Reframing “exceptions” in grammar
“What is ‘grammar’?” series: Part 5
Now that we know that grammar always binds a language and has no “real exceptions” (in the sense that gravity also exists all the time and has no exceptions), we can start to think about how we can reframe our idea of the “seeming exceptions” within systematic grammar that we encounter.
We are often motivated to think (or are told outright to think) that there is “no point” in understanding grammar systematically because there are just so many seeming “exceptions” that would complicate any attempt at a systematic understanding anyway.
Here, it is useful to revisit our analogy of gravity again.
We can probably assume that no one would argue with the idea that knowing about gravity on earth is important. In order for us to understand how physical objects behave on earth and to relate to them normally in daily life, we have to know that gravity is a constant force that affects everything. If not, we might be shocked every time we knock something over.
Even though there are situations in which gravity can seem to be “suspended” in real life--for example, when a transparent string is holding up a ball, like in our previous analogy, or any time a magician performs a “gravity-defying” magic trick--no one would argue that it is not important to know about the constant force of gravity on earth.
It would sound odd if someone were to say, after watching a magic show with “gravity-defying” tricks, that “we should not learn about gravity because there are so many exceptions anyway.”
Gravity is important to understand because it exists all the time and affects everything all the time--even when a ball held by a transparent string seems to be defying it.
In fact, if we think about it in another way, in order to make sense of why the ball does not fall all the way to the ground when it is held by a string (the “exception”), we have to understand gravity. If we do not understand gravity, we would not know why the ball would naturally fall on the ground, and why it would stop in mid-air when another upward force acts on it.
It is the same general idea with understanding systematic grammar. Systematic grammar exists and binds language all the time, so it is important to understand it if we want to learn a foreign language. Even when there are “seeming exceptions,” we can only understand them if we think about them within the consistent framework of systematic grammar.
It is definitely not pointless to know about gravity just because we sometimes see “gravity-defying” magic tricks. In the same way, it is definitely not pointless to learn systematic grammar because we see certain seeming “exceptions” to it in real life.
It is important to understand gravity as a constant force because the physical world is bound by it all the time. In the same way, it is important to understand grammar as a system because a language is bound by it all the time.
If we don’t know what the “constant forces” at play are, whether regarding the physical world or language, we would have no way of making sense of the “exceptions.”
So, let’s all reframe our thinking that there is no point to understanding grammar systematically because there are so many “exceptions.”
In the next part, we will look at some simplified examples, in English, of how linguists account for seeming exceptions within systematic grammar--remember, these are the “hovering objects dangling by a transparent string” in our analogy that can only be understood if we understood the existence of gravity.
重新理解文法中的「例外」
「grammar」（文法）是甚麼系列：第 5篇
現在我們明白到「grammar」（文法）一直規範著語言，並且不存在「真正的例外」（正如地心吸力一直在地球上存在，並沒有「沒有地心吸力」的例外情況），可以進一步思考一下在面對系統性文法中那些「看似例外」的情況時，應該如何重建我們的想法。
我們常被直接或簡接地灌輸一個概念 : 理解「grammar」的系統性並無意義，因為那些「看似例外」的情況實在太多，越去嘗試理解，便越把事情「簡單複雜化」。
讓我們再重溫一下地心吸力的比喻。
相信應該沒有人對「知道地球上有地心吸力是重要的」這個概念有異議。要了解物件在地球上的物理變化，並能在日常生活中與物件產生正常的聯繫和互動，我們必須知道地心吸力是會影響所有物件的恆定力，不然我們每次打翻東西時都可能會感到非常震驚。
但某些情況下，地心吸力看似是消失了。例如我們上一節中的比喻，用一根透明的繩子繫住一個球，或者魔術師演出一些反重力的表演等。即使如此，應該沒有誰會懷疑知道地心吸力是影響地球的恆定力是重要的。
如果一個人看了一個反重力的魔術表演，說:「我們根本不需要了解地心吸力，因為現實中有太多例外的情況」，我們應會覺得他很奇怪吧。
認識地心吸力是重要的，因為它不僅是一直存在，還一直影響著所有物體 － 即使那個被繫在透明繩子上，吊在半空的球，也是被同樣的引力影響著的。
換個角度想，要理解為何被繩子繫住的球不會掉落地面（那「例外」情況 ），我們其實更要先理解地心吸力。要不然，我們便不會明白為何球會自然掉落地面，又為何在遇上其他向上的相對力量時，它會吊在半空。
這想法同樣適用於理解系統性的「grammar」。因為它一直存在並會規範語言，對它有至少基本的認識，對我們學習外語是十分重要的。就連那些「看似例外」的情況，都要放進系統性文法的統一框架中去思考，我們才能真正地理解它們。
看到反重力的魔術表演，當然不代表理解地心吸力就無意義；遇上文法中一些「看似例外」的情況，也同樣地不代表理解系統性文法就毫無意義。
理解地心吸力為一種恆定力量十分重要，因為物理世界由始至終都受其約束；同樣，把文法理解為一個系統是重要的，因為每個語言由始至終都受到它的文法規範。
無論是物理世界還是語言，一旦我們不理解那股在背後起作用的「恆定力量」，我們就無法真正明白「例外」是怎樣一回事。
所以，我們是時候推倒「有系統地理解文法並無意義」的觀念，並重新建構對它的想法。
下一節，我們將從一些簡化了的英文例子，看看語言學家會如何處理系統性文法中的「看似例外」情況 － 記得，假如我們用地心吸力作比喻，這些情況就只不過是那些繫在透明繩子上，吊在半空的物件。