河南 丁 一

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：

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：

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)

改编后成文第一段：

During an interview for one of my books, my interviewer said something I still think about often.Annoyed by the level of distraction（干扰）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.

对比分析：

经对比，笔者发现高考试题素材中的第一段是在原文的Para 1、Para 2 和Para 3 的基础上改编压缩而成，即三段合成一段，把123 词压缩到86 词。命题者对原文进行了9 处改编：

(1) 删时间状语A few years ago,后面的谓语动词过去式said 隐性说明了过去时间；

(2) 删media，同时将前面的冠词a 变an，使其变得更简洁；

(3) 换超纲词ponder 为think about，ponder v.沉思；

(4) 换超纲词Ranting about 为Annoyed by, rant v.咆哮；

(5) 在超纲词distraction 后添加汉语注释：（干扰）；

(6)去While I fully support the backlash against open offices。此处信息虽表明作者态度，但与下文的大学研究机构主导的科学研究关联不大，相对文章中心而言无关紧要，故可以去掉；把the 换成his，更加具体地指出上文my interviewer 所作出的评论；

(7)变超纲词odd 为strange。eg.Her manner and conversation struck him as strange.她的神态和言谈使他感到有些异样；

(8)在超纲词layout 后添加汉语注释：（布局）；

(9)命题人把a series of studies 改 为a study，并 把原文中涉及另一个study 的整个Para 9 去掉；把定语examining...处理成that 引导的定语从句，巧妙地把原文中的14 个单词删减成了6 个单词，既保留了原意，又避免了超纲词汇reveal、strategy 的出现。

改编前原文：

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Para 4、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 byRavi 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 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...直接把两个过去分词divided into four groupsandexposed 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 garbagedisposal or a quiet motorcycle.Since none of us presumably wantto work next to a garbage disposal or motorcycle, I found thissurprising.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 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 relativelynoisy environment may trigger the brain to think abstractly, andthus 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 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)

改编后成文第四段：

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.

对比分析：

(22) 删 掉The quiet chatter of colleagues and the gentlethrum 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。