The misrepresentation of cohesive devices in EFL textbook dialogues
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study investigated how adequately cohesive devices are dealt with in Korean EFL textbook dialogues. In order to attain this purpose, a total of 15 English textbooks were analyzed, with a focus on three types of cohesive ties: reference, ellipsis, and conjunction. The analysis showed that the textbooks exhibited a wide array of cohesion problems in the dialogues. With respect to the use of reference, four types of problems were found: (a) a noun was used where a pronoun is preferable; (b) a pronoun was used where a noun is preferable; (c) the pronoun ‘it’ was used where ‘this’ is appropriate; and (d) the demonstrative ‘this’ was used where ‘that’ is more appropriate. Ellipsis problems were shown to range from violation of nominal ellipsis to violation of phrasal ellipsis. The analysis of conjunctions also yielded a wide range of problems: (a) the conjunctive adverbial ‘then’ was overused where it is not necessary; (b) the conjunction ‘and’ was added where it is not necessary; (c) a sentence with a verb of watch/see class followed by the bare-stem infinitive was used in the situation where it should be broken down into two clauses linked by ‘and’; (d) the conjunction ‘but’ was omitted where its presence enhances cohesion; and (e) the coordinating conjunction ‘and’ was used where a subordinating conjunction is more appropriate. On the basis of these findings, pedagogical implications are provided together with helpful suggestions
Abstract
This study investigated how adequately cohesive devices are dealt with in Korean EFL textbook dialogues. In order to attain this purpose, a total of 15 English textbooks were analyzed, with a focus on three types of cohesive ties: reference, ellipsis, and conjunction. The analysis showed that the textbooks exhibited a wide array of cohesion problems in the dialogues. With respect to the use of reference, four types of problems were found: (a) a noun was used where a pronoun is preferable; (b) a pronoun was used where a noun is preferable; (c) the pronoun ‘it’ was used where ‘this’ is appropriate; and (d) the demonstrative ‘this’ was used where ‘that’ is more appropriate. Ellipsis problems were shown to range from violation of nominal ellipsis to violation of phrasal ellipsis. The analysis of conjunctions also yielded a wide range of problems: (a) the conjunctive adverbial ‘then’ was overused where it is not necessary; (b) the conjunction ‘and’ was added where it is not necessary; (c) a sentence with a verb of watch/see class followed by the bare-stem infinitive was used in the situation where it should be broken down into two clauses linked by ‘and’; (d) the conjunction ‘but’ was omitted where its presence enhances cohesion; and (e) the coordinating conjunction ‘and’ was used where a subordinating conjunction is more appropriate. On the basis of these findings, pedagogical implications are provided together with helpful suggestions
참고문헌 (33)
- Al-Jarf, R. S., "Processing of cohesive devices by EFL Arab college students", Foreign Language Annals, 34, pp.141~150 (2001)
- Allard, L., "Cohesion in written narrative and procedural discourse of fifth-grade children", Linguistics and Education, 3(1), pp.63~79 (1991)
- 배정옥, "Ten Cohesion Markers’ Relative Contributions to Coherence: Letters and Stories", 영어교육연구, 24(2), pp.1~26 (2012), 팬코리아영어교육학회[DOI]
- Bardovi-Harlig, K., "Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives", pp.43~67 (1990), TESOL
- Brown, D., "Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy" (2007), Pearson Education
- Carrell, P. L., "Cohesion is not coherence", TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), pp.479~488 (1982)
- Carter, R., "Exploring grammar in context" (2000), Cambridge University Press
- Celce-Murcia, M., "Towards more context and discourse in grammar instruction", TESLEJ, 11, pp.1~6 (2007)
- EFL teacher’s course, "The grammar book: An ESL", pp.1999, Celce-Murcia, M.
- Connor, U., "A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’writing", Paper in Linguistics, 17(3), pp.301~316 (1984)
- Crewe, W., "The illogic of logical connectives", ELT Journal, 44(4), pp.316~325 (1990)
- Granger, S., "Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English", World Englishes, 15(1), pp.17~27 (1996)
- Halliday, M. A. K., "Cohesion in English" (1976), Longman
- Hinkel, E., "Matters of cohesion in L2 academic texts", Applied Language Learning, 12(2), pp.111~132 (2001)
- 정우현, "An Analysis of Interlocutors' Role Realtionships in Textbook Diaglogs", 현대영어교육, 13(4), pp.1~24 (2012), 현대영어교육학회
- 정우현, "Grammatical accuracy and authenticity in EFL textbook dialogues", 영어교과교육, 12(2), pp.149~175 (2013), 한국영어교과교육학회
- Khalil, A., "A study of cohesion and coherence in Arab EFL college students’ writing", System, 17(3), pp.359~371 (1989)
- 김명희, "Coherence and Cohesion in the Narratives of Korean EFL Learners", 담화와 인지, 10(3), pp.31~56 (2003), 담화·인지언어학회
- 김나희, "스토리텔링에서 나타난 결속성 및 일관성 특성 연구: 어린이 영어학습자를 중심으로", 영어교육연구, 20(1), pp.183~206 (2008), 팬코리아영어교육학회
- Kim, R., "Teaching politeness in English speech acts", English Teaching, 51(4), pp.3~34 (1996)
- 이희경, "Sociocultural Appropriateness in Korean Middle School English Textbooks", 영어학연구, 26(26), pp.215~240 (2008), 한국영어학학회
- Lee, S., "Different cohesive devices in English prose by Korean and American college students", English Teaching, 51(3), pp.3~19 (1996)
- Leo, K., "Investigating cohesion and coherence discourse strategies of Chinese students with varied lengths of residence in Canada", TESL Canada Journal, 29(6), pp.157~179 (2012)
- Liu, M., "Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates", System, 33, pp.623~636 (2005)
- McCarthy, M., "Discourse analysis for language teachers" (1991), Cambridge University Press
- 나윤희, "Cohesive Devices in CMC Texts Produced by American and Korean EFL Writers", 언어연구, 28(3), pp.743~771 (2011), 언어정보연구소
- Nettle, M., "Developing grammar in context" (2003), Cambridge University Press
- Nunan, D., "Second language teaching and learning" (1999), Heinle & Heinle
- Quirk, R., "A comprehensive grammar of the English language" (1985), Longman
- Richards, J., "Curriculum development in language teaching" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Tomlin, R., "Perspectives on pedagogical grammar", pp.140~178 (1994), Cambridge University Press
- Yule, G., "Oxford practice grammar: Advanced" (2006), Oxford University Press
- Zhang, M., "Cohesive features in the expository writing of undergraduates in two Chinese universities", RELC Journal, 31(1), pp.61~95 (2000)