TEDGlobal 2005
Steven Pinker: What our language habits reveal
Steven Pinker despre limba si gandire
Filmed:
Readability: 5.2
2,457,061 views
In cadrul unei prezentari preliminare in exclusivitate a ultimei sale carti Din ce e facuta gandirea?, Steven Pinker arunca o privire limbii si modului in care ea exprima ceea ce se petrece in mintea noastra -- si cum cuvintele pe care le alegem transmit mult mai mult decat ne dam seama.
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
Aici vedeti o fotografie a lui Maurice Druon,
00:28
the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise,
1
3000
4000
Secretar Perpetuu al Academie francaise --
00:32
the French Academy.
2
7000
2000
Academia Franceza.
00:34
He is splendidly attired in his 68,000-dollar uniform,
3
9000
5000
Poarta o splendida uniforma de 68 000 de dolari,
00:39
befitting the role of the French Academy
4
14000
3000
pe masura rolului Academiei Franceze
00:42
as legislating the
5
17000
3000
de a hotari
00:45
correct usage in French
6
20000
2000
ce este franceza corecta
00:47
and perpetuating the language.
7
22000
2000
si de a perpetua limba.
00:49
The French Academy has two main tasks:
8
24000
3000
Academia Franceza are doua sarcini principale:
00:52
it compiles a dictionary of official French.
9
27000
3000
redacteaza un dictionar al limbii franceze literare --
00:55
They're now working on their ninth edition,
10
30000
3000
deocamdata se ocupa de a noua editie,
00:58
which they began in 1930, and they've reached the letter P.
11
33000
3000
pe care au inceput-o in 1930, pana acum ajungand la litera P.
01:02
They also legislate on correct usage,
12
37000
3000
De asemenea, hotarasc asupra utilizarii corecte a limbii franceze,
01:05
such as the proper term for what the French call "email,"
13
40000
4000
ca de exemplu termenul corect pentru "email",
01:09
which ought to be "courriel."
14
44000
2000
care in limba franceza ar trebui sa fie "courriel."
01:11
The World Wide Web, the French are told,
15
46000
2000
Internet-ul, li se spune francezilor,
01:13
ought to be referred to as
16
48000
2000
ar trebui sa fie numit
01:15
"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- the Global Spider Web --
17
50000
4000
"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- Panza de Paianjen Mondiala --
01:19
recommendations that the French gaily ignore.
18
54000
4000
recomandari pe care francezii le ignora cu veselie.
01:24
Now, this is one model of how language comes to be:
19
59000
4000
Acesta e un model al modului in care o limba ajunge sa existe:
01:28
namely, it's legislated by an academy.
20
63000
3000
si anume, fiind reglementata de o academie.
01:31
But anyone who looks at language realizes
21
66000
3000
Dar oricine arunca o privire limbii isi da seama
01:34
that this is a rather silly conceit,
22
69000
4000
ca acest model e o amagire cam prosteasca,
01:38
that language, rather, emerges from human minds interacting from one another.
23
73000
3000
caci limba ajunge sa existe mai degraba ca urmare a interactiunii dintre mintile omenesti.
01:41
And this is visible in the unstoppable change in language --
24
76000
4000
Si asta se vede cel mai bine in transformarea de neoprit a limbii --
01:45
the fact that by the time the Academy finishes their dictionary,
25
80000
3000
in faptul ca pana cand Academia isi va termina dictionarul,
01:48
it will already be well out of date.
26
83000
2000
acesta va fi deja perimat.
01:50
We see it in the
27
85000
2000
Vedem asta in
01:52
constant appearance of slang and jargon,
28
87000
4000
aparitia constanta de argouri si jargoane,
01:56
of the historical change in languages,
29
91000
2000
in transformarile istorice ale limbilor,
01:58
in divergence of dialects
30
93000
2000
in divergenta dialectelor
02:00
and the formation of new languages.
31
95000
3000
si in formarea unor noi limbi.
02:03
So language is not so much a creator or shaper of human nature,
32
98000
3000
Deci, limba nu este atat o forta ce creaza sau modeleaza natura umana
02:06
so much as a window onto human nature.
33
101000
3000
cat este o fereastra asupra naturii umane.
02:09
In a book that I'm currently working on,
34
104000
3000
Intr-o carte la care lucrez in acesta perioada,
02:12
I hope to use language to shed light on
35
107000
3000
intentionez sa ma folosesc de limba pentru a deslusi
02:15
a number of aspects of human nature,
36
110000
2000
cateva aspecte ale naturii umane,
02:17
including the cognitive machinery
37
112000
2000
inclusiv masinaria cognitiva
02:19
with which humans conceptualize the world
38
114000
3000
cu care fiintele umane conceptualizeaza lumea
02:22
and the relationship types that govern human interaction.
39
117000
3000
si tipurile de relatii ce le guverneaza interactiunea.
02:25
And I'm going to say a few words about each one this morning.
40
120000
3000
In aceasta dimineata am sa fac cateva remarci pe fiecare dintre aceste subiecte.
02:28
Let me start off with a technical problem in language
41
123000
2000
As vrea sa incep cu o problema tehnica in ceea ce priveste limba
02:30
that I've worried about for quite some time --
42
125000
2000
care ma preocupa deja de ceva vreme --
02:32
and indulge me
43
127000
4000
si sper ca veti avea rabdare
02:36
in my passion for verbs and how they're used.
44
131000
3000
cu pasiunea mea pentru verbe si modul in care sunt folosite.
02:39
The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions?
45
134000
3000
Problema este, care verbe intra in care tip de constructii?
02:42
The verb is the chassis of the sentence.
46
137000
3000
Verbul este suportul propozitiei.
02:45
It's the framework onto which the other parts are bolted.
47
140000
4000
Este structura pe care sunt fixate toate celelalte elemente.
02:49
Let me give you a quick reminder
48
144000
2000
Dati-mi voie sa va amintesc
02:51
of something that you've long forgotten.
49
146000
2000
ceva ce ati uitat demult.
02:53
An intransitive verb, such as "dine," for example,
50
148000
3000
Un verb intranzitiv, ca de exemplu "a cina,"
02:56
can't take a direct object.
51
151000
2000
nu poate primi un complement direct.
02:58
You have to say, "Sam dined," not, "Sam dined the pizza."
52
153000
3000
Spunem "Sam a cinat," nu "Sam a cinat pizza."
03:01
A transitive verb mandates
53
156000
2000
Un verb tranzitiv necesita
03:03
that there has to be an object there:
54
158000
2000
un complement:
03:05
"Sam devoured the pizza." You can't just say, "Sam devoured."
55
160000
3000
"Sam a devorat pizza." Nu putem spune, "Sam a devorat."
03:08
There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type,
56
163000
4000
Exista o multime de verbe de acest fel,
03:12
each of which shapes its sentence.
57
167000
2000
fiecare dintre ele modelandu-si propria propozitie.
03:14
So, a problem in explaining how children learn language,
58
169000
4000
Deci, una dintre problemele in a explica modul in care copiii invata limba,
03:18
a problem in teaching language to adults so that they don't make grammatical errors,
59
173000
5000
una dintre problemele in a preda o limba adultilor in asa fel incat ei sa nu faca greseli gramaticale
03:23
and a problem in programming computers to use language is
60
178000
3000
si una dintre problemele in a programa computerele pentru utilizarea limbii este
03:26
which verbs go in which constructions.
61
181000
2000
care verb intra in care tip de constructii.
03:29
For example, the dative construction in English.
62
184000
2000
De exemplu, dativul --
03:31
You can say, "Give a muffin to a mouse," the prepositional dative.
63
186000
3000
poti spune, "Da o gogoasa soarecelui," dativul prepozitional,
03:34
Or, "Give a mouse a muffin," the double-object dative.
64
189000
3000
sau "Da-i soarecelui o gogoasa," dativul cu dublu-complement,
03:37
"Promise anything to her," "Promise her anything," and so on.
65
192000
4000
"Promite orice fetei," "Promite-i fetei orice" si asa mai departe.
03:41
Hundreds of verbs can go both ways.
66
196000
2000
Sute de verbe o pot lua in ambele directii.
03:43
So a tempting generalization for a child,
67
198000
2000
O generalizare tentanta pentru un copil,
03:45
for an adult, for a computer
68
200000
2000
un adult sau un computer
03:47
is that any verb that can appear in the construction,
69
202000
2000
este ca orice verb ce poate intra in constructia,
03:49
"subject-verb-thing-to-a-recipient"
70
204000
3000
"subiect-verb-obiect-destinatar"
03:52
can also be expressed as "subject-verb-recipient-thing."
71
207000
3000
poate fi de asemenea exprimat ca "subiect-verb-destinatar-obiect."
03:55
A handy thing to have,
72
210000
2000
E un instrument util,
03:57
because language is infinite,
73
212000
2000
pentru ca limba e infinita,
03:59
and you can't just parrot back the sentences that you've heard.
74
214000
3000
si nu poti doar sa repeti ca un papagal propozitiile pe care le auzi.
04:02
You've got to extract generalizations
75
217000
2000
Trebuie sa extragi generalizari
04:04
so you can produce and understand new sentences.
76
219000
3000
astfel incat sa poti sa produci si sa intelegi noi propozitii.
04:07
This would be an example of how to do that.
77
222000
2000
Acesta ar fi un exemplu despre cum poti face asa ceva.
04:09
Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions.
78
224000
3000
Din pacate, se pare ca exista si exceptii idiosincrasice.
04:12
You can say, "Biff drove the car to Chicago,"
79
227000
3000
Putem spune, "Biff a condus masina la Chicago,"
04:15
but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car."
80
230000
3000
dar nu, "Biff a condus Chicago masina."
04:18
You can say, "Sal gave Jason a headache,"
81
233000
3000
Putem spune, "Sal i-a dat dureri de cap lui Jason ,"
04:21
but it's a bit odd to say, "Sal gave a headache to Jason."
82
236000
2000
dar e putin neobisnuit sa spunem "Sal a dat lui Jason dureri de cap ."
04:24
The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance,
83
239000
3000
Explicatia este ca aceste constructii, in ciuda primei impresii,
04:27
are not synonymous,
84
242000
2000
nu sunt sinonime.
04:29
that when you crank up the microscope
85
244000
2000
Ca atunci cand apropii microscopul
04:31
on human cognition, you see that there's a subtle difference
86
246000
2000
de cognitia umana, vezi ca exista o diferenta subtila
04:33
in meaning between them.
87
248000
2000
intre intelesurile lor.
04:35
So, "give the X to the Y,"
88
250000
2000
Deci, "Da pe X lui Y" --
04:37
that construction corresponds to the thought
89
252000
3000
aceasta constructie corespunde ideii,
04:40
"cause X to go to Y." Whereas "give the Y the X"
90
255000
3000
"Fa asa incat X sa mearga la Y." In timp ce, "Da lui Y pe X"
04:43
corresponds to the thought "cause Y to have X."
91
258000
4000
corespunde ideii "Fa asa incat Y sa aiba pe X."
04:47
Now, many events can be subject to either construal,
92
262000
4000
In multe cazuri putem vedea o constructie in doua feluri,
04:51
kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions,
93
266000
3000
cam ca si in cazul clasicei vaze a lui Rubin,
04:54
in which you can either pay attention
94
269000
3000
la care fie punem accentul
04:57
to the particular object,
95
272000
2000
pe un obiect in particular,
04:59
in which case the space around it recedes from attention,
96
274000
4000
caz in care spatiul din jurul sau trece in planul secund,
05:03
or you can see the faces in the empty space,
97
278000
2000
fie vedem profilurile din spatiul gol din jur,
05:05
in which case the object recedes out of consciousness.
98
280000
4000
caz in care obiectul in sine nu mai este perceput.
05:09
How are these construals reflected in language?
99
284000
2000
Cum se reflecta aceste doua posibilitati in limba?
05:11
Well, in both cases, the thing that is construed as being affected
100
286000
4000
In ambele cazuri, elementul care este considerat ca fiind direct influentat
05:15
is expressed as the direct object,
101
290000
2000
este exprimat in complementul direct:
05:17
the noun after the verb.
102
292000
2000
substantivul de dupa verb.
05:19
So, when you think of the event as causing the muffin to go somewhere --
103
294000
4000
Deci atunci cand consideram actiunea ca fiind cea care face ca gogoasa sa mearga undeva --
05:23
where you're doing something to the muffin --
104
298000
2000
cand ii facem ceva gogoasei --
05:25
you say, "Give the muffin to the mouse."
105
300000
2000
spunem "Da gogoasa soarecelui."
05:27
When you construe it as "cause the mouse to have something,"
106
302000
3000
Cand interpretam actiunea ca "fa ca soarecele sa primeasca ceva,"
05:30
you're doing something to the mouse,
107
305000
2000
ii facem ceva soarecelui,
05:32
and therefore you express it as, "Give the mouse the muffin."
108
307000
3000
si ca urmare, o exprimam ca "Da-i soarecelui gogoasa."
05:35
So which verbs go in which construction --
109
310000
2000
Deci care verbe intra in care constructie --
05:37
the problem with which I began --
110
312000
2000
intrebarea de la care am pornit --
05:39
depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion
111
314000
4000
depinde de situatie: fie verbul specifica un fel de miscare
05:43
or a kind of possession change.
112
318000
2000
fie un fel de schimbare a posesorului.
05:45
To give something involves both causing something to go
113
320000
3000
A da ceva inseamna atat a face ca ceva sa mearga,
05:48
and causing someone to have.
114
323000
2000
cat si a face ca cineva sa aiba.
05:50
To drive the car only causes something to go,
115
325000
3000
A conduce o masina nu face decat ca ceva sa mearga,
05:53
because Chicago's not the kind of thing that can possess something.
116
328000
2000
pentru ca Chicago nu e genul de element care poate poseda ceva.
05:55
Only humans can possess things.
117
330000
3000
Doar fiintele umane pot poseda ceva.
05:58
And to give someone a headache causes them to have the headache,
118
333000
2000
Si a da cuiva dureri de cap face ca cineva sa aiba dureri de cap,
06:00
but it's not as if you're taking the headache out of your head
119
335000
3000
dar nu e ca si cum ne-am scoate durerea de cap din propriul cap
06:03
and causing it to go to the other person,
120
338000
2000
si am face ca ea sa mearga la cealalta persoana,
06:05
and implanting it in them.
121
340000
2000
ca apoi sa intentionam sa o plasam in capul ei.
06:07
You may just be loud or obnoxious,
122
342000
2000
Probabil doar vorbesti tare si esti foarte enervant,
06:09
or some other way causing them to have the headache.
123
344000
2000
sau ii dai dureri de cap intr-un alt fel.
06:11
So, that's
124
346000
4000
Asadar, acesta
06:15
an example of the kind of thing that I do in my day job.
125
350000
2000
a fost un exemplu pentru a ilustra cu ce ma ocup eu la serviciu.
06:17
So why should anyone care?
126
352000
2000
De ce sa-i pese cuiva?
06:19
Well, there are a number of interesting conclusions, I think,
127
354000
3000
Am un numar interesant de concluzii, cred,
06:22
from this and many similar kinds of analyses
128
357000
4000
pe care le trag din acest studiu si din altele similare
06:26
of hundreds of English verbs.
129
361000
2000
a sute de verbe englezesti.
06:28
First, there's a level of fine-grained conceptual structure,
130
363000
3000
In primul rand, avem nivelul unei structuri conceptuale bine definite,
06:31
which we automatically and unconsciously compute
131
366000
3000
pe care o calculam automat si inconstient
06:34
every time we produce or utter a sentence, that governs our use of language.
132
369000
4000
de fiecare data cand formulam sau rostim o propozitie, ceea ce determina modul in care folosim limba.
06:38
You can think of this as the language of thought, or "mentalese."
133
373000
4000
Putem numi asta limba gandirii, sau "Mentaleza".
06:42
It seems to be based on a fixed set of concepts,
134
377000
3000
Pare sa se bazeze pe un grup fix de concepte
06:45
which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs --
135
380000
3000
care guverneaza o multime de constructii si mii de verbe --
06:48
not only in English, but in all other languages --
136
383000
3000
nu numai in engleza, dar in toate celelalte limbi --
06:51
fundamental concepts such as space,
137
386000
2000
concepte fundamentale cum sunt spatiul,
06:53
time, causation and human intention,
138
388000
3000
timpul, cauza si intentia --
06:56
such as, what is the means and what is the ends?
139
391000
3000
ca de exemplu, care sunt mijloacele si care este scopul?
06:59
These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories
140
394000
2000
Acestea amintesc de categoriile
07:01
that Immanuel Kant argued
141
396000
2000
despre care Immanuel Kant sustinea
07:03
are the basic framework for human thought,
142
398000
3000
ca reprezinta structura de baza a gandirii umane,
07:06
and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language
143
401000
3000
si e interesant ca utilizarea inconstienta a limbii
07:09
seems to reflect these Kantian categories.
144
404000
3000
pare sa reflecte aceste categorii kantiene --
07:12
Doesn't care about perceptual qualities,
145
407000
2000
nu ia in considerare caracteristici perceptuale,
07:14
such as color, texture, weight and speed,
146
409000
2000
ca de exemplu culoare, textura, greutate si viteza,
07:16
which virtually never differentiate
147
411000
2000
care practic nu influenteaza niciodata
07:18
the use of verbs in different constructions.
148
413000
2000
utilizarea verbelor in diferite constructii.
07:21
An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English
149
416000
3000
O complicatie in plus vine de la faptul ca toate constructiile in limba engleza
07:24
are used not only literally,
150
419000
2000
sunt folosite nu numai literal,
07:26
but in a quasi-metaphorical way.
151
421000
3000
dar si in mod semi-metaforic.
07:29
For example, this construction, the dative,
152
424000
2000
De exemplu, aceasta constructie, dativul,
07:31
is used not only to transfer things,
153
426000
2000
este folosita nu numai pentru a transfera obiecte,
07:33
but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas,
154
428000
3000
dar si pentru transferul metaforic de idei,
07:36
as when we say, "She told a story to me"
155
431000
2000
ca si atunci cand spunem, "Mi-a spus o poveste mie"
07:38
or "told me a story,"
156
433000
2000
sau "mi-a spus o poveste,"
07:40
"Max taught Spanish to the students" or "taught the students Spanish."
157
435000
3000
"Max a predat spaniola studentilor" sau "a invatat pe studenti spaniola."
07:43
It's exactly the same construction,
158
438000
2000
Este exact aceeasi constructie,
07:45
but no muffins, no mice, nothing moving at all.
159
440000
4000
dar nu avem nici gogosi, nici soareci. Nimic care sa se miste.
07:49
It evokes the container metaphor of communication,
160
444000
3000
Ne aduce aminte de "metafora recipientului" din comunicare,
07:52
in which we conceive of ideas as objects,
161
447000
2000
in care percepem ideile ca obiecte,
07:54
sentences as containers,
162
449000
2000
propozitiile ca recipiente,
07:56
and communication as a kind of sending.
163
451000
2000
si comunicarea ca un fel de transmitere --
07:58
As when we say we "gather" our ideas, to "put" them "into" words,
164
453000
3000
ca si atunci cand spunem ca ne "culegem" gandurile pentru a le "pune in" cuvinte,
08:01
and if our words aren't "empty" or "hollow,"
165
456000
2000
iar atunci cand cuvintele noastre nu sunt "goale" sau "fara continut,"
08:03
we might get these ideas "across" to a listener,
166
458000
3000
avem sansa sa "transmitem" aceste idei unui ascultator
08:06
who can "unpack" our words to "extract" their "content."
167
461000
3000
care poate sa "caute printre" cuvintele noastre pentru a le "extrage continutul."
08:09
And indeed, this kind of verbiage is not the exception, but the rule.
168
464000
3000
Astfel de expresii nu constituie o exceptie, ci o regula.
08:12
It's very hard to find any example of abstract language
169
467000
3000
E foarte greu sa gasim un exemplu de limbaj abstract
08:15
that is not based on some concrete metaphor.
170
470000
3000
care sa nu se bazeze pe o metafora concreta.
08:18
For example, you can use the verb "go"
171
473000
3000
De exemplu, putem folosi verbul "a merge"
08:21
and the prepositions "to" and "from"
172
476000
2000
si prepozitiile "inspre" si "dinspre"
08:23
in a literal, spatial sense.
173
478000
2000
intr-un sens spatial literal:
08:25
"The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul."
174
480000
2000
"Mesagerul a mers dinspre Paris inspre Istanbul."
08:27
You can also say, "Biff went from sick to well."
175
482000
3000
Putem spune, de asemenea, "Biff a mers dinspre rau inspre bine."
08:30
He needn't go anywhere. He could have been in bed the whole time,
176
485000
3000
Probabil ca nu a mers nicaieri. Se prea poate sa fi ramas in pat tot acest timp,
08:33
but it's as if his health is a point in state space
177
488000
2000
dar ne exprimam ca si cand sanatatea lui este un punct in spatiu
08:35
that you conceptualize as moving.
178
490000
2000
pe care il conceptualizam ca fiind in miscare.
08:37
Or, "The meeting went from three to four,"
179
492000
2000
Sau, "Intalnirea a durat de la trei la patru,"
08:39
in which we conceive of time as stretched along a line.
180
494000
3000
in care concepem timpul ca intinzandu-se de-a lungul unei linii.
08:42
Likewise, we use "force" to indicate
181
497000
3000
De asemenea, folosim forta pentru a indica
08:45
not only physical force,
182
500000
2000
nu numai forta fizica,
08:47
as in, "Rose forced the door to open,"
183
502000
2000
ca in exemplul, "Rose a fortat usa sa se deschida,"
08:49
but also interpersonal force,
184
504000
2000
dar si forta interpersonala,
08:51
as in, "Rose forced Sadie to go," not necessarily by manhandling her,
185
506000
4000
ca in exemplul, "Rose a fortat-o pe Sadie sa mearge" -- nu neaparat prin contact fizic
08:55
but by issuing a threat.
186
510000
2000
dar printr-o amenintare --
08:57
Or, "Rose forced herself to go,"
187
512000
2000
sau "Rose s-a fortat sa mearga,"
08:59
as if there were two entities inside Rose's head,
188
514000
2000
ca si cand ar fi doua entitati in capul lui Rose,
09:02
engaged in a tug of a war.
189
517000
2000
care se razboiesc una cu alta.
09:04
Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive
190
519000
3000
A doua concluzie este capacitatea de a concepe
09:07
of a given event in two different ways,
191
522000
3000
un eveniment in doua moduri diferite
09:10
such as "cause something to go to someone"
192
525000
2000
ca de exemplu, "a face ca ceva sa mearga la cineva,"
09:12
and "causing someone to have something,"
193
527000
2000
si "a face ca cineva sa aiba ceva,"
09:14
I think is a fundamental feature of human thought,
194
529000
4000
cred ca este o caracteristica fundamentala a gandirii umane,
09:18
and it's the basis for much human argumentation,
195
533000
3000
si sta la baza multor dispute umane,
09:21
in which people don't differ so much on the facts
196
536000
3000
in care oamenii nu difera atat in ceea ce priveste faptele
09:24
as on how they ought to be construed.
197
539000
2000
cat in ceea ce priveste modul in care acestea sunt interpretate.
09:26
Just to give you a few examples:
198
541000
2000
O sa va dau cateva exemple:
09:28
"ending a pregnancy" versus "killing a fetus;"
199
543000
2000
"intreruperea unei sarcini" fata de "uciderea unui fetus,"
09:30
"a ball of cells" versus "an unborn child;"
200
545000
3000
"o aglomerare de celule" fata de "un copil nenascut,"
09:33
"invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;"
201
548000
2000
"invadarea Iraq-ului" fata de "eliberarea Iraq-ului,"
09:35
"redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings."
202
550000
4000
"redistribuirea averii" fata de "confiscarea veniturilor."
09:39
And I think the biggest picture of all
203
554000
2000
Si cred ca cea mai completa imagine
09:41
would take seriously the fact
204
556000
3000
ar lua in serios faptul ca
09:44
that so much of our verbiage about abstract events
205
559000
3000
o mare parte din limbajul pe care-l folosim cand vorbim despre evenimente abstracte
09:47
is based on a concrete metaphor
206
562000
2000
se bazeza pe o metafora concreta.
09:49
and see human intelligence itself
207
564000
2000
Am vedea inteligenta umana insasi
09:51
as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --
208
566000
3000
ca fiind formata dintr-un repertoriu de concepte --
09:54
such as objects, space, time, causation and intention --
209
569000
3000
ca de exemplu obiecte, spatiu, timp, cauza si intentie --
09:57
which are useful in a social, knowledge-intensive species,
210
572000
4000
ce sunt utile speciilor sociale, care au nevoie de informatie,
10:01
whose evolution you can well imagine,
211
576000
2000
a caror evolutie v-o puteti imagina cu usurinta,
10:03
and a process of metaphorical abstraction
212
578000
3000
si dintr-un proces de abstractie metaforica
10:06
that allows us to bleach these concepts
213
581000
2000
care ne permite sa curatam aceste concepte
10:08
of their original conceptual content --
214
583000
3000
de continutul conceptual initial --
10:11
space, time and force --
215
586000
3000
spatiu, timp si forta --
10:14
and apply them to new abstract domains,
216
589000
2000
si sa le aplicam unor noi domenii abstracte,
10:16
therefore allowing a species that evolved
217
591000
3000
ca urmare permitand unei specii evoluate
10:19
to deal with rocks and tools and animals,
218
594000
2000
sa se foloseasca de pietre, de unelte si de animale,
10:21
to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law
219
596000
3000
sa conceptualizeze matematica, fizica, dreptul
10:24
and other abstract domains.
220
599000
3000
si alte domenii abstracte.
10:27
Well, I said I'd talk about two windows on human nature --
221
602000
3000
Am spus ca voi vorbi despre doua ferestre inspre natura umana:
10:30
the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world,
222
605000
3000
masinaria cognitiva cu care conceptualizam lumea,
10:33
and now I'm going to say a few words about the relationship types
223
608000
2000
si acum am sa spun cateva cuvinte despre tipurile relationale
10:35
that govern human social interaction,
224
610000
2000
care guverneaza interactiunea sociala,
10:37
again, as reflected in language.
225
612000
2000
din nou, asa cum acestea se reflecta in limba.
10:40
And I'll start out with a puzzle, the puzzle of indirect speech acts.
226
615000
4000
Si voi incepe cu o enigma: enigma actelor verbale indirecte.
10:44
Now, I'm sure most of you have seen the movie "Fargo."
227
619000
2000
Sunt sigur ca majoritatea dintre voi a vazut filmul "Fargo."
10:46
And you might remember the scene in which
228
621000
2000
Si poate va amintiti scena in care
10:48
the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer,
229
623000
3000
rapitorul este oprit de o masina de politie,
10:51
is asked to show his driver's license
230
626000
2000
i se cere sa arate carnetul de conducere
10:53
and holds his wallet out
231
628000
2000
iar acesta intinde portmoneul
10:55
with a 50-dollar bill extending
232
630000
3000
cu o hartie de 50 de dolari
10:58
at a slight angle out of the wallet.
233
633000
2000
iesind la un unghi discret din portmoneu.
11:00
And he says, "I was just thinking
234
635000
2000
Si spune, "Ma gandeam
11:02
that maybe we could take care of it here in Fargo,"
235
637000
2000
ca poate am putea sa rezolvam problema aici, in Fargo" --
11:04
which everyone, including the audience,
236
639000
3000
ceea ce toata lumea, inclusiv publicul,
11:07
interprets as a veiled bribe.
237
642000
3000
interpreteaza ca fiind o spaga mascata.
11:10
This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language.
238
645000
4000
Acest tip de act verbal indirect este foarte raspandit in limba.
11:14
For example, in polite requests,
239
649000
2000
De exemplu, in contextul unei cereri politicoase,
11:16
if someone says, "If you could pass the guacamole,
240
651000
2000
daca cineva spune "Ar fi minunat daca ati putea
11:18
that would be awesome,"
241
653000
2000
sa-mi dati vasul cu guacamole,"
11:20
we know exactly what he means,
242
655000
2000
stim exact ce vrea sa spuna,
11:22
even though that's a rather bizarre
243
657000
2000
cu toate ca e un mod de exprimare
11:24
concept being expressed.
244
659000
2000
cam ciudat.
11:26
(Laughter)
245
661000
3000
(Rasete)
11:29
"Would you like to come up and see my etchings?"
246
664000
2000
"Ti-ar face placere sa vii pana sus sa-mi vezi gravurile?"
11:31
I think most people
247
666000
2000
Cred ca majoritatea oamenilor intelege
11:33
understand the intent behind that.
248
668000
3000
intentia din spatele acestei propozitii.
11:36
And likewise, if someone says,
249
671000
2000
Si de asemenea, daca cineva spune,
11:38
"Nice store you've got there. It would be a real shame if something happened to it" --
250
673000
3000
"Frumos magazin aveti aici. Ar fi tare pacat sa i se intample ceva rau" --
11:41
(Laughter) --
251
676000
1000
(Rasete)
11:42
we understand that as a veiled threat,
252
677000
2000
intelegem asta ca pe o amenintare mascata,
11:44
rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities.
253
679000
3000
mai degraba decat ca pe o meditatie asupra unor posibilitati ipotetice.
11:47
So the puzzle is, why are bribes,
254
682000
3000
Deci enigma este, de ce spagile,
11:50
polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled?
255
685000
3000
cererile politicoase, propunerile si amenintarile sunt atat de des mascate?
11:53
No one's fooled.
256
688000
2000
Nimeni nu poate fi amagit --
11:55
Both parties know exactly what the speaker means,
257
690000
3000
ambii interlocutori stiu exact ce vrea sa spuna vorbitorul,
11:58
and the speaker knows the listener knows
258
693000
2000
iar vorbitorul stie ca ascultatorul stie
12:00
that the speaker knows that the listener knows, etc., etc.
259
695000
3000
ca vorbitorul stie ca ascultatorul stie, s.a.m.d, s.a.m.d.
12:03
So what's going on?
260
698000
2000
Deci, ce se intampla de fapt?
12:05
I think the key idea is that language
261
700000
2000
Cred ca ideea de baza este ca limba
12:07
is a way of negotiating relationships,
262
702000
2000
e un mod de a negocia relatii,
12:09
and human relationships fall into a number of types.
263
704000
3000
iar relatiile interumane se impart intr-un numar de categorii.
12:12
There's an influential taxonomy by the anthropologist Alan Fiske,
264
707000
4000
Antropologul Alan Fiske a formulat o influenta taxonomie,
12:16
in which relationships can be categorized, more or less,
265
711000
3000
in care relatiile pot fi categorisite, mai mult sau mai putin,
12:19
into communality, which works on the principle
266
714000
2000
in comunalitate, care functioneaza pe principiul
12:21
"what's mine is thine, what's thine is mine,"
267
716000
3000
"Ce e al meu e si al tau, ce e al tau e si al meu" --
12:24
the kind of mindset that operates within a family, for example;
268
719000
4000
genul de mentalitate care opereaza in cadrul unei familii, de exemplu --
12:28
dominance, whose principle is "don't mess with me;"
269
723000
3000
dominanta, a carui principiu este "Nu te pune cu mine,"
12:31
reciprocity, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours;"
270
726000
4000
reciprocitate: "o mana spala pe alta",
12:35
and sexuality, in the immortal words of Cole Porter, "Let's do it."
271
730000
5000
si sexualitate: in cuvintele nemuritoare ale lui Cole Porter, "Hai la treaba."
12:40
Now, relationship types can be negotiated.
272
735000
3000
Tipurile de relatii pot fi negociate.
12:43
Even though there are default situations
273
738000
3000
Cu toate ca exista situatii standard
12:46
in which one of these mindsets can be applied,
274
741000
2000
in care una dintre aceste atitudini poate fi aplicata,
12:48
they can be stretched and extended.
275
743000
3000
acestea pot fi intinse si extinse.
12:51
For example, communality applies most naturally
276
746000
3000
De exemplu, comuniunea se intalneste cel mai natural
12:54
within family or friends,
277
749000
2000
in familie sau intre prieteni,
12:56
but it can be used to try to transfer
278
751000
2000
dar poate fi folosita pentru a incerca sa se transfere
12:58
the mentality of sharing
279
753000
2000
mentalitatea necesara pentru a imparti cu altii
13:00
to groups that ordinarily would not be disposed to exercise it.
280
755000
4000
unor grupuri care in mod normal nu ar fi dispuse sa o foloseasca --
13:04
For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations,
281
759000
4000
ca de exemplu, in fraternitati,
13:08
sororities, locutions like "the family of man,"
282
763000
3000
sororitati, in formulari ca "familia omului",
13:11
you try to get people who are not related
283
766000
2000
incearca sa ii faca pe niste oameni care nu sunt inruditi
13:13
to use the relationship type that would ordinarily
284
768000
4000
sa foloseasca tipul de relatie care in mod normal
13:17
be appropriate to close kin.
285
772000
2000
s-ar potrivi unor rude apropiate.
13:19
Now, mismatches -- when one person assumes one relationship type,
286
774000
3000
Dar nepotrivirile -- cand o persoana presupune un tip de relatie,
13:22
and another assumes a different one -- can be awkward.
287
777000
3000
si o alta presupune un altul -- pot duce la situatii jenante.
13:25
If you went over and you helped yourself
288
780000
2000
Daca ai merge la masa alaturata si ai lua
13:27
to a shrimp off your boss' plate,
289
782000
2000
un crevete din farfuria sefului tau,
13:29
for example, that would be an awkward situation.
290
784000
2000
de exemplu, ai crea o situatie jenanta.
13:31
Or if a dinner guest after the meal
291
786000
2000
Sau daca un invitat la cina, dupa masa,
13:33
pulled out his wallet and offered to pay you for the meal,
292
788000
3000
si-ar scoate portofelul si s-ar oferi sa plateasca pentru mancare,
13:36
that would be rather awkward as well.
293
791000
2000
am avea de asemenea o situatie neplacuta.
13:38
In less blatant cases,
294
793000
3000
Si in cazuri mai putin evidente,
13:41
there's still a kind of negotiation that often goes on.
295
796000
3000
avem de-a face cu un fel de negociere.
13:44
In the workplace, for example,
296
799000
2000
La locul de munca, de exemplu,
13:46
there's often a tension over whether an employee
297
801000
2000
se pune adeseori intrebarea daca un angajat
13:48
can socialize with the boss,
298
803000
2000
isi poate petrece parte din timpul liber cu seful,
13:50
or refer to him or her
299
805000
2000
sau poate sa i se adreseze
13:52
on a first-name basis.
300
807000
2000
cu numele mic.
13:54
If two friends have a
301
809000
2000
Daca doi prieteni au
13:56
reciprocal transaction, like selling a car,
302
811000
2000
o tranzactie reciproca, ca vanzarea unei masini,
13:58
it's well known that this can be a source
303
813000
2000
e binecunoscut faptul ca aceasta poate fi o sursa
14:00
of tension or awkwardness.
304
815000
2000
de tensiune sau incurcatura.
14:02
In dating, the transition
305
817000
2000
Cand doi oameni ies impreuna, tranzitia
14:04
from friendship to sex
306
819000
2000
de la prietenie la sex
14:06
can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness,
307
821000
3000
poate duce, dupa cum bine stim, la diferite situatii jenante,
14:09
and as can sex in the workplace,
308
824000
2000
ca si relatiile sexuale cu un coleg de munca,
14:11
in which we call the conflict between a
309
826000
2000
caz in care conflictul dintre
14:13
dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment."
310
828000
4000
o relatie dominanta si una sexuala il numim "hartuire sexuala."
14:17
Well, what does this have to do with language?
311
832000
2000
Si, ce au toate astea cu limba?
14:19
Well, language, as a social interaction,
312
834000
2000
Limba, ca interactiune sociala,
14:21
has to satisfy two conditions.
313
836000
2000
trebuie sa satisfaca doua conditii.
14:23
You have to convey the actual content --
314
838000
3000
Trebuie sa transmitem continutul in sine --
14:26
here we get back to the container metaphor.
315
841000
2000
aici revenim la metafora recipientului.
14:28
You want to express the bribe, the command, the promise,
316
843000
3000
Vrem sa exprimam spaga, ordinul, promisiunea,
14:31
the solicitation and so on,
317
846000
2000
propunerea si asa mai departe --
14:33
but you also have to negotiate
318
848000
2000
dar trebuie si sa negociem
14:35
and maintain the kind of relationship
319
850000
2000
si sa mentinem tipul de relatie
14:37
you have with the other person.
320
852000
2000
pe care o avem cu cealalta persoana.
14:39
The solution, I think, is that we use language at two levels:
321
854000
3000
Solutia, cred, este faptul ca utilizam limba la doua nivele:
14:42
the literal form signals
322
857000
2000
forma literala semnalizeaza
14:44
the safest relationship with the listener,
323
859000
2000
relatia cea mai confortabila cu ascultatorul,
14:46
whereas the implicated content --
324
861000
2000
pe cand continutul sugerat --
14:49
the reading between the lines that we count on the listener to perform --
325
864000
2000
cititul printre randuri pe care ne bazam ca ascultatorul il face --
14:52
allows the listener to derive the interpretation
326
867000
2000
permite ascultatorului sa deduca interpretarea
14:54
which is most relevant in context,
327
869000
2000
cea mai relevanta in contextul dat,
14:56
which possibly initiates a changed relationship.
328
871000
3000
ceea ce poate duce la o relatie modificata.
14:59
The simplest example of this is in the polite request.
329
874000
4000
Cel mai simplu exemplu in acest sens este cererea politicoasa.
15:03
If you express your request as a conditional --
330
878000
3000
Daca iti exprimi cererea sub forma conditionala:
15:06
"if you could open the window, that would be great" --
331
881000
3000
"Daca ai putea deschide fereastra ar fi minunat,"
15:09
even though the content is an imperative,
332
884000
2000
chiar daca continutul este un imperativ,
15:11
the fact that you're not using the imperative voice
333
886000
2000
faptul ca nu folosim imperativul
15:14
means that you're not acting as if you're in a relationship of dominance,
334
889000
3000
inseamna ca nu ne comportam ca si cand ne-am gasi intr-o relatie de dominatie
15:18
where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person.
335
893000
3000
pe baza careia poti presupune supunerea celeilalte persoane.
15:21
On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole.
336
896000
2000
Pe de alta parte, chiar vrem blestematul de guacamole.
15:23
By expressing it as an if-then statement,
337
898000
3000
Exprimand cererea ca pe o propozitie "daca-atunci",
15:26
you can get the message across
338
901000
2000
putem transmite mesajul
15:28
without appearing to boss another person around.
339
903000
4000
fara sa para ca ii dam cuiva ordine.
15:32
And in a more subtle way, I think, this works
340
907000
2000
Si, intr-un mod mai subtil, cred ca strategia functioneaza
15:34
for all of the veiled speech acts
341
909000
2000
pentru toate actele verbale mascate
15:36
involving plausible deniability:
342
911000
2000
care implica o posibila retractare credibila:
15:38
the bribes, threats, propositions,
343
913000
2000
spaga, amenintarile, propunerile,
15:40
solicitations and so on.
344
915000
2000
avansurile si asa mai departe.
15:42
One way of thinking about it is to imagine what it would be like
345
917000
2000
O modalitate de a intelege e daca incercam sa ne imaginam cum ar fi
15:44
if language -- where it could only be used literally.
346
919000
3000
sa putem sa ne folosim de limba doar in sens literal.
15:47
And you can think of it in terms of a
347
922000
2000
Si putem vedea asta in termeni
15:49
game-theoretic payoff matrix.
348
924000
3000
de teoria jocurilor.
15:52
Put yourself in the position of the
349
927000
2000
Puneti-va in pozitia
15:54
kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer.
350
929000
3000
rapitorului care vrea sa mituiasca politistul.
15:57
There's a high stakes
351
932000
2000
Riscul e mare
15:59
in the two possibilities
352
934000
3000
in ambele cazuri,
16:02
of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer.
353
937000
3000
fie ca politistul e cinstit, fie ca nu.
16:05
If you don't bribe the officer,
354
940000
3000
Daca nu mituiesti ofiterul,
16:08
then you will get a traffic ticket --
355
943000
2000
te alegi cu o amenda --
16:10
or, as is the case of "Fargo," worse --
356
945000
2000
sau, ca in "Fargo", mai rau de-atat --
16:12
whether the honest officer
357
947000
2000
si daca politistul e cinstit,
16:14
is honest or dishonest.
358
949000
2000
si daca e necinstit:
16:16
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
359
951000
2000
nu risti, nu castigi.
16:18
In that case, the consequences are rather severe.
360
953000
3000
In acest caz, urmarile sunt grave.
16:21
On the other hand, if you extend the bribe,
361
956000
2000
Pe de alta parte, daca oferi spaga,
16:23
if the officer is dishonest,
362
958000
2000
daca politistul e necinstit,
16:25
you get a huge payoff of going free.
363
960000
3000
castigul e imens, fiindca scapi fara pedeapsa.
16:28
If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty
364
963000
3000
Daca ofiterul e cinstit, pedeapsa e imensa,
16:31
of being arrested for bribery.
365
966000
2000
fiindca vei fi arestat pentru dare de spaga.
16:33
So this is a rather fraught situation.
366
968000
2000
Deci ne gasim intr-o situatie destul de complicata.
16:35
On the other hand, with indirect language,
367
970000
2000
Pe de alta parte, cu un limbaj indirect,
16:37
if you issue a veiled bribe,
368
972000
2000
daca oferi o spaga mascata,
16:39
then the dishonest officer
369
974000
2000
atunci politistul necinstit
16:41
could interpret it as a bribe,
370
976000
2000
poate interpreta oferta ca pe o mita,
16:43
in which case you get the payoff of going free.
371
978000
3000
caz in care castigi, fiindca esti eliberat,
16:46
The honest officer can't hold you to it as being a bribe,
372
981000
3000
iar politistul cinstit nu te pote trage la raspundere pentru dare de mita,
16:49
and therefore, you get the nuisance of the traffic ticket.
373
984000
3000
si ca urmare ramai doar cu o amenda.
16:52
So you get the best of both worlds.
374
987000
3000
Deci pana la urma te alegi cu ce-i mai bun din toate.
16:55
And a similar analysis, I think,
375
990000
2000
Si cred ca o analiza similara
16:57
can apply to the potential awkwardness
376
992000
2000
se aplica si potentialei situatii jenante
16:59
of a sexual solicitation,
377
994000
2000
create de un avans de natura sexuala
17:01
and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset.
378
996000
3000
si altor cazuri in care o retractare credibila poate fi un avantaj.
17:04
I think this affirms
379
999000
2000
Acest fapt confirma
17:06
something that's long been known by diplomats --
380
1001000
2000
ceva ce diplomatii stiu demult --
17:08
namely, that the vagueness of language,
381
1003000
2000
si anume, ca un limbaj vag,
17:10
far from being a bug or an imperfection,
382
1005000
3000
departe de a fi o problema sau o imperfectiune,
17:13
actually might be a feature of language,
383
1008000
3000
ar putea fi o caracteristica a limbii --
17:16
one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.
384
1011000
3000
pe care o folosim in avantajul nostru in interactiuni sociale.
17:19
So to sum up: language is a collective human creation,
385
1014000
3000
Deci, ca sa recapitulam: limba este o creatie umana colectiva,
17:22
reflecting human nature,
386
1017000
2000
care reflecta natura umana --
17:24
how we conceptualize reality,
387
1019000
2000
felul in care conceptualizam realitatea,
17:26
how we relate to one another.
388
1021000
2000
relatiile pe care le avem unul cu altul --
17:28
And then by analyzing the various quirks and complexities of language,
389
1023000
4000
si, analizand diferitele ciudatenii si complexitati ale limbii,
17:32
I think we can get a window onto what makes us tick.
390
1027000
3000
cred ca putem sa identificam ce anume ne face ceea ce suntem.
17:35
Thank you very much.
391
1030000
1000
Va multumesc.
17:36
(Applause)
392
1031000
1000
(Aplauze)
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