On the semantic properties of mass and count nouns in Guajajára (Tenetehára)

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 366-381
Author(s):  
Pilar Chamorro ◽  
Fábio Bonfim Duarte
Keyword(s):  
Number Marking ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Units Of Measurement ◽  
Classifier Languages ◽  
Semantic Properties

Abstract In this paper we show that Guajajára has grammaticalized the distinction between mass and count nouns, but that the coding of this distinction is different from the systems of coding in classifier languages, number-marking languages, and number-neutral languages (Chierchia 1998a, 1998b, 2010; Wilhelm 2008). As a result, we conclude that Guajajára presents a challenge to the tripartite classification of languages proposed in Chierchia’s work, since Guajajára number marking is non-inflectional and optional when plural is already expressed by other quantificational expressions. Furthermore, in Guajajára notional mass nouns can pluralize and directly combine with numerals without the mediation of container or measure constructions in contexts where conventional and non-conventional container and units of measurement are implied. This last observation suggests that coercion is not a mechanism that operates in this language.

Adjectival Nominalization

On Goodness ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 217-262
Author(s):  
David Conan Wolfsdorf
Keyword(s):  
Lattice Structure ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Gradable Adjective ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Standard Of Comparison ◽  
Semantic Properties ◽  
Second Degree

Chapter 6 focuses on the semantics and metaphysical implications of the semantics of the adjectival nominalization “goodness.” Adjectival nominalizations of the form “F-ness” are almost always mass nouns. The mass noun “goodness” derives gradability of a kind from the gradable adjective that it incorporates. So “goodness” is a gradable adjectival nominalization. Mass nouns are distinguished from count nouns on the basis of two semantic properties, called “semantic cumulativity” and “semantic divisibility.” The denotations of mass nouns are then interpreted in terms of the mereological structure of a join semi-lattice. The denotation of gradable mass nouns incorporate scalar as well as mereological structure. In the case of “goodness,” the elements at the base of the lattice structure are instances of goodness. An instance of goodness is a so-called qua quantitative trope, precisely one degree of purpose serving qua exceeding a second degree of purpose serving, where the latter is a standard of comparison.

A little goes a long way: evidence for a perceptual basis of learning for the noun categories COUNT and Mass

1991 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Maggie Perrin McPherson
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Perceptual Information ◽  
Count Noun ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Distinct Individual ◽  
Syntactic Cues

ABSTRACTVarious theories of learning for the categories COUNT NOUN and MASS NOUN are compared. It is argued that children assign words to these categories on the basis of intuitions arising from perception that are relevant to Macnamara's (1986) semantic definitions of the categories. These definitions rest on the centrality of identity in the meaning of nouns and the centrality of individuation in the meaning of count nouns but not mass nouns. Empirical evidence is presented that supports the hypothesis that young children classify words as count nouns or mass nouns on the basis of perceptual information about the extension of the words, that is, whether or not the extension consists exclusively of enduring individuals whose discreteness from one another is perceptually salient (count nouns) or not (mass nouns). In an experiment, 48 children with a mean age of 2;10 (S.D. = 0;5) were taught a word for a kind of object (i.e. a perceptually distinct individual) or for a kind of substance (i.e. a collection of small granules). For some children the word was syntactically COUNT and for others it was syntactically MASS. Half of the children received incongruous perceptual and syntactic cues. For most of these children, classification of the word was guided by the object- or substance-like appearance of the stimulus despite the presence of incongruent syntactic cues. Syntactic cues influenced classification of the word for a minority of subjects, most of whom were among the oldest in the sample. It is concluded that perceptual information is critical in early decisions about membership in the categories COUNT NOUN and MASS NOUN.

Number and the Mass–Count Distinction

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-64
Author(s):  
Alan Bale
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
Syntactic Properties

This chapter reviews the connections between number marking (specifically, singular and plural marking) and the mass–count distinction. It explores how different semantic theories of number marking interact with various ontological theories of the mass–count distinction. It also discusses a growing tension within the mass–count literature. On one hand, there are many semantic and syntactic similarities between mass nouns and plurals, which suggests that the two subcategories might have many features in common. On the other hand, verbal, auxiliary, and determiner agreement patterns suggest that mass nouns share certain syntactic properties with singular count nouns. Yet, singular count nouns and plural count nouns hardly share any properties in common, both in terms of their syntactic distribution and their semantic implications. The chapter discusses two potential resolutions to this growing tension.

scholarly journals The grammatical distinction between count nouns and mass nouns in Mandarin Chinese

2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-76
Author(s):  
Nastazja Stoch
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
Count Noun ◽  
Ontological Status ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Numeral Classifiers ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Classifier Languages

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to prove the Mass Noun Hypothesis wrong. The hypothesis claims that all common nouns in classifier languages like Mandarin Chinese are mass nouns. The objection against it consists in displaying its implausible deduction, where false conclusions have been drawn due to relying on the grammar of English, which is incongruent with the grammar of Chinese. Consequently, this paper defends the Count Noun Thesis, stating that in Chinese there are count as well as mass nouns. In support of this statement, first, the typology of numeral classifiers had to be established, which resulted in gathering and completing all the reasons to distinguish classifiers from measure words. After only this necessary differentiation was made, it was possible to show that the count/mass distinction exists in Mandarin Chinese. That is, count nouns by default have only one classifier, with certain disclaimers. Apart from that, count nouns, as in every language, may undergo some measurement with measure words. Mass nouns, however, in the context of quantification may appear only with measure words, but not with classifiers. These conditions naturally follow from the ontological status of the two types of nouns’ referents, i.e. bounded objects denoted by count nouns, and scattered substances denoted by mass nouns.

Plural marking on mass nouns

2018 ◽  
pp. 234-248
Author(s):  
Maria Kouneli
Keyword(s):  
Functional Projection ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Plural Marking

Mass nouns are generally incompatible with plural morphology in number-marking languages. Greek mass nouns, though, can freely pluralize. Chapter 11 shows that the meaning of plural mass nouns in Greek is that of ‘spread over a surface in a disorderly way’. The author argues that plural morphology on mass nouns in the language is the spell-out of number features on the nominalizing head n, unlike plural morphology on count nouns, which spells out the head of the functional projection NumP. She extends this analysis to other languages with plural marking on mass nouns, and argues that plural morphology on mass nouns is never the spellout of features on Num, which can only have the meaning associated with regular plural morphology on count nouns cross-linguistically.

scholarly journals Classifiers as Count Syntax: Individuation and Measurement in the Acquisition of Mandarin

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peggy Li ◽  
David Barner ◽  
Becky H. Huang
Keyword(s):  
Mandarin Chinese ◽  
Empirical Test ◽  
Test Case ◽  
Older Children ◽  
Syntactic Knowledge ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Classifier Languages ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
English Speaking

The distinction between mass nouns (e.g., butter) and count nouns (e.g.,table) offers a test case for asking how the syntax and semantics ofnatural language are related, and how children exploit syntax-semanticsmappings when acquiring language. Virtually no studies have examined thisdistinction in classifier languages (e.g., Mandarin Chinese) due to thewidespread assumption that such languages lack mass-count syntax. However,Cheng and Sybesma (1998) argue that Mandarin encodes the mass-count at theclassifier level: classifiers can be categorized as “mass-classifiers” or“count-classifiers.” Mass and count classifiers differ in semanticinterpretation and occur in different syntactic constructions. The currentstudy is first an empirical test of Cheng and Sybesma’s hypothesis, andsecond, a test of the acquisition of putative mass and count classifiers bychildren learning Mandarin. Experiments 1 and 2 asked whethercount-classifiers select individuals and whether mass classifiers selectportions of stuff or groups of individual things. Adult Mandarin-speakersindeed showed this pattern of interpretation, while 4- to 6-year-olds hadnot fully mastered the distinction. Experiment 3 tested participants’syntactic sensitivity by asking them to match two syntactic constructions(one that supported the mass or portion reading and one that did not) totwo contrasting choices (a portion of an object and a whole object). Adevelopmental trend in syntactic knowledge was observed: adults were nearperfect and the older children were more likely than the younger childrento correctly match the contrasting phrases to their correspondingreferents. Thus, in three experiments we find support for Cheng andSybesma’s analysis, but also that children master the syntax and semanticsof Mandarin classifiers much later than English-speaking children acquireknowledge of the English mass-count distinction.

Plural marking in the second language: Atomicity, definiteness, and transfer

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Sea Hee Choi ◽  
Tania Ionin
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Native Languages ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Grammaticality Judgment ◽  
L2 Learners ◽  
Plural Marking

Abstract This paper examines whether second language (L2)-English learners whose native languages (L1; Korean and Mandarin) lack obligatory plural marking transfer the properties of plural marking from their L1s, and whether transfer is manifested both offline (in a grammaticality judgment task) and online (in a self-paced reading task). The online task tests the predictions of the morphological congruency hypothesis (Jiang 2007), according to which L2 learners have particular difficulty automatically activating the meaning of L2 morphemes that are incongruent with their L1. Experiment 1 tests L2 learners’ sensitivity to errors of –s oversuppliance with mass nouns, while Experiment 2 tests their sensitivity to errors of –s omission with count nouns. The findings show that (a) L2 learners detect errors with nonatomic mass nouns (sunlights) but not atomic ones (furnitures), both offline and online; and (b) L1-Korean L2-English learners are more successful than L1-Mandarin L2-English learners in detecting missing –s with definite plurals (these boat), while the two groups behave similarly with indefinite plurals (many boat). Given that definite plurals require plural marking in Korean but not in Mandarin, the second finding is consistent with L1-transfer. Overall, the findings show that learners are able to overcome morphological incongruency and acquire novel uses of L2 morphemes.

Mass Nouns and Count Nouns in German

1969 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
Madison S. Beeler
Keyword(s):  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns

Plural marking on noun-associated forms

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 363-401
Author(s):  
Francesca Di Garbo
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Type ◽  
Lexical Semantics ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Number Systems ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
Type 3 ◽  
Semantic Properties

AbstractNumber systems can be morphosemantic or morphosyntactic, based on whether number marking is restricted to nouns or also extends to noun-associated forms, such as adnominal modifiers, predicates, and pronouns. While it is well-known that asymmetries in the distribution of plural marking on nouns can be due to lexico-semantic properties such as animacy and/or inherent number, the question of whether these properties also affect patterns of plural agreement has been less broadly investigated. This paper examines the distribution of plural agreement in 24 Cushitic (Afro-Asiatic) languages. The number systems of the languages of the sample are classified into three types, ranging from radically morphosemantic (Type 1) to radically morphosyntactic (Type 2). A subset of languages displays a combination of morphosemantic and morphosyntactic strategies, and thus qualifies as a mixed type (Type 3). In these languages, the distribution of plural agreement is largely lexically-specified: nouns denoting groups, masses, and collections are more likely to trigger plural agreement than other types of nouns. These results thus show that, similarly to the nominal domain, the lexical semantics of nouns may also affect plural marking on noun-associated forms. Furthermore, in Cushitic, radically morphosemantic and radically morphosyntactic number systems appear to be diachronically connected to each other, with the latter seemingly evolving from the former, as testified by ongoing variation and change in some of the sampled languages. The relevance of these findings for understanding the typology and evolution of number systems is discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document