Skip Navigation


Journal of Semantics Advance Access originally published online on April 1, 2009
Journal of Semantics 2009 26(3):217-252; doi:10.1093/jos/ffp003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
26/3/217    most recent
ffp003v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bale, A. C.
Right arrow Articles by Barner, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

The Interpretation of Functional Heads: Using Comparatives to Explore the Mass/Count Distinction

Alan C. Bale

Concordia University

David Barner

University of California, San Diego

Correspondence: ALAN C. BALE, Concordia University, H663, 1455 de Maisonneuve Boulvard, West, Montréal, QC (H3G 1M8) Canada, e-mail: alancbale{at}gmail.com

Correspondence: DAVID BARNER, Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, 5336 McGill Hall, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-010, e-mail: barner{at}ucsd.edu


  Abstract

Comparative judgments for mass and count nouns yield two generalizations. First, all words that can be used in both mass and count syntax (e.g. rock, string, apple, water) always denote individuals when used in count syntax but never when used in mass syntax (e.g. too many rocks v. too much rock). Second, some mass nouns denote individuals (e.g. furniture) while others do not (e.g. water). In this article, we show that no current theory of mass–count semantics can capture these two facts and argue for an alternative theory that can. We propose that lexical roots are not specified as mass or count. Rather, a root becomes a mass noun or count noun by combining with a functional head. Some roots have denotations with individuals while others do not. The count head is interpreted as a function that maps denotations without individuals to those with individuals. The mass head is interpreted as an identity function making the interpretation of a mass noun equivalent to the interpretation of the root. As a result, all count nouns have individuals in their denotation, whereas mass counterparts of count nouns do not. Also, some roots that have individuals in their denotations can be used as mass nouns to denote individuals.

Received for publication 24 December 2007. Revision received 7 September 2008. Accepted for publication 10 November 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.