No Gender Polarity in Arabic Numeral Phrases

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Muteb Alqarni
Keyword(s):  
Arabic Numeral ◽  
Count Noun ◽  
Count Nouns

Gender polarity is an intriguing morphological phenomenon in Arabic. The numerals 3–10 take the gender opposite to that of their count nouns; that is, when the count noun is feminine, the numerals 3–10 appear in the masculine form, and vice versa. Earlier analyses (see, e.g., Alqassas 2013, 2017, Alqarni 2015) proposed that the numerals 3–10 bear an inherent feminine feature, which is deleted by an impoverishment rule in the presence of a feminine feature on the count noun, yielding gender polarity. This article provides empirical counterevidence to these analyses and the concept of gender polarity on the whole. It shows that the numerals 3–10 do not interact with the gender of the count noun; rather, they interact with the count noun’s morphology—that is, whether the count noun bears the morpheme /at/ or /a:tu/-/a:ti/ in its structure. These findings suggest that gender polarity in Arabic is a misnomer; the phenomenon should instead be termed morpheme polarity. Rather than implementing the impoverishment rules proposed in earlier analyses, this article uses readjustment rules to account for the morpheme polarity at hand.

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.

scholarly journals Bare Singular Count Nouns in Dutch as a Heritage Language in Brazil / Nomes singulares nus em neerlandês como língua de herança

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 631
Author(s):  
Antonio José Maria Codina Bobia
Keyword(s):  
Heritage Language ◽  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Count Noun ◽  
Statistical Regression ◽  
Heritage Languages ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Divergent Behavior ◽  
Experimental Group

Abstract: The aim of this research was to evaluate the distribution of DPs in generic sentences, in Dutch Heritage Language Speakers (HLS) in Holambra, Brazil, especially regarding the acceptability of Bare Singular Count Nouns (BS). The Distribution of BS is more restricted in Dutch than in Brazilian Portuguese, nonetheless, we raised the hypothesis that, due to the influence of Brazilian Portuguese, these HLS would accept BS in contexts similar to those of Brazilians. We applied an acceptability judgement test to 60 adult HLS from Holambra (experimental group), 30 Brazilian monolinguals and 30 native Dutch speakers (control groups 1 and 2). We presented to each participant in the experimental group 10 Dutch stimulus sentences and 20 filler sentences in order to verify their acceptability on a five-item Likert scale. The results showed that sentences with BS eliciting a generic reading received high acceptability rates from the Experimental Group of Holambra (72% acceptability rate). These responses were more aligned with the Brazilian Control (78% acceptability rate) than with the Dutch Control (96% unacceptability rate). The statistical Regression Analysis of the BS showed that the Dutch Control had a significant divergent behavior (p.value = <2-16) when compared to the Experimental Group. The results seem thus to support our hypothesis that a slightly different grammar has risen in the Dutch HLS of Holambra, suffering attrition due to the influence of Brazilian Portuguese, since they accept Bare Singulars, showing no significant difference with the Brazilian Control Group. We will follow Oosterhof’s proposal (2008) on the distribution of empty determiners in Dutch and assume that the grammar of the Holambra speakers possesses a bundle of features allowing a 0[+R, +count, –pl] combination: That is, a singular count noun DP with an empty determiner, rendering a generic reading. Keywords: language acquisition; heritage languages; bare singular count nouns; Dutch; Brazilian Portuguese.Resumo: O objetivo desta pesquisa foi avaliar a distribuição de DPs em sentenças genéricas em falantes de neerlandês como língua de herança em Holambra, Brasil, especialmente em relação à aceitabilidade de nomes singulares nus (NNs). A distribuição de NNs é mais restrita em neerlandês do que no Português Brasileiro (PB), no entanto, levantamos a hipótese de que, devido à influência do PB os falantes de Holambra poderiam aceitar NNs em contextos semelhantes aos dos brasileiros. Aplicamos um teste de aceitabilidade em 60 HLS adultos de Holambra (grupo experimental), 30 monolíngues brasileiros e 30 falantes nativos de holandês (grupos de controle 1 e 2). Apresentamos a cada participante do grupo experimental 10 sentenças em neerlandês e 20 distratores, a fim de verificar sua aceitabilidade em uma escala Likert de cinco itens. Os resultados mostraram que sentenças genéricas com NNs receberam alta aceitação do Grupo Experimental de Holambra (72% de aceitabilidade). Essas respostas estão mais alinhadas com o Controle Brasileiro (78% de aceitabilidade) do que com o Controle Holandês (96% de inaceitabilidade). A análise de regressão estatística dos NNs mostrou que o Controle Holandês apresentou comportamento significativamente divergente (p. valor=<2-16) quando comparado com o Grupo Experimental. Os resultados parecem corroborar nossa hipótese de que uma gramática ligeiramente diferente surgiu nos falantes de holandês de Holambra, sofrendo atrito devido à influência do PB, uma vez que aceitam NNs, não mostrando diferença significativa com o Grupo de Controle Brasileiro. Seguiremos a proposta de Oosterhof (2008) sobre a distribuição de determinantes vazios em holandês, e propor que a gramática dos falantes de Holambra possui um conjunto de traços permitindo a combinação 0 [+ R, + count, -pl]: isto é, um nome nu singular contável com uma leitura genérica.Palavras-chave: aquisição de linguagem; línguas de herança; nomes singulares nus; neerlandês; português brasileiro.

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.

TWO SORTS OF BARE NOUNS IN BRAZILIAN PORTUGUESE

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta Pires de Oliveira ◽  
Susan Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
Prima Facie ◽  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
Atomic Mass ◽  
Count Noun ◽  
Bare Mass ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Bare Plural ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Bare Nouns

It is a consensus in the literature that the so called Bare Singular (BS, from now on) in Brazilian Portuguese (BrP) is not semantically singular (Munn & Schmitt 1999, a.o.), but a number neutral count noun. In this paper, we explore the hypothesis that it is not a count noun. We reach such a conclusion by comparing the bare singular with both the bare mass noun and the bare plural count noun. We show that the behavior of the bare singular in BrP does not parallel that of the bare plural, but strongly parallels that of the bare mass noun. Based on such facts we propose that there are just two sorts of bare nouns in BrP: Bare Mass and Bare Plural. The Bare Mass denotes either the kind or a mass predicate, whereas the Bare Plural always denotes a plural predicate. These different semantics explain their different behavior. As conclusion, we show some unexpected results from our approach. The outline of the paper is as follows. We begin by showing that the prima facie arguments against treating bare singulars as mass nouns are not valid. Our claims are based on the fact that the literature has compared bare singular nouns with non-atomic mass nouns, and has shown that they behave differently with respect to the relevant tests. However, comparing bare singulars with naturally atomic mass nouns such as mobília ‘furniture’ gives different results. We then show, in section 2, that the bare singular displays the same distributional restrictions as the bare mass noun both in episodic and generic contexts, a fact that, as far as we know, has gone unnoticed in the literature. This strengthens the case for treating them alike. In section 3 we give a semantics for mass nouns and count nouns in the framework of Rothstein 2010a, b which allows for a unified analysis of bare singulars and mass terms, that differs from that attributed to the bare plural. In section 4, we explain the data from earlier sections in the light of the analysis, and propose a semantics for bare plurals which explains their behavior in BrP. Finally, we also show that our account predicts that so called ‘bare singulars’ can occur with mass determiners, and we give arguments to show that this prediction is correct. Moreover its behavior in comparative contexts also supports our hypothesis that it is a mass.

Count Nouns and Mass Nouns: Crops, Produce, and the Plural of Seed

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-223
Author(s):  
Charles L. Mohler ◽  
Linda A. Heyne
Keyword(s):  
Count Noun ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns

AbstractThe distinction between count nouns and mass nouns affects thinking and writing about various types of crops and produce. Count nouns are words that indicate discrete, countable objects (e.g., forks, viewpoints), whereas mass nouns are words that indicate some relatively undifferentiated substance (e.g., water, energy). We explain the grammar of these two forms and point out some writing pitfalls to avoid. The word seed is one of the few English nouns that is both a count noun and a mass noun. An argument is presented for using seeds as the plural when several individuals are counted and for using seed as the singular when referring to seeds in the aggregate.

scholarly journals Context sensitivity and the semantics of count nouns in the evaluation of partial objects by children and adults

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Kristen SYRETT ◽  
Athulya ARAVIND
Keyword(s):  
Context Sensitivity ◽  
Context Dependence ◽  
Count Noun ◽  
Discourse Context ◽  
Conceptual Representations ◽  
Children's Behavior ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Adult Performance ◽  
Multiple Accounts

Abstract Previous research has documented that children count spatiotemporally-distinct partial objects as if they were whole objects. This behavior extends beyond counting to inclusion of partial objects in assessment and comparisons of quantities. Multiple accounts of this performance have been proposed: children and adults differ qualitatively in their conceptual representations, children lack the processing skills to immediately individuate entities in a given domain, or children cannot readily access relevant linguistic alternatives for the target count noun. We advance a new account, appealing to theoretical proposals about underspecification in nominal semantics and the role of the discourse context. Our results demonstrate that there are limits to which children allow partial objects to serve as wholes, and that under certain conditions, adult performance resembles that of children by allowing in partial objects. We propose that children's behavior is in fact licensed by the inherent context dependence of count nouns.

scholarly journals Category Markers or Attributes

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 1287-1293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Keates ◽  
Susan A. Graham
Keyword(s):  
Category Membership ◽  
Count Noun ◽  
Single Word ◽  
Grammatical Form ◽  
Form Class ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Inductive Inferences ◽  
Test Objects

To clarify the role of labels in early induction, we compared 16-month-old infants' ( n = 114) generalization of target properties to test objects when objects were introduced by the experimenter in one of the following ways: (a) with a general attentional phrase, (b) highlighted with a flashlight and a general attentional phrase, (c) via a recorded voice that labeled the objects using a naming phrase, (d) with a label consisting of a count noun embedded within a naming phrase, (e) with a label consisting of a single word that was not marked as belonging to a particular grammatical form class, and (f) with a label consisting of an adjective. Infants relied on object labels to guide their inductive inferences only when the labels were presented referentially, embedded within an intentional naming phrase, and marked as count nouns. These results suggest that infants do not view labels as attributes of objects; rather, infants understand that count-noun labels are intentional markers denoting category membership.

Deriving meaning through context: Interpreting bare nominals in second language Japanese

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Gabriele
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Native Speaker ◽  
First Language ◽  
Count Noun ◽  
Verb Phrase ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Bare Nominals ◽  
L1 English

Previous studies on the second language acquisition of telicity have suggested that learners can use morphosyntactic cues to interpret sentences as telic or atelic even in cases where the cues differ in the first language (L1) and second language (L2) (Slabakova, 2001, 2005; Gabriele, 2008; Kaku et al., 2008a, 2008b). The present study extends this line of research by focusing on a case in which learners cannot rely on morphosyntactic cues in order to reach the appropriate aspectual interpretation. We examine the acquisition of telicity by English-speaking learners of Japanese, focusing on how learners interpret bare count nouns such as kaado ‘card’ that obligatorily display count noun morphosyntax in English. In Japanese, a bare noun such as kaado is ambiguous with respect to number and therefore a verb phrase such as kaado-o kakimashita ‘wrote card’ can be interpreted as either telic ‘wrote the cards’ or atelic ‘wrote cards’ depending on the context. The results of two studies with both intermediate (Study 1: n = 38; Study 2: n = 38) and advanced (Study 1: n = 7; Study 2: n = 10) learners of Japanese show that there are learners at both levels of proficiency that have difficulty with the interpretation of bare count nouns and assign an exclusively telic reading to a verb phrase such as kaado-o kakimashita ‘wrote card’. We argue that this interpretation is due to the boundedness of count nouns in L1 English and propose that a retreat from negative transfer is difficult when there is variability in the native speaker input and when meaning has to be derived from context in the absence of morphosyntactic cues.

How mothers teach basic-level and situation-restricted count nouns

1994 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Geoffrey Hall
Keyword(s):  
Book Reading ◽  
Count Noun ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Teaching Situation ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Basic Level ◽  
Reading Session ◽  
Ostensive Definition ◽  
Unfamiliar Object

ABSTRACTRecent research suggests that young children assume, as a default, that a word applied ostensively to an unfamiliar object (e.g. a man riding in a car) is a basic-level count noun (e.g. person) rather than a situation-restricted count noun (e.g. passenger). In this experiment, 14 mothers and their children (mean age 3;7; range 3;0 to 4;6) participated in a story-book reading session in which the mothers taught their children both a basic-level count noun and a situation-restricted count noun for a series of object drawings. An analysis of mothers' spontaneous teaching strategies revealed that, for a given object, they typically taught a basic-level count noun before a situation-restricted count noun. Furthermore, they tended to teach basic-level count nouns exclusively through estensive definition, especially when the objects were unfamiliar. Moreover, they were (1) more likely to use estensive definitions and (2) less likely to provide additional information concerning the application of the word, when teaching basic-level count nouns than when teaching situation-restricted count nouns. The results provide new evidence that word teachers, like young word learners, assume that a basic-level count noun is the psychologically-privileged candidate for an ostensive definition involving an (unfamiliar) object.

Comprehension of Lexical Subcategory Distinctions by Aphasic Patients

1989 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 481-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lewis P. Shapiro ◽  
Edgar Zurif ◽  
Susan Carey ◽  
Murray Grossman
Keyword(s):  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Common Noun ◽  
The Other ◽  
Count Noun ◽  
Proper Noun ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Semantic Distinction

Previous research has found that agrammatic Broca aphasic patients have particular difficulty using determiners like "a" and "the" for the purposes of sentence comprehension. In this study, we test whether or not such difficulty extends to the level where lexical subcategories are distinguished by these articles. The absence or presence of a determiner distinguishes proper from common nouns (e.g., "ROSE vs. "A ROSE"), and mass from count nouns (e.g., "GLASS" vs. "A GLASS"). Groups of agrammatic Broca and fluent aphasic subjects were required to point to one of two pictures in response to a sentence such as "Point to the picture of rose" or "Point to the picture of a rose". Sentences were presented in either printed or spoken form. Results indicated that for the agrammatic Broca patients, printed presentation yielded significant improvement over spoken presentation only for the proper noun/common noun distinction. Performance was significantly poorer for the mass noun/count noun distinction as compared to the proper/common distinction for these patients, and mass nouns proved particularly difficult. Interpretable patterns were not observed on either subcategory distinction for the fluent aphasic subjects. Current theories of agrammatism cannot fully explain these data. An independent explanation is offered that suggests proper noun/common noun is a universal semantic distinction. On the other hand, the mass noun/count noun distinction is more purely syntactic, and thus is particularly difficult for agrammatic Broca patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document