Corbett, Greville

Fedden, S

English

University of Surrey

Chapter 13Understanding intra-systemdependencies: Classifiers in LaoSebastian FeddenThe University of SydneyGreville G. CorbettUniversity of Surrey1 IntroductionWe are fascinated by the significant but understudied analytic issue of when dif-ferent linguistic systems (particularly morphosyntactic features) should be recog-nized in a given language. In the most straightforward instances we can see thattwo systems are orthogonal (logically independent of each other), and so eachshould be postulated in an adequate analysis. Thus traditional accounts of lan-guages like Italian, which recognize a number system and a gender system, arefully justified. There are instances which are a little less straightforward. Theremay be dependencies between different features, for example in German there isneutralization of gender in the plural, but we would still have good grounds forrecognizing two systems.Turning to the specific area of nominal classification, we see that it is certainlyan interesting and challenging area of linguistics, but that after a long researchtradition we still do not have a clear picture of the different types of classificationdevice that languages employ, much less of their interaction with and dependen-cies on each other in individual languages. In order to make progress we shouldundertake analyses of key languages. In some languages we find, arguably, a gen-der system together with a classifier system, and the interest of the analysis isto determine whether indeed there are two systems of nominal classification orwhether the two candidate systems are in fact inter-dependent. In this chapter,Sebastian Fedden & Greville G. Corbett. 2017. Understanding intra-system de-pendencies: Classifiers in Lao. In N. J. Enfield (ed.), Dependencies in language,171–179. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI:10.5281/zenodo.573782Sebastian Fedden & Greville G. Corbetthowever, we undertake a case study which allows us to explore the more diffi-cult yet intriguing issue of dependencies between systems of the same type, thatis, between two possible classifier systems. Basing ourselves on Enfield (2004;2007), we examine the Tai-Kadai language Lao. There are two sets of classifiers,which appear in different constructions. First there is a set of numeral classi-fiers which are used in contexts of quantification following the numeral. Second,Lao has a set of classifiers consisting of phonologically reduced forms of the nu-meral classifiers, and appearing as a proclitic before a range of modifiers. Withinthe broad question of nominal classification, and the even more general issueof recognizing concurrent systems, we are interested in possible dependenciesbetween these two sets of classifiers.2 LaoLao (Enfield 2004; 2007), a Tai-Kadai language spoken by about 15 million peoplein Laos and Thailand, has two sets of classifiers. The first set consists of more than80 numeral classifiers (num_cl) (Kerr 1972: xxi-xxiii), which appear in contextsof quantification in a construction where the noun comes first, followed by anumeral (or quantifying expression such as how many?, every or each), followedby a classifier. Two typical examples illustrating the use of the numeral classifierstoo3 ‘num_cl:animate’ and khan2 ‘num_cl:vehicle’, respectively, are given inexamples (1) and (2) (Enfield 2007: 120,124). The numbers after Lao words indicatetones.(1) kuu31sg.bsùù4buypaa3fishsòòng3twotoo3num_cl:animate‘I bought two fish.’(2) kuu31sg.blak1steallot1vehiclesòòng3twokhan2num_cl:vehicle‘I stole two cars.’The first singular pronoun kuu3 is glossed ‘B’ here to indicate ‘bare’, that is,semantically unmarked for politeness, as opposed to ‘P’ (‘polite’). When the refer-ent is retrievable from the context, the head noun is often omitted, as in example(3) (Enfield 2007: 139):(3) kuu31sg.bsùù4buysòòng3twotoo3num_cl:animate‘I bought two (e.g., fish).’17213 Understanding intra-system dependencies: Classifiers in LaoNumeral classifiers are virtually obligatory and are only very rarely omitted.Semantically Lao numeral classifiers express distinctions of shape, size, material,texture, measure and social value. Some numeral classifiers have relatively broadsemantics, e.g. too3 ‘num_cl:animate’ or phùùn3 ‘num_cl:cloth’, whereas oth-ers are rather specific, e.g. qong3 ‘num_cl:monks’. For nouns which do not havea numeral classifier conventionally assigned to them, the noun is used in this con-struction to classify itself, giving rise to a set of repeaters which is in principleopen.Most numeral classifiers double as nouns in the language, e.g. the numeralclassifier khon2 for people (excluding monks) means ‘person’ as a noun, and sên5for ribbon-shaped things, such as cables and roads, means ‘line’ as a noun. As istypical of classifier systems, the meaning of the classifier is more general than themeaning of the noun from which the classifier is derived. Another characteristic,also common in numeral classifier languages, is that only a relatively small subsetof these 80 classifiers is commonly used in discourse. The most frequent ones inLao are khon2 ‘person’ for humans, too3 ‘body’ for animals, but also for trousersand shirts, and qan3, which does not double as a noun, for small things.The second set of classifiers appears in a different construction: first comesthe noun, followed by a classifier, followed by a modifier. The set of modifiersincludes the general demonstrative nii4, the non-proximal demonstrative nan4,the numeral nùng1 ‘one’, relative clauses and adjectives. Enfield (2007: 137) callsthese modifier classifiers (mod_cl). In principle, all numeral classifiers can ap-pear as modifier classifiers, but in a phonologically reduced proclitic form, whichis typically unstressed and shows no tonal contrasts. The following examples il-lustrate the use of modifier classifiers, with a demonstrative in (4), an adjectivein (5) and a relative clause in (6) (Enfield 2007: 139,143). Modifier classifiers arenot obligatory with adjectives and relative clauses.(4) kuu31sg.bsiø=kin3irr=eatpaa3fishtoø=nii4mod_cl:non.human=dem‘I’m going to eat this fish.’(5) kuu31sg.bsiø=kin3irr=eatpaa3fish(toø=)ñaaw2(mod_cl:non.human=)long‘I’m going to eat the long fish.’(6) khòòj51sg.pkin3eatpaa3fish(toø=)caw4(mod_cl:non.human=)2sg.psùù4buy‘I ate the fish (the one which) you bought.’173Sebastian Fedden & Greville G. CorbettIn practice, however, almost all modifier classifiers used in discourse comefrom the following set of three: phuø, which has no corresponding numeral clas-sifier, for humans, toø (< too3) for non-humans and qanø (< qan3) for inanimates(ø indicates neutralization of tone). Although toø ‘mod_cl:non.human’ and qanø‘mod_cl:inanimate’ are clearly related to the numeral classifiers too3 and qan3,respectively, their semantics is much more general. The modifier classifier toøcan in fact be used with any noun with an animal or inanimate referent andqanø can be used with any noun with an inanimate referent. Therefore, for inan-imates, either modifier classifier is fine. This is illustrated in examples (7) and (8)for the noun sin5 ‘Lao skirt’ (which in the numeral classifier system takes phùùn3‘num_cl:cloth’). Semantically, (7) and (8) are equivalent (Enfield 2007: 141). SeeCarpenter (1986; 1991) for the same phenomenon in Thai.(7) khòòj51sg.pmak1likesin5Lao.skirttoø=nii4mod_cl:non.human=dem‘I like this skirt.’(8) khòòj51sg.pmak1likesin5Lao.skirtqanø=nii4mod_cl:inanimate=dem‘I like this skirt.’Although the use of a modifier classifier has a unitizing function and stronglyimplies singular, its use with a numeral other than ‘one’ is possible; in fact if anoun is modified by both a numeral and a demonstrative the modifier classifierconstruction is used. This is shown in example (9) (Enfield 2007: 140).(9) kuu31sg.bsiø=kin3irr=eatpaa3fishsòòng3twotoø=nii4mod_cl:non.human=dem‘I’m going to eat these two fish.’Lao provides a particularly interesting instance of what we are looking for,namely a set of data where we might reasonably consider postulating two sys-tems of the same general type (two systems of classifiers). It is therefore naturalto want to compare the two systems. In Table 1 we draw up a matrix which in-tegrates the numeral and modifier classifiers of Lao. The leftmost column givesthe classes of nouns and the second column lists the appropriate classifier inthe numeral classifier construction. Then, for each numeral classifier, the tablespecifies which modifier classifiers are possible. For reasons of space we haveto restrict the number of numeral classifiers, but this is not a problem since all17413 Understanding intra-system dependencies: Classifiers in Laoclassifiers not covered in Table 1 are for inanimates, which means that toø, qanøor the phonologically reduced form of the numeral classifier can be used. Theyall follow the pattern given in the row labelled “etc.”.Table 1: Lao numeral and modifier classifiersModifier classifiersAssignment Numeralclassifiersphuø‘human’toø ‘non-human’qanø‘inanimate’Reduced form ofnumeral classifierhuman khon2 yes no no yesmonk qong3 yes no no yesanimal too3 no yes no yes [= toø]small thing qan3 no yes yes yes [= qanø]line sên5 no yes yes yeslump kòòn4 no yes yes yescloth phùùn3 no yes yes yesetc. etc. no yes yes yesThe phonologically reduced form is always an option in the modifier classifierconstruction. For humans, either phuø or khonø can be used in the modifier clas-sifier construction. For monks, these are possible but considered disrespectful.For animals, toø is used. For inanimates, either toø or qanø are possible.In Table 1 we see that for each numeral classifier we can fully predict whichmodifier classifiers are possible. Given that the modifier classifier system is smalland based on general semantic divisions, it is not surprising that it can be pre-dicted from the system with the larger inventory (and hence smaller divisions),i.e. the numeral classifier system.A good test case which indicates the dependency between the two systems issituations in which different classifiers can be used depending on properties ofthe referent; here we can examine whether one system is still predictable fromthe other. This investigation is not intended as a contribution to the semantics ofclassifier systems, rather our focus is on the dependency or lack of dependencybetween systems.We start with the relatively straightforward case of regular polysemy (Apres-jan 1974; Nunberg 1996). As we would expect, the noun mèèw2 ‘cat’ takes thenumeral classifier too3 ‘num_cl:animate’ and the modifier classifier toø ‘mod_-cl:non.human’. The same classification is possible, if the referent is not a real175Sebastian Fedden & Greville G. Corbettcat but a toy cat. This is an instance of a regular polysemous relation betweenan animal and a representation of that animal. With an inanimate toy as the ref-erent, the numeral classifier qan3 ‘num_cl:small.object’ is also possible, as in(10), which would not be acceptable for living cats. This general fact related topolysemy needs to be specified only once; the fact that it holds true equally ofthe modifier classifier is fully predictable, as in (11).(10) mèèw2catsaam3threeqan3num_cl:small.object‘three toy cats’(11) mèèw2catqanø=nii4mod_cl:inanimate=dem‘this toy cat’Regular polysemy is the straightforward situation, it does not provide strongsupport for our case, because we could argue that there are two systems of clas-sifiers, numeral classifiers and modifier classifiers, and regular polysemy is avail-able to each of them; assignment to each of them could operate independently,and the same result would be reached. Thus regular polysemy provides an argu-ment, but hardly a strong argument, for the claim that the systems are in factinter-dependent.We therefore move on to cases where a referent has been manipulated outof its normal shape. Even in these situations the systems are parallel. For ex-ample, paper normally comes in sheets. In Lao, the noun cia4 ‘paper’ takesthe numeral classifier phèèn1 ‘num_cl:flat’. As expected, the modifier classifierfor paper is phèènø ‘mod_cl:flat’ (or toø ‘mod_cl:non.human’ or qanø ‘mod_-cl:inanimate’, as is possible for all inanimates). While we can use the same clas-sification if the referent is a crumpled sheet of paper, now the numeral classifierkòòn4 ‘num_cl:lump’ is also possible, as in (12), and so is the modifier classifierkòònø ‘mod_cl:lump’, as in (13).(12) cia4papersaam3threekòòn4num_cl:lump‘three crumpled pieces of paper’(13) cia4paperkòònø=nii4mod_cl:lump=dem‘this crumpled piece of paper’17613 Understanding intra-system dependencies: Classifiers in LaoGoing further, we shall see that there is predictability of the modifier classi-fier from the numeral classifier even if the referent does not have a normal orexpected shape. Take, for example, pieces of putty, which is designed to be mod-elled into all sorts of shapes, but does not have an inherent shape of its own. Inthis situation the referent determines classifier use and there is no falling backon an inherent shape when the referent has been manipulated out of that shape.If the referent is a lump of putty the classifiers kòòn4 ‘num_cl:lump’ or kòònø‘mod_cl:lump’ are used, but not phèèn1 ‘num_cl:flat’ or phèènø ‘mod_cl:flat’.If the piece of putty is flat the classifiers phèèn1 ‘num_cl:flat’ or phèènø ‘mod_-cl:flat’ are used, but not kòòn4 ‘num_cl:lump’ or kòònø ‘mod_cl:lump’.3 ConclusionRecall that our concern is the analytical issue of recognizing systems with in-teresting dependencies as opposed to independent concurrent systems. This isa general issue. For instance, turning to a different feature, we note that lan-guages of Australia were frequently analysed as having two different case sys-tems. Goddard (1982) argues convincingly for integrated single systems. Thisfits these languages more readily into broader typological patterns, and also sim-plifies the analysis of verbal government in the particular languages. Similarly,Lao has provided a fascinating study. At one level, we might say that there aretwo systems of classifiers, numeral and modifier classifiers, which appear in dif-ferent constructions. In terms of the assignment of particular classifiers withinthose systems, however, we find an interesting dependency. Given the choiceof numeral classifier, the appropriate modifier classifier is predictable. This isan argument for dependency between the systems. However, it appears not tobe a strong argument. For ordinary uses of nouns, it might be objected that thelexical semantics of the noun are available equally for assigning both types ofclassifier. Yet this objection (in favour of two concurrent systems) is, perhaps,not fully convincing in those instances where the appropriate classifier cannotbe assigned straightforwardly from the lexical semantics of the noun. Then, incases of regular polysemy, the fact that the choice of modifier classifier seemsto “follow” the choice of numeral classifier is also indicative, but again not fullyconvincing. When finally we look at manipulations of the referent, natural orless so, the fact that even here the choice of modifier classifier follows that ofthe numeral classifier confirms the interesting dependency between the two sys-tems. Thus the use of the smaller set of forms is predictable given the larger setof forms; this fact prompts us to conclude that Lao has a single integrated systemof classifiers.177Sebastian Fedden & Greville G. CorbettMore generally, where there are potentially two systems in play, as we findin Lao, we need to argue carefully for and against analyses which rest on a de-pendency between the systems. This is important for typological purposes, andit may also lead to a clearer view of the particular language being investigated.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Nick Enfield for providing us with examples and com-menting on an earlier version of this chapter. The support of the AHRC (grant:Combining Gender and Classifiers in Natural Language, grant AH/K003194/1) isgratefully acknowledged.ReferencesApresjan, Juri. D. 1974. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 12.142. 5–32.Carpenter, Kathie. 1986. Productivity and pragmatics of Thai classifiers. BerkeleyLinguistics Society 12. 14–25.Carpenter, Kathie. 1991. Later rather than sooner: Extralinguistic categories inthe acquisition of Thai classifiers. Journal of Child Language 18. 93–113.Enfield, N. J. 2004. Nominal classification in Lao: A sketch. Sprachtypologie undUniversalienforschung (STUF) 57(2/3). 117–143.Enfield, N. J. 2007. A grammar of Lao (Mouton Grammar Library 38). Berlin: Mou-ton de Gruyter.Goddard, Cliff. 1982. Case systems and case marking in Australian languages: Anew interpretation. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2. 167–196.Kerr, Allen D. 1972. Lao-English dictionary. Washington, DC: Catholic Universityof America Press.Nunberg, Geoffrey D. 1996. Transfers of meaning. In James Pustejovsky & Bran-imir Boguraev (eds.), Lexical semantics: The problem of polysemy, 109–132. Ox-ford: Clarendon.178

Understanding intra-system dependencies: Classifiers in Lao

https://openresearch.surrey.ac.uk/view/delivery/44SUR_INST/12138426370002346/13140678910002346

Understanding intra-system dependencies: Classifiers in Lao

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Surrey