IB English A Paper 1 非文学文本 评分标准

IB English A Paper 1 非文学文本 评分标准

这一段写给正在准备 IB English A: Language and Literature Paper 1 的学生。卷子只有两篇没读过的非文学文本，没有课文可背，能准备的是方法。下面按卷面结构、时间分配、四项评分标准逐条拆开，把每一步该做什么写清楚。文中引用的卷面信息来自 IBO 的 Language A: Language and Literature guide（2021 年首次评估）。

This piece is for students working towards IB English A: Language and Literature Paper 1. There is nothing to memorise, since the paper hands you unseen non-literary texts; what can be prepared is method. What follows takes the paper apart in the order you meet it, from structure and timing to the four criteria examiners apply. Paper details follow the IBO Language A: Language and Literature guide, first assessment 2021.

卷面结构：SL 选一篇，HL 各写一篇

IB DP 的 Language A: Language and Literature 把 Paper 1 定为 guided textual analysis，也就是带引导题的文本分析。卷子给两篇没见过的非文学文本，通常分属不同的文本类型，比如一篇演讲配一则广告。SL 从两篇里挑一篇来写，时长 1 小时 15 分钟，满分 20 分。HL 两篇都要写，每篇独立评分，各 20 分，合计 40 分，时长 2 小时 15 分钟。两篇之间不做比较，比较也不额外给分。这份卷子占最终成绩的 35%，SL 与 HL 相同。很多学生以为 HL 只是把 SL 的答案写长一点，实际上它考的是两次完整而独立的分析。

Paper 1 is a guided textual analysis of two unseen non-literary texts, usually of different text types such as a speech paired with an advertisement. At SL you choose one text and write a single analysis in 75 minutes for 20 marks; at HL you analyse both separately in 135 minutes, each marked out of 20 for a total of 40. The paper carries 35% of the final grade at both levels, and comparison between the two texts earns nothing. Candidates often assume HL simply demands a longer version of the SL answer, yet the real demand is two self-contained analyses delivered under pressure.

75 分钟与 135 分钟怎么切

正式动笔之前有 5 分钟阅读时间，这段只够通读与判断选题，不要拿来起草。SL 的 75 分钟里，读两篇、定下写哪一篇，大约去掉 15 分钟。剩下的 60 分钟写一篇 800 到 1000 词的分析，最后留 5 分钟通读检查。读题时先看两篇的文本类型，判断哪一篇的画面与文字关系更密，通常那一篇更好写。HL 的 135 分钟要拆成两段，每篇 65 分钟上下，中间切换控制在 3 分钟以内。常见的错误是第一篇写得太舒服，第二篇只剩 40 分钟。时间被压到 40 分钟时，Criterion B 的评估层基本写不出来，交上去的就是一篇复述。

Five minutes of reading time are given before writing begins, and they are for choosing rather than drafting. At SL the budget works out to roughly fifteen minutes for reading and deciding, sixty for writing and five for a final check. At HL, split the 135 minutes into two blocks of about 65 minutes and keep the switchover inside three minutes. The familiar failure is a comfortable first analysis that leaves 40 minutes for the second, where evaluation collapses back into description.

引导题给的是入口而不是答案

每篇文本后面跟一句 guiding question，问的要么是某个手法如何制造意义，要么是某个意义由哪些选择做出来。这句话不是硬性要求，不回答也不扣分。它的价值在于给一个入口，让第一段有落点。照抄引导题当论点通常拿不到上层分数，因为太笼统，等于什么都没判断。把引导题往前推一步，写成带判断的论点句，例如不写「作者用语气营造紧张」，而写「冷嘲而近乎共谋的语气把读者拉到作者这一边」。定好论点之后，全文每一段都要能回到这句话。若选择不跟随引导题，就要自己指明关注的形式或技巧面向，Criterion C 会看这一点。

Each text carries a guiding question that points either at a technique and its effect or at a meaning and the choices behind it. You are not obliged to answer it, and ignoring it costs no marks. What it offers is an entry point, something for the opening paragraph to land on. Copying the prompt into a thesis usually reads as vague, so sharpen it into a judgement: not the writer creates tension through tone, but a sardonic, almost conspiratorial tone recruits the reader to the writer's side. Every later paragraph should be able to trace back to that sentence.

Criterion A 理解与诠释：字面与推断分开写

Criterion A 是理解与诠释，5 分。理解指字面层面：文本在说什么，发表在哪里，写给谁看。诠释指推断：没写明但可以推出的立场、暗示与态度。评分描述要求引用，引文可以直引，也可以转述，视觉元素就如实描述画面。常见的错误是把引文当成理解的证明，引一句然后复述一遍，等于用证据重复内容。有力的引文要承担推断，一句话能撑起两三层意思。开篇第一段最好就把这两层分开：先给情境，再给判断。若文本带有图表或数据，读法要落在数字的选择上：纵轴从哪里起，样本说的是哪一群人。

Criterion A rewards understanding and interpretation, five marks in total. Understanding covers the literal layer, including where the text appeared and whom it addresses; interpretation asks what is implied rather than stated. References can be direct quotations, paraphrase, or descriptions of visual elements. A common mistake is quoting to prove comprehension and then restating the quotation in other words. Stronger references carry inference, so a short phrase does several jobs at once.

Criterion B 分析与评估：手法、效果、为什么有效

Criterion B 是分析与评估，也是 5 分，区分度最大。分析是把文本拆成部分，说清某个选择怎样起作用：句长、人称、隐喻、排版、图片位置都算。评估是判断这些选择在多大程度上有效，是否服务于文本的目的。只写「用了排比，很有气势」停在贴标签，拿不到上层分数。可以试着把一句话写成三段因果：选择是什么，读者因此产生什么反应，这个反应怎样推进文本的意图。反过来，把所有手法列一遍也不加分，挑三到四个真正承重的写透。句长与标点同样在此列，短句连排常用来制造紧迫，长句套从句则便于铺陈。

Criterion B carries the sharpest discrimination, again out of five. Analysis separates the text into parts and explains how a specific choice works, whether that is sentence length, pronoun use, metaphor, layout or the placement of an image. Evaluation then judges how far those choices succeed for the text's purpose. Writing that the writer uses tricolon for emphasis stops at labelling; examiners want the mechanism and its effect on a reader. Three or four load-bearing features, traced carefully, beat a catalogue of ten.

非文学文本的视觉特征：图像、字体、色彩、排版

非文学文本里，图像、字体、色彩、留白与版式本身就是语言。广告的主视觉放在哪里，标题用什么字重，色块与文字的对比有多强，这些都在传递立场。描述图片不等于分析，写「图中有一位老人」只是清点素材。要问的是这张图为什么选他，为什么用这个取景，它与标题形成什么关系。常见的错误是把视觉段落留到最后，当成补充说明，其实视觉证据往往最直接。图像与文字相互冲突时，这种张力本身就是可写的材料。多模态文本里，文字与图像的分工值得单独立一段。

In non-literary texts, images, typography, colour, white space and layout function as language in their own right. Where a campaign places its main visual, how heavy the headline type is, how hard the colour blocks push against the copy, all of it positions the reader. Describing a photograph is not analysis; saying that the image shows an elderly man is inventory. Ask instead why this figure, why this crop, and what relationship the picture sets up with the headline. Layout does much of the same work, since a full-bleed image facing a narrow column of copy sets up an argument before a word is read.

受众与语境推断：来源信息怎么用

卷面会给来源信息：出版物名称、发布日期、栏目，有时还有页面类型。这些细节是推断受众的起点。读一份面向投资者的年报与读一份地铁广告，语域、证据密度、称呼方式全不一样。写受众时不要停在「面向大众」，要具体到年龄、立场、购买意图这类可以推断的维度。出版方的立场也算语境，机构自述与第三方报道的口吻差别很大。栏目位置同样是线索，评论版与广告插页的读者预期并不一致。把语境写进分析，Criterion A 的推断才有着落。忽略来源信息等于白丢材料，那一行小字往往决定整段解读的方向。

Source information is printed with every text: the publication, the date, the section, sometimes the page type. Those details anchor any claim about audience. A shareholder report and a tube advertisement differ in register, in evidential density and in how they address the reader. A general audience is too thin a claim; push towards age, stance or buying intent where the evidence allows. The publisher's own position belongs in that reading too, since institutional voice and third-party reporting sound nothing alike.

Criterion C 焦点与结构：按论点组织，别逐行扫描

Criterion C 看焦点与组织，5 分。焦点指全文围着一条线走，组织指段落之间的推进有道理。逐行扫描是最常见的结构失败：从标题写到结尾，每段换一个元素，读完不知道论点是什么。可行的做法是按功能分段，一段处理一个承重的手法，段首句给出判断，后面用引文与解释支撑。段与段之间要有承接，比如从语气转到证据，从证据转到受众反应。开头交代情境与论点，结尾收束到对文本意图的整体判断，不必再添新点。篇幅不必追求，写清比写多重要。

Focus and organisation are marked together, five marks. Focus means the whole response holds one line; organisation means the paragraphs advance in a defensible order. The line-by-line walkthrough is the standard structural failure, moving from headline to final line with one element per paragraph and no visible thesis. Group paragraphs by function instead, one load-bearing feature each, opening with a claim and supporting it with reference and explanation. Transitions should carry the argument, from tone to evidence and from evidence to audience response, and the close should settle on the text's overall purpose.

Criterion D 语言：术语、短引文、学术语域

Criterion D 看语言，5 分，常被当成白送的分，实际上一半的答卷在这里掉一档。术语要用得准，register、mode、audience、purpose 各有固定含义，随手换着用会显得没掌握。引文要短，嵌进自己的句子里，而不是整句搬来当段落的第二句。语域保持学术，避免口语与缩写形式。句式要有变化，全篇都是主谓宾会显得单薄。检查时重点看动词与时态，分析现在时的文本用现在时描述更稳。拼写与标点按英式统一，别在同一篇里混用。

Language is worth five marks and is often treated as a free pass, though plenty of scripts lose a band here. Terminology has to be exact, since register, mode, audience and purpose carry fixed meanings in the subject. Quotations work best when they are short and folded into your own syntax rather than dropped in whole. Keep the register academic and avoid contractions, vary sentence shape so the prose does not read as a list of subject-verb-object units, and check tense before you finish.

阅卷里最常见的几类失分

阅卷时反复出现的几类问题相当集中。复述内容占掉三分之一篇幅，分析与评估自然被挤压。论点写成主题词，比如身份、消费主义，里面没有可检验的判断。引文过长，一段里三行原句，读者找不到解释在哪里。结构没有收尾，最后一段突然停住。还有一个隐性问题：HL 的两篇写成一篇的前后两半，第二篇明显敷衍。改法都不复杂，把每段的主题句单独抽出来连读一遍，能接成一条线就基本合格。

Certain weaknesses recur in marking. Retelling eats a third of the response and squeezes out evaluation. Theses arrive as topic words such as identity or consumerism, with nothing testable inside them. Quotations run long enough to bury the explanation, and responses simply stop rather than close. A quieter problem at HL is treating the two analyses as halves of one essay, with the second visibly thinner; reading only the topic sentences in sequence shows quickly whether the argument holds. Many candidates also stop without naming what the text was for, which leaves Criterion C hanging.

牛津阅读树英语进阶分级读物 7-8年级推荐¥670.0📱 去京东购买京东精选

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）

需要一对一辅导？Need One-on-One Tutoring?

IB / A-Level / GCSE / KS3 全科辅导，中英双语授课

16621398022 同微信

Paper 1 文本分析、HL Essay、Individual Oral 逐段批改

Visit aleveler.com