关于OG SC21 就近修饰原则如何判断？

wanglu1994143

21.Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.

(A) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are

(B) Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are

(C) Neuroscientists amassing a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood over the past twenty years, and are

(D) Neuroscientists have amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood,

(E) Neuroscientists have amassed, over the past twenty years, a wealth of knowledge about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood,

Question：为何OG在对B的解释中，关于over the past twenty years,说是修饰adulthood?over+时间在这里做什么成分？有就近原则么？如果有，那为何A选项中，这个短语不是修饰knowledge呢？疑惑中，求NN。

bethofzh

时间状语，有，是的

wanglu1994143

谢谢啦，不过按照ＯＧ的解释，Ａ选项中“over+时间”应该不是修饰knowledge, 感觉是修饰前面的动词或者是整个句子哦～

wanglu1994143

ding!NN快现身

wulakuka

having amassed a wealth of knowledge 【over the past twenty years】 【about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood】 时间状语当然优先修饰动作啊。如果修饰knowledge，后面括号部分都是其修饰成分，你不觉得很夸张吗。

renco

不是说是就近修饰，而是你需要直接去读句子而不是分析句子，你就会发现两句话很大的不同。如果你上来就分析句子，把A项的意思死死记在脑子里，你就会发现到B选项的时候你已经默认为over the past 20 years是修饰科学家的认知的了，A选项这个限定做的很好，因为这个时间状语是紧跟着have amass这个动作的，而B选项不管它到底修饰谁，它所处在的位置即使从逻辑上来说不可能造成任何歧义，但是需要让读者去想去琢磨，就从这点来说B选项也应该被淘汰，如果你重新去看的话，你会发现你被B选项里的from birth to adulthood以及over the past twenty years 两个接连的时间状语搞糊涂了。

wanglu1994143

got it with mank thanks!