On the complementary distribution of plurals and classifiers in East Asian classifier languages

Abstract

It is widely recognized that plural morphemes and classifiers are in complementary distribution, being unable to co-occur. Recent literature suggests a syntactic account for complementary distribution: A plural morpheme and a classifier realize the same functional head, and thus, they cannot co-occur. The goal of this article is to examine whether this syntactic approach to the alleged complementary distribution is applicable to certain classifier languages. We review analyses for each of 3 classifier languages, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, where a plural and a classifier co-occur. The reviewed analyses suggest that plural markers in these classifier languages do not realize the same head with classifiers (e.g., a plural instantiates Num/D in Chinese differently from a classifier), which accounts for its co-occurrence with a classifier.For example, Borer (2005) claims that classifiers and plural markers perform the same semantic function, that of individuation (in a non-measure construction, see Footnote 2 and Section 2 for more details); and thus, they realize the same functional head in the nominal structure, that is, they are in syntactic complementary distribution (to be detailed in Section 2). The proposed syntactic complementary distribution captures the well-observed fact that classifiers and plural markers cannot co-occur in some languages. The question that arises with respect to Borer's type of approach is how complementary distribution figures in classifier languages such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, where both classifiers and plurals are known to be available. For these languages (as will be discussed in Section 3), independently from Borer's claim, plural markers have been proposed to occupy a different position than classifiers in the nominal structure. Classifiers realize a functional head CL projected above an NP. Plural markers occupy a different head than a CL; for example, in Chinese (Li, 1999), the Num(ber) head (in the sense of Ritter 1991Ritter , 1995 has been proposed as the site for the plural marker -men. With respect to the claim that classifiers and plural markers realize the same functional head as in Borer, this type of proposal for the classifier languages seems to indicate that the syntactic complementary distribution of classifiers and plural markers proposed in Borer may not be applicable to these classifier languages.The goal of this article is to review relevant data provided and the main proposals made for each of the classifier languages under consideration and to evaluate whether the wellknown syntactic complementary distribution is applicable to these classifier languages. For reasons of space, the discussion to follow is restricted to the main proposals concerning the position of plural markers in a nominal structure of each of the classifier languages, assuming the syntax and semantics of classifiers to be relatively constant. In the studies to be reviewed, it appears that the syntax of classifiers in non-measure constructions is relatively less debatable than the s...

Variation in the Syntax of Plural Markers: The Case From Plural –Menin Mandarin

“…In doing so, this paper provides novel theoretical, as well as empirical, support to recent proposals on the syntax of plurals, where a plural marker can be a modifier, not a head (Wiltschko 2008, Butler 2011, Kim & Melchin 2018a). Furthermore, it provides support for proposals where the syntax of plural markers is not identical, but varied (e.g., Acquaviva 2008, Harbour 2008, 2012, Wiltschko 2008, 2012, Mathieu 2012, Otto 2011, Mathieu & Zareikar 2015, Kim & Melchin 2018a, b).…”

Insights on the Greenberg-Sanches-Slobin generalization: Quantitative typological data on classifiers and plural markers

“…With regard to plural markers, previous studies on the GSSG mostly considered nominal plural marking (Kim and Melchin 2018). Thus, the occurrence of overt plural marking on the noun would allow a language to be labeled as plural marking (Haspelmath 2013).…”

A Statistical Explanation of the Distribution of Sortal Classifiers in Languages of the World via Computational Classifiers

“…Hungarian, Mandarin Chinese, Persian, among others) are found attested with both sortal classifiers and plural markers, but they are generally considered as not real-exceptions due to the optional nature of sortal classifiers and/or plural markers in the targeted languages (Bisang, 2012;Csirmaz & Dekany, 2010;Doetjes, 2012;Gerner, 2006;Ghomeshi, 2003). Yet, the fact that the co-occurrence of sortal classifiers and plural markers can even be found in typical classifier languages such as Mandarin Chinese raises questions about the validity of the generalization (Kim & Melchin, 2018;Zhang, 2013). For instance in Chinese, the plural marker -men is occasionally found in quantitative expressions, c.f., san wei laoshi (three CLF-HUMAN teacher) and san wei laoshi men (three CLF-HUMAN teacher pl) 'three teachers'.…”