Count Nouns - Mass Nouns, Neat Nouns - Mess Nouns
Count Nouns - Mass Nouns, Neat Nouns - Mess Nouns
复制标题
可数名词 - 质量名词，纯名词 - 混乱名词
DOI：
10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1579
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
F. Landman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. Landman
在本文中，我提出并形式化了一种质量计数区分理论，其中计数名词的外延是由不重叠的生成元构建的，而质量名词的外延是由重叠的生成元构建的。计数是对生成元的计数，因此计数仅在计数表示上才是正确的。我将证明该理论允许两种质量名词：具有由重叠最小生成器构建的外延的混乱质量名词，以及具有由重叠生成器构建的外延的整齐质量名词，其中重叠不位于最小生成器中。典型的大众名词如“meat”和“mud”属于第一类。我认为像家具和厨房用具这样的大众名词属于第二类。我将讨论几种现象，所有这些现象都涉及一种方式或另一种明确或隐含的个体分类器，例如荷兰语中的 stuks，这些分类器表明质量/计数和混乱/整齐的区别在语言上都是稳健的。我将特别展示像厨具这样的名词以各种方式像可数名词一样，而不像混乱的集体名词，并且这些方式自然涉及其外延的整齐结构。我还将证明它们是真正的质量名词：它们可以像混乱质量名词可以而可数名词不能那样涉及度量。我将讨论对可数名词的磨练解释，这里重新命名为裂变解释，并认为这些解释在关键方面与词汇质量名词的解释不同。这篇论文将以裂变解释提出的一个基本问题结束，在此过程中，无原子解释域将通过后门重新进入场景。
In this paper I propose and formalize a theory of the mass-count distinction in which the denotations of count nouns are built from non-overlapping generators, while the denotations of mass nouns are built from overlapping generators. Counting is counting of generators, and it will follow that counting is only correct on count denotations. I will show that the theory allows two kinds of mass nouns: mess mass nouns with denotations built from overlapping minimal generators, and neat mass nouns with denotations built from overlapping generators, where the overlap is not located in the minimal generators. Prototypical mass nouns like meat and mud are of the first kind. I will argue that mass nouns like furniture and kitchenware are of the second type. I will discuss several phenomena all involving one way or the other explicitly or implicitly individual classifiers like stuks in Dutch that show that both distinctions mass/count and mess/neat are linguistically robust. I will show in particular that nouns like kitchenware pattern in various ways like count nouns, and not like mess mass nouns, and that these ways naturally involve the neat structure of their denotation. I will also show that they are real mass nouns: they can involve measures in the way mess mass nouns can and count nouns cannot. I will discuss grinding interpretations of count nouns, here rebaptized fission interpretations, and argue that these interpretations differ in crucial ways from the interpretations of lexical mass nouns. The paper will end with a foundational problem raised by fission interpretations, and in the course of this, atomless interpretation domains will reenter the scene through the back door.