Linguistic Variation - Volume 20, Issue 2, 2020

While much work has been done on the description of the mass/count distinction in different geographical areas, Brazilian Indigenous languages are still highly underrepresented in the field. This paper presents the results of a project that involved researchers describing the mass/count distinction in 15 Brazilian Indigenous languages, based on a questionnaire we prepared in 2016 in order to explore the distribution of bare nouns, plurals, numerals, and quantifiers (see Appendix). Three main observations will be drawn. First, number marking and countability are independent. Second, counting is not restricted to natural atoms. Third, since there seems to be no systematic symmetry in the distribution of plurals, numerals, and quantifiers, we argue that the standard diagnostics for countable vs. non-countable nouns are highly language-specific.

The goals of this paper are to describe the grammatical properties of nouns and number in Dâw (Naduhup family, Northwestern Amazonia, Brazil) using Lima & Rothstein’s questionnaire (this volume) on mass versus count nouns and to contribute to the typological and semantic literature on nouns and number. Our results show that Dâw is a bare argument language, with no plural on nouns or numeral classifiers, in which all nouns can be counted directly without the need of a measure or container phrase. A difference between notionally count and mass nouns can be found only when different sets of quantifiers are combined with mass and count nouns and in comparatives.

Guató is an isolate, nearly extinct indigenous language. Only two elders, VS and EF, remember it. They both live in the Pantanal (State of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil). Despite the decline in the number of speakers due to farmers’ invading land that once belonged to Indigenous people, new research has been conducted, resulting in a description of some aspects of its grammar. This paper shows the distribution of plural affixes, as used by EF. In Guató, all nouns combine directly with numerals, whether these nouns are mass or count. The language grammaticalizes the mass-count distinction only in the interpretation of quantifiers.

This work approaches some grammatical differences in the linguistic expression of counting, measuring, aggregating, and quantity comparison and partition in Kadiwéu, a classifier language spoken in Brazil. This paper brings evidence via the grammar of comparison and partition that the counting/measuring distinction is a genuine grammatical distinction. This work also shows that aggregate nouns in Kadiwéu pattern grammatically neither with substance nouns nor with naturally atomic object nouns. That is, Kadiwéu has a specific grammatical expression for groups as atoms.

This article deals with the multiple reflexes of the mass versus count distinction in Kuikuro, a dialect of a southern-branch language of the Carib family, spoken by 600 people at the edge of Brazilian Southern Amazonia. It updates and deepens previous research results presented in Franchetto et al. (2013). It is organized into four sections. After a summary profile of Kuikuro morphosyntax, the second and third sections present, respectively, the resources available for pluralization, with their sensitivity to the animate/inanimate and count/mass distinctions, and the system of cardinal numerals. Both sections are a required introduction to the rest of the article. The relevance of the distinction, which we consider primordial, between count nouns and mass nouns is the first-order question of the fourth section. Here we show not only Kuikuro’s basic sensitivity to this distinction, but also the specific contributions that this language brings to cross-linguistic comparisons and to the revision of possible cross-linguistic generalizations.

The Maxakalí language lacks additive plurals (akin to dog-s) on nouns, but has associative plurals, and a large set of suppletive verbs that indicate whether the internal argument is plural or not. Although it has no plural marking, Maxakalí distinguishes between count nouns and mass nouns. The former can be followed by numerals, while the latter must be coerced or occur with container words. Only count nouns can be distinguished between singular and plural with verbal number. Mass nouns always require plural verbal number. Count nouns are compatible with words like ‘many’ indicating cardinality, while mass nouns are compatible with words like ‘big’ for volume. Granulated substances have variable behavior, depending on whether treated as a whole or as several individuated items. Numerals in Maxakalí show an unusual pattern, whereby 1–3 are treated as unaccusative verbs, and 4 and up, being loanwords, are treated as unergative verbs.

This paper investigates the distribution of nouns in Mbyá (Tupi-Guarani), with respect to plural marking, numerals and quantifiers. The study reveals the existence of a robust grammatical distinction between a class of count nouns, which consists mostly of individual denoting nouns, and a class of mass nouns, which consists mostly of substance denoting nouns.

Though there is no formal differentiation between count and mass nouns in Mẽbengokre, a Jê language from central Brazil, a contrast can be seen in the coercion that numerals and some quantifiers induce in mass nouns. This coercion, that leads to both a type of and unit of readings, is the only type of discretization of mass concepts that can be done within a noun phrase in the language, as measure classifiers do not exist, something that we argue for in some detail.

In this paper I present a description of number in Panará, with singular, dual and plural, and discuss the mass-count properties of Panará nouns. I also describe an until now unattested instance of omnivorous dual in Panará, where one dual morpheme can map to one or more arguments.

This paper describes the count/mass distinction in Patxohã, a revitalized language spoken in Bahia and Minas Gerais, Brazil. We observe that only count nouns can be directly combined with numerals and that only count nouns can co-occur with plural determiners. Furthermore, only count nouns can be combined with size adjectives. As for quantifiers, we observe that at least one quantifier in the language (nitxi) can be combined with count and mass nouns, but trigger different interpretations depending on the noun it is combined with. We also discuss the use of container phrases in counting and measuring contexts.

Acknowledging the fact that not all languages seem to distinguish grammatically between mass nouns and count nouns, this paper aims to provide information on whether or not the count-mass distinction is expressed in the Sakurabiat language, which belongs to the Tuparic branch of the Tupian linguistic family. The paper presents a brief survey of the grammatical properties associated with notional mass and notional count nouns in Sakurabiat. The properties of constructions with nouns and numerals are described and compared to constructions with pluralized nouns and numerals. The question of individual versus event quantification with numerals, and the role played by quantifiers and comparatives are also analyzed. The Sakurabiat data contributes to the investigation about the expression (or non-expression) of a count-mass distinction in underrepresented and understudied languages.

This paper presents a description of the count/mass distinction in Taurepang, a Cariban language spoken in Brazil and Venezuela. The methodology used was based on Lima & Rothstein’s questionnaire (this volume). We show that Taurepang is a bare noun language and that mass and count nouns can be pluralized. Despite nominal quantifiers have the same distribution, they show different interpretation with count and mass nouns. As the data also shows that numerals distinguish count and mass nouns and that container phrases trigger the count/measure interpretation, we assume here that the denotation of mass nouns in Taurepang cannot be count.

In this paper we show that Guajajára has grammaticalized the distinction between mass and count nouns, but that the coding of this distinction is different from the systems of coding in classifier languages, number-marking languages, and number-neutral languages (Chierchia 1998a, 1998b, 2010; Wilhelm 2008). As a result, we conclude that Guajajára presents a challenge to the tripartite classification of languages proposed in Chierchia’s work, since Guajajára number marking is non-inflectional and optional when plural is already expressed by other quantificational expressions. Furthermore, in Guajajára notional mass nouns can pluralize and directly combine with numerals without the mediation of container or measure constructions in contexts where conventional and non-conventional container and units of measurement are implied. This last observation suggests that coercion is not a mechanism that operates in this language.

This paper examines the count-mass distinction in Terena (Aruák, Brazil) by focusing on plural marking availability, numeral and quantifier distribution and cardinal versus volume interpretation in quantity judgment tests. The data collected from the initial research of these features in Terena reveals the relevancy of the count-mass distinction in the language with some signature properties: (i) only count nouns can be directly combined with numerals; (ii) only count nouns can be used with the quantifier êno with the interpretarion of many individuals rather than a large quantity; and finally, (iii) only count nouns can express cardinality of individuals in a comparative sentence such as John has more N than Peter. Plural morpheme distribution is unsuitable for distinguishing count from mass nouns (such as in English) since mass nouns can be pluralized in Terena, provided noun denotations have individuals to allow for number rather than volume quantity interpretation.

The aim of this paper is to provide a preliminary investigation into the nominal system of Wapishana, focusing on the count vs. mass distinction, which is grammatically encoded in this language. Evidence for this distinction can be identified in the constraints imposed by the presence of numerals, number marking, and quantifiers. Nouns such as wyn ‘water’ do not combine with numerals, whereas other words such as baydkury ‘jaguar’ do. The suffixation of the morpheme -nau/-nhau to express plurality seems to be optional and may even be blocked by the presence of numerals. The language exhibits specialized quantifiers for count, liquid, and non-liquid mass nouns.

This paper presents a description of the count/mass distinction in Ye’kwana, a Cariban language spoken in Brazil and Venezuela. The methodology used was based on Lima & Rothstein’s questionnaire this volume). The data shows that Ye’kwana is a bare noun language and that mass and count nouns can be pluralized. However, numerals need a container phrase in order to be directly combined with mass nouns. Nominal quantifiers wanna and ooje can be directly combined with count and mass nouns, but they show different interpretations.