ted演讲稿中英文

ted演讲稿中英文（精选6篇）

1.ted演讲稿中英文 篇一

Good morning.My name is Eric Li, and I was born here.But no, I wasn’t born there.This was where I was born: Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution.My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries.When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know that humanity.It went like this.All human societies develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up? Communism!Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development.The entire world’s peoples will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph.That, of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx.And the Chinese bought it.We were taught that grand story day in and day out.It became part of us, and we believed in it.The story was a bestseller.About on third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta narrative.Then, the world changed overnight.As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie.Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened.As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one.This one was just as grand.It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end.This one went as follows.All societies, regardless of culture, be it Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote.Because they all rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after.Paradise on earth, again.Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil.The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.Now.This story also became a bestseller.According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010.In the last 20years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world.Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success.Those who do not are doomed to fail.But this time, the Chinese didn’t buy it.Fool me once… The rest is history.In just 3p years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to its second-largest economy.Six hundred fifty million people were lifted out of poverty.Eighty percent of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China.In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting.See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps.Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point.Needless to say, I ate my grandmother’s portions.So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds.Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day.Middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in human history.Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.So I went and did the only thing I could.I studied it.Yes, China is a one-party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections.There assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time.Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate.Well, the assumptions are wrong.The opposites are true.Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system.Now, most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction.It won’t last long because it cannot adapt.Now here are the facts.In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than any other country in recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then privatization of farmland, then the Cultural Revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule.So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions.Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions.For example, term limits.Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules.Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes.So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70.One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform.But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias.See, some have decided a priori what kinds of changes they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform.The truth is, political reforms have never stopped.Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years, even 10 years ago, every aspect of Chinese society, how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are unrecognizable today.Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind.Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform.The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hands of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow.Indeed, corruption is a big problem, but let’s first look at the larger context.Now, this maybe be counterintuitive to you.The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today.China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members.In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called Princelings.The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds.In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller.The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top.Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you’ll find the Party being near the top in upward mobility.The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? New we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department.The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations.It operates a rotation pyramid made up of there components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like a university or a community program.The form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials.They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called Keyuan Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu.Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay? It’s serious business.The range of positions is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city district to manager in a company.Once a year, the department reviews their performance.They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates.They vet their personal conduct.They conduct public opinion surveys.Then they promote the winners.Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks.Over time, the food ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju and ju, levels.There, they enter high, officialdom.By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a district with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.Just to show you how competitive the system is, in 2012, there were 900000 fuke and ke levels, 600000 fuchu and chu levels, and only 40000 fuju and ju levels.After the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee.The process takes two to three decades.Does patronage play a role? Yes of course.But merit remains the fundamental driver.In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernizes version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system.China’s new President Xi Jinping is son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job.Even for him, the career took 30 years.He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion U.S.dollars.Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone.It’s just a statement of fact.George W.Bush, remember him? This is not a putdown.Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system.Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest.Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department.Now, Westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy.I was asked once, “The Party wasn’t voted in by election.Where is the source of Legitimacy?” I said, “How about competency?”: We all know the facts.In 1949, when the Party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 42 years old.Today, it’s the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity.Pew Research polls Chinese public attitudes, and here are the numbers in recent years.Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent.Those who think they’re better off than five years ago, 70%.Those who expects the future to be better, a whopping 82 percent.Financial Times polls global youth attitudes and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week.Ninety-three-percent of China’s GenerationY are optimistic about their country’s future.Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is.In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance.I don’t need to elaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals.With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife.Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election.Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret.At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy.Now, I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom.The country faces enormous challenges.Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mine-boggling.Pollution is one.Food safety.Population issues.On the political front, the worst problem is corruption.Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its moral legitimacy.But most analysts mis-diagnose the disease.They say that corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore, in order to cure it, you have to do away with the entire system.But a more careful look would tell us otherwise.Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s been moving up.India, the largest democracy in the world, 94 and dropping.For the hundred or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies.So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries can’t fix it? Now, I’m a venture capitalist.I make bets.It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and making some predictions.So here they are.In the next 10 years, China will surpass the U.S.and become the largest economy in the world.Income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries.Corruption will be curbed, but not eliminated, and China will move up 10 to 20 notches to above 60 in T.I.ranking.Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will hold firm.We live in the dusk of an era.Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st.Meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside.Now, I want to clarify something.I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy.On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the West and the creation of the modern world.It is the universal claim that many Western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is at the heart of the West’s current ills.If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal.It cannot be exported.But that is the point precisely.The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist.Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives.Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over.Let us stop telling people and our children there’s only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve.It is wrong.It is irresponsible.And worst of all, it is boring.Let universality make way for plurality.Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us.Are we brave enough to welcome it?

2.TED演讲：如何学习微积分 篇二

发挥一下，一部理论藏于一个案例，通过这个案例便能表现、揭穿理论.极简的说

一个案例≡一部理论

如此由案例学习理论，又不添加复杂度或额外证明，真合算：低成本高回报.

说大一点，这就是治学、思考的一种方法.

那么，当这一方法论落实、融合到大学最基础的课程，微积分理论，看会怎么样？

第一，一部微积分被表现为一个爬山故事：中心问题有

坡度+坡长或坡高

极简的说

微积分 ≡ 坡度+坡高

最后一项，山坡求高的方法，即牛顿-莱布尼茨公式.

第二，最难相信，却是真的：以上整个故事，包括牛顿-莱布尼茨公式，严格的数学论证只花十多分钟. 回想微积分常规的论证却要花上一学年，如此悬殊，必然令人怀疑，那就看完第二讲吧，严格不严格？

第三，微积分的常规叙述太符号化、太隐晦（例如ε-δ），看不见或只有存在性.

不够明白，不很放心. 所以，最好能重新叙述，变看不见为可视化，变存在性为构造性. 极简的说

叙述为0.9

但一样严格，不信看完第一讲吧！

第0讲微积分大意（不求甚解）

既是大意，就不能讲细讲透，就不求甚解. 见不到树木，但能见到森林，也就知足了.

我们的起点是出发产生的小数表示（如83=2.6666…）. 由于要测量方块的对角线，或2，又产生了无限小数（2=1.414…写不尽）. 这是分水岭，算术从此由有限进入无限. 从此，微积分也就开始研究

无限的算术

求知欲如饥似渴，人们发问：一般的无限小数是什么意思？无限多个数据相加，如何定义，如何表示？ ……

从案例抓起.

最容易最浅的表现就是无限小数，0.999…，此案例包含无限多个数据，09，009，0009，…，它们相加表示1

0.9+0.09+0.009+…=0.999…定义1

（不到1就加9，停不了，只有到1）.第二个表现就是庄子的案例（见第一讲），一尺之锤，日取其半，那么每日取走的长度，就是无限多个数据，12，14，18，…，它们相加表示1

12+14+18+…=0.999…=1

什么意思？意即每当左边多加几项，右边在小数点后就多加一个9. 进一步说，右边无论要加多少9，都可以做的到，只要左边项数足够多. 所以右边会出0.9，从而变到1.

然后，由浅入深：数据复杂度逐渐升级. 例如求单位圆周长时

n条切线长相加=n·tan360°n（n=3，4，5，…）≥周长（过剩近似）

采用无限多条切线长，也就是无限多个数据，它们相加表示圆周长

无限多条切线长相加 定义圆周长

什么意思？ 当使用比例表示，意即

圆周长n条切线长相加=0.999…=1

意即每当分母的n加大，比例在小数点后就加一个9. 进一步说，比例无论要加多少9，都可以做的到，只要n足够大. 当n加大，切线条随之加多，比例会出0.9，从而分母变到分子. 这里用分母定义分子，把圆周长表示为一串切线长，很复杂. 这是阿基米德时代的微积分.

上面圆的切线长经过调整（由过剩近似，≥弧长，调整为不足近似，≤弧长）. 然后，经过转换……（不求甚解），便有新表示：圆周长或

无限多条切线长相加=……=反正弦曲线的高

什么意思？当使用比例表示，意即

n条切线长相加曲线=0.999…=1

（此时切线长为不足近似，所以，分子≤分母），当n加大. 这里分子用分母定义，把圆周长表示为另一条曲线的高，简单许多. 这是牛顿时代的微积分.

这里，数学公式不单为了计算用的，更重要的是找出不同量之间的关系. 这种关系的理论价值超过了公式的计算价值. 就像勾股定理不单为了计算斜边的平方，更重要的是找出直角三角形各边之间的关系.

对圆（包括椭圆）的面积，也表示为反正弦曲线的高. 于是，圆周长，圆（包括椭圆）面积，这些历史难题，也都统一表示为一个反正弦曲线的高

满足了人们的求知欲. 还剩一个问题，这个高怎么算？以后再说.

以上不同例子，只是数据复杂度不同. 共同点无限多个数据相加=一个数

什么意思？当使用比例表示，意即

n个数据相加一个数（或一个数n个数据相加）=0.999…=1

（保证分子≤分母），当n加大.

3.ted演讲稿中英文 篇三

Education changes our fortune —— Feedback Educational equality is a permanent topic among the society.The poor should get the same access to an entire education as others possess.However, there are still too many women lost their opportunities to know their culture and this world because of extreme poverty.The speaker once helped a number of women with their languages by attending certain courses.These courses were often held in the local suburbs.Furthermore, the inequality between men and women is the fundamental restriction to their unfair education.Many women were eager to control over their simple daily routines and small details that we take for granted.Since those women received the education they deserve, they all realized that the only way to control their life was through education.There are so many facts that show us that it is impossible to overcome barriers to education.Education is the best means to own a better future.Eventually, I’d like to end up with what the speaker said :“Question your convictions.Be who you want to be，not who they want you to be.Don’t accept their enslavement, for your mother birthed you free.”

4.ted演讲稿中英文 篇四

“Presence of mind”——Feedback Key words: stress pre-mortem ahead of time According to the lecture, our brain under stress releases cortisol, and one of the things that happens at the moment is a whole bunch on systems shut down.Few of us can remain rational and logical thinking while facing stressful things, so it is of great significance to think them over before their appearances.We need to train ourselves to think ahead to these kind of situations.And the conception which the speaker put forward is pre-mortem.The idea of the pre-mortem is to think ahead of time to the questions that you might be able to ask that will push the conversation forward.You look ahead, try to figure out all the things that could go wrong and then try to figure out what you can do to prevent those things from happening or to minimize the damage.Prevent bad things from happening.Or at least if bad things happen, we will minimize the likelihood of it being a catastrophe.Under stress we are not thinking clearly.We need to train ourselves to think ahead to these kind of situations.So think about how you are going to work through this ahead of time, so you don’t have to manufacture the chain of reasoning on the spot.You might change your mind on impulse, but at least you are practiced with this kind of thinking.

5.ted演讲稿中英文 篇五

To be a positive pessimist.—— Feedback When we were young, we often dare to do whatever we can regardless of anything because we are innocent.As we became more mature after growth, we started being afraid of making mistakes.It’s common that we choose to be the best or nothing.Just like the lecturer Han Xue mentioned, we trapped ourselves in an overprotective world.Everything we are going to do or each situation we may face is unpredictable, but it shouldn’t be the reason for our escaping all hard periods.What if people always get rid of troubles? It seems like a signal meaning a loss of imagination and creativity.So, there must be some solutions that are needed.Han Xue shared her strategies about being a positive pessimist.She suggested that we receive lower expectations to ourselves and prepare to lose.Meanwhile, it doesn’t mean that you can always give in.Spare no efforts and go for it!There won’t be so much pity even if a failure happens.You might have a confusion about the “positive” and “pessimist”, how could a couple of opposite attitudes interweave together? However, we can find such paradoxes surrounding us.Generally speaking, we are expected to show our confidence while taking huge challenges, and conquer them with will power.Particularly, you needn’t be ashamed of losing only if you put your heart into it.A positive pessimist may not have something outstanding, but he(or she)must be better which is unstoppable.

6.ted演讲稿中英文 篇六

关键词：虚假语用预设；TED；语用效果

中图分类号： H030文献标志码： A 文章编号：1672-0539（2015）02-0098-04

一、引言

1984 年，理查德·温曼与哈里·马克思共同创立了TED大会 （Technology， Entertainment， Design 的首字母缩写）。TED大会以“借思想之力，改变世界”为宗旨，邀请各个领域的杰出人物分享他们关于技术、社会、人的思考和探索。TED演讲简短精辟、话题多元、观点新颖、幽默风趣，值得人们分享。自 2002 年TED官网创办以来，TED 大会将演讲的高清视频发布在网络上以供人们自由传播。这些演讲视频受到众多中国观众的喜爱，其中包括一些演讲爱好者、外语学习者和科技工作者。TED中国粉丝团甚至组建了自己的网络社区——TED to China， 通过传播TED资讯、实践TED精神以及支持TEDx活动来促进TED中文社区的繁荣和发展。

TED演讲视频在中国的风靡引起不少学者的关注，但学者研究的角度主要集中在TED演讲在外语教学中的应用、跨文化交际以及文本概念功能分析等，如卢婧洁[1]、洪岩[2]等。但从语用预设角度的研究却寥寥无几。演讲是一种使用语言和非语言符号进行交际， 以传达意义或意图并获得一定效果的言语行为。成熟的演讲者会不露痕迹地利用各种语用策略为演讲服务。本文试图探讨虚假语用预设作为一种语用策略在TED演讲中的具体应用及其达到的语用效果，旨在帮助人们更好地在演讲和生活中运用语用策略，从而实现有效的人际沟通。本文所使用的语料均来源于TED-网易公开课。

二、语用预设与虚假语用预设

（一）语用预设

预设，又名“前提”或“先设”，一直是哲学家和语言学家关注的一个重要课题。语言学家首先从语义学角度研究预设，以真值条件为出发点，把预设视为两个语义命题之间的关系。然而，随着研究的深入，他们发现预设并不是一种纯粹的语义关系。因此，人们对预设的研究逐渐转入语用角度。

Stalnaker[3]最先提出语用预设这一概念。他认为，预设不但与语境有关，而且与发话者有关，换言之，预设不是句子与命题之间的关系，而是发话者与语段之间的关系。Jakendoff[3]认为，语用预设是交际双方共有的知识或者背景知识。Fillmore[3]把语用预设看作是“通过一句话来有效地实施某一个言外行为所必须满足的条件”。Keenan[3]提出预设是话语的社会合适性所要求满足的条件。而Yule[3]则把预设当作发话者在说话前所做的一系列设想。这些观点虽然角度不同、措辞各异，但有一点是达成共识的， 即“双方共知性”和“语境适应性”是语用预设的两大特点。

（二）虚假语用预设

虚假语用预设是预设的一种超常操作现象[4]。其特别之处在于，它把非言语交际双方所共有的知识处理为预设信息，这种预设信息至少对于交际中的一方而言是未知的或有争议而不能接受的。虚假语用预设产生的原因可能是无意的，比如发话者错误估计了对方的知识范围或话语意图，也可能是为了某种语用目的而故意为之。支永碧[5]将虚假语用预设定义为：言语交际双方在特定的交际语境中，因为主观或客观原因而导致发话人的既定预设和听话人的假想预设发生冲突的语言现象。

虚假语用预设产生的原因和特征，使演讲者能有效地将这种语用策略应用到演讲中，实现它的语用价值。通过故意“破坏性”地利用常规预设单向性、主观性、隐蔽性等特点，借用语用预设的触发机制，于形同神异中传递对于交际中的一方而言至少是未知的或有争议而不能接受的非言语双方所共有的知识，即虚假预设信息，从而达到演讲目的。

三、TED演讲中虚假语用预设的语用效果

（一） 实现话语控制

预设是谈话的起点，决定了谈话内容的进程和走向[6]。演讲者利用预设的隐蔽性特点，故意打破语篇信息流的常规布局，将非交际双方共知的信息处理为预设信息，即虚假语用预设。观众很容易将这些预设信息当成已知信息接受下来，随着演讲的进一步深入，观众的思维和情感会逐渐朝着有利于演讲者的方向发展。从这个角度而言，虚假语用预设起到了对观众心理上的暗示诱导功能，实现了演讲者对话语的控制权，取得事半功倍的效果。

例1How many people in this room smile more than 20 times per day？ Raise your hands if you do. Oh. Wow！（Ron Gutman： The Hidden Power of Smiling）

这一提问中隐含预设信息“There are people in this room who smile more than 20 times per day”。这一命题本身并不具备必然的真实性或正确性，但作为谈话的背景信息出现时，观众则很容易接受，而且谁会留意自己每天微笑的次数呢？自然，观众会对演讲者的提问作出积极响应。这则演讲的主题是微笑的魔力：微笑可以使人长寿、健康和幸福。观众对问题的肯定回答加深了他们对这一主题的认同感，更易产生共鸣。

例2How many of you think there are more females in the world？ Hands up， please. Most of you.（Sheryl WuDunn： Our Centurys Greatest Injustice）endprint

演讲者想告诉人们，性别不公是当今世界上最大的不公。这一提问中隐含信息“Some of you think more females are in the world”，在这一“思维陷阱”的暗示之下，现场不少观众都举起了手。演讲者话锋一转告诉观众，事实上世界上女性数目远比男性少，观众们急于探寻背后的真相，对演讲内容产生了极大的兴趣。演讲者接着娓娓道来，讲述因为女性所遭受的种种不公才导致了这一现象。观众们在同情中，也认识到了性别不公带来的严重社会后果。演讲者精心设计的含有虚假语用预设的提问，让观众“落入圈套”后，激发他们的求知欲，接着又不失时机地陈述论据、渲染主题。

（二）增强说服力

为了达到特殊的语用效果，演讲者会利用虚假语用预设的主观性和单向性，有意加上并不存在的、甚至与事实相反的“前提”（预设），这种强加预设是演讲者缘事析理的基础和依据。

例3If Lehman brothers were Lehman Brothers and Sisters， while all the brothers were busy just being hyper-connected， maybe the sisters would notice the iceberg because she would wake up from 7 and a half or eight-hour sleep and be able to see the big picture.（Arianna Huffington： How to Succeed？ Get More Sleep）（雷曼兄弟公司曾是美国第四大投资银行，但在次贷危机加剧的形势下于2008年9月宣布申请破产保护。）

演讲者运用预设的主观性，预设“Lehman Brothers was Lehman Brothers and Sisters”这一完全背离现实的预设，来力证在男性以睡眠不足而感到自豪的美国社会，拥有充足睡眠的女性更能保持清醒的头脑，注意到冰山一角，拯救企业。演讲者大胆新奇的预设激发了观众的联想，作为有力的论据证明了她的观点——睡眠的积极作用。在演讲或辩论中（包括法庭辩论），背离现实的虚假语用预设往往能帮助人们从对立面认清事物的本质，以谬制谬，直击要害，从而证明演讲者或辩手的观点[6]。

例4…Shakespeare was 7. He was in someones English class， wasnt he？ “Must try harder.” Being sent to bed by his Dad， you know， to Shakespeare， “and put the pencil down. And stop speaking like that. Its confusing everybody.”（Ken Robinson： Schools Kill Creativity）

演讲者告诉观众：学校、社会和家庭无一不在扼杀孩子们的创造力。他为观众“设想”了一幅画面——年幼的莎士比亚像普通孩子那样，被老师和父母劝诫要好好学习，不要去写一些不知所云的东西——这一荒诞的预设，让观众在大笑中体会到演讲者所要表达的观点：自由是孩子们创造力培养的土壤。

（三）传达言外之意

预设是隐藏在话语内部的背景信息，是人们在交流情感中的潜台词，利用好预设有助于演讲者委婉含蓄地表达言外之意，回避敏感话题，避免尴尬。

例5Because we live in such a noisy world. Therere trains and planes and cars and Bill OReilly， hes very noisy.（A. J. Jacobs： How healthy living nearly killed me） （Bill OReilly是Fox新闻频道的一名主持人，据说在一次对Obama的采访中，他打断了Obama有48次之多。）

人们都有关于人和事物种类方面的知识储备。演讲者故意背离这一知识储备，把主持人Bill OReilly和交通工具并排列出，预设了“Bill OReilly是交通工具的一类”，这一违背会话合作原则的虚假预设表达了言外之意：Bill OReilly也是噪音来源之一。借助虚假语用预设，演讲者避免了直接性的批判和抨击，而是在机智幽默中间接表达自己的观点，激发观众的思考。

（四）创造幽默效果

利用虚假语用预设，演讲者不断设置“预设陷阱”，观众在落入陷阱后又恍然大悟，甘受“愚弄”，开怀大笑。虚假语用预设创造了轻松幽默的演讲氛围，使观众在笑声中体会到演讲者的举重若轻和睿智洒脱[7]。

例6I think you can make fun of the have but not the have-nots， which is why you dont see me making fun of Kenneth Lay and his charming wife. Whats funny about being down to four

houses？ （Emily Levines theory of everything）

演讲者告诉大家不要取笑穷人，并且说她就从不取笑Kenneth夫妇。这段话隐含虚假语用预设“Kenneth夫妇是穷人”。台下的观众都明白，Kenneth是安然集团前任CEO，因滥用职权和帐目造假而被指控，这一背离事实的预设信息实现了幽默讽刺的效果。

例7On the week of my 30th birthday， I decided I was going to go to this local open mic and put the fear behind me. Well， when I got there， it was packed. ...There were like 20 people there.（Joe Kowan： How to Overcome Stage Fright？）endprint

演讲者一出场便讲述了自己的怯场与生俱来，难以战胜。30岁的他决定改变这一现状，通过每周登台表演来锻炼自己，第一次到达现场时，他看到“人山人海”。语言的暗示加上夸张的面部表情和语气，激起观众关于音乐会人潮涌动、场面壮观的联想（预设）。停顿了一下，他告诉大家“不过20来人而已”，期待落空后，观众更能体会到演讲者怯场的苦衷，由被“愚弄”变成“同情”，从而哈哈大笑。这段话中，演讲者单方面设置误导性的“思维陷阱”，让观众落入“陷阱”后又如梦初醒，达到幽默的效果。

例8That night I promised myself： I would go back every week until I wasnt nervous anymore. And I did. I went back every single week and sure enough， week after week， it didnt get any better. The same thing happened every week.（Joe Kowan： How to Overcome Stage Fright？）

第一次登台失败后，演讲者毫不气馁，继续坚持锻炼。通过再三重复“每周都登台表演”这一信息，加上预设触发语“理所当然”，观众在“Practice makes perfect”这一信念背景下，自然而然产生这样的预设：经过几周的锻炼，演讲者终于战胜了怯场。但现实正好相反：照常怯场。真相大白后，观众无不感到被“戏谑”了一番，再看到演讲者由自信满满到痛苦无奈的夸张表情，忍俊不住。

例9In his study， Darwin actually cited a French neurologist Guillaume Duchenne， who used electric jolts to facial muscles to induce and stimulate smiles. Please， dont try this at home. （Ron Gutman： The Hidden Power of Smiling）

为了证明微笑的积极作用，演讲者告诉观众，法国神经学家Guillaume Duchenne 通过实验，使用电流刺激脸部肌肉产生微笑。演讲者的“善意提醒”“dont try this at home”隐含虚假语用预设“The audiences will try it at home”，诱发了观众的相关联想（尽管他们不会去尝试），这一联想的荒诞和滑稽不禁让观众捧腹大笑。

四、结语

演讲中的语用策略是一种言语应用艺术。演讲者总是希望采取最佳言语表达方法， 以求达到最佳交际效果。虚假语用预设作为演讲语用策略之一，在演讲中广泛应用，使演讲深入浅出、生动活泼、启人心智、耐人寻味。

参考文献：

[1]卢婧洁.浅议TED演讲视频在高校英语专业英语视听说课程教学中的应用[J].长沙大学学报，2013，（3）：121-124.

[2]洪岩.从精英到公众的开放资源：TED的发展及启示[J].现代教育技术，2013，（4）：76-79.

[3]Hadumod Bussmann. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics[M]. 北京：外语教学与研究出版社， 2000.

[4]支永碧.批评话语分析研究新动态 [J]. 外语与外语教学， 2007，（3）：27- 32.

[5]邹涛.虚假语用预设：预设的一种超常操作现象[J]. 西南交通大学学报，2001，（4）：80-83.

[6]肖元珍，薛秋宁.机智口才与语用预设 [J]. 广西社会科学， 2005，（1）：127-129.

[7]徐珊.虚假语用预设视角下的TED演讲言语幽默的生成机制解析[J]. 西南科技大学学报，2014，（6）：89-92.

The Analysis of Sham Pragmatic Presuppositions Effects in TED Speech

XU Shan

（English Department， Yunyang Teachers College， Shiyan Hubei442700， China）

Abstract：Sham Pragmatic Presupposition（SPP） is an unusual manipulation of supposition. Based on the properties of ordinary supposition—unidirectivity， subjectivity and latency， TED speakers constantly create “supposition trap” with the help of pragmatic presuppositions triggering mechanism， creating special pragmatic results to increase speech charm： realizing discourse control， increasing persuasiveness， conveying implication and producing humorous effects.

Key words： Sham Pragmatic Presupposition； TED； pragmatic results