1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 論「半」與「多」在分類詞句式中的結構
On the Syntactic Structure of ban and duo in Numeral Classifier Phrases
作者 楊雯淇
Yang, Wen-Chi
貢獻者 何萬順
Her, One-Soon
楊雯淇
Yang, Wen-Chi
關鍵詞 分類詞
多
半
詞性
句法結構
Numeral classifier
Duo
Ban
Part-of-speech
Syntactical structure
日期 2018
上傳時間 3-Sep-2018 15:45:36 (UTC+8)
摘要 此篇論文主要目的為探討「半」和「多」在分類詞句式中的詞性及其樹型結構。在過去的文獻中，學者對於「半」和「多」的詞性並沒有統一的說法，有些人認定他們為數量詞，而另一派說法則指稱他們為數詞形容詞。除此之外，「半」和「多」的句法結構並未明確地被提及，多數的研究都著重在「半」和「多」的句式表現。其中唯一提供句法結構的研究為He (2015)，不過我們認為他在文中呈現的結構可以加以改進。我們提出的論點如下: 「半」和「多」應為數詞及「半」和「多」在樹狀結構中，與他們前述的計量單位(亦即分類詞/量詞或基數)結合，以得到正確的數值。然而，我們歸咎「半」無法與基數結合而產生[Num+ban+C/M+N]這樣的句式為中文數字系統的完整性。換言之，半與基數結合而產生的數值已可由一個存在的數字所表達，因此，半才會無法依附在基數後。此研究發現有以下幾個意涵: 一、這研究支持了He (2015)數詞為一詞組的主張，二、分類詞句式的左分支結構[[Num+C/M]+N]分析優於右分支結構[Num+[C/M+N]]，三、語言中除了簡單數詞外，也存在「半」和「多」這種倚賴句式結構釋義的數詞。
This thesis investigates the syntactic structure of ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ in Mandarin numeral classifier phrases. Our primary goal is to justify the appropriate part-of-speech assignment and the syntactic structure of these two elements and to faithfully reflect the mathematical role that ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ play in the classifier construction (c.f., Her 2012a). Various parts-of-speech are assigned to ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ in the literature; previous studies also only determine the behavior of ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ but fail to justify their syntactic structure. A notable exception is He (2015), where he does offer a detailed formal account of the structure of [Num+C/M+duo+N], but we propose that his account can be further enhanced. We argue that duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ should be seen as numerals and the two elements in the classifier construction share a unified syntactic structure. As for the syntactical structure of duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ in numeral classifier phrases, we argue that they are in conjunction with their preceding unit of measurement, either C/M or numerical bases. Yet, Mandarin numerical system is complete so ban is not necessary to combine with numerical bases and derive its meaning which can be expressed by the existed numerals. To the extent that it is successful, this study has several important implications. First, it supports the view that numerals are constituents (He 2015). Second, the so-called left-branching constituency [[Num+C/M]+N] is preferred over the so-called right-branching constituency [Num+[C/M+N]]. Third, besides numerals with precise values and approximate values, languages may also employ numerals like the Mandarin duo and ban whose values are dependent on their syntactic context.
參考文獻 Au Yeung, W.H.B., (2007). Multiplication basis of emergence of classifier. Language and Linguistics 8 (4), 835--861.
Borer, H., (2005). Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press, Berkeley.
He, C. (2015). Complex numerals in Mandarin Chinese are constituents. Lingua, 164, 189-214.
Her, O. S. (2012a). Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A mathematical perspective and implications. Lingua, 122(14), 1668-1691.
Her, O. S. (2012b). Structure of classifiers and measure words: A lexical functional account. Language and Linguistics 13(6). 1211-1251.
Her, O. S., & Lai, W. J. (2012). Classifiers: The Many Ways to Profile `one`—A Case Study of Taiwan Mandarin. International Journal of Computer Processing Of Languages, 24(01), 79-94.
Her, O. S. and K-h Lin. (2015). On the Differentiation of Classifiers and Measure Words. Chinese Linguistics. 4: 56-68.
Her, O. S. and C-T Hsieh. (2010). On the semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words in Chinese. Language and linguistics 11.3: 527-551.
Hu, Q. (1993). The acquisition of Chinese classifiers by young Mandarin-speaking children. Dissertation. Boston University, Boston.
Huang, J. (1984). Phrase structure, lexical integrity, and Chinese compounds. Journal of the Chinese Teachers Association 19 (2), 53–78.
Huang, S. F. (1981). On the scope phenomena of Chinese quantifiers. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 226-243.
Huang, S. Z. (1996). Quantification and predication in Mandarin Chinese: A case study of dou.
Hurford, J. (1975). The Linguistic Theory of Numerals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hurford, J. (2007). A performed practice explains a linguistic universal: Counting gives the Packing Strategy. Lingua, 117(5), 773-783.
Ionin, Tania, and Ora Matushansky. (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23:315–360.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition (Vol. 8). MIT press.
Kuno, S., Takami, K. I., & Wu, Y. (1999). Quantifier scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese. Language, 63-111.
Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago press. 1987-1987.
Landman, F., (2004). Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Blackwell, Malden.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford university press.
Li, Y. H. A. (2014). Structure of Noun Phrases-Left or Right? Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 12(2), 1-32.
Lü, Shuxiang et al. (1990) [1980]. Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci [Eight Hundred Words in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Wang, Lianqing. (1994). Origin and development of classifiers in Chinese. PhD. Dissertation, the Ohio State University.
Xing, Fu-yi. (1993). Xiandai Hanyu ShuLiangci XiTong Zhong De “ban” Han
“Shuang” [Ban and Shuang in the numeral system of Modern Chinese] Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 4, 36-56.
Xing, F.-Y. (2003). Cilei Biannan ‘Difficult Issues in Word Categories’. Commercial Press, Beijing.
Zhang, N. N. (2010). Coordination in syntax (Vol. 123). Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, N. N. (2013). Numeral Classifier Structures in Mandarin Chinese (Vol. 263). Walter de Gruyter.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
104555002
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104555002
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 何萬順zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Her, One-Soonen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 楊雯淇zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yang, Wen-Chien_US
dc.creator (作者) 楊雯淇zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Yang, Wen-Chien_US
dc.date (日期) 2018en_US
dc.date.accessioned 3-Sep-2018 15:45:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 3-Sep-2018 15:45:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Sep-2018 15:45:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0104555002en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119867-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 語言學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 104555002zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 此篇論文主要目的為探討「半」和「多」在分類詞句式中的詞性及其樹型結構。在過去的文獻中，學者對於「半」和「多」的詞性並沒有統一的說法，有些人認定他們為數量詞，而另一派說法則指稱他們為數詞形容詞。除此之外，「半」和「多」的句法結構並未明確地被提及，多數的研究都著重在「半」和「多」的句式表現。其中唯一提供句法結構的研究為He (2015)，不過我們認為他在文中呈現的結構可以加以改進。我們提出的論點如下: 「半」和「多」應為數詞及「半」和「多」在樹狀結構中，與他們前述的計量單位(亦即分類詞/量詞或基數)結合，以得到正確的數值。然而，我們歸咎「半」無法與基數結合而產生[Num+ban+C/M+N]這樣的句式為中文數字系統的完整性。換言之，半與基數結合而產生的數值已可由一個存在的數字所表達，因此，半才會無法依附在基數後。此研究發現有以下幾個意涵: 一、這研究支持了He (2015)數詞為一詞組的主張，二、分類詞句式的左分支結構[[Num+C/M]+N]分析優於右分支結構[Num+[C/M+N]]，三、語言中除了簡單數詞外，也存在「半」和「多」這種倚賴句式結構釋義的數詞。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) This thesis investigates the syntactic structure of ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ in Mandarin numeral classifier phrases. Our primary goal is to justify the appropriate part-of-speech assignment and the syntactic structure of these two elements and to faithfully reflect the mathematical role that ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ play in the classifier construction (c.f., Her 2012a). Various parts-of-speech are assigned to ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ in the literature; previous studies also only determine the behavior of ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ but fail to justify their syntactic structure. A notable exception is He (2015), where he does offer a detailed formal account of the structure of [Num+C/M+duo+N], but we propose that his account can be further enhanced. We argue that duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ should be seen as numerals and the two elements in the classifier construction share a unified syntactic structure. As for the syntactical structure of duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ in numeral classifier phrases, we argue that they are in conjunction with their preceding unit of measurement, either C/M or numerical bases. Yet, Mandarin numerical system is complete so ban is not necessary to combine with numerical bases and derive its meaning which can be expressed by the existed numerals. To the extent that it is successful, this study has several important implications. First, it supports the view that numerals are constituents (He 2015). Second, the so-called left-branching constituency [[Num+C/M]+N] is preferred over the so-called right-branching constituency [Num+[C/M+N]]. Third, besides numerals with precise values and approximate values, languages may also employ numerals like the Mandarin duo and ban whose values are dependent on their syntactic context.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Literature Review 6
2.1 Numeral Classifiers and Measure Words 6
2.1.1 Her’s (2012a) Mathematical-based Taxonomy of C and M 7
2.1.2 Her & Lin’s (2015) Identified C and M 8
2.2 Lexical Meaning of duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ in Numeral Classifier Phrases 8
2.3 Studies on ban ‘half’ 9
2.3.1 The Constructions of ban ‘half’ 9
2.3.2 The Part-of-speech of ban ‘half’ 11
2.4 Studies on duo ‘more’ 13
2.4.1 The Constructions of duo ‘more’ 13
2.4.2 The Part-of-speech of duo ‘more’ 17
2.5 Ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ in Numeral Classifier Phrases 18
2.5.1 Zhang’s (2013) Study 19
2.5.2 He’s (2015) Study 21
Chapter 3 Unsolved Problems 25
3.1 Problems of Part-of-Speech Assignments25
3.1.1 Assigning duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ as a Quantifier 26
3.1.2 Assigning duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ as a Numeral Adjective 27
3.2 Analyzing the Structure of duo and ban in Numeral Classifier Phrases 28
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Chapter 2 Literature Review 6
2.1 Numeral Classifiers and Measure Words 6
2.1.1 Her’s (2012a) Mathematical-based Taxonomy of C and M 7
2.1.2 Her & Lin’s (2015) Identified C and M 8
2.2 Lexical Meaning of duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ in Numeral Classifier Phrases 8
2.3 Studies on ban ‘half’ 9
2.3.1 The Constructions of ban ‘half’ 9
2.3.2 The Part-of-speech of ban ‘half’ 11
2.4 Studies on duo ‘more’ 13
2.4.1 The Constructions of duo ‘more’ 13
2.4.2 The Part-of-speech of duo ‘more’ 17
2.5 Ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ in Numeral Classifier Phrases 18
2.5.1 Zhang’s (2013) Study 19
2.5.2 He’s (2015) Study 21
Chapter 3 Unsolved Problems 25
3.1 Problems of Part-of-Speech Assignments 25
3.1.1 Assigning duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ as a Quantifier 26
3.1.2 Assigning duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ as a Numeral Adjective 27
3.2 Analyzing the Structure of duo and ban in Numeral Classifier Phrases 28
Chapter 4 The Analysis 31
4.1 The Part-of-Speech of duo and ban 31
4.2 The Syntactic Structure of duo and ban in Numeral Classifier Phrases 36
4.2.1 The Review and Extension of the Packing Strategy in Mandarin Numeral System 36
4.2.2 The Marking of the Unit Digits 38
4.2.3 duo and ban with Silent Marking of Unit Digits 41
4.2.4 duo and ban with No Marking of Unit Digits 47
Chapter 5 Conclusion 53
References 55		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 3200114 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104555002en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 分類詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 多zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 半zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 詞性zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 句法結構zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Numeral classifieren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Duoen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Banen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Part-of-speechen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Syntactical structureen_US
dc.title (題名) 論「半」與「多」在分類詞句式中的結構zh_TW
dc.title (題名) On the Syntactic Structure of ban and duo in Numeral Classifier Phrasesen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Au Yeung, W.H.B., (2007). Multiplication basis of emergence of classifier. Language and Linguistics 8 (4), 835--861.
Borer, H., (2005). Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press, Berkeley.
He, C. (2015). Complex numerals in Mandarin Chinese are constituents. Lingua, 164, 189-214.
Her, O. S. (2012a). Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A mathematical perspective and implications. Lingua, 122(14), 1668-1691.
Her, O. S. (2012b). Structure of classifiers and measure words: A lexical functional account. Language and Linguistics 13(6). 1211-1251.
Her, O. S., & Lai, W. J. (2012). Classifiers: The Many Ways to Profile `one`—A Case Study of Taiwan Mandarin. International Journal of Computer Processing Of Languages, 24(01), 79-94.
Her, O. S. and K-h Lin. (2015). On the Differentiation of Classifiers and Measure Words. Chinese Linguistics. 4: 56-68.
Her, O. S. and C-T Hsieh. (2010). On the semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words in Chinese. Language and linguistics 11.3: 527-551.
Hu, Q. (1993). The acquisition of Chinese classifiers by young Mandarin-speaking children. Dissertation. Boston University, Boston.
Huang, J. (1984). Phrase structure, lexical integrity, and Chinese compounds. Journal of the Chinese Teachers Association 19 (2), 53–78.
Huang, S. F. (1981). On the scope phenomena of Chinese quantifiers. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 226-243.
Huang, S. Z. (1996). Quantification and predication in Mandarin Chinese: A case study of dou.
Hurford, J. (1975). The Linguistic Theory of Numerals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hurford, J. (2007). A performed practice explains a linguistic universal: Counting gives the Packing Strategy. Lingua, 117(5), 773-783.
Ionin, Tania, and Ora Matushansky. (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23:315–360.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition (Vol. 8). MIT press.
Kuno, S., Takami, K. I., & Wu, Y. (1999). Quantifier scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese. Language, 63-111.
Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago press. 1987-1987.
Landman, F., (2004). Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Blackwell, Malden.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford university press.
Li, Y. H. A. (2014). Structure of Noun Phrases-Left or Right? Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 12(2), 1-32.
Lü, Shuxiang et al. (1990) [1980]. Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci [Eight Hundred Words in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Wang, Lianqing. (1994). Origin and development of classifiers in Chinese. PhD. Dissertation, the Ohio State University.
Xing, Fu-yi. (1993). Xiandai Hanyu ShuLiangci XiTong Zhong De “ban” Han
“Shuang” [Ban and Shuang in the numeral system of Modern Chinese] Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 4, 36-56.
Xing, F.-Y. (2003). Cilei Biannan ‘Difficult Issues in Word Categories’. Commercial Press, Beijing.
Zhang, N. N. (2010). Coordination in syntax (Vol. 123). Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, N. N. (2013). Numeral Classifier Structures in Mandarin Chinese (Vol. 263). Walter de Gruyter.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/THE.NCCU.GIL.004.2018.A07-