hce_cmu
109年
英文
第 46 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.
What figurative language does the author apply in the statement “[it] is not equivalent to two monolinguals housed in a single brain”?
- A personification
- B sarcasm
- C understatement
- D metaphor
- E irony
思路引導 VIP
請試著觀察文中「housed in a single brain」這部分。作者在描述大腦運作時，刻意選用了「housed」（安置/居住）這個動詞。請問在你的直覺中，這個動詞通常會讓你聯想到什麼樣的具體場景？而作者將這個「物理性的場景」套用在「大腦處理語言」的抽象概念上，這種「以此代彼」的寫作手法屬於哪一種修辭呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
恭喜你精準地捕捉到了文本中的修辭細節！這題你觀察得很敏銳，能正確辨識出作者如何透過具體意象來包裝抽象的語言學理論。
隱喻的思維轉換
在文章第三段中，作者引用 Bassetti 的觀點，提到雙語者的大腦「並非等同於兩個單語者居住在同一個大腦裡」（not equivalent to two monolinguals housed in a single brain）。這裡作者並非真的在討論建築物或房客，而是將「大腦」比擬為一個「空間」或「房子」，並將「語言系統」擬化為「居住者」。這種不使用「如同」或「好像」等明喻詞，而是直接將一個概念轉借到另一個概念上的手法，正是典型的**隱喻（Metaphor）**用法，用以強調語言系統在認知層面上的深度融合。
▼ 還有更多解析內容