Volume 40, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0378-4169
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9927
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


One area of debate as to the boundaries of the class of “collective nouns” concerns non-count singular nouns such as , which are typically used for several units of different kinds. Arguments for and against inclusion have been put forward, but ultimately, what has been noted is a number of similarities and differences compared with count collective nouns. This makes both positions as legitimate, especially as collective nouns are a partly heterogeneous class (e.g. only those denoting humans, or sometimes animals, license plural override: vs. ). The present paper addresses the issue from a different angle, comparing nouns not just with other singular nouns (whether collective or superordinate), but with count nouns in the plural (e.g. ). This new angle enables us to propose that nouns are superordinate hyperonyms of , rather than singular, categories. This notion accounts for all the similarities and differences noted between nouns and count collective nouns, and leads to the conclusion that nouns are clearly not collective nouns. The analysis is then extended to non-count plural nouns that denote units (e.g. ), which have been neglected, or sometimes rejected on arbitrary grounds. The present study shows that they are not collective nouns either, and that they, too, are superordinates, some of them hyperonyms of plural categories.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Acquaviva, P.
    (2008) Lexical plurals : A morphosyntactic approach. Coll. Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arigne, V.
    (2011) La figure du tout intégré et les noms discrets collectifs. Anglophonia30, pp.59–99. doi: 10.4000/anglophonia.389
    https://doi.org/10.4000/anglophonia.389 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bache, C.
    (2002) On Categories in Linguistics. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia34, pp.71–105. doi: 10.1080/03740463.2002.10414609
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2002.10414609 [Google Scholar]
  4. Chierchia, G.
    (1998) Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of “semantic parameter”. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp.53–104). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑3969‑4_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3969-4_4 [Google Scholar]
  5. Corbett, G.
    (2006) Agreement. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Davies, M. 2008-  <corpus.byu.edu/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cruse, D. A.
    (1986) Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1995) Polysemy and related phenomena from a cognitive linguistic point of view. In P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.), Computational lexical semantics (pp.33–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511527227.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527227.004 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dogget, R. M. et al.
    (1980) Forecasts of the quantity and composition of solid waste. University of Michigan: Research Reporting Series.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Flaux, N.
    (1999) A propos des noms collectifs. Revue de linguistique romanen°251–252, tome 63, pp.471–502.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Flaux, N. & Van de Velde, D.
    (2000) Les noms en français : esquisse de classement. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gil, D.
    (1996) Maltese “collective nouns”: A typological perspective. Rivista di Linguistica8:1, pp.53–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Greenbaum, S.
    (1996) The Oxford English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jackendoff, R.
    (1991) Parts and boundaries. In B. Levin , & S. Pinker (Eds.), Lexical and conceptual semantics (pp.9–45). Cambridge: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2012) Language as a source of evidence for theories of spatial representation. Perception41, pp.1128–1152. doi: 10.1068/p7271
    https://doi.org/10.1068/p7271 [Google Scholar]
  17. Joosten, F.
    (2006) Why club and lingerie do not belong together. A plea for redefining collective nouns. In G. Kleiber et al. (Eds.), La relation partie-tout (pp.73–88). Paris: Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2010) Collective nouns, aggregate nouns, and superordinates: when “part of” and “kind of” meet. Linguisticae Investigationes33:1, pp.25–49. doi: 10.1075/li.33.1.03joo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.33.1.03joo [Google Scholar]
  19. Joosten, F. et al.
    (2007) Dutch collective nouns and conceptual profiling. Linguistics45:1, pp.85–132. eprints.soton.ac.uk/144837/1/Joosten,_De_Sutter,_Drieghe_et_al._(2007).pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Kirkby, J.
    (1971 [1746]) A new English grammar. Menton: Scolar Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lammert, M.
    (2010) Sémantique et cognition : les noms collectifs. Geneva: Droz.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2014) Référence collective massive vs. référence plurielle indéfinie. Langue française183, pp.87–99. doi: 10.3917/lf.183.0087
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.183.0087 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2015) Les pluralia tantum sous l’angle du collectif. Langue française185, pp.73–84. doi: 10.3917/lf.185.0073
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.185.0073 [Google Scholar]
  24. Langacker, R. W.
    (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Markman, E. M.
    (1985) Why superordinate category terms can be mass nouns. Cognition19, pp.31–53. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(85)90030‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90030-7 [Google Scholar]
  26. Murphy, G. L.
    (2004 [2002]) The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Murphy, L.
    (2010) Lexical meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511780684
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511780684 [Google Scholar]
  28. Oxford English dictionary, online edition
    Oxford English dictionary, online edition (2014) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  29. Quine, W. Van Orman
    (1960) Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Radden, G. & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/clip.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clip.2 [Google Scholar]
  31. Reed, S. K.
    (2012) Cognitive theories and applications, 9th edition. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Taylor, J. R.
    (2003) Linguistic categorization, 3rd edition. Oxford textbooks in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ungerer, F. , & Schmid, H. -J.
    (2013) An introduction to cognitive linguistics, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Vandeloise, C.
    (2007) A taxonomy of basic natural entities. In M. Aurnague , M. Hickmann and L. Vieu (eds.), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition (pp.35–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.20.04van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.20.04van [Google Scholar]
  35. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1985) Oats and wheat: the fallacy of arbitrariness. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Typological Studies in Langage vol. 6: Iconicity in Syntax (pp.311–342). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (1988) The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): categorisation; collective nouns; furniture; hyperonyms; superordinates
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