the trees that underlie our sentences, the ones that build up the structure that our

一種樹是可以劃出我們所說的句子，那種建構出一種結構

words slot into and let us build bigger meanings. Every time you build a sentence, every time

讓字能夠排排站，讓我們能造出更多的意思。每次當你造出一個句子的時候，每次

someone talks to you, you’re growing one of these trees. All I’ve just been saying

有人在跟你說話的時候，你都在種出這一種樹。　我剛剛說的那些

has planted a little grove of language in your mind. So let’s do some climbing! I’m Moti

也已在你腦中種出一片語言的樹林囉！讓我們開始攀爬吧！我是Moti

Lieberman, and this is The Ling Space.

Lieberman，歡迎來到林氏空間（語言學空間）!

There’s a whole branch of linguistics that’s devoted to looking at the structure of sentences,

語言學的所有分支都是靠著從句子結構探討開始

known as syntax. But why do we even bother?

也就是所知的「句法」。　但是為什麼我們還要這麼麻煩呢？

Can’t we just stack our words one on top of another like pancakes

我們就不能就把字一個疊著另一個疊起來，就像煎薄餅一樣

to build some delicious meanings?

把一些美味的意義疊出來？

Well, there has to be some structure, or else we’d be able to work back from a smashed-up wreck

但是一定要有些結構，要不然我們怎麼從一堆破爛的廢墟裡把它蓋回來呢？

of a sentence like “a threatening hand is who Angel missing lawyer the is,” and have

就像這句子「那威脅的手是Angel正在想念的律師」，然後

it get the same meaning as the original, “The lawyer who is missing a hand is threatening

它意思跟原句有一樣嗎？「失去一隻手的律師在威脅Angel。」

Angel.” Clearly, one of those is a good sentence of English, and the other one is just gibberish

明顯地，其中一個是個好英文句子，然而另一句子只是用英文字隨便亂造出來的

that happens to be made up of English words. So structure must matter.

胡言亂語。所以結構是很重要的

But what kind of structure do we need? Well, whatever hypothesis we come up with, it’s

但是我們需要什麼樣的結構呢？不論我們提出什麼樣的假說

got to be really flexible. That's because it has to capture all the variation in how all the

它一定要很有彈性。因為它必須包含世界上所有語言的變化

different languages in the world put together all their different sentences. We don’t want to say

還有組合出來的各式各樣的句子。我們不想說

Icelandic speakers have one basic way of making sentences, but Telugu speakers have a second

冰島人有一個基本造句法，但是印度泰盧固語有第二個造句法

one, and Cree speakers a third. Building sentences with their own internal structures is something

而且加拿大克里語的人有第三種。從內部結構來造句是

common to every language of the world, and so an Icelandic baby dropped off in southeastern

世界上每個語言都普遍的作法，所以當一個被丟在印度東南方的冰島嬰兒

India will learn Telugu syntax just fine. That’s because the basic framework of syntax

也會學到泰盧固語的句法。那是因為句法的基本架構是

is universal. In fact, it’s part of Universal Grammar, the linguistic knowledge all people share.

普遍的。事實上，它是普遍語法的一部分，也就是人類皆共同擁有的語言知識

But with all the surface differences, finding something that can branch its way through

但是有各有表面上的不同。藉由任何一個人類語言，要找到能夠分出它自己的道路

every human language isn’t obvious. Not only does it have to be flexible, it also

並不是很表面的。　不只要具有彈性，也要

has to be abstract.

是抽象的

So, here are a lot of hypotheses out there, but one of the most commonly talked about

因此，現在有很多種假說，但是其中最廣為討論的就是

ones, is called X’ theory, first proposed in the early 70s. The X in X’ doesn’t

被成為「標桿（X'）理論」，它在70年代初期被提出。「X'」的「X」並不

stand for anything; it’s a variable, like in algebra. We can use that

代表什麼，它是可變的，就像是代數一樣。我們可以利用這

variable to make a basic structure, a template, like this: X can stand for any noun or verb

可變性來創造出基本架構，一個模板，像這樣：「X可以代表任何名詞或動詞

or adjective or any category you want to build a phrase around. You end up with chunks of

或是形容詞，甚至你要想造一個片語的什麼詞都可以。」你可以用一堆

syntax that can be stacked and connected together, and you do it in a way that’s flexible enough to communicate

可以堆疊起來、連結起來的句法，然後你用一個夠具有足夠彈性的方式

anything that you want, in any language that you want.

來造任何你想要的句子，不論什麼語言

This gets a lot clearer when you start looking at some examples. Let’s start with something

當你看一些例子的時候會比較清楚。　我們來看看很簡單的例子

really simple: a name, like “Cordelia.” Okay, so in your mental lexicon, where you

一個名字，像是「Cordelia」。所以在你的心智辭典裡，就是你

store all your words, each term belongs to a syntactic category - which is like a part of speech,

把字都儲存在的那個地方，每個詞都屬於一個句法種類-也就是像詞性

so a noun, an adverb, etc. “Cordelia” is a noun, so when we want to put “Cordelia”

像名詞、副詞等。「Cordelia」是一個名詞，所以當我們想要把「Cordelia」

in our X’ tree, we replace the Xs with Ns for nouns. In this phrase,

放進我們的X'樹狀圖，我們把X換成N來表示名詞。 在這片語中

Cordelia is the “head”, which is the part of the phrase with the most content and meaning.

Cordelia是「中心（head）」，也是這片語中最具有內容和意義的一部分

Because Cordelia’s the head of the phrase, and because it’s a noun, the whole thing

因為Cordelia是這個片語中的中心，而且因為它是名詞，所以整個

will become a noun phrase, or NP. Great! Done. Except, not really. This might work if we

會變成一個名詞片語或是NP。 太棒了！ 結束！ 除了，其實不只。這個或許會有用，如果

never said anything more than bare nouns and verbs and things, but natural language is

永遠不說超過單一名詞或副詞之類的東西，但是自然語言是

a lot more involved than that. So sometimes all you want to say is Cordelia, but sometimes

是比那複雜很多的。 所以有時候你要說的只是Cordelia，但是有時候

you might want to say nice things about Cordelia. Maybe you want to say, “The amazing Cordelia.”

你或許想要說一些有關Cordelia的好事。 或許你想要說「太驚人的Cordelia了」

Where did those other words fit in?

那其他的字要怎麼插進去呢？

Well, that’s where the “bar” part of X’ theory comes to the rescue. So between the

喲，標桿理論的「桿（bar）」就來解救這一個情況。 所以在

head and phrase level, we introduce one more layer of complexity: that's the bar level, which is written

中心和片語的層級之間，我們導入多一層複合的層次，也是就「標桿等級（bar level）」，書寫時候會

with an apostrophe next to the letter that represents the head. The bar level is an intermediate, repeatable

把一個省略符號寫在中心所代表的字母旁邊。「標桿等級（bar level）」在這模板是居中的且可重複的

stage in the template that allows us all the flexibility we need to

藉此讓我們所需要的這些彈性來

build bigger phrases and sentences. Let’s see how this works.

造出更長的片語和句子。　我們來看看這怎麼作用的

Since they’re still all still associated with the noun - they’re all to do with Cordelia

因為它們都還是跟名詞連結再一起，他們都是跟Cordelia變化的

- you need to have extra room for those extra words in your noun phrase. So they need to get nestled into

你的名詞片語中需要額外的房間來給其他的字。 所以他們才可以住進

the NP, and that’s where the N’ comes in. Now your sentence is shaping up.

這名詞片語中，而且這也是名詞桿（N'）接下來出現的地方。 現在你的句子就往上長了

But wait. Why bother having these intermediate stages at all? Even if we know all these words

但是等等，何必還要有中間的階級呢？甚至是我們都知道這些字

come together to make a noun phrase, why put in all these extra levels of structure? Why

會組合起來成為一個名詞片語，為什麼要把它們放在這結構中的不同階級呢？為什麼

not just put in an NP at the top, and then different labels for all the words below - so an N for the noun,

不直接放個名詞片語（NP）在最上面，然後在字的下面標上標籤，就像是N代表名詞

an A for the adjective, etc. That’d be easier, right?

A代表形容詞等等。 這樣不是簡單多了嗎？

Well… here’s the thing. The reason we needed syntax in the first place was to give

嗯...這樣有個問題。我們一開始需要句法的原因就是要架出

structure to how come sentences mean what they do, and have the word order that they

一個架構是來解釋為什麼句子意思是如此，它們的功能是什麼，還有字序的功能是什麼

do. All the information about what a sentence means, that is the syntax, and it has to be

所以關於句子意義的資訊就是句法學，而且它一定要

visible in our diagrams, why bother drawing trees in the first place, right?

能就圖表化，不然一開始何必那麼麻煩的畫樹呢？

So we end up needing to branch things off two by two with bar levels,

所以我們結束用標桿等級（bar level）把東西一雙一對的分支下去

otherwise we wouldn’t know what parts go with other parts. We can even put as many

否則我們不知道哪個部分要跟哪個部分在一起。　我們甚至也可以

bar levels into the structure as we want, so it'll work for any kind of sentence. For

放入隨便多少標桿等級（bar level）到架構中，所以這樣才能適用於任何一種句子。

example, if we said “the quirky, supremely intelligent Fred,” and there was no internal

例如說，如果我們說「那狡詐又極為聰明的佛瑞德」，這樣這個就沒有內部

structure, so everything was just flat, we wouldn’t know that supremely was supposed

結構，所以每個東西都是平的，我們不會知道「極度的」應該要

to go with intelligent, and not with quirky. We wouldn’t be able to come up with any

跟「聰明的」出現，而不是跟「狡詐的」。　我們無法想出任何

rules to stop these things. All the rules, everything that’s okay and not okay,

規則來阻止這樣的狀況。　所有的規則，所有事情是可以或不可以

has to be seen in the structure.The bar levels give us a hierarchy that allows us to make

都要在結構中被檢視。這些標桿等級（bar level）提供了一套階級制度讓我們

sense of things like this. Now, we know “supremely” goes with “intelligent”, and that you

可以像這樣合理化句子。 現在我們知道「極度的」跟「聰明的」一起使用，而且你

can’t just pull words out willy-nilly to make nonsense sentences.

不可以不管可不可以就把字拉出來然後造出不合理的句子

What X’ theory shows us is the way that we can build structure

標桿理論帶給我們的就是我們建構出句構的方法

in order to capture all the facts of language, along with the flexibility to add whatever

為了包含所有的語言的現象，還有添加隨便我們喜歡的東西的彈性

we like. They let us add potentially infinite parts before the head, like “The bespectacled

它們讓我們有可能在中心之前加上無限的要素，像是

bookish Brit Wesley,” or after it, as in “the vampire with a soul and a big black

「那個帶著眼鏡又像書呆子的英國人衛斯理」；或是加在後面，「那有靈魂和一個大的黑外套的吸血鬼。」（註：英文字序是寫在吸血鬼後面）

coat.” And this sort of syntax also lets us capture facts about how we form larger

而且這樣的句法也讓我們知道如何造出更長的

sentences, as questions, find ambiguity, and all sorts of other things, which we’ll

句子，像是疑問句，發現歧義，還有其他各種的句子，我們在

talk about in the future.

未來會探討到的

Linguists today have a lot of other hypotheses about syntax, too, but X’ is a great place

現在語言學家對於句法也有許多不同的假說，但是X桿是一個

to start because it shows all of the hallmarks of why syntax is real and useful. It can be

很好的起始點，因為它顯示出了為什麼句子是真實且有用的所有特點。 它可以

applied to any type of word, in any type of sentence, in any type of language. It’s

被應用到任何一種文字，任何一種句子，以及任何一種語言。

just a template: a head with a phrase and as many intermediate stages as you’d like.

它就是一個模板：片語的中心以及要多少有多少的中間階層

But by using that one little template, and putting it in every time you make a phrase,

但是藉由這一個小小的模板，然後你每次造句的時候把它應用進去

you can shape a whole world of language. Shaping those little trees can tell you what

你可以精進世界上的任何一種語言。　畫出這些小樹們可以告訴你什麼是

language is. And that’s worth the climb.

語言。而且這是值得去探索的

So we’ve reached the end of the Ling Space for this week, but if you were making your

我們已經來到本周林式空間（語言學空間）的尾聲，但是如果你正在造你自己的

own happy little trees, you learned that sentences must have an internal structure to them if we’re

快樂小樹，你就知道句子一定要有一個內部結構，如果我們

going to capture the facts we know about them; that the basic template of that structure

要知道它們所有的事情；句構的基本模板

needs to be flexible and universal; that the template in X’ theory consists of a head,

必須要是彈性的且普遍的；標桿理論中一定要有個中心

a phrase, and as many bar levels as you need to fit all the words you have; and that the

一個片語，但你需要拿來修飾你的文字的標桿等級；而且

structure should branch off two-by-two to fit the facts about hierarchy that we feel are true.

這個架構最多只能分支兩隻來符合我們覺得自然的這個階級

The Ling Space is written and produced by me, Moti Lieberman. It’s directed by Adèle-Élise

林式空間（語言學空間）是由我撰寫且製作，我是Moti Lieberman。由 Adèle-Élise Prévost

Prévost, our production assistant is Georges Coulombe, our music and sound design is by

所指導，我們的製作助理是Georges Coulombe，我們音樂設計是

Shane Turner, and our graphics team is atelierMUSE. We’re down in the comments below, or you

Shane Turner，我們的製圖團隊是atelierMUSE。就都在下方備註欄，或是你

can take the discussion back over to our website, where we have more information on this

可以回到我們的網頁和我們一起討論，在我們的網頁有更多關於這主題的資訊

topic. Check us out on Tumblr, Twitter, and Facebook, and if you want to keep expanding

到Tumblr、Twitter、Facebook上看看我們，如果你想要持續拓展

your own personal Ling Space, please subscribe. And we’ll see you next Wednesday. /seləvu/!

你自己的林式空間（語言學空間），請訂閱我們。我們下星期三見。