>>: So it's an honor today to have Steven Pinker with us. Steven is an experimental psychologist and perhaps the world's foremost provider on language, thinking, and human nature. As you can pick up very easily from his writings over the last 20 years, he's interested in all aspects of language and mind. Steven is currently Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. I was looking over his history this morning preparing this introduction, and for many of us at Microsoft Research, we find his academic and life history interesting. He earned a bachelor's degree in experimental psychology at McGill and then moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1976 where he spent time, as he says, bouncing back and forth between Harvard and MIT. Much of his initial research working with Steven Kosslyn and others was in visual cognition, including the ability to imagine shapes, recognize faces and objects, and to direct attention within visual field. He earned his doctorate at Harvard in 1979. He did a post-doc at MIT, and then a year as an assistant professor at Harvard. In 1982 he moved back to MIT where he stayed until 2003 when he returned to Harvard University. So almost to the month, 20 years ago, he starting publishing the first of several wonderful books written for general audiences and this was the start of a string of hits. These include The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, Words and Rules, The Blank Slate, The Stuff of Thought, and recently the Better Angels of Our Nature. His latest book, which we'll talk about today, which I can't wait to read, is The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. Now, we ought to listen very careful to him today beyond general interest. Steven has chaired the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, so what we're talking about here, he's helping to define the dictionary here in terms of usage, and he's been also served as editor for various groups that we all respect, the NSF, AAAS and the APA. Before starting, I'd like to sort of mention a little bit about the human side of Steven. I -- last April he and I did an event together in Arizona called The Origins Meeting, and I dragged my son along with me because the deal was for the organizer, Lawrence Kraus, that my son had to come with me because this was a college tour. I'll show up and do this event, but my son must come with me. So Zachary hung out with me at this meeting, and this is Steven and Zachary hanging out at our reception here. If I can advance the slide here. That's okay. Here we go. But just I caught them at a reception and just Steven was so engaged with Zachary. Zachary had a lot of questions -- he was an 11th grader then -- about the cognition and the mind and you see how seriously Steven takes Zachary's thoughts. He's very interested in people and how they think and individuals, and it's great to see how engaging he can be with people of all ages. So let's give a warm welcome here to Steven Pinker. [applause] >> Steven Pinker: Thank you very much, Eric. Why is so much writing so bad and how can we make it better? Why do we have to put so much effort into deciphering a legal contract such as: "The revocation by these Regulations of a provision previously revoked subject to savings does not affect the continued operations"? Why is it so hard to penetrate a typical academic article, such as: "It is the moment of non-construction, disclosing the absentation of actuality from the concept in part through its invitation to emphasize, in reading, the helplessness of its fall into conceptuality." [laughter] Why is it so hard to set the time on clock? Well, there's no shortage of there, and probably the most popular in this cartoon in which a boss says a digital alarm theories out one is captured to the tech writer: "Good start. Needs more gibberish." In other words, that bad writing is a deliberate choice, that bureaucrats insist on gibberish to evade responsibility. It's the revenge of the nerds. Pasty-faced tech writers get their revenge on the girls who turned them down on dates in high school or the jocks who kicked sand in their faces. Pseudo-intellectuals try to bamboozle their readers with highfalutin gobbledygook, despite the fact that they have nothing to say. Well, I have no doubt that the bamboozlement theory is true for some writers some of the time, but it's also true that good people can write bad prose. I know many scientists who have plenty to say. They do ground-breaking research on important topics. They have no need to impress, nothing to hide, but still, their writing stinks. There's another theory, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with, which is that it's digital media that are ruining the language. Google is making us stupid. The digital age stupefies young Americans and jeopardizes our future. Twitter forces us to write, and therefore, think, in 140 characters. I think there's a problem with the dumbest generation theory, as well, which is that it makes an empirical prediction; namely, that it was all better before the digital age. That is -- and you remember what life was like -- many of you are old enough -- before instant messaging and email back in the 1980s. Those were the days in which teenagers spoke in fluent paragraphs, bureaucrats wrote in clear English, and every academic article was a masterpiece in the art of the essay. Remember those days? Or was it the 1970s? Well, maybe you have to go back even further, like the 1960s. Well, in those days, they were saying things like, "Recent graduates, including those with university degrees, seem to have no mastery of the language at all." Well, maybe you have to go back before the invention of TV and radio, say, to 1917. Well, in those days you would hear: "From every college in the country goes up the cry, 'Our freshmen can't spell, can't punctuate.' every high school is in disrepair because its pupils are so ignorant of the merest rudiments." Well, maybe we have to go back even further to the Age of the Enlightenment, for example. And they said: "Our language is degenerating very fast... I begin to fear that it will be impossible to check it." And then there are the ancient grammar police who said, "Oh, for cryin' out loud... you never end a sentence with a little birdie." [laughter] The thing is that writing -- bad writing has burdened readers in every time and every generation, and my favorite theory begins with an observation from Charles Darwin that "Man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children, whereas no child has an instinctive tendency to bake, brew, or write." Speech is instinctive, but writing is and always has been hard. Your reader is unknown, invisible, inscrutable. They exist only in the writer's imagination. They can't react to prose in real time or break in or ask for clarification. And so writing is an act of pretense and writing is an act of craftsmanship. So what can we do to improve the craft of writing? Well, for many decades there was a single answer to this question; namely, you give students or aspiring writers this, The Iconic Elements of Style by William Strunk, Jr., and a professor at Cornell and his student, E.B. White, the beloved author of Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little and a long-time New Yorker essayist. Note, by the way, that the junior member of this pair was born before the turn of the century, that is, before the turn of the 20th century. Now, there's plenty of good sense in The Elements of Style, and it is worth reading today. They have little gems of advice, like use definite, specific, concrete language, write with nouns and verbs, put the emphatic words at the end, and my favorite, their prime directive, omit needless words, which is an excellent example of itself. No needless words there. On the other hand, for all its fame, I think The Elements of Style can't be the basis for writing advice in the 20th century. For one thing, it is filled with baffling advice, such as, "The word 'people' is not to be used with words of number in place of 'persons.'" That is, you may not say three people or ten people or 20 people. Why? Well, if of six people, five went away, how many people would be left? Answer? One people. Did you get that? By the same logic, you should never say, I have three children or 32 teeth. It just makes no sense. "To contact is vague and self important. Do not contact people. Get in touch with them, look them up, phone them, find them, or meet them." Well, what happens if you don't care whether someone phones another person or meets them or messages them or emails them or tweets them? To contact happened to be a neologism in the day of Professor Strunk, and to his ear, it sounded like a faddish business jargon. Since then, the word has passed into common usage precisely because it's so useful; namely, there are times where you don't care how one person is going to get in touch with someone else, as long as they do so, and so "to contact" has become completely unexceptionable. "Note that the word 'clever' means one thing when applied to people, another when applied to horses. A clever horse is a good-natured one, not an ingenious one." [laughter] The problem with traditional style advice is that it consists of an arbitrary list of do's and don'ts based on the tastes and peeves of the authors. It is not grounded in a principled understanding of how language works, and as a result, users have no way of understanding and assimilating the advice, and as I will try to show you, much of the advice is just plain wrong. I think we can do better today. We can base advice on the science and scholarship of language: On modern grammatical theory, which provides ways of talking about syntax that are more suitable than the old grammars based on Latin; and evidence-based dictionaries and grammars; research from cognitive science on what makes sentences easy or hard to read; and historical and critical studies of usage, and that's what I've tried to do in The Sense of Style. It all begins with a model of effective prose. As I've mentioned, writing is an unnatural act. Good style requires, above all, some coherent mental model of the communication scenario, what the writer is trying to accomplish. My favorite of these models comes from a book called Clear and Simple as the Truth from the literary scholars Francis-Noël Thomas and Mark Turner, and they call it classic style. The model behind classic style is that prose is a window on to the world. The writer sees something in the world, he positions the reader so that she can see it with her own eyes. The reader and writer are equals. The goal is to help the reader see an objective reality, and the style is conversation. Well, that all sounds pretty obvious, so what's the alternative? Well, it turns out there's a range of alternative styles such as what they call contemplative style, oracular style, practical style. The one that many of us are familiar with from academia is one they call postmodern or self-conscious style in which "the writer's chief, if unstated, concern is to escape being convicted of philosophical naiveté about his own enterprise." And as Thomas and Turner explain: "When we open a cookbook, we completely put aside -- and expect the author to put aside -- the kind of question that leads to the heart of certain philosophical traditions. Is it possible to talk about cooking? Do eggs really exist? Is food something about which knowledge is possible? Can anyone ever tell us anything true about cooking? Classic style similarly puts aside as inappropriate philosophical questions about its enterprise. If it took those questions up, it could never get around to treating its subject, and its purpose is exclusively to treat its subject." And since the whole idea behind classic prose is you show the reader something in the world, I would be hypocritical if I didn't at least give you an example of classic prose. And the example that I've picked comes from an article in Newsweek Magazine by the physicist Brian Greene on the theory of inflationary cosmology and one of its possible implications, namely, multiple universes or the mutliverse. So Greene, one little excerpt from this article, he writes: "If space is now expanding, then at ever earlier times the universe must have been ever smaller. At some moment in the distant past, everything we now see -- the ingredients responsible for every planet, every star, every galaxy, even space itself -- must have been compressed to an infinitesimal speck that then swelled outward, evolving into the universe as we know it. "The big-bang theory was born... Yet, scientists were aware that the big-bang theory suffered from a significant shortcoming. Of call things, it leaves out the bang. Einstein's equations do a wonderful job of describing how the universe evolved from a split second after the bang, but the equations break down (similar to the error message return by a calculator when you try to divide 1 by 0) when applied to the extreme environment of the universe's earliest moment. The big bang thus provides no insight into what might have powered the bang itself." Now, Greene does not pause to apologize about how terribly complicated and abstract the various equations are. He presents the reader with an image that they can see for themselves. If you can imagine space expanding, you can run the mental movie backward and realize that it must have all begun with a speck that then expanded outward. Also, the fairly abstruse concept of mathematical equations breaking down, which a typical reader of Newsweek might have trouble appreciating, he illustrates with an exact example; namely, if you pull out your calculator and you put 1 divided by 0, you get an error message. You can see it for yourself, or, for that matter, you can even just contemplate the paradox or the conceptual difficulty of dividing the number 1 into 0 parts. Either way, the reader can appreciate for himself or herself what the concept of an equation breaking down is. Many examples of writing advice are implications of the model behind classic prose. Number one, in classic prose the focus is on the thing being shown, not the activity of studying it, namely, the writer's job, peer group, daily activities, and other professional concerns. But let me give you a somewhat contrived example of the opening of a typical review article that I might have to endure in reading the professional literature in my own field. "In recent years, an increasing number of researchers have turned their attention to the problem of child language acquisition. In this article, recent theories of this process will be reviewed." No offense, but very few people are really interested in how professors spend their time. A more classic way of opening the same article might have been: "All children acquire the ability to speak and understand a language without explicit lessons. How do they accomplish this feat?" A corollary of this advice is to minimize the kind of apologizing that seems mandatory in academic prose. Again, I'll give you a somewhat, but only somewhat contrived example. "The problem of language acquisition is extremely complex. It is difficult to give precise definitions of the concept of 'language' and the concept of 'acquisition' and the concept of 'children.' There is much uncertainty about the interpretation of experimental data and a great deal of controversy surrounding the theories. More research needs to be done." Well, this is the kind of paragraph that could be deleted without loss. Classic prose gives the reader credit for knowing that many concepts are hard to define and many controversies are hard to resolve. The reader is there to see what the writer will do about it. Another corollary is to minimize the reflexive hedging that you see in many kinds of professionalese. The almost robotic use of fluffy little words that are jammed into prose to make it seem as if the writer doesn't really mean what he's saying: Somewhat, fairly, nearly, seemingly, in part, relatively, comparatively, predominantly, to some extent, so to speak, presumably. And the similar device of the use of shudder quotes to make it seem as if the writer doesn't actually mean words in their literal senses. I'll just give you an example. This is from a letter of recommendation that I received for a [indiscernible]. She is a "quick study" and has been able to educate herself in "virtually" any area that interests her. Well, are we supposed to interpret this as saying that this young woman is a quick study or that she is a "quick study," namely, someone who is rumored or alleged to be a quick study but maybe isn't. And the virtually, does this mean that there are some areas that she's interested in that she just hasn't bothered to educate herself in? The unthinking use of hedges was brought home to me when I met a colleague at a conference and I asked her how she was doing and she pulled out a picture of her four-year-old daughter and she said, "We virtually adore her." Why the compulsive hedging? Well, in many bureaucracies there is a well-known abbreviation, CYA, cover your anatomy. But there is an alternative: "So sue me!" It is often better to be clear and possibly wrong than fuzzy and not even wrong. Also, a good writer counts on the cooperative nature of ordinary conversation. Conversation could not proceed unless there was a certain amount of charity between reader and writer. If someone says these days, in the recent years Americans are getting fatter, you don't interpret that as meaning as every last member of the 300 million American population has been getting fatter. You automatically interpret it as meaning on average or more or less without explicitly having to say so. A second feature of classic prose is that the writer has to keep up the illusion that the reader is seeing the world rather than just listening to verbiage, and as a result, there's a classic piece of advice for writers, avoid cliches like the plague. And we're all familiar with the writer who says things like "We needed to keep the ball rolling in our search for the holy grail, but found that it was neither a magic bullet nor a slam dunk, so we rolled with the punches and let the chips fall where they may while seeing the glass as half full -- it's a no-brainer!" If you simply ladle out one cliche after another, the reader is forced to turn off their visual cortex and just process it as blah blah blah. If the reader then does pay attention, a cliche monger is likely to inadvertently produce ludicrous images in the form of mixed metaphors, like this is also from a letter of recommendation: "Jeff is a Renaissance man, drilling down to the core issues and pushing the envelope." Not clear how you can do both. Or, "No one has yet invented a condom that will knock people's socks off." [laughter] And again, if you use words without being mindful of the images they convey, you will be eligible for membership in A.W.F.U.L., Americans Who Figuratively Use Literally. So it's perfectly fine to say she literally blushed. It is not as good to say she literally exploded, and it's very, very bad to say she literally emasculated him. Classic prose is about the world. It's not about the conceptual tools with which we understand the world, and so it calls for avoiding metaconcepts, that is, concepts about concepts that are all too familiar in professional prose, like approach, assumption, concept, condition, context, framework, issue, level, model, perspective, process, rule, strategy, tendency, variable, all of which are almost always completely dispensable from prose. So instead of -- this, for example, is by a legal scholar in the New York Times who writes: "I have serious doubts that trying to amend the Constitution would work on an actual level. On the aspirational level, however, a constitutional amendment strategy may be more valuable." Which could just as easily have been stated as, "I doubt that trying to amend the Constitution would actually succeed, but it may be valuable to aspire to it." Or, "It's important to approach the subject from a variety of strategies, including mental health assistance but also from a law enforcement perspective." That is, "When dealing with an unstable person, we must consult psychiatrists, but we may also have to inform the police." Finally, classic prose narrates ongoing events. We see agents performing actions that affect objects. Nonclassic prose tends to dignify events and then refer to the event. Using a dangerous tool of English grammar called nominalization, turning something into a noun. There are a variety of ways in which English allows you to take a perfectly spry verb and, by adding a suffix like "ation" or "ion" or "ment," you can embalm it as a lifeless noun. So instead of competing, you engage in competition. Instead of organizing something, you bring about the organization of it. Helen Sword, an English scholar, refers to them as "zombie nouns" because they kind of lumber across the scene without any conscious agent actually directing an action, and they can turn prose into a night of the living dead. Prevention of neurogenesis diminished social avoidance, meaning when we prevented neurons from forming, the mice no longer avoided other mice. Or, subjects were tested under conditions of good to excellent acoustic isolation; to-wit, we tested the students in a quiet room. So characteristic of academic prose is the use of metaconcepts and nominalizations, that we all can recognize the humor behind this old editorial cartoon in which you have a bearded academician explaining "The reason Verbal SAT scores are at an all-time low. Incomplete implementation of strategized programmatics designated to maximize acquisition of awareness and utilization of communication skills pursuant to standardized review and assessment of languaginal development. Any interrogatory verbalizations?" It's not just academics who fall into the habit of thingifying actions. Politicians do it as well, such as Texas Governor Rick Perry, who, when a storm threatened the Republican National Convention said, "Right now there is not any anticipation that there will be a cancellation." That is, right now we don't anticipate that we will have to cancel it. And corporate consultants. A young man explaining to a reporter what he did for a living said, "I'm a digital and social media strategist. I deliver programs, products, and strategies to our corporate clients across the spectrum of communications functions." And when the reporter pressed him about what he really did, he finally broke down and said, "I teach big companies how to use Facebook." And product engineers. Portable generators used to carry the following warning: "Mild exposure to CO can result in accumulated damage over time. Extreme exposure to CO may rapidly be fatal without producing significant warning symptoms." Yeah, yeah. And as a result, several hundred Americans every year would asphyxiate themselves and their families by running portable generators indoors. More recently, if you buy a portable generator, it will have this on its sticker: "Using a generator indoors CAN KILL YOU IN MINUTES." Classic prose. So classic prose can literally be a matter of life and death. Yes, literally. Okay. Well, I promise that a better understanding of language can lead to better writing advice, and let me give you an example. Another notorious contributor to zombie prose is the passive voice. The difference between the dog bit the man, an active sentence, and the man was bitten by the dog, a passive sentence. It has long been observed that the passive voice is overused by academics. "On the basis of the analysis which was made of the data which were collected, it is suggested that the null hypothesis can be rejected." And lawyers: If the outstanding balance is prepaid in full, the unearned finance charge will be refunded." And of course, political officials. You might recognize this person, Julia Pierson, the recently former director of the Secret Service, when called upon to explain how it is that a man with a knife managed to vault over the White House fence, run across the lawn into the White House and get near the oval -- the President's bedroom, all the time with a knife and not be stopped until someone finally tackled him, she explained: "Mistakes were made." What linguists sometimes call the evasive passive. And so all the classic guides warn writers from using the passive voice, such as Strunk and White who say: "Use the active voice. The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive. Many a tame sentence can be made lively and emphatic by substituting a transitive in the active voice for some such perfunctory expression as there is or could be heard." Well, I heard some scattered titters through the room coming from people who realize that in fact this passage warns against the passive using the passive. The other obligatory reading for every college freshman in a writing class is the classic essay by George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, in which he, too, notes that "[A] mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose." Modern, by the way, being late 1940s. "I list below various of the tricks by means of which the work of prose construction is habitually dodged: The passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active." A passage that has not one but two instances of the passive voice warning readers never to use the passive voice. So what's going on? Well, the passive could not have survived in the English language for 1500 years if it did not serve some purpose, and so why can't we do without it? It comes down to the very design of language. You can think of language as an app for converting a web of knowledge into a string of words. The writer's knowledge can be modeled as a semantic network. That's the way cognitive psychologists and many AI researchers, as you all know, have done it for 50 or 60 years. That is, a person's knowledge, to a first approximation, can be thought of as a number of concepts that are interlinked by various conceptual and logical relationships: About doer, done to, is, looks like, and so on. Well, what happens when you have to take a portion of this network and transmit it from one mind to another? Well, you have to code it into a sentence, which is a linear string of words. By the way, I should mention -- sorry -- that this fragment of a semantic network might be a crude approximation of a person's knowledge of the tragic events of Oedipus Rex as brought to life by Sophocles in his play of that name. But when we convey it, that some of those thoughts to others, we have to linearize it. Sorry. In Sophocles' play, Oedipus married his mother and killed his father, one word after another. That means that there is an inherent problem in the design of language, mainly, that the order of words in a sentence has to do two things at once. On the one hand, it serves as a code for meaning. It indicates who did what to whom. But necessarily it presents some bits of information to the reader before others, and therefore, it affects how the information is absorbed by the reader in real time. In general, the earlier material in the sentence looks backward. It is the topic. It's what the reader is looking at. The later material in the sentence is the focus, the new information that is being added, what the reader should now notice. And prose that violates these principles of linear ordering will feel choppy or disjointed or incoherent. This brings us to what the passive is good for. Namely, it allows the writer to convey the same semantic information as the active, namely, who did what to whom, but in a different surface order, one that allows the writer to start with a done-to rather than the doer. So avoid the passive is bad advice if it's offered across the board. The passive is the better construction when the done-to is currently the focus of the reader's mental gaze. And again, let me give you an example. I'm going to read a little passage from the Wikipedia plot summary of Oedipus Rex -- spoiler alert -- from the epiphany, the climatic scene in which the tragic back story of Oedipus is gradually revealed. "A messenger arrives from Corinth. It emerges that he was formally a shepherd on Mt. Kithaeron, and during that time he was given a baby. The baby, he says, was given to him by another shepherd from the Laius household, who had been told to get rid of the child." Now, notice that this passage has three passives in a row. The passage begins: "A messenger arrives from Corinth." So we are all now looking at the messenger. He has entered the stage. Well, it's natural to use a passive. "He was given a baby." We're already looking at him. Well, now we're looking at the baby, and so the next sentence ought to begin with the baby, and the passive voice makes that possible. "The baby was given to the messenger by another shepherd." Well, now another shepherd is on the stage. Our eyes are on the other shepherd, and so it's natural to begin the next sentence with that, and again, the passive voice makes that possible. "The other shepherd had been told to get rid of the child." Perfectly coherent. Now, let's say you followed the advice to convert passives to actives. The passage would read: "A messenger arrives. It emerges that he was formerly a shepherd on Mt. Kithaeron, and that during that time someone gave him a baby. Another shepherd from the Laius household, he says, whom someone had told to get rid of a child, gave the baby to him." Now, I submit that this is not an improvement because it violates the orderly progression of the reader's attention from one entity to another. A writer is a bit like a cinematographer who has to be careful as to where the camera is pointing. More generally, English syntax provides writers with constructions that vary order in the string while preserving meaning. Oedipus kills Laius. Laius was killed by Oedipus. It was Laius whom Oedipus killed. It was Oedipus who killed Laius, and so on, and writers must choose the construction that introduces ideas to the reader in the order in which she can absorb them. Well, this then does bring us back to the initial question, if the passive is so indispensable, why is it so common in bad writing? Well, it's because good writers narrate a story, advanced by protagonists who make things happen. Bad writers work backwards from their own knowledge, writing down ideas in the order in which they occur to them. They begin with the outcome of an event, because they know how it turned out, and then they throw in the cause as an afterthought and the passive makes that all too easy. Okay. This brings me to part three, is why do writers do that? Why is it so hard for writers to use the resources of language to convey ideas effectively? My favorite explanation is called the curse of knowledge, the aspect of our psychology in which it's hard to imagine what it's like for someone else not to know something that you do know. Psychologists also call it mindblindness, egocentrism, or the hindsight bias. And a lovely illustration comes from a classic experiment known to every intro psych student where -- sometimes called the false belief task -- a child comes into the lab. You hand him a box of candies, a box of M&Ms. He opens it and he's surprised to find that inside it there isn't candies, but rather, ribbons. So he put the ribbons back in the box, close it back up again. You say, well, now another little boy is going to come to the lab, Jason. What does he think is in the box? And the child will say ribbons. Even though, of course, Jason would have no way of knowing it, the child knows it. He can't imagine what it's like for someone not to know it. In fact, if you ask the first child, "What did you think was in the box when you came into the room?" The child will say ribbons. He can no longer recover the state at which he did not know that the box had been tampered with. Well, we adults outgrow this stage a little, because many studies have shown that there are versions of the Curse of knowledge that apply to grownups. We attribute our own vocabulary to others, our own factual knowledge, our own technical skill. The more experience someone has had a with a gadget, like a cell phone, the less time they think it will take for someone else to learn how to use it. I believe that the curse of knowledge is the chief contributor to opaque writing, and for that matter, opaque product design, instructions, and so on, software interfaces, et cetera. It just doesn't occur to the writer that readers haven't learned their jargon, don't know the intermediary steps that seem too obvious to mention, can't visualize a scene that is currently in the writer's mind's eye, and so the writer doesn't bother to explain the jargon or spell out the logic, or supply the concrete details. And again, I'm going to give you an example. Many professionals and academics excuse themselves from bad writing by saying, well, I'm writing for my peers and they know all of the concepts, so it would only insult them if I were to spell them out. That is patently untrue. I, and I'm sure many of you, repeatedly find yourself baffled by prose that is actually written specifically for you, and I'll give you an example of an article on consciousness from a journal called Trends in Cognitive Science which is written for people like me. And here's how it goes: "The slow and integrative nature of conscious perception is confirmed behaviorally by observations such as the 'rabbit illusion' and its variants, where the way in which a stimulus is ultimately perceived is influenced by poststimulus events arising several hundreds of milliseconds after the original stimulus." Well, I read that and I processed the verbiage, but I really did not know what it meant, beginning with the fact that the writer just assumed that everyone would know what the rabbit illusion was. I've been in this business for 35 years. I teach undergraduates. I teach them perception. I'd never heard of the rabbit illusion. So I went to the books and indeed I found there's something called a cutaneous rabbit illusion that works as follows: If a person closes their eyes and then the experimenter taps them three times on the wrist and then three times on the elbow and then three times on the shoulder, the person will experience it as a series of taps running up the length of their arm like a hopping rabbit. And, okay, that's interesting because it means that where you perceive the earlier taps depends on the location of the later taps. So consciousness does not track sensation in real time, but it's kind of edited after the fact to make a continuous experience. So why didn't they say that? The expression "tap on the wrist" is no less scientific than "stimulus," and "tap on the elbow" is no more precise than "poststimulus event." Indeed, not only is it no less scientific, it's more scientific because now a peer scientist can evaluate the argument and decide whether that that really does show that conscious perception is slow or integrative as opposed to some alternative explanation. My favorite way of summing up the curse of knowledge comes from an old joke where a man is visiting a Catskills resort and walks into the dining room, and he comes across a bunch of retired Borshveldt [phonetic] comedians talking around a table. So he sits himself down and one of them says, "37." And the others break into uproarious laughter. And then he says, "112," and again, general hilarity. He can't figure out what's going on. So he asks the guy next to him, "What's happening here?" The guy says, "Well, you know, these old-timers have been together for so long that they all know each other's jokes. So to save time, they've given every joke a number. Now all they have to do is recite the number." The guy says, "That's ingenious. I'll try it." So he calls out, "44." Stony silence. "87." Everyone stared at him and no one laughed. He sort of sank down into his chair and he asked his companion, "What happened? What did I do wrong? The guy said, "Oh, it's all in the way you tell it." [laughter] How do you exercise the curse of knowledge? Well, the traditional solution is always keep in mind the reader over your shoulder; that is, empathize, put yourself in their shoes, walk a mile in their moccasins, feel their pain, and so on. Well, that's okay as far as it goes, but the problem is that none of us has extrasensory perception, and we're actually not very good at guessing other people's knowledge even when we try. But it is a start, so for what it's worth, I will share with you the advice. Your readers, your users know less than you think you do, and unless you at least try to imagine what it's like to be them, you're guaranteed to confuse them. A better solution is to close the loop and show a draft to a representative reader or user, and you'll often be surprised to find that what's obvious to you is not obvious to anyone else. Or, in addition, show a draft to yourself after some time has passed and it's no longer familiar. If you're like me, you'll find yourself thinking, what did I mean by that? That doesn't follow, and all too often, who wrote this crap? And then rewrite, ideally, several times with a single goal just making the prose understandable to the reader. Finally, how should we think about correct usage, which is the aspect of writing that by far gets the most attention. Now, there are some usages that are clearly wrong. When the Cookie Monster says, "Me want cookie," the reason that even a preschooler will laugh is that the preschooler knows that Cookie Monster has made a grammatical error. Likewise, there would be no humor, such as it is, in Lolcats such as "I can has cheezburger," unless we sense that this is violates the rules of English grammar. "Is our children learning?" Even George W. Bush acknowledged that this was a grammatical error in a self-deprecating speech he gave a year later. On the other hand, there are other alleged errors of usage that are not so clear, and just to be nonpartisan, I will show you a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who, when running for office in 1992, had the catchphrase: "Give Al Gore and I a chance to bring America back." Which some purists would say contains a grammatical error. This is also known as the "between you and I" error. Another Democratic president, Barack Obama, recently said: "No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like." Which some English teachers would say contains an error in number agreement, the plural pronoun "they" is being forced into agreement with the singular antecedent "no American," sometimes called the "singular they" construction. "To boldly go where no man has gone before," the famous split infinitive. "You think you lost your love. Well, I saw her yesterday. It's you she's thinking of. And she told me what to say." Ending a sentence with a preposition. And then some of you may have heard of the suave, urbane, articulate 1970s talk show host Dick Cavett who, in a recent article in the Times reminiscing about a college reunion said, "Checking into the hotel, it was nice to see a few of my old classmates in the lobby." Anyone? See, spot the grammatical error in that sentence? Dangling modifier, yes, indeed. Well, these kind of disputed usages have given rise to something called the language war between the so-called prescriptivists and descriptivists. Now, according to this construction, the prescriptivists are those who prescribe how language -- how people ought to speak, and their position, they're also known as the purists, sticklers, pedants, peevers, snobs, snoots, nitpickers, traditionalists, language police, usage nannies, grammar Nazis, and Gotcha! Gang, according to whom the rules of usage are objectively correct. To obey them is to uphold standards of excellence. To flout them is to dumb down literate culture, degrade the language, and hasten the decline of civilization. Then on the other side, there are the descriptivists, those who describe how people do speak who believe that the rules of usage are nothing more than the secret handshake of the ruling class, the people should be liberated to write however they please. Well, there are reasons to think that this is a really pseudo-controversy, a false dichotomy. If it were really true, then prescriptivists would insist that the lyrics to "She loves you" should have been "it's you of whom she's thinking." And descriptionists would say that there is nothing wrong with "I can has cheezburger," which can't be right, otherwise it wouldn't even have a claim to being funny. So I think we need a more sophisticated way of thinking about usage than this false dichotomy that has been ginned up by various journalists. Well, what are rules of usage? They're certainly not an objective fact about the world that you could go out and measure with an instrument like a physical scientist. They are not a theorem of logic that you could prove. Nor, contrary to popular opinion, are they officially regulated by dictionaries. It's not as if there every year the dictionaries get around a table and legislate on what is correct or incorrect in English. I can speak with some authority here because I'm the chair of the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and when I first joined, I asked the editors, so how do you guys decide what goes into the dictionary? And they said, we pay attention to the way people use language. In other words, when it comes to what's correct in English, there's no one in charge. The lunatics are running the asylum. So what are rules of usage? They are tacit, evolving conventions. Convention is a way of doing something that has no inherent advantage other than the fact that everyone else is doing it the same way. Paper currency is a classic example. There's nothing valuable about a green piece of paper other than the fact that everyone else treats it as valuable. Or driving on the right. There is no inherent reason to drive on the right as opposed to the left, but on the other hand, there's a very good reason to do it the same way everyone else is doing it, as illustrated in a joke in which a man is driving to work and he gets a cell phone call from his wife, and his wife says, "Oh, be careful, Honey. I've been listening to the radio and they say that there is a maniac out there driving in the wrong direction on the freeway." And he says, "One maniac? hundreds of them." There are Unlike the traffic rules, though, the conventions of language are tacit. No one ever decides. They emerge as a rough consensus within a community of careful writers without explicit deliberate, agreement, or legislation, and they're evolving. The consensus may, indeed, does change over time. "To contact" starts out life as a bit of business jargon. It then becomes standard. So should writers follow these rules? And the answer is it depends. There's some rules that just extend the logic of everyday grammar to more complicated cases. "Is our children learning?" How do we know that that's an error? Why did George W. Bush good naturedly concede that it's an error? Well, because it's simply a version of "our children is learning," and everyone agrees that "our children is learning" is an error; therefore, the inverted version must also be an error. I think you guys have all seen this thing here? The green wiggly line. In my experience, most of the Microsoft grammar checker green wiggly lines flag errors of agreement and actually do so quite well. Likewise, here is another appearance of the green wiggly line. "The impact of the cuts have not been felt yet." This, too, when you think about it, actually is -- does violate a rule of English grammar because the -- it should be "The impact of the cuts has not been felt." The problem is that the writer was distracted by the adjacent word "cuts" in the plural sitting right next to the verb. The verb should agree with the subject of the sentence, not with the noun adjacent to it. As you can see, if you simply leave out the subordinate prepositional phrase and if you say, "the impact have not been felt yet," that just pops out as an error and that is why we all agree that "the impact of the cuts have not been felt" is likewise an error. Another case is that many rules make important semantic distinctions. If you thank someone for the fulsome introduction they gave you, you are not complimenting either the introducer or yourself because "fulsome" does not mean full, complete, rich. It means insincere, excessively unctuous or unnecessarily flattering. Likewise, if something is -- if you call something simplistic as a way of complimenting it, you will make a similar blunder. "Simplistic" clearly means overly simple or naïve. And if something is -- has much merit, you should not call it meretricious. Look it up. You'll see why not. In general, it is a good idea, when choosing a word, not to simply assume that if it's a familiar word with some fancy schmancy suffixes at the end, it's a posh or hoity-toity way to refer to the same thing. In general, words with different endings mean different things, and you will get yourself in trouble if you use them in a way that your readers will not expect. At the same time -- oops. Yes. So you will be in danger of courting the response that Inigo Montoya gave to Vizzini in The Princess Bride after Vizzini repeatedly used the word "inconceivable" for things that just happened. He said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." At the same time, not every pet peeve, bit of grammatical folklore, or a dimly remembered lesson from Miss Thistlebottom's classroom is a legitimate rule of usage, and when scholars track down these rules, they find many of them violate grammatical logic, are routinely flouted by the best writers, and have always been flouted by the best writers. A nice example being singular they. Recently a language grump wrote that this is part of a conspiracy by feminists to violate the English language to give people a way to refer to people of indeterminate gender and that we should all go back to the crystalline prose of Jane Austen. Whoops. In an essay called "Everyone Loves their Jane Austen," a literally scholar notes that she used singular they no fewer than 87 times in her prose, such as "Everybody began to have their vexation." You think you preposition? Shakespeare's as dreams are shouldn't end a sentence with a Well, maybe then you could improve on prose when he wrote, "We are such stuff made on." And the same is true of split infinitives, dangling participles, between you and I, and many other alleged errors. Indeed, it's not just that you shouldn't bother to obey bogus rules. If you obey them, you can make your prose worse. Take this sentence from a press release from Harvard University, my employer. "David Rockefeller has pledged $100 million to increase dramatically learning opportunities for Harvard undergraduates."Now, I don't know what language that is. It ain't English. What happened was the writer twisted himself into a pretzel to avoid the split infinitive, "to dramatically increase learning opportunities," and in obeying this completely bogus rule, turned his own sentence into word salad. And it gets even worse, because obeying bogus rules can actually lead to a crisis of governance, literally. In 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts, who was a famous stickler for grammar, torturing his law clerks and associates by sending back everything they wrote with lots of grammatical errors circled, he was in charge of administering the oath of office to Barack Obama, inaugurating him as President, and what he -- the wording he should have used, as stipulated by the Constitution, were: "I, Barack Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States." Roberts abandoned his strict constructionism, unilaterally amended the Constitution, unsplit a split verb, and had him say, "I, Barack Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully." Now, not only is this not a stylistic improvement over what the framers originally framed, but it led to possible questions about the legitimacy of the transition of power, and to avoid kind of, you know, Berther's [phonetic] on steroids questioning whether he really was president, they had to repeat the oath of office in a private ceremony later that afternoon. So how should a careful writer distinguish the legitimate rules of usage from the bogus ones? And the answer is unbelievably simple. Look them up. If you look up split infinitive in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, what it will say is, "It's all right to split an infinitive in the interest of clarity. Since clarity is the usual reason for splitting, this advice means merely that you can split them whenever you need to." And you'll get the same advice from the American Heritage Dictionary, the Encarta World English Dictionary, the Random House Dictionary, and so on. Contrary to most people's beliefs, modern dictionaries and style manuals do not ratify pet peeves, grammatical folklore, or bogus rules. They will not settle barroom bets in favor of the pedant or stickler because they are based on evidence on how great writers write. When there are marginal cases, they will be explicitly discussed in usage notes indicating what the controversy is and what a reader can expect. So they are not a kind of backup for smartypants one-upmanship. Also, correct usage should be kept in perspective. Though I think it is well worth knowing what the prescriptively ordained rules are, they are the least important part of good writing. They pale in significance behind classic style, overcoming the curse of knowledge, to say nothing of factual diligence and coherent ideas and arguments. And not even the most irksome errors are signs of the decline of language. And this is beautifully illustrated by Randall Munroe in an xkcd cartoon in which a purist is visited by a ghost in his sleep who brings a cautionary vision of things to come. This is the future, and this is the future if you give up the fight over the word "literally." As you can see, they are exactly the same. So to sum up, modern linguistics and cognitive science, I argue, provide better ways of enhancing our prose. A model of prose communication, specifically classic style, language used as a window onto the world; an understanding of the way language works, in particular that language has to convert a web of thoughts into a string of words; a diagnosis of why good prose is so hard to write; namely, the curse of knowledge; and a way to make sense of rules of correct usage; namely, as tacit, evolving conventions. Thank you very much. [applause] >> Steven Pinker: Any interrogatory verbalizations? >>: Picking a really petty detail, you seem to care about subject/verb number agreement, but pronoun/antecedant agreement you're not so worried about or you're just saying, no, they is it now and ->>: Yes. The subject/verb agreement is a process of grammar. It's within a single clause. Pronoun/antecedent agreement is much more fluid, and moreover, I think it's actually a mistake to call "they" in -- a so-called singular "they" construction a plural pronoun. It is a -- so if you say everyone return to their seats or no American should be under a cloud of suspicion because of what they look like, "they" is not referring to a group of individuals. "They" is basically a bound variable. Everyone return to their seats means for all X, everyone return to X's seat. X return to X's seat. And that's really what it's doing. And so I think it's actually a bit of a misnomer even to call it a failure of agreement of number. It doesn't really have a number in the classic sense. And I have a discussion in the book of how a large number of usage controversies come from the fact that from a kind of bug in the design of English; namely, English forces you to dichotomize all entities, all things you ever want to refer to, into the two categories, one and more than one. And logically speaking, there are many, many things that you might want to talk about for which there is no answer to that question, like zero. Is zero -- so for none, some people say that none has to be used in a singular. None of them is coming as opposed to none of them are coming. Well, none refers to zero. Is zero one or is zero more than one? There's no answer to that. Or likewise, a bound variable. Does X refer to one thing or to many things? Well, neither. It just is a way of carrying over a reference to something in a logical expression. And a huge number, probably 25 different usage controversies come over the fact that semantically the world doesn't come in one, more than one, but many English constructions seem to force you in that direction. Yes. >>: Writing's been going on for a very long time and I'm wondering what -- whether, on balance, you think that writing is getting better; and secondly, how much do you think your book is going to move the needle? >> Steven Pinker: It's hard to answer that question just because there's no one thing called writing, because there's everything from, you know, notes scrawled on a napkin that you leave for your roommate to state of the union address or a funeral oration. I don't think that in general writing has declined. There's no reason to think that it has. More people are writing more things than ever before. This has occurred in several pulses, both with the expansion of literacy. It used to be 75 years ago that a large percentage of the population never entered high school and they were functionally illiterate. Fewer and fewer people are functionally illiterate. Surveys of student term papers have shown that there's been no decline of quality in terms of number of errors per page. And there's a lot of good prose around. It's -- and I'm often, even though there's a lot of bad prose around, I mean, there's a lot of, you know, ranting of by trolls and below the comment line. On the other hand, you read a typical product review on Amazon or a Wikipedia entry and it's pretty clear and surprisingly few errors of grammar, spelling, punctuation. I think one possible change is that it's -- I haven't seen a quantitative study of this, but often the best language seems to be more colorless and limp than some of the language of, you know, a century or a couple of centuries ago. You read Adam Smith or David Hume or Edmund Burke, granted, you're picking kind of the greatest hits of that era, but there's a vividness and a willingness to use metaphor literary flourishes that you are less likely to see today. I think my hunch is -- so, you know, Hume might refer to a particle of the dove kneaded into our bosom together with the elements of the wolf and the serpent, and now we would say something like, humans have some pro-social tendencies together with aggression. It may be because we have so many technical terms available to us that we don't reach for the metaphor and that will drain prose of some of its vitality, even though it kind of makes it more -- less effortful to convey abstract ideas. Yes. >>: What are your favorite examples of modern writing? >> Steven Pinker: My favorite examples of modern writing? I think there's a lot of good writing, but I think that we're in a golden age of science writing, just to give one example, and I think we've got, you know, great writers like Richard Dawkins and Robert Sapolski and popularizers of mathematics, like Steven Strogatz and Jordan Ellenburg and John Allen Paulos. Brian Greene, who I quoted, doesn't use kind of flowery ornate language, but I consider the ability to convey abstruse concepts without dumbing down the content to be a quality of good writing. And philosophers who kind of affiliate themselves with the sciences, like Daniel Dennett, like Colin McGinn are also I think quite effective writers. So I don't want to say that's the only kind of good writing out there, but that's one example where I don't think anyone can complain about the quality of writing. Yes. >>: So your two most recent works, The Sense of Style and Better Angels ->> Steven Pinker: Yeah. >>: It seems that the germs for the idea were based in common misconceptions, and my question if that's true, is that just a coincidence or is that a method you use to find subjects that you find bookworthy? >> Steven Pinker: Yeah. Well, bookworthy only in the sense that if it was already believed, widely believed, then there wouldn't be any value in saying something new. I don't like the style of journalism or writing of everything you know is wrong. That has become a kind of gimmick or a hook that I think is, you know, well past its use by date. So -- but I wanted there to be something that is newsworthy or of interest. Another common thread between The Better Angels of Our Nature and The Sense of Style is that in both cases I go against a current that says that everything is getting worse, whether it be violence in one case, or the quality of prose in another. I think there is a cognitive illusion that we are prone to that things are getting worse that comes from a number of sources. One of them is as you get older, you start to notice certain things and they start to bother you more, and we have a tendency to externalize that change and assume that it's the world that's getting worse rather than ourselves becoming more perceptive. Also, as Thomas Hobbes noted, there's a widespread habit among writers and intellectuals to say that things are getting worse because if you say that things are bad now, you're implicitly putting down your competitors, your rivals because, as he put it, we compete with the living, not with the dead. So things used to be better, and I'm noticing it, it means I'm better than you guys because you are an example of the bad stuff I'm writing about. And I think that is a pernicious habit of pundits and commentators and social critics. And maybe there is some annoyance with that kind of one-upmanship that motivated me to write these books. >>: So to what extent do you think what you said over here applied to the scientists whose [indiscernible] English the second language, for example? >> Steven Pinker: How would it apply to use of English as a second language? >>: Yeah. >> Steven Pinker: Well a lot of things are just carryover, such as being concrete, being visual, being vivid, looking things up, all the more so, for English as a second language. So I think a lot would carry over, yeah. I'm sorry. I forgot to answer the question do I think that I will move the needle. Who knows? I really -- I like to think so, but it would be presumptuous to predict that I will. Yes. >>: I have a question online actually. Given that we have so many people with books, I think we'll stop with my question. There is a bunch online. I get to do that. So thanks for the great talk. Do you observe a drastic change in the usage of English language with the growing number of international English speakers in terms of slangs and accents? >> Steven Pinker: Yeah. Not really. The question is is there -- has there been a noticeable change in the English language from the fact that basically English has gone global. There are many Englishes. There's Indian English and Singapore English and so on. I think you would see that in local media, but I don't think that it -- I don't see a lot of signs that it's propagating back to the mother ship, to, say, the New York Times or The Guardian or forums of the English mainstream, and which is not to say that there aren't some innovations because languages, especially English, are always scooping up new terms, borrowing from their neighbors. And from various specialties and walks of life there are terms that have entered the English mainstream from horseracing, you know, like to jockey, from sailing, taking you tack, and it is inevitable that there will be ones both from the world of tech and from other dialects of English, just because English has always been eclectic and opportunistic, but I don't see much evidence of, say, common expressions of, say, Indian English or Singapore English swimming upstream and changing American English. I mean, maybe one or two, but it's not a big process, as far as I can tell. >>: Well, thank you so much, Steven. >> Steven Pinker: all of you. [applause] My pleasure. Thanks. Thanks to