學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 複數標記「們」與分類詞的分與合
Plural Marker -men and Numeral Classifiers: Convergence and Divergence作者 羅奕傑
Lo, Yi Chieh貢獻者 何萬順
Her, One Soon
羅奕傑
Lo, Yi Chieh關鍵詞 分類詞
台灣華語
語言接觸
「們」
促發效應
numeral classifier
plural marker
contact-induced change
-men
priming effect日期 2015 上傳時間 3-Aug-2015 13:30:25 (UTC+8) 摘要 自Greenberg (1972) 以來，陸續有學者探討世界語言中的複數標記和分類詞之間的關係，並指出兩者的相似之處(Greenberg, 1972; Sanches and Slobin, 1973; Borer, 2005; Her, 2012)。本文稱這些研究為CL-PM Convergence View。這些研究指出分類詞 (numeral classifier; CL) 與複數標記 (plural marker; PM)呈現互補分布的關係。學者們 (Borer, 2005; Her, 2012) 更進一步認為，分類詞與複數標記在同一名詞組裡呈現互補分布，表示兩者在句法結構上佔據相同的位置，應視為相同的成分。然而本文發現，台灣華語「Num+CL+N們」結構有一定的能產性。若將「們」視為複數標記，則台灣華語對於上述學者的理論就形成了反例。有鑑於此，本文目的在於以句法接受度實驗及語料庫兩項方法，重新檢視台灣華語「們」的各種用法，以期解決文獻上對於「們」的諸多爭議。接著，在建立語言事實後，本文探討「們」對於CL-PM Convergence View的意義，並對於台灣華語「們」與分類詞在歷時和共時上的互動作出新的解釋。具體來說，本文釐清了下列六項事實，為文獻上的爭議提供新的證據: (一)「們」可用於非指人的名詞；(二)「N們」為定指；(三)「Proper N們」僅表示 ‘多位Proper N’；(四)「¬1群N們」合法；(五)「Num+CL+N們」合法；(六) 在有接受英語教育的前提下，母語者的英語程度越低，對於「Num+CL+N們」的接受度越高，也越容易受到英語句法結構的促發(priming)，表示「Num+CL+N們」的產生與和英語的接觸有密切關係。考慮這些事實及其他台灣華語沒有爭議的特性，本文認為台灣華語「們」應視為一個集合標記(collective plural marker)，而非文獻所說的伴同標記(associative plural, Iljic, 2001,2005; 陳俊光，2009)或是普通複數標記(additive plural, Li, 1999; Hunag et al, 2009)。最後，本文提出兩個論點: 第一，我們根據Her et al (to appear)的洞見，區分「語意複數」(semantic plural)及「語法複數」(grammatical plural)；第二，我們提出新的事實，論證「們」在句法上，台灣華語「們」是一個附綴(clitic)而非詞綴(suffix)。這兩項論點證明台灣華語「們」並不違反CL-PM Convergence View的預測，亦可以解釋「們」與分類詞在歷時(李豔惠、石毓智，2000)和共時上的互動。
Since Greenberg (1972), there have been many studies addressing the issue of the relationship between numeral classifiers (CL) and plural markers (PM) (Greenberg, 1972; Sanches and Slobin, 1973; Borer, 2005; Her, 2012). These scholars (henceforth CL-PM Convergence View) discovered that CL and PM tend not to co-occur in the same language, and even if they do co-occur, they are complementarily distributed within NP. Some linguists (Borer, 2005; Her, 2012) take this generalization further to propose that CL and PM in fact belong to the same category. However, when we look at Taiwan Mandarin (TM) data, a potential counterevidence can be found: [Num+CL+N-men], in which CL and –men, generally taken to be a plural suffix, co-occur within the same NP. In light of this, this study aims to take a realist look at TM –men, collecting relevant data from grammaticality judgment task and corpora so as to capture the behavior of –men. We then test CL-PM Convergence View against empirical data obtained in the study, showing that [Num+CL+N-men] does not constitute a counterexample to CL-PM Convergence View. The apparent interaction between CL and –men in TM can also be accounted for under our analysis of –men. Specifically, this study establishes the following facts for TM –men: (1) the use of –men is not restricted to human Ns; (2) N-men must be definite; (3) Proper N denotes ‘more than one Proper N’; (4) [¬1 qun N-men] is grammatical; (5) [Num+CL+N-men] is grammatical; (6) native speakers’ acceptability of [Num+CL+N-men] is in negative correlation with their English proficiency, and priming effects of English structure [Num+N-s] are observed on speakers with low English proficiency. Taking these findings into account, this study proposes that TM –men should be best analyzed as a collective plural marker, contra Iljic, (2001,2005) and 陳俊光’s (2009) “associative” analysis on the one hand, and Li (1999) and Hunag et al’s (2009) “additive” analysis on the other. Accordingly, we argue that –men as a collective does not constitute a counterexample to CL-PM Convergence View, citing two further pieces of evidence: Her et al’s (to appear) insight that “semantic plural” and “grammatical plural” should be distinguished and the proposal made there to revise CL-PM Convergence View, and the “clitic” analysis of TM –men proposed in this study. Finally, we show that the distinction between “semantic plural” and “grammatical plural” also nicely explains the synchronic and diachronic interaction between CL and –men in TM.參考文獻 Anderson, S. R. (2005). Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford University.Bisang, Walter. (2012). 1 Numeral classifiers with plural marking. A challenge to Greenberg. Plurality and classifiers across languages in China, 255, 23.Borer, Hagit. (2005). Structuring sense, Volume 1: In name only. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Chao, Yuen Ren. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese: University of California Press, Berkeley.Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Chu, Chauncey. (2010). A Functional-Discourse Grammar of Manadarin Chinese. Taipéi: Wenhe chuban youxian gongshi.Chung, Hsin-hui Minty. (2011). A Non-unified Approach to-men in Mandarin Chinese. MA thesis, National Chung Cheng University.Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Sage publications.Daniel, Michael and Edith, Moravcsik. (2013). The Associative Plural. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/36, Accessed on 2015-05-19.)Gil, David, (2013). Numeral Classifiers. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/55, Accessed on 2014-10-22.)Greenberg, Joseph H. (1972). Numeral Classifiers and Substantival Number: Problems in the Genesis of a Linguistic Type. Working Papers on Language Universals, No. 9. Haspelmath, Martin.(2013). Occurrence of Nominal Plurality. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/34, Accessed on 2015-01-12.)Her, One-Soon. (2012). Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A mathematical perspective and implications. Lingua, 122(14), 1668-1691. Her, One-Soon, & Hsieh, Chen-Tien. (2010). On the semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words in Chinese. Language and linguistics, 11(3), 527-551. Her, One-Soon, & Jiun-Hsiung Wu. (2015). Taxonomy of numeralclassifiers and measure words: A formal semantic proposal. Ms. National Chengchi University and National Chungcheng University. Her, One-Soon, Chen, Yun-Ru, & Tang, Marc (to appear). Justifying the Unification of Numeral Classifiersand Plural Markers: The Case of Chinese and English. Hsieh, Miao-Ling. (2008). The internal structure of noun phrases in Chinese: Crane Publishing Company.Hsin, A. L. (2002). On indefinite subject NPs in Chinese. Hanxue Yanjiu [Chinese Studies], 20(2), 353-376.Huang, C. T. J. (1984). Phrase structure, lexical integrity, and Chinese compounds. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 19(2), 53-78.Huang, Cheng-Teh James, Li, Yen-hui Audrey, & Li, Yafei. (2009). The syntax of Chinese: Cambridge University Press Cambridge.Iljic, Robert. (2001). The problem of the suffix-men in Chinese Grammar. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 29(1), 11-68. Iljic, Robert. (2005). Personal collective in Chinese. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 68(01), 77-102. Kaden, Klaus. (1964). Der Ausdruck von Mehrzahlverhältnissen in der modernen chinesischen Sprache (Vol. 9): Akademie-Verlag.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.Li, Yen-hui Audrey. (1999). Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8(1), 75-99. Luka, B. J., & Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(3), 436-459.Myers, J. (2007). MiniJudge: Software for small-scale experimental syntax. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 12(2), 175-194.Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of experimental psychology, 90(2), 227.Moravcsik, Edith A. 1994. “Group plural: associative plural or cohort plural. Email document, LINGUIST List: Vol-5-681. 11 June 1994. ISSN: 1068-4875.Norman, Jerry. (1988). Chinese: Cambridge University Press.Pan, Ting-Hsuan. (2010). The Impact of English Learning on Taiwanese Children’s Native Language: A Translation Perspective. MA thesis, Fu-Jen Catholic University.Peyraube, Alain. (1998). On the history of classifiers in archaic and medieval Chinese. Studia linguistica serica, 131-145. Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar (Vol. 2). John Benjamins Publishing.Sagart, Laurent. (1993). L`infixe-r-en chinois archaique. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 88(1), 261-293. Sanches, Mary, & Slobin, Linda. (1973). Numeral classifiers and plural marking: An implicational universal. Working Papers on Language Universals, 11, 1-22.Sprouse, John. (2007). Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics, 1, 123-134.Tai, J., & Wang, L. (1990). A Semantic Study of the Classifier Tiao. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 25(1), 35-56.Travis, Lisa Demena. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation: MIT Press.T’sou, Benjamin K. (1976). The structure of nominal classifier systems. In Austoasiastic Studies, eds., Phillip N. Jenner, Stanley Starosta, and Laurence C. Thompson, 1215-1247. University of Hawaii Press.Yang, Henrietta. (2005). Plurality and modification in Mandarin Chinese. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Yorifuji, Atsushi. (1976). Men ni Tsuite [A Study of the Suffix–Men]. Area and Cultural Studies, 26, 73-88. Zhang, Niina Ning. (2014). Expressing number productively in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics, 52(1), 1-34.Zhang, Xiaofei. (2008). Chinese-men and associative plurals. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 28.陳俊光 (2009)。漢語詞綴「們」的多視角探索和教學應用。Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association，44(3)，11-42。 陳韻如 (2012)。論世界語言中分類詞與複數的共現。政治大學語言學研究所學位論文，1-103。何萬順 (2009)。語言與族群認同: 從台灣外省族群的母語與台灣華語談起。語言暨語言學，10(2)，375-419。李訥、石毓智 (1998)。句子中心動詞及其賓語之後謂詞性成分的變遷與量詞語法化的動因。語言研究，1，40-54。李艷惠、石毓智 (2000)。漢語量詞系統的建立與複數標記「們」的發展。當代語言學，2，27-36。蘇正隆 (2009)。用Google統計檢驗英文用法。科學人，92，24。蔡維天、馮勝利 (2006)。說「們」的位置: 從句法-韻律的介面談起。語言學論叢，32，46-63。王力 (1987)。中國語法理論(下冊)。台中: 藍燈文化。張斌 (2013)。現代漢語附缀研究。上海師範大學博士學位論文。 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩士學位學程
101161001資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101161001 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 何萬順 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Her, One Soon en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 羅奕傑 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Lo, Yi Chieh en_US dc.creator (作者) 羅奕傑 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Lo, Yi Chieh en_US dc.date (日期) 2015 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-Aug-2015 13:30:25 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-Aug-2015 13:30:25 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Aug-2015 13:30:25 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101161001 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/77240 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 華語文教學碩士學位學程 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 101161001 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 自Greenberg (1972) 以來，陸續有學者探討世界語言中的複數標記和分類詞之間的關係，並指出兩者的相似之處(Greenberg, 1972; Sanches and Slobin, 1973; Borer, 2005; Her, 2012)。本文稱這些研究為CL-PM Convergence View。這些研究指出分類詞 (numeral classifier; CL) 與複數標記 (plural marker; PM)呈現互補分布的關係。學者們 (Borer, 2005; Her, 2012) 更進一步認為，分類詞與複數標記在同一名詞組裡呈現互補分布，表示兩者在句法結構上佔據相同的位置，應視為相同的成分。然而本文發現，台灣華語「Num+CL+N們」結構有一定的能產性。若將「們」視為複數標記，則台灣華語對於上述學者的理論就形成了反例。有鑑於此，本文目的在於以句法接受度實驗及語料庫兩項方法，重新檢視台灣華語「們」的各種用法，以期解決文獻上對於「們」的諸多爭議。接著，在建立語言事實後，本文探討「們」對於CL-PM Convergence View的意義，並對於台灣華語「們」與分類詞在歷時和共時上的互動作出新的解釋。具體來說，本文釐清了下列六項事實，為文獻上的爭議提供新的證據: (一)「們」可用於非指人的名詞；(二)「N們」為定指；(三)「Proper N們」僅表示 ‘多位Proper N’；(四)「¬1群N們」合法；(五)「Num+CL+N們」合法；(六) 在有接受英語教育的前提下，母語者的英語程度越低，對於「Num+CL+N們」的接受度越高，也越容易受到英語句法結構的促發(priming)，表示「Num+CL+N們」的產生與和英語的接觸有密切關係。考慮這些事實及其他台灣華語沒有爭議的特性，本文認為台灣華語「們」應視為一個集合標記(collective plural marker)，而非文獻所說的伴同標記(associative plural, Iljic, 2001,2005; 陳俊光，2009)或是普通複數標記(additive plural, Li, 1999; Hunag et al, 2009)。最後，本文提出兩個論點: 第一，我們根據Her et al (to appear)的洞見，區分「語意複數」(semantic plural)及「語法複數」(grammatical plural)；第二，我們提出新的事實，論證「們」在句法上，台灣華語「們」是一個附綴(clitic)而非詞綴(suffix)。這兩項論點證明台灣華語「們」並不違反CL-PM Convergence View的預測，亦可以解釋「們」與分類詞在歷時(李豔惠、石毓智，2000)和共時上的互動。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Since Greenberg (1972), there have been many studies addressing the issue of the relationship between numeral classifiers (CL) and plural markers (PM) (Greenberg, 1972; Sanches and Slobin, 1973; Borer, 2005; Her, 2012). These scholars (henceforth CL-PM Convergence View) discovered that CL and PM tend not to co-occur in the same language, and even if they do co-occur, they are complementarily distributed within NP. Some linguists (Borer, 2005; Her, 2012) take this generalization further to propose that CL and PM in fact belong to the same category. However, when we look at Taiwan Mandarin (TM) data, a potential counterevidence can be found: [Num+CL+N-men], in which CL and –men, generally taken to be a plural suffix, co-occur within the same NP. In light of this, this study aims to take a realist look at TM –men, collecting relevant data from grammaticality judgment task and corpora so as to capture the behavior of –men. We then test CL-PM Convergence View against empirical data obtained in the study, showing that [Num+CL+N-men] does not constitute a counterexample to CL-PM Convergence View. The apparent interaction between CL and –men in TM can also be accounted for under our analysis of –men. Specifically, this study establishes the following facts for TM –men: (1) the use of –men is not restricted to human Ns; (2) N-men must be definite; (3) Proper N denotes ‘more than one Proper N’; (4) [¬1 qun N-men] is grammatical; (5) [Num+CL+N-men] is grammatical; (6) native speakers’ acceptability of [Num+CL+N-men] is in negative correlation with their English proficiency, and priming effects of English structure [Num+N-s] are observed on speakers with low English proficiency. Taking these findings into account, this study proposes that TM –men should be best analyzed as a collective plural marker, contra Iljic, (2001,2005) and 陳俊光’s (2009) “associative” analysis on the one hand, and Li (1999) and Hunag et al’s (2009) “additive” analysis on the other. Accordingly, we argue that –men as a collective does not constitute a counterexample to CL-PM Convergence View, citing two further pieces of evidence: Her et al’s (to appear) insight that “semantic plural” and “grammatical plural” should be distinguished and the proposal made there to revise CL-PM Convergence View, and the “clitic” analysis of TM –men proposed in this study. Finally, we show that the distinction between “semantic plural” and “grammatical plural” also nicely explains the synchronic and diachronic interaction between CL and –men in TM. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 91.1 台灣華語「們」的用法 91.2台灣華語「們」與分類詞的互動 101.3 小結 12第二章 文獻探討 132.1 分類詞與複數標記之定義 132.1.1 分類詞 132.1.2 複數標記: 普通複數、伴同複數、集合複數 152.1.2.1普通複數 vs. 伴同複數 162.1.2.2普通複數 vs. 集合複數 172.1.2.3 複數標記: 小結 192.2「們」的句法特性 192.2.1「們」與非指人的名詞不相容 202.2.2「們」的定指性 222.2.3「Proper N們」vs. 「Proper N他們」 232.2.4「一群N們」vs. *「¬1群N們」 252.2.5 「們」與計數結構「Num+CL+N」不相容 272.3「們」: 普通複數標記? 伴同複數標記? 或兩者皆非? 282.3.1 Li (1999), Huang et al (2009) 292.3.2 Iljic (2001, 2005), 陳俊光 (2009) 312.3.3 小結:重新探討台灣華語「們」的特性 322.4 複數標記與分類詞的互動 332.4.1分類詞與複數標記的類型學研究 342.4.1.1 Greenberg (1972) 342.4.1.2 Sanches and Slobin (1973) 352.4.1.3 Her (2012) 362.4.2 李豔惠與石毓智 (2000): 漢語分類詞與「們」的歷史互動 37第三章 句法接受度實驗及語料庫研究 413.0 研究方法 413.0.1語料庫研究方法 413.0.2 句法接受度實驗 423.0.2.1 受試者背景 433.0.2.2 研究工具 443.0.3 小結及本章架構 453.1 「[‐human] N們」有無擬人化 453.1.1 實驗設計與原理 463.1.2 實驗結果 473.1.3 討論 483.2 「N們」 是否需為定指 513.2.1實驗設計與原理 513.2.2實驗結果 523.2.3 討論 543.3 「Proper N們」和 「Proper N他們」語意是否不同 563.3.1實驗設計與原理 573.3.2實驗結果 583.3.3 討論 593.4 「¬ 1群N們」是否合法 603.4.1實驗設計與原理 603.4.2實驗結果 613.4.3 討論 633.5 英語[Num+N-s]促發與「Num+CL+N們」接受度之關係 643.5.1 合法度vs. 接受度 643.5.2 促發效果 653.5.3實驗設計與原理 663.5.4 實驗方法 683.5.4.1 受試者 683.5.4.2 刺激材料 693.5.4.3 實驗工具 693.5.4.4 實驗程序 703.5.5 實驗結果 703.5.6討論 733.6受試者英語程度與「Num+CL+N們」接受度之關係 733.6.1實驗設計與原理 743.6.2 受試者 753.6.3實驗結果 753.6.4 實驗五、實驗六綜合討論 783.6.4.1 實驗六結果討論 783.6.4.2 實驗五結果的再思考 803.6.4.3 實驗五、實驗六小結 823.7 實驗一至實驗六結果小結 82第四章 台灣華語「們」的特性及其理論意義 844.1台灣華語「們」的語法及語意特性 844.1.1台灣華語「們」: 集合複數標記 844.1.1.1 名詞後「們」: 集合標記 854.1.1.2人稱代詞後「們」: 集合標記 874.1.1.3 小結: 台灣華語「們」是集合標記 884.1.2 台灣華語「們」 vs. 北京話「們」 894.2台灣華語「們」對CL-PM Convergence View的理論意義 904.2.1 語意複數 vs. 語法複數 914.2.2 「們」做為附綴 (clitic) 934.2.2.1 「們」作為附綴: 形式上的證據 954.2.2.2 「們」作為附綴: 歷史演化的證據 974.2.2.3「們」作為附綴的理論意義 994.2.3 小結:「Num+CL+N們」非反例 1004.3. 解釋李豔惠與石毓智 (2000)之觀察及實驗五、六結果 100第五章 結論及研究限制 1025.1 研究總結 1025.2 未來研究建議 103參考文獻 105附錄一: 中研院平衡語料庫及Google網路語料 109附錄二: 實驗一至實驗四使用之問卷樣本 118附錄三: 實驗句、促發項及填充句 121 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1373255 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101161001 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 分類詞 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 台灣華語 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語言接觸 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 「們」 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 促發效應 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) numeral classifier en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) plural marker en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) contact-induced change en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) -men en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) priming effect en_US dc.title (題名) 複數標記「們」與分類詞的分與合 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Plural Marker -men and Numeral Classifiers: Convergence and Divergence en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Anderson, S. R. (2005). Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford University.Bisang, Walter. (2012). 1 Numeral classifiers with plural marking. A challenge to Greenberg. Plurality and classifiers across languages in China, 255, 23.Borer, Hagit. (2005). Structuring sense, Volume 1: In name only. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Chao, Yuen Ren. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese: University of California Press, Berkeley.Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Chu, Chauncey. (2010). A Functional-Discourse Grammar of Manadarin Chinese. Taipéi: Wenhe chuban youxian gongshi.Chung, Hsin-hui Minty. (2011). A Non-unified Approach to-men in Mandarin Chinese. MA thesis, National Chung Cheng University.Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Sage publications.Daniel, Michael and Edith, Moravcsik. (2013). The Associative Plural. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/36, Accessed on 2015-05-19.)Gil, David, (2013). Numeral Classifiers. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/55, Accessed on 2014-10-22.)Greenberg, Joseph H. (1972). Numeral Classifiers and Substantival Number: Problems in the Genesis of a Linguistic Type. Working Papers on Language Universals, No. 9. Haspelmath, Martin.(2013). Occurrence of Nominal Plurality. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/34, Accessed on 2015-01-12.)Her, One-Soon. (2012). Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A mathematical perspective and implications. Lingua, 122(14), 1668-1691. Her, One-Soon, & Hsieh, Chen-Tien. (2010). On the semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words in Chinese. Language and linguistics, 11(3), 527-551. Her, One-Soon, & Jiun-Hsiung Wu. (2015). Taxonomy of numeralclassifiers and measure words: A formal semantic proposal. Ms. National Chengchi University and National Chungcheng University. Her, One-Soon, Chen, Yun-Ru, & Tang, Marc (to appear). Justifying the Unification of Numeral Classifiersand Plural Markers: The Case of Chinese and English. Hsieh, Miao-Ling. (2008). The internal structure of noun phrases in Chinese: Crane Publishing Company.Hsin, A. L. (2002). On indefinite subject NPs in Chinese. Hanxue Yanjiu [Chinese Studies], 20(2), 353-376.Huang, C. T. J. (1984). Phrase structure, lexical integrity, and Chinese compounds. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 19(2), 53-78.Huang, Cheng-Teh James, Li, Yen-hui Audrey, & Li, Yafei. (2009). The syntax of Chinese: Cambridge University Press Cambridge.Iljic, Robert. (2001). The problem of the suffix-men in Chinese Grammar. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 29(1), 11-68. Iljic, Robert. (2005). Personal collective in Chinese. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 68(01), 77-102. Kaden, Klaus. (1964). Der Ausdruck von Mehrzahlverhältnissen in der modernen chinesischen Sprache (Vol. 9): Akademie-Verlag.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.Li, Yen-hui Audrey. (1999). Plurality in a classifier language. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 8(1), 75-99. Luka, B. J., & Barsalou, L. W. (2005). Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(3), 436-459.Myers, J. (2007). MiniJudge: Software for small-scale experimental syntax. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 12(2), 175-194.Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of experimental psychology, 90(2), 227.Moravcsik, Edith A. 1994. “Group plural: associative plural or cohort plural. Email document, LINGUIST List: Vol-5-681. 11 June 1994. ISSN: 1068-4875.Norman, Jerry. (1988). Chinese: Cambridge University Press.Pan, Ting-Hsuan. (2010). The Impact of English Learning on Taiwanese Children’s Native Language: A Translation Perspective. MA thesis, Fu-Jen Catholic University.Peyraube, Alain. (1998). On the history of classifiers in archaic and medieval Chinese. Studia linguistica serica, 131-145. Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar (Vol. 2). John Benjamins Publishing.Sagart, Laurent. (1993). L`infixe-r-en chinois archaique. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 88(1), 261-293. Sanches, Mary, & Slobin, Linda. (1973). Numeral classifiers and plural marking: An implicational universal. Working Papers on Language Universals, 11, 1-22.Sprouse, John. (2007). Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics, 1, 123-134.Tai, J., & Wang, L. (1990). A Semantic Study of the Classifier Tiao. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 25(1), 35-56.Travis, Lisa Demena. (1984). Parameters and effects of word order variation: MIT Press.T’sou, Benjamin K. (1976). The structure of nominal classifier systems. In Austoasiastic Studies, eds., Phillip N. Jenner, Stanley Starosta, and Laurence C. Thompson, 1215-1247. University of Hawaii Press.Yang, Henrietta. (2005). Plurality and modification in Mandarin Chinese. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.Yorifuji, Atsushi. (1976). Men ni Tsuite [A Study of the Suffix–Men]. Area and Cultural Studies, 26, 73-88. Zhang, Niina Ning. (2014). Expressing number productively in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics, 52(1), 1-34.Zhang, Xiaofei. (2008). Chinese-men and associative plurals. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 28.陳俊光 (2009)。漢語詞綴「們」的多視角探索和教學應用。Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association，44(3)，11-42。 陳韻如 (2012)。論世界語言中分類詞與複數的共現。政治大學語言學研究所學位論文，1-103。何萬順 (2009)。語言與族群認同: 從台灣外省族群的母語與台灣華語談起。語言暨語言學，10(2)，375-419。李訥、石毓智 (1998)。句子中心動詞及其賓語之後謂詞性成分的變遷與量詞語法化的動因。語言研究，1，40-54。李艷惠、石毓智 (2000)。漢語量詞系統的建立與複數標記「們」的發展。當代語言學，2，27-36。蘇正隆 (2009)。用Google統計檢驗英文用法。科學人，92，24。蔡維天、馮勝利 (2006)。說「們」的位置: 從句法-韻律的介面談起。語言學論叢，32，46-63。王力 (1987)。中國語法理論(下冊)。台中: 藍燈文化。張斌 (2013)。現代漢語附缀研究。上海師範大學博士學位論文。 zh_TW
