SIL Electronic Book Reviews 2004-005

Classifiers: A typology of noun classification devices

By Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald

New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pp. 535. hardback $170.00, paperback $39.95.
ISBN 019823886X (hardback), 019926466X (paperback).

Reviewed by Terry Malone

0. Introduction. As the author notes in the first chapter, “noun classes and genders, on the one
hand, and numerical classifiers on the other, have been the object of linguistic investigation for
as long as languages with these categories have been studied” (p. 5). She observes on the same
page that “classifiers and noun categorization systems have long been a particular focus of
functional typology,” and mentions the common belief among linguists that these particular
grammatical structures “provide a unique insight into how people categorize the world through
their language.” Furthermore, she claims that:

…the study of classifiers and noun categorization systems is intrinsically connected with
many issues which are crucial in modern linguistics, such as agreement; processes in
language development and obsolescence; the distinction between derivation and
inflection; and types of possessive construction. (p. 5)

Given the perceived importance of noun categorization systems in linguistic circles, one would
expect comprehensive proposals in typological literature “for a semantic and grammatical
typology” (p. 6) of these systems. Among field linguists of my acquaintance, the best known
proposals seem to be Dixon 1982, Allan 1977, and some of the articles in Craig’s 1986 volume
Noun classes and categorization; Aikhenvald adds Denny 1976 and Dixon 1968 to this list. Most
of these proposals are based on, at best, samplings of only a handful of languages. The increasing
amount of available data on noun categorization systems have forced the revision of some of
these typologies in more recent works, for instance Derbyshire and Payne 1990. [1] The increasing
amount of data available on little-studied minority languages in turn calls for a revision of these
revisions. In addition to the well-known typologies established in the more general literature,
model descriptions of noun classification systems exist at the regional level for different areas of
the world, and Aikhenvald cites examples for each general area. Although area specialists are
usually familiar with them, field linguists working in other areas of the world rarely have access
to them.

One result is that field linguists who suspect the existence of noun categorization devices in the
language (or languages) that they are studying, especially ones that do not behave according to
the parameters proposed in regional literature or typologies cited above, are hard pressed to
know exactly what they have on their hands. The existing literature (as noted by Aikhenvald)
presents considerable terminological confusion and an array of diverging definitions (often
regional in nature) for basic terms, which is sure to confuse investigators who have not kept
up-to-date on the issues. The book under review represents the most comprehensive proposal to
date for a semantic and grammatical typology of noun categorization systems; it is designed to
remedy the defects of the literature noted here, plus provide an analytical guide for field linguists
faced with noun categorization systems in previously undescribed languages.

1. Contents. Chapter 1 “Preliminaries” includes a discussion of the data base for the proposals in
the book: Aikhenvald dug up sources on roughly 500 languages (data on 10 of these come from
her own field work) and read copiously (enough to generate a 36-page bibliography). In addition
she offers an illustration of several types of classifiers, basic definitions, a discussion of
terminology (including some discussion and examples of the “pervasive terminological
confusion in the literature,” p. 1), a presentation of “parameters for the typology of classifiers,”
and an overview of the structure of the book.

Readers should pay especially close attention to Aikhenvald’s discussion of parameters in this
chapter, for it defines her approach throughout the rest of the book. She presents a definition of
“classifiers,” following the definition of Allan 1977, and then states that:

the main purpose of this book is to provide a typology of classifiers primarily based on
the morphosyntactic loci (or environments) of classifier morphemes (following the
approach in Craig 1992, in press). This implies establishing types of noun categorization
systems which acquire surface realization in natural languages. (p. 13)

She proceeds to list relevant parameters on pp. 14–16:

“morphosyntactic locus of coding”

“scope, or domain of categorization”
“principles of choice, or ‘assignment’ of noun categorization devices”
“kind of surface realization”
“agreement”
“markedness relations,” and
“degree of grammaticalization and lexicalization”

She considers these to be “definitional properties of classifiers, in agreement with the

morphosyntax-prior approach to classifiers adopted here” (p. 16). She lists other parameters
which she considers to be “contingent properties,” such as “interaction with other grammatical
categories,” “semantic organization of the system,” “evolution and decay,” and “language
acquisition and dissolution”; once the definitional properties are used to determine the type(s) of
classifiers in a language, “they will be shown to display correlations with [contingent
properties]” (p. 16).

Chapter 2 “Noun Class and Gender Systems” (pp. 19–80) presents the typology of
“grammaticalized agreement systems which correlate—at least in part—with certain semantic
characteristics. They are sometimes called concordial classes; they include grammaticalized
“gender” systems of the Indo-European type” (p. 19). The author notes that “noun class, gender,
and sometimes gender class are often used interchangeably” (p. 19); she uses the term “noun
class” “as a cover term for noun class and gender,” although she considers “gender” to refer to a
system of three or less distinctions (“always including masculine and feminine”), and “noun
class” to refer to systems with more distinctions (these would include the well-known Bantu
noun class systems). Although Aikhenvald has some things to add, most of the discussion of this
chapter follows that of Corbett 1991. Therefore field linguists should use Aikhenvald’s book to
figure out if they have a “noun class” system on their hands. If so, they should proceed to
Corbett’s book for more detail, noting that he uses “gender” as a cover term for “noun class” and
“gender” systems; he does not recognize Aikhenvald’s distinction between the two latter terms.

Chapter 3 “Noun Classifiers” (pp. 81–97) deals with the typology of classifiers which
“characterize the noun and cooccur with it in a noun phrase.” She goes on to further define noun
classifiers, lists several characteristics by which they can be identified, discusses their
morphological realizations, considers their links with noun class systems, and finishes with a
map showing their distribution in the world’s languages.

Chapter 4 “Numerical Classifiers” (pp. 98–124) is concerned with the most well-known type of
classifier system, sets of morphemes which “appear contiguous to numerals in numeral noun
phrases and expressions of quantity” (98). Each type of classifier brings with it special issues and
concerns, most of which Aikhenvald is careful to discuss, and this chapter is no exception: under
“constructions and morphological realization of numerical classifiers” she deals with the hot
issue of these classifiers as independent lexemes or as morphemes which affix or even fuse
themselves to numerals. Independent and affixed numerical classifiers can be in complementary
distribution in some languages; she presents examples. She then treats some current issues
regarding numerical classifiers: “mensural and sortal classifiers: distinguishing classifiers from
quantifying expressions”; and “incipient numerical classifiers.” The chapter finishes with a map
presenting the “distribution of numerical classifiers in the languages of the world.”

In Chapter 5 “Classifiers in Possessive Constructions” (pp. 125–148) Aikhenvald builds a

typology for a rare classifier type best known to linguists working in some native American
languages and Austronesian languages—these classifiers, which “categorize nouns in possessive
constructions,” have not been reported to occur elsewhere in the world. They come in three
flavors, all discussed and exemplified here: “possessed classifiers” (categorize the possessed
noun); “relational classifiers” (“characterize a possessive relation between nouns” (pp. 133)); and
“possessor classifiers” (“categorize the possessor in a possessive construction” (pp. 139)).
Possessed and relational classifiers sometimes interact intimately, and more than one of the three
subclasses can co-occur in a given languages, so the author deals with these issues. The chapter
finishes with a map showing the distribution of the general classifier class in the world’s
languages.

Chapter 6 “Verbal Classifiers” (pp. 149–171) deals with classifiers that:

… appear on the verb, categorizing the referent of its argument in terms of its shape,
consistency, size, structure, position and animacy. Verbal classifiers always refer to a
predicate argument. (pp. 149)
Aikhenvald establishes three subsets of verbal classifiers: ones that originate from noun
incorporation; ones that are affixed to the verb; and suppletive classificatory verbs. Here the
reader must pay close attention to terminology: suppletive classificatory verbs are often referred
to in the literature as “classificatory verbs.”[2] Aikhenvald uses the term “suppletive classificatory
verbs” for her third subset, and refers to the first two subsets as “verbal classifiers.” At the same
time “classificatory verbs” are “verbal classifiers” in the more general sense. The three subtypes
of verbal classifier interact or more than one subtype is present in some languages; known
interactions and combinations are discussed, as usual with abundant illustration. At the end of the
chapter the author presents a world map demonstrating that verbal classifiers so far have only
been found in languages of the Americas, Papua New Guinea, and Australia.

Chapter 7 “Locative and Deictic Classifiers” (pp. 172–183) is a bit of a grab bag, describing as
follows:

… two further types of classifier which have a noun phrase as their scope: locative
classifiers which occur in locative noun phrases and deictic classifiers which occur on
deictic modifiers and articles in head-modifier noun phrases. (p. 172)

Examples are so scarce that Aikhenvald limits herself to describing what has been reported (here
a majority of examples come from her own field work) and eschews proposing a typology.
Locative classifiers only occur in a few South American languages; deictic classifiers occur in a
few North American and South American languages.

Chapter 8, “Different Classifier Types in One Language” (pp. 184–203) and Chapter 9 “Multiple
Classifier Languages” (pp. 204–241) are unique. As far as I can tell, Aikhenvald is the first
investigator to propose a typology for either area, perhaps because of her fieldwork on languages
in the Brazilian Amazon basin which have more than one classifier type (different classifier
systems co-occur “in different morphosyntactic environments” (p. 184)) or multiple classifiers
(“the same set of morphemes can be used in more than one classifier environment” (p. 185)). The
chapters present all interactions noted in the literature (or in Aikhenvald’s fieldwork) to date.

In Chapter 10 “Classifiers and Other Grammatical Categories” (pp. 242–270) Aikhenvald

discusses known interactions of classifiers with other grammatical categories, including number,
person, grammatical function, types of possession, declensional classes, verbal categories (tense,
verb class), deictic categories, and derivation.

Chapter 11 “Semantics of Noun Categorization Devices” (pp. 271–306) presents a summary of

basic semantic parameters which are encoded by the different types of noun classification
devices. “These parameters fall into three large classes: animacy, physical properties, and
function” (p. 271). She lists and defines pertinent parameters in the class “physical properties,”
discusses the semantics of each classifier type, and closes the chapter with a summary chart.
Chapter 12 “Semantic Organization and Functions of Noun Categorization” (pp. 307–351)
includes topics such as the relationship between semantic organization and function of classifier
systems, discourse-pragmatic functions of classifier systems, the reflection of human cognitive
functions in classifier systems, and the relationship between culture and noun classifier systems.
With regard to the last two topics, Aikhenvald does not give in to rampant speculation, but
instead concludes that noun classification basically offers clues to how the human mind
categorizes the physical world and social-cultural environment—and these are not always
categorized as outside observers would expect.

Chapter 13 “Origin and Development of Noun Categorization Devices” (pp. 352–412)

summarizes what is known about the origins of types of classifier systems. Much useful
information can be found in this chapter, including charts “groups of nouns which tend to
develop to classifiers” (p. 354) and “typical sources for noun categorization devices” (p. 412).
For the struggling field linguist this chapter is more crucial than would appear at first glance:
Aikhenvald presents abundant evidence that noun categorization systems develop and decay—
development and decay can even cycle around, much as the breaking and colliding of continental
plates in the earth’s geological history. The result is that field linguists are likely to find
themselves facing a system that is either not completely developed nor completely decayed,
perhaps superimposed on the remnants of some other decayed system; this renders more difficult
the identification and description of whatever classifier system(s) might be present. Aikhenvald’s
discussion can help a baffled field linguist unravel many tangled threads.

Chapter 14 “Noun Categorization Devices in Language Acquisition and Dissolution” (413–424)

is a summary of what little is known about this topic. As the author observes, there is need for
further investigation. Chapter 15 “Conclusions” (pp. 425–435) “recapitulates and summarizes the
general themes which have emerged from a cross-linguistic study of noun categorization devices.”
This chapter reviews definitions for the classifier types presented in the book (pp. 425–426), and
goes on to useful summary discussions of the “definitional” and “contingent” parameters of noun
categorization systems first touched on in Chapter 1. More useful charts appear: syntactic “scope
of classifier types” (427); and “morphological realization of classifiers” (430).[3] Three appendices
follow: “Noun Categorization by Means Other than Classifiers” (pp. 436–441); “From Nouns to
Classifiers: Further Examples of Semantic Change” (pp. 442–446); and “Fieldworker’s Guide to
Classifier Languages” (pp. 447–451). The last appendix is especially useful: it specifies what
should be in a description of classifiers, and gives many hints as to what to look for with regard
to the parameters discussed in the book. The book closes with references, lists of language
families, linguistic areas, and proto-languages, and indexes of languages, linguistic areas,
language families, authors, and subjects.[4]

2. Is this book for the field linguist? A good measure of a book’s usefulness is to approach it with
unanswered questions generated by unruly data. When I read this book, I was developing the
hypothesis that there were three separate noun classification systems at work in my corpus of
analyzed field data. I had also read all the existing literature I could find (including almost all the
references cited in this review). The marathon reading sessions put me reasonably up-to-date, but
I still ended up as a confused field linguist, thanks in part to the previously mentioned
terminological confusion. Corbett 1991 was a first step in dispelling the confusion; Aikhenvald’s
work preliminary to this book (Aikhenvald 1994, Aikhenvald and Green 1998) did much to sort
out the rest. Nevertheless, reading this book was the definitive step in getting my feet firmly on
the ground with respect to the typology of noun categorization systems and the nature of the
systems operating in the language.
3. Further evaluation and comments. One of Aikhenvald’s implicit goals in this book was to sort
out the terminological confusion in the literature. She succeeds admirably, and only rarely
slips—for instance in the third full paragraph on p. 58, where it appears by the examples here
and the list of classifiers in Aikhenvald 1994 that noun classes and noun classifiers have been
confused. Even so, her terminology is certainly the most carefully defined and least confusing of
any literature on classifiers available; a linguist who uses this book in combination with her
earlier work on classifier systems (Aikhenvald 1994 and Aikhenvald & Green 1998) and Corbett
(1991) should be able to slash through the worst of terminological snarls.

For a field linguist one of the more useful concepts pervading the entire book is that of
“continua,” or “scales”—in other words, the idea that boundaries between classifiers and other
morphosyntactic categories are not always discrete. For instance, one continuum has defunct
noun classes on one end, noun classes somewhere in the middle, and a full-fledged noun
classifier system on the other end (1a below); another continuum has noun incorporation on one
end, verbal classifiers (according to the more strict definition—see §1 above) in the middle, and
predicate classifiers on the other end (1b below). Yet another scale has compound nouns on one
end, nouns with affixes or clitics in the middle, and a full-fledged noun classifier system on the
other end (1c below). In many cases, for instance noun classifiers, the scales are full circles, in
which classifier systems form and decay, and then the decayed remnants develop into another
noun classifier system.

(1a) defunct noun classes — noun classes — noun classifier system

(1b) noun incorporation — verbal classifier — predicate classifiers
(1c) compound nouns — nouns with affixes/clitics — noun classifier system

The evidence is abundant supporting this approach to classifiers; it is a great aid to field linguists
who must try to figure out what they have on their hands, because living languages tend to be
considerably more sloppy than theoretical linguists about establishing discrete categories. As an
example, for some time I did not recognize a system of noun classifiers in my data, in part
because individual suffixes within the noun classifier system are at different stages of decay on
the scale (2) below:[5]

(2) unitary lexical items — semi-productive suffixes — noun classifier system

Aikhenvald’s use of scales and continua is a direct consequence of her thoroughly typological-
functional-descriptive approach to noun categorization. This is no doubt why she does not even
mention one crucial issue that is very much in vogue just now in the Americas: do verbal
classifiers (in the more general sense) exist as a valid morphosyntactic category, or are they
primarily a semantic category best left to lexical semanticists? Those who contend that verbal
classifiers are not a valid morphosyntactic category argue that they represent a case of word
formation in the lexicon; those who believe that syntax operates in the lexicon ascribe their
origin to “noun incorporation” in the sense of Baker 1988.[6] Levy 1999 provides an example of
the approach used to argue against the validity of verbal classifiers as a morphosyntactic
category, although she admits that the Athabaskan system of predicate classifiers constitutes a
valid system of noun categorization. Aikhenvald just assumes that verbal classifiers (according
to both the more general and the more specific definition) are a valid morphosyntactic category
and bypasses the whole debate. She instead follows the lead of Marianne Mithun (1984, 1986)
who was the first to call attention to the continuum between noun incorporation and verbal
classifiers (Aikhenvald’s exposition, although original, draws much from Mithun’s work).

Nevertheless, I still had to face the question of how to identify verbal classifiers. Given the
debate concerning their existence both in general and within the language family, I also had to
conclusively demonstrate that verbal classifiers exist in my data. Here Aikhenvald’s book was
not so helpful, although it did offer plenty of examples of verbal classifier systems, and one
major criterion: verbal classifiers categorize A/S/O arguments according to their shape and/or
orientation. I had to glean through the literature and develop my own criteria. This resulted in a
number of lines of evidence leading to the conclusion that there is a system of verbal classifiers
for positional verbs, verbs of falling, cutting verbs, and breaking verbs: speakers consistently
insisted that the form and/or consistency of manipulated objects determined their lexical choices;
speaker’s explanations of their choices indicated that they regarded changes in orientation of
objects to be changes in shape; the basic semantic categories for classifier verbs paralleled those
of the noun and numerical classifier systems; about 50 percent of the morphemes overlapped
between the three systems, though there were semantic shifts in meaning; no basic verb for
‘position/be positioned,’ ‘fall,’ ‘cut,’ or ‘break’ could be found in the language which was not
dependent on the form of the manipulated object; rich systems of direction/orientation verbal
suffixes and nominal postpositions co-occur with verbal classifiers; verbs whose choice
depended more on manner or orientation than shape could be substituted for some classifier
verbs under the right conditions. Aikhenvald does not discuss in any detail the close semantic
relationship between shape and orientation, she simply considers orientation/deictic categories as
possible categories within noun categorization systems, based on evidence from a variety of
languages.

Out of curiosity, I checked some recent introductory guides to morphological or morphosyntactic

analysis, to see what mention is made of classifiers and noun categorization systems. Payne 1997
offers brief discussions of noun classifiers and noun classes; as far as I can tell, other kinds of
classifiers are not mentioned. Bickford 1998 does not mention noun categorization at all. The
guide to morphological analysis in SIL International’s LinguaLinks Library (Version 4.0)
mentions noun classifiers and noun classes, defines them in its linguistic glossary, and cites older
references (mostly outdated, even at the time of issue of Version 4.0). These guides are designed
for absolute beginners; analysts confronted with complex systems (like the Tariana system that
first piqued Aikhenvald’s interest in noun categorization—see Aikhenvald 1994), are obviously
in the water over their heads, and need more than good rubber boots. Aikhenvald’s book is the
most comprehensive and dependable guide available—it is unique—and the serious field linguist
who is dealing with noun class systems, an unusual classifier system, a system of multiple
classifiers, or multiple classifier systems cannot afford to ignore her work.

Notes

[1] Aikhenvald also notes Craig (in press) and 1992, and Corbett 1991, as revisions of older
typologies.
[2] Allan 1977 refers to verbal classifiers in general as “predicate classifiers,” citing the
Athabaskan type (these latter are Aikhenvald’s “suppletive classificatory verbs”).

[3] A third chart “assignment of classifiers” appears on p. 428. It looks incomplete, but in the
body of the text one finds the statement that “noun class assignment can be governed by the
semantic, morphological, or phonological properties of a noun, or a combination of these
(426) … the assignment of all other classifier types is semantic” (428).

[4] OUP is to be commended for the high quality of this book. I only noticed six typos (pp. 13,
58, 198, 305, 394, and 463—here compare the date for Emeneau’s article with the date listed
for the book on p. 468.).

[5] In contrast to systems in which noun classifiers are partly or entirely inflectional and used as
an agreement device, these noun classifiers are exclusively derivational and only occur on
nouns (i.e., there is no grammatical agreement elsewhere in the NP). For this reason they do
not decay into noun classes, but instead decay by fusing with the nominal root to form
unitary lexical items.

[6] Here one’s position in this debate (and one’s account of noun incorporation) is obviously
determined by one’s theoretical position regarding the “Lexicalist Hypothesis.” See Spencer
1991 for an excellent summary of the issues.

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1994. Classifiers in Tariana. Anthropological Linguistics 36(4):407–

460.

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. and Diana Green. 1998. Palikur and the typology of classifiers.
Anthropological Linguistics 40(3):429–480.

Allan, Keith. 1977. Classifiers. Language 53(2):285–311.

Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago:

Chicago University Press.

Bickford, Albert A. 1998. Tools for analyzing the world’s languages: Morphology and syntax.
Dallas: SIL International.

Corbett, Grenville. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Craig, Colette, ed. 1986. Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Craig, Colette, ed. 1992. Classifiers in a functional perspective. In Michael Fortescue, Peter
Harder and Lars Kristoffersen (eds.), Layered structure and reference in a functional
perspective, 277–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Craig, Colette (ed.). In press. Classifiers. In C. Lehmann and J. Mugdan (eds.), Handbuch der
Morfologie. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Denny, J. Peter. 1976. What are noun classifiers good for? Chicago Linguistic Society 12:122–132.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1968. Noun classes. Lingua 21:104–125.

Dixon, R.M.W. 1982. Where have all the adjectives gone? and other essays in semantics and
syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Levy, Paulette. 1999. From part to shape: Incorporation in Totonac and the issue of classification
by verbs. International Journal of American Linguistics 65(2):127–175.

Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4):847–894.

Mithun, Marianne. 1986. The convergence of noun classification systems. In Colette Craig (ed.),
Noun classes and categorization, 379–397. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax: A guide for field linguists. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.