Chapter 4 The Analysis
4.2 The Syntactic Structure of duo and ban in Numeral Classifier Phrases
4.2.4 duo and ban with No Marking of Unit Digits
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
marking of unit-digits, which we believe to be the best analysis for the structure of duo and ban in numeral classifier phrases.
4.2.4 duo and ban with No Marking of Unit Digits
This analysis is quite similar with the one proposed in last section. The only difference is that no marker occupies the position of unit digits. In other words, simple numerals, like yi ‘one’, er ‘two’, san ‘three’, and etc., project their own Num P without the numerical base as their head. We will start with the structure [Num+C/M- ban/duo +N] as the arrangement in the above section. To provide readers a better understanding of our analysis, we use the examples by repeating the analyzed example (44) here as (51).
(51) 二十 五 斤 半/多 葡萄 er-shi wu jin ban/duo putao twenty five catty half/more grapes ‘twenty-five catties and half/more of grapes’
The diagrams of these two sentences can be seen as follows in (52). We can easily detect that Num1 is the head of Num P1 without any other functional head to mark the unit-digits. Also, in this structure, ban/duo also forms a CL′ node with a silent C/M.
Then, it conjoins with the other CL′ node formed by NumP and C/M. Last, this node will merge with NP to complete the structure of numeral classifier phrase.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(52)
As for the other structure of duo, the one which duo is adjacent to the numeral base, we also use the same example as the one in previous section as (53) as its syntactical structure.
(53) 二十 多 斤 葡萄 er-shi duo jin putao twenty more catty grapes ‘twenty and more catties of grapes’
CLP
CL′
CL′
& CL′
NumP2 CL′ CL′ NP
NumP
Num2′ CL CL N′
& NumP1 jin duo/ban JIN
Num2 Num1′ N
er shi Num1 putao
wu
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(54)
Here, duo is not regarded as the specifier of the numerical base one-level lower than the last NumP in the hierarchical structure. Rather, we claim that duo directly occupies the position one-level lower than its preceding base. This arrangement is inferred from duo’s preceding measurement, shi. In this sentence, the meaning of duo is a little bit more of the numerical base shi (i.e. the mathematical values can be any quantity less than 10, but typically less than 5). Next, we have to verify if this structure can resolve the first problem encountered in previous proposition in Section 4.2.3. As we can see in the diagram in (55), duo undoubtedly occupies the position of NumP2. In other words, the first problem of our previous analysis is thereupon solved.
The sentences like san-bai duo jin putao can be correctly predicted accordingly.
CLP
CL′
NumP2 CL′ NP
Num2′
Num2 & NumP1 CL N′
Er shi Num1′ jin
Num1 N
duo putao
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(55)
Moreover, with this structure proposition, the second problem of previous analysis (i.e.
why ban is unable to be adjacent to the base) is somehow resolved easily in this structure. If we assume that ban occupies the position of NumP3, then its value would have to rely on the numerical base bai, which would roughly express the half of hundred. Yet, given the availability of the simple numeral wu-shi to express fifty in Mandarin Chinese, it is unnecessary to form a much more complicated structure to display the same numerical value. In this light, we are convinced that ban in fact behaves exactly the same as duo in numerical phrases; however, the disallowance of ban to follow a numerical base results from the well-formed numeral expressions in Mandarin.
The structures shown in this section are believed to be the best ones for explaining duo and ban in numeral classifier phrases for the following three crucial reasons. First, no under-generated or over-generated sentences are yielded. That is, the
CLP
CL′
NumP3 CL′ NP
Num3′
Num3 & NumP2 CL N′
san bai Num2′ jin
Num2 N
duo putao
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
proposed structures do not generate any ungrammatical sentences. Besides, they cover most of the varied interpretation regarding the value of ban/duo in the [Num+C/M- ban/duo +N]. Second, by following He’s (2005) proposition of NumP, the structure relation, c-command, can be seen in our structure. The immediate constituent formed by base would c-command every node that is lower than its power. Third, the structure of coordination in this structure is correspond to the structure proposed in Zhang (2010). She claims that “a coordinate complex has a binary-branching structure”
which is exactly as of other general binary complementation and adjunction configuration. Although the structures seem to solve most fundamental potential problems, two details should be set out. The first is the internal structure of numeral phrases. According to Hurford’s (1975) theory, only the structure of simple numeral is a non-branching one. In our structure as (55), Num P2 is presented as a non-branching structure, which departs from Hurford’s (1975). The second is the numeral phrase occupied by duo is marked as Num P2. In doing so, the mathematical value of duo would be restricted as tens digit; nevertheless, duo in san-bai duo can express the quantity like three hundred and one. Hence, we have to formulate a principle to guarantee that these two points might not undermine our analysis. According to Hurford’s (1975) Packing Strategy, ling ‘zero’ is needed to fill in the missing power(s) if the two numerals are not adjacent in powers. Here, we are going to remark the other possible situation of missing power(s) and its structure: the numeral expression in spoken Mandarin Chinese, such as san-bai wu. On the surface, san-bai wu literarily seems to be [3×100+5]; however, it in fact is 350. From this, we formulate the following principle in (56) to deal with the asymmetry between the literal number and its actual value.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(56) If two numerals are not adjacent in powers, there are two possible situations:
1) fill in the missing power(s) with ling ‘zero’
2) adjust the internal structure as the simple numeral.
Then, last doubt about our analysis is the powers marking of numeral phrases occupied by duo. It would be marked as NumP<n since duo refers to the value a little more than the preceding unit of measurement. Thus, the finalized structure for [Num-duo C/M N] is (57).
(57)
In conclusion, the analysis without marker for unit-digits surpasses the one with a silent marking. First, two potential problems of the first analysis are solved neatly.
Second, the second analysis differs from the first one which is over-generating; hence, no ungrammatical sentences can be generated (e.g. san-bai duo-shi jin putao)
CLP
CL′
NumP3 CL′ NP
Num3′
Num3 & NumP<3 CL N′
san bai Num<3′ jin
Num<3 N
duo putao
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 5 Conclusion
This thesis investigates the syntactic structure of duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ in Mandarin numeral classifier phrases. The discussed sentence constructions are as follows:
(58) a. Num+C/M- ban/duo +N b. ban/duo C/M +N c. Num +C/M+duo+N d. Num+ban (N)
We not only aim to justify the syntactic structure of these two elements but also their part-of-speech assignment. To begin with, related studies of duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’
in the classifier construction are reviewed. In previous literature, studies have suggested two different part-of-speech assignments to duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ in the classifier construction: some regard them as numeral adjectives; others regard them as quantifiers. In addition to this confused part-of-speech assignment, I also found that the syntactical structure of duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ in Mandarin numeral classifier phrases is scarcely discussed. Hence, after providing a thorough review of previous research, I respond to their asserts and pinpoint several unsolved problems in this issue. The unsolved problems can roughly be realized as 1) incorrect part-of-speech assignments and 2) unknown syntactic structure. Among these studies, a notable exception is He (2015), where he does offer a detailed formal account of the structure of [Num C/M-duo N], but we propose that his account can be further enhanced.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Based on these studies, I argue that duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ should be seen as a numeral. When ban/duo occupies the same position as other simple numerals, their mathematical values can be derived independently. Yet, if they are placed right after C/M or base, their values should be dependent on their preceding unit of measurement.
This then leads us to regard ban/duo in numeral classifier phrases as the coordinate constructions which might be conjoined with C/M or base. For instance, duo would be in conjunction with jin ‘catty’ in wu jin duo pinguo ‘five catties and more of apples’, while it is in conjunction with shi ‘ten’ in wu-shi duo jin pinguo ‘fifty and more catties of apples’. In other words, duo conjoins with either numerical base or C/M in numeral classifier phrases. However, ban can only conjoin with C/M rather than numerical base because the complicity of Mandarin numeral system. In sum, duo and ban are fundamentally the same in both part-of-speech and syntactical structure. Only, ban is a jinleici, which possesses the other feature as an M in the structure of (58d).
To the extent that it is successful, this study has several important implications.
First, it supports the view that numerals are constituents (He 2015). Second, the so-called left-branching constituency [[Num C/M] N] is preferred over the right-branching constituency [Num [C/M N]]. Third, besides numerals with precise values and approximate values, languages may also employ numerals like the Mandarin duo and ban whose values are dependent on their syntactic context.
‧
Au Yeung, W.H.B., (2007). Multiplication basis of emergence of classifier. Language and Linguistics 8 (4), 835--861.
Borer, H., (2005). Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press, Berkeley.
He, C. (2015). Complex numerals in Mandarin Chinese are constituents. Lingua, 164, 189-214.
Her, O. S. (2012a). Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A mathematical perspective and implications. Lingua, 122(14), 1668-1691.
Her, O. S. (2012b). Structure of classifiers and measure words: A lexical functional account. Language and Linguistics 13(6). 1211-1251.
Her, O. S., & Lai, W. J. (2012). Classifiers: The Many Ways to Profile 'one'—A Case Study of Taiwan Mandarin. International Journal of Computer Processing Of Languages, 24(01), 79-94.
Her, O. S. and K-h Lin. (2015). On the Differentiation of Classifiers and Measure Words. Chinese Linguistics. 4: 56-68.
Her, O. S. and C-T Hsieh. (2010). On the semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words in Chinese. Language and linguistics 11.3: 527-551.
Hu, Q. (1993). The acquisition of Chinese classifiers by young Mandarin-speaking children. Dissertation. Boston University, Boston.
Huang, J. (1984). Phrase structure, lexical integrity, and Chinese compounds. Journal of the Chinese Teachers Association 19 (2), 53–78.
Huang, S. F. (1981). On the scope phenomena of Chinese quantifiers. Journal of
‧
Hurford, J. (1975). The Linguistic Theory of Numerals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hurford, J. (2007). A performed practice explains a linguistic universal: Counting gives the Packing Strategy. Lingua, 117(5), 773-783.
Ionin, Tania, and Ora Matushansky. (2006). The composition of complex cardinals.
Journal of Semantics 23:315–360.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition (Vol. 8). MIT press.
Kuno, S., Takami, K. I., & Wu, Y. (1999). Quantifier scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese. Language, 63-111.
Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago press. 1987-1987.
Landman, F., (2004). Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Blackwell, Malden.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford university press.
Li, Y. H. A. (2014). Structure of Noun Phrases-Left or Right? Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 12(2), 1-32.
Lü, Shuxiang et al. (1990) [1980]. Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci [Eight Hundred Words in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Wang, Lianqing. (1994). Origin and development of classifiers in Chinese. PhD.
Dissertation, the Ohio State University.
Xing, Fu-yi. (1993). Xiandai Hanyu ShuLiangci XiTong Zhong De “ban” Han
“Shuang” [Ban and Shuang in the numeral system of Modern Chinese]
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 4, 36-56.
Xing, F.-Y. (2003). Cilei Biannan ‘Difficult Issues in Word Categories’. Commercial Press, Beijing.
Zhang, N. N. (2010). Coordination in syntax (Vol. 123). Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, N. N. (2013). Numeral Classifier Structures in Mandarin Chinese (Vol. 263).
Walter de Gruyter.
‧
68 classifiers identified by Her & Lin (2015)
C Example C Example C Example
‧
83 measure words identified by Her & Lin (2015)
M Example M Example M Example