Qualifying classiers and their
acquisition: a review of research
and practices
Clasicadores calicativos y su
adquisición: una revisión de la
investigación y las prácticas
LAURENE GLIMOIS
Trinity College Dublin
Dublín, Irlanda
laurene.glimois@gmail.com
Resumen: Los clasicadores chinos, también conocidos como palabras
de medida, son particularmente difíciles de adquirir para los estudiantes
de chino como segunda lengua (CSL). El objetivo de este artículo es el
desarrollo de materiales didácticos especícos y estimular la investigación
sobre la adquisición de clasicadores en CSL. En primer lugar, se ofrecen
deniciones, distinguiendo entre los distintos tipos de clasicadores.
A continuación, se ofrece una revisión de literatura existente sobre la
adquisición de clasicadores numéricos en L1 y L2, junto con un examen
de los materiales didácticos. El ensayo termina con recomendaciones para
futuras investigaciones e innovación en la enseñanza de los clasicadores
chinos.
Palabras clave: Clasicadores chinos; palabras de medida chinas;
didáctica de los clasicadores.
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15517/riea.v2i3
Abstract: Chinese classiers, also known as measure words, are
particularly dicult to acquire for learners of Chinese as a second language
(CSL). The purpose of this article is to encourage the development of
dedicated teaching materials and stimulate much needed research on
the acquisition of classiers in CSL. The essay rst provides denitions,
distinguishing between dierent types of classiers. Next, this paper
oers a review of existing literature on L1 and L2 acquisition of numeral
classiers, along with an examination of teaching materials. The essay
ends with recommendations for future research and innovation in the
teaching of Chinese classiers.
Keywords: chinese classiers, chinese measure words, classiers didactics.
Citar como: Glimois, L. (2023). Qualifying classiers and their
acquisition: a review of research and practices, 2(1), 211-238. DOI
10.15517/riea.v2i1.52212
Fecha de recepción: 13-09-2022 | Fecha de aceptación: 28-10-2022
212
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
213
Introduction
The purpose of this essay is to review the literature on numeral classi-
ers in Mandarin Chinese and their acquisition in order to provide direc-
tions for future research in grammar acquisition in Chinese as a second
language (CSL), and inform teaching practices. This paper rst denes
classiers and describes the complexity of the Chinese classier system.
The discussion then moves to an examination of studies on the acquisi-
tion of classiers in CSL. Particular attention is given to those studies that
focused on the processing of classiers from input in CLS, because input
processing, which consists in registering target linguistic features and con-
necting them to meaning during comprehension, is recognized across the-
oretical perspectives as the very rst step towards second language acqui-
sition
1
. The resulting state of the art concludes with recommendations
for future research and innovation in the teaching of Chinese classiers.
1
For example, see the following studies. Nick C. Ellis, “Blocking and Learned
Attention in Language Acquisition,” In CogSci 2007, Proceedings of the Twenty
Ninth Cognitive Science Conference, (Nashville, TN: 2007), 1-4. Susan M. Gass,
“Consciousness in Contemporary Science,” In Input, Interaction, and the Second
Language Learner, (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997), ix-xxiv.
Stephen. D. Krashen, The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, New York:
Longman (1985). James Lantolf, Socio-cultural Theory and Second Language
Learning (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Michael H. Long, “Native
Speaker/Non-Native Speaker Conversation and the Negotiation of Comprehen-
sible Input,” Applied Linguistics 4, n. 2 (1983): 126-141. Brian Mac Whinney,
“The Competition Model,” In Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, edited by
Brian MacWhinney, (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1987), 249-308. Peter Robinson,
“Attention and Memory During SLA,” In The Handbook of Second Language
Acquisition (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2003). Richard Schmidt, “The Role
of Consciousness in Second Language Learning,” Applied Linguistics 11, no. Tea-
ching and Learning, edited by Eli Hinkel, (London: Routledge, 2005), 471-483.
Merrill Swain, “The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research,” In Handbook of
Research in Second Language Teaching and learning (London: Routledge, 2005),
471-483. Russell S. Tomlin, and Victor Villa, “Attention in Cognitive Science and
Second Language Acquisition,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, no. 2
(1994): 183-203. Bill VanPatten, “Input Processing in Adult SLA,” In Theories
in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2015),
113-134.
214
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
Dening Chinese Classiers
Classiers are found in most East-Asian, South-Asian and Oceanian
2
languages. This linguistic category encompasses independent morphemes
(lexemes or axes) that must be inserted in noun-phrases containing nu-
merals or determiners
3
. Their function is to indicate the class or quantity
of the entity a noun refers to. Among the dierent subcategories of classi-
er languages, numeral classier languages, like Cantonese and Mandarin
Chinese, are the most prevalent ones.
A numeral classier, also generically called “classier”, or “measure
word” in Mandarin grammars and textbooks is an independent mor-
pheme that “denotes some salient perceived or imputed characteristic
of the entity to which the associated noun refers”
4
. As in most classier
languages, in Chinese, a numeral classier is necessarily placed between a
noun and a preceding determiner such as a number, a demonstrative, and
certain quantiers
5
. Although researchers have used dierent terminolo-
gies and denitions, there is a general agreement on the existence of two
main categories of numeral classiers. Quantifying classiers, also called
mass classiers or mensural classiers, have a quantifying function. They
2
Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald,Classiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices
(Oxford England: Oxford University Press, 2000).
3
Peggy Li, Becky Huang, and Yaling Hsiao, “Learning That Classiers Count:
Mandarin-Speaking Children’s Acquisition of Sortal and Mensural Classiers,”
Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, n. 3 (2010): 207-230. James Myers, “Rules
vs. Analogy in Mandarin Classier Selection,” Language and Linguistics Compass
1, n. 2 (2000): 187-209.
4
Keith Allan, “Classiers,” Language 53, n. 2 (1977): 285.
5
For example, see the following studies. Francesca Del Gobbo, “Classiers,” In
The Handbook of Chinese Linguistics (Hoboken: Wiley, 2014), 26-48. Charles N.
Li, and Thompson, Sandra A. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Gram-
mar (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
215
include, for example, mi (“meter”); dui (“pair”), and bei (“cup”)
6
. Quali-
fying classiers, also called count classiers or sortal classiers, indicate the
class a noun pertains to, depending on the semantic features it shares with
others
7
. Such characteristics generally range among “humaneness”, “ani-
macy”, “shape”, “use”, and “consistence”
8
. The present essay focuses on
qualifying classiers, because this linguistic category has no equivalent in
English and other non-classier languages, and this study is interested in
how learners can make form-meaning connections when presented with
a completely new linguistic phenomenon. Unless otherwise specied, the
term “classier” will, from now on, be used in the present dissertation as
an abbreviation of qualifying classiers.
For an illustration of a Chinese noun-phrase with a qualifying classi-
er, consider Example 1 and the description that follows.
6
For example, see the following studies. Aikhenvald, Classiers. 2000. Lisa Lai-
Shen Cheng, and Rint Sybesma, “Bare and not-so-Bare Nouns and the Structure
of NP.” Linguistic Inquiry, 30, n. 4 (1999): 509-542. Colette Craig, “Classiers
in a Functional Perspective,” In Layered Structure and Reference in Functional
Perspective, (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1992), 277-301. Hu, The Acquisition of
Chinese Classiers by Young Mandarin Speaking Children, 1993. Li et al., “Lear-
ning that Classiers Count,” 2010. Rosmawati Rosmawati, “Investigating Sec-
ond Language Learners’ Usage of Mandarin Numeral Classiers: A Case-Based
Study.” Researching and Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language 1, (2015): 29-
49. James Tai and Lianqing Wang, “A Semantic Study of the Classier tiao,” Jour-
nal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 25, (1990): 35-56.
7
Same as in previous footnote.
8 For example, see the following studies. Colette Craig, “Introduction,” In Noun
Classes and Categorization (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publi-
shing Company, 1986), 5.
216
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
Example 1
Noun phrases in Chinese
yi ba shanzi
one “CL ba” fan
Number + CL + Noun
=
yi tai dianshan
one “CL tai” electric fan
Number + CL + Noun
As illustrated in Example 1, the English noun-phrase “a fan” (article
+ noun) in which fan designates a little object that is waved in a hand,
translates into yi ba shanzi (number + classier ba + noun) in Chinese.
In this statement, ba indicates that the entity referred to by the noun can
be held by hand and/or has a handle. Translating “one fan”, when It refers
to an electric device instead (yi tai dianshan), or else a ceiling fan requires
the use of another classier, tai, which is associated with electric and elec-
tronic devices, machines, and heavy objects.
The Complexity of the Chinese Classier System
The Chinese language makes a very rich and complex use of classiers.
The inventory of classiers ranges from a commonly agreed number of
about 75
9
to several hundred according to dictionaries of Chinese classi-
9
Mary. S Erbaugh, “Taking Stock: The Development of Chinese Noun Classiers
Historically and in Young Children,” In Noun Classes and Categorization (Am-
sterdam: J. Benjamins, 1986), 399-436.
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
217
ers such as those compiled by Chen, Che, Chen, and Zhang
10
and Jiao
11
.
Although these generally collocate with nouns that share semantic prop-
erties with one another, classier categories do not necessarily match con-
ceptual categories (e.g., animals, plants, furniture, etc.). Therefore, many
classier-noun associations can seem arbitrary for non-native speakers,
and sometimes also for native speakers
12
. For example, while most nouns
referring to clothing are preceded by the classier jian (piece, item), the
noun kuzi (trousers), must be preceded by the classier tiao, the classi-
er for objects and animals that are long; narrow, and exible (e.g., rope,
snake, sh). Similarly, several classiers can apply to the same noun to
emphasize dierent semantic properties of a referent. For instance, the
noun hua (painting) can be preceded by zhang, which is used with at
objects, as well as collocate with fu, a classier for works of art. In this
example, the use of fu instead of zhang suggests either (1) that the ref-
erent is known as a piece of art, or (2) that the person using the classier
fu perceives or wants to present the painting as a work of art and not as
a random painting. The Chinese classier system also includes a generic
classier, ge, which can be used with many nouns and can sometimes—
but not always, act as a substitute for a more specic numeral classier
13
.
Because of its versatility, children and second language (L2) learners tend
10
Baocun Chen, Guicheng Chen, Hao Chenand, and Zaizhan Zhang, Han yu
liangci cidian (Fuzhou: Fujian renmin chubanshe, 1988).
11
Fan Jiao, A Chinese-English Measure Words Dictionary (Beijing: Sinolingua
Press, 2001).
12
For example, see the following studies. Ming Y. Gao and Barbara C. Malt,
“Mental Representation and Cognitive Consequences of Chinese Individual
Classiers,” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 24, n. 7-8 (2009):1124-1179.
Hong Zhang, “Numeral Classiers in Mandarin Chinese,” Journal of East Asian
Linguistics 16, n. 1 (2007): 43-59.
13
Erbaugh, “Taking Stock,” 1986.
218
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
to ignore that there are limits to its use
14
and overgeneralize ge in their
language production
15
.
As should appear from the above description of the Chinese classier
system, the relationship between classiers and nouns is quite complex;
so complex that, according to Myers
16
“we’d need almost as many rules as
there are lexical items” to explain the classier system solely by relying on
rules. Complexity notwithstanding, native speakers of Chinese appear to
have an intuitive sense of which classier is applicable to which noun, and
which noun can be expected after a certain classier is detected in speech.
How adult native speakers of Chinese process classiers in real time,
and how children acquire the complex classier system in their native
language are questions that have motivated a fair amount of research.
Overall, ndings on these issues indicate that, as they acquire their na-
tive language, native speakers of Chinese learn how to classify referents
of the world and how to use information encoded in classiers to make
14
Kit-Ken Loke, “Is ge merely a General Classier,” Journal of the Chinese Lan-
guage Teachers Association 29, no. 3 (1994): 35-50.
15
For example, see the following studies. Hsing-Wu Chang, Preschooler’s Use of
Classiers in Mandarin Chinese, (N.p.: Nation Taiwan University, 1988). Fuxi
Fang, “An Experiment on the Use of Classiers by 4- to 6-Year-olds,” Acta Psycho-
logica Sinica 17, n. 4 (1985): 384-392. Hu, The Acquisition of Chinese Classiers
by Young Mandarin Speaking Children, 1993. Kit-Ken Loke, “A Semantic Anal-
ysis of Young Children’s Use of Mandarin Shape Classiers,” In Child language
development in Singapore and Malaysia (Singapore: Singapore University Press:
1991), 98-116. Charlene Polio, “Non-Native Speakers’ Use of Nominal Classi-
ers in Mandarin Chinese,” Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association
28, n. 3 (1994): 51-66. Rosmawati, “Investigating Second Language Learners’ Us-
age of Mandarin Numeral Classiers,” 2015. Houchang Ying, Guopeng Chen,
Zhengguo Song, and Ying Guo, “4-7 sui ertong zhangwo liangci de tedian” (Char-
acteristics of 4-to-7-year-olds in mastering classiers), Information On Psychologi-
cal Sciences 26, (1983): 24-32.
16
Myers, “Rules vs. Analogy in Mandarin Classier Selection,” 2000.
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
219
predictions about acceptable following nouns
17
. Research also suggests
that native speakers rely more, or less, on the distinct semantic features of
the classiers depending on the type of nouns available in the linguistic
environment
18
.
Unlike native speakers, L2 learners of Chinese come to learn classiers
with an understanding of the world and a way to describe it through lan-
guage (i.e., their L1) that are already established. How can they learn to
classify objects of the world and acquire the ability to use the information
encoded in classiers eciently? The following section reviews research
on these questions, with a focus on those studies that address the acquisi-
tion of classiers operationalized as qualifying classiers.
L2 Learners’ Acquisition of Classiers
The rst study to shed light on how L2 learners acquire classiers was
conducted by Polio
19
who examined the use of classiers by 21 native
speakers of English and 21 native speakers of Japanese learning L2 Chi-
17
For example, see the following studies. Fang, “An Experiment on the Use of
Classiers by 4- to 6-Year-olds,” 1985. Falk Chen Huettig, Melissa Bowerman
Jidong, and Asifa Majid, “Do Language-Specic Categories Shape Conceptual
Processing? Mandarin Classier Distinctions Inuence Eye Gaze Behavior, but
only During Linguistic Processing,” Journal of Cognition and Culture 10, no. 1/2
(2010): 39-58.
Natalie Klein, Greg Carlson, Renjie Li, Florian Jaeger, and Michael Tanenhaus,“-
Classifying and Massifying Incrementally in Chinese Language Comprehen-
sion,” In Count and Mass Across Languages Count and Mass Across Languages
(Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2012), 261-
282.
18
Qian Hu. The Acquisition of Chinese Classiers by Young Mandarin Speaking
Children (Boston: Boston University, 1993). For example, see the following stu-
dies. Hu, The Acquisition of Chinese Classiers by Young Mandarin Speaking
Children, 1993.
19
Polio, “Non-Native Speakers’ Use of Nominal Classiers in Mandarin Chinese,
1994.
220
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
nese. Participants in this study rst viewed a short movie that contained
narratives of referents that were not visible on the screen. They were then
asked to re-tell the story to a native speaker of Chinese. By producing
sentences, participants would automatically need to use nouns, and hence
classiers. The examination of participants’ use of classiers in this elic-
itation task revealed that (1) participants were able to use a classier in
obligatory contexts; (2) they tended to overuse classiers in general and
overuse the general classier ge; (3) they used more measure-words than
classiers; (4) they occasionally used unacceptable classiers; (5) they
were generally able to self-correct their mistakes. With the nding that
learners of L2 Chinese were able—at least to some extent— to use classi-
ers, Polio brought a rst insight on L2 learners’ acquisition of Chinese
classiers: non-native speakers of Chinese can, and do acquire classiers
(Polio, 1994: 63). Further research was then needed to understand how
Chinese learners come to acquire classiers.
To this aim, Liang
20
investigated the acquisition of eight dierent
classiers by 29 speakers of English and 29 speakers of Korean at three
dierent levels of prociency in L2 Chinese (novice, intermediate, and
advanced). The classiers selected for this experiment denoted dierent
shapes, sizes and textures. Ten objects made of clay were created to match
these classiers (eight target objects and two llers). Participants were pre-
sented with these objects along with written noun-phrases following the
model “number/classier/clay (noun)” (e.g. “yi tiao niantu”, “one CL tai
clay”). Their task was to indicate the matching object for each phrase.
Results showed that learners’ accuracy in matching classiers and objects
was consistent with their general L2 prociency level; learners at a more
advanced level outperforming learners at a lower level. Thus, according to
this nding, learners’ ability to accurately use the information encoded in
classiers appears to develop along with their general prociency in L2
Chinese.
20
Neal Szu-Yen Liang, “The Acquisition of Chinese Shape Classiers by L2 Adult
Learners,” In Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference On Chinese Lin-
guistics (Naccl-20): Dedicated to Professor Edwin G. Pulleyblank in Honor of His
85th Birthday, Columbus, OH: East Asian Studies Center, Ohio State University,
2008, 309-326.
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
221
To better understand how learners of L2 Chinese build their knowl-
edge of the classier system, Gao
21
designed a study that would examine
and compare the learning improvements and learning strategies used by
30 adult, native speakers of Swedish, and 30 Swedish-Chinese bilingual
children. Participants in the adult group were Swedish-English bilin-
guals learning Chinese as their minor or major at a Swedish university,
whose Chinese level was ranked at low, medium or high. Participants in
the children group were 6 to 15 year-old native or near-native speakers of
Chinese who received CLS lessons once a week as part of their education
curriculum. Thirty dierent classiers and matching nouns were selected
for this experiment. Participants were tested three times at a four-week
interval. After a warm-up phase, they were presented with visual stimuli
representing objects and prompted to describe these stimuli using a clas-
sier noun-phrase.
Overall, results from the analysis of participants’ use of classiers sug-
gested that (1) the children group outperformed the adult group (with
a few exceptions for the high-prociency adults); (2) the adults’ per-
formance improved over the course of the two months, but slowly and
moderately; (3) the adults’ performance using the classiers increased
with their level of Chinese prociency, but It was considered insucient
as compared to their vocabulary knowledge (participants would know
nouns, but not know matching classiers); (4) the classiers used with
the greatest degree of accuracy were those that are most frequently used in
daily communication and classroom instruction. In addition, it appeared
from the analysis of participants’ responses during a follow-up interview
that the children perceived classiers as meaningful elements and paid at-
tention to specic semantic features they encoded when using these. The
adults, on the other hand, were found to rely on their previous knowledge
of classiers, conceptual categories of nouns (e.g., vegetables, animals,
utensils, etc.) and rote-memorization. Gao adds that the adults seemed
to be negatively aected in their acquisition of classiers by their “lack of
21
Helena Hong Gao, “A study of Swedish Speakers’ Learning of Chinese Noun
Classiers,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33, n. 2 (2010): 197-229.
222
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
cognitive understanding of the relation between nouns and classiers and
the overlapping boundaries of classier categorizations”
22
(Gao, 2010:
216).
Based on a review of teaching materials, the researcher hypothesized
that a possible factor in learners’ moderate improvements and lack of un-
derstanding of the classiers might lie in the fact that Chinese textbooks
generally call classiers “measure words” and fail to make distinctions be-
tween classiers and actual measure words, which also exist in Swedish.
Gao explains that mixing the two concepts may prevent learners from see-
ing classiers as a grammatical category of its own, to which they should
pay attention to. The researcher claims, in addition, that textbooks do not
provide enough examples of classier noun-associations for learners to be
able to acquire classiers
23
.
Other two longitudinal studies examined L2 learners’ acquisition of
classiers and related their ndings to potential issues in Chinese teaching
materials. Zhang and Liu
24
sought to trace learners’ production of Chi-
nese classiers in essays written over the course of 15-to-30 weeks. Partic-
ipants were international students enrolled in low-intermediate (n = 57)
and high-intermediate (n = 30) Chinese courses in China. Quantitative
and qualitative measures were used to analyze the uency, diversity and
accuracy of classier use of the participants, revealing that an increased
use of classiers was not necessarily accompanied by diversity and accu-
racy. A focus on the production of four learners at the high-intermediate
level also suggested that learners’ developmental path and the frequency,
diversity and accuracy of their use of the Chinese classiers varied signi-
cantly. Considering the gap between classier use and accuracy, the re-
22
Helena Hong Gao, “A study of Swedish Speakers’ Learning of Chinese Noun
Classiers,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33, n. 2 (2010): 216.
23
Helena Hong Gao, “A study of Swedish Speakers’ Learning of Chinese Noun
Classiers,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33, n. 2 (2010): 217-218.
24
Jie Zhang, and Xiaofei Liu, “Variability in Chinese as a Foreign Language Lear-
ners’ Development of the Chinese Numeral Classier System,” Modern Langua-
ge Journal 97, (2013): 46-60.
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
223
searchers proposed that classiers should be taught in their collocations
with nouns (i.e., presenting new nouns and classiers concomitantly).
They also suggested that teachers should be aware that learners follow dif-
ferent acquisition paths, and address these with tailored assistance (Zhang
and Liu, 2013: 58).
One of the most recent studies to investigate L2 learners’ acquisition of
classiers was conducted by Rosmawati
25
. The researcher collected data
from essays written by two learners of L2 Chinese across one semester
in which they were taking intermediate-level Chinese language course in
China. One of the participants was a native speaker of Italian. The other
participant was a native speaker of Indonesian whose level of L2 Chinese
was higher than the rst participant. Consistent with the results obtained
by Liang in a sentence comprehension task, and Gao’s oral production
task, the analysis of learners’ written production suggested that procien-
cy level coincided with learners’ accuracy in classier use. Results also sug-
gested that the least advanced speaker used more classiers, made more
errors, and made a higher overuse of the general classier “ge”.
To summarize, ndings from the studies reviewed in this section reveal
that CLS learners are able to use classiers as early as the beginner lev-
el. Developing the ability to accurately interpret and produce classiers,
however, challenge. The acquisition of classiers seems to be relatively
slow and to match their overall level of Chinese prociency. Although
these studies do not directly address the eects of instruction on learners’
acquisition of the classiers, Gao’s investigation of participant’s learning
strategies and Zhang and Liu’s point to two main pedagogical issues that
may negatively aect learners’ acquisition of classiers. First, pedagogical
materials do not seem to emphasize the semantic features encoded in clas-
siers; the relationships between classiers and nouns, and the dierence
between classiers and measure words. Second, textbooks may not pro-
vide a sucient amount of examples of classier-noun associations (Gao,
2010: 229; Zhang and Liu, 2013:48).
25
Rosmawati, “Investigating Second Language Learners’ Usage of Mandarin Nu-
meral Classiers,” 2015.
224
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
These considerations suggest that L2 learners might receive too little
input on classiers to be able to acquire these, and that they are rarely
engaged in activities that direct their attention to classiers and the mean-
ing they carry. For a better understanding of these speculations, the next
section provides some insights on how classiers are presented in main-
stream Chinese textbooks.
A Note on L2 instruction on Chinese Classiers:
Classiers in textbooks
A quick look at mainstream Chinese textbooks appears to conrm the
gaps in L2 instructional materials pointed by Gao and Zhang and Liu.
Classiers are generally presented in a glossary that accompanies a dia-
logue or a narrative, along with a translation or a brief description, and
the disputable assignment to the “measure word” grammatical category.
This is often the only time classiers are somehow discussed. To be sure,
most beginner textbooks do include, in the rst few lessons, an explana-
tion about the necessity of inserting a classier in Chinese noun-phrases,
and it is expected that learners use the classiers appropriately when pro-
ducing noun phrases. However, textbooks contain few activities, if any,
that are dedicated to the teaching of classiers and their relationship with
nouns. The exposure learners receive on classiers through textbooks is
thus often limited to the dialogues and narratives in the textbook.
A Masters’ thesis by Wang
26
and a dissertation by Liang
27
included a
review of how classiers are presented and distributed in the two volumes
(Part 1 and Part 2, generally covered in two semesters) of Integrated Chi-
nese, Level 1, 2
28
one of the most widely used series of Chinese textbooks
26
Shaofang Wang, A Textbook-Based Study on Measure Word Acquisition in Lear-
ners of Chinese As a Second Language, Master’s Thesis, Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Amherst, 2016.
27
Szu-Yen Liang, The Acquisition of Chinese Nominal Classier Systems by L2
Adult Learners, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington, 2009.
28
Tao-chung Yao and Daozhong Yao,Integrated Chinese. Simplied Character
Edition. Level 1 Part 2 (Boston: Cheng & Tsui), 2005.
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
225
in US high schools and universities. Table 1 is an adaptation of a table
Wang created to illustrate the number of times classiers appear across
all sections of the textbook (Text, Vocabulary, Grammar, and Language
Practice). Table 1 diers from Wang’s in that it only includes qualifying
classiers (the type of classiers examined in the present study), and not
quantifying classiers or verb classiers. An explanation of the use of each
classier was also added for the comfort of the reader.
Table 1
Representation of Classiers in Integrated Chinese
Classiers Used for…
Times
Presented
ba 把
objects held by hand 4
ben 本
volumes, bound prints 4
feng 封
Letters 1
ge 个
individual things and people 230
jia 家
groups of people, establishments 25
jian 件
clothing, subject matters 33
kou口
family members 6
pan 盘
at objects 5
pian 片
objects that are at and thin, slices 4
pian 篇
written pieces 5
tiao 条
long, exible and narrow objects 14
wei 位
people (to be polite) 8
zhong 种
types of objects 11
zhang 张
objects with a at surface, sheets 18
zhi 枝
Flowers 5
226
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
As Wang points out, most of these classiers are commonly used, and
serve the communicative needs of beginner learners. A look at the dis-
tribution of the classiers reported in Wang also shows that they appear
progressively throughout the lessons, with generally one to three classi-
ers being presented in the same lesson (to be covered in a week or two).
However, it is striking in Table 1. that input on classiers is very limit-
ed, besides for “ge”, and some extent, “jia”; “jian”; “tiao” and “zhang”.
Knowing the importance of input in second language acquisition (SLA),
one may wonder whether learners can be expected to make sucient
form-meaning connections to acquire classiers that are presented only
1, 4 or 5 times, unless learners have access to other sources of input to
derive the intake they need. Liang points out, furthermore, that with such
a small number of examples, learners have few opportunities to distin-
guish between the use of classiers that are dened the same way in the
books’ vocabulary entry. For example, “zhang” (objects with a at surface,
sheets), “pan” (at objects), and pian” (objects that are at and thin, slic-
es) are all classiers used with objects that are at, however their use is not
interchangeable. “Zhang” being presented 11 times; “pan”, 4 times, and
“pian”, 5 times, it seems unlikely that learners will be able to distinguish
between the dierent semantic values encoded in these three classiers.
As far as explicit information is concerned, Lesson 2 oers an introduc-
tion to “measure words” (as in most textbooks, qualifying classiers are
not distinguished from quantifying classiers) which states where they
should be placed in a noun-phrases, and that they “often bear a relation-
ship to the meaning of the given noun” (Yao and Yao, 2005: 58). This
explanation is directly followed by examples of noun-phrases that include
two of the classiers included in the lesson, and an explanation of their
meaning. This information could be an ecient way to direct students’
attention to classiers and help them understand their use and func-
tion. However, besides for “ge”, and perhaps, “jia”; “jian”; “tiao” and
“zhang”, the textbook does not seem to provide learners with a sucient
number of opportunities to use this information to process classiers in
comprehensible input. In other words, the information provided may be
an ecient way to direct students’ attention to classiers and help them
understand their use and function. However, since learners are not pro-
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
227
vided with a sucient number of opportunities to use this information
to process input containing classiers, there are reasons to believe that the
eects of such explanation are limited.
After the introduction to classiers in Lesson 2, as in most textbooks,
the presentation of classiers in Integrated Chinese is generally very brief
and often limited to a few words in the vocabulary entry (ex. “wei, a polite
measure word for people”, 141). On a few occasions, complementary in-
formation is provided in a “Language notes” section that follows the text.
For example, a language note in Lesson 6 shows how using dierent clas-
siers (“jie” and “men”) aects the interpretation of the following noun
(“ke” or “lesson”), as in “san jie ke” (“three CL lesson”) and in “san men
ke” (“three CL lesson”): “the former is three class periods, and the latter is
three courses” (p.). Such brief and concise information could be bene-
cial to learners by helping them understand the semantic value a classier
encodes, It provides opportunities opportunities to use this information
to process input that contains these classiers.
While many production activities in the book provide necessary con-
texts for using classiers, only one activity focuses directly on classiers
(in Lesson 2). This activity consists of a mechanical production task
which asks learners to ll in a blank in a sentence using the classier “ge”.
Input-oriented activities that would drive learners to connect classiers to
a function or meaning a noun-phrase, on the other hand, they are com-
pletely absent. The dialogues and narratives in each lesson are the only
places where students could potentially make those form-meaning con-
nections. In addition, there is no indication in the book that these texts
must be attended to for communicative purposes, and it is not clear to us
that they provide learners with a sucient number of opportunities to
detect classiers and make form-meaning connections. One might thus
wonder whether a textbook such as Integrated Chinese provides learners
with the rich, meaning-bearing and communicative input they need to
process and acquire classiers.
In short, while Integrated Chinese appears to provide some input and
explanation on classiers, and to introduce classiers in a progressive way,
overall, these materials do not seem to provide learners with sucient op-
portunities to process and acquire commonly used classiers.
228
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
Considering the importance of receiving comprehensible input for
second language acquisition to occur, it would be worth developing and
evaluating instructional materials that would oer learners more expo-
sure to classiers and direct their attention to its syntactic and seman-
tic value via input-oriented activities. For instance, the use of authentic
documents including a large number of exemplars of the classiers—a
technique also known as “input ood”-could increase the likelihood that
classiers would be detected (and hence, possibly processed and acquired)
while learners are engaged in comprehension activities
29
.
Another pedagogical intervention that could support the acquisition
of classiers is Processing instruction
30
, a research-led approach to gram-
mar teaching that accounts for the crucial role of input in SLA, as well
as recognized the necessity that learners make appropriate form-meaning
connections from input to develop their mental representation of lan-
guage. With processing instruction, learners would receive an explanation
29
For an overview of research on input ood, see the following studies. Martha
Trahey, and Lydia White, “Positive Evidence and Preemption in the Second Lan-
guage Classroom,” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, no. 2 (1993): 181.
Nina Spada, and Pasty M. Lightbown, “Instruction, First Language Inuence,
and Developmental Readiness in Second Language Acquisition,” The Modern
Language Journal 83, n. 1 (2008): 1-22. Todd Hernández, “Re-Examining the
Role of Explicit Instruction and Input Flood On the Acquisition of Spani-
sh Discourse Markers,” Language Teaching Research 15, n. 2 (2011): 159-182.
Hayo Reinders, and Rod Ellis, “The Eects of Two Types of Input on Intake
and the Acquisition of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge,” In Implicit and Ex-
plicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (Bualo:
Multilingual Matters, 2009), 282-302. Aline Godfroid, “The Eects of Implicit
Instruction on Implicit and Explicit Knowledge Development,” Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 38, n. 2 (2016): 177-215.
30
For examples, see the following studies. Bill VanPatten and Theresa Cadierno.
Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion, 15(1993, 2): 225-243.Wynne Wong, “The Nature of Processing Instruc-
tion.” In Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, (Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum, 2004), 33-64.
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
229
about the meaning and use of the classiers, along with a warning against
the tendency to skip over classiers as they attempt to interpret input.
Learners would then, most importantly, receive ample opportunities to
detect and make form-meaning connections from classiers in meaning-
ful, structured input activities: input-oriented activities that push learn-
ers to process a target form to encode meaning
31
.
To date, only three studies have, to our knowledge, examined the eects
of instruction on the learners’ acquisition of classiers. This research is
summarized in the next section.
The Eects of Instruction on Classier
Acquisition
Li
32
examined the eects of type of feedback, L2 prociency level,
working memory and the nature of a target form on learners’ acquisition
of Chinese classiers and the perfective le. Participants were 78 native
speakers of English and Korean a either a lower or a higher level of pro-
ciency in L2 Chinese. They were assigned to one of three pedagogical
conditions: a control group; a recast group, or an explicit feedback group.
Recast was operationalized as the reformulation of an erroneous L2 ut-
terance. Explicit feedback consisted in providing learners with the correct
form, followed by a rule explanation. The control group did not receive
feedback on their use of the target forms.
Pedagogical treatment included two tasks for each target structure,
performed in interaction with a native speaker of Chinese. The rst task
on classiers engaged learners to ask questions to the native speaker in
31
For specic guidelines for the creation of structured input activities, see the fo-
llowing studies. James Lee and Bill Van Patten, Making Communicative Langua-
ge Teaching Happen, Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Wynne Wong, Input Enhance-
ment: from Theory and Research to the Classroom, Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
32
Shaofeng Li, “The Interface Between Feedback Type, L2 Prociency, and the
Nature of the Linguistic Target,” Language Teaching Research 18, (2014): 373-
396.
230
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
order to identify, out of a set of three pictures, the picture that did not be-
long. The second task asked learners to describe a set of seven pictures to
the researcher. Participants were prompted to use the classiers in oblig-
atory contexts. For the perfective le, learners rst watched a video and
were asked to retell the story, using a list of clues that provided obligatory
contexts for the use of le. Next, they took part in an oral interview. Assess-
ment measures included a reading-span task; an untimed grammaticality
judgment test, and an elicited imitation test asking participants to listen
to some statements; decide whether or not this statement was true, and
repeat it in correct Chinese.
The results of the untimed grammaticality judgment test and the elic-
ited imitation test revealed that, for both target structures, explicit feed-
back yielded greater improvements than recasts for the lower-level learn-
ers, but the two types of feedback were equally eective in the higher-level
group. Results also showed that, while participants in the recast group
always outperformed learners in the control group, the eects of recasts
were much stronger for the learning of classiers. As an explanation for
this dierence, the researcher hypothesized that the recast on classiers
were more likely to be noticed, because classiers are more salient, less
redundant in a sentence than the perfective le. Li added that classiers
require only minimal instruction while the perfective le involves lengthy
rule explanation, making classiers more amenable to instruction under
the form of recasts (Li 2014: 391–392). Results from the reading span
task were somewhat inconclusive.
As far as instruction on classiers is concerned, what can be retained
from these ndings is that somehow directing learners’ attention to clas-
siers can lead to improvements for the recognition and production of
correct uses of the classiers.
The second available study on the eects of instruction on L2 learners’
acquisition of Chinese classiers was conducted in the context of a repli-
cation study on order-of-learning eects
33
. Paul and Grüter
34
investigated
33
Inbal Arnon, and Michael Ramscar, “Granularity and the Acquisition of
Grammatical Gender: How Order-of-acquisition Aects What Gets Learned,”
Cognition 122, n. 3 (2012): 292-305.
34
Jing Z. Paul, and Theres Grüter, “Blocking Eects in the Learning of Chinese
Classiers,” Language Learning 66, n. 4 (2016): 972-999.
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
231
whether presenting nouns rst in isolation, and then in a classier phrase,
or else presenting nouns in the reverse order, would aect L2 learners’
acquisition of classiers. One experiment was conducted with 24 novice
learners of Chinese (i.e., they had never been exposed to Chinese), and
another one with 24 learners who had ve to seven weeks of exposure to
Chinese. The two classiers selected for this experiment were ba (associat-
ed with objects that have handle and/or can be held by hand) and gen (as-
sociated with objects that are rigid and long-shape). Fourteen nouns were
used to match each classier. Participants in both experiments completed
two blocks of learning activities in a dierent order. In the noun block,
they were presented with images and audio recordings of the matching
nouns (i.e., noun block). In the sentence block, they saw images of an
object and a boy or girl and heard corresponding sentences; each contain-
ing a classier (i.e., sentence block). Participants were asked to repeat the
noun or sentence they had heard. Each block exposed learners to a total
of 70 items (with each objected named 5 times). The testing phase started
immediately after the learning phase. It consisted of a forced-choice task
asking participants to choose, out of two sentences they heard, which one
was the best description of an image they were presented with. The sets
of two sentences used to test learners’ acquisition of the classiers only
diered by the classier.
Results indicated that all learners made learning improvements, and
the novice learners performed better when they had been exposed to sen-
tences before nouns. Learners with 5 to 7 weeks of classroom exposure to
Chinese, on the other hand, did not display any order-of-learning eects,
suggesting that their limited knowledge of Chinese eliminated the ben-
ets of being exposed to sentences rst. Paul and Grüter called for cau-
tion in making pedagogical implications from these results and suggested
that, while exposing L2 learners to larger units rst may direct learners’
attention to patterns in the input, this eect may soon be neutralized over
time. The authors also called for further research involving the manipu-
lation of input.
232
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
Responding to this call, a study by Glimois
35
investigated how fast and
accurately beginner learners of Chinese would process the classiers ba
(“held by hand”) and tai (“heavy, mechanical, electronic”), when taught
with input-oriented techniques such as Input Flood and Processing In-
struction. A total of 319 English speakers took part in this experiment.
They were unfamiliar with Chinese and any other classier language.
They were divided into four instructional groups, each of which was as-
signed to a dierent combination of structured input, input ood, and
explicit information. Participants’ learning rate was assessed as they were
completing pedagogical activities, counting the number of sentences
containing ba or tai that they misinterpreted, before they were able to
start linking the classiers to the meaning they convey. Overall improve-
ments were measured comparing learners’ performances interpreting sen-
tences with ba and tai before, and after they completed the pedagogical
treatment. Results revealed that structured input was sucient to yield
signicant learning improvements, and combining explicit information
with structured input yields accelerated learning rates and higher overall
learning performances. The combination of input ood and structured
input did not lead to better results than structured input alone, proba-
bly because learners had received a sucient amount of exposure to the
classiers with the structured input activities. These ndings suggest that
pedagogical interventions focused on helping learners make form-mean-
ing connections can be useful to support the acquisition of complex lin-
guistic features such as classiers in CLS.
Conclusion and Directions for Future Research on
the Acquisition of Classiers in CLS
Research on the acquisition of classiers in CLS appears to be still in
the early stages, leaving open the questions of how learners come to pro-
cess classiers in real time and how instruction can best support them in
this task. Yet, studies have compared various participant populations, and
35
Laurene Glimois, The Eects of Input Flood, Structured Input, Explicit In-
formation, and Language Background On Beginner Learners’ Acquisition of a
Target Structure in Mandarin Chinese, Unpublished PhD doctoral dissertation,
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 2019.
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
233
used eclectic methodologies to measure either learners’ ability to use, un-
derstand, or judge of the grammaticality of sentences including classier,
providing useful insights for further research.
First, research suggests that adult speakers of a non-classier language
can learn classiers. Second, L2 learners’ ability to use and process classi-
ers appears to develop over time, as L2 prociency increases, although
learners’ acquisition of classiers seems to follow a slower pattern than
other aspects of the Chinese language. Thirdly, the three studies that have
explored a role for instruction in the acquisition of classiers in CSL sug-
gest a benecial role for input. Fourth, researchers have suggested that
the lack of input on classiers in instructional materials, and the fact that
learners appear to be unaware of the semantic relationship between clas-
siers and nouns may act as some of the factors that moderate learners’
ability to acquire Chinese classiers. The review of the presentation of
classiers in a mainstream textbook conrms that input on classiers is
very limited, and the explicit information provided may not be sucient
to drive learners’ attention to the nature of classier-noun relationships.
It would thus be advisable to explore ways to include more input-orient-
ed activities in the teaching of Chinese classiers. Structured input and
input ood, in particular, should receive more attention in this regard.
Meanwhile, research is needed that will further investigate how second
language instruction might facilitate the processing of Chinese classiers
and thereby enhance their acquisition. The use of tools able to capture
the moment-by-moment processing of classiers such as eye-tracking and
self-paced reading, for instance, along with data from sentence interpreta-
tion and sentence production, would be particularly useful in this regard.
Bibliography
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.Classiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization
Devices. Oxford England: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Allan, Keith. “Classiers.” Language 53, n. 2 (1977): 285-311.
Arnon, Inbal, and Michael Ramscar. “Granularity and the Acquisition of
Grammatical Gender: How Order-of-acquisition Aects What Gets
Learned.” Cognition 122, n. 3 (2012): 292-305.
234
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
Chang, Hsing-Wu. Preschooler’s Use of Classiers in Mandarin Chinese.
N.p.: Nation Taiwan University, 1988.
Chen, Baocun, Chen, Guicheng, Chen, Hao, and Zhang, Zaizhan. (eds.).
Han yu liangci cidian. Fuzhou: Fujian renmin chubanshe, 1988.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, and Sybesma, Rint. “Bare and not-so-Bare Nouns
and the Structure of NP.” Linguistic Inquiry, 30, n. 4 (1999): 509-
542.
Craig, Colette. “Classiers in a Functional Perspective”. In Layered
Structure and Reference in Functional Perspective, edited by Michael
Fortescue et al. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1992: 277-301.
_____. “Introduction.” In Noun Classes and Categorization, edited
by Colette Craig. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 1986: 1-10.
Del Gobbo, Francesca. “Classiers.” In The Handbook of Chinese
Linguistics, edited by James C. T. Huang, Audrey Y. H. and Andrew
Simpson Li, Hoboken : Wiley, 2014, 26-48.
Ellis, Nick C. “Blocking and Learned Attention in Language Acquisition.”
In CogSci 2007, Proceedings of the Twenty Ninth Cognitive Science
Conference. Nashville, TN: August 1-4, 2007.
Erbaugh, Mary. S. “Taking Stock: The Development of Chinese Noun
Classiers Historically and in Young Children.” In Noun Classes
and Categorization, edited by Colette G. Craig, Amsterdam: J.
Benjamins, 1986, 399-436.
_____. “Chinese Classiers: Their Use and Acquisition.” In Handbook of
East Asian Psycholinguistics, edited by Ping Li, Li Hai Tan, Elizabeth
Bates, & Ovid J. L. Tzeng. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2004: 39-51.
Gao, Helena Hong “A study of Swedish Speakers’ Learning of Chinese
Noun Classiers.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33, n. 2 (2010): 197-
229.
Gao, Ming Y., and Barbara C. Malt. “Mental Representation and
Cognitive Consequences of Chinese Individual Classiers.”
Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 24, n. 7-8 (2009):1124-1179.
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
235
Gass, Susan M. “Consciousness in Contemporary Science.” In Input,
Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1997): ix-xxiv.
Glimois, Laurene. The Eects of Input Flood, Structured Input,
Explicit Information, and Language Background On Beginner
Learners’ Acquisition of a Target Structure in Mandarin Chinese.
Unpublished PhD doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, 2019.
Godfroid, Aline. “The Eects of Implicit Instruction on Implicit and
Explicit Knowledge Development.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 38, n. 2 (2016): 177-215.
Hernández, Todd. “Re-Examining the Role of Explicit Instruction and
Input Flood On the Acquisition of Spanish Discourse Markers.”
Language Teaching Research 15, n. 2 (2011): 159-182.
Hu, Qian. The Acquisition of Chinese Classiers by Young Mandarin
Speaking Children. Boston: Boston University, 1993.
Huettig, Falk Chen, Jidong, Melissa Bowerman, Asifa Majid. “Do
Language-Specic Categories Shape Conceptual Processing?
Mandarin Classier Distinctions Inuence Eye Gaze Behavior,
but only During Linguistic Processing.” Journal of Cognition and
Culture 10, no. 1/2 (2010): 39-58.
Jiao, Fan. A Chinese-English Measure Words Dictionary. Beijing:
Sinolingua Press, 2001.
Klein, Natalie, Greg Carlson, Renjie Li, Florian Jaeger, and Michael
Tanenhaus. “Classifying and Massifying Incrementally in Chinese
Language Comprehension.” In Count and Mass Across Languages
Count and Mass Across Languages, edited by Diane Massam,
Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,
2012: 261-282.
Krashen, Stephen D. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New
York: Longman, 1985.
Lantolf, James. Socio-cultural Theory and Second Language Learning.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
236
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
Lee, James and Bill Van Patten. Making Communicative Language
Teaching Happen. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
Li, Charles N., & Thompson, Sandra A. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional
Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
Li, Peggy, Huang Becky, and Yaling Hsiao. “Learning That Classiers
Count: Mandarin-Speaking Children’s Acquisition of Sortal and
Mensural Classiers.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19, n. 3
(2010): 207-230.
Li, Shaofeng. “The Interface Between Feedback Type, L2 Prociency, and
the Nature of the Linguistic Target.” Language Teaching Research
18, (2014): 373-396.
Liang, Neal Szu-Yen. “The Acquisition of Chinese Shape Classiers by
L2 Adult Learners.” In Proceedings of the 20th North American
Conference On Chinese Linguistics (Naccl-20): Dedicated to Professor
Edwin G. Pulleyblank in Honor of His 85th Birthday, edited by
Marjorie K.M. Chan, Hana Kang. Columbus, OH: East Asian
Studies Center, Ohio State University, 2008, 309-326.
Liang, Szu-Yen. The Acquisition of Chinese Nominal Classier Systems
by L2 Adult Learners. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at
Arlington, 2009.
Loke, Kit-Ken. “Is ge merely a General Classier.” Journal of the Chinese
Language Teachers Association 29, no. 3 (1994): 35-50.
_____. “A Semantic Analysis of Young Children’s Use of Mandarin
Shape Classiers.” In Child language development in Singapore and
Malaysia, edited by A. Kwan-Terry,Singapore: Singapore University
Press: 1991: 98-116.
Long, Michael H. “Native Speaker/Non-Native Speaker Conversation
and the Negotiation of Comprehensible Input.” Applied Linguistics
4, n. 2 (1983): 126-141.
Mac Whinney, Brian. “The Competition Model.” In Mechanisms of
Language Acquisition, edited by Brian MacWhinney. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum, (1987): 249-308.
Laurene Glimois | Qualifying classiers
237
Myers, James “Rules vs. Analogy in Mandarin Classier Selection.”
Language and Linguistics Compass 1, n. 2 (2000): 187-209.
Paul, Jing Z. and Theres Grüter. “Blocking Eects in the Learning of
Chinese Classiers.” Language Learning 66, n. 4 (2016): 972-999.
Polio, Charlene. “Non-Native Speakers’ Use of Nominal Classiers
in Mandarin Chinese.” Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers
Association 28, n. 3 (1994): 51-66.
Reinders, Hayo and Rod Ellis. “The Eects of Two Types of Input on
Intake and the Acquisition of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge.”
In Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning,
Testing and Teaching, edited by Rod Ellis, Shawn Loewen, Catherine
Elder, Hayo Reinders, Rosemary Erlam and Jenefer Philp, Bualo:
Multilingual Matters, 2009, 282-302.
Robinson, Peter. “Attention and Memory During SLA.” In The
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, edited by Catherine
Doughty and Michael H Long, Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2003.
Rosmawati, Rosmawati. “Investigating Second Language Learners’ Usage
of Mandarin Numeral Classiers: A Case-Based Study.” Researching
and Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language 1, (2015): 29-49.
Schmidt, Richard. “The Role of Consciousness in Second Language
Learning.” Applied Linguistics 11, no. 2 (1990): 17-46.
Spada, Nina, and Pasty M. Lightbown. “Instruction, First Language
Inuence, and Developmental Readiness in Second Language
Acquisition.” The Modern Language Journal 83, n. 1 (2008): 1-22.
Swain, Merrill. “The Output Hypothesis: Theory and Research.” In
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning,
edited by Eli Hinkel. London: Routledge, 2005, 471-483.
Tai, James and Lianqing Wang. “A Semantic Study of the Classier tiao.”
Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 25, (1990): 35-
56.
Tomlin, Russell S., & Villa, Victor. “Attention in Cognitive Science
and Second Language Acquisition.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 16, no. 2 (1994): 183-203.
238
Revista Internacional de Estudios Asiáticos,
Vol. 2(1): 214-241, Enero-Junio 2023.
Trahey, Martha and Lydia White. “Positive Evidence and Preemption
in the Second Language Classroom.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 15, no. 2 (1993): 181.
VanPatten, Bill. “Input Processing in Adult SLA.” In Theories in Second
Language Acquisition: An Introduction, edited by Bill VanPatten and
Jessica Williams. New York: Routledge, 2015: 113-134.
VanPatten, Bill, & Cadierno, Theresa. (1993). Explicit instruction and
input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2):
225-243.
Wang, Shaofang. A Textbook-Based Study on Measure Word Acquisition
in Learners of Chinese As a Second Language. Master’s Thesis.
Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2016.
Wong, Wong. “The Nature of Processing Instruction.” In Processing
Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, edited by Bill Van
Patten. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2004: 33-64.
_____. Input Enhancement: from Theory and Research to the Classroom.
Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
Yao, Tao-chung and Daozhong Yao. Integrated Chinese. Simplied
Character Edition. Level 1 Part 2. Boston: Cheng & Tsui, 2005.
Ying, Houchang, Guopeng Chen, Zhengguo Song, and Ying Guo. “4-7
sui ertong zhangwo liangci de tedian” (Characteristics of 4-to-7-year-
olds in mastering classiers). Information On Psychological Sciences
26, (1983): 24-32.
Zhang, Hong. “Numeral Classiers in Mandarin Chinese.” Journal of
East Asian Linguistics 16, n. 1 (2007): 43-59.
Zhang, Jie, and Xiaofei Liu. “Variability in Chinese as a Foreign Language
Learners’ Development of the Chinese Numeral Classier System.”
Modern Language Journal 97, (2013): 46-60.
