25.1384, Review: Semantics; Syntax; Chinese, Mandarin: Zhang (2013)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-25-1384. Sat Mar 22 2014. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 25.1384, Review: Semantics; Syntax; Chinese, Mandarin: Zhang (2013)

Fund Drive 2014
http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2014/

Moderators: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajiv at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  


Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:04:31
From: Priyanka Biswas [biswas.priyanka at gmail.com]
Subject: Classifier Structures in Mandarin Chinese

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=25-1384.html&submissionid=25387813&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=25387813


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.








------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $75,000. This money will go to help keep the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.

See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out Fund Drive 2014 site!

http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2014/

There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!

You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at https://linguistlist.org/donation/donate/donate1.cfm

Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to: https://linguistlist.org/donation/pledge/pledge1.cfm

For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to donate by check, money order, PayPal or wire transfer, please visit: http://linguistlist.org/donation/

The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as such can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered 501(c) Non Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return (U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact your financial advisor.

Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match any gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your contacting your human resources department and sending us a form that the EMU Foundation fills in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple administrative procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if your company operates such a program.

Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-25-1384	
----------------------------------------------------------