Deriving four generalizations about nominals in three classifier languages

This squib presents a set of facts concerning nominal structures in Bahnar, Mandarin, and Vietnamese. It proposes an account of these facts which reduces them to cross-linguistic differences with respect to the availability of particular syntactic configurations involving the bare noun and its extended projection. These differences, in turn, are derived from cross-linguistic variations with respect to the availability of items in the functional lexicon.

Classifiers in Morphology

Classifiers are partly grammaticalized systems of classification of nominal referents. The choice of a classifier can be based on such criteria as animacy, sex, material, and function as well as physical properties such as shape, size, and consistency. Such meanings are expressed by free or bound morphemes in a variety of morphosyntactic contexts, on the basis of which particular subtypes of classifiers are distinguished. These include the most well-known numeral classifiers which occur with numerals or quantifiers, as in Mandarin Chinese yí liàng chē (one clf.vehicle car) ‘one car’. The other types of classifiers are found in contexts other than quantification (noun classifiers), in possessive constructions (possessive classifiers), in verbs (verbal classifiers), as well as with deictics (deictic classifiers) and in locative phrases (locative classifiers). Classifiers are found in languages of diverse typological profiles, ranging from the analytic languages of Southeast Asia and Oceania to the polysynthetic languages of the Americas. Classifiers are also found in other modalities (i.e., sign languages and writing systems). Along with grammatical gender, classifiers constitute one of the two main types of nominal classification. Although classifiers and gender differ in some ways, with the presence of a classifier not being reflected in agreement (i.e., the form of associated words), in others they exhibit common patterns. Thus, both types of nominal classification markers contribute to the expansion of the lexicon and the organization of discourse. Shared patterns also involve common paths of evolution, as illustrated by the grammaticalization of classifier systems into gender systems. In turn, particular types of classifiers resemble various means of lexical categorization found in non-classifier languages, including measure words, class terms, as well as semantic agreement between the verb and direct object. All these three means of classification can be viewed in terms of a continuum of grammaticalization, ranging from lexical means to partly grammaticalized classifiers and to grammaticalized gender systems. Although evidence of classifiers in non-Indo-European languages has been available since the 16th century, it was only the end of the 20th century that saw a formative stage in their study. Since then, classifier systems have offered fascinating insights into the diversity of language structure, including such key phenomena as categorization, functionality, grammaticalization, and the distinction between lexicon and grammar as well as the language-internal and external factors underlying the evolution of morphosyntactic complexity.

NP-ellipsis and numeral classifiers in Korean

The syntactic status of numeral classifiers with respect to NP-ellipsis in classifier languages has been a controversial subject in many recent discussions. Addressing this issue, this article argues that Korean numeral classifiers can serve as functional heads that license NP-ellipsis via PF-deletion. A null NP appearing in a numeral classifier context cannot be identified with any other null categories, such as a pro or a null NP pro-form. This null NP induces a different reading from a pro, especially when a possessor argument is stacked with a numeral classifier construction. Unlike an NP pro-form, it allows the extraction of an internal argument and exhibits a complementary distribution with kes ‘one’, a visible counterpart of a Korean NP pro-form. This article’s claim gains additional support from the asymmetries in NP-ellipsis of a uy-marked numeral classifier, contingent on its ambiguity, such as a ‘quantity’ or ‘property’ interpretation. In addition, the distribution of bare numerals in relation to the NP pro-form kes offers further evidence, reinforcing the claim.

Variation in Classifier Languages

Chapter 5 develops a uniform account of bare nominal arguments (i.e., bare numeral classifier phrases, bare classifier phrases, bare nouns) in classifier languages. It achieves that by extending the scope of discussion to more classifier languages. It starts with three points on which Mandarin and Nuosu Yi differ and which make this comparison interesting from the perspective of building a theory of cross-linguistic variation. Their differences are: (i) whether or not they have the function category D in their grammar, (ii) whether or not they freely allow numeral-less classifier phrases to appear in argument positions, as a result of applying covert argument formation operations unrestrictedly, and (iii) whether or not they allow one-deletion from the [one Cl N] phrase in the PF. Three parameters based on these differences account for the variation.

A Classifier Language with D

Chapter 4 analyzes argument formation in Nuosu Yi, a language that is typologically unusual in having classifiers as well as a definite determiner. Also unusual is the fact that its demonstratives do not combine directly with nouns but require the mediation of classifiers. Properties such as these are shown to challenge accounts of argument formation developed in Chapters 2 and 3. In particular, the discovery of a classifier language with an overt determiner may seem to tilt the balance in favor of the Universal DP Hypothesis and also disprove Chierchia’s (1998b) Nominal Mapping Hypothesis adopted in Chapters 2 and 3. However, this chapter argues that the opposite is the case. It proposes a modification of Chierchia’s (1998b) framework, which accounts for why classifier languages with overt Ds are possible but rare and also allows us to make further predictions about classifier languages.

Nominal Arguments and Language Variation

This book investigates nominal arguments in classifier languages. A long-held claim is that classifier languages do not have overt article determiners (D). This book, however, brings to the forefront the theoretical investigation on the typologically unique Nuosu Yi, a classifier language that will be shown to have an overt article determiner. By comparing nominal arguments in Nuosu Yi to those in Mandarin, the book provides a parametric account of variation among classifier languages and extends the account to argument formation in general. This book begins with a detailed examination of bare numeral classifier phrases in Mandarin by comparing them with bare numeral noun phrases in number marking languages, such as English, French, and Russian. The book argues for a unified structure of bare numeral containing phrases with no reference to D across languages as well as for a D-less structure for various types of nominal arguments in Mandarin. It further studies nominal argument formation in Nuosu Yi. The facts from Nuosu Yi essentially alter the landscape of empirical data and constitute an immediate (prima facie) challenge to the proposed analysis of nominal arguments based on the Mandarin data. This book argues that despite the fact that Nuosu Yi has an overt article determiner, this should not force us to change anything about the proposed analysis of nominal arguments. Lastly, the book puts the analysis of Mandarin and Nuosu Yi nominal arguments in a broader, cross-linguistic perspective and develops a parametric account of variation in nominal argument formation in general.

Introduction

This chapter offers a brief introduction to the book. It provides general criteria for the definition of a “classifier language” and offers an overview of the properties along which classifier languages may vary. After briefly discussing two ongoing debates regarding nominal arguments—one is about the syntax of nominal arguments and the other is about the reference of bare nominal argument terms—this chapter provides a brief summary of each of the remaining chapters.

Conclusion

Chapter 7 summarizes the major claims of this work and offers avenues for future research. The five claims are (i) bare numeral containing phrases have identical D-less structures in classifier and number marking languages; (ii) for classifier languages, it is not necessary to assume a functional category D to account for nominal arguments; (iii) the Universal DP Hypothesis is inadequate to account for cross-linguistic variation and makes different predications about classifier languages than those in this book; (iv) article determiners in classifier languages are expected; and (v) language variation is due primarily to four factors (outlined in the book).