CLASSIFIERS AND DEFINITENESS IN LONGDU (MIN CHINESE

Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2014

Through comparative study of English whole and Chinese zheng, I argue that in English, when the part-related reading is obtained, whole actually modifies a silent functional projection, which can be identified with the classifier projection in Chinese. Such an analysis provides a clue to the puzzling behavior of English whole, which does not modify plural nouns under the part-related reading (e.g. *The whole apples are large). Theoretically, I argue for a unified analysis of whole/zheng that combines the semantic analysis in Moltmann (1997 et seq.), which suggests that the part-related reading of whole is related to situated mass interpretation, and the syntactic proposals in Kayne (2005 et seq.) and Borer , which argue for the uniform classifier projection at syntax in both classifier and non-classifier languages. The analysis not only sheds light on the cross-linguistic syntax of nominal expressions, but it also provides empirical support for the Uniformity Principle in Universal Grammar. 1 As pointed out by an anonymous JEAL reviewer, English allows certain "classifiers" in the so-called pseudo-partitive constructions, such as a bottle of wine, a kind of dog , where bottle and kind correspond to measure-classifiers and kind-classifiers in Chinese. It seems plausible to treat these elements on a par with classifiers in Chinese. However, they do show syntactic differences from Chinese classifiers. For example, bottle and kind in English behave more like substantive nouns, which can be pluralized, as in two bottles of wine and two kinds of dogs. On the other hand, classifiers in Chinese are more like (semi-)functional elements in their morpho-syntax (cf. Riemsdijk 1998). While it is interesting to investigate this issue, it is beyond the scope of this paper. I shall leave it for future research. others, for issues related to the DP analysis in classifier languages.

2011

The article reprinted above as the main text of the present chapter, Yi (2009b), discusses Chinese nouns and numeral classifiers. In doing so, it presents an outline of the distinction between mass and count nouns of numeral classifier languages, and sketches an account of the function of numeral classifiers. The accounts of classifiers and of classifier language nouns offer alternatives to those that dominate discussions of classifier languages in contemporary linguistics. I think that the dominant accounts are fundamentally mistaken, and that the alternatives outlined in the article are on the right track. They have been developed further in my subsequent works, including Yi (2010) and (2011). 1 On the occasion of reprinting the short piece that lays out a program for further research in a book that covers a wide range of issues about classifier languages, especially Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, I wish to add some remarks that might help to put the discussions in the article in a broader perspective.

Nouns in Chinese-type languages behave differently in several salient ways from those in Germanic and Romance languages. To name a few: Chinese-type nouns do not have obligatory plural markers (-s/es) or articles (a/an/the), but they do have a unique, systematic inventory of classifiers, or words that obligatorily appear with nouns and numbers. Though Chinese-type languages have a great deal in common with one another in the nominal domain, we observe that these languages vary dramatically with respect to how definiteness and indefiniteness are encoded. This paper explores these differences and proposes a modified model of NPs based on Krifka (1995) and Chierchia (1998) to accommodate data from both Chinese-type languages and languages with obligatory plural marking.

In this paper I provide a novel account of a number of facts related to restrictions on the interpretation of Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese noun phrases that have been discussed extensively in the literature. The approach that I take eschews a more standard head-movement approach, and implements a 'spanning' account, in which multiple heads in an extended projection can be spelled out as a single morpheme. I show that a spanning account of the interpretation of different noun phrase configurations in conjunction with a condition on the licensing of a definite D head in the extended nominal projection captures all of the facts, and is also compatible with data from a classifier language, Nuosu Yi, which exhibits definite bare nouns and also a definite determiner.

This study aims to provide some new evidence in favor of the “Complex-Specifier” approach to Chinese numeral construction. Section 1 is a general presentation of the background; Section 2 sketches some previous research; Section 3 presents some new data, showing how different kinds of classifiers interact in a same numeral construction with a special attention paid to ellipsis in Multiple-Classifier Construction; Section 4 concludes the discussion.

2011

Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2019

This paper argues for the projection of DP for indefinites initiated with yi ‘one’ and indefinites initiated with a classifier in Mandarin Chinese. First, a null numeral for ‘one’ is identified. Second, in yi-initial nominals, an indefinite article is also identified. Third, for classifier-initial indefinites, which have no overt numeral, a head movement of a classifier to D is argued for. Therefore, the head of DP in the language can be realized by either an indefinite article or a raised classifier. No argument is in the structure of a bare Classifier Phrase in the language. The paper supports the idea that numeralless classifier nominals exist because of the availability of null numerals. It also proposes a semantic LF reanalysis approach to the dependency of a classifier-initial nominal on a higher head element in the language.

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.

2013

This paper examines the constituency of the construction that contains three elements: a numeral, a word that encodes a counting unit, such as a classifier or measure word, and a noun in Mandarin Chinese. It identifies three structures: a left-branching structure for container measures, standard measures, partitive classifiers, and collective classifiers; a right-branching structure for individual and individuating classifiers; and a structure in which no two of the three elements form a constituent, for kind classifiers. The identification is based on the investigation of four issues: <i> the scope of a left-peripheral modifier; <ii> the dependency between the modifier of unit word and that of a noun; <iii> the complement and predicate status of the combination of a numeral and a unit word; <iv> the semantic selection relation between a unit word and a noun. The paper also shows that the co-occurrence of a numeral and a unit word and the position of certain partitive markers are not reliable in identifying syntactic constituents. It also argues against quantity-individual semantic mappings with different syntactic structures. Finally, the paper presents a comparative deletion analysis of the constructions in which the functional word de follows a unit word.

By manipulating the positions of modifiers, it can be shown that in Chinese, referential properties like specificity and definiteness are related to some structure higher than the numeral. This structure is identified as the Specificity Phrase (SP), the projection of which gives rise to specificity. The feature specification of the S head determines the definiteness interpretation of a noun phrase. Not all Chinese noun phrases can be interpreted as definite. The restrictions in definiteness interpretation are modeled by a theory in which definiteness is regulated by an Agree (Chomsky 2000, Pesetsky & Torrego 2004) relation between the Specificity Phrase and the Classifier Phrase. Every referential interpretation is unambiguously linked to a corresponding nominal structure with a certain feature specification.