NUMBER IN JAPANESE AND CHINESE∗
Yasuki Ueda
Nanzan University

1.

Introduction

It has long been noted that there is a split among languages between those that haveclassifiers and those that have number. For instance, Greenberg (1972) reports that languages
with classifier system tend to lack number morphology. Chinese, Japanese, Burmese, Bengali,
and Thai are generally treated as languages that employ rich classifier system (Allan 1977).
On the other hand, Germanic and Romance languages such as English, German, French, andItalian are often classified as languages that introduce number morphology instead ofclassifiers. Languages in the former group are often referred to as classifier languages, andthose in the latter group are conventionally called number languages. This typologicaldichotomy has been widely assumed.
The main purpose of this paper is to examine the widely accepted dichotomy through thecomparative syntax of Chinese, Japanese, and English. In this paper, we present mainly twoarguments to challenge the conventional view. One is that classifier system in Chinese andnumber system in English have overlapping properties at the level of syntax. For instance,
both Chinese classifiers and English number morphology head functional projections above
NP, viz. Classifier Projection, or CLP for short, and Number Projection, or NumP,
respectively. Further, both of the projections are specified with similar syntactic features. The
other argument concerns the diversity of classifiers among classifier languages. We show that
Chinese and Japanese classifiers are syntactically different. For instance, Chinese classifiers
head functional projections, while the Japanese counterparts do not; they are modifiers bycontrast.

∗

The earliest version of this paper was presented at the International Symposium of theCambridge-Conneticut-Hyderabad-Nanzan-Siena-Tsinghua Consortium for Linguistics, held at the
National Tsinghua University, on December 15-17, 2007, and at the Nanzan-Cambridge-EFL Joint
Seminar on Parametric Syntax and Acquisition, which was held at the EFL University on January
25-27, 2008. I benefited from many helpful and constructive comments from the audiences there,
which led to its further development, and had it published in Nanzan Linguistics 3:2. Then, it went
through further revision and development through critical comments received at the
Tsinghua-CUHK-Nanzan Joint Workshop on Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition, held at
Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan, on September 17-18, 2008. Thereafter, I developed it into my
Master’s Thesis. The content of this paper is part of it. I would like to thank the audiences and mythesis advisers. I am especially grateful to my thesis advisor Mamoru Saito, who always gave me
insightful comments and help at various stages of finishing the thesis and this paper.
Nanzan Linguistics 5, 105-130©2009 Yasuki Ueda

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is meant to show that English NumP andChinese CLP are syntactically quite similar contrary to the typological difference between
English and Chinese. In 2.1, we review Cheng and Sybesma (1998) and Tang’s (1990)
proposal that Chinese classifiers head independent projections dominating NP in parallel withEnglish NumP, and provide an additional argument for it. 2.2 deals with Doetjst’s (1997)
argument for the similarity between Chinese CLP and English NumP. It is that both of them
are specified with a common syntactic feature, a countability feature. Section 3 is dedicated toshow some syntactic differences between Japanese and Chinese CLPs. In 3.1, we introduce
Saito, Lin, and Murasugi’s (2008) argument that Japanese CLP is an NP-adjunct in contrast
with Chinese CLP, and argue that the countability feature in Japanese CLP should not be
syntactic but semantic. 3.2 deals with the syntax of the Japanese number morphology, -tati.
There, we review Ueda and Haraguchi’s (2008) analysis of it as Num, and argue that thesyntactic countability feature is specified in NumP in parallel with English and in contrast
with Chinese. This section suggests that classifiers diverse among classifier languages, andthat Japanese is syntactically similar to English rather than Chinese though it is typologicallya classifier language. Section 4 concludes this paper.
2.

English NumP and Chinese CLP

In this section, we discuss the comparative syntax of English NumP and Chinese CLP. In
2.1, we compare the syntactic structures of English number and Chinese classifiers, and argue
that they are quite similar contrary to the typological differences. The argument for thesimilarity receives further support in 2.2. There, we show that features in English Num andChinese CL overlap.
2.1.

Similarity in Structure

Since Ritter’s (1991, 1995) pioneering work on the DP-internal syntax, it has been
widely accepted that number morphology heads an independent functional projection
dominating count NP, NumP. According to Delfitto and Schroten (1991) and Li (1999), Numtakes a numeral as its specifier. Given their assumption, an English noun phrase like threedogs will schematically have the structure as in (1).
(1)
DP
D

NumP

numeralNum’

three Num
-s

NP
dog

Cheng and Sybesma (1998) analyze Chinese CLP in parallel with English NumP. That-106-

Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)

is, Chinese CLP is also an independent functional projection above NP in their analysis. It isobserved by Cheng and Sybesma (1998, 1999) and Tang (1990) that classifiers can befollowed by the modification marker de, as in (2).1(2)

a.

san bang(de) rou
three CL-pound DE meat
‘three pounds of meat’b.

(Cheng and Sybesma 1999: 515)

san wan(de) tang
three CL-bowl DE soup
‘three bowls of soup’

Without going into details, Cheng and Sybesma (1998), along with Tang (1990), propose thatclassifier constructions with de and those without de are different in their structures. In thesequence [Numeral-CL-N], the classifier head CL is a head in the noun phrase. There is no
modification relationship with the N. The structure they propose for de-less classifiers is asfollows.
(3)

CLP
numeralCL

CL’NP

On the other hand, the numeral classifier in sequence [Numeral-CL-de-N] is in a
modifier-modifee relationship with the N. More specifically, Cheng and Sybesma (1998)
analyze it as a relative clause; it is an instance of the subject relativization, as in (4), where
CLP is the predicate of Small Clause, SC.
(4)[DP [NP [CP Opi [SC ti CLP ] [C de]] [NP N]]]

We do not discuss Cheng and Sybesma (1998) and Tang’s (1990) arguments for their
proposal here, but provide an additional argument for it. 2 The argument concerns the
distribution of the suffix yishang ‘more than’. It is known to occur at the right edge of1

Cheng and Sybesma (1998) observe de only with a sub set of classifiers called mass classifiers,
which are cannonically found to occur with mass nouns. However, Tang (2005) observes de withthose in the rest of the set, called count classifiers, which are found to occur only with count nouns, aswell, as in (i).
(i)

ta
he

mai-lewu li (- de) pingguo.
buy-ASP five CL DE apple‘He bought apples sorted in accordance with number 5.’
2(Tang 2005: 443)

More decisive evidence will be provided later in section 3. It comes from NP ellipsis.

-107-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

quantity expressions, as in (5).
(5)

a.

Ta he-letang [sanwan-yishang ]he drink-ASP soup three CL-bowl-more-than‘He drank more than three bowls of soup’b.

Ta mai-lebi [shi zhi-yishang]
he buy-ASP pen ten CL-more-than‘He bought more than ten pens.’

Let us assume that it is suffixed to CLPs. Then, if we assume Cheng and Sybesma’s (1998)
analysis, it is predicated that it will never follow CL in the de-less sequence, as in (6a); it is
impossible to obtain the sequence [Numeral-CL-yishang-N] with their structure, unless the
CLP is adjoined to the NP, as in (6b).
(6)

a.

b.

DP
D

CLP
CLP

numeralCLDPDyishang

NP
CLP

CL’

CLP
NP

numeralNP

yishang
CL’
CLThe prediction is indeed born out, as in (7).
(7)

a. *san wan
yishangtang
three CL-bowl more-than soup
Lit: ‘more than three soup’
b. *san ge yishang
ying’yu danci
three CL more-than English word
Lit: ‘more than three English words’

Interestingly, we observe that the grammaticality of (7) improves with the insertion of de, asin (8).
(8)a.

san wanyishang-detang
three CL-bowl more-than-de soup
‘more than three bowls of soup-108-

Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)b.

san ge yishang-de
ying’yu danci
three CL more-than-de English word‘more than three English words’

Cheng and Sybesma’s (1998) analysis of de-less sequences can capture the possibility of thesuffixation in (8). Recall that they analyze them as the predicates of SC, as in (9).
(9)[DP [NP [CP Opi [SC ti CLP ] [C de]] [NP N]]]We can obtain the surface word order of (9) with this structure, as illustrated in (10).
(10) [NP [NP [CP Opi [SC ti CLP-yishang] de] NP]]The distribution of yishang is thus well captured by Cheng and Sybesma’s (1998) analysis.
2.2.

Features

We have shown in 2.1 that English NumP and Chinese CLPs are structurally akin to eachother: both are functional projections that take NP as their complement. In this subsection, we
discuss the features specified in the projections, and argue that they overlap. The argument forthe similarity between them receive further support.
Castillo (2001) proposes that Num in languages like English is specified with [±number].
The feature [+number] represents countability, and it is realized as number morphology. We
assume that it selects N with the feature [+count]. On the other hand, the feature [-number]
represents uncountability, and it is, according to Delfitto and Schroten (1991), simply notphonologically realized in languages for reasons we do not know. We assume, following
Delfitto and Schroten (1991), that Num specified with the silent feature selects N containing[-count]. Castillo further proposes that [+number] is subdivided into [singular] and [plural]features. The latter is phonologically realized as -s in English. The former feature does notsurface with a phonological content in English, but it does in some languages like Hindi andGreek. For instance, in Hindi, some class of masculine singular nouns are marked with -a, andsome class of feminine singular nouns are marked with -i. The number system Catillo
proposes is something as follows:(11)

Number[-number](mass)[singular][+number](count)[plural]-109-(Castillo 2001: 83)

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

Doetjes (1997) proposes that Chinese CLs are specified with [±number].3 Her proposal
is based on the selection properties of adnominal quantifiers. She observes that there are two
types of cardinal numeral quantifiers: those that combine with count singular nouns, such as
one or a, and those that combine with plural nouns such as two or three. According to
Doetjes, these two types of adnominal quantifiers correspond to two categories, NumP
[singular], and NumP [plural] respectively, under the assumption that NumP is projected
above NP. On the other hand, in classifier languages like Chinese, cardinal numerals, occur
with classifiers, which are not marked with singular or plural, as exemplified in (12).4(12) a.

yi benone CLshubook‘one book’b.

san ben shu
three CL book‘three books’

Given that CLs do not contain [singular] and [plural], then it is not clear how the selection
properties of numerals are satisfied. Then, she proposes that there are features that satisfy both[singular] and [plural], or those that are more abstract than these two features, in CLs, that is,[+number].
The existence of [+number] in Chinese CL receives support from Doetjes (1997) and
Cheng and Sybesma’s (1998, 1999) observation that a subset of CLs, which they call countclassifiers, select count NP in the same way as Num [+number], or Num [singular] and Num[plural]. Num in English takes only count NP as its complement. It does not select mass NP
but only count NP, as exemplified in (13).
(13) a.

dog-s, book-s, cat-s

b. *water-s, *salt-s, *furniture-s
Doetjes (1997) and Cheng and Sybesma (1998, 1999) observe that a subset of classifiers arefound only with nouns which refer to entities that are readily countable, that is, count nouns.
The classifier ge represents the class of such classifiers. Doetjes (1997) observes that, though
this classifier is used most frequently and generally, as illustrated in (14), it never co-occurs
with nouns that refer to substances that do not present themselves in discrete and countable
units, that is, mass nouns, as in (15).

3

She calls the features [±countability]. However, since they crucially correspond to Castillo’s[±number], we use his terminology in this paper.
4

Doetjes (1997) presents a counterargument to the claim that the classifiers are silently marked withsingular or plural, and cardinal numerals select the features. See Doetjes (1997: Ch. 7) for details.

-110-Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)(14) a.

yi ge ping’guo
one CL apple‘one apple’b.

yi ge xuexiao
one CL school‘one school’c.

yi ge xing’qi
one CL week‘one week’(15) a. * yi ge shui
one CL waterb. * yi ge mi
one CL ricec. *yi ge tang
one CL soup
CLs like ge thus co-occur only with count NP, just as Num does. This similarity is readily
explained if we assume that they contain [+number].
A natural question that arises is whether there is evidence that CLs may contain[-number] as well, since the number features are binary according to Castillo (2001). The
conclusion seems to be positive. Cheng and Sybesma (1998, 1999) observe that there are a
subclass of classifiers that canonically co-occur with mass nouns in contrast with countclassifiers like ge. Classifiers in this group are called ‘mass classifiers’, or ‘massifiers’ forshort, by them. Classifiers like ping ‘bottle’, ba ‘handful’, and wan ‘bowl’ in (16) belong tothis group.
(16) a.

san ping
jiu
three CL-bottle liquor‘three bottles of liquor’

b.

san
ba
mi
three CL-handful rice‘three handfuls of rice’-111-Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

c.

san
wan
tang
three CL-bowl soup
‘three bowls of soup’(Cheng and Sybesma 1999: 514)

However, the selection properties of mass classifiers are not so straightforward as countclassifiers; some properties are unique to Chinese. As Cheng and Sybesma (1999) mention,some mass classifiers like xiang ‘box’ and dai ‘bag’ co-occur not only with mass nouns but
also with count nouns, as in (17).
(17) a.

yi xiang
one CL-box

ping’guo
apple‘a box of apples’b.

san daiping’guo
three CL-bag apple‘three bags of apples’

Moreover, mass classifiers co-occur even with count classifiers like li ‘piece’, as in (18a), andmass classifiers like dai ‘bag’, as in (18b).
(18) a.

yi xiang
wu li ping’guo
one CL-box five CL apple‘a box of five apples’b.

yi xiang san dai
ping’guo
one box three CL-bag apple‘one box of three bags of apples’

Count classifiers make contrast with them in this selection property. Count classifiers neverselect classifiers as in (19).
(19) *yi li yi xiang ping’guo
one CL one CL-box apple
Lit: ‘one, one box of apples’
Thus, mass CLs display an overlapping selection property with [-number], but they havesome idiosyncratic properties, too. We leave for future research this difference between Num[-number] and Chinese CL [-number].
To conclude this subsection, let us consider similarities and differences between thefeatures in English Num and Chinese CL. Recall that, according to Castillo (2001), Num is
specified with [±number] and that it contains either [singular] or [plural] in the case of-112-

Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)[+number]. In Chinese, in parallel with English, CL is specified with [±number]. Where Num
and CL differ is that the feature [+number] is not subdivided into [singular] or [plural] in CL.
3.

Chinese CLP and Japanese CLP

In the previous section, we have shown that English NumP and Chinese CLP are quite
similar in structure and features contrary to the typological difference. In this section, we
discuss the comparative syntax of Chinese CLP and Japanese CLP, and argue that they are
different in structure and the status of features though they are both classifier languages. 3.1
deals with the structure and features of Japanese CLP. There, we review Saito, Lin, andMurasugi’s (2008) argument that Japanese CLP is an NP-adjunct, while Chinese CLP is afunctional projection above NP, and argue that CL is not specified with the syntactic feature[+number] in Japanese. 3.2 is meant to show that Japanese is more like English than Chinese
in that [+number] resides in Number but not in CL. In this subsection, we introduce Ueda andHaraguchi’s (2008) proposal that Japanese projects NumP like English, and argue that[+number] sits there.
3.1.

Structure and Features

3.1.1.

Saito, Lin, and Murasugi (2008)

Saito, Lin, and Murasugi (2008) present an analysis of Japanese CLP in comparison with
Chinese. They argue that Japanese CLP is structurally a modifier. More specifically, it is an
NP-adjunct. One piece of evidence comes from the surface order of Japanese classifier
constructions. In Japanese, classifiers always follow numerals in the surface orders, as in (20).
(20) a.

san nin-no
three CL-no

kodomochild‘three children’b. *san kodomo nin(-no)
three child
CL-no
However, the correct surface orders are not predicated under the assumption that classifiers
head CLPs and that numerals occur in their specs in parallel with Chinese. This is because
Japanese is (widely assumed to be) a head final language, and classifiers should then appear
post-nominally as in (20b). The following structure illustrates the possibility of deriving(20b).

-113-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

(21)

DP
CLP
numeralD
CL’three NP

CL

child

nin

The analysis of CLP as an NP-adjunct, however, allows us to obtain the correct surface word
order, as illustrated in (22).
(22)

DP
NP
CLP

D
NP

numeral

CL

three

nin

child

More decisive evidence comes from NP deletions. Saito and Murasugi (1990) argue thatthe deletion of a complement NP is allowed only when the spec of its functional projection,
FP for short, is filled, where the spec of the FP is an argument position, as illustrated in (23).
(23)
FP
XP

F’
F

NP

Their analysis excellently accounts for the contrast between (24) and (25).
(24) a. [Taro-no taido]-wa
yoi ga,Taroo-no attitude-TOP good but[Hanako-no taido]-wa
yokunai.
Hanako-no attitude-TOP good-not‘Though Taro’s attitude is good, Hanako’s isn’t.’b. [Rooma-no hakai]-wa[Kyooto-no hakai]-yorimo hisan
datta.
Rome-no destruction-TOP Kyoto-no destruction-than miserable was‘Rome’s destruction was more miserable than Kyoto’s.’(Saito, Lin, and Murasugi 2008: 253)

-114-

Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)(25) * [Hare-no hi]-wa
yoi ga, [ame-no hi ]-wa otikomu.
clear-no day-TOP good but rainy-no day-TOP feel-depressed‘Clear days are OK, but I feel depressed on rainy days.’(Saito, Lin, and Murasugi 2008: 253)
The examples in (24) are grammatical with or without deletion, while the deletion makes theexample ungrammatical in (25). The generalization is that [argument-no] licenses the ellipsis,but not [adjunct-no]. There is independent evidence that arguments can move to the spec ofthe functional projection, but adjuncts cannot. Thus, the movement of the city in (26b) is
licensed, but that of then in (26c) is not.
(26) a.
b.

[DP the [NP destruction of the city then]][DP the city’s [NP destruction t then] ]c. * [DP then’s [NP destruction of the city t ]](Saito, Lin, and Murasugi 2008: 253)

The contrast between (24) and (25), then, is expected. For instance, in (24b), Kyooto being theobject, can move to the spec of DP and the NP-deletion is licensed, as in (27a), while, in(24a), ame, being an adjunct, can not move up there to license the deletion, as in (27b).
(27) a.

b.
DP
Kyooto-no

DP
D’

NP
t

ame-no
D

D’
NP

N

t

D
NP
N

The analysis of Japanese CLP as an NP-adjunct receives support from NP-deletion. They
do not license the deletion of NP, as demonstrated in (28).
(28) *Taroo-wa[san satu-no hon ]-okatta ga,
Taroo-TOP three CL-no book-ACC bought but,
Hanako-wa [go satu-no hon]-okatta.
Hanako-TOP five CL-no book-ACC bought‘Taroo bought three books, but Hanako bought five.’(Saito, Lin, and Murasugi 2008: 262)
The ungrammaticality of (28) is correctly predicted if the string go satu-no is an adjunct,which is unable to raise to the spec of DP, as illustrated in (29).

-115-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

(29)

DP
CLPi

D’

go-satu

NP

D

ti

NP
child

Notice that NP-deletion also provides supportive evidence for Cheng and Sybesma’s
analysis of Chinese CLP. Under their analysis, the sequence [Numeral-CL-N] has a structure
as in (3), repeated in (30).
(30)
CLPnumeral

CL’

CL

NP

In (30), there is a spec-head agreement in the functional projection, CLP, and this provides asatisfactory context for the deletion of NP. As predicted, the deletion is possible, as
exemplified in (31), which corresponds to (28).
(31) Suiran Zhangsan mai-le [san ben shu ], dan LiSi mau-le [wu ben shu].
though Zhangsan buy-ASP three CL book but LiSi buy-ASP five CL book
‘Zhangsan bought three books, but Lisi bought five’(Saito, Lin, and Murasugi 2008: 262)
Notice further that NP-deletion also provides evidence for Cheng and Sybesma’s (1998)
analysis of the sequence [Numeral-CL-de]. Recall that they analyze CLP in the string as amodifier, or a relative clause. For instance, assuming Simpson’s (2002) hypothesis that de is
D and that a relative clause preceding de is its specifier, a noun phrase like (32) will have astructure as in (33).
(32) sanwan
de tang
three CL-bowl de soup
‘three bowls of soup’-116-

Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)

(33)

DP
CP
Opi

D’
C’

C
ϕ

SC
ti

D

NP

de

N

CLP

soup

three wan(33) also provides a context for NP deletion in that the spec of D is filled with CP. The
prediction the analysis makes seems to be born out, as in (34).
(34) Suiran Zhangsan he-le[san wande tang ], dan Lisi he-lethough Zhangsan drink-ASP three CL-bowl de soup but Lisi drink-ASP[ wu wan(de) tang].
five CL-bowl de soup
Lit. ‘Though Zhangsan drank three bowls of soup, Lisi drank five bowls of.’
The analysis of Japanese CLP as an NP-adjunct in contrast with Chinese CLP well
captures the distribution of the Japanese counterpart of the Chinese suffix -yishang, -izyoo‘more than’. Recall that -yishang occurs at the edge of quantity expressions, as in (5),repeated in (35), and we assumed that they are adjoined to CLP.
(35) a.

Ta he-letang [san wan-yishang ]he drink-ASP soup three CL-bowl-more-than‘He drank more than three bowls of soup’b.

Ta mai-lebi [shi zhi-yishang]
he buy-ASP pen ten CL-more-than‘He bought more than ten pens.’

In parallel with it, the Japanese -izyoo also appears at the edge of quantity expressions in thecase of quantifier float constructions, as in (36).
(36) a.

Kare-wa suup-o[san bai-izyoo ]nonda
he-TOP soup-ACC three CL-bowl-more-than drank‘He drank more than three cups of soup.’-117-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009b.

Kare-wa pen-o[go hon-izyoo]
katta
he-TOP pen-ACC five CL-more-than bought‘He bought more than five pens.’

Given that it is also adjoined to CLPs like the Chinese counterpart, it is predicted that it
follows quantity expressions in the sequence [Numeral-CL-N] if they are adjuncts, as
illustrated in (37).
(37)

DP
NP
CLP
CLP
numeral

D
NP

izyoo
CL

Indeed, the prediction is born out as exemplified in (38).
(38) a.

san bai-izyoo-no
suup
three CL-bowl-more-than-no soup
‘more than three bowls of soup’b.

mi tu-izyoo-no
e itango
three CL-more-than-no English word‘more than three English words’

Notice that the Chinese counterparts are out without de, as in (7), repeated in (39), in
contrast with the sequences in (38).
(39) a. *sanwanyishang tang
three CL -bowl more-than soup
Lit: ‘more than three soup’b. * san ge yishang
ying’yu danci
three CL more-than English word
Lit: ‘more than three English words’(39) is ungrammatical because the CLP is a projection above NP and yishang cannot surface
between the quantity expression and N thereby, as illustrated in (6a), repeated in (40).

-118-

Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)

(40)

DP
D

CLP
CLP

numeralyishang
CL’

CL

NP

The contrast between (38) and (39) provides further support for the analysis of Japanese CLP
as an NP-adjunct.
3.1.2.

Ueda and Haraguchi (2008)

Ueda and Haraguchi (2008) provide a supportive argument for Saito, Lin, andMurasugi’s (2008) hypothesis that Japanese CLP is an NP-adjunct. The argument concerns
the comparative syntax of Japanese and Chinese number markers. Japanese has some suffixes
that represent plurality, and -tati is one of them. Chinese has a plural suffix, -men, which issimilar to -tati in many ways. For instance, they are both attached to common nouns, proper
nouns, and pronouns, as exemplified in (41).
(41) a.

b.

(Japanese)
gakusei-tati, Taro-tati, watasi-tati
student-tati Taro-tati I-tati(Chinese)xuesheng-men, XiaoQiang-men, wo-men
student-men XiaoQiang-men I-men

Ueda and Haraguchi’s (2008) argument is based on Li’s (1999) analysis of -men. Let us first
briefly review it.
The spirit of her proposal is that -men is to be analyzed as a true plural marker like -s inEnglish though it has some unique properties that are not observed with -s. She attempts togive principled accounts for these unique properties. One of its peculiarities is the special
interpretation it yields when it is appended to proper nouns. Consider the following examples.
(42) a.

xuesheng-men
student-men‘the students’-119-Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009b.

XiaoQiang-men
XiaoQiang-men‘XiaoQiang and his associates’

The suffixed common noun xuesheng-men in (42a) denotes a uniform set of students likestudents does in English, whereas, in (42b), the suffixed proper noun XiaoQiang-men denotes
XiaoQiang and people associated with him. We henceforce call the former interpretation theplural interpretation, and the latter the associative interpretation. Another unique property of-men is that it cannot occur with a quantity expression when it is attached to a common noun,
as exemplified in (43).
(43) *san ge xuesheng-men
three CL student-men‘three students’Thus, there are some evidence against analyzing -men as a straightforward plural marker.
Nevertheless, Li argues that -men is a true plural marker, and proposes that the patterns,
it exhibits, in contrast with -s, can be attributed to the Chinese nominal constructions and it
morphological properties. In her analysis, English and Chinese nominal structures are
essentially the same except for the presence of CLP in the latter. DP, NumP, and NP areprojected in both of the languages. In Chinese, however, CLP is projected between NumP and
NP when a classifier appears in a noun phrase. Compare the two nominal structures in (44).
(44) a.

b.

DP
D

NumP

DP
D

Num’

NumP
Num’

Num

NP

-s

N

Num

CLP
P
-men CL
NP
N

According to Li, plurality is specified in Num in both English and Chinese. Where the two
languages differ is the category on which plurality is realized on the surface. In English,
plurality is realized on N as -s. In Chinese, it is realized as -men on either N or D. That is,-men can be attached to D as well as N. This accounts for the associative interpretation in
Chinese.
Let us consider Li’s (1999) analysis in more details to see how -men is suffixed to theirhosts to yield the plural and associative interpretations. In English, common nouns are
suffixed with -s through N-to-D movement. They obligatorily move from N to Num when-120-

Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)

Num contains -s, or the plural feature. The derivation of students is illustrated below.
(45)

DP
D

NumP
Num’
Num

NP

-s

N
student

Li proposes that in Chinese, common nouns are suffixed with -men through N-to-D
movement, as illustrated in (46a), and that pronouns are suffixed with it through Num-to-D
movement, where pronouns are assumed to be base-generated in D, as in (46b).
(46) a.

b.

DP
D

NumP

DP
D

Num’

XiaoQiang

NumP
Num’

Num

NP

Num

-men

N

-men

student

Li’s analysis of Chinese noun phrases and -men accounts for the ungrammaticality of theexpressions like (43), where a quantity expression precedes a suffixed common noun. In her
analysis, they are out because the affixation of -men to a common noun is possible only when
N raises to D through Num. If N raises to D, then it should precede the numeral because it isgenerated in the spec of NumP. The word order in (43) is possible only when N stays in situ,
as in (47), which is impossible by assumption.

-121-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

(47)

DP
D

NumP
three

Num’

Num
-men CL
ge

CLP
P

NP
N

student
In English, on the other hand, quantity expressions can precede plural-marked nouns because
N does not have to move further up to D. The word order as in three students is obtained
when N raises to Num.
Li’s analysis of the Chinese nominal constructions with CLP and -men accounts foranother puzzling fact. In Chinese, quantity expressions can occur after proper nouns with-men, as shown in (48a), but cannot follow common nouns with -men, in (48b).
(48) a.

XiaoQiang-men san-ge(ren)
XiaoQiang-men three-CL person‘XiaoQiang (them) three’

b. *xuesheng-men san-ge (ren)student-men
three-CL person‘three students’
Recall that N raises to D through Num when a common nouns is suffixed with -men, andthat Num moves to D when -men is suffixed to a proper noun. Then, in (48b), xuesheng‘student’ must move up from N to D through Num crossing the classifier ge. This movement
violates the Head Movement Constraint in the sense of Travis (1984) and Chomsky (1986), as
shown in (49).

-122-

Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)

(49)

DP
D

NumP
three

Num’

Num

CLP

-men CLNP

ge

N
student

In contrast, there is no illicit movement in the derivation of expressions like (48a). Num
moves up to D without crossing any intervening head when proper nouns are suffixed with-men. Li’s analysis of the Chinese noun phrases and -men thus captures the contrast in (48).
Ueda and Haraguchi (2008) apply Li’s analysis of Chinese nominal constructions and theplural marker to Japanese, and show that CLP in Japanese should be analyzed not as afunctional projection above NP but as an NP-adjunct to capture some differences between-men and -tati. Japanese counterpart of (43) is grammatical, as shown in (50).
(50) san-nin-no gakusei-tati
three-CL-no student-tati‘three students’(Ueda and Haraguchi 2008: 234)

That is, a quantity expression may precede a common noun with -tati.
Ueda and Haraguchi (2008) begin the discussion with the assumption that Chinese andJapanese have essentially the same structures except for the Head Parameter. That is, both
Chinese and Japanese project NumP and CLP between DP and NP. They further suppose that
not only the Chinese -men but the Japanese plural marker -tati is the morphologicalrealization of Num. Under these assumptions, the Japanese expression in (50) will be assigned
the structure in (51).

-123-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

(51)

DP
NumP
three

D

Num’

CLP

Num

NP

CL

N

nin

-tati

student
In (51), N must move up to Num to yield the correct word order. This movement, however,violates the Head Movement Constraint, just as in the case of (49). If N stays in situ, gakusei‘student’ precedes the classifier nin and follows the numeral. Then, we can never obtain thecorrect word order. Thus, (50) must have a structure distinct from (51). In particular, thegrammaticality of (50) suggests that the classifier head should not intervene between N and
Num.
Ueda and Haraguchi argue that the desired structure for (50) is in fact proposed by Saito,
Lin, and Murasugi (2008). They propose that in Japanese a numeral and a classifier form a
constituent and adjoined to NP. According to their proposal, (50) has the structure shown in
(52).
(52)

DP
NumP

D

Num’
NP
CLP

Num
NP

-tati

three-nin-no N
student
In (52), we have the correct word order. There is no intervening head between N and Num.
Hence, nothing blocks the suffixation of -tati to the noun whether N is raised to Num or -tati
hops onto the noun. The grammaticality of (50), thus, follows from the analysis of Japanesequantity expressions as NP adjuncts, and provide further support for Saito, Lin, and Murasugi(2008).

-124-

Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)

3.1.3.

Features

Recall, in 2.2, we argued that Chinese CL is specified with [±number]. Japanese CL,
however, is not a proper locus for the syntactic features like [±number] since Japanese CLP isa modifier like Chinese classifiers followed by de. Indeed, as observed by Mizuguchi (2004)
among others, the Japanese counterparts of Chinese count CLs are sensitive to the presence ofa countability feature in NP. That is, Japanese count classifiers like tu are found to selectively
co-occur with count nouns, as in (53).
(53) a.

hito tu-no koppu
one CL-no cup‘a cup’b.

huta tu-no kaban
two CL-no bag‘two bags’

c. * hito tu-no mizu
one CL-no water
However, there is no syntactic selection relation between CL and N in Japanese. In Japanese,
CLP and NP are in modifier-modifee relationship. In this sense, the selection relation between
CL and N is more semantic than syntax. It is just like the relationship between adverbs and V.
It is known that modifiers like adverbs select VPs they are adjoined to. For instance, theadverb quickly can be adjoined to VPs [-stative] like drink tea, but not to VPs [+stative] suchas know Mary and resemble her. This indicates that [±number] in CL, even if they exist there,
should not be syntactic but semantic.
3.2. NumP in Japanese
We have shown in 3.1 that Chinese and Japanese CLPs are different not only in structure
but also in feature. This subsection is devoted to show that Japanese is more akin to English
than to Chinese in that the features specified in CL in Chinese are specified not in CL but
Num in the same way as English.
Building on Li (1999), Ueda and Haraguchi (2008) propose that Japanese also projects
NumP. More specifically, they propose that the Japanese number morphology -tati can beanalyzed as Num and D. Let us briefly review their argument.
Ueda and Haraguchi (2008) observe that the Chinese -men and the Japanese -tati have
many overlapping properties. For instance, as we mentioned in 2.1.2, both can be suffixed tocommon nouns, proper nouns, and pronouns, as in (41), repeated in (54).

-125-Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009(54) a.

b.

(Japanese)
gakusei-tati, Taro-tati, watasi-tati
student-tati Taro-tati I-tati(Chinese)xuesheng-men, XiaoQiang-men, wo-men
student-men XiaoQiang-men I-men

Another similarity is the interpretations that they yield. Just like -men, -tati yields the pluralinterpretation when attached to common nouns, and it yields the associative interpretation
when attached to proper nouns, as exemplified in (55).
(55) a.

gakusei-tati
students-tati‘the students’b.

Taroo-tati
Taroo-tati‘Taroo and his associates’

The two suffixes, however, are different in some respects. One of them is that common nouns
with -men are not construed as associative, as in (56), in contrast with -tati.
(56) Xuesheng-men yiqi
xue yingyu
student-men
together study English‘The students (*and their associates) study English together.’
The sentence is not true if the students and their parents are studying English together in (56).
Another difference concerns the recursion of the morphemes. Ueda and Haraguchi observethat -tati can multiply occur under the associative interpretations, as in (57), while -men cannever do under any interpretations, as in (58).
(57)

a.

gakusei-tati-tati
student-tati-tati‘the students and their associates’

b. Taroo-tati-tati
Taroo-tati-tati‘Taroo and his associates and their associates’(58)

a. *xuesheng-men-men
student-men-men-126-Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)

b. *XiaoQiang-men-men
XiaoQIang-men-men
Ueda and Hraguchi point out that Li’s analysis of -men well captures the above
observations with it: common nouns with -tati are construed only as plural, and Chinese does
not allow the multiple occurrence of -men on nouns. Recall that in Chinese -men yields theassociative interpretation only when Num is appended to D. Since common nouns are notbase-generated in D, the associative interpretation is not obtainable by assumption. Further,the ban on the recursion of -men is explained by the assumption that Num never multiply
occurs, as the total ungrammaticality of dog-s-s indicates.
The natural question to ask here is why -tati can yield the associative interpretation when
attached to common nouns, and can multiply occur in sharp contrast with -men. Ueda andHaraguchi propose that these properties are attributed to the nature of -tati. That is, the plural-tati is Num, and the associative -tati is D that takes DP as its complement.
Let us first take a closer look at the multiple occurrence of -tati to see their account.
Recall that, in both of the examples in (57), the additional markers yield the associativeinterpretation. That is, recursion is allowed only when the additional markers yield theassociative interpretation. It is impossible to have two occurrences of -tati with pluralinterpretation as shown in (59).
(59) *gakusei-tati-tati
student-tati(PL)-tati(PL)‘The students’
The impossibility of multiple marking for the plural interpretation in (58) can be accounted
for under the assumption that multiple occurrence of NumP in a noun phrase is not allowed.
This is in parallel with Chinese.
However, the multiple occurrence of -tati for the associative interpretation remains to beaccounted for. If the analysis of plural -tati as Num is on the right track, then we cannot
identify the additional associative -tati as the head of NumP. Ueda and Haraguchi thenpropose that the associative -tati is a D on the assumption that the recursion of DP is possible.
This is consistent with the fact that the associative -tati always occurs on the right edge of anoun phrase, as the ungrammaticality of (60) shows.
(60) *gakusei-tati-tati
student-tati(ASS)-tati(PL)Given that Japanese is head-final, (60) suggests that the associative -tati is in a position higher
than Num. If the plural -tati is a Num, and the associative -tati is a D, the former must bewithin the complement of the latter, and hence, must precede it. Thus, the ungrammaticalityof (60) is predicted.

-127-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

The second property is also explained by their analysis. Nakanishi and Tomioka (2004)
and Mizushima (2007) observe that common nouns with -tati can have the associativeinterpretation in addition to the plural interpretation. This is shown in (61).
(61) gakusei-tati-ga
koogisita
student-tati-NOM protested‘The students (and their associates) protested.’
Note first that a common noun in Japanese can have plural interpretation by itself. Thus, (61)is ambiguous as the translation shows. This indicates that a plural Num can be null or beanalyzed as -tati. If gakusei can be a DP with a null plural Num (meaning ‘the students’) andthe associative -tati is a D that takes a DP complement, the associative interpretation of (61) isin fact predicted. The precise structure for gakusei-tati in (61) will be as in (62).
(62)

DP
DP
NumP

D
D -tati (ASS)NP

Num [+DEF]

N

PL

student
Thus, the analysis of the associative -tati as a D renders it possible to capture the associativeinterpretation of common nouns with -tati.
Now, let us consider the features specified in Japanese Num. Recall that Num in English
is specified with [±number] and selects N [count]. In fact, the plural -tati, or Num, is sensitive
to the countability feature of N, and it is not compatible with mass nouns which refer toentities that are not discrete, such as zinrui ‘mankind’, and tyoosyuu ‘audience’, as
exemplified in (63).
(63) a. ??zinrui-tati
mankind-tati
Lit: ‘mankinds’
b. ??tyoosyuu-tati
audience-tati
Lit: ‘audiences’
Recall also that we argued that it does not contain syntactic features like [+number] though
CL in Japanese is also sensitive to the countability of nouns. It was because CLP in Japanese-128-

Number in Japanese and Chinese (Y. Ueda)

is a midifier and is in a modifier-modifee relation with NP. In the case of NumP in Japanese,
however, NumP is not an adjunct, but a functional head that takes NP as its complement justin the same fusion as English NumP and Chinese CLP. In this sense as well, Japanese NumP
is qualified to be the locus for the syntactic feature [±number].
In Japanese, not CL but Num contains [±number]. This suggests that Japanese is more
like English than Chinese. In Chinese, the syntactic features reside in CL, whereas, inEnglish, they are contained by Num. The resemblance between English and Japanese does notfollow from the simple typological dichotomy between number and classifier languages.
4.

Concluding Remarks

This paper has pursued the comparative syntax of classifiers in Chinese and Japaneseand number morphology in English to syntactically re-examine the typological dichotomy
between number languages and classifier languages. We have first argued that Chineseclassifiers are quite similar with English number morphology at the level of syntax. They bothhead functional projections above NPs, and are specified with the syntactic features[±number]. These similarities do not follow from the conventional classification of languages.
The next argument we presented was that Japanese is syntactically more similar to English
than to Chinese though Japanese and Chinese are typologically classifier languages. Japaneseand Chinese classifiers are different in structure and the nature of the features specified there.
The former are modifiers and not the proper loci for the syntactic features like [±number] incontrast with the latter. In Japanese, the features reside in the number projection in the same
way as English.
This study suggests that it is not legitimate to maintain the simple assumption thatclassifiers are a parametric manifestation of number morphology in languages like Chineseand Japanese. In other words, the implication of this paper is that the parameter is not as
simple as [±classifier] or [±number morphology]. Recall representative classifier languages
like Chinese and Japanese project number projections, and that Japanese classifiers areadjuncts. The typological distinction between number and classifier languages does notprecisely depict the parameter in our grammar. It should be designed more complicatedly andsophisticatedly. The status of classifiers, and even the location of [±number] might beparameterized.
Finally, we would like to make a short remark on Greenberg’s (1972) important findings.
He reports that classifiers and number morphology are in complementary distributions inmany languages. That is, languages with classifier system tend to lack number system. Our
study shows that even classifier languages project number projections. If our analysis is on
the right track, there is no denying the possibility that languages employing both number andclassifier systems exist. According to Greenberg (1972), such languages are rarely distributedin the world. The reason is not clear so far, and I leave it to the future research.

-129-

Nanzan Linguistics 5: Research Results and Activities 2008 ~ 2009

References
Allan, K. (1977) “Classifiers,” Lingua 53, 285-310.
Castillo, J. C. (2001) Thematic Relations between Nouns, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland,College Park.
Cheng, L.-S. L. and R. Sybesma (1998) “Yi wan Tang, Yi ge Tang: Classifiers and Massifiers,”
Tsing-Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 28.3, 385-412.
Cheng, L.-S. L. and R. Sybesma (1999) “Bare and Not-So-Bare Nouns and the Structure of NP,”
Linguistic Inquiry 30, 509-542.
Chomsky, N. (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Mass.
Delfitto, D. and J. Schroten (1991) “Bare Plurals and the Number Affix in DP,” Probus 3.2, 155-185.
Deprez, V. (2005) “Morphological Number, Semantic Number and Bare Nouns,” Lingua 115,
857-883.
Doetjes, J. (1997) Quantifiers and Selection: On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in
French, Dutch and English, Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.
Greenberg, J. (1972) “Numeral Classifiers and Substantive Number: Problems in the Genesis of a
Linguistic Type,” Working Papers in Language Universals 9, 1-29.
Li, Y-H. A. (1999) “Plurality in Classifier Language,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 75-99.
Mizuguchi, S. (2004) “Ruibetsushi towa Nanika,” in H. Nishimitsu, and S. Mizuguchi, eds.,
Ruibetsushi no Taishoo, Kuroshio, Tokyo.
Mizushima, N. (2007) “Nihongo no Hukusu Hyoshiki Tachi no Imikaishaku to Kozo,” M.A. thesis,
Nanzan University.
Ritter, E. (1991) “Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew,”
Syntax and Semantics 25, 37-62.
Ritter, E. (1995) “On the Syntactic Category of Pronouns and Agreement,” Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 13, 405-443.
Saito, M, and K. Murasugi (1990) “N'-Deletion in Japanese: Preliminary Study,” Japanese/ Korean
Linguistics 1, 258-286.
Saito, M., J. Lin, and K. Murasugi (2008) “N'-Ellipsis and the Structure of Noun Phrases in Chineseand Japanese,” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 17, 247-271.
Simpson, A. (2002) “On the Status of Modifying DE and the Structure of the Chinese DP,” in S.-W.
Tang, and C.-S. L. Lin, eds., On the Formal Way to Chinese Language, CLSI, Stanford, CA.
Tang, C.-C. J. (1990) Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X-bar Theory, Ph.D. dissertation,
Cornell University, Ithaca.
Tang, C.-C. J. (2005) “Nouns or Classifiers: A Non-Movement Analysis of Classifiers in Chinese,”
Language and Linguistics 6, 431-472.
Travis, L. (1984) Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Ueda, Y. and T. Haraguchi (2008) “Plurality in Japanese and Chinese,” Nanzan Linguistics: Special
Issue 3.2, 229-242.

-130-