A GIS Typological Analysis of the Convergence and Divergence among Numeral Classifiers, Genders and Plural Markers in the World’s Languages

• Main Authors: Tang, Marc, 唐威洋
• Other Authors: Her, One Soon
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/5s966f

碩士 === 國立政治大學 === 語言學研究所 === 103 === This thesis aims at providing an explanation for the typological and areal distribution between numeral classifiers, genders (noun classes) and grammatical plural markers. Within previous studies, these three components are considered as different devices to balance information in noun phrases (Greenberg, 1990; Aikhenvald, 2000). Numeral classifier languages are mainly present in South-East Asia and parts of South-America, while languages with genders and grammatical plural markers are generally attested in Europe, Africa and parts of the Americas. We propose that despite their apparent divergence, the three elements display this particular geographical distribution due to their convergent features of count/mass distinction and semantic classification: Numeral classifiers carry both functions, while genders and plural markers separately fulfill one of them. Following this logic, we expect that a language with numeral classifier do not have simultaneously the systems of genders plus plural markers and vice-versa. Theoretical evidence via formal syntactic form and semantic function comparison is proposed and further supported by typological, geographical and historical analysis of 155 languages that are mainly part of the 20 biggest language groups in the world, e.g. Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Niger-Congo, Austronesian, Dravidian, Japonic, Altaic, Austro-Asiatic, Tai-Kadai, Creole, Nilo-Saharan, Uralic, Quechuan, Hmong-Mien, Mayan, North Caucasian, Language isolates among others. Chapter 1 presents a brief introduction of the subject while chapter 2 displays the literature review. Chapter 3 includes our theoretical discussion proposing explaining the convergence and divergence among numeral classifiers, genders and plural markers, followed by typological and geographical evidence via GIS (Geographic Information System) in Chapter 4. Finally Chapter 5 and 6 contain the limitations of our study and its conclusion.