Korean neologisms of 2017–2021

Correlation between borrowing, semantic characteristics, and lexicographic representation

Authors

  • Hae-Yun Jung Kyungpook National University
  • Soojin Lee Kyungpook National University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.26353

Keywords:

Korean neologisms, loanwords, loan-based neologisms, semantic categories, lexicography

Abstract

This paper investigates the Korean neologisms of the years 2017 to 2021, collected by the Center for Korean Language Information Studies at Kyungpook National University, and examines in particular the 1,081 neologisms that contains at least one borrowed element, which constitute 58.2% of the neologisms collected during that timeframe. The analysis of the source languages of the loans (i.e., the borrowed elements) confirms the preponderance of English in neologism creation due to its status and prestige globally, with 1,024 neologisms containing at least one English morpheme. The examination of semantic categories of the loan-based neologisms shows the dominant interest of Korean speakers in the Economy, Society, and Life & Lifestyle domains, which is also reflected in those that were included in the dictionary Urimalsaem or suggested for inclusion by the dictionary users. Those neologisms in particular were further analysed and proved to be testament to cultural changes in Korean society, which has been shifting from a traditionally Confucian, male-dominant, work-oriented, and holistic society to a society that gives more space to women (ppaminisuthu “dad feminist”) as well as the individual (nanalayntu “me-me-land”) and their well-being (welapayl “work-life balance”, chonkhangsu “countryside vacances”).

Author Biographies

  • Hae-Yun Jung, Kyungpook National University

    Hae-Yun Jung received her MA in Korean Studies from SOAS (London) and is currently writing her PhD thesis at Kyungpook National University (Daegu, South Korea), where she is a lecturer in Korean culture and society. Her research interests include lexicography, language contact and borrowing, as well as cross-cultural studies.

  • Soojin Lee, Kyungpook National University

    Soojin Lee is a lecturer at the department of Korean Language and Literature in Kyungpook National University (Daegu, South Korea), where she obtained her MA (on academic keywords) and is writing her PhD thesis. She has been a member of the research Korean neologisms of 2017–2021 21group for the Korean Neologisms Investigation Project since 2012. Her research interests include lexicography, lexicology and neology.

References

Choi, J., and Jung, H.-Y. (2022). On loans in Korean new word formation and in lexicography (pp. 814–824). In A. Klosa-Kückelhaus, S. Engelberg, C. Möhrs, and P. Stojohann (Eds.), Dictionaries and society. Proceedings of the XX EURALEX International Congress. July 12–16. Mannheim: IDS-Verlag.

Han, Y. S. (2000). A study on the management of loanwords (pp. 19–22). In Proceedings of the 7th Korean Society for Information Management Conference. Seoul: KOSIM.

Han, S. (2015). Research on Korean language education vocabulary content development (stage 4). Project report. Seoul: NIKL.

Jeong, H. (2004). Oylayeuy kaynyemkwa pemwi [Foreign origin words: Concept and scope]. Saykwukesaynghwal [New Korean language], 14(2), 5–22.

Jun, J.-Y. (2014). La classification et les emplois des mots coréens empruntés au français. Phulangsuhak yenkwu [French studies], 67, 153–197.

Kim, E.-Y. J. (2012). Creative adoption: Trends in Anglicisms in Korea. English Today, 28(2), 15–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078412000107

Lawrence, C. B. (2012). The Korean English linguistic landscape. World Englishes, 31(1), 70–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2011.01741.x

Lee, S. (2022). A study of 2015–2020 neologisms in Korean language, focusing on neologisms of “society,” “economy,” and “politics/policies.” Emwunlonchong [Korean language and literature], 94, 143–175.

McPhail, S. A. (2017). South Korea’s linguistic tangle: English vs. Korean vs. Konglish. English Today, 34(1), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078417000244

Nam, K. (2017). Neologisms of 2017. Project report. Seoul: NIKL.

Nam, K. (2018). Neologisms of 2018. Project report. Seoul: NIKL.

Nam, K. (2019). Neologisms of 2019. Project report. Seoul: NIKL.

Nam, K. (2021). Overcoming issues in frequency-based extraction and lexicographic inclusion of Korean neologisms: A triangulation approach. Lexicography, 8(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.19481

Nam, K., Lee, S., and Jung, H.-Y. (2020). The Korean neologism investigation project: Current status and key issues. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America, 41(1), 105–129. https://doi.org/10.1353/dic.2020.0007

Nam, K., Lee, S., Choi, J., Seo, E., Kang, H., Baek, M., Jeong, H., Kim, H., and An, J. (2021). Neologisms of 2020. A new language of the COVID-19 pandemic. Seoul: Hankwukmwunhwasa Publishing.

Nam, K., Song, H., Choi, J., and Lee, S. (2022a). Hyentay sine yenkwu [A study of modern neologisms]. Seoul: Hankwukmwunhwasa Publishing.

Nam, K., Song, H., Lee, S., Baek, M., Seo, E., An, J., Go, Y., Sung, M., and Kang, H. (2022b). Neologisms of 2021. Seoul: Hankwukmwunhwasa Publishing.

National Institute of Korean Language (NIKL) (2016). Urimalsaem (online). Seoul: NIKL. https://opendict.korean.go.kr/main

Park, K. (2019). Loanwords acceptance patterns in the neologism formation process. Focus on English neologisms from 2016 to 2018. Inmwunkwahak [Journal of humanities], 62, 89–113. https://doi.org/10.33252/sih.2019.9.62.89

Park, K. (2021). Study of the terms and conditions of the neologism. Inmwunsahoy21 [Journal of humanities and social sciences 21], 12(4), 807–821. https://doi.org/10.22143/HSS21.12.4.58

Schmid, H.-J. (2008). New words in the mind: Concept-formation and entrenchment of neologisms. Anglia, 126(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/angl.2008.002

Sohn, H.-M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Published

2023-11-15

How to Cite

Jung, H.-Y., & Lee, S. (2023). Korean neologisms of 2017–2021: Correlation between borrowing, semantic characteristics, and lexicographic representation. Lexicography, 10(2), 194-216. https://doi.org/10.1558/lexi.26353