The modernChinese varieties make frequent use of what are calledclassifiers ormeasure words. One use of classifiers is when anoun is qualified by anumeral ordemonstrative. 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, inStandard Chinese,[note 1] the first of these phrases would be:
三
sān
three
本
běn
CLASSIFIER
书
shū
books
三本 书
sānběn shū
three CLASSIFIER books
"three books"
When a noun stands alone without anydeterminer, 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 termsclassifier andmeasure word are frequently used interchangeably and as equivalents of the Chinese termliàngcí (量词;量詞). However, the two are sometimes distinguished, withclassifier denoting a particle without any particular meaning of its own, as in the example above, andmeasure word denoting a word for a particular quantity or measurement of something, such as 'drop', 'cupful', or 'liter'. The latter type also includes certain words denoting lengths of time, units of currency, etc. These two types are alternatively calledcount-classifier andmass-classifier, since the first type can only meaningfully be used withcount nouns, while the second is used particularly withmass nouns. However, the grammatical behavior of words of the two types is largely identical.
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 classifierzhāng (张;張), whereas many long and thin objects usetiáo (条;條). The total number of classifiers in Chinese may be put at anywhere from a few dozen to several hundred, depending on how they are counted. The classifiergè (个;個), apart from being the standard classifier for many nouns, also serves as ageneral classifier, which may often be used in place of other classifiers; in informal and spoken language, native speakers tend to use this classifier far more than any other, even though they know which classifier is "correct" when asked. Mass-classifiers might be used with all sorts of nouns with which they make sense: for example,hé (盒; 'box') may be used to denote boxes of objects, such as light bulbs or books, even though those nouns would be used with their own appropriate count-classifiers if being counted as individual objects. Researchers have differing views as to how classifier–noun pairings arise: some regard them as being based on innatesemantic features of the noun (for example, all nouns denoting "long" objects take a certain classifier because of their inherent length), while others see them as motivated more by analogy toprototypical pairings—for example, 'dictionary' comes to take the same classifier as the more common word 'book'. There is some variation in the pairings used, with speakers ofdifferent dialects often using different classifiers for the same item. Some linguists have proposed that the use of classifier phrases may be guided less by grammar and more by stylistic orpragmatic concerns on the part of a speaker who may be trying toforeground new or important information.
Many other languages of theMainland 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 inOld 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 ofOld 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 graduallybleached away so that they are now used only as classifiers.
In Chinese, anumeral cannot usually quantify anoun by itself; instead, the language relies onclassifiers, commonly also referred to asmeasure words.[note 2] When a noun is preceded by a number, ademonstrative such asthis orthat, or certainquantifiers such asevery, 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:
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 anadjective 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 | 三 three | 只 CL | 猫 cat | "three cats" | |||
| DEM-CL-N | 这 this | 只 CL | 猫 cat | "this cat" | |||
| NUM-CL | 三 three | 只 CL | "three (of them)"[a] | ||||
| NUM-CL-ADJ-N | 三 three | 只 CL | 黑 black | 猫 cat | "three black cats" | ||
| DEM-NUM-CL-ADJ-N | 这 this | 三 three | 只 CL | 黑 black | 猫 cat | "these three black cats" | |
| NUM-CL-ADJ | 三 three | 只 CL | 黑的[b] black | "three black ones"[a] | |||
| |||||||
| demonstrative | number | classifier | adjective | noun | English equivalent | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NUM-CL-N | 五 five | 头 CL | 牛 cattle | "five head of cattle" | |||
| DEM-CL-N | 这 this | 头 CL | 牛 cattle | "this head of cattle" | |||
| NUM-CL | 五 five | 头 CL | "five head"[a] | ||||
| NUM-CL-ADJ-N | 五 five | 头 CL | 大 big | 牛 cattle | "five head of big cattle" | ||
| DEM-NUM-CL-ADJ-N | 这 this | 五 five | 头 CL | 大 big | 牛 cattle | "these five head of big cattle" | |
| NUM-CL-ADJ | 五 five | 头 CL | 大的[b] 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:[4] for example, there is a classifier in
but not in
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
三
Sān
San
变成
biànchéng
become
一
yì
one
树
shù
tree
张 三 变成 了 一棵 树
Zhāng Sān biànchéng -le yìkē shù
Zhang San become PAST oneCL tree
张
Zhāng
Zhang
三
Sān
San
变成
biànchéng
become
树
shù
tree
张 三 变成 了 树
Zhāng Sān biànchéng -le shù
Zhang San become PAST tree
It is also possible for a classifier alone to qualify a noun, the numeral being omitted, as in
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:
whereas the standard pre-nominal construction
Many classifiers may bereduplicated to mean 'every'. For example:
A classifier used along with 一 (yī 'one') and after a noun conveys a meaning close to 'all of' or 'the entire' or 'a ___full of'.[10] This sentence uses the classifier片 (piàn 'slice'), which refers to the sky, not the clouds.[note 4]
天空
tiānkōng
sky
一
yī
one
云
yún
cloud
天空 一片 云
tiānkōng yīpiàn yún
sky oneCL cloud
"the sky was full of clouds"
Classifiers may also indicate possession. For example, the Standard Chinese equivalent of 'my book' would often be我的书 (wǒ de shū), but in Cantonese this would typically be expressed as
with the classifier serving as a possessive marker roughly equivalent to Englishs.
The vast majority of classifiers are those that count or classify nouns (nominal classifiers, as in all the examples given so far, as opposed toverbal classifiers).[11] These are further subdivided intocount-classifiers andmass-classifiers, described below. In everyday speech, people often use the term "measure word", or its literal Chinese equivalent量词 liàngcí, to cover all Chinese count-classifiers and mass-classifiers,[12] but the types of words grouped under this term are not all the same. Specifically, the various types of classifiers exhibit numerous differences in meaning, in the kinds of words they attach to, and insyntactic behavior.
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-wordSyllabus of Graded Words and Characters for Chinese Proficiency[note 6] (Chinese:汉语水平词汇与汉字等级大纲; pinyin:Hànyǔ Shuǐpíng Cíhuì yǔ Hànzi Děngjí Dàgāng) lists 81;[17] and a 2009 list compiled by Gao Ming and Barbara Malt includes 126.[18] The number of classifiers that are in everyday, informal use, however, may be lower: linguistMary Erbaugh has claimed that about two dozen "core classifiers" account for most classifier use.[19] As a whole, though, the classifier system is so complex that specialized classifier dictionaries have been published.[18][note 7]
Aclassifier categorizes a class of nouns by picking out somesalient perceptual properties...which are permanently associated with entities named by the class of nouns; ameasure word does not categorize but denotes the quantity of the entity named by a noun.
Within the set of nominal classifiers, linguists generally draw a distinction between "count-classifiers" and "mass-classifiers". Truecount-classifiers[note 8] are used for naming or counting a singlecount noun,[15] and have no direct translation in English; for example:
Furthermore, count-classifiers cannot be used withmass nouns: just as an English speaker cannot ordinarily say *"five muds", a Chinese speaker cannot say
For such mass nouns, one must usemass-classifiers.[15][note 9]
Mass-classifiers (truemeasure 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
一
yì
盒
hé
灯泡
dēngpào
一盒 灯泡
yìhé dēngpào
"onebox of lightbulbs"
一
yì
盒
hé
教材
jiàocái
一盒 教材
yìhé jiàocái
"onebox of textbooks"
each of these nouns must use a different count-classifier when being counted by itself.
一
yì
盏
zhǎn
灯泡
dēngpào
一盏 灯泡
yìzhǎn dēngpào
"one lightbulb"
一
yì
本
běn
教材
jiàocái
一本 教材
yìběn jiàocái
"one textbook"
While count-classifiers have no direct English translation, mass-classifiers often do:
一
yì
one
群
qún
crowd
人
rén
person
一群 人
yìqún rén
onecrowd 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 ismeasurement 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] (seelist). Like other classifiers, these can also stand without a noun.[24] Units of currency behave similarly.
| with noun | without noun | |
|---|---|---|
| measurement units | 三 sān 磅 bàng 肉 ròu 三磅 肉 sānbàng ròu "threepounds of meat" | 三 sān 磅 bàng 三磅 sānbàng "threepounds" |
| units of currency |
Other proposed types of mass-classifiers include
一
yì
群
qún
人
rén
一群 人
yìqún rén
"acrowd of people"
一
yì
碗
wǎn
粥
zhōu
一碗 粥
yìwǎn zhōu
"abowl of porridge"
一
yì
包
bāo
糖
táng
一包 糖
yìbāo táng
"abag of sugar"
The difference between count-classifiers and mass-classifiers can be described as one of quantifying versus categorizing: in other words, mass-classifierscreate a unit by which to measure something (i.e. boxes, groups, chunks, pieces, etc.), whereas count-classifiers simplyname 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.
一
yì
张
zhāng
比萨
bǐsà
一张 比萨
yìzhāng bǐsà
"one pizza", literally "onepie of pizza"
一
yí
块
kuài
比萨
bǐsà
一块 比萨
yíkuài bǐsà
"onepiece 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:
一
yí
大
dà
群
qún
人
rén
一 大群 人
yí dàqún rén
"a bigcrowd of people"
Whereas count-classifiers usually may not. For example, this is never said:
*
一
yí
大
dà
个
ge
人
rén
* 一 大个 人
{} yí dàge rén
Instead the adjective must modify the noun:[29]
一
yí
个
ge
大
dà
人
rén
一个 大 人
yíge dà rén
"a big person"
Another difference is that count-classifiers may often be replaced by a "general" classifier个 (個),gè with no apparent change in meaning, whereas mass-classifiers may not.[30] SyntacticiansLisa Cheng and Rint Sybesma propose that count-classifiers and mass-classifiers have different underlying syntactic structures, with count-classifiers forming "classifier phrases",[note 11] and mass-classifiers being a sort ofrelative clause that onlylooks like a classifier phrase.[31] The distinction between count-classifiers and mass-classifiers is often unclear, however, and other linguists have suggested that count-classifiers and mass-classifiers may not be fundamentally different. They posit that "count-classifier" and "mass-classifier" are the extremes of a continuum, with most classifiers falling somewhere in between.[32]
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次cì,遍/徧biàn,回huí, and下xià, which all roughly translate to "times".[33] For example:
我
wǒ
I
去
qù
go
三
sān
three
北京
Běijīng
Beijing
我 去 过 三次 北京
wǒ qù guo sāncì Běijīng
I go PAST threeCL Beijing
"I have been to Beijing threetimes"[34]
These words can also form compound classifiers with certain nouns, as in人次rén cì "person-time", which can be used to count (for example) visitors to a museum in a year (where visits by the same person on different occasions are counted separately).
Another type of verbal classifier indicates the tool or implement used to perform the action. An example is found in the sentence:
他
tā
he
踢
tī
kick
我
wǒ
me
一
yī
one
脚
jiǎo
foot
他 踢 了 我 一脚
tā tī le wǒ yījiǎo
he kick PAST me onefoot
"he kicked me"
The word脚jiǎo, which usually serves as a simple noun meaning "foot", here functions as a verbal classifier reflecting the tool (namely the foot) used to perform the kicking action.
Different classifiers often correspond to different particular nouns. For example, books generally take the classifier本 běn, flat objects take张 (張) zhāng, animals take只 (隻) zhī, machines take台 tái, and large buildings and mountains take座 zuò. Within these categories are further subdivisions—while most animals take只 (隻) zhī, domestic animals take头 (頭) tóu, long and flexible animals take条 (條) tiáo, and horses take匹 pǐ. Likewise, while long things that are flexible (such as ropes) often take条 (條) tiáo, long things that are rigid (such as sticks) take根 gēn, unless they are also round (like pens or cigarettes), in which case in some dialects they take支 zhī.[36] Classifiers also vary in how specific they are; some (such as朵 duǒ for flowers and other similarly clustered items) are generally only used with one type, whereas others (such as条 (條) tiáo for long and flexible things, one-dimensional things, or abstract items like news reports)[note 12] are much less restricted.[37] Furthermore, there is not a one-to-one relationship between nouns and classifiers: the same noun may be paired with different classifiers in different situations.[38] The specific factors that govern which classifiers are paired with which nouns have been a subject of debate among linguists.
While mass-classifiers do not necessarily bear any semantic relationship to the noun with which they are used (e.g.box andbook 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 intocategorical 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), andprototypical 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条 (條) tiáo would represent a category defined as all objects that meet the conditions of being long, thin, and one-dimensional—and nouns using that classifier must fit all the conditions with which the category is associated. Some common semantic categories into which count-classifiers have been claimed to organize nouns include the categories of shape (long, flat, or round), size (large or small), consistency (soft or hard),animacy (human, animal, or object),[41] and function (tools, vehicles, machines, etc.).[42]
On the other hand, proponents ofprototype 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匹 pǐ, as in:
三
sān
匹
pǐ
马
mǎ
三匹 马
sānpǐ mǎ
"three horses"
In modern Chinese the word匹 has no meaning. Nevertheless, nouns denoting animals that look like horses will often also use this same classifier, and native speakers have been found to be more likely to use the classifier匹 the closer an animal looks to a horse.[43] Furthermore, words that do not meet the "criteria" of a semantic category may still use that category because of theirassociation with a prototype. For example, the classifier颗 (顆) kē is used for small round items, as in:
一
yì
颗
kē
子弹
zǐdàn
一颗 子弹
yìkē zǐdàn
"one bullet"
When words like原子弹 (yuánzǐdàn, "atomic bomb") were later introduced into the language they also used this classifier (颗 [顆] kē), even though they are not small and round—therefore, their classifier must have been assigned because of the words' association with the word for bullet, which acted as a "prototype".[44] This is an example of "generalization" from prototypes: Erbaugh has proposed that when children learn count-classifiers, they go through stages, first learning a classifier-noun pair only, such as
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部 bù may be used for movies and novels, but also for cars[47] and telephones.[48] Some of this arbitrariness may be due to what linguistJames Tai refers to as "fossilization", whereby a count-classifier loses its meaning through historical changes but remains paired with some nouns. For example, the classifier匹 pǐ used for horses is meaningless today, but inClassical Chinese may have referred to a "team of two horses",[49] a pair of horse skeletons,[50] or the pairing between man and horse.[51][note 14] Arbitrariness may also arise when a classifier isborrowed, along with its noun, from a dialect in which it has a clear meaning to one in which it does not.[52] In both these cases, the use of the classifier is remembered more by association with certain "prototypical" nouns (such ashorse) rather than by understanding of semantic categories, and thus arbitrariness has been used as an argument in favor of the prototype theory of classifiers.[52] Gao and Malt propose that both the category and prototype theories are correct: in their conception, some classifiers constitute "well-defined categories", others make "prototype categories", and still others are relatively arbitrary.[53]
In addition to the numerous "specific" count-classifiers described above,[note 15] Chinese has ageneral classifier个 (個), pronouncedgè in Standard Chinese.[note 16] This classifier is used for people, some abstract concepts, and other words that do not have special classifiers (such as汉堡包hànbǎobāo 'hamburger'),[54] and may also be used as a replacement for a specific classifier such as张 (張) zhāng or条 (條) tiáo, especially in informal speech. In Mandarin Chinese, it has been noted as early as the 1940s that the use of个 is increasing and that there is a general tendency towards replacing specific classifiers with it.[55] Numerous studies have reported that both adults and children tend to use个 when they do not know the appropriate count-classifier, and even when they do but are speaking quickly or informally.[56] The replacement of a specific classifier with the general个 is known as classifierneutralization[57] (量词个化 in Chinese, literally 'classifier个-ization'[58]). This occurs especially often among children[59] andaphasics (individuals with damage to language-relevant areas of the brain),[60][61] although normal speakers also neutralize frequently. It has been reported that most speakers know the appropriate classifiers for the words they are using and believe, when asked, that those classifiers are obligatory, but nevertheless use个 without even realizing it in actual speech.[62] As a result, in everyday spoken Mandarin the general classifier is "hundreds of times more frequent"[63] than the specialized ones.
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 aspaper for the category of nouns taking the 'flat / square' classifier张 (張) zhāng, may be less likely to be said with a general classifier.[64]
一
yí
座
zuò
楼
lóu
一座 楼
yízuò 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部 bù, others use台 tái, and still others use辆 (輛) liàng;Cantonese uses架 gaa3. Even within a single dialect or a single speaker, the same noun may take different measure words depending on the style in which the person is speaking, or on different nuances the person wants to convey (for instance, measure words can reflect the speaker's judgment of or opinion about the object[68]). An example of this is the word for person,人 rén, which uses the measure word个 (個) gè normally, but uses the measure口 kǒu when counting number of people in a household,位 wèi when being particularly polite or honorific, and名 míng in formal written contexts;[69] likewise, a group of people may be referred to by massifiers:
一
yì
群
qún
人
rén
一群 人
yìqún rén
'agroup of people'
一
yì
帮
bāng
人
rén
一帮 人
yìbāng rén
'agang/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]
三
sān
节
jié
课
kè
三节 课
sānjié kè
'three class periods' (as in "I have three classes today"
三
sān
门
mén
课
kè
三门 课
sānmén kè
'three courses' (as in "I signed up for three courses this semester")
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, "threesplotches 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 andtypologists such asJoseph 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 (門) mén or节 (節) jié is used.[75]
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 adiscursive andpragmatic 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 toforeground important information and objects by making them bigger and moresalient.[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.
Historical linguists have found that phrases consisting of nouns and numbers went through several structural changes inOld Chinese andMiddle Chinese before classifiers appeared in them. The earliest forms may have beenNumber – Noun, like English (e.g. 'five horses'), and the less commonNoun – Number ('horses five'), both of which are attested in theoracle bone scripts of Pre-Archaic Chinese (circa 1400 BCE to 1000 BCE).[79] The first constructions resembling classifier constructions wereNoun – Number – Noun constructions, which were also extant in Pre-Archaic Chinese but less common thanNumber – 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, theN2 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酉 yǒu represented a wine container) meaning "sixyǒu of wine".[80] Examples such as this suggest that mass-classifiers predate count-classifiers by several centuries, although they did not appear in the same word order as they do today.[81]
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 yieldNoun – Number – Classifier. That is to say, constructions like "horses five horses" may have been replaced by ones like "horses fiveCL", 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 constructionNumber – 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 ofOld Chinese (500 BCE to 200 BCE). At this time, theNumber – Mass-classifier portion of theNoun – 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 amodifier (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 theCommon 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 theHan dynasty (206 BCE – 220 CE),[85] whereas Liu Shiru estimates that it was theNorthern and Southern dynasties period (420–589 CE),[86] and Peyraube chooses theTang 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 asVietnamese and theTai 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 repeatedlanguage contact throughout history.[89]
Most modern count-classifiers are derived from words that originally were free-standing nouns in older varieties of Chinese, and have since beengrammaticalized to becomebound morphemes.[90] In other words, count-classifiers tend to come from words that once had specific meaning but lost it (a process known assemantic bleaching).[91] Many, however, still have related forms that work as nouns all by themselves, such as the classifier带 (帶) dài for long, ribbon-like objects: the modern word带子 dàizi means "ribbon".[71] In fact, the majority of classifiers can also be used as other parts of speech, such as nouns.[92] Mass-classifiers, on the other hand, are more transparent in meaning than count-classifiers; while the latter have somehistorical meaning, the former are still full-fledged nouns. For example,杯 (bēi, cup), is both a classifier as in一杯茶 (yìbēi chá, "acup of tea") and the word for a cup as in酒杯 (jiǔbēi, "wine glass").[93]
Where do these classifiers come from? Each classifier has its own history.
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匹 pǐ for horses[note 18] and首 shǒu for songs or poems, are the classifiers for these same "valued" items. Such classifiers make up as much as one-third of the commonly used classifiers today.[19]
Classifiers did not gain official recognition as alexical category (part of speech) until the 20th century. The earliest modern text to discuss classifiers and their use wasMa Jianzhong's 1898Ma's Basic Principles for Writing Clearly (马氏文通).[97] From then until the 1940s, linguists such as Ma, Wang Li, andLi Jinxi treated classifiers as just a type of noun that express a quantity.[85]Lü Shuxiang was the first to treat them as a separate category, calling them "unit words" (单位词 dānwèicí) in hisOutline of Chinese Grammar (中国文法要略) published during the 1940s, and finally 'measure words' (量词 liàngcí) inGrammar Studies (语法学习). He made this separation based on the fact that classifiers were semantically bleached, and that they can be used directly with a number, whereas true nouns need to have a measure word added before they can be used with a number.[98] After this time, other names were also proposed for classifiers: Gao Mingkai called them 'noun helper words' (助名词 zhùmíngcí), Lu Wangdao 'counting markers' (计标 jìbiāo). The Japanese linguist Miyawaki Kennosuke called them 'accompanying words' (陪伴词 péibàncí).[99] In theDraft Plan for a System of Teaching Chinese Grammar [zh] adopted by thePeople's Republic of China in 1954, Lü's measure words (量词 liàngcí) was adopted as the official name for classifiers in China.[100] This remains the most common term in use today.[12]
Historically,个gè was not always the general classifier. Some believe it was originally a noun referring tobamboo 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 classifiergè is actually associated with three differenthomophonous characters:个,個 (now thetraditional-character equivalent of个), and箇. Historical linguist Lianqing Wang has argued that these characters actually originated from different words, and that only箇 had the original meaning of "bamboo stalk".[103]个, he claims, was used as a general classifier early on, and may have been derived from the orthographically similar介 jiè, one of the earliest general classifiers.[104]箇 later merged with介 because they were similar in pronunciation and meaning (both used as general classifiers).[103] Likewise, he claims that個 was also a separate word (with a meaning having to do with "partiality" or "being a single part"), and merged with个 for the same reasons as箇 did; he also argues that個 was "created", as early as theHan dynasty, to supersede个.[105]
Historically,个 was the only general classifier used in Chinese. The aforementioned介 jiè was being used as a general classifier before theQin dynasty (221 BCE); it was originally a noun referring to individual items out of a string of connected shells or clothes, and eventually came to be used as a classifier for "individual" objects (as opposed to pairs or groups of objects) before becoming a general classifier.[106] Another general classifier was枚 méi, which originally referred to small twigs. Since twigs were used for counting items,枚 became a counter word: any items, including people, could be counted as "one 枚, two 枚", etc.枚 was the most common classifier in use during theNorthern and Southern dynasties period (420–589 CE),[107] but today is no longer a general classifier, and is only used rarely, as a specialized classifier for items such as pins and badges.[108] Kathleen Ahrens has claimed that隻 (zhī in Mandarin andchiah inTaiwanese Hokkien), the classifier for animals inMandarin, is another general classifier in Taiwanese and may be becoming one in the Mandarin spoken in Taiwan.[109]
Northern dialects tend to have fewer classifiers than southern ones.個 ge is the only classifier found in theDungan language. All nouns could have just one classifier in some dialects, such asShanghainese Wu,Jin Chinese in Shanxi, and dialects spoken inShandong. Some dialects such asNorthern Min, certainXiang dialects,Hakka dialects, and someYue dialects use隻 for the noun referring to people, rather than個.[110]
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
