Abner, N. (2017). What you see is what you get: Surface transparency and ambiguity of nominalizing reduplication in American Sign Language. Syntax, 20: 352–71.Google Scholar

Acquaviva, P. (2008). Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aikhenvald, A. (2000). Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Al-Wer, E. and Horesh, U.. (2017). Dialect contact and change in an Arabic morpheme: Examining Jordanian and Palestinian dialects. A paper presented at the North American Research Network in Historical Sociolinguistics (NARNiHS).Google Scholar

Alexiadou, A. (2011). Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of number. In Washburn, M. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 33–41.Google Scholar

Allan, K. (1980). Nouns and countability. Language, 56: 541–67.Google Scholar

Aloni, M. (2003). Free choice in modal contexts. In Weisgerber, M. (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB 7). Konstanz: Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, pp. 25–37.Google Scholar

Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2008). Innocent exclusion in an alternative semantics. Natural Language Semantics, 16: 115–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Apresjan, J. D. (1974). Regular polysemy. Linguistics, 14: 5–32.Google Scholar

Arcara, G., Franzon, F., Gastaldon, S., Brotto, S., Semenza, C., Peressotti, F., and Zanini, C. (2019). One can be some but some cannot be one: ERP correlates of numerosity incongruence are different for singular and plural. Cortex, 116: 104–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Arnauld, A. and Lancelot, C.. (1660). Grammaire générale et raisonnée. Paris: Pierre le Petit.Google Scholar

Arsenijevic, B. (2016). Gender as a grammaticalized classifier system: The case of the Serbo-Croatian neuter. Available at https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002848.Google Scholar

Asher, N. (2011). Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, H., Harald, R., Dijkstra, T., and Schreuder, R.. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37: 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R., Piepenbrock, R., and Gulikers, L.. (1996). Celex2. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar

Bach, E. (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, R. (1770). Remarks on the English Language, in the Manner of Those of Vaugelas on the French: Being a Detection of Many Improper Expressions Used in Conversation, and of Many Others to Be Found in Authors. London: J. Bell.Google Scholar

Bale, A. (2014). To agree without AGREE: The case for semantic agreement. In Huang, H-L. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 43, Vol. 1. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 13–24.Google Scholar

Bale, A. (forthcoming). Number and the mass–count distinction. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. and Doetjes, J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Number. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bale, A. and Barner, D.. (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 26: 217–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bale, A. and Coon, J.. (2014). Classifiers are for numerals, not for nouns: Consequences for the mass/count distinction. Linguistic Inquiry, 45: 695–707.Google Scholar

Bale, A. and Khanjian, H.. (2008). Classifiers and number marking. In Friedman, T. and Ito, S. (eds.) Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 18). Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications, pp. 74–88.Google Scholar

Bale, A. and Khanjian, H.. (2014). Syntactic complexity and competition: The singular/plural distinction in Western Armenian. Linguistic Inquiry, 45: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bale, A., Gagnon, M., and Khanjian, H.. (2010). Cross-linguistic representations of numerals and number marking. In N. Li and D. Lutz (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 20). Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications, pp. 582–98.Google Scholar

Bale, A., Gagnon, M., and Khanjian, H.. (2011). On the relationship between morphological and semantic markedness: The case of plural morphology. Morphology, 21: 197–221.Google Scholar

Baptista, M. (2007). On the syntax and semantics of DP in Cape Verdean creole. In Baptista, M. and Guéron, J. (eds.), Noun Phrases in Creole Languages: A Multifaceted Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 61–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bardagil-Mas, B. (2020). Number morphology in Panará. Linguistic Variation, 20: 312–23.Google Scholar

Barker, C. (1998). Partitives, double genitives and anti-uniqueness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16: 679–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barner, D. and Snedeker, J.. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97: 41–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., , A., and Zanchetta, E.. (2009). The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43: 209–26.Google Scholar

Baroni, M. and Ueyama, M.. (2006). Building general- and special-purpose corpora by web crawling. In Proceedings of the 13th NIJL International Symposium; Language Corpora: Their Compilation and Application. Tokyo: PUBLISHER, pp. 31–40.Google Scholar

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S.. (2014). Ime4: Linear Mixd-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4. In R Package, version 1.1-7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Ime4.Google Scholar

Bennett, M. (1974). Some extensions of a Montague fragment of English. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar

Berent, I., Dupuis, A., and Brentari, D.. (2014). Phonological reduplication in sign language: Rules rule. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00560Google Scholar

Beviláqua, K., Lima, S., and Pires de Oliveira, R.. (2016). Coercion and bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese: An experimental study on grinding. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beviláqua, K. and Pires de Oliveira, R.. (2014). Brazilian bare nouns and referentiality: Evidence from an experiment. Revista Letras, 90: 235–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beviláqua, K. and Pires de Oliveira, R.. (2017). Brazilian bare nouns in comparatives: Experimental evidence for non-contextual dependency. Revista Letras, 96: 354–76.Google Scholar

Bisiacchi, P., Mondini, S., Angrilli, A., Marinelli, K., and Semenza, C.. (2005). Mass and count nouns show distinct EEG cortical processes during an explicit semantic task. Brain and Language, 95: 98–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bliss, H. (2004). The semantics of the bare noun in Turkish. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar

Bloom, P. (1990). Semantic Structure and Language Dvelopment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bloom, P. and Kelemen, D.. (1995). Syntactic cues in the acquisition of collective nouns. Cognition, 56: 1–30.Google Scholar

Booij, G. (1996). Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Booij, G. and Van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Boone, A. (1989). La distinction massif/comptable et les noms de maladies. In David, J. and Kleiber, G. (eds.), Termes massifs et termes comptables. Metz/Paris: Université de Metz/Klincksieck, pp. 109–23.Google Scholar

Borer, H. (1999). Deconstructing the construct. In Johnson, K. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 43–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borer, H. (2005). Structuring Sense I. In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borer, H. (2013). Structuring Sense III. Taking Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borer, H. and Ouwayda, S.. (2010). Men and their apples: Dividing plural and agreement plural. Paper presented at “GLOW in Asia VIII”, Beijing Language and Culture University. Available at: http://webspace.qmul.ac.uk/hborer/Downloads/2010-AGLOW.pdf.Google Scholar

Bošković, Ž. and Şener, S.. (2013). The Turkish NP. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. (ed.), Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference. Leiden: Brill, pp. 102–42.Google Scholar

Boster, C.T. (1996). On the quantifier-noun phrase split in American Sign Language and the structure of quantified noun phrases. In Edmondson, W. and Wilbur, R. (eds.), International Review of Sign Linguistics Vol. 1. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Psychology Press, pp. 159–208.Google Scholar

Bosveld-de Smet, L. (2001). Le pluriel et le massif: une paire unique. In Amiot, D., De Mulder, W., and Flaux, N. (eds.), Le syntagme nominal: syntaxe et sémantique. Arras: Artois Presses Université, pp. 27–45.Google Scholar

Bowden, J. (2001). Taba: Description of a South Halmahera Language. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Brasoveanu, A. (2008). Donkey pluralities: Plural information states versus non-atomic individuals. Linguistics and Philosophy, 31: 129–209.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. (2007). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, S. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in Search of its Evidential Base. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 75–96.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J., Dingare, S., and Manning, C.. (2001). Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. and Ford, M.. (2010). Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86: 168–213.Google Scholar

Brooks, N., Pogue, A., and Barner, D.. (2011). Piecing together numerical language: Children’s use of default units in early counting and quantification. Developmental Science, 14: 44–57.Google Scholar

Brustad, K. (2000). The Syntax of Spoken Arabic. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Bunt, H. (1979). Ensembles and the formal semantics properties of mass terms. In Pelletier, F.J. (ed.), Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 249–77.Google Scholar

Bunt, H. (1985). Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Butler, L. (2012). Crosslinguistic and experimental evidence for non-number plural. Linguistic Variation, 12: 27–56.Google Scholar

Cabredo Hofherr, P. (forthcoming). Nominal number morphology. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. and Doetjes, Jenny (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Number. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carey, S. (1978). The child as word learner. In Halle, M. and Miller, G. (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 264–93.Google Scholar

Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Carey, S. and Spelke, E.. (1996). Science and core knowledge. Philosophy of Science, 63: 515–33.Google Scholar

Carlson, G. (1977a). Reference to Kinds in English. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts. (Published 1980 by Garland Press, New York.)Google Scholar

Carlson, G. (1977b). A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1: 413–56.Google Scholar

Carreiras, M., Carr, L., Barber, H., and Hernandez, A.. (2010). Where syntax meets math: Right intraparietal sulcus activation in response to grammatical number agreement violations. NeuroImage, 49: 1741–9.Google Scholar

Cartwright, H. (1979). Amounts and measures of amount. In Pelletier (1979), pp. 179–98.Google Scholar

Champollion, L. (2010). Parts of a whole: Distributivity as a bridge between aspect and measurement. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Available at https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2117&context=edissertations.Google Scholar

Chao, Y. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Chen, T. and Guestrin, C.. (2016). Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York: ACM, pp. 785–94.Google Scholar

Cheng, C-Y. (1973). Comments on Moravcsik’s paper. In Hintikka, J., Moravcsik, J., and Suppes, P. (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 286–8.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. (2012). Counting and classifiers. In Massam 2012, pp. 199–219.Google Scholar

Cheng, L., Doetjes, J., and Sybesma, R.. (2008). How universal is the universal grinder? In van Koppen, M. and Botma, B. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2008. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 50–62.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. and Sybesma, R.. (1998). Yi-wan tang, yi-ge tang: Classifiers and massifiers. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, 28: 385–412.Google Scholar

Cheng, L. and Sybesma, R.. (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry, 30: 509–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, L. and Sybesma, R.. (2005). Classifiers in four varieties of Chinese. In Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 259–92.Google Scholar

Cheung, P., Barner, D., and Li, P.. (2009). Syntactic cues to individuation in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Cognitive Science, 10: 135.Google Scholar

Chiarelli, V., El Yagoubi, R., Mondini, S., Bisiacchi, P., and Semenza, C.. (2011). The syntactic and semantic processing of mass and count nouns: An ERP study. PLoS One, 6: e25885.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (1998a). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 53–104.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (1998b). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6: 339–405.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (2010). Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthèse, 174: 99–149.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (2015). How universal is the mass/count distinction? Three grammars of counting. In Li, Y. and Tsai, W. (eds.), Chinese Syntax: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–77.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. (2017). Clouds and blood: More on the mass/count distinction. Synthèse, 194: 2523–38.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–156.Google Scholar

Christensen, R.H.B. (2019). ordinal – Regression Models for Ordinal Data. R package version 10 December 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ordinal.Google Scholar

Chung, S. (2000). On reference to kinds in Indonesian. Natural Language Semantics, 8: 157–71.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Cokely, D. and Baker-Shenk, C.. (1980). American Sign Language: The Original Green Books. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

Cooper, R. (2012). Type theory and semantics in flux. In Kempson, R., Fernando, T., and Asher, N. (eds.), Philosophy of Linguistics. Berlin: Elsevier, pp. 271–323.Google Scholar

Corbett, G. (2000). Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corver, N. (1997). Much-support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry, 28: 119–64.Google Scholar

Corver, N. and Zwarts, J.. (2004). Prepositional numerals. Lingua, 116: 811–35.Google Scholar

Coutinho, I. (2020a). The count/mass distinction in Taurepang (Karib). Linguistic Variation, 20: 352–65.Google Scholar

Coutinho, I. (2020b). The count/mass distinction in Ye’kwana (Karib). Linguistic Variation, 20: 409–19.Google Scholar

Cowell, M. (1964). A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Cowper, E. and Hall, D.. (2012). Aspects of individuation. In Massam 2012, pp. 27–53.Google Scholar

Culioli, A. (1973). Sur quelques contradictions en linguistique. Communications, 20: 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culioli, A. (1974). A propos des énoncés exclamatifs. Langue française, 22: 6–15.Google Scholar

Dali, M. and Mathieu, É.. (2016). Les pluriels internes féminins de l’arabe tunisien. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 39: 253–71.Google Scholar

Dali, M. and Mathieu, É.. (forthcoming). A Theory of Distributed Number. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dalrymple, M. and Mofu, S.. (2012). Plural semantics, reduplication, and numeral modification in Indonesian. Journal of Semantics, 29: 229–60.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word corpus of contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14: 159–90.Google Scholar

Dayal, V. (2004). Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27: 393–450.Google Scholar

Dayal, V. (2011). Bare noun phrases. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., and Portner, P. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1088–109.Google Scholar

Dayal, V. (2012). Bangla classifiers: Mediating between kinds and objects. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 24: 195–226.Google Scholar

Dayal, V. (2013). On the existential force of bare plurals across languages. In Caponigro, I. and Cecchetto, C. (eds.), From Grammar to Meaning: The Spontaneous Logicality of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–80.Google Scholar

De Belder, M. (2008). Size matters: Towards a syntactic decomposition of countability. In Abner, N., and Bishop, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 116–22.Google Scholar

De Belder, M. (2011). A morphosyntactic decomposition of countability in Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 14: 173–202.Google Scholar

De Marneffe, M-C., Dozat, T., , N. Silveira, K. Haverinen, F. Ginter, J. Nivre, , and Manning, C.. (2014). Universal Stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology. In Calzolari, N. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-14). Paris: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 4585–92.Google Scholar

De Marneffe, M-C., MacCartney, B., and Manning, C.. (2006). Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In Calzolari, N. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-06). Paris: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 449–54.Google Scholar

Deal, A. (2017). Countability distinctions and semantic variation. Natural Language Semantics, 25: 125–71.Google Scholar

Dehaene, S. (1997). The Number Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Despic, M. (2019). On kinds and anaphoricity in languages without definite articles. In Aguilar-Guevara, A. et al. (eds.), Definiteness across Languages. Berlin: Language Sciences Press, pp. 259–91.Google Scholar

Di Sciullo, A.-M. and Williams, E.. (1987). On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dobrovie-Sorin, C., Bleam, T., and Espinal, M.. (2006). Bare nouns, number and types of incorporation. In Tasmowski, L. and Vogeleer, S. (eds.), Non-Definiteness and Plurality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–79.Google Scholar

Dobrovie-Sorin, C. and Pires de Oliveira, R.. (2008). Reference to kinds in Brazilian Portuguese: Definite singulars vs. bare singulars. In Grønn, A. (ed.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12. Oslo: Ilos, pp. 107–21.Google Scholar

Doetjes, J. (1996). Mass and count: Syntax or semantics. In Arregui, A. and Cremers, C. (eds.), Proceedings of Meaning on the HIL 1. Leiden: Leiden University, pp. 34–52.Google Scholar

Doetjes, J. (1997). Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. PhD dissertation, Leiden University. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar

Doetjes, J. (2001). La distribution des expressions quantificatrices et le statut des noms non-comptables. In Kleiber, G., Laca, B., and Tasmowski, L. (eds.), La typologie des groupes nominaux. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, pp. 119–42.Google Scholar

Doetjes, J. (2012). Count/mass distinctions across languages. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K., and Portner, P. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 2559–80.Google Scholar

Doetjes, J. (2017a). The count/mass distinction in grammar and cognition. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3: 199–217.Google Scholar

Doetjes, J. (2017b). Noun phrase. In Sybesma, R. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3. Leiden: Brill, pp. 247–54. Available also at http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2210-7363_ecll_COM_00000299.Google Scholar

Doetjes, J. (2017c). Measure words and classifiers. Revista Letras, 96: 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doetjes, J. (2021). Quantity systems and the count/mass distinction. In Filip 2021, pp. 54–84.Google Scholar

Donabédian, A. (1993). Le pluriel en arménien moderne. Faits de langues, 2: 179–88.Google Scholar

Doron, E. and Müller, A.. (2014). The cognitive basis of the mass–count distinction: Evidence from bare nouns. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. and Zribi-Hertz, A. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference. Leiden: Brill, pp. 172–211.Google Scholar

Dryer, M. (2005). Coding of nominal plurality. In Haspelmath, M. et al. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 138–41.Google Scholar

El Yagoubi, R., Mondini, S., Bisiacchi, P., Chiarelli, V., Angrilli, A., and Semenza, C.. (2006). The electrophysiological basis of mass and count nouns. Brain and Language, 99: 187–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Epstein-Naveh, N. (2015). Pluralisation of mass nouns in Modern Hebrew. Master’s thesis, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar

Erbach, K., Sutton, P., Filip, H., and Byrdeck, K.. (2017). Object mass nouns in Japanese. In Cremers, A. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation at the University of Amsterdam, pp. 235–44.Google Scholar

Espinal, M. and McNally, L.. (2011). Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Spanish and Catalan. Journal of Linguistics, 47: 87–128.Google Scholar

Ester, M., Kriegel, H., Sander, J., and Xu, X.. (1996). A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In Simoudis, E. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-96). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 226–31.Google Scholar

Falkum, I. (2010). Systematic polysemy and the count–mass distinction. University College, London, Working Papers, 22: 16–40.Google Scholar

Farkas, D. and de Swart, H.. (2010). The semantics and pragmatics of plurals. Semantics and Pragmatics, 3: 1–54.Google Scholar

Fassi Fehri, A. (1999). Arabic modifying adjectives and DP structures. Studia Linguistica, 53: 105–54.Google Scholar

Fassi Fehri, A. (2004). Nominal classes, and functional parameters, with particular reference to Arabic. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 4: 41–108.Google Scholar

Fassi Fehri, A. (2012). Key Features and Parameters in Arabic Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fassi Fehri, A. (2016). Semantic gender diversity and its architecture in the grammar of Arabic. Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 8: 154–99.Google Scholar

Featherston, S. (2005). The Decathlon model of empirical syntax. In Kertész, A., Moravscik, E., and Rákosi, C. (eds.), Current Approaches to Syntax: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar

Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., and Spelke, E.. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8: 307–14.Google Scholar

Feldman, F. (1973). Sortal predicates. Noûs, 7: 268–82.Google Scholar

Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Ferdinand, A. (1996). The development of functional categories. PhD dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar

Ferrand, L., Bonin, P., Méot, A., Augustinova, M., New, B., Pallier, C., and Brysbaert, M.. (2008). Age-of-acquisition and subjective frequency estimates for all generally known monosyllabic French words and their relation with other psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 1049–54.Google Scholar

Ferreira, M. (forthcoming). Bare nominals in Brazilian Portuguese. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. and Doetjes, J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Number. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Filip, H. (ed.) (2021). Countability in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Filip, H. and Sutton, P.. (2017). Singular count NPs in measure constructions. In Burgdorf, D. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 27). Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications, pp. 340–57.Google Scholar

Fine, K. (1975). Vagueness, truth, and logic. Synthèse, 30: 275–300.Google Scholar

Fischer, S. (1973). Two processes of reduplication in American Sign Language. Foundations of Language, 9: 469–80.Google Scholar

Flaux, N. and Van de Velde, D. (2000). Les noms en français: esquisse de classement. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar

Frantz, D. and Russell, N.. (1995). Blackfoot Dictionary of Stems, Roots and Affixes, 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Franzon, F. and Zanini, C.. (2019). Different degrees of abstraction from visual cues in processing concrete nouns. In Bolognesi, M. and Steen, G. (eds.), Perspectives on Abstract Concepts: From Cognitive Processing to Semantic Representation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 167–84.Google Scholar

Franzon, F., Zanini, C., and Rugani, R.. (2019). Do non‐verbal number systems shape grammar? Numerical cognition and number morphology compared. Mind and Language, 34: 37–58.Google Scholar

Frisson, S. and Frazier, L.. (2005). Carving up word meaning: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language, 53: 277–91.Google Scholar

Gaash, A. (2010). The development of the proto-semitic feminine ending -at in the noun and verb in contemporary Neo-Arabic dialects. Doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Gaatone, D. (1981). Observations sur l’opposition très/beaucoup. Revue de linguistique romane, 45: 74–95.Google Scholar

Galucio, A. and Costa, C.. (2020). Count–mass distinction in Sakurabiat. Linguistic Variation, 20: 324–35.Google Scholar

Gajewski, J. (2002). On analyticity in natural language. Available at https://jon-gajewski.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1784/2016/08/analytic.pdf.Google Scholar

Gajewski, J. (2009). L-triviality and grammar. Available at https://jon-gajewski.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1784/2016/08/Logic.pdf.Google Scholar

Gamut, L.T.F. (1991). Logic, Language, and Meaning, Volume 1: Introduction to Logic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gathercole, V. (1985). He has too much hard questions. The acquisition of the linguistic mass–count distinction in much and many. Journal of Child Language, 12: 395–415.Google Scholar

Gathercole, V. (1986). Evaluating competing linguistic theories with child language data: The case of the mass–count distinction. Linguistics and Philosophy, 9: 151–90.Google Scholar

Gebhardt, L. (2009). Numeral classifiers and the structure of DP. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar

Ghalayiini, M. (1912/2006). Jaamiʕ ad-duruus al-ʕarabiyyah. [A Compilation of Arabic Lessons]. Beirut: al-maktabah al-ʕaSriyyah. (2006 revision by Salem Shams Ed-diin).Google Scholar

Ghaniabadi, S. (2012). Plural marking beyond count nouns. In Massam 2012, pp. 112–28.Google Scholar

Ghomeshi, J. (2003). Plural marking, indefiniteness, and the noun phrase. Studia Linguistica, 57: 47–74.Google Scholar

Gillon, B. (1992). Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15: 597–640.Google Scholar

Gillon, B. (1999). The lexical semantics of English count and mass nouns. In Viegas, E. (ed.), Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gillon, B., Kehayia, E., and Taler, V.. (1999). The mass/count distinction: Evidence from on-line psycholinguistic performance. Brain and Language, 68: 205–11.Google Scholar

Gillon, C. (2015). Innu-aimun plurality. Lingua, 162: 128–48.Google Scholar

Gleason, H. (1955). An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. New York: Holt.Google Scholar

Gleason, H. (1965). Linguistics and English Grammar. Toronto: Holt, Rinehard, Winston.Google Scholar

Gordon, P. (1985). Evaluating the semantic categories hypothesis: The case of the mass/count distinction. Cognition, 20: 209–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Görgülü, E. (2012). Semantics of nouns and the specification of number in Turkish. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. (1972). Numeral classifiers and substantive number problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. Working Papers on Language Universals, 9: 2–39.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. (1974). Studies in numeral systems, I: Double numeral systems. Working Papers on Language Universals, 14: 75–89.Google Scholar

Grimm, S. (2012a). Individuation and inverse number marking in Dagaare. In Massam 2012, pp. 75–98.Google Scholar

Grimm, S. (2012b). Number and individuation. PhD dissertation, Stanford University. Available at http://www.sas.rochester.edu/lin/sgrimm/publications/grimm_dissertation.pdf.Google Scholar

Grimm, S. (2016). Crime investigations: The countability profile of a delinquent noun. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic, and Communication, 11.Google Scholar

Grimm, S. (2018). Grammatical number and the scale of individuation. Language, 94: 527–74.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, J. (2005). Extended projection. In Grimshaw, J. (ed.), Words and Structure. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–74.Google Scholar

Grinevald, C. (2005). Classifiers. In Lehmann, C. et al. (eds.), Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 1016–31.Google Scholar

Hafez, O. (1996). Morphological integration of loanwords in Egyptian Arabic. Egype/Monde Arabe, 27–8: 383–410.Google Scholar

Hamblin, C. (1973). Questions in Montague grammar. Foundations of Language, 10: 41–53.Google Scholar

Hamedani, L. (2011). The function of number in Persian. PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar

Hammond, M. (1988). Templatic transfer in Arabic broken plurals. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6: 247–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harbour, D. (2003). The Kiowa case for feature insertion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21: 543–78.Google Scholar

Harbour, D. (2007). Morphosemantic Number: From Kiowa Noun Classes to UG Number Features. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Harbour, D. (2011). Valence and atomic number. Linguistic Inquiry, 42: 561–94.Google Scholar

Harbour, D. (2014). Paucity, abundance, and the theory of number. Language, 90: 185–229.Google Scholar

Harrison, S. and Albert, S.. (1976). Mokilese Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. (2001). Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. In Aikhenvald, A., Dixon, R., and Onishi, M. (eds.), Non-Canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 53–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J.. (2009). The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2nd edition. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

Hauser, M. and Carey, S.. (2003). Spontaneous representation of small numbers of objects by rhesus macaque: Examination of content and format. Cognitive Psychology, 47: 367–401.Google Scholar

Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Heim, I. (1991). Artikel und Definitheit. In von Stechow, A. and Wunderlich, D. (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenossischen Forschung. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 487–534.Google Scholar

Herbert, P. and Best, W.. (2010). The role of noun syntax in spoken word production: Evidence from aphasia. Cortex, 46: 329–342.Google Scholar

Hespos, S., Ferry, A., and Rips, L.. (2009). Five-month-old infants have different expectations for solids and liquids. Psychological Science, 20: 603–11.Google Scholar

Hilgert, E. (2014). Un révélateur de massivité: l’énigmatique un peu de. Langue française, 183: 101–16.Google Scholar

Hnout, C. (2017). Counting and measuring in Arabic: Plurality and sˁenf. Master’s thesis, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar

Hoeksema, J. (1983). Plurality and conjunction. In ter Meulen, A. (ed.), Studies in Model-Theoretic Semantics. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 63–83.Google Scholar

Hoepelman, J. and Rohrer, D.. (1981). On the mass–count distinction and the French imparfait and passé simple. In Rohrer, C. (ed.), Time, Tense and Quantifiers. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 85–112.Google Scholar

Holes, C. (1995). Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions and Varieties. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Hurford, J. (1975). The Linguistic Theory of Numerals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hurford, J. (1987). Language and Number: The Emergence of a Cognitive System. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hurford, J. (2003). The interaction between numerals and nouns. In Plank, F. (ed.), Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe. The Hague: de Gruyter, pp. 561–620.Google Scholar

Husić, H. (2020). A vagueness based analysis of abstract mass nouns. In Franke, M. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB 24), Vol. 1. Konstanz: Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, pp. 359–76.Google Scholar

Idrissi, A. (1997). Plural formation in Arabic. In Eid, M. and Ratcliffe, R. (eds.), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics X. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 123–45.Google Scholar

Ikoro, S. (1994). Numeral classifiers in Kana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics, 15: 7–28.Google Scholar

Iljic, R. (1994). Quantification in Mandarin Chinese: Two markers of plurality. Linguistics, 32: 91–116.Google Scholar

Inagaki, S. and Barner, D.. (2009). Countability in absence of count nouns: Evidence from Japanese quantity judgments. Studies in Language Sciences, 8: 111–25.Google Scholar

Ionin, T. and Matushansky, O.. (2004). A singular plural. In Schmeiser, B. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 399–412.Google Scholar

Ionin, T. and Matushansky, O.. (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics, 23: 315–60.Google Scholar

Ionin, T. and Matushansky, O.. (2018). Cardinals: The Syntax and Semantics of Cardinal-Containing Expressions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. Cognition, 41: 9–45.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1914). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part 2. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsbuchhandlung. Reprinted with alterations and additions: N. Haislund (ed.). London: Allen & Urwin, 1948.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1924). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Urwin.Google Scholar

Jiang, J. (2017). Mandarin associative plural -men and NPs with -men. International Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 4: 191–256.Google Scholar

Jiang, J. (2018). Definiteness in Nuosu Yi and the theory of argument formation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 41: 1–39.Google Scholar

Jiang, J. (2020). Nominal Arguments and Language Variation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Joosten, F. (2006). Why club and lingerie do not belong together. A plea for redefining collective nouns. In Kleiber, G., Schnedecker, C., and Theissen, A. (eds.), La relation partie-tout. Paris and Leuven: Peeters, pp. 73–88.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. and Reyle, U.. (1993). From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model-Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Katz, G. and Zamparelli, R.. (2012). Quantifying count/mass elasticity. In Choi, J. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 371–9.Google Scholar

Keller, F. (2000). Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Available at https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/38303/.Google Scholar

Kerleroux, F. (1996). La coupure invisible. Lille: Septentrion.Google Scholar

Khrizman, K., Landman, F., Lima, S., Rothstein, S., and Schvarcz, B.R.. (2015). Portion readings are count readings, not measure readings. In Brochhagen, T. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation at the University of Amsterdam, pp. 197–206.Google Scholar

Kihm, A. (2005). Noun class, gender, and the lexicon-syntax-morphology interfaces: A comparative study of Niger-Congo and Romance languages. In Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 459–512.Google Scholar

Kihm, A. (2006). Nonsegmental concatenation: A study of Classical Arabic broken plurals and verbal nouns. Morphology, 16: 69–105.Google Scholar

Kiss, T., Pelletier, F.J., Husić, H., Poppek, J., and Simunic, N.. (2016). A sense-based lexicon of count and mass expressions: The Bochum countability lexicon. In Calzolari, N. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-16). Paris: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 2810–14.Google Scholar

Kiss, T., Pelletier, F.J., and Stadtfeld, T.. (2014). Building a reference lexicon for countability in English. In Calzolari, N. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-14). Paris: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 995–1000.Google Scholar

Kleiber, G. (1997). Massif/comptable et partie/tout. Verbum, 19: 321–37.Google Scholar

Kleiber, G. (1999). Problèmes de sémantique. La polysémie en questions. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar

Kleiber, G. (2014). Massif/comptable et noms de propriétés. Langue française, 183: 71–86.Google Scholar

Klooster, W. (1972). The Structure Underlying Measure Phrase Sentences. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Koulidobrova, E. (2012). When the quiet surfaces: “Transfer” of argument omission in the speech of ASL-English bilinguals. PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Koulidobrova, E. and Lillo-Martin, D.. (2016). Point of inquiry: The case of the (non-) pronominal IX in ASL. In Grodsz, P. and Patel-Grodsz, P. (eds.), The Impact of Pronominal Form on Interpretation. Boston, MA: de Gruyter, pp. 221–50.Google Scholar

Koulidobrova, E. (2017). Elide me bare: Argument omission in ASL. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 35: 397–446.Google Scholar

Kperogi, F. (2015). Global English: The Changing Face and Forms of Nigerian English in a Global World. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Kramer, R. (2009). Definite markers, phi-features, and agreement: A morphosyntactic investigation of the Amharic DP. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar

Kramer, R. (2016). A split analysis of plurality: Number in Amharic. Linguistic Inquiry, 47: 527–59.Google Scholar

Kratzer, A. and Shimoyama, J.. (2002). Indeterminate pronouns: The view from Japanese. In Otsu, Y. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (TCP). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification. In Bartsch, R., van Benthem, J., and van Emde Boas, P. (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 75–111.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. (1994). Mass expressions. In Asher, R. and Simpson, J. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 5. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 2612–14.Google Scholar

Krifka, M. (1995). Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of English and Chinese. In Carlson, G. and Pelletier, F.J. (eds.), The Generic Book. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 398–411.Google Scholar

Kulkarni, R., Rothstein, S., and Treves, A.. (2013). A statistical investigation into the cross-linguistic distribution of mass and count nouns: Morphosyntactic and semantic perspectives. Biolinguistics, 7: 132–68.Google Scholar

Lahrouchi, M. and Lampitelli, N.. (2014). On plurals, noun phrase and num(ber) in Moroccan Arabic and Djibouti Somali. In Bendjaballah, S., Faust, N., Lahrouchi, M., and Lampitelli, N. (eds.), The Form of Structure, the Structure of Form: Essays in Honor of Jean Lowenstamm. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 303–14.Google Scholar

Lahrouchi, M. and Ridouane, R.. (2016). On diminutives and plurals in Moroccan Arabic. Morphology, 26: 453–75.Google Scholar

Lakens, D., Scheel, A., and Isager, P.. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1: 259–69.Google Scholar

Laks, L. (2014). Plural word formation of loan words in Palestinian and Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Arabic Linguistics, 60: 5–34.Google Scholar

Lammert, M. (2016). Lexical plurals through meronymy and hyperonymy. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 39: 335–54.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (1989). Groups I. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12: 559–605.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (1991). Structures for Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (1996). Plurality. In Lappin, S. (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (2000). Events and Plurality: The Jerusalem Lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (2003). Predicate–argument mismatches and the adjectival theory of indefinites. In Coene, M. and d’Hulst, Y. (eds.), From NP to DP: The Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 211–37.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (2004). Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (2010). Boolean pragmatics. Available at https://www.tau.ac.il/~landman/. Originally appeared on a Festschrift page in honour of Martin Stokhof’s 60th birthday.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (2011). Count nouns – mass nouns, neat nouns – mess nouns. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 6.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (2016). Iceberg semantics for count nouns and mass nouns: The evidence from portions. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition Logic and Communication, 11.Google Scholar

Landman, F. (2020). Iceberg Semantics for Mass Nouns and Count Nouns: A New Framework for Boolean Semantics. Springer: Cham.Google Scholar

Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Lasersohn, P. (1995). Plurality, Conjunction and Events. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Lasersohn, P. (2011). Mass nouns and plurals. In Maienborn, C. et al. (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1131–53.Google Scholar

Lauwers, P. (2014). Les pluriels “lexicaux”: typologie quantifiée des déficits de dénombrabilité. Langue française, 183: 117–32.Google Scholar

Lauwers, P. (2016). Les pluriels lexicaux dits “massifs” face au conditionneur universel. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 39: 272–88.Google Scholar

Lauwers, P. and Lammert, M.. (2016). Introduction: New perspectives on lexical plurals. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 39 (special issue: P. Lauwers and M. Lammert (eds.), Lexical Plurals and Beyond): 207–16.Google Scholar

Levin, A. (1994). A Grammar of the Arabic Dialect of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press. (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

Levin, A. (2011). ‘Imala. In Versteegh, K., Eid, M., Elgibali, A., Woidich, M., and Zabroski, A. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, pp. 311–15.Google Scholar

Levy, M. and Fidelholtz, J.. (1971). Arabic broken plurals, rule features and lexical features. Glossa, 5: 57–70.Google Scholar

Li, A. (1998). Argument determiner phrases and number phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 29: 693–702.Google Scholar

Li, C. and Thompson, S.. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Li, P., Dunham, Y., and Carey, S. (2009). Of substance: The nature of language effects on entity construal. Cognitive Psychology, 58: 487–524.Google Scholar

Li, X.-P. (2011). On the semantics of classifiers in Chinese. PhD dissertation, Bar-Ilan University. www.semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mY3YWYzO/semantics%20of%20classifier.pdf.Google Scholar

Lichtenberk, F. (1983). A Grammar of Manam. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Google Scholar

Lima, S. (2014a). The grammar of individuation and counting. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Lima, S. (2014b). All notional mass nouns are count nouns in Yudja. In Snider, T. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 24). Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications, pp. 534–54.Google Scholar

Lima, S. (2016). Container constructions in Yudja: Locatives, individuation and measure. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 11.Google Scholar

Lima, S. and Gomes, A.P.Q.. (2016). The interpretation of Brazilian Portuguese bare singulars in neutral contexts. Revista Letras, 93: 193–209.Google Scholar

Lima, S. and Rothstein, S.. (2020). A typology of the count/mass distinction in Brazil and its relevance for count/mass theories. Linguistic Variation, 20: 174–218.Google Scholar

Lin, J. and Schaeffer, J.. (2018). Nouns are both mass and count: Evidence from unclassified nouns in adult and child Mandarin Chinese. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3: 54.Google Scholar

Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Bäuerle, R., Schwarze, C., and von Stechow, A. (eds.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 302–23.Google Scholar

Link, G. (1998). Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Lønning, J. (1987). Mass terms and quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 10: 1–52.Google Scholar

Lourenco, S. and Longo, M.. (2011). Origins and development of generalized magnitude representation. In Dehaene, S. and Brannon, E. (eds.), Space, Time, and Number in the Brain: Searching for the Foundations of Mathematical Thought. Amsterdam: Elsevier-Academic Press, pp. 225–44.Google Scholar

Lowenstamm, J. (2008). On little n, √, and types of nouns. In Hartmann, J., Hegedus, V., and van Riemsijk, H. (eds.), Sounds of Silence: Empty Elements in Syntax and Phonology. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 105–44.Google Scholar

Lucy, J. (1992). Grammatical Categories and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lucy, J. and Gaskins, S.. (2001). Grammatical categories and the development of classificational preferences. In Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S. (eds.), Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 257–83.Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. and Prince, A.. 1990. Foot and word in prosodic morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8: 209–83.Google Scholar

McCawley, J. (1975). Lexicography and the count–mass distinction. In Cogen, C. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the First Berkeley Linguistic Society Conference, Vol. 1. Berkeley, CA: Linguistics Department at the University of California, pp. 314–21. Reprinted in McCawley, J. (ed.), Adverbs, Vowels, and Other Objects of Wonder. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979, pp. 165–73.Google Scholar

Macnamara, J. (1972). Cognitive basis of language learning in infants. Psychological Review, 79: 1–13.Google Scholar

Mahowald, K., Graff, P., Hartman, J., and Gibson, E.. (2016). SNAP judgments: A small N acceptability paradigm (SNAP) for linguistic acceptability judgments. Language, 92: 619–35.Google Scholar

Manning, C., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S., and McClosky, D.. (2014). The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In Bontcheva, K. and Zhu, J. (eds.), Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. Baltimore, MD: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 55–60.Google Scholar

Markman, E. (1991). Categorization and Naming in Children: Problems of Induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Marten, L. (forthcoming). Noun classes and plurality in Bantu languages. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. and Doetjes, J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Number. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Martí, L. (2020). Inclusive plurals and the theory of number. Linguistic Inquiry, 51: 37–73.Google Scholar

Massam, D. (ed.) (2012). Count and Mass across Languages. Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press.Google Scholar

Mathieu, É. (2012a). Flavors of division. Linguistic Inquiry, 43: 650–79.Google Scholar

Mathieu, É. (2012b). On the mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. In Massam 2012, pp. 172–98.Google Scholar

Mathieu, É. (2014). Many a plural. In Aguilar-Guevara, A., Le Bruyn, B., and Zwarts, J. (eds.), Weak Referentiality. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 157–81.Google Scholar

Mathieu, É. and Zareikar, G.. (2015). Measure words, plurality, and cross-linguistic variation. Linguistic Variation, 2: 169–200.Google Scholar

Matthewson, L. (2004). On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics, 70: 369–415.Google Scholar

Mettouchi, A. and Frajzyngier, Z.. (2013). A previously unrecognized typological category: The state distinction in Kabyle (Berber). Linguistic Typology, 17: 1–20.Google Scholar

Mihatsch, W. (2016). Collectives, object mass nouns and individual count nouns: Nouns between lexical and inflectional plural marking. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 39: 289–308.Google Scholar

Moltmann, F. (1997). Parts and Wholes in Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Moltmann, F. (ed.) (2020). Mass and Count in Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mondini, S., Angrilli, A., Bisiacchi, P., Spironelli, C., Marinelli, K., and Semenza, C.. (2008). Mass and count nouns activate different brain regions: An ERP study on early components. Neuroscience Letters, 430: 48–53.Google Scholar

Mondini, S., Kehaya, E., Gillon, B., Arcara, G., and Jarema, G.. (2009). Lexical access of mass and count nouns. How word recognition reaction times correlate with lexical and morphosyntactic processing. The Mental Lexicon, 4: 354–79.Google Scholar

Mufwene, S. (1981). Non-individuation and the count–mass distinction. In Hendrick, R. et al. (eds.), Papers from the 17th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 221–38.Google Scholar

Müller, A. (2002). The semantics of generic quantification in Brazilian Portuguese. Probus, 14: 279–98.Google Scholar

Muromatsu, K. (2003). Classifiers and the count/mass distinction. In Li, Y-H. and Simpson, A. (eds.), Functional Structure(s), Form and Interpretation. London: Routledge, pp. 65–128.Google Scholar

Murtonen, A. (1964). Broken Plurals: The Origin and Development of the System. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar

Muskens, R. (1996). Combining Montague semantics and discourse representations. Linguistics and Philosophy, 19: 143–86.Google Scholar

Nemoto, N. (2005). On mass denotations of bare nouns in Japanese and Korean. Linguistics, 43: 383–413.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F. (2007). Commentary on Sam Featherston, Data in generative grammar: The stick and the carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33: 395–9.Google Scholar

Nicolas, D. (2002a). La distinction entre noms massifs et noms comptables: aspects linguistiques et conceptuels. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar

Nicolas, D. (2002b). Do mass nouns constitute a semantically uniform class? Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics, 26: 113–21.Google Scholar

Nicolas, D. (2004). Is there anything characteristic about the meaning of a count noun? Revue de la lexicologie, 18–19: 125–38.Google Scholar

Nishiguchi, S. (2009) Quantifiers in Japanese. In Bosch, P. et al. (eds.), Logic, Language and Computation: TbiLLC 2007. Berlin: Springer, pp. 153–64.Google Scholar

Oggiani, C. (2011). On discourse referential properties of bare singulars in Spanish. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar

Ojeda, A. (1992). The semantics of number in Arabic. In Barker, C. and Dowty, D. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 2). Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications, pp. 303–26.Google Scholar

Ojeda, A. (2005). The paradox of mass plurals. In Mufwene, S., Francis, E., and Wheeler, R. (eds.), Polymorphous Linguistics. Jim McCawley’s Legacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 389–410.Google Scholar

Ouwayda, S. (2013). Where plurality is: Agreement and DP structure. In Keine, S. and Sloggett, S. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 42. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, pp. 81–94.Google Scholar

Ouwayda, S. (2014). Where number lies: Plural marking, numerals, and the collective–distributive distinction. PhD dissertation, University of Southern California. Available at http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll3/id/411905.Google Scholar

Ouwayda, S. (2017). On the DP dependence of collective interpretation with numerals. Natural Language Semantics, 25: 263–314.Google Scholar

Pacifique, P. (1939). Leçons grammaticales théoriques et pratiques de la langue micmaque. Toronto: Global Language Press (Reprinted 2007).Google Scholar

Park, S.Y. (2008). Plural marking in classifier languages: A case study of the so-called plural marking -tul in Korean. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 28: 281–95.Google Scholar

Partee, B. and Borschev, V.. (2012). Sortal, relational, and functional interpretations of nouns and Russian container constructions. Journal of Semantics, 29: 445–86.Google Scholar

Payne, J. and Huddleston, R.. (2002). Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. (eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 323–523.Google Scholar

Pelletier, F.J. (1975). Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia, 5: 451–65. Reprinted in Pelletier 1979, pp. 1–14).Google Scholar

Pelletier, F.J. (1979). Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Pelletier, F.J. (2012). Lexical nouns are both +mass and +count, but they are neither +mass nor +count. In Massam 2012, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar

Pelletier, F.J. and Schubert, L.. (1989/2003). Mass expressions. In Guenthner, F. and Gabbay, D. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 4, 1st edition. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 327–407. See also the updated version of this entry in Vol. 10, pp. 249–336 of the 2nd edition (2003).Google Scholar

Pereltsvaig, A. (2014). On number and numberlessness in languages with and without articles. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. and Zribi-Hertz, A. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, pp. 52–73.Google Scholar

Petronio, K. (1995). Bare noun phrases, verbs, and quantification in ASL. In Bach, E. et al (eds.), Quantification in Natural Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 603–18.Google Scholar

Pfau, R. and Steinbach, M.. (2006). Pluralization in sign and in speech: A cross-modal typological study. Linguistic Typology, 10: 135–82.Google Scholar

Pfau, R. and Steinbach, M.. (2016). Complex sentences in sign languages: Modality – typology – discourse. In Pfau, R. et al. (eds.) A Matter of Complexity: Subordination in Sign Languages. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar

Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., and Dehaene, S.. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 306: 499–503.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. (1995). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

Pires de Oliveira, R. and Martins, J.. (2017). Preliminary remarks on the nominal phrase in Cape Verdean: The semantics of bare nouns cross-linguistically. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2: 100.Google Scholar

Pires de Oliveira, R. and Rothstein, S.. (2011). Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua, 121: 2153–75.Google Scholar

Prasada, S., Ferenz, K., and Haskell, T. (2002). Conceiving of entities as objects and as stuff. Cognition, 83: 141–65.Google Scholar

Quine, W.V. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J.. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Burnt Hill: Longman.Google Scholar

R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, url: https://www.R-project.org/Google Scholar

Ratcliffe, R. (1998). The “Broken” Plural Problem in Arabic and Comparative Semitic: Allomorphy and Analogy in Non-Concatenative Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Renans, A., Romoli, J., Makri, M., Thieu, L., de Vries, H., Folli, R., and Tsoulas, G.. (2018). The abundance inference of pluralized mass nouns is an implicature: Evidence from Greek. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3. Available at www.glossa-journal.org/articles/10.5334/gjgl.531.Google Scholar

Rieux, J. and Rollin, B.. (1975). The Port-Royal Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Ritter, E. (1991). Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing. San Diego, CA and London: Academic Press, pp. 37–62.Google Scholar

Roettger, T. and Domahs, F.. (2015). Grammatical number elicits SNARC and MARC effects as a function of task demands. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68: 1231–48.Google Scholar

Rothstein, S. (2009). Individuating and measure readings of classifier constructions: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics, 1: 106–45.Google Scholar

Rothstein, S. (2010). Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 27: 343–97.Google Scholar

Rothstein, S. (2011). Counting, measuring and the semantics of classifiers. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 6.Google Scholar

Rothstein, S. (2016). Counting and measuring: A theoretical and crosslinguistic account. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition Logic and Communication, 11.Google Scholar

Rothstein, S. (2017). Semantics for Counting and Measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rothstein, S. and Lima, S.. (2018). Quantity evaluations in Yudja: The relation between judgements, language and cultural practice. Synthèse, 197: 3851–73.Google Scholar

Rothstein, S. and Pires de Oliveira, R.. (2020). Comparatives in Brazilian Portuguese: Counting and measuring. In Moltmann 2020, pp. 141–57.Google Scholar

Rullmann, H. and You, A.. (2006). General number and the semantics and pragmatics of indefinite bare nouns in Mandarin Chinese. In von Heusinger, K. and Turner, K. (eds.), Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 175–96.Google Scholar

Ryding, K. (2005). A Reference Grammar for Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sağ, Y. (2016). On the semantics of classifiers: A new perspective from an optional classifier language, Turkish. Available at https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/002999.Google Scholar

Sauerland, U. (2003). A new semantics for number. In Youn, R. and Zhou, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 13). Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications, pp. 258–75.Google Scholar

Sauerland, U. (2008). On the semantic markedness of phi-features. In Harbour, D. (ed.), Phi Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–83.Google Scholar

Sauerland, U., Anderssen, J., and Yatsushiro, K.. (2005). The plural is semantically unmarked. In Kepser, S. and Reis, M. (eds.), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 413–34.Google Scholar

Schachter, P. and Otanes, F.. (1972). A Tagalog Reference Grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Schiehlen, M. and Spranger, K.. (2006). The mass–count distinction: Acquisition and disambiguation. In Calzolari, N. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-5). Paris: European Language Resources Association (ELRA), pp. 265–70.Google Scholar

Schlenker, P. and Lamberton, J.. (2019). Iconic plurality. Linguistics and Philosophy, 42: 45–108.Google Scholar

Schmitt, C. and Munn, A.. (1999). Against the Nominal Mapping Parameter: Bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. In Tamanji, P. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 29. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 339–54.Google Scholar

Schvarcz, B. (2014). The Hungarians who say -nyi: Issues in counting and measuring in Hungarian. Master’s thesis, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar

Schwarzschild, R. (1996). Pluralities. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Schwarzschild, R. (2005). Measure phrases as modifiers of adjectives. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 35: 207–28.Google Scholar

Schwarzschild, R. (2006). The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax, 9: 67–110.Google Scholar

Schwarzschild, R. (2011). Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. In Lima, S., Mullin, K., and Smith, B. (eds.) Proceedings of NELS 39. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 661–78.Google Scholar

Scontras, G. (2017). A new kind of degree. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40: 165–205.Google Scholar

Scontras, G., Davidson, K., Deal, A., and Murray, S.. (2017). Who has more? The influence of linguistic form on quantity judgments. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, v. 2, 41: 1–15.Google Scholar

Shachmon, O. (2011). Pausal final imāla in central Palestinian dialects. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (JSAI), 38: 145–61.Google Scholar

Sharvy, R. (1978). Maybe English has no count nouns: Notes on Chinese semantics. Studies in Language, 2: 345–65.Google Scholar

Shipley, E. and Shepperson, B.. (1990). Countable entities: Developmental changes. Cognition, 34: 109–36.Google Scholar

Shlonsky, U. (2004). The form of Semitic nominals. Lingua, 114: 1465–526.Google Scholar

Sigler, M. (1996). Specificity and agreement in standard Western Armenian. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Siloni, T. (1997). Event nominals and the construct state. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), New Comparative Syntax. London: Longman, pp. 165–88.Google Scholar

Simons, M. (2005). Semantics and pragmatics in the interpretation of “or”. In Georgala, E. and Howell, J. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 15). Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications, pp. 205–22.Google Scholar

Singh, R. (2011). “Maximize Presupposition!” and local contexts. Natural Language Semantics, 19: 149–68.Google Scholar

Sneddon, J. (1996). Indonesian: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Soja, N., Carey, S., and Spelke, E.. (1991). Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition, 38: 179–211.Google Scholar

Sorace, A. and Keller, F. (2005). Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115: 1497–524.Google Scholar

Spector, B. (2007). Aspects of the pragmatics of plural morphology: On higher order implicature. In Sauerland, U. and Stateva, P. (eds.), Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics. Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 243–81.Google Scholar

Spelke, E. (1985). Perception of unity, persistence, and identity: Thoughts on infants’ conceptions of objects. In Mehler, J. and Fox, R. (eds.), Neonate Cognition: Beyond the Blooming Buzzing Confusion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 89–113.Google Scholar

Spelke, E. and Kinzler, K.. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10: 89–96.Google Scholar

Sprouse, J. (2007). Continuous acceptability, categorical grammaticality, and experimental syntax. Biolinguistics, 1: 123–34.Google Scholar

Stalnaker, R. (2014). Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stavrou, M. and Terzi, A.. (2008). Types of numerical nouns. In Chang, C.B. and Haynie, H.J. (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 26. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, pp. 429–37.Google Scholar

Steinhauer, K., Pancheva, R., Newman, A., Gennari, S., and Ullman, M.. (2001). How the mass counts: An electrophysiological approach to the processing of lexical features. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, 12: 999–1005.Google Scholar

Strickland, B. (2017). Language reflects “core” cognition: A new theory about the origin of cross‐linguistic regularities. Cognitive Science, 41: 70–101.Google Scholar

Sudo, Y. (2014). Dependent plural pronouns with Skolemized choice functions. Natural Language Semantics, 22: 265–97.Google Scholar

Sudo, Y. (2016). The semantic role of classifiers in Japanese. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 11.Google Scholar

Sudo, Y. (to appear). Countable nouns in Japanese. In Proceedings of WAFL 11. Available at www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucjtudo/pdf/wafl11.pdf.Google Scholar

Sutton, P. (2019). Individuation, countability, and the problem of the many. Presented at the Research Colloquium for Logic and Epistemology, Ruhr-Universität, Bochum, 7 November 2019. Available at: http://peter-sutton.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020//03/3tests.pdf.Google Scholar

Sutton, P. and Filip, H.. (2016a). Counting in context: Count/mass variation and restrictions on coercion in collective artifact nouns. In Moroney, M. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 26). Ithaca, NY: LSA and CLC Publications, pp. 350–70.Google Scholar

Sutton, P. and Filip, H.. (2016b). Mass/count variation: A mereological, two-dimensional semantics. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 11.Google Scholar

Sutton, P. and Filip, H.. (2018a). Restrictions on subkind coercion in object mass nouns. In Truswell, R. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 21. Konstanz: Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz, pp. 1195–213.Google Scholar

Sutton, P. and Filip, H.. (2018b). Counting constructions and coercion: Container, portion and measure interpretations. Oslo Studies in Language, 10: 97–119.Google Scholar

Sutton, P. and Filip, H. (2021). The count/mass distinction for “granular” nouns. In Filip 2021, pp. 375–415.Google Scholar

De Swart, H. (1998). Aspect shift and coercion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16: 347–85.Google Scholar

Sweet, H. (1898). A New English Grammar, Vol. II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

T’sou, B. (1976). The structure of nominal classifier systems. In Jenner, P., Starosta, S, and Thompson, L. (eds.), Austroasiatic Studies, Vol 2. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, pp. 1215–48.Google Scholar

Tsoulas, G. (2009). On the grammar of number and mass terms in Greek. In Halpert, C., Hartman, J., and Hill, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 Workshop in Greek Syntax and Semantics at MIT. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 333–48.Google Scholar

Van de Velde, D. (1996) Le spectre nominal. Des noms de matière aux noms d’abstraction. Paris and Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar

Vásquez-Rojas, V. (2012). The syntax and semantics of Purépecha noun phrases and the mass/count distinction. PhD dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar

Veltman, F. (1985). Logics for conditionals. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Vergnaud, J. and Zubizarreta, M.. (1992). The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 23: 595–652.Google Scholar

Verkuyl, H. (1981). Numerals and quantifiers in X-bar syntax and their semantic interpretation. In Groenendijk, J. et al. (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Part 2. Amsterdam: Mathematisch Centrum, pp. 567–99.Google Scholar

Vermote, T. (2014). L’opposition massif-comptable: flexibilité et modélisation. Études de corpus, enquêtes d’acceptabilité et expérience d’amorçage en français et en néerlandais. PhD dissertation, Ghent University.Google Scholar

Vermote, T., Lauwers, P., and De Cuypere, L.. (2017). Transcending the lexical vs. grammatical divide regarding the mass/count distinction. Lessons from corpus studies and acceptability surveys in French and Dutch. Language Sciences, 62: 37–51.Google Scholar

Versteegh, K. (1997). The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Vos, R. (1999). A grammar of partitive constructions. PhD dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar

de Vries, H. (to appear). Collective nouns. In Cabredo Hofherr, P. and Doetjes, J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Number. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Watanabe, A. (2010). Vague quantity, numerals, and natural numbers. Syntax, 13: 37–77.Google Scholar

Watson, J. (2002). The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Watters, J. (1981). A phonology and morphology of Ejagham, with notes on dialect variation. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar

Whelpton, M., Trotter, D., Gudmundsdottir-Beck, Th., Anderson, C., Maling, J., Durvasula, K., and Beretta, A.. (2014). Portions and sorts in Icelandic: An ERP study. Brain and Language, 136: 44–57.Google Scholar

Whorf, B. (1944). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. Etc: A Review of General Semantics, 1: 197–215. Also republished in Carroll, J. (ed.), Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1956), pp. 143–59.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. (1988). Oats and wheat: Mass nouns, iconicity, and human categorization. In idem, The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 499–560.Google Scholar

Wiese, H. and Maling, J.. (2005). Beers, Kaffi, and Schnaps: Different grammatical options for restaurant talk coercions in three Germanic languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17: 1–38.Google Scholar

Wiggins, D. (1980). Sameness and Substance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Wilbur, R. (1987). American Sign Language: Linguistic and Applied Dimensions. New York: Little & Brown.Google Scholar

Wilbur, R. (2005). A reanalysis of reduplication in American Sign Language. In Hurch, B. (ed.), Studies on Reduplication. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 595–623.Google Scholar

Wilhelm, A. (2008). Bare nouns and number in Dëne Sųliné. Natural Language Semantics, 16: 39–68.Google Scholar

Wilmet, M. (2010). Grammaire critique du français, 5th edition. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur.Google Scholar

Wiltschko, M. (2005). A part of wood is not a tree. On the absence of the mass/count distinction in Halkomelem. In J. Brown et al. (eds.), Papers for the Fortieth Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 16: 264–88. Available at https://lingpapers.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2018/02/Wiltschko_2005.pdf.Google Scholar

Wiltschko, M. (2008). The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 26: 639–94.Google Scholar

Wiltschko, M. (2012). Decomposing the mass/count distinction. Evidence from languages that lack it. In Massam 2012, pp. 146–71.Google Scholar

Winter, Y. (1997). Choice functions and the scopal semantics of indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20: 399–467.Google Scholar

Wright, W. (1933). A Grammar of the Arabic Language, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Zabbal, Y. (2002). The semantics of number in the Arabic noun phrase. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary.Google Scholar

Zabbal, Y. (2005). The Syntax of Numeral Expressions. Available at LingBuzz: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005104.Google Scholar

Zamparelli, R. (2020). Countability shifts and abstract nouns. In Moltmann 2020, pp. 191–224.Google Scholar

Zanini, C., Benavides-Varela, S., Lorusso, R., and Franzon, F.. (2017). Mass is more: The conceiving of (un) countability and its encoding into language in 5-year-old-children. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 24: 1330–49.Google Scholar

Zanini, C., Rugani, R., Giomo, D., Erssotti, F., and Franzon, F.. (2020). Effects of animacy on the processing of morphological number: A cognitive inheritance? Word Structure, 13: 22–44.Google Scholar

Zareikar, G. (2019). The distribution and function of number in Azeri. PhD dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar

Zhang, N. (2013). Classifier Structures in Mandarin Chinese. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Zribi-Hertz, A. (2006) Pour une analyse unitaire de DE partitif. In Corblin, F., Ferrando, S., and Kupferman, L. (eds.), Indéfini et prédication (Paris: PU Paris-Sorbonne) pp. 141–54.Google Scholar

Zucchi, S. and White, M.. (2001). Twigs, sequences and the temporal constitution of predicates. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24: 223–70.Google Scholar

Zweig, E. (2005). Nouns and adjectives in numeral NPs. In Bateman, L. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of NELS 35, Vol. 2. Amherst, MA: GLSA, pp. 663–78.Google Scholar

Zweig, E. (2009). Number-neutral bare plurals and the multiplicity implicature. Linguistics and Philosophy, 32: 353–407.Google Scholar