Transcript Use of Cohesive Devices in Enforcing Appropriate ILR Level

Use of Cohesive Devices
in
Enforcing Appropriate ILR Level
Achievement
Zalmai Roashan, M.A., MBA
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
Monterey, California
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
AF-PAK 2010 Omaha
Description:
A reflective analysis on the use of cohesive devices in
language acquisition based on a partial tabulation of
such devices in three different languages (Dari, Farsi
and Pashto) and a determination of sound practices for
their application (focus on Pashto) in a military language
institute.
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
The rationale for this presentation
arose out of:
1. Teaching and program administration of an emerging language
(Pashto) for which there has been limited scholastic research.
2. Relatively young adult student population who are selected
and enrolled for L2 acquisition on the basis of departmental
needs[1] rather than learners’ personal interest and
professional desires.
3. A new curriculum that is still under review and development[2].
4. A teaching faculty with limited to no ‘initial linguistic training’.[3]
[1]
Needs of the DoD in executing its military and security missions.
DLIFLC is using the only complete Pashto Basic Course curriculum that is designed to achieve ILR
levels 2/2+ by the end of a three semester (47 weeks) course of training.
[3] Based on the latest count, less than 5% of the instructors were hired with prior linguistic training
Zalmai Roashan
and/or language teaching experience.
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
[2]
Introduction
Many scholars have considered cohesion in text from different
perspectives. On texture alone, five specific devices have been
suggested[1]. They are: Reference, Substitution, Ellipses,Conjunction,
and Lexicon Cohesion.
Similarly, mention is made of ‘cohesive ties’ such as reference and
repetition to create dynamic flow for the words and thoughts to be
conveyed.
Purdue University researchers suggest a list of five elements to create
cohesion in a text : transitional words, repetition of key terms, use of
synonyms, use of pronouns and sentence pattern.[2]
Since language is a multiplicity of systems (semantic, lexicogrammatical, phonological, and orthographical) it is important to note
the underlying experiential, logical and structural components that
would enable a L2 learner to gain accuracy and fluency.[3]
[1]
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics by P.H. Mathrews
http://owl.english.purdue.edu
[3] Halliday
[2]
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
Introduction, cont.
The semantic components as discussed by Halliday [4] pays attention
to the interpersonal (mood and modality) and textual (verbal and
adverbial groups in the structured category and reference,
substitution, ellipses, conjunction, and lexical, in the non structural
category) to create cohesion.
Halliday’s assertion as represented by Toboada looks at elemental
relationships as follows: [5]
[4]
[5]
Halliday 1985
Maria Teresa Taboada, Building Coherence and Cohesion, John Benjamins North America 2004
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
About Cohesive Devices
Non-structural Elements
Componential
Relations
Organic Relations
Grammatical
Cohesive Devices
Reference
Substitution
Ellipses
Conjunctives
Discourse markers
Lexical
Cohesive Devices
Repetition
Synonymy
Antonymy
Continuatives
Structural Elements
Parallelism
Theme-Rheme Development
Given New Organization
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
The model found to be most useful for this study
comes from a colleague at DLI, Dr. Wendy Ashby
– the non-inclusive ILR designation is slighly modified for our purpose.
Mode
Model
Non-inclusive ILR Level
Enumerative
List
0+
Descriptive
Time
0+/1
Place
Position
Instructive
Sequence
1+/2
Evaluative
Similarity
2+
Exception/Contast
Projective
Emphasis
3 and higher
Cause/Effect
Support and Evidence
[1] Wendy Ashby – DLIFLC 2008
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
I found this classification to be the most helpful in this
presentation. The following few slides represent the
Pashto version of these devices.
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
Descriptive, cont.
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
Evaluative, cont.
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
As mentioned earlier and for the purpose of this
study, Wendy Ashby’s review of cohesive devices
(with slight modification) has been adopted as base,
and each ‘mode’ and ‘model’ is assigned a noninclusive ILR designation to assist the learner in
achieving his/her objectives.
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
Methodology
Upon acceptance of the above classification as a base, a few faculty
members at the Multi-Language School were asked to find equivalent
in the three of the four residential languages taught at MLS. [1]
These compilations were then presented in a workshop to 32
instructors at the school who were tasked to review the material in
their respective language groups and, based on ‘mode’, ‘model’ and
ILR applicability, develop texts utilizing suggested devices.
A critical review of the language-appropriate-developed-task was
conducted with the aim of classroom application.
[1] For Pashto Mr. Kotwal, for Dari Mr. Omid and for Farsi Ms. Rezai prepared their language specific lists.
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
The results are summarized as:
1. Appropriate models for the instructive and evaluative modes are
easier in the latter part of the second and throughout the third
semester at MLS.[1]
2. Enumerative mode application, though used in higher level texts as
well, are best utilized during the first semester.
3. A combination of descriptive and instructive modes are best for the
second semester usage.
4. In general, it was suggested that semantic, lexico-grammatical,
phonological, and orthographical systems consideration should be of
equal concern with modes and models presented.
[1]
At MLS for all three languages in this study the curriculum is administered in three semesters of relatively equal length.
Proficiency expectations for each level respectively are 1, 1+/2 and 2/2+.
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
Conclusion
There is little doubt that cohesion is of considerable importance in
meaningful conveyance of ideas and thoughts. Some argue that
cohesion is inherently present in native speakers output.[1] The
question then arises as to how we can facilitate the transfer of L1
cohesion to L2 with some ease.
As this partial analysis showed explicit references to cohesive
devices and identification of such devices by modes and models
and their usage in L1, may make the task of transfer easier in a L2
environment.
A serious and concerted effort will be needed to introduce
appropriate level devices to L2 learners and then reinforce their
usage in writing tasks (even in instances where there may not be a
need for building this skill).[2]
[1]
Maria Teresa Taboada, Building Coherence and Cohesion, John Benjamins North America 2004
Mandated focus of attention at DLI are the three skills of listening, reading and speaking. Not much
attention is given to the skill of writing other than as an enabling skill.
[2]
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School
Comments?
This 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.
Zalmai Roashan
DLIFLC Multi-Language School