Referencing in a Second Language: Korean EFL Learners' Cohesive Use of References in Written Narrative Discourse

Abstract

This study examined Korean English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' ability to establish textual cohesion in English through appropriate selection of reference forms and reference management strategies in their written narrative discourse. It employed both quantitative and qualitative analysis to explore how the languagespecific reference choices and strategies in their first language (L1) may be evident in their second language (L2) discourse production. Participants were Korean adult EFL learners and American native English speakers (NES) in college.Findings from the quantitative analysis of the written narratives showed that the specifically Korean referential strategies of heavily relying on nominals were not evident in the Korean EFL learners' English narrative discourse. However, a closer look at the data with a qualitative approach revealed that the Korean EFL learners' referential strategies were very different from those of the NES. More specifically, the qualitative analysis revealed that, unlike the NES who alternated the use of noun phrases and pronouns strategically to achieve certain discourse effects, the Korean participants did not display such sophisticated use of reference forms within an extended L2 discourse. The findings are attributed to the L1-specific reference management conventions and to the L2 learners' lack of practice and competence in referential strategies at the discourse level.The narrative is one of the most basic genres that second language (L2) learners must master in order to function appropriately in the target language and culture.

How do narrative and language skills relate to each other?

“…Kang (2004) similarly showed how Korean EEL learners' English narratives were less coherent and cohesive than the native English speakers' due to the specifically Korean linguistic strategy of relying on nomináis in place of pronominals in marking anaphoric references. Kang (2009) further illustrated how such LI-specific strategies, in combination with the lack of L2 linguistic competence, prevented Korean EFL learners from achieving discourse effects through sophisticated use of referential strategies in their narrative production. Chen and Pan (2009) similarly found that Chinese-English bilinguals' LI practice in the use of referential expressions hindered the development and appropriate use of the same language functions in English.…”

“…The research attention to such different aspects of narrative production reflects the complex multidimensional nature of narrative production that requires a range of cognitive capacities as well as linguistic and pragmatic knowledge, as one not only needs knowledge of how to use formal linguistic devices to serve specific communicative functions, but also needs pragmatic sensitivity to the listeners' needs, while displaying social and cultural knowledge of cultural values to interpret different events and characters at the same time. Most past studies of narratives have examined the two dimensions of narratives separately (Akinci, Jisa & Kern, 2001;Hickmann, 1996a), and identified developmental and culture-and language-specific characteristics of each of the two main dimensions of narrative production (Hickmann & Hendricks, 1999;Kang, 2009;Minami, 2002;Ordonez, 2000;Peterson & McCabe, 1983). …”

Definite Discourse-New Reference in L1 and L2

“…Given the difficulties outlined above when acquiring bridging in L2, a variety of studies from the East-Asian L2 English context have confirmed that L2 learners from Asian language backgrounds are unable to properly maintain L2 English target norms of syntax-pragmatic reference marking in L2 narrative production (Hendriks, 2003;Kang, 2005Kang, , 2009Ryan, 2012Ryan, , 2015Ryan, , 2016Crosthwaite, 2013;2014a, 2016b. These studies look at the breadth of referring expressions produced by Asian learners of L2 English including zero, pronominal and full NP reference, using narrative picture descriptions or film retellings as the elicitation device.…”

Cohesive Devices in English Writing Textbooks and Korean Learners’ English Writings

“…Research on cohesion has been especially fruitful as cohesive devices can be explicitly traced or observed on the surface. What has emerged out of this line of research is that L2 writers often underuse, overuse, and misuse certain types of cohesive devices (Bolton, Nelson, & Hung, 2003;Granger & Tyson, 1996;Hinkel, 2001;Kang, 2009). Bolton et al (2003) and Granger and Tyson (1996) focused on the use of sentence transitions such as however, therefore, and for example.…”

“…Other studies focused on different sub-groups of cohesive devices, including contrastive conjunctions such as but and yet (e.g., Park, 2013), conjunctive adjuncts including conjunctions and conjunctive adverbials (e.g., Yoon & Yoo, 2011), and reference (e.g., Kang, 2009;Kim, 2012). Park (2013) examined Korean college EFL students' use of contrastive conjunctions in argumentative essays and found that the nonnative speakers overused and underused certain contrastive conjunctions compared to the native control group.…”