1

Numeral Classifiers and the Mass/Count Distinction

Byeong-uk YiPhilosophy Department

University of Torontob.yi@utoronto.ca

Mass/Count in Linguistics, Philosophy & Cognitive ScienceDec. 20, 2012

2

Contents

1. Preliminaries 32. Is the Mass/count Distinction Universal? 183. Count Noun Thesis 424. Paranumeral Account 655. Further Issues 836. Summary 104

3

1. PRELIMINARIES

4

Language & Ontology

Mass/Count Nouns

• Mass nouns– water, milk, beef, rice– furniture, cutlery– satisfaction, patience, success

• Count nouns– cow, house– raindrop, rice grain, furn. piece– mistake

Stuff/Individuals

• Stuff or substance– water, milk, beef, rice

• Individuals of the same kind– cows, houses– raindrops, rice grains, chairs

5

Stuff/Individuals

• Aristotle (384-322 BC)• Matter & form– The bronze: matter/material– The statue: form/shape

• Compounds– Concrete– Individuals belonging to a kind

6

Mass/Count

• Otto Jespersen (1860-1943)

• The Philosophy of Grammar (1924)

• Thing words/countables

• Mass words/uncountables

7

Digression 1• Joseph Edkins– Shanghai dialect (1853/1868)– Mandarin (1857/1864)

• Yuen-Ren Chao– A Grammar of Spoken Chinese (1968)

8

Diagression 2

• Bloomberg

• Language (1933)

• English nouns

• Determiner criteria

• Proper nouns• Common nouns– Bounded nouns– Unbounded nouns

• Mass nouns• Abstract nouns

9

Count Nouns (Jespersen)• House• Horse• Day• Mile• Sound• Word• Crime• Plan• mistake

10

Mass Nouns (Jespersen)

• The “material”– Silver, quicksilver, water, butter, gas, air

• The “immaterial”– Leisure, music, traffic, success, tact, commonplace– ‘nexus-substantives’• Satisfaction, admiration, refinement (from verbs)• Restlessness, justice, safety, constancy (from adverbs)

11

What distinguishes them?

• “There are a great many words which do not call up the idea of some definite things with a certain shape or precise limits. I call these ‘mass-words’.” (198)

• Mistake vs. success

• Rice

12

Syntactic Criteria (Jespersen)• “while countables are ‘quantified’ by means of

such words as one, two, many, few, mass-words are quantified by means of such words as much, little, less.” (198)

• The “notion of number” is “logically inapplicable to mass-words” (200)– “In an ideal language constructed on purely logical

principles a form which implied neither singular nor plural would be … called for” mass-words (198)

13

Morphosyntactic Criteria (Standard)

• Morphology: Singular/plural forms– Count: cow/cows– Mass: water/*waters, milk/*milks

• Numeral– Count: three cows– Mass: *three {water(s), milk(s)}

• Determiners– Count: {many, few} cows– Mass: {much, little, less} milk

14

Digression : Bare Noun Criterion

• Bloomberg (1933, 205)– Determiners– About English nouns

• “Bounded nouns in the singular number require a determiner (the house, a house)

• “Unbounded nouns require a determiner for the definite category only (the milk : milk)”

15

Mass/Count: Semantics

Count

• Count nouns denote individuals belonging to a certain kind.

• ‘horse’ denotes any (individual) horse.

• J. S. Mill– Connotation & denotation

• Quine– “individuative” (1969)– “divided reference” (1960)

Mass

• Mass Nouns refer to (or are names of) stuffs or substances.

• ‘water’ (or ‘gold’) is a name of a stuff: water (or gold).

16

THE USUAL MASS/COUNT DISTINCTIONSUMMARY

17

• Otto Jespersen– The Philosophy of Grammar

• Two Features– Primarily Morphosyntactic Distinction– Drawn for English and the like

• Additional theories of semantics– Quine (1960)– Others• Chierchia

18

2. IS THE MASS/COUNT DISTINCTION UNIVERSAL?

19

2.1. LANGUAGE DIVERSITY

20

Various Views

• Some languages don’t have the category of nouns.

• Some (or all) languages do not at all draw a distinction between mass and count nouns.

• Some languages do not have count nouns (or mass nouns).

21

+Count Nouns -Count Nouns

+Mass Nouns English et al.Tagalog

CL Languages (the mass noun thesis)

-Mass Nouns Hopi (Whorff 1956)

22

Classifier Languages• East Asia– Chinese (contemporary dialects) – Japanese– Korean– Thai, Malaysian, etc.

• Other Areas– in America

• Yucatec Maya, etc.– India

• Some Indo-European languages, etc.– Others

23

Numeral Classifiers

English

• Three cows

• Three pounds of meat

Mandarin

• San tou niu 3 CL cow ‘three cows’

• San bang (de) rou 3 pound (GEN) meat

24

English analogues

• Three head of cattle• Three head of {shorthorns, black men}• Three sail of ships• Three stems of roses

25

Asides

• Development of Classifiers in Chinese• Classical Chinese & Tagalog• Mandatory & optional classifier systems

26

The Standard Approach

• The mass/count distinction is a parochial feature of English and other similar languages.

• The distinction is inapplicable to a wide range of languages.

• Classifier languages have only mass nouns.

The Proposed Alternative

• The distinction runs deeper than the usual (syntactic) criteria suggest.

• It applies to a much wider range of languages.

• CL languages have (robust) count nouns as well as mass nouns.

27

2.2. THE STANDARD APPROACHClassifier Languages and the Mass Noun Thesis

28

Mass Noun Thesis

No Count Nouns

• Classifier languages have no count nouns.

Mass Nouns Only

• All common nouns of classifier languages are mass nouns.

29

Proponents of the MNT

• Keith Allan (1977)• Chad Hanson (1983)• Godehard Link (1991)• Gil (1992)• John A. Lucy (1992)• Manfred Krifka (1995)• Gennaro Chierchia (1998)• Hagit Borer (2005): super-MNT

30

Asides

Weak/Syntactic MNT

• CL language nouns ‘furniture’• semantically count yet

syntactically mass• Proponents

– Doetjes (1996)– Cheng & Sybesma (1998; 2005)– Chierchia (1998; 2010)

Semi-MNT

• W. V. Quine (1969)• Greenberg (1972)• Allan (1977)

31

Measure Word Thesis

• Classifiers are a kind of measure words.

• Classifiers have the same semantic function as the usual measure words (e.g. pound or bang)

32

Numeral Classifiers

English

• Three cows

• Three pounds of meat

Mandarin

• San tou niu 3 CL cow ‘three cows’

• San bang (de) rou 3 pound (GEN) meat

33

Measure Word Thesis & MNT

Question

• Why does the Chinese niu need a classifier to combine with numerals while the English ‘cow’ can directly combine with numerals?

Answer/Explanation

Mass Noun Thesis: unlike ‘cow’, niu is a mass noun.

Measure Word Thesis: The classifier tou is a kind of measure word.

34

2.3. THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVECount Noun Approach

35

• The mass/count distinction runs deeper than the usual criteria for the distinction suggests.

• It has a substantial cognitive basis.

• It applies to classifier languages as well.

• Classifier languages have (robust) count nouns as well as mass nouns.

36

Count Noun Thesis

• CL languages have (robust) count nouns as well as mass nouns.

• CL languages have morphosyntactic devices for distinguishing count nouns from mass nouns.

• Syntactically count

37

Paranumeral Thesis

• The role of classifiers (in the strict sense)

• Classifiers are paranumerals for one.• cousins of numerals for one• Syntactic peers of measure words• Other paranumerals: pair, couple, dozen, score, etc.

38

• draw syntactic parallels with measure words (and other paranumerals)

• Diverge semantically from measure words

• Closer semantically to other paranumerals

• Numeratives– Measure words– Other paranumerals– Classifiers

39

CNT & Paranumeral Thesis

• Paranumerals match only with count nouns.– three {dozen, dozens of}

cows– *three {dozen, dozens of}

water(s)

• Classifiers match only with count nouns.

40

2.4. TWO APPROACHESSummary

41

Standard Approach CN Approach

Noun System Mass Noun Thesis Count Noun Thesis

Role of Classifiers Measure Word Thesis Paranumeral Thesis

Implication CL nouns require classifiers. Classifier-taking nouns must be count.

42

3. COUNT NOUN THESISClassifier Language Nouns

43

Count Noun Thesis

• Classifier languages also have count nouns as well as mass nouns.

• They also have devices for drawing a syntactic distinction between mass and count nouns.

44

• Non-mandatory classifier system

• Quantifiers specific to numbers

• Counterparts of ‘each’ (adverbial use)

• Size and shape adjectives

45

3.1. NON-MANDATORY CLASSIFIER SYSTEMS

46

• Some languages have non-mandatory classifier systems.

• Some nouns of those CL languages can combine directly with numerals.

• Cf. Standard Approach– CL nouns require

classifiers.

47

• Incomplete classifier system– Vietnamese

• Nouns with non-mandatory classifiers– Korean– Malay

48

3.2. QUANTIFIERS SPECIFIC TO NUMBERS

49

The usual observation

• CL languages have no separate words for many & much

• Nor for few & little

henduo niu a.lot cow‘many cows (a lot of cows)’

henduo shui‘much water (a lot of water)’

50

Number-specific

• Counterparts of ‘countless’

• Counterparts of ‘a majority (of)’

• Cousins of ‘many’ or ‘few’– ‘a (large) number of’– ‘a small number of’

51

A. Counterparts of ‘countless’

• ‘countless’, ‘innumerable’

• [Not] + [Number/Count] + adjective marker

• ChineseWu.shu-de

• Japanesemu.suu-no

• Koreanmu.swu-han

52

B. Counterparts of ‘a majority’

• ‘a majority (of)’

• ‘a greater number (of)’

• [Large(r)] + [a.lot] + [number] (+ adj. marker)

• Chinese Da.duo.shu

• Japanese Dai.ta.su

• Korean tay.ta.su

53

C. Cousins of ‘many’

• ‘many’• ‘a large number (of)’, ‘a

lot in number’• [number] + [a.lot] + adj.

marker

• Japanese Kazu-ooku-no

‘(very) many’ • Korean

Swu.man(h).un‘(very) many’

54

Mass/count

Count Nouns

• Wu.shu-de niu ‘countless cows’

• Da.duo.shu niu ‘a majority of cows’

• Swu.man(h).un so ‘many cows’ (Korean)

Mass Nouns

• *Wu.shu-de {shui, rou} ‘*countless {water, meat}’

• *Da.duo.shu {shui, rou} ‘*a majority of {water, meat}

• *Swu.man(h).un {mwul, koki} ‘*many {water, meat}’ (Kor.)

55

3.3. THE ADVERBIAL ‘EACH’

56

The adverbial ‘each’

• The adverbial use of ‘each’

• ‘They each are somewhat different.’– ‘Each of the cows is

somewhat different.’– ‘*Each of the water is

somewhat different.’

• Chinesege (各 )

• Japanesesorezore

• Koreankak.kak

57

Chinese ge

• Niu (dou) ge you . . . . cow (all) each have . . . ‘Each cow has . . . .’

• *Shui (dou) ge you . . . . water (all) each have . . . ‘*Each water has . . . .’

58

3.4. SIZE-SHAPE ADJECTIVES

59

Size-shape adjectives

• ‘large’, ‘big’, ‘triangular’, ‘square’

• Quine (1960), McCawley (1975), Bunt (1975)

• Not combine with mass nouns– Exception: ‘?large furniture’ (McCawley)

60

• CL languages have count nouns combining directly with size-shape adjectives.

• Many classifiers relate to sizes or shapes.

61

3.5. THE SYNTACTIC MNTDigression

62

Different Kinds of Mass Nouns

• Central group• “substance-mass”• Silver, quicksilver,

water, butter, gas, air, etc.

• “Object-mass” nouns

• furniture, silverware, jewelry, clothing, traffic, infantry, footwear, etc.

• Hybrids• syntactically mass• semantically count

63

Syntactic MNT

• Doetjes (1996), Cheng & Sybesma (1998; 2005), Chierchia (1998; 2010)

• Classifier language count nouns are akin to ‘furniture’.

• Syntactically mass, albeit semantically count

64

Count Noun Thesis

• CL language count nouns are robust count nouns.

• They can be distinguished syntactically from mass nouns.

• They differ syntactically from “object-mass” nouns of English.

65

CL Language Count Nouns

• counterparts of ‘cow’– Niu (Chinese)– ushi (Japanese)– So (Korean)

• wu.shu-de niu ‘countless cows’

“Object-mass” nouns

• *countless furniture

• *Very many furniture

• *three pairs of furniture

66

4. PARANUMERAL ACCOUNTThe Function of Classifiers

67

• What is the role of classifiers?

68

• Why do CL languages count nouns require classifiers to combine with numerals?

• Why do (all/most/some) CL language count nouns regularly take classifiers to combine with numerals?

69

The function of classifiers

Syntactic

• Syntactic peers of measure words (and other numeratives)

Semantic

• Diverges semantically from measure words

• Paranumerals for one• Cousins of numerals for one

(serving as numeratives)

70

Paranumerals

English Paranumerals• ‘pair’, ‘couple’, ‘dozen’,

‘score’

• Numerative use– ‘Three dozen eggs’– ‘Three dozens of eggs’

Chinese Paranumerals• Dui ‘pair, couple’, shuang ‘pair,

couple’, da ‘dozen’

• Paranumerals for one– zhi CL (one.of.a.pair)– Other classifiers

71

Classifiers & Numeratives

Numeratives

• “Classifiers” in the broad sense

• include measure words

• Edkins (1853/68; 1857/64)• Yuen Ren Chao (1968)

– lingc– “Measure word” (“quantity

word”)

Classifiers

• Classifiers in the proper sense

• Do not include measure words

• Chao (1968)– Individual measures– Classifiers– “numeratives”

72

Diversity of Numeratives

• Measure words– Pound, gram, feet– Cup(ful)– Piece, slice

• Classifiers– Tou (animal), ben (book)

• Others?

73

Bipartite Classification

• Lyons (1977)– Mensural classifiers– Sortal classifiers

• James Tai & L. Wang (1990)– Measure words– classifiers

• Cheng & Sybesma (1998; 1999; 2005)– Massifiers (mass classifiers)– Classifiers (count classifiers)

74

Further Diversity

• Edkins (1853/68; 1857/64)– 5 groups

• Chao (1968)– 9 groups– 5 (central) + 4 (peripheral)

75

Chao’s Classification

• Classifiers• Group– Qun ‘group flock’, zu ‘section, group’– Zhong ‘kind, species’, lei ‘kind, category’– Dui ‘pair, couple’, shuang ‘pair, couple’, da ‘dozen’

• Partitive: pian ‘slice’• Container: bei ‘cup’• Standard: bang ‘pound’

76

Paranumeral numeratives• Chinese

• Dui ‘pair, couple’• shuang ‘pair, couple’• da ‘dozen’

• English– pair, couple– dozen– Score

• Paranumerals for 2, 12, 20, etc.

• Are there paranumerals for one?

77

Classifiers as Paranumerals

• Classifiers are paranumerals for one.

• Cousins of numerals for one.

• There are usually many classifiers because they have constraints on the kind of nouns they can match.

78

Classifiers as Numeratives

English

• Three pounds of meat• Three boxes of oranges• Three slices of bread• Three pairs of parrots

• Three cows

Chinese

• San bang rou• San xiang juzi• San pian mianbao• San dui yingwu

• San tou niu

79

Digression

• Three pounds of meat• Three boxes of oranges• Three slices of bread• Three pairs of parrots

• Three cows

• Three head of {cattle, shorthorns, black men}

• Three sail of ships• Three stems of roses

80

Paranumeral Account

• Classifiers are paranumeral numeratives for one.

• Syntactic parity with measure words and other paranumeral numeratives.

• Diverge semantically from measure words.

81

Classifiers and One (Yi 2100a)• The Chinese classifier zhi (one.of.a.pair)

• Numerals for powers of ten as numeratives (Burling & Chao)

• The Burmerese general Cl –khu (Burlign 1965)

• The Korean general CL –kay and nath ‘one’

• Others

82

The Burmese -khu

• “Burmese speakers sometimes include –khu in the same series as the classifiers for the powers of ten: she, ‘ten,’ ya, ‘hundred,’ thaun, ‘thousand,’ etc.” (Burling 1965, 262)

83

Paranumerals & Count Nouns

• Classifiers can match only count nouns, because they are paranumerals.

• ‘pair’, ‘dozen’, etc. also match only count nouns.

• Edkins– “distinctive”

numeratives and “appellative” nouns

• Chao– “Individual measures”

and “individual nouns”

84

5. FURTHER ISSUES

85

5.1. FEAFURES OF CL LANGAUGES

86

CL Languages:Commonly Cited Features

• Absence of the singular/plural morphology

• Classifier system

• Bare nouns

• Absence of the many/much distinction

• (Mass Nouns Only)

87

• Chierchia• Claim: the features

cluster together.

• The features do not cluster together.

88

• Mass nouns only (mass noun thesis)?– Count noun thesis

• Absence of the many/much distinction?– Counterparts of ‘(very) many’, ‘few’, ‘countless’

• Mandatory classifiers?– Incomprehensive classifier systems– Optional classifiers– Paranumeral thesis

89

Bare nominals• Can count nouns form bare

singular nominal phrases?

Absence of S&P Forms• Can count nouns lack

singular & plural forms?

90

5.2. BARE NOUNS

91

Articles & Bare Nominals

Languages with articles• Development of determiner

system• Restricted use of bare

nominals

Languages without articles• No substantial determiner

system

• Regular use of bare nominals

92

+ CL system - CL system

+ article system Some CL languages?Hungarian?

Modern GermanicRomanceTagalog (no S/P morphology)

- Article system (most) CL languages LatinHindiOld EnglishArchaic Chinese

93

Bloomberg on determiners

• This habit of using certain noun expressions always with a determiner is peculiar to some languages, such as the modern Germanic and Romance. Many languages have not this habit; in Latin, for instance, domus ‘house’ requires no attribute and is used indifferently where [sic] we say the house or a house. (1933, 203)

94

• Yi (2012) & (preprint)

95

5. SINGULAR/PLURAL MORPHOLOGY

96

• Why do classifier language count nouns not take singular or plural forms?

• Can count nouns lack singular & plural forms?

97

• The s/p morphology is not an essential feature of count nouns.

• The morphology is par of the grammatical number system.

• Languages with and without a GN system

• In languages without a GN system, count nouns do not take singular or plural forms.

98

+ CL system - CL system

+ GN system Some CL languages?Hungarian?

Most Indo-European

- GN system Most CL languages TagalogArchaic Chinese

99

Tagalog & Classical Chinese

• No grammatical number system– Nouns do not have singular or plural forms.

• No classifier system• The mass/count distinction– Count nouns combine directly with numerals.– Count nouns denotes any two or more of some

things belonging to a certain kind as well as any one of those.

100

Aside

• Tagalog has articles (or noun markers).

• Archaic Chinese has no articles.

101

Count Nouns with S/P Forms

Nouns• Cow

• Denotes any one or more cows

Singular & plural forms• Singular form

– cow-– Denotes any one cow

• Plural form– Cows– Denotes any (one or) more

cows

102

Archaic Chinese• San niu 3 cow (cf. cow-) ‘three cows’

Mandarin• San tou niu 3 CL cow (cf. cow-) ‘three cows’

103

Contemporary Korean

Non-CL form• haksayng seys student 3 ‘three students’

CL form• haksayng sey myeng student 3 CL ‘three students’

104

• CL language count nouns are counterparts of English nouns.

• Not of their singular forms.

• CL language counterparts of ‘cow’ denote– Any (two or more) cows, as well as– Any (one) cow

105

6. SUMMARY

106

The Mass/Count Distinction

• Runs deeper than the usual accounts suggest.

• Runs across a much wide variety of languages.

107

• Does not depend on the s/p morpholoy.

• Does not depend on the possibility of direct combination with numerals.

• Compatible with the possibility of (regularly) forming bare nominals.

108

Classifier Languages

• Dissociation of Commonly Cited Features of Classifier Languages– Absence of the singular/plural morphology– Classifier system– Bare nouns– Absence of the many/much distinction– (Mass Nouns Only)

109

Classifier languages

• The Count Noun Thesis

• Count nouns without the singular/plural morphology.

• The paranumeral account

• Classifiers match only with count nouns.

110

• THANK YOU!

• http://philosophy.utoronto.ca/people/faculty/byeong-uk-yi– “Numeral classifiers and count nouns”

111

ReferencesAllan, K. 1977. Classifiers. Language 53, 285-311.Borer, H. 2005. In Name Only. OUP.Bunt, H. C. 1985. Mass Terms and Model-theoretic Semantics. Cambridge UP.Chao, Y. R. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press.Cheng, L. L.-S. & Sybesma, R. 1998. Yi-wan Tang, Yi-ge Tang: classifiers and massifiers. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies (New Series) 28: 385-412.----- 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 509-542.----- 2005. Classifiers in four varieties of Chinese. In Cinque & Kayne (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, 259-292. OUP.Chierchia, G. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6: 339-405.----- 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174: 99-149.Doetjes, J. 1996. Mass and count: syntax or semantics? Proceedings of Meaning on the HIL, 34-52. HIL/Leiden Univ.Edkins, J. 1853. A Grammar of Colloquial Chinese as Exhibited in the Shanghai Dialect. Shanghai.----- 1864 A Grammar of the Chinese Colloquial Language, Commonly Called the Mandarin Dialect. Shanghai, 1857; 2nd ed., Presbyterian Mission Press, 1864.Hanson, C. D. 1983. Language and Logic in Ancient China. University of Michigan Press.Imai, M. and D. Gentner. 1997. A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition 62: 169-200.Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. Allen & Unwin.

112

Krifka, M. 1995. Common nouns: a contrastive analysis of Chinese and English. In Carlson & Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, 398-411. U of Chicago Press.Link, G. 1998. Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy. CSLI.Lucy, J. A.1992. Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Thesis. Cambridge University Press.Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press.McCawley, J. D. 1975. Lexicography and the mass-count distinction. Rep. in McCawley, J. D., Adverbs, Vowels, and Other Objects of Wonder, 165-173. University of Chicago Press, 1979. Soja, N. N., Carey, S. and Spelke, E. 1991. Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition 38: 179-211.Tai, J. and Wang, L. 1990. A semantic study of the classifier tiao. J. of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 25: 35-56.Quine, W. V. 1960 Word and Object. MIT.Quine, W. V. 1969. Ontological Relativity & Other Essays. Columbia University Press.Yi, B.-U. 2005-6. The logic and meaning of plurals, Parts 1 & 2. J. of Phil. Logic 34 & 35: 459-509 & 239-88. ----- 2009. Chinese classifiers and count nouns. Journal of Cognitive Science 10: 209-225.----- 2011a. What is a numeral classifier? Philosophical Analysis 23: 195-258.----- 2011b. Afterthoughts on Chinese classifiers and count nouns. In Y. Kim (ed.), Plurality in Classifier Languages, 265-282. Hankookmunhwasa.----- 2012. Numeral classifiers and bare nominals. Proceedings of IsCLL13.----- preprint. Articles and bare nominals.