Natural Language Semantics

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 125–171 | Cite as

Countability distinctions and semantic variation

  • Amy Rose DealEmail author


To what extent are countability distinctions subject to systematic semantic variation? Could there be a language with no countability distinctions—in particular, one where all nouns are count? I argue that the answer is no: even in a language where all NPs have the core morphosyntactic properties of English count NPs, such as combining with numerals directly and showing singular/plural contrasts, countability distinctions still emerge on close inspection. I divide these distinctions into those related to sums (cumulativity) and those related to parts (divisiveness, atomicity, and related notions). In the Sahaptian language Nez Perce, evidence can be found for both types of distinction, in spite of the absence of anything like a traditional mass–count division in noun morphosyntax. I propose an extension of the Nez Perce analysis to Yudja (Tupí), analyzed by Lima (The grammar of individuation and counting, 2014) as lacking any countability distinctions. More generally, I suggest that at least one countability distinction may be universal and that languages without any countability distinctions may be unlearnable.


Mass–count distinction Crosslinguistic variation Nez Perce 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aoki, Haruo. 1994. Nez Perce dictionary. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aoki, Haruo, and Deward Walker. 1989. Nez Perce oral narratives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bale Alan, David Barner (2009) The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 26: 217–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barner David, Jesse Snedeker (2005) Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97: 41–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barwise John, Robin Cooper (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borer, Hagit. 2005. In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bresnan Joan (1973) Syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 275–343Google Scholar
  8. Bunt, Harry C. 1985. Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cheng, C.Y. 1973. Response to Moravscik. In Approaches to natural language, ed. Jaakko Hintikka, Julius Moravcsik, and Patrick Suppes, 286–288. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  10. Cheng Lisa, Lai Shen, Rint Sybesma (1998) Classifiers and massifiers. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 28: 385–412Google Scholar
  11. Cheung, Pierina, Peggy Li, and David Barner. 2010. Individuation and quantification: Do bare nouns in Mandarin Chinese individuate? In Proceedings of the 22nd North American conference on Chinese Linguistics, ed. L.E. Clemens and C.-M. Liu, 395–412. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  12. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1994. Syntactic bootstrapping and the acquisition of noun meanings: The mass–count issue. In Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives, ed. Barbara Lust et al., 301–318. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998a. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In Events and grammar, ed. Susan Rothstein, 53–104. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. Chierchia Gennaro (1998b) Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chierchia Gennaro (2010) Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174: 99–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chierchia, Gennaro. 2015. How universal is the mass/count distinction? Three grammars of counting. In Chinese syntax in a cross-linguistic perspective, ed. Audrey Li, Andrew Simpson, andWei-Tien Dylan Tsai, 147–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Crook, Harold David. 1999. The phonology and morphology of Nez Perce stress. PhD dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  18. Deal, Amy Rose. 2010. Topics in the Nez Perce verb. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  19. Deal, Amy Rose. 2015. A note on Nez Perce verb agreement, with sample paradigms. In Proceedings of the international conference on Salish and neighbouring languages 50, ed. Natalie Weber et al., 389–413. Vancouver: UBCWPL.Google Scholar
  20. Deal, Amy Rose. 2016a. Person-based split ergativity in Nez Perce is syntactic. Journal of Linguistics 52: 533–564.Google Scholar
  21. Deal, Amy Rose. 2016b. Plural exponence in the Nez Perce DP: A DM analysis. Morphology 26: 313–339.Google Scholar
  22. Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and selection. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
  23. Goodman, Nelson. 1951. The structure of appearance. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Grimm, Scott. 2012. Number and individuation. PhD dissertation, Stanford.Google Scholar
  25. Grimm, Scott, and Beth Levin. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Heim, Irene. 2006. Little. In Proceedings of SALT 16, ed. M. Gibson and J. Howell, 35–58. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (eds.). 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Inagaki, Shunji, and David Barner. 2009. Countability in absence of count syntax: Evidence from Japanese quantity judgments. In Studies in language sciences, vol. 8, ed. S. Inagaki et al., 111–125. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
  29. Kratzer Angelika (1989) An investigation of the lumps of thought. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 607–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krifka, Manfred. 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Semantics and contextual expression, ed. R. Bartsch, J.F.A.K. van Benthem, and P. von Emde Boas, 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Krifka, Manfred. 1995. Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of Chinese and English. In The generic book, ed. Greg Carlson and Francis Jeffry Pelletier, 398–411. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kurafuji Takeo (2004) Plural morphemes, definiteness, and the notion of semantic parameter. Language and Linguistics 5: 211–242Google Scholar
  33. Landman, Fred. 1991. Structures for semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Landman, Fred. 2011. Count nouns, mass nouns, neat nouns, mess nouns. In The baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication: Formal semantics and pragmatics. Discourse, context and models, vol. 6, ed. B.H. Partee, M. Glanzberg, and J. Skilters, 1–67. Manhattan, KS: New Prairie Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lima, Suzi. 2014. The grammar of individuation and counting. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  36. Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, ed. R. Bäuerle, 302–323. Berlin: DeGruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Mathieu Éric (2012) Flavors of division. Linguistic Inquiry 43: 650–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCawley, James D. 1975. Lexicography and the count–mass distinction. In Proceedings of the first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Cathy Cogen et al. 314–321. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
  39. Nicolas, David. 2002. La distinction entre noms massifs et noms comptables: Aspects linguistiques et conceptuels. Louvain/Paris: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
  40. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 2012. Lexical nouns are neither mass nor count, but they are both mass and count. In Mass and count across languages, ed. Diane Massam, 9–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, and Lenhart Schubert. 1989/2003. Mass expressions. In Handbook of philosophical logic, 2nd ed., vol. 10, ed. F. Guenthner and D. Gabbay, 249–336. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Quine, W.V.O. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in the noun phrase: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Syntax and semantics 25: Perspectives on phrase structure, ed. Stephen Anderson and Susan D. Rothstein, 37–62. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rothstein Susan (2010) Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 27: 343–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sauerland, Uli. 2003. A new semantics for number. In Proceedings of SALT 13, ed. Robert B. Young and Yuping Zhou 258–275. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  47. Schwarzschild, Roger. 2011. Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. In Proceedings of NELS 39, ed. Suzi Lima et al., 661–678. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  48. Soja, Nancy N., Susan Carey, and Elizabeth Spelke. 1991. Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition 38: 179–211.Google Scholar
  49. ter Meulen, Alice. 1981. An intensional logic for mass terms. Philosophical Studies 40: 105–125.Google Scholar
  50. Wiese Heike, Joan Maling (2005) Beers, kaffi, and schnaps: Different grammatical options for restaurant talk coercions in three Germanic languages. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17: 1–38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations