Count Nouns Research Articles

Count Nouns and Mass Nouns: Crops, Produce, and the Plural of Seed

The distinction between count nouns and mass nouns affects thinking and writing about various types of crops and produce. Count nouns are words that indicate discrete, countable objects (e.g., forks, viewpoints), whereas mass nouns are words that indicate some relatively undifferentiated substance (e.g., water, energy). We explain the grammar of these two forms and point out some writing pitfalls to avoid. The word seed is one of the few English nouns that is both a count noun and a mass noun. An argument is presented for using seeds as the plural when several individuals are counted and for using seed as the singular when referring to seeds in the aggregate.

Count Nouns and Mass Nouns: Crops, Produce, and the Plural of Seed

AbstractThe distinction between count nouns and mass nouns affects thinking and writing about various types of crops and produce. Count nouns are words that indicate discrete, countable objects (e.g., forks, viewpoints), whereas mass nouns are words that indicate some relatively undifferentiated substance (e.g., water, energy). We explain the grammar of these two forms and point out some writing pitfalls to avoid. The word seed is one of the few English nouns that is both a count noun and a mass noun. An argument is presented for using seeds as the plural when several individuals are counted and for using seed as the singular when referring to seeds in the aggregate.

Preliminary remarks on the nominal phrase in Cape Verdean: The semantics of bare nouns cross-linguistically

In this paper, we offer some preliminary remarks on the syntax-semantics of the nominal system in Cape Verdean (CV) in comparison to English, with the aim of having a better understanding of Number Neutral Languages (Chierchia 2010; 2015). In CV, there are no bare plurals; the plural morpheme is attached to the definite or indefinite articles, which are not obligatory, and are ungrammatical with quantifiers. Thus, CV is not a Number Marking Language. However, it is not a Bare Language, since it distinguishes between mass nouns and count nouns, and numbers combine directly with count nouns. We argue that CV is number neutral. We claim that Baptista & Guéron’s (2007) proposal of a null determiner cannot fully explain the data presented in this paper. We advance the hypothesis that Number Neutral Languages do not select for predicates or kinds, but they are rule-governed by grammar. In argument position, bare nouns denote the kind directly, as in Mandarin, and in the scope of a determiner, they denote the predicate. The only covert operator is the iota. We propose that CV noun phrase has no number projection. The determiner selects for singular or plural, which is then a presupposition of the determiner. This approach predicts that occurrences of bare plural phrases in CV are very restricted. We aim to provide a better understanding of the nominal system in CV, a language under-represented in the literature, as a way to contribute to analyses of nominal grammars cross-linguistically.

Introduction to Spanish/English Linguistics by Dee L. Eldredge and Liesder Mayea Rodr�guez (review)

Reviewed by: Introduction to Spanish/English Linguistics by Dee L. Eldredge and Liesder Mayea Rodríguez Charles S. Lee Dee L. Eldredge and Liesder Mayea Rodríguez. Introduction to Spanish/English Linguistics. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2015. 403p. The fourteen chapters of Eldredge and Mayea’s comparative linguistic study of Spanish and English can be divided into three parts: chapters 1 and 2 introduce the importance of linguistics and explain linguistic terms. The main body (chapters 3–9) begins with three chapters of syntax, reviewing sentence structure: NPs, VPs, PPs and CPs, and concludes with morphology. The remaining five chapters (Spelling, Dialectology, Philology, Other Spanish language rules, and Usage of linguistics in the classroom) serve as practical references rather than linguistics. It seems the authors have a different view on Mood. They present 5 moods in Spanish, including interrogative and emphatic. Mood is a how the speaker expresses him/herself through variations of the verb. I was left wondering how interrogative and emphatic can be explained since no verbal variation takes place. Syntax features a very interesting, well-developed topic: count and mass [non-count] nouns, showing that Spanish learners experience difficulty since English and Spanish view things differently. For example, equipage (baggage) is a count noun, but not in English. After explaining verbs and verb phrases (VPs) in Chapter 4, twenty-eight verbs are arrayed in alphabetical order. Each is analyzed with its required complements [semantic roles]. These materials are crucial for Spanish [End Page 218] students: the comparison between preterit and imperfect, the usage of gerund in both languages, and the proper use of the infinitive phrase (IP). The last chapter of syntax deals with prepositions, modifiers and conjunctions. Lexicon is by far the largest chapter. Its main objective is to help students with verbs that have multiple meanings in both Spanish and English. Their claim is that students do not know how to use words properly. They say dictionaries and textbooks do not provide information as to the syntax of words, so they have made a long list of verbs and prepositions in both languages. The first part of the chapter lists English verbs that have multiple meanings and gives their counterparts in Spanish. The second part lists Spanish verbs that have multiple meanings with their counterparts in English. Each verb is explained thoroughly so that students can use it properly. I think this chapter is unnecessarily long. Unlike their claim, I believe a good dictionary provides adequate syntactic and morphological information. The location of Chapter 8, a combination of phonetics and phonology, is a bit strange. Phonetics and phonology are usually placed at the beginning of most linguistic books. Elements of phonetics, such as the manner of articulation and the place of articulation in both languages, are included. One thing I like is the excellent consonantal chart to compare Spanish and English consonants. Chapter 9, Morphology, studies the form of words and their relationships to other words. The authors examine prefixes of Spanish verbs such as de-, des- pos, etc., then suffixes and middle-fixes [infixes]. They focus more on word formation than on analysis of words. They should have included derivation, inflection and compounding and other morphological phenomena. The final chapters offer practical references. Spelling starts with syllabification and provides a list of rules on syllable division and potential spelling problems. Dialectology presents a good summary of Spanish, especially Latin American, dialects. Philology explains how other languages influenced the development of Spanish, and is a very useful resource. I would like to call this chapter “a history of the Spanish language” instead of Philology. The last two chapters are references. They offer Spanish language rules not mentioned previously and explain how to start a Spanish class and how to incorporate linguistics into the curriculum. Over all, Introduction to Spanish/English Linguistics offers a huge amount of knowledge, but when I opened it, I was overwhelmed. Unfortunately, the table of contents does not have a normal structure. It would be better if the table of contents were more organized; it displays chapters without subtitles or numbering, making it difficult to locate materials. This is a good Spanish grammar reference book, not a Spanish linguistic book. [End Page...

The parameterisation of Number

AbstractThe interpretation and marking of number greatly varies crosslinguistically. This paper examines the connections between the marking and interpretation of number for count nouns, based on evidence found in a range of languages. I argue that a consistent number interpretation depends on the presence of the grammatical feature Number, hosted on a functional Num head (as proposed by Ritter (1991)). If the Number feature and the Num head are present in the extended projection of the noun, then the denotation of that noun will be restricted accordingly in terms of number. I also argue that number marking results from a property of the Number feature, such that a language that marks number through an affix on the noun will have raising of N to the Num head and languages without such marking will be able to value the Number feature of the noun in situ. This leads to the proposal that the Number feature is the locus of parametric variation in the number system and predicts a new typology of number marking which accounts for languages that mark plural only, languages that also mark singular, languages that maintain a general number interpretation, and canonical classifier languages.

Exclusive Particles in Ga (Kwa)

Exclusive particles, which have been attested in a wide range of languages, give rise to a rank-order interpretation and/or to an exhaustive interpretation. Based on novel data from Ga, the paper identifies an exclusive particle that not only gives rise to the exhaustive meaning but also operates on an NP denotation allowing, for example, plural count nouns to be combined with an indefinite determiner which encodes the cardinality ‘one’. In particular, the paper shows that the Ga exclusive particle too functions as Landman's (1989, 2010, 2013) group-forming operator. The Ga data thus extend the typology of exclusive particles and point to a previously unattested variation in the semantics of exclusives in a cross-linguistic perspective.

THE COMMON AND PROPER NOUNS BETWEEN ALBANIAN AND ENGLISH

The noun in Albanian language classified as common and proper . The common nouns in turn divide into countable and uncountable . Collective nouns and substance nouns are subclasses of the other classes. The structure of noun formation between Albanian and English on the general aspect of morphology and syntax still didn’t study in the way of comparative, contrast and generative. Those fields are our object of study. In Albanian and English we find some concepts of studies for noun for example: “Emer quhet ajo pjese e ligjerates qe emerton qenie te gjalla dhe sende dhe ka kategorite gramatikore te gjinise, numrit, rases, te shquarsise e te pashquarsise”. [1] Nouns can be broadly into a small number of classes that have meaning and grammatical behavior. “ Nouns (alb. Em e r) belong to open class set of items. The set is indefinitely extendable since new nouns are constantly created and are added to the existing register of English nouns. The server denotes people, objects, places, events and phenomena”. [2] There is an important distinct common and proper nouns. Common nouns can be countable and uncountable. Countable nouns refer to entities which can be counted, they are singular and plural forms (a cow, two cows) etc.). Both in the singular and plural there is a contrast between definite and indefinite forms ( a cow, two cows, the cows ). Uncountable nouns refer to entities which cannot be counted and uncounted for number. Though they do not combine with the indefinite article, the contrast between an indefinite and definite form (e.g. milk, the milk )… [3] [1] Fatmir Agalli (...), Gramatika e gjuhes shqipe I, Tirane, 2002, p. 81. [2] Shukrane Germizaj, A Comprehensive handbook of English Grammar , Prishtina, 2004, p.147. [3] Douglas Biber, Sitg Johansson, Grammar of spoken and written English , London, England, 1999, p.245.

Cross-linguistic awareness-raising practices can enhance written performance in EFL classes in Japanese universities

ABSTRACT In our globalised world, the desire for the acquisition of English has led to increased research into the appropriate pedagogical approaches for learning and teaching the language. This manuscript focuses on the use of learners’ mother tongue in the learning and teaching of English in an effort to identify ways in which cross-linguistic awareness-raising practices can be utilised to maximise EFL written performance. The study’s targeted grammatical features were articles and plural suffixes of countable nouns and the study’s EFL population was drawn from two Japanese universities. A quasi-experimental design was employed with an experimental group receiving cross-linguistic instruction and a control group continuing without cross-linguistic input. Statistical analyses demonstrate that the experimental group outperformed the control group. Although the empirical project is located within the context of Japanese tertiary education, the study is of international relevance as it deals with the perennial issue of how best to harness learners’ familiar L1 for the improvement of their L2 within the frameworks of cross-linguistic instruction and awareness-raising.

14- to 16-Month-Olds Attend to Distinct Labels in an Inductive Reasoning Task.

We examined how naming objects with unique labels influenced infants’ reasoning about the non-obvious properties of novel objects. Seventy 14- to 16-month-olds participated in an imitation-based inductive inference task during which they were presented with target objects possessing a non-obvious sound property, followed by test objects that varied in shape similarity in comparison to the target. Infants were assigned to one of two groups: a No Label group in which objects were introduced with a general attentional phrase (i.e., “Look at this one”) and a Distinct Label group in which target and test objects were labeled with two distinct count nouns (i.e., fep vs. wug). Infants in the Distinct Label group performed significantly fewer target actions on the high-similarity objects than infants in the No Label group but did not differ in performance of actions on the low-similarity object. Within the Distinct Label group, performance on the inductive inference task was related to age, but not to working memory, inhibitory control, or vocabulary. Within the No Label condition, performance on the inductive inference task was related to a measure of inhibitory control. Our findings suggest that between 14- and 16-months, infants begin to use labels to carve out distinct categories, even when objects are highly perceptually similar.

Bare nouns in Danish with special reference to the object position

Based on a discussion of correlations between syntactic position, prosodic cues, aspect and generic vs. non-generic interpretations, this paper substantiates that Danish Bare Plural count nouns (BPs) have a wider distribution than Bare Singular count nouns (BSs). BPs, unlike BSs, can occur in subject position, function as both generic and existential arguments, and appear with all aspectual verb classes. However, BPs and BSs expressing a non-generic, modificational meaning concur in object position of activity verbs and stative verbs with a possession relation implicature. These V+BP and V+BS structures, it is suggested, form a progressive continuum of three different subtypes of pseudo-incorporation (PI), namely (i) PI of BPs (low integration as inspise æbler‘eat apples’), (ii) PI oftype 1BSs (medium integration as inmale hus‘paint house’), and (iii) PI oftype 2BSs (maximum integration as inspille violin‘play violin’).

‘The’ Problem for the-Predicativism

Clarence Sloat, Ora Matushansky, and Delia Graff Fara advocate a Syntactic Rationale on behalf of predicativism, the view that names are predicates in all of their occurrences. Each argues that a set of surprising syntactic data compels us to recognize names as a special variety of count noun. This data set, they say, reveals that names’ interaction with the determiner system differs from that of common count nouns only with respect to the definite article ‘the’. They conclude that this special distribution of names is best explained by the-predicativism, the view that posits the existence of the null-determiner ‘the’ preceding bare singular names. This essay argues that they have incorrectly discerned the syntactic facts: their critical data point concerning the ungrammaticality of sentences like “The Katherine wants coffee” is mistaken. Such sentences’ grammaticality undermines the Syntactic Rationale and presents serious auxiliary problems for predicativism.

Transcending the lexical vs. grammatical divide regarding the mass/count distinction. Evidence from corpus studies and acceptability surveys in French and Dutch

The lexico-grammatical status of mass and count nouns has been extensively debated over the last decades. We discuss how the two main approaches (lexicalist and grammatical approach) both fail to account for all the properties of the distinction. An alternative lexicalist view is proposed, approaching mass and count features as probabilistic features rather than as categorical ones. Building on Allan (1980), we deployed corpus data and acceptability ratings to examine the mass-count preferences of French and Dutch nouns that allow for both a mass and count interpretation. Our findings indicate that acceptability ratings are related to corpus frequencies. More specifically, we found that attested mass usages (even with very low frequencies) of nouns are more acceptable than nouns with unattested mass usage, that more frequent mass usages are more acceptable than less frequent ones and that the degree of acceptability of a mass usage of a lexical item depends on its relative frequency in discourse. In addition, we found that acceptability ratings of mass usage are sensitive to semantic-pragmatic modulation of the sentence context.

De beschrijving van kale predicaatsnomina

Abstract The description of bare predicate nouns: a plea for Construction Grammar Bare nominals in predicate position like artiest in Jan is artiest ‘lit. Jan is artist’ have a capacity meaning, the capacity in this case being a profession. These nominals differ from non-bare nominals (with the indefinite article een) like een artiest in Jan is een artiest ‘Jan is an artist’, which can receive two interpretations: a capacity interpretation and a more figurative one, meaning ‘Jan is an artistic person’. This difference can be accounted for by specifying the constructions in which the nominals appear. The capacity meaning is only available if the bare predicate nominal contains a count noun. There is nevertheless a relation with a corresponding non-count mass noun. While the capacity meaning is always objective, the figurative interpretation of non-bare nominals (with een) is subjective. For this interpretation the article een is a prerequisite. I argue that Construction Grammar offers the best means to describe these facts and is preferable to a generative approach which divides the nouns in the lexicon in capacity and kind nouns and uses type shifting rules and operators to derive the bare and non-bare nominals.

Counting on number: effects of number information on grammatical processing of mass and count nouns

ABSTRACTPrevious research has found an influence of semantic number (SINGLE, MULTIPLE) on grammatical processing of mass nouns in people with aphasia. This is the first study to investigate these effects in language-unimpaired individuals. In two experiments, participants had to decide which were the appropriate determiners (e.g. Experiment 1: asingularcount – somemass/plural count) for the name of mass and count noun pictures that were depicted either as single (one bulb of garlicmass, one catcount) or as multiple objects (three bulbs of garlicmass, three catscount). Semantic number congruency between depictions and determiners was manipulated for mass nouns. A semantic number congruency effect was found in both experiments with faster and more accurate determiner decisions in the number congruent (e.g. Experiment 1: MULTIPLE) compared to the number incongruent condition (e.g. Experiment 1: SINGLE). These results provide further evidence for an influence of semantic number information on lexical-syntactic processing of mass nouns.

Garlic and ginger are not like apples and oranges: Effects of mass/count information on the production of noun phrases in English.

In this study a picture-word interference paradigm was used to investigate how grammatical mass/count information is processed during noun phrase production in English. Theories of lexical processing distinguish between two different types of lexical-syntactic information: variable extrinsic lexical-syntactic features, such as number (singular, plural), and fixed intrinsic lexical-syntactic properties, such as grammatical gender (e.g., masculine, feminine). Previous research using the picture-word interference paradigm has found effects of distractor lexical-syntactic congruency for grammatical gender but no congruency effects for number. We used this phenomenon to investigate whether mass/count information is processed similarly to grammatical gender. In two experiments, participants named pictures of mass or count objects using determiner noun phrases (e.g., Experiment 1 with mass and plural count nouns: "not muchmass ricemass", "not manycount pegscount"; Experiment 2 with mass and singular count nouns: "some ricemass", "a pegcount"), while ignoring distractors that were countability congruent or incongruent nouns. The results revealed a countability congruency effect for mass and plural count nouns in Experiment 1 and for singular count nouns, but not mass nouns in Experiment 2. This is similar to grammatical gender suggesting that countability processing is predominantly driven by a noun's lexical-syntactic information.

Philosophy: The Next Step

Philosophy: The Next Step Anand Jayprakash Vaidya (bio) Comparative Philosophy without Borders. Edited by Arindam Chakrabarti and Ralph Weber. London: Bloomsbury, 2016. Pp. viii + 246. isbn 978-1-4725-7624-8. Comparative Philosophy without Borders, edited by Arindam Chakrabarti and Ralph Weber (hereafter CPWB) is an outstanding and groundbreaking anthology that is also a prolegomena to all future philosophy, not just comparative philosophy. The anthology sets forward an agenda that is arguably the next step for philosophy. Chakrabarti and Weber have a dream (a dream that, in this reviewer’s mind, echoes the sentiments of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous speech “I Have a Dream”): Our dream is that future fusion philosophy will shed its local epithets, even the epithet “comparative.” All good philosophy should be unapologetically, and, eventually, unself-consciously, comparative and culturally hybrid. (p. 237) They point out that the use of “comparative” must be seen from the perspective of epistemic inequalities that are part of the historical condition in which philosophy continues to be housed, and from which it needs to be set free. Their hope has an early Wittgensteinian ring to it: Once we have climbed up to the level playing field of global combative cooperative critical creative philosophy from the fetid wells of centuries of unacknowledged epistemic inequalities . . . , we can, it is hoped, throw away the ladder of comparison. We can then do just philosophy. . . . (p. 238) While there are many works in comparative philosophy that one can read in order to get one’s feet wet or see where comparative philosophy is headed, it must be pointed out that this work is unique in the way in which it illuminates, through each piece, the ideology of doing philosophy without borders in a progressive, forward-looking way. Because of the depth and intricacy of each piece, I will focus my review on some portions of the “Introduction” and “Afterword/Afterwards” written by the editors. My goal is to engage the ideology of the anthology as opposed to the nuances of each individual piece. The Ostensive Engagement Aside from the wonderful “Introduction” and “Afterword/Afterwards,” CPWB brings together nine engaging and educational papers. The editors point out three unique [End Page 922] features of the volume. First, the choice of topics is not narrowly captured. CPWB engages topics from metaphysics to politics. Second, the choice of method is not singular. Although the title engages with doing philosophy comparatively without borders, it is not correct to describe the collection as one in which the authors take on the method of doing philosophy without borders as a single methodology. Rather, the volume engages a variety of methods that come from not holding on to borders that allow for only a single method to be used, such as conceptual analysis or phenomenological analysis. Below, I list the table of contents with a brief summary of each chapter, and following that I offer my general comments. 1. “Count Nouns, Mass Nouns, and Translatability: The Case of Tibetan Buddhist Logical Literature” by Tom J. F. Tillemans is a highly engaging piece that traverses the important terrain in the primary and secondary literature on the Tibetan Collected Topics “in light of the now classic arguments on intertranslatability and its philosophical limits” (p. 23). 2. “Translation, Interpretation, and Alternative Epistemologies” by Barry Hallen also engages work on translatability deriving from Quine. He “sets out . . . to examine, compare, and, in terms of topic, fuse the philosophy retrieved from the semantics of the West African languages of the Akan of Ghana, the Yoruba of Nigeria and of the English language . . . with regard to the underlying problematique of inter-translatability,” and he engages issues surrounding criteria for truth in natural language (p. 23). 3. “Resolving the Ineffability Paradox” by Chien-hsing Ho engages a broad range of traditions that discuss what he calls the “ineffability paradox.” The central question is: “how can one say that something is unspeakable without getting irretrievably implicated in paradox or self-refutation?” (p. 24). 4. “The Bowstring Is Like a Woman Humming: The Vedic Hymn to the Weapons and the Transformative Properties of Tools” by Laurie L. Patton “practices comparative philosophy crossing boundaries both of cultures as well as time...

КЛАССИФИКАЦИЯ НЕИСЧИСЛЯЕМЫХ СУЩЕСТВИТЕЛЬНЫХ В АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ

The article studies the classification of uncountable English nouns. The topic is described largely both in grammar manuals and research works. However, it may be presented in more details. In the typological perspective English is not just an analytical language. It certainly demonstrates some features of an isolating language. Unlike such languages as French, German or Italian, it lacks the grammatical gender and that is the cause of a different ground for the classification of English nouns. They are divided into classes according to the way the things exist - either as separate single units forming quantities or some continuity with no definite limits both material and mental. This is the guideline to a more detailed description of countable and uncountable nouns. The analytical character of English also implies that noun classifiers are not imbedded into a noun in its basic form, but are either a separate root morpheme (article a) or are not expressed at all. That differs much from grammatical gender which is a permanent attribute of a noun. The initial class of a noun is not fixed and can change depending the meaning and context. A balance of those two factors determines the shift from being a countable noun to the opposite status and vice versa. That’s why a synthetic language speakers face a difficult task of mastering the English article and a detailed classification uncountable nouns may help them a lot. A statistical analysis of the word death which is both countable and uncountable was made to show the prevailing usage.

Lexical plurals for aggregates of discrete entities in English

This paper studies why, for a plurality of discrete entities, a non-count plural might be preferred over a count noun or a non-count singular. Building partly on Wierzbicka (1985, 1988), it proposes two parameters: semantics, but also morphology. With lexical plurals, the items are construed as being of different kinds (vs. count nouns) and the focus is on the plurality of items rather than on a common purpose (vs. non-count singulars). For morphology, the notion of ‘attractor’ is proposed for some patterns which partly motivate the [±count] and number features. A collateral finding is that the plural of lexical plurals can be unstable: some nouns ending with -s undergo reanalysis as morphological plurals, while Latin plurals tend to be reanalysed as singulars. It is suggested that this trend confirms the semantic values of singular and plural numbers, as well as the influence of the morphological parameter on number and construal.

Collectives, object mass nouns and individual count nouns

Mass superordinates such asclothing, clothesandfurnitureform a distinct and peculiar class of nouns in languages with an obligatory singular/plural distinction. These nouns often havepluralia-tantumvariants as well as count equivalents – both within one linguistic system as well as cross-linguistically. This study is a follow-up of my earlier analysis of Romance superordinates (Mihatsch, 2006). The data are taken from English, German, French and Spanish in order to demonstrate the striking cross-linguistic pattern. The highly variable Spanishropa(s)‘clothing/clothes’ is analysed in greater detail. I argue that in most cases the apparently unsystematic synchronic variants arise from partly unidirectional diachronic changes, namely a lexicalisation process leading from collective nouns to object mass nouns, often followed by the appearance of plural forms, which oscillate between a lexical and an inflectional plural.

Lexical plurals in Telugu

In this paper I provide a description and analysis of a small class of plural mass nouns in Telugu (Dravidian), as well as an overview of the major properties of the mass/count distinction in the language. The plural mass nouns show the semantic behaviour of mass nouns in Telugu, however, they show the morphosyntactic behaviour of count nouns. I provide an analysis whereby the plurality is inherent to the roots, and it is this inherent plurality interacting with other properties of the morphosyntax of Telugu that makes these nouns appear to be count on the surface, though in reality they are mass nouns.