COGNITIVE ASPECTS OF COMPLEX NP CLASSIFIERS
Ming-Ming Pu
University of Maine at Farmington, USA
mingpu@maine.edu
The present study investigates the distribution and use of classifiers of complex noun phrases (CNP), i.e.,
NPs that take relative clauses, in Chinese discourse from a cognitive-functional perspective. In Chinese, a
simple head NP may or may not be modified by a classifier, and so is a CNP. However, the present study
argues that the use of a classifier to modify a NP, especially a CNP, is not merely optional or random, but
fulfills specific discourse functions. The study focuses on three structures of CNP with respect to the
presence and absence of classifiers: (a) a unified head NP unit with a classifier, where the classifier is
placed immediately before its head NP (and hence after the relative clause), leaving the head NP unit
intact, i.e., Relative Clause + Classifier + NP (RC+C+NP), (b) a split head NP unit with a classifier,
where the classifier is placed before the relative clause (and hence separated from its head NP), rendering
a disruptive head unit, i.e., C+RC+NP, and (c) a bare head NP unit without a classifier, i.e., RC+NP. The
study aims to explore when and how classifiers are used in such CNP structures, and what motivates
Chinese speakers to use a specific construction at a given juncture of discourse.
The study argues, using both oral and written data elicited from native speakers, that the use of classifiers
in Chinese discourse is constrained by cognitive activities underlying language processing, and largely
motivated by the interaction of structural characteristics of CNP with cognitive, semantic and pragmatic
factors. In our study, structure (b) is overwhelmingly preferred by speakers, which defies our intuition
that structure (a) might occur more often than (b) because the former consists of a unified head NP unit
while the latter a disruptive one. This result is partly due to specific cognitive strategies speakers use to
ensure smooth and easy discourse production, and partly due to their consideration of the hearer’s
processing needs. Whenever a classifier is used, it is almost always placed before the relative clause to
signal to the hearer the upcoming head NP, which is separated from its classifier by the relative clause,
hence avoiding potential garden-path sentences and facilitating comprehension.
In addition to the striking difference in frequency distribution between the structures (a) and (b), our data
show that structure (b) and (c) are also used differentially, depending on both syntactic role and semantic
features of the head NP in the structure as well as the discourse function of the relative clause that
modifies the head NP. Further, differences among the three structures are found between oral and written
narrative discourse as well. The present study demonstrates that semantic, pragmatic and discourse factors
conspire with cognitive considerations to yield the observed distributional patterns of CNP constructions.
References:
Fox, B. A. & Thompson, S. A. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in
English conversation. Language 66 (2): 297-316.
Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Just, M.A. and Carpenter, P.A. 1992. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in
working memory. Psychological Review 99(1): 122-149.
Prideaux, G.D. & Baker, W. 1986. Strategies and structures: The processing of relative clauses. Current
Issues in Linguistic Theory 46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Pu, M-M. 1997. Zero anaphora and grammatical relations in Mandarin, in T. Givón (Ed.), Grammatical
Relations; Typological Studies in Language (35), 283-322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.