题目 1 · 必答 comparative extended response
32 分H474/01 Exploring non-fiction and spoken texts
Answer the question below. You have 60 minutes. Responses are written in the answer booklet.
Text A is a spoken text. Text B is a written text.
Text A: a radio talk (extract), originally broadcast in 1953 on a national evening programme for housewives and domestic workers. The speaker was a home-economics lecturer. The talk was scripted, then read aloud to a listening audience at home.
TEXT A
Good evening. Now, some of you will have been wondering, as I have, whether the little white cabinet in the corner of the shop window is worth the money. I think it is. Let me tell you why.
You know the larder. It is cold, yes, but it is a damp sort of cold, and the milk turns on the very day the butcher forgets to call. Well, the refrigerator does not forget. It hums, quietly, day and night, and what you put inside it stays as fresh as when you bought it. Fresh, mind, not merely kept.
Of course, there is the matter of the price. Nobody pretends it is small. But set it against the joint that went off in July, the butter you scraped, the Sunday dinner you could not plan for. Then ask yourself: is it an extravagance, or is it, rather, a sensible saving? I put it to you that it is the latter.
And think of your family. Think of the little ones, with their glass of cold milk. Think of your husband, home tired, finding a supper that is waiting, and wholesome, and safe. That, ladies, is what a modern kitchen can offer. Good night.
Text B: an article from a community-news website (2024), written by a volunteer coordinator for a neighbourhood food-sharing project. It is aimed at local residents and potential volunteers.
TEXT B
The fridge on Mill Lane: why we keep it stocked
It's 7.40 on a Tuesday and the fridge outside the library is already half empty. A man in a delivery jacket takes a yoghurt and a carton of soup. Someone else, a student maybe, leaves two bags of salad. Nobody says much. That's the point.
We started the Mill Lane Fridge in 2022 with a second-hand unit, an extension lead and a laminated sign. Ok, a very wobbly sign. Since then, around 400 meals' worth of food a week has passed through it, food that shops couldn't sell and households couldn't finish.
So is it charity? We'd say no. There's no form, no queue, no "deserving" test. You take what you need; you give what you can. If you've got a spare tin, great. If you've got nothing, take the tin anyway.
We're not pretending it fixes anything. Prices are up and wages aren't. But a fridge, humming away on a pavement, tells your neighbours something simple: you're not on your own.
Want to help? We need two more volunteers for the Thursday check, 10 minutes, a pair of gloves and a good nose.
Read Text A and Text B.
Compare how the writers and speaker use language to present the refrigerator in Text A and the shared fridge in Text B, and how mode, audience, purpose and context of production shape the meanings of each text.
In your answer you should analyse the language choices that create these meanings, and explore connections between the two texts, including the different attitudes to food, household and community that they present.
[32]
END OF QUESTION PAPER
Answer the question below. You have 60 minutes. Responses are written in the answer booklet.
Text A is a spoken text. Text B is a written text.
Text A: a radio talk (extract), originally broadcast in 1953 on a national evening programme for housewives and domestic workers. The speaker was a home-economics lecturer. The talk was scripted, then read aloud to a listening audience at home.
TEXT A
Good evening. Now, some of you will have been wondering, as I have, whether the little white cabinet in the corner of the shop window is worth the money. I think it is. Let me tell you why.
You know the larder. It is cold, yes, but it is a damp sort of cold, and the milk turns on the very day the butcher forgets to call. Well, the refrigerator does not forget. It hums, quietly, day and night, and what you put inside it stays as fresh as when you bought it. Fresh, mind, not merely kept.
Of course, there is the matter of the price. Nobody pretends it is small. But set it against the joint that went off in July, the butter you scraped, the Sunday dinner you could not plan for. Then ask yourself: is it an extravagance, or is it, rather, a sensible saving? I put it to you that it is the latter.
And think of your family. Think of the little ones, with their glass of cold milk. Think of your husband, home tired, finding a supper that is waiting, and wholesome, and safe. That, ladies, is what a modern kitchen can offer. Good night.
Text B: an article from a community-news website (2024), written by a volunteer coordinator for a neighbourhood food-sharing project. It is aimed at local residents and potential volunteers.
TEXT B
The fridge on Mill Lane: why we keep it stocked
It's 7.40 on a Tuesday and the fridge outside the library is already half empty. A man in a delivery jacket takes a yoghurt and a carton of soup. Someone else, a student maybe, leaves two bags of salad. Nobody says much. That's the point.
We started the Mill Lane Fridge in 2022 with a second-hand unit, an extension lead and a laminated sign. Ok, a very wobbly sign. Since then, around 400 meals' worth of food a week has passed through it, food that shops couldn't sell and households couldn't finish.
So is it charity? We'd say no. There's no form, no queue, no "deserving" test. You take what you need; you give what you can. If you've got a spare tin, great. If you've got nothing, take the tin anyway.
We're not pretending it fixes anything. Prices are up and wages aren't. But a fridge, humming away on a pavement, tells your neighbours something simple: you're not on your own.
Want to help? We need two more volunteers for the Thursday check, 10 minutes, a pair of gloves and a good nose.
Read Text A and Text B.
Compare how the writers and speaker use language to present the refrigerator in Text A and the shared fridge in Text B, and how mode, audience, purpose and context of production shape the meanings of each text.
In your answer you should analyse the language choices that create these meanings, and explore connections between the two texts, including the different attitudes to food, household and community that they present.
[32]
END OF QUESTION PAPER
查看答案详解收起答案详解
解题
Indicative approach (not a full model answer; other valid interpretations are credited).
Opening comparison: both texts persuade readers or listeners that a fridge is valuable, and both personify it ('It hums, quietly, day and night' / 'humming away on a pavement'). The shared image carries different meanings: reliability and personal security in A, solidarity and visibility in B.
Mode (AO2/AO4): Text A is scripted and spoken, so it uses spoken-style discourse markers and fillers ('Now', 'Well', 'mind'), direct address ('you', 'ladies'), rhetorical questions ('is it an extravagance...?') and triadic or anaphoric repetition ('Think of... Think of...') that suit listening with no chance to re-read. Fronted clauses and the imperative 'Let me tell you why' simulate conversation. Text B is written but adopts conversational features: contractions, minor sentences ('Nobody says much.'), a colloquial 'Ok', the parenthetical 'a very wobbly sign', direct address in the closing call to action, and the narrative present-tense opening that creates a vignette. Headline and short paragraphs reflect online reading.
Audience (AO2/AO3): A addresses a female domestic audience and assumes a husband-provider/wife-homemaker model ('your husband, home tired'; 'ladies'; 'the little ones'), using emotive lexis ('wholesome', 'safe') and euphemistic or elevated register ('extravagance', 'sensible saving'). The pragmatic stance of an expert guiding a lay audience is clear: 'I put it to you'. B addresses local residents and possible volunteers as equals; the inclusive pronouns 'we', 'you' and 'your neighbours', the blunt negatives ('no form, no queue') and the pragmatic denial 'we'd say no' anticipate and counter the objection that it is charity. Imperatives ('take the tin anyway') are warm, not authoritative.
Purpose (AO2): A persuades towards a purchase, handling the price objection through a concession ('Nobody pretends it is small'), a list of losses ('the joint that went off... the butter you scraped'), and an either/or rhetorical question steering towards the 'right' answer. Positive semantic fields: freshness, modernity, family. B informs, justifies and recruits: a statistic ('around 400 meals'), the rhetorical question 'So is it charity?', the listing structure 'a pair of gloves and a good nose', and the humble understatement 'We're not pretending it fixes anything' to build credibility.
Context (AO3): A reflects post-war domestic modernisation, rising consumer goods, gender roles and radio as a family medium with a received, formal register. B reflects 21st-century concerns: food waste, cost of living, volunteering, community news online, informality, and the diminished stigma of sharing. Reception: contemporary readers may find A's assumptions dated or patronising; 1953 listeners may have found B's lack of hierarchy unfamiliar.
Connections (AO4): both use personification and the figure of the 'neighbour/family' to stress care; both pre-empt objections; both structure around problem then solution. Differences: private versus public ownership, consumer versus giver, expert authority versus peer voice, deferred benefits versus immediate action.
Opening comparison: both texts persuade readers or listeners that a fridge is valuable, and both personify it ('It hums, quietly, day and night' / 'humming away on a pavement'). The shared image carries different meanings: reliability and personal security in A, solidarity and visibility in B.
Mode (AO2/AO4): Text A is scripted and spoken, so it uses spoken-style discourse markers and fillers ('Now', 'Well', 'mind'), direct address ('you', 'ladies'), rhetorical questions ('is it an extravagance...?') and triadic or anaphoric repetition ('Think of... Think of...') that suit listening with no chance to re-read. Fronted clauses and the imperative 'Let me tell you why' simulate conversation. Text B is written but adopts conversational features: contractions, minor sentences ('Nobody says much.'), a colloquial 'Ok', the parenthetical 'a very wobbly sign', direct address in the closing call to action, and the narrative present-tense opening that creates a vignette. Headline and short paragraphs reflect online reading.
Audience (AO2/AO3): A addresses a female domestic audience and assumes a husband-provider/wife-homemaker model ('your husband, home tired'; 'ladies'; 'the little ones'), using emotive lexis ('wholesome', 'safe') and euphemistic or elevated register ('extravagance', 'sensible saving'). The pragmatic stance of an expert guiding a lay audience is clear: 'I put it to you'. B addresses local residents and possible volunteers as equals; the inclusive pronouns 'we', 'you' and 'your neighbours', the blunt negatives ('no form, no queue') and the pragmatic denial 'we'd say no' anticipate and counter the objection that it is charity. Imperatives ('take the tin anyway') are warm, not authoritative.
Purpose (AO2): A persuades towards a purchase, handling the price objection through a concession ('Nobody pretends it is small'), a list of losses ('the joint that went off... the butter you scraped'), and an either/or rhetorical question steering towards the 'right' answer. Positive semantic fields: freshness, modernity, family. B informs, justifies and recruits: a statistic ('around 400 meals'), the rhetorical question 'So is it charity?', the listing structure 'a pair of gloves and a good nose', and the humble understatement 'We're not pretending it fixes anything' to build credibility.
Context (AO3): A reflects post-war domestic modernisation, rising consumer goods, gender roles and radio as a family medium with a received, formal register. B reflects 21st-century concerns: food waste, cost of living, volunteering, community news online, informality, and the diminished stigma of sharing. Reception: contemporary readers may find A's assumptions dated or patronising; 1953 listeners may have found B's lack of hierarchy unfamiliar.
Connections (AO4): both use personification and the figure of the 'neighbour/family' to stress care; both pre-empt objections; both structure around problem then solution. Differences: private versus public ownership, consumer versus giver, expert authority versus peer voice, deferred benefits versus immediate action.
评分标准
Total 32 marks. Assessment objectives: AO1 (terminology and coherent expression), AO2 (how meanings are shaped), AO3 (context of production and reception), AO4 (connections across texts). Mark as a single holistic response using best fit, then place within the band by consistency and development. There is no numerical error-carried-forward convention.
Level 6 (27-32): Excellent. Sustained, integrated comparison; perceptive, well-developed analysis of language choices across levels (lexis and semantics, grammar, pragmatics, discourse, phonology where relevant); precise terminology; secure and insightful understanding of mode, audience, purpose and context; connections are consistently drawn and evaluated.
Level 5 (22-26): Clear. Clear comparison with developed analysis and accurate terminology; clear understanding of context and its influence; connections explored with consistency.
Level 4 (17-21): Competent. Competent comparison; some developed analysis with generally appropriate terminology; competent contextual understanding; connections mostly valid but may be uneven.
Level 3 (12-16): Some. Some comparison, mainly identifying features with limited development; some terminology, some errors; some, mostly general, contextual reference; some connections.
Level 2 (7-11): Limited. Limited comparison, largely descriptive or feature-spotting; limited terminology; limited or generalised context; limited connection.
Level 1 (1-6): Very limited. Very limited, mostly narrative or paraphrase; very limited terminology and expression; very limited context or connection.
Level 0 (0): No response or nothing worthy of credit.
Task-specific cap: a response that analyses only one text, or makes no comparison at all, cannot be placed above Level 3.
Indicative content (illustrative only, not prescriptive): mode: scripted speech with spoken features (discourse markers, direct address, anaphora, rhetorical questions) versus written text with conversational features (contractions, minor sentences, parenthesis, headline, call to action). Audience: 1950s housewives, gendered assumptions, formal-persuasive register versus local community, inclusive pronouns, peer register. Purpose: persuade to purchase, handle price objection versus inform, justify, recruit. Context: post-war consumer modernisation, radio, gender roles versus cost of living, food waste, online community media. Connections: personification of the humming fridge, anticipating objections, family versus neighbours, private versus shared. Credit other valid interpretations, including unexpected approaches, where supported by relevant analysis and knowledge.
Level 6 (27-32): Excellent. Sustained, integrated comparison; perceptive, well-developed analysis of language choices across levels (lexis and semantics, grammar, pragmatics, discourse, phonology where relevant); precise terminology; secure and insightful understanding of mode, audience, purpose and context; connections are consistently drawn and evaluated.
Level 5 (22-26): Clear. Clear comparison with developed analysis and accurate terminology; clear understanding of context and its influence; connections explored with consistency.
Level 4 (17-21): Competent. Competent comparison; some developed analysis with generally appropriate terminology; competent contextual understanding; connections mostly valid but may be uneven.
Level 3 (12-16): Some. Some comparison, mainly identifying features with limited development; some terminology, some errors; some, mostly general, contextual reference; some connections.
Level 2 (7-11): Limited. Limited comparison, largely descriptive or feature-spotting; limited terminology; limited or generalised context; limited connection.
Level 1 (1-6): Very limited. Very limited, mostly narrative or paraphrase; very limited terminology and expression; very limited context or connection.
Level 0 (0): No response or nothing worthy of credit.
Task-specific cap: a response that analyses only one text, or makes no comparison at all, cannot be placed above Level 3.
Indicative content (illustrative only, not prescriptive): mode: scripted speech with spoken features (discourse markers, direct address, anaphora, rhetorical questions) versus written text with conversational features (contractions, minor sentences, parenthesis, headline, call to action). Audience: 1950s housewives, gendered assumptions, formal-persuasive register versus local community, inclusive pronouns, peer register. Purpose: persuade to purchase, handle price objection versus inform, justify, recruit. Context: post-war consumer modernisation, radio, gender roles versus cost of living, food waste, online community media. Connections: personification of the humming fridge, anticipating objections, family versus neighbours, private versus shared. Credit other valid interpretations, including unexpected approaches, where supported by relevant analysis and knowledge.