Numeral Classifiers in Udi: A Unique Contact-Induced Development among Nakh-Daghestanian?

Following Stilo’s (2018) study of small-inventory classifier systems in a number of Indo-European, Turkic, Kartvelian and Semitic languages of the Araxes-Iran Linguistic Area, the paper presents an account of numeral classifiers in Udi, a Nakh-Daghestanian (Lezgic) language spoken in northern Azerbaijan. Being a peripheral member of the linguistic area in question, Udi possesses an even more reduced version of a small-classifier system, comprising one optional classifier dänä (Iranian borrowing, most likely via Azerbaijani) used with both human and inanimate nouns. A dedicated classifier for humans is lacking, although there is a word tan (also of Iranian origin) only used after numerals or quantifiers, but predominantly as a noun phrase head. The behaviour of dänä and tan is scrutinized, according to a set of parameters, in both spoken and written textual corpora of the Nizh dialect of Udi. Drawing in the data from the related Nakh-Daghestanian languages, the paper shows that among the languages of the family Udi may be unique in possessing classifiers (albeit as a result of contact), Khinalug possibly being the only other exception.

Semantics of classifiers in some Indian Languages

In the present paper, we present a detailed description of the classifier systems of five Indian languages-- Mizo, Galo, Tagin (all belongs to the Tibeto-Burman family), Assamese (Indo-Aryan) and Malto (Dravidian). It is observed that the classifiers are a predominant feature in the Tibeto-Burman and we observe an extensive classifier system in these languages. There is no equivalent classifier system in other language families. However in the languages belonging to Eastern India, irrespective of the family, there is some sort of classifier system. Thus classifiers seem to be an areal feature in most of the Eastern and whole of the North-Eastern India. The purpose of the paper is to study if there is some semantic similarity among the classifier systems across language families in this area and thus to see if it is indeed an areal feature. It is just a preliminary description of an ongoing research in which we intend to study many more languages and include languages from the Austro-Asiatic family (such as Khasi and Munda languages spoken in Jharkhand) as well.

The Diversity of Classifier Inventory in Mandarin Dialects: A Case Study of Baoding

Our study compares Standard Mandarin (the Beijing dialect used in spoken and written registers) with the Mandarin dialect of Baoding (one of the Mandarin dialects belonging to the Jì-lŭ Mandarin group, Hebei-Shandong). Standard Mandarin and Baoding are geographically and phylogenetically closely related, but they differ in terms of their classifier system, as Standard Mandarin resorts to a wide array of sortal classifiers whereas Baoding only uses one general classifier. We first provide a detailed analysis of the unconventional classifier system in Baoding. Then, we compare the lexical and discourse functions of sortal classifiers in Standard Mandarin and Baoding. We show that Standard Mandarin does present a certain level of convergence with its geographical neighbour Baoding. However, these varieties also display significant divergences, as several lexical and discourse functions typically associated with classifier systems cannot be fulfilled by the only classifier found in Boading.