title: Meaning of classifier-noun phrases in Nung (Tai, Vietnam)
title: The meaning of classifier-noun phrases in Nung (Tai, Vietnam)
titleType: AlternativeTitle
Creators: name: Lam, Esther
Publisher: name: The University of Edinburgh
Year: 2024
Subjects: Nung
numeral classifiers
Classifier-Noun phrases
CL-N phrases
presupposition of uniqueness
count nouns
mass nouns

description: Nung [ISO 639-3: nut] (a Tai language spoken in the northeast of Vietnam) has the Classifier-Noun (CL-N) construction. Nung CL-N phrases have the kind-referring and generic interpretations ((1) and (2)); they can also be used in contexts that are generally considered to be indefinite and definite ((3) and (4)). Although this may suggest, at first glance, that the use of a CL-N phrase is possible in any context in Nung, there are linguistic contexts that disallow the use of a CL-N phrase, such as (5). (1) tú má mī lái luắi, mī má Viet, má Tay CL dog have much type, have dog Vietnamese, dog western ‘There are many types of dogs, there are Vietnamese dogs, western dogs...’ (2) tú mɛū kín pjá CL cat eat fish ‘Cats eat fish.’ (3) kái mī tú nú tʰǎi jǎ maybe have CL mouse die PFT ‘Perhaps a mouse died.’ (4) kī ɛŋ̄ dék pʌ́t dʌ̀ɪ tú pɯ́t jǎ PL CL child catch get CL duck PFT ‘The children caught the duck.’‘The children caught the duck.’ (5) hʌ̄u pʌ́i ɬɯ́ (*tú) kʌ̄i 1SG go buy CL chicken ‘I am going to buy a chicken.’‘I am going to buy a chicken.’ In this dissertation, based on linguistic data I collected from my own fieldwork, I discuss the meaning of Nung CL-N phrases, so as to account for their pattern of use, as well as why they contrast with other types of nominal phrases in meaning. Many languages spoken in Southeast Asia have the CL-N construction; thus, there is a body of literature that discusses the meaning expressed by the CL-N constructions in the languages. In Chapter 3, I argue that the existing theories on the CL-N construction cannot account for the pattern of use of CL-N phrases in Nung. In Chapter 4, I argue that Nung CL-N phrases presuppose uniqueness without presupposing existence, and this semantic property of Nung CL-N phrases is consistent with their pattern of use in the language. The uniqueness presupposition accounts for why the use of Nung CL-N phrases is restricted to certain environments, viz. environments that allow the uniqueness presupposition to be met. On the other hand, the claim that Nung CL-N phrases do not presuppose existence accounts for why CL-N phrases can be used in contexts that are generally considered indefinite. In such contexts, the existence of the referent is placed at issue, rather than presupposed. In Nung, bare count nouns and bare mass nouns have different syntactic distributions. In Chapter 5, I argue that the contrast is associated with the claim that Nung CL-N phrases presuppose uniqueness. The contrast in distribution between bare count nouns and bare mass nouns is that bare mass nouns can be used in contexts where bare count nouns cannot. I draw on the principle of Maximaize Presupposition to account for the restricted usage of bare count nouns. I argue that the use of bare count nouns, which do not presuppose uniqueness, is blocked when the context allows the use of a CL-N phrase, i.e. when the uniqueness presupposition can be satisfied. On the other hand, the use of bare mass noun phrases is not blocked by the presence of CL-N phrases. This is because CL-N phrases of mass nouns do not “presuppositionally dominate” their corresponding bare noun phrases, as the two types of phrases contrast in aspects of meaning besides the uniqueness presupposition. Given that presupposition dominance is a condition of Maximize Presupposition, the use of bare mass nouns is not blocked in contexts where the uniqueness presupposition of CL-N phrases can be satisfied. In Chapter 6, I discuss the issue of whether there can be a unified analysis of CL-N phrases used in argument positions and copular clauses, as well as classifiers used in CL-N phrases and in numeral and demonstrative phrases. I argue that although the claim that CL-N phrases presuppose uniqueness is compatible with their occurrences in copular clauses, classifiers present in numeral phrases cannot presuppose uniqueness. Hence, I suggest that classifiers that occur in numeral phrases are semantically different from bare classifiers in Nung. This dissertation has three theoretical implications. Firstly, by arguing that Nung CL-N phrases presuppose uniqueness without presupposing existence, this dissertation shows that the uniqueness presupposition does not hinge on the existence presupposition, and many contexts that are generally considered indefinite allow the uniqueness presupposition to be satisfied. Secondly, I show that the distributions of CL-N and bare noun phrases in Nung are different from those of Mandarin and Cantonese. This implies that even though the presence of CL-N phrases is possibly an areal phenomenon, the semantics of CL-N phrases are different in the languages. Thirdly, given that classifiers that occur in CL-N phrases and numeral phrases are not semantically identical, this implies that classifiers do not necessarily express a consistent meaning in a language.