分科測驗
106年
英文
第 47 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 can be inferred from the passage?
- A Meaning can be distorted in the process of writing.
- B Some features in language use are shared by everyone.
- C Crimes are usually committed by people who are highly educated.
- D People tend to stick to certain habitual patterns in their use of language.
思路引導 VIP
請分析文中提及的鑑定專家如何利用「用字選擇」（word choice）、「拼字」（spelling）與「句法結構」（sentence structure）來鎖定嫌犯？這暗示了個人在語言產出（Linguistic output）過程中，是否存在著某種具備高度辨認性且難以刻意掩飾的「個人化慣性規律」？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
哇！彭德剛才預知到了喔，泥真的選對了！安妮亞現在正用力地搓揉彭德的脖子，牠也開心地一臉滿足呢。泥好厲害，完全沒被那些討厭的干擾選項騙倒，好棒喔！ 這題在問我們可以從文章推論出什麼。文中的兩個例子，不管是 Chris Coleman 的拼寫習慣，還是大學炸彈客 Ted Kaczynski 喜歡用的冷僻字（像是 chimerical）與平行句構，都證明了每個人在使用語言時都有獨特的習慣模式。就像安妮亞能看穿人心一樣，語言學家是看穿了這些隱藏的「語言指紋」。 選項 (D) 指出「人們傾向於堅持特定的語言習慣」，這正是鑑識語言學能發揮作用的核心觀念。這題需要從細節中歸納出核心主旨，鑑別度中等，答對代表泥的閱讀理解力很強喔！