One area of debate as to the boundaries of the class of “collective nouns” concerns non-count singular nouns such as furniture, 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: the committee were… vs. *the bouquet were…). The present paper addresses the issue from a different angle, comparing furniture nouns not just with other singular nouns (whether collective or superordinate), but with count nouns in the plural (e.g. toys). This new angle enables us to propose that furniture nouns are superordinate hyperonyms of plural, rather than singular, categories. This notion accounts for all the similarities and differences noted between furniture nouns and count collective nouns, and leads to the conclusion that furniture nouns are clearly not collective nouns. The analysis is then extended to non-count plural nouns that denote units (e.g. belongings), 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.
Acquaviva, P. (2008). Lexical plurals : A morphosyntactic approach. Coll. Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arigne, V. (2011). La figure du tout intégré et les noms discrets collectifs. Anglophonia 301, pp. 59–99.
Bache, C. (2002). On Categories in Linguistics. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 341, pp. 71–105.
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.
Corbett, G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Davies, M.2008- . <[URL]>
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A. (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.
Dogget, R. M.et al. (1980). Forecasts of the quantity and composition of solid waste. University of Michigan: Research Reporting Series.
Flaux, N. (1999). A propos des noms collectifs. Revue de linguistique romane n°251–252, tome 63, pp. 471–502.
Flaux, N. & Van de Velde, D. (2000). Les noms en français : esquisse de classement. Paris: Ophrys.
Gil, D. (1996). Maltese “collective nouns”: A typological perspective. Rivista di Linguistica 8:1, pp. 53–87.
Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1991). Parts and boundaries. In B. Levin, & S. Pinker (Eds.), Lexical and conceptual semantics (pp. 9–45). Cambridge: Blackwell.
Jackendoff, R. (2012). Language as a source of evidence for theories of spatial representation. Perception 411, pp. 1128–1152.
Joosten, F. (2006). Why club and lingerie do not belong together. A plea for redefining collective nouns. In G. Kleiberet al. (Eds.), La relation partie-tout (pp. 73–88). Paris: Peeters.
Reed, S. K. (2012). Cognitive theories and applications, 9th edition. Belmont, USA: Wadsworth.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization, 3rd edition. Oxford textbooks in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ungerer, F., & Schmid, H. -J. (2013). An introduction to cognitive linguistics, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
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.
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.
2024. A Swarm of Helicopters, the Last Couple of Weeks: A Constructional Analysis of the Syntax/Semantics Interface for the Classification of N1 as “Collective” or “Quantificational”. In Nouns and the Morphosyntax / Semantics Interface, ► pp. 209 ff.
Mihatsch, Wiltrud & Désirée Kleineberg
2024. The Interaction of Morphosyntax and Semantics in Romance Object Mass Nouns. In Nouns and the Morphosyntax / Semantics Interface, ► pp. 153 ff.
Lammert, Marie, Anne-Sophie Besse, Nadège Doignon-Camus, Francine Gerhard, Vassiliadou Hélène, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux & B. Hamma
2022. Lire et comprendre à l’école élémentaire : singularité, pluralité et collectif. SHS Web of Conferences 138 ► pp. 09007 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.