hce_cmu
109年
英文
第 26 題
📖 題組：
IV. Discourse structure Questions 26-35: Choose the BEST answer from the box below for each blank in the passage. Part 1. (A) In this light, several researchers have proposed various benchmark criteria. (B) Additionally, it is still an unresolved issue with regard to where the lower bound of near-native variation should be placed on the ordinal scale. (C) Using a criterion stricter than the one used in Flege, et al., Birdsong (2004) prescribed one standard deviation of the native mean as the cut-off point. (D) The aforementioned cut-off points provide researchers with operationalized criteria to distinguish native and near-native variations. (E) Some researchers have suggested that despite having similar grammatical intuition, native and near-native speakers may show different degrees of variation in their grammaticality judgment. 26 Papp (2000) thus urged that “precise criteria for quantifying intuitions underlying the different [language] representations [in native and near-native speakers] are needed in order to allow comparison among studies into the nature of the ultimate second-language (L2) competence” (p. 178). 27 For instance, Urponen (2004) attempted to quantitatively depict native and near-native variations with an ordinal scale, using the 90th percentile of the native speaker mean as the cut-off point differentiating native- and near-native performances. Bongaerts (1999), and Flege, Munro, and MacKay (1995), on the other hand, used two standard deviations of the native speaker mean as the cut-off point separating native and near-native variations. 28 Boxtel, Bongaerts, and Coppen (2003), on the other hand, employed the most stringent criterion; L2 learners are considered “nonnative” if their average scores are not analogous to the ones of native speakers. 29 However, as seen above, researchers still have not yet reached a consensus on the cut-off point that may distinguish the lower bound of native variation and the upper bound of near-native variation. 30 Such a consent is imperative for formulating the theoretical account on near-nativeness.
IV. Discourse structure Questions 26-35: Choose the BEST answer from the box below for each blank in the passage. Part 1. (A) In this light, several researchers have proposed various benchmark criteria. (B) Additionally, it is still an unresolved issue with regard to where the lower bound of near-native variation should be placed on the ordinal scale. (C) Using a criterion stricter than the one used in Flege, et al., Birdsong (2004) prescribed one standard deviation of the native mean as the cut-off point. (D) The aforementioned cut-off points provide researchers with operationalized criteria to distinguish native and near-native variations. (E) Some researchers have suggested that despite having similar grammatical intuition, native and near-native speakers may show different degrees of variation in their grammaticality judgment. 26 Papp (2000) thus urged that “precise criteria for quantifying intuitions underlying the different [language] representations [in native and near-native speakers] are needed in order to allow comparison among studies into the nature of the ultimate second-language (L2) competence” (p. 178). 27 For instance, Urponen (2004) attempted to quantitatively depict native and near-native variations with an ordinal scale, using the 90th percentile of the native speaker mean as the cut-off point differentiating native- and near-native performances. Bongaerts (1999), and Flege, Munro, and MacKay (1995), on the other hand, used two standard deviations of the native speaker mean as the cut-off point separating native and near-native variations. 28 Boxtel, Bongaerts, and Coppen (2003), on the other hand, employed the most stringent criterion; L2 learners are considered “nonnative” if their average scores are not analogous to the ones of native speakers. 29 However, as seen above, researchers still have not yet reached a consensus on the cut-off point that may distinguish the lower bound of native variation and the upper bound of near-native variation. 30 Such a consent is imperative for formulating the theoretical account on near-nativeness.
- A In this light, several researchers have proposed various benchmark criteria.
- B Additionally, it is still an unresolved issue with regard to where the lower bound of near-native variation should be placed on the ordinal scale.
- C Using a criterion stricter than the one used in Flege, et al., Birdsong (2004) prescribed one standard deviation of the native mean as the cut-off point.
- D The aforementioned cut-off points provide researchers with operationalized criteria to distinguish native and near-native variations.
- E Some researchers have suggested that despite having similar grammatical intuition, native and near-native speakers may show different degrees of variation in their grammaticality judgment.
思路引導 VIP
如果一段話的第二句開頭使用了「因此 (thus)」來提出一個具體的建議或訴求，那麼你認為第一句話通常會扮演什麼樣的角色，才能讓這個建議在邏輯上顯得合理且必要呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精準捕捉到篇章結構中的邏輯鏈條，選出選項 (E) 說明你對文章的起承轉合有著敏銳的觀察力。
邏輯承接與背景鋪陳
這題的關鍵在於緊接在第 26 格後方的關鍵詞 “thus” (因此)。在學術寫作中，這代表 Papp (2000) 所提出的「需要精確的量化標準」是一個針對問題的對策或結論。選項 (E) 提到「母語者與近母語者在語法判斷上的變異程度可能不同」，這正好提供了前因：正因為觀察到兩者在判斷上存在程度不一的變異，才會引發後續對於「建立量化標準」的迫切需求。這種「現象描述（E）→ 解決方案（Papp 的觀點）」的結構是非常典型的學術論證。
▼ 還有更多解析內容