Chapter published in:
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 15: Papers from the 2015 Leiden Conference
Edited by Harry van der Hulst and Anikó Lipták
[Approaches to Hungarian 15] 2017
► pp. 183–208

Chapter 7
Hungarian classifier constructions, plurality and the mass–count distinction

We argue that Hungarian has both mass and count nouns, and a plural marker which is sensitive to the distinction, as well as a system of sortal classifiers. In English, most nouns are either mass (e.g mud) or count (e.g. book), and there are only a limited number of fully flexible nouns with both mass and count forms (e.g. stone/stones). In Hungarian, however, most count nouns are flexible, and a noun like rózsa ‘rose’ is ambiguous between a mass and a count item. This results in two ways of counting: rózsa as a count noun can be directly modified by a numeral as in két rózsa ‘two roses’, but if it is a mass noun counting uses a classifier construction as in két szál rózsa.
Keywords: mass/count, classifiers, plurality, bare NPs
Article outline
  • 1.The problem
  • 2.Plurality is not a classifier
  • 3.Evidence for a mass/count distinction in Hungarian
  • 4.Flexible nouns
  • 5.Some crosslinguistic contextualisation
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 24 August 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.15.07sch
References
Bale, Alan C. & David Barner
2009 The interpretation of functional heads: using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 26:3. 217–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barner, David & Jesse Snedeker
2005 Quantity judgments and individuation: evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97:1. 41–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2005 Stucturing Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, Gregory
1977 A Unified Analysis of the English Bare Plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1. 413–457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Lisa & Rint Sybesma
1999 Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP. Linguistic Inquiry 30:4. 509–542. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro
1998 Reference to kinds. Natural Language Semantics 6. 339–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174. 99–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Csirmaz, Anikó & Éva Dékány
2014 Hungarian is a classifier language. In Simone Raffaele & Francesca Masini (eds.), Word Classes: Nature, Typology and Representations, 141–160. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dékány, Éva
2011 A profile of the Hungarian DP. Tromsø: University of Tromsø dissertation.Google Scholar
Farkas, Donka & Henriette De Swart
2003 The Semantics of Incorporation. Stanford Monographs in Linguistics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Landman, Fred & Susan Rothstein
2010 Incremental homogeneity in the semantics of aspectual for-phrases. In Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron & Ivy Sichel (eds.), Syntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Structure, 229–251. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 The felicity of aspectual for-phrases, part 1: homogeneity in the semantics of aspectual for-phrases. Language and Linguistics Compass 6.2, 85–96. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
Li, XuPing
2013 Numeral Classifiers in Chinese: The Syntax/Semantics Interface. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry
2012 Lexical Nouns are both +MASS and +COUNT but they are neither +MASS nor +COUNT. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and Mass Across Languages, 9–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, Roberta & Susan Rothstein
2011 Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua 121. 2153–2175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan
2010 Counting, measuring and the mass-count distiction. The Journal of Semantics 27:3. 343–397. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Semantics for Counting and Measuring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
to appear). Count vs. Mass. In Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann & Thomas Ede Zimmermann eds. The Blackwell Companion to Semantics (SemCom) Oxford Wiley Blackwell
Sauerland, Uli
2003 A new semantics for Number. In Rob Young & Yupng Zhou (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 13, 258–275. Ithaca: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Cristina & Alan Munn
1999 Against the nominal mapping parameter: Bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese. In Nancy Hall, Masako Hirotani & Pius Tamanji Mako (eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Meeting of North East Linguistic Society (NELS 29), 339–354. Delaware: University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Scontras, Gregory
2014 The Semantics of Measurement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Trugman, Helen
2013 Naturally-atomic singular NA kinds in Russian as lexically derived. In Uwe Junghanns, Dorothee Fehrmann, Denisa Lenertová & Hagen Pitsch (eds.), Formal Description of Slavic Languages 9, 325–348. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Dékány, Éva
2021.  In The Hungarian Nominal Functional Sequence [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 100], ► pp. 15 ff. Crossref logo
Erbach, Kurt, Peter R. Sutton & Hana Filip
2019.  In Language, Logic, and Computation [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 11456], ► pp. 86 ff. Crossref logo
Landman, Fred
2020.  In Iceberg Semantics for Mass Nouns and Count Nouns [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, 105], ► pp. 339 ff. Crossref logo
Rothstein, Susan
2020.  In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Rothstein, Susan & Roberta Pires De Oliveira
2020.  In Mass and Count in Linguistics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science [Language Faculty and Beyond, 16], ► pp. 141 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 march 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.