自Greenberg (1972) 以來，陸續有學者探討世界語言中的複數標記和分類詞之間的關係，並指出兩者的相似之處(Greenberg, 1972; Sanches and Slobin, 1973; Borer, 2005; Her, 2012)。本文稱這些研究為CL-PM Convergence View。這些研究指出分類詞 (numeral classifier; CL) 與複數標記 (plural marker; PM)呈現互補分布的關係。學者們 (Borer, 2005; Her, 2012) 更進一步認為，分類詞與複數標記在同一名詞組裡呈現互補分布，表示兩者在句法結構上佔據相同的位置，應視為相同的成分。然而本文發現，台灣華語「Num+CL+N們」結構有一定的能產性。若將「們」視為複數標記，則台灣華語對於上述學者的理論就形成了反例。有鑑於此，本文目的在於以句法接受度實驗及語料庫兩項方法，重新檢視台灣華語「們」的各種用法，以期解決文獻上對於「們」的諸多爭議。接著，在建立語言事實後，本文探討「們」對於CL-PM Convergence View的意義，並對於台灣華語「們」與分類詞在歷時和共時上的互動作出新的解釋。 具體來說，本文釐清了下列六項事實，為文獻上的爭議提供新的證據: (一)「們」可用於非指人的名詞；(二)「N們」為定指；(三)「Proper N們」僅表示 ‘多位Proper N’；(四)「¬1群N們」合法；(五)「Num+CL+N們」合法；(六) 在有接受英語教育的前提下，母語者的英語程度越低，對於「Num+CL+N們」的接受度越高，也越容易受到英語句法結構的促發(priming)，表示「Num+CL+N們」的產生與和英語的接觸有密切關係。考慮這些事實及其他台灣華語沒有爭議的特性，本文認為台灣華語「們」應視為一個集合標記(collective plural marker)，而非文獻所說的伴同標記(associative plural, Iljic, 2001,2005; 陳俊光，2009)或是普通複數標記(additive plural, Li, 1999; Hunag et al, 2009)。最後，本文提出兩個論點: 第一，我們根據Her et al (to appear)的洞見，區分「語意複數」(semantic plural)及「語法複數」(grammatical plural)；第二，我們提出新的事實，論證「們」在句法上，台灣華語「們」是一個附綴(clitic)而非詞綴(suffix)。這兩項論點證明台灣華語「們」並不違反CL-PM Convergence View的預測，亦可以解釋「們」與分類詞在歷時(李豔惠、石毓智，2000)和共時上的互動。 / Since Greenberg (1972), there have been many studies addressing the issue of the relationship between numeral classifiers (CL) and plural markers (PM) (Greenberg, 1972; Sanches and Slobin, 1973; Borer, 2005; Her, 2012). These scholars (henceforth CL-PM Convergence View) discovered that CL and PM tend not to co-occur in the same language, and even if they do co-occur, they are complementarily distributed within NP. Some linguists (Borer, 2005; Her, 2012) take this generalization further to propose that CL and PM in fact belong to the same category. However, when we look at Taiwan Mandarin (TM) data, a potential counterevidence can be found: [Num+CL+N-men], in which CL and –men, generally taken to be a plural suffix, co-occur within the same NP. In light of this, this study aims to take a realist look at TM –men, collecting relevant data from grammaticality judgment task and corpora so as to capture the behavior of –men. We then test CL-PM Convergence View against empirical data obtained in the study, showing that [Num+CL+N-men] does not constitute a counterexample to CL-PM Convergence View. The apparent interaction between CL and –men in TM can also be accounted for under our analysis of –men. Specifically, this study establishes the following facts for TM –men: (1) the use of –men is not restricted to human Ns; (2) N-men must be definite; (3) Proper N denotes ‘more than one Proper N’; (4) [¬1 qun N-men] is grammatical; (5) [Num+CL+N-men] is grammatical; (6) native speakers’ acceptability of [Num+CL+N-men] is in negative correlation with their English proficiency, and priming effects of English structure [Num+N-s] are observed on speakers with low English proficiency. Taking these findings into account, this study proposes that TM –men should be best analyzed as a collective plural marker, contra Iljic, (2001,2005) and 陳俊光’s (2009) “associative” analysis on the one hand, and Li (1999) and Hunag et al’s (2009) “additive” analysis on the other. Accordingly, we argue that –men as a collective does not constitute a counterexample to CL-PM Convergence View, citing two further pieces of evidence: Her et al’s (to appear) insight that “semantic plural” and “grammatical plural” should be distinguished and the proposal made there to revise CL-PM Convergence View, and the “clitic” analysis of TM –men proposed in this study. Finally, we show that the distinction between “semantic plural” and “grammatical plural” also nicely explains the synchronic and diachronic interaction between CL and –men in TM.

本論文的主要目的在對於分類詞、性別詞以及複數標記在語言當中的地域分佈提出解釋．在前人的研究當中，這三項元素被認為是名詞句中平衡資訊的重要工具(Greenberg, 1990; Aikhenvald, 2000)：分類詞語言主要位於東南亞和南美洲部分地區，而具有性別詞或複數標記的語言大多出現在歐洲、非洲和美洲部分地區．我們提出的論證如下：即便這三樣元素外表上具有歧異，它們會呈現當今所見的地域分佈原因在於它們共有的兩項標記功能：可數性質及語意分類．分類詞同時滿足兩者而性別詞及複數標記分別滿足其一；依照此邏輯，我們預測有分類詞的語言不會同時具有性別詞及複數標記而反之亦然．本文中我們透過句法形式和語意功能的比較提出論證並透過類型學、地理及歷史的角度分析來自世界上最大的二十個語系（印歐，漢藏，亞非，尼日爾-剛果，南島，達羅毗荼，阿爾泰，南亞，壯侗，尼羅－撒哈拉，烏拉，高加索，等語系）的155個語言．架構上，第一章簡單對研究題目進行介紹，第二章呈現前人研究的匯整，第三章包含我們的理論論證以及我們對於分類詞、性別詞及複數標記分與合的解釋．隨後的第四章中，我們提出類型學和地理資訊系統(GIS)的證據；最後在第五張和第六章我們分別點出本研究的限制以及結論． / This thesis aims at providing an explanation for the typological and areal distribution between numeral classifiers, genders (noun classes) and grammatical plural markers. Within previous studies, these three components are considered as different devices to balance information in noun phrases (Greenberg, 1990; Aikhenvald, 2000). Numeral classifier languages are mainly present in South-East Asia and parts of South-America, while languages with genders and grammatical plural markers are generally attested in Europe, Africa and parts of the Americas. We propose that despite their apparent divergence, the three elements display this particular geographical distribution due to their convergent features of count/mass distinction and semantic classification: Numeral classifiers carry both functions, while genders and plural markers separately fulfill one of them. Following this logic, we expect that a language with numeral classifier do not have simultaneously the systems of genders plus plural markers and vice-versa. Theoretical evidence via formal syntactic form and semantic function comparison is proposed and further supported by typological, geographical and historical analysis of 155 languages that are mainly part of the 20 biggest language groups in the world, e.g. Indo-European, Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Niger-Congo, Austronesian, Dravidian, Japonic, Altaic, Austro-Asiatic, Tai-Kadai, Creole, Nilo-Saharan, Uralic, Quechuan, Hmong-Mien, Mayan, North Caucasian, Language isolates among others. Chapter 1 presents a brief introduction of the subject while chapter 2 displays the literature review. Chapter 3 includes our theoretical discussion proposing explaining the convergence and divergence among numeral classifiers, genders and plural markers, followed by typological and geographical evidence via GIS (Geographic Information System) in Chapter 4. Finally Chapter 5 and 6 contain the limitations of our study and its conclusion.