The Western intellectual bias is very different from that of Chinese culture. Chinese scholars David Hall and Roger Ames distinguish two modes of thinking. ‘Correlative’ or ‘analogical’ thinking, the dominant mode in classical Chinese culture, “seeks to account for states of affairs by appeal to correlative procedures rather than by determining agencies or principles.”(Hall and Ames 1995, xviii) It accepts no priority of permanence over process and presumes no ultimate agency responsible for the general order of things. Causal thinking, the dominant Western mode, tends to assert a priority of being over becoming and to see the cosmos as a single-ordered world and as the consequence of some primordial agency. Hall and Ames argue that correlative thinking is dominant in Chinese culture whereas causal thinking is recessive. In turn, causal thinking is dominant for the West whereas correlative thinking is recessive. The Western tendency to convert certain dualities into either a dualism or a univocal prioritization of one pole over the other is also offset by correlative thinking. “In a correlative sensibility such as we find within the Chinese tradition, terms are clustered with opposing or complementary alter-terms. Classical Chinese may be uncongenial to the development of univocal propositions for this reason.” (取自：Duality without Dualism)
西方的學術偏向與東方文化是差很多的。根據東方學者的說法，即“關聯”或“推理”思維。傳統東方文化主要形容一件事情的狀態或過程而不是該事件的主因或原則。因果思維（西方主要的思維）強調個體而非過程，所以西方人一般上是把宇宙看成是一個由某個主要單一秩序形成的世界，而這個就造成了他們的語言構造。何路與阿美式認為東方的主要思維是關聯性而非因果性的而西方思維則是相對的。西方人傾向於把某個東西的二元性轉換成二元論或單一主因/命題，就是因為這種思維。在關聯思維的前提下，我們容易在東方語言傳統裡看到關聯詞而非單一命題的發展。（我自行翻譯👆那一段）。
我想這就是為何有時候有些人說：“主語-謂語-賓語”是西化的句式。如果你有做翻譯的習慣，這點很常見所以我們要記得：華語的句式其實不需要太拘泥於那種狀態而是在形容一件事情的“狀態”。舉個例子，華語裡（甚至是日語裡），我們可以以：“吃飽了”造句（為完整句子）但英文裡：“eaten/ate"，是沒辦法讓人家知道你在說什麼（除非你以“主-謂-賓”的方式造句即：“I ate it“）。
你的中文開始西化了嗎？
打個小廣告：如果你想認真的做好中英翻譯，除了可以去🇹🇼修個碩士/博士之外，可以參閱以下基本📖（我自己用著）：
風.. 
發表留言