A dictionary-based comparative study of the Chinese “个 (gè)” and the Malay “buah” numeral classifiers
Classifiers are used for categorising nouns according to animacy, form, shape, and size. As one of the Austronesian languages, Malay is said to have an extensive numeral classifier system. Past studies have classified these two classifiers as general classifiers; however, an extensive study comparin...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
2024
|
| Online Access: | http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/113518/ http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/113518/1/113518.pdf |
| _version_ | 1848866248769667072 |
|---|---|
| author | Ng, Chwee Fang Awang, Sariyan Yap, Ngee Thai |
| author_facet | Ng, Chwee Fang Awang, Sariyan Yap, Ngee Thai |
| author_sort | Ng, Chwee Fang |
| building | UPM Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Classifiers are used for categorising nouns according to animacy, form, shape, and size. As one of the Austronesian languages, Malay is said to have an extensive numeral classifier system. Past studies have classified these two classifiers as general classifiers; however, an extensive study comparing the use of these two classifiers have not been attempted. This study aims to highlight the similarities and differences by comparing the Chinese classifier “个 (gè)” and the Malay “buah” using evidence from reference classifier dictionaries of the two languages. The findings show that while some similarities exist and both classifiers can be used interchangeably with some nouns, these classifiers are unique and have distinctive semantic usage. Both 个 (gè) and buah are used for organisation, products of nature, buildings and places, and artifacts (things created by humans). However, only 个 (gè) can be used for organs or body parts, humans, fruits and food, time, directions, and thought and intellectual products. In contrast, only buah is used for transportation, accessories, home furniture and appliances, publications, musical instruments, and performances. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-15T14:17:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | upm-113518 |
| institution | Universiti Putra Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-15T14:17:35Z |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| publisher | Universiti Malaysia Sarawak |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | upm-1135182024-11-26T03:13:08Z http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/113518/ A dictionary-based comparative study of the Chinese “个 (gè)” and the Malay “buah” numeral classifiers Ng, Chwee Fang Awang, Sariyan Yap, Ngee Thai Classifiers are used for categorising nouns according to animacy, form, shape, and size. As one of the Austronesian languages, Malay is said to have an extensive numeral classifier system. Past studies have classified these two classifiers as general classifiers; however, an extensive study comparing the use of these two classifiers have not been attempted. This study aims to highlight the similarities and differences by comparing the Chinese classifier “个 (gè)” and the Malay “buah” using evidence from reference classifier dictionaries of the two languages. The findings show that while some similarities exist and both classifiers can be used interchangeably with some nouns, these classifiers are unique and have distinctive semantic usage. Both 个 (gè) and buah are used for organisation, products of nature, buildings and places, and artifacts (things created by humans). However, only 个 (gè) can be used for organs or body parts, humans, fruits and food, time, directions, and thought and intellectual products. In contrast, only buah is used for transportation, accessories, home furniture and appliances, publications, musical instruments, and performances. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak 2024 Article PeerReviewed text en cc_by_nc_sa_4 http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/113518/1/113518.pdf Ng, Chwee Fang and Awang, Sariyan and Yap, Ngee Thai (2024) A dictionary-based comparative study of the Chinese “个 (gè)” and the Malay “buah” numeral classifiers. Issues in Language Studies, 13 (1). pp. 1-21. ISSN 2180-2726; eISSN: 2180-2726 https://publisher.unimas.my/ojs/index.php/ILS/article/view/5658 10.33736/ils.5658.2024 |
| spellingShingle | Ng, Chwee Fang Awang, Sariyan Yap, Ngee Thai A dictionary-based comparative study of the Chinese “个 (gè)” and the Malay “buah” numeral classifiers |
| title | A dictionary-based comparative study of the Chinese “个 (gè)” and the Malay “buah” numeral classifiers |
| title_full | A dictionary-based comparative study of the Chinese “个 (gè)” and the Malay “buah” numeral classifiers |
| title_fullStr | A dictionary-based comparative study of the Chinese “个 (gè)” and the Malay “buah” numeral classifiers |
| title_full_unstemmed | A dictionary-based comparative study of the Chinese “个 (gè)” and the Malay “buah” numeral classifiers |
| title_short | A dictionary-based comparative study of the Chinese “个 (gè)” and the Malay “buah” numeral classifiers |
| title_sort | dictionary-based comparative study of the chinese “个 (gè)” and the malay “buah” numeral classifiers |
| url | http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/113518/ http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/113518/ http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/113518/ http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/113518/1/113518.pdf |