介詞在「懸掛」在句尾的其他例子 (介詞組 #3)
上一期通訊,我們討論了像 「What are you looking at?」這樣的獨立問題子句 – 即問題字(以「what」為例子)取代了介詞組內的名詞組,並被移動到句子的開頭來構成疑問句,而介詞則保持在原來的位置(在這例子中為句末)。
我希望大家明白,並非我們刻意「添加」一個介詞到這樣的疑問句中,介詞本來就存在於該句子裡面,只是剛巧這問題問及介詞組中的名詞組,因此取代該名詞組的問題字便被移動到最前。
這次,我們再來看看其他會將名詞組從介詞組中「抽出」並只留下「懸掛」介詞的情況。
例如,當我們要組成以下的關係子句(relative clause)時:
This is the menu [ that I was looking at. ]
這是我剛才在看的餐牌
我不會在此深入討論關係子句的結構和功能 ,但可以簡要地解釋一下。(如果你是我們基礎課程的學生,相關章節是 L2.5 和 L6.6)
關係子句充當了修飾外層子句中某名詞的形容詞子句。例如上述例子中,[ that I was looking at ] 是一個關係子句,被嵌入到外層子句 [ this is the menu ] 的結構中。
而外層子句中,關係子句 [ that I was looking at ] 是名詞組 「the menu」的形容詞修飾語,即把它描述為 「the menu [ that I was looking at ]」— 我剛才在看的 餐牌。
我們可以運用關係子句,將需要以整個子句來表達的資訊變成名詞的形容詞。
在關係子句的內部結構中,那個在外層被修飾的名詞,會「複製」成一個我們稱為「關係代名詞」(relative pronoun)的代名詞,在這例子中便是 「that」。
關係代名詞 「that」在關係子句內部結構中代替 「the menu」,扮演所需的文法角色:
…the menu [ that (=the menu) I was looking at. ]
讓我們重頭回顧這關係子句組成過程,看看為什麼介詞 「at」 最終會出現在句尾。
因為我們要用這個關係子句表達這個「我剛才在看的」的意思,該被修飾的名詞組 「the menu」 恰好就在介詞組 「at the menu」之中,因為我們需要這介詞組來完成動詞 「look」的意思。(這與上一期通訊中的問題句例子相同。)
所以一開始,名詞組 「the menu」就在介詞組 「at the menu」裡面:
[ I was looking at the menu. ]
然後,我們需用到一個關係代名詞來取代這名詞組,以形成一個關於 「the menu」的關係子句。這裡用「that」最為合適:
[ I was looking at THAT (=the menu). ]
為了形成關係子句,我們還要將關係代名詞移動到子句的前面。那麼,當我們把關係子句放在它所修飾的名詞後面作為其形容詞時,關係代名詞便會立即出現在該名詞之後:
…the menu [ THAT I was looking at. ]
我剛才在看的 餐牌
就像問句 「What are you looking at?”」一樣,我們不能省略 「at」。一開始,關係代名詞 「that (=the menu)」 便是介詞組 「at that (=the menu)」中的一部分。只是,關係代名詞必需被移動至關係子句的前面,因此介詞便被留在原來的位置,後面沒有連上名詞組。
如剛才所說,我們不是要「添加」一個介詞 — 該介詞本就存在於句子的結構中。在這關係子句裡面,關係代名詞(代表著被修飾的名詞)剛好位於介詞組之中。當它被移動到關係子句的前面,介詞便被保留在原本位置。
另一個會從介詞組中「抽出」名詞組並留下的介詞的情況,是當出現像以下的 infinitive 詞組:
This is the menu to look at.
(大概意思:)這是應要看的餐牌
Infinitive 詞組是由基本字形動詞開始的詞組,例如 「look」,並以「to」為標記,也可包含任何賓語或修飾語在其結構之內。它們通常是有副詞作用,描述動詞動作的「目的」或「意圖」,例如 「I went there to see him. 我去了那裡去/為了見他。」
但 infinitive 詞組也能作為名詞的形容詞。當它們發揮形容詞功能時,通常是在表達「應要 XX 的」的意思。例如:
She is the player to watch this season.
她是這個賽季要關注的球員
這例子中,infinitive詞組 「to watch」修飾了名詞 「the player」,表示那是「要關注的球員」。
我想指出的是,作為形容詞的 infinitive 詞組有時也會在結尾出現一個介詞,這只是因為它們所修飾的名詞是位於該介詞組內的名詞組。例如:
to look at the menu
the menu to look at
應要看的餐牌
同樣地,這裡的 「at」也不是後來加進去的。在infinitive詞組中,本來就有一個介詞組 「at the menu」。但當infinitive詞組要變成修飾 「the menu」的形容詞時,名詞組便會被取出,獨留下介詞「at」放在最後。
最後一種例子,是有被動語態的限定動詞的子句,而主語又是從介詞組中取出的名詞組。例如:
The menu was looked at.
餐牌被看了
這句中的限定動詞 「was looked」是被動語態。如果我們將它改為主動語態:
X looked at the menu.
這主動語態的句式中有一個介詞組 「at the menu」。如果我們要將句子改成被動語態,並把「the menu」 作為主語,就必須將它從介詞組中取出,再留 下「at」於句末:
The menu was looked at.
介詞 「at」同樣不是後加的,該介詞組 「at the menu」在句子還是主動語態時就存在。
當它被改寫成被動句,並以 「the menu」 作為主語時,「the menu」被抽出移至句子的最前,而 「at」則保留在後面的原來位置。**
以上種種情況,一旦我們省略那個被留在原本位置的介詞,句子的結構便不完整了— 因為名詞組雖然被獨立地抽出和移動了,但介詞組實際上還是存在。
日後大家要多注意這些句子了。
小練習:
(a) 請正確地組成一個可修飾 「the problem」 的關係子句。
(b) 請將子句改寫成被動語態,而「the problem」是主語
a) This is the problem. I was working on this problem.
___________________________________________(這是我在嘗試解決的問題)
b) We worked on this problem.
___________________________________________ (這問題被嘗試解決了)
答案:
This is the problem that I was working on.
This problem was worked on.
✋✋✋
備註:
*
對於包括關係代名詞的介詞,另一種組成關係子句的方法是將整個介詞組移到關係子句的前面。
例如:
This is the menu [ AT WHICH I was looking. ]
相較只將關係代名詞移至開頭,這樣的表達方式會更為正式(通常也比較不自然),因此我們應根據不同的語境來考量哪種造句方式更適合表達自己的意圖和目的。
另外,我們將整個介詞組移到句首時,會一律使用 「which」 作為「非人名詞」的關係代名詞,而不會使用 「that」(雖然 「that」和 「which」一般都是替代非人名詞的關係代名詞)。
**
從結構層面而言,用一個介詞組內的名詞組作為主詞來組成被動句,比用直接賓語作為主語(甚至是間接賓語)更得不自然。
你可以這樣想:被動句式中的主詞「正常」都是主動句中的直接賓語。
例如:
I ate a hamburger. → A hamburger was eaten.
這是一個「正常」的被動子句,其主語是主動子句中的直接賓語。
然而,主動子句中的介詞組,裡面的名詞組也可以是被動子句的主語。例如:
I looked after the children. → The children were looked after.
對母語人士來說,像「the children were looked after」 這樣的被動子句是自然的 — 這種子句也就是我想在這篇章中表達的重點。
但我仍要特別指出,如果主語是一個介詞組中的名詞組,那麼相較於以直接賓語作為主語的被動子句,像這樣的被動子句在結構上是沒那麼自然的。
因為我們其實很少會組成這樣的被動子句,而且也非所有這般構成的被動句都是可行的。
例如:
I looked after the children. → The children were looked after.(✅ 被認為是自然的)
We sat at the table. → The table was sat at.(不自然)
I got over it. 我已經克服了這事 → It was got over.(不自然)
當然這不是本篇要探討的主題,我只是稍微解釋一下。
More Examples of “Hanging” Prepositions ↖️
(Prepositional Phrases #3)
In the last newsletter, we discussed independent question clauses like “What are you looking at?” -- in which the question word (“what” in this case) replaces the noun phrase inside a prepositional phrase. When the question word is moved to the front of the clause to form the question, the preposition is left “hanging” in its original position (the end in this case).
So, the main point that I tried to get across was that we do not ever “add” a preposition to a question like this. The preposition is originally there in the sentence. The question just happens to be asking about the noun phrase in the prepositional phrase, and, as such, the question word replacing that noun phrase is moved to the front of the question clause.
In this newsletter, I want to show you that there are other instances in which noun phrases would be “taken out” from prepositional phrases, leaving the prepositions behind.
For example, when we form a relative clause like this:
This is the menu [ that I was looking at. ]
這是我剛才在看的餐牌
I won’t go into details about the structure and function of relative clauses -- if you are taking our foundational course, the relevant sections are L2.5 and L6.6 -- but I will give a brief explanation.
Relative clauses act as adjective clauses modifying a noun in the “outer” clause that they are embedded in. For example, in the above example, [ that I was looking at ] is a relative clause. It is “embedded” within the structure of the outer clause, which is [ this is the menu ] here.
Within the outer clause, the relative clause [ that I was looking at ] serves as an adjective modifier to the noun phrase “the menu” -- it adds description to “the menu,” describing it as “the menu [ that I was looking at ]” -- 我剛才在看的 餐牌.
Relative clauses allow us to turn information that we need a whole clause to express into an adjective for a noun.
Now, within the internal structure of a relative clause, the noun that is modified outside is “duplicated” as a pronoun called a “relative pronoun.” In this example, it is “that.”
This relative pronoun “that” stands in for “the menu” within the internal structure of the relative clause, playing whatever grammatical role it happens to play within the relative clause:
…the menu [ that (=the menu) I was looking at. ]
Let’s reverse the steps of forming this relative clause to see why the preposition “at” is hanging in its position at the end.
With the meaning that we need to express with this relative clause, the noun phrase that is modified, “the menu,” happens to be within the prepositional phrase “at the menu” -- this is because we need this prepositional phrase to complete the meaning of the verb “look.” (This is the same as with our question example in the last newsletter.)
So, originally, the noun phrase “the menu” is inside the prepositional phrase “at the menu”:
[ I was looking at the menu. ]
Then, in order to form a relative clause about “the menu,” we need to replace this noun phrase with a relative pronoun. Here, “that” would be appropriate:
[ I was looking at THAT (=the menu). ]
In order to form a relative clause, we need to move the relative pronoun to the front of the clause -- so that, when we put the relative clause right after the noun it is modifying as its adjective, the relative pronoun would be immediately after that noun:
…the menu [ THAT I was looking at. ]
我剛才在看的 餐牌
So, just like in the question “What are you looking at?,” we cannot leave out “at” -- originally, the relative pronoun “that (=the menu)” is part of the prepositional phrase “at that (=the menu).”
It is just that, the relative pronoun always has to be moved to the front of the relative clause. When this happens to a relative pronoun that is originally inside a prepositional phrase, the preposition is left hanging in its original position without its noun phrase after it.
Again, we don’t “add” in a preposition -- the preposition is already there in the structure of the sentence. It is just that, in this relative clause, the relative pronoun (standing in for the noun that is being modified) happens to be within a prepositional phrase. When it is moved to the front of the relative clause, it leaves the preposition behind.*
Another example of a situation in which a noun phrase would be “taken out” from a prepositional phrase, leaving the preposition behind, is in an infinitive phrase like this:
This is the menu to look at.
(大概:)這是應要看的餐牌
Infinitive phrases are phrases starting with the infinitive form of a verb, like “look,” and marked by the marker “to,” along with any internal objects or modifiers there might be. They usually serve the function of adverbs in a clause, describing the “purpose” or “intention” of a verb’s action, e.g. “I went there to see him. 我去了那裡去見他.”
But infinitive phrases can serve as adjectives to nouns as well. When they serve adjective functions, they usually express the meaning of “應要 XX 的.” For example:
She is the player to watch this season.
她是這個賽季要關注的球員
In this example, the infinitive phrase “to watch” modifies the noun “the player,” describing “the player” as “要關注的球員.”
Anyway, for our point, I wanted to point out that, sometimes, infinitive phrases that act as adjectives also have a “hanging” preposition at the end, because the noun they are modifying is the noun phrase within that prepositional phrase. For example:
to look at the menu
the menu to look at
應要看的餐牌
Again, the “at” is not added in. There is a prepositional phrase “at the menu” in this infinitive phrase originally. When the infinitive phrase is formed into an adjective for “the menu,” this noun phrase is taken out, leaving the “at” inside “to look at.”
The last example I want to give is clauses with a finite verb in passive voice in which the subject is a noun phrase taken out from a prepositional phrase. For example:
The menu was looked at.
餐牌被看了
The finite verb “was looked” is in passive voice in this sentence. If we rewrite it in active voice:
X looked at the menu.
In the “active” sentence, there is a prepositional phrase “at the menu.” If we were to rewrite this sentence in passive voice and have “the menu” as the subject, we would have to take it out of the prepositional phrase, leaving the “at” hanging at the end:
The menu was looked at.
Again, the preposition “at” is not added in at the end. Rather, the prepositional phrase “at the menu” exists originally in the active form of this sentence.
When it is reformed into a passive sentence, with the subject being “the menu,” “the menu” is taken out to the front of the sentence, leaving “at” behind, hanging in its original position.**
In all of these cases, if we leave out the preposition “hanging” in its original position in the sentence, the structure of the sentence would not be intact -- because there is a prepositional phrase there even though the noun phrase inside it has been taken out and moved.
Be careful of such sentences in the future!
__________________
Mini Exercise:
For (a), form a relative clause modifying “the problem” correctly.
For (b), rewrite the sentence as a passive clause with “this problem” as the subject.
This is the problem. I was working on this problem.
__________________________________________(這是我在嘗些解決的問題)We worked on this problem.
__________________________________________ (這問題被嘗些解決)
________________
Answers:
This is the problem that I was working on.
This problem was worked on.
______________
Notes:
*
Another structural way of forming a relative clause in which the relative pronoun is in a prepositional phrase is to move the entire prepositional phrase to the front of the relative clause.
For example:
This is the menu [ AT WHICH I was looking. ]
This is much more formal (and often more unnatural) than just moving the relative pronoun to the front, separating it from the preposition, so you need to think about which way of forming such relative clauses would be more appropriate for your intention and purpose in each context.
Also, when we move the entire prepositional phrase to the front, we would use “which” as a relative pronoun for a “non-human noun” and not “that” (whereas, normally, both “that” and “which” are relative pronouns for “non-human nouns.”)
**
Structurally, it is less natural to form a passive clause with a noun phrase inside a prepositional phrase as the subject than with the direct object as the subject (or even the indirect object).
You can think of it as -- “normally,” the subject of a passive clause is the direct object in an active clause.
For example:
I ate a hamburger. → A hamburger was eaten.
This is a “normal” passive clause in that the subject is the direct object in the active clause.
However, it is true that the noun phrase inside a prepositional phrase in the active clause can be the subject of a passive clause as well. For example:
I looked after the children. → The children were looked after.
A passive clause like “the children were looked after” would be accepted as natural by native speakers -- and a clause like this is central to the point I was trying to make in this newsletter.
But I still need to point out that a passive clause in which the subject is the noun phrase inside a prepositional phrase is “less natural” structurally than one in which the subject is the direct object of the active clause.
We know that it is “less natural” because we don’t form these passive clauses as often, and, also, not all passive clauses formed this way would be accepted as natural.
For example:
I looked after the children. → The children were looked after. (✅ accepted as natural)
We sat at the table. → The table was sat at. (not natural)
I got over it. 我已經克服了這事 → It was got over. (not natural)
This newsletter is not about this topic, but I just wanted to clarify this a little bit.
Comments
Post a Comment