated it” or “hypothetically, we might be able to replicate it.” Rather than using could here, it would be better to either use ‘was able to’ to emphasize the idea of ability, or to delete it altogether and use just the main verb, and/or the main verb modified by an appropriate adverb.

• We were able to replicate the experiment with subjects from a different country.
• We replicated the experiment with subjects from a different country.
• We successfully replicated the experiment with subjects from a different country.

3.3 May vs. might

The verb may expresses as its core meaning the idea of possibility.

• He might be lying to us.
• This might be an interesting film.

However, in the negative, it is less ambiguous, so could not would be more common and clearer. Other cases where could is used as a non-ambiguous past tense form might be with appropriate temporal (time) clauses. Otherwise, could is more commonly used in conditional statements, for hypothetical and speculative statements, or for permission. An extended meaning is for expressing permission, but this is rather formal.

• May I leave now? [very formal]
• Could I leave now? [formal]
• Can I leave now? [informal]
• You may leave / may not leave now. [more formal]
• You can / cannot leave now. [more informal] (adapted from Cowan (2008:299))

The verb might indicates possibility, but with a sense that is more remote or less certain than may.

• He might agree to it (but then, he might not).

It can also express speculation, suggestion, or implied criticism; in very formal British English, it can be used for requests.

• She might have bought it in Mongolia, but I’m not sure if she’s been there. [speculation]
• I’m not sure what the problem is, but you might try putting the RAM chip in a different slot. [suggestion]
• You might have asked if someone else wanted cake before eating the last piece! [criticism]
• Might I have another glass? [British, permission]

The forms may have, might have, could have are used for speculating about the past.

• He may have escaped (but we’re not sure).
• He might have escaped (but not so likely).
• He could have escaped (it’s possible, but we don’t know yet).