Running head: VIETNAMESE AND ENGLISH CLASSIFIERS: A CONTRASTIVE
ANALYSIS1VIETNAMESE AND ENGLISH CLASSIFIERS: A CONTRASTIVE
ANALYSIS2
Vietnamese and English ClassifiersA contrastive analysisLe
Nguyen Nhu AnhDepartment of English
Ho Chi Minh City University of Pedagogy
Instructor: PhD. Nguyen Ngoc VuHo Chi Minh City, December 24th
2010AbstractWhen studying English, people often focus on grammar,
vocabulary or skills like reading, listening, writing and speaking.
However, there is another important element that is often
forgotten, the classifiers. Classifiers are words used to
categorize word classes based on an attribute such as shape,
function, or animacy. Classifiers occur in almost every context of
English use and play a significant role in quite a number of ways.
Their functions vary from counting individual entities to measuring
time. Grasping this language category is of high importance in the
language acquisition process. However, their status is still a
debatable issue, which causes much confusion for English learners
and researchers. This paper aims to provide an overview of English
and Vietnamese classifiers, by contrasting their similarities and
differences, thus facilitates learners in their language
acquisition activities. The paper may also serve as an argument for
the status of classifiers in language system.Contents2Abstract
4Typical quantifying formation in both languages
4Vietnamese classifiers
4Vietnamese classifiers a debate
4Common types of Vietnamese classifiers
5English classifiers
5English classifiers a debate
5Categories of classifiers in English
6Contrastive analysis
6Results and discussion
6Similarities
7Differences
7Different scopes of use.
7Different frequencies of use
7Syntactic differences
8Implications to teaching and research
9References
Typical quantifying formation in both languagesIn Vietnamese,
the classifier often lies between the numeral and the noun. For
example: ba (three) + con (classifier) + thuyn (boats). In English,
however, due to the division between countable nouns and
non-countable nouns, there are two ways of forming quantity:
For countable nouns, the numeral is followed straightly by the
noun, without the presence of any classifier. For example: three
boats
For non-countable nouns, a word that denotes a part of a whole
called partitive is used after the numeral and is followed orderly
by of and the noun. For example: Two slices of meat.
Vietnamese classifiers
Vietnamese classifiers a debateDifferent researchers from
different schools of thoughts have been arguing about the issue
whether classifiers should be considered distinct from from nouns
or not. Emeneau (1951) views this group of words a separate word
class representing the sense of one unit quantity. Supporting the
idea, Thompson (1965) provides an argument that classifiers are
distinct from nouns since they do not occur in signle word
descriptive complements. In addition, Luu (2000) argues that the
functions of indicating kind and quantity distinguish classifiers
from nouns. However, Cao (1988; 1998; 2000) argues that classifiers
should only be seen as a subset of count nouns that have an
additional semantic function of classification rather than a
separate word class from nouns.Common types of Vietnamese
classifiersThe exact number and word list of classifiers in
Vietnamese is still an issue that attracts much debate from
linguistics. Nguyen (1957) estimates that there are about 200
classifiers in Vietnamese, considering all words that occur in the
slot adjacent to the number in a noun phrase as classifiers. Cao
(1998), on the other hand, argues that Vietnamese only have as few
as three classifiers. Cao (2000) suggests that if the function of
classifiers is to categorize or classify words (in most cases,
nouns) its function must be to classify nouns into smaller
subclasses that indicate different kinds of objects. Based on this
definition, Cao (1998; 2000) admits to only three Vietnamese count
nouns that may have this function of indicating kind: ci
(inanimate), con (animate), and ngi (human).English
classifiersEnglish classifiers a debateWhether English have
classifiers or not is still a debatable issue. Many linguists still
consider classifiers as a subclass of nouns in current English
grammar. Quirk et al (1985) provides a term for this subclass,
partitive nouns, a word or phrase that shows a part or quantity of
something. Biber et al (1999) supply with a more specific
classification, dividing classifiers into collective nouns, unit
nouns, quantifying nouns, and species nouns etc. On the whole,
while the quantifying function of such nouns has been recognized,
their status has rarely been systematically questioned (Brems,
2003). In a different perspective, Lyons (1977, p.462) argues that
these so-called nouns serve exactly the same function that of
individualizing and enumeration as do the classifiers in Tzeltal,
Chinese and Burmese. Allan (1977), Lyons (1977), and Lehrer (1986)
provide a common formation of noun phrase in English, providing the
position for classifiers in the phrase.numeralclassifierofnoun
Categories of classifiers in English
Multitude attempts have been made in the field, trying to
provide a comprehensive classification of English classifiers. The
most significant contributions belong to Allan (1977) and Lehrers
(1986, p.111), in which seven categories of classifiers have been
presented: Unit classifiers: unit counters (e.g. a piece of cake)
Collective classifiers (e.g. a herd of animals) Varietal
classifiers (Species classifiers) (e.g. all kinds of flowers)
Arrangement classifiers (e.g. 3 stacks of books) Measure
classifiers. In this category, there is a further division into 2
sub-categories:+ Standardised measure classifiers: Exact measures
(e.g. two pounds of potatoes) + Container classifiers: Inexact
measures (e.g. a bucket of water)The two last categories are still
debatable since they can be replaced by equivalent numerals.
Fractional classifiers (three quarters of the cake vs. half of the
cake) Number set classifiers (many hundreds of them vs. three
hundred of them)Contrastive analysis
In terms of tokens, unit classifiers is the most common type of
classifiers in Vietnamese while container and collective
classifiers are predominant in English. (English corpus
Freiburg-LOB (FLOB) and The Copora of Vietnamese Texts)In terms of
types, Vietnamese has a greater number of unit classifiers,
standardised measure classifiers, arrangement classifiers and
verbal classifiers whereas English uses more collective classifiers
and container classifiers . (English corpus Freiburg-LOB (FLOB) and
The Copora of Vietnamese Texts)Results and discussion
Similarities
Other types of classifiers are more similar than different in
quality in the two languages. These classifiers are lexically
meaningful and it is possible to find their equivalences in other
languages despite various terms used for them. There are few
(sometimes considered almost no) differences in measure classifiers
and species classifiers between English and Vietnamese although
there may be some variations in their frequencies of use in the two
languages.A common feature shared by both arrangement classifiers
and unit classifiers in Vietnamese and English is that they are
significantly affected by the basic understanding of shape. For
example:unit classifiers: iu, chng and khi in Vietnamesearrangement
classifiers: bunch, pile and row in English Some classifiers in
English and Chinese are also pragmatically influenced. For example,
some English collective classifiers such as gang, mob and pack
often refer to a group of people the speaker have no positive
feeling for or does not approve of. These classifiers are different
from other more neutral collective classifiers like crowd and
group. In Vietnamese, some collective classifiers (e.g. bng nhm
crowd, gang) are also habitually negative in
evaluation.Differences
Different scopes of use.
The most noticeable difference occurs in the case of unit
classifiers. Their individuation is obligatory for all nouns in
Vietnamese but in English, this only happens to non-count
nouns.
Different frequencies of useAs a result of a language with
classifiers as a compulsory element, the use of classifiers in
Vietnamese are much broader both in scope and quantity than in
English. Classifiers are used approximately 29 times as frequent in
Vietnamese as in English. (English corpus Freiburg-LOB (FLOB) and
The Copora of Vietnamese Texts)Syntactic differencesConsidered as a
group of special nouns, English classifiers also have their
singular and plural forms while this does not occur to the case of
Vietnamese classifiers.It is possible to omit the numeral mt (one)
in quantifying constructionsin Vietnamese if they function as
objects, but quantifying determiners and numerals in English
cannot.Vit (mt) th
write a letterQuantifying constructions with the inverted form
of noun + numeral + classifier are found in Vietnamese but not in
EnglishDu n 20mltrng lt v mt qu 20 ml of olive oil, and one peeled
eggAlthough classifiers do not regularly take a modifier, there are
a considerably greater variety of classifier modifiers in English
than in Vietnamese. In Vietnamese , for most of the cases, the
modifiers are classifier intensifiers, emphasizing the large /
small quantity or amount (e.g. ln (big, large), nh (small), ton b
(whole)). In English, there are two major types of classifier
modifiers: classifier intensifiers, and evaluative qualifiers which
are relocated from the noun being quantified (e.g. a late-night cup
of coffee). There is no case where such relocation occurs with
classifier modifiers in Vietnamese.Implications to teaching and
researchOne of the problems that confuse students is the use of
classifiers in English, i.e. they are not sure when and where the
classifiers should be used. For examples, they may not know which
classifier should be used with animals, cake, flowers, water. As
discussed in the present research, classifiers in English are
divided into seven categories, which can facilitate learners in
their studying process if they group words according to these seven
categories. The system of English classifiers is really complex
with one list for countable nouns, one for uncountable nouns and
one for both countable and uncountable nouns. Actually, to solve
this problem is not too difficult; just let the students get
acquainted with those lists and guide them to divide the items in
categories.As it is discovered in this study that classifiers in
English and Vietnamese share many common features despite their
different scopes and frequencies of use, and some language-specific
syntactic differences, it is suggested that solutions to the
problem of Vietnamese students in dealing with English classifiers
should be focused on syntactic field.
Furthermore, the classifiers in the two languages are, mostly,
quantitatively different, i.e. much of the difference comes from
their various terms in current use. Thus, it is advisable that in
undertaking contrastive research, one must not be confused by the
different terms used for the same phenomenon in the languages under
consideration.
In conclusion, the classifier is an important element in a noun
phrase. This concept in English and Vietnamese share some
significant similarities. Obviously, they still show some
differences in syntax and quantity. With some implications for
teaching languages, the study, to a certain extent, aims to help
teachers in presenting lessons as well as to facilitate learners in
their language acquisition process.ReferencesAllan, K. (1977)
Classifiers. Language, 53, 281311.
Biber, D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S. and Finegan, E.
(1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London:
Longman.
Brems, L. (2003). Measure noun constructions: An instance of
semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of
Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 283312.
Cao, Hao X. 1988. The count/mass distinction in Vietnamese and
the concept of classifier. Zeitschrift fur Phonetik
Sprachwissenschaft un Kommunikationsforschung, 41, 38-47.
Cao, Hao X. 1998. Ting Vit: My Vn v Ng m, Ng Php, Ng Ngha
[Vietnamese: Issues in phonetics, syntax, and semantics]. Ho Chi
Minh City: Nh Xut Bn Gio Dc.
Cao, Hao X. 2000. Ngha ca loi t [The meaning of classifiers].
Loi T Trong Cc Ngn Ng Vit Nam [Classifiers of the languages in
Vietnam], pp. 32-87. H Ni: Nh Xut Bn Khoa Hc X Hi.
Emeneau, Murray B. (1951). Studies in Vietnamese Grammar.
Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
J.Lyons (1977).Semantics. Volumes I and II. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lehrer, A. (1986) English classifier constructions. Lingua, 68,
109148.
Luu, Lang V. (2000). Mt s vn v loi t trong ting Vit [Some issues
about Vietnamese classifiers]. Loi T Trong Cc Ngn Ng Vit Nam
[Classifiers of the languages in Vietnam], pp. 9-31. H Ni: Nh Xut
Bn Khoa Hc X Hi.
Nguyen, Dinh H. 1957. Vietnamese classifiers. Word 13:
124-152.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1985).A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.London: Longman.
Thompson, Lawrence. (1965). A Vietnamese Grammar. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press.
