此篇論文主要目的為探討「半」和「多」在分類詞句式中的詞性及其樹型結構。在過去的文獻中，學者對於「半」和「多」的詞性並沒有統一的說法，有些人認定他們為數量詞，而另一派說法則指稱他們為數詞形容詞。除此之外，「半」和「多」的句法結構並未明確地被提及，多數的研究都著重在「半」和「多」的句式表現。其中唯一提供句法結構的研究為He (2015)，不過我們認為他在文中呈現的結構可以加以改進。我們提出的論點如下: 「半」和「多」應為數詞及「半」和「多」在樹狀結構中，與他們前述的計量單位(亦即分類詞/量詞或基數)結合，以得到正確的數值。然而，我們歸咎「半」無法與基數結合而產生[Num+ban+C/M+N]這樣的句式為中文數字系統的完整性。換言之，半與基數結合而產生的數值已可由一個存在的數字所表達，因此，半才會無法依附在基數後。此研究發現有以下幾個意涵: 一、這研究支持了He (2015)數詞為一詞組的主張，二、分類詞句式的左分支結構[[Num+C/M]+N]分析優於右分支結構[Num+[C/M+N]]，三、語言中除了簡單數詞外，也存在「半」和「多」這種倚賴句式結構釋義的數詞。

This thesis investigates the syntactic structure of ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ in Mandarin numeral classifier phrases. Our primary goal is to justify the appropriate part-of-speech assignment and the syntactic structure of these two elements and to faithfully reflect the mathematical role that ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ play in the classifier construction (c.f., Her 2012a). Various parts-of-speech are assigned to ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ in the literature; previous studies also only determine the behavior of ban ‘half’ and duo ‘more’ but fail to justify their syntactic structure. A notable exception is He (2015), where he does offer a detailed formal account of the structure of [Num+C/M+duo+N], but we propose that his account can be further enhanced. We argue that duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ should be seen as numerals and the two elements in the classifier construction share a unified syntactic structure. As for the syntactical structure of duo ‘more’ and ban ‘half’ in numeral classifier phrases, we argue that they are in conjunction with their preceding unit of measurement, either C/M or numerical bases. Yet, Mandarin numerical system is complete so ban is not necessary to combine with numerical bases and derive its meaning which can be expressed by the existed numerals. To the extent that it is successful, this study has several important implications. First, it supports the view that numerals are constituents (He 2015). Second, the so-called left-branching constituency [[Num+C/M]+N] is preferred over the so-called right-branching constituency [Num+[C/M+N]]. Third, besides numerals with precise values and approximate values, languages may also employ numerals like the Mandarin duo and ban whose values are dependent on their syntactic context.

Au Yeung, W.H.B., (2007). Multiplication basis of emergence of classifier. Language and Linguistics 8 (4), 835--861.
Borer, H., (2005). Structuring Sense, Vol. 1: In Name Only. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chao, Y.-R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press, Berkeley.
He, C. (2015). Complex numerals in Mandarin Chinese are constituents. Lingua, 164, 189-214.
Her, O. S. (2012a). Distinguishing classifiers and measure words: A mathematical perspective and implications. Lingua, 122(14), 1668-1691.
Her, O. S. (2012b). Structure of classifiers and measure words: A lexical functional account. Language and Linguistics 13(6). 1211-1251.
Her, O. S., & Lai, W. J. (2012). Classifiers: The Many Ways to Profile 'one'—A Case Study of Taiwan Mandarin. International Journal of Computer Processing Of Languages, 24(01), 79-94.
Her, O. S. and K-h Lin. (2015). On the Differentiation of Classifiers and Measure Words. Chinese Linguistics. 4: 56-68.
Her, O. S. and C-T Hsieh. (2010). On the semantic distinction between classifiers and measure words in Chinese. Language and linguistics 11.3: 527-551.
Hu, Q. (1993). The acquisition of Chinese classifiers by young Mandarin-speaking children. Dissertation. Boston University, Boston.
Huang, J. (1984). Phrase structure, lexical integrity, and Chinese compounds. Journal of the Chinese Teachers Association 19 (2), 53–78.
Huang, S. F. (1981). On the scope phenomena of Chinese quantifiers. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 226-243.
Huang, S. Z. (1996). Quantification and predication in Mandarin Chinese: A case study of dou.
Hurford, J. (1975). The Linguistic Theory of Numerals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hurford, J. (2007). A performed practice explains a linguistic universal: Counting gives the Packing Strategy. Lingua, 117(5), 773-783.
Ionin, Tania, and Ora Matushansky. (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23:315–360.
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition (Vol. 8). MIT press.
Kuno, S., Takami, K. I., & Wu, Y. (1999). Quantifier scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese. Language, 63-111.
Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago press. 1987-1987.
Landman, F., (2004). Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Blackwell, Malden.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford university press.
Li, Y. H. A. (2014). Structure of Noun Phrases-Left or Right? Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 12(2), 1-32.
Lü, Shuxiang et al. (1990) [1980]. Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci [Eight Hundred Words in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Wang, Lianqing. (1994). Origin and development of classifiers in Chinese. PhD. Dissertation, the Ohio State University.
Xing, Fu-yi. (1993). Xiandai Hanyu ShuLiangci XiTong Zhong De “ban” Han
“Shuang” [Ban and Shuang in the numeral system of Modern Chinese] Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 4, 36-56.
Xing, F.-Y. (2003). Cilei Biannan ‘Difficult Issues in Word Categories’. Commercial Press, Beijing.
Zhang, N. N. (2010). Coordination in syntax (Vol. 123). Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, N. N. (2013). Numeral Classifier Structures in Mandarin Chinese (Vol. 263). Walter de Gruyter.