河南 丁 一

高考英語閱讀理解D 篇，題材通常是科技類，體裁通常是說明文或者議論文，難度大，篇幅長。 綜合2019 年全國卷Ⅰ閱讀理解D 篇、2020 年全國卷Ⅰ閱讀理解D 篇和2021年全國乙卷閱讀理解D 篇，可得出D 篇文章平均長度約為360 詞，設(shè)題平均用詞約138 詞。閱讀理解D 篇相當(dāng)于高考英語試卷中一個難以翻越的小高峰。

為了使材料符合高考的閱讀要求，命題人需要對原文本進(jìn)行“剔肉留筋骨”式的壓縮：濃縮文章提煉中心，通過刪減、改編、增添等改寫方法，達(dá)到高考英語閱讀理解試題的命題要求?，F(xiàn)筆者以2021年高考英語全國乙卷閱讀理解D 篇為例，結(jié)合原材料，比較改動前后的文字，揣測命題人的用意，在詞里行間，探尋命題思路與方法，并嘗試進(jìn)行分析如下。

原文出處：

https://hbr.org/2017/10/why-you-can-focus-in-a-coffeeshop-but-not-in-your-open-office

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

by David Burkus

...

（文章標(biāo)題以及作者保留，文章略）

閱讀后分析文章可知，本文共756 詞，11 個自然段，主題語境是人與社會。該篇文章在網(wǎng)上公開發(fā)布的時間是2017年10月，距2021年高考已經(jīng)過去將近4年。網(wǎng)絡(luò)時代信息更迭速度極快，客觀上講，該話題選材已不算新鮮、新穎。

經(jīng)筆者閱讀對比分析發(fā)現(xiàn)，改編后的素材文本長度為348 詞，試題長度為112 詞。對比原文的756 詞，可看出命題人把原文整整去掉了408 詞。

下面筆者嘗試從詞匯的刪、留、增、換的角度，將原文與改編后的成題進(jìn)行對比揣測命題者的意圖，分析命題手法，賞析高考命題從原材料逐漸成題的命制過程。

改編前原文：

Para 1：A few years ago (1), duringa media (2)interview for one of my books, my interviewer said something I stillponder (3)often.Ranting about (4)the level of distraction(5)in his open office, he said, “That’s why I have a membership at the coworking space across the street — so I can focus.”

Para 2：While I fully support the backlash againstopen offices, the (6)comment struck me asodd (7).After all, coworking spaces also typically use an open officelayout (8).

Para 3：But I recently came acrossa series of studiesexamining the effect of sound on the brain that reveals why hisstrategy works.(9)

改編后成文第一段：

During an interview for one of my books, my interviewer said something I still think about often.Annoyed by the level of distraction（干擾）in his open office, he said, “That’s why I have a membership at the coworking space across the street — so I can focus.” His comment struck me as strange.After all, coworking spaces also typically use an open office layout（布局）.But I recently came across a study that shows why his approach works.

對比分析：

經(jīng)對比，筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)高考試題素材中的第一段是在原文的Para 1、Para 2 和Para 3 的基礎(chǔ)上改編壓縮而成，即三段合成一段，把123 詞壓縮到86 詞。命題者對原文進(jìn)行了9 處改編：

(1) 刪時間狀語A few years ago,后面的謂語動詞過去式said 隱性說明了過去時間；

(2) 刪media，同時將前面的冠詞a 變an，使其變得更簡潔；

(3) 換超綱詞ponder 為think about，ponder v.沉思；

(4) 換超綱詞Ranting about 為Annoyed by, rant v.咆哮；

(5) 在超綱詞distraction 后添加漢語注釋：（干擾）；

(6)去While I fully support the backlash against open offices。此處信息雖表明作者態(tài)度，但與下文的大學(xué)研究機(jī)構(gòu)主導(dǎo)的科學(xué)研究關(guān)聯(lián)不大，相對文章中心而言無關(guān)緊要，故可以去掉；把the 換成his，更加具體地指出上文my interviewer 所作出的評論；

(7)變超綱詞odd 為strange。eg.Her manner and conversation struck him as strange.她的神態(tài)和言談使他感到有些異樣；

(8)在超綱詞layout 后添加漢語注釋：（布局）；

(9)命題人把a(bǔ) series of studies 改 為a study，并 把原文中涉及另一個study 的整個Para 9 去掉；把定語examining...處理成that 引導(dǎo)的定語從句，巧妙地把原文中的14 個單詞刪減成了6 個單詞，既保留了原意，又避免了超綱詞匯reveal、strategy 的出現(xiàn)。

改編前原文：

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

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

Para 6：One study, published in the Journal of ConsumerResearch, found that the right level of ambient noise triggersour minds to think more creatively.(10)The researchers,led byRavi 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 andeveryone was asked to complete a RemoteAssociates Test (a commonly used measurement that judgescreative thinking by asking test-takers to find the relationshipbetween a series of words that, as first glance, appearunrelated).Depending on the group, participants were (13)exposed to various noise levels in the background, from total silence to 50decibels (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 equivalentof a loud garbage disposal or a quiet motorcycle.Since noneof us presumably want to work next to a garbage disposal ormotorcycle, I found this surprising.(16)

改編后成文第二段：

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（分貝）, 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.

對比分析：

試題材料的Para 2 是在原文Para 4、Para 5、Para 6、Para 7 的基礎(chǔ)上壓縮而成的。由328 個單詞刪減至110 個單詞，或者更準(zhǔn)確地說，本段落的110 詞是從原文中對應(yīng)的四個段落中“提煉”出來的。

(10) 命題人撥云見日，抽絲剝繭，大膽取舍，直奔中心主題。直接砍掉用于鋪墊和背景介紹并與下文有重復(fù)信息的Para 4、Para 5；

(11) Para 6 僅保留最后一句，作為試題材料Para 2 的主題句，并以此引出下一部分的實質(zhì)內(nèi)容介紹：該項研究的做法與結(jié)論。且原句中的過去分詞作定語部分“l(fā)ed byRavi Mehta of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign”也被作為冗余信息刪除，有主語The researchers 即可，無需再具體到學(xué)校、個人。

看看改編后的效果：第二段開頭與第一段的最后一句意會貫通，順理成章：

...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) 命題人的改編用意很明顯。They 指代上一句中的participants；把were randomized into 改編成were randomly divided into 很明顯是考慮到雖然randomize（v.使隨機(jī)化）為考綱詞匯random 的同根詞，但對學(xué)生而言相對陌生，因此替換成了更為常見的副詞形式。

(13)命題人刪除了everyone was asked to completea Remote Associates Test (a commonly used measurementthat judges creative thinking by asking test-takers to find therelationship between a series of words that, as first glance,appear unrelated).Depending on the group, participantswere...直接把兩個過去分詞divided into four groupsandexposed to 并列，天衣無縫，言簡意賅。

(14) 在超綱詞decibels 后添加漢語注釋：（分貝）

(15) 原文括號內(nèi)的內(nèi)容一詞不動，直接把括號變成前后兩個破折號“—”，進(jìn)一步解釋說明前文提到的內(nèi)容，從形式上更加貼合高考閱讀材料的處理習(xí)慣和考生的閱讀習(xí)慣。

(16) 命題人刪除了— the equivalent of a loud garbagedisposal or a quiet motorcycle.Since none of us presumably wantto work next to a garbage disposal or motorcycle, I found thissurprising.表達(dá)作者本人的認(rèn)知與看法，但與具體實驗的方法與結(jié)論距離較遠(yuǎn)。去掉后更加突出了研究者試驗的內(nèi)容。

改編前原文：

Para 8：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 actuallyboost (17)one’s creative thinking ability.The right level of background noise maydisrupt (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 theoptimal (19)state for working on creative tasks.Asthe authors write, “Getting into a relatively noisy environmentmay trigger the brain to think abstractly, and thus generatecreative ideas.” (20)

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

改編后成文第三段：

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.

對比分析：

(17) 把超綱詞boost (v.促進(jìn)，增加)換成了improve (改善，增進(jìn))；

(18) 把超綱詞disrupt (v.破壞，中斷)換成了interrupt (中斷，打擾)；

(19) 把超綱詞optimal (adj.最佳的，最理想的)換成了best（美好的）；

(20) 刪掉As the authors write, “Getting into a relativelynoisy environment may trigger the brain to think abstractly, andthus generate creative ideas.”（正如作者所寫，“進(jìn)入一個相對嘈雜的環(huán)境可能會刺激大腦進(jìn)行抽象思考，從而產(chǎn)生創(chuàng)造性的想法?！保┰摼湓谝饬x上很明顯和“This kind of‘distracted focus’appears to be the best state for working on creative tasks.”表達(dá)的意思基本一致，屬于信息重復(fù)，故刪掉。

(21) 命題者把整個Para 9去掉是因為該段介紹的是“另一項研究”，轉(zhuǎn)變了話題，與前文“a study that shows why his approach works”不照應(yīng)，意義不符，上下文應(yīng)保持一致。

改編前原文：

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

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

改編后成文第四段：

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.

對比分析：

(22) 刪 掉The quiet chatter of colleagues and the gentlethrum of the HVAC should help us focus.（同事們悄悄閑聊的聲音和暖通空調(diào)柔和的嗡鳴應(yīng)該有助于我們集中注意力。）一句，上問，下答，上下文銜接更加緊湊；

(23) 刪掉or from being interrupted，該部分和前面的getting drawn into others’ conversations 同屬干擾因素；

(24) 刪掉超綱詞EEG；EEG：腦電圖。

(25) 刪掉and other disruptions negatively；重復(fù)信息，可刪。

(26)變By contrast為and yet；命題人對原文Para 10最后兩句的處理非常巧妙：結(jié)合上句中的謂語動詞found及其賓語從句，把下一句 a coworking space or a coffee shop provides a certain level of noise while also providing freedom from interruptions 改編成found 的又一個賓語從句。兩個賓語從句之間用連詞and 連接表明二者的并列關(guān)系，又巧妙地添加副詞yet，還原了By contrast 的含義。既能做到簡潔通順，又不失原文意味。

(27) 刪掉超綱詞匯ambient；ambient adj.周圍的。

(28) 刪掉Para 11，本段內(nèi)容雖為“結(jié)論性的”總結(jié)概述，但其含義已經(jīng)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，內(nèi)容重復(fù)，可刪。

綜合以上由原文到試題材料的28 處變化，我們可以看出命題人采用了如下改編處理方法：

1.刪。刪除與文章中心距離較遠(yuǎn)的次要信息；刪除重復(fù)的、冗余的，或者過于專業(yè)的信息，使行文更緊湊，中心更突出，文章更簡潔、凝練；滿足高考命題的要求。

2.換。把超綱詞換成考綱詞，或者基于行文的需要變換表達(dá)方式。如，結(jié)合英語句法，把散句合并成整句，借助于句間連詞、副詞濃縮語篇，使其傳遞信息不失原意，符合靈活表達(dá)的要求。

3.添。對文中超綱詞匯添加漢語注釋。

命制高考閱讀題，壓縮文章是表象，依據(jù)語境，緊扣中心，去留有意才是高考命題對材料加工改寫的根本要求。對原材料的加工處理好比雕塑藝術(shù)家雕刻的過程，斧鑿過后，需形、神畢現(xiàn)。壓縮改編后的文本材料，也要語境一體，渾然天成，無因大量刪減文字而造成的信息空缺和思維空白，亦無語篇邏輯錯誤或者上下文信息矛盾，才稱得上是一篇合格的高考閱讀素材。

命題是個技術(shù)活，沒有最好，只有更好。學(xué)習(xí)探究，永遠(yuǎn)在路上。個人觀點(diǎn)，囿于水平，謬誤之處，敬請大家指正。