Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T04:50:46.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Counting and Measuring and Approximation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2021

By
Susan Rothstein
Edited by
Hana Filip
Hana Filip
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Get access

Summary

Object mass nouns, such as furniture, are mass, but they allow quantity evaluations and comparisons in terms of a cardinal scale. This paper addresses the vexing question of how such cardinal comparisons are possible for object mass nouns, given that, as mass nouns, these expressions are not countable. Building upon her theory of count nouns based on semantic atomicity (entities that are indexed to counting contexts), and on her work on the distinction between counting and measuring and the semantics of measure functions, Rothstein proposes a treatment of quantity evaluations for object mass nouns based on measure comparisons using values on a cardinality scale which, unlike counting does not require access to a set of semantic atoms. Rothstein then extends this analysis and argues that two types of estimation operations have grammatical properties associated with measuring: Russian approximative inversion, and cardinality estimation in Mandarin.

Keywords

object mass nounscardinality comparisoncardinality scaleestimation operationRussianMandarin
Type
Chapter
Information
Countability in Natural Language , pp. 217 - 251
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bale, Alan, and Barner, David (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 26.3: 217–252.Google Scholar
Barner, David, and Snedeker, Jesse (2005). Quantity judgements and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97.1: 41–66.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa, and Rint, Sybesma (1998). Yi-wang tang, yi-ge tang: Classifiers and massifiers. The Tsing- Journal of Chinese Studies 28.3, 385–412.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro (2010). Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese, 174.1: 99–149.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven (1995). Parameters of Russian Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob (1884). Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik: Eine logisch mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl. Breslau: W. Koebner.Google Scholar
Gafni, Chen, and Rothstein, Susan (2014). Who has more N? Context and variety are both relevant. Paper presented at 1st Conference On Cognition Research of the Israeli Society for Cognitive Psychology (ISCOP), Akko, 10–12 February 2014.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott, and Levin, Beth (2012). ‘Who Has More Furniture?’ An Exploration of the Bases for Comparison. Presentation at Mass/Count in Linguistics, Philosophy and Cognitive Science Conference, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, France, December 20–21, 2012.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Miao-Ling (2008). The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in Chinese. Books Series in Chinese Linguistics. No. 2. Taipei: Crane Publishing.Google Scholar
Hyde, Daniel (2011). Two systems of non-symbolic numeral cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 5: 150, doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00150.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans (1975). Two theories about adjectives. In Keenan, E. (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Languages, pp. 123–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in von Heusinger, K. and ter Meulen, A. (eds.), The Dynamics of Meaning and Interpretation. Selected Papers of Hans Kamp, pp. 225–261. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Khrizman, Keren (2016). Numerous Issues in the Semantics of Numeral Constructions in Russian. PhD Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University.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, pp. 259–272. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, Renate, van Benthem, Johan, and von Emde Boas, Peter (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, pp. 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (2009a). Counting configurations. In Riester, Arndt and Solstad, Torgrim (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn & Bedeutung 13, Working Papers of the SFB 732, 5, pp. 309–324. Stuttgart: Universitätsbibliothek der Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred (2009b). Approximate interpretations of number words: A case for strategic communication. In Hinrichs, Erhard and Nerbonne, John (eds.), Theory and Evidence in Semantics, pp. 109–132. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred (2011). Count nouns – mass nouns – neat nouns – mess nouns. In Glanzberg, Michael, Partee, Barbara H., and Šķilters, Jurģis (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context and Models. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6, 2010, pp. 1–67, http://thebalticyearbook.org/journals/baltic/issue/current.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred (2016). Iceberg semantics for count nouns and mass nouns: classifiers, measures and portions. In Rothstein, Susan and Šķilters, Jurģis (eds.), Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Cross-linguistic Approaches. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 11, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1107.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter (1999). Pragmatic halos. Language 75.3: 522–551.Google Scholar
Li, XuPing (2011). On the Semantics of Classifiers in Chinese. PhD Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University.Google 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
Link,  Godehard (1984). Hydras: On the logic of relative constructions with multiple heads. In Landman, Fred and Veltman, Frank (eds)., Varieties of Formal Semantics, GRASS 3, pp. 245–257. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. (2015). On Russian approximative inversion. 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, pp. 303–316. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. M., and Ruys, E. G. (2015). Measure for measure. 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, pp. 317–330. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. (1980). Animacy in Russian cardinal numerals and adjectives as an inflectional category. Language 56.4: 797–811.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. (1985). Poverxnostnyj Sintaksis Russkix Čislovyx Vyraženij. (Surface Syntax of Numerical Expressions in Russian). Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 16. Vienna: Institut fur Slavistic der Universitat Wien.Google Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, R., and Rothstein, Susan (2011). Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 121.15: 2153–2175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.09.004.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.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan (2009).  Measuring and counting in Modern Hebrew. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1: 106–145.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan (2010). Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 27.3: 343–397, https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffq007.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan (2011). Counting, measuring, and the semantics of classifiers. In Glanzberg, Michael, Partee, Barbara H., and Šķilters, Jurģis (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics: Discourse, Context and Models. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication 6, 2010, http://thebalticyearbook.org/journals/baltic/issue/current.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan (2013). Counting, measuring and the mass/count distinction. Paper presented at the Düsseldorf Workshop on Countability, September.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan (2017). Semantics for Counting and Measuring: Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schvarcz, Brigitta R., and Rothstein, Susan (2017). Hungarian classifier constructions and the mass–count distinction. In van den Hulst, Harry and Lipták, Anikó (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 15: Papers from the 2015 Leiden Conference, pp. 103–208. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger (2011). Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. In Lima, S., Mullin, K., and Smith, B. (eds.), NELS 39: Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, pp. 661–678. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Solt, Stephanie (2008). Cardinality and the many/much distinction. Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting Chicago.Google Scholar
Solt, Stephanie (2015). Vagueness and imprecision: Empirical foundations. Annual Review of Linguistics 1.1: 107–127.Google Scholar
Stepanov, A. (2001). Late adjunction and minimalist phrase structure. Syntax 4.2: 94–125.Google Scholar
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane (2005). Nouns or classifiers: A non-movement analysis of classifiers in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 6.3: 431–472.Google Scholar
Wiese, Heike (2003). Numbers, Language and the Human Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yadroff, M., and Billings, L. (1998). The syntax of approximative inversion in Russian. In Bošković, Željko, Franks, Steven, and Snyder, William (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Connecticut Meeting 1997. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 6, pp. 319–338. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Zaroukian, Erin (2011). Divergent approximators. In Reich, I., Horch, E., and Pauly, D. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, pp. 677–690. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×