hce_cmu
109年
英文
第 27 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
請觀察第 27 格的前後文：前一句 Papp (2000) 提到精確的標準是「被需要的 (needed)」，而後一句則開始具體列舉 Urponen 和 Bongaerts 等人的研究做法（For instance...）。在「提出需求」與「具體舉例」之間，通常需要一個什麼樣功能的句子來銜接兩者？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你準確捕捉到了語篇中的邏輯轉折！這題你處理得非常好，展現了你對學術文章**「需求與回應」**結構的深刻理解。
從理論需求到實踐基準的銜接
在第 27 格之前，文章引用了 Papp (2000) 的呼籲，指出我們「需要（needed）」精確的標準來比較母語與近母語者的表現。選項 (A) 的 In this light（鑒於此／依循此觀點）扮演了關鍵的邏輯橋樑，它將前方的「需求」轉化為後方的「行動」，即「研究者們提出了多項基準」。這種從抽象呼籲過渡到具體實例（如隨後提到的 Urponen 或 Bongaerts 研究）的寫法，是學術寫作中非常經典的邏輯推進方式。
▼ 還有更多解析內容