Steven Pinker: What our language habits reveal

Prevodilac: Ivana Vlajkovic Lektor: Ivana Korom

This is a picture of Maurice Druon,

Ovo je slika Morisa Driona,

the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise,

počasnog doživotnog sekretara L'Academie francaise --

the French Academy.

Francuske akademije

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

On je besprekorno odeven u svoju uniformu od 68.000 dolara

befitting the role of the French Academy

kao što to i dolikuje ulozi koju ima Francuska akademija

as legislating the

u regulisanju

correct usage in French

ispravne upotrebe francuskog jezika

and perpetuating the language.

i očuvanju jezika.

The French Academy has two main tasks:

Francuska akademija ima dva glavna zadatka:

it compiles a dictionary of official French.

ona sastavlja rečnik službenog francuskog jezika --

They're now working on their ninth edition,

trenutno se radi na devetom izdanju,

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

koje su započeli 1930., a stigli su do slova P.

They also legislate on correct usage,

Oni takođe donose zakone o ispravnoj upotrebi reči,

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

na primer o valjanom terminu za ono što Francuzi nazivaju "email",

which ought to be "courriel."

a što bi trebalo biti "courriel".

The World Wide Web, the French are told,

Svetska kompjuterska mreža (WWW), kako je rečeno Francuzima,

ought to be referred to as

treba da se zove

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

"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- odnosno Globalna paukova mreža --

recommendations that the French gaily ignore.

sve same preporuke koje Francuzi olako odbacuju.

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

Ovo je, dakle, jedan od načina na koji jezik nastaje:

namely, it's legislated by an academy.

naime, njega određuje neka akademija.

But anyone who looks at language realizes

Međutim, svako ko pogleda jezik shvatiće

that this is a rather silly conceit,

da je ovo jedno poprilično smešno uobraženje,

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

te da jezik radije nastaje u međusobnoj interakciji ljudskih umova.

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

I ovo se može videti u nezaustavljivim promenama u jeziku --

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

i u činjenici da dok Akademija završi svoj rečnik,

it will already be well out of date.

on će već biti zastareo.

We see it in the

Ovo se može videti u

constant appearance of slang and jargon,

stalnom stvaranju slenga i žargona,

of the historical change in languages,

u promenama jezika kroz istoriju,

in divergence of dialects

u divergenciji dijalekata

and the formation of new languages.

i u stvaranju novih jezika.

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

Stoga jezik ne stvara i ne oblikuje ljudsku prirodu u tolikoj meri

so much as a window onto human nature.

u kolikoj on predstavlja uvid u tu prirodu.

In a book that I'm currently working on,

U knjizi na kojoj trenutno radim

I hope to use language to shed light on

nadam se da ću pomoću jezika uspeti da rasvetlim

a number of aspects of human nature,

veliki broj aspekata ljudske prirode,

including the cognitive machinery

uključujuči i kognitivnu mašineriju

with which humans conceptualize the world

kojom čovek konceptualizuje svet

and the relationship types that govern human interaction.

i vrste odnosa koje upravljaju interakcijom među ljudima.

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

O svakoj od njih ću danas reći po koju reč.

Let me start off with a technical problem in language

Počeću od jednog tehničkog problema u jeziku

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

koji me je prilično dugo opterećivao --

and indulge me

i nadam se da mi nećete zameriti

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

što će to biti vezano za moju veliku strast prema glagolima i njihovoj upotrebi.

The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions?

Problem se sastoji u tome koji se glagoli koriste u kojim konstrukcijama.

The verb is the chassis of the sentence.

Glagol je šasija rečenice.

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

On je kostur na koji se dodaju ostali delovi.

Let me give you a quick reminder

Dozvolite mi da vas na brzinu podsetim

of something that you've long forgotten.

na nešto što ste davno zaboravili.

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

Neprelazni glagoli, kao što je na primer "obedovati"

can't take a direct object.

ne mogu imati direktan objekat.

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

Moramo reći "Sem je obedovao", a ne "Sem je obedovao picu."

A transitive verb mandates

Prelazni glagoli zahtevaju

that there has to be an object there:

nužno postojanje objekta:

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

"Sem je smazao picu". Ne možete reći samo: "Sem je smazao."

There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type,

Postoje desetine i desetine ovakvih glagola,

each of which shapes its sentence.

od kojih svaki oblikuje rečenicu.

So, a problem in explaining how children learn language,

Stoga, problemi u objašnjenjima toga kako deca uče jezik,

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

problemi u učenju odraslih jeziku tako da ne prave gramatičke greške,

and a problem in programming computers to use language is

i problemi u programiranju kompjutera za upotrebu jezika svode se na to

which verbs go in which constructions.

koji glagoli se koriste u kojim konstrukcijama.

For example, the dative construction in English.

Na primer, dativna konstrukcija u engleskom --

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

možemo reči "Dati kolač mišu", što je u engleskom dativ sa predlogom,

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

ili "Dati mišu kolač", što je u engleskom dativ sa dvostrukim objektom,

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

"Obećaj sve njoj", "Obećaj joj sve", itd.

Hundreds of verbs can go both ways.

Stotine glagola se može upotrebiti na oba načina.

So a tempting generalization for a child,

Primamljiva generalizacija za bilo koje dete,

for an adult, for a computer

odraslu osobu, ili kompjuter

is that any verb that can appear in the construction,

jeste da se svaki glagol koji se može javiti u konstrukciji

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

"subjekat-glagol-objekat-primaocu"

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

takođe može javiti i u konstrukciji "subjekat-glagol-primaocu-objekat".

A handy thing to have,

Ovo je veoma zgodno,

because language is infinite,

jer je jezik beskonačan,

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

i ne možete prosto papagajski ponavljati rečenice koje ste već čuli.

You've got to extract generalizations

Morate se služiti generalizacijama

so you can produce and understand new sentences.

kako biste sastavljali i razumeli nove rečenice.

This would be an example of how to do that.

Ovo je bio primer koji ilustruje kako se to radi.

Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions.

Nažalost, čini se da postoje ideosinkratični izuzeci.

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

Možemo reći "Bif je odvezao auto u Čikago",

but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car."

ali ne i "Bif je odvezao Čikagu auto".

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

Možemo reći "Sal je zadao Džejsonu glavobolju",

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

ali pomalo čudno zvuči kad kažemo "Sal je zadao glavobolju Džejsonu".

The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance,

Odgovor leži u činjenici da ove dve konstrukcije, iako slične na prvi pogled,

are not synonymous,

nisu sinonimne.

that when you crank up the microscope

Kada pod mikroskopom pogledate

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

ljudsku kogniciju, vidite da postoji izvesna razlika

in meaning between them.

u značenju između njih.

So, "give the X to the Y,"

Stoga, "Dati X Y-u"

that construction corresponds to the thought

jeste konstrukcija iza koje stoji misao

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

"Učiniti da X ode do Y-a". Sa druge strane, "Dati Y-u X"

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

iza sebe ima misao "učiniti da Y ima X".

Now, many events can be subject to either construal,

U mnogim situacijama su moguće i jedna i druga interpretacija,

kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions,

što podseća na optičke iluzije

in which you can either pay attention

u kojima se možemo fokusirati

to the particular object,

ili na određeni predmet,

in which case the space around it recedes from attention,

pri čemu sve oko njega izbija iz prvog plana,

or you can see the faces in the empty space,

ili gde možemo videti lica u praznom prostoru,

in which case the object recedes out of consciousness.

pri čemu predmet izlazi iz prvog plana.

How are these construals reflected in language?

Kako se ove interpretacije odslikavaju u jeziku?

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

Pa, u oba slučaja, ono što percipiramo kao nešto nad čime se vrši radnja

is expressed as the direct object,

izražava se direktnim objektom:

the noun after the verb.

imenicom koja sledi glagol.

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

Kada sada predstavimo sebi situaciju kao uzrokovanje kolača da ode negde

where you're doing something to the muffin --

u kome nešto radimo sa tim kolačem --

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

kažemo "Dati kolač mišu".

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

Kada je interpretiramo kao "učiniti da miš nešto ima"

you're doing something to the mouse,

radimo nešto mišu,

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

i stoga to izražavamo kao "Dati mišu kolač"

So which verbs go in which construction --

Dakle, koji glagol ide u koju konstrukciju --

the problem with which I began --

izvorni problem od koga sam počeo --

depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion

zavisi od toga da li se glagol odnosi na neko kretanje

or a kind of possession change.

ili promenu vlasništva.

To give something involves both causing something to go

Dati nešto podrazumeva i to da činimo da nešto ode

and causing someone to have.

i to da činimo da neko nešto ima.

To drive the car only causes something to go,

Vožnja automobila uzrokuje samo kretanje nečega,

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

jer Čikago ne može posedovati bilo šta.

Only humans can possess things.

Samo ljudi mogu posedovati stvari.

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

A zadavanjem glavobolje činimo da neko ima glavobolju,

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

ali to se ne može shvatiti kao uzimanje glavobolje iz jedne glave

and causing it to go to the other person,

njeno prebacivanje na drugu osobu

and implanting it in them.

i ubacivanje iste u njenu glavu.

You may just be loud or obnoxious,

Može biti da ste jednostavno bučni ili nepodnošljivi,

or some other way causing them to have the headache.

ili da na neki drugi način zadajete nekome glavobolju.

So, that's

Ovo je bio

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

primer onoga čime se ja svakodnevno bavim.

So why should anyone care?

A zašto bi ikoga bilo briga?

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

Pa, zbog toga što postoji veliki broj zanimljivih zaključaka, po mom mišljenju,

from this and many similar kinds of analyses

koji se mogu izvući iz ove i mnogih sličnih analiza

of hundreds of English verbs.

stotina engleskih glagola.

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

Prvo, tu je nivo kompleksne konceptualne strukture,

which we automatically and unconsciously compute

koji automatski i nesvesno obrađujemo

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

svaki put kada produkujemo ili izgovorimo rečenicu, a koji upravlja našom upotrebom jezika.

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

Njega možemo nazvati jezikom misli, ili "mentalnim jezikom".

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

Čini se da se on zasniva na određenom skupu koncepata

which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs --

koji upravljaju desetinama konstrukcija i hiljadama glagola --

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

ne samo u engleskom, već u svim jezicima --

fundamental concepts such as space,

fundamentalnim konceptima kao što su prostor,

time, causation and human intention,

vreme, uzročnost i ljudske namere --

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

kao što su na primer sredstvo i cilj.

These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories

Ovo podseća na kategorije

that Immanuel Kant argued

za koje je Imanuel Kant tvrdio

are the basic framework for human thought,

da čine osnovu ljudske misli,

and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language

i zanimljivo je da naša nesvesna upotreba jezika

seems to reflect these Kantian categories.

naizgled odslikava ove Kantove kategorije --

Doesn't care about perceptual qualities,

nije je briga za perceptivne osobine,

such as color, texture, weight and speed,

kao što su boja, tekstura, težina i brzina,

which virtually never differentiate

koje gotovo da se nikada i ne utiču na

the use of verbs in different constructions.

upotrebu glagola u različitim konstrukcijama.

An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English

Dodatni zaplet dolazi od činjenice da se sve konstrukcije u engleskom

are used not only literally,

ne upotrebljavaju samo u bukvalnom smislu,

but in a quasi-metaphorical way.

već i u kvazi-metaforičkom smislu.

For example, this construction, the dative,

Na primer, ova konstrukcija, dativ,

is used not only to transfer things,

koristi se ne samo za transfer predmeta,

but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas,

već i za metaforički transfer ideja,

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

i kada kažemo "Ispričala je priču meni"

or "told me a story,"

ili "ispričala mi je priču",

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

"Maks je predavao španski učenicima" ili "je predavao učenicima španski"

It's exactly the same construction,

To je potpuno ista konstrukcija,

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

ali bez kolača, i bez miševa. Bez ikakvog pomeranja.

It evokes the container metaphor of communication,

Podseća na "metaforu posude" u komunikaciji,

in which we conceive of ideas as objects,

u kojoj doživljavamo ideje kao predmete,

sentences as containers,

rečenice kao posude,

and communication as a kind of sending.

a komunikaciju kao neku vrstu slanja --

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

kao kada kažemo da "sakupljamo" svoje ideje da bismo ih "pretočili" u reči,

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

i ako naše reči nisu "prazne" ili "šuplje",

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

možemo da ih "prenesemo" sagovorniku

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

koji može "raspakovati" naše reči da bi "izvukao" taj "sadržaj".

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

Ovakav način izražavanja nije izuzetak, već pravilo.

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

Vrlo je teško pronaći primere apstraktnog jezika

that is not based on some concrete metaphor.

koji se ne zasniva na nekoj konkretnoj metafori.

For example, you can use the verb "go"

Na primer, možemo upotrebiti glagol "ići"

and the prepositions "to" and "from"

sa predlozima "iz" i "u"

in a literal, spatial sense.

u bukvalnom, prostornom smislu:

"The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul."

"Kurir je otišao iz Pariza u Istanbul".

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

Ali možemo reći i "Bif je ozdravio" (BIf je prešao iz bolesti u zdravlje")

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

On nije morao nigde da ide. Mogao je biti u krevetu sve vreme,

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

ali čini se kao da je njegovo zdravlje jedna tačka u prostoru

that you conceptualize as moving.

koju doživljavamo kao nešto što se kreće.

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

Ili "Sastanak je trajao (išao) od tri do četiri",

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

gde doživljavamo vreme kao nešto što teče duž linije.

Likewise, we use "force" to indicate

Slično, koristimo silu da govorimo

not only physical force,

ne samo o fizičkoj sili,

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

kao u "Rouz je silom otvorila vrata",

but also interpersonal force,

več i o interpersonalnoj sili,

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

kao u primeru "Rouz je prisilila Sejdi da ode" -- ne nužno gurajući je,

but by issuing a threat.

nego pretnjom --

Or, "Rose forced herself to go,"

ili "Rouz je prisilila sebe da ode",

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

kao da u Rouzinoj glavi postoje dva entiteta,

engaged in a tug of a war.

međusobno zaraćena.

Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive

Drugi zaključak je da sposobnost da se

of a given event in two different ways,

data situacija posmatra na dva načina,

such as "cause something to go to someone"

kao, na primer, "učiniti da nešto ode nekome",

and "causing someone to have something,"

i "učiniti da neko nešto ima",

I think is a fundamental feature of human thought,

predstavlja, po mom mišljenju, fundamentalnu osobinu ljudske misli,

and it's the basis for much human argumentation,

i osnovu za mnogobrojne rasprave na temu čoveka,

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

u kojima među ljudima ne postoje tolike razlike u činjenicama,

as on how they ought to be construed.

koliko u načinu na koji se one interpretiraju.

Just to give you a few examples:

Samo da vam predočim nekoliko primera:

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

"okončanje trudnoće" spram "ubistva fetusa",

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

"skupina ćelija" spram "nerođenog deteta"

"invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;"

"invazija na Irak" spram "oslobođenja Iraka",

"redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings."

"preraspodela bogatstva" spram "konfiskovanja zarade".

And I think the biggest picture of all

I smatram da bi najšira perspektiva od svih

would take seriously the fact

ozbiljno razmotrila činjenicu

that so much of our verbiage about abstract events

da je toliko puno naših reči o apstraktnim pojmovima

is based on a concrete metaphor

zasnovano na konkretnim metaforama.

and see human intelligence itself

Ljudska inteligencija bi se mogla posmatrati

as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --

kao nešto što se sastoji od niza koncepata --

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

kao što su predmeti, prostor, vreme, uzročnost i namera --

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

koji su korisni za društvene vrste sa naglašenom komponentom znanja,

whose evolution you can well imagine,

i čija je evolucija dobro poznata,

and a process of metaphorical abstraction

i procesa metaforičke apstrakcije

that allows us to bleach these concepts

koji nam omogućava da iz ovih koncepata ispraznimo

of their original conceptual content --

njihov izvorni konceptualni sadržaj --

space, time and force --

prostor, vreme i silu --

and apply them to new abstract domains,

i primenimo ih na nove, apstraktne domene,

therefore allowing a species that evolved

na taj način omogućavajući vrsti koja je evoluirala

to deal with rocks and tools and animals,

kako bi koristila kamen, alatke i životinje

to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law

da konceptualizuje matematiku, fiziku, pravo,

and other abstract domains.

i druge apstraktne domene.

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

Pa, rekao sam da ću govoriti o dva prozora u svet ljudske prirode:

the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world,

kognitivnoj mašineriji kojom konceptualizujemo svet,

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

i sada ću reći par reči o vrstama odnosa

that govern human social interaction,

koji upravljaju ljudskom društvenom interakcijom,

again, as reflected in language.

opet, onako kako se to odslikava u jeziku.

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

I počeću sa zagonetkom: zagonetkom indirektnih govornih činova.

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

Siguran sam da je većina vas gledala film "Fargo".

And you might remember the scene in which

I možda se sećate scene u kojoj

the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer,

kidnapera zaustavlja policija

is asked to show his driver's license

i traži mu da pokaže vozačku dozvolu,

and holds his wallet out

na šta on izvlači novčanik

with a 50-dollar bill extending

iz koga viri novčanica od 50 dolara

at a slight angle out of the wallet.

samo jednim uglom.

And he says, "I was just thinking

I kaže: "Baš mi je palo na pamet

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

da bismo ovo mogli da sredimo i ovde u Fargu" --

which everyone, including the audience,

što svako, uključujući i publiku,

interprets as a veiled bribe.

tumači kao uvijenu formu mita.

This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language.

Ova vrsta indirektnog govora je veoma raširena u jeziku.

For example, in polite requests,

Na primer, u ljubaznim molbama,

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

ukoliko neko kaže: "Ako biste mogli da mi dodate umak,

that would be awesome,"

to bi bilo super",

we know exactly what he means,

znamo tačno šta on misli,

even though that's a rather bizarre

iako je to na prilično bizaran

concept being expressed.

način iskazano.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

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

"Da li biste želeli da se popnete da vidite moj radirung?"

I think most people

Mislim da većina ljudi

understand the intent behind that.

razume nameru koja stoji iza toga.

And likewise, if someone says,

Isto tako, ako neko kaže:

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

"Lepa ti je ta prodavnica. Bila bi prava šteta da joj se nešto desi" --

(Laughter) --

(Smeh)

we understand that as a veiled threat,

razumemo da je to prikrivena pretnja,

rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities.

pre nego razmišljanje o hipotetičkim situacijama.

So the puzzle is, why are bribes,

Dakle, zagonetka je u tome zašto su mito,

polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled?

molbe, zahtevi i pretnje tako često prikriveni.

No one's fooled.

Niko nije zavaran --

Both parties know exactly what the speaker means,

obe strane tačno znaju šta onaj koji govori misli,

and the speaker knows the listener knows

i onaj koji govori zna da onaj koji ga sluša zna

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

da onaj koji govori zna da onaj koji sluša zna, i tako dalje, i tako dalje.

So what's going on?

Pa šta se zapravo dešava?

I think the key idea is that language

Smatram da je ključna ideja ta da je jezik

is a way of negotiating relationships,

način uspostavljanja odnosa,

and human relationships fall into a number of types.

a ljudski odnosi se mogu podeliti na razne vrste.

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

Jednu od veoma uticajnih podela napravio je antropolog Alan Fisk,

in which relationships can be categorized, more or less,

i po njoj se odnosi mogu podeliti, manje više,

into communality, which works on the principle

na odnose zajedništva, koji počivaju na principu:

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

"Sve moje je tvoje, sve tvoje je moje" --

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

što je odnos koji postoji u okviru porodice, na primer --

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

dominantnosti, čiji je princip "Ne zezaj se sa mnom",

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

reciprociteta: "Ako me počešeš, počešaću i ja tebe",

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

i seksualnosti: izraženo nezaboravnim rečima Kola Portera: "Uradimo to".

Now, relationship types can be negotiated.

O tipu odnosa može se pregovarati.

Even though there are default situations

Iako postoje standardne situacije

in which one of these mindsets can be applied,

na koje se može primeniti jedan od ovih principa,

they can be stretched and extended.

one se mogu rastegnuti i proširiti.

For example, communality applies most naturally

Na primer, princip zajedništva je najprirodniji

within family or friends,

među članovima porodice ili prijateljima,

but it can be used to try to transfer

ali se može upotrebiti za prenos

the mentality of sharing

ideje zajedništva

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

na grupe u kojima se on tipično ne bi javio --

For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations,

na primer, na bratstva, bratske organizacije,

sororities, locutions like "the family of man,"

sestrinstva, izraze kao što su: "zajednica ljudi",

you try to get people who are not related

gde se među ljudima koji nisu u srodstvu podstiče

to use the relationship type that would ordinarily

vid odnosa koji je inače

be appropriate to close kin.

svojstven bliskom srodstvu.

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

Ali nepoklapanja -- u kojima jedna osoba pretpostavi jedan tip veze

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

a druga drugi -- mogu biti neprijatna.

If you went over and you helped yourself

Ukoliko ste prišli i poslužili se

to a shrimp off your boss' plate,

škampima iz tanjira svog šefa,

for example, that would be an awkward situation.

to bi, na primer, bila nelagodna situacija.

Or if a dinner guest after the meal

Ili ako bi vaš gost na večeri nakon obroka

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

izvadio novčanik i ponudio da plati obrok,

that would be rather awkward as well.

to bi takođe bilo neprijatno.

In less blatant cases,

U manje očiglednim slučajevima,

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

i dalje postoji neki vid pregovaranja.

In the workplace, for example,

Na radnom mestu, na primer,

there's often a tension over whether an employee

često postoji tenzija oko toga da li zaposleni

can socialize with the boss,

treba da se druži sa šefom,

or refer to him or her

ili da mu se obraća

on a first-name basis.

bez persiranja.

If two friends have a

Ukoliko dva prijatelja imaju

reciprocal transaction, like selling a car,

recipročnu transakciju, kao što je prodaja automobila,

it's well known that this can be a source

dobro je poznato da to može biti izvor

of tension or awkwardness.

napetosti ili nelagodnosti.

In dating, the transition

Kod zabavljanja, prelazak

from friendship to sex

sa prijateljstva na seks

can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness,

ozloglašen je zbog raznih potencijalnih nelagodnosti,

and as can sex in the workplace,

kao i seks na radnom mestu,

in which we call the conflict between a

u kome konflikt između

dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment."

dominacije i seksualnog odnosa nazivamo "seksualnim uznemiravanjem".

Well, what does this have to do with language?

Dakle, kakve veze ovo ima sa jezikom?

Well, language, as a social interaction,

Pa, jezik, kao društvena interakcija,

has to satisfy two conditions.

mora da zadovolji dva uslova.

You have to convey the actual content --

Morate da prenesete nekakav sadržaj --

here we get back to the container metaphor.

i tu se opet vraćamo na metaforu posude.

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

Želite da iskažete ponudu mita, naredbu, obećanje,

the solicitation and so on,

zahtev i tako dalje --

but you also have to negotiate

ali takođe morate da balansirate

and maintain the kind of relationship

i održite vrstu odnosa

you have with the other person.

koju imate sa nekom osobom.

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

Mislim da je rešenje u činjenici da koristimo jezik na dva nivoa:

the literal form signals

bukvalni smisao ukazuje na

the safest relationship with the listener,

najbezbedniji odnos sa sagovornikom,

whereas the implicated content --

dok implicirani sadržaj --

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

čitanje između redova koje očekujemo od svog sagovornika --

allows the listener to derive the interpretation

omogućava njemu da izvede zaključak

which is most relevant in context,

koji je najrelevantniji u datom kontekstu,

which possibly initiates a changed relationship.

a koji potencijalno inicira promenu u odnosu.

The simplest example of this is in the polite request.

Najjednostavniji primer ovoga je ljubazna molba.

If you express your request as a conditional --

Ako svoju molbu izrazite kondicionalom:

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

"Ako biste mogli da otvorite prozor, to bi bilo sjajno",

even though the content is an imperative,

iako je sadržina imperativna,

the fact that you're not using the imperative voice

činjenica da ne koristite imperativ

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

znači da se ne ponašate kao da ste u odnosu dominantnosti,

where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person.

u kome bi se mogla pretpostaviti poslušnost vašeg sagovornika.

On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole.

Sa druge strane, želite prokleti umak.

By expressing it as an if-then statement,

Izražavanjem toga kroz "ako-onda" rečenicu

you can get the message across

možete preneti poruku

without appearing to boss another person around.

bez da deluje kao da nekome naređujete.

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

Na nešto diskretniji način, mislim da ovo važi

for all of the veiled speech acts

za sve prikrivene govorne činove

involving plausible deniability:

koji uključuju mogućnost odbijanja:

the bribes, threats, propositions,

mito, pretnje, predloge,

solicitations and so on.

zahteve, i tako dalje.

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

Jedan od načina posmatranja ovoga jeste zamišljanje situacije

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

u kojoj bi se jezik koristio samo u bukvalnom smislu.

And you can think of it in terms of a

I možete o tome razmišljati u kontekstu

game-theoretic payoff matrix.

matrice dobiti u teoriji igara.

Put yourself in the position of the

Stavite se u položaj

kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer.

kidnapera koji želi da podmiti policajca.

There's a high stakes

Ulog je veliki

in the two possibilities

s obzirom na dve mogućnosti:

of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer.

da policajac može biti nepošten i da može biti pošten.

If you don't bribe the officer,

Ukoliko ne podmitite policajca,

then you will get a traffic ticket --

dobićete kaznu --

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

ili, kao što je slučaj u "Fargu", još gore --

whether the honest officer

bez obzira na to da li je policajac

is honest or dishonest.

pošten ili nepošten:

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

ako ništa ne reskirate, ništa ne dobijate.

In that case, the consequences are rather severe.

U tom slučaju, posledice su prilično teške.

On the other hand, if you extend the bribe,

Sa druge strane, ako ponudite mito,

if the officer is dishonest,

a policajac je nepošten,

you get a huge payoff of going free.

dobijate ogromnu dobit jer ostajete nekažnjeni.

If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty

Ukoliko je policajac pošten, dobijate ogromnu kaznu

of being arrested for bribery.

jer će vas uhapsiti za davanje mita.

So this is a rather fraught situation.

Dakle, ovo je jedna prilično nezgodna situcija.

On the other hand, with indirect language,

Sa druge strane, sa indirektnim jezikom,

if you issue a veiled bribe,

ukoliko ponudite prikriveni mito,

then the dishonest officer

onda će nepošten policajac

could interpret it as a bribe,

to shvatiti kao mito,

in which case you get the payoff of going free.

i u tom slučaju ste na dobiti jer vas neće uhapsiti,

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

dok pošten policajac neće moći da vas optuži da ste ponudili mito,

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

te ćete, stoga, dobiti samo glupu kaznu.

So you get the best of both worlds.

Na taj način ste u najboljem položaju.

And a similar analysis, I think,

Slična analiza, verujem,

can apply to the potential awkwardness

može se primeniti na potencijalnu nelagodnost

of a sexual solicitation,

seksualne ponude,

and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset.

i druge slučajeve u kojima figurira mogućnost odbijanja.

I think this affirms

Mislim da ovo potvrđuje

something that's long been known by diplomats --

nešto što je diplomatama odavno poznato --

namely, that the vagueness of language,

naime, da je nejasnoća jezika

far from being a bug or an imperfection,

daleko od greške ili nesavršenosti,

actually might be a feature of language,

već da je zapravo osobina jezika --

one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.

koju možemo iskoristiti u društvenoj interakciji.

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

Da sumiram: jezik je kolektivna ljudska tvorevina,

reflecting human nature,

koja odlslikava ljudsku prirodu --

how we conceptualize reality,

način na koji konceptualizujemo stvarnost,

how we relate to one another.

način na koji stupamo u veze --

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

i analizom različitih osobenosti i kompleksnosti jezika,

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

mislim da možemo steći uvid u ono ono što nas pokreće.

Thank you very much.

Hvala puno.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)