TEDGlobal 2005
Steven Pinker: What our language habits reveal
史蒂芬·平克谈语言和思想
Filmed:
Readability: 5.2
2,457,061 views
在他所著《思想的实质》的独家新书介绍会上，史蒂芬·平克探讨了语言如何表达内心的思想--以及我们的遣词用句中透露出多少鲜为人知的信息
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
照片里的人是Maurice Druon
00:28
the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise,
1
3000
4000
L'Academie francaise的荣誉终身秘书长--
00:32
the French Academy.
2
7000
2000
也就是法兰西学院
00:34
He is splendidly attired in his 68,000-dollar uniform,
3
9000
5000
穿着价值六万八千美元的豪华制服
00:39
befitting the role of the French Academy
4
14000
3000
对法兰西学院来说倒很适合
00:42
as legislating the
5
17000
3000
因为它规范着
00:45
correct usage in French
6
20000
2000
法语的正确用法
00:47
and perpetuating the language.
7
22000
2000
使这门语言永世长存
00:49
The French Academy has two main tasks:
8
24000
3000
法兰西学院有两个主要任务
00:52
it compiles a dictionary of official French.
9
27000
3000
它编纂官方的法语词典--
00:55
They're now working on their ninth edition,
10
30000
3000
他们目前在编第九部
00:58
which they began in 1930, and they've reached the letter P.
11
33000
3000
从1930年就开始了，现在编到了P字头。
01:02
They also legislate on correct usage,
12
37000
3000
他们还规范正确的用法
01:05
such as the proper term for what the French call "email,"
13
40000
4000
比如，电子邮件（email）在法语里的正确说法
01:09
which ought to be "courriel."
14
44000
2000
应该是"courriel"
01:11
The World Wide Web, the French are told,
15
46000
2000
他们告诉法国人，万维网（World Wide Web）
01:13
ought to be referred to as
16
48000
2000
应该被叫做
01:15
"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- the Global Spider Web --
17
50000
4000
"la toile d'araignee modiale"--“环球蜘蛛网”
01:19
recommendations that the French gaily ignore.
18
54000
4000
诸如此类法国人民欣然忽略的建议
01:24
Now, this is one model of how language comes to be:
19
59000
4000
这是语言产生的众多模型之一：
01:28
namely, it's legislated by an academy.
20
63000
3000
也就是说，由一个学院来进行规范
01:31
But anyone who looks at language realizes
21
66000
3000
但任何懂得语言的人都意识到
01:34
that this is a rather silly conceit,
22
69000
4000
这是愚蠢的自负
01:38
that language, rather, emerges from human minds interacting from one another.
23
73000
3000
语言产生于人类心灵间的互动
01:41
And this is visible in the unstoppable change in language --
24
76000
4000
而在语言的不停变化中，这是显而易见的
01:45
the fact that by the time the Academy finishes their dictionary,
25
80000
3000
事实上，当法兰西学院完成他们的词典时
01:48
it will already be well out of date.
26
83000
2000
它早已经过时了。
01:50
We see it in the
27
85000
2000
我们看到
01:52
constant appearance of slang and jargon,
28
87000
4000
俗语和术语不断产生
01:56
of the historical change in languages,
29
91000
2000
历史上语言在变化
01:58
in divergence of dialects
30
93000
2000
方言在分支
02:00
and the formation of new languages.
31
95000
3000
新的语言在形成
02:03
So language is not so much a creator or shaper of human nature,
32
98000
3000
所以语言并不只是创造、塑造人性之物
02:06
so much as a window onto human nature.
33
101000
3000
同样是反映人性的窗口
02:09
In a book that I'm currently working on,
34
104000
3000
我正在写的一本书中
02:12
I hope to use language to shed light on
35
107000
3000
我希望能阐明
02:15
a number of aspects of human nature,
36
110000
2000
人性的一些方面
02:17
including the cognitive machinery
37
112000
2000
包括认知机能
02:19
with which humans conceptualize the world
38
114000
3000
人们靠这个把世界概念化
02:22
and the relationship types that govern human interaction.
39
117000
3000
还有掌管人类互动的各类关系。
02:25
And I'm going to say a few words about each one this morning.
40
120000
3000
今天早上，我将对它们逐一简要介绍。
02:28
Let me start off with a technical problem in language
41
123000
2000
让我从一个语言中的技术性问题开始
02:30
that I've worried about for quite some time --
42
125000
2000
我研究这个问题已经有一段时间了
02:32
and indulge me
43
127000
4000
希望你们能包涵一下，
02:36
in my passion for verbs and how they're used.
44
131000
3000
包涵我对动词，和它们用法的热情
02:39
The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions?
45
134000
3000
问题在于，哪个动词用于哪个构式？
02:42
The verb is the chassis of the sentence.
46
137000
3000
动词是句子的基座，
02:45
It's the framework onto which the other parts are bolted.
47
140000
4000
其他部分都安在这个基座上。
02:49
Let me give you a quick reminder
48
144000
2000
让我提醒你们一下
02:51
of something that you've long forgotten.
49
146000
2000
这是你们早已忘记的东西。
02:53
An intransitive verb, such as "dine," for example,
50
148000
3000
不及物动词，比如“用餐”(dine)
02:56
can't take a direct object.
51
151000
2000
不能带有直接的宾语
02:58
You have to say, "Sam dined," not, "Sam dined the pizza."
52
153000
3000
你得说：“山姆用餐了(Sam dined)",而不是“山姆用餐了比萨饼(Sam dined the pizza."
03:01
A transitive verb mandates
53
156000
2000
一个及物动词要求
03:03
that there has to be an object there:
54
158000
2000
必须有宾语：
03:05
"Sam devoured the pizza." You can't just say, "Sam devoured."
55
160000
3000
“山姆吞吃比萨饼(Sam devoured the pizza)”。你不能只是说“山姆吞吃(Sam devoured)”。
03:08
There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type,
56
163000
4000
有许许多多这类的动词
03:12
each of which shapes its sentence.
57
167000
2000
每个都塑造着句子。
03:14
So, a problem in explaining how children learn language,
58
169000
4000
所以在解释孩子们如何学习语言时候，有一个问题
03:18
a problem in teaching language to adults so that they don't make grammatical errors,
59
173000
5000
同样也是教成人学外语语法时的一个问题
03:23
and a problem in programming computers to use language is
60
178000
3000
以及给电脑编使用语言的程序时--
03:26
which verbs go in which constructions.
61
181000
2000
在哪个构式里该用哪个动词？
03:29
For example, the dative construction in English.
62
184000
2000
比如，英语中的与格构式--
03:31
You can say, "Give a muffin to a mouse," the prepositional dative.
63
186000
3000
可以说“Give a muffin to a mouse”，前置词与格，
03:34
Or, "Give a mouse a muffin," the double-object dative.
64
189000
3000
或者“Give a mouse a muffin”，双宾语与格，
03:37
"Promise anything to her," "Promise her anything," and so on.
65
192000
4000
"Promise anything to her“，”Promise her anything“，等等。
03:41
Hundreds of verbs can go both ways.
66
196000
2000
上百的动词可以两用。
03:43
So a tempting generalization for a child,
67
198000
2000
对于孩子，很容易去做的一个归纳--
03:45
for an adult, for a computer
68
200000
2000
对于大人和电脑来说也一样--
03:47
is that any verb that can appear in the construction,
69
202000
2000
就是任何可以在下面这个构式中出现的动词
03:49
"subject-verb-thing-to-a-recipient"
70
204000
3000
“主语-动词-物体-to-a 接受者”
03:52
can also be expressed as "subject-verb-recipient-thing."
71
207000
3000
也可以表达成“主语-动词-接受者-东西”。
03:55
A handy thing to have,
72
210000
2000
这是很顺手的事
03:57
because language is infinite,
73
212000
2000
因为语言是无穷的
03:59
and you can't just parrot back the sentences that you've heard.
74
214000
3000
对于你学过的句子不能只是鹦鹉学舌。
04:02
You've got to extract generalizations
75
217000
2000
你必须得做出归纳
04:04
so you can produce and understand new sentences.
76
219000
3000
这样你才能制造、理解新句子。
04:07
This would be an example of how to do that.
77
222000
2000
这就是这样做的一个例子
04:09
Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions.
78
224000
3000
不幸的是，这方面有例外。
04:12
You can say, "Biff drove the car to Chicago,"
79
227000
3000
你可以说，“Biff drove the car to Chicago”。
04:15
but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car."
80
230000
3000
但不是“Biff drove Chicago the car”。
04:18
You can say, "Sal gave Jason a headache,"
81
233000
3000
你可以说：“Sal gave Jason a headache”，
04:21
but it's a bit odd to say, "Sal gave a headache to Jason."
82
236000
2000
但“Sal gave a headache to Jason”就很别扭了。
04:24
The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance,
83
239000
3000
原因是这些构式，尽管一开始相似
04:27
are not synonymous,
84
242000
2000
但并不是同义句。
04:29
that when you crank up the microscope
85
244000
2000
当你搬出显微镜
04:31
on human cognition, you see that there's a subtle difference
86
246000
2000
对准在人类认知上，你会看到很多微妙的差别
04:33
in meaning between them.
87
248000
2000
存在于它们的意思里。
04:35
So, "give the X to the Y,"
88
250000
2000
所以“Give the X to the Y”--
04:37
that construction corresponds to the thought
89
252000
3000
这个构式对应的想法是：
04:40
"cause X to go to Y." Whereas "give the Y the X"
90
255000
3000
“Cause X to go to Y”，而“Give the Y the X”
04:43
corresponds to the thought "cause Y to have X."
91
258000
4000
对应的想法是“cause Y to have X”。
04:47
Now, many events can be subject to either construal,
92
262000
4000
许多时候我们都有理解偏差
04:51
kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions,
93
266000
3000
类似于经典的“形象-背景”颠倒的幻术
04:54
in which you can either pay attention
94
269000
3000
你要么吧注意力放在
04:57
to the particular object,
95
272000
2000
某个物体上
04:59
in which case the space around it recedes from attention,
96
274000
4000
使周围的空间从注意力中退去
05:03
or you can see the faces in the empty space,
97
278000
2000
要么你集中注意观察空间的构造
05:05
in which case the object recedes out of consciousness.
98
280000
4000
这样前景中的物体就从意识中退去
05:09
How are these construals reflected in language?
99
284000
2000
这些理解如何反应在语言当中？
05:11
Well, in both cases, the thing that is construed as being affected
100
286000
4000
在两种情况里，那个被解释为受影响的东西
05:15
is expressed as the direct object,
101
290000
2000
被表达成了直接宾语：
05:17
the noun after the verb.
102
292000
2000
动词之后的名词。
05:19
So, when you think of the event as causing the muffin to go somewhere --
103
294000
4000
当你想到“使蛋糕去某处”时
05:23
where you're doing something to the muffin --
104
298000
2000
当你对蛋糕实施动作时
05:25
you say, "Give the muffin to the mouse."
105
300000
2000
你说：“Give the muffin to the mouse.”
05:27
When you construe it as "cause the mouse to have something,"
106
302000
3000
当你理解成“使老鼠拥有某物”
05:30
you're doing something to the mouse,
107
305000
2000
你对老鼠实施动作
05:32
and therefore you express it as, "Give the mouse the muffin."
108
307000
3000
所以你把它表达成：“Give the mouse the muffin.”
05:35
So which verbs go in which construction --
109
310000
2000
所以，在哪个构式里用哪个动词
05:37
the problem with which I began --
110
312000
2000
我一开始提出的问题
05:39
depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion
111
314000
4000
取决于动词是否指出某种运动
05:43
or a kind of possession change.
112
318000
2000
或者某种所有权的变化
05:45
To give something involves both causing something to go
113
320000
3000
"给出某物“当中包含"使某物前往"
05:48
and causing someone to have.
114
323000
2000
也包含”使某人拥有“
05:50
To drive the car only causes something to go,
115
325000
3000
开车只能使某物走开
05:53
because Chicago's not the kind of thing that can possess something.
116
328000
2000
因为芝加哥不是那种能拥有某物的东西。
05:55
Only humans can possess things.
117
330000
3000
只有人才能拥有东西。
05:58
And to give someone a headache causes them to have the headache,
118
333000
2000
“令人头痛”使人具有头痛
06:00
but it's not as if you're taking the headache out of your head
119
335000
3000
但你并不会把头痛从手里给出去
06:03
and causing it to go to the other person,
120
338000
2000
让它到另一个人那里去
06:05
and implanting it in them.
121
340000
2000
然后再放进对方脑袋里。
06:07
You may just be loud or obnoxious,
122
342000
2000
你只可能是说话太大声，或者讨人厌
06:09
or some other way causing them to have the headache.
123
344000
2000
或者用其他的方法使对方头疼。
06:11
So, that's
124
346000
4000
所以
06:15
an example of the kind of thing that I do in my day job.
125
350000
2000
这是我工作内容的一个例子。
06:17
So why should anyone care?
126
352000
2000
那为什么有人要在乎这工作呢？
06:19
Well, there are a number of interesting conclusions, I think,
127
354000
3000
这是因为有许多有趣的结论
06:22
from this and many similar kinds of analyses
128
357000
4000
从这个例子，还有类似的
06:26
of hundreds of English verbs.
129
361000
2000
对很多英语动词的分析中可以得出。
06:28
First, there's a level of fine-grained conceptual structure,
130
363000
3000
首先，存在着一个精细的概念结构
06:31
which we automatically and unconsciously compute
131
366000
3000
我们自动、无意识地计算产生它
06:34
every time we produce or utter a sentence, that governs our use of language.
132
369000
4000
每当我们想到或者说出一个主导我们对语言的使用的句子
06:38
You can think of this as the language of thought, or "mentalese."
133
373000
4000
你可以把它理解成“思想的语言”，或者“思想语”。
06:42
It seems to be based on a fixed set of concepts,
134
377000
3000
它看上去是建立在一套固定的概念之上
06:45
which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs --
135
380000
3000
这套概念管理着数十个构式和数千个动词
06:48
not only in English, but in all other languages --
136
383000
3000
不仅仅是英文的，而是所有语言的
06:51
fundamental concepts such as space,
137
386000
2000
最基本概念，比如空间
06:53
time, causation and human intention,
138
388000
3000
时间、因果以及人的意愿
06:56
such as, what is the means and what is the ends?
139
391000
3000
比如，什么是手段，什么是目的？
06:59
These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories
140
394000
2000
这些跟康德所主张的，
07:01
that Immanuel Kant argued
141
396000
2000
构成人类思想的基本框架的
07:03
are the basic framework for human thought,
142
398000
3000
那些范畴很相似
07:06
and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language
143
401000
3000
很有趣的是，我们对语言的无意识的使用
07:09
seems to reflect these Kantian categories.
144
404000
3000
好像在折射着这些康德主义的范畴--
07:12
Doesn't care about perceptual qualities,
145
407000
2000
不在乎感官的性质
07:14
such as color, texture, weight and speed,
146
409000
2000
比如颜色、材质、重量和速度
07:16
which virtually never differentiate
147
411000
2000
上述这些都几乎从不区分
07:18
the use of verbs in different constructions.
148
413000
2000
动词在不同构式中的用法。
07:21
An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English
149
416000
3000
此外，英语中的所有构式
07:24
are used not only literally,
150
419000
2000
不仅仅有字面意义
07:26
but in a quasi-metaphorical way.
151
421000
3000
还有准隐喻的用法。
07:29
For example, this construction, the dative,
152
424000
2000
就拿与格来说，
07:31
is used not only to transfer things,
153
426000
2000
不仅用来转移事物，
07:33
but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas,
154
428000
3000
还用来比喻思想的转移，
07:36
as when we say, "She told a story to me"
155
431000
2000
比如，"She told a story to me"
07:38
or "told me a story,"
156
433000
2000
或者"told me a story"
07:40
"Max taught Spanish to the students" or "taught the students Spanish."
157
435000
3000
"Max taught Spanish to the student"或者"taught the students Spanish."
07:43
It's exactly the same construction,
158
438000
2000
这都是完全一样的构式
07:45
but no muffins, no mice, nothing moving at all.
159
440000
4000
但里面没有蛋糕或者老鼠。完全没有运动。
07:49
It evokes the container metaphor of communication,
160
444000
3000
这使人想起语言交流中的"容器隐喻"
07:52
in which we conceive of ideas as objects,
161
447000
2000
在这里面我们把想法理解成实物
07:54
sentences as containers,
162
449000
2000
句子就像容器
07:56
and communication as a kind of sending.
163
451000
2000
语言交流就像快递
07:58
As when we say we "gather" our ideas, to "put" them "into" words,
164
453000
3000
当我们说"gather"（收集）我们的想法，并"'put' them 'into' word"（把它们付诸语言）
08:01
and if our words aren't "empty" or "hollow,"
165
456000
2000
如果我们说的话并不"empty"(空)或者"hollow"（空洞）
08:03
we might get these ideas "across" to a listener,
166
458000
3000
我们就可以把意思传达“过去”(“across")
08:06
who can "unpack" our words to "extract" their "content."
167
461000
3000
让一个能够”拆解“("unpack")我们的语言而提取“内涵”("content")
08:09
And indeed, this kind of verbiage is not the exception, but the rule.
168
464000
3000
诸如此类的修辞法不是个例，而是广泛规则
08:12
It's very hard to find any example of abstract language
169
467000
3000
想找到纯抽象的
08:15
that is not based on some concrete metaphor.
170
470000
3000
而非实物隐喻的表达的例子难之又难
08:18
For example, you can use the verb "go"
171
473000
3000
譬如说，你可以用动词"go"
08:21
and the prepositions "to" and "from"
172
476000
2000
以及介词"to"和"from"
08:23
in a literal, spatial sense.
173
478000
2000
来表达字面意思：
08:25
"The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul."
174
480000
2000
“信使从巴黎去了伊斯坦布尔。”("The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul.")
08:27
You can also say, "Biff went from sick to well."
175
482000
3000
你也可以说，”比夫从病中康复。("Biff went from sick to well." )
08:30
He needn't go anywhere. He could have been in bed the whole time,
176
485000
3000
他哪里都没”去“，而是可能一直呆在床上
08:33
but it's as if his health is a point in state space
177
488000
2000
但是我们说话时仿佛他的健康状况是空间中的点
08:35
that you conceptualize as moving.
178
490000
2000
你给它一种动的概念
08:37
Or, "The meeting went from three to four,"
179
492000
2000
或者，“会从3点一直开到4点，”("The meeting went from three to four,")
08:39
in which we conceive of time as stretched along a line.
180
494000
3000
这里我们把时间想成分布在一条直线上
08:42
Likewise, we use "force" to indicate
181
497000
3000
与此相似地，我们用力的概念来表示
08:45
not only physical force,
182
500000
2000
不仅仅是物理的力
08:47
as in, "Rose forced the door to open,"
183
502000
2000
比如，"Rose forced the door to open,"（罗斯用力把门打开）
08:49
but also interpersonal force,
184
504000
2000
也包括人际间的作用力
08:51
as in, "Rose forced Sadie to go," not necessarily by manhandling her,
185
506000
4000
比如，"Rose forced Sadie to go"（罗斯把萨蒂逼走了）--不一定要推推搡搡的
08:55
but by issuing a threat.
186
510000
2000
而是通过威胁--
08:57
Or, "Rose forced herself to go,"
187
512000
2000
或者"Rose forced Sadie to go"（罗斯逼她自己离开）
08:59
as if there were two entities inside Rose's head,
188
514000
2000
仿佛罗斯的头脑里有两个东西
09:02
engaged in a tug of a war.
189
517000
2000
在进行拔河
09:04
Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive
190
519000
3000
第二个结论是用不同方式
09:07
of a given event in two different ways,
191
522000
3000
构思同一事件的能力
09:10
such as "cause something to go to someone"
192
525000
2000
比如，“使某物到某人那里，”
09:12
and "causing someone to have something,"
193
527000
2000
和“使某人拥有某物，”
09:14
I think is a fundamental feature of human thought,
194
529000
4000
我认为这是人类思维的基本特点
09:18
and it's the basis for much human argumentation,
195
533000
3000
而且是人类论辩的基础
09:21
in which people don't differ so much on the facts
196
536000
3000
论辩中人们争议的一般不是事实
09:24
as on how they ought to be construed.
197
539000
2000
而是应该如何理解它们
09:26
Just to give you a few examples:
198
541000
2000
这里是一些例子：
09:28
"ending a pregnancy" versus "killing a fetus;"
199
543000
2000
是“终止怀孕”还是“杀死胚胎”
09:30
"a ball of cells" versus "an unborn child;"
200
545000
3000
“一个细胞聚合的小球”还是“一个尚未出生的孩子”
09:33
"invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;"
201
548000
2000
“侵略伊拉克”或是“解放伊拉克”
09:35
"redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings."
202
550000
4000
“收入重新分配”抑或“没收财产”
09:39
And I think the biggest picture of all
203
554000
2000
而整个图景中最显著的一部分
09:41
would take seriously the fact
204
556000
3000
是要看到一点：
09:44
that so much of our verbiage about abstract events
205
559000
3000
就是我们对抽象事件的描述
09:47
is based on a concrete metaphor
206
562000
2000
大多都是基于实体的隐喻
09:49
and see human intelligence itself
207
564000
2000
这反映出人类智能本身
09:51
as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --
208
566000
3000
是由一整套概念组成
09:54
such as objects, space, time, causation and intention --
209
569000
3000
比如物体、空间、时间，因果关系与意图--
09:57
which are useful in a social, knowledge-intensive species,
210
572000
4000
对我们这种群居的、知识密集型的种群非常有用
10:01
whose evolution you can well imagine,
211
576000
2000
我们能想象人类的进化
10:03
and a process of metaphorical abstraction
212
578000
3000
和语言的隐喻抽象化过程齐轨并行
10:06
that allows us to bleach these concepts
213
581000
2000
慢慢地这些概念里
10:08
of their original conceptual content --
214
583000
3000
原先的实际内容就淡化了
10:11
space, time and force --
215
586000
3000
空间、时间和力--
10:14
and apply them to new abstract domains,
216
589000
2000
而它们却被用在全新的抽象领域里
10:16
therefore allowing a species that evolved
217
591000
3000
如此就使得我们这个原本是进化出来
10:19
to deal with rocks and tools and animals,
218
594000
2000
和石头、工具与动物打交道的种群
10:21
to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law
219
596000
3000
能够形成数学、物理、法律等等概念
10:24
and other abstract domains.
220
599000
3000
涉足其他抽象的领域
10:27
Well, I said I'd talk about two windows on human nature --
221
602000
3000
我曾说过我要谈谈人性的两扇窗户
10:30
the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world,
222
605000
3000
我们用来概念化世界的知性机能
10:33
and now I'm going to say a few words about the relationship types
223
608000
2000
现在我要说说几种人际关系
10:35
that govern human social interaction,
224
610000
2000
它们支配着人类的社交活动
10:37
again, as reflected in language.
225
612000
2000
同样，这些都体现在语言里
10:40
And I'll start out with a puzzle, the puzzle of indirect speech acts.
226
615000
4000
我要从间接话语行为这个谜题开始
10:44
Now, I'm sure most of you have seen the movie "Fargo."
227
619000
2000
我相信你们中大多数人都看过《冰血暴》(或译为法哥镇）这部电影
10:46
And you might remember the scene in which
228
621000
2000
你们可能还记得其中的一段：
10:48
the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer,
229
623000
3000
一个警官要绑匪把车开到路边
10:51
is asked to show his driver's license
230
626000
2000
叫他出示驾照
10:53
and holds his wallet out
231
628000
2000
绑匪把钱包拿出来
10:55
with a 50-dollar bill extending
232
630000
3000
有一张50美元的钞票
10:58
at a slight angle out of the wallet.
233
633000
2000
以一个小角度从钱包里伸出来
11:00
And he says, "I was just thinking
234
635000
2000
然后绑匪说，“我在想
11:02
that maybe we could take care of it here in Fargo,"
235
637000
2000
或许在法哥镇这个鬼地方我们俩得共同保管这个”--
11:04
which everyone, including the audience,
236
639000
3000
每个人，包括观众
11:07
interprets as a veiled bribe.
237
642000
3000
都理解为含蓄地提出贿赂
11:10
This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language.
238
645000
4000
这种间接表意在语言中泛滥
11:14
For example, in polite requests,
239
649000
2000
比如说在礼貌地提要求时
11:16
if someone says, "If you could pass the guacamole,
240
651000
2000
如果有人说，“如果你把鳄梨色拉酱递过来
11:18
that would be awesome,"
241
653000
2000
就太棒了”
11:20
we know exactly what he means,
242
655000
2000
我们太清楚他是什么意思了
11:22
even though that's a rather bizarre
243
657000
2000
尽管字面上表达出来是个
11:24
concept being expressed.
244
659000
2000
很别扭的概念
11:26
(Laughter)
245
661000
3000
（笑）
11:29
"Would you like to come up and see my etchings?"
246
664000
2000
“您愿意来看一下我的蚀刻版画吗？”
11:31
I think most people
247
666000
2000
我想大多数人
11:33
understand the intent behind that.
248
668000
3000
理解这么说的意图
11:36
And likewise, if someone says,
249
671000
2000
同样的，倘若有人说
11:38
"Nice store you've got there. It would be a real shame if something happened to it" --
250
673000
3000
“呦，你的店真不错。要是发生了点什么事儿可就不好了”--
11:41
(Laughter) --
251
676000
1000
（笑）
11:42
we understand that as a veiled threat,
252
677000
2000
我们知道这是个委婉的威胁
11:44
rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities.
253
679000
3000
而不是在思考假设的可能性
11:47
So the puzzle is, why are bribes,
254
682000
3000
所以我们说的谜题就是：为什么贿赂
11:50
polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled?
255
685000
3000
礼貌的要求、恳请、威胁经常要遮遮掩掩的？
11:53
No one's fooled.
256
688000
2000
没人是傻子
11:55
Both parties know exactly what the speaker means,
257
690000
3000
双方都知道谈话人说的是什么
11:58
and the speaker knows the listener knows
258
693000
2000
谈话人也知道听者心里清楚
12:00
that the speaker knows that the listener knows, etc., etc.
259
695000
3000
谈话人知道听者心里清楚，等等，等等
12:03
So what's going on?
260
698000
2000
所以这是在干嘛呢？
12:05
I think the key idea is that language
261
700000
2000
关键是在于语言
12:07
is a way of negotiating relationships,
262
702000
2000
是磋商人际关系的一种途径
12:09
and human relationships fall into a number of types.
263
704000
3000
而人际关系分为许多种
12:12
There's an influential taxonomy by the anthropologist Alan Fiske,
264
707000
4000
人类学家Alan Fiske给出了一个关于影响力的分类法
12:16
in which relationships can be categorized, more or less,
265
711000
3000
其中人际关系可以被或多或少地归为
12:19
into communality, which works on the principle
266
714000
2000
“公社性”，它的作用原则是
12:21
"what's mine is thine, what's thine is mine,"
267
716000
3000
“我的就是你的，你的就是我的”--
12:24
the kind of mindset that operates within a family, for example;
268
719000
4000
家庭内部的一种心态，例如--
12:28
dominance, whose principle is "don't mess with me;"
269
723000
3000
统治心态，其原则就是“别惹我，”
12:31
reciprocity, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours;"
270
726000
4000
互惠心态：“你帮我挠背，我帮你挠背，”
12:35
and sexuality, in the immortal words of Cole Porter, "Let's do it."
271
730000
5000
性心理：如Cole Porter的不朽名言所说，“来吧”
12:40
Now, relationship types can be negotiated.
272
735000
3000
人际关系的类型是可以通过磋商决定的
12:43
Even though there are default situations
273
738000
3000
尽管经常有某种默认情况
12:46
in which one of these mindsets can be applied,
274
741000
2000
指定了上面心态中的一种
12:48
they can be stretched and extended.
275
743000
3000
人际关类型可以被拉伸、调整
12:51
For example, communality applies most naturally
276
746000
3000
比如说“公社性”
12:54
within family or friends,
277
749000
2000
在家庭和朋友们中最自然
12:56
but it can be used to try to transfer
278
751000
2000
但它可以被用来
12:58
the mentality of sharing
279
753000
2000
把分享的心态转移给
13:00
to groups that ordinarily would not be disposed to exercise it.
280
755000
4000
平时并不习惯于分享的群体--
13:04
For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations,
281
759000
4000
例如帮派或者男生联谊会
13:08
sororities, locutions like "the family of man,"
282
763000
3000
女生联谊会，像“男人之家”这样的表达法
13:11
you try to get people who are not related
283
766000
2000
这样就让非亲非故的人们
13:13
to use the relationship type that would ordinarily
284
768000
4000
能够采用一般都是
13:17
be appropriate to close kin.
285
772000
2000
近亲之间才有的关系类型
13:19
Now, mismatches -- when one person assumes one relationship type,
286
774000
3000
可是当一方采用某一种关系类型
13:22
and another assumes a different one -- can be awkward.
287
777000
3000
而另一方用了另一种-- 搭配错误的时候就尴尬了
13:25
If you went over and you helped yourself
288
780000
2000
假如你走过去随手就
13:27
to a shrimp off your boss' plate,
289
782000
2000
从你老板的盘子里弄了一只虾吃
13:29
for example, that would be an awkward situation.
290
784000
2000
打个比方的话，这就是一个尴尬的情况
13:31
Or if a dinner guest after the meal
291
786000
2000
或者是餐后有一位客人
13:33
pulled out his wallet and offered to pay you for the meal,
292
788000
3000
掏出钱包说要付钱给你
13:36
that would be rather awkward as well.
293
791000
2000
这也会相当尴尬
13:38
In less blatant cases,
294
793000
3000
在不那么明显的例子中
13:41
there's still a kind of negotiation that often goes on.
295
796000
3000
还是有一种磋商在进行着
13:44
In the workplace, for example,
296
799000
2000
比如说在工作场所
13:46
there's often a tension over whether an employee
297
801000
2000
在员工是否能和老板套近乎这一点上
13:48
can socialize with the boss,
298
803000
2000
都有一点紧张不安
13:50
or refer to him or her
299
805000
2000
或者是称呼他或她
13:52
on a first-name basis.
300
807000
2000
首名（而不是叫XX先生或女士）
13:54
If two friends have a
301
809000
2000
如果两个朋友
13:56
reciprocal transaction, like selling a car,
302
811000
2000
进行一笔交易，比如卖一辆车
13:58
it's well known that this can be a source
303
813000
2000
大家都知道这可能是
14:00
of tension or awkwardness.
304
815000
2000
紧张和尴尬的来源
14:02
In dating, the transition
305
817000
2000
比如约会中
14:04
from friendship to sex
306
819000
2000
从友谊到性关系的过度
14:06
can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness,
307
821000
3000
众所周知，可能导致各种各样的尴尬局面
14:09
and as can sex in the workplace,
308
824000
2000
工作场所的性也是
14:11
in which we call the conflict between a
309
826000
2000
我们把两种关系类型--
14:13
dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment."
310
828000
4000
支配关系和性关系--间的冲突叫做“性骚扰”
14:17
Well, what does this have to do with language?
311
832000
2000
这个和语言有什么关系呢？
14:19
Well, language, as a social interaction,
312
834000
2000
语言作为一种社会相互作用
14:21
has to satisfy two conditions.
313
836000
2000
必须满足两个条件
14:23
You have to convey the actual content --
314
838000
3000
你得传达内容--
14:26
here we get back to the container metaphor.
315
841000
2000
这里我们又回到容器的隐喻
14:28
You want to express the bribe, the command, the promise,
316
843000
3000
你想表达贿赂、命令、许诺的意思
14:31
the solicitation and so on,
317
846000
2000
恳请以及其他
14:33
but you also have to negotiate
318
848000
2000
但是你还得磋商
14:35
and maintain the kind of relationship
319
850000
2000
并保持
14:37
you have with the other person.
320
852000
2000
你和那个人的关系
14:39
The solution, I think, is that we use language at two levels:
321
854000
3000
我认为解决的答案是我们在两个层面上使用语言
14:42
the literal form signals
322
857000
2000
字面意思表达的是
14:44
the safest relationship with the listener,
323
859000
2000
与听者的最安全的关系
14:46
whereas the implicated content --
324
861000
2000
而引伸义
14:49
the reading between the lines that we count on the listener to perform --
325
864000
2000
我们留给听者自己去领会的言外之意--
14:52
allows the listener to derive the interpretation
326
867000
2000
则使他发掘出
14:54
which is most relevant in context,
327
869000
2000
这个语境中最恰当的解释
14:56
which possibly initiates a changed relationship.
328
871000
3000
而这有可能促成一种新的人际关系
14:59
The simplest example of this is in the polite request.
329
874000
4000
最简单的例子出自于礼貌的要求
15:03
If you express your request as a conditional --
330
878000
3000
倘若你用一个条件句表达请求：
15:06
"if you could open the window, that would be great" --
331
881000
3000
“您要是能开一下窗子就太好了，”
15:09
even though the content is an imperative,
332
884000
2000
尽管内容是祈使句
15:11
the fact that you're not using the imperative voice
333
886000
2000
仅仅因为你没有用祈使语态
15:14
means that you're not acting as if you're in a relationship of dominance,
334
889000
3000
就显示出你并没有按照一种支配的人际关系行事
15:18
where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person.
335
893000
3000
你并没有假设他人必须服从
15:21
On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole.
336
896000
2000
可另一方面，你想要那个该死的鳄梨沙拉酱
15:23
By expressing it as an if-then statement,
337
898000
3000
用一个“如果—那么”巨型，
15:26
you can get the message across
338
901000
2000
你把意思说清楚了
15:28
without appearing to boss another person around.
339
903000
4000
却不会让人觉得你在指使他
15:32
And in a more subtle way, I think, this works
340
907000
2000
我认为这样挺微妙，效果也不错
15:34
for all of the veiled speech acts
341
909000
2000
种种含蓄的言行
15:36
involving plausible deniability:
342
911000
2000
保留了拒绝的可能：
15:38
the bribes, threats, propositions,
343
913000
2000
贿赂、威胁、提议
15:40
solicitations and so on.
344
915000
2000
恳请等等
15:42
One way of thinking about it is to imagine what it would be like
345
917000
2000
有一种理解方式就是想象
15:44
if language -- where it could only be used literally.
346
919000
3000
当语言只能表达字面义
15:47
And you can think of it in terms of a
347
922000
2000
你可以把它当作
15:49
game-theoretic payoff matrix.
348
924000
3000
博弈论中的得失矩阵来思考
15:52
Put yourself in the position of the
349
927000
2000
把你放在
15:54
kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer.
350
929000
3000
那个想贿赂警官的绑匪的位置上
15:57
There's a high stakes
351
932000
2000
全部的赌注
15:59
in the two possibilities
352
934000
3000
都压在这两种可能性上：
16:02
of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer.
353
937000
3000
警官不老实或者他是老实人
16:05
If you don't bribe the officer,
354
940000
3000
假如你不贿赂他，
16:08
then you will get a traffic ticket --
355
943000
2000
你得吃罚单--
16:10
or, as is the case of "Fargo," worse --
356
945000
2000
或者，就像《冰风血》中的情况一样，那更糟
16:12
whether the honest officer
357
947000
2000
不管那个警官
16:14
is honest or dishonest.
358
949000
2000
到底老实不老实：
16:16
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
359
951000
2000
爱拼才会赢
16:18
In that case, the consequences are rather severe.
360
953000
3000
这种情况下，后果很严重
16:21
On the other hand, if you extend the bribe,
361
956000
2000
换一方面，你要是掏出钱来
16:23
if the officer is dishonest,
362
958000
2000
如果警官吃贿赂，
16:25
you get a huge payoff of going free.
363
960000
3000
你全身而退，讨了个大巧
16:28
If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty
364
963000
3000
如果警官是老实人，你因为行贿
16:31
of being arrested for bribery.
365
966000
2000
被逮起来
16:33
So this is a rather fraught situation.
366
968000
2000
所以情况挺复杂的
16:35
On the other hand, with indirect language,
367
970000
2000
然而，你要是含沙射影地说
16:37
if you issue a veiled bribe,
368
972000
2000
如果你含蓄地提出给钱
16:39
then the dishonest officer
369
974000
2000
那么不老实的警官
16:41
could interpret it as a bribe,
370
976000
2000
可以把它理解为你要使银子
16:43
in which case you get the payoff of going free.
371
978000
3000
你就可以走了
16:46
The honest officer can't hold you to it as being a bribe,
372
981000
3000
而诚实的警官也不能硬说你贿赂他
16:49
and therefore, you get the nuisance of the traffic ticket.
373
984000
3000
因此你领一张讨厌的罚单
16:52
So you get the best of both worlds.
374
987000
3000
不过你两种可能中都受益最大化了
16:55
And a similar analysis, I think,
375
990000
2000
我觉得同样的分析方法
16:57
can apply to the potential awkwardness
376
992000
2000
可以用在可能出现尴尬的
16:59
of a sexual solicitation,
377
994000
2000
提出性的要求的时候
17:01
and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset.
378
996000
3000
以及其他的当保留拒绝可的能性对你有利的情况
17:04
I think this affirms
379
999000
2000
这就应证了
17:06
something that's long been known by diplomats --
380
1001000
2000
一个外交官们早已深谙的秘密--
17:08
namely, that the vagueness of language,
381
1003000
2000
那就是：语言的模糊
17:10
far from being a bug or an imperfection,
382
1005000
3000
根本不是什么故障或缺憾
17:13
actually might be a feature of language,
383
1008000
3000
而很可能是语言的特征
17:16
one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.
384
1011000
3000
一个我们能在社交中善加利用的特征
17:19
So to sum up: language is a collective human creation,
385
1014000
3000
总而言之：语言是人类的集体发明
17:22
reflecting human nature,
386
1017000
2000
它折射出人性--
17:24
how we conceptualize reality,
387
1019000
2000
我们如何用概念理解现实世界
17:26
how we relate to one another.
388
1021000
2000
如何互相沟通交流--
17:28
And then by analyzing the various quirks and complexities of language,
389
1023000
4000
通过分析语言的许多微妙、繁复之处
17:32
I think we can get a window onto what makes us tick.
390
1027000
3000
我认为我们能向着人类的生存之道打开一扇窗户
17:35
Thank you very much.
391
1030000
1000
谢谢大家.
17:36
(Applause)
392
1031000
1000
（掌声）
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