Mass Nouns and Count Nouns in Classical Chinese

Bibliographic Data

ID20380780
AuthorsDan Robins (University of Hong Kong, corresponding author)
Year2000
Volume25
Pages147-184
Publication date2000-01-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEarly China (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0362-5028 • E-ISSN: 2325-2324
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0362502800004296
OpenAlexW2493256690
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited10

This article defends three theses concerning the semantics of nouns in classical Chinese. First, they are all free to function as mass nouns. Second, though many of them can also function as count nouns, they do not do so as frequently as do corresponding English nouns. Third, unlike English nouns, nouns in classical Chinese do not need to be classified as count nouns and mass nouns in order to explain their behavior in particular contexts. I argue that classical Chinese nouns function as count nouns only when specific elements of the syntactic context force them to do so, including numbers, some quantifiers, and some adjectives. Because classical Chinese nouns usually occur without such elements, they function more often as mass nouns. I develop this argument in opposition to an alternative analysis defended by Christoph Harbsmeier, according to which classical Chinese nouns divide into three classes: count nouns, mass nouns, and generic nouns. I show that the syntactic and semantic distinctions Harbsmeier draws in support of his analysis do not illuminate the behavior of classical Chinese nouns. The article also briefly addresses the ontological issues that have seemed to some linguists and philosophers to be related to the count/mass distinction

Linguistics · Noun · Proper noun · Computer Science · Historical Linguistics and Language Studies · Mathematics · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub