Classifiers

CLASSIFIERS Keith Allan University ofNairobi The investigation of data from many languages has the following results: (a) the characteristics of classifier languages are distinguished, and four types are identified; (b) defining criteria are postulated for classifiers, and it is discovered that every classifier is composed of one or more out of seven categories of classification. It is argued that classifiers typically index some perceived characteristic ofthe phenomenon to which the classification refers, and so the recurrence of similar noun classes in unrelated and geographically separated classifier languages shows that diverse language communities categorize perceived phenomena in similar ways.* Introduction 1. There are remarkable similarities between classifiers for nouns in many unrelated and geographically separated languages from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania. The present paper surveys more than fifty classifier languages;1 and although the reliability of my data is variable, I am fairly confident that the traits observed in the classifier systems I have investigated constitute a complete and universal set. Within the terms of this paper, classifiers are defined on two criteria: (a) they occur as morphemes in surface structures under specifiable conditions; (b) they have meaning, in the sense that a classifier denotes some salient perceived or imputed characteristic of the entity to which an associated noun refers (or may refer). Perhaps all languages have classifiers; e.g., English possesses nouns which * Many people have been helpful to me in the course of writing this paper. I am especially grateful to Keith Brown, Peter Denny, and John Lyons for the advice they have offered, and hope they will forgive me for not always accepting their points of view. 1 The languages and most of my sources for data on them are as follows. Oriental languages'. Chinese (Brainerd & Peng 1968, Hashimoto 1973); Japanese (Brainerd & Peng 1968; Chamberlain 1907; Jorden 1962; additional material from native speakers Taka Bluhme and Mungoji Tamazaki); Vietnamese (Emeneau 1951; Thompson 1965); Nùng (Saul 1965); Khmer (Jacob 1965, 1968); Thai (Haas 1942; Lanyon-Orgill 1955); Burmese (Becker 1975; Burling 1965; HIa Pe 1965); Melanau (Clayre ms); Bahasa Indonesia. Oceanic languages: Louisiade Archipelago (Ray 1938) ; Kiriwina (Malinowski 1920) ; Enindiuaugwa (Worsley 1954) together with Gwi:ni and many N. and N.W. Australian languages (Capell 1940, 1942; Capell & Elkin 1937; Wurm 1972); Dyirbal (Dixon 1968, 1972). African languages: Proto-Bantu (Creider & Denny 1975; Wolf 1971); Bantu (Gregersen 1967; Guthrie 1948a,b; Johnston 1!»19, 1922; Kadima 1969; Werner 1919); Swahili (Wilson 1970); Loka (Winston 1962); Tonga (Collins 1962); Bemba (Givón 1969); Luyana (Givón 1970); Luganda (Francis Katamba, a native speaker— private communication); Fula (Arnott 1967; Taylor 1953); Trv (Abrahams 1940; Arno« 1967); Birom, Ganawuri, Anaguta, Irigwe, Kaje, Rukubwa, More, Dakarkari (CNRS 1967, various authors). American languages: Nootka (Swadesh 1939); Eyak, Tltngit, Haida (Krauss 1968); Navajo (Davidson et al. 1963; Ervin & Landar 1963; Hoijer 1945; Landar 1964, 1965; Sapir 1932); Dogrib, Mattole, Chipewyan, Galice (Davidson et al. 1963); Coeur d'alene (Reichard 1945); Yurok (Haas 1967); Ojibway, Cree (Denny & Odjig 1972, Denny 1974, 1976a); Toba (Denny 1976a); Tarascan (Friedrich 1970); Tzeltal (Berlin 1968); Yucatec (all the data are from native speaker Ramón Arzápalo, to whom I am deeply grateful); Eskimo (Denny 1976a). 285 286LANGUAGE, VOLUME 53, NUMBER 2 (1977) correspond exactly to Thai lexemes which everyone agrees are classifiers (cf. exx. 29-30 below); but as I hope will become clear in the course of this paper, some languages are more properly called 'classifier languages' than others. Thai is a classifier language, but English is not. Classifier languages can be distinguished from non-classifier languages on three criteria. One I shall discuss later (§5.5, end), and the other two are as follows : (a) They have classifiers, at least some of which are restricted to classifier constructions, although classifiers exist which function in other environments like nouns, (b) They belong to one of four types—(i) numeral classifier languages, (ii) concordial classifier languages, (iii) predicate classifier languages, and (iv) intra-locative classifier languages. Let me first illustrate these four types ofclassifier languages, and then turn to the other defining criteria. Types of classifier languages 2.1.Numeral classifier languages are the paradigm type; they are so called because a classifier is obligatory in many expressions of quantity.2...