TEDGlobal 2005
Steven Pinker: What our language habits reveal
Filmed:
Readability: 5.2
2,457,061 views
In an exclusive preview of his book The Stuff of Thought, Steven Pinker looks at language and how it expresses what goes on in our minds -- and how the words we choose communicate much more than we realize.
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
00:28
the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise,
1
3000
4000
00:32
the French Academy.
2
7000
2000
00:34
He is splendidly attired in his 68,000-dollar uniform,
3
9000
5000
00:39
befitting the role of the French Academy
4
14000
3000
00:42
as legislating the
5
17000
3000
00:45
correct usage in French
6
20000
2000
00:47
and perpetuating the language.
7
22000
2000
00:49
The French Academy has two main tasks:
8
24000
3000
00:52
it compiles a dictionary of official French.
9
27000
3000
00:55
They're now working on their ninth edition,
10
30000
3000
00:58
which they began in 1930, and they've reached the letter P.
11
33000
3000
01:02
They also legislate on correct usage,
12
37000
3000
01:05
such as the proper term for what the French call "email,"
13
40000
4000
01:09
which ought to be "courriel."
14
44000
2000
01:11
The World Wide Web, the French are told,
15
46000
2000
01:13
ought to be referred to as
16
48000
2000
01:15
"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- the Global Spider Web --
17
50000
4000
01:19
recommendations that the French gaily ignore.
18
54000
4000
01:24
Now, this is one model of how language comes to be:
19
59000
4000
01:28
namely, it's legislated by an academy.
20
63000
3000
01:31
But anyone who looks at language realizes
21
66000
3000
01:34
that this is a rather silly conceit,
22
69000
4000
01:38
that language, rather, emerges from human minds interacting from one another.
23
73000
3000
01:41
And this is visible in the unstoppable change in language --
24
76000
4000
01:45
the fact that by the time the Academy finishes their dictionary,
25
80000
3000
01:48
it will already be well out of date.
26
83000
2000
01:50
We see it in the
27
85000
2000
01:52
constant appearance of slang and jargon,
28
87000
4000
01:56
of the historical change in languages,
29
91000
2000
01:58
in divergence of dialects
30
93000
2000
02:00
and the formation of new languages.
31
95000
3000
02:03
So language is not so much a creator or shaper of human nature,
32
98000
3000
02:06
so much as a window onto human nature.
33
101000
3000
02:09
In a book that I'm currently working on,
34
104000
3000
02:12
I hope to use language to shed light on
35
107000
3000
02:15
a number of aspects of human nature,
36
110000
2000
02:17
including the cognitive machinery
37
112000
2000
02:19
with which humans conceptualize the world
38
114000
3000
02:22
and the relationship types that govern human interaction.
39
117000
3000
02:25
And I'm going to say a few words about each one this morning.
40
120000
3000
02:28
Let me start off with a technical problem in language
41
123000
2000
02:30
that I've worried about for quite some time --
42
125000
2000
02:32
and indulge me
43
127000
4000
02:36
in my passion for verbs and how they're used.
44
131000
3000
02:39
The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions?
45
134000
3000
02:42
The verb is the chassis of the sentence.
46
137000
3000
02:45
It's the framework onto which the other parts are bolted.
47
140000
4000
02:49
Let me give you a quick reminder
48
144000
2000
02:51
of something that you've long forgotten.
49
146000
2000
02:53
An intransitive verb, such as "dine," for example,
50
148000
3000
02:56
can't take a direct object.
51
151000
2000
02:58
You have to say, "Sam dined," not, "Sam dined the pizza."
52
153000
3000
03:01
A transitive verb mandates
53
156000
2000
03:03
that there has to be an object there:
54
158000
2000
03:05
"Sam devoured the pizza." You can't just say, "Sam devoured."
55
160000
3000
03:08
There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type,
56
163000
4000
03:12
each of which shapes its sentence.
57
167000
2000
03:14
So, a problem in explaining how children learn language,
58
169000
4000
03:18
a problem in teaching language to adults so that they don't make grammatical errors,
59
173000
5000
03:23
and a problem in programming computers to use language is
60
178000
3000
03:26
which verbs go in which constructions.
61
181000
2000
03:29
For example, the dative construction in English.
62
184000
2000
03:31
You can say, "Give a muffin to a mouse," the prepositional dative.
63
186000
3000
03:34
Or, "Give a mouse a muffin," the double-object dative.
64
189000
3000
03:37
"Promise anything to her," "Promise her anything," and so on.
65
192000
4000
03:41
Hundreds of verbs can go both ways.
66
196000
2000
03:43
So a tempting generalization for a child,
67
198000
2000
03:45
for an adult, for a computer
68
200000
2000
03:47
is that any verb that can appear in the construction,
69
202000
2000
03:49
"subject-verb-thing-to-a-recipient"
70
204000
3000
03:52
can also be expressed as "subject-verb-recipient-thing."
71
207000
3000
03:55
A handy thing to have,
72
210000
2000
03:57
because language is infinite,
73
212000
2000
03:59
and you can't just parrot back the sentences that you've heard.
74
214000
3000
04:02
You've got to extract generalizations
75
217000
2000
04:04
so you can produce and understand new sentences.
76
219000
3000
04:07
This would be an example of how to do that.
77
222000
2000
04:09
Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions.
78
224000
3000
04:12
You can say, "Biff drove the car to Chicago,"
79
227000
3000
04:15
but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car."
80
230000
3000
04:18
You can say, "Sal gave Jason a headache,"
81
233000
3000
04:21
but it's a bit odd to say, "Sal gave a headache to Jason."
82
236000
2000
04:24
The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance,
83
239000
3000
04:27
are not synonymous,
84
242000
2000
04:29
that when you crank up the microscope
85
244000
2000
04:31
on human cognition, you see that there's a subtle difference
86
246000
2000
04:33
in meaning between them.
87
248000
2000
04:35
So, "give the X to the Y,"
88
250000
2000
04:37
that construction corresponds to the thought
89
252000
3000
04:40
"cause X to go to Y." Whereas "give the Y the X"
90
255000
3000
04:43
corresponds to the thought "cause Y to have X."
91
258000
4000
04:47
Now, many events can be subject to either construal,
92
262000
4000
04:51
kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions,
93
266000
3000
04:54
in which you can either pay attention
94
269000
3000
04:57
to the particular object,
95
272000
2000
04:59
in which case the space around it recedes from attention,
96
274000
4000
05:03
or you can see the faces in the empty space,
97
278000
2000
05:05
in which case the object recedes out of consciousness.
98
280000
4000
05:09
How are these construals reflected in language?
99
284000
2000
05:11
Well, in both cases, the thing that is construed as being affected
100
286000
4000
05:15
is expressed as the direct object,
101
290000
2000
05:17
the noun after the verb.
102
292000
2000
05:19
So, when you think of the event as causing the muffin to go somewhere --
103
294000
4000
05:23
where you're doing something to the muffin --
104
298000
2000
05:25
you say, "Give the muffin to the mouse."
105
300000
2000
05:27
When you construe it as "cause the mouse to have something,"
106
302000
3000
05:30
you're doing something to the mouse,
107
305000
2000
05:32
and therefore you express it as, "Give the mouse the muffin."
108
307000
3000
05:35
So which verbs go in which construction --
109
310000
2000
05:37
the problem with which I began --
110
312000
2000
05:39
depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion
111
314000
4000
05:43
or a kind of possession change.
112
318000
2000
05:45
To give something involves both causing something to go
113
320000
3000
05:48
and causing someone to have.
114
323000
2000
05:50
To drive the car only causes something to go,
115
325000
3000
05:53
because Chicago's not the kind of thing that can possess something.
116
328000
2000
05:55
Only humans can possess things.
117
330000
3000
05:58
And to give someone a headache causes them to have the headache,
118
333000
2000
06:00
but it's not as if you're taking the headache out of your head
119
335000
3000
06:03
and causing it to go to the other person,
120
338000
2000
06:05
and implanting it in them.
121
340000
2000
06:07
You may just be loud or obnoxious,
122
342000
2000
06:09
or some other way causing them to have the headache.
123
344000
2000
06:11
So, that's
124
346000
4000
06:15
an example of the kind of thing that I do in my day job.
125
350000
2000
06:17
So why should anyone care?
126
352000
2000
06:19
Well, there are a number of interesting conclusions, I think,
127
354000
3000
06:22
from this and many similar kinds of analyses
128
357000
4000
06:26
of hundreds of English verbs.
129
361000
2000
06:28
First, there's a level of fine-grained conceptual structure,
130
363000
3000
06:31
which we automatically and unconsciously compute
131
366000
3000
06:34
every time we produce or utter a sentence, that governs our use of language.
132
369000
4000
06:38
You can think of this as the language of thought, or "mentalese."
133
373000
4000
06:42
It seems to be based on a fixed set of concepts,
134
377000
3000
06:45
which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs --
135
380000
3000
06:48
not only in English, but in all other languages --
136
383000
3000
06:51
fundamental concepts such as space,
137
386000
2000
06:53
time, causation and human intention,
138
388000
3000
06:56
such as, what is the means and what is the ends?
139
391000
3000
06:59
These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories
140
394000
2000
07:01
that Immanuel Kant argued
141
396000
2000
07:03
are the basic framework for human thought,
142
398000
3000
07:06
and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language
143
401000
3000
07:09
seems to reflect these Kantian categories.
144
404000
3000
07:12
Doesn't care about perceptual qualities,
145
407000
2000
07:14
such as color, texture, weight and speed,
146
409000
2000
07:16
which virtually never differentiate
147
411000
2000
07:18
the use of verbs in different constructions.
148
413000
2000
07:21
An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English
149
416000
3000
07:24
are used not only literally,
150
419000
2000
07:26
but in a quasi-metaphorical way.
151
421000
3000
07:29
For example, this construction, the dative,
152
424000
2000
07:31
is used not only to transfer things,
153
426000
2000
07:33
but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas,
154
428000
3000
07:36
as when we say, "She told a story to me"
155
431000
2000
07:38
or "told me a story,"
156
433000
2000
07:40
"Max taught Spanish to the students" or "taught the students Spanish."
157
435000
3000
07:43
It's exactly the same construction,
158
438000
2000
07:45
but no muffins, no mice, nothing moving at all.
159
440000
4000
07:49
It evokes the container metaphor of communication,
160
444000
3000
07:52
in which we conceive of ideas as objects,
161
447000
2000
07:54
sentences as containers,
162
449000
2000
07:56
and communication as a kind of sending.
163
451000
2000
07:58
As when we say we "gather" our ideas, to "put" them "into" words,
164
453000
3000
08:01
and if our words aren't "empty" or "hollow,"
165
456000
2000
08:03
we might get these ideas "across" to a listener,
166
458000
3000
08:06
who can "unpack" our words to "extract" their "content."
167
461000
3000
08:09
And indeed, this kind of verbiage is not the exception, but the rule.
168
464000
3000
08:12
It's very hard to find any example of abstract language
169
467000
3000
08:15
that is not based on some concrete metaphor.
170
470000
3000
08:18
For example, you can use the verb "go"
171
473000
3000
08:21
and the prepositions "to" and "from"
172
476000
2000
08:23
in a literal, spatial sense.
173
478000
2000
08:25
"The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul."
174
480000
2000
08:27
You can also say, "Biff went from sick to well."
175
482000
3000
08:30
He needn't go anywhere. He could have been in bed the whole time,
176
485000
3000
08:33
but it's as if his health is a point in state space
177
488000
2000
08:35
that you conceptualize as moving.
178
490000
2000
08:37
Or, "The meeting went from three to four,"
179
492000
2000
08:39
in which we conceive of time as stretched along a line.
180
494000
3000
08:42
Likewise, we use "force" to indicate
181
497000
3000
08:45
not only physical force,
182
500000
2000
08:47
as in, "Rose forced the door to open,"
183
502000
2000
08:49
but also interpersonal force,
184
504000
2000
08:51
as in, "Rose forced Sadie to go," not necessarily by manhandling her,
185
506000
4000
08:55
but by issuing a threat.
186
510000
2000
08:57
Or, "Rose forced herself to go,"
187
512000
2000
08:59
as if there were two entities inside Rose's head,
188
514000
2000
09:02
engaged in a tug of a war.
189
517000
2000
09:04
Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive
190
519000
3000
09:07
of a given event in two different ways,
191
522000
3000
09:10
such as "cause something to go to someone"
192
525000
2000
09:12
and "causing someone to have something,"
193
527000
2000
09:14
I think is a fundamental feature of human thought,
194
529000
4000
09:18
and it's the basis for much human argumentation,
195
533000
3000
09:21
in which people don't differ so much on the facts
196
536000
3000
09:24
as on how they ought to be construed.
197
539000
2000
09:26
Just to give you a few examples:
198
541000
2000
09:28
"ending a pregnancy" versus "killing a fetus;"
199
543000
2000
09:30
"a ball of cells" versus "an unborn child;"
200
545000
3000
09:33
"invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;"
201
548000
2000
09:35
"redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings."
202
550000
4000
09:39
And I think the biggest picture of all
203
554000
2000
09:41
would take seriously the fact
204
556000
3000
09:44
that so much of our verbiage about abstract events
205
559000
3000
09:47
is based on a concrete metaphor
206
562000
2000
09:49
and see human intelligence itself
207
564000
2000
09:51
as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --
208
566000
3000
09:54
such as objects, space, time, causation and intention --
209
569000
3000
09:57
which are useful in a social, knowledge-intensive species,
210
572000
4000
10:01
whose evolution you can well imagine,
211
576000
2000
10:03
and a process of metaphorical abstraction
212
578000
3000
10:06
that allows us to bleach these concepts
213
581000
2000
10:08
of their original conceptual content --
214
583000
3000
10:11
space, time and force --
215
586000
3000
10:14
and apply them to new abstract domains,
216
589000
2000
10:16
therefore allowing a species that evolved
217
591000
3000
10:19
to deal with rocks and tools and animals,
218
594000
2000
10:21
to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law
219
596000
3000
10:24
and other abstract domains.
220
599000
3000
10:27
Well, I said I'd talk about two windows on human nature --
221
602000
3000
10:30
the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world,
222
605000
3000
10:33
and now I'm going to say a few words about the relationship types
223
608000
2000
10:35
that govern human social interaction,
224
610000
2000
10:37
again, as reflected in language.
225
612000
2000
10:40
And I'll start out with a puzzle, the puzzle of indirect speech acts.
226
615000
4000
10:44
Now, I'm sure most of you have seen the movie "Fargo."
227
619000
2000
10:46
And you might remember the scene in which
228
621000
2000
10:48
the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer,
229
623000
3000
10:51
is asked to show his driver's license
230
626000
2000
10:53
and holds his wallet out
231
628000
2000
10:55
with a 50-dollar bill extending
232
630000
3000
10:58
at a slight angle out of the wallet.
233
633000
2000
11:00
And he says, "I was just thinking
234
635000
2000
11:02
that maybe we could take care of it here in Fargo,"
235
637000
2000
11:04
which everyone, including the audience,
236
639000
3000
11:07
interprets as a veiled bribe.
237
642000
3000
11:10
This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language.
238
645000
4000
11:14
For example, in polite requests,
239
649000
2000
11:16
if someone says, "If you could pass the guacamole,
240
651000
2000
11:18
that would be awesome,"
241
653000
2000
11:20
we know exactly what he means,
242
655000
2000
11:22
even though that's a rather bizarre
243
657000
2000
11:24
concept being expressed.
244
659000
2000
11:26
(Laughter)
245
661000
3000
11:29
"Would you like to come up and see my etchings?"
246
664000
2000
11:31
I think most people
247
666000
2000
11:33
understand the intent behind that.
248
668000
3000
11:36
And likewise, if someone says,
249
671000
2000
11:38
"Nice store you've got there. It would be a real shame if something happened to it" --
250
673000
3000
11:41
(Laughter) --
251
676000
1000
11:42
we understand that as a veiled threat,
252
677000
2000
11:44
rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities.
253
679000
3000
11:47
So the puzzle is, why are bribes,
254
682000
3000
11:50
polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled?
255
685000
3000
11:53
No one's fooled.
256
688000
2000
11:55
Both parties know exactly what the speaker means,
257
690000
3000
11:58
and the speaker knows the listener knows
258
693000
2000
12:00
that the speaker knows that the listener knows, etc., etc.
259
695000
3000
12:03
So what's going on?
260
698000
2000
12:05
I think the key idea is that language
261
700000
2000
12:07
is a way of negotiating relationships,
262
702000
2000
12:09
and human relationships fall into a number of types.
263
704000
3000
12:12
There's an influential taxonomy by the anthropologist Alan Fiske,
264
707000
4000
12:16
in which relationships can be categorized, more or less,
265
711000
3000
12:19
into communality, which works on the principle
266
714000
2000
12:21
"what's mine is thine, what's thine is mine,"
267
716000
3000
12:24
the kind of mindset that operates within a family, for example;
268
719000
4000
12:28
dominance, whose principle is "don't mess with me;"
269
723000
3000
12:31
reciprocity, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours;"
270
726000
4000
12:35
and sexuality, in the immortal words of Cole Porter, "Let's do it."
271
730000
5000
12:40
Now, relationship types can be negotiated.
272
735000
3000
12:43
Even though there are default situations
273
738000
3000
12:46
in which one of these mindsets can be applied,
274
741000
2000
12:48
they can be stretched and extended.
275
743000
3000
12:51
For example, communality applies most naturally
276
746000
3000
12:54
within family or friends,
277
749000
2000
12:56
but it can be used to try to transfer
278
751000
2000
12:58
the mentality of sharing
279
753000
2000
13:00
to groups that ordinarily would not be disposed to exercise it.
280
755000
4000
13:04
For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations,
281
759000
4000
13:08
sororities, locutions like "the family of man,"
282
763000
3000
13:11
you try to get people who are not related
283
766000
2000
13:13
to use the relationship type that would ordinarily
284
768000
4000
13:17
be appropriate to close kin.
285
772000
2000
13:19
Now, mismatches -- when one person assumes one relationship type,
286
774000
3000
13:22
and another assumes a different one -- can be awkward.
287
777000
3000
13:25
If you went over and you helped yourself
288
780000
2000
13:27
to a shrimp off your boss' plate,
289
782000
2000
13:29
for example, that would be an awkward situation.
290
784000
2000
13:31
Or if a dinner guest after the meal
291
786000
2000
13:33
pulled out his wallet and offered to pay you for the meal,
292
788000
3000
13:36
that would be rather awkward as well.
293
791000
2000
13:38
In less blatant cases,
294
793000
3000
13:41
there's still a kind of negotiation that often goes on.
295
796000
3000
13:44
In the workplace, for example,
296
799000
2000
13:46
there's often a tension over whether an employee
297
801000
2000
13:48
can socialize with the boss,
298
803000
2000
13:50
or refer to him or her
299
805000
2000
13:52
on a first-name basis.
300
807000
2000
13:54
If two friends have a
301
809000
2000
13:56
reciprocal transaction, like selling a car,
302
811000
2000
13:58
it's well known that this can be a source
303
813000
2000
14:00
of tension or awkwardness.
304
815000
2000
14:02
In dating, the transition
305
817000
2000
14:04
from friendship to sex
306
819000
2000
14:06
can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness,
307
821000
3000
14:09
and as can sex in the workplace,
308
824000
2000
14:11
in which we call the conflict between a
309
826000
2000
14:13
dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment."
310
828000
4000
14:17
Well, what does this have to do with language?
311
832000
2000
14:19
Well, language, as a social interaction,
312
834000
2000
14:21
has to satisfy two conditions.
313
836000
2000
14:23
You have to convey the actual content --
314
838000
3000
14:26
here we get back to the container metaphor.
315
841000
2000
14:28
You want to express the bribe, the command, the promise,
316
843000
3000
14:31
the solicitation and so on,
317
846000
2000
14:33
but you also have to negotiate
318
848000
2000
14:35
and maintain the kind of relationship
319
850000
2000
14:37
you have with the other person.
320
852000
2000
14:39
The solution, I think, is that we use language at two levels:
321
854000
3000
14:42
the literal form signals
322
857000
2000
14:44
the safest relationship with the listener,
323
859000
2000
14:46
whereas the implicated content --
324
861000
2000
14:49
the reading between the lines that we count on the listener to perform --
325
864000
2000
14:52
allows the listener to derive the interpretation
326
867000
2000
14:54
which is most relevant in context,
327
869000
2000
14:56
which possibly initiates a changed relationship.
328
871000
3000
14:59
The simplest example of this is in the polite request.
329
874000
4000
15:03
If you express your request as a conditional --
330
878000
3000
15:06
"if you could open the window, that would be great" --
331
881000
3000
15:09
even though the content is an imperative,
332
884000
2000
15:11
the fact that you're not using the imperative voice
333
886000
2000
15:14
means that you're not acting as if you're in a relationship of dominance,
334
889000
3000
15:18
where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person.
335
893000
3000
15:21
On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole.
336
896000
2000
15:23
By expressing it as an if-then statement,
337
898000
3000
15:26
you can get the message across
338
901000
2000
15:28
without appearing to boss another person around.
339
903000
4000
15:32
And in a more subtle way, I think, this works
340
907000
2000
15:34
for all of the veiled speech acts
341
909000
2000
15:36
involving plausible deniability:
342
911000
2000
15:38
the bribes, threats, propositions,
343
913000
2000
15:40
solicitations and so on.
344
915000
2000
15:42
One way of thinking about it is to imagine what it would be like
345
917000
2000
15:44
if language -- where it could only be used literally.
346
919000
3000
15:47
And you can think of it in terms of a
347
922000
2000
15:49
game-theoretic payoff matrix.
348
924000
3000
15:52
Put yourself in the position of the
349
927000
2000
15:54
kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer.
350
929000
3000
15:57
There's a high stakes
351
932000
2000
15:59
in the two possibilities
352
934000
3000
16:02
of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer.
353
937000
3000
16:05
If you don't bribe the officer,
354
940000
3000
16:08
then you will get a traffic ticket --
355
943000
2000
16:10
or, as is the case of "Fargo," worse --
356
945000
2000
16:12
whether the honest officer
357
947000
2000
16:14
is honest or dishonest.
358
949000
2000
16:16
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
359
951000
2000
16:18
In that case, the consequences are rather severe.
360
953000
3000
16:21
On the other hand, if you extend the bribe,
361
956000
2000
16:23
if the officer is dishonest,
362
958000
2000
16:25
you get a huge payoff of going free.
363
960000
3000
16:28
If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty
364
963000
3000
16:31
of being arrested for bribery.
365
966000
2000
16:33
So this is a rather fraught situation.
366
968000
2000
16:35
On the other hand, with indirect language,
367
970000
2000
16:37
if you issue a veiled bribe,
368
972000
2000
16:39
then the dishonest officer
369
974000
2000
16:41
could interpret it as a bribe,
370
976000
2000
16:43
in which case you get the payoff of going free.
371
978000
3000
16:46
The honest officer can't hold you to it as being a bribe,
372
981000
3000
16:49
and therefore, you get the nuisance of the traffic ticket.
373
984000
3000
16:52
So you get the best of both worlds.
374
987000
3000
16:55
And a similar analysis, I think,
375
990000
2000
16:57
can apply to the potential awkwardness
376
992000
2000
16:59
of a sexual solicitation,
377
994000
2000
17:01
and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset.
378
996000
3000
17:04
I think this affirms
379
999000
2000
17:06
something that's long been known by diplomats --
380
1001000
2000
17:08
namely, that the vagueness of language,
381
1003000
2000
17:10
far from being a bug or an imperfection,
382
1005000
3000
17:13
actually might be a feature of language,
383
1008000
3000
17:16
one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.
384
1011000
3000
17:19
So to sum up: language is a collective human creation,
385
1014000
3000
17:22
reflecting human nature,
386
1017000
2000
17:24
how we conceptualize reality,
387
1019000
2000
17:26
how we relate to one another.
388
1021000
2000
17:28
And then by analyzing the various quirks and complexities of language,
389
1023000
4000
17:32
I think we can get a window onto what makes us tick.
390
1027000
3000
17:35
Thank you very much.
391
1030000
1000
17:36
(Applause)
392
1031000
1000
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