the Honorary Perpetual Secretary of L'Academie francaise,

這是莫理斯圖翁

the French Academy.

他是法蘭西學院的

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

榮譽終身院士

befitting the role of the French Academy

他身穿價值六萬八千美元的華麗院士服

as legislating the

與他在法蘭西學院的職責十分相稱

correct usage in French

他的工作是負責規範

and perpetuating the language.

法文的正確用法

The French Academy has two main tasks:

並確保法文永垂不朽

it compiles a dictionary of official French.

法蘭西學術院肩負兩項使命：

They're now working on their ninth edition,

編纂官方版的法文字典--

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

現在正在編第九版

They also legislate on correct usage,

他們從1930年就開始了，現在編到字母P

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

這些人也規範語言的正確用法

which ought to be "courriel."

例如，"email"的準確叫法

The World Wide Web, the French are told,

應該是"courriel"

ought to be referred to as

而網際網路 "World Wide Web"

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

應該要稱為

recommendations that the French gaily ignore.

"la toile d'araignee mondiale"--全球蜘蛛網

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

種種法國人興高采烈地忽略的建議

namely, it's legislated by an academy.

好，這是語言演化的模式之一

But anyone who looks at language realizes

也就是由學術研究院規範語言

that this is a rather silly conceit,

但研究語言的人都會知道

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

這是個有點愚蠢的妄想

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

我們都知道，語言源自於人與人之間的互動

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

我們看到，語言不斷在改變

it will already be well out of date.

等到法蘭西學院編完他們的字典

We see it in the

這本字典早就過時了

constant appearance of slang and jargon,

我們也看到

of the historical change in languages,

新的俚語和行話不斷出現

in divergence of dialects

語言歷經歷史演變

and the formation of new languages.

方言產生分歧

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

新的語言形成

so much as a window onto human nature.

因此，不能說語言創造或塑造了人性

In a book that I'm currently working on,

語言反倒是個窗口，讓我們得以一窺人性

I hope to use language to shed light on

在我正在撰寫的這本書中

a number of aspects of human nature,

我希望藉由語言來闡述

including the cognitive machinery

人性的某些面向

with which humans conceptualize the world

包括認知機制

and the relationship types that govern human interaction.

也就是人類理解世界的機制

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

還有掌管人際互動的各種關係

Let me start off with a technical problem in language

今天早上，我會針對這幾項逐一簡述

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

首先，我要談談語言裡的一個技術性問題

and indulge me

這個問題困擾我許久了

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

也請各位容我分享

The problem is, which verbs go in which constructions?

我對動詞和動詞用法的熱情

The verb is the chassis of the sentence.

這個問題就是，什麼動詞用在什麼句構裡？

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

動詞是一個句子的基礎

Let me give you a quick reminder

讓其他詞類可以建構於其上

of something that you've long forgotten.

讓我很快地提醒各位

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

一件大家早就忘記的事

can't take a direct object.

不及物動詞，像是用餐 (dine) 這個字

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

後面不能接直接受詞

A transitive verb mandates

你要說 "山姆用餐了"，不能說 "山姆用餐披薩"

that there has to be an object there:

而及物動詞的規則是

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

後面一定要接受詞

There are dozens or scores of verbs of this type,

"山姆吞下了 (devour) 披薩"，不能說 "山姆吞下了"

each of which shapes its sentence.

還有很多像這樣的動詞

So, a problem in explaining how children learn language,

每個動詞都塑造了句子的樣貌

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

所以，該如何解釋兒童習得語言的方法

and a problem in programming computers to use language is

該如何教成人學語言，讓他們不會犯文法錯誤

which verbs go in which constructions.

該怎麼設計程式，讓電腦使用語言

For example, the dative construction in English.

問題都出在於：什麼動詞用在什麼句構裡？

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

以英文的授與句型為例

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

你可以用介詞授與： "把小蛋糕給老鼠"

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

或使用雙受詞授與： "給老鼠小蛋糕"

Hundreds of verbs can go both ways.

"把任何承諾給她"、 "給她任何承諾" 等等

So a tempting generalization for a child,

有上百個動詞在兩種句法裡都行得通

for an adult, for a computer

於是小孩很容易以此類推

is that any verb that can appear in the construction,

大人和電腦也是

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

認為任何動詞只要能放在

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

"主詞+動詞+事物+to 受格" 這種句構裡

A handy thing to have,

就也能出現在: "主詞+動詞+受格+事物" 這種句子裡

because language is infinite,

這樣的推斷很方便

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

因為語言無窮盡

You've got to extract generalizations

你沒辦法重述所聽到的每句話

so you can produce and understand new sentences.

所以你得歸納出一些規則

This would be an example of how to do that.

好讓你可以造出並理解新的句子

Unfortunately, there appear to be idiosyncratic exceptions.

剛剛的用法就是一例

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

不幸地，有許多不尋常的例外

but not, "Biff drove Chicago the car."

你可以說"貝夫開車到芝加哥"

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

但不能說"貝夫開芝加哥到車"

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

你可以說"薩爾讓傑森很頭痛"

The solution is that these constructions, despite initial appearance,

但說成"薩爾把頭痛給了傑森" 就有點奇怪了

are not synonymous,

答案就是，這些句構雖然句面上相近

that when you crank up the microscope

卻不盡相同

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

如果你把顯微鏡倍數調高一點

in meaning between them.

用力觀察人類認知，就會發現這些句子

So, "give the X to the Y,"

在意義上有些微的差距

that construction corresponds to the thought

所以，"把X給Y"

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

這個句構反映了

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

"使X移動到Y那兒去"，而 "給YX"

Now, many events can be subject to either construal,

反映了 "讓Y有了X"

kind of like the classic figure-ground reversal illusions,

好，很多事件都可以解讀為其中一種概念

in which you can either pay attention

這有點像是圖與地的錯覺測驗

to the particular object,

你可以將注意力放在

in which case the space around it recedes from attention,

某一樣物體上面

or you can see the faces in the empty space,

這時候，你就會忽略旁邊的背景

in which case the object recedes out of consciousness.

你也可以只注意背景中的臉孔

How are these construals reflected in language?

這時候，畫面中的物體就會受到忽略

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

這樣的解構怎麼反映在語言上面呢？

is expressed as the direct object,

嗯，在這兩種情況下，被認為受到影響的事物

the noun after the verb.

以直接受詞的形式出現

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

也就是動詞後面的名詞

where you're doing something to the muffin --

所以如果你認為這個動作使得小蛋糕移動到某處去

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

也就是你對小蛋糕做動作的地方--

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

你會說 "把小蛋糕給老鼠"

you're doing something to the mouse,

如果你解讀成 "使得老鼠獲得了某物"

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

你對老鼠做了動作

So which verbs go in which construction --

那麼，你就會說 "給老鼠小蛋糕"

the problem with which I began --

所以，什麼動詞用在什麼句構裡--

depends on whether the verb specifies a kind of motion

我開頭提到的這個問題

or a kind of possession change.

取決於該動詞是否點明了一種運動

To give something involves both causing something to go

還是代表著所有權的轉換

and causing someone to have.

授與某物包括使得某物移動

To drive the car only causes something to go,

以及使得某人獲得某物

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

開車只造成某物移動

Only humans can possess things.

因為芝加哥沒辦法擁有某物

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

只有人類可以擁有事物

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

而"讓某人頭痛"使得他們頭很痛

and causing it to go to the other person,

但你不能把你的頭痛從腦袋裡取出來

and implanting it in them.

使它移動到別人那兒

You may just be loud or obnoxious,

然後想辦法讓別人頭痛

or some other way causing them to have the headache.

你只能大聲喧鬧或討人厭

So, that's

或用其他方法使別人頭痛

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

所以這個例子

So why should anyone care?

就說明了我每天在做的工作

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

為什麼有人要在乎這種事？

from this and many similar kinds of analyses

嗯，我認為有很多有趣的結論

of hundreds of English verbs.

可以從這種還有許多類似的分析中得出

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

從分析上百個英文動詞中得出

which we automatically and unconsciously compute

首先，有種非常微妙的認知結構

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

是我們自動或下意識地在運用的

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

影響我們造出或說出每個支配我們語言使用的句子

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

你可以把它想成思想的語言，或心理語言

which govern dozens of constructions and thousands of verbs --

它似乎建構於一種固有的概念之上

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

這樣的概念支配了十幾種句構和上千個動詞的用法

fundamental concepts such as space,

不只在英文裡，在其他語言裡也有這種

time, causation and human intention,

基本的概念，例如，空間

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

時間、因果關係和動機

These are reminiscent of the kinds of categories

像是，哪個是手段，哪個是目的？

that Immanuel Kant argued

這與"範疇"有異曲同工之妙

are the basic framework for human thought,

康德認為這些範疇

and it's interesting that our unconscious use of language

組成了人類思想的基本架構

seems to reflect these Kantian categories.

有趣的是，我們下意識中所使用的語言

Doesn't care about perceptual qualities,

似乎反映了康德所提出的範疇

such as color, texture, weight and speed,

我們的語言不在乎感觀的特徵

which virtually never differentiate

像是顏色、質地、重量和速度

the use of verbs in different constructions.

這些幾乎都不會影響

An additional twist is that all of the constructions in English

不同句構中動詞的用法

are used not only literally,

此外，英文裡所有的句構

but in a quasi-metaphorical way.

都不只具有字面的意義

For example, this construction, the dative,

還帶有一些隱喻的意味

is used not only to transfer things,

比如說，這個授與句型

but also for the metaphorical transfer of ideas,

不只能用來轉讓事物

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

還能用來移轉想法

or "told me a story,"

像我們說: "她講故事給我聽"

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

或 "她跟我講故事"

It's exactly the same construction,

"馬克斯教授西班牙文給學生"或"教學生西班牙文"

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

這些都是相同的句構

It evokes the container metaphor of communication,

但句子裡沒有小蛋糕，也沒有老鼠。沒有東西移動

in which we conceive of ideas as objects,

這就引發了溝通裡的"容器隱喻"

sentences as containers,

我們將想法視為物體

and communication as a kind of sending.

把句子當成容器

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

而溝通是一種傳送方式

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

就像我們說，將想法"收集"起來，"放進"文字裡

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

而如果我們的話語不至於"空洞"或"空泛"

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

我們就可以將想法"傳達"給聽者

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

聽者可以"拆解"我們的話語，"擷取"其中的"內容"

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

這些用語不是例外，而是規則

that is not based on some concrete metaphor.

很難從抽象的語言中找到任何

For example, you can use the verb "go"

不是建立於具體的譬喻之上的例子

and the prepositions "to" and "from"

舉例而言，你可以用"去" (go) 這個動詞

in a literal, spatial sense.

搭配介系詞"到"(to) 和"從" (from)

"The messenger went from Paris to Istanbul."

表達空間概念

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

"信差從巴黎去到伊斯坦堡"

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

你也可以說 "貝夫從生病到康復"

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

他不用去哪裡，他可能一直都躺在床上

that you conceptualize as moving.

但他的健康就像狀態空間裡的一個點

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

而你想像這個點會移動

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

或者， "會議從三點開到四點"

Likewise, we use "force" to indicate

我們想像時間綿延於一條線上

not only physical force,

同樣地，我們利用"force" (用力、強迫)

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

指的不只是身體的力量

but also interpersonal force,

像是 "羅絲用力把門打開"

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

也可以指涉人際上的力量

but by issuing a threat.

像是 "羅絲強迫珊蒂離開"--不一定要親自動手

Or, "Rose forced herself to go,"

可以利用威脅利誘

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

或是 "羅絲強迫自己離開"

engaged in a tug of a war.

彷彿羅絲腦袋裡有兩個個體

Second conclusion is that the ability to conceive

正在進行一場拔河戰

of a given event in two different ways,

我得出的另一個結論是，解構的能力

such as "cause something to go to someone"

將一件事情解讀成兩種意義的能力

and "causing someone to have something,"

像是 "使得某物移動到某人那兒去"

I think is a fundamental feature of human thought,

以及"使得某人擁有某物"

and it's the basis for much human argumentation,

是人類思想最基本的特質

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

也是人們許多爭論的來源

as on how they ought to be construed.

與其說大家對事實爭論不下

Just to give you a few examples:

不如說他們對事實的解讀方法有不同見解

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

給各位幾個例子：

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

"結束妊娠期" 和 "殺死胎兒"

"invading Iraq" versus "liberating Iraq;"

"一團細胞" 和 "未出世的孩子"

"redistributing wealth" versus "confiscating earnings."

"入侵伊拉克" 和 "解放伊拉克"

And I think the biggest picture of all

"重新分配財富" 和 "沒收所得"

would take seriously the fact

而我認為，若採取最宏觀的角度

that so much of our verbiage about abstract events

你會認真地看待一個事實

is based on a concrete metaphor

那就是，我們描述抽象事件的用語

and see human intelligence itself

大多建立於具體的譬喻之上

as consisting of a repertoire of concepts --

你會將人類的智能本身視為

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

涵蓋了一系列的概念--

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

諸如目的、空間、時間、因果關係和意圖--

whose evolution you can well imagine,

對於需要大量社交和知識的物種非常有用

and a process of metaphorical abstraction

這個物種的演化各位都很熟悉

that allows us to bleach these concepts

而人類智能還包含抽象隱喻的過程

of their original conceptual content --

讓我們抽離這些概念裡面

space, time and force --

原有的內涵--

and apply them to new abstract domains,

空間、時間和力量--

therefore allowing a species that evolved

然後用在新的抽象領域上

to deal with rocks and tools and animals,

所以一個已經進化到

to conceptualize mathematics, physics, law

學會使用石器、工具和禽獸的物種

and other abstract domains.

也能了解數學、物理、法律

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

和其他抽象的領域

the cognitive machinery with which we conceptualize the world,

嗯，我說我會講到人性的兩扇窗口：

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

剛剛提到我們解構這個世界的認知機制

that govern human social interaction,

現在我要講的是不同類型的人際關係

again, as reflected in language.

它們掌控了人類的社交互動

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

以及這些關係如何反映在語言上面

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

我首先要講個謎題：間接語言行為的謎題

And you might remember the scene in which

相信很多人都看過《冰血暴》這部電影

the kidnapper is pulled over by a police officer,

你可能記得在其中一幕裡

is asked to show his driver's license

警察攔下綁匪的車

and holds his wallet out

請他出示駕照

with a 50-dollar bill extending

而綁匪舉起皮夾

at a slight angle out of the wallet.

裡頭露出一張五十美元的鈔票

And he says, "I was just thinking

以微妙的角度若隱若現著

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