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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Bare singular and bare mass nouns in Brazilian Portuguese: First results of an empirical survey

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 75 ◽  
Author(s):  
João Vinicius de A. Braga ◽  
Laiza de Sena ◽  
Ruan Mariano ◽  
Roberta Pires de Oliveira
Keyword(s):  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
Bare Mass ◽  
Empirical Survey ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
First Results

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.

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.

scholarly journals The interpretation of Brazilian Portuguese bare singulars in neutral contexts

2016 ◽  
Vol 93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzi Oliveira Lima ◽  
Ana Paula Quadros Gomes
Keyword(s):  
Brazilian Portuguese ◽  
Mass Nouns ◽  
Count Nouns

Abstract The interpretation of Bare Singular count nouns (henceforth BS nouns) has been at the center of much debate in the literature on countability in Brazilian Portuguese. In this paper, we ad- dress the question whether BS nouns may only be interpreted as mass nouns or as names of kinds, or whether they may also be interpreted as object denoting nouns. It is generally agreed that BS nouns can be interpreted as names of kinds. Furthermore, Beviláqua and Pires de Oliveira (2014) show that BS nouns are interpreted as mass nouns in contexts that favor a mass interpretation. However, the preferred interpretation of BS nouns in neutral contexts (i.e. contexts that favor neither a count nor a mass interpretation) has never been investigated experimentally. We present the results of two experiments, which show that speakers tend to interpret BS nouns as count nouns in neutral contexts.  

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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document