Whether classifiers (C) and measure words (M) can be meaningfully distinguished in Chinese has been a controversial issue, reflected also by the drastic discrepancy in the inventories of classifiers previously proposed. The two tests, i.e. de-insertion and adjectival modification, that proponents for the C/M distinction proposed have been shown to be unreliable and thus rejected. We re-examine these two tests closely and propose two sets of refined, reliable, and revealing tests. We further employ the Aristotelian distinction between essential and accidental properties as well as the Kantian distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions to characterize the C/M distinction. M is therefore semantically substantive and thus blocks numeral quantification and adjectival modification to the noun; C, in contrast, does not form such a barrier, for it is semantically null in the sense that it merely highlights a semantic aspect inherent to the noun and thus contributes no additional meaning.

/pdf/on-the-semantic-distinction-between-classifiers-and-measure-2c373iy2qa.pdf

On the Semantic Distinction between Classifiers and Measure Words in Chinese

Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A mathematical perspective and implications

This thesis provides a syntactic and semantic analysis of bare arguments and classifiers in Thai as well as accounting for its nominal word order. Adopting the Nominal Mapping Parameter (Chierchia 1998), it is argued that Thai nouns are names of kinds. Kinds are of type , which are allowed to appear without overt determiners in argument position. For this reason, Thai nouns cannot directly combine with a quantifier without the help of a classifier. The study shows that Thai arguments behave like English bare arguments (bare plurals and mass nouns) in that they exhibit scopelessness and can be interpreted with different meanings such as weak indefinite, generic and kind interpretations. Unlike English bare arguments, the Thai counterparts may also have a definite interpretation. This is because Thai lacks an overt definite determiner. In addition, the thesis provides a unified analysis for the occurrence of Thai classifiers in different contexts. It is assumed that a classifier occurs in a quantified context to provide a portion of a kind (Krifka 1995, Chierchia 1998). The thesis further proposes that a classifier occurs in a non-quantified context where there is no overt numeral when the noun phrase is specific. A specific noun phrase includes those appearing with a demonstrative, the numeral ‘one’ or a modifier. As for the word order within the nominal domain, it is proposed that the noun, although merged at the bottom of the Specific Phrase underlyingly, always appears in the initial position to check an uninterpretable nominal feature in the Specific head.

/pdf/classifiers-and-determiner-less-languages-the-case-of-thai-t4sa7jyt0p.pdf

Classifiers and Determiner-less Languages: The Case of Thai

When a classifier occurs with a numeral and an event-denoting expression, it is used as a unit to count events. The classifier is called a verbal classifier if the event-denoting expression is verbal, although the classifier itself is not verbal. This paper argues that a numeral and a verbal classifier have a spec-head relation, and the verbal expression is the complement. The proposal explains a number of syntactic generalizations of verbal classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Like a frequentative adverb such as twice, a verbal classifier expression is either event-internal or event-external. The two types of classifiers have different possible positions in the language. The position contrasts are explained by different heights of the projection headed by a classifier. Theoretically, on the one hand, this research unifies the syntax of nominal and verbal numeral classifiers; and on the other hand, it explores the syntactic distinctions between event-internal and event-external verbal classifiers.

The Syntax of Event-Internal and Event-External Verbal Classifiers†

It is generally believed that numeral classifier languages such as Chinese have no productive way to encode the contrast between plurality and singularity. This paper shows that although bare nouns in Mandarin Chinese encode general number, the language uses reduplicate unit words (including classifiers and measure words) to express unit plurality, and uses non-reduplicate form of unit words to express unit singularity. Neither way of number encoding is compatible with a numeral. The paper shows that plural markers in Mandarin Chinese are structurally licensed by certain quantifiers. This work indicates that classifier languages use the morphological forms of classifiers themselves to express the singular-plural contrast productively, a new understanding of the forms of number markers in numeral classifier languages.

https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001782/current.pdf

Expressing number productively in Mandarin Chinese

This paper focuses on the role of number in Niuean, an Austronesian language in the Tongic subgroup of the Polynesian family. It is argued that the concepts of individuation, classification, and number are separable, even though they overlap significantly, as argued by Borer (2005). Number (i.e. singular/plural) must be expressed in the Niuean noun phrase, but it can be expressed on a variety of different elements in the phrase, such as on a quantifier, a numeral, or the reduplicated noun itself, or by means of a plural marker. The following question is addressed: Is it possible to situate number in a single functional head in Niuean? The answer is yes, but several problems must first be addressed. In order to explain the lack of the plural particle in quantified and counted nominal phrases, it is proposed that the linking particle that appears in such phrases be analyzed as a deficient classifier. This allows a uniform analysis for number: Niuean, like Armenian, has both a classifier and a number system. The paper then turns to examine certain classifying collective particles, which co-occur with the plural marker. These are considered to merge lower than number, but if number is otherwise unexpressed, they can raise to serve the function of number. The number marker itself is analyzed as being ambiguous between a number and a collective particle. In conclusion, neither the number system, nor the classifier system in Niuean is canonical, suggesting a system in change from classifiers to number.

http://www.ling.sinica.edu.tw/files/publication/j2009_4_03_5333.pdf

Diane Massam

Papers

On the Separation and Relatedness of Classifiers, Number, and Individuation in Niuean *