Scholarlink

<p>Sortal classifiers (SCLs) in Mandarin reveal a semantic duality, where the same sortal classifier has both a classifier use and a measure-phrase use. Furthermore, the same semantic restriction imposed by SCLs manifests in both the sortal-classifier use and the measure-phrase use. Such semantic duality of SCLs raises many important questions: (a) How do SCLs semantically compose with various linguistic elements in the comparative such as quantity adjectives and the comparative morpheme (if any)? (b) How many lexical entries do we need to posit for each Mandarin SCL with respect to the semantic duality in our linguistic theory? (c) What is the semantic distinction between a sortal classifier and a measure phrase? (d) How and why does the same selection restriction of SCLs appear in both of their classifier use and measure-phrase use? Taking the sortal classifier <i>ke</i> for illustrations, this paper proposes that (a) a unified semantics of SCLs can be maintained with respect to their semantic duality, if the framework of degrees-as-kinds recently advocated by Scontras (<CitationRef CitationID="CR46">2014</CitationRef>, <CitationRef CitationID="CR47">2017</CitationRef>) is adopted; (b) the same semantic restriction manifesting in the semantic duality of SCLs results from the fact that there is a systematic intrinsic semantic connection between their individual-related denotation (the sortal-classifier use) and their degree-related denotation (the measure-phrase use). If the proposed analysis is on the right track, this study, based on the semantic duality of Mandarin SCLs, provides another important piece of cross-linguistic evidence that degrees may not be simply numerical values, but ontologically complex entities, aligning with the conclusion reached in many recent studies (Scontras <CitationRef CitationID="CR46">2014</CitationRef>, <CitationRef CitationID="CR47">2017</CitationRef>; Anderson and Morzycki <CitationRef CitationID="CR1">2015</CitationRef>; Mendia <CitationRef CitationID="CR33">2017</CitationRef>, <CitationRef CitationID="CR34">2020</CitationRef>: Sect.&#xa0;6.1; Snyder <CitationRef CitationID="CR49">2017</CitationRef>, <CitationRef CitationID="CR50">2021</CitationRef>).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Degrees as kinds: The case of Mandarin sortal classifiers

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月15日

查看全文
  • Yi-Hsun Chen

摘要

Sortal classifiers (SCLs) in Mandarin reveal a semantic duality, where the same sortal classifier has both a classifier use and a measure-phrase use. Furthermore, the same semantic restriction imposed by SCLs manifests in both the sortal-classifier use and the measure-phrase use. Such semantic duality of SCLs raises many important questions: (a) How do SCLs semantically compose with various linguistic elements in the comparative such as quantity adjectives and the comparative morpheme (if any)? (b) How many lexical entries do we need to posit for each Mandarin SCL with respect to the semantic duality in our linguistic theory? (c) What is the semantic distinction between a sortal classifier and a measure phrase? (d) How and why does the same selection restriction of SCLs appear in both of their classifier use and measure-phrase use? Taking the sortal classifier ke for illustrations, this paper proposes that (a) a unified semantics of SCLs can be maintained with respect to their semantic duality, if the framework of degrees-as-kinds recently advocated by Scontras (2014, 2017) is adopted; (b) the same semantic restriction manifesting in the semantic duality of SCLs results from the fact that there is a systematic intrinsic semantic connection between their individual-related denotation (the sortal-classifier use) and their degree-related denotation (the measure-phrase use). If the proposed analysis is on the right track, this study, based on the semantic duality of Mandarin SCLs, provides another important piece of cross-linguistic evidence that degrees may not be simply numerical values, but ontologically complex entities, aligning with the conclusion reached in many recent studies (Scontras 2014, 2017; Anderson and Morzycki 2015; Mendia 2017, 2020: Sect. 6.1; Snyder 2017, 2021).