TEDGlobal 2005
Steven Pinker: What our language habits reveal
Steven Pinker o jeziku i misli
Filmed:
Readability: 5.2
2,457,061 views
U ekskluzivnom pregledu svoje knjige „Tkivo misli“, Steven Pinker govori o jeziku i načinu na koji jezik odražava ono što se događa u našim umovima -- te o tome kako riječi koje koristimo govore više nego što mislimo.
Steven Pinker - Psychologist
Steven Pinker is a professor of cognitive science (the study of the human mind) who writes about language, mind and human nature. Full bio
Steven Pinker is a professor of cognitive science (the study of the human mind) who writes about language, mind and human nature. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:26
This is a picture of Maurice Druon,
0
1000
2000
Ovo je slika Mauricea Druona,
00:28
the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise,
1
3000
4000
doživotnog počasnog tajnika L'Academie francaise --
00:32
the French Academy.
2
7000
2000
Francuske akademije.
00:34
He is splendidly attired in his 68,000-dollar uniform,
3
9000
5000
Veličanstveno je obučen u 68.000 dolara vrijednu odoru,
00:39
befitting the role of the French Academy
4
14000
3000
ispunjavajući ulogu Francuske akademije
00:42
as legislating the
5
17000
3000
u standardizaciji
00:45
correct usage in French
6
20000
2000
točne uporabe francuskog jezika
00:47
and perpetuating the language.
7
22000
2000
i očuvanju jezika.
00:49
The French Academy has two main tasks:
8
24000
3000
Francuska akademija ima dvije glavne zadaće:
00:52
it compiles a dictionary of official French.
9
27000
3000
sastavljanje rječnika službenog francuskog jezika --
00:55
They're now working on their ninth edition,
10
30000
3000
trenutno rade na devetom izdanju,
00:58
which they began in 1930, and they've reached the letter P.
11
33000
3000
započetom 1930. godine, u kojem su došli do slova P.
01:02
They also legislate on correct usage,
12
37000
3000
Određuju i točnu upotrebu jezika,
01:05
such as the proper term for what the French call "email,"
13
40000
4000
primjerice, opći naziv onoga što Francuzi nazivaju „email“,
01:09
which ought to be "courriel."
14
44000
2000
trebao bi biti „courriel“.
01:11
The World Wide Web, the French are told,
15
46000
2000
Također im je rečeno da bi se World Wide Web
01:13
ought to be referred to as
16
48000
2000
trebao zvati
01:15
"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- the Global Spider Web --
17
50000
4000
„la toile d'araignee mondiale“ -- Globalna paukova mreža --
01:19
recommendations that the French gaily ignore.
18
54000
4000
sve su to sugestije koje Francuzi rado ignoriraju.
01:24
Now, this is one model of how language comes to be:
19
59000
4000
Ovo je jedan od načina nastanka jezika:
01:28
namely, it's legislated by an academy.
20
63000
3000
zakonski je određen od strane akademije.
01:31
But anyone who looks at language realizes
21
66000
3000
No, svatko tko baci pogled na jezik
01:34
that this is a rather silly conceit,
22
69000
4000
ubrzo će shvatiti kako je to smiješna zamisao,
01:38
that language, rather, emerges from human minds interacting from one another.
23
73000
3000
jezik, zapravo, nastaje međudjelovanjem ljudskih umova.
01:41
And this is visible in the unstoppable change in language --
24
76000
4000
To je vidljivo kod stalne promjene jezika --
01:45
the fact that by the time the Academy finishes their dictionary,
25
80000
3000
u činjenici da kada Akademija završi rječnik,
01:48
it will already be well out of date.
26
83000
2000
on će već biti zastario.
01:50
We see it in the
27
85000
2000
To je vidljivo u
01:52
constant appearance of slang and jargon,
28
87000
4000
neprestanom stvaranju slenga i žargona,
01:56
of the historical change in languages,
29
91000
2000
u povijesnim promjenama jezika,
01:58
in divergence of dialects
30
93000
2000
u razilaženju dijalekata
02:00
and the formation of new languages.
31
95000
3000
i nastajanju novih jezika.
02:03
So language is not so much a creator or shaper of human nature,
32
98000
3000
Jezik ne stvara i ne oblikuje ljudsku prirodu u tolikoj mjeri
02:06
so much as a window onto human nature.
33
101000
3000
koliko je zapravo prozor u ljudsku prirodu.
02:09
In a book that I'm currently working on,
34
104000
3000
U knjizi na kojoj trenutno radim,
02:12
I hope to use language to shed light on
35
107000
3000
nadam se da ću putem jezika rasvijetliti
02:15
a number of aspects of human nature,
36
110000
2000
mnoge aspekte ljudske prirode
02:17
including the cognitive machinery
37
112000
2000
uključujući kognitivni mehanizam
02:19
with which humans conceptualize the world
38
114000
3000
putem kojeg ljudi konceptualiziraju svijet
02:22
and the relationship types that govern human interaction.
39
117000
3000
i tipove odnosa koji određuju ljudsku interakciju.
02:25
And I'm going to say a few words about each one this morning.
40
120000
3000
O svakoj od njih ću ponešto reći danas ujutro.
02:28
Let me start off with a technical problem in language
41
123000
2000
Započet ću s tehničkim jezičnim problemom
02:30
that I've worried about for quite some time --
42
125000
2000
koji me dulje vrijeme zabrinjavao --
02:32
and indulge me
43
127000
4000
nadam se da ćete udovoljiti
02:36
in my passion for verbs and how they're used.
44
131000
3000
mojoj strasti prema glagolima i načinu na koji se koriste.
02:39
The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions?
45
134000
3000
Problem je sljedeći: koji glagoli idu s kojim konstrukcijama?
02:42
The verb is the chassis of the sentence.
46
137000
3000
Glagol je šasija rečenice,
02:45
It's the framework onto which the other parts are bolted.
47
140000
4000
on je okvir na koji se pričvršćuju ostali dijelovi rečenice.
02:49
Let me give you a quick reminder
48
144000
2000
Na brzinu ću vas podsjetiti na nešto
02:51
of something that you've long forgotten.
49
146000
2000
što ste odavno zaboravili.
02:53
An intransitive verb, such as "dine," for example,
50
148000
3000
Neprijelazni glagoli, poput „večerati“,
02:56
can't take a direct object.
51
151000
2000
ne mogu primiti izravni objekt.
02:58
You have to say, "Sam dined," not, "Sam dined the pizza."
52
153000
3000
Morate reći „Sam je večerao“, ne „Sam je večerao pizzu“.
03:01
A transitive verb mandates
53
156000
2000
Prelazni glagol
03:03
that there has to be an object there:
54
158000
2000
zahtijeva objekt:
03:05
"Sam devoured the pizza." You can't just say, "Sam devoured."
55
160000
3000
„Sam je uživao u pizzi“. Ne možete reći samo „Sam je uživao“.
03:08
There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type,
56
163000
4000
Postoji mnoštvo ovakvih glagola
03:12
each of which shapes its sentence.
57
167000
2000
od kojih svaki oblikuje svoju rečenicu.
03:14
So, a problem in explaining how children learn language,
58
169000
4000
Problem objašnjavanja načina na koji djeca uče jezik,
03:18
a problem in teaching language to adults so that they don't make grammatical errors,
59
173000
5000
učenja odraslih da ne rade gramatičke greške
03:23
and a problem in programming computers to use language is
60
178000
3000
i problem programiranja računala kako koristiti jezik
03:26
which verbs go in which constructions.
61
181000
2000
temelji se na glagolima i njihovim konstrukcijama.
03:29
For example, the dative construction in English.
62
184000
2000
Primjerice, dativna konstrukcija u engleskom --
03:31
You can say, "Give a muffin to a mouse," the prepositional dative.
63
186000
3000
možete reći „Dajte mafin mišu“, dativom s prijedlogom,
03:34
Or, "Give a mouse a muffin," the double-object dative.
64
189000
3000
ili „Dajte mišu mafin“, dativom s dvostrukim objektom,
03:37
"Promise anything to her," "Promise her anything," and so on.
65
192000
4000
„Obećaj bilo što njoj“ i „Obećaj joj bilošto“, itd.
03:41
Hundreds of verbs can go both ways.
66
196000
2000
Postoje stotine glagola koji se mogu koristiti na oba načina.
03:43
So a tempting generalization for a child,
67
198000
2000
Primamljiva generalizacija djetetu,
03:45
for an adult, for a computer
68
200000
2000
odrasloj osobi ili računalu
03:47
is that any verb that can appear in the construction,
69
202000
2000
je da se svaki glagol koji se pojavi u konstrukciji
03:49
"subject-verb-thing-to-a-recipient"
70
204000
3000
„subjekt-glagol-stvar-primatelju“
03:52
can also be expressed as "subject-verb-recipient-thing."
71
207000
3000
može izraziti konstukcijom „subjekt-glagol-primatelj-stvar“.
03:55
A handy thing to have,
72
210000
2000
Zgodno je imati tako nešto
03:57
because language is infinite,
73
212000
2000
jer je jezik beskonačan,
03:59
and you can't just parrot back the sentences that you've heard.
74
214000
3000
a mi ne možemo mehanički ponavljati rečenice koje samo upravo čuli.
04:02
You've got to extract generalizations
75
217000
2000
Moramo generalizirati
04:04
so you can produce and understand new sentences.
76
219000
3000
kako bismo poizveli i razumijeli nove rečenice.
04:07
This would be an example of how to do that.
77
222000
2000
Ovo je bio primjer toga.
04:09
Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions.
78
224000
3000
Nažalost, postoje idiosinkratične iznimke.
04:12
You can say, "Biff drove the car to Chicago,"
79
227000
3000
Možemo reći „Biff je vozio autom u Chicago“,
04:15
but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car."
80
230000
3000
ali ne i „Biff je vozio Chicago autom“.
04:18
You can say, "Sal gave Jason a headache,"
81
233000
3000
Možemo reći „Sal je zadao Jasonu glavobolju“,
04:21
but it's a bit odd to say, "Sal gave a headache to Jason."
82
236000
2000
ali je malo čudno kada kažemo „Sal je dao glavobolju Jasonu“.
04:24
The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance,
83
239000
3000
Odgovor leži u činjenici da ove konstrukcije,
04:27
are not synonymous,
84
242000
2000
iako slične na prvi pogled, nisu istoznačne.
04:29
that when you crank up the microscope
85
244000
2000
Kada pomnije pogledamo
04:31
on human cognition, you see that there's a subtle difference
86
246000
2000
ljudsko spoznavanje, vidjet ćemo da postoji suptilna razlika
04:33
in meaning between them.
87
248000
2000
u značenju tih konstrukcija.
04:35
So, "give the X to the Y,"
88
250000
2000
Dakle, konstrukcija „Dajte X Y-u“--
04:37
that construction corresponds to the thought
89
252000
3000
odgovara misli „Uzrokujte da X ide Y-u“.
04:40
"cause X to go to Y." Whereas "give the Y the X"
90
255000
3000
Dok konstrukcija „Dajte Y X-u“
04:43
corresponds to the thought "cause Y to have X."
91
258000
4000
odgovara misli „uzrokujte da Y sadrži X“.
04:47
Now, many events can be subject to either construal,
92
262000
4000
Mnogi se događaji mogu interpretirati na oba načina,
04:51
kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions,
93
266000
3000
poput klasične promijenjive iluzije pozadine-lika,
04:54
in which you can either pay attention
94
269000
3000
prema kojoj pažnju možemo usmjeriti
04:57
to the particular object,
95
272000
2000
na određeni objekt
04:59
in which case the space around it recedes from attention,
96
274000
4000
i u tom je slučaju prostor oko objekta povučen iz prvog plana,
05:03
or you can see the faces in the empty space,
97
278000
2000
ili možemo vidjeti lica u praznom prostoru
05:05
in which case the object recedes out of consciousness.
98
280000
4000
te je u tom slučaju objekt povučen iz naše svijesti.
05:09
How are these construals reflected in language?
99
284000
2000
Kako se ovakve predodžbe očituju u jeziku?
05:11
Well, in both cases, the thing that is construed as being affected
100
286000
4000
U oba slučaja, ono što percipiramo kao stvar na koju utječemo
05:15
is expressed as the direct object,
101
290000
2000
izražavamo izravnim objektom:
05:17
the noun after the verb.
102
292000
2000
imenicom nakon glagola.
05:19
So, when you think of the event as causing the muffin to go somewhere --
103
294000
4000
Kada percipiramo događaj kojim utječemo na „mafin“ --
05:23
where you're doing something to the muffin --
104
298000
2000
kada radimo nešto mafinu --
05:25
you say, "Give the muffin to the mouse."
105
300000
2000
kažemo „Daj mafin mišu“.
05:27
When you construe it as "cause the mouse to have something,"
106
302000
3000
Kada događaj percipiramo kao „uzrokujte da miš ima nešto“,
05:30
you're doing something to the mouse,
107
305000
2000
tada utječemo na miša,
05:32
and therefore you express it as, "Give the mouse the muffin."
108
307000
3000
te stoga koristimo „Dajte mišu mafin“.
05:35
So which verbs go in which construction --
109
310000
2000
Koji glagoli idu s kojim konstrukcijama --
05:37
the problem with which I began --
110
312000
2000
problem s kojim sam započeo izlaganje --
05:39
depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion
111
314000
4000
ovisi o tome da li glagol određuje promjenu kretanja
05:43
or a kind of possession change.
112
318000
2000
ili promjenu posjedovanja.
05:45
To give something involves both causing something to go
113
320000
3000
Dati nešto podrazumijeva promjenu mjesta nečega
05:48
and causing someone to have.
114
323000
2000
i promjenu posjedovanja nečega.
05:50
To drive the car only causes something to go,
115
325000
3000
Vožnja automobila uključuje samu promjenu mjesta
05:53
because Chicago's not the kind of thing that can possess something.
116
328000
2000
jer Chicago ne predstavlja vrstu stvari koja bi mogla nešto posjedovati.
05:55
Only humans can possess things.
117
330000
3000
Samo ljudi mogu posjedovati stvari.
05:58
And to give someone a headache causes them to have the headache,
118
333000
2000
Dati nekome glavobolju znači da taj netko ima glavobolju,
06:00
but it's not as if you're taking the headache out of your head
119
335000
3000
ali to ne možemo shvatiti kao uzimanje glavobolje iz naše glave
06:03
and causing it to go to the other person,
120
338000
2000
i njezino premještanje drugoj osobi,
06:05
and implanting it in them.
121
340000
2000
ubacivanjem iste u drugu glavu.
06:07
You may just be loud or obnoxious,
122
342000
2000
Možete biti glasni ili nepodnošljivi,
06:09
or some other way causing them to have the headache.
123
344000
2000
ili na neki drugi način uzrokovati nekom glavobolju.
06:11
So, that's
124
346000
4000
Ovo je primjer
06:15
an example of the kind of thing that I do in my day job.
125
350000
2000
onoga što ja svakodnevno radim.
06:17
So why should anyone care?
126
352000
2000
Zašto bi to nekog zanimalo?
06:19
Well, there are a number of interesting conclusions, I think,
127
354000
3000
Po mom mišljenu, postoji niz zanimljivih zaključaka
06:22
from this and many similar kinds of analyses
128
357000
4000
koji se mogu izvući iz ovakvih i sličnih analiza
06:26
of hundreds of English verbs.
129
361000
2000
velikog broja glagola engleskog jezika.
06:28
First, there's a level of fine-grained conceptual structure,
130
363000
3000
Prvo, tu je razina kompleksne konceptualne strukture,
06:31
which we automatically and unconsciously compute
131
366000
3000
koju automatski i nesvijesno koristimo
06:34
every time we produce or utter a sentence, that governs our use of language.
132
369000
4000
svaki put kada stvaramo ili izgovaramo rečenicu, a koja upravlja našim korištenjem jezika.
06:38
You can think of this as the language of thought, or "mentalese."
133
373000
4000
To možemo nazvati jezikom misli ili mentalnim jezikom.
06:42
It seems to be based on a fixed set of concepts,
134
377000
3000
Čini se da se on temelji na određenom nizu koncepata
06:45
which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs --
135
380000
3000
koji upravljaju desetcima konstrukcija i tisućama glagola --
06:48
not only in English, but in all other languages --
136
383000
3000
ne samo u engleskom jeziku, već i u svim drugim jezicima --
06:51
fundamental concepts such as space,
137
386000
2000
temeljnim konceptima poput vremena,
06:53
time, causation and human intention,
138
388000
3000
prostora, uzroka i ljudske namjere --
06:56
such as, what is the means and what is the ends?
139
391000
3000
kao što su sredstvo i cilj.
06:59
These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories
140
394000
2000
Ovo podsjeća na kategorije
07:01
that Immanuel Kant argued
141
396000
2000
za koje je Immanuel Kant tvrdio
07:03
are the basic framework for human thought,
142
398000
3000
da čine osnovu ljudske misli,
07:06
and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language
143
401000
3000
pa je zanimljivo kako naše nesvijesno korištenje jezika
07:09
seems to reflect these Kantian categories.
144
404000
3000
naizgled odražava ove Kantovske kategorije --
07:12
Doesn't care about perceptual qualities,
145
407000
2000
ne mari za percepcijske kvalitete,
07:14
such as color, texture, weight and speed,
146
409000
2000
poput boje, teksture, težine i brzine,
07:16
which virtually never differentiate
147
411000
2000
koje nikada ne rade razliku
07:18
the use of verbs in different constructions.
148
413000
2000
pri korištenju glagola u različitim konstrukcijama.
07:21
An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English
149
416000
3000
Dodatan zaplet čini to što se sve ove konstrukcije engleskog jezika
07:24
are used not only literally,
150
419000
2000
ne koriste samo u doslovnom,
07:26
but in a quasi-metaphorical way.
151
421000
3000
već i u polu-metaforičnom izričaju.
07:29
For example, this construction, the dative,
152
424000
2000
Primjerice, ova se konstrukcija s dativom
07:31
is used not only to transfer things,
153
426000
2000
ne koristi samo za prijenos stvari,
07:33
but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas,
154
428000
3000
već i za metaforično prenošenje ideja,
07:36
as when we say, "She told a story to me"
155
431000
2000
kao kada kažemo „Ona je ispričala priču meni“
07:38
or "told me a story,"
156
433000
2000
ili „ispričala mi priču“,
07:40
"Max taught Spanish to the students" or "taught the students Spanish."
157
435000
3000
„Max je podučavao španjolski studente“ ili „podučavao studente španjolski“.
07:43
It's exactly the same construction,
158
438000
2000
Potpuno je ista konstrukcija
07:45
but no muffins, no mice, nothing moving at all.
159
440000
4000
samo bez mafina i miševa. Ništa ne mijenja položaj.
07:49
It evokes the container metaphor of communication,
160
444000
3000
Ovo priziva metaforu "omeđenog prostora ili posude" u komunikaciji
07:52
in which we conceive of ideas as objects,
161
447000
2000
prema kojoj ideje zamišljamo kao predmete,
07:54
sentences as containers,
162
449000
2000
rečenice kao posude,
07:56
and communication as a kind of sending.
163
451000
2000
a komunikaciju kao vrstu slanja --
07:58
As when we say we "gather" our ideas, to "put" them "into" words,
164
453000
3000
kao kada kažemo da samo „skupili“ ideje kako bismo ih „pretočili“ u riječi,
08:01
and if our words aren't "empty" or "hollow,"
165
456000
2000
a ako naše riječi nisu „prazne“ ili „isprazne“,
08:03
we might get these ideas "across" to a listener,
166
458000
3000
možemo ih „prenijeti“ sugovorniku
08:06
who can "unpack" our words to "extract" their "content."
167
461000
3000
koji će naše riječi „raspakirati“ kako bi „izvukao“ njihov „sadržaj“.
08:09
And indeed, this kind of verbiage is not the exception, but the rule.
168
464000
3000
Ovakav način izražavanje nije iznimka, već pravilo.
08:12
It's very hard to find any example of abstract language
169
467000
3000
Teško je pronaći bilo kakav primjer apstraktnog jezika
08:15
that is not based on some concrete metaphor.
170
470000
3000
koji se ne temelji na konkretnoj metafori.
08:18
For example, you can use the verb "go"
171
473000
3000
Na primjer, možemo korisiti glagol „ići“
08:21
and the prepositions "to" and "from"
172
476000
2000
i prijedloge „prema“ i „od“
08:23
in a literal, spatial sense.
173
478000
2000
u doslovnom prostornom smislu:
08:25
"The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul."
174
480000
2000
„Glasnogovornik je išao iz Pariza u Istanbul“.
08:27
You can also say, "Biff went from sick to well."
175
482000
3000
Isto tako možemo reći „Biffu je išlo na bolje“.
08:30
He needn't go anywhere. He could have been in bed the whole time,
176
485000
3000
On nije nikamo morao ići. Mogao je biti cijelo vrijeme u krevetu,
08:33
but it's as if his health is a point in state space
177
488000
2000
ali čini se kao da je njegovo zdravlje točka u prostoru
08:35
that you conceptualize as moving.
178
490000
2000
koju doživljavamo kao nešto što se kreće.
08:37
Or, "The meeting went from three to four,"
179
492000
2000
Ili „Sastanak se održao od 3 do 4“ --
08:39
in which we conceive of time as stretched along a line.
180
494000
3000
u kojem vrijeme zamišljamo kao rastegnuto duž linije.
08:42
Likewise, we use "force" to indicate
181
497000
3000
Slično koristimo silu ne samo
08:45
not only physical force,
182
500000
2000
da bismo govorili o fizičkoj sili,
08:47
as in, "Rose forced the door to open,"
183
502000
2000
„Rose je prislila vrata da se otvore“,
08:49
but also interpersonal force,
184
504000
2000
već da bismo koristili interpersonalnu silu,
08:51
as in, "Rose forced Sadie to go," not necessarily by manhandling her,
185
506000
4000
„Rose je prislila Saide da ide“ -- što ne mora značiti da je koristila silu,
08:55
but by issuing a threat.
186
510000
2000
već joj je mogla priprijetiti --
08:57
Or, "Rose forced herself to go,"
187
512000
2000
ili „Rose je prislila sebe da ide“,
08:59
as if there were two entities inside Rose's head,
188
514000
2000
kao da postoje dva entiteta u njenoj glavi
09:02
engaged in a tug of a war.
189
517000
2000
koja međusobno ratuju.
09:04
Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive
190
519000
3000
Drugi je zaključak da sposobnost zamišljanja
09:07
of a given event in two different ways,
191
522000
3000
određenog događaja na dva različita načina,
09:10
such as "cause something to go to someone"
192
525000
2000
poput „uzrokovati nešto da ide k nekome“,
09:12
and "causing someone to have something,"
193
527000
2000
i „uzrokovati da netko ima nešto“,
09:14
I think is a fundamental feature of human thought,
194
529000
4000
predstavlja, po meni, fundamentalnu karakteristiku ljudske misli
09:18
and it's the basis for much human argumentation,
195
533000
3000
i osnovu za mnogobrojne ljudske rasprave
09:21
in which people don't differ so much on the facts
196
536000
3000
u kojima ne postoje razlike među činjenicama
09:24
as on how they ought to be construed.
197
539000
2000
već u načinu na koji ljudi te činjenice interpretiraju.
09:26
Just to give you a few examples:
198
541000
2000
Nekoliko primjera toga:
09:28
"ending a pregnancy" versus "killing a fetus;"
199
543000
2000
„okončati trudnoću“ naspram „ubojstvo fetusa“,
09:30
"a ball of cells" versus "an unborn child;"
200
545000
3000
„skupina stanica“ naspram „nerođeno dijete“,
09:33
"invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;"
201
548000
2000
„invazija Iraka“ naspram „oslobađanje Iraka“,
09:35
"redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings."
202
550000
4000
„redistribucija bogatstva“ naspram „zapljenjivanje zarađenog“.
09:39
And I think the biggest picture of all
203
554000
2000
Kako bismo dobili široku sliku trebali bismo
09:41
would take seriously the fact
204
556000
3000
ozbiljno shvatiti činjenicu
09:44
that so much of our verbiage about abstract events
205
559000
3000
kako se veći dio našeg izražavanja apstraktnih događaja
09:47
is based on a concrete metaphor
206
562000
2000
temelji na konkretnim metaforama.
09:49
and see human intelligence itself
207
564000
2000
Ljudska bi se inteligencija tada
09:51
as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --
208
566000
3000
sastojala od niza koncepata --
09:54
such as objects, space, time, causation and intention --
209
569000
3000
poput predmeta, prostora, vremena, uzroka i namjera --
09:57
which are useful in a social, knowledge-intensive species,
210
572000
4000
koji su korisni za društvenu vrstu s naglašenom komponentom znanja
10:01
whose evolution you can well imagine,
211
576000
2000
i čija je evolucija dobro poznata,
10:03
and a process of metaphorical abstraction
212
578000
3000
i procesa metaforičke apstrakcije
10:06
that allows us to bleach these concepts
213
581000
2000
koji nam omogućava da iz njih ispraznimo
10:08
of their original conceptual content --
214
583000
3000
izvorni konceptualni sadržaj --
10:11
space, time and force --
215
586000
3000
prostor, vrijeme i silu --
10:14
and apply them to new abstract domains,
216
589000
2000
kako bismo ih primijenili na nove apstraktne domene,
10:16
therefore allowing a species that evolved
217
591000
3000
omogućavajući na taj način vrsti koja je evoluirala
10:19
to deal with rocks and tools and animals,
218
594000
2000
kako bi koristila kamen, oruđe i životinje,
10:21
to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law
219
596000
3000
konceptualiziranje matematike, fizike, zakone
10:24
and other abstract domains.
220
599000
3000
i druge apstraktne domene.
10:27
Well, I said I'd talk about two windows on human nature --
221
602000
3000
Rekao sam da ću govoriti o dva pogleda na ljudsku prirodu:
10:30
the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world,
222
605000
3000
kognitivnom mehanizmu kojim konceptualiziramo svijet,
10:33
and now I'm going to say a few words about the relationship types
223
608000
2000
a sada ću reći nekoliko riječi o vrstama odnosa
10:35
that govern human social interaction,
224
610000
2000
koji upravljaju ljudskom društvenom interakcijom
10:37
again, as reflected in language.
225
612000
2000
i to onako kako se odražava u jeziku.
10:40
And I'll start out with a puzzle, the puzzle of indirect speech acts.
226
615000
4000
Započet ću zagonetkom: zagonetkom indirektnih govornih činova.
10:44
Now, I'm sure most of you have seen the movie "Fargo."
227
619000
2000
Siguran sam da je većina vas gledala film „Fargo“.
10:46
And you might remember the scene in which
228
621000
2000
Možda se sjećate scene u kojoj
10:48
the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer,
229
623000
3000
je policajac zaustavio otimičara
10:51
is asked to show his driver's license
230
626000
2000
i tražio od njega vozačku
10:53
and holds his wallet out
231
628000
2000
na što otmičar pruža policajcu novčanik
10:55
with a 50-dollar bill extending
232
630000
3000
iz kojeg viri
10:58
at a slight angle out of the wallet.
233
633000
2000
novčanica od 50 dolara.
11:00
And he says, "I was just thinking
234
635000
2000
Otmičar kaže, „Mislio sam
11:02
that maybe we could take care of it here in Fargo,"
235
637000
2000
da bismo ovo mogli riješiti ovdje u Fargu“ --
11:04
which everyone, including the audience,
236
639000
3000
svi smo to, uključujući i gledatelje,
11:07
interprets as a veiled bribe.
237
642000
3000
protumačili kao prikriven oblik podmićivanja.
11:10
This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language.
238
645000
4000
Ovakav je oblik indirektnog govora vrlo raširen u jeziku.
11:14
For example, in polite requests,
239
649000
2000
Na primjer, u ljubaznim zahtjevima,
11:16
if someone says, "If you could pass the guacamole,
240
651000
2000
kada netko kaže „Ako biste mi mogli dodati guacamole umak,
11:18
that would be awesome,"
241
653000
2000
to bi bilo odlično“,
11:20
we know exactly what he means,
242
655000
2000
točno znamo što time misli,
11:22
even though that's a rather bizarre
243
657000
2000
iako je izrečeno
11:24
concept being expressed.
244
659000
2000
na pomalo čudan način.
11:26
(Laughter)
245
661000
3000
(Smijeh)
11:29
"Would you like to come up and see my etchings?"
246
664000
2000
„Biste li došli k meni i pogledali moj bakropis?“
11:31
I think most people
247
666000
2000
mislim da većina
11:33
understand the intent behind that.
248
668000
3000
razumije namjeru iza ove rečenice.
11:36
And likewise, if someone says,
249
671000
2000
Isto tako, ako netko kaže,
11:38
"Nice store you've got there. It would be a real shame if something happened to it" --
250
673000
3000
„Zgodna ti je trgovina. Bila bi prava šteta da joj se nešto dogodi“ --
11:41
(Laughter) --
251
676000
1000
(Smijeh)
11:42
we understand that as a veiled threat,
252
677000
2000
shvaćamo ovo kao prikrivenu prijetnju,
11:44
rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities.
253
679000
3000
a ne kao razmišljanje o hipotetskim mogućnostima.
11:47
So the puzzle is, why are bribes,
254
682000
3000
Zagonetka je u sljedećem: zašto su podmićivanja,
11:50
polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled?
255
685000
3000
molbe, zahtjevi i prijetnje tako često prikrivene?
11:53
No one's fooled.
256
688000
2000
Nitko nije zavaran --
11:55
Both parties know exactly what the speaker means,
257
690000
3000
obje strane točno znaju što govornik misli,
11:58
and the speaker knows the listener knows
258
693000
2000
a govornik zna da sugovornik zna
12:00
that the speaker knows that the listener knows, etc., etc.
259
695000
3000
da govornik zna da sugovornik zna itd., itd.
12:03
So what's going on?
260
698000
2000
Što se onda događa?
12:05
I think the key idea is that language
261
700000
2000
Mislim da je ključna ideja kako je jezik
12:07
is a way of negotiating relationships,
262
702000
2000
zapravo način uspostavljanja odnosa
12:09
and human relationships fall into a number of types.
263
704000
3000
a ljudski se odnosi dijele na nekoliko vrsta.
12:12
There's an influential taxonomy by the anthropologist Alan Fiske,
264
707000
4000
Vrlo utjecajnu klasifikaciju napravio je antropolog Alan Fiske,
12:16
in which relationships can be categorized, more or less,
265
711000
3000
prema kojoj se ljudski odnosi mogu, više manje, kategorizirati
12:19
into communality, which works on the principle
266
714000
2000
na odnose zajedništva koji se temelje na načelu
12:21
"what's mine is thine, what's thine is mine,"
267
716000
3000
„Ono što je moje je i tvoje, a ono što je tvoje je i moje“ --
12:24
the kind of mindset that operates within a family, for example;
268
719000
4000
načelo koje funkcionira unutar obitelji --
12:28
dominance, whose principle is "don't mess with me;"
269
723000
3000
dominantnosti koja se temelji na načelu „Nemoj se zezat sa mnom“,
12:31
reciprocity, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours;"
270
726000
4000
uzajamnosti: „Ruka ruku mije“,
12:35
and sexuality, in the immortal words of Cole Porter, "Let's do it."
271
730000
5000
i seksualnosti, riječima besmrtnog Colea Portera, „Učinimo to“.
12:40
Now, relationship types can be negotiated.
272
735000
3000
Odnosi se mogu pregovarati.
12:43
Even though there are default situations
273
738000
3000
Iako postoje zadane situacije
12:46
in which one of these mindsets can be applied,
274
741000
2000
u kojima možemo primijeniti jedno od ovih načela,
12:48
they can be stretched and extended.
275
743000
3000
ona mogu razvući svoje granice i proširiti se.
12:51
For example, communality applies most naturally
276
746000
3000
Primjerice, zajedništvo se sasvim normalno koristi
12:54
within family or friends,
277
749000
2000
unutar obitelji i među prijateljima,
12:56
but it can be used to try to transfer
278
751000
2000
ali može se iskoristiti
12:58
the mentality of sharing
279
753000
2000
prijenos ideje zajedništva
13:00
to groups that ordinarily would not be disposed to exercise it.
280
755000
4000
na neke grupe u kojima se tipično ne bi javio --
13:04
For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations,
281
759000
4000
primjerice unutar bratstva, studentskih udruženja,
13:08
sororities, locutions like "the family of man,"
282
763000
3000
sestrinstva, izraza „zajednica ljudi“,
13:11
you try to get people who are not related
283
766000
2000
gdje se među ljudima, koji nisu u rodu
13:13
to use the relationship type that would ordinarily
284
768000
4000
potiče vrsta odnosa
13:17
be appropriate to close kin.
285
772000
2000
svojstvena bliskoj obitelji.
13:19
Now, mismatches -- when one person assumes one relationship type,
286
774000
3000
Ali nepodudaranja -- kada jedna osoba prisvoji jednu vrstu odnosa,
13:22
and another assumes a different one -- can be awkward.
287
777000
3000
a druga drugu vrstu -- mogu dovesti do neugodnosti.
13:25
If you went over and you helped yourself
288
780000
2000
Kada biste se došetali do svog šefa
13:27
to a shrimp off your boss' plate,
289
782000
2000
i ponudili škampima s njegova tanjura
13:29
for example, that would be an awkward situation.
290
784000
2000
to bi bila vrlo nezgodna situacija.
13:31
Or if a dinner guest after the meal
291
786000
2000
Ili ako bi vaš gost nakon večere
13:33
pulled out his wallet and offered to pay you for the meal,
292
788000
3000
izvadio novčanik i ponudio platiti obrok,
13:36
that would be rather awkward as well.
293
791000
2000
to bi također predstavljalo nezgodnu situaciju.
13:38
In less blatant cases,
294
793000
3000
U manje očitim situacijama,
13:41
there's still a kind of negotiation that often goes on.
295
796000
3000
postoji vrsta pregovora koja se neprestano događa.
13:44
In the workplace, for example,
296
799000
2000
Na radnom mjestu, na primjer,
13:46
there's often a tension over whether an employee
297
801000
2000
postoje napetosti oko toga
13:48
can socialize with the boss,
298
803000
2000
smije li se radnik družiti sa šefom
13:50
or refer to him or her
299
805000
2000
ili se obratiti njemu ili njoj
13:52
on a first-name basis.
300
807000
2000
krsnim imenom.
13:54
If two friends have a
301
809000
2000
Dobro je poznato
13:56
reciprocal transaction, like selling a car,
302
811000
2000
da uzajamna transakcija između dva prijatelja,
13:58
it's well known that this can be a source
303
813000
2000
poput prodaje automobila, može postati
14:00
of tension or awkwardness.
304
815000
2000
izvor napetosti i nelagode među njima.
14:02
In dating, the transition
305
817000
2000
Kod hodanja, prijelaz iz
14:04
from friendship to sex
306
819000
2000
prijateljskog odnosa u seksualni odnos
14:06
can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness,
307
821000
3000
može dovesti, kao što je poznato, do raznih oblika neugode,
14:09
and as can sex in the workplace,
308
824000
2000
kao i seks na radnom mjestu
14:11
in which we call the conflict between a
309
826000
2000
u kojem sukob između
14:13
dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment."
310
828000
4000
dominacije i seksualnog odnosa nazivamo „seksualno uznemiravanje“.
14:17
Well, what does this have to do with language?
311
832000
2000
Kakve ovo ima veze s jezikom?
14:19
Well, language, as a social interaction,
312
834000
2000
Jezik kao oblik društvene interakcije
14:21
has to satisfy two conditions.
313
836000
2000
mora zadovoljiti dva uvjeta.
14:23
You have to convey the actual content --
314
838000
3000
Morate prenijeti točan sadržaj --
14:26
here we get back to the container metaphor.
315
841000
2000
ovdje se ponovno vraćamo na metaforu posude.
14:28
You want to express the bribe, the command, the promise,
316
843000
3000
Želite izraziti podmićivanje, naredbu, obećanje,
14:31
the solicitation and so on,
317
846000
2000
molbu itd. --
14:33
but you also have to negotiate
318
848000
2000
ali istovremeno morate pregovarati
14:35
and maintain the kind of relationship
319
850000
2000
i održavati onakvu vrstu odnosa
14:37
you have with the other person.
320
852000
2000
kakvu imate s drugom osobom.
14:39
The solution, I think, is that we use language at two levels:
321
854000
3000
Mislim da je rješenje u činjenici kako jezik koristimo na dvije razine:
14:42
the literal form signals
322
857000
2000
doslovan oblik označava
14:44
the safest relationship with the listener,
323
859000
2000
najsigurniji odnos sa sugovornikom,
14:46
whereas the implicated content --
324
861000
2000
dok implicirani sadržaj --
14:49
the reading between the lines that we count on the listener to perform --
325
864000
2000
čitanje između redova na koje računamo od svog sugovornika --
14:52
allows the listener to derive the interpretation
326
867000
2000
omogućuje sugovorniku da izvede interpretaciju
14:54
which is most relevant in context,
327
869000
2000
koja je najznačajnija u tom kontekstu,
14:56
which possibly initiates a changed relationship.
328
871000
3000
a koje potencira promjenu odnosa.
14:59
The simplest example of this is in the polite request.
329
874000
4000
Najjednostavniji primjer ovoga je zamolba.
15:03
If you express your request as a conditional --
330
878000
3000
Ako svoju molbu izrazite kondicionalom:
15:06
"if you could open the window, that would be great" --
331
881000
3000
„Ako bi mogao otvoriti prozor, bilo bi to sjajno“,
15:09
even though the content is an imperative,
332
884000
2000
iako je sadržaj zapovjedni,
15:11
the fact that you're not using the imperative voice
333
886000
2000
činjenica da ne koristimo zapovjedni način
15:14
means that you're not acting as if you're in a relationship of dominance,
334
889000
3000
znači da se ne ponašamo kao da smo u dominantnom odnosu,
15:18
where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person.
335
893000
3000
u kojem bi se poslušnost sugovornika mogla pretpostaviti.
15:21
On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole.
336
896000
2000
S druge strane želite prokleti guacamole umak.
15:23
By expressing it as an if-then statement,
337
898000
3000
Izražavajući to kao „ako-onda“ tvrdnju,
15:26
you can get the message across
338
901000
2000
možete prenijeti poruku
15:28
without appearing to boss another person around.
339
903000
4000
bez da izgleda kao da nekome naređujete.
15:32
And in a more subtle way, I think, this works
340
907000
2000
Na nešto suptilniji način, mislim da ovo vrijedi
15:34
for all of the veiled speech acts
341
909000
2000
za sve prikrivene govorne činove
15:36
involving plausible deniability:
342
911000
2000
koji uključuju uvjerljivo poricanje:
15:38
the bribes, threats, propositions,
343
913000
2000
potkupljivanje, prijetnje, prijedloge,
15:40
solicitations and so on.
344
915000
2000
molbe, itd.
15:42
One way of thinking about it is to imagine what it would be like
345
917000
2000
Jedan od načina razmatranja ovoga jest da pokušamo zamisliti
15:44
if language -- where it could only be used literally.
346
919000
3000
situaciju u kojoj bi se jezik koristio u doslovnom smislu.
15:47
And you can think of it in terms of a
347
922000
2000
Možete to zamisliti u kontekstu
15:49
game-theoretic payoff matrix.
348
924000
3000
scene isplate u teoriji igara.
15:52
Put yourself in the position of the
349
927000
2000
Stavite se u položaj
15:54
kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer.
350
929000
3000
otmičara koji želi potkupiti policajca.
15:57
There's a high stakes
351
932000
2000
Ulog je velik
15:59
in the two possibilities
352
934000
3000
s obzirom na dvije mogućnosti --
16:02
of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer.
353
937000
3000
da će policajac biti nepošten ili da će biti pošten.
16:05
If you don't bribe the officer,
354
940000
3000
Ukoliko ne podmitite policajca
16:08
then you will get a traffic ticket --
355
943000
2000
dobit ćete kaznu --
16:10
or, as is the case of "Fargo," worse --
356
945000
2000
ili u slučaju „Farga“ i gore --
16:12
whether the honest officer
357
947000
2000
bez obzira na to je li policajac
16:14
is honest or dishonest.
358
949000
2000
pošten ili nepošten:
16:16
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
359
951000
2000
tko ne riskira ne profitira.
16:18
In that case, the consequences are rather severe.
360
953000
3000
U tom su slučaju posljedice prilično ozbiljne.
16:21
On the other hand, if you extend the bribe,
361
956000
2000
S druge strane, ako ponudite mito,
16:23
if the officer is dishonest,
362
958000
2000
a policajac je nepošten,
16:25
you get a huge payoff of going free.
363
960000
3000
dobit ćete ogromnu dobit jer nećete biti kažnjeni.
16:28
If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty
364
963000
3000
Ukoliko je policajac pošten, dobit ćete golemu kaznu
16:31
of being arrested for bribery.
365
966000
2000
jer će vas uhititi za davanje mita.
16:33
So this is a rather fraught situation.
366
968000
2000
Dakle, to je jedna vrlo nezgodna situacija.
16:35
On the other hand, with indirect language,
367
970000
2000
S druge strane, s neizravnim govornim činom,
16:37
if you issue a veiled bribe,
368
972000
2000
ako ponudite prikriveno mito,
16:39
then the dishonest officer
369
974000
2000
nepošten će policajac
16:41
could interpret it as a bribe,
370
976000
2000
to shvatiti kao mito
16:43
in which case you get the payoff of going free.
371
978000
3000
i u tom ste slučaju na dobiti jer ćete biti pušteni,
16:46
The honest officer can't hold you to it as being a bribe,
372
981000
3000
dok vas pošten policajac ne može optužiti za podmićivanje
16:49
and therefore, you get the nuisance of the traffic ticket.
373
984000
3000
te ćete samo dobiti glupu prometnu kaznu.
16:52
So you get the best of both worlds.
374
987000
3000
Na ovaj ste način u najboljem mogućem položaju.
16:55
And a similar analysis, I think,
375
990000
2000
Slična se analiza, smatram,
16:57
can apply to the potential awkwardness
376
992000
2000
može primijeniti na moguću neugodnost
16:59
of a sexual solicitation,
377
994000
2000
seksualne ponude
17:01
and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset.
378
996000
3000
i druge slučajeve u kojima je uvjerljivo poricanje prednost.
17:04
I think this affirms
379
999000
2000
Mislim da ovo potvrđuje
17:06
something that's long been known by diplomats --
380
1001000
2000
ono što diplomati odavno znaju --
17:08
namely, that the vagueness of language,
381
1003000
2000
jezična neodređenost
17:10
far from being a bug or an imperfection,
382
1005000
3000
nije manjkavost jezika,
17:13
actually might be a feature of language,
383
1008000
3000
zapravo je njegova značajka --
17:16
one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.
384
1011000
3000
koju možemo iskoristiti u svoju korist prilikom društvenih interakcija.
17:19
So to sum up: language is a collective human creation,
385
1014000
3000
Da sažmem: jezik je kolektivna ljudska tvorevina
17:22
reflecting human nature,
386
1017000
2000
u kojoj se ocrtava ljudska priroda --
17:24
how we conceptualize reality,
387
1019000
2000
način na koji konceptualiziramo stvarnost,
17:26
how we relate to one another.
388
1021000
2000
kako se odnosimo jedni prema drugima --
17:28
And then by analyzing the various quirks and complexities of language,
389
1023000
4000
analizirajući razne jezične osebujnosti i složenosti,
17:32
I think we can get a window onto what makes us tick.
390
1027000
3000
smatram da možemo dobiti uvid u ono što nas pokreće.
17:35
Thank you very much.
391
1030000
1000
Hvala vam najljepša.
17:36
(Applause)
392
1031000
1000
(Pljesak)
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Steven Pinker - PsychologistSteven Pinker is a professor of cognitive science (the study of the human mind) who writes about language, mind and human nature.
Why you should listen
Steven Pinker grew up in the English-speaking community of Montreal but has spent his adult life bouncing back and forth between Harvard and MIT. He is interested in all aspects of human nature: how we see, hear, think, speak, remember, feel and interact.
To be specific: he developed the first comprehensive theory of language acquisition in children, used verb meaning as a window into cognition, probed the limits of neural networks and showed how the interaction between memory and computation shapes language. He has used evolution to illuminate innuendo, emotional expression and social coordination. He has documented historical declines in violence and explained them in terms of the ways that the violent and peaceable components of human nature interact in different eras. He has written books on the language instinct, how the mind works, the stuff of thought and the doctrine of the blank slate, together with a guide to stylish writing that is rooted in psychology.
In his latest book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, he writes about progress -- why people are healthier, richer, safer, happier and better educated than ever. His other books include The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, The Stuff of Thought, and The Better Angels of Our Nature.
Steven Pinker | Speaker | TED.com