×

We use cookies to help make LingQ better. By visiting the site, you agree to our cookie policy.


image

TED, What our language habits reveal

What our language habits reveal

This is a picture of Maurice Druon, the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise, the French Academy.

He is splendidly attired in his 68,000-dollar uniform, befitting the role of the French Academy as legislating the correct usage in French and perpetuating the language. The French Academy has two main tasks: it compiles a dictionary of official French. They're now working on their ninth edition, which they began in 1930, and they've reached the letter P. They also legislate on correct usage, such as the proper term for what the French call "email," which ought to be "courriel. "The World Wide Web, the French are told, ought to be referred to as"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- the Global Spider Web --recommendations that the French gaily ignore.

1:10 Now, this is one model of how language comes to be: namely, it's legislated by an academy.

But anyone who looks at language realizes that this is a rather silly conceit, that language, rather, emerges from human minds interacting from one another. And this is visible in the unstoppable change in language --the fact that by the time the Academy finishes their dictionary, it will already be well out of date.

1:36 We see it in the constant appearance of slang and jargon, of the historical change in languages, in divergence of dialects and the formation of new languages.

So language is not so much a creator or shaper of human nature, so much as a window onto human nature. In a book that I'm currently working on, I hope to use language to shed light on a number of aspects of human nature, including the cognitive machinery with which humans conceptualize the world and the relationship types that govern human interaction. And I'm going to say a few words about each one this morning.

2:14 Let me start off with a technical problem in language that I've worried about for quite some time -- and indulge me in my passion for verbs and how they're used.

The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions? The verb is the chassis of the sentence. It's the framework onto which the other parts are bolted.

2:35 Let me give you a quick reminder of something that you've long forgotten.

An intransitive verb, such as "dine," for example, can't take a direct object. You have to say, "Sam dined," not, "Sam dined the pizza." A transitive verb mandates that there has to be an object there: "Sam devoured the pizza." You can't just say, "Sam devoured. "There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type, each of which shapes its sentence. So, a problem in explaining how children learn language, a problem in teaching language to adults so that they don't make grammatical errors, and a problem in programming computers to use language is which verbs go in which constructions.

3:15 For example, the dative construction in English.

You can say, "Give a muffin to a mouse," the prepositional dative. Or, "Give a mouse a muffin," the double-object dative. "Promise anything to her, " "Promise her anything," and so on. Hundreds of verbs can go both ways. So a tempting generalization for a child, for an adult, for a computer is that any verb that can appear in the construction, "subject-verb-thing-to-a-recipient" can also be expressed as "subject-verb-recipient-thing." A handy thing to have, because language is infinite, and you can't just parrot back the sentences that you've heard. You've got to extract generalizations so you can produce and understand new sentences. This would be an example of how to do that.

3:55 Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions. You can say, "Biff drove the car to Chicago," but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car.

"You can say, "Sal gave Jason a headache," but it's a bit odd to say, "Sal gave a headache to Jason. "The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance, are not synonymous, that when you crank up the microscope on human cognition, you see that there's a subtle difference in meaning between them. So, "give the X to the Y, "that construction corresponds to the thought" cause X to go to Y. " Whereas "give the Y the X" corresponds to the thought "cause Y to have X. " 4:33 Now, many events can be subject to either construal, kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions, in which you can either pay attention to the particular object, in which case the space around it recedes from attention, or you can see the faces in the empty space, in which case the object recedes out of consciousness. How are these construals reflected in language? Well, in both cases, the thing that is construed as being affected is expressed as the direct object, the noun after the verb. So, when you think of the event as causing the muffin to go somewhere --where you're doing something to the muffin --you say, "Give the muffin to the mouse. "When you construe it as "cause the mouse to have something," you're doing something to the mouse, and therefore you express it as, "Give the mouse the muffin. " 5:21 So which verbs go in which construction --the problem with which I began -- depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion or a kind of possession change. To give something involves both causing something to go and causing someone to have. To drive the car only causes something to go, because Chicago's not the kind of thing that can possess something. Only humans can possess things. And to give someone a headache causes them to have the headache, but it's not as if you're taking the headache out of your head and causing it to go to the other person, and implanting it in them. You may just be loud or obnoxious, or some other way causing them to have the headache. So, that's an example of the kind of thing that I do in my day job.

6:03 So why should anyone care?

Well, there are a number of interesting conclusions, I think, from this and many similar kinds of analyses of hundreds of English verbs. First, there's a level of fine-grained conceptual structure, which we automatically and unconsciously compute every time we produce or utter a sentence, that governs our use of language. You can think of this as the language of thought, or "mentalese. " 6:28 It seems to be based on a fixed set of concepts, which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs -- not only in English, but in all other languages --fundamental concepts such as space, time, causation and human intention, such as, what is the means and what is the ends? These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories that Immanuel Kant argued are the basic framework for human thought, and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language seems to reflect these Kantian categories. Doesn't care about perceptual qualities, such as color, texture, weight and speed, which virtually never differentiate the use of verbs in different constructions.

7:07 An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English are used not only literally , but in a quasi-metaphorical way.

For example, this construction, the dative, is used not only to transfer things, but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas, as when we say, "She told a story to me"or "told me a story," "Max taught Spanish to the students" or "taught the students Spanish. "It's exactly the same construction, but no muffins, no mice, nothing moving at all. It evokes the container metaphor of communication, in which we conceive of ideas as objects, sentences as containers, and communication as a kind of sending. As when we say we "gather" our ideas, to "put" them "into" words, and if our words aren't "empty" or "hollow, "we might get these ideas "across" to a listener, who can "unpack" our words to "extract" their "content. " 7:55 And indeed, this kind of verbiage is not the exception, but the rule. It's very hard to find any example of abstract language that is not based on some concrete metaphor. For example, you can use the verb "go" and the prepositions "to" and "from"in a literal, spatial sense. "The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul. "You can also say, "Biff went from sick to well. "He needn't go anywhere. He could have been in bed the whole time, but it's as if his health is a point in state space that you conceptualize as moving. Or, "The meeting went from three to four, "in which we conceive of time as stretched along a line. Like wise, we use "force" to indicate not only physical force, as in, "Rose forced the door to open," but also interpersonal force, as in, "Rose forced Sadie to go," not necessarily by manhandling her,but by issuing a threat. Or, "Rose forced herself to go," as if there were two entities inside Rose's head, engaged in a tug of a war.

8:50 Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive of a given event in two different ways, such as "cause something to go to someone" and "causing someone to have something, "I think is a fundamental feature of human thought, and it's the basis for much human argumentation, in which people don't differ so much on the facts as on how they ought to be construed.

Just to give you a few examples: "ending a pregnancy" versus "killing a fetus;" "a ball of cells " versus "an unborn child; " "invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;" "redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings. "And I think the biggest picture of all would take seriously the fact that so much of our verbiage about abstract events is based on a concrete metaphor and see human intelligence itself as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --such as objects, space, time, causation and intention - -which are useful in a social, knowledge-intensive species, whose evolution you can well imagine, and a process of metaphorical abstraction that allows us to bleach these concepts of their original conceptual content --space, time and force -- and apply them to new abstract domains, therefore allowing a species that evolved to deal with rocks and tools and animals, to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law and other abstract domains.

10:13 Well, I said I'd talk about two windows on human nature --the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world, and now I'm going to say a few words about the relationship types that govern human social interaction, again, as reflected in language.

And I'll start out with a puzzle, the puzzle of indirect speech acts. Now, I'm sure most of you have seen the movie "Fargo. "And you might remember the scene in which the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer, is asked to show his driver's license and holds his wallet out with a 50-dollar bill extending at a slight angle out of the wallet. And he says, "I was just thinking that maybe we could take care of it here in Fargo," which everyone, including the audience, interprets as a veiled bribe. This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language. For example, in polite requests, if someone says, "If you could pass the guacamole, that would be awesome," we know exactly what he means, even though that's a rather bizarre concept being expressed.

11:12 (Laughter)

11:15 "Would you like to come up and see my etchings?

"I think most people understand the intent behind that. And like wise, if someone says, "Nice store you've got there. It would be a real shame if something happened to it" --(Laughter) --we understand that as a veiled threat, rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities. So the puzzle is, why are bribes, polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled? No one's fooled. Both parties know exactly what the speaker means, and the speaker knows the listener knows that the speaker knows that the listener knows, etc., etc. So what's going on?

11:51 I think the key idea is that language is a way of negotiating relationships, and human relationships fall into a number of types. There's an influential taxonomy by the anthropologist Alan Fiske, in which relationships can be categorized, more or less, into communality, which works on the principle "what's mine is thine, what's thine is mine, "the kind of mind set that operates within a family, for example; dominance, whose principle is "don't mess with me; "reciprocity, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours; "and sexuality, in the immortal words of Cole Porter, "Let's do it.

" 12:26 Now, relationship types can be negotiated. Even though there are default situations in which one of these mindsets can be applied, they can be stretched and extended. For example, communality applies most naturally within family or friends, but it can be used to try to transfer the mentality of sharing to groups that ordinarily would not be disposed to exercise it. For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations, sororities, locutions like "the family of man, "you try to get people who are not related to use the relationship type that would ordinarily be appropriate to close kin.

13:05 Now, mismatches -- when one person assumes one relationship type, and another assumes a different one -- can be awkward.

If you went over and you helped yourself to a shrimp off your boss' plate, for example, that would be an awkward situation. Or if a dinner guest after the meal pulled out his wallet and offered to pay you for the meal, that would be rather awkward as well. In less blatant cases, there's still a kind of negotiation that often goes on. In the workplace, for example, there's often a tension over whether an employee can socialize with the boss, or refer to him or her on a first-name basis. If two friends have a reciprocal transaction, like selling a car, it's well known that this can be a source of tension or awkwardness. In dating, the transition from friendship to sex can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness, and as can sex in the workplace, in which we call the conflict between a dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment. " 14:03 Well, what does this have to do with language? Well, language, as a social interaction, has to satisfy two conditions. You have to convey the actual content --here we get back to the container metaphor. You want to express the bribe, the command, the promise, the solicitation and so on, but you also have to negotiate and maintain the kind of relationship you have with the other person. The solution, I think, is that we use language at two levels: the literal form signals the safest relationship with the listener, whereas the implicated content --the reading between the lines that we count on the listener to perform --allows the listener to derive the interpretation which is most relevant in context, which possibly initiates a changed relationship.

14:45 The simplest example of this is in the polite request.

If you express your request as a conditional --"if you could open the window, that would be great" --even though the content is an imperative, the fact that you're not using the imperative voice means that you're not acting as if you're in a relationship of dominance, where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person. On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole. By expressing it as an if-then statement, you can get the message across without appearing to boss another person around.

15:18 And in a more subtle way, I think, this works for all of the veiled speech acts involving plausible deniability: the bribes, threats, propositions, solicitations and so on.

One way of thinking about it is to imagine what it would be like if language -- where it could only be used literally. And you can think of it in terms of a game-theoretic pay off matrix. Put yourself in the position of the kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer. There's a high stakes in the two possibilities of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer. If you don't bribe the officer, then you will get a traffic ticket --or, as is the case of "Fargo," worse --whether the honest officer is honest or dishonest. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. In that case, the consequences are rather severe. On the other hand, if you extend the bribe, if the officer is dishonest, you get a huge pay off of going free. If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty of being arrested for bribery. So this is a rather fraught situation.

16:21 On the other hand, with indirect language, if you issue a veiled bribe, then the dishonest officer could interpret it as a bribe, in which case you get the pay off of going free.

The honest officer can't hold you to it as being a bribe, and therefore, you get the nuisance of the traffic ticket. So you get the best of both worlds. And a similar analysis, I think, can apply to the potential awkwardness of a sexual solicitation, and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset. I think this affirms something that's long been known by diplomats --namely, that the vagueness of language, far from being a bug or an imperfection, actually might be a feature of language, one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.

17:05 So to sum up: language is a collective human creation, reflecting human nature, how we conceptualize reality, how we relate to one another.

And then by analyzing the various quirks and complexities of language, I think we can get a window onto what makes us tick. Thank you very much.

17:22 (Applause)


What our language habits reveal Was unsere Sprachgewohnheiten verraten Lo que revelan nuestros hábitos lingüísticos Ce que révèlent nos habitudes linguistiques Cosa rivelano le nostre abitudini linguistiche 私たちの言語習慣から見えてくるもの Wat onze taalgewoonten onthullen Co ujawniają nasze nawyki językowe O que revelam os nossos hábitos linguísticos О чем говорят наши языковые привычки 我们的语言习惯揭示了什么 我們的語言習慣揭示了什麼

This is a picture of Maurice Druon, the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise, the French Academy. Esta es una foto de Maurice Druon, el Secretario Perpetuo Honorario de L'Academie francaise, la Academia Francesa. Это фотография Мориса Дрюона, почетного бессрочного секретаря французской академии L'Academie francaise.

He is splendidly attired in his 68,000-dollar uniform, befitting the role of the French Academy as legislating the correct usage in French and perpetuating the language. Lleva una vestimenta espléndida con su uniforme de 68,000 dólares, acorde con el papel de la Academia Francesa al legislar el uso correcto en francés y perpetuar el idioma. Il est magnifiquement vêtu de son uniforme de 68 000 dollars, ce qui correspond au rôle de l'Académie française de légiférer sur l'usage correct du français et de perpétuer la langue. Он великолепно одет в свою форму за 68000 долларов, что соответствует роли Французской академии, которая узаконивает правильное употребление французского языка и увековечивает его. The French Academy has two main tasks: it compiles a dictionary of official French. They're now working on their ninth edition, which they began in 1930, and they've reached the letter P. They also legislate on correct usage, such as the proper term for what the French call "email," which ought to be "courriel. La Academia Francesa tiene dos tareas principales: compila un diccionario de francés oficial. Ahora están trabajando en su novena edición, que comenzaron en 1930, y han llegado a la letra P. También legislan sobre el uso correcto, como el término adecuado para lo que los franceses llaman "correo electrónico", que debería ser "courriel". У Французской Академии есть две основные задачи: она составляет словарь официального французского языка. Сейчас они работают над своим девятым изданием, которое они начали в 1930 году, и они достигли буквы P. правильный термин для того, что французы называют «электронная почта», что должно быть «курриэль». "The World Wide Web, the French are told, ought to be referred to as"la toile d'araignee mondiale" -- the Global Spider Web --recommendations that the French gaily ignore. "La World Wide Web, se dice a los franceses, debe ser referida como" la toile d'araignee mondiale "- la Global Spider Web - recomendaciones que los franceses ignoran alegremente. "Le World Wide Web, dit-on aux Français, devrait être appelé" la toile d'araignée mondiale " - le Global Spider Web - des recommandations que les Français ignorent gaiement. «Всемирную паутину, говорят французы, следует называть la toile d'araignee mondiale - Глобальной паутиной - рекомендациями, которые французы весело игнорируют.

1:10 Now, this is one model of how language comes to be: namely, it's legislated by an academy. 1:10 Ahora, este es un modelo de cómo surge el lenguaje: es decir, está legislado por una academia. 1:10 Maintenant, voici un modèle de la façon dont la langue est née: à savoir, elle est légiférée par une académie. 1:10 Это одна из моделей того, как возникает язык: а именно, он законодательно закреплен академией.

But anyone who looks at language realizes that this is a rather silly conceit, that language, rather, emerges from human minds interacting from one another. Pero cualquiera que mira el lenguaje se da cuenta de que este es un concepto bastante tonto, que el lenguaje, más bien, surge de las mentes humanas que interactúan entre sí. Mais quiconque regarde la langue se rend compte que c'est une vanité plutôt stupide, que la langue émerge plutôt des esprits humains interagissant les uns avec les autres. Но любой, кто смотрит на язык, понимает, что это довольно глупое самомнение, что язык, скорее, возникает из человеческих умов, взаимодействующих друг с другом. And this is visible in the unstoppable change in language --the fact that by the time the Academy finishes their dictionary, it will already be well out of date. Y esto es visible en el imparable cambio de idioma: el hecho de que para cuando la Academia termine su diccionario, ya estará obsoleto. Et cela est visible dans le changement imparable de la langue - le fait que lorsque l'Académie aura terminé son dictionnaire, il sera déjà bien dépassé. И это видно по непреодолимой смене языка - в том факте, что к тому времени, когда Академия закончит свой словарь, он уже устареет.

1:36 We see it in the constant appearance of slang and jargon, of the historical change in languages, in divergence of dialects and the formation of new languages. 1:36 Lo vemos en la constante aparición de la jerga y la jerga, del cambio histórico en los idiomas, en la divergencia de los dialectos y la formación de nuevos idiomas. 1:36 Мы видим это в постоянном появлении сленга и жаргона, в исторических изменениях языков, в расхождении диалектов и появлении новых языков.

So language is not so much a creator or shaper of human nature, so much as a window onto human nature. Así que el lenguaje no es tanto un creador o modelador de la naturaleza humana, sino una ventana a la naturaleza humana. Le langage n'est donc pas tant un créateur ou façonneur de la nature humaine, mais une fenêtre sur la nature humaine. Итак, язык - это не столько создатель или формирователь человеческой природы, сколько окно в человеческую природу. In a book that I'm currently working on, I hope to use language to shed light on a number of aspects of human nature, including the cognitive machinery with which humans conceptualize the world and the relationship types that govern human interaction. En un libro en el que estoy trabajando actualmente, espero usar el lenguaje para arrojar luz sobre varios aspectos de la naturaleza humana, incluida la maquinaria cognitiva con la que los humanos conceptualizan el mundo y los tipos de relación que rigen la interacción humana. Dans un livre sur lequel je travaille actuellement, j'espère utiliser le langage pour éclairer un certain nombre d'aspects de la nature humaine, y compris la machinerie cognitive avec laquelle les humains conceptualisent le monde et les types de relations qui régissent l'interaction humaine. В книге, над которой я сейчас работаю, я надеюсь использовать язык, чтобы пролить свет на ряд аспектов человеческой природы, включая когнитивные механизмы, с помощью которых люди концептуализируют мир, и типы отношений, которые управляют человеческим взаимодействием. And I'm going to say a few words about each one this morning. Y voy a decir algunas palabras sobre cada uno esta mañana. И сегодня утром я скажу несколько слов о каждом из них.

2:14 Let me start off with a technical problem in language that I've worried about for quite some time -- and indulge me in my passion for verbs and how they're used. 2:14 Permítanme comenzar con un problema técnico en el lenguaje que me ha preocupado durante bastante tiempo, y complacerme en mi pasión por los verbos y cómo se usan. 2:14 Permettez-moi de commencer par un problème technique de langage qui m'inquiète depuis un certain temps -- et laissez-moi me livrer à ma passion pour les verbes et leur utilisation. 2:14 Позвольте мне начать с технической проблемы в языке, которая меня беспокоит довольно долгое время, и побалуйте меня своей страстью к глаголам и их использованию.

The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions? El problema es, ¿qué verbos van en qué construcciones? Проблема в том, какие глаголы в какие конструкции входят? The verb is the chassis of the sentence. Le verbe est le châssis de la phrase. It's the framework onto which the other parts are bolted. Es el marco sobre el que se atornillan las otras partes. C'est le cadre sur lequel les autres pièces sont boulonnées. Это каркас, к которому прикручены другие части.

2:35 Let me give you a quick reminder of something that you've long forgotten. 2:35 Déjame darte un recordatorio rápido de algo que siempre has olvidado. 2:35 Позвольте мне вкратце напомнить вам кое-что, о чем вы давно забыли.

An intransitive verb, such as "dine," for example, can't take a direct object. Un verbo intransitivo, como "cenar", por ejemplo, no puede tomar un objeto directo. Непереходный глагол, такой как, например, «обедать», не может иметь прямой объект. You have to say, "Sam dined," not, "Sam dined the pizza." Tienes que decir: "Sam cenó", no, "Sam cenó la pizza". Вы должны сказать «Сэм обедал», а не «Сэм обедал пиццу». A transitive verb mandates that there has to be an object there: "Sam devoured the pizza." Un verbo transitivo ordena que tiene que haber un objeto allí: "Sam devoró la pizza". Переходный глагол указывает, что здесь должен быть объект: «Сэм съел пиццу». You can't just say, "Sam devoured. No puedes simplemente decir, "Sam devoró. Вы не можете просто сказать: «Сэм пожирал. "There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type, each of which shapes its sentence. "Hay docenas o decenas de verbos de este tipo, cada uno de los cuales da forma a su oración. "Есть десятки или множество глаголов этого типа, каждый из которых составляет свое предложение. So, a problem in explaining how children learn language, a problem in teaching language to adults so that they don't make grammatical errors, and a problem in programming computers to use language is which verbs go in which constructions. Por lo tanto, un problema para explicar cómo los niños aprenden el lenguaje, un problema para enseñarles el lenguaje a los adultos para que no cometan errores gramaticales y un problema para programar computadoras para usar el lenguaje es qué verbos entran en qué construcciones. Итак, проблема в объяснении того, как дети изучают язык, проблема в обучении языку взрослых, чтобы они не допускали грамматических ошибок, и проблема программирования компьютеров для использования языка в том, какие глаголы входят в какие конструкции.

3:15 For example, the dative construction in English. 3:15 Por ejemplo, la construcción del dativo en inglés. 3:15 Bijvoorbeeld de datiefconstructie in het Engels.

You can say, "Give a muffin to a mouse," the prepositional dative. Puedes decir: "Dale un panecillo a un ratón", el dativo preposicional. Vous pouvez dire «Donner un muffin à une souris», le datif prépositionnel. Вы можете сказать: «Дайте маффин мыши» - предложный дательный падеж. Or, "Give a mouse a muffin," the double-object dative. O, "Dale un muffin a un ratón", el dativo de doble objeto. Или «Дайте мышке маффин», дательный падеж с двумя объектами. "Promise anything to her, " "Promise her anything," and so on. "Prométele cualquier cosa a ella", "Prométele cualquier cosa", y así sucesivamente. Hundreds of verbs can go both ways. Cientos de verbos pueden ir en ambos sentidos. So a tempting generalization for a child, for an adult, for a computer is that any verb that can appear in the construction, "subject-verb-thing-to-a-recipient" can also be expressed as "subject-verb-recipient-thing." Por lo tanto, una generalización tentadora para un niño, para un adulto, para una computadora es que cualquier verbo que pueda aparecer en la construcción, "sujeto-verbo-cosa-a-un-destinatario" también puede expresarse como "sujeto-verbo-destinatario -cosa." Таким образом, заманчивое обобщение для ребенка, взрослого, компьютера состоит в том, что любой глагол, который может появиться в конструкции «подлежащее-глагол-вещь-получателю», также может быть выражен как «подлежащий-глагол-получатель». -вещь." A handy thing to have, because language is infinite, and you can't just parrot back the sentences that you've heard. Algo práctico que se debe tener, porque el lenguaje es infinito y no puedes repetir las oraciones que has escuchado. Удобно иметь, потому что язык бесконечен, и вы не можете просто повторять предложения, которые вы слышали. You've got to extract generalizations so you can produce and understand new sentences. This would be an example of how to do that. Tienes que extraer generalizaciones para que puedas producir y entender oraciones nuevas. Este sería un ejemplo de cómo hacerlo. Вы должны извлекать обобщения, чтобы создавать и понимать новые предложения. Это будет пример того, как это сделать.

3:55 Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions. You can say, "Biff drove the car to Chicago," but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car. 3:55 Desafortunadamente, parece haber excepciones idiosincrásicas. Se puede decir: "Biff condujo el auto a Chicago", pero no ", Biff manejó el auto de Chicago. 3:55 К сожалению, существуют идиосинкразические исключения. Можно сказать: «Бифф ехал на машине в Чикаго», но не «Бифф вел машину в Чикаго».

"You can say, "Sal gave Jason a headache," but it's a bit odd to say, "Sal gave a headache to Jason. "Puedes decir," Sal le dio a Jason un dolor de cabeza ", pero es un poco extraño decir", Sal le dio un dolor de cabeza a Jason. «Можно сказать», - Сал вызвал у Джейсона головную боль, - «но это немного странно», - «Сал вызвал у Джейсона головную боль. "The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance, are not synonymous, that when you crank up the microscope on human cognition, you see that there's a subtle difference in meaning between them. "La solución es que estas construcciones, a pesar de la apariencia inicial, no son sinónimos, que cuando aumentas el microscopio en la cognición humana, ves que hay una diferencia sutil en el significado entre ellas. "Решение состоит в том, что эти конструкции, несмотря на первоначальный вид, не являются синонимами, и когда вы включаете микроскоп на человеческое познание, вы видите, что между ними есть тонкая разница в значении. So, "give the X to the Y, "that construction corresponds to the thought" cause X to go to Y. " Entonces, "dale la X a la Y", esa construcción corresponde al pensamiento "causa que X vaya a la Y". Whereas "give the Y the X" corresponds to the thought "cause Y to have X. Mientras que "dar a la Y la X" corresponde al pensamiento "causa que Y tenga X. " 4:33 Now, many events can be subject to either construal, kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions, in which you can either pay attention to the particular object, in which case the space around it recedes from attention, or you can see the faces in the empty space, in which case the object recedes out of consciousness. 4:33 Ahora, muchos eventos pueden estar sujetos a una interpretación, como las clásicas ilusiones de inversión de figura-fondo, en las que puedes prestar atención al objeto en particular, en cuyo caso el espacio alrededor de él se aleja de la atención, o Puede ver las caras en el espacio vacío, en cuyo caso el objeto retrocede fuera de la conciencia. "4:33 Maintenant, de nombreux événements peuvent être soumis à une interprétation, un peu comme les illusions classiques d'inversion de la figure-fond, dans lesquelles vous pouvez soit prêter attention à l'objet particulier, auquel cas l'espace autour de lui s'éloigne de l'attention, ou vous pouvez voir les visages dans l'espace vide, auquel cas l'objet s'éloigne de la conscience. "4:33 Многие события могут быть предметом либо конструирования, вроде классических иллюзий разворота фигуры и фона, в которых вы можете либо обращать внимание на конкретный объект, и в этом случае пространство вокруг него отступает от внимания, либо вы можете видеть лица в пустом пространстве, и в этом случае объект теряет сознание. How are these construals reflected in language? ¿Cómo se reflejan estas interpretaciones en el lenguaje? Comment ces interprétations se reflètent-elles dans le langage? Hoe worden deze construals weerspiegeld in taal? Как эти конструкции отражаются в языке? Bu yorumlar dile nasıl yansıyor? Well, in both cases, the thing that is construed as being affected is expressed as the direct object, the noun after the verb. Bueno, en ambos casos, lo que se interpreta como afectado se expresa como el objeto directo, el sustantivo después del verbo. Что ж, в обоих случаях вещь, которая интерпретируется как подверженная влиянию, выражается как прямой объект, существительное после глагола. So, when you think of the event as causing the muffin to go somewhere --where you're doing something to the muffin --you say, "Give the muffin to the mouse. Entonces, cuando piensas que el evento hace que el muffin vaya a algún lugar, donde le estás haciendo algo al muffin, dices: "Dale el muffin al ratón. Итак, когда вы думаете о событии как о побуждении кекса куда-то уйти - где вы что-то делаете с кексом - вы говорите: «Дайте маффин мыши. "When you construe it as "cause the mouse to have something," you're doing something to the mouse, and therefore you express it as, "Give the mouse the muffin. "Cuando lo interpretas como" hace que el mouse tenga algo ", le estás haciendo algo al mouse y, por lo tanto, lo expresas como" Dale al mouse el muffin. «Когда вы истолковываете это как« заставить мышь иметь что-то », вы что-то делаете с мышью, и поэтому выражаете это как« Дайте мыши булочку ». " 5:21 So which verbs go in which construction --the problem with which I began -- depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion or a kind of possession change. To give something involves both causing something to go and causing someone to have. To drive the car only causes something to go, because Chicago's not the kind of thing that can possess something. 5:21 Entonces, ¿qué verbos entran en qué construcción? El problema con el que comencé - depende de si el verbo especifica un tipo de movimiento o un tipo de cambio de posesión. Dar algo implica tanto hacer que algo salga como a alguien que lo haga tener. Conducir el auto solo causa que algo vaya, porque Chicago no es el tipo de cosa que puede poseer algo. Only humans can possess things. And to give someone a headache causes them to have the headache, but it's not as if you're taking the headache out of your head and causing it to go to the other person, and implanting it in them. You may just be loud or obnoxious, or some other way causing them to have the headache. Y darle a alguien un dolor de cabeza hace que tengan el dolor de cabeza, pero no es como si te estuvieras sacando el dolor de cabeza de la cabeza y haciendo que se dirija a la otra persona, e implantándolo en él. desagradable, o alguna otra forma causando que tengan el dolor de cabeza. Et donner un mal de tête à quelqu'un lui donne le mal de tête, mais ce n'est pas comme si vous retiriez le mal de tête de votre tête et le faisiez aller à l'autre personne, et l'implantiez en elle. désagréable, ou d'une autre manière qui leur cause des maux de tête. So, that's an example of the kind of thing that I do in my day job. Entonces, ese es un ejemplo del tipo de cosas que hago en mi trabajo diario.

6:03 So why should anyone care? 6:03 Entonces, ¿por qué debería importarle a alguien?

Well, there are a number of interesting conclusions, I think, from this and many similar kinds of analyses of hundreds of English verbs. Bueno, creo que hay varias conclusiones interesantes a partir de este y muchos tipos de análisis similares de cientos de verbos en inglés. First, there's a level of fine-grained conceptual structure, which we automatically and unconsciously compute every time we produce or utter a sentence, that governs our use of language. You can think of this as the language of thought, or "mentalese. Primero, hay un nivel de estructura conceptual de grano fino, que calculamos de forma automática e inconsciente cada vez que producimos o pronunciamos una oración, que gobierna nuestro uso del lenguaje. Se puede pensar en esto como el lenguaje del pensamiento o "mentalidad". Premièrement, il y a un niveau de structure conceptuelle fine, que nous calculons automatiquement et inconsciemment chaque fois que nous produisons ou prononçons une phrase, qui régit notre utilisation du langage. Vous pouvez penser à cela comme le langage de la pensée, ou «mentalese». Ten eerste is er een niveau van fijnmazige conceptuele structuur, die we automatisch en onbewust berekenen elke keer dat we een zin produceren of uitspreken, die ons taalgebruik beheerst. Je kunt dit zien als de taal van het denken, of 'mentalese'. " 6:28 It seems to be based on a fixed set of concepts, which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs -- not only in English, but in all other languages --fundamental concepts such as space, time, causation and human intention, such as, what is the means and what is the ends? 6:28 Parece estar basado en un conjunto fijo de conceptos, que gobiernan decenas de construcciones y miles de verbos, no solo en inglés, sino en todos los demás idiomas, conceptos fundamentales como espacio, tiempo, causalidad e intención humana. , por ejemplo, ¿cuáles son los medios y cuáles son los fines? These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories that Immanuel Kant argued are the basic framework for human thought, and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language seems to reflect these Kantian categories. Estos recuerdan los tipos de categorías que Immanuel Kant argumentó que son el marco básico para el pensamiento humano, y es interesante que nuestro uso inconsciente del lenguaje parece reflejar estas categorías kantianas. Doesn't care about perceptual qualities, such as color, texture, weight and speed, which virtually never differentiate the use of verbs in different constructions. No le importan las cualidades perceptivas, como el color, la textura, el peso y la velocidad, que prácticamente nunca diferencian el uso de verbos en diferentes construcciones.

7:07 An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English are used not only literally , but in a quasi-metaphorical way. 7:07 Un giro adicional es que todas las construcciones en inglés se usan no solo literalmente, sino de manera casi metafórica.

For example, this construction, the dative, is used not only to transfer things, but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas, as when we say, "She told a story to me"or "told me a story," "Max taught Spanish to the students" or "taught the students Spanish. Por ejemplo, esta construcción, el dativo, se usa no solo para transferir cosas, sino también para la transferencia metafórica de ideas, como cuando decimos "Me contó una historia" o "Me contó una historia", "Max enseñó Español a los alumnos "o" impartido a los alumnos de español. "It's exactly the same construction, but no muffins, no mice, nothing moving at all. It evokes the container metaphor of communication, in which we conceive of ideas as objects, sentences as containers, and communication as a kind of sending. "Es exactamente la misma construcción, pero no muffins, ni ratones, nada que se mueva. Evoca la metáfora del contenedor de la comunicación, en la que concebimos las ideas como objetos, las oraciones como contenedores y la comunicación como una forma de envío. As when we say we "gather" our ideas, to "put" them "into" words, and if our words aren't "empty" or "hollow, "we might get these ideas "across" to a listener, who can "unpack" our words to "extract"  their "content. Como cuando decimos que "reunimos" nuestras ideas, para "ponerlas" en "palabras", y si nuestras palabras no son "vacías" o "vacías", podemos transmitir estas ideas "a un oyente", quien puede "desempaquetar" nuestras palabras para "extraer" su "contenido". " 7:55 And indeed, this kind of verbiage is not the exception, but the rule. 7:55 Y de hecho, este tipo de verborrea no es la excepción, sino la regla. "7:55 Et en effet, ce genre de verbiage n'est pas l'exception, mais la règle. It's very hard to find any example of abstract language that is not based on some concrete metaphor. Es muy difícil encontrar un ejemplo de lenguaje abstracto que no esté basado en alguna metáfora concreta. For example, you can use the verb "go" and the prepositions "to" and "from"in a literal, spatial sense. Por ejemplo, puede usar el verbo "ir" y las preposiciones "a" y "desde" en un sentido literal, espacial. "The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul. "El mensajero fue de París a Estambul. "You can also say, "Biff went from sick to well. "También puedes decir:" Biff pasó de estar enfermo a bien. "He needn't go anywhere. "No necesita ir a ninguna parte. He could have been in bed the whole time, but it's as if his health is a point in state space that you conceptualize as moving. Podría haber estado en la cama todo el tiempo, pero es como si su salud fuera un punto en el espacio de estado que usted conceptualiza como conmovedor. Or, "The meeting went from three to four, "in which we conceive of time as stretched along a line. O bien, "La reunión fue de tres a cuatro", en la que concebimos el tiempo como una línea recta. Like wise, we use "force" to indicate not only physical force, as in, "Rose forced the door to open," but also interpersonal force, as in, "Rose forced Sadie to go," not necessarily by manhandling her,but by issuing a threat. Como sabio, usamos "fuerza" para indicar no solo la fuerza física, como en "Rose forzó la puerta a abrirse", sino también la fuerza interpersonal, como en "Rose forzó a Sadie a ir", no necesariamente por el maltrato a ella, sino emitiendo una amenaza. Net als verstandig gebruiken we 'kracht' om niet alleen fysieke kracht aan te duiden, zoals in 'Rose dwong de deur open te gaan', maar ook interpersoonlijke kracht, zoals in 'Rose dwong Sadie te gaan', niet noodzakelijkerwijs door haar te mishandelen, maar door een dreigement te geven. Or, "Rose forced herself to go," as if there were two entities inside Rose's head, engaged in a tug of a war. O, "Rose se obligó a ir", como si hubiera dos entidades dentro de la cabeza de Rose, comprometidas en un tirón de guerra.

8:50 Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive of a given event in two different ways, such as "cause something to go to someone" and "causing someone to have something, "I think is a fundamental feature of human thought, and it's the basis for much human argumentation, in which people don't differ so much on the facts as on how they ought to be construed. 8:50 La segunda conclusión es que la capacidad de concebir un evento determinado de dos maneras diferentes, como "hacer que algo vaya a alguien" y "hacer que alguien tenga algo", creo que es una característica fundamental del pensamiento humano, y Es la base de mucha argumentación humana, en la cual las personas no difieren tanto en los hechos como en cómo deben ser interpretados.

Just to give you a few examples: "ending a pregnancy" versus "killing a fetus;" "a ball of cells " versus "an unborn child; " "invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;" "redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings. Solo para darle algunos ejemplos: "terminar un embarazo" versus "matar a un feto", "una bola de células" versus "un feto"; "invadir Irak" versus "liberar Irak", "redistribuir riqueza" versus "confiscar ganancias. Juste pour vous donner quelques exemples: «mettre fin à une grossesse» contre «tuer un fœtus»; «une boule de cellules» contre «un enfant à naître»; «envahir l'Irak» contre «libérer l'Irak»; «redistribuer la richesse» contre «confisquer gains. "And I think the biggest picture of all would take seriously the fact that so much of our verbiage about abstract events is based on a concrete metaphor and see human intelligence itself as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --such as objects, space, time, causation and intention - -which are useful in a social, knowledge-intensive species, whose evolution you can well imagine, and a process of metaphorical abstraction that allows us to bleach these concepts of their original conceptual content --space, time and force -- and apply them to new abstract domains, therefore allowing a species that evolved to deal with rocks and tools and animals, to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law and other abstract domains. "Y creo que la imagen más grande de todas tomaría en serio el hecho de que gran parte de nuestra vergüenza acerca de los eventos abstractos se basa en una metáfora concreta y considera que la inteligencia humana en sí misma consiste en un repertorio de conceptos, como objetos, espacio, tiempo. , causalidad e intención - que son útiles en una especie social, intensiva en conocimiento, cuya evolución puedes imaginar, y un proceso de abstracción metafórica que nos permite blanquear estos conceptos de su contenido conceptual original: espacio, tiempo y fuerza. - y aplicarlos a nuevos dominios abstractos, permitiendo así que una especie que evolucionó para tratar con rocas y herramientas y animales, conceptualice las matemáticas, la física, la ley y otros dominios abstractos.

10:13 Well, I said I'd talk about two windows on human nature --the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world, and now I'm going to say a few words about the relationship types that govern human social interaction, again, as reflected in language. 10:13 Bueno, dije que hablaría de dos ventanas sobre la naturaleza humana: la maquinaria cognitiva con la que conceptualizamos el mundo, y ahora voy a decir algunas palabras sobre los tipos de relación que rigen la interacción social humana. de nuevo, como se refleja en el lenguaje.

And I'll start out with a puzzle, the puzzle of indirect speech acts. Now, I'm sure most of you have seen the movie "Fargo. Y comenzaré con un rompecabezas, el rompecabezas de los actos de habla indirectos. Ahora, estoy seguro de que la mayoría de ustedes ha visto la película "Fargo". "And you might remember the scene in which the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer, is asked to show his driver's license and holds his wallet out with a 50-dollar bill extending at a slight angle out of the wallet. "Y es posible que recuerde que a la escena en la que un oficial de policía detiene al secuestrador, le piden que muestre su licencia de conducir y le saca la billetera con un billete de 50 dólares que se extiende ligeramente inclinado fuera de la billetera. And he says, "I was just thinking that maybe we could take care of it here in Fargo," which everyone, including the audience, interprets as a veiled bribe. This kind of indirect speech is rampant in language. Y dice: "Estaba pensando que tal vez podríamos cuidarlo aquí en Fargo", lo que todos, incluido el público, interpreta como un soborno encubierto. Este tipo de discurso indirecto es desenfrenado en el lenguaje. Et il dit: «Je pensais juste que nous pourrions peut-être nous en occuper ici à Fargo», ce que tout le monde, y compris le public, interprète comme un pot-de-vin voilé. Ce genre de discours indirect est répandu dans le langage. For example, in polite requests, if someone says, "If you could pass the guacamole, that would be awesome," we know exactly what he means, even though that's a rather bizarre concept being expressed. Por ejemplo, en solicitudes educadas, si alguien dice: "Si pudieras pasar el guacamole, eso sería increíble", sabemos exactamente lo que quiere decir, aunque ese es un concepto bastante extraño que se expresa.

11:12 (Laughter)

11:15 "Would you like to come up and see my etchings? 11:15 "¿Te gustaría subir y ver mis grabados? 11:15 "Aimeriez-vous monter et voir mes gravures?

"I think most people understand the intent behind that. "Creo que la mayoría de la gente entiende la intención detrás de eso. And like wise, if someone says, "Nice store you've got there. Y como sabio, si alguien dice: "Bonita tienda que tienes ahí. И как мудро, если кто-то скажет: «Хороший у вас магазин. It would be a real shame if something happened to it" --(Laughter) --we understand that as a veiled threat, rather than a musing of hypothetical possibilities. Sería una verdadera lástima si algo le pasara "- (Risas) - entendemos eso como una amenaza encubierta, en lugar de una reflexión sobre posibilidades hipotéticas. Ce serait vraiment dommage si quelque chose lui arrivait »- (Rires) - nous comprenons cela comme une menace voilée, plutôt que comme une rêverie de possibilités hypothétiques. So the puzzle is, why are bribes, polite requests, solicitations and threats so often veiled? Entonces, el enigma es, ¿por qué los sobornos, las peticiones educadas, las solicitudes y las amenazas se ocultan tan a menudo? Le casse-tête est donc: pourquoi les pots-de-vin, les demandes polies, les sollicitations et les menaces sont-ils si souvent voilés? No one's fooled. Nadie ha sido engañado. Personne n'est dupe. Both parties know exactly what the speaker means, and the speaker knows the listener knows that the speaker knows that the listener knows, etc., etc. Ambas partes saben exactamente lo que significa el hablante, y el orador sabe que el oyente sabe que el hablante sabe que el oyente sabe, etc., etc. So what's going on? Entonces, ¿qué está pasando?

11:51 I think the key idea is that language is a way of negotiating relationships, and human relationships fall into a number of types. There's an influential taxonomy by the anthropologist Alan Fiske, in which relationships can be categorized, more or less, into communality, which works on the principle "what's mine is thine, what's thine is mine, "the kind of mind set that operates within a family, for example; dominance, whose principle is "don't mess with me; "reciprocity, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours; "and sexuality, in the immortal words of Cole Porter, "Let's do it. 11:51 Creo que la idea clave es que el lenguaje es una forma de negociar relaciones, y las relaciones humanas se clasifican en varios tipos. Hay una taxonomía influyente del antropólogo Alan Fiske, en la cual las relaciones pueden clasificarse, más o menos, en comunalidad, que funciona según el principio "lo que es mío es tuyo, lo que tuyo es mío", el tipo de mentalidad que opera dentro de una familia, por ejemplo; dominación, cuyo principio es "no te metas conmigo;" la reciprocidad ", me rascas la espalda, te rasco la tuya" y la sexualidad, en las palabras inmortales de Cole Porter, "Hagámoslo. 11:51 Je pense que l'idée clé est que la langue est un moyen de négocier des relations et que les relations humaines se divisent en plusieurs types.Il existe une taxonomie influente de l'anthropologue Alan Fiske, dans laquelle les relations peuvent être classées, plus ou moins, en la communauté, qui fonctionne sur le principe «ce qui est à moi est à toi, ce qui est à toi est à moi», le genre d'état d'esprit qui opère au sein d'une famille, par exemple; la domination, dont le principe est «ne me dérangez pas;» la réciprocité, «vous me grattez le dos, je vais gratter le vôtre» et la sexualité, selon les mots immortels de Cole Porter, «faisons-le.

" 12:26 Now, relationship types can be negotiated. 12:26 Ahora, los tipos de relaciones pueden ser negociados. Even though there are default situations in which one of these mindsets can be applied, they can be stretched and extended. Aunque hay situaciones predeterminadas en las que se puede aplicar una de estas mentalidades, se pueden estirar y extender. Même s'il existe des situations par défaut dans lesquelles l'un de ces états d'esprit peut être appliqué, ils peuvent être étirés et étendus. For example, communality applies most naturally within family or friends, but it can be used to try to transfer the mentality of sharing to groups that ordinarily would not be disposed to exercise it. Por ejemplo, la comunalidad se aplica con mayor naturalidad dentro de la familia o los amigos, pero puede usarse para tratar de transferir la mentalidad de compartir a grupos que normalmente no estarían dispuestos a ejercerla. For example, in brotherhoods, fraternal organizations, sororities, locutions like "the family of man, "you try to get people who are not related to use the relationship type that would ordinarily be appropriate to close kin. Por ejemplo, en las cofradías, organizaciones fraternales, hermandades, locuciones como "la familia del hombre", intentas que las personas que no están relacionadas usen el tipo de relación que normalmente sería apropiado para los parientes cercanos. Par exemple, dans les confréries, les organisations fraternelles, les sororités, les locutions comme «la famille de l'homme», vous essayez de faire en sorte que des personnes qui ne sont pas liées utilisent le type de relation qui serait normalement approprié pour les proches parents.

13:05 Now, mismatches -- when one person assumes one relationship type, and another assumes a different one -- can be awkward. 13:05 Ahora, los desajustes, cuando una persona asume un tipo de relación y la otra asume uno diferente, puede ser incómodo. 13:05 Maintenant, les discordances - lorsqu'une personne assume un type de relation et qu'une autre en assume un différent - peuvent être gênantes.

If you went over and you helped yourself to a shrimp off your boss' plate, for example, that would be an awkward situation. Si pasaste y te ayudaste a sacar un camarón del plato de tu jefe, por ejemplo, sería una situación incómoda. Si vous y alliez et que vous vous aidiez à manger une crevette dans l'assiette de votre patron, par exemple, ce serait une situation délicate. Or if a dinner guest after the meal pulled out his wallet and offered to pay you for the meal, that would be rather awkward as well. O si un invitado de la cena después de la comida sacó su billetera y se ofreció a pagar por la comida, también sería algo incómodo. Ou si un invité après le repas sortait son portefeuille et vous proposait de vous payer le repas, ce serait également plutôt gênant. In less blatant cases, there's still a kind of negotiation that often goes on. En casos menos evidentes, todavía hay un tipo de negociación que a menudo continúa. Dans des cas moins flagrants, il y a encore une sorte de négociation qui se poursuit souvent. In the workplace, for example, there's often a tension over whether an employee can socialize with the boss, or refer to him or her on a first-name basis. En el lugar de trabajo, por ejemplo, a menudo existe una tensión sobre si un empleado puede socializar con el jefe, o referirse a él o a una base de primer nombre. Sur le lieu de travail, par exemple, il y a souvent une tension sur la question de savoir si un employé peut socialiser avec le patron ou se référer à lui par son prénom. If two friends have a reciprocal transaction, like selling a car, it's well known that this can be a source of tension or awkwardness. Si dos amigos tienen una transacción recíproca, como vender un auto, es bien sabido que esto puede ser una fuente de tensión o incomodidad. Si deux amis ont une transaction réciproque, comme vendre une voiture, il est bien connu que cela peut être une source de tension ou de gêne. In dating, the transition from friendship to sex can lead to, notoriously, various forms of awkwardness, and as can sex in the workplace, in which we call the conflict between a dominant and a sexual relationship "sexual harassment. En el noviazgo, la transición de la amistad al sexo puede llevar a, de forma no deliberada, diversas formas de torpeza, y como lo puede hacer el sexo en el lugar de trabajo, en el que llamamos el conflicto entre una relación dominante y una sexual "acoso sexual". Dans les fréquentations, le passage de l'amitié au sexe peut conduire, de manière non verbale, à diverses formes de maladresse, et tout comme le sexe au travail, dans lequel on appelle le conflit entre une relation dominante et une relation sexuelle «harcèlement sexuel». " 14:03 Well, what does this have to do with language? 14:03 Bueno, ¿qué tiene esto que ver con el lenguaje? Well, language, as a social interaction, has to satisfy two conditions. You have to convey the actual content --here we get back to the container metaphor. Bueno, el lenguaje, como interacción social, tiene que satisfacer dos condiciones. Usted tiene que transmitir el contenido real, aquí volvemos a la metáfora del contenedor. You want to express the bribe, the command, the promise, the solicitation and so on, but you also have to negotiate and maintain the kind of relationship you have with the other person. The solution, I think, is that we use language at two levels: the literal form signals the safest relationship with the listener, whereas the implicated content --the reading between the lines that we count on the listener to perform --allows the listener to derive the interpretation which is most relevant in context, which possibly initiates a changed relationship. Desea expresar el soborno, el comando, la promesa, la solicitud, etc., pero también tiene que negociar y mantener el tipo de relación que tiene con la otra persona. Creo que la solución es que usemos el lenguaje en dos niveles: la forma literal señala la relación más segura con el oyente, mientras que el contenido implicado, la lectura entre las líneas que contamos con el oyente para realizar, permite al oyente derivar la interpretación más relevante en el contexto, que posiblemente inicia una relación cambiada.

14:45 The simplest example of this is in the polite request. 14:45 El ejemplo más simple de esto está en la solicitud cortés.

If you express your request as a conditional --"if you could open the window, that would be great" --even though the content is an imperative, the fact that you're not using the imperative voice means that you're not acting as if you're in a relationship of dominance, where you could presuppose the compliance of the other person. Si expresa su solicitud como condicional: "si pudiera abrir la ventana, sería genial", aunque el contenido es un imperativo, el hecho de que no esté usando la voz imperativa significa que no está actuando como si estuvieras en una relación de dominio, donde podrías presuponer el cumplimiento de la otra persona. Si vous exprimez votre demande sous forme de condition - "si vous pouviez ouvrir la fenêtre, ce serait génial" - même si le contenu est un impératif, le fait que vous n'utilisiez pas la voix impérative signifie que vous n'êtes pas agissant comme si vous étiez dans une relation de domination, où vous pourriez présupposer la conformité de l'autre personne. On the other hand, you want the damn guacamole. Por otro lado, quieres el maldito guacamole. By expressing it as an if-then statement, you can get the message across without appearing to boss another person around. Al expresarlo como una declaración if-then, puede hacer llegar el mensaje sin que aparezca como jefe de otra persona.

15:18 And in a more subtle way, I think, this works for all of the veiled speech acts involving plausible deniability: the bribes, threats, propositions, solicitations and so on. 15:18 Y de una manera más sutil, creo, esto funciona para todos los actos de discurso encubiertos que implican una negación plausible: los sobornos, las amenazas, las proposiciones, las solicitudes, etc.

One way of thinking about it is to imagine what it would be like if language -- where it could only be used literally. Una forma de pensar al respecto es imaginar cómo sería si el lenguaje, donde solo pudiera usarse literalmente. And you can think of it in terms of a game-theoretic pay off matrix. Y puede pensarlo en términos de una matriz de amortización de la teoría del juego. Et vous pouvez y penser en termes de matrice de rentabilité de la théorie des jeux. Put yourself in the position of the kidnapper wanting to bribe the officer. Ponte en la posición del secuestrador que quiera sobornar al oficial. There's a high stakes in the two possibilities of having a dishonest officer or an honest officer. Hay un alto riesgo en las dos posibilidades de tener un oficial deshonesto o un oficial honesto. Il y a de gros enjeux dans les deux possibilités d'avoir un officier malhonnête ou un officier honnête. If you don't bribe the officer, then you will get a traffic ticket --or, as is the case of "Fargo," worse --whether the honest officer is honest or dishonest. Si no sobornas al oficial, obtendrás una multa de tráfico (o, como es el caso de "Fargo", peor) si el oficial honesto es honesto o deshonesto. Si vous ne soudoyez pas l'officier, alors vous obtiendrez une contravention au trafic - ou, comme c'est le cas de «Fargo», pire encore - si l'officier honnête est honnête ou malhonnête. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Nada aventurado, nada ganado. Hiçbir şey göze alınmadı, hiçbir şey kazanılmadı. In that case, the consequences are rather severe. En ese caso, las consecuencias son bastante severas. On the other hand, if you extend the bribe, if the officer is dishonest, you get a huge pay off of going free. If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty of being arrested for bribery. Si el oficial es honesto, tiene una gran pena de ser arrestado por soborno. So this is a rather fraught situation. Así que esta es una situación bastante complicada. C'est donc une situation plutôt tendue.

16:21 On the other hand, with indirect language, if you issue a veiled bribe, then the dishonest officer could interpret it as a bribe, in which case you get the pay off of going free. 16:21 Por otro lado, con un lenguaje indirecto, si emite un soborno velado, entonces el oficial deshonesto podría interpretarlo como un soborno, en cuyo caso obtendrá el pago de la libertad. 16:21 D'un autre côté, avec un langage indirect, si vous émettez un pot-de-vin voilé, alors l'officier malhonnête pourrait l'interpréter comme un pot-de-vin, auquel cas vous en retirez les bénéfices.

The honest officer can't hold you to it as being a bribe, and therefore, you get the nuisance of the traffic ticket. El oficial honesto no puede hacerle creer que es un soborno, y por lo tanto, usted obtiene la molestia de la multa de tráfico. L'officier honnête ne peut pas vous considérer comme un pot-de-vin, et par conséquent, vous obtenez la nuisance de la contravention de la circulation. So you get the best of both worlds. Así que obtienes lo mejor de ambos mundos. And a similar analysis, I think, can apply to the potential awkwardness of a sexual solicitation, and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset. Y un análisis similar, creo, puede aplicarse a la posible incomodidad de una solicitud sexual, y otros casos en los que la negación plausible es un activo. I think this affirms something that's long been known by diplomats --namely, that the vagueness of language, far from being a bug or an imperfection, actually might be a feature of language, one that we use to our advantage in social interactions. Creo que esto afirma algo que los diplomáticos han sabido durante mucho tiempo, a saber, que la vaguedad del lenguaje, lejos de ser un error o una imperfección, en realidad podría ser una característica del lenguaje, una que usamos para nuestra ventaja en las interacciones sociales.

17:05 So to sum up: language is a collective human creation, reflecting human nature, how we conceptualize reality, how we relate to one another. 17:05 Para resumir: el lenguaje es una creación humana colectiva, que refleja la naturaleza humana, cómo conceptualizamos la realidad, cómo nos relacionamos unos con otros.

And then by analyzing the various quirks and complexities of language, I think we can get a window onto what makes us tick. Y luego, al analizar las diversas peculiaridades y complejidades del lenguaje, creo que podemos obtener una ventana a lo que nos hace funcionar. Et puis en analysant les diverses bizarreries et complexités de la langue, je pense que nous pouvons avoir une fenêtre sur ce qui nous motive. Thank you very much.

17:22 (Applause)