現代英文中的「倒裝(Inversion)」 #6: 「地點性」或「方向性」的倒裝 (「主語--整個限定動詞」倒裝的一種)

 



本系列的
#3#4#5 ,我解釋了現在英文中會觸發「主語--輔助動詞」倒裝的三種主要情景。

 

這次,我們來看一下「主語--整個限定動詞」倒裝的第一種主要情景。


我們可稱這種情景為「地點性」或「方向性」的倒裝,因為它是被子句中修飾「地點」或「方向」的副詞組所觸發的。


我在#2中所舉的例子如下:


Under the tree stood a man.

樹下站著一個男人


Into the room came a group of students.

一群學生走進了房間。

這些句子的原本詞序應該是:


A man stood under the tree.


A group of students came into the room. 


第一句中,主語是「a man」,限定動詞是「stood」,還有一個修飾整個子句的「地點性」副詞組「under the tree」。


第二句中,主語是「a group of students」,限定動詞是「came」,還有一個修飾整個子句的「方向性」副詞組「into the room」。



當子句中出現「地點性」或「方向性」的副詞組,而這種副詞組又被移到子句的開頭,「主語--整個限定動詞」倒裝便會被觸發(但非必要)。


要記得,「主語--整個限定動詞」倒裝是指在結構上,子句中的整個限定動詞都會跟主語互換位置,而非像我們在#3 - #5的編章中看到的,只涉及當中的輔助動詞。


即是,當限定動詞只包含一個單字(即簡單現在式或簡單過去式的字形),我們無須加入額外的輔助詞「do」,只要把單字的限定動詞與主語調位便可。


由於兩組例句中的限定動詞皆是簡單過去式的單字字形,我們可直接把它們跟主語調位:


Under the tree stood a man.


Into the room came a group of students.

嚴格來說,若限定動詞中包含了輔助動詞,連同輔助動詞的整個詞組會與主語交換位置。


例如:


A man has stood under the tree for hours.


Under the tree has stood a man for hours. (~unnatural)


但實際上,我們甚少會把多於一個單字的限定動詞進行這種倒裝。以上例句是不自然的。


這種「主語--整個限定動詞」倒裝(限定動詞只包含一個單字)在現代英文中並不罕見,尤其當作者(或講者,但較少用於會話上)想讓句子的風格更多變,或特別強調動作的「位置」或「方向」的時候。


關鍵是,因為倒裝「偏離」現代英文的正常詞序,從而增加了它的強調性,使作者/講者可以此達到不同目的。


例如敍述故事時,作者可能會透過這種方式來增加戲劇性:


I was sitting alone in the room for an hour. Then, all of a sudden, INTO THE ROOM came a group of 100 people… 

我獨自在房間裡坐了一個小時。然後,突然間,一群一百人走進了房間……


由於運用了倒裝,使最後的子句中的主語「a group of 100 people」出現在限定動詞「came」之後。「誰進入了房間」的資訊被放在最後才揭曉,製造出更戲劇化的效果。


然而,這種倒裝法雖然能被「地點性」或「方向性」的副詞組所觸發,但卻並非必要的。我們仍然可以視該前置了的副詞組為一般的「主題化」副詞組,並沿用正常的英文詞序完成句子。


例如:


A man stood under the tree. ✔️

Under the tree, a man stood. ✔️

Under the tree stood a man. ✔️



像中間的例句,沒有倒裝,在前方的副詞組「under the tree」只是像個普通被主題化的副詞組。書寫時,我們如常會習慣把逗號加在主語之前面以突顯這一點。


就算是有出現倒裝時,亦要注意,正如我之前說的,這種倒裝法已是現代英文中的「化石」,因此即使它們仍會被某些情景觸發,卻不是所有句子這樣做,聽起來都是自然的。


例如,若限定動詞跟「地點」和「方向」有關,像上述例句中的「stand」和「come」,句子聽起便會自然一點 – 事實上,它們也可能是最常會出現在這種倒裝句子中的動詞。


但如果限定動詞是像「sleep」這種,本身與「地點」或「方向」沒甚麼關係,使用這種倒裝的話,句子聽起來便會不自然:


Under the tree stood a man. ✔️

Under the tree slept a man. (~less natural) 


因此,請確保你有明確的原因(在語氣或風格上),限定動詞又是「stand」或「come」之類,才嘗試組成這種倒裝的句子。不然,很可能會弄巧反拙,使句子更奇怪和不自然。


_____________


小練習:


請用「地點性」或「方向性」倒裝來重寫以下句子。


  1. My sister sat on the bed. 


  1. The speaker came into the lecture hall.





______________



”Inversion” in Modern English #6:

“Locative” or “Directive” Inversion (A Type of “Subject-Whole Verb” Inversion)


In newsletters #3, #4, and #5 of this series, I explained the three main scenarios in which “subject-auxiliary” inversion would be triggered or required in modern English.


This time, we will look at the first major scenario for “subject-whole verb” inversion.


We will call this scenario “locative” or “directive” inversion because it is triggered by adverb phrases that modify the “location” or “direction” of a clause.


The examples I gave for this scenario in #2 of this series are:


Under the tree stood a man.

樹下站著一個男人


Into the room came a group of students.

一群學生走進了房間。

The original word order of these sentences would obviously be: 


A man stood under the tree.

A group of students came into the room. 


In the first sentence, the subject is “a man,” and the finite verb is “stood.” There is an adverb phrase of “location” modifying the whole clause -- “under the tree.” 


In the second sentence, the subject is “a group of students,” and the finite verb is “came.” There is an adverb phrase of “direction” modifying the whole clause -- “into the room.”


When there is an adverb phrase of “location” or “direction” in a clause, and this adverb phrase is moved to the front of the clause, “subject-whole verb” inversion is triggered (but not required). 


Remember that “subject-whole verb” inversion means that, structurally, the whole finite verb in the clause switches positions with the subject -- not just the auxiliary verb, like we have seen in the scenarios in newsletters #3 - #5.


This means that, when the finite verb is only one word (either in simple present form or simple past form), we don’t need to add in an extra auxiliary “do.” We simply swap that one-word finite verb with the subject. 


Since both of our example sentences have finite verbs that are only one word -- both in simple past form -- these one-word finite verbs switch positions with their subjects directly, giving us:


Under the tree stood a man.


Into the room came a group of students.

Technically, when the finite verb involves an auxiliary verb, the whole phrase -- including the auxiliary verb -- switches position with the subject.


For example:


A man has stood under the tree for hours.


Under the tree has stood a man for hours. 


But I said “technically” because we usually don’t form a clause with this type of inversion when the finite verb is not just one word. The sentence above is very awkward and unnatural.


This type of “subject-whole verb” inversion (when it’s with one-word finite verbs like in our two original examples) still appears in modern English not infrequently, especially when writers (or speakers, but this is much rarer in speech) want to make sentences more varied in style or to emphasize the “location” or “direction” of the action.


The point is that, because inversion deviates from normal word order in modern English, it creates emphasis, which can allow writers/speakers to achieve different purposes. 


For example, when someone is telling a story, they might use it to heighten the drama: 


I was sitting alone in the room for an hour. Then, all of a sudden, INTO THE ROOM came a group of 100 people… 

我獨自在房間裡坐了一個小時。然後,突然間,一群一百人走進了房間……


Because the subject of that last clause, “a group of 100 people,” is now behind the finite verb “came” from the inversion, this information -- about “who came into the room” -- is withheld until the end. The “anticipation” of the reader/listener creates a more dramatic effect. 


Lastly, although this type of inversion is triggered by an adverb phrase of “location” or “direction” in front, it is not “required.” We can still just stick to normal English word order. In this case, we are just treating the adverb phrase in front as a normal “topicalized” adverb phrase.


For example:


A man stood under the tree. ✔️

Under the tree, a man stood. ✔️

Under the tree stood a man. ✔️


When the adverb phrase “under the tree” is just a normal topicalized adverb phrase like in the middle example, there is no inversion. When we write, we usually put a comma in front of the subject to indicate that the phrase in front of it is a topicalized adverb phrase.


Note that, because this type of inversion is a “fossil” in modern English like I explained before, even when a scenario still triggers it, not all sentences would sound natural with it.


For example, when the finite verb has to do with “location” and “direction” as well, like “stand” and “come” in our examples, it sounds more natural -- in fact, these might be the most frequent verbs in sentences that show this type of inversion. 


But when the finite verb has nothing to do with “location” or “direction,” for example, “sleep” -- then the sentence would sound much more unnatural with this type of inversion:


Under the tree stood a man. ✔️

Under the tree slept a man. (~less natural) 


So, if you want to try using this type of inversion in your sentences, you should make sure that there is a reason for it in terms of tone or style, and try to only use it when the finite verb is something “stand” or “come.” Otherwise, you might end up sounding awkward or unnatural when you can just form sentences in normal word order without problems. 


_____________


Mini Exercise: 


Rewrite these sentences with “locative” or “directive” inversion:


a. My sister sat on the bed. 

b. The speaker came into the lecture hall.


___________


Answers: 

a. On the bed sat my sister.

b. Into the lecture hall came the speaker. 

Comments

Popular Posts

及物與不及物動詞對:「Lay」vs.「Lie」(+其他例子)

有被動語態的動名詞組(Gerund Phrases): 「Being Chosen for a Flight Mission」 ✈️

比利時巧克力 - 「Belgian」Chocolate 🍫

2025 New Year's Resolutions?

你有「完善的計劃」(“Robust” Plan)來學習英文嗎?

No Doubt… 不容置疑(?)