Title: Mina Lee, Ph.D.
1Research on the Use of Cohesive Devices by Korean
Learners of Different Proficiency Levels and Its
Pedagogical Implications
Mina Lee, Ph.D. Jeongsun Kim Defense Language
Institute Foreign Language Center
2DISCLAIMER
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language
Center
- This speech/presentation is authorized by the
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language
Center and the Department of Defense. Contents
of this presentation are not necessarily the
official views of, or endorsed by, the U.S.
Government, Department of Defense, Department of
the Army, or the Defense Language Institute
Foreign Language Center.
3Motivations for the Study
- Recent research on learners of Korean has been
mostly limited to collecting data from
compositions (writing samples). - Interests in Speaking Ability has increased not
only in DLIFLC but also in academia. - ILR Level Descriptions are general needs for
language specific interpretations for better
understanding. - The use of cohesive devices is an important part
of communicative competence.
4Research Focus
- Description of Level 2
-
- The individuals utterances are minimally
cohesive. (Speaking Level 2, Interagency
Language Roundtable Skill Level Descriptions) -
5What do we mean by minimally cohesive?
- Cohesive devices
- Chronology
- Minimal Coherency
- Paragraph Length Its internal integrity
6What is Cohesive Device?(OPI 2000 Training
Manual, 2010, p. 145 ACTFL OPI Training Manual,
p. 100)
- Words and phrases that link ideas and move the
action forward in some form of logical narrative
order, whether the narrative is a story, a
description, or a set of instruction. - Adverbs, conjunctions, pronouns.
- and, but, because, in the first place, however
he/him, it, her, their, and relative pronouns
(who/whom, which, that).
7What is Cohesive Device?
- Halliday and Hasan (1976) Ways in which speakers
create cohesion in their speech - Neary-Sundquist (2008) Link ideas and offer
clues as to how these ideas should be interpreted
by the listener. - Discourse Makers and Conjunctions
8Cohesive Devices under Discussion
- 1. Coordination (Sohn. 1999)
- a. Simultaneity/Sequentiality
- -?, -?, -?? (and, and, and then, while)
- b. Contrastiveness
- -??, -?, -??, -?? (but, however, or,
-
or else) - c. Others
- -?? (and, but, while)
9Cohesive Devices under Discussion
- 2. Subordination (Sohn. 1999)
- a. Cause-effect
- -?/??, -?? (so, and then, as, since)
- b. Conditional
- -(?)? (if, when)
- c. Concessive
- -?/?? (even though, although)
- d. Intentive
- -?, -?? (to, in order to)
- e. Temporal
- - ?? -??? (while doing that as soon as)
10Cohesive Devices under Discussion
- 3. Adverbial Expressions
- a. Adverbs
- ??, ? (first of all, and/again)
- b. Adverbial Phrases
- - Time (?) ??, (?) ???, ? ?, ???
- (afterwards, at that time, later)
-
11Cohesive Devices under Discussion
- 3. Adverbial Expressions
- c. Adverbial Clauses
- Time Clauses
- -?/? ??, -?/? ???, -? ??, -?/? ?,
- -? ??, -? ?? (after, before, when, while)
-
- Purpose Clauses
- -? ??(?) (in order to)
- Reason Clauses
- ????, -? ??? (because)
12Cohesive Devices under Discussion
- 4. Pronouns (Ihm, Hong, and Chang. 2001)
- a. Personal Pronouns
- ? (?, ??, ??) (that person/friend)
- b. Demonstrative Pronouns
- ??, ?? (there, that thing)
-
13Hypotheses
- H1. The higher the proficiency level
- ? The more cohesive devices
- H2. The higher the proficiency level
- ? The more types of cohesive devices
- H3. The higher proficiency level
- ? The more complicated types of cohesive device
14Procedures (I)
- Randomly selected KP interviews
- - 14 L1 DLI Students Official OPI tests
- - 20 L 1 DLI Students Official OPI tests
- - 20 L 2 DLI Students Official OPI tests
- Official OPIs were conducted by currently
certified DLI OPI testers.
15Procedures (II)
- Transcribed the language sample in Korean.
- Present Narration
- Past Narration
- Future Narration
- Description
- Instruction/Direction
- Reporting Facts
- Role-play with complication
16Procedures (II)
- Independently highlighted all cohesive devices
used. - Independently classified each cohesive device
into 4 different categories. - Cross-checked data from sample analysis.
- Aggregated all results on a spread sheet.
17H1. The higher the proficiency level ? The
more cohesive devices
18H1. The higher the proficiency level ? The
more cohesive devices
1.84
1.23
19H2. The higher the proficiency level ? The
more types of cohesive devices
20H3. The higher the proficiency level? The more
complicated cohesive devices
- Level 1
- ?/???, ??/????, ???, ?/???, ??, ???,
- ???, ???, ??, ????, ???, ?????, ?
- ??, ? ??, ????, ???, ?, ??, ?
- Level 1
- ?/???, ??/????, ??, ??, ?, ?/???, ??, ???
- ???, ???, ??, ????, ???, ?, ????
- ??, ? ??, ????, ? ??, ?, ??, ?, ??
- Level 2
- ?/???, ??/????, ??, ???, ??, ?, ?, ?/???,
- ??,???, ??, ??? ???, ? ?, ??, ? ??, ???,
- ????, ???, ?, ????, ??, ? ??, ????,
- ? ??, ?, ??, ?, ??
21Qualitative Reviewcomparison between L1 and L2
- Coordination
- L2 students used more variety of cohesive
devices - ???, ????, ??, ??.
- Subordination
- Not significant in terms of variety of cohesive
devices. - L2 students used more distinctive use of ?
(since, and then) - Adverbials
- L1 students used ???/??? for 50 of total
adverbials - L2 students used more of adverbial clauses
- ???, ? ?, ? ???, ??, ? etc.
- Pronouns
- Not significant.
22Pedagogical Implications
- Maximize the students language production.
- the more, the better
- Make the oral text more compound and complex.
- Elaborate the stories up to minor detail
cause-effect, time sequence, reasons, and exact
factual situations. - Maximize the variety of cohesive devices
exposure to the use of cohesive devices by native
speaker in oral communication.
23How to improve the use of cohesive devices?
- I. One-on-One
- Tell me more!
- Active listening and filling in the gap!
- Scaffolding word to paragraph
- Copy cat!
- Group
- Press conference!
- Creative story writing with cohesive devices
- Story-telling contest
- Benchmark yourself to the natives!
24Limitations of the Study
- Data samples solely from DLI students
- One factor to decide Level 2
- No clear guidelines about correct and incorrect
usages
25Further Study
- Empirical study on effectiveness of one-on-one
activities. - Analysis of cohesive devices into clausal
expressions and non-clausal ones. - Analysis of correct and incorrect usages and its
implications.
26References
- OPI 2000 Training Manual. 2010. Monterey, CA
Defense Language Institute. - Halliday, M. A. K. Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in
English. London, UK Longman. - Ihm, H. B., Hong, J., Chang, S. I. 2001. Korean
Grammar for International Learners. Seoul,
Korean Yonsei University Press. - Neary-Sundquist, C. 2008. The Role of Task Type
and Proficiency Level in Second Language Speech
Production. Ph.D. Dissertation. Purdue
University. - Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean Language.
Cambridge University Press. - Swender, E. (1999). ACTFL Oral Proficiency
Interview Tester Training Manual. Yonkers, NY
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages.
27Questions and Comments?