All notional mass nouns are count nouns in Yudja

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzi Lima
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Expression ◽  
Main Claim ◽  
Fundamental Properties ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Quantity Judgments

<p>This paper investigates the linguistic expression of individuation and counting in Yudja (Juruna family), a Tupi language spoken in Brazil. Relying on the principles of mereotopology (Casati and Varzi 1999, Varzi 2007), the main claim of this paper is that in Yudja all nouns can be used as count nouns. That is, in Yudja maximal self-connected concrete portions of a kind can be considered as atoms and can be counted. This claim is based on two fundamental properties of Yudja. First, all notional mass nouns can be directly combined with numerals. Second, the results of quantity judgments studies with Yudja children and adults suggest that all nouns can be directly combined with count-quantifiers and that count-quantifiers are necessarily interpreted as referring to the number of concrete portions. These properties together suggest that all nouns in Yudja are interpreted as count nouns.</p>

scholarly journals Quantity judgments and individuation: evidence that mass nouns count

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Barner ◽  
Jesses Snedeker
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Quantity Judgments ◽  
Learning Language

Three experiments explored the semantics of the mass-count distinction inyoung children and adults. In Experiments 1 and 2, the quantity judgmentsof participants provided evidence that some mass nouns refer toindividuals, as such. Participants judged one large portion of stuff to be”more” than three tiny portions for substance-mass nouns (e.g. mustard,ketchup), but chose according to number for count nouns (e.g. shoes, candles)and object-mass nouns (e.g. furniture, jewelry). These results suggest thatsome mass nouns quantify over individuals, and that therefore reference toindividuals does not distinguish count nouns from mass nouns. Thus,Experiments 1 and 2 failed to support the hypothesis that there existone-to- one mappings between mass-count syntax and semantics for eitheradults or young children. In Experiment 3, it was found that for mass-countflexible terms (e.g. string, stone) participants based quantity judgmentson number when the terms were used with count syntax, but on total amountof stuff when used with mass syntax. Apparently, the presence of discretephysical objects in a scene (e.g. stones) is not sufficient to permitquantity judgments based on number. It is proposed that object-mass nouns(e.g. furniture) can be used to refer to individuals due to lexically specified grammatical features that normally occur in count syntax. Also, wesuggest that children learning language parse words that refer toindividuals as count nouns unless given morpho-syntactic and referentialevidence to the contrary, in which case object-mass nouns are acquired.

scholarly journals Countability in Absence of Count Syntax: Evidence from Japanese Quantity Judgments

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shunji Inagaki ◽  
David Barner
Keyword(s):  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Japanese Speakers ◽  
Quantity Judgments

We investigated the interaction of mass-count syntax and item-specific wordmeanings by comparing quantity judgments in two mass-count languages(English, French) and a classifier language (Japanese). Speakers of bothEnglish and Japanese based quantity judgments on volume for substance-massterms (e.g., judging two large portions of toothpaste to be moretoothpaste thansix tiny portions) but on number for count nouns (e.g., shoes) andobject-mass nouns (e.g., judging that six small pieces of furniture are morefurniture than two large pieces). For words that can be used in either massor count syntax in English (e.g., string), English quantity judgmentsshifted as a function of mass-count syntax (i.e., based on number when usedin count syntax, but on volume when used in mass syntax), whileapproximately 50% of Japanese quantity judgments were based on number,falling between English mass and count judgments. For words that are massnouns in English but count nouns in French (e.g., spinach), quantityjudgments shifted as a function of syntax between these languages, whileJapanese judgments were not different from the count judgments of Frenchspeakers, and were based mainly on number. We argue that, across languages,mass-count syntax is not necessary for nouns to specify individuation, butacts to select from among universally available lexical meanings.

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

scholarly journals Children’s Early Understanding of Mass–Count Syntax: Individuation, Lexical Content, and the Number Asymmetry Hypothesis

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Barner ◽  
Jesses Snedeker
Keyword(s):  
Word Meaning ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Lexical Content

How does mass–count syntax affect word meaning? Many theorists haveproposed that count nouns denote individuals, whereas mass nouns do not(Bloom, 1999; Gordon, 1985; Link, 1983), a proposal that is supported byprototypical examples of each (table, water). However, studies of quantityjudgments in 4-year-olds and adults demonstrate that some mass nouns(furniture) do denote individuals (Barner & Snedeker, 2005). This isproblematic for bootstrapping theories that posit one-to-onesyntax-semantics mappings (individual ↔ count; nonindividual ↔ mass; Bloom,1999), unless mass nouns that denote individuals are late-learnedexceptions to mappings. This article investigates this possibility in3-year-olds and adults using 2 methods: word extension and quantityjudgment. Both methods indicate that novel mass nouns can denoteindividuals in both age groups, and thus fail to support simplifiedsyntax-semantics mappings. Also, differences between word extension andquantity judgment raise the possibility that the tasks measure differentunderlying knowledge.

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.

Count and mass nouns in Dâw

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-229
Author(s):  
Luciana R. Storto
Keyword(s):  
Numeral Classifiers ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns

Abstract The goals of this paper are to describe the grammatical properties of nouns and number in Dâw (Naduhup family, Northwestern Amazonia, Brazil) using Lima & Rothstein’s questionnaire (this volume) on mass versus count nouns and to contribute to the typological and semantic literature on nouns and number. Our results show that Dâw is a bare argument language, with no plural on nouns or numeral classifiers, in which all nouns can be counted directly without the need of a measure or container phrase. A difference between notionally count and mass nouns can be found only when different sets of quantifiers are combined with mass and count nouns and in comparatives.

Maxakalí has suppletion, numerals and associatives but no plurals

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-287
Author(s):  
Andrew Nevins ◽  
Mário Coelho da Silva
Keyword(s):  
Large Set ◽  
Number Count ◽  
Internal Argument ◽  
Unusual Pattern ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns ◽  
Unaccusative Verbs ◽  
Plural Marking

Abstract The Maxakalí language lacks additive plurals (akin to dog-s) on nouns, but has associative plurals, and a large set of suppletive verbs that indicate whether the internal argument is plural or not. Although it has no plural marking, Maxakalí distinguishes between count nouns and mass nouns. The former can be followed by numerals, while the latter must be coerced or occur with container words. Only count nouns can be distinguished between singular and plural with verbal number. Mass nouns always require plural verbal number. Count nouns are compatible with words like ‘many’ indicating cardinality, while mass nouns are compatible with words like ‘big’ for volume. Granulated substances have variable behavior, depending on whether treated as a whole or as several individuated items. Numerals in Maxakalí show an unusual pattern, whereby 1–3 are treated as unaccusative verbs, and 4 and up, being loanwords, are treated as unergative verbs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document