TEDGlobal 2005
Steven Pinker: What our language habits reveal
Steven Pinker 談語言與思想
Filmed:
Readability: 5.2
2,457,061 views
Steven Pinker 獨家帶我們一窺他的著作 "The Stuff of Thought"，探討語言、語言如何表達我們的思想--以及我們所使用的話語傳達的意含如何超乎我們的想像。
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
這是莫理斯圖翁
00:28
the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise,
1
3000
4000
他是法蘭西學院的
00:32
the French Academy.
2
7000
2000
榮譽終身院士
00:34
He is splendidly attired in his 68,000-dollar uniform,
3
9000
5000
他身穿價值六萬八千美元的華麗院士服
00:39
befitting the role of the French Academy
4
14000
3000
與他在法蘭西學院的職責十分相稱
00:42
as legislating the
5
17000
3000
他的工作是負責規範
00:45
correct usage in French
6
20000
2000
法文的正確用法
00:47
and perpetuating the language.
7
22000
2000
並確保法文永垂不朽
00:49
The French Academy has two main tasks:
8
24000
3000
法蘭西學術院肩負兩項使命：
00:52
it compiles a dictionary of official French.
9
27000
3000
編纂官方版的法文字典--
00:55
They're now working on their ninth edition,
10
30000
3000
現在正在編第九版
00:58
which they began in 1930, and they've reached the letter P.
11
33000
3000
他們從1930年就開始了，現在編到字母P
01:02
They also legislate on correct usage,
12
37000
3000
這些人也規範語言的正確用法
01:05
such as the proper term for what the French call "email,"
13
40000
4000
例如，"email"的準確叫法
01:09
which ought to be "courriel."
14
44000
2000
應該是"courriel"
01:11
The World Wide Web, the French are told,
15
46000
2000
而網際網路 "World Wide Web"
01:13
ought to be referred to as
16
48000
2000
應該要稱為
01:15
"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- the Global Spider Web --
17
50000
4000
"la toile d'araignee mondiale"--全球蜘蛛網
01:19
recommendations that the French gaily ignore.
18
54000
4000
種種法國人興高采烈地忽略的建議
01:24
Now, this is one model of how language comes to be:
19
59000
4000
好，這是語言演化的模式之一
01:28
namely, it's legislated by an academy.
20
63000
3000
也就是由學術研究院規範語言
01:31
But anyone who looks at language realizes
21
66000
3000
但研究語言的人都會知道
01:34
that this is a rather silly conceit,
22
69000
4000
這是個有點愚蠢的妄想
01:38
that language, rather, emerges from human minds interacting from one another.
23
73000
3000
我們都知道，語言源自於人與人之間的互動
01:41
And this is visible in the unstoppable change in language --
24
76000
4000
我們看到，語言不斷在改變
01:45
the fact that by the time the Academy finishes their dictionary,
25
80000
3000
等到法蘭西學院編完他們的字典
01:48
it will already be well out of date.
26
83000
2000
這本字典早就過時了
01:50
We see it in the
27
85000
2000
我們也看到
01:52
constant appearance of slang and jargon,
28
87000
4000
新的俚語和行話不斷出現
01:56
of the historical change in languages,
29
91000
2000
語言歷經歷史演變
01:58
in divergence of dialects
30
93000
2000
方言產生分歧
02:00
and the formation of new languages.
31
95000
3000
新的語言形成
02:03
So language is not so much a creator or shaper of human nature,
32
98000
3000
因此，不能說語言創造或塑造了人性
02:06
so much as a window onto human nature.
33
101000
3000
語言反倒是個窗口，讓我們得以一窺人性
02:09
In a book that I'm currently working on,
34
104000
3000
在我正在撰寫的這本書中
02:12
I hope to use language to shed light on
35
107000
3000
我希望藉由語言來闡述
02:15
a number of aspects of human nature,
36
110000
2000
人性的某些面向
02:17
including the cognitive machinery
37
112000
2000
包括認知機制
02:19
with which humans conceptualize the world
38
114000
3000
也就是人類理解世界的機制
02:22
and the relationship types that govern human interaction.
39
117000
3000
還有掌管人際互動的各種關係
02:25
And I'm going to say a few words about each one this morning.
40
120000
3000
今天早上，我會針對這幾項逐一簡述
02:28
Let me start off with a technical problem in language
41
123000
2000
首先，我要談談語言裡的一個技術性問題
02:30
that I've worried about for quite some time --
42
125000
2000
這個問題困擾我許久了
02:32
and indulge me
43
127000
4000
也請各位容我分享
02:36
in my passion for verbs and how they're used.
44
131000
3000
我對動詞和動詞用法的熱情
02:39
The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions?
45
134000
3000
這個問題就是，什麼動詞用在什麼句構裡？
02:42
The verb is the chassis of the sentence.
46
137000
3000
動詞是一個句子的基礎
02:45
It's the framework onto which the other parts are bolted.
47
140000
4000
讓其他詞類可以建構於其上
02:49
Let me give you a quick reminder
48
144000
2000
讓我很快地提醒各位
02:51
of something that you've long forgotten.
49
146000
2000
一件大家早就忘記的事
02:53
An intransitive verb, such as "dine," for example,
50
148000
3000
不及物動詞，像是用餐 (dine) 這個字
02:56
can't take a direct object.
51
151000
2000
後面不能接直接受詞
02:58
You have to say, "Sam dined," not, "Sam dined the pizza."
52
153000
3000
你要說 "山姆用餐了"，不能說 "山姆用餐披薩"
03:01
A transitive verb mandates
53
156000
2000
而及物動詞的規則是
03:03
that there has to be an object there:
54
158000
2000
後面一定要接受詞
03:05
"Sam devoured the pizza." You can't just say, "Sam devoured."
55
160000
3000
"山姆吞下了 (devour) 披薩"，不能說 "山姆吞下了"
03:08
There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type,
56
163000
4000
還有很多像這樣的動詞
03:12
each of which shapes its sentence.
57
167000
2000
每個動詞都塑造了句子的樣貌
03:14
So, a problem in explaining how children learn language,
58
169000
4000
所以，該如何解釋兒童習得語言的方法
03:18
a problem in teaching language to adults so that they don't make grammatical errors,
59
173000
5000
該如何教成人學語言，讓他們不會犯文法錯誤
03:23
and a problem in programming computers to use language is
60
178000
3000
該怎麼設計程式，讓電腦使用語言
03:26
which verbs go in which constructions.
61
181000
2000
問題都出在於：什麼動詞用在什麼句構裡？
03:29
For example, the dative construction in English.
62
184000
2000
以英文的授與句型為例
03:31
You can say, "Give a muffin to a mouse," the prepositional dative.
63
186000
3000
你可以用介詞授與： "把小蛋糕給老鼠"
03:34
Or, "Give a mouse a muffin," the double-object dative.
64
189000
3000
或使用雙受詞授與： "給老鼠小蛋糕"
03:37
"Promise anything to her," "Promise her anything," and so on.
65
192000
4000
"把任何承諾給她"、 "給她任何承諾" 等等
03:41
Hundreds of verbs can go both ways.
66
196000
2000
有上百個動詞在兩種句法裡都行得通
03:43
So a tempting generalization for a child,
67
198000
2000
於是小孩很容易以此類推
03:45
for an adult, for a computer
68
200000
2000
大人和電腦也是
03:47
is that any verb that can appear in the construction,
69
202000
2000
認為任何動詞只要能放在
03:49
"subject-verb-thing-to-a-recipient"
70
204000
3000
"主詞+動詞+事物+to 受格" 這種句構裡
03:52
can also be expressed as "subject-verb-recipient-thing."
71
207000
3000
就也能出現在: "主詞+動詞+受格+事物" 這種句子裡
03:55
A handy thing to have,
72
210000
2000
這樣的推斷很方便
03:57
because language is infinite,
73
212000
2000
因為語言無窮盡
03:59
and you can't just parrot back the sentences that you've heard.
74
214000
3000
你沒辦法重述所聽到的每句話
04:02
You've got to extract generalizations
75
217000
2000
所以你得歸納出一些規則
04:04
so you can produce and understand new sentences.
76
219000
3000
好讓你可以造出並理解新的句子
04:07
This would be an example of how to do that.
77
222000
2000
剛剛的用法就是一例
04:09
Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions.
78
224000
3000
不幸地，有許多不尋常的例外
04:12
You can say, "Biff drove the car to Chicago,"
79
227000
3000
你可以說"貝夫開車到芝加哥"
04:15
but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car."
80
230000
3000
但不能說"貝夫開芝加哥到車"
04:18
You can say, "Sal gave Jason a headache,"
81
233000
3000
你可以說"薩爾讓傑森很頭痛"
04:21
but it's a bit odd to say, "Sal gave a headache to Jason."
82
236000
2000
但說成"薩爾把頭痛給了傑森" 就有點奇怪了
04:24
The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance,
83
239000
3000
答案就是，這些句構雖然句面上相近
04:27
are not synonymous,
84
242000
2000
卻不盡相同
04:29
that when you crank up the microscope
85
244000
2000
如果你把顯微鏡倍數調高一點
04:31
on human cognition, you see that there's a subtle difference
86
246000
2000
用力觀察人類認知，就會發現這些句子
04:33
in meaning between them.
87
248000
2000
在意義上有些微的差距
04:35
So, "give the X to the Y,"
88
250000
2000
所以，"把X給Y"
04:37
that construction corresponds to the thought
89
252000
3000
這個句構反映了
04:40
"cause X to go to Y." Whereas "give the Y the X"
90
255000
3000
"使X移動到Y那兒去"，而 "給YX"
04:43
corresponds to the thought "cause Y to have X."
91
258000
4000
反映了 "讓Y有了X"
04:47
Now, many events can be subject to either construal,
92
262000
4000
好，很多事件都可以解讀為其中一種概念
04:51
kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions,
93
266000
3000
這有點像是圖與地的錯覺測驗
04:54
in which you can either pay attention
94
269000
3000
你可以將注意力放在
04:57
to the particular object,
95
272000
2000
某一樣物體上面
04:59
in which case the space around it recedes from attention,
96
274000
4000
這時候，你就會忽略旁邊的背景
05:03
or you can see the faces in the empty space,
97
278000
2000
你也可以只注意背景中的臉孔
05:05
in which case the object recedes out of consciousness.
98
280000
4000
這時候，畫面中的物體就會受到忽略
05:09
How are these construals reflected in language?
99
284000
2000
這樣的解構怎麼反映在語言上面呢？
05:11
Well, in both cases, the thing that is construed as being affected
100
286000
4000
嗯，在這兩種情況下，被認為受到影響的事物
05:15
is expressed as the direct object,
101
290000
2000
以直接受詞的形式出現
05:17
the noun after the verb.
102
292000
2000
也就是動詞後面的名詞
05:19
So, when you think of the event as causing the muffin to go somewhere --
103
294000
4000
所以如果你認為這個動作使得小蛋糕移動到某處去
05:23
where you're doing something to the muffin --
104
298000
2000
也就是你對小蛋糕做動作的地方--
05:25
you say, "Give the muffin to the mouse."
105
300000
2000
你會說 "把小蛋糕給老鼠"
05:27
When you construe it as "cause the mouse to have something,"
106
302000
3000
如果你解讀成 "使得老鼠獲得了某物"
05:30
you're doing something to the mouse,
107
305000
2000
你對老鼠做了動作
05:32
and therefore you express it as, "Give the mouse the muffin."
108
307000
3000
那麼，你就會說 "給老鼠小蛋糕"
05:35
So which verbs go in which construction --
109
310000
2000
所以，什麼動詞用在什麼句構裡--
05:37
the problem with which I began --
110
312000
2000
我開頭提到的這個問題
05:39
depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion
111
314000
4000
取決於該動詞是否點明了一種運動
05:43
or a kind of possession change.
112
318000
2000
還是代表著所有權的轉換
05:45
To give something involves both causing something to go
113
320000
3000
授與某物包括使得某物移動
05:48
and causing someone to have.
114
323000
2000
以及使得某人獲得某物
05:50
To drive the car only causes something to go,
115
325000
3000
開車只造成某物移動
05:53
because Chicago's not the kind of thing that can possess something.
116
328000
2000
因為芝加哥沒辦法擁有某物
05:55
Only humans can possess things.
117
330000
3000
只有人類可以擁有事物
05:58
And to give someone a headache causes them to have the headache,
118
333000
2000
而"讓某人頭痛"使得他們頭很痛
06:00
but it's not as if you're taking the headache out of your head
119
335000
3000
但你不能把你的頭痛從腦袋裡取出來
06:03
and causing it to go to the other person,
120
338000
2000
使它移動到別人那兒
06:05
and implanting it in them.
121
340000
2000
然後想辦法讓別人頭痛
06:07
You may just be loud or obnoxious,
122
342000
2000
你只能大聲喧鬧或討人厭
06:09
or some other way causing them to have the headache.
123
344000
2000
或用其他方法使別人頭痛
06:11
So, that's
124
346000
4000
所以這個例子
06:15
an example of the kind of thing that I do in my day job.
125
350000
2000
就說明了我每天在做的工作
06:17
So why should anyone care?
126
352000
2000
為什麼有人要在乎這種事？
06:19
Well, there are a number of interesting conclusions, I think,
127
354000
3000
嗯，我認為有很多有趣的結論
06:22
from this and many similar kinds of analyses
128
357000
4000
可以從這種還有許多類似的分析中得出
06:26
of hundreds of English verbs.
129
361000
2000
從分析上百個英文動詞中得出
06:28
First, there's a level of fine-grained conceptual structure,
130
363000
3000
首先，有種非常微妙的認知結構
06:31
which we automatically and unconsciously compute
131
366000
3000
是我們自動或下意識地在運用的
06:34
every time we produce or utter a sentence, that governs our use of language.
132
369000
4000
影響我們造出或說出每個支配我們語言使用的句子
06:38
You can think of this as the language of thought, or "mentalese."
133
373000
4000
你可以把它想成思想的語言，或心理語言
06:42
It seems to be based on a fixed set of concepts,
134
377000
3000
它似乎建構於一種固有的概念之上
06:45
which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs --
135
380000
3000
這樣的概念支配了十幾種句構和上千個動詞的用法
06:48
not only in English, but in all other languages --
136
383000
3000
不只在英文裡，在其他語言裡也有這種
06:51
fundamental concepts such as space,
137
386000
2000
基本的概念，例如，空間
06:53
time, causation and human intention,
138
388000
3000
時間、因果關係和動機
06:56
such as, what is the means and what is the ends?
139
391000
3000
像是，哪個是手段，哪個是目的？
06:59
These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories
140
394000
2000
這與"範疇"有異曲同工之妙
07:01
that Immanuel Kant argued
141
396000
2000
康德認為這些範疇
07:03
are the basic framework for human thought,
142
398000
3000
組成了人類思想的基本架構
07:06
and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language
143
401000
3000
有趣的是，我們下意識中所使用的語言
07:09
seems to reflect these Kantian categories.
144
404000
3000
似乎反映了康德所提出的範疇
07:12
Doesn't care about perceptual qualities,
145
407000
2000
我們的語言不在乎感觀的特徵
07:14
such as color, texture, weight and speed,
146
409000
2000
像是顏色、質地、重量和速度
07:16
which virtually never differentiate
147
411000
2000
這些幾乎都不會影響
07:18
the use of verbs in different constructions.
148
413000
2000
不同句構中動詞的用法
07:21
An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English
149
416000
3000
此外，英文裡所有的句構
07:24
are used not only literally,
150
419000
2000
都不只具有字面的意義
07:26
but in a quasi-metaphorical way.
151
421000
3000
還帶有一些隱喻的意味
07:29
For example, this construction, the dative,
152
424000
2000
比如說，這個授與句型
07:31
is used not only to transfer things,
153
426000
2000
不只能用來轉讓事物
07:33
but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas,
154
428000
3000
還能用來移轉想法
07:36
as when we say, "She told a story to me"
155
431000
2000
像我們說: "她講故事給我聽"
07:38
or "told me a story,"
156
433000
2000
或 "她跟我講故事"
07:40
"Max taught Spanish to the students" or "taught the students Spanish."
157
435000
3000
"馬克斯教授西班牙文給學生"或"教學生西班牙文"
07:43
It's exactly the same construction,
158
438000
2000
這些都是相同的句構
07:45
but no muffins, no mice, nothing moving at all.
159
440000
4000
但句子裡沒有小蛋糕，也沒有老鼠。沒有東西移動
07:49
It evokes the container metaphor of communication,
160
444000
3000
這就引發了溝通裡的"容器隱喻"
07:52
in which we conceive of ideas as objects,
161
447000
2000
我們將想法視為物體
07:54
sentences as containers,
162
449000
2000
把句子當成容器
07:56
and communication as a kind of sending.
163
451000
2000
而溝通是一種傳送方式
07:58
As when we say we "gather" our ideas, to "put" them "into" words,
164
453000
3000
就像我們說，將想法"收集"起來，"放進"文字裡
08:01
and if our words aren't "empty" or "hollow,"
165
456000
2000
而如果我們的話語不至於"空洞"或"空泛"
08:03
we might get these ideas "across" to a listener,
166
458000
3000
我們就可以將想法"傳達"給聽者
08:06
who can "unpack" our words to "extract" their "content."
167
461000
3000
聽者可以"拆解"我們的話語，"擷取"其中的"內容"
08:09
And indeed, this kind of verbiage is not the exception, but the rule.
168
464000
3000
這些用語不是例外，而是規則
08:12
It's very hard to find any example of abstract language
169
467000
3000
很難從抽象的語言中找到任何
08:15
that is not based on some concrete metaphor.
170
470000
3000
不是建立於具體的譬喻之上的例子
08:18
For example, you can use the verb "go"
171
473000
3000
舉例而言，你可以用"去" (go) 這個動詞
08:21
and the prepositions "to" and "from"
172
476000
2000
搭配介系詞"到"(to) 和"從" (from)
08:23
in a literal, spatial sense.
173
478000
2000
表達空間概念
08:25
"The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul."
174
480000
2000
"信差從巴黎去到伊斯坦堡"
08:27
You can also say, "Biff went from sick to well."
175
482000
3000
你也可以說 "貝夫從生病到康復"
08:30
He needn't go anywhere. He could have been in bed the whole time,
176
485000
3000
他不用去哪裡，他可能一直都躺在床上
08:33
but it's as if his health is a point in state space
177
488000
2000
但他的健康就像狀態空間裡的一個點
08:35
that you conceptualize as moving.
178
490000
2000
而你想像這個點會移動
08:37
Or, "The meeting went from three to four,"
179
492000
2000
或者， "會議從三點開到四點"
08:39
in which we conceive of time as stretched along a line.
180
494000
3000
我們想像時間綿延於一條線上
08:42
Likewise, we use "force" to indicate
181
497000
3000
同樣地，我們利用"force" (用力、強迫)
08:45
not only physical force,
182
500000
2000
指的不只是身體的力量
08:47
as in, "Rose forced the door to open,"
183
502000
2000
像是 "羅絲用力把門打開"
08:49
but also interpersonal force,
184
504000
2000
也可以指涉人際上的力量
08:51
as in, "Rose forced Sadie to go," not necessarily by manhandling her,
185
506000
4000
像是 "羅絲強迫珊蒂離開"--不一定要親自動手
08:55
but by issuing a threat.
186
510000
2000
可以利用威脅利誘
08:57
Or, "Rose forced herself to go,"
187
512000
2000
或是 "羅絲強迫自己離開"
08:59
as if there were two entities inside Rose's head,
188
514000
2000
彷彿羅絲腦袋裡有兩個個體
09:02
engaged in a tug of a war.
189
517000
2000
正在進行一場拔河戰
09:04
Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive
190
519000
3000
我得出的另一個結論是，解構的能力
09:07
of a given event in two different ways,
191
522000
3000
將一件事情解讀成兩種意義的能力
09:10
such as "cause something to go to someone"
192
525000
2000
像是 "使得某物移動到某人那兒去"
09:12
and "causing someone to have something,"
193
527000
2000
以及"使得某人擁有某物"
09:14
I think is a fundamental feature of human thought,
194
529000
4000
是人類思想最基本的特質
09:18
and it's the basis for much human argumentation,
195
533000
3000
也是人們許多爭論的來源
09:21
in which people don't differ so much on the facts
196
536000
3000
與其說大家對事實爭論不下
09:24
as on how they ought to be construed.
197
539000
2000
不如說他們對事實的解讀方法有不同見解
09:26
Just to give you a few examples:
198
541000
2000
給各位幾個例子：
09:28
"ending a pregnancy" versus "killing a fetus;"
199
543000
2000
"結束妊娠期" 和 "殺死胎兒"
09:30
"a ball of cells" versus "an unborn child;"
200
545000
3000
"一團細胞" 和 "未出世的孩子"
09:33
"invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;"
201
548000
2000
"入侵伊拉克" 和 "解放伊拉克"
09:35
"redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings."
202
550000
4000
"重新分配財富" 和 "沒收所得"
09:39
And I think the biggest picture of all
203
554000
2000
而我認為，若採取最宏觀的角度
09:41
would take seriously the fact
204
556000
3000
你會認真地看待一個事實
09:44
that so much of our verbiage about abstract events
205
559000
3000
那就是，我們描述抽象事件的用語
09:47
is based on a concrete metaphor
206
562000
2000
大多建立於具體的譬喻之上
09:49
and see human intelligence itself
207
564000
2000
你會將人類的智能本身視為
09:51
as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --
208
566000
3000
涵蓋了一系列的概念--
09:54
such as objects, space, time, causation and intention --
209
569000
3000
諸如目的、空間、時間、因果關係和意圖--
09:57
which are useful in a social, knowledge-intensive species,
210
572000
4000
對於需要大量社交和知識的物種非常有用
10:01
whose evolution you can well imagine,
211
576000
2000
這個物種的演化各位都很熟悉
10:03
and a process of metaphorical abstraction
212
578000
3000
而人類智能還包含抽象隱喻的過程
10:06
that allows us to bleach these concepts
213
581000
2000
讓我們抽離這些概念裡面
10:08
of their original conceptual content --
214
583000
3000
原有的內涵--
10:11
space, time and force --
215
586000
3000
空間、時間和力量--
10:14
and apply them to new abstract domains,
216
589000
2000
然後用在新的抽象領域上
10:16
therefore allowing a species that evolved
217
591000
3000
所以一個已經進化到
10:19
to deal with rocks and tools and animals,
218
594000
2000
學會使用石器、工具和禽獸的物種
10:21
to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law
219
596000
3000
也能了解數學、物理、法律
10:24
and other abstract domains.
220
599000
3000
和其他抽象的領域
10:27
Well, I said I'd talk about two windows on human nature --
221
602000
3000
嗯，我說我會講到人性的兩扇窗口：
10:30
the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world,
222
605000
3000
剛剛提到我們解構這個世界的認知機制
10:33
and now I'm going to say a few words about the relationship types
223
608000
2000
現在我要講的是不同類型的人際關係
10:35
that govern human social interaction,
224
610000
2000
它們掌控了人類的社交互動
10:37
again, as reflected in language.
225
612000
2000
以及這些關係如何反映在語言上面
10:40
And I'll start out with a puzzle, the puzzle of indirect speech acts.
226
615000
4000
我首先要講個謎題：間接語言行為的謎題
10:44
Now, I'm sure most of you have seen the movie "Fargo."
227
619000
2000
相信很多人都看過《冰血暴》這部電影
10:46
And you might remember the scene in which
228
621000
2000
你可能記得在其中一幕裡
10:48
the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer,
229
623000
3000
警察攔下綁匪的車
10:51
is asked to show his driver's license
230
626000
2000
請他出示駕照
10:53
and holds his wallet out
231
628000
2000
而綁匪舉起皮夾
10:55
with a 50-dollar bill extending
232
630000
3000
裡頭露出一張五十美元的鈔票
10:58
at a slight angle out of the wallet.
233
633000
2000
以微妙的角度若隱若現著
11:00
And he says, "I was just thinking
234
635000
2000
他說："我在想"
11:02
that maybe we could take care of it here in Fargo,"
235
637000
2000
"也許我們可以就地解決"
11:04
which everyone, including the audience,
236
639000
3000
每個人，包括電影觀眾
11:07
interprets as a veiled bribe.
237
642000
3000
都會將這句話解讀為隱含的賄賂
11:10
This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language.
238
645000
4000
這種不直接的表達方法在語言裡隨處可見
11:14
For example, in polite requests,
239
649000
2000
舉例來說，在禮貌性的請求中
11:16
if someone says, "If you could pass the guacamole,
240
651000
2000
如果有人說 "如果你能遞給我鱷梨沙拉醬"
11:18
that would be awesome,"
241
653000
2000
"那就太棒了"
11:20
we know exactly what he means,
242
655000
2000
我們都知道他要表達什麼意思
11:22
even though that's a rather bizarre
243
657000
2000
雖然他表達的概念
11:24
concept being expressed.
244
659000
2000
實在有點詭異
11:26
(Laughter)
245
661000
3000
（笑聲）
11:29
"Would you like to come up and see my etchings?"
246
664000
2000
"妳想來我家欣賞我的蝕刻畫嗎？"
11:31
I think most people
247
666000
2000
我想大部份的人
11:33
understand the intent behind that.
248
668000
3000
都知道這句話背後的動機是什麼
11:36
And likewise, if someone says,
249
671000
2000
同樣地，如果有人說
11:38
"Nice store you've got there. It would be a real shame if something happened to it" --
250
673000
3000
"你的店真不賴，如果發生什麼不幸，那真是太可惜了"
11:41
(Laughter) --
251
676000
1000
（笑聲）
11:42
we understand that as a veiled threat,
252
677000
2000
我們也都了解這背後隱含的是個恐嚇
11:44
rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities.
253
679000
3000
而不是真的在思考這個假設的可能性
11:47
So the puzzle is, why are bribes,
254
682000
3000
所以這個謎題是，為什麼賄賂、
11:50
polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled?
255
685000
3000
有禮的請求、誘惑和恐嚇都常被隱藏起來？
11:53
No one's fooled.
256
688000
2000
沒有人會信以為真--
11:55
Both parties know exactly what the speaker means,
257
690000
3000
雙方都了解講者的意思為何
11:58
and the speaker knows the listener knows
258
693000
2000
講者也知道聽者知道
12:00
that the speaker knows that the listener knows, etc., etc.
259
695000
3000
講者知道聽者知道...以此類推
12:03
So what's going on?
260
698000
2000
究竟是怎麼一回事？
12:05
I think the key idea is that language
261
700000
2000
我認為關鍵在於語言
12:07
is a way of negotiating relationships,
262
702000
2000
讓我們可以協商彼此的關係為何
12:09
and human relationships fall into a number of types.
263
704000
3000
而人際關係有好幾種類型
12:12
There's an influential taxonomy by the anthropologist Alan Fiske,
264
707000
4000
人類學家費斯克提出了一種有名的分類法
12:16
in which relationships can be categorized, more or less,
265
711000
3000
他說，人與人間的關係或多或少可以分成幾種模式
12:19
into communality, which works on the principle
266
714000
2000
團體關係，其原則是
12:21
"what's mine is thine, what's thine is mine,"
267
716000
3000
"我的就是你的，你的就是我的"--
12:24
the kind of mindset that operates within a family, for example;
268
719000
4000
這種關係常見於家人之間
12:28
dominance, whose principle is "don't mess with me;"
269
723000
3000
統治關係，最高指導原則是"別惹我"
12:31
reciprocity, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours;"
270
726000
4000
互惠關係："你幫我抓背，我就幫你抓背"
12:35
and sexuality, in the immortal words of Cole Porter, "Let's do it."
271
730000
5000
性慾關係，套句柯爾波特的名言："咱們做吧"
12:40
Now, relationship types can be negotiated.
272
735000
3000
這些關係模式是可以經過協商的
12:43
Even though there are default situations
273
738000
3000
即使在某些既定的情況下
12:46
in which one of these mindsets can be applied,
274
741000
2000
適用上述其中一種關係模式
12:48
they can be stretched and extended.
275
743000
3000
但仍有延伸擴大的空間
12:51
For example, communality applies most naturally
276
746000
3000
舉例來說，團體關係最常出現在
12:54
within family or friends,
277
749000
2000
家人或朋友關係中
12:56
but it can be used to try to transfer
278
751000
2000
但也可以用來試圖將
12:58
the mentality of sharing
279
753000
2000
分享的心態
13:00
to groups that ordinarily would not be disposed to exercise it.
280
755000
4000
轉移到平常不這麼運作的群體
13:04
For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations,
281
759000
4000
例如，兄弟會、兄弟組織
13:08
sororities, locutions like "the family of man,"
282
763000
3000
姊妹會中，"兄弟一家親"這種慣用語
13:11
you try to get people who are not related
283
766000
2000
就是想要讓一群非親非故的人
13:13
to use the relationship type that would ordinarily
284
768000
4000
使用這種平常只適用於
13:17
be appropriate to close kin.
285
772000
2000
近親的關係模式
13:19
Now, mismatches -- when one person assumes one relationship type,
286
774000
3000
但差異出現時--一個人以為是某種關係模式
13:22
and another assumes a different one -- can be awkward.
287
777000
3000
另一個人以為是另一種模式--就糗大了
13:25
If you went over and you helped yourself
288
780000
2000
如果你伸筷自行取用
13:27
to a shrimp off your boss' plate,
289
782000
2000
你老闆盤裡的蝦子
13:29
for example, that would be an awkward situation.
290
784000
2000
這個情況可能就尷尬了
13:31
Or if a dinner guest after the meal
291
786000
2000
或是來家裡用餐的客人在飯後
13:33
pulled out his wallet and offered to pay you for the meal,
292
788000
3000
取出錢包要付你餐費
13:36
that would be rather awkward as well.
293
791000
2000
那也相當難堪
13:38
In less blatant cases,
294
793000
3000
在比較不明顯的情境裡
13:41
there's still a kind of negotiation that often goes on.
295
796000
3000
也常進行著關係模式的協商
13:44
In the workplace, for example,
296
799000
2000
舉例來說，在工作場合上
13:46
there's often a tension over whether an employee
297
801000
2000
常常有個兩難：究竟員工
13:48
can socialize with the boss,
298
803000
2000
能不能跟老闆聊天
13:50
or refer to him or her
299
805000
2000
或是直呼他或她
13:52
on a first-name basis.
300
807000
2000
的大名
13:54
If two friends have a
301
809000
2000
如果兩個朋友要進行一項
13:56
reciprocal transaction, like selling a car,
302
811000
2000
互惠交易，像是賣車
13:58
it's well known that this can be a source
303
813000
2000
大家都知道這可能造成
14:00
of tension or awkwardness.
304
815000
2000
兩難或窘境
14:02
In dating, the transition
305
817000
2000
兩人約會
14:04
from friendship to sex
306
819000
2000
想要從友情發展到性關係
14:06
can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness,
307
821000
3000
可能造成各種的窘境，這眾所皆知
14:09
and as can sex in the workplace,
308
824000
2000
辦公室裡的性關係亦然
14:11
in which we call the conflict between a
309
826000
2000
我們稱這種發生在
14:13
dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment."
310
828000
4000
統治關係與性慾關係間的衝突為"性騷擾"
14:17
Well, what does this have to do with language?
311
832000
2000
那，這些和語言有什麼關係？
14:19
Well, language, as a social interaction,
312
834000
2000
嗯，語言，就像社交
14:21
has to satisfy two conditions.
313
836000
2000
需要符合兩種條件
14:23
You have to convey the actual content --
314
838000
3000
你必須表達實質內容--
14:26
here we get back to the container metaphor.
315
841000
2000
這邊我們要回到容器隱喻
14:28
You want to express the bribe, the command, the promise,
316
843000
3000
你想要傳達賄賂、命令、承諾
14:31
the solicitation and so on,
317
846000
2000
誘惑等等意含
14:33
but you also have to negotiate
318
848000
2000
但你必須要協商
14:35
and maintain the kind of relationship
319
850000
2000
同時維持
14:37
you have with the other person.
320
852000
2000
你和對方之間的關係
14:39
The solution, I think, is that we use language at two levels:
321
854000
3000
我想，解決方法就是我們用的語言要有兩個層次：
14:42
the literal form signals
322
857000
2000
字面上的意思表達了
14:44
the safest relationship with the listener,
323
859000
2000
你和聽者最安全的關係
14:46
whereas the implicated content --
324
861000
2000
而你暗指的內容--
14:49
the reading between the lines that we count on the listener to perform --
325
864000
2000
我們希望對方聽到的弦外之音--
14:52
allows the listener to derive the interpretation
326
867000
2000
讓聽者解讀出
14:54
which is most relevant in context,
327
869000
2000
在情境裡最切題的意義
14:56
which possibly initiates a changed relationship.
328
871000
3000
這可能會造成關係的改變
14:59
The simplest example of this is in the polite request.
329
874000
4000
最簡單的例子就是有禮的請求
15:03
If you express your request as a conditional --
330
878000
3000
如果你以假設句傳達你的請求
15:06
"if you could open the window, that would be great" --
331
881000
3000
"如果你能開個窗就太好了"
15:09
even though the content is an imperative,
332
884000
2000
雖然這句話的內容是命令句
15:11
the fact that you're not using the imperative voice
333
886000
2000
但是你没有使用命令語氣
15:14
means that you're not acting as if you're in a relationship of dominance,
334
889000
3000
表示你並沒有表現得好像你們處於統治關係
15:18
where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person.
335
893000
3000
你沒有假設對方一定會屈從
15:21
On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole.
336
896000
2000
另一方面，你想要那該死的鱷梨沙拉醬
15:23
By expressing it as an if-then statement,
337
898000
3000
用"如果...就"的假設句
15:26
you can get the message across
338
901000
2000
你不但可以傳達語意
15:28
without appearing to boss another person around.
339
903000
4000
也不會顯得頤指氣使
15:32
And in a more subtle way, I think, this works
340
907000
2000
更微妙一點，我認為這可以適用於
15:34
for all of the veiled speech acts
341
909000
2000
所有隱含的言語行為
15:36
involving plausible deniability:
342
911000
2000
包括合理的推諉：
15:38
the bribes, threats, propositions,
343
913000
2000
賄賂、恐嚇、提議
15:40
solicitations and so on.
344
915000
2000
誘惑等等
15:42
One way of thinking about it is to imagine what it would be like
345
917000
2000
我們可以這麼思考：想像一下
15:44
if language -- where it could only be used literally.
346
919000
3000
如果我們只能使用語言字面的意思，會是什麼情況
15:47
And you can think of it in terms of a
347
922000
2000
你可以用
15:49
game-theoretic payoff matrix.
348
924000
3000
賽局理論裡的收益矩陣來分析
15:52
Put yourself in the position of the
349
927000
2000
設想，如果你是
15:54
kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer.
350
929000
3000
想要賄賂警察的綁匪
15:57
There's a high stakes
351
932000
2000
你面臨很高的風險
15:59
in the two possibilities
352
934000
3000
因為有兩種可能：
16:02
of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer.
353
937000
3000
你可能會遇到好警察或壞警察
16:05
If you don't bribe the officer,
354
940000
3000
如果你不賄賂警察
16:08
then you will get a traffic ticket --
355
943000
2000
你就得吃上罰單
16:10
or, as is the case of "Fargo," worse --
356
945000
2000
或者像在《冰血暴》裡，就更慘了--
16:12
whether the honest officer
357
947000
2000
不論電影裡那個好警察
16:14
is honest or dishonest.
358
949000
2000
究竟是好是壞：
16:16
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
359
951000
2000
綁匪無論如何都得放手一博
16:18
In that case, the consequences are rather severe.
360
953000
3000
那麼後果就相當嚴重了
16:21
On the other hand, if you extend the bribe,
361
956000
2000
另一方面，如果你行賄
16:23
if the officer is dishonest,
362
958000
2000
遇上壞警察
16:25
you get a huge payoff of going free.
363
960000
3000
你得到的收益很高--逍遙法外
16:28
If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty
364
963000
3000
但遇上好警察，面臨的刑罰很重
16:31
of being arrested for bribery.
365
966000
2000
你將被依賄賂罪逮捕
16:33
So this is a rather fraught situation.
366
968000
2000
所以這是個相當棘手的情況
16:35
On the other hand, with indirect language,
367
970000
2000
但如果使用間接語言
16:37
if you issue a veiled bribe,
368
972000
2000
你使用隱含的賄賂
16:39
then the dishonest officer
369
974000
2000
那麼壞警察
16:41
could interpret it as a bribe,
370
976000
2000
可以將之解讀為賄賂
16:43
in which case you get the payoff of going free.
371
978000
3000
你就得以逍遙法外了
16:46
The honest officer can't hold you to it as being a bribe,
372
981000
3000
而好警察也不能因此將你定罪
16:49
and therefore, you get the nuisance of the traffic ticket.
373
984000
3000
所以你頂多拿到一張罰單
16:52
So you get the best of both worlds.
374
987000
3000
兩全其美
16:55
And a similar analysis, I think,
375
990000
2000
我認為，類似的分析
16:57
can apply to the potential awkwardness
376
992000
2000
也適用於
16:59
of a sexual solicitation,
377
994000
2000
求歡可能會遇到的尷尬問題
17:01
and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset.
378
996000
3000
還有其他亟需合理推諉的情境
17:04
I think this affirms
379
999000
2000
我想這印證了
17:06
something that's long been known by diplomats --
380
1001000
2000
外交家老早就知道的事實--
17:08
namely, that the vagueness of language,
381
1003000
2000
也就是說，語言的含糊曖昧
17:10
far from being a bug or an imperfection,
382
1005000
3000
並不是語言的缺陷或不完美
17:13
actually might be a feature of language,
383
1008000
3000
而可能是語言的一種特色
17:16
one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.
384
1011000
3000
有利於我們的社交互動
17:19
So to sum up: language is a collective human creation,
385
1014000
3000
做個總結：語言是人類創造的總和
17:22
reflecting human nature,
386
1017000
2000
反映了人性--
17:24
how we conceptualize reality,
387
1019000
2000
我們如何理解現實
17:26
how we relate to one another.
388
1021000
2000
我們如何與他人產生連結
17:28
And then by analyzing the various quirks and complexities of language,
389
1023000
4000
而藉由分析語言的稀奇古怪與錯綜複雜
17:32
I think we can get a window onto what makes us tick.
390
1027000
3000
我相信我們可以一窺人類的思想
17:35
Thank you very much.
391
1030000
1000
謝謝各位
17:36
(Applause)
392
1031000
1000
（掌聲）
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