Steven Pinker: What our language habits reveal
2007 ж. 10 Қыр.
436 510 Рет қаралды
www.ted.com In an exclusive preview of his book The Stuff of Thought, Steven Pinker looks at language and how it expresses what goes on in our minds -- and how the words we choose communicate much more than we realize.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers are invited to give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes -- including speakers such as Jill Bolte Taylor, Sir Ken Robinson, Hans Rosling, Al Gore and Arthur Benjamin. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, politics and the arts. Watch the Top 10 TEDTalks on TED.com, at
www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10
notes almost all abstractions, concepts are communicated using concrete metaphors this moved us from manipulating physical objects to digital/abstract ones (like math) we conceive of events in 2 different ways - 1. cause X to happen to Y, 2. cause Y to receive X so we’re “redistributing wealth” versus “confiscating earnings”, “ending pregnancy” versus “killing a fetus”, “invading Iraq” versus “liberating Iraq” why are so many bribes, threats, requests veiled when both parties know what’s going on? "language is way of negotiating relationships" types: a) communality, b) dominance, c) reciprocity, d) sexuality these mindsets can be stretched (e.g., communality is common w/ family but could be in fraternities) mismatches can be awkward language must satisfy 2 conditions: 1. convey information 2. negotiate relationship thus veiled language as way to negotiate relationship polite request is conditional, even though content is imperative, but not using imperative/dominant voice, allows you to get message across without using dominance another example is “plausible deniability” can be game theoretic
Steve Pinker is one of the most fascinating thinkers of our time. He is getting to the root of knowledge via the subtle clues in our language usage. His examples are extremely perceptive. He is helping us all see through the veneer of "words", deeper into "meaning" -- very stimulating!
Language expresses human experience, language has evolved due to our interdependence in the origins of technologies which condition our economic existence, it is emotion and inhibition which limit human literacy.
Pinker is an able communicator, but most of the content of the this lecture would be included on any university linguistics course.
Trying to watch this at 3:13 in the morning was a bad idea. All I've gathered from this was "give a mouse a muffin" hahahah tomorrow perhaps...
I never thought language could be that much complicated thing. Thank you professor for the insight.
wow...i think im gona have to watch that again, ive never read/heard anything about the analysis of language with scientific implications....so many possabilities and ideas have occured in 17mins thanks! to TED
I love listening to Pinker talk.
Ugh, totally agree. It blasts my ears out when I listen with headphones...
Thanks for posting this. He's great. (and "go brights!")
Agreed. Hearing it more than once is one too many times.
Thought this was going to be one of those chat shows that relies on trivia and curious knownledge. Not dissapointed though! I'm a Modern Languages students and I teach English to Spanish native speakers, most of them adults. This was incredibly helpful!
you mean "native spanish speakers"
I like the 'do. Reminds me of my youth in the sixties. Groovy!
one of my top 5 fav ted talks....sad that it has so little views
seems like you have good taste, would you mind sharing your orher favs? :)
song is supposed to be the Triumphal March from the opera Aida by Verdi. Cool intro song to me. Pinker is a genius though he missed on Brainerd yes.
there's no way anyone got through this video voluntarily
watching it for fun before bed
@@wilaustu haha same
Watching this for my video quiz 😂
I'm going to
I did
I think Pinker would like Japanese grammar. Because in Japanese, there's verb constructions that actually add the words "to give", "to go" and "to come" to other verbs, where in English the intent would be invisible. For example "She taught me" in Japanese: She gave to me that she taught me. Or "Bring beer!": "Bring beer while coming."
TOTALLY AGREE!
There is a simpler rule at 6:00 for English use of transitives with/without a preposition (w/w/out "to"). Giving or doing a thing physicallyrequires a preposition. So, you drive a car to Chicago. Giving or doing a thing indirectly/metaphorically/non-physically can have or not have a preposition. So, you give her a hard time but you give it to herhard, or you give her a headache, and she really hands it to you, but she hands you your head, not "to you," hoping to mean figurative, not murder.
oh shut up
it is important to build bridges to the general public.
Does the intro need to be that annoying?
Yes. Buy our cars.
Wow! Mark Twain, you watching TED
It's less annoying than looking at this person with a sexual identity problem. I find his appearance more annoying than the intro.
@@gabesmokeymartatom What a world, where having curly hair means you have a sexual identity problem...
intresting how this changed from annoying intros to gender identity.
anyone else love the epic TED intro?
Why does the beginning and ending of sessions with TED logo - Blare with such Annoying Sound. Whosoever does the sound recording is damn stupid.
The term "black hole" describes a type of singularity. They can be found by making observations on what could possibly be a singularity and then ruling out the other possibilities.
I was sent here for an assignment and I don't think I understood most of what he just said
+Nighthawk10121 I hope there wasn't a quiz on it.
bro same send me the homework, im not even joking
9:02 Segunda Conclusión de Pinker
6:20 Conclusiones de Pinker
10:40 Ejemplo de Fargo y el lenguaje indirecto
@MrPhlux you both have a strong command of the english language
6:58 Kant y el pensamiento, ejemplo
Brilliant.
It reminds me of that sound they used to play in cinemas right before the movie. Just when it got the loudest, a white "THX"(?) - white text, black background - would appear. I guess it's a speaker company. Anyway, this was parodied on an episode of The Simpsons. They have that loud crescendo, a few peoples ear drums pop, and everyone cheers.
Well, thats nice to say, and yes it may not be how it really is, but most of the concepts that I use to analyse you people are at least in parts consistent with his description. And as a child I couldnt even get, that someone wanted to talk to me and reassure me of our social state, when wished a nice day and talked about the weather. So forgive my slight predisposition on this issue. But this kind of toolset is the best working for now. Sure there are better and truer.
Well, at University you normally differ between natural sciences, that is physics, math, chemics etc, and the humanities, such as linguistics, sociology etc. Whenever you look at something in order to uncover the structure and facts behind it, you have science. Things don't need to explode to be science.
Is this one of the first Ted talks?
His book is out soon. This month I think.
The best advocates or teachers of any subject enable if not inspire others to want to know or learn more about a topic, not put them off.
Understanding words and understanding how people will receive the words are two different skill sets that don’t always reside in the same body.
TO GET YOU PUMPED FOR INFORMATION!!!!
How does the veiled ganster threat about the store fit in the game theoratical explanation?
If the man can't reach the guacamole then it's only polite to ask someone to pass it rather than lean over and grab it.
@goodfellow67216 why not? his voice might not be soothing, but his lecture is quite interesting and stimulating.
@naturalpreservation Here's something I remember distinctly answering though, when you asked me before whether I was "quite finished"..."just a little after you are" doll. :)
I actuaaly to look up the etching and the guacamole thing :D
Interesting talk. He should have totally included Japanese in his presentation because it's a language that basically functions off vagueness
"I don't need to explain why you are not a polymath.You've explained it yourself." *smirks incredulously* Your sole basis for that claim appears to be a comment on my profile in which I say: "...I have large gaps in my knowledge, especially when it comes to economics." This kind of statement is true of absolutely anyone. If anything it might be construed as a covert boast. When you overstate your case so extravagantly, it demonstrates infallibly that you've no confidence in it yourself.
8:17 ejemplo
airevolt1: yah!
I find it odd how I never learnt the exact mechanics of English yet I know it so well :p
Very interesting, I loved it!
What year was this talk given?
Why is the resolution that low? :/
Other genii*. I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, though if it was then you may very well count yourself among their ranks...
After the end I think TED stand for Tearing Ear Drums
17:19 Resumen
That's actually exactly what i'm talking about; once einstein's relativity came out they did the math and discovered that something like a singularity (black holes ARE singularities) and then they proceeded to discover them once they knew what to look for and had the proper tools. "It's a simple idea. I hope you start to get it."
Plus I did not say that I was not "excited by smart people" as u put it. Please do not make assumptions or misquote.
Sweet.
Interesting upload date
You are not alone Ozrielos!
If you disagree with the idea that "language is not so much a creator of human nature, but is more a window onto human nature" is your position that language IS a creator of human nature, and/or that it DOESN'T reveal anything about human nature? If that's the case your example isn't really working for you (more like against you). And your argumentum ad populum fallacy ("...but it is well known that ...") isn't doing you any favours either. Pinker is indeed a smart man.
Great talk, except for my speakers blowing out at the end. %)
Pinker is excellent. This kind of lecture would probably require that the audience is familiar with the topics he's discussing.
I love this man
"Whenever you look at something in order to uncover the structure and facts behind it, you have science." this is what modern cognitive science and linguistics does (esp syntax). And both are generally contended to be natural sciences. i dont know if thats your point or not.
INCREDIBLE hair....I mean, WOW, that thing is good!!!
@pawsoned I never claimed they were in absolute agreement...
@shantih433 Is there ANY kind of agreement between them at all?
Lacking any real substantive input about my motivation you had to supply your own -also known as psychological projection. You instinctively realize that if it were you that owned a BMW your own poor self image and insecurities would cause you to feel superior over others due to this external validation. I never said a thing about my income or anything like being cool, lmao, and yet that's what you projected onto me -proving my point.
Eliot Gould? I think his voice is a little deeper than Mr. Pinker's, but I see where's you're coming from. Or should that be... I approximate from the implication of your communication the meaning you intend to communicate and correct it slightly so that it fits better with my understanding, as well as implying that my knowledge is superior to yours in a hierarchal fashion.
with ted talks the really pointless ones have lots of upvotes while ones with actual information like this pale in comparison.
This is interesting, but useless information.
mmmm, perhaps. Or just very accurate.
i agree but it didnt use to be like that did it
Cut your hair, Pinker! And turn down the volume on the intro! Even though I have a low volume on, my neighbours still wake up and my bass slams through the wall...
Have you bothered to read any of his work? He references and metions all ideas used, Lakoff is metioned in the text several times. He is also developing the ideas significantly; ideas do change over time. Also you seem to have missed the fact that Pinker and Chomsky are at loggerheads on most issues, Pinker couldn't be considered a follower. He has taken a new perspective on Lakoff which has put it back in the mainstream.
2007 had significantly lower video quality in general. KZhead is only around since 2005. Two years into the platform, it didn't have that amazing qualities. Some of the TED conferences from back then qualitatively also were much worse than the rather consistently high standards they have by now. TED Talks of this form only exist since spring '06. A LOT changed since then.
i see.. the PIXELS
Steven Pinker isn't real; he's a robot made entirely of Legos. Fact. o___O
i see one pixel. these pixels are too big to be seen multiple at time
OH YEAH!
Quebec uses "courriel" all the time, much more commonly than "e-mail."
@Scorpymhk He doesn't do "answering questions". He just moves on to the next video! ;)
continued to seanankerr: another thing that disturbs me about your comment... especially when you just watch steven pinker talking about grammar, you should notice that ``bright´´ so far ONLY exists as an adjective. not as a noun. brights do not say ``i am bright´´, they will say ``i am a bright´´ or ``i am part of the brights movement´´. notice the difference?
You can see the profiles and the vase at the same time if you imagine the profiles are holding the vase up with their faces.
The dangers of stereotyping. When you present some people's story as a single and only story of their lives. You may see this as "Academic mentality", but for some this is actually a passion of their lives.
"It's clear you are not polymath" This might not be so summarily brushed off, nor with such unalloyed insouciance, were it not so blatantly premature and transparently preemptive. True, polymaths are rare and the motive to boast obvious. If you're assuming I'm no polymath as a matter sheer probability, very well; but if you think anything I've said actively belies my implied self-assessment, I hope you'll not deny me the amusement of your attempt to demonstrate why, in lucid and specific terms.
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to call tactical ambiguity a feature of language? For one there are other ways of being purposely ambiguous outside of language, think of the moment before a shoot-out where people are hovering their hands over their pistols, or slowely backing away before making a run for it.
3:00 am, dark room, headphones, that intro... creepy O___o
I think Trump gave this talk an A+
"...some overly pompous youth trying to string long words together..." And yet at first you thought I was fifty-two. "pompous, 'look at me' language.." Once again I am told that I've exceeded my allotment of polysyllabic words, and stuck my prose where it doesn't belong. This is, of course, a backhanded compliment, and I will heed the admonition the first time it comes from one whose wordcraft is not far inferior to mine. Until then I remain flattered.
"And like Newtonian gravity of mass..." This is absolutely nothing more than a metaphor, and you bandy them about with a careless imprecision that would make Bergson blush.
13:44
do yourselves a favor and start around the 12:00 mark
He says the constructs are found in all languages, though he only gives examples in English, if that is your concern.
I may be wrong but some of this sounds more about the nature of the english language, rather than about language in general. I'm not sure either that some of the observations there are ground breaking. I mean, the opposition between "to be", "to do" and "to have"... Since these are the most basic verbal constructs, one expects these to represent building-block concepts of reason, but Pinker doesn't connect these to kantian a priori. I generally like Pinker but not everything he says is hugely insightful: Here I heard a lot of descriptive exposition (a catalogue of categorised speech examples, all of which is commonly known) and very little synthesis (uncovering generative or unifying mechanisms, bringing insight into the nature of cognition).
Phil Pan he's not a linguist, so it's expected he doesn't know what he's talking about
I always thought that TED talk was actually directed at a broader more "layman" adience. I am a what he calls a "layman" yet I rarely if ever have a problem following most TED talks. On top of that english is not my native language which adds a bit of extra difficulty.
You can proceed to watching 17th minute right away.
I saw him at Caltech!
Usually it's instinctual rejection based on your original prime. It sounds wrong because you didn't learn it that way, and you hate it because your mind has to spend extra time trying to recognize it. Or not. :3
Just because cosmology is less advanced a science than particle physics doesn't make it less valid. our ability to look back in time and see how galaxies and stars develope answers plenty of questions. it's hardly shot-in-the-dark guesses.
@pawsoned Oh... good. =-)
Ah, the days when TED was still a mark of quality!
And when Pinker was still doing good science.
It was hard to enjoy because of the dreadful feedback from the microphone. How can it be that the organisers could not sort that out?
6:59kant
But i was replying to the comment that one language implies that we're on the right path, and I showed a counter example of that.
cool