ted演讲中英文文稿

人们天天在说话，怎样说话我们认为不需要学习。看看这个视频，或许会有收获。 正文是中英文对照稿。 查看视频 The human voice: It's the instrument we all play. It's the most powerful sound in the world, probably. It's the only one that can start a war or say "I love you." And yet many people have the experience that when they speak, people don't listen to them. And why is that? How can we speak powerfully to make change in the world?人类的声音: 是我们所有人都弹奏的乐器。 可能是这个世界上最有力的声音。 它绝无 仅有，或能引起战争， 或能说“我爱你”。 然而，很多人有这种经历， 当他们说的时 候，人们并不在听。 这是为什么呢? 我们怎样有力地说 而让世界发生某种改变? What I'd like to suggest, there are a number of habits that we need to move away from. I've assembled for your pleasure here seven deadly sins of speaking. I'm not pretending this is an exhaustive list, but these seven, I think, are pretty large habits that we can all fall into. 我所提议的是， 我们需要改变一些习惯。 在此我为你们收集整理了， 说话的七宗罪。 我没打算假装这是一个详细的列表， 但这七个，我以为是 我们相当容易犯的坏习惯。 First, gossip. Speaking ill of somebody who's not present. Not a nice habit, and we know perfectly well the person gossiping, five minutes later, will be gossiping about us. 第一就是，流言蜚语， 在背后说某些人的坏话。 这不是一个好习惯，我们都很明白 那 个说闲话的人在五分钟以后 就会在别人跟前说我们的闲话。 Second, judging. We know people who are like this in conversation, and it's very hard to listen to somebody if you know that you're being judged and found wanting at the same time. Third, negativity. You can fall into this. My mother, in the last years of her life, became very negative, and it's hard to listen. I remember one day, I said to her, "It's October 1 today," and she said, "I know, isn't it dreadful?" It's hard to listen when somebody's that negative. 第二，评判。 我们知道有些人在谈话中是这样的， 这让人很难听进别人的话， 如果你 知道你被人评判 且被认为不合格。 第三，消极。 你能陷入这个泥潭。 我的母亲，在她生命的最后几年里， 变得非常非常 消极，很难让人听她说话。 我记得有一天，我对她说， “今天是十月一号，” 她说， “我知道，这不可怕吗?” (笑声) 当某人那么消极的时候是很难让人听进去的。 And another form of negativity, complaining. Well, this is the national art of the U.K. It's our national sport. We complain about the weather, sport, about politics, about everything, but actually, complaining is viral misery. It's not spreading sunshine and lightness in the world. Excuses. We've all met this guy. Maybe we've all been this guy. Some people have a blamethrower. They just pass it on to everybody else and don't take responsibility for their actions, and again, hard to listen to somebody who is being like that. 另外一种消极，就是抱怨。 这是英国的全国性艺术。 是我们的全国性运动。我们抱怨天 气， 体育和政治，几乎每件事， 但实际上抱怨是病毒性的悲催， 它不会在这个世界上 传播太阳和光明。 借口。我们都遇上过这个家伙。 也许我们都曾经是这个家伙。 有些人有指责癖好。 他 们怪罪任何人 而不是对自己的行为负责任， 所以，这又是让人难以聆听的一种。 02:01 Penultimate, the sixth of the seven, embroidery, exaggeration. It demeans our language, actually, sometimes. For example, if I see something that really is awesome, what do I call it? And then, of course, this exaggeration becomes lying, and we don't want to listen to people we know are lying to us. And finally, dogmatism. The confusion of facts with opinions. When those two things get conflated, you're listening into the wind. You know, somebody is bombarding you with their opinions as if they were true. It's difficult to listen to that. 七件里面的老六，倒数第二， 浮夸，吹牛。 它有时贬低了我们的语言，事实上。 比如， 如果我看见 什么真的很神奇的事情， 那我该说什么呢? (笑声) 当然这种夸大后来就 变成了说谎。 彻头彻尾的说谎，我们就不想听 这种我们知道会说谎的人。 最后是，固执己见， 把事实和意见混淆。 当这两件事混为一谈， 你就像在听风一样。 你知道，有人用他们自己的意见来强迫你。 这很难让我们听讲。 So here they are, seven deadly sins of speaking. These are things I think we need to avoid. But is there a positive way to think about this? Yes, there is. I'd like to suggest that there are four really powerful cornerstones, foundations, that we can stand on if we want our speech to be powerful and to make change in the world. Fortunately, these things spell a word. The word is "hail," and it has a great definition as well. I'm not talking about the stuff that falls from the sky and hits you on the head. I'm talking about this definition, to greet or acclaim enthusiastically, which is how I think our words will be received if we stand on these four things. So what do they stand for? See if you can guess. The H, honesty, of course, being true in what you say, being straight and clear. The A is authenticity, just being yourself. A friend of mine described it as standing in your own truth, which I think is a lovely way to put it. The I is integrity, being your word, actually doing what you say, and being somebody people can trust. And the L is love. I don't mean romantic love, but I do mean wishing people well, for two reasons. First of all, I think absolute honesty may not be what we want. I mean, my goodness, you look ugly this morning. Perhaps that's not necessary. Tempered with love, of course, honesty is a great thing. But also, if you're really wishing somebody well, it's very hard to judge them at the same time. I'm not even sure you can do those two things simultaneously. So hail. 这就是说话的七宗罪。 我认为这些是我们需要避免的。 但有没有比较正面的呢? 的确 有。 我想建议四种我们可以牢靠站立的 真正强有力的基石或者基础， 如果我们想让我 们的言语有力 并且让世界产生变化。 幸运的是，这些事情连起来是一个单词。 这个词 就是“hail”，它有着特别好的定义。 我不是讲那个天上掉下来的 砸在你头上的东西。 我在谈论的是 “热情地致敬或赞扬”这个定义。 我认为我们的言辞会如此被接受， 如 果我们坚持这四件事。 那么它们到底是什么呢? 看看你是否能猜到。 H，代表了诚实(Honesty)，当然， 说 真话，直接了当并且清楚明白。 A，代表了真实(Authenticity)，做一个自然而然的自己。 我的一个朋友把它描述为 坚持真实的自己， 我觉得这是一个优美的表述。 I，代表了正 气(Integrity)，言而有信， 说到做到， 成为别人能信任的人。 L，代表爱(Love)。 我不是指罗曼蒂克的爱情， 而是指对别人有良好的祝愿，这出于两个原因。 第一，我认 为绝对的诚实 也许不是我们所想要的。 我的意思是，天哪，今天早上你真难看。 那可 能不必要。 诚实是很重要的。当然，适当地带着爱。 但还有，当你真的很希望别人好， 就很难同时评判他们。 我不知道你们是否能 同时做到这两点。 那么 hail。 Also, now that's what you say, and it's like the old song, it is what you say, it's also the way that you say it. You have an amazing toolbox. This instrument is incredible, and yet this is a toolbox that very few people have ever opened. I'd like to have a little rummage in there with you now and just pull a few tools out that you might like to take away and play with, which will increase the power of your speaking. Register, for example. Now, falsetto register may not be very useful most of the time, but there's a register in between. I'm not going to get very technical about this for any of you who are voice coaches. You can locate your voice, however. So if I talk up here in my nose, you can hear the difference. If I go down here in my throat, which is where most of us speak from most of the time. But if you want weight, you need to go down here to the chest. You hear the difference? We vote for politicians with lower voices, it's true, because we associate depth with power and with authority. That's register. 上面提到的是你所说的内容。 另外，就像老歌里唱的，你所说的很重要， 还有你的表达 方式也很重要。 你有一个很神奇的工具盒。 里面有难以置信的工具， 然而这个工具盒 只有不多的人打开过。 我愿意跟你们在这里 做一点儿探查，并且找出几种工具。 你也 许想拿来试一下， 这些将会增加你说话的力量。 比如说，音域。 假声大部分时候可能是没用的， 但在两者之间会有一种是有用的。 对 于在座的语音教练们， 我不会在这个问题上很深入。 然而，你能定位你的声音。 如果 我把声音提到鼻子这儿，你可以听出不同。 如果我把声音降到嗓子这里， 这是我们大部 分人大多数时候所做的。 但是如果你想有份量， 你需要降到胸腔。 你听出了不同吗? 我们给声音低沉的政治家投票，那是真的， 因为我们把深沉 和权力、权威联系在一起。 那是音域。 Then we have timbre. It's the way your voice feels. Again, the research shows that we prefer voices which are rich, smooth, warm, like hot chocolate. Well if that's not you, that's not the end of the world, because you can train. Go and get a voice coach. And there are amazing things you can do with breathing, with posture, and with exercises to improve the timbre of your voice. Then prosody. I love prosody. This is the sing-song, the meta-language that we use in order to impart meaning. It's root one for meaning in conversation. People who speak all on one note are really quite hard to listen to if they don't have any prosody at all. That's where the word "monotonic" comes from, or monotonous, monotone. Also, we have repetitive prosody now coming in, where every sentence ends as if it were a question when it's actually not a question, it's a statement? And if you repeat that one, it's actually restricting your ability to communicate through prosody, which I think is a shame, so let's try and break that habit. 然后我们再说音色， 那是你的声音让人感觉如何。 研究显示我们喜欢那种 丰厚，平滑， 温暖，像热巧克力一样的声音。 当然如果你没有那样的声音，这也不是世界末日。 因为 你可以训练。 去找到一个声音教练。 你可以做很神奇的事情， 利用呼吸，姿势，还有 锻炼 来提高你嗓音的音色。 然后是韵律。我喜欢韵律。 那是唱歌，是元语言， 我们用来传送意味。 在谈话中是意 思的根基。 那种说话一个声调的人 很难让人听讲， 如果他们没有一点儿韵律。 那就是 单调这个词的来源， 或者说枯燥无味，一成不变。 我们还有重复性的韵律， 每个句子 的结尾好像是一个疑问句， 但事实上，它不是疑问句，而是陈述句。 (笑声) 如果你 一遍一遍地重复某个东西， 它会限制你 用韵律来交流的能力， 我认为这是一件憾事， 让我们努力打破那个习惯。 Pace. I can get very excited by saying something really quickly, or I can slow right down to emphasize, and at the end of that, of course, is our old friend silence. There's nothing wrong with a bit of silence in a talk, is there? We don't have to fill it with ums and ahs. It can be very powerful. 语速，我可以非常非常兴奋地 飞快地说着什么， 或者我能慢下来强调， 在结尾处，当 然是我们的老朋友， 沉默。 在讲话中，有一点儿沉默 没关系，是吗? 我们不需要用 “嗯” 和“ 啊”来填充。 沉默就很有力。 当然，音调常常跟语速一起 来指示兴奋度，但你能仅仅用音调就显示出来。 你把我的钥 匙放在哪儿啦? 你把我的钥匙放在哪儿啦? 那么轻微的差别 在这两个表达中。 Of course, pitch often goes along with pace to indicate arousal, but you can do it just with pitch. Where did you leave my keys? (Higher pitch) Where did you leave my keys? So, slightly different meaning in those two deliveries. And finally, volume. (Loud) I can get really excited by using volume. Sorry about that, if I startled anybody. Or, I can have you really pay attention by getting very quiet. Some people broadcast the whole time. Try not to do that. That's called sodcasting, Imposing your sound on people around you carelessly and inconsiderately. Not nice. 最后，是音量。 我能用音量表示极端的兴奋。 如果我打扰了任何人的话，抱歉。 或者， 我能用很轻的声音 让你认真地注意。 有人全程一直都在说话。 别那样。 那叫做“公放 音乐”， 把你的声音不假思索 和草率地强加给别人。不好。 当然，这些工具真正发挥作用的地方， 是当你有什么很重要的事情要做的时候。 这可能 是像这样站在演讲台上 对着人演讲。 它可能是求婚， 要求加薪，或者婚礼上的讲话。 不管是什么，如果它非常重要， 你应该看着这个工具盒， 以及将要工作运行的发动机， 没有预热的发动机不会好好工作。 预热你自己的声音。 Of course, where this all comes into play most of all is when you've got something really important to do. It might be standing on a stage like this and giving a talk to people. It might be proposing marriage, asking for a raise, a wedding speech. Whatever it is, if it's really important, you owe it to yourself to look at this toolbox and the engine that it's going to work on, and no engine works well without being warmed up. Warm up your voice. 07:46 Actually, let me show you how to do that. Would you all like to stand up for a moment? I'm going to show you the six vocal warm-up exercises that I do before every talk I ever do. Any time you're going to talk to anybody important, do these. First, arms up, deep breath in, and sigh out, ahhhhh, like that. One more time. Ahhhh, very good. Now we're going to warm up our lips, and we're going to go Ba, Ba, Ba, Ba, Ba, Ba, Ba, Ba. Very good. And now, brrrrrrrrrr, just like when you were a kid. Brrrr. Now your lips should be coming alive. We're going to do the tongue next with exaggerated la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la. Beautiful. You're getting really good at this. And then, roll an R. Rrrrrrr. That's like champagne for the tongue. Finally, and if I can only do one, the pros call this the siren. It's really good. It starts with "we" and goes to "aw." The "we" is high, the "aw" is low. So you go, weeeaawww, weeeaawww. 让我给你演示怎样做。 你们都愿意站起来一会儿吗? 我会给你演示六个预热声音的锻炼， 在每次演讲之前我都这么做。 在跟任何重要的人谈话之前，做以下这些。 第一，举起双 臂，吸气， 然后呼出，啊哈，就像那样。 再来一次。 啊哈，很好。 现在我们要预热我 们的嘴唇， 做出吧，吧，吧，吧， 吧，吧，吧，吧。很好。 现在，brrrrrrr， 就像你 是个孩子。 brrrrr。现在你的嘴唇应该活了。 下一个是舌头， 夸张的啦，啦，啦， 啦...... 美极了。你们做得很好。 然后，卷舌一个 R，Rrrrrr。 这就像给舌头的香槟酒。 最后，如果我只能做一个， 专业人士把这叫做警报。 这个特别好。它开始于“we”然后 转为“aw”。 “we”是高音，“aw”是低音。 那么就是，“weeeaawww......” Fantastic. Give yourselves a round of applause. Take a seat, thank you. Next time you speak, do those in advance. 妙极了。给你自己来鼓个掌。 请坐，谢谢你们。(鼓掌) 下次你演讲之前，提前做到这几项。 Now let me just put this in context to close. This is a serious point here. This is where we are now, right? We speak not very well to people who simply aren't listening in an environment that's all about noise and bad acoustics. I have talked about that on this stage in different phases. What would the world be like if we were speaking powerfully to people who were listening consciously in environments which were actually fit for purpose? Or to make that a bit larger, what would the world be like if we were creating sound consciously and consuming sound consciously and designing all our environments consciously for sound? That would be a world that does sound beautiful, and one where understanding would be the norm, and that is an idea worth spreading. Thank you. 现在让我在结束之前作个总结。 这一点是认真的。 这就是我们的所在，对吗? 我们说 得不好， 人们也听不进去， 在一个吵闹和喧哗的环境里。 我已经在讲台上 分阶段地谈 到这个问题。 这个世界会是怎样， 如果我们有说服力， 人们有意识地听， 在一个量身 定做的环境下? 或者说得更大一些， 世界将会是怎样， 如果我们有意识地说话， 有意 识地倾听， 并且有意识地针对声音 来设计我们的周围环境? 那会是一个听起来非常美 丽的世界， 在那儿 理解会是常态。 那是一个值得传播的理念。感谢你们。

Ihave spent the last years, trying to resolve two enigmas: why is productivity so disappointing in all the companies where I work? I have worked with more than 500 companies. Despite all the technological advance – computers, IT, communications, telecommunications, the internet. Enigma number two: why is there so little engagement at work? Why do people feel so miserable, even actively disengaged? Disengaged their colleagues. Acting against the interest of their company. Despite all the affiliation events, the celebration, the people initiatives, the leadership development programs to train managers on how to better motivate their teams. At the beginning, I thought there was a chicken and egg issue: because people are less engaged, they are less productive. Or vice versa, because they are less productive, we put more pressure and they are less engaged. But as we were doing our analysis we realized that there was a common root cause to these two issues that relates, in fact, to the basic pillars of management. The way we organize is based on two pillars. The hard—structure, processes, systems. The soft—feeling, sentiments, interpersonal relationship, traits, personality. And whenever a company reorganizes, restructures, reengineers, goes through a cultural transformation program, it chooses these two pillars. Now we try to refine them, we try to combine them. The real issue is – and this is the answer to the two enigmas – these pillar are obsolete. Everything you read in business books is based either two of the other or their combine. They are obsolete. How do they work when you try to use these approaches in front of the new complexity of business? The hard approach, basically is that you start from strategy, requirement, structure, processes, systems, KPIs, scorecards, committees, headquarters, hubs, clusters, you name it. I forgot all the metrics, incentives, committees, middle offices and interfaces. What happens basically on the left, you have more complexity, the new complexity of business. We need quality, cost, reliability, speed. And every time there is a new requirement, we use the same approach. We create dedicated structure processed systems, basically to deal with the new complexity of business. The hard approach creates just complicatedness in the organization. Let’s take an example. An automotive company, the engineering division is a five-dimensional matrix. If you open any cell of the matrix, you find another 20-dimensional matrix. You have Mr. Noise, Mr. Petrol Consumption, Mr. Anti-Collision Propertise. For any new requirement, you have a dedicated function in charge of aligning engineers against the new requirement. What happens when the new requirement emerges? Some years ago, a new requirement appeared on the marketplace: the length of the warranty period. So therefore the requirement is repairability, making cars easy to repair. Otherwise when you bring the car to the garage to fix the light, if you have to remove the engine to access the lights, the car will have to stay one week in the garage instead of two hours, and the warranty budget will explode. So, what was the solution using the hard approach? If repairability is the rew requirement, the solution is to create a new function, Mr. Repairability. And Mr. Repairability creates the repairability process. With a repairability scorecard, with a repairability metric and eventually repairability incentive.That came on top of 25 other KPIs. What percentage of these people is variable compensation? Twenty percent at most, divided by 26 KPIs, repairability makes a difference of 0.8 percent. What difference did it make in their action, their choices to simplify? Zero. But what occurs for zero impact? Mr. Repairability, process, scorecard, evaluation, coordination with the 25 other coordinators to have zero impact. Now, in front of the new complexity of business, the only solution is not drawing box es with reporting lines. It is basically the interplay. How the parts work together. The connection, the interaction, the synapse. It is not skeleton of boxes, it is the nervous system of adaptiveness and intelligence. You know, you could call it cooperation, basically. Whenever people cooperate, they use less resources. In everything. You know, the repairability issue is a cooperation problem. When you design cars, please take into account the need of those who will repair the cars in the after sales garage. When we don’t cooperate we need more time, more equipment, more system, more teams. We need – when procurement, supply chain, manufacturing don’t cooperate we need more stock, more investories, more working capital. Who will pay for that? Shareholder? Customers? No, they will refuse. So who is left? The employees, who have tocompensate through their super individual efforts for the lack of cooperation. Stress, burnout, they are overwhelmed, accidents. No wonder they disengage. How do the hard and the soft try to foster cooperation? The hard: in banks, when there is problem between the back office and the front office, they don’t cooperate. What is the solution? They create a middle office. What happens one years later? Instead of one problem between the back and front, now have to problems. Between the back and the middle and between the middle and the front. Plus I have to pay for the middle office. The hard approach is unable to foster cooperation. It can only add new boxes, new bones in the skeleton. The soft approach: to make people cooperate, we need to make then like each other. Improve interpersonal feelings, the more people laike each other, the more they will cooperate. It is totally worng. It even counterproductive. Look, at home I have two TVs. Why? Precisely not to have to cooperate with my wife. Not to have to impose tradeoffs to my wife. And why I try not to impose tradeoffs to my wife is precisely because I love my wife. If I didn’t love my wife, one TV would be enough: you will watch my favorite football game, if you are not happy, how is the book or the door? The more we like each other, the more we avoid the real cooperation that would strain our relationships by imposing tough tradeoffs. And we go for a second TV or we escalate the decision above for arbitration. Definitely, these approaches are obsolete. To deal with complexity, to enhance nervous system, we have created what we call the smart simplicity approach based on simple rules. Simple rule number one: understand what others do. What is their real work? We need go beyond the boxes, the job description, beyond the surface of the container, to understand the real content. Me, designer, if I put a wire here, I know that it will mean that we will have to remove the engine to access the lights. Second, you need to reinforce integrators.