A Syntactic Study Of Classifiers

Research on classifiers has aroused much interest of some linguists (Chierchia 1998,Cheng and Sybesma 1999, Chan 1999, Li 1999b,Simpson 2005,among others) for quite a period of time. In my paper, I observe the syntax of classifiers from another perspective, relationship between classifiers and determiners. More and more linguists agree with the view that Det is a universal category of all human languages (Longobardi 1994, Li 1998 among others). In the spirit of their studies, I further prove that it is plausible to conclude that D position surely exists in both western languages (e.g. English) and in classifier languages (e.g. Chinese, Serbo-Cratian), which makes it possible to study classifiers in DP structure suggested by Abney (1987). Abney's DP-Hypothesis gives us a new method of studying the syntax of classifiers within DP structure.Since Abney (1987), lots of scholars agree with his assumption that the noun phrase has a sentence-like structure which contains inflection and that it is headed by a determiner. The debate on elements occupying D positions has aroused much interest of researchers. With respect to elements in D positions, different scholar holds different idea. Some linguists suggest that only the articles (e.g."a/an/the"in English) occupy the D position (Giusti 1997, Ritter 1995, Szabolcsi 1994). But Abney (1987) appears to hold the idea that various elements occupy D position (e.g. articles, demonstratives, numerals, quantifiers). I dwell on Abney's assumption. I claim that the category of determiner includes various elements. Based on Abney (1987)'s observation, I assume that Classifier is another element that occupies D position and acts as determiner. I hold the idea that different determiners have specific restricting functions for nominal phrase. With respect to restricting function of classifiers, it is similar to articles in English. In fact, this is never a new idea. Chan (1999) and Cheng & Sybesma (1999) hold the same idea that classifiers are instantiations of determiners. I argue that their view is reasonable. But it seems to me that there are still problems in their studies. First of all, their data is too limited. They put forward their speculation only through mainly examining Cantonese and Chinese. It makes the assumption that classifier is an instantiation of determiner not very believable. To find more facts to support this argument that classifier is an instantiation of determiner, based on previous literature, I present a further discussion of classifiers with data from various classifier languages (e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Nung, Serbo-Croatian, Hungarian, Bangla and Vietnamese). I prove my speculation both from a syntactic angle and a semantic angle. What is more, I work out similarities between classifiers and determiners. In addition, I try to probe into this issue with the help of the latest achievement of Generative Grammar, Phase Theory mainly based on Cai (2009)'s study. I attempt to reveal the facts of different patterns of NP in different classifier languages through analyzing derivation of phases in nominal phrases in various classifier languages.The second problem of previous study is that Chan (1999) and Cheng & Sybesma (1999) hold the idea that classifiers, rather than demonstratives, are instantiations of determiners. I further analyze my assumption mainly in the light of Zamparelli (2000)'s research. I try to speculate that classifier is a weak instantiation of determiner because it is not inherently definite. However demonstrative is a strong determiner because it is inherently definite, just like definite article the in English. Thus I reach a conclusion that classifier is an instantiation of determiner, and serves as a determiner both syntactically and semantically.