論華語中分類詞與量詞之語意區分

On the Semantic Distinction between Classifiers and Measure Words in Chinese

分類詞與量詞是否能精準的區分一直存有爭議。贊成區分的學者所提出的兩個測試：「『的』插入法」與「形容詞修飾法」，已被證實缺乏準確性。本文深入檢視此二測試法，進而提出兩組精確且真實可靠之測試。並且運用亞里斯多德對於「本質特徵、偶然特徵」、以及康德對「分析命題、綜合命題」之區分，適切地描繪出「分類詞、量詞」之區辨。由於量詞具有實質之語義，因此阻絕了數詞及形容詞對名詞的修飾；相對的，分類詞僅彰顯名詞本身既有之某些語義特徵，並不貢獻任何額外的語義，因此數詞及形容詞可穿透分類詞而修飾名詞。

Whether classifiers (C) and measure words (M) can be meaningfully distinguished in Chinese has been a controversial issue, reflected also by the drastic discrepancy in the inventories of classifiers previously proposed. The two tests, i.e. de-insertion and adjectival modification, that proponents for the C/M distinction proposed have been shown to be unreliable and thus rejected. We re-examine these two tests closely and propose two sets of refined, reliable, and revealing tests. We further employ the Aristotelian distinction between essential and accidental properties as well as the Kantian distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions to characterize the C/M distinction. M is therefore semantically substantive and thus blocks numeral quantification and adjectival modification to the noun; C, in contrast, does not form such a barrier, for it is semantically null in the sense that it merely highlights a semantic aspect inherent to the noun and thus contributes no additional meaning.