LINGUIST List 25.1384
Sat
Mar 22 2014
Review: Semantics;
Syntax; Chinese, Mandarin: Zhang
(2013)
Editor for this issue:
Rajiv Rao <rajivlinguistlist.org>
Date: 04-Jan-2014
From: Priyanka Biswas
<biswas.priyanka
gmail.com>
Subject: Classifier Structures
in Mandarin Chinese
E-mail this message to a
friend
Discuss this
message
Book announced at
http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-2241.html
AUTHOR: Niina Ning Zhang
TITLE: Classifier Structures in Mandarin
Chinese
SERIES TITLE: Trends in Linguistics. Studies
and Monographs [TiLSM] 263
PUBLISHER: De Gruyter Mouton
YEAR: 2013
REVIEWER: Priyanka Biswas, University of
Southern California
SUMMARY
This book, ‘Classifier Structures in Mandarin
Chinese,’ presents a detailed description of
Mandarin Chinese (MC henceforth) nominals from
the viewpoint of a typical classifier (CL)
language. Focusing on different types of
structures and meanings associated with
classifier noun combinations, Zhang discusses
the relation between classifiers and
quantifiers, and their relation to
countability, measurability, plurality, etc.
Syntactic constituency of numeral expressions,
various syntactic positions of classifiers, and
noun-classifier compounds have previously been
discussed, but Zhang presents new observations.
She derives new generalizations from her
observations and presents novel analyses of the
MC nominal structure. This book is divided into
eight chapters. Chapter One provides a short
introduction and Chapter Eight ends the book
with a short conclusion. The remaining six
chapters discuss classifiers in MC and their
relation to countability, quantification,
number marking, syntactic constituency,
functional projections, and compound formation
over the span of 276 pages.
Chapter 1. Introduction
The first chapter gives an overview of MC
classifier structures. The author defines MC as
a numeral classifier language based on the fact
that a classifier can appear with both count
and mass nouns. Contrary to the notion that
typical classifier languages lack number
distinction, Zhang hints at the possibility of
a systematic way of number marking in MC.
Classifier reduplication is claimed to be a
productive way of expressing plurality in MC.
After an overview of syntactic positions of
numerals, classifiers and nouns, the author
ends the chapter with an outline of subsequent
chapters.
Chapter 2. Classifiers and countability
This chapter introduces two features:
numerability and delimitability of nominals and
classifiers. Numerability is the ability to
combine with a numeral directly, whereas,
delimitability is the ability of a noun to be
modified by a delimitive (i.e., size, shape or
boundary) modifier. These two features redefine
the count-mass distinction in nouns. Section
2.2 presents Zhang’s main proposal. The feature
numerability defines a count noun. It explains
the contrast between nominals that combine with
numerals and those that do not. The feature is
language specific. For example, some suffixes
in English make nouns numerable, such as -er,
-ee, -ant (e.g., in ‘worker,’ ‘nominee,’ etc.).
As numerability is a feature that defines count
nouns, Zhang also suggests that there might be
languages that have some markers that somehow
indicate anti-numerability. For example, in
Dutch, the collective affix -werk doesn’t
combine with numerals at all. Delimitability
covers adjectives that are size, shape or
boundary denoting, and excludes adjectives that
modify prototypical mass nouns (e.g., oil),
abstract nouns (e.g., belief), or object-mass
nouns (e.g., furniture). The contrast is
between the nominals that may be modified by a
delimitive modifier and nominals that are not.
[+Del] entails atomicity, whereas [-Del] is
independent of it. The reason that the former
includes atomic elements is because they occur
with measure or container phrases. Prototypical
mass nouns are defined by the combination of
[-numerability] and [-delimitability]. The 2x2
matrix of these two features redefines the
count-mass distinction in nouns, as shown
below.
Nouns [+numerable, +delimitable]: individuated
count nouns (e.g., unicorn)
Nouns [+numerable, ¬-delimitable]:
unindividuated count nouns (e.g., belief)
Nouns [-numerable, +delimitable]: individuated
mass nouns or “non-mass” or “object-mass” (cf.
Barner & Snedeker 2005) or “count mass”
nouns (cf. Doetjes 1997) (e.g., furniture)
Nouns [-numerable, -delimitable]: substance
mass nouns (e.g., water)
All nouns in Chinese are [-Num], as they don’t
combine with numerals without a classifier;
however, nouns that refer to months, days,
etc., can combine without a classifier. Some
nouns can have the numeral yi (‘one’) without a
classifier, but this is only possible with
nouns that can appear with the general
classifier ge. Some constructions do not need
classifiers, such as compound nouns (e.g.,
wu-xiang-fen ‘five-spice-powder’), multiple
numeral expressions (e.g., san fang liang tin
‘three room two sitting room’), or complex
numerals (e.g., liu-yi (ge) funu ‘six billion
woman’). If there is a numeral that is not
whole, a classifier is obligatory (e.g., liu-yi
ling san *(ge) funu ‘six billion zero three
*(cl) woman’.) Delimitability of nouns divides
the non-count MC nouns into the mass type and
non-mass type. [-Num +Del] (i.e., non-mass
type) nominals are selected by individual
classifiers and [-Num, -Del] (i.e., mass type)
are individuating CLs (for mass nouns). [+Del]
nouns can be modified by delimitive adjectives,
but [-Del] cannot (e.g., chang chang de he/*you
‘long de river/*oil’). The same goes when these
adjectives are in predicate positions.
This chapter brings about new perspectives on
the definition of the count-mass distinction in
nouns. The two features numerability and
delimitability refine the distinction between
different types of count and mass nouns. The
features also categorize the classifier system
in MC according to its compatibility with
different types of count and mass nouns. In
sum, the introduction of these two features
contributes to a better understanding of the
count-mass distinction in classifier
languages.
Chapter 3. Classifiers and quantifiers
The relationship between classifiers and
quantifiers in MC is discussed in this chapter.
Given the assumption that the general function
of a classifier is counting units and not
individuating mass, Zhang discusses several
types of quantifiers in MC and their variable
compatibility with classifiers. Different types
of quantifiers have different types of
restrictions. For example, some quantifiers
require the co-occurrence of classifiers, while
some others may not be followed by classifiers.
The questions discussed in this chapter involve
the function of the classifier that
obligatorily occurs with some non-numeral
quantifiers, and why some other quantifiers do
not require any classifiers. Quantifiers such
as ji (‘how many’ or ‘a few, several’, haoji
‘several’, ruogan ‘several’) and paucal numeral
liang-san (‘two-three => a few’) must also
be followed by a unit word (i.e., classifiers
or measure words). For example, with the
classifiers dui (‘pile’) or zhong (‘kind’), ji
(‘how many’) has two different interpretations.
However, if the classifier is an individual
classifier, it shows selectional restriction
with the noun. For example, the classifiers duo
(‘classifier for flower’) or zhong (‘classifier
for table’) cannot substitute for one another.
In quantifiers that mandatorily have a
classifier, the classifiers encode a unit in
the function of quantification. These
classifiers do not contrast with a classifier
of a different type. Therefore, Zhang argues
that these non-contrastive classifiers have the
same syntactic position as the classifiers in
numeral expressions, but are simply
placeholders. Some quantifiers may be followed
by classifiers which are contrastive with other
types of classifiers and perform the same
function as classifiers in numeral expressions
(i.e., facilitate counting units). This chapter
is more of a description of (in)compatibility
of classifiers and quantifiers than an
explanation of the reasons for such
(in)compatibility. No discussion is provided on
the newly introduced features of numerability
and delimitability with regard to quantifiers
and the classifiers.
Chapter 4. Classifiers and plurality
This chapter argues for the presence of number
markers in MC. Zhang argues that the
cross-linguistically attested claim that
classifier languages do not have a productive
number marking system, can be falsified by the
system of number marking in MC. Plural marking
can be productive in MC, by means of a
recurring morpho-syntactic pattern (e.g.,
reduplicative unit words or RUW). Zhang argues
that RUWs (e.g., reduplicated classifiers) in
MC nominals have the property of number.
Identified number markers might have a
dependency on certain quantificational
elements. Generally, number marking follows the
Animacy Hierarchy. For example, dual number
marking with –lia is found in pronouns and
kinship terms, but not in inanimate objects
like *ri-yue-lia (‘sun-moon-dual’). Personal
pronouns without the marker -men or dual marker
-lia obligatorily refer to a single person.
However, these are not number markers, as they
are restricted to a certain set of nominals.
Zhang doesn’t consider xie as a number marker
either, as it occurs with mass nouns and is
non-contrastive when occurring with
demonstratives. The morpheme -men is also not
considered a number marker, as it is restricted
to common nouns that are both definite and
human-denoting. Unlike pronouns, nominals in MC
do not have obligatory number marking. Bare
nouns in MC (and in most CL languages) are
number neutral (General Number in terms of
Corbett, 2000). Zhang argues that RUWs are
actual plural markers in MC.
This chapter falsifies the claim that plural
markers and classifiers do not occur in the
same language (Chierchia 1998, Doetjes 1997) or
in the same noun phrase (Borer, 2005). With
examples and illustrations from unrelated
languages, Zhang argues that if in a language
bare nouns show general number, then plural
marking cannot be obligatory; however, it is
possible that in these languages singularity
and plurality could be systematically expressed
in morpho-syntactic ways. This may further
imply that articleless languages may have
general number (Boskovic, 2012), and MC
provides support for that generalization.
Chapter 5. The syntactic constituency of
numeral expressions
This chapter discusses the syntactic
constituency of numeral expressions with
nominals. Zhang argues that the division of
left branching and the right branching
structure of numeral expressions correlate with
differences between two types of unit words
(i.e., classifiers or measure words). The
contrast is not that of count versus mass
nouns. The individuating and individual
classifiers have an identical constituency of
mass and non-mass nouns. Zhang argues that the
left-branching structure and the
right-branching structure in the numeral CL
nominal constructions could have different
types of constituency. The scope of a
left-peripheral modifier, the effect of
modifier association, the semantic selection of
a unit word on a noun, and the order of size
and shape modifiers have different effects in
these two types of constituency. A numeral
expression with a standard measure, container
measure, a collective CL, and a partitive CL
have a left-branching structure in which the
numeral and the unit word form a constituent,
excluding the nouns. In this structure, the
unit word does not c-command the noun. On the
other hand, the individual, individuating and
kind CLs pattern together in right-branching
structures. The container and standard measures
pattern with collective and partitive CLs in
that a delimitive modifier (e.g, long, big,
small, etc.) brings in different
interpretations, unlike individual CLs, which
don’t change the interpretation. It is possible
to have multiple modifiers, for example, size
and shape modifiers. In such a case, the shape
adjective is closer to the modifiee than the
size adjective. This order is observed without
the functional particle de. However, the order
of the adjectives is irrelevant for collective,
standard and container measures. The contrast
in adjective order distinguishes the two
structures. In a numeral expression, an
individual CL, as well as its modifier,
c-command the modifier of the associate NP, and
therefore, they are all in the same domain in
which the two types of adjectives follow the
Vendler order. In the left-branching structure,
the unit word does not c-command the NP,
whereas in the right-branching structure, the
unit word does c-command the NP. Zhang also
falsifies arguments based on adjacency of a
numeral and a unit word. Finally, she argues
against measure-count semantic mappings with
different syntactic structures.
Chapter 6. The syntactic positions of
classifiers
Relevant functional projections and categories
are discussed in this chapter. Zhang proposes
that classifiers in numeral expressions perform
the same function as that of verbal auxiliaries
of a clause. Neither of the two performs as an
argument or predicate. They don’t bear any
thematic relation to the nominal or the main
verb. Both select substantive categories, and
can be either absent or have full forms
cross-linguistically. Furthermore,
cross-linguistically, the classifier function
emerges only when the so-called classifier or
measure units appear between numerals and
nouns. Zhang adopts the idea of a hierarchical
nominal structure, and introduces a new
projection between DP and NP, the UnitP, which
is introduced in addition to the NumP and
QuantP. The features unique to this account
(i.e., numerability and delimitability) have
been re-introduced in this chapter. The UnitP
projection represents numerability, the feature
associated with countability of nominals. In
the proposed analysis, countability is
represented by functional structure, rather
than substantive properties of nouns or
numerals. Numerals are argued to be
base-generated at Spec of the UnitP. Unit words
such as a CL, measure words, etc., head the
UnitP. Since the UnitP is associated with
countability, it projects when a numeral
occurs, regardless of whether there is any
overt form for the head of this projection. The
quantifiers formed with yi (‘one’) are hosted
by the Spec of QuantP. And the obligatory CL
following these quantifiers is at the head of
the QuantP. Plural markers, including RUWs in
MC, are hosted in NumP, which is different from
UnitP. Thus, the occurrence of a plural marker
does not correlate with the projection of
UnitP, which represents the occurrence of a
classifier or measure word within the DP. With
the new apparatus, Zhang also presents
derivations of other nominal constructions
involving measures, etc. The left and right
branching structures of MC numeral expressions
are also represented in terms of their
syntactic structures. By the use of unique
features (i.e., numerability and
delimitability), Zhang attempts to explain the
cross-linguistic variation in the nominal. The
variability depends on the overt and covert
realization of the UnitP. In this analysis,
cross-linguistic variation is represented by a
fine gradation of properties of overt and
covert elements.
Chapter 7. Noun-classifier compounds
This chapter involves noun classifier compound
cases (e.g., Num CL N-CL). It shows that, at
least in MC, a unit word is required regardless
of the presence of an internal element in a
noun that denotes a unit. This indicates that
the presence of a CL with a numeral and a
nominal in MC is a syntactic rather than a
semantic requirement. Zhang discusses the
similarities and differences between bare nouns
and N-CL compounds, and the implications of a
lower CL appearing with a noun in the presence
of a unit word (or a higher CL) in Num CL N-CL
constructions. The presence of a lower CL
decides the delimitability of the compound on
the one hand, and the presence of a unit word
does not make a non-count nominal a count one.
These two facts have shown that a lower CL is a
realization of a functional head,
Del(imitability), rather than a Unit.
Therefore, in addition to Unit, Quant, and Num,
there is a fourth functional position for CLs:
Del. Zhang also shows that if the higher CL is
ge or a copy of the lower CL, it is a
place-holder of Unit, but without semantic
contexts. In this case, the structure of the
construction may be different from that of the
corresponding construction in which the same CL
is not a place-holder. N-CL constructions thus
tell us more about the syntactic nature of CLs,
the syntactic positions of various types of
CLs, and the cross-categorical availability of
place-holders for functional heads.
Chapter 8 concludes the book by summarizing its
main arguments.
EVALUATION
This book gives a thorough description of
nominal architecture in MC. It discusses in
detail various types of classifiers, measure
(unit words) constructions, (in)compatibility
with various quantifier constructions and
associated interpretations in these nominal
structures. Zhang follows a very structured
approach in this book, where she systematically
expresses new proposals, and evaluates them
with respect to several possible combinations.
Several constructions of unit words along with
numerals, quantifiers, and nominals are
discussed in this book. This book is very
useful for researchers working in classifier
languages, as it gives a comprehensive
description of different types of combinations
possible in MC. The unique proposals of the two
features numerability and delimitability
provide a new perspective on the distinction
between count and mass nouns, and relate it to
their combination with various types of unit
words and adjectives in MC. Zhang also presents
cross-linguistic examples, and validates the
proposals with explanations of data outside of
MC. The cross-linguistic orientation of the
book, along with specific focus on a
prototypical classifier language like MC, I
believe, will prove to be very useful for
further research on the nominal domain.
Furthermore, the book fits well with other
literature on classifier languages and opens up
a lot of theoretical as well as language
specific questions for research on MC as well
as other, less studied classifier
languages.
The chapter that appeals to me the most is the
one on classifiers and plurality. There has
been a long-standing debate among researchers
regarding the complementary distribution of
classifiers and plural markers in classifier
languages. The common view regarding number
marking in classifier languages is that these
languages lack a number marking system.
However, contemporary research brings up new
instances that challenge this view. Zhang’s
work in this area is particularly compelling
because she brings into light new observations
and a systematic representation of a system
that resembles a number marking system in a
prototypical classifier language like MC. She
provides excellent argumentation to show that
there is a productive number marking system in
MC by means of syntactic occurrences of the
numeral-less unit word or reduplicated unit
words, which are not restricted to only animate
nouns (e.g., associative plural), as is
commonly found in classifier languages. She
also alludes to the optionality of plural
marking in classifier languages due to the
presence of number-neutral bare nouns or the
general number system. This chapter serves as a
strong counter-argument to the common
understanding of number marking in classifier
languages.
Since the book aims to give a comprehensive
picture of the nominal structure of a
proto-typical classifier language, i.e.,
Mandarin Chinese, it misses out on descriptions
of prior research on classifier languages. This
is probably difficult, given the details
already provided in the book; however, at some
points, this book seems too focused on only
details of MC. This minor shortcoming does not
detract from the overall usefulness of the book
or from its invaluable contribution to the
study of nominal structure in Mandarin
Chinese.
REFERENCES
Barner, David, & Jesse Snedeker. (2005).
Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence
that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97(1),
41-66.
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring Sense: In Name
Only, Vol. I, Oxford University Press.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds
across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6,
339-405.
Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and
Selection: On the Distribution of Quantifying
Expressions in French, Dutch and English.
Dissertation Leiden University, HAG, The
Hague.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Priyanka Biswas is a graduate student in
Linguistics at the University of Southern
California. Her research interest lies in the
area of nominal structure of classifier
languages. Specifically, she works on the
issues of plurality and number marking of South
Asian classifier languages.
Page Updated: 22-Mar-2014