A Semantic Categorization of True Classifiers

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

feng1 封 kuai4 塊 c tiao2 條 zun1 尊 fu2 幅 li4 粒 tou2 頭 zuo4 座 gen1 根 liang4 輛 wan2 丸

ge 個 mei2 枚 wei3 尾 guan3 管 mian4 面 wei4 位

4.3 A Semantic Categorization of True Classifiers

Hsieh (2009) proposes that classifiers will profile the noun behind the classifier.

For example, yi1 tiao2 gou3一條狗 and yi1 zhi1 gou3一隻狗. A classifier tiao2條 profiles the long shape of dogs while a classifier zhi1 隻 profiles the animate character of dogs. The above two collocations with same nouns but different classifiers result in emphasizing the different portions of the noun. The reason is that classifiers have their own semantic meanings and belong to different semantic categories on the basis of their semantic meanings. Traditionally, semantic categorizations of Mandarin Chinese classifiers are arranged in a top-down form.

Top-down parsing is a strategy of analyzing unknown data relationships by hypothesizing general parse tree structures and then considering whether the known fundamental structures are compatible with the hypothesis. Thus, a top-down form hypothesized the semantic categorizations of Mandarin Chinese classifiers first and then places Mandarin Chinese classifiers in their compatible categorizations.

However, many defects are found in such semantic categorizations of Mandarin Chinese classifiers. For example, a semantic categorization of Mandarin Chinese classifiers from Hu (1993) is shown in Appendix C. Two defects in Hu’s top-down

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

semantic categorizations of Mandarin Chinese classifier may be pointed out. Fisrst, one classifier may simultaneously belong to more than one category. For example, a classifier zhi1隻in Hu (1993) belongs to four categories such as four-legged big animals, four-legged small animals, birds and arrangement. The classifier tiao2條

in

Hu (1993) also belongs to four categories such as big four-legged animals, fish, long and flexible objects and clothing for the lower body.

Second, the semantic meanings of classifiers are not complete and precise resulting in some acceptable collocations for classifiers and nouns being excluded in Hu (1993). For example, a classifier ba3把 in Hu (1993) is regarded as belonging to the hand tool category, but yi1 ba3 xiao3ti2qin2 一把小提琴 and yi1 ba3 yi3zi 一 把椅子 are not hand tools. Also, the classifier jian4件 in Hu (1993) is regarded as belonging to the category of clothing for the upper body category, but jian4件 can occur with other nouns such as in yi1 jian4 wan2ju4一件玩具 or yi1 jian4 yi4wai4 一件意外.

The opposite of top-down form is bottom-up form. Bottom-up parsing is a strategy for analyzing unknown information that attempts to identify the most fundamental units first, and then to infer higher-order structures from them. Thus, a bottom-up form identifies Mandarin Chinese classifiers at the bottom and then infers higher levels from the bottom. This thesis finds that bottom-up form can avoid the two defects that I observed in Hu (1993) top-down categorization. As a result, the form of

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

the semantic categorization of Mandarin Chinese classifiers in this thesis will adopt a bottom-up form. The way of semantic categorization of Mandarin Chinese classifers in this thesis is to offer a brief description of the core semantic meanings of sixty-one true classifiers based on the Mandarin Daily Dictionary of Chinese Classifiers (Huang et. al 1997) and to make use of a bottom-up form to do with a semantic categorization that starts from the semantic meanings of each classifier to the highest general level, namely discrete level. Table 33 shows sixty-one true classifiers and their brief descriptions of the semantic meanings.

Ta ble 33: Sixty-one T rue Classifier s and Their Semant ic Meanings

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Table 34 shows sixty-one true classifiers and the semantic categorizations of these sixty-one true classifiers. Each classifier starts from the lowest specific level, namely sematic meanings of each classifier, to the highest general level, namely discrete

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

level. Such a bottom-up form avoids the acceptable collections which are excluded in Hu (1993).

Table 34: Sixty-one True Classifiers and Their Bottom-up Semantic Categorizations

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Figure 8 uses a tree diagram to express the bottom-up semantic categorization of sixty-one true classifiers.

Figure 8: A bottom-up S emantic Cate gorization of T rue Classifiers

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

In Figure 8, classifiers are identified first, and then higher-level are inferred from the lower level, namely classifiers. If classifiers have the similar features, they are categorized in the same category. And this thesis gives the category a name on the basis of the shared semantic features. If classifiers do not have the similar features, they will be an isolated category. And this thesis will also give the isolated category a name on the basis of the semantic feature of classifiers. In Figure 8, the name of these categories including human, non-human, animate, inanimate, shape, and function, are adopted from Allan (1977) and Hu (1993). The remaining names of categories are given according to the inferences that can be made as to the semantic

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

features of each classifier or shared semantic features of classifiers.

In shape category, this thesis adopts the opinion of Tai (1992) that longness, flatness and roundness and one dimensional, two dimensional and three dimensional are both needed in order to adequately describe the salient cognitive features. Thus, longness, flatness and roundness and one dimensional, two dimensional and three dimensional are used to classify these true classifiers. Finally, Figure 8 shows a tree diagram with the bottom-up form which is quite different from that of a top-down form. The tree diagram is metaphorical in that is like a fallen down tree with the highest general level, namely discrete level, as the roots of a tree and with the lowest specific level, namely classifiers, as the leaves of a tree. This bottom-up semantic categorization not only solves the defects that observed in Hu (1993) top-down semantic categorization but also provides an explicit semantic categorization of Mandrain Chinese classifiers.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

CHAPTER V

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this chapter, the summary of the thesis will be presented in Section 5.1. Then the directions for future study will be pointed out in Section 5.2.

5.1 Summary of the Thesis

The core aim of this thesis is to re-classify Mandarin Chinese classifiers categorizations by means of four tests based on linguistic theories.

The first part of the analysis rests on re-classifying five Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations proposed by representative studies, such as Chao (1968), Erbaugh (1986), Hu (1993), Huang et. al. (1997) and Gao and Malt (2009). The Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations proposed by Chao (1968), by Erbaugh (1986), by Hu (1993), by Huang et. al. (1997) and by Gao and Malt (2009) are individually re-classified into three portions, a classifier portion, a Xc and Xm portion and a measure word portion. Placement in the classifier portion represents that a word is a classifier. The Xc and Xm portion is offered from morphology to show the classifications of ambiguous classifiers. Xc stands for an ambiguous classifier

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

functioning as a classifier and Xm stands for an ambiguous classifier functioning as a measure word. The measure word portion is used to represent that a word belongs to a measure word, rather than a classifier. Furthermore, three portions can be further simplified into two categories, one is classifier category and the other is measure word category. Both the classifier portion and Xc portion belong to the classifier category while both the measure word portion and Xm portion belong to the measure word category. As a result, five groups of classifier portion and five groups of measure word portion are given through re-classifying five Mandarin Chinese classifier categorizations. Because the focus of this thesis is Mandarin Chinese classifiers, the following investigations are made using the five groups of classifier portion.

In the second part, the major task is to offer a group of true classifiers which are definite classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. In five groups of classifier portion provided in the first part, the intersection method in mathematics was used to find twenty-two core classifiers and the union method in mathematics was used to find ninety non-core classifiers. Twenty-two core classifiers are definitely true classifiers while it is possible, but not definite that the ninety non-corel classifiers may be true classifiers. In order to know the possibility for the non-core classifiers to become definitely true classifiers, a questionnaire experiment on identifying classifiers was carried out. Due to the stipulation that only test items with a 100% identification as a

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

classifier are true classifiers in this experiment, there were totally thirty-nine test items that are definitely true classifiers. Finally, both the twenty-two core classifiers and thirty-nine non-core classifiers are grouped together as sixty-one true classifiers in Mandarin Chinese.

In the third part, sixty-one true classifiers are further classified according to their semantic meanings from the Mandarin Daily Dictionary of Chinese Classifiers (Huang et. al. 1997) in the bottom-up form because there are some defects in the traditional top-down semantic categorization. In the bottom-up semantic categorization of Mandarin Chinese classifiers, each classifier is given a brief description of its semantic meanings. Also each classifier starts from the lowest specific level to the highest general level to form a tree diagram. This bottom-up semantic categorization not only solves the defects in top-down semantic categorization but also provides an explicit semantic categorization of Mandarin Chinese classifiers.

To sum up, this thesis offers sixty-one strongly-confirmed true classifiers in Mandarin Chinese by means of four consentient linguistic norms, two mathematical methods and a questionnaire experiment. A bottom-up semantic categorization consisting of these sixty-one true classifiers offering an explicit semantic categorization was then derived.

5.2 Issues for Future Study

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Noting the discrepancies in the different inventories of Mandarin Chinese classifiers, this thesis offers a group of sixty-one true classifiers as definite classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. However, several issues remain unexplored. First of all, use statistics to analyze the result of the questionnaire experiment. The differences and the relations of the percentage of the three options in the questionnaire experiment can precisely explained through using statistics.

Second, there is the question as to whether these sixty-one true classifiers are also definite classifiers in other dialects such Taiwan Southern Min or Hakka. If these sixty-one true classifiers can also be identified as true classifiers in other dialects, these sixty-one true classifiers may be cross-linguistically approved as definitely true classifiers. If these sixty-one true classifiers do not all occur in other dialects, the classifier systems of different dialects are inferred to have cross-linguistical differences. Noticing, the language backgrounds of subjects have to be the same because the different language backgrounds may have an impact on the results.

Finally, there is an implication for these sixty-one true classifiers in the teaching Chinese as second language. As these sixty-one classifiers are definitely true classifiers, a list of these sixty-one classifiers will provide a norm for teachers when teaching classifiers and measure words and also help students to understand classifiers more easily.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

References

Adams, K. L. & Conklin, N. F. (1973) Toward a theory of natural classification. In

Chicago Linguistic Society Paper, Chicago, IL, 1-10.

Ahrens, Kathleen & Huang, Chu-Ren. (1996). Classifiers and semantic type coercion:

Motivating a new classification of classifiers. Published in The Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information, and Computation (PACLIC II), pp.1-10. Seoul, Korea.

Allan, K. (1997). Classifier. Language 53:285-311

Au Yeung, Wai Hoo Ben. (2005). An Interface program of parameterization of

classifiers in Chinese. PhD. Dissertation, Hong Kong University.

Au Yeung, Wai Hoo Ben. (2007). Multiplication basis of emergence of classifier.

Language and Linguistics 8.4:835-861.

Borer, Hagit. (2005). Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chao, Yuen-Ren. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Erbaugh, Mary S. (1986). Taking stock: The development of Chinese noun classifiers historically and in young children. Noun Classes and Categorization,

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

ed. by Colette Craig, 399-436. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gao, M. Y. and Malt, B. (2009). Mental representation and cognitive consequences of Chinese individual classifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(7/8), 1124-1179.

Her, One-Soon. (2010 May). Distinguishing Classifiers and Measure Words. Thesis presented at The 4^th Conference on Language, Discourse and Cognition (CLDC2010), National Taiwan University, Taipei.

Her, One-Soon. (2011a May). Classifiers: The Many Ways to Profile ‘One’. Paper presented at The 12^th Chinese Lexical Semantics Workshop, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Her, One-Soon. (2011b). Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A

mathematical perspective and implications. Unpublished manuscript. National

Chengchi University.

Her, One-Soon and Hsieh, Chen-Tien. (2010). On the semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words in Chinese. Language and Linguistics

11.3:527-551

Her, One-Soon and Hsieh, Chen-Tien. (2010). A frame-profile approach to

classifiers: A case study of Taiwan Mandarin. Unpublished manuscript.

National Chengchi University.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Hsieh, Chen-Tien. (2009). A Frame-based Approach to Classifiers: A Case Study of

Taiwan Mandarin. MA Thesis, National Chengchi University.

Hsieh, Miao-Ling. (2008).

The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in

Chinese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics: Book Series in Chinese Linguistics. No.

2. Taipei: Crane Publishing.

Hu, Q. (1993). The Acquisition of Chinese Classifiers by Young Mandarin-speaking

Children. Ph.D. Dissertation, Boston University.

Huang, Chu-Ren, and Kathleen Ahrens. (2003). Individuals, kinds and events:

Classifier coercion of nouns. Language Sciences 25:353-373.

Hung, Feng-Sheng. (1996). Prosody and the Acquisition of Grammatical Morphemes

in Chinese Languages. Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Landman, Fred. (2004). Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publish.

Lee, May-Ling. (1998). A study of measures in Southern Min dialect. MA Thesis, National Chung Cheng University.

Leung, Shing on. (2007). The acquisition of Cantonese classifiers by preschool children in Hong Kong. Children Language, 34, 495-517.

Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional

reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Liang, Yu-Chang. (2006). Nominal phrases in English and Japanese speakers’ L2

Mandarin Grammars. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Tai, James H-Y. (1992). Variation in classifier systems across Chinese dialects:

Towards a cognition-based semantic approach. Chinese Language and

Linguistics 1: Chinese Dialects 587-608.

Tai, James H-Y. (1994). Chinese classifier systems and human categorization. In

Honor of Professor William S-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary Studies on Language

and Language Change, ed. by Matthew Chen & Ovid Tseng, 479-494. Pyramid

Publishing Company.

Tai, James H-Y and Fang-yi Chao. (1994). A semantic study of the classifier Zhang1.

Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 29.3:67-78.

Tai, James H-Y. and L. Wang. (1990). A semantic study of the classifier Tiao.

Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 25.1:35-56.

Tang, C.-C. J. (2005). Nouns or classifiers: A non-movement analysis of classifiers in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 6.3:431-472.

T. Givón. (1986). Prototypes: Between Plato and Wittgenstein. Noun Classes and

Categorization, ed. by Colette Craig, 77-102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Wang, Fu-mei. (2000). Classifiers in Taiwan Min. MA Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Zhang, Niina. (2009). Syntactic properties of numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. Talk given on April 10, 2009, at the Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Chung Cheng University. Accessed online, December 1, 2009.

http://www.ccunix.ccu.edu.tw/~lngnz/index.files/May%202009.pdf 郭先珍 (1987) 漢語量詞的應用。北京 : 中國物資出版 : 新華發行。

張麗麗，黃居仁，陳克健，賴慶雄（編著）(1997) 國語日報量詞典。

網路資源

Taiwan Google: http://www.google.com.tw/

國科會數位博物館先導計畫: http://words.sinica.edu.tw/

現代標準漢語與粵語對照資料庫: http://win2003.chi.cuhk.edu.hk/hanyu/

‧

分辨分類詞 (classifier) 和量詞 (measure word)

簡述分類詞(以下簡稱C)和量詞(以下簡稱 M):

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

量詞允許和名詞中間插入｀的＇。

如:｀對＇，｀打＇為典型量詞 一對夫妻 一對的夫妻

二打雞蛋 二打的雞蛋

請利用上述分類詞及量詞的概念，分析以下例子。

如果您認為是分類詞，請圈選C; 如果您認為是量詞，請圈選 M;

如果您認為分類詞和量詞都有可能，請圈選 O，並說明其歧義現象，分類詞 表示之義為何，量詞表示之義為何。

例如：｀一把刀＇具有分類詞概念和量詞概念。分類詞概念為‘a knife’，

量詞概念為‘a handful of knives’。

No. Test Items Examples Options No. Test Items Examples Options 1

ding3 頂

一頂草帽 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 14

zhang1 張

^一張床 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 2

gen1 根

一根頭髮 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 15

zhi1 枝

一枝鉛筆 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 3

ge 個

一個人 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 16

kuai4 塊

一塊肉 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 4

jia4 架

一架飛機 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 17

pian4 片

一片樹葉 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 5

jian4 件

一件毛衣 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 18

chuan4 串

一串佛珠 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 6

ke1 棵

一棵松樹 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 19

dui1 堆

一堆土 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 7

li4 粒

一粒紅豆 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 20

hang2 行

一行柳樹 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 8

liang4 輛

一輛警車 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 21

lie4 列

一列駱駝 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 9

pi1 匹

一匹馬 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 22

qun2 群

一群朋友 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 10

shou3 首

一首兒歌 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 23

shuang1 雙

一雙鞋 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 11

sao1 艘

一艘船 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 24

shu4 束

一束鮮花 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 12

tou2 頭

一頭大象 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 25

tao4 套

一套餐具 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 13

zhi1 隻

一隻貓 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 26

zu3 組

一組人員 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ

為求實驗正確性，請受試者保密不要透露內容讓其他受試者或潛在受試者知道。

‧

No. Test Items Examples Options No. Test Items Examples Options

1

ban1 班

^{一班飛機 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 46}

mu4 幕

^{一幕情景 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

35

ju4 句

^{一句口號 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ} 80

zhi1 只

^{一只酒罈 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

36

ju4 具

^{一具屍體 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ} 81

zhi1 支

^{一支樹枝 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

37

juan3 卷

^{一卷錄音帶 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 82}

zhi3 紙

^{一紙切結書 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

38

kou3 口

^{一口井 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 83}

zhou2 軸

^{一軸畫 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

39

long3 壟

^{一壟田 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ} 84

zhu1 株

^{一株櫻花 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

40

lü3 縷

^{一縷線 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ} 85

zhu4 柱

^{一柱電線杆 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

41

lun2 輪

^{一輪明月 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 86}

zhu4 炷

^{一炷香 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

42

mei2 枚

一枚獎章 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 87

zhuang1 樁

^{一樁意外 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

43

men2 門

^{一門大砲 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ} 88

zong1 宗

^{一宗意外 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

44

mian4 面

一面鏡子 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 89

zun1 尊

^{一尊佛像 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

45

ming2 名

^{一名學生 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ 90}

zuo4 座

^{一座山 Ｃ Ｍ Ｏ}

為求實驗正確性，請受試者保密不要透露內容讓其他受試者或潛在受試者知道。

謝謝您參與本問卷 !!

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

APPENDIX C

A Semantic Categorization of Mandarin Chinese Classifier (Hu

1993)

在文檔中 準確界定漢語中分類詞 - 政大學術集成 (頁 105-0)