Cover not available

Article published In: Lexical plurals and beyond
Edited by Peter Lauwers and Marie Lammert
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39:2] 2016
► pp. 335–354

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Lexical plurals through meronymy and hyperonymy

 | University of Strasbourg |
Published online: 30 March 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.39.2.07lam
This study uses meronymy and hyperonymy as semantic criteria applied to French collective nouns (CollNs) and lexical plural nouns (LPNs) in the issue of noun classification. After having outlined the semantic properties of CollNs and explained their links with meronymy and hyperonymy, LPNs are tested in different glosses related to these two relationships. These tests outline that CollNs and LPNs form two kinds of nouns that could hardly converge. They also enlighten the way the different subclasses of LPNs match with meronymy and hyperonymy.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.CollNs: Defining meronymy and false hyperonymy
    • 1.1Definition of CollNs and LPNs
    • 1.2Meronymy as a defining feature of CollNs
    • 1.3Massive CollNs and false hyperonymy
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.LPNs vs CollNs: meronymy and hyperonymy as criteria
    • 3.1Meronymy and hyperonymy are irrelevant
    • 3.2A situational meronymy
    • 3.3A false meronymy hiding a hyperonymy
    • 3.4 Entrailles and viscères: meronymy with constraints
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
References (44)
References
Acquaviva, P. (2008). Lexical plurals. A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. (to appear). Deriving Fake Mass Nouns. In Proceedings of NELS 451.
Arigne, V. (2010). Les noms discrets collectifs. Essai de typologie et problèmes de classification. Volume 3 du dossier Subjectivité et référence. Questions de sémantique. Habilitation à diriger les recherches, Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris 4).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asnes, M. (2004). Référence nominale et verbale. Analogies et interactions. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barner, D. & Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 971, 41–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borillo, A. (1997). Statut et mode d’interprétation des noms collectifs. In C. Guimier (Ed.). Cotexte et calcul du sens (pp. 105–121). Caen: PUC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bunt, H. (1985). Mass Terms and Model Theoretic Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doetjes, J. (1997). Mass and count: syntax or semantics?. In Proceedings of meaning on the HIL , 34–52.
Flaux, N. (1998). Les noms collectifs et la prédication. In M. Forsgren, K. Jonasson, & H. Kronning (Eds.). Prédication, assertion, information, Actes du colloque d’Uppsala (juin 1996) (pp. 173–183). Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Furukawa, N. (1977). Le Nombre grammatical en français contemporain. Tokyo: Librairie-Éditions France Tosho.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardelle, L. (2014). Les noms collectifs en anglais : définition et typologie. Habilitation à Diriger les Recherches, Université Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerhard-Krait, F. & Vassiliadou, H. (2014). Lectures taxinomique et floue appliquées aux noms: quelques réflexions. Travaux de linguistique, 691, 57–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gréa, P. (2012). Être une / Faire partie de: not a piece of cake. In M. Bouveret & D. Legallois (Eds.). Constructions in French (pp. 73–97). Amsterdam: John Benjamin. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grimm, S., & Levin, B. (2012). Who Has More Furniture? An Exploration of the Bases for Comparison. Communication at the symposium Massif/ comptable en linguistique, philosophie et sciences cognitives . Paris, 19–21 décembre 2012.
Joosten, F. (2004). Conceptual Individuation Levels in Dutch Collective Nouns: A Corpus-Based Analysis. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk B. (Ed.). Practical Applications in Language and Computers (pp. 265–276). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2006). Why club and lingerie do not belong together. A plea for redefining collective nouns. In G. Kleiber, C. Schnedecker et A. Theissen (Eds.). La Relation partie-tout (pp. 73–88). Paris-Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1981). Problèmes de référence : descriptions définies et noms propres. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1989). Généricité et typicalité. Le Français Moderne, 571, 127–154.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990). L’article LE générique. La généricité sur le mode massif. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2011). Types de noms: le problème des occurrences. Cahiers de lexicologie, 99 (2), 49–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2014). Lorsque l’opposition massif/comptable rencontre les noms superordonnés. Travaux de linguistique, 691, 11–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kleiber, G., & Tamba, I. (1990). L’hyponymie revisitée: inclusion et hiérarchie. Langages, 981, 7–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lammert, M. (2010a). Sémantique et cognition: les noms collectifs. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010b). Remarques syntaxiques et sémantiques sur quelques constructions de quantification totale. In C. Álvarez Castro, F. Bango de la Campa, & M. L. Donaire (Eds.). Liens linguistiques. Études sur la combinatoire et la hiérarchie des composants (pp. 379–391). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2014). Référence collective massive vs référence plurielle indéfinie. Langue Française, 1831, 87–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2015). Les pluralia tantum sous l’angle du collectif. Langue Française, 1851, 73–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lammert, M. & Lecolle, M. (2014). Les noms collectifs en français, un état des lieux. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 1051, 203–222.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauwers, P. (2014). Les pluriels « lexicaux ». Typologie quantifiée des déficits de dénombrabilité. Langue Française, 1831, 117–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lecolle, M. (1997). Etude des noms collectifs en français. Mémoire de D.E.A. de Sciences du Langage, Université de Toulouse le Mirail.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1998). Noms collectifs et méronymie. Cahiers de grammaire, 231, 41–65.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mihatsch, W. (2007). Taxonomic and meronomic superordinates with nominal coding. In A. C. Schalley & D. Zaefferer, Ontolinguistics. How Ontological Status Shapes the Linguistic Coding of Concepts (pp. 359–378). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2015). Collectives. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, F. Rainer (Eds.). HSK Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (pp. 1183–1195). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nicolas, D. (2002). La Distinction massif / comptable. Aspects linguistiques et conceptuels. Louvain-Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riegel, M. (1984). Pour une redéfinition linguistique des relations dites de ‘possession’ et d’‘appartenance’. L’Information grammaticale, 231, 3–7. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, S. (2012). Count-mass nouns may not be mass nouns after all. Communication at the symposium Massif / comptable en linguistique, philosophie et sciences cognitives . Paris: 19-21 décembre 2012.
Tamba, I. (1994). Un puzzle sémantique : le couplage de tout à partie et de partie à tout. Le gré des langues, 71, 64–85.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiederspiel, B. (1992). Termes de masse et référence hétérogène. Le Français Moderne, 601, 46–67.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Oats and Wheat: the fallacy of arbitrariness. In Haiman J. (Ed.). T.S.L. Typological Studies in Language, vol. 6: Iconicity in Syntax (pp. 311–342). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, SLCS 18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiese, H. (2012). Collectives in the intersection of mass and count nouns: A cross-linguistic account. In Massam D. (Ed.). Count and Mass across Languages (pp. 54–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winston, M.E., Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. (1987). A Taxonomy of Part Whole Relations. Cognitive Science, 111, 417–444. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Kleineberg, Désirée & Wiltrud Mihatsch
2025. Diachronic evidence for Spanish object mass nouns as a peripheral category. In The Diachrony of Word Class Peripheries [Studies in Language Companion Series, 238], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Corbett, Greville G.
2019. Pluralia tantum nouns and the theory of features: a typology of nouns with non-canonical number properties. Morphology 29:1 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue