Editing Chinese classifier (section)

== Purpose ==
In research on classifier systems, and Chinese classifiers in particular, it has been asked why count-classifiers (as opposed to mass-classifiers) exist at all. Mass-classifiers are present in all languages since they are the only way to "count" mass nouns that are not naturally divided into units (for example, "three {{uline|splotches}} of mud" in English; *"three muds" is ungrammatical). On the other hand, count-classifiers are not mandatory, and are not present in most languages.<ref name=Tai3Allan285-6>{{Harvnb|Tai|1994|p=3}}; {{Harvnb|Allan|1977|pp=285–86}}; {{Harvnb|Wang|1994|p=1}}</ref><ref group=note>Although English does not have a productive system of count-classifiers and is not considered a "classifier language", it does have a few constructions—mostly archaic or specialized—that resemble count-classifiers, such as "X head of cattle" {{Harv|T'sou|1976|p=1221}}.</ref> Furthermore, count-classifiers are used with an "unexpectedly low frequency";<ref name=Erbaugh200034>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|2000|p=34}}</ref> in many settings, speakers avoid specific classifiers by just using a bare noun (without a number or demonstrative) or using the general classifier {{lang|zh|个}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|gè}}.<ref name=ErbaughLi>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|2000|pp=425–26}}; {{Harvnb|Li|2000}}</ref> Linguists and [[Linguistic typology|typologists]] such as [[Joseph Greenberg]] have suggested that specific count-classifiers are semantically redundant.<ref name=Zhang51>{{Harvnb|Zhang|2007|p=51}}</ref> Count-classifiers can be used stylistically, though,<ref name=FangixZhang53-4/> and can also be used to clarify or limit a speaker's intended meaning when using a vague or ambiguous noun; for example, the noun {{lang|zh|课}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|kè}} 'class' can refer to courses in a semester or specific class periods during a day, depending on whether the classifier {{lang|zh|门}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh-Hant-TW|2=門}})&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|mén}} or {{lang|zh|节}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh-Hant-TW|2=節}})&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|jié}} is used.<ref name=Zhang51-2>{{Harvnb|Zhang|2007|pp=51–52}}</ref>

One proposed explanation for the existence of count-classifiers is that they serve more of a cognitive purpose than a practical one: in other words, they provide a linguistic way for speakers to organize or categorize real objects.<ref name=Erbaugh425-6>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|pp=425–6}}</ref> An alternative account is that they serve more of a [[discourse|discursive]] and [[pragmatics (linguistics)|pragmatic]] function (a communicative function when people interact) rather than an abstract function within the mind.<ref name=ErbaughLi/> Specifically, it has been proposed that count-classifiers might be used to mark new or unfamiliar objects within a discourse,<ref name=Erbaugh425-6/> to introduce major characters or items in a story or conversation,<ref name=Sun>{{Harvnb|Sun|1988|p=298}}</ref> or to [[focus (linguistics)|foreground]] important information and objects by making them bigger and more [[salience (semiotics)|salient]].<ref name=Li>{{Harvnb|Li|2000}}</ref> In this way, count-classifiers might not serve an abstract grammatical or cognitive function, but may help in communication by making important information more noticeable and drawing attention to it.