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-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T12:29:41.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Susan Rothstein
Susan Rothstein
Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University, Israel
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Semantics for Counting and Measuring , pp. 257 - 270
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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

Acquaviva, P. 2008. Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra, 2003. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian, and Lehrer, Adrienne, 1976. NP-like quantifiers and the problem of determining the head of an NP. Linguistic Analysis 2, 4, 395–413.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, 2011. Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of number. In Washburn, Mary Byram, McKinney-Bock, Katherine, Varis, Erika, Sawyer, Ann and Tomaszewicz, Barbara (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 33–41. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Allan, Keith, 1977. Classifiers. Language 53, 2, 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, Keith, 1980. Nouns and countability. Language 56, 3, 541–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, Keith, 2006. A ‘just that’ lexical meaning for most. In von Heusinger, K. and Turner, K. (eds.), Where Semantics Meets Pragmatics, pp. 49–91. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon, 1989. Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Bale, Alan C., and Barner, David, 2009. The interpretation of functional heads: using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 26, 3, 217–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bale, Alan, and Coon, Jessica, 2014. Classifiers are for numerals, not for nouns: consequences for the mass/count distinction. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 4, 695–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bale, Alan, and Khanjian, Hrayr, 2008. Classifiers and number marking. In Friedman, T. and Ito, S. (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVIII, pp. 74–88. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Barner, David, and Snedeker, Jesse, 2005. Quantity judgments and individuation: evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97, 1, 41–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, Julian, 2003. The Pedant in the Kitchen. Revised edn published 2012. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon, and Cooper, Robin, 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 2, 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beviláqua, Kayron, Pires de Oliveira, Roberta and Lima, Suzi, 2016. Bare Nouns in Brazilian Portuguese: an experimental study an grinding. In Rothstein, S. and Šķilters, J. (eds.), The Baltic International yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume XI: Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crossliguistic Approaches, Kansas: New Prairie Press.http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.113. [Online publication]Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter, 2012. Numeral classifiers with plural marking, a challenge to Greenberg. In Xu, D. (ed.), Plurality and Classifiers across Languages in China, pp. 23–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit, 1989. On the morphological parallelism between compounds and constructs. In Booij, G. and Van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1989, pp. 45–64. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit, 1999. Deconstructing the construct. In Johnson, K. and Roberts, I. (eds.), Beyond Principles and Parameters, pp. 43–90. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit, 2005. Stucturing Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit, 2009. Compounds: the view from Hebrew. In Lieber, R. and Stekauer, P. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, pp. 491–511. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borges, Jorge Luis, 1999. Collected Fictions, translated by Hurley, Andrew. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, and Partee, Barbara H., 2004. Genitives, types, and sorts: the Russian genitive of measure. In Kim, Ji-yung, Lander, Yury A. and Partee, Barbara H. (eds.), Possessives and Beyond: Semantics and Syntax, UMOP 29, pp. 29–43. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Partee, Barbara H., Testelets, Yakov G. and Yanovich, Igor, 2006. Sentential and constituent negation in Russian BE-sentences revisited. In Lavine, James E., Franks, Steven L., Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila and Filip, Hana (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Princeton Meeting 2005, pp. 50–65. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Borschev, Vladimir, Paducheva, Elena V., Partee, Barbara H., Testelets, Yakov G. and Yanovich, Igor, 2008. Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type hypothesis. In Antonenko, A., Bailyn, J. F. and Bethin, C. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Stony Brook Meeting 2007, pp. 48–67. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Bunt, Harry, 1985. Mass Terms and Model-theoretic Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan, and Xu, Fei, 2001. Infant’s knowledge of objects: beyond object files and object tracking. Cognition 80, 179–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlson, Gregory N., 1977. Reference to Kinds in English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Casati, Roberto, and Varzi, Achille C., 1999. Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen-Ren, 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., 2012. Counting and classifiers. In Massam, D. (ed.), Count and Mass across Languages, pp. 199–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Sybesma, Rint, 1998. Yi-wan tang, yi-ge tang: classifiers and massifiers. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 28, 3, 385–412.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Sybesma, Rint, 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30, 4, 509–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Sybesma, Rint, 2005. Classifiers in four varieties of Chinese. In Cinque, G. and Kayne, R. S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, pp. 259–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., and Sybesma, Rint, 2012. Classifiers and DP. Linguistic Inquiry 43, 4, 634–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., Doetjes, Jenny S. and Sybesma, Rint, 2008. How universal is the universal grinder? In van Koppen, M. and Botma, B. (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2008, pp. 50–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, 1984. Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, 1985. Formal semantics and the grammar of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 417–43.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, 1998a. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and Grammar, pp. 53–103. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, 1998b. Reference to kinds. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, 2004. Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena, and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond, the Cartography of Syntactic Structures 3, pp. 39–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174, 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro, and Turner, Raymond, 1988. Semantics and property theory, Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 3, 261–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel, and Krifka, Manfred, 2010. Superlative quantifiers as modifiers of meta-speech acts. In Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume VI. http://newprairiepress.org/biyclc/vol6/iss1/11.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, 2011. Numeral bases. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, ch. 131, http://wals.info/chapter/131. Accessed on 21 August 2013.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville, 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, 1994. Semantic universals in classifier systems. Word 45, 145–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csirmaz, Anikó, and Dékány, Éva, 2014. Hungarian is a classifier language. In Raffaele, S. and Masini, F. (eds.), Word Classes: Nature, Typology and Representations, pp. 141–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Danon, Gabi, 2008. Definiteness spreading in the Hebrew construct state. Lingua 118, 7, 872–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danon, Gabi, 2012. Two structures for numeral–noun constructions. Lingua 122, 12, 1282–1307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dantzig, Tobias, 1954. Number, the Language of Science: A Critical Survey Written for the Cultured Non-mathematician, 4th edn. Doubleday. Reprinted in 2007. Middlesex: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
David, Elizabeth, 1999. French Provincial Cooking. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stanislas, 2010. The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dékány, Éva, 2011. A Profile of the Hungarian DP. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Dočekal, Mojmír, and Ziková, Markéta, 2013. Semantic opacity of collective nouns and transparency of group numerals. Paper presented at Formal Description of Slavic Languages 10. Leipzig, December.Google Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny S., 1997. Quantifiers and Selection: On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny S., 2012. Count/mass distinctions across languages. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K. and Portner, P. (eds.), Semantics: an International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Part III, pp. 2559–80. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit, 2003. Bare singular reference to kinds. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 13, 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit, and Meir, Irit, 2013a. Construct state: modern Hebrew. In Khan, G. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, pp. 581–9. Leiden: Brill. http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics/construct-state-modern-hebrew-EHLL_COM_00000681?s.num=0&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics&s.q=constructs.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit, and Meir, Irit, 2013b. Amount definites. In Bessayde, C. and Pires de Oliveira, R. (eds.), Weak Definites across Languages – Theoretical and Experimental Investigations, Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes 42, pp.139–65. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Doron, Edit, and Müller, Ana, 2013. The cognitive basis of the mass–count distinction: evidence from bare nouns. In Hofherr, P. Cabredo and Zribi-Hertz, A. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Studies on Noun Phrase Structure and Reference, pp. 73–101. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Epstein-Naveh, Noa, 2015. Pluralization and mass nouns – can they go together in modern Hebrew? Unpublished MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.Google Scholar
Erbaugh, Mary S., 2002. Classifiers are for specification: complementary functions for sortal and general classifiers in Cantonese and Mandarin. Cahiers de Linguistique-Asie Orientale 31, 1, 33–69.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka, and de Swart, Henriette, 2003. The Semantics of Incorporation, Stanford Monographs in Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Feigenson, Lisa, Dehaene, Stanislas and Spelke, Elisabeth, 2004. Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 7, 307–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franks, Steven, 1995. Parameters of Slavic Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob, 1884. Grundlagen der Arithmetik / The Foundations of Arithmetic. Translated from the German by Austin, J. L.. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob, 1892. Über Begriff und Gegenstand. Vierteljahresschrift für Wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16, 192–205. Translated as ‘On concept and object’. In Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds.), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, pp. 42–55. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gadzar, Gerald, 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gafni, Chen, and Rothstein, Susan, 2014. Who has more N? Context and variety are both relevant. Paper presented at the First Conference on Cognition Research of the Israeli Society for Cognitive Psychology. Akko, 10–12 February.Google Scholar
Gawron, Jean Marc, 2002. Two kinds of quantizers in DP. Handout of talk at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 3–6 January.Google Scholar
Geenhoven, Veerle, 1998. Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ghaniabadi, Saeed, 2012. Plural marking beyond count nouns. In Massam, D. (ed.), Count and Mass across Language, pp. 112–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gil, David, 2013. Numeral classifiers. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/55, Accessed on 31 March 2015.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan, 1992. Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 6, 597–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph, 1974. Language Typology: A Historical and Analytic Overview. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grestenberger, Laura, 2015. Number marking in German measure phrases and the structure of pseudo-partitives. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18, 2, 93–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Scott, 2014. Individuating the abstract. In Etxeberria, U., Fălăuş, A., Irurtzun, A. and Leferman, B. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18, pp. 182–200. Vitoria, Spain: University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott, 2015. Abstract nouns and countability. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium of Cognition, Logic and Communication: ‘Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches’. University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia, December.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott, and Levin, Beth 2012. Who has more furniture? An exploration of the bases for comparison’. Paper presented at Mass/Count in Linguistics, Philosophy and Cognitive Science Conference. École Normale Supérieure, Paris, France, 20–21 December. Slides downloadable at: http://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/paris12mcslides.pdf.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander, and Landman, Fred, 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6, 2, 125–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, 2010. Rarities in numeral systems. In Wohlgemuth, J. and Cysouw, M. (eds.), Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory, pp. 11–60. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanke, Thomas, 2010. Additional rarities in the typology of numerals. In Wohlgemuth, J. and Cysouw, M. (eds.), Rethinking Universals: How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory, pp. 61–89. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Chuansheng, and Jiang, Yan, 2011. Type shifting, Chinese hen+N structure, and implications for semantic parameters. Lingua 121, 5, 698–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene, 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NPs. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene, 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables. In ter Meulen, A. and Reuland, E. (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, pp. 21–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James, 1987. Indefiniteness and predication. In ter Meulen, A. and Reuland, E. (eds.), The Representation of (In)definiteness, pp. 43–70. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hofweber, Thomas, 2005. Number determiners, numbers, and arithmetic. The Philosophical Review 114, 2, 179–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 1972. The Semantics of Logical Operators in English. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R., 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hsieh, Miao-Ling, 2008. The Internal Structure of Noun Phrases in Chinese. Taipei: Crane Publishers.Google Scholar
Huang, Yi Ting, Spelke, Elisabeth and Snedeker, Jesse, 2013. What exactly do numbers mean? Language Learning and Development 9, 2, 105–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huntley-Fenner, Gavin, Carey, Susan and Solimando, Andrea, 2002. Objects are individuals but stuff doesn’t count: perceived rigidity and cohesiveness influence infants’ representations of small groups of discrete entities. Cognition 85, 203–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hurford, James R., 1987. Language and Number: The Emergence of a Cognitive System. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hyde, Daniel C., 2011. Two systems of non-symbolic numerical cognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyde, Daniel C., and Spelke, Elisabeth, 2011. Neural signatures of number processing in human infants: evidence for two core systems underlying numerical cognition. Developmental Science 14, 2, 360–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ionin, Tania, and Matushansky, Ora, 2006. The composition of complex cardinals. Journal of Semantics 23, 315–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, 1977. X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray, 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41, 1, 9–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, Li, 2008. Monotonicity and measure phrases in Chinese. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium of Chinese Language and Linguistics. Taiwan, 23–25 May.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit, 1987. On Unique and Non-unique Reference and Asymmetric Quantification. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Kadmon, Nirit, 1990. Uniqueness. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 3, 273–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, Hans, 1975. Two theories about adjectives. In Keenan, E. (ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 123–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, 1981. A theory of truth and semantic representation. In Groenendijk, J., Janssen, Th. and Stokhof, M. (eds.), Formal Methods in the Study of Language, Volume I, pp. 277–322. Amsterdam: Mathematic Centre. Reprinted in Portner, P. and Partee, B. H. (eds.), 2002. Formal Semantics, pp. 189–222. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. And reprinted in von Heusinger, K. and ter Meulen, A. (eds.), 2013. The Dynamics of Meaning and Interpretation: Selected Papers of Hans Kamp, pp. 329–69. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, and Reyle, Uwe, 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).Google Scholar
Kaufman, E. L., Lord, M. W., Reese, T. W. and Volkmann, J., 1949. The discrimination of visual number. American Journal of Psychology 62, 4, 498–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keenan, Ed, and Stavi, Jonathan, 1986. A semantic characterization of natural language determiners. Linguistics and Philosophy 9, 3, 253–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Faltz, Leonard M., 2012. Boolean Semantics for Natural Language. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher, and McNally, Louise, 1999. From event structure to scale structure: degree modification in deverbal adjectives. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 9, 163–80.Google Scholar
Khrizman, Keren, 2015. Russian as a (non)-classifier language. Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium of Cognition, Logic and Communication: ‘Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches’. University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia, December.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khrizman, Keren, 2016. Numerous Issues in the Semantics of Russian Numeral Constructions. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.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, Linguistik International 35, pp. 259–72. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Edition.Google Scholar
Khrizman, Keren, Landman, Fred, Lima, Suzi, Rothstein, Susan and Schvarcz, Brigitta R., 2015. Portion readings are count readings, not measure readings. Proceedings of the 20th Amsterdam Colloquium. http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mVkOTk2N/AC2015-proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, 2001. ‘A piece of the cake’ and ‘a cup of tea’: partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions in the Circum-Baltic languages. In Dahl, Ö. and Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (eds.), Circum-Baltic Languages, Volume II: Grammar and Typology, pp. 523–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria, 2009. ‘A lot of grammar with a good portion of lexicon’: towards a typology of partitive and pseudo-partitive nominal constructions. In Helmbrecht, J., Nishina, Y., Shin, Y., Skopeteas, S. and Verhoeven, E. (eds.), Form and Function in Language Research: Papers in Honour of Christian Lehmann, pp. 329–46. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, 1989. Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In Bartsch, R., van Benthem, J. and von Emde Boas, P. (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, pp. 75–115. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, 1990. Four thousand ships passed through the lock: object-induced measure functions on events. Linguistics and Philosophy 13, 5, 487–520.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In Sag, I. A. and Szabolcsi, A. (ed.), Lexical Matters, pp. 29–52. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, 1995. Common nouns: a contrastive analysis of English and Chinese. In Carlson, G. N. and Pelletier, F. J. (eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 398–411. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, 2009. Approximate interpretations of number words: a case for strategic communication. In Hinrichs, E. and Nerbonne, J. (eds.), Theory and Evidence in Semantics, pp 109–32. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kulkarni, Ritwik, Rothstein, Susan and Treves, Alessandro, 2013. A statistical investigation into the crosslinguistic distribution of mass and count nouns: morphosyntactic and semantic perspectives. Biolinguistics 7, 132–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulkarni, Ritwik, Treves, Alessandro and Rothstein, Susan, in press. Can mass-count syntax be derived from semantics? In Moltmann, F. (ed.), Mass and Count in Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred, 1991. Structures for Semantics. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred, 1995. Plurality. In Lappin, S. (ed.), Handbook of Contemporary Semantics, 1st edn, pp. 425–57. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred, 2000. Events and Plurality. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred, 2003. Predicate–argument mismatches and the adjectival theory of indefinites. In Coene, M. and d’Hulst, Y. (eds.), From NP to DP: Volume 1, pp. 211–37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred, 2004. Indefinites and the Type of Sets. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landman, Fred, 2011a. Count nouns, mass nouns, neat nouns, mess nouns. In The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume VI. http://newprairiepress.org/biyclc/vol6/iss1/12.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred, 2011b. Boolean pragmatics. In van der Does, J. and Novaes, C. Dutlih (eds.), ‘This is not a Festschrift’: A Festpage for Martin Stokhof. www.vddoes.net/Martin/articles/Fred.pdf.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred, 2015. Lectures on Iceberg Semantics for Mass and Count Nouns. Unpublished manuscript, Tel Aviv University and Tübingen University.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred, 2016. Iceberg semantics for count nouns and mass nouns: the evidence from portions. In Rothstein, S. and Šķilters, J. (eds.), The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume XI: Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches. Kansas: New Prairie Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1107 (Online publication.)Google Scholar
Landman, Fred, and Rothstein, Susan, 2010. Incremental homogeneity in the semantics of aspectual for-phrases. In Hovav, M. R., Doron, E. and Sichel, I. (eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Structure, pp. 229–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter, 1999. Pragmatic halos. Language 75, 3, 522–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne, 1986. English classifier constructions. Lingua 68, 2, 109–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Steven C., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Steven C., 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, XuPing, 2011. On the Semantics of Classifiers in Chinese. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, XuPing, 2013. Numeral Classifiers in Chinese: the Syntax–Semantics Interface. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, XuPing, and Bisang, Walter, 2012. Classifiers in Sinitic languages: from individuation to definiteness-marking. Lingua 122, 4, 335–55.CrossRefGoogle 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
Lima, Suzi, 2010. About the count–mass distinction in Yudja: a description. In Rogers, Beth and Szakay, Anita (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas, pp. 157–64. Vancouver: UBCWPL.Google Scholar
Lima, Suzi, 2012. Numerals and the universal packager in Yudja (Tupi). In Bogal-Allbritten, E. (ed.), Proceedings of Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas 6. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Lima, Suzi, 2014. The Grammar of Individuation and Counting. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Lima, Suzi, Li, Peggy and Snedeker, Jesse, 2014. Acquiring the denotation of object-denoting nouns in a language without partitives. Poster presented at Boston University Conference on Language Development 39. 7–9 November.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard, 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. In Bauerle, R., Schwartze, C. and von Stechow, A. (eds.), Meaning, Use and the Interpretation of Language, pp. 302–23. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard, 1984. Hydras: on the logic of relative clause constructions with multiple heads. In Landman, F. and Veltman, F. (eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics, pp. 245–57. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Lipton, James, 1993. An Exaltation of Larks: The Ultimate Edition. Middlesex: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Lǚ, Shu-Xiang (吕叔湘), 1980/1999. Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci. [Eight Hundred Characters in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Commercial Press. (In Chinese.)Google Scholar
Lyons, John, 1977. Semantics, Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mathieu, Eric, 2012. On the mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. In Massam, Diane (ed.), Count and Mass across Languages, pp. 172–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I., 1985. Poverxnostnyj Sintaksis Russkix čislovyx Vyraženij, Wiener Slawistischer Almanach Sonderband 16. Vienna: Institut fur Slavistic der Universitat Wien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne, 1988. Lexical categories and the evolution of number marking. In Hammond, M. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, pp. 211–34. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mittwoch, Anita, 1988. Aspects of English aspect: on the interaction of perfect, progressive and durational phrases. Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 2, 203–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moshavi, Adina, and Rothstein, Susan, in press. Indefinite numerical construct phrases in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies.Google Scholar
Müller, Anna, Storto, Luciana and Thiago, Coutinho, 2006. Number and the mass/count distinction in Karitiana. In Fujimori, A. and Silva, M. A. Reis (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Workshop on Structure and Constituency in Languages of the Americas, pp. 122–35. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., 2008. Negation, intensionality, and aspect: interaction with NP semantics. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, pp. 291–317. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., and Borschev, Vladimir, 2012. Sortal, relational, and functional interpretations of nouns and Russian container constructions. Journal of Semantics 29, 4, 445–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Waltraud, in press. The insubordinate subordinator ‘de’ in Mandarin Chinese. To appear in Tang, S.-W. (ed.), The Attributive Particle in Chinese, Frontiers in Chinese Linguistics Series. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
Peano, Giuseppe, 1889. Arithmetices principia: nova methodo. Turin: Fratres Bocca. Translated as The principles of arithmetic, presented by a new method. In van Heijenoort, J. (ed.), 1967. From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, pp. 83–97. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, 1975. Non-singular reference: some preliminaries. Philosophia 5, 4, 451–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, (ed.) 1979. Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems. Berlin: Springer (Reidel).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry, 2012. Lexical Nouns are both +MASS and +COUNT but they are neither +MASS nor +COUNT. In Massam, D. (ed.), Count and Mass across Languages, pp. 9–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyraube, Alain, 1999. On the modal auxiliaries of possibility in Classical Chinese. In Wang, H. Samuel, Tsao, Feng-fu and Lien, Chin-fa (eds.), Selected Papers from the Fifth International Conference on Chinese Linguistics, pp. 27–52. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, Roberta, and Rothstein, Susan, 2011. Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 121, 2153–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, Roberta, and Rothstein, Susan, 2013. Bare singular objects in Brazilian Portuguese: perfectivity, telicity and kinds. In Kabatek, J. and Wall, A. (eds.), New Perspectives on Bare Noun Phrases in Romance and Beyond, Studies in Language Companion Series 141, pp. 89–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth, 1988. A head movement approach to construct state phrases. Linguistics 26, 909–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth, 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure, Syntax and Semantics 25, pp. 37–62. New York: Academic Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2000. Domain selection in relative clauses. Paper presented at the Workshop on the Syntax and Semantics of Relative Clauses. Tel Aviv University. June.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2001. Predicates and their Subjects. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2004. Structuring Events: a Study in the Semantics of Lexical Aspect. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2009. Individuating and measure readings of classifier constructions: evidence from Modern Hebrew. Brill’s Annual of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics 1, 106–45.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2010. Counting, measuring and the mass count distinction. Journal of Semantics 27, 3, 343–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2011. Counting, measuring and the semantics of classifiers. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume VI. http://newprairiepress.org/biyclc/vol6/iss1/15.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2012. Numericals: counting, measuring and classifying. In Aguilar-Guevara, A., Chernilovskaya, A. and Nouwen, R. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16, pp. 527–43. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2013a. A Fregean semantics for number words. In Aloni, Maria, Franke, Michael and Roelofsen, Floris (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, pp. 179–86. www.illc.uva.nl/AC/AC2013/uploaded_files/inlineitem/23_Rothstein.pdf.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2013b. Counting, measuring and the mass/count distinction. Paper presented at the Düsseldorf Workshop on Countability, September.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2013c Acrosslinguistic perspective on bare nominals: Modern Hebrew and Brazilian Portuguese. In Kabatek, J. and Wall, A. (eds.), New Perspective on Base Noun Phrases in Romance and Beyond, Studies in Language Companion series 141.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2016a. Counting and Measuring: a theoretical and crosslinguistic account. In Rothstein, S. and Šķilters, J. (eds.), The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, Volume XI: Number: Cognitive, Semantic and Crosslinguistic Approaches. Kansas: New Prairie Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1106 [Online publication]Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, 2016b. Counting, measuring and approximation. Paper presented at the Second Düsseldorf Workshop on Countability. June.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, and Pires de Oliveira, Roberta, in press. Comparatives in Brazilian Portuguese: counting and measuring. In Moltmann, F. (ed.), Mass and Count in Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan, and Treves, Alessandro, 2010. Computational constraints on compositional interpretation: refocusing the debate on language universals. Lingua 120, 12, 2717–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotstein, Carmen, and Winter, Yoad, 2004. Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics 12, 3, 259–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Cristina, and Munn, Alan, 1999. Against the nominal mapping parameter: bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. In Mako, H. (ed.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 29: University of Delaware, pp. 339–54. Delaware: University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Cristina, and Munn, Alan, 2002. Bare nouns and the morphosyntax of number. In Tamanji, P., Hirotani, M. and Hall, N. (eds.), Current Issues in Romance Languages: Selected Papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ann Arbor, 8–11 April 1999, pp. 225–39. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Schvarcz, Brigitta R., 2014. The Hungarians Who Say -nyi: Issues in Counting and Measuring in Hungarian. Unpublished MA thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.Google Scholar
Schvarcz, Brigitta R., in press. Classifier constructions in Hungarian and the semantics of the suffix -nyi. To appear in Liptak, A. and van der Hulst, H. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schvarcz, Brigitta R., and Rothstein, Susan, in press. Hungarian classifier constructions and the mass/count distinction. To appear in Liptak, A. and van der Hulst, H. (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger, 2006. The role of dimensions in the syntax of noun phrases. Syntax 9, 1, 67–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger, 2011. Stubborn distributivity, multiparticipant nouns and the count/mass distinction. In Lima, S., Mullin, K. and Smith, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, pp. 661–78. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O., 1977. Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T. and Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax, pp. 285–316. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sharvy, Richard, 1978. Maybe English has no count nouns: notes on Chinese semantics. An essay in metaphysics and linguistics. Studies in Language 2, 3, 345–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siloni, Tal, 2001. Construct States at the PF interface. In Pica, Pierre (ed.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook 1, pp. 229–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Soja, Nancy N., Carey, Susan and Spelke, Elisabeth, 1991. Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meaning: object terms and substance terms. Cognition 38, 2, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Srinivasan, Mahesh, Chestnut, Eleanor, Li, Peggy and Barner, David, 2013. Sortal concepts and pragmatic inference in children’s early quantification of objects. Cognitive Psychology 66, 3, 302–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sybesma, Rint, 2007. Běifāng fāngyán hé Yuèyǔ zhōng míngcí de kěshǔbiāojì [Markers of countability on the noun in Mandarin and Cantonese]. Yŭyánxué lùncōng 35, 234–45.Google Scholar
Tai, James H.-Y., and Lianqing, Wang, 1990. A semantic study of the classifier tiao. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 25, 35–56.Google Scholar
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane, 1990. Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X-bar theory. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Tang, Chih-Chen Jane, 2005. Nouns or classifiers: a non-movement analysis of classifiers in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 6, 3, 431–72.Google Scholar
Tsoulas, George, 2006. Plurality of mass nouns and the grammar of number. Handout from talk presented at Generative Linguistics in the Old World 2006. Barcelona, 6–8 April.Google Scholar
Varzi, Achille C., 2007. Spatial reasoning and ontology: parts, wholes, and locations. In Aiello, M., Pratt-Hartmann, I., and van Benthem, J. F. A. K. (eds.), Handbook of Spatial Logics, pp. 945–1038. Berlin: Springer (Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wągiel, Marcin, 2015. Sums and groups: semantic analysis of 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. 495–514. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Watters, John Roberts, 1981. A phonology and morphology of Ejagham – with notes on dialectal variation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Wiese, Heike, 2003. Numbers, Language and the Human Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilhelm, Andrea, 2008. Bare nouns and number in Dëne Sųłiné. Natural Language Semantics 16, 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Karina, 1995. The semantics of the common noun kind. In Carlson, G. N. and Pelletier, F. J. (eds.), The Generic Book, pp. 383–97. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina, 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26, 3, 639–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yadroff, Michael, and Billings, Loren, 1998. The syntax of approximative inversion in Russian (and the general architecture of nominal expressions). In Bošković, Željko, Franks, Steven and Snyder, William (eds.), Proceedings of Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 6: The Connecticut Meeting 1997, pp. 319–38. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Yang, Rong, 2001. Common Nouns, Classifiers, and Quantification in Chinese. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Yip, Chak-Lam, 2008. Complicating the oversimplification: Chinese numeral classifiers and true measures. In Chan, M. K. M. and Kang, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, pp. 285–95. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Zaroukian, Erin, 2011. Divergent approximators. In Reich, I., Horch, E. and Pauly, D. (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, pp. 677–90. Saarbrücken: Universaar – Saarland University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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.

  • References
  • Susan Rothstein, Bar-Ilan University, Israel
  • Book: Semantics for Counting and Measuring
  • Online publication: 20 April 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511734830.013
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.

  • References
  • Susan Rothstein, Bar-Ilan University, Israel
  • Book: Semantics for Counting and Measuring
  • Online publication: 20 April 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511734830.013
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.

  • References
  • Susan Rothstein, Bar-Ilan University, Israel
  • Book: Semantics for Counting and Measuring
  • Online publication: 20 April 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511734830.013
Available formats
×