Lexical nouns are both +mass and +count, but they are neither +mass nor +count

Abstract

This chapter investigates the rationale for having the lexical categories or features mass and count. Some theories make the features be syntactic; others make it be semantic. It is concluded here that none of the standard accounts of their function actually serve the purpose for which they are adopted, and that we should instead remove these features from the lexicon and have lexical nouns be neither +mass nor +count. But on the other hand, if every lexical noun could be characterized by both +mass and +count, then various of the desiderata would be captured. So we conclude that lexical nouns should be neither +mass nor +count, and both +mass and +count. Although this investigation is carried out in English, the moral holds for any ‘number marking’ language. Furthermore, the resulting theory is the one that is naturally congenial to classifier languages, showing a hithertofore unnoticed similarity between the two language classes. (However, languages that are of neither type … such as Dene Su ̨łiné, Yudja, and Karitianan … require some totally distinct vision of a mass-count distinction.)

Mass is more: The conceiving of (un)countability and its encoding into language in 5-year-old-children

“…However, as already observed in many theoretical works (e.g., Allan, 1980;Pelletier, 2012;Rothstein, 2010), the simplicity of mass nouns as compared to count nouns in linguistics does not seem as straightforward in terms of cognition. The assumption that mass nouns (or mass morphosyntax) are formally simpler than count nouns (or count morphosyntax) should imply that the Gathercole, 1985).…”

“…In fact, mass nouns can appear only in the singular (e.g., sand) while count nouns display a full inflection for number morphology (e.g., ring vs. rings). Even in the philosophical perspective advanced by Quine (1960), the mass interpretation would be the basic one from which the count interpretation derives.However, as already observed in many theoretical works (e.g., Allan, 1980;Pelletier, 2012;Rothstein, 2010), the simplicity of mass nouns as compared to count nouns in linguistics does not seem as straightforward in terms of cognition. The assumption that mass nouns (or mass morphosyntax) are formally simpler than count nouns (or count morphosyntax) should imply that the Gathercole, 1985).…”

“…Even though the properties that distinguish mass from count nouns have been debated for a long time, both by philosophers (e.g., Pelletier, 1975Pelletier, , 2012Quine, 1960) and linguists (e.g., Allan, 1980;Bale & Barner, 2009;Gillon, 1992;Jackendoff, 1991), influential linguistic approaches (e.g., Borer, 2005;Chierchia, 1998Chierchia, , 2010De Belder, 2011) agree that m ass nouns (or mass morphosyntax) are formally simpler than count nouns (or count morphosyntax). The argument is that the computation of these latter requires more operations at the morphosyntactic level or at the semantic level.…”

Quantity judgment and the mass-count distinction across languages: Advances, problems, and future directions for research

“…Others have argued that whereas count nouns uniformly have atomic denotations, mass nouns vary, such that some, like mud and happiness, do not have atoms in their denotation while others, like furniture and equipment do (see, for example, the discussions in Bloomfield 1933;Bunt 1985;Gillon 1992;; languages: Advances, problems, and future directions for research Art. 63,page 6 of 23 2012; Chierchia 1998; Bale & Barner 2009;Rothstein 2010;Pelletier 2012). Also, as discussed by Gillon (1992), criteria like cumulativity and divisity apply without difficulty to plural count nouns, suggesting that they relate less to the mass-count distinction than to semantic non-singularity.…”

The mass/count distinction in Japanese from the perspective of partitivity

“…Let me also add that the number specification of the # head together with the raised NP in its Spec excludes the mass reading of the part for this class of nouns. It is well known (Borer 2005;Pelletier 2012; and the references cited there) that explicitly numbermarked expressions like an apple are interpreted as countables. To anticipate what is to come, Section 4 takes up mass nouns.…”