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
 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.
 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.
 Research Focus

• Description of Level 2:

“The individual’s utterances are

minimally cohesive.”
cohesive (Speaking Level 2,
Interagency Language Roundtable Skill
Level Descriptions)
 What do we mean
by “minimally cohesive”?
• Cohesive devices

• Chronology

• Minimal Coherency

• Paragraph: Length + Its internal integrity

 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).
 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

 Cohesive Devices
under Discussion
1. Coordination (Sohn. 1999)

a. Simultaneity/Sequentiality
- 고 , - 며 , - 면서 (and, and, and then, while)
b. Contrastiveness
- 지만 , - 나 , - 든지 , - 거나 (but, however, or,
or else)
c. Others
- 는데 (and, but, while)
 Cohesive Devices
under Discussion
2. Subordination (Sohn. 1999)
a. Cause-effect
- 어 / 아서 , - 니까 (so, and then, as, since)
b. Conditional
-( 으 ) 면 (if, when)
c. Concessive
- 어 / 아도 (even though, although)
d. Intentive
- 러 , - 려고 (to, in order to)
e. Temporal
- 다가 ; - 자마자 (while doing that; as soon as)
 Cohesive Devices
under Discussion
3. Adverbial Expressions
a. Adverbs
먼저 , 또 (first of all, and/again)

b. Adverbial Phrases
- Time: ( 그 ) 후에 , ( 그 ) 다음에 , 그 때 ,
나중에
(afterwards, at that time, later)
 Cohesive Devices
under Discussion
3. Adverbial Expressions
c. Adverbial Clauses
Time Clauses:
- ㄴ / 은 후에 , - ㄴ / 은 다음에 , - 기 전에 , - ㄹ / 을 때 ,
- 는 길에 , - 는 동안 (after, before, when, while)

Purpose Clauses:
- 기 위해 ( 서 ) (in order to)

Reason Clauses:
왜냐하면 , - 기 때문에 (because)
 Cohesive Devices
under Discussion
4. Pronouns (Ihm, Hong, and Chang. 2001)
a. Personal Pronouns
그 ( 분 , 사람 , 친구 ) (that
person/friend)

b. Demonstrative Pronouns
거기 , 그것 (there, that thing)
 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
 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.
 Procedures (II)

• Transcribed the language sample in

Korean.
– Present Narration
– Past Narration
– Future Narration
– Description
– Instruction/Direction
– Reporting Facts
– Role-play with complication
 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.

H1. The higher the proficiency level
 The more cohesive devices
H1. The higher the proficiency level
 The more cohesive devices

1.23 1.84
H2. The higher the proficiency level
 The more types of cohesive devices
 H3. The higher the proficiency level
 The more complicated cohesive devices
1. Level 1
고 / 그리고 , 지만 / 그렇지만 , 그런데 , 서 / 그래서 , 니까 , 자마자 ,
그후에 , 그담에 , 먼저 , 기때문에 , ㄴ후에 , 뿐만아니라 , 또
ㄹ때 , 기 위해 , 예를들면 , 는동안 , 또 , 거기 , 그

2. Level 1+
고 / 그리고 , 지만 / 그렇지만 , 는데 , 면서 , 면 , 서 / 그래서 , 니까 ,
자마자
그후에 , 그담에 , 먼저 , 기때문에 , ㄴ후에 , 또 , 왜냐하면
ㄹ때 , 기 위해 , 예를들면 , 는 동안 , 또 , 거기 , 그 , 저기

3. Level 2
고 / 그리고 , 지만 / 그렇지만 , 는데 , 그런데 , 면서 , 러 , 면 , 서 / 그래서 ,
니까 , 자마자 , 다가 , 그후에 그담에 , 그 때 , 먼저 , ㄴ 길에 , 어쨋든 ,
기때문에 , ㄴ후에 , 또 , 왜냐하면 , ㄹ때 , 기 위해 , 예를들면 ,
는 동안 , 또 , 거기 , 그 , 그런
 Qualitative Review
comparison between L1+ and L2
1. Coordination:
• L2 students used more variety of cohesive devices:
“ 그런데 , 그렇지만 , 면서 , 는데 .”

2. Subordination
• Not significant in terms of variety of cohesive devices.
• L2 students used more distinctive use of “ 서” (since, and then)

3. Adverbials
• L1+ students used “ 그다음 / 그후에” for 50% of total adverbials
• L2 students used more of adverbial clauses:
“ ㄴ후에 , ㄹ 때 , 기 때문에 , 먼저 , 또” etc.

4. Pronouns
• Not significant.
 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.
 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!

2. Group
• Press conference!
• Creative story writing with cohesive devices
• Story-telling contest
• Benchmark yourself to the natives!
 Limitations of the Study

• Data samples solely from DLI students

• One factor to decide Level 2

• No clear guidelines about correct and

incorrect usages
 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.
 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.
Questions and Comments?