Mina Lee, Ph.D.

1
Research 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
2
DISCLAIMER
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.

3
Motivations 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.

4
Research Focus

• Description of Level 2
• The individuals utterances are minimally
  cohesive. (Speaking Level 2, Interagency
  Language Roundtable Skill Level Descriptions)

5
What do we mean by minimally cohesive?

• Cohesive devices
• Chronology
• Minimal Coherency
• Paragraph Length Its internal integrity

6
What 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).

7
What 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

8
Cohesive 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)

9
Cohesive 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)

10
Cohesive Devices under Discussion

• 3. Adverbial Expressions
• a. Adverbs
• ??, ? (first of all, and/again)
• b. Adverbial Phrases
• - Time (?) ??, (?) ???, ? ?, ???
• (afterwards, at that time, later)

11
Cohesive Devices under Discussion

• 3. Adverbial Expressions
• c. Adverbial Clauses
• Time Clauses
• -?/? ??, -?/? ???, -? ??, -?/? ?,
• -? ??, -? ?? (after, before, when, while)
• Purpose Clauses
• -? ??(?) (in order to)
• Reason Clauses
• ????, -? ??? (because)

12
Cohesive Devices under Discussion

• 4. Pronouns (Ihm, Hong, and Chang. 2001)
• a. Personal Pronouns
• ? (?, ??, ??) (that person/friend)
• b. Demonstrative Pronouns
• ??, ?? (there, that thing)

13
Hypotheses

• 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
  

14
Procedures (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.

15
Procedures (II)

• Transcribed the language sample in Korean.
• Present Narration
• Past Narration
• Future Narration
• Description
• Instruction/Direction
• Reporting Facts
• Role-play with complication

16
Procedures (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.

17
H1. The higher the proficiency level ? The
more cohesive devices

18
H1. The higher the proficiency level ? The
more cohesive devices

1.84
1.23
19
H2. The higher the proficiency level ? The
more types of cohesive devices

20
H3. The higher the proficiency level? The more
complicated cohesive devices

• Level 1
• ?/???, ??/????, ???, ?/???, ??, ???,
• ???, ???, ??, ????, ???, ?????, ?
• ??, ? ??, ????, ???, ?, ??, ?
• Level 1
• ?/???, ??/????, ??, ??, ?, ?/???, ??, ???
• ???, ???, ??, ????, ???, ?, ????
• ??, ? ??, ????, ? ??, ?, ??, ?, ??
• Level 2
• ?/???, ??/????, ??, ???, ??, ?, ?, ?/???,
• ??,???, ??, ??? ???, ? ?, ??, ? ??, ???,
• ????, ???, ?, ????, ??, ? ??, ????,
• ? ??, ?, ??, ?, ??

21
Qualitative 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.

22
Pedagogical 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.

23
How 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!

24
Limitations of the Study

• Data samples solely from DLI students
• One factor to decide Level 2
• No clear guidelines about correct and incorrect
  usages

25
Further 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.

26
References

• 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.

27
Questions and Comments?