본 논문은 非目的语의 환경에서 베트남의 한어학습자들을 대상으로 하여, 지필 테스트(paperand- pencil test) 방식으로 그들의 한자 형방 인식의 발전 과정에 대한 연구를 진행하였다. 그 결과는 다음과 같다. 베트남 한어학습자들이 초·중급 단계에 있을 때 여전히 스스로 형방을 인식하지 못하였으나 고급 단계에 진입한 후 형방을 비교적 스스로 인식할 수 있게 되었다. 체계적인 한자 이론 지식 교육은 학습자들이 한자 형성자의 형방에 대한 인식과 그 발전에 도움이 되었다. 중국 유학생들과 비교 연구를 통하여 본 논문은 서로 다른 언어 학습 환경에서 학습자들이 형성자들을 인식하는 데 있어서도 서로 다른 발전 양상이 있음을 발견할 수 있었다.

This study aims to understand the foreign language learner’s internal process while they are translating. To figure out invisible internal process of the learner, Key logging during translation process, short interview after translating and behavioral observation were used. For considering behavioral characteristics for internal process, Pause, Deletion, Moving and Mistranslation were chosen. In particular, Pause was chosen to work as criterion when analyzing other behaviors. By analyzing those behaviors, three internal processes were found: (1)Deliberatiing on words or phrases following the pauses, (2)Considering ill-matched words or phrases between source text and target text, (3)Continuous checks on what writers had written down. Deliberations were generally found before the long-term pause. Learners were deliberating what to write on next phrases, due to their scarce knowledge of grammatical collocation of the target language. Considering ill-matched words or phrases between source text and target text shows variety of behaviors such as moving, deletion after the long-term pauses. According to the learners’ interview and researcher’s observation, it was arisen when the learners are fail to find the acceptable expressions in target language. Continuous checks on what learners had written down were generally found after the translation was finished. Entire part of target text was examined in this type of process. Thus, long period of pause was required for reading source text and target text, also deletion and moving was required for correcting mistranslated words or phrases. It infers that learners’ behaviors are combined to suggest certain meanings of internal process. Thus, these behaviors do not suggest solid internal process. With more elaborated analysis, this

L2 learners’ target language use has been examined for various purposes, including assessment of the learners’ proficiency and examination of the process of language learning. That is, target language use in the real life tasks on the level as automatized as that of native speakers represents the goal of L2 learning. More importantly, however, target language use has been proposed as a process that provides the learning opportunities, particularly since 1980s by communicative approach to SLA. Until the learners can communicate effortlessly without being conscious of the form of the language, how learners’ attention and awareness are or should be directed to the language form and meaning has been an important issue among the recent SLA theories, summarized as the interface/non-interface debate. This paper discusses how different major SLA theories view learners’ attention and awareness of language form during language use and how it has been measured for both process and result research. Finally, a recent neurobiolobical SLA model is introduced in terms of its methodological and theoretical contribution to SLA research.

The task-based approach to second or foreign language pedagogy aims to provide learners with a natural context for authentic language use. While learners are performing real-world or pedagogical tasks, they have opportunities not only to get a rich and comprehensible input of real language, but also to produce target language items to exchange meanings. Interaction in doing the tasks is thought to facilitate language learning process. Thus, one of the important things that teachers have to do first for their task-based English classes is to design tasks for target language items reflecting native speakers’ authentic language use. It is expected that learners can communicate with foreigners using the prescriptive target language items outside the classroom. This research attempted to find out if non-native English teachers would be able to make accurate predictions about target language items in terms of language forms and lexical phrases that would naturally occur when English native speakers carried out two types of tasks (closed tasks and open tasks). The results showed that many language items predicted by non-native English teachers did not appear in the recorded data by English native speakers, especially for open tasks. Thus, this research called into question the practice of setting tasks at the end of a PPP cycle (presentation, practice, and production), to allow students to put into use target language items that has previously been practised.