If the officer is honest, you get a huge penalty of being arrested for bribery.

如果警官是老实人，你因为行贿被逮起来

So this is a rather fraught situation.

所以情况挺复杂的

On the other hand, with indirect language, if you issue a veiled bribe,

然而，你要是含沙射影地说，如果你含蓄地提出给钱

then the dishonest officer could interpret it as a bribe,

那么不老实的警官可以把它理解为你要使银子

in which case you get the payoff of going free.

你就可以走了

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

而诚实的警官也不能硬说你贿赂他

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

因此你领一张讨厌的罚单

So you get the best of both worlds.

不过你两种可能中都受益最大化了

And a similar analysis, I think, can apply to the potential awkwardness of a sexual solicitation,

我觉得同样的分析方法可以用在可能出现尴尬的提出性的要求的时候

and other cases where plausible deniability is an asset.

以及其他的当保留拒绝可的能性对你有利的情况

I think this affirms something that's long been known by diplomats

这就应证了一个外交官们早已深谙的秘密

namely, that the vagueness of language, far from being a bug or an imperfection,

那就是：语言的模糊根本不是什么故障或缺憾

actually might be a feature of language, one that we use to our advantage in social interactions.

而很可能是语言的特征，一个我们能在社交中善加利用的特征

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

总而言之：语言是人类的集体发明，它折射出人性

how we conceptualize reality, how we relate to one another.

我们如何用概念理解现实世界，如何互相沟通交流。

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

通过分析语言的许多微妙、繁复之处

I think we can get a window onto what makes us tick. Thank you very much.

我认为我们能向着人类的生存之道打开一扇窗户。谢谢大家。

演讲简介：

在他所著《思想的实质》的独家新书介绍会上，史蒂芬·平克探讨了语言如何表达内心的思想--以及我们的遣词用句中透露出多少鲜为人知的信息。