Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 103 items :

  • "sortal classifier" x
Clear All

classifier (word or morpheme) is generally required when a numeral is employed in the quantification of a noun, i.e., “classifiers occur within ‘pseudopartitive’ constructions, which consist of a specifier (numeral, quantifier or determiner), classifier and noun” ( Kilarski 2013 : 33–34). Classifiers are thus generally referred to as ‘numeral classifiers’ due to their co-occurrence with numerals. As demonstrated with Mandarin examples in (1c)–(1d), numeral classifiers come in two varieties: sortal classifiers apply to count nouns (1c) and mensural classifiers may apply to

1 Introduction In a classifier language, a sortal classifier (C) or a mensural classifier (M) is needed when a noun (N) is quantified by a numeral (Num) (e.g., Aikhenvald 2000 ; Allan 1977 ; Tai and Wang 1990 ). While sortal classifiers (C) and mensural classifiers (M) are used to designate the two subcategories of numeral classifiers, the overall category is referred to as C/M. To illustrate, Mandarin Chinese is attested as a canonical classifier language (e.g., Zhang 2013 : 1–2); thus, the enumeration of a countable noun requires the presence of a sortal

possibility that numeral classifiers should become fully grammaticalized into definite articles. Among these are three facts in particular – numeral classifiers are frequently employed to create compounds, they are reduplicated to express large quantities or exhaustivity, and they are never inherently definite. This is for the simple reason that there is no foreseeable possibility that hundreds of numeral classifiers (or dozens if only sortal classifiers are considered) in a typical classifier language might all have been semantically bleached, completely losing their

- ber of semantic parameters. The first distinction is between (a) sortal and (b) mensural classifiers. LYONS (1977: 463) says that a sortal classifier "individuates whatever it refers to in terms of the kind of entity that it is", while a mensural classifier "individuates in terms of quantity". AIKHENVALD (2000: 115) points out that sortal classifiers categorize nouns in terms of their inherent properties (see also BISANG 1999:115, and cf. BERLIN 1968:20 "qua- lifiers"), whereas mensural classifiers are used for measuring units of countable and mass nouns (see

’ Examples in (1) show that Mandarin fits well into the type of the numeral clas- sifier language: classifiers being adjacent to nouns and numerals. Aikhenvald (2000), based on the definitions given in Lyons (1977), distinguishes two basic types of numeral classifiers: sortal classifiers and mensural classifiers:1 A sortal classifier is ‘the one which individuates whatever it refers to in terms of the kind of entity that it is’ (Lyons 1977: 463). A mensural classifier is ‘the one which indi- viduates in terms of quantity’ (Lyons 1977: 463). Sortal classifiers categorize

whether Thai can truly be said to “not have” ad- jectives, in the same sense in which, for example, English “doesn’t have” the category “sortal classifier”; or, if not, we will re-consider exactly what this pu- tative “lack” of adjectives in Thai (or in other GMSEA languages) can mean for typology and general linguistic theory. 1. Commonly-cited examples include Vietnamese (L. Thompson 1991), Chinese (McCawley 1992), Lahu (Matisoff 1973), Lao (Enfield 2004), and Thai (Prasithrathsint 2000), among others. 2. The same author goes on to speculate that an alleged lack of

Csirmaz and Éva Dékány. In this paper, the authors explore classifiers which Simone and Masini (p. 51) call light nouns (e. g., sort in a sort of mouse ). The focus of this article is on two major types of group and sortal classifiers. A set of tests are proposed and used to diagnose the membership in the appropriate classifier subgroup. Csirmaz and Dékány then compare Hungarian with Southeast Asian classifier languages, arguing that some of these tests have universal validity while others are applied in varied ways depending on language-specific factors

semantics of the noun. With this division, the functional range of the two constructions creates a split in Ortmann’s (2014) scale, as it is observed in many languages with a definite article. The article by Wu is concerned with the grammatical properties of the classifier as a marker of definiteness. Based on various Sinitic languages and a questionnaire survey on classifier use in the Wu dialect spoken in Suzhou, the article demonstrates that sortal classifiers have not reached the status of fully grammaticalized markers associated with functional categories as they

classifiers, which denote quantities of an item, e.g., bui1 denoting a class of uncountable substances and the collective baan1 refer- ring to a group of people. Lexical development 39 4.1.1.1. Sortal classifiers Yamamoto (2005, p. 42) proposed “a semantic structure for Chinese clas- sifiers”, a structure unable to encompass all Chinese classifiers, and a se- mantic typology of sortal classifiers per se. Despite various grammatical differences between Mandarin and Cantonese, classifiers make very similar semantic distinctions in the two

: 162–163) and Bisang (1993, 1996, 1999: 121) have further split up the individualization functions of sortal and mensural classifiers. Bisang la- bels the function of sortal classifiers by actualizing individualization (they ‘‘actualize the semantic boundaries which already belong to the concept of the noun’’) and that of mensural classifiers by creative individualization (they create the semantic boundaries of the concept of a noun ‘‘by apply- ing external scales’’). Individualization, however, is not the only and not even the most basic (albeit prominent) cognitive