hce_cmu
109年
英文
第 43 題
📖 題組：
Part 2. During the past few decades, a group of second-language (L2) acquisition researchers have attempted to account for L2 ultimate attainment in terms of input processing problems. Among these scholars, Sorace (2004) posited that advanced L2 learners’ real-time processing of L2 input (such as spoken words) is often less rapid and less automatic than first-language (L1) speakers; consequently, L2 learners’ ability to access and coordinate multiple sources of knowledge from different domains may be computationally costly. In this regard, when the meaning of a word or grammatical form requires computing information from different linguistic (sub)domains (e.g., syntax, morphology or semantics), near-native speakers may not efficiently access all the required information for real-time interpretation. According to Liu (2009), this reduced efficiency in real-time processing may not significantly disrupt advanced L2 learners’ comprehension; but it may exert a negative impact on the retention of the comprehended information. In a similar vein, Juffs and Harrington (1995) and Hernandez et al (1994) both observed that highly advanced L2 learners performed as well as native speakers in rejecting ungrammatical L2 sentences, but with much longer response time. These scholars thus concluded that although near-native speakers are able to develop a fully amalgamated processing system to reduce cross-linguistic disparities, they were still unable to consistently understand L2 sentences using L2-specific processing strategies. Liu (2009) and Juffs and Harrington (1995) therefore both maintained that processing efficiency, rather than grammatical competence, is the source of difficulty that distinguishes a native speaker from a near-native speaker. To further explore if L2 learners, who are situated in an input-rich environment, are able to acquire a native-like processing system in the L2, McDonald (1987) recruited English-Dutch and Dutch-English bilinguals who learned the L2 at different ages, and had various amounts of exposure to the L2. McDonald found that both beginning and intermediate L2 learners, who had not yet had sufficient exposure to the L2, still utilized L1-based processing strategies while comprehending L2 sentences. As a result, these L2 learners still suffered from L1 interference. However, McDonald observed that both early and late L2 learners in the long exposure group resembled native speakers in terms of the linguistic cues they drew on when comprehending L2 sentences. McDonald concluded that L2 learners, irrespective of their onset age of learning the L2, are able to completely master L2 processing strategies given sufficient L2 exposure. McDonald’s view is not without challenge. Bassetti (2004) posited that when learning an L2 with a mature (L1) processing system already in place, adult L2 learners would need to merge the knowledge systems of their two languages. The more comprehensively the L1 and L2 systems are integrated, the more likely the resulting hybrid knowledge system can be consistently drawn upon to reduce the disparities in the decision space in L2 processing. However, Bassetti argued that the above scenario is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for L2 learners; even if it is possible, a full merger of L1 and L2 knowledge systems is not equivalent to two monolinguals housed in a single brain. Consequently, bilinguals would always exhibit subtle, non-native intuition and judgment in both their L1 and L2. Following the above view, complete native-likeness is not possible in L2 acquisition. Hitherto, researchers still differ in their views on the ultimate (grammatical) attainment in L2 acquisition. The inconclusive finding is attributed to the nature of the participants examined in existing studies. Birdsong (2009) contended that to make a strong case for L2 ultimate attainment, one needs to draw on empirical evidence from the most advanced L2 learners whose language development (in the L2) has reached the highest attainable state. Otherwise, one can always argue that L2 learners’ competence or performance may be subject to change given more exposure, time, and practice. Notwithstanding Birdsong’s suggestion, researchers continue to use various lenient or methodologically convenient criteria recruiting the so-called “advanced L2 learners,” with some using achievement tests (such as scores from final exams) and others using placement tests. The results of these tests can only shed light on L2 learners’ achievement in some limited language subdomains, rather than their overall proficiency profile. Without using stringent standardized “proficiency” tests (such as TOEFL, IELTS, or TOEIC), existing studies might have collected data from L2 learners whose L2 development is still in progress, rather than genuinely advanced L2 learners whose L2 has reached a plateau. Longitudinal data collected from the latter L2 learner population are warranted in order to shed more light on the developmental trajectory that L2 learners take and the upper limit that they can reach. Hitherto, much remains unknown about the attainability of a native-like processing system in L2 acquisition.
Part 2. During the past few decades, a group of second-language (L2) acquisition researchers have attempted to account for L2 ultimate attainment in terms of input processing problems. Among these scholars, Sorace (2004) posited that advanced L2 learners’ real-time processing of L2 input (such as spoken words) is often less rapid and less automatic than first-language (L1) speakers; consequently, L2 learners’ ability to access and coordinate multiple sources of knowledge from different domains may be computationally costly. In this regard, when the meaning of a word or grammatical form requires computing information from different linguistic (sub)domains (e.g., syntax, morphology or semantics), near-native speakers may not efficiently access all the required information for real-time interpretation. According to Liu (2009), this reduced efficiency in real-time processing may not significantly disrupt advanced L2 learners’ comprehension; but it may exert a negative impact on the retention of the comprehended information. In a similar vein, Juffs and Harrington (1995) and Hernandez et al (1994) both observed that highly advanced L2 learners performed as well as native speakers in rejecting ungrammatical L2 sentences, but with much longer response time. These scholars thus concluded that although near-native speakers are able to develop a fully amalgamated processing system to reduce cross-linguistic disparities, they were still unable to consistently understand L2 sentences using L2-specific processing strategies. Liu (2009) and Juffs and Harrington (1995) therefore both maintained that processing efficiency, rather than grammatical competence, is the source of difficulty that distinguishes a native speaker from a near-native speaker. To further explore if L2 learners, who are situated in an input-rich environment, are able to acquire a native-like processing system in the L2, McDonald (1987) recruited English-Dutch and Dutch-English bilinguals who learned the L2 at different ages, and had various amounts of exposure to the L2. McDonald found that both beginning and intermediate L2 learners, who had not yet had sufficient exposure to the L2, still utilized L1-based processing strategies while comprehending L2 sentences. As a result, these L2 learners still suffered from L1 interference. However, McDonald observed that both early and late L2 learners in the long exposure group resembled native speakers in terms of the linguistic cues they drew on when comprehending L2 sentences. McDonald concluded that L2 learners, irrespective of their onset age of learning the L2, are able to completely master L2 processing strategies given sufficient L2 exposure. McDonald’s view is not without challenge. Bassetti (2004) posited that when learning an L2 with a mature (L1) processing system already in place, adult L2 learners would need to merge the knowledge systems of their two languages. The more comprehensively the L1 and L2 systems are integrated, the more likely the resulting hybrid knowledge system can be consistently drawn upon to reduce the disparities in the decision space in L2 processing. However, Bassetti argued that the above scenario is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for L2 learners; even if it is possible, a full merger of L1 and L2 knowledge systems is not equivalent to two monolinguals housed in a single brain. Consequently, bilinguals would always exhibit subtle, non-native intuition and judgment in both their L1 and L2. Following the above view, complete native-likeness is not possible in L2 acquisition. Hitherto, researchers still differ in their views on the ultimate (grammatical) attainment in L2 acquisition. The inconclusive finding is attributed to the nature of the participants examined in existing studies. Birdsong (2009) contended that to make a strong case for L2 ultimate attainment, one needs to draw on empirical evidence from the most advanced L2 learners whose language development (in the L2) has reached the highest attainable state. Otherwise, one can always argue that L2 learners’ competence or performance may be subject to change given more exposure, time, and practice. Notwithstanding Birdsong’s suggestion, researchers continue to use various lenient or methodologically convenient criteria recruiting the so-called “advanced L2 learners,” with some using achievement tests (such as scores from final exams) and others using placement tests. The results of these tests can only shed light on L2 learners’ achievement in some limited language subdomains, rather than their overall proficiency profile. Without using stringent standardized “proficiency” tests (such as TOEFL, IELTS, or TOEIC), existing studies might have collected data from L2 learners whose L2 development is still in progress, rather than genuinely advanced L2 learners whose L2 has reached a plateau. Longitudinal data collected from the latter L2 learner population are warranted in order to shed more light on the developmental trajectory that L2 learners take and the upper limit that they can reach. Hitherto, much remains unknown about the attainability of a native-like processing system in L2 acquisition.
In the context of the passage, the word “plateau” most closely corresponds to which of the following words?
- A ceiling
- B obstacle
- C cut-off
- D segment
- E closure
思路引導 VIP
請觀察文章最後一段的對比：作者將「語言發展仍在進步中」的學習者，與另一群已經達到某個狀態的人做比較。如果我們把學習過程想像成爬山，當一個人爬到了最高點，且前方是一片平坦、無法再向上攀升的地形時，這代表他觸碰到了什麼樣的「極限」？在選項中，哪一個字最能代表這種「最高高度的限制」？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你準確掌握了這個詞彙在學術語境中的深層意涵！這題的關鍵在於能否從文章的對照關係中，推論出抽象詞彙的比喻意義。
語境線索與語意對應
在文章最後一段中，作者將「語言發展仍在進行中」（still in progress）的學習者，與那些已經達到 plateau 的學習者進行對比。在地理學上，plateau 指的是平坦的高原；轉化到學習曲線上，它象徵進步趨於平緩、達到頂點的狀態。結合前文提到的「最高可達狀態」（highest attainable state）與「發展上限」（upper limit），這裡的 ceiling（天花板／上限）最能精準描述這種「無法再超越的最高界限」。
▼ 還有更多解析內容