汉语计数名词与质量名词的语法区别

Q3 Arts and Humanities Lingua Posnaniensis Pub Date : 2020-06-01 DOI:10.2478/linpo-2020-0004
Nastazja Stoch
{"title":"汉语计数名词与质量名词的语法区别","authors":"Nastazja Stoch","doi":"10.2478/linpo-2020-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The purpose of this paper is to prove the Mass Noun Hypothesis wrong. The hypothesis claims that all common nouns in classifier languages like Mandarin Chinese are mass nouns. The objection against it consists in displaying its implausible deduction, where false conclusions have been drawn due to relying on the grammar of English, which is incongruent with the grammar of Chinese. Consequently, this paper defends the Count Noun Thesis, stating that in Chinese there are count as well as mass nouns. In support of this statement, first, the typology of numeral classifiers had to be established, which resulted in gathering and completing all the reasons to distinguish classifiers from measure words. After only this necessary differentiation was made, it was possible to show that the count/mass distinction exists in Mandarin Chinese. That is, count nouns by default have only one classifier, with certain disclaimers. Apart from that, count nouns, as in every language, may undergo some measurement with measure words. Mass nouns, however, in the context of quantification may appear only with measure words, but not with classifiers. These conditions naturally follow from the ontological status of the two types of nouns’ referents, i.e. bounded objects denoted by count nouns, and scattered substances denoted by mass nouns.","PeriodicalId":35103,"journal":{"name":"Lingua Posnaniensis","volume":"62 1","pages":"55 - 76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The grammatical distinction between count nouns and mass nouns in Mandarin Chinese\",\"authors\":\"Nastazja Stoch\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/linpo-2020-0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The purpose of this paper is to prove the Mass Noun Hypothesis wrong. The hypothesis claims that all common nouns in classifier languages like Mandarin Chinese are mass nouns. The objection against it consists in displaying its implausible deduction, where false conclusions have been drawn due to relying on the grammar of English, which is incongruent with the grammar of Chinese. Consequently, this paper defends the Count Noun Thesis, stating that in Chinese there are count as well as mass nouns. In support of this statement, first, the typology of numeral classifiers had to be established, which resulted in gathering and completing all the reasons to distinguish classifiers from measure words. After only this necessary differentiation was made, it was possible to show that the count/mass distinction exists in Mandarin Chinese. That is, count nouns by default have only one classifier, with certain disclaimers. Apart from that, count nouns, as in every language, may undergo some measurement with measure words. Mass nouns, however, in the context of quantification may appear only with measure words, but not with classifiers. These conditions naturally follow from the ontological status of the two types of nouns’ referents, i.e. bounded objects denoted by count nouns, and scattered substances denoted by mass nouns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35103,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lingua Posnaniensis\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"55 - 76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lingua Posnaniensis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/linpo-2020-0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lingua Posnaniensis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/linpo-2020-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文旨在证明大众名词假说是错误的。该假说认为,普通话等分类语言中的所有常见名词都是大众名词。对它的反对在于展示了其难以置信的推论,即由于依赖英语语法而得出错误的结论,这与汉语语法不一致。因此,本文为计数名词论辩护,指出汉语中既有计数名词,也有量名词。为了支持这一说法,首先,必须建立数字分类器的类型学,这导致收集并完成区分分类器和测量词的所有原因。在进行了这种必要的区分之后,就有可能表明汉语中存在计数/质量区分。也就是说,计数名词默认情况下只有一个分类器,并带有某些免责声明。除此之外,计数名词,就像在每种语言中一样,可能会用量词进行一些测量。然而,在量化的上下文中,大量名词可能只与量词一起出现,而不与分类器一起出现。这些条件自然源于两类名词指称物的本体论地位,即计数名词表示的有界物和质量名词表示的分散物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The grammatical distinction between count nouns and mass nouns in Mandarin Chinese
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to prove the Mass Noun Hypothesis wrong. The hypothesis claims that all common nouns in classifier languages like Mandarin Chinese are mass nouns. The objection against it consists in displaying its implausible deduction, where false conclusions have been drawn due to relying on the grammar of English, which is incongruent with the grammar of Chinese. Consequently, this paper defends the Count Noun Thesis, stating that in Chinese there are count as well as mass nouns. In support of this statement, first, the typology of numeral classifiers had to be established, which resulted in gathering and completing all the reasons to distinguish classifiers from measure words. After only this necessary differentiation was made, it was possible to show that the count/mass distinction exists in Mandarin Chinese. That is, count nouns by default have only one classifier, with certain disclaimers. Apart from that, count nouns, as in every language, may undergo some measurement with measure words. Mass nouns, however, in the context of quantification may appear only with measure words, but not with classifiers. These conditions naturally follow from the ontological status of the two types of nouns’ referents, i.e. bounded objects denoted by count nouns, and scattered substances denoted by mass nouns.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Lingua Posnaniensis
Lingua Posnaniensis Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊最新文献
Temporal adverbial clauses: A cross-linguistic perspective Mubi-Toram lexicon and Afro-Asiatic IV: Addenda with *b- (Part 2) An Optimality-Theoretic analysis of stress in the Bani Sulaim dialect Angas-Sura etymologies XIII Mubi-Toram lexicon and Afro-Asiatic II: Addenda with *b-
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1