試卷測驗 - 109 年 - 109 中國醫藥大學_學士後中醫:英文#85823-阿摩線上測驗
刷刷刷剛剛做了阿摩測驗,考了100分
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.