Separating the chaff from the oats

Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates

Erica L. Middleton, Edward J. Wisniewski, Kelly A. Trindel, Mutsumi Imai

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The English language makes a grammatical distinction between count nouns and mass nouns. For example, count nouns but not mass nouns can be pluralized and can appear with the indefinite article. Some scholars dismiss the distinction as an arbitrary convention of language whereas others suggest that it is conceptually based. The present studies examined this issue with respect to aggregates (i.e., entities composed of multiple constituents that are generally homogenous). Experiment 1 demonstrated that participants rate the elements of familiar count noun aggregates (e.g., grapes and toothpicks) as more perceptually distinguishable than those of familiar mass noun aggregates (e.g., rice and confetti). They also were more likely to interact with one or a few elements of count noun aggregates but with multiple elements of mass noun aggregates. Experiment 2 replicated these results using a different sample of aggregates. In Experiments 3 and 4 manipulation of these factors predicted whether participants labeled a novel aggregate with a novel count or mass noun. These results show that for aggregates, count and mass noun usage is to a large degree conceptually based. The conceptual basis is consistent with the principle of cognitive individuation: speakers conceptualize the referents of count nouns as distinct individuals and the referents of mass nouns as non-individuated entities. However, we also identified exceptions to this view and suggest that they arise from linguistic convention or competing linguistic functions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)371-394
Number of pages24
JournalJournal of Memory and Language
Volume50
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2004 May

Fingerprint

Linguistics
Language
Individuation
experiment
Vitis
linguistics
evidence
personality development
manipulation
English language
language
Avena
Mass Nouns
Count Nouns
Experiments
Oryza
Experiment

Keywords

  • Cognitive individuation
  • Concept
  • Count noun
  • Individual
  • Mass noun
  • Number
  • Syntax

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

Separating the chaff from the oats : Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. / Middleton, Erica L.; Wisniewski, Edward J.; Trindel, Kelly A.; Imai, Mutsumi.

In: Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 50, No. 4, 05.2004, p. 371-394.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Middleton, Erica L. ; Wisniewski, Edward J. ; Trindel, Kelly A. ; Imai, Mutsumi. / Separating the chaff from the oats : Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. In: Journal of Memory and Language. 2004 ; Vol. 50, No. 4. pp. 371-394.
@article{1292ab12f8414c1ea6811a31b3ff7eb1,
title = "Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates",
abstract = "The English language makes a grammatical distinction between count nouns and mass nouns. For example, count nouns but not mass nouns can be pluralized and can appear with the indefinite article. Some scholars dismiss the distinction as an arbitrary convention of language whereas others suggest that it is conceptually based. The present studies examined this issue with respect to aggregates (i.e., entities composed of multiple constituents that are generally homogenous). Experiment 1 demonstrated that participants rate the elements of familiar count noun aggregates (e.g., grapes and toothpicks) as more perceptually distinguishable than those of familiar mass noun aggregates (e.g., rice and confetti). They also were more likely to interact with one or a few elements of count noun aggregates but with multiple elements of mass noun aggregates. Experiment 2 replicated these results using a different sample of aggregates. In Experiments 3 and 4 manipulation of these factors predicted whether participants labeled a novel aggregate with a novel count or mass noun. These results show that for aggregates, count and mass noun usage is to a large degree conceptually based. The conceptual basis is consistent with the principle of cognitive individuation: speakers conceptualize the referents of count nouns as distinct individuals and the referents of mass nouns as non-individuated entities. However, we also identified exceptions to this view and suggest that they arise from linguistic convention or competing linguistic functions.",
keywords = "Cognitive individuation, Concept, Count noun, Individual, Mass noun, Number, Syntax",
author = "Middleton, {Erica L.} and Wisniewski, {Edward J.} and Trindel, {Kelly A.} and Mutsumi Imai",
year = "2004",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.005",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "371--394",
journal = "Journal of Memory and Language",
issn = "0749-596X",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Separating the chaff from the oats

T2 - Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates

AU - Middleton, Erica L.

AU - Wisniewski, Edward J.

AU - Trindel, Kelly A.

AU - Imai, Mutsumi

PY - 2004/5

Y1 - 2004/5

N2 - The English language makes a grammatical distinction between count nouns and mass nouns. For example, count nouns but not mass nouns can be pluralized and can appear with the indefinite article. Some scholars dismiss the distinction as an arbitrary convention of language whereas others suggest that it is conceptually based. The present studies examined this issue with respect to aggregates (i.e., entities composed of multiple constituents that are generally homogenous). Experiment 1 demonstrated that participants rate the elements of familiar count noun aggregates (e.g., grapes and toothpicks) as more perceptually distinguishable than those of familiar mass noun aggregates (e.g., rice and confetti). They also were more likely to interact with one or a few elements of count noun aggregates but with multiple elements of mass noun aggregates. Experiment 2 replicated these results using a different sample of aggregates. In Experiments 3 and 4 manipulation of these factors predicted whether participants labeled a novel aggregate with a novel count or mass noun. These results show that for aggregates, count and mass noun usage is to a large degree conceptually based. The conceptual basis is consistent with the principle of cognitive individuation: speakers conceptualize the referents of count nouns as distinct individuals and the referents of mass nouns as non-individuated entities. However, we also identified exceptions to this view and suggest that they arise from linguistic convention or competing linguistic functions.

AB - The English language makes a grammatical distinction between count nouns and mass nouns. For example, count nouns but not mass nouns can be pluralized and can appear with the indefinite article. Some scholars dismiss the distinction as an arbitrary convention of language whereas others suggest that it is conceptually based. The present studies examined this issue with respect to aggregates (i.e., entities composed of multiple constituents that are generally homogenous). Experiment 1 demonstrated that participants rate the elements of familiar count noun aggregates (e.g., grapes and toothpicks) as more perceptually distinguishable than those of familiar mass noun aggregates (e.g., rice and confetti). They also were more likely to interact with one or a few elements of count noun aggregates but with multiple elements of mass noun aggregates. Experiment 2 replicated these results using a different sample of aggregates. In Experiments 3 and 4 manipulation of these factors predicted whether participants labeled a novel aggregate with a novel count or mass noun. These results show that for aggregates, count and mass noun usage is to a large degree conceptually based. The conceptual basis is consistent with the principle of cognitive individuation: speakers conceptualize the referents of count nouns as distinct individuals and the referents of mass nouns as non-individuated entities. However, we also identified exceptions to this view and suggest that they arise from linguistic convention or competing linguistic functions.

KW - Cognitive individuation

KW - Concept

KW - Count noun

KW - Individual

KW - Mass noun

KW - Number

KW - Syntax

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2442618367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2442618367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.005

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 371

EP - 394

JO - Journal of Memory and Language

JF - Journal of Memory and Language

SN - 0749-596X

IS - 4

ER -