How would a Martian linguist describe our species? As one that uses grammar as a window into thought, swearing as a window into emotion, and indirect speech (as in innuendo) as a window into social relationships, said Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard University in answering his own question.

Pinker, named one of the 100 most influential scientists and thinkers in the world by Time magazine in 2004, gave the Spencer T. and Ann W. Olin Lecture on the "stuff of thought" March 4 in Statler Auditorium.

Cognitive scientists, said Pinker, who is considered a leading researcher in the fields of cognitive science, experimental psychology and linguistics, use language to study how the mind works. He said various puzzling aspects in our use of language reveal a much deeper feature of the human mind.

For example, "Why do languages talk about the physical world in such crazy ways?" he asked. Words like "underwater" or "underground" do not make intuitive literal sense, he pointed out. "Why do we say something is underwater or underground when literally the thing is surrounded by water or surrounded by ground?" asked Pinker.

He proposed that an "intuitive physics" that is embedded within our language can help explain the "mental models that humans use to make sense of our lives." Understanding how we use words to describe the physical world offers insight into human thought, said Pinker.

Why certain words upset us is also revealing, he said. One reason is that taboo words activate particular regions in our brain that are associated with negative emotions. "You can't help but hear an emotional word with all of its emotional baggage," said Pinker. He added that swearing is a use of language as a weapon to force a listener to think an emotionally charged thought.

Interestingly, he noted, the contents of swearing -- from awe of the supernatural, disgust at body effluvia, dread of disease, hatred of disfavored people and groups, and revulsion at depraved sexual acts -- are similar across many languages.

He also noted that language can serve as a window into social relations. "Why are bribes, requests, seductions, solicitations and threats so often veiled, when both parties know exactly what they mean?" he asked. He described how indirect speech, such as sexual come-ons, can be useful for people who want to convey messages but are unsure about their relationship.

Indirect speech can also minimize risk in legal contexts, he said, such as during bribes and threats. For example, in the movie "Fargo," he said, a kidnapper with the hostage in the back seat, is pulled over by a police officer because of a missing license plate. The kidnapper hands over his wallet with the driver's license visible and a $50 bill extending ever so slightly, and the kidnapper entreats the police officer to "take care of it here." Such "indirect speech," Pinker said, is "a case in which you don't blurt out exactly what you say, but you veil it in innuendo expecting your listener to listen between the lines."

Pinker's talk was part of Cornell University Graduate School's 2011 Spencer T. and Ann W. Olin lecture series.

Farhan Nuruzzaman '12 is a writer intern for the Cornell Chronicle.