Steven Pinker: What our language habits reveal

Traducător: Oana Uiorean Corector: Dorin-Lucian Marsan

This is a picture of Maurice Druon,

Aici vedeti o fotografie a lui Maurice Druon,

the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise,

Secretar Perpetuu al Academie francaise --

the French Academy.

Academia Franceza.

He is splendidly attired in his 68,000-dollar uniform,

Poarta o splendida uniforma de 68 000 de dolari,

befitting the role of the French Academy

pe masura rolului Academiei Franceze

as legislating the

de a hotari

correct usage in French

ce este franceza corecta

and perpetuating the language.

si de a perpetua limba.

The French Academy has two main tasks:

Academia Franceza are doua sarcini principale:

it compiles a dictionary of official French.

redacteaza un dictionar al limbii franceze literare --

They're now working on their ninth edition,

deocamdata se ocupa de a noua editie,

which they began in 1930, and they've reached the letter P.

pe care au inceput-o in 1930, pana acum ajungand la litera P.

They also legislate on correct usage,

De asemenea, hotarasc asupra utilizarii corecte a limbii franceze,

such as the proper term for what the French call "email,"

ca de exemplu termenul corect pentru "email",

which ought to be "courriel."

care in limba franceza ar trebui sa fie "courriel."

The World Wide Web, the French are told,

Internet-ul, li se spune francezilor,

ought to be referred to as

ar trebui sa fie numit

"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- the Global Spider Web --

"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- Panza de Paianjen Mondiala --

recommendations that the French gaily ignore.

recomandari pe care francezii le ignora cu veselie.

Now, this is one model of how language comes to be:

Acesta e un model al modului in care o limba ajunge sa existe:

namely, it's legislated by an academy.

si anume, fiind reglementata de o academie.

But anyone who looks at language realizes

Dar oricine arunca o privire limbii isi da seama

that this is a rather silly conceit,

ca acest model e o amagire cam prosteasca,

that language, rather, emerges from human minds interacting from one another.

caci limba ajunge sa existe mai degraba ca urmare a interactiunii dintre mintile omenesti.

And this is visible in the unstoppable change in language --

Si asta se vede cel mai bine in transformarea de neoprit a limbii --

the fact that by the time the Academy finishes their dictionary,

in faptul ca pana cand Academia isi va termina dictionarul,

it will already be well out of date.

acesta va fi deja perimat.

We see it in the

Vedem asta in

constant appearance of slang and jargon,

aparitia constanta de argouri si jargoane,

of the historical change in languages,

in transformarile istorice ale limbilor,

in divergence of dialects

in divergenta dialectelor

and the formation of new languages.

si in formarea unor noi limbi.

So language is not so much a creator or shaper of human nature,

Deci, limba nu este atat o forta ce creaza sau modeleaza natura umana

so much as a window onto human nature.

cat este o fereastra asupra naturii umane.

In a book that I'm currently working on,

Intr-o carte la care lucrez in acesta perioada,

I hope to use language to shed light on

intentionez sa ma folosesc de limba pentru a deslusi

a number of aspects of human nature,

cateva aspecte ale naturii umane,

including the cognitive machinery

inclusiv masinaria cognitiva

with which humans conceptualize the world

cu care fiintele umane conceptualizeaza lumea

and the relationship types that govern human interaction.

si tipurile de relatii ce le guverneaza interactiunea.

And I'm going to say a few words about each one this morning.

In aceasta dimineata am sa fac cateva remarci pe fiecare dintre aceste subiecte.

Let me start off with a technical problem in language

As vrea sa incep cu o problema tehnica in ceea ce priveste limba

that I've worried about for quite some time --

care ma preocupa deja de ceva vreme --

and indulge me

si sper ca veti avea rabdare

in my passion for verbs and how they're used.

cu pasiunea mea pentru verbe si modul in care sunt folosite.

The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions?

Problema este, care verbe intra in care tip de constructii?

The verb is the chassis of the sentence.

Verbul este suportul propozitiei.

It's the framework onto which the other parts are bolted.

Este structura pe care sunt fixate toate celelalte elemente.

Let me give you a quick reminder

Dati-mi voie sa va amintesc

of something that you've long forgotten.

ceva ce ati uitat demult.

An intransitive verb, such as "dine," for example,

Un verb intranzitiv, ca de exemplu "a cina,"

can't take a direct object.

nu poate primi un complement direct.

You have to say, "Sam dined," not, "Sam dined the pizza."

Spunem "Sam a cinat," nu "Sam a cinat pizza."

A transitive verb mandates

Un verb tranzitiv necesita

that there has to be an object there:

un complement:

"Sam devoured the pizza." You can't just say, "Sam devoured."

"Sam a devorat pizza." Nu putem spune, "Sam a devorat."

There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type,

Exista o multime de verbe de acest fel,

each of which shapes its sentence.

fiecare dintre ele modelandu-si propria propozitie.

So, a problem in explaining how children learn language,

Deci, una dintre problemele in a explica modul in care copiii invata limba,

a problem in teaching language to adults so that they don't make grammatical errors,

una dintre problemele in a preda o limba adultilor in asa fel incat ei sa nu faca greseli gramaticale

and a problem in programming computers to use language is

si una dintre problemele in a programa computerele pentru utilizarea limbii este

which verbs go in which constructions.

care verb intra in care tip de constructii.

For example, the dative construction in English.

De exemplu, dativul --

You can say, "Give a muffin to a mouse," the prepositional dative.

poti spune, "Da o gogoasa soarecelui," dativul prepozitional,

Or, "Give a mouse a muffin," the double-object dative.

sau "Da-i soarecelui o gogoasa," dativul cu dublu-complement,

"Promise anything to her," "Promise her anything," and so on.

"Promite orice fetei," "Promite-i fetei orice" si asa mai departe.

Hundreds of verbs can go both ways.

Sute de verbe o pot lua in ambele directii.

So a tempting generalization for a child,

O generalizare tentanta pentru un copil,

for an adult, for a computer

un adult sau un computer

is that any verb that can appear in the construction,

este ca orice verb ce poate intra in constructia,

"subject-verb-thing-to-a-recipient"

"subiect-verb-obiect-destinatar"

can also be expressed as "subject-verb-recipient-thing."

poate fi de asemenea exprimat ca "subiect-verb-destinatar-obiect."

A handy thing to have,

E un instrument util,

because language is infinite,

pentru ca limba e infinita,

and you can't just parrot back the sentences that you've heard.

si nu poti doar sa repeti ca un papagal propozitiile pe care le auzi.

You've got to extract generalizations

Trebuie sa extragi generalizari

so you can produce and understand new sentences.

astfel incat sa poti sa produci si sa intelegi noi propozitii.

This would be an example of how to do that.

Acesta ar fi un exemplu despre cum poti face asa ceva.

Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions.

Din pacate, se pare ca exista si exceptii idiosincrasice.

You can say, "Biff drove the car to Chicago,"

Putem spune, "Biff a condus masina la Chicago,"

but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car."

dar nu, "Biff a condus Chicago masina."

You can say, "Sal gave Jason a headache,"

Putem spune, "Sal i-a dat dureri de cap lui Jason ,"

but it's a bit odd to say, "Sal gave a headache to Jason."

dar e putin neobisnuit sa spunem "Sal a dat lui Jason dureri de cap ."

The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance,

Explicatia este ca aceste constructii, in ciuda primei impresii,

are not synonymous,

nu sunt sinonime.

that when you crank up the microscope

Ca atunci cand apropii microscopul

on human cognition, you see that there's a subtle difference

de cognitia umana, vezi ca exista o diferenta subtila

in meaning between them.

intre intelesurile lor.

So, "give the X to the Y,"

Deci, "Da pe X lui Y" --

that construction corresponds to the thought

aceasta constructie corespunde ideii,

"cause X to go to Y." Whereas "give the Y the X"

"Fa asa incat X sa mearga la Y." In timp ce, "Da lui Y pe X"

corresponds to the thought "cause Y to have X."

corespunde ideii "Fa asa incat Y sa aiba pe X."

Now, many events can be subject to either construal,

In multe cazuri putem vedea o constructie in doua feluri,

kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions,

cam ca si in cazul clasicei vaze a lui Rubin,

in which you can either pay attention

la care fie punem accentul

to the particular object,

pe un obiect in particular,

in which case the space around it recedes from attention,

caz in care spatiul din jurul sau trece in planul secund,

or you can see the faces in the empty space,

fie vedem profilurile din spatiul gol din jur,

in which case the object recedes out of consciousness.

caz in care obiectul in sine nu mai este perceput.

How are these construals reflected in language?

Cum se reflecta aceste doua posibilitati in limba?

Well, in both cases, the thing that is construed as being affected

In ambele cazuri, elementul care este considerat ca fiind direct influentat

is expressed as the direct object,

este exprimat in complementul direct:

the noun after the verb.

substantivul de dupa verb.

So, when you think of the event as causing the muffin to go somewhere --

Deci atunci cand consideram actiunea ca fiind cea care face ca gogoasa sa mearga undeva --

where you're doing something to the muffin --

cand ii facem ceva gogoasei --

you say, "Give the muffin to the mouse."

spunem "Da gogoasa soarecelui."

When you construe it as "cause the mouse to have something,"

Cand interpretam actiunea ca "fa ca soarecele sa primeasca ceva,"

you're doing something to the mouse,

ii facem ceva soarecelui,

and therefore you express it as, "Give the mouse the muffin."

si ca urmare, o exprimam ca "Da-i soarecelui gogoasa."

So which verbs go in which construction --

Deci care verbe intra in care constructie --

the problem with which I began --

intrebarea de la care am pornit --

depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion

depinde de situatie: fie verbul specifica un fel de miscare

or a kind of possession change.

fie un fel de schimbare a posesorului.

To give something involves both causing something to go

A da ceva inseamna atat a face ca ceva sa mearga,

and causing someone to have.

cat si a face ca cineva sa aiba.

To drive the car only causes something to go,

A conduce o masina nu face decat ca ceva sa mearga,

because Chicago's not the kind of thing that can possess something.

pentru ca Chicago nu e genul de element care poate poseda ceva.

Only humans can possess things.

Doar fiintele umane pot poseda ceva.

And to give someone a headache causes them to have the headache,

Si a da cuiva dureri de cap face ca cineva sa aiba dureri de cap,

but it's not as if you're taking the headache out of your head

dar nu e ca si cum ne-am scoate durerea de cap din propriul cap

and causing it to go to the other person,

si am face ca ea sa mearga la cealalta persoana,

and implanting it in them.

ca apoi sa intentionam sa o plasam in capul ei.

You may just be loud or obnoxious,

Probabil doar vorbesti tare si esti foarte enervant,

or some other way causing them to have the headache.

sau ii dai dureri de cap intr-un alt fel.

So, that's

Asadar, acesta

an example of the kind of thing that I do in my day job.

a fost un exemplu pentru a ilustra cu ce ma ocup eu la serviciu.

So why should anyone care?

De ce sa-i pese cuiva?

Well, there are a number of interesting conclusions, I think,

Am un numar interesant de concluzii, cred,

from this and many similar kinds of analyses

pe care le trag din acest studiu si din altele similare

of hundreds of English verbs.

a sute de verbe englezesti.

First, there's a level of fine-grained conceptual structure,

In primul rand, avem nivelul unei structuri conceptuale bine definite,

which we automatically and unconsciously compute

pe care o calculam automat si inconstient

every time we produce or utter a sentence, that governs our use of language.

de fiecare data cand formulam sau rostim o propozitie, ceea ce determina modul in care folosim limba.

You can think of this as the language of thought, or "mentalese."

Putem numi asta limba gandirii, sau "Mentaleza".

It seems to be based on a fixed set of concepts,

Pare sa se bazeze pe un grup fix de concepte

which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs --

care guverneaza o multime de constructii si mii de verbe --

not only in English, but in all other languages --

nu numai in engleza, dar in toate celelalte limbi --

fundamental concepts such as space,

concepte fundamentale cum sunt spatiul,

time, causation and human intention,

timpul, cauza si intentia --

such as, what is the means and what is the ends?

ca de exemplu, care sunt mijloacele si care este scopul?

These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories

Acestea amintesc de categoriile

that Immanuel Kant argued

despre care Immanuel Kant sustinea

are the basic framework for human thought,

ca reprezinta structura de baza a gandirii umane,

and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language

si e interesant ca utilizarea inconstienta a limbii

seems to reflect these Kantian categories.

pare sa reflecte aceste categorii kantiene --

Doesn't care about perceptual qualities,

nu ia in considerare caracteristici perceptuale,

such as color, texture, weight and speed,

ca de exemplu culoare, textura, greutate si viteza,

which virtually never differentiate

care practic nu influenteaza niciodata

the use of verbs in different constructions.

utilizarea verbelor in diferite constructii.

An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English

O complicatie in plus vine de la faptul ca toate constructiile in limba engleza

are used not only literally,

sunt folosite nu numai literal,

but in a quasi-metaphorical way.

dar si in mod semi-metaforic.

For example, this construction, the dative,

De exemplu, aceasta constructie, dativul,

is used not only to transfer things,

este folosita nu numai pentru a transfera obiecte,

but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas,

dar si pentru transferul metaforic de idei,

as when we say, "She told a story to me"

ca si atunci cand spunem, "Mi-a spus o poveste mie"

or "told me a story,"

sau "mi-a spus o poveste,"

"Max taught Spanish to the students" or "taught the students Spanish."

"Max a predat spaniola studentilor" sau "a invatat pe studenti spaniola."

It's exactly the same construction,

Este exact aceeasi constructie,

but no muffins, no mice, nothing moving at all.

dar nu avem nici gogosi, nici soareci. Nimic care sa se miste.

It evokes the container metaphor of communication,

Ne aduce aminte de "metafora recipientului" din comunicare,

in which we conceive of ideas as objects,

in care percepem ideile ca obiecte,

sentences as containers,

propozitiile ca recipiente,

and communication as a kind of sending.

si comunicarea ca un fel de transmitere --

As when we say we "gather" our ideas, to "put" them "into" words,

ca si atunci cand spunem ca ne "culegem" gandurile pentru a le "pune in" cuvinte,

and if our words aren't "empty" or "hollow,"

iar atunci cand cuvintele noastre nu sunt "goale" sau "fara continut,"

we might get these ideas "across" to a listener,

avem sansa sa "transmitem" aceste idei unui ascultator

who can "unpack" our words to "extract" their "content."

care poate sa "caute printre" cuvintele noastre pentru a le "extrage continutul."

And indeed, this kind of verbiage is not the exception, but the rule.

Astfel de expresii nu constituie o exceptie, ci o regula.

It's very hard to find any example of abstract language

E foarte greu sa gasim un exemplu de limbaj abstract

that is not based on some concrete metaphor.

care sa nu se bazeze pe o metafora concreta.

For example, you can use the verb "go"

De exemplu, putem folosi verbul "a merge"

and the prepositions "to" and "from"

si prepozitiile "inspre" si "dinspre"

in a literal, spatial sense.

intr-un sens spatial literal:

"The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul."

"Mesagerul a mers dinspre Paris inspre Istanbul."

You can also say, "Biff went from sick to well."

Putem spune, de asemenea, "Biff a mers dinspre rau inspre bine."

He needn't go anywhere. He could have been in bed the whole time,

Probabil ca nu a mers nicaieri. Se prea poate sa fi ramas in pat tot acest timp,

but it's as if his health is a point in state space

dar ne exprimam ca si cand sanatatea lui este un punct in spatiu

that you conceptualize as moving.

pe care il conceptualizam ca fiind in miscare.

Or, "The meeting went from three to four,"

Sau, "Intalnirea a durat de la trei la patru,"

in which we conceive of time as stretched along a line.

in care concepem timpul ca intinzandu-se de-a lungul unei linii.

Likewise, we use "force" to indicate

De asemenea, folosim forta pentru a indica

not only physical force,

nu numai forta fizica,

as in, "Rose forced the door to open,"

ca in exemplul, "Rose a fortat usa sa se deschida,"

but also interpersonal force,

dar si forta interpersonala,

as in, "Rose forced Sadie to go," not necessarily by manhandling her,

ca in exemplul, "Rose a fortat-o pe Sadie sa mearge" -- nu neaparat prin contact fizic

but by issuing a threat.

dar printr-o amenintare --

Or, "Rose forced herself to go,"

sau "Rose s-a fortat sa mearga,"

as if there were two entities inside Rose's head,

ca si cand ar fi doua entitati in capul lui Rose,

engaged in a tug of a war.

care se razboiesc una cu alta.

Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive

A doua concluzie este capacitatea de a concepe

of a given event in two different ways,

un eveniment in doua moduri diferite

such as "cause something to go to someone"

ca de exemplu, "a face ca ceva sa mearga la cineva,"

and "causing someone to have something,"

si "a face ca cineva sa aiba ceva,"

I think is a fundamental feature of human thought,

cred ca este o caracteristica fundamentala a gandirii umane,

and it's the basis for much human argumentation,

si sta la baza multor dispute umane,

in which people don't differ so much on the facts

in care oamenii nu difera atat in ceea ce priveste faptele

as on how they ought to be construed.

cat in ceea ce priveste modul in care acestea sunt interpretate.

Just to give you a few examples:

O sa va dau cateva exemple:

"ending a pregnancy" versus "killing a fetus;"

"intreruperea unei sarcini" fata de "uciderea unui fetus,"

"a ball of cells" versus "an unborn child;"

"o aglomerare de celule" fata de "un copil nenascut,"

"invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;"

"invadarea Iraq-ului" fata de "eliberarea Iraq-ului,"

"redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings."

"redistribuirea averii" fata de "confiscarea veniturilor."

And I think the biggest picture of all

Si cred ca cea mai completa imagine

would take seriously the fact

ar lua in serios faptul ca

that so much of our verbiage about abstract events

o mare parte din limbajul pe care-l folosim cand vorbim despre evenimente abstracte

is based on a concrete metaphor

se bazeza pe o metafora concreta.

and see human intelligence itself

Am vedea inteligenta umana insasi

as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --

ca fiind formata dintr-un repertoriu de concepte --

such as objects, space, time, causation and intention --

ca de exemplu obiecte, spatiu, timp, cauza si intentie --

which are useful in a social, knowledge-intensive species,

ce sunt utile speciilor sociale, care au nevoie de informatie,

whose evolution you can well imagine,

a caror evolutie v-o puteti imagina cu usurinta,

and a process of metaphorical abstraction

si dintr-un proces de abstractie metaforica

that allows us to bleach these concepts

care ne permite sa curatam aceste concepte

of their original conceptual content --

de continutul conceptual initial --

space, time and force --

spatiu, timp si forta --

and apply them to new abstract domains,

si sa le aplicam unor noi domenii abstracte,

therefore allowing a species that evolved

ca urmare permitand unei specii evoluate

to deal with rocks and tools and animals,

sa se foloseasca de pietre, de unelte si de animale,

to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law

sa conceptualizeze matematica, fizica, dreptul

and other abstract domains.

si alte domenii abstracte.

Well, I said I'd talk about two windows on human nature --

Am spus ca voi vorbi despre doua ferestre inspre natura umana:

the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world,

masinaria cognitiva cu care conceptualizam lumea,

and now I'm going to say a few words about the relationship types

si acum am sa spun cateva cuvinte despre tipurile relationale

that govern human social interaction,

care guverneaza interactiunea sociala,

again, as reflected in language.

din nou, asa cum acestea se reflecta in limba.

And I'll start out with a puzzle, the puzzle of indirect speech acts.

Si voi incepe cu o enigma: enigma actelor verbale indirecte.

Now, I'm sure most of you have seen the movie "Fargo."

Sunt sigur ca majoritatea dintre voi a vazut filmul "Fargo."

And you might remember the scene in which

Si poate va amintiti scena in care

the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer,

rapitorul este oprit de o masina de politie,

is asked to show his driver's license

i se cere sa arate carnetul de conducere

and holds his wallet out

iar acesta intinde portmoneul

with a 50-dollar bill extending

cu o hartie de 50 de dolari

at a slight angle out of the wallet.

iesind la un unghi discret din portmoneu.

And he says, "I was just thinking

Si spune, "Ma gandeam

that maybe we could take care of it here in Fargo,"

ca poate am putea sa rezolvam problema aici, in Fargo" --

which everyone, including the audience,

ceea ce toata lumea, inclusiv publicul,

interprets as a veiled bribe.

interpreteaza ca fiind o spaga mascata.

This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language.

Acest tip de act verbal indirect este foarte raspandit in limba.

For example, in polite requests,

De exemplu, in contextul unei cereri politicoase,

if someone says, "If you could pass the guacamole,

daca cineva spune "Ar fi minunat daca ati putea

that would be awesome,"

sa-mi dati vasul cu guacamole,"

we know exactly what he means,

stim exact ce vrea sa spuna,

even though that's a rather bizarre

cu toate ca e un mod de exprimare

concept being expressed.

cam ciudat.

(Laughter)

(Rasete)

"Would you like to come up and see my etchings?"

"Ti-ar face placere sa vii pana sus sa-mi vezi gravurile?"

I think most people

Cred ca majoritatea oamenilor intelege

understand the intent behind that.

intentia din spatele acestei propozitii.

And likewise, if someone says,

Si de asemenea, daca cineva spune,

"Nice store you've got there. It would be a real shame if something happened to it" --

"Frumos magazin aveti aici. Ar fi tare pacat sa i se intample ceva rau" --

(Laughter) --

(Rasete)

we understand that as a veiled threat,

intelegem asta ca pe o amenintare mascata,

rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities.

mai degraba decat ca pe o meditatie asupra unor posibilitati ipotetice.

So the puzzle is, why are bribes,

Deci enigma este, de ce spagile,

polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled?

cererile politicoase, propunerile si amenintarile sunt atat de des mascate?

No one's fooled.

Nimeni nu poate fi amagit --

Both parties know exactly what the speaker means,

ambii interlocutori stiu exact ce vrea sa spuna vorbitorul,

and the speaker knows the listener knows

iar vorbitorul stie ca ascultatorul stie

that the speaker knows that the listener knows, etc., etc.

ca vorbitorul stie ca ascultatorul stie, s.a.m.d, s.a.m.d.

So what's going on?

Deci, ce se intampla de fapt?

I think the key idea is that language

Cred ca ideea de baza este ca limba

is a way of negotiating relationships,

e un mod de a negocia relatii,

and human relationships fall into a number of types.

iar relatiile interumane se impart intr-un numar de categorii.

There's an influential taxonomy by the anthropologist Alan Fiske,

Antropologul Alan Fiske a formulat o influenta taxonomie,

in which relationships can be categorized, more or less,

in care relatiile pot fi categorisite, mai mult sau mai putin,

into communality, which works on the principle

in comunalitate, care functioneaza pe principiul

"what's mine is thine, what's thine is mine,"

"Ce e al meu e si al tau, ce e al tau e si al meu" --

the kind of mindset that operates within a family, for example;

genul de mentalitate care opereaza in cadrul unei familii, de exemplu --

dominance, whose principle is "don't mess with me;"

dominanta, a carui principiu este "Nu te pune cu mine,"

reciprocity, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours;"

reciprocitate: "o mana spala pe alta",

and sexuality, in the immortal words of Cole Porter, "Let's do it."

si sexualitate: in cuvintele nemuritoare ale lui Cole Porter, "Hai la treaba."

Now, relationship types can be negotiated.

Tipurile de relatii pot fi negociate.

Even though there are default situations

Cu toate ca exista situatii standard

in which one of these mindsets can be applied,

in care una dintre aceste atitudini poate fi aplicata,

they can be stretched and extended.

acestea pot fi intinse si extinse.

For example, communality applies most naturally

De exemplu, comuniunea se intalneste cel mai natural

within family or friends,

in familie sau intre prieteni,

but it can be used to try to transfer

dar poate fi folosita pentru a incerca sa se transfere

the mentality of sharing

mentalitatea necesara pentru a imparti cu altii

to groups that ordinarily would not be disposed to exercise it.

unor grupuri care in mod normal nu ar fi dispuse sa o foloseasca --

For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations,

ca de exemplu, in fraternitati,

sororities, locutions like "the family of man,"

sororitati, in formulari ca "familia omului",

you try to get people who are not related

incearca sa ii faca pe niste oameni care nu sunt inruditi

to use the relationship type that would ordinarily

sa foloseasca tipul de relatie care in mod normal

be appropriate to close kin.

s-ar potrivi unor rude apropiate.

Now, mismatches -- when one person assumes one relationship type,

Dar nepotrivirile -- cand o persoana presupune un tip de relatie,

and another assumes a different one -- can be awkward.

si o alta presupune un altul -- pot duce la situatii jenante.

If you went over and you helped yourself

Daca ai merge la masa alaturata si ai lua

to a shrimp off your boss' plate,

un crevete din farfuria sefului tau,

for example, that would be an awkward situation.

de exemplu, ai crea o situatie jenanta.

Or if a dinner guest after the meal

Sau daca un invitat la cina, dupa masa,

pulled out his wallet and offered to pay you for the meal,

si-ar scoate portofelul si s-ar oferi sa plateasca pentru mancare,

that would be rather awkward as well.

am avea de asemenea o situatie neplacuta.

In less blatant cases,

Si in cazuri mai putin evidente,

there's still a kind of negotiation that often goes on.

avem de-a face cu un fel de negociere.

In the workplace, for example,

La locul de munca, de exemplu,

there's often a tension over whether an employee

se pune adeseori intrebarea daca un angajat

can socialize with the boss,

isi poate petrece parte din timpul liber cu seful,

or refer to him or her

sau poate sa i se adreseze

on a first-name basis.

cu numele mic.

If two friends have a

Daca doi prieteni au

reciprocal transaction, like selling a car,

o tranzactie reciproca, ca vanzarea unei masini,

it's well known that this can be a source

e binecunoscut faptul ca aceasta poate fi o sursa

of tension or awkwardness.

de tensiune sau incurcatura.

In dating, the transition

Cand doi oameni ies impreuna, tranzitia

from friendship to sex

de la prietenie la sex

can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness,

poate duce, dupa cum bine stim, la diferite situatii jenante,

and as can sex in the workplace,

ca si relatiile sexuale cu un coleg de munca,

in which we call the conflict between a

caz in care conflictul dintre

dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment."

o relatie dominanta si una sexuala il numim "hartuire sexuala."

Well, what does this have to do with language?

Si, ce au toate astea cu limba?

Well, language, as a social interaction,

Limba, ca interactiune sociala,

has to satisfy two conditions.

trebuie sa satisfaca doua conditii.

You have to convey the actual content --

Trebuie sa transmitem continutul in sine --

here we get back to the container metaphor.

aici revenim la metafora recipientului.

You want to express the bribe, the command, the promise,

Vrem sa exprimam spaga, ordinul, promisiunea,

the solicitation and so on,

propunerea si asa mai departe --

but you also have to negotiate

dar trebuie si sa negociem

and maintain the kind of relationship

si sa mentinem tipul de relatie

you have with the other person.

pe care o avem cu cealalta persoana.

The solution, I think, is that we use language at two levels:

Solutia, cred, este faptul ca utilizam limba la doua nivele:

the literal form signals

forma literala semnalizeaza

the safest relationship with the listener,

relatia cea mai confortabila cu ascultatorul,

whereas the implicated content --

pe cand continutul sugerat --

the reading between the lines that we count on the listener to perform --

cititul printre randuri pe care ne bazam ca ascultatorul il face --

allows the listener to derive the interpretation

permite ascultatorului sa deduca interpretarea

which is most relevant in context,

cea mai relevanta in contextul dat,

which possibly initiates a changed relationship.

ceea ce poate duce la o relatie modificata.

The simplest example of this is in the polite request.

Cel mai simplu exemplu in acest sens este cererea politicoasa.

If you express your request as a conditional --

Daca iti exprimi cererea sub forma conditionala:

"if you could open the window, that would be great" --

"Daca ai putea deschide fereastra ar fi minunat,"

even though the content is an imperative,

chiar daca continutul este un imperativ,

the fact that you're not using the imperative voice

faptul ca nu folosim imperativul

means that you're not acting as if you're in a relationship of dominance,

inseamna ca nu ne comportam ca si cand ne-am gasi intr-o relatie de dominatie

where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person.

pe baza careia poti presupune supunerea celeilalte persoane.

On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole.

Pe de alta parte, chiar vrem blestematul de guacamole.

By expressing it as an if-then statement,

Exprimand cererea ca pe o propozitie "daca-atunci",

you can get the message across

putem transmite mesajul

without appearing to boss another person around.

fara sa para ca ii dam cuiva ordine.

And in a more subtle way, I think, this works

Si, intr-un mod mai subtil, cred ca strategia functioneaza

for all of the veiled speech acts

pentru toate actele verbale mascate

involving plausible deniability:

care implica o posibila retractare credibila:

the bribes, threats, propositions,

spaga, amenintarile, propunerile,

solicitations and so on.

avansurile si asa mai departe.

One way of thinking about it is to imagine what it would be like

O modalitate de a intelege e daca incercam sa ne imaginam cum ar fi

if language -- where it could only be used literally.

sa putem sa ne folosim de limba doar in sens literal.

And you can think of it in terms of a

Si putem vedea asta in termeni

game-theoretic payoff matrix.

de teoria jocurilor.

Put yourself in the position of the

Puneti-va in pozitia

kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer.

rapitorului care vrea sa mituiasca politistul.

There's a high stakes

Riscul e mare

in the two possibilities

in ambele cazuri,

of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer.

fie ca politistul e cinstit, fie ca nu.

If you don't bribe the officer,

Daca nu mituiesti ofiterul,

then you will get a traffic ticket --

te alegi cu o amenda --

or, as is the case of "Fargo," worse --

sau, ca in "Fargo", mai rau de-atat --

whether the honest officer

si daca politistul e cinstit,

is honest or dishonest.

si daca e necinstit:

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

nu risti, nu castigi.

In that case, the consequences are rather severe.

In acest caz, urmarile sunt grave.

On the other hand, if you extend the bribe,

Pe de alta parte, daca oferi spaga,

if the officer is dishonest,

daca politistul e necinstit,

you get a huge payoff of going free.

castigul e imens, fiindca scapi fara pedeapsa.

If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty

Daca ofiterul e cinstit, pedeapsa e imensa,

of being arrested for bribery.

fiindca vei fi arestat pentru dare de spaga.

So this is a rather fraught situation.

Deci ne gasim intr-o situatie destul de complicata.

On the other hand, with indirect language,

Pe de alta parte, cu un limbaj indirect,

if you issue a veiled bribe,

daca oferi o spaga mascata,

then the dishonest officer

atunci politistul necinstit

could interpret it as a bribe,

poate interpreta oferta ca pe o mita,

in which case you get the payoff of going free.

caz in care castigi, fiindca esti eliberat,

The honest officer can't hold you to it as being a bribe,

iar politistul cinstit nu te pote trage la raspundere pentru dare de mita,

and therefore, you get the nuisance of the traffic ticket.

si ca urmare ramai doar cu o amenda.

So you get the best of both worlds.

Deci pana la urma te alegi cu ce-i mai bun din toate.

And a similar analysis, I think,

Si cred ca o analiza similara

can apply to the potential awkwardness

se aplica si potentialei situatii jenante

of a sexual solicitation,

create de un avans de natura sexuala

and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset.

si altor cazuri in care o retractare credibila poate fi un avantaj.

I think this affirms

Acest fapt confirma

something that's long been known by diplomats --

ceva ce diplomatii stiu demult --

namely, that the vagueness of language,

si anume, ca un limbaj vag,

far from being a bug or an imperfection,

departe de a fi o problema sau o imperfectiune,

actually might be a feature of language,

ar putea fi o caracteristica a limbii --

one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.

pe care o folosim in avantajul nostru in interactiuni sociale.

So to sum up: language is a collective human creation,

Deci, ca sa recapitulam: limba este o creatie umana colectiva,

reflecting human nature,

care reflecta natura umana --

how we conceptualize reality,

felul in care conceptualizam realitatea,

how we relate to one another.

relatiile pe care le avem unul cu altul --

And then by analyzing the various quirks and complexities of language,

si, analizand diferitele ciudatenii si complexitati ale limbii,

I think we can get a window onto what makes us tick.

cred ca putem sa identificam ce anume ne face ceea ce suntem.

Thank you very much.

Va multumesc.

(Applause)

(Aplauze)