命题研究·英语 | 去留增换有深意，文中寻径探奥秘—以2021年高考英语全国乙卷阅读理解D篇为例

高考英语阅读理解D篇，题材通常是科技类，体裁通常是说明文或者议论文，难度大，篇幅长。综合2019年全国卷Ⅰ阅读理解D篇、2020 年全国卷Ⅰ阅读理解D篇和2021年全国乙卷阅读理解D篇，可得出D篇文章平均长度约为360词，设题平均用词约138词。阅读理解D篇相当于高考英语试卷中统一个难以翻越的小高峰。

为了使材料符合高考的阅读要求，命题人需要对原文本进行”剔肉留筋骨”式的压缩：浓缩文章提炼中心，通过删减、改编、增添等改写方法，达到高考英语阅读理解试题的命题要求。现笔者以2021年高考英语全国乙卷阅读理解D篇为例，结合原材料，比较改动前后的文字，揣测命题人的用意，在词里行间，探寻命题思路与方法，并尝试进行分析如下。

原文出处：

htps：//hbr,org/2017/10/why-your-can-focus-in-a-coffee-shop-but-not-in-your-open-office 

Why You Can Focus in a Coffee Shop but Not in Your Open Office

by David Burkus

......

(文章标题以及作者保留，文章略)

阅读后分析文章可知，本文共756词，11 个自然段，主题语境是人与社会。该篇文章在网上公开发布的时间是2017年10月，距2021年高考已经过去将近4年。网络时代信息更迭速度极快，客观上讲，该话题选材已不算新鲜、新颖。

经笔者阅读对比分析发现，改编后的素材文本长度为348词，试题长度为112 词。对比原文的756词，可看出命题人把原文整整去掉了408词。

下面笔者尝试从词汇的删、留、增、换的角度，将原文与改编后的成题进行对比揣测命题者的意图，分析命题手法，赏析高考命题从原材料逐渐成题的命制过程。

改编前原文

改变前原文

Para 4： From previous research，we know that workers' primary problem with open or cubicle-filled offices is the unwanted noise.

Para 5： But new research shows that it may not be the sound itself that distracts us... it may be who is making it. In fact，some level of office banter in the background might actually benefit our ability to do creative tasks，provided we don' t get drawn into the conversation. Instead of total silence，the ideal work environment for creative work has a little bit of background noise. That's why you might focus really well in a noisy coffee shop，but barely be able to concentrate in a noisy office.

Para 6：One study，published in the Journal of Consumer Research，found that the right level of ambient noise triggers our minds to think more creatively. (10) The researchers，led by Ravi Mehta of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign，(11) examined various levels of noise on participants as they completed tests of creative thinking.

Para 7：Participants were randomized into (12) four groups and everyone was asked to complete a Remote Associates Test (a commonly used measurement that judges creative thinking by asking test-takers to find the relationship between a series of words that，as first glance，appear unrelated). Depending on the group，participants were (13)exposed to various noise levels in the background， from total silence to 50 decibels (14)，70 decibels，and 85 decibels. The differences between most of the groups were statistically insignificant；however，the participants in the 70 decibels group (those exposed to a level of noise similar to background chatter in a coffee shop) (15) significantly outperformed the other groups. Since the effects were small，this may suggest that our creative thinking doesn‘t differ that much in response to total silence and 85 decibels of background noise—the equivalent of a loud garbage disposal or a quiet motorcycle. Since none of us presumably want to work next to a garbage disposal or motorcycle，I found this surprising.(16)

改编后成文第二段：

The researchers examined various levels of noise on participants as they completed tests of creative thinking. They were randomly divided into four groups and exposed to various noise levels in the background，from total silence to 50 decibels(分贝)，70 decibels，and 85 decibels. The differences between most of the groups were statistically insignificant；however，the participants in the 70 decibels group—those exposed to a level of noise similar to background chatter in a coffee shop—significantly outperformed the other groups. Since the effects were small， this may suggest that our creative thinking does not differ that much in response to total silence and 85 decibels of background noise.

对比分析：

试题材料的Para 2是在原文Para 4、Para 5、Para 6、Para 7的基础上压缩而成的。由328个单词删减至110个单词，或者更准确地说，本段落的110词是从原文中对应的四个段落中”提炼”出来的。

(10)命题人拨云见日，抽丝剥茧，大胆取舍，直奔中心主题。直接砍掉用于铺垫和背景介绍并与下文有重复信息的Para4、Para 5；

(11) Para 6仅保留最后一句，作为试题材料Para 2的主题句，并以此引出下一部分的实质内容介绍：该项研究的做法与结论。且原句中的过去分词作定语部分“led by Ravi Mehta of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign”也被作为冗余信息删除，有主语The researchers即可，无需再具体到学校、个人。

看看改编后的效果：第二段开头与第一段的最后一句意会贯通，顺理成章：

...But I recently came across a study that shows why his approach works.

The researchers examined various levels of noise on participants as they completed tests of creative thinking...

(12)命题人的改编用意很明显。They 指代上一句中的participants；把were randomized into改编成were randomly divided into很明显是考虑到虽然randomize (v.使随机化)为考纲词汇random的同根词，但对学生而言相对陌生，因此替换成了更为常见的副词形式。

(13) 命题人删除了everyone was asked to complete a Remote Associates Test (a commonly used measurement that judges creative thinking by asking test-takers to find the relationship between a series of words that，as first glance，appear unrelated). Depending on the group， participants were...直接把两个过去分词divided into four groups and exposed to并列，天衣无缝，言简意赅。

(14)在超纲词decibels后添加汉语注释：(分贝)

(15)原文括号内的内容一词不动，直接把括号变成前后两个破折号“—”，进一步解释说明前文提到的内容，从形式上更加贴合高考阅读材料的处理习惯和考生的阅读习惯。

(16) 命题人删除了—the equivalent of a loud garbage disposal or a quiet motorcycle. Since none of us presumably want to work next to a garbage disposal or motorcycle，I found this surprising.表达作者本人的认知与看法，但与具体实验的方法与结论距离较远。去掉后更加突出了研究者试验的内容。

改编前原文

Para 8： But since the results at 70 decibels were signifcant，the study also suggests that the right level of background noise—not too loud and not total silence—may actually boost (17)one' s creative thinking ability. The right level of background noise may disrupt (18) our normal patterns of thinking just enough to allow our imaginations to wander，without making it impossible to focus. This type of“distracted focus”appears to be the optimal (19) state for working on creative tasks. As the authors write，“Getting into a relatively noisy environment may trigger the brain to think abstractly， and thus generate creative ideas.”(20)

Para 9： In another study，researchers used frontal lobe electroencephalographic (EEG) machines to study the brain waves of participants as they completed tests of creativity while exposed to various sound environments. The researchers found statistically significant changes in creativity scores and a connection between those scores and certain brain waves. As in the previous study， a certain level of white noise proved the ideal background sound for creative tasks. (21)

改编后成文第三段：

But since the results at 70 decibels were significant，the study also suggests that the right level of background noise—not too loud and not total silence—may actually improve one's creative thinking ability. The right level of background noise may interrupt our normal patterns of thinking just enough to allow our imaginations to wander，without making it impossible to focus. This kind of“distracted focus”appears to be the best state for working on creative tasks.

对比分析：

(17)把超纲词boost (v.促进，增加)换成了improve (改善，增进)；

(18)把超纲词disrupt (v.破坏，中断)换成了interrupt(中断，打扰)；

(19)把超纲词optimal (adj.最佳的，最理想的)换成了best (美好的)；

(20)删掉As the authors write，“Getting into a relatively noisy environment may trigger the brain to think abstractly，and thus generate creative ideas.”( 正如作者所写，“进入一个相对嘈杂的环境可能会刺激大脑进行抽象思考，从而产生创造性的想法。”)该句在意义上很明显和”This kind of ‘distracted focus’ appears to be the best state for working on creative tasks.”表达的意思基本一致，属于信息重复，故删掉。

(21)命题者把整个Para 9去掉是因为该段介绍的是”另一项研究”，转变了话题，与前文”a study that shows why his approach works”不照应，意义不符，上下文应保持一致。

改编前原文

Para 10：So why do so many of us hate our open offices? The quiet chatter of colleagues and the gentle thrum of the HVAC should help us focus. (22) The problem may be that，in our offices， we can’t stop ourselves from getting drawn into others' conversations or from being interrupted (23) while we‘re trying to focus. Indeed，the EEG (24) researchers found that face-to-face interactions，conversations，and other disruptions negatively (25) affect the creative process. By contrast，(26) a coworking space or a coffee shop provides a certain level of ambient (27) noise while also providing freedom from interruptions.

Para 11：Taken together，the lesson here is that the ideal space for focused work is not about freedom from noise，but about freedom from interruption. Finding a space you can hide away in， regardless of how noisy it is，may be the best strategy for making sure you get the important work done. (28)

改编后成文： 

So why do so many of us hate our open offices? The problem may be that, in our offices, we can' t stop ourselves from getting drawn into others' conversations while we' re trying to focus. Indeed, the researchers found that face-to-face interactions and conversations affect the creative process, and yet a coworking space or a coffee shop provides a certain level of noise while also providing freedom from interruptions.

对比分析：

(22)删掉The quiet chatter of colleagues and the gentle thrum of the HVAC should help us focus. ( 同事们悄悄闲聊的声音和暖通空调柔和的嗡鸣应该有助于我们集中注意力。)一句，上问，下答，上下文衔接更加紧凑；

(23)删掉or from being interrupted，该部分和前面的getting drawn into others' conversations同属干扰因素；

(24)删掉超纲词EEG；EEG：脑电图。

(25)删掉and other disruptions negatively；重复信息，可删。

(26)变By contrast为and yet；命题人对原文Para 10最后两句的处理非常巧妙：结合上句中的谓语动词found及其宾语从句，把下一句a coworking space or a coffee shop provides a certain level of noise while also providing freedom from interruptions改编成found 的又一个宾语从句。两个宾语从句之间用连词and连接表明二者的并列关系，又巧妙地添加副词yet,还原了By contrast的含义。既能做到简洁通顺，又不失原文意味。

(27)删掉超纲词汇ambient；ambient adj.周围的。

(28)删掉Para 11，本段内容虽为“结论性的”总结概述，但其含义已经包含在前文“Indeed, the researchers found that face-to-face interactions and conversations affect the creative process, and yet a coworking space or a coffee shop provides a certain level of noise while also providing freedom from interruptions.”中，内容重复，可删。

综合以上由原文到试题材料的28处变化，我们可以看出命题人采用了如下改编处理方法：

1.删。删除与文章中心距离较远的次要信息；删除重复的、冗余的，或者过于专业的信息，使行文更紧凑，中心更突出，文章更简洁、凝练；满足高考命题的要求。

2.换。把超纲词换成考纲词，或者基于行文的需要变换表达方式。如，结合英语句法，把散句合并成整句，借助于句间连词、副词浓缩语篇，使其传递信息不失原意，符合灵活表达的要求。

3.添。对文中超纲词汇添加汉语注释。

命制高考阅读题，压缩文章是表象，依据语境，紧扣中心，去留有意才是高考命题对材料加工改写的根本要求。对原材料的加工处理好比雕塑艺术家雕刻的过程，斧凿过后,需形.神毕现。压缩改编后的文本材料,也要语境一体,浑然天成，无因大量删减文字而造成的信息空缺和思维空白，亦无语篇逻辑错误或者上下文信息矛盾，才称得上是一篇合格的高考阅读素材。

命题是个技术活，没有最好，只有更好。学习探究, 永远在路上。个人观点，囿于水平，谬误之处，敬请大家指正。