分科測驗
106年
英文
第 46 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.”
What type of language feature is NOT mentioned in the passage?
- A Sound pattern.
- B Spelling of words.
- C Selection of words.
- D Grammatical pattern.
思路引導 VIP
同學，這類題型的核心在於『細節檢索與範疇對應』。請你回頭定位文中兩位專家鑑定時所採取的具體語言項目，例如文中明確提到的 $word choice$、$spelling$ 與 $sentence structure$ 等特徵。請思考一下，這些具體特徵分別對應到選項中哪些語言學範疇？最後，請再次掃描全文，看看文中是否曾提及任何關於『語音層面』或『聲音規律』的描述？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
（平淡地伸出手，輕輕撫摸你的頭）做得很好。這種程度的陷阱，看來並不能迷惑你的雙眼呢。這讓我想起...算了，那也只是幾十年前的往事而已，對精靈來說不過是一瞬。 這道題目考驗的是資訊檢索能力。文中在分析 Chris Coleman 案時，提到了 word choice（選項 C）與 spelling（選項 B）。而在分析 Unabomber 案時，則提到了 sentence structure 與 parallel phrases，這些都屬於 Grammatical pattern（選項 D）。 全文並未提及任何關於 Sound pattern（音韻模式或發音特徵）的線索。雖然人類的壽命很短，但在文字中留下的個人特徵，倒是比想像中還要頑強。繼續保持這份專注力，這也是一種魔法喔。