Sortal, Relational, and Functional Interpretations of Nouns and Russian Container Constructions

Partee, Barbara H.; Borschev, Vladimir

doi:10.1093/jos/ffs009

Cited by 46 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Crucially, a locative reading may emerge even in scenarios where the verb and the context favour a measure interpretation. Lima shows that this supports Partee and Borschev's (2012) hypothesis that individuating, possibly via container phrases, precedes measuring in language acquisition.…”

supporting

confidence: 73%

Editors' Introduction

Rothstein¹,

Šķilters²

2016

Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 73%

Editors' Introduction

Rothstein¹,

Šķilters²

2016

Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We implicitly took kilo to stand in for all measure terms, but distinct subclasses of measure terms have been identified: amount terms (e.g., kilo; Lønning 1987), container nouns (e.g., glass; Partee & Borschev 2012), and English-style classifiers (e.g., grain; Chierchia 1998a), to name just three. The next step is to see how these subclasses of measure terms behave within the proposed framework, and whether they in fact possess distinct semantics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for counting: A unified semantics for measure terms and classifiers

Scontras

2015

SALT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops and extends the semantic account of morphological number marking in the presence of numerals from Scontras 2013. The account handles variation in patterns of number marking along two dimensions: crosslinguistically, between languages that either necessitate or prohibit singular morphology in the presence of numerals greater than 'one'; and within one and the same language: English. The proposed semantics accounts for both sorts of variation by assuming flexibility in the selection of the measure relevant to the one-ness presupposition of the morphological singular form. The system also provides an explanation for the Slobin-Greenberg-Sanches Generalization, which states that no classifier language has obligatory number marking: by aligning the semantics of counting in both number marking and classifier languages, and by assuming that nouns in classifier languages denote kinds, the semantic contribution of number marking is necessarily redundant in classifier languages. A system of obligatory number marking only surfaces in languages where it delivers otherwise unrecoverable information about the number of intended referents.

show abstract

“…Participants were exposed to either a verbal context that favored a measure interpretation of the container phrases (“Maria drank two cups of water”/“Maria poured three cups of beans”) or a situation that favored a non‐measure interpretation of the container phrases (“Mary put two bottles of milk”/”Maria put two bowls of rice on the table”). Following Partee and Borschev (), we would expect that only non‐measure scenarios would be compatible with all conditions (Figure a–d), regardless of the size of the containers and whether they were full or partially full (see Figure for the different conditions manipulated).…”

Section: Counting and Measuringmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Many studies have explored the semantics of container phrases, such as bags of in “three bags of rice” (Doetjes, ; Keizer, ; Khrizman, Landman, Lima, Rothstein, & Schvarcz, ; Landman, ; Landman, ; Lima, ; Partee & Borschev, ; Rothstein, , , , ; Scontras, ; Selkirk, ). As previously shown, in many languages described in the literature, container phrases are required in numeral constructions with substance and object mass nouns (16b).…”

Section: Counting and Measuringmentioning

confidence: 99%

New perspectives on the count–mass distinction: Understudied languages and psycholinguistics

Lima

2018

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much work has explored the semantics of count and mass nouns from both theoretical and experimental perspectives. In this paper, we explore some of the recent advances in this field, drawing particularly from descriptions of understudied languages and experimental research. We will focus on two dimensions of the count/mass debate. First, we will explore the debate about what can be counted grammatically, that is, how we define atoms and what role extra‐linguistic factors may play in this process. Second, we give an overview of the current debate about counting and measuring, which experimental research suggests are distinct operations, as some scholars in the formal semantics literature have predicted.

show abstract

Sortal, Relational, and Functional Interpretations of Nouns and Russian Container Constructions

Cited by 46 publications

References 10 publications

Editors' Introduction

Editors' Introduction

Accounting for counting: A unified semantics for measure terms and classifiers

New perspectives on the count–mass distinction: Understudied languages and psycholinguistics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About