Chapter 5. My Proposed Analysis
5.2 Of Chinese Numerical Expressions
5.2.1 The Matter of ling
How well fitted adjunction phrasal structure is to Chinese numeral expressions is even more obvious when the number is very large, as in (35).
This Chinese numeral expression is also drawn based on Munn’s adjunction analysis, so all the numbers are adjoined from the right and start with &P. However, here, it can be easily seen that there are five multipliers and they are ‘digit’, shi, bai, qian, and wan. Thus, the tree is drawn according to the multipliers. The number appearing before wan is seen as modifier for wan and the number appearing qian is seen as a modifier for qian, and so on. In this case, since there is no number existing before qian, ling appears as a place holder.
This numeral also offers a fine example of the usage of ling. Since there is a 0 in the thousands place at the beginning of the terminal string of four digits, this fact is indicated by ling.
If a 0 occurs in a medial position of an English numeral the morpheme “zero” is not used. For example, 5002 would be pronounced “five thousand and two.” In this case the value of the hundreds’ place is zero, but this fact is not indicated in the expression of the number. It is clear, then, that although ling and “zero” both mean 0, they are not used in the same way in numerical expressions. Interestingly, the number 5002 would be pronounced wu qian ling er in Chinese.
Here ling appears to be parallel to “and” in English, but this is not really so. Although Radzinski (1991, p. 281) observes that ling sometimes appears to function as “a type of conjunction,” a close examination of the facts does not support this claim, for it is only ever used in numeral expressions to indicate that medial multipliers have the value of 0. In other words, ling is a place holder and nothing else. What is especially noteworthy in (35) is how easily ling is incorporated into the adjunctive phrasal structure I have proposed for numerical expressions in both English and Chinese.
Ling appears where it does in the structure because it is functioning as a number that is adjoined to the recursive &P. Just as 33,0000 and 200 appear in similar positions before they are adjoined to the first &P containing the conjunct 56. It should be remembered that ling is a number, always. Ling is not a conjunction similar to English and, even though it does appear in a similar position in the structure and it is not an adjective. Neither ling nor 33,0000 modifies 256; instead, 33,0000 is added to 256, and ling indicates that the qian position is empty.
Moreover, in this structure ling is adjoined to the number following it (256), not to the number preceding it (33,0000). This is correct, because ling indicates the zero that introduces the second string of four numerical places that is conventional for Chinese numerical expressions.
We should not forget here that Hurford (2003, p. 53) states that the word order of numeral expressions is rigid in all natural languages, and that other lexemes almost never interrupts the flow of numerical lexemes. The only possible exception is additive co-ordinate conjunctions, such as and in English numerical expressions. Interestingly, Hurford (1975. p.
246 ) equates and with ling in Chinese numerical expressions, as in (36), but this is misleading:
(36) a. iqian ling er shisi
one-thousand zero two-ten-four
one thousand and twenty four
b. san bai ling er
three-hundred zero two three hundred and two
In these examples ling holds the empty place of 100 in (36a) and 10 in (36b), but “and” does not hold these empty places in the English versions of these numerical expressions. As we have already seen in (4b), “and” always occurs in complex English numerical expressions after the hundreds’ place in each string of three digits, and it always has the semantic value of addition.
Thus, “and” would still appear in comparable English numerical expressions, if the hundreds’
place and the tens’ place were not empty, as in (37):
(37) a. one thousand three hundred and twenty-four
b. two hundred and forty-two
The same is not true for the Chinese expressions of these numerals, where ling would not appear at all. This appears to be conclusive evidence that Chinese ling is not the equivalent of English
“and”, either semantically or syntactically.
5.3 A Brief Summary of My Proposal for Co-ordinate Adjunction
According to Dik (1972: p. 272), “The completely unspecific combinatory value of and is . . . the basis of its use in number-names. Indeed, whether we say one hundred twenty-five (as in
American English) or one hundred and twenty-five (as in British English), the and adds no more than its purely combinatory value.” Nevertheless, what Dik calls “combinatory value” might be taken to mean that “and” expresses the function of addition itself. Indeed, this is what I have argued throughout this thesis: Numbers are sums and their proper syntactical from is additive co-ordination, accounted for within the framework of X-bar theory as &P adjunctions.
Interpreted thus, “and” also has semantic value, and it means something specific, namely that the number that follows “and” is added to the number that precedes it. In fact, there seems to be a special quality about numerical expressions that merges them with the intrinsic nature of numbers as a unique psychological system.
Rutkowski (2003, p. 19) argues that the internal word order of numerical expressions at LF follows neither the rules of syntax nor the rules of semantics. Instead, numerical expressions should be viewed, according to Rutkowski, as arithmetical imports originating outside linguistics proper. If this means that numerical expressions give semantic, syntactic, and phonological form to the arithmetical operation of addition, I wholly agree with him.
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUDING REMARKS
6.1 Summing Up
This thesis is based on the assumption, derived from Hurford, (1975, 1987, 2003), that numbers are sums. This means that numbers are constructed by the operation of addition. Often it is said that numbers are constructed by a combination of addition and multiplication. In fact, Hurford establishes his entire structure for numerical expressions on distinguishing between three arithmetical categories: Numbers (simple digits from 0 to 9), base Multipliers (multiples of 10), and Phrases (sums or combinations of sums). On closer examination, though, it is revealed that all numbers larger than 10 are sums, because even multiplication is a kind of iterated addition.
Moreover, it is immediately apparent that this system is mostly – if not entirely – concerned with arithmetical operations. In other words, numerals embody a system that exists beyond the system of language. Thus, the creation of numerical expressions is an attempt to combine
arithmetical operations with syntactical, semantic, and phonological operations. This is precisely what Hurford, who is the acknowledged expert on the language of numbers, has done.
Nevertheless, I began this thesis with an ambition to improve on Hurford’s analysis of numerical expressions. I intended to do this by identifying the syntactical categories of numbers as abstract nouns. Most authors, Hurford included, have assumed that small lexical numbers behave like adjectives, while decimal multipliers and larger complex numbers behave like nouns.
I think, however, that all numbers – as numbers – are nouns. I have held this view from the beginning, and I still hold it. Secondly, in my attempt to integrate arithmetical operations with syntactical operations, I have argued, again from the beginning, that numerals are nominal compounds. Finally, in recognition of the arithmetical origin of numerical expressions, I have argued that numerals are a unique form of discourse: paratactic word strings that consist entirely of nouns, with the exception of the cumulative conjunction & (“and” in English, you in Chinese).
Numerical word strings are concatenations that exhibit rigid word order.
In my original attempt to expand and revise Hurford’s analysis of numerical expressions I relied too heavily on Hurford’s structural analysis, although I did improve on the terminology that should be used in phrasal analysis. I did this by indicating that all numbers are nouns and then identifying numbers according to their arithmetical functions in the composition of
numerals. But even after I had done this, two serious problems remained. The principal problem associated with Hurford’s phrasal structure is that it has to become trenary to accommodate the
“and” of English numerical expressions, thus violating the binary branching principle, one of the most important rules of X-bar theory. A second problem is that when Hurford’s structure is applied to Chinese numeral expressions, the morpheme ling, or “zero,” is forced to project as what Hurford calls a Phrase, when logically it should project as what he calls a Number. These issues were not resolved satisfactorily in the first draft of my thesis.
The current version of this thesis does, I believe, solve these problems more convincingly.
The reason for the improvement is that, while maintaining my original refinements of Hurford’s terminology for syntactical categories, I have adopted Munn’s (1993) adjunction analysis of the Conjunction Phrase (&P), what he calls a Boolean Phrase. I was led to this analysis by
discovering, through close examination, that the internal composition of English numerical expressions exhibits what might easily be regarded as binary structure. Within each string of three digits in English numerals there is a hundreds’ place, followed by the conjunction “and,”
followed by a combination of the tens’ and the units place. Such an arrangement led me to believe that the most appropriate syntactical categorization for numerical expressions is co-ordination.
In this new analysis, achieved within the framework of X-bar theory, and following Munn’s argument for co-ordinate adjunction, the conjunction “and” conjoins with its
complement, the second conjunct, to form the maximal projection of the &P at the X’’ level.
This phrase is then Chomsky-adjoined to the first conjunct, leaving the Specifier position empty.
The ultimate result is NP0 containing the entire structure. Applied to numerical expressions, this adjunctive &P analysis goes a long way to solving all the problems associated with Hurford’s analysis. There is no more need for trenary branching for the conjunction, since the structure, according to X-bar theory requirements, is hierarchical, not flat. Similarly, ling is easily accommodated within this structure when it is applied to Chinese numerical expressions. In short, the &P analysis offers an especially convincing account of English numerical expressions.
The only remaining problem is the hard fact that there is no longer a conjunction equivalent to “and” at PF in Chinese numerical expressions. There is evidence that in the past the morpheme you was used as a conjunctions in Chinese numerals, but that is no longer the case.
How can Chinese numeral expressions be analyzed as &P if they do not contain the category &?
My answer is that the conjunction you is still present at LF. Moreover, the internal logic of the composition of numerals in all languages is essentially arithmetical addition, which in turn suggests syntactical co-ordination. If this is true, you can be used as a conjunction in Chinese numerical expressions as long as it is marked as phonetically null. If this provision can be accepted, the &P analysis as a whole, based on Munn’s application of right adjunction, provides a satisfactory account of both English and Chinese numerical expressions.
Positing a phonetically null conjunction to head a phrase is not entirely radical. Kayne (1994), for instance, does this to license the first conjunct in his co-ordinate structure, but I am trying to justify the merging of e-& with the second conjunct. Most authors would probably question this possibility. In order to prove that Chinese numerical expressions are headed by a covert conjunction, or e-&, I have relied on two related arguments. The first is related to the concept of isomorphism between syntactical and phonetic forms. There is, no doubt, a possible interface there, and I have argued that intonational pauses between segments of numerical expressions in Chinese allow us to identify or recover the deleted conjunction you. I have also argued, following Tokizaki (2005), that covert conjunction can be used to integrate the various parts of a discourse, even entire sentences, according to the asymmetrical properties of phrasal co-ordination under standard X-bar theory. Since I also argue that numerical expressions are a special kind of paratactic and concatenated form of discourse, I believe that I am justified in concluding that you is covertly present in the & slot of &P in Chinese numerical expressions.
We probably should remember here that, as Haegman (1994, pp. 7-8) observes, what is acceptable in language is not necessarily what is grammatical – and vice versa. An overt &
might not be acceptable in Chinese speech, but it still might be grammatical.
6.2 Postscript: Hurford Revisited
As I have just demonstrated, this thesis is an attempt to come to terms with Hurford’s (1975, 1987, 2003) analysis of numerical expressions. It first seemed to me that his structural interpretation of numerals was syntactically vague and incomplete. And so it is. I have improved it by identifying all the elements as nouns and by combining arithmetical and syntactical operations in my analysis. I have also managed to present what I think is a solid – and at the same time original – argument for analyzing numerical expressions as asymmetrical co-ordinate phrasal structures. Moreover, I have demonstrated that this analysis works for both English and Chinese numerical expressions. Nevertheless, I am left with a profound suspicion that perhaps Hurford really has said all there is to say about numerical expressions, and that he was wise to keep the grammar of numerals separate from the general grammar. One thing is certain: numerals are special words.
REFERENCES
Alharbi, Abdullah H. (2002). The syntax of coordinate constructions. Language and Translation, 14, 67-87. Retrieved February 11, 2009.
http://digital.library.ksu.edu.sa/V14M172R450.pdf
Bošković, Željko and Franks, Steven. (2000). Across-the-board movement and LF. Syntax, 3 (2), 107-128.
Brainerd, Barron and Peng, Fred C.C. (1968). A syntactic comparison of Chinese and Japanese numerical expressions. In Hugo Brandt Corstius, (Ed). Grammars for Number Names.
Reidel: Cordrecht, 53-81.
Carston, Robyn and Blakemore, Diane. (2005). Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. In Diane Blakemore and Robyn Carston (Eds.). Coordination: Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Lingua, 115 (4), 353-358.
Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. (1986). Barriers (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 13). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Collins, Christopher. (1988a). Part 1. Conjunctions adverbs. Manuscript. Cambridge: MIT.
Collins, Christopher. (1988b). Part 2. Alternative analysis of conjunction. Manuscript.
Cambridge: MIT.
Corbett, Greville G. (1978). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cormack, Annabel and Smith, Neil. (2005). What is coordination? In Diane Blakemore and Robyn Carston (Eds.). Coordination: Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Lingua, 115 (4), 395-418.
Dik, Simon C. (1968). Coordination: Its Implications for the Theory of General Linguistics.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Dougherty, Ray C. (1969). Review of Coordination: Its Implications for the Theory of General Linguistics. By Simon C. Dik. Language, 45 (3), 624-636.
Duarte, Ines. (1991). X-bar theory: Its role in GB theory. In J. Siekmann (Ed.), Natural Language Processing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
25-54. http://www.springerlink.com/content/p61w361384p8504r/fulltext.pdf
Gazdar, Gerald; Klein, Ewan; Pullum, Geoffrey; and Sag, Ivan. (1985). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Goodall, Grant. (1987). Parallel Structures in Syntax: Coordination, Causatives and Restructuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenberg, Joseph H. (1978). Generalizations about numeral systems. In Joseph H. Greenberg (Ed.). Universals of Human Language. Vol. 3: Word Structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Grosjean, François; Grosjean, Lysiane; and Lane, Harlan. (1979). The patterns of silence:
Performance structures in sentence production. Cognitive Psychology, 11 (1), 58-81.
Grosu, Alexander. (1973). On the nonunitary nature of the coordinate structure constraint.
Linguistic Inquiry, 4 (1), 88-92.
Haegeman, Liliane. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Hartmann, Katharina. (2000). Right Node Raising and Gapping. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, Martin. (2005). Coordination. In Timothy Shopen (Ed.). Language Typology and Linguistic Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessed April 27, 2009. http://email.eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/coord.pdf
Hudson, Richard A. (2003). Coordination. In An Encyclopedia of English Grammar and Word Grammar. http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/enc-gen.htm
Hurford, James R. (1975). The Linguistic Theory of Numerals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hurford, James R. (1980). A note on Corbett's numeral universal. Lingua, 50 (3), 247-248.
Hurford, James R. (1987). Language and Number: The Emergence of a Cognitive System.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hurford, James R. (2001). Numeral systems. In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes. Pergamon,
Amsterdam. pp. 10756-10761. http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~jim/numsys.pdf
Hurford, James R. (2003). The interaction between numerals and nouns. In Frans Plank (Ed.) Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe (one of ten volumes to emerge from the European Science Foundation EUROTYP project) pp. 561-620.
http://www.ling.ed.ac.uk/~jim/eurofinal.pdf
Jackendoff, Ray. (1977). X’ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, Kyle. (2002). Restoring exotic coordinations to normalcy. Linguistic Inquiry, 33 (1), 97-156.
Kayne, Richard. (1984). Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris Kayne, Richard. (1994). The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kornai, András and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (1990). The X-bar theory of phrase structure.
Language, 66 (1), 24-50.
Kubo, Yoshihiro. (2007). A note on typology of coordination. Retrieved May 3, 2009.
http://www.adm.fukuoka-u.ac.jp/fu844/home2/Ronso/Jinbun/L38-4/L3804_1229.pdf Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference
Grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Liu, Jian and Peyraube, Alain. (1994). A history of some coordinate conjunctions in Chinese.
Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 22 (2), 179-201.
Liu, Yuehua et al. (1996). Modern Chinese Grammar. Shi Da Shu Yuan.
Menninger, Karl. (1969). Number Words and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers.
Dover.
Munn, Alan. (1993). Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Coordinate Structures. College Park: University of Maryland dissertation. Retrieved January 26, 2009.
https://www.msu.edu/user/amunn/psfiles/thesis.pdf
Phillips, Colin. (2003). Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 34 (1), 37-90.
Pollard, Carl. (1984). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammars, Head Grammars, and Natural Language. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.
Poncinie, Lawrence. (1993). Aristotle and Bressan on a number of things. Erkenntnis, 39 (2), 129-144. Retrieved January 17, 2009.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wn885007r416q102/fulltext.pdf
Radzinski, Daniel (1991). Chinese number names, tree adjoining languages, and mild context-sensitivity. Computational Linguistics, 17 (3), 277-299. Retrieved January 6, 2009.
http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/J/J91/J91-3002.pdf
Reinhart, Tanya. (1976). The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. Cambridge: MIT dissertation.
Retrieved April 14, 2009. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16400
Ross, John Robert. (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Cambridge: MIT dissertation.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3 8/b3/9d.pdf
Rutkowski, Pawel. (2003). On the universal neuropsychological basis of the syntax of numerals.
Journal of Universal Language, 4 (2), 147-182.
Sag, Ivan; Gazdar, Gerald; Wasow, Thomas; and Weisler, Steven. (1985). Coordination and how to distinguish categories. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 117-171.
Tokizaki, Hisao. (2005). Pause and hierarchical structure in sentence and discourse.
Proceedings of IDP05. Retrieved May 19, 2009.
http://aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr/~prodige/idp05/actes/tokizaki.pdf
Winter, Yoad. (1995). Syncategorematic conjunction and structured meanings. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory. Retrieved March 2, 2009.
http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~winter/papers/syncat.pdf
Yang, Henrietta Shu-Fen. (2005). Plurality and Modification in Mandarin Nominal Phrases.
Austin: University of Texas dissertation. Retrieved April 13, 2009.
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/2198uamgd17828.pdf
Zhang, Niina. (2006). On the configuration issue of coordination. Language and Linguistics, 7 (1), 175-223.
Zoerner, Cyril Edward III. (1995). Coordination: The Syntax of &P. Irvine: University of California Dissertation.