Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Qualitative study explores English's role in shaping subjectivity in a Korean corporate environment, suggesting clearer language policies.
Purpose: This study examines how English-related expectations shape employee subjectivities in a globalizing Korean corporate workplace, focusing on the intersection of language ideology, power, and institutional practice. Design/methodology/approach: The study adopts a qualitative approach informed by linguistic governmentality and Park’s ideology complex. Data and analysis: Data consist of narrative frames collected from 24 employees and bilingual semi-structured interviews with five participants working in a Korean manufacturing company. The data were analyzed using a paradigmatic narrative procedure, involving iterative coding and thematic development to examine how employees interpret English-related expectations and how these experiences shape subjectivity. Findings/conclusion: The findings show that English functions simultaneously as symbolic capital and a disciplinary mechanism, producing stratified subjectivities through processes of responsibilization, self-surveillance, and affective labor. Employees navigate ambiguous and uneven language expectations, resulting in differentiated access to recognition, participation, and advancement. Originality: The study extends research on workplace English by integrating linguistic governmentality with Korea-specific language ideologies in an adult corporate context, demonstrating how global language regimes are locally rearticulated through affect, evaluation, and institutional ambiguity. Significance/implications: The study contributes theoretically to scholarship on language, neoliberalism, and subject formation, and offers practical implications for corporate language policy by highlighting the need for clearer, role-specific language expectations and institutional responsibility for multilingual support in both Korean and global workplace contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rabbidge et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: