http://hdl.handle.net/10197/3644 2013-05-20T08:54:58Z http://hdl.handle.net/10197/3898 Plural mass nouns and the compositionality of number Acquaviva, Paolo It is true that, as is well known since Allan (1980), mass and count are best seen as preferences rather than absolute values for lexical items; for instance, clothes cannot be governed by a numeral, but it tolerates the count quantifier a few. Even so, the existence of plurals that, at the very least, share some properties with mass nouns, raises questions about the chain of reasoning I have sketched out above. In fact, the assumption that plural nouns must refer to collections of individuals is simply wrong, even in languages where the number category would appear to correlate straightforwardly with the contrast between one and more than one. My first goal here will be to substantiate this empirical claim (section 2). Secondly, I will address in section 3 a theoretical question that cannot even be posed, let alone answered, without realizing that plural nouns can be non-count: the relation between semantic and morphological structure in mass plurals, whose interpretation does not seem to accord with the interpretation of the plural affix. How can a noun modified by this affix fail to denote non-singleton sets and still retain a compositional interpretation? The answer is that mass plurals are indeed semantically plural, but they refer to manifold complexes of non-individual parts. The familiar onemany contrast of book vs. books is not a primitive, defining trait of plurality, but a consequence of the semantics of the noun and of the way plurality combines with it. Variation along either of these two dimensions can bring about different readings—which are the empirical concern of this paper. 2004-01-01T00:00:00Z http://hdl.handle.net/10197/3877 Roots, categories, and nominal concepts Acquaviva, Paolo This paper investigates what is specifically nominal in lexical semantics and how it relates to nouns as morphosyntactic objects. Nouns are argued to refer primarily to kind-level sorts, which define categories of entities in the speakers' conceptualization. This notion is characterized in semantic, ontological, and cognitive terms. Not all nominalized properties are concepts; in particular, not transparent deverbal nominalizations. Concepts thus provide a substantive notion of nominality not coextensive with the morphosyntactic one. Evidence is presented for the explanatory value of nominal concepts, as the semantic contribution of noun stems in word formation and in non-standard modification patterns like "plastic flower". Concepts also express semantic restrictions on affixation ("ornamental", but "employmental"). Finally, concepts are the value of nouns as whole complexes, not of their roots. This accords with the view that lexical categories have content, but roots are category-free. 2009-01-01T00:00:00Z