Advertisement

Concepts of objects and substances in language

  • Lance J. RipsEmail author
  • Susan J. Hespos
Theoretical Review
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

People distinguish objects from the substances that constitute them. Many languages also distinguish count nouns and mass nouns. What is the relation between these two distinctions? The connection between them is complicated by the facts that (a) some mass nouns (e.g., toast) seem to name countable objects; (b) some count and mass nouns (e.g., pots and pottery) seem to name the same objects; (c) nouns for seemingly the same things can be count in one language (English: dishes) but mass in another (French: la vaisselle); (d) count nouns can be used to name substances (There is carrot in the soup) and mass nouns to name portions (She drank three whiskeys); and (e) some languages (e.g., Mandarin) appear to have no count nouns, whereas others (e.g., Yudja) appear to have no mass nouns. All these cases counter a simple object-to-count-noun and substance-to-mass-noun relation, but they provide opportunities to see whether the grammatical distinction affects the referential one. We examine evidence from such cases and find continuity through development: Infants appear to have the conceptual OBJECT/SUBSTANCE distinction very early on. Although this distinction may change with development, the acquisition of count/mass syntax does not appear to be an effective factor for change.

Keywords

Concepts Mass and count nouns Substance concepts Object concepts 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Erin Anderson, David Barner, Britta Biedermann, Yin-Juei Chang, Andrei Cimpian, Jacob Dink, Michelle Ellefson, John Glines, Samuel Johnson, Joshua Knobe, Sandy LaTourrette, Nick Leonard, Sandeep Prasada, Susan Rothstein, and Alexis Wellwood for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

References

  1. Aguiar, A., & Baillargeon, R. (1999). 2.5-month-old infants’ reasoning about when objects should and should not be occluded. Cognitive Psychology, 39, 116–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2000). Classifiers: A typology of noun categorization devices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Allan, K. (1980). Nouns and countability. Language, 56, 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, E. M., Hespos, S. J., & Rips, L. J. (2018). Five-month-old infants have expectations for the accumulation of nonsolid substances. Cognition, 175, 1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aristotle. (1994). Metaphysics: Books Z and H. (D. Bostock, Ed. & Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Au, T. K. (1994). Developing an intuitive understanding of substance kinds. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 71–111. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1994.1012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baillargeon, R. (1995). A model of physical reasoning in infancy. In C. Rovee-Collier & L. P. Lipsett (Eds.), Advances in infancy research (Vol. 9). 305–371. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  8. Baillargeon, R. (2008). Innate ideas revisited: For a principle of persistence in infants’ physical reasoning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 2–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00056.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bale, A. C., & Barner, D. (2009). The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 26, 217–252. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barner, D., Inagaki, S., & Li, P. (2009). Language, thought, and real nouns. Cognition, 111, 329–344. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97, 41–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Barner, D., Wagner, L., & Snedeker, J. (2008). Events and the ontology of individuals: Verbs as a source of individuating mass and count nouns. Cognition, 106, 805–832. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In P. Bloom & M. A. Peterson (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 385–436). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cacchione, T., Indino, M., Fujita, K., Itakura, S., Matsuno, T., Schaub, S., & Amici, F. (2014). Universal ontology: Attentive tracking of objects and substances across languages and over development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38, 481–486. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025414544233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Casasola, M., & Cohen, L. (2002). Infant categorization of containment, support and tight-fit spatial relationships. Developmental Science, 5, 247–264.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00226
  16. Cheung, P., Li, P., & Barner, D. (2012). What counts in Mandarin Chinese: A study of individuation and quantification. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 34, 210–215.Google Scholar
  17. Chien, Y. C., Lust, B., & Chiang, C. P. (2003). Chinese children’s comprehension of count-classifiers and mass-classifiers. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 12, 91–120. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022401006521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chierchia, G. (2010). Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese, 174, 99–149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9686-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Choi, S. & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Colunga, E., & Smith, L. B. (2005). From the lexicon to expectations about kinds: A role for associative learning. Psychological Review, 112, 347–382. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.112.2.347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deal, A. R. (2017). Countability distinctions and semantic variation. Natural Language Semantics, 25, 125–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dickinson, D. K. (1987). The development of a concept of material kind. Science Education, 71, 615– 628. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sc.3730710412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dickinson, D. K. (1988). Learning names for materials: Factors constraining and limiting hypotheses about word meaning. Cognitive Development, 3, 15–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(88)90028-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Doetjes, J. (2017). The count/mass distinction in grammar and cognition. Annual Review of Linguistics, 3, 199–217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fieder, N., Nickels, L., & Biedermann, B. (2014). Representation and processing of mass and count nouns: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–18. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00589 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fine, K. (1999). Things and their parts. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frisson, S., & Frazier, L. (2005). Carving up word meaning: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 277–291. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gao, M. Y., & Malt, B. C. (2009). Mental representation and cognitive consequences of Chinese individual classifiers. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 1124–1179. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802018323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gathercole, V. C. (1985). ‘He has too much hard questions’: The acquisition of the linguistic mass-count distinction in much and many. Journal of Child Language, 12, 395–415. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900006504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gathercole, V. C. M., & Min, H. (1997). Word meaning biases or language-specific effects? Evidence from English, Spanish and Korean. First Language, 17, 31–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/014272379701705102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gillon, B., Kehayia, E., & Taler, V. (1999). The mass/count distinction: Evidence from on-line psycholinguistic performance. Brain and Language, 68, 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gillon, B. S. (2012). Mass terms. Philosophy Compass, 7, 712–730. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2012.00514.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gleitman, L., & Papafragou, A. (2012). New perspectives on language and thought. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 543–568). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gordon, P. (1985). Evaluating the semantic categories hypothesis: The case of the count/mass distinction. Cognition, 20, 209–242. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90009-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grimm, S. (2018). Grammatical number and the scale of individuation. Language, 94, 527–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grimm, S., & Levin, B. (2012). Who has more furniture? An exploration of the bases for comparison. Paper presented at the Mass/Count in Linguistics, Philosophy and Cognitive Science Conference, École Normale Supérieure, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~bclevin/paris12mcslides.pdf
  37. Hall, D. G. (1996). Naming solids and nonsolids: Children’s default construals. Cognitive Development, 11, 229–264. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0885-2014(96)90004-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hespos, S. J., & Baillargeon, R. (2001). Infants’ knowledge about occlusion and containment: A surprising discrepancy. Psychological Science, 12, 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hespos, S. J., Ferry, A. L., Anderson, E. M., Hollenbeck, E. N., & Rips, L. J. (2016). Five-month-old infants have general knowledge of how nonsolid substances behave and interact. Psychological Science, 27, 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hespos, S. J., Ferry, A. L., & Rips, L. J. (2009). Five-month-old infants have different expectations for solids and liquids. Psychological Science, 20, 603–611. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02331.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hespos, S. J., & Spelke, E. S. (2004). Conceptual precursors to language. Nature, 430, 453–456. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Imai, M., & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62, 169–200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00784-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Imai, M., & Mazuka, R. (2007). Language-relative construal of individuation constrained by universal ontology: Revisiting language universals and linguistic relativity. Cognitive Science, 31, 385–413. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15326900701326436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Johnston, M. (2006). Hylomorphism. Journal of Philosophy, 103, 652–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Keil, F. C. (1979). Semantic and conceptual development: An ontological perspective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10, 307–321. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00585.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koslicki, K. (2008). The structure of objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krifka, M. (1989). Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics. In R. Bartsch, J. V. Benthem & P. V. E. Boas (Eds.), Semantics and contextual expression (pp. 75–115). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Kulkarni, R., Rothstein, S., & Treves, A. (2013). A statistical investigation into the cross-linguistic distribution of mass and count nouns: Morphosyntactic and semantic perspectives. Biolinguistics, 7, 132–168.Google Scholar
  50. Li, P., Dunham, Y., & Carey, S. (2009). Of substance: The nature of language effects on entity construal. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 487–524. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lima, S. (2018). Quantity judgment studies in Yudja (Tupi): Acquisition and interpretation of nouns. Glossa, 3, 1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Link, G. (1983). The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice-theoretical approach. In R. Bauerle, C. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use, and interpretation of language (pp. 302–323). Berlin: de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  53. Lucy, J. A., & Gaskins, S. (2003). Interaction of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 465–492). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Markman, E. M. (1985). Why superordinate category terms can be mass nouns. Cognition, 19, 31–53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90030-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. M. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: Flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McPherson, L. M. P. (1991). A little goes a long way: Evidence for a perceptual basis of learning for the noun categories count and mass. Journal of Child Language, 18, 315–338. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900011089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Middleton, E. L., Wisniewski, E. J., Trindel, K. A., & Imai, M. (2004). Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 371–394. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nickels, L., Biedermann, B., Fieder, N., & Schiller, N. O. (2015). The lexical-syntactic representation of number. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 287–304. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2013.879191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pelletier, F. J. (2012). Mass terms. In G. Russell & D. G. Fara (Eds.), Routledge companion to the philosophy of language (pp. 424–437). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Pelletier, F. J., & Schubert, L. K. (2003). Mass expressions. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed., Vol. 10, pp. 249–335). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  61. Prasada, S., Ferenz, K., & Haskell, T. (2002). Conceiving of entities as objects and as stuff. Cognition, 83, 141–165. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(01)00173-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pylyshyn, Z., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rips, L. J., & Hespos, S. J. (2015). Divisions of the physical world: Concepts of objects and substances. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 786–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rosen, A. B., & Rozin, P. (1993). Now you see it, now you don’t: The preschool child’s conception of invisible particles in the context of dissolving. Developmental Psychology, 29, 300–311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.2.300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rothstein, S. (2010). Counting and the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics, 27, 343–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rothstein, S. (2017). Semantics for counting and measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Samuelson, L. K., & Smith, L. B. (1999). Early noun vocabularies: Do ontology, category structure and syntax correspond? Cognition, 73, 1–33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00034-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sattig, T. (2010). Compatibilism about coincidence. Philosophical Review, 119, 273–313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2010-001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sera, M. D., & Goodrich, W. (2010). Who thinks that a piece of furniture refers to a broken couch? Count-mass constructions and individuation in English and Spanish. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 179–442. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2010.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shapiro, L. P., Zurif, E., Carey, S., & Grossman, M. (1989). Comprehension of lexical subcategory distinctions by aphasic patients. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 481–488. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3203.481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Snape, N. (2008). Resetting the nominal mapping parameter in L2 English: Definite article use and the count-mass distinction. Bilingualism, 11, 63–79. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728907003215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Soja, N. N. (1992). Inferences about the meanings of nouns: The relationship between perception and syntax. Cognitive Development, 7, 29–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(92)90003-a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Soja, N. N., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. S. (1991). Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meaning: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition, 38, 179–211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90051-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Spelke, E. S. (1990). Principles of object perception. Cognitive Science, 14, 29–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1401_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99, 605–632. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.99.4.605 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Strickland, B. (2017). Language reflects ‘core’ cognition: A new theory about the origin of cross-linguistic regularities. Cognitive Science, 41, 70–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Subrahmanyam, K., Landau, B., & Gelman, R. (1999). Shape, material, and syntax: Interacting forces in children’s learning in novel words for objects and substances. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 249–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sutton, P., & Filip, H. (2016a). Counting in context: Count/mass variation and restrictions on coercion in collective artifact nouns. Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 26, 350–370.Google Scholar
  79. Sutton, P. R., & Filip, H. (2016b). Mass/count variation: A mereological, two-dimensional semantics. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 11, 1–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.4148/1944-3676.1110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Takatori, Y., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1992). Superordinate category terms and mass-count noun status. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 2, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Taler, V., & Jarema, G. (2007). Lexical access in younger and older adults: The case of the mass/count distinction. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. vanMarle, K., & Scholl, B. J. (2003). Attentive tracking of objects versus substances. Psychological Science, 14, 498–504. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.03451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. vanMarle, K., & Wynn, K. (2011). Tracking and quantifying objects and non-cohesive substances. Developmental Science, 14, 502–515. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00998.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wellwood, A., Hacquard, V., & Pancheva, R. (2012). Measuring and comparing individuals and events. Journal of Semantics, 29, 207–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wierzbicka, A. (1988). The semantics of grammar, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wisniewski, E. J., Imai, M., & Casey, L. (1996). On the equivalence of superordinate concepts. Cognition, 60, 269–298. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(96)00707-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wisniewski, E. J., Lamb, C. A., & Middleton, E. L. (2003). On the conceptual basis for the count and mass noun distinction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 583–624. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations