Based on the socio-historical dynamics of English ideologies that percolated into Korean society, this paper explored the significant aspects of ESL ideology in the Korean context. Despite the generally accepted EFL context in Korea, the country is situated at the intersection between two categories: ESL from a perspective of English ideologies and EFL from a perspective of societal context. As a proto-ideology of English, ESL ideology, which dates back to the United States Military rule in Korea, was further theoretically developed by the Peabody/Korean team, and its implementation was attempted by the Peace Corps. Although activating ESL has failed in Korean society, its ideology per se remains unchanged, (re)generating other English ideologies including Spoken English First, Ten-year English Fiasco, and Earlier the Better English Education ideologies. This study found that the discrepancy between ESL as the ideological domain and EFL as the practical domain has brought about some confusion in English education policy and practices.

This study explores ideologies of English that came into play when two different schools, Yugyŏng kongwŏn and Paichai School, were established in Korea in the late 19th century, a period in which a modern kind of English education was initially demanded and formed in the history of modern Korea. Drawing upon language ideology from linguistic anthropology as a theoretical framework, this study analyzes primary and secondary sources of relevant historical documents. This paper argues that the discursive condition that led to the necessity of English education in late 19th Korea was concerned with Munmyong kaehwa, a discourse that the cultural elite called the Kaehwa party introduced and supported to create a modern type of nationalism in Korea. Perceiving English as a language for civilization and enlightenment, this elite group contributed to building the two schools. On the other hand, common Koreans tried to enter these schools simply to learn English, believing that English would serve their individual success. This narrative shows that although the two ideologies of English, that is English for civilization and English for success, were coexisting in the late 19th century, the social discourse of Munmyong Kaehwa was not fully indexed with the ideologies of English.