Why language is humanity's greatest invention | David Peterson

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Tu Janeyu

Spoons.

湯匙。

Cardboard boxes.

紙盒。

Toddler-size electric trains.

迷你電動火車。

Holiday ornaments.

假日裝飾品。

Bounce houses.

充氣屋。

Blankets.

毯子。

Baskets.

籃子。

Carpets.

地毯。

Tray tables.

托盤桌。

Smartphones.

智能手機。

Pianos.

鋼琴。

Robes.

袍子。

Photographs.

照片。

What do all of these things have in common,

所有這些有什麼共通點？

除了都是我在過去 三個月內拍攝的照片，

aside from the fact they're photos that I took in the last three months,

版權都歸我。

and therefore, own the copyright to?

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

They're all inventions

它們都是發明，

that were created with the benefit of language.

都是托語言的福創造出來。

None of these things would have existed without language.

沒有語言，這些東西都不會存在。

試想，創造上述任何一樣東西，

Imagine creating any one of those things

或者，比如建造一座像這樣的大樓，

or, like, building an entire building like this,

without being able to use language

卻不能使用語言，

or without benefiting from any knowledge that was got by the use of language.

或者不能使用任何 通過語言獲取的知識。

Basically, language is the most important thing

基本上，語言是全世界

最重要的東西。

in the entire world.

All of our civilization rests upon it.

我們的整個文明都立基於語言上。

And those who devote their lives to studying it --

而那些投入一生 去研究語言的人——

both how language emerged, how human languages differ,

研究語言的出現、

人類語言的差異、

how they differ from animal communication systems --

人類語言和動物 溝通系統的差別——

are linguists.

他們是語言學家。

Formal linguistics is a relatively young field, more or less.

正統的語言學或多或少 算是個較新的領域。

And it's uncovered a lot of really important stuff.

且它已經有了許多 非常重要的發現。

Like, for example, that human communication systems

比如，人類的溝通系統

differ crucially from animal communication systems,

和動物的溝通系統天差地別；

that all languages are equally expressive,

所有的語言富含表現力，

even if they do it in different ways.

即使表達方式不同。

And yet, despite this,

但，儘管如此，

there are a lot of people who just love to pop off about language

很多人就喜歡對語言大肆評論，

like they have an equal understanding of it as a linguist,

好像他們跟語言學家 一樣了解它似的，

because, of course, they speak a language.

就憑他們會說一種語言。

And if you speak a language, that means you have just as much right

如果你會說一門語言，

你就跟其他人一樣 有權討論它的作用。

to talk about its function as anybody else.

想像你在和外科醫生談話，

Imagine if you were talking to a surgeon,

and you say, "Listen, buddy.

你說：「聽著，老兄，

I've had a heart for, like, 40 years now.

我的心臟至今跳 40 個年頭了，

I think I know a thing or two about aortic valve replacements.

我想我對於主動脈瓣 置換術應該略知一二。

I think my opinion is just as valid as yours."

我想我的意見和你一樣有效。」

And yet, that's exactly what happens.

果不出其然。

This is Neil deGrasse Tyson, saying that in the film "Arrival,"

這是奈爾·德·葛拉司·泰森，他說， 如果他在電影《異星入境》裡，

he would have brought a cryptographer --

他會選擇找密碼專家

somebody who can unscramble a message in a language they already know --

能夠在已知語言中 解讀訊息的人——

rather than a linguist,

而不是找語言學家 去和外星人溝通，

to communicate with the aliens,

because what would a linguist --

因為語言學家能怎樣？

why would that be useful in talking to somebody

若我們根本不懂外星人語言， 找語言學家來有什麼幫助？

speaking a language we don't even know?

不過《異星入境》還有其他漏洞

Though, of course, the "Arrival" film is not off the hook.

拜託——做電影的人聽著，

I mean, come on -- listen, film. Hey, buddy:

嘿，老兄，

有外星人搭乘巨大船艦 降落到我們的星球，

there are aliens that come down to our planet in gigantic ships,

and they want to do nothing except for communicate with us,

他們無非只想和我們溝通，

and you hire one linguist?

而你就找來一個語言學家？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

What's the US government on a budget or something?

美國政府是預算有限還是怎樣？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

A lot of these things can be chalked up to misunderstandings,

很多像這樣的事情， 都可歸咎於誤解，

both about what language is and about the formal study of language,

誤解了語言是什麼， 誤解了正式的語言研究，

about linguistics.

誤解了語言學。

And I think there's something that underlies a lot of these misunderstandings

我想，

在《富比士》的這篇 有趣文章中就整理出

that can be summed up by this delightful article in "Forbes,"

這些誤解的背後的邏輯。

about why high school students shouldn't learn foreign languages.

文章闡述為什麼高中生 不應該學習外語。

I'm going to pull out some quotes from this,

我會引述一些文章中的句子，

and I want you to see if you can figure out

各位試試是否能找出

what underlies some of these opinions and ideas.

在這些意見和想法背後的原因。

"Americans rarely read the classics, even in translation."

「美國人很少讀經典，即便是譯本。」

So in other words, why bother learning a foreign language

換言之，何必花時間去學外語，

when they're not even going to read the classic in the original anyway?

反正他們也不會去閱讀經典原版。

有什麼意義？

What's the point?

"Studying foreign languages in school is a waste of time,

「在學校學習外語是浪費時間，

compared to other things that you could be doing in school."

你在學校能做其他 相對更值得做的事。」

"Europe has a lot of language groups clustered in a relatively small space."

「歐洲有許多種語言 卻聚集在相對狹小的空間裡。」

So for Americans, ah, what's the point of learning another language?

所以對美國人來說， 學另一種語言有什麼意義？

You're not really going to get a lot of bang for your buck out of that.

投資回報率不會好。

This is my favorite,

我最愛這段：「伯明翰的學生得

"A student in Birmingham would have to travel

走上一千英里路 才能抵達墨西哥邊界，

about a thousand miles to get to the Mexican border,

就算到了，英語也夠溝通了。」

and even then, there would be enough people who speak English to get around."

In other words, if you can kind of wave your arms around,

換言之，若揮揮手臂就能遂你所願，

and you can get to where you're going,

那其實就沒有必要學另一種語言。

then there's really no point in learning another language anyway.

在上述這些態度的背後，

What underlies a lot of these attitudes is the conceptual metaphor,

都有一種概念性的比喻：

language is a tool.

即語言是工具。

And there's something that rings very true about this metaphor.

這種比喻某種程度上 聽起來很有道理。

Language is kind of a tool

語言算是種工具，

in that, if you know the local language, you can do more than if you didn't.

比起不會當地的語言，你能做更多。

但它暗示，語言就「只是」個工具，

But the implication is that language is only a tool,

and this is absolutely false.

這點肯定是錯的。

If language was a tool, it would honestly be a pretty poor tool.

如果語言是工具， 老實說，它是蠻糟的工具。

And we would have abandoned it long ago for something that was a lot better.

我們老早就該拋棄它， 換成更好的東西。

Think about just any sentence.

隨便想任何一個句子為例。

Here's a sentence that I'm sure I've said in my life: "Yesterday I saw Kyn."

我這輩子一定說過： 「昨天我看到金。」

我有個朋友叫金。

I have a friend named Kyn.

當我說這句話： 「昨天我看到金。」

And when I say this sentence, "Yesterday I saw Kyn,"

do you think it's really the case

你真心認為

that everything in my mind is now implanted in your mind

我腦中的一切能透過這個句子

就植入到你的腦中嗎？

via this sentence?

Hardly, because there's a lot of other stuff going on.

幾乎不可能，因為還有很多其他東西。

Like, when I say "yesterday,"

比如，當我說「昨天」，

I might think what the weather was like yesterday because I was there.

我可能會想著昨天的天氣， 因為我人在那裡。

如果我繼續回想，可能 會想起我忘了寄什麼，

And if I'm remembering,

I'll probably remember there was something I forgot to mail, which I did.

這是真的。

這是個預先安排好的笑話， 但我真的忘了寄某樣東西。

This was a preplanned joke, but I really did forget to mail something.

那就表示，我得等星期一再寄，

And so that means I'm going to have to do it Monday,

because that's when I'm going to get back home.

因為我星期一才回家。

And of course, when I think of Monday,

當然，想到星期一時，

我會想到手鐲合唱團的 「狂躁的星期一」，這歌不錯。

I'll think of "Manic Monday" by the Bangles. It's a good song.

And when I say the word "saw," I think of this phrase:

說「saw」這個字時，我就想到：

"'I see!' said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw."

「盲人邊拿起錘子和鋸子，邊說： 『我看到了！』」屢試不爽。

I always do.

每次聽或說「saw」，我都會想到， （註：saw 是鋸子也是看見的過去式）

Anytime I hear the word "saw" or say it, I always think of that,

因為以前我祖父總說那句話， 所以它讓我想起我祖父。

because my grandfather always used to say it,

so it makes me think of my grandfather.

基於某種理由，我們又 回到了「狂躁的星期一」。

And we're back to "Manic Monday" again, for some reason.

And with Kyn, when I'm saying something like, "Yesterday I saw Kyn,"

關於金，當我說： 「昨天我看到金。」

我會想起我看到金時的情境。

I'll think of the circumstances under which I saw him.

And this happened to be that day. Here he is with my cat.

這剛好就是那一天。 這就是他和我的貓。

And of course, if I'm thinking of Kyn,

當然，若我想著金， 就會想到他要去長堤分校，

I'll think he's going to Long Beach State right now,

然後我會想起好友約翰和我母親，

and I'll remember that my good friend John and my mother

都是長堤分校畢業，

both graduated from Long Beach State,

我的表親凱蒂要去讀長堤分校。

my cousin Katie is going to Long Beach State right now.

然後又是「狂躁的星期一」。

And it's "Manic Monday" again.

但這只是任何你在說話的時刻，

But this is just a fraction of what's going on in your head

at any given time while you are speaking.

腦中思路的冰山一角。

And all we have to represent the entire mess

我們腦中的這一團亂，

that is going on in our head, is this.

卻只能靠這些來表示。

I mean, that's all we got.

我們就只有這些。（笑聲）

(Laughter)

我們的系統就這麼糟， 這有什麼奇怪？

Is it any wonder that our system is so poor?

So imagine, if I can give you an analogy,

我來做個類比，

imagine if you wanted to know what is it like to eat a cake,

試想，如果你想要知道 吃蛋糕的感覺是什麼，

if instead of just eating the cake,

如果你不是直接吃蛋糕，

you instead had to ingest the ingredients of a cake,

而只是嚥下蛋糕的成份，

one by one,

一種接著一種，

along with instructions

包括製作說明，

about how these ingredients can be combined to form a cake.

說明這些成份如何 組合在一起，形成蛋糕。

You had to eat the instructions, too.

你也得把說明書吃下去。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

If that was how we had to experience cake,

如果非得這樣才能吃個蛋糕， 我們永遠不會去吃蛋糕。

we would never eat cake.

And yet, language is the only way -- the only way --

而語言是唯一的途徑——

讓我們釐清這腦袋瓜裡 想法的唯一途徑。

that we can figure out what is going on here, in our minds.

This is our interiority,

這是我們的內在，

the thing that makes us human,

讓我們之所以為人、 與動物有所區別的內在

the thing that makes us different from other animals,

is all inside here somewhere,

就在我們腦內某處；

and all we have to do to represent it is our own languages.

我們要做的就是 用自己的語言表達出來。

A language is our best way of showing what's going on in our head.

語言是呈現腦中內容的最佳方式。

Imagine if I wanted to ask a big question, like:

試想，若我有個大哉問：

「人類思想和情緒的本質是什麼？」

"What is the nature of human thought and emotion?"

What you'd want to do

你會想要盡可能去調查

is you'd want to examine as many different languages

各種不同語言，越多種越好。

as possible.

One isn't just going to do it.

單單一種語言是不夠的。

To give you an example,

舉個例子，

here's a picture I took of little Roman,

我拍了一張小羅門的照片，

that I took with a 12-megapixel camera.

我用一千兩百萬畫素的相機拍的。

Now, here's that same picture with a lot fewer pixels.

這是同一張照片，畫素低很多。

Obviously, neither of these pictures is a real cat.

顯然這兩張照片都不是真貓。

But one gives you a lot better sense of what a cat is than the other.

但前者比後者更能 讓你理解貓是什麼。

Language is not merely a tool.

語言不只是工具而已。

It is our legacy,

它是我們的傳承，

it's our way of conveying what it means to be human.

是我們人類傳達信息的方式。

And of course, by "our" legacy, I mean all humans everywhere.

我說「我們」的傳承， 「我們」指的是所有人類。

And losing even one language makes that picture a lot less clear.

即使只少了一種語言，

也會讓那個面畫比較不清楚。

So as a job for the past 10 years

所以我過去十年的工作

and also as recreation, just for fun,

也是我的娛樂，我樂在其中，

I create languages.

是創造語言。

These are called "conlangs,"

這些語言叫「CONLANGS」，

short for "constructed languages."

「人造語言」的縮寫。

Now, presenting these facts back to back,

把這些事實擺在一起：

that we're losing languages on our planet

地球上的語言正在消失， 及我會創造全新的語言，

and that I create brand-new languages,

you might think that there's some nonsuperficial connection

你可能會認為兩者之間 有某種非表面的連結。

between these two.

In fact, a lot of people have drawn a line between those dots.

事實上，有很多人 把這兩件事連結起來。

This is a guy who got all bent out of shape

有個傢伙十分憤怒，

that there was a conlang in James Cameron's "Avatar."

因為在詹姆士·卡麥隆的 《阿凡達》中有種人造語言。

He says,

他說：

"But in the three years it took James Cameron

「詹姆士·卡麥隆用 3 年 將《阿凡達》送上大銀幕，

to get Avatar to the screen, a language died."

而期間有一種語言消失了。」

Probably a lot more than that, actually.

其實，可能遠不只一種。

"Na'vi, alas, won't fill the hole where it used to be ..."

「納維阿拉斯語無法替代 在它之前消逝的語言。」

A truly profound and poignant statement --

這是段很深奧、尖刻的表述——

if you don't think about it at all.

如果你完全不用大腦的話。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But when I was here at Cal,

當我在加州大學時，

I completed two majors.

我完成了雙主修。

One of them was linguistics, but the other one was English.

一個是語言學，另一個英文。

And of course, the English major, the study of English,

當然英文這門學科

其實並不是研究英文這種語言，

is not actually the study of the English language, as we know,

是研究文學。

it's the study of literature.

Literature is just a wonderful thing,

文學很美好，

because basically, literature, more broadly, is kind of like art;

因為，廣義來說， 文學基本上是種藝術。

it falls under the rubric of art.

它可以列在藝術底下。

And what we do with literature,

我們在文學上所做的是，

authors create new, entire beings and histories.

作者會創造新的、 完整的人物和歷史。

And it's interesting to us to see

很有意思的是，我們可以看到

what kind of depth and emotion and just unique spirit

作者在這些虛構人物 身上注入什麼樣的

深度、情緒，和獨特的精神。

authors can invest into these fictional beings.

So much so, that, I mean -- take a look at this.

太多了——看看這個。

There's an entire series of books

有一系列書討論虛構的角色，

that are written about fictional characters.

Like, the entire book is just about one fictional, fake human being.

一本專講一個虛構的人物。

There's an entire book on George F. Babbitt

有一整本講喬治·巴位元，

from Sinclair Lewis's "Babbitt,"

辛克萊·路易斯 《巴位元》書中的角色，

and I guarantee you, that book is longer than "Babbitt,"

我保證那本書比《巴位元》長， 《巴位元》本身很短。

which is a short book.

Does anybody even remember that one?

有人還記得那本書嗎？它很不錯，

It's pretty good, I actually think it's better than "Main Street."

我真心它認為比《大街》好 ——純個人意見。

That's my hot take.

So we've never questioned the fact that literature is interesting.

我們從來沒有質疑過 文學作品的趣味性。

But despite the fact,

但，儘管如此，

not even linguists are actually interested in what created languages can tell us

就連語言學家也不對

人造語言能表現出的 人類精神深度感興趣，

about the depth of the human spirit just as an artistic endeavor.

僅把它當作藝術創造。

I'll give you a nice little example here.

讓我舉個很好的例子。

There was an article written about me

有一篇關於我的文章，

in the California alumni magazine a while back.

前陣子刊在加州大學校友雜誌上。

And when they wrote this article,

他們寫這篇文章時， 想要取得對立人士的意見，

they wanted to get somebody from the opposing side,

從後見之明來看， 這麼做似乎很奇怪。

which, in hindsight, seems like a weird thing to do.

You're just talking about a person,

你只是要談一個人，

而你卻想要聽 與這人對立方的說法。

and you want to get somebody from the opposing side of that person.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Essentially, this is just a puff piece, but whatever.

基本上，這只是篇吹捧文， 但，隨便啦。

So, they happened to get

所以，他們剛好找上了

one of the most brilliant linguists of our time,

我們這個時代 最傑出的語言學家之一，

George Lakoff, who's a linguist here at Berkeley.

喬治·萊考夫，他是 柏克萊的語言學家。

And his work has basically forever changed the fields of linguistics

基本上，他的研究永遠改變了

語言學和認知科學領域。

and cognitive science.

And when asked about my work and about language creation in general,

當他被問及對我的研究 和語言創造的大體看法時，

he said, "But there's a lot of things to be done in the study of language.

他說：「在語言研究方面 有很多需要完成的。

You should spend the time on something real."

你應該把時間花在實在的地方。」

Yeah.

是的，「實在的地方」。

"Something real." Does this remind you of anything?

這讓你們想到什麼？

To use the very framework that he himself invented,

借用一下他自己發明的架構，

let me refer back to this conceptual metaphor:

讓我再借用一下 這個概念性的比喻：

language is a tool.

語言是工具，他顯然是在 這個概念性比喻下勞作；

And he appears to be laboring under this conceptual metaphor;

that is, language is useful when it can be used for communication.

也就是，當語言能用來 溝通時，它就是有用的。

Language is useless when it can't be used for communication.

當語言無法用來溝通， 它就沒有用。

It might make you wonder: What do we do with dead languages?

這會讓你納悶，那我們要拿 已死的語言如何是好？

But anyway.

但，無所謂。

So, because of this idea,

所以，基於這個想法，

it might seem like the very height of absurdity

可能荒唐到極點的就是

to have a Duolingo course on the High Valyrian language

在多鄰國（Duolingo）平台 學瓦雷利亞語言課程——

that I created for HBO's "Game of Thrones."

是我為 HBO《冰與火之歌》 所創造的語言——

You might wonder what, exactly, are 740,000 people learning?

你可能會納悶，到底 這七十四萬人在學什麼？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Well, let's take a look at it.

咱們來瞧瞧。

What are they learning?

他們在學什麼？

What could they possibly be learning?

他們究竟在學什麼？

Well, bearing in mind that the other language for this --

請記住，另一種語言——

it's for people that speak English --

這是針對說英語的人——

English speakers are learning quite a bit.

英語母語者會學到很多。

Here's a sentence that they will probably never use for communication

上面這個句子， 大家一生中可能都不會用到：

in their entire lives:

"Vala ābre urnes."

「Vala ābre urnes.」

"The man sees the woman."

「男子看見女子。」

The little middle line is the gloss,

中間那一行是註解，

so it's word for word, that's what it says.

一個字對應一個註釋。

And they're actually learning some very fascinating things,

他們其實在學習非常炫的東西，

特別是針對英語母語者。

especially if they're English speakers.

他們學到動詞可以放在句子的最末。

They're learning that a verb can come at the very end of a sentence.

Doesn't really do that in English when you have two arguments.

在英語中若有兩個論元， 就不會這麼做。

They're learning that sometimes

他們學到

有時其他語言並不一定有 和「the」對等的字——完全沒有。

a language doesn't have an equivalent for the word "the" -- it's totally absent.

That's something language can do.

語言可能會這樣。

他們學到，長母音其實 可以是時間長度比較長，

They're learning that a long vowel can actually be longer in duration,

as opposed to different in quality,

而不是在音色上的差別，

which is what our long vowels do; they're actually the same length.

我們的長母音就是這樣。

他們學到這些小小的變音。

They're learning that there are these little inflections.

Hmm? Hmm?

嗯？嗯？

There are inflections called "cases" on the end of nouns --

這些變音叫做「格」， 在名詞詞尾——

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

that tell you who does what to whom in a sentence.

用來告訴你句子中 是誰對誰做了什麼。

Even if you leave the order of the words the same

就算把每個字的順序保持不變，

and switch the endings,

把結尾調換，

it changes who does what to whom.

也會改變是誰對誰做了什麼。

What they're learning is that languages do things, the same things, differently.

他們學到各種語言

會以不同的方式來做同樣的事。

And that learning languages can be fun.

且學語言是很好玩的。

What they're learning is respect for Language: capital "L" Language.

他們學到對語言的尊重： 大寫的「語言」。

And given the fact that 88 percent of Americans only speak English at home,

有 88% 的美國人在家只會說英語，

我認為這未必是壞事。

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

You know why languages die on our planet?

各位知道為什麼 地球上的語言會滅亡嗎？

It's not because government imposes one language on a smaller group,

不是因為政府強迫小族群 必須要說某種語言，

or because an entire group of speakers is wiped out.

也不是因為說某種語言的 族群全數被消滅。

That certainly has happened in the past, and it's happening now,

的確在過去和現在發生過這種事，

but it's not the main reason.

但那不是主因。

The main reason is that a child is born to a family

主因是，孩子出生在一個家庭中，

that speaks a language that is not widely spoken in their community,

而這個家庭說的語言 在他們的社區裡並不普遍，

and that child doesn't learn it.

孩子就不會去學它。

Why?

為什麼？

Because that language is not valued in their community.

因為那種語言在他們的 社區裡不受重視。

Because the language isn't useful.

因為那種語言沒有用。

Because the child can't go and get a job if they speak that language.

因為那孩子說那種語言， 是無法找到工作的。

Because if language is just a tool,

因為如果語言只是工具，

then learning their native language

那麼學習他們的母語

is about as useful as learning High Valyrian,

用處就只是和學習 瓦雷利亞語言差不多，

so why bother?

那幹嘛花心力去學？

Now ...

所以……

Maybe language study isn't going to lead to a lot more linguistic fluency.

也許研究語言並不會說得更流利。

But maybe that's not such a big deal.

但也許那也沒什麼大不了的。

Maybe if more people are studying more languages,

也許，如果有更多人學習更多語言，

it will lead to more linguistic tolerance

就會對語言多一點包容，

and less linguistic imperialism.

少一點帝國主義式的對待態度。

Maybe if we actually respect language for what it is --

也許，如果我們 真能尊重語言的本質——

literally, the greatest invention in the history of humankind --

語言真的是人類歷史上 最偉大的發明——

then in the future,

那麼，在未來，

we can celebrate endangered languages as living languages,

我們就可以把瀕危的語言 當作活語言來讚美，

as opposed to museum pieces.

而不只是博物館中的收藏。

(High Valyrian) Kirimvose. Thank you.

（瓦雷利亞語言） Kirimvose。謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）