Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:47:07.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New insights into English count and mass nouns – the Cognitive Grammar perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2020

GRZEGORZ DROŻDŻ Open the ORCID record for GRZEGORZ DROŻDŻ [Opens in a new window]
GRZEGORZ DROŻDŻ*
Affiliation:
Institute of Linguistics University of Silesia 5 Grota-Roweckiego Street 41–205 [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article deals with two of the long-standing problems in English linguistics: whether it is possible that each noun can have both count and mass senses, and the problem of determining a complete list of the regularities of count-to-mass and mass-to-count changes. While there have been numerous attempts to solve each of these problems, this article shows the results of applying Cognitive Grammar to them.

The analysis covers a set of concrete nouns representative of English – sixty nouns with different ontological properties and all frequencies of occurrence. These are nouns that are classified by dictionaries as solely count and solely mass. Because of its usage-based character, the analysis scrutinises over 1,700 real-life utterances produced by native speakers of English. The analysis shows that even such nouns possess senses whose properties are the reverse of the properties of the nouns’ basic senses. A thorough examination of the nouns’ basic and extended senses leads to certain grammatical regularities of count-to-mass and mass-to-count changes. The analysis not only systematises the grammatical regularities determined so far and solves many problems that can be noticed about them, but also proposes novel regularities.

Keywords

Cognitive Grammarcountability and uncountabilityEnglish nounssense extension
Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 833 - 854
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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

Apresjan, Jurij. 1973. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 14, 5–32.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Susan (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Irene V., Urland, Geoffrey R. & Ma, Jennifer E.. 2002. Using Internet search engines to estimate word frequency. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 34(2), 286–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2000. The structure of Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunt, Harry. 1985. Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, John B. (ed.). 1956. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa L.-S., Doetjes, Jenny & Sybesma, Rint. 2008. How universal is the Universal Grinder? In Le Bruyn & Berns (eds.), 50–62.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘Semantic Parameter’. In Rothstein (ed.), 53–103.Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness, and semantic variation. Synthese 174, 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copestake, Ann & Briscoe, Ted. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12(1), 15–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, Allan. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2016. Looking into introspection. In Drożdż (ed.), 55–74.Google Scholar
Davis, Henry & Matthewson, Lisa. 1999. On the functional determination of lexical categories. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 27, 30–69.Google Scholar
Drożdż, Grzegorz. 2014a. Experiential foundations of countability and uncountability in English. In Łyda & Drożdż (eds.), 106–33.Google Scholar
Drożdż, Grzegorz. 2014b. Metonymic extension as the process underlying the change of count and mass properties of nouns. In Drożdż & Łyda (eds.), 80–105.Google Scholar
Drożdż, Grzegorz. 2016a. From the meaning of the concrete noun to its grammatical property and back. In Drożdż (ed.), 95–120.Google Scholar
Drożdż, Grzegorz (ed.). 2016b. Studies in lexicogrammar: Theory and applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drożdż, Grzegorz. 2017. The puzzle of un(countability) in English: A study in Cognitive Grammar. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Drożdż, Grzegorz & Łyda, Andrzej (eds.). 2014. Extension and its limits. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk & Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.). 2007. The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan. 1999. The lexical semantics of English count and mass nouns. In Viegas (ed.), 19–37.Google Scholar
Gleason, Henry A. 1965. Linguistics and the English grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Goddard, Ives. 2002. Grammatical gender in Algonquian. In Wolfart (ed.), 195–231.Google Scholar
Gramley, Stephan & Pätzold, Kurt-Michael. 2004. A survey of Modern English, 2nd edn. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John (ed.). 1985. Iconicity IN SYNTAX. Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax, Stanford, June 24–6, 1983. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja & Biewer, Carolin. 2007. Corpus linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1988. The sacred cows of English. English Today 16, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. An overview of Cognitive Grammar. In Rudzka-Ostyn (ed.), 3–48.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Concept, image, and symbol. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000a. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000b. A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow & Kemmer (eds.), 1–63.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2007. Cognitive Grammar. In Geeraerts & Cuyckens (eds.), 421–62.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasersohn, Peter. 2011. Mass nouns and plurals. In von Heusinger, Maienborn & Portner (eds.), 1131–52.Google Scholar
Le Bruyn, Bert & Berns, Janine (eds.). 2008. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2018. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1974. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1981. Semantics: The study of meaning. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Hans. 2009. Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Łyda, Andrzej & Drożdż, Grzegorz (eds.). 2014. Dimensions of the word. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Massam, Diane (ed.). 2012. Count and mass across languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, Eric. 2012. On the mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. In Massam (ed.), 172–98.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend & Bhatt, Rakesh. 2008. World Englishes: The study of new linguistic varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Middleton, Erica L., Wisniewski, Edward J., Trindel, Kelly A. & Imai, Mutsumi. 2004. Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. Journal of Memory and Language 50, 371–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2007. Recalcitrant problems of comparative alternation and new insights emerging from internet data. In Hundt, Nesselhauf & Biewer (eds.), 211–32.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1979. The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy. Linguistics and Philosophy 3(2), 143–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostler, Nicholas & Atkins, Sue B. T.. 1991. Predictable meaning shift: Some linguistic properties of Lexical Implication Rules. In Pustejovsky & Bergler (eds.), 76–87.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Radden, Günter (eds.). 1999. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirceman, Yves & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics 17(3), 269–316.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis J. 1975. Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia 5(4), 451–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, Francis J. 2012. Lexical nouns are both + mass and + count, but they are neither + mass nor + count. In Massam (ed.), 9–26.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4), 409–41.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James & Bergler, Sabine (eds.). 1991. Lexical semantics and knowledge representation. ACL SIG Workshop Proceedings. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard V. 1969. Ontological relativity. Journal of Philosophy 65(7), 185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Kövecses, Zoltán. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Panther & Radden (eds.), 17–60.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Susan (ed.). 1988. Events and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.). 1988. Topics in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1990. Collins Cobuild English grammar. London: Collins Cobuild.Google Scholar
Taraszka-Drożdż, Barbara. 2014a. Schémas d'extension métaphorique: À partir de l'analyse des contenus et des organisations conceptuels de certaines unités lexicales se référant à la lumière. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Taraszka-Drożdż, Barbara. 2014b. Encyclopaedic knowledge in an account of metaphorical extension. In Drożdż & Łyda (eds.), 126–42.Google Scholar
Taraszka-Drożdż, Barbara. 2016. Lexical and grammatical dimensions of metaphor: A Cognitive Grammar perspective. In Drożdż (ed.), 175–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viegas, Evelyne (ed.). 1999. Breadth and depth of semantic lexicons, vol. 10: Text, speech and language technology. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia & Portner, Paul (eds.). 2011. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin L. 1956[1941]. The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Carroll (ed.), 134–59.Google Scholar
Wickens, Mark. 1992. Grammatical number in English nouns: An empirical and theoretical account. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Oats and wheat: The fallacy of arbitrariness. In Haiman (ed.), 311–42.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26, 639–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisniewski, Edward, Lamb, Christopher & Middleton, Erica. 2003. On the conceptual basis for the count and mass noun distinction. Language and Cognitive Processes 18(5–6), 583–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Hans-Georg & Polzenhagen, Frank. 2009. World Englishes: A cognitive sociolinguistic approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfart, Christoph H. (ed.). 2002. Papers of the 33rd Algonquian Conference. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba.Google Scholar