Count and mass nouns in Dëne Sliné

Dëne Sliné (Chipewyan), an Athapaskan language of Northern Canada, does not have the grammatical
category `Number'. There is no number marking; the same bare form of a noun denotes singular as well
as plural instances of an entity, (1) overleaf. Nonetheless, Dëne Sliné has a clear distinction between
count and mass nouns: count nouns combine with a numeral directly, (2), while mass nouns require a
measure construction in such contexts, (3). I will argue that this pattern can only be explained if we
assume that the count/mass distinction is semantic in Dëne Sliné, i.e., based on a noun's lexical semantic
representation. Nouns that denote "stuff" are inherently uncountable, while nouns that denote
"individuals" are inherently countable.
         This challenges theories which assume identical semantic representations for all bare nouns and
derive (singular) count denotations from "individuating" functional material (Greenberg 1966,
Longobardi 1994, Chierchia 1998a,b, Cheng & Sybesma 1999, Borer 2005, etc.). Instead, I argue that
while functional material may lead to a morphosyntactic count/mass distinction, the semantic count/mass
distinction exists independently and possibly universally (cf. Wiltschko 2005). Using the semantic model
of the count/mass distinction of Link (1983), I show that neither Link's atomic domain nor his nonatomic
domain can be dispensed with in the representation of Dëne Sliné bare nouns.
         Representing the semantic count/mass distinction: Following Link (1983), I represent the "stuff"-
denotations of mass nouns as semi-lattices without atoms and the "individual"-denotations of count nouns
as atomic semi-lattices. Since there is no number marking in Dëne Sliné, a count noun denotes singular
as well as plural individuals, i.e., the atoms as well as the sums in its domain. This achieves the observed
undifferentiation of singular and plural meaning, cf. (1).
         The semantic nature of the Dëne Sliné count/mass distinction is further supported by its non-
arbitrary distribution: directly countable nouns typically denote individuals, while nouns not directly
countable typically denote homogeneous matter, cf. (4).
         The indispensability of the atomic domain: Borer (2005) assumes that roots are unspecified for
mass or count, and that functional elements such as number inflection, classifiers or indefinite determiners
are responsible for partitioning the "stuff"-denoting roots, i.e., for deriving atomic/count noun meanings
and characteristics. In the absence of such partitioning functional material, nouns have a default mass
interpretation. In other words, bare nouns never denote atoms.
         However, in Dëne Sliné, it is not count nouns but mass nouns which show extra material--
measure constructions--in contexts requiring countability/partitions (cf. (2) and (3); in other contexts,
both types of nouns are bare). This can only be explained if count nouns are semantically partitioned
(atomic) while mass nouns are not.
        The indispensability of the nonatomic domain: In the influential "inherent plural hypothesis",
Chierchia (1998a,b) suggests a uniform semantics for numberless nouns that dispenses with atomic
denotations. For Chierchia, numberless nouns are mass, but mass nouns are defined as denoting atoms
and their sums (while count nouns denote atoms or sums only). The behaviour typical of mass nouns--no
countability without classifier, no pluralization--follows from their inherent plurality.
        However, the ability of Dëne Sliné numberless nouns to be counted directly, without a classifier,
presents serious counterevidence to this view. I will argue that a noun's denoting atoms as well as sums
does not preclude countability; nouns like dzóå `ball/balls', although numberless, are count nouns. True
mass nouns do not have atoms, and this is why they require a classifier or measure construction for
counting.
In conclusion, the Dëne Sliné facts warn us that a closer and leaner connection between syntax and
semantics cannot be achieved at the expense of semantics. Semantic information associated with a noun
cannot always be minimized, be this by deriving count representations in the syntax or by eliminating
certain representations for mass nouns, such as nonatomic semi-lattices, altogether. The semantic
count/mass distinction may even be universal. Support for this comes from such diverse languages as
Thai (Hundius & Kölver 1983), Korean (Kang 1994), Halkomelem (Wiltschko 2005), and English and
German (Moltmann 1997).

Data
(1)     no number marking on nouns
        dzóå xå senádé
        ball with they-play-impf
        ,They (several) are playing with a ball/with balls.'
(2)     count nouns compatible with numeral
                sôlághe dzóå
        a.
                five      ball
                `five balls'
                sôlághe åî
        b.
                five     dog
                `five dogs'
                Æîåághe Æejëre
        c.
                one     cow
                `one cow'
(3)     a.     mass noun not compatible with numeral
             * sôlághe br
               five    meat
        b.    mass noun in measure construction
              sôlághe nedádhi br
              five     pound meat
              `five pounds of meat'

(4)     lists of count and mass nouns
        a. count: Æerihtå'íschëné `pen, pencil', dzóå `ball', tthe `stone', jíechogh `apple/fruit', tå'uli
                  `rope', thanakódhi `car', yeh `house', dejúli ,mosquito', sekui `child', sas `bear', ...
        b. mass: Æejëretth'úé `milk', br `meat', dedhay `salt', suga `sugar', dzâ `mud', tåës
                  `grease/fuel', lígofí `coffee', yath `snow', ...

References
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cheng, L. & R. Sybesma. 1999. Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry
        30:509­542.
Chierchia, G. 1998a. Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ,,semantic parameter". In Rothstein, S.
        (ed.). Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 53­103.
Chierchia, G. 1998b. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6:339­405.
Greenberg, J. (ed.) 1966. Universals of Language. Revised 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hundius, H., and U. Kölver. 1983. Syntax and Semantics of Numeral Classifiers in Thai. Studies in
        Language 7:165­214.
Kang, B.-M. 1994. Plurality and other semantic aspects of common nouns in Korean. Journal of East
        Asian Linguistics 3:1­24.
Link, G. 1983. The logical analysis of plural and mass nouns: a lattice-theoretic approach. In R. Bäuerle
        et al (eds). Meaning, Use, and Interpretation of Language. Berlin: de Gruyter. 302­323.
Longobardi, G. 1994. Reference and proper names. Linguistic Inquiry 25:609­666.
Moltmann, F. 1997. Parts and Wholes in Semantics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wiltschko, M. 2005. A Part of Wood is not a Tree: On the Absence of the Count/Mass Distinction in
        Halkomelem. Paper presented at the 40th International Conference on Salish & neighboring
        Languages, August 10­12, Musqueam Community, Vancouver, Canada.



                                                                                                             2