Past studies have found that people have a tendency to use more positive-inflected?words than negative ones ― "fantastic" rather than "awful," for example ― a trend that linguists refer to as "positive linguistic bias." Does our proportion of optimistic versus pessimistic verbiage actually change as our circumstances change, or are we set in our ways?
以往的研究表明，相比消極性的詞匯，人們傾向于使用更具積極意味的詞匯。比如，更喜歡用“美妙的（fantastic）”而非“糟糕的（awful）”。語言學(xué)家將這種傾向稱作“積極語言偏向（positive linguistic bias）”。那么，在周遭環(huán)境改變時(shí)，我們的“樂觀用語”和“悲觀用語”所占比例是否真的會(huì)發(fā)生變化呢?還是說，我們的措詞風(fēng)格是一成不變的呢？

A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that awful circumstances arising may lead people to use more negative words than before.
《美國國家科學(xué)院院刊》上發(fā)表了一篇新研究，暗示當(dāng)環(huán)境變?cè)銜r(shí)，人們會(huì)比從前使用更多消極性詞匯。

The study found that throughout the time span covered by the study, positive linguistic bias showed fluctuations "predicted by changes in objective environment, i.e., war and economic hardships, and by changes in national subjective happiness."
該研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，在他們涉及到的整個(gè)時(shí)間跨度內(nèi)，“積極語言偏向”出現(xiàn)了一些波動(dòng)，“正巧對(duì)應(yīng)于客觀環(huán)境的變化，比如戰(zhàn)爭和經(jīng)濟(jì)困難時(shí)期，以及全國人民主觀幸福感的變化”。

To measure this phenomenon over time, the study’s authors examined the text of the New York Times and Google Books over the past 200 years. In addition to shifts in the predominance of optimistic language that correlate to times of national suffering or lower happiness levels, the study also found an overall decrease in positive words over the two centuries covered by the study. However, the latter conclusion should be taken with a few grains of salt for now, other researchers argue. Linguist Mark Liberman pointed out to the Times that tracking the tone of word choice over such a large period risks confounding overall changes in language with a decrease in positive word choice.
為了檢測這種現(xiàn)象隨時(shí)間的變化情況，研究者們統(tǒng)計(jì)了過去200多年的《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》和《谷歌圖書》文本。除了發(fā)現(xiàn)在國難中或者幸福感較低的年代里“樂觀語言”的主宰地位會(huì)發(fā)生動(dòng)搖之外，研究人員還發(fā)現(xiàn)在他們涉足的兩個(gè)多世紀(jì)里積極性詞匯的使用率整體呈下降趨勢。然而，其他一些研究者辯解說，第二項(xiàng)結(jié)論目前尚不足以令人信服。語言學(xué)家馬克?利伯曼向《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》指出，在這么長的時(shí)間段里追蹤措詞的感情色彩，如果語言本身整體在改變，能選擇的積極性詞匯本來就在減少，那么研究結(jié)果就可能受到影響。

As with any single study, questions remain. The study’s authors suggested the need for more research into whether "objective circumstances and subjective mood have independent roles" in affecting positivity in language. The study found that "in the years when the level of national subjective happiness in the United States was lower, [linguistic positivity bias] tended to be lower also."
和其它任何研究一樣，該研究還存在一些問題。研究者們暗示說，還需要做更多的研究，進(jìn)一步調(diào)查是不是“客觀環(huán)境和主觀情感能獨(dú)立地”影響語言的“積極性”。研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，“在全美國主觀幸福感較低的年代，【積極語言偏向】現(xiàn)象也相應(yīng)較弱”。

Unlike war and famine, however, it’s conceivable that national subjective happiness could be influenced by the tenor of national media ― or social media. During the past election cycle, a Vox Twitter analysis showed the new president-elect, Donald Trump, used significantly more negative words ("bad," "crooked," "dumb," "worst") than his opponent, Hillary Clinton, did. Was he more successfully tapping into a national mood of misery, or was this campaign language fostering a sense of despair and outrage? Or was it, perhaps, a little bit of both?
但是，可想而知，國家的主觀幸福感與戰(zhàn)爭和饑荒不同，前者會(huì)受到國家主流媒體基調(diào)或者說社會(huì)化媒體的影響。在剛剛過去的總統(tǒng)大選中，VOX公司所作的一篇推文分析表明，新總統(tǒng)當(dāng)選人唐納德?特朗普使用的消極性詞匯（“壞的”、“不正當(dāng)?shù)摹?、“愚蠢的”、“更糟的”）明顯多于對(duì)手希拉里?克林頓。是他更成功地響應(yīng)了舉國上下的悲凄情緒嗎，還是說他的競選語言助長了人們的絕望和憤怒？或者，有可能，兩者都沾邊兒？

（翻譯：Dorothy）

聲明：本雙語文章的中文翻譯系滬江英語原創(chuàng)內(nèi)容，轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處。中文翻譯僅代表譯者個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)，僅供參考。如有不妥之處，歡迎指正。