Distinguishing gender from classifier systems
We have discussed two different ways in which languages may indicate grammatically determined noun classes. Since gender systems and classifier systems are similar in many ways, it is not always easy to decide which kind of system we are dealing with. Dixon (1986) lists a few basic criteria that can help us distinguish the two.
a Number of categories: gender systems involve a small, fixed number of classes, usually between 2 and 20. In classifier systems, Dixon says that 20 is typically the lower limit, with over 100 distinct classifiers reported in some languages (e.g. Cambodian, Vietnamese, Tzeltal). Moreover, since gender is an inflectional category, the number of gender classes is relatively stable over time. However, classifiers are independent words and new ones can be adopted into the system fairly readily.
b Coverage: in gender systems, every noun in the language must belong to some gender class. Certain nouns may appear in more than one class, e.g. Latin “common gender” words such as exsul ‘exile,’ parēns ‘parent,’ dux ‘leader.’ These words may be either masculine or feminine, depending on the sex of the individual referred to. But the number of such words is normally small. In classifier systems, however, there may be many nouns that do not occur with any classifier, and many others that can occur with several different classifiers.
c Morphology: classifiers are normally free forms, occurring as independent words within the NP. Gender is an inflectional category and is expressed morphologically on the agreeing element (s), i.e. the noun’s dependents and/or the verb which assigns its Grammatical Relation.
d Syntax: the gender of a noun is always reflected in some kind of agreement marking, whether inside the NP (on modifiers or determiners) or outside (on the verb). Classifiers, on the other hand, do not trigger agreement.
Gender and classifier systems are the most common ways of indicating noun classes, but several other patterns have been reported; see Aikhenvald (2000) for a very thorough survey. Moreover, we occasionally find noun class systems that seem to have “mixed” properties. Japanese, for example, has a classifier system that includes a few hundred classifiers, but these classifiers are expressed as suffixes on the numerals rather than independent words (Downing 1986; Matsumoto 1993).1 Aikhenvald (2000:108) states that the Paleosiberian language Nivkh has 26 different noun classes which are indicated by inflected forms of the numerals. This seems to fit Dixon’s description of a gender system, but with an unusually large number of classes.
However, most noun class systems fit reasonably well into one of Dixon’s two categories, gender vs. classifiers; and we will not discuss the less common patterns here.
1. Downing (1986) states that the average Japanese speaker uses only 30–80 different classifiers in everyday speech.
