TEDGlobal 2005
Steven Pinker: What our language habits reveal
Stiven Pinker o jeziku i misli
Filmed:
Readability: 5.2
2,457,061 views
U ekskluzivnom predstavljanju svoje knjige "Građa misli", Stiven Pinker (Steven Pinker) govori o jeziku i načinu na koji jezik izražava ono što se dešava u našem umu -- i o tome kako reči koje koristimo govore mnogo više nego što mislimo.
Steven Pinker - Psychologist
Steven Pinker is a professor of cognitive science (the study of the human mind) who writes about language, mind and human nature. Full bio
Steven Pinker is a professor of cognitive science (the study of the human mind) who writes about language, mind and human nature. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:26
This is a picture of Maurice Druon,
0
1000
2000
Ovo je slika Morisa Driona,
00:28
the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise,
1
3000
4000
počasnog doživotnog sekretara L'Academie francaise --
00:32
the French Academy.
2
7000
2000
Francuske akademije
00:34
He is splendidly attired in his 68,000-dollar uniform,
3
9000
5000
On je besprekorno odeven u svoju uniformu od 68.000 dolara
00:39
befitting the role of the French Academy
4
14000
3000
kao što to i dolikuje ulozi koju ima Francuska akademija
00:42
as legislating the
5
17000
3000
u regulisanju
00:45
correct usage in French
6
20000
2000
ispravne upotrebe francuskog jezika
00:47
and perpetuating the language.
7
22000
2000
i očuvanju jezika.
00:49
The French Academy has two main tasks:
8
24000
3000
Francuska akademija ima dva glavna zadatka:
00:52
it compiles a dictionary of official French.
9
27000
3000
ona sastavlja rečnik službenog francuskog jezika --
00:55
They're now working on their ninth edition,
10
30000
3000
trenutno se radi na devetom izdanju,
00:58
which they began in 1930, and they've reached the letter P.
11
33000
3000
koje su započeli 1930., a stigli su do slova P.
01:02
They also legislate on correct usage,
12
37000
3000
Oni takođe donose zakone o ispravnoj upotrebi reči,
01:05
such as the proper term for what the French call "email,"
13
40000
4000
na primer o valjanom terminu za ono što Francuzi nazivaju "email",
01:09
which ought to be "courriel."
14
44000
2000
a što bi trebalo biti "courriel".
01:11
The World Wide Web, the French are told,
15
46000
2000
Svetska kompjuterska mreža (WWW), kako je rečeno Francuzima,
01:13
ought to be referred to as
16
48000
2000
treba da se zove
01:15
"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- the Global Spider Web --
17
50000
4000
"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- odnosno Globalna paukova mreža --
01:19
recommendations that the French gaily ignore.
18
54000
4000
sve same preporuke koje Francuzi olako odbacuju.
01:24
Now, this is one model of how language comes to be:
19
59000
4000
Ovo je, dakle, jedan od načina na koji jezik nastaje:
01:28
namely, it's legislated by an academy.
20
63000
3000
naime, njega određuje neka akademija.
01:31
But anyone who looks at language realizes
21
66000
3000
Međutim, svako ko pogleda jezik shvatiće
01:34
that this is a rather silly conceit,
22
69000
4000
da je ovo jedno poprilično smešno uobraženje,
01:38
that language, rather, emerges from human minds interacting from one another.
23
73000
3000
te da jezik radije nastaje u međusobnoj interakciji ljudskih umova.
01:41
And this is visible in the unstoppable change in language --
24
76000
4000
I ovo se može videti u nezaustavljivim promenama u jeziku --
01:45
the fact that by the time the Academy finishes their dictionary,
25
80000
3000
i u činjenici da dok Akademija završi svoj rečnik,
01:48
it will already be well out of date.
26
83000
2000
on će već biti zastareo.
01:50
We see it in the
27
85000
2000
Ovo se može videti u
01:52
constant appearance of slang and jargon,
28
87000
4000
stalnom stvaranju slenga i žargona,
01:56
of the historical change in languages,
29
91000
2000
u promenama jezika kroz istoriju,
01:58
in divergence of dialects
30
93000
2000
u divergenciji dijalekata
02:00
and the formation of new languages.
31
95000
3000
i u stvaranju novih jezika.
02:03
So language is not so much a creator or shaper of human nature,
32
98000
3000
Stoga jezik ne stvara i ne oblikuje ljudsku prirodu u tolikoj meri
02:06
so much as a window onto human nature.
33
101000
3000
u kolikoj on predstavlja uvid u tu prirodu.
02:09
In a book that I'm currently working on,
34
104000
3000
U knjizi na kojoj trenutno radim
02:12
I hope to use language to shed light on
35
107000
3000
nadam se da ću pomoću jezika uspeti da rasvetlim
02:15
a number of aspects of human nature,
36
110000
2000
veliki broj aspekata ljudske prirode,
02:17
including the cognitive machinery
37
112000
2000
uključujuči i kognitivnu mašineriju
02:19
with which humans conceptualize the world
38
114000
3000
kojom čovek konceptualizuje svet
02:22
and the relationship types that govern human interaction.
39
117000
3000
i vrste odnosa koje upravljaju interakcijom među ljudima.
02:25
And I'm going to say a few words about each one this morning.
40
120000
3000
O svakoj od njih ću danas reći po koju reč.
02:28
Let me start off with a technical problem in language
41
123000
2000
Počeću od jednog tehničkog problema u jeziku
02:30
that I've worried about for quite some time --
42
125000
2000
koji me je prilično dugo opterećivao --
02:32
and indulge me
43
127000
4000
i nadam se da mi nećete zameriti
02:36
in my passion for verbs and how they're used.
44
131000
3000
što će to biti vezano za moju veliku strast prema glagolima i njihovoj upotrebi.
02:39
The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions?
45
134000
3000
Problem se sastoji u tome koji se glagoli koriste u kojim konstrukcijama.
02:42
The verb is the chassis of the sentence.
46
137000
3000
Glagol je šasija rečenice.
02:45
It's the framework onto which the other parts are bolted.
47
140000
4000
On je kostur na koji se dodaju ostali delovi.
02:49
Let me give you a quick reminder
48
144000
2000
Dozvolite mi da vas na brzinu podsetim
02:51
of something that you've long forgotten.
49
146000
2000
na nešto što ste davno zaboravili.
02:53
An intransitive verb, such as "dine," for example,
50
148000
3000
Neprelazni glagoli, kao što je na primer "obedovati"
02:56
can't take a direct object.
51
151000
2000
ne mogu imati direktan objekat.
02:58
You have to say, "Sam dined," not, "Sam dined the pizza."
52
153000
3000
Moramo reći "Sem je obedovao", a ne "Sem je obedovao picu."
03:01
A transitive verb mandates
53
156000
2000
Prelazni glagoli zahtevaju
03:03
that there has to be an object there:
54
158000
2000
nužno postojanje objekta:
03:05
"Sam devoured the pizza." You can't just say, "Sam devoured."
55
160000
3000
"Sem je smazao picu". Ne možete reći samo: "Sem je smazao."
03:08
There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type,
56
163000
4000
Postoje desetine i desetine ovakvih glagola,
03:12
each of which shapes its sentence.
57
167000
2000
od kojih svaki oblikuje rečenicu.
03:14
So, a problem in explaining how children learn language,
58
169000
4000
Stoga, problemi u objašnjenjima toga kako deca uče jezik,
03:18
a problem in teaching language to adults so that they don't make grammatical errors,
59
173000
5000
problemi u učenju odraslih jeziku tako da ne prave gramatičke greške,
03:23
and a problem in programming computers to use language is
60
178000
3000
i problemi u programiranju kompjutera za upotrebu jezika svode se na to
03:26
which verbs go in which constructions.
61
181000
2000
koji glagoli se koriste u kojim konstrukcijama.
03:29
For example, the dative construction in English.
62
184000
2000
Na primer, dativna konstrukcija u engleskom --
03:31
You can say, "Give a muffin to a mouse," the prepositional dative.
63
186000
3000
možemo reči "Dati kolač mišu", što je u engleskom dativ sa predlogom,
03:34
Or, "Give a mouse a muffin," the double-object dative.
64
189000
3000
ili "Dati mišu kolač", što je u engleskom dativ sa dvostrukim objektom,
03:37
"Promise anything to her," "Promise her anything," and so on.
65
192000
4000
"Obećaj sve njoj", "Obećaj joj sve", itd.
03:41
Hundreds of verbs can go both ways.
66
196000
2000
Stotine glagola se može upotrebiti na oba načina.
03:43
So a tempting generalization for a child,
67
198000
2000
Primamljiva generalizacija za bilo koje dete,
03:45
for an adult, for a computer
68
200000
2000
odraslu osobu, ili kompjuter
03:47
is that any verb that can appear in the construction,
69
202000
2000
jeste da se svaki glagol koji se može javiti u konstrukciji
03:49
"subject-verb-thing-to-a-recipient"
70
204000
3000
"subjekat-glagol-objekat-primaocu"
03:52
can also be expressed as "subject-verb-recipient-thing."
71
207000
3000
takođe može javiti i u konstrukciji "subjekat-glagol-primaocu-objekat".
03:55
A handy thing to have,
72
210000
2000
Ovo je veoma zgodno,
03:57
because language is infinite,
73
212000
2000
jer je jezik beskonačan,
03:59
and you can't just parrot back the sentences that you've heard.
74
214000
3000
i ne možete prosto papagajski ponavljati rečenice koje ste već čuli.
04:02
You've got to extract generalizations
75
217000
2000
Morate se služiti generalizacijama
04:04
so you can produce and understand new sentences.
76
219000
3000
kako biste sastavljali i razumeli nove rečenice.
04:07
This would be an example of how to do that.
77
222000
2000
Ovo je bio primer koji ilustruje kako se to radi.
04:09
Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions.
78
224000
3000
Nažalost, čini se da postoje ideosinkratični izuzeci.
04:12
You can say, "Biff drove the car to Chicago,"
79
227000
3000
Možemo reći "Bif je odvezao auto u Čikago",
04:15
but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car."
80
230000
3000
ali ne i "Bif je odvezao Čikagu auto".
04:18
You can say, "Sal gave Jason a headache,"
81
233000
3000
Možemo reći "Sal je zadao Džejsonu glavobolju",
04:21
but it's a bit odd to say, "Sal gave a headache to Jason."
82
236000
2000
ali pomalo čudno zvuči kad kažemo "Sal je zadao glavobolju Džejsonu".
04:24
The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance,
83
239000
3000
Odgovor leži u činjenici da ove dve konstrukcije, iako slične na prvi pogled,
04:27
are not synonymous,
84
242000
2000
nisu sinonimne.
04:29
that when you crank up the microscope
85
244000
2000
Kada pod mikroskopom pogledate
04:31
on human cognition, you see that there's a subtle difference
86
246000
2000
ljudsku kogniciju, vidite da postoji izvesna razlika
04:33
in meaning between them.
87
248000
2000
u značenju između njih.
04:35
So, "give the X to the Y,"
88
250000
2000
Stoga, "Dati X Y-u"
04:37
that construction corresponds to the thought
89
252000
3000
jeste konstrukcija iza koje stoji misao
04:40
"cause X to go to Y." Whereas "give the Y the X"
90
255000
3000
"Učiniti da X ode do Y-a". Sa druge strane, "Dati Y-u X"
04:43
corresponds to the thought "cause Y to have X."
91
258000
4000
iza sebe ima misao "učiniti da Y ima X".
04:47
Now, many events can be subject to either construal,
92
262000
4000
U mnogim situacijama su moguće i jedna i druga interpretacija,
04:51
kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions,
93
266000
3000
što podseća na optičke iluzije
04:54
in which you can either pay attention
94
269000
3000
u kojima se možemo fokusirati
04:57
to the particular object,
95
272000
2000
ili na određeni predmet,
04:59
in which case the space around it recedes from attention,
96
274000
4000
pri čemu sve oko njega izbija iz prvog plana,
05:03
or you can see the faces in the empty space,
97
278000
2000
ili gde možemo videti lica u praznom prostoru,
05:05
in which case the object recedes out of consciousness.
98
280000
4000
pri čemu predmet izlazi iz prvog plana.
05:09
How are these construals reflected in language?
99
284000
2000
Kako se ove interpretacije odslikavaju u jeziku?
05:11
Well, in both cases, the thing that is construed as being affected
100
286000
4000
Pa, u oba slučaja, ono što percipiramo kao nešto nad čime se vrši radnja
05:15
is expressed as the direct object,
101
290000
2000
izražava se direktnim objektom:
05:17
the noun after the verb.
102
292000
2000
imenicom koja sledi glagol.
05:19
So, when you think of the event as causing the muffin to go somewhere --
103
294000
4000
Kada sada predstavimo sebi situaciju kao uzrokovanje kolača da ode negde
05:23
where you're doing something to the muffin --
104
298000
2000
u kome nešto radimo sa tim kolačem --
05:25
you say, "Give the muffin to the mouse."
105
300000
2000
kažemo "Dati kolač mišu".
05:27
When you construe it as "cause the mouse to have something,"
106
302000
3000
Kada je interpretiramo kao "učiniti da miš nešto ima"
05:30
you're doing something to the mouse,
107
305000
2000
radimo nešto mišu,
05:32
and therefore you express it as, "Give the mouse the muffin."
108
307000
3000
i stoga to izražavamo kao "Dati mišu kolač"
05:35
So which verbs go in which construction --
109
310000
2000
Dakle, koji glagol ide u koju konstrukciju --
05:37
the problem with which I began --
110
312000
2000
izvorni problem od koga sam počeo --
05:39
depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion
111
314000
4000
zavisi od toga da li se glagol odnosi na neko kretanje
05:43
or a kind of possession change.
112
318000
2000
ili promenu vlasništva.
05:45
To give something involves both causing something to go
113
320000
3000
Dati nešto podrazumeva i to da činimo da nešto ode
05:48
and causing someone to have.
114
323000
2000
i to da činimo da neko nešto ima.
05:50
To drive the car only causes something to go,
115
325000
3000
Vožnja automobila uzrokuje samo kretanje nečega,
05:53
because Chicago's not the kind of thing that can possess something.
116
328000
2000
jer Čikago ne može posedovati bilo šta.
05:55
Only humans can possess things.
117
330000
3000
Samo ljudi mogu posedovati stvari.
05:58
And to give someone a headache causes them to have the headache,
118
333000
2000
A zadavanjem glavobolje činimo da neko ima glavobolju,
06:00
but it's not as if you're taking the headache out of your head
119
335000
3000
ali to se ne može shvatiti kao uzimanje glavobolje iz jedne glave
06:03
and causing it to go to the other person,
120
338000
2000
njeno prebacivanje na drugu osobu
06:05
and implanting it in them.
121
340000
2000
i ubacivanje iste u njenu glavu.
06:07
You may just be loud or obnoxious,
122
342000
2000
Može biti da ste jednostavno bučni ili nepodnošljivi,
06:09
or some other way causing them to have the headache.
123
344000
2000
ili da na neki drugi način zadajete nekome glavobolju.
06:11
So, that's
124
346000
4000
Ovo je bio
06:15
an example of the kind of thing that I do in my day job.
125
350000
2000
primer onoga čime se ja svakodnevno bavim.
06:17
So why should anyone care?
126
352000
2000
A zašto bi ikoga bilo briga?
06:19
Well, there are a number of interesting conclusions, I think,
127
354000
3000
Pa, zbog toga što postoji veliki broj zanimljivih zaključaka, po mom mišljenju,
06:22
from this and many similar kinds of analyses
128
357000
4000
koji se mogu izvući iz ove i mnogih sličnih analiza
06:26
of hundreds of English verbs.
129
361000
2000
stotina engleskih glagola.
06:28
First, there's a level of fine-grained conceptual structure,
130
363000
3000
Prvo, tu je nivo kompleksne konceptualne strukture,
06:31
which we automatically and unconsciously compute
131
366000
3000
koji automatski i nesvesno obrađujemo
06:34
every time we produce or utter a sentence, that governs our use of language.
132
369000
4000
svaki put kada produkujemo ili izgovorimo rečenicu, a koji upravlja našom upotrebom jezika.
06:38
You can think of this as the language of thought, or "mentalese."
133
373000
4000
Njega možemo nazvati jezikom misli, ili "mentalnim jezikom".
06:42
It seems to be based on a fixed set of concepts,
134
377000
3000
Čini se da se on zasniva na određenom skupu koncepata
06:45
which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs --
135
380000
3000
koji upravljaju desetinama konstrukcija i hiljadama glagola --
06:48
not only in English, but in all other languages --
136
383000
3000
ne samo u engleskom, već u svim jezicima --
06:51
fundamental concepts such as space,
137
386000
2000
fundamentalnim konceptima kao što su prostor,
06:53
time, causation and human intention,
138
388000
3000
vreme, uzročnost i ljudske namere --
06:56
such as, what is the means and what is the ends?
139
391000
3000
kao što su na primer sredstvo i cilj.
06:59
These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories
140
394000
2000
Ovo podseća na kategorije
07:01
that Immanuel Kant argued
141
396000
2000
za koje je Imanuel Kant tvrdio
07:03
are the basic framework for human thought,
142
398000
3000
da čine osnovu ljudske misli,
07:06
and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language
143
401000
3000
i zanimljivo je da naša nesvesna upotreba jezika
07:09
seems to reflect these Kantian categories.
144
404000
3000
naizgled odslikava ove Kantove kategorije --
07:12
Doesn't care about perceptual qualities,
145
407000
2000
nije je briga za perceptivne osobine,
07:14
such as color, texture, weight and speed,
146
409000
2000
kao što su boja, tekstura, težina i brzina,
07:16
which virtually never differentiate
147
411000
2000
koje gotovo da se nikada i ne utiču na
07:18
the use of verbs in different constructions.
148
413000
2000
upotrebu glagola u različitim konstrukcijama.
07:21
An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English
149
416000
3000
Dodatni zaplet dolazi od činjenice da se sve konstrukcije u engleskom
07:24
are used not only literally,
150
419000
2000
ne upotrebljavaju samo u bukvalnom smislu,
07:26
but in a quasi-metaphorical way.
151
421000
3000
već i u kvazi-metaforičkom smislu.
07:29
For example, this construction, the dative,
152
424000
2000
Na primer, ova konstrukcija, dativ,
07:31
is used not only to transfer things,
153
426000
2000
koristi se ne samo za transfer predmeta,
07:33
but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas,
154
428000
3000
već i za metaforički transfer ideja,
07:36
as when we say, "She told a story to me"
155
431000
2000
i kada kažemo "Ispričala je priču meni"
07:38
or "told me a story,"
156
433000
2000
ili "ispričala mi je priču",
07:40
"Max taught Spanish to the students" or "taught the students Spanish."
157
435000
3000
"Maks je predavao španski učenicima" ili "je predavao učenicima španski"
07:43
It's exactly the same construction,
158
438000
2000
To je potpuno ista konstrukcija,
07:45
but no muffins, no mice, nothing moving at all.
159
440000
4000
ali bez kolača, i bez miševa. Bez ikakvog pomeranja.
07:49
It evokes the container metaphor of communication,
160
444000
3000
Podseća na "metaforu posude" u komunikaciji,
07:52
in which we conceive of ideas as objects,
161
447000
2000
u kojoj doživljavamo ideje kao predmete,
07:54
sentences as containers,
162
449000
2000
rečenice kao posude,
07:56
and communication as a kind of sending.
163
451000
2000
a komunikaciju kao neku vrstu slanja --
07:58
As when we say we "gather" our ideas, to "put" them "into" words,
164
453000
3000
kao kada kažemo da "sakupljamo" svoje ideje da bismo ih "pretočili" u reči,
08:01
and if our words aren't "empty" or "hollow,"
165
456000
2000
i ako naše reči nisu "prazne" ili "šuplje",
08:03
we might get these ideas "across" to a listener,
166
458000
3000
možemo da ih "prenesemo" sagovorniku
08:06
who can "unpack" our words to "extract" their "content."
167
461000
3000
koji može "raspakovati" naše reči da bi "izvukao" taj "sadržaj".
08:09
And indeed, this kind of verbiage is not the exception, but the rule.
168
464000
3000
Ovakav način izražavanja nije izuzetak, već pravilo.
08:12
It's very hard to find any example of abstract language
169
467000
3000
Vrlo je teško pronaći primere apstraktnog jezika
08:15
that is not based on some concrete metaphor.
170
470000
3000
koji se ne zasniva na nekoj konkretnoj metafori.
08:18
For example, you can use the verb "go"
171
473000
3000
Na primer, možemo upotrebiti glagol "ići"
08:21
and the prepositions "to" and "from"
172
476000
2000
sa predlozima "iz" i "u"
08:23
in a literal, spatial sense.
173
478000
2000
u bukvalnom, prostornom smislu:
08:25
"The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul."
174
480000
2000
"Kurir je otišao iz Pariza u Istanbul".
08:27
You can also say, "Biff went from sick to well."
175
482000
3000
Ali možemo reći i "Bif je ozdravio" (BIf je prešao iz bolesti u zdravlje")
08:30
He needn't go anywhere. He could have been in bed the whole time,
176
485000
3000
On nije morao nigde da ide. Mogao je biti u krevetu sve vreme,
08:33
but it's as if his health is a point in state space
177
488000
2000
ali čini se kao da je njegovo zdravlje jedna tačka u prostoru
08:35
that you conceptualize as moving.
178
490000
2000
koju doživljavamo kao nešto što se kreće.
08:37
Or, "The meeting went from three to four,"
179
492000
2000
Ili "Sastanak je trajao (išao) od tri do četiri",
08:39
in which we conceive of time as stretched along a line.
180
494000
3000
gde doživljavamo vreme kao nešto što teče duž linije.
08:42
Likewise, we use "force" to indicate
181
497000
3000
Slično, koristimo silu da govorimo
08:45
not only physical force,
182
500000
2000
ne samo o fizičkoj sili,
08:47
as in, "Rose forced the door to open,"
183
502000
2000
kao u "Rouz je silom otvorila vrata",
08:49
but also interpersonal force,
184
504000
2000
več i o interpersonalnoj sili,
08:51
as in, "Rose forced Sadie to go," not necessarily by manhandling her,
185
506000
4000
kao u primeru "Rouz je prisilila Sejdi da ode" -- ne nužno gurajući je,
08:55
but by issuing a threat.
186
510000
2000
nego pretnjom --
08:57
Or, "Rose forced herself to go,"
187
512000
2000
ili "Rouz je prisilila sebe da ode",
08:59
as if there were two entities inside Rose's head,
188
514000
2000
kao da u Rouzinoj glavi postoje dva entiteta,
09:02
engaged in a tug of a war.
189
517000
2000
međusobno zaraćena.
09:04
Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive
190
519000
3000
Drugi zaključak je da sposobnost da se
09:07
of a given event in two different ways,
191
522000
3000
data situacija posmatra na dva načina,
09:10
such as "cause something to go to someone"
192
525000
2000
kao, na primer, "učiniti da nešto ode nekome",
09:12
and "causing someone to have something,"
193
527000
2000
i "učiniti da neko nešto ima",
09:14
I think is a fundamental feature of human thought,
194
529000
4000
predstavlja, po mom mišljenju, fundamentalnu osobinu ljudske misli,
09:18
and it's the basis for much human argumentation,
195
533000
3000
i osnovu za mnogobrojne rasprave na temu čoveka,
09:21
in which people don't differ so much on the facts
196
536000
3000
u kojima među ljudima ne postoje tolike razlike u činjenicama,
09:24
as on how they ought to be construed.
197
539000
2000
koliko u načinu na koji se one interpretiraju.
09:26
Just to give you a few examples:
198
541000
2000
Samo da vam predočim nekoliko primera:
09:28
"ending a pregnancy" versus "killing a fetus;"
199
543000
2000
"okončanje trudnoće" spram "ubistva fetusa",
09:30
"a ball of cells" versus "an unborn child;"
200
545000
3000
"skupina ćelija" spram "nerođenog deteta"
09:33
"invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;"
201
548000
2000
"invazija na Irak" spram "oslobođenja Iraka",
09:35
"redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings."
202
550000
4000
"preraspodela bogatstva" spram "konfiskovanja zarade".
09:39
And I think the biggest picture of all
203
554000
2000
I smatram da bi najšira perspektiva od svih
09:41
would take seriously the fact
204
556000
3000
ozbiljno razmotrila činjenicu
09:44
that so much of our verbiage about abstract events
205
559000
3000
da je toliko puno naših reči o apstraktnim pojmovima
09:47
is based on a concrete metaphor
206
562000
2000
zasnovano na konkretnim metaforama.
09:49
and see human intelligence itself
207
564000
2000
Ljudska inteligencija bi se mogla posmatrati
09:51
as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --
208
566000
3000
kao nešto što se sastoji od niza koncepata --
09:54
such as objects, space, time, causation and intention --
209
569000
3000
kao što su predmeti, prostor, vreme, uzročnost i namera --
09:57
which are useful in a social, knowledge-intensive species,
210
572000
4000
koji su korisni za društvene vrste sa naglašenom komponentom znanja,
10:01
whose evolution you can well imagine,
211
576000
2000
i čija je evolucija dobro poznata,
10:03
and a process of metaphorical abstraction
212
578000
3000
i procesa metaforičke apstrakcije
10:06
that allows us to bleach these concepts
213
581000
2000
koji nam omogućava da iz ovih koncepata ispraznimo
10:08
of their original conceptual content --
214
583000
3000
njihov izvorni konceptualni sadržaj --
10:11
space, time and force --
215
586000
3000
prostor, vreme i silu --
10:14
and apply them to new abstract domains,
216
589000
2000
i primenimo ih na nove, apstraktne domene,
10:16
therefore allowing a species that evolved
217
591000
3000
na taj način omogućavajući vrsti koja je evoluirala
10:19
to deal with rocks and tools and animals,
218
594000
2000
kako bi koristila kamen, alatke i životinje
10:21
to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law
219
596000
3000
da konceptualizuje matematiku, fiziku, pravo,
10:24
and other abstract domains.
220
599000
3000
i druge apstraktne domene.
10:27
Well, I said I'd talk about two windows on human nature --
221
602000
3000
Pa, rekao sam da ću govoriti o dva prozora u svet ljudske prirode:
10:30
the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world,
222
605000
3000
kognitivnoj mašineriji kojom konceptualizujemo svet,
10:33
and now I'm going to say a few words about the relationship types
223
608000
2000
i sada ću reći par reči o vrstama odnosa
10:35
that govern human social interaction,
224
610000
2000
koji upravljaju ljudskom društvenom interakcijom,
10:37
again, as reflected in language.
225
612000
2000
opet, onako kako se to odslikava u jeziku.
10:40
And I'll start out with a puzzle, the puzzle of indirect speech acts.
226
615000
4000
I počeću sa zagonetkom: zagonetkom indirektnih govornih činova.
10:44
Now, I'm sure most of you have seen the movie "Fargo."
227
619000
2000
Siguran sam da je većina vas gledala film "Fargo".
10:46
And you might remember the scene in which
228
621000
2000
I možda se sećate scene u kojoj
10:48
the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer,
229
623000
3000
kidnapera zaustavlja policija
10:51
is asked to show his driver's license
230
626000
2000
i traži mu da pokaže vozačku dozvolu,
10:53
and holds his wallet out
231
628000
2000
na šta on izvlači novčanik
10:55
with a 50-dollar bill extending
232
630000
3000
iz koga viri novčanica od 50 dolara
10:58
at a slight angle out of the wallet.
233
633000
2000
samo jednim uglom.
11:00
And he says, "I was just thinking
234
635000
2000
I kaže: "Baš mi je palo na pamet
11:02
that maybe we could take care of it here in Fargo,"
235
637000
2000
da bismo ovo mogli da sredimo i ovde u Fargu" --
11:04
which everyone, including the audience,
236
639000
3000
što svako, uključujući i publiku,
11:07
interprets as a veiled bribe.
237
642000
3000
tumači kao uvijenu formu mita.
11:10
This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language.
238
645000
4000
Ova vrsta indirektnog govora je veoma raširena u jeziku.
11:14
For example, in polite requests,
239
649000
2000
Na primer, u ljubaznim molbama,
11:16
if someone says, "If you could pass the guacamole,
240
651000
2000
ukoliko neko kaže: "Ako biste mogli da mi dodate umak,
11:18
that would be awesome,"
241
653000
2000
to bi bilo super",
11:20
we know exactly what he means,
242
655000
2000
znamo tačno šta on misli,
11:22
even though that's a rather bizarre
243
657000
2000
iako je to na prilično bizaran
11:24
concept being expressed.
244
659000
2000
način iskazano.
11:26
(Laughter)
245
661000
3000
(Smeh)
11:29
"Would you like to come up and see my etchings?"
246
664000
2000
"Da li biste želeli da se popnete da vidite moj radirung?"
11:31
I think most people
247
666000
2000
Mislim da većina ljudi
11:33
understand the intent behind that.
248
668000
3000
razume nameru koja stoji iza toga.
11:36
And likewise, if someone says,
249
671000
2000
Isto tako, ako neko kaže:
11:38
"Nice store you've got there. It would be a real shame if something happened to it" --
250
673000
3000
"Lepa ti je ta prodavnica. Bila bi prava šteta da joj se nešto desi" --
11:41
(Laughter) --
251
676000
1000
(Smeh)
11:42
we understand that as a veiled threat,
252
677000
2000
razumemo da je to prikrivena pretnja,
11:44
rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities.
253
679000
3000
pre nego razmišljanje o hipotetičkim situacijama.
11:47
So the puzzle is, why are bribes,
254
682000
3000
Dakle, zagonetka je u tome zašto su mito,
11:50
polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled?
255
685000
3000
molbe, zahtevi i pretnje tako često prikriveni.
11:53
No one's fooled.
256
688000
2000
Niko nije zavaran --
11:55
Both parties know exactly what the speaker means,
257
690000
3000
obe strane tačno znaju šta onaj koji govori misli,
11:58
and the speaker knows the listener knows
258
693000
2000
i onaj koji govori zna da onaj koji ga sluša zna
12:00
that the speaker knows that the listener knows, etc., etc.
259
695000
3000
da onaj koji govori zna da onaj koji sluša zna, i tako dalje, i tako dalje.
12:03
So what's going on?
260
698000
2000
Pa šta se zapravo dešava?
12:05
I think the key idea is that language
261
700000
2000
Smatram da je ključna ideja ta da je jezik
12:07
is a way of negotiating relationships,
262
702000
2000
način uspostavljanja odnosa,
12:09
and human relationships fall into a number of types.
263
704000
3000
a ljudski odnosi se mogu podeliti na razne vrste.
12:12
There's an influential taxonomy by the anthropologist Alan Fiske,
264
707000
4000
Jednu od veoma uticajnih podela napravio je antropolog Alan Fisk,
12:16
in which relationships can be categorized, more or less,
265
711000
3000
i po njoj se odnosi mogu podeliti, manje više,
12:19
into communality, which works on the principle
266
714000
2000
na odnose zajedništva, koji počivaju na principu:
12:21
"what's mine is thine, what's thine is mine,"
267
716000
3000
"Sve moje je tvoje, sve tvoje je moje" --
12:24
the kind of mindset that operates within a family, for example;
268
719000
4000
što je odnos koji postoji u okviru porodice, na primer --
12:28
dominance, whose principle is "don't mess with me;"
269
723000
3000
dominantnosti, čiji je princip "Ne zezaj se sa mnom",
12:31
reciprocity, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours;"
270
726000
4000
reciprociteta: "Ako me počešeš, počešaću i ja tebe",
12:35
and sexuality, in the immortal words of Cole Porter, "Let's do it."
271
730000
5000
i seksualnosti: izraženo nezaboravnim rečima Kola Portera: "Uradimo to".
12:40
Now, relationship types can be negotiated.
272
735000
3000
O tipu odnosa može se pregovarati.
12:43
Even though there are default situations
273
738000
3000
Iako postoje standardne situacije
12:46
in which one of these mindsets can be applied,
274
741000
2000
na koje se može primeniti jedan od ovih principa,
12:48
they can be stretched and extended.
275
743000
3000
one se mogu rastegnuti i proširiti.
12:51
For example, communality applies most naturally
276
746000
3000
Na primer, princip zajedništva je najprirodniji
12:54
within family or friends,
277
749000
2000
među članovima porodice ili prijateljima,
12:56
but it can be used to try to transfer
278
751000
2000
ali se može upotrebiti za prenos
12:58
the mentality of sharing
279
753000
2000
ideje zajedništva
13:00
to groups that ordinarily would not be disposed to exercise it.
280
755000
4000
na grupe u kojima se on tipično ne bi javio --
13:04
For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations,
281
759000
4000
na primer, na bratstva, bratske organizacije,
13:08
sororities, locutions like "the family of man,"
282
763000
3000
sestrinstva, izraze kao što su: "zajednica ljudi",
13:11
you try to get people who are not related
283
766000
2000
gde se među ljudima koji nisu u srodstvu podstiče
13:13
to use the relationship type that would ordinarily
284
768000
4000
vid odnosa koji je inače
13:17
be appropriate to close kin.
285
772000
2000
svojstven bliskom srodstvu.
13:19
Now, mismatches -- when one person assumes one relationship type,
286
774000
3000
Ali nepoklapanja -- u kojima jedna osoba pretpostavi jedan tip veze
13:22
and another assumes a different one -- can be awkward.
287
777000
3000
a druga drugi -- mogu biti neprijatna.
13:25
If you went over and you helped yourself
288
780000
2000
Ukoliko ste prišli i poslužili se
13:27
to a shrimp off your boss' plate,
289
782000
2000
škampima iz tanjira svog šefa,
13:29
for example, that would be an awkward situation.
290
784000
2000
to bi, na primer, bila nelagodna situacija.
13:31
Or if a dinner guest after the meal
291
786000
2000
Ili ako bi vaš gost na večeri nakon obroka
13:33
pulled out his wallet and offered to pay you for the meal,
292
788000
3000
izvadio novčanik i ponudio da plati obrok,
13:36
that would be rather awkward as well.
293
791000
2000
to bi takođe bilo neprijatno.
13:38
In less blatant cases,
294
793000
3000
U manje očiglednim slučajevima,
13:41
there's still a kind of negotiation that often goes on.
295
796000
3000
i dalje postoji neki vid pregovaranja.
13:44
In the workplace, for example,
296
799000
2000
Na radnom mestu, na primer,
13:46
there's often a tension over whether an employee
297
801000
2000
često postoji tenzija oko toga da li zaposleni
13:48
can socialize with the boss,
298
803000
2000
treba da se druži sa šefom,
13:50
or refer to him or her
299
805000
2000
ili da mu se obraća
13:52
on a first-name basis.
300
807000
2000
bez persiranja.
13:54
If two friends have a
301
809000
2000
Ukoliko dva prijatelja imaju
13:56
reciprocal transaction, like selling a car,
302
811000
2000
recipročnu transakciju, kao što je prodaja automobila,
13:58
it's well known that this can be a source
303
813000
2000
dobro je poznato da to može biti izvor
14:00
of tension or awkwardness.
304
815000
2000
napetosti ili nelagodnosti.
14:02
In dating, the transition
305
817000
2000
Kod zabavljanja, prelazak
14:04
from friendship to sex
306
819000
2000
sa prijateljstva na seks
14:06
can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness,
307
821000
3000
ozloglašen je zbog raznih potencijalnih nelagodnosti,
14:09
and as can sex in the workplace,
308
824000
2000
kao i seks na radnom mestu,
14:11
in which we call the conflict between a
309
826000
2000
u kome konflikt između
14:13
dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment."
310
828000
4000
dominacije i seksualnog odnosa nazivamo "seksualnim uznemiravanjem".
14:17
Well, what does this have to do with language?
311
832000
2000
Dakle, kakve veze ovo ima sa jezikom?
14:19
Well, language, as a social interaction,
312
834000
2000
Pa, jezik, kao društvena interakcija,
14:21
has to satisfy two conditions.
313
836000
2000
mora da zadovolji dva uslova.
14:23
You have to convey the actual content --
314
838000
3000
Morate da prenesete nekakav sadržaj --
14:26
here we get back to the container metaphor.
315
841000
2000
i tu se opet vraćamo na metaforu posude.
14:28
You want to express the bribe, the command, the promise,
316
843000
3000
Želite da iskažete ponudu mita, naredbu, obećanje,
14:31
the solicitation and so on,
317
846000
2000
zahtev i tako dalje --
14:33
but you also have to negotiate
318
848000
2000
ali takođe morate da balansirate
14:35
and maintain the kind of relationship
319
850000
2000
i održite vrstu odnosa
14:37
you have with the other person.
320
852000
2000
koju imate sa nekom osobom.
14:39
The solution, I think, is that we use language at two levels:
321
854000
3000
Mislim da je rešenje u činjenici da koristimo jezik na dva nivoa:
14:42
the literal form signals
322
857000
2000
bukvalni smisao ukazuje na
14:44
the safest relationship with the listener,
323
859000
2000
najbezbedniji odnos sa sagovornikom,
14:46
whereas the implicated content --
324
861000
2000
dok implicirani sadržaj --
14:49
the reading between the lines that we count on the listener to perform --
325
864000
2000
čitanje između redova koje očekujemo od svog sagovornika --
14:52
allows the listener to derive the interpretation
326
867000
2000
omogućava njemu da izvede zaključak
14:54
which is most relevant in context,
327
869000
2000
koji je najrelevantniji u datom kontekstu,
14:56
which possibly initiates a changed relationship.
328
871000
3000
a koji potencijalno inicira promenu u odnosu.
14:59
The simplest example of this is in the polite request.
329
874000
4000
Najjednostavniji primer ovoga je ljubazna molba.
15:03
If you express your request as a conditional --
330
878000
3000
Ako svoju molbu izrazite kondicionalom:
15:06
"if you could open the window, that would be great" --
331
881000
3000
"Ako biste mogli da otvorite prozor, to bi bilo sjajno",
15:09
even though the content is an imperative,
332
884000
2000
iako je sadržina imperativna,
15:11
the fact that you're not using the imperative voice
333
886000
2000
činjenica da ne koristite imperativ
15:14
means that you're not acting as if you're in a relationship of dominance,
334
889000
3000
znači da se ne ponašate kao da ste u odnosu dominantnosti,
15:18
where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person.
335
893000
3000
u kome bi se mogla pretpostaviti poslušnost vašeg sagovornika.
15:21
On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole.
336
896000
2000
Sa druge strane, želite prokleti umak.
15:23
By expressing it as an if-then statement,
337
898000
3000
Izražavanjem toga kroz "ako-onda" rečenicu
15:26
you can get the message across
338
901000
2000
možete preneti poruku
15:28
without appearing to boss another person around.
339
903000
4000
bez da deluje kao da nekome naređujete.
15:32
And in a more subtle way, I think, this works
340
907000
2000
Na nešto diskretniji način, mislim da ovo važi
15:34
for all of the veiled speech acts
341
909000
2000
za sve prikrivene govorne činove
15:36
involving plausible deniability:
342
911000
2000
koji uključuju mogućnost odbijanja:
15:38
the bribes, threats, propositions,
343
913000
2000
mito, pretnje, predloge,
15:40
solicitations and so on.
344
915000
2000
zahteve, i tako dalje.
15:42
One way of thinking about it is to imagine what it would be like
345
917000
2000
Jedan od načina posmatranja ovoga jeste zamišljanje situacije
15:44
if language -- where it could only be used literally.
346
919000
3000
u kojoj bi se jezik koristio samo u bukvalnom smislu.
15:47
And you can think of it in terms of a
347
922000
2000
I možete o tome razmišljati u kontekstu
15:49
game-theoretic payoff matrix.
348
924000
3000
matrice dobiti u teoriji igara.
15:52
Put yourself in the position of the
349
927000
2000
Stavite se u položaj
15:54
kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer.
350
929000
3000
kidnapera koji želi da podmiti policajca.
15:57
There's a high stakes
351
932000
2000
Ulog je veliki
15:59
in the two possibilities
352
934000
3000
s obzirom na dve mogućnosti:
16:02
of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer.
353
937000
3000
da policajac može biti nepošten i da može biti pošten.
16:05
If you don't bribe the officer,
354
940000
3000
Ukoliko ne podmitite policajca,
16:08
then you will get a traffic ticket --
355
943000
2000
dobićete kaznu --
16:10
or, as is the case of "Fargo," worse --
356
945000
2000
ili, kao što je slučaj u "Fargu", još gore --
16:12
whether the honest officer
357
947000
2000
bez obzira na to da li je policajac
16:14
is honest or dishonest.
358
949000
2000
pošten ili nepošten:
16:16
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
359
951000
2000
ako ništa ne reskirate, ništa ne dobijate.
16:18
In that case, the consequences are rather severe.
360
953000
3000
U tom slučaju, posledice su prilično teške.
16:21
On the other hand, if you extend the bribe,
361
956000
2000
Sa druge strane, ako ponudite mito,
16:23
if the officer is dishonest,
362
958000
2000
a policajac je nepošten,
16:25
you get a huge payoff of going free.
363
960000
3000
dobijate ogromnu dobit jer ostajete nekažnjeni.
16:28
If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty
364
963000
3000
Ukoliko je policajac pošten, dobijate ogromnu kaznu
16:31
of being arrested for bribery.
365
966000
2000
jer će vas uhapsiti za davanje mita.
16:33
So this is a rather fraught situation.
366
968000
2000
Dakle, ovo je jedna prilično nezgodna situcija.
16:35
On the other hand, with indirect language,
367
970000
2000
Sa druge strane, sa indirektnim jezikom,
16:37
if you issue a veiled bribe,
368
972000
2000
ukoliko ponudite prikriveni mito,
16:39
then the dishonest officer
369
974000
2000
onda će nepošten policajac
16:41
could interpret it as a bribe,
370
976000
2000
to shvatiti kao mito,
16:43
in which case you get the payoff of going free.
371
978000
3000
i u tom slučaju ste na dobiti jer vas neće uhapsiti,
16:46
The honest officer can't hold you to it as being a bribe,
372
981000
3000
dok pošten policajac neće moći da vas optuži da ste ponudili mito,
16:49
and therefore, you get the nuisance of the traffic ticket.
373
984000
3000
te ćete, stoga, dobiti samo glupu kaznu.
16:52
So you get the best of both worlds.
374
987000
3000
Na taj način ste u najboljem položaju.
16:55
And a similar analysis, I think,
375
990000
2000
Slična analiza, verujem,
16:57
can apply to the potential awkwardness
376
992000
2000
može se primeniti na potencijalnu nelagodnost
16:59
of a sexual solicitation,
377
994000
2000
seksualne ponude,
17:01
and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset.
378
996000
3000
i druge slučajeve u kojima figurira mogućnost odbijanja.
17:04
I think this affirms
379
999000
2000
Mislim da ovo potvrđuje
17:06
something that's long been known by diplomats --
380
1001000
2000
nešto što je diplomatama odavno poznato --
17:08
namely, that the vagueness of language,
381
1003000
2000
naime, da je nejasnoća jezika
17:10
far from being a bug or an imperfection,
382
1005000
3000
daleko od greške ili nesavršenosti,
17:13
actually might be a feature of language,
383
1008000
3000
već da je zapravo osobina jezika --
17:16
one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.
384
1011000
3000
koju možemo iskoristiti u društvenoj interakciji.
17:19
So to sum up: language is a collective human creation,
385
1014000
3000
Da sumiram: jezik je kolektivna ljudska tvorevina,
17:22
reflecting human nature,
386
1017000
2000
koja odlslikava ljudsku prirodu --
17:24
how we conceptualize reality,
387
1019000
2000
način na koji konceptualizujemo stvarnost,
17:26
how we relate to one another.
388
1021000
2000
način na koji stupamo u veze --
17:28
And then by analyzing the various quirks and complexities of language,
389
1023000
4000
i analizom različitih osobenosti i kompleksnosti jezika,
17:32
I think we can get a window onto what makes us tick.
390
1027000
3000
mislim da možemo steći uvid u ono ono što nas pokreće.
17:35
Thank you very much.
391
1030000
1000
Hvala puno.
17:36
(Applause)
392
1031000
1000
(Aplauz)
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