國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
examples used herein thus come from these five Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations, which include the grammar book《中國話的文法》“A Grammar of
Spoken Chinese” edited by Chao (1968), the dictionary 《國語日報量詞典》
“Mandarin Daily Dictionary of Chinese Classifiers” edited by Huang et. al. (1997)
and the PhD dissertation of Hu (1993), and two journal papers of Erbaugh (1986) and of Gao and Malt (2009). Since this thesis focuses on Mandarin Chinese classifiers, all the data in this thesis are from studies of Mandarin Chinese classifiers.
The tone system used in this thesis is expressed as none for neutral tone, 1 for high level tone, 2 for high raising tone, 3 for falling raising tone and 4 for high falling tone.
1.3 Organization of the Thesis
The thesis is organized in the following way. Both traditional views and recent views of classifiers and measure words will be reviewed in Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.
Brief introductions of the five Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations adopted in this thesis will be provided in Section 2.2. Next, Chapter 3 presents the four tests based on linguistic theory tests used in this thesis to re-examine five Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations proposed by representative linguists. The notion of numeral / adjectival stacking will be introduced in Section 3.1. Next, the notion of
de-insertion and ge-substitution will be introduced in Section 3.2 and 3.3, separately.
Section 3.4 provides the notion of yi-multiplier. The data analysis will be discussed
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
in Chapter 4 with re-classifications of the five Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations proposed by representative studies in Section 4.1. The notion and reason of the emergence of true classifiers will be provided in Section 4.2 and a semantic categorization of true classifiers in a bottom-up form in Section 4.3. Finally, Chapter 5 concludes the study by summarizing the the main points of the thesis and pointing out the implications for future study.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Although numerous studies have been conducted on numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese, especially the individual classifiers that are generally called classifiers in the following chapters in this thesis, the core issues addressed in these studies have been controversies in the different definitions and standards of identifying classifiers. In the following, two aspects will be concerned. First, different definitions of classifiers will be provided. One is the traditional view of classifiers and measure words proposed by Chao (1968) and by Li and Thompson (1981), and the other is the more recent one of that proposed by Tai & Wang (1990), by Tai (1992, 1994) and by Ahren & Huang (1996) and Huang & Ahren (2003), all of which will be individually discussed. Second, five Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations proposed by representative studies will be briefly introduced. Finally, some remarks for this section will be given.
2.1 Classifiers and Measure Words
2.1.1 Traditional Views
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In the traditional view of Chinese grammar, classifiers are regarded as on a par with measure words. For example, Chao (1968) treats classifiers as a subcategory of measure words in A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Thus, the classifiers that I concentrate on in this thesis are called individual measure words in Chao (1968).
Moreover, Li and Thompson (1981) blend classifiers and measure words and state
‘any measure word can be a classifier.’ The following examples from Li and
Thompson (1981) can illustrate their opinions.
(1) a. 一 哩
yi1 li3
one mile‘one mile’
*b. 一 個 哩
yi1 ge li3
one C mile(2) a. 一 磅
yi1 bang4
one pound‘one pound’
b. 一 磅 肉 yi1 bang4 rou4
one pound meat
‘one pound of meat’
Not only does a measure word generally not take a classifier as shown in (1), but
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
any measure word can be a classifier as shown in (2). The standard measure li3哩 in (1a) is acceptable, but not in (1b) because measure words do not take a classifier.
However, the standard measure bang4 磅 in (2) is regarded as a classifier by Li and Thompson (1981) because the a phrase shows a measure word functioning as a noun without a classifier and the b phrase shows the same measure word functioning as a classifier with another noun. From observation of (2b), Li and Thompson thus think that ‘any measure word can be a classifier’.
2.1.2 Recent Views
The recent views of classifiers and measure words support the differentiation of classifiers from measure words. For example, Tai and Wang (1990) suggest that it is feasible and desirable to differentiate classifiers from measure words in order to better understand the cognitive basis of the classifier system. Thus, Tai and Wang (1990) were the first to study Mandarin Chinese classifiers on the basis of cognitive categorization. According to the concept that ‘a classifier denotes some salient perceived or imputed characteristic of the entity to which the associated noun refers’
postulated by Allan (1977), Tai and Wang (1990) think that classifiers denote relatively ‘inherent’ or ‘permanent’ properties while measure words denote
‘contingent’ or ‘temporary’ properties. Tai and Wang (1990) thus propose the following distinction between ‘permanent’ and ‘temporary’ properties of entities as the fundamental cognitive basis for distinguishing between classifiers and measure
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
words.
Semantic Distinction between Classifiers and Measure Words
‘
A classifier categorizes a class of nouns by picking out some salient perceptual properties, either physically or functionally based, which are permanently associated with the entities named by the class of nouns; a measure word does not categorize but denotes the quantity of the entity named by a noun
.’But under the view of semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words, Tai (1992) points out that it is difficult to decide in the case of some ambiguous classifiers like ba3 把2 and kuai4 塊3 as to whether they are classifiers or measure words because these classifiers also function as measure words.
The other scholars supporting the recent view are Ahren and Huang (1996) and Huang and Ahren (2003). In addition to approving the existence of classifiers, they think that classifiers can be further divided into three subcategories, namely, individual classifiers, event classifiers and kind classifiers.
Individual classifiers are those such tiao2 條
, mian4
面 and so on. Event classifiers coerce event readings on the nouns that they occur with, for example,chu1
齣, chang3
場, tong1
通and so on. Kind classifiers explicitly mark the nominal element that they select as having a kind reading, such yang4樣, zhong3
2
Ba3 把 in yi1 ba3 dao1zi 一把刀子 can mean either ‘one knife’ functioning as a classifier or ‘one handful of knives’ functioning as a measure word.
3
Kuai4 塊 in yi1 kuai4 rou4 一塊肉 can stress either ‘the shape of meat’ functioning as a classifier
or ‘a portion of meat’ functioning as a measure word.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
種, shi4 式
, kuan3
款and so on. And these three subcategories, namely
individual classifiers, kind classifiers and event classifiers, are under a classifier system which is a particular system of a natural language grammar. The relations of these three subcategories and the classifier system are represented below.Figure 1: Classifier System
2.2 Mandarin Chinese Classifier Categorizations
Because of the large number of studies about Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations, this thesis only adopts five Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations proposed by representative studies. In this section below, these five categorizations will be briefly introduced.
2.2.1 Chao (1968)
The reason for adopting Chao (1968) is that Chao represents the traditional way of describing Chinese grammar. In A Grammar of Spoken Chinese, Chao postulates that measure words could be divided into nine categories and treats classifiers as a subcategory of measure words. This thesis only concentrates on the first category: individual measures. This category includes fifty-one individual measures as shown below. Tai (1992) mention that Chao’s ‘individual
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
measure’ is actually a classifier on the basis of the semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words proposed by Tai and Wang (1990). Thus, I will call the first category of ‘individual measures’ in Chao (1968) classifiers in the
following.
Table 1: The 51 Classifiers Proposed by Chao (1968)
ba3 把 ding3 頂 guan3 管 li4 粒 shan4 扇 zhang1 張 ban4 瓣 du3 堵 hang2 行 liang4 輛 shou3 首 zhi1 枝 ben3 本 dun4 頓 jia1 家 mei2 枚 sao1 艘 zhi1 隻 bu4 部 duo3 朵 jia4 架 men2 門 suo3 所 zhuang1 樁 chu1 齣 feng1 封 jian4 件 mian4 面 tiao2 條 zun1 尊 chu4 處 fu2 幅 juan4 卷 mu4 幕 tou2 頭 zuo4 座 chuang2 床 gan3 桿 ke1 棵 pi1 匹 wei4 位
dan4 笪 gen1 根 ke1 顆 pian1 篇 ya2 牙 dao4 道 ge 個 kou3 口 qi2 期 zhan3 盞
2.2.2 Erbaugh (1986)
Erbaugh is known for investigating classifiers from the view of acquisition.
Erbaugh (1986) provides twenty-two core classifiers as shown in Table 2 covering virtually all the classifiers produced by both children and adults in Erbaugh’s studies. No matter in what kind of conversations, adults to adults or adults to children or children to children, Erbaugh (1986) mentions that these core classifiers almost all appear in these conversations. That is to say, Erbaugh
(1986) considers that these twenty-two classifiers are representative classifiers.
Table 2: The 22 Classifiers Proposed by Erbaugh (1986)
ba3 把 gen1 根 ke1 棵 shou3 首 zhi1 枝 ben3 本 jia4 架 ke1 顆 tiao2 條 zhi1 隻 ding3 頂 jian1 間 kuai4 塊 tou2 頭
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
duan4 段 jia4 件 li4 粒 wei4 位 duo3 朵 ju4 句 pian4 片 zhang1 張
2.2.3 Hu (1993)
Hu (1993) is also known for investigating classifiers from the view of acquisition.
Hu (1993) provides twenty classifiers which are commonly used in the acquisition of Chinese classifiers by young Mandarin speaking children as given in Table 3. Hu also mentions that these twenty classifiers are classifiers which are used to qualify.
According to Adam and Conklin (1973), classifiers which are used to qualify usually denote a permanent, particular intrinsic feature of the referent of the noun. On the basis of the semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words provided by Tai and Wang (1990), the concept of qualifying classifiers proposed by Adam and Conklin (1973) corresponds to classifiers. Thus, I focus on the twenty qualifying
classifiers provided by Hu (1993) in this thesis.
Table 3: The 20 Classifiers Proposed by Hu (1993)
ba3 把 jian4 件 liang4 輛 shuang1 雙 wei4 位 ge 個 ke1 顆 pi1 匹 tai2 台 zhang1 張 gen1 根 kuai4 塊 pian4 片 tiao2 條 zhi1 枝 jia4 架 li4 粒 sao1 艘 tou2 頭 zhi1 隻
2.2.4 Huang et al. (1997)
A comprehensive dictionary of Mandarin classifiers named the Mandarin Daily
Dictionary of Chinese Classifiers was edited by Huang et. al. (1997). This dictionary
is a representative example of modern Mandarin Chinese. Although many Mandarin Chinese classifier dictionaries have been published, Huang et. al. propose that their
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
dictionary marks a breakthrough in the lexicography of modern Mandarin Chinese.
The dictionary has the following two traits. First, the data in the dictionary is not sourced from existing dictionaries or on the personal opinions, but based on findings from a balanced large electronic corpus (Sinica Corpus) as the database for this dictionary. Second, this dictionary is edited by many linguists with much experience in analyzing Chinese. Thus, this dictionary is claimed to provide a completely new and accurate listing of Mandarin Chinese classifiers.
In this dictionary, Mandarin Chinese classifiers are divided into seven categories.
This thesis only concentrates on the first category: individual classifiers which
include one hundred and seventy-three individual classifiers as shown in Table 4.
Table 4: The 173 Classifiers Proposed by Huang et. al. (1997)
ba3 把 dian3 點 hang2 行 ke1 顆 pi3 匹 tao4 套 zhao1 招 ban1 班 die2 疊 hao4 號 ke4 客 pian1 篇 ti2 題 zhen1 針 ban3 版 ding3 頂 hu4 戶 ke4 課 pian4 片 tiao2 條 zheng4 幀 ban4 瓣 ding4 錠 hui2 回 kou3 口 piao4 票 tie4 帖 zhi1 支 bang1 幫 dong4 棟 huo3 夥 kuai4 塊 pie3 撇 ting3 挺 zhi1 只 ben3 本 du3 堵 ji2 級 kuan3 款 pou2 抔 tou2 頭 zhi1 枝 bi3 筆 duan4 段 ji2 集 kun3 捆 qi2 畦 tuan2 團 zhi1 隻 bing3 柄 dui1 堆 ji2 輯 lan2 欄 qi2 期 tuo2 坨 zhi3 紙 bu4 部 dui4 隊 ji4 記 li4 粒 qi3 起 wan1 彎 zhou2 軸 cai2 槽 dui4 對 ji4 劑 lian2 聯 qu3 曲 wan1 灣 zhu1 株 ce4 冊 duo3 朵 jia1 家 liang4 輛 quan1 圈 wan2 丸 zhu4 柱 ceng2 層 fa1 發 jia4 架 lie4 列 que4 闋 wei3 尾 zhu4 炷 chong2 重 fang1 方 jian1 間 liu3 綹 qun2 群 wei4 位 zhuo1 桌 chu4 處 fang2 房 jian4 件 lu4 路 shan4 扇 wei4 味 zong1 宗 chuan4 串 fen4 分 jie1 階 lun2 輪 shen1 身 xi2 席 zu3 組 chuang2 床 fen4 份 jie2 節 luo4 落 sheng1 聲 xi2 襲 zun1 尊 chuang2 幢 feng1 封 jie2 截 lyu3 旅 shou3 首 xian4 線 zuo4 座
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
cong2 叢 fu2 服 jie4 介 lyu3 縷 shu4 束 xiang4 項 cu4 簇 fu2 幅 jin4 進 mei2 枚 shuang1 雙 ye4 頁 cuo1 撮 fu4 副 jing1 莖 men2 門 si1 絲 ye4 葉 da3 打 gan3 桿 ju4 句 mian4 面 sou1 艘 yuan2 員 dai4 代 gen1 根 ju4 具 ming2 名 suo3 所 ze2 則 dai4 帶 ge 個 juan3 卷 pai2 排 tai1 胎 zha1 紮 dang3 檔 gu3 股 juan4 卷 peng3 捧 tai2 台 zhan3 盞 dao4 道 gua4 掛 ke1 科 pi1 匹 tan1 攤 zhang1 張 di1 滴 guan3 管 ke1 棵 pi1 批 tang2 堂 zhang1 章
2.2.5 Gao and Malt (2009)
Gao and Malt (2009), who lately provide Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations, compile a list of one hundred and twenty-six classifiers in order to provide a basis for their studies and to serve as a resource for future research.
Although several Chinese classifier dictionaries have been published, Gao and Malt (2009) claim that their list has some advantages. For instance, Gao and Malt (2009) claim that they only include individual classifiers in this list and that they only list classifiers which are familiar to speakers of Chinese. The sources of these classifiers are also very wide-ranging, from Chinese books, newspapers, and dictionaries to casual conversations between Gao and Malt and the other native Chinese speakers and their own knowledge of Chinese. Gao and Malt (2009) mention that these one hundred twenty-six classifiers are approved not only by themselves but also by six paid native speakers of Mandarin Chinese from Beijing (three graduate students at Lehigh University and three college-educated spouses of graduate students). As a result, Gao and Malt (2009) think that these one hundred twenty-six classifiers as
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
shown below are quite accurate classifiers.
Table 5: The 126 Classifiers Proposed by Gao and Malt (2009)
ben3 本 dong4 洞 ji2 集 liang4 輛 qi2 期 tang2 堂 ye4 頁 ba3 把 dong4 棟 ji4 劑 liu3 綹 qi3 起 tang4 趟 ze2 則 ban1 班 du3 堵 jia1 家 long3 壟 qiang1 腔 tiao2 條 zhan3 盞 ban4 瓣 duan4 段 jia4 架 lü3 縷 qu3 曲 tie4 帖 zhan4 站 bi3 筆 dui4 對 jia4 駕 lun2 輪 quan1 圈 ting3 挺 zhang1 張 bian4 辮 dun4 頓 jian1 間 ma3 碼 ren4 任 tou2 頭 zhang1 章 bu4 部 duo3 朵 jian4 件 mei2 枚 sao1 艘 tuan2 團 zhao1 招 ce4 冊 fa1 發 jie2 節 men2 門 shan4 扇 tuo2 坨 zhen4 陣 chang3 場 fen4 份 jie2 截 mian4 面 shen1 身 wan2 丸 zhi1 支 chu1 齣 feng1 封 jie4 屆 ming2 名 sheng1 聲 wei4 位 zhi1 枝 chu4 處 fu2 幅 ju4 句 mu4 幕 shou3 首 wei4 味 zhi1 隻 chuang2 床 gan3 桿 ju4 具 pan2 盤 shu4 束 wo1 窩 zhou2 軸 chuang2 幢 gen1 根 juan4 卷 pao4 泡 si1 絲 xi2 席 zhu1 株 cuo1 撮 ge 個 ke1 棵 pi1 匹 suo1 梭 xian4 線 zhuang1 樁 dao4 道 gu3 股 ke1 顆 pian1 篇 suo3 所 xiang4 項 zhuo1 桌 di1 滴 gua4 掛 kou3 口 pian4 片 tai1 胎 xing1 星 zong1 宗 dian3 點 guan3 管 kuai4 塊 pie3 撇 tai2 台 ya2 牙 zun1 尊 ding3 頂 hu4 戶 li4 粒 qi2 畦 tan1 灘 yan3 眼 zuo4 座
2.3 Remark
On the basis of previous studies in Section 2.1.1, I conclude that there are two views to support the recent view that there needs to be a differentatiation between classifiers and measure words. One view is from the set theory. Her (2011b) mentions that classifiers do not contribute any semantic value that the noun has already possessed to the semantics of the overall [Number C Noun] phrase. For example, yi1 wei3 yu2一尾魚 provided by Her (2011b). The classifier wei3尾 will not contribute the ‘tail’ value to yu2 魚 because having a tail is part of what necessarily makes a fish. On the other hand, Her (2011b) claims that measure words
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
do contribute semantic value that the noun does not possess to the semantics of the overall [Number C Noun] phrase. For example, yi1 xiang1 yu2一箱魚. The measure word xiang1箱 will contribute ‘box’ value to yu2魚 because xiang1箱 will furnish additional information to the phrase, indicating that the fish are inside the box and mass boxful quantity. The other view is from Her’s (2010, 2011b) yi-multiplier, a mathematic formula which can be used to differentiate classifiers and measure words.
Her (2010, 2011b) proposes that classifiers are the multiplier 1 and 1 only. For example, the classifier wei3尾
is the multiplier 1 and 1 only. Thus, yi1 wei3 yu2
一 尾魚 will be equal to 1 ×1 yu2
魚, which means one fish. Otherwise, measure words are other infinite possible values. For example, the measure word da3打 is the multiplier 12, rather than 1. Thus, yi1 da3 dan4 一打蛋 is equal to 1 ×12 dan4
蛋, which means twelve eggs. The details of Her’s mathematic formula about the differentiation between classifiers and measure words will be discussed in Section 3.4. According to the above two views, I thus adopt differentiable concept of classifiers and measure words in this thesis and focus on classifiers.In Section 2.1.2, there are also two aspects to note. First, although Tai (1992) notes that ambiguous classifiers like ba3把
and kuai4
塊can also be measure words, he
does not provide any precise classification to show how these ambiguous classifiers should be regarded as classifiers or measure words. Thus, I will provide my solution to these ambiguous classifiers from morphology in the following Section 4.1. Second,‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Ahren and Huang (1996) and Huang and Ahren (2003) propose that classifiers can be further divided into three subcategories, namely individual classifiers, event classifiers and kind classifiers. These three subcategories are under the classifiers system. However, a question arises, should these event classifiers and kind classifiers be regarded as classifiers? Because some studies from whom I have adopted Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations in this thesis such as Chao (1968), Erbaugh (1986), Hu (1993) and Gao and Malt (2009) do not include kind classifiers into their classifier categories. But, event classifiers are included into classifier categories of Chao (1968) and of Gao and Malt (2009). Thus, my hypothesis to the above question is that kind classifiers should not be treated as classifiers and that it is possible for event classifiers to be classified as classifiers. In Section 4.1.4, the further evidence to support this hypothesis will be offered.
Ultimately, the most important thing is slove the discrepancy of the number of Mandarin Chinese classifiers. For example, fifty-one classifiers are given in Chao (1968), twenty-two in Erbaugh (1986), one hundred and seventy-three in Huang et.
al. and one hundred and twenty-six in Gao and Malt (2009). The reason for these descrepancies results the lack of consentient norms in classifying Mandarin Chinese classifiers. Thus, I will adopt the four tests introduced in Chapter 3 to re-classify Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations (Chao 1968, Erbaugh 1986, Hu 1993, Huang et. al 1997 and Gao and Malt 2009) in Chapter 4.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In the following chapters, the theoretical frameworks of this thesis will be introduced. Chapter 4 provides the data analysis of Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations. Chapter 5 provides a short summary and indicates further points for further study in the future.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER III
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
Two well-known syntactic tests, adjective insertion and de-insertion have been used to differentiate the distinction between classifiers and measure words. In light of the on-going controversies over both tests, Her (2010) demonstrates that both tests can be made much more accurate and reliable. Below more accurate adjective insertion and de-insertion will be briefly introduced. In addition to the above two tests, two other tests will also be adopted. Altogether four tests, numeral/adjectival stacking (Her and Hsieh 2010, Her 2011b), revised de-insertion (Her and Hsieh 2010), ge-substitution (Tai and Wang 1990 and Tai 1994) and yi-multiplier Her (2010,
Two well-known syntactic tests, adjective insertion and de-insertion have been used to differentiate the distinction between classifiers and measure words. In light of the on-going controversies over both tests, Her (2010) demonstrates that both tests can be made much more accurate and reliable. Below more accurate adjective insertion and de-insertion will be briefly introduced. In addition to the above two tests, two other tests will also be adopted. Altogether four tests, numeral/adjectival stacking (Her and Hsieh 2010, Her 2011b), revised de-insertion (Her and Hsieh 2010), ge-substitution (Tai and Wang 1990 and Tai 1994) and yi-multiplier Her (2010,