Parallels to verb syntax and the question of why object mass nouns cannot co-occur with number

If we look at the distinction between mass and count syntax, we notice that derived nouns reflect the properties of their verbs and parallels then open up between verb and noun phrases. Durative verbs such as sleep cannot be iterated, while punctual verbs such as jump can.

(22) a. They slept for hours.

b. *They slept three times.

c. They jumped for hours.

d. They jumped three times.

As (22) shows, iterative events can be counted, but durative events cannot; to put it another way, (22c, d) show a series of individuated events and (22a, b) continuous uncountable events. (23) gives the equivalent noun phrases.

(23) a. *three sleeps

b. three jumps

But not only the nouns sleep and jump can be derived from their respective verbs; the –ing nominalizations sleeping and jumping can as well. Interestingly, the iterative verb/countable noun jump then seems to lose its countability and becomes comparable to object mass nouns like furniture; and sleep becomes comparable to substance mass nouns like water (24) ²⁶.

26 Nominal gerunds can pluralize when telic events are expressed; however, if the nominalizer –ing selects atelic/semelfactive events, plural is rejected (for a detailed analysis see Alexiadou,

(24) a. a little / a bit of / some jumping b. *a jumping / three jumpings c. *a sleeping / three sleepings

Investigating the parallels between verbal and nominal patterns is of great interest here, because I assume that words follow the same constructional conditions as phrases and sentences do and thus are of vital importance for the structure of the DP. However, I will not go too much into detail since research into the parallels of DP and VP lies outside the scope of this thesis. I will, however, briefly investigate those issues that are of importance for the DP-structure offered here.

6.1.1 Inheritance of verbal structure

One would assume that nouns derived from verbs that are non-durative would be able to pluralize. This does not seem to be the case, however, as otherwise *jumpings would be grammatical. Since jumps – a mere conversion – is grammatical, the cause must lie in the formation of the –ing nominalization: somewhere on the way to becoming a noun, jumping loses some of the qualities of the verb jump which are still retained in the noun jump. In other words, it seems to lose its atomic event character, its countability.

Alexiadou, Iordăchioaia & Soare (2008) argue that English nominal gerunds and mass nouns project a [-count] feature on the head of ClassP that accommodates the Inner Aspect (Aktionsart) of the root and thus blocks NumberP (25) (cf. Picallo 2006, where Classifiers feed Number, as Alexiadou et. al.'s [+count] does (26)).

Consequently, plural morphology cannot occur on English nominal gerunds.

(25) DP

ClassP [-count]

(26) DP

NumP

ClassP [+count]

As opposed to number information in NumberP, the [± count] feature represents "semantic number" (Alexiadou et. al. 2008:10). If I have understood 'semantic number' correctly as being independent from number and the possibility of plural marking, but denoting some internal quality of the noun that leads to an understanding of the noun as either inherently singular, or as inherently plural in the case of mass nouns and nominal –ing nominalizations, then the different conception of the –ing nominalizations in (27) is not accounted for (example (27b) from Alexiadou et. al. (2008:6)).

(27) a. the dancing of the girls b. the jumping of the cows

Neither –ing nominalizations nor object mass nouns can surface with plural morphology. (27a) could be explained via the [-count] feature, but -ing nominalizations of the jumping kind subsume iterative events and thus should, comparable to object mass nouns, project [+count] (see experiments by Barner &

Snedeker (2005) above). Further studies (Barner, Wagner & Snedeker 2007) support this view and show "highly significant interaction between mass-count syntax and event type" (Barner, Wagner & Snedeker 2007:11). For example, participants ranked six short dances as more dances but less dancing than two long dances, while they judged six short jumps as more jumps and more jumping than two long ones. Two important things follow from this. First, there is a significant difference between the quantification of durative and of punctual roots; and second, the participants' quantification of punctual roots shows individuation both in mass and count syntax.

That is, punctual –ing nominalizations and object mass nouns should project NumberP. But then *two furnitures and *two N-ings should be as grammatical as two

wines, which is good under a type-shifted interpretation. How can we account for this?

What actually seems to be the case is that pluralization including numerals is possible only under an interpretation in which the objects are of identical kinds.

Numbers as such do not refer to objects and do not name objects; rather they order, specify, or identify the quantity sets of entities, i.e. they are non-referential. They become referential, however, as soon as they are combined with other expressions.

For example, the counting word two does not refer to anything special: the only thing that it expresses is its position between one and three. (cf. Wiese 1997). The individuated objects of count nouns and object mass nouns share characteristic properties and require particular physical characteristics; object mass nouns as a superordinate category, however, subsume objects of different kinds and thus quantify over distinct kinds of individuals. Since number can only refer to a set of entities that consists of a particular number of the very same entities (Wiese 1997), object mass nouns consequently cannot co-occur with number, whereas count nouns and type-shifted substance mass nouns can.

A different account could be that what commonly is called NumberP / #P is actually split into two projections, DivP and SizeP; alternately, NumberP could host two features, [Div] and [Size]. De Belder (2008) argues that only if both phrases are present can a count unit reading be achieved as in (28).

(28) a. My mother has three dogs.

b. I ate three chocolates.

Her reasoning is that diminutives are overt expressions of [Size] and hence all nouns that can occur in the diminutive satisfy both [Div] and [Size]. The absence of both features results in mass reading. If only [Div] is present, a count kind reading is achieved. What she does not address is the issue of object mass nouns. Nevertheless, an adaption of her account could perhaps accommodate the fact that object mass nouns (as well as jumping nominalizations) cannot occur with numerals.

As the previous sections show, plural alone is not sufficient to yield countable readings. So if we assume that the individuation in ClassP does not licence NumberP

per se, but just one projection, namely [Div], it follows that object mass nouns may occur with a plural marker but can never be combined with numerals, and that jumping nominalizations can consist of iterative events. In other words, they can be moved to ClassP and individuated, but still cannot occur with numerals.

What first seems like an interesting idea nevertheless has its problems. First, De Belder's (2008) analysis of split NumberPs cannot account for type-shifted mass nouns that occur with numerical expressions, such as two waters. If plural, viz.

movement to ClassP, only triggers DivP and thus numerals are excluded with type-shifted object mass nouns. They should also be out with type-type-shifted substance mass nouns, but this is not the case. Second, what is it that feeds [Size]P, and what is it that could trigger any other split NumberP projection?

In summary, we have the following picture. (29 a-b) are fine because the underspecified object mass noun is individuated and the single units of the denotation are identified, first by movement to ClassP, and second by matching the [ident] feature in a functional projection above ClassP. For the same reason, (29c) is out, since movement to ClassP is not sufficient to resolve underspecification. (29d) is ungrammatical because of the subsumptive character of object mass nouns when denoting distinct atoms, which excludes co-occurrence with numerals.

(29) a. fine furnitures

b. a furniture

c. *furnitures

d. *two furnitures

(30) could be easily explained if we assume that nominal –ing nominalizations are mass nouns that do not need to be individuated and thus remain in situ. However, as experiments have shown (see above), nominalizations of the jumping kind are not perceived as mass nouns.

(30) a. *nice jumpings/dancings

b. *a jumping/dancing

c. *jumpings/dancings d. *two jumpings/dancings

I follow Alexiadou et. al. (2008) in assuming that pluralization of -ing nominalizations is impossible due to their verbal origin. –ing nominalizations of the dancing kind remain in situ and thus pluralization is not possible anyway, but is rather due to the aspectual inheritance of the root. The combination with numerals is illicit, too (30d). –ing nominalizations of the jumping kind, however, clearly move to ClassP, since they are not perceived as mass nouns (see experiments by Barner et. al.

2007). The possibility of pluralizing as well as combining with numerals is again illicit because of the aspectual inheritance of the root. In effect, I follow Alexiadou et al. (2008) to a large degree, but deviate in that jumping nominalizations move to be individuated and that the structures shown in (30) can be accounted for without employing a [± count] feature.