Steven Pinker: What our language habits reveal

譯者: Jenny Chen 審譯者: Tony Yet

This is a picture of Maurice Druon,

這是莫理斯圖翁

the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise,

他是法蘭西學院的

the French Academy.

榮譽終身院士

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

他身穿價值六萬八千美元的華麗院士服

befitting the role of the French Academy

與他在法蘭西學院的職責十分相稱

as legislating the

他的工作是負責規範

correct usage in French

法文的正確用法

and perpetuating the language.

並確保法文永垂不朽

The French Academy has two main tasks:

法蘭西學術院肩負兩項使命：

it compiles a dictionary of official French.

編纂官方版的法文字典--

They're now working on their ninth edition,

現在正在編第九版

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

他們從1930年就開始了，現在編到字母P

They also legislate on correct usage,

這些人也規範語言的正確用法

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

例如，"email"的準確叫法

which ought to be "courriel."

應該是"courriel"

The World Wide Web, the French are told,

而網際網路 "World Wide Web"

ought to be referred to as

應該要稱為

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

"la toile d'araignee mondiale"--全球蜘蛛網

recommendations that the French gaily ignore.

種種法國人興高采烈地忽略的建議

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

好，這是語言演化的模式之一

namely, it's legislated by an academy.

也就是由學術研究院規範語言

But anyone who looks at language realizes

但研究語言的人都會知道

that this is a rather silly conceit,

這是個有點愚蠢的妄想

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

我們都知道，語言源自於人與人之間的互動

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

我們看到，語言不斷在改變

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

等到法蘭西學院編完他們的字典

it will already be well out of date.

這本字典早就過時了

We see it in the

我們也看到

constant appearance of slang and jargon,

新的俚語和行話不斷出現

of the historical change in languages,

語言歷經歷史演變

in divergence of dialects

方言產生分歧

and the formation of new languages.

新的語言形成

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

因此，不能說語言創造或塑造了人性

so much as a window onto human nature.

語言反倒是個窗口，讓我們得以一窺人性

In a book that I'm currently working on,

在我正在撰寫的這本書中

I hope to use language to shed light on

我希望藉由語言來闡述

a number of aspects of human nature,

人性的某些面向

including the cognitive machinery

包括認知機制

with which humans conceptualize the world

也就是人類理解世界的機制

and the relationship types that govern human interaction.

還有掌管人際互動的各種關係

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

今天早上，我會針對這幾項逐一簡述

Let me start off with a technical problem in language

首先，我要談談語言裡的一個技術性問題

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

這個問題困擾我許久了

and indulge me

也請各位容我分享

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

我對動詞和動詞用法的熱情

The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions?

這個問題就是，什麼動詞用在什麼句構裡？

The verb is the chassis of the sentence.

動詞是一個句子的基礎

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

讓其他詞類可以建構於其上

Let me give you a quick reminder

讓我很快地提醒各位

of something that you've long forgotten.

一件大家早就忘記的事

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

不及物動詞，像是用餐 (dine) 這個字

can't take a direct object.

後面不能接直接受詞

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

你要說 "山姆用餐了"，不能說 "山姆用餐披薩"

A transitive verb mandates

而及物動詞的規則是

that there has to be an object there:

後面一定要接受詞

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

"山姆吞下了 (devour) 披薩"，不能說 "山姆吞下了"

There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type,

還有很多像這樣的動詞

each of which shapes its sentence.

每個動詞都塑造了句子的樣貌

So, a problem in explaining how children learn language,

所以，該如何解釋兒童習得語言的方法

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

該如何教成人學語言，讓他們不會犯文法錯誤

and a problem in programming computers to use language is

該怎麼設計程式，讓電腦使用語言

which verbs go in which constructions.

問題都出在於：什麼動詞用在什麼句構裡？

For example, the dative construction in English.

以英文的授與句型為例

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

你可以用介詞授與： "把小蛋糕給老鼠"

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

或使用雙受詞授與： "給老鼠小蛋糕"

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

"把任何承諾給她"、 "給她任何承諾" 等等

Hundreds of verbs can go both ways.

有上百個動詞在兩種句法裡都行得通

So a tempting generalization for a child,

於是小孩很容易以此類推

for an adult, for a computer

大人和電腦也是

is that any verb that can appear in the construction,

認為任何動詞只要能放在

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

"主詞+動詞+事物+to 受格" 這種句構裡

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

就也能出現在: "主詞+動詞+受格+事物" 這種句子裡

A handy thing to have,

這樣的推斷很方便

because language is infinite,

因為語言無窮盡

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

你沒辦法重述所聽到的每句話

You've got to extract generalizations

所以你得歸納出一些規則

so you can produce and understand new sentences.

好讓你可以造出並理解新的句子

This would be an example of how to do that.

剛剛的用法就是一例

Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions.

不幸地，有許多不尋常的例外

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

你可以說"貝夫開車到芝加哥"

but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car."

但不能說"貝夫開芝加哥到車"

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

你可以說"薩爾讓傑森很頭痛"

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

但說成"薩爾把頭痛給了傑森" 就有點奇怪了

The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance,

答案就是，這些句構雖然句面上相近

are not synonymous,

卻不盡相同

that when you crank up the microscope

如果你把顯微鏡倍數調高一點

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

用力觀察人類認知，就會發現這些句子

in meaning between them.

在意義上有些微的差距

So, "give the X to the Y,"

所以，"把X給Y"

that construction corresponds to the thought

這個句構反映了

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

"使X移動到Y那兒去"，而 "給YX"

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

反映了 "讓Y有了X"

Now, many events can be subject to either construal,

好，很多事件都可以解讀為其中一種概念

kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions,

這有點像是圖與地的錯覺測驗

in which you can either pay attention

你可以將注意力放在

to the particular object,

某一樣物體上面

in which case the space around it recedes from attention,

這時候，你就會忽略旁邊的背景

or you can see the faces in the empty space,

你也可以只注意背景中的臉孔

in which case the object recedes out of consciousness.

這時候，畫面中的物體就會受到忽略

How are these construals reflected in language?

這樣的解構怎麼反映在語言上面呢？

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

嗯，在這兩種情況下，被認為受到影響的事物

is expressed as the direct object,

以直接受詞的形式出現

the noun after the verb.

也就是動詞後面的名詞

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

所以如果你認為這個動作使得小蛋糕移動到某處去

where you're doing something to the muffin --

也就是你對小蛋糕做動作的地方--

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

你會說 "把小蛋糕給老鼠"

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

如果你解讀成 "使得老鼠獲得了某物"

you're doing something to the mouse,

你對老鼠做了動作

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

那麼，你就會說 "給老鼠小蛋糕"

So which verbs go in which construction --

所以，什麼動詞用在什麼句構裡--

the problem with which I began --

我開頭提到的這個問題

depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion

取決於該動詞是否點明了一種運動

or a kind of possession change.

還是代表著所有權的轉換

To give something involves both causing something to go

授與某物包括使得某物移動

and causing someone to have.

以及使得某人獲得某物

To drive the car only causes something to go,

開車只造成某物移動

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

因為芝加哥沒辦法擁有某物

Only humans can possess things.

只有人類可以擁有事物

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

而"讓某人頭痛"使得他們頭很痛

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

但你不能把你的頭痛從腦袋裡取出來

and causing it to go to the other person,

使它移動到別人那兒

and implanting it in them.

然後想辦法讓別人頭痛

You may just be loud or obnoxious,

你只能大聲喧鬧或討人厭

or some other way causing them to have the headache.

或用其他方法使別人頭痛

So, that's

所以這個例子

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

就說明了我每天在做的工作

So why should anyone care?

為什麼有人要在乎這種事？

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

嗯，我認為有很多有趣的結論

from this and many similar kinds of analyses

可以從這種還有許多類似的分析中得出

of hundreds of English verbs.

從分析上百個英文動詞中得出

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

首先，有種非常微妙的認知結構

which we automatically and unconsciously compute

是我們自動或下意識地在運用的

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

影響我們造出或說出每個支配我們語言使用的句子

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

你可以把它想成思想的語言，或心理語言

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

它似乎建構於一種固有的概念之上

which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs --

這樣的概念支配了十幾種句構和上千個動詞的用法

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

不只在英文裡，在其他語言裡也有這種

fundamental concepts such as space,

基本的概念，例如，空間

time, causation and human intention,

時間、因果關係和動機

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

像是，哪個是手段，哪個是目的？

These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories

這與"範疇"有異曲同工之妙

that Immanuel Kant argued

康德認為這些範疇

are the basic framework for human thought,

組成了人類思想的基本架構

and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language

有趣的是，我們下意識中所使用的語言

seems to reflect these Kantian categories.

似乎反映了康德所提出的範疇

Doesn't care about perceptual qualities,

我們的語言不在乎感觀的特徵

such as color, texture, weight and speed,

像是顏色、質地、重量和速度

which virtually never differentiate

這些幾乎都不會影響

the use of verbs in different constructions.

不同句構中動詞的用法

An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English

此外，英文裡所有的句構

are used not only literally,

都不只具有字面的意義

but in a quasi-metaphorical way.

還帶有一些隱喻的意味

For example, this construction, the dative,

比如說，這個授與句型

is used not only to transfer things,

不只能用來轉讓事物

but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas,

還能用來移轉想法

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

像我們說: "她講故事給我聽"

or "told me a story,"

或 "她跟我講故事"

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

"馬克斯教授西班牙文給學生"或"教學生西班牙文"

It's exactly the same construction,

這些都是相同的句構

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

但句子裡沒有小蛋糕，也沒有老鼠。沒有東西移動

It evokes the container metaphor of communication,

這就引發了溝通裡的"容器隱喻"

in which we conceive of ideas as objects,

我們將想法視為物體

sentences as containers,

把句子當成容器

and communication as a kind of sending.

而溝通是一種傳送方式

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

就像我們說，將想法"收集"起來，"放進"文字裡

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

而如果我們的話語不至於"空洞"或"空泛"

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

我們就可以將想法"傳達"給聽者

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

聽者可以"拆解"我們的話語，"擷取"其中的"內容"

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

這些用語不是例外，而是規則

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

很難從抽象的語言中找到任何

that is not based on some concrete metaphor.

不是建立於具體的譬喻之上的例子

For example, you can use the verb "go"

舉例而言，你可以用"去" (go) 這個動詞

and the prepositions "to" and "from"

搭配介系詞"到"(to) 和"從" (from)

in a literal, spatial sense.

表達空間概念

"The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul."

"信差從巴黎去到伊斯坦堡"

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

你也可以說 "貝夫從生病到康復"

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

他不用去哪裡，他可能一直都躺在床上

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

但他的健康就像狀態空間裡的一個點

that you conceptualize as moving.

而你想像這個點會移動

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

或者， "會議從三點開到四點"

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

我們想像時間綿延於一條線上

Likewise, we use "force" to indicate

同樣地，我們利用"force" (用力、強迫)

not only physical force,

指的不只是身體的力量

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

像是 "羅絲用力把門打開"

but also interpersonal force,

也可以指涉人際上的力量

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

像是 "羅絲強迫珊蒂離開"--不一定要親自動手

but by issuing a threat.

可以利用威脅利誘

Or, "Rose forced herself to go,"

或是 "羅絲強迫自己離開"

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

彷彿羅絲腦袋裡有兩個個體

engaged in a tug of a war.

正在進行一場拔河戰

Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive

我得出的另一個結論是，解構的能力

of a given event in two different ways,

將一件事情解讀成兩種意義的能力

such as "cause something to go to someone"

像是 "使得某物移動到某人那兒去"

and "causing someone to have something,"

以及"使得某人擁有某物"

I think is a fundamental feature of human thought,

是人類思想最基本的特質

and it's the basis for much human argumentation,

也是人們許多爭論的來源

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

與其說大家對事實爭論不下

as on how they ought to be construed.

不如說他們對事實的解讀方法有不同見解

Just to give you a few examples:

給各位幾個例子：

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

"結束妊娠期" 和 "殺死胎兒"

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

"一團細胞" 和 "未出世的孩子"

"invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;"

"入侵伊拉克" 和 "解放伊拉克"

"redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings."

"重新分配財富" 和 "沒收所得"

And I think the biggest picture of all

而我認為，若採取最宏觀的角度

would take seriously the fact

你會認真地看待一個事實

that so much of our verbiage about abstract events

那就是，我們描述抽象事件的用語

is based on a concrete metaphor

大多建立於具體的譬喻之上

and see human intelligence itself

你會將人類的智能本身視為

as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --

涵蓋了一系列的概念--

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

諸如目的、空間、時間、因果關係和意圖--

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

對於需要大量社交和知識的物種非常有用

whose evolution you can well imagine,

這個物種的演化各位都很熟悉

and a process of metaphorical abstraction

而人類智能還包含抽象隱喻的過程

that allows us to bleach these concepts

讓我們抽離這些概念裡面

of their original conceptual content --

原有的內涵--

space, time and force --

空間、時間和力量--

and apply them to new abstract domains,

然後用在新的抽象領域上

therefore allowing a species that evolved

所以一個已經進化到

to deal with rocks and tools and animals,

學會使用石器、工具和禽獸的物種

to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law

也能了解數學、物理、法律

and other abstract domains.

和其他抽象的領域

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

嗯，我說我會講到人性的兩扇窗口：

the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world,

剛剛提到我們解構這個世界的認知機制

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

現在我要講的是不同類型的人際關係

that govern human social interaction,

它們掌控了人類的社交互動

again, as reflected in language.

以及這些關係如何反映在語言上面

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

我首先要講個謎題：間接語言行為的謎題

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

相信很多人都看過《冰血暴》這部電影

And you might remember the scene in which

你可能記得在其中一幕裡

the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer,

警察攔下綁匪的車

is asked to show his driver's license

請他出示駕照

and holds his wallet out

而綁匪舉起皮夾

with a 50-dollar bill extending

裡頭露出一張五十美元的鈔票

at a slight angle out of the wallet.

以微妙的角度若隱若現著

And he says, "I was just thinking

他說："我在想"

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

"也許我們可以就地解決"

which everyone, including the audience,

每個人，包括電影觀眾

interprets as a veiled bribe.

都會將這句話解讀為隱含的賄賂

This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language.

這種不直接的表達方法在語言裡隨處可見

For example, in polite requests,

舉例來說，在禮貌性的請求中

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

如果有人說 "如果你能遞給我鱷梨沙拉醬"

that would be awesome,"

"那就太棒了"

we know exactly what he means,

我們都知道他要表達什麼意思

even though that's a rather bizarre

雖然他表達的概念

concept being expressed.

實在有點詭異

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

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

"妳想來我家欣賞我的蝕刻畫嗎？"

I think most people

我想大部份的人

understand the intent behind that.

都知道這句話背後的動機是什麼

And likewise, if someone says,

同樣地，如果有人說

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

"你的店真不賴，如果發生什麼不幸，那真是太可惜了"

(Laughter) --

（笑聲）

we understand that as a veiled threat,

我們也都了解這背後隱含的是個恐嚇

rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities.

而不是真的在思考這個假設的可能性

So the puzzle is, why are bribes,

所以這個謎題是，為什麼賄賂、

polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled?

有禮的請求、誘惑和恐嚇都常被隱藏起來？

No one's fooled.

沒有人會信以為真--

Both parties know exactly what the speaker means,

雙方都了解講者的意思為何

and the speaker knows the listener knows

講者也知道聽者知道

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

講者知道聽者知道...以此類推

So what's going on?

究竟是怎麼一回事？

I think the key idea is that language

我認為關鍵在於語言

is a way of negotiating relationships,

讓我們可以協商彼此的關係為何

and human relationships fall into a number of types.

而人際關係有好幾種類型

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

人類學家費斯克提出了一種有名的分類法

in which relationships can be categorized, more or less,

他說，人與人間的關係或多或少可以分成幾種模式

into communality, which works on the principle

團體關係，其原則是

"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;

這種關係常見於家人之間

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

統治關係，最高指導原則是"別惹我"

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

互惠關係："你幫我抓背，我就幫你抓背"

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

性慾關係，套句柯爾波特的名言："咱們做吧"

Now, relationship types can be negotiated.

這些關係模式是可以經過協商的

Even though there are default situations

即使在某些既定的情況下

in which one of these mindsets can be applied,

適用上述其中一種關係模式

they can be stretched and extended.

但仍有延伸擴大的空間

For example, communality applies most naturally

舉例來說，團體關係最常出現在

within family or friends,

家人或朋友關係中

but it can be used to try to transfer

但也可以用來試圖將

the mentality of sharing

分享的心態

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

轉移到平常不這麼運作的群體

For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations,

例如，兄弟會、兄弟組織

sororities, locutions like "the family of man,"

姊妹會中，"兄弟一家親"這種慣用語

you try to get people who are not related

就是想要讓一群非親非故的人

to use the relationship type that would ordinarily

使用這種平常只適用於

be appropriate to close kin.

近親的關係模式

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

但差異出現時--一個人以為是某種關係模式

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

另一個人以為是另一種模式--就糗大了

If you went over and you helped yourself

如果你伸筷自行取用

to a shrimp off your boss' plate,

你老闆盤裡的蝦子

for example, that would be an awkward situation.

這個情況可能就尷尬了

Or if a dinner guest after the meal

或是來家裡用餐的客人在飯後

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

取出錢包要付你餐費

that would be rather awkward as well.

那也相當難堪

In less blatant cases,

在比較不明顯的情境裡

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

也常進行著關係模式的協商

In the workplace, for example,

舉例來說，在工作場合上

there's often a tension over whether an employee

常常有個兩難：究竟員工

can socialize with the boss,

能不能跟老闆聊天

or refer to him or her

或是直呼他或她

on a first-name basis.

的大名

If two friends have a

如果兩個朋友要進行一項

reciprocal transaction, like selling a car,

互惠交易，像是賣車

it's well known that this can be a source

大家都知道這可能造成

of tension or awkwardness.

兩難或窘境

In dating, the transition

兩人約會

from friendship to sex

想要從友情發展到性關係

can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness,

可能造成各種的窘境，這眾所皆知

and as can sex in the workplace,

辦公室裡的性關係亦然

in which we call the conflict between a

我們稱這種發生在

dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment."

統治關係與性慾關係間的衝突為"性騷擾"

Well, what does this have to do with language?

那，這些和語言有什麼關係？

Well, language, as a social interaction,

嗯，語言，就像社交

has to satisfy two conditions.

需要符合兩種條件

You have to convey the actual content --

你必須表達實質內容--

here we get back to the container metaphor.

這邊我們要回到容器隱喻

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

你想要傳達賄賂、命令、承諾

the solicitation and so on,

誘惑等等意含

but you also have to negotiate

但你必須要協商

and maintain the kind of relationship

同時維持

you have with the other person.

你和對方之間的關係

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

我想，解決方法就是我們用的語言要有兩個層次：

the literal form signals

字面上的意思表達了

the safest relationship with the listener,

你和聽者最安全的關係

whereas the implicated content --

而你暗指的內容--

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

我們希望對方聽到的弦外之音--

allows the listener to derive the interpretation

讓聽者解讀出

which is most relevant in context,

在情境裡最切題的意義

which possibly initiates a changed relationship.

這可能會造成關係的改變

The simplest example of this is in the polite request.

最簡單的例子就是有禮的請求

If you express your request as a conditional --

如果你以假設句傳達你的請求

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

"如果你能開個窗就太好了"

even though the content is an imperative,

雖然這句話的內容是命令句

the fact that you're not using the imperative voice

但是你没有使用命令語氣

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

表示你並沒有表現得好像你們處於統治關係

where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person.

你沒有假設對方一定會屈從

On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole.

另一方面，你想要那該死的鱷梨沙拉醬

By expressing it as an if-then statement,

用"如果...就"的假設句

you can get the message across

你不但可以傳達語意

without appearing to boss another person around.

也不會顯得頤指氣使

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

更微妙一點，我認為這可以適用於

for all of the veiled speech acts

所有隱含的言語行為

involving plausible deniability:

包括合理的推諉：

the bribes, threats, propositions,

賄賂、恐嚇、提議

solicitations and so on.

誘惑等等

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

我們可以這麼思考：想像一下

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

如果我們只能使用語言字面的意思，會是什麼情況

And you can think of it in terms of a

你可以用

game-theoretic payoff matrix.

賽局理論裡的收益矩陣來分析

Put yourself in the position of the

設想，如果你是

kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer.

想要賄賂警察的綁匪

There's a high stakes

你面臨很高的風險

in the two possibilities

因為有兩種可能：

of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer.

你可能會遇到好警察或壞警察

If you don't bribe the officer,

如果你不賄賂警察

then you will get a traffic ticket --

你就得吃上罰單

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

或者像在《冰血暴》裡，就更慘了--

whether the honest officer

不論電影裡那個好警察

is honest or dishonest.

究竟是好是壞：

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

綁匪無論如何都得放手一博

In that case, the consequences are rather severe.

那麼後果就相當嚴重了

On the other hand, if you extend the bribe,

另一方面，如果你行賄

if the officer is dishonest,

遇上壞警察

you get a huge payoff of going free.

你得到的收益很高--逍遙法外

If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty

但遇上好警察，面臨的刑罰很重

of being arrested for bribery.

你將被依賄賂罪逮捕

So this is a rather fraught situation.

所以這是個相當棘手的情況

On the other hand, with indirect language,

但如果使用間接語言

if you issue a veiled bribe,

你使用隱含的賄賂

then the dishonest officer

那麼壞警察

could interpret it as a bribe,

可以將之解讀為賄賂

in which case you get the payoff of going free.

你就得以逍遙法外了

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

而好警察也不能因此將你定罪

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

所以你頂多拿到一張罰單

So you get the best of both worlds.

兩全其美

And a similar analysis, I think,

我認為，類似的分析

can apply to the potential awkwardness

也適用於

of a sexual solicitation,

求歡可能會遇到的尷尬問題

and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset.

還有其他亟需合理推諉的情境

I think this affirms

我想這印證了

something that's long been known by diplomats --

外交家老早就知道的事實--

namely, that the vagueness of language,

也就是說，語言的含糊曖昧

far from being a bug or an imperfection,

並不是語言的缺陷或不完美

actually might be a feature of language,

而可能是語言的一種特色

one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.

有利於我們的社交互動

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

做個總結：語言是人類創造的總和

reflecting human nature,

反映了人性--

how we conceptualize reality,

我們如何理解現實

how we relate to one another.

我們如何與他人產生連結

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

而藉由分析語言的稀奇古怪與錯綜複雜

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

我相信我們可以一窺人類的思想

Thank you very much.

謝謝各位

(Applause)

（掌聲）