Book contents
- Countability in Natural Language
- Countability in Natural Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 Proportional Many/Much and Most
- 2 Quantity Systems and the Count/Mass Distinction
- 3 Counting Aggregates, Groups and Kinds: Countability from the Perspective of a Morphologically Complex Language
- 4 Individuating Matter over Time
- 5 Reduplication as Summation
- 6 Iceberg Semantics for Count Nouns and Mass Nouns: How Mass Counts
- 7 Indexical Inference: Counting and Measuring in Context
- 8 Counting and Measuring and Approximation
- 9 The Count/Mass Distinction for Granular Nouns
- Index
- References
3 - Counting Aggregates, Groups and Kinds: Countability from the Perspective of a Morphologically Complex Language
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2021
Edited by
Book contents
- Countability in Natural Language
- Countability in Natural Language
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 Proportional Many/Much and Most
- 2 Quantity Systems and the Count/Mass Distinction
- 3 Counting Aggregates, Groups and Kinds: Countability from the Perspective of a Morphologically Complex Language
- 4 Individuating Matter over Time
- 5 Reduplication as Summation
- 6 Iceberg Semantics for Count Nouns and Mass Nouns: How Mass Counts
- 7 Indexical Inference: Counting and Measuring in Context
- 8 Counting and Measuring and Approximation
- 9 The Count/Mass Distinction for Granular Nouns
- Index
- References
Summary
Thischapter focuses on data from Czech, specifically, derived aggregates and complex numerals. Derived aggregates such as list-í (leaf- í- NOM.SG, ‘foliage’) are derived from a count noun (e.g., list) and the suffix -í. Furthermore, aggregates derived with -í are non-count. Grimm and Dočekal discuss three types of complex numerals that are also morphologically derived: derived group numerals, complex numerals for aggregates, and taxonomic numerals. As well as using these data to bolster the support for a view in which aggregates are a distinct kind of non-countable entity from substances, the authorsargue the complexity of the morphosyntactic resources a language can limit the extent to which nouns in that language are mass/count flexible. These data are then modeled in a neo-Krifkan framework, enriched with mereotopology that accounts for taxonomic and group numeral constructions, the sense in which derived aggregates denote clustered individuals (individuals formed of parts that stand in relatedness relations to one another), and why the counting of derived aggregates in Czech is only possible with complex numerals for aggregates.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Countability in Natural Language , pp. 85 - 120Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Acquaviva, Paolo (2008). Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9.1: 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bale, Alan, and Barner, David (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 26.3: 217–252.Google Scholar
Barner, David, and Snedeker, Jesse (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97.1: 41–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borer, Hagit (2005). Structuring Sense i: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Dingare, Shipra, and Manning, Chris (2001). Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, pp. 13–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry C. (1985). Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory N. (1980). Reference to Kinds in English. New York, NY and London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Casati, Roberto, and Varzi, Achille C. (1999). Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, G., et al. (2008). Searching semantic web objects based on class hierarchies. In WWW-2008 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, pp. 199–226.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro (1998a). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6.4: 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro (1998b). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and Grammar: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 7, pp. 53–104. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro (2010). Language, thought, and reality after Chomsky. In Franck, Julie and Bricmont, Jean (eds.), The Chomsky Notebook, pp. 142–169. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, and Mofu, Suriel (2012). Plural semantics, reduplication, and numeral modification in indonesian. Journal of Semantics 29.2: 229–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayal, Veneeta (2004). Number marking and (in) definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27.4: 393–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Belder, Marijke (2013). Collective mass affixes: When derivation restricts functional structure. Lingua 126: 32–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deal, Amy Rose (2017). Countability distinctions and semantic variation. Natural Language Semantics 25: 125–171.Google Scholar
Dočekal, Mojmír (2012). Atoms, groups and kinds in Czech. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59.1–2:109–126.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana (1999). Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Geurts, Bart (2006). The meaning and use of a number word. In Vogeleer, Svetlana and Tasmowski, Liliane, Non-Definiteness and Plurality, pp. 311–330. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott (2013). Plurality is distinct from number-neutrality. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society. Vol. 41. University of Massachussetts at Amherst Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott (2018). Grammatical number and the scale of individuation. Language 94.3: 527–574.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott, and Levin, Beth (2017). Artifact nouns: Reference and countability. In Lamont, Andrew and Tetzloff, Katerina (eds.), Proceedings of the 47th Meeting of the Northeast Linguistic Society (NELS 47), pp. 55–64, Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and r-based implicature. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, pp. 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ionin, Tania, and Matushansky, Ora (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23.4: 315–360.Google Scholar
Joosten, Frank (2003). Accounts of the count-mass distinction: A critical survey. Linguisticae Investigationes 26: 159–173.Google Scholar
Karlík, P. and Nekula, M. ad. (eds.) 1995. Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.Google Scholar
Khrizman, Keren (2016). Numerous Issues in the Semantics of Numeral Constructions in Russian. PhD thesis, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar
Khrizman, Keren (2020). The cardinal/collective alternation in Russian numerals. In Radeva-Bork, T., and Kosta, P. (eds.), Current Developments in Slavic Linguistics. Twenty Years After (based on selected papers from FDSL 11). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, Renate, van Benthem, Johan, and van Emde Boas, Peter (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, pp. 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, Ivan and Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical Matters, pp. 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (1995). Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of English and Chinese. In Carlson, Gregory N. and Pelletier, Francis J. (eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 398–411. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (2003). Bare NPs: Kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither? In Young, R. B. and Zhou, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, pp. 180–203, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis J., Carlson, Gregory N., ter Meulen, Alice, Chierchia, Gennaro, and Link, Godehard (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In Carlson, G. and Pelletier, F. J.,(eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 1–125. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lima, Suzi (2014). The Grammar of Individuation and Counting. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Bauerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph, and von Stechow, Arnim (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, pp. 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marušič, Lanko, and Ira Nevins, Andrew (2009). Two types of neuter: Closest-conjunct agreement in the presence of ‘5&ups’. In Fisher, A., Kesici, E., Predolac, N., Zec, D., Browne, W., and Cooper, A. (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, The Second Cornell Meeting 2009, pp. 301–317. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Marušič, Franc, Nevins, Andrew I., and Badecker, William (2015). The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18.1: 39–77.Google Scholar
Miechowicz-Mathiasen, Katarzyna (2012). Licensing Polish higher numerals: An account of the accusative hypothesis. Current Issues in Generative Linguistics 81, 58–75.Google Scholar
Müller-Reichau, Olav (2006). Sorting the World: On the Relevance of the Kind-Level/Object-Level Distinction to Referential Semantics. PhD Thesis, Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Payne, John, and Huddleston, Rodney (2002). Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoff (eds.), Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, pp. 323–524. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis J. (1979). Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. In Pelletier, Francis. J. (ed.), Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems, pp. 1–14. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis J., and Schubert, Lenhart (2004). Mass expressions. In Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume x, pp. 249–335. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan (2017). Semantics for Counting and Measuring: Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veselovská, Ludmila (2001). Agreement patterns of Czech group nouns and quantifiers. In Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Semi-Lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words, pp. 273–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wągiel, Marcin (2015). Sums, groups, genders, and Polish numerals. In Zybatow, Gerhild, Biskup, Petr, Guhl, Marcel, Hurtig, Claudia, Mueller-Reichau, Olav, and Yastrebova, Maria (eds.), Slavic Grammar from a Formal Perspective. The 10th Anniversary FDSL Conference, Leipzig 2013, pp. 495–513. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Winter, Yoad (2001). Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wisniewski, Edward J., Lamb, Christopher A., and Middleton, Erica L. (2003). On the conceptual basis for the count and mass noun distinction. Language and Cognitive Processes 18: 583–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2
- Cited by