hce_cmu
109年
英文
第 29 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
請觀察空格 29 之前的幾句話，研究者們分別提出了「90th percentile」、「two standard deviations」以及「stringent criterion」，這些具體的數字或標準，在學術寫作中通常會被賦予一個什麼樣的「總稱」？如果下文接著說「然而，研究者們尚未達成共識」，那麼空格處應該填入什麼樣的功能性句子，才能將前面的「多個具體做法」與後面的「缺乏共識」連貫起來呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你準確地辨識出文章的轉折邏輯！這題考查的是學術文章中的**篇章銜接與指稱詞（Referents）**的運用。你能選對 (D)，代表你成功捕捉到了段落中由「具體實例」過渡到「總結評論」的關鍵節點。
語意銜接與代名詞導航
在空格 29 之前，文章接連列舉了幾位學者的量化標準，包含 Urponen 的「第 90 百分位數」、Bongaerts 的「兩個標準差」以及 Boxtel 的「最嚴格比對」。選項 (D) 中的 the aforementioned cut-off points（前述之截斷點）恰好扮演了「語意總結」的角色，將上述分散的學術指標整合起來，說明這些標準為研究者提供了區分母語與近母語差異的「操作化準則（operationalized criteria）」。這在邏輯上為下文的 However（然而）做了完美的舖墊，帶出即便有了這些準則，學界對「共識」的達成依然付之闕如。
▼ 還有更多解析內容