非小說作品中的副標題經常是名詞子句

 

我最近讀完一本非常有深度、調查嚴謹又寫得很好的書，叫做《The Hidden Globe: How Wealth Hacks the World》（《隱藏的地球：財富如何駭入世界》），作者是記者 Atossa Araxia Abrahamian。 這本書探討的是一系列存在於國家邊界與司法管轄之外的地帶與制度——像是自由港、特殊經濟區、甚至外太空——以及全球超級富豪如何利用（甚至濫用）這些空間與制度，在稅務、資產、移民、甚至法律責任等面向上逃避國家與國際的規管。 放心，我這次並不是要寫一篇書評型的電子報 😄 我真正想談的是這本書的副標題 "How Wealth Hacks the World"（財富如何駭入世界），它讓我想到一個值得分享的文法點，就是，這種名詞子句結構，在非小說作品用作說明性的副標題中很常見。 你可能會直覺認為像 "how" 這樣的字是「問題子」，但我們需要注意的是， "How Wealth Hacks the World" 並不是一個問題句。 為什麼這不是問題句呢？因為它的詞序沒有出現輔助動詞的移前。 這個子句的主語是 "wealth"（財富），限定動詞是 "hacks"（駭入、操控）。 如果我們真的想把它變成獨立是問題句的子句，就需要加入輔助動詞 does（因為本身的限定動詞「hacks」沒有輔助動詞），並把它移到主語 "wealth" 的前面，變成： How does wealth hack the world? 但現在這子句 中並沒有 "does"，也沒有詞序的移動，所以我們知道它不是問題，而其實是一個名詞子句（noun clause）。 名詞子句的本質是一個被「嵌入」在外層子句中、在外層中 功能是名詞的子句。雖然這裡它是單獨存在的，但詞法結構仍是名詞子句，而不是獨立的問題句。 一般，以 how 組成的名詞子句常表達「⋯⋯的方式」的意思，所以這副標題 "How Wealth Hacks the World" 大致上可理解成「財富操控這個世界的方式」。 像這樣單獨出現的名詞子句經常被拿來作為非小說作品的副標題，幫助讀者更明確了解主標題在講什麼。 舉一個類似例子： "What Money Can’t Buy"（金錢無法買到的東西） 這同樣也不是獨立問題，而是個名詞子句。由 what 這疑問代名詞組成的名詞子句會表示「⋯⋯的東西」的意思。所以這句的意思是：「金錢無法買到的東西」。 這類副標題會比問題句更適合用作解釋書名，因為它們呈現的不是一個開放問題，而是那書會探討的核心概念本身——不是「用書問這問題」，而是「這書就是在解答這東西」。

Noun clauses as subtitles of non-fiction works 📚 I recently finished a very well-researched and well-written book called “The Hidden Globe: How Wealth Hacks the World” by journalist Atossa Araxia Abrahamian.  The book is about the places and systems that lie outside of national boundaries and jurisdictions--like freeports, special economic zones, even outer space--and how they are used (and often exploited) by the ultra-wealthy to bypass national and international laws and regulations in different areas. Don’t worry -- I’m not writing a newsletter about the book itself. Rather, the subtitle of the book, “How Wealth Hacks the World,” gave me the idea to write a brief newsletter about this type of noun clause construction, which is frequently used as explanatory subtitles in non-fiction works. The thing to note here is that “How Wealth Hacks the World” is not a question -- even though you might be primed to think of a word like “how” as a “question word.”  We know that it is not a question (an independent clause that is a question) because there is no movement of the auxiliary verb. The subject of this clause is “wealth,” and the finite verb is “hacks.”  If we were to turn this into a question clause, we would first need to add in the extra auxiliary verb “does” (because there is no ready auxiliary in the finite verb “hacks”), and then move this “does” to the front of the subject, which would give us:  How does wealth hack the world?  However, this is not the case here. There is no “does” and no auxiliary verb movement. The construction “How Wealth Hacks the World” is actually a noun clause. A noun clause is normally an embedded clause that functions as a noun in its outer clause. We won’t go into detail, but a noun clause with “how” usually expresses the meaning of “XXX 的方式,” so this subtitle means roughly “財富操控這個世界的方式.” On its own, a noun clause like this is often used as a subtitle expanding or elaborating on the title of a non-fiction work like this book.  Here’s another example: “What Money Can’t Buy.”  This is also no an independent question but rather a noun clause. A noun clause with the question word pronoun “what” expresses generally the meaning of “XXXX 的東,” so, this example means something like “金錢無法買到的東西.”  As subtitles, noun clauses are more apt than questions because they encapsulate that “idea” better in form -- instead of “asking a question,” this type of subtitle tells readers that “the book will explain this ‘idea.’”

Best,  Ms. Charlotte