Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Trends in Linguistics
Studies and Monographs 250
Editor
Volker Gast
Editorial Board
Walter Bisang
Jan Terje Faarlund
Hans Henrich Hock
Natalia Levshina
Heiko Narrog
Matthias Schlesewsky
Amir Zeldes
Niina Ning Zhang
Editors responsible for this volume
Walter Bisang
Niina Ning Zhang
De Gruyter Mouton
Numeral Classifiers
in Chinese
The Syntax-Semantics Interface
by
XuPing Li
De Gruyter Mouton
ISBN 978-3-11-028763-9
e-ISBN 978-3-11-028933-6
ISSN 1861-4302
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Gttingen
Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
30
Preface
This book has grown out of my 2011 dissertation, entitled On the semantics of classifiers in Chinese (Bar Ilan University, 2011). The book is a
substantial revision of the dissertation, incorporates both the research for
the dissertation and the results of my work on classifiers in the years 20112013. Three new chapters, namely, Chapter 2, Chapter 4 and Chapter 10,
have been added to the original dissertation. Specifically, Chapter 4 on
natural atomicity was presented at the workshop on Mass/count in linguistics, philosophy and cognitive science at ENS, Paris in Dec 2012. Chapter
10 is based on my talk at the workshop on Semantic and typological perspectives on definite in Dsseldorf in June 2012. In the meantime, a different version of Chapter 8 is published as Li and Rothstein (2012) in Language and Linguistics. Chapter 9 is a development of Li and Bisang (2012)
in Lingua.
In this book, I discuss both syntax and semantics of classifiers in Chinese. My knowledge of semantics comes directly from Susan Rothstein,
who has been guiding and supporting me since we met in 2006. I am grateful to her for what she has done for me at every stage of my career. Both
Greg Carlson and Fred Landman deserve special thanks. Greg, as one of
the referees of my dissertation in 2010, gave me many constructive comments, which lead to great improvement of my dissertation. Fred read the
whole manuscript and edited and commented on it in the spring of 2011,
resulting in a much improved final version. I also appreciated Freds cutting-ins during my appointments with Susan at their home. I thank them
both very much for their contribution to my work on classifiers. I should
also like to thank Victor Pan, the conversations with whom always make
me think carefully about the question of how much syntax is needed for my
semantics for Chinese classifiers.
Ive worked in Israel, German and France since 2006. I thank everybody
at the institutions I worked in, in particular, my Israeli teachers: Gabi Danon, Edit Doron, Yael Greenberg, Nirit Kadmon, Fred Landman, Susan
Rothstein, and my German linguistic circle: Walter Bisang, Franziska
Kretzschmar, Yuchen Hung, Matthias Schlesewsky, Luming Wang, and the
linguists in Paris: Hilary Chappell (and members in her Sinotype Project),
Katia Chirkova, Redouane Djamouri, Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin, David Ni-
viii
Preface
colas, Victor Pan, Alain Peyraube, Paul Waltraud. Thanks also goes to Lisa
Cheng, James Huang, Rint Sybesma, Dylan Tsai, Niina Zhang.
I would also take this opportunity to acknowledge the financial support
from various sources. Thanks to Bar-Ilan for the Presidential Fellowship
(2006-2010), which allowed me to study at BIU. I also wish to thank Walter Bisang for the financial support which made my visit possible in the
academic year of 2008-2009 in Mainz, and for his guidance which allowed
me to learn so much about the typology of classifiers. The revision of the
book was conducted when I was a postdoc fellow in Hilary Chappells
ERC-Sinotype Project in Paris. I thank her unconditional support during
my stay in Paris.
Finally, very special thanks to the referee and to the editors of the series,
Walter Bisang and Niina Zhang, for their helpful comments. I also thank
my project/book editors Julie Miess and Wolfgang Konwitschny for their
professional editorial guidance.
XuPing Li
Paris, June 2013
Contents
Preface .......................................................................................................... v
Abbreviations ............................................................................................. xv
Chapter 1
Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
1.
Issues .................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Issue 1: the debate on a count/mass distinction in Mandarin ............ 1
1.2. Issue 2: counting and measuring functions of classifiers .................. 2
1.3. Issue 3: definiteness in classifier languages ...................................... 3
2.
Data and source.................................................................................. 4
3.
Structure of the book ......................................................................... 6
Part I: The debate on a count/mass distinction in Chinese
Chapter 2
Defing classifiers ...................................................................................... 13
1.
Chinese classifiers: an illustration ................................................... 13
1.1. Identifying classifiers syntactically ................................................. 13
1.2. Chinese classifiers: a heuristic classification .................................. 16
2.
Classifiers as a closed class ............................................................. 21
3.
Classifiers without descriptive content ........................................ 23
3.1. Classifiers are not nominal .............................................................. 23
3.2. Classifiers have no descriptive content ......................................... 28
4.
Classifiers are complement-taking................................................... 30
5.
Classifiers as stressless .................................................................... 32
6.
Classifiers in English: a contrastive look ........................................ 33
7.
Conclusions...................................................................................... 41
Chapter 3
The count/mass distinction in Chinese revisited ................................... 42
1.
Introduction ...................................................................................... 42
2.
Syntactic distinction between count and mass classifiers ............... 44
2.1. Introduction to count/mass classifiers ............................................. 44
2.2. Lexical/functional distinction of classifiers .................................... 47
2.3. Two syntactic diagnostics ................................................................ 49
Contents
3.
3.1.
3.2.
4.
5.
Chapter 4
Natural atomicity ..................................................................................... 68
1.
Introduction ...................................................................................... 68
2.
Countability and individuation ........................................................ 69
3.
A lexical distinction between mass and count nouns ...................... 73
4.
Individual, stuff and partial-object readings .................................... 77
5.
Natural atomicity as a grammatically relevant phenomenon ........... 81
6.
Conclusions...................................................................................... 85
Chapter 5
Chinese bare nouns .................................................................................. 86
1.
Introduction ...................................................................................... 86
2.
The Krifka-Chierchia hypothesis ..................................................... 87
3.
Bare nouns as kinds ......................................................................... 89
3.1. Strong kind-inducing contexts ......................................................... 89
3.2. Appositives ...................................................................................... 92
3.3. Scope with respect to opacity .......................................................... 93
3.4. Scope with respect to quantifiers ..................................................... 97
4.
Semantics of bare nouns ................................................................ 101
5.
Bare predication ............................................................................. 103
5.1. Some analyses of copula clauses ................................................... 104
5.1.1. Ambiguous BEs ............................................................................. 104
5.1.2. Unambiguous BE ........................................................................... 106
5.2. Post-copula bare nouns as predicates of individuals ..................... 108
5.3. Post-copula bare nouns as predicates of subkinds ......................... 112
5.4. Post-copula bare nouns as predicates of kinds .............................. 114
6.
Definite bare nouns ........................................................................ 116
6.1. Topic-hood and definiteness .......................................................... 116
6.2. Definite bare nouns in object positions ......................................... 120
6.3. Semantics of definite bare nouns ................................................... 121
Contents
xi
xii
Contents
3.2.2.
4.
4.1.
4.1.1.
4.1.2.
4.1.3.
4.2.
5.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
6.
Chapter 8
Modification marker de in classifier phrases ...................................... 202
1.
Introduction .................................................................................... 202
2.
Licensing the post-classifier de ..................................................... 204
2.1. De with mass classifiers (Cheng and Sybesma 1998) ................... 206
2.2. Information weight (Tang 2005) ................................................ 209
2.3. The indeterminacy account (Hsieh 2008) ................................... 211
3.
Unsolved problems (Li and Rothstein 2012) ................................. 214
4.
Semantics of Num-measure Cl-de-N: as much as.......................... 216
4.1. Measure classifiers and the particle de .......................................... 216
4.2. Semantics of Num-Clmeasure-de-N ................................................... 218
5.
Num-count Cl-de-N: as many as ................................................... 220
5.1. Counting classifiers in measure phrases ........................................ 221
5.2. Semantics of Num-Clcount-de-N ...................................................... 223
6.
Conclusions: two puzzles about [+counting] classifiers................ 226
Part III: Definiteness in classifier languages
Chapter 9
Definite classifiers in southern Chinese languages ............................. 233
1.
Introduction .................................................................................... 233
2.
Cl+N in three Chinese languages ............................................... 236
2.1. Cl+N in Mandarin ...................................................................... 237
2.2. Cl+N in Wu ................................................................................ 240
2.2.1. Preverbal Cl+N........................................................................... 240
2.2.2. Postverbal Cl+N............................................................................. 242
2.3. Cl+N in Cantonese ..................................................................... 243
Contents
xiii
3.
Information structure and (in)definite Cl+N .............................. 245
4.
Syntax of indefinite Cl+N .......................................................... 248
4.1. Indefinite Cl+N as a reduced form of one+Cl+N (L 1944) .. 248
4.2. Indefinite Cl+N as NumPs ......................................................... 249
4.3. Indefinite Cl+N as ClP ............................................................... 251
5.
Syntax of definite Cl+N ............................................................. 254
5.1. From Dem+Cl+N to definite Cl+N ........................................ 255
5.2. Definite Cl+N as ClP ................................................................. 257
5.3. Definite Cl+N as DP .................................................................. 259
6.
Semantic interpretation of Cl+N ................................................ 262
6.1. Cl+N with a counting reading .................................................... 262
6.2. Semantics of indefinite Cl+N ..................................................... 264
6.3. Semantics of definite Cl+N: from counting to definitenessmarking .................................................................................................... 266
6.3.1. A uniqueness-based approach of definiteness ............................... 266
6.3.2. A familiarity-based approach of definiteness ................................ 269
6.3.3. Semantics of definite Cl+N ........................................................ 273
7.
Summary ........................................................................................ 274
Chapter 10
Definite classifiers and their modifiers ................................................ 275
1.
Introduction to modified Cl+N................................................... 275
2.
Syntax of modified Cl+N in Wu ................................................ 277
2.1. Modified Cl+N as a definite expression .................................... 278
2.2. Modified Cl+N as DP................................................................. 280
2.2.1. Definite classifiers as D head ........................................................ 280
2.2.2. Dems as [Spec DP] ........................................................................ 282
2.2.3. Adjs/RCs as [Spec DP] .................................................................. 284
3.
Semantics of non-bare Cl+N ...................................................... 285
3.1. Definite classifiers characterized with familiarity ..................... 285
3.2. Interpret modified Cl-N compositionally ................................... 287
4.
Concluding remarks ....................................................................... 290
References ................................................................................................ 291
Index ......................................................................................................... 307
Abbreviations
ACC
accusative case
CL
classifier
EXP
experiential aspect
DUR
durative aspect
FOC
focus marker
GEN
genitive case
MOD
modification marker
NMLZ
nominalizer
OM
object marker
PASS
passive
PFV
perfective
PL
plural
PRF
perfect
PROG
progressive
PRT
particle
SG
singular
Chapter 1
Introduction
1. Issues
This book is a study on numeral classifiers in Chinese. It explores the
grammatical properties of Chinese classifiers at the syntax-semantics interface. The core task of this study is to look into the question of how classifiers are semantically interpreted in different syntactic contexts or how
different semantic functions of classifiers are realized at the syntactic level.
Its primary goal is to provide the missing semantic component in previous
syntactically oriented works.
The following three issues will be explored in this research: (i) the debate on a count/mass distinction in Mandarin, (ii) counting and measuring
functions of classifiers, and (iii) definiteness-marking in classifier languages.
(ii)
(iii)
Introduction
To start with, I make a distinction between individuation and countability (cf. Joosten 2003). Individuation is a cognitive and/or ontological
notion. It refers to whether the referents denoted by nouns are (discrete)
individuals or not. In contrast, countability is a grammatical notion. It refers to whether nouns can be directly counted by numerals or not. I take the
position that the count/mass distinction is a grammatical phenomenon and
it is thus related to the notion countability only. In view of that Chinese
nouns cannot be directly combined with a numeral, they are all mass nouns
(Krifka 1995, Chierchia 1998a, b).
As for the first question, I argue in chapter 3 that the distinction between count and mass classifiers proposed by Cheng and Sybesma
(1998) cannot be established in Mandarin. The syntactic diagnostics they
suggest cannot be justified in making a dichotomy between count and mass
classifiers and therefore, a contrast between count and mass nouns cannot
be drawn. I argue in chapter 5 that all the Mandarin bare nouns are mass
nouns and they denote kinds (see Chierchia 1998b, Yang 2001, Jiang 2012).
Concerning the second question, I find no morphosyntactic evidence
available for a grammatical distinction between mass and count nouns in
Mandarin. Contra Doetjes (1997), I claim that the contrast between shui
water and nanhai boy simply reflects an ontological distinction between
homogeneity and discreteness but not a lexical mass/count distinction.
Following up our answers to the first and second questions, it is expected that there are no grammatical operations such as count-to-mass or
mass-to-count shifting. It will be argued in chapter 4 that Chinese nouns
may refer to ontologically different entities, they have a genuine ambiguity
between object reading and stuff reading, or even a partial object reading
in some occasions (see Huang and Lee 2009).
Issues
[Counting]
[Measure]
Introduction
si-i die.
die
PRT
kiu]
dog
[Wu: Fuyang]
si-i die.
die
PRT
I propose that definite classifiers are quasi-definite articles that are able
to instantiate a determiner head D0 via Cl-to-D raising. The elements occurring before the definite classifier fall into two groups in terms of their
syntactic position: demonstratives are analyzed [Spec DP] and adjective/relative clauses are DP modifiers.
I argue that definiteness encoded by definite classifiers is characterized
with familiarity but not with uniqueness. To put it more specifically, I
propose that definiteness in the Chinese languages be identified with Robertss (2003) notion of weak familiarity. Definite Cl+N refer to entities
that are directly involved in the situation or are presupposed to be familiar
or identifiable by interlocutors, as part of the background information. The
modifiers preceding Cl+N express the contextual information on familiarity in an overt way.
Introduction
Following Carlson (1977) and Chierchia (1998a, 1998b), I argue that the
kind interpretation is the default reading for Chinese bare nouns and that
object-level readings, including both indefinite and definite readings, are
derived from the kind reading.
Part II deals with the counting and measuring functions of classifiers in
the sequence of Numeral-Classifier-Noun.
In chapter 6, I argue that the counting and measure readings of classifiers are two basic functions of classifiers and that they are distinguished
syntactically in Chinese. Following Rothsteins (2010) semantics for count
nouns, I propose that on the counting function, the classifier applies to the
denotation of bare nouns, i.e. kind terms, and returns a set of atomic entities, which are counted as one in a certain context. On the measure function, the classifier first combines with the numeral to form a complex modifier, which denotes the set of entities of the head noun type whose
measure value is the quantity denoted by the numeral. I follow basically
the semantics of measuring in Krifka (1995) (see also Landman 2004,
Rothstein 2009).
Based on the feature [Counting] and [Measure], I develop a four-way
classification of Chinese classifiers. With this, I claim that in Chinese,
classifiers cannot be divided into two lexical groups, like sortal and mensural classifiers (as in Lyons 1977, Crofts 1994) or count and mass classifiers (Cheng and Sybesma 1998). Instead, the important distinction lies in
the different uses of classifiers, as expressions introducing counting or
expressions introducing measuring.
Chapter 7 and 8 address the two questions left open in chapter 3 respectively: (i) what are the distributional patterns and the semantic function of
pre-classifier adjectives? (ii) what is the licensing condition and semantics
of the post-classifier de? I propose an account which crucially uses the
distinction between counting and measure functions of classifiers.
In chapter 7, we argue that pre-classifier adjectives can appear before
classifiers in the counting context. That is, they can only appear before [+C,
-M] and [+C, +M] classifiers (the latter only on their counting interpretation), but not before [-C, +M] or [-C, -M] classifiers. I propose that preclassifier adjectives modify the constituent of Cl+N but not the classifier
or the noun. As for the semantic function of pre-classifier adjectives such
as da/xiao big/small, I argue that these phrases have expressive meanings in that they express the speakers evaluation of the atomic entity in the
denotation of Cl+N to be big or small from a particular perspective chosen by the speaker.
Introduction
Part I:
The debate on a count/mass distinction in Chinese
Chapter 2
Defining classifiers
(2)
a.*san
shu
[Mandarin]
14
Defining classifiers
three tree
b. san ke
three CL
three tree
shu
tree
a.*thrian
sam
durian
three
sam
b. thrian
durian
three
three durians
[Thai]
luu k
CL
(Jenks 2011: 77)
Nonetheless, numeral classifiers are not merely restricted to the cooccurrence with numeral. They also occur with determiners in these classifier languages. Det+Cl+N (or N+Det+Cl) is the second possible syntactic context for numeral classifiers. I use the example from Mandarin and
Lao to illustrate.
In Mandarin, it is obligatory for some determiners to take a classifier
when modifying nouns, such as the universal quantifier mei every. Look
at (4) as an illustration.
(4)
a.*mei
shu
[Mandarin]
15
every book
b. mei ben
shu
every CL
book
every book
According to Enfield (2007: 122), a number of quantifiers in Lao also
require numeral classifiers, appearing in the same constructional pattern as
numeral classifier expressions:
(5)
Examples from (1) to (5) characterize two prototypical syntactic environments for numeral classifiers:
(i) Numeral-Classifier-Noun (or Noun-Numeral-Classifier)
(ii) Determiner-Classifier-Noun (or Noun-Determiner-Classifier).
Therefore, from the syntactic perspective, the term numeral classifier
can be understood as the mediating element occurring contiguous to numeral or determiner when modifying nouns. Semantically, it has the function
of counting or measuring entities, namely, providing counting or measuring
units.
There are two issues arising immediately. First, the examples I showed
so far are all concerned with classifiers modifying nouns with high countability in Gils term (2005). They are often called sortal or individual
classifiers, such as ben volume (for book) in Mandarin, luuk in Thai and
too3 in Lao. However, there are also elements modifying nouns with low
countability, such as cup in one cup of coffee, pound in two pounds of
sugar, plume in three plumes of smoke. They are called mensural or
non-individual classifiers. Should I consider them to be classifiers too?
My answer to this question is positive. I take the position that as long as
a morpheme is able to satisfy the syntactic and semantic requirements for
classifiers as stated above, they can be categorized as classifiers, including
both individual classifiers and non-individual classifiers.
Second, non-individual classifiers are found in almost every language
(universally available Croft 1994, Bisang 1999), whereas individual
16
Defining classifiers
duo
(ikue) anjiang
two
CL
dog
two dogs
[Minangkabau]
(Gil 2005)
17
partition classifiers, container classifiers, temporary classifiers and standard measures.2 The relevant Mandarin examples are given from (7) to (12):
Individual classifiers: modify nouns according to the entitys shape,
or other properties.
(7)
a. liang ke
two CL
two trees
b. yi
tiao
one CL
a river
shu
tree
he
river
a. san qun
xuesheng
three CLgroup student
three groups of students
b. yi
kun
daocao
one
CLbundle straw
a bundle of straws
The classifier qun group in (8a) modifies [+animate] nouns, such as
ren people, xuesheng students or zhu pig etc. It represents an aggre-
18
Defining classifiers
a. yi
jie
shengzi
one CLsection rope
a section of rope
b. yi
pian dangao
one
CLpiece cake
a piece of cake
19
sifiers. There are some general constraints when deriving container nouns
into container classifiers. This point will be elaborated in section 3.
Temporary classifiers: use the outside extent of objects to measure
quantity.
(11) a. yi
shen xue
one
CLbody snow
a bodyful of snow
b. yi
bizi
hui
one
CLnose dust
Lit:a noseful of dust An idiom meaning: being refused
In Lehrer (1986), temporary classifiers are treated as a subtype of container classifiers. The concept container must be construed very generally to include not only objects for putting other objects and substances in,
but also on and even under (Lehrer 1986: 120). Examples include a ceiling of posters, a wall of pictures, and a shelf of books in English.
However, I think that there are some crucial semantic differences between
container classifiers and temporary classifiers. Container classifiers can be
easily used as standard measures (by convention), while generally speaking,
temporary classifiers can only be inexact measures.
Standard measures: they are measures proper. The set of standard
measures is small and closed in Chinese. It is also true in other languages
(see Allan 1977). Standard measures range from measure units for weight,
length, volume and so on.
(12) a. wu
mi
bu
five CLmeter cloth
five meters of cloth
b. liang gongjin pingguo
two CLkilo apple
two kilos of apples
These are the six types of classifiers discussed in Chao (1968). One particular type of classifier that is not discussed by Chao (1968) is kind classifier. They are zhong kind/species and lei type in Chinese. They are
used in the same syntactic contexts as the classifiers shown above, namely,
they can be used in Num/Determiner+Cl+N, as shown in (13).
(13) a. zhe
zhong dongwu
20
Defining classifiers
21
Classifiers
Individual Cls
Numbers
51
B
C
D
E
F
Group Cls
Partition Cls
Container Cls
Temporary Cls
Standard measures
46
39
36
14
46
Examples
ge (the general classifier), ben volume,
tou head (classifier for animials)
qun group, lie series, kun bundle...
pian piece, jie section, si slice
he box, hu kettle, wan bowl
shen body, lian face, di floor
mi meter, shen liter
Table 1 does not represent an exhaustive list of the number of classifiers, since what Chao lists only represents the most frequently used classifiers in each type. Among the six types of classifiers in Chinese discussed in
Chao (1968), members of individual classifiers, group classifiers, partition
classifiers and standard measures are relatively stable. It is rare to see new
22
Defining classifiers
members join in, though this possibility cannot be ruled out absolutely.
However, those of container and temporary classifiers seem to be open to a
great extent. Intuitively, the number of container and temporary classifiers
should be much larger than what is listed in Table 1. This is because nouns
referring to containers can be easily used as container classifiers, such as yi
dai laji a bag of rubbish, and nouns referring to objects whose surface or
outer area is able to measure quantities of entities can be used as temporary
classifiers in many cases, such as yi lian hanshui a faceful of sweat.
These two types of nouns belong to an open class, so it is very easy for
many to make the analogy that these two types of classifiers, i.e. container
and temporary classifiers, are also open. However, I do not think that this
kind of analogy withstands scrutiny. I use container classifiers to illustrate
some of the problems with this kind of analogy.
In many cases, nouns expressing typical containers cannot be used as
container classifiers. For example, jiaoshi classroom can be seen as a
perfect container for xuesheng student in a metaphorical sense, as in
the example many students sat in the classroom. However, the expression of #yi jiaoshi xuesheng #a classroom of students is not felicitous in
Mandarin. At least, it is not as natural as yi ban xuesheng a class of students or yi wu xuesheng a room of students. A similar example is about
the use of qianbao wallet. We usually put money in a wallet, so it is reasonable to consider wallet to be a prototypical container for money. However, it is not common to use qianbao as a container classifier for money
and the expression #yi qianbao qian #a wallet of money is unacceptable,
though the meaning of the expression is understandable to native speakers.
Many would use yi bao qian a bag of money instead. This shows that
container nouns can express a relation of containment, but they cannot be
used as container classifiers freely. There are some underlying constraints
for such a category shift.
It is a conventionalized practice to choose a certain classifier to modify
a certain group of nouns. There are some selectional constraints between
the classifier and the noun, which may be semantic or conventional. One of
the constraints for the container noun-to-container classifier-shifting is
conventionalization. For example, to talk about cherries, it is common to
say a basket of cherries or a plate of cherries but it is not as common to
say a mug of cherries. This expression is understandable to the addressees,
but mug is not a conventional container to cherries or it is not a conventional practice to use mug to carry cherries. Certainly, in this special context, mug can be (non-conventionally) analyzed as a special container clas-
23
sifier for cherries, but this use will not be conventionalized or accepted in a
general way in the linguistic community.
To sum up, there are conventional and non-conventional uses of classifiers. The members of conventional classifiers are stable to a great extent,
while the innovative use of classifiers may introduce new classifiers into
the system, but innovative classifiers do not change the membership of
classifiers in nature. Historically speaking, some of the core members of
conventional classifiers developed from innovative classifiers, but this kind
of development or conventionalization takes a fairly long process.
I conclude that Mandarin classifiers belong to a closed class. Each subtype of classifier has stable and conventionalized members.
24
Defining classifiers
I first argue against the view that Mandarin classifiers have a nominal
origin. Classifiers in Mandarin grammaticalize from different categories,
which can be nouns, verbs or adjectives. A majority of classifiers have a
nominal origin, but some of them are evolved from verbs and adjectives.
See the illustration in (14) and (15).
The classifiers in (14) are derived from verbs historically. For example,
on its verb use, gua in (14a) originally means hang. It has an extended
use as classifier, meaning string. The morpheme peng in (14b) has the
lexical meaning scoop with hand; in classifier use, it means handful. In
(14c), the morpheme cuo, as a verb, means take up with fingers literally.
Used as a classifier, it means pinch.
(14) a. yi
gua
bianpao
[classifiers derived from verbs]
one CLstring firecrackers
a string of firecrackers
b. yi
peng
xiangtu
one CLhandful soil:from:homeland
a handful of soil from homeland
c. yi
cuo
yan
one CLpinch salt
a pinch of salt
In contrast, those in (15) are adjectives: wan means curved and fang
means square. When they are used as classifiers, they refer to entities
with the shape of being crescent or square respectively.
25
(15) a. yi
wan
mingyue [classifiers derived from adjectives]
one
CLcurved moon
a cresent of moon
b. yi
fang yantai
one CLsquare ink stone
a piece of ink stone
In the two groups of examples in (14) and (15), the element between
numeral and noun cannot be treated as verbs or adjectives any more. They
are reanalyzed as classifiers, which provide units to measure or count entities referred to by noun. Specifically, those in (14) are non-individual classifiers and those in (15) are individual classifiers. If the examples in (14)
and (15) are taken into account, then, surely, it is incorrect to say that all
classifiers are originally nouns.
Second, I show that it is not correct either to treat a subgroup of classifiers as nouns, such as mass classifier or non-individual classifiers.
Among the different types of non-individual classifiers, container classifiers have the highest degree of nominal properties and they have noun uses,
but group classifiers and most partition classifiers have a rather low degree
of nominal properties and they cannot be used as nouns.
The first column of (16) illustrates the classifier use of the morphemes.
In the second column, the corresponding morphemes are modified by the
general classifier ge, as in the construction Num-ge-N. This suggests that
container classifiers have a high degree of nominal properties and they
have noun counterparts.
(16)
container Cl
a. yi
ping
shui
one CLbottle water
one bottle of water
b. yi
xiang pingguo
one
CLbox apple
one box of apples
c. yi
dai
binggan
one
CLbag biscuit
one bag of biscuits
a. yi *(ge)
one CL
one bottle
b. yi *(ge)
one CL
one box
c. yi *(ge)
one CL
one bag
N
ping
bottle
xiang
box
dai
bag
26
Defining classifiers
they are not allowed in Num-ge-N. However, they can be a part of a noun
compound, which can be modified by the general classifier ge, as in the
third column.
(17)
group Cl
N
N-compound
a. yi kun daocao a.*yi ge kun
a.yi ge cao-kun
one CLbundle straw
one CL bundle
one CL straw-bundle
a bundle of straws
a bundle
a straw-bundle
b. yi huo liumang b.*yi ge huo
b. yi ge tuan-huo
one CL group
one CL gang-group
one CLgroup hooligan
a group of hooligans
a group
a gang
c. yi
dui huo
c.*yi ge dui
c. yi ge huo-dui
one CL pile
one CL fire-pile
one CLpile fire
a pile of fire
a pile
a bonfire
Most partition classifiers have an even lower degree of nominal properties. They can neither be used as nouns nor can they form noun compounds,
though originally they are nouns. Partition classifiers such as luo pile or
duan section in (18) cannot be formed into noun compounds.
(18)
partition Cl
a. yi
luo wenjian
one CLpile document
one pile of documents
b. yi duan ganzhe
one CLsection sugarcane
one section of sugarcane
c. yi zhang zhi
one CLpiece paper
one piece of paper
N
luo
pile
a.* yi
ge
one CL
one pile
b.* yi ge
duan
one CL section
one section
c* yi
ge zhang
one CL piece
one piece
27
count CL
a. yi
tou
niu
one CLhead bull
a bull
b. wu shan men
five CLfan door
five doors
c. san ben
shu
three CLvolume book
three books
N
a.* yi
ge tou
one
CL head
one head
b.* wu ba shan
five CL fan
five fans
c.* san ge ben
three CL exercise-book
three exercise books
In contrast, some individual classifiers have a low degree of nominal properties. They cannot be used as nouns independently, but they can be used in
noun compounds, as in (20).
count CL
N
N-compound
a. yi ba yizi
a.* yi ge ba
a. yi ge che-ba
one CL chair
one CL grip
one CL bicycle-grip
a chair
Intended: a grip
a bicycle-grip
b. yi duo hua
b.* yi ge duo
b. yi duo hua-duo
one CL flower
one CL bud
one CL flower-bud
a flower
Intended: a bud
a bud
c. yi zhi hua
c.*yi ge zhi
c. yi gen shu-zhi
one CL flower
one CL twig
one CL tree-twig
a branch of flower Intended: a twig
a twig
(20)
There are also individual classifiers that have an even lower degree of
nominal properties in that they can only be used as classifiers, as given in
3
(21) .
According to Hanyu Dazidian [Comprehensive Chinese Dictionary], the classifiers in (21) were all nouns in origin. For example, the general classifier ge means
bamboo branch, zhi means bird and mei trunk in classical Chinese. However,
in modern Chinese, the lexical meanings of this group of classifiers are bleached to
such a degree that they cannot be used independently anymore.
28
(21)
Defining classifiers
count CL
a. yi
ge
ren
one
CL
man
a man
b. yi
zhi
dou
one CL
dog
a dog
c. yi
mei
tongqian
one
CL
copper coin
a copper coin
a.* yi ge
one CL
N
ge
CL
b. *yi ge
one CL
zhi
CL
c.* yi ge
one CL
mei
CL
Until now, I have answered the first question raised at the beginning of
this section. I make two claims concerning the question whether classifiers
are nominal. First, Mandarin classifiers are derived from different categories, such as nouns, verbs and adjectives, but most of them have a nominal
origin. Second, among those classifiers with a nominal origin, they exhibit
different degrees of nominal features. This holds true for both individual
and non-individual classifiers. Among the individual classifiers, there are
classifiers with a high degree of nominal properties, and also classifiers
with a low degree of nominal properties, and the same is true for nonindividual classifiers. Therefore, it is inappropriate to claim that all Mandarin classifiers are nominal or that non-individual classifiers are nominal.
29
(22) a. yi
ben
shu
one
CLvolume book
one book
b. yi
bao
shu
one
CLbag
book
one bag of books
c. yi
luo
shu
one
CLpile book
one pile of books
d. yi
xiang shu
one
CLbox book
one box of books
That some element expresses lexical meaning does not imply that it is a
lexical item or a content word. Lets take auxiliary verbs for example. Both
in English and Chinese, auxiliary verbs give further semantic or syntactic
information about a main verb, such as modality, attitude or temporal references. However, it is generally agreed that they are functional words in
both languages. Another similar case regards prepositions. Prepositions are
functional words but express semantic content, such as spatial (or temporal)
meaning. Therefore, the fact that classifiers are able to add extra information about the denotation of nouns does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they are content words.
As said earlier, a single lexical item may be used as a noun or as a classifier, such as the dual use of bao bag. However, the meaning expressed
by its classifier use is distinctive from what is expressed by its noun use.
Each use has a different meaning. When the lexical item bao bag is used
as a noun, it refers to a certain bag, say, a school bag or a plastic bag.
However, when it is used as a classifier, as in (22b), it is used in a relational way as a container to hold books. In this case, the main function of bao
bag is to express a containment relation. It is even possible that there is
no physical bag in the actual scene. The phrase yi bao shu may simply
mean a package of books, which are wrapped up with craft paper. Therefore, it seems that a single lexical item can be used in two different syntactic contexts, in which they express different semantic meanings. It is possible that there are two different lexical entries for a single morpheme in this
case: a noun entry and a classifier entry (a sortal noun use and a relational noun in Lbner 1985 and Partee and Borschev 2012).
30
Defining classifiers
31
Firstly, classifiers are complement-taking, and noun phrases are the only possible constituent that can be taken as complement to classifiers.
(23) [Cl+N]
wo
gei
ni
pao
1SG
give
you
make
I made you a cup of tea.
le
PFV
[bei
CL
cha].
tea
Cl+N can only have a singular reading, so bei cha in (23) only means
a cup of tea, but not cups of tea. Some believe that in the case of (23), there
is a covert numeral yi one before Cl+N. I will discuss this issue in
chapter 9.
A second context is that the constituent of Cl+N can be modified by
numerals, as the sequence of Num+Cl+N in (24).
(24) [Num+ Cl+N]
ta
qing le
[liang ge
he
invite PFV two
CL
He invited two students.
xuesheng].
student
ben
book
shu].
(26) [Det+Num+Cl+N]
[na
san
ben
shu] shi
wo-de.
that
three CL
book be
mine
Those three books were bought by me.
Fourthly, when the classifier is modified by numerals and/or determiners, the NP can be elided. Num-Cl and Dem-(Num)-Cl are both legitimate constructions. The relevant examples are given below, where the NP
is either elided, which can be recovred from the context, as in (27) or topicalized, as in (28).
32
Defining classifiers
(27) [Det+Cl]
wo
yao
[na
ben shu].
I
want that
CL book
I want that volume (of book).
(28) [Num+CL]
pingguo, wo
zhi
chi
apple
I
only eat
Apples, I only ate five.
le
PFV
[wu
five
ge].
CL
5. Classifiers as stressless
Classifiers are usually stressless in Mandarin. As Tao (2006) said that in
Beijing Mandarin, there is often one accent on the phrase; it falls on the
numeral while leaving the classifier unstressed. Chen (2000:321) also
5
33
points out that classifiers in Beijing Mandarin and many other Chinese
dialects usually bear a neutral tone (toneless). The example Chen (ibid)
gives is that in the phrase liang ge ren two Cl person, the classifier ge is
stressless, as indicated by the underline. This generalization applies to
standard Mandarin as well (see Chao 1968).
The exception is that classifiers can be contrastively focused by stress
placement. As in (30), the classifier wan bowl and guo pot are stressed,
as indicated by letters in bold. It expresses the contrastive meaning that two
individuals drank two different quantities of soup, say a large quantity, as
expressed by wan, versus a small quantity, as expressed by guo.
(30) wo he le
yi wan tang, ta he
le
yi guo.
I drink PFV one CLbowl soup he drink PFV one CLpot
I drank a bowl of soup, and he drank a pot.
Intermediate summary:
To summarize section 2 to 5, I showed that Mandarin classifiers pass
Abenys (1987) tests: (i) belonging to a closed class, (ii) lacking descriptive content, (iii) being syntactically dependent, (iv) being phonologically
weak. Accordingly, classifiers in Mandarin are considered to be functional
and not lexical (also see Muromatsu 1998 for a similar view on classifiers
in Japanese).
It is a standard assumption that Chinese classifiers head an independent
functional projection of classifier phrase (ClP for short) (Tang 1990 a, b; A.
Li 1999; Cheng and Sybesma 1999, among others). Applying Abenys
(1987) DP hypothesis to Chinese, Tang (1990a, b) argues that in Chinese,
there is an extra projection between the determiner phrase, i.e. DP and the
noun phrase, i.e. NP and this projection is realized by a classifier phrase,
i.e. ClP. Tang (1990) thus proposes a DP structure like
[DP D [NumP Num [ClP CL [NP N]]]] for nominal phrases in Mandarin. I will
discuss in chapter 6 what are the possible syntactic structures for the sequence of Num-Cl-N.
34
Defining classifiers
Allan (1977) considers fractional classifiers, such as three quarters of the cake
and number set of classifiers, such as many hundreds of people and dozens of bird,
to be classifiers as well. In many languages, these expressions are expressed by
quantifiers. For example, Lehrer (1986: 112) did not consider them as classifiers
and said that the syntax and semantics for quantifiers will handle most of them.
35
36
Defining classifiers
ping
CLbottle
ping
CLbottle
shui
water
shui
water
37
pingzi can be used as classifiers, but the monosyllabic one shows a high
degree of acceptance than the dysyllabic one.7
(40) a. yi
ping(#-zi)
one CLbottle
one bottle of water
b. yi
xiang(#-zi)
one CLbox
one box of books
shui
water
shu
book
According to Shen (2013), when ping-zi and xiang-zi are used as classifiers, as in
our examples (40), the phrases are interpreted as a full bottle of water or a full
box of books. The numeral yi one is preferred over others, like er two or san
three. In this case, it seems that these monosyllabic classifiers with the
nominalizer -zi provide as a measure unit, like kilo, but not a counting unit. In any
case, even if these examples in (40) are acceptable for some, they have a different
reading from the counterparts in (38) with monosyllabic classifiers.
38
Defining classifiers
lan
ping shui
blue CLbottle water
wuwei
bei kaifei
tasteless CLcup coffee
anggu
bei kafei
expensive CLcup coffee
39
40
Defining classifiers
Conclusions
41
7. Conclusions
In this chapter, I defined the syntactic and semantic criterion to identify
classifiers as a separate word class. In prototypical cases, the classifier
occurs adjacent to numeral or determiner, as in Numeral-Classifier-Noun
or Determiner-Classifier-Noun in Mandarin. Classifiers have the semantic function of counting or measuring entities.
I also discussed the categorical properties of classifiers in Mandarin.
They belong to a functional category: forming a closed word class, lacking
syntactic independence, lacking descriptive content, being phonologically
weak. They are distinctive from classifiers in English. Classifiers in nonclassifier languages like English are intrinsic nouns. They are derived from
sortal nouns into relational nouns.
Chapter 3
The count/mass distinction in Chinese revisited
1. Introduction
In English, table and water represent two different types of nouns, count
nouns and mass nouns respectively. The noun table can be preceded by
numeral directly, such as three tables, and it is a count noun, while water
1
cannot, such as *three water , it is a mass noun. The first question to ask
when looking at the mass/count distinction is what we mean by the notions, mass and count. Is the mass/count distinction a linguistic (stemming from grammar) or an extra-linguistic issue (e.g. a cognitive or an
ontological issue) (see Joosten 2003 for a comprehensive review, also see
Chierchia 2010:143)?
I take the position that the mass/count distinction is a grammatical distinction and it is independent of cognitive systems and reality, though they
may be correlated with each other to some extent. From a cross-linguistic
perspective, languages may differ from each other in having this distinction or not. In languages with this distinction, different grammatical mechanisms may be employed to realize this grammatical notion. According
to Chierchia (2010), there is a signature property, with which we are
able to tell whether a certain language has mass nouns or not. That is, in
general, mass nouns do not allow direct modification of numerals,
*[Num +NMASS].2According to this criterion, all nouns in Mandarin are
1
Nouns like water and beer are mass nouns, but they can sometimes be directly
modified by a numeral (with a noun that agrees in plural with the number), such as
three waters and two beers. These expressions are often used in restaurant to
represent a certain portion of water or beer which is contained in some container.
These examples will not be discussed.
2
Perhaps the most steady grammatical property associated with mass nouns in
general is the marked status of their direct combination with a numeral expression:
regardless of word order, constituents of the form] are either outright ungrammatical or are felt as requiring a reinterpretation of sorts (coercion or type-shifting,
on which more below, under the rubric elasticity).
Introduction
43
44
a. san
*(ben)
shu
three
CLvolume book
three books
b. two *(drops) of ink
Second, Mandarin bare nouns are on a par with English mass nouns in
being able to act as bare arguments (Chierchia 1998b). As shown in (2a),
45
Mandarin bare nouns xuesheng and shu fill in the argument positions, being subject and object respectively.
(2)
In contrast, in English, only mass noun but not count noun can function as
bare argument, as contrasted between water and book in (2b-c).
b. I finished drinking water.
c. * I finished reading book.
Thirdly, neither Mandarin nouns nor English mass nouns can be inflected with number morphology. Mandarin nouns have a general
number, i.e. unspecified with respect to the feature [+/-plurality] (Rullmann and You 2006). As in (3a), hua flower can either have a singular
instantiation, i.e. one single flower, or a plural instantiation of three
flowers. The English expression in (3b) is judged to be ungrammatical
(the form of waters is acceptable only with an abundant plurality (cf.
Corbett 2000)) unless it is interpreted with the universal packaging reading in the context of restaurant (see Bach 1986).
(3)
a. yi / san
duo
one/three
CL
one/three flower(s)
b. *three waters
hua
flower
46
entity denoted by the noun naturally occurs, and mass classifiers create a
unit of measure (also see Lyons 1976: 463, Tai and Wang 1990, Croft
1994). This implies a semantic distinction between two types of nouns.
Count nouns come with a natural unit of counting, while mass nouns do not
have an intrinsic unit of counting associated with them, and they are still
mass nouns when they are modified by mass classifiers.
Nouns like child, flower and fish all denote discrete entities, which exist
in our world as naturally discrete individuals. Classifiers modifying those
nouns simply spell out the units intrinsic to them, but do not create any
external units. For example, duo bud is the natural unit for hua flower
and wei tail for yu fish. These classifiers in (4) are individual classifiers,
or count classifiers in Cheng and Sybesmas (1998) terminology.
(4)
a. san
duo
three CLbud
three flowers
b. yi
wei
one
CLtail
one fish
c. liang ge
two CL
two apples
hua
flower
[individual classifier]
yu
fish
pingguo
apple
a. yi
shu
hua
one
CLbouquet flower
one bouquet of flowers
b. liang xiang pingguo
two CLbox apple
two boxes of apples
c. yi
di
shui
one CLdrop water
one drop of water
[group classifier]
[container classifier]
[partition classifier]
The natural unit for hua flower is duo blossom, but hua can also
have an external unit such as shu bouquet in (5a), which indicates how
the discrete flowers are formed into a plural entity such as a bouquet of
flowers. The use of the container classifier xiang box in (5b) is similar to
47
shu bouquet in (5a). The noun shui water in (5c) denotes homogeneous
entities, which itself has no atomic structure, so the classifier di drop
imposes an external unit on it. The classifiers in (5) are non-individual
classifiers or mass classifiers, which impose external units on the stuff in
the denotation of the noun they modify.
To sum up, according to Cheng and Sybesma (1998), individual classifiers, such as duo bud, wei tail and the general classifier ge (as exemplified in (4)), are count classifiers, while container classifiers, group classifiers, partition classifiers etc. (as exemplified in (5)) are mass classifiers or
massifiers.
However, the examples in (5) are actually counterexamples against
Cheng and Sybesmas argument that count classifiers select count nouns
and mass classifiers select mass nouns, since the complement of mass classifiers like hua flower in (5a) and pingguo apple in (5b) are lexically
listed as count but not mass. This goes against the selectional constraint of
these two types of classifiers imposed by Cheng and Sybesma.
Cheng and Sybesmas mass/count distinction implies that there is a lexical distinction between two types of nouns. In other words, in Mandarin,
there are lexically marked count and mass nouns, which go with count and
mass classifiers respectively. However, Borer (2005: 99) argues that if a
noun is lexically determined to be mass or count in Mandarin, then the
distinction is rather arbitrary rather than lexico-semantically determined.
Really and truly, they are ontological count nouns and ontological mass
nouns (Borer 2005: 98). The former refers to discrete entities, i.e. the boy
type of nouns and the latter homogeneous entities, i.e. the water type of
nouns.
I argue in chapter 4 that it is more appropriate to characterize boy and
water types of nouns in Mandarin as from an ontological perspective, and
that this ontological distinction between discrete and homogeneous entities
is not directly encoded as a grammatical distinction between mass and
count nouns.
48
a.
ClP
liang two
Cl0
duo bud
b.
Cl
NP
hua flower
ClP
san three
Cl
Cl0
N
wan bowl
NP
NP
tang soup
They also mention that the motivation for the N-to-Cl movement of
nouns lies in the fact that mass classifiers are of a different type from count
classifiers. They are measure expressions that can select another noun as
complement, and in order to realize this property, they must move from N
to Cl position. As Cheng and Sybesma (1998: 17) write: although they
(mass classifiers) are nouns, they are nouns of a certain type: they can be
49
used as a measure and in that capacity they select another noun. One way
to formalize this is by appealing to an idea proposed by Hoeskstra (1988),
who argues that nouns of this type have a feature, lets call it CONT of
content, and this feature enables the noun to thematically select (and
Case-mark) another noun: the content. At some stage during the derivation,
the measure noun moves to fill the head of ClP.
I have made a careful examination of the lexical/functional make-up of
classifiers in Chinese in chapter 2. I claimed that count and mass classifiers
cannot be characterized with the functional/lexical (nominal) distinction.
Firstly, this is because I showed that Chinese classifiers do not always have
a nominal origin and they come from different categories, which can be
nouns, verbs or adjectives. Secondly, I also showed that for those with a
nominal origin, both count and mass classifiers fall into different subtypes
of classifiers which have high, medium and low amounts of nominal properties. I thus argued that there doesnt seem to be a binary distinction between lexical classifiers and functional classifiers, and that distinction cannot be used to argue for a binary distinction between mass classifiers and
count classifiers.
a. yi
da
zhang zhi
one
big
CLpiece paper
a big piece of paper
b. na
yi
xiao xiang shu
that one
small CLbox book
that small box of books
[mass classifiers]
50
(8)
a.* yi
da
wei
laoshi
one big
CL
teacher
Intended: a big teacher
b.* yi da
zhi
gou
one big
CL
dog
Intended: a big dog
[count classifiers]
(7) shows that mass classifiers like zhang piece, xiang box are felicitous with pre-classifier adjectives; (8) shows that individual classifiers
like wei (an honorific classifier for people) or zhi (a classifier for animals)
cannot have pre-classifier adjectives. Cheng and Sybesma explain this difference in terms of differences in lexical properties of mass classifiers and
count classifiers. Assuming that pre-classifier adjectives have a direct modification relationship with the classifier, they argue that mass classifiers are
nouns in nature and can be modified by pre-classifier adjectives. Count
classifiers, on the other hand, are grammaticalized classifiers, and as such,
they are functional elements that cannot be modified by adjectives.
The second criterion that Cheng and Sybesma suggest is that mass classifiers can be followed by the particle de (as in 9)), but count classifiers
cannot (as in (10)) (also see Tsou 1976 for the use of the de test).
(9)
a. san
wan
de
three CLbowl DE
three bowls of soup
b. liang xiang de
two CLbox DE
two boxes of books
tang
soup
(10) a. ba
tou
(*de)
eight CLhead DE
eight heads of cows
b. jiu
gen
(*de)
nine CL
DE
nine tails
niu
cow
[mass classifiers]
shu
book
[count classifiers]
weiba
tail
51
wan.
CLbowl
de tang.
DE soup
NC (nominal clause)
ClP
ClP
tang soup
san three Cl
Cl
NP
N
wan
b.
ClP
CP
ClP
tang soup
C
OPi
NC
ti
C
de
ClP
sanwan proi
three bowls
NP
proi
52
Cheng and Sybesma (1998) assume that Mandarin bare noun phrases
are structurally not bare, but are fully-fledged ClPs. So in (12a), the bare
noun tang soup is projected into a ClP and it is the subject of the nominal
clause, and the ClP san-wan three bowls is its predicate. They further
propose that the subject tang soup can undergo subject relativization, i.e.
tang soup is modified by a relative clause, as realized by Num+Cl. This
relative clause is taken as a complement by the CP, headed by de, on the
left side. In addition, there is an operator OP, which is generated in the
Spec position of CP and binds the trace left by the subject tang soup in
the relative clause. 3
However, according to Cheng and Sybesma, this subject relativization
is only possible for mass ClPs and not for count ClPs, even though count
ClPs can be used as predicates in nominal small clauses. Let us consider
the examples in (13).
(13) a. ta
mai
le
shi
zhi
he
buy
PFV ten
CL
He bought ten pens.
b. ta
mai
le
bi
shi
he
buy
PFV pen
ten
He bought pens, numbered ten.
c. * ta mai
le
shi
zhi
he
buy
PFV ten
CL
Intended: He bought ten pens.
bi.
pen
zhi.
CL
de
DE
bi.
pen
(13a) illustrates the use of the count classifier zhi in a standard Numeral
Classifier Phrase. (13b) shows that count classifiers like zhi, along with
Num shi ten, can constitute the predicate of the nominal small clause, i.e.
the count ClP shi zhi ten Cl can be predicated of the subject bi pen.
However, Cheng and Sybesma (1998) argue that the nominal small clause
Tang (1996) argues that in the construction of [N [Num-Cl]], N and the [Num-Cl]
stand in a predication relation. For her, these are not small clauses, however,
because verbs like drink in (11) are not subcategorized to take a small clause as
complement. Instead, she (1996: 471) proposes that [Num-Cl] is better treated as
the lowest argument of the verb and N as the next lowest argument, where
semantically they stand in a predication relation. She also argues that [Num-CL-N]
and [N [Num-Cl]] are two distinctive constructions and that [N [Num-Cl]] should
not be transformationally derived from [Num-CL-N].
53
NC (nominal clause)
ClP
bi pen
ClP
shi ten
Cl
Cl
zhi
ClP
b.
CP
ClP
bi pen
C
OPi
NC
ti
NP
proi
C
de
ClP
shi ten
Cl
zhi
Cl
NP
proi
Cheng and Sybesma (1998: 15) assume that Chinese noun phrases, including regular overt and null pronouns, are really full-fledged ClPs.
Though generated in NP, Chinese nouns undergo N-to-Cl movement. As a
consequence, in the regular case of pronominal, the binding domain of a
pronominal is outside ClP. After relativization, as in (12b) and (14b), pro
is in a configuration that leads to a bound variable interpretation (since pro
cannot have independent reference). It is co-indexed with the subject of the
predicate, which in turn is bound by an operator. Cheng and Sybesma argue that this kind of binding is only possible for mass classifiers, as in
(12b), but not for count classifiers, as in (14b). They argue that mass classifiers undergo N-to-Cl movement and the pro in mass ClPs is a ClP, whereas count classifiers are base-generated as classifiers and they must take
NPs as complement, so pro is not a full-fledged pronoun and it stays in
54
the NP rather than moves to Cl (Cheng and Sybesma 1998: 16). Therefore,
the pro in (14b) cannot have a proper binding domain.
It is difficult to see how this argument really works, since the pro in
4
each case is in NP position. The difference between the two structures is
that in (12a) pro is the complement of a nominal head which raises to classifier position, while in (14) it is directly the complement of the functional
head. But it is unclear why this difference has the grammatical consequences that Cheng and Sybesma propose. Presumably, if pro is a real
problem for count ClPs, then the problem also remains for mass ClPs. No
matter how mass classifiers move, e.g. N-to-Cl, the pro always stays in N
and is the complement of Cl, exactly like its counterpart in count ClPs. As
shown by their syntactic tree, the pros in both cases in (12b) and (14b) are
in NP position. There doesnt seem to be any independent evidence for the
syntactic distinction of pro as ClP and pro as NP that they propose. As a
consequence, the analysis stipulates a lot of abstract structure and special
rules for interpreting pro in each of the two structures.
Cheng and Sybesmas (1998) syntactic proposal, as presented here, can
thus be summarized as the conjunction of the following three claims:
(i) there is a nominal mass/count distinction in Chinese, as reflected in
count/mass classifiers;
(ii) count classifiers are fully grammaticalized classifiers while mass
classifiers are nouns in nature; and accordingly they have different syntactic structures;
(iii) the distinction between mass and count classifiers is supported by
the syntactic evidence of (a) the possibility of pre-classifier adjectives and (b) the optionality of the post-classifier de.
Cheng and Sybesmas (1998) mass/count proposal is based on the facts
presented in (7) to (10). These facts have been noticed earlier by other
Chinese linguists such as Chao (1968), Tsou (1976), Paris (1981), Tang
(1990) etc. They note that not all classifiers show the same degree of
grammaticality with respect to the tests of pre-classifier adjectives and of
post-classifier de. However, these earlier scholars do not use these diagnostics to make a dichotomy of classifiers as Cheng and Sybesma (1998) do,
rather they correlate different types of classifiers with the count/mass distinction.
I am grateful to Gabi Danon and Victor Pan for going thorough and discussing
with me about the syntax part of Cheng and Sybesma (1998) on several occasions.
55
There are two questions raised by Cheng and Sybesmas syntactic analysis of mass and count classifiers: (i) does the contrast between two different types of classifiers proposed by them really hold? (ii) does the contrast
between the two types of classifiers or nouns really reflect the mass/count
distinction?
56
da
big
da
big
wei
CL
zhi
CL
laoshi
teacher
gou
dog
c. na
tou
shizi bu-dao ban ge
xiaoshi
that
CL
lion
less than half CL
hour
jiu
ba
yi
da
zhi
gou
gei
chi
FOC OM
one
big
CL
dog
give
eat
That lion ate up a BIG dog within half an hour.
57
le.
PRF
There are many cases where count classifiers are felicitous with preclassifier adjectives. It has been noted in the literature that many count
classifiers go naturally with adjectives (e.g. Lu 1987, Luo 1988, and X.P.Li
2007). Lu (1987) studies the possibilities of adjectival modification of
classifiers in great detail. According to his study, 24 individual classifiers
can be preceded by an adjective. Some of Lus examples are illustrated in
(19) (see Lu 1987: 54-57 for more examples).
(19) a. Xiaoling chi le
yi da/xiao ge mantou.
Xiaoling eat PFV one big/small CL steamed bum
Xiaoling ate a BIG/SMALL steamed bum.
b. zhe yi xiao fu hua
hua le
ta bannian shijian.
this one small CL picture take PFV him half year time
It took him half a year to paint this SMALL painting.
c. ta
jian-shang
kang le
yi da/xiao
jian xingli.
he
shoulder-on
carry PFV one big/small CL baggage
He carried a BIG/SMALL baggage on his shoulder.
Ge in (19a) is a general classifier in Chinese, which modifies nouns
denoting discrete entities in general. The other two classifiers, fu in (19b)
and jian in (19c), are also typical individual classifiers, which modify hua
painting and xingli baggage respectively. As shown in (19), those individual classifiers can all be preceded by da big or xiao small.
Cheng and Sybesma (1998) are aware of some of the examples mentioned by Lu (1987), but they treat them as exceptions, as stated explicitly
in footnote 4 in their paper. However, if 24 individual classifiers out of 54
are compatible with pre-classifier adjectives, it is not appropriate to consider those examples as exceptions. More examples like those in (19) can
be freely generated. Examples in (20) are from X.P. Li (2007).
(20) a. wu-mao-qian mai
le
yi da gen huanggua.
fifty-cent
buy
PFV one big CL cucumber.
Fifty cents bought me a cucumber, which is a big quantity (w.r.t.
the money spent).
58
b. ta chi le
yi da tiao huanggua.
he eat PFV one big CL cucumber
He ate a cucumber, which is a lot for him.
c. yi
ge yue ta juran
ba yi da ben
one
CL month he unexpectedly OM one big CLvolume
zidian
quan bei
le.
dictionary all recite PRF
Surprisingly, in only one month, he recited the whole dictionary,
which is a lot (a large vocabulary w.r.t. the short time spent).
As a supplementary study to Lus (1987), Luo (1988) argues that many
of the individual classifiers that are thought to be incompatible with preclassifier adjectives in Lu (1987) are actually acceptable, if appropriate
contexts are provided. Consider the examples in (21). The phrases of yi da
zhang chuang one big Cl bed and yi da tou yeniu one big CLhead wild
cow are listed as unacceptable in Lu (1987). But Luo (1988) illustrates the
following two contexts in which they are felicitous:
(21) a. ta wu-li
jiaju
taiduo, baifang-de ye bu jiangjiu,
he house-in furniture too:much arrange
also not carefully
yi
jinmen youbian jiu-shi yi da zhang jiushi
once enter right FOC-be one big CL
old-style
muchuang, zuobian yi
ge da-ligui,
zhuozi, yizi,
wooden bed left
one CL big:wardrobe table chair
shafa ba wuzi gao-de yongjiubukan.
sofa OM house make crowed
He has too much furniture at home. Once entering, on the right is
a BIG old-style wooden bed, and on the left is a big wardrobe, a
table, a chair and a sofa. They are packed like sardines.
b. feizhou shi
hen
xiong. Liang zhi
shizi jiu
African lion very cruel two
CL
lion
Foc
neng ba
yi
da
tou
yeniu
chiwan.
can
OM
one
big
CL
wild cow eat up
African lions are very cruel. Two lions can eat a BIG wild cow in
a short time.
Another empirical problem pertaining to Cheng and Sybesmas observation is concerned with the correlation between the count/mass distinction
and the lexical/functional distinction. According to them, the underlying
reason why massifiers can be modified by adjectives like da/xiao is be-
59
cause mass classifiers can be used as independent nouns. This also implies
a direct modification relation of the adjectives with the classifier.
However, as shown in chapter 2, some non-individual classifiers are derived from verbs and not from nouns. The relevant examples are repeated
in (22).
(22) a. yi
(chang) gua
bianpao
one
long hang firecrackers
a string of firecrackers
b. yi
(da)
peng
xiangtu
one big
scoop-in-both-hands soil:from:homeland
a handful of soil from homeland
c. yi
(xiao) cuo
yan
one small pinch salt
a pinch of salt
As shown in (22), it is completely possible to insert an adjective before
the classifier, such as chang long, da big, xiao small. If the presence
of adjectives before classifiers is really due to the nominal feature of classifiers, these examples are left unexplained.
Additionally, as shown in (19), some of the individual classifiers that
are subject to adjective modification have low degree nominal properties
and they cannot be used as nouns independently, such as the general classifier ge in (19a), (recall the relevant argument in chapter 2). Cheng and
Sybesmas account cannot explain these examples either.
The examples from (19) to (22) are obvious counterexamples to the generalization made by Cheng and Sybesma (1998) that pre-classifier adjectives are only allowed before mass classifiers. Thus, our empirical examination of the data suggests that adjectives like da/xiao big/small are not
only possible before mass classifiers but also before count classifiers. In
addition, I also showed that the nominal property of classifiers may not be
the decisive factor to license adjectives before classifiers.
60
zhi
paper
ren
people
The two mass classifiers in (23), zhang piece and qun group, are not
like container classifiers, such as ping bottle and wan bowl, in several
important aspects. One of the important aspects is that mass classifiers like
qun group and zhang piece do not involve the feature of CONTENT.
61
62
4. Optionality of post-classifier de
This section examines Cheng and Sybesmas second criterion for the distinction between count and mass classifiers, namely, the possibility of postclassifier de. I will investigate the question: under what condition are we
able to build up the phrase Num-Cl-de-N? Presumably, this not only has
something to do with the lexical meaning of classifiers but also with the
proper interpretation induced by the insertion of de.
Before starting, I want to clarify that the particle de after a classifier is
not semantically vacuous or syntactically redundant. It is commonly agreed
that the particle de is a modification marker which is able to turn different
syntactic elements into modifiers (Zhu 1961, Paris 1979, Li and Thompson
1981, among others). Namely, [XP [de]] has the function of modifying the
noun it is a sister of.
(24) a. congming de haizi
clever
DE childred
clever children
b. wo mai de shu
I buy DE book
the book(s) that I bought
c. ta
de
shu
he/she DE
book
his/her book(s)
[Adj-DE]
[RC-DE]
[Pron-DE]
shu
book
The example (25) has two readings: an attributive reading and a pseudopartitive reading (Jiang 2008). On the attributive reading, the phrase in (25)
refers to a particular collection of books, e.g. the books that are packed in
three boxes (to be distinguished from other collections, e.g. those packed in
five boxes) and this particular property is expressed by Num-Cl-de. On the
pseudo-partitive reading, the phrase simply has a quantity reading, meaning
three boxes of books and Num-Cl-de is quantity-denoting.
Optionality of post-classifier de
63
rou
meat
(27) a. yi
qun
(*de)
one
Clgroup
DE
a group of students
b. yi
chuan (*de)
one
CLstring DE
a string of chilis
c. yi
dui
(*de)
one
CLpile
DE
a pile of books
xuesheng
student
juli
distance
lajiao
chili
shu
book
Further, researchers such as Tang (2005) and Hsieh (2007, 2008), point
out that it is possible for individual classifiers to be followed with de in
some cases. Examples in (28) are taken from Tang (2005), which are coun5
terexamples against Cheng and Sybesma (1998).
5
Tang (2005) attempted to take the examples in (i) and (ii) as counterexamples
against Cheng and Sybesma (1998). She argued that the particle de not only follows
mass classifiers (i), but also count classifiers in examples (ii):
(i) a. liang
mi
de
bu
[mass classifiers]
two
meter DE
cloth
cloth that is sorted in accordance with two meters
64
b. liang
bang
de
rou
two
pound DE
meat
meat that is sorted in accordance with two pounds
(ii) a. liang
ben
de
shu
[count classifier]
book
two
CLvolume DE
books that are sorted in accordance with two in number
b. wu
ge
de
pingguo
five
CL
DE
apple
apples that are sorted in accordance with five in number
Although Tangs examples in (i) and (ii) bear great similarity to those in Cheng
and Sybesma (1998), they are characterized with two different phenomena. For
Cheng and Sybesma (1998), Num-Cl-de still expresses quantity information about
the entities denoted by N, while for Tang (2005), Num-Cl-de is like an attributive
modifier, which behaves like a classifying adjective.
They are also structurally different. For Cheng and Sybesma (1998), Num-Clde-N is a classifier phrase, as headed by the classifier, while for Tang (2005), NumCl-de-N is a complex noun phrase andNum-Cl-de is projected as an adjunct to the
NP. I will make a detailed discussion Tangs argument about de in chapter 8.
Optionality of post-classifier de
65
ples of count ClPs have the adverbial jin close to before the classifier
phrase.
(29) a. jin
yi-bai
wei de
qianjiu
close one-hundred CL DE rescue
close to one hundred rescue workers
b. hao
ji
bai
tiao de
quite several hundred CL
DE
quite several hundreds of sea snakes
renyuan
worker
haishe
sea snake
66
(32) a. yi
ge
yi
sui
de
yiner mei-ci
one
CL
one
year DE
baby every time
zhi
neng chi
1/3
li
de
ganmao-yao.
only
can
eat
1/3
CL
DE
cold pill
A one year old baby can only take 1/3 of a cold pill every time.
b. mei
wan
tang pingjun you 1/4
ge de yancong.
each CLbowl soup equally have 1/4
CL DE onion
There is of an onion in each bowl of soup on average.
The problems exposed above indicate that post-classifier de cross-cuts
the distinction between count and mass classifiers and that the presence of
the marker de after classifiers is not a legitimate criterion to tell mass classifiers apart from count classifiers.
If we investigate precisely, we will find that the two tests do not give
consistent result. Recall the examples between (23) and (26-27). Classifiers
like qun group and kuai piece can be preceded by adjectives but they
cannot be followed by the marker de.
Some may wonder whether it is possible to impose an even stricter condition using these two criteria that these two criteria have to be satisfied at
the same time, namely, co-occurrence of pre-classifier adjective and postclassifier de. However, the combined use of the two diagnostics does not
give us a satisfactory result either. It is possible for container classifiers to
have pre-classifier adjectives and post-classifier de, as in (33), but it is not
plausible for mass Cls like qun group and duan section, as in (34).
(33) a. yi
xiao xiang de
one
small CLbox DE
a small box of books
b. yi
da
ping de
one
big
CLbottle DE
a big bottle of water
(34) a.* yi
one
b.*yi
one
da
big
xiao
small
qun
de
CLgroup DE
duan
de
CLsection DE
shu
book
shui
water
xuesheng
student
shengzi
rope
Conclusions
67
Cheng and Sybesmas (1998) claim that Chinese shows a mass/count distinction.
The exact semantics of pre-classifier adjectives and post-classifier de
will be discussed in depth in chapter 7 and 8.
5. Conclusions
In this chapter, I have examined Cheng and Sybesmas (1998) arguments
about the distinction between count and mass classifiers. I presented some
new data to test the two syntactic diagnostics for the distinction between
count and mass classifiers. This data shows that pre-classifier adjectives
are available for both count and mass classifiers, and so is post-classifier
de. Therefore, I suggest that these two syntactic diagnostics cannot be used
as legitimate criteria for making distinction between two types of classifiers, as proposed by Cheng and Sybesma (1998).
Chapter 4
Natural atomicity
1. Introduction
The last chapter examined the syntactic approach to the mass/count debate
in Chinese. I showed that no legitimate syntactic criterion is available to
draw a distinction between count and mass classifiers in Chinese. The main
task of this chapter is to examine the lexicalist approach to the mass/count
thesis. It is notably represented by Doetjes (1997) and Cheng et al (2008).
While admiting that Mandarin nouns are syntactically mass, Doetjes (1997)
claims that a semantic distinction between count mass nouns and mass
mass nouns can still be made. Count mass nouns refer to entities with
minimal parts and the referents of mass mass nouns have no minimal
parts. A recent argument in support of this view is that count nouns come
out of lexical as count, and there is no universal grinding in Chinese
(Cheng et al 2008).
The core question to be addressed in this chapter is how we should characterize the contrast between shui water and nanhai boy in Mandarin.
Is it appropriate to correlate it with a mass/count distinction at the lexical
level, as suggested in Doetjes (1997) and Cheng et al (2008)?
(1)
With respect to this question, I make two main claims. First, it is more
appropriate to recast the contrast between mass mass nouns and count mass
nouns as an ontological distinction between discreteness and homogeneity.
Second, there is no grinding (mass-count shifting) or count-mass shifting in
Chinese. Chinese nouns have a genuine ambiguity between object reading
and stuff reading, or even a partial object reading in some occasions.
69
This boils down to the question what criterion we should adopt to judge
whether a language has a mass/count distinction or not. The term countmass distinction is interwoven with two different notions, countability
and individuation. Countability is a grammatical notion. It refers to
whether nouns can be directly counted by numerals or not. Individuation is
a cognitive or ontological notion and it refers to whether the referents de1
Brazilian Portuguese has a count/mass distinction and its count nouns can be
pluralized with plural markers. However, what is controversial is the grammatical
status of bare singular nouns in this language. According to de Oliveira and Rothstein (2011), bare singular nouns are mass nouns.
70
Natural atomicity
noted by nouns are (discrete) individuals or not. These two notions should
be treated separately and they cannot be applied at the same time to judge
whether a language has a mass/count distinction.
The grammatical criterion of countability is independent of the nongrammatical, ontological criterion for individuation, though they are
somehow correlated with each other (Krifka 2008, Rothstein 2010, also see
Bunt 1985).
As Krifka (2008) points out, in some cases, the semantic criterion is
consistent with the cognitive criterion when judging the mass/count distinction. Consistency is found in the following three scenarios. (a) Liquids
and substances are lacking a defined boundary and they are mass, such as
milk, water and gold. (b) Small objects tend to be mass, because their defined boundary is usually irrelevant, as contrasted between rice and beans,
between sand and pebbles. (c) Entities high on the animacy scale tend to be
count (cf. Smith-Stark 1974). However, in other cases, semantic and cognitive criteria might diverge. There are mass nouns that denote entities one
would expect to be denoted by count nouns: jewelry, silverware, furniture,
drapery. These nouns are called fake mass nouns by Cherchia (2010).
Rothstein (2010) argues explicitly that the mass/count distinction is not
based on an atomic/non-atomic nor on a homogeneous/non-homogeneous
distinction. The mismatch between form and denotation is two-way: as
well as mass terms such as furniture and jewellery that denote sets of inherently individuable objects, there are also count terms that denote sets of
entities that do not have spatial properties constant across time. Examples
are fence, wall and bouquet (ibid: 346).
Wiltschco (2012) argues that there are two sources of mass/count distinction: it can either be seen as a property of grammatical structure (fproperty) on the one hand, or as an ontological/perceptual property on the
other. These two properties are realized at two distinctive syntactic levels.
The ontological property is realized as the root level, while the f-property
is categorical and is suggested to be a nominal inner aspect: the locus of
grammaticalized mass/count distinction.
(2)
D
D
F
F
f-properties: categorical
nominal root R-properties: ontological
71
a. three students
b. * three waters
[Count]
[Mass]
(b) Dne Sulin is a bare argument language. There is no numbermarking strategy available to distinguish different types of nouns, but the
mass/count distinction can still be made. According to Wilhelm (2008), the
mass/count distinction in Dne Sulin is dependent on the natural atomicity of nouns. Nouns like table in (4a) denote discrete entities and they can
be directly modified by numeral. They are count nouns. In contrast, nouns
like milk in (4b) denote homogeneous entities and they cannot be modified
by numerals. They are categorized as mass.
(4)
a. ighe/solghe bekeshchelyi
one / five
table
one table/ five tables
b. #ighe/solghe ejretth
one / five
milk
[Count]
[Mass]
72
Natural atomicity
(5b) are used in the same syntactic context. Interestingly, (5b) can either
mean three glasses of water or three drops of water, or three puddles of
water etc. The exact counting unit is context-dependent.
(5)
a. txabu am
three
monkey
b. txabu ya
three
water
a. san
*( ge) beizi
three
CL cup
three cups
b. yi
*(bei) jiu
one
CLglass wine
a glass of wine
73
a. yi
ge
one
CL
one child
b.* yi
ge
one CL
haizi
child
shui
water
Doetjes (1997) assumes that count nouns always have a counting structure and that individual classifier + N in Chinese is equivalent to English
count nouns, both of which imply the existence of minimal parts in the
74
Natural atomicity
a. yi
da
baima
one
CLdozen white horse
a dozen of white horse
b. yi
qun
baima
one
CLgroup white horse
a group of white horse
Doetjes says that group classifiers da CLdozen and qun CLflock are
similar to plural morphology in the sense that they indicate that there is a
plurality of individuals. However, neither the plural marker in English nor
the group classifier in Chinese indicates the minimal parts in the denotaiton
of nouns. This information is provided by the noun. In other words, in (8),
the noun ma itself provides us with a criterion for counting. The lexical
meaning of ma decides what counts an individual horse.
Doetjes lexicalist approach to the mass/count distinction in Chinese is
incorrect in several regards. First of all, Doetjes attempted to make an
analogy between group classifiers in Chinese and the English plural marker
s, and between the general classifier ge in Mandarin and the indefinite
article in English, in terms of their semantic function. Unfortunately, the
basic assumption Doetjes (1997) adopts about English count nouns is not
correct: that count nouns are lexically count and the plural marker and the
indefinite article simply mark but do not make the countability.
75
The plural ending in [the books] indicates that there is more than one book.
It does not give information about what unit could be considered to be a
singular book, and therefore we know that this information must somehow
be present in the denotation of the count noun [book] Similarly, when
we use one N or another N, we know what unit is intended. the information about what counts as a unit must be present in the singular noun.
(Doetjes 1997: 32)
Borer (2005) assumes that it is crosslinguistically true that all noun extensions are
mass. She proposes that both mass and count represent properties of functional
structures (or the absence thereof). Specifically, count is crucially a grammatically
construed notion, corresponding to a piece of structure and mass nouns is absent
of such a structure (Borer 2005: 88).
Like Doetjes (1997), Borer (2005) proposes that number marking is a sort of
classifier, but they are able to create partition or division of stuff, as opposed to
Doetjess view of marking countability.
The exact differences between Borer (2005) and Doetjes are discussed in footnote 7 in Borer (2005: 93-94).
First, for Doetjes, the mass/count distinction is a lexical distinction, namely,
nouns are lexically marked as count or mass (specifically count mass,and mass
mass), and the grammatical marking of divisions, through either classifiers or plural
marking, is a form of agreement with such lexical marking. It does not, in and of
itself, determine the mass-count distinction. In the account proposed by Borer, both
plurals and classifiers create, so to speak, count nouns from unstructured stuff. It is
a syntactic operation to realize mass or count nouns.
Secondly, for Doetjes, the similarity of function between plurals and classifiers
is not structurally reflected. Plural marking remains number marking (rather than
classifier marking), while classifiers project as classifiers. In Borer (2005), it is
specifically argued that plurality is not a number specification, and that plurals are,
morphologically and otherwise, classifiers.
Finally, Doetjes assumes that both classifiers and plural morphemes mark sets
of semantically pre-existing minimal parts, while Borer argues that they create
divisions of stuff, which may be singular or plural. In fact, for Borer, singulars are
created by the counting function, that is, by the Quantity Phrase.
76
Natural atomicity
Empirically speaking, the two diagnostics Doetjes used cannot be justified as legitimate criteria for the mass/count distinction.
Concerning the first diagnostic, it is not accurate that the general classifier ge only goes with nouns with inherent minimal parts. Ge cannot only
modify nouns denoting discrete entities, but also modify abstract nouns,
such as xinqing mood in (9a) or nouns denoting entities without minimal
parts, such as pi fart in (9b). Note that these classifier phrases do not
express individual events, as construed by the contexts in (9).
(9)
a. zhu
ni
you
yi
ge
wish you
have one
CL
Wish you have a good mood.
b. ta yi jie ke
wen
le
he one CL class smell PFV
He smelled three farts during a class.
hao
good
xinqing.
mood
san
three
ge
CL
pi.
fart
77
78
Natural atomicity
79
I claim that Chinese bare nouns are unspecified with individuation and
that they have an ambiguity between an individual and a stuff reading, or
even a partial-object reading (also see Huang and Lee 2009).
I give an illustration of four different types of nouns, i.e. fruit-vegetable,
animate entities, liquid and artifacts, with respect to the availability of
individual, stuff and partial-object readings.
[Fruit-vegetable]: food nouns, such as those referring to fruit and
vegetables, freely alternate between the individual and the stuff reading.
Additionally, a partial-object reading is also possible. These three readings
for pingguo apple are illustrated in (16).
(16) zhuo shang you
pingguo.
table on
there:be apple
a. There are apples on the table.
OR There is an apple on the table.
b. There is apple on the table.
c. There is part of an apple on the table.
[Individual reading]
[Stuff reading]
[Partial-object reading]
gou-rou.
dog-flesh
80
Natural atomicity
[Individual reading]
[Stuff reading]
[Partial-object]
[Stuff reading]
81
82
Natural atomicity
It is different from the mass/count distinction distinguished at the grammatical level, as is found in English.
In what follows, I will recast Doetjess (1997) distinction between
count mass and mass mass nouns, or Cheng et als (2008) distinction between count and mass nouns, into an ontological distinction between discreteness and homogeneity in terms of the property of denotation of nouns.
I will be assuming the position that although Chinese nouns are all mass
nouns, two ontologically different types of nouns can be distinguished:
nouns denoting discrete entities and nouns denoting homogeneous entities.
The characterizing property of the first group of nouns is that the entities denoted are conceived as spatially bound or delimited and are
straightforward identified as being a one. Nouns in this group include
xuesheng student, dianshi-ji TV set, shu tree etc. In contrast, the referents of nouns in the second group do not have well-defined or stable spatial configuration. Nouns in this camp include shui water, yun cloud, lu
road etc.3
I will present evidence below to show that the ontological distinction of
nouns between homogeneity and discreteness is a grammatically relevant
distinction in Mandarin.
The first piece of evidence comes from the use of size adjectives as adnominal modifiers, such as da big and xiao small (Rothstein 2010,
Zhang 2012).
Rothstein (2010) notes that in English, nouns denoting entities with salient individual units can be be modified with adjectives like big or small,
and those denoting homogeneous entities reject adjective modification of
big and small. Such a contrast cross-cuts the distinction of mass and count
nouns.
(21) a. Do not buy big furniture. The stairs are too narrow to carry it up.
b. * a glass of big water
This generalization is also applicable to Chinese. Although nouns like
pingguo apple cannot be directly counted without a classifier in Mandarin, it denotes entities whose unit structure can be modified, as in (22). In
These two types of nouns dont correspond to the distinction between individual
and non-individual classifiers. In other words, it is not completely true that individual classifiers can only modify nouns with discrete referents and non-individual
classifiers modify nouns with homogeneous referents.
83
contrast, those denoting homogeneous entities like shui and kongqi cannot
be modified by dimensional adjectives, as in (23).
(22) a. yi
ge
hen
one
CL
very
a very big apple
b. yi
ke
hen
one
CL
very
a very big tree
(23) a. * yi
bei
hen
one CLglass very
b. * yi
ge
hen
one CL
very
da
big
de
Mod
pingguo
apple
da
big
de
Mod
shu
tree
da
big
da
big
de
Mod
de
Mod
shui
water
kongqi
air
According to Zhang (2012), in addition to [numerablity], nouns are also parameterized with the feature [dimensionality]. Namely, there are
dimensional and non-dimensional nouns. Dimensional nouns, such as he
river, are subject to modification of dimensional adjectives, and nondimensional nouns, including material nouns like jin gold and you oil
and immaterial nouns, such as minzhu democracy and yinyue music,
cannot be modified by dimensional adjectives. The contrast between these
two types of nouns suggested by Zhang corresponds to the contrast between discrete and homogeneous entities, as contrasted in (22) and (23). I
thus will not provide further examples.
Zhang (2012) also suggests that the contrast between these two types of
nouns with respect to dimensional adjectives also shows up in predicative
positions. Look at her examples in (24) and (25).
(24) a. he
hen
chang.
river
very long
The river is long.
b. qiqiu
hen da.
balloon very big
The balloon is big.
84
Natural atomicity
chang.
long
da.
big
Conclusions
85
6. Conclusions
In this chapter, I argued against the view that there is a lexical distinction
between count and mass nouns in Chinese. By separating the grammatical
notion of countability from the ontological/cognitive notion of individuation, we claim that the mass/count distinction is independent whether the
referents in the denotation of nouns are individuals or not. Shui boy and
nanhai boy are both mass nouns, but they represent two ontologically
different types of nouns: nouns referring to discrete entities and nouns
referring to homogeneous entities.
Chapter 5
Chinese bare nouns
1. Introduction
Having made the claim in chapter 3 and 4 that the count/mass distinction of
nominals cannot be established in Chinese, I now explore the KrifkaChierchia proposal that all Chinese nouns are mass nouns (see Krifka 1995,
Chierchia 1998a, b). Krifka assumes that every language which allows for
bare NPs at all uses them as expressions referring to kinds (see GerstnerLink 1988). Chierchia (1998b) makes the explicit claim that Chinese is an
argumental language, in which (i) all the nouns are born as arguments, and
(ii) they denote kinds, as do English mass nouns. Though Chierchias hypothesis has been very influential, it is, as he admits himself rather speculative (Chierchia 1998a: 92). Our first and foremost goal in this chapter
is to examine the plausibility of Krifka-Chierchia hypothesis. We show that
there is good evidence to accept it.
It has been widely observed in the literature that Chinese bare nouns
have, besides kind readings, object-level interpretations, which can be both
definite and indefinite (see Li and Thompson 1981, R. Yang 2001, H. Yang
2005, Rullman and You 2006, among others). For example, in (1a), the
bare noun shu book is a kind term, meaning the kind book, and shu
book in (1b) can either mean the book(s) or some book(s).
(1) a. shu shi renlei de jingshen shiliang.
book be human Mod spirit
food
Books are food for the human soul.
[Generic]
Lit: Books are to our mind, as food to our body
b. wo mai le
shu.
I buy PFV book
I bought some book(s).
[Indefinite]
OR I bought the book/the books.
[Definite]
The second goal of this chapter is to answer the question: what is the relationship between the kind reading and the (in)definite reading, of bare
87
nouns? There are two possibilities. The first one is that Chinese bare nouns
are ambiguous between a kind reading and object-level reading (Wilkinson
1991, Gerstner and Krifka 1993, Kratzer 1995, and others) The second
possibility is that the kind interpretation is the default reading for Chinese
bare nouns and that the object-level readings are derived from the kind
reading (see Carlson 1977, Chierchia 1998b, R. Yang 2001, Dayal 2004).
In this chapter, we take the neo-Carlsonian approach and argue for the
second possibility.
The rest of the chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly introduces the Krikfa-Chierchia hypothesis that Chinese bare nouns are kind
terms. In section 3, we justify the Krifka-Chierchia hypothesis with various
pieces of evidence. In section 4, we represent the semantics of bare nouns
in formal terms. Sections 5 and 6 look at the object-level interpretations of
Chinese bare nouns. In section 5, we study the predicative use of bare
nouns, e.g. in post-copula positions (see Higgins 1976, Partee 1986). Section 6 looks at definite readings of bare nouns in argumental positions, e.g.
topic positions. We argue that Chinese nouns are kind-denoting by default,
and that the existential and the definite reading are derived (also see R.
Yang 2001, H. Yang 2005).
88
Krifka (1995: 399) assumes that the bare noun xiong is basically a
name of the kind Ursus, and that the other uses have to be derived from
that (also see Dolling 1992). One reason to take the kind-referring use in
(2a) as basic is that it seems that every language which allows for bare
NPs at all uses them as expressions referring to kinds (see Gerstner-Link
1988).
Chierchia (1998b: 353-4) develops a typology of noun reference. He
assumes that nouns are either classified as predicates or as arguments, and
he introduces the features [argument] and [predicate] as parameters constraining the way in which the syntactic category N (and its phrasal projection NP) is mapped onto its denotation in different languages. [+argument]
means that N can be mapped onto denotations of the argumental type and
[-argument] cannot. The determiner D denotes a function from predicates
to arguments. In a language where N is a predicate, N must combine with a
D to form an argument. In a language where N is born at the argument type,
this is not necessary and we get so-called bare NP arguments.
French is argued to be an [-argument, +predicate] language, in which
every noun is a predicate, and nouns cannot be made into arguments without projecting D.
English is a language parameterized with the setting of [+argument,
+predicate]. This means that nouns in English can be either predicative or
argumental. In English, mass nouns are [+argument], while count nouns are
[+predicate]. This means that count nouns must combine with a determiner
to denote an argument, and hence count nouns cannot occur in their bare
singular form.
Chierchia proposes that Chinese is an argumental language, where the
nouns have the [+argument, -predicate] setting. This means that nouns can
be mapped onto denotations of the argument type but not of the predicate
type. He assumes that in a language with this setting, nouns and their
phrasal projections are mass nouns that uniformly denote kinds. (We refer
to Chierchia (1998b: 355-357) for the detailed discussion of each type of
language.)
To synthesize, the Krifka-Chierchia hypothesis goes as follows: Chinese bare nouns are mass expressions and denote kinds as default.
89
Note that in Chinese, there is a seeming plural marker men (A. Li 1999). However, this marker is not exactly the same as the English plural morpheme s. Firstly,
it carries definiteness; secondly, it can only be attached to Ns denoting humans.
According to Iljic (1994), it is a collective marker but not a plural maker. Though
A. Li (1999) argues -men in Mandarin Chinese is best analyzed as a plural marker,
she accepts the difference between the Chinese men and the English s. She assumes that -men is realized on an element in D, in contrast to plurality on N, which
is what we find in English. We thus do not think that Chinese men can be treated
as a true plural marker.
2
Not all languages with bare arguments are bound to have classifiers. For example,
in Indonesian, classifiers are optional between numeral and noun, although it is an
argumental language (Chung 2000).
90
The indefinite singular nominals can have a subkind reading. On the subkind
reading, a dodo means a subkind of dodos. We ignore this reading for the time
being.
4
In Mandarin, demonstratives can either be used in the construction of Dem+Cl+N
or in Dem+N. But, as mentioned in Chapter 3, Dem-N is usually found in preverbal
positions, e.g. the subject position, and not in postverbal positions, e.g. object positions. Note that Dem-N can only have an object-level interpretation and not a kindlevel interpretation. For example, zhe yu this fish means this individual fish and
not this kind of fish.
91
kind term to be its argument, so the bare noun in (4a) is interpreted as: the
whale kind. The examples of (4b) and (4c) show that this kind-level predicate cannot take as argument a nominal phrase that refers to individuals,
such as na jing that (individual) whale or yi tiao jing an (individual)
whale.
A second point is that Chinese bare nouns can occur in the post-copula
position as a kind-level predicate. The sentence, in that case, is a generic
sentence, as in (5a).
(5) a. haitun
he lanjing
dou shi jing.
dolphin and blue whales all be whale
Both dolphins and blue whales are whales.
b. haitun he lanjing
shi liang zhong jing.
dolphin and blue whale be two CLkind whale
Dolphins and blue whales are two kinds of whales.
c.# haitun he lanjing
shi liang tiao
jing.
dolphin and blue whale be two CLtail whale
Dolphins and blue whales are two (individual) whales.
(5a) expresses a taxonomic relation between the kind of entities denoted
by the subject, i.e. haitun he lanjing dolphins and blue whales, and the
denotation of the post-copula NP, i.e. jing whales. That is, the kind Dolphin and the kind Blue Whale stand in a subkind relation to the kind Whale.
The subkind relation can be overtly realized by the kind classifier, zhong
kind as shown in (5b); the sentence is infelicitous with the individual
classifier tiao tail, as in (5c).
The use of bare nouns in Chinese to refer to kinds has been neglected in
Chinese linguistics, despite attested examples like the following in (6)
from high school textbooks used in mainland China. These examples illustrate strong kind-inducing contexts, such as discussions of biology, invention, taxonomy. The kind terms are given in boldface.
(6) a. niao shi you konglong jinhua lai
de.
bird be from dinosaur evolve come PRT
Birds evolved from dinosaurs.
b. aidisheng faming le
dianhuaji.
Edison
invent PFV telephone
Edison invented the telephone.
92
3.2. Appositives
In this section we discuss appositives as a test for the kind referring nature
of Chinese bare nouns. Bare nouns easily take appositive nominals, e.g.
Demonstrative+Cl+N. Note that demonstratives before Cl-N are usually
unstressed in the above cases. They lose their deictic function and end up
working like determinate article, in the sense that they yield definiteness.
This phrase, when it follows an anchor noun, can be interpreted appositively or restrictively (Del Gobbo 1999). We are only interested in the appositive use here.
In kind-reference generics, the appositive phrase can be a kind ClP,
headed by the kind classifier zhong kind, as in (7), but not an individual
ClP headed by individual classifiers such as zhi or ge, individual unit, as
in (8).
(7) a. niao, zhe zhong dongwu, you konglong,
bird this Clkind animal from dinosaur
na zhong dongwu jinhua er lai.
that CLkind animal evolve thus come
Birds, this kind of animal, evolved from dinosaurs, that kind of
animal.
b. aidisheng faming le
dianhuaji zhe zhong shebei.
Edison invent PFV telephone this CLkind equipment
Edison invented the telephone, this kind of equipment.
(8) a. #niao, zhe zhi dongwu, you konglong,
bird
this CL animal
from dinosaur
na
zhi dongwu jinhua er lai.
that CL animal
evolve thus come
The bird, this individual animal, evolved from the dinosaur, this
individual animal.
b.# aidisheng faming le
dianhuaji zhe ge shebei.
Edison
invent PFV telephone this CL equipment
Edison invented the telephone, this equipment.
The verbs of jinhua evolve in (7a) and faming invent in (7b) can only take kind terms as arguments, so the arguments only allow kind classifier phrase as appositive phrases, as in (8) and not individual classifier
phrases, as in (8).
93
shuiguo.
fruit
dongwu.
animal
Take (9a) for instance. Without the appositive phrase, the sentence of
wo chi le liulian can either mean that I ate the durian(s) or I ate some
durian(s), where the bare noun durian has a definite or an indefinite reading, but not a kind reading. However, with an appositive like zhe zhong
shuiguo this kind of fruit, the bare noun liulian durian is interpreted as a
kind term, referring to the kind durian. As a result, (9a) means that I had a
durian-eating experience. (Note that the phrase zhe ge shuiguo this Cl
fruit can never be used as an appositive on the bare noun, regardless of
whether the bare noun liulian is kind or individual denoting.)
94
(opaque)
(transparent)
95
plural NPs and indefinite singular NPs in (10) carries over to bare nouns
and one+Cl+N in Mandarin:
(12) a. ta zai
zhao yi
ge
baomu.
he PROG seek one CL
maid
He is looking for a maid.
(opaque or transparent)
b. ta zai
zhao baomu.
he PROG seek maid
He is looking for a maid/maids.
(opaque reading)
OR He is looking for the maid(s).
(definite reading)
In (12a), the singular phrase of yi ge baomu either refers to anyone who
has the property of being a maid, which leads to an opaque reading, or
refers to a particular person, who is a maid, in which case we get a transparent reading. In (12b), the bare noun baomu either refers to anyone who is
a maid/are maids, and the reading we get is the opaque reading, or it refers
to the maid(s) familiar to the subject, in which case the sentence gets a
definite reading.
In short, one+Cl+N pattern with English indefinite singular NPs, and
(12a) is ambiguous between an opaque reading and a transparent reading.
Chinese bare nouns, like English bare plurals, allow an opaque reading, but
not a transparent indefinite reading.
However, Chinese bare nouns have an extra reading, a definite reading,
which English bare plurals do not have. The extra reading was also observed by R. Yang (2001:26-28), who argues that it should be distinguished
from the transparent reading and is a phenomenon unique to Chinese.
Yangs arguments for distinguishing transparent and definite readings will
be discussed in section 2.4.
I here discuss a different test which distinguishes definite from transparent readings: the test of relative clauses.
Chinese relative clauses (RCs) are left-branching. In numeral phrases
like Num+Cl+N, the relative clause can modify the head noun, as in the
form Num+Cl+RC+N, or the whole numeral phrase, as in the form
RC+Num+Cl+N. We use our examples in (13) to illustrate these two
types of relative clauses. (13a) has the form Num-Cl-RC-N and (13b) has
the form RC-Num-Cl-N.
96
(13) a. ta zai
zhao yi ge [RC ta bu renshi de] baomu.
he PPOG seek one CL he not know Mod maid
There is a maid that he is not familiar with that he is looking for.
[transparent]
OR: He is looking for a maid [and wants her to be one] that he is not familiar with.
[opaque]
b. ta zai
zhao [RC ta bu renshi de] yi ge baomu.
he PROG seek
he not know Mod one CL maid
There is a maid that he is not familiar with that he is looking for.
[transparent]
Zhang (2006) claims that Num-Cl-RC-N is ambiguous in specificity,
whereas RC-Num-Cl-N is unambiguously specific, and that this contrast
results from the difference in scope possibilities. We agree with Zhangs
observation about the correlation between the modification of relative
clauses and specificity of numeral classifier phrases. We suggest that (13a)
either means that there is a certain maid that the subject is not familiar with,
and she is the one that is being looked for, which is a transparent reading,
or that he is looking for a maid and anyone will be fine, as long as he is not
familiar with her, which is an opaque reading. The example (13b) only has
the transparent reading. The relative clausethat he is not familiar with
specifies the property of the individual denoted by the ClP, which helps to
identify the individual and thus makes the transparent reading more salient.
Now, when we replace the numeral-classifier phrase in (13) with a bare
noun, and modify it with the same relative clause as the one used, we only
get an opaque reading, as in (14). (Note that strictly speaking, wide-scope
and specificity are independent phenomena, but the difference is not relevant here, what is important is that only the opaque reading is available.)
(14) ta zai
zhao [RC ta bu renshi de ] baomu. [opaque]
he PROG seek
he not know Mod maid
He is looking for maids [and wants them to be ones] that he is not
familiar with.
It is impossible in (14) to get a transparent reading. The interpretational
variability of the modified N in (14) parallels neither that of (13a) nor of
(13b). This strongly suggests that the indefinite readings of bare nouns
must be distinguished from the scopally active indefinite readings of
Num+Cl+N.
97
Now, I would like to know why the second definite reading that is
available in (12b) is not available in (14). According to Lyons (1999), in
English, definiteness presupposes familiarity and implicates uniqueness.
Li and Bisang (2012) argue that definiteness in Chinese is characterized by
familiarity and does not presuppose uniqueness. This means that the
referent of a Chinese definite phrase is an individual that is familiar to the
interlocutors or identifiable in a relevant context, but it may not be a
unique individual (see Li and Bisang 2012 for details). Now, in (15) the
semantic content of the relative clause expresses unfamiliarity, which
causes an obvious clash with the presupposition of familiarity associated
with the bare noun in the definite reading. We assume that the lexical content in this case overrides the presupposition. That is why the definite reading is not available in this case. If we change the relative clause to that I
am familiar with, the definite reading comes back. So (15) is ambiguous:
(15) ta zai
zhao [RC ta renshi de ] baomu. [definite/opaque]
he PROG seek
he know Mod maid
He is looking for the maids that he is familiar with.
The stone of the relative clause kills two birds in one. On the one hand,
it shows that the indefinite reading of bare nouns is not that of true indefinite NPs like one+Cl+N. On the other, it shows that Chinese bare nouns
indeed can get opaque or definite readings, but not transparent readings.
When the definite reading is unavailable for independent reasons, the opaque reading is the only possible interpretation available.
With Carlson (1977) and Chierchia (1998), we assume that this means
that the default reading of Chinese bare nouns is the kind reading, and their
indefinite reading is derived.
98
The indefinite phrase a book about giraffes in (16a) can have wide
scope over the universal quantifier everybody, meaning that there is a book
about giraffes that everybody is reading. It can also have a narrow scope
with respect to everybody, meaning that everybody is reading a book about
giraffes, possibly different books. In contrast, the bare plural books about
giraffes in (16b) can only have a narrow scope reading: everybody is reading a book about giraffes, possibly different books.
In Chinese, a group of linguists (S.F.Huang 1981, Huang 1982 among
others) believe that Chinese sentences with two quantifiers, which function
as subject and object respectively, shows no scope ambiguity in that the
subject quantifier scopes over the object quantifier. According to them, the
only possible interpretation of (17) is that the quantifier mei ge ren every
scopes over yi ge ren someone. In other words, (17) implies that everyone
likes a different person.
(17) Mei ge ren
dou xihuan yi ge ren.
every CL person all like
one CL person
Everyone likes a person (someone).
(everyone > someone)
However, this observation has proven to be wrong. Some later studies
show that quantifiers in Chinese indeed exhibit scope ambiguity, but different types of verbs may exhibit different levels of prominence in this
kind of scope ambiguity (see Lee 1986, Tsai 1994, Zhou and Gao 2009,
among others). For example, Zhou and Gao (2009) conduct an offline
judgment task, which examines the scope relations of quantifiers with respect to three types of verbs, including action verbs, locative verbs and
psych-verbs. They show that their thematic information does affect quantifier scope interpretation. For the action verb and the locative verb, the
S>O reading is more readily accessible than O>S reading, whereas for the
psych-verb, the S>O interpretation and O>S interpretation are equally accessible, but its S>O interpretation is not as preferably accepted as those of
the former two. This study shows that O>S interpretation is available if
appropriate contexts are provided but it is not as accessible as S>O interpretation. In other words, doubly quantified sentences in Chinese are ambiguous, though the two readings are not equally accessible.
In the current study, I take the viewpoint that both indefinite singulars
and bare nouns show scope ambiguity in Chinese. As in English, the indefinite singular is ambiguous between a narrow scope and a wide scope
reading with respect to the universal quantifier as in (18).
99
(18) mei-ge
ren
dou
zai
kan
yi feng
every-CL man
all
PROG read one CL
guanyu jiaxin
de
xin.
about
add-wage Mod letter
Everybody is reading a letter about raising salaries. [>xin or xin>]
(18) either means that everyone has a different letter about salary-raises
to read or that there is a letter about salary-raises that everyone reads. A
natural scenario for the first reading is one where each employee gets a
different raise, and hence they all read different letters. A natural scenario
for the second reading is where they all get a 5% raise and the accounting
department sends a standard letter to all.
The Chinese bare noun is also ambiguous, but between a narrow scope
reading and a definite reading, as in (19).
(19) mei-ge
ren dou zai
kan guanyu jiaxin
de
xin.
every-CL man all PROG read about add-wage Mod letter
Everybody is reading letters about raising salaries.
[>xin]
Everybody is reading the letter about raising salaries. [definite]
(19) has the same narrow scope reading, but the definite reading is different from the wide scope reading in (18): on the definite reading, there is
one and only one letter involved in the situation and everyone reads it. It
can be the case that a letter is pasted next to the entrance to the office, so
everyone reads it when entering the office.
R. Yang (2001) suggests the following scope test to support the argument that the definite reading for Chinese bare nouns is different from the
transparent reading. Look at the examples in (20).
(20) dabufeng xuezhe dou kanguo mei-ge
most
scholar all read
every-CL
a. [jiejue na-ge wenti
de] fenxi
fangfa.
solve that-CL problem Mod analysis method
Most scholars have looked at every analysis that solves that problem.
b. [jiejue mou-ge
wenti
de] fenxi
fangfa.
solve certain-CL problem Mod analysis method
Most scholars have looked at every analysis that solves a certain
problem.
100
c. [jiejue wenti
de] fenxi
fangfa.
solve problem Mod analysis method
Most scholars have looked at every analysis that solves problems.
OR Most scholars have looked at every analysis that solves the problem.
Following Reinhart (1987), R. Yang (2001) argues that the definite NP,
such as na-ge wenti that problem in (19a), takes highest scope relative to
other scope operators, i.e. it scopes over both the universal quantifier
meige every and the quantifier dabufeng most. (20a) means that there is
a particular problem for most scholars and they have looked at every analysis to solve that problem.
In contrast, the specific indefinite NP, such as mou-ge wenti a certain
question in (20b), not only has a wide scope reading, but also allows for
intermediate scope. On the intermediate reading, mou-ge a certain scopes
over the universal quantifier meige every but remains in the scope of
quantifier dabufen most. So (20b) means that for most scholars, there is a
problem such that he/she has looked at every analysis that solves that problem, possibly different problems for different scholars.
Now, when we look at the bare noun, such as wenti problem in (20c),
I observe that there is no intermediate reading: (20c) has only a narrowest
scope meaning or a widest scope meaning, i.e. anything that is problem
or a particular problem that is known to both the speaker and the listener.
The first reading is derived from the kind interpretation of the bare noun
(which is equivalent to the narrow scope indefinite reading), while the
second is a definite reading, where definiteness is defined in terms of familiarity in Mandarin Chinese. This definite reading gives the semantic effect
of a widest scope reading.
We see that definite readings are to be distinguished from transparent
readings, and the scope behavior of the bare noun with respect to quantifiers is similar to the scope behavior with respect to opaque contexts.
To summarize so far, I have discussed two pieces of evidence to prove
that Chinese bare nouns are kind denoting. I showed that bare nouns appear
naturally in kind-referring sentences. I demonstrated that Chinese bare
nouns do not have the same scope behavior as true indefinites. Chinese
bare nouns allow a definite reading which is independent of the scopal
readings I am concerned with here. Ignoring the definite reading, bare
nouns always have narrow scope with respect to quantifiers and opacity
and cannot get intermediate or wide scope readings. The data discussed
101
aWbWc
aWb
aWc
bWc
Crucially, Chierchia (1998a) argues that count nouns distinguish lexically between the set of atoms and the set of plural elements in the Boolean
algebra, while mass nouns do not. He suggests that mass nouns are grammatically singular but lexically plural: mass nouns come out of the lexicon
with plurality already built in, and that is the only way they differ from
102
Bare predication
103
5. Bare predication
Besides kind interpretations, Chinese bare nouns allow object-level interpretations, both indefinite and definite. In this section, we will focus on
predicative uses of Chinese bare nouns, e.g. their uses in post-copula positions in the spirit of Higgins (1973) and Partee (1986).
The first goal of this section is to study the interpretational variability of
bare nouns in predicative positions. We will make a distinction among
three types of interpretations of the bare noun jing whale in a post-copula
position:
-the bare noun can denote a set of individuals (24a)
-the bare noun can denote a set of subkinds (24b)
-the bare noun can denote a kind (24c).
(24) a. Moby Dick shi jing.
Moby Dick be whale
Moby Dick is a whale.
b. lanjing
shi jing.
blue whale be whale
Blue whales are whales.
c. jing
shi jing.
whale be whale
Whales are whales.
[Individual-denoting]
[Subkind-denoting]
[Kind denoting]
104
Subject
Referential
Superscriptional
Referential
Referential
Predicate
Predicational
Specificational
Identificational
Referential
Bare predication
105
106
5.1.2. Unambiguous BE
In contrast to Higgins, Partee (1986) argues for an analysis of be, in which
it is not ambiguous. Partee suggests that the copula be is not ambiguous,
and that it is always predicational, meaning that its complement is required
to be a predicate. Other analyses along these lines are those by Williams
(1983), Rothstein (2001) and others. The question for these analyses is
how to treat identificational sentences like (26) and identity sentences like
(27)?
Partees unambiguous analysis of be is built upon her theory of typeshifting principles. Partee (1986) argues that NPs have interpretations as a
family of semantic types rather than as a single type, and that natural typeshifting operations map between these types. (Note that she does not distinguish between DP and NP, and uses NP to cover all nominal projections.)
She proposes that NPs have three basic semantics types: d (referential),
<d,t> (predicative) and <<d, t>,t> (quantificational). Those basic types are
lexically assigned to different NPs, but following the general type-shifting
principles, NPs may be shifted from the basic types to others.
Figure 1 gives a schematic representation of a number of type-shifting
principles and their interrelation. In the figure, the circles represent the
three model-theoretical domains: Dd, D<d,t> and D<<d,t>t> and the arrows
represent mapping relations between these domains.
<<d,t>t>
<d,t>
Figure 1. Type shifting principles
Bare predication
107
I refer readers to Partee ([1986] 2004:193) for details about how these
type-shifting principles work exactly. Here, I give an illustration of the
central type shifting principle used in Partees analysis of unambiguous be:
the principle shifting entities of type d to entities of type <d,t>. The basic
type for proper names is type d. In order to occur in a predicative position,
such as a post-copula position, proper names must be type-shifted from d to
<d,t>. Thus, the copula itself doesnt do anything semantically, it can be
treated as the identity function on predicates: P.P of type <<d,t>,<d,t>>.
The requirement that its complement is of type <d,t> triggers the typeshifting operation which lifts the DP from type d to <d,t>.
Partee proposes the type shifting operation IDENT: IDENT(a)=x.x=a.
Namely, IDENT maps each entity a of type d onto the set of entities identical to a, that is, the singleton set {a} (or the property of being a). Look at
the derivation in (30):
(30) a. Cicero is Tully.
b. NTullyN= tully, NCiceroN= cicero, NbeN= P.P
c. IDENT(tully)=x.(x=tully)
d. Nbe TullyN=NbeN( IDENT(NTullyN))
= P.P( x.(x=tully) )
=x.(x=tully)
e. NCicero is TullyN=Nbe TullyN(NCiceroN)
=x.(x=tully) (Cicero)
=(cicero=tully)
(30) illustrates how identity sentences can be treated as predicational
constructions, where definite NPs are assigned predicative readings
through type lifting.
According to Partee (1986), specificational be can be treated in the
same way as the identity be. She assumes that specificational sentences
are some kind of identity sentence in the sense that specificational sentences like (27b) perhaps assert identity of properties: the property that is
what John is is the property of being unusual(Partee 1986/2004: 198).
In short, in Partees account, there is a single be, predicational be,
which takes two arguments, one of type d and one of type <d,t>. The examples of identificational be in (28) and identity be in (29) both involve
the be of predication, but one of the argument is shifted from its basic entity-denoting interpretation to an identity predicate of the form x.(x=a)
(cf. Partee 1998:370).
108
Bare predication
109
clause. However, in this case, the bare noun can only be the complement of
an individual classifier and not of a kind classifier, as shown by the contrast between (33a) and (33b).
(33) a. Xiaowang shi yi ge zhongguo-ren.
Xiaowang be one CL Chinese
Xiaowang is a Chinese.
b.# Xiaowang shi yi
zhong zhongguo-ren.
Xiaowang be one CLkind Chinese
As (33a) and (33b) show, bare nouns in predicative positions in (31)
denote sets of individuals, not kind terms or sets of subkind entities.
However, the fact that (31a) and (33a) are synonomous, does not mean
that the bare noun has a classifier predicate as part of its structure. I argued
in Section 3 that bare nouns with an indefinite interpretation should be
distinguished from true indefinite phrases such as NumPs, because they
exhibit different scope behavior with respect to intensional operators and
quantifiers.
I now show another difference between bare nouns with an indefinite
interpretation and true NumPs, a difference which shows up in predicative
position. According to Aoun and Li (2003), two bare nouns can be conjoined to become a complex bare predicate expressing a complex property
of individuals, whereas two NumPs cannot be coordinated to form a complex predicate. The examples in (34) are from Aoun and Li (2003).
(34) a. Laowang shi fu-xiaozhang jian mishu.
Laowang be vice-President and secretary
Laowang is vice President and secretary.
b.*Laowang shi yi ge fu-xiaozhang jian mishu.
Laowang be one Cl vice-President and secretary
Intended: Laowang is a vice president and secretary.
c.*Laowang shi yi ge fu-xiaozhang jian yi ge mishu.
Laowang be one Cl vice-President and one Cl secretary
Intended: Laowang is a vice President and a secretary.
In (34a), the subject Laowang has the property of both being a vice
President and being a secretary. In other words, a single individual instantiates two different properties or two different roles at the same time. However, such dual properties or dual-roles cannot be expressed by coordinating two NumPs (34b) or coordinating a NumP with a bare noun (34c).
110
Aoun and Li (2003:143) propose that the connective jian and can only
coordinate property- denoting nominals.
I show now that the copula shi be in Mandarin is at type
<<d,t>, <d,t>>, which requires a predicative interpretation of bare nouns,
e.g. an interpretation at type <d, t>.
When taking a broad look at Chinese copular constructions, one observes that Chinese copula shi be can not only take nouns as complements, as in (35), but also adjectives, as in (36a). In these cases, the copula
cannot be omitted.5
(35) a. Moby Dick *(shi) jing.
Moby Dick be whale
b. Moby Dick *(shi) yi
tiao
jing.
Moby Dick be one CL
whale
Both: Moby Dick is a whale.
(36) a. tian *(shi) lanse-de.
sky be blue
The sky is blue.
In contrast with (36a), adjectives can appear in predicative positions
without the copula if they are modified by a degree modifier, such as hen
very, as in (36b).
b. tian hen lan.
sky very blue
The sky is blue.
The difference between (36a) and (36b) with respect to the presence of
the copula does not concern us here. The fact of (36a), in connection with
the other facts, suggests that the interpretation of the copula shi be is like
that of be in English: the identity function P.P of type <<d,t>,<d,t>>.
Given that the copula shi is of type <<d,t>, <d,t>> and that Chinese bare
nouns denote kind terms, I suggest that the bare noun, when it occurs in
post-copula position must be type-shifted from its basic kind reading at
Note that the adjective blue can either be expressed by lan or lanse-de in Mandarin. The sentence in (36a) is not a cleft sentence, which is usually expressed by
shi de.
Bare predication
111
type k to the predicative reading, at type <d, t>, to fit into the predicative
position in copula clauses.
According to Chierchia (1998a, b), the kind denotation of nouns has a
corresponding predicative counterpart. Chierchia (1998a, b) argues that
this predicate is recoverable from the kind via a version of the Carlsonian
instantiation relation. He proposes that the predicate formation operation
>
maps each kind onto a denotation of type <d,t>: the set of instantiations
of the kind. Chierchia (1998b) defines the >operator as follows:
(37) > is the function from kinds to sets of individuals, such that for every
kind
> ?
( Pw) = {x: x YDPw}
= Pw
Let k be a kind. Then >k = x.x Y k. This means that >k is the set of
parts of k. Since the kind ?P is identified with the maximal entity in Pw:
>?
Pw is the set of parts of WDPw, x.x YD WDPw, which is just Pw. Hence,
>?
Pw=Pw.
Kinds and predicates can be seen as two modes of packaging the same
information. The working of > and ? is visualized in the picture below. I
assume that the property is interpreted in the actual world w.
(38)
Properties
{a, b, c}
Kinds
?
Pw
{a,b}{b,c} {a,c}
a b c
>
aWbWc
Pw
>
112
Bare predication
113
W?
Pw = SK(?Pw)
114
Thus, W applies to a kind ?P and gives you the set of subkinds of ?P according to partition . Note that by the partition, any two subkinds k and k
in the set W?P are non-overlapping. I can introduce the subkind relation
itself, as given in (43):
(43) k1Yk2 iff k1SK( k2)
(44) illustrates the derivation of the subkind predicative interpretation.
(44) a. haitun shi jing.
dolphin be whale
Dolphins are whales.
[kind interpretation]
b. NjingN=?whale
NhaitunN=?dolphin
c. SHIFT(NjingN)=W ?whale [subkind shifted predicative reading]
=SK(?whale)
= k.kY?whale
d. NshiN(SHIFT(NjingN))= P.P(k.k Y?whale)
= k.kY?whale
e. NshiN(SHIFT(NjingN)) (NhaitunN)=k.kY?whale (?dolphin)
=?dolphinY?whale
5.4. Post-copula bare nouns as predicates of kinds
I now proceed to the third type of copula clauses, where both the subject
and the post-copula bare noun are interpreted as kind terms, as in (45).
(45) a. xihongshi jiu shi fanqie.
love apple FOC be tomato
Love apples are tomatoes.
b. fanqie jiu
shi xihongshi.
tomato FOC be love apples.
Tomates are love apples.
This type of copula sentence is unlike the types of the copula clauses
that were discussed above. The post-copula bare noun denotes neither a set
of individuals, nor a set of subkinds of entities. To see the difference, note
Bare predication
115
that in this case I can neither insert an individual classifier nor a kind classifier before the post-copula bare noun:
(46) a.# xihongshi
love apple
b.# xihongshi
love apple
shi yi
zhong fanqie.
be one CLkind tomato
shi yi
ge
fanqie.
be one CL tomato
I claim that copula clauses like in (46) are identity sentences, in which
the copula shi be takes two kind terms as arguments, i.e. k1= k2. As Wiggins (1965) says, for a sentence to express an identity, is or = must
stand between two noun-phrases which, if they are distinct, are serving
independently of one another to make genuine references (see Higgins
1973:262). By this criterion, the evening star is the morning star and
Hesperus is Phosphorus do express genuine identities. Along this line, I
suggest that kind terms, being names of kind entities, are also able to make
genuine references and to establish an equational relation.
The question is how the kind term at type k can fit into a predicative
position, i.e. the post-copula position. As I saw above, Partee (1987) discusses proper names in copula sentences and proposes lifting with the type
shifting rule: IDENT: d<d,t>, where IDENT[]=x.(x=).
In our case I am dealing with bare nouns of type k. The only assumption I need to make is the plausible assumption that IDENT can lift expressions from type k to type <k, t>. Namely, IDENT: k <k,t>, where
IDENT[] = xk.(xk=).
In this case, I assume that the copula is P.P, of type <<k,t>,<k, t>>.
(47) a. xihongshi jiu shi fanqie.
love apple Foc be tomato.
Love apples are tomatoes.
b. N fanqieN= ?tomato
N xihongsiN= ?love-apple
NshiN= P.P
c. IDENT(?tomato) = xk.(xk =?tomato)
d. Nshi fanquiN= NshiN( IDENT(NfanguiN) )
=P.P( xk.( xk =?tomato) )
=xk.(xk =?tomato)
e. Nshi fanquiN(N xihongshi) = xk.(xk =?tomato) (?love-apple)
= (?love-apple = ?tomato)
116
(47) expresses that the kind love apple is identical to the kind tomato. It
is an identity sentence, where the copula shi be connects two kind terms.
The two bare nouns are interchangeable with each other: the kind love
apple is identified with the kind tomato in (45a) and the kind tomato with
the kind love apple in (45b). This type of copula clauses is commonly used
to introduce new things or new names of entities to people who do not
know them. For example, people may know what fanqie is but they do not
know xihongshi, so by saying (45a), the two are identified.
To summarize so far, in this section, I have examined the interpretational variability of Chinese bare nouns in post-copula positions. They
have at least three different interpretations: sets of individuals, sets of subkinds or kinds. I argued that the kind reading is the basic reading of Chinese bare nouns, and that in all three cases, predicative interpretations are
derived from the kind interpretation by natural type-shifting operations. I
formulated these three operations. The copula shi is just interpreted as the
identity function. Its only semantic function is to trigger the appropriate
type shifting operation.
117
1985, D.X. Shi 1992, Tsai 1994, Yuan 1996, Xu and Liu 1998, Cheng and
Sybesma 1999, R. Yang 2001, Y.Z. Shi 2002 and many others. It is beyond
the scope of the book to review all the relevant literature. In what follows, I
will synthesize some of the findings made by those linguists to give us
some idea under what condition or in what contexts the definite reading of
bare nouns is available.
Assuming that the grammatical meaning of subject and predicate in a
Chinese sentence is topic and comment, Chao (1968: 76) claims that there
is a very strong tendency for the subject to have a definite reference and
the object to have an indefinite reference. Since the subject sets the topic
of the talk and the predicate gives the information by adding something
new, the subject is likely to represent the known while the predicate introduces something unknown (ibid). The following pattern exhibited in
(48) and (49) is noted by Chao (1968: 76).
(48) a. wo yao qing ke.
I want invite guest
I want to invite guests.
b. ke
lai
le.
guest come PRF
The guest has come.
OR The guests have come.
(49) a. nar you shu?
where there-be book
Where are there books? / where is there a book?
b. shu zai nar?
book at where
Where are the books?/ where is the book?
As we can see from (48a) and (49a), when the bare noun is a postverbal
position, it has an indefinite reading, but when the bare noun is in a preverbal position, it has a definite reading, as in (48b) and (49b).
Li and Thompson (1981: 86) argue that nouns that are unmarked for
definiteness are always interpreted as definite or generic when they are
topics... In (50), the bare noun gou dog is the syntactic object of the verb
kan see, and it is also the topic of the whole sentence. It can either have a
definite reading (50a) or a kind reading (50b), but not an indefinite reading
(50c).
118
le.
PRF
le.
PRF
119
subject, shu book, yifu clothes and fan meal, are objects of the sentence, but they move from their base-generated postverbal object positions
to preverbal positions, such as the position between subject and verb. This
movement is a form of topicalization of the object. Semantically, these
objects are presupposed by the interlocutors to be known and they have a
definite interpretation. For example, the bare nouns shu, yifu and fan in (51)
mean the book, the clothes and the meal respectively. These expressions are called secondary topics, which stand in a certain relation with
the primary topic, like a possessive relation.
The examples in (52) illustrate the ba construction in Mandarin Chinese,
where bare nouns following ba have a definite reading.
(52) a. ta yijin
ba zuoye
zuowan
she already OM homework finish
She has finished her homework.
b. ta you
ba yifu
mai le.
she again OM clothes sell PRF
She sold her clothes again.
c. women yijin
ba
fan zuohao
we
already OM meal make
We have made the meal.
le.
PRF
le.
PRF
The ba construction is a construction found in Mandarin Chinese (similar constructions are found in other Chinese languages). Chinese is a SVO
language, in which objects usually follow the verb. Sometimes, if the sentence expresses a causative meaning and the object is definite, the object
can be preposed to a preverbal position and marked by the object maker ba ,
which originally means take or hold. For example, the objects after ba
in (52), zuoye, yifu and fan mean the homework, the clothes and the meal
respectively. The ba-construction is similar to the construction shown in
(52), in which the preposed object functions like a secondary topic (Li and
Thompson 1981).
I can thus make the following generalization: when a bare noun in Chinese functions as a primary topic (sentential initial position) or secondary
topic (including BA constructions), it always has a definite reading.
120
121
122
123
Within the scope of this book, I am not going to take the issue any further, and I leave further discussion of definite interpretations of bare nouns
for further research.
Part II:
Functions of classifiers: counting and measuring
Chapter 6
Counting and measure functions of classifiers
1. Introduction
In this chapter, I discuss the semantics of classifiers in Chinese. I am not
concerned with the lexical meanings of different classifiers, but with the
properties that characterize the interpretation of classifiers as a class, or put
differently, the interpretative function of classifiers as an independent category. Concerning the semantics of classifiers, I develop two arguments.
First, I propose that classifiers have two basic functions, counting and measuring. Secondly, I claim that the counting function and the measure function of classifiers are distinguishable at the level of syntax in Chinese.
In chapter 2, I introduced several lexical classifications of classifiers,
e.g. a distinction between classifiers and measure words (Tai and Wang
1990), between sortal and mensural classifiers (Lyons 1977, Tang 2005),
and between count and mass classifiers (Cheng and Sybesma 1998). I argue here that the semantic distinction between the counting use and the
measure use of classifiers is a more crucial and fundamental distinction
within the Chinese classifier system.
Previous lexical analyses of classifiers in Chinese assumed that it is the
semantic role of all classifiers to make explicit a set of relevant units in the
denotation of the noun in terms of which to count. In this, two groups of
classifiers are distinguished, based on two different ways in which those
units are determined: count classifiers or sortal classifiers are assumed to
pick out a set of units based on the inherent properties of the entities in the
noun denotation; mass classifiers or mensural classifiers are assumed to
impose a unit structure on the noun denotation (for discussion, see the literature cited above). Against this, I assume, following Rothstein (2009,
2010), that counting and measuring are two very different semantic operations, associated with two different syntactic structures, and that the crucial
distinction between classifiers is which of the operations they naturally
take part in. This distinction cuts across the lexical subclasses of classifiers,
although it is not unrelated to that classification, since some lexical classes
128
of classifiers have primarily the counting use, others have by default the
measure use, some have both, and some have neither.
To my knowledge, Krifka (1995) is the only published paper discussing
the formal semantics of classifiers in Chinese in a detailed way.
Krifka (1995:400) proposes that Chinese classifiers denote functions
that map a kind onto a measure which measures the quantity of specimens
of that kind by counting them. Using the rule of functional application, he
represents the semantics of classifiers as follows.
For Krifka, a classifier is a measure expression M which denotes a
function that applies to a number (the denotation of a Num phrase) to form
the interpretation of a measure phrase MP:
(i) N[MP[Num][M]]N = N[M] N (N[Num]N)
The measure phrase applies to a noun to form a noun phrase:
(ii) N[NP [MP ] [N]]N =N[MP]N (N[N]N)
Hence, on this analysis, the classifier combines first with the number to
yield a Measure Phrase, and then in stage two, the Measure Phrase, Num+
Cl, applies to the Noun. Thus, in san tou daxiang three heads of elephants, the classifier tou head is a measure head which combine first
with the number san three to give the measure phase san tou three head,
which then combines with the nominal head daxiang elephant, to give
three head of elephants. On this analysis, counting is a special kind of
measuring, and classifiers are unambiguously measures.
In this book, I will argue for a semantics on which counting and measuring are different semantic functions of classifiers. Rothstein (2010) proposes that English count nouns are derived from root nouns Nroot via an
operation COUNTk, which maps Nroot onto a set of atomic entities of type
dk, which count as one in the context k. I propose that Chinese classifiers,
on the counting interpretation, are the lexical realization of the operation
COUNTk. For the measure reading, I will use the work of Krifka (1995),
Chierchia (1998a) and Landman (2004) to formulate a semantics of measures in which measures are functions from kinds to sets of instantiations of
the kinds that have a certain measure value.
I take the features [Counting] and [Measure] as features constraining
the default interpretations of classifiers. Four types of classifiers can be
distinguished:
[+C, -M] are classifiers that are by default counting operators;
[-C, +M] are classifiers that are by default measuring operators;
[+C, +M] are classifiers that can naturally be used as either operation;
129
[-C, -M] are kind classifiers, whose interpretation falls outside the operations of counting and measuring in the domain of individuals.
In this chapter, these features are still purely classificatory. Later in the
book, we will see that the features reflect information in the lexical entry
of the classifier.
In section 2 of this chapter, I introduce the counting and the measure
functions of classifiers with some cross-linguistic data. In sectin 3, discusses the counting and measure functions of container classifiers in Mandarin. A syntactic distinction of these two readings will also be offered. In
section 4, I propose the feature system [Counting, Measure] for classifiers. Section 5 gives the semantics of the counting and measure functions of
Chinese classifiers. Finally, this chapter is summed up in section 6.
English
a. John carried three bottles of water home.
b. I poured three bottles of water into the soup.
[Counting]
[Measure]
130
The verb carry in the example of (1a) forces a counting reading: carrying requires the water to be carried in something, a container, hence (1a)
involves three concrete bottles, which are filled with water. On the other
hand, the preferred reading of (1b) is a measure reading, where what is
poured in the soup is not three bottles, but a quantity of water amounting to
three bottles, and it is irrelevant whether the pouring is done from three
concrete bottles of water or whether the same amount is poured from a jug.
Pustejovsky (1993) introduced the notion dotted type to represent
the sort of an expression that simultaneously incorporates two distinct
sorts: in a case like this, one might argue that we can refer simultaneously
to the container and the substance contained in it (cf. Partee and Borchev
2012: 458). In the current research, I do not treat the dotted type as a seprate type, but as a counting reading. The phrase refers to a complex entity,
i.e. a container contained with stuff. It is a counting reading.
The two-way contrast of container classifiers between counting and
measuring readings is found crosslinguistically. The examples in (2) and (3)
give an illustration of the Russian and the Hebrew cases respectively.
According to Partee and Borschev (2012), in Russian, the noun butylku
bottle can either refer to the container itself or an abstract measure unit.
Speficially, accompanying verbs may select for one or the other, as in (2):
(2a), with break, is most likely understood as referring to the container,
and example (2b), with drink, favors reference to the content and the
container bottle does not have to show up physically. The modifier pol
half also forces a measure reading, in that it only refers to half of a designated quanity but not a broken bottle.
(2)
Rothstein (2009) argues that the counting and measure readings are expressed by two different constructions in Modern Hebrew. The Free Genitive construction only has a counting reading (as in 3a), while the Construct State construction is ambiguous between a counting reading and a
measure reading (3b). This suggests that in Hebrew, the contrast between
counting and measuring readings is syntactically encoded.
(3)
a. (alo) kosot
el mayim
(three) cup(f.pl.) of water
b. (alo) kosot
mayim
(three) cup(f.pl.) water
Both: three cup s of water
131
Back to the English case. Rothstein (2009) argues that, even though
there is no grammatical encoding of the distinction between counting and
measure readings in English, it is a real semantic distinction. There is
enough morphosyntactic evidence to draw these two readings apart. The
following observations are due to Rothstein (2009: 110-111).
Measure suffix: On the measure reading, the suffix -ful can often be
added to the classifier; with the suffix, the classifier cannot express an
individuating reading.
(5)
Pronominalization: Plural individuating classifiers can naturally be antecedents for individuating pronouns; measure classifiers cannot:
(6)
132
(7)
Taking into account the fact of number agreement, the infelicity of (7)
may be partly due to that the plural pronoun they used. They in the second
clause is supposed to be anaphoric with the plural noun cups but not with
wine in the first clause, which forces a counting reading. It is thus contradictory with the measure context construed in the first clause.
Distributivity: the distributive operator each can distribute to the individuals in the denotation of individuating classifier expressions, as in (9a),
but is infelicitous with measure phrases, as in (9b-c).
(9)
133
(quantity reading)
(container reading)
134
their relation is represented by the copula BE, while on the counting reading, they embody a containment relation HAVE, which can be decomposed
into an incorporation of a preposition and be. That is, P+BE = HAVE. This
syntactic approach nicely captures the interpretational difference between
counting and measuring, but it fails to reflect the constituent relations between numeral and classifier. In Corver (1998), the numeral (or determiner)
always taken to be the head of an independent projection, e.g. D0 and it
does not form a single consitutent in either case. I think that this cannot be
correct.
More recently, Rothstein (2009), following Landman (2004), assume
that (11a) is the correct structure for the counting reading and (11b) is the
correct structure for the measure reading. Note that of insertion is presumed to be a late phenomenon taking place to satisfy surface constraints
and projecting no PP node.
(11) a. Counting reading
DP
D
threei
b. Measure reading
DP
NumP
Num
ti
N
bottles (of)
NP
NP
NP
water
MeasP
Num
NMeas
three bottles (of) water
135
136
and one in the right. In contrast, in (12b), liang ping jiu can only be interpreted with a measure reading, which means that the maximal amount of
red wine that he can drink is two bottles. It means that he can drink 1500ml
of red wine if I assume each bottle is 750 ml. In this case, the real bottles
are not required to be present and the counting reading is not available.
The two readings of container ClPs are sensitive to different syntactic
contexts in Chinese. In other words, in some contexts some classifiers
strongly prefer one reading over the other and different classifiers in some
syntactic contexts prefer to have one reading over another. I discuss four
kinds of syntactic contexts.
First, the Cl+N construction is the construction where the classifiernoun phrase is used without a numerical. In this construction the classifier
can have a counting interpretation, but not a measure interpretation. Yip
(2008) uses this test to distinguish classifier like ge from true measure
words like mi meter. I extend Yips argument to distinguish between the
counting and the measure reading of [+Counting, +Measure] classifiers.
(13) a. wo ling le
ping jiu.
[Mandarin]
I carry PFV CLbottle wine
I carried a bottle of wine.
b.* ta-de jiuliang
shi ping
hong-jiu.
his drinking-capacity be CLbottle red wine
Intended: His drinking capacity is a bottle of red wine.
As shown in (13), the Cl+N construction is only possible in the
counting context, as forced out by the verb ling carry in (13a), but not in
the measure context of (13b). Moreover, in Mandarin, Cl+N is used in
postverbal position and has an indefinite reading. Ping jiu in (13a) can only
mean a bottle of wine.
However, in some Chinese languages, the Cl+N construction can
have a definite interpretation (see Shi and Liu 1985, Li and Bisang 2012
for Wu; see Cheung 1972, Cheng and Sybesma 1999 for Cantonese). The
data from Wu in (14) show that the definite Cl+N construction is possible only when container classifiers have a counting reading, as in (14a) and
not a measure reading, as in (14b). This holds for the Cl+N construction
in Cantonese (Yip 2008).
137
138
In (16a), duo expresses that the number of individual bottles (filled with
red wine) is more than ten, i.e. (16a) has a counting reading. (16b) has a
measure reading: it expresses that the overall quantity of wine that his stomach can hold is more than ten bottles: here ping is understood to mean
bottleful, i.e. it has a measure reading.
(17) a. ta zonggong he le you san ping duo hongjiu. [measure]
he altogether drink PFV have three CLbottle more red wine
He drank more than three bottles of red wine.
b. # ta ling le shi ping
duo hongjiu.
he carry PFV ten CLbottle more red wine
Intended: He carried more than ten bottles of red wine.
In (17a), the most natural reading is the measure reading. It means that
the overall quantity of wine is larger than a certain value, e.g. three bottles.
The concrete bottles are irrelevant. Similarly, (17b) is infelicitous unless
you force it into the measure reading: pour the wine in a big container and
then carry it. Thus Cl duo N forces a measure interpretation on the classifier phrase.
The third context concerns the particle de. While Num-Cl-N can be ambiguous between a counting and a measure reading (as in 18a), the particle
de can induce a measure reading for some classifiers, in particular container classifiers, as Cheng and Sybesma (1998) argue (as in 18b). However,
the particle de can not occur between Num and Cl, as (18c) shows.
(18) a. san ping shui
[Counting or Measure: our observation]
three CLbottle water
three bottles of water
b. san
ping de shui [Measure: Cheng and Sybesma 1998]
three CLbottle DE water
three bottles of water
c.* san de ping shui
three DE CLbottle water
(19a) is a typical counting context, in which the verb kai open requires
concrete containers. It is impossible to have de after the classifier in this
case. In contrast, (19b), with the verb zhuang-xia contain/hold, talks
about the volume of the container and it is thus concerned with quantity of
wine only. It is a measure context and it can have an optional de.
139
140
ClP
b. Measure reading
NP
ClP
ClCounting NP
Num
pingbottles shuiwater santhree
ClMeasure
pingbottle
shuiwater
There are two differences between our structures in (22) and those in
(11).
First, I do not analyze ping bottle as a noun but as a classifier. In chapter 2, I argued that Chinese classifiers constitute a category separate from
nouns, and that they have an independent projection of ClP. In this, Chinese classifiers differ from English ones which still retain nominal features.
Hence, in Chinese, the classifier always projects into be the head of the
141
functional projection ClPs, both in the counting and in the measuring structure.
Second, I do not posit a DP structure for Numeral Classifier phrases in
Chinese. There are obvious syntactic differences in NumPs between English and Chinese. Chinese NumPs cannot be used in argument positions
like the subject position, while English NumPs occur unproblematically in
subject position (cf. the discussion in Chapter 5):
(23) a. Three bottles of water stand on the table.
b.* san ping
shui
zai zhuo shang.
three Cl-bottle water at table on
Intended: Three bottles of water are on the table.
The ill-formed sentence (23b) can be made grammatical by inserting an
existential quantifier you there be at the beginning of the sentence, as in
(23c):
c. you
san ping shui zai zhuo shang.
there-be three Cl-bottle water at table on
There are three bottles of water on the table.
In view of these differences, I propose that NumPs in Chinese are always predicates, while NumPs in English can be arguments or predicates.
This means that it is possible for English NumPs but not Chinese NumPs to
have a DP level.
I now show how these two different structures in (22) are justified by
the four contexts I presented in Section 3.1.
The first fact presented was that in the Cl+N construction, the classifer
could only have a counting interpretation (as illustrated by the examples in
(13) and (14)). The structure in (22) accounts for this fact, because on the
counting reading the classifier heads the projection of ClP, which can then
be a complement of a higher functional projection NumP.
But the projection NumP does not have to be projected in all cases. (I
will argue in Chapter 9, that the indefinite phrase Cl+N has a maximal
projection ClP and has no NumP above it.) In this case, the cluster Cl+N
is interpreted as semantically atomic, and the singularity is implied by the
semantics of the cluster and not by an explicit number.
In contrast, on the measure reading, the numeral is part of the complex
modifier of Num-Cl; it is impossible to drop any internal element of the
complex modifier, and the whole constituent including the lexically rea-
142
lized Num is adjoined to NP. Num +Cl modify the NP, thus a string containing Cl+N as a constituent cannot be a realization of the measure
structure.
The second fact is that Num+duo+Cl+N has both counting and the
measure readings, while Num+Cl+duo+N has measure reading only, as
shown in (15)-(16).
The structures proposed readily provide an account for these facts. The
modifier duo is an additive modifier which means more and can only
modify constituents that express quantity (or degree). Numbers are obviously quantity expressions, but classifiers express units of counting or
measuring and do not themselves express quantity. NPs do not express
quantity either. I assume that this means that duo can be adjoined to Num
in both counting and measuring readings. Thus, when the word order is
Num+duo+Cl+N, with duo as a modifier of the Num, I can treat Num-duo
as the head of a counting structure: [[Num Num-duo] [Cl+N]], which leads to
a counting reading. Alternatively, I can let Num-duo form a modifier with
the classifier: [[[Num Num-duo] +Cl] N], which leads to a measure reading.
When duo occurs after the classifier, that is when the word order is
Num+Cl+duo+N, it can only be interpreted as a modifier of the complex
NumP [NumP Num Cl], since by assumption it cannot modify the classifier,
and anyway nothing can intervene between the classifier and its complement. Hence, only the measure structure allows duo to be realized in this
position: [[NumP[Num+Cl] duo ] N].
The third fact was that Num-Cl-N is ambiguous between a counting and
a measure reading, while Num-Cl-de-N only has a measure reading (as
discussed in (19) and (20)). The explanation is similar to the previous case.
The Mandarin modification marker de can, as the descriptive name suggests, only occur with modifiers, not with other syntactic constituents. If
so, it follows that de can occur after the classifier in the measure structure
(22b), since there the classifier is part of a modifier phrase, but not in (22a),
because there the classifier is not part of a modifier phrase. Hence when de
is inserted, only the measure structure is available.
The fourth fact discussed was that classifiers can be reduplicated on the
counting reading, but not on the measure reading (as shown in (20)-(21)).
I point out here a related fact. The measure classifier cannot be reduplicated and have an anaphoric relation to antecedent Num-Cl-N, as repeated
in (24a). But if the reduplicated classifier is followed by the noun, then the
acceptablity of the sentence is improved, as in (24b). 1
1
143
144
Assuming that counting and measure are the two basic functions of
classifiers, I propose to take [Counting] and [Measure] as features constraining the way classifiers can be interpreted and syntactically realized.
With these two features, we predict four types of classifiers: [+C, -M] classifiers are by default counting classifiers, [-C, +M] classifiers, which are
by default measure classifiers, [+C, +M] classifiers for which measure and
counting readings are equally available, and [-C, -M] classifiers, which can
neither count nor measure individuals. I show that all the four types of
classifiers are instantiated in the language.
145
In these classifier phrases, the classifier and the noun stand in a relation
that is constrained by selectional restrictions. The property expressed by
the classifier, e.g. shape, dimension etc., must be semantically compatible
with the shape of entities in the denotation of N. I suggest that the classifiers make available the atomic structure of the entities in the denotation of
the N and specify a natural counting unit for these entities.
This idea about the semantics of [+C, -M] classifiers is close to the
function of what Lyons (1976) calls sortal classifiers, or classifiers that
go with counting or atomic predicates. It is important to stress, however,
that in the present account the [+C, -M] feature characterizes the semantic
function of the classifier, and not the kind of noun it combines with. Although nouns denoting discrete atomic entities naturally occur as the complements of [+C,-M] classifiers, the classifier does not require the noun
complement to denote a set of discrete entities. Thus, individual classifiers
can also take as complements abstract nouns, or nouns denoting homogeneous entities. In this case, the classifier picks out a set of contextually
relevant minimal entities which instantiate the kind denoted by the noun.
For instance, the classifier duo blossom can not only modify nouns
like hua flower, but also nouns which have some flower-like characteristics like yun cloud or mogu mushroom:
(26) a. yi
duo
yun
one CLblossom cloud
a blossom of cloud
b. yi duo
mogu
one CLblossom mushroom
a blossom of mushroom
The noun cloud is homogeneous in the sense that it does not have an inherent unit of counting associated with it. For speakers of English, the idea
that a noun like cloud is homogeneous is perhaps counterintuitive, since in
English, cloud is a count noun, and we are used to think of singular count
nouns in English as denoting sets of inherently atomic entities. However,
as showed earlier in Chapter 4, nouns like boy or furniture denote discrete
entities, and those like water and fence denote homogeneous entities. I
argued that the grammatical distinction between count and mass nouns is
independent of the ontological distinction between discreteness and homogeneity. Rothstein (2010) argues explicitly that the naturally atomic/nonnaturally atomic distinction is orthogonal to the count/mass distinction.
Although cloud is a count noun in English, it does not imply that the noun
146
denotes a set of inherently individuable atomic clouds, which can be directly counted. The boundaries of clouds are often not clearly defined, and
there will be no absolute agreement as to how they are to be counted. In
Rothsteins terms, a context-dependent decision must be made as to what
counts as one cloud before they can be counted one by one. The interpretation of the plural form clouds is dependent on the choice of the denotation
of the singular. The apparent atomicity of nouns like fence (and cloud in
our discussion) is context dependent (Rothstein 2010).
Another example is concerned with the individual classifier tiao. It
usually modifies thin, long-shaped entities. (27a) and (27b) illustrate the
prototypical cases, in which it modifies three-dimensional entities like
chong worm and two-dimensional entity, like he river, while in (27c), it
modifies an abstract noun, shengming life.
(27) a. yi
one
b. yi
one
c. yi
one
tiao chong
CL worm
tiao he
CL river
tiao shengming
CL life
What is important here is that [+C, -M] classifiers combine with nonnaturally atomic predicates like yun cloud or abstract entities like
shengming life, in addition to naturally atomic predicates as a more general case.
I thus suggest that the individuation function of [+C, -M] classifiers are
crucially derived from the semantics of the classifier itself, and not from
the structural properties of the denotation of the complement noun.
Note also that on the individuating or counting function, the classifier
does not imply any information about the quantity, weight, length or volume of the entities it counts. We do not know how heavy a blossom of
cloud is when we say yi pian yun a piece of cloud. Thus [+C, -M] classifiers simply provide a counting unit, and make available a set of atomic
countable entities, but do not give a way of measuring them along any other dimension. Even when they combine with homogeneous expressions,
these classifiers allow us to say how many but not how much.
As we will see later, [+C,-M] classifiers can occur in some measure
contexts. But these cases are highly restricted, mainly recipe contexts. I
regard such uses as highly context-dependent, non-default uses. I discuss
them in section 4.3 and in chapter 8.
147
148
149
ure readings are equally available for [+C, +M] classifiers, although context may favor one or the other. [+C, +M] classifiers include container
classifiers, group classifiers and partition classifiers.
For example, the container classifier ping bottle in (31) can either
mean a concrete bottle or an abstract measure unit.
(31) wo he le yi
ping hongjiu.
I drink PFV one CLbottle red wine
I drank a bottle of wine.
In the counting reading, (31) means that I drank (some of) wine out of a
particular bottle. Note that perfective markers in Chinese do not express
telicity in the way such markers do in other languages. Here, the perfective
marker le (31) does not imply a telic event (see Soh and Kuo 2005): (31)
does not express that the bottle of wine got finished.
In the measure reading, I drank the quantity of a bottle, i.e. 750 ml of
red wine. In this case, the event is a telic event. It doesnt mean that I drank
some of 750 ml, but the full amount.
Since I have already discussed the ambiguity of container classifiers in
the sections 3, I here discuss partition classifiers (as in 32) and group classifiers (as in 33). I show that they too are ambiguous between a counting
and a measure interpretation.
(32) a. ta di le
san
di
Este Lauder,
she drip PFV three CLdrop Este Lauder,
e-tou,
liang jia
ge
yi di.
forehead, two-cheeks each one CLdrop
She dripped three drops of Este Lauder essense: one on the forehead and two on the cheeks.
b. jiu nongdu
eryan, san di
xin de
Este Lauder
FOC concentration as:for three CLdrop new Mod Este Lauder
xiangdang yu jiu de yi di.
equivalent to old Mod one CLdrop
As for the intensity, three drops of the new Este Lauder essence is
equivalent to one drop of the old Este Lauder.
150
(33) a. you
liang pai xuesheng chao
wo zou-lai,
there-be two CL student toward me walk-come
qianmian yi pai, houmian yi dui.
front
one CLrow back
one CLrow
Two rows of students are walking toward me. One in the front and
on in the back.
b. zhe-ge jiaoshi
zhi neng rongxia liang pai xuesheng.
this-CL classroom only can contain two CLrow student
This classroom can only hold two rows of students.
(32a) and (33a) show counting readings of partition classifiers and
group classifiers. The classifier di drop in (32a) partitions the Este
Lauder essense into a plural entity composed of three drops. There must be
three separate drops on the face. In (33a), the expression that one on the
front and one on the back forces a count reading: there must be two distinctive rows of students.
In contrast, (32b) and (33b) express the measure reading. For example,
(32b) requires the amount of Este Lauder essense to be as much as three
drops, but it is not required that essense comes in three individuated drops.
Similarly, (33b) only requires the number of students to be as many as two
rows, though they may be sitting together.
Hence, container Cls, group Cls and partition Cls indeed are equally
open for counting and measure readings in different contexts. On the
counting reading, the classifiers indicate how the plural entities or mass
entities are packed or accumulated into single units. On the measure reading, they express the quantity of plural entities or mass entities along a
certain dimension, e.g. weight or length.
151
b. san lei
shu
three CLclass book
three classes of books
Individual classifiers (and other types of non-kind classifiers) denote
sets of individuals. However, kind classifier phrases denote sets of entities
of a different type. They denote sets of subkind entities. I showed in Chapter 5 that bare nouns in Mandarin denote kinds. I assume that the kind classifier turns the kind into a set of well-established subkind entities (see
Krifka 1995 for the semantics of kind classifiers in Chinese). This means
that kind classifiers neither count nor measure individuals, which is what
makes them [-C, -M].
The numeral before the kind classifier can only count the number of
subkinds of entities, not the number of individuals constituting the subkind.
For example, (34b) shows that the cardinalty of subkinds of book is three.
It does not matter how many books are in each type or how much book is
in each type.
Subkinds can be seen as plural entities (i.e. sums of the atoms) whose
members of a subkind must share the same natural properties. Crucially,
kind classifiers are sensitive to the (natural) properties of individuals but
not to their quantity, while other types of classifiers, like individual and
group classifiers, are sensitive to quantities. This difference is seen in (35)
and (36):
(35) a. yi ge ershi ke
de pingguo
one CL twenty gram DE apple
an apple of twenty grams
b. yi qun
ershi
ge de xuesheng
one CLgroup twenty CL DE student
a group of twenty students
[+C, -M]
[+C, +M]
152
(35a), the apple weighs 20 gram and in (35b), the group entity is composed
of twenty students. However, kind ClPs cannot take such modifiers to specify the numbers or the quantity of the instantiations of the relevant kinds,
as shown in (36).
The difference between kind classifiers and other types of classifiers is
also evidenced in (37). For example, yi qun dongwu a group of animals
and yi zhong dongwu a kind of animal are both instantiated by individual
animals, but the former requires enough instances for the animals to form a
group, while the latter, as a subkind, simply requires some instance which
is an animal. Look at the difference between (37a) and (37b).
(37) a.#wo kandao le liang qun dongwu, yi zhi mao he yi zhi gou.
I see
PFV two CLgroup animal one CL cat and one CL dog
I saw two groups of animal: one (individual) cat and one (individual) dog.
b. wo kandao le liang zhong dongwu: yi zhi mao he yi zhi gou.
I see PFV two CLkind animal one CL cat and one CL dog
I saw two kinds of animals: one (individual) cat and one (individ
ual) dog.
Liang qun dongwu two groups of animals in (37a) postulates the existence of a lot of animals, two different groups, each containing a large
enough number of animals. In contrast, (37b) with two kinds of animals
can be two animals, one of each kind.
I thus conclude that kind classifiers are not sensitive to quantity information of the entities. They have a categorization function, i.e. to categorize entities into different sorts or types. They neither count nor measure
individuals. They are [-C, -M] classifiers.
153
154
[-C, +M] classifiers patterns with [+C, +M] classifiers on the measure contexts.
First, the Cl-N construction only allows counting classifiers. This predicts that [+C, -M] classifiers, i.e. individual classifiers, can be used in
Cl+N construction, as shown in (38a-b), and that [-C, +M] classifiers, i.e.
true measure words, must always be accompanied by a lexically realized
Num, as shown in (38c-d). Note that Cl+N in Mandarin is indefinite, as
in (28a), and the one in Wu is definite, as in (38b).
(38) a. wo xiang mai ba dao.
[Mandarin]
I want buy CL knife
I want to buy a knife.
[Wu: Fuyang]
b. kiu ti
khunk.
CL dog PROG sleep
The dog is sleeping.
c.* wo xiang zou gongli
lu.
[Mandarin]
I want walk kilometer road
Intended: I want to walk one kilometer.
d.* di
lu o u f uan.
[Wu: Fuyang]
mile road I walk not finish
Intended: The mile of road, I cannot walk to the end of it.
Secondly, in the classifier phrase of [+C, -M] classifiers, the modifier
duo more can occur between Num and Cl, but not between Cl and N.
This is shown in (39). In the classifier phrase of [-C, +M] classifiers, the
element duo more occurs either between Num and Cl or between Cl and
N, as shown in (40).
(39) a. shi duo ge pingguo
ten more CL apple
more than ten apples
b.#/???shi ge duo pingguo
ten CL more apples
(40) a. na ge tong
zhuang le
shi duo gongjin pingguo
apple
that CL bucket contain PFV ten more CLkilo
That bucket contains more than ten kilos of apples.
b. na ge dong zhuang le
san gongjin duo pingguo
that CL bucket contain PFV three CLkilo
more apple
That bucket contains more than three kilos of apples.
155
Note that both examples of (40) have the measure reading. Since gongjin is a true measure word, the counting reading for Num-duo-Cl-N that I
observed for container classifiers is impossible in (40a).
Thirdly, [+C, -M] classifiers cannot be followed by the marker de,
while [-C, +M] classifiers can be naturally followed by the marker de.
(41) a.# you
san ge de pingguo cong louti shang gun xialai.
there-be three CL DE apple from stair on
roll down
Intended: Three apples rolled down from the stairway.
b. wo mai le
san gongjin de pingguo.
DE apple
I
buy PFV three CLkilo
I bought three kilos of apples.
Fourthly, [+C, -M] classifiers can be reduplicated, as in (42a), but [-C,
+M] do not. This is shown in (42b).
(42) a. ge-ge
pingguo duo hen tian.
CL-CL apple
all very sweet
Each apple is sweet.
b.# gongjin-gongjin pingguo dou hen tian.
kilo-kilo
apple
all very sweet
Each kilo of apples is sweet.
Next I look at group classifiers and partition classifiers, and study
whether they behave in the same way as container classifiers in the relevant syntactic contexts.
First, group and partition classifiers can be used in the form of Cl+N
only in the counting reading, not in the measure reading, as shown by the
contrasts in (43) and (44):
(43) a. you
pai xuesheng chao wo zoulai.
[group Cl]
there-be CLrow student toward me walk.
A row of students are walking toward me.
b.# zhe-ge jiaoshi
zhi neng rongxia pai xuesheng.
this-Cl classroom only can contain CLrow student
Intended: this classroom can only hold a row of students.
(44) a. wo-de bai tixu shang you
di moshui.
my white T-shirt on there-be CLdrop ink
There is a spot of ink on my white T-shirt.
[partiton Cl]
156
qun
CLgroup
kuai
CLpiece
de haizi
DE children
de
xigua
DE watermelon
[group Cl]
[partition Cl]
(48) a.# yi
one
b.# yi
one
qun
CLgroup
kuai
CLpiece
duo
more
duo
more
haizi
children
xigua
watermelon
157
[group Cl]
[partition Cl]
There are two different ways to account for these facts. One possibility,
based on the data in (47) and (48) is that we should treat container classifiers on the one hand and group and partition classifiers on the other as two
different types of classifiers. The other possibility is that they are the same
type of classifiers, but that there are extra constraints on the use of de and
duo which mean that they do not occur with group and partition classifiers.
I think that the second possibility is more plausible, because of the similarities between all three types of classifiers as shown in (43) to (45).
However, despite these similarities in behaviour, container classifiers
nonetheless differ semantically from group and partition classifiers. On the
counting function they make use of actual entities in the world to classify
(and thus count), while on the measure reading they assume that the volume of the container can be treated as directly analogous to a standard unit
of measure such as kilo or liter. I will give interpretations for container
classifiers in section 5 below. However, group and partition classifiers are
more complex. Group classifiers require constructing abstract entities (see
e.g. Landman 1989 and also the discussion in Rothstein 2010) and partition
classifiers require doing the inverse, i.e. imposing a part of structure on
instantiations of the kind (whether the instantiations are naturally atomic or
not). Giving a precise interpretation for these classifiers on both the counting and the measuring reading is thus considerably more difficult than giving an interpretation for container classifiers. We will not attempt it here,
but we do assume that the difficulty of using de and duo with group and
partition classifiers is related to the complexity of their interpretation.
I draw two conclusions:
(i) the counting reading and the measure reading can be distinguished
syntactically;
(ii) the tests support the classification which associates [+C,-M] with
the default interpretation of counting, [-C, +M] with the default interpretation of measuring, and [+C, +M] with classifiers that allow both counting
and measuring interpretations.
Since [-C, -M] classifiers are not associated with counting and measuring interpretations, the present tests are not relevant for this class.
158
159
ge
CL
tai
CL
xuesheng
student
diannao
computer
160
[Mandarin]
(53) a. jin
jin
pingguo/rou dou hen xinxian.
CLpound CLpound apple /meat all very fresh
Each pound of apples/meat is fresh.
b.*gongjin gongjin pingguo/rou dou hen xinxian.
CLkilo CLkilo apple meat all very fresh
Intended: Each kilos of apples/meat is fresh.
[Mandarin]
[Wu: Fuyang]
(54) a. tin
phiku /io man inin.
CLpound apple / meat very fresh
The kilo of apples/meat is very fresh.
b.* kutin phiku/io man inin.
CLkilo apple/ meat very fresh
Intended: The kilo of apples/meat is very sweet.
161
Default reading
Counting
Measure
Counting or Measure
162
163
b. san
zhi
xiong
three CL
bear
three (individual) bears
As we have seen at the beginning of this chapter, for Krifka a classifier
is a measure expression M which combines with a number phrase to form
the interpretation of a measure phrase MP:
(i) N[MP[Num][M]]N = N[M]N(N[Num]N)
And the measure phrase applies to a noun to form a noun phrase:
(ii) N[NP [MP ] [N]]N =N[MP]N (N[N]N).
The semantics for the measure phrases in (57a) and (57b) are given in
(58) and (59) respectively (Note that Krifka gives an intensional semantics,
which I have simplified here into extensional semantics.)
(58) a. NqunN =nkx.R(x, k) herd(x)=n
b. Nsan qunN =kx.R(x, k) herd(x)=3
c. Nsan qun xiongN =x.R(x, BEAR) herd(x)=3
(59) a.Nzhi N=nkx.R(x, k)NATURAL-UNITk(x)=n
b.Nsan zhi N=x. R(x, k) NATURAL-UNITBEAR (x)=3
c.Nsan zhi xiongN =x.R(x, BEAR) NATURAL-UNITBEAR(x)=3
There is a fundamental difference between (58) and (59).
(58) is a straightforward measure reading, where the classifier n herd
applies to a kind and yields a set of instantiations of the kind which measures n herds. In this semantic statement, (58c) is true of an object if it is a
plurality consisting of three herds of bears.
(59), on the other hand, is the equivalent of our counting reading, in
which the classifier counts the number of individual bears. This is encoded
by the natural unit operation which takes a kind and yields a measure
function that measures the number of specimens of that kind. In this semantic statement, (59c), is true of an object if it is a plurality of three individual bears.
Krifka does not discuss the dual functions of classifiers beyond positing
the Natural Unit function, nor does he discuss the fact that a single classifi-
164
er can have both a counting and a measure reading. According to the syntax he adopts and the semantics he proposes in (58) and (59), he treats the
counting reading as a particular kind of measure reading.
The structure and interpretation that Krifka gives, where the classifier
combines with the Num, and the whole modifies the noun, fits the structure
that I am proposing for the measure reading. I have argued, however, that
the counting reading of classifiers is built from a different syntactic structure. On the counting reading, the classifier takes the noun as a complement, and this structure is the complement of the NumP.
From this perspective, the analysis in Krifka (1995) cannot account for
the syntactic facts that I have discussed in this chapter.
165
166
undefined otherwise
b. Nunitk of furnitureN=Nunitk of N(NfurnitureN)
= x.1(x)(FURNITURE k)2(x)=k
Hence, the interpretation of unit of in k is like the function COUNTk, it
takes a set like FURNITUREroot and maps it onto the set of pairs of objects
<x, k>, where x is in FURNITURE k, on the assumption that k is a normal context where FURNITUREk is a set of non-overlapping objects.
Some classifiers add more lexical information than unit e.g. strands of
hair, cups of coffee and so on. Rothstein assumes that these add further
properties specified of the semantic atoms (66) (suppressing the definedness condition).
(66) a.NstrandkofN=Px.1(x)(Pk)LONG-AND-THIN(1(x))2(x)=k
b.Nstrandk of hairN = Nstrandk ofN(NhairN)
= x.1(x)(HAIR k)LONG-AND-THIN (1(x))2(x) = k
167
168
169
choice of relevant context k to be one in which there are enough flowerlike atomic clouds, as Rothstein (2010) implies.
I propose the interpretation schema in (78.a) as the general [+C, -M]
classifier interpretation schema. In this schema is the particular lexical
meaning of the classifier. Thus, the meaning of the classifier duo is the
one given in (78.b):
The semantic template for the counting function of a classifier is given
in (68a). As for the semantics of duo, I propose to compose the classifier
template with the nominal predicate duo blossom, in the lexicon to construct the classifier, which is then applied to the NP meaning. Remember
that k is a variable for kind and k is a variable for context.
(68) a. NClN=kx.1(x)( >k k)
(1(x))2(x)=k
b. NduoN=kx.1(x)( >k k)Blossom-form(1(x))2(x)=k
c. NyunN=?CLOUD
d.Nduo yunN
=x.1(x)(>?CLOUD)k)Blossom-form(1(x))2(x)= k
I propose that the property that the general classifier ge contributes to
the interpretation schema is the trivial property pow(D), which means that
the restricting conjunct is vacuous. This gives the following semantics to
the general classifier:
(69) a. NgeN= k x.1(x) (>k k) 2(x)= k
b. NgeN(NpingguoN)
= NgeN(?APPLE)=x.1(x)(>?APPLEk) 2(x)=k
I illustrate the counting reading of [+C, +M] classifiers with container
classifiers. In fact, their semantics is much easier to specify than that of
partition and group classifiers, since the latter involve second order individuation (see Landman 1989a, b, and discussion in Rothstein 2010). I
leave the semantics for future research.
The semantics of [+C, +M] works a bit differently from that of [+C, -M]
classifiers. I propose that [+C, +M] classifiers impose an external unit on
the instantiations of the kind denoted by N, when these instantiations N do
not come in inherent atomic units or inherent atomic unit are not relevant.
The difference is the following: in a [+C, -M] case like ge pingguo, the
noun phrase denotes an atomic set of apples, derived through the COUNT
function from k: the only thing you need to do in k is pick out the relevant
170
k entities that are apples. So, the constraint on 1(x) is that it belongs to
>?
APPLEk. With container classifiers, the relevant k-units are determined
by the semantics of the classifier and not by that of the noun. That is, for
[+C, +M] ClPs, the semantic atom to be counted by the Num is determined
by the lexical property expressed by the classifier. I propose that there is a
relation CONTAIN for container classifiers on the counting reading, such
as ping bottle. I assume here a classifier schema as (70a), in which the
classifier determines what entities will count as atoms, and the kind complement only determines what the container contains:
(70) a. NClN=kx.1(x)(
k)CONTAIN(1(x),k)2(x) = k
b.NpingN=kx.1(x)(BOTTLE k)CONTAIN(1(x),k)2(x) = k
c. Nping shuiN=NpingN(NshuiN) =NpingN(?WATER)
=x.1(x) (BOTTLEk)CONTAIN(1(x),?WATER)2(x)=k
(In this, it needs to be specified what CONTAIN(x, k) means. I will not
be concerned with that here.)
Note that on the counting use, Cl+NP always denotes a set of atomic
entities, a set of singularities. As I will discuss in chapter 9, Cl+NP, like
duo hua CLblossom flower can indeed only refer to singular flowers, but
Cl+NP can be modified by a plural numeral, to express a plurality, as in
wu duo hua five Cl-blossom flowers. Following Rothstein (2010), O assume
that the numeral wu five denotes a function from count noun denotations
into count noun denotations of type <<dk, t>, <dk, t>> which requires a
semantically plural input:
(71) NwuN(Nk) =Px.P(x)|1(x)|k = 5
Wu denotes a function which applies to a count predicate Nk and gives
the subset of ordered pairs in Nk, where the first projection of each ordered
pair has five parts which count as atoms in k. I assume that this semantics
triggers semantic pluralization on the complement of wu. I give the semantic derivation of the plural classifier phrase of wu duo hua five CLblossom
flowers in (72) and (73):
(72) a. NhuaN=?FLOWER
b. NduoN=kx.1(x)(?k k)BLOSSOM(1(x)) 2(x) =k
c. Nduo huaN
= x.1(x)(>?FLOWER k)BLOSSOM(1(x))2(x) =k
171
172
6. Conclusions
In this chapter, I showed that classifiers can have a count function or a
measure function, according to the classification system [Counting,
Measure]. I showed that the measure and the counting functions of clas-
Conclusions
173
Chapter 7
Adjectival modification in classifier phrases:
pre-classifier adjectives
1. Introduction
In Mandarin, at least three types of adjectives can be distinguished in terms
of their syntactic positions in the nominal phrase, namely, adnominal adjectives, pre-classifier adjectives and left-peripheral adjectives (this term
is due to Zhang 2012). Adnominal adjectives are those immediately preceding nouns, as in (1a), and pre-classifier adjectives refer to those occurring between numeral and classifier, as in (1b), and left-peripheral adjectives are those appearing on the left most of the nominal phrase, i.e. before
the (demonstrative-)numeral-classifier-noun cluster, as in (1c).
(1) a. yi
ge [hen da de] xigua
one CL very big Mod watermelon
b. yi [da] ge xigua
one big CL watermelon
c. [hen da de] yi ge xigua
very big Mod one CL watermelon
a very big watermelon
[adnominal adj]
[pre-classifier adj]
[left-peripheral adj]
Introduction
175
tives? That is, under what situation can they be used? (ii) What are their
proper interpretations? Can they still be interpreted intersectively?
In chapter 3, I showed that the presence of adjectives before classifiers
cannot be taken to be one of the diagnostics to distinguish two types of
classifiers, i.e.mass and count classifiers, as Cheng and Sybesma (1998)
propose. In chapter 6, I argued for a distinction between the counting and
measure functions of classifiers. In this chapter, following the discussion in
chapter 6, I propose that it is more appropriate to use the distinction between counting and measure functions of classifiers to account for the distributions and the functions of pre-classifier adjectives.
I make three points about the distribution and the semantics of preclassifier adjectives in Chinese:
First, I argue that pre-classifier adjectives appear before classifiers in
counting contexts: before [+C, -M] and [+C, +M] classifiers (on their
counting interpretation), but not before [-C, +M] or [-C, -M] classifiers.
Second, I argue that, while pre-classifier adjectives precede the classifier and the noun at surface structure, they do not stand in a direct modification relation to the classifier or the noun. I propose that pre-classifier adjectives modify the complex constituent Cl+N (also see Corver 1998 for the
discussion on pseudo-partitives in Dutch). Since I argued that there is no
Cl+N constituent in measure phrases, this gives a natural explanation for
why pre-classifier adjectives do not appear in measure expressions.
Third, I argue that pre-classifier adjectives like da/xiao big/small have
expressive meanings la Schlenker (2007): they express that the speaker
regards the atomic entity in the denotation of Cl+N to be big or small
from a particular perspective chosen by him or her.
This chapter makes a systematic examination of the syntactic and semantic properties of pre-classifier adjectives. Section 2 discusses the situation where adjectives can be used before classifiers. In section 3, I examine
the modification relation of pre-classifier adjectives. I rule out the possibility that pre-classifier adjectives modify the classifier or the noun. In section
4, I first present the relevant contexts in which pre-classifier adjectives can
be used and then address the syntactic issue of what constituent preclassifier adjectives modify. In section 5, I discuss the semantics of preclassifier adjectives.
176
[mass classifiers]
(3) a.# yi
one
b.# yi
one
[count classifiers]
da
big
da
big
wei
CL
zhi
CL
laoshi
teacher
gou
dog
177
with pre-classifier adjectives. Confirming this, the examples in (5) and (6)
are judged to be completely unacceptable by the native speakers I consulted.
(5) a.* ta
he
b.* ta
he
he
drink
zou
walk
le
PFV
le
PFV
yi
one
yi
one
da
big
da
big
jing
baijiu.
CLpound liquor
gongli
lu.
CLkilometer road
dongwu
animal
1
zhiwu
plant
[-C, +M]
[-C, -M]
178
179
icine. (10) is not true if he put the three bowls of medicine into a big container and drank it in one go. Clearly, then, container classifier wan bowl
has a counting reading.
The Russian example (11) is preferably interpreted with a concrete portion reading. It emphasizes the quantity of stuff, but meanwhile it requires
the existence of two concrete containers, as expressed by the demonstrative
ti. According to Partee and Borchev (2012:473), this concrete portion
reading arises from the reference to the container by a form of metonymy
which has become conventionalized for all container words, from container
to contents. It is not immediately clear whether the concrete portion reading has a counting reading or a measure reading. In Partee and Borchevs
analysis (2012: 474), it is treated as a special kind of counting reading in
our terms.
The Concrete Portion reading is close to the measure readings and involves
the same syntax but does not express measure. We think that it might be
better to have an analysis in which the Concrete Portion reading could be
subsumed under the Container+Contents reading (i.e. the counting reading:
the authors note).
I take the same position as Partee and Borschev (2012) in treating Chinese classifier phrases with pre-classifier adjectives with a counting interpretation. Different from them, I also will give them a counting syntax and
a counting semantics in the latter discussion.
180
The examples in (12) and (13) bring out the contrast clearly that preclassifier adjectives go with counting classifiers but not measure classifiers
in Mandarin Chinese.
(12) a. ta shou shang na
zhe
yi ping futejia. [Counting]
he hand on
carry DUR one CLbottle vodka
He carried a bottle of vodka in his hand.
b. ta shou shang na
zhe yi da ping
futejia.
he hand on
carry DUR one big CLbottle vodka
He carried a big bottle of vodka in his hand.
(13) a. ta-de jiu-liang
shi yi ping futejia.
[Measure]
his capacity-for-liquor be one CLbottle vodka.
His capacity for liquor is one bottle of vodka.
b.# ta-de jiu-liang
shi yi da ping
futejia.
his capacity-for-liquor be one big CLbottle vodka.
Intended: His capacity for liquor is a large bottle of vodka.
The classifier ping bottle in (12a) has a counting reading: (12a) refers
to a concrete bottle filled with vodka. In this case, we can insert a preclassifier adjective da/xiao big/small, as in (12b), which expresses that
the bottle of vodka is a big entity from a perspective chosen by the speaker.2 However, in (13), the classifier phrase ping bottle is interpreted with
a measure reading and it denotes an abstract measure unit, say, 750mls,
where the insertion of adjective da/xiao before the classifier is impossible,
as in (13b).
In sum, when pre-classifier adjectives precede classifiers, the classifier
can only have a counting reading. Note that this does not mean that preclassifier adjectives are freely possible with [+Counting] classifiers in
counting contexts. I discuss the question of which counting contexts are
possible in section 3.
The claim made by the sentence that the bottle of vodka is a big entity can be
understood at least in two ways: it can mean that the weight of the vodka in the
bottle is too much for someone to carry, or it can mean that the volume of vodka in
the particular bottle is too much for someone to drink. More about this later.
181
(Alexiadou et al 2007:421)
182
not (14b), although they are used in the same syntactic context. Does that
mean that container nouns are sometimes lexical and sometimes functional?
This is not plausible. Second, it fails to give a clear answer whether N1 in
(14c), i.e. collection, is lexical or functional.
I think that size adjectives should be treated separately from other attributive adjectives. A more serious problem is concerned with the modification of size adjectives before N1. Morphemes like aantal in Dutch are
functional, but they can be modified by an evaluative adjective like leuk
nice (which in this case has the meaning of a size adjective). (16a) has
the same meaning as (16b).
(16) a. een leuk aantal
poppen
a nice number dolls
b. een grote aantal
poppen
a large number dolls
a large number of dolls
(Dutch: Vos 1999: 169, cf. Alexiadou et al 2007: 418)
I may find similar examples in English. For example, the noun number
is more likely to be treated to be functional, but it can be modified by the
attributive adjectives like decent or good (meaning sizable in this case).
Look at (17):
(17) A decent/good number of students attended the lecture.
It is clear from the examples of (16) and (17) that the nature of N1 being lexical or functional is not a decisive factor of using size adjectives like
big/small before N1 in pseudo-partitive constructions.
A more radical case regarding size adjectives is found in Greek. (18)
shows that the noun kuti box in Greek cannot be modified by the attributive adjective metaliko metal (18a), but it can be modified by size adjectives, such as meghalo big (18b).
(18) a.*ena
a/one
b. ena
a
metaliko kuti
metal
box
meghalo kuti
big
box
sokolates
chocolates
sokolates
chocolates
(Greek: Alexiadou et al 2007: 419)
183
If we follow Vos (1999), shall we treat kuti box as functional? Alexiadou et al (2007: 419) emphasize that the proper reading of (18b) is that
of a big number of chocolates, not that of saying that the size of the box
itself is big. So the adjective meghalo big does not modify the container
as expressed by the noun kuti. In othe words, size adjectives, unlike other
attributive adjectives before N1, which either express properties of N1 or
N2, do not behave like attributive adjectives to express properties of N1 or
N2.
I suggest that size adjectives before N1 in pseudo-partitive constructions be treated as a separate phenomenon, to be distinguished from other
attributive adjectives before N1. The presence of (size) adjectives has nothing to do with the lexical/functional make-up of N1.
184
In this section, I will show that any account based on the lexicalfunctional properties of the classifier is not able to capture the licensing
condition of pre-classifier adjectives, since, as I said above, preclassifier
adjectives do not express properties of N1 or N2. I will review Cheng and
Sybesma (1998), Zong (2009) and Zhang (2012).
Cheng and Sybesma (1998) argue that pre-classifier adjectives modify
what they call mass classifiers, and take this as evidence that mass classifiers are inherently nouns, which are borrowed to be classifiers. In their view,
pre-classifier adjectives cannot modify count classifiers, since these are
inherently functional.
In contrast, Zong (2009) claims that pre-classifier adjectives are available for both individual and non-individual classifiers, but pre-classifier
adjectives modify the noun complement if the classifier is an individual
classifier (adjective lowering in the sense of Zhang 2012), and the classifier itself if the classifier is a non-individual classifier, e.g. a container
classifier or a group classifier.
Here, I argue that (i) while pre-classifier adjectives appear in front of
classifiers in surface structure, they do not stand in any direct modification
relation to the classifier, and that (ii) pre-classifier adjectives cannot cross
the classifier head to modify the noun in Chinese.
In what follows, I will examine the modificational relation of preclassifier adjectives in [+C, -M] and [+C, +M] classifier phrases in section
3.2.1 and 3.2.2 respectively.
185
avoid ambiguity, I use the word container to refer to the concrete physical
containers referred to by container classifiers, and the word volume to refer
to the capacity of containers. So what Cheng and Sybesma call container,
I call volume.
(21a) expresses that there is a small quantity of wine contained in the
glass and (21b) that there is a big quantity of rice contained in the pot. According to Cheng and Sybesma (1998), large containers imply large quantities: the quantity of stuff contained in the big or small containers depends
on the actual volume of the container.
Against this, I note that the pre-classifier da/xiao does not express a size
property (i.e. actual volume) of the container, because, as shown in (22),
xiao small can be used, when the container is directly asserted to be big:
(22) ta jingchang yong na ge da bei he
jiu.
he always
use that CL big glass drink wine
buguo meici
dou zhi he
yi xiao bei.
but
everytime all only drink one small CLglass
He always uses that big glass to drink wine, but every time he only
drinks a small glass.
The classifier phrase yi xiao bei a small glass of wine can be used to
describe a situation where the glass itself is very small, so that even if the
whole glass is filled, there is only a small quantity of wine in it. But it can
also describe a situation where a big glass was used, but only filled with a
little bit of wine. And this is the situation described by (22). The word bei
glass occurs twice in (22). On the first occurrence, in da-bei, it is a noun,
referring to a concrete big sized glass. On the second occurrence, it is in
the classifier phrase yi xiao bei a small glass, where it does not refer to a
concrete glass but to the quantity. And (22) means that the quantity of wine
contained in the glass is small, not that the glass or its fixed volume, is
small.
In (23) I look at the abstract volume of containers. Suppose there are
two bowls of the same size and they are filled with the same amount of rice,
say, 200 grams. These two bowls of rice are served to a three-year old kid
and a basketball player. Each of them gets one bowl of rice. Generally
speaking, 200 grams of rice is a lot (too much) for a three-year old, but
maybe not so much (not enough) for a basketball player. We can use the
sentences in (23a) and (23b) to describe the kids and the athletes cases
respectively (note that I ignore the case where the child is extremely hungry and the athlete has no appetite at all).
186
(23) The stewardess in the airplane handed each passenger a bowl of rice:
a. na ge san shui de xiaohai chi le yi da wan fan.
that CL three-year Mod kid
eat PFV one big CLbowl rice
That three-year old kid ate a big bowl of rice.
b. na ge yundongyuan zhi chi le yi xiao wan fan.
that CL athelete
only eat PFV one small CLbowl rice
That athlete only ate a small bowl of rice.
If pre-classifier adjectives modify the classifier as a concrete container,
then there should be a big bowl in (23a) and a small bowl in (23b). But this
is not the case. If pre-classifier adjectives modify the classifier as an abstract volume, then the two bowls should contain different quantities of
rice, a large quantity for the kid, a small quantity for the basketball player.
This is also not the case. What the relevant expressions, yi da/xiao wan fan
a big/small Cl-bowl rice in (23) mean is that the rice served in the big bowl
is a large/small quantity for the relevant eater in view of his/her consumption ability in the context. This kind of quantity information is independent
of the actual size or volume of the container as expressed by the classifier.
Therefore, in [+C, +M] classifier phrases, pre-classifier adjectives do
not modify the classifier, regardless of whether the classifier refers to a
concrete container or an abstract volume.
187
188
jectives, and that the complex adj-N denotes a subkind. Hence, xiaohuangdou in (25a) refers to a subkind of soybean, the kind mini-soybean.
On the other hand, I propose that complex adjectives, like the one in (25b),
modify the set of instantiations of the kind, not the kind itself. So hen xiaode huangdou in (25b) means that the individual soybeans are small. In both
cases the adnominal da/xiao big/small specifies the physical size of the
entity/ies in the denotation of the head N: the difference lies in what entities these are.
Now, if I compare the ClP yi xiao li huangdou several small Clgrain of
soybeans in (27) with the ClPs in (25a) or (26), it is easy to see that the
interpretations are completely different.
(27) ni bie xiaokan zhe
ji
xiao li
huangdou.
you not belittle these several small CL grain soybean
Do not belittle these small grains of soybeans.
(27) does not mean that the actual size of the soybeans is small, but that,
say, in view of the painstaking efforts you devoted to growing them, what
you finally got was much smaller than should have been. Even if the soybeans that were cultivated are the biggest soybeans in the world, they
might be considered as little given the effort put in. Thus pre-classifier
adjectives before individual classifiers do not stand in a modification relation to the noun: they express personal evaluations of the denotation of
Cl+N, personal evaluation that is independent of the actual size of the
denotation of Cl+N.
Note that for non-individual classifiers, it is also impossible that preclassifier adjectives cross the classifier to modify nouns. The example in
(28) show that da/xiao big/small cannot cross the [+C, +M] classifier
head to modify the N complement:
(28) a. yi
da
ping shui
one big CLbottle water
a big bottle of water
b. yi da xiang xiao pingguo
one big CLbox small apple
a big box of small apples
The referent of the N complement shui in (28a) is a homogeneous entity
and it is impossible to say *da-shui big water or *xiao-shui small-water
(see the discussion on natural atomicity in Chapter 4). (28b) is felicitous: it
189
is the apples in the box that are small. Clearly, I cannot assume that preclassifier da big modifies the N as well, because that would be infelicitous, like *big small apples. And that is not what (28b) means.
More examples will be provided on the modificational relation of preclassifier adjectives with both [+C, -M] and [+C, +M] classifiers in section
4.
I conclude this section by arguing that pre-classifier adjectives in Chinese modify neither the classifier nor the noun, no matter whether the classifier is lexical or functional, individual or non-individual Cls.
I will show that pre-classifier adjectives modify Cl+N in section 4.
190
191
192
(32a) with adnominal da big means that the diamond itself is big w.r.t.
a certain standard, say, being 1.0 carats is considered to be a big diamond;
(32b) with pre-classifier da big means that the diamond is considered to
be a significant award for the employees in the eyes of the speaker, but the
diamond itself can be small, say, 0.3 carats.
Thus, in the context of significance, pre-classifier da/xiao big/small
express the speakers personal evaluation of the entity denoted by Cl+N
with regard to the significance of the entity in the context.
193
big painting. Thus, the adjective expresses a subjective evaluation from the
perspective of the evaluator.
In this context, the pre-classifier adjective highlights the contrast between the size of the painting and the evaluation norm.
Similarly, in (33b), the pre-classifier adjective da big highlights the
contrast between the small space of the house and the big size of the bed.
Given that there is not enough space for so much furniture, the bed is a
gigantic object for such a small room, it makes the room look even more
crowded. The pre-classifier adjective does comment on the beds actual
size: in a study of 8 m2, a small bed is big (and (33b) can be used), and it
makes the room look extremely crowded.
To sum up, pre-classifier adjectives like da/xiao big/small assign a
low or high value to the atomic entity in the denotation of Cl+N on a
certain scale like a scale of quantity, significance etc., from a particular
subjective perspective. Such a subjective/personal choice of context implies that pre-classifiers will show great variability regarding what subjective dimension the pre-classifier relates to.
shu
book
xiang
CLbox
de
Mod
shu
book
xiang shu
CLbox book
Tang (1990:419) claims that adjective and classifier forms a single constituent, that function as a compound, a zero-level category, rather than as a
phrase. Tang proposes that the ill-formedness of (34b-c) can be explained
194
by the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis which says that no syntactic operation may affect only part of a lexical item.
The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis successfully captures the property of
the Cl+N phenomenon (the bare form in (34)), but it cannot explain
another constraint of pre-classifier adjectives, since making Adj+Cl a compound has nothing to say about which adjectives can enter into this compound.
More seriously, the proposal cannot account for the enriched meanings,
and the interpretational variability of pre-classifier adjectives in the three
contexts I discussed. If I treat Adj+Cl as a compound in (31b), xiaoguan
would refer to a small tube. But, as we saw, (31b) does not refer to a tube,
but a(n atomic) tube of toothpaste and the pre-classifier xiao small makes
the evaluative statement that a tube of toothpaste is a small (insignificant)
thing. Given this, it is not plausible to assume that the pre-classifier adjective and the classifier form compounds, as suggested in Tang (1990).
Given that pre-classifier adjectives in Chinese express properties of the
atomic entity referred to by Cl+N, I suggest that they modify the whole
constituent Cl+N, but not the classifier or the noun. It is shown in Section 2 that pre-classifier adjectives are only possible before [+counting]
classifiers. I suggested in Chapter 6 that on the counting reading, the classifier first takes NP as complement to form ClP, which is then taken as
complement by NumP. I suggest that pre-classifier adjectives are located in
the Spec of the ClP3, as in (35).
(35)
NumP
Num ClP
yi one
AdjP
Cl
da big
Cl
NP
ping bottle
N
shui water
Liu (2010) discusses the use of adj+Cl in post-copula positions in the southern
Min dialect. He analyzes adj+Cl as an adjective compound. It is good to point out
that Adj+Cl cannot be used in post-copula position in Mandarin, and that the
Adj+Cl construction under discussion here differs syntactictically and semantically
from the construction Liu discusses.
195
196
197
198
199
In English, when the adjective big modifies NPs, it shifts to its modifier
interpretation at type <<d,t>,<d,t>> or <<dk,t>,<dk,t>>, depending on
whether it modifies mass or count nominals (see Rothstein 2010).
In the case of pre-classifier adjectives, da/xiao big/small syntactically
modify the count Classifier Phrase Cl+N. Semantically, I take the preclassifier interpretation to be a count predicate of type <dk, t>. I represent
the evaluative function of the pre-classifier adjectives by restricting the
norm of comparison to be dependent on the perspective of the judge in
context k. judgek,BIG is the minimal degree for what counts as big according
to the contextually provided judge in context k. da-Ev is da in its evaluative
function:
(40) NdaEvN =x.MEAS (1(x))>judgek, BIG
I show how the semantics in (40) explains the interpretation of preclassifier da-Ev in (37a). The interpretation of big or small in (40) depends
on judgek,BIG, the minimal value for what counts as big according to the
evaluation perspective chosen by the judge. In one perspective we understand yi da ping futejia a big bottle of vodka as concerning weight, from
the other perspective we understand it as concerning volume. If we choose
to evaluate the bottle of vodka from the perspective of weight, we have to
further identify the norm of evaluation. In our example, the norm of evaluation is a three-year olds carrying ability. If we choose to evaluate the
bottle of vodka from the perspective of volume, the norm of evaluation will
be different, in our example it was subjects capacity for drinking liquor. I
assume that all these decisions are encoded in the parameter judgek,BIG. I
give the following semantics for (37a):
(37) a. ta na / he
le
yi da
ping
futejia.
he carry/drink PFV one big CLbottle vodka
He carried/drank a big bottle of vodka.
(41) a. NpingN = kx.1(x)(BOTTLEk)CONTAIN(1(x),k)2(x) = k
b. Nping futejiaN=NpingN (NfutejiaN)
=x.1(x)(BOTTLEk)CONTAIN(1(x),vodka)2(x) = k
c. Nda-Ev ping futejiaN=Nda-EvN(Nping futejiaN)
=x.1(x)(BOTTLE k)CONTAIN(1(x),vodka)2(x) = k
MEAS(1(x)) > judgek, BIG
200
Note that in these statistics, Lu (1987) did not distinguish between individual and
non-individual classifiers.
Conclusions
201
6. Conclusions
I examined the syntactic and semantic properties of pre-classifier adjectives. I showed that pre-classifier adjectives can only appear in the counting contexts, before [+C, -M] and [+C, +M] classifiers. I saw that preclassifier adjectives are not unrestricted and can only be used in certain
contexts, most prominently: the consumption, the contrastive and the significance contexts. I argued that pre-classifier adjectives modify neither classifiers nor nouns, but Cl+N. Syntactically, they are the Spec of the ClP. I
proposed a semantics of pre-classifier adjectives as expressives; with
interpretations sensitive to a contextual judges personal evaluation or attitude in a situation to the entities in the denotation of Cl+N.
Chapter 8
Modification marker de in classifier phrases
1. Introduction
It is commonly agreed that the particle de is a modification marker which
takes a complement phrase and that [XP [de]] has the function of modifying the noun it is a sister of. Here, the variable X can be adjectives, relative
clauses, possessors etc..
(1) a. yi ge [piaoliang
de]
one CL beautiful
Mod
a beautiful girl
b. [mai
huoche de] xiao
sell
matches Mod little
the little girl who sells matches
c. [xiaowang
de]
shu
Xiaowang
Mod book
Xiaowangs book(s)
nhai
girl
[Adj-de-N]
nhai
girl
[RC-de-N]
[Poss-de-N]
The syntactic status of de is under debate. Zhu (1961), Paris (1979) and
Li and Thompson (1981) argue that de is a nominalizer and XP-de is a
nominal phrase. A. Li (1990), Sproat and Shih (1991) and Den Dikken and
Singhapreecha (2004) propose that [XP [de]] is best treated as a relative
clause headed by de, while Paul (2007, 2010) argues that the particle de is
a non-root complementizer and XP-de is CP, where the head de can take
any phrase as a complement. I will not attempt to choose between these
analyses here. What is important to us is that [XP [de]] is a modifier, that is,
a predicate expression.
In this chapter, I study the particle de occurring after classifiers, as in
the sequence of Num-Cl-de-N. The phenomenon to be examined are illustrated in (2) and (3):
Introduction
203
(2) a. ta he
le
san ping
(de) jiu.
he drink PFV three CLbottle DE wine
He drank three bottles of wine.
b. fuwusheng kai le
san ping
(#de) jiu.
waiter
open PFV three CLbottle DE wine
The waiter opened three bottles of wine.
(3) a. yanchanghui lai
le
shang qian
ge (de) guanzhong.
concert
come PFV above thousand CL DE audience
In the concert came more than one thousand audience.
b. zhe ge xuexiao zhi you wu ge (#de) laoshi.
this CL school only have five CL DE teacher
In this school, there are only five teachers.
The modification marker de can follow both non-individual and individual classifiers, such as ping bottle in (2a) and ge in (3a). However, the
use of de is not without constraint. It is not appropriate to use de in (2b)
and (3b), though they have the same classifiers as those in (2a) and (3a).
In this chapter, I will address the following issues concerning the syntax
and semantic interpretation of de after classifiers in Chinese:
(a) What is the syntactic structure of Num-Cl-de-N? Can it be said to fit
in with other occurrences of de, where de occurs roughly in the structure
[XP de]? I will argue that indeed even on a pseudo-partitive interpretation,
san ping de has the syntactic structure [[san ping] de], and that it is a predicate expression with a modificational interpretation.
(b) Does the presence of de after Num-Cl have any interpretational effect? I will argue that it requires a measure interpretation of the classifier,
and the predicate phrase [[san bang] de] denotes a measure or dimensional
property.
(c) What kind of classifiers does de appear with? Since it requires the
classifier to be interpreted as a measure expression, de naturally follows
explicit measure expressions such as gongjin kilo. I show that it can also
occur with a counting classifier, but only in that it can induce a measure
interpretation of the classifier.
In section 2, I review three proposals about the licensing condition of
de after classifiers, namely, Cheng and Sybesmas (1998) massifier proposal, Tangs (2005) information weight account and Hsiehs (2008)
indeterminacy account. Section 3 reports the findings made in Li and
Rothstein (2012). In Section 4 and 5, I formulate proposals for the semantics of de after measure and counting classifiers respectively. I propose that
204
the post-classifier de forces the Num and the classifier into a constituent,
with a modifier meaning, expressing measurement. Section 6 concludes
this chapter by explaining the two puzzles pertaining to [+Counting] classifiers with de.
[attributive reading]
[pseudo-partitive reading]
In the attributive reading, san bang de is an adnominal modifier and behaves like a classifying adjective, modifying the head noun yingtao, with
the paraphrase in (4a). Jiang argues that in this reading, (4) denotes a cer1
tain type of cherry, the three-pound type of cherry . In this reading, [XP
de] has the same syntactic position and functions as the adjectival modifier
[AP de], illustrated in (1), and I assume that this is prima facie evidence
that here [XP de] is a predicate with a predicative interpretation.
It is unclear whether for Jiang, this means that each individual cherry has to weigh
three pounds, or whether three-pound cherry is a more general name of a kind of
cherry. While this is an important question semantically, it is not necessary for us to
solve it here, since on either reading, san bang de is an attributive modifier in the
sense of Schwarzschild (2006).
205
The pseudo-partitive reading, expressed in English by (4b), is associated with the normal classifier use of san bang, and in this reading, the
Num-Cl-de sequence expresses information about the quantity of entities.
On this reading, (4) denotes a set of pluralities of cherries whose overall
quantity is three pounds.
Jiang (2008) claims that the two readings of san bang de yingtao as
shown in (4) have two different syntactic derivations and structures. She
proposes that on the attributive reading, Num-Cl is a degree phrase, which
is treated as a relative clause, and which is taken as complement by the
complementizer de, as in (5a), and that the pseudo-partitive reading of
Num-Cl-de-N is derived by moving the degree phrase of Num-Cl to the
specifier position of a null classifier phrase, as in (5b). While not necessarily accepting the details of her analysis, I will follow it in assuming that
the attributive readings and the pseudo-partitive readings have two different structures.
(5) a. attributive reading
NP
CP
SC
NP
ti
N
yingtaoi cherry
C
de
DegreeP
san bang
three pound
b. pseudo-partitive reading
ClP
san bang
Cl
Cl
NP
CP
SC
NP
ti
N
yingtao
de cherry
DegreeP
san bang
three pound
206
207
I argued in chapter 6, that [+C, +M] classifiers are equally open for counting and
measure interpretations, that [+C, -M] classifiers have by default a counting reading,
and measure readings by coercion only, that [-C, +M] classifiers have by default a
measure reading, and a counting reading by coercion, while [-C, -M] classifiers, i.e.
kind classifiers, can neither count nor measure individuals.
208
(11) a. wo ling
le liang ping
jiu,
I carry PFV two CLbottle wine
zuo shou yi ping, you shou yi ping.
left hand one CLbottle right hand one CLbottle
I carried two bottles of wine, one in the left hand and the other in
the right hand.
b. wo zonggong he
le
you yi ping putaojiu,
I altogether drink PFV have one CLbottle wine
ban ping bai-de ban ping hong-de
half CLbottle white half CLbottle red
I drank a bottle of wine in total, half bottle of a white wine and
half bottle of a red wine.
(11a) shows the counting reading of the classifier phrase liang ping jiu
two bottles wine. And (11b) shows the measure reading in which the
classifier ping bottle measures the quantity of wine as one bottleful, say,
750 ml.
According to the native speakers we consulted, (9a) and (10a) can have
a measure interpretation. (10a) is not regarded as very bad, and, they claim,
it is completely acceptable, if you know the volume of the bowl from the
context.
It seems, then, that whether the classifier phrase can get a measure reading, depends on whether the classifier is typically used as a standard measure unit for the kind of entities in the noun denotation, and whether enough
information can be inferred from the context about the capacity of the container. Glass is a frequently used container for liquor, but it is not a standard or original measure unit for liquor, since we can think of glasses with
different sizes. Therefore, when we use a glass of liquor without any
further contextual information, it is difficult to get a measure reading (cf.
(10a)). But if we use the classifier ping bottle (instead of bei glass) to
modify the noun liquor, then we get a measure reading easily, as in (12a):
(12) a. ta yong xiao wan he le san ping hongjiu.
he use small bowl drink PFV three CLbottle red wine
He drank three bottles of red wine with a small bowl.
This is because the classifier bottle is a prototypical package/container
for liquor, like barrel for oil, cup for coffee, and volume for book. A conventional combination of classifier and noun facilitates measure readings.
For example, the conventional combination of bottle and wine makes the
209
quantity of 750 ml salient, because wine bottles conventionally take 750 ml.
Accordingly, (12a) has a measure reading, and means that he used a small
bowl to drink 3*750 ml of wine.
Similarly, it is conventional to put bubble tea (a kind of popular beverage in China) in a plastic cup of 700 cc. Because of this, (12b) can have a
measure reading, asserting that he uses a small bowl to drink 3*700 cc of
bubble tea.
b. ta yong xiao wan he
le san bei nai-cha
he use small bowl drink PFV three CLcup milk-tea
He drank three cups of bubble tea with a small bowl.
Therefore, while de forces a measure interpretation, the absence of de does
not force a counting interpretation.
210
211
de expresses that the number of individual trees is 1.4 million. The interpretations of these examples in (16) are similar to the cases discussed in
Cheng and Sybesma (1998). But the classifiers in (16), such as zhang and
ke, are uncontroversially individual classifiers, and the corresponding classifier phrases in (16) are uncontroversially pseudopartive. Thus, the examples in (16) are true counterexamples against Cheng and Sybesma (1998).
Unfortunately, Tang (2005) does not distinguish the examples in (16)
from the attributive ones in (14) and (15). She treats all of them as complex
NPs with Num-Cl-de as modifiers. Tang suggests that the felicity of the
examples in (16) is related to the information weight of the modifiermodifiee relation: weighty modifiers facilitate the measure interpretation.
Num-Cl phrases like yi bai zhang one hundred picees and yi-bai-sishiduo wanb ke one million and forty hundred thousand Cl are complex and
heavy modifiers, and they can have the particle de after the individual classifier. In contrast, wu ke five Cl is, according to Tang, a simple modifier,
and wu ke de shu five Cl de trees is ungrammatical.
Tangs information weight account works for the examples in (16),
but does not extend to the example in (17). In (17), the numeral yi bai lin yi
one hundred and one is a complex number, but it does not allow the modification marker de.
(17) * mingtian de huodong xuyao yi-bai-lin-yi zhang de fang-zuozi.
tomorrow Mod activity need 101
CL DE square table
Tomorrows activity needs one hundred and one square tables.
(A.S. Corpus)
(A.S. Corpus)
212
(19) a. pai-le
wu-qian
zhang de yizi (A.S. Corpus)
put:in:order-Perf five-thousand CL DE chair
put 5 thousand chairs in order
b. wu-bai-wan
zhi de yazi
(A. S. Corpus)
five-hundred-ten:thousand CL DE duck
5 million ducks
c. tongshi
you peiyang le
23 wei de zhongzi jiangshi
meanwhile again cultivate PFV 23 CL DE seed lecturer
at the same time 23 seed lecturers were educated (A.S. Corpus)
According to Hsieh (2008), the examples in (18) and (19) are characterized with two different contexts. She proposes that in (18), the de-marked
individual ClP expresses a non-fixed or indeterminate quantity, as marked
overtly by approximators. In (18a) the NumP is modified by an approximation modifier jin close to, and in (18b), the Num is ji several, which
expresses an unfixed or indeterminate quantity. The context in (18) is
called an indeterminacy context.
In contrast, the examples in (19) do not need an approximation modifier
and the numeral can be precise. (Note that (19c) is not acceptable for me
and for other native speakers I consulted with.) Hsieh calls the context in
(19) an emphasis/contrastive context. By emphasis/contrastive, Hsieh
means that the de-marked ClP emphasizes large quantities as in as many
as Num N. This account is in some respects similar to Tangs (2005) account of information weight.
Li (2007) observes independently that individual classifiers can be followed optionally by de in some cases, as shown in (20). He argues that de
requires a context of quantification of aboutness or approximation, not
a context of exactness. This is similar to Hsiehs examples in (18).
(20) a. ta peng-zhe shi duo ben de shu
he carry-DUR ten more CL DE book
I was carrying more than 10 books.
b. ta yilian
xie
le
liang-bai
duo feng de xin
she continuously write PFV two-hundred more CL DE letter.
She wrote more than 200 letters continuously.
Hsieh, following Lyons (1976) and Tang (2005), assumes that there are
two lexically different types of classifiers in Chinese, mensural and sortal classifiers. Hence, according to Hsieh, the post-classifier de can be
used in the following three contexts:
213
#P
DemP
#
NumeralP
Num
ge/ping
Num
[-PL]
[+PL]
[-Ind]
[+Ind]
214
215
216
217
First, [-C, +M] classifiers like gongli kilometer, mi, meter etc can
have an optional de:
(28) a. wo zou le
san gongli
(de) lu.
I walk PFV three kilometer DE road
I walked three kilometers of road
b. ta mai le
liang bang (de) rou.
she buy PFV two pound DE meat
She bought two pounds of meat.
Measure words like gongli kilometer and bang pound do not have
corresponding naturalistic objects like containers; they denote measure
units only. For example, san gongli lu three kilometers road does not
refer to a particular section of road; it just means that the length of road is
three kilometers. The insertion of de after the measure word does not result
in a drastic reinterpretation of the phrase: san gongli de lu three kilometers de road in (28a) has the emphasized meaning that the distance that I
walked is as much as three kilometers.
Secondly, [+C, +M] classifiers (with low precise numbers) can be followed by de when they denote measure units but not when they denote
counting units, as in (29):
(29) a. wo kai le
san ping
(de) jiu.
[Counting]
I open PFV three CLbottle DE wine
I opened three bottles of wine.
b. wo-de wei
neng zhuangxia san ping de jiu. [Measure]
my stomach can hold
three CLbottle DE wine
My stomach can hold three bottles of wine.
In (29a), san ping jiu three bottle wine has a counting reading; there
are three individual bottles, which are opened one by one. In this case, it is
possible to insert de after ping. In (29b), san ping jiu three bottle wine
has the measure reading: it is the amount of wine that my stomach can hold
that is as much as three bottles. Ping cannot be followed by de here.
Note that the insertion of the particle de after the classifier in (29b) does
not affect the truth value of the sentence: (29b) means the same as (29a).
As in (29b) de has an emphatic meaning: it emphasizes the quantity of
three bottles: as much as three bottles.
218
219
of type <k, <d, t>> and its interpretation is given in (32c). The interpretation of (32a) is in (32d).
(32) a. liang gongjin pingguo
two kilo apple
two kilos of apples
b. NgongjinN =nkx.xkMEAS(x)=<n,KILO>
c. Ngongjin <n <k<d,t>>>N(NliangnN) = k x.xkMEAS(x)=<2,KILO>
d. Nliang gongjin<k<d,t>>N(NpingguokN)=
x.x>?APPLEMEAS(x)=<2,KILO>
I propose that [+C, +M] classifier phrases in their measure reading undergo the same process. We shift the measure interpretation of the [+C, +M]
classifier to the right type as in (33b):
(33) a. ta he
le
san ping
jiu.
he drink PFV three CLbottle wine
He drank three bottles of wine.
b. Derivation I: san ping shui three bottles of water
Nping N = nx. MEAS(x) = <n,BOTTLE>
N pingcl N=nkx. >k(x) MEAS(x) = <n, BOTTLE>
Nsan pingN =kx. x>k MEAS(x) = <3,BOTTLE>
Nsan ping shuiN=x.x >?WATER MEAS(x) = <3,BOTTLE>
Now we come to the measure examples with de. When a basic measure reading is available, the particle de can be unproblematically inserted
after the measure head, as in (34a) with gongjin kilo, and in (34b) with
the non-individual classifier ping when it has its measure reading.
(34) a. tamen chi le liang gongjin de pingguo.
they eat PFV two CLkilo DE apple
They ate as much as two kilos of apples.
b. ta he
le san ping
de jiu.
he drink PFV three CLbottle DE wine
He drank as much as three bottles of wine.
Semantically de applies to a predicate of type <d,t> and turns it into a
modifier of type <<d,t>, <d,t>>. The particle de takes the meaning of liang
gongjin two kilos, given (30c) as input, and turns it into a modifier of the
220
head noun. Since the head noun denotes a kind, we shift it to the instantiations of the kind:
(35) Derivation II: liang gongjin de pingguo two kilos of apples
Nliang gongjinN =x.MEAS(x) = < 2, KILO>
Nliang gongjin deN=Px.P(x)MEAS(x) = <2,KILO>
Nliang gongjin de pingguoN=
x. SHIFT(?APPLE)(x)MEAS(x)=<2,KILO>
= x.>?APPLE(x) MEAS(x) = <2,KILO>
In san ping de shui, san ping is of type <k,<d,t>> which is the wrong
type for de to apply to. However, if ping is interpreted as a measure head of
type <n, <d, t>> and not as a classifier, it can apply to Num to give an expression of type <d,t>, which de can take as a complement, as given in
derivation III.
(36) Derivation III: san ping de shui three bottles of water
NpingN= nx.MEAS(x)=<n, BOTTLE>
Nsan pingN=x.MEAS(x)=<3,BOTTLE>
Nsan ping deN=Px. P(x) MEAS(x) = <3,BOTTLE>
Nsan ping de shuiN
=x.SHIFT(?WATER)(x)MEAS(x)=<3, BOTTLE>
= x.>?WATER(x) MEAS(x) = <3,BOTTLE>
In other words, I derive the same meaning as in Derivation I and II, but
from a different structure. These two derivation processes reflect the fact
that Num-Cl-N and Num-Cl-de-N express the same meaning: the quantity
of the denotation of N amounts to the value expressed by Num-Cl. The
latter with de present focuses on the predicate phrase san ping and adds the
pragmatic emphasis interpretation that the quantity of N is as much as the
value of Num-Cl.
221
222
223
224
225
Thus, estimation is a contextual operation introduced as a counting measure, and the numbers are round, because that is what they are in estimation.
This measure phrase can be used as a predicate in copula position as in
(43):
(43) ta zhong de shu you wubai ke.
he plant Mod tree have 500
CL
The trees he planted reached 500.
When the measure head is used in a classifier position, as in (43), its interpretation is given in Derivation IV:
(44) a. ta zhong le wubai ke de shu.
he plant PFV 500 CL DE tree
He planted five hundred trees.
b. Derivation VI: wubai ke de shu five hundred trees
Step 1: N500 keN= x.x*kEST(x) = <500,Unatural plant unit>
Step 2: N500 ke deN= Px.*P(x)x*k
EST(x) = <500, Unatural plant unit>
Step 3: N500 ke de shuN
=x. *>?TREE(x) x *k EST(x) = <500,Unatural plant unit>
The set of pluralities that are sums of instantiations of the kind tree,
whose estimated cardinality is around 500.
The present semantics accounts for the constraint that in the readings
discussed here the Num must denote a large round number. As Krifka
(2002, 2009) argues, round numbers in measuring contexts tend to have
round interpretations. Furthermore, according to Krifka (2002:446-447)
short expressions have a preference for vague interpretations, () long
expressions have a preference for precise interpretations.
Given this, estimation will favor round numbers in short expressions.
Moreover, it will favor high numbers, because, arguably, one normally
doesnt need to estimate a small number, one just checks.
We saw that Hsieh proposed that de was sensitive to a feature of indeterminateness. I propose that the inderminateness is a by-product of the
semantic reinterpretation of the counting classifier as an estimation measure.
226
227
228
The syntax and semantics of fractional expressions has not yet been
studied in any detail, but it is clear that crosslinguistically fractions have a
different grammar from cardinal natural numbers. In English, they are necessarily partitive as in a third of a pill, a quarter of a kilo of flour, a half of
an apple (although (a) half an apple is also acceptable), and in English, as
in French, the fractional expression is based on the ordinal numeral. In
Mandarin, the fraction is expressed by a complex expression using the
word fen portion. Si fen zhi yi one-fourth has the compositional structure in (48), and literally means one of four portions, with the classifier
giving the unit which is divided into portions.
(48) si fen
zhi
four portions Mod
one fourth
yi
one
An analysis of the semantics of fractions is beyond the scope of this paper, given that these constructions are highly complicated, both in Mandarin and crosslinguistically. However, it is clear that fractions have a different interpretation from natural number predicates. A natural number such
as san three can be interpreted either as a name for a number of type n, as
in a measure context, or as a predicate of plural entities, in which case it
modifies a Cl-N in a counting context (see discussion in Rothstein 2012).
Fractions clearly cannot be predicates of plural entities, since they do not
count atomic entities. Similarly, the classifier cannot have its usual interpretation, in which it denotes function from kinds into atomic instantiations
of the kind. Instead, the role of the classifier is to give the name of the unit
which the fraction divides into portions. I thus suggest that in these contexts, the fraction and the classifier combine to form a fractional predicate,
and thus form a predicate constituent which can be the complement of de.
Thus syntactically, we suggest, Num combines immediately with the classifier and the insertion of de is thus possible after the [N-Cl] constituent.
This should not be taken as an analysis of these constructions, but a hypothesis to be explored in further research. Nonetheless, what does seem
clear is that the role of the classifier in these fractional constructions is
different from its role in counting constructions which use natural numbers.
This can be seen in the contrast between (49a) and (49b).
(49) a. ta chi le san-fen-zhi-yi
ge de pingguo.
he eat PFV san-portion-Mod-one CL DE apple
He ate one third of an apple.
229
b. ta chi le san-fen-zhi-yi
de pingguo.
he eat PFV san-portion-Mod-one DE apple
He ate one third of the apples.
OR He ate one third of an apple.
In (49a), where the fraction is followed by ge, the sentence must mean
he ate one third of a single apple. Thus the classifier does not have its
usual use in which it combines with N and the resulting Cl+N denotes a set
of atomic individual apples. Instead it indicates what is the single entity
which is portioned by the fraction. In (49b) where there is no classifier, we
see that the sentence means he ate one third of some quantity of apples,
either a third of a plurality of apples or one third of a single apple. The
examples in (49) are sufficient to show us that the use of fractions is very
different from other numerical structures: unlike the natural numbers, the
fraction does not require a classifier, and when the classifier is present it
has a very different meaning from its usual one. So while we do not yet
understand either the syntax or semantics of fractional constructions, we
can see that these constructions are sufficiently different from normal
counting contexts not to constitute a counterexample to the account that we
have presented in this chapter.
Part III:
Definiteness in classifier languages
Chapter 9
Definite classifiers in southern Chinese languages
1. Introduction
In the present chapter, we study aspects of the meaning of classifiers
beyond the counting and the measure readings, and beyond the language of
Mandarin Chinese.
It is found that in mainland Southeast Asian languages, like Vietnamese,
Hmong, Thai etc, classifiers are able to mark definiteness (see Bisang 1996,
1999, Simpson et al 2011, among others). According to Bisang (1993), in
Hmong, Cl+N can have a definite interpretation and the classifier works
like a (quasi-) definite article. For example, Cl+N in (1a) means the
widow but not a widow. Lbel (1996, 2000) observes that in Vietnamese,
the classifier in Cl+N can either express definiteness or indefiniteness in
a sentence like (1b). Qu cam in (1b) either means the orange or an
orange.
(1) a. ces nyob nyob tus pij-ntsuag txawm
then one day CL widow
then
yug
tau
ib
tug
me-tub
give:birth PFV one
CL
son
Then one day, the wodow gave birth to a son.
b. ti mua
qu cam.
I
buy
CL orange
I bought the/an orange.
[Hmong]
[Vietnamese]
Definite classifiers are rarely found in northern Chinese languages, like standard
Mandarin. According to Wang and Gu (2006), Jianghuai Mandarin are the northern
most dialect groups that have definite classifiers. Chinese languages to the north of
Jianghuai Mandarin often do not have definite classifiers.
234
In these three languages, classifiers can be used independent of numerals, as in the construction Cl+N, to express definiteness. In Cantonese,
pun3 sy55 in (2a) means the book, referring to some particular book that is
familiar with the interlocutors. In Shanghainese, Cl+N, such as p5355 53
s in (2b) also expresses definiteness. It is used in contrast with the (distal) demonstrative phrase, so it also expresses proximal deixis. P53-55s53
can be interpreted this book (Pan and Tao 1999: 33-34). In (2c), in Jianghuai Mandarin, Cl+N can be interpreted either as definite or indefinite,
and thi35 35either means an ox or the ox, depending on the context
(Wang 2005). We consider classifiers in Cl+N that mark definiteness to
be definite classifiers.
In this chapter, I will discuss definite classifiers in Cantonese and Wu
Chinese (the Fuyang variant), with a comparison with Mandarin. All the
three languages I am to investigate are classifier languages, in which numerals cannot modify nouns without a classifier, as in the sequence
Num+Cl+N. In all three, classifiers can be used independently of the
Num, as Cl+N. The languages differ with respect to the distribution and
interpretation of Cl+N construction. Look at (3):
(3) a. (*ge) laoban mai le
liang che.
CL boss
buy PFV CL
car
The boss bought a car.
b. k lpan ma l
bu tshots.
CL boss buy PFV CL car
The boss bought a car.
c. go louban maai zo ga
ce.
CL boss
buy PFV CL car
The boss bought a/the car.
[Mandarin]
[Wu:Fuyang]
[Cantonese]
Introduction
235
As in (3a), in Mandarin, the Cl+N construction is only found in postverbal positions and has an indefinite reading. In Cantonese and Wu Chinese (the Fuyang dialect), the construction is available in both preverbal
and postverbal positions. In Wu Chinese, as in (3b), Cl+N has a definite
reading, when appearing preverbally; indefinite when appearing postverbally (Li and Bisang 2012). In Cantonese (the Hong Kong variant), in (3c),
preverbal Cl+N has a definite reading, while postverbal Cl+N is either
definite or indefinite (see Cheung 1972).
Cl+N has been discussed intensively in the literature in many Chinese
dialects (e.g. Cheung 1972, Shi and Liu 1985, Cheng and Sybesma 1999,
2004, Wu and Bodomo 2009, Simpson et al 2011, Li and Bisang 2012),
without reaching agreement about the syntactic status and the semantic
function of the classifier. Many questions are still left open. I am particularly interested in the following:
(i) What are the factors that constrain the distribution of indefinite and
definite Cl+N?
(ii) What is the syntax of indefinite and definite Cl+N phrases? Specifically, is indefinite Cl+N a classifier phrase or a numeral phrase? Is
definite Cl+N a definite phrase?
(iii) Is the Cl+N construction derived from the counting reading or the
measure reading of the classifier?
(iv) What is the semantic function of the classifier in indefinite and definite Cl+N constructions?
Concerning the first question, I argue that the interpretation of the classifier in Cl+N as definite or indefinite is pragmatically constrained by
information structure. Since Chinese languages are topic-prominent languages, in which preverbal nominals tend to function as topics or secondary topics (Li and Thompson 1976, 1981), preverbal nominals are by default interpreted as definite. That is why definite Cl+N are prototypically
found in preverbal positions.
My answer to the second question is that in the indefinite reading of
Cl+N, the classifier heads the maxiamal projection of ClP, and Cl+N
is inherently predicative. In the definite reading, the classifier undergoes
Cl-to-D raising and heads a definite DP.
As for the third question, I claim that the Cl+N construction is only
available when the classifier is interpreted with a counting function and not
a measure function. The counting function of classifiers can be extended to
mark (in)definiteness, since counting classifiers pick out a set of atomic
236
individuals instantiating the kind denoted by the noun, rather than a set of
quantities. If definiteness is analyzed in terms of old/new information, I
make the plausible claim that individuals can be old or new relative to the
information, but this distinction makes little sense for quantities.
With respect to the semantic functions of classifiers, I propose that
Cl+N has a predicative meaning, and that indefinite readings of Cl+N result from default existential closure over the VP interpretation. Definite
interpretations of Cl+N result from Cl-to-D- raising. This is semantically
interpreted as existential closure of Cl-N in the indefinite meaning. Following Landman (2004), definiteness is a semantic constraint added to the
existential meaning derived in this way. Thus, though I use Landmans rule
of argument formation, I do not claim like Landman (2004) that definites in
Chinese start out at type d. Instead, I argue that definites are derived by
raising from predicates to the generalized quantifier reading, and that definiteness is a semantically expressed familiarity constraint, like the exactly effects in Landman (2004) or weak familiarity la Roberts (2003).
This chapter is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the distribution
of indefinite and definite Cl+N in Mandarin, Wu, and Cantonese. In
Section 3, I account for the distribution patterns of Cl+N in terms of
(in)definiteness related to information structure. Section 4 and 5 discuss
the syntax of indefinite and definite Cl+N respectively. Section 6 examines the semantics of Cl+N. Section 6 gives a semantic representation
for indefinite and definite Cl+N, with a correlation with the counting
function of classifiers. Specifically, a familiarity-based semantics for definite Cl+N is provided. The chapter is wrapped up in section 7.
2.
[Wu: Fuyang]
237
[Cantonese]
On the other hand, all the three languages have Classifier+Noun constructions without a numeral. For example, Mandarin has postverbal
Cl+N, Wu and Cantonese can have both preverbal and postverbal
Cl+N. Recall the examples in (3).
I start with my discussion with Cl+N in Mandarin.
[Definite]
[Definite or Indefinite]
238
(9)
b. ta
shi
ge
he
be
CL
He is a student.
c. zhe
shi
zhi
this
is
CL
This is a cat.
239
xuesheng.
student
mao.
cat
I can then make the generalization that Cl+N in Mandarin has an indefinite interpretation and appears in a lexically governed position.
However, this generalization seems to be challenged by the ba construction. Mandarin is an SVO language, where the postverbal position is the
base-generated position for objects (Li and Thompson 1974, Huang 1982,
Sun and Givon 1985, Wu 2003). But when the object is definite or specific
and the verb has a causative meaning, the object can be moved from the
base-generated postverbal position to a preverbal position, and is marked
by the object maker ba. This is called the ba construction. Generally speaking, only bare nouns and demonstrative phases are allowed to occur after
ba, in which bare nouns have a definite reading, but indefinite expressions
like Num-Cl-N are not allowed after ba. One of the few cases in which BA
allows an indefinite object is the Cl-N construction. (10b) is assumed to be
derived from (10a):
(10) a. Jintian Lao Zhang mai le tou niu.
[SVO]
today Lao Zhang sell PFV CL cow
Lao Zhang sold a cow today.
b. Jintian Lao Zhang ba tou niu gei mai le.
[SOV]
today Lao Zhang OM CL cow give sell PRF
The peasant had a cow sold today.
Both in (10a) and (10b), the Cl+N phrase, i.e. tou niu head cow, has
an indefinite reading, a cow. However, Cl-N in (10a) is preferably interpreted as a non-specific reading. In (10b), Cl-N tends to be understood
as specific. The speaker of (10b) knows which cow of LaoZhang he talks
about, but the hearer has no relevant information to identy which cow the
speakers talks about. Therefore, it is specific indefinite.
Therefore, my generalization still holds: in Mandarin Chinese, Cl+N
is only possible in lexically governed positions, such as after the main verb,
after the existential you, or after the object marker ba, in which it receives
an indefinite reading. It cannot be used in preverbal positions like subject
and topic.
240
2.2. Cl+N in Wu
2.2.1. Preverbal Cl+N
In Wu,Cl+N can occur unproblematically in preverbal positions, like the
subject position and the (sentential) topic position. The examples in (11)
illustrate the use of Cl+N as subject.
(11) a. ts kiu s-i die.
CL dog die
PRT
The dog died.
b. ts kiu kuan m-po tha dzan.
CL dog CL tail
too long
The tail of the dog is too long.
The Cl+N ts kiu the dog in (11a) refers to a particular dog that is
identifiable in the context by the interlocutors, or some dog that is familiar
to the interlocutors based on their shared background knowledge. In this
case, Cl+N is read definite: the dog. The subject of (11b) is a complex
noun phrase, in which the head noun Cl+N, kuan m-po Cl tail, is modified by another Cl+N ts kiu Cl dog.2 Both Cl+N phrases are interpreted with a definite meaning, so the phrase means: the tail of the dog.
The preverbal Cl+N in (11) should be distinguished from the Cl+N
construction that is introduced by the existential quantifier iu there be.
Compare (11a) with (12a):
(12) a. iu
ts kiu s-i die.
there-be CL dog die PRT
There died a dog.
b. iu
i ts kiu si-i die.
there-be one CL dog die PRT
There died one dog.
2
There are two nominal phrases before the main verb. The construciton is called
double nominative constructions by some researchers (e.g. Teng 1974, Li and
Thompson 1981). The two nominal phrases are called big subject and small
subject respectively. Other researchers (e.g. Xu and Liu 1998) suggest that the first
nominal phrase is a dangling topic and the second is the subject of the clause. We
simply consider the two nominals be a single complex nominal phrase, in which the
first nominal modifies the second.
241
ma-i die.
sell
PRT
die.
PRT
Cl+N in (14a-b) refers to a particular cow or a particular book identifiable or known by both the speaker and the hearer. Hence, it is definite.
For example, ts iu in (14a) may refer to the only cow that owned by
Laozhang, i.e. Laozhangs cow.
242
ts -ts a-k an z
you
guess
be
what car
I bought a car last month. Can you guess what car it is?
In (15), apple and car do not denote entities known or identifiable by
the addressees: Cl car and Cl apple simply mean a car and an apple
respectively. It is only continuation in (15a) that identifies the apple; similarly, in (15b) the question presupposes the indefiniteness of the car in the
first part of the sentence.
Post-copula nominals are predicational and express properties of the
3
subject. Post-copula Cl+N are not referential in most cases. For example, ts kiu Cl dog in (16a) only expresses the doghood of the subject
and it does not refer to a particular dog.
(16) a. k ts z ts kiu.
this CL be CL dog
This is a dog.
b. ia
ban-iu z k akuoin.
his/her friend be CL foreigner
His/her friend is a foreigner.
In Wu, if you want to use a definite nominal as object, it must always be
moved to a preverbal position, via the kh construction or by topicalization.
I leave aside copula sentences with definite NPs, such as He is the student that I
mentioned to you last time or He is Mr. Smith (see Partee 1987).
243
244
[Cantonese]
(21) a. wo ba
pingguo chi le.
I OM apple
eat PRF
I ate the apple(s).
b. ta ba ren da le.
He OM man beat PRF
He beat the man/men.
[Mandarin]
245
Topic
[+definite]
[+definite]
Subject
[+definite]
[+definite]
Preposed obj
[-definite]
[+definite]
[definite]
Canonic obj
[-definite]
[-definite]
[definite]
As can be seen from the above table, there seems to be a correlation between (in)definiteness and the syntactic position of [Cl+N] relative to the
verb. Indefinite [Cl+N] is restricted to the postverbal position, i.e. the canonical object position, in all three languages, while definite [Cl+N] is
usually found in preverbal positions (topic, subject and the preposed object
position). These general positional rules need two specifications: (i) Mandarin does not allow definite [Cl+N] in topic or subject positions, and (ii)
Cantonese allows postverbal definite [Cl+N].
The next section will show how this distributional pattern can be accounted for.
246
notions, following from the association between word order and information structure.
Li Frances (1971) was one of the first to claim that word order reflects
information structure in Mandarin. Following on this, Li and Thompson
(1976, 1981) argue that Mandarin Chinese is a topic-prominent language in
which the preverbal subject position represents an unmarked topic, while
the postverbal position is associated with focus. In a more recent study, Xu
(2004) shows that the sentence-final position is the default position for
informational focus in Mandarin.
Informally, the topic is what is being talked about, which implies
givenness or high degree of identifiablity. As Lambrecht puts it (1994:262),
a topic constituent must have a referent, and this referent must be identifiable and have a certain degree of pragmatic salience in discourse Thus,
nominals acting as topics tend to be definite. In contrast, the term focus
refers to expressions that are either prosodically or syntactically prominent
and convey new information: typically nominals acting as focus are indefinites, although definite NPs are not excluded from focus position. As Lambrecht claims, a focus constituent is in principle free with respect to the
question of identifiability and activation.
Chinese languages are topic prominent languages, in which preverbal
nominals are usually topics and postverbal nominals are usually focus. As
a consequence, the general tendency in Chinese is that, preverbal nominals
have by default definite interpretations and postverbal nominals indefinite
interpretations.
Even though Chinese languages are all topic-prominent languages, they
exhibit different degrees of topic-prominence. D. Liu (2001) claims that
Wu is a more prototypical topic-prominent language than Mandarin and
Cantonese: it is very easy to topicalize elements like objects, i.e. to move
them to the sentence initial position or the position near the subject. In
other words, Wu has SVO as the basic word order, but SOV and OSV orders can also be derived via topicalization. According to D. Liu (2001) and
S. Tang (2006), Cantonese is the most prototypical SVO language, in
which object-preposing (namely, topicalization) rarely happens; Wu Chinese is the weakest SVO language and it has an alternative OV word order;
Mandarin is a mild SVO language, a language sitting between Wu and
Cantonese in terms of topic-prominence. Therefore, these three languages
can be ranked as follows, according to degree of topic prominence from
high to low: Wu > Mandarin > Cantonese.
I start with Wu. I propose that in Wu Chinese, as the strongest topicprominent language, the distribution of definite and indefinite Cl+N
247
strictly follows the generalization about the correlation of word order and
information structure. If so, I expect that in Wu, preverbal Cl+N has a
definite reading and postverbal Cl+N has an indefinite reading, since the
former falls into the topic domain and the latter into the focus domain.
The sentence initial position is the default topic position in Chinese
languages, and Wu is no exception. The preposed object occurring between
subject and verb is characterized as secondary topic in Wu, which can be
marked overtly or covertly. According to Hu, Pan and Lee (2003) and Tang
(2006), in Wu Chinese (e.g. the Ningbo and the Shanghai variants), the
secondary topic position is grammaticalized. It is a stable position in Wu
syntax and it is a syntactic requirement to have a secondary topic for some
structures in Wu. As in the case of Fuyang Wu, definite objects are required to be located in the secondary topic position.
The Cantonese data reveals the same processes as in Wu, except for the
possibility of having definite readings in post-verbal positions. So why are
the latter possible?
In the first place, I think that the frequent use of Cl+N in preverbal
positions, such as subject, may help it to acquire the status of a quasidefinite marker, a use which then can be applied to it in other nonpreverbal positions. Secondly, I think that the most important reason for
the possibility of expressing definiteness in postverbal positions is the lack
of a productive object-preposing operation in Cantonese corresponding to
the Mandarin ba construction that we saw above. I propose that because
Cantonese does not have a productive mechanism for preposing definite
objects from postverbal positions, it doesnt have enough easy syntactic
ways of expressing meanings with, say, definite objects, leading to the
extension observed (see Li and Bisang 2012). Therefore, the lack of a productive disposal construction in Cantonese paves the way for the extension
of definite Cl+N from preverbal positions to postverbal positions.
In Mandarin, there is never definite Cl+N, but indefinite Cl+N only
(in lexically governed positions). According to D. Liu (2001), Mandarin is
a less prototypical topic-prominent language than Wu. I propose that, in
contrast to Wu and Cantonese, the Cl+N construction in Mandarin is not
fully grammaticalized: Cl+N is only found in base-generated postverbal
object position, a focus position where Cl+N has an indefinite interpretation. There is the famous ba construction in Mandarin, but it does not
guarantee a definite interpretation of Cl+N. What the disposal construction does is to arrange the object in a certain way according to a particular
criterion (e.g. definiteness), but the construction itself does not impose a
definite reading to the preposed object.
248
The question that remains is: why does Mandarin not allow definite
Cl+N as subjects or topics? Although this is currently an open question,
one possibility is that it may be related to a typological difference between
northern and southern Chinese languages with respect to D. Liu (2001)
argues that northern Chinese languages like Mandarin are demonstrativeprominent languages in that they prefer to use demonstrative + N instead
of Cl+N to express definiteness, while southern Chinese languages like
Wu and Cantonese are classifier-prominent languages, in that they prefer to
use Cl+N over demonstrative + N. This is still an empirically-driven
typological observation, however, not a complete explanation. Tang (2006)
offers a syntactic explanation to explain the lack of definite Cl+N in
Mandarin from the perspective of verb movement, and I refer readers to
him for further consideration of this issue.
I now move from the distribution of these expressions to the syntax of
Cl+N.
249
The weak yi is not only phonologically weak, i.e. unstressed, but also
semantically weak, i.e. it is not referential or quantity-denoting, shown in
(24):
(24) a. ta chi le
(yi) wan
fan jiu congcong zou le.
he eat PFV one CLbowl rice then hurriedly leave PRF
He left in a rush after taking a bowl of rice.
b. wo shi (yi) ge hen wangu de ren.
I be one Cl very stubborn Mod man
I am a very stubborn man.
L claims that the stressed yi cannot be omitted (as in (23)), but unstressed yi can be omitted in certain contexts (as in (24), and, importantly,
omission of unstressed yi is only possible in postverbal position.
Thus, according to L, Cl+N is a reduced form of unstressed yi + Cl
+ N in postverbal positions.4
binggan.
cookie
L mentions that speakers tend to use Cl+N in the oral discourse, e.g. daily
conversation, but when they are asked to write it down, they usually write it in the
form of yi+Cl+N. I suggest that this phenomenon is to do with the teaching of
prescriptive grammar and the use of Chinese in a formal register in schools.
250
b. *Wo chi-wan-le
kuai binggan.
I eat-finish-LE CL cookie
According to Cheng and Sybesma, there is no phonological reason why
yi one could not be suppressed in (25).
Huang (1987) shows that in secondary predicates the object NP (i.e. the
subject of the secondary predicate) must be indefinite and specific. Cheng
and Sybesma show that in this context, yi+Cl+N phrases cannot be replaced by Cl+N:
(26) a. Wo jiao-guo
yi-ge xuesheng hen congming.
I teach-EXP one-Cl student very intelligent
I once taught a student who was very intelligent.
b. *Wo jiao-guo ge xuesheng hen congming.
I teach-EXP CL student
very intelligent
While Cheng and Sybesma argue against the reduction of Cl+N to
one+ClN, surprisingly enough, later in the same paper they propose the
same structure for both: they propose that when Cl+N is interpreted as an
indefinite, it has an empty Num head, and the whole phrase projects into a
NumP:
(27)
NumP
Num
ClP
Cl
NP
N
251
ge juzi.
CL orange
juzi.
orange
Secondly, true NumPs, including stressed yi+Cl+N, can occur in subject position with an indefinite interpretation, but, as we have seen, Cl+N
can never be subject in Mandarin:
(29) a. yi ge pingguo bu gou
wo chi.
one Cl apple
not enough I eat
One apple is not enough for me to eat.
b.*ge pingguo bu gou
wo chi.
Cl apple not enough I eat
Intended: An apple is not enough for me to eat.
A. Li (1998) argues that although Chinese generally only allows definite nominals as subject, NumPs can be used as subjects if they denote
pure quantities: in (29a) the predicate being not enough forces a quantity
denotation for the subject, one Cl apple. Such a quantity reading is impossible for Cl+N, and (29b) is ungrammatical.
252
Thirdly, temporal expressions like xiaoshi hour or yue month are durational, and can only be used with Num+Cl+N, not with Cl+N:
(30) a. wo hua
le *(yi) ge xiaoshi chifan.
I spend PFV one CL hour eat meal
I spent one hour eating meal.
b. wo dai xainggang dai le *(yi) ge yue.
I at Hong Kong stay PFV one CL month
I stayed for one month in Hong Kong.
Next I discuss the differences between Cl+N and unstressed
yi+Cl+N.
Unstressed yi +Cl+N allows specific and non-specific readings, while
Cl+N can only have a non-specific reading in Mandarin. I show this with
examples involving relative clause modification and creation verbs.
Modification by a relative clause: Zhang (2006) shows that when a
relative clause (RC) modifies a NumP in the order RC+Num+Cl+N, the
NP has a specific reading, while if a relative clause modifies a NP in the
order Num+Cl+RC+N, the NP has both specific and non-specific readings. In (31) we see that yi+Cl+N allows modification with both types of
relative clauses:
(31) a. wo zai zhao [RC xue yingyu de ] yi ge xuesheng. [Specific]
I PROG seek learn English Mod one CL student
ta keneng zai tushuguan li.
he maybe at library in
I am looking for a student who learns English. Maybe he is in the
library.
b. wo zai
zhao yi
ge [RC xue yingyu de ] xuesheng.
I PROG seek one CL learn English Mod student
shui dou keyi, danshi zuihao shi da-si de.
[(Non-)specific]
who all fine but
best
be senior Mod
I want to look for a student who learns English. Any one will do,
but it is better to have a senior student.
(31a) means that the speaker has a specific student in mind, a student
that is not known by the addressee. (31b) allows the same reading, but also
allows a non-specific interpretation, where the speaker has no particular
individual in his mind, and anyone who learns English will be fine for him.
253
In Cl+N, relative clauses can only modify the noun, not the whole
Cl+N phrase, as in (32):
(32) a.* wo xiang zhao [RC xue yingyu de] ge xuesheng.
I want seek study English Mod CL student
I want to look for the student who learns English.
b. wo xiang zhao ge [RC xue yingyu de] xuesheng. [Non-specific]
I want seek CL learn English Mod student
I want to look for a student who learns English.
When the noun of Cl+N is modified by the relative clause as in (32b),
it only has a non-specific reading, where any student who learns English
will do.
Jiang (2012) points out that the test I used here is flawed. She suggested
that it is possible for Cl+N to have a specific reading. She said that if an
appropriate context is provided, Cl+N in (32) can have a specific reading.
The example (c) is taken from Jiang (2012).
c. Zhang jiaoshou zai
zhao XiaoWang.
[Non-specific]
Zhang professor PROG seek Xiaowang
Ta xiang zhao ge [RC xue yingyu de] xuesheng.
he want seek CL
learn English Mod student
Prof. Zhang is looking for Xiaowang. He wants to look for a student who learns English.
According to Jiang (2012), the indefinite Cl+N has a specific reference and it refers to Xiaowang, the student Prof. Zhang is looking for.
However, I do not think that this is correct. In fact, Xiaowang is only one
of the candidates that suits the description expressed by Cl+N. The person that Cl+N refers to can be Xiaowang or anybody else who learns
English. It is still non-specific.
According to Fodor and Sag (1982), a specific indefinite introduces a
new discourse referent such that the speaker has a unique individual in
mind (cf. von Heusinger 2011:11). If CL+N in (32c) is specific and
refers to the individual XiaoWang, then the individual is introduced twice
and is not a new discourse referent. Moreover, as we said above, XiaoWang is not the only candidate that satisfy the description, so the uniqueness requirement for specific indefinite is also violated. We would thus
still consider Cl+N to be non-specific indefinite.
254
Creation verbs: one+Cl+N and Cl+N have different interpretations in contexts of creation. Diesing (1992) notices that some verbs place
felicity restrictions on their objects that have to do with presuppositionality.
In particular, verbs of creation are incompatible with objects whose existence is presupposed.
Zhang (2006) reinterprets this constraint as a constraint disallowing
specific interpretations of indefinites in creation contexts. In (33) Cl+N
is acceptable. One+Cl+N is also acceptable, but not with a specific reading: yi ge dangao one Cl cake and ge dangao Cl cake cannot refer to a
particular cake that is identifiable to the hearer, both talk about an unspecific cake-baking event.
(33) a. wo kao le
yi
ge dangao.
I
bake PFV one CL cake
b. wo kao le ge dangao.
I
bake PFV CL cake
Both: I baked a cake.
We see that stressed yi +Cl+N has a quantity reading, unstressed
yi+Cl+N a specific and a non-specific reading, while Cl+N only has a
non-specific reading.
I propose the structure in (34) for indefinite Cl+N in Chinese, where
ClP is the maximal projection of the indefinite Cl+N and there is no
other functional projection above it.
(34)
ClP
Cl
NP
beni volume
N
shu book
255
besmas (1999) proposal that definite Cl+N are classifier phrases headed
by classifiers. I make our own proposal in section 5.3.
256
257
More seriously, for language with both definite and indefinite Cl+N,
such as Fuyang Wu, it is very unlikely that the bare classifier construction
Cl+N has two different sources: indefinite Cl+N is derived from
one+Cl+N by omitting the numeral one if we follow L (1944), and definite Cl+N is derived from demonstrative+Cl+N by omitting the demonstrative if we follow Shi and Liu (1986). We reject both reductionist
approaches. The bare classifier construction Cl+N is a distinctive construction from one+Cl+N and demonstrative+Cl+N.
ClP
Cl
NP
N
Thus, they treat indefinite Cl+N as a NumP with an empty Num, and
definite Cl+N as ClP without a Num projection.
This proposal has been criticized in Simpson (2005). Simpson argues
that the analysis of definite Cl+N as a lower projection than indefinite
Cl+N gives the wrong interpretation of true numeral classifier phrases of
Num+Cl+N. I use the Wu data to illustrate the problems pointed out by
Simpson. (38) shows that Cl+N can be modified by numerals and that
Num+Cl+N has an indefinite reading.
258
[Wu: Fuyang]
Simpson (2005:14) points out that if the classifier has the same interpretation as the definite article in English, i.e. being a genuine definiteness
marker, one would expect (38b) to either have a definite interpretation, i.e.
the two cars or a partitive reading, i.e. two of the cars. However, this is
not the case, and neither reading is possible. We can only get an indefinite
reading for (38b), i.e. two cars.
For Cheng and Sybesma (1999), the definite reading is never available
for Num+Cl+N. They stipulate that NumP is always indefinite, and that
definite nominals are always projected into ClPs.
The problem with that stipulation is that, with it, the analysis does not
extend beyond Cantonese. In Wu (Shanghainese and the Fuyang dialect)
the Num+Cl+N can have a definite reading (see H.Wang 2008 for a general discussion on definite numerals in Wu dialects). For example, in the
Fuyang dialect, the morpheme ian is an imprecise quantifier meaning
several and can be used in the numeral phrase of ian+Cl+N. ian +Cl+N
has an indefinite reading in postverbal position, as in (39), and a definite
reading in preverbal position, as in (40).
[Definite NumP]
Note that the morpheme ian has a high-level tone when it expresses an
imprecise number (the) several; it has a low-rising tone, when it means
the exact number two. The definite reading is possible only in the imprecise number use.
259
DP
D
pni volume
NumP
Num
ClP
Cl
ti
NP
N
y book
260
Longobardi (1999) argues with the data in (43) that in Italian proper
names are generated in N and raised to D, except when the D is already
filled by a determiner.
(43) a.* Antica Roma
b. Roma Antica
c. Lantica Roma
In the same spirit I propose that in (42a), the Chinese proper name
XiaoWang is raised from N to D, whereas in (42b), the proper name must
remain in the position of NP and cannot undergo N-to-D raising, because
the D position is filled by the classifier k.
Simpson (2005) gives a similar argument on the basis of data from
Southeast Asian languages like Vietnamese, Thai and Cantonese. He
shows that in Vietnamese a second general classifier element can occur
preceding the regular classifier, resulting in sequences with clear definite
interpretations. The examples in (44) are from Simpson (2005:15). (Note
that we do not find a similar construction in Chinese languages.)
(44) a. con dao [anh cho toi muon ], no that sac.
[Vietnamese]
CL knife you give me borrow, it real sharp
The knife you gave me is really sharp.
b. cai con dao [anh cho toi muon ], no that sac
CL CL knife you give me borrow, it real sharp
The knife you gave me is really sharp.
In (44a), Cl+N has a definite interpretation; this definite interpretation
is preserved in in (44b), where Cl+N is modified by the general classifier
cai. This follows, if we assume with Simpson that in (44a) the classifier is
raised by Cl-to-N, while in (44b), the general classifier is in the D0 position.
Argument 2: I mentioned in Section 5.1 that in some dialects, like the
Suzhou dialect, the classifiers in the definite Cl+N construction have
tone sandhi. In the Fuyang dialect of Wu, I also observed tone sandhi for
the definite use of classifiers as in (45):
(45) a. thi l i
I
eat
PFV one
I ate a bowl of rice.
uan432 van.
CLbowl rice
261
DP
D
NumP
ClP
Numti
iani several
Cl
k
NP
N
in people
262
[Mandarin]
The Wu data in (48) show that [-C, +M] classifiers cannot form Cl+N
in subject position either:
(48) a. * di
lu
tso le
pan k tiodei.
CLmile road walk PFV I half CL hour
The mile of road took me half an hour.
ian k.
b. */??? thi s
CLliter water cool PRT
The liter of water is cool.
[Wu]
Next I check [+C, -M] classifiers, classifiers that are by default associated with counting readings. We have already seen many examples of these,
they can be used without numerals in postverbal positions in Mandarin:
(49) a. wo mai le ben shu.
I buy PFV CL book
I bought a book/#books.
[Mandarin]
263
[Wu]
I next look at [+C, +M] classifiers like ping bottle, xiang box, qun
group, dui pile etc in Mandarin. Those classifiers are equally open to
counting and measure interpretations. These classifiers can only be used in
Cl+N when the classifier has a counting reading. Look at the following:
(51) a. wo shou shang na zhe ping jiu.
[Mandarin]
I hand on
take DUR CLbottle wine
I am carrying a bottle of wine in my hand.
b.# ta-de wei
neng zhuang xia
ping jiu.
his stomach can contain down CLbottle wine
His stomach can contain a bottle of wine.
The container classifier phrase in (51a) has a counting reading, which
implies the existence of a concrete bottle filled with wine. The Cl+N, i.e.
ping jiu bottle of wine can only be indefinite. (51b), on the other hand,
talks about the capacity of the stomach or his drinking ability, which triggers a measure interpretation. The only available reading for (51b) is the
absurd interpretation that he has a concrete bottle in his stomach, i.e. the
reading where Cl+N ping jiu bottle wine is interpreted with a counting
reading, we are then forced to put a concrete bottle in his stomach. This is,
of course, infelicitous.
264
ClP
Cl
beni volume
NP
N
shu book
265
266
This explains why indefinite Cl+N cannot occur preverbally, unless they
are under the scope of the explicit existential operator you as was shown in
(9a).
Secondly, the semantics in (55) predicts that Cl+N can only be interpreted as a singular indefinite, not a plural indefinite. Cl+N denotes a set
of atoms, a set of singularities, and existential closure expresses that this
set is not empty.
267
268
Note that the examples in (59) are generic: (59a) means that the sky is
blue in general and (59b) means that the sun has the properties ascribed to
it in a permanent way.
Similarly, proper names referring to places or locations can also be used
to make unique reference independent of context. Again, in English, they
take the definite article: the Great Wall, the Capital. In contrast, the counterparts in Wu occur as bare nouns:
ko ?
(60) a. dzan tshn ko zkua z
Great Wall what time
build PRT
When was the Great Wall built?
b. [Looking at the map of China]
iudo
t ga-i?
Capital at where
Where is the Capital?
Secondly, the examples with definite Cl+N in Wu that I have discussed do not generally presuppose uniqueness. Look at the examples in
(61):
(61) a. [In a room with three doors, one of which is open]
uan mn b kuan- i.
CL door help me close
it
Please help me close the door.
b. kints ul pnl la, ts leth thi pha i die.
today back halfway on Cl tyre go broken PRT
Today, on the way back, the tyre was flat.
(61a) is an immediate situational use: three doors are part of the background, and I do not need to assume that Cl+door must refer to a door
that is presupposed to be unique. There is reference to a single door, because of the semantics of the classifier given, but the actual utterance will
identify the correct one without presupposition requirements. In other
words, if accommodation goes on here (as predicted by Kadmon 1987), it
is so subtle that native speakers do not notice it.
(61b) is an associative use or a bridging cross-reference use situation. A
singular tyre is mentioned of a car which is known to the hearer and the
speaker. Not enough information is given to determine which of the four
tyres it is, i.e. not enough information is given to uniquely identify the tyre.
And such information is not required either.
269
These cases are not atypical for Wu at all, nor for Cantonese: mostly the
uses of definite Cl+N are like the cases in (59), uniqueness plays no role.
270
natural. In what follows, I will use the data of Wu Chinese (the Fuyang
dialect) to illustrate the possible contexts for definite Cl+N.
Context 1 the on-the-spot use: definite Cl+N naturally refers to a
perceptually visible entity.
(62) khua kul, bu tshots p
ia kua-i die. [Wu: Fuyang]
quick come CL car PASS they scratch PRT
Come over! The car was scratched by someone.
Here the speaker is reporting what he/she found in the scene. Suppose
that there are two cars in their family and they are parked next to each
other. The speaker finds that one of them is scratched and calls the rest of
the family members. The hearers will only identify which car is scratched
after entering the immediate situation.
The expression k in Cl man can even refer to the speaker or the addressee if (and only if) they are on the spot:
[Wu: Fuyang]
(63) a. kints k in man thii.
today CL man very tired
Today, the person (the speaker) is very tired.
b. km
k in ka l ian man.
currently Cl man so old look PRT
Lately, the person (the addressee) looks so old.
Cl+N in (63a) refers to the speaker himself, and (63b) refers to the
hearer on the spot. A scenario for (63a) is the following: a husband returns
home after working for a long day. When he sees his wife in the kitchen,
he says (63a) to describe his tiredness to his wife. A scenario for (63b) is
the following: two old friends have not seen each other for a few years.
One day they meet in the street. One of them says (63b) to the other, to
comment on the addressees physical appearance.
Context 2the familiarity use: definite Cl+N refers to the entity
that is assumed to be known by interlocutors in a local context.
(64) a-bi, ts kiu iankhan san mbi die.
A-Ping, CL dog seem
get sick PRT
A-Ping, the dog seems to get sick.
[Wu: Fuyang]
In (64), the speaker is telling the hearer about the sickness of the dog. In
reporting this event, he assumes that the hearer knows which dog he is
271
talking about. In most cases, the definite refers to the individual in their
immediate environment, e.g. their own dog at home. But the dog need not
be on the scene.
In the two uses discussed so far, the definite can easily be a new definite, not mentioned before in the discourse.
Context 3the bridging use: the definite CL+N can be modified by
different modifiers, e.g. nouns, pronouns, adjectives, relative clauses.
[Modifier+CL+N] always implies definiteness.
(65) a. [ts kiu] [ts tia] tni die.
CL dog CL leg fracture PRT
The leg of the dog was fractured.
die.
b. fakan [k khkuan] uai
room CL switch
broken PRT
The switch of the room does not work.
[Wu: Fuyang]
272
[Generic]
[Episodic]
(67a), with the bare noun tha-ia sun, means that the sun has the generic property of being round. In contrast, (67b) with the definite Cl+N
k tha-ia means that the sun is really strong at a particular moment.
I propose that bare nouns like tha-ia have a uniqueness requirement
built into their semantics and are used naturally in contexts where we express what the characteristic properties of this unique object are. On the
other hand, the definite reading of Cl+N k tha-ia implies familiarity in
a context here and now: we are likely to use it to express properties that are
instantiated here and now, episodic properties.
The second fact is why there is a subject-object asymmetry for definite
Cl+N in Wu:
(68) a.
khpha le [ts uan].
1SG break PFV CL bowl
I broke a bowl.
NOT I broke the bowl.
[SVO]
[SOV]
[Topicalization]
As explained, in Chinese, topics are usually found in preverbal positions and express hearer-old information. In contrast, foci are usually in
postverbal positions and express hearer-new information. But, of course,
familiarity is a hearer-old notion. Hence we expect definite Cl+N to
occur in topic positions, hence preverbal positions.
273
274
7. Summary
This chapter examined the distribution, syntax and semantics of the indefinite and definite Cl+N construction in three Sinitic languages. I showed
that the distribution of definite and indefinite Cl+N is constrained to
different degrees by the information structure in the three languages I examined. In particular, definite Cl+N are typically found in preverbal
positions, which are usually topics, and indefinite Cl+N in postverbal
positions, which are usually foci.
I argued that indefinite Cl+N are classifier phrases whose indefinite
semantics in object position are derived from default existential closure
over the internal arguments of the VP, (following in essence Heim 1982),
while definite Cl+N are DPs, in which the classifier undergoes Cl-to-D
raising, a process which is semantically interpreted as argument formation
(following Landman 2004). Argument formation produces a definite
generalized quantifier interpretation. Whereas in English the definiteness
condition involved is taken to be a maximalization condition (following
Sharvy 1980), for Chinese this condition is taken to be weak familiarity
(following Roberts 2003).
Chapter 10
Definite classifiers and their modifiers
y].
book
276
etc. Unlike bare Cl+N that is ambiguous between indefinite and definite
readings, non-bare Cl+N is unambiguously definite. Consider (2):
[ts kiu]
(2) a. i k
small Mod CL dog
the small dog
b. ta [ts kiu]
that CL dog
that dog
c. a
[ts
kiu]
you
CL dog
your dog
[Adjective/RC]
[Demonstrative]
[Possessor]
It is even possible to have multiple occurrences of those elements before Cl+N in Wu, as in (3). But they are subject to a certain ordering
restriction. For example, the demonstrative must stand closest to Cl+N,
as in (3a) and it cannot precede a modified Cl+N, as in (3b).
santshl k
(3) a. in
new
born
Mod
that newly born dog
b.#ta in santshl k
that new born
Mod
ta [ts kiu]
that CL dog
[ts kiu]
CL dog
[Mandarin]
Moreover, Mandarin does not have non-bare Cl+N either. It is impossible to find Adjective/Relative clause/Possessor/+Cl+N in Manda-
277
[Adj/RC]
[Possessor]
[Demonstrative]
The following questions are raised from the data exhibited in (1-5):
a. What is the underlying reason why Wu allows Cl+N to be modified and Mandarin does not? Is it possible to propose a unified DP
structure for determiner phrases in Mandarin and Wu?
b. What is the ordering restriction regarding the multiple occurrence
of modifiers before Cl+N in Wu? What does that tell us about
their syntactic status?
c. Why can those elements preceding Cl+N induce a definite reading in Wu? How can Cl+N and its modifiers be interpreted in a
compositional way?
The rest of the chapter is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the
syntactic relations of definite classifier and its preceding elements. I argue
that modified Cl+N is a definite expression, in which the classifier heads
a DP projection and demonstratives are located in [Spec DP] and other
preceding elements are DP modifiers. In Section 3, I propose a compositional semantics for modified Cl+N la Bach and Cooper (1978). The
last section is the conclusion of the chapter.
278
is a definite phrase, then what is the syntactic relation between the definite
classifier and its preceding elements?
In (6a), by using the modified Cl+N, the speaker intends the hearer to
identify a particular book, namely, the red book but not the others. The
sentence (6a) presupposes that in the given context, there are more than
one book and the adjective red helps to identify the relevant one, to be
contrasted with the alternatives, say, the black one, the white one etc. We
suggest that a modified Cl+N, such as the one in (6a), expresses a definite reading and not a specific indefinite reading. The example (6b) can be
interpreted in the same way that the hearer is able to identify the relevant
boy with the property expressed by the modifier, i.e. the property of wearing a hat.
I now show syntactic evidence to prove that non-bare [Cl-N] is a definite expression, but not a specific indefinite phrase. I provide two pieces of
evidence in support of this statement.
The first piece of evidence is concerned with the definiteness effect
in existential clauses (Milsark 1987). Existential clauses in Mandarin are
expressed by the existential verb you there be and only indefinite phrases,
such as numeral classifier phrases, are allowed to be the pivot of existential
(see Huang 1987 for Mandarin existentials). Existentials in Wu work in the
same way as Mandarin. They are introduced by the existential verb iu
there be and definite phrases are not allowed in existentials.
279
For example, (7a) has the phrase Cl+N, i.e. k in, as pivot of the existential clause, but it can only be interpreted with an indefinite reading,
meaning a person, but not a definite reading the person. It is parallel to
the example with a numeral classifier phrase, as in (7b).
(7) a. xotia
iu
k in
ti
t .
downstairs there:be CL people PROG wait you
There is a person waiting for you downstairs.
b. xotia
iu
i k
in
ti
t .
downstairs there:be one CL
people PROG wait you
There is a person waiting for you downstairs.
On the contrary, modified Cl+N is not allowed to appear in existential,
as shown in (8a). To make this sentence grammatical, we must delete the
existential iu there be, as in (8b). The sentence (8b) is turned into a nonexistential sentence, which has a modified Cl+N as subject.
(8) a. # xotia
iu
so in
k
k in
ti
t .
downstairs there:be send letter Mod CL people PROG wait you
There is the man who sends newspaper is waiting for you downstairs.
b. xotia
so in
k
k in
ti
t .
downstairs send letter Mod CL people PROG wait you
The man who sends newspaper is waiting for you downstairs.
The second piece of evidence is concerned with the possibility of the
recovery of the numeral one.
Cl+N always has a singular interpretation. When Cl+N has an indefinite singular reading, it is possible to recover the numeral i one before it. However, it is impossible to have ONE insertion before definite
Cl+N. For example, in (9a), we can insert an optional ONE before the
postverbal tin i-sa CL shirt, meaning a shirt, but in (9b), it is impossible to have ONE before definite Cl+N at the subject position.
(9) a. a m-ma p ta
l
(i) [tin i-sa] l.
you mum give you bring PFV one CL shirt directional
Your mum (asked me to) bring a shirt to you.
b. (*i) [ts kiu] m-i di.
one CL dog lost
PRT
The dog is missing.
280
kiu
dog
[Demonstrative]
ts
CL
kiu
dog
(*i)
one
ts
CL
[Adjective]
kiu
dog
[Relative clause]
From these three facts, I conclude that the modified Cl+N is a definite
expression, but not a specific indefinite phrase. The classifier in modified
Cl+N is supposed to have the same syntactic and semantic properties as
its use in non-modified Cl+N.
281
282
[Mandarin]
[Wu]
In Mandarin, modifiers can modify [Dem-Cl-N] only but not [Cl-N]. Maybe this
is due to the fact that in Mandarin, [Cl-N] is inherently indefinite and Cl0-to-D0
raising is prohibited in general.
283
(14) a. ta
san
pn y
that
three CL book
these three books
b.* ta i
pn
y
that one
CL
book
Intended: that book
To express singularity, we simply use Cl+N (15a) or Dem+Cl+N
(15b), but demonstrative cannot directly modify a noun without a classifier
(15c). Therefore, the singularity of (15b) is dependent on the classifier and
the demonstrative itself does not express singularity.
(15) a. ts
kiu
z
ala-ko.
CL dog be
1PL-MOD
The dog is ours.
b. ta
ts kiu z ala-ko.
that CL dog be 1PL-MOD
That dog is ours.
c. *ta
kiu z ala-ko.
that dog be 1PL-MOD
That dog is ours.
The facts in (14) and (15) tell us that although definite classifiers and
demonstratives are both able to express definiteness, they are differentiated
in number: the former are definite singulars, while the latter are preferred
to express definite plurals, though singular reference is also possible.
Second, in expressing definite singulars, a demonstrative always stands
on the left side of classifiers, not vice versa. Namely, Dem-Cl-N is the only
possible order and Cl-Dem-N is not grammatical. Compare (16) with (15b).
(16) * ts
CL
ta kiu z ala-ko.
that dog be 1PL-MOD
How can we account for these two facts? According to Giutsi (1999,
2002), a FP is licensed by (a) making the specifier visible and/or (b) making the head visible. The realization of a functional head is the last resort.
In our case, the D head, i.e. the classifier, has to be visible only when we
want to express singularity, as exhibited in (14-15). A possible arrangement of demonstrative and definite classifier is that demonstratives, as the
leftmost element in the DP domain, are located in the specifier position of
284
kiu
dog
*(k) ts
Mod CL
[Adjective]
kiu
dog
[Relative clause]
kiu
dog
[Possessor]
kiu
[Demonstrative]
(18) a. Adj/RC/Poss+Dem+Cl+N
k
ta
ts
black Mod that
CL
that dog with black fur
b.*Dem+Adj/RC/Poss+CL+N
*ta
k
ts
that
black Mod CL
285
kiu
dog
kiu
dog
If our claim is correct that RCs, adjectives and possessors are modifiers
and demonstratives are elements within DP, then the fact in (18) tells us
that those modifiers are DP modifiers.
To summarize, the relevant linguistic facts about non-bare Cl+N in
Wu that we have assembled so far show that (i) non-bare Cl+N is a definite expression, in which the classifier is a determiner head, and (ii) demonstratives are better to be treated as [Spec DP] and (iii) adjectives, relative clauses and possessors are DP modifiers.
286
[Generic]
[Episodic]
The bare noun thi sky in (19a) is used in a generic sentence, and it refers to the unique sky known to all of us. (19a) means that the sky is blue in
general. However, ban thi CL sky in (19b) refers to the sky in a particular situation, which is known to the interlocutors. In this specific example,
the temporal adverbial kints today helps to locate the entity in a very
particular spatial-temporal point.
Second, uniqueness is not a sufficient condition for the use of definite
classifiers. Definite Cl+N does not presuppose uniqueness or exclusiveness, but they imply familiarity or identifiability.
(20) a. ta
ts
kiu
that
CL
dog
that dog
b. in
santshl k
ts kiu
new
born
Mod CL dog
the newly born dog
[Demonstrative]
[Relative clause]
(20a) implies that there is a set of individual dogs, and the use of demonstrative ta that, accompanied with gesture, helps to identify the relevant entity among others in the context. By uttering (20b), the speaker
intends to refer to a particular dog, namely, the newly born one and not
others. This requires not that there be just one dog but that there be just one
dog that was newly born.
Another observation made by Li and Bisang (2012) is that bare Cl+N
is ambiguous between indefinite and definite readings, and that a definite
[Cl-N] is restricted to preverbal positions, which are argued to be (secondary) topic positions in Wu. (cf. the relevant arguments were presented in
chapter 9).
To combine these arguments, it is proposed that definite Cl+N in Wu
is characterized with familiarity in that the entity referred to by definite
287
Cl+N function as the topic of the sentence and it presupposes the entity
referred to to be familiar to the interlocutors.
NP
NP
Det
b.
CP
NP
Det
N
N
CP
288
The mismatching problem can be solved by taking into account the proposal offered by Bach and Cooper (1978). According to Bach and Cooper
(1978), it is possible to work out a compositional semantics for the structure (22a), i.e. [[the N]-RC]. They argue that noun phrases (DPs in our
term) can optionally take an extra property argument, which is saturated by
the denotation of a high-adjoined relative clause and intersected with the
property contributed by the content of the noun phrase. Its semantics is
sketched in (22).
(22)
NP2(=DP)
NP1(=DP)
Det
S(=CP)
who loves Mary
every
man
a. NNP1N= RP[(x)[man(x) R(x)] P(x) ]
b. NSN = z[love (z, m)]
c. NNP2N = P [(x)[man(x) love (x, m)] P(x) ]
It is clear from the semantics in (22) that a type-shifting is introduced:
the GQ is converted from type <<e, t>, t> to a function of type <<e, t>, <e,
t> t>.
As inspired by Bach and Coopers semantics in (22), we are now ready
to work out the compositional semantics of definite Cl+N and its modifiers.
In the discussion of bare Cl+N, we claimed that definite Cl+N is a
generalized quantifier and it is lifted from the predicative use of Cl+N.
This lifting operation (Partee 1987) may be seen as the corresponding syntactic operation of raising, namely, Cl-to-D raising. They also propose that
a contextual variable C is introduced in the denotation of definite Cl+N,
which represents contextual familiarity.
We, following Chierchia (1998) and Li (2011), assume that bare nouns
in classifier languages are kind denoting, as in (23).
(23) Denotation of bare nouns
NNN= k
289
[ts
CL
kiu]
dog
290
4. Concluding remarks
In this chapter, we investigated the syntactic and semantic properties of
non-bare classifier+noun in Wu Chinese. We showed that it is possible
for classifier languages, such as Wu Chinese, to have definite classifiers.
We argued that in non-bare Cl+N construction, classifiers are used as
definiteness markers and they are grammaticalized as quasi-definite articles.
We proposed that Wu Chinese not only has (quasi)definite articles, which
are able to instantiate the D head, but also it has a very refined DP structure, in which demonstratives are located at [Spec DP] and modifiers like
adjectives, possessors etc are DP modifiers.
References
Abney, Steve
1987
The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. diss., Department of Linguistics, MIT.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra
2000
Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Device. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Alexiadou, Artemis, Liliane Haegeman, and Melita Stavrou
2007
Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Allan, Keith
1977
Classifiers. Language 53: 285-311.
Aoun, Joseph, and Yen-Hui Audrey Li.
2003
Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar: The Diversity of Wh-Constructions. Mass: MIT Press.
Bach, Emmon
1986
The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9: 5-16.
Bach, Emmon, and Robin Cooper
1978
The NP-S analysis of relative clauses and compositional semantics.
Linguistics and Philosophy 2 (1): 145-150.
Bisang, Walter
1993
Classifiers, quantifiers, and class nouns in Hmong. Studies in Language 17 (1): 1-51.
1999
Classifiers in East and Southeast Asian languages: counting and
beyond. In Numeral Types and Changes Worldwide. Gvozdanovicm, Jadranka (ed.), 113-185. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bolinger, Dwight
1967
Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18: 1-34.
Borer, Hagit
2005
Structuring sense. Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Borschev, Vladimir, and Barbara H. Partee
2004
Genitives, types, and sorts: The Russian genitive of measure. In
Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax (UMOP 29), J.-Y.
Kim, Y.A. Lander, and B.H. Partee (eds.), 29-43. Amherst, MA:
GLSA Publications.
Bokovi, Zeljko
2010
Phases in NPs and DPs. Ms. University of Connecticut.
292
References
Bunt, Harry
1985
References
293
Chung, Sandra
2000
On reference to kinds in Indonesian, Natural Language Semantics
8: 157-171.
Clark, Herbert
1977.
Bridging. In Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, P.N. Johnson-Laird and P.C. Wason (eds.), 411-420. Cambridge.
Corbett, Greville
2000
Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Corver, Norbert
1998
Predicate movement in pseudo-partitive constructions. In Possessors, Predicates, and Movement in the Determiner Phrase, Artemis,
Alexiadou, and Chris Wilder (eds.), 215-257. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Craig, Colette
1992
Classifiers in a functional perspective. In Layered Structure and
Reference in a Functional Perspective, M. Fortescue, P. Harder,
and L. Kristoffersen (eds.) 277-301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Croft, Williams
1994
Semantic universals in classifier systems. Word 45:145-171.
Dayal, Veneeta
2004
Number Marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics
and Philosophy 27(4): 393-450.
Del Gobbo, Francesca.
1999
Nominal phrases in Mandarin and Cantonese. UCI Working Papers
in Linguistics 5:1132.
Den Dikken, Marcel and Pornsiri Singhapreecha
2004
Complex noun phrases and linkers. Syntax 7(1): 1-54.
Denny, J. P.
1976
What are noun classifiers good for? Chicago Linguistic Society 12:
122-132.
1979
The extendedness variable in classifier semantics: universal features and cultural variation. In Ethnolinguistics: Boss, Sapir, and
Whorf Revisited, M. Mathiot (ed.), 99-119. The Hague: Mouton.
Diseing, Molly
1992
Indefinites. Mass: the MIT Press.
Doetjes, Jenny
1997
Quantifiers and selection. Ph.D. Diss., Rijksuniversiteit Leiden.
Dolling, Johannas
1992
Flexible
Interpretationen
durch
Sortenverschiebung.
In
Fgungspotenzen, E. Zimmermann and A. Strigin (eds.), 23-62.
Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
294
References
Duanmu, San
1997
Phonologically motivated word order movement: evidence from
Chinese compounds. Studies in Linguistic Sciences 27(1): 49-73.
Enfield, Nick
2007
A Grammar of Lao, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Erbaugh, Mary S.
2002
Classifiers are for specification: complementary functions of sortal
and general classifiers in Cantonese and Mandarin. Cahiers de linguistique Asie Orientale 31(1): 33-69.
Fang, Mei
2002
zhishici zhe he na zai beijinghua zhong de yufahua [The grammaticalizaiton of demonstratives this and that in Beijing Mandarin].
Zhongguo Yuwen 4: 343-356.
Fodor, Janet, and Ivan Sag
1982
Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355398.
Gerstner-Link, Claudia, and Krifka Manfred
1993
Genericity. In Handbuch der Syntax, Joachim Jacobs, Arnimvon
Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, and Theo Vennemann (eds.), 966978. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Gerstner-Link, Claudia
1988
UberGenerizitat. Generische Nominalphrasen in Singularen
Aussagen und Generischen Aussagen. Ph.D. diss., University of
Munich
Gil, David
2005
Numeral Classifiers, In The World Atlas of Language Structures, M.
Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil and B. Comrie (eds.), 226-229. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gillon, Brendan
1992
Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns.
Linguistics and Philosophy 15(6): 597-640.
Giutsi, Giuliana
1999
The functional structure of noun phrases: a bare phrase structureapproach. Working papers in Linguistics. Vol. 9, n.1-2: 105-160.
2002
The functional structure of noun phrases: A bare phrase structure
approach. In Functional Structure in DP and IP, Guglielmo Cinque
(ed.), Vol. 1: 54-90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenberg, H. Joseph
1972
Numeral classifiers and substantival number: Problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. Working Papers on Language Universals 9:
1-39.
1974
Language typology: a historical and analytic overview. (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 184.) The Hague: Mouton.
References
295
Greenberg, Yael
1998
An overt syntactic marker for genericity in Hebrew. In Events and
Grammar, S. Rothstein (ed.), 125-144. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hashimoto, M. J.
1977
The genealogy and the role of the classifier in Sino-Tibetan. Computational Analyses of Asian and African Languages 7: 69-78.
Hashimoto, Yue
1993
Comparative Chinese Dialectal GrammarHandbook for Investigators. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
Hawkins, J. A.
1978
Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction. London: Croom Helm.
Heim, Irene
1982
The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. diss.,
University of Massachusetts.
Her, One-soon, and Chen-Toen Hsieh
2010.
On the semantic distinction between classifeirs and measure words
in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 11(3): 527-551.
von Heusinger, Klaus
2011
Specificity, referentiality and discourse prominence: German indefinite demonstratives. In Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung 15,
Reich, Ingo et al. (eds.), 9-30. Universaar-Saarland University
Press: Saarbrcken, Germany.
Higgins, Roger
1973
The pseudocleft construction in English. Ph.D. diss., MIT.
Hoeskstra, J.
1988
-fol, fol en de sintaksis fan mjitteoantsjuttingen. In Wurdfoarried
and Wurdgrammatika. S. Dyk, and G. de Haan (eds.), 74-114.
FryskeAkademy, Leeuwarden/Ljouwert.
Hsieh, Miao-Ling
2007
Whats number got to do with it? Paper presented at The 5th Conference of the European Association of Chinese Linguistics. MPI,
September 4-7. Leipzig. Germany.
2008
The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in Chinese. Books Series in
Chinese Linguistics. No.2. Taipei: Crane Publishers.
Hu, Jianhua, Haihua Pan and Peppina Lee
2003
Ningbohua yu Putonghua zhong huati he cihuati de jufa weizhi
[The Syntactic Positions of Topic and Subtopic in Ningbo Dialect
and Mandarin Chinese], In Huati Xinlun. [New Ideas about Topic
and Focus], Xu Liejiong and Danqing Liu (eds.), 164-175. Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press.
296
References
References
297
Krifka, Manfred
1989
Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in
event semantics. In Semantics and Contextual Expressions. Renate
Bartsch, John van Benthem, and Peter van Emde Boas, (eds.), 75111. Dordrecht: Foris.
1995
Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of English and Chinese. In
The Generic Book, Greg. N. Carlson and Jeff. F. Pelletier, (eds.),
398-411. University of Chicago Press.
2002
Be brief and vague! And how bidirectional optimality theory allows
for Verbosity and Precision. In Sounds and Systems. Studies in
Structure and Change. A Festschrift for Theo Vennemann, David
Restle and DietmarZaefferer (eds.), 439-458. Berlin/New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
2008
Approximate interpretations of number words: A case for strategic
communication. In Theory and Evidence in Semantics, E. Hinrichs,
and J. Nerbonne (eds.), 109-132. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Krifka, Manfred, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Gregory N. Carlson, Alice ter Meulen,
Godehard Link, and Gennaro Chierchia.
1995
Genericity: An introduction. In The Generic Book, Gregory N.
Carlson.and Francis J. Pelletier (eds.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kripke, Saul
1982
Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ladusaw, William A.
1982
Semantic constraints on the English partitive construction. Proceedings of WCCFL 1, 231-242.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
1980
Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, Knud
1994
Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the
Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landman, Fred
1989
Groups I/II. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5)-(6).
2004
Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Oxford: Blackwell.
Landman, Fred, and Susan Rothstein
2009
Incremental homogeneity in the semantics of aspectual for-phrases.
In Syntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Structure, Rapapport Hovav,
Malka, IviSichel, and Edit, Doron (eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lee, Hun-Tek Thomas
1986
Studies on quantification in Chinese, Ph.D. Diss., UCLA.
298
References
Lehrer, Adrienne
1986
English classifier constructions. Lingua 68: 109-148.
Li, N. Charles, and Sandra A. Thompson
1976
Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Subject and Topic, Charles, N. Li (ed.), 458-489. New York: Academic Press.
1981
Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Li, Frances
1971
Case and communicative function in the use of ba in Mandarin.
Ph.D. diss., Cornell University.
Li, Linding
1985
Zhuyu de yufadiwei [The grammatical status of subject]. Zhongguoyuwen 1: 62-70.
Li, XuPing
2007
The big/small issue of mass/count classifiers. Paper presented at the
fifth annual conference of EACL (European Association of Chinese
Linguistics). Leipzig, 2007.
Li, XuPing, and Walter Bisang
2012
Classifiers in Sinitic languages: From individuation to definitenessmarking. Lingua 122, 335-355.
Li, XuPing, and Susan Rothstein
2010
Two types of measure readings in Chinese classifier phrases. Paper
presented at the 12th International Symposium on Chinese languages and linguistics. June, Taipei, 2010.
2012
Measure readings of Mandarin classifier phrases and the particle de,
Language and Linguistics, 13(4): 693-741.
Li, Audrey Yen-Hui
1990
Order and constituency in Mandarin Chinese. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
1998
Argument determiner and number phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 29:
693-702.
1999
Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics
8: 75-99.
Lima, Suzi
2012
Numerals and the universal packager in Yudja. Ms. University of
Mass.
Lin, Jo-wang
1996
Polarity licensing and wh-phrase quantification in Chinese. Ph.D.
diss., University of Massachusetts.
1997
Chinese Noun Phrase Structure: DP or NP?, In Chinese Language
and Linguistics III: Morphology And Lexicon, Feng-fu Tsao and H.
Samuel Wang (eds.) 401-434. Academia Sinica, Taipei.
References
299
Link, Godehard
1983
The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical
approach. In Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language, R.
Buerle, C. Schwarze, and A. von Stechow (eds.), 303-323. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Lipton, James
1968
An Exaltation of Larks. New York: Grossman.
Liu, Chen-Sheng
2010
Dimension-denoting classifiers in Taiwanese compound adjectives.
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19(2): 181-205.
Liu, Danqing
2001
Wuyu de jufa leixing tedian [Two major typological features of Wu
dialects]. Fangyan (4).
Lobeck, Anne
1995
Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lbel, Elisabeth
1989
Q as a functional category. In Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena, C. Bhatt, E. Lbel, and C. Schmidt (eds.), 133-158. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1996
Function and Use of Vietnamese Classifiers. In Lexical Structure
and Language Use. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Lexicology and Lexical Semantics Mnster Vol 2, E. Weigandand F. Hundsnurscher (eds.), 293-304. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
2000
Classifiers and semi-lexicality: functional and semantic selection. In
Theorie des Lexikons, N. Corverand H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), 3182. Erschienen.
Lbner, Sebastien
1985
Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279-326.
Longobardi, Giuseppe
1994
Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25(4): 609-665.
Lu, Jianming
1987
Shuliangci zhongjian charu xiongrongci qingkuang kaocha [A survey of the insertion of adjectives between numeral and classifier].
Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu 4: 53-72.
Luo, Yuanlin
1988
Guanyu shuliangci zhongjian charu xiongrongci qingkong de buchong kaocha [A supplement study of the insertion of adjectives
before classifiers]. Hanyu Xuexi 1988(4): 7-12.
L, Shuxiang
1942
Zhongguo wenfa yaolue [Essense of Chinese Grammar]. Beijing:
Commercial Press.
300
References
1990
1980
Lyons, John
1976
Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, Christopher
1999
Definiteness. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, Stephen, and Virginia Yip
1994
Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.
Matthewson, Lisa
2001
Quantification and the nature of cross-linguistic variation. Natural
Language Semantics 9:145-189.
Mller, Ana, and Oliveira Fatima
2004
Bare nominals and number in Brazilian and European Portuguese.
Journal of Portuguese Linguistics 3:11-36.
Muromatsu, Keiko
1998
On the syntax of classifiers. Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland.
de Oliveira, Roberta, and Rothstein Susan
2011
Bare singular nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 121(15):
2153-2175.
Pan, Wuyun, and Tao Huan
1999
Wuyu de zhidaici [Pronouns in Wu]. In Daici [Pronouns], Li Rulong and Zhang Shuangqing (eds.), 25-67. Guangzhou: Jinan
University Press.
Paris, Marie-Claude
1981
Problmes de Syntaxe et de Smantique en Linguistique Chinose.
Paris: Collge de France.
Partee, Barbara
1986
Ambiguous pseudo-clefts with unambiguous be, In Proceedings
of NELS l6, S. Berman, J.-W.Choe, J. McDonough (eds.), 354-366.
1987
Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies
in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized
Quantifiers, J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, and M. Stokhof (eds.),
115-143. Foris, Dordrecht.
1998
Copula inversion puzzles in English and Russian. In Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Seattle Meeting 1998, Katarzyna Dziwirek, Herbert Coats, and Cynthia Vakareliyska (eds.), 361395. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
References
301
302
References
References
303
304
References
Vos, Margaretha
1999
A grammar of partitive constructions. Ph.D. diss., Tilburg University.
Wang, Jian
2005
Suwan Quyu Fanyan Yanjiu Bijiao Yanjiu [A comparative study of
dialects spoken in Suzhou and Anhui]. Ph.D. diss., Department of
Chinese, Beijing University.
Wang, Jian, and Jinsong Gu
2006
Lianshui (Nanlu) hua liangci de teshu yongfa [On special uses of
classifiers in Lianshui (Nanlu) dialect]. ZhongguoYuwen 3: 237241.
Wang, Li
1958
Hanyu shigao [A history of Chinese]. Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe.
1943
Zhongguo xiandai yufa [Grammar on Modern Chinese]. Beijing:
Commercial Presss.
Watanabe, Akira
2006
Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 24: 241-306.
Wierzbicka, Anna
1988
The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wisniewski, Edward
2010
On using count nouns, mass nouns, and pluralia tantum: what
counts? In Kinds, Things and Stuff: Mass Terms and Generics.
Francis Jeffry Pelletier (ed.), 166-190. Oxford University Press.
Wiggins, David
1965
Identity statements. In Analytic Philosophy, R. J. Butler (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell.
Wilhelm, Andrea
2008
Bare nouns and number in Dne Sulin. Natural Language Semantics 16: 39-68,
Wilkinson, Karina
1991
Studies in the semantics of generic noun phrases. Ph.D.diss., University of MassachusettsAmherst.
Wiltschko, Matina
2012
Decomposing the mass/count distinction: Evidence from languages
that lack it. In Count and Mass across Languages, Massam, Diane
(ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Edwin
1983
Semantic vs. syntactic categories. Linguistics and Philosophy 6:
423-446.
References
Wu, Fuxiang
2003
305
306
References
Zimmermann, Ede
1993
On the proper treatment of opacity in certain verbs. Natural Language Semantics 1: 149 - 179.
Zong, Shouyun
2009
Shu+Xing+Liang geshi de fenghua ji qi yuyi yuyong chayi [On the
divergence of Num+Cl+N and its semantic and pragmatic differences]. Xiuci Xuexi 3: 37-42.
Index
accommodation, 268
additive, 137, 154
adjective, 37, 174
adnominal adjective, 174
dimensional adjective, 38, 60, 83,
182, 195
left-peripheral adjective, 174
pre-classifier adjective, 37, 49,
57, 174
animacy scale, 70
appositive, 92
approximation, 212, 226
argumental language, 86, 88
atomization, 161
attributive reading, 62, 204
ba construction, 119, 239
bare argument, 44, 88
bare argument language, 69, 71
bare classifier construction, 154, 235
bare noun, 2, 44, 52, 94, 101, 162,
237
bare plural, 94
Boolean algebra, 101, 164
Cantonese, 5, 234, 243
classifier language, 16
classifier reduplication, 139, 142
coercion, 159
concrete portion, 179, 195
container classifier, 18, 22, 25, 129,
135, 170
container classifiers, 149
conventional classifier, 23
copula clause, 104, 106, 108, 112,
114
count classifier, 45, 127
count mass noun, 68, 73
count noun, 42, 46, 102, 166
count structure, 73
countability, 2, 69, 71
counting, 2, 3, 130, 134, 164, 167,
179, 221, 223
count-to-mass shifting, 78
definiteness, 4, 93, 97, 266
definite bare noun, 116, 121
definite classifier, 136, 234, 240,
278
definite numeral, 258, 261
definite reading, 95, 97, 99
DP structure, 3, 141
demonstrative, 4, 90, 282
Dne Sulin, 71
distributivity, 132
dotted type, 130
estimation, 222, 224
existential closure, 265, 266
existential quantifier, 238
existential reading, 94
expressive, 195
familiarity, 4, 97, 121, 269, 288
weak familiarity, 4, 269
feature analysis, 143
focus, 246
fraction, 65, 215
functional, 20, 33, 43, 133
308
Index
Index
309
scope, 98
intermediate reading, 100
narrow scope, 97, 99
wide scope, 98
secondary topic, 247
semantic shifting, 134, 158
signature property, 42
sortal classifier
see.individual classifier
specificity, 96, 249, 252, 253
standard measure, 19, 147
stubbornly distributive predicate,
140
stuff, 79
syntactic re-analysis, 223
Thai, 14
topic, 118, 119, 241, 246
secondary topic, 119
topic-prominent language, 246
transparent phenomenon, 38, 56, 181
transparent reading, 93
type shifting, 94, 106, 111
taxonomy, 91
temporary classifier, 19, 147
Yudja, 71