The count/mass distinction is a domain of human language that is strongly related to human cognition. This review starts with an overview of recent research on individuation in relation to core knowledge systems (in particular the systems of object representation, agent representation, and number representation), followed by a brief overview of the role these representations play in the acquisition of count meaning. I then discuss linguistic aspects of individuation and the count/mass distinction in more detail. I distinguish between the grammatical systems of languages and the lexical properties of nouns, focusing on crosslinguistic variation. Languages vary substantially in the grammatical conditions that quantity expressions impose on the nouns they combine with, as well as in the exact lexical and grammatical properties of nouns. At the same time, individuation and counting seem to play a role in all languages, and similar counting strategies show up in unrelated languages.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Acquaviva P. 2008. Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald A. 2000. Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  3. Alexiadou A. 2011. Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of number. Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 28) M Byram Washburn, K McKinney-Bock, E Varis, A Sawyer, B Tomaszewicz 33–41 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  4. Almoammer A, Sullivan J, Donlan C, Marušič F, Žaucer R. et al. 2013. Grammatical morphology as a source of early number word meanings. PNAS 110:18448–53 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bach E, Jelinek E, Kratzer A, Partee BH. 2013. Quantification in Natural Languages New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  6. Bale A, Barner D. 2009. The interpretation of functional heads: using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. J. Semant. 26:217–52 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bale A, Coon J. 2014. Classifiers are for numerals, not for nouns: consequences for the mass/count distinction. Linguist. Inq. 45:696–707 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bale A, Gagnon M, Khanjian H. 2010. Cross-linguistic representations of numerals and number marking. Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 20) N Li, D Lutz 109–27 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  9. Bale A, Khanjian H. 2008. Classifiers and number marking. Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT 18) T Friedman, S Ito 73–89 Ithaca, NY: CLC [Google Scholar]
  10. Barner D, Li P, Snedeker J. 2010. Words as windows to thought: the case of object representation. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19:195–200 [Google Scholar]
  11. Barner D, Snedeker J. 2005. Quantity judgments and individuation: evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97:41–46 [Google Scholar]
  12. Borer H. 2005. Structuring Sense. Part I. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  13. Brannon EM. 2006. The representation of numerical magnitude. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 16:222–29 [Google Scholar]
  14. Brannon EM, Abbott S, Lutz DJ. 2004. Number bias for the discrimination of large visual sets in infancy. Cognition 93:B59–68 [Google Scholar]
  15. Brooks N, Pogue A, Barner D. 2011. Piecing together numerical language: children's use of default units in early counting and quantification. Dev. Sci. 14:44–57 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bunt H. 1985. Mass Terms and Model Theoretic Semantics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  17. Carey S. 1978. The child as word learner. Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality M Halle, GA Miller 264–93 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Carey S, Xu F. 2001. Infants’ knowledge of objects: beyond object files and object tracking. Cognition 80:179–213 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chao YR. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Cheng C-Y. 1973. Comments on Moravcsik's paper. Approaches to Natural Language J Hintikka, J Moravcsik, P Suppes 286–88 Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel [Google Scholar]
  21. Cheng L, Doetjes J, Sybesma R. 2008. How universal is the universal grinder?. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2008 M van Koppen, B Botma 50–62 Amsterdam: Benjamins [Google Scholar]
  22. Cheng L, Doetjes J, Sybesma R, Zamparelli R. 2012. On the interpretation of number and classifiers. Ital. J. Linguist. 24:175–94 [Google Scholar]
  23. Cheng L, Sybesma R. 1999. Bare and not so bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguist. Inq. 30:509–42 [Google Scholar]
  24. Chiang W-C, Wynn K. 2000. Infants’ tracking of objects and collections. Cognition 77:169–95 [Google Scholar]
  25. Chierchia G. 1998a. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. Events and Grammar S Rothstein 53–103 Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  26. Chierchia G. 1998b. Reference to kinds across languages. Nat. Lang. Semant. 6:339–405 [Google Scholar]
  27. Chierchia G. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174:99–149 [Google Scholar]
  28. Corbett G. 2000. Number Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  29. Dayal V. 2011. Bare noun phrases. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning C Maienborn, C von Heusinger, P Portner 1087–108 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  30. Dehaene S. 1997. The Number Sense Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  31. Dehaene S, Dehaene-Lambertz G, Cohen L. 1998. Abstract representations of numbers in the animal and human brain. Trends Neurosci 21:355–61 [Google Scholar]
  32. Di Sciullo A-M, Williams E. 1987. On the Definition of Word Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  33. Doetjes J. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection. On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. The Hague: HAG [Google Scholar]
  34. Doetjes J. 1998. Een beetje or the ‘mass only’ puzzle. Small Words in the Big Picture: Squibs for Hans Bennis S Barbiers, J Rooryck, J van de Weijer 25–30 Leiden, Neth.: Holland Inst. Gener. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  35. Doetjes J. 2012. Count/mass distinctions across languages. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning C Maienborn, K von Heusinger, P Portner 2559–80 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  36. Doetjes J. Quantity systems and the count/mass distinction. Counting and Measuring in Natural Language H Filip Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. Forthcoming [Google Scholar]
  37. Dryer M. 1989. Plural words. Linguistics 27:865–96 [Google Scholar]
  38. Dryer M. 2005. Coding of nominal plurality. The World Atlas of Language Structures M Haspelmath, MS Dryer, D Gil, B Comrie 138–41 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  39. Feigenson L, Carey S. 2003. Tracking individuals via object files: evidence from infants’ manual search. Dev. Sci. 6:568–84 [Google Scholar]
  40. Feigenson L, Carey S, Hauser M. 2002. The representations underlying infants’ choice of more: object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychol. Sci. 13:150–56 [Google Scholar]
  41. Feigenson L, Dehaene S, Spelke E. 2004. Core systems of number. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8:307–14 [Google Scholar]
  42. Frisson S, Frazier L. 2005. Carving up word meaning: portioning and grinding. J. Mem. Lang. 53:277–91 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gallistel CR, Gelman R. 1992. Preverbal and verbal counting and computation. Cognition 44:43–74 [Google Scholar]
  44. Gathercole V. 1985. More and more and more about more. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 40:72–104 [Google Scholar]
  45. Gill D. 2005. Numeral classifiers. The World Atlas of Language Structures M Haspelmath, MS Dryer, D Gil, B Comrie 226–29 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  46. Gillon BS. 1992. Towards a common semantics of English count and mass nouns. Linguist. Philos. 15:597–639 [Google Scholar]
  47. Gillon BS. 2012. Mass terms. Philos. Compass 7:712–30 [Google Scholar]
  48. Greenberg J. 1972. Numeral classifiers and substantival number: problems in the genesis of a linguistic type. Stanford Pap. Lang. Univers. 9:1–39 [Google Scholar]
  49. Grimm S. 2012a. Individuation and inverse number marking in Dagaare. Count and Mass Across Languages D Massam 75–98 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  50. Grimm S. 2012b. Number and individuation PhD thesis Dep. Linguist., Stanford Univ. Stanford, CA:175 [Google Scholar]
  51. Grimm S. 2013. Individuating the abstract. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18 I Etxeberria, A Fălăus, A Irurtzun, B Leferman 182–200 Gipuzkoa, Spain: Univ. Basque Country [Google Scholar]
  52. Grinevald C. 2005. Classifiers. Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation C Lehmann, G Booij, J Mugdan 1016–31 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  53. Harrison S, Albert S. 1976. Mokilese Reference Grammar Honolulu: Univ. Press Hawai'i [Google Scholar]
  54. Haspelmath M. 2005. Occurence of nominal plurality. The World Atlas of Language Structures M Haspelmath, MS Dryer, D Gil, B Comrie 142–55 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  55. Huntley-Fenner G, Carey S, Solimando A. 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 [Google Scholar]
  56. Ionin T, Matushansky O. 2006. The composition of complex cardinals. J. Semant. 23:315–60 [Google Scholar]
  57. Jackendoff R. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41:9–45 [Google Scholar]
  58. Krifka M. 1986. Nominalreferenz und Zeitkonstitution: Zur Semantik von Massentermen, Pluraltermen und Aspektklassen. München, Ger.: Ludwig-Maximilians Univ. [Google Scholar]
  59. Krifka M. 1991. Massennomina. Handbook of Semantics A von Stechow, D Wunderlich 370–98 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  60. Krifka M. 1992. Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. Lexical Matters I Sag, A Szabolcsi 29–53 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  61. Krifka M. 1995. Common nouns: a contrastive analysis of Chinese and English. The Generic Book G Carlson, FJ Pelletier 398–412 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  62. Krifka M. 2009. Approximate interpretations of number words: a case for strategic communication. Theory and Evidence in Semantics E Hinrichs, J Nerbonne 109–32 Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  63. Landman F. 1989. Groups, I. Linguist. Philos. 12:559–605 [Google Scholar]
  64. Landman F. 1991. Structures for Semantics Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer [Google Scholar]
  65. Landman F. 2011. Count nouns—mass nouns, neat nouns—mess nouns. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, vol. 6: Formal Semantics and Pragmatics BH Partee, M Glanzberg, J Šķilters 1–67 Manhattan, KS: New Prairie [Google Scholar]
  66. Lasersohn P. 2011. Mass nouns and plurals. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning C Maienborn, K Heusinger, P Portner 1131–53 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  67. Li P, Dunham Y, Carey S. 2009. Of substance: the nature of language effects on entity construal. Cogn. Psychol. 58:487–524 [Google Scholar]
  68. Lima S. 2011. Numerals and the universal packager in Yudja (Tupi). Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas (SULA 6) E Bogal-Allbritten 81–104 Manchester, UK: Univ. Manchester [Google Scholar]
  69. Lima S. 2012. The count/mass distinction in Yudja (Tupi): quantity judgment studies. Selected Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2012) C-Y Chu 181–90 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  70. Lima S. 2014. The grammar of individuation and counting PhD thesis Dep. Linguist., Univ. Mass., Amherst [Google Scholar]
  71. Link G. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: a lattice-theoretical approach. Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language R Baüerle, C Schwarze, A von Stechow 302–23 Berlin: de Gruyter [Google Scholar]
  72. Lipton J, Spelke E. 2004. Discrimination of large and small numerosities by human infants. Infancy 5:271–90 [Google Scholar]
  73. Lønning JT. 1987. Mass terms and quantification. Linguist. Philos. 10:1–52 [Google Scholar]
  74. Lourenco SF, Longo MR. 2011. Origins and development of generalized magnitude representation. Space, Time and Number in the Brain: Searching for the Foundations of Mathematical Thought S Dehaene, EM Brannon 225–44 London: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  75. Lucy J, Gaskins S. 2001. Grammatical categories and the development of classificational preferences. Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development M Bowerman, S Levinson 257–83 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  76. MacNamara J. 1972. Cognitive basis of language learning in infants. Psychol. Rev. 79:1 [Google Scholar]
  77. Markman EM. 1991. Categorization and Naming in Children: Problems of Induction Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  78. Mathieu É. 2012a. Flavors of division. Linguist. Inq. 43:650–79 [Google Scholar]
  79. Mathieu É. 2012b. On the mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. Count and Mass Across Languages D Massam 172–98 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  80. Moltmann F. 2012. Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  81. Müller A, Storto L, Coutinho-Silva T. 2006. Number and the mass/count distinction in Karitiana. Proceedings of the 11th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas A Fujimori, MAR Silva 122–35 Vancouver: Univ. B. C. Work. Pap. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  82. Munn A, Schmitt C. 2005. Indefinites and number. Lingua 115:821–55 [Google Scholar]
  83. Nicolas D. 2002. La distinction entre noms massifs et noms comptables. Aspects linguistiques et conceptuels. Louvain/Paris: Peeters [Google Scholar]
  84. Nicolas D. 2004. Is there anything characteristic about the meaning of a count noun?. Rev. Lexicol. 2004:18–19 [Google Scholar]
  85. Nicolas D. 2010. Towards a semantics of mass expressions derived from gradable expressions. Rech. Linguist. Vincennes 39:163–98 [Google Scholar]
  86. Nicolas D. 2013. The logic of mass expressions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy EN Zalta Stanford, CA: Cent. Study Lang. Inf. [Google Scholar]
  87. Pelletier FJ. 1979. Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel [Google Scholar]
  88. Pelletier FJ. 2012. Lexical nouns are both +mass and +count, but they are neither +mass nor +count. Count and Mass Across Languages D Massam 9–26 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  89. Pelletier FJ, Schubert L. 1989. Mass expressions. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. IV: Topics in the Philosophy of Language D Gabbay, F Guenthner 327–408 Dordrecht, Neth.: Reidel [Google Scholar]
  90. Pica P, Lemer C, Izard V, Dehaene S. 2004. Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science 306:499–503 [Google Scholar]
  91. Pires de Oliveira R, Rothstein S. 2011. Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 121:2153–75 [Google Scholar]
  92. Quine W. 1960. Word and Object Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  93. Rhodes R. 1990. Lexical hierarchies in Ojibwe noun derivation. Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization SL Tsohatzidis 151–58 London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  94. Rijkhoff J. 1991. Nominal aspect. J. Semant. 8:291–309 [Google Scholar]
  95. Rothstein S. 2010a. Individuating and measure readings of classifier constructions: evidence from Modern Hebrew. Brill's Annu. Afroasiat. Lang. Linguist. 1:106–45 [Google Scholar]
  96. Rothstein S. 2010b. The semantics of count nouns. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6042: Logic, Language, and Meaning M Aloni, K Schulz 395–404 Heidelberg, Ger.: Springer [Google Scholar]
  97. Rothstein S. 2011a. Counting, measuring and the semantics of classifiers. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, vol. 6: Formal Semantics and Pragmatics BH Partee, M Glanzberg, J Šķilters 1–42 Manhattan, KS: New Prairie [Google Scholar]
  98. Rothstein S. 2011b. Numbers: counting, measuring and classifying. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16 2527–42 Utrecht, Neth.: Univ. Utrecht [Google Scholar]
  99. Sanches M, Slobin L. 1973. Numeral classifiers and plural marking: an implicational universal. Work. Pap. Lang. Univers. 11:1–22 [Google Scholar]
  100. Schachter P, Otanes F. 1972. A Tagalog Reference Grammar Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  101. Sharvy R. 1978. Maybe English has no count nouns: notes on Chinese semantics. Stud. Lang. 2:345–65 [Google Scholar]
  102. Shipley EF, Shepperson B. 1990. Countable entities: developmental changes. Cognition 34:109–36 [Google Scholar]
  103. Spelke E. 1990. Principles of object perception. Cogn. Sci. 14:29–56 [Google Scholar]
  104. Spelke E, Kinzler K. 2007. Core knowledge. Dev. Sci. 10:89–96 [Google Scholar]
  105. Tovena LM. 2001. Between mass and count. Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 20) K Mergerdoomian, A Bar-el 565–78 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla [Google Scholar]
  106. Tsoulas G. 2006. Plurality of mass nouns and the grammar of number Presented at Colloq. Gener. Linguist. Old World, 29th (GLOW 29) Univ. Autòn Barcelona, Spain April 6–8 [Google Scholar]
  107. Watters JR. 1981. A Phonology and Morphology of Ejagham, with Notes on Dialect Variation Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press [Google Scholar]
  108. Wiese H, Maling J. 2005. Beers, Kaffi, and Schnaps: different grammatical options for restaurant talk coercions in three Germanic languages. J. Ger. Linguist. 17:1–38 [Google Scholar]
  109. Wilhelm A. 2008. Bare nouns and number in Denë Sųłiné. Nat. Lang. Semant. 16:39–68 [Google Scholar]
  110. Wiltschko M. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Nat. Lang. Linguist. Theory 26:639–94 [Google Scholar]
  111. Wiltschko M. 2012. Decomposing the mass/count distinction: evidence from languages that lack it. Count and Mass Across Languages D Massam 146–71 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  112. Wynn K. 1992. Children's acquisition of number words and the counting system. Cogn. Psychol. 24:220–51 [Google Scholar]
  113. Zhang N. 2012. Countability and numeral classifiers in Mandarin Chinese. A Cross-Linguistic Exploration of the Count–Mass Distinction D Massam 220–37 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error