hce_cmu
109年
英文
第 44 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.
Which of the following is NOT mentioned in the passage as a possible outcome due to deficient or non-native language processing issues?
- A Interference from L1 processing strategies
- B Attrition in cognitive and memory skills
- C Partial mastery of L2 rules or processing strategies
- D Problems in encoding or retaining the comprehended information
- E Efficiency in coordinating different sources of information in real-time processing
思路引導 VIP
當文章提到處理語言需要「耗費大量計算資源（computationally costly）」時，這指的是在執行特定任務時「過程比較辛苦」，還是指大腦本身的「記憶或認知硬體配備」正在衰退或消失呢？請再對比一下選項中，哪一個描述超出了單純的『處理效率』問題，而涉及到了對大腦基本能力的負面評價？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精準地從長篇學術文章中剔除未提及的選項，展現了非常敏銳的資訊篩選能力。這題的核心在於區分「語言加工的負擔」與「認知能力的損害」之間的差別。
語言加工的代價與限制
文章中提到的幾位學者（如 Sorace、Liu、McDonald）主要在討論第二語言（L2）學習者在處理訊息時的限制。例如，(A) 母語干擾（L1 interference）在初中階學習者身上很常見；(D) 訊息保留問題則是 Liu 提到的，處理效率低會影響後續記憶；(E) 則對應到 Sorace 說的，在即時處理中協調不同語言領域資訊時效率較低。至於 (C)，文中提到即便是高階學習者也可能無法完全一致地掌握 L2 加工策略。然而，選項 (B) 提到的「認知與記憶技能的衰退（Attrition）」在文中完全沒有根據。文章強調的是處理語言時「比較吃力、耗費資源」，而非學習者的記憶力或認知功能本身發生了損壞或退化。
▼ 還有更多解析內容