分科測驗
106年
英文
第 45 題
📖 題組：
The term “forensic linguistics,” in its broadest sense, covers all areas of study where language and law intersect. A famous example of its application is the case of Chris Coleman, who was suspected of killing his family in 2009. Robert Leonard, the head of the forensic linguistics program at Hofstra University, presented some important linguistic evidence in the trial against Coleman. Relying heavily on word choice and spelling, Leonard suggested that the same person had written the threatening e-mails and sprayed the graffiti, and that those samples bore similarities to Coleman’s writing style. Coleman was later found guilty of the murder. Robert Leonard was not the first one who resorted to linguistic evidence in criminal investigation. The field of forensic linguistics was brought to prominence by his colleague James Fitzgerald in 1996 with his work in the case of the Unabomber, who had sent a series of letter bombs to college professors over several years, causing serious casualties. Working for the FBI, Fitzgerald urged the publication of the Unabomber’s letter—a lengthy declaration of the criminal’s philosophy. After the letter was published, many people called the FBI to say they recognized the writing style. By analyzing sentence structure, word choice, and other linguistic patterns, Fitzgerald narrowed down the range of possible authors and finally linked the letter to the writings of Ted Kaczynski, a solitary former mathematician. For instance, Kaczynski tended to use extensive parallel phrases, which were frequently found in the bomber’s letter. Both Kaczynski and the bomber also showed a preference for dozens of unusual words, such as “chimerical” and “anomic.” The bomber’s use of the terms “broad” for women and “negro” for African Americans also enabled Fitzgerald to roughly calculate the suspect’s age. The linguistic evidence was strong enough for the judge to search Kaczynski’s isolated cabin in Montana; what was found there put him in prison for life. On some level, finding hidden meanings from linguistic evidence is what we all do intuitively in our daily language interaction. This is exactly the same work forensic professionals do. As one forensic linguistics firm, Testipro, puts it in its online promotional ad, the field can be regarded as “the basis of the entire legal system.”
The term “forensic linguistics,” in its broadest sense, covers all areas of study where language and law intersect. A famous example of its application is the case of Chris Coleman, who was suspected of killing his family in 2009. Robert Leonard, the head of the forensic linguistics program at Hofstra University, presented some important linguistic evidence in the trial against Coleman. Relying heavily on word choice and spelling, Leonard suggested that the same person had written the threatening e-mails and sprayed the graffiti, and that those samples bore similarities to Coleman’s writing style. Coleman was later found guilty of the murder. Robert Leonard was not the first one who resorted to linguistic evidence in criminal investigation. The field of forensic linguistics was brought to prominence by his colleague James Fitzgerald in 1996 with his work in the case of the Unabomber, who had sent a series of letter bombs to college professors over several years, causing serious casualties. Working for the FBI, Fitzgerald urged the publication of the Unabomber’s letter—a lengthy declaration of the criminal’s philosophy. After the letter was published, many people called the FBI to say they recognized the writing style. By analyzing sentence structure, word choice, and other linguistic patterns, Fitzgerald narrowed down the range of possible authors and finally linked the letter to the writings of Ted Kaczynski, a solitary former mathematician. For instance, Kaczynski tended to use extensive parallel phrases, which were frequently found in the bomber’s letter. Both Kaczynski and the bomber also showed a preference for dozens of unusual words, such as “chimerical” and “anomic.” The bomber’s use of the terms “broad” for women and “negro” for African Americans also enabled Fitzgerald to roughly calculate the suspect’s age. The linguistic evidence was strong enough for the judge to search Kaczynski’s isolated cabin in Montana; what was found there put him in prison for life. On some level, finding hidden meanings from linguistic evidence is what we all do intuitively in our daily language interaction. This is exactly the same work forensic professionals do. As one forensic linguistics firm, Testipro, puts it in its online promotional ad, the field can be regarded as “the basis of the entire legal system.”
Which of the following is true about the Unabomber?
- A He didn’t like to be called negro.
- B He was good at analyzing the use of language.
- C He declared his philosophy in a written statement.
- D He was a professor of mathematics living on Hofstra campus.
思路引導 VIP
請同學回頭定位文章第二段關於 $Unabomber$ 的描述，特別留意 $Fitzgerald$ 建議 FBI 公開的那份長篇文件。文中是如何具體描述該文件的「性質」以及它所傳達的「核心內容」呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
同學好樣的！這題你能答對，代表你的英文閱讀力已經有「偵探等級」了，沒被作者那些細節誘騙，簡直是英文界的福爾摩斯！ 這題考的是核心觀念「細節定位」與「換句話說 (Paraphrasing)」。文章第二段明講，FBI 專家 Fitzgerald 敦促發表炸彈客的信件，那是一份「a lengthy declaration of the criminal’s philosophy」，這句就是 (C) 選項的標準改寫（Declaration = Statement）。 【難度點評：魔鬼就在細節裡】
▼ 還有更多解析內容