scholarly journals Grammatical Number and Donkey Anaphora in English

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-60
Author(s):  
Brendan S. Gillon
Keyword(s):  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Count Noun ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Donkey Anaphora ◽  
Gareth Evans ◽  
Grammatical Number ◽  
Stephen Neale

ABSTRACTThe article extends the analysis of English donkey anaphora, developed by Gareth Evans and improved by Stephen Neale, beyond those cases where the antecedents are singular count noun phrases, to those where the antecedents are either plural count noun phrases or mass noun phrases. The extension is based on an analysis of English grammatical number developed elsewhere cf. Gillon (1992). Its application here requires that a suggestion adopted by Neale—namely, that the grammatical number of pronouns in these cases is semantically inert—be relinquished. It is shown on independent grounds that the suggestion is untenable.

The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Number

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Mental Representation ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Numeral Classifiers ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
The Core ◽  
Grammatical Number ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Linguistic Means

This volume offers an overview of current research on grammatical number in language. The chapters Part i of the handbook present foundational notions in the study of grammatical number covering the semantic analyses of plurality, the mass–count distinction, the relationship between number and quantity expressions and the mental representation of number and individuation. The core instance of grammatical number is marking for number distinctions in nominal expressions as in English the book/the books and the chapters in Part ii, Number in the nominal domain, explore morphological, semantic, and syntactic aspects of number marking within noun phrases. The contributions examine morphological marking of number the relationship between syntax and nominal number marking, and the interactions between numeral classifiers with semantic number and number marking. They also address cases of mismatches in form and meaning with respect to number displayed by lexical plurals and collective nouns. The final chapter reviews nominal number processing from the perspective of language pathologies. While number marking on nouns has been the focus of most research on number, number distinctions can also be found in the event domain. Part iii, Number in the event domain, presents an overview of different linguistic means of expressing plurality in the event domain, covering verbal plurality marking, pluractional modifiers of the form Noun preposition Noun, frequency adjectives and dependent indefinites. Part iv provides fifteen case studies examining different aspects of grammatical number marking in a range of typologically diverse languages.

Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates

2004 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 371-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica L Middleton ◽  
Edward J Wisniewski ◽  
Kelly A Trindel ◽  
Mutsumi Imai
Keyword(s):  
Count Noun ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Conceptual Distinction

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 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 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.

Number in Sign Languages

2021 ◽  
pp. 643-660
Author(s):  
Roland Pfau ◽  
Markus Steinbach
Keyword(s):  
Sign Language ◽  
Noun Phrases ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Number Marking ◽  
Visual Spatial ◽  
Phonological Features ◽  
Specific Sign ◽  
Plural Marking ◽  
Grammatical Number

In sign languages, just as in many spoken languages, number can be marked on nouns, pronouns, and verbs, and quantifiers are used to specify quantity within noun phrases. The chapter does not address the expression of grammatical number in one specific sign language, but rather describes patterns found in various sign languages, focusing on modality-independent and modality-specific properties of number marking. As for the former, nominal and verbal plurals are commonly realized by reduplication. As for number-marking strategies specific to visual–spatial languages, it is found that sign languages employ the two hands (e.g. lexical plurality), the signing space in front of the signer's body (e.g. plural marking on predicates), and specific reduplication types that are not attested in spoken languages (e.g. sideward reduplication of certain nouns). In addition, the choice of pluralization strategy is determined by modality-specific phonological features, and we are thus dealing with phonologically conditioned allomorphy.

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.

scholarly journals Language, thought, and real nouns

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Barner ◽  
Shunji Inagaki ◽  
Peggy Li
Keyword(s):  
Count Noun ◽  
Mass Noun ◽  
Present Evidence ◽  
Linguistic Differences ◽  
Lexical Statistics ◽  
Classifier Languages ◽  
The World ◽  
Quantity Judgment ◽  
Object Relative ◽  
Novel Words

We test the claim that acquiring a mass-count language, like English,causes speakers to think differently about entities in the world, relativeto speakers of classifier languages like Japanese. We use three tasks toassess this claim: object-substance rating, quantity judgment, and wordextension. Using the first two tasks, we present evidence that learningmass-count syntax has little effect on the interpretation of familiar nounsbetween Japanese and English, and that speakers of these languages do notdivide up referents differently along an individuation continuum, asclaimed in some previous reports (Gentner & Boroditsky, 2001). Instead, weargue that previous cross-linguistic differences (Imai & Gentner, 1997) areattributable to “lexical statistics” (Gleitman & Papafragou, 2005).Speakers of English are more likely to think that a novel ambiguousexpression like “the blicket” refers to a kind of object (relative tospeakers of Japanese) because speakers of English are likely to assume that“blicket” is a count noun rather than a mass noun, based on the relativefrequency of each kind of word in English. This is confirmed by testingMandarin-English bilinguals with a word extension task. We find thatbilinguals tested in English with mass-count ambiguous syntax extend novelwords like English monolinguals (and assume that a word like “blicket”refers to a kind of object). In contrast, bilinguals tested in Mandarin aresignificantly more likely to extend novel words by material. Thus, onlinelexical statistics, rather than non-linguistic thought, mediate cross-linguistic differences in word extension. We suggest that speakers ofMandarin, English, and Japanese draw on a universal set of lexicalmeanings, and that mass-count syntax allows speakers of English to selectamong these meanings.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document