Counting Aggregates, Groups and Kinds: Countability from the Perspective of a Morphologically Complex Language

doi:10.1017/9781316823774.005

3 - Counting Aggregates, Groups and Kinds: Countability from the Perspective of a Morphologically Complex Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 June 2021

Scott Grimm and

Mojmír Dočekal

Edited by

Hana Filip

Show author details

Hana Filip: Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Thischapter focuses on data from Czech, specifically, derived aggregates and complex numerals. Derived aggregates such as list-í (leaf- í- NOM.SG, ‘foliage’) are derived from a count noun (e.g., list) and the suffix -í. Furthermore, aggregates derived with -í are non-count. Grimm and Dočekal discuss three types of complex numerals that are also morphologically derived: derived group numerals, complex numerals for aggregates, and taxonomic numerals. As well as using these data to bolster the support for a view in which aggregates are a distinct kind of non-countable entity from substances, the authorsargue the complexity of the morphosyntactic resources a language can limit the extent to which nouns in that language are mass/count flexible. These data are then modeled in a neo-Krifkan framework, enriched with mereotopology that accounts for taxonomic and group numeral constructions, the sense in which derived aggregates denote clustered individuals (individuals formed of parts that stand in relatedness relations to one another), and why the counting of derived aggregates in Czech is only possible with complex numerals for aggregates.

Keywords

aggregates complex numerals Czech taxonomic and group numeral constructions mereotopology

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Countability in Natural Language , pp. 85 - 120
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316823774.005 [Opens in a new window]
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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acquaviva, Paolo (2008). Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bach, Emmon (1986). The algebra of events. Linguistics and Philosophy 9.1: 5–16.CrossRef Google Scholar

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 judgments and individuation: evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97.1: 41–66.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Borer, Hagit (2005). Structuring Sense i: In Name Only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Dingare, Shipra, and Manning, Chris (2001). Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. In Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, pp. 13–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bunt, Harry C. (1985). Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carlson, Gregory N. (1980). Reference to Kinds in English. New York, NY and London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar

Casati, Roberto, and Varzi, Achille C. (1999). Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Cheng, G., et al. (2008). Searching semantic web objects based on class hierarchies. In WWW-2008 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, pp. 199–226.Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro (1998a). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6.4: 339–405.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro (1998b). Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In Rothstein, Susan (ed.), Events and Grammar: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy Vol. 7, pp. 53–104. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro (2010). Language, thought, and reality after Chomsky. In Franck, Julie and Bricmont, Jean (eds.), The Chomsky Notebook, pp. 142–169. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Czech National Corpus (2018). www.korpus.cz.Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary, and Mofu, Suriel (2012). Plural semantics, reduplication, and numeral modification in indonesian. Journal of Semantics 29.2: 229–261.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dayal, Veneeta (2004). Number marking and (in) definiteness in kind terms. Linguistics and Philosophy 27.4: 393–450.CrossRef Google Scholar

De Belder, Marijke (2013). Collective mass affixes: When derivation restricts functional structure. Lingua 126: 32–50.CrossRef Google Scholar

Deal, Amy Rose (2017). Countability distinctions and semantic variation. Natural Language Semantics 25: 125–171.Google Scholar

Dočekal, Mojmír (2012). Atoms, groups and kinds in Czech. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 59.1–2:109–126.Google Scholar

Filip, Hana (1999). Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar

Geurts, Bart (2006). The meaning and use of a number word. In Vogeleer, Svetlana and Tasmowski, Liliane, Non-Definiteness and Plurality, pp. 311–330. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Grimm, Scott (2012). Number and Individuation. PhD Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Grimm, Scott (2013). Plurality is distinct from number-neutrality. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society. Vol. 41. University of Massachussetts at Amherst Amherst, MA.Google Scholar

Grimm, Scott (2018). Grammatical number and the scale of individuation. Language 94.3: 527–574.Google Scholar

Grimm, Scott, and Levin, Beth (2017). Artifact nouns: Reference and countability. In Lamont, Andrew and Tetzloff, Katerina (eds.), Proceedings of the 47th Meeting of the Northeast Linguistic Society (NELS 47), pp. 55–64, Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and r-based implicature. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications, pp. 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Ionin, Tania, and Matushansky, Ora (2006). The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23.4: 315–360.Google Scholar

Joosten, Frank (2003). Accounts of the count-mass distinction: A critical survey. Linguisticae Investigationes 26: 159–173.Google Scholar

Karlík, P. and Nekula, M. ad. (eds.) 1995. Příruční mluvnice češtiny. Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.Google Scholar

Khrizman, Keren (2016). Numerous Issues in the Semantics of Numeral Constructions in Russian. PhD thesis, Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar

Khrizman, Keren (2020). The cardinal/collective alternation in Russian numerals. In Radeva-Bork, T., and Kosta, P. (eds.), Current Developments in Slavic Linguistics. Twenty Years After (based on selected papers from FDSL 11). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Komárek, M. and Kořenský, J. ad. (eds.). 1986. Mluvnice češtiny. Academia.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, Renate, van Benthem, Johan, and van Emde Boas, Peter (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, pp. 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred (1992). Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, Ivan and Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical Matters, pp. 29–53. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred (1995). Common nouns: A contrastive analysis of English and Chinese. In Carlson, Gregory N. and Pelletier, Francis J. (eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 398–411. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred (2003). Bare NPs: Kind-referring, indefinites, both, or neither? In Young, R. B. and Zhou, Y. (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, pp. 180–203, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis J., Carlson, Gregory N., ter Meulen, Alice, Chierchia, Gennaro, and Link, Godehard (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In Carlson, G. and Pelletier, F. J.,(eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 1–125. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Landman, Fred (1989). Groups i. Linguistics and Philosophy 12.5: 559–605.Google Scholar

Lima, Suzi (2014). The Grammar of Individuation and Counting. PhD Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar

Link, Godehard (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In Bauerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph, and von Stechow, Arnim (eds.), Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language, pp. 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Marušič, Lanko, and Ira Nevins, Andrew (2009). Two types of neuter: Closest-conjunct agreement in the presence of ‘5&ups’. In Fisher, A., Kesici, E., Predolac, N., Zec, D., Browne, W., and Cooper, A. (eds.), Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, The Second Cornell Meeting 2009, pp. 301–317. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar

Marušič, Franc, Nevins, Andrew I., and Badecker, William (2015). The grammars of conjunction agreement in Slovenian. Syntax 18.1: 39–77.Google Scholar

Mathieu, Éric (2012). Flavors of division. Linguistic Inquiry 43.4: 650–679.CrossRef Google Scholar

Miechowicz-Mathiasen, Katarzyna (2012). Licensing Polish higher numerals: An account of the accusative hypothesis. Current Issues in Generative Linguistics 81, 58–75.Google Scholar

Müller-Reichau, Olav (2006). Sorting the World: On the Relevance of the Kind-Level/Object-Level Distinction to Referential Semantics. PhD Thesis, Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar

Payne, John, and Huddleston, Rodney (2002). Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoff (eds.), Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, pp. 323–524. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pelletier, Francis J. (1979). Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. In Pelletier, Francis. J. (ed.), Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems, pp. 1–14. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Pelletier, Francis J., and Schubert, Lenhart (2004). Mass expressions. In Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume x, pp. 249–335. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Susan (2017). Semantics for Counting and Measuring: Key Topics in Semantics and Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Veselovská, Ludmila (2001). Agreement patterns of Czech group nouns and quantifiers. In Corver, N. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), Semi-Lexical Categories: The Function of Content Words and the Content of Function Words, pp. 273–320. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Wągiel, Marcin (2015). Sums, groups, genders, and Polish numerals. In Zybatow, Gerhild, Biskup, Petr, Guhl, Marcel, Hurtig, Claudia, Mueller-Reichau, Olav, and Yastrebova, Maria (eds.), Slavic Grammar from a Formal Perspective. The 10th Anniversary FDSL Conference, Leipzig 2013, pp. 495–513. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Winter, Yoad (2001). Flexibility Principles in Boolean Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Wisniewski, Edward J., Lamb, Christopher A., and Middleton, Erica L. (2003). On the conceptual basis for the count and mass noun distinction. Language and Cognitive Processes 18: 583–624.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zamparelli, Roberto (1999). Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York, NY: Garland.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.