English.

英語

It's also very likely that you think in English as well, right?

很有可能你也是用英語思考的，對吧？

For example, you might be saying to yourself, "when is this guy going to get to the point?”

舉例來說，你現在大概在想，「這傢伙什麼時候才會切入主題？」

But, if I took all of those words out of the English language, would you still be able

然而，要是我把那些詞都從英語中剔除了，你還能

to think that thought?

如此這般想嗎？

After all, you probably think to yourself in language all of the time.

畢竟，你大概隨時都在用語言思考

If you know less words, can you think less thoughts?

如果你知道較少的詞彙，你也會思考得較少嗎？

More importantly, can you think complex thoughts?

更重要的，你能夠有複雜的思考嗎？

George Orwell explores this theme in his classic

喬治‧歐威爾在他的經典小說《1984》中

novel "1984".

探討了這個議題

Winston Smith - the protagonist - lives in the superstate of Oceania, in the province

主角 Winston Smith 住在大國 Oceania 中的 Airstrip One 省

Airstrip One, in the city of London.

位於倫敦市

The state is governed by a totalitarian party led by a figure known as Big Brother.

這個國家由一個極權主義政黨所管控，政黨領導人名叫 Big Brother

The Party seeks complete and total control over the entire state and its citizens.

這個政黨力求對於整個國家和所有公民的全然掌控

They use tactics typical of totalitarian governments such as constant surveillance, strict disapproval

他們採用極權政府慣用的手法，比如持續監控、

of independent thought, and controlling access to information.

斥責獨立思想，和控制資訊的流通管道

But, I want to focus on one tactic in particular.

但我想集中探討其中一項手法

The Party has invented a new language called

此政黨發明了一種新語言

"Newspeak" which is meant to replace "Oldspeak".

稱為「新話」，用意是要取代「舊話」

Oldspeak is the English we all currently use.

舊話就是我們當今所使用的英語

Newspeak is a heavily modified version of English with a much smaller vocabulary.

新話則是經過大幅修改、詞彙少了許多的英語

Over several decades, the Party hopes to pare down the language to take out any words that

在幾十年間，政黨企圖修剪語言，將任何不符合他們意識形態

don't serve their ideological mission.

的字詞剔除

Borrowing a direct example from Orwell, words like warm would not exist.

直接舉個歐威爾的例子，「暖」 (warm) 這類的詞彙根本不繼存在

Instead, it would be referred to as "uncold".

它會被「不冷」 (uncold) 所取代

The root word "cold" would still exist.

詞根「冷」 (cold) 會留存

"Pluscold" would mean very cold, and "doubleplus-cold" would be very very cold.

「加倍冷」 (pluscold) 就代表很冷，而「雙倍加倍冷」 (doubleplus-cold) 則是非常非常冷

In essence, one could revolve any discussion about temperature around one word: cold.

總的來說，人們光用「冷」 (cold) 一個字就可以回答任何有關溫度的話題

In Orwell's own words,

歐威爾的原話如下

"Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought."

「之所以設計出新話，不是為了延伸思考的範疇，而是為了減少範疇。」

The Party believed that by limiting the language available to the citizens, they could limit

政黨相信藉由限制公民可用的詞彙，就能限制

their ability to think.

他們思考的能力

More importantly, they believed that they could limit a persons ability to think thoughts

更重要的是，他們相信如此一來他們就能限制一個人

that were in opposition to the Party's ideology: concepts like political or intellectual freedom

產生反對政黨意識形態的想法。有關於政治或是思想自由的概念

would be non-existent.

將不會存在

But, does this hypothesis hold any weight?

但是，這項假設能夠成真嗎？

Could a totalitarian government actually limit our ability to think of the concept of freedom

一個極權政府真能夠藉由移除大家共有的詞彙

by removing the word from our collective vocabulary?

來限制我們思考自由這個概念嗎？

According to the theory of linguistic determinism,

根據語言決定論的說法

the answer would be yes.

答案是肯定的

Linguistic determinism is one-half of a greater theory referred to as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

語言決定論是稱為 Sapir-Whorf 假說的重大理論的其中一支

The other half is linguistic relativity which we may touch on in a separate video.

另外一支是語言相對論，我們在影片後半段會提到

Edward Sapir wrote that

Edward Sapir 寫道

"Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social

「人類並非單獨存在於客觀世界中，也並非單獨存在於大眾認知的社會常規裡，

activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language

而是很大程度地受制於他們社會中，

which has become the medium of expression for their society. "

作為傳播媒介的特定語言。」

He also wrote that

他也寫道：

"The world in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world

「不同社會所存在的世界是不一樣的世界，並非只是

with different labels attached. "

同一個世界裡有著不同標籤。」

Sapir believed that language did, indeed, have an effect on our thinking.

Sapir 認為，語言的確會影響我們思考的方式

Benjamin Lee Whorf - Sapir's student - developed

Sapir 的學生 Benjamin Lee Whorf

this line of reasoning further.

延伸了這條思考套路

He claimed that upon studying the Hopi language, he found that they had no words that referred

他聲稱透過研究赫必族的語言，他發現他們沒有任何有關時間的

to time.

詞彙

This discovery led Whorf to believe that, because they did not have any way to refer

這項發現使得 Whorf 相信，因為他們沒有任何能夠指涉時間的方式

to it, Hopi speakers experienced time differently.

赫必族語言的使用者體驗時間的方式也會不同

In this Hopi view, "time disappears and space is altered, so that it is no longer the homogenous

在赫必族的觀點來看，「時間消失且空間改變了，所以不再是我們直覺所認定以及

and instantaneous timeless space of our supposed intuitions or of classical Newtonian mechanics.

古典牛頓力學中所謂的均質、即時的永恆空間。

At the same time, new concepts and abstractions flow into the picture, taking up the task

與此同時，新概念和抽象進入畫面，擔起責任

of describing the universe without reference to such time or space - abstractions for which

不涉及時間或空間來形容宇宙。這些抽象概念是

our language lacks adequate terms. "

我們的語言中缺少確切術語的。」

In English, our verbs contain tenses that explain the time during which an action occurred.

英語中的動詞會包含時態，解釋動作發生的時間

For example, if I said that it snowed, you know that I'm referring to the past.

舉個例子，要是我說「下過雪了」 (it snowed) ，你知道我是在指過去

If I say that it is snowing, then you know that it's happening in the present.

要是我說「在下雪了」 (it is snowing) ，那你知道現在正在發生

In English, we divide time and split it up into past, present, future, minutes, hours,

在英語裡，我們將時間切割為過去、現在、未來、分鐘、小時、

days, weeks and experience it as such.

日、週，並且依此經歷時間

Is it true?

是真的嗎？

Do the Hopi experience time in a fundamentally different way than we do because they lack

因為少了分割時間的詞彙，赫必族經歷時間的感受真的就和我們

the words for dividing it?

全然不同嗎？

Well, no.

並不是

It turns out that Whorf's analysis of the Hopi language simply turned out to be inadequate

事實是， Whorf 對於赫必族語言的分析結果根本就不足

and that they do in fact have ways of referring to time.

且他們事實上有指涉時間的方式

So, they don't actually experience time any differently than we do.

所以，他們對時間的感受其實和我們並非不同

But, the theory is not dead yet.

但是，這項理論還沒完

The Dani people of New Guinea have only two

新幾內亞的達尼族人只有

words for describing color: "mili" and "mola".

兩個形容顏色的詞：「米利」 (mili) 和「莫拉」 (mola)

"Mili" is representative of cold or dark colors and "mola" represents warm or light colors.

「米利」代表冷色或是暗色，「莫拉」則代表暖色和亮色

If linguistic determinism holds true, then it's reasonable to think that the Dani people

如果語言決定論是正確的，那麼可以合理推測達尼族人

will not be able to make detailed distinctions between colors like we do.

沒辦法像我們一樣分辨顏色間的細節差異

They should only be able to distinguish them as dark or light, right?

他們應該只能辨別暗和亮，是吧？

Well, the studies show that the Dani people can make distinctions between different colors

研究顯示，達尼族人依然能夠辨別不同的顏色

just fine, despite not having terms for them.

縱使沒有對應的詞彙

So, what's going on here?

所以究竟是怎麼一回事？

If they can make distinctions between these colors just fine, why do they not have different

如果他們也是能夠辨別顏色，為什麼沒有各顏色

words for them?

的詞彙？

It seems that there is a complex and interdependent

看來語言、思想和文化三者之間

relationship between language, thought, and culture.

有一個複雜且環環相扣的關係

Let me put forth a simplified thought experiment that may help clarify our dilemma.

讓我再舉個簡單的思想實驗，或許能幫助釐清我們的兩難

Consider two hypothetical cultures: Culture A and Culture B. Culture A's flag is made

設想兩個假想的文化：文化 A 和文化 B。文化 A 的旗子

up of various shades of green and they live in a forest.

是由不同色調的綠色所組成的，因為他們住在森林裡

Culture B's flag is made up of various shades of blue and they live near the ocean.

文化 B 的旗子是由不同色調的藍所組成，因為他們住在海邊

Now, let's say that I show both cultures a lighter green and a darker green.

現在，假設我給兩個文化看亮綠色和暗綠色

Culture A is far more likely to make a distinction between the two colours because they value

文化 A 較可能分辨兩種顏色之間的區別，因為他們重視

making that distinction.

這種差異

Since they live in a forest, they see a lot of green and value making a distinction between

由於他們住在森林裡，他們看得見很多綠色，因此語言中

lighter shades and darker shades in their language.

重視辨別亮色調和暗色調的差異

They need to make that distinction to communicate with one another.

他們必須有這種辨別才能和彼此溝通

On the other hand, when Culture B is asked what colors they see, they may just refer

對另一者來說，文化 B 被問及看到什麼顏色時，他們大概

to them in the singular: green.

只會說一個詞：綠色

They don't value making that distinction because they don't need to.

他們不在乎辨別其中的差異，因為他們不需要

So, to the extent that we see different languages lacking words for things it's more likely

所以，就我們發現不同語言缺少有些詞彙這點而言

a reflection of their culture; they don't necessarily see the world differently, but

那較有可能是反映了他們的文化。他們看世界的方式不見得不同

they value different things.

但他們重視不同的事

So, what does all of this mean in the context of "1984"?

所以，這能解釋《1984》中的什麼？

Would Newspeak be effective in limiting thought?

新話能夠限制人們的思考嗎？

The complex relationship between language,

語言、思想和文化之間複雜的關係

thought, and culture is not fully understood: scientists are still doing lots of hard work

還有待釐清。科學家們還在努力

to figure it out.

找出真相

But, the language of Newspeak is a reflection of linguistic determinism or the strong version

不過，新話語言是應證了語言決定論，也就是 Sapir-Whorf 假說中

of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

強硬的那個版本

As we have seen, this theory seems very unlikely.

就我們目前看來，這項理論不太可能成立

Just because a language may lack words for time or colours it doesn't mean its speakers

就因為一個語言缺少指涉時間和顏色的詞彙

can't experience that phenomenon or create a new word for it.

並不代表這語言的使用者無法體驗這種現象或是為之創造新詞彙

In his book "The Language Instinct", psychologist, linguist, and author Steven Pinker puts forth

身為一個心理學家、語言學家和作家， Steven Pinker 在他的著作《語言直覺》中

an interesting concept: he believes that all humans have an innate "language of thought"

提出一個有趣的概念。他相信所有人類都有一個天生的「思考語言」 (language of thought)

or "mentalese".

或稱為「心語」 (mentalese，mental加上字根 -ese )

He states that,

他聲言

"knowing a language, then is knowing how to translate mentalese into strings of words,

「知道一個語言，就是知道如何將心語翻譯為一串詞彙，

and vice versa. "

反之亦然。」

According to this theory, you and I are not thinking in English.

根據這項理論，你和我都不是在用英語思考

Rather, we are thinking in the language of thought and translating that into our respective languages so that

相反地，我們是透過思考語言 (心語) 思考，然後把想法轉換為

we can communicate with others.

我們和彼此溝通的語言

So, if a totalitarian government came to power and started cutting out words like "freedom"

所以，要是一個極權政府掌權了，並且開始剔除像是「自由」和「民主」這類詞彙

and "democracy", would we lose our ability to think about those concepts?

我們也會喪失思考這些概念的能力嗎？

It's unlikely.

不太可能

To the extent that me or you could still feel oppression, we would be able to think about

因著你和我依然可以感到受壓迫，我們還是可以用思考語言 (心語)

oppression in our language of thought.

思考「壓迫」這個概念

Thus, a new word would likely emerge so that we could communicate this abstract thought

然後，一個新詞或許會誕生，我們就能夠和彼此溝通這個

that we are both thinking and feeling; thought comes first and language comes after.

你我都在思想、感受的抽象想法；先有思想，才有語言

When you look at language from this perspective, I think there's something beautiful about

當你從這個角度來審視語言時，我想所有語言中

all of them.

都存在著美

In some sense, we can look at one language and see a reflection of the values and thoughts

換句話說，我們看到一個語言，就是看到屬於那個文化的人們

that people in that culture share and based on the words

所共有的價值觀和思想，藉由他們選擇創造的詞彙

that they have chosen to create.

映證出來