in something that's actually one of the oldest questions in economics,

他們關注的，其實就是經濟學最古老的問題之一

dating back to at least before Adam Smith.

這至少要追朔到亞當 · 史密斯 (現代經濟學之父) 之前

And that is, why is it that countries with seemingly similar economies and institutions

這個問題是，為什麼經濟模式和金融體制類似的國家

can display radically different savings behavior?

其國民儲蓄的行為卻天差地遠？

Now, many brilliant economists have spent their entire lives working on this question,

許多才華洋溢的經濟學家投入了畢生精力鑽研這個問題

and as a field we've made a tremendous amount of headway

經濟學領域的人士在這方面已取得極為豐碩的進展

and we understand a lot about this.

對此問題頗有心得。

What I'm here to talk with you about today is an intriguing new hypothesis

今天我在這裡要跟大家說的是個有趣的新假設

and some surprisingly powerful new findings that I've been working on

和一些經過我不斷研究後所得出的強有力的新發現

about the link between the structure of the language you speak

那就是，人們的語言文法結構

and how you find yourself with the propensity to save.

與人們的儲蓄傾向之間的關聯。

Let me tell you a little bit about savings rates, a little bit about language,

讓我來簡要談談關儲蓄率以及語言

and then I'll draw that connection.

然後我會點出兩者間的關聯。

Let's start by thinking about the member countries of the OECD,

首先讓我們想想經合組織 (OECD) 的成員國

or the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development.

全名是經濟合作與發展組織。

OECD countries, by and large, you should think about these

經合組織的會員國，基本上，你們可以把他們當作

as the richest, most industrialized countries in the world.

世上最富有，工業化程度最高的國家。

And by joining the OECD, they were affirming a common commitment

選擇加入經合組織時，他們做出了一個共同的承諾

to democracy, open markets and free trade.

即支持民主、 公開市場和自由貿易。

Despite all of these similarities, we see huge differences in savings behavior.

儘管有這麼多相似之處，我們仍發現儲蓄行為有極大的差異。

So all the way over on the left of this graph,

這張圖表由右向左一路上升

what you see is many OECD countries saving over a quarter of their GDP every year,

你們可以看到，許多經合組織會員國的存款都超過該國年度 GDP 的 25%

and some OECD countries saving over a third of their GDP per year.

有些經合組織會員國的存款甚至超過其年度 GDP 的三分之一。

Holding down the right flank of the OECD, all the way on the other side, is Greece.

而把右半邊的經合組織會員國往下拉的，就是希臘。

And what you can see is that over the last 25 years,

你們可以看到，過去 25 年來，

Greece has barely managed to save more than 10 percent of their GDP.

希臘的存款勉強超過該國 GDP 的一成。

It should be noted, of course, that the United States and the U.K. are the next in line.

當然，值得注意的是，英國和美國緊接在旁。

Now that we see these huge differences in savings rates,

現在我們看到了這些差異極大的儲蓄率

how is it possible that language might have something to do with these differences?

這些差異怎麼可能是語言造成的呢？

Let me tell you a little bit about how languages fundamentally differ.

讓我來簡要說說語言之間在根本上的差異。

Linguists and cognitive scientists have been exploring this question for many years now.

多年來，語言學家和認知科學家一直在探討這個問題。

And then I'll draw the connection between these two behaviors.

然後我會點出這兩種行為之間的關係。

Many of you have probably already noticed that I'm Chinese.

你們很多人可能已經注意到了，我是中國人。

I grew up in the Midwest of the United States.

我在美國的中西部長大。

And something I realized quite early on

很早以前我就發現一件事

was that the Chinese language forced me to speak about and --

那就是說中文的時候我不得不提到......

in fact, more fundamentally than that --

事實上，不光是提到......

ever so slightly forced me to think about family in very different ways.

說中文讓我必須從完全不同的角度來思考家庭這個概念。

Now, how might that be? Let me give you an example.

那是甚麼意思呢？我舉個例子給你們聽。

Suppose I were talking with you and I was introducing you to my uncle.

假設我在跟你說話，然後我介紹我 uncle 給你認識。

You understood exactly what I just said in English.

我用英文說，你絕對聽得懂。

If we were speaking Mandarin Chinese with each other, though,

如果說，我們倆講的是普通話，

I wouldn't have that luxury.

事情可就沒那麼好解決了。

I wouldn't have been able to convey so little information.

我所要傳遞的信息將大大增加。

What my language would have forced me to do,

我的語言將迫使我

instead of just telling you, "This is my uncle,"

不能只是告訴你 "這是我的 uncle"

is to tell you a tremendous amount of additional information.

是要告訴你大量的額外資訊。

My language would force me to tell you

我的語言迫使我告訴你

whether or not this was an uncle on my mother's side or my father's side,

他是我母親那邊的還是我父親那一邊的 uncle，

whether this was an uncle by marriage or by birth,

這位 uncle 是我血親或是姻親，

and if this man was my father's brother,

如果這個人是我父親的兄弟，

whether he was older than or younger than my father.

他比我父親年長或是年輕。

All of this information is obligatory. Chinese doesn't let me ignore it.

所有這些資訊是強迫附帶的。我說中文時無法忽略。

And in fact, if I want to speak correctly,

事實上，如果我想說得準確，

Chinese forces me to constantly think about it.

中文讓我必須不斷地思索這些關係。

Now, that fascinated me endlessly as a child,

我小時候對這些著迷得不得了，

but what fascinates me even more today as an economist

但是今天讓我這個經濟學家更著迷的，

is that some of these same differences carry through to how languages speak about time.

是這些同類型的差異如何影響到語言對時間的描述。

So for example, if I'm speaking in English, I have to speak grammatically differently

例如，如果我說英語，我必須用文法說出其中差異

if I'm talking about past rain, "It rained yesterday,"

如果我談論的是下過的雨："It rained yesterday,"

current rain, "It is raining now,"

正在下的雨："It is raining now,"

or future rain, "It will rain tomorrow."

或是未來的雨："It will rain tomorrow."。

Notice that English requires a lot more information with respect to the timing of events.

請注意，英語需要更多的訊息來描述時間因素。

Why? Because I have to consider that

為什麼？因為我要考慮時間

and I have to modify what I'm saying to say, "It will rain," or "It's going to rain."

然後我要修正我想說的 ："It will rain," 或是 "It's going to rain."

It's simply not permissible in English to say, "It rain tomorrow."

英語就是不允許你說 ："It rain tomorrow."

In contrast to that, that's almost exactly what you would say in Chinese.

相反地，這差不多就是我們說中文的方式

A Chinese speaker can basically say something

基本上，以中文為母語的人說出來的話

that sounds very strange to an English speaker's ears.

在以英文為母語的人聽來會很奇怪。

They can say, "Yesterday it rain," "Now it rain," "Tomorrow it rain."

他們會說："Yesterday it rain," "Now it rain" "Tomorrow it rain."

In some deep sense, Chinese doesn't divide up the time spectrum

深究此點，我們發現中國人不會將時間分割開來，

in the same way that English forces us to constantly do in order to speak correctly.

而我們為了說出正確的英文，卻必須不斷地提醒自己這點。

Is this difference in languages

語言之間的這種差異

only between very, very distantly related languages, like English and Chinese?

只存在於關係極為疏遠的語系之間，像是英文和中文嗎？

Actually, no.

其實不是。

So many of you know, in this room, that English is a Germanic language.

現場的各位中很多人都知道了，英語屬於日爾曼語族。

What you may not have realized is that English is actually an outlier.

而你們可能不知道，其實英語是不合群份子。

It is the only Germanic language that requires this.

英語是日爾曼語族中唯一需要時態的。

For example, most other Germanic language speakers

舉例來說，大多數其他的日爾曼語族使用者

feel completely comfortable talking about rain tomorrow

聊到明天的天氣，他們會自然而然地說

by saying, "Morgen regnet es,"

"Morgen regnet es，" (德語)

quite literally to an English ear, "It rain tomorrow."

翻成英文後，聽在他們耳裡成了："It rain tomorrow."

This led me, as a behavioral economist, to an intriguing hypothesis.

這讓我這個行為經濟學家有了靈感，提出了一個有趣的假說。

Could how you speak about time, could how your language forces you to think about time,

人們談論時間的方式，人們說母語時必須考慮的時態，

affect your propensity to behave across time?

會影響自己長期的行為傾向嗎？

You speak English, a futured language.

你們說的是英語，有未來式的語言。

And what that means is that every time you discuss the future,

這表示，每次你們在討論未來，

or any kind of a future event,

或是任何尚未發生的事件，

grammatically you're forced to cleave that from the present

文法的限制使你們必須區分現在和未來，

and treat it as if it's something viscerally different.

並確信這兩者在本質上有所不同。

Now suppose that that visceral difference

假設這種本質上的不同

makes you subtly dissociate the future from the present every time you speak.

讓你們每次說話時都能敏銳地分割現在和未來。

If that's true and it makes the future feel

如果這點成立，那麼你們心中的未來

like something more distant and more different from the present,

會是遙遠的，不同於現在的一個概念，

that's going to make it harder to save.

這種心態會讓人不想存錢。

If, on the other hand, you speak a futureless language,

如果，相對來說，你們講的是沒有未來式的語言，

the present and the future, you speak about them identically.

對於現在和未來，你們的說法完全相同。

If that subtly nudges you to feel about them identically,

如果這種微妙的傾向，讓你們對現在與未來一視同仁

that's going to make it easier to save.

這種心態讓人想要存錢。

Now this is a fanciful theory.

這是一個天馬行空的理論。

I'm a professor, I get paid to have fanciful theories.

我是個教授，有人付錢請我提出天馬行空的理論。

But how would you actually go about testing such a theory?

但要這種理論要如何實際測試？

Well, what I did with that was to access the linguistics literature.

各位，我的做法是查閱語言學文獻。

And interestingly enough, there are pockets of futureless language speakers

很有趣的是，語言裡沒有未來式的族群為數不少，

situated all over the world.

他們遍佈世界各地。

This is a pocket of futureless language speakers in Northern Europe.

這是一些為主歐洲北部的沒有未來式的少數族群。

Interestingly enough, when you start to crank the data,

很有趣的是，我開始分析資料時發現，

these pockets of futureless language speakers all around the world

這些遍佈世界的，不講未來式的少數族群

turn out to be, by and large, some of the world's best savers.

其實是，廣義來說，世界上最會存錢的人。

Just to give you a hint of that,

就做一個簡單的演示，

let's look back at that OECD graph that we were talking about.

我們回頭看看剛才我們在談論的經合組織儲蓄圖。

What you see is that these bars are systematically taller

你們會發現這幾個國家的數值

and systematically shifted to the left

平均偏高，多半在圖表的左邊

compared to these bars which are the members of the OECD that speak futured languages.

與那些文法有未來式的經合組織成員相比。

What is the average difference here?

這張圖的平均值差異是多少？

Five percentage points of your GDP saved per year.

每年拿該國 GDP 的百分之五來做儲蓄。

Over 25 years that has huge long-run effects on the wealth of your nation.

25 年后，這將對本國金融有長遠而重要的影響。

Now while these findings are suggestive,

雖然這些數據能作此解讀

countries can be different in so many different ways

國與國之間會有各種不同的差異

that it's very, very difficult sometimes to account for all of these possible differences.

有時候，要解釋所有這些可能的差異是極為常困難的事。

What I'm going to show you, though, is something that I've been engaging in for a year,

然而我等一下要提供的，是這一年來我埋頭研究的東西

which is trying to gather all of the largest datasets

藉由經濟學家身分之便，我收集了那些...

that we have access to as economists,

極為龐大的資料集，並試圖將之彙整

and I'm going to try and strip away all of those possible differences,

然後我試圖剔除所有那些可能的差異，

hoping to get this relationship to break.

希望發現這兩種關係之間的盲點。

And just in summary, no matter how far I push this, I can't get it to break.

總而言之，不管我做了多少推論，還是沒有突破。

Let me show you how far you can do that.

讓我向你們展示一下研究可以達到甚麼程度。

One way to imagine that is I gather large datasets from around the world.

你們可以想像一下，我收集了世界各地的龐大資料集。

So for example, there is the Survey of Health, [Aging] and Retirement in Europe.

例如說，歐洲的健康和 [老化] 退休人口的調查。

From this dataset you actually learn that retired European families

這個資料集會讓你們瞭解，歐洲的退休家庭

are extremely patient with survey takers.

真的對調查者都極有耐心。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So imagine that you're a retired household in Belgium and someone comes to your front door.

想像一下，你是退休的比利時人，然後你家門口來了個訪客。

"Excuse me, would you mind if I peruse your stock portfolio?

"不好意思，請問可以讓我細讀您的股票投資組合嗎？

Do you happen to know how much your house is worth? Do you mind telling me?

您是否知道這間房子的價格呢？可以告訴我嗎？

Would you happen to have a hallway that's more than 10 meters long?

您府上走廊的長度該不會剛好超過 10 米吧？

If you do, would you mind if I timed how long it took you to walk down that hallway?

如果是的話，可以讓我計算您通過走廊要花多少時間嗎？

Would you mind squeezing as hard as you can, in your dominant hand, this device

可以請您盡量大力握，用您的慣用手，握這個設備，

so I can measure your grip strength?

好讓我測量您的握力嗎？

How about blowing into this tube so I can measure your lung capacity?"

可以吹這根管子讓我測量您的肺容量嗎？"

The survey takes over a day.

這項調查費時一天以上。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Combine that with a Demographic and Health Survey

結合這些數據與其他調查，例如說......

collected by USAID in developing countries in Africa, for example,

美國國際開發署在非洲的發展中國家蒐集的數據

which that survey actually can go so far as to directly measure the HIV status

這個調查連愛滋病毒感染狀況的數據都可以直接呈現

of families living in, for example, rural Nigeria.

針對的是......比方說，奈及利亞的農家成員。

Combine that with a world value survey,

把這些數據與世界範圍內的調查相結合，

which measures the political opinions and, fortunately for me, the savings behaviors

也就是政治傾向......以及算我好運......儲蓄行為的調查

of millions of families in hundreds of countries around the world.

針對全世界數百個國家的數百萬家庭。

Take all of that data, combine it, and this map is what you get.

取得所有資料、將之整合，最後得到這張圖。

What you find is nine countries around the world

你們會發現，全世界有九個國家

that have significant native populations

他們有大量的原住民人口

which speak both futureless and futured languages.

有的說未來式，有的不說未來式。

And what I'm going to do is form statistical matched pairs

而我的做法是，用統計學將其配對，

between families that are nearly identical on every dimension that I can measure,

我盡可能地考慮各個層面，並撮合所有條件幾乎相同的家庭，

and then I'm going to explore whether or not the link between language and savings holds

接著我會大膽推測，語言和儲蓄之間的聯繫是否存在，

even after controlling for all of these levels.

連所有這些因素都考量進去的情況下。

What are the characteristics we can control for?

我們能控制哪些特質因素？

Well I'm going to match families on country of birth and residence,

我要以出生國和居住國為撮合因素，

the demographics -- what sex, their age --

還有人口統計學 -- 他們的性別，年紀，

their income level within their own country,

他們與本國居民相比的收入水準，

their educational achievement, a lot about their family structure.

他們的教育成就，家庭結構的細節。

It turns out there are six different ways to be married in Europe.

結果發現，歐洲有六種不同的結婚方式。

And most granularly, I break them down by religion

我用宗教做為劃分依據，可說是鉅細靡遺，

where there are 72 categories of religions in the world --

全世界有七十二種宗教派別，

so an extreme level of granularity.

因此區別程度極為精細。

There are 1.4 billion different ways that a family can find itself.

單個家庭會有十四億種區分標準。

Now effectively everything I'm going to tell you from now on

現在開始，所有我要告訴你們的，

is only comparing these basically nearly identical families.

其實只有比較這些大致相類似的家庭。

It's getting as close as possible to the thought experiment

我盡可能地讓腦中的想法付諸實驗，

of finding two families both of whom live in Brussels

我找到兩個家庭成員，都住在布魯塞爾，

who are identical on every single one of these dimensions,

他們每方面的條件都相似，

but one of whom speaks Flemish and one of whom speaks French;

但是一個家庭說佛蘭芒语，另一個說法語；

or two families that live in a rural district in Nigeria,

又或是奈及利亞郊區的兩個家庭，

one of whom speaks Hausa and one of whom speaks Igbo.

其中一個說豪撒語，另一個說伊博語。

Now even after all of this granular level of control,

現在連控制變因都做到如此細緻了，

do futureless language speakers seem to save more?

不說外來式的人存的錢比較多嗎？

Yes, futureless language speakers, even after this level of control,

沒錯，不說未來式的人，即便控制變因已如此細緻

are 30 percent more likely to report having saved in any given year.

他們在任何一年內都有多三成的可能性進行儲蓄。

Does this have cumulative effects?

這會有累積效應嗎？

Yes, by the time they retire, futureless language speakers, holding constant their income,

沒錯，等到退休時，這些收入穩定，不說未來式的人，

are going to retire with 25 percent more in savings.

退休時的儲蓄還會再多四分之一。

Can we push this data even further?

我們能用這些資料進一步假設嗎？

Yes, because I just told you, we actually collect a lot of health data as economists.

可以，因為我說了，事實上我們經濟學家收集了很多健康資訊。

Now how can we think about health behaviors to think about savings?

為什麼我們能從健康習慣聯想到儲蓄呢？

Well, think about smoking, for example.

舉個例子，你們想想抽菸。

Smoking is in some deep sense negative savings.

仔細思考後會發現抽菸是負面的儲蓄。

If savings is current pain in exchange for future pleasure,

如果說儲蓄是用當下的痛苦換取未來的愉悅，

smoking is just the opposite.

抽菸則是相反情況。

It's current pleasure in exchange for future pain.

抽菸是用當下的愉悅換取未來的痛苦。

What we should expect then is the opposite effect.

而到頭來我們期待的會是另外一種結果。

And that's exactly what we find.

事實上，這就是我們的發現。

Futureless language speakers are 20 to 24 percent less likely

與其他條件幾乎相同的家庭比較，

to be smoking at any given point in time compared to identical families,

不說未來式的人，任何時間點的抽菸可能性大約低了 20-24%。

and they're going to be 13 to 17 percent less likely

他們退休時的肥胖可能性

to be obese by the time they retire,

大約少了13-17%，

and they're going to report being 21 percent more likely

根據報告，在上一次性行為時使用了保險套

to have used a condom in their last sexual encounter.

的可能性要多21%。

I could go on and on with the list of differences that you can find.

我可以一項項地列舉這些差異。

It's almost impossible not to find a savings behavior

幾乎很難找到一種儲蓄習慣......

for which this strong effect isn't present.

不受這種強而有力的效應影響。

My linguistics and economics colleagues at Yale and I are just starting to do this work

我和我在耶魯的語言學和經濟學同事們，正開始進行這研究，

and really explore and understand the ways that these subtle nudges

我們真的發現了並理解這種微妙的推力

cause us to think more or less about the future every single time we speak.

或多或少讓我們每次講到未來時都會稍加思考。

Ultimately, the goal,

最後，我們的目標是，

once we understand how these subtle effects can change our decision making,