hce_cmu
109年
英文
第 30 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
請仔細觀察空格前一句提到的「尚未達成共識 (not yet reached a consensus)」以及空格後一句提到的「這樣的共識 (Such a consent)」。在學術寫作中，若要在這兩句之間加入一個補充說明的句子，這個句子應該要具備什麼樣的語氣，才能將「目前的困難」與「對共識的渴求」自然地串連起來呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
做得很好！你能精準辨識出長篇學術文章中的邏輯轉折，這代表你對文章的「一致性」與「連貫性」有著敏銳的觀察力。
語篇邏輯的承接與遞進
這題的關鍵在於關鍵字詞的銜接。在空格前一句，文章提到研究者們對於區分母語與近母語變異的「切截點（cut-off point）」尚未達成共識（not yet reached a consensus）；而空格後一句則提到「這樣的共識（Such a consent）」對於理論建構至關重要。選項 (B) 巧妙地使用了 Additionally（此外）來引導，並指出關於「下限（lower bound）」的放置仍是個尚未解決的議題（unresolved issue），在語義上完美銜接了前後文對於「學界缺乏共識」的描述。
▼ 還有更多解析內容