This paper is part of the research project that examines the functions and distributions of classifiers in Japanese and other classifier languages, comparing them to other noun classification systems and with other number and counting systems. This paper specifically seek to investigate whether classifiers in Japanese are instances of Noun Classes (found in, e.g., Bantu languages), grammatical gender (found in, e.g., French, German, Russian), or animacy gender. Close scrutiny of the past relevant literature is conducted to elucidate these structures, and to investigate their similarities and differences of these constructions. Linguistic data is also obtained from the judgments of native speakers. It is demonstrated that classifiers in Japanese do not pattern with Noun Classes or grammatical gender, in terms of their interactions with nouns and the flexibility. The introduction of constructions involving animacy gender, such as interrogatives and existential constructions, demonstrates that classifiers do not probe animacy gender of nouns. This paper presents some understudied applications of classifiers in Japanese, and offers a comparative study of the aforementioned constructions, which, in my shallow knowledge, have escaped attention in the past relevant literature. The work primarily examines classifiers in Japanese; nonetheless, it offers significant implications for other classifier languages as well as non-classifier languages with respect to number, counting properties, and the mass-count distinction.
This paper is part of the research project that examines the functions and distributions of classifiers in Japanese and other classifier languages, comparing them to other noun classification systems and with other number and counting systems. This paper specifically seek to investigate whether classifiers in Japanese are instances of Noun Classes (found in, e.g., Bantu languages), grammatical gender (found in, e.g., French, German, Russian), or animacy gender. Close scrutiny of the past relevant literature is conducted to elucidate these structures, and to investigate their similarities and differences of these constructions. Linguistic data is also obtained from the judgments of native speakers. It is demonstrated that classifiers in Japanese do not pattern with Noun Classes or grammatical gender, in terms of their interactions with nouns and the flexibility. The introduction of constructions involving animacy gender, such as interrogatives and existential constructions, demonstrates that classifiers do not probe animacy gender of nouns. This paper presents some understudied applications of classifiers in Japanese, and offers a comparative study of the aforementioned constructions, which, in my shallow knowledge, have escaped attention in the past relevant literature. The work primarily examines classifiers in Japanese; nonetheless, it offers significant implications for other classifier languages as well as non-classifier languages with respect to number, counting properties, and the mass-count distinction.
Ushbu maqola yapon tilida va boshqa klassifikatorlardan foydalanadigan tillarda klassifikatorlarning funksiyalari va taqsimlanishini o‘rganishga bag‘ishlangan keng qamrovli tadqiqot loyihasining bir qismi hisoblanadi. Loyiha doirasida biz ushbu klassifikatorlarni turli xil otlarni tasniflash tizimlari va hisoblash tizimlari bilan solishtiramiz. Bu maqolada yapon tilidagi klassifikatorlar bantu tillaridagi otlar sinflariga o‘xshashmi yoki ular Yevropa tillaridagi grammatik jins (rod)ga yaqinroqmi, degan masalaga e’tibor qaratamiz. Shuningdek, klassifikatorlarning otlar bilan o‘zaro ta’sirini va qanchalik moslashuvchanligini tahlil qilamiz. Buning uchun oldingi yillardagi adabiyotlar va ona tilida so‘zlashuvchilar o‘rtasida o‘tkazilgan so‘rovlarni sinchiklab o‘rganamiz, shunda ushbu tillarda otlar qanday tasniflanishi va tizimlar qanday farqlanishini aniqlashimiz mumkin bo‘ladi. Tadqiqot natijalariga ko‘ra, yapon tilidagi klassifikatorlar otlar sinflari yoki grammatik jins (rod)ga otlar bilan o‘zaro ta’siri va moslashuvchanligi nuqtayi nazaridan mos kelmaydi. Jonli mavjudotlarning jinsi hisobga olinadigan tuzilmalarni, masalan, so‘roq va mavjudlik konstruksiyalarini kiritish shuni ko‘rsatadiki, klassifikatorlar jonli mavjudotlarning jinsini ko‘rsatmaydi. Ushbu maqolada yapon tilidagi klassifikatorlardan foydalanishning kam o‘rganilgan jihatlari ko‘rib chiqiladi va yuqorida aytib o‘tilgan konstruksiyalarning qiyosiy tahlili taklif etiladi. Ma’lum bo‘lishicha, bu konstruksiyalar ilgari tegishli adabiyotlarda o‘rganilmagan. Ushbu ish yapon tilidagi klassifikatorlarga bag‘ishlangan bo‘lsa-da, u, ayniqsa, miqdor, hisoblash xususiyatlari va ommaviy hisoblashdagi farqlar nuqtayi nazaridan klassifikatorlardan foydalanadigan boshqa tillar uchun ham, klassifikatorlardan foydalanmaydigan tillar uchun ham muhim ahamiyatga ega.
Эта статья является частью обширного исследовательского проекта, посвящённого изучению функций и распределению классификаторов в японском и других языках, которые используют классификаторы. В рамках проекта мы сравниваем эти классификаторы с различными системами классификации существительных и системами счисления. В статье мы сосредоточимся на вопросе, являются ли классификаторы в японском языке аналогами классов существительных, как это наблюдается в языках банту, или же они больше похожи на грамматический род, как в европейских языках. Мы также проанализируем, как классификаторы взаимодействуют с существительными и насколько они гибки. Для этого мы тщательно изучим литературу прошлых лет и опросы носителей языка, чтобы понять, как классифицируются существительные в этих языках и как различаются системы. В результате исследования мы пришли к выводу, что классификаторы в японском не соответствуют классам существительных или грамматическому роду с точки зрения их взаимодействия с существительными и гибкости. Введение конструкций, учитывающих род одушевлённых существительных, таких как вопросительные и экзистенциальные, показывает, что классификаторы не исследуют род одушевлённых существительных. В этой статье рассматриваются некоторые малоизученные аспекты использования классификаторов в японском языке и предлагается сравнительный анализ вышеупомянутых конструкций, которые, насколько мне известно, ранее не были предметом внимания в соответствующей литературе. Хотя эта работа посвящена классификаторам в японском языке, она имеет важное значение для других языков с классификаторами, а также для языков, не использующих классификаторы, в том, что касается количества, особенностей счёта и различий между массовым подсчётом.
№ | Имя автора | Должность | Наименование организации |
---|---|---|---|
1 | KITAOKA D.. | Yapon filologiyasi kafedrasi, Katta o‘qituvch (PhD) | O‘zbekiston Davlat Jahon tillari Universiteti |
№ | Название ссылки |
---|---|
1 | Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2000). Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford University Press. |
2 | Aikhenvald, A. Y., & Mihas, E. I. (Eds.). (2019). Genders and classifiers: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198842019.001.0001 |
3 | Allan, K. (1977). Classifiers. Language, 53(2), 285–311. |
4 | Bale, A., & Barner, D. (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 26(3), 217–252. |
5 | Borer, H. (2005). In name only. Oxford University Press. |
6 | Cheng, L. L.-S., & Sybesma, R. (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(4), 509–542. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554192 |
7 | Chierchia, G. (1998a). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 53– 103). Kluwer. |
8 | Chierchia, G. (1998b). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6(4), 339–405. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008324218506 |
9 | Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter |
10 | Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press. |
11 | Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris |
12 | Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT Press. |
13 | Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge University Press |
14 | Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number. Cambridge University Press |
15 | Corbett, G. G. (2013). Number of genders. In M. S. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), WALS Online (v2020.4) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13950591 |
16 | Dixon, R. M. W. (1986). Noun classes and noun classification in typological perspectives. In C. Colette (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp. 105–112). John Benjamins. |
17 | Downing, P. (1996). Numeral classifier systems: The case of Japanese. John Benjamins Publishing Company. |
18 | Greenberg, J. (1972). Numeral classifiers and substantival number: Problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. Working Papers in Language Universals, 9, 2–39 |
19 | Inagaki, S., & Barner, D. (2009). Countability in absence of count syntax: Evidence from Japanese quantity judgments. In S. Inagaki, M. Hiraiwa, S. Arita, Y. Hirakawa, H. Morikawa, M. Nakayama, H. Sirai, & J. Tsubakita (Eds.), Studies in language sciences 8: Papers from the eighth annual conference of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences (pp. 111–126). Kuroshio Publisher. |
20 | Li, X. (2013). Numeral classifiers in Chinese: The syntax-semantics interface. De Gruyter. |
21 | Lochbihler, B., Oxford, W., & Welch, N. (2021). The person-animacy connection: Evidence from Algonquian and Dene. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 66(3), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2021.14 |
22 | Matthewson, L. (2004). On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics, 70(4), 369–415. |
23 | Mizuguchi, S. (2004a). Individuation in numeral classifier languages: A case of Japanese classifiers and plurals. Shohakusha. |
24 | Mizuguchi, S. (2004b). Ruibetsushi towa nanika [What are classifiers?]. In Y. Nishimitsu & S. Mizuguchi (Eds.), Ruibetsushi no taishoo [Comparison of classifiers] (pp. 3–22). Kuroshio Publisher. |
25 | Nomoto, H. (2013). Number in classifier languages (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota. |
26 | Rothstein, S. (2010). Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 27(3), 343–397. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq007 |
27 | Shimojo, M. (1997). The role of the general category in the maintenance of numeral-classifier systems: The case of tsu and ko in Japanese. Linguistics, 35(4), 705–733. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.4.705 |
28 | Sutton, P. R., & Filip, H. (2016). Counting in context: Count/mass variation and restrictions on coercion in collective artifact nouns. In Proceedings of SALT 26 (pp. 350–370). |
29 | Watanabe, A. (2006). Functional projections of nominals in Japanese: Syntax of classifiers. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24(1), 241–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-005-3042-4 |
30 | Watanabe, A. (2008). The structure of DP. In S. Miyagawa & M. Saito (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp. 513–540). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195307344.001.0001 |