Volume 31, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0920-9034
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9870
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In this paper, we examine mass and count in Michif, a language often called a , which has elements from French (and English) and Cree (and Ojibwe). French has an obvious grammatical mass/count distinction (Doetjes 1997); Cree does not. Michif could therefore display a mass/count distinction, like French, or look like it lacks one, like Cree. In fact, the system is mixed (contra Croft 2003: 58): French-derived nominals display an obvious mass/count distinction and the Cree-derived nominals do not. Number, numerals and quantifiers disambiguate within the French-derived part of the grammar but do not in the Cree-derived part. Michif has inherited both the French system and the Cree system, reflected in the behaviour of the nominals.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Ahenakew, Freda & H. Christoph Wolfart
    1983 Productive reduplication in Plains Cree. In William Cowan (ed.), Actes du quatorzième congrès des Algonquinistes (Québec, 1982), 369–377. Ottawa: Carleton University.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakker, Peter
    1997A language of our own: The genesis of Michif, the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis (Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bale, Alan C. & David Barner
    2009 The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics26. 217–252. doi: 10.1093/jos/ffp003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp003 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2012 Semantic triggers, linguistic variation, and the mass-count distinction. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 238–260. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bunt, Harry C
    1985Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic Semantics. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen & Rint Sybesma
    1999 Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry30. 509–542. doi: 10.1162/002438999554192
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438999554192 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chierchia, Gennaro
    1998 Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of ‘semantic parameter’. In Susan Rothstein (ed.), Events and grammar, 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_4 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2010 Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese174(1). 99–149. doi: 10.1007/s11229‑009‑9686‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9686-6 [Google Scholar]
  9. Croft, William
    2003 Mixed languages and acts of identity: An evolutionary approach. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 41–72. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Deprez, Viviane
    2005 Morphological number, semantic number and bare nouns. Lingua115. 857–883. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  11. Doetjes, Jenny
    1997Quantifiers and selection: On the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. Leiden, NL: Leiden University dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Frantz, Donald G & Norma Jean Russell
    1989Blackfoot dictionary of stems, roots, and affixes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gillon, Carrie
    2009 The mass/count distinction and what it tells us about plurality in Innu-aimun. Paper given at the Semantics of Underrepresented Languages of the Americas V , May 15-17, 2009, Harvard and MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2015 Innu-aimun plurality. Lingua162:128–148. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.05.006 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jackendoff, Ray
    1991 Parts and boundaries. Cognition41: 9–45. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(91)90031‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90031-X [Google Scholar]
  16. Jespersen, Otto
    1909The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. MacKenzie, Marguerite
    1980Toward a dialectology of Cree-Montagnaiss-Naskapi. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto dissertation. [available atwww.eastcree.org]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mathieu, Éric
    2012 On the mass/count distinction in Ojibwe. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 172–198. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0010 [Google Scholar]
  19. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry
    1975Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia 5. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑4110‑5_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4110-5_1 [Google Scholar]
  20. Poplack, Shana
    1993 Variation theory and language contact. In Dennis Preston (ed.), American dialect research, 251–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.68.13pop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.68.13pop [Google Scholar]
  21. Rhodes, Richard
    1986 Métchif: a second look. Proceedings of the Algonquian Conference17: 287–96. William Conan , ed.Ottawa: Carleton University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Rhodes, Richard. A
    1990 Lexical hierarchies and Ojibwa noun derivation. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 151–158. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Rosen, Nicole
    2003 Demonstrative position in Michif. Canadian Journal of Linguistics48(1/2). 39–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2006 Language contact and Michif stress assignment. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung - Language Typology and Universals (STUF)59(2). 170–190. doi: 10.1524/stuf.2006.59.2.170
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2006.59.2.170 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2007Domains in Michif phonology. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto dissertation. Available at: twpl.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/twpl/article/view/6495/3473
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Rosen, Nicole & Janelle Brodner
    2012 Vowel space of Michif. Paper presented at2012 Meeting of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas , January 5-8, 2012, Portland, OR.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Statistics Canada
    2011 Census of Population, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-314-XCB2011048.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Thomason, Sarah
    2003 Social factors and linguistic processes in the emergence of stable mixed languages. In Yaron Matras & Peter Bakker (eds.), The mixed language debate: Theoretical and empirical advances, 21–39. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Wilhelm, Andrea
    2008 Bare nouns and number in Dëne Sųłiné. Natural Language Semantics16. 39–68. doi: 10.1007/s11050‑007‑9024‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-007-9024-9 [Google Scholar]
  30. Wiltschko, Martina
    2012 Decomposing the mass/count distinction: Evidence from languages that lack it. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and mass across languages, 146–171. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): mass/count distinction; Michif; mixed languages; nominals
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error