scholarly journals Referentiality and incompletive reading in Mandarin

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Anqi Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Thematic Relation

As an exception to Krifka’s (1989) famous generalization that a quantized incremental theme always induces an event-homomorphic completive reading, Singh (1991, 1998) observes that in Hindi only the quantized mass noun phrases as the incremental theme entails a completive reading, but unexpectedly quantized count nouns phrases can have an incompletive reading. She proposes that count nouns can introduce a partial thematic relation, whereas mass nouns introduce a total thematic relation. With new data in Mandarin, instead of the mass/count distinction, I argue that referentiality is the crucial factor because the non-culmination readings are only felicitous with the referential objects for consumption verbs in Mandarin.

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.

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.

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.

Bare Noun Phrases

On Goodness ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 263-296
Author(s):  
David Conan Wolfsdorf
Keyword(s):  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns

Mass nouns and plural count nouns are syntactically acceptable in argument positions without determiners; for example: “Goodness is rare”; “Dogs are common.” Contrast the syntactic unacceptability of “Dog is common.” Such so-called bare noun phrases are associated with various readings: universally, generically, and existentially quantified as well as so-called kind-denoting. Principally, two types of theory have been proposed to explained these facts: Carlsonian kind-denoting theories and ambiguity theories. Chapter 7 introduces bare noun phrases and the problem of their ambiguity and discusses the Carlsonian and ambiguity theories that have been proposed to explain them.

scholarly journals The Interpretation of Functional Heads: Using Comparatives to Explore the Mass/Count Distinction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Bale ◽  
David Barner
Keyword(s):  
Current Theory ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Identity Function ◽  
Functional Head ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns

Comparative judgments for mass and count nouns yield two generalizations.First, all words that can be used in both mass and count syntax (e.g., rock,string, apple, water) always denote individuals when used in count syntaxbut never when used in mass syntax (e.g. too many rocks vs. too much rock).Second, some mass nouns denote individuals (e.g., furniture) while othersdo not (e.g., water). In this article, we show that no current theory ofmass-count semantics can capture these two facts and argue for analternative theory that can. We propose that lexical roots are notspecified as mass or count. Rather, a root becomes a mass noun or countnoun by combining with a functional head. Some roots have denotations withindividuals while others do not. The count head is interpreted as afunction that maps denotations without individuals to those withindividuals. The mass head is interpreted as an identity function makingthe interpretation of a mass noun equivalent to the interpretation of theroot. As a result, all count nouns have individuals in their denotation,whereas mass counterparts of count nouns do not. Also, some roots that haveindividuals in their denotations can be used as mass nouns to denoteindividuals.

scholarly journals Prototyping Mass Nouns from Students’ Perspective: A Pedagogical Implication

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-99
Author(s):  
Md Alam
Keyword(s):  
Esl Students ◽  
Grammatical Category ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Research Attention ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Safety Knowledge ◽  
Linguistic Approach ◽  
Esl Learners ◽  
Selection Of

This paper investigates ESL learners’ prototyping mass nouns as a grammatical category. The study is supported by the theory of prototype developed by Rosch in 1970s which plays a wide role in graded categorization of the existent entities in the world. With an expected inspiration from the theory, the prototyping of vocabulary received research attention especially in the pedagogical world. Promisingly, this study seeks to extend the theory to explore a lexico-grammatical category i.e. “mass nouns” from learners’ perspective. Actually, the study was directed to  find out which prototypical feature ESL students exploit to prioritize some mass nouns as prototypical examples over some other mass nouns, and  how far students’ experientially and pedagogically perceived “prototypes” of mass nouns help them to correctly grouping up nouns as in mass category. The study was focused on  shedding some light on a few pedagogical tips and implications in some likely challenging contexts of teaching mass nouns. The study reveals that ESL students shortlist ‘liquids’ (such as water, milk, wine, juice etc.) ‘gases’(such as hydrogen, oxygen etc.), ‘abstract ideas’ (such as childhood, anger, safety, knowledge etc.), ‘powdered substances’ (such as sand, sugar etc.), and some ‘natural entities’ (such as heat, sunshine etc.) as “prototype of mass nouns” which all are un-individuated and sometimes  intangible - meaning uncountable - while the learners recognize ‘non-countable’ status as the most important prototypical feature of mass nouns. And, the students isolated ‘rice’, ‘wheat’, ‘hair’, ‘grass’ , ‘cotton’ and ‘coal’ as less prototypical mass nouns based on their intrinsic sense that these mass nouns are plural and they even can be individuated. However, the study reflects that the students’ perceived prototypes are not sufficient as they selected and considered many of mass nouns as so distant members as countable. It was further found that contextual type shifts of mass-count nouns, arbitrary sematic distributions to lexis, cross-linguistic approach to mass nouns, intrinsic and realistic conception, superordinate-subordinate influence, and perception of enumerating status etc. account for students’ this surprise selection of a number of mass nouns as opposite category i.e. count nouns. If pedagogues are non-responsive to these factors and fail to redefine their approaches to mass noun teaching, it is most likely to lead to learners’ grammatical inaccuracy resulted from their determiner-number-mass noun mismatch. 

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document