next up previous
Next: Conclusions and Future Up: Shape Schematization in Previous: Not-so-ideal usage of

Shape Classifiers in Other Natural Languages

Allan [All77] distinguishes languages in the world into classifier languages and non-classifier languages. English is a non-classifier language whereas Thai, Assamese, Bantu, Swahili, Navajo, Toba, and Enindiljaugwa (an Australian language) are classifier languages. His study of fifty different languages around the world found remarkable similarities among classifiers for nouns across languages. Allan classifies classifiers into seven categories based on (i) material, (ii) shape, (iii) consistency, (iv) size, (v) location, (vi) arrangement, and (vii) quanta (i.e., grammatical number, mass/count distinction, etc.). In this paper, we have looked only at shape-based classifiers and the schematizations they entail. According to Allan, Amerindian languages have a large number of shape classifiers; Australian languages have almost no shape classifiers; and Oriental languages have very few shape classifiers although they have a lot of classifiers in general, primarily material-based ones. Most of the languages he looked at have a classifier for predominantly one-dimensional nouns, and one for predominantly three-dimensional nouns.