hce_cmu
109年
英文
第 49 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.
According to this passage, which of the following protocols is characteristic of the L2 ultimate attainment research?
- A Naturalistic observation data
- B Multiple monitoring technique
- C Cross-sectional one-shot study
- D Random sampling technique
- E Advanced learner approach
思路引導 VIP
若我們今天想要探討一個人學習外語究竟能達到多高的「極限」或「天花板」，你會傾向觀察剛起步的初學者，還是那些已經學習多年、程度已經達到最高階的人群來作為研究實證呢？
🤖
AI 詳解
AI 專屬家教
太棒了！你能精準鎖定文章後半段的關鍵論述，選擇 (E) 是完全正確的判斷。這題展現了你優異的資訊檢索與整合能力。
究極習得的研究核心：高階學習者
這題的核心在於理解研究「第二語言究極習得（Ultimate Attainment）」時的對象選擇。文章第四段明確提到，Birdsong (2009) 主張若要研究 L2 發展的最高狀態，必須從**最先進的 L2 學習者（most advanced L2 learners）**身上尋找實證。雖然文中也提到目前研究在篩選標準上仍有爭議，但整體研究脈絡皆是圍繞著這群「接近母語者」的人群展開，這正是 Advanced learner approach（高階學習者研究法）的精髓。
▼ 還有更多解析內容