翻訳お願いします
Once upon a time, there was a case history involving a 14-yers-old boy named Chris. He had been misled to believe and remember that he had been lost in a shopping mall at about the age of 5, that he had been frightened and was crying, and that he had ultimately been rescued by an elderly person and reunited with his family. Chris was partly responsible for inspiring a variety of empirical efforts to create entirely false memories of childhood.
At the University of Washington, my collaborators and I conducted a study using a simple method that was similar to the one Chris had experienced.
The subjects were 24 individuals who were asked to recall events that were supposedly supplied by a close relative. Three of the events were true, and one was a false event about getting lost in a shopping mall, department store, or other public place. The subjects, who ranged in age from 18 to 53, thought they were taking part in a study of childhood memories. At the outset, each subject completed a booklet said to contain four short stories about events from his or her childhood provided by a parent, sibling, or other older relative. Three events had actually happened, and the fourth, always in the third position, was false. Each event was described in a single paragraph.
The false event was constructed from information provided by the relative, who was asked where the family would have shopped when the subject was about 5 years old, which members of the family usually went along on shopping trips, and what kinds of stores might have attracted the subject’s interest. The relative was also asked to verify that the subject had not been lost in a mall around the age of 5. The false events always included the following elements: that the subject (a) was lost in a mall, large department store, or other public place for an extended period of time at about the age of 5, (b) cried, (c) was found and aided by an elderly woman, and (d) was reunited with the family.
Subjects completed the booklets by reading about each event and then writing what they remembered about each event. If they did not remember an event, they were told to write, “I do not remember this.”
When the booklets were returned, subjects were called and scheduled for two interviews that occurred approximately 1 to 2 weeks apart. Subjects thought the study was about how their memories compared with those of their relative. Across the interviews, subjects remembered something about 68% of the true events about which they were questioned. The rate of “remembering” the false event was lower: 25% remembered the event, fully or partially.
補足
ご回答いただきありがとうございます。また、今まで考えもしなかった点を指摘いただいたことに関して、本当に勉強になりました。生意気で申し訳ありませんが、100%の共感ではありませんが、80%くらいの共感を感じております。言葉ですから、精緻で、普遍的なものを求めることには、学者じゃない私には、どうでもいいことです。英語が有って、英文法がありますが、その関係性は、「物理学と法則」、「数学の定理(公理)、公式」とは、全く違うと思わないと、かえって英語学習の妨げになることは、私なりに理解しているつもりです。 「Apple本社で英文を起草された方の"お気持ち"」と「その文章を翻訳された方の"お気持ち"」を組みとって文章を読むことの大切さを、全く忘れておりました。 私は、「テクニカルライティング」を少しかじっていたのと、「経済学の研究」と「エンドユーザーコンピューティングによるホワイトカラーの生産性向上の研究」と「プログラミング技術と、その土台となる、論理学及び情報数学の教育の研究と実践」等を生業としていた時期が長かったために、「人の心」の大切さよりも、「ヒトの認知・判断・解釈・反応行動」を重視しておりました。映画は、観ますが、それは「何かしらの感動を求めて観る行為」では無く、どのようなセリフと画像と背景音(BGM)で、「何が伝わるか、何を受け取れるかの研究行為」に似ています。 なので、デートの後で、モトカノに「そんなこといわれると、映画の余韻に浸って、ウチに帰れない。帰りの電車の中で、どういう"検索キーワード"の組み合わせで、心理学の答えがみつけるかを考えながら、時間を過ごさなきゃいけなくなるじゃん」と怒られたこともありました。 人の心を組みとるための、一手段としての「英文法・語法」には、意味があると、私は思います。 その一方で、「読む」行為の中で、「人の心を大切さ」を忘れていては、人間ではなくて、「ヒトの形をしているにすぎない、単なる機械になりさがる」とも思います。本当に、私は「バカな機械」です。 大変重要なご指摘をいただき、感謝いたします。同じような質問時にも、ご回答いただけると幸いです。 ありがとうございました。