Volume 55, Issue 2 - Special issue: Numeral classifiers in East Asia, Guest Editors: Walter Bisang and Yicheng Wu

The understanding of the functional range of numeral classifiers requires a combined effort from different theoretical approaches and the integration of findings from syntax, semantics and pragmatics. This article demonstrates how such an integrative perspective creates new insights into classifiers in Sinitic languages in the fields of counting and word order, the expression of definiteness and indefiniteness and the syntax of verbal classification.

The word order typology of numerals (Num), classifier or measure word (C/M), and noun (N) put forth by Greenberg (1990 [1972], Numerical classifiers and substantival number: Problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. In Keith Denning & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), On language: Selected writings of Joseph H. Greenberg , 166–193. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press) can be reduced to a universal principle: N does not come between Num and C/M. Given the affinity between this universal and Greenberg’s Universal 20, which concerns the word order typology of D, Num, A, and N, the former is dubbed “Universal 20A” (Her et al. 2015). This paper first discusses, and ultimately rejects, the two alleged exceptions to Universal 20A, one in Ejagham, the other in some Tai-Kadai and Tibeto-Burman languages. Then, in light of Universal 20A, Cinque’s (2005, Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36(3). 315–332) successful antisymmetric account of Universal 20 and all its exceptions is re-examined and shown to be inadequate for Universal 20A. The analysis I propose adopts Abels and Neeleman’s (2012, Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax 15(1). 25–74) symmetric derivational account of Universal 20 and, crucially, takes complex numerals into consideration. The final account also integrates a multiplicative theory of C/M (Her 2012a, Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A mathematical perspective and implications. Lingua 122(14). 1668–1691) and is able to explain the base-C/M harmonization, which was first discovered by Greenberg (1990 [1978]: 292, Generalizations about numeral systems. In Keith Denning & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), On language: Selected writings of Joseph H. Greenberg, 271–309. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press) but has since been overlooked in classifier research, and also offer a functional explanation for Universal 20A.

Certain numeral classifier languages allow for the combination of a classifier and a noun to represent a definite individual/entity when no numeral accompanies the classifier (Vietnamese, Bangla, Oriya, Hmong, varieties of Chinese). In many instances, such a patterning alternates with the use of a bare noun to reference definite individuals/entities, but there has been little systematic study of such alternations, and whether the “bare classifier” and “bare noun” patterns are in free variation or encode different aspects of definite reference. The current paper argues for the latter conclusion with a detailed study of the Jinyun variety of Chinese, showing that bare classifier and bare noun patterns are used to highlight different aspects of “definiteness.” The bare classifier pattern dominates cases of anaphoric definite reference, bridging cross-reference, reference to salient visible entities and non-speaker kin terms and personal relations, while bare nouns are used predominantly for individuals and entities perceived to be specifically unique or directly connected to the speaker. This distribution interestingly shows strong parallels to the way that languages with more than one definite article use such elements for definite reference.

Numeral classifiers have consistently been treated as lexical words (实词 shici or 体词 tici ) by traditional Chinese grammarians but considered functional elements in most theoretical linguistic literature and treated as functionally equivalent to the definite article in English. In this paper, I point out that (i) unlike the definite article the in English that denotes “definiteness” regardless of context, bare nouns and numeral classifiers in Sinitic languages indicate neither “definiteness” nor “indefiniteness” out of context; (ii) the analysis of equating Chinese numeral classifiers with English definite article is the consequence of mistaking an essentially pragmatic phenomenon for a grammatical one (Wu 2016. 语法性与语用性 Yufaxing yu yuyongxing [Grammaticality versus pragmaticality]. Shougao 手稿). Based on various sources of evidence, I demonstrate that the primary function of classifiers has remained unchanged, namely that of classification and individualization (cf. Bisang 1999. Classifiers in East and Southeast Asian languages: Counting and beyond. In Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.), Numeral types and changes worldwide , 113–185. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter). Although bare [Cl+N] phrases and even bare classifiers in some Sinitic languages can sometimes be interpreted definitely, it is strictly subject to context and the pragmatic restriction of familiarity (Li and Bisang 2012. Classifiers in Sinitic languages: From individuation to definiteness-marking. Lingua 122. 335–355). This is confirmed by our questionnaire survey that reveals that the grammatical feature of “definiteness” in these languages is invariably indicated by demonstratives. I thus conclude that numeral classifiers in Sinitic languages can be treated as belonging to the semi-lexical category in the sense of Corver and van Riemsdijk (2001. Semi-lexical categories: The function of content words and the content of function words . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter), which is in agreement with analyses of classifiers as fu mingci “quasi-nominals” (Lü 1953. Hanyu xuexi [Chinese learning]. Beijing: Chinese Youth Press) or “nominal auxiliaries” (Chao 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

It is well-known that an agent-oriented adverbial is syntactically licensed by a functional projection in which an agent is base generated. How is a completive adverbial, such as in three minutes , licensed? It has been noted that such an adverbial is licensed by either a resultative or an incremental theme in the form of a nominal that is quantified by a numeral (and a classifier in numeral classifier languages). Both licensing conditions encode a bounded scale. This paper argues that the nominal in the special form can be analyzed as an element hosted in a ResultP, and thus the two conditions are also unified syntactically. The evidence for the analysis comes from the syntactic similarities and interactions between such a nominal and the resultative in a VV resultative construction in Mandarin Chinese.