Article published In: Grammaires et Lexiques Comparés: Actes du Colloque
Edited by Mirella Conenna and Éric Laporte
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 26:1] 2003
► pp. 159–173
Accounts of the count–mass distinction
A critical survey
Published online: 30 September 2003
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.26.1.11joo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.26.1.11joo
Summary
The issue of what is usually, but also misleadingly called the count–mass distinction, i.e. the distinction between nouns that can be counted (e.g. a car, two cars, many cars) and nouns that cannot (e.g. *a sand, *two sands, *many sands, sand, much sand), has been addressed and accounted for in different ways. This paper gives a critical survey of four main theoretical views on the distinction and points out that each of them is problematic in some way. It is argued that that the count–mass distinction should not be reduced to an exclusively grammatical, ontological, semantic, or contextual issue. A proper characterisation of the distinction can only be given if its multidimensional character is fully acknowledged and if parameters such as basic count- or masshood, degree of lexicalisation, conceptualisation, and (non-)arbitrariness are taken into account.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Grimm, Scott & Mojmír Dočekal
Cohen, Dana
2020.
Activewear and other vaguery. In Mass and Count in Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive
Science [Language Faculty and Beyond, 16], ► pp. 37 ff.
Maekelberghe, Charlotte & Liesbet Heyvaert
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
