Steven Pinker: What our language habits reveal

翻译人员: Miao Li 校对人员: Tony Yet

This is a picture of Maurice Druon,

照片里的人是Maurice Druon

the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise,

L'Academie francaise的荣誉终身秘书长--

the French Academy.

也就是法兰西学院

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

穿着价值六万八千美元的豪华制服

befitting the role of the French Academy

对法兰西学院来说倒很适合

as legislating the

因为它规范着

correct usage in French

法语的正确用法

and perpetuating the language.

使这门语言永世长存

The French Academy has two main tasks:

法兰西学院有两个主要任务

it compiles a dictionary of official French.

它编纂官方的法语词典--

They're now working on their ninth edition,

他们目前在编第九部

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

从1930年就开始了，现在编到了P字头。

They also legislate on correct usage,

他们还规范正确的用法

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

比如，电子邮件（email）在法语里的正确说法

which ought to be "courriel."

应该是"courriel"

The World Wide Web, the French are told,

他们告诉法国人，万维网（World Wide Web）

ought to be referred to as

应该被叫做

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

"la toile d'araignee modiale"--“环球蜘蛛网”

recommendations that the French gaily ignore.

诸如此类法国人民欣然忽略的建议

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

这是语言产生的众多模型之一：

namely, it's legislated by an academy.

也就是说，由一个学院来进行规范

But anyone who looks at language realizes

但任何懂得语言的人都意识到

that this is a rather silly conceit,

这是愚蠢的自负

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

语言产生于人类心灵间的互动

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

而在语言的不停变化中，这是显而易见的

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

事实上，当法兰西学院完成他们的词典时

it will already be well out of date.

它早已经过时了。

We see it in the

我们看到

constant appearance of slang and jargon,

俗语和术语不断产生

of the historical change in languages,

历史上语言在变化

in divergence of dialects

方言在分支

and the formation of new languages.

新的语言在形成

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

所以语言并不只是创造、塑造人性之物

so much as a window onto human nature.

同样是反映人性的窗口

In a book that I'm currently working on,

我正在写的一本书中

I hope to use language to shed light on

我希望能阐明

a number of aspects of human nature,

人性的一些方面

including the cognitive machinery

包括认知机能

with which humans conceptualize the world

人们靠这个把世界概念化

and the relationship types that govern human interaction.

还有掌管人类互动的各类关系。

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

今天早上，我将对它们逐一简要介绍。

Let me start off with a technical problem in language

让我从一个语言中的技术性问题开始

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

我研究这个问题已经有一段时间了

and indulge me

希望你们能包涵一下，

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

包涵我对动词，和它们用法的热情

The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions?

问题在于，哪个动词用于哪个构式？

The verb is the chassis of the sentence.

动词是句子的基座，

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

其他部分都安在这个基座上。

Let me give you a quick reminder

让我提醒你们一下

of something that you've long forgotten.

这是你们早已忘记的东西。

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

不及物动词，比如“用餐”(dine)

can't take a direct object.

不能带有直接的宾语

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

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."

A transitive verb mandates

一个及物动词要求

that there has to be an object there:

必须有宾语：

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

“山姆吞吃比萨饼(Sam devoured the pizza)”。你不能只是说“山姆吞吃(Sam devoured)”。

There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type,

有许许多多这类的动词

each of which shapes its sentence.

每个都塑造着句子。

So, a problem in explaining how children learn language,

所以在解释孩子们如何学习语言时候，有一个问题

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

同样也是教成人学外语语法时的一个问题

and a problem in programming computers to use language is

以及给电脑编使用语言的程序时--

which verbs go in which constructions.

在哪个构式里该用哪个动词？

For example, the dative construction in English.

比如，英语中的与格构式--

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

可以说“Give a muffin to a mouse”，前置词与格，

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

或者“Give a mouse a muffin”，双宾语与格，

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

"Promise anything to her“，”Promise her anything“，等等。

Hundreds of verbs can go both ways.

上百的动词可以两用。

So a tempting generalization for a child,

对于孩子，很容易去做的一个归纳--

for an adult, for a computer

对于大人和电脑来说也一样--

is that any verb that can appear in the construction,

就是任何可以在下面这个构式中出现的动词

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

“主语-动词-物体-to-a 接受者”

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

也可以表达成“主语-动词-接受者-东西”。

A handy thing to have,

这是很顺手的事

because language is infinite,

因为语言是无穷的

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

对于你学过的句子不能只是鹦鹉学舌。

You've got to extract generalizations

你必须得做出归纳

so you can produce and understand new sentences.

这样你才能制造、理解新句子。

This would be an example of how to do that.

这就是这样做的一个例子

Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions.

不幸的是，这方面有例外。

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

你可以说，“Biff drove the car to Chicago”。

but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car."

但不是“Biff drove Chicago the car”。

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

你可以说：“Sal gave Jason a headache”，

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

但“Sal gave a headache to Jason”就很别扭了。

The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance,

原因是这些构式，尽管一开始相似

are not synonymous,

但并不是同义句。

that when you crank up the microscope

当你搬出显微镜

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

对准在人类认知上，你会看到很多微妙的差别

in meaning between them.

存在于它们的意思里。

So, "give the X to the Y,"

所以“Give the X to the Y”--

that construction corresponds to the thought

这个构式对应的想法是：

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

“Cause X to go to Y”，而“Give the Y the X”

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

对应的想法是“cause Y to have X”。

Now, many events can be subject to either construal,

许多时候我们都有理解偏差

kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions,

类似于经典的“形象-背景”颠倒的幻术

in which you can either pay attention

你要么吧注意力放在

to the particular object,

某个物体上

in which case the space around it recedes from attention,

使周围的空间从注意力中退去

or you can see the faces in the empty space,

要么你集中注意观察空间的构造

in which case the object recedes out of consciousness.

这样前景中的物体就从意识中退去

How are these construals reflected in language?

这些理解如何反应在语言当中？

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

在两种情况里，那个被解释为受影响的东西

is expressed as the direct object,

被表达成了直接宾语：

the noun after the verb.

动词之后的名词。

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

当你想到“使蛋糕去某处”时

where you're doing something to the muffin --

当你对蛋糕实施动作时

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

你说：“Give the muffin to the mouse.”

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

当你理解成“使老鼠拥有某物”

you're doing something to the mouse,

你对老鼠实施动作

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

所以你把它表达成：“Give the mouse the muffin.”

So which verbs go in which construction --

所以，在哪个构式里用哪个动词

the problem with which I began --

我一开始提出的问题

depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion

取决于动词是否指出某种运动

or a kind of possession change.

或者某种所有权的变化

To give something involves both causing something to go

"给出某物“当中包含"使某物前往"

and causing someone to have.

也包含”使某人拥有“

To drive the car only causes something to go,

开车只能使某物走开

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

因为芝加哥不是那种能拥有某物的东西。

Only humans can possess things.

只有人才能拥有东西。

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

“令人头痛”使人具有头痛

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

但你并不会把头痛从手里给出去

and causing it to go to the other person,

让它到另一个人那里去

and implanting it in them.

然后再放进对方脑袋里。

You may just be loud or obnoxious,

你只可能是说话太大声，或者讨人厌

or some other way causing them to have the headache.

或者用其他的方法使对方头疼。

So, that's

所以

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

这是我工作内容的一个例子。

So why should anyone care?

那为什么有人要在乎这工作呢？

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

这是因为有许多有趣的结论

from this and many similar kinds of analyses

从这个例子，还有类似的

of hundreds of English verbs.

对很多英语动词的分析中可以得出。

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

首先，存在着一个精细的概念结构

which we automatically and unconsciously compute

我们自动、无意识地计算产生它

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

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

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

你可以把它理解成“思想的语言”，或者“思想语”。

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

它看上去是建立在一套固定的概念之上

which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs --

这套概念管理着数十个构式和数千个动词

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

不仅仅是英文的，而是所有语言的

fundamental concepts such as space,

最基本概念，比如空间

time, causation and human intention,

时间、因果以及人的意愿

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

比如，什么是手段，什么是目的？

These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories

这些跟康德所主张的，

that Immanuel Kant argued

构成人类思想的基本框架的

are the basic framework for human thought,

那些范畴很相似

and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language

很有趣的是，我们对语言的无意识的使用

seems to reflect these Kantian categories.

好像在折射着这些康德主义的范畴--

Doesn't care about perceptual qualities,

不在乎感官的性质

such as color, texture, weight and speed,

比如颜色、材质、重量和速度

which virtually never differentiate

上述这些都几乎从不区分

the use of verbs in different constructions.

动词在不同构式中的用法。

An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English

此外，英语中的所有构式

are used not only literally,

不仅仅有字面意义

but in a quasi-metaphorical way.

还有准隐喻的用法。

For example, this construction, the dative,

就拿与格来说，

is used not only to transfer things,

不仅用来转移事物，

but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas,

还用来比喻思想的转移，

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

比如，"She told a story to me"

or "told me a story,"

或者"told me a story"

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

"Max taught Spanish to the student"或者"taught the students Spanish."

It's exactly the same construction,

这都是完全一样的构式

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

但里面没有蛋糕或者老鼠。完全没有运动。

It evokes the container metaphor of communication,

这使人想起语言交流中的"容器隐喻"

in which we conceive of ideas as objects,

在这里面我们把想法理解成实物

sentences as containers,

句子就像容器

and communication as a kind of sending.

语言交流就像快递

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

当我们说"gather"（收集）我们的想法，并"'put' them 'into' word"（把它们付诸语言）

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

如果我们说的话并不"empty"(空)或者"hollow"（空洞）

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

我们就可以把意思传达“过去”(“across")

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

让一个能够”拆解“("unpack")我们的语言而提取“内涵”("content")

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

诸如此类的修辞法不是个例，而是广泛规则

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

想找到纯抽象的

that is not based on some concrete metaphor.

而非实物隐喻的表达的例子难之又难

For example, you can use the verb "go"

譬如说，你可以用动词"go"

and the prepositions "to" and "from"

以及介词"to"和"from"

in a literal, spatial sense.

来表达字面意思：

"The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul."

“信使从巴黎去了伊斯坦布尔。”("The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul.")

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

你也可以说，”比夫从病中康复。("Biff went from sick to well." )

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

他哪里都没”去“，而是可能一直呆在床上

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

但是我们说话时仿佛他的健康状况是空间中的点

that you conceptualize as moving.

你给它一种动的概念

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

或者，“会从3点一直开到4点，”("The meeting went from three to four,")

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

这里我们把时间想成分布在一条直线上

Likewise, we use "force" to indicate

与此相似地，我们用力的概念来表示

not only physical force,

不仅仅是物理的力

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

比如，"Rose forced the door to open,"（罗斯用力把门打开）

but also interpersonal force,

也包括人际间的作用力

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

比如，"Rose forced Sadie to go"（罗斯把萨蒂逼走了）--不一定要推推搡搡的

but by issuing a threat.

而是通过威胁--

Or, "Rose forced herself to go,"

或者"Rose forced Sadie to go"（罗斯逼她自己离开）

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

仿佛罗斯的头脑里有两个东西

engaged in a tug of a war.

在进行拔河

Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive

第二个结论是用不同方式

of a given event in two different ways,

构思同一事件的能力

such as "cause something to go to someone"

比如，“使某物到某人那里，”

and "causing someone to have something,"

和“使某人拥有某物，”

I think is a fundamental feature of human thought,

我认为这是人类思维的基本特点

and it's the basis for much human argumentation,

而且是人类论辩的基础

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

论辩中人们争议的一般不是事实

as on how they ought to be construed.

而是应该如何理解它们

Just to give you a few examples:

这里是一些例子：

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

是“终止怀孕”还是“杀死胚胎”

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

“一个细胞聚合的小球”还是“一个尚未出生的孩子”

"invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;"

“侵略伊拉克”或是“解放伊拉克”

"redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings."

“收入重新分配”抑或“没收财产”

And I think the biggest picture of all

而整个图景中最显著的一部分

would take seriously the fact

是要看到一点：

that so much of our verbiage about abstract events

就是我们对抽象事件的描述

is based on a concrete metaphor

大多都是基于实体的隐喻

and see human intelligence itself

这反映出人类智能本身

as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --

是由一整套概念组成

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

比如物体、空间、时间，因果关系与意图--

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

对我们这种群居的、知识密集型的种群非常有用

whose evolution you can well imagine,

我们能想象人类的进化

and a process of metaphorical abstraction

和语言的隐喻抽象化过程齐轨并行

that allows us to bleach these concepts

慢慢地这些概念里

of their original conceptual content --

原先的实际内容就淡化了

space, time and force --

空间、时间和力--

and apply them to new abstract domains,

而它们却被用在全新的抽象领域里

therefore allowing a species that evolved

如此就使得我们这个原本是进化出来

to deal with rocks and tools and animals,

和石头、工具与动物打交道的种群

to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law

能够形成数学、物理、法律等等概念

and other abstract domains.

涉足其他抽象的领域

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

我曾说过我要谈谈人性的两扇窗户

the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world,

我们用来概念化世界的知性机能

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

现在我要说说几种人际关系

that govern human social interaction,

它们支配着人类的社交活动

again, as reflected in language.

同样，这些都体现在语言里

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

我要从间接话语行为这个谜题开始

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

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

And you might remember the scene in which

你们可能还记得其中的一段：

the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer,

一个警官要绑匪把车开到路边

is asked to show his driver's license

叫他出示驾照

and holds his wallet out

绑匪把钱包拿出来

with a 50-dollar bill extending

有一张50美元的钞票

at a slight angle out of the wallet.

以一个小角度从钱包里伸出来

And he says, "I was just thinking

然后绑匪说，“我在想

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

或许在法哥镇这个鬼地方我们俩得共同保管这个”--

which everyone, including the audience,

每个人，包括观众

interprets as a veiled bribe.

都理解为含蓄地提出贿赂

This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language.

这种间接表意在语言中泛滥

For example, in polite requests,

比如说在礼貌地提要求时

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

如果有人说，“如果你把鳄梨色拉酱递过来

that would be awesome,"

就太棒了”

we know exactly what he means,

我们太清楚他是什么意思了

even though that's a rather bizarre

尽管字面上表达出来是个

concept being expressed.

很别扭的概念

(Laughter)

（笑）

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

“您愿意来看一下我的蚀刻版画吗？”

I think most people

我想大多数人

understand the intent behind that.

理解这么说的意图

And likewise, if someone says,

同样的，倘若有人说

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

“呦，你的店真不错。要是发生了点什么事儿可就不好了”--

(Laughter) --

（笑）

we understand that as a veiled threat,

我们知道这是个委婉的威胁

rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities.

而不是在思考假设的可能性

So the puzzle is, why are bribes,

所以我们说的谜题就是：为什么贿赂

polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled?

礼貌的要求、恳请、威胁经常要遮遮掩掩的？

No one's fooled.

没人是傻子

Both parties know exactly what the speaker means,

双方都知道谈话人说的是什么

and the speaker knows the listener knows

谈话人也知道听者心里清楚

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

谈话人知道听者心里清楚，等等，等等

So what's going on?

所以这是在干嘛呢？

I think the key idea is that language

关键是在于语言

is a way of negotiating relationships,

是磋商人际关系的一种途径

and human relationships fall into a number of types.

而人际关系分为许多种

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

人类学家Alan Fiske给出了一个关于影响力的分类法

in which relationships can be categorized, more or less,

其中人际关系可以被或多或少地归为

into communality, which works on the principle

“公社性”，它的作用原则是

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

“我的就是你的，你的就是我的”--

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

家庭内部的一种心态，例如--

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

统治心态，其原则就是“别惹我，”

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

互惠心态：“你帮我挠背，我帮你挠背，”

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

性心理：如Cole Porter的不朽名言所说，“来吧”

Now, relationship types can be negotiated.

人际关系的类型是可以通过磋商决定的

Even though there are default situations

尽管经常有某种默认情况

in which one of these mindsets can be applied,

指定了上面心态中的一种

they can be stretched and extended.

人际关类型可以被拉伸、调整

For example, communality applies most naturally

比如说“公社性”

within family or friends,

在家庭和朋友们中最自然

but it can be used to try to transfer

但它可以被用来

the mentality of sharing

把分享的心态转移给

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

平时并不习惯于分享的群体--

For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations,

例如帮派或者男生联谊会

sororities, locutions like "the family of man,"

女生联谊会，像“男人之家”这样的表达法

you try to get people who are not related

这样就让非亲非故的人们

to use the relationship type that would ordinarily

能够采用一般都是

be appropriate to close kin.

近亲之间才有的关系类型

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

可是当一方采用某一种关系类型

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

而另一方用了另一种-- 搭配错误的时候就尴尬了

If you went over and you helped yourself

假如你走过去随手就

to a shrimp off your boss' plate,

从你老板的盘子里弄了一只虾吃

for example, that would be an awkward situation.

打个比方的话，这就是一个尴尬的情况

Or if a dinner guest after the meal

或者是餐后有一位客人

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

掏出钱包说要付钱给你

that would be rather awkward as well.

这也会相当尴尬

In less blatant cases,

在不那么明显的例子中

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

还是有一种磋商在进行着

In the workplace, for example,

比如说在工作场所

there's often a tension over whether an employee

在员工是否能和老板套近乎这一点上

can socialize with the boss,

都有一点紧张不安

or refer to him or her

或者是称呼他或她

on a first-name basis.

首名（而不是叫XX先生或女士）

If two friends have a

如果两个朋友

reciprocal transaction, like selling a car,

进行一笔交易，比如卖一辆车

it's well known that this can be a source

大家都知道这可能是

of tension or awkwardness.

紧张和尴尬的来源

In dating, the transition

比如约会中

from friendship to sex

从友谊到性关系的过度

can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness,

众所周知，可能导致各种各样的尴尬局面

and as can sex in the workplace,

工作场所的性也是

in which we call the conflict between a

我们把两种关系类型--

dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment."

支配关系和性关系--间的冲突叫做“性骚扰”

Well, what does this have to do with language?

这个和语言有什么关系呢？

Well, language, as a social interaction,

语言作为一种社会相互作用

has to satisfy two conditions.

必须满足两个条件

You have to convey the actual content --

你得传达内容--

here we get back to the container metaphor.

这里我们又回到容器的隐喻

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

你想表达贿赂、命令、许诺的意思

the solicitation and so on,

恳请以及其他

but you also have to negotiate

但是你还得磋商

and maintain the kind of relationship

并保持

you have with the other person.

你和那个人的关系

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

我认为解决的答案是我们在两个层面上使用语言

the literal form signals

字面意思表达的是

the safest relationship with the listener,

与听者的最安全的关系

whereas the implicated content --

而引伸义

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

我们留给听者自己去领会的言外之意--

allows the listener to derive the interpretation

则使他发掘出

which is most relevant in context,

这个语境中最恰当的解释

which possibly initiates a changed relationship.

而这有可能促成一种新的人际关系

The simplest example of this is in the polite request.

最简单的例子出自于礼貌的要求

If you express your request as a conditional --

倘若你用一个条件句表达请求：

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

“您要是能开一下窗子就太好了，”

even though the content is an imperative,

尽管内容是祈使句

the fact that you're not using the imperative voice

仅仅因为你没有用祈使语态

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

就显示出你并没有按照一种支配的人际关系行事

where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person.

你并没有假设他人必须服从

On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole.

可另一方面，你想要那个该死的鳄梨沙拉酱

By expressing it as an if-then statement,

用一个“如果—那么”巨型，

you can get the message across

你把意思说清楚了

without appearing to boss another person around.

却不会让人觉得你在指使他

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

我认为这样挺微妙，效果也不错

for all of the veiled speech acts

种种含蓄的言行

involving plausible deniability:

保留了拒绝的可能：

the bribes, threats, propositions,

贿赂、威胁、提议

solicitations and so on.

恳请等等

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

有一种理解方式就是想象

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

当语言只能表达字面义

And you can think of it in terms of a

你可以把它当作

game-theoretic payoff matrix.

博弈论中的得失矩阵来思考

Put yourself in the position of the

把你放在

kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer.

那个想贿赂警官的绑匪的位置上

There's a high stakes

全部的赌注

in the two possibilities

都压在这两种可能性上：

of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer.

警官不老实或者他是老实人

If you don't bribe the officer,

假如你不贿赂他，

then you will get a traffic ticket --

你得吃罚单--

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

或者，就像《冰风血》中的情况一样，那更糟

whether the honest officer

不管那个警官

is honest or dishonest.

到底老实不老实：

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

爱拼才会赢

In that case, the consequences are rather severe.

这种情况下，后果很严重

On the other hand, if you extend the bribe,

换一方面，你要是掏出钱来

if the officer is dishonest,

如果警官吃贿赂，

you get a huge payoff of going free.

你全身而退，讨了个大巧

If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty

如果警官是老实人，你因为行贿

of being arrested for bribery.

被逮起来

So this is a rather fraught situation.

所以情况挺复杂的

On the other hand, with indirect language,

然而，你要是含沙射影地说

if you issue a veiled bribe,

如果你含蓄地提出给钱

then the dishonest officer

那么不老实的警官

could interpret it as a bribe,

可以把它理解为你要使银子

in which case you get the payoff of going free.

你就可以走了

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

而诚实的警官也不能硬说你贿赂他

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

因此你领一张讨厌的罚单

So you get the best of both worlds.

不过你两种可能中都受益最大化了

And a similar analysis, I think,

我觉得同样的分析方法

can apply to the potential awkwardness

可以用在可能出现尴尬的

of a sexual solicitation,

提出性的要求的时候

and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset.

以及其他的当保留拒绝可的能性对你有利的情况

I think this affirms

这就应证了

something that's long been known by diplomats --

一个外交官们早已深谙的秘密--

namely, that the vagueness of language,

那就是：语言的模糊

far from being a bug or an imperfection,

根本不是什么故障或缺憾

actually might be a feature of language,

而很可能是语言的特征

one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.

一个我们能在社交中善加利用的特征

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

总而言之：语言是人类的集体发明

reflecting human nature,

它折射出人性--

how we conceptualize reality,

我们如何用概念理解现实世界

how we relate to one another.

如何互相沟通交流--

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

通过分析语言的许多微妙、繁复之处

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

我认为我们能向着人类的生存之道打开一扇窗户

Thank you very much.

谢谢大家.

(Applause)

（掌声）