Remark

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.3 Remark

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, 2011b), are used in this thesis to differentiate classifiers from measure words. These four tests will be successively introduced in this section. Finally, some remarks will be made to sum up the content of this section.

3.1 Numeral/adjectival stacking

According to Liang (2006), Mandarin Chinese measure words can be inserted and modified by an adjective while Mandarin Chinese classifiers can not, as shown in (3)

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

and (4), respectively.

(3) 一小箱書 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (8))

yi1 xiao3 xiang1 shu1

one small box book

‘one small box of books’

(4) *一小隻狗 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (9))

yi1 xiao3 zhi1 gou3

one small C⁴ dog

Although this test is confirmed by some linguists, many counter-examples to this test are found. For example, Her and Hsieh (2010) find numerous [Adj-C] examples

from Google searches in the Taiwan domain as shown in (5a) and (5b), respectively.

(5) a. 一大顆蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (10a))

yi1 da4 ke1 ping2guo3

one big C apple

‘one big apple’

b. 一大本書 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (10b))

yi1 da4 ben3 shu1

one big C book

‘one big book

Although the above examples represent that the adjective insertion test is unreliable, Her and Hsieh (2010) and Her (2011b) note crucial differences between classifiers and measure words.

Note that C refers to classifiers only throughout this thesis.

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Her (2011b) proposes that the first observation relates to the scope of the numeral.

Her and Hsieh (2010) point out that the pre-classifier numeral quantifies the noun together with the classifier, while a pre-measure word numeral only quantifies the measure word itself, not the noun. In the following examples, Her and Hsieh (2010) apply numeral quantification in pre-measure, as well as pre-classifier positions, as in (6a), or the stacking of measure words, as in (6b). Her (2011b) points out that these two phrases acceptable because the numeral that quantifies the measure words has its scope blocked by the measure words. Nevertheless, the reverse cases as in (7a) and (7b) are totally ill-formed because Her (2011b) points out that numeral that quantifies the classifiers must also quantify the measure words, thus yielding a nonsensical reading. For example, it can not be one and ten packs at the same time in

example (7b).

(6) a. 一箱十顆蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (11a))

yi1 xiang1 shi2 ke1 ping2guo3

one box ten C apple ‘one box of ten apples’

b. 一箱 十包蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (11b))

yi1 xiang1 shi2 bao1 ping2guo3

one box ten pack apple

‘one box of ten packs of apples’

(7) *a. 一個十顆蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (12a))

yi1 ge shi2 ke1 ping2guo3

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

one C ten C apple

*b. 一個十包蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (12b))

yi1 ge shi2 bao1 ping2guo3

one C ten pack apple

A formula for the first observation proposed by Her (2011b) is shown in (8).

(8) Classifiers / Measure words Distinction in Numeral Quantification Scope If [Num⁵ X Num Y Noun] is well-formed, then X = M⁶, X ≠ C, and Y = C/M.

Her (2011b) proposes that the second observation relates to the scope of the modification of adjectival. Three forms of adjectival modification, [Num – Adj – C/

M Noun], [Adj – C/ M – de – Noun] and [Adj – Adj – de – Noun], are included in this observation. Following, examples of these three forms will be demonstrated individually. First, Her and Hsieh (2010) provide the main concept in the second observation that the adjectival modification of a pre-measure word has only the measure word as its scope, while a pre-classifier adjective transcends the classifier to modify the noun and allows the scope of a pre-classifier adjective to cover nouns.

The first form [Num – Adj – C/ M Noun] of adjectival modification is shown in (9a) and (9b) provided in Her and Hsieh (2010). Example (9b) shows that a pre-classifier adjective transcends the classifier to modify the noun and allows the scope of a pre-classifier adjective to cover the noun; while example (9a) shows that measure words do not behave in this way.

Note that Num refers to cardinal numerals only throughout this thesis.

Note that M refers to measure words only throughout this thesis.

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

(9) a. 一大箱蘋果 ≠ 一箱大蘋果

yi1 da4 xiang1 ping2guo3 yi1 xiang1 da4 ping2guo3

one big box apple one box big apple ‘one big box of apples’ ‘one box of big apples’

b. 一大顆蘋果 = 一顆大蘋果

yi1 da4 ke1 ping2guo3 yi1 ke1 da4 ping2guo3

one big C apple one C big apple ‘one big apple’ ‘one big apple’

The second form of [Adj – C/ M – de – Noun] of adjectival modification is shown in (10a) and (10b). Example (10a) shows that a pre-classifier adjective transcends the classifier to modify the noun and allows the scope of a pre-classifier adjective to cover the noun; while example (10b) shows that measure words do not behave in this

way.

(10) a. 大顆的蘋果 = 大蘋果 (Her 2011, (8a)) da4 ke1 de ping2guo3 da4 ping2guo3

big C DE apple big apple ‘big apple(s)’ ‘big apple(s)’

b. 大箱的蘋果 ≠ 大蘋果 (Her 2011, (9a)) da4 xiang1 de ping2guo3 da4 ping2guo3

big box DE apple big apple ‘apples that come in big boxes’ ‘big apple(s)’

The third form of [Adj – Adj – de – Num – C / M –Noun] in adjectival modification is shown in (11a) and (11b) provided by Her (2011b). Example (11a) shows that a pre-classifier adjective transcends the classifier to modify the noun and

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

allows the scope of a pre-classifier adjective to cover the noun; while example (11b)

shows that measure words do not behave in this way.

(11) a. 大大的一顆蘋果 = 一顆大蘋果

da4da4de yi1 ke1 ping2guo3 yi1 ke1 da4 ping2guo3

big one C apple one C big apple ‘one big apple’ ‘one big apple’

b. 大大的一箱蘋果 ≠ 一箱大蘋果

da4da4de yi1 xiang1 ping2guo3 yi1 xiang1 da4 ping2guo3

big one box apple one box big apple ‘one big box of apples’ ‘one box of big apples’

A formula for the second observation proposed by Her (2011b) is shown in (12).

(12) C/M Distinction in Adjectival Modification Scope

If [Num A-X N] = [Num X A-N], [A-X-de N] = [A-N], or [AA-de Num X N]

= [Num X A-N], semantically and A refers to size, then X = C, and X ≠ M.

Her (2011b) proposes that the last observation comes from the inferences of the above formula (12). Her (2011b) claims that whether the adjective modifies classifiers or nouns, they all have the same scope. Her (2010) thinks that a pre-classifier adjective and a pre-noun adjective in the same phrase can not contradict each other, as shown in (13); while it is totally fine for a pre-measure word

to contradict a pre-noun adjective, as shown in (14).

(13)*a. 一大顆小蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (15a))

yi1 da4 ke1 xiao3 ping2guo3

one big C small apple

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

*b. 大大的一顆小蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (15b))

da4da4de yi1 ke1 xiao3 ping2guo3

big one C small apple

(14) a. 一大箱小蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (14a))

yi1 da4 xiang1 xiao3 ping2guo3

one big box small apple ‘one big box of red/small apples’

b. 大大的一箱小蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (14b))

da4da4de yi1 xiang1 xiao3 ping2guo3

big one box small apple ‘one big box of red/small apples’

Her (2011b) points out that example (13) does not have a congruent reading because apples can not be big and small at the same time. However, the example in (14) can have a congruent reading because the box can be big and the apples small at the same time. A formula for the last observation proposed by Her (2011b) is shown

in (15).

(15) C/M Distinction in Antonym Stacking

Given antonyms A1 and A2, if [NumA1XA2N] is semantically incongruent, then X = C and X ≠ M; otherwise, X = M and X ≠ C

Finally, more accurate adjective insertion is revised as numeral/adjectival stacking including three subtests, C/M distinction in numeral quantification scope, C/M distinction in adjectival modification scope and C/M distinction in antonym stacking.

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

3.2 De-insertion

Many linguists claim that de-insertion is a further piece of evidence for the distinction between classifiers and measure words (e.g., Chao 1968, Tai and Wang 1990, Tai 1994). De may be optionally inserted after measure words, but not after

classifiers, as shown in (16).

(16) 一箱/*本的書 (Her and Hiesh 2010, (16) )

yi1 xiang1/ben3 de shu1

one box/C DE book

‘one box of/*C books’

However, M. Hsieh (2008) points out that there are many well-formed classifier-de-noun examples in the Sinica Corpus as in the following examples of (17)

and (18).

(17) 五百萬隻的鴨子 (Her and Hiesh 2010, (17) )

wu3bai3wan4 zhi1 de ya1zi

five-million C DE duck

‘five million ducks’

(18) 幾百條的海蛇 (Her and Hiesh 2010, (18) )

ji3bai3 tiao2 de hai3she2

several-hundred C DE sea-snake

‘hundreds of sea snakes’

An explanation that is attempted for the above examples is N. Zhang’s (2009) corroboration that in a [Number – classifier – de - noun] phrase, the lower the

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

number, the less acceptable the phrase. Thus, the higher the number, the more naturally de intervenes between classifiers and nouns.

However, Her and Hsieh (2010) indicate that if we apply the fractions of a number including those with a value smaller than one to [Number–classifier–de–noun], it will drastically increase acceptability. And they point out that there are seventy instances of之一顆的

zhi1 yi1 ke1 de ‘one fraction of’ found in Google searches, as

shown in (19).

(19) a. 八分之一顆的高麗菜 (Her and Hsieh 2010, 21 (a)) ba1fen1zhi1yi1 ke1 de

gao1li4cai4

one-eighth C DE cabbage ‘one-eighth (of a ) cabbage’

b. 四分之一顆的洋蔥 (Her and Hsieh 2010, 21 (b)) si4fen1zhi1yi1 ke1 de

yang2cong1

one-eighth C DE onion ‘one-eighth (of an) onion’

One explanation that is attempted for the above examples (19a) and (19b) is given by Tang (2005:444), where numeral contrast is interpreted as a contrast in

‘information weight’, the higher the number in [Number – classifier – de – noun], the higher its information weight.

However, Her and Hsieh (2010) provide another opinion that the higher the degrees of the computational complexity of the modifications before the classifiers are, the heavier the modifications are and the more acceptable the de-insertion

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

phrases are. In other words, any increase in the complexity of a classifier should increase the acceptability of de-insertion. In the following example (20) provided by Her and Hsieh (2010), they say that ban4半 is computationally more complex than

yi1

一, so the degree of acceptability of ban4 ke1 de ping2guo3 半顆的蘋果 is higher than that of yi1 ke1 de ping2guo3 一顆的蘋果

. But, if we use the method of

‘information weight’, the degree of acceptability of yi1 ke1 de ping2guo3 一顆的蘋果

is higher than that of ban4 ke1 de ping2guo3

半顆的蘋果 because yi1一

is

heavier than ban4半

.

However, Her and Hsieh (2010) provide Google matches data⁷, with twenty matches of ban4 ke1 de ping2guo3 半顆的蘋果

and merely one of yi1 ke1 de

ping2guo3

一顆的蘋果

, to further support the correctness of the argumentations of

computational complexity.

(20) a. 半顆的蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, 22(a)) ban4 ke1 de ping2guo3

half C DE apple ‘half an apple’

*b. 一顆的蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, 22 (b)) yi1 ke1 de ping2guo3

one C DE apple ‘an apple’

(21) a. 一大條的魚 (Her and Hsieh 2010, 23 (a))

Data accessed on February 22, 2010 in Her and Hsieh (2010).

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

yi1 da4 tiao2 de yu2 one big C DE fish ‘one big fish’

*b. 一條的魚 (Her and Hsieh 2010, 23 (b)) yi1 tiao2 de yu2

one C DE fish ‘one fish’

Example (21) shows that the modification da4大

increases the complexity of

classifier itself which is also equal to increase the acceptability of de-insertion. Thus, the degree of acceptability of yi1 da4 tiao2 de yu2 一大條的魚 is higher than that of

yi1 tiao2 de yu2

一條的魚.

In conclusion, Her and Hsieh (2010) assume that one is computationally the least complex number. They thus restate the test of de-insertion as shown in (22) in much

more restricted terms and with much more precision.

(22)De-insertion (revised) [yi M/*C

de Noun]

3.3 Ge-substitution

Tai and Wang (1990) and Tai (1994) propose that if ge個, the neutral individual classifier, can definitely substitute the element without any changes in its truth conditions, then the element is a classifier rather than a measure word. Consider the following examples:

(23) 三顆 蘋果 = 三個蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (24))

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

san1 ke1 ping2guo3 san1 ge ping2guo3

three C apple three C apple ‘three apples’ ‘three apples’

(24) 三箱蘋果 ≠ 三個蘋果 (Her and Hsieh 2010, (25))

san1 xiang1 ping2guo3 san1 ge ping2guo3

three box apple three C apple

‘three boxes of apples’ ‘three apples’

Example (23) illustrates that ke1顆 is a classifier because ke1顆 can be replaced by ge個 without any change in the numeral meaning of the apple, while (24) shows that xiang1箱 should be categorized as a measure word because xiang1箱 can not be replaced by the neutral individual classifier ge個. As a result, Tai and Wang (1990) and Tai (1994) suggest that classifiers and measure words can be distinguished by

ge-substitution.

But not all classifiers can be replaced by ge 個. For instance, Hsieh (2009) mentions that ben3本 ‘a unit used for books’ is typically regarded as a classifier, as in the case of yi1 ben3 shu1一本書

, but that the substituted form ? yi1 ge shu1

一個書 is not acceptable at all. And other examples that I have found, such as yi1 gen1

dao4cai3

一根稻草will not be acceptable if we substitute ge個

for their specific

individual classifier, such as ? yi1 ge dao4cai3 一個稻草. Thus, words that can be substituted for ge 個

are certain to be classifiers but not all classifiers can be

substituted for ge 個

. In other words, ge-substitution is a sufficient but not a

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

necessary factor to distinguish classifiers from measure words. The following is a

ge-substitution formula postulated by Her and Hsieh (2010) to distinguish classifiers

from measure words.

(25)Ge-substitution

If [Num XNoun] = [Num geNoun] semantically, then X = C and X ≠ M.

3.4 Yi – Multiplier

In supposing that coding of the operation of multiplication in language is necessary, Her (2011b) thinks that Au Yeung (2005, 2007) makes a convincing case for the essential role of the multiplicative identity, 1, in the emergence of classifiers.

Her (2011b) points out that in the number calling system of both Chinese and

English, all multipliers above the ten are called. Take the number 6543 for example.

(26) 六千五百四十三 (Her 2011b, (50)) liu4 qian1 wu3 bai3 si4 shi2 san1

six thousand five hundred four ten three

‘Six thousand five hundred and forty-three’

While, as Comrie (2006) points out, Chinese numbers are famously regular in their decimal pattern, (n × base) + m, where m < base, Her (2011b) mentions that the

number 6543 can be derived as shown in (27) and (28).

(27) Derivation of the number 6543 in Chinese (I) (Her 2011b, (51)) (6 × 10³) + (5 × 10²) + (4 × 10¹) + (3 × 10⁰)

(28) Derivation of the number 6543 in Chinese (II) (Her 2011b, (52)) (6 × 1000) + (5 × 100) + (4 × 10) + (3 × 1)

‧

Her (2011b) points out that the multiplication, that is symbol ×, and addition, symbol +, in examples (27) and (28) is not pronounced, but that all of the bases, such as qian1 ‘thousand’ (10³), bai3 ‘hundred’ (10²), and shi2 ‘ten’ (10¹) must be. Only, ge (10⁰) will be viewed as a exception as a base but without pronunciation. Such an asymmetry between the rightmost digits such as ge and other digits such as qian1,

bai3, and shi2 has been noted by Au Yeung (2005). Au Yeung (2005) points out that

the only phonetically null but numerically present slot is ge when a number is called in Chinese as shown in Table 6. The single digit 3 in Table 6 is equal to 3 × ge that ge is bound to appear but without pronunciation. Because ge is bound to appear and 3 ×

ge is equal to 3, the only possible multiplier for ge is the multiplier 1. The single digit

3 is thus represented by the multiplication formula as 3×1. Because ge is phonetically

null, ge is marked as silent to represent phonetically null.

Table 6: Asymmetry of the Rightmost Digit (Her 2011b, Table 1)

Number 6543 6 5 4 3 Digit Value Calling Liu6-qian1 Wu3-bai3 Si4-shi2 San1- GE

silent

Number Calling 六千五百四十三 (個) (6 qian1) (5 bai3) (4 shi2) (3 × ge)* Liu4 qian1 wu3 bai3 si4 shi2 san1 GE

silent

As a result, Au Yeung (2005: 201) points out: “The silent classifier in the form of 1GE

in the CL slot could serve as a seed for the noisy sortal classifier to grow”.⁸ However,

Her (2011b) mentions that Au Yeung (2005) does not follow his simple mathematical

Note that Au Yeung (2007) does not differentiate classifiers from measure words and uses

‘classifiers’ to include both of them. However, Au Yeung (2005) does differentiate classifiers which

are called as sortal classifiers in his terminology from measure words which are called non-sortal

classifiers in his terminology.

‧ 國

立政治大學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

value of ge as classifiers, which is quite simply the multiplier 1. Instead, Her (2011b) points out that Au Yeung pursues a more complicated formula and takes a classifier as having a numerical value ‘one tokenobjectper unit’ and a measure word as ‘n tokenobject per unit’. Au Yeung (2007) further interprets ‘tokenobject’ as the size of the ‘unit’, or the set.

(1× 1set) in example (29) and (2× 1set) in example (30) are demonstrations of ‘one tokenobjectper unit’ and ‘n tokenobject per unit’, respectively.

(29) 三個球 (Her 2011b (53))

san1 ge qiu2 (3×(1× 1set)×qiu2)

three C ball

‘three balls’

(30) 三對球 (Her 2011b (54))

san1 dui4 qiu2 (3×(2× 1set)×qiu)

three pair ball

‘three pairs of balls’

From the above two examples and the ‘one tokenobjectper unit’ and ‘n tokenobject per unit’ concepts, Her (2011b) proposes that Au Yeung’s distinction between classifiers

在文檔中準確界定漢語中分類詞 - 政大學術集成 (頁 25-0)

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.3 Remark

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

2.3 Remark

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

is the multiplier 1 and 1 only. Thus, yi1 wei3 yu2

1 yu2

12 dan4

and kuai4

can also be measure words, he

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

CHAPTER III

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

3.1 Numeral/adjectival stacking

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

yi1 xiao3 xiang1 shu1

yi1 xiao3 zhi1 gou3

yi1 da4 ke1 ping2guo3

yi1 da4 ben3 shu1

Note that C refers to classifiers only throughout this thesis.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

yi1 xiang1 shi2 ke1 ping2guo3

yi1 xiang1 shi2 bao1 ping2guo3

yi1 ge shi2 ke1 ping2guo3

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

yi1 ge shi2 bao1 ping2guo3

Note that Num refers to cardinal numerals only throughout this thesis.

Note that M refers to measure words only throughout this thesis.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

yi1 da4 xiang1 ping2guo3 yi1 xiang1 da4 ping2guo3

yi1 da4 ke1 ping2guo3 yi1 ke1 da4 ping2guo3

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

da4da4de yi1 ke1 ping2guo3 yi1 ke1 da4 ping2guo3

da4da4de yi1 xiang1 ping2guo3 yi1 xiang1 da4 ping2guo3

yi1 da4 ke1 xiao3 ping2guo3

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學

立政治大學