Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Hi everyone, I'm Susie from the UK,

    嗨大家好,我是戴舒萱,我來自英國

  • welcome back to my channel.

    歡迎回來我的頻道

  • I've been thinking about something recently,

    我最近在思考一個問題

  • and I wanted to talk about it and hear what you think.

    想與大家討論一下,聽聽你們的想法

  • In Malcolm Gladwell's book 'Outliers'

    在Malcolm Gladwell的書《Outliers》中

  • he talked about transmitter vs receiver oriented languages.

    他提到了“以發話者為導向”與“以聽眾為導向”的語言比較

  • In the book he wrote:

    他在書裡寫道:

  • Western communication has what linguists call

    在西方的溝通中,有著語言學家所說的“以發話者為導向”

  • a "transmitter orientation"

    在西方的溝通中,有著語言學家所說的“以發話者為導向”

  • that is, it is considered the responsibility of the speaker

    也就是說,清晰且明確地表達觀點

  • to communicate ideas clearly and unambiguously.

    被認為是說話者的責任

  • Within a Western cultural context,

    在西方文化背景下

  • it holds that if there is confusion,

    人們認為,如果聽者感到混淆,那就是說話者的錯

  • it is the fault of the speaker.

    人們認為,如果聽者感到混淆,那就是說話者的錯

  • But Korea, like many Asian countries, is receiver oriented.

    但和許多亞洲國家一樣,韓國是“以聽眾為導向”的

  • It is up to the listener to make sense of what is being said.

    取決於聽者如何理解對方所講的內容

  • I thought this was fascinating.

    我覺得這非常有趣

  • In English, you're expected to make yourself clear

    在英語中,如果你作為說話者,人們會認為

  • as the speaker,

    你應該把話說得清楚

  • but in Chinese,

    但在中文的世界裡

  • the listener might be expected to do some more work

    則是聽者需要努力嘗試理解對方所說的話

  • to try and understand you.

    則是聽者需要努力嘗試理解對方所說的話

  • Do you guys agree with this?

    你們同意嗎?

  • I have a lot of questions and feelings about it.

    對於這個說法,我有很多問題和感受

  • My initial feeling is that there might be some truth to it.

    我最初的感覺是,這個說法可能有些道理

  • In my own experience,

    根據我自己的經驗

  • it does feel like sometimes I might be explaining something

    我確實覺得,有時候當我在向來自亞洲國家的人

  • to someone from an Asian country,

    解釋一些事情時

  • and there's a moment of clear acknowledgement

    會有一個明確的同意理解的時刻

  • of understanding,

    會有一個明確的同意理解的時刻

  • just a head-nod or something,

    比如點頭之類的

  • and then I feel that anything I'm saying after that point

    然後我覺得在那之後,我說的任何話

  • is just unnecessary.

    都是不必要的

  • There isn't too much explanation that's needed.

    不需要太多的解釋

  • Another thing is that when it comes to essay writing,

    另外一點是,在寫文章的時候

  • I think there's a clear difference

    我覺得中文和英文的邏輯有明顯的區別

  • between Chinese and English logic.

    我覺得中文和英文的邏輯有明顯的區別

  • I've been helping a student with her PhD project,

    我正在幫助一名學生完成她的博士項目

  • and there have been loads of occasions

    有很多時候,當我們在閱讀她的作品時

  • when we're reading her writing,

    有很多時候,當我們在閱讀她的作品時

  • and I'll say 'it feels like there's a step missing here'

    我會對她說,“感覺這裡好像少了一些東西”

  • Or 'you haven't fully explained the relevance of this

    或者“你沒有充分解釋這部分內容的相關性

  • or the connection to the next part.'

    或者是與下一部分內容的關聯”

  • Her supervisors and I often use the words 'vague' or 'unclear'.

    她的導師和我經常用到“含糊”或“不清楚”這樣的字眼

  • And she's usually shocked,

    通常她聽了過後都覺得很驚訝

  • because she's like "I think it's very clear"

    因為她的感覺是,“我覺得我已經寫得很清楚了”

  • or "the reader should know exactly what I'm saying!".

    或者“讀者應該清楚我在說什麼!”

  • And it's quite interesting to me,

    這對我來說很有趣

  • because on the one hand, I can totally see what she means,

    因為一方面,我完全理解她的意思

  • that the meaning should be guessable,

    讀者應該猜測得到她的意思

  • or that it might be so obvious

    或者她的表達已經如此明顯,不值得詳細說明了

  • that it's not even worth spelling out.

    或者她的表達已經如此明顯,不值得詳細說明了

  • But on the other hand,

    但另一方面

  • in PhD writing

    寫博士論文的慣例是

  • the convention is that you have to be as specific as possible,

    你必須盡可能具體地表達

  • so that you make your meaning clear.

    這樣你才能把自己的意思說清楚

  • I guess this has become the convention

    我覺得這已成為了一種慣例,可能要追溯到希臘時代

  • and probably goes back to the Greeks.

    我覺得這已成為了一種慣例,可能要追溯到希臘時代

  • Especially in writing,

    尤其是在寫作方面

  • you have to spell everything out

    你必須把每件事都說清楚,讓讀者理解得一清二楚

  • and make it crystal clear for the reader.

    你必須把每件事都說清楚,讓讀者理解得一清二楚

  • You have to be very scientific and logical about it,

    你的內容必須具有科學性和邏輯性

  • don't miss any steps in your thinking,

    不能錯過想法裡的任何細節

  • even if it seems obvious to you,

    即使對你來說這件事非常理所當然

  • you want to leave no room for misinterpretations.

    但你也不要留下任何可能被誤解的空間

  • That's how to write well in English anyway.

    這就是寫好英文的方法

  • Another thing that seems to demonstrate

    在我看來,另一個可以證明

  • this transmitter vs receiver difference to me

    “以發話者為導向”和“以聽眾為導向”的區別是

  • is that someone else from Taiwan told me

    有個來自台灣的人告訴我

  • they find it easier to read English books than Chinese books,

    他覺得閱讀英文書比閱讀中文書容易

  • because in English books

    因為在英文書中

  • the authors takes you through step by step,

    作者會一步一步地引導你

  • like a clear story.

    就像一個清晰的故事

  • The logic helps the reader follow through bit by bit.

    內容的邏輯性能幫助讀者一點一點地理解

  • I thought that was quite interesting that they said that

    聽他這麼說我覺得這很有趣

  • even though it's their second language,

    即使那是他們的第二語言

  • there's something about the logic

    英語內容的邏輯讓讀者們更容易理解

  • that makes it easier to follow in English.

    英語內容的邏輯讓讀者們更容易理解

  • Now obviously that's just one person

    不過,這顯然只是個人的看法

  • so you'll have to point out if I'm going majorly wrong here.

    如果我說錯了,也請大家指正

  • I'm still learning about Chinese logic in writing,

    我還在學習中文的寫作邏輯

  • but it seems like maybe the rules are just less defined.

    但中文的規則似乎不太明確

  • You don't have to start each paragraph

    你不必每段都以主題句開頭

  • with a topic sentence,

    你不必每段都以主題句開頭

  • introducing the point of that paragraph,

    介紹這一段的觀點

  • and you don't have to only keep 100% relevant points

    整段文字中也不限於使用100%相關的要點

  • in that paragraph.

    整段文字中也不限於使用100%相關的要點

  • It seems like you can be a bit more poetic

    你似乎可以寫得更詩意一些,尤其是在引言部分

  • and, especially in the introduction,

    你似乎可以寫得更詩意一些,尤其是在引言部分

  • you can talk about the 'big picture' for a lot longer.

    你也可以用更長的時間來談論“內容大局”

  • The 'big picture' is quite a big deal actually.

    “內容大局”其實挺重要的

  • If we're generalising,

    如果我們概括一下

  • it seems like western logic is more about details,

    西方的邏輯似乎更注重細節

  • and Eastern writing is more concerned with big picture stuff.

    而東方的寫作則更注重內容大局

  • So those are just my observations.

    這些只是我的觀察

  • These language differences made me think of

    這些語言差異讓我想起了Sapir-Whorf的“語言相對論”

  • the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

    這些語言差異讓我想起了Sapir-Whorf的“語言相對論”

  • This hypothesises that

    該理論假設

  • the structure of a language shapes or limits

    語言的結構塑造或限制了說話者感知世界的方式

  • the way speakers perceive the world.

    語言的結構塑造或限制了說話者感知世界的方式

  • It's been hotly debated for a long time in linguistics.

    長期以來,語言學對這一問題一直爭論不休

  • I personally think it's a chicken and egg debate.

    我個人認為,這是一個先有雞還是先有蛋的爭論

  • On the one hand,

    一方面

  • it's not like you can only think of something

    並不是說,你只能在你的語言中有一個詞的時候

  • if that thing has a word in your language,

    才能想到某件事

  • but on the other hand

    但另一方面

  • there are some studies that suggest different languages

    有一些研究表明,不同的語言

  • influence the way people think about things,

    會影響人們思考事物的方式

  • especially at a young age.

    尤其是在年輕的時候

  • I'll link some down below.

    我會在下面的資訊欄附上一些連結

  • It really depends on what we mean by thought as well.

    這也取決於我們對思想的定義

  • Some people have quite clear inner monologues

    有些人有非常清晰的內心獨白

  • that only exist in terms of words,

    這些獨白只存在於文字中

  • but I don't really have that,

    但我本身並沒有

  • my thoughts are more like feelings or impressions.

    我的思想更傾向於感覺或印象

  • Are yours like that?

    你的也是這樣嗎?

  • Maybe the differences in the languages are to do

    也許語言的差異與我們思維方式的差異有關

  • with the differences in the way we think.

    也許語言的差異與我們思維方式的差異有關

  • In the bookThe Geography of Thoughtby Richard Nisbett

    在Richard Nisbett的《思維的疆界》書中

  • he talks about the cognitive differences

    他談到了東北亞人和西方人的認知差異

  • between North East Asians and Westerners.

    他談到了東北亞人和西方人的認知差異

  • Now of course when we talk about Asians and Westerners,

    當然,當我們談論亞洲人和西方人時

  • it's all generalising,

    都是非常概略的定義

  • and I think these generalisations will hold less and less true

    我認為隨著“國籍”的概念變得更加武斷

  • as the concept of 'nationality' becomes more arbitrary,

    這些概括將越來越不成立

  • but to summarise very briefly, in Western thinking,

    但簡單總結一下,在西方的思維中

  • first of all,

    首先

  • being unique as an individual is seen as something desirable.

    作為一個獨特的個體被看作是一件令人嚮往的事情

  • People like to feel in control in environments

    人們喜歡在自己的選擇能帶來理想結果的環境中擁有控制權

  • where their choices lead to desirable outcomes.

    人們喜歡在自己的選擇能帶來理想結果的環境中擁有控制權

  • They work towards personal goals and achievements,

    他們朝著個人目標和成就努力

  • and relationships can actually get in the way

    而人際關係有時會阻礙他們取得這些成就

  • of those achievements sometimes.

    而人際關係有時會阻礙他們取得這些成就

  • Your identity is seen as static,

    你的個人身份被視為穩定不變的

  • meaning you can move from group to group

    這表示你可以從一個群組換到另一個群組

  • and setting to setting and still mostly be the same person.

    從一個環境換到另一個環境,但基本上還是同一個人

  • On the other hand, in Eastern thinking,

    另一方面,在東方思維中

  • there's less focus on personal goals and self-aggrandisement,

    人們較少關注個人目標和自我擴展

  • and collective goals are generally more important.

    集體目標通常更重要

  • It's not particularly desirable to be individually distinctive.

    與眾不同並不是一件令人嚮往的事情

  • Being in harmony with your surrounding network

    與周圍的人際網絡和諧相處

  • is a strong predictor of personal wellbeing,

    是個人幸福感的明確預測指標

  • and relationships are valued over identity,

    關係比身份更重要

  • because your identity doesn't come from yourself

    因為你的身份不是來自你自己

  • but from the context and influences you're exposed to.

    而是來自你所接觸到的環境和影響

  • This obviously relates to Buddhism, Taoism

    這顯然與佛教、道教和其他來自東方的哲學有關

  • and other philosophies that were born in the East.

    這顯然與佛教、道教和其他來自東方的哲學有關

  • Choices affecting outcomes is seen as oversimplistic,

    影響結果的選擇被認為過於簡單化

  • and when it comes to relationships and the concept of self,

    說到人際關係和自我的概念

  • in Japanese, the word for 'I' literally changes

    在日語中,“我”這個詞會隨著語境的不同而變化

  • based on the context.

    在日語中,“我”這個詞會隨著語境的不同而變化

  • These distinctions can be distilled into 2 kinds of categories:

    這些區別可以分為兩類

  • object-focus versus context-focus,

    “對象焦點”與“語境焦點”

  • or analysis versus holism.

    或者“分析論”與“整體論”

  • Now we can see where the essay-logic differences come from.

    現在我們可以看到文章邏輯的差異來自哪裡

  • In western writing,

    在西方的寫作方面

  • underlying assumed validity

    潛在的假設有效性並不足以證明事情的真實性

  • isn't enough to prove that it's true.

    潛在的假設有效性並不足以證明事情的真實性

  • This might make English writing easier to read in some ways,

    這可能會使英語寫作在某種程度上更容易閱讀

  • as the reader is guided through step by step,

    因為讀者一步一步地被引導

  • but there is a flaw in my opinion,

    但在我看來,這有個缺點

  • because if the larger context isn't taken into account

    因為如果沒有盡量地考慮更大的語境範圍

  • as much as possible,

    因為如果沒有盡量地考慮更大的語境範圍

  • major mistakes can be made.

    那可能會犯嚴重的錯誤

  • In one of Nisbett's studies, they used this example:

    在Nisbett的一項研究中,他們使用了這樣的一個例子

  • All things made of plants are healthy.

    所有由植物製成的東西都是健康的

  • Cigarettes are made of plants.

    香煙是由植物製成的

  • Therefore, cigarettes are healthy.

    因此,香煙是健康的