Editing Chinese classifier (section)

==Relation to nouns==
{{multiple image
 | footer    = The above nouns denoting long or flexible objects may all appear with the classifier {{lang|zh|条}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh|條}})&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|tiáo}} in certain dialects such as Mandarin.<ref name=Tai8>{{Harvnb|Tai|1994|p=8}}</ref> In Standard Chinese, {{lang|zh|一条板凳}} means 'a {{sc|CL}} bench', and if one wants to say 'a chair', {{lang|zh|個}}{{\}}{{lang|zh|个}} or {{lang|zh|張}}{{\}}{{lang|zh|张}} is used because {{lang|zh|条}} is only used for referring to relatively long things. In other dialects, such as Cantonese, {{lang|zh|條}} cannot be used to refer to {{lang|zh|櫈}}. Instead, {{lang|zh|張}} is used.
 | image1    = Rainbow_trout.png
 | width1    = 91
 | caption_align = center
 | caption1  = {{lang|zh|鱼}}&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|yú}}<br />'fish'
 | image2    = Denimjeans2.JPG
 | width2    = 82
 | caption2  = {{lang|zh|裤子}}&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|kùzi}}<br />{{nwr|'[pair of] pants'}}
 | image3    = Ulm2-midsize.jpg
 | width3    = 114
 | caption3  = {{lang|zh|河}}&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|hé}}<br />'river'
 | image4    = Bench_in_Tehran.JPG
 | width4    = 120
 | caption4  = {{lang|zh|凳子}}&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|dèngzi}}<br />'long bench'
 | align     = right
}}
Different classifiers often correspond to different particular nouns. For example, books generally take the classifier {{lang|zh|本}}&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|běn}}, flat objects take {{lang|zh|张}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh|張}})&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|zhāng}}, animals take {{lang|zh|只}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh|隻}})&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|zhī}}, machines take {{lang|zh|台}}&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|tái}}, and large buildings and mountains take {{lang|zh|座}}&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|zuò}}. Within these categories are further subdivisions—while most animals take {{lang|zh|只}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh|隻}})&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|zhī}}, domestic animals take {{lang|zh|头}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh|頭}})&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|tóu}}, long and flexible animals take {{lang|zh|条}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh|條}})&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|tiáo}}, and horses take {{lang|zh|匹}}&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|pǐ}}. Likewise, while long things that are flexible (such as ropes) often take {{lang|zh|条}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh|條}})&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|tiáo}}, long things that are rigid (such as sticks) take {{lang|zh|根}}&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|gēn}}, unless they are also round (like pens or cigarettes), in which case in some dialects they take {{lang|zh|支}}&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|zhī}}.<ref name=TaiTaiWang>{{Harvnb|Tai|1994|pp=7–9}}; {{Harvnb|Tai|Wang|1990}}</ref> Classifiers also vary in how specific they are; some (such as {{lang|zh|朵}}&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|duǒ}} for flowers and  other similarly clustered items) are generally only used with one type, whereas others (such as {{lang|zh|条}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh|條}})&nbsp;{{tlit|zh|tiáo}} for long and flexible things, one-dimensional things, or abstract items like news reports)<ref group=note>This may be because official documents during the [[Han dynasty]] were written on long bamboo strips, making them 'strips of business' {{Harv|Ahrens|1994|p=206}}.</ref> are much less restricted.<ref name=Erbaugh111>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|p=111}}</ref> Furthermore, there is not a one-to-one relationship between nouns and classifiers: the same noun may be paired with different classifiers in different situations.<ref name=He239>{{Harvnb|He|2001|p=239}}</ref> The specific factors that govern which classifiers are paired with which nouns have been a subject of debate among linguists.

===Categories and prototypes===
While mass-classifiers do not necessarily bear any semantic relationship to the noun with which they are used (e.g. ''box'' and ''book'' are not related in meaning, but one can still say "a box of books"), count-classifiers do.<ref name=ChengSybesma/> The precise nature of that relationship, however, is not certain, since there is so much variability in how objects may be organized and categorized by classifiers. Accounts of the semantic relationship may be grouped loosely into ''categorical'' theories, which propose that count-classifiers are matched to objects solely on the basis of inherent features of those objects (such as length or size), and ''prototypical'' theories, which propose that people learn to match a count-classifier to a specific prototypical object and to other objects that are like that prototype.<ref>{{Harvnb|Tai|1994|pp=3–5}}; {{Harvnb|Ahrens|1994|pp=208–12}}</ref>

The categorical, "[[Categories (Aristotle)|classical]]"<ref name=Tai3Ahrens209-10>{{Harvnb|Tai|1994|p=3}}; {{Harvnb|Ahrens|1994|pp=209–10}}</ref> view of classifiers was that each classifier represents a category with a set of conditions; for example, the classifier {{lang|zh|条}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh-Hant-TW|2=條}})&nbsp;''tiáo'' would represent a category defined as all objects that meet the conditions of being long, thin, and one-dimensional—and nouns using that classifier must fit all the conditions with which the category is associated.  Some common semantic categories into which count-classifiers have been claimed to organize nouns include the categories of shape (long, flat, or round), size (large or small), consistency (soft or hard), [[animacy]] (human, animal, or object),<ref name=Tai5Allan>{{Harvnb|Tai|1994|p=5}}; {{Harvnb|Allan|1977}}</ref> and function (tools, vehicles, machines, etc.).<ref name=Hu1>{{Harvnb|Hu|1993|p=1}}</ref>

{{multiple image
 | footer    = James Tai and Wang Lianqing found that the horse classifier {{lang|zh|匹}}&nbsp;''pǐ'' is sometimes used for [[mule]]s and [[camel]]s, but rarely for the less "horse-like" [[donkey]]s, suggesting that the choice of classifiers is influenced by prototypal closeness.<ref name=Tai12/>
 | image1    = Frecklesmule.jpg
 | width1    = 143
 | caption1  = A mule<br>骡子, ''luózi''
 | image2    = Donkey 1 arp 750px.jpg
 | width2    = 150
 | caption2  = A donkey<br>驴子, lǘzi
 | align     = right
 | caption_align = center
}}

On the other hand, proponents of [[prototype theory]] propose that count-classifiers may not have innate definitions, but are associated with a noun that is prototypical of that category, and nouns that have a "family resemblance" with the prototype noun will want to use the same classifier.<ref group=note>The theory described in {{Harvtxt|Ahrens|1994}} and {{Harvtxt|Wang|1994}} is also referred to within those works as a "prototype" theory, but differs somewhat from the version of prototype theory described here; rather than claiming that individual prototypes are the ''source'' for classifier meanings, these authors believe that classifiers still are based on categories with features, but that the categories have many features, and "prototypes" are words that have all the features of that category whereas other words in the category only have some features.  In other words, "there are core and marginal members of a category.... a member of a category does not necessarily possess all the properties of that category" {{Harv|Wang|1994|p=8}}. For instance, the classifier {{lang|zh|棵}}&nbsp;''kē'' is used for the category of trees, which may have features such as "has a trunk", "has leaves", and "has branches", "is deciduous"; maple trees would be prototypes of the category, since they have all these features, whereas palm trees only have a trunk and leaves and thus are not prototypical {{Harv|Ahrens|1994|pp=211–12}}.</ref> For example, ''horse'' in Chinese uses the classifier {{lang|zh|匹}}&nbsp;''pǐ'', as in:
{{fs interlinear|lang=zh|indent=2|三 {{uline|匹}} 马|sān {{uline|pǐ}} mǎ|"three horses"}}
In modern Chinese the word {{lang|zh|匹}} has no meaning. Nevertheless, nouns denoting animals that look like horses will often also use this same classifier, and native speakers have been found to be more likely to use the classifier {{lang|zh|匹}} the closer an animal looks to a horse.<ref name=Tai12>{{Harvnb|Tai|1994|p=12}}</ref> Furthermore, words that do not meet the "criteria" of a semantic category may still use that category because of their [[association (psychology)|association]] with a prototype. For example, the classifier {{lang|zh|颗}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh-Hant-TW|2=顆}})&nbsp;''kē'' is used for small round items, as in:
{{fs interlinear|lang=zh|indent=2|一 {{uline|颗}} 子弹|yì {{uline|kē}} zǐdàn|"one bullet"}}
When words like {{lang|zh|原子弹}}&nbsp;(''yuánzǐdàn'', "atomic bomb") were later introduced into the language they also used this classifier (颗 [顆] kē), even though they are not small and round—therefore, their classifier must have been assigned because of the words' association with the word for bullet, which acted as a "prototype".<ref name=Zhang46-47>{{Harvnb|Zhang|2007|pp=46–47}}</ref> This is an example of "generalization" from prototypes: Erbaugh has proposed that when children learn count-classifiers, they go through stages, first learning a classifier-noun pair only, such as
{{fs interlinear|lang=zh|indent=2|{{uline|条}} 鱼|{{uline|tiáo}} yú|{{uline|CL}} fish|}}
then using that classifier with multiple nouns that are similar to the prototype (such as other types of fish), then finally using that set of nouns to generalize a semantic feature associated with the classifier (such as length and flexibility) so that the classifier can then be used with new words that the person encounters.<ref name=Erbaugh415Hu>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|p=415}}</ref>

Some classifier-noun pairings are arbitrary, or at least appear to modern speakers to have no semantic motivation.<ref name=Hu1Tai13Zhang55-6>{{Harvnb|Hu|1993|p=1}}; {{Harvnb|Tai|1994|p=13}}; {{Harvnb|Zhang|2007|pp=55–56}}</ref> For instance, the classifier {{lang|zh|部}}&nbsp;''bù'' may be used for movies and novels, but also for cars<ref name=Zhang55-56>{{Harvnb|Zhang|2007|pp=55–56}}</ref> and telephones.<ref name=GaoMalt1134>{{Harvnb|Gao|Malt|2009|p=1134}}</ref> Some of this arbitrariness may be due to what linguist [[James Tai]] refers to as "fossilization", whereby a count-classifier loses its meaning through historical changes but remains paired with some nouns. For example, the classifier {{lang|zh|匹}}&nbsp;''pǐ'' used for horses is meaningless today, but in [[Classical Chinese]] may have referred to a "team of two horses",<ref name=Morev79>{{Harvnb|Morev|2000|p=79}}</ref> a pair of horse skeletons,<ref name=Wang172-3>{{Harvnb|Wang|1994|pp=172–73}}</ref> or the pairing between man and horse.<ref name=Tai15>{{Harvnb|Tai|1994|p=15, note 7}}</ref><ref group=note>The apparent disagreement between the definitions provided by different authors may reflect different uses of these words in different time periods. It is well-attested that many classifiers underwent frequent changes of meaning throughout history ({{Harvnb|Wang|1994}}; {{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|pp=426–31}}; {{Harvnb|Ahrens|1994|pp=205–206}}), so {{lang|zh|匹}}&nbsp;''pǐ'' may have had all these meanings at different points in history.</ref> Arbitrariness may also arise when a classifier is [[Loanword|borrowed]], along with its noun, from a dialect in which it has a clear meaning to one in which it does not.<ref name=Tai13>{{Harvnb|Tai|1994|p=13}}</ref> In both these cases, the use of the classifier is remembered more by association with certain "prototypical" nouns (such as ''horse'') rather than by understanding of semantic categories, and thus arbitrariness has been used as an argument in favor of the prototype theory of classifiers.<ref name=Tai13/> Gao and Malt propose that both the category and prototype theories are correct: in their conception, some classifiers constitute "well-defined categories", others make "prototype categories", and still others are relatively arbitrary.<ref name=GaoMalt1133-1134>{{Harvnb|Gao|Malt|2009|pp=1133–4}}</ref>

===Neutralization===
In addition to the numerous "specific" count-classifiers described above,<ref group=note>Also called "sortal classifiers" ({{Harvnb|Erbaugh|2000|p=33}}; {{Harvnb|Biq|2002|p=531}}).</ref> Chinese has a ''general classifier'' {{lang|zh|个}} ({{lang|zh|個}}), pronounced {{Transliteration|zh|gè}} in Standard Chinese.<ref group=note>Kathleen Ahrens claimed in 1994 that the classifier for animals—{{lang|zh|只}} ({{lang|zh|隻}}), pronounced {{Transliteration|zh|zhī}} in Stamdard Chinese and {{lang|nan-Latn|chiah}} in [[Taiwanese Hokkien]]—is in the process of becoming a second general classifier in the Mandarin spoken in [[Taiwan]], and already is used as the general classifier in Taiwanese itself {{Harv|Ahrens|1994|p=206}}.</ref> This classifier is used for people, some abstract concepts, and other words that do not have special classifiers (such as {{zhi|c=汉堡包}} {{Transliteration|zh|hànbǎobāo}} 'hamburger'),<ref name=Hu12>{{Harvnb|Hu|1993|p=12}}</ref> and may also be used as a replacement for a specific classifier such as {{lang|zh|张}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh-Hant-TW|2=張}})&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|zhāng}} or {{lang|zh|条}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh-Hant-TW|2=條}})&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|tiáo}}, especially in informal speech. In Mandarin Chinese, it has been noted as early as the 1940s that the use of {{lang|zh|个}} is increasing and that there is a general tendency towards replacing specific classifiers with it.<ref name=Tzeng193>{{Harvnb|Tzeng|Chen|Hung|1991|p=193}}</ref> Numerous studies have reported that both adults and children tend to use {{lang|zh|个}} when they do not know the appropriate count-classifier, and even when they do but are speaking quickly or informally.<ref name=Zhang57>{{Harvnb|Zhang|2007|p=57}}</ref> The replacement of a specific classifier with the general {{lang|zh|个}} is known as classifier ''neutralization''<ref name=Ahrens212>{{Harvnb|Ahrens|1994|p=212}}</ref> ({{lang|zh|量词个化}} in Chinese, literally 'classifier {{zhi|c=个}}-ization'<ref name=He165>{{Harvnb|He|2001|p=165}}</ref>). This occurs especially often among children<ref name=ErbaughHu>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986}}; {{Harvnb|Hu|1993}}</ref> and [[Aphasia|aphasics]] (individuals with damage to language-relevant areas of the brain),<ref name=Ahrens227-32>{{Harvnb|Ahrens|1994|pp=227–32}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Tzeng|Chen|Hung|1991}}</ref> although normal speakers also neutralize frequently. It has been reported that most speakers know the appropriate classifiers for the words they are using and believe, when asked, that those classifiers are obligatory, but nevertheless use {{lang|zh|个}} without even realizing it in actual speech.<ref name=Erbaugh404-6Ahrens202-3>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|pp=404–406}}; {{Harvnb|Ahrens|1994|pp=202–203}}</ref> As a result, in everyday spoken Mandarin the general classifier is "hundreds of times more frequent"<ref name=Erbaugh404-6>{{Harvnb|Erbaugh|1986|pp=404–406}}</ref> than the specialized ones.<!-- He Jie, however, claims that this is only a trend in spoken language, and that specific classifiers are still frequent in written Chinese.<ref name=He336>{{Harvnb|He|2001|p=336}}</ref>-->

Nevertheless, {{lang|zh|个}} has not completely replaced other count-classifiers, and there are still many situations in which it would be inappropriate to substitute it for the required specific classifier.<ref name=Tzeng193/> There may be specific patterns behind which classifier-noun pairs may be "neutralized" to use the general classifier, and which may not. Specifically, words that are most prototypical for their categories, such as ''paper'' for the category of nouns taking the 'flat{{\}}square' classifier {{lang|zh|张}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh-Hant-TW|2=張}})&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|zhāng}}, may be less likely to be said with a general classifier.<ref name=Ahrensall>{{Harvnb|Ahrens|1994}}</ref>

===Variation in usage===
{{multiple image
| align = right
| image1 =  Ma Lin 010.jpg 
| width1 =  100 
| alt1 =  Chinese ink painting depicting a man sitting under a tree 
| caption1 = A painting may be referred to with the classifiers {{lang|zh|张}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh-Hant-TW|2=張}})&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|zhāng}} and {{lang|zh|幅}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|fú}}; both phrases have the same meaning, but convey different stylistic effects.<ref name=Zhang53>{{Harvnb|Zhang|2007|p=53}}</ref>
| image2 =  Chromatic Television Center, CCTV, Beijing.jpg 
| width2 =  155 
| alt2 =  Photo of a tower with over 20 stories.
| caption2 =  Depending on the classifier used, the noun {{lang|zh|楼}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|lóu}} could be used to refer to either this building, as in: {{fs interlinear|lang=zh|indent=1|一 {{uline|座}} 楼|yí {{uline|zuò}} lóu|"one building"}} or the floors of the building, as in: {{fs interlinear|lang=zh|indent=1|二十 {{uline|层}} 楼|èrshí {{uline|céng}} lóu|"twenty floors"<ref name=Zhang52>{{Harvnb|Zhang|2007|p=52}}</ref>}}
}}
It is not the case that every noun is only associated with one classifier. Across dialects and speakers there is great variability in the way classifiers are used for the same words, and speakers often do not agree which classifier is best.<ref name=TaiTaiWangErbaugh>{{Harvnb|Tai|1994}}; {{Harvnb|Erbaugh|2000|pp=34–35}}</ref> For example, for cars some people use {{lang|zh|部}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|bù}}, others use {{lang|zh|台}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|tái}}, and still others use {{lang|zh|辆}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh-Hant-TW|2=輛}})&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|liàng}}; [[Standard Cantonese|Cantonese]] uses {{lang|zh|架}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|yue|gaa3}}. Even within a single dialect or a single speaker, the same noun may take different measure words depending on the style in which the person is speaking, or on different nuances the person wants to convey (for instance, measure words can reflect the speaker's judgment of or opinion about the object<ref name=He237>{{Harvnb|He|2001|p=237}}</ref>). An example of this is the word for person, {{lang|zh|人}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|rén}}, which uses the measure word {{lang|zh|个}}&nbsp;({{lang|zh-Hant-TW|2=個}})&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|gè}} normally, but uses the measure {{lang|zh|口}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|kǒu}} when counting number of people in a household, {{lang|zh|位}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|wèi}} when being particularly polite or honorific, and {{lang|zh|名}}&nbsp;{{Transliteration|zh|míng}} in formal written contexts;<ref name=FangixZhang53-4>{{Harvnb|Fang|Connelly|2008|p=ix}}; {{Harvnb|Zhang|2007|pp=53–54}}</ref> likewise, a group of people may be referred to by massifiers:

{{columns-start}}
{{fs interlinear|lang=zh|indent=2|一 {{uline|群}} 人|yì {{uline|qún}} rén|'a {{uline|group}} of people'}}
{{column}}
{{fs interlinear|lang=zh|indent=2|一 {{uline|帮}} 人|yì {{uline|bāng}} rén|'a {{uline|gang/crowd}} of people'}}
{{columns-end}}

The first is neutral, whereas the second implies that the people are unruly or otherwise being judged poorly.<ref name=He242>{{Harvnb|He|2001|p=242}}</ref>

Some count-classifiers may also be used with nouns that they are not normally related to, for metaphorical effect, as in:

{{fs interlinear|lang=zh|indent=2|一 {{uline|堆}} 烦恼|yì {{uline|duī}} fánnǎo|'a {{uline|pile}} of worries/troubles'<ref name=Shie76/>}}

Finally, a single word may have multiple count-classifiers that convey different meanings altogether—in fact, the choice of a classifier can even influence the meaning of a noun. By way of illustration:<ref name=Zhang52>{{Harvnb|Zhang|2007|p=52}}</ref>

{{columns-start}}
{{fs interlinear|lang=zh|indent=2|三 {{uline|节}} 课|sān {{uline|jié}} kè|'three class periods' (as in "I have three classes today"}}
{{column}}
{{fs interlinear|lang=zh|indent=2|三 {{uline|门}} 课|sān {{uline|mén}} kè|'three courses' (as in "I signed up for three courses this semester")}}
{{columns-end}}