Unification of Numeral Classifiers and Plural Markers: Empirical Facts and Implications

Unification of Numeral Classifiers and Plural Markers: Empirical Facts and Implications Yun-Ru Chen Graduate Institute of Linguistics National Chengchi University Taipei, Taiwan 99555015@nccu.edu.tw One-Soon Her Graduate Institute of Linguistics & Research Center for Mind, Brain, and Learning National Chengchi University Taipei, Taiwan hero@nccu.edu.tw Abstract The use of an obligatory numeral classifier (C) on N in general does not co-occur with mandatory plural marking (PM) (Greenberg 1990[1972], Sanches and Slobin 1973). Borer (2005) and Her (2012a) take this generalization further and see Cs and PMs as the same category. This unification implies that C/PM are mutually exclusive on N. In this paper, we first provide a mathematical foundation for this unification, i.e., C/PM both function as a multiplicand with the precise value of 1 (Her 2012a), and then explore empirically to what extent C/PM’s complimentary distribution is borne out. We obtain from the WALS database a total of 22 languages with both Cs and PMs, including Mandarin, Japanese, and Vietnamese. Our survey finds C/PM co-occurring on N in 11 languages. We then set out to formally account for the unification of C/PM and explain its exceptions, taking Mandarin as an example, with a double-headed classifier construction. This study thus adds merit to the unification of C/PM and concludes with its implication on a universal lexical count/mass distinction. 1 Introduction Greenberg (1972) and Sanches and Slobin (1973) made the initial observation that languages with obligatory numeral classifiers (Cs) on nouns do not have compulsory morphological marking of nominal plurality, and vice versa. This generalization has been supported by a number of researchers, e.g., Tsuo (1976), Borer (2005), Her (2012a), Doetjies (2012), among others. To explain this generalization, Greenberg (1972) links the emergence of Cs in a language to its loss of plural markers (PMs), and as Peyraube (1998) observes, this is true for the rise of Cs in Chinese. However, this generalization is noncommittal on the complimentary distribution of Cs and PMs, as it says nothing about the cases where either C or PM is optional. Borer (2005:94) and Her (2012a:1682) take this generalization further and claim that Cs and PMs are the same category. The –s suffix in English, for example, applicable to all count nouns, is seen as a general classifier, similar to the Chinese ge in (1a) (Her 2012a:1682); the two thus share the same constituent structure, as in (2). (1) a. 三 個 杯子 san ge beizi 3 C cup b. three cups (2) NumP Num CLP 3 CL NP ge beizi -s cup The C/PM unification predicts the two to be in complimentary distribution on N. Yet, it does not preclude the scenario where the two coexist in a language but do not co-occur on N. The first objective of this paper is purely empirical: to identify to what extent these two predictions are borne out. We then set out to account for the PACLIC-27 37 Copyright 2013 by One-Soon Her and Yun-Ru Chen 27th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information, and Computation pages 37－46 general pattern …

Content truncated to 500 words