English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Numeral classifiers have consistently been treated as lexical words (实词 shici  or 体词  tici ) by traditional Chinese grammarians but considered functional elements in most theoretical linguistic literature and treated as functionally equivalent to the definite article in English. In this paper, I point out that (i) unlike the definite article  the  in English that denotes “definiteness” regardless of context, bare nouns and numeral classifiers in Sinitic languages indicate neither “definiteness” nor “indefiniteness” out of context; (ii) the analysis of equating Chinese numeral classifiers with English definite article is the consequence of mistaking an essentially pragmatic phenomenon for a grammatical one ( Wu 2016 . 语法性与语用性 Yufaxing yu yuyongxing [Grammaticality versus pragmaticality]. Shougao 手稿). Based on various sources of evidence, I demonstrate that the primary function of classifiers has remained unchanged, namely that of classification and individualization (cf.  Bisang 1999 . Classifiers in East and Southeast Asian languages: Counting and beyond. In Jadranka Gvozdanović (ed.),  Numeral types and changes worldwide , 113–185. Berlin &amp; New York: Mouton de Gruyter). Although bare [Cl+N] phrases and even bare classifiers in some Sinitic languages can sometimes be interpreted definitely, it is strictly subject to context and the pragmatic restriction of familiarity ( Li and Bisang 2012 . Classifiers in Sinitic languages: From individuation to definiteness-marking.  Lingua  122. 335–355). This is confirmed by our questionnaire survey that reveals that the grammatical feature of “definiteness” in these languages is invariably indicated by demonstratives. I thus conclude that numeral classifiers in Sinitic languages can be treated as belonging to the semi-lexical category in the sense of Corver and van Riemsdijk ( 2001 .  Semi-lexical categories: The function of content words and the content of function words . Berlin &amp; New York: Mouton de Gruyter), which is in agreement with analyses of classifiers as  fu mingci  “quasi-nominals” ( Lü 1953 . Hanyu xuexi [Chinese learning]. Beijing: Chinese Youth Press) or “nominal auxiliaries” ( Chao 1968 .  A grammar of spoken Chinese . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Numeral classifiers in Sinitic languages: Semantic content, contextuality, and semi-lexicality