2. Literature review
2.4 Summary
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
16
Tanaka-tachi ‘Tanaka and his associates’, the difference with collective plurals being that the group members are heterogeneous. In both cases, the markers do not carry grammatical agreement. Following this logic, we can realize that plural markers also denote the mass/count distinction between nouns (Her, 2012). As an example in (16), only count nouns can apply plural while mass nouns must rely on a measure word (also named quantifier) to specify the quantify of the noun, as in three cups of water, the measure word-like cup provides detailed information on how much water the speaker is talking about. Further details supporting this evidence are provided in the theoretical sections.
(16) Mass/count distinction in nouns (English) three books
three tables
*three water
*three salt
As a summary, plural markers can occur in various forms therefore it is preferred to rely on agreement to distinguish between grammatical plural markers and other elements denoting similar but different notions of plural. Moreover, one of the main functions of plural marker is to denote the mass/count feature of the noun.
2.4 Summary
Previous studies generally agree on the fact that plural markers denote the mass/count distinction between nouns, while genders (or noun classes) provide noun classification, both of these functions being testable through agreement. Numeral classifiers have a different behavior but still carry the two functions simultaneously.
Finally, in geographical terms, it appears that the presence of numeral classifiers in a language coincide with the absence of grammatical genders and grammatical plural markers. As an example, South-East Asia is a hot spot for numeral classifier languages, which usually do not have genders or grammatical plural markers in their system.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
17
Chapter 3
Theoretical discussions
In this section, we will combine the separated information of numeral classifiers, grammatical genders and grammatical plural markers together. This is done by groups of two, such as numeral classifiers & plural markers, numeral classifiers & genders, genders & plural markers. Finally, we propose an overview of the triangle relationship between these three elements.
3.1 Numeral classifiers and plural markers
It is claimed that the main function of grammatical plural markers is similar to numeral classifiers: count/mass distinction (Tsuo, 1976; Borer, 2005; Her, 2012;
Doetjies, 2012). Taking an example from Her (2012): the -s suffix in English, which is applicable to all count nouns, is seen as a general classifier, similar to the Chinese general classifier ge in (17a) and (17b); the two thus share the same constituent structure, as in (18). Following this logic, English relies on the plural marking system therefore does not have numeral classifiers, vice-versa in Chinese, which uses numeral classifiers instead.
(17) Comparison of numeral classifiers (Chinese) and plural markers (English)
a. 三 個 杯子
san ge beizi 3 CL cup b. three cups
(18) Syntactic structure of numeral classifiers (Chinese) and plural markers (English)
The evidence of this approach is a combination of syntax and mathematics. Starting from Greenberg (1990), researchers such as Au Yeung (2005), and Yi (2011), Her (2012a) among others proposed to compare the structure of [Num C] as [n × 1]. In a multiplicative operation, the multiplicand is null if its value is 1, meaning that it can
‧
be omitted, which is exactly the same rule applying for numeral classifiers and plural markers. A sample from Her (2012) is demonstrated in (19), where we can realize that the mathematical operation is the same, with the only difference that Chinese employs a numeral classifier e.g. ge and English uses a plural marker -s, but they can both be considered as a multiplicand with the value of 1.
(19) Unification of numeral classifiers and plural markers Chinese: [[3 × 1] cup] = [3 ge beizi]
English: [[3 × 1] cup] = [3 –s cup]
A further proof of their redundancy and resemblance to a null multiplicand is the fact that in both languages numeral classifiers or plural markers are generally required however they can be omitted without affecting the meaning of the phrase. In Chinese
*san beizi ‘three cup’ or in English *three cup, even though it is ungrammatical, there can be no misunderstanding of its meaning. Examples can even be found in English itself where the noun does not carry a plural marker but has the plural meaning, e.g.
three fish, three deer, three sheep.
Another evidence is that in English, for example, the plural marker -s is still required even when the value of the numeral is smaller than 1, e.g. 0.5 apples and 0 apples and not *0.5 apple and *0 apple, indicating that -s here has no relation with plurality. The plural marker -s thus serves the same function as a general numeral classifier highlighting the countability of the noun. It may be argued that the plural marker does not occur with the number 1, e.g. *one cup(*s), while it does in Chinese, e.g. yi ge beizi ‘one CL cup’. However, Her (2012) explains from a mathematical approach that in a clause where the numeral is one, we would obtain the equation of [1× 1]. In this case, either the multiplier (the numeral) or the multiplicand (numeral classifier or
Numeral classifiers are proposed to converge with grammatical plural markers in terms of mass/count distinction. A similar situation can be observed with genders in the domain of nominal classification. As explained in the literature review, the main
‧
purpose of genders is to facilitate referent tracking in discourse. Numeral classifiers can have the same function, as demonstrated in Chinese in (20a), with a phrase such as wo mai le yi ben ‘I bought one CL-volume’. Even though the noun is not present, the hearer is still able to narrow down the possibilities to a book since the numeral classifier is highlighting the feature of a volume. In (20b), since the numeral classifier is narrowing down the noun to something with a 2D flat surface, we may deduce that the speaker is talking about papers, cards, posters, among others.
(20) Referent tracking via numeral classifiers (Chinese)
a. 我 買 了 一 本
wo mai le yi Ben
I buy PFV one CL-volume
‘I bought one (book shape thing).’
b. 我 拿 了 一 張
wo na le yi zhang
I take PFV one CL-2D surface
‘I took one (2D flat thing).’
It is not possible to obtain the exact referent since each numeral classifier represents a category of nouns sharing the same feature. The effect is similar with the gender example of book and remote control in French in (6), the noun classification can help the speaker and hearer in conversation however it cannot replace each noun with precise accuracy. To reach such precision would imply that each noun has a distinct category, which would be against the original principle of economy. To summarize, numeral classifiers and genders converge in terms of semantic function, meaning that they both fulfill the purpose of noun classification.
Nevertheless, the two systems do have divergences: in general, gender systems are more rigid than classifiers, as listed in Table 2. As an example, genders obligatorily mark every noun in a language regardless of register or context, while classifiers may be optional in specific situations, as demonstrated in (4) via Chinese. Moreover, genders have a closed system compared to classifiers, meaning that it is very rare to see a new gender appear in a language, while it is quite common to observe the emergence of new numeral classifiers. As in French, the usage of two genders has been stable since a long period of time, while the usage of numeral classifiers shows the opposite in Chinese, in which new numeral classifiers developed along the ages, sometimes replacing the previous ones. This also leads to the fact that genders are generally outnumbered by classifiers in terms of average quantity, as an example,
‧
most languages have only two or three genders, with Bantu at most may have near 30 genders attested in previous studies, however Chinese on itself have more than 100 numeral classifiers in the lexicon. Moreover, the rigidness of genders can also be observed in grammatical agreement, which is not a requirement on the classifiers side.
Table 2. Main differences between genders and classifiers (Dixon, 1986)
Gender system Classifier system
1 Classify all nouns Do not classify all nouns
2 Into a smaller number of classes (from 2-20) Into a larger number of classes
3 Of a closed system Of an open system
4 May fuse with other grammatical categories (Def, Num, Case)
Independent constituent
5 Can be marked on noun Not affixed to noun
6 Realized in agreement patterns Marked once
7 N uniquely assigned to a class with no speaker variation
N possibly assigned to various classes at speaker’s will
8 No variation in register Formal/ informal uses
Finally, genders rarely generate speaker individual variation or change of usage according to register, while classifiers do. As an example from French with genders, a table is labeled as feminine and it is rare to observe a speaker assign a different class to it. Furthermore, the table will remain feminine regardless of the speaker and hearer involved in conversation. On the other hand, numeral classifiers are the total opposite:
one noun can be assigned different numeral classifiers depending on the feature the speaker wishes to highlight, resulting in speaker variation. Taking the action of pointing out a fish as an example, in (20a) the speaker may use a numeral classifier related to the tail feature of the fish, but it is also possible to highlight its long shape in (20b) or its animacy in (20c).
(21) Different numeral classifiers on the same noun (Chinese) a. Highlights the tail feature of the fish
一 尾 魚
yi wei yu
1 CL-tail fish
‘one fish’
N-fish as frame and CL-tail as profile
‧
b. Highlights the long shape feature of the fish
一 條 魚
yi tiao yu
1 CL-long shape fish
‘one fish’
N-fish as frame and CL-long shape as profile
c. Highlights the animacy feature of the fish
一 隻 魚
yi zhi yu
1 CL-animacy fish
‘one fish’
N-fish as frame and CL-animacy as profile
Furthermore, numeral classifiers usage may vary according to different registers. As an example in Chinese casual speech, the speaker may heavily rely on the general classifier ge which can be associated to almost every noun in the lexicon. However, in formal situation, it is usually preferred to use specific classifiers for demonstrating education attainment and respect to the hearer, as demonstrated in Table 3.
Table 3. Usage of general classifier and specific classifier (Chinese) Casual (General classifier) Official (Specific classifier) a yi ge laoshi ‘one CL-general teacher’ yi wei lao shi ‘one CL-person teacher’
b yi ge zhuozi ‘one CL-general table’ yi zhang zhuozi ‘one CL-2D surface table’
c yi ge fangzi ‘one CL-general house’ yi dong fangzi ‘one CL-building house’
d yi ge wenzhang ‘one CL-general article’
yi pian wenzhang ‘one CL-written thing article’
As a summary, numeral classifiers and genders converge in terms of semantic function but diverge in their represented form. Their common semantic function would let us expect a tendency not to co-occur in languages (Dixon, 1982; Corbett, 1991; Aikhenvald, 2000; Blench, 2012), as we deduced for numeral classifiers and plural markers. Previous studies involving big data of languages such as Aikhenvald (2000) do propose results supporting this hypothesis. However, since the overlap would be semantic rather than syntactic, it is not expected to be forbidden, rather only dispreferred. A similar case can be found in our explanation of numeral classifiers with the number one, since they both represent the mathematical value of 1, they are displaying a semantic overlap yet still can occur, just in a low frequency. Following
‧
spoken in Brazil is attested to have a gender system and three sub-types of classifiers (Aikhenvald, 1994). Other examples of genders and classifiers coexistence can also be observed in various languages such as Tidore (van Staden, 2000:77-81) or Ngan’gityemerri which shows the development from generic classifiers into genders (Reid, 1997). Further statistical evidence is provided in the GIS section.3.3 Genders and plural markers
The convergence of genders and plural markers is motivated by the fact that they both carry different semantic functions. Genders fulfill semantic classification while plural markers represent countability marking. The two systems separately fulfill the two main classifications present in noun phrases, leading us to the expectation that they should co-occur in languages. This is actually what is observed in most languages of the world, taking French as an example, gender marking is existent as demonstrated in the previous sections. Furthermore, plural marking is also realized through suffixes, as demonstrated in Table 4.
Table 4. Genders and plurals co-occurrence in French
Singular Plural
Syntactically this is also possible, since genders and count/mass distinction are supposed to be assigned at the lexical level rather than by syntactic processes (Her, 2012). Moreover, the semantic functions and syntactic forms of the two elements are both different therefore no conflict occurs among them. As a resume, we realize that genders and plural markers separately fulfill the two main classification functions of noun phrases therefore they are expected to complement each other, as a contrast to numeral classifiers which merge these two functions into one entity.
3.4
Summary: Triangle relationship
We propose that despite their apparent divergence, the three elements display a particular distribution in languages due to their common features. As displayed in
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
23
Table 5, the noun phrase normally requires: countability (mass/count distinction) and noun classification. First, numeral classifiers carry both simultaneously, as in the example where the numeral classifier assigns the noun to the category of ‘long-shape objects’ and highlights the fact that it is countable. If it was a mass noun, the noun phrase would use a measure word (quantifier) instead of a numeral classifier, e.g. shi bang rou ‘ten M-pound meat’ (Li & Thompson, 1981). Second, genders provide semantic classification to facilitate referent tracking, as demonstrated in the introduction (Luraghi, 2011; Contini-Morava & Kilarski, 2013). Finally, grammatical plural markers point out the countability of the noun, as in English where only count nouns can take plural marking, e.g. ‘some tables’ but ‘some water’ (Sanches & Slobin, 1973; Greenberg, 1990; Ghomeshi & Massam, 2012).
Table 5. Semantic functions of numeral classifiers, genders and plural markers Countability Classification Example
Num classifier Yes Yes Chinese ‘one CL-long fish’
Gender No Yes French ‘table, fem’/ ‘book, mas’
Plural marker Yes No English –s ‘three tables’
From features in Table 5 we can obtain the relationship graph in Fig 1. We hypothesize that in a language, numeral classifiers and plural markers are mutually exclusive (line 1), numeral classifiers and genders have the tendency to not co-occur (line 2) while genders and plural markers are expected to co-occur (line 3).
Figure 1. Interaction of numeral classifiers, genders and plural markers
In line 1, numeral classifiers and plural markers both mark countability in semantic function and syntactic form, therefore should not occur together (Borer, 2005; Hsieh, 2009; Her & Chen, 2013). In line 2, numeral classifiers and genders share the semantic function of classification so are expected not to co-occur (Dixon, 1986:111, Blench, 2012). However, since the overlap is in semantic function rather than syntactic form, the redundancy is acceptable but would occur in low frequency
‧
classifier. However, they have the same semantic function of classification, making the overlap redundant, thus dispreferred. In line 3, genders and plural markers bear separately the two types of information: countability and classification. Therefore, they should appear in the same environment, unless another carrier fulfilling the same purpose is found, e.g. noun classifiers, morphological case marking, among others.This exceptional situation is demonstrated in the typological section. A typological example would be that the lack of gender and number markers in Sino-Tibetan, Miao-Yao and Tai nouns is somewhat compensated for by numeral classifiers, which serve to individuate nouns and may be said to ‘agree’ with particular classes of nouns e.g. flat, round, elongated objects among others (Matisoff, 1991:496).
It is necessary to explain that in line 1 the two elements are mutually exclusive since both numeral classifiers and grammatical plural markers share the same semantic function and syntactic form, while syntactic stacking is not possible. Moreover, they distinguish between two separate meanings, e.g. in English ‘book’ and ‘books’ are definitively different, but marking the mass/count distinction twice as in ‘*bookss’
would not add anything new to the word, making the redundancy useless. However, for line 2 the shared feature of noun classification is not in syntactic form but in semantic classification and does not distinguish a meaning, rather it is an optional system of noun classification for referent tracking. In this sense, one could add as many categories as one wants in order to obtain a maximum of precision, as it would be when adding adjectives to a noun, e.g. the big yellow French book. A similar process with noun classification would result in something like ‘the book, masculine/
inanimate/ square-shape’. This makes the overlap acceptable, but due to economy tradeoff in language, it is still expected to appear in low frequency. In other words, since the purpose of noun classification is to highlight a specific feature of the noun, adding more than one would cancel the stand-out effect of a feature, therefore it is dispreferred.
Combining the deduction mentioned previously, we may display the two functions via the concept of continuum: each language is searching for a balance between economy and expressiveness. For the speaker, the more economical the better, since less energy is invested in speaking. On the opposite side for the listener, the more expressive the better, since less energy is needed to interpret the message. In other words, countability and classification are two sources of information available for noun phrases, the most equilibrated situation occurs when both functions are fulfilled once
‧
each, while marking only one of it or neither of them leads to more economy but less expressiveness and vice-versa, as demonstrated in (22).
(22) Equilibrium continuum between economy and expressiveness within languages
Economy Expressiveness
<< --- >>
Countability ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓✓
Classification ✓ ✓ ✓✓ ✓ ✓✓
Language Usan Piraha Finnish Chinese/
French
Tidore Hungarian Marathi
The most equilibrated point is expected to occur in the middle, when both countability and classification are fulfilled once, e.g. Chinese has numeral classifiers which carry countability and classification marking once, French relies on genders for classification and plural markers for countability. Other distributions may occur but the frequency is predicted as low. As an example, when the language prefers economy over expressiveness, it would only include one function between countability and classification, e.g. the Piraha language from the Amazonas only shows countability marking, while Finnish only marks countability via plural markers. A most extreme example in this direction would be Usan, a language from Papua New Guinea, which does not mark either of the two functions. On the other hand, a language may also tend to enhance expressiveness. In this case it would mark one function twice, e.g. in Tidore noun classification is fulfilled once by numeral classifiers and a second time by genders. Most extreme cases also exist, as in Marathi which is attested to have numeral classifiers, genders and plural markers, apparently resulting in double marking for countability and classification. Our speculation regarding the high ratio of balanced languages in the middle of the continuum is further supported by our data in the GIS section, but it is also necessary to point out that beside countability marking and noun classification, it is possible that other functions may be required in the noun phrase. Moreover, the hierarchy between the two main functions involved in (21) also needs further discussion. Due to resource limitation and avoidance of a too large scale for this paper, these issues are left for further research to develop.
As a summary, we expect that the two functions of countability (mass/count) and classification may explain the distribution of numeral classifiers, grammatical genders and grammatical plural markers. First, countability marking is syntactic therefore it is
As a summary, we expect that the two functions of countability (mass/count) and classification may explain the distribution of numeral classifiers, grammatical genders and grammatical plural markers. First, countability marking is syntactic therefore it is