由韩国语教育过程评价院主办的韩国语能力考试(TOPIK:Test of Proficiency in Korean)作为一种全面考察韩国语应用能力的考试主要是给学习者指明方向,以韩国留学生及广大韩语学习者,工作者为对象,检测他们能否全面灵活运用韩国语而设立...由韩国语教育过程评价院主办的韩国语能力考试(TOPIK:Test of Proficiency in Korean)作为一种全面考察韩国语应用能力的考试主要是给学习者指明方向,以韩国留学生及广大韩语学习者,工作者为对象,检测他们能否全面灵活运用韩国语而设立的一种测评方式。近些年来开始实施的"实务韩国语能力考试"专门为海外同胞访问就业提供韩国语能力的测评。虽然在起步阶段但已经得到了广大韩语学习者的关注及重视,当然也存在着一些潜在的问题,这就给韩国语能力考试提出了更高的要求,希望它不断完善,逐渐往更加实用,全面的方向发展,更加适用于各类学习人群。展开更多
This study investigates the differences in pragmatic competence between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland university students.Participants included 19 native speakers of English,115 Chinese mainland students,divided into...This study investigates the differences in pragmatic competence between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland university students.Participants included 19 native speakers of English,115 Chinese mainland students,divided into those who had spent time abroad in an English-speaking country(CM A)and those who had not(CM NA),and 97 Hong Kong students,divided into those from an English-medium secondary school(Hong Kong EMI)and those from a Chinese-medium school(Hong Kong CMI).Linguistic proficiency was measured by a C-test,and pragmatic competence by a Metapragmatic Knowledge Test,an Irony Test and a Monologic Role Play.Group scores were compared using ANCOVAs to control for differences in proficiency.The results point to a continuum of pragmatic competence—EMI>CMI>CM A>CM NA—reflecting the groups’access to English in real-life contexts.The differences between the Hong Kong groups and the Chinese mainland groups were clearest in those tests measuring processing capacity(i.e.,Irony Response Time and the Monologic Role Play).CM A,but not CM NA,performed as well as the Hong Kong groups on measures of metapragmatic awareness.The results are discussed in terms of Bialystok’s(1993)distinction between analyzed representation and control of processing.展开更多
文摘由韩国语教育过程评价院主办的韩国语能力考试(TOPIK:Test of Proficiency in Korean)作为一种全面考察韩国语应用能力的考试主要是给学习者指明方向,以韩国留学生及广大韩语学习者,工作者为对象,检测他们能否全面灵活运用韩国语而设立的一种测评方式。近些年来开始实施的"实务韩国语能力考试"专门为海外同胞访问就业提供韩国语能力的测评。虽然在起步阶段但已经得到了广大韩语学习者的关注及重视,当然也存在着一些潜在的问题,这就给韩国语能力考试提出了更高的要求,希望它不断完善,逐渐往更加实用,全面的方向发展,更加适用于各类学习人群。
文摘This study investigates the differences in pragmatic competence between Hong Kong and Chinese mainland university students.Participants included 19 native speakers of English,115 Chinese mainland students,divided into those who had spent time abroad in an English-speaking country(CM A)and those who had not(CM NA),and 97 Hong Kong students,divided into those from an English-medium secondary school(Hong Kong EMI)and those from a Chinese-medium school(Hong Kong CMI).Linguistic proficiency was measured by a C-test,and pragmatic competence by a Metapragmatic Knowledge Test,an Irony Test and a Monologic Role Play.Group scores were compared using ANCOVAs to control for differences in proficiency.The results point to a continuum of pragmatic competence—EMI>CMI>CM A>CM NA—reflecting the groups’access to English in real-life contexts.The differences between the Hong Kong groups and the Chinese mainland groups were clearest in those tests measuring processing capacity(i.e.,Irony Response Time and the Monologic Role Play).CM A,but not CM NA,performed as well as the Hong Kong groups on measures of metapragmatic awareness.The results are discussed in terms of Bialystok’s(1993)distinction between analyzed representation and control of processing.
