On the semantics of reduplicative classifiers in Cantonese: what implications do it have on domain restriction in Chinese?

Previous analyses (see e.g., Cheng 2009, N. Zhang 2013 and Zhang and Tang 2013) state that “CL + CL” in Mandarin Chinese (henceforth “Mandarin”) gives rise to a reading on a par with English “every/each” or Chinese mei ‘every’. Contra to the distributive approach, N. Zhang (2013) claimed that prenominal “CL + CL” is a defective plural marker that must be licensed by either dou ‘all’ or existential yi ‘one’, but not both. With prenominal “CL + CL” licensed by Mandarin dou ‘all’, it is restricted to a distributive reading. By contrast, when prenominal “CL + CL” is licensed by existential yi ‘one’, it can only convey the “many” reading (see Steindl 2010 as well). Patterns of classifier reduplication, prenominal or postnominal, have always been controversial in Mandarin, whilst classifier reduplication in Cantonese occurs naturally in both prenominal and postnominal positions, without much debate. This paper focuses on adnominal reduplicative classifier in Cantonese. I argue that adnominal reduplicative classifier is a quantifying determiner which is ambiguous between a quantifier type and a modifier type, demonstrating determiner-like and adjectival-like characteristics. When it occurs with the distributive quantifier dou1 ‘all’, it serves as a modifier, regulating the domain of dou1-quantification by imposing a maximizing effect on the definite plural it modifies (see e.g., Brisson 1998, 2003; Gillon 1987; Link 1983, and Schwarzschild 1996). Without the presence of a distributive quantifier, adnominal reduplicative classifier serves either as a modifier or a quantifier, giving its NP a weak cardinal reading and a strong proportional reading, respectively (see e.g., Bennett 1974; Hoeksema 1983; Löbner 1987; Partee 2004; and Westerståhl 1984). In cases where prenominal reduplicative classifiers are possible in Mandarin, a similar conclusion can be drawn. Additionally, it is argued that prenominal “CL + CL” gives rise to a reading on a par with Chinese mei ‘every’, with both licensed by dou. It will be argued that one underlying difference between mui5/mei and the “CL + CL” licensed by dou1/dou, (henceforth [CL + CLdou1/dou]) is that while mui5/mei is a determiner-quantifier, [CL + CLdou1/dou] under the current analysis is a type-preserving modifier, which is originated from the ambiguity of quantifying determiner as a modifier type and a quantifier type. The two overlap in the sense that both involve quantifying meaning, but differ in their underlying semantic type: mui5/mei being of the quantifier type of <<e, t>, <<e, t>, t>> and adnominal [CL + CLdou1/dou], when licensed by dou1/dou which serves as a distributive quantifier, becomes a quantifying determiner of the modifier type, viz’ a type of <<e, t>, <e, t>>, preserving the <e, t> type of the nominal by returning a modified nominal of the same type <e, t>. This makes the two not comparable to each other. Finally, the proposed analysis implies that domain restriction in Chinese is overtly realized in grammatical form by means of the reduplicative classifier (when combined with a distributive quantifier) and that Chinese may have determiners, which is at least true in Cantonese.