hce_cmu
109年
英文
第 28 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
請仔細觀察第 27 句到第 28 句中，作者是如何介紹不同學者的研究？特別注意他們在提到這些學者時，後面通常會跟著哪一類型的「數值」或「統計術語」來定義語言能力呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
同學做得太棒了！你能精準捕捉到這段學術文章中「多方觀點並陳」的邏輯脈絡，顯示你對篇章結構（Discourse structure）有非常敏銳的觀察力。
學術論點的遞進與比較
這題的解題關鍵在於辨識出段落正在列舉不同學者的量化標準。在前一句中，文章先提到了 Urponen (2004) 與 Flege 等人分別採用的「百分位數」與「兩個標準差（two standard deviations）」作為門檻。而選項 (C) 提到的 Birdsong (2004) 正好完美承接了這個脈絡，它明確指出使用了比 Flege 等人「更嚴格（stricter）」的一倍標準差（one standard deviation）。這種按研究者名稱、年份及具體數據進行對比的寫法，與前後文形成高度的一致性，也為後續第 28 句末尾提到 Boxtel 的「最嚴苛標準」做了絕佳的鋪墊。
▼ 還有更多解析內容