초록/요약

This study re-examines 56 Chinese minority languages, reviewing the universal principles that underlie languages developed from numeral classifiers which do not have plural markers have limited functionality, or languages that obligatorily use plural markers but do not have numeral classifiers and are slightly restrictive in their usage. Within the scope of this study, results confirmed that numeral classifiers and plural markers tend to have complementary relations in their usage. However, this tendency cannot be simply divided solely based on the presence or absence of numeral classifiers and plural markers. Hence, in the case of the minority languages examined in this study, the correlation between numeral classifiers and plural markers is not based on an all-or-nothing approach but rather requires a more nuanced examination, and its forms of classification can be broken down as follows. Firstly, Type I consists of plural markers which, despite being very well-developed, do not have quantifiers, and their usage is optional. As for Type Ⅱ, even though it has plural markers, they are not as actively and extensively used as those under Type I, unlike the numeral classifiers which are developed at an extent where they are largely responsible for pragmatic functioning under this type. Most of the Tibeto-Burman languages are included in the type Ⅱ, and while these numeral classifiers are largely responsible for pragmatic functioning—with the fact that (semi)repeater are developed and through lacking aspects of the general classifiers—it can be concluded that the numeral classifiers are not as thoroughly developed a form of language as believed to be. Type Ⅲ has no plural markers; hence its quantifiers are comparatively more developed and do have pragmatic functions. Even though Type Ⅳ has no plural markers, its numeral classifiers are considered the most developed as they play an immense role in pragmatic functioning and structural functioning in the language.