外語(yǔ)影響道德準(zhǔn)則？
By Julie Sedivy
鹿尤 選注
What defines who we are? Our habits? Our aesthetic tastes? Our memories? If pressed, I would answer that if there is any part of me that sits at my core, that is an essential part of who I am, then surely it must be my moral center, my deep-seated sense of right and wrong.
And yet, like many other people who speak more than one language, I often have the sense that I'm a slightly different person in each of my languages - more assertive in English, more relaxed in French, more sentimental in Czech. Is it possible that, along with these differences, my moral compass also points in somewhat different directions depending on the language I'm using at the time?
Psychologists who study moral judgments have become very interested in this question. Several recent studies have focused on how people think about ethics in a non-native language - as might take place, for example, among a group of delegates at the United Nations using a lingua franca to hash out a resolution. The findings suggest that when people are confronted with moral dilemmas, they do indeed respond differently when considering them in a foreign language than when using their native tongue.
In a 2014 paper led by Albert Costa, volunteers were presented with a moral dilemma known as the "trolley problem": imagine that a runaway trolley is careening toward a group of five people standing on the tracks, unable to move. You are next to a switch that can shift the trolley to a different set of tracks, thereby sparing the five people, but resulting in the death of one who is standing on the side tracks. Do you pull the switch?
Most people agree that they would. But what if the only way to stop the trolley is by pushing a large stranger off a footbridge into its path? People tend to be very reluctant to say they would do this, even though in both scenarios, one person is sacrificed to save five. But Costa and his colleagues found that posing the dilemma in a language that volunteers had learned as a foreign tongue dramatically increased their stated willingness to shove the sacrificial person off the footbridge, from fewer than 20% of respondents working in their native language to about 50% of those using the foreign one. (Both native Spanish- and English-speakers were included, with English and Spanish as their respective foreign languages; the results were the same for both groups, showing that the effect was about using a foreign language, and not about which particular language - English or Spanish - was used.)
Using a very different experimental setup, Janet Geipel and her colleagues also found that using a foreign language shifted their participants' moral verdicts. In their study, volunteers read descriptions of acts that appeared to harm no one, but that many people find morally reprehensible - for example, stories in which someone cooked and ate his dog after it had been killed by a car. Those who read the stories in a foreign language (either English or Italian) judged these actions to be less wrong than those who read them in their native tongue.
Why does it matter whether we judge morality in our native language or a foreign one? According to one explanation, such judgments involve two separate and competing modes of thinking - one of these, a quick, gut-level "feeling," and the other, careful deliberation about the greatest good for the greatest number. When we use a foreign language, we unconsciously sink into the more deliberate mode simply because the effort of operating in our non-native language cues our cognitive system to prepare for strenuous activity. This may seem paradoxical, but is in line with findings that reading math problems in a hard-to-read font makes people less likely to make careless mistakes (although these results have proven difficult to replicate).
An alternative explanation is that differences arise between native and foreign tongues because our childhood languages vibrate with greater emotional intensity than do those learned in more academic settings. As a result, moral judgments made in a foreign language are less laden with the emotional reactions that surface when we use a language learned in childhood.
There's strong evidence that memory intertwines a language with the experiences and interactions through which that language was learned. For example, people who are bilingual are more likely to recall an experience if prompted in the language in which that event occurred. Our childhood languages, learned in the throes of passionate emotion - whose childhood, after all, is not streaked through with an abundance of love, rage, wonder, and punishment? - become infused with deep feeling. By comparison, languages acquired late in life, especially if they are learned through restrained interactions in the classroom or blandly delivered over computer screens and headphones, enter our minds bleached of the emotionality that is present for their native speakers.
What then, is a multilingual person's "true" moral self? Is it my moral memories, the reverberations of emotionally charged interactions that taught me what it means to be "good"? Or is it the reasoning I'm able to apply when free of such unconscious constraints? Or perhaps, this line of research simply illuminates what is true for all of us, regardless of how many languages we speak: that our moral compass is a combination of the earliest forces that have shaped us and the ways in which we escape them.
Vocabulary
1. aesthetic: 美學(xué)的，審美的。
2. deep-seated sense of right and wrong: 根植于內(nèi)心深處的是非觀。
3. assertive: 自信的，果斷的;sentimental: 多愁善感的;Czech: 捷克語(yǔ)。
4. 是否伴隨著這些差異，我的道德指南針也會(huì)由于所使用的語(yǔ)言不同而指向不同的方向呢?
5. delegate: 代表;lingua franca:(母語(yǔ)不同的人之間使用的)混合語(yǔ)，通用語(yǔ);hash out: 通過長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的討論解決(或決定);resolution: 決定，決議。
6. confront: 面臨，遭遇;dilemma: 窘境，困境。
7. trolley: 電車;runaway: 失控的;careen: 歪歪斜斜地猛沖。
8. 你的旁邊是一個(gè)開關(guān)，能夠?qū)㈦娷嚽袚Q到另一條軌道，這樣便能救了那五個(gè)人，卻會(huì)殺死旁邊這條軌道上的另一個(gè)人。switch: 開關(guān);spare: 赦免，不傷害。
9. 但是如果阻止電車的唯一辦法是將一個(gè)陌生的胖子從人行橋上推下去來?yè)踝‰娷嚹?footbridge: 人行橋。
10. reluctant: 勉強(qiáng)的;scenario: 情節(jié)，腳本，情景介紹(scenario的復(fù)數(shù));sacrifice: 犧牲。
11. shove: 猛推;sacrificial: 犧牲的;respondent: 調(diào)查對(duì)象。
12. setup: 方案，計(jì)劃;verdict: 決定，判斷。
13. reprehensible: 極其惡劣的，應(yīng)受譴責(zé)的。
14. 一種解釋是，這種判斷是由兩種既獨(dú)立又競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的思維模式共同形成的，即一種是快速、本能的“感覺”，而另一種則是深思熟慮地顧忌多數(shù)人的最大利益。gut-level: 本能的;deliberation: 深思熟慮。
15. 當(dāng)使用一門外語(yǔ)時(shí)，我們會(huì)不自覺地陷入一種深思模式，這只是由于一旦啟動(dòng)非母語(yǔ)我們的認(rèn)知系統(tǒng)就會(huì)被告知準(zhǔn)備進(jìn)行超負(fù)荷運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)。cue: 提示，暗示;congnitive: 認(rèn)知的;strenuous: 費(fèi)力的，繁重的。
16. paradoxical: 出乎意料的，荒誕的;in line with: 與……一致;font: 字體;replicate: 復(fù)制，重做。
17. 對(duì)使用母語(yǔ)和外語(yǔ)導(dǎo)致差異的另一種解釋是，相比在學(xué)術(shù)環(huán)境中學(xué)到的外語(yǔ)而言，我們童年時(shí)期所使用的語(yǔ)言伴隨著更強(qiáng)烈的情感共振。alternative: 供替代的，供選擇的;vibrate: 使震動(dòng);intensity: 強(qiáng)度，力度。
18. laden with: 充滿。
19. 強(qiáng)有力的證據(jù)表明，記憶使一種語(yǔ)言與其習(xí)得過程的經(jīng)歷和互動(dòng)交織在一起。intertwine: 使纏繞在一起，緊密相連;interaction: 相互作用。
20. bilingual: 熟諳兩種語(yǔ)言的;recall: 喚起;prompt: 引起，激起;occure: 發(fā)生。
21. in the throes of sth.: 處于……狀態(tài);passionate: 熱情的，激昂的;streak: 使布滿條紋;abundance: 大量，豐富;rage: 憤怒;infuse: 注入，使充滿。
22. restrained: 拘謹(jǐn)?shù)模芟拗频?blandly: 平淡地，枯燥乏味地;bleach: 使變白，使褪色。
23. multilingual: 會(huì)說多種語(yǔ)言的。
24. 是我們的道德記憶，還是因充滿感情的交互所產(chǎn)生的震動(dòng)教會(huì)了我們何為“善”呢?reverberation: 回蕩，回響;emotionally charged: 充滿感情的。
25. reasoning: 推理;apply: 運(yùn)用;unconscious constraint: 下意識(shí)的約束。
26. 或者，這一系列研究只是闡明了我們所有人的真實(shí)情況：無論我們說幾種語(yǔ)言，我們道德指南針的形成都來自于最初塑造我們的力量與我們逃避自我的方式。line: 系列illuminate: 闡明，解釋。
