日文與中文一樣，皆是使用分類詞的語言。長久以來不乏學者討論日文的量詞，然而，對於界定何者為分類詞、如何區分助數詞、量詞和分類詞等議題，卻缺少統一的定論；一方面是因為語言學上對於分類詞的定義缺乏一定的標準，另一方面，傳統日文文法書中的概念，往往僅用「助數詞」一個詞類就概括了所有數量詞後面的詞類。 本篇論文最主要的目標便是依照一個統一且清楚的定義，來界定日文的分類詞。此次研究先參考了四位語言學者的研究，和四本文法書中的分類詞列表，共整理出前人所列出673個可能的分類詞，之後再透過JpWac和Google Search蒐羅實際語料，對這673個詞逐一進行句法和語意測試，最後界定出其中只有115個是真正的日文分類詞。 在此之後，為瞭解日本人對於名詞的分類和意識，便從這115個分類詞由底層到高層建立一項名詞的分類整理。最後，再由出一份問卷請以日文為母語的日本人填寫使用頻率，初步了解現代日本語中分類詞的使用狀況。結果顯示，僅有27個分類詞堪列為現代日本語中常使用的分類詞，期望這些真正的分類詞能成為日後臺灣在日文教學之參考。 / Japanese is one of the languages that use numeral classifiers, which can be combined with both numerals and nouns. However, Japanese grammar books tend to use “counters” to call all morphemes preceded by numerals, and in linguistic studies, the definition of numeral classifiers is controversial. Therefore, there is no consistent analysis in identifying Japanese classifiers. The goal of this thesis is to identify Japanese classifiers based on one consistent model. Eight previous works from both traditional grammar and linguistic areas were reviewed, and 673 possible classifiers were collected. Each of the 673 possible classifiers is tested to identify true Japanese classifiers. Two corpora, JpWac and Google Search, are used to collect raw data for syntactic and semantic tests. As a result, only 115 true Japanese classifiers are found. After identifying the true classifiers, a bottom-up classification is performed to understand the concept of noun categorization by native Japanese speakers. A questionnaire is created to evaluate the usage frequencies of these true classifiers. Based on the survey, only 27 out of the 115 classifiers are estimated to be frequently used classifiers.

The aim of this thesis is to investigate the discourse function of connectives in Chinese narratives. It is found that connectives , being a kind of cohesive ties , operate at different levels of discourse as boundary markers. The present study also points out that the occurrences of Chinese connectives are governed by semantic relatedness and discourse structure of the connected discourse units. Chinese connectives are classified on the basis of their meanings into four categories. In describing the positions of the four types of connectives in discourse , the author asserts that Chinese discourse is hierarchically composed of recursive micro-structures and macro-structures , with units occuring at a lower level exhibiting tighter connection. The four categories of connectives occur in discourse to link units at different levels. Additives , with the meaning of “in addition” , generally occur within topic chain to link micro-structures. Causals, which serve to connect expressions bearing causal relations , are mostly used at the connections of micro-structures and less frequently to link macro-structures. Adversatives, which mean "contrast" or "contrariness" , occur at the connections of macrostructures where discourse usually shifts to a different view point. Temporals , indicating temporal sequence , may be used either to link micro-structural expressions of events or actions or to mark shifts of the temporal settings at macro-structural level. The above findings are verified with a quantitive analysis of topic continuity which is proposed to be the indicator of semantic relatedness. The quantative analysis reveals that additives are associated with high topic continuity , and causals , adversatives and temporals are related to low continuity. The thesis also includes an experiment on empirical validity of the findings. The results of the test show that the conclusion proposed in this study adequately describes the native speakers ' competence in using Chinese connectives to organize discourse.