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 book “The Geography of Thought” by 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

Within this paragraph alone, the logic follows.

這段文字的確符合它的邏輯

But we're of course missing something,

但顯然地，我們遺漏了一些東西

which is the wider context.

那就是更廣泛的語境

I think it's useful to just be aware of this

我覺得在生活中意識到這一點是很有用的

when we go about our lives.

我覺得在生活中意識到這一點是很有用的

After all, the history of these two different regions

畢竟，這兩個不同地區的歷史完全不同

was completely different.

畢竟，這兩個不同地區的歷史完全不同

If we look at Greek philosophy,

如果我們看看希臘哲學

which is seen as part of the foundation of western thinking,

它被視為西方思想基礎的一部分

Aristotle generally saw objects as categorisable and knowable,

亞里斯多德通常把物體視為可分類的和可知的

and the Greeks looked for

希臘人在科學中尋找潛在的原理和模式

underlying principle and patterns in science.

希臘人在科學中尋找潛在的原理和模式

Arguments, debates and battles

爭論、辯論和戰鬥是生活中重要的一部分

were an important part of life.

爭論、辯論和戰鬥是生活中重要的一部分

The Eastern way of thinking, on the other hand,

另一方面，東方的思維模式

was strongly influenced by Confucianism,

深受儒家思想的影響

which was all about relationships

強調關係和視語境而定的身份轉換

and shifting identity depending on context.

強調關係和視語境而定的身份轉換

If we recall the Yin-Yang symbol from Taoism

如果我們回想一下道教的陰陽符號

we can also see the appreciation of contradiction

我們也可以看到東方思維中對矛盾的理解

in Eastern thinking.

我們也可以看到東方思維中對矛盾的理解

Different backgrounds, different languages,

也許是不同的背景，不同的語言，不同的思維方式

different ways of thinking, maybe.

也許是不同的背景，不同的語言，不同的思維方式

So what came first,

那麼首先出現的是語言差異，還是認知差異呢？

linguistic differences or cognitive differences,

那麼首先出現的是語言差異，還是認知差異呢？

and are these concepts even still applicable

這些概念是否仍然適用，還是已經過時了?

or are they becoming outdated?

這些概念是否仍然適用，還是已經過時了?

Let me know what you think.

告訴我你的想法吧

Thanks for watching. I'm Susie and I'll see you next time!

謝謝收看，我是戴舒萱，我們下次見！