Chinese classifier
The modern Chinese varieties make frequent use of what are called classifiers or measure words. One use of classifiers is when a noun is qualified by a numeral or demonstrative. In the Chinese equivalent of a phrase such as "three books" or "that person", it is normally necessary to insert an appropriate classifier between the numeral/demonstrative and the noun. For example, in Standard Chinese,[note 1] the first of these phrases would be:
sān
three
běn
CLASSIFIER
书
shū
books
"three books"
When a noun stands alone without any determiner, no classifier is needed. There are also various other uses of classifiers: for example, when placed after a noun rather than before it, or when repeated, a classifier signifies a plural or indefinite quantity.
The terms classifier and measure word are frequently used interchangeably—as equivalent to the Chinese term
Most nouns have one or more particular classifiers associated with them, often depending on the nature of the things they denote. For example, many nouns denoting flat objects such as tables, papers, beds, and benches use the classifier 张;
Many other languages of the Mainland Southeast Asia linguistic area exhibit similar classifier systems, leading to speculation about the origins of the Chinese system. Ancient classifier-like constructions, which used a repeated noun rather than a special classifier, are attested in Old Chinese as early as 1400 BCE, but true classifiers did not appear in these phrases until much later. Originally, classifiers and numbers came after the noun rather than before, and probably moved before the noun sometime after 500 BCE. The use of classifiers did not become a mandatory part of Old Chinese grammar until around 1100 CE. Some nouns became associated with specific classifiers earlier than others; the earliest probably being nouns that signified culturally valued items such as horses and poems. Many words that are classifiers today started out as full nouns; in some cases their meanings have been gradually bleached away so that they are now used only as classifiers.
Usage[edit]
In Chinese, a numeral cannot usually quantify a noun by itself; instead, the language relies on classifiers, commonly also referred to as measure words.[note 2] When a noun is preceded by a number, a demonstrative such as this or that, or certain quantifiers such as every, a classifier must normally be inserted before the noun.[1] Thus, while English speakers say "one person" or "this person", Mandarin Chinese speakers say respectively:
yí
one
个
ge
CL
rén
person
"one person"
这
zhè
this
个
ge
CL
rén
person
"this person"
If a noun is preceded by both a demonstrative and a number, the demonstrative comes first.[2] (This is just as in English, e.g. "these three cats".) If an adjective modifies the noun, it typically comes after the classifier and before the noun. The general structure of a classifier phrase is
demonstrative – number – classifier – adjective – noun
The tables below give examples of common types of classifier phrases.[3] While most English nouns do not require classifiers or measure words (in English, both “five dogs” and “five cups of coffee” are grammatically correct), nearly all Chinese nouns do; thus, in the first table, phrases that have no classifier in English have one in Chinese.
demonstrative | number | classifier | adjective | noun | English equivalent | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NUM-CL-N | three |
CL |
cat |
"three cats" | |||
DEM-CL-N | 这 this |
CL |
cat |
"this cat" | |||
NUM-CL | three |
CL |
"three (of them)"[a] | ||||
NUM-CL-ADJ-N | three |
CL |
black |
cat |
"three black cats" | ||
DEM-NUM-CL-ADJ-N | 这 this |
three |
CL |
black |
cat |
"these three black cats" | |
NUM-CL-ADJ | three |
CL |
black |
"three black ones"[a] | |||
|
demonstrative | number | classifier | adjective | noun | English equivalent | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NUM-CL-N | five |
头 CL |
cattle |
"five head of cattle" | |||
DEM-CL-N | 这 this |
头 CL |
cattle |
"this head of cattle" | |||
NUM-CL | five |
头 CL |
"five head"[a] | ||||
NUM-CL-ADJ-N | five |
头 CL |
big |
cattle |
"five head of big cattle" | ||
DEM-NUM-CL-ADJ-N | 这 this |
five |
头 CL |
big |
cattle |
"these five head of big cattle" | |
NUM-CL-ADJ | five |
头 CL |
big |
"five head of big ones"[a] | |||
On the other hand, when a noun is not counted or introduced with a demonstrative, a classifier is not necessary: for example, there is a classifier in
sān
three
辆
liàng
CL
车
chē
car
'three cars'
but not in
wǒ
me
de
POSS
车
chē
car
'my car'
[4] Furthermore, numbers and demonstratives are often not required in Chinese, so speakers may choose not to use one—and thus not to use a classifier. For example, to say "Zhang San turned into a tree", both are acceptable:[5] The use of classifiers after demonstratives is in fact optional.[6]
张
Zhāng
Zhang
Sān
San
变成
biànchéng
become
-le
PAST
yì
one
棵
kē
CL
树
shù
tree
张
Zhāng
Zhang
Sān
San
变成
biànchéng
become
-le
PAST
树
shù
tree
It is also possible for a classifier alone to qualify a noun, the numeral being omitted, as in
Specialized uses[edit]
![A traffic jam](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Trafficjamdelhi.jpg/220px-Trafficjamdelhi.jpg)
车
chē
car
辆
liàng
CL
In addition to their uses with numbers and demonstratives, classifiers have some other functions. A classifier placed after a noun expresses a plural or indefinite quantity of it. For example:
书
shū
book
běn
CL
'the books' (e.g. on a shelf, or in a library)
whereas the standard pre-nominal construction
Many classifiers may be reduplicated to mean 'every'. For example:
A classifier used along with
tiānkōng
sky
yī
one
piàn
CL
yún
cloud
"the sky was full of clouds"
Classifiers may also indicate possession. For example, the Standard Chinese equivalent of 'my book' would often be
ngo4
me
bun2
CL.POSS
书
syu1
book
"my book"
with the classifier serving as a possessive marker roughly equivalent to English s.
Types[edit]
The vast majority of classifiers are those that count or classify nouns (nominal classifiers, as in all the examples given so far, as opposed to verbal classifiers).[11] These are further subdivided into count-classifiers and mass-classifiers, described below. In everyday speech, people often use the term "measure word", or its literal Chinese equivalent
Chinese has a large number of nominal classifiers; estimates of the number in Mandarin range from "several dozen"[13] or "about 50",[14] to over 900.[15] The range is so large because some of these estimates include all types of classifiers while others include only count-classifiers,[note 5] and because the idea of what constitutes a "classifier" has changed over time. Today, regular dictionaries include 120 to 150 classifiers;[16] the 8822-word Syllabus of Graded Words and Characters for Chinese Proficiency[note 6] (Chinese: 汉语
Count-classifiers and mass-classifiers[edit]
A classifier categorizes a class of nouns by picking out some salient perceptual properties...which are permanently associated with entities named by the class of nouns; a measure word does not categorize but denotes the quantity of the entity named by a noun.
— Tai (1994, p. 2), emphasis added
Within the set of nominal classifiers, linguists generally draw a distinction between "count-classifiers" and "mass-classifiers". True count-classifiers[note 8] are used for naming or counting a single count noun,[15] and have no direct translation in English; for example:
Furthermore, count-classifiers cannot be used with mass nouns: just as an English speaker cannot ordinarily say *"five muds", a Chinese speaker cannot say
*
wǔ
five
个
ge
CL
nì
mud
For such mass nouns, one must use mass-classifiers.[15][note 9]
Mass-classifiers (true measure words) do not pick out inherent properties of an individual noun like count-classifiers do; rather, they lump nouns into countable units. Thus, mass-classifiers can generally be used with multiple types of nouns; for example, while the mass-classifier 盒 (hé, box) can be used to count boxes of lightbulbs or of books
yì
盒
hé
dēngpào
"one box of lightbulbs"
yì
盒
hé
jiàocái
"one box of textbooks"
each of these nouns must use a different count-classifier when being counted by itself.
yì
盏
zhǎn
dēngpào
"one lightbulb"
yì
běn
jiàocái
"one textbook"
While count-classifiers have no direct English translation, mass-classifiers often do:
yí
one
个
ge
CL
rén
person
"one person" or "a person"
yì
one
qún
crowd
rén
person
"a crowd of people"
All languages, including English, have mass-classifiers, but count-classifiers are unique to certain "classifier languages", and are not a part of English grammar apart from a few exceptional cases such as head of livestock.[21]
Within the range of mass-classifiers, authors have proposed subdivisions based on the manner in which a mass-classifier organizes the noun into countable units. One of these is measurement units (also called "standard measures"),[22] which all languages must have in order to measure items; this category includes units such as kilometers, liters, or pounds[23] (see list). Like other classifiers, these can also stand without a noun.[24] Units of currency behave similarly.
with noun | without noun | |
---|---|---|
measurement units | sān 磅 bàng ròu "three pounds of meat" |
sān 磅 bàng "three pounds" |
units of currency |
Other proposed types of mass-classifiers include
yì
qún
rén
"a crowd of people"
- "container"[26] mass-classifiers which group things by containers they come in
yì
wǎn
zhōu
"a bowl of porridge"
yì
bāo
táng
"a bag of sugar"
The difference between count-classifiers and mass-classifiers can be described as one of quantifying versus categorizing: in other words, mass-classifiers create a unit by which to measure something (i.e. boxes, groups, chunks, pieces, etc.), whereas count-classifiers simply name an existing item.[27] Most words can appear with both count-classifiers and mass-classifiers; for example, pizza can be described both using a count-classifier and using a mass-classifier.
yì
张
zhāng
bǐsà
"one pizza", literally "one pie of pizza"
yí
块
kuài
bǐsà
"one piece of pizza"
In addition to these semantic differences, there are differences in the grammatical behaviors of count-classifiers and mass-classifiers;[28] for example, mass-classifiers may be modified by a small set of adjectives, as in:
yí
dà
qún
rén
"a big crowd of people"
Whereas count-classifiers usually may not. For example, this is never said:
*
yí
dà
个
ge
rén
Instead the adjective must modify the noun:[29]
yí
个
ge
dà
rén
"a big person"
Another difference is that count-classifiers may often be replaced by a "general" classifier 个 (
Verbal classifiers[edit]
There is a set of "verbal classifiers" used specifically for counting the number of times an action occurs, rather than counting a number of items; this set includes
These words can also form compound classifiers with certain nouns, as in
Another type of verbal classifier indicates the tool or implement used to perform the action. An example is found in the sentence:
tā
he
踢
tī
kick
le
PAST
wǒ
me
yī
one
jiǎo
foot
"he kicked me"
The word
Relation to nouns[edit]
Different classifiers often correspond to different particular nouns. For example, books generally take the classifier
Categories and prototypes[edit]
While mass-classifiers do not necessarily bear any semantic relationship to the noun with which they are used (e.g. box and book are not related in meaning, but one can still say "a box of books"), count-classifiers do.[31] The precise nature of that relationship, however, is not certain, since there is so much variability in how objects may be organized and categorized by classifiers. Accounts of the semantic relationship may be grouped loosely into categorical theories, which propose that count-classifiers are matched to objects solely on the basis of inherent features of those objects (such as length or size), and prototypical theories, which propose that people learn to match a count-classifier to a specific prototypical object and to other objects that are like that prototype.[39]
The categorical, "classical"[40] view of classifiers was that each classifier represents a category with a set of conditions; for example, the classifier
On the other hand, proponents of prototype theory propose that count-classifiers may not have innate definitions, but are associated with a noun that is prototypical of that category, and nouns that have a "family resemblance" with the prototype noun will want to use the same classifier.[note 13] For example, horse in Chinese uses the classifier
sān
pǐ
马
mǎ
"three horses"
In modern Chinese the word
yì
颗
kē
zǐdàn
"one bullet"
When words like
tiáo
CL
鱼
yú
fish
then using that classifier with multiple nouns that are similar to the prototype (such as other types of fish), then finally using that set of nouns to generalize a semantic feature associated with the classifier (such as length and flexibility) so that the classifier can then be used with new words that the person encounters.[45]
Some classifier-noun pairings are arbitrary, or at least appear to modern speakers to have no semantic motivation.[46] For instance, the classifier
Neutralization[edit]
In addition to the numerous "specific" count-classifiers described above,[note 15] Chinese has a general classifier 个 (
Nevertheless, 个 has not completely replaced other count-classifiers, and there are still many situations in which it would be inappropriate to substitute it for the required specific classifier.[55] There may be specific patterns behind which classifier-noun pairs may be "neutralized" to use the general classifier, and which may not. Specifically, words that are most prototypical for their categories, such as paper for the category of nouns taking the 'flat / square' classifier 张 (
Variation in usage[edit]
yí
zuò
lóu
"one building"
It is not the case that every noun is only associated with one classifier. Across dialects and speakers there is great variability in the way classifiers are used for the same words, and speakers often do not agree which classifier is best.[67] For example, for cars some people use
yì
qún
rén
'a group of people'
yì
帮
bāng
rén
'a gang/crowd of people'
The first is neutral, whereas the second implies that the people are unruly or otherwise being judged poorly.[70]
Some count-classifiers may also be used with nouns that they are not normally related to, for metaphorical effect, as in:
Finally, a single word may have multiple count-classifiers that convey different meanings altogether—in fact, the choice of a classifier can even influence the meaning of a noun. By way of illustration:[66]
sān
节
jié
课
kè
'three class periods' (as in "I have three classes today"
sān
门
mén
课
kè
'three courses' (as in "I signed up for three courses this semester")
Purpose[edit]
In research on classifier systems, and Chinese classifiers in particular, it has been asked why count-classifiers (as opposed to mass-classifiers) exist at all. Mass-classifiers are present in all languages since they are the only way to "count" mass nouns that are not naturally divided into units (for example, "three splotches of mud" in English; *"three muds" is ungrammatical). On the other hand, count-classifiers are not mandatory, and are not present in most languages.[21][note 17] Furthermore, count-classifiers are used with an "unexpectedly low frequency";[72] in many settings, speakers avoid specific classifiers by just using a bare noun (without a number or demonstrative) or using the general classifier 个 gè.[73] Linguists and typologists such as Joseph Greenberg have suggested that specific count-classifiers are semantically redundant.[74] Count-classifiers can be used stylistically, though,[69] and can also be used to clarify or limit a speaker's intended meaning when using a vague or ambiguous noun; for example, the noun 课 kè 'class' can refer to courses in a semester or specific class periods during a day, depending on whether the classifier 门 (
One proposed explanation for the existence of count-classifiers is that they serve more of a cognitive purpose than a practical one: in other words, they provide a linguistic way for speakers to organize or categorize real objects.[76] An alternative account is that they serve more of a discursive and pragmatic function (a communicative function when people interact) rather than an abstract function within the mind.[73] Specifically, it has been proposed that count-classifiers might be used to mark new or unfamiliar objects within a discourse,[76] to introduce major characters or items in a story or conversation,[77] or to foreground important information and objects by making them bigger and more salient.[78] In this way, count-classifiers might not serve an abstract grammatical or cognitive function, but may help in communication by making important information more noticeable and drawing attention to it.
History[edit]
Classifier phrases[edit]
![An off-white, ovular turtle shell with an inscription in ancient Chinese](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Shang_dynasty_inscribed_tortoise_plastron.jpg/220px-Shang_dynasty_inscribed_tortoise_plastron.jpg)
Historical linguists have found that phrases consisting of nouns and numbers went through several structural changes in Old Chinese and Middle Chinese before classifiers appeared in them. The earliest forms may have been Number – Noun, like English (e.g. 'five horses'), and the less common Noun – Number ('horses five'), both of which are attested in the oracle bone scripts of Pre-Archaic Chinese (circa 1400 BCE to 1000 BCE).[79] The first constructions resembling classifier constructions were Noun – Number – Noun constructions, which were also extant in Pre-Archaic Chinese but less common than Number – Noun. In these constructions, sometimes the first and second nouns were identical (N1 – Number – N1, as in "horses five horses") and other times the second noun was different, but semantically related (N1 – Number – N2). According to some historical linguists, the N2 in these constructions can be considered an early form of count-classifier and has even been called an "echo classifier"; this speculation is not universally agreed on, though.[80] Although true count-classifiers had not appeared yet, mass-classifiers were common in this time, with constructions such as "wine – six – yǒu" (the word
It is from this type of structure that count-classifiers may have arisen, originally replacing the second noun (in structures where there was a noun rather than a mass-classifier) to yield Noun – Number – Classifier. That is to say, constructions like "horses five horses" may have been replaced by ones like "horses five CL", possibly for stylistic reasons such as avoiding repetition.[82] Another reason for the appearance of count-classifiers may have been to avoid confusion or ambiguity that could have arisen from counting items using only mass-classifiers—i.e. to clarify when one is referring to a single item and when one is referring to a measure of items.[83]
Historians agree that at some point in history the order of words in this construction shifted, putting the noun at the end rather than beginning, like in the present-day construction Number – Classifier – Noun.[84] According to historical linguist Alain Peyraube, the earliest occurrences of this construction (albeit with mass-classifiers, rather than count-classifiers) appear in the late portion of Old Chinese (500 BCE to 200 BCE). At this time, the Number – Mass-classifier portion of the Noun – Number – Mass-classifier construction was sometimes shifted in front of the noun. Peyraube speculates that this may have occurred because it was gradually reanalyzed as a modifier (like an adjective) for the head noun, as opposed to a simple repetition as it originally was. Since Chinese generally places modifiers before modified, as does English, the shift may have been prompted by this reanalysis. By the early part of the Common Era, the nouns appearing in "classifier position" were beginning to lose their meaning and become true classifiers. Estimates of when classifiers underwent the most development vary: Wang Li claims their period of major development was during the Han dynasty (206 BCE – 220 CE),[85] whereas Liu Shiru estimates that it was the Northern and Southern dynasties period (420 – 589 CE),[86] and Peyraube chooses the Tang dynasty (618 – 907 CE).[87] Regardless of when they developed, Wang Lianqing claims that they did not become grammatically mandatory until sometime around the 11th century.[88]
Classifier systems in many nearby languages and language groups (such as Vietnamese and the Tai languages) are very similar to the Chinese classifier system in both grammatical structure and the parameters along which some objects are grouped together. Thus, there has been some debate over which language family first developed classifiers and which ones then borrowed them—or whether classifier systems were native to all these languages and developed more through repeated language contact throughout history.[89]
Classifier words[edit]
Most modern count-classifiers are derived from words that originally were free-standing nouns in older varieties of Chinese, and have since been grammaticalized to become bound morphemes.[90] In other words, count-classifiers tend to come from words that once had specific meaning but lost it (a process known as semantic bleaching).[91] Many, however, still have related forms that work as nouns all by themselves, such as the classifier 带 (
Where do these classifiers come from? Each classifier has its own history.
— Peyraube (1991, p. 116)
It was not always the case that every noun required a count-classifier. In many historical varieties of Chinese, use of classifiers was not mandatory, and classifiers are rare in writings that have survived.[94] Some nouns acquired classifiers earlier than others; some of the first documented uses of classifiers were for inventorying items, both in mercantile business and in storytelling.[95] Thus, the first nouns to have count-classifiers paired with them may have been nouns that represent "culturally valued" items such as horses, scrolls, and intellectuals.[96] The special status of such items is still apparent today: many of the classifiers that can only be paired with one or two nouns, such as
Classifiers did not gain official recognition as a lexical category (part of speech) until the 20th century. The earliest modern text to discuss classifiers and their use was Ma Jianzhong's 1898 Ma's Basic Principles for Writing Clearly (马氏
General classifiers[edit]
Historically, 个 gè was not always the general classifier. Some believe it was originally a noun referring to bamboo stalks, and gradually expanded in use to become a classifier for many things with "vertical, individual, [or] upright qualit[ies]",[101] eventually becoming a general classifier because it was used so frequently with common nouns.[102] The classifier gè is actually associated with three different homophonous characters: 个,
Historically, 个 was the only general classifier used in Chinese. The aforementioned
Topological variation[edit]
Northern dialects tend to have fewer classifiers than southern ones.
See also[edit]
- List of Chinese classifiers
- Chinese grammar
- Collective noun
- Classifiers in other languages:
Notes[edit]
- ^ All examples given in this article are from standard Mandarin Chinese, with pronunciation indicated using the pinyin system, unless otherwise stated. The script would often be identical in other varieties of Chinese, although the pronunciation would vary.
- ^ Across different varieties of Chinese, classifier-noun clauses have slightly different interpretations (particularly in the interpretation of definiteness in classified nouns as opposed to bare nouns), but the requirement that a classifier come between a number and a noun is more or less the same in the major varieties (Cheng & Sybesma 2005).
- ^ Although
每 每 个人 is more generally used to mean 'every person' in this case. - ^ See, for example, similar results in the Chinese corpus of the Center for Chinese Linguistics at Peking University:
天空 一 片 , retrieved on 3 June 2009. - ^ In addition to the count-mass distinction and nominal-verbal distinction described below, various linguists have proposed many additional divisions of classifiers by type. He (2001, chapters 2 and 3) contains a review of these.
- ^ The Syllabus of Graded Words and Characters for Chinese Proficiency is a standardized measure of vocabulary and character recognition, used in the People's Republic of China for testing middle school students, high school students, and foreign learners. The most recent edition was published in 2003 by the Testing Center of the National Chinese Proficiency Testing Committee.
- ^ Including the following:
- Chen, Baocun 陈
保存 (1988). Chinese Classifier Dictionary 汉语量 词词典 . Fuzhou: Fujian People's Publishing House福建 人民 出版 社 . ISBN 978-7-211-00375-4. - Fang, Jiqing; Connelly; Michael (2008). Chinese Measure Word Dictionary. Boston: Cheng & Tsui. ISBN 978-0-88727-632-3.
- Jiao, Fan
焦 凡 (2001). A Chinese-English Dictionary of Measure Words 汉英量 词词典 . Beijing: Sinolingua 华语敎学 出版 社 . ISBN 978-7-80052-568-1. - Liu, Ziping 刘子
平 (1996). Chinese Classifier Dictionary 汉语量 词词典 . Inner Mongolia Education Press内 蒙 古 教育 出版 社 . ISBN 978-7-5311-2707-9.
- Chen, Baocun 陈
- ^ Count-classifiers have also been called "individual classifiers", (Chao 1968, p. 509), "qualifying classifiers" (Zhang 2007, p. 45; Hu 1993, p. 10), and just "classifiers" (Cheng & Sybesma 1998, p. 3).
- ^ Mass-classifiers have also been called "measure words", "massifiers" (Cheng & Sybesma 1998, p. 3), "non-individual classifiers" (Chao 1968, p. 509), and "quantifying classifiers" (Zhang 2007, p. 45; Hu 1993, p. 10). The term "mass-classifier" is used in this article to avoid ambiguous usage of the term "measure word", which is often used in everyday speech to refer to both count-classifiers and mass-classifiers, even though in technical usage it only means mass-classifiers (Li 2000, p. 1116).
- ^ Also called "aggregate" (Li & Thompson 1981, pp. 107–109) or "group" (Ahrens 1994, p. 239, note 3) measures.
- ^ "Classifier phrases" are similar to noun phrases, but with a classifier rather than a noun as the head (Cheng & Sybesma 1998, pp. 16–17).
- ^ This may be because official documents during the Han dynasty were written on long bamboo strips, making them "strips of business" (Ahrens 1994, p. 206).
- ^ The theory described in Ahrens (1994) and Wang (1994) is also referred to within those works as a "prototype" theory, but differs somewhat from the version of prototype theory described here; rather than claiming that individual prototypes are the source for classifier meanings, these authors believe that classifiers still are based on categories with features, but that the categories have many features, and "prototypes" are words that have all the features of that category whereas other words in the category only have some features. In other words, "there are core and marginal members of a category.... a member of a category does not necessarily possess all the properties of that category" (Wang 1994, p. 8). For instance, the classifier 棵 kē is used for the category of trees, which may have features such as "has a trunk", "has leaves", and "has branches", "is deciduous"; maple trees would be prototypes of the category, since they have all these features, whereas palm trees only have a trunk and leaves and thus are not prototypical (Ahrens 1994, pp. 211–12).
- ^ The apparent disagreement between the definitions provided by different authors may reflect different uses of these words in different time periods. It is well-attested that many classifiers underwent frequent changes of meaning throughout history (Wang 1994; Erbaugh 1986, pp. 426–31; Ahrens 1994, pp. 205–206), so
匹 pǐ may have had all these meanings at different points in history. - ^ Also called "sortal classifiers" (Erbaugh 2000, p. 33; Biq 2002, p. 531).
- ^ Kathleen Ahrens claimed in 1994 that the classifier for animals—
只 (隻 ), pronounced zhī in Stamdard Chinese and jia in Taiwanese Hokkien—is in the process of becoming a second general classifier in the Mandarin spoken in Taiwan, and already is used as the general classifier in Taiwanese itself (Ahrens 1994, p. 206). - ^ Although English does not have a productive system of count-classifiers and is not considered a "classifier language", it does have a few constructions—mostly archaic or specialized—that resemble count-classifiers, such as "X head of cattle" (T'sou 1976, p. 1221).
- ^ Today,
匹 may also be used for bolts of cloth. See "List of Common Nominal Measure Words" on ChineseNotes.com (last modified 11 January 2009; retrieved on 3 September 2009).
References[edit]
Citations[edit]
- ^ Li & Thompson 1981, p. 104
- ^ Hu 1993, p. 13
- ^ The examples are adapted from those given in Hu (1993, p. 13), Erbaugh (1986, pp. 403–404), and Li & Thompson (1981, pp. 104–105).
- ^ Zhang 2007, p. 47
- ^ Li 2000, p. 1119
- ^ Sun 2006, p. 159
- ^ Sun 2006, p. 160
- ^ Li & Thompson 1981, p. 82
- ^ Li & Thompson 1981, pp. 34–35
- ^ Li & Thompson 1981, p. 111
- ^ Hu 1993, p. 9
- ^ a b Li 2000, p. 1116; Hu 1993, p. 7; Wang 1994, pp. 22, 24–25; He 2001, p. 8. Also see the usage in Fang & Connelly (2008) and most introductory Chinese textbooks.
- ^ Li & Thompson 1981, p. 105
- ^ Chao 1968, section 7.9
- ^ a b c Zhang 2007, p. 44
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, p. 403; Fang & Connelly 2008, p. ix
- ^ He 2001, p. 234
- ^ a b Gao & Malt 2009, p. 1133
- ^ a b Erbaugh 1986, p. 403
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, p. 404
- ^ a b Tai 1994, p. 3; Allan 1977, pp. 285–86; Wang 1994, p. 1
- ^ Ahrens 1994, p. 239, note 3
- ^ Li & Thompson 1981, p. 105; Zhang 2007, p. 44; Erbaugh 1986, p. 118, note 5
- ^ Li & Thompson 1981, pp. 105–107
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, p. 118, note 5; Hu 1993, p. 9
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, p. 118, note 5; Li & Thompson 1981, pp. 107–109
- ^ Cheng & Sybesma 1998, p. 3; Tai 1994, p. 2
- ^ Wang 1994, pp. 27–36; Cheng & Sybesma 1998
- ^ Cheng & Sybesma 1998, pp. 3–5
- ^ Wang 1994, pp. 29–30
- ^ a b Cheng & Sybesma 1998
- ^ Ahrens 1994, p. 239, note 5; Wang 1994, pp. 26–27, 37–48
- ^ He 2001, pp. 42, 44
- ^ Zhang 2007, p. 44; Li & Thompson 1981, p. 110; Fang & Connelly 2008, p. x
- ^ Tai 1994, p. 8
- ^ Tai 1994, pp. 7–9; Tai & Wang 1990
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, p. 111
- ^ He 2001, p. 239
- ^ Tai 1994, pp. 3–5; Ahrens 1994, pp. 208–12
- ^ Tai 1994, p. 3; Ahrens 1994, pp. 209–10
- ^ Tai 1994, p. 5; Allan 1977
- ^ Hu 1993, p. 1
- ^ a b Tai 1994, p. 12
- ^ Zhang 2007, pp. 46–47
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, p. 415
- ^ Hu 1993, p. 1; Tai 1994, p. 13; Zhang 2007, pp. 55–56
- ^ Zhang 2007, pp. 55–56
- ^ Gao & Malt 2009, p. 1134
- ^ Morev 2000, p. 79
- ^ Wang 1994, pp. 172–73
- ^ Tai 1994, p. 15, note 7
- ^ a b Tai 1994, p. 13
- ^ Gao & Malt 2009, pp. 1133–4
- ^ Hu 1993, p. 12
- ^ a b Tzeng, Chen & Hung 1991, p. 193
- ^ Zhang 2007, p. 57
- ^ Ahrens 1994, p. 212
- ^ He 2001, p. 165
- ^ Erbaugh 1986; Hu 1993
- ^ Ahrens 1994, pp. 227–32
- ^ Tzeng, Chen & Hung 1991
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, pp. 404–406; Ahrens 1994, pp. 202–203
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, pp. 404–406
- ^ Ahrens 1994
- ^ Zhang 2007, p. 53
- ^ a b Zhang 2007, p. 52
- ^ Tai 1994; Erbaugh 2000, pp. 34–35
- ^ He 2001, p. 237
- ^ a b Fang & Connelly 2008, p. ix; Zhang 2007, pp. 53–54
- ^ He 2001, p. 242
- ^ a b Shie 2003, p. 76
- ^ Erbaugh 2000, p. 34
- ^ a b Erbaugh 2000, pp. 425–26; Li 2000
- ^ Zhang 2007, p. 51
- ^ Zhang 2007, pp. 51–52
- ^ a b Erbaugh 1986, pp. 425–6
- ^ Sun 1988, p. 298
- ^ Li 2000
- ^ Peyraube 1991, p. 107; Morev 2000, pp. 78–79
- ^ a b Peyraube 1991, p. 108
- ^ Peyraube 1991, p. 110; Wang 1994, pp. 171–72
- ^ Morev 2000, pp. 78–79
- ^ Wang 1994, p. 172
- ^ Peyraube 1991, p. 106; Morev 2000, pp. 78–79
- ^ a b He 2001, p. 3
- ^ Wang 1994, pp. 2, 17
- ^ Peyraube 1991, pp. 111–17
- ^ Wang 1994, p. 3
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, p. 401; Wang 1994, p. 2
- ^ Shie 2003, p. 76; Wang 1994, pp. 113–14, 172–73
- ^ Peyraube 1991, p. 116
- ^ Gao & Malt 2009, p. 1130
- ^ Chien, Lust & Chiang 2003, p. 92
- ^ Peyraube 1991; Erbaugh 1986, p. 401
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, p. 401
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, pp. 401, 403, 428
- ^ He 2001, p. 2
- ^ He 2001, p. 4
- ^ He 2001, pp. 5–6
- ^ He 2001, p. 7
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, p. 430
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, pp. 428–30; Ahrens 1994, p. 205
- ^ a b Wang 1994, pp. 114–15
- ^ Wang 1994, p. 95
- ^ Wang 1994, pp. 115–16, 158
- ^ Wang 1994, pp. 93–95
- ^ Wang 1994, pp. 155–7
- ^ Erbaugh 1986, p. 428
- ^ Ahrens 1994, p. 206
- ^ Graham Thurgood; Randy J. LaPolla (2003). Graham Thurgood, Randy J. LaPolla (ed.). The Sino-Tibetan languages. Routledge language family. Vol. 3 (illustrated ed.). Psychology Press. p. 85. ISBN 0-7007-1129-5. Retrieved 2012-03-10.
In general, the Southern dialects have a greater number of classifiers than the Northern. The farther north one travels, the smaller the variety of classifiers found. In Dunganese, a Gansu dialect of Northern Chinese spoken in Central Asia, only one classifier,
個 [kə], is used; and this same classifier has almost become the cover classifier for all nouns in Lánzhou of Gansu too. The tendency to use one general classifier for all nouns is also found to a greater or lesser extent in many Shanxi dialects, some Shandong dialects, and even the Shanghai dialect of Wu and Standard Mandarin (SM). The choice of classifiers for individual nouns is particular to each dialect. For example, although the preferred classifier across dialects for 'human being' is個 and its cognates,隻 in its dialect forms is widely used in the Hakka and Yue dialects of Guangxi and western Guangdong provinces as well as in the Northern Min dialects and some Xiang dialects in Hunan.
Works cited[edit]
- Ahrens, Kathleen (1994). "Classifier production in normals and aphasics". Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 2: 202–247.
- Allan, Keith (1977). "Classifiers". Language. 53 (2). Linguistic Society of America: 285–311. doi:10.2307/413103. JSTOR 413103.
- Biq, Yung-O (2002). "Classifier and construction: the interaction of grammatical categories and cognitive strategies" (PDF). Language and Linguistics. 3 (3): 521–42. S2CID 36353967. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-07-11.
- Chao, Yuen Ren (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Cheng, Lisa L.-S.; Sybesma, Rint (1998). "yi-wan tang and yi-ge Tang: Classifiers and mass-classifiers". Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies. 28 (3).
- Cheng, Lisa L.-S.; Sybesma, Rint (2005). "Classifiers in four varieties of Chinese". In Cinque, Guglielmo; Kayne, Richard S. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513650-0.
- Chien, Yu-Chin; Lust, Barbara; Chiang, Chi-Pang (2003). "Chinese children's comprehension of count-classifiers and mass-classifiers". Journal of East Asian Linguistics. 12 (2): 91–120. doi:10.1023/A:1022401006521. S2CID 120359707.
- Erbaugh, Mary S. (1986). "Taking stock: the development of Chinese noun classifiers historically and in young children". In Colette Craig (ed.). Noun classes and categorization. J. Benjamins. pp. 399–436. ISBN 978-0-915027-33-0.
- Erbaugh, Mary S. (2000). Classifiers are for specification: complementary functions for sortal and general classifiers in Cantonese and Mandarin. 33rd International Conference on Sino-Tibetan Languages and Linguistics.
- Fang, Jiqing; Connelly, Michael (2008). Chinese Measure Word Dictionary. Boston: Cheng & Tsui. ISBN 978-0-88727-632-3.
- Gao, Ming; Malt, Barbara (2009). "Mental representation and cognitive consequences of Chinese individual classifiers". Language and Cognitive Processes. 24 (7/8): 1124–1179. doi:10.1080/01690960802018323. S2CID 22585142.
- He Jie (
何 杰) (2001). 现代汉语量 词研究 [Studies on classifiers in Modern Chinese] (in Chinese) (2nd ed.). Beijing: Nationalities Publishing House. ISBN 978-7-105-04714-7. - Hu, Qian (1993). The acquisition of Chinese classifiers by young Mandarin-speaking children (Ph.D. dissertation). Boston University.
- Li, Charles N.; Thompson, Sandra A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-06610-6.
- Li, Wendan (2000). "The pragmatic function of numeral-classifiers in Mandarin Chinese". Journal of Pragmatics. 32 (8): 1113–1133. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00086-7.
- Morev, Lev (2000). "Some afterthoughts on classifiers in the Tai languages" (PDF). The Mon-Khmer Studies Journal. 30: 75–82.
- Peyraube, Alain (1991). "Some remarks on the history of Chinese classifiers". In Clancy, Patricia Marie; Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.). Asian Discourse and Grammar. Linguistics. Vol. 3. pp. 106–126.
- Shie, Jian-Shiung (2003). "Figurative Extension of Chinese Classifiers" (PDF). Journal of Da-Yeh University. 12 (2): 73–83.
- Sun, Chaofen (1988). "The discourse function of numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese". Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 2 (2): 298–322. JSTOR 23757862.
- Sun, Chaofen (2006). Chinese: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-82380-7.
- T'sou, Benjamin K. (1976). "The structure of nominal classifier systems" (PDF). Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications, number 13. Austroasiatic Studies Part II. University of Hawai'i Press. pp. 1215–1247.
- Tai, James H.-Y. (1994). "Chinese classifier systems and human categorization". In Wang, Willian S.-Y.; Chen, M. Y.; Tzeng, Ovid J.L. (eds.). In honor of William S.-Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary studies on language and language change. Taipei: Pyramid Press. pp. 479–494. ISBN 978-957-9268-55-4.
- Tai, James H.-Y.; Wang, Lianqing (1990). "A semantic study of the classifier tiao". Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association. 25: 35–56.
- Tzeng, Ovid J. L.; Chen, Sylvia; Hung, Daisy L. (1991). "The classifier problem in Chinese aphasia". Brain and Language. 41 (2): 184–202. doi:10.1016/0093-934X(91)90152-Q. PMID 1933258. S2CID 45590495.
- Wang, Lianqing (1994). Origin and development of classifiers in Chinese (Ph.D. dissertation). Ohio State University. Archived from the original on 2019-07-11.
- Zhang, Hong (2007). "Numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese". Journal of East Asian Linguistics. 16: 43–59. doi:10.1007/s10831-006-9006-9. S2CID 121440461.
External links[edit]
- List of Common Nominal Measure Words on chinesenotes.com
- Units of Weights and Measures on chinesenotes.com
- How to Use Chinese Measure Words on 3000 Hanzi