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

Aikhenvald, Alexandra, 2003. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Akmajian, Adrian, and Lehrer, Adrienne, 1976. NP-like quantifiers and the problem of determining the head of an NP. Linguistic Analysis 2, 4, 395–413.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis, 2011. Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of number. In Washburn, Mary Byram, McKinney-Bock, Katherine, Varis, Erika, Sawyer, Ann and Tomaszewicz, Barbara (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 33–41. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Allan, Keith, 1977. Classifiers. Language 53, 2, 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allan, Keith, 1980. Nouns and countability. Language 56, 3, 541–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allan, Keith, 2006. A ‘just that’ lexical meaning for most. In von Heusinger, K. and Turner, K. (eds.), Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics, pp. 49–91. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Bach, Emmon, 1989. Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Bale, Alan C., and Barner, David, 2009. The interpretation of functional heads: using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 26, 3, 217–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bale, Alan, and Coon, Jessica, 2014. Classifiers are for numerals, not for nouns: consequences for the mass/count distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 4, 695–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bale, Alan, and Khanjian, Hrayr, 2008. Classifiers and number marking. In Friedman, T. and Ito, S. (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVIII, pp. 74–88. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar

Barner, David, and Snedeker, Jesse, 2005. Quantity judgments and individuation: evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97, 1, 41–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Barnes, Julian, 2003. The Pedant in the Kitchen. Revised edn published 2012. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar

Barwise, Jon, and Cooper, Robin, 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 2, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beviláqua, Kayron, Pires de Oliveira, Roberta and Lima, Suzi, 2016. Bare Nouns in Brazilian Portuguese: an experimental study an grinding. In Rothstein, S. and Šķilters, J. (eds.), The Baltic International yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume XI: Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crossliguistic Approaches, Kansas: New Prairie Press.http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.113. [Online publication]Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter, 2012. Numeral classifiers with plural marking, a challenge to Greenberg. In Xu, D. (ed.), Plurality and Classifiers across Languages in China, pp. 23–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borer, Hagit, 1989. On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. In Booij, G. and Van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1989, pp. 45–64. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit, 1999. Deconstructing the construct. In Johnson, K. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters, pp. 43–90. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borer, Hagit, 2005. Stucturing Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit, 2009. Compounds: the view from Hebrew. In Lieber, R. and Stekauer, P. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, pp. 491–511. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borges, Jorge Luis, 1999. Collected Fictions, translated by Hurley, Andrew. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Borschev, Vladimir, and Partee, Barbara H., 2004. Genitives, types, and sorts: the Russian genitive of measure. In Kim, Ji-yung, Lander, Yury A. and Partee, Barbara H. (eds.), Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, UMOP 29, pp. 29–43. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar

Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Partee, Barbara H., Testelets, Yakov G. and Yanovich, Igor, 2006. Sentential and constituent negation in Russian BE-sentences revisited. In Lavine, James E., Franks, Steven L., Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila and Filip, Hana (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Princeton Meeting 2005, pp. 50–65. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Partee, Barbara H., Testelets, Yakov G. and Yanovich, Igor, 2008. Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type hypothesis. In Antonenko, A., Bailyn, J. F. and Bethin, C. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Stony Brook Meeting 2007, pp. 48–67. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Bunt, Harry, 1985. Mass Terms and Model-theoretic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carey, Susan, and Xu, Fei, 2001. Infant’s knowledge of objects: beyond object files and object tracking. Cognition 80, 179–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Carlson, Gregory N., 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Casati, Roberto, and Varzi, Achille C., 1999. Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chao, Yuen-Ren, 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Cheng, Lisa L.-S., 2012. Counting and classifiers. In Massam, D. (ed.), Count and Mass across Languages, pp. 199–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Sybesma, Rint, 1998. Yi-wan tang, yi-ge tang: classifiers and massifiers. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 28, 3, 385–412.Google Scholar

Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Sybesma, Rint, 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 4, 509–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Sybesma, Rint, 2012. Classifiers and DP. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 4, 634–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Chierchia, Gennaro, 1984. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro, 1985. Formal semantics and the grammar of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 417–43.Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro, 1998a. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and Grammar, pp. 53–103. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro, 1998b. Reference to kinds. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro, 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond, the Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, pp. 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro, 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174, 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro, and Turner, Raymond, 1988. Semantics and property theory, Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 3, 261–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Cohen, Ariel, and Krifka, Manfred, 2010. Superlative quantifiers as modifiers of meta-speech acts. In Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume VI. http://newprairiepress.org/biyclc/vol6/iss1/11.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard, 2011. Numeral bases. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, ch. 131, http://wals.info/chapter/131. Accessed on 21 August 2013.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville, 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, William, 1994. Semantic universals in classifier systems. Word 45, 145–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Csirmaz, Anikó, and Dékány, Éva, 2014. Hungarian is a classifier language. In Raffaele, S. and Masini, F. (eds.), Word Classes: Nature, Typology and Representations, pp. 141–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Danon, Gabi, 2008. Definiteness spreading in the Hebrew construct state. Lingua 118, 7, 872–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Danon, Gabi, 2012. Two structures for numeral–noun constructions. Lingua 122, 12, 1282–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dantzig, Tobias, 1954. Number, the Language of Science: A Critical Survey Written for the Cultured Non-mathematician, 4th edn. Doubleday. Reprinted in 2007. Middlesex: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

David, Elizabeth, 1999. French Provincial Cooking. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

Dehaene, Stanislas, 2010. The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dékány, Éva, 2011. A Profile of the Hungarian DP. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Dočekal, Mojmír, and Ziková, Markéta, 2013. Semantic opacity of collective nouns and transparency of group numerals. Paper presented at Formal Description of Slavic Languages 10. Leipzig, December.Google Scholar

Doetjes, Jenny S., 1997. Quantifiers and Selection: On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar

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

Doron, Edit, 2003. Bare singular reference to kinds. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doron, Edit, and Meir, Irit, 2013a. Construct state: modern Hebrew. In Khan, G. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, pp. 581–9. Leiden: Brill. http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics/construct-state-modern-hebrew-EHLL_COM_00000681?s.num=0&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics&s.q=constructs.Google Scholar

Doron, Edit, and Meir, Irit, 2013b. Amount definites. In Bessayde, C. and Pires de Oliveira, R. (eds.), Weak Definites across Languages – Theoretical and Experimental Investigations, Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 42, pp.139–65. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar

Doron, Edit, and Müller, Ana, 2013. The cognitive basis of the mass–count distinction: evidence from bare nouns. In Hofherr, P. Cabredo and Zribi-Hertz, A. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference, pp. 73–101. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Epstein-Naveh, Noa, 2015. Pluralization and mass nouns – can they go together in modern Hebrew? Unpublished MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.Google Scholar

Erbaugh, Mary S., 2002. Classifiers are for specification: complementary functions for sortal and general classifiers in Cantonese and Mandarin. Cahiers de Linguistique-Asie Orientale 31, 1, 33–69.Google Scholar

Farkas, Donka, and de Swart, Henriette, 2003. The Semantics of Incorporation, Stanford Monographs in Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Feigenson, Lisa, Dehaene, Stanislas and Spelke, Elisabeth, 2004. Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 7, 307–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Franks, Steven, 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frege, Gottlob, 1884. Grundlagen der Arithmetik / The Foundations of Arithmetic. Translated from the German by Austin, J. L.. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Frege, Gottlob, 1892. Über Begriff und Gegenstand. Vierteljahresschrift für Wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16, 192–205. Translated as ‘On concept and object’. In Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds.), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, pp. 42–55. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Gadzar, Gerald, 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Gafni, Chen, and Rothstein, Susan, 2014. Who has more N? Context and variety are both relevant. Paper presented at the First Conference on Cognition Research of the Israeli Society for Cognitive Psychology. Akko, 10–12 February.Google Scholar

Gawron, Jean Marc, 2002. Two kinds of quantizers in DP. Handout of talk at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 3–6 January.Google Scholar

Geenhoven, Veerle, 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Ghaniabadi, Saeed, 2012. Plural marking beyond count nouns. In Massam, D. (ed.), Count and Mass across Language, pp. 112–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gil, David, 2013. Numeral classifiers. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/55, Accessed on 31 March 2015.Google Scholar

Gillon, Brendan, 1992. Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 6, 597–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph, 1974. Language Typology: A Historical and Analytic Overview. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grestenberger, Laura, 2015. Number marking in German measure phrases and the structure of pseudo-partitives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18, 2, 93–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grimm, Scott, 2014. Individuating the abstract. In Etxeberria, U., Fălăuş, A., Irurtzun, A. and Leferman, B. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, pp. 182–200. Vitoria, Spain: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar

Grimm, Scott, 2015. Abstract nouns and countability. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium of Cognition, Logic and Communication: ‘Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches’. University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia, December.Google Scholar

Grimm, Scott, and Levin, Beth 2012. Who has more furniture? An exploration of the bases for comparison’. Paper presented at Mass/Count in Linguistics, Philosophy and Cognitive Science Conference. École Normale Supérieure, Paris, France, 20–21 December. Slides downloadable at: http://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/paris12mcslides.pdf.Google Scholar

Grosu, Alexander, and Landman, Fred, 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6, 2, 125–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hammarström, Harald, 2010. Rarities in numeral systems. In Wohlgemuth, J. and Cysouw, M. (eds.), Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory, pp. 11–60. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hanke, Thomas, 2010. Additional rarities in the typology of numerals. In Wohlgemuth, J. and Cysouw, M. (eds.), Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory, pp. 61–89. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

He, Chuansheng, and Jiang, Yan, 2011. Type shifting, Chinese hen+N structure, and implications for semantic parameters. Lingua 121, 5, 698–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heim, Irene, 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NPs. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Heim, Irene, 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In ter Meulen, A. and Reuland, E. (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, pp. 21–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, James, 1987. Indefiniteness and predication. In ter Meulen, A. and Reuland, E. (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, pp. 43–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hofweber, Thomas, 2005. Number determiners, numbers, and arithmetic. The Philosophical Review 114, 2, 179–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 1972. The Semantics of Logical Operators in English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R., 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hsieh, Miao-Ling, 2008. The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in Chinese. Taipei: Crane Publishers.Google Scholar

Huang, Yi Ting, Spelke, Elisabeth and Snedeker, Jesse, 2013. What exactly do numbers mean? Language Learning and Development 9, 2, 105–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Huntley-Fenner, Gavin, Carey, Susan and Solimando, Andrea, 2002. Objects are individuals but stuff doesn’t count: perceived rigidity and cohesiveness influence infants’ representations of small groups of discrete entities. Cognition 85, 203–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hurford, James R., 1987. Language and Number: The Emergence of a Cognitive System. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hyde, Daniel C., 2011. Two systems of non-symbolic numerical cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hyde, Daniel C., and Spelke, Elisabeth, 2011. Neural signatures of number processing in human infants: evidence for two core systems underlying numerical cognition. Developmental Science 14, 2, 360–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ionin, Tania, and Matushansky, Ora, 2006. The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23, 315–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray, 1977. X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray, 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41, 1, 9–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jiang, Li, 2008. Monotonicity and measure phrases in Chinese. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium of Chinese Language and Linguistics. Taiwan, 23–25 May.Google Scholar

Kadmon, Nirit, 1987. On Unique and Non-unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Kadmon, Nirit, 1990. Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 3, 273–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kamp, Hans, 1975. Two theories about adjectives. In Keenan, E. (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 123–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kamp, Hans, 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J., Janssen, Th. and Stokhof, M. (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Volume I, pp. 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematic Centre. Reprinted in Portner, P. and Partee, B. H. (eds.), 2002. Formal Semantics, pp. 189–222. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. And reprinted in von Heusinger, K. and ter Meulen, A. (eds.), 2013. The Dynamics of Meaning and Interpretation: Selected Papers of Hans Kamp, pp. 329–69. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe, 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).Google Scholar

Kaufman, E. L., Lord, M. W., Reese, T. W. and Volkmann, J., 1949. The discrimination of visual number. American Journal of Psychology 62, 4, 498–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Keenan, Ed, and Stavi, Jonathan, 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 3, 253–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keenan, Edward L., and Faltz, Leonard M., 2012. Boolean Semantics for Natural Language. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Christopher, and McNally, Louise, 1999. From event structure to scale structure: degree modification in deverbal adjectives. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9, 163–80.Google Scholar

Khrizman, Keren, 2015. Russian as a (non)-classifier language. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium of Cognition, Logic and Communication: ‘Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches’. University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia, December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Khrizman, Keren, 2016. Numerous Issues in the Semantics of Russian Numeral Constructions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.Google Scholar

Khrizman, Keren, and Rothstein, Susan, 2015. Russian approximative inversion as a measure construction. In Zybatow, G., Biskup, P., Guhl, M., Hurtig, C., Mueller-Reichau, O. and Yastrebova, M. (eds.), Slavic Grammar from a Formal Perspective. The 10th Anniversary FDSL Conference, Leipzig 2013, Linguistik International 35, pp. 259–72. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Edition.Google Scholar

Khrizman, Keren, Landman, Fred, Lima, Suzi, Rothstein, Susan and Schvarcz, Brigitta R., 2015. Portion readings are count readings, not measure readings. Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mVkOTk2N/AC2015-proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, 2001. ‘A piece of the cake’ and ‘a cup of tea’: partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages. In Dahl, Ö. and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages, Volume II: Grammar and Typology, pp. 523–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, 2009. ‘A lot of grammar with a good portion of lexicon’: towards a typology of partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions. In Helmbrecht, J., Nishina, Y., Shin, Y., Skopeteas, S. and Verhoeven, E. (eds.), Form and Function in Language Research: Papers in Honour of Christian Lehmann, pp. 329–46. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred, 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, R., van Benthem, J. and von Emde Boas, P. (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, pp. 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krifka, Manfred, 1990. Four thousand ships passed through the lock: object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 5, 487–520.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred, 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, I. A. and Szabolcsi, A. (ed.), Lexical Matters, pp. 29–52. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

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

Krifka, Manfred, 2009. Approximate interpretations of number words: a case for strategic communication. In Hinrichs, E. and Nerbonne, J. (eds.), Theory and Evidence in Semantics, pp 109–32. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Kulkarni, Ritwik, Rothstein, Susan and Treves, Alessandro, 2013. A statistical investigation into the crosslinguistic distribution of mass and count nouns: morphosyntactic and semantic perspectives. Biolinguistics 7, 132–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kulkarni, Ritwik, Treves, Alessandro and Rothstein, Susan, in press. Can mass-count syntax be derived from semantics? In Moltmann, F. (ed.), Mass and Count in Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Landman, Fred, 1991. Structures for Semantics. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landman, Fred, 1995. Plurality. In Lappin, S. (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantics, 1st edn, pp. 425–57. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Landman, Fred, 2000. Events and Plurality. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landman, Fred, 2003. Predicate–argument mismatches and the adjectival theory of indefinites. In Coene, M. and d’Hulst, Y. (eds.), From NP to DP: Volume 1, pp. 211–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Landman, Fred, 2004. Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Landman, Fred, 2011a. Count nouns, mass nouns, neat nouns, mess nouns. In The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume VI. http://newprairiepress.org/biyclc/vol6/iss1/12.Google Scholar

Landman, Fred, 2011b. Boolean pragmatics. In van der Does, J. and Novaes, C. Dutlih (eds.), ‘This is not a Festschrift’: A Festpage for Martin Stokhof. www.vddoes.net/Martin/articles/Fred.pdf.Google Scholar

Landman, Fred, 2015. Lectures on Iceberg Semantics for Mass and Count Nouns. Unpublished manuscript, Tel Aviv University and Tübingen University.Google Scholar

Landman, Fred, 2016. Iceberg semantics for count nouns and mass nouns: the evidence from portions. In Rothstein, S. and Šķilters, J. (eds.), The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume XI: Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches. Kansas: New Prairie Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1107 (Online publication.)Google Scholar

Landman, Fred, and Rothstein, Susan, 2010. Incremental homogeneity in the semantics of aspectual for-phrases. In Hovav, M. R., Doron, E. and Sichel, I. (eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Structure, pp. 229–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lasersohn, Peter, 1999. Pragmatic halos. Language 75, 3, 522–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehrer, Adrienne, 1986. English classifier constructions. Lingua 68, 2, 109–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Steven C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Steven C., 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, XuPing, 2011. On the Semantics of Classifiers in Chinese. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, XuPing, 2013. Numeral Classifiers in Chinese: the Syntax–Semantics Interface. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, XuPing, and Bisang, Walter, 2012. Classifiers in Sinitic languages: from individuation to definiteness-marking. Lingua 122, 4, 335–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, XuPing, and Rothstein, Susan, 2012. Measure readings of Mandarin classifier phrases and the particle de. Language and Linguistics 13, 4, 693–741.Google Scholar

Lima, Suzi, 2010. About the count–mass distinction in Yudja: a description. In Rogers, Beth and Szakay, Anita (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas, pp. 157–64. Vancouver: UBCWPL.Google Scholar

Lima, Suzi, 2012. Numerals and the universal packager in Yudja (Tupi). In Bogal-Allbritten, E. (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas 6. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar

Lima, Suzi, 2014. The Grammar of Individuation and Counting. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Lima, Suzi, Li, Peggy and Snedeker, Jesse, 2014. Acquiring the denotation of object-denoting nouns in a language without partitives. Poster presented at Boston University Conference on Language Development 39. 7–9 November.Google Scholar

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

Link, Godehard, 1984. Hydras: on the logic of relative clause constructions with multiple heads. In Landman, F. and Veltman, F. (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics, pp. 245–57. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Lipton, James, 1993. An Exaltation of Larks: The Ultimate Edition. Middlesex: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Lǚ, Shu-Xiang (吕叔湘), 1980/1999. Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci. [Eight Hundred Characters in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Commercial Press. (In Chinese.)Google Scholar

Lyons, John, 1977. Semantics, Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mathieu, Eric, 2012. On the mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. In Massam, Diane (ed.), Count and Mass across Languages, pp. 172–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, I., 1985. Poverxnostnyj Sintaksis Russkix čislovyx Vyraženij, Wiener Slawistischer Almanach Sonderband 16. Vienna: Institut fur Slavistic der Universitat Wien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, Marianne, 1988. Lexical categories and the evolution of number marking. In Hammond, M. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, pp. 211–34. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Mittwoch, Anita, 1988. Aspects of English aspect: on the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 2, 203–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moshavi, Adina, and Rothstein, Susan, in press. Indefinite numerical construct phrases in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies.Google Scholar

Müller, Anna, Storto, Luciana and Thiago, Coutinho, 2006. Number and the mass/count distinction in Karitiana. In Fujimori, A. and Silva, M. A. Reis (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas, pp. 122–35. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara H., 2008. Negation, intensionality, and aspect: interaction with NP semantics. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, pp. 291–317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Partee, Barbara H., and Borschev, Vladimir, 2012. Sortal, relational, and functional interpretations of nouns and Russian container constructions. Journal of Semantics 29, 4, 445–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paul, Waltraud, in press. The insubordinate subordinator ‘de’ in Mandarin Chinese. To appear in Tang, S.-W. (ed.), The Attributive Particle in Chinese, Frontiers in Chinese Linguistics Series. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar

Peano, Giuseppe, 1889. Arithmetices principia: nova methodo. Turin: Fratres Bocca. Translated as The principles of arithmetic, presented by a new method. In van Heijenoort, J. (ed.), 1967. From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, pp. 83–97. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, 1975. Non-singular reference: some preliminaries. Philosophia 5, 4, 451–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, (ed.) 1979. Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems. Berlin: Springer (Reidel).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, 2012. Lexical Nouns are both +MASS and +COUNT but they are neither +MASS nor +COUNT. In Massam, D. (ed.), Count and Mass across Languages, pp. 9–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peyraube, Alain, 1999. On the modal auxiliaries of possibility in Classical Chinese. In Wang, H. Samuel, Tsao, Feng-fu and Lien, Chin-fa (eds.), Selected Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Chinese Linguistics, pp. 27–52. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Pires de Oliveira, Roberta, and Rothstein, Susan, 2011. Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 121, 2153–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pires de Oliveira, Roberta, and Rothstein, Susan, 2013. Bare singular objects in Brazilian Portuguese: perfectivity, telicity and kinds. In Kabatek, J. and Wall, A. (eds.), New Perspectives on Bare Noun Phrases in Romance and Beyond, Studies in Language Companion Series 141, pp. 89–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ritter, Elizabeth, 1988. A head movement approach to construct state phrases. Linguistics 26, 909–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ritter, Elizabeth, 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure, Syntax and Semantics 25, pp. 37–62. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 1999. Fine-grained structure in the eventuality domain: the semantics of predicative adjective phrases and be. Natural Language Semantics 7, 4, 347–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 2000. Domain selection in relative clauses. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Syntax and Semantics of Relative Clauses. Tel Aviv University. June.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 2001. Predicates and their Subjects. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 2004. Structuring Events: a Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 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, Susan, 2010. Counting, measuring and the mass count distinction. Journal of Semantics 27, 3, 343–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 2011. Counting, measuring and the semantics of classifiers. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume VI. http://newprairiepress.org/biyclc/vol6/iss1/15.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 2012. Numericals: counting, measuring and classifying. In Aguilar-Guevara, A., Chernilovskaya, A. and Nouwen, R. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, pp. 527–43. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 2013a. A Fregean semantics for number words. In Aloni, Maria, Franke, Michael and Roelofsen, Floris (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 179–86. www.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2013/uploaded_files/inlineitem/23_Rothstein.pdf.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 2013b. Counting, measuring and the mass/count distinction. Paper presented at the Düsseldorf Workshop on Countability, September.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 2013c Acrosslinguistic perspective on bare nominals: Modern Hebrew and Brazilian Portuguese. In Kabatek, J. and Wall, A. (eds.), New Perspective on Base Noun Phrases in Romance and Beyond, Studies in Language Companion series 141.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 2016a. Counting and Measuring: a theoretical and crosslinguistic account. In Rothstein, S. and Šķilters, J. (eds.), The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume XI: Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches. Kansas: New Prairie Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1106 [Online publication]Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, 2016b. Counting, measuring and approximation. Paper presented at the Second Düsseldorf Workshop on Countability. June.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, and Pires de Oliveira, Roberta, in press. Comparatives in Brazilian Portuguese: counting and measuring. In Moltmann, F. (ed.), Mass and Count in Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan, and Treves, Alessandro, 2010. Computational constraints on compositional interpretation: refocusing the debate on language universals. Lingua 120, 12, 2717–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rotstein, Carmen, and Winter, Yoad, 2004. Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 12, 3, 259–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schmitt, Cristina, and Munn, Alan, 1999. Against the nominal mapping parameter: bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. In Mako, H. (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 29: University of Delaware, pp. 339–54. Delaware: University of Delaware.Google Scholar

Schmitt, Cristina, and Munn, Alan, 2002. Bare nouns and the morphosyntax of number. In Tamanji, P., Hirotani, M. and Hall, N. (eds.), Current Issues in Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ann Arbor, 8–11 April 1999, pp. 225–39. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar

Schvarcz, Brigitta R., 2014. The Hungarians Who Say -nyi: Issues in Counting and Measuring in Hungarian. Unpublished MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.Google Scholar

Schvarcz, Brigitta R., in press. Classifier constructions in Hungarian and the semantics of the suffix -nyi. To appear in Liptak, A. and van der Hulst, H. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schvarcz, Brigitta R., and Rothstein, Susan, in press. Hungarian classifier constructions and the mass/count distinction. To appear in Liptak, A. and van der Hulst, H. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schwarzschild, Roger, 2006. The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax 9, 1, 67–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwarzschild, Roger, 2011. Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. In Lima, S., Mullin, K. and Smith, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, pp. 661–78. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth O., 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. and Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax, pp. 285–316. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Sharvy, Richard, 1978. Maybe English has no count nouns: notes on Chinese semantics. An essay in metaphysics and linguistics. Studies in Language 2, 3, 345–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siloni, Tal, 2001. Construct States at the PF interface. In Pica, Pierre (ed.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1, pp. 229–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Soja, Nancy N., Carey, Susan and Spelke, Elisabeth, 1991. Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meaning: object terms and substance terms. Cognition 38, 2, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Srinivasan, Mahesh, Chestnut, Eleanor, Li, Peggy and Barner, David, 2013. Sortal concepts and pragmatic inference in children’s early quantification of objects. Cognitive Psychology 66, 3, 302–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sybesma, Rint, 2007. Běifāng fāngyán hé Yuèyǔ zhōng míngcí de kěshǔbiāojì [Markers of countability on the noun in Mandarin and Cantonese]. Yŭyánxué lùncōng 35, 234–45.Google Scholar

Tai, James H.-Y., and Lianqing, Wang, 1990. A semantic study of the classifier tiao. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 25, 35–56.Google Scholar

Tang, Chih-Chen Jane, 1990. Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X-bar theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar

Tang, Chih-Chen Jane, 2005. Nouns or classifiers: a non-movement analysis of classifiers in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 6, 3, 431–72.Google Scholar

Tsoulas, George, 2006. Plurality of mass nouns and the grammar of number. Handout from talk presented at Generative Linguistics in the Old World 2006. Barcelona, 6–8 April.Google Scholar

Varzi, Achille C., 2007. Spatial reasoning and ontology: parts, wholes, and locations. In Aiello, M., Pratt-Hartmann, I., and van Benthem, J. F. A. K. (eds.), Handbook of Spatial Logics, pp. 945–1038. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wągiel, Marcin, 2015. Sums and groups: semantic analysis of 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. 495–514. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Watters, John Roberts, 1981. A phonology and morphology of Ejagham – with notes on dialectal variation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar

Wiese, Heike, 2003. Numbers, Language and the Human Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilhelm, Andrea, 2008. Bare nouns and number in Dëne Sųłiné. Natural Language Semantics 16, 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wilkinson, Karina, 1995. The semantics of the common noun kind. In Carlson, G. N. and Pelletier, F. J. (eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 383–97. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Wiltschko, Martina, 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26, 3, 639–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yadroff, Michael, and Billings, Loren, 1998. The syntax of approximative inversion in Russian (and the general architecture of nominal expressions). In Bošković, Željko, Franks, Steven and Snyder, William (eds.), Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 6: The Connecticut Meeting 1997, pp. 319–38. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Yang, Rong, 2001. Common Nouns, Classifiers, and Quantification in Chinese. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Yip, Chak-Lam, 2008. Complicating the oversimplification: Chinese numeral classifiers and true measures. In Chan, M. K. M. and Kang, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, pp. 285–95. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Zaroukian, Erin, 2011. Divergent approximators. In Reich, I., Horch, E. and Pauly, D. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, pp. 677–90. Saarbrücken: Universaar – Saarland University Press.Google Scholar