Citation:
 | Download PDF | 452 KB |
Abstract:
DP structure, number marking, and the morphosyntax of the mass/count distinction appears to be subject to a great deal of variation. Language systems with clear evidence of two classes of nouns, those that allow direct combination with numerals and those that don’t, are by now fairly well combed through. As are languages that disallow direct combinations of numerals with any noun, namely generalized classifier languages (Mandarin, Japanese, etc.). Finally, there are languages that do allow free combination of numerals with any N, whether conceptually mass or count, like Nez Perce, Yudja, Indonesian,…, which have also been well documented at this point. This variation has given rise to theories of the mass/count contrast where the link between the pre-linguistic/cognitive basis of the distinction and its grammatical manifestation is weakened to the point of disappearance: basically any ‘concept’ can have a mass or a count grammatical representation (cf. e.g. Chierchia 1998a, Borer 2005, Rothstein 2010, Landman 2011, De Vries et al. 2018, a.o.). I am going to argue that this position is not supported by the available evidence: All of the languages mentioned above retain essentially the same notion of countability. I will, accordingly, propose an approach consistent with the thesis that the mass/count contrast rests on an underlyingly universal structure. To use one of Chomsky’s favorite metaphors, if Martians were to be exposed to Italian, Mandarin and Yudja, they would think that they count things the same way, modulo minor phonological differences.