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.

Bare Numeral Classifier Phrases and Bare Nouns in Mandarin

Chapter 2 examines Mandarin numeral classifier phrases. It begins with a discussion of a list of tendentially universal properties of numeral-noun phrases in number marking languages (NMLs) like English and French and argues for a D-less analysis of them. It then shows that although numeral containing phrases in Mandarin differ a great deal from those in NMLs in the internal nominal domain, their scope behavior, interpretations, and distribution are rather similar to those of NMLs. It argues that the D-less analysis of numeral-noun phrases in NMLs can be extended to Mandarin numeral classifier phrases and further argues for a kind-referring analysis of Mandarin bare nouns. The proposed analysis of numeral classifier phrases correctly predicts the scope behavior of bare nouns in Mandarin and allows us to account for its numeral-less classifier phrases. This chapter concludes that it is not necessary to stipulate an empty D in Mandarin

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).

Implications on Nominal Argument Formation in General

Chapter 6 discusses the relationship between argument formation in classifier languages and argument formation more generally. It begins with a discussion on the variable and uniform properties concerning nominal arguments in NMLs and shows that their variation can be captured by two of the parameters in classifier languages proposed in Chapter 5. It further shows that the variation in whether nouns are coded as kinds or properties can differentiate classifier languages from NMLs. It then discusses languages, which have neither a general classifier system (unlike Mandarin or Nuosu Yi) nor obligatory singular/plural marking on nouns (unlike English or Hindi). Building on previous analyses, this chapter analyzes Yudja as a language with a silent Cl and Lhasa Tibetan a language with a silent Div. This chapter allows us to further update the variation and typology of nominal argument formation and to predict more types of languages.

Plurality and Complex Nominal Arguments in Mandarin

Chapter 3 focuses on -men in Mandarin, a morpheme that has been analyzed as a plural marker and/or a collective marker and has been used to argue for the existence of DP projections in Mandarin. It defends the view that -men is a plural marker but argues against the analysis of placing -men in the D position. By treating -men as a plural morpheme, the Mandarin fact may seem to argue against the proposed uniform D-less structure of numeral containing phrases in Chapter 2. However, this chapter argues that the Mandarin fact does not force us to change the proposed structure in Chapter 2. Specifically, it proposes an analysis of -men as an associative plural marker. The analysis of -men further argues for the lack of DP in Mandarin.